Bodin

devons tenir nos pères comme des dieux en terre."1 wrote, in the later part of the sixteenth century, that, though the monarch commands his subjects, the master his disciples, the captain his soldiers, there is none to whom nature has given any command except the father, "who is the true image of the great sovereign God, universal father of all things." In the Duke of Sully's Memoirs' we read that, in his days in France, children were not permitted to sit in the presence of their parents without being commanded to do so.3 According to the edicts of Henry III. (1566), Louis XIII. (1639), and Louis XIV. (1697), sons could not marry before the age of thirty, nor daughters before that of twentyfive, without the consent of the father and mother, on pain of being disinherited. Speaking of the women among the nobility and upper classes in France during the eighteenth century, Messrs. de Goncourt remark, "Généralement le mariage de la jeune fille se faisait presque immédiatement au sortir du couvent, avec un mari accepté et agréé par la famille. Car le mariage était avant tout une affaire de famille, un arrangement au gré des parents, qui décidaient des considérations de position et d'argent, des convenances de rang et de fortune. Le choix était fait d'avance pour la jeune personne, qui n'était pas consultée." 5

Even now French law accords considerable power to parents. A child cannot quit the paternal residence without the permission of the father before the age of twenty-one except for enrolment in the army. For grave misconduct by his children the father has strong means of correction. A son under twenty-five and a daughter under twenty-one cannot marry without the consent of their parents; and, even when a man has attained his twenty-fifth year, and the woman her twenty-first, both are still bound to ask

1 Quoted by de Ribbe, 'Les familles et la société en France avant la Révolution,' p. 51. 2 Bodin, De Republica,' book i. ch. iv. p. 31.

3 Sully,' Memoirs,' vol. v. p. 180.

4 Koenigswarter, loc. cit. p. 231.

5 de Goncourt, 'La Femme au dix-huitième siècle,' p. 20.

6 'Code Civil,' art. 374.

7 Ibid., art. 375-383.

8 Ibid., art. 148.

for it, by a formal notification.1 Parental restraints upon marriage exist to a very great extent in Germany and Holland also, the marriage of minors being absolutely void, if effected without the consent of the father, or of the mother if she be the survivor. According to American, Scotch, and Irish law, on the other hand, the consent of parents and guardians to the marriage of minors is not requisite to the validity of the union. The same was the case in England prior to the statute of 26 Geo. II. c. 33, which declared all marriages by license, when either of the parties was under the age of twenty-one years, if celebrated without publication of banns, or without the consent of the father or unmarried mother, or guardian, to be absolutely null and void.2

There is thus a certain resemblance between the family institution of savage tribes and that of the most advanced races. Among both, the grown-up son, and frequently the grown-up daughter, enjoys a liberty unknown among peoples at an intermediate stage of civilization. There are, however, these vital differences :-that children in civilized countries are in no respect the property of their parents; that they are born with certain rights guaranteed to them by society; that the birth of children gives parents no rights over them other than those which conduce to the children's happiness. These ideas, essential as they are to true civilization, are not many centuries old. It is a purely modern conception the French Encyclopedist expresses when he says, "Le pouvoir paternel est plutôt un devoir qu'un pouvoir."

1 'Code Civil,' art. 151.

"3

2 Kent, Commentaries on American Law,' lecture xxvi. § 5. 3 Diderot and d'Alembert, 'Encyclopédie,' vol. xiii. p. 255.

CHAPTER XI

SEXUAL SELECTION AMONG ANIMALS

THE expression, "Sexual Selection," was first used by Mr. Darwin. Besides natural selection, which depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life, he introduced another principle, sexual selection, which depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species. According to the former principle, those individuals who are most successful in the struggle for existence survive the others, and characters useful to the species are thus inherited; according to the latter, those individuals who have the greatest success in the struggle for mates have the most numerous offspring, and the characters which gave them the preference pass on to the new generation, and are afterwards intensified by the operation of like causes. The sexual struggle is of two kinds. In both it is carried on by individuals of the same sex ; but in one these individuals, generally the males, try to drive away or kill their rivals; in the other, they seek to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, who select the most attractive males for their partners. Therefore, the characters acquired through sexual selection, and transmitted chiefly to offspring of the same sex, generally the males, are, on the one hand, weapons for battle, vigour, and courage; on the other hand, certain colours, forms, ornaments, sounds, or odours, which are felt to be pleasant. The secondary sexual characters of the latter sort are thus due to the taste of the females. They have

been acquired because they are beautiful or otherwise agreeable, whereas the characters resulting from natural selection have been acquired because they are useful. How are we to explain the origin of this wonderful aesthetic faculty? "The senses of man and of the lower animals," says Mr. Darwin, "seem to be so constituted that brilliant colours and certain forms, as well as harmonious and rhythmical sounds, give pleasure and are called beautiful; but why this should be so we know not." According to Mr. Darwin, natural and sexual selection are two different sources from which animal characters have arisen. There is some truth in the statement of one of his critics, "Mr. Darwin, in fact, has so far abandoned his former belief in the efficacy of 'natural selection' as an agent in producing the differences which separate different species of animals, as to admit that some supplementary cause must, in some cases at any rate, be looked for; and this he thinks is to be found in the action, through long periods, of 'sexual selection.' ” 2

Far from co-operating with the process of natural selection, sexual selection, as described by Mr. Darwin, produces effects disadvantageous to the species. "It is evident," he says, "that the brilliant colours, top-knots, fine plumes, &c., of many male birds cannot have been acquired as a protection; indeed, they sometimes lead to danger." When we consider what an important part is played by colours, as means of protection, in the whole animal kingdom, it is certainly surprising that many male animals display brilliant hues, which cannot fail to make them conspicuous to their enemies. The strong odours emitted by certain reptiles and mammals during the pairing season, and the sounds produced by various species at the same period, have also the effect of attracting hostile animals that are searching for food. And the danger arising for the species from these secondary sexual characters is all the greater because they generally appear at the time when offspring is about to be produced.

1 Darwin,' The Descent of Man,' vol. ii. p. 384.

2 Nicholson, loc. cit. p. 1. Cf. a criticism of 'The Descent of Man' in 'The Athenæum,' 1871, March 4th.

3 Darwin, vol. ii. p. 252.

R

Thus, besides colours, structures, and functions, adapted in the most marvellous way to the requirements of each species, there are others highly dangerous, which, according to Mr. Darwin, depend upon an aesthetic sense, the origin of which we do not know, and which is absolutely useless.

Mr. Darwin, in his many works, has shown how immense is the influence exercised by natural selection on the organic world. A disciple, therefore, naturally feels perplexed when he is told of a series of facts, which, according to the explanation given by the master, are opposed to natural selection. When the contradiction between the theories of natural and sexual selection is distinctly realized, the question arises-Can we be sure that the secondary sexual characters are so useless as Mr. Darwin suggests? May not they also be explained by the principle of the survival of the fittest? The larger size and greater strength of the males, and the weapons of offence or defence many of them possess, may easily be so accounted for, as, among the higher animals, the males generally fight with each other for the possession of the females. The point is whether the other secondary sexual characters can be due to the same cause.

It is an established fact that the colours of flowers serve a definite end. Through them the flowers are recognized by insects in search of honey; and the insects, during their visits, involuntarily carry the pollen of one flower to the stigma of another, and thus effect cross-fertilization, which is proved to be of great importance for the vigour and fertility of the next generation of plants. Now it is extremely interesting to note that brilliant colours are found only in species of flowers to which they are useful as means of attracting insects; they never occur in plants which are fertilized by the wind.1 Mr. Wallace observes that plants rarely need to be concealed, because they obtain protection by their spines, or their hardness, or their hairy covering, or their poisonous secretions. Hence there are very few cases of what seem to be true protective colouring among them. In animals, on the contrary, 1 Müller, 'The Fertilisation of Flowers,' p. 14.

2 Wallace, 'Tropical Nature,' p. 223.