“Chastity was a self-evident demand for the unmarried. It is true that, in view of the early occurrence of puberty, they married very young—at the age of eighteen or twenty; and Rabbi Huna is of opinion that anyone who at the age of twenty is still unmarried passes his days in sin or—which he regards as even worse—in sinful thoughts. There are three whom God praises every day: an unmarried man who lives in a large town and does not sin; a poor man who finds an object of value and returns it to the owner, and a rich man who gives his tithe secretly. Once when this doctrine was read out in the presence of Rabbi Safra, who as a young man lived in a large town, his face lighted up with joy. But Raba said to him: ‘It is not meant such a one as thou art, but such a one as Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Oschaja, who live in the street of the prostitutes, and make shoes for them, to whom, therefore, the prostitutes come, and look upon them, but who, notwithstanding this, do not raise their eyes to look upon the prostitutes.’”
After marriage also they endeavoured by valuable prescriptions to enforce the great civilizing idea of temporary sexual abstinence. Thus, intercourse during menstruation was strictly forbidden, and was regarded as a deadly sin; the same was the case as regards intercourse when there was any other hæmorrhage from the genital organs; but in this case the abstinence must last even longer. It is remarkable that the Catholic theologians allowed sexual intercourse without limit when such morbid hæmorrhage was present, and allowed it also, with certain restrictions, during menstruation. Further, among the ancient Hebrews intercourse was forbidden during the week of mourning for parents or brothers or sisters; it was forbidden also during the festival of atonement. Guests in an inn when travelling were also forbidden sexual intercourse, doubtless on grounds of decency. Intercourse was likewise forbidden in times of famine, in order to spare the bodily forces.
Golden sayings recognize the value of moderation and of relative abstinence.
According to an ancient Israelitish popular saying, sexual intercourse is one of eight things which are beautiful when enjoyed in strict moderation, but harmful when enjoyed very freely. The others are walking, possessions, work, wine, sleep, warm water (for bathing and for drinking), and venesection.
Rabbi Jochanan said: “Man possesses a little limb: he who satisfies it hungers; he who allows it to hunger is satisfied.”
Rabbi Ilai said: “When man observes that his evil impulse is more powerful than he is himself, let him go to a place where people do not know him, let him put on dark clothes, let him wear a dark turban, and let him do that which his heart desires; but let him not publicly profane the name of God.” This can only mean that in general he only controls the desire who has already tasted the fruit—that is to say, that abstinence is the safest means against lust; but he who, notwithstanding this, finds that the impulse threatens to become too violent, still has the duty to fight against it, and in any case not to yield immediately.
This ancient notion of relative asceticism was, unfortunately, falsified and thrust into the background by the Utopian and contra-natural idea of absolute asceticism; its great value was completely obscured by the inevitable reaction against the principle of absolute chastity. This reaction led actually to the formation of rules regarding the frequency of intercourse, such as that attributed to Luther—“Twice a week does harm neither to her nor to me”; although it is precisely in this department of life that no rules can be given, and that the greatest individual variations occur, so that “twice a week” may for many constitute by far too much, and can only be regarded as permissible to robust constitutions. Daily indulgence in sexual intercourse, continued for a long period of time, would be deleterious even to a Hercules, and in all circumstances would be harmful to both parties. Nature herself, by exhibiting a certain periodicity in sexual excitement (which periodicity is admittedly far more distinct in women than it is in men, who can “always” love), has facilitated temporary abstinence. This is, in fact, a natural demand even of the most extreme ethical materialism; for, as Friedrich Albert Lange[689] rightly points out, “even though the individual sensual pleasure, as with Aristippos or Lamettrie, is raised to a principle, self-control still remains a requirement of philosophy, if only in order to assure the permanence of the capacity for enjoyment.” So also the poet of the “New Tanhäuser” sings:
“Selig, der da ewig schmachtet,
Sei gepriesen, Tantalus,
Hätt’ er je, wonach er trachtet,
Würd’ es auch schon Ueberdruss:
Gib mir immer Eine Beere,
Aus der vollen Traube nur,
Und ich schmachte gern, Cythere,
Lebenslang auf deiner Spur!”
[“Happy is he who eternally desires.
A happy man art thou, Tantalus!
If he ever attained that for which he longs,
He would instantly taste satiety:
Let me have but a single grape
From the full cluster,
Gladly, Cytherea, will I live,
Ever desiring, in thy courts!”]
The question of abstinence is an entirely different one, according as it relates to the time before or after the first experience of sexual intercourse. Experience shows that in the former case abstinence is far easier than it is when the forbidden fruit has once been tasted. If, with the author of this book, relative asceticism is regarded as the most desirable ideal, we shall endeavour in youth to realize that ideal for as long a time as possible, without any interruption by sexual intercourse; whereas in the later period of the fully-developed sexual life we shall practise sexual abstinence only from time to time.