[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-323813-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-323813-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","incest-prohibitions-in-primitive-culture-john-m-cooper","Incest Prohibitions in Primitive Culture - John M. Cooper","","“Incest Prohibitions in Primitive Culture” examines the restriction of near-kin marriage by tracing its historical roots and the arguments used to defend it. The discussion distinguishes “grounds” offered in support from the “factors” that actually produced and sustained the custom. It reviews how Christian practice formed in the first centuries under Jewish and Greco-Roman influence, then highlights major defensive rationales: reverence for near kin, charity’s social expansion through outbreeding, fears of sexual immorality within cohabiting families, and later biological claims about sterility and harm to offspring.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/incest-prohibitions-in-primitive-culture-john-m-cooper/323813/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/incest-prohibitions-in-primitive-culture-john-m-cooper/323813.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Himbo","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-24","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main focus of this paper on near-kin marriage?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The paper outlines the problem of near-kin marriage by examining the incest prohibition as it existed and the reasons presented in its support, along with the underlying causes that brought it about and maintained it.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the author distinguish “grounds” from “factors”?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"“Grounds” denote the reasons advanced for or against restricting near-kin marriage, while “factors” denote the causes or influences that actually brought about and maintained such restrictions.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What major defensive arguments are discussed for the prohibition?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The paper covers multiple grounds, including reverence due to near kin, the charity-based social expansion through outbreeding, concern about immorality arising from cohabiting near relatives, and later biological claims such as sterility or injury to offspring.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},323813,1790367252,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":99,"preview_page_count":4},687197100911,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a000239b6f1da00475?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1785132997149421697","January,1932  \nVol.V,No.1  \nPRIMITIVE MAN  \nCONTENTS  \nPageIncest Prohibitions in Primitive Culture……………IJoHN M.CoOPER  \nPUBLISHED BY THE  \nCATHOLIC ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONFERENCEWASHINGTON,D.C.  \nPRIMITIVE MAN  \nQuarterly Bulletin  \nof the  \nCatholic Anthropological Conference  \nNo.1  \nVol.V  \nJanuary,1932  \n# INCEST PROHIBITIONS IN PRIMITIVE CULTURE\n\nREV.JoHN M.CooPERThe Catholic University of America  \nANTHROPOLOGY is interested in our contemporary Occi-dental culture as well as in the cultures of past tines and ofpeoples other than our own.Moreover,the institutions and cus-toms of our own culture often throw light upon those of othercultures of the past and present,and vice versa.In attemptingthis brief outline of the problem of near-kin marriage,we shallbegin with the incest prohibition as it exists and has existed in ourWestern culture,with special emphasis on the factors that havegiven rise to it and on the grounds presented in its support.Throughout the present paper we shall use the term“grounds”to denote the reasons advanced for or against the desirability ofrestrictions on near-kin marriage;the term“factors”to denotethe causes or influences that have actually brought about and main-tained such restrictions.  \nThe prohibition of near-kin marriage in priitive Christian cul-ture harks back in the main to such prohibition as obtained inJewish and Greco-Roman culture.Christian practice in the firstthree centuries was largely moulded on current Jewish and Greco-Roman practice,although particularly from the fourth century on,very appreciable changes began to make their appearance—-changes  \nwrought,it seems,partly by the Christian outlook itself,partlyby customs and conditions prevalent among the barbarian peopleswho flocked into the Church.  \nThe grounds on which an accepted practice are defended areof course not necessarily identical with the factors which have ledto the establishment,maintenance,or development of the practice.In the question we are discussing,it is very difficult to determine.from the relatively meager historical evidence available,just howfar in our western civilization the grounds of defence have beendetermining factors as well.We seem justified,however,in con-cluding that such grounds have had appreciable influence.in vary-ing measure,if not in introducing the custom,at least in maintain-ing and developing it.Let us turn to these grounds.  \nApparently the earliest as well as the most constant groundadvanced in our Occidental culture is that of the reverence due tonear kin,the Roman respectus parentelae,and that of the reserve.zerecundia,and pudor that should prevail.This may have beenan underlying ground in pre-Christian Jewish legislation on thematter;it is clearly the one back of the later Roman concept thatconsanguineous marriages are against the“law of nature”.Thisnote consistently recurs in the early and mediaeval Christian patris-tic and canonical literature,and persists unbrokenly almost up tothe present day in legal as well as in religious and ethical literature.  \nA second ground makes its first appearance in Christian litera-ture,so far as the present writer has been able to discover,with St.John Chrysostom around the end of tlhe fourth century and withSt.Augustine in the second decade of the fifth century,althoughthe germ idea is found three or four centuries earlier in Plutarchand Philo Judaeus.St.Augustine closely links up the prohibitionwith the Christian ideal of charity and emphasizes the social aspectsof the usage.His reasoning may be summarized as follows:Closeinbreeding leads to narrow clannishness among families;outbreed-ing leads to an extension of love outside the kinship circle andmultiplies the social bonds that tie together in charity and unity thcmany kinship groups that make up the civic community.  \nEight centuries later a third ground is,for the first time explicitlyin Christian literature,brought for ward by St.Thomas,and fromhis time on has been consistently emphasized,by b","cbCaiucp7FM3dU1Q","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiucp7FM3dU1Q","pdf",1002103,24,"English","# INCEST PROHIBITIONS IN PRIMITIVE CULTURE\n## Background: near-kin marriage prohibitions in Christian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman contexts\n## Grounds and factors: reasons versus causal influences\n## Main defensive grounds: reverence, charity/social bonds, cohabitation and immorality, biological claims","[{\"question\":\"What is the main focus of this paper on near-kin marriage?\",\"answer\":\"The paper outlines the problem of near-kin marriage by examining the incest prohibition as it existed and the reasons presented in its support, along with the underlying causes that brought it about and maintained it.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the author distinguish “grounds” from “factors”?\",\"answer\":\"“Grounds” denote the reasons advanced for or against restricting near-kin marriage, while “factors” denote the causes or influences that actually brought about and maintained such restrictions.\"},{\"question\":\"What major defensive arguments are discussed for the prohibition?\",\"answer\":\"The paper covers multiple grounds, including reverence due to near kin, the charity-based social expansion through outbreeding, concern about immorality arising from cohabiting near relatives, and later biological claims such as sterility or injury to offspring.\"}]","Incest Prohibitions in Primitive Culture - John M. Cooper | PDF",1789966255]