PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE 



ities, lacking contrary currents. This is the flock, in 

 which each member makes the same gesture of flight, of 

 biting, or of roaring. 



Neither the conditions of absolute monogamy, nor 

 those of absolute promiscuity seem to be found at pres- 

 ent in humanity, nor among animals; but one sees the 

 couple, in several animal and human species, either in 

 state of tendency, or in state of habit. More often, espe- 

 cially among insects, the father, even if he survives it a 

 little while, remains indifferent, to the consequences of 

 the genital act. At other times, the fights between males 

 so reduce their number that a sole male remains the 

 master and servant of a great number of females. So 

 one must distinguish between true, and successive poly- 

 gamy; between the monogamy of one season, and that 

 of an entire lifetime; and finally one must set apart those 

 animals who make love only once, or during one season 

 which is followed by death. These different varieties 

 and nuances demand methodic classification. It would 

 be a long work, and would perhaps not attain true exacti- 

 tude, for in animals, as in man, one must count with 

 caprice in sexual matters: when a faithful dove is tired 

 of her lover, she takes flight, and soon forms a new 

 couple with an adulterous male. The couple is natural, 

 but the permanent couple is not. Man has never bent 

 to it, save with difficulty, even though it be one of the 

 principal conditions of his superiority. 



The breasts of the male do not seem to prove the 



primordiality of the couple in mammals. Although there 



are veridic examples of the male's having given suck, 



it is difficult to consider the male udder as destined for 



143 



