These physiological facts of fetichism explain the individual sympathies between husband and wife; the preference of a certain person to all others of the same sex. Since the fetich represents a symbol that is purely individual, it is clear that its effect must be individual. Since it is colored by the most intense pleasurable feeling, it follows that possible faults in the beloved object are overlooked (“Love is blind”), and an exaltation of it is induced that to others is incomprehensible, and even silly under some circumstances. Thus it is clear why lovers are not understood by their unaffected fellow-men; and why they deify their idols, develop a true cult of devotion, and invests them with attributes which objectively they do not possess. Thus we may understand why love appears sometimes more like a passion, sometimes as a formal, exceptional mental state, in which the unattainable seems attainable, the ugly beautiful, the profane sacred, and every other interest, every duty, disappears. Tarde (_Archives de l’anthropologie criminelle_, v year, No. 30) rightfully emphasizes the fact that the fetich may vary with nations as well as with individuals, but that the general ideal of beauty remains the same among civilized people of the same era. Binet deserves great credit for having studied and analyzed in detail the fetichism of love. The particular sympathies all spring from it. Thus one is attracted to slender, another to plump beauties, to blondes or brunettes. For one a peculiar expression of the eyes; for another a peculiar tone of the voice, or a particular (even an artificial) odor (perfume); or the hand, the foot, the ear, etc., may be the individual fetich (charm),—the beginning of a complicated chain of mental processes which, as a whole, represent love, _i.e._, the longing to possess, physically and mentally, the beloved object. This fact is important, as showing a condition for the origin of a fetichism that falls within physiological limits. The fetich may constantly retain its significance without being pathological; but this is possible only when the particular concept is developed to a general concept; when the resulting love comes to take as its object the whole mental and physical personality. Normal love can be nothing but a synthesis, a generalization. Ludwig Brunn,[19] under the heading, “The Fetichism of Love,” cleverly says:— “Thus normal love appears to us as a symphony of tones of all kinds. It results from the most various stimuli. It is likewise polytheistic. Fetichism recognizes only the tone of a single instrument; it results from a certain stimulus; it is monotheistic.”