Compare also Havelock Ellis, “Studies in the Psychology of Sex,” vol. vi., “Sex in Relation to Society,” where this fundamental and profoundly important paradox is most thoughtfully expounded. After explaining the difference between _traditional morality_ and _ideal morality_, the former being concerned with the accepted standards of social conduct, the latter embodying an attempt to reform those standards, and showing how the two moralities are of necessity opposed each to the other, Ellis goes on to say (_op. cit._, p. 368): “We have to remember that they are both equally sound and equally indispensable, not only to those who accept them, but to the community which they continue to hold in vital theoretical balance. We have seen them both, for instance, applied to the question of prostitution; traditional morality defends prostitution, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the marriage system, which it regards as sufficiently precious to be worth a sacrifice, while ideal morality refuses to accept the necessity of prostitution, and looks forward to progressive changes in the marriage system which will modify and diminish prostitution.”—TRANSLATOR. Footnote 22: Translated as “The Man of Genius.” London: Walter Scott. Footnote 23: This brilliant expert has given the best summary of his own aims in the speech which he delivered in the year 1870 in Cincinnati, at the Congress for Prison Reform. He said: “When the chains have been removed, when corporal punishment has been abolished, when the treatment of prisoners has become something altogether different from what it has been in the past, when, in a word, in penology severity has been replaced by mildness and consideration, still it will not be easy to say if and to what extent this humane spirit will have dammed the spreading flood of crime, nor should I find it easy to determine precisely the grounds by which we have been guided to a decision whether severity or mildness is to be preferred. “To study the criminal, this is the first and the greatest need. After so many years filled with work and discussion we have arrived at the point from which we ought to have started, precisely because, after taking such an infinity of trouble, we have discovered nothing but emptiness.” Footnote 24: “Pensieri sui processo Steinheil,” _Archivio di psichiatria_, etc., vol. xxx., p. 87, 1909. Footnote 25: The monumental work of the Public Prosecutor, E. Wulffen (Berlin, 1909), offers a notable exception to this generalization. Footnote 26: