In studying the hate aspects of the original Œdipus complex we saw that these aspects, on their first appearance and in so far as they depend on mere jealousy or envy, are secondary products, arising as a consequence of the love aspects. When the cause of the jealousy is removed by a successful displacement of the love impulse, there is no longer any reason for the continuance of the hate. It is probably for this reason that the displacements of the hate aspects appear to be, on the whole, less numerous and less complicated than those of the love aspects. Certain forms of love displacement, it is true, necessarily imply, to some extent, correlative forms of hate displacement; as in the case (studied in the last chapter) of the transfer of love exclusively to married or betrothed persons or in the case of the rescue phantasy. In these cases the rival with whom the lover competes for the possession of the loved object or the tyrant from whose clutches the captive lady is snatched by the skill or daring of the youthful hero, are (in the light of psycho-analytic knowledge) manifest substitutes for the original rival or tyrant who existed in the person of the father. The intensity of hostile feeling of which these representatives become the objects may however vary very considerably from one instance to another, according as the emphasis of the whole phantasy is laid upon the elements of hatred or of love. Sometimes the hostile rival may be present only in a vague and shadowy form, constituting little more than a necessary background; as, for instance, in cases where the existence of some kind of opposition is essential to the arousal or enjoyment of love. In other cases, however, the hate element may be equal in importance to the love element, or may even constitute the predominant motive of the whole displacement. [Sidenote: The development of hate] In these latter cases it will usually be found that the hostility brought about secondarily as the result of jealousy has been powerfully reinforced by hatred of a more direct and independent kind, arising as a reaction against a more general interference with the child's aspirations or desires on the part of a tyrannous parental authority (or one that is considered to be such). The presence, in some degree, of this form of reaction is very prevalent, and this is not surprising when we bear in mind the fact that the child has, during its early years, to be continually moderated, guided, stimulated or restrained in its actions, or tendencies to action, by the exercise of parental or of delegated parental authority[140].