less couples. Others
may find themselves in quite as unfortunate a predicament. A man may
be the father of a large and thriving family and yet be as destitute
patriarchally as if he had not a child to his name. His offspring may
be of the wrong sex; they may all be girls. In this untoward event
the father has something more on his hands than merely a houseful of
daughters to dispose of. In addition to securing sons-in-law, he must,
unless he would have his ancestral line become extinct, provide
himself with a son. The simplest procedure in such a case is to combine
relationships in a single individual, and the most self-evident person
to select for the dual capacity is the husband of the eldest daughter.
This is the course pursued. Some worthy young man is secured as spouse
for the senior sister; he is at the same time formally taken in as a son
by the family whose cognomen he assumes, and eventually becomes the head
of the house. Strange to say, this vista of gradually unfolding honors
does not seem to prove inviting. Perhaps the new-comer objects to
marrying the whole family, a prejudice not without parallel elsewhere.
Certainly the opportunity is not appreciated. Indeed, to "go out as a
son-in-law," as the Japanese idiom hath it, is considered demeaning
to the matrimonial domestic. Like other household help he wears too
patently the badge of servitude. "If you have three koku of rice to your
name, don't do it," is the advice of the local proverb--a proverb whose
warning against marrying for money is the more suggestive for being
launched in a land where marrying for love is beyond the pale of
respectability. To barter one's name in this mercenary manner is looked
upon as derogatory to one's self-respect, although, as we have seen, to
part with it for any less direct remuneration is not attended with the
slightest loss of personal prestige. As practically the unfortunate had
none to lose in either event, it would seem to be a case of taking away
from a man that which he hath not. So contumacious a thing is custom.
It is indeed lucky that popular prejudice interposes some limit to this
fictitious method of acquiring children. A trifling predilection for the
real thing in sonships is absolutely vital, even to the continuance of
the artificial variety. For if one generation ever went in exclusively
for adoption, there would be no subsequent generation to adopt.

As it to give the finishing touch to so conventional a syste