Produced by Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)






[Illustration: Edwd Carpenter]




                          LOVE’S COMING-OF-AGE
                          _A SERIES OF PAPERS_
                                   ON
                       THE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES


                                   BY

                            EDWARD CARPENTER

        _Author of “Towards Democracy,” “England’s Ideal,” Etc._


                                CHICAGO
                        STOCKHAM PUBLISHING CO.
                                  1902




[_The little god of Love is generally represented as a child; and
rightly, perhaps, considering the erratic character of his ways among
the human race. There are signs, however, of a new order in the
relations of the Sexes; and the following papers are, among other
things, an attempt to indicate the inner laws which, rather than the
outer, may guide Love when—some day—he shall have come to his full
estate._]




                                CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE
 THE SEX-PASSION                                                       7

 MAN, THE UNGROWN                                                     29

 WOMAN: THE SERF                                                      38

 WOMAN IN FREEDOM                                                     55

 MARRIAGE. A RETROSPECT                                               73

 MARRIAGE: A FORECAST                                                 91

 THE FREE SOCIETY                                                    112

 SOME REMARKS ON THE EARLY STAR AND SEX WORSHIPS                     129

 NOTES—

     On the Primitive Group-Marriage                                 136

     Jealousy                                                        140

     The Family                                                      143

     Preventive Checks to Population                                 146

 APPENDIX                                                            151




                            THE SEX-PASSION


The subject of Sex is difficult to deal with. There is no doubt a
natural reticence connected with it. There is also a great deal of
prudery. The passion occupies, without being spoken of, a large part of
human thought; and words on the subject being so few and inadequate,
everything that is said is liable to be misunderstood. Violent
inferences are made and equivocations surmised, from the simplest
remarks; qualified admissions of liberty are interpreted into
recommendations of unbridled license; and generally the perspective of
literary expression is turned upside down.

There is in fact a vast deal of fetishism in the current treatment of
the question. Nor can one altogether be surprised at this when one sees
how important Sex is in the scheme of things, and how deeply it has been
associated since the earliest times not only with man’s personal
impulses but even with his religious sentiments and ceremonials.

Next to hunger it is doubtless the most primitive and imperative of our
needs. But in modern civilized life Sex enters probably even more into
consciousness than hunger. For the hunger-needs of the human race are in
the later societies fairly well satisfied, but the sex-desires are
strongly restrained, both by law and custom, from satisfaction—and so
assert themselves all the more in thought.

To find the place of these desires, their utterance, their control,
their personal import, their social import, is a tremendous problem to
every youth and girl, man and woman.

There are a few of both sexes, doubtless, who hardly feel the
passion—who have never been “in love,” and who experience no strong
sexual appetite—but these are rare. Practically the passion is a matter
of universal experience; and speaking broadly and generally we may say
it is a matter on which it is quite desirable that every adult at some
time or other should have actual experience. There may be exceptions;
but, as said, the instinct lies so deep and is so universal, that for
the understanding of life—of one’s own life, of that of others, and of
human nature in general—as well as for the proper development of one’s
own capacities, such experience is as a rule needed.

And here in passing I would say that in the social life of the future
this need will surely be recognized, and that (while there will be no
stigma attaching to voluntary celibacy) the state of enforced celibacy
in which vast numbers of women live to-day will be looked upon as a
national wrong, almost as grievous as that of prostitution—of which
latter evil indeed it is in some degree the counterpart or necessary
accompaniment.

Of course Nature (personifying under this term the more unconscious,
even though human, instincts and forces) takes pretty good care in her
own way that sex shall not be neglected. She has her own purposes to
work out, which in a sense have nothing to do with the individual—her
racial purposes. But she acts in the rough, with tremendous sweep and
power, and with little adjustment to or consideration for the later
developed and more conscious and intelligent ideals of humanity. The
youth, deeply infected with the sex-passion, suddenly finds himself in
the presence of Titanic forces—the Titanic but sub-conscious forces of
his own nature. “In love” he feels a superhuman impulse—and naturally
so, for he identifies himself with cosmic energies and entities, powers
that are preparing the future of the race, and whose operations extend
over vast regions of space and millennial lapses of time. He sees into
the abysmal deeps of his own being, and trembles with a kind of awe at
the disclosure. And what he feels concerning himself he feels similarly
concerning the one who has inspired his passion. The glances of the two
lovers penetrate far beyond the surface, ages down into each other,
waking a myriad antenatal dreams.

For the moment he lets himself go, rejoicing in the sense of limitless
power beneath him—borne onwards like a man down rapids, too intoxicated
with the glory of motion to think of whither he is going; then the next
moment he discovers that he is being hurried into impossible
situations—situations which his own moral conscience, as well as the
moral conscience of Society, embodied in law and custom, will not admit.
He finds perhaps that the satisfaction of his imperious impulse is, to
all appearances, inconsistent with the welfare of her he loves. His own
passion arises before him as a kind of rude giant which he or the race
to which he belongs may, Frankenstein-like, have created ages back, but
which he now has to dominate or be dominated by; and there declares
itself in him the fiercest conflict—that between his far-back Titanic
instinctive and sub-conscious nature, and his later developed, more
especially human and moral self.

While the glory of Sex pervades and suffuses all Nature; while the
flowers are rayed and starred out towards the sun in the very ecstasy of
generation; while the nostrils of the animals dilate, and their forms
become instinct, under the passion, with a proud and fiery beauty; while
even the human lover is transformed, and in the great splendors of the
mountains and the sky perceives something to which he had not the key
before—yet it is curious that just here, in Man, we find the magic wand
of Nature suddenly broken, and doubt and conflict and division entering
in, where a kind of unconscious harmony had erst prevailed.

And the reason of this is not far to seek. For in comparing, as we did a
page or two back, the sex-needs and the hunger-needs of the human race
we left out of account one great difference, namely, that while food
(the object of hunger) has no moral rights of its own,[1] and can be
appropriated without misgiving on that score, the object of sex is a
person, and cannot be used for private advantage without the most dire
infringement of the law of equality. The moment Man rises into any sort
of consciousness of the equal rights of others with himself his
love-needs open up this terrible problem. His needs are no less—perhaps
they are greater—than they were before, but they are stricken with a
deadly swound at the thought that there is something even greater than
them.

Heine I think says somewhere that the man who loves unsuccessfully knows
himself to be a god. It is not perhaps till the great current of sexual
love is checked and brought into conflict with the other parts of his
being that the whole nature of the man, sexual and moral, under the
tremendous stress rises into consciousness and reveals in fire its
god-like quality. This is the work of the artificer who makes immortal
souls—who out of the natural love evolves even a more perfect love. “In
tutti gli amanti,” says Giordano Bruno, “e questo fabro vulcano” (“in
all lovers is this Olympian blacksmith present”).

It is the subject of this conflict, or at least differentiation, between
the sexual and the more purely moral and social instincts in man which
interests us here. It is clear, I think, that if sex is to be treated
rationally, that is, neither superstitiously on the one hand nor
licentiously on the other, we must be willing to admit that both the
satisfaction of the passion and the non-satisfaction of it are desirable
and beautiful. They both have their results, and man has to reap the
fruits which belong to both experiences. May we not say that there is
probably some sort of Transmutation of essences continually effected and
effectible in the human frame? Lust and Love—the Aphrodite Pandemos and
the Aphrodite Ouranios—are subtly interchangeable. Perhaps the corporeal
amatory instinct and the ethereal human yearning for personal union are
really and in essence one thing with diverse forms of manifestation.
However that may be, it is pretty evident that there is some deep
relationship between them. It is a matter of common experience that the
unrestrained outlet of merely physical desire leaves the nature drained
of its higher love-forces; while on the other hand, if the physical
satisfaction be denied, the body becomes surcharged with waves of
emotion—sometimes to an unhealthy and dangerous degree. Yet at times
this emotional love may, by reason of its expression being checked or
restricted, transform itself into the all-penetrating subtle influence
of spiritual love.

Marcus Aurelius quotes a saying of Heraclitus to the effect that the
death of earth is to become water (liquefaction), and the death of water
is to become air (evaporation), and the death of air is to become fire
(combustion). So in the human body are there sensual, emotional,
spiritual, and other elements of which it may be said that their death
on one plane means their transformation and new birth on other planes.

It will readily be seen that I am not arguing that the lower or more
physical manifestations of love should be killed out in order to force
the growth of the more spiritual and enduring forms—because Nature in
her slow evolutions does not generally countenance such high and mighty
methods; but am merely trying to indicate that there are grounds for
believing in the transmutability of the various forms of the passion,
and grounds for thinking that the sacrifice of a lower phase may
sometimes be the only condition on which a higher and more durable phase
can be attained; and that therefore Restraint (which is absolutely
necessary at times) has its compensation.

Any one who has once realized how glorious a thing Love is in its
essence, and how indestructible, will hardly need to call anything that
leads to it a sacrifice; and he is indeed a master of life who,
accepting the grosser desires as they come to his body, and not refusing
them, knows how to transform them at will into the most rare and
fragrant flowers of human emotion.

Until these subjects are openly put before children and young people
with some degree of intelligent and sympathetic handling, it can
scarcely be expected that anything but the utmost confusion, in mind and
in morals, should reign in matters of Sex. That we should leave our
children to pick up their information about the most sacred, the most
profound and vital, of all human functions, from the mere gutter, and
learn to know it first from the lips of ignorance and vice, seems almost
incredible, and certainly indicates the deeply-rooted unbelief and
uncleanness of our own thoughts. Yet a child at the age of puberty, with
the unfolding of its far-down emotional and sexual nature, is eminently
capable of the most sensitive, affectional, and serene appreciation of
what Sex means (generally more so, as things are to-day, than its
worldling parent or guardian); and can absorb the teaching, if
sympathetically given, without any shock or disturbance to its sense of
shame—that sense which is so natural and valuable a safeguard of early
youth. To teach the child first, quite openly, its physical relation to
its own mother, its long indwelling in her body, and the deep and sacred
bond of tenderness between mother and child in consequence; then, after
a time, to explain the relation of fatherhood, and how the love of the
parents for each other was the cause of its own (the child’s) existence:
these things are easy and natural—at least they are so to the young
mind—and excite in it no surprise, or sense of unfitness, but only
gratitude and a kind of tender wonderment.[2] Then, later on, as the
special sexual needs and desires develop, to instruct the girl or boy in
the further details of the matter, and the care and right conduct of her
or his own sexual nature; on the meaning and the dangers of solitary
indulgence—if this habit has been contracted; on the need of
self-control and the presence of affection in all relations with others,
and (without undue asceticism) on the possibility of deflecting physical
desire to some degree into affectional and emotional channels, and the
great gain so resulting; all these are things which an ordinary youth of
either sex will easily understand and appreciate, and which may be of
priceless value, saving such an one from years of struggle in foul
morasses, and waste of precious life-strength. Finally, with the
maturity of the moral nature, the supremacy of the pure human relation
should be taught—not the extinguishment of desire, but the attainment of
the real kernel of it, its dedication to the well-being of another—the
evolution of the human element in love, balancing the natural—till at
last the snatching of an unglad pleasure, regardless of the other from
whom it is snatched, or the surrender of one’s body to another for any
reason except that of love, become things impossible.

Between lovers then a kind of hardy temperance is much to be
recommended—for all reasons, but especially because it lifts their
satisfaction and delight in each other out of the region of
ephemeralities (which too soon turn to dull indifference and satiety)
into the region of more lasting things—one step nearer at any rate to
the Eternal Kingdom. How intoxicating indeed, how penetrating—like a
most precious wine—is that love which is the sexual transformed by the
magic of the will into the emotional and spiritual! And what a loss on
the merest grounds of prudence and the economy of pleasure is its
unbridled waste along physical channels! So nothing is so much dreaded
between lovers as just this—the vulgarization of love—and this is the
rock upon which marriage so often splits.

There is a kind of illusion about physical desire similar to that which
a child suffers from when, seeing a beautiful flower, it instantly
snatches the same, and destroys in a few moments the form and fragrance
which attracted it. He only gets the full glory who holds himself back a
little, and truly possesses who is willing if need be not to possess.

On the other hand it must not be pretended that the physical passions
are by their nature unclean, or otherwise than admirable and desirable
in their place. Any attempt to absolutely disown or despite them,
carried out over long periods either by individuals or bodies of people,
only ends in the thinning out of the human nature—by the very consequent
stinting of the supply of its growth-material, and is liable to stultify
itself in time by leading to reactionary excesses. It must never be
forgotten that the physical basis throughout life is of the first
importance, and supplies the nutrition and food-stuff without which the
higher powers cannot exist or at least manifest themselves. Intimacies
founded on intellectual and moral affinities alone are seldom very deep
and lasting; if the physical basis in any form is quite absent, the
acquaintanceship is liable to die away again like an ill-rooted plant.
In many cases (especially of women) the nature is never really
understood or disclosed till the sex feeling is touched—however lightly.
Besides, it must be remembered that in order for a perfect intimacy
between two people their bodies must by the nature of the case be free
to each other. The bodily intimacy or endearment may not be the object
for which they come together; but if it is denied, its denial will bar
any real sense of repose and affiance, and make relation restless,
vague, tentative and unsatisfied.

In these lights it will be seen that what we call asceticism and what we
call libertinism are two sides practically of the same shield. So long
as the tendency towards mere pleasure-indulgence is strong and
uncontrolled, so long will the instinct towards asceticism assert
itself—and rightly, else we might speedily find ourselves in headlong
Phaethonian career. Asceticism is in its place (as the word would
indicate) as an exercise; but let it not be looked upon as an end in
itself, for that is a mistake of the same kind as going to the opposite
extreme. Certainly if the welfare and happiness of the beloved one were
always really the main purpose in our minds we should have plenty of
occasion for self-control, and an artificial asceticism would not be
needed. We look for a time doubtless when the hostility between these
two parts of man’s unperfected nature will be merged in the perfect
love; but at present and until this happens their conflict is certainly
one of the most pregnant things in all our experience; and must not by
any means be blinked or evaded, but boldly faced. It is in itself almost
a sexual act. The mortal nature through it is, so to speak, torn
asunder; and through the rent so made in his mortality does it sometimes
happen that a new and immortal man is born.

Sex-pleasures afford a kind of type of all pleasure. The dissatisfaction
which at times follows on them is the same as follows on all pleasure
which is sought, and which does not come unsought. The dissatisfaction
is not in the nature of pleasure itself but in the nature of seeking. In
going off in pursuit of things external, the “I” (since it really has
everything and needs nothing) deceives itself, goes out from its true
home, tears itself asunder, and admits a gap or rent in its own being.
This, it must be supposed, is what is meant by sin—the separation or
sundering of one’s being—and all the pain that goes therewith. It all
consists in seeking those external things and pleasures; not (a thousand
times be it said) in the external things or pleasures themselves. They
are all fair and gracious enough; their place is to stand round the
throne and offer their homage—rank behind rank in their multitudes—if so
be we will accept it. But for us to go out of ourselves to run after
them, to allow ourselves to be divided and rent in twain by their
attraction, that is an inversion of the order of heaven.

To this desertion of one’s true self sex tempts most strongly, and
stands as the type of Maya and the world-illusion; yet the beauty of the
loved one and the delight of corporeal union all turn to dust and ashes
if bought at the price of disunion and disloyalty in the higher
spheres—disloyalty even to the person whose mortal love is sought. The
higher and more durable part of man, whirled along in the rapids and
whirlpools of desire, experiences tortures the moment it comes to
recognize that It is something other than physical. Then comes the
struggle to regain its lost Paradise, and the frightful effort of
co-ordination between the two natures, by which the center of
consciousness is gradually transferred from the fugitive to the more
permanent part, and the mortal and changeable is assigned its due place
in the outer chambers and forecourts of the temple.

Pleasure should come as the natural (and indeed inevitable)
accompaniment of life, believed in with a kind of free faith, but never
sought as the object of life. It is in the inversion of this order that
the uncleanness of the senses arises. Sex to-day throughout the domains
of civilization is thoroughly unclean. Everywhere it is slimed over with
the thought of pleasure. Not for joy, not for mere delight in and excess
of life, not for pride in the generation of children, not for a symbol
and expression of deepest soul-union, does it exist—but for our own
gratification. Hence we disown it in our thoughts, and cover it up with
false shame and unbelief—knowing well that to seek a social act for a
private end is a falsehood. The body itself is kept religiously covered,
smothered away from the rush of the great purifying life of Nature,
infected with dirt and disease, and a subject for prurient thought and
exaggerated lust such as in its naked state it would never provoke. The
skin becomes sickly and corrupt, and of a dead leaden white hue, which
strangely enough is supposed to be more beautiful than the rich
rose-brown, delicately shaded into lighter tints in the less exposed
parts, which it would wear if tanned by daily welcome of sun and wind.
Sexual embraces themselves seldom receive the benison of Dame Nature, in
whose presence alone, under the burning sun or the high canopy of the
stars and surrounded by the fragrant atmosphere, their meaning can be
fully understood: but take place in stuffy dens of dirty upholstery and
are associated with all unbeautiful things.

Even literature, which might have been expected to preserve some decent
expression on this topic, reflects all too clearly by its silence or by
its pruriency the prevailing spirit of unbelief; and in order to find
any sane faithful strong and calm words on the subject, one has to wade
right back through the marshes and bogs of civilized scribbledom, and
toil eastward across its arid wastes to the very dawn-hymns of the Aryan
races.

In one of the Upanishads of the Vedic sacred books (the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad) there is a fine passage in which instruction is given to the
man who desires a noble son as to the prayers which he shall offer to
the gods on the occasion of congress with his wife. In primitive, simple
and serene language it directs him how, at such times, he should pray to
the various forms of deity who preside over the operations of Nature: to
Vishnu to prepare the womb of the future mother, to Prajapati to watch
over the influx of the semen, and to the other gods to nourish the
foetus, etc. Nothing could be (I am judging from the only translation I
have met with, a Latin one) more composed, serene, simple, and religious
in feeling, and well might it be if such instructions were preserved and
followed, even to-day; yet such is the pass we have come to that
actually Max Muller in his translations of the Sacred Books of the East
appears to have been unable to persuade himself to render these and a
few other quite similar passages into English, but gives them in the
original Sanskrit! One might have thought that as Professor in the
University of Oxford, presumably sans peur et sans reproche, and
professedly engaged in making a translation of these books for students,
it was his duty and it might have been his delight to make intelligible
just such passages as these, which give the pure and pious sentiment of
the early world in so perfect a form; unless indeed he thought the
sentiment impure and impious—in which case we have indeed a measure of
the degradation of the public opinion which must have swayed his mind.
As to the only German translation of the Upanishad which I can find, it
balks at the same passages in the same feeble way—repeating nicht
wiederzugeben, nicht wiederzugeben, over and over again, till at last
one can but conclude that the translator is right, and that the
simplicity and sacredness of the feeling is in this our time indeed “not
to be reproduced.”

Our public opinion, our literature, our customs, our laws, are saturated
with the notion of the uncleanness of Sex, and are so making the
conditions of its cleanness more and more difficult. Our children, as
said, have to pick up their intelligence on the subject in the gutter.
Little boys bathing on the outskirts of our towns are hunted down by
idiotic policemen, apparently infuriated by the sight of the naked body,
even of childhood. Lately in one of our northern towns, the boys and men
bathing in a public pool set apart by the corporation for the purpose,
were—though forced to wear some kind of covering—kept till nine o’clock
at night before they were allowed to go into the water—lest in the full
daylight Mrs. Grundy should behold any portion of their bodies! and as
for women and girls, their disabilities in the matter are most serious.

Till this dirty and dismal sentiment with regard to the human body is
removed there can be little hope of anything like a free and gracious
public life. With the regeneration of our social ideas the whole
conception of Sex as a thing covert and to be ashamed of, marketable and
unclean, will have to be regenerated. That inestimable freedom and pride
which is the basis of all true manhood and womanhood will have to enter
into this most intimate relation to preserve it frank and pure—pure from
the damnable commercialism which buys and sells all human things, and
from the religious hypocrisy which covers and conceals; and a healthy
delight in and cultivation of the body and all its natural functions,
and a determination to keep them pure and beautiful, open and sane and
free, will have to become a recognized part of national life.

Possibly, and indeed probably, as the sentiment of common life and
common interest grows, and the capacity for true companionship increases
with the decrease of self-regarding anxiety, the importance of the mere
sex-act will dwindle till it comes to be regarded as only one very
specialized factor in the full total of human love. There is no doubt
that with the full realization of affectional union the need of actual
bodily congress loses some of its urgency; and it is not difficult to
see in our present-day social life that the want of the former is
(according to the law of transmutation) one marked cause of the violence
and extravagance of the lower passions. But however things may change
with the further evolution of man, there is no doubt that first of all
the sex-relation must be divested of the sentiment of uncleanness which
surrounds it, and rehabilitated again with a sense almost of religious
consecration; and this means, as I have said, a free people, proud in
the mastery and the divinity of their own lives, and in the beauty and
openness of their own bodies.[3]

Sex is the allegory of Love in the physical world. It is from this
fact that it derives its immense power. The aim of Love is
non-differentiation—absolute union of being; but absolute union can
only be found at the center of existence. Therefore whoever has truly
found another has found not only that other, and with that other
himself, but has found also a third—who dwells at the center and holds
the plastic material of the universe in the palm of his hand, and is a
creator of sensible forms.

Similarly the aim of sex is union and non-differentiation—but on the
physical plane,—and in the moment when this union is accomplished
creation takes place, and the generation (in the plastic material of the
sex-elements) of sensible forms.

In the animal and lower human world—and wherever the creature is
incapable of realizing the perfect love (which is indeed able to
transform it into a god)—Nature in the purely physical instincts does
the next best thing, that is, she effects a corporeal union and so
generates another creature who by the very process of his generation
shall be one step nearer to the universal soul and the realization of
the desired end. Nevertheless the moment the other love and all that
goes with it is realized the natural sexual love has to fall into a
secondary place—the lover must stand on his feet and not on his head—or
else the most dire confusions ensue, and torments aeonian.

Taking all together I think it may fairly be said that the prime object
of Sex is union, the physical union as the allegory and expression of
the real union, and that generation is a secondary object or result of
this union. If we go to the lowest material expressions of Sex—as among
the protozoic cells—we find that they, the cells, unite together, two
into one; and that, as a result of the nutrition that ensues, this joint
cell after a time (but not always) breaks up by fission into a number of
progeny cells; or if on the other hand we go to the very highest
expression of Sex, in the sentiment of Love, we find the latter takes
the form chiefly and before all else of a desire for union, and only in
lesser degree of a desire for race-propagation.[4]

I mention this because it probably makes a good deal of difference in
our estimate of Sex whether the one function or the other is considered
primary. There is perhaps a slight tendency among medical and other
authorities to overlook the question of the important physical actions
and reactions, and even corporeal modifications, which may ensue upon
sexual intercourse between two people, and to fix their attention too
exclusively upon their child-bearing function; but in truth it is
probable, I think, from various considerations,[5] that the spermatozoa
pass through the tissues and affect the general body of the female, as
well as that the male absorbs minutest cells from the female; and that
generally, even without the actual Sex-act, there is an interchange of
vital and ethereal elements—so that it might be said there is a kind of
generation taking place within each of the persons concerned, through
their mutual influence on each other, as well as that more specialized
generation which consists in the propagation of the race.

At the last and taking it as a whole one has the same difficulty in
dealing with the subject of Love which meets one at every turn in modern
life—the monstrous separation of one part of our nature from another—the
way in which, no doubt in the necessary course of evolution, we have cut
ourselves in twain as it were, and assigned “right” and “wrong,” heaven
and hell, spiritual and material, and other violent distinctions, to the
separate portions. We have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of good and
evil with a vengeance! The Lord has indeed driven us out of Paradise
into the domain of that “fabro vulcano” who with tremendous
hammer-strokes must hammer the knowledge of good and evil out of us
again. I feel that I owe an apology to the beautiful god for daring even
for a moment to think of dissecting him soul from body, and for speaking
as if these artificial distinctions were in any wise eternal. Will the
man or woman, or race of men and women, never come, to whom love in its
various manifestations shall be from the beginning a perfect whole, pure
and natural, free and standing sanely on its feet?




                                  MAN
                              THE UNGROWN


Man, the ordinary human male, is a curious animal. While mastering the
world with his pluck, skill, enterprise, he is in matters of Love for
the most part a child. The passion plays havoc with him; nor does he
ride the Lion, as Ariadne is fabled to have done.

In this he differs from the other sex; and the difference can be seen in
earliest years. When the boy is on his rocking horse, the girl is
caressing her doll. When the adolescent youth, burning to master a real
quadruped, is still somewhat contemptuous of Love’s power, “sweet
seventeen” has already lost and regained her heart several times, and is
accomplished in all the finesse of feeling.

To the grown man love remains little more than a plaything. Affairs,
politics, fighting, moneymaking, creative art, constructive industry,
are his serious business; the affections are his relaxation; passion is
the little fire with which he toys, and which every now and then flares
out and burns him up. His affections, his passions, are probably as a
rule stronger than woman’s; but he never attains to understand them or
be master of their craft. With woman all this is reversed.

A man pelts along on his hobby—his business, his career, his latest
invention, or what not—forgetful that there is such a thing in the world
as the human heart; then all of a sudden he “falls in love,” tumbles
headlong in the most ludicrous way, fills the air with his cries,
struggles frantically like a fly in treacle: and all the time hasn’t the
faintest idea whether he has been inveigled into the situation, or
whether he got there of his own accord, or what he wants now he is
there. Suicides, broken hearts, lamentations, and certainly a whole
panorama, marvellous in beauty, of lyrical poetry and art, mark the
experience of love’s distress in Man. Woman in the same plight neither
howls nor cries, she does not commit suicide or do anything extravagant,
she creates not a single poem or work of art of any account; but she
simply goes her way and suffers in silence, shaping her life to the new
conditions. Never for a moment does she forget that her one serious
object is Love; but never for a moment does she “give herself away” or
lose her head, in the pursuit of that object.

It is perhaps in a kind of revenge for this that man for so many
centuries has made woman his serf. Feeling that she really somehow
mastered him on the affectional plane, he in revenge on the physical
plane has made the most of his superior strength, and of his power over
her; or, more probably, not thinking about it at all, he has simply
allowed all along the sex-passion (so strong in him) to prompt him to
this mastery.

For the sex-passion in man is undoubtedly a force—huge and fateful—which
has to be reckoned with. Perhaps (speaking broadly) all the passions and
powers, the intellect and affections and emotions and all, are really
profounder and vaster in Man than in Woman—are more varied, root deeper,
and have wider scope; but then the woman has this advantage, that her
powers are more co-ordinated, are in harmony with each other, where his
are disjointed or in conflict. A girl comes of age sooner than a boy.
And the coming-of-age of Love (which harmonizes all the faculties in the
human being) may take place early in the woman, while in the man it is
delayed long and long, perhaps never completely effected. The problem is
so much bigger, so much more complex, with him; it takes longer for its
solution. Women are sometimes impatient with men on this score; but then
they do not see, judging from their own little flock, what a big herd of
cattle the man has to bring home.

Anyhow, the point is that Man with his great unco-ordinated nature has
during these later centuries dominated the other sex, and made himself
the ruler of society. In consequence of which we naturally have a
society made after his pattern—a society advanced in mechanical and
intellectual invention, with huge passional and emotional elements, but
all involved in whirling confusion and strife—a society ungrown, which
on its material side may approve itself a great success, but on its more
human and affectional side seems at times an utter failure.

This ungrown, half-baked sort of character is conspicuous in the class
of men who organize the modern world—the men of the English-speaking
well-to-do class. The boy of this class begins life at a public school.
He does not learn much from the masters; but he knocks about among his
fellows in cricket and football and athletics, and turns out with an
excellent organizing capacity and a tolerably firm and reliable grip on
the practical and material side of life—qualities which are of
first-rate importance, and which give the English ruling classes a
similar mission in the world to the Romans of the early Empire. A
certain standard too (for what it is worth) of school-boy honor and
fairness is thumped into him. It is very narrow and conventional, but at
its best rises as high as a conception of self-sacrifice and duty;
though never to the conception of love. At the same time a strong and
lavish diet and an easy life stimulate his functional energies and his
animal passions to a high degree.

Here certainly is some splendid material, and if well pounded into
shape, kneaded and baked, might result in a useful upper crust for
society. But alas! it remains, or actually degenerates into, a most
fatuous dough. The boy never learns anything after he leaves school. He
gets no more thumps. He glides easily into the higher walks of the
world—backed by his parents’ money—into Law or Army or Church or Civil
Service or Commerce. He has really no serious fights to fight, or
efforts to make, sees next to nothing of actual life; has an easy time,
can marry pretty well whom he chooses, or console himself with unmarried
joys; and ultimately settles down into the routine and convention of his
particular profession—a picture of beefy self-satisfaction. Affection
and tenderness of feeling, though latent in him, have never, owing to
the unfortunate conditions of his life, been developed; but their place
begins to be taken by a rather dreary cynicism. Sex, always strong,
still even now in its waning days, retains the first place; and the
mature man, having no adequate counterpoise to it in the growth of his
sympathetic nature, is fain to find his highest restraints or sanctions
in the unripe code of his school-days or the otiose conventions and
prejudices of the professional clique to which he belongs.

So it comes about that the men who have the sway of the world to-day are
in the most important matters quite ungrown; they really have never come
of age in any adequate sense. Like Ephraim they are “a cake not turned.”
Wherever they turn up: in Lords or Commons, Civil or Military, Law or
Church or Medicine, the Judge on the bench, the Bishop, the ruler of
India, the exploiter of South Africa, the man who booms a company in the
city, or who builds up a great commercial trust and gets a title for
supporting a Government: it is much the same. Remove the distinctive
insignia of their clique and office, and you find underneath—no more
than a public school-boy. Perhaps, indeed, rather less; for while the
school-boy mind is there, and the school-boy code of life and honor, the
enthusiasm and the promise of youth are gone.

It is certainly very maddening at times to think that the Destinies of
the world, the organization of society, the wonderful scope of possible
statesmanship, the mighty issues of trade and industry, the loves of
Women, the lives of criminals, the fate of savage nations, should be in
the hands of such a set of general nincompoops; men so fatuous that it
actually does not hurt them to see the streets crammed with prostitutes
by night, or the parks by day with the semi-lifeless bodies of tramps;
men, to whom it seems quite natural that our marriage and social
institutions should lumber along over the bodies of women, as our
commercial institutions grind over the bodies of the poor, and our
“imperial” enterprise over the bodies of barbarian races, destroyed by
drink and deviltry. But then no doubt the world is made like that.
Assuredly it is no wonder that the more go-ahead Women (who have come
round to the light by their own way, and through much darkness and
suffering) should rise in revolt; or that the Workmen (finding their
lives in the hands of those who do not know what life is) should do the
same.

Leaving now the Middle-class man of to-day, the great representative of
modern civilization, and the triumphant outcome of so many centuries of
human progress, to enjoy his distinctions—we may turn for a moment to
the only other great body of men who are of any importance: the more
capable and energetic manual workers.

In the man of this class we have a type superior in many ways to the
other. In the first place he knows something of what Life is; from an
early age probably he has had to do something towards his own living.
Anyhow he has been called upon in a thousand ways to help his parents,
or his brothers and sisters, and has developed a fair capacity of
sympathy and affection—a thing which can hardly be said of the public
school boy; while his work, narrow though it may be, has given him a
certain definite ability and grasp of actual fact. If, as is now
happening in hundreds of thousands of cases, there is superadded to all
this some of the general culture which arises from active reading and
study, it is clear that the result is going to be considerable. It may
not count much to-day, but it will to-morrow.

On the other hand this class is lamentably wanting in the very point
where the other man excels—the organizing faculty. Take a workman from
the bench, where he has never so to speak had to look beyond his nose,
and place him in a position of responsibility and command, and he is
completely at sea. He turns out hopelessly slattern and ineffectual, or
a martinet or a bully; he has no sense of perspective and stickles
absurdly over little points while he lets the great ones go; and it is
almost impossible for him to look before and after as he should do, or
bring to a proper focus a whole field of considerations. In all this he
is a mere child: and evidently by himself unfit to rule the world.

In many respects the newer Women and the Workmen resemble each other.
Both have been bullied and sat upon from time immemorial, and are
beginning to revolt; both are good at detailed and set or customary
work, both are bad at organization; both are stronger on the emotional
than on the intellectual side; and both have an ideal of better things,
but do not quite see their way to carry it out. Their best hope perhaps
lies in their both getting hold of the Middle-class Man and thumping him
on each side till they get him to organize the world for them. The
latter has no ideal, no object, no enthusiasm, of his own. He cannot set
himself to work; and consequently he is just made use of by the
commercial spirit of the day. It is really lamentable to think how this
great organizing capacity—which might create a holy Human empire of the
world—is simply at present the tool of the Jew and the Speculator. In
Parliamentary, Military, Indian, Home or Colonial politics, the quondam
public school-boy is just led by the nose by the money-grubbing
interest, to serve its purposes; and half the time has not the sense to
see that he is being so led.

It might seem that it would be the greatest blessing and benefit to the
man of this class to find him an ideal to work to. Certainly it is his
only real and conceivable function to form an alliance with the two
other great classes of the modern nations—the women and the workmen—and
organize for them. Whether he will see it so, we know not; but if this
might come about great things would happen in the world.




                                 WOMAN
                                THE SERF


A half-grown man is of course a tyrant. And so it has come about that
the rule of Man in the world has for many ages meant the serfdom of
Woman.

Far back in History, at a time when in the early societies the thought
of inequality had hardly arisen, it would appear that the female in her
own way—as sole authenticator of birth and parentage, as guardian of the
household, as inventress of agriculture and the peaceful arts, as
priestess or prophetess or sharer in the councils of the tribe—was as
powerful as man in his, and sometimes even more so. But from thence,
down to to-day, what centuries of repression, of slave-hood, of dumbness
and obscurity have been her lot!

There is much to show that the greed of Private Property was the old
Serpent which brought about the fall of our first parents; for as this
sentiment—the chief incentive to modern Civilization—rose and spread
with a kind of contagion over the advancing races of mankind, the human
Male, bitten by it, not only claimed possession of everything he could
lay hands upon, but ended by enslaving and appropriating his own mate,
his second self—reducing her also to a mere chattel, a slave and a
plaything.

Certainly it is curious that, with whatever occasional exceptions, the
periods of man’s ascendancy have been the periods of so much sadness and
degradation of women. He, all through, more and more calmly assuming
that it must be her province to live and work for him; shutting her more
and more into the seclusion of the boudoir and the harem, or down to the
drudgery of the hearth; confining her body, her mind; playing always
upon her sex-nature, accentuating always that—as though she were indeed
nought else but sex; yet furious if her feelings were not always
obedient to his desire; arrogating to himself a masculine license, yet
revenging the least unfaithfulness on her part by casting her out into
the scorned life of the prostitute; and granting her more and more but
one choice in life—to be a free woman, and to die, unsexed, in the
gutter; or for creature-comforts and a good name to sell herself, soul
and body, into life-long bondage. While she, more and more, has accepted
as inevitable the situation; and moved, sad-eyed, to her patient and
uncomplaining work, to the narrow sphere and petty details of household
labor and life, of patience and self-effacement, of tenderness and love,
little noticed and less understood; or twisted herself into a ridiculous
mime of fashion and frivolity, if so she might find a use for her empty
head, and some favor with her lord; her own real impulses and character,
her own talents and genius, all the while smothered away and blighted,
her brain dwarfed, and her outlook on the world marred by falsity and
ignorance.

Such, or something like it, has been the fate of woman through the
centuries. And if, like man, she had been light-armed for her own
defense, it might have been possible to say it was her own fault that
she allowed all this to take place; but when we remember that she all
the while has had to bear the great and speechless burden of Sex—to be
herself the ark and cradle of the Race down the ages—then we may perhaps
understand what a tragedy it has all been. For the fulfilment of sex is
a relief and a condensation to the Man. He goes his way, and, so to
speak, thinks no more about it. But to the Woman it is the culmination
of her life, her profound and secret mission to humanity, of
incomparable import and delicacy.

It is difficult, of course, for men to understand the depth and
sacredness of the mother-feeling in woman—its joys and hope, its leaden
weight of cares and anxieties. The burden of pregnancy and gestation,
the deep inner solicitude and despondency, the fears that all may not be
well, the indrawing and absorption of her life into the life of the
child, the increasing effort to attend to anything else, to care for
anything else; her willingness even to die if only the child may be born
safe: these are things which man—except it be occasionally in his role
as artist or inventor—does but faintly imagine. Then, later on, the
dedication to the young life or lives, the years of daylong and
nightlong labor and forethought, in which the very thought of self is
effaced, of tender service for which there is no recognition, nor ever
will or can be—except in the far future; the sacrifice of personal
interests and expansions in the ever-narrowing round of domestic duty;
and in the end the sad wonderment and grievous unfulfilled yearning as
one by one the growing boy and girl push their way into the world and
disavow their home-ties and dependence; the sundering of heart-strings
even as the navel-cord had to be sundered before: for these things, too,
Woman can hope but little sympathy and understanding from the other sex.

But this fact, of man’s non-perception of it, does not make the tragedy
less. Far back out of the brows of Greek goddess, and Sibyll, and Norse
and German seeress and prophetess, over all this petty civilization look
the grand untamed eyes of a primal woman the equal and the mate of man;
and in sad plight should we be if we might not already, lighting up the
horizon from East and West and South and North, discern the answering
looks of those new comers who, as the period of women’s enslavement is
passing away, send glances of recognition across the ages to their elder
sisters.

After all, and underneath all the falsities of this period, may we not
say that there is a deep and permanent relation between the sexes, which
must inevitably assert itself again?

To this relation the physiological differences perhaps afford the key.
In woman—modern science has shown—the more fundamental and primitive
nervous centers, and the great sympathetic and vaso-motor system of
nerves generally, are developed to a greater extent than in man; in
woman the whole structure and life rallies more closely and obviously
round the sexual function than in man; and, as a general rule, in the
evolution of the human race, as well as of the lower races, the female
is less subject to variation and is more constant to and conservative of
the type of the race than the male.[6] With these physiological
differences are naturally allied the facts that, of the two, Woman is
the more primitive, the more intuitive, the more emotional. If not so
large and cosmic in her scope, the great unconscious processes of Nature
lie somehow nearer to her; to her, sex is a deep and sacred instinct,
carrying with it a sense of natural purity; nor does she often
experience that divorce between the sentiment of Love and the physical
passion which is so common with men, and which causes them to be aware
of a grossness and a conflict in their own natures; she is, or should
be, the interpreter of Love to man, and in some degree his guide in
sexual matters. More, since she keeps to the great lines of evolution
and is less biased and influenced by the momentary currents of the day;
since her life is bound up with the life of the child; since in a way
she is nearer the child herself, and nearer to the savage; it is to her
that Man, after his excursions and wanderings, mental and physical,
continually tends to return as to his primitive home and resting-place,
to restore his balance, to find his center of life, and to draw stores
of energy and inspiration for fresh conquests of the outer world. “In
women men find beings who have not wandered so far as they have from the
typical life of earth’s creatures; women are for men the human
embodiments of the restful responsiveness of Nature. To every man, as
Michelet has put it, the woman whom he loves is as the Earth was to her
legendary son; he has but to fall down and kiss her breast and he is
strong again.”[7]

If it be true that by natural and physiological right Woman stands in
some such primitive relationship to Man, then we may expect this
relationship to emerge again into clear and reasonable light in course
of time; though it does not of course follow that a relationship founded
on physiological distinctions is absolutely permanent—since these latter
may themselves vary to some degree. That a more natural and sensible
relation of some kind between the sexes is actually coming to birth, few
who care to read the signs of the times can well doubt. For the moment,
however, and by way of parenthesis before looking to the future, we have
to consider a little more in detail the present position of women under
civilization. Not that the consideration will be altogether gracious and
satisfactory, but that it may—we are fain to hope—afford us some hints
for the future.

It was perhaps not altogether unnatural that Man’s craze for property
and individual ownership should have culminated in the enslavement of
woman—his most precious and beloved object. But the consequence of this
absurdity was a whole series of other absurdities. What between
insincere flattery and rosewater adorations on the one hand, and serfdom
and neglect on the other, woman was, as Havelock Ellis says, treated as
“a cross between an angel and an idiot.” And after a time, adapting
herself to the treatment, she really became something between an angel
and an idiot—a bundle of weak and flabby sentiments, combined with a
wholly undeveloped brain. Moreover by being continually specialized and
specialized in the sexual and domestic direction, she lost touch with
the actual world, and grew, one may say, into a separate species from
man—so that in the later civilizations the males and females, except
when the sex-attraction has compelled them as it were to come together,
have been wont to congregate in separate herds, and talk languages each
unintelligible to the other. Says the author of the Woman’s Question: “I
admit there is no room for pharisaical self-laudation here. The bawling
mass of mankind on a racecourse or the stock-exchange is degrading
enough in all conscience. Yet this even is hardly so painful as the
sight which meets our eyes between three and four in the afternoon in
any fashionable London street. Hundreds of women—mere dolls—gazing
intently into shop-windows at various bits of colored ribbon. * * *
Perhaps nothing is more disheartening than this, except the mob of women
in these very same streets between twelve and one at night.”

The “lady,” the household drudge, and the prostitute, are the three main
types of women resulting in our modern civilization from the process of
the past—and it is hard to know which is the most wretched, which is the
most wronged, and which is the most unlike that which in her own heart
every true woman would desire to be.

In some sense the “lady” of the period which is just beginning to pass
away is the most characteristic product of Commercialism. The sense of
Private Property, arising and joining with the “angel and idiot” theory,
turned Woman more and more—especially of course among the possessing
classes—into an emblem of possession—a mere doll, an empty idol, a brag
of the man’s exclusive right in the sex—till at last, as her vain
splendors increased and her real usefulness diminished, she ultimated
into the “perfect lady.” But let every woman who piques and preens
herself to the fulfilment of this ideal in her own person, remember what
is the cost and what is the meaning of her quest: the covert enslavement
to, and the covert contempt of Man.

The instinct of helpful personal service is so strong in women, and such
a deep-rooted part of their natures, that to be treated as a mere target
for other people’s worship and services—especially when this is tainted
with insincerity—must be most obnoxious to them. To think that women
still exist by hundreds and hundreds of thousands, women with hearts and
hands formed for love and helpfulness, who are brought up as “ladies”
and have to spend their lives listening to the idiotic platitudes of the
Middle-class Man, and “waited upon” by wage-bought domestics, is enough
to make one shudder. The modern “gentleman” is bad enough, but the
“lady” of bourgeois-dom, literally “crucified twixt a smile and
whimper,” prostituted to a life which in her heart she hates—with its
petty ideals, its narrow horizon, and its empty honors—is indeed a
pitiful spectacle.

In Baronial times the household centered round the Hall, where the baron
sat supreme; to-day it centers round the room where the lady reigns. The
“with” is withdrawn from the withdrawing-room, and that apartment has
become the most important of all. Yet there is an effect of mockery in
the homage paid—a doubt whether she is really qualified yet for the
position. The contrast between the two societies, the Feudal and the
Commercial, is not inaptly represented by this domestic change. The
former society was rude and rough, but generous and straightforward; the
latter is polished and nice, but full of littleness and finesse. The
Drawing-room, with its feeble manners and effects of curtains and
embroidery, gives its tone to the new sovereign; and, as far as her rule
is actual, to our lives now-a-days. But we look forward to a time when
this room also will cease to be the center of the house, and
another—perhaps the Common-room—will take its place.

Below a certain level in society—the distinctively commercial—there are
no drawing-rooms. Among the working masses, where the woman is of
indispensable importance in daily life, and is not sequestered as an
idol, there is no room specially set apart for her worship—a curious
change takes place in her nominal position, and whereas in the supernal
sphere she sits in state and has her tea and bread and butter brought to
her by obsequious males, in the cottage the men take their ease and are
served by the women. The customs of the cottage, however, are rooted in
a natural division of labor by which the man undertakes the outdoor, and
the woman the indoor work; and there is, I think, quite as much real
respect shown to her here as in the drawing-room.

In the cottage, nevertheless, the unfortunate one falls into the second
pit that is prepared for her—that of the household drudge; and here she
leads a life which, if it has more honesty and reality in it than that
of the “lady,” is one of abject slavery. Few men again realize, or
trouble themselves to realize, what a life this of the working housewife
is. They are accustomed to look upon their own employment, whatever it
may be, as “work” (perhaps because it brings with it “wages”); the
woman’s they regard as a kind of pastime. They forget what monotonous
drudgery it really means, and yet what incessant forethought and care;
they forget that the woman has no eight hours day, that her work is
always staring her in the face, and waiting for her, even on into the
night; that the body is wearied, and the mind narrowed down, “scratched
to death by rats and mice” in a perpetual round of petty cares. For not
only does civilization and multifarious invention (including smoke) make
the burden of domestic life immensely complex, but the point is that
each housewife has to sustain this burden to herself in lonely effort.
What a sight, in any of our great towns, to enter into the cottages or
tenements which form the endless rows of suburban streets, and to find
in each one a working wife struggling alone in semi-darkness and
seclusion with the toils of an entire separate household—with meals to
be planned and provided, with bread to be baked, clothes to be washed
and mended, children to be kept in order, a husband to be humored, and a
house to be swept and dusted; herself wearied and worried, debilitated
with confinement and want of fresh air, and low-spirited for want of
change and society! How futile! and how dreary!

There remains the third alternative for women; nor can it be wondered at
that some deliberately choose a life of prostitution as their only
escape from the existence of the lady or the drudge. Yet what a choice
it is! On the one hand is the caged Woman, and on the other hand is the
free: and which to choose? “How can there be a doubt,” says one, “surely
freedom is always best.” Then there falls a hush. “Ah!” says society,
pointing with its finger, “but a free Woman!”

And yet is it possible for Woman ever to be worthy her name, unless she
is free?

To-day, or up to to-day, just as the wage-worker has had no means of
livelihood except by the sale of his bodily labor, so woman has had no
means of livelihood except by the surrender of her bodily sex. She could
dispose of it to one man for life, and have in return the respect of
society and the caged existence of the lady or the drudge, or she could
sell it night by night and be a “free woman,” scorned of the world and
portioned to die in the gutter. In either case (if she really thinks
about the matter at all) she must lose her self-respect. What a choice,
what a frightful choice!—and this has been the fate of Woman for how
long?

If, as a consequence of all this, woman has gone down hill, there is no
doubt that man has gravitated too. (Or was it really that Jack fell down
first, and “Jill came tumbling after?”) Anyhow I think that nothing can
be more clear—and this I believe should be taken as the basis of any
discussion on the relation of the sexes—than that whatever injures the
one sex injures the other; and that whatever defects or partialities may
be found in the one must from the nature of the case be tallied by
corresponding defects and partialities in the other. The two halves of
the human race are complementary, and it is useless for one to attempt
to glorify itself at the expense of the other. As in Olive Schreiner’s
allegory of Woman (“Three Dreams in a Desert”), man and woman are bound
together by a vital band, and the one cannot move a step in advance of
the other.

If we were called upon to characterize these mutual defects (inbred
partly by the false property relation) we should be inclined to say they
were brutality and conceit on the one hand, and finesse and subtlety on
the other. Man, as owner, has tended to become arrogant and callous and
egotistic; woman, as the owned, slavish and crafty and unreal.

As a matter of fact, and allowing that sweeping generalizations of this
kind are open to a good many exceptions, we do find (at any rate in the
British Isles) a most wonderful and celestial indifference to anything
but their own affairs amongst the “lords of creation,” an indifference
so ingrained and constitutional that it is rarely conscious of itself,
and which assumes quite easily and naturally that the weaker sex exists
for the purpose of playing the foil, so to speak, to the chief actor in
life’s drama. Nor does the fact that this indifference is tempered, from
time to time, by a little gallantry afford much consolation—as may be
imagined—to the woman who perceives that the gallantry is inspired by
nothing more than a passing sex-desire.

On the other hand Jill has come tumbling after pretty quickly, and has
tumbled to the conclusion that though she cannot sway her lord by force,
she may easily make use of him by craft. Finesse, developed through
scores of generations, combined with the skillful use of the glamor
belonging to her sex, have given her an extraordinary faculty of
carrying out her own purposes, often through the most difficult passes,
without ever exposing her hand. Possibly the knowledge of this forms one
reason why women distrust each other so much more than men distrust each
other. Certainly one of the rarest of God’s creatures is a truly
undesigning female, but—when dowered with intellect such as might seem
to justify it in being designing—one of the most admirable and
beautiful!

Looking a little deeper, and below the superficial contract which an
unsatisfactory relation between the sexes has doubtless created, one
seems to discern some of those more vital and deep-rooted
differentiations spoken of on an earlier page. It is a commonly
conceived opinion that woman tends more to intuition and man to
logic;[8] and certainly the male mind seems better able to deal with
abstractions and generalizations, and the female mind with the personal
and the detailed and the concrete. And while this difference may be in
part attributable to the artificial confinement of women to the domestic
sphere, there is probably something more organic in it than that. At any
rate it gives to Woman some of her best qualities—a quick and immediate
perception, appreciation of character, tact, and a kind of artistic
sense in the ordering of her own life, so that you do not see the tags
and unraveled ends which appear in man’s conduct. While the man is
blundering about, fighting with himself, hesitating, doubting, weighing,
trying vainly to co-ordinate all the elements of his nature, the woman
(often no doubt in a smaller sphere) moves serene and prompt to her
ends. Her actions are characterized by grace and finality; she is more
at unity with herself; and she has the inestimable advantage of living
in the world of persons—which may well seem so much more important and
full of interest than that of things.

On the other hand, this want of the power of generalization has made it
difficult for woman (at any rate up to to-day) to emerge from a small
circle of interests, and to look at things from the point of view of
public advantage and good. While her sympathies for individuals are keen
and quick, abstract and general ideas such as those of Justice, Truth,
and the like have been difficult of appreciation to her; and her
deficiency in logic has made it almost impossible to act upon her
through the brain. A man, if he is on the wrong track, can be argued
with; but with a woman of this type, if her motives are nefarious, there
is no means of changing them by appeal to her reason, or to the general
sense of Justice and Right—and unless controlled by the stronger sway of
a determined personal will (of a man) her career is liable to be pretty
bad.

Generally it will be admitted, as we are dealing with points of mental
and moral difference between the sexes, Man has developed the more
active, and Woman the more passive qualities; and it is pretty obvious,
here too, that this difference is not only due to centuries of social
inequality and of property-marriage, but roots back in some degree to
the very nature of their respective sexual functions. That there are
permanent complementary distinctions between the male and female, dating
first perhaps from sex, and thence spreading over the whole natures,
physical, mental and moral, of each, no one can reasonably doubt. These
distinctions have, however, we contend, been strangely accentuated and
exaggerated during the historic period—till at last a point of maximum
divergence and absolute misunderstanding has been reached. But that
point is behind us now.




                                 WOMAN
                               IN FREEDOM


It is clear enough, from what has been said, that what Woman most needs
to-day, and is mostly seeking for, is a basis of independence for her
life. Nor is her position likely to be improved until she is able to
face man on an equality; to find, self-balanced, her natural relation to
him; and to dispose of herself and of her sex perfectly freely, and not
as a thrall must do.

Doubtless if man were an ideal creature his mate might be secure of
equal and considerate treatment from him without having to insist upon
an absolute economic independence; but as that is only too obviously not
the case there is nothing left for her to-day but to unfold the war-flag
of her “rights,” and (dull and tiresome as it may be) to go through a
whole weary round of battles till peace is concluded again upon a better
understanding.

Yet it must never be forgotten that nothing short of large social
changes, stretching beyond the sphere of women only, can bring about the
complete emancipation of the latter. Not till our whole commercial
system, with its barter and sale of human labor and human love for gain,
is done away, and not till a whole new code of ideals and customs of
life has come in, will women really be free. They must remember that
their cause is also the cause of the oppressed laborer over the whole
earth, and the laborer has to remember that his cause is theirs.[9]

And since Motherhood is, after all, woman’s great and incomparable work,
people will come to see that a sane maternity is one of the very first
things to be considered—and that really, though not the only
consideration, it is a work which if properly fulfilled does involve the
broadest and largest culture. Perhaps this might seem to some only too
obvious; yet when for a moment we glance around at the current ideals,
when we see what Whitman calls “the incredible holds and webs of
silliness, millinery and every kind of dyspeptic depletion” in which
women themselves live, when we see the absolute want of training for
motherhood and the increasing physical incapacity for it, and even the
feminine censure of those who pass through the ordeal too easily, we
begin to realize how little the present notion of what woman should be
is associated with the healthy fulfilment of her most perfect work. A
woman capable at all points to bear children, to guard them, to teach
them, to turn them out strong and healthy citizens of the great world,
stands at the farthest remove from the finnikin doll or the meek drudge
whom man by a kind of false sexual selection has through many centuries
evolved as his ideal.

The nervous and sexual systems of women to-day, ruined among the rich by
a life and occupations which stimulate the emotional sensibilities
without ever giving the strength and hardiness which flow from healthy
and regular industry, and often ruined among the poor by excessive labor
carried on under most unhealthy conditions, make real wifehood and
motherhood things almost unknown. “Injudicious training,” says Bebel,
“miserable social conditions (food, dwelling, occupation) produce weak,
bloodless, nervous beings, incapable of fulfilling the duties of
matrimony. The consequences are menstrual troubles[10] and disturbances
in the various organs connected with sexual functions, rendering
maternity dangerous or impossible. Instead of a healthy, cheerful
companion, a capable mother, a helpmate equal to the calls made upon her
activity, the husband has a nervous excitable wife, permanently under
the doctor’s hands, and too fragile to bear the slightest draught or
noise.”

The Modern Woman sees plainly enough that no decent advance for her sex
is possible until this whole question is fairly faced—involving, as of
course it will do, a life very different from her present one, far more
in the open air, with real bodily exercise and development, some amount
of regular manual work, a knowledge of the laws of health and
physiology, an altogether wider mental outlook, and greater
self-reliance and nature-hardihood. But when once these things are
granted, she sees that she will no longer be the serf, but the equal,
the mate, and the comrade of Man.

Before any such new conception it is obvious enough that the poor little
pinched ideal of the “lady,” which has ruled society so long, will fade
away into distance and obscurity. People may rail at the new
developments, but what, it may be asked, can any decently sensible woman
think of her present position—of the mock salutations and heroic
politeness of the conventional male—with their suggestion of an empty
homage to weakness and incapacity; of the unwritten law which condemns
her, if occupying any place in society, to bridle in her chin and use an
affected speech in order that it may be patent to everybody that she is
not free; which forbids natural and spontaneous gesture as unbecoming
and suspicious—and indeed in any public place as liable to the attention
of the policeman; what can she think of the perpetual lies under which
she has to live—too numerous to be recorded; except that all these
things are intolerable? Rather than remain in such a coil the modern
woman is sensible enough to see that she must face the stigma of doing
things “unlady-like;” and that only by facing it can she win her true
place in the world, and a real comradeship with the only class of man
who is capable of such a thing—namely, the man who is willing not to be
“a gentleman.”

That a new code of manners between the sexes, founded not on covert lust
but on open and mutual helpfulness, has got to come in, is obvious
enough. The cry of equality need not like a red rag infuriate the
Philistine bull. That woman is in general muscularly weaker than man,
and that there are certain kinds of effort, even mental, for which she
is less fitted—as there are other kinds of effort for which she is more
fitted—may easily be granted; but this only means, in the language of
all good manners, that there are special ways in which men can assist
women, as there are special ways in which women can assist men. Anything
which goes beyond this, and the friendly exchange of equal services, and
which assumes, in the conventionalities of the private household or the
public place, that the female claims a general indulgence (because of
her general incapacity) is an offence—against the encouragement of which
women themselves will no doubt be on their guard.

I say the signs of revolt on the part of the lady class—revolt long
delayed but now spreading all along the line—are evident enough. When,
however, we come to the second type of woman mentioned in the preceding
pages, the working wife, we—naturally enough—do not find much conscious
movement. The life of the household drudge is too like that of a slave,
too much consumed in mere toil, too little illuminated by any knowledge,
for her to rise of herself to any other conception of existence.
Nevertheless it is not difficult to see that general and social changes
are working to bring about her liberation also. Improved
house-construction, public bakeries and laundries, and so forth, and,
what is much more important, a more rational and simple and healthful
notion of food and furniture, are tending very largely to reduce the
labors of Housework and Cookery; and conservative though women are in
their habits, when these changes are brought to their doors they cannot
but see the advantage of them. Public institutions too are more and more
taking over the responsibilities and the cost of educating and rearing
children; and even here and there we may discern a drift towards the
amalgamation of households, which by introducing a common life and
division of labor among the women-folk will probably do much to cheer
and lighten their lot. None of these changes, however, will be of great
use unless or until they wake the overworked woman herself to see and
insist on her rights to a better life, and until they force from the man
a frank acknowledgment of her claim. And surely here and there the man
himself will do something to educate his mate to this point. We see no
reason indeed why he should not assist in some part of the domestic
work, and thus contribute his share of labor and intelligence to the
conduct of the house; nor why the woman—being thus relieved—should not
occasionally, and when desirable, find salaried work outside, and so
contribute to the maintenance of the family, and to her own security and
sense of independence. The over-differentiation of the labors of the
sexes to-day is at once a perpetuation of the servitude of women and a
cause of misunderstanding between her and man, and of lack of interest
in each other’s doings.

The third type of woman, the prostitute, provides us with that question
which—according to Bebel—is the sphinx-riddle that modern society cannot
solve, and yet which unsolved threatens society’s destruction. The
commercial prostitution of love is the last outcome of our whole social
system, and its most clear condemnation. It flaunts in our streets, it
hides itself in the garment of respectability under the name of
matrimony, it eats in actual physical disease and death right through
our midst; it is fed by the oppression and the ignorance of women, by
their poverty and denied means of livelihood, and by the hypocritical
puritanism which forbids them by millions not only to gratify but even
to speak of their natural desires; and it is encouraged by the
callousness of an age which has accustomed men to buy and sell for money
every most precious thing—even the life-long labor of their brothers,
therefore why not also the very bodies of their sisters?

Here there is no solution except the freedom of woman—which means of
course also the freedom of the masses of the people, men and women, and
the ceasing altogether of economic slavery. There is no solution which
will not include the redemption of the terms “free woman” and “free
love” to their true and rightful significance. Let every woman whose
heart bleeds for the sufferings of her sex, hasten to declare herself
and to constitute herself, as far as she possibly can, a free woman. Let
her accept the term with all the odium that belongs to it; let her
insist on her right to speak, dress, think, act, and above all to use
her sex, as she deems best; let her face the scorn and the ridicule; let
her “lose her own life” if she likes; assured that only so can come
deliverance, and that only when the free woman is honored will the
prostitute cease to exist. And let every man who really would respect
his counterpart, entreat her also to act so; let him never by word or
deed tempt her to grant as a bargain what can only be precious as a
gift; let him see her with pleasure stand a little aloof; let him help
her to gain her feet; so at last, by what slight sacrifices on his part
such a course may involve, will it dawn upon him that he has gained a
real companion and helpmate on life’s journey.

The whole evil of commercial prostitution arises out of the domination
of Man in matters of sex. Better indeed were a Saturnalia of free men
and women than the spectacle which as it is our great cities present at
night. Here in Sex, the women’s instincts are, as a rule, so clean, so
direct, so well-rooted in the needs of the race, that except for man’s
domination they would scarcely have suffered this perversion. Sex in man
is an unorganized passion, an individual need or impetus; but in woman
it may more properly be termed a constructive instinct, with the larger
signification that that involves. Even more than man should woman be
“free” to work out the problem of her sex-relations as may commend
itself best to her—hampered as little as possible by legal,
conventional, or economic considerations, and relying chiefly on her own
native sense and tact in the matter. Once thus free—free from the mere
cash-nexus to a husband, from the money-slavery of the streets, from the
nameless terrors of social opinion, and from the threats of the choice
of perpetual virginity or perpetual bondage—would she not indeed choose
her career (whether that of wife and mother, or that of free companion,
or one of single blessedness) far better for herself than it is chosen
for her to-day—regarding really in some degree the needs of society, and
the welfare of children, and the sincerity and durability of her
relations to her lovers, and less the petty motives of profit and fear?

The point is that the whole conception of a nobler Womanhood for the
future has to proceed candidly from this basis of her complete freedom
as to the disposal of her sex, and from the healthy conviction that,
with whatever individual aberrations, she will on the whole use that
freedom rationally and well. And surely this—in view too of some decent
education of the young on sexual matters—is not too great a demand to
make on our faith in women. If it is, then indeed we are undone—for
short of this we can only retain them in servitude, and society in its
form of the hell on earth which it largely is to-day.

Refreshing therefore in its way is the spirit of revolt which is
spreading on all sides. Let us hope such revolt will continue. If it
lead here and there to strained or false situations, or to temporary
misunderstandings—still, declared enmity is better than unreal
acquiescence. Too long have women acted the part of mere appendages to
the male, suppressing their own individuality and fostering his
self-conceit. In order to have souls of their own they must free
themselves, and greatly by their own efforts. They must learn to fight.
Whitman in his poem “A Woman Waits for Me,” draws a picture of a woman
who stands in the sharpest possible contrast with the feeble bourgeois
ideal—a woman who can “swim, row, ride, wrestle, shoot, run, strike,
retreat, defend herself,” etc.; and Bebel, in his book on Woman, while
pointing out that in Sparta, “where the greatest attention was paid to
the physical development of both sexes, boys and girls went about naked
till they had reached the age of puberty, and were trained together in
bodily exercises, games and wrestling,” complains that now-a-days “the
notion that women require strength, courage and resolution is regarded
as very heterodox.” But the truth is that qualities of courage and
independence are not agreeable in a slave, and that is why man during
all these centuries has consistently discountenanced them—till at last
the female herself has come to consider them “unwomanly.” Yet this last
epithet is absurd; for if tenderness is the crown and glory of woman,
nothing can be more certain than that true tenderness is only found in
strong and courageous natures; the tenderness of a servile person is no
tenderness at all.

It has not escaped the attention of thinkers on these subjects that the
rise of Women into freedom and larger social life here alluded to—and
already indeed indicated by the march of events—is likely to have a
profound influence on the future of our race, It is pointed out that
among most of the higher animals, and indeed among many of the early
races of mankind, the males have been selected by the females on account
of their prowess or superior strength or beauty, and this has led to the
evolution in the males and in the race at large of a type which (in a
dim and unconscious manner) was the ideal of the female.[11] But as soon
as in the history of mankind the property-love set in, and woman became
the chattel of man, this action ceased. She, being no longer free, could
not possibly choose man, but rather the opposite took place, and man
began to select woman for the characteristics pleasing to him. The
latter now adorned herself to gratify his taste, and the female type and
consequently the type of the whole race have been correspondingly
affected. With the return of woman to freedom the ideal of the female
may again resume its sway. It is possible indeed that the more dignified
and serious attitude of women towards sex may give to sexual selection
when exercised by them a nobler influence than when exercised by the
males. Anyhow it is not difficult to see that women really free would
never countenance for their mates the many mean and unclean types of men
who to-day seem to have things all their own way, nor consent to have
children by such men; nor is it difficult to imagine that the feminine
influence might thus sway to the evolution of a more manly and dignified
race than has been disclosed in these last days of commercial
civilization!

The Modern Woman with her clubs, her debates, her politics, her freedom
of action and costume, is forming a public opinion of her own at an
amazing rate; and seems to be preparing to “spank” and even thump the
Middle-class Man in real earnest! What exactly evolution may be
preparing for us, we do not know, but apparently some lively sparring
matches between the sexes. Of course all will not be smooth sailing. The
women of the new movement are naturally largely drawn from those in whom
the maternal instinct is not especially strong; also from those in whom
the sexual instinct is not preponderant. Such women do not altogether
represent their sex; some are rather mannish in temperament; some are
“homogenic,” that is, inclined to attachments to their own, rather than
to the opposite, sex; some are ultra-rationalizing and brain-cultured;
to many, children are more or less a bore; to others, man’s sex-passion
is a mere impertinence, which they do not understand, and whose place
they consequently misjudge. It would not do to say that the majority of
the new movement are thus out of line, but there is no doubt that a
large number are; and the course of their progress will be
correspondingly curvilinear.

Perhaps the deficiency in maternal instinct would seem the most serious
imputation. But then, who knows (as we have said) what evolution is
preparing? Sometimes it seems possible that a new sex is on the
make—like the feminine neuters of Ants and Bees—not adapted for
child-bearing, but with a marvelous and perfect instinct of social
service, indispensable for the maintenance of the common life. Certainly
most of those who are freeing themselves—often with serious
struggles—from the “lady” chrysalis are fired with an ardent social
enthusiasm; and if they may personally differ in some respects from the
average of their sex, it is certain that their efforts will result in a
tremendous improvement in the general position of their more commonplace
sisters.

If it should turn out that a certain fraction of the feminine sex should
for one reason or another not devote itself to the work of maternity,
still the influence of this section would react on the others to render
their notion of motherhood far more dignified than before. There is not
much doubt that in the future this most important of human labors will
be carried on with a degree of conscious intelligence hitherto unknown,
and which will raise it from the fulfilment of a mere instinct to the
completion of a splendid social purpose. To save the souls of children
as well as their bodies, to raise heroic as well as prosperous citizens,
will surely be the desire and the work of the mothers of our race.[12]

It will perhaps be said that after going about to show (as in the
previous chapter) the deficiency of women hitherto in the matter of the
generalizing faculty, it is somewhat inconsistent to express any great
hope that they will ever take much active interest in the general social
life to which they belong; but indeed the answer to this is that they
are already beginning to do so. The social enthusiasm and activity shown
by women in Britain, Russia, and the United States is so great and
well-rooted that it is impossible to believe it a mere ephemeral event;
and though in the older of these countries it is at present confined to
the more wealthy classes, we can augur from that—according to a
well-known principle—that it will in time spread downwards to the women
of the nation.

Important as is the tendency of women in the countries mentioned to
higher education and brain development, I think it is evident that the
widening and socialization of their interests is not taking place so
much through mere study of books and the passing of examinations in
political economy and other sciences, as through the extended actual
experience which the life of the day is bringing to them. Certainly the
book-studies are important and must not be neglected; but above all is
it imperative (and men, if they are to have any direct sway in the
future destinies of the other sex, must look to it) that women, so long
confined to the narrowest mere routine and limited circle of domestic
life, should see and get experience, all they can, of the actual world.
The theory, happily now exploding, of keeping them “innocent” through
sheer ignorance partakes too much of the “angel and idiot” view. To see
the life of slum and palace and workshop, to enter into the trades and
professions, to become doctors, nurses, and so forth, to have to look
after themselves and to hold their own as against men, to travel, to
meet with sexual experience, to work together in trade-unions, to join
in social and political uprisings and rebellions, etc., is what women
want just now. And it is evident enough that at any rate among the more
prosperous sections in this country such a movement is going on apace.
If the existence of the enormous hordes of unattached females that we
find living on interest and dividends to-day is a blemish from a
Socialistic point of view; if we find them on the prowl all over the
country, filling the theaters and concert-rooms and public
entertainments in the proportion of three to one male, besetting the
trains, swarming onto the tops of the ’buses, dodging on bicycles under
the horses’ heads, making speeches at street corners, blocking the very
pavements in the front of fashionable shops, we must not forget that for
the objects we have just sketched, even this class is going the most
direct way to work, and laying in stores of experience, which will make
it impossible for it ever to return to the petty life of times gone by.

At the last, and after centuries of misunderstanding and association of
triviality and superficiality with the female sex, it will perhaps dawn
upon the world that the truth really lies in an opposite direction—that,
in a sense, there is something more deep-lying fundamental and primitive
in the woman nature than in that of the man; that instead of being the
over-sensitive hysterical creature that civilization has too often made
her, she is essentially of calm large and acceptive even though
emotional temperament. “Her shape arises,” says Walt Whitman,

 “She less guarded than ever, yet more guarded than ever,
 The gross and soil’d she moves among do not make her gross and soil’d,
 She knows the thoughts as she passes, nothing is concealed from her,
 She is none the less considerate or friendly therefor,
 She is the best belov’d, it is without exception; she has no reason to
    fear, and she does not fear.”

The Greek goddesses look down and across the ages to the very outposts
beyond civilization; and already from far America, Australasia, Africa,
Norway, Russia, as even in our midst from those who have crossed the
border-line of all class and caste, glance forth the features of a
grander type—fearless and untamed—the primal merging into the future
Woman; who, combining broad sense with sensibility, the passion for
Nature with the love of Man, and commanding indeed the details of life,
yet risen out of localism and convention, will help us to undo the bands
of death which encircle the present society, and open the doors to a new
and a wider life.




                                MARRIAGE
                              A RETROSPECT


Of the great mystery of human Love, and that most intimate personal
relation of two souls to each other—perhaps the firmest, most basic and
indissoluble fact (after our own existence) that we know; of that
strange sense—often, perhaps generally, instantaneous—of long precedent
familiarity and kinship, that deep reliance on and acceptation of
another in his or her entirety; of the tremendous strength of the chain
which thus at times will bind two hearts in life-long dedication and
devotion, persuading and indeed not seldom compelling the persons
concerned to the sacrifice of some of the other elements of their lives
and characters; and, withal, of a certain inscrutable veiledness from
each other which so frequently accompanies the relation of the opposite
sexes, and which forms at once the abiding charm, and the pain,
sometimes the tragedy, of their union; of this palpitating winged living
thing, which one may perhaps call the real Marriage—I would say but
little; for indeed it is only fitting or possible to speak of it by
indirect language and suggestion, nor may one venture to rudely drag it
from its sanctuary into the light of the common gaze.

Compared with this, the actual marriage, in its squalid perversity as we
too often have occasion of knowing it, is as the wretched idol of the
savage to the reality which it is supposed to represent; and one seems
to hear the Aristophanic laughter of the gods as they contemplate man’s
little clay image of the Heavenly Love—which, cracked in the fire of
daily life, he is fain to bind together with rusty hoops of law, and
parchment bonds, lest it should crumble and fall to pieces altogether.

The whole subject, wide as life itself—as Heaven and Hell—eludes
anything like adequate treatment, and we need make no apology for
narrowing down our considerations here to just a few practical points;
and if we cannot navigate upward into the very heart of the
matter—namely, into the causes which make some people love each other
with a true and perfect love, and others unite in obedience to but a
counterfeit passion—yet we may fairly, I imagine, study some of the
conditions which give to actual marriage its present form, or which in
the future are likely to provide real affection with a more satisfactory
expression than it has as a rule to-day.

As long as man is only half-grown, and woman is a serf or a parasite, it
can hardly be expected that Marriage should be particularly successful.
Two people come together, who know but little of each other, who have
been brought up along different lines, who certainly do not understand
each other’s nature; whose mental interests and occupations are
different, whose worldly interests and advantage are also different; to
one of whom the subject of sex is probably a sealed book, to the other
perhaps a book whose most dismal page has been opened first. The man
needs an outlet for his passion; the girl is looking for a “home” and a
proprietor. A glamor of illusion descends upon the two, and drives them
into each other’s arms. It envelopes in a gracious and misty halo all
their differences and misapprehensions. They marry without misgiving;
and their hearts overflow with gratitude to the white-surpliced old
gentleman who reads the service over them.

But at a later hour, and with calmer thought, they begin to realize that
it is a life-sentence which he has so suavely passed upon them—not
reducible (as in the case of ordinary convicts) even to a term of 20
years. The brief burst of their first satisfaction has been followed by
satiety on the physical plane, then by mere vacuity of affection, then
by boredom, and even nausea. The girl, full perhaps of a tender emotion,
and missing the sympathy and consolation she expected in the man’s love,
only to find its more materialistic side—“This, this then is what I am
wanted for;” the man, who looked for a companion, finding he can rouse
no mortal interest in his wife’s mind save in the most exasperating
trivialities;—whatever the cause may be, a veil has fallen from before
their faces, and there they sit, held together now by the least
honorable interests, the interests which they themselves can least
respect, but to which Law and Religion lend all their weight. The
monetary dependence of the woman, the mere sex-needs of the man, the
fear of public opinion, all form motives, and motives of the meanest
kind, for maintaining the seeming tie; and the relation of the two
hardens down into a dull neutrality, in which lives and characters are
narrowed and blunted, and deceit becomes the common weapon which guards
divided interests.

A sad picture! and of course in this case a portrayal deliberately of
the seamy side of the matter. But who shall say what agonies are often
gone through in those first few years of married life? Anyhow, this is
the sort of problem which we have to face to-day, and which shows its
actuality by the amazing rate at which it is breaking out in literature
on all sides.

It may be said—and often of course is said—that such cases as these only
prove that marriage was entered into under the influence of a passing
glamor and delusion, and that there was not much real devotion to begin
with. And no doubt there is truth enough in such remarks. But—we may say
in reply—because two people make a mistake in youth, to condemn them,
for that reason, to life-long suffering and mutual degradation, or to
see them so condemned, without proposing any hope or way of deliverance,
but with the one word “serves you right” on the lips, is a course which
can commend itself only to the grimmest and dullest Calvinist. Whatever
safeguards against a too frivolous view of the relationship may be
proposed by the good sense of society in the future, it is certain that
the time has gone past when Marriage can continue to be regarded as a
supernatural institution to whose maintenance human bodies and souls
must be indiscriminately sacrificed; a humaner, wiser, and less
panic-stricken treatment of the subject must set in; and if there are
difficulties in the way they must be met by patient and calm
consideration of human welfare—superior to any law, however ancient and
respectable.

I take it then that, without disguising the fact that the question is a
complex one, and that our conclusions may be only very tentative, we
have to consider as rationally as we conveniently can, first, some of
the drawbacks or defects of the present marriage customs, and secondly
such improvements in these as may seem feasible.

And with regard to the former, one of the most important points—which we
have already touched on—is the extraordinary absence of any allusion to
these subjects in the teaching of young folk. In a day when every
possible study seems to be crammed into the school curriculum, it is
curious that the one matter which is of supreme importance to the
individual and the community is most carefully ignored. That one ought
to be able to distinguish a passing sex-spell from a true comradeship
and devotion is no doubt a very sapient remark; but since it is a thing
which mature folk often fail to do, how young things with no experience
of their own or hint from others should be expected to do it is not easy
to understand. The search for a fitting mate, especially among the more
sensitive and highly-organized types of mankind, is a very complex
affair; and it is really monstrous that the girl or youth should have to
set out—as they mostly have to do to-day—on this difficult quest without
a word of help as to the choice of the way or the very real doubts and
perplexities that beset it.

If the pair whom we have supposed as about to be married had been
brought up in almost any tribe of savages, they would a few years
previously have gone through regular offices of initiation into manhood
and womanhood, during which time ceremonies (possibly indecent in our
eyes) would at any rate have made many misapprehensions impossible. As
it is, the civilized girl is led to the “altar” often in uttermost
ignorance and misunderstanding as to the nature of the sacrificial rites
about to be consummated. The youth too is ignorant in his way. Perhaps
he is unaware that love in the female is, in a sense, more diffused than
in the male, less specially sexual: that it dwells longer in caresses
and embraces, and determines itself more slowly towards the reproductive
system. Impatient, he injures and horrifies his partner, and
unconsciously perhaps aggravates the very hysterical tendency which
marriage might and should have allayed.[13]

Among the middle and well-to-do classes especially, the conditions of
high civilization, by inducing an overfed masculinity in the males and a
nervous and hysterical tendency in the females,[14] increase the
difficulties mentioned; and it is among the “classes” too that the
special evils exist of sex-starvation and sex-ignorance on the one hand,
and of mere licentiousness on the other.

Among the comparatively uncivilized mass of the people, where a good
deal of familiarity between the sexes takes place before marriage, and
where probably there is less ignorance on the one side and less
licentiousness on the other, these ills are not so prominent. But here
too the need for some sensible teaching is clear; and sheer neglect of
the law of Transmutation, or sheer want of self-control, are liable to
make the proletarian union brutish enough.

So far with regard to difficulties arising from personal ignorance and
inexperience. But stretching beyond and around all these are those
others that arise from the special property relation between the two
sexes, and from deep-lying historic and economic causes generally. The
long historic serfdom of woman, creeping down into the moral and
intellectual natures of the two sexes, has exaggerated the naturally
complementary relation of the male and the female into an absurd
caricature of strength on the one hand and dependence on the other. This
is well seen in the ordinary marriage-relation of the common-prayer book
type. The frail and delicate female is supposed to cling round the
sturdy husband’s form, or to depend from his arm in graceful incapacity;
and the spectator is called upon to admire the charming effect of the
union—as of the ivy with the oak—forgetful of the terrible moral,
namely, that (in the case of the trees at any rate) it is really a
death-struggle which is going on, in which either the oak must perish
suffocated in the embraces of its partner, or in order to free the
former into anything like healthy development the ivy must be
sacrificed.

Too often of course of such marriages the egoism, lordship and physical
satisfaction of the man are the chief motive causes. The woman is
practically sacrificed to the part of the maintenance of these male
virtues. It is for her to spend her days in little forgotten details of
labor and anxiety for the sake of the man’s superior comfort and
importance, to give up her needs to his whims, to “humor” him in all
ways she can; it is for her to wipe her mind clear of all opinions in
order that she may hold it up as a kind of mirror in which he may behold
reflected his lordly self; and it is for her to sacrifice even her
physical health and natural instincts in deference to what is called her
“duty” to her husband.

How bitterly alone many such a woman feels! She has dreamed of being
folded in the arms of a strong man, and surrendering herself, her life,
her mind, her all, to his service. Of course it is an unhealthy dream,
an illusion, a mere luxury of love; and it is destined to be dashed. She
has to learn that self-surrender may be just as great a crime as
self-assertion. She finds that her very willingness to be sacrificed
only fosters in the man, perhaps for his own self-defense, the egotism
and coldness that so cruelly wound her.

For how often does he with keen prevision see that if he gives way from
his coldness the clinging dependent creature will infallibly overgrow
and smother him!—that she will cut her woman-friends, will throw aside
all her own interests and pursuits in order to “devote” herself to him,
and, affording no sturdy character of her own in which he can take any
interest, will hang the festoons of her affection on every ramification
of his wretched life—nor leave him a corner free—till he perishes from
all manhood and social or heroic uses into a mere matrimonial
clothes-peg, a warning and a wonderment to passers by!

However, as an alternative, it sometimes happens that the Woman, too
wise to sacrifice her own life indiscriminately to the egoism of her
husband, and not caring for the “festoon” method, adopts the middle
course of appearing to minister to him while really pursuing her own
purposes. She cultivates the gentle science of indirectness. While
holding up a mirror for the Man to admire himself in, behind that mirror
she goes her own way and carries out her own designs, separate from him;
and while sacrificing her body to his wants, she does so quite
deliberately and for a definite reason, namely, because she has found
out that she can so get a shelter for herself and her children, and can
solve the problem of that maintenance which society has hitherto denied
to her in her own right. For indeed by a cruel fate women have been
placed in exactly that position where the sacrifice of their
self-respect for base motives has easily passed beyond a temptation into
being a necessity. They have had to live, and have too often only been
able to do so by selling themselves into bondage to the man. Willing or
unwilling, overworked or dying, they have had to bear children to the
caprice of their lords; and in this serf-life their very natures have
been blunted; they have lost—what indeed should be the very glory and
crown of woman’s being—the perfect freedom and the purity of their
love.[15]

At this whole spectacle of woman’s degradation the human male has looked
on with stupid and open-mouthed indifference—as an ox might look on at a
drowning ox-herd—not even dimly divining that his own fate was somehow
involved. He has calmly and obliviously watched the woman drift farther
and farther away from him, till at last, with the loss of an intelligent
and mutual understanding between the sexes, Love with unequal wings has
fallen lamed to the ground. Yet it would be idle to deny that even in
such a state of affairs as that depicted, men and women have in the past
and do often even now find some degree of satisfaction—simply indeed
because their types of character are such as belong to, and have been
evolved in accordance with, this relation.

To-day, however, there are thousands of women—and everyday more
thousands—to whom such a lopsided alliance is detestable; who are
determined that they will no longer endure the arrogant lordship and
egoism of men, nor countenance in themselves or other women the craft
and servility which are the necessary complements of the relation; who
see too clearly in the oak-and-ivy marriage its parasitism on the one
hand and strangulation on the other to be sensible of any
picturesqueness; who feel too that they have capacities and powers of
their own which need space and liberty, and some degree of sympathy and
help, for their unfolding; and who believe that they have work to do in
the world, as important in its own way as any that men do in theirs.
Such women have broken into open warfare—not against marriage, but
against a marriage which makes true and equal love an impossibility.
They feel that as long as women are economically dependent they cannot
stand up for themselves and insist on those rights which men from
stupidity and selfishness will not voluntarily grant them.

On the other hand there are thousands—and one would hope every day more
thousands—of men who (whatever their forerunners may have thought) do
not desire or think it delightful to have a glass continually held up
for them to admire themselves in; who look for a partner in whose life
and pursuits they can find some interest, rather than for one who has no
interest but in them; who think perhaps that they would rather minister
than be (like a monkey fed with nuts in a cage) the melancholy object of
another person’s ministrations; and who at any rate feel that love, in
order to be love at all, must be absolutely open and sincere, and free
from any sentiment of dependence or inequality. They see that the
present cramped condition of women is not only the cause of the false
relation between the sexes, but that it is the fruitful source—through,
its debarment of any common interests—of that fatal boredom of which we
have spoken, and which is the bugbear of marriage; and they would gladly
surrender all of that masterhood and authority which is supposed to be
their due, if they could only get in return something like a frank and
level comradeship.

Thus while we see in the present inequality of the sexes an undoubted
source of marriage troubles and unsatisfactory alliances, we see also
forces at work which are tending to reaction, and to bringing the two
nearer again to each other—so that while differentiated they will not
perhaps in the future be quite so much differentiated as now, but only
to a degree which will enhance and adorn, instead of destroy, their
sense of mutual sympathy.

There is another point which ought to be considered as contributing to
the ill-success of many marriages, and which no doubt is closely
connected with that just discussed—but which deserves separate
treatment. I mean the harshness of the line, the kind of “ring-fence,”
which social opinion (at any rate in this country) draws round the
married pair with respect to their relations to outsiders. On the one
hand, and within the fence, society allows practically the utmost
passional excess or indulgence, and condones it; on the other hand (I am
speaking of the middling bulk of the people, not of the extreme
aristocratic and slum classes) beyond that limit, the slightest
familiarity, or any expression of affection which might by any
possibility be interpreted as deriving from sexual feeling, is sternly
anathematized. Marriage, by a kind of absurd fiction, is represented as
an oasis situated in the midst of an arid desert—in which latter, is
pretended, neither of the two parties is so fortunate as to find any
objects of real affectional interest. If they do they have carefully to
conceal the same from the other party.

The result of this convention is obvious enough. The married pair, thus
driven as well as drawn into closest continual contact with each other,
are put through an ordeal which might well cause the stoutest affection
to quail. To have to spend all your life with another person is severe;
but to have all outside personal interests, except of the most abstract
kind, debarred, and if there happens to be any natural jealousy in the
case, to have it tenfold increased by public interference, is terrible;
and yet unless the contracting parties are fortunate enough to be, both
of them, of such a temperament that they are capable of strong
attachments to persons of their own sex—and this does not always exclude
jealousy—such must be their fate.

It is hardly necessary to say, not only how dull a place this makes the
home, but also how narrowing it acts on the lives of the married pair.
However appropriate the union may be in itself it cannot be good that it
should degenerate—as it tends to degenerate so often, and where man and
wife are most faithful to each other—into a mere egoisme a deux. And
right enough no doubt as a great number of such unions actually are, it
must be confessed that the bourgeois marriage as a rule, and just in its
most successful and pious and respectable form, carries with it an
odious sense of Stuffiness and narrowness, moral and intellectual; and
that the type of Family which it provides is too often like that which
is disclosed when on turning over a large stone we disturb an insect
Home that seldom sees the light.

But in cases where the marriage does not happen to be particularly
successful or unsuccessful, when perhaps a true but not overpoweringly
intense affection is satiated at a needlessly early stage by the
continual and unrelieved impingement of the two personalities on each
other, then the boredom resulting is something frightful to
contemplate—and all the more so because of the genuine affection behind
it, which contemplates with horror its own suicide. The weary couples
that may be seen at seaside places and pleasure resorts—the respectable
working-man with his wife trailing along by his side, or the highly
respectable stock-jobber arm-in-arm with his better and larger
half—their blank faces, utter want of any common topic of conversation
which has not been exhausted a thousand times already, and their obvious
relief when the hour comes which will take them back to their several
and divided occupations—these illustrate sufficiently what I mean. The
curious thing is that jealousy (accentuated as it is by social opinion)
sometimes increases in exact proportion to mutual boredom; and there are
thousands of cases of married couples leading a cat-and-dog life, and
knowing that they weary each other to distraction, who for that very
reason dread all the more to lose sight of each other, and thus never
get a chance of that holiday from their own society, and renewal of
outside interests, which would make a real good time for them possible.

Thus the sharpness of the line which society draws around the pair, and
the kind of fatal snap-of-the-lock with which marriage suddenly cuts
them off from the world, not only precluding the two, as might fairly be
thought advisable, from sexual, but also barring any openly affectional
relations with outsiders, and corroborating the selfish sense of
monopoly which each has in the other,—these things lead inevitably to
the narrowing down of lives and the blunting of general human interests,
to intense mutual ennui, and when (as an escape from these evils)
outside relations are covertly indulged in, to prolonged and systematic
deceit.

From all which the only conclusion seems to be that marriage must be
either alive or dead. As a dead thing it can of course be petrified into
a hard and fast formula, but if it is to be a living bond, that living
bond must be trusted to, to hold the lovers together; nor be too
forcibly stiffened and contracted by private jealousy and public
censorship, lest the thing that it would preserve for us perish so, and
cease altogether to be beautiful. It is the same with this as with
everything else. If we would have a living thing we must give that thing
some degree of liberty—even though liberty bring with it risk. If we
would debar all liberty and all risk, then we can have only the mummy
and dead husk of the thing.

Thus far I have had the somewhat invidious task, but perhaps necessary
as a preliminary one, of dwelling on the defects and drawbacks of the
present marriage system. I am sensible that, with due discretion, some
things might have been said, which have not been said in its praise; its
successful, instead of its unsuccessful, instances might have been
cited; and taking for granted the dependence of women, and other points
which have already been sufficiently discussed, it might have been
possible to show that the bourgeois arrangement was on the whole as
satisfactory as could be expected. But such a course would neither have
been sincere nor have served any practical purpose. In view of the
actually changing relations between the sexes, it is obvious that
changes in the form of the marriage institution are impending, and the
questions which are really pressing on folks’ mind are: What are those
changes going to be? and, Of what kind do we wish them to be?




                                MARRIAGE
                               A FORECAST


In answer to the last question it is not improbable that the casual
reader might suppose the writer of these pages to be in favor of a
general and indiscriminate loosening of all ties—for indeed it is always
easy to draw a large inference even from the simplest expression.

But such a conclusion would be rash. There is little doubt, I think,
that the compulsion of the marriage-tie (whether moral, social, or
merely legal) acts beneficially in a considerable number of cases—though
it is obvious that the more the compelling force takes a moral or social
form and the less purely legal it is, the better; and that any changes
which led to a cheap and continual transfer of affections from one
object to another would be disastrous both to the character and
happiness of a population. While we cannot help seeing that the
marriage-relation—in order to become the indwelling-place of Love—must
be made far more free than it is at present, we may also recognize that
a certain amount of external pressure is not (as things are at least)
without its uses: that, for instance, it tends on the whole to
concentrate affectional experience and romance on one object, and that
though this may mean a loss at times in breadth it means a gain in depth
and intensity; that, in many cases, if it were not for some kind of
bond, the two parties, after their first passion for each other was
past, and when the unavoidable period of friction had set in, might in a
moment of irritation easily fly apart, whereas being forced for a while
to tolerate each other’s defects they learn thereby one of the best
lessons of life—a tender forbearance and gentleness, which as time goes
on does not unfrequently deepen again into a more pure and perfect love
even than at first—a love founded indeed on the first physical intimacy,
but concentrated and intensified by years of linked experience, of
twined associations, of shared labors, and of mutual forgiveness; and in
the third place that the existence of a distinct tie or pledge
discredits the easily-current idea that mere pleasure-seeking is to be
the object of the association of the sexes—a phantasmal and delusive
notion, which if it once got its head, and the bit between its teeth,
might soon dash the car of human advance in ruin to the ground.

But having said thus much, it is obvious that external public opinion
and pressure are looked upon only as having an educational value; and
the question arises whether there is beneath this any reality of
marriage which will ultimately emerge and make itself felt, enabling men
and women to order their relations to each other, and to walk freely,
unhampered by props or pressures from without.

And it would hardly be worth while writing on this subject, if one did
not believe in some such reality. Practically I do not doubt that the
more people think about these matters, and the more experience they
have, the more they must ever come to feel that there is such a thing as
a permanent and life-long union—perhaps a many-life-long union—founded
on some deep elements of attachment and congruity in character; and the
more they must come to prize the constancy and loyalty which rivets such
unions, in comparison with the fickle passion which tends to dissipate
them.

In all men who have reached a certain grade of evolution, and certainly
in almost all women, the deep rousing of the sexual nature carries with
it a romance and tender emotional yearning towards the object of
affection, which lasts on and is not forgotten, even when the sexual
attraction has ceased to be strongly felt. This, in favorable cases,
forms the basis of what may almost be called an amalgamated personality.
That there should exist one other person in the world towards whom all
openness of interchange should establish itself, from whom there should
be no concealment; whose body should be as dear to one, in every part,
as one’s own; with whom there should be no sense of Mine or Thine, in
property or possession; into whose mind one’s thoughts should naturally
flow, as it were to know themselves and to receive a new illumination;
and between whom and oneself there should be a spontaneous rebound of
sympathy in all the joys and sorrows and experiences of life; such is
perhaps one of the dearest wishes of the soul. It is obvious however
that this state of affairs cannot be reached at a single leap, but must
be the gradual result of years of intertwined memory and affection. For
such a union Love must lay the foundation, but patience and gentle
consideration and self-control must work unremittingly to perfect the
structure. At length each lover comes to know the complexion of the
other’s mind, the wants, bodily and mental, the needs, the regrets, the
satisfactions of the other, almost as his or her own—and without
prejudice in favor of self rather than in favor of the other; above all,
both parties come to know in course of time, and after perhaps some
doubts and trials, that the great want, the great need, which holds them
together, is not going to fade away into thin air; but is going to
become stronger and more indefeasible as the years go on. There falls a
sweet, an irresistible, trust over their relation to each other, which
consecrates as it were the double life, making both feel that nothing
can now divide; and robbing each of all desire to remain, when death has
indeed (or at least in outer semblance) removed the other.[16]

So perfect and gracious a union—even if not always realized—is still, I
say, the bona fide desire of most of those who have ever thought about
such matters. It obviously yields far more and more enduring joy and
satisfaction in life than any number of frivolous relationships. It
commends itself to the common sense, so to speak, of the modern mind—and
does not require, for its proof, the artificial authority of Church and
State. At the same time it is equally evident—and a child could
understand this—that it requires some rational forbearance and
self-control for its realization, and it is quite intelligible too, as
already said, that there may be cases in which a little outside
pressure, of social opinion, or even actual law, may be helpful for the
supplementing or reinforcement of the weak personal self-control of
those concerned.

The modern Monogamic Marriage, however, certified and sanctioned by
Church and State, though apparently directed to this ideal, has for the
most part fallen short of it. For in constituting—as in a vast number of
cases—a union resting on nothing but the outside pressure of Church and
State, it constituted a thing obviously and by its nature bad and
degrading; while in its more successful instances by a too great
exclusiveness it has condemned itself to a fatal narrowness and
stuffiness.

Looking back to the historical and physiological aspects of the question
it might of course be contended—and probably with some truth—that the
human male is, by his nature and needs, polygamous. Nor is it necessary
to suppose that polygamy in certain countries and races is by any means
so degrading or unsuccessful an institution as some folk would have it
to be.[17] But, as Letourneau in his “Evolution of Marriage” points out,
the progress of society in the past has on the whole been from confusion
to distinction; and we may fairly suppose that with the progress of our
own race (for each race no doubt has its special genius in such
matters), and as the spiritual and emotional sides of man develop in
relation to the physical, there is probably a tendency for our deeper
alliances to become more unitary. Though it might be said that the
growing complexity of man’s nature would be likely to lead him into more
rather than fewer relationships, yet on the other hand it is obvious
that as the depth and subtlety of any attachment that will really hold
him increases, so does such attachment become more permanent and
durable, and less likely to be realized in a number of persons. Woman,
on the other hand, cannot be said to be by her physical nature
polyandrous as man is polygynous. Though of course there are plenty of
examples of women living in a state of polyandry both among savage and
civilized peoples, yet her more limited sexual needs, and her long
periods of gestation, render one mate physically sufficient for her;
while her more clinging affectional nature perhaps accentuates her
capacity of absorption in the one.

In both man and woman then we may say that we find a distinct tendency
towards the formation of this double unit of wedded life (I hardly like
to use the word Monogamy on account of its sad associations)—and while
we do not want to stamp such natural unions with any false
irrevocability or dogmatic exclusiveness, what we do want is a
recognition to-day of the tendency to their formation as a natural fact,
independent of any artificial laws, just as one might believe in the
natural bias of two atoms of certain different chemical substances to
form a permanent compound atom or molecule.

It might not be so very difficult to get quite young people to
understand this—to understand that even though they may have to contend
with some superfluity of passion in early years, yet that the most
deeply-rooted desire within them will probably in the end point to a
permanent union with one mate; and that towards this end they must be
prepared to use self-control against the aimless straying of their
passions, and patience and tenderness towards the realization of the
union when its time comes. Probably most youths and girls, at the age of
romance, would easily appreciate this position; and it would bring to
them a much more effective and natural idea of the sacredness of
Marriage than they ever get from the artificial thunder of the Church
and the State on the subject.

No doubt the suggestion of the mere possibility of any added freedom of
choice and experience in the relations of the sexes will be very
alarming to some people—but it is so, I think, not because they are at
all ignorant that men already take to themselves considerable latitude,
and that a distinct part of the undoubted evils that accompany that
latitude springs from the fact that it is not recognized; not because
they are ignorant that a vast number of respectable women and girls
suffer frightful calamities and anguish by reason of the utter
inexperience of sex in which they are brought up and have to live; but
because such good people assume that any the least loosening of the
formal barriers between the sexes must mean (and must be meant to mean)
an utter dissolution of all ties, and the reign of mere licentiousness.
They are convinced that nothing but the most unyielding and indeed
exasperating straight-jacket can save society from madness and ruin.

To those, however, who can look facts in the face, and who see that as a
matter of fact the reality of Marriage is coming more and more to be
considered in the public mind in comparison with its formalities, the
first thought will probably be one of congratulation that after such
ages of treatment as a mere formality there should be any sense of the
reality of the tie left; and the second will be the question how to give
this reality its natural form and expression. Having satisfied ourselves
that the formation of a more or less permanent double unit is—for our
race and time—on the whole the natural and ascendant law of sex-union,
slowly and with whatever exceptions establishing and enforcing itself
independently of any artificial enactments that exist, then we shall not
feel called upon to tear our hair or rend our garments at the prospect
of added freedom for the operation of this force, but shall rather be
anxious to consider how it may best be freed and given room for its
reasonable development and growth.

I shall therefore devote the rest of the chapter to this question. And
it will probably seem (looking back to what has already been said) that
the points which most need consideration, as means to this end, are (1)
the furtherance of the freedom and self-dependence of women; (2) the
provision of some rational teaching, of heart and of head, for both
sexes during the period of youth; (3) the recognition in marriage itself
of a freer, more companionable, and less pettily exclusive relationship;
and (4) the abrogation or modification of the present odious law which
binds people together for life, without scruple, and in the most
artificial and ill-assorted unions.

It must be admitted that the first point (1) is of basic importance. As
true Freedom cannot be without Love so true Love cannot be without
Freedom. You cannot truly give yourself to another, unless you are
master or mistress of yourself to begin with. Not only has the general
custom of the self-dependence and self-ownership of women, in moral,
social, and economic respects, to be gradually introduced, but the Law
has to be altered in a variety of cases where it lags behind the public
conscience in these matters—as in actual marriage, where it still leaves
woman uncertain as to her rights over her own body, or in politics,
where it still denies to her a voice in the framing of the statutes
which are to bind her.

With regard to (2) hardly any one at this time of day would seriously
doubt the desirability of giving adequate teaching to boys and girls.
That is a point on which we have sufficiently touched, and which need
not be farther discussed here. But beyond this it is important, and
especially perhaps, as things stand now, for girls—that each youth or
girl should personally see enough of the other sex at an early period to
be able to form some kind of judgment of his or her relation to that sex
and to sex-matters generally. It is monstrous that the first case of
sex-glamor—the true nature of which would be exposed by a little
experience—should, perhaps for two people, decide the destinies of a
life-time. Yet the more the sexes are kept apart, the more overwhelming
does this glamor become, and the more ignorance is there, on either
side, as to its nature. No doubt it is one of the great advantages of
co-education of the sexes, that it tends to diminish these evils.
Co-education, games and sports to some extent in common, and the doing
away with the absurd superstition that because Corydon and Phyllis
happen to kiss each other sitting on a gate, therefore they must live
together all their lives, would soon mend matters considerably. Nor
would a reasonable familiarity of this kind between the sexes in youth
necessarily mean an increase of casual or clandestine sex-relations. But
even if casualties did occur they would not be the fatal and
unpardonable sins that they now—at least for girls—are considered to be.
Though the recognition of anything like common pre-matrimonial
sex-intercourse would probably be foreign to the temper of a northern
nation; yet it is open to question whether Society here, in its mortal
and fetichistic dread of the thing, has not, by keeping the young of
both sexes in ignorance and darkness and seclusion from each other,
created worse ills and suffering than it has prevented, and whether, by
giving sexual acts so feverish an importance, it has not intensified the
particular evil that it dreaded, rather than abated it.

In the next place (3) we come to the establishment in marriage itself of
a freer and broader and more healthy relationship than generally exists
at the present time. Attractive in some ways as the ideal of the
exclusive attachment is, it runs the fatal risk, as we have already
pointed out, of lapsing into a mere stagnant double selfishness. But,
after all, Love is fed not by what it takes, but by what it gives; and
the love of man and wife too must be fed by the love they give to
others. If they cannot come out of their secluded haven to reach a hand
to others, or even to give some boon of affection to those who need it
more than themselves, or if they mistrust each other in doing so, then
assuredly they are not very well fitted to live together.

A marriage, so free, so spontaneous, that it would allow of wide
excursions of the pair from each other, in common or even in separate
objects of work and interest, and yet would hold them all the time in
the bond of absolute sympathy, would by its very freedom be all the more
poignantly attractive, and by its very scope and breadth all the richer
and more vital—would be in a sense indestructible; like the relation of
two suns which, revolving in fluent and rebounding curves, only recede
from each other in order to return again with renewed swiftness into
close proximity—and which together blend their rays into the glory of
one double star.

It has been the inability to see or understand this very simple truth
that has largely contributed to the failure of the Monogamic union. The
narrow physical passion of jealousy, the petty sense of private property
in another person, social opinion, and legal enactments, have all
converged to choke and suffocate wedded love in egoism, lust, and
meanness. But surely it is not very difficult (for those who believe in
the real thing) to imagine so sincere and natural a trust between man
and wife that neither would be greatly alarmed at the other’s friendship
with a third person, nor conclude at once that it meant mere
infidelity—or difficult even to imagine that such a friendship might be
hailed as a gain by both parties. And if it is quite impossible (to some
people) to see in such intimacies anything but a confusion of all
sex-relations and a chaos of mere animal desire, we can only reply that
this view exposes with fatal precision the kind of thoughts which our
present marriage system engenders. In order to suppose a rational
marriage at all one must credit the parties concerned with some modicum
of real affection, candor, common sense and self-control.

Withal seeing the remarkable and immense variety of love in human
nature, when the feeling is really touched—how the love-offering of one
person’s soul and body is entirely different from that of another
person’s, so much so as almost to require another name—how one passion
is predominantly physical, and another predominantly emotional, and
another contemplative, or spiritual, or practical, or sentimental; how
in one case it is jealous and exclusive, and in another hospitable and
free, and so forth—it seems rash to lay down any very hard and fast
general laws for the marriage-relation, or to insist that a real and
honorable affection can only exist under this or that special form. It
is probably through this fact of the variety of love that it does remain
possible, in some cases, for married people to have intimacies with
outsiders, and yet to continue perfectly true to each other and in rare
instances, for triune and other such relations to be permanently
maintained.

We now come to the last consideration, namely (4) the modification of
the present law of marriage. It is pretty clear that people will not
much longer consent to pledge themselves irrevocably for life as at
present. And indeed there are always plentiful indications of a growing
change of practice. The more people come to recognize the sacredness and
naturalness of the real union, the less will they be willing to bar
themselves from this by a life-long and artificial contract made in
their salad days. Hitherto the great bulwark of the existing institution
has been the dependence of Women, which has given each woman a direct
and most material interest in keeping up the supposed sanctity of the
bond—and which has prevented a man of any generosity from proposing an
alteration which would have the appearance of freeing himself at the
cost of the woman; but as this fact of the dependence of women gradually
dissolves out, and as the great fact of the spiritual nature of the true
Marriage crystallizes into more clearness—so will the formal bonds which
bar the formation of the latter gradually break away and become of small
import.

Love when felt at all deeply has an element of transcendentalism in it,
which makes it the most natural thing in the world for the two
lovers—even though drawn together by a passing sex-attraction—to swear
eternal troth to each other; but there is something quite diabolic and
mephistophelean in the practice of the Law, which creeping up behind, as
it were, at this critical moment, and overhearing the two pledging
themselves, claps its book together with a triumphant bang, and
exclaims: “There now you are married and done for, for the rest of your
natural lives.”

What actual changes in Law and Custom the collective sense of society
will bring about is a matter which in its detail we cannot of course
foresee or determine. But that the drift will be, and must be, towards
greater freedom, is pretty clear. Ideally speaking it is plain that
anything like a perfect union must have perfect freedom for its
condition; and while it is quite supposable that a lover might out of
the fullness of his heart make promises and give pledges, it is really
almost inconceivable that anyone having that delicate and proud sense
which marks deep feeling, could possibly demand a promise from his loved
one. As there is undoubtedly a certain natural reticence in sex, so
perhaps the most decent thing in true Marriage would be to say nothing,
make no promises—either for a year or a life-time. Promises are bad at
any time, and when the heart is full silence befits it best.
Practically, however, since a love of this kind is slow to be realized,
since social custom is slow to change, and since the partial dependence
and slavery of Woman must yet for a while continue, it is likely for
such period that formal contracts of some kind will still be made; only
these (it may be hoped) will lose their irrevocable and rigid character,
and become in some degree adapted to the needs of the contracting
parties.

Such contracts might, of course, if adopted, be very various in respect
to conjugal rights, conditions of termination, division of property,
responsibility for and rights over children, etc. In some cases[18]
possibly they might be looked upon as preliminary to a later and more
permanent alliance; in others they would provide, for disastrous
marriages, a remedy free from the inordinate scandals of the present
Divorce Courts. It may however be said that rather than adopt any new
system of contracts, public opinion in this country would tend to a
simple facilitation of Divorce, and that if the latter were made (with
due provision for the children) to depend on mutual consent, it would
become little more than an affair of registration, and the scandals of
the proceeding would be avoided. In any case we think that
marriage-contracts, if existing at all, must tend more and more to
become matters of private arrangement as far as the relations of husband
and wife are concerned, and that this is likely to happen in proportion
as woman becomes more free, and therefore more competent to act in her
own right. It would be felt intolerable, in any decently constituted
society, that the old blunderbuss of the Law should interfere in the
delicate relations of wedded life. As it is to-day the situation is most
absurd. On the one hand, having been constituted from times back in
favor of the male, the Law still gives to the husband barbarous rights
over the person of his spouse; on the other hand, to compensate for
this, it rushes in with the farcicalities of Breach of Promise; and in
any case, having once pronounced its benediction over a pair—how hateful
the alliance may turn out to be to both parties, and however obvious its
failure to the whole world—the stupid old thing blinks owlishly on at
its own work, and professes itself totally unable to undo the knot which
once it tied!

The only point where there is a permanent ground for
State-interference—and where indeed there is no doubt that the public
authority should in some way make itself felt—is in the matter of the
children resulting from any alliance. Here the relation of the pair
ceases to be private and becomes social; and the interests of the child
itself, and of the nation whose future citizen the child is, have to be
safe-guarded. Any contracts, or any proposals of divorce, before they
could be sanctioned by the public authority, would have to contain
satisfactory provisions for the care and maintenance of the children in
such casualties as might ensue; nor ought there to be maintained any
legal distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘legitimate’ children, since it
is clear that whatever individuals or society at large may, in the
former case, think of the conduct of the parents, no disability should
on that account accrue to the child, nor should the parents (if
identifiable) be able to escape their full responsibility for bringing
it into the world. If those good people who make such a terrible outcry
against folk entering into married life without going through all the
abracadabra of the Law, on account of the children, would try and get
the law altered so as to give illegitimate children the same status and
claim on their parents as legitimate children, it would show more
genuinely for their anxiety about the children, and would really be
doing something in the interests of positive morality.

If it be objected that private contracts, or such facilitations of
Divorce as here spoken of, would simply lead to frivolous experimental
relationships entered into and broken-off ad infinitum, it must be
remembered that the responsibility for due rearing and maintenance of
children must give serious pause to such a career; and that to suppose
that any great mass of the people would find their good in a kind of
matrimonial game of General Post is to suppose that the mass of the
people have really never acquired or been taught the rudiments of common
sense in such matters—is to suppose a case for which there would hardly
be a parallel in the customs of any nation or tribe that we know of.

In conclusion, it is evident that no very great change for the better in
marriage-relations can take place except as the accompaniment of
deep-lying changes in Society at large; and that alterations in the Law
alone will effect but a limited improvement. Indeed it is not very
likely, as long as the present commercial order of society lasts, that
the existing Marriage-laws—founded as they are on the idea of
property—will be very radically altered, though they may be to some
extent. More likely is it that, underneath the law, the common practice
will slide forward into newer customs. With the rise of the new society,
which is already outlining itself within the structure of the old, many
of the difficulties and bugbears, that at present seem to stand in the
way of a more healthy relation between the sexes, will of themselves
disappear.

It must be acknowledged, however, that though a gradual broadening out
and humanizing of Law and Custom are quite necessary, it cannot fairly
be charged against these ancient tyrants that they are responsible for
all the troubles connected with sex. There are millions of people to-day
who never could marry happily—however favorable the conditions might
be—simply because their natures do not contain in sufficient strength
the elements of loving surrender to another; and, as long as the human
heart is what it is, there will be natural tragedies arising from the
willingness or unwillingness of one person to release another when the
former finds that his or her love is not returned.[19] While it is quite
necessary that these natural tragedies should not be complicated and
multiplied by needless legal interference—complicated into the
numberless artificial tragedies which are so exasperating when
represented on the stage or in romance, and so saddening when witnessed
in real life—still we may acknowledge that, short of the millennium,
they will always be with us, and that no institution of marriage alone,
or absence of institution, will rid us of them. That entire and
unswerving refusal to ‘cage’ another person, or to accept an affection
not perfectly free and spontaneous, which will, we are fain to think, be
always more and more the mark of human love, must inevitably bring its
own price of mortal suffering with it; yet the Love so gained, whether
in the individual or in society, will be found in the end to be worth
the pang—and as far beyond the other love, as is the wild bird of
Paradise that comes to feed out of our hands unbidden more lovely than
the prisoner we shut with draggled wings behind the bars. Love is
doubtless the last and most difficult lesson that humanity has to learn;
in a sense it underlies all the others. Perhaps the time has come for
the modern nations when, ceasing to be children, they may even try to
learn it.




                            THE FREE SOCIETY


Taking, finally, a somewhat wider outlook over the whole subject of the
most intimate human relations than was feasible in the foregoing
chapters, we may make a few general remarks.

One of the great difficulties in the way of arriving at any general
understanding on questions of sex—and one which we have already had
occasion to note—is the extraordinary diversity of feeling and
temperament which exists in these matters. Needless to say, this is
increased by the reserve, natural or artificial, which so seldom allows
people to express their sentiments quite freely. In the great ocean
there are so many currents, cold and warm, fresh, and salt, and
brackish; and each one thinks that the current in which he lives is the
whole ocean. The man of the world hardly understands, certainly does not
sympathize with, the recluse or ascetic—and the want of appreciation is
generally returned; the maternal, the sexual, and the philanthropic
woman, are all somewhat unintelligible to each other; the average male
and the average female approach the great passion from totally different
sides, and are continually at odds over it; and again both of these
great sections of humanity fail entirely to understand that other and
well-marked class of persons whose love-attraction is (inborn) towards
their own sex, and indeed hardly recognize the existence of such a
class, although as a matter of fact it is a large and important one in
every community. In fact, all these differences have hitherto been so
little the subject of impartial study that we are still amazingly in the
dark about them.

When we look back to History, and the various customs of the world in
different races and tribes and at different periods of time, we seem to
see these natural divergencies of human temperament reflected in the
extraordinary diversity of practices that have obtained and been
recognized. We see that, in some cases, the worship of sex took its
place beside the worship of the gods; and—what appears equally
strange—that the orgiastic rites and saturnalia of the early world were
intimately connected with religious feeling; we find that, in other
cases, asceticism and chastity and every denial of the flesh were
glorified and looked upon as providing the only way to the heavenly
kingdom; we discover that marriage has been instituted and defined and
sanctioned in endless forms, each looked upon as the only moral and
possible form in its own time and country; and that the position of
women under these different conditions has varied in the most remarkable
way—that in some of the primitive societies where group-marriages[20] of
one kind or another prevailed their dignity and influence were of the
highest, that under some forms of Monogamy, as among the Nagas of
Bengal,[21] women have been abjectly degraded, while under other forms,
as in Ancient Egypt and the later Roman Empire, they have been treated
with respect; and so forth. We cannot fail, I say, to recognize the
enormous diversity of practice which has existed over the world in this
matter of the relations of the sexes; nor, I may add, can we venture—if
we possess any sense of humanity—to put our finger down finally on any
one custom or institution, and say, Here alone is the right way.

On the contrary, it seems to me probable that, broadly speaking, a
really free Society will accept and make use of all that has gone
before. If, as we have suggested, historical forms and customs are the
indication of tendencies and instincts which still exist among us, then
the question is, not the extinction of these tendencies, but the finding
of the right place and really rational expression for them. That the
various customs of past social life do subsist on beneath the surface of
modern society, we know well enough; and it seems likely that society in
the future will have to recognize and to a certain extent transform
these. In fact, in recognizing it will inevitably transform, for it will
bring them out from darkness into light, and from the old conditions and
surroundings of the past societies into the new conditions of the
modern. Polygamy, for instance, or some related form of union, supposing
it really did spontaneously and naturally arise in a society which gave
perfect freedom and independence to women in their relation to men,
would be completely different in character from the old-world polygamy,
and would cease to act as a degrading influence on women, since it would
be the spontaneous expression of their attachment to each other and to a
common husband; Monogamy, under similar circumstances, would lose its
narrowness and stuffiness; and the life of the Hetaira, that is of the
woman who chooses to be the companion of more than one man, might not be
without dignity, honor, and sincere attachment.

Again it is easy to see, if the sense of cleanness in sex ever does come
in, if the physical body ever becomes clean (which it certainly is not
now-a-days), clean and beautiful and accepted, within and without—and
this of course it can only be through a totally changed method of life,
through pure and clean food, nakedness to a large extent, and a kind of
saturation with the free air and light of heaven; and if the mental and
moral relation ever becomes clean, which can only be with the freedom of
woman and the sincerity of man, and so forth; it is easy to see how
entirely all this would alter our criticism of the various
sex-relations, and our estimate of their place and fitness.

In the wild and even bacchanalian festivals of all the earlier nations,
there was an element of Nature-sex-mysticism which has become lost in
modern times, or quite unclean and depraved; yet we cannot but see that
this element is a vital and deep-lying one in humanity, and in some form
or other will probably reassert itself. On the other hand, in the
Monkish and other ascetic movements of Christian or pre-Christian times,
with their efforts towards a proud ascendancy over the body, there was
(commonly sneered at though it may be in the modern West) an equally
vital and important truth,[22] which will have to be rehabilitated. The
practices of former races and times, however anomalous they may
sometimes appear to us, were after all in the main the expression of
needs and desires which had their place in human nature, and which still
for the most part have their place there, even though overlaid and
suppressed beneath existing convention; and who knows, in all the
stifled longings of thousands and thousands of hearts, how the great
broad soul of Humanity—which reaches to and accepts all times and
races—is still ever asserting herself and swelling against the petty
bonds of this or that age? The nearer Society comes to its freedom and
majority the more lovingly will it embrace this great soul within it,
and recognizing in all the customs of the past the partial efforts of
that soul to its own fulfillment will refuse to deny them, but rather
seek, by acceptance and reunion, to transform and illumine them all.

Possibly, to some, these remarks will only suggest a return to general
confusion and promiscuity; and of course to such people they will seem
inconsistent with what has been said before on the subject of the real
Marriage and the tendency of human beings, as society evolves, to seek
more and more sincerely a life-long union with their chosen mate; but no
one who thinks twice about the matter could well make this mistake. For
the latter tendency, that namely “from confusion to distinction,” is in
reality the tendency of all evolution, and cannot be set aside. It is in
the very nature of Love that as it realizes its own aim it should rivet
always more and more towards a durable and distinct relationship, nor
rest till the permanent mate and equal is found. As human beings
progress their relations to each other must become much more definite
and distinct instead of less so—and there is no likelihood of society in
its onward march lapsing backward, so to speak, to formlessness again.

But it is just the advantage of this onward movement towards
definiteness that it allows—as in the evolution of all organic life—of
more and more differentiation as the life rises higher in the scale of
existence. If society should at any future time recognize—as we think
likely it will do—the variety of needs of the human heart and of human
beings, it will not therefore confuse them, but will see that these
different needs indicate different functions, all of which may have
their place and purpose. If it has the good sense to tolerate a
Nature-festival now and then, and a certain amount of animalism let
loose, it will not be so foolish as to be unable to distinguish this
from the deep delight and happiness of a permanent spiritual mating; or
if it recognizes in some case, a woman’s temporary alliance with a man
for the sake of obtaining a much-needed child, it will not therefore be
so silly as to mark her down for life as a common harlot. It will allow
in fact that there are different forms and functions of the
love-sentiment, and while really believing that a life-long comradeship
(possibly with little of the sexual in it) is the most satisfying form,
will see that a cast-iron Marriage-custom which, as to-day, expects two
people either to live eternally in the same house and sit on opposite
sides of the same table, or else to be strangers to each other—and which
only recognizes two sorts of intimacy, orthodox and criminal, wedded and
adulterous—is itself the source of perpetual confusion and
misapprehension.

No doubt the Freedom of Society in this sense, and the possibility of a
human life which shall be the fluid and ever-responsive embodiment of
true Love in all its variety of manifestation, goes with the Freedom of
Society in the economic sense. When mankind has solved the industrial
problem so far that the products of our huge mechanical forces have
become a common heritage, and no man or woman is the property-slave of
another, then some of the causes which compel prostitution,
property-marriage, and other perversions of affection, will have
disappeared; and in such economically free society human unions may at
last take place according to their own inner and true laws.

Hitherto we have hardly thought whether there were any inner laws or
not; our thoughts have been fixed on the outer; and the Science of Love,
if it may so be called, has been strangely neglected. Yet if, putting
aside for a moment all convention and custom, one will look quietly
within himself, he will perceive that there are most distinct and
inviolable inner forces, binding him by different ties to different
people, and with different and inevitable results according to the
quality and the nature of the affection bestowed—that there is in fact
in that world of the heart a kind of cosmical harmony and variety, and
an order almost astronomical.

This is noticeably true of what may be called the planetary law of
distances in the relation of people to one another. For of some of the
circle of one’s acquaintance it may be said that one loves them
cordially at a hundred miles’ distance; of others that they are dear
friends at a mile; while others again are indispensable far nearer than
that. If by any chance the friend whose planetary distance is a mile is
forced into closer quarters, the only result is a violent development of
repulsion and centrifugal force, by which probably he is carried even
beyond his normal distance, till such time as he settles down into his
right place; while on the other hand if we are separated for a season
from one who by right is very near and who we know belongs to us, we can
bide our time, knowing that the forces of return will increase with the
separation. How marked and definite these personal distances are may be
gathered from considering how largely the art of life consists in
finding and keeping them, and how much trouble arises from their
confusion, and from the way in which we often only find them out after
much blundering and suffering and mutual recrimination.

So marked indeed are these and other such laws that they sometimes
suggest that there really is a cosmic world of souls, to which we all
belong—a world of souls whose relations are eternal and clearly-defined;
and that our terrestrial relations are merely the working-out and
expression of far antecedent and unmodifiable facts—an idea which for
many people is corroborated by the curious way in which, often at the
very first sight, they become aware of their exact relation to a
new-comer. In some cases this brings with it a strange sense of previous
intimacy, hard to, explain; and in other cases, not so intimate, it
still will seem to fix almost instantaneously the exact propinquity of
the relation—so that though in succeeding years, or even decades of
years, the mutual acquaintanceship may work itself out with all sorts of
interesting and even unexpected developments and episodes, yet this mean
distance does not vary during the whole time, so to speak, by a single
hair’s breadth.

Is it possible, we may ask (in the light of such experiences), that
there really is a Free Society in another and deeper sense than that
hitherto suggested—a society to which we all in our inmost selves
consciously or unconsciously belong—the Rose of souls that Dante beheld
in Paradise, whose every petal is an individual, and an individual only
through its union with all the rest—the early Church’s dream, of an
eternal Fellowship in heaven and on earth—the Prototype of all the
brotherhoods and communities that exist on this or any planet; and that
the innumerable selves of men, united in the one Self, members of it and
of one another (like the members of the body) stand in eternal and
glorious relationship bound indissolubly together? We know of course
that the reality of things cannot be adequately expressed by such
phrases as these, or by any phrases, yet possibly some such conception
comes as near the truth as any one conception can; and, making use of
it, we may think that our earthly relations are a continual
attempt—through much blindness and ineffectualness and failure—to feel
after and to find these true and permanent relations to others.

Surely in some subtle way if one person sincerely love another, heart
and soul, that other becomes a part of the lover, indissolubly wrought
into his being.[23] Mentally the two grow and become compact together.
No thought that the lover thinks, no scene that he looks on, but the
impress of his loved one in some way is on it—so that as long as he
exists (here or anywhere) with his most intimate self that other is
threaded and twined inseparable. So clinging is the relation. Perhaps in
the outer world we do not always see such relations quite clear, and we
think when death or other cause removes the visible form from us that
the hour of parting has come. But in the inner world it is clear enough,
and we divine that we and our mate are only two little petals that grow
near each other on the great Flower of Eternity; and that it is because
we are near each other in that unchanging world, that in the world of
change our mortal selves are drawn together, and will be drawn always,
wherever and whenever they may meet.

But since the petals of the immortal Flower are by myriads and myriads,
so have we endless lessons of soul-relationship to learn—some most
intimate, others doubtless less so, but all fair and perfect—so soon as
we have discovered what these relationships really are, and are in no
confusion of mind about them. For even those that are most distant are
desirable, and have the germ of love in them, so soon as they are
touched by the spirit of Truth (which means the fearless statement of
the life which is in us, in poise against the similar statement of life
in others); since, indeed, the spirit of Truth is the life of the whole,
and only the other side of that Love which binds the whole together.

Looking at things in this light it would seem to us that the ideal of
terrestrial society for which we naturally strive is that which would
embody best these enduring and deep-seated relations of human souls; and
that every society, as far as it is human and capable of holding
together, is in its degree a reflection of the celestial City. Never is
the essential, real, Society quite embodied in any mundane Utopia, but
ever through human history is it working unconsciously in the midst of
mortal affairs and impelling towards an expression of itself.

At any rate, and however all this may be, the conclusion is that the
inner laws in these matters—the inner laws of the sex-passion, of love,
and of all human relationship—must gradually appear and take the lead,
since they alone are the powers which can create and uphold a rational
society; and that the outer laws—since they are dead and lifeless
things—must inevitably disappear. Real love is only possible in the
freedom of society; and freedom is only possible when love is a reality.
The subjection of sex-relations to legal conventions is an intolerable
bondage, but of course it is a bondage inescapable as long as people are
slaves to a merely physical desire. The two slaveries in fact form a
sort of natural counterpoise, the one to the other. When love becomes
sufficient of a reality to hold the sex-passion as its powerful yet
willing servant, the absurdity of Law will be at an end.

Surely it is not too much to suppose that a reasonable society will be
capable of seeing these and other such things; that it will neither on
the one hand submit to a cast-iron system depriving it of all grace and
freedom of movement, nor on the other hand be in danger of falling into
swamps of promiscuity; but that it will have the sense to recognize and
establish the innumerable and delicate distinctions of relation which
build up the fabric of a complex social organism. It will understand
perhaps that sincere Love is, as we have said, a real fact and its own
justification, and that however various or anomalous or unusual may be
the circumstances and combinations under which it appears, it demands
and has to be treated by society with the utmost respect and
reverence—as a law unto itself, probably the deepest and most intimate
law of human life, which only in the most exceptional cases, if at all,
may public institutions venture to interfere with.

In all these matters it is surprising to-day what children we are—how we
take the innumerable flowers and try to snip and shape all their petals
and leaves to one sorry pattern, or how with a kind of grossness we
snatch at and destroy in a few moments the bloom and beauty which are
rightfully undying. Perhaps it will only be for a society more fully
grown than ours to understand the wealth and variety of affectional
possibilities which it has within itself, and the full enchantment of
the many relations in which the romance of love by a tender
discrimination and aesthetic continence is preserved for years and
decades of years in, as it were, a state of evergrowing perfection.




                              SOME REMARKS
                                 ON THE
                      EARLY STAR AND SEX WORSHIPS


There seems to be a certain propriety in the fact that two of the oldest
and most universal cults have been the worship of the stars on the one
hand, and of the emblems of sex on the other. The stars, the most
abstract, distant and universal of phenomena, symbols of changeless law
and infinitude, before which human will and passion sink into death and
nothingness, and sex, the very focus of passion and desire, the burning
point of the will to live; between these two poles the human mind has
swayed since the eldest time.

With these earlier worships, too, the later religions have mingled in
inextricable but not meaningless entanglement. The Passover, the
greatest feast of the Jews, borrowed from the Egyptians, handed down to
become the supreme festival of Christianity, and finally blending in the
North of Europe with the worship of the Norse goddess Eastre, is as is
well known closely connected with the celebration of the Spring equinox
and of the passing over of the sun from south to north of the equator—i.
e., from his winter depression to his summer dominion. The Sun, at the
moment of passing the equinoctial point, stood 3,000 years ago in the
Zodiacal constellation of the Ram or he-lamb. The Lamb, therefore,
became the symbol of the young triumphant god. The Israelites (Exodus
xii. 14) were to smear their doorways (symbol of the passage from
darkness to light) with the blood of the Lamb, in remembrance of the
conflict of their god with the powers of darkness (the Egyptians). At an
earlier date—owing to the precession of the equinoxes—the sun at the
spring passage stood in the constellation of the Bull; so, in the older
worships of Egypt and of Persia and of India, it was the Bull that was
sacred and the symbol of the god. Moses is said to have abolished the
worship of the Calf and to have consecrated the Lamb at the passover—and
this appears to be a rude record of the fact that the astronomical
changes were accompanied or followed by priestly changes of ceremonial.
Certainly it is curious that in later Egyptian times the bull-headed god
was deposed in favor of the ram-headed god Ammon; and that Christianity
adopted the Lamb for the symbol of its Savior. Similarly, the Virgin
Mary with the holy Child in her arms can be traced by linear descent
from the early Christian Church at Alexandria up through the later
Egyptian times to Isis with the infant Horus, and thence to the
constellation Virgo shining in the sky. In the representation of the
Zodiac in the Temple of Denderah (in Egypt) the figure of Virgo is
annotated by a smaller figure of Isis with Horus in her arms; and the
Roman church fixed the celebration of Mary’s assumption into glory at
the very date (15th August) of the said constellation’s disappearance
from sight in the blaze of the solar rays, and her birth on the date
(8th Sept.) of the same constellation’s reappearance.[24]

The history of Israel reveals a long series of avowedly sexual and solar
worships carried on alongside with that of Jehovah—worships of Baal,
Ashtaroth, Nehushtan, the Host of Heaven, etc.—and if we are to credit
the sacred record, Moses himself introduced the notoriously sexual Tree
and Serpent worship (Numbers xxi. 9, and 2 Kings xviii. 4); while
Solomon, not without dramatic propriety, borrowed from the Phoenicians
the two phallic pillars surmounted by pomegranate wreaths, called Jachin
and Boaz, and placed them in front of his temple (1 Kings vii. 21). The
Cross itself (identical as a symbol with the phallus of the Greeks and
the lingam of the East), the Fleur de Lys, which has the same
signification, and the Crux Ansata, borrowed by the early Christians
from Egypt and indicating the union of male and female, are woven and
worked into the priestly vestments and altar-cloths of Christianity,
just as the astronomical symbols are woven and worked into its Calendar,
and both sets of symbols, astronomical and sexual, into the very
construction of our Churches and Cathedrals. Jesus himself—so entangled
is the worship of this greatest man with the earlier cults—is
purported[25] to have been born like the other sun-gods, Bacchus,
Apollo, Osiris, on the 25th day of December, the day of the sun’s
re-birth (i. e., the first day which obviously lengthens after the 21st
of December—the day of the doubting apostle Thomas!) and to have died
upon an instrument which, as already hinted, was ages before and all
over the world held in reverence as a sexual symbol.

I have only touched the fringe of this great subject. The more it is
examined into the more remarkable is the mass of corroborative matter
belonging to it. The conclusion towards which one seems to be impelled
is that these two great primitive ideas, sexual and astronomical, are
likely to remain the poles of human emotion in the future, even as they
have been in the past.

Some cynic has said that the two great ruling forces of mankind are
Obscenity and Superstition. Put in a less paradoxical form, as that the
two ruling forces are Sex and the belief in the Unseen, the saying may
perhaps be accepted. To call the two Love and Faith (as Dr. Bucke does
in his excellent book on “Man’s Moral Nature”) is perhaps to run the
risk of becoming too abstract and spiritual.

Roughly speaking we may say that the worship of Sex and Life
characterized the Pagan races of Europe and Asia Minor anterior to
Christianity, while the worship of Death and the Unseen has
characterized Christianity. It remains for the modern nations to accept
both Life and Death, both the Greek and the Hebrew elements, and all
that these general terms denote, in a spirit of the fullest friendliness
and sanity and fearlessness.

A curious part of all the old religions, Pagan or Christian—and this
connects itself with the above—is Asceticism: that occasional instinct
of voluntary and determined despite to the body and its senses. Even in
the wildest races, rejoicing before all things in the consciousness of
Life, we find festivals of fierce endurance and torments willingly
undergone with a kind of savage glee;[26] and during the Christian
centuries—monks, mystics, and world-spiting puritans—this instinct was
sometimes exalted into the very first place of honor. I suppose it will
have to be recognized—whatever absurd aberrations the tendency may have
been liable to—that it is a basic thing in human nature, and as
ineradicable in its way as the other equally necessary instinct towards
Pleasure. To put it in another way, perhaps the ordinary Hedonism makes
a mistake in failing to recognize the joy of Ascendancy, and (if it is
not a “bull” to say so) the pleasure which lies in the denial of
pleasure. In order to enjoy life one must be a master of life—for to be
a slave to its inconsistencies can only mean torment: and in order to
enjoy the senses one must be master of them. To dominate the actual
world you must, like Archimedes, base your fulcrum somewhere beyond.

In such moods a man delights to feel his supremacy, not only over the
beasts of the field, but over his own bodily and mental powers: no
ordinary pleasure so great, but its rejection serves to throw out into
relief this greater; no task so stern, but endurance is sterner; no pain
so fierce but it wakes the soul to secret laughter. If there is
something narrow in the creed of the ascetic on its negative side—that
of denial—one cannot but feel that on its positive side, the
establishment of authority and kingship, it has a real and vital
meaning.

In another mood, however (equally undeniable and important), man
acknowledges his delight in life, and gives the rein to his desires to
chariot him to the extremest bounds of his kingdom. The kiss of the
senses is beautiful beyond all and every abstraction; the touch of the
sunlight, the glory of form and color, the magic of sweet sound, the joy
of human embraces, the passion of sex—all so much the more perfect
because they are as it were something divine made actual and realizable.
In such a mood asceticism in any form seems the grossest impiety and
folly, and the pursuit of the Unseen a mere abandonment of the world for
its shadow.

Are not these two moods both necessary—the great rhythmical heart-beat,
the systole and diastole, of the human soul? The one, a going forth and
gathering of materials from all sources, the other an organizing of them
under the most perfect light, or rather (it may be said) a consumption
of them to feed the most perfect flame; the one centrifugal, the other
centripetal; the one individual, the other universal; and so forth—each
required for the purposes of the other, and making the other possible?

Do we not want a truly experiential view of what may be called
Religion—derived from the largest actual acquaintance with, and
acceptance of, all the facts both of mundane and extra-mundane
consciousness—neither (like some secularists) denying the one, nor (like
some religionists) minimizing or contemning the other? And is it not
possible that in the early Star and Sex worships we have evidence of the
attempt of the human mind to establish some such sane polarity?




                                  NOTE
                    ON THE PRIMITIVE GROUP-MARRIAGE


One of the early forms of union among human beings appears to have been
that of the Group-marriage, which was an alliance between a group of men
and a group of women. It had various forms, but rested in general on the
fact that the women in primitive societies did not, on marriage, leave
their parental habitation but remained there and were visited by the
men—by one man first, who would come with presents of game, etc., from
the chase, and would afterwards bring his “brothers” or friends. Thus in
general a group of “brothers” would come into relation with a group of
“sisters.” In such a state of society, however, it is obvious that
parentage would be very uncertain, and the terms brother and sister
would not always have the stricter meanings which we give them. Such a
group-marriage was the “Punalua” or “friend” marriage of Morgan’s North
American Indians; which is also supposed by Marx and Engels to have
prevailed at an early time throughout Polynesia. See Lewis Morgan’s
“Ancient Society” and Friedrich Engels’ “Ursprung der Familie.”

In later times the group-marriage became restricted in various
directions, according to the genius of various races—marriage of
cousins, for instance, being severely prohibited among some barbaric
tribes, while among others all relatives (in the maternal line) were
barred. Thus ultimately, in some quarters, sprang up a Pair-marriage;
which however was only loosely defined; which had much of the old
group-marriage lingering round it; and in which the children still
belonged to the woman, and descent was traced in the maternal line only.

Under these conditions of society the woman was comparatively well off.
Remaining as she did in her own gens or clan and among her own
relations, and the husband being as it were a visitor from the outside,
she was by no means subject to him; in fact, in order to gain access, he
had to make himself agreeable not only to her but to her own family! She
had the disposal of the children; there was no danger of their being
sequestrated to her husband; and whatever little property she had she
could leave to them; to her was all the honor of ancestry. The husband
on the other hand, even if he knew which his own children were, could
see little of them, and could not leave his possessions to them without
alienating those possessions from his clan—which the clan-customs would
not permit. Thus in marriage he practically had to take the second
place.

With the growth however of property and the sense of property, there
came a time when the men could stand this state of affairs no longer,
and insisted, violently at first, in carrying off the women and locating
them in their own tents and among their own clans—a change rudely
recorded probably in legends like the Rape of the Sabines, and in all
the later customs of Marriage by Capture. And with this change marriage
took on new forms. Women became the property of their husbands; they
ceased to hold property of their own, in their children or in anything
else; and descent was traced through the males only. In the Patriarchal
system marriage was closely akin to slavery. Polygamy and Monogamy were
the two resulting institutions.

Polyandry may perhaps be looked upon as a survival of the group-marriage
in a special form adapted to warrior races; but—as Engels remarks—both
Polygamy and Polyandry in any strict sense can only be regarded as
exceptional institutions, since if they were general in any one country,
that would imply a great preponderance of one sex over the other—unless
indeed the two institutions existed side by side in the same country,
which notoriously never happens. As a matter of fact in oriental
countries Polygamy is confined to the rich, and is so to speak a luxury,
within reach of the few only.

Thus it would appear that from the first, in oriental countries, the
practices of polygamy and monogamy were intermixed. In Greece and Rome
polygamy ceased to be recognized as an institution; though concubinage
in one form or another remained. The Monogamic marriage became the legal
institution; and the woman was handed over to the man as his chattel:
was bought symbolically with his money, in the marriage ceremony; and
had at first no more rights of her own than a chattel. In the later
times, however, of the Roman Empire, with the institution of the dowry
and the power granted to women of holding property, together with the
great facilities of divorce allowed, the position of the Roman matron
became much improved. And in modern European countries the monogamic
institution seems to have passed or be passing through somewhat the same
stages as in ancient Greece or Rome.




                              ON JEALOUSY.


A great disturber of the celestial order of Love is Jealousy—that brand
of physical passion which carried over into the emotional regions of the
mind will sometimes rage there like a burning fire. One may distinguish
two kinds of jealousy, a natural and an artificial. The first arises
perhaps from the real uniqueness of the relationship between two
persons—at any rate as it appears to one of them—and the endeavor to
stamp this uniqueness on the whole relationship, sexual and
moral—especially on the sexual relationship. This kind of jealousy seems
in a sense natural and normal, at any rate for a period; but when the
personal relation between the two parties has been fully and confessedly
established, and is no more endangered, the feeling does often I think
(equally naturally) die away; and may do so quite well without damaging
the intimacy and uniqueness of the alliance. This jealousy is felt with
terrible keenness and intensity by lovers before the consummation of
their passion, and perhaps for a year or two afterwards—though it may be
protracted rather indefinitely in the case where the alliance, on one
side at any rate, is not quite satisfactory.

The other kind of jealousy rests on the sense of property, and is the
kind that is often felt by the average husband and wife long after
honeymooning days—by the husband not because of his especial devotion to
his partner, but because he is furious at the idea of her disposing as
she likes with what he considers his property; and by the wife because
she is terrified at the thought that her matrimonial clothes-peg, from
which depend all her worldly prospects, may vanish away or become the
peg for another woman’s clothes. This kind of jealousy is more
especially the product of immediate social conditions, and is in that
sense artificial. Though probably not quite so heart-rending as the
other, it is often passionate enough, and lasts on indefinitely, like a
chronic disease.

In early times, with the more communistic feeling of primitive
societies, and with customs (like group-marriage) which allowed some
latitude in sex-relation, jealousy though strong was not probably a very
great force. But with the growth of individualism in life and in love,
with the rise of the sense of property under civilization and the
accentuation of every personal feeling in what may be called the
cellular state of society, the passion became one of fearful and
convulsive power and fury; as is borne witness to by numberless dramas
and poems and romances of the historical period. In the communism and
humanism of the future, as the sense of property declines, and as Love
rises more and more out of mere blind confusion with the sex-act, we may
fairly hope that the artificial jealousy will disappear altogether, and
that the other form of the passion will subside again into a
comparatively reasonable human emotion.




                             ON THE FAMILY


A change somewhat similar to that in the position of Jealousy has taken
place in the role of the Family during the progress of society into and
through the period of civilization. In the primitive human association
the Family was large in extent, and in outline vague; the boundaries of
kinship, in cases where the woman might have several husbands, or the
husband several wives, were hard to trace; paternal feeling was little
or not at all developed; and the whole institution rested on the
maternal instinct of care for the young. In the middle societies of
civilization, and with monogamic arrangements, the Family grew
exceedingly definite in form and circumscribed in extent. The growth of
property and competition, and the cellular system of society, developed
a kind of warfare between the units of which society was composed. These
units were families. The essential communism and fraternity of society
at large was dwarfed now and contracted into the limits of the family;
and this institution acquired an extraordinary importance from the fact
that it alone kept alive and showed in miniature (intensified by the
darkness and chaos and warfare outside) the sacred fire of human
fraternity. So great was this importance in fact that the Holy Family
became one of the central religious conceptions of the civilized period,
and it was commonly thought that society owed its existence to the
Family—instead of, as was the case, the truth being reverse, namely that
the Family was the condensation of the principle which had previously
existed, though diffused and unconscious, throughout society.

The third and future stage is of course easy to see—that is, the
expansion again of the conception of the family consciously into the
fraternity and communism of all society. It is obvious that as this
takes place the family will once more lose its definition of outline and
merge more and more again with the larger social groups in which it is
embedded—but not into the old barbaric society in which the conception
of human fellowship lay diffused and only dimly auroral, but into the
newer society in which it shall be clear and all-illuminating as the
sun.

Thus the Family institution in its present form, and as far as that form
may be said to be artificial, will doubtless pass away. Nevertheless
there remains of course, and must remain, its natural or physiological
basis—namely the actual physical relation of the parents to each other
and to the child. One perhaps of the most valuable results of the
Monogamic family institution under civilization has been the development
of the paternal feeling for the child, which in primitive society was so
weak. To-day the love of man and wife for each other is riveted, as it
never was in ancient days, by the tender beauty of the child-face, in
which each parent sees with strange emotion his own features blended
with the features of his loved one—the actual realization of that union
which the lovers so desired, and which yet so often seemed to them after
all not consummated. The little prolongation of oneself, carrying in its
eyes the star-look of another’s love, and descending a stranger into the
world to face a destiny all its own, touches the most personal and
mortal-close feelings (as well as perhaps the most impersonal) of the
heart. And while to-day this sight often reconciles husband and wife to
the legal chains which perforce hold them together, in a Free Society,
we may hope, it will more often be the sign and seal of a love which
neither requires nor allows any kind of mechanical bond.




                  ON PREVENTIVE CHECKS TO POPULATION.


This is no doubt a complex and difficult subject. Nature from far back
time has provided in the most determined and obstinate way for the
perpetuation of organic life, and has endowed animals, and even plants,
with a strong sexual instinct. By natural selection this instinct tends,
it would seem, to be accentuated; and in the higher animals and man it
sometimes attains a pitch almost of ferocity. In civilized man this
effect is further increased by the intensity of consciousness, which
reflects desire on itself, as well as by collateral conditions of life
and luxury.

In the animal and plant world generally, and up to the realm of Man,
Nature appears to be perfectly lavish in the matter, and careless of the
waste of seed and of life that may ensue, provided her object of
race-propagation is attained; and naturally when the time arrives that
Man, objecting to this waste, faces up to the problem, he finds it no
easy one to solve.

And not only Man (the male) objects to lower Nature’s method of
producing superfluous individuals only to kill them off again in the
struggle for existence; but Woman objects to being a mere machine for
perpetual reproduction.

There are only two ways commonly proposed of meeting the difficulty:
either (1) the adoption of some kind of artificial preventatives to
conception, or (2) the exercise of very considerable continence and
self-control in the face of the powerful instinct of procreation. Of
course, also, the two methods may be used in conjunction with each
other.

(1) It must be acknowledged that artificial checks to population are for
the most part very unsatisfactory: their uncertainty, their desperate
matter-of-factness, so fatal to real feeling, the probability that they
are in one way or another dangerous or harmful, and then their
one-sideness, since here—as so often in matters of sex—the man’s
satisfaction is largely at the cost of the woman: all these things are
against them. One method however—that which consists in selecting, for
sexual congress, a certain part of the woman’s monthly cycle, can hardly
be called artificial, and is altogether the least open to the objections
cited. Its success truly is not absolutely certain, but is perhaps
sufficiently nearly so for the general purpose of regulating the family;
and if the method involves some self-control, it does not at any rate
make an impracticable demand in that direction.

(2) To adopt the method of self-control alone without regard to (1)
would practically mean, in those instances where children were thought
undesirable, an entire abstinence from actual intercourse, and would in
most cases be making too great a demand on human nature, as well as, in
some, running a possible risk of prejudice to health. No doubt the
danger of prejudice to health has been greatly exaggerated; for as a
rule a strong effort towards voluntary continence is one of the best
safeguards of health; but it does not follow from this that complete
abstinence is generally either practicable or desirable. It may,
however, be said that it is in the direction of self-control rather than
in the direction of unlimited “checks” that we should look for the
future; and that if some effort were made towards a wise choice of the
periods of congress, the general object in view would be attained
without putting an inordinate strain upon the average human nature, and
without necessitating recourse to doubtful and artificial devices. The
effort itself, too, would lead to that Transmutation of sex-force into
the higher emotional elements, of which we have spoken already, and
which is such an important factor in Evolution.

I do not much doubt that, as society evolves, the sex-difficulty
generally—which has been such a serious one during the
civilization-period—will to a great extent subside again. As to
excessive breeding (which of course does not necessarily mean excessive
sex-congress) it is probably a phenomenon which marks different races
during a certain period of their growth and maturity, and which passes
away again. And as to excessive sex-desire, since the animals certainly
do not show the inordinateness of man in this respect, there is hope for
man too when he comes to his senses! A cleaner life, a cleaner diet, the
habit of the open air, the growth of the mind to wider interests, the
growth of Love itself—all will help. The two last-mentioned elements
indeed necessarily evoke a certain effort of control over the more
animal instinct—and a kind of conflict, until the two portions of the
nature are brought into harmony.




                                APPENDIX


                     PAGE 7.—“_Natural Reticence._”

Sex belongs to the Unconscious or universal-conscious regions of our
nature (which is the meaning perhaps of Modesty), and will resume its
place there some day. Meanwhile, having crept into the Conscious, it
must for the time being be sincerely faced there.


PAGE 14.—“_To Teach the Child First, Quite Openly, its Physical Relation
                          to its Own Mother._”

“It was not without much anxiety that I took the first step on a road I
intended to explore alone. Chance favored me. I was in Java, and amongst
my servants was a dressmaker, married to the groom. This woman had a
dear little baby with a velvety brown skin and bright black eyes, the
admiration of my little daughter, whom I took with me to see mother and
child, when the baby was a few days old. While she admired and petted it
wonderingly, I said to her: ‘This pretty little baby came out of Djahid
like the beautiful butterfly came out of the chrysalis, it lay close to
Djahid’s heart, she made it, and kept it there till it grew. She loved
it so much that she made it grow.’ Lilly looked at me with her large,
intelligent eyes in astonishment. ‘Djahid is very happy to have this
pretty baby. Djahid’s blood made it strong while it lay close to her
heart; now Djahid will give it milk, and make it strong, till it will
grow as big as my Lilly. It made Djahid ill and made her suffer when it
was born, but she soon got well, and she is so glad.’ Lily listened,
very much interested, and when she got home, she told her father the
story, forgetting nothing. But beyond that, she did not refer again to
the matter, and soon forgot all about it. The birth of Djahid’s second
baby gave me the opportunity of repeating the little lesson. This time
she asked some questions. I explained many things to the eager little
listener, very simply, and told her that the mother kept the child
within her, and took great care of it until it was old enough to endure
the changes of temperature, etc., and showed her how a mother’s joy and
love made her forget her pain. The little creature, suddenly remembering
that she must have given her mother pain, kissed me tenderly. That was a
flower of love and gratitude, which it was my happiness to see develop
on the fruitful soil of truth. * * * I analyzed a flower, I pointed out
to her the beauty of coloring, the gracefulness of shape, the tender
shades, the difference between the parts composing the flowers.
Gradually, I told her what these parts were called. I showed her the
pollen, which clung like a beautiful golden powder to her little rosy
fingers. I showed her through the microscope that this beautiful powder
was composed of an infinite number of small grains. I made her examine
the pistil more closely, and I showed her, at the end of the tube, the
ovary, which I called a ‘little house full of very tiny children.’ I
showed her the pollen glued to the pistil, and I told her that when the
pollen of one flower, carried away by the wind, or by the insects, fell
on the pistil of another flower, the small grains died, and a tiny drop
of moisture passed through the tube and entered into the little house
where the very tiny children dwelt; that these tiny children were like
small eggs, that in each small egg there was an almost invisible
opening, through which a little of the small drop passed; that when this
drop of pollen mixed with some other wonderful power in the ovary, that
both joined together to give life, and the eggs developed and became
grains or fruit. I have shown her flowers which had only a pistil and
others which had only stamens. I said to her, smiling, that the pistils
were like little mothers, and the stamens like little fathers of the
fruit. * * * Thus I sowed in this innocent heart and searching mind the
seeds of that delicate science, which degenerates into obscenity, if the
mother, through false shame, leaves the instruction of her child to its
schoolfellows. Let my little girl ask me, if she likes, the much dreaded
question; I will only have to remind her of the botany lessons, simply
adding, ‘the same thing happens to human beings, with this difference,
that what is done unconsciously by the plants, is done consciously by
us; that in a properly arranged society one only unites one’s self to
the person one loves.’”—(Translated from “La Revendication des Droits
Feminins,” Shafts, April, 1894, p. 237.)


                PAGE 16.—“_The Vulgarization of Love._”

“I have found in my experience that those who seek to draw into the
selfish confines of their own breasts the electric current of Love are
withered by its force and passion. The energy degrades to sensualism if
it has only the Individual channel for expression. The sexual expression
of Love is good and beautiful if normal, but it is not so infallible as
the subtler intercourse of the soul and the affections, or so satisfying
as a comradeship in work for Humanity, and a mental and spiritual
affinity.”—Miriam W. Nicol.


      PAGE 24.—“_In the Beauty and Openness of Their Own Bodies._”

“All the loves—if they be heroic and not purely animal, or what is
called natural, and slaves to generation as instruments in some way of
nature—have for object the divinity, and tend towards divine beauty,
which first is communicated to, and shines in, souls; and from them or
rather through them is communicated to bodies; whence it is that
well-ordered affection loves the body or corporeal beauty, insomuch as
it is an indication of beauty of spirit.”—Giordano Bruno, “Gli Eroici
Furori” (dial. iii. 13), trans. by L. Williams.

“In Sparta the spectacle of the naked human body and the natural
treatment of natural things were the best safeguard against the sensual
excitement artificially produced by the modern plan of separating the
sexes from the earliest childhood. The forms of one sex and the
functions of its specific organs were no secret to the other. There was
no possibility of trifling with ambiguities.”—Bebel’s “Woman,” Bellamy
Library, p. 70.


                  PAGE 26.—_Generation and Nutrition._

“It is in the almost homogeneous fabrics of the cellular plants that we
find the closest connection between the function of nutrition and that
of reproduction; for every one of the vesicles which compose their
fabric is endowed with the power of generating others similar to itself;
and these may extend the parent structure or separate into new and
distinct organisms. Hence it is scarcely possible to draw a line in
these cases, between the nutrition of the individual and the
reproduction of the species.”—W. B. Carpenter, “Principles of Human
Physiology,” sec. 281.


           PAGE 42—_Secondary Differences Between the Sexes._

The following are some of the points of difference given by H. Ellis in
“Man and Woman” (Contemporary Science Series):—

The average cranial capacity of men is greater than that of women (as
would be expected from the general proportions of the sexes); but the
difference in this respect between men and women is greater in the
higher civilized races than in the lower and more primitive.

Evidence points on the whole to the cerebellum being, relatively,
distinctly larger in women than in men.

Intellectually, women tend to the personal and concrete, men to the
general and abstract.

Women endure pain, operations, etc., better than men, and show greater
tenacity of life; men are superior in motor perfection, skill, and
muscle. In delicacy of sense-perceptions the two sexes are about equal.

Women show in some respects a greater affectability than men, which is
encouraged by their slight tendency to anaemia, by the greater
development of their vaso-motor system, and by the periodicity of their
functions. They are more hypnotic, the lower—that is, the more primitive
and fundamental—nerve-centers preponderate and are more excitable;
hysteria, ecstasy, and suggestibility, more marked.

Men show a greater tendency to race-variation than women; abnormalities
of various kinds, idiots and geniuses, are commoner amongst males. Man
represents the radical, or experimental element in the life of the race.

Woman represents the conservative element. She remains nearer to the
child, but for that very reason is in some respects more advanced than
man, who, as he grows older, is “farther off from heaven than when he
was a boy.”


                      PAGE 51.—_Finesse in Woman._

“The method of attaining results by ruses (common among all the weaker
lower animals) is so habitual among women that, as Lombroso and Ferrero
remark, in women deception is ‘almost physiological.’ * * * But to
regard the caution and indirectness of women as due to innate
wickedness, would, it need scarcely be said, be utterly irrational. It
is inevitable, and results from the constitution of women, acting in the
conditions under which they are generally placed. There is at present no
country in the world, certainly no civilized country, in which a woman
may safely state openly her wishes and desires, and proceed openly to
seek their satisfaction.”—H. Ellis, “Man and Woman,” p. 174.


  PAGE 56.—(note).—“_The Freedom of Woman Must Ultimately Rest on the
                        Communism of Society._”

“The reproduction of the race is a social function, and we are compelled
to conclude that it is the duty of the community, as a community, to
provide for the child-bearer when in the exercise of her social function
she is unable to provide for herself. The woman engaged in producing a
new member, who may be a source of incalculable profit or danger to the
whole community, cannot fail to be a source of the liveliest solicitude
to everyone in the community, and it was a sane and beautiful instinct
that found expression of old in the permission accorded to the pregnant
woman to enter gardens and orchards, and freely help herself.”—Havelock
Ellis, Pamphlet on “Evolution in Sex,” p. 15.

“She held it just that women should be so provided for, because the
mothers of the community fulfil in the State as important and necessary
a function as the men themselves do.”—Grant Allen, “The Woman Who Did,”
p. 73.


           PAGE 57.—“_Menstrual Troubles and Disturbances._”

There is little doubt that menstruation, as it occurs to-day in the vast
majority of cases, is somehow pathological and out of the order of
nature. In animals the periodic loss is so small as to be scarcely
noticeable, and among primitive races of mankind it is as a rule
markedly less than among the higher and later races. We may therefore
suppose that its present excess is attributable to certain conditions of
life which have prevailed for a number of centuries, and which have
continuously acted to bring about a feverish disposition of the sexual
apparatus, and an hereditary tendency to recurrent manifestations of a
diseased character. Among conditions of life which in all probability
would act in this way may be counted (1) the indoor life and occupations
of women, leading to degeneration of the neuro-muscular system,
weakness, and inflammability; (2) the heightening of the sex-passion in
both men and women with the increase of luxury and artificialism in
life; (3) the subjection of the woman to the unrestrained use and even
abuse of the man, which inevitably took place as soon as she—with the
changes in the old tribal life—became his chattel and slave; and which
has continued practically ever since. These three causes acting together
over so long a period may well seem sufficient to have induced a morbid
and excessive habit in the female organism; and if so we may hope that
with their removal the excess itself and a vast amount of concomitant
human misery and waste of life-power will disappear.


                     PAGE 62.—“_Natural Desires._”

“Although I agree with Malthus as to the value of virtuous abstinence,
the sad conviction is forced upon me as a physician that the chaste
morality of women—which though it is certainly a high virtue in our
modern States is none the less a crime against nature—not unfrequently
revenges itself in the cruellest forms of disease.”—Dr. Hegerisch,
translator of Malthus.


                 PAGE 64.—“_They Must Learn to Fight._”

“Women have as little hope from men as workmen from the middle
classes.”—Bebel, “Woman,” p. 72.


          PAGE 66.—_Sexual Selection Exercised by the Female._

“Hunger—that is to say, what we call economic causes—has, because it is
the more widespread and constant, though not necessarily the more
imperious instinct, produced nearly all the great zoological
revolutions. * * * Yet love has, in the form of sexual selection, even
before we reach the vertebrates, moulded races to the ideal of the
female; and reproduction is always the chief end of nutrition which
hunger waits on, the supreme aim of life everywhere.”—“Evolution in
Sex,” p. 12.


              PAGE 72.—“_The Features of a Grander Type._”

“Towards the Future I look and see a greater race to come—of beautiful
women, athletic, free, able in mind and logic, great in love and in
maternal instincts, unashamed of their bodies and of the sexual parts of
them, calm in nerve, and with a chronic recognition of Spiritual
qualities—a race of men, gentle, strong, courageous, continent,
affectionate, unselfish, large in body and mind, full of pluck and
brawn, able to suffer, clean and honest in their animal necessities,
self-confident, with no king or overseer.”—Miriam Wheeler Nicol.


              PAGE 78.—“_The Search for a Fitting Mate._”

“With the disappearance of the artificial barriers in the way of
friendship between the sexes, and of the economic motive to sexual
relationships—which are perhaps the two chief forces now tending to
produce promiscuous sexual intercourse, whether dignified or not with
the name of marriage—men and women will be free to engage, unhampered,
in the search, so complicated in a highly civilized condition of
society, for a fitting mate.”—“Evolution in Sex,” p. 13.


       PAGE 79 (note).—_Desire of Congress Less Strong in Woman._

“I will mention here that from various late sources of information I
conclude that sexual insensibility in women is much commoner than
usually assumed. Of course I mean by this, insensibility as from the
sexual standpoint: of the sense of pleasure and satisfaction in
congress, as well as the desire for congress. This desire is much less
frequent in woman than generally supposed. But the soulside of love on
the other hand is often more prominent in females than in males.”—A.
Moll, “Contrare Sexual-empfindung,” 2nd edn., p. 325.


  PAGE 83.—“_In This Serf-Life Their very Natures Have Been Blunted._”

“Not so the wife; however brutal a tyrant she may be chained to * * * he
can claim from her and enforce the lowest degradation of a human being,
that of being made the instrument of an animal function contrary to her
inclinations. * * * No amount of ill-usage, without adultery superadded,
will in England free a wife from her tormentor.”—Mill’s “Subjection of
Women,” 1869.

Clitheroe Case, 1891.—After the refusal of the wife to cohabit, the
husband said: “I therefore took my wife, and have since detained her in
my house, using no more force or restraint than necessary to take her
and keep her.”

The Lord Chancellor said: “I am of opinion that no, such right or power
exists in law”—and ordered the lady to be restored to her
liberty.—“Woman Free,” by Ellis Ethelmer, p. 144.


                   PAGE 95.—_The Monogamic Marriage._

“In attempting to estimate the moral worth of a people, a race, or a
civilization, we are much more enlightened by the position given to
woman than by the legal type of the conjugal union. This type, besides,
is usually more apparent than real. In many civilizations, both dead and
living, legal monogamy has for its chief object the regulation of
succession and the division of property.”—Letourneau, “Evolution of
Marriage,” p. 186.

Conjugal Unions Among the Animals.—“Among many of the animal species the
sexual union induces a durable association, having for its object the
rearing of young. In nobility, delicacy, and devotion these unions do
not yield precedence to many human unions.”—Ibid., p. 19.

“It is especially interesting to study the various modes of conjugal and
familiar association among birds. This may be easily inferred from the
ardor, the variety and delicacy they bring to their amours. * * * There
are some birds absolutely fickle and even debauched—as, for example, the
little American starling (Icterus pecoris), which changes its female
from day to day. * * * Other species, while they have renounced
promiscuity, are still determined polygamists. The gallinaceae are
particularly addicted to this form of conjugal union, which is so common
in fact with mankind, even when highly civilized and boasting of their
practice of monogamy. Our barndoor cock, vain and sensual, courageous
and jealous, is a perfect type of the polygamous bird.” * * *—Ibid., p.
26.

“Nearly all the rapacious animals, even the stupid vultures, are
monogamous. The conjugal union of the bald-headed eagle appears even to
last till the death of one of the partners.” * * *

“With the female Illinois parrot (Psittacus pertinax) widowhood and
death are synonymous, a circumstance rare enough in the human species,
yet of which the birds give us more than one example. When, after some
years of conjugal life, a Wheat-ear happens to die, his companion hardly
survives him a month.”—Ibid., p. 27.

“Bad fathers are rare among birds. Often on the contrary the male rivals
the female in love for the young; he guards and feeds her during
incubation, and sometimes even sits on the eggs with her. The carrier
pigeon feeds his female while she is sitting; the Canadian goose and the
crow do the same; more than that the latter takes his companion’s place
at times, to give her some relaxation. The blue marten behaves in the
same manner. Among many species male and female combine their efforts
without distinction of sex; they sit in turn, and the one who is free
takes the duty of feeding the one who is occupied. This is the custom of
the black-coated gull, the booby of Bassan, the great blue heron, and of
the black vulture.”—Ibid., p. 30.

“In regard to mammals, there is no strict relation between the degree of
intellectual development and the form of sexual union. The carnivorous
animals often live in couples; but this is not an absolute rule, for the
South African lion is frequently accompanied by four or five females.
Bears, weasels, whales, etc., generally go in couples. Sometimes species
that are very nearly allied have different conjugal customs; thus the
white-cheeked peccary lives in troops, whilst the white-ringed peccary
lives in couples. There is the same diversity in the habits of monkeys.
Some are polygamous and others monogamous. The Wanderoo (Macacus
Silenus) of India has only one female and is faithful to her until
death. The Cebus Capucinus, on the contrary, is polygamous.”—Ibid., p.
33.


              PAGE 101.—“_The Destinies of a Life-Time._”

“Unlike the Catholic Church in its dealings with novices, Society
demands (in marriage) the ring, the parchment, and the vow as a
preliminary to the knowledge and experience; hence adulteries, the
divorce court, home-prisons, and the increase of cant and pruriency in
the community. Unless a woman knows what a man’s body is like, with its
virile needs, and realizes to the full her own adult necessities, how is
it possible that she can have the faintest conception as to whether the
romantic passionate impulse a man awakens in her is the trinity of love,
trust and reverence, which alone lays the foundations of real
marriage?”—Edith M. Ellis, “A Noviciate for Marriage,” p. 13.


        PAGE 106.—“_Contracts of Some Kind Will Still Be Made._”

“It is therefore probable that a future more or less distant will
inaugurate the regime of monogamic unions, freely contracted, and, at
need, freely dissolved by simple mutual consent, as is already the case
with divorces in various European countries—at Geneva, in Belgium, in
Roumania, etc.—and with separation in Italy. In these divorces of the
future, the community will only intervene in order to safeguard that
which is of vital interest to it—the fate and the education of the
children. But this evolution in the manner of understanding and
practicing marriage will operate slowly, for it supposes an entire
corresponding revolution in public opinion; moreover, it requires as a
corollary profound modifications in the social organism.”—Letourneau,
“Evolution of Marriage,” p. 358.

“The antique morals which hold woman as a servile property belonging to
her husband still live in many minds. They will be extinguished by
degrees. The matrimonial contract will end by being the same kind of
contract as any other, freely accepted, freely maintained, freely
dissolved; but where constraint has disappeared deception becomes an
unworthy offence. Such will be the opinion of a future humanity, more
elevated morally than ours. Doubtless it will no longer have any tender
indulgence for conveniently dissimulated adultery, but, on the other
hand, it will no longer excuse the avenging husband.”—Ibid., p. 127.


       PAGE 106.—_Contracts Preliminary to a Permanent Alliance._

“The custom of hand-fasting, rare now anywhere else, still prevails to
some extent in Iceland. A man and woman contract to live together for a
year. If at the end of the year the parties agree thereto, they are
married; if not, they separate without stigma on either side. The
contract may be made conditionally binding from the first. It may bind
the parties to marry in the event of issue, or in the event of no issue,
as the case may be.”—Prof. Mavor, “Iceland: Some Sociological and Other
Notes,” Proceedings Philosophical Society, Glasgow, 1890–91.


               PAGE 118.—_A Certain Amount of Animalism._

“The Saviors of this, as of every corrupt and stupid generation, must
feel the pulse of the adulterer as well as that of his victim, and stand
clear-eyed and honest as pioneers of the new sexual renaissance, which
will probably combine a healthy temperate animalism with Browning’s
vision of that rare mating when soul lies by soul.”—Edith M. Ellis, “A
Noviciate for Marriage,” p. 4.

“She gave him comprehension of the meaning of love: a word in many
mouths, not often explained. With her, wound in his idea of her, he
perceived it to signify a new start in our existence, a finer shoot of
the tree stoutly planted in good gross earth; the senses running their
live sap, and the minds companioned, and the spirits made one by the
whole-natured conjunction. In sooth, a happy prospect for the sons and
daughters of Earth, divinely indicating more than happiness: the
speeding of us, compact of what we are, between the ascetic rocks and
the sensual whirlpools, to the creation of certain nobler races, now
very dimly imagined.”—George Meredith’s “Diana of the Cross-ways,” ch.
37.


                                THE END.

-----

Footnote 1:

  Though this is of course not true of animal food.

Footnote 2:

  See “Appendix.”

Footnote 3:

  See “Appendix.”

Footnote 4:

  Taking union as the main point we may look upon the idealized Sex-love
  as a sense of contact pervading the whole mind and body—while the
  sex-organs are a specialization of this faculty of union in the
  outermost sphere: union in the bodily sphere giving rise to bodily
  generation, the same as union in the mental and emotional spheres
  occasions generation of another kind.

Footnote 5:

  These are (1) the curious, not yet explained, facts of “Telegony”—i.
  e., the tendency (often noticed in animals) of the children of a dam
  by a second sire to resemble the first sire; (2) the probable
  survival, in a modified form, of the primitive close relation (as seen
  in the protozoa) between copulation and nutrition; (3) the great
  activity of the spermatozoa themselves.

Footnote 6:

  For other points of difference see Appendix.

Footnote 7:

  Man and Woman, by Havelock Ellis. Contemporary Science Series, p. 371.

Footnote 8:

  Physiologically speaking a certain excess of affectability and
  excitability in women over men seems to be distinctly traceable.

Footnote 9:

  The freedom of Woman must ultimately rest on the Communism of
  society—which alone can give her support during the period of
  Motherhood, without forcing her into dependence on the arbitrary will
  of one man. While the present effort of women towards earning their
  own economic independence is a healthy sign and a necessary feature of
  the times, it is evident that it alone will not entirely solve the
  problem, since it is just during the difficult years of Motherhood,
  when support is most needed, that the woman is least capable of
  earning it for herself. (See Appendix.)

Footnote 10:

  See “Appendix.”

Footnote 11:

  See “Appendix.”

Footnote 12:

  As to the maternal teaching of children, it must be confessed that it
  has, in late times, been most dismal. Whether among the masses or the
  classes the idea has been first and foremost to impress upon them the
  necessity of sliding through life as comfortably as possible, and the
  parting word to the boy leaving home to launch into the great world
  has seldom risen to a more heroic strain than “Don’t forget your
  flannels!”

Footnote 13:

  It must be remembered too that to many women (though of course by no
  means a majority) the thought of Sex brings but little sense of
  pleasure, and the fulfillment of its duties constitutes a real, even
  though a willing, sacrifice. See Appendix.

Footnote 14:

  Thus Bebel in his book on Woman speaks of “the idle and luxurious life
  of so many women in the upper classes, the nervous stimulant afforded
  by exquisite perfumes, the over-dosing with poetry, music, the
  stage—which is regarded as the chief means of education, and is the
  chief occupation, of a sex already suffering from hypertrophy of
  nerves and sensibility.”

Footnote 15:

  See “Appendix.”

Footnote 16:

  It is curious that the early Church Service had “Till death us
  depart,” but in 1661 this was altered to “Till death us do part.”

Footnote 17:

  See R. F. Burton’s Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah, chap. xxiv. He
  says, however, “As far as my limited observations go polyandry is the
  only state of society in which jealousy and quarrels about the sex are
  the exception and not the rule of life!”

Footnote 18:

  See “Appendix.”

Footnote 19:

  Perhaps one of the most sombre and inscrutable of these natural
  tragedies lies, for Woman, in the fact that the man to whom she first
  surrenders her body often acquires for her (whatever his character may
  be) so profound and inalienable a claim upon her heart. While, either
  for man or woman, it is almost impossible to thoroughly understand
  their own nature, or that of others, till they have had
  sex-experience, it happens so that in the case of woman the experience
  which should thus give the power of choice is frequently the very one
  which seals her destiny. It reveals to her, as at a glance, the
  tragedy of a life-time which lies before her, and yet which she cannot
  do other than accept.

Footnote 20:

  See note on the Primitive Group-marriage, infra.

Footnote 21:

  Letourneau (“Evolution of Marriage,” p. 173) mentions also among the
  inferior races who have adopted Monogamy the Veddahs of Ceylon, the
  Bochimans of S. Africa, and the Kurnails of Australia.

Footnote 22:

  See Remarks on the Early Star and Sex Worships, infra.

Footnote 23:

  Perhaps this accounts for the feeling, which so many have experienced,
  that a great love, even though not apparently returned, justifies
  itself, and has its fruition in its own time and its own way.

Footnote 24:

  These dates have shifted now by two or three weeks owing to the
  equinoctial precession.

Footnote 25:

  The date of his birth was not fixed till A. D. 531—when it was
  computed by a monkish astrologer.

Footnote 26:

  Note especially the ordeals through which the youth of so many savage
  races have had to pass before being admitted to manhood.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                WORKS OF

                           _Edw^d Carpenter_

[Illustration]




     _Except love build the house they labor in vain who build it._




                           Towards Democracy


A masterpiece, the work of a seer. Gifted as poet and philosopher, the
author has given us one of the great, if not the greatest, work of the
nineteenth century. It is full of vivid pictures of the soul’s
enlightenment. Its perusal gives the reader a realization of the divine
in man—“the divine life which incloses and redeems all souls.” Through
this life every soul finds itself akin to every other soul; brotherhood
is more than a myth and democracy ceases to be a dead letter.

=A. B. Stockham, M. D.=: I have read and reread Towards Democracy with
transports of delight, and with a great hope for humanity. As a _chela_
to a _guru_ my soul bows to thine. People of the nineteenth century may
be deaf to the poetic strains pealing throughout in clarion notes; they
may be blind to the universal truths flashed in scintillating lights,
but illumined souls of the coming centuries will honor the author as one
of the chosen, and will understand the message of deliverance he has
given to imprisoned souls.

=Chas. A. Hamilton=: Towards Democracy is a revelation! Walt Whitman,
Emerson, Tennyson, Ruskin and Carlisle rolled into one! I reveled in it
like a bather in the cool waves of the ocean. I splashed through its
pages as a strong swimmer through the white surges; I drank it in as a
parched traveler drinks cool spring water gushing out from under a rock;
I was united with it even as hydrogen and oxygen become one in the
millionth part of a second. Later—I am still reading Towards Democracy.
It thrills and thrills me and I shed hot tears of which I am not
ashamed.

=W. L. Sinton=: Towards Democracy stands side by side with the Bible,
and to him who has the eye to see and the ear to hear, it contains a key
to all the problems of life.

=Cecelia Evans=: I have Towards Democracy beside my bed, and read
something in it every night and some mornings. I can never, never tell
by word or pen the good that book has done me. I never pick it up that
my courage is not renewed. His “Joy, Joy” would kill any case of blues.
I always felt that these little daily tasks were so hard, and thought if
one could only get out in the world and do something one might be saved;
but his “Sweet are the Uses of Life,” with his promise that the Lover
will come when we are about our little homely tasks, has been a
revelation. I never did care much for housework, but even washing the
dishes has its blessing now. I let the present hour bring its gift and
am not fretting about the future.

          Over 300 pages, bound in cloth.      Prepaid, $1.50

  “_Who is the poet whom love has made strong, strong_, STRONG, _with
                            all strength_.”

A Visit to a Gnani

With an Introduction by Alice B. Stockham, M. D.

A vivid pen picture of oriental thought and teaching, containing in a
few pages what one often fails to find by searching many volumes. A
Gnani is one who knows, a Knower; in other words, one who has a
consciousness of the greater or universal life which Carpenter calls the
Kosmic Consciousness, which is the higher self of Theosophists, the
Infinite I of Fichte, the Noumena of Kant, the Divine Mind of Christian
Religion.

In a concise and comprehensive manner, the author presents the practical
esotericism of the East, giving points of likeness to western
philosophy. Man loses his life to gain it, loses his consciousness of
and dependence upon physical and material life to gain a consciousness
of the universal life—a Kosmic consciousness.

=Health Culture=: The book contains many interesting facts and anecdotes
concerning Gurus, Adepts, Yogis, etc., besides it is a study of the
duality of mind. To gain the power of blotting out the personal
consciousness, so that the Kosmic consciousness shall dominate—one
becomes a Gnani or one who knows.

=Sidney Flower=: In the domain of occultism this is clearly the book of
the year. It is interesting to note that the East and the West touch
hands in the matter of self-development. We simply make our will the
master of the mind, and by thus subjugating the noise of the machinery,
we make it possible to hear and attend to the Voice in the Silence.

=Psychic Review=: As one reads this vivid pen picture, his interest is
held throughout, and he realizes that there is a life more wonderful and
perhaps more real than the material life.

=Chicago Chronicle=: A Gnani is one who has consciousness of the
Universal Life—it is the absolute Ego of Fichte, the self-affirming
Activity of Schilling, the Geist of Hegel, the Unknowable of Spencer,
the Kingdom of Heaven of Christ. The use of the higher faculties is
acquired only after a long training and according to laws peculiarly
their own. This must not result in oblivion, but in a divine
consciousness without the limitations of thought.

       Illustrated, bound in Vellum de Luxe.      Prepaid, $1.00

  _I will have none that will not open his door to all—treating others
                        as I have treated him._

Love’s Coming of Age

A comprehensive and philosophical treatise on Sexual Science and
Marriage. In this book Edward Carpenter has done his work well and all
will peruse it with interest and profit. It evinces a breadth of thought
and research seldom found in treating these delicate subjects.

                                                          Prepaid, $1.25

                  *       *       *       *       *

Other works by Edward Carpenter are England’s Ideals: Civilization, its
Cause and Cure; Eros and Psyche; Angel Wings; Unknown People, etc., all
of which can be ordered through our house.

Carpenter may be considered a leader in the philosophy of life—at least
every student of economics or social ethics must give his works more
than a passing perusal.


                        Stockham Publishing Co.

                            56 FIFTH AVENUE

                     Authorized      Agents CHICAGO

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
 2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.
 3. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at
      the end of the last chapter.
 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 5. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.
 6. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript
      character, e.g. M^r.





End of Project Gutenberg's Love's Coming-of-Age, by Edward Carpenter