Pogonologia; Or, A Philosophical and Historical Essay on Beards

Part 8

Chapter 82,136 wordsPublic domain

It is in Turkey, where the dignity of a long beard is of the first importance.

All the north part of Africa is inhabited by bearded people.

Nature has denied a beard to the different nations of blacks who inhabit the interior and but little known parts of that quarter of the world.

In most of the islands of the Pacific ocean, the men preserve their beards, and some of them stain them different colours.

The author of _Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains_, doctor Robertson in his _History of America_, and many other respectable writers, maintain that all the original natives of America have absolutely no hair on their chins; they except only the Esquimaux, (the inhabitants of North America,) who wear beards, and are unlike the natives of the other parts.[100] However, captain Cook says, that the want of beard in some of the American nations, proceeds less from a defect of nature than their custom of plucking them out by the roots to a greater or less degree: this he observed at Nootka, in his third voyage round the world: all the old men he saw on the west coast of America wore thick, bushy beards, but which were sleeked in the same manner as their hair generally is.

Footnote 100:

It has been proved, not long since, that the Esquimaux are descended from a colony of Danes and Norwegians who came through Iceland, and landed in this part of America, several centuries before Christopher Columbus discovered it. This is supported by the history of the times and by monuments of the arts and religion of the Europeans found in that country. See _Histoire des decouvertes & de la navigation dans le Nord_, by _J. R. Forster_. I have read a French manuscript by Mr. P. D. L. C., in which the European origin of the Esquimaux is proved in the most incontestable manner.

In the inner parts of America, Captain Carver met Savages with long beards on their chins. The following is his answer to those who have denied their having any. “After the age of puberty, their bodies, in their natural state, are covered with hair in the same manner as those of the Europeans. The men, indeed, esteem a beard very unbecoming, and take great pains to get rid of it, nor is there any ever to be perceived on their faces, except when they grow old, and become inattentive to their appearance....

“The Nawdowessies, and the remote nations pluck them out with bent pieces of hard wood, formed into a kind of nippers; whilst those who have communication with the Europeans procure from them wire, which they twist into a screw or worm; applying this to the part, they press the rings together, and with a sudden twitch draw out all the hairs that are enclosed between them.”[101] _Carver’s Travels, page 225._

The mask of Montezuma’s armour, (the last king of Mexico,) preserved at Brussels, and on which there are very long whiskers, seems to confirm the observations of captains Cook and Carver: it is evident that the Americans would not have imitated this ornament of man, if nature had not presented them with the model.

Therefore, the observations made by captain Cook on the west coast of America, those of captain Carver in the inner part of the continent, and the monument of the ancient customs of Mexico, which present us with Montezuma’s whisker’d mask, prove that the assertion of the historians against American beards is at least doubtful, is it is not destitute of foundation.

According to the observations of all travellers, it is certain that the men who inhabit the temperate zones, and are most advantageously favoured by nature, are likewise most bearded: it may likewise be remarked, that those, who bestow most attention to shaving, are the most subject to petticoat government, and consequently the vainest.

Footnote 101:

The islanders of Sumatra pluck out their beards in the same manner. (See Cook’s third voyage, vol. iii.)

CHAP. XI.

_The CONCLUSION._

WILL reason, and the constant desire of nature at length determine the men of the present day to adopt the custom of long beards? I don’t believe it. The power of working such a revolution is reserved for opinion and fashion. But there are men in society who ought to be independent of these two wavering powers: these are those that govern the people, and whom religion and the state have entrusted with their interests and powers. These mediators between God and man, between the law and the citizen, who are not of the ordinary class, should be distinguished from those that are so. Regularity of conduct is not their first duty; it is the art of giving themselves, by means of their dress, an air of wisdom and gravity: all the virtues which their state requires are not sufficient, they must likewise have the appearance. People see only by their eyes; it is only physical objects that have the power of captivating their veneration or exciting their contempt. If a man, who wishes to gain the respect and confidence of the public, does not forsake the manners, customs, and fashions of the world, he will soon perceive the respect and confidence he enjoyed disappear. Not only the man, but the character with which he is invested, will lose its consideration; he will be like the wooden king which Jupiter sent to the frogs: his want of dignity drew on him the contempt and insults of his aquatic people.

Of all the exterior means that can attract the admiration of the people, a long beard is beyond a doubt the most powerful, the only one that is not sought after, the only natural one, and which cannot be reasonably taxed with vanity or pride. Our forefathers always thought, that both religion and morals were interested in the support of this ornament of man’s face. And truly, what priests were ever more respected than those old white bearded ones of the ancient religions, especially the patriarchs of the Israelites? In the beginning of Christianity, what veneration did not the grave, stern faces of the fathers of the Church command? Where are these divine men? and where the respect due to the ministers of God?

If the constant seeing of objects, which have the appearance of grandeur and majesty, stir up the soul and give it a spring; the sight of objects which have the appearance of weakness insensibly enervate and degrade it. The soul appears in the face: the man, who beholds in another, only the picture of effeminacy, soon learns to withdraw his esteem from him, and to no longer respect him; pious veneration, sincere consideration, and cordial friendship, are replaced by politeness and decorum, which are only the gloss of interest and egotism; people no longer fulfill the duties of society, nor do good for their own satisfaction; and if men’s outward, effeminate appearance is not the sole cause of all these evils, it greatly contributes towards them.

In the vast regions of the East, where long beards are highly esteemed, hospitality, filial piety, and fidelity in engagements are the premier virtues: men respect one another there. Let us take a people whom the same law subjects nearly to the same morals as ours, the Greek or Latin Christians who are under the Mahometan government: adultery, among them, is almost unknown, and yet the women are not confined; but they respect their husbands, and these husbands wear long beards.

Where is filial piety now-a-days? will the sad wrinkled faces of our old men, which incite our disgust and contempt, prevail above the sweet majesty of a long, white beard? Where is conjugal fidelity? was it ever less observed than at the time, and in the countries where men appear before a sex, that ought to be under their subjection, in an effeminate dress? How many are there, in this shameful age, the sad victims of this truth!

I repeat it; outward appearance is one of the great movers of a monarchial state, especially among a superficial nation. Deprive subjects of their popular notions of decorum, and of their customs, and people in place of their ornaments, manner, plausibleness, and grave imposing appearance: you will destroy most of the social virtues; there will be no more energy nor spirit in the people; all their mental faculties will become languid, if you cease to feed their imaginations with this aliment.

An extravagant turn of mind has produced many a hero; reason, by analysing every thing, has discouraged and slackened the course of our actions, and luxury, &c. &c. have completed the work. But what a generation is ours!

In times of yore, Diogenes, with a lantern in his hand, went through all the streets of Athens in broad day to seek a man: what could he find now in our great capital? breathing skeletons, women, children, horses, and that multitude of wheel carriages, the incommodious use of which crushes some to pieces and deprives others of the little strength they had left. Would he find men among these reverend gentry, whose toilet is their chief employment? Their chief merit is a mind fraught with borrowed trifles. Look at this modern Chrysostom, powdered and close shaved, repairing to an old coquet’s, a girl’s of the town, or the minister’s. Every where he repeats the same flattering phrases. With the one, an intriguer or base flatterer; with the other, an absolute libertine or a ridiculous puppy, he becomes every where necessary animal; in short, a downright plaything and piece of toilet furniture. Nothing gives this charming fellow any uneasiness; he is any thing they will have him, and will think just what they please: in a word, he performs the dapper parson admirably.

Would our wise Athenian have found men among our Parisians? The children are men, and the men, old men, and they persist in fleeing from nature, which begins to be tired of pursuing them. By their weak, frivolous minds, and pale effeminate looks, one would take them for women in disguise. Cloyed with all sorts of enjoyments, they know no other virtue than the talent of being agreeable, nor other vice than its reverse.

Would he at length find men in these delicate warriors who daily give their subalterns the example of effeminacy?

But do you, French soldiers, the precious remains of patriotism and national valour, always preserve the outward appearance of it; be particularly attentive to keep in your countenances this sign of valour, vigour, and intrepidity; retain those fierce looking whiskers which are the attribute of heroes; and remember that they were the ornament of Turenne, Condé, &c.

It would therefore be advantageous for those, who, by their situation or dignity, are intended to command others, to instruct them, or to merit their confidence, to let their beards grow out quite, whilst the soldier should only wear whiskers, which give a man a martial, brisk look.

Should the example of some great men, or some political event, at length revive the mode of long beards, our delicateness and urbanity might again be reconciled with the majesty of man. Would it not be possible for people of good taste to give the beard an agreeable form, in the same manner as was done some centuries ago? This attention, employing those who take a great deal of pains about adorning their pretty persons, would divert them perhaps from a more dangerous luxury. Besides the respect of one man to another, and of one sex to that which is its superior; this custom would produce another advantage. The resemblance of the two sexes seems to incline men to those shameful debaucheries which formerly soiled the glory of Greece and Rome, debaucheries that one hardly dares mention, and which a more particular distinction between men and women would greatly contribute to destroy.

It can never be denied; a man should appear what nature made him: this is the opinion of an illustrious philosopher and profound moralist.[102] I cannot better conclude than with his own words. “A perfect man and a perfect woman should no more be alike in mind than in face: these silly imitations of sex are the height of folly; they make the wise man laugh and the lover run away.... In short, I take it, that, unless one be five feet six inches high, have a firm, tenor voice, and a beard on his chin, he should not pretend to be a man.”

Footnote 102:

John James Rousseau.

_THE END._

● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ The changes listed in the ERRATA have been applied to this book. ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected. ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected. ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book. ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).