(Tomorrow begins the traditional month for marriages. We offer Dr. Frank Crane’s musings on what marriage should be.  It was written in 1913 and might surprise some people because he was writing eight years before women became full, voting, citizens of the United States and years before the concept of the liberated woman emerged, a phrase that has become dated.  He describes—-)

THE PERFECT MARRIAGE

Let us think to the end and imagine what the ideal marriage ought to be, and someday will be.

Let us for the moment put away all practical ideas, common sense arrangements, adjusting ourselves to things as they exist, and all that. Frequently light can be thrown on the perplex ties of present problems by stripping them of their concreteness and treating them in their clean absoluteness. Algebra often saves time and trouble and solves puzzles that baffle arithmetic.

Marriage is never going to be ideal until it is absolutely free in choice. The only reason for getting married should be the mutual, irresistible attraction of love.

Any other factor mixed into the matter is bad. Hence, economic dependence is not good. No woman ought to get married in order to be supported.

Somehow, I know not how, marriage should be removed from the list of occupations, where it now too often is, among school-teaching and typewriting.

The fundamental thing to do is, in some way, to render woman economically independent. Thus, her selection of a husband need not be alloyed with the base metal of seeking a means of livelihood.

For this reason, I look upon the invasion by women of many fields of business as, on the whole, a move in the right direction, although like all human conditions it is accompanied naturally with some peril.

“Whatever,” says E. H. Griggs*, “tends to free women from any external compulsion to marry places marriage itself upon a nobler plane.”

Secondly, the permanency (and, hence, the beauty) of marriage cannot rest on strict divorce laws. Outer compulsion of the kind is well enough at present owing to our “hardness of heart” and our imperfect morals, but at last the sureness and firmness of marriage must depend on the development of an appreciation of the worth and beauty and joy of it.

I believe in monogamy, not because of any law or authority, but because it is psychologically and physiologically the most satisfactory arrangement for the ideal expression of love of women and love of children. Any other system debases the affection of man and woman, and results in cruelty and injustice to the child.

There is no hope for the family outside of the growth…of strong ethical and religious feelings; that is, the sense of the sacredness and nobleness of sex relations. It must be something man wants to work for, suffer for and, if need be, die for.

And then, marriage must be between equals. I do not mean in rank or money or education, nor any such idiocy, but in nature. It must be eye to eye and hand in hand. There must be no superiority. A man is most manly when he is womanized; that is when his strength is made gentle and forbearing and kindly. A woman is most woman when she is thoroughly mingled with the manly qualities; that is when her tenderness and sweetness acquire power and firmness and practicality.

Love does this. Love is the equalizer. It is the hydrostasis paradox of souls, for as a column of water rises to the same level in an inch-tube and a six-inch tube when they are joined, so love puts two souls on a spiritual level…

With it we shall go on up to the divine stature; without it we surely will revert to barbarism…

The solution of marriage, therefore, depends on three things:  Freedom, nobleness, and equality.  More deeply on one thing—love.

*Dr. E. H. Griggs was an author and lecturer who once headed the Philosophy Department at the Brooklyn Institute of Arts.