CORRESP ONDENCE. 



623 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



SIR : As a student of Herbert Spencer's 

 Philosophy, I have waited impatient- 

 ly the advent of his " Principles of Sociol- 

 ogy," and particularly so of late, as I am 

 greatly interested in the work of an Amer- 

 ican writer on a kindred subject. I refer 

 to Mr. Lewis H. Morgan's "Ancient Soci- 

 ety," lately published by Henry Holt & 

 Co. It is to a comparison of the views of 

 these writers on the origin of the monoga- 

 mian family that I wish to invite your at- 

 tention. 



In Mr. Morgan's studies of consanguin- 

 ity and affinity he found certain systems 

 prevailing which could only be explained 

 by the existence of certain forms of mar- 

 riage, and of the family which produced 

 them. These forms he has named the 

 " Consanguine," the " Punaluan," and the 

 "Monogamian." As before stated, it is the 

 origin of the latter form only that I pro- 

 pose to discuss at present. According to 

 Mr. Morgan, the monogamian family is com- 

 paratively modern, and came into existence 

 with the growth of the idea of property. 

 He says (page 477): " The growth of prop- 

 erty and the desire for its transmission to 

 children was, in reality, the moving power 

 which brought in monogamy to insure legit- 

 imate heirs, and to limit their number to 

 the actual progeny of the married pair." 

 He maintains that exclusive cohabitation, 

 in the sense that we understand it, was not 

 practised until mankind had created prop- 

 erty in masses, which they desired should 

 pass into the hands of their offspring, and 

 that the marriage of single pairs previous 

 to this did not constitute monogamy, but 

 formed what he terms the "Syndyasmian 

 or Pairing Family," which differed from 

 monogamy in several essential particulars, 

 chief of which was the fact that " the mar- 

 riage relation continued during the pleasure 

 of the parties, and no longer," and, so far 

 as the male was concerned, " the absence of 

 an exclusive cohabitation." In reading 

 Mr. Spencer's article on the "Evolution 

 of the Family," it occurred to me that 

 Mr. Morgan's theory answered his ques- 

 tion, "Are different forms of domestic 

 arrangement associated with the militant 

 system of organization and the industrial 

 system of organization ? " even better 

 than his own. Mr. Spencer remarks that, 

 " on examining the facts more closely, we 

 discern general connections between the 

 militant type and polygyny, and between 



the industrial type and monogamy." He 

 then calls attention to the truth that " the 

 contrast between the militant and the in- 

 dustrial is properly between a state in which 

 life is occupied in conflict with other be- 

 ings, brute and human, and a state in which 

 life is occupied in peaceful labor energies 

 spent in destruction instead of energies 

 spent in production." Now it is obvious 

 that the latter state is the one in which the 

 growth of the idea of property and the de- 

 sire to transmit it to offspring would surely 

 be generated, and that if, as is alleged by 

 Mr. Morgan, monogamy owed its origin to 

 the growth of these ideas, then necessarily 

 monogamy and industrialness would surely 

 be connected, and that this is the case, Mr. 

 Spencer thinks unquestioned. He says : 

 " That advance from the primitive preda- 

 tory type to the highest industrial type 

 has gone along with advance from prevalent 

 polygyny to exclusive monogamy, is unques- 

 tionable ; and that the decrease of militancy 

 and increase of industrialness have been 

 the essential cause of this change in the 

 type of family, is shown by the fact that 

 this change has occurred where such oth- 

 er supposable causes as culture, religious 

 creed, etc., have not come into play." 



It seems to me that, in applying the 

 term monogamy to all forms of the pairing 

 family, from the highest to the lowest, Mr. 

 Spencer is in error. He should, like Mr. 

 Morgan, limit it to that form in which ex- 

 clusive cohabitation is the law for both man 

 and woman. He should deal with monogamy 

 as an institution. In so dealing with it, we 

 see that it has arisen, as Mr. Spencer has 

 taught us, like all other institutions, by the 

 action of environing agencies on existing 

 social conditions, and that the principal 

 agency in the present case is the growth of 

 the idea of property. R. M. 



"THE LAW OP CONTINUITY." 

 To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



In reply to Mr. Launcelot's letter in the 

 Monthly for February, I would draw atten- 

 tion to the Journal of the Chemical Society, 

 volume viii., page 51, where the late Prof. 

 Graham records certain experiments. He 

 found that sulphuric acid continued to 

 evolve heat when mixed even with the fif- 

 tieth equivalent of water that was added to 

 it, so that there seemed to be no distinct 

 limit to chemical affinity. He concludes, 

 " There is reason to believe that chemical 



