The prophet combines with his exaltation a logic which is often very concise in its details, although applied on a morbid basis. Moreover, he clothes his utterances in fine and poetical language, and in this way succeeds in rallying round him, not a flock of Panurge's ignorant sheep, but more elevated people and even a considerable proportion of the surrounding society. In this case pathological exaltation may be united to a high moral and intellectual ideal, which is very apt to veil the bizarre fancies of the prophet. We thus meet with the astonishing but undeniable fact that certain great historical personalities who have exercised a powerful influence on humanity were of more or less pathological nature. We discover among them erotico-religious traits, more or less marked, often even as the leading threads of their arguments.

This important category of individuals const.i.tutes a whole series of transitions between the insane prophets of whom we have spoken and well-balanced men of genius. It is often very difficult to understand and interpret the series of intermediate forms, so graduating and so variable, which exist between insanity and genius. It is necessary to guard against any exclusive generalization in one way or the other.

In any case, the fact that many men of genius are of pathological nature does not authorize us to regard every person of genius or originality as insane, whether he attacks the routine and prejudices of his contemporaries, or whether he opens up new horizons and goes out of the beaten track. Let me cite a few examples.

Joan of Arc was, in my opinion, a hysterical genius whose hallucinations were auto-suggestive. The distress of France had profoundly agitated her, and, fired with the desire to save her country, her brain was affected by auto-suggestion with hallucinations of the voices of saints and visions, which pointed out her mission and which she regarded as coming from real saints in heaven. At that period such things were common enough and need not surprise us. In spite of her good sense and modesty, Joan of Arc was urged by an exaltation unconscious of self. By a destiny as astonishing as providential, this young girl of genius, and at the same time pathological, exalted by ecstatic hallucinations, led France to a victorious war of freedom. The most conscientious historical sources show that the morality of Joan of Arc was pure and above reproach. Her replies to the invidious questions of the Inquisition are admirable and bear witness both to her high intelligence and the moral elevation of her sentiments. It is evident that the sentiments of love were transformed in her into religious ecstasy and enthusiasm for the ideal of her mission, a frequent occurrence among women.

Another remarkable example is that of Thomas a Becket. The sudden transformation of this man of the world into an ascetic priest (it is true, on the occasion of his nomination as archbishop), from this devoted friend and servitor of the king of England into his most violent adversary, and into a champion of the Church against the State, evidently represents the auto-suggestive transformation of a hysterical subject, for this is the only way of explaining such a sudden and complete contradiction which caused him to change suddenly from one fanaticism to a contrary one.

The religious exaltation of the Mormon prophet, Smith, was no doubt combined with eroticism, which made him organize his sect on the basis of polygamy.

Mahomet also had visions, and s.e.xual connection plays an important part in his teaching and prophesies. The apostle St. Paul was also a visionary who pa.s.sed suddenly from one extreme to another as the result of hallucination. Pascal, Napoleon, and Rousseau presented very marked pathological traits.

Although some of these cases have no direct connection with the s.e.xual question, I have mentioned them to show how such personalities exert their influence on the ma.s.ses, and through them on history. As soon as they acquire authority, their peculiar ideas and s.e.xual conceptions, however exclusive or even absurd they may be, react strongly on their contemporaries, as we see to-day the ascetic ideas of Tolstoi influence his numerous disciples.

Sudden conversions, whatever may be their nature, especially when the convert goes from one extreme to another, are not the fruit of reason, but depend on suggestion or auto-suggestion and especially on pathological suggestibility. (Vide Chapter IX).

In other respects s.e.xual anomalies often govern the acts of hysterical persons and other psychopaths. The Roman emperors, Nero, Tiberius and Caligula were almost certainly s.a.d.i.s.ts and enjoyed s.e.xual pleasure at the sight of the sufferings of their victims. Valerie, Messalina and Catherine de Medici were also female s.a.d.i.s.ts. Under the hypocritical veil of religion, Catherine de Medici was the princ.i.p.al instigator of the Ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew at Paris, and wallowed in pleasure at the sight of the ma.s.sacre of the Huguenots.

On the other hand, masochism may give tone to the thoughts and s.e.xual feelings of certain persons of great influence, such as Rousseau, and to sects of ascetics, such as the fakirs, etc.

Involuntarily, therefore, the s.e.xual feelings of every prophet and founder of religion, even during a short period of his life only, influence more or less his religious system and consequently the laws of morality based on it, which remain after his death.

Hence it is that sentiments, as variable in different individuals as s.e.xual sentiments, are obliged to submit to the constraint of fixed and tyrannical dogmas which martyrize for centuries, or even thousands of years, men who have other opinions than the founder of the religion or its interpreters who succeed him.

In religion we see everywhere idealized eroticism, and often idealism perfumed with eroticism. The Songs of Solomon, the original sense of which was very lay, like that of most religious matters, has been made allegorical and applied to the Christian Church, but it was and will always remain an erotic poem.

It is hardly necessary to add that natural eroticism very often leads the severe and ascetic preachers of morality to the grossest hypocrisy. Priests and other pious persons often preach an idealized asceticism, while in secret they commit the most disgusting s.e.xual excesses.

We must not, however, judge such crying inconsistencies too severely; they are to a great extent unconscious and are the result of the shock of pa.s.sion against the tyranny of dogma, prejudice, and public opinion. They are often also the result of mental anomalies. When science is allowed to enlighten s.e.xual life freely and openly, the hypocrisy of normal people will cease, and that of the abnormal will be recognized in time and prevented from doing harm.

=Transformation of Eroticism into Religious Sentiment.=--In ordinary life we find everywhere traces of the mixture of religion with s.e.xual sensations and images. The religious ceremonies of marriage among all peoples const.i.tute a significant remnant thereof.

When we look for the causes of sudden and progressive religious exaltation we often discover that it is nothing else than compensation for disappointed love. I refer here to true and fervid exaltation, identified with the whole inner consciousness, and not to the religion of habit which the average man scarcely remembers in his daily life, and only observes on Sunday in the form of a conventional promenade, or a contribution to the church. This religion of habit is only an empty form, which awakes no sentiment, and consequently is a.s.sociated with no sensation, even erotic, in its followers.

In other individuals it may be otherwise, and certainly was so formerly. Everything goes to prove that the exalted sentiments of sympathy from which our religion is to a great extent derived, such as the holy fervor, the devotional ardor and the delights of ecstasy which it has so often procured for its followers and still procures for some of them, whether their object be G.o.d, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, the Virgin Mary, or the Saints, that these sentiments have to a great extent their roots in primary erotic sensations and sentiments, or represent the direct transformation of them.

It is needless to say that all this may take place quite unconsciously and with the purest intentions. I hasten to add that the majority of true religious sentiments come from quite a different source.

When we study the religious sentiment profoundly, especially in the Christian religion, and Catholicism in particular, we find at each step its astonishing connection with eroticism. We find it in the exalted adoration of holy women, such as Mary Magdalene, Marie de Bethany, for Jesus, in the holy legends, in the worship of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages, and especially in art. The ecstatic Madonnas in our art galleries cast their fervent regards on Jesus or on the heavens. The expression in Murillo's "Immaculate Conception" may be interpreted by the highest voluptuous exaltation of love as well as by holy transfiguration. The "Saints" of Correggio regard the Holy Virgin with an amorous ardor which may be celestial, but appears in reality extremely terrestrial and human.

Numerous sects, both ancient and modern, have entered on the scene in a hardly less libidinous manner; for example, the s.e.xual excesses of the anabaptists in former times and the s.e.xual ecstasies of certain modern sects in America.

If the objection is raised that these sects are the pathological excrescences of religion, I reply with their disciples as follows: "We have come into the world because your State religions are sunk in indifference, hypocrisy and hollow formality, offering nothing to the human heart but empty phrases. It behooves us to awaken from this sleep. We want enthusiasm and fervor to transform the inner life of man and convert him." These words, which we can see and hear everywhere by opening our eyes and ears, const.i.tute a formal avowal of the suggestive factor in religion. (See Chapter IX.)

In the Canton of Zurich I have myself often had occasion to observe, especially among women, the followers of the singular sect of the Pastor Zeller, of Maennedorf. He is a kind of visionary prophet who heals people after the manner of Christ and John the Baptist, by placing his hands on them and anointing them with oil. The cures which he obtains are due naturally to suggestion, like those of Lourdes, but he attributes them to divine miracles. He even told me naively that he heard a grinding (crepitation) in a broken bone, which he regarded as a miraculous cure! A crowd of women, mostly hysterical, collected around this man with an ardor which was unconsciously directed much more to his person than to that of G.o.d or Christ whom he was supposed to symbolize. I have treated patients who had been to him, and who a.s.sociated with his person both the mildest and the most carnal erotic images--of course, in the innocence of their hearts.

It is far from me to reproach this sincere man and many others of the same kind, especially the priests who are surrounded by a halo of sanct.i.ty pushed to ecstasy. I only maintain that when a human being exalts himself in the search for pure-mindedness and sanct.i.ty, thus denying his true nature, he is always in danger of falling unconsciously into the most gross sensuality, and at the same time of sanctifying this sensuality.

=Description of Religious Eroticism by the Poets.=--The Swiss poet, Gottfried Keller, with his peculiar genius has described religious eroticism in an admirable way, especially in his seven legends. Read, for example, _Dorothea's Blumenkorbchen_ (Dorothea's little flower-basket), in which the terrestial lover of Dorothea ends by becoming jealous of her celestial lover, of whom she always speaks in the most exalted sentiments. Wherever she went she spoke in the most tender terms and expressed the most ardent desire for a celestial lover that she had found, who waited in immortal beauty to press her against his shining breast. When the wicked prefect had bound Dorothea on the gridiron under which was placed a slow fire, this hurt her delicate body, and she uttered smothered cries. Then her terrestrial lover, Theophilus, forcing his way through the crowd, burst her bonds and said with a sad smile, "Does it hurt you, Dorothea?" But when suddenly freed from all pain she immediately replied: "How could it hurt me, Theophilus? I lay on the roses of the lover I adore! This is my wedding day!" Keller shows us here, along with eroticism, the suggestive effect of ecstasy, which among martyrs, may reach the most complete anaesthesia.

Goethe has also described erotico-religious ecstasy; for example, at the end of the second part of Faust, in the prayers addressed by certain anchorites to the queen of heaven.

=Distinction Between Religion and the Ecstasy Derived from Eroticism.=--It would be quite false to maintain that religion in itself arises from s.e.xual sensations. The terror of death and the enigmas of existence, the sentiments of human weakness and insufficiency of life, the want of consolation for all miseries, the hope of a future life, all play an important part in the origin of religions. On the other hand, it is necessary to recognize the considerable role of the erotic s.e.xual factor in religious sentiments and dogmas, where on the one hand it leads to ardent fervor, while on the other hand it tyrannizes, especially by the exclusiveness of its residues transformed into dogmas, the natural expansion of the erotic sentiments which are so variable in individuals.

One of the most difficult and important future tasks of social science toward humanity is, therefore, to set free s.e.xual relations from the tyranny of religious dogmas, by placing them in harmony with the true and purely human laws of natural ethics.

=Compensations.=--In the animal series we have seen that sentiments of sympathy are derived, in a general way, by phylogeny, from the sentiments of s.e.xual attraction, and we often see in man a s.e.xual love, deceived, despised or transfigured, seek compensation or idealization in the fervor or religious exaltation. The question naturally presents itself whether this compensation or this ideal is indispensable, and if other objects of a human and not mystical nature cannot take its place.

There are, in my opinion, purely human ideals, which are capable of transfiguring erotic love "religiously" quite as well as the mysticism of so-called divine revelations. Christianity is called the religion of love, and the apostle Paul even places charity higher than faith.

But what is charity but the synthesis of the social sentiments of sympathy, devotion and self-denial, for the benefit of humanity?

Cannot it, therefore, be established on another basis than that of cheques to be drawn on paradise? Cannot exaltation and fervor apply their powerful faith, the beauty of their form and the elevation of their sentiments to the social ideal and the future welfare of our children? Cannot we replace the cult of religious legends, the adoration of the works of Jehovah and Christ, as they are given in the Bible, by the religion of our descendants and their welfare?

In my opinion, the suggestion of religious ecstasy and love might well be directed toward the benefit of society. Its fanaticism is admirably adapted to shake the indifference and indolence of men; but this source of energy should not be wasted in the adoration of legendary mirages, but used for the efficacious culture of a true human religion of love on earth.

CHAPTER XIII

RIGHTS IN s.e.xUAL LIFE--GENERALITIES

=Rights and Liberty.=--Human ideas of right are very curious. Every one appeals to right and liberty, and naturally thinks of himself first, without perceiving that in continually claiming his proper rights, he tramples under foot those of others. How beautiful are these words Rights and Liberty! But in everyday life in what an uncompromising way they oppose each other! To give satisfaction to my rights and liberty, the right of complete development, according to my natural sentiments, is a thing which is perfectly impossible; or, is only practicable by constantly infringing the right and liberty of my fellow beings.

Nevertheless people keep harping on this theme; with the exalted tone of intimate conviction they inveigh against our social organization, cursing the malice of others, but show themselves perfectly incapable of resolving the contradictions which gave rise to their thirst for liberty and justice.

The cry of despair addressed to right and liberty by modern society is nothing else than the expression of the instinctive sentiment of anger and revolt produced by the natural evolution of our phylogeny. The savage instincts, still considerable in the hereditary foundation of human nature (the mneme), revolt against the straight-jacket placed on them by social life, and against the want of liberty on the earth, which is already too small for humanity.

The natural man is eager for expansion and liberty, and accustoms himself with difficulty to the severe restrictions which social necessities impose upon him. His nature is still that of a semi-nomadic animal, living as an autocrat with his family, possessed of a number of egoistic wants, and, wherever he goes, opposing the rights, liberties and desires of other men, who generally compel him to subordinate his desires to theirs. This is the true reason of this impotent cry of vexation and anger against the malice of others and the defectiveness of social organization. And yet this cry is absolutely necessary, in order that we may find and put in practice a social formula as tolerable as possible for the future. But, if we except the question of capital and labor, there is no domain in which social hindrance is so cruelly felt as in the s.e.xual.

What is human right? Apart from formally admitted distinctions we shall divide what is called right from the psychological and human point of view into two categories of ideas; _natural rights_ and _conventional rights_.

=Natural Rights. Right of the Stronger.=--Natural right is quite a relative idea: the right to life and its conditions. But, as in this world, which is said to be created by a personal and perfect G.o.d, things are so amicably arranged that living creatures can only exist by devouring one another, the oldest effective natural right of every living being is precisely that of devouring others weaker than itself.

This is the right of the stronger. Therefore, the absolute natural right is the right of the stronger.

=Rights of Groups. Ants.=--These notions become altered, however, if we regard them from the point of view of _relative_ natural right.

This does not concern all living beings, but only certain groups. The rights of groups are relative from a double point of view. On the one hand they give the group of individuals concerned the right of interfering with the right to life of other groups, even to extinction. On the other hand--and this is the better aspect of the rights of groups--they are completed by what are called the duties of each individual toward others of the same group, that is to say, the obligation to have regard for and even protect their rights equally as his own. The rights of a group include the social rights and duties in the limits of that group.

It is among animals, especially the ants, that we find the most ideal organization of the rights of a group. Each individual of the ant colony acts in the interests of the community, which are the same as its own. It has the right to be nourished and housed and to satisfy all its immediate wants, but at the same time it is its duty to labor unceasingly in building and repairing the common dwelling, to nourish its fellows, to aid in the reproduction and bringing-up of the brood, to defend the community and even to take the offensive against every living being who does not belong to the community, in order to increase its resources.

The rights and duties have here become completely _instinctive by adaptation_, that is to say, they are performed without commands or instruction. They result spontaneously from the natural organization of ants without the least external obligation intervening. Here, the cry of distress of the ferocious human beast, of whom we have just spoken, is completely absent, for duty is replaced by instinct or by appet.i.te, and its accomplishment is accompanied by a natural sentiment of pleasure. Every ant could be idle without being punished by its comrades, if it were capable of wishing to be so, but this is impossible. Communities of ants can only exist on the basis of the social instinct of labor and mutual support, without which they would immediately disappear.

=Egoism and the Rights of Groups in Man. Human Rights.=--The notions of the rights of groups in man are infinitely more complicated and more difficult to understand. As we have already seen, the most primordial instinctive sentiment in man is limited to his family and his immediate surroundings. But here even it leaves much to be desired. Family disputes, quarrels between brothers and sisters are frequent enough; parricide, fratricide and infanticide are not rare.

In addition to this, beyond the narrow circle of the family, disputes, hatred between individuals, deception, robbery and many worse things are always the order of the day. In struggles between parties and cla.s.ses, in the abuse of privileges of caste and fortune, in war, in commerce, in a word in everything, private interests of egoism take precedence of the general interests of humanity.

These facts, and a thousand other pitiable phenomena of the same kind in human society, bear witness to the egoistic and rapacious nature of man, which proves how little the social instinct is developed in his brain. Human society is founded much more on custom and tradition, imposed by the force of circ.u.mstances, than on nature. Human infants resemble kittens at first much more than young social beings. In primitive times, when the earth appeared large to man, the rights of groups were limited to small communities which looked upon other men, the same as animals and plants, as legitimate prey. Cannibalism and even the chase show clearly that man began by becoming more rapacious and more carnivorous than his pithecanthropoid ancestor, and his cousin the ape of the present day.