[958]. Grosse, Format der Familie, pp. 30 ff. See p. 39. He takes as “representatives of the oldest form of social life” those scattered tribes which subsist entirely by hunting; we know nothing so primitive, and while checked in culture, these tribes are probably not degraded (32 f.). The statements in the text are based on careful arrangement of the statistics, a very important point. See Mucke, Horde und Familie, pp. 181 ff. Spencer describes the “small, simple aggregates,” coöperating “with or without a regulating centre, for certain public ends,” of which the “headless” kind must be regarded as the primitive type; and gives a list of these not very different from the list of Grosse. Prin. Soc., I. § 257.
[959]. Grosse refuses to extend this lack of individual power to promiscuity in sexual relations. That precious theory was doubtless carried to an absurd point; but the reaction may likewise go too far, and the case of those Andamanese (p. 43) with their “absolute conjugal fidelity even unto death,” uncannily suggests Sir Charles Grandison and even Isaac Walton’s mullet.
[960]. Anthropology, p. 79.
[961]. Anthropologie, I. 74 ff., 349 ff.
[962]. Waitz, I. 446, answers objections to this view, and disposes of the idea that civilization levels mankind.
[963]. See above, p. [372], note [942].
[964]. Anfänge der Kunst, p. 224.
[965]. Ibid., pp. 300 f.
[966]. Ibid., p, 236.
[967]. Comparative Literature, p. 72. See pp. 89 ff., 155 ff., 347 f., and the whole chapter on “The Principle of Literary Growth.” He glorifies sympathy as the poetic mainspring; but he fails to study the dualism in terms of actual throng and actual artist. The spirit and plan of the book, however, are worthy of the highest praise, whatever its shortcomings in detail.