itself. A pity! For it might have brought enlightenment. Because it presents itself outright in the form of a patent absurdity.

Suppose a Man's Movement which should have had for aim the cult in males of their potential woman-qualities! Not for an instant could the project have found footing as being rational, its ends desirable, or as improving upon Nature. Everywhere is pity or contempt for the effeminate man. He is regarded as a poor creature, neither one thing nor the other; as little the peer of true man as he is notably an unworthy counterfeit of woman.

Yet how is this? Is it that we admit the male-sex to be so vastly and intrinsically superior to the female that we are not satisfied for half only, but demand that the whole human species shall be male? Nevertheless, since masculine qualities, although undeniably present, are normally latent in women, they must be inferior in power and calibre to these same qualities in men. Otherwise, in place of remaining in latency, they would assert themselves like men. Woman's inferior masculine powers, even when developed to the full, can equip her, therefore, to be no more than inferior male; "lesser man" merely, in place of being "diverse"—the highly-differentiated, finely-specialised being for which Nature would seem to have been shaping in her, during untold æons of progressive differentiation.

IV

The prevailing notion is that these masculine potentialities dormant in women are powers common to both sexes, which have been blighted in the one by long generations of educational and vocational disabilities precluding exercise and outlet for them. Or that they are powers which have been dwarfed by long "subjection" of the sex in maternal and domestic functions mainly.

Consulting Biology, we find that such artificial repression of Faculty in the mother (even were artificially-repressed faculty transmissible as such) could in no way have limited itself, in succeeding generations, to inheritance by daughters. On the contrary, the more we learn of the laws of Heredity, the more it is seen that Faculty descends from mother to son, rather than from mother to daughter. And yet, despite the sex-disabilities, personal and social, which are now condemned as having precluded the mothers of earlier eras from developing their masculine abilities, such mothers transmitted masculine characteristics in ever-increasing degree to successive generations of male offspring.

Whereupon another seeming paradox confronts us. Namely, that the sons of those earlier women, in whom masculine inherences were permitted to remain dormant, were notably more virile of body and mind than are the sons of latter-day emancipated mothers who have sedulously cultivated and have fully exercised their male proclivities.

And now upsprings a further momentous consideration: Is this cause and effect? Were the sons of women in whom the potential male had remained abeyant, more virile of body and brain than are the sons of women who have cultivated masculine characteristics, solely and absolutely because the mothers in the latter case had misappropriated to their own uses powers that belonged by right of heredity to sons? While those other mothers, by retaining such in latency, preserved them as a rich inheritance for male heirs. Is it similar, indeed, to the cases of a mother who realises and expends for her own purposes her sons' financial patrimony, and of a mother who, expending the interest alone thereof, retains the capital intact; and is enabled thus to pass it on as heritage? Is the power held latent in one generation the potential of the generation following?

It may be asked: Why should woman forgo possession and exercise of faculties available to her, in order to transmit these to sons? One might answer as in respect of that other patrimony. If it be true that she holds these powers in trust merely, they are not hers to spend. To expend them is to despoil her sons; to make paupers and bankrupts of them, humanly speaking. Further, since daughters inherit from the father, the male entail woman forbears to realise and to exploit for her own uses returns to her sex in the person of her grand-daughter—by paternal inheritance. For the able father is the parent of the able daughter.

Thus Nature works with the eternal justice of eternal reciprocity between the sexes; making them all the while more complexly diverse, but nevertheless more closely interdependent. So that one sex can neither progress nor can it regress by itself; but draws the other onward with it, or drags it back. Thus, the bread of human heritage consigned to the stream of posterity by one sex, for equipment and furtherance of the other, returns to the hand of the sex that consigned it.

If this be so—and I hope to prove it so—the woman who develops the potential male in her defrauds of its lawful racial and personal entail not only the opposite sex, in the person of her son, but she defrauds of its dower her own sex too, in the person of her grand-daughter.

Of the interesting and important biological processes underlying the mystery of the Dual-Sex constitution and its manifold phenomena, I am about to present a wholly new and—I venture to believe—a wholly true and convincing elucidation.

Natura simplex est, said Newton, et sibi semper consonans. (Nature is simple and always agrees with herself.) Bewilderingly multiple in her phenomena, she is superbly simple in her principles. By the operation of her one great Law of Gravitation, she sustains the mighty Solar systems—and brings the apple to the ground. By the extension, counterpoise and co-operation of one Primal Cosmic Energy—with its dual impulses, Centripetal and Centrifugal—she has generated all the diverse marvels of a Universe. And in view of her simplicity of Principle, it is conceivable that the Duality of Sex may be an extension into Life of that same principle of Duality which characterises the vaster Cosmic phenomena.

If this be true, Man and Woman are the complex resultant of infinitely many and varied evolutionary differentiations and associations of the two modes of Primal Energy. If so, the principle of Sex must have existed before Matter; must have been inherent in Creation before Creation began to evolve. And if so, Evolution would seem to have had for its purpose the ever further and fuller manifestation of these dual and contrary inherences in terms of Life and Sex. While, to judge by effects, it has had for its means such ever more intimate and intricate co-operations of these as have resulted in the progressively diverse and complex developments found to-day in Human Life and Human Sex-Characteristics.