Guianerius attributed love to "the hot temper of the testicles," pure and simple.1 Ferandus, to "such as are very spermatic, and full of seed;"1 Savonarola attributed the fiercest love to monks, friars and religious persons, chiefly, who live solitary, fare daintily and do nothing; and Chaucer accounts for erotic love, mainly, through the "stimulating influence of liquor," making his Wife of Bath exclaim—" a liquorish tongue must have a liquorish tail." Giraldus sought to prove that love is born in the eyes;1 Plato calls it a passion for the beauty of nature;—natura gaudentis opus; and Diogenes, "a tyranny which tyrannizes over the tyrant." But, leaving the poets and philosophers, whose interpretations and definitions of the divine passion would fill ten volumes like the present, 1 think Science has approached the subject in the only correct and philosophic way, regarding what we call love as the resultant of two very different sets of emotions, viz., sexual desire and moral sympathy; the latter based on certain qualities of mind, or soul, which command respect and esteem, thus imparting an element of both strength and permanency to the otherwise transient ebullition of sexual passion. Thus Mr. Ellis, ignoring, very properly, every element of vague and intangible romance, discusses love under the only form in which it can appeal to the scientist—sexual instinct, or impulse; and Krafft-Ebing, under that of sexual psychology; both writers giving it further attention only as it relates to, or touches, some other physical or psychical attribute through which it may be manifested, such as pain, courage or modesty; and it is thus that 1 purpose to consider it here.