CHAPTER III

Natura simplex est, said Newton,et sibi semper consonans. (Nature is simple and always agrees with herself.) Bewilderingly multiple in her phenomena, she is superbly simple in her principles. By the operation of her one great Law of Gravitation, she sustains the mighty Solar systems—and brings the apple to the ground. By the extension, counterpoise and co-operation of one Primal Cosmic Energy—with its dual impulses, Centripetal and Centrifugal—she has generated all the diverse marvels of a Universe. And in view of her simplicity of Principle, it is conceivable that the Duality of Sex may be an extension into Life of that same principle of Duality which characterises the vaster Cosmic phenomena.

If this be true, Man and Woman are the complex resultant of infinitely many and varied evolutionary differentiations and associations of the two modes of Primal Energy. If so, the principle of Sex must have existed before Matter; must have been inherent in Creation before Creation began to evolve. And if so, Evolution would seem to have had for its purpose the ever further and fuller manifestation of these dual and contrary inherences in terms of Life and Sex. While, to judge by effects, it has had for its means such ever more intimate and intricate co-operations of these as have resulted in the progressively diverse and complex developments found to-day in Human Life and Human Sex-Characteristics.

THE MYSTERY OF SEX AND SEX-TRANSMISSION

"The idea that the female is naturally and really the superior sex seems incredible, and only the most liberal and emancipated minds, possessed of a large store of biological information, are capable of realising it."—Professor Lester Ward.

Those happy persons who do not perplex themselves concerning the intrinsic causes behind all physical phenomena see it as only "natural" that two parents of opposite sex should produce offspring of both sexes.

And yet it is not only a great mystery, but, on the face of it, it is an anomaly that a child who may possess an admixture of all the physical and mental characteristics of its two parents, bears, nevertheless, the sex and the sex-characteristics of one only. Sex, male or female, breeds true in nearly every case; the rare exceptions merely emphasising the rule. The mystery deepens when we realise that every individual is a product of countless such admixtures of the qualities, throughout countless generations, of countless forefathers and foremothers. And although such a man or woman may hark back to any one, or more, of the traits of his or her innumerable forbears, he or she, nevertheless, "breeds true" in the factors of sex and sex-characteristics.

Long and closely biologists have pondered these many and involved problems. How is it, they inquire, that an embryo bred of two parents of opposite sex develops the sex of one only of these? How is it that the mother, who belongs to one sex only, produces—and producesin about equal number—offspring of both? The phenomenon is expressed, biologically, in the term, "sex-limited factor"—an incalculable something in the embryo which limits its sex to the sex of one only of its parents. But the "something," and the method of this sex-limitation have remained enigmas.

Sex is regarded by the new Mendelian school of biologists as that which is known as a "Mendelian factor." And to follow the argument to its conclusions, a few simple words about the Mendelian theory of Heredity are essential to those unacquainted therewith.

* * * * *

About forty years ago, a German monk, Mendel by name, was struck by the facts that in his bed of edible peas certain plants grew tall, while others remained dwarf; that the blossoms of certain plants were white always, while those of others were always coloured. He made a number of experiments in crossing the plants, with a view to discovering the law of inheritance by way of its operation in hybrid varieties. Briefly, the results of his experiments—which have since been repeated and confirmed by many later observers—were as follows:

There are plants that are tall and can transmit only Tallness to offspring. There are plants that are dwarf and can transmit only Dwarfness to offspring. So too, there are plants of white blossom or of coloured blossom that can transmit, respectively, only White or Coloured blossoming to offspring.

When a Tall is crossed with a Dwarf plant, however, or a Coloured with a White plant, strange to say, the hybrid offspring of this cross showsoneonly of these opposite traits, to the exclusion of the other. No intermediate, or mixed, forms are produced.

Thus, a Tall crossed with a Dwarf produces only Talls. Plants of Coloured flower crossed with those of White flower give only Coloured flowering varieties. A yellowand a green-seeded cross produce only yellow-seeded plants.

In the cross between plants of opposite traits,oneset of traits appears thus, exclusively, in the hybrid offspring. These traits—because theydominategrowth and development—Mendel styled "Dominant." While those traits which are dominated by the other and opposite traits and do not appear in offspring, he styled "Recessive."

On further breeding, a new and stranger thing happens, however. Because when such hybrids—plants bred of parents that had borne, respectively, "Dominant" and "Recessive" characteristics, but with the parental Dominant traits so overpowering the Recessive traits of the other parent that these latter are submerged and concealed—When these hybrids are crossed with other hybrids like themselves, both the Dominant and the Recessive traits of the original parents reappear in offspring. The tall hybrids resulting from the cross between Tall and Dwarf plants, when crossed with other tall hybrids of similar origin, produce both Tall and Dwarf plants. So with Colour, and with the other so-called "Contrasted Traits."

It becomes evident, therefore, that although the Dominant traits of Tallness and Colour overpower in the growth and development of the second generation of plants, the Recessive traits of Dwarfness and Whiteness, these latter traits aresubmergedonly, and are neither impaired in their values, nor destroyed. In the third generation, under different conditions of mating, the original Recessive, and submerged, traits re-appear, and reveal themselves in offspring-plants as the Dwarfness or the Whiteness that had characterised their grandparents.

Mendel assumed that such hybrid plants—offspring of a Dominant and of a Recessive parent—produce two varieties of sex-cells, or gametes, and that one order ofcells contain the Dominant traits of the Dominant parent, while the other order contain the Recessive traits of the Recessive parent.

But any individual sex-cell, or gamete, cannot (according to his view) bear both Dominant and Recessive traits. The Dominant traits and the Recessive traits of the respective parents he regarded as being segregated, absolutely, in one or in the other set of sex-cells produced by hybrid varieties. And of these, the cells bearing Dominant traits are able to transmit Dominant traits only to offspring; while the cells bearing Recessive traits transmit Recessive traits only to offspring.

Now, Biology shows that plants and living creatures develop from a single microscopic cell, formed by the union of two half-cells, of which each half was contributed by one of the two parents.

Clearly then, a hybrid plant is one that has sprung from the union of two half-cells, one of which bore the Dominant traits of one parent, while the other bore the Recessive traits of the other parent. But because Dominant traits overpower Recessive traits in development, the cross between a tall plant and a dwarf plant produces tall offspring only—Tallness being a Dominant trait which overpowers the Recessive trait of Dwarfness. So too, the cross between a plant bearing coloured and a plant bearing white flowers produces offspring bearing coloured flowers only—Colour being Dominant over the Recessive Trait of Whiteness.

But because the Recessive traits of Dwarfness and of Whiteness were onlyoverpoweredin the plant-development, by the Dominant traits of Tallness and Colour, but were neither lost nor impaired in stock, hybrid plants that had shown only Dominant traits ingrowth and constitution, produce, nevertheless, two sorts of sex-cells for plant-reproduction: cells that bear the Recessive traits of the one parent, and cells that bear the Dominant traits of the other parent. So that in the fertilisation of one another by such hybrids, cells bearing Dominant traits mate with other cells bearing Dominant traits, and produce plants of pure Dominant type—Tall or Coloured, like one of the grandparents. While cells bearing Recessive traits mate with other cells bearing Recessive traits, and produce plants of pure Recessive type—Dwarf or White, like the other grandparent.

It is seen, therefore, that in plants, when a cell bearing Dominant traits mates with one bearing Recessive traits, the Dominant characteristics so overpower the Recessive that these latter lie latent, and concealed, in the resulting plant. But when a cell bearing Recessive traits mates with another cell bearing Recessive traits, the resulting plant (its growth and development not over-ridden now by the more assertive Dominant traits) is able to develop its Recessive characteristics.

* * * * *

These interesting and significant laws of plant-heredity and constitution, discovered by Mendel in peas, have since been found by many expert observers to hold true as regards other species of plants; as too in poultry, in mice, and in rabbits, and moreover, in the hereditary transmission of human characteristics.

InHeredity and Variation, Dr. Saleeby points out that in the mating of a black with a white rabbit, some of the offspring will be black like one parent, some white like the other, and some grey—a blend of the colours of both parents.

In the last case, theDominanttrait of Blackness, derived from one rabbit-parent, blends in the fur of the rabbit-offspring with theRecessivetrait of Whiteness, derived from the other rabbit-parent; a grey rabbitresulting. But that the Contrasted Traits come to no more than a temporary and partial compromise during the life of such a rabbit-individual, without either of the traits losing its intrinsic characteristic—Blackness and Whiteness, respectively—is proved by the fact that these grey rabbit-offspring, on further breeding, produce notgreyrabbits, but black rabbits and white rabbits; proving that the Black trait and the White trait in them remained distinct and segregated, neither altering its character in the least degree.

It is as though one should take a spoonful of black pepper and a spoonful of white salt, and thoroughly mix them. A drab "pepper-and-salt" mixture will result. But neither pepper nor salt will have changed its colour or its properties one iota. Could they be separated out again, each would be precisely as it had been before mixing. So it is with the Dominant and the Recessive traits in living organisms. They commingle intimately, but each retains its original and intrinsic quality.

All the diverse and beautiful varieties of vegetation and the loveliness of flowers, in form and colour, result from multiple associations in hybrid-plants, of those which are known as the "Contrasted Traits" of parent-stock.

III

The lay reader need not perplex himself with the problems and phenomena of Mendelism.

All he requires to remember are its three leading principles. Firstly, that in the world of Life, plant and animal, living attributes are divided into two contrasting orders. Secondly, that of these two orders of so-called "Contrasted Traits" ("Contrasting Traits" would be a fitter phrase), the two groups are as absolute and opposite in character and in significance as are theplusand theminussigns of Algebra, the Positive and the Negativepotentials of Electricity, the conditions of Light and Darkness, of Blackness and Whiteness, of Heat and Cold. Thirdly, that the Dominant order of traits are paramount over and extinguish the Recessive order of traits.

To sustain her equilibrium by a counterpoise of dual and contrary factors, physical and vital, Nature must preserve these factors absolute and unchangeable as the constitution and the opposite attraction of The Poles. But in order to produce her countless progressive variations of form and attribute, physical and vital, she assembles these contrary factors in countless progressively complex combinations, co-operations and correlations.

It is conceivable, therefore, that the infinite gradations and variations of form and attribute found in the world of living creatures are, as in the world of plants, phenomena of the ever further differentiation and more complex combination, in the hybrid offspring of two parents, of two orders of Contrasting Traits, transmitted by the respective parents.

In all their multiple associations and diverse developments, however, the two Sets of Traits remain unchanged, precisely as do the individual elements of chemical combinations. Variations in species result, accordingly, not from change in the essential traits, but from changes in the modes and the degrees of the commingling of these in organisms; and in the modes and degrees of their ever more complex associations in such.

Tallness, being an impulse toward extension, can never be Dwarfness, which is an impulse toward contraction. Black can never be White. Square can never be Round. Yet two opposite traits, both influencing development, may come to a mean, or poise, in an individual organism; as is seen in the grey offspring of a black rabbit mated with a white rabbit. But it is acounterpoisemerely of contrary factors. The traits of Blackness and Whiteness remain absolute and unalterable.

If now, the reader has grasped these leading principles of Plant-biology, he is in a position to follow the new application of them to Human Biology which I now venture to present.

Without going into details of physiology, it may be stated that the principles of reproduction are so identical in plants and living creatures as wholly to justify argument from one to the other. The only differences are in degrees of structural complexity as organisms rise higher in the scale of development, and demand, accordingly, more complex organs and functions for the more perfect manifestation of their characteristics; as also for the transmission of these to offspring. It may be repeated, however, that Mendelian law is found to hold good in humans, both in the hereditary transmission of normal characteristics and in the hereditary transmission of the abnormal traits of disease and degeneracy.

Increasing complexities, structural and functional, are indispensable to the presentment of the attributes of the higher species, Man. But such complexities are, nevertheless, continuous with and have sprung out of the simplicities of lower and rudimentary organisms, precisely as the branches and leaves and flowers of a plant are continuous with and have sprung out of its roots. A vital and important biological detail (to be considered later) is that plants are not, as living creatures are, differentiated into a right and a left-side, identical in construction. Another is that plants are self-fertilising.

With the lower animals, plural births are the rule. And in these, the still crude and imperfect differentiations of the Contrasting Traits allow of piebald and other modes of chequered colour and amorphous construction.

The higher the organism, the more complex are the biological requirements for its pre-natal development, as for its post-natal nurture. The functions of Parenthood, both physiological and psychological, are alwaysevolving to higher and more complex issues, therefore, as the species to be reproduced and nurtured becomes more complex. In human births, single offspring is the normal. Twin births are comparatively rare. And that these are abnormal is shown by twins being below the average always in health or in faculty; usually in both.

As already mentioned, Sex is regarded by the large and ever-increasing order of the adherents of Mendel as a "Mendelian factor." But in applying Mendelian truth to humans, I venture to think the applications have not been carried to their ultimate and most momentous conclusions.

Because, given the keynote to the Principle of Duality in the phenomenon of the Contrasting Traits found manifesting in plant-heredity and constitution, the duality of the Human Sexes, with their respective orders of Contrasting characteristics, suggests itself as being analogous.

Human attributes, physical and mental, are seen, like those of plants, to group themselves into two distinct categories, the Male and the Female sex-characteristics, primary and secondary. And these, though wholly contrary in nature and in trend, are found—precisely as occurs in plants—linked together in the hybrid offspring of the two parents from whom they were, respectively, derived; blending in a temporal unity, but remaining, nevertheless, unchanged in their essential differences; coming to means and counterpoises in individual organisations, yet nevertheless preserved distinct and unalloyed in these, as is shown by their emergence, unaltered, in offspring of opposite sexes.

As a hybrid plant is the product of two parentscharacterised by opposite traits—Tallness and Dwarfness, for example—so, I submit, a human creature is the hybrid offspring of two parents characterised by opposite traits—Maleness and Femaleness, with the Sex-traits differentiating one sex from the other.

And at once a solution of the many baffling presentments and problems of Sex presents itself—of the enigma of man with Woman potential in him, of woman with Man potential in her; a key to the mysterious Duality of human biology and psychology, with its conflict of battling impulses, its harmonies of blending attributes, its innumerable and diverse developments in proportions, in means, in extremes; in normalities, eccentricities, deviations and reversions. And the analogy between the two orders of Traits—in Plant-life at the lower end of the scale of species, and in Human life and psychology at the higher end—suggests that the ever-increasing complexity of organisation and faculty which has characterised Evolutionary Progress, has had for aim, as it has had for method, the ever further differentiation and more perfect segregation, but, nevertheless, the ever closer and more intricate association of the contrary factors of Maleness and Femaleness.

In the lower organisms—plant and animal—the two groups of Traits are but crudely differentiated as characteristics distinguishing one sex from the other. In such lower organisms, Sex-development is merely rudimentary; the first foreshadowings in Life of two intrinsic orders of Essential Attribute, the progressive evolution whereof reveals two contrary trends in physiological and psychical inherences.

Like Light and Darkness, Heat and Cold, Sex is a phenomenon of Dual states which manifest by way of relativity. Without Maleness, Femaleness has no significance—no existence, in fact. And the converse. And in the lower and rudimentary forms of existence, in proportion to their degrees of undevelopment, the dualstates of Sex are but faintly defined. The very lowly forms are bi-sexual and self-fertilising. While the first and simplest mode of reproduction is by cell-division merely; the principle of Sex, with its dual factors, functioning, but not yet differentiated into dual forms.

The evolution of Species and the evolution of Sex have been so absolutely co-incident in biological progress, indeed, that we are forced to perceive them as cause and effect; or, rather, as one and the same thing. And the evolution of Sex has meant, of course, the ever further divergence and the more complex specialisation, in form and in function, of the characteristics of the one sex from those of the other.

On still closer consideration, it appears, moreover, that the evolution of Sex has meant pre-eminently the evolution of thefemalesex—the slow and gradual emergence and development, in species, of female characteristics, as, in course of Evolution, these have freed themselves and have risen ever further into evidence from long subjection by the stronger, fiercer, more assertive—in a word, the Dominant—traits of the male.

(A conclusion as singularly interesting, I think, as it is instructive, in view of modern Feminist doctrine and aims, which make, not for the culture and the ever further evolutionary development of the Woman-traits in woman, but, on the contrary, for a reversion to earlier cruder states of the subjection in her of her Woman-traits by those male Dominant ones, which, as the hybrid offspring of a male and of a female parent, every female creature inherits from her father, together with the Woman-traits she inherits from her mother. There is seen here the irony that woman has, by long ages of biological development, released herself from sociologicalsubjection by the male, only voluntarily to set the Woman in herself in far worse psychological subjection to the male in herself.)

In the new and profoundly interesting light thrown by Mendel on some previously unsolved problems of heredity, the reason for the long subjection of woman, biological and sociological, becomes clear.

Because, given the key-notes of Tallness and Colour as Dominant traits, one identifies these, at once, as traits of Maleness; the greater stature of male creatures and the richer colour of their fur and plumage in the lower species pointing unmistakably thereto. Dwarfness (or lesser stature) and Whiteness (or lesser colour) are Recessive, and are obviously Female traits. The plant of Dominant type, though still bi-sexual, is making for a malegenus; the Recessive type is making for a Femalegenus. White creatures are so feminine in general effect that it seems an anomaly when they are males. The converse is true of black creatures. The black horse is stubborn and restive; the white, gentle and submissive.

White poultry are prolific in egg-production; white cattle are good milkers—a female characteristic. Jersey cows are both small in size and pale of colour.

The male sex stands presumably for Dominance. And his positive, or objective, traits overpowering the negative, or subjective, traits of Recessiveness, prevail accordingly in early biological development.

The female sex stands for Recessiveness. Her less assertive traits yield and recede into the background before those of the Dominant male. In stature, in strength, and in colour, and in the allied mental attributes, he holds the foreground in form and in function. The reason being that his rôle in Life is adaptation to environment.

The male, therefore, in his masculine rôle of Adaptation, with his Dominant traits making fiercely for thesurvival and for the ever further development of physical fitness—until physical fitness, or Adaptation, had attained due degrees of ascendancy—was long lord of Creation; the female, his vassal. And this not only in life and in action, but too in the personal characteristics of both sexes. During æons before the Recessive female-traits were able to come into evidence as definite traits, they functioned as negations, merely; submerged and over-ridden in all female creatures by the Dominant male-traits they had inherited from their sires.

Primal physical development may be said, thus, to have derived its first impulse from those fierce and fighting male-proclivities which characterised it in the epoch of that early savage struggle with environment whence Species emerged. Only with further evolutionary progress, do the female traits manifest as personal characteristics, secure survival, and find increasing exercise and sway.

The tigress is only less fierce, less strong, and less savage than the tiger. Primal woman was only less fierce, less strong, and less savage than the male. It is only, indeed, in the maternal function and relation that the female traits of both tigress and primal woman awake, and find justification, impulse, and scope for development. And while the material progress which has led to modern Civilisation resulted from Adaptation to, and of, environment, and derived its impulse from the male proclivities of strength, assertiveness and intelligence, the moral progress thereof may be said to have derived its impulse from the evolution of the female sex-characteristics. Because the evolution of Woman-traits has meant the ever further tempering and counterpoising of the fiercely active and aggressive male propensities, by the more passive and self-surrendering qualities of the female.

Judging the respective characteristics of the sexes by their widely-differing rôles in the most important oftheir co-operative living functions, the parental one—the sole function wherein the sexes of lower organisation co-operate, indeed—the respective attributes of Dominance and Recessiveness manifest clearly in these. The province of the male being to fight for mate and young, providing food, defending life—in order to fit him for this struggle for racial survival, his traits of strength and stature remain long paramount, alike in development and function, over those of the female, as regards his own organisation and that of his offspring, both male and female. The province of the female being to surrender her powers to the nurture of offspring before birth, and, after birth, mildly to suckle and to tend its helplessness, Nature equips her to these ends; inhibiting, or negativing, strength and fierceness in her by the traits of Recessiveness.

Tigress or savage woman, her struggle with the rough conditions of primal existence is only less fierce and less strenuous than her mate's. It demands the positive male-qualities (which manifest first in stature, strength and pugnacity) only less in degree than does his, therefore. The negative female qualities which, manifesting first in passivity and surrender, detract from her fierceness and activity, would have made for extinction of species had they not been defended by those of her fighting mate, as too by the male-traits she herself had inherited from her fighting father. They could only evolve, accordingly, precisely in proportion as they were sheltered behind the male dominant powers. The tiger shelters his tigress only during her maternal phases, however. Her cubs brought forth, suckled, reared, and thrust into the jungle to fend for themselves, she must fight her own battles for food and existence. And her brief maternal phases being all too short for more than the scantest development of female traits—which derive their fullest impulse in their exercise as mother-traits—she remains a tigress merely, and produces tiger offspringmerely, because only tigerishness secures survival in her domain of life and attribute.

With the further advance of progressing species, savage woman has evolved from savage brute to savage woman by way of such increasing shelter and protection by her Dominant mate as have permitted the slow and gradual evolution of the Recessive Woman-traits in her; and thereby the evolution of the Woman-sex. Her maternal phases and the unfitnesses of these become ever more prolonged and incapacitating; her offspring demands ever longer periods of suckling, devotion and care, as both she and it rise higher in the scale of organisation. Thus, Sex has evolved in the male by response to the ever-increasing claims upon him, by the female and by offspring, of his traits of protective chivalry and intelligent effort. And Sex has evolved in the female by response to the ever-increasing claims by offspring upon her, of her traits of devotion and ministry.

The evolution of the Woman-attributes has been rendered possible only by that protection accorded by the male to the female as the due of her maternal unfitnesses; securing thus for her and for offspring a more privileged and kindlier environment. Environment which, evoking less of fight and physical stress, enabled her inherent milder, self-surrendering Recessive traits to emerge, to unfold, and to function increasingly in life and heredity.

And in the degree of her advancing evolution, the male evolved. Because, just as in her earlier hybrid constitution, the Dominant male-traits she had inherited from her father, submerging the Recessive female-traits she had inherited from her mother, made her, for long æons, more male than she was female, so now, with their progressive evolution, the Recessive female-traits not only madeherever more woman, but, transmitted in ever fuller measure to her sons, increasingly tempered,modified and humanised, the masculine fierceness and combativeness of these. Whereby were substituted arts of peace and civilisation for those of war.

Thus, with advancing Evolution, the female sex-characteristics have engendered, in both sexes, qualities of quietism and subordination, to temper those of force and aggression; amenities of gentleness, forbearance and affection, to soften assertiveness, turn the edge of strife, and fructify intelligence. Thus, human civilisation has been fostered and furthered.

In the hybrid creature that every man and woman is, are grouped two sets of Contrasting Traits, or Sex-characteristics: traits Dominant, or male, and traits Recessive, or female. And in the complex human hybrid, these traits, ever increasing in complexity of constitution and further diverging in trend, are associated in ever more close and complex poise and counterpoise as both become more intensified and intelligised.

Man is a hybrid in whom the male Dominant traits derived from his father prevail in impulse and development over the female Recessive traits derived from his mother. Woman is a hybrid in whom the maternal Recessive traits prevail in impulse and development over the male Dominant traits she has inherited from her father.

The Woman-traits (which, as said, reach their highest culmination inmother-traits), become in manpaternaltraits; modified mother-instincts which move him not only to love, in addition to providing for and protecting offspring, but, transfiguring all his other characteristics, move him to philanthropy, amity, tolerance and altruism in his dealings with his fellow-creatures.

ONE SIDE OF BODY IS MALE, THE OTHER SIDE IS FEMALE

"Oh, I must feel your brain prompt mine,Your heart anticipate my heart,You must be just before, in fine,See and make me see, for your part,New depths of the Divine!"Robert Browning.

"Oh, I must feel your brain prompt mine,

Your heart anticipate my heart,

You must be just before, in fine,

See and make me see, for your part,

New depths of the Divine!"

Robert Browning.

On further applying the Principle of Duality, as operating in organisation and heredity, strangely interesting and significant developments appear.

Because, with the ever further evolution of Form and Faculty as organisms have risen higher in the scale of life, the bodies of living creatures are seen to have become further differentiated into two sides; a right and a left. Anatomically, these two sides appear identical in structure and in function, although contrary in incidence to one another. Each is incomplete and impotent without the other. Nevertheless, paralysis and other diseases show that each is, as it were, an entity totally distinct from the other. One side may be wholly helpless and insensitive while its fellow remains sound and efficient.

Complementary and supplementary each to the other, both are, in a sense, complete. Further and closer comparison of function shows, however, that although they co-operate in action, they are by no means identical in power or aptitude.

The right half of the body is, for both sexes, the active and executive half; quicker and stronger, and in all ways more efficient on the plane of physics.

The left half is, relatively, passive and inert, isresponsive, mainly, to the initiative and requirements of the right half, by which its powers are overshadowed in every form of direct activity.

As with the two sides of the body, so it is with the two halves of the brain, which are at the same time the agencies of mentality and the centres for recording the sensations and for directing the movements of the two sides of the body. The brain-half which controls the right side is known as "the Leading half." It is the agent in concrete intellection, as in physical activity.

While, so far as biologists and psychologists have been able to discover, the other half of the brain is negative in function—a blank, as regards concrete intelligence and nervous or muscular initiative. In disease, it has sometimes been found to undertake, and to perform feebly and imperfectly, sundry of the duties of its active "Leading" partner. But inert and inadequate in muscular action, it is negative in intellection. It has been observed, however, that patients in whom this brain-half is diseased show signs of moral deterioration. Yet whatsoever its functions—and the fact that it does not atrophy nor degenerate in the marvellous structure and complexity which characterise brain-constitution shows that it functions duly—its operations are totally dissimilar to, and are, moreover, wholly overshadowed by those of its active, intelligent partner.

Here again, as in the two sides of the body, appear, surely, the factors of Dominance and Recessiveness—in other words of Maleness and Femaleness; of strength and activity upon material planes, and of inhibition upon these.

Developments which, being in full agreement with one another and with others, suggest that the two orders of Sex-characteristics (derived from parents of opposite sex) are centred, respectively, in the two sides of thebody, and in the two brain-hemispheres allied, respectively, with these. One side of the body, with its allied brain-half, represents the paternal inherences of the individual; the other, the maternal. If so, the right side of the body, with its allied Leading, or Dominant, brain-half is, clearly, of male inherence. While the left side, with its allied Recessive, or Dormant, brain-half is of female inherence.

The inference is further supported by the fact that the stronger right side is rather larger and more masculine in form; while left-side limbs are in normal right-handed persons, more slender and shapely and delicate—in a word more womanly—than are those of the right.

As regards the face, from one aspect both sides are complete, from another aspect both are incomplete, without the other. And in configuration and expression, the two sides of the face differ appreciably; the left side being more psychical, emotional and subtle—in a word again more womanly.

In most persons, the hands and ears and eyes of one side differ from those of the other, both in form and in function. In some persons the differences are considerable. It happens occasionally, indeed, that the eye of one side resembles in colour the eyes of one parent, while the opposite eye bears the colour of those of the other parent.

Strange to say, there are, moreover, in the human male, organs concerned with the strictly female function of lactation.

Indication of primæval human hermaphrodites formed one of Darwin's greatest puzzles, indeed. In hisDescent of Man, the following passage occurs:

"It has been known that in the vertebrate Kingdom one sex bears rudiments of various accessory parts appertaining to the reproductive system, which properly belong to the other sex.... Some remote progenitor of the whole vertebratekingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite, or androgynous."

It escaped him as it has escaped later biologists that Man, the highest of the vertebrates,is still androgynous. And this inevitably so, since, being of bi-sexual parentage, the sex-characteristics of both parents must be present in him.

InThe Evolution of Sex, Professors Geddes and Thomson state:

"Sometimes a fish is male on one side, female on the other, or male anteriorly and female posteriorly.... Among invertebrates the same has been occasionally observed, especially among butterflies, where striking differences in the colouring of the wings on the two sides have in some cases been found to correspond to an internal co-existence of ovary and testes.... The prettiest cases of superficial hermaphrodism occur among insects, especially among moths and butterflies, where it often happens that the wings on one side are those of the male, on the other, those of the female."

Despite the fact that Nature has evolved the complex human races from the single-celled microscopicamœba("Protoplasmic father of Man," as science has styled this), there are those who regard it as another of numerous blunders on the part of the Great Mother that the left side of the body is a more or less passive and powerless member. Accordingly, the doctrine of Ambidextry has arisen. With the result that its wiser exponents have abandoned it. Because it has been found that children trained on Ambidextrous lines develop neurotic symptoms. This occurs even in cases in which children naturally left-handed are taught to use the right hand, as is normal.

In a lecture given before The Child-Study Society in London, Mr. P. B. Ballard, London County-Council Inspector of Schools, stated that left-handed bowlers send down the ugliest balls, left-handed boxers deal the most unexpected blows—blows that hurt terribly. To be left-handed, it seemed, was to be not merely awkward, but to be wicked, moreover. Yet any attempt to interfere with a child's natural habit is liable to make him stammer. (The evil bent of left-handed persons has a special significance in view of my hypothesis of the dissimilar mental functions of the two brain-hemispheres. The term "sinister" expresses this bent. The inference is that in such transposition of the normal functions of the brain-halves, the tempering and humanising influence of the Woman-half is counteracted.)

Of a group of 545 left-handed children, 1 per cent. of pure left-handers stammered, against 4·3 per cent, of 399, in course of being taught to use the right hand, Mr. Ballard further stated. In another group of 207, the figures were 4·2 per cent, and 21·8 per cent. respectively. Six out of ten left-handed children who had been taught to use the right hand were practically cured of stammering after having been allowed to use the left hand exclusively for eighteen months. There are twice as many left-handed boys as left-handed girls; and stammering is twice as prevalent among boys.

All of which indicates normal differences in function of the two sides of the body—differences suggesting that, as I have surmised, each is the site and the agency of a principle totally unlike that of the other.

III

Upon referring to Biology—on the processes whereof every development, both physical and psychical, of living creatures rests—this curious dual constitutionof the body, together with the problems of dual sex-transmission and inherency, become explicable.

And the solutions are at the same time so simple and inevitable as to be the strongest possible confirmation of my thesis.

As already stated, living organisms, offspring of two parents, derive half the source of their structure from one parent, half from the other.

All plants and living creatures evolve their organisation from a single microscopic cell, precisely as Life itself evolved primarily, and has developed out of the single-celled, microscopicamœba. The microscopic cell which develops into a living creature is composed thus of two halves, or "gametes," to employ the scientific term. One half was contributed by the father: the other, by the mother. The two have united to form a whole cell. From such a cell (zygote), half male, half female, the body of every living organism has sprung.

Now, although these two half-cells unite to form a whole cell, exchange constituents, and appear to lose their identity each in the other, it is, in the face of the strange dual constitution of the body, difficult to doubt that each half actually retains its identity and sex-inherences, and develops along its own lines (albeit in close correlation with the other), throughout all the marvellous, intricate, and complex processes of embryological existence, during which the zygote is evolving into a living creature, capable of separate and individual life. And the inherences of these two halves are represented, at birth, in the respective sides of the body; each being, as it were, a complete and perfect entity, although inseparably knit in one flesh to its twin. And throughout all the further intricate and complex processes whereby the creature comes to maturity, lives, reproduces its species, and dies, each half preserves its individual inherence alike in constitution and in function.And yet in the mystical unity of their commingling duality, they are one flesh.

Each of the parental half-cells contained, marvellously, the potential moiety of a living personality. But either, alone, would have been but an incomplete and valueless thing, had it not become united with the complementary half-cell required to complete it structurally, and to engender and energise its potentialities. Nevertheless, throughout all the immature and the mature phases of life, from conception to birth, and from birth onward to death, the opposite sides of the body represent normally the opposite sex-inherences of their respective parents. They are, in humans, the Man and the Woman—two in one—that exist in every living man and woman. They represent contrary principles; they perform different functions; they engender and energise dissimilar processes. One is the centre of the Male characteristics, Dominant upon the material plane; the other, of the Female characteristics, Recessive thereon.

Normality and health are the mean and balance, in the individual, of the complementary and supplementary functions and processes of the opposite sex-inherences of his, or her, body. Precisely as in the social economy the complementary and supplementary rôles of men and women counterpoise the aptitudes and determine the effectiveness of human life and action.

The left, Female-half of the body, with its allied half-brain,[1]is inhibitive, and engenders the evolution and the preservation, physical and mental, of The Type; sustaining health and vital power by way of the female attributes of rest and conservation.

The right, Male half, with its allied half-brain, isexecutive, and energises the development (Adaptation) of The Type in its relation to Environment, and, disbursing and applying the vital resources, generates and differentiates potential faculty in terms of living function.

This hypothesis of the dual constitution and of dual functions of the two-sided body supplies an explanation, equally simple and inevitable, of the parental transmission of Sex.Natura simplex est, said Newton. And Du Prel, "Nature is much more simple than we have any conception of."

Because, as Biology shows, not only does each of the two parents contribute to offspring, but there being both a right and a left reproductive gland in members of both sexes, the contribution either parent supplies must have been derived from one or other of these glands in them. And if the two sides of the body are of different sex-inherence, it is only logical to conclude that the contribution the gland of one side makes will be of different sex-inherence from that of the other.

Since all forms of Energy have two modes, potential (or latent) and kinetic (or active), on the plane of physics, this must be true, of course, of Vital Energy.

Life-energy must be present in all living bodies in the forms, respectively, oflatentVital Energy andfunctioningVital Energy—energy conserved and available for functioning, and energy expending itself in the living processes of mentality and action.

An individual is able to move his limbs by power of thepotentialmotion stored, or latent, in the muscle-cells of his limbs. Just as a locomotive-engine is enabled to travel by power of thepotentialmotion stored in the steam generated in its boiler. And as in the livingorganism, so in the engine, the mechanism and the processes that engender in it thepotential motionof steam are wholly distinct from those which convert this potential motion intoactual motion.

One is able to think, by power of thepotentialmentality stored, or latent, in his brain-cells. For not only the vital processes which sustain the life of the organism, as those too which enable it to function in terms of living personality and action, but brain-power also must exist in the dual forms, respectively, ofpotentialFaculty andfunctioningFaculty. So too, Reproductive power. In all of these appear again the modes of Dominance and Recessiveness, of powerspositiveandmanifesting, and of powersnegativeandlatent. And since the female sex is characterised by traits of repose and conservation, and the male sex by traits of action, the dual modes of vital, muscular, cerebral and reproductive energyin potential, and of vital, muscular, cerebral and reproductive energyin course of generating function, range themselves inevitably on the two sides of the living equation as Sex-characteristics differentiating the male organisation from that of the female. Thus ranged, they characterise the two sides of the body as representing, respectively, a right, male side which is the central agency in function, and a left, female side, which is the reservoir of thepotentialof function.

If then the female mode of functioning is the Potential, or Recessive, a mode of latency, it is to be inferred that the male traits every female creature inherits from her father will, when incorporated in a body of female prepotence, pass into the potential, or Recessive, mode; and will thus become inhibited from developing as male-characteristics. Nevertheless, this male potential will be preserved in that reproductive gland which represents the paternal inherences in her, and will be transmitted, as her contribution to male offspring, in the sex-cells generated by this gland.

While the female inherences every male derives from his mother will, in the presence of the Dominant male-characteristics he derives from his father, retain their latent, or Recessive, mode; and will thus not emerge as female characteristics. The female inherences will be preserved, however, in that reproductive gland which represents the maternal inherences in him; and will be transmitted as his contribution to female offspring.

It will be seen thus that, as in hybrid plants, so in hybrid creatures of both sexes, cells of two sexes are generated: in the male, cells Dominant for maleness and cells Recessive for maleness—female that is; in the female, Recessive cells, prepotent for femaleness, and Dominant, or male, cells.

And of these, the Dominant male sex-cells contributed by the male parent, mating with the Dominant, or male, sex-cells contributed by the female parent, male offspring results. While the Recessive female sex-cells contributed by the female parent, mating with the Recessive, or female, sex-cells contributed by the male parent, female offspring results.

Furthermore, Dominance being paramount in development, it must be from the Dominant inherence imparted by residence in a male organisation to the potential, or Recessive, female Germ-Plasm that the latter derives the new developmental impulse it transmits to sex-cells. While Recessiveness being Life and Faculty in the potential mode, it must be from the Recessive inherence engendered in the Dominant male Germ-Plasm, by residence in a female organisation, that its Dominance, passing into latency, derives a new potential of further evolutionary impetus.

The differentiation of living creatures into two sexes, therefore, of bodies into two sides, of brains into two halves, and of Germ-Plasm into two reproductive glands, would seem to have had for object the everfurther specialisation and segregation in the individual, for purposes alike of constitutional organisation and of the evolution of Faculty and Reproduction, of the two Orders of Contrasting Traits, which I have assumed to be Maleness and Femaleness, respectively.

From this view-point, the female Sex and Sex-traits are Recessive, or Potential, always, on the material plane, and manifest increasingly thereon only by way of ever more complex alliances with male-traits; which, being positive on the concrete plane, equip the female inherences for function thereon. Femaleness, or Recessiveness, on its side, however—being Life-Energy in the potential—is all the while engendering new potence for Dominance to transform into active, or functioning, power. While although negative, it is equally potent, onitsside of the equation, to alter the values and manifestations of Dominance. Just as negative electricity inhibits the positive and destructive forces of positive electricity, although it does not, of itself,manifest directly.

The Dominant traits of Tallness and Strength, for example, are direct andpositivefactors in physical development. Dwarfness and Weakness are indirect andnegativefactors therein. Nevertheless, degrees of Dwarfness or of Weakness must proportionally reduce and modify the tallness of Tallness or the power of Strength.

But that Recessiveness is not aminussign merely, as algebraically understood—but is an essential potence on another, and a psychical plane, is shown by the lesser height of woman rendering itself as a Grace; her lesser strength appearing in the new virtue of Gentleness.

That the female provides, for fertilisation, only a single sex-cell, from the reproductive gland of one or other side, while the male provides multiple and commingled cells from both sides, supports the view that sex-cells derived from one side are of opposite sex-inherenceto those from the other side. Otherwise, why two reproductive glands?

The author ofThe Causation of Sexadduces evidence showing not only that the two glands are of opposite sex-inherence, but, moreover, that normally they function alternately; so that now a cell of one, now, of the other sex, is produced. It is likely, however, that function is seldom so mechanical, but that personal constitution or nurture modifies its operations.

That the male cells are multiple in number points to such a struggle of survival-fitness as ever characterises the more strenuous male destiny. Not, perhaps, the fittest as regards intrinsic superiority, but that most compatible with the requirements of the Queen-cell is selected for mate. Should the Queen-cell be of inferior standard, therefore, then (as happens in life) not the noblest of type, but that most adapted to environment secures racial survival.

So that here again, evolutionary racial advance may derive its impulse from the Female factor.

A singular phenomenon, recorded by the biologist, Rörig, and one which materially supports my argument, is that disease of the ovaries of a female deer will causemaleantlers to develop in her. Proving a male organism concealed, or held Recessive, in her, by power of her female sex-organs normally to inhibit the development of her inherited male-traits. A strange feature of this abnormal occurrence is that disease ofoneovary only causes antlers to develop ononeside only—and this on the side opposite to that of the diseased gland.

On the other hand, castration of male sheep of the Merino breed (only the males of which are horned) occasions hornlessness.

Male traits being paramount on the plane of concrete function, although they exist (normally) in Recessive form in the female, it is from the male inherence of her active right side and its allied brain-half that she derives her concrete powers alike of body and of brain.

It is obvious, therefore, that when abnormally stimulated by undue exercise, such male-traits may develop into abnormal dominance.

The left arm of woman is essentially the woman-member. In its half-passive action of supporting her infant for hours together, it is stronger for this maternal ministration than is the more active and doughty right arm of the male. Her left hand is more delicate of form, gentler and more soothing of motion than her right hand is. It is the hand she caresses with. While for direct, strong action—masculine action, that is—the paternal right half of her is dominant, as in the male. And although in our present-day stages of Evolution, the Recessive Woman-traits have emerged as definite characteristics, emancipating themselves from subjection by the Dominant male-traits, it must be remembered that their impulse and their powers are yet but rudimentary. Woman is still more male than she is female; her methods being more masculine still than they are womanly. And this in the degree of her cruder racial stock, or of the harder conditions (natural or artificial) of the environment in which she finds herself, demanding more of masculine proclivity in her—of physical activity and mental assertiveness—than of her intrinsic Woman-qualities of emotion and ministry.

Civilisation, foreshadowing evolutionary ideals, discountenances, the fighting female. Nevertheless, the cruder femalefightsstill with her male right arm, and the more cultured female, with tongue and tactics.

The intrinsic Woman-qualities, whereof Christianity is the gospel, are yet in their infancy of development; are yet more ideals for which we are shaping and waiting than they are realised and abiding facts.

Even their own babes are not secure from the instinct of blows inherent in the male-muscles of their mothers' right arms, when these are restrained neither by a woman's tenderness nor by a man's chivalry. Girl-babies, save those of the rarer higher types, beat their mothers and nurses only rather less frequently and less fiercely than boy-babies do.

Later in their life-history, that new impulse to the evolution of the Woman-traits which characterises their development to womanhood, normally negatives and further tempers in girls the male instincts of fight and of sport. But many of our modern amazons, brought up like boys, are more male than are their brothers. The male fighting-instinct which moved man to invent a club (destructive) has become so tempered by the increasingly potent Woman-traits in him that, save when angry or at war, he is content to turn his club into a golf-stick, a cricket bat, or tennis racquet; his sword into a plough-share. Whereas, on the contrary, the Woman-traits which moved woman to invent the needle (constructive) are becoming so over-ridden by the male in her that modern woman, artificially masculinised, abhors the needle, and is almost as much dominated as the other sex is by the male instinct for a weapon in the hand.

The class, Vertebrates, would seem to represent an adaptation to environment typically Male; earlier than and contrary in trend to that of the Mammalia, whereof the impulse was obviously Female.

Increasing vertebration was characterised by such a progressive differentiation of Male from Female traits as progressively segregated these in opposite sides of thebody; with spinal column and spinal cord for, respectively, physical and nervous central lines of demarcation. Thus the Male traits were enabled more and more to detach themselves at will from Female inhibition, and thereby increasingly to specialise and exercise those powers of force and fierceness and activity by way of which species became ever more individuated; aggressive, intelligent, efficient, in terms ofFitnessfor the struggle for survival.

Until that later evolution of female adaptation toUnfitness, in the sacrificial function of Lactation, inhibiting and tempering the earlier male trend, engendered the yet higher order of Mammalia.

(With that intuitive illumination inspiring speech, men and races lacking in virility are contemptuously described as being "invertebrate.")

According to this hypothesis, the paternal (and male) inherences of any mother may be said to be transmitted to the grandson in the direct male line of her heredity—an unbroken line of Maleness reaching back to its amœbic origin. While the maternal (and female) inherences of any father are transmitted, in the direct female line, to the grand-daughter—a similar line of continuity. The Woman-sex and traits of the grandmother remain thus for a generation dormant, or Recessive, in the father; "skipping a generation," as the phrase is. Then, in the third generation, they re-appear in the grand-daughter; by power of a maternal contribution in which the female inherence is prepotent. While the male-sex and traits of the grandfather remain dormant, or potential, in the mother; likewise "skipping a generation." Then they emerge in the grandson, by power of a male gamete evoking the inherent male in them.

The attributes of the one sex invested thus in the other, although normally submerged, form nevertheless a valuable endowment; supplying supplementary and complementary factors to counterpoise, to energise, and fructify the powers proper to the sex of the individual.

Man bears throughout life the Woman-potential his mother transmitted to him. But it is not his to realise. He bears it in trust for his daughters. He transmits it to his daughters, and in them this potential, recovering its woman-impulse, evolves to a further degree of woman-power. The like with mothers and sons.

All of which is supported by the Mendelian doctrine that the mother transmits "Femaleness" as a Dominant factor to her daughters and as a Recessive factor to her sons.

But the method whereby this is achieved has remained a mystery.

Professor Punnett says with regard to the phenomenon:

"The mother transmits to her daughter the dominant faculty of femaleness, but to balance this, as it were, she transmits to her sons another quality which her daughters do not receive ... among human families, in respect to particular qualities, the sons tend to resemble their mothers more than their daughters do."

A striking illustration of such transmission by mother to son of a paternally-derived abnormal inherencewhich she herself does not develop, is found in so-called "bleeders"; persons who suffer from the disease, hæmophilia. The daughters of a "bleeder" father show no symptom at all of the affliction, but they,nevertheless, pass on to their sons this male heritage of the grandfather.

There are numerous other examples of traits and diseases thus "skipping a generation"—in other words, of lying dormant, or potential, merely; overshadowed in the constitution and psychology of the sex to which they do not rightly belong, but developing in a succeeding generation in offspring of that sex whereof they are a natural trait, or (so to speak) a natural defect.

Since the woman-half she contributes to their hybrid constitution engenders the potential of their living processes, the mother may be regarded as still mothering her children throughout development and maturity, and to the end of their natural term. Accounting for that mystical sympathy between mother and child which intuitively informs her of fatalities occurring to absent sons and daughters—but to sons pre-eminently. Marvellously, they remain one living flesh so long as life persists.

During the War, mothers at a distance have known by an intuitive flash, and have told of the death of sons cut down in battle. One mother described the sensation she experienced as being preciselyas though one side of her body had been suddenly torn away. So too, mothers whose infants have died during childbirth or shortly after, describe as persisting for months subsequently a sense as though part of them were dead.

The father too must function in the hybrid living constitution. With the immense difference, however, that his part therein is a factor of the development of traits, not of the mystical functioning of Life. A notable feature of this paternal heritage is that in women at middle-age (when the wane of reproductive power releases vital potential from maternal investments) not only may masculine physical traits emerge, but there may develop in them notable brain-capacities inheritedfrom the father. Capacities inherent in them previously, but long inhibited in action by the normal female brain-Recessiveness.

VII

Every higher evolutionary differentiation results inevitably not only in progressive mutations in the traits of species, but, as well, in variations of the reproductive processes of such. Whendefects, physical or mental, are not reproduced in later generations true to Mendelian law, however, this is not abnormal, but is beautifully normal. Normality requires that defect—which is a deviation from The Normal—shall not be transmitted in any ratio whatsoever, but shall be corrected in a succeeding generation.

Moreover, when we realise the number and the complexities of human traits, all struggling to keep The Law, it is only to be expected that any single characteristic owing to its sex-inherence, may pass into the potential or Recessive, mode, and may thus vanish for a generation. Further, by the law of compensation, any trait or determinant, although itself Dominant, may be dwarfed and submerged by some other Dominant trait more assertive than itself.

Suppose a father normally larger and stronger than the normally shorter and weaker mother: Stature and strength being both Dominant and masculine traits, the traits of such a father, dominating the development of his sons, should so over-ride the traits of lesser strength and stature of the mother (in whom strength and stature are normally Recessive) that his sons will be tall and broad and strong, and mentally virile. On the other hand, the mother's traits, prepotent in the development of daughters, will inhibit in these and diminish the strength and stature of their paternal inherences. Thus, the woman of pure Recessive (the essentialwoman) type is smaller, more delicately organised, and weaker than the male.

By such means, the normal of the relative strength, stature, and mental qualifications of the sexes is preserved; the specialised characteristics of both ever further diverging in trend, while at the same time intensifying their intrinsic attributes.

Suppose, however, a mother who deviates from the normal in having developed along masculine lines, and who is, accordingly, tall or strong or mentally virile: Far from supplementing, in her sons, the father's traits of strength and stature, her sons will be more or less emasculate in mind or body, or in both. Strength and stature and virile mentality not being normal to her, these can only have emerged in her and can only have been exercised by her at cost of the masculine potential she bore in trust for male offspring. A woman who wins golf or hockey-matches may be said therefore to energise her muscles with the potential manhood of possible sons. With their potential existence indeed, since over-strenuous pursuits may sterilise women absolutely as regards male offspring.

Thus it is that muscular and otherwise masculine women produce weakling males. (Giant women—female-Dominants—are incapable of reproduction.) Tall mothers may produce tall sons, by transmitting to them the single trait of tallness of the maternal grandfather. But since tallness in woman is development along masculine lines, and detracts from her maternal power, the tall son in such case is likely to be defective in other manly traits. Men are of greater height than women, mainly in consequence of greater length of leg. The power expended in the male in length of limb is absorbed in the female into complex pelvic developments, wherein it is stored as Reproductive potential.

The power thus stored in latency reveals itself in the amazing evolution, as regards capacity and muscularequipment, by way of which the maternaluterusso develops during pregnancy as to enable it to cradle an infant of 9 or 10 lbs. weight, and to deliver this by output of immense energy—a marvel of biological function and mechanism.

Since the male trait of Tallness may be transmitted by woman from her father to her son, without manifesting in herself, it is obviously waste of power for her to develop a characteristic she needs neither for personal nor for hereditary purposes. Whereas, by further evolving her own woman-traits of suppleness and grace, she contributes new factors to those of the male. And so with all the other sex-characteristics.

Mr. Horace G. Regnart, M.A., the well-known breeder of pedigree stock, states that a bull of markedmasculinecharacteristics sires daughters of markedfemininecharacteristics. While thefemininecow bears sons of stronglymasculinetype. On the other hand, the daughters of a "steery" bull (a bull of de-sexed type) are themselves defective in female characteristics, and bear sons defective in male characteristics.

VIII

Clearly and fully defined, accordingly, as Sex-characteristics are in proportion as the individual is of high and normal organisation, obtrusions in the one sex of the traits of the other are as much stigmata of abnormality as are cleft-palate, webbed feet, or other deviations from the normal. Because they are reversions to lower types of organisation in which sex was less highly differentiated than is the normal of to-day.

Although, with progressive evolution, the Sex-traits are spun ever finer and finer, and are ever more subtly and inextricably interwoven with those of the other, normally the threads run true and distinct as do the threads of warp and woof in textile fabric.

The ever finer spinning of the threads secures an ever closer, subtler interweaving. Whereby the fabric of human organisation, of character and Faculty, becomes ever firmer yet more supple, ever stronger yet more delicate, ever more intense and rich of colour, but nevertheless more beautifully harmonised and subtilised by half-tones and complex gradations.

This is the reason why the strongest and most virile men are the most humane; the sternest are most tender; the greatest are most subtle. So inextricably interwoven with their virile characteristics are the finer spun Woman-potencies, as strangely and exquisitely to temper and sensitise their Manhood's powers.

And it is why the tenderest, most womanly women are the noblest; the gentlest are the most enduring; the wisest are the sweetest.

But no more than Black can be White, Acid, Alkaline, or the Straight line a Circle, can Repose be Action, Sternness be Sweetness, Firmness be Softness, Fierceness be Gentleness; Assertiveness, Selflessness; Boldness, Modesty. Nevertheless, in the hybrid unfoldment of Contrasting traits, Softness tempering Fierceness transforms it to Strength; Sweetness tempering Sternness melts it to Mercy; Assertiveness reinforcing Selflessness nerves it to Devotion; Firmness preserves Softness from lapsing to Weakness; Altruism, inspiring Chivalry, transfigures it to Heroism. But that Fierceness and Strength, Sweetness and Selflessness, have only intensified as, with further evolution, they have extended further into Life and Consciousness, is shown when they tear themselves asunder from their counterpoising attributes. Fierceness is seen then to be more fierce in complex man—because fierce in so many more and deeper issues of Life and Consciousness—than is the fierceness of the gorilla, which manifests largely in muscular savagery; champing of jaws, and beating on its breast as on a drum.

Back to Index Next