, 1888-08-09
MARRIAGE OF COUSINS.
a Deep Seated Prejudice Against the
Practlce-DarwIn's Opinion


a Deep Seated Prejudice Against the
Practlce-Darwln's Opinion
These questions relate to a subject
about which we are often consulted, and
very naturally, because, though mar
riages between first cousins are of fire.
quent occurrence, there is a general and
a deep seated prejudice against them:
81. Is it properfrom a religious stand
point for first cousins to marry3
80. Is it not a positive sin to know
ingly enter into such a marriage?
SO. Is it not probable that the off
spring of such parents will become in
sane, idiotic, or weak persons, both
mentally and physically"
The marriage of first cousins is not
contrary to the Protestant canon law
that relationship not coming within the
prohibited degrees of consanguinity as
defined by the Church of England, and
as set forth in the table drawn up by
Archbishop Parker in 1868. In the
Roman Catholic church such marriages
are as a rule forbidden, yet they may be
permitted by special dispensation. As a
Catholic writer expresses it, Sin cases
where the alternative is marriage or mis-
cry, the church, as thoughtful mother,
grants her dispensation."
According to the Protestant theory,
therefore, the marriage of first cousins Is
proper from n religious standpoint, " or,
more correctly, religious point of view,
and accordin. to the Roman Catholic
rule it is permissible under certain cir
cumstances, and therefore cannot be de-
scribed as a positive sim"
If we turn to the Bible for our au-
thority we find that before the period of
Moses there was no prohibition at all
against marriage ON the ground of con-
sanguinity, and the prejudice was rather
against marrying out of the circle of
kinship. Adams SONS married their own
sisters; Abraham his half sister; his
brother Major his niece, and daughter of
another brother; Jacob married at the
same time two sisters who were his
cousins; Esau's wife was his cousin, Am
rams his aunt, and Judah's his daughter
in-law, the widow of his own son. The
aversion in those days was not to the
marriage of relatives, no matter how
near, but to intermarriage with foreign
ers, or those far removed in blood.
But the Mosaic law forbade fifteen
marriages within specified degrees,
though among them those of cousins
"tiS IpG lICllueu. LII Ilo new leSLd-
ment we find few directions as to mar
riage, and those chiefly concerning mar
riages with unbelievers; and Gregory the
Great, in writing of marriages of own
cousins, put his objection to them on
physiological grounds, saying that 1--WE
have learned from experience that from
such a marriage offspring cannot grow"
The physiological argument, the one
most COMMONLY oAuonnal hoe haan m n
fully examined of late years by men of
science, and more especially by Mr..
George II. Darwin, q son of the great
Darwin, and himself a distinguished BIZ
ologist. He went through a very labori-
GUS inquiry and statistical study on the
subject, and found that the facts COM
pletely upset Pope Gregory's theory as to
the sterility of first cousin marriages, sta
tistics showing a ''slight balance in favor
of the fertility of the first cousins" as
compared with ordinary marriage. This
circumstance, he suggests, may be ak
planned by inference that marriages be-
tween cousins are more likely to occur
where there is n large group of persons
bearing that relationship to one another,
and who therefore belong to families in
which fertility is hereditary. But he
found "a shade of evidence that the
death rate of offspring is higher than
among the families Of non-sanguineous
marriages"
AS to insanity and idiocy among the
offspring of first cousin marriages, Mr..
Darwin's investigations led him to the
conclusion that the facts did not Justify
the popular impression, he finding that
''the percentage of such offspring in asy-
lums is not greater than that in the gen.
eral population to such an extent as to
enable n to say positively that the
marriage of first cousins has any effect
on the production of insanity and
idiocy." With respect to leaf mntes he
discovered no difference.
AS the result of the whole inquiry, he
came to the conclusion chat the evil
has been often much exaggerated, but
that there are, nevertheless, grounds for
asserting that various maladies take an
easy hold of the offspring of consan-
guineous marriages." He is also dis
posed to give some weight to the popu-
lar prejudice against such marriages, as
probably grounded in actual experience,
little as the attainable facts seem to JUS
tify it, except to the slight extent he de-
scribes. Yet there can be no doubt
about the danger of the marriage Of n
herit from a common p%rogenitor a de-
cided tendency to some serious constitu-
tipnal disease or weakness. New York
Sun.