Transcriber's Note:

Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has been preserved.

Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For a complete list, please see the [end of this document].

THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMAN

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

BOOKS ON ART

A RECORD OF SPANISH PAINTING
PICTURES IN THE TATE GALLERY

The Prado (Spanish Series)
El Greco (Spanish Series)
Velazquez (Spanish Series)

BOOKS ON SPAIN

MOORISH CITIES IN SPAIN
THINGS SEEN IN SPAIN
SPAIN REVISITED: A Summer Holiday in Galicia
SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA (Mediæval Towns Series)
CATHEDRALS OF SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SPAIN

THE TRUTH
ABOUT WOMAN

BY

C. GASQUOINE HARTLEY

(MRS. WALTER M. GALLICHAN)

NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD & COMPANY
1914

DEDICATION

TO

LESLIE, MY LITTLE ADOPTED SON

In writing at last this book on Woman, which for so many years has had a place in my thoughts, one truth has forced itself upon me: the predominant position of Woman in her natural relation to the race. The mother is the main stream of the racial life. All the hope of the future rests upon this faith in motherhood.

To whom, then, but to you, my little son, can I dedicate my book? You came to me when I was still seeking out a way in the futility of Individual ends; you reconciled my warring motives and desires; you brought me a new guiding principle. You taught me that the Individual Life is but as a bubble or cluster of foam on the great tide of humanity. I knew that the redemption of Woman rests in the growing knowledge and consciousness of her responsibility to the race.

"The social revolution which is impending in Europe is chiefly concerned with the future of the workers and the women. It is for this that I hope and wait, and for this I will work with all my powers."—Ibsen.

PREFACE

It is very difficult to write a preface to a work which is expressly intended as a revelation of the faith of the writer. The successive stages of thought and emotion that have been passed through are still too near, and one feels too deeply. I have made several futile attempts to concentrate into a short note the Truths about Woman that I have tried to convey in my book. I find it impossible to do this. The explanation of one's own book would really require the writing of another book, as Mr. Bernard Shaw has proved to us in his delightful prefaces. But to do this one must be freed altogether from the limits of length and time. The fragments of what I wish to say would be of no service to any one.

I then tried to place myself, as it were, outside the book, and to look at it as a stranger might. But the difficulties here were even greater. I grew so interested in criticising my own opinions that my notes soon outran the possibilities of a preface. In this spirit of genuine discrimination, I became aware how easy it would be for any one who does not share my faith to find apparent contradictions of statement and errors in thought—much that is feeble here, extravagant there; to notice some salient fault and to take it as decisive of the writer's incompetence. I am tempted to point these out myself to guide and protect the reader.

Now that my book is done I feel that I have touched only the veriest fringe of a vast subject. But one thing I may say, I have tried to express the truth as I have come to see it. The conception I have of Woman is not new; it is very old. And for that reason it will be rejected by many women to-day. At present the inspiration towards freedom in the Woman's Movement has involved a tendency to follow individual paths, without waiting to consider to what end they lead. There has arisen a sort of glamour about freedom. No one of us can be free, for no one of us stands alone; we are all members one of another. And woman's destiny is rooted in the race. This, rightly considered, is the most vital of all vital facts. I appeal to women to realise more clearly their true place and gifts, as representing that original racial motherhood, out of which the masculine and feminine characters have arisen.

My book is a statement of my faith in Woman as the predominant and responsible partner in the relations of the sexes. To such a belief my opinion was driven, as it were, not deliberately set from the beginning. The time when the resolve to write a book upon Woman first took a place in my thoughts goes back for many years. The child of a Puritan father, who died for the faith in which he believed, the desire to teach was born in my blood. Our character is forged in the past, we cannot escape our inheritance. I began my work as the head-mistress of a school for girls. I was young in experience and very ignorant of life. In my enthusiasm I was quite unconscious of my own limitations, I believed that I was able to train up a new type of free woman. Of course I failed. Looking back now I wonder if I ever taught my pupils one-hundredth part of what they taught me. Perhaps if any of them, separated from me by time and circumstances, chance to read my book, they may be glad to know that it was largely due to them and what I learnt from them that it has come to be written. Certainly it was in those days, when saddened by my own failures, that the purpose came to me, dimly but insistently, to seek out the Truth about Woman and the relations of the sexes. I began to read and to collect material at first for my own guidance and instruction, and as a necessary preparation for my work. I needed it: I must have been slow to learn. For a long time I wandered in the wrong path. My desire was to find proofs that would enable me to ignore all those facts of woman's organic constitution which makes her unlike man. I stumbled blindly into the fatal error of following masculine ideals. I desired freedom for women to enable them to live the same lives that men live and to do the same work that men do. I did not understand that this was a wastage of the force of womanhood; that no freedom can be of service to a woman unless it is a freedom to follow her own nature. I am very glad that the book that is now finished was not written in that period of my belief. I have waited and I have lived.

Five years ago I took up definitely the task of writing the book. At that time the plan of the work was made and the first Introductory chapter written. Circumstances into which I need not enter caused the work again to be put aside. I am glad: I have learnt much in these last years.

There is little more that I need to say.

The book is divided into three parts—the first biological, the second historical. These two parts are preliminary to the third part, which deals with the present-day aspects of the Woman Problem, the differences between woman and man, and the relations of the sexes.

This arrangement of my inquiry into three parts was necessary. It may seem to some that I should have done better to confine my investigations to the present. But the claim of woman for freedom is rooted deep in the past. This fact had to be established. I have tried to give the earlier sections such lighter qualities and interest as would commend them to my readers. It is hardly necessary for me to say I can make no claim to personal scientific knowledge. Probably I have made many mistakes.

It is perhaps foolish to make apologies for work that one has done. But the inclusion of so wide a field has had a disadvantage. My investigations may be objected to as in certain points not being supported by sufficient proof. I know this. My stacks of unused notes remind me of how much I have had to leave out. This is especially the case in the final part. The subject of every chapter treated here could easily form a volume in itself. I hope that at least I have opened up suggestions of many questions on which I could not dwell at length.

Some remarks may be necessary as to the nature of my material. It has been drawn from a variety of sources. I have tried to acknowledge in footnotes the great amount of help I have received. But my notes have been taken during many years, and if any acknowledgment has been forgotten, it is my memory that is at fault, and not my gratitude. The Bibliography (which has been drawn up chiefly from the works I have consulted, and is merely representative) will show how many fields there are from which the student may glean. In particular I am indebted to the works of Havelock Ellis, of Iwan Bloch and Ellen Key. To these writers I would express my warmest thanks for the help and guidance I have gained from their work.

The opinions expressed are in all cases my own. I say this without any apology of modesty. I hold that the one justification of writing a book at all is to state those truths one has learnt from one's own experience of life. For we can give to others only what we have received ourselves; the vision rising in our own eyes, the passion born in our own hearts.

C. Gasquoine Hartley.

7, Carlton Terrace,
Child's Hill, N.W.
March, 1913.

CONTENTS

N.B.—A complete synopsis of contents will be found at the beginning of each chapter

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION—THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY

The twentieth century the age of hurrying progress—The change in the position of women—Reasons for the revolution—First efforts towards emancipation—Outlook of the Woman Movement—Its fundamental error—Possibilities of future development—Motherhood and the Woman Movement—Schopenhauer's view of woman—He asserts an absurdity—The predominance of man over woman not to be regarded as a natural and inviolable law—An examination of the mastery of the male—Can we look forward to a remedy?—Our own time a turning-point in the history of women—Assumed inferiority of the female sex—Necessity for biological knowledge in forming an estimate of the present sex-relationship—Two kinds of influences to be considered—Nature and Nurture—The different play of the environmental forces, or Nurture, upon women and upon men—The importance of Nature—Galton's Law of Inheritance—Woman's responsibility as race-bearer—Sexual differences between the female and the male—Primitive woman and her position in early civilisations—Remarks and conclusion—The immense importance of motherhood.

CHAPTER I[ToC]

INTRODUCTION—THE STARTING-POINT OF THE INQUIRY

"The method of investigating truth commonly pursued at this time, therefore, is to be held erroneous and almost foolish, in which so many inquire what others have said, and omit to ask whether the things themselves be actually so or not."—William Harvey.

The twentieth century will, we may well believe, be stamped in the records of the future as "the age of hurrying change." In certain directions this change has resulted in a profounder transformation of thought than has been effected by all the preceding centuries. Never, probably, in the history of the world were the meanings and ambitions of progress so prevalent as they are to-day. An energy of inquiry and an endless curiosity is sweeping away the complacent Victorian attitude, which in its secure faith and tranquil self-confidence accepted the conditions of living without question and without emotion. Stripped of its masks, this phase of individual egoism was perhaps the most villainous page of recorded human history; yet, with strange confidence, it regarded itself as the very summit of civilisation. It may be that such a phase was necessary before the awakening of a social conscience could arise. Old conceptions have become foolish in a New Age. A great motive, an enlarging dream, a quickening understanding of social responsibility, these are what we have gained.

Above all, this common Faith of Progress has brought a new birth to women. Many are feeling this force. There are two, says Professor Karl Pearson,[1] and it might almost be said only two great problems of modern social life—they are the problem of woman and the problem of labour. Regarded with fear by many, they are for the younger generation the sole motors in life, and the only party cries which in the present can arouse enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, and a genuine freemasonry of class and sex.

There is something almost staggering in the range and greatness of the changes in belief and feeling, in intellectual conclusions and social habits, which are now disturbing the female part of humankind. How complete is the divorce between the attitude of the woman of this generation towards society and herself, and that of the generation that has passed—yes, passed as completely as if hundreds and not units represent the years that separate it from the present.

It is instructive to note in passing what was written about woman at the time immediately preceding the present revolt of the sex. The virtue upon which most stress was laid was that of "delicacy," a word which occurs with nauseous frequency in the books written both by women and men in the two last centuries.[2] "Propriety," wrote Mrs. Hannah More, "is to a woman what the great Roman citizen said action is to an orator: it is the first, the second, and the third requisite."[3]

"This delicacy or propriety," it has been well said,[4] "implied not only modesty, but ignorance; and not only decency of conduct, but false decency of mind. Nothing was to be thoroughly known, nothing to be frankly expressed. The vicious concealment was not confined to physical facts, but pervaded all forms of knowledge. Not only must the girl be kept ignorant of the principles of physiology, but she must also abstain from penetrating thoroughly into the mysteries of history, of politics, of science, and of philosophy. Even her special province of religion must be lightly surveyed. She was not required to think for herself, therefore she was deprived of all training which would enable her to think at all. The girl must appear to be dependent upon the mental strength of a man, as well as upon his physical strength."

It is necessary to remember this attitude if we are to understand the direction that woman's emancipation has largely—and, as some of us think, mistakenly—taken in this country. It explains the demand for equality of opportunity with men, which has become the watch-cry of so many women, thinking that here was the way to solve the problem. A cry good and right in itself, but one which is a starting-point only for woman's freedom, and can never be its end.

Little more than fifty years have passed since Miss Jex-Blake undertook her memorable fight to obtain medical training for herself and her colleagues at the University of Edinburgh.[5] At about the same time arose women's demand for the right of higher education, and colleges for women were opened at Oxford and Cambridge. These were the practical results which followed the revolt of Mary Wollstonecraft, and later, the great revival due to the publication of John Stuart Mill's epoch-marking book, the Subjection of Women.

During the first period of the woman's movement the centre of restlessness was amongst unmarried women, who rebelled at the old restrictions, eager for self-development and a more intellectually active life. These women undertook their own cause, insisting that their humanity came before their sex. They were picked women, much above the average woman, and to a certain extent abnormal in so far as they denied the important factor of sex. To them the average male was not a subject of overwhelming interest, and marriage and motherhood were not of prominent importance in their thought. For them "equality of opportunity for women with men" seemed to solve the problem of woman's emancipation. The constructive result of their campaign was the winning of the higher education of woman, the right to work, and the rush of women into the professions. Much, indeed, was gained, though it may be said with equal truth that much was lost. With this solution—the increased power of self-realisation in a narrow class of picked women, chiefly unmarried women of the middle-class—the woman's movement might well begin, but in this alone it can never end. The movement was incomplete as far as woman's emancipation went, because it was won by ignoring sex. In spite of the great advance in freedom and in scope of activity of life, the stigma attached to woman was not removed. To-day we have arrived at a point where instead of ignoring sex we must affirm it, and claim emancipation on the ground of our sex alone. Our mothers taught acceptance, and asked for privileges; the pioneers of revolt raised the cry "acceptance is a sin and all privilege evil"; we, the blood in our veins beating more strongly and understanding at last the true inwardness of our power, found our claim for complete emancipation upon that special work in the world and for the State which our differentiation from men imposes upon us. This differentiation is our potentiality for motherhood, and is the endowment of every woman, whether realised or not. We claim as our glory what our mothers accepted as their burden of shame.

No sudden causeless changes ever happen, or ever have happened. And the question, Why? arises. What is this dynamic force which has been, and is still sweeping in a great wave of emancipation across the civilised world, joining women in one common purpose? On the outside the revolutionary character of women's modern thought and modern practice means nothing more than that they claim the rights of adult human beings—political enfranchisement, the right of education and freedom to work. But the facts are far too complex to enable us thus to rush hastily to an answer. There is a pitiful monotony in much that is written and spoken about women's emancipation. The real causes are deep to seek, and not infrequently they have been missed even by those who have been most instrumental in bringing a new hope to women. The most advanced women champions, the martyrs of revolt, show no greater sense of the meanings and issues of the struggle in which they are engaged than the complaisant supporters of the worn-out customs they combat. They exhibit only the energies of an admirable impulse, without the control of a guiding law. Speculation, which should be carried to a comprehension of general facts, is concentrated upon the immediate gain of the hour. The tendency is to trifle with truth, and to disguise its reach and consequences. We have read, and spoken, and thought so much about the special character of woman that we have become almost wearied of the subject. Like Narcissus, we stand in some danger of falling in love with our own image. Perhaps the truth is we speculate too much instead of trying to find out the facts. The woman question is as old as sex itself and as young as mankind.

The future position of woman in society is a question that carries with it biological and psychological, as well as social and practical, issues of the widest significance, and further, it is bound up intimately with the profoundest riddles of existence. The problems remain to a great extent unsolved. But the conviction forces itself that the emancipation of woman will ultimately involve a revolution in many of our social institutions. It is this that brings fear to many. Yet we must remember that woman's emancipation is no new movement, but has always been with us, although with varying prominence at different times in history. In the past, civilisations have fallen, in part at least, because they failed to develop in equal freedom their women with their men. It is also certain that no civilisation in the future can remain the highest if another civilisation adds to the intelligence of its male population the intelligence of its women. This in itself is enough to condemn all ideas of sex inequality.

The struggle for the Suffrage has intensified many problems which it will take all the intellectual and emotional energy of both men and women to solve. Up till now there has been little more than a fight for mere rights against male monopolies. In the near future this struggle must lead to a realisation of the duties of woman, founded on a level-headed facing of the physiological realities of her nature. It is a complete disregard of sexualogical difficulties which renders so superficial and unconvincing much of the talk which proceeds from the "Woman's Rights" platform. All efforts made to understand the sex problem, which is the woman question, must be based on the full knowledge of the physical capacity of woman and the effect that her emancipation will have on her function of race production. All effort ought to be directed towards the future welfare and happiness of the children who are to follow us. This is the goal of woman's struggle for progress, it is the sole end worthy of it.

To assume as Schopenhauer and so many others have done, down to Sir Almroth Wright's recent hysterical wail in The Times, that woman, on account of her womanhood is incapable of intellectual or social development, paying her sole debt of Nature in bearing and caring for children, is really to state a belief in decay for humankind. Any stigma attached to women is really a stigma attached to their potentiality as mothers, and we can only remove it by beginning with the emancipation of the actual mother. No sharp cleavage can be made between qualities that are good and masculine on the one side, and all that is feminine on the other. The view is entirely erroneous. How, for instance, can ignorance and weakness constitute at once the perfection of womankind, and the imperfection of mankind? The matter is not so simple. Man must fall with woman, and rise with her.

My first purpose is to make this clear.

To-day we are faced with the question whether the predominance of man over woman is to be regarded as a natural, and therefore inviolable, law of the male and female. Some will deny this mastery of the male. It may be said that woman sways man more than he rules her. This is true. The influence of woman is important—fearfully important. Yet the fitting answer to such glossing—if it be necessary really to point out that sexual privilege is not personal power—is that such government is exercised in one direction alone, and arises not from woman's strength, but out of her subjection. Women have rendered back to men the ill that this long sex domination has wrought upon them. None the less have we to reckon with the despotism of the male side of life. "The softening influence of woman!" ... It is a pretty phrase; but all the same women and men have been doing their best to degrade each other to a pitiful mediocrity. It is not the purifying influence of women—the theory of chivalrous moralists—but an unguided and therefore deteriorating sexual tyranny that regulates society. Let us have done with this absurd catch-phrase of "Woman's Influence." No influence worth naming as such can be exercised but by an independent mind. Women need better fields for the exercise of their love of power. The sexual sphere, which has shaped an impalpable prison around them, has barred them from that part of life which is social and broadly human; the falsely feminine has been developed to the loss of the womanhood in them. It is only in obedience to man that woman has gained her power of life. She has borne children at his will and for his pleasure. She has received her very consciousness from man: this has been her womanhood, to feel herself under another's will. There is no possible hiding of the truth; if women influence men, men command life.

But is it possible, looking forward to new conditions of society, now approaching like a long-delayed spring, to foresee a remedy? Can the woman of the future belong to herself? What are her natural disabilities, and to what extent are they modifiable by new arrangements of social and domestic life? Must she be content for the future with that dependence on the individual man which has been her fate in the past; or, on the other hand, can she take up her economic and social position in society and work therein for her own maintenance as free from considerations of her sex as a man can? These are the questions which must be faced when united womanhood begins to formulate their wants and to realise their power. It is almost idle in the present transition to speculate as to what women should or should not be, or the work they should or should not do. Women do not yet know what they want. All that can be done is to note the changes that are taking place, for we cannot, even do we wish, now change the revolutionary forces. We must seek to understand their causes, so that we may be able to direct them in the future in such ways as will tend to the greater solidarity and happiness of women and men.

In the everlasting controversy as to woman's place in Nature the majority of arguments have been based on an assumed inferiority of the female sex. Appeal has been made to anatomy to establish the difference between the natural endowment of men and women in the hope of fixing by means of anatomical measurements and tests those characters of males and females that are unalterable, because inborn, and those that are acquired, and therefore modifiable. But the obstacles in the way of anatomical investigations are very great, if only on account of the complexity of the material. Often and often it has happened that old conclusions have been overthrown by new knowledge. Indeed, it may be said that such appeal has resulted in uncertainty, and in many instances in confusion. The chief source of error has been the careless acceptance of female inferiority, which has maimed most investigations and seriously retarded the attainment of useful results. And though it is very far from my purpose to wish to deny the fundamentally different nature of the masculine and feminine character, it is still true that a blank separation of human qualities into male qualities and female qualities is no longer possible. In no instance have the anatomists succeeded in determining with absolute distinction between the characters that belong separately to the sexes. Moreover, it has been shown that there is no such thing as a fixed woman character, but that women differ according to the circumstances under which they live, just as men differ. This brings us directly against the old problem, inferiority cannot be accepted as the sole reason of woman's present restricted position in society. Other causes must be sought for.

Many features of the social and psychic as well as the physical phenomena of human life have what we may call an organismal mainspring, and become more intelligible when traced back to these. No one, for instance, can appreciate the social significance of sex, or account for the existing sexual relationships in human societies, who does not know something of their biological antecedents. Take again the sex differences, which attain to such complexity and importance in the human civilised races, these can be explained only if their origin is recognisable. To comprehend the higher forms of life we must gain an acquaintance with the lower and more formative types. In this way we shall begin to see something of that continual upward change under the action of love's-selection that has developed the female and the male. Many problems that have brought sorrow and perplexity to us to-day will become recognisable as we ascertain their causes, and then we can do much to remove them. Thus the problem of woman must first be considered from a biological point of view. Explorations must be made into the remote and obscure beginnings of sex. We must carry our investigations back beyond the cycle of man, and trace the growth and uses of the differentiation of the sexes from the lowest forms of life.

Biology, a science hardly more than a century old, is still in the descriptive and comparative stage; it is the scientific study of the present and past history of animal life for the purpose of understanding its future history. It is of vital importance to human welfare in the future that we should learn by this comparative study of origins and of the potent past what are the lines along which progress is to be expected.

This, then, will be the first path of our discovery. We shall have to traverse many past ages of life and to consider certain humble organisms, before we shall be able really to understand woman in her true position in the sexual relationship as we find it to-day.

But the possibility of applying biological results to sociology with any hope of enlightenment depends on an understanding of the questions, How? and Why? It is important to know what the phenomena are, but it is yet more important to know how? and for what reason? they have come about. Thus we are led forward always from facts to their efficient causes. Women are found to differ from men in this or that respect. But this in itself decides nothing. As soon as we are informed as to any one difference, we must seek out its cause; and this we must do over and over again. Hundreds of women must be interrogated, observed and reported upon—and then what? Shall we know the answer to our problem? Certainly not. In each case we must ask: Is this difference we have found between the sexes a natural inborn quality of woman, whether it be physical or psychical, that must be regarded as a right and unalterable part of her woman character, or is it an acquired, and therefore changeable, modification that has been superimposed upon her through the artificial sexual, social and economic circumstances of her environment? The mere asking of this question will give many new discoveries.

Life is a relation between two forces: on the one hand the organism and on the other the external conditions that form the environment. These two processes are known as Nature and Nurture, they are complementary and inseparable, and they act together. Thus the organism modifies its surroundings, and is in turn modified by them. But every life possesses in great degree the power of self-adaptation, and, broadly speaking, it is true that no matter under what conditions it may be compelled to live, it will mould its own life into harmony with those conditions and thus continue its existence, and this whether it is compelled to adopt a more perfect or a less perfect character. It becomes evident that an appropriate environment is necessary if the Nature is to be expressed, or expressed fully; otherwise life cannot realise development. The environment is constantly checking and modifying the inheritance. Nurture supplies the liberating stimulus to the inheritance, and growth is limited, in exact measurement by the Nurture stimuli available. Human advancement is, of course, widely different from the slow progress in the lower forms of life, but it is fundamentally the same. Experience is continually spreading over new fields and bringing about a more wide and exact relation between the individual and the external world. It follows that any change in the environment will cause a change in the individual. To live differently from what one had been living is to be different from what one has been. These are simple biological facts.

Now, how does woman stand in this respect? No one can deny the difference of environment that in the past has acted on women and on men. Speaking from a biological standpoint, it would seem that any present inferiority of woman is mainly social, due to her adaptation to an arbitrary environment. It has been truly said[6] that "man, in supporting woman, has become her economic environment." By her position of economic dependence in the sex relation, sex distinction has become with her "not only a means of attracting a mate, as with all creatures, but a means of gaining her livelihood, as is the case with no other creature under heaven." Can we wonder that the differences between the sexes assume such great and, in certain directions, such unnatural importance? Woman to a far greater extent than man is in process of evolution; her powers dormant for want of liberating Nurture stimuli. We know that Alpine plants brought from their natural soil change their character and become hardly recognisable, and these marked modifications will reappear in many generations of plants, but as soon as the plants are taken back to grow in their natural environment they are transformed to their original Alpine forms. May we not then entertain as a possibility that woman's modern character, with all its acknowledged faults—all its separation from the human qualities of man—is a veneer imposed by an unnatural environment on succeeding generations of women? If the larger social virtues are wanting in her, may it not be because they have not been called for in a parasitic life? How splendid a hope for women rests here! There is a biological truth, not usually suspected by those who quote it, in the popular saying: "Man is the creature of circumstance." And this is even more true of women, who are less emancipated from their surroundings than are men—more saturated with the influences and prejudices of their narrowed environment.

It would seem, then, that Nurture is more important than Nature in seeking to explain the character of woman to-day. Yet, let me not be mistaken, nor let it be thought for one moment that I do not realise the importance of Nature. The first right of every human being is the right of being well-born. This is the goal of all our struggles for progress—it is the sole end worthy of them.

Let me try to make this clearer.

Reproduction carries life beyond the individual. Haeckel has said that the process is nothing more than the growth of the organism beyond its individual mass. But this process in the higher forms of life has become exceedingly complex. All living beings are individual in one respect and composite in another, for the inheritance of each individual is a mosaic of ancestral contributions. Galton's Law of Inheritance makes this abundantly clear. Briefly stated, the law is as follows: The two parents of each living being contribute on the average one-half of each inherited quality, each of them contributing one-quarter of it. The four grand-parents furnish between them one-quarter, or each of them one-sixteenth; and so on backwards through past generations of ancestors. Now, though, of course, these numbers are purely arbitrary, applying only to averages, and rarely true exactly of individual cases, where the prepotency of any one ancestor may, and often does, upset the balance of the contributions made by the other ancestors, it may certainly be accepted as the most probable theory that biology has given us to explain the difficult problem of Nature—that is the inheritance we receive from our ancestors.

We see that the heredity relation is an extremely complex affair. It is not merely dual from the parents; but it is multiple, through them reaching back to the grand-parents, great-grand-parents, great-great-grand-parents, and so on backwards indefinitely. It is, indeed, a mosaic of many, yes, of uncountable, contributions. The Life Force gathering within itself these multiple sets of heredity contributions is like capital ever growing at compound interest. The importance of this is abundantly clear. For as we come to understand the continuity of our inheritance from generation to generation we realise more vividly how the past has a living hand on and in the present, and how that present will be carried on to the future. We are all links in the one mighty Chain of Life, and on us, and upon women especially, rests a high responsibility. We must hand on our past inheritance unimpaired, so that the new link forged by us may strengthen and not weaken the chain. It is the duty of every woman as a potential mother of men to choose a fitting father for her children, having first educated herself for a freer and more capable maternity. In the past she has done this blindly, following the Life Force without understanding, or hindered from her purpose by the artificial conditions of society. In the future such blindness and such failure of her powers will alike be regarded as sin. With full knowledge, woman will fulfil her great central purpose of breeding the race—ay, breeding it to heights now deemed impossible, not dreamt of even by those of us who look forward through the darkness to the clear sunlight of that time when the sex relation shall be freed from economic pressure and from all coercion of a false morality, and the universal creative energy, no longer finding gratification alone in personal ends, shall at last reach its goal and give birth to a race of new women and new men.

But to come back from this dream of the future.

Certain facts now become evident. In the inheritance of each individual are many latent qualities that do not find expression. It is as if in every life the separate heredity qualities, or groups of qualities, wait in competition, and those that succeed and find an expression in each life owe their success to an incalculable number of small and mostly unknown circumstances. One is tempted to speculate as to a possible direction in the future of women that may arise from the liberating of these unknown forces; but as yet we have not a sufficient basis of facts. But one truth must not be lost sight of; the unsuccessful qualities that do not find their expression in an individual life may remain to be handed on for new competition to a new generation. No one of the forces of our inheritance, be it for good or for evil, is dead; rather it sleeps till that time when the liberating powers of Nurture call it into active expression. There is real biological truth in the saying, "Every man is a potential criminal"; but it is equally true that every one is a possible saint. And there is one point further; we know that those qualities which do succeed in the competition of the inheritance, and which form at birth the character of the individual, are very different from their actual expression in the development of life, where perforce such qualities are modified to the environment. What we are is no certain criterion of what we are capable of becoming. For every item of our inheritance requires an appropriate growth-soil if it is actively to live. Each life is an adjustment of internal character to external conditions. A garden that has been choked with weeds may remain flowerless for many succeeding years, but dig that garden, and sleeping flowers, not known to live within the memory of man, may spring to life. May it not be that in the garden of woman's inheritance there are buried seeds, lying dormant, which at the liberating touch of opportunity may reawaken and assert themselves as forgotten flowers? Yes, to-day this seems a practical fact that already is being accomplished, and not a futile speculation. The re-birth of woman is no dream. At last she is realising the arrest in her development that has followed the acceptance of a position which forces her to be a parasite and a prostitute.

Every one admits the differences of function that separate the female from the male half of humankind. But to assume that the physical, mental, and moral disabilities of women, of which we hear so much, are a necessary part of their inheritance—the debt they pay for being the mothers of the race—is an absurdity it would be difficult to explain except for that strange sex bias, which seems always to colour all opinions as to women, their character and their place in society. Havelock Ellis, who in his admirable work Man and Woman has made an exhaustive examination of all the known facts with regard to the real and supposed secondary sexual differences between women and men, comes to this conclusion in his final summary—

"We have not succeeded," he says, "in determining the radical and essential character of men and women uninfluenced by external modifying conditions. We have to recognise that our present knowledge cannot tell us what they might be, but what they actually are, under the conditions of civilisation.... The facts are so numerous that even when we have ascertained the precise significance of some one fact, we cannot be sure that it is not contradicted by other facts. And so many of the facts are modifiable under a changing environment that in the absence of experience we cannot pronounce definitely regarding the behaviour of either the male or female organism under different conditions."

Only a knowledge of the multifarious and complex environmental forces, which in the past have moulded women into what to-day they are, will lead us to our goal. We may examine woman's present character, both physical and mental, with every precision of detail, but the knowledge gained will not settle her inborn Nature. We shall discover what she is, not what she might be. No, rather to do this we must go back through many generations to primitive woman. We must study, in particular, that period known as the Mother-Age, when we find an early civilisation largely built up by woman's activity and developed by her skill. We must find out every fact that we can of woman's physical and mental life in this first period of social growth; we must examine the causes which led to the change from this Mother-rule to that of the Father-rule, or the patriarchate, which succeeded it. Insight into the civilisations of the past is of special value to us in trying to solve our problems of woman's true place in the social life. For one thing, we shall learn that morality and sexual customs and institutions are not fixed, but are peculiar to each age, and are good only in so far as they fulfil the needs of any special period of a people's growth. We must note, in particular, the contributions made by woman to early civilisation, and then seek the reasons why she has lost her former position of power. The savage woman is nearer to Nature than we ourselves are, and in learning of her life we shall come to an understanding of many of the problems of our lives.

This, then, must be the second path of our discovery, and, following it, we shall gain further knowledge of what is artificial and what is real in the character of woman and in the present relations of the sexes.

We find that the external surroundings that influence life are referable to one of two classes: those which tend to increase destructive processes, and find their active expression in expenditure of energy, and those which tend to increase constructive processes, and are passive instead of active, storing energy, not expending it. These two classes of external forces, disruptive and constructive, are called katabolic and anabolic. Looking back on the early natural lives of men and women, we find there has been a very sharp separation in the play of these opposite sets of influences. A hasty survey of the facts suffices to prove that the work of the world was divided into two great parts, the men had the share of killing life, whether that of man or of animals, their attention was given to fighting and hunting; while the women's share was the continuing and nourishing life, their attention being given to the domestic arts—to agriculture and the attendant stationary industries. Woman's position during the matriarchate was largely the result of the need in primitive society of woman's constructive energy, and her power arose from an unfettered use of her special functions. But this divergence of the paths of women from the paths of men continued, and during the patriarchal period became arbitrary with the withdrawal of women from initiative labour, an unnatural arrangement which arose out of later social conditions. The militant side of social activities has belonged to men, the passive to women; and men have been goaded into growth by the conditions and struggles of their lives. They have gathered around themselves a special man-formed environment of institutions and laws, of activities and inventions, of art and literature, of male sentiments, and male systems of opinions, to which they are connected in subtle and numerous relations, and this complex heritage of influences has been reimposed on men generation by generation. In this social working-life women have not had an equal part—and a drag in their development has arisen as the result of this passivity. At a certain period in civilisation women became an inferior class because men with their greater range of opportunities, which brought them within a wider and more variable circle of influences, developed a superior fitness on the motor side. Another contrast is very evident, men's work being performed under more striking circumstances and with more apparent effort and danger, drew to itself prestige, which women's work did not receive; their work, on the contrary, was held in contempt.[7]

Yet, in this connection, it is necessary to say emphatically that, in its origin, there was nothing arbitrary in this division between the sexes. It was, in itself, a natural outcome of natural causes, arising out of the needs of primitive societies. There is nothing derogatory to woman in accepting the passive or, more truly, the constructive power of her nature; rather it is her chief claim for the regaining of her true position in society. I wish at once to say how far it is from my desire to judge woman from a male standpoint. The power and nature that are woman's are not secondary to man's; they are equal, but different, being co-existent and complementary—in fact, just the completion of his.

There is another point that must be made clear.

The separation in the social activities of women and men was not brought about, as is stated so frequently, by men's injustice to women. There is an unfortunate tendency to regard the subjection of woman as wholly due to male selfishness and tyranny. Many leaders of woman's freedom hold to this view as their broad exposition of principle. Such belief is illogical and untrue. It cannot be too often repeated that sex-hatred means retrogression and not progress. I do not mean to say that women have not suffered at men's hands. They have, but not more than men have suffered at their hands. No woman who faces facts can deny this truth. Neither sex can afford to bring railing accusations against the other. The old doctrine of blame is insufficient. Women's disabilities are not, in their origin at least, due to any form of male tyranny. I believe, moreover, that any solution of the woman problem, and of woman's rights, is of ridiculous impotence that attempts to see in man woman's perpetual oppressor. The enemy, if enemy there is, of woman's emancipation, is woman herself.

But, on the other side, it is certain that the long-held opinion—what we may call "the male view of women"—which believes that the position woman occupies in society and the duties she performs are, in the main, what they should be, she being what she is, is equally false. Such theorists throw upon Nature the responsibility of the evils consequent on the deviations from equality of opportunity in the past lives of women. Truly we credit Nature with an absurd blunder do we accept this inferiority of the female half of life. Woman is what she is because she has lived as she has. And no estimate of her character, no effort to fix the limit of her activities, can carry weight that ignores the totally different relations towards society that have artificially grown up, dividing so sharply the life of woman from that of man.

I am brought back to the object of this book.

What are the conditions that have brought woman to her position of dependence upon man? How far is her state of physical and mental inferiority the result of this position? To what extent is she justified in her present revolt? What result will her freedom have on the sexual relationships? Will the change be likely to work for the benefit of the future? In a word, how far are the new claims woman is making consistent with race permanence? It is not one, but a whole group of questions that have to be answered when once the ideal of the right of the present position of the sexes is shaken. The subject is so entangled that a straightforward step-by-step inquiry will not always be possible. Dogmatic conclusions, and the bringing forward of too hasty remedies must alike be avoided. The past must lead us to the present, and thence we must look to the future. The first need is to find out every fact that we can that will help us in our search for the truth. Most writers on the subject, in their desire to fix on a cause of the evil, have selected one factor, or group of factors, and largely neglected all others. Otto Weininger, for instance, the brilliant modern denouncer of woman, refers the whole great difference between women and men to one cause—the bondage of sexuality. Mrs. Stetson, in Woman and Economics, finds a different answer to the same question, and assumes that the whole evil is of economic origin. Both explanations are in part true, but neither is the truth.

To institute reform successfully needs a wider spirit. We must face sex problems with biological and historical knowledge. Before we can understand women's present position in society, or even suggest a future, we must examine the place she has filled in the civilisations of the past; we must fix, too, the part the female half of life has played in the evolution of the sexes. Yet an inquiry into facts is only the first stage, and not the final. When we can go on from these facts to their results, and learn the reasons of what we have discovered, we shall become to some extent, at least, prepared. Then, and then only, can we venture to look forward and intelligently suggest whither the present revolution is leading us.

It is to reach this goal that this book is written. It is an attempt to place the woman question in a wider and more decisive light. It is not an investigation of facts alone, but of causes. The gospel it would preach is a gospel of liberation. And that from which woman must be freed is herself—the unsocial self that has been created by a restricted environment. We have seen that woman's social inferiority in the past has been to a great extent a legitimate thing. To all appearances history would have been impossible without it, just as it would have been impossible without an epoch of slavery and war. Physical strength has ruled in the past, and woman was the weaker. The truth is that woman's time had not come, but now her unconscious evolution must give place to a conscious development. Happiness for women! That must imply wholly independent activities, and complete freedom for the exercise of her work of race production. Woman's duty to society is paramount, she is the guardian of the Race-body and Race-soul. But woman must be responsible to herself; no longer must she follow men. The natural growth force needs to be liberated. Woman must be freed as woman; she must die to arise from death a full human being. There is no other solution to the woman question, and there can be no other.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "Woman and Labour," The Chances of Death, Vol. I. p. 226.

[2] Quoted from The Emancipation of English Women, by W. Lyon Blease, a book which gives an unbiased, and in many respects excellent, account of the struggle of English women to gain freedom from the seventeenth century to the present day.

[3] Strictures, I. 6, Gregory.

[4] The Emancipation of English Women.

[5] For an account of this struggle see Sketch of the Foundation and Development of the London School of Medicine for Women, by Isabel Thorne; also The Emancipation of English Women.

[6] Woman and Economics, Mrs. Stetson, p. 38.

[7] See Thomas, Sex and Society, chapter on "Sex and Primitive Industry," pp. 123-146; and Ellis, Man and Woman, pp. 1-17.

PART I

BIOLOGICAL SECTION

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER II

THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES

Biology the starting-point of sociology—The irresistible force of Love—The true place of woman and man in the animal kingdom—Analogy between animal love-matings and our own—The Life-force—Reproduction a process of nutrition—Different modes of Reproduction—Cell-division—Successive stages of growth—Theory of sex—Its nature and origin—Incipient sex among the early forms of life—The true office of sex—The principle of fertilisation—Its use to the species in progressive development—Nutrition as a factor determining sex—Illustration of the volvox—The dependence of the male-cell upon the female-cell—The well-nourished female—The hungry male—Relation between food supply and the sexes—Illustrations—Lessons to be learnt—All species are invented and tolerated by Nature for parenthood and its service—The part played by the female—The demand laid upon her heavier than that laid upon the male—The female is mainly responsible for the race—The female led and the male followed in the evolution of life.

CHAPTER II[ToC]

THE ORIGIN OF THE SEXES

"Before studying the sexual relations, and their more or less regulated form in human societies, it will not be out of place to say a few words on reproduction in general, to sketch briefly its physiology in so far as this is fundamental, and, to show how tyrannical are the instincts whose formation has been determined by physiological causes."—Letourneau.

Let us now, as the first path of our inquiry, turn our attention to that biological point of view which is indispensable and fundamental if we are to understand those primary emotions, impulses and differences of the sexes, of deep organic origin, which were rooted long ago in the lowest forms of life, and hence were passed on to man from his pre-human ancestors. No apology is needed for this inquiry; for in these uncounted ancestral forces, dating back to the remote beginnings of life, we shall find hints, at least, of many things which lead up to and explain those problems which must be solved, before we can determine the true position of woman in the complex sexual relations of our social life. We cannot deny our lineage. The force which drove life onwards from the start drives it still to-day. The reproductive impulse is the chief motor of humanity; our seed is eternal. And the point of view that I wish to make clear is that the sex-impulses, which are, as few will deny, the base of the present unrest among women, have an inconceivably long history, and thus spring up within us with a tremendous organic momentum. To deny this force is futile, to suppress it impossible; all that can be done is to so regulate its expression that it may serve life instead of waste it. Implanted in every normal life is an instinctive desire to function in two ways: to grow and to reproduce, from the simple cell to the highest type of life, including man and woman, these two desires are essential and imperative. The irresistible Force of Life has been inherited by us from millions of ancestral lovers. Only when furnished with a re-interpretative clue to the origin of sex and its functioning can we come to realise its strength and its beauty, far stronger, far subtler, than we suspected before. It is the shirking of these life-facts that has resulted so often in error.

And let no one resent or think useless such an analogy between animal love-matings and our own. In tracing the evolution of our love-passions from the sexual relations of other mammals, and back to those of their ancestors, and to the humbler, though scarcely less beautiful, ancestors of these, we shall discover what must be considered as essential and should be lasting, and what is false in the conditions and character of the sexes to-day; and thereby we shall gain at once warning in what directions to pause, and new hope to send us forward. We shall learn that there are factors in our sex-impulses that require to be lived down as out-of-date and no longer beneficial to the social needs of life. But encouragement will come as, looking backwards, we learn how the mighty dynamic of sex-love has evolved in fineness, without losing its intensity, how it is tending to become more mutual, more beautiful, more lasting. And this gives us new hope to press forward on that path which woman even now is travelling, wherein she will be free from the risk of clinging to conditions of the past, which for so long have dragged her evolution in the mire.

The same force that pushed life into existence tends to increase and perpetuate it. For when the great Force of Life has once started, the same movements which constitute that life continue, and give rise to nutrition, the first of the great faculties, or powers, of life. Then, after this growth has been carried to a certain point, the organism from the superabundance of nutrition is furnished with a surplus growing energy, by means of which it reproduces itself, whence arises the second of the great life faculties. We thus have the two essential forces of life—the preservative force and the reproductive force, arising alike from nutrition. Food to assure life and growth for the individual; reproduction, an extension of the same process, to ensure the continuance of the species. We thus see the truth of Haeckel's definition that "reproduction is a nutrition and growth of the organism beyond its individual mass," or in biological formula, "a discontinuous growth."[8]

It is well to grasp at once this first conception of reproduction as simply an extension of nutrition, if we are to free our minds from misconception. It is a common belief that the original purpose of sex is to ensure reproduction, whereas fundamentally it is not necessary to propagation at all. It is perfectly true, of course, that in the majority of animals, and also in many plants, an individual life begins in the union of two minute elements, the mother egg-cell and the sperm father-cell. But this is not the earliest stage, and below these higher forms we find a great world of life reproducing without this sex-process by simple separation and growth. In these unicellular organisms reproduction is known as asexual, because there are no special germ-cells, nor is there anything corresponding to fertilisation. The most common forms are (1) by division into two; (2) by budding, a modified form of division; (3) by sporulation, a division into many units.[9]

It is worth while to wait to learn something of this first stage in the development of life, for in this way we shall gain a clue as to the origin of sex and the real purpose it fulfils in the service of reproduction. In the very simplest forms of unicellular organisms propagation is effected at what is known as "the limit of growth"; when the cell has attained as much volume as its surface can adequately supply with food, a simple division of the cell takes place into two halves or daughter cells, each exactly like the other, which then become independent and themselves repeat the same rupture process. But in some slightly more complex cases differences occur between the two cells into which the organism divides, as in the slipper animacule, where one-half goes off with the mouth, while the other has none. In a short time, however, the mouthless half forms a mouth, and each half grows into a replica of the original. We have here one of the earliest examples of differentiation. That injured multicellular organisms should be able by regrowth to repair their loss in an analogous phenomenon; thus an earth-worm cut by a spade does not necessarily suffer loss, but the head part grows a tail and the decapitated portion produces a head; sponges, which do not normally propagate by division, may be cut in pieces and bedded out successfully; the arms of a star-fish, torn asunder by a fisherman, will almost always result in several perfect star-fish. Similarly among plants a cut-off portion may readily give rise to new plants—a potato-tuber is one of hundreds of instances. This ability to effect complete repair is one of the powers that life has lost; it persists as high in the scale as reptiles, and a lizard is able to regrow an amputated leg.

It is certainly not the least interest in studying these early forms that one is able to trace the analogy they bear with the higher forms. No rigid line can be drawn between the successive stages of growth. And it should be borne in mind that, simple as is the life-process in these single-celled organisms, many of them are highly differentiated and show great complexity of structure within the narrow limits of their size. Thus among the protozoa, the basis of all animal life, we find very definite and interesting modes of behaviour, such as seeking light and avoiding it, swimming in a spiral, approaching certain substances and retreating from others; the organisms often, indeed, trying one behaviour after another.[10] If we realise this it becomes easier to understand how the higher types of life have developed from these primitive types. Indeed, all the bodies of the most complex animals—including ourselves—originate as simple cells, and in the individual history of each of us divide and multiply just as do the cells which exist independently; only in multicellular organisms each cell must be regarded as an individual, modified to serve a special purpose, one cell differentiated to start a lineage of nerve cells, another a lineage of digestive cells, yet another for the reproduction of the species, and so on, each group of cells taking on its special use, but the power of division remaining with the modified cell. Thus a new life is built up—a child becomes an adult, by multiplication of these differentiated cells, repeating the original single-cell development.

Budding, the second, and perhaps the most usual mode of asexual propagation, may be said to mark a further step in the development of the reproductive process. Here the mother-cell, instead of dividing into two equal parts and at once rupturing, protrudes a small portion of its substance, which is separated by a constriction that grows deeper and deeper until the bulk becomes wholly detached. This small bud then grows until it attains the size of the parent, when it, in turn, repeats the same process. This mode of reproduction is common to the great majority of plants. In animal life it is not confined to single-celled organism, but takes place in certain multicellulars, such as worms, bryozoans, and ascidians; one very interesting example being the sea-worm (myrianida) which buds off a whole chain of individuals.

Nearly allied with budding is the third stage, in which the division is multiple and rapid within the limited space of the mother-cell. This is known as spore formation. The cells become detached, and do not further develop until they have escaped from the parent. They then increase by division and growth to form independent individuals. This spore reproduction is found among certain types of vegetation; it also occurs in the protozoa.

It is probable that these three stages of asexual reproduction are not all the steps actually taken by Nature in the development of the early life-process. There must have been intermediate steps, perhaps many such, but the forms in which they occur either have not persisted, or have not yet been studied.[11] The feature common to all ordinary forms of asexual multiplication is that the reproductive process is independent of sex; what starts the new life is the half, or a liberated portion of the single parent cell. It will be readily seen that by this process the offspring are identical with the parent. Life continues, but it continues unchanged. Thus the power of growth is restricted within extremely narrow limits. Any further development required a new process. With the life-force pushing in all directions every possible process would be tried. We are often met with striking phenomena of adjustments to new conditions, which in some cases, when found to be advantageous to the organism, persist. There is, in fact, abundant evidence that Nature in these early days of life was making experiments. In pursuance of this policy it naturally came about that any process by which the organism gained increased power of growth had the greater likelihood of survival. The number of devices in the way of modification of form and habit to secure advantage is practically infinite; but there was one principle that was eagerly seized upon at a very early stage, and, persisting by this law of advantage, was utilised by all progressive types as an accessory of success. This was the principle of fertilisation, which arose in this way from what would almost seem the chance union of two cells, at first alike, but afterwards more and more highly differentiated, and from whose primordial mating have proceeded by a natural series of ascending steps all the developed forms of sex.

The ways in which this was brought about we have now to see. But even at this point it becomes evident that the true office of sex was not the first need of securing reproduction—that had been done already—rather it was the improving and perfecting of the single-cell process by introducing variation through the commingling of the ancestral hereditary elements of two parents, and, by means of such variations, the production of new and higher forms of life—in fact, progress by the mighty dynamic of sex.[12]

As we should expect, the passing from the sexless mode of reproduction to the definite male and female types is not sharply defined or abrupt. Even among many unicellular organisms the process becomes more elaborate with distinct specialisation of reproductive elements. In some cases conjugation is observed, when two individuals coalesce, and each cell and each nucleus divides into two, and each half unites with the half of the other to form a new cell. This is asexual, since the uniting cells are exactly similar, but the effect would seem to be the strengthening of the cells by, as it were, introducing new blood. In somewhat more complex cases these cells do not part company when they divide, but remain attached to one another, and form a kind of commonwealth. Here one can see at once that some cells in a little group will be less advantageously placed for the absorption of nourishment than others. By degrees this differentiation of function brings about differentiation of form, and cells become modified, in some cases, to a surprising extent, to serve special purposes. The next advance is when the uniting cells become somewhat different in themselves. In the early stages this difference appears as one of size; a small weakly cell, though sometimes propagating by union with a similar cell, in other cases seeks out a larger and more developed cell, and by uniting with it in mutual nourishment becomes strong. This may be seen among the protozoa where we can trace the distinct beginnings of the male and female elements. A very instructive example is furnished by the case of volvox, a multicellular vegative organism of very curious habits. The cells at first are all alike; they are united by protoplasmic bridges and form a colony. In favourable environmental conditions of abundant nutrition this state of affairs continues, and the colony increases only by multiplication and without fertilisation. But when the supply of food is exhausted, or by any cause is checked, sexual reproduction is resorted to, and this in a way that illustrates most instructively the differentiation of the female and male cells. Some of the cells are seen accumulating nourishment at the expense of the others and grow larger, and if this continues, cells which must be regarded as ova, or female cells, result; while other cells, less advantageously placed with more competitors struggling to obtain food, grow smaller and gradually change their character, becoming, in fact, males. In some cases distinct colonies may in this way arise, some composed entirely of the large well-nourished cells, and others of small hungry cells, and may be recognised as completely female or male colonies.[13]

We are now in a position to gain a clue to the difficult problem of the origin of the sexes. It would be easy as well as instructive to accumulate examples.[14] I am tempted to linger over the life-histories of these early organisms that are so full of suggestion; but the case I have selected—the volvox—really answers the question. Sex here is dependent on, and would seem to have arisen through, differences in environmental conditions. We find the well-nourished, larger, and usually more quiescent cell is the female, the hungrier and more mobile cell the male; the one concerned with storing energy, the other with consuming it, the one building up, the other breaking down; or expressed in biological formula, the female cell is predominantly anabolic, that of the male predominantly katabolic. Thus we find that the male, through a want of nutrition, was carried developmentally away from the well-fed female cell, which it was bound to seek and unite with to continue life. This relation between the food supply and the sexes is found persisting in higher forms, and, in this connection, the well-known experiments of Young on tadpoles and of Siebald on wasps may be cited. By increasing the nutrition of tadpoles the percentage of females was raised from the normal of about fifty per cent. to ninety, while similarly among wasps the number of females was found to depend on warmth and food supply, and to decrease as these diminished. Mention also may be made of the plant-lice, or aphides, which infest our rose-bushes and other plants, which, during the summer months, when conditions are favourable, produce generation after generation of females, but on the advent of autumn, with its cold and scarcity of food, males appear and sexual reproduction takes place. Similarly brine-shrimps when living under favourable conditions produce females, but when the environment is less favourable males as well are found. Another significant fact is the simple and well-known one that within the first eight days of larval life the additions of food will determine the striking and functional differences between the workers and queen-bee.[15] Among the higher animals the difficulties of proving the influence of environment upon sex are, of course, much greater. There are, however, many facts which point to a persistence of this fundamental differentiation. Among these it is sufficient to mention the experiments of stock-breeders, which show that good conditions tend to produce females; and the testimony of furriers that rich regions yield more furs from females, and poor regions more from males. Even when we reach the human species facts are not wanting to suggest a similar condition. It is usual in times of war and famine for more boys to be born; also more boys are born in the country than in cities, possibly because the city diet is richer, especially in meat. Similarly among poor families the percentage of boys is higher than in well-to-do families. And although such evidence is not conclusive and must be accepted with great caution, it seems safe to say that the facts—of which I have given a few only of the most common—are sufficient to suggest that the relation among the lower forms of life persists up to the human species, and that the female is the result of surplus nutrition and the male of scarcity.

This is sufficient for our present purpose; all other questions and theories brought forward regarding the determination and conditions of the sexes are outside our purpose. Those who will survey the evidence in detail will find ample confirmation of the point of view I wish to make clear. (1) All species are invented and tolerated by Nature for parenthood and its service; (2) the demands laid upon the female by the part required from her are heavier than those needed for the part fulfilled by the male. The female it is who is mainly responsible to the race. And for this reason the progress of the world of life has always rested upon and been determined by the female half of life. What I wish to establish now is that the male developed after and, as it were, from the female. The female led, and the male followed her in the evolution of life.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Haeckel, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, Vol. II. p. 16.

[9] Thomson, J. Arthur, Heredity, p. 29.

[10] Thomson, J. Arthur, Heredity, p. 33.

[11] Ward, Pure Sociology, p. 307.

[12] See Ward, op. cit., pp. 304-314, from whose chapter on this subject I have taken these facts.

[13] Evolution of Sex, pp. 137-138, 161.

[14] Geddes and Thomson, in The Evolution of Sex, pp. 117-123, 135-140, give many interesting and corroborative examples.

[15] Geddes and Thomson, The Evolution of Sex, pp. 40-52, 249-250; give a complete exposition of this theory with many examples. See also Thomas, Sex and Society, pp. 4-43.

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER III

GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

I.—The Early Position of the Sexes

A further examination into the opinion of the superiority of the male—Contradictions to the accepted view of female inferiority—A new way of stating the problem—The female as the creator of the male—Examples of the simplest types of the sexes—Predominance of the female in the animal kingdom below the invertebrates—Superiority of the female in size and often in power of function—Complemental male husbands—Illustrations of male parasites—Corroborative evidence from the sex-elements—The primary service of the male to assist the female in the race-work—Sex-parasitism among females—This explained by the conditions under which the species live—The lessons to be drawn from sex-parasitism—Structural modifications acquired for adapting the sexes to different modes of life—Care of offspring not always confined to the female—Among fishes it is the father who gives any attention to the young—The superiority of the female persists among higher forms—Examples—Sex-equality among birds—Conclusion—The sexual relationship may assume almost any form to suit the varying conditions of life.

II.—Two Examples—The Beehive and the Spider

The case of the beehive—The drones—The queen-mother—The sterile-workers—The sacrifice of the sexes to the Life-Force—The maternal instinct among the workers—This has persisted after the atrophy of the sexual needs—Maternal love has expanded out into social affection—Application of the lessons of the beehive—Analogy with modern society—The Intellectuals among women—Do they understand what they really want—The organic necessity of love—The price of sterility—The courtship of the Spider—Mr. Bernard Shaw's Ann—The part played by woman in courtship—Her passivity only apparent—Female superiority with which sexuality began remains in every courtship—The fierce hunger of the male—His absorption by the female—Nothing can, or should, alter this—The importance of woman's activity in love in connection with her claim for emancipation—General observations and conclusion.

CHAPTER III[ToC]

GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION

"Sexually Woman is Nature's contrivance for perpetuating its highest achievement. Sexually Man is Woman's contrivance for fulfilling Nature's behest in the most economical way. She knows by instinct that far back in the evolution process she invented him, differentiated him, created him in order to produce something better than the single-cell process can produce."—Don Juan in Hell—Man and Superman.

I.—The Early Position of the Sexes

The opinion of the superiority of the male sex has been so widely, and without question, accepted that it is necessary to emphasise the exact opposite view which was brought forward in the last chapter. From the earliest times it has been contended that woman is undeveloped man.[16] This opinion is at the root of the common estimation of woman's character to-day. Huxley, who was in favour of the emancipation of women, seems to have held this opinion. He says that "in every excellent character the average woman is inferior to the average man in the sense of having that character less in quantity or lower in quality;" and that "the female type of character is neither better nor worse than the male, only weaker." Few have maintained that the sexes are equal, still fewer that women excel.[17] The general bias of opinion has always been in favour of men. Woman almost invariably has been accorded a secondary place, the male has been held to be the primary and essential half of life, all things, as it were, centering around him, while the female, though necessary to the continuance of the race, has been regarded as otherwise unimportant—in fact, a mere accessory to the male.

The causes that have given rise to such an opinion are not far to seek. The question has been approached from the wrong end; we have looked from above downwards—from the latest stages of life back to the beginning, instead of from the beginning on to the end. We find among the higher forms of life—the animals with which we are all familiar—that the males are as a rule larger and stronger, more varied in structure, and more highly ornamented and adorned than the females. And when we rise to the human species these sex differences persist and are even emphasised, though finding their expression in a greater number of less strongly marked characters, not on the physical side alone, but on the mental and psychical. It is difficult to divest the mind of facts with which it is most familiar. Thus it is easy to understand the widely-held opinion of the superiority of the male half of life, and that the female is the sex sacrificed to the reproductive process.

Now, were this true, the question of woman's place in life would indeed be settled. There can be no upward change which is not in accord with the laws of Nature. If the female really started and had always remained secondary to the male, necessary to continue life, but otherwise unimportant, in such position she must be content to stay. Her struggles for advancement may be heroic, yet would they be doomed to failure, for no individual growth can persist which injures the growth of the race-life. Well it is for women that there need be no such fear, even among the most timid-hearted; woman's position and advancement is sure because it is founded with deepest roots in the organic scheme of life.

As once more we search backwards, tracing the differences of sex function to their earliest appearance in the humblest types of life, we find the exact opposite of this theory of the inferiority of the female to be true. The female is of more importance than the male from Nature's point of view. We have seen that life must be regarded as essentially female, since there is no choice but to look upon asexual reproduction as a female process; the single-cell being the mother-cell with the fertilising element of the father or male-cell wanting. We know further that a similar process, but much more highly developed, is possible in what is called parthenogenesis, or virgin-birth, which can only be explained as a survival of the early form. For long life continued without the assistance of the male-cell, which, when it did arise, was dependent on the ova, or female-cell, and was driven by hunger to unite with it in fatigue to continue life. We are thus forced to regard the male-cell as an auxiliary development of the female, or as Lester Ward ingenuously puts it, "an after-thought of Nature devised for the advantage of having a second sex."

Now, if we examine the simplest types of the sexes in the lower reaches of the animal kingdom,[18] below the vertebrates we find the same conditions prevailing. The male is frequently inconspicuous in size, of use only to fertilise the female, and in some cases incapable of any other function; the female, on the other hand, remains unchanged and carries on the life of the species. So marked is this difference among some species that the male must be regarded as a fallen representative of the female, having not only greatly diminished in size, but undergone thorough degeneration in structure.[19] In certain extreme cases what have been well called "pigmy males" illustrate this contrast in an almost ridiculous degree. This is well seen among the common rotifers, where the males are much smaller than the females and very degenerate. Sometimes they seem to have dwindled out of existence altogether, as only females are to be seen; in other cases, though present they fail even to accomplish their proper function of fertilisation, and as reproduction is carried on by the females, they are not only minute but useless. Nor are such cases of male degeneration confined to this group. The whole family of the Abdominalia (cirripedes) have the sexes separate; and the males, comparatively very small, are attached to the body of each female, and are entirely passive and dependent upon her.[20] Some of these male parasites are so far degenerated as to have lost their digestive organs and are incapable of any function except fertilisation: the male Sygami (menatodes), for instance, being so far effaced that it is nothing but a testicle living on the female.[21] A yet more striking instance is furnished by the curious green worm Bonellia, where the male appears like a remote ancestor of the female, on whom it lives parasitically. Somewhat similar is the cocus insect, among whom the males are very degenerate, small, blind and wingless.

This phenomenon of minute parasitic male fertilisers in connection with normally developed females was noticed by Darwin, and his observations have been confirmed by Van Beneden, by Huxley, Haeckel, Milne Edwards, Fabre, Patrick Geddes, and many other eminent entomologists.[22] A full study of these early forms of sexuality should be made by all who wish to understand the problem of woman; their life-histories furnish prophecies of many large facts. I wish it were possible for me to bring forward further examples. It is the difficulty of treating so wide a subject within narrow limits that so many things that are of interest have to be hurried over and left out. But there is one delightful case that I cannot refrain from mentioning. The facts are given in a letter from Darwin to Sir Charles Lyell, dated September 14, 1849. It is quoted by Professor Lester Ward. This instance of the sexual relationship among the cirripedes illustrates very vividly the early superiority of the female.

The letter runs thus—

"The other day I got a curious case of a unisexual, instead of hermaphrodite cirripede, in which the female had the common cirripedial character, and in two valves of her shell had two little pockets, in each of which she kept a little husband; I do not know of any other case in which the female invariably has two husbands. I have still one other fact, common to several species, namely, that though they are hermaphrodite, they have small additional, or shall I call them, complemental males, one specimen, itself hermaphrodite, had no less than seven of these complemental males attached to it. Truly the schemes and wonders of Nature are illimitable,"[23]

Here, indeed, is a knock-down blow to the theory of the natural superiority of the male. These cases we have examined are certainly extreme, the difference between the sexes is, as we shall see, less marked in many early types. But the existence of these helpless little husbands serves to show the true origin of the male. How often he lived parasitically on the female, his work to aid her in the reproductive process, useful to secure greater variation than could be had by the single-celled process. In other words, the male is of use to the life-scheme in assisting the female to produce progressively fitter forms. She, indeed, created him, his sole function being her impregnation.

Corroborative evidence appears in the contrast which persists in all the higher forms between the relatively large female-cell or germ and the microscopical male-cell or sperm, as also in the absorption of the male cellule by the female cellule. In the sexual cells there is no character in which differentiation goes so far as that of size.[24] The female cell is always much larger than the male; where the former is swollen with the reserve food, the spermatozoa may be less than a millionth of its volume. In the human species an ovum is about 3000 times as large as spermatozoa.[25] The male cellule, differentiated to enable it to reach the female, impregnates and becomes fused within her cellule, which, unlike hers, preserves its individuality and continues as the main source of life.

It is true that exceptions occur, sex-parasitism appearing in both sex forms, and in some cases it is the female who degenerates and becomes wholly passive and dependent, but this is usually under conditions which afford in themselves an explanation. Thus, in the troublesome thread-worm (Heterodera schachtii), which infests the turnip plant, the sexes are at first alike, then both become parasitic, but the adult male recovers himself, is agile and like other thread-worms, while the female remains a parasitic victim without power of function—a mere passive, distended bag of eggs. Another extreme but well-known example is that of the cochineal insect, where the female, laden with reserve products in the form of the well-known pigment, spends much of its life like a mere quiescent gall on the cactus plant; the male, on the other hand, is active, though short-lived. Among other insects—such, for example, as certain ticks—a very complete form of female parasitism prevails; and while the male remains a complex, highly active, winged creature, the female, fastening itself into the flesh of some living animal and sucking its blood, has lost wings and all activity and power of locomotion, having become a mere distended bladder, which, when filled with eggs, bursts and ends a parasitic existence that has hardly been life.[26] In many crustaceans, again, the females are parasitic, but this also is explained by their habit of seeking shelter for egg-laying purposes.[27]

The whole question of sex-parasitism as it appears in these first pages of the life-histories of sexes is one of deep suggestion; and one, moreover, that casts forward sharp side-lights on modern sex problems. In some early forms, where the conditions of life are similar for the two sexes, the male and the female are often like one another. Thus it is very difficult to distinguish a male starfish from a female starfish, or a male sea-urchin from a female sea-urchin. It becomes abundantly clear that degeneration in active function, whether it be that of the male or the female, is the inevitable nemesis of parasitism. The males and females in the cases we have examined may be said to be martyrs to their respective sexes.

A further truth of the utmost importance becomes manifest. Many differences between the relative position of the sexes, which we are apt to suppose are inherent in the female or male, are not inherent, in light of these early and varying types. We see that the sex-relationship and the character of the female and male assume different forms, changing as the conditions of life vary. Again and again when we come to examine the position of women in different periods of civilisation, we shall find that whenever the conditions of life have tended to withdraw them from the social activities of labour, restricting them, like these early sex-victims, to the passive exercise of their reproductive functions alone, that such parasitism has resulted invariably in the degeneration of woman, and through her passing on such deterioration to her sons, there has followed, after a longer or shorter period, the degeneration of society. But these questions belong to the later part of our inquiry, and cannot be entered on here. Yet it were well to fix in our minds at once the dangers, without escape, that follow sex-parasitism.

It may be thought that these cases of sex-victims are exceptions, and that, therefore, it is unsafe to draw conclusions from them. The truth would rather seem to be that they are extreme examples of conditions that were common at one stage of life. There is no doubt that up to the level of the amphibians female superiority in size, and often in power of function, prevails.[28] If, for example, we look at insects generally, the males are smaller than the females, especially in the imago state. There are many species, belonging to different orders—as, for instance, certain moths and butterflies—in which this superiority is very marked. The males are either not provided with any functional organs for eating, or have these imperfectly developed. It seems evident that their sole function is to fertilise the female. A familiar and interesting example is furnished by the common mosquitoes, among whom the female alone, with its harmful sting, is known to the unscientific world. The males, frail and weaponless little creatures, swarm with the females in the early summer, and then pass away, their work being done.

Dr. Howard, writing of the mosquito in America, says—

"It is a well-known fact that the adult male mosquito does not necessarily take nourishment, and that the adult female does not necessarily rely on the blood of warm-blooded animals. The mouth parts of the male are so different from those of the female that it is probable that, if it feeds at all, it obtains its food in quite a different manner from the female. They are often observed sipping at drops of water, and in one instance a fondness for molasses has been recorded."[29]

We find many examples of such structural modifications acquired for the purpose of adapting the sexes to different modes of life. Darwin notes that the females of certain flies are blood-suckers, whilst the males, living on flowers, have mouths destitute of mandibles.[30] The females are carnivorous, the males herbivorous. It would be easy to bring forward many further examples among the invertebrates in which the differences between the sexes indicates very clearly the persistence of female superiority. But for these I must refer the reader to the works of Darwin and other entomologists, and to the many interesting cases given by Professor Lester Ward. There are, it is true, exceptions, but these may be explained by the conditions under which the species live.

Even when we ascend the scale to back-boned animals, cases are not wanting in which the early superiority in size of the female remains unaltered. The smallest known vertebrate, Heterandria formosa, has females very considerably larger than the males.[31] Among fishes the males are commonly smaller than the females, who are also, as a rule, considerably more numerous.[32] This is a fact that fishermen are well aware of. I may mention, as an example, that on one occasion when my husband and I caught twenty-five trout in a mountain lake in Wales there were only two males among them. It is curious to find that any care of offspring that is evident among fishes is usually paternal. This furnishes another instance of the truth so necessary to learn that the sex-relationships may assume almost any form to suit the varying conditions of life.

There are some mammals among whom the sexes do not differ appreciably in size and strength, and very little or not at all, in coloration and ornament. Such is the case with nearly all the great family of rodents. It is also the case with the Erinaceidæ, or at least with its typical sub-family of hedgehogs.[33] Even among birds, where the sex instincts have attained to their highest and most æsthetic expression, we find some large families—as, for example, the hawks—in which the female is usually the larger and finer bird.[34] Thus the adult male of the common sparrow-hawk is much smaller than the female, the length of the male being 13 ins., wing 7.7 ins., and that of the female 15.4 ins., wing 9 ins. The male peregrine, known to hawkers as the tiercel, is greatly inferior in size to his mate. The merlin, the osprey, the falcon, the spotted eagle, the golden eagle, the gos-hawk, the harrier, the buzzard, the eagle-owl, and other species of owls are further examples where the female bird is larger than the male. Among many of these families the female birds very closely resemble the males, and where differences in colour and ornament do occur, they are slight.

A further point of the greatest importance to us requires to be made. Wherever amongst the birds the sexes are alike the habits of their lives are also alike. The female as well as the male obtains food, the nest is built together, and the young are cared for by both parents. These beautiful examples of sex equality among the birds cannot be regarded as exceptions that have arisen by chance—a reversal of the usual rule of the sexes; rather they show the persistence of the earlier relations between the female and the male carried to a finer development under conditions of life favourable to the female. I will not here say more upon this subject, as I shall have to refer to it in greater detail when we come to consider the sexual and familial habits of birds. I will only add that in their delicacy and devotion to each other and to their offspring, birds in their unions have advanced to a much further stage than we have in our marriages. These associations of our ancestral lovers claim our attentive study.

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] Encyclopædia 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 Gynæcocentric 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, Leçons sur la physiologie et l'anatomie comparée 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 Büchner, 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[ToC]

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'être 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 rôle 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 larvæ. 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 gallinaceæ—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—Æsthetic 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—Æsthetic 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 rôle 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 Gynæocratic 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[ToC]

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 gallinaceæ 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 æsthetic 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 Büchner, 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.