At all periods in the history of civilized races, pathology has also led to extra-conjugal s.e.xual intercourse. Here, h.o.m.os.e.xual love in general, and love of boys or pediastry, has always played the princ.i.p.al part. We shall speak of this in Chapter VIII. Among the Hebrews, Persians, Etruscans, and especially the Greeks, it was held in high esteem. The Greek philosophers regarded it as based on an ideal h.o.m.os.e.xual love, and not as a vile form of prost.i.tution. Solon, Aristides, Sophocles, Phidias, and Socrates were strongly suspected of h.o.m.os.e.xual practices, and they regarded this form of love as superior to the normal love of woman. Lesbian love, and other s.e.xual aberrations, such as sadism, have also played a historical role, as we shall see.

CONCLUSIONS

Primitive human marriage was probably of short duration; when man later on became carnivorous, and had to obtain food for his children by hunting, s.e.xual unions a.s.sumed a more constant character. It is not the cla.s.s or the tribe, but the family which const.i.tuted the primitive social condition of man, a condition in which marriage was a heritage from "pithecomorphous" ancestors, _i.e._, related to monkeys.

Free s.e.xual intercourse before marriage and frequent changes in the latter were then no doubt very common, but true promiscuity has never been the rule in primitive man.

Patriarchism with its disastrous consequences has been the result of the preponderance of male power. In a higher degree of civilization this preponderance has produced marriage by purchase and polygamy. The barbarous form of the latter is now decreasing.

A true higher culture leads gradually to durable love based on altruism and ethics, _i.e._, a relative and free monogamy.

The development of marriage in civilization has gradually increased the rights of woman, and marriage contracts tend more and more in their modern forms to stipulate for complete equality of rights for both s.e.xes. As Westermark says: "The history of human marriage is the history of a union in which women have gradually triumphed over the pa.s.sions, prejudices and egoism of men." The term reemanc.i.p.ation of women is historically more correct than the simple term emanc.i.p.ation, for before the inst.i.tution of marriage, woman was free. Invented by the stronger male when he began to reason, marriage was at first only the servitude of woman. To give her complete liberty, it must be transformed afresh from top to bottom.

APPENDIX

=Influence of the Race on s.e.xual Life.=--If I were an ethnographer I should attempt to establish whether, and in what way, racial differences affect the s.e.xual life of man; but the question is so delicate that it would require a skilled specialist to settle it. With the exception of the pages dealing with the history of extra-conjugal intercourse, the statements in this chapter are based on the work of Westermark. The chief difficulty consists in separating, in the customs of each race, that which arises from habit and historical tradition from that which depends on more or less specific hereditary peculiarities. It is here very easy to fall into error in formulating false conclusions.

A good deal has been said concerning the hot blood of warm climates, and on the whole it appears true that people who inhabit these climates have a more violent and more precocious s.e.xual temperament than those who live in cold regions. But this is not a racial character. The Jews, who have preserved their race unaltered in all climates and under all possible conditions of existence, furnish an object lesson which is particularly appropriate to decide the question. The traits of their character are reflected in their s.e.xual life. Their s.e.xual appet.i.tes are generally strong and their love is distinguished by great family attachment. Their s.e.xual life is also influenced by their mercantile spirit, and we find them everywhere connected with the traffic of women and prost.i.tution. They are not very jealous and are much addicted to concubinage, at the same time remaining affectionate to their wife and family.

The Mongols also lead a very intense s.e.xual life. Among the polyandrous people of Thibet jealousy appears to be completely absent: this may be the result of custom or may be due to phylogenetic instinct. The Mormons, who are descended from monogamous races, confirm the idea that polygamy is not a specific racial character. It would be interesting to study the mixed races of North America from this point of view. At first sight, it seems that the Americanization of customs in the mixture of races of the United States is also extended to s.e.xual life, and that we cannot discover the fundamental differences between the Irish, Scandinavians, French, Germans and Italians who const.i.tute this mixture. But it is possible that this is only a superficial impression, and that a deeper study of the details would lead to another result. One thing appears to be unquestionable in the negro race; that is the violence of its s.e.xual pa.s.sion combined with its mental inferiority.

A striking trait is furnished by the French race which has remained pure in the eastern provinces of Canada, whose s.e.xual customs are very different from those of the present population of France. The French Canadian is extremely pure and chaste, leads a regular life and has a numerous family. Families of fifteen or twenty are not rare among French Canadians. We can here, therefore, observe the effect of climate and custom on a single race. For reasons mentioned above, I shall content myself with a few remarks, but I am certain that a profound study of the question would discover, in the character of the individuals, specific peculiarities of their race which are only marked externally by customs. It is obvious that such characters will be all the more distinct, the more the race differs from its congeners, and the purer its ethnical separation. As among animals, it is necessary to distinguish between slight variations, and races or sub-species which are more constant and more divergent. Hereditary or phylogenetic individual differences must also be distinguished from those of races or varieties.

=Weight of the Brain in Different Races and s.e.xes.=--Bebel has stated that among savages the difference between the brain of the men and women is less than among civilized people. This statement is quite wrong. Prof. Rudolph Martin, of Zurich, has given me statistics of the cranial capacity of the two s.e.xes in different races, drawn from reliable sources. According to Martin the weight of the brain represents about 87 per cent. of the cranial capacity. His table of statistics is given on the opposite page.

These figures show that the difference between the two s.e.xes is always about the same, while the average absolute weight of the brain in the two s.e.xes is lower in the lower races. Reckoning it 87 per cent. of the cranial capacity, it is in the Weddas 1111 grammes for males and 991 grammes for females, which corresponds to the weight of the brains of idiots or general paralytics with us. Martin a.s.sures me that in the Malay peninsula he has found as much difference between the men and women as in Europeans.

According to Martin, men living at the present day may be divided into three cla.s.ses according to their cranial capacity:

MEN. WOMEN.

Aristencephalous (large brains) over 1450 gr. over 1300 gr.

Euencephalous (medium brains) 1300 to 1450. 1150 to 1300.

Oligencephalous (small brains) under 1300. under 1150.

AVERAGE CRANIAL CAPACITY IN DIFFERENT RACES

Men Women Difference {Badois { 48 Craniums m. } 1513 1330 183 { { 26 " f. } Civilized { {Bavarian {100 " m. } 1503 1335 168 (11.2 %) { {100 " f. }

{Malay { 26 " m. } 1414 1223 191 { { 2 " f. } Semi-Civilized { {Aino { 87 " m. } 1462 1308 154 { { 64 " f. }

Lowest Race { 22 " m. } 1277 1139 138 (10.8%) Weddas { 10 " m. }

CHAPTER VII

s.e.xUAL EVOLUTION

The evolution of every living being is twofold. We must distinguish: (1) its _ontogeny_, or the entire cycle of development of the individual from its conception till natural death at an advanced age; (2) its _phylogeny_, or the series of organic forms through which its ancestors pa.s.sed, by successive transformations, from the primitive cells of the oldest and most obscure geological periods, up to its present organization.

In its chief outlines ontogeny is determined by phylogeny by means of the laws of heredity, even when it is only an abridged recapitulation.

Regarded from this point of view the s.e.xual life of man is also based on phylogenetic conditions, determined by his ancestral lineage.

Moreover, it presents an individual or ontogenetic evolution during the life of each person, which in its princ.i.p.al traits is predetermined in the germ, by the phylogenetic or hereditary energies of the species. The phenomena of the hereditary mneme show clearly how ontogeny is the result of engraphia combined with selection, in the series of ancestors. We have already mentioned these points on several occasions, but must now review the whole question.

PHYLOGENY OF s.e.xUAL LIFE

In Chapter II we have briefly described phylogeny in general or metamorphosis, and in the first part of Chapter IV we have specially considered the phylogeny of the s.e.xual appet.i.te in the phenomenon of cell division and conjugation of nuclei in unicellular organisms, which we have described in Chapter I. In order for animals to reproduce themselves without degenerating, crossing, or the combination of different germs, is necessary, and such combinations are only possible by the mutual attraction of two kinds of germinal cells. But, when the individual becomes multicellular and bears only one kind of germinal cells, the attractive energy which was originally limited to these cells is transmitted to the whole organism, and this necessitates the existence of sensory and motor nerve centers.

The attraction of one kind of germinal cell and its bearer for the other must also be more or less mutual. As a rule the bearer of one of the germinal cells becomes active and penetrating; that of the other pa.s.sive and receptive. However, the latter, who after copulation (when this occurs) becomes the sole bearer of the future individual, is obliged to desire union with the active bearer of the other germinal cell, so that reproduction may become harmonious. This is the basis on which is founded s.e.xual reproduction, and with it the s.e.xual appet.i.te, in plants (as regards cellular conjugation only) as well as in animals, but especially in the latter, in whom the germinal cells are carried by mobile and independent individuals. On the same basis is developed the difference between the s.e.xual appet.i.te in man and woman, as well as that between love and the other irradiations of this appet.i.te in the mental life of both s.e.xes. (Vide Chapters IV and V.)

The immense complication of human s.e.xual life makes us regard animals with a certain degree of contempt, and flatter our vanity in qualifying the baser part of our s.e.xual appet.i.te by the term _animal instinct_. But we are really very unjust toward animals. This injustice is partly due to the fact that vocal and written language gives us a means of penetrating into the psychology of our fellow creatures. By the aid of the common symbolism of our thoughts it is easy for us to compare them. Language thus enables us to construct a general human psychology. The absence of language, even in the higher animals, renders it difficult for us to penetrate their mind. Our inductive reasoning in this matter is very uncertain, for we can only judge the mental power of animals by their acts. The brain, and consequently the mind, of the higher mammals being less highly organized than that of man, their s.e.xual psychology is also more primitive, and differs from ours in proportion to the cerebral development of the species. Comparative anatomy confirms this fact in the whole series of organisms which possess a central nervous system.

The psychology of the higher apes is thus nearer our own than that of the dog; the psychology of the dog resembles ours more than that of the rabbit, etc.

On the other hand, the highly developed cerebral organization of man, although it has complicated the mental irradiations of his s.e.xual appet.i.te, has not always enn.o.bled them; on the contrary, it has often directed them into pernicious paths. We have seen in Chapter VI numerous and striking proofs of the degeneration, brutality and cruelty of the manifestations of the human s.e.xual appet.i.te, and we shall study them further in Chapter VIII. Comparative biology shows us that the s.e.xual appet.i.te is transformed into love in very different ways. In order to avoid the immensity of detail of comparative biology I shall only give a few examples.

While the female spider often kills and eats the male, monkeys, and parrots give proof of such a great mutual attachment that when one of the conjoints dies the other sinks into complete despair, ceases to eat, and perishes in its turn.

In this domain we find singular adaptations to special conditions of existence. Among the bees and ants, a third cla.s.s of individuals, or neuters, formed by differentiation of females, do not copulate, and lay at the most a few eggs which are not fecundated and which occasionally develop by parthenogenesis.

Among the termites, another species of social ants, a similar state of things exists, but the neuters, or workers, are derived from the male s.e.x as well as the female and their s.e.xual organs are quite rudimentary. The third s.e.x, or worker, not only has a cerebral development superior to the s.e.xual individuals, but also inherits the social sympathetic irradiations of the s.e.xual appet.i.te, which results in his devotion to a brood which is not his own. Among the social insects the males are little more than flying s.e.xual organs, which after copulation are incapable of leading an independent existence and die of hunger and exhaustion in the case of ants or termites, or are ma.s.sacred by the workers in the case of bees.

The fecundated females, on their part, become breeding machines whose activity is incessant. Among the ants, however, the females are at first capable of nourishing a few larvae by the aid of a portion of their eggs and their secretions, till the workers are hatched, who henceforth undertake all the work including the maternal care of the brood.

Whoever has observed the fidelity of a pair of swallows and the way in which the male and female nourish and rear their young, must be struck by the a.n.a.logy to the conjugal and family love of the faithful type of human beings. This is especially remarkable when the same couple return every year to the old nest. This family life of the swallows does not prevent a certain social life, which manifests itself in organized attacks on birds of prey, and in combined emigration in the autumn and spring.

On the other hand, we are instinctively indignant at the want of fidelity in other animals, between conjoints, parents and offspring (dogs and rabbits, for instance), because we involuntarily expect to find in them our own moral sense, which is not at all just.

From the phylogenetic point of view we can only compare ourselves to the higher apes, by their a.n.a.logies with primitive man. (Vide Chapter VI.) The question which concerns us here is as follows: If we consider the peculiarities of our s.e.xual customs with those of our direct ancestors, what are those which are derived from ancient and profound phylogenetic instincts, those which are derived from less profound ancestral energies (_i.e._, relatively more recent) and lastly those which depend simply on old customs fixed by tradition, prejudice and habit? If we are careful we shall immediately recognize that it is not only the s.e.xual appet.i.te itself, but also a large part of its correlatives and irradiations, in which the phylogenetic roots are deep. Jealousy, coquetry, instinctive maternal love, fidelity and conjugal love, which are more or less developed in primitive man, are also present in monkeys and birds. We have even seen that the conjugal fidelity of these often exceeds our own. It is, therefore, not true that our animal ancestors are only allied to us by s.e.xual appet.i.te; on the contrary, we must admit that they have much more n.o.ble sentiments and instincts, derived it is true from this appet.i.te, but belonging to the domain of a higher social morality. All that we can say in a general way concerning the complex entanglement of our sentiments and instincts is that, the most deeply rooted characters in human nature are at the same time, phylogenetically speaking, the most ancient.

Among the most profound instincts of s.e.xual life, we find moral and intellectual incongruities. Along with excitement of the s.e.xual appet.i.te in the male by the odor of the female genital organs, or by the sight of erotic pictures, we find the most touching conjugal love, and life-long devotion of one conjoint for the other and for the children. Prost.i.tution, marriage by purchase, religious marriage, disgrace attached to illegitimate births, conjugal and family rights of one or the other s.e.x, etc., are, on the contrary, things which do not depend on recent phylogeny, but only on the customs and traditions of certain races. They are partly outgrowths from egoism, the spirit of domination, mysticism and hypocrisy, and partly the shifts of an overheated social life which is becoming more and more complicated.

Westermark's studies are very instructive in this respect. All the absurdities and contradictions, brought to light by the historical and ethnographical study of the customs and matrimonial abuses in man, allow us to clearly distinguish that which is due to fashion or custom, from that which is deeply rooted in our heredity. To avoid repet.i.tion I refer my readers to Chapter VI, to examine the differences between heredity and custom.

Between these two extremes there is, however, one important domain, viz., that of _recent phylogeny_, or in other words _variation_. The fixed appet.i.tes and instincts of the species which are proper to every normal man, and are as we have seen fundamentally connected with many animal forms, belong to ancient and profound phylogeny. But there is another group of very variable peculiarities, strongly developed in some men and little in others, sometimes completely absent, which do not depend on custom but on what is called individual hereditary disposition, or individual character. While some men have monogamous instincts others are polygamous. Some men are by instinct and heredity very egoistic, others more altruistic. This peculiarity is reflected in their s.e.xual life and changes the character of their love (but not that of their s.e.xual instinct). The egoist may love his wife, but this love is interested and very different from that of the altruist.

Between the two extremes there is an infinite number of gradations according to the nature of the instincts and dispositions. The same man may be a good and generous father, and a social exploiter with neither shame nor pity. Another will pose as a social benefactor, while at home he is an egoist and a tyrant. The individual dispositions of recent phylogeny are combined in every way with education, customs, habit and social position to produce results which are often paradoxical, and the factors of which are ambition, vanity, temper, etc. Recent phylogeny is reflected also in many of the irradiations of the s.e.xual appet.i.te of which we have spoken in Chapter V. Audacity, jealousy, s.e.xual braggardism, hypocrisy, prudery, p.o.r.nography, coquetry, exaltation, etc., depend in each particular case, according to their degree of development, on a combination of individual s.e.xual hereditary dispositions with individual dispositions in the other domains of sentiment, intelligence and will. In this way, the s.e.xual individuality of one man is const.i.tuted in a very complex and very different way to that of other men, owing to the high development of the human brain, as well as to the infinite variability and adaptability of his apt.i.tudes. It is impossible to give even an incomplete explanation of all the symphonic gradations (often cacophonic) which represent an individuality, or to fix clearly what distinguishes it from others. However, when the principle is understood, it is not difficult to estimate the s.e.xual individuality of each person more or less correctly.

Strong hereditary dispositions of character may be recognized in early infancy. When the ancestry of a man is well known the roots of his recent phylogeny may be traced to his ancestors. Here we observe the effect of crossing between varieties or different races, or on the contrary that of consanguinity. This effect is observed in character and in s.e.xual disposition, as much as in the shape of the nose, or the color of the skin and hair, etc. It is important that men should learn to know themselves, and also study each other from this point of view before marrying. On the whole, we may say that the average civilized man of our race possesses as his "phylogenetic baggage" a strong s.e.xual appet.i.te, very variable sentiments of love, generally somewhat mediocre, (we have seen that conjugal love is more strongly developed in most monkeys than in man), lastly altruistic or social sentiments which are still deplorably weak. The latter, no doubt, form no part of the s.e.xual life, but they must be taken into consideration for they are its most important derivatives, and it is indispensable for our modern social life to develop them in harmony with family and conjugal love.

Hereditary instincts can easily be observed in children. When one of them is good, it gives evidence at an early age of the sentiments of sympathy or altruism, such as pity and affection, as well as an instinctive sentiment of duty, the object of which is not yet social.

All these sentiments are at first only applied to human individuals known to the child, domestic animals, or even inanimate objects. On the other hand, the ant, from the beginning of its existence, shows an inherited instinct or sentiment of complete social duty. In man, social sentiments properly so-called, have to be acquired by education, but they require for their expansion a considerable degree of inherited sentiments of sympathy and duty. A person without morals can easily acquire social phraseology but not social sentiment. A few more points require to be considered.

Monogamy is no doubt an old and well-established phylogenetic heritage, while polygamy is on the whole rather an aberration produced by individual power and wealth. But phylogenetic monogamy is by no means identical with the religious or other formality of our present legal monogamy. It a.s.sumes first of all an early marriage immediately after p.u.b.erty, while our civilization has placed between this and marriage, which it only allows later as a rule, the unhealthy swamp of prost.i.tution, which so often sows in the individual the destructive seed for his future legal union, before this has taken place. Again, phylogenetic monogamy imposes no legal constraint; on the contrary, it a.s.sumes a free, natural and instinctive inclination in each of the conjoints, when it is not the result of the brute force of the male.