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.
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.
“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, “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. 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. It is hardly necessary to point
out that in these love-conflicts we may find the sources
of our own brute passions of jealousy, and the origin
of duels, murders and all the violent crimes committed
by men under the excitement of sexual emotion-the
tares among the wheat of love that drive men mad
and wild.
In birds it is among the gallinaceae
that love incites the male with warlike fury.
The barn-door cock is the type of the jealous male-amorous,
vain and courageous. 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.
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 (Tétras cuspido), which are said
to assemble at night to fight until morning with measured
grace, and then to separate, having first exchanged
formal courtesies.
It is among birds that the notes of
joy in love break out with a wonderful fascination.
They are the most perfect of lovers; strength is often
quite set aside, and the eye and ear of the mate alone
is appealed to. The males (and also, in some
cases, the females) use many aesthetic appeals to
stimulate passion, such as dancing, beauty of plumage,
and the art of showing it, as well as sweetness of
song and diverse love-calls. There are numerous
examples of affectionate partnerships between the
sexes, in some cases lasting for life. The female
Illinois parrot, for instance, rarely survives the
death of her mate. Similarly the death of either
sex of the panurus is said to be fatal to its
companion. The affection of these birds is strong;
they always perch side by side, and when they fall
asleep one of them, usually the male, covers the other
with its wing. The couples of the golden woodpeckers
and doves live in perfect unison. Brehm records
the case of a male woodpecker who, after the death
of his mate, tapped day and night with his beak to
recall the absent one, and when at last discouraged,
he became silent and never recovered his gaiety.
According to some estimates monogamy prevails among
ninety per cent of birds. This is explained by
the steady co-operation of both sexes in forming the
home and caring for the young, for it is surely the
working together which causes their love to outlast
the excitement of the procreative season. Sometimes
we find this affection flowing out into a wider altruism,
extending beyond the family to the social group; which
again is surely at once the condition and result of
these beautiful and practical love-partnerships.
Those who have read the absorbing
pages of Darwin devoted to the consideration of the
sexual characters of birds, or know the examples given
by Buechner, Audubon, Epinas, Wallace and other naturalists,
or, better still, those who have watched and noted
for themselves the love-habits of birds, will find
it impossible to withhold admiration for the poetic
character of many of these courtships and marriages,
which put too often our own human matings to utter
shame.
Let us look first at the love-dances.
Dancing as a means of attracting the right pitch of
passion in the male and the female has always been
used in the service of the sexual instinct. It
gives the highest and most complex expression of movement,
and may be said to have been evolved by love from
the more brutal courtships of battle display.
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. 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.
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, has found that all bird dances are not
nuptial, but that some birds-the stone-curlew
(or great plover), for example-have different
kinds of dancing. The nuptial dances are taken
part in by both the male and female, and are immediately
followed by conjugation; but there are as well other
dances or antics of a non-sexual character, which may
be regarded as social, and these too are indulged
in by both sexes.
The love-fights of swallows, linnets
and kingfishers, and the curious aerial evolution
of the swift are similar manifestations of vigour and
delight in movement as a sexual excitant to pairing.
Some male doves have a remarkable habit of driving
the hen for a few days before she lays the eggs.
On these occasions his whole time is spent in keeping
her on the move, and he never allows her to settle
or rest for a minute except on the nest.
This last case affords a striking
illustration of the real object of all these elaborate
movements. The male albatross, an ugly and dull-coloured
bird, during courtship stands by the female on
the nest, raises his wings, spreads his tail, throws
up his head with the bill in the air, or stretches
it straight out or forwards as far as he can, and
then utters a curious cry. But the most interesting
example that I have been able to find recorded of dancing
among birds is the habit of waltzing, common to the
male, and in a lesser degree to the female ostrich.
It is thus described by S. Cronwright Schreiner.
“After running a few yards they
(the ostriches) will stop, and with raised wings
spin round rapidly for some time until quite giddy,
when a broken leg occasionally occurs.... Vigorous
cocks ‘roll’ when challenging to fight
or when wooing a hen. The cock will suddenly
bump down on his knees (ankle joints), open his wings,
and then swing them alternately backwards and forwards
as if on a pivot. At such a time the bird
sees very imperfectly, if at all, in fact he seems
so preoccupied that if pursued one may often approach
unnoticed. Just before ‘rolling,’
a cock, especially if courting a hen, will often
run slowly and daintily on the points of his toes,
with neck slightly inflated, upright and erect,
the tail half dropped and all his body feathers fluffed
up; the wings raised and expanded, the inside edges
touching the sides of the neck for nearly the whole
length, and the plumes showing separately like
an open fan. In no other attitude is the
splendid beauty of his plumage displayed to such advantage.”
In this case it is very suggestive
to find that it is the male ostrich who takes upon
himself the task of hatching and rearing the young.
Perhaps this accounts for the female ostrich being
able to dance as well as the male. There are
very few examples of birds who are bad fathers.
Often the male rivals the female in love for the young;
he is in constant attendance in the vicinity of the
nest; he guards, feeds and sings to the female, and
sometimes shares with her the duty of incubation.
This is done by the male wood-pigeon, missel-thrush,
blue martin, the buzzard, stone-curlew, curlew, dottrel,
the sandpiper, common gull, black-coated gull, kittiwake,
razorbill, puffin, storm-petrel, the great blue heron
and the black vulture. Among these birds it is
usual for the family duties to be performed quite
irrespective of sex, and the parent who is free takes
the task of feeding the one who is occupied. As
soon as one family is reared many birds at once burden
themselves with another. Audubon records the
case of the blue bird of America, who works so zealously
that two or three broods are reared at the same time,
the female sitting on one clutch, while the male feeds
the young of the preceding brood.
Next in importance to dancing and
movement in the aid of courtship among birds is their
use of song and display of decorative plumage.
With them it would seem, even more than among the mammals
or with man, sexual desire raises and intensifies
all the faculties, and lifts the individual above
the normal level of life. The act of singing is
a pleasurable one, an expression of superabundant
energy and joyous excitement. Thus love-songs,
serving first probably as a call of recognition from
the male to the female, came to be used as a means
of seduction. Every one is familiar with the exquisite
lyrical tournaments of our nightingales; their songs
during the love season do not cease by day or by night,
so that one wonders when sleep can be taken; but as
soon as the young are hatched the music ceases, and
harsh croaks are the only sound left. The song
of the skylark, with its splendid note of freedom,
is more melodious and more frequent in the season
of love’s delirium. Another bird, the male
of the weaver bird, builds an abode of pleasure for
himself, wherein he retires to sing to his mate.
A very beautiful case of the use of these love-calls
by the tyrant bird (Pitangus Bolivianus) is
recorded by W.H. Hudson.
“Though the male and female are
greatly attached they do not go afield to hunt
in company, but separate to meet at intervals during
the day. One of the couple (say the female) returns
to the trees where they are accustomed to meet,
and after a time becoming impatient or anxious
at the delay of her consort, utters a very long,
clear call-note. He is perhaps a quarter of a
mile away, watching for a frog beside a pool, or beating
over a thistle bed, but he hears the note and
presently responds with one of equal power.
Then, perhaps, for half-an-hour, at intervals
of half-a-minute, the birds answer each other, though
the powerful call of the one must interfere with
his hunting. At length he returns: then
the two birds, perched close together, with their
yellow bosoms almost touching, crests elevated, and
beating the branch with their wings scream their
loudest notes in concert-a confused,
jubilant noise that rings through the whole plantation.
Their joy at meeting is patent, and their action
corresponds to the warm embrace of a loving human
couple.”
Some birds, who are ill-endowed from
a musical point of view, have their wing feathers
or tails peculiarly developed and stiffened, and are
able to produce with them a strange snapping or cracking
sound. Thus several species of snipe make drumming
or “bleating” noises-something
like the bleat of a goat-with their narrowed
tails as they descend in flight. Magpies have
a still more curious method of call, by rapping on
dry and sonorous branches, which they use not only
to attract the female, but also to charm her.
We may say that these birds perform instrumental music.
The exercise of vocal power among
birds seems to be complementary to the development
of accessory plumes and ornaments. All our finest
singing birds are plainly coloured, with no crests,
neck or tail plumes to display. The gorgeously
ornamented birds of the tropics have no song, and
those which expend much energy in display of plumage,
as the turkey and peacocks, have comparatively an
insignificant development of voice. The extraordinary
manner in which birds display their plumage at the
time of courting is well known. Let us take one
example-the courtship of the Argus pheasant.
This bird is noted for the extreme beauty of the male’s
plumage. Its courtship has been beautifully observed
by H.O. Forbes-
“It is the habit of this bird
to make a large circus, some ten or twelve feet
in diameter, in the forest, which it clears of every
leaf and twig and branch, till the ground is perfectly
swept and garnished. On the margin of this
circus there is invariably a projecting branch
or high arched rest, at a few feet elevation from
the ground on which the female bird takes its
place, while in the ring the male-the male
bird alone possesses great decoration-shows
off all its magnificence for the gratification
and pleasure of his consort, and to exalt himself
in her eyes.”
In this picture we have all the characteristic
features of the display of personal beauty in which
many birds delight. Any one may see such performances
for themselves. The male chaffinch, for instance,
will place himself in front of the female that she
may admire at her ease his red throat and blue head;
the bullfinch swells out his breast to display the
crimson feathers, twisting his black tail from side
to side; the goldfinch sways his body, and quickly
turns his slightly expanded wings first to one side,
then to the other, with a golden flashing effect.
Even birds of less ornamental plumage are accustomed
to strut and show themselves off before the females.
Birds often assemble in large numbers to compete in
beauty before pairing. The Tétras cuspido
of Florida and the little grouse of Germany and Scandinavia
do this. The latter have daily amorous assemblies,
or cours d’amour, of great length, which
are renewed every year in the month of May. It
seems certain that this aesthetic display is conscious
and pre-meditated; for while most pheasants parade
before their females, two of the species-the
Crossoptilon auritum and the Phasianus Wallichii-which
are of dull colour, refrain from doing so, being apparently
conscious of their modest livery.
Certain birds are not content alone
with the display of natural ornament, but make use
of further aesthetic appeal in the construction of
their homes in a truly beautiful manner. Some
species of humming-birds are said to decorate the
exterior of their nests in great taste with lichens,
feathers, etc. The bower-birds of Australia
construct bowers on the ground, ornamented with shell,
feathers, bones and leaves. Both sexes take part
in the building of these abodes of love, which are
used for the courting parades. But an even more
delightful example of the rare sexual delicacy in courtship
is recorded by M.O. Beccari of a bird of Paradise
of New Guinea, the Amblyornis inornata.
“This wonderful and beautiful
bird constructs a little conical hut to protect
his amours, and in front of this he arranges a lawn,
carpeted with moss, the greenness of which he relieves
by scattering on it various bright coloured objects,
such as berries, grains, flowers, pebbles and
shells. More than this, when the flowers
are faded, he takes great care to replace them, so
that the eye may be always agreeably flattered.
These curious constructions are solid, lasting
for several years, and probably serving for several
birds.”
It is, I think, by such cases as these
that we may come to realise the extraordinary power
of sex-hunger. It seems to me that many of us
are still walking in sleep; fear holds our eyes from
the truth. But as we look back to the complex
and often beautiful manifestations of love’s
actions among our animal ancestors, we begin to perceive
that unanalysable something called “beauty,”
which is the glory that has arisen out of that first
simple impelling hunger, which drove the male cell
and the female cell to unite. This is how I see
things-Life knows no development except
through Love.
II.-Further Examples of Courtship, Marriage, and the Family among
Birds
It is especially upon the efflorescence
of male beauty among birds that Darwin founded his
celebrated theory of sexual selection. The motley
of display seems endless, beautiful plumes, elongated
feathery tresses, neck-ruffs, breast-shields, brightly-coloured
cowls and wattles occur with marvellous richness of
variety.
Now, can we accept the Darwinian theory,
and believe that all these appendages of beauty, as
well as the sexual weapons, powers of song and movement,
have been developed through the preference of the
females? the stronger and more ornamental males becoming
in this way the parents of each successive generation.
Wallace, as is well known, opposed Darwin’s
view, preferring to regard sexual selection as a manifestation
of natural selection. He has been followed by
other naturalists, who have denied this creative power
of love, being unable to credit conscious choice by
the females of the most gifted males. The controversy
on the question has been long and at times violent.
Yet, it would seem, as so often happens in all disagreements,
that the difference in opinion is more apparent than
founded on the facts. There is really no difficulty
if once we understand the true significance of courtship.
What this is I have tried to make clear. During
the excitement of pairing the male birds are in a condition
of the most perfect development, and possess an enormous
store of superabundant vitality; this, as may readily
be understood, may well express itself in brilliant
colours and superfluities of ornamental plumage, as
also in song, in dancing, in love tournaments and in
battles. The fact that we have to remember is
that the female is most easily won by the male, who,
being himself most charged with sex desire-and
through this means reaching the finest development-is
able to create a corresponding intoxication in her,
and thus, by producing in both the most perfect condition,
favours the chances of reproduction. There is
no need whatever to suppose any conscious choice or
special aesthetic perception on the part of the females.
Great effects are everywhere produced in Nature by
simple causes. The female responds to the stimulus
of the right male at the right moment-that
is really the whole matter.
In these instances (brought forward
in the previous section of this chapter) of the universal
hunger of sex, which are fairly typical and are as
complete as my space will allow, certain facts have
become clear. In the first place we have seen
something of the strong driving of the procreative
function, which is the guarantee of the continuation
and development of life. The importance of the
result to be gained explains the diverse and elaborate
phenomena of courtship. The higher we ascend
in the animal kingdom the stronger does the sex-appetite
become: it vibrates in the nerve-centres, giving
rise to violent emotions which intensify all the physical
and psychic activities. Love is the great creative
force. It awakens impressions and desires in
the individual, giving rise to what may be called
“experiments in creative self-expression,”
to the energy of which we owe the varied and marvellous
phenomena in animal life.
A further cause arising from the development
of love is certainly of not less importance-it
is the beginning of life not wholly individualistic.
It is in the sexual passions we must seek the origins
of all social growth. This is evident. We
have seen that sexual union induces durable association
between the female and the male for the object of
rearing the young. Here already we find that truth,
which it is the chief purpose of this book to make
plain, that the individual exists for the race.
This is the new and practical morality of the biological
view, which regards the individual as primarily the
host and servant of the seed of life. And this
is really of the greatest benefit to the individual.
From this service to the future arises the family
and the home. The familial instinct, more or less
developed, may be traced far back in the scale of
life; and as it gains in strength it extends from
the family into a wider social love, which in some
species results in the forming of societies grouped
together for mutual protection and co-operation in
communal activities. A rough outline of society
is thus found established already in the animal kingdom.
Just as there were many different
forms of sexual associations among our animal ancestors,
so we may observe the two chief forms of human societies,
the matriarchate and the patriarchate-or
the maternal and paternal family. It is the former
that is the most frequent. This is what we should
expect. The female, the mother, as the natural
centre of the family, the male, her servant, in the
procreative act; but apart from this, we find him
most frequently following personal interests; the
female’s love for the young is stronger and more
developed than his. I lay stress upon this fact,
for it shows how strongly planted in woman is the
maternal instinct. I doubt if any woman can ever
find true expression for her nature apart from motherhood.
It is in these past histories of life’s development
that we may find the key for its purpose and meaning
to us.
There is another point of special
importance to us in estimating the true place of woman
in society. This early position of the female
proves conclusively (as we shall see more clearly later
when we come to study the primitive human family)
the importance of the mother and her children as the
founders of society. Woman, by reason of her more
intimate connection with the children and the home,
became the centre of the social group, while the males,
less bound by domestic ties, were able to wander,
but came back to the home, driven by their sexual
needs to return to the female. But without giving
more time here to this question, to which I shall
return later, there is a further consideration, arising
from our study of the family habits among the birds
and mammals, that now must claim our attention.
Certain examples I have come across, in particular
among birds, have forced into my mind doubt of a widely-accepted
belief. I put forward my opinion with great diffidence;
it is so easy to interpret facts by the bias of one’s
own wishes. I know that the cases I have found
and studied are probably few in comparison with those
I have missed; but to me they seem of such importance,
by the light they throw on the whole question of the
position of the sexes, that it seems necessary to
bring them forward.
We must go back to the position we
left, some time back, of the differences between the
secondary sexual characters of the male and the female.
We have followed the development of the male, under
the action of love’s selection, from his first
insignificant position in the reproductive process;
we have seen him becoming larger than the female,
strong, jealous and masterful-in fact, a
kind of fighting specialisation, with special weapons
of defence for sex-battles. This is the general
condition among mammals. Among birds another set
of secondary character, that may be classed as beauty-tests,
are more frequent. Now two questions must be
answered. Can it be proved that all these acquired
developments of strength and of beauty belong exclusively
to the males-that they must be regarded
as proof of the greater tendency to diversity in the
male, which has carried him further in the evolution
process than the female? Can it also be proved
that such highly-marked differentiation between the
sexes is in all cases necessary to reproduction-that
this heightened male attractiveness is a progressive
force in the service of the race? If so, examples
will surely point in the direction of finding that
among those species where the sexual characters of
the male, whether of strength or of beauty, are most
different from the female, sexual love will find its
most perfect expression; and further, that the males
in such case will be the most highly developed-the
best parents and the most social in their habits.
The whole question, I think it must be evident, turns
upon this being proved.
But in the face of the facts before
us this is just what we do not find. Among birds
(who in erotic development far excel all other animals,
not, indeed, excepting the human species, and thus
must be accepted as affording the most perfect examples
of sexual development) we have seen that the cases
are not few in which the female equals, or even exceeds
the male in size and in strength. This is so with
the curlew, the merlin, the dunlin, the black-tailed
goodwit, which is considerably larger than the male,
and the osprey, where the female is also more spotted
on the breast: these examples must be added to
those I have already given (page 58).
If we turn now to the beauty-test
of brilliancy of plumage, we may observe an even larger
number of examples of almost identical likeness between
the sexes. Among British birds alone there are
no fewer than 382 species, or sub-species, in
which the female closely resembles the male.
In some few of these examples, it is true, the colours
of the female are slightly duller, and in others the
female is rather smaller than the male, but the difference
in each case is very slight. It is specially
significant to note that this similarity of plumage
occurs in some of the most beautiful of our birds,
as, for instance, the kingfisher and the jay, where
the brilliant dresses of the sexes are practically
alike; the female robin shares the beauty of the male;
in all the families of the charming tits the sexes
are alike; this is also the case with the roller-bird
with its gaily-coloured plumage; and there is no difference
between the white elegance of the female and the male
swan.
In the presence of such examples it
seems to me impossible to refrain from thinking that
there is a mistake somewhere, and that less importance
is to be attached to the secondary sexual characters
of the male than is generally imagined. Grant
that these cases are exceptional; but if we once admit
that among many species-and these highly
developed in sex-the female shows no evidence
of retarded development, we shall be forced also to
break once for all with many beliefs and trite theories
which have inspired on this subject of the sexual
differences between the female and the male so much
dogmatic statement and so many unproved assumptions.
I am not forgetting the gorgeous plumage
of some male birds, and the contrast they afford with
the plain females. What I wish to show is that
such adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary adjunct
to the male-an expression, in fact, of
the male constitution. Nor are they, as we shall
find later, necessary, or even beneficial in the highest
degree, to the reproductive process. I have an
even more interesting case to bring forward, which
to me seems to point very conclusively to what I am
trying to prove. The phalaropes, both the grey
and red-necked species, have a peculiarity unique among
British birds, although shared by several other groups
in different parts of the world. Among these birds
the rôle of the sexes is reversed. The duties
of incubation and rearing the young are conducted entirely
by the male bird, and in correlation with this habit
the female does all the courting, is stronger and
more pugnacious than the male, and is also brighter
in plumage. In colour they are a pale olive very
thickly spotted and streaked with black. The male
is the psychical mother, the female taking no notice
of the nest after laying the eggs. Frequently
at the beginning of the breeding season she is accompanied
by more than one male, so that it is evident that polyandry
is practised.
Now, if such an example of the reversal
of the sexes has any meaning at all, it seems to me
that we find the conclusion forced upon us that the
secondary sexual characters are not necessarily different
in the male and the female, but depend on the form
of the union or marriage and the conditions of the
family. Professor Lester Ward, in connection
with his Gynaeocratic theory, fully discusses this
question. His conclusion is that this superiority
of the males in strength and size among mammals and
in beauty of plumage (which is also a symbol of force)
among birds, instead of indicating an arrested development
in the females indicates an over-development in the
males. “Male efflorescence” is the
apt term by which Professor Ward designates it.
He says-
“The whole phenomena of so-called
male superiority bears a certain stamp of spuriousness
and sham. It is to natural history what chivalry
was to human history; ... a sort of make-believe,
play, or sport of nature of an airy unsubstantial
character. The male side of nature shot up
and blossomed out in an unnatural, fantastic way,
cutting loose from the real business of life, and
attracting a share of attention wholly disproportionate
to its real importance."
This may, I think, be regarded as
a picturesque over-statement of what is in the main
true. Male efflorescence has drawn upon itself
an excessive importance, through what we may call
its dramatic insistence upon our notice. It is
plain, too, that the more we examine the question
the more we are forced to the one conclusion.
It is certainly very suggestive, as Professor Ward
points out, that those mammals and birds in which
the process of male differentiation has gone farthest,
such as lions, buffaloes, stags and sheep among mammals,
and peacocks, pheasants, turkey-cocks and barn-door-cocks
among birds, do practically nothing for their families.
Among the gallinaceae it is the female who undertakes
the whole burden of incubation, and feeding and caring
for the young; during this time the male is running
after adventures, in some cases he returns when his
offspring are old enough to follow him and form a
docile band under his government. The conduct
of the male turkey is much worse, and he often devours
the eggs, which have to be hidden by the mother, while
later the offspring are only saved from his attacks
by large numbers of females and the young uniting
in troops led by the mothers. The polygamous families
of monkeys are always subject to patriarchal rule.
The father is the tyrant of the band-an
egoist. Any protection he affords to the family
is in his own interest, frequently he expels the young
males as soon as they are old enough to give him trouble,
the daughters, in some cases, he adds to his harem;
only when old age has rendered him powerless are the
tables turned, and the young, for so long oppressed,
rebel and sometimes assassinate their tyrannous father.
There is very little evidence of paternal affection
among mammals. Even among monogamous species,
where the male keeps with the female, he does so more
as chief than as father. At times he is much inclined
to commit infanticides and to destroy the offspring,
which, by absorbing the attention of his partner,
thwart his amours. Thus among the large felines
the mother is obliged to hide her young ones from the
male during the first few days after birth to prevent
his devouring them.
It is important to note that among
birds the fathers devoid of affection generally belong
to the less intelligent species. We may, therefore,
see that these violent polygamous amours of the male,
which result in the development of the more extravagant
of the second sexual characters, are not really favourable
to the development of the species. They belong
to a lower grade of sexual evolution. And a further
proof, it seems to me, is furnished as we note that,
in spite of this tyranny, the females show considerable
affection for these tyrant males-the chimpanzee,
for example, proving this by zealously plucking the
lice from her master’s coat, which with monkeys
is a mark of very special attention. The most
oppressed females are, as a rule, the most faithful
wives. Thus the females of the guanaco lamas,
if their master chances to be wounded or killed, do
not run away; they hasten to his side, bleating and
offering themselves to the shots of the hunter in
order to shield him, while, in sharp contrast, if a
female is killed, the male makes off with all his troop-he
thinks only of himself. Must we say, then, that
the female animal likes servitude? It is, of
course, because the aggressive male, being the one
to arouse her sexual passions, enables her to fulfil
her work of procreation. This may be. But,
granting this explanation, it must be allowed that
love under such conditions evidences a deterioration,
not alone in the size and strength of the female, but
in mental capacity-love at a much lower
level than those beautiful cases in which the sexes
are more alike, equal in capacity, and co-operate
together in the race work.
Yet in justice it must be added that
even the most polygamous males are not always devoid
of affection. I once saw on a Derbyshire high-road
a cock show evident signs of sorrow over the death
of one of his wives, who had been killed by a passing
motor. He refused to leave the spot where her
body lay, and walked round and round it, uttering
sharp cries of grief. Nor are sexual lapses confined
to the males; a female will take advantage of a moment
when the attention of the old cocks is entirely absorbed
by the anxiety of a fight, to run off with a young
male. Even among species noted for their conjugal
fidelity this sometimes happens. Female pigeons,
for example, have been known to fall violently in
love with strange males, and this is especially common
if the legitimate spouse is wounded or becomes weak.
Darwin records a very curious case of a sudden passion
appearing in a female wild-duck, who, after breeding
with her own mallard for a couple of seasons, deserted
him for a stranger-a male pintail.
“It was evidently a case of love
at first sight, for she swam about the newcomer
caressingly, though he appeared evidently alarmed
and averse to her overtures of affection. From
that hour she forgot her old partner. Winter
passed by, and the next spring the pintail seemed
to have become a convert to her blandishments,
for they nested and produced seven or eight young
ones."
I am tempted to wait to consider the
immense significance of such cases as these in the
analogy they bear to our own sudden preferences in
love. The question as to the moral conduct of
this duck opens up suggestions of those cases of exceptional
love-passions, which all our existing institutions,
laws and penalties have never been able to crush.
The desire for sexual variety is the ultimate cause
of all sexual lapses and irrationalities. It
is a mistake to think that this is a condition peculiar
to mankind and the result of civilisation. If
this were so it would be easier to deal with; but before
these deeply-rooted instincts of sexual hunger we
are often powerless. I know of no question that
needs to be faced by women more than this one.
I would like to say more about it. But already
this first section of my book has exceeded its limits.
I must, therefore, pass on, to draw attention to the
fact, clearly proved by the case of this wild-duck’s
love, as well as by many other examples, that it is
the females, who, exercising their right of selection
much more than the males, introduce individual preference
into their sexual relationships. The difficulty
is that such preference, of profound biological importance,
is often thwarted among civilised people by considerations
of property and the accepted morality. From this
standpoint permanent marriage may often fail to do
justice to the sexual needs both of the individual
and the wider needs of the race. Nature has no
care for sex-morals as we understand them, any mode
of sexual union is equally right so long as it serves
the race-process. But men have set up a whole
host of prohibitions and conventions-the
“thou shalt nots” of society and religion.
Which are we to follow? Which is the wheat and
which the tares, that must be garnered or sifted
from our loves?
It is important to notice that among
mammals, as among men, conjugal fidelity is modified
by the conditions of life. An animal belonging
to a species habitually monogamic may easily change
under the pressure of external causes and adopt polygamy,
and, in some cases, polyandry. The shoveler duck,
though normally monogamic, is said to practise
polyandry when males are in excess; two males being
in constant and amicable attendance on the female,
without sign of jealousy. Wild-ducks, again,
which are strictly monogamous, good parents, and very
highly developed in social qualities when in a wild
state, become loosely polygamous and indifferent to
their offspring under domestication. Civilisation,
in this case, depraves the birds, as often it does
men.
But enough has now been said.
We shall find later how far the facts we have learnt
of the position of the female and the sexual relationship,
as we have studied them in these examples from the
animal kingdom, will apply to us and to our loves.
We have now to study marriage and the family as it
exists among primitive peoples. We shall find
a close resemblance in the courtship customs and the
sexual and familial associations to those we have
seen to be practised by our pre-human ancestors.
The same resemblance will persist when, lastly, we
come to investigate the same institutions among civilised
races, up to our own. Indeed, we may have to
admit that, in some directions, love is not even yet
as finely developed with us humans as it is among birds.
It is in the loves of birds, as I believe, that we
must seek hints to that evolution in fineness, which
has still to come in our love.
One thing more. It refers to
the disputed question of the differentiation of the
sexes by the action of love’s-selection.
It is a truth that I wish as strongly as I am able
to emphasise. We cannot learn to know love’s
selective powers by enclosing its action within the
narrow circle of our preconceived ideas. Instead
of limiting its power we should extend it without
hindrance of any form-to the female as
well as the male; to the woman as to the man.
We should regard nothing as impossible, no development
of either sex too great to be accomplished, knowing
that all progress is possible to love’s power.
Exceptional cases, then, irregularities, it may be,
in sexual expression will henceforth no longer surprise
us; they will find their place in the infinite order
of life. Such examples may come to be regarded
as filling in the chain; they form intermediate stages
and also mark the reappearance of earlier manifestations
of the sexual hunger. The new morality of love,
which is having its birth amongst us to-day, will
be deeper and wider than the old morality, because
it will be founded on surer knowledge.