chism is expressed are, for the individual in subjection, not means to an end, as in bondage, but the end in themselves. Finally, in masochism the longing for subjection occurs a priori, before the occurrence of an inclination to any particular object of love.
The connection between bondage and masochism may be assumed by reason of the correspondence of the two phenomena in the objective condition of dependence, notwithstanding the difference in their motives; and the transformation of the abnormality into the perversion probably takes place in the following manner: Any one living for a long time in sexual bondage becomes disposed to acquire a slight degree of masochism. Love that willingly bears the tyranny of the loved one then becomes an immediate love of tyranny. When the idea of being tyrannized over is long closely associated with the lustful thought of the beloved person, the lustful emotion is finally connected with the tyranny itself, and the transformation to perversion is completed. This is the manner in which masochism may be acquired by cultivation.[1]
- ↑ It is very interesting, and dependent upon the nature of bondage and masochism, which essentially correspond in external effects, that to illustrate the former certain playful, metaphorical expressions are in general use; such as “slavery,” “to bear chains,” “bound,” “to hold the whip over,” “to harness to the triumphal car,” “to lie at the feet,” “hen-pecked,” etc.,—all things which, literally carried out, form the objects of the masochist’s desire. Such similes are frequently used in daily life and have become trite. They are derived from the language of poetry. Poetry has always recognized, within the general idea of the passion of love, the element of dependence in the lover, who practices self-sacrifice spontaneously or of necessity. The facts of “bondage” have also always presented themselves to the poetical imagination. When the poet chooses such expressions as those mentioned, to picture the dependence of the lover in striking similes, he proceeds exactly as does the masochist, who, to intensify the idea of his dependence (his ultimate aim), creates such situations in reality. In ancient poetry, the expression “domina” is used to signify the loved one, with a preference for the simile of “casting in chains” (e.g., Horace, Od. iv, 11). From antiquity through all the centuries to our own times (comp. Grillparzer, “Ottokar,” Act v: “To rule is sweet, almost as sweet as to obey”), the poetry of love is filled with similar phrases and similes. The history of the word “mistress” is also interesting. But poetry reacts on life. It is probable that the courtly chivalry of the Middle Ages arose in this way. In its reverence for women as “mistresses” in society and in individual love-relations; its transference of the relations of feudalism and vassalage to the relation between the knight and his lady; its submission to all feminine whims; its love-tests and vows; its duty of obedience to every command of the lady,—in all this, chivalry appears as a systematic, poetical development of the “bondage” of love. Certain extreme manifestations, like the deeds and suffering of Ulrich von Lichtenstein or Pierre Vidal in the service of their ladies; or the practice of the fraternity of the “Galois” in France, whose members sought martyrdom in love and subjected themselves to all kinds of suffering,—these clearly have a masochistic character, and demonstrate the natural transformation of one phenomenon into the other.
