472 



ON THE ORGAN OF MARRIAGE IN MAN AND OTHER ANIMALS.* 

 By Joseph Vimont, M.D. 



Is there a special faculty for attachment for life, or marriage ? Is it only the 

 result of the action of several faculties, or the modification of one only — that of 

 Adhesiveness for example — of which I shall speak hereafter ? A more profound 

 study of the organisation of the nervous system of animals and of their habits, 

 can alone throw light on the question. 



If we watch closely the conduct of wild animals, we shall find that amongst 

 some species, the males, after having satisfied the desire for sexual intercourse, 

 separate themselves from their females — either to go to impregnate others — to 

 live in a state of solitude— or to unite themselves to several individuals of the 

 same species and of the same sex. Such we see is the case among wild Boars, 

 Wolves, and Stags. Other species again live constantly with their females — for 

 instance the Fox, the Marten, the Roebuck, amongst quadrupeds ; and the Raven, 

 the Jay, the Magpie, the Swallow, the Sparrow, amongst birds. 



Gall, though seemingly disposed to believe that attachment for life depended 

 on a particular organisation, has not cleared up the subject by instances drawn 

 from Comparative Anatomy. Nor has he been more explicit with regard to Man. 



Spurzheim thinks that marriage is but a modification of the faculty of Adhe- 

 siveness ; that the instinct of living in society, and that of living in family, are 

 only particular modifications peculiar in their nature — just as the taste for 

 vegetable or animal food is a modification of smell and of taste in herbivorous and 

 carnivorous animals. 



These observations of Spurzheim are but specious, and are overturned by 

 studying the habits of certain species. I do not think that union for life is 

 merely a modification of Adhesiveness: — it appears to me to possess all the 

 characters of a fundamental faculty. To me it is sufficiently proved that an 

 animal may have great Adhesiveness and yet not live in company with its female. 

 The Dog is a striking instance in support of my assertion. Wolves live often in 

 large bodies, but do not remain in a state of union with their females. Stags act 

 in a similar manner. The Fox, though brought up very young, does not attach 

 himself to any one, but unites himself to his female for life. It is not then true 

 that where this union for life exists we find Adhesiveness ; which, however, ought 

 to be the case if it were, as Spurzheim affirms, only a modification of that 

 faculty. 



Gall has not, in my opinion, given a more satisfactory solution of this question 

 when he says, " If I could place full confidence in my knowledge of Natural 



* Translated from the Traite de Phrenologie , in the Phrenological Journal, Vol. X. } p. 653. 



