CHAPTER V

DISHARMONIES IN THE ORGANISATION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE REPRODUCTIVE APPARATUS. DISHARMONIES IN THE FAMILY AND SOCIAL INSTINCTS

I _Remarks on the disharmonies in the human organs of sense and perception.—Rudimentary parts of the reproductive apparatus.—Origin and function of the hymen_

The digestive organs are not alone amongst the parts of the human body in exhibiting a greater or lesser disharmony. More than fifty years ago, a great German physiologist, Johannes Müller, showed that although the human eye was regarded as a very perfect organ, its power of correction for aberration of light was poor. Helmholz, another famous German man of science, stated that the optical study of the eye brought complete disillusion. “Nature,” he said, “seems to have packed this organ with mistakes, as if with the avowed purpose of destroying any possible foundation for the theory that organs are adapted to their environment.” Not only the eye, but the other organs by means of which we are conscious of the outside world, present natural disharmony. Therein lies the cause of our want of certainty about the sources of our perceptions. Memory, the faculty that registers our mental processes, becomes active much later than other faculties lodged in the brain. If the new-born human child were relatively as well developed as the young guinea-pig, it is probable that we should know far more as to the history of our consciousness of the external world. But without lingering over the disharmonies in our senses and faculties, I shall pass at once to a consideration of the apparatus for maintaining the species.

I have shown that the alimentary tract, the chief organ involved in the maintenance of the individual life, affords no proof of the theory that human nature is perfect. Is it the case that the organs of reproduction give a better result? When I wished to describe the most perfect examples of harmony to be found amongst plants, I chose the mechanism by which fertilisation is accomplished in flowers. The persistence of the species is secured, in the case of flowers, by a marvellous series of structures and functions.

Is the maintenance of the human species similarly provided for? A detailed investigation of the male and female human reproductive organs shows that these contain parts of diverse origin. The apparatus contains portions of extremely ancient origin, and portions that have been acquired recently. The internal organs display traces of a remote hermaphroditism. In the male, there occur traces of the female apparatus, rudiments of the uterus and fallopian tubes. In the female, on the other hand, rudiments of the male structure persist. These traces date very far back in the history of the race, for they occur also in most other vertebrates. The facts seem to indicate that, at a very remote period, the ancestral vertebrates were hermaphrodite, and that they became divided into males and females only gradually, still retaining in each sex traces of the other sex. Such traces occur frequently, even in adult man, in the form of rudimentary organs (known as the organs of Weber, of Rosenmüller, and so forth). The rudiments not only are functionless but sometimes, as frequently happens with atrophied structures, form the starting-point of monstrous growths, or of tumours that interfere with health. Thus the hypertrophy of a part of the male prostate gland (the organ of Weber) brings about the formation of a _uterus masculinus_, and so produces a sort of abnormal hermaphroditism. The rudimentary organs in the male reproductive apparatus frequently are the starting-points of hydatid cysts. In the female, cysts such as those of the _parovaria_ are produced by the proliferation of rudimentary structures. These, although usually benign, not infrequently become malignant. Lawson Tait,[85] a celebrated English surgeon, has published a case of this kind. He removed from a young woman a parovarian cyst that was apparently benign, but in six weeks symptoms of cancer arose, and the patient died of cancer in three months.

A comparison of the rudimentary organs in the human reproductive apparatus with those in the similar structures of lower animals, shows that many relics have degenerated further in man than in other animals. Thus the duct of the embryonic kidney (known as the Wolffian body) is of rare occurrence in adult man, although it is retained throughout life in the case of some herbivorous animals, in which it is known as Gaertner’s duct. There are, however, many rudimentary organs in the human reproductive apparatus, organs that are always useless and not infrequently more or less harmful to health and life.

Alongside organs which have been useless from time immemorial, the reproductive system of man possesses structures of recent acquisition. These deserve special attention, as it might have been supposed that in them would have been found special instances of adaptation to the reproductive function.

I have already referred (chap. iii.) to the discussions that have taken place over the simian origin of man. All attempts to demonstrate the presence in the human brain of parts that were absent in the simian brain have failed. It is a curious fact that man displays a more marked difference from monkeys in the structure of the reproductive system than in the structure of the brain. There is no _os penis_ in man. This bone, which facilitates intromission, occurs in many vertebrates, not only among rodents and carnivora, which are widely separated from man, but in many monkeys, and most notably in anthropoid apes.[86] For some reason impossible to establish, man has lost this bone. It may be that certain ossifications of most rare occurrence[87] may represent an atavistic inheritance from our remote ancestors.

In the male sex the difference between man and the anthropoid ape is the loss of an organ; in the female sex it is the acquisition of an organ. The hymen, the physical indication of virginity, is peculiar to the human race. That organ would serve the purpose of those disputants who make every effort to discover the existence of a structure peculiarly human, far better than the posterior lobe of the brain, or the hippocampus minor. Bischoff[88] has determined its absence in the anthropoid apes, and his result has been confirmed by other observers. Deniker[89] failed to find it either in the fœtal gorilla or in the young gorilla. In the case of the fœtus of the gibbon, he found a slight elevation round the entrance to the vagina “which might be homologised with the hymen,”[90] but which, however, was not the membrane in question. Deniker[91] himself decided that the “membrane was absent in anthropoid apes at all ages.” Weidersheim, in his summary of the organisation of the human body,[92] also sets down the fact that “in monkeys a hymen is not present.”

The fact that this structure appears late in the development of the female fœtus bears out the supposition that it has been acquired recently by the race. According to several observers, who agree in this matter, the membrane does not develop until at least the nineteenth week of fœtal life.

Although organs very ancient in origin, and now become degenerate rudiments, may be useless, it is to be expected that an organ of recent appearance and still in a progressive condition, would have an important function. Of what utility is this membrane to a woman? Wiedersheim[93] remarks that its function has not been made out.

The hymen sometimes plays a large part in family and social relations, and, regarded as the evidence for virginity, has had moral significance bestowed on it. A minute examination of this structure is frequently a part of the judicial procedure in cases of supposed rape and so forth. The destruction of the hymen has led to the death of many hundreds of men and women.

From our point of view, however, it is the possible physiological function of this structure that is interesting. It seems impossible to conclude otherwise than that in existing races it has practically no functional value. Its atrophy as the result of sexual congress not only is no bar to sexual relations, but removes an unpleasant impediment. In many races the structure is removed as soon as possible. In some parts of China it is destroyed as part of the toilet of young children, and indeed many Chinese physicians are ignorant of its existence. A similar state of affairs occurs in some parts of India. In Brazil, among the tribe of Machacuras, virgins, in the European sense, do not exist, for the mothers destroy the hymen in female children soon after birth. In Kamchatka the aborigines regard it as disgraceful to be married with the hymen intact, and the mothers operate on their daughters.[94] Among other races, again, the disagreeable duty of defloration is assigned to special persons. Among the natives of the Philippines there formerly existed well-paid public officials the duty of whom was to destroy the virginity of the girls and so to make marriage pleasanter for the husbands. A similar custom occurs among the inhabitants of New Caledonia, and Moncelon states that there virginity is held in little esteem. “I have proof of the curious circumstance,” he wrote, “that when a husband shrinks from destroying the virginity of his wife, he employs some one from a regular profession to take his place.”

Such examples, selected from amongst many, may be taken as proof that even such a peculiar and recently acquired organ has not a physiological use.

On the other hand, especially among Christians and Mahomedans, the existence of the hymen in an intact condition is regarded as very important. The ancient Jews began to set a high value on virginity. According to the old Mosaic law, if, at the time of her marriage, a young girl were found to be no longer a virgin, “Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house” (Deut. xxii. 21). The religions that have sprung from Judaism have retained this old view of virginity, although in an attenuated form. Among some Christian peoples, material proofs of virginity at the time of marriage are demanded, and among some Mahomedans such proofs are exhibited to friends and relations on the day after marriage. However, the actual defloration is not always left to the husband, but among Arabs and Copts and amongst the natives of Egypt, the operation is performed by a specially selected matron.[95]

It is plain, then, that this membrane is of no direct service in the sexual process. It may even give rise to more or less serious misfortune. Thus, when it is unusually rigid, the adjacent peritoneum may be torn and the results may be disastrous. Occasionally the rupture of an abnormally vascular membrane may give rise to bleeding of a prolonged and even fatal character.[96] Moreover the membrane is a frequent seat of ulcers, specific or otherwise.[97]

I have already mentioned that among some races a rigorous toilet involves the destruction of the hymen. It is plain that the existence of the membrane interferes with strict hygiene of the vagina, especially at the periods. Probably some blood is retained by the membrane and furnishes a soil for microbes that may be dangerous to health. It is quite possible that certain forms of anæmia, as for instance the chloranæmia of virgins, may be produced by microbial growth. This would easily explain why marriage is the readiest cure for such anæmia, as marriage involves destruction of the membrane, and so makes possible the complete discharge of fluid from the vagina.[98]

What then can be the meaning of this organ, useless as it is for the sexual functions, sometimes dangerous to health, an organ that is no ancestral heritage and that must be destroyed by the act of sexual union? Formerly, when it was accepted that characters acquired in individual life could be transmitted to offspring, the question was asked as to why this membrane had not disappeared. The instance was one of those which helped to overthrow the dogma of the inheritance of acquired characters.

Although it is useless to existing man, this organ may yet come to be explained by science. As yet we have to fall back on suppositions. The hypothesis which seems most probable is that in the earlier period of the existence of the human race, sexual relations were begun at a very early age, before the male organs were mature. Under such circumstances the hymen would not only not have been a barrier, but would have made congress more satisfactory. Gradually the hymen would have become dilated without being torn, until it was capable of admitting the adult organ. This hypothesis implies that in early times the membrane was not brutally torn, but that it was gradually dilated and that violent rupture is a modern necessity. In support of the hypothesis it may be mentioned that amongst certain living races sexual union begins at a very early age. In Ceylon, marriage takes place when the boys are from seven to ten years old and when the girls are from four to six years, according to Roer, or about eight years according to Beierlein. After the actual wedding ceremony the bride returns to the house of her parents, and it is only a few years later, when she is adult, that she goes to her husband. Roer states that he has seen cases where a father and son were attending school together.

Among the Vedas, a low caste of tropical India, boys marry at the age of from fifteen to sixteen years, certainly before the sexual organs have attained their full dimensions. The missionary Etern was struck with the agitation of the natives of Keradif (in Abyssinia) when they were ordered within fourteen days to marry all their boys more than fourteen years old to girls more than nine.[99] In Madagascar, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, it was the custom for boys to marry at an age of from ten to twelve years. The natives of German New Guinea marry their boys at the age of fourteen to fifteen. Even in England a law still exists permitting marriage to boys fourteen years old. The law is now a dead letter, but is evidence of the ancient practice.

It is known that even at the present time the hymen is not always ruptured in sexual congress. Budin has recorded its existence in seventeen per cent. of primiparous women. Among seventy-five cases of women in their first confinements he found the hymen intact in thirteen cases. Since provision for children has fallen on fathers these have taken to deferring marriage to a later age than when children were left to the mother. That is the probable reason why there are now fewer married boys. Thus, formerly, the proportion of women who at the first childbirth still possessed unruptured hymens, was much greater, and it is not difficult to suppose that in still earlier times such a condition was normal. It is plain that there is here an instance of a very recently acquired disharmony.

The homology between certain portions of the male and female reproductive apparatus is well known. The male homologue of the female hymen is a little fold that hinders the mingling of urine with the seminal fluid during emission, and that is known to anatomists as the _caput gallinaginis_ or _colliculus seminalis_. It is very much smaller than the hymen, so that we cannot regard the latter as a rudimentary homologue of a useful organ. However, the prepuce of the male is a clear instance of the presence in the male organs of useless parts. It is removed by circumcision among very many races, such as the Hebrews and Arabs, and other Mahomedans, and amongst Persians, negroes, Hindus, Tartars, and its absence seems to bring about no inconvenience.

II _Evolution and significance of the menstrual flow in women.—Precocious marriage among primitive and uncivilised races.—Disharmony between age of puberty and age of nubility.—Age of marriage.—Examples of disharmony in the development of the reproductive function._

Notwithstanding their imperfections, the human organs of reproduction are able to fulfil their functions. A close scrutiny, however, shows that there are many sides on which they are disharmonious or badly adapted.

The occurrence of bleeding is usually a sign of disease. Bleeding from the nose or of the lungs or intestines or kidneys is an indication of disease more or less serious. Discharge of blood from the female reproductive organs may also be an indication of disease, as for instance when due to tumours of the uterus. The only exception to the rule is the periodic flow in the case of women, by which they lose hundreds of grammes of blood (100 to 600 gr.). There is something paradoxical in such a physiological occurrence, and it deserves minute consideration.

These periodic losses, unlike the possession of a hymen, are not a peculiarity of the human female. “Heat” in lower animals is analogous, although in that case the chief indications are swellings of the mucous membrane with a slight discharge of fluid, hardly tinged with blood. The state indicates the awakening of the sexual instinct and readiness for coition.[100] Among monkeys there has been observed a flow much more closely resembling that of woman. In the case of macaques and cercopitheci, it has been observed even that the flow is monthly. Heape,[101] while in British India, took advantage of a valuable opportunity for making observations on this subject.

Among two hundred and thirty females of _Macacus rhesus_ of which the greater number were adult or nearly so, seventeen displayed signs of menstruation, consisting of a swelling of the genitalia accompanied by the discharge of a pale and viscid fluid. Usually the flow assumed a pale rose tint, due to the presence in it of blood corpuscles, but cases where it was highly coloured were rare.

Although they are distinctly analogous to the menstrual flows of women, these occurrences in monkeys are distinguished by the predominance of the swelling of the genitalia, the viscid character of the discharge, and the relative absence of blood. They present a condition intermediate between the “heat” of lower animals and the human phenomena.

In anthropoid apes a similar menstruation has been observed. Bolau, Ehlers, and Hermes, record it in the case of the chimpanzee. “At this period,” wrote Hartmann,[102] “swelling and reddening of the genitalia occurred. The labiæ majores, which are usually inconspicuous, enlarged greatly, and a similar increase took place in the labiæ minores and the clitoris.”

In the case of women swelling of the genitalia is very slightly marked, and the chief occurrence is the flow of blood. It is plain, then, that something new has been acquired in the menstruation of women.

The condition of the flow at the present time is probably the result of modifications acquired recently in the history of the race. Among primitive peoples sexual union occurred at a very early age, and pregnancy occurred before menstruation. The latter did not appear during pregnancy nor in the time of suckling, and probably the latter was hardly over before a new pregnancy had occurred. In that way there was no opportunity for the onset of menstruation.

The human capacity for procreation throughout the year made the race extremely prolific. Probably this prolificness is the reason why man has spread over the surface of the earth, and has multiplied so enormously, in spite of the barriers to his progress and the high rate of mortality to which he is subjected.

Instances are known from recent observation of pregnancies occurring before the onset of menstruation. According to Rhode, among the Guatos, Indians inhabiting the mouth of the Rio Sâo Lourenzo in Paraguay, married women not more than five to eight years of age are to be met with, and these must have married before menstruation. Among the Vedas of tropical India, girls marry before they are nine years of age, and have relations with their husbands before sexual maturity. In Chiras in Persia, girls marry before puberty, and while their chests are still flat. In Syria, according to Robson, girls marry at the age of ten, and so before puberty. Du Chaillu related that the Achira of West Africa did not defer marriage until after the appearance of puberty. Abbadie, while on his voyage in Nubia, found that men bought young girls and had sexual relations with them before the time of menstruation. Among the Atjeh of Sumatra, girls marry at an age certainly before that of puberty, as they have hardly lost their first set of teeth. Although the husbands are a few years older, they are still unfitted for sexual union. The couples sleep together, and attempt sexual union before they are fitted for it. Among the islanders of Viti, again, marriage takes place before puberty.

The ancient Hindoos married at a very early age. Bötlingk quotes from the Sanscrit poems in which hell was awarded to the fathers of girls who had not been married when puberty came on. In other verses it was written that not only the father but also the mother and the elder brother were to be carried down into hell if the daughter began to menstruate before she had been married; the girl herself was to descend to the lowest degree of Çûdrâ, and was never to be taken as a wife.

There is no doubt as to the possible fertility of marriages contracted at these early ages. Polak[103] gives examples taken from Persia. It is not necessary for impregnation that it should have been preceded by a menstrual flow. Facts making this clear have occurred not only in warm climates but in our own latitude. Rakhmanoff,[104] in Russia, attended in childbirth a woman not more than fourteen years of age, of poor constitution, and badly nourished, and with features still infantine. Menstruation had not yet taken place; the confinement was normal.

It is reasonable to suppose that in former times these early marriages of girls under the age of puberty were more common, if indeed they were not customary. In such circumstances menstruation would have been a rare phenomenon.

It must be remembered that the examples of menstruation observed in the case of monkeys were taken from creatures living in abnormal conditions, isolated in zoological gardens and passing their lives in captivity. It is highly probable that the periods as they exist to-day, with copious sanguineous discharge, are a recent acquisition of the human race.

As he emerged from the primitive condition man had to restrain his prolificness. The history of savages and of civilisations shows that progress and culture have been accompanied by a rise in the age for marriage. In this way the menstrual periods could develop without check, and attain the present condition. In these circumstances it is not wonderful that menstruation should appear so abnormal and even pathological. A copious discharge of blood, preceded and accompanied by pain and by nervous and mental distress as so frequently happens, has no apparent kinship with the processes of normal life.

It is now easy to see why among so many races there are special rules made for women during this period. Most of the races of the earth, says Ploss, regard menstruating women as impure. The occurrence is so widespread that it is unnecessary to adduce particular cases, but a few with some point of special interest may be noticed. Thus, among the Hindoos a high-caste woman is regarded as a pariah in the first day of the period, and as one of the murderers of Buddha on the second day. Among many races a woman in this condition is forbidden to come near men, or to touch a number of objects, as she is regarded as capable of setting up many diseases and of doing serious damage. The Germans of the eighteenth century believed that the hair of a menstruating woman buried in manure would engender snakes.

It is not surprising that the origin of menstruation has been attributed frequently to evil spirits. The Iranians held that it appeared first in Dchahi, the goddess of immorality.[105] Such opinions implied vaguely that there was something abnormal in the process. The history of the evolution of menstruation explains well the origin of such a notion.

Another bizarre and apparently abnormal feature of the reproductive processes receives explanation in the history of its evolution. The feature in question is the painfulness of childbirth. It is truly astonishing and singular to find a phenomenon essentially normal from the point of view of physiology accompanied by pain of so marked a character. No doubt other animals suffer during labour, but among the mammalia woman undergoes the severest pain.

Observations made on several Europeans who have been brought to bed at an abnormally early age have shown that, contrary to all expectation, parturition was easy and the sequelæ normal.[106] Moreover, Dr. Dionij has stated his opinion that of two cases of a first childbirth at the ages respectively of fifteen and of forty years, he would prefer the earlier age. The daughters of the colonists in the Antilles were accustomed to marry at very early ages. In 1667 Du Tertre related that a young woman of that region had informed him that the birth of her first child took place when she was twelve years and a half of age, and that the process lasted no more than a quarter of an hour and had been painless. The missionary Beierlein practised for long in Madras, where marriages were very early, and found that parturition was much more easy than in Europe.[107]

On the other hand, certain facts show that too young mothers are subject to a very heavy rate of mortality during childbirth, and soon after it. The most salient fact in this connection is furnished by Hassenstein, who has stated that the mortality of labour cases in Abyssinia is 30 per cent., and who has attributed this death-rate to the circumstance that marriage takes place before the body of the woman is sufficiently developed.[108] In British India the disadvantages of precocious marriage have been repeatedly urged; and in a petition relating to this subject, Dr. Mansell referred to the case of a woman of twelve years of age in whom parturition was interfered with by the undeveloped condition of the pelvis, so that the head of the child had to be destroyed.

Matthews Duncan, the well-known English obstetrician, paid much attention to the mortality of labour cases, with the object of deciding the best age for marriage. He came to the conclusion that women from twenty to twenty-four years of age were best fitted for labour, that is to say, showed the lowest rate of mortality during labour or as a result of labour. He also showed that such women were most fertile, and that the development of the pelvic bones was completed at that period of life. Women who were of a lower or higher age showed a greater mortality rate in connection with childbirth.

The facts of which I have just given a summary lead directly to a most striking instance of disharmony exhibited in the order of the development of the human reproductive apparatus. Puberty declares itself in a woman by the beginning of menstruation at a time when girls still possess infantile characters and when the bones of the pelvic basin are not yet fully developed. Obviously there is a disharmony between puberty and the general maturity of the body, that is to say, the nubile condition.

This disharmony becomes still more evident upon a closer examination of the phases of development of the different reproductive functions. In the human race, reproduction is brought about by the union of the sexes suggested by sympathy or mutual love. The sexual union makes it possible for the male elements or spermatozoa to reach the eggs and fertilise them by passing into them. It might have been expected that the different steps in the process would have been attuned so as to act in harmony. As a matter of fact there is no such relation. The different factors of the sexual function develop independently and unharmoniously.

Love and the sexual sense in the human race appear before the other factors in the process. Ramdohr,[109] in the eighteenth century, stated that little boys frequently exhibit amorousness towards women. They are capable of being strongly affected by jealousy and by desire of exclusive possession of the coveted woman. This fact is well known, and has been related of famous personages. Thus Dante, at the age of nine, fell in love with Beatrice; Canova was in love when he was little more than six years of age, and Lord Byron was in love with Mary Duff at the age of seven.[110]

Sexual excitability appears at an age when there is no question but that the sexual elements are undeveloped. In infants still in the cradle, observers have noticed movements and attitudes showing the presence of sexual excitability. Curschmann and Fürbringer,[111] both competent clinicians, have noticed these feelings in children under the age of five. Later on in life, the development of the sensibility is more common, and is practically universal among boys before the time at which the spermatozoa are ripe.

This disharmony is the cause of onanism, which is common everywhere among boys. Before ordinary sexual congress is possible for them, boys experience the characteristic pleasure of the sexual sensations, and by a kind of natural instinct learn self-gratification. Onanism is sometimes defined as a “gratification of the sexual desire by unnatural means.”[112] But it is man’s constitution itself that permits the development of the sensation precociously, before the development of sexual maturity. Letourneau is right when he says that such sexual aberrations are abnormal, but not unnatural, as they occur among animals.

In the case of young boys the habit is so common that, according to Christian,[113] “very few are able to say that they have avoided it completely.” The same writer asks the question: “If it be remembered that onanism among certain peoples, at certain times, has been recognised as an ordinary event, it is difficult to avoid asking if there be not a latent vice, hidden in the depths of human nature, and ready to be provoked into activity by very small causes?” The answer is sufficiently plain. The cause of onanism, this “vice” or “crime,” as Tissot and other authors have called it, undoubtedly is the result of a natural disharmony in the human constitution, of a premature development of sexual sensation. Among the most civilised races and the lowest savages the mode of satisfying the premature demand is equally common.

It is to be noticed that onanism is more common and earlier developed in the male sex. The development of sexual irritability in the female occurs very irregularly. In some races onanism is so much a custom among little girls that no attempt is made to conceal the practice. This occurs, for instance, among certain Hottentot tribes, and is referred to openly in talk and legends.[114] Similar instances occur elsewhere, but in most races the practice is thought wrong, and is concealed as much as possible.

Among girls,[115] onanism is less frequent than in the case of boys, a circumstance in relation with the fact that sexual sensation usually appears much later in the female sex. It is almost a general rule that girls who have arrived at sexual maturity have not acquired sexual irritability, while to many it comes only gradually after marriage. Sometimes it does not occur until after the first child has been born. On the other hand, love begins very early in young girls, although it long retains a platonic character and is not associated with sexual sensation until much later.

The maturity of the spermatozoa in the male comes long after the development of sexual irritability and of love. None the less, it comes before the organism of the male is actually ready. It happens, in consequence, especially among the highly civilised peoples, that marriage and regular unions are impossible at the right time. The youth has his education to finish, his profession to choose, and he must be ready to support children before he is able to marry. As civilisation advances, the age of marriage becomes later and later. In the case of Europeans, sexual maturity occurs in the male at the age of twelve to fourteen years, while the average age at the first marriage is shown in the following table:—

_Table of Age at First Marriage._[116]

Nationality. Age in years of males. Age in years of females. English 25.94 24.69 French 28.41 25.32 Norwegians 28.51 26.98 Dutch 29.15 27.78 Belgians 29.94 28.19

These figures show clearly what a gap there is between the coming of sexual maturity and the age at which marriage can be undertaken.

The decay of the reproductive functions shows a series of disharmonies similar to those that occur during development. Spermatozoa continue to be formed throughout the greater part of the life of a man, and may still be found even in very old men. Pawloff, for instance, discovered that they were present in abundance in the case of a man at the age of ninety-four, and this observation is not unique.[117] But the presence of ripe spermatozoa is not the only condition necessary for functional virility. In the case of old men it happens frequently that there is incapacity to make normal use of the spermatozoa that are produced. This brings about a series of discomforts in the sexual functions of advanced life which, however, do not prevent the retention of the specific sensation and desire until a very extreme old age. Doctors, in hospitals devoted to old men, have noticed to what an extent their patients are engrossed by sexuality. Even some of the ancient authors have noticed how the amorous sentiments of old men turn into a perverted attraction to youths.

Sexual irritability and amorousness not only appear before sexual maturity and general fitness of the organism for marriage, but they remain after the disappearance of these. It is remarkable to notice how profound is the difference between the disharmonies of the reproductive functions in man and the perfect condition of adaptation of the same functions in the higher plants. In the case of the higher plants, as I described in my second chapter, the arrangements are complicated on account of the necessary mediation of insect life. Notwithstanding this, the perfection of the adaptation is remarkable. At the exact time when the reproductive products are ripe, the petals open and the nectar is secreted, while, in addition, at this time many flowers discharge odours agreeable to insects. Attracted by the scents and colours, the insects visit the flowers in quest of pollen or nectar, and, becoming dusted with pollen, carry it to the stigmas of the next flowers they visit. As soon as fertilisation has taken place the petals fade, the scents are no longer produced, and the insects cease to visit the flowers to which they are no longer necessary.

It is not surprising that the disharmonies in the human reproductive apparatus are a frequent source of trouble. Little children, in whom sexual irritability has awakened prematurely, learn to satisfy it by means called “unnatural.” In many cases damage rapidly follows. “In the child,” wrote Dr. Christian, “there is no secretion of spermatozoa, and it is in the child that the results of onanism are most disastrous to the organism, and disastrous almost in inverse proportion to the age.[118] It is in early infancy that this aberration merits the evil reputation that it has acquired; it compromises health, intelligence, and even life. Quite young children wither, becoming pale, stupid, and fragile, when they have acquired this disastrous habit. The evil is almost entirely a consequence of the unripeness of the organism for sexuality.” Happily these evil occurrences are rare.

A publication by Tissot, a Swiss doctor, on the subject of onanism, made a sensation in the eighteenth century. The book was full of exaggeration, and it was very inexact, but it contained interesting confessions from persons who had contracted the habit. A woman wrote to Tissot in the following terms: “But for the restraint of religion, I should have put an end to my life, which is ruined by my own fault.” Not infrequently the vice leads to melancholia.

Other unfortunate results come from the ripening of the sexual products before the organism is ready for marriage, and before the character has been formed. As men cannot contract marriage before they are ready for it, irregular and frequently harmful sexual aberration may occur.

The survival of this specific irritability until too late a period of life is another source of disaster. Old men who can neither excite passion nor satisfy it, often become victims of their own amorousness and unassuaged passions. It has been shown that passion may survive after the complete atrophy of the functions of the organs. Similarly it is the case that women from whom the ovaries have been removed, may continue to retain sexual irritability completely.

Disharmony of sexuality may also occur between persons of different sexes. The fact that sexuality is usually more precocious in the male sex often produces a disharmony in the case of married persons. At the time when a woman is still in full possession of this specific irritability, the appetite in the man may be on the wane. From this disharmony there often follows conjugal infidelity or passion between persons of the same sex.

Schopenhauer devoted attention to this subject and wrote as follows: “That nature herself may produce a condition totally opposed to the natural function offers a paradoxical problem of very deep interest.”[119] It is clear, however, when we consider the disharmonies in the development and activities of the functions in question, that the apparently paradoxical and strange aberrations of sexuality are natural enough.

The existing disharmony gives rise to many evils from earliest youth to advanced age, and, consequently, it is not surprising to find that religions have denounced sexuality more or less severely. Dr. Christian expresses his astonishment “that in nearly all religions it has been considered a homage to the Deity to abstain from sexual intercourse.”[120] It is simply because the disharmonies of sexuality lead to sexual aberrations that religions have found cause for denouncing human nature as vile.[121]

III _Disharmonies in the family instincts.—Artificial abortion.—Desertion and infanticide.—Disharmonies in the social instincts._

As the functions of reproduction are seated deep in the organic world and none the less present cases of striking disharmony in mankind, it is not surprising to find similar want of adaptation in the family instincts of man, as these instincts have been acquired more recently and are less widespread in the living world.

It has been shown that the animal world provides many examples of onanism and of aberrations of sexual congress. On the other hand, there are no cases in the animal world in which pregnancy is destroyed by aberrant instincts.

To the human race belongs the distinction of having invented modes of sexual congress which are necessarily barren. No doubt the loss of the _os penis_ has made such occurrences more easy, as the presence of that bone would render interruption of coition more difficult. But there are many ways in which the spermatozoa may be prevented from accomplishing their function, and these are so common and so familiar that it is unnecessary to enumerate them. In civilised countries procreation is limited chiefly by such means. In its early days, the human race must have been distinguished by its unusual procreative capacity, but with the growth of civilisation many devices have been employed to limit that.

Savages and races of low civilisation have recourse to artificial abortion rather than to means for preventing fertilisation, and abortion is almost universal among them.

The great treatise of Ploss, “Das Weib,” to which I have made repeated reference, contains a whole chapter[122] on this subject. Deliberate abortion with the object of limiting the number of children is customary all over the globe. In most primitive races and among peoples of low civilisation it is practised openly without the smallest restraint. Many of these peoples have adopted the custom of limiting the family to two children by procuring abortion in subsequent pregnancies. The aborigines of Kaisar and of the islands of Watubela observe the rule strictly. Among the natives of the islands of Aaru it is rare to find more than three children in a family, because any others are destroyed by artificial abortion.

A similar custom is widespread in India, being quite as common among the Hindoos who are ruled by England as among independent races. In the peninsula of Kutch, women frequently procure abortion, and one woman boasted to Macmurdo that she had made use of the practice five times. Abortion is equally common in Africa and America.

Even in Europe there are nations amongst which abortion is permitted within certain limits. The Turks do not regard a fœtus as being really alive until after the fifth month, and have no scruple in causing its abortion. Even at later stages, when the operation becomes criminal, it is frequently practised. In 1872, at Constantinople, more than three thousand cases of abortion were brought before the Courts in a period of ten months. Under such circumstances it is not surprising that illegitimate children are rare in the East.

Artificial abortion is not a modern invention, but was common in ancient times. The old Greeks practised it openly, without any legal restraint. Plato regarded it as within the province of the midwife, and Aristotle permitted it to married people when a pregnancy that was not desired took place.

Steller, writing of the natives of Kamchatka of the eighteenth century, stated that among them marriage was contracted rather for sensual gratification than for the procreation of children, because they interfered with pregnancies by various kinds of medicaments and by violent operative interferences.

The arts by which abortion has been produced are numerous and varied. In addition to the administration of drugs, chiefly of vegetable origin, implements have been employed. The natives of Greenland use the ribs of seals or of the walrus, and the Hawaians of the Sandwich Islands employ for the purpose a wooden implement fashioned as a deity.

On the other hand, certain races have strongly opposed the practice of abortion. In the ancient world such races were the Medes, the Bactrians, the Persians, and Jews. Among the ancient Incas, abortion was a crime punished with death. Later on, the Christian nations followed this view. However, the reprobation of abortion occurs only in a comparatively small number of the nations of the earth, and even amongst these the practice is common in secret.

Animals which are unable to procure abortion very often destroy their young, as I described in the second chapter of this volume. In the human race, infanticide is too common. The Greeks and Romans did not regard the newly born infants as possessing any right to live. The old Germans held themselves free to expose their infants. The Arabs, before the faith of Islam had spread to them, were in the habit of burying many female children alive. In India a similar custom is common, and in China it is notorious. According to figures collected by Eitel,[123] the Chinese of the province of Canton very often kill female children immediately after birth. “It may be said,” he wrote, “that the murder of female infants is the general rule among the Hak-lo, and especially among the Hak-ka of the agricultural classes. The Hak-ka themselves estimate the number of female children exposed as about two-thirds of those born.” In a little village in which the author lived for several years, an investigation, made with the help of some Christians, showed that without exception women who had given birth to two children had killed at least one of them.

In Tahiti two-thirds of new-born children are killed, those of the female sex making up the greater part of the numbers. The first three infants and all twins are killed, and as a rule not more than two or at most three are actually reared.[124] Among the Melanesians the custom of infanticide is very common. “It must also be assumed,” said Ratzel,[125] “that in Ugi (Solomon Islands) all the infants are killed, to be replaced by the Bauros.”

It is not surprising that such a widespread occurrence of artificial abortion and of infanticide among primitive races is bringing about a rapid diminution in the numbers of these, and may lead even to their extinction. This is taking place in the case of the natives of New South Wales, of New Guinea, and of the islands of Aaru. Nothing could show more plainly the feebleness of the human family instinct. In more highly civilised nations, the rude proceedings of savages have been replaced by clever devices to prevent conception, and infanticide has become rare. Artificial abortion is excited by modern methods suggested by the progress of science. The embryonic membranes are pierced not by the ribs of seals or hair-pins, but by sterilised sounds, and the operation is performed with strict asepsis. In averting the natural results of passion the woman is subjected to the smallest possible risk.

It is indubitable that more than one race has perished because of its lack of the instinct of family. However, it need not be feared that the human race itself will disappear because of the failure of procreation. But it is plain that the readiness with which devices to prevent the production of children have been adopted shows the weakness of the family instinct in man, and opens up a problem to which the attention of moralists and legislators may well be directed.

The family instinct is deeply seated, as it arose among animals more ancient than man; none the less it exhibits disturbances and aberrations in the human race capable of bringing about the extinction of peoples or nations. It is, however, strong enough to secure that man will persist in the future.

Man certainly is a social animal, but the instinct impelling him towards union with his fellows is of recent origin. Such animal societies as are to be found among insects are not comparable with human associations. Among mammals, the nearest allies of man, the social instincts are developed only to a slight extent, and even the anthropoid apes show very little progress in this direction. Many of these creatures have shown in captivity the aptitude to become friendly with man or with other animals, and thus have displayed the beginnings of the capacity to form societies. But, in the wild condition, anthropoids live only in families, and these contain few individuals. As regards the social capacities of the chimpanzee Dr. Savage wrote:[126] “They cannot be called gregarious, seldom more than five, or ten at most, being found together. It has been said on good authority that they occasionally assemble in large numbers in gambols. My informant asserts that he saw once not less than fifty so engaged; hooting, screaming, and drumming with sticks on old logs, which is done in the latter case with equal facility by the four extremities.”

We have little acquaintance with the social life of the anthropoids, but, so far as we know, these creatures present only the merest beginnings of the social instinct. Man has moved much beyond them in that direction. Even the lowest races and the most primitive of living peoples such as, for instance, the Bushmen or the aborigines of Australia, display a well-developed social instinct.[127]

The universal presence of the social instinct among human beings would seem to afford the basis of a happy life. In the numerous attempts made to find a purely rational principle that may serve as the basis for morality without the intervention of supernatural sanction, abundant use has been made of man’s craving to live in association with his fellows. Those who have tried to deduce moral law from the essential constitution of man have relied largely upon the innate sympathy between man and his fellows. Such a line of argument is so common and has been employed so frequently that I need not spend much space in developing it. I shall limit myself to a few examples.

Towards the end of last century Büchner,[128] a German physician, published a materialistic code of morality that made a considerable sensation. He wrote as follows on the question now before us: “What we term the moral sense arose from the social instincts and habits which, under pain of extinction, are developed in every society of men and animals. Morality depends on sociability, and varies with the peculiar conditions of each particular association. As man is essentially a social animal, and to be regarded, apart from society, merely as a wild beast, it is plain that the needs of the community must impose on him certain restrictions and directions that in time will pass into a settled code of morals.”

Half a century later practically the same idea was repeated. Haeckel,[129] the well-known German naturalist, expressed it as follows in a volume that appeared a few years ago:—

“Modern science shows that the feeling of duty does not rest on an illusory ‘categorical imperative,’ but on the solid ground of social instinct, as we find it in the case of all the social animals. It regards as the highest aim of all morality the re-establishment of a sound harmony between egoism and altruism, between self-love and the love of one’s neighbour.... If a man desire to have the advantage of living in an organised community he has to consult not only his own fortune but also that of the society and of the ‘neighbours’ who form the society. He must realise that its prosperity is his own prosperity, and that it cannot suffer without his own injury. This fundamental law of society is so simple and so inevitable that one cannot understand how it can be contradicted in theory or in practice; and yet that is done to-day and has been done for thousands of years.”

The sexual and family instincts may be satisfied in many different ways, and this is also the case with the social instincts. Onanism and perverted passion may satisfy the sexual instinct; celibacy, artificial abortion and infanticide exist alongside the love of the wife and the parental cares. So also the social instinct of a criminal may be satisfied by his association with other criminals. It is well known that the most hardened criminals have their own codes, and they join faithfulness to their own companions to an atrocious attitude towards the rest of the world.

It is not enough then merely to give scope to the social instincts that we all possess. We have to determine how far, and towards which of our fellow creatures, we are to exercise such instincts, and it is here that the difficulty arises which as yet has not been resolved by religion or rationalism. Must our social instincts reach to our relatives near or distant, or to our fellow townsmen, or compatriots, or to all white men, or to all men, white and black, or to the good only, or to the good and bad alike? Perhaps we should limit the operation of the instinct to those of our own religion, or who share our views of life? The instinctive feeling is quite silent on these points, and it is precisely on them that the difficulties arise. It is well known that at different epochs and in different circumstances very different answers have been given to such questions. When religion was predominant, a common faith was a bond transcending patriotism. Later on, patriotism itself became the dominant bond. In recent days, a conception of international solidarity began to appear. Thus, for instance, there was recently a combination of different nations against China, and nationality was forgotten. Some of the European nations banded themselves together and even assumed an Asiatic race in the union, with the object of punishing a common enemy. What was the bond that united nations so different? It was not religion, for the bond included Catholics and Protestants, orthodox Christians and Buddhists. Most probably the bond of union was a community of interest, the result of similar civilisation and military and political organisation.

It has been suggested occasionally that the social instinct, or human sympathy, for the terms are practically identical, may stretch further and further and become so widespread that all the members of the human stock will unite and act only for the common good. But the problem is complex. Sympathy, when pushed too far, may become harmful. Nations have taken part in a campaign, impelled by some feeling of sympathy, and have brought harm on themselves. Sympathy extended to criminals and wicked persons is equally harmful. The social instinct itself must be regulated for the good of the community which it holds together.

Ought we to extend our sympathy to all humanity, or to limit it to some particular section? Theorists have spoken of the solidarity of all humanity, believing it possible to extend our sympathy to the races furthest removed from us. In countries in which different races are brought in contact, very practical difficulties are encountered by the theorists. In America and in some other countries, for instance, laws have been passed against the Chinese, excluding the latter from the consideration granted to other races. The negro question also is very difficult in those countries in which the black race dwells amongst whites. In Europe it has been the custom to condemn the action of civilised races in taking their land from natives of primitive type. Sutherland, the author of a striking work on the origin and development of morality, justifies such arbitrary conduct. To the question, “Was it right for the whites to take possession of the Australian forests of the blacks?” he replied in the affirmative. “No doubt,” he said, “there is a moral instinct against it, but the action undoubtedly was right.”[130] In a summary of his conclusions he lays down that moral conduct is a compromise between the individual and social instincts that so often are opposed. But he has no more to say than his predecessors as to the rational basis of the compromise.

The social instinct has been acquired by mankind too recently, and it is still too feeble, to be a trustworthy guide in all conduct. To obviate this difficulty, at many different times, divine sanction has been evoked to control the relations among men. The categorical law has been formulated with the same object. Thus by one means or another, some kind of social order has been kept up. The efficacy of these additional guides is seen clearly on those rare occasions when some special combination of circumstances has set people free from them. Thus at Moscow, in 1812, before the arrival of the French army restored authority, and lately, after the eruption in Martinique, the ordinary authority lapsed, the anti-social instincts of the people were loose, and a clear idea was given of the inherent weakness of the human social instinct.

I have shown that in man the instinct for choosing food and the sexual and social instincts are still so weak that it is impossible to trust to them in the absence of other guidance. It is as equally necessary to determine what kind of food is most suitable for men in different conditions of life, and what means are best fitted to satisfy rationally his sexual and family instincts. So also it is urgent to determine exactly the direction and object of the social instinct. For the love of our fellow creatures we should seek the best ways of making them happy.

But what is happiness? Is it the feeling of well-being experienced by the individual himself, or is it the judgment of others on his sensations? It is notoriously difficult to pronounce on the happiness of another. From the outside, when a man seems to enjoy health, to have a family and comfortable means of subsistence, we are inclined to call him happy; but the individual himself may have a very different opinion about himself. It is often impossible to rely on the judgment of others. On the other hand, the opinion of an individual himself on his own condition may be equally fallacious. Very often the feeling of well-being is a symptom of general paralysis, as may be inferred from the following quotation: “The patient is well pleased with himself, and delighted with his constitution and circumstances. He boasts without ceasing of his robust health, his muscular strength, the clearness of his complexion and of his general ‘fitness.’ His clothing is magnificent and his residence palatial. In a more advanced stage of the disease, the exaggeration becomes extreme. He believes that he is able to blow down the walls with his breath, or that he could carry a ton, or drink a hogshead of wine, or that nothing could tire him out. Then megalomania begins, and the patients believe themselves in possession of titles, of power, and wealth. They are members of parliament, noblemen, princes, generals, kings, emperors, and popes, or God Himself.”[131]

As general paralysis is a result of syphilis, in order to make a large number of persons believe themselves thoroughly happy, it would be necessary only to spread this disease. Without lingering on this paradox, I may at least point out that the problem of happiness, which is associated intimately with social life, is extremely difficult.

The social instinct is equally powerless to solve the problem of justice in its relation to the general interest of humanity. It is plain enough that, in the existing condition of human knowledge, we all inflict and undergo injustices of different degrees. This misfortune is a consequence of the disharmony of human nature.

From what I have already said, it must be clear that before we can find a rational guide to direct us in the operation of our social instinct, we should have to determine exactly the nature of true happiness for the individual and of true justice. Then only should we be in a position to set about making human life as happy as is possible.