FOOTNOTES

These things shall be! A loftier race,Than e’er the world hath known, shall riseWith flame of freedom in their souls,And light of science in their eyes.Nation with nation, land with land,In-armed shall live as comrades free;In every heart and brain shall throbThe pulse of one fraternity.63

These things shall be! A loftier race,

Than e’er the world hath known, shall rise

With flame of freedom in their souls,

And light of science in their eyes.

Nation with nation, land with land,

In-armed shall live as comrades free;

In every heart and brain shall throb

The pulse of one fraternity.63

To proceed. The Uranian, though generally high-strung and sensitive, is by no means always dreamy. He is sometimes extraordinarily and unexpectedly practical; and such a man may, and often does, command a positive enthusiasm among his subordinates in a business organisation. The same is true of military organisation. As a rule the Uranian temperament (in the male) is not militant. War with its horrors and savagery is somewhat alien to the type. But here again there are exceptions; and in all times there have been great generals (like Alexander, Cæsar, Charles XII. of Sweden, or Frederick II. of Prussia—not to speak of more modern examples) with a powerful strain in them of the homogenic nature, and a wonderful capacity for organisation and command, which combined with their personal interest in, or attachment to, their troops,and the answering enthusiasm so elicited, have made their armies well-nigh invincible.

The existence of this great practical ability in some Uranians cannot be denied; and it points to the important work they may some day have to do in social reconstruction. At the same time I think it is noticeable thatpolitics(at any rate in the modern sense of the word, as concerned mainly with party questions and party government) is not as a rule congenial to them. The personal and affectional element is perhaps too remote or absent. Mere ‘views’ and ‘questions’ and party strife are alien to the Uranian man, as they are on the whole to the ordinary woman.

If politics, however, are not particularly congenial, it is yet remarkable how many royal personages have been decidedly homogenic in temperament. Taking the Kings of England from the Norman Conquest to the present day, we may count about thirty. And three of these, namely, William Rufus, Edward II., and James I. were homosexual in a marked degree—might fairly be classed as Urnings—while some others, like William III., had a strong admixture of the same temperament. Three out of thirty yields a high ratio—ten per cent—and considering that sovereignsdo not generally choose themselves, but come into their position by accident of birth, the ratio is certainly remarkable. Does it suggest that the general percentage in the world at large is equally high, but that it remains unnoticed, except in the fierce light that beats upon thrones? or is there some other explanation with regard to the special liability of royalty to inversion? Hereditary degeneracy has sometimes been suggested. But it is difficult to explain the matter even on this theory; for though the epithet ‘degenerate’ might possibly apply to James I., it would certainly not be applicable to William Rufus and William III., who, in their different ways, were both men of great courage and personal force—while Edward II. was by no means wanting in ability.

But while the Uranian temperament has, in cases, specially fitted its possessors to become distinguished in art or education or war or administration, and enabled them to do valuable work in these fields; it remains perhaps true that above all it has fitted them, and fits them, for distinction and service in affairs of the heart.

It is hard to imagine human beings more skilled in these matters than are the Intermediates. Forindeed no one else can possibly respond to and understand, as they do, all the fluctuations and interactions of the masculine and feminine in human life. The pretensive coyness and passivity of women, the rude invasiveness of men; lust, brutality, secret tears, the bleeding heart; renunciation, motherhood, finesse, romance, angelic devotion—all these things lie slumbering in the Uranian soul, ready on occasion for expression; and if they are not always expressed are always there for purposes of divination or interpretation. There are few situations, in fact, in courtship or marriage which the Uranian does not instinctively understand; and it is strange to see how even an unlettered person of this type will often read Love’s manuscript easily in cases where the normal man or woman is groping over it like a child in the dark. [Not of course that this means to imply any superiority ofcharacterin the former; but merely that with his double outlook he necessarily discerns things which the other misses.]

That the Uranians do stand out as helpers and guides, not only in matters of Education, but in affairs of love and marriage, is tolerably patent to all who know them. It is a common experiencefor them to be consulted now by the man, now by the woman, whose matrimonial conditions are uncongenial or disastrous—not generally because the consultants in the least perceive the Uranian nature, but because they instinctively feel that here is a strong sympathy with and understanding of their side of the question. In this way it is often the fate of the Uranian, himself unrecognised, to bring about happier times and a better comprehension of each other among those with whom he may have to deal. Also he often becomes the confidant of young things of either sex, who are caught in the tangles of love or passion, and know not where to turn for assistance.

I say that I think perhaps of all the services the Uranian may render to society it will be found some day that in this direction of solving the problems of affection and of the heart he will do the greatest service. If the day is coming as we have suggested—when Love is at last to take its rightful place as the binding and directing force of society (instead of the Cash-nexus), and society is to be transmuted in consequence to a higher form, then undoubtedly the superior types of Uranians—prepared for this service by long experience and devotion, as well as by muchsuffering—will have an important part to play in the transformation. For that the Urnings in their own lives put Love before everything else—postponing to it the other motives like money-making, business success, fame, which occupy so much space in most people’s careers—is a fact which is patent to everyone who knows them. This may be saying little or nothing in favor of those of this class whose conception of love is only of a poor and frivolous sort; but in the case of those others who see the god in his true light, the fact that they serve him in singleness of heart and so unremittingly raises them at once into the position of the natural leaders of mankind.

From this fact—i.e., that these folk think so much of affairs of the heart—and from the fact that their alliances and friendships are formed and carried on beneath the surface of society, as it were, and therefore to some extent beyond the inquisitions and supervisions of Mrs. Grundy, some interesting conclusions flow.

For one thing, the question is constantly arising as to how Society would shape itself iffree: what form, in matters of Love and Marriage, it would take, if the present restrictions and sanctions were removed or greatly altered. At present inthese matters, the Law, the Church, and a strong pressure of public opinion interfere, compelling the observance of certain forms; and it becomes difficult to say how much of the existing order is due to the spontaneous instinct and common sense of human nature, and how much to mere outside compulsion and interference: how far, for instance, Monogamy is natural or artificial; to what degree marriages would be permanent if the Law did not make them so; what is the rational view of Divorce; whether jealousy is a necessary accompaniment of Love; and so forth. These are questions which are being constantly discussed, without finality; or not infrequently with quite pessimistic conclusions.

Now in the Urning societies a certain freedom (though not complete, of course) exists. Underneath the surface of general Society, and consequently unaffected to any great degree by its laws and customs, alliances are formed and maintained, or modified or broken, more in accord with inner need than with outer pressure. Thus it happens that in these societies there are such opportunities to note and observe human grouping under conditions of freedom, as do not occur in the ordinary world. And the results are both interesting andencouraging. As a rule I think it may be said that the alliances are remarkably permanent. Instead of the wild “general post” which so many good people seem to expect in the event of law being relaxed, one finds (except of course in a few individual cases) that common sense and fidelity and a strong tendency to permanence prevail. In the ordinary world so far has doubt gone that many to-day disbelieve in a life-long free marriage. Yet among the Uranians such a thing is, one may almost say, common and well known; and there are certainly few among them who do not believe in its possibility.

Great have been the debates, in all times and places, concerning Jealousy; and as to how far jealousy is natural and instinctive and universal, and how far it is the product of social opinion and the property sense, and so on. In ordinary marriage what may be called social and proprietary jealousy is undoubtedly a very great factor. But this kind of jealousy hardly appears or operates in the Urning societies. Thus we have an opportunity in these latter of observing conditions where only the natural and instinctive jealousy exists. This of course is present among the Urnings—sometimes rampant and violent,sometimes quiescent and vanishing almost tonil. It seems to depend almost entirely upon the individual; and we certainly learn that jealousy though frequent and widespread, is not an absolutely necessary accompaniment of love. There are cases of Uranians (whether men or women) who, though permanently allied, do not object to lesser friendships on either side—and there are cases of very decided objection. And we may conclude that something the same would be true (is true) of the ordinary Marriage, the property considerations and the property jealousy being once removed. The tendency anyhow to establish a dual relation more or less fixed, is seen to be very strong among the Intermediates, and may be concluded to be equally strong among the more normal folk.

Again with regard to Prostitution. That there are a few natural-born prostitutes is seen in the Urning-societies; but prostitution in that world does not take the important place which it does in the normal world, partly because the law-bound compulsory marriage does not exist there, and partly because prostitution naturally has little chance and cannot compete in a world where alliances are free and there is an open field forfriendship. Hence we may see that freedom of alliance and of marriage in the ordinary world will probably lead to the great diminution or even disappearance of Prostitution.

In these and other ways the experience of the Uranian world forming itself freely and not subject to outside laws and institutions comes as a guide—and really a hopeful guide—towards the future. I would say however that in making these remarks about certain conclusions which we are able to gather from some spontaneous and comparatively unrestricted associations, I do not at all mean to argueagainstinstitutions and forms. I think that the Uranian love undoubtedly suffers from want of a recognition and a standard. And though it may at present be better off than if subject to a foolish and meddlesome regulation; yet in the future it will have its more or less fixed standards and ideals, like the normal love. If one considers for a moment how the ordinary relations of the sexes would suffer were there no generally acknowledged codes of honor and conduct with regard to them, one then indeed sees that reasonable forms and institutions are a help, and one may almost wonder that the Urningcircles are so well-conducted on the whole as they are.

I have said that the Urning men in their own lives put love before money-making, business success, fame, and other motives which rule the normal man. I am sure that it is also true of them as a whole that they put love before lust. I do not feelsurethat this can be said of the normal man, at any rate in the present stage of evolution. It is doubtful whether on the whole the merely physical attraction is not the stronger motive with the latter type. Unwilling as the world at large is to credit what I am about to say, and great as are the current misunderstandings on the subject, I believe it is true that the Uranian men are superior to the normal men in this respect—in respect of their love-feeling—which is gentler, more sympathetic, more considerate, more a matter of the heart and less one of mere physical satisfaction than that of ordinary men.64All this flows naturally from the presence of the feminine element in them, and its blending with the rest of their nature. It should be expecteda priori, and it can be noticed at once by those who have any acquaintance with the Urningworld. Much of the current misunderstanding with regard to the character and habits of the Urning arises from his confusion with the ordinaryrouéwho, though of normal temperament, contracts homosexual habits out of curiosity and so forth—but this is a point which I have touched on before, and which ought now to be sufficiently clear. If it be once allowed that the love-nature of the Uranian is of a sincere and essentially humane and kindly type then the importance of the Uranian’s place in Society, and of the social work he may be able to do, must certainly also be acknowledged.

1For the derivation of these terms see ch. ii.,p. 20,infra.

2See Appendix,pp. 139 and 140.

3FromUranos, heaven; his idea being that the Uranian love was of a higher order than the ordinary attachment. For further about Ulrichs and his theories see Appendix,pp. 157-159.

4Charles G. Leland (“Hans Breitmann”) in his book “The Alternate Sex” (Wellby, 1904), insists much on the frequent combination of the characteristics of both sexes in remarkable men and women, and has a chapter on “The Female Mind in Man,” and another on “The Male Intellect in Woman.”

5Some late statistical inquiries (see “Statistische Untersuchungen,” von Dr. M. Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1904) yield 1.5 to 2.0 per cent. as a probable ratio. See also Appendix,pp. 134-136.

6For instances, see Appendix,pp. 149-153.

7See De Joux, “Die Enterbten des Liebesglückes” (Leipzig, 1893), p. 21.

8“Psychopathia Sexualis,” 7th ed., p. 276.

9See Appendix,pp. 153-156.

10A good deal in this description may remind readers of history of the habits and character of Henry III. of France.

11Perhaps, like Queen Christine of Sweden, who rode across Europe, on her visit to Italy, in jack-boots and sitting astride of her horse. It is said that she shook the Pope’s hand, on seeing him, so heartily that the doctor had to attend to it afterwards!

12“Homosexual,” generally used in scientific works, is of course a bastard word. “Homogenic” has been suggested, as being from two roots, both Greek,i.e., “homos,” same, and “genos,” sex.

13“Athenæus” xiii., ch. 78.

14See Plutarch’s “Eroticus,” §xvii.

15See “Natural History of Man,” by J. G. Wood. Vol: “Africa,” p. 419.

16See also Livingstone’s “Expedition to the Zambesi” (Murray, 1865) p. 148.

17Though these two plays, except for some quotations, are lost.

18Mantegazza and Lombroso. See Albert Moll, “Conträre Sexualempfindung,” 2nd ed., p. 36.

19Though in translation this fact is often by pious fraudulence disguised.

20W. Pater’s “Renaissance,” pp. 8-16.

21Amongprosewriters of this period, Montaigne, whose treatment of the subject is enthusiastic and unequivocal, should not be overlooked. See Hazlitt’s “Montaigne,” ch. xxvii.

22I may be excused for quoting here the sonnet No. 54, from J. A. Symonds’ translation of the sonnets of Michel Angelo:—“From thy fair face I learn, O my loved lord,That which no mortal tongue can rightly say:The soul, imprisoned in her house of clay,Holpen by thee to God hath often soared:And though the vulgar, vain, malignant hordeAttribute what their grosser wills obey,Yet shall this fervent homage that I pay,This love, this faith, pure joys for us afford,Lo, all the lovely things we find on earth,Resemble for the soul that rightly sees,That source of bliss divine which gave us birth:Nor have we first-fruits or remembrancesOf heaven elsewhere. Thus, loving loyally,I rise to God, and make death sweet by thee.”The labours of von Scheffler, followed by J. A. Symonds, have now pretty conclusively established the pious frauds of the nephew, and the fact that the love-poems of the elder Michel Angelo were, for the most part, written to male friends.

22I may be excused for quoting here the sonnet No. 54, from J. A. Symonds’ translation of the sonnets of Michel Angelo:—

“From thy fair face I learn, O my loved lord,That which no mortal tongue can rightly say:The soul, imprisoned in her house of clay,Holpen by thee to God hath often soared:And though the vulgar, vain, malignant hordeAttribute what their grosser wills obey,Yet shall this fervent homage that I pay,This love, this faith, pure joys for us afford,Lo, all the lovely things we find on earth,Resemble for the soul that rightly sees,That source of bliss divine which gave us birth:Nor have we first-fruits or remembrancesOf heaven elsewhere. Thus, loving loyally,I rise to God, and make death sweet by thee.”

“From thy fair face I learn, O my loved lord,

That which no mortal tongue can rightly say:

The soul, imprisoned in her house of clay,

Holpen by thee to God hath often soared:

And though the vulgar, vain, malignant horde

Attribute what their grosser wills obey,

Yet shall this fervent homage that I pay,

This love, this faith, pure joys for us afford,

Lo, all the lovely things we find on earth,

Resemble for the soul that rightly sees,

That source of bliss divine which gave us birth:

Nor have we first-fruits or remembrances

Of heaven elsewhere. Thus, loving loyally,

I rise to God, and make death sweet by thee.”

The labours of von Scheffler, followed by J. A. Symonds, have now pretty conclusively established the pious frauds of the nephew, and the fact that the love-poems of the elder Michel Angelo were, for the most part, written to male friends.

23See an interesting paper in W. Pater’s “Renaissance.”

24For a fuller collection of instances of this Friendship-love in the history of the world, see “Ioläus: an Anthology,” by E. Carpenter (George Allen, London. 3/- net). Also “Liebling-minne und Freundesliebe in der Welt-literatur,” von Elisar von Kupffer (Adolf Brand, Berlin, 1900).

25As in the case, for instance, of Tennyson’s “In Memoriam,” for which the poet was soundly rated by theTimesat the time of its publication.

26Jowett’s “Plato,” 2nd ed., vol. ii., p. 30.

27Jowett, vol. ii., p. 130.

28One ought also to mention some later writers, like Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld and Dr. von Römer, whose work though avowedly favourable to the Urning-movement, is in a high degree scientific and reliable in character.

29FromUranos—see, for derivation,p. 20,supra—also Plato’s “Symposium,” speech of Pausanias.

30See, for estimates, Appendix,pp. 134-136.

31Though there is no doubt a generaltendencytowards femininity of type in the male Urning, and towards masculinity in the female.

32“Gli amori degli uomini.”

33“Psychopathia Sexualis,” 7th ed., p. 227.

34Ibid, pp. 229 and 258. See Appendix,p. 160.

35“How deep congenital sex-inversion roots may be gathered from the fact that the pleasure-dream of the male Urning has to do with male persons, and of the female with females.”—Krafft-Ebing, “P.S.,” 7th ed., p. 228.

36“Conträre Sexualempfindung,” 2nd ed., p. 269.

37See “Love’s Coming-of-Age,” p. 22.

38Pub.: F. A. Davis, Philadelphia, 1901.

39Otto Weininger even goes further, and regards the temperament as a natural intermediate form (“Sex and Character,” ch. iv.) See also Appendix,infra,p. 169.

40“Though then before my own conscience I cannot reproach myself, and though I must certainly reject the judgment of the world about us, yet I suffer greatly. In very truth I have injured no one, and I hold my love in its nobler activity for just as holy as that of normally disposed men, but under the unhappy fate that allows us neither sufferance nor recognition I suffer often more than my life can bear.”—Extract from a letter given by Krafft-Ebing.

41See “In the Key of Blue,” by J. A. Symonds (Elkin Mathews, 1893).

42See Appendix,pp. 162 and 163.

43See also “Love’s Coming-of-Age,” 5th ed., pp. 173, 174.

44See “Das Conträre Geschlechtsgefühl,” von Havelock Ellis und J. A. Symonds (Leipzig, 1896).

45“Symposium,” Speech of Socrates.

46It is interesting in this connection to notice the extreme fervour, almost of romance, of the bond which often unites lovers of like sex over a long period of years, in an unfailing tenderness of treatment and consideration towards each other, equal to that shown in the most successful marriages. The love of many such men, says Moll (p. 119), “developed in youth lasts at times the whole life through. I know of such men, who had not seen their first love for years, even decades, and who yet on meeting showed the old fire of their first passion. In other cases, a close love-intimacy will last unbroken for many years.”

47Though, inconsistently enough, making no mention of females.

48Dr. Moll maintains (2nd ed., pp. 314, 315) that if familiarities between those of the same sex are made illegal, as immoral, self-abuse ought much more to be so made.

49Though it is doubtful whether the marriage-laws even do this.

50In France, since the adoption of the Code Napoleon, sexual inversion is tolerated under the same restrictions as normal sexuality; and according to Carlier, formerly Chief of the French Police, Paris is not more depraved in this matter than London. Italy in 1889 also adopted the principles of the Code Napoleon on this point. For further considerations with regard to the Law, see Appendix,pp. 164 and 165.

51For further instances, see Appendix,pp. 143-148.

52See Müller’s “History and Antiquities of the Doric Race.”

53Müller.

54Cf. the incident at the end of Plato’s “Lysis,” when the tutors of Lysis and Menexenus come in and send the youths home.

55For a useful little manual on this subject, see “How We are Born,” by Mrs. N. J. (Daniel, London, price 2/-). For a general argument in favour of sex-teaching see “The Training of the Young in Laws of Sex,” by Canon Lyttelton, Headmaster of Eton College (Longmans, 2/6).

56See J. G. Wood’s “Natural History of Man,” vol. “Africa,” p. 324 (the Bechuanas); also vol. “Australia,” p. 75.

57With the rapid rise which is taking place, in scope and social status, of the state day-schools, it is probable that some change of opinion will take place with regard to the wisdom of sending young boys of ten to fourteen to upper-class boarding-schools. For a boy of fifteen or sixteen and upwards the boarding-school system may have its advantages. By that time a boy is old enough to understand some questions; he is old enough to have some rational ideal of conduct, and to hold his own in the pursuit of it; and he may learn in the life away from home a lot in the way of discipline, organization, self-reliance, etc. But to send a young thing, ignorant of life, and quite unformed of character, to take his chance by day and night in the public school as it at present exists, is—to say the least—a rash thing to do.

58It should be also said, in fairness, that the fear of showing undue partiality, often comes in as a paralysing influence.

59“Studies in the Psychology of Sex,” vol. ii., p. 173.

60Seech. ii.supra, alsoIoläus, an Anthology of Friendship, by E. Carpenter.

61Mr. Jones became Mayor of Toledo; but died at the early age of 53. See also “Workshop Reconstruction,” by C. R. Ashbee, Appendix,infra,p. 146.

62“Whitman: ein Charakterbild,” by Edward Bertz (Leipzig, Max Spohr).

63John Addington Symonds.

64See Appendix,pp. 172-174.

Back to Index Next