ment of the uniting passion, involving appreciation of mental qualities which last long after youth and beauty have passed away, and partly also from the greater durability of parental feelings, which form a tie not only between parents and children, but between husband and wife.

The parental feelings originally only last as long as the young are unable to shift for themselves the paternal feeling possibly less. As Mr. Fiske observes," where the infancy is very short, the parental feeling, though intense while it lasts, presently disappears, and the offspring cease to be distinguished from strangers of the same species. And in general the duration of the feelings which insure the protection of the offspring is determined by the duration of the infancy." Among certain savages parental love is still said to be restricted to the age of helplessness. We are told that the affection of a Fuegian mother for her child gradually decreases in proportion as the child grows older, and ceases entirely when it reaches the age of seven or eight; thenceforth the parents in no way meddle with the affairs of their son, who may leave them if he likes.2 When the parental feelings became more complex, through the association of other feelings, as those of property and pride, they naturally tended to extend themselves beyond the limits of infancy and childhood. But the chief cause of this extension seems to lie in the same circumstances as made man a gregarious animal. Where the grown-up children continued to stay with their parents, parental affection naturally tended to be prolonged, not only by the infusion into it of new elements, but by the direct influence of close living together. It was, moreover, extended to more distant descendants. The same stimuli as call forth kindly emotions towards a person's own children evoke similar emotions towards his grand- and greatgrandchildren.

1 Fiske, op. cit. ii. 343.

2 Bove, Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco, p. 133. See also Wied-Neuwied, Reise nach Brasilien, ii. 40 (Botocudos); Im

VOL. II

Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, p. 219; Scaramucci and Giglioli, 'Notizie sui Danakil,' in Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia, xiv. 35.

2

It is an old truth that children's love of their parents is generally much weaker than the parents' love of their children. The latter is absolutely necessary for the subsistence of the species, the former is not; though, when a richer food-supply favoured the formation of larger communities, filial attachment must have been of advantage to the race. No individual is born with filial love. However, Aristotle goes too far when saying that, whilst parents love their children from their birth upward, "children do not begin to love their parents until they are of a considerable age, and have got full possession of their wits and faculties." " Under normal circumstances the infant from an early age displays some attachment to its parents. Professor Sully tells us of a girl, about seventeen months old, who received her father after a few days' absence with special marks of affection, "rushing up to him, smoothing and stroking his face and giving him all the toys in the room." 4 Filial love is retributive; the agreeable feeling produced by benefits received makes the individual look with pleasure and kindliness upon the giver. And here again the affection is strengthened by close living together, as appears from the cooling effect of long separation of children from their parents. But the filial feeling is not affection pure and simple, it is affection mingled with regard for the physical and mental superiority of the parent. As the parental feeling is partly love of the weak and young, so the filial feeling is partly regard for the strong and (comparatively) old.

Besides parental, conjugal, and filial attachment we find among all existing races of men altruism of the fraternal

type, binding together children of the same parents, relatives more remotely allied, and, generally, members of the same social unit. But I am inclined to suppose that man was not originally a gregarious animal, in the proper sense of the word, that he originally lived in families. rather than in tribes, and that the tribe arose as the result of increasing food-supply, allowing the formation of larger communities, combined with the advantages which under such circumstances accrued from a gregarious life. The man-like apes are not gregarious; and considering that some of them are reported to be encountered in greater numbers in the season when most fruits come to maturity,' we may infer that the solitary life generally led by them is due chiefly to the difficulty they experience in getting food at other times of the year. That our earliest human or half-human ancestors lived on the same kind of food, and required about the same quantities of it as the manlike apes, seems to me a fairly legitimate supposition; and from this I conclude that they were probably not more gregarious than these apes. Subsequently man became carnivorous; but even when getting his living by fishing or hunting, he may still have continued as a rule this solitary kind of life, or gregariousness may have become his habit only in part. "An animal of a predatory kind,' Mr. Spencer observes, "which has prey that can be caught and killed without help, profits by living alone: especially if its prey is much scattered, and is secured by stealthy approach or by lying in ambush. Gregariousness would here be a positive disadvantage. Hence the tendency of large carnivores, and also of small carnivores that have feeble and widely-distributed prey, to lead solitary lives." 2 It is certainly a noteworthy fact that even now there are rude savages who live rather in separate families than in tribes; and that their solitary life is due to want of

1 Savage, 'Observations on the External Characters and Habits of the Troglodytes Niger,' in Boston Journal of Natural History, iv. 384. Cf. von Koppenfels, Meine Jagden auf Go

rillas,' in Die Gartenlaube, 1877, p. 419.

2

Spencer, Principles of Psychology, ii. 558.

sufficient food is obvious from several facts which I have stated in full in another place. These facts, as it seems to me, give much support to the supposition that the kind of food man subsisted upon, together with the large quantities of it which he wanted, formed in olden times. a hindrance to a true gregarious manner of living, except perhaps in some unusually rich places.

or

But man finally overcame this obstacle. "He has," to quote Darwin, "invented and is able to use various. weapons, tools, traps, &c., with which he defends himself, kills or catches prey, and otherwise obtains food. He has made rafts or canoes for fishing or crossing over to neighbouring fertile islands. He has discovered the art of making fire, by which hard and stringy roots can be rendered digestible, and poisonous roots herbs innocuous." 2 In short, man gradually found out new ways of earning his living and more and more emancipated himself from direct dependence on surrounding nature. The chief obstacle to a gregarious life was by this means surmounted, and the advantages of such a life were considerable. Living together in larger groups, men could resist the dangers of life and defend themselves much better than when solitary-all the more so as the physical strength of man, and especially savage man, is comparatively slight. The extension of the small family group may have taken place in two different ways either by adhesion, or by natural growth and cohesion. In other words, new elements-whether other family groups or single individuals may have united with it from without, or the children, instead of separating from their parents, may have remained with them and increased the group by forming new families themselves. There can be little doubt that the latter was the normal mode of extension. When gregariousness became an advantage to man, he would feel inclined to remain with those with whom he was living even after the family had fulfilled its object-the preservation of

1 Westermarck, op. cit. p. 43 sqq.

2

Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 48 sq.

the helpless offspring. And he would be induced to do so not only from egoistic considerations, but by an instinct which, owing to its usefulness, would gradually develop, practically within the limits of kinship-the gregarious instinct.

By the gregarious instinct I understand an animal's proneness to live together with other members of its own species, apart from parental, conjugal, and filial attachment. It involves, or leads to, pleasure in the consciousness of their presence. The members of a herd are at ease in each other's company, suffer when they are separated, and rejoice when they are reunited. By actual living together the instinct is individualised,' and it is strengthened by habit. The pleasure with which one individual looks upon another is further increased by the solidarity of interests. Not only have they enjoyments in common, but they have the same enemies to resist, the same dangers to encounter, the same difficulties to overcome. Hence acts which are beneficial to the agent are at the same time beneficial to his companions, and the distinction between ego and alter loses much of its importance.

2

But the members of the group do not merely take pleasure in each other's company. Associated animals very frequently display a feeling of affection for each otherdefend each other, help each other in distress and danger, perform various other services for each other. Considering that the very object of the gregarious instinct is the preservation of the species, I think we are obliged to regard the mutual affection of associated animals as a development of this instinct. With the pleasure they take in each other's company is intimately connected kindliness. towards its cause, the companion himself. In this explanation of social affection I believe no further step can be made. Professor Bain asks why a more lively feeling should grow up towards a fellow-being than towards an

1 In mankind we very early recognise the child's tendency to sympathise with persons who are familiar to it (Compayré, L'évolution intellectuelle et

morale de l'enfant, p. 288).

2 Darwin, op. cit. p. 100 sqq. Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, ch. i. sq.