[968]. Catullus, lxiv.
[969]. Werke, VI. 26.
[970]. Esthétique de la Tradition, pp. 69 ff.
[971]. Spencer, Sociology, I. 56 ff., 70 f., II. 271, note; Grosse, Formen der Familie, p. 57, with quotation from Petroff’s book on Alaska; Schultze, Fetischismus, pp. 51 f.
[972]. The Theory of Law and Civil Society, London, 1888, pp. 106 f. See above, p. [26].
[973]. Professor Baldwin, Social and Ethical Interpretations, p. 214, puts the beginning of the social period just after man’s release from the animal. See too his appendix. Ribot, work quoted, p. 281, says the gregarious life—of animals in hordes, that is—“is founded on the attraction of like for like, irrespective of sex.” See this whole chapter on “The Social and Moral Feelings.”
[974]. See, however, the case of New Zealanders who work in large numbers and in perfect accord by singing their song totowaka. Wallaschek, Prim. Mus., p. 43.
[975]. Even Mr. Spencer points out that this is no bar to communal consent, Sociology, I. 59; for the variability implies “smaller departure from primitive reflex action ... lack of the re-representative emotions which hold the simpler ones in check.” Bastian, too, has shown that in the formation of society out of individuals, the social element as such, the social whole, must precede the element of social individuality or of the individuality within the mass. This is what one gathers from Bastian’s books in general; in one case, Die Welt in ihren Spiegelungen unter dem Wandel des Völkergedankens, p. 413, he applies this idea to the priority of social property as compared with individual property.
[976]. Perhaps there is some connection between the fervour and merit of French war-songs like the Marseillaise, the Ça ira, and the fact that French literature as a whole is averse from undue stress upon the individual and does not suffer, whatever its other defects, from “too much ego in its cosmos.” Texte points out that Jean-Jacques, Germanic by nature, noticed this trait in the French. “Le je ... est presque aussi scrupuleusement banni de la scène française que des écrits de Port-Royal, et les passions humaines ... n’y parlent jamais que par on.” How contemptuously M. Brunetière, who has no superior in the appreciation of French literature as a whole, speaks of that new personal note, set in fashion by Rousseau, “most eloquent of lackeys!” See “La Littérature Personnelle,” in B.’s Questions de Critique, pp. 211 ff., and his review of Hennequin’s book in the same collection, pp. 305 ff.
[977]. Boas, Report Bur. Ethnol., 1884-1885, pp. 564, 600 ff.