taneously, her chief care being to do and say nothing unseemly. The English word "holy", resting securely on ts old meaning of "healthy", will best characterise a woman of this sort in the period of youth. The fact is that the basis of frivolity and squeamishness in the other sort of woman is quite inadequate to sustain the burdens of half-a-century of wedded existence. Nature is cruel-and just.

It is not to be supposed that these differences of character are manifest only in speech and ordinary social intercourse, Character is one, whether outcoming in mind, body, dress, or gait. Every young woman not in a nunnery is in the course of her youth the target of innumerable eyes, whether she rides in the trams, or buys oranges, or goes cycling. The business of these eyes, in a certain percentage of cases, is perfectly legitimate; nay, is of immense moment. Beside this important unofficial process the Queen's Government sinks into insignificance. It was a saying of Swedenborg (a true one) that the first impulse in these affairs, though perfectly unconsciously, comes from the woman. Let her strive to be worthy, and the fact will not be hid.

Social inequalities, wretched conventions, and the worship of money, disturb these natural adjustments, it is too true. But the adjustments are good. The race depends on its mothers for character, and the world does not need to be overstocked with sham workers and small bigots, inheriting in their souls that hourglass and bird arrangement, or some timidity, vulgarity, or mendacity of that sort.

The moral is, not that the marriage laws should be revolu tionised, but that the social millennium in other departments should be hurried up. These millennia are so slow.

E. W.

NEW BOOKS.

THE OLD AND THE NEW IDEAL.

By EMIL F. RUEDEBUSCH. (Mayville, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) 1896.

The author of this volume is an apostle of free love in the higher sense of the word. The book opens with an attack on those free thinkers who, having discarded the Christian creed, have not thrown off the yoke of the Christian code of morals derived therefrom. "The aim of religious teachers", he says, "has always been to gain complete control over sexual desire, as the best means of subjecting the masses to their will. . . . The priests, however, were only partially successful. Side by side with Christian marriage extensive prostitution in its most depraved and most depraving form has always and everywhere existed."

...

Mr. Ruedebusch disputes the allegation that prostitution is a 66 necessary evil", and, as a solution of the difficulties, recommends "freedom". By this he does not mean merely freedom from legal restraint, but from superstition and from the resulting customs and false ideals.

Two or three short chapters are devoted to the evils of monogamy as they affect the youth of both sexes, and the author goes on to advocate sexual intercourse between young men and women, from puberty upwards, to combat these evils of unnatural vices and prostitution.

In order to arrive at a scientific basis for re-arranging sexual relationship under freedom, the author then dissects marriage into its constituent parts. Under the theory which he propounds the good features of marriage are to be retained, the evil ones discarded. The ethical value and the beauty of sexual love are derived from the necessity of wooing and winning, and mutual spontaneous sexual love is an essential condition of human happiness. The fact or belief that sexual intercourse is the result of a contract, a pre-arrangement, that it is a duty or the unavoidable tribute of a "relation", robs it of its charm and beauty.

Therefore, sexual contracts, whether for a week or for life, are immoral and dangerous. In the scheme here propounded, there is to be no sexual living together, no sexual "relation " of any kind. Mutual sexual desire being a thing of moment, no sexual relation should be entered into which in any way forbids either party to transfer his or her love whenever ( 553 )

desired. Only in this way, can the charm and beauty of those relations be maintained.

Besides sexual intercourse man needs for his greatest possible happiness, the association and co-operation of women in many different fields. With one woman a man may prefer to dance, with another to play tennis, with another to take walks, with another to hold conversation. Therefore let every individual have perfect freedom to choose and enter into such associations with women or men as he or she may deem advisable or pleasurable; denouncing the while that foolish custom which demands all or nothing.

It is further to be noted that for many of these associations a mutual confidence in the stability of the union, and mutual trust in the constancy and faithfulness of the partner, are absolutely necessary to render them as useful as they can and should be made. Now, while in sexual intercourse a perfectly satisfactory relation can be begun and ended in a week, a day, an hour, or even in a few minutes, and is in no way spoilt by subsequent separation, there are other relations, now included in marriage, which cannot so be satisfied in a short time. A joint household for a day, a comradeship or friendship for a week, would have but little value; a family relation lasting a month only, would be a mere farce. Thus while free men and women would never think of entering into a love contract, the desire for a permanent friend of the opposite sex, for the comforts of a settled home, and for the society of children, might reasonably excite the desire in such free men and women to establish a joint household, a common home, a permanent friendship. When two people enter into such a contract, they will know that in order to make such an association valuable, a certain security, that is, confidence in the faithfulness of the partner is necessary. If intimate friendship exists between a free man and woman, they may consider it mutually advantageous to promise each other aid and assistance in sickness, poverty, and other distress. In fine, they will enter into a comradeship contract. This will, of course, be meant for life, and will be considered absolutely binding by every honourable man or woman. Not even the most passionate attachment to another person would be considered justification for a breach of such contract. If a free man and a free woman resolve to establish a family, that is, if they wish to accept the relation of father and mother to a child or several children, they will understand that this is an economic contract, and that it means an association of mental and emotional interest, which neither legal or moral laws, nor the

decree of either or both parties can ever dissolve, which, in fact, only death can annul.

But such a life association among free men and women will not interefere with their freedom of feeling, nor with their freedom of action, so far as the direct desires of love and its immediate surroundings are concerned. Wherever intimate social intercourse engenders in two human beings a strong sexual attraction for each other, resulting in the longing for the most intimate physical union, they will freely follow the spontaneous desire of the moment, and enjoy together without any condition, oaths or promises, without dreading to interfere thereby with any rights or privileges, and without fearing to interfere with or destroy any other love relation.

In order to compare his scheme with other free love propositions Mr. Ruedebusch then discusses the supposed advantages which theory claims for "free unions" which he argues have been falsified by experience. The advocates of "free unions" said that, "If the love of a couple is found to have been a mistake, or if mutual affection ceases, no prostitution (he defines elsewhere prostitution to be sexual intercourse without mutual sexual love) will follow, as they are free to part and enter into more suitable unions". But in practical experience this was found to be a fallacy, as many a man, although otherwise inclined, continued to cohabit with the woman simply because he valued very highly his home and his housekeeper, and that many a woman, although sexual love had ceased, still "granted favors" to the man simply because she warmly appreciated him as comrade help-mate or as the father of her child. In all such cases the "prostitution" necessarily appeared more humiliating than where the marital relation was considered a sacred duty for life. Theory again said, "The fear of losing each other will guard them (the free lovers) against the indifference and lack of courteous attention, so common in legal marriage. In practice it was found that there is an immense difference between wooing the love of a free human being and the fear of losing the affection of a man or woman already won. The striving to gain the love of a human being calls into action the noblest part of man's or woman's nature; the fear of losing the possession of a valued person (whether in or out of marriage) will always have the tendency to arouse the meanest and basest propensities in human nature; in which particular, marriage is preferable to a "free union" as the sense of security is greater, and the need for jealousy less.

'By "free unions" our author refers to the sexual living together of a man and woman as in our present marriage, but with freedom to separate when either party desires.

Theory again said: "If the love of two people, entering into a free union, is genuine it will last, and they will be a happy couple for life". The saddest disappointments were in store for those Free Lovers who accepted this as true, for they found that where "freedom of choice " was not a meaningless phrase not a single love proved to be genuine. The living together in "free unions" turned out to have about the same abating affect on passionate love as had the living together in "real marriage”. Thus it was only a question of time when one of them would "fall in love" with another, with the consequent desire of dissolving the union. But in such cases jealousy proved to be altogether too natural to be overcome by theories. To dissolve such a union, with its friendship and home associations, meant unhappiness for one or the other. For this reason, whenever such a "free union" meant more than a short concubinage for the sole purpose of mutual sexual satisfaction, it either ended in a tragedy, or the dread of such a tragedy influenced the couple, for the sake of preserving their union, to cautiously guard themselves against any loving inclination towards others, which course, was equivalent to giving up their freedom in love.

But, says Ruedebusch, with the combination of permanent home life with freedom in sexual relations none of these difficulties would exist. John Brown would contract to make a permanent home with Susan Robinson, but would enter freely into sexual relations with other women; Susan Robinson also being free to enter into such relations with other men. The home life contract not including sexual intercourse, there would be no room for jealousy, as the idea of mutual sexual possession would not enter into thought. Not that sexual intercourse would of necessity be absent. Even if no sexual desire was present at the time the economic contract was entered into, the friendship which prompted the comradeship contract might conceivably broaden at times into the desire for physical union, for the consummation of which desire sexual possession is by no means necessary.

It is an important part of Mr. Ruedebusch's scheme that every adult person should possess a room absolutely his or her own. Thus, whether living with parents or with a sex comrade, there would be no impediment to any man or woman enjoying the society of any person whatever, whether for the purpose of conversation or for any of the delights of love, from the mere interchange of sex magnetism arising from propinquity to the completest state of physical union, iree from the intrusion of any third party. Thus, if William Brown was entertaining a guest, and Susan Robinson, his home-life partner, discovered between herself and the guest