Page:Psychopathia Sexualis (tr. Chaddock, 1892).djvu/139

Rh To be sure, Rousseau was himself in error in supposing that this impulse to be humiliated before a woman had arisen by association of ideas from the idea of flagellation:—

“N’osant jamais déclarer mon goût, je l’amusais du moins par des rapports qui m’en conservaient l’idée.”

It is only in connection with the numerous cases of masochism, the existence of which has now been established, and among which there are so many that are in nowise connected with flagellation, showing the primary and pure psychical character of this instinct of subjection,—it is only in connection with these cases that a complete insight into Rousseau’s case is obtained, and the error detected into which he necessarily fell in the analysis of his own condition.

Binet (Revue Anthropologique, xxiv, p. 256), who analyzes Rousseau’s case in detail, also justly calls attention to its masochistic significance, when he says: “Ce qu’aime Rousseau dans les femmes, ce n’est pas seulement le sourcil froncé, la main levée, le regard sévère, l’attitude impérieuse, c’est aussi l’état émotionnel, dont ces faits sont la traduction extérieure; il aime la femme fière, dédaigneuse, l’écrasant à ses pieds du poids de sa royale colère.”

The solution of this enigmatical psychological fact Binet finds in his assumption that it is an instance of fetichism, only with the difference that the object of the fetichism—i.e., the object of individual attraction (fetich)—is not a portion of the body, like a hand or foot, but a mental peculiarity. This enthusiasm he calls “amour spiritualiste,” in contrast with “amour plastique,” as manifested in ordinary fetichism.

This deduction is acute, but it gives only a word with which to designate a fact, not a solution of it. Whether an explanation is possible will later occupy our attention.

There were also elements of masochism (and sadism) in the