CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGES.

Something relating to the subject of consanguineous marriages, which are not uncommon in some communities, may properly be added here, as bearing on this subject, and as in some measure supplemental to the preceding chapter.

There have been differing opinions among physicians in reference to the effects upon offspring, both physical and mental, of consanguineous marriages. Several French physicians have written able articles, the tendency of which is to indicate that such marriages result in deaf-mutism and idiocy. It has been claimed that the statistics of asylums for the deaf and dumb, the blind, and the idiotic, give color to such conclusions. Among those who have more or less fully and carefully examined the subject, with results tending to confirm such a theory may be mentioned Dr. Bemis, of Kentucky; Dr. Chazarain, of Bordeaux; and Mr. Boudin.

On the other hand, there have been adduced numerous statistics which indicate that no unfavorable results follow such marriages, which can fairly be considered as arising from consanguinity. Without entering fully into the details of this discussion, I propose simply to indicate certain principles and facts which have been pretty definitely settled, and such inferences as may appear to be entirely legitimate, and also have a bearing on our subject. For a more exhaustive examination of the question, I may refer the reader to Ribot, on “Heredity,” and Miles, on “Stock-Breeding.”

1. The ancient Egyptians, the Persians, the Syrians, and some other nations, were accustomed to practise consanguineous marriages. Brothers married sisters, cousins married cousins in all degrees of relationship, and sometimes even fathers cohabited with their own daughters. Dr. McGraw[15] says “there can be no doubt that close and continual interbreeding has taken place time and again, without evident injurious consequences, among simple and uncultivated communities. Notable examples are the Pitcairn Island settlements, formed from the close in-and-in-breeding of the progeny of four mutineers from the ship Bounty, and nine native women; the small community of fishermen, near Brighton, England; the numerous small and isolated villages of Iceland; and the Basque and Bas-Breton settlements among the Pyrenees. We must admit, from overwhelming evidence, that under such circumstances as the settlements just mentioned afforded, consanguinity among married people does not necessarily cause evil results to the progeny. If it be asked how it would be with men of more civilized habits, we are unfortunately obliged to confess that there are no statistics whatever on the subject which can give us any exact and trustworthy information.”

2. Experiments in interbreeding of cattle go to prove that in some cases, at least, this may be continued for many generations with no unfavorable results. A friend of mine has bred in-and-in a herd of Jersey cattle, as close as a father to his progeny, for five generations, and with apparently good results.

I have a flock of India pigeons which have been in-bred for fifteen years to my own knowledge, and apparently with no deterioration. They are still strong, vigorous, and prolific.

There is a herd of wild cattle now in the Chillingham Park, England, which has been confined there for several hundred years, and strictly isolated. No new strains have been introduced, and the herd still remains hardy and healthy.

On the other hand, there exists a general impression among physicians, based upon experience and observation of a general character, that marriages of consanguinity result, more often than other marriages, in unfavorable effects upon offspring; and the statistics collected by Dr. Bemis and others appear, on first examination, to confirm such conclusions.

The majority of farmers and stock-breeders in this country act upon the theory that it is important and, indeed, necessary, in order to maintain herds and flocks in a healthy condition, to frequently introduce other strains of blood; and the farmer who should fail to do this in reference to his cattle, his swine, and fowls, would be entitled to little sympathy in case his animals should degenerate in any measure physically, or become less prolific.

Now, the well-established principles of heredity appear to confirm, in a general way, both these views. The qualities of parents whether healthy or unhealthy are transmitted to offspring; and if all herds of cattle and swine and flocks of fowls were in a strictly healthy condition, there would exist no reasons why they might not remain so indefinitely, so far as interbreeding is concerned.

The conditions of animal life, however, under the influence of civilization, are certainly more unfavorable to health than when in a native condition. This is especially true of those classes upon which we depend for labor. The change from animal life on the broad prairies and woods of a temperate zone, to life in stables of crowded cities and yards of farmers, many of which are in any thing but a sanitary condition, and to the experience of daily exposure and labor, and ofttimes to ill treatment and improper food, induces disease no less surely among animals than among the human race.

If either men or animals were in a condition of perfect health, there would be no unfavorable results from marriages of consanguinity, or other marriages, as there would exist no imperfections, either physical or mental, to be transmitted. No such persons, however, are found. All are tainted with the seeds of disease to a greater or less extent, and health is a question of degree. If, now, two persons of a phthisical or insane diathesis contract marriage, the tendency toward such a diathesis will be greatly increased in the offspring. If this tendency in each parent be represented by two, then it will be two multiplied by two in the offspring, except so far as it may be modified through the influence of atavism. This would be the case without reference to the question of consanguinity.

But blood-relatives are vastly more likely to inherit a similar diathesis—indeed, are quite sure to do so, if it be one of unhealthy character,—and the atavic influences would also be similar; so that any counteracting effect through this influence would be much less between blood-relations than with others, and would probably be the greatest when no such relation exists.

Here, then, becomes apparent the danger arising from consanguineous marriages, i. e., that of perpetuating and intensifying unfavorable physical and mental traits, which may be alike on both sides. Where no such relation exists, there is a great probability that other counteracting qualities of character and hereditary influences may modify and even remove weaknesses, while, with such a relation existing, there is every probability that weaknesses or tendencies toward disease, both physical and mental, whether inherited or acquired, will become greatly increased.

Therefore, as there exist in many families, undesirable traits of character, both physical and mental, a removal or diminution of which is desirable; and as there is a greater probability that this can be more surely done, of whatever nature they may be, by introducing other and opposing tendencies from unrelated families, it would appear to be highly important, as a rule, to discountenance marriages of persons who are related to each other by ties of blood.

ALCOHOL.