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 
^ Tmnslated from the Traltc de Phrenologies in the PhrenologicalJow'nalj Vol. X.j p. 653. 
