must hold good of earlier relations of love. The man
may have developed, through a former marriage or free
connection, his powers of giving a personal love, or
he may, in the same way, have lost them. If no baseness
is connected with these earlier experiences, if he has
not degraded himself to voluntary division of his erotic
nature-and bought love is always such a degradation-
or to contemptible duplicity; if he has not treated any
woman as a means, but received and given personality,
then he does not enter 'impure' into his marriage, even
if he has not evidence of abstinence." 21

  The art of love, then, is not only offered as desir-
able for all, but it is especially necessary to the woman
who has only had a single love, for it is only when she
is an artist in love that such a woman may humanize
the man who has loved in a mistaken and incomplete
way before. And indeed it will be only an exceptional
case where this earlier love has been all that could
be demanded of it, though the cases will be many
where there was no actual degradation.   Key con-

  "For only by herself loving better will she gradually
humanize man's passion and liberate it from the blind
force of the blood." 22

  This passage brings us to the general problem of sexual
morality, which requires an analysis of man's morality
as well as that knowledge of women and that apprecia-
tion of love in which Key is so preeminent.   And
at this point her discussion is inadequate and must be
supplemented. We cannot agree with her that the sheer
"force of the blood," which has doubtless accounted for
many of man's actions in the past, or at least has ac-
counted for them to a larger measure than it should, is
necessarily blind to-day. In modern civilized man it is,