We must go back to the position we left, some time back, of the differences between the secondary s.e.xual characters of the male and the female. We have followed the development of the male, under the action of love"s selection, from his first insignificant position in the reproductive process; we have seen him becoming larger than the female, strong, jealous and masterful--in fact, a kind of fighting specialisation, with special weapons of defence for s.e.x-battles. This is the general condition among mammals. Among birds another set of secondary character, that may be cla.s.sed as beauty-tests, are more frequent. Now two questions must be answered. Can it be proved that all these acquired developments of strength and of beauty belong exclusively to the males--that they must be regarded as proof of the greater tendency to diversity in the male, which has carried him further in the evolution process than the female? Can it also be proved that such highly-marked differentiation between the s.e.xes is in all cases necessary to reproduction--that this heightened male attractiveness is a progressive force in the service of the race? If so, examples will surely point in the direction of finding that among those species where the s.e.xual characters of the male, whether of strength or of beauty, are most different from the female, s.e.xual love will find its most perfect expression; and further, that the males in such case will be the most highly developed--the best parents and the most social in their habits. The whole question, I think it must be evident, turns upon this being proved.
But in the face of the facts before us this is just what we do not find. Among birds (who in erotic development far excel all other animals, not, indeed, excepting the human species, and thus must be accepted as affording the most perfect examples of s.e.xual development) we have seen that the cases are not few in which the female equals, or even exceeds the male in size and in strength. This is so with the curlew, the merlin, the dunlin, the black-tailed goodwit, which is considerably larger than the male, and the osprey, where the female is also more spotted on the breast: these examples must be added to those I have already given (page 58).
If we turn now to the beauty-test of brilliancy of plumage, we may observe an even larger number of examples of almost identical likeness between the s.e.xes. Among British birds alone there are no fewer than 382 species, or sub-species,[83] in which the female closely resembles the male. In some few of these examples, it is true, the colours of the female are slightly duller, and in others the female is rather smaller than the male, but the difference in each case is very slight.
It is specially significant to note that this similarity of plumage occurs in some of the most beautiful of our birds, as, for instance, the kingfisher and the jay, where the brilliant dresses of the s.e.xes are practically alike; the female robin shares the beauty of the male; in all the families of the charming t.i.ts the s.e.xes are alike; this is also the case with the roller-bird with its gaily-coloured plumage; and there is no difference between the white elegance of the female and the male swan.
In the presence of such examples it seems to me impossible to refrain from thinking that there is a mistake somewhere, and that less importance is to be attached to the secondary s.e.xual characters of the male than is generally imagined. Grant that these cases are exceptional; but if we once admit that among many species--and these highly developed in s.e.x--the female shows no evidence of r.e.t.a.r.ded development, we shall be forced also to break once for all with many beliefs and trite theories which have inspired on this subject of the s.e.xual differences between the female and the male so much dogmatic statement and so many unproved a.s.sumptions.
I am not forgetting the gorgeous plumage of some male birds, and the contrast they afford with the plain females. What I wish to show is that such adornments cannot be regarded as a necessary adjunct to the male--an expression, in fact, of the male const.i.tution. Nor are they, as we shall find later, necessary, or even beneficial in the highest degree, to the reproductive process.[84] I have an even more interesting case to bring forward, which to me seems to point very conclusively to what I am trying to prove. The phalaropes, both the grey and red-necked species, have a peculiarity unique among British birds, although shared by several other groups in different parts of the world.[85] Among these birds the role of the s.e.xes is reversed.
The duties of incubation and rearing the young are conducted entirely by the male bird, and in correlation with this habit the female does all the courting, is stronger and more pugnacious than the male, and is also brighter in plumage. In colour they are a pale olive very thickly spotted and streaked with black. The male is the psychical mother, the female taking no notice of the nest after laying the eggs.
Frequently at the beginning of the breeding season she is accompanied by more than one male, so that it is evident that polyandry is practised.[86]
Now, if such an example of the reversal of the s.e.xes has any meaning at all, it seems to me that we find the conclusion forced upon us that the secondary s.e.xual characters are not necessarily different in the male and the female, but depend on the form of the union or marriage and the conditions of the family. Professor Lester Ward, in connection with his Gynaeocratic theory, fully discusses this question. His conclusion is that this superiority of the males in strength and size among mammals and in beauty of plumage (which is also a symbol of force) among birds, instead of indicating an arrested development in the females indicates an over-development in the males. "Male efflorescence" is the apt term by which Professor Ward designates it.
He says--
"The whole phenomena of so-called male superiority bears a certain stamp of spuriousness and sham. It is to natural history what chivalry was to human history; ... a sort of make-believe, play, or sport of nature of an airy unsubstantial character. The male side of nature shot up and blossomed out in an unnatural, fantastic way, cutting loose from the real business of life, and attracting a share of attention wholly disproportionate to its real importance."[87]
This may, I think, be regarded as a picturesque over-statement of what is in the main true. Male efflorescence has drawn upon itself an excessive importance, through what we may call its dramatic insistence upon our notice. It is plain, too, that the more we examine the question the more we are forced to the one conclusion. It is certainly very suggestive, as Professor Ward points out, that those mammals and birds in which the process of male differentiation has gone farthest, such as lions, buffaloes, stags and sheep among mammals, and peac.o.c.ks, pheasants, turkey-c.o.c.ks and barn-door-c.o.c.ks among birds, do practically nothing for their families. Among the gallinaceae it is the female who undertakes the whole burden of incubation, and feeding and caring for the young; during this time the male is running after adventures, in some cases he returns when his offspring are old enough to follow him and form a docile band under his government.[88]
The conduct of the male turkey is much worse, and he often devours the eggs, which have to be hidden by the mother, while later the offspring are only saved from his attacks by large numbers of females and the young uniting in troops led by the mothers.[89] The polygamous families of monkeys are always subject to patriarchal rule. The father is the tyrant of the band--an egoist. Any protection he affords to the family is in his own interest, frequently he expels the young males as soon as they are old enough to give him trouble, the daughters, in some cases, he adds to his harem; only when old age has rendered him powerless are the tables turned, and the young, for so long oppressed, rebel and sometimes a.s.sa.s.sinate their tyrannous father. There is very little evidence of paternal affection among mammals. Even among monogamous species, where the male keeps with the female, he does so more as chief than as father. At times he is much inclined to commit infanticides and to destroy the offspring, which, by absorbing the attention of his partner, thwart his amours. Thus among the large felines the mother is obliged to hide her young ones from the male during the first few days after birth to prevent his devouring them.[90]
It is important to note that among birds the fathers devoid of affection generally belong to the less intelligent species. We may, therefore, see that these violent polygamous amours of the male, which result in the development of the more extravagant of the second s.e.xual characters, are not really favourable to the development of the species. They belong to a lower grade of s.e.xual evolution. And a further proof, it seems to me, is furnished as we note that, in spite of this tyranny, the females show considerable affection for these tyrant males--the chimpanzee, for example, proving this by zealously plucking the lice from her master"s coat, which with monkeys is a mark of very special attention.[91] The most oppressed females are, as a rule, the most faithful wives. Thus the females of the guanaco lamas, if their master chances to be wounded or killed, do not run away; they hasten to his side, bleating and offering themselves to the shots of the hunter in order to shield him, while, in sharp contrast, if a female is killed, the male makes off with all his troop--he thinks only of himself.[92] Must we say, then, that the female animal likes servitude? It is, of course, because the aggressive male, being the one to arouse her s.e.xual pa.s.sions, enables her to fulfil her work of procreation. This may be. But, granting this explanation, it must be allowed that love under such conditions evidences a deterioration, not alone in the size and strength of the female, but in mental capacity--love at a much lower level than those beautiful cases in which the s.e.xes are more alike, equal in capacity, and co-operate together in the race work.
Yet in justice it must be added that even the most polygamous males are not always devoid of affection. I once saw on a Derbyshire high-road a c.o.c.k show evident signs of sorrow over the death of one of his wives, who had been killed by a pa.s.sing motor. He refused to leave the spot where her body lay, and walked round and round it, uttering sharp cries of grief. Nor are s.e.xual lapses confined to the males; a female will take advantage of a moment when the attention of the old c.o.c.ks is entirely absorbed by the anxiety of a fight, to run off with a young male.[93] Even among species noted for their conjugal fidelity this sometimes happens. Female pigeons, for example, have been known to fall violently in love with strange males, and this is especially common if the legitimate spouse is wounded or becomes weak.[94] Darwin records a very curious case of a sudden pa.s.sion appearing in a female wild-duck, who, after breeding with her own mallard for a couple of seasons, deserted him for a stranger--a male pintail.
"It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for she swam about the newcomer caressingly, though he appeared evidently alarmed and averse to her overtures of affection. From that hour she forgot her old partner. Winter pa.s.sed by, and the next spring the pintail seemed to have become a convert to her blandishments, for they nested and produced seven or eight young ones."[95]
I am tempted to wait to consider the immense significance of such cases as these in the a.n.a.logy they bear to our own sudden preferences in love. The question as to the moral conduct of this duck opens up suggestions of those cases of exceptional love-pa.s.sions, which all our existing inst.i.tutions, laws and penalties have never been able to crush. The desire for s.e.xual variety is the ultimate cause of all s.e.xual lapses and irrationalities. It is a mistake to think that this is a condition peculiar to mankind and the result of civilisation. If this were so it would be easier to deal with; but before these deeply-rooted instincts of s.e.xual hunger we are often powerless. I know of no question that needs to be faced by women more than this one. I would like to say more about it. But already this first section of my book has exceeded its limits. I must, therefore, pa.s.s on, to draw attention to the fact, clearly proved by the case of this wild-duck"s love, as well as by many other examples, that it is the females, who, exercising their right of selection much more than the males, introduce individual preference into their s.e.xual relationships. The difficulty is that such preference, of profound biological importance, is often thwarted among civilised people by considerations of property and the accepted morality. From this standpoint permanent marriage may often fail to do justice to the s.e.xual needs both of the individual and the wider needs of the race.
Nature has no care for s.e.x-morals as we understand them, any mode of s.e.xual union is equally right so long as it serves the race-process.
But men have set up a whole host of prohibitions and conventions--the "thou shalt nots" of society and religion. Which are we to follow?
Which is the wheat and which the tares, that must be garnered or sifted from our loves?
It is important to notice that among mammals, as among men, conjugal fidelity is modified by the conditions of life. An animal belonging to a species habitually monogamic may easily change under the pressure of external causes and adopt polygamy, and, in some cases, polyandry. The shoveler duck, though normally monogamic, is said[96] to practise polyandry when males are in excess; two males being in constant and amicable attendance on the female, without sign of jealousy.
Wild-ducks, again, which are strictly monogamous, good parents, and very highly developed in social qualities when in a wild state, become loosely polygamous and indifferent to their offspring under domestication. Civilisation, in this case, depraves the birds, as often it does men.
But enough has now been said. We shall find later how far the facts we have learnt of the position of the female and the s.e.xual relationship, as we have studied them in these examples from the animal kingdom, will apply to us and to our loves. We have now to study marriage and the family as it exists among primitive peoples. We shall find a close resemblance in the courtship customs and the s.e.xual and familial a.s.sociations to those we have seen to be practised by our pre-human ancestors. The same resemblance will persist when, lastly, we come to investigate the same inst.i.tutions among civilised races, up to our own. Indeed, we may have to admit that, in some directions, love is not even yet as finely developed with us humans as it is among birds.
It is in the loves of birds, as I believe, that we must seek hints to that evolution in fineness, which has still to come in our love.
One thing more. It refers to the disputed question of the differentiation of the s.e.xes by the action of love"s-selection. It is a truth that I wish as strongly as I am able to emphasise. We cannot learn to know love"s selective powers by enclosing its action within the narrow circle of our preconceived ideas. Instead of limiting its power we should extend it without hindrance of any form--to the female as well as the male; to the woman as to the man. We should regard nothing as impossible, no development of either s.e.x too great to be accomplished, knowing that all progress is possible to love"s power.
Exceptional cases, then, irregularities, it may be, in s.e.xual expression will henceforth no longer surprise us; they will find their place in the infinite order of life. Such examples may come to be regarded as filling in the chain; they form intermediate stages and also mark the reappearance of earlier manifestations of the s.e.xual hunger. The new morality of love, which is having its birth amongst us to-day, will be deeper and wider than the old morality, because it will be founded on surer knowledge.
FOOTNOTES:
[50] Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of s.e.x_, Vol. VI. p. 422.
[51] _Evolution of s.e.x_, p. 8.
[52] _Animal Behaviour_, p. 265, quoted by Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of s.e.x_, Vol. III. p. 28.
[53] Geoffrey Mortimer (W.M. Gallichan), _Chapters on Human Love_, pp.
17-18.
[54] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 16.
[55] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 12.
[56] _Evolution of s.e.x_, pp. 7-8.
[57] Epinas, _Soc. Animales_, p. 326; Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p.
433.
[58] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, p. 27.
[59] Ellis, _Psychology of s.e.x_, Vol. VI. p. 422.
[60] One of the most charming accounts of the loves of birds is given in a chapter on "Music and Dancing in Nature," in a volume ent.i.tled, _The Naturalist in La Plata_, by W.H. Hudson.
[61] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. I. p. 350.
[62] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. II. p. 50.
[63] E. Selous, _Bird Watching_, pp. 15-20; Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of s.e.x_, Vol. III. p. 25.
[64] The jay is the only bird I know whose habits in this respect are different. Noisy and active during the winter the male becomes exceedingly quiet with the approach of the pairing season. This may possibly be explained by the fact that the two s.e.xes of these beautiful birds are practically alike; thus there may be less temptation for the male to show off as the handsomer bird.
[65] J. Lewis Bonhote, _The Birds of Britain_, p. 272. It is from this work I have taken many facts relating to birds. See also A.R. Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 287.
[66] Wallace states that these love-movements are more commonly performed by birds with dull plumage who have no special beauties to display to their mates, but the custom, as we have seen, is by no means confined to such birds.
[67] _Notes of a Naturalist on the "Challenger,"_ quoted by Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 287.
[68] "The Ostrich," _Zoologist_, March 1897; quoted by Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of s.e.x_, Vol. III. p. 34.
[69] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. I. p. 317.
[70] J. Lewis Bonhote, _The Birds of Britain_, p. 39.
[71] Audubon, _Scenes de la Nature_, Vol. I. p. 383.
[72] Epinas, _Societes Animales_, p. 299.
[73] _Argentine Ornithology_, Vol. I. p. 148; quoted by Havelock Ellis, _Psychology of s.e.x_, Vol. III. p. 33.
[74] Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 284; also J. Lewis Bonhote, _The Birds of Britain_, p. 319.
[75] Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 14-15.
[76] Wallace, _Darwinism_, p. 287.