II.—Two Examples—The Beehive and the Spider

"At its base the love of animals does not differ from that of man."—DARWIN.

For vividness of argument I wish in a brief section of this chapter to make a digression from our main inquiry to bring forward two examples—extreme cases of the imperious action of the sexual instincts—in which we see the sexes driven to the performance of their functions under peculiar conditions. Both occur among the invertebrates. I have left the consideration of them until now because of the instructive light they throw upon what we are trying to prove in this first attack on the validity of the common estimate of the true position of the sexes in Nature. Let us begin with the familiar case of the bees. As every one knows, these truly wonderful insects belong to a highly evolved and complex society, which may be said to represent a very perfected and extreme socialism. In this society the vast majority of the population—the workers—are sterile females, and of the drones, or males, only a very few at the most are ever functional. Reproduction is carried on by the queen-mother. The lesson to be drawn from the beehive is that such an organisation has evolved a quite extraordinary sacrifice of the individual members, notably in the submergence of the personal needs of sex-function, to its wider racial end. It is from this line of thought that I wish to consider it. We have (1) the drones, the fussing males, useless except for their one duty of fertilisation, and this function only a few actively perform; thus, if they become at all numerous they are killed off by the workers, so that the hives may be rid of them; (2) the queen, an imprisoned mother, specialised for maternity, her sole work the laying of the eggs, and incapable of any other function; her brain and mind of the humblest order, she being unable even to feed and care for her offspring; (3) the great body of unsexed workers, the busy sisters, whose duty is to rear the young and carry out all the social activities of the hive.

What a strange, perplexing life-history! What a sacrifice of the sexes to each other and to the life-force.[35] It seems probable that these active workers have even succeeded in getting rid of sexual needs. Yet the maternal instinct persists in them, and has survived the productive function; it may, indeed, be said to be enlarged and ennobled, for their affection is not confined to their own offspring, but goes out to all the young of the association. In this community one care takes precedence of all others, the care and rearing of the young. This is the workers' constant occupation; this is the great duty to which their lives are sacrificed. With them maternal love has expanded into social affection. The strength of this sentiment is abundantly proved. The queen-bee, the feeble mother, has the greatest possible care lavished upon her, and is publicly mourned when she dies. If through any ill-chance she happens to perish before the performance of her maternal duties, and then cannot be replaced, the sterile workers evince the most terrible grief, and in some cases themselves die. It would almost seem that they value motherhood more for being themselves deprived of it.

Now, how does this history from the bee-hive apply to us? Here you have before you, old as the world itself, one of the most urgent problems that has to be faced in our difficult modern society. I have little doubt that something which is at least analogous to the sterilisation of the female bees is present among ourselves. The complexity of our social conditions, resulting in the great disproportion between the number of the sexes, has tended to set aside a great number of women from the normal expression of their sex functions. Among these women a class appears to be arising who are turning away voluntarily from love and motherhood. Many of them are undoubtedly women of fine character. These "Intellectuals" suggest that women shall keep themselves free from the duties of maternity and devote their energies thus conserved, to their own emancipation and for work in the world which needs them so badly. But the biological objection to any such proposition is not far to seek. No one who thinks straight can countenance a plan which thus leaves maternity to the less intellectual woman—to a docile, domestic type, the parallel of the stupid parasitic queen-bee. Mind counts in the valuation of offspring as well as physical qualities. The splitting of one sex into two contrasted varieties, which we see in its completed development in the bee-hive, cannot be an ideal that can even be worth while for us. It means an end to all further progress.

There is another group of women who wish to bear children, but who seem to be anxious to reduce the father to the position of the drone-bee. He is to have no part in the child after its birth. The duty of caring for it and bringing it up is to be undertaken by the mother, aided, when necessary, by the State. This is a terrible injustice against the father and the child. It seems to me to be the great and insuperable difficulty against any scheme of State Endowment of Motherhood. I cannot enter into this question now, and will only state my belief that a child belongs by natural right to both its parents. The primitive form of the matriarchal family, which we shall study later, is realised in its most exaggerated form by the bees and ants. In human societies we find only imitations of this system. And here, again, there is a lesson necessary for us to remember. Any ideal that takes the father from the child, and the child from its father, giving it only to the mother, is a step backward and not forward.

And in case any woman is inclined still to admire the position of the female worker-bees, so free in labour, being liberated from sexual activity, it were well to consider the sacrifice at which such freedom is gained. These workers have highly-developed brains, but most of them die young. Nor must we forget that each one carries her poisoned sting—no new or strange weapon, but a transformation of a part of her very organ of maternity—the ovipositor, or egg-placer, with which the queen-mother lays each egg in its appointed place.[36]

Do "the Intellectuals" understand what they really want? Those women who are raising the cry increasingly for individual liberty, without considering the results which may follow from such a one-sided growth both to themselves and to the race—let them pause to remember the price paid by the sterile worker-bee. Is it unfair to suggest that any such shirking for the gains of personal freedom of their woman's right and need of love and child-bearing may lead in the psychical sphere to a result similar to the transformation of the sex-organ of the bee; and that, giving up the power of life, they will be left the possessor of the stinging weapon of death! Some such considerations may help women to decide whether it is better to be a mother or a sterile worker.

The second example I want to consider is that of the common spider, whose curious courtship customs are described by Darwin.[37] Here we find the relatively gigantic female seizing and devouring the tiny male fertiliser, as he seeks to perform the only duty for which he exists. This is a case of female superiority carried to a savage conclusion. The male in these courtships often has to risk his life many times, and it seems only to be by an accident that he ever escapes alive from the embraces of his infuriated partner. I will give an example, taken from the mantes, or praying insect, where, though the difference in size between the sexes is much less than among many spiders, the ferocity of the female is extraordinary. This case is quoted by Professor Lester Ward,[38] who gives it on the authority of Dr. L.O. Howard, one of the best-known entomologists—

"A few days since I brought a male or Mantes carolina to a friend who had been keeping a solitary female as a pet. Placing them in the same jar, the male, in alarm, endeavoured to escape. In a few minutes the female succeeded in grasping him. She bit off his left front tarsus and consumed the tibia and femur. Next she gnawed out his left eye. At this the male seemed to realise his proximity to one of the opposite sex, and began vain endeavours to mate. The female next ate up his right front leg, and then entirely decapitated him, devouring his head and gnawing into his thorax. Not until she had eaten all his thorax, except about three millimetres did she stop to rest. All this while the male had continued in his vain attempt to obtain entrance at the valvula, and he now succeeded, and she voluntarily spread the parts open, and union took place. She remained quiet for four hours, and the remnant of the male gave occasional signs of life, by a movement of one of his remaining tarsi for three hours. The next morning she had entirely rid herself of her spouse, and nothing but his wings remained."

You will think, perhaps, that this extreme case of female ferocity has little bearing upon our sexual passions. But consider. I have not quoted it, as is done by Professor Ward, to prove the existence of the superiority of the female in Nature. No, rather I want to suggest a lesson that may be wrested by us from these first courtships in the life histories of the sexes. I spoke at the beginning of this biological section of my book of the warnings that surely would come as we traced the evolution of our love-passions from those of our pre-human ancestors. We are too apt to ignore the tremendous force that the sex-impulse has gathered from its incalculably long history. As animals exhibit in their love-matings the analogies of the human virtue, it is not surprising to find the occurrence of parallel vices. Let us look for a moment at this in the light of the fierce love-contest of the female spider.

Of this habit there are various explanations; the prevalent one regards the spider as an anomalous exception; the ferocity and superiority of size in the female not easily to be explained. This is, I think, not so. Is it not rather a picture, with the details crudely emphasised, of the action of Life-Force of which the sexes are both the helpless victims? Whether we look backward to the beginning, where the exhausted male-cell seeks the female in incipient sexual union, or onwards through the long stages of sex-evolution to our own love-passions, this is surely true.

Let me try to make this clearer by an example. It would seem but a small step from the female spider, so ruthlessly eating up her lover, to the type of woman celebrated by Mr. Bernard Shaw's immortal Ann. I recall a woman friend saying to me once, "We may not like it, and, of course, we refuse to own to it, but there is something of Ann in every woman." I need not recall to you Ann's pursuit of her victim, Tanner, nor his futile efforts to escape. Here, as so often he has done, Mr. Shaw has presented us in comedy with a philosophy of life. You believe, perhaps, the fiction, still brought forward by many who ought to know better, that in love woman is passive and waits for man to woo her. I think no woman in her heart believes this. She knows, by instinct, that Nature has unmistakably made her the predominant partner in all that relates to the perpetuation of the race; she knows this in spite of all fictions set up by men. Have they done this, as Mr. Shaw suggests, to protect themselves against a too humiliating aggressiveness of the woman in following the driving of the Life-Force? This pretence of male superiority in the sexual relation is so shallow that it is strange how it can have imposed on any one.

I wish to state here quite definitely what I hold to be true; the condition of female superiority with which sexuality began has in this connection persisted. In every case the relation between woman and man is the same—she is the pursuer, he the pursued and disposed of. Nothing can or should alter this. The male from the very beginning has been of use from Nature's point of view by assisting the female to carry on life. It is the fierce hunger of the male, increasing in strength through the long course of time, which places him in woman's power. Man is the slave of woman, often when least he thinks so, and still woman uses her power, even like the spider, not infrequently, for his undoing.

Here, indeed, is a warning causing us to think. The touch of Nature that makes the whole world kin is nowhere more manifest than in sex; that absorption of the male by the female to which life owes its continuation, its ecstasy, and its pain. It has seemed to me it is here in the primitive relations of the sexes that we may find the clue to many of those wrongs which women have suffered at the hands of men. Man, acting instinctively, has rebelled, not so much, I think, against woman as against this driving hunger within himself, which forces him helpless into her power. Like the fish that cannot resist the fly of the fisherman, even when experience has taught him to fear the hidden barb, he struggles and fights for his life to escape as he realises too late the net into which his hunger has brought him.

But we may learn more than this; another truth of even deeper importance to us. It is because of this superiority of the female in the sexual relationship that women must be granted their claim for emancipation. Here is the reason stronger than all others. Nature has placed in women's hands so tremendous a power that the dangers are too great for such power to be left to the direction of untrained and unemancipated women. Above all it is necessary that each woman understands her own sexual nature, and also that of her lover, that she may realise in full knowledge the tremendous force of sexual-hunger which drives him to her, equalled, as I believe, by the desire within herself, which claims him to fulfil through her Nature's great central purpose of continuing the race. To women has been granted the guardianship of the Life-Force. It is time that each woman asks herself how she is fulfilling this trust.

It is the possession of this power in the sexual sphere which lends real importance to even the feeblest attempts of women to prepare themselves to meet the duties in the new paths that are being opened to them. Women have now entered into labour. They are claiming freedom to develop themselves by active participation in that struggle with life and its conditions whereby men have gained their development. From thousands of women to-day the cry is rising, "Give us free opportunity, and the training that will fit us for freedom." Not, as so many have mistakenly thought, that women may compete with men in a senseless struggle for mastery, but in order first to learn, and afterwards to perform, that work in society which they can do better than men. What such work is it must be women's purpose to find out. But before this is possible to be decided all fields of activity must be open for them to enter. And this women must claim, not for themselves chiefly; but because they are the bearers of race-life, and also to save men from any further misuse of their power. Then working together as lovers and comrades, women and men may come to understand and direct those deep-rooted forces of sex, which have for so long driven them helpless to the wastage of life and love.

I would ask all those who deny this modern claim of women to consider in all seriousness the two cases I have brought forward—that of the bee-hives, and even more the destruction by the female spider of her male lover. That they have their parallel in our society to-day is a fact that few will deny. I have tried to show the real danger that lurks in every form of sex-parasitism. It would lead us too far from our purpose to comment in further detail on the suggestions offered by these curious examples of sex-martyrs among our earliest ancestral lovers. Those whose eyes are not blinded will not fail to see.

FOOTNOTES:

[16] So deep-rooted has been this opinion of female inferiority that it has formed the basis of many theories of sex. Thus Richarz holds that "the male sex represents a higher grade of development in the embryo." Hough thinks males are born when the female system is at its best, females in periods of growth, reparation, or disease. Tiedman and others regard females as an arrested male, while Velpau, on the other hand, believes them to be degenerated from primitive males. See Geddes and Thomson, Evolution of Sex, p. 39.

[17] The theory of Lester Ward, to which I have already referred, supports this view.

[18] I have left out of my inquiry any reference to plants, though all that has been said of the protozoa in the last chapter is equally true of the protophyta, the basis of plant life. Among plants there are many beautiful and instructive examples of the relative position of the female and the male plant. A well-known case is that of the hemp-plant, where the sexes are indistinguishable up to the period of fertility, but when the male plants have shed their pollen, and thus fulfilled their duty of fertilising the female plants, they cease to grow, turn yellow and sere, and if at all crowded wither and die. Many other examples might be cited, but the question is too wide to enter on here. See Lester Ward, op. cit., pp. 318-322.

[19] Encyclopaedia Britannica, article on "Sex," by Prof. Geddes; also Evolution of Sex, pp. 20, 21. Prof. Lester Ward, Pure Sociology, Part II, Chap. XIV, gives an ingenuous and complete view of the early superiority of the female, to which he gives the name of the Gynaecocentric theory, as opposed to the usual Androcentric theory, based on the superiority of the male. While fully appreciating the suggestiveness and value of this theory, and also acknowledging very gratefully the help I have derived from it, it must be stated that some of the facts brought forward in its support by the distinguished American cannot be accepted. Nor am I able, as will appear later, to accept the conclusion he arrives at of the passive character of the female. See also a popular article by Prof. Ward, "Our Better Halves", The Forum, Vol. VI., Nov. 1888, pp. 266-275.

[20] Van Beneden, Animal Parasites and Messmates, p. 55.

[21] Milne Edwards, Lecons sur la physiologie et l'anatomie comparee de l'homme et des animaux, Vol. IX. p. 267.

[22] In addition to the works already mentioned, see Darwin, Descent of Man, Vol. I. p. 329; Haeckel, Evolution of Man, and A Manual of the Anatomy of the Invertebrated Animals, by T. Huxley, pp. 261-262.

[23] Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I. p. 345.

[24] Thomson, J.A., Heredity, p. 39.

[25] Article by Ryder, Science, Vol. I., May 31, 1895, p. 603.

[26] Schreiner, Olive, Woman and Labour, pp. 77-78.

[27] These examples of female parasitism have been taken from Evolution of Sex, p. 17; see also pp. 19-22. The authors bring them forward with many other examples to prove the main thesis of their book—that the character of the female is anabolic, that of the male katabolic. In establishing this theory they do not appear to give sufficient importance to the fact that this degeneration of the female is only found where the conditions of life are parasitic.

[28] Evolution of Sex, p. 21; Pure Sociology, pp. 316-317.

[29] "Notes on the Mosquitoes of the United States," by L.O. Howard, Bulletin No. 25, New Series, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, 1900, p. 12. Quoted by Lester Ward, Pure Sociology, p. 317.

[30] Descent of Man, p. 208.

[31] Science, Vol. XV., Jan. 1902, p. 30.

[32] Fulton, Naturalist to the Scottish Fishery Board. Cited in Evolution of Sex, p. 22; see also pp. 25, 272, 295.

[33] Pure Sociology, pp. 317, 318.

[34] Birds of Britain, by J. Lewis Bonhote, p. 208; also pp. 190-221.

[35] A similar condition will be found in the even more complex societary forms of ant-hills. Among the vast population of the ants all the workers and soldiers are arrested in their sexual development, remaining, as it were, permanent children of both sexes. It seems probable that this explains the limit that has been reached in the evolution of these wonderful creatures, which in certain directions have attained to an extraordinary development, and have then become curiously and immovably arrested. See Problems of Sex, by J.A. Thomson and Prof. Patrick Geddes, p. 24; Mind in Animals, by Buechner, p. 60; and Woman and Labour, by Olive Schreiner, p. 78.

[36] Problems of Sex, p. 34. I would recommend this admirable little book to all students.

[37] Descent of Man, Vol. I. p. 329.

[38] Pure Sociology, p. 316; Science, Vol. VIII., Oct. 1886, p. 326. Letter by Dr. L.O. Howard.



CONTENTS OF CHAPTER IV

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES

Summary of conclusions arrived at in the previous chapters—The necessity of a further examination of sexual love among our pre-human ancestors—The question approached from a different point of view—The impelling motive of love the union of two cells—Hermaphroditism—Its various forms—The first step in the ladder of sex—Reproduction among fishes—The next step—The attraction of one sex for the other—The female and the male begin to associate in pairs—Illustration of the salmon—Sexual differences become more frequent—The males distinguished by bright colours and ornamental appendages—Sexual passion and jealous combats of rival males—Examples—A further step—The note of physical fondness—The male plays with the female, wooing and caressing her—The love play often extraordinary—The case of the stickleback—The males, passionate, polygamous, and jealous—The paternal instinct of the stickleback—Nature making experiments in parenthood—Parental forethought among insects—Illustrations of male parental care—The obstetric frog—Further examples of primitive animal courtships—A psychic attraction added to the physical—The courtship of the octopus—A final step—The co-operation of the sexes in work together—The dung-rolling beetle—The significance of these early courtships—Analogy with our sex-passions—The love-process identical throughout the whole of life.



CHAPTER IV

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES

"Great effects are everywhere produced in animated Nature, by minute causes.... Think of how many curious phenomena sexual relation gives rise to in animal life; think of the results of love in human life; now all this had for its raison d'etre the union of two cellules.... There is no organic act which approaches this one in power and force of differentiation."—HAECKEL.

What is the practical outcome to us of this early relation of the sexes in Nature's scheme?

In attempting to answer this question it will be necessary to take an apparently circuitous route, going back over some of the ground that already has been covered; to examine in further detail the process of sexual love as it presents itself among our pre-human ancestors. It is well worth while to do this. If we can find in this way an answer, we shall come very near to solving many of the most difficult of woman's problems. At the same time we shall have made clear how deep-rooted are the foundations of those passions of sex which agitate the human heart, and are still the most powerful force amongst us to-day.

In the light of the facts I have briefly summarised, we have been able in the former chapters to indicate how sexuality began, with the male element developed from the primary female organism, his sole function being her impregnation; how this was seized upon and continued through the advantage gained by the mixing of the two germ-plasms, which, on the whole, resembling one another somewhat closely, yet differ in details, and thus introduce new opportunities of progress into the life-elements; and how, in this way, differentiation of function between the male and the female was set up. We saw, further, how the development of the male, at first often living parasitically upon the female, continued; but how, under certain conditions of life, such parasitism was transferred to the female, so that it is she who is sacrificed to the sex function; and, lastly, taking the extreme cases of the bee-hive and the spider, we suggested certain warnings to be drawn from these early parasitic relations between the sexes. It is necessary now to penetrate deeper; to trace more fully the evolution of the sexual passion, which, from this line of thought, may be said to be the process which carried on the development and modification of the male, creating him—as surely we may believe—by the love-choice of the female. To do this we have once more to return to the consideration, under a somewhat new aspect, of the relative position of the female and the male in their love-courtships in some examples among the humbler types of animal life. After these have been considered, not only in themselves, but in the relation they bear to the higher forms which developed from them, we shall be in a surer position to re-ascend the ladder of life. We shall come to understand the biological significance of love—something of the complexity and beauty and force of the passions that we have inherited. We shall find also the causes, so important to us, which led to the reversal of the early superiority of the female in size and often in function, replacing it by the superiority of the male. Then, and then only, shall we be ready to approach the difficult problems of the sexual differences which have persisted, separating women from men among human races, and to estimate if these differences are to be considered as belonging essentially to the female and the male, or whether they have arisen through special environmental causes.

If we look back anew to the very start of sexuality, where two cells flow together, thereby to continue life, we find the very simplest expression of the sex-appetite. There is what may be called instinctive physical attraction, and the whole process is very much a satisfaction of protoplasmic hunger.[39] Now it was, of course, a long step from this incipient cell-union to the varied function of sex in animal life, and it was a long process from these to the yet more complex manifestation of the love-passion among men. But in reality the source of all love is the same; throughout the entire relations of the sexes we find this cell-hunger instinct; in every case, it matters not how fine and ennobling the love may be, the single, original, impelling motive is the union of two cells—the male element and the female driven to seek one another to continue life. I find it necessary to insist on this physical basis of all love. Women are so apt to go astray. It is one of the vicious tendencies of the female mind to think that the needs of sex are something to be resisted. Let us face the truth that this great force of love has its roots fastened in cell-hunger, and it dies when its roots are cut away.

It is evident that at first this sex-appetite cannot have been purposive, but acted subconsciously by a kind of interaction between the want of the organism and its power of function. Even in many complex multicellular organisms the liberation of the sex-elements continues very passive; and although the differentiation of the sexual-cells is already complete in plants and animals comparatively low in the scale, it at first makes little difference in the development of the other parts of the individual. Among many lower animals, and most plants, each individual develops within itself both kinds of cells—that is, female and male. This union of the two sex functions in one organism is known as hermaphroditism. There is little doubt that it was once common to all organisms, an intermediate stage in the sex-progress, after the differentiation of the sexes had been accomplished.

Hermaphroditism must be regarded as a temporary or transitional form.[40] It is found persisting in various degrees in many species—snails, earth-worms, and leeches, for example, can act alternately as what we call male and female. Other animals are hermaphrodite in their young stages, though the sexes are separate in adult life, as, for example, tadpoles, where the bisexuality of youth sometimes linger into adult life. Cases of partial hermaphroditism are very common, while in many species which are normally unisexual, a casual or abnormal hermaphroditism occurs—this may be seen in the common frog, and is frequent among certain fishes, when sometimes the fish is male on one side and female on the other, or male anteriorly and female posteriorly.[41]

There would seem to be a constant tendency to escape from these early and experimental methods of reproduction, and to secure true sexual union, with complete separation of the sexes and differences in the parents. We have noticed the many instances of tiny complemental males, in connection with hermaphrodite forms, which, as Darwin states, must have arisen from the advantage ensuring cross-fertilisation in the females who harbour them. Even among hermaphrodite slugs we find very definite evidence of the advance of love; and in certain species an elaborate process of courtship, taking the form of slow and beautiful movements, precedes the act of reproduction.[42] Some snails, again, are provided with a special organ, a slightly twisted limy dart, which is used to stimulate sexual excitement.[43] What do such marvellous manifestations, low down in the ladder of life, go to prove, if not that there must be the closest identity between the development of life and the evolution of love?

These examples of hermaphrodite love lead us forward to a further step, where no reproduction takes place without the special activity and conjugation of two kinds of specialised cells, and these two kinds are carried about by separate individuals. In some species—fishes, for example—the two kinds of special cells meet outside the bodies of the parents. At this humble level the sexes are in many cases very like one another, and there is, as we should expect, a good deal of haphazard in the production of offspring. Among fishes, for instance, the eggs and sperms are liberated into the sea, or the shallow bed of a river, and, if the sperms (the milt of the males) are placed near to the spot where the eggs (the spawn) have been laid, fertilisation occurs, for within a short distance the sperms are attracted—in a way that is imperfectly understood—to enter the eggs. By this method there is of necessity great waste in the production of offspring, many thousands of eggs are never fertilised. The union of the sexual cells must be something more than haphazard for further development. There must be some reason inherent in the female or male inducing to the act of reproduction. In other words, there must be a psychic interest preceding the sex act. In this way a higher grade is reached when the presence of one sex attracts the other. Gradually the female and the male begin to associate in pairs.

We may illustrate this important step in the evolution of love by reference to the familiar case of the salmon. The male courts the female and is her attendant during the breeding season, fertilising the deposited ova in her presence. He guards her from the attention of all other males, fighting all rivals fiercely, with a special weapon, developed at this time, in the form of a hooked lower jaw with teeth often more than half-an-inch long. Darwin records a case, told to him by a river-keeper, where he found three hundred dead male salmon, all killed through battle.[44] Thus even among cold-blooded fishes (though it may appear folly to use the word "love" in this connection) a very clear likeness with our human sex-passions can be traced.

Sex differences now become more frequent. The males are in some cases distinguished by bright colours and ornamental appendages. During their amours and duels certain male fishes flash with beautiful and glowing colours. Reptiles exhibit the same form of sexual-passion, and jealous combat of rival males. The rattle of certain snakes is supposed to act as a love-call. Snakes of different sexes appear to feel some affection for each other when confined together in cages. Romanes relates the interesting fact that when a cobra is killed, its mate is often found on the spot a day or two afterwards. Darwin cites an instance of the pairing in spring of a Chinese species of lizard, where the couples appear to have considerable fondness for one another. If one is captured, the other drops from the tree to the ground and allows itself to be caught, presumably from despair.[45]

A further development is reached by those animals among whom what has well been called "the note of physical fondness" is first sounded. We find the males playing with the female, wooing and caressing her, it may be dancing with her. The love-play is often extraordinary,[46] as, for instance, in the well-known case of the stickleback. Not only does the male woo the female with passionate dances, but by means of its own secretions it builds a nest in the river weeds. The males at this season are transformed, glowing with brilliant colours, and literally putting on a wedding garment of love. The stickleback is passionate, polygamous and very jealous of rivals. His guardianship of the nest and vigilance in protecting the young cannot be observed without admiration.

It is certainly significant to find one of the earliest instances of genuine parental affection exhibited by the male. This reversal of the usual role of the sexes is common among fishes, among whom care of offspring is very little developed. In some species the eggs are carried about by the father—the male sea-horse, for instance, has a pouch developed for this purpose; in other cases the male incubates, or cares for the ova. Sometimes, however, it is the female who performs this duty, but the known cases are few.[47] Some exceedingly curious examples of male parental care occur among the amphibians. One of the most interesting is that of the obstetric frog, where the male helps to remove the eggs from the female, then twists them in the coils around its hind legs and buries himself in the water, until the incubation period is over and the tadpoles escape and relieve him of his burden. In other species the croaking sacs of the males, which were previously used for amatory callings, become enlarged to form cradles for the young. There are also instances of the female co-operating with the male in this care of offspring. Thus in the Surinam toad the male spreads the ova on the back of the female, where skin cavities form in which the tadpoles develop. In other cases the eggs are carried in the dorsal pouches of the females. It would almost seem that in this early time Nature was making experiments as to which parent was the better fitted to rear and protect the young!

But let us return to our present examination of animal love-making. In many diverse forms there is a very remarkable courtship of touch, often prolonged and with beautiful refinements, before the climax is reached, when the two bodies unite. Racovitza[48] has beautifully described the courtship of the octopus, which is carried out with considerable delicacy, and not brutally as before had been believed.

"The male gently stretches out his third arm on the right and caresses the female with its extremity, eventually passing it into the chamber formed by the mantle. The female contracts spasmodically, but does not attempt to move. They remain thus about an hour or more, and during this time the male shifts his arm from one viaduct to the other. Finally, he withdraws his arm, caresses her with it for a few moments, and then replaces it with his other arm."

The various phenomena of primitive animal courtship may be illustrated further by the love-parades of butterflies and moths, the love-gambols of certain newts, the amatory serenading of frogs, the fragrant incense of reptiles, the love-lights of glow-worms, the duels of many male beetles and other insects, many of whom have special weapons for fighting with their rivals. Among insects the sexes commonly associate in pairs, and it seems certain there is some psychic attraction added to the primitive tactile courtship. In some cases the association of the sexes is maintained for a lengthened period, with many hints of what must be regarded as love. There are many examples also of parental forethought, amounting sometimes to a sort of divining pre-science, as the habit of certain insects in preparing and leaving a special nourishment, different from their own food, for the sustenance of the future larvae. We even find instances of co-operation of the sexes in work together, affording a first hint of this linking-force to the development of love in its later and full expression. Such are the activities of the dung-rolling beetle, where the two sexes assist each other in their curious occupation. The male and female of another order of beetle (Lethrus cephalotes) inhabit the same cavity, and the virtuous matron is said greatly to resent the intrusion of another male.[49]

In insects, as in the higher animals, and as in man, sexual association takes many different forms. But obviously I must not linger over these early types of love. My object is to bring forward examples, which seem to me useful as preliminary studies to throw light on the origin of sex-passion, and proving that the love-process throughout the whole of life is identical. Those who are acquainted with the work of Fabre, "The Insects' Homer," will have no difficulty in accepting this. The studies he has given us of wonderful behaviour of insects, their arts and crafts, their courtships and marriages, their domestic and social relationships, opens up a new drama of animal life.

FOOTNOTES:

[39] Evolution of Sex, p. 265.

[40] There are some who believe that the higher animals pass through a state of embryonic hermaphroditism, but decisive proof of this is wanting. In this connection the structural resemblance of the male and female sexual organs should be noticed; in each sex there is a complete but rudimentary set of parallels to the organs of the other sex. This primitive and fundamental unity of the male and female sex organs is very significant. Indeed, the whole question of hermaphroditism is one of deep suggestion when these embryological facts are brought into relation with the abnormalities which occur in the expression of the sexual impulses. See Evolution of Sex, chapter on "Hermaphroditism," pp. 65-80; also Bloch, Sexual Life of Our Times, pp. 11-12, 551-554. Wieninger's Sex and Character, pp. 6, 7, 13, 45, is also interesting.

[41] A similar condition has been noted among butterflies, where, in some cases, differences in the colouring of the wings on two sides has been found to correspond to an internal co-existence of the male and female sex-organs. It seems probable that this interesting phenomenon of abnormal hermaphroditism is of much commoner occurrence than the cases that have been recorded (Evolution of Sex, p. 67).

[42] "The Love of Slugs," article by James Bladon, Zoologist, Vol. XV., 1857, p. 6272.

[43] "Molluscs," article by Rev. L.H. Cooke, Cambridge Natural History, Vol. III. p. 143. Both these cases are quoted by Havelock Ellis in his illuminative "Analysis of the Sexual Impulse," the opening chapters in the third volume of the Studies in the Psychology of Sex.

[44] Trout also fight during the breeding season. Chapters on Human Love, by Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), pp. 13-14.

[45] Evolution of Sex, pp. 625-626. Chapters on Human Love, p. 14.

[46] Problems of Sex, by J.A. Thomson and Prof. Patrick Geddes, p. 20.

[47] Evolution of Sex, pp. 270-272, 295.

[48] Natural Science, Nov. 1894, quoted by Havelock Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. III. p. 30.

[49] Evolution of Sex, p. 265.



CONTENTS OF CHAPTER V

COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

I.—Among the Birds and Mammals

Courtship and marriage among birds and mammals—Every form of association similar to human marriage—A high standard of love-morality among birds—Monogamy, polygamy, and polyandry—Cases of absolute profligate promiscuity—Suggestions of all the sexual sins of humanity—The phenomena of courtship—The law of battle—Battles of mammals and male gallinaceae—The frenzy of love—Where supremacy in love is gained by force the males become stronger and better armed than the females—Importance of this—Gentler ways of wooing—AEsthetic seductions—Courteous duels—The note of joy in love among birds—Affectionate partnerships lasting for life—Frequency of monogamy among birds—Co-operation of both sexes in forming the home and caring for the young—The amatory dances of birds—Significance of dancing—Numerous illustrations—The use of song and decorative plumage—Musical seduction—AEsthetic constructions—The extraordinary power of sex-hunger—General propositions.

II.—Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage and the Family among Birds

Darwin's theory of sexual-selection—Objections to this by Wallace and others—An explanation—The true object of courtship—The sexual passion the origin of social growth—A rough outline of society already established in the animal kingdom—The maternal and the paternal family—The former the most frequent—The importance of the female—Difference between the secondary sexual characters of the male and the female—Doubt of the accepted view—Need for a further examination—Cases among birds in which the female equals or even exceeds the male in size and strength—Beauty tests of brilliant plumage—Numerous examples of almost identical likeness between the sexes—This similarity in plumage occurs in some of the most brilliant of our birds—The interesting case of the phalaropes where the role of the sexes is reversed—These facts point to an error in the accepted opinion as to the secondary sexual characters—Sexual adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary and exclusive adjunct of the male—Prof. Lester Ward's Gynaeocratic theory—Male efflorescence—Among the species in which male differentiation has gone farthest the males are bad fathers—Examples to prove this—The fathers devoid of affection belong to the less intelligent species—The conclusion—An extravagant growth of the secondary sexual characters not favourable to the highest development of the species—The most oppressed females the most faithful wives—The highest development in the beautiful cases in which the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity and co-operate together in the race-work—Individual fancies of females—The case of a female wild duck—Desire for sexual variety—Conjugal fidelity modified by the conditions of life—Civilisation depraves birds—General observations—Love the great creative force.



CHAPTER V

COURTSHIP, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

I.—Among the Birds and Mammals

"The principle of 'divergence of character' pervades all nature, from the lowest groups to the highest, as may be well seen in the class of birds."—WALLACE.

A great step in advance is taken when we come to study the courtship and sexual relationships of birds and mammals. There are many examples, in particular among birds, of a beautiful and high standard of love-morality. To the physical fondness of the sexes for one another there is now added a wealth of what must be recognised as psychical attraction, which finds its expression in many diverse ways. We shall find all forms of sexual association, very similar to marriage in the human species. There are temporary unions formed for the purpose of procreation, after which the partners separate and cease to care for one another. Polygamy is frequent, polyandry also occurs, and there are many cases of absolute profligate promiscuity. We shall, indeed, find the suggestion of all the sexual sins of humanity, every form of coquetry, of love-battles, jealousy and the like. There are as well many examples of monogamic unions lasting for the lives of the partners. This is especially the case with birds. Among the higher mammals polygamy is most common, but permanent unions are formed, especially among the anthropoid apes. Thus strictly monogamous marriages are frequent among gorillas and orang-utans, the young sometimes remaining with their parents to the age of six years, while any approach to loose behaviour on the part of the wife is severely punished by the husband.[50] We find both the matriarchate and patriarchate family; and we may observe the greatest difference in the conduct of the parents in their care of offspring. Even a rapid examination of these customs is worth while, for they cast forward many suggestions on our sexual, domestic, and social relationships.

Let us take first the phenomena of courtship.

It is possible to give only the briefest outline of this fascinating subject. We will begin with the law-of-battle. Courtship without combat is rare among mammals; it is less common in many species of birds. Special offensive and defensive weapons for use in these love-fights are found; such are the larger canine teeth of many male mammals, the antlers of stags, the tusks of elephants, the horns of antelopes, goats, oxen and other animals, while among birds the spurs of the cock and allied species are examples of sexual weapons.[51]

"The season of love is the season of battle," says Darwin. To those who understand love there will be no cause of surprise in these procreative explosions. There can be no doubt that such combats are a stimulus to mutual sexual excitement in the males who take part in them and the female who watches them. Throughout Nature love only reaches its goal after tremendous expenditure of energy. Courtship is the prelude to love. The question is—what form it shall take? It is this that even yet we have not decided. But the importance of courtship cannot be overlooked. We must regard it as the servant of the Life-force. In the fine saying of Professor Lloyd Morgan,[52] "the purpose of courtship reveals itself as the strong and steady bending of the bow, that the arrow may find its mark in a biological end of the highest importance in the survival of a healthy and vigorous race."

Even the most timid animals will fight desperately under the stimulus of sex-passion. Hares and moles battle to the death in some cases; squirrels and beavers wound each other severely. Seals grapple with tooth and claw; bulls, deer and stallions have violent encounters, and goats use their curved horns with deadly effect.[53] The elephant, pacific by nature, assumes a terrible fury in the rutting season. Thus, the Sanskrit poems frequently use the simile of the elephant goaded by love to express the highest degree of strength, nobility, grandeur and even beauty.[54] It is hardly necessary to point out that in these love-conflicts we may find the sources of our own brute passions of jealousy, and the origin of duels, murders and all the violent crimes committed by men under the excitement of sexual emotion—the tares among the wheat of love that drive men mad and wild.

In birds it is among the gallinaceae that love incites the male with warlike fury. The barn-door cock is the type of the jealous male—amorous, vain and courageous.[55] It must be noted that wheresoever supremacy in love is obtained by force the male has necessarily become, through the action of selection, stronger and better armed than the female. Among birds, where the law of battle largely gives place to a gentler wooing, there are many species in which the female is larger and stronger than the male, and a much greater number where there is no appreciable difference between the sexes. These prove what we have already established among the invertebrates, that there is no necessary correlation between weakness and the female sex. But to this question, so important in its bearing on the relative position of the sexes, I shall return later.

The acquisition of mates does not depend entirely upon strength and victory in battle. Many male mammals have crests and tufts of hair, and other marks of beauty, such as bright colouring, are often conspicuous. These are used to attract the females. The incense of odoriferous glands, which become specially functional during the breeding season, are another frequent means of sexual attraction.[56] Even many of the amatory duels are not really fights between rivals. They are rather parades, or tournaments, used by the males as a means of displaying their beauty and valour to the females. This is frequent among the contests of birds, as, for instance, the grouse of Florida (Tetras cuspido), which are said to assemble at night to fight until morning with measured grace, and then to separate, having first exchanged formal courtesies.[57]

It is among birds that the notes of joy in love break out with a wonderful fascination. They are the most perfect of lovers; strength is often quite set aside, and the eye and ear of the mate alone is appealed to. The males (and also, in some cases, the females) use many aesthetic appeals to stimulate passion, such as dancing, beauty of plumage, and the art of showing it, as well as sweetness of song and diverse love-calls. There are numerous examples of affectionate partnerships between the sexes, in some cases lasting for life. The female Illinois parrot, for instance, rarely survives the death of her mate. Similarly the death of either sex of the panurus is said to be fatal to its companion. The affection of these birds is strong; they always perch side by side, and when they fall asleep one of them, usually the male, covers the other with its wing. The couples of the golden woodpeckers and doves live in perfect unison. Brehm records the case of a male woodpecker who, after the death of his mate, tapped day and night with his beak to recall the absent one, and when at last discouraged, he became silent and never recovered his gaiety.[58] According to some estimates monogamy prevails among ninety per cent of birds.[59] This is explained by the steady co-operation of both sexes in forming the home and caring for the young, for it is surely the working together which causes their love to outlast the excitement of the procreative season. Sometimes we find this affection flowing out into a wider altruism, extending beyond the family to the social group; which again is surely at once the condition and result of these beautiful and practical love-partnerships.

Those who have read the absorbing pages of Darwin devoted to the consideration of the sexual characters of birds, or know the examples given by Buechner, Audubon, Epinas, Wallace and other naturalists, or, better still, those who have watched and noted for themselves the love-habits of birds, will find it impossible to withhold admiration for the poetic character of many of these courtships and marriages, which put too often our own human matings to utter shame.

Let us look first at the love-dances. Dancing as a means of attracting the right pitch of passion in the male and the female has always been used in the service of the sexual instinct. It gives the highest and most complex expression of movement, and may be said to have been evolved by love from the more brutal courtships of battle display.[60] The characteristic features of the amatory dances of birds are well known; they may be witnessed frequently during the pairing season. The male blackbird, for instance, is full of action as he woos his mate; he flirts his tail, spreads his glossy wings, hops and turns; chases the hen, and all the time chuckles with delight. Similar antics are performed by the whitethroat. The male redwing, again, struts about before his female, sweeping the ground with his tail, and acting the dandy.[61] The crested duck raises his head gracefully, straightens his silky aigrette, struts and bows to his female, while his throat swells and he utters a sort of guttural note.[62] The common shield duck, geese, wood-pigeons, carrion-vultures, and many other birds have been observed to dance, spread their tails, chase one another, and perform many strange courting parades. A careful observer of birds, Mr. E. Selous, who is quoted by Havelock Ellis,[63] has found that all bird dances are not nuptial, but that some birds—the stone-curlew (or great plover), for example—have different kinds of dancing. The nuptial dances are taken part in by both the male and female, and are immediately followed by conjugation; but there are as well other dances or antics of a non-sexual character, which may be regarded as social, and these too are indulged in by both sexes.

The love-fights of swallows, linnets and kingfishers, and the curious aerial evolution of the swift are similar manifestations of vigour and delight in movement[64] as a sexual excitant to pairing. Some male doves have a remarkable habit of driving the hen for a few days before she lays the eggs. On these occasions his whole time is spent in keeping her on the move, and he never allows her to settle or rest for a minute except on the nest.[65]

This last case affords a striking illustration of the real object of all these elaborate movements. The male albatross, an ugly and dull-coloured bird,[66] during courtship stands by the female on the nest, raises his wings, spreads his tail, throws up his head with the bill in the air, or stretches it straight out or forwards as far as he can, and then utters a curious cry.[67] But the most interesting example that I have been able to find recorded of dancing among birds is the habit of waltzing, common to the male, and in a lesser degree to the female ostrich. It is thus described by S. Cronwright Schreiner.[68]

"After running a few yards they (the ostriches) will stop, and with raised wings spin round rapidly for some time until quite giddy, when a broken leg occasionally occurs.... Vigorous cocks 'roll' when challenging to fight or when wooing a hen. The cock will suddenly bump down on his knees (ankle joints), open his wings, and then swing them alternately backwards and forwards as if on a pivot. At such a time the bird sees very imperfectly, if at all, in fact he seems so preoccupied that if pursued one may often approach unnoticed. Just before 'rolling,' a cock, especially if courting a hen, will often run slowly and daintily on the points of his toes, with neck slightly inflated, upright and erect, the tail half dropped and all his body feathers fluffed up; the wings raised and expanded, the inside edges touching the sides of the neck for nearly the whole length, and the plumes showing separately like an open fan. In no other attitude is the splendid beauty of his plumage displayed to such advantage."

In this case it is very suggestive to find that it is the male ostrich who takes upon himself the task of hatching and rearing the young. Perhaps this accounts for the female ostrich being able to dance as well as the male. There are very few examples of birds who are bad fathers. Often the male rivals the female in love for the young; he is in constant attendance in the vicinity of the nest; he guards, feeds and sings to the female, and sometimes shares with her the duty of incubation. This is done by the male wood-pigeon, missel-thrush, blue martin, the buzzard, stone-curlew, curlew, dottrel, the sandpiper, common gull, black-coated gull, kittiwake, razorbill, puffin, storm-petrel, the great blue heron and the black vulture. Among these birds it is usual for the family duties to be performed quite irrespective of sex, and the parent who is free takes the task of feeding the one who is occupied. As soon as one family is reared many birds at once burden themselves with another. Audubon records the case of the blue bird of America, who works so zealously that two or three broods are reared at the same time, the female sitting on one clutch, while the male feeds the young of the preceding brood.[69]

Next in importance to dancing and movement in the aid of courtship among birds is their use of song and display of decorative plumage. With them it would seem, even more than among the mammals or with man, sexual desire raises and intensifies all the faculties, and lifts the individual above the normal level of life. The act of singing is a pleasurable one, an expression of superabundant energy and joyous excitement. Thus love-songs, serving first probably as a call of recognition from the male to the female, came to be used as a means of seduction. Every one is familiar with the exquisite lyrical tournaments of our nightingales; their songs during the love season do not cease by day or by night, so that one wonders when sleep can be taken; but as soon as the young are hatched the music ceases, and harsh croaks are the only sound left.[70] The song of the skylark, with its splendid note of freedom, is more melodious and more frequent in the season of love's delirium.[71] Another bird, the male of the weaver bird, builds an abode of pleasure for himself, wherein he retires to sing to his mate.[72] A very beautiful case of the use of these love-calls by the tyrant bird (Pitangus Bolivianus) is recorded by W.H. Hudson.[73]

"Though the male and female are greatly attached they do not go afield to hunt in company, but separate to meet at intervals during the day. One of the couple (say the female) returns to the trees where they are accustomed to meet, and after a time becoming impatient or anxious at the delay of her consort, utters a very long, clear call-note. He is perhaps a quarter of a mile away, watching for a frog beside a pool, or beating over a thistle bed, but he hears the note and presently responds with one of equal power. Then, perhaps, for half-an-hour, at intervals of half-a-minute, the birds answer each other, though the powerful call of the one must interfere with his hunting. At length he returns: then the two birds, perched close together, with their yellow bosoms almost touching, crests elevated, and beating the branch with their wings scream their loudest notes in concert—a confused, jubilant noise that rings through the whole plantation. Their joy at meeting is patent, and their action corresponds to the warm embrace of a loving human couple."

Some birds, who are ill-endowed from a musical point of view, have their wing feathers or tails peculiarly developed and stiffened, and are able to produce with them a strange snapping or cracking sound. Thus several species of snipe make drumming or "bleating" noises—something like the bleat of a goat—with their narrowed tails as they descend in flight.[74] Magpies have a still more curious method of call, by rapping on dry and sonorous branches, which they use not only to attract the female, but also to charm her. We may say that these birds perform instrumental music.[75]

The exercise of vocal power among birds seems to be complementary to the development of accessory plumes and ornaments. All our finest singing birds are plainly coloured, with no crests, neck or tail plumes to display. The gorgeously ornamented birds of the tropics have no song, and those which expend much energy in display of plumage, as the turkey and peacocks, have comparatively an insignificant development of voice.[76] The extraordinary manner in which birds display their plumage at the time of courting is well known. Let us take one example—the courtship of the Argus pheasant. This bird is noted for the extreme beauty of the male's plumage. Its courtship has been beautifully observed by H.O. Forbes—[77]

"It is the habit of this bird to make a large circus, some ten or twelve feet in diameter, in the forest, which it clears of every leaf and twig and branch, till the ground is perfectly swept and garnished. On the margin of this circus there is invariably a projecting branch or high arched rest, at a few feet elevation from the ground on which the female bird takes its place, while in the ring the male—the male bird alone possesses great decoration—shows off all its magnificence for the gratification and pleasure of his consort, and to exalt himself in her eyes."

In this picture we have all the characteristic features of the display of personal beauty in which many birds delight. Any one may see such performances for themselves. The male chaffinch, for instance, will place himself in front of the female that she may admire at her ease his red throat and blue head; the bullfinch swells out his breast to display the crimson feathers, twisting his black tail from side to side; the goldfinch sways his body, and quickly turns his slightly expanded wings first to one side, then to the other, with a golden flashing effect.[78] Even birds of less ornamental plumage are accustomed to strut and show themselves off before the females. Birds often assemble in large numbers to compete in beauty before pairing. The Tetras cuspido of Florida and the little grouse of Germany and Scandinavia do this. The latter have daily amorous assemblies, or cours d'amour, of great length, which are renewed every year in the month of May.[79] It seems certain that this aesthetic display is conscious and pre-meditated; for while most pheasants parade before their females, two of the species—the Crossoptilon auritum and the Phasianus Wallichii—which are of dull colour, refrain from doing so, being apparently conscious of their modest livery.[80]

Certain birds are not content alone with the display of natural ornament, but make use of further aesthetic appeal in the construction of their homes in a truly beautiful manner. Some species of humming-birds are said to decorate the exterior of their nests in great taste with lichens, feathers, etc. The bower-birds of Australia construct bowers on the ground, ornamented with shell, feathers, bones and leaves. Both sexes take part in the building of these abodes of love, which are used for the courting parades. But an even more delightful example of the rare sexual delicacy in courtship is recorded by M.O. Beccari of a bird of Paradise of New Guinea, the Amblyornis inornata.[81]

"This wonderful and beautiful bird constructs a little conical hut to protect his amours, and in front of this he arranges a lawn, carpeted with moss, the greenness of which he relieves by scattering on it various bright coloured objects, such as berries, grains, flowers, pebbles and shells. More than this, when the flowers are faded, he takes great care to replace them, so that the eye may be always agreeably flattered. These curious constructions are solid, lasting for several years, and probably serving for several birds."

It is, I think, by such cases as these that we may come to realise the extraordinary power of sex-hunger. It seems to me that many of us are still walking in sleep; fear holds our eyes from the truth. But as we look back to the complex and often beautiful manifestations of love's actions among our animal ancestors, we begin to perceive that unanalysable something called "beauty," which is the glory that has arisen out of that first simple impelling hunger, which drove the male cell and the female cell to unite. This is how I see things—Life knows no development except through Love.

II.—Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage, and the Family among Birds

It is especially upon the efflorescence of male beauty among birds that Darwin founded his celebrated theory of sexual selection. The motley of display seems endless, beautiful plumes, elongated feathery tresses, neck-ruffs, breast-shields, brightly-coloured cowls and wattles occur with marvellous richness of variety.

Now, can we accept the Darwinian theory, and believe that all these appendages of beauty, as well as the sexual weapons, powers of song and movement, have been developed through the preference of the females? the stronger and more ornamental males becoming in this way the parents of each successive generation. Wallace, as is well known, opposed Darwin's view, preferring to regard sexual selection as a manifestation of natural selection. He has been followed by other naturalists, who have denied this creative power of love, being unable to credit conscious choice by the females of the most gifted males. The controversy on the question has been long and at times violent. Yet, it would seem, as so often happens in all disagreements, that the difference in opinion is more apparent than founded on the facts. There is really no difficulty if once we understand the true significance of courtship. What this is I have tried to make clear. During the excitement of pairing the male birds are in a condition of the most perfect development, and possess an enormous store of superabundant vitality; this, as may readily be understood, may well express itself in brilliant colours and superfluities of ornamental plumage, as also in song, in dancing, in love tournaments and in battles. The fact that we have to remember is that the female is most easily won by the male, who, being himself most charged with sex desire—and through this means reaching the finest development—is able to create a corresponding intoxication in her, and thus, by producing in both the most perfect condition, favours the chances of reproduction. There is no need whatever to suppose any conscious choice or special aesthetic perception on the part of the females. Great effects are everywhere produced in Nature by simple causes. The female responds to the stimulus of the right male at the right moment—that is really the whole matter.[82]

In these instances (brought forward in the previous section of this chapter) of the universal hunger of sex, which are fairly typical and are as complete as my space will allow, certain facts have become clear. In the first place we have seen something of the strong driving of the procreative function, which is the guarantee of the continuation and development of life. The importance of the result to be gained explains the diverse and elaborate phenomena of courtship. The higher we ascend in the animal kingdom the stronger does the sex-appetite become: it vibrates in the nerve-centres, giving rise to violent emotions which intensify all the physical and psychic activities. Love is the great creative force. It awakens impressions and desires in the individual, giving rise to what may be called "experiments in creative self-expression," to the energy of which we owe the varied and marvellous phenomena in animal life.

A further cause arising from the development of love is certainly of not less importance—it is the beginning of life not wholly individualistic. It is in the sexual passions we must seek the origins of all social growth. This is evident. We have seen that sexual union induces durable association between the female and the male for the object of rearing the young. Here already we find that truth, which it is the chief purpose of this book to make plain, that the individual exists for the race. This is the new and practical morality of the biological view, which regards the individual as primarily the host and servant of the seed of life. And this is really of the greatest benefit to the individual. From this service to the future arises the family and the home. The familial instinct, more or less developed, may be traced far back in the scale of life; and as it gains in strength it extends from the family into a wider social love, which in some species results in the forming of societies grouped together for mutual protection and co-operation in communal activities. A rough outline of society is thus found established already in the animal kingdom.

Just as there were many different forms of sexual associations among our animal ancestors, so we may observe the two chief forms of human societies, the matriarchate and the patriarchate—or the maternal and paternal family. It is the former that is the most frequent. This is what we should expect. The female, the mother, as the natural centre of the family, the male, her servant, in the procreative act; but apart from this, we find him most frequently following personal interests; the female's love for the young is stronger and more developed than his. I lay stress upon this fact, for it shows how strongly planted in woman is the maternal instinct. I doubt if any woman can ever find true expression for her nature apart from motherhood. It is in these past histories of life's development that we may find the key for its purpose and meaning to us.

There is another point of special importance to us in estimating the true place of woman in society. This early position of the female proves conclusively (as we shall see more clearly later when we come to study the primitive human family) the importance of the mother and her children as the founders of society. Woman, by reason of her more intimate connection with the children and the home, became the centre of the social group, while the males, less bound by domestic ties, were able to wander, but came back to the home, driven by their sexual needs to return to the female. But without giving more time here to this question, to which I shall return later, there is a further consideration, arising from our study of the family habits among the birds and mammals, that now must claim our attention. Certain examples I have come across, in particular among birds, have forced into my mind doubt of a widely-accepted belief. I put forward my opinion with great diffidence; it is so easy to interpret facts by the bias of one's own wishes. I know that the cases I have found and studied are probably few in comparison with those I have missed; but to me they seem of such importance, by the light they throw on the whole question of the position of the sexes, that it seems necessary to bring them forward.

We must go back to the position we left, some time back, of the differences between the secondary sexual characters of the male and the female. We have followed the development of the male, under the action of love's selection, from his first insignificant position in the reproductive process; we have seen him becoming larger than the female, strong, jealous and masterful—in fact, a kind of fighting specialisation, with special weapons of defence for sex-battles. This is the general condition among mammals. Among birds another set of secondary character, that may be classed as beauty-tests, are more frequent. Now two questions must be answered. Can it be proved that all these acquired developments of strength and of beauty belong exclusively to the males—that they must be regarded as proof of the greater tendency to diversity in the male, which has carried him further in the evolution process than the female? Can it also be proved that such highly-marked differentiation between the sexes is in all cases necessary to reproduction—that this heightened male attractiveness is a progressive force in the service of the race? If so, examples will surely point in the direction of finding that among those species where the sexual characters of the male, whether of strength or of beauty, are most different from the female, sexual love will find its most perfect expression; and further, that the males in such case will be the most highly developed—the best parents and the most social in their habits. The whole question, I think it must be evident, turns upon this being proved.

But in the face of the facts before us this is just what we do not find. Among birds (who in erotic development far excel all other animals, not, indeed, excepting the human species, and thus must be accepted as affording the most perfect examples of sexual development) we have seen that the cases are not few in which the female equals, or even exceeds the male in size and in strength. This is so with the curlew, the merlin, the dunlin, the black-tailed goodwit, which is considerably larger than the male, and the osprey, where the female is also more spotted on the breast: these examples must be added to those I have already given (page 58).

If we turn now to the beauty-test of brilliancy of plumage, we may observe an even larger number of examples of almost identical likeness between the sexes. Among British birds alone there are no fewer than 382 species, or sub-species,[83] in which the female closely resembles the male. In some few of these examples, it is true, the colours of the female are slightly duller, and in others the female is rather smaller than the male, but the difference in each case is very slight. It is specially significant to note that this similarity of plumage occurs in some of the most beautiful of our birds, as, for instance, the kingfisher and the jay, where the brilliant dresses of the sexes are practically alike; the female robin shares the beauty of the male; in all the families of the charming tits the sexes are alike; this is also the case with the roller-bird with its gaily-coloured plumage; and there is no difference between the white elegance of the female and the male swan.

In the presence of such examples it seems to me impossible to refrain from thinking that there is a mistake somewhere, and that less importance is to be attached to the secondary sexual characters of the male than is generally imagined. Grant that these cases are exceptional; but if we once admit that among many species—and these highly developed in sex—the female shows no evidence of retarded development, we shall be forced also to break once for all with many beliefs and trite theories which have inspired on this subject of the sexual differences between the female and the male so much dogmatic statement and so many unproved assumptions.

I am not forgetting the gorgeous plumage of some male birds, and the contrast they afford with the plain females. What I wish to show is that such adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary adjunct to the male—an expression, in fact, of the male constitution. Nor are they, as we shall find later, necessary, or even beneficial in the highest degree, to the reproductive process.[84] I have an even more interesting case to bring forward, which to me seems to point very conclusively to what I am trying to prove. The phalaropes, both the grey and red-necked species, have a peculiarity unique among British birds, although shared by several other groups in different parts of the world.[85] Among these birds the role of the sexes is reversed. The duties of incubation and rearing the young are conducted entirely by the male bird, and in correlation with this habit the female does all the courting, is stronger and more pugnacious than the male, and is also brighter in plumage. In colour they are a pale olive very thickly spotted and streaked with black. The male is the psychical mother, the female taking no notice of the nest after laying the eggs. Frequently at the beginning of the breeding season she is accompanied by more than one male, so that it is evident that polyandry is practised.[86]

Now, if such an example of the reversal of the sexes has any meaning at all, it seems to me that we find the conclusion forced upon us that the secondary sexual characters are not necessarily different in the male and the female, but depend on the form of the union or marriage and the conditions of the family. Professor Lester Ward, in connection with his Gynaeocratic theory, fully discusses this question. His conclusion is that this superiority of the males in strength and size among mammals and in beauty of plumage (which is also a symbol of force) among birds, instead of indicating an arrested development in the females indicates an over-development in the males. "Male efflorescence" is the apt term by which Professor Ward designates it. He says—

"The whole phenomena of so-called male superiority bears a certain stamp of spuriousness and sham. It is to natural history what chivalry was to human history; ... a sort of make-believe, play, or sport of nature of an airy unsubstantial character. The male side of nature shot up and blossomed out in an unnatural, fantastic way, cutting loose from the real business of life, and attracting a share of attention wholly disproportionate to its real importance."[87]

This may, I think, be regarded as a picturesque over-statement of what is in the main true. Male efflorescence has drawn upon itself an excessive importance, through what we may call its dramatic insistence upon our notice. It is plain, too, that the more we examine the question the more we are forced to the one conclusion. It is certainly very suggestive, as Professor Ward points out, that those mammals and birds in which the process of male differentiation has gone farthest, such as lions, buffaloes, stags and sheep among mammals, and peacocks, pheasants, turkey-cocks and barn-door-cocks among birds, do practically nothing for their families. Among the gallinaceae it is the female who undertakes the whole burden of incubation, and feeding and caring for the young; during this time the male is running after adventures, in some cases he returns when his offspring are old enough to follow him and form a docile band under his government.[88] The conduct of the male turkey is much worse, and he often devours the eggs, which have to be hidden by the mother, while later the offspring are only saved from his attacks by large numbers of females and the young uniting in troops led by the mothers.[89] The polygamous families of monkeys are always subject to patriarchal rule. The father is the tyrant of the band—an egoist. Any protection he affords to the family is in his own interest, frequently he expels the young males as soon as they are old enough to give him trouble, the daughters, in some cases, he adds to his harem; only when old age has rendered him powerless are the tables turned, and the young, for so long oppressed, rebel and sometimes assassinate their tyrannous father. There is very little evidence of paternal affection among mammals. Even among monogamous species, where the male keeps with the female, he does so more as chief than as father. At times he is much inclined to commit infanticides and to destroy the offspring, which, by absorbing the attention of his partner, thwart his amours. Thus among the large felines the mother is obliged to hide her young ones from the male during the first few days after birth to prevent his devouring them.[90]

It is important to note that among birds the fathers devoid of affection generally belong to the less intelligent species. We may, therefore, see that these violent polygamous amours of the male, which result in the development of the more extravagant of the second sexual characters, are not really favourable to the development of the species. They belong to a lower grade of sexual evolution. And a further proof, it seems to me, is furnished as we note that, in spite of this tyranny, the females show considerable affection for these tyrant males—the chimpanzee, for example, proving this by zealously plucking the lice from her master's coat, which with monkeys is a mark of very special attention.[91] The most oppressed females are, as a rule, the most faithful wives. Thus the females of the guanaco lamas, if their master chances to be wounded or killed, do not run away; they hasten to his side, bleating and offering themselves to the shots of the hunter in order to shield him, while, in sharp contrast, if a female is killed, the male makes off with all his troop—he thinks only of himself.[92] Must we say, then, that the female animal likes servitude? It is, of course, because the aggressive male, being the one to arouse her sexual passions, enables her to fulfil her work of procreation. This may be. But, granting this explanation, it must be allowed that love under such conditions evidences a deterioration, not alone in the size and strength of the female, but in mental capacity—love at a much lower level than those beautiful cases in which the sexes are more alike, equal in capacity, and co-operate together in the race work.

Yet in justice it must be added that even the most polygamous males are not always devoid of affection. I once saw on a Derbyshire high-road a cock show evident signs of sorrow over the death of one of his wives, who had been killed by a passing motor. He refused to leave the spot where her body lay, and walked round and round it, uttering sharp cries of grief. Nor are sexual lapses confined to the males; a female will take advantage of a moment when the attention of the old cocks is entirely absorbed by the anxiety of a fight, to run off with a young male.[93] Even among species noted for their conjugal fidelity this sometimes happens. Female pigeons, for example, have been known to fall violently in love with strange males, and this is especially common if the legitimate spouse is wounded or becomes weak.[94] Darwin records a very curious case of a sudden passion appearing in a female wild-duck, who, after breeding with her own mallard for a couple of seasons, deserted him for a stranger—a male pintail.

"It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for she swam about the newcomer caressingly, though he appeared evidently alarmed and averse to her overtures of affection. From that hour she forgot her old partner. Winter passed by, and the next spring the pintail seemed to have become a convert to her blandishments, for they nested and produced seven or eight young ones."[95]

I am tempted to wait to consider the immense significance of such cases as these in the analogy they bear to our own sudden preferences in love. The question as to the moral conduct of this duck opens up suggestions of those cases of exceptional love-passions, which all our existing institutions, laws and penalties have never been able to crush. The desire for sexual variety is the ultimate cause of all sexual lapses and irrationalities. It is a mistake to think that this is a condition peculiar to mankind and the result of civilisation. If this were so it would be easier to deal with; but before these deeply-rooted instincts of sexual hunger we are often powerless. I know of no question that needs to be faced by women more than this one. I would like to say more about it. But already this first section of my book has exceeded its limits. I must, therefore, pass on, to draw attention to the fact, clearly proved by the case of this wild-duck's love, as well as by many other examples, that it is the females, who, exercising their right of selection much more than the males, introduce individual preference into their sexual relationships. The difficulty is that such preference, of profound biological importance, is often thwarted among civilised people by considerations of property and the accepted morality. From this standpoint permanent marriage may often fail to do justice to the sexual needs both of the individual and the wider needs of the race. Nature has no care for sex-morals as we understand them, any mode of sexual union is equally right so long as it serves the race-process. But men have set up a whole host of prohibitions and conventions—the "thou shalt nots" of society and religion. Which are we to follow? Which is the wheat and which the tares, that must be garnered or sifted from our loves?

It is important to notice that among mammals, as among men, conjugal fidelity is modified by the conditions of life. An animal belonging to a species habitually monogamic may easily change under the pressure of external causes and adopt polygamy, and, in some cases, polyandry. The shoveler duck, though normally monogamic, is said[96] to practise polyandry when males are in excess; two males being in constant and amicable attendance on the female, without sign of jealousy. Wild-ducks, again, which are strictly monogamous, good parents, and very highly developed in social qualities when in a wild state, become loosely polygamous and indifferent to their offspring under domestication. Civilisation, in this case, depraves the birds, as often it does men.

But enough has now been said. We shall find later how far the facts we have learnt of the position of the female and the sexual relationship, as we have studied them in these examples from the animal kingdom, will apply to us and to our loves. We have now to study marriage and the family as it exists among primitive peoples. We shall find a close resemblance in the courtship customs and the sexual and familial associations to those we have seen to be practised by our pre-human ancestors. The same resemblance will persist when, lastly, we come to investigate the same institutions among civilised races, up to our own. Indeed, we may have to admit that, in some directions, love is not even yet as finely developed with us humans as it is among birds. It is in the loves of birds, as I believe, that we must seek hints to that evolution in fineness, which has still to come in our love.

One thing more. It refers to the disputed question of the differentiation of the sexes by the action of love's-selection. It is a truth that I wish as strongly as I am able to emphasise. We cannot learn to know love's selective powers by enclosing its action within the narrow circle of our preconceived ideas. Instead of limiting its power we should extend it without hindrance of any form—to the female as well as the male; to the woman as to the man. We should regard nothing as impossible, no development of either sex too great to be accomplished, knowing that all progress is possible to love's power. Exceptional cases, then, irregularities, it may be, in sexual expression will henceforth no longer surprise us; they will find their place in the infinite order of life. Such examples may come to be regarded as filling in the chain; they form intermediate stages and also mark the reappearance of earlier manifestations of the sexual hunger. The new morality of love, which is having its birth amongst us to-day, will be deeper and wider than the old morality, because it will be founded on surer knowledge.