“In view of the manner in which civilization has now developed personal love, this latter has become so composite, so comprehensive and far-reaching, thatnot only in and by itself—independently of the species—does it constitute a great life-value, but it also increases or diminishes all other values. In addition to its primitive importance, it has gained a new significance: to carry the flame of life from sex to sex. No one names that person immoral who, deceived in his love, abstains in his married life from procreating the species; that husband and wife also we shall not call immoral, who continue their married life rendered happy by love, although their marriage has proved childless. But in both casesthese human beings follow their subjective feelings at the expense of the future generations, and treat their love as an independent aim. The right already recognized in these individual cases, as belonging to the individual at the expense of the species, will continue to undergo enlargement in proportion as the importance of love continues to increase. On the other hand, the new morality will demand from love an ever-increasingvoluntary limitation of rights at those times when the growth of a new life renders it necessary. It will also demand avoluntary or enforced renunciation of the right to procreate new life under conditions which would make this new life deficient in value.”
“In view of the manner in which civilization has now developed personal love, this latter has become so composite, so comprehensive and far-reaching, thatnot only in and by itself—independently of the species—does it constitute a great life-value, but it also increases or diminishes all other values. In addition to its primitive importance, it has gained a new significance: to carry the flame of life from sex to sex. No one names that person immoral who, deceived in his love, abstains in his married life from procreating the species; that husband and wife also we shall not call immoral, who continue their married life rendered happy by love, although their marriage has proved childless. But in both casesthese human beings follow their subjective feelings at the expense of the future generations, and treat their love as an independent aim. The right already recognized in these individual cases, as belonging to the individual at the expense of the species, will continue to undergo enlargement in proportion as the importance of love continues to increase. On the other hand, the new morality will demand from love an ever-increasingvoluntary limitation of rights at those times when the growth of a new life renders it necessary. It will also demand avoluntary or enforced renunciation of the right to procreate new life under conditions which would make this new life deficient in value.”
Ellen Key terms this new, modern love “erotic monism,” because it comprehends theentire unitary personality, including the spiritual being, not merely the body. George Sand gave the first definition of this love as being of such a kind that “neither had the soul betrayed the senses, nor had the senses betrayed the soul.”
This erotic monism proclaims as its indestructible foundation theunity of marriage and love.
The idea of unity gives to the human being the right to arrange his sexual life according to his personal wishes, subject to the condition that he does not consciously injure the unity, and therewith, mediately or immediately, the right, of possible posterity.
Thus, according to Ellen Key, love “will continually become to a greater extent a private affair of human beings, whilst children, on the contrary, will become more and more a vital problem of society.” From this it follows that the two “most debased and socially sanctioned manifestations of sexual subdivision (of dualism),coercive marriageandprostitution, will gradually becomeimpossible, because, after the victory of the idea of unity, they will cease to correspond to human needs.”
Ellen Key rightly insists that among the young men of the present day there is an increasing hostility to socially protectedimmorality (both in the form of coercive marriage and in that of prostitution); whilst they increasingly exhibit a monistic yearning for love. The general diffusion, which we shall describe at length in a special chapter, of ascetic moods and of misogyny among men and of misandry among women, is partly connected with the feeling that the present social forms of the sexual relationship limit to an equal extent the worth and the freedom of mankind.
To-day the “purity fanatics and the frantic sensualists” meet in common mistrust of the developmental possibilities of love, because they do not believe in the possible ennoblement of the blind natural impulse. In contrast to these, Ellen Key reminds us of the fact of the “mysticalyearning for perfection, which in the course of evolution has raised impulse to become passion, and passion to become love, and which is now strivingto raise love to an ever greater love.”
We must recognize love asthe spiritual force of life. Love, like the artist, like the man of science, has a right to the peculiar, original activity of its own poietic force, to the production of new spiritual values. The more perfect race that is to come must, in the fullest meaning of the words,be brought forth by love.
For this, however, the indispensable preliminary is the inwardfreedomof love; the free-love union is the watchword of the future. Ellen Key also shows that among the lower classes free love has long been customary, and that there the dangerous utilization of prostitution is far more limited than among the higher classes, with which view Blaschko’s statistical data regarding the far greater diffusion of venereal diseases among the higher classes of society are in substantial agreement.
No less indispensable to free love, however, is the full, mature development of the loving individual. For this reason, Ellen Key demands self-control and sexual continence at least until the age of twenty years. She regards the indiscriminate sexual intercourse which is to-day an established custom among all young men as the murder of love. But too early marriages are no less dangerous. She demands for the woman at least an age of twenty; for the man, an age of twenty-five years; anduntil these respective ages are attained, sexual continence should be observed as fully as possible by both sexes.
This self-command is good for the physical development, “steels the will, gives the joy of power to the personality; and these qualities are later of importance in all other spheres of activity.”
With wonderful beauty, Ellen Key describes the happiness of thepower of waitingin love, and quotes in this connexion the lovely phrases of the Swedish poet Karlfeldt:
“There is nothing on earth like the times of waiting,The days of springtime, the days of blossoming;Not even May can diffuse a lightLike the clear light of April.”
“There is nothing on earth like the times of waiting,The days of springtime, the days of blossoming;Not even May can diffuse a lightLike the clear light of April.”
“There is nothing on earth like the times of waiting,The days of springtime, the days of blossoming;Not even May can diffuse a lightLike the clear light of April.”
On the other hand, it is a demand of true morality that healthy men and women between the ages of twenty and thirty years should enjoy the possibility of marriage—of free marriage. This possibility can, however, be secured only by economic reforms.
The author then considers the very important point of love’s choice, and demands above all the compulsory provision of amedical certificate of healthbefore entering on marriage.
“It is absolutely beyond question that the healthy self-seeking which wishes to safeguard the personal ego, in conjunction with the increasing valuation of a healthy posterity, will hinder the contraction of many unsuitable marriages. In other cases, love might overcome these considerations, as far as husband and wife are themselves concerned; but they must then renounce parentage. In those cases, on the contrary, in which the law would distinctly forbid marriage, one could naturally not prevent the sick persons from procreating independently of marriage; but the same is true of all laws: the best do not need them, the worst do not obey them, but the majority are guided by them in the formation and development of their ideas of what is right.”
“It is absolutely beyond question that the healthy self-seeking which wishes to safeguard the personal ego, in conjunction with the increasing valuation of a healthy posterity, will hinder the contraction of many unsuitable marriages. In other cases, love might overcome these considerations, as far as husband and wife are themselves concerned; but they must then renounce parentage. In those cases, on the contrary, in which the law would distinctly forbid marriage, one could naturally not prevent the sick persons from procreating independently of marriage; but the same is true of all laws: the best do not need them, the worst do not obey them, but the majority are guided by them in the formation and development of their ideas of what is right.”
Asimmoral, Ellen Key indicates:
“Parentage without love.“Irresponsible parentage.“Parentage on the part of immature or degenerate human beings.“Voluntary unfertility on the part of a married pair who are competent to reproduce their kind.“All manifestations of the sexual life resulting from force or seduction, or from the disinclination or the incapacity for the proper fulfilment of sexual intercourse.”
“Parentage without love.
“Irresponsible parentage.
“Parentage on the part of immature or degenerate human beings.
“Voluntary unfertility on the part of a married pair who are competent to reproduce their kind.
“All manifestations of the sexual life resulting from force or seduction, or from the disinclination or the incapacity for the proper fulfilment of sexual intercourse.”
It is interesting to note that Ellen Key prophesies as the result of the progressive improvement of the species by love’s selection, the attainment of a state whereineveryman andeverywoman will be suited for the reproduction of the species. Then would the ideal of monogamy, one husband for one wife, one wife for one husband, be for the first time realized.
Very beautifully, and with a prudent insight into the actual relationships, Ellen Key discusses the question of the “right to motherhood,” where she finds occasion to describe the new andvery various types of women which the evolution of modern life has brought into being. She recognizes only with reservation the general right to motherhood, but she does not regard it as a desirable example to follow when a woman becomes a mother without love, either in marriage or out of it. It is not right to do what is generally done to-day by the man-haters—namely, to demand from the majority of unmarried women that they should produce a child without love. This should not even happen when love exists, but a permanent life-in-common with the father of the child is impossible. An unmarried woman who determines on motherhood should be fullymature, and already have behind her “the second springtime” of her life; she must “not only be pure as snow, pure as fire, but also must be possessed of the full conviction that with the child of her love she will produce a radiance in her own life and will endow humanity with new wealth.”
Suchan unmarried woman reallymakes a presentof her child to humanity, and is quite different from the unmarried woman who “has a child.”
Indeed, for themajority, the ideal always remains that of the ancient proverb, that man is only half a human being, woman only half; and only the father and the mother with their child become a whole one!
With regard to divorce, Ellen Key demands that it should be perfectly free, and should depend only upon the definite desire, held for a certain lapse of time, of either or both parties. The dissolution of marriage must be no less easy than the breaking off of an engagement.
“Whatever drawbacks,” she says, “free divorce may involve, they can hardly be worse than those which marriage has entailed, and still continues to entail. Marriage has been degraded to the coarsest sexual customs, the most shameless practices, the most distressing spiritual murders, the most cruel ill-treatment, and the grossest impairment of personal freedom, that any province of modern life has exhibited! One need not go back to the history of civilization; one need simply turn to the physician and magistrate, in order to learn for what purpose the ‘sacrament of marriage’ is employed, and frequently employed by the very same men and women who are professed enthusiasts as to its moral value!”
“Whatever drawbacks,” she says, “free divorce may involve, they can hardly be worse than those which marriage has entailed, and still continues to entail. Marriage has been degraded to the coarsest sexual customs, the most shameless practices, the most distressing spiritual murders, the most cruel ill-treatment, and the grossest impairment of personal freedom, that any province of modern life has exhibited! One need not go back to the history of civilization; one need simply turn to the physician and magistrate, in order to learn for what purpose the ‘sacrament of marriage’ is employed, and frequently employed by the very same men and women who are professed enthusiasts as to its moral value!”
Just as little as the relations between friends, between parents and children, or between brothers and sisters, necessarily give rise to lasting sentiments of affection, is it possible to expect this of two lovers. The “marriage fetters,” described with such horrible truth by John Stuart Mill and Björnstjerne Björnsen,are to-day felt to be intolerable. The love of the modern man flourishes only in freedom.
“The delicate erotic sentiment of the present day shrinks from becoming a fetter; it shuns the possibility of becoming a hindrance.”
“The delicate erotic sentiment of the present day shrinks from becoming a fetter; it shuns the possibility of becoming a hindrance.”
Free divorce, in a case of unhappy marriage, is no less necessary when there are children to the marriage. Thedutiesof the parents to the children remain in such cases unaltered, without, however, thus rendering it necessary that the parents should continue to live together. For the sorrows of such a union, and the harm done thereby to the children, are greater than those that would result from divorce.
Human love has its phases of development. It does not remain for ever the same, but it alterspari passuwith the evolution of the individual. Lifelong love is an ideal, but it is not a duty. Such a demand would as inevitably destroy personality as would the demand for the unconditional belief in a doctrine, or for the unconditional pursuit of a profession.
Very interesting is Ellen Key’s description of the numerous disillusions of love, which become still more perceptible in a coercive marriage. There is a whole series of “typical unhappy fates” in marriage, often with no blame properly attaching to either party, dependent merely upon incompatibility of temperament, but also upon faults of one or both parties to the marriage.
Frequently a man or a woman of a thoroughly sympathetic temperament lives with a woman or a man of such faultless excellence that the home seems filled with icicles. One day the husband or the wife runs away because the air has become so thin as to be irrespirable. The general sentiment is one of commiseration for the—superlatively excellent man or woman!
In the case of earnest, mature human beings, free divorce will not increase the number of dissolutions of marriage. On the contrary, the obligations imposed by a free relationship are greater than those of legal coercive marriage. The fear also that with the granting of free divorce every one will enter upon numerous free marriages one after another is groundless. It is precisely those who are united in free love to whom such a separation, when it does become necessary, is so profoundly painful, that life itself forbids the frequent repetition of such unhappiness.
Very beautiful, and based upon lofty ethical conceptions, are the writer’s views regarding the necessity for divorce precisely in view of the existence of children. She says:
“Men and women of earlier times went on patching up for ever and ever. The psychologically developed generation of to-day is more inclined to let the broken remain broken. For, except in those cases in which objective misfortunes, or a retarded evolution, gave rise to a rupture, patched-up marriage, like patched-up engagements, seldom prove durable. Often it was owing to profound instincts that the rupture became inevitable; reconciliations fortify these instincts, and sooner or later they once more find free vent.“Thus it happens that even an exceptional nature is strained by the burden it has to bear, and the children are not then witnesses of their parents living together, but of their dying together.“Neither religion nor law, neither society nor a family, can determine what it is that marriage is killing in a man, or what he finds it possible to rescue in that state—he himself aloneknows the one and suspects the other. He alone can delineate the boundaries, can decide whether he is satisfied to regard his own existence as closed, and to remain contented in the life of his children; whether he is able so to endure the sorrows of a continued married life with such fortitude as to make it increase his own powers and those of his children.”
“Men and women of earlier times went on patching up for ever and ever. The psychologically developed generation of to-day is more inclined to let the broken remain broken. For, except in those cases in which objective misfortunes, or a retarded evolution, gave rise to a rupture, patched-up marriage, like patched-up engagements, seldom prove durable. Often it was owing to profound instincts that the rupture became inevitable; reconciliations fortify these instincts, and sooner or later they once more find free vent.
“Thus it happens that even an exceptional nature is strained by the burden it has to bear, and the children are not then witnesses of their parents living together, but of their dying together.
“Neither religion nor law, neither society nor a family, can determine what it is that marriage is killing in a man, or what he finds it possible to rescue in that state—he himself aloneknows the one and suspects the other. He alone can delineate the boundaries, can decide whether he is satisfied to regard his own existence as closed, and to remain contented in the life of his children; whether he is able so to endure the sorrows of a continued married life with such fortitude as to make it increase his own powers and those of his children.”
The conviction of the rights of love, and the consciousness of the rights of the children, are to-day unmistakably on the increase. There is no danger that the latter right, the right of the children, will suffer in comparison with the rights of love. It is, on the contrary, characteristic, that out of the very same feeling by which the freer configuration of the amatory life is demanded, there has also arisen anew programme of the rights of children. This same Ellen Key who proclaims the inalienable rights of free love, speaks also of the “century of the child,” and devotes to this subject an admirable book.
The most important point with regard to free divorce, in respect to the children, is that the father and the mother must not separate from one another in hatred, but in friendship, and that, in the interest of the children, they should continue to meet one another from time to time. Ellen Key here rightly condemns the conduct of the good friends and relatives who simply lay down the law that the separated pair must hate one another, and must in every relationship torment and cheat one another. It is precisely such “enmity” of the parents after divorce that is so full of bad consequences in respect of the children.
We also have to consider this point of view, that sometimes the new husband or the new wife has a better influence over the children than their own parents, and that in this way divorce may have brought the children greater happiness, may have been for them a true blessing.
The closing chapter of her work is devoted by Ellen Key to the formulation of practical recommendations regarding the newmarriage laws. She indicates as a starting-point of her dissertation that the ideal form of marriage is the perfectly free union between a man and a woman. But this ideal can in the meanwhile only be attained throughtransitional forms. In this the opinion of society regarding the morality of the sexual relationship must find expression, and thus remain as the support for undeveloped personalities; but at the same time, these transitional forms must be sufficiently free to favour a progressive development of the higher erotic consciousness of the present day.
There always remains, therefore, the necessity for laws, to some extent limiting individual freedom; but these laws must admit of an advance towards perfection in respect of the freer gratification of individual needs.The sense of solidarity demands a new marriage law adapted to new modern erotic needs, since the majority are not yet prepared for complete freedom.But it is only the needs of modern civilized human beings, and not abstract theories concerning the idea of the family or the “historic origin” of marriage, that should be determinative in this matter.
In the marriage of the future, above all, the economic and legal subordination of woman must be abolished. Woman must supervise her own property and arrange her own work, and she must in the main care for herself in so far as this is compatible with her maternal duties. She must, however, have this assurance—thatduring the first years of the life of every child she shall be cared for by society, and this under the following conditions:
She must be of full age.
She must have performed her feminine “military service” by a one year’s course of instruction in the care of children, in the general care of health, and, whenever possible, in sick-nursing.
She must either care for her child herself or provide another thoroughly competent nurse.
She must bring proof that she does not possess sufficient personal property, or sufficient income from her work, in order to provide for her own support and half of her child’s support, or else that the care for her children compels her to discontinue her professional occupation.
Only in exceptional cases should this support of motherhood be provided for a longer time thanduring the three first and most important years of the life of the child.
The funds for this most necessary of all kinds of insurance must be provided in the form of a graduated income tax, graduated so as to make the wealthier classes pay the most, and theunmarriedshould pay just as much as the married.
In every community the central authorities of this insurance should consist of “boards for the care of children.” The members of these boards should be two-thirds women and one-third men; they should distribute the funds and supervise the care of the infants and older children; in cases in which the mother was not properly fulfilling her duties to the child, they could cut off supplies, or remove the child from the mother’s care.
The mother should receive yearly the same sum, but, in addition, she should receive for each childhalf of the cost of its support, as long as the number of children is not exceeded which the society has laid down as desirable. Children born in excess of this number would be a private concern of the parents. Every father must, from the time of birth until the child attains the age ofeighteen years, provide one-half of the money needed for its support.
The existing immoral distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children is practically equivalent to freeing unmarried fathers from their natural responsibility, and drives unmarried mothers to death, prostitution, or infanticide.
All this would be done away with by a law ensuring from the State support for the mother during the first, most difficult years, and ensuring the child a right to support frombothparents, a right also to the name of both, and to inheritance from both.
Legal expression is also demanded for the right of each member of a married couple to possess his or her property; those who wish to make any other arrangement can do so by special contract after a definite valuation of their property. And in respect of the right of inheritance, thedomestic workof the wife (housekeeping and the care of the children) must receive due economic consideration—a matter hitherto ignored. Not only in respect of her property, but also in respect of all civil rights, and of the right of control over her own person, the married woman must be placed in the same position as the unmarried.
Ellen Key’s remarks on the removal of thecoercionexercised at present on husband and wifein respect of living togetherare very interesting. She writes:
“There are persons who would have continued to love one another throughout the whole of their life had they not been compelled—day after day, year after year—to adapt their customs, their volitions, and their inclinations entirely according to one another’s tastes. So much unhappiness depends, indeed, upon matters of almost no importance, difficulties which two human beings endowed with moral courage and insight would easily have overcome, had it not been that the instinct towards happiness was overpowered by regard for ordinaryopinion. The more personal freedom a woman (or man) has had before marriage, the more does she (or he) suffer in a home in which she does not possess an hour or a corner for her own undisturbed use. And the more the modern human being gains an increase in his individual freedom of movement, the more he feels the need for privacy in other relations, the more also will man and wife need these things in the married state....“But at present custom (and law) demand from the married pair that they should lead a life in common, which often ends in a permanent separation, merely because conventional considerations prevented them from living apart!“Also for those otherwise constituted, the narrow dependence, the compulsory belonging each to the other, the daily adaptation, the unceasing mutual consideration, may become oppressive. In continually increasing numbers people are beginning quietly to transform conjugal customs, so that they may correspond to the new needs. For instance, each goes for a journey by himself, when he feels the need for privacy; one of the pair seeks alone pleasures which the other does not value; in former times both would have ‘enjoyed’ them together, against the will of one, or both would have renounced what one could have genuinely enjoyed. More and more married people have separate bedrooms, and after a generation, it is probable thatseparate dwelling-housesfor husband and wife will be sufficiently common to arouse no particular attention.”
“There are persons who would have continued to love one another throughout the whole of their life had they not been compelled—day after day, year after year—to adapt their customs, their volitions, and their inclinations entirely according to one another’s tastes. So much unhappiness depends, indeed, upon matters of almost no importance, difficulties which two human beings endowed with moral courage and insight would easily have overcome, had it not been that the instinct towards happiness was overpowered by regard for ordinaryopinion. The more personal freedom a woman (or man) has had before marriage, the more does she (or he) suffer in a home in which she does not possess an hour or a corner for her own undisturbed use. And the more the modern human being gains an increase in his individual freedom of movement, the more he feels the need for privacy in other relations, the more also will man and wife need these things in the married state....
“But at present custom (and law) demand from the married pair that they should lead a life in common, which often ends in a permanent separation, merely because conventional considerations prevented them from living apart!
“Also for those otherwise constituted, the narrow dependence, the compulsory belonging each to the other, the daily adaptation, the unceasing mutual consideration, may become oppressive. In continually increasing numbers people are beginning quietly to transform conjugal customs, so that they may correspond to the new needs. For instance, each goes for a journey by himself, when he feels the need for privacy; one of the pair seeks alone pleasures which the other does not value; in former times both would have ‘enjoyed’ them together, against the will of one, or both would have renounced what one could have genuinely enjoyed. More and more married people have separate bedrooms, and after a generation, it is probable thatseparate dwelling-housesfor husband and wife will be sufficiently common to arouse no particular attention.”
With regard to the question of personal freedom in marriage, Ellen Key takes into account the possibility of marriage beingkept secreton urgent grounds; also the introduction of new forms of divorce, the present procedure giving rise to such detestable practices in the law-courts—for example, the detailed statement of the grounds for divorce, or an account of the refusal or the misuse of “conjugal rights,” or an account of the malicious desertion of one party by the other.
The author, therefore, makes proposals for a new marriage law and a new divorce law.
As conditions preliminary to marriage, the new law should insist—
That man and wife should be of full age;
That neither should be more than twenty-five years older than the other;
That neither should be closely related or connected with the other, as the present law already forbids. The new law must in this respect be modified in the sense either of greater severity or of relaxation, according as the scientific knowledge of the future may direct.
Finally, neither party should simultaneously enter upon another marriage. On both parties will be imposed the duty of providing a medical certificate regarding the state of theirhealth; a proposed marriage must be forbidden when either party is suffering from a disease transmissible to the children (also when suffering from a disease which would infect the other party?). With regard to other illnesses, the matter may be left to the free judgment of those wishing to be married.
Marriage will take place before the marriage assessor of the commune, and before four other witnesses, without any special ceremony; the contracting parties will enter their names in the register, and their signatures will be witnessed by those present. When for any reason the marriage is to be kept secret, the witnesses will, of course, be bound to secrecy.
This civil marriage is all that the law will direct; the religious ceremony will be a voluntary affair, and will have no legal force.
In marriage, husband and wife will retain all thepersonalrights which they had before marriage, over their bodies, their names, their property, their work, their wages, also the right to choose their own place of residence, and all other civil rights. Forcommonexpenses and debts they will have a common responsibility; whilst each will be personally responsible for personal expenditure and debts. In case of divorce, each will retain his or her property. In the event of death, the widower or widow will inherit half the property, the remainder going to the children.
For divorce, Ellen Key suggests there should be a “council of divorce,” consisting of four persons, men or women. The first aim of this council will be, somewhat like that of a court of honour before a duel, to attempt to reconcile the parties, to adjust any cause of quarrel. If this attempt fails, the matter must go before the marriage assessor of the commune; but this cannot take place until the expiration ofsix monthsfrom the time when it was brought before the council of divorce. The council of divorce must testify before the assessor that six months beforeeach party was fully informed regarding the wish of the other that the marriage should be dissolved, and regarding the reasons for that wish. If there are no children, if a division of the property has been arranged, and if husband and wife have livedcompletely apartfor one year, the divorce will be effected one year after the commencement of proceedings. When there are children to the marriage, there will be needed a special “jury for the care of children” to deal with the custody of the children. If either party is found by the jury and the judge to beunworthyfor orincapableof the custody of the children, on the ground of his (or her)moralsorcharacter, he (or she) loses his (or her) rights. If either father or mother is deprived of the custody ofthe children, a guardian must be appointed—a man to represent the father, a woman to represent the mother—and this guardian will supervise the education of the children in association with the remaining parent. If both parents are found to be unfitted for the custody of the children, the education of the latter must be supervised by a guardian only. If both parents areequallyfitted and worthy for the custody of the children, the latter should remain with the mother until the age of fifteen, and would then have the right to choose between their parents.
Ellen Key demands severe laws against the seduction and abandonment of girlsunder age, on the part of unconscientious men; and she considers that the witting transmission of any infective disorder by means of sexual intercourse should be punished by imprisonment for a minimum term of six months. Speaking generally, the law should always come to the assistance of the weaker party, above all, to the assistance of the children, and in most cases to the assistance of the mother.
Although the new marriage law is to give toadultcitizens complete freedom to arrange their erotic relationships at their ownresponsibilityand risk,withorwithoutmarriage, it remains necessary that double marriages (bigamy), sexual relationships within forbidden degrees, or on the part of persons suffering from transmissible disease, which the law has declared to be a hindrance to marriage, and also intercourse with persons under eighteen years of age, should be regarded as punishable offences. The same is true of homosexual and other perverse manifestations. Thetrialin such cases will be conducted by a judge, with the assistance of a jury ofphysiciansandcrimino-psychologists.
The writer does not believe that marriage will be transformed by legal changes in the way outlined above, but she is of opinion that what will happen is that “men and women will refuse to submit themselves to the unworthy forms of marriage, which will remain established by law, and will form free unions, the so-called ‘marriage of conscience,’” such as those which the Belgian sociologist Mesnil has recommended in his work, “Le Libre Mariage.”
It is, in fact, in Sweden, Ellen Key’s fatherland, in which these free marriages of conscience appear to have first obtained adherents. She records the free union of the professor of national economics at Lund, Knut Wicksell. Additional reports of free marriages in Sweden are given by the Swedish physician AntonNyström.[204]He mentions among those who have formed freeunions, without legal or ecclesiastical ceremony, but simply by public notification, in addition to the already mentioned university professor, also the editor of a leading newspaper, a physician and doctor of philosophy, and a candidate of philosophy. The latter is engaged in study with his wife at the high school at Göteborg. In February, 1904, they made a public announcement in the newspaper that they were entering on a “marriage of conscience,” since they had a conscientious objection to the ecclesiastical form of marriage. The principal of the college wrote an address to the young couple, stating that, although this union was not entered upon on immoral grounds, and therefore could not be regarded as a punishable offence, still, such a free union, unrecognized by the State, between man and woman, was not compatible with the good order of society, that it was injurious to the general ethical conception of the sacramental character of marriage, and also constituted a dangerous example, which others might be led to imitate. The principal therefore urged the young people most earnestly “to place their union as soon as possible on a legitimate footing.” This exhortation, however, led to no result.
Moreover, the University of Upsala was more free-thinking than that of Göteborg, for the above-mentioned professor and his wife were, for a long timeafterthey had become united in free love, matriculated students at the University of Upsala, and the university authorities favoured them with no attention with regard to this matter.
In recent years, the public declaration of “free marriages” has also found observance in other European countries. Thus, not long ago the author who writes under the pseudonym of “Roda-Roda” announced in the newspapers his free union with the Baroness von Zeppelin; and in theVossische Zeitung, No. 410, September 2, 1906, we find the following announcement:
“Dr. Alfred RahmerWilhelmine Ruth Rahmergeb. Prinz-FlohrFrei-Vermählte”(Free-Wedlock).
Similar public announcements are reported from Holland. Moreover, according to Nyström, it has since 1734 been legally established in Sweden, that in certain cases engagement isequivalent to marriage—namely, when the engaged woman becomes pregnant. “When a man impregnates his fiancée,the engagement becomes a marriage.... If the man refuse to go through theceremony of marriage, and wishes to break off the engagement, the woman is legally declared to be his wife, and enjoys full conjugal rights in his house.” So runs this law.
We can predict with certainty that the adherents of free marriage, the number of “marriage protestants,” as Ellen Key happily calls them, will continue to increase. To such will belong all those who have an equal antipathy to coercive marriage, to the debasing intercourse with prostitutes, and to the transient casual love, such as is experienced in ordinary extra-conjugal sexual intercourse, the true “wild” love.
“It is only a question of time”—thus Ellen Key concludes her remarks on marriage reform—“when the respect felt by society for the sexual union will not depend upon the form of the life in common, by which two human beings become parents, but only on the worth of the children which these two are producing as new links in the chain of the generations. Men and women will then devote to their spiritual and physical preparation for sexual intercourse the same religious earnestness that the Christians devote to the welfare of their souls. No longer will divine laws regarding the morality of sexual relationships be considered the mainstay of morality; in place of these the desire to elevate the human race and a sense of personal responsibility will be the safeguards of conduct. But the conviction on the part of the parentsthat the purpose of life is also their own proper life—that is, that they do not exist only for the sake of children—should free them from certain other duties of conscience which at present bind them in respect of children—above all, from the duty of maintaining a union in which they themselves are perishing. The home will perhaps become more than it is at present; something at unity with the mother, something which—far from excluding the father—carries within itself the germ of a new and higher ‘family right.’...“A greater and healthier will-to-live in respect of erotic feelings and demands—this it is that our time needs! Here from the feminine side real dangers threaten; and one of several ways in which these dangers must be averted is by the construction of new forms of marriage.“Human material of ever higher worth and capable of higher evolution—it is this which in the first place we have to create. If we preserve coercive forms of the sexual life, the possibility of doing this is a diminishing one; if we adopt free forms of the sexual life, the possibility of doing it will increase. Not only because the present time asks for more freedom are its demands full of promise, but because those demands approximate ever more closely to the central point of the problem—to the conviction that love is the principal condition upon which depends the vital advance of the individual and of humanity at large.”
“It is only a question of time”—thus Ellen Key concludes her remarks on marriage reform—“when the respect felt by society for the sexual union will not depend upon the form of the life in common, by which two human beings become parents, but only on the worth of the children which these two are producing as new links in the chain of the generations. Men and women will then devote to their spiritual and physical preparation for sexual intercourse the same religious earnestness that the Christians devote to the welfare of their souls. No longer will divine laws regarding the morality of sexual relationships be considered the mainstay of morality; in place of these the desire to elevate the human race and a sense of personal responsibility will be the safeguards of conduct. But the conviction on the part of the parentsthat the purpose of life is also their own proper life—that is, that they do not exist only for the sake of children—should free them from certain other duties of conscience which at present bind them in respect of children—above all, from the duty of maintaining a union in which they themselves are perishing. The home will perhaps become more than it is at present; something at unity with the mother, something which—far from excluding the father—carries within itself the germ of a new and higher ‘family right.’...
“A greater and healthier will-to-live in respect of erotic feelings and demands—this it is that our time needs! Here from the feminine side real dangers threaten; and one of several ways in which these dangers must be averted is by the construction of new forms of marriage.
“Human material of ever higher worth and capable of higher evolution—it is this which in the first place we have to create. If we preserve coercive forms of the sexual life, the possibility of doing this is a diminishing one; if we adopt free forms of the sexual life, the possibility of doing it will increase. Not only because the present time asks for more freedom are its demands full of promise, but because those demands approximate ever more closely to the central point of the problem—to the conviction that love is the principal condition upon which depends the vital advance of the individual and of humanity at large.”
I have given such a lengthy analysis of Ellen Key’s book because, in the first place, in no other work do we find so lucidan exposition of all the points needed for the consideration of the question of free love—an exposition based upon the richest experience of life and a really astonishing psychical knowledge of mankind, combined with the finest understanding of the subtle activities and sentiments of the loving soul; and, in the second place, because as an actual fact—at any rate, in Germany—this book has formed the true starting-point of all endeavours towards the reform of sexual morality. Ellen Key’s “Ueber Liebe und Ehe” (“Love and Marriage”) is a demonstration of human rights in the matter of love; it is the evangel for those who have determined to harmonize love with all the changes and advances attendant on the evolution of civilization, and have resolved not to allow the forcible retardation of progress by conditions which were perhaps still tolerable one hundred or two hundred years ago, but to-day are unconditionallyhostile to civilization.
In Germany these endeavours have been centralized in the Bund für Mutterschutz (the Association for the Protection of Mothers), founded in the beginning of 1906, whose purpose it is to protect unmarried mothers and their children from economic and moral dangers, to counteract the dominant condemnation of such mothers, and thereby also indirectly to bring about the reform of the existing views on sexual morality. Those who initiated this most important movement were indeed high-minded women. I mention, among many, only the names of Ruth Bré, Helene Stöcker, Maria Lischnewska, Adele Schreiber, Gabriele Reuter, and Henriette Fürth.
By the preparatory committee to which Maria Lischnewska, Dr. Borgius, Dr. Max Marcuse, Ruth Bré, and Dr. Helene Stöcker belonged, a committee meeting was called on January 5, 1905, and the Association for the Protection of Mothers was founded, its programme having already received the support of a number of leading personalities from all parts of the German Empire.
In addition to this committee, to which, besides the above-named members of the preparatory committee, there belonged Lily Braun, Georg Hirth, and Werner Sombart, a further committee was formed, the members of which were: Alfred Blaschko, Iwan Bloch, Hugo Böttger, Lily Braun, Gräfin Gertrud Bülow von Dennewitz, M. G. Conrad, A. Damaschke, Hedwig Dohm, Frieda Duensing, Chr. v. Ehrenfels, A. Erkelenz, W. Erb, A. Eulenburg, Max Flesch, Flechsig, A. Forel, E. Francke, Henriette Fürth, Agnes Hacker, Hegar, Willy Hellpach, Clara Hirschberg,Georg Hirth, Graf Paul von Hoensbroech, Bianca Israel, Josef Kohler, Landmann, Hans Leuss, Maria Lischnewska, R. von Liszt, Lucas, Max Marcuse, Mensinga, Bruno Meyer, H. Meyer, Metta Meinken, Klara Muche, Moesta, A. Moll, Müller, Friedrich Naumann, A. Neisser, Franz Oppenheimer, Pelman, Alfred Ploetz, Heinrich Potthoff, Lydia Rabinowitsch, Gabriele Reuter, Karl Ries, Adele Schreiber, Heinrich Sohnrey, Werner Sombart, Helene Stöcker, Marie Stritt, Irma von Troll-Borostyani, Max Weber, Bruno Wille, L. Wilser, L. Woltmann.
In the programme which the newly founded Association for the Protection of Mothers speedily published, we are told:
One hundred and eighty thousand illegitimate children are born in Germany every year, approximately one-tenth of all births. This important source of our strength as a people, children who at the time of birth are usually endowed with powerful vitality (for their parents are commonly in the bloom of youth and health), we allow to go to ruin because a rigorous moral view bans unmarried mothers, undermines their economic existence, and compels them to entrust their children for payment to strange hands.The momentous consequences of this state of affairs are shown by the fact that the average number of still-births, in the case of illegitimate children, amounts to 5 per cent., as compared with 3 per cent. of still-births among the total number of births; the mortality of illegitimate children during the first year of life is 28·5 per cent., as compared with 16·7 per cent. for the mortality of all children born. And whilst only a diminishing percentage of illegitimate children ever become fitted for military service, the world of criminals, prostitutes, and vagabonds, is recruited to an alarming extent from their ranks. Thus, by unfounded moral prejudices, we produce artificially an army of enemies to society. At the same time the birth-rate of Germany is relatively declining. In the year 1876 the number of births per 1,000 living was 41; in the year 1900 it was only 351⁄2!To put an end to this robbery of the strength of our people is the aim of theAssociation for the Protection of Mothers.The attempt has already been made by means of crèches, foundling institutions, and the like, to deal with this matter.But the protection of children without the protection of mothers is, and must remain, no more than patchwork; for the mother is the principal source of life for the child, and is indispensable to the child’s prosperity. Whatever ensures rest and care to the mother in her most difficult hours, whatever secures her economic existence for the future, and protects her from the contempt of her fellow-beings, by which her health is endangered and her life embittered, will serve to provide a secure foundation for the bodily and mental prosperity of the child, and will simultaneously give the mother herself a stronger moral hold. Therefore the Association for the Protection of Mothers will, aboveall, make the mothers’ position safe, by assisting them to the attainment ofEconomic Independence—especially such as are prepared to bring up their own children—by the formation in country and in town ofHomes for Mothers,in which, in addition, arrangements will be made for the necessary care and upbringing of the children, the granting of legal protection, and the provision of medical aid. Experience has shown that such provision also corresponds to the wish of many of the fathers, and assists in retaining their help and interest for mother and child.The Association will, however, above all, close the sources from which the present poverty of unmarried mothers arises, and these are more especially the moral prejudices which at the present day defame them socially, and the legal regulations which burden them almost exclusively with the economic care and responsibility for the child, and which entail on the father not at all, or in a quite insufficient degree, his contribution to the burden.The Moral Defamationof unmarried mothers would, perhaps, be comprehensible if we lived in economic and social conditions rendering it possible for every one to marry soon after attaining sexual maturity, so that the involuntary celibacy of adult persons was an abnormal state. In such a time as ours, however, in which no less than 45 per cent. of all women competent to bear children are unmarried, and those who actually marry do so for the most part at a comparatively late age, we must regard as untenable the view which considers the unmarried woman giving birth to a child to be an outcast, thrusts her out of society like the basest criminal, and gives her up to despair. Equally untenable appearsThe Present-Day Legal View,which, when the actual father has not gone through the forms prescribed by the State for a marriage, does not regard him as father in the legal sense, ascribes to him no relationship with the child procreated by him, and imposes on him no responsibility for the child or its mother, although in the majority of cases the mother is economically the weaker, and he himself economically the stronger party. There must, therefore, be a legal reform in the direction of equalizing as far as possible the position of the illegitimate and the legitimate child in relation to the father.Finally, however, motherhood—legitimate and illegitimate alike—is a factor of such profound importance to society, that it appears urgently desirable not to leave it exclusively to private care, with all the results that private care entails. In the interest of the community it is desirable that there should beA General Insurance of Motherhood,the cost of which should be defrayed by contributions from both sexes, as well as supplemented by grants from public sources. Thisassurance must not only suffice to provide for every woman sufficient medical assistance and skilled care during pregnancy and delivery, but should also furnish a provision for the education of the child until it is of an age to earn its own living.In order to propagate these views and endeavours methodically and upon the widest possible foundation, the active assistance and participation of every class in the population is indispensable. We therefore urge on all those who share our views the pressing demandto join the Association for the Protection of Mothers,and thus to assist in securing and accelerating the attainment of these ends.
One hundred and eighty thousand illegitimate children are born in Germany every year, approximately one-tenth of all births. This important source of our strength as a people, children who at the time of birth are usually endowed with powerful vitality (for their parents are commonly in the bloom of youth and health), we allow to go to ruin because a rigorous moral view bans unmarried mothers, undermines their economic existence, and compels them to entrust their children for payment to strange hands.
The momentous consequences of this state of affairs are shown by the fact that the average number of still-births, in the case of illegitimate children, amounts to 5 per cent., as compared with 3 per cent. of still-births among the total number of births; the mortality of illegitimate children during the first year of life is 28·5 per cent., as compared with 16·7 per cent. for the mortality of all children born. And whilst only a diminishing percentage of illegitimate children ever become fitted for military service, the world of criminals, prostitutes, and vagabonds, is recruited to an alarming extent from their ranks. Thus, by unfounded moral prejudices, we produce artificially an army of enemies to society. At the same time the birth-rate of Germany is relatively declining. In the year 1876 the number of births per 1,000 living was 41; in the year 1900 it was only 351⁄2!
To put an end to this robbery of the strength of our people is the aim of the
Association for the Protection of Mothers.
The attempt has already been made by means of crèches, foundling institutions, and the like, to deal with this matter.But the protection of children without the protection of mothers is, and must remain, no more than patchwork; for the mother is the principal source of life for the child, and is indispensable to the child’s prosperity. Whatever ensures rest and care to the mother in her most difficult hours, whatever secures her economic existence for the future, and protects her from the contempt of her fellow-beings, by which her health is endangered and her life embittered, will serve to provide a secure foundation for the bodily and mental prosperity of the child, and will simultaneously give the mother herself a stronger moral hold. Therefore the Association for the Protection of Mothers will, aboveall, make the mothers’ position safe, by assisting them to the attainment of
Economic Independence
—especially such as are prepared to bring up their own children—by the formation in country and in town of
Homes for Mothers,
in which, in addition, arrangements will be made for the necessary care and upbringing of the children, the granting of legal protection, and the provision of medical aid. Experience has shown that such provision also corresponds to the wish of many of the fathers, and assists in retaining their help and interest for mother and child.
The Association will, however, above all, close the sources from which the present poverty of unmarried mothers arises, and these are more especially the moral prejudices which at the present day defame them socially, and the legal regulations which burden them almost exclusively with the economic care and responsibility for the child, and which entail on the father not at all, or in a quite insufficient degree, his contribution to the burden.
The Moral Defamation
of unmarried mothers would, perhaps, be comprehensible if we lived in economic and social conditions rendering it possible for every one to marry soon after attaining sexual maturity, so that the involuntary celibacy of adult persons was an abnormal state. In such a time as ours, however, in which no less than 45 per cent. of all women competent to bear children are unmarried, and those who actually marry do so for the most part at a comparatively late age, we must regard as untenable the view which considers the unmarried woman giving birth to a child to be an outcast, thrusts her out of society like the basest criminal, and gives her up to despair. Equally untenable appears
The Present-Day Legal View,
which, when the actual father has not gone through the forms prescribed by the State for a marriage, does not regard him as father in the legal sense, ascribes to him no relationship with the child procreated by him, and imposes on him no responsibility for the child or its mother, although in the majority of cases the mother is economically the weaker, and he himself economically the stronger party. There must, therefore, be a legal reform in the direction of equalizing as far as possible the position of the illegitimate and the legitimate child in relation to the father.
Finally, however, motherhood—legitimate and illegitimate alike—is a factor of such profound importance to society, that it appears urgently desirable not to leave it exclusively to private care, with all the results that private care entails. In the interest of the community it is desirable that there should be
A General Insurance of Motherhood,
the cost of which should be defrayed by contributions from both sexes, as well as supplemented by grants from public sources. Thisassurance must not only suffice to provide for every woman sufficient medical assistance and skilled care during pregnancy and delivery, but should also furnish a provision for the education of the child until it is of an age to earn its own living.
In order to propagate these views and endeavours methodically and upon the widest possible foundation, the active assistance and participation of every class in the population is indispensable. We therefore urge on all those who share our views the pressing demand
to join the Association for the Protection of Mothers,
and thus to assist in securing and accelerating the attainment of these ends.
As the official organ of the Association, was chosen the monthly magazine, edited by Dr. Phil. Helene Stöcker,Mutterschutz: Zeitschrift zur Reform der Sexuellen Ethik(The Protection of Mothers: a Journal for the Reform of Sexual Ethics)—hitherto published in the year 1905 twelve numbers, in the year 1906 twelve numbers, and in the year 1907 three numbers.
The foundation of the Association was followed on February 26, 1905, by the holding of its first public meeting, in the Architektenhaus, under the presidency of Helene Stöcker; and the meeting was extensively attended by the general population of Berlin. The aims and endeavours of the new union were explained, in longer and shorter speeches, by Ruth Bré, Max Marcuse, Maria Lischnewska, Justizrat Sello, Helene Stöcker, Ellen Key, Lily Braun, Adele Schreiber, Iwan Bloch, and Bruno Meyer; and from the standpoint of the advocates of woman’s rights, of jurists, of physicians, of sociologists, and of moralists, in equal degree, a radical transformation and reform of the present untenable conditions wasdemanded.[205]
Soon afterwards, the Association proceeded to form local groups. The first was formed in Munich, where on March 28, 1905, the first local meeting took place. Frau Schönfliess, Margarethe Joachimsen-Böhm, Alfred Scheel, and Friedrich Bauer belonged to this committee. Further local groups were founded in Berlin (May 20, 1905—members of this committee, as distinct from the committee of the general Association: Finkelstein, Galli, Agnes Hacker, Albert Kohn, Bruno Meyer, Adele Schreiber), and in Hamburg (president, ReginaRuben).[206]
The first general meeting (cf.Helene Stöcker, “Our First General Meeting,” published inMutterschutz, 1907, No. 2) took place in Berlin, January 12 to 14. After speeches on the practical protection of mothers (Maria Lischnewska), the present-day form of marriage (Helene Stöcker), prostitution and illegitimacy (Max Flesch), limitation of marriages by economic conditions (Adele Schreiber), limitation of marriage by hygienic factors (Max Marcuse), the position of the illegitimate child (Böhmert and Ottmar Spann), the insurance of motherhood (Mayet), there followed animated discussions, and various important resolutions were passed, dealing with the equality of husband and wife in married life, the legal recognition of free marriages, and of the offspring of such marriages, the necessity for the provision of certificates of health before the conclusion of marriage, the means to be employed in the care of illegitimate children, and the insurance of motherhood. Especially noteworthy was the address of the leading medical statistician, Professor Mayet, regarding the introduction and management of the insurance of motherhood. At his suggestion, proposals followed regarding the enrolling of working-class members in the societies for insurance against illness and for the insurance of motherhood, the necessity for contributions on the part of the State, the inclusion of the agricultural and forest labourers, and of domestic servants of all kinds, in the schemes of insurance against illness and the insurance of motherhood, the possibility of a voluntary insurance of all women, what could be effected by the insurance of motherhood (free provision of midwives and medical assistance, free lodging in case of need, the provision of premiums for mothers suckling their own children, the institution of places where advice could be given to mothers, of homes for women during pregnancy and child-birth, and homes for women and infants), and the further development of factory legislation with regard to nursing mothers. The committee for 1907 was chosen: it consisted of Helene Stöcker, Maria Lischnewska, Adele Schreiber, Wilhelm Brandt, Iwan Bloch, Max Marcuse, Heinrich Finkelstein.
In the end of January, 1907, an Austrian Association for the Protection of Mothers was founded in Vienna, under the presidency of Dr. Hugo Klein. To the committee of this Society there belong, Siegmund Freud, Rosa Mayreder, Marie Eugeniedelle Grazie, Professor Schauta, and about forty other well-known persons, physicians, lawyers, schoolmasters, and many women. In the meeting at which the Association was founded, Dr. Ofner spoke regarding the legal rights of illegitimate mothers and children, and Dr. Friedjung regarding the protection of nursing infants.
In the United States also an Association for sexual reform has been founded, the so-called “Umwertungsgesellschaft” (Revaluation Society), the principal aim of which is the complete re-estimation of all values in the amatory life, and the introduction of a more ideal view of love. The President of this American Association is Emil F. Ruedebusch; the secretary, Mrs. Lina Janssen; the meeting-place of the society is Mayville, in the State of Wisconsin. Regular evenings of discussion are fixed, on which questions of especial interest are debated.
[In Holland also an Association for the Protection of Mothers has been founded; its name is “Vereeniging Onderlinge Vrouwenbescherming.”]
In the newspaperMutterschutz(1905, No. 9, pp. 375, 376), we find a report of the meeting of the American Association held on October 8, 1905, when the topic of discussion was:
What is the true nature of marriage?
The answer ran as follows: