CHAPTER IX

MEANS OF ATTRACTION

The desire for self-decoration, although a specifically human quality, is exceedingly old. There are peoples destitute of almost everything which we regard as necessaries of life, but there is no people so rude as not to take pleasure in ornaments. The ancient barbarians who inhabited the south of Europe at the same time as the reindeer and the mammoth, brought to their caves brilliant and ornamental objects.[965] The women of the utterly wretched Veddahs in Ceylon decorate themselves with necklaces of brass beads, and bangles cut from the chank shell.[966] The Fuegians “are content to be naked,” but “ambitious to be fine.”[967] The Australians, without taking the slightest pride in their appearance, so far as neatness or cleanliness is concerned, are yet very vain of their own rude decorations.[968] And of the rude Tasmanians, Cook tells us that they had no wish to obtain useful articles, but were eager to secure anything ornamental.

“Great as is the vanity of the civilized,” says Mr. Spencer, “it is exceeded by that of the uncivilized.”[969] The predilection of savages for ornaments has been sufficiently shown by travellers in almost every part of the world. Feathers and beads of different colours, flowers, rings, anklets, and bracelets, are common embellishments. A fully-equipped Santal belle, for instance, carries two anklets, and perhaps twelve bracelets, and a necklace weighing a pound, the total weight of ornaments on her person amounting to thirty-four pounds of bell metal,—“a greater weight,” says Captain Sherwill, “than one of our drawing-room belles could well lift.”[970] Besides this, the body is transformed in various ways. The lips, the sides of the nose, and the lobes of the ear are especially ill-treated. Hardly any woman in Eastern Central Africa is without a lip-ring; they say it makes them look pretty, and “the bigger the ring, the more they value themselves!”[971] The Shulis bore a hole in the underlip and insert in it a piece of crystal three or four inches long, which sways about as they speak;[972] and similar customs are common among other African peoples,[973] as also in some parts of North and South America.[974] The Papuans perforate the septum of the nose and insert in the hole sticks, claws of birds, &c.[975] The most common practice is to pierce, enlarge, or somehow mutilate the ear-lobes. Certain North American Indians,[976] the Arecunas and Botocudos of South America,[977] and the East African Wa-taïta[978] pull them down almost to the shoulders. Among the Easter Islanders, says Beechey, “the lobe, deprived of its ear-ring, hangs dangling against the neck, and has a very disagreeable appearance, particularly when wet. It is sometimes so long as to be greatly in the way; to obviate which, they pass the lobe over the upper part of the ear, or more rarely, fasten one lobe to the other, at the back of the head.”[979]

Scarcely less subject to mutilations are the teeth. In the Malay Archipelago, the filing and blackening of the teeth are thought to produce a most beautiful result, white teeth being in great disesteem.[980] The Australians often knock out one or two front teeth of the upper jaw, and several tribes in New Guinea file their teeth sharp.[981] Again, the Damaras file the middle teeth in the upper jaw into the form of a swallow’s tail, and knock out four teeth in the lower jaw; whilst one of the Makalaka tribes, north of the Zambesi, and the Matongas, on its bank, “break out their top incisor-teeth from the sheerest vanity. Their women say that it is only horses that eat with all their teeth, and that men ought not to eat like horses.”[982]

Many savage men take most pride in the hair of the head. Now it is painted in a showy manner, now decorated with beads and tinsel, now combed and arranged with the most exquisite care. The Kandhs have their hair, which is worn very long, drawn forward and rolled up till it looks like a horn projecting from between the eyes. Around this it is their delight to wear a piece of red cloth, and they insert the feathers of favourite birds, as also a pipe, comb, &c.[983] The men of Tana, of the New Hebrides, wear their hair “twelve and eighteen inches long, and have it divided into some six or seven hundred little locks or tresses;”[984] and, among the Latúka, a man requires a period of from eight to ten years to perfect his coiffure.[985] In North America, Hearne saw several men about six feet high, who had preserved “a single lock of their hair that, when let down, would trail on the ground as they walked.”[986] Other Indians practise the custom of shaving the head and ornamenting it with the crest of deer’s hairs; and wigs are used by several savage peoples.[987] The Indians of Guiana, the Fuegians, Chavantes, Uaupés,[988] and other tribes are in the habit of pulling out their eyebrows.

Scarcely anything has a greater attraction for the savage mind than showy colours. “No matter,” says Dr. Holub, “how ill a traveller in the Marutse district may be, and how many bearers he may require, if he only has a good stock of blue beads he may always be sure of commanding the best attention and of securing the amplest services; his beads will prove an attraction irresistible to sovereign and subject, to man, woman, and child, to freeman and bondman alike.”[989] The practice of ornamenting one’s self with gaudy baubles and painting the body with conspicuous colours is, indeed, extremely prevalent. Of Santal men at a feast, Sir W. Hunter says that, “if all the colours of the rainbow were not displayed by them, certainly the hedgehog, the peacock, and a variety of the feathered tribe had been laid under contribution in order to supply the young Santal beaux with plumes.”[990] Especially does the savage man delight in paint. Red ochre is generally looked upon as the chief embellishment, whilst, of the other colours, black and white are probably most in use. The Naudowessies paint their faces red and black, “which they esteem as greatly ornamental.”[991] Among the Guaycurûs, many men paint their bodies half red, half white.[992] Throughout the Australian continent the natives stain themselves with black, red, yellow, and white.[993] In Fiji, a small quantity of vermilion is esteemed “as the greatest possible acquisition.”[994] In New Zealand, the lips of both sexes are generally dyed blue; and in Santa Cruz, or Egmont Island, Labillardière observed with surprise that “there was very much diffused a fondness for white hair, which formed a striking contrast to the colour of their skin.”[995]

“Not one great country can be named,” Mr. Darwin says, “from the Polar regions in the north to New Zealand in the south, in which the aborigines do not tattoo themselves.”[996] This practice was followed by the ancient Assyrians, Britons, and Thracians,[997] as it is followed by most savages still. And it may be said without exaggeration that there is no visible part of the human body, except the eyeball, that has escaped from being disfigured in this way. Some of the Easter Islanders tattoo their foreheads in arched lines, as also the edges of their ears, and the fleshy part of their lips.[998] The Abyssinian women occasionally prick their gums entirely blue.[999] The Mundrucûs tattooed even their eyelids.[1000] And, speaking of the tattooing of the Sandwich Islanders, Freycinet remarks, “Aucune partie de leur corps n’en est exempte; le nez, les oreilles, les paupières, le sommet de la tête, le bout de la langue même dans quelques circonstances, en sont surchargés non moins que la poitrine, le dos, les jambes, les bras et la paume des mains.”[1001]

Often cicatrices are made in the skin, without any colouring matter being used. Some tribes of Madagascar, for instance, are in the habit of making marks, “which are intended to be ornamental,” by slight incisions in the skin.[1002] The natives of Tana ornament themselves by “cutting or burning some rude device of a leaf or a fish on the breast, or upper part of the arm.”[1003] The Australians throughout the continent scar their persons, as Mr. Curr assures us, only as a means of decoration.[1004] And, in Fiji, “rows of wart-like spots are burned along the arms and backs of the women, which they and their admirers call ornamental.”[1005]

It has been suggested that many of these practices sprang from other motives than a desire for decoration; and some are said to have had a religious origin. The Australian Dieyerie, on being asked why he knocks out two front teeth of the upper jaw of his children, can answer only that, when they were created, the Muramura, a good spirit, thus disfigured the first child, and, pleased at the sight, commanded that the like should be done to every male or female child for ever after.[1006] The Pelew Islanders believe that the perforation of the septum of the nose is necessary for winning eternal bliss;[1007] and the Nicaraguans say that their ancestors were instructed by the gods to flatten the children’s heads.[1008] Again, in Fiji, it is supposed that the custom of tattooing is in conformity with the appointment of the god Dengei, and that its neglect is punished after death.[1009] A similar idea prevails among the Kingsmill Islanders and Ainos;[1010] and the Greenlanders formerly believed that the heads of those girls who had not been deformed by long stitches made with a needle and black thread between the eyes, on the forehead, and upon the chin, would be turned into train tubs, and placed under the lamps in heaven, in the land of souls.[1011] But such tales are not of much importance, as any usage practised from time immemorial may easily be ascribed to the command of a god.

Mr. Frazer suggests that several of the practices here mentioned are fundamentally connected with totemism.[1012] In order to put himself more fully under the protection of the totem, the clansman, according to Mr. Frazer, is in the habit of assimilating himself to it by the arrangement of his hair and the mutilation of his body; and of representing the totem on his body by cicatrices, tattooing, or paint. Thus the Buffalo clans of the Iowa and Omahas wear two locks of hair in imitation of horns; whilst the Small Bird clan of the Omahas “leave a little hair in front, over the forehead, for a bill, and some at the back of the head, for the bird’s tail, with much over each ear for the wings;” and the Turtle subclan cut off all the hair from a boy’s head, except six locks which are arranged so as to imitate the legs, head, and tail of a turtle. The practice of knocking out the upper front teeth at puberty, Mr. Frazer continues, is, or was once, probably an imitation of the totem; and so also the bone, reed, or stick which some Australian tribes thrust through the nose. The Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Islands have always, and the Iroquois commonly, their totems tattooed on their persons, and certain other tribes have on their bodies tattooed figures of animals, which Mr. Frazer thinks likely to be totem marks. According to one authority, the raised cicatrices of the Australians are sometimes arranged in patterns representing the totem; and, among a few peoples, the totem is painted on the person of the clansman.[1013]

Mr. Frazer’s theory is supported by exceedingly few facts whereas there is an enormous mass of cases in which we have no right whatever to infer a connection with totemism. It is, indeed, impossible to see how most of the practices considered in this chapter could have originated in this way. How is it possible to explain the knocking out of the upper front teeth or the thrusting of a stick through the nose as imitations of totem animals? And how are we to connect the mutilations of the ears and other parts of the body, and the various modes of self-decoration, with totemism? Since all such practices are universally considered to improve the appearance, and, as will be shown presently, take place at the same period of life, we may justly infer that the cause to which they owe their origin is fundamentally one and the same. As for tattooing, Professor Gerland assumes that the tattooed marks were originally figures of totem animals, though they are no longer so;[1014] but an assumption of that kind is not permissible in a scientific investigation. And even in those rare cases, where a connection between tattooing and totemism undoubtedly exists, we cannot be sure whether this connection is not secondary. At present tattooing is everywhere regarded exclusively, or almost exclusively, as a means of decoration, and Cook states expressly that, in the South Sea Islands, at the time of their discovery, it was in no way connected with religion.[1015] Nor can I agree with Mr. Spencer that tattooing and other kinds of mutilation were practised originally as a means of expressing subordination to a dead ruler or a god.[1016] Equally without evidence is Mr. Colquhoun’s opinion that the custom originated in the wish either to make a man more fearful in battle, or to render the body invulnerable by the tattooing of charms on it.[1017]

It is true, no doubt, that this practice subserves various ends. Mr. Keyser speaks of a chief in New Guinea who had sixty-three blue tattoo lines on his chest, which represented the number of enemies he had slain.[1018] Moreover, the tattooed marks make it possible for savages to distinguish their own clansmen from their enemies;[1019] though I cannot think, with Chenier,[1020] that this was their original object. Again, many ornaments are really nothing but trophy-badges, and many things used for ornaments were at first substitutes for trophies, having some resemblance to them;[1021] whilst others are carried as signs of opulence.[1022] I do not deny, either, that men may sometimes paint their bodies in order to inspire their enemies with fear in battle, or that the use of red ochre and fat is good as a defence against changes of weather, flies, and mosquitoes.[1023] Nevertheless, it seems to be beyond doubt that men and women began to ornament, mutilate, paint, and tattoo themselves chiefly in order to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex,—that they might court successfully, or be courted.

It is noteworthy that in all parts of the world the desire for self-decoration is strongest at the beginning of the age of puberty, all the above-named customs being practised most zealously at that period of life. Concerning the Dacotahs, Mr. Prescott states that both sexes adorn themselves at their courtships to make themselves more attractive, and that “the young only are addicted to dress.”[1024] The Oráon, according to Colonel Dalton, is likewise particular about his personal appearance “only so long as he is unmarried.”[1025] Among the Let-htas in Indo-China, it is the unmarried youths that are profusely bedecked with red and white bead necklaces, wild boars’ tusks, brass armlets, and a broad band of black braid below the knee.[1026] Speaking of the Encounter Bay tribe of South Australia, the Rev. A. Meyer says that “the plucking out of the beard and anointing with grease and ochre (which belong to the initiatory ceremony) the men may continue if they please till about forty years of age, for they consider it ornamental, and fancy that it makes them look younger, and gives them an importance in the eyes of the women.”[1027] In Fiji, says Mr. Anderson, the men, “who like to attract the attention of the opposite sex, don their best plumage;”[1028] and when Mr. Bulmer once asked an Australian native why he wore his adornments, the native answered “that he wore them in order to look well, and to make himself agreeable to the women.”[1029]

It is when boys or girls approach puberty that, in the north-west part of North America, they have their lower lip perforated for the labret;[1030] that, among the American Eskimo, the African Masarwas, and certain Australian natives, the cartilage between the nostrils is pierced for the reception of a piece of bone, wood, or shell.[1031] At the same age, among the Chibchas and the aborigines of the Californian Peninsula, holes were made in the ears.[1032] It is at this period of life, also, that the Chaymas of New Andalusia, the Pelew Islanders, and the natives of New Britain have their teeth blackened, as black teeth, both for men and women, are considered an indispensable condition of beauty;[1033] and that, in several parts of Africa and Australia, they knock out some teeth, knowing that otherwise they would run the risk of being refused on account of ugliness.[1034] Among the Nicobarese, among whom the men blacken their teeth from the period of puberty, this disfigurement is indeed so favourably regarded by the fair sex that a woman “would scorn to accept the addresses of one possessing white teeth, like a dog or pig.”[1035] Mr. Crawfurd tells us that, in the Malay Archipelago, the practice of filing and blackening the teeth, already referred to, is a necessary prelude to marriage, the common way of expressing the fact that a girl has arrived at puberty being that “she has had her teeth filed.”[1036] And, with reference to some of the natives of the Congo countries, Tuckey states that the two upper front teeth are filed by the men, so as to make a large opening, and scars are raised on the skin, both being intended by the men as ornamental, and “principally done with the idea of rendering themselves agreeable to the women.”[1037]

The important part played by the hair of the head as a stimulant of sexual passion appears in a curious way from Mr. Sibree’s account of King Radàma’s attempt to introduce European customs among the Hovas of Madagascar. As soon as he had adopted the military tactics of the English, he ordered that all his officers and soldiers should have their hair cut; but this command produced so great a disturbance among the women of the capital that they assembled in great numbers to protest against the king’s order, and could not be quieted till they were surrounded by troops and their leaders cruelly speared.[1038] Everywhere it is the young and unmarried people who are most anxious to dress their hair.[1039] Thus, among the Bunjogees, a Chittagong Hill tribe, the young men “stuff a large ball of black cotton into their topknot to make it look bigger.”[1040] In the Tenimber Group, the lads decorate their long locks with leaves, flowers, and feathers, as Riedel says, “only in order to please the women.”[1041] Among the Tacullies, “the elderly people neglect to ornament their heads, in the same manner as they do the rest of their persons, and generally wear their hair short. But the younger people of both sexes, who feel more solicitous to make themselves agreeable to each other, wash and paint their faces and let their hair grow long.”[1042] And in the Admiralty Islands, according to Professor Moseley, “only the young men of apparently from eighteen to thirty, or so, wear the hair long and combed out into a mop or bush,” whilst the boys or older men wear the hair short.[1043]

Passing to the practice of painting the body: Dr. Sparrman tells us that the two Hottentots whom he had in his service, when they expected to meet some girls of their own nation, painted their noses, cheeks, and the middle of the forehead with soot.[1044] On Flinders Island, whither the remnant of the Tasmanians were removed, a rebellion nearly burst out when orders were once issued forbidding the use of ochre and grease, for “the young men feared the loss of favour in the eyes of their countrywomen.”[1045] Among the Guarayos, the suitor, when courting, keeps for some days close to the cabin of the mistress of his heart, he being painted from head to foot, and armed with his battle club.[1046] In certain parts of Australia, when a boy arrives at the age of puberty, his hair, body, and limbs are profusely smeared with red ochre and fat, this being one of the rites by which he is initiated into the privileges of manhood.[1047] Again, with reference to the Ahts, Mr. Sproat remarks that “some of the young men streak their faces with red, but grown-up men seldom now use paint, unless on particular occasions.” The women cease to use it about the age of twenty-five.[1048]

The girls are generally painted when they arrive at the epoch of the first menstruation.[1049] Thus, among certain Equatorial Africans, they are rubbed with black, red, and white paints in the course of a ceremony which, according to Mr. Reade, is essentially of a Phallic nature.[1050] If a young maiden of the Tapoyers of Brazil “be marriageable, and yet not courted by any, the mother paints her with some red colour about the eyes.”[1051]

The act of tattooing, also, generally takes place at the age of puberty, in the case of men as well as in that of women. It is about that period that, in the underlip of all freeborn female Thlinkets, “a slit is made parallel with the mouth, and about half an inch below it;”[1052] that, among the Eskimo, pigments of various dye are pricked on the chin, at the angles of the mouth, and across the face over the cheek-bones;[1053] that, in some South American tribes, incisions are made from the shoulders of the girl to her waist, “when she is regarded as a delicious morsel for the arms of an ardent lover.”[1054] At the same age, either or both sexes are subject to tattooing among the Guarayos,[1055] Abipones,[1056] Baris,[1057] Gonds,[1058] Dyaks,[1059] Negritos of the Philippines,[1060] South Sea Islanders,[1061] Australians,[1062] &c. Among the Nagas of Upper Assam, it was the custom “to allow matrimony to those only who made themselves as hideous as possible by having their faces elaborately tattooed.”[1063] The Makalaka girls, before they could marry, had to submit to horrible torture, about four thousand stitches being made in the skin of the chest and stomach, and a black fluid being rubbed into the wounds.[1064] In New Zealand, according to the Rev. R. Taylor, it was the great ambition of the young to have fine tattooed faces, “both to render themselves attractive to the ladies, and conspicuous in war.”[1065] In Samoa, until a young man was tattooed, he could not think of marriage, but as soon as this was done, he considered himself entitled to all the privileges of mature years.[1066] “When it is all over,” says Mr. Pritchard, “and the youths thoroughly healed, a grand dance is got up on the first available pretext to display the tattooing, when the admiration of the fair sex is unsparingly bestowed. And this is the great reward, long and anxiously looked forward to by the youths as they smart under the hands of the ‘matai.’”[1067] Often, however, the operation is accomplished not at once, but at different times, that the patients may be able to bear the inflammation and pain at every stage of the process; and not unfrequently it begins when the girls are quite young children, being constantly added to until they marry.[1068]

The real object of the custom is shown also by several other statements. When Mertens asked the natives of Lukunor what was the meaning of tattooing, one of them answered, “It has the same object as your clothes, that is, to please the women.”[1069] Bancroft remarks that young Kadiak wives “secure the affectionate admiration of their husbands by tattooing the breast and adorning the face with black lines.”[1070] The raised cuts of the Australians, according to Mr. Palmer, are “merely ornamental and convey no idea of tribal connection,” the women marking themselves in this manner “to add to their looks, and to make themselves attractive.”[1071] Barrington assures us that, among the natives of Botany Bay, “scars are, by both sexes, deemed highly ornamental;”[1072] and, in the Eucla tribe, according to Mr. W. Williams, both sexes make horizontal scars on the chest and vertical scars on the upper arm “for the purpose of ornamentation.”[1073] In Ponapé, as we are informed by von Kubary and Finsch, tattooing is practised only as a means of improving the appearance;[1074] and, in New Guinea, the women tattoo themselves “to please the men.”[1075] Bock remarks, “As the Dyak women are tattooed to please their lovers, so the Laos men undergo the ordeal for the sake of the women.”[1076]

In Samoa, great licentiousness was connected with the custom of tattooing; and, in Tahiti, the chiefs prohibited it altogether on account of the obscene practices by which it was invariably accompanied in that island.[1077] The Tahitians have also a very characteristic tale of its origin. Taaroa, their god, and Apouvaru had a daughter, who was called Hinaeree-remonoi. “As she grew up, in order to preserve her chastity, she was made ‘pahio,’ or kept in a kind of enclosure, and constantly attended by her mother. Intent on her seduction, the brothers invented tattooing, and marked each other with the figure called Taomaro. Thus ornamented, they appeared before their sister, who admired the figures, and, in order to be tattooed herself, eluding the care of her mother, broke the enclosure that had been erected for her preservation, was tattooed, and became also the victim to the designs of her brothers. Tattooing thus originated among the gods, and was first practised by the children of Taaroa, their principal deity. In imitation of their example, and for the accomplishment of the same purposes, it was practised among men.... The two sons of Taaroa and Apouvaru were the gods of tattooing. Their images were kept in the temples of those who practised the art professionally, and every application of their skill was preceded by a prayer addressed to them, that the operation might not occasion death, that the wounds might soon heal, that the figures might be handsome, attract admirers, and answer the ends of wickedness designed.”[1078]

This legend is especially instructive because it shows how a custom which had originally nothing to do with religion may in time take a more or less religious character. Professor Wundt holds that, in most cases, religious ideas are the original sources from which customs flow;[1079] but it is far more probable that the connection between religion and custom is often secondary. Nearly every practice which for some reason or other has come into fashion and taken root among the people, is readily supposed to have a divine sanction; and this is one of the reasons why conservatism as to religion is so often accompanied by conservatism in other matters. This must especially be the case among savage men who identify their ancestors with their gods, and consequently look upon ancient customs as divine institutions.

It is, indeed, difficult to believe that the motives which gave rise to tattooing can have been different from those which led to the painting of the body. The chief distinction between the two is, that the tattooed marks are indelible, being neither extinguished nor rendered fainter by lapse of time. Hence the prevalence of tattooing may be explained by a general desire among savages to make the decorations of the body permanent. Sometimes, too, the custom seems to be kept up as a test of courage.[1080]

Even to European tastes the incised lines and figures have in many cases a certain beauty. Thus, speaking of the Gambier Islanders, Beechey assures us that the tattooing undoubtedly improves their appearance; and Yate remarks that “nothing can exceed the beautiful regularity with which the faces and thighs of the New Zealanders are tattooed,” the volutes being perfect specimens, and the regularity mechanically correct.[1081] Forster observed that, among the natives of Waitahoo (Marquesas Islands), the punctures were disposed with the utmost care, so that the marks on each leg, arm, and cheek and on the corresponding muscles were exactly similar.[1082] Among the Tahitians, according to Darwin, the ornaments follow the curvature of the body so gracefully, that they have a very pleasing and elegant effect; and, among the Easter Islanders, “all the lines were drawn with much taste, and carried in the direction of the muscle.”[1083] The fact that the tattooed lines follow closely the natural forms of the body in order to render them more conspicuous, has been observed in the case of other peoples also,[1084] and it would be ridiculous to regard such marks as transformed images of gods.

The facts stated seem to show that the object of tattooing,[1085] as well as of other kinds of self-decoration or mutilation, was to stimulate the sexual desire of the opposite sex. To us it appears strange that such repugnant practices as that of perforating the septum of the nose or removing teeth should owe their origin to coquetry, but we must not judge of the taste of savages by our own. In this case the desire for self-decoration is to a great extent identical with the wish to attract attention, to excite by means of the charm of novelty.[1086] At all stages of civilization people like a slight variety, but deviations from what they are accustomed to see must not be too great, nor of such a kind as to provoke a disagreeable association of ideas. In Cochin China, where the women blacken their teeth, a man said of the wife of the English Ambassador contemptuously that “she had white teeth like a dog;”[1087] and the Abipones in South America, who carefully plucked out all the hairs with which our eyes are naturally protected, despised the Europeans for their thick eyebrows, and called them brothers to the ostriches, who have very thick brows.[1088] We, on the other hand, would dislike to see a woman with a crystal or a piece of wood in her lip.

It is a common notion that women are by nature vainer and more addicted to dressing and decorating themselves than men. This certainly does not hold good for savage and barbarous peoples in general. It is true that, among many of them, tattooing is exclusively or predominantly limited to the women, and that the men sometimes wear fewer ornaments. But several travellers, as for instance Dr. Schweinfurth[1089] and Dr. Barth,[1090] who have a vast experience of African races, agree that the reverse is usually the case. The women of all the tribes of Indians Richardson saw on his route through the northern parts of the fur countries, adorned their persons less than the men of the same tribes; and the like is said of the Comanches.[1091] Among the Uaupés, Mr. Wallace observed “that the men and boys appropriated all the ornaments.”[1092] The native women of Orangerie Bay of New Guinea, except that they are tattooed, adorn themselves less than the men, and none of them paint their faces and bodies, as the men frequently do.[1093] In the Admiralty Islands, young girls “sometimes have a necklace or two on, but they never are decorated to the extent to which the men are,” it being evidently not considered good taste for them to adorn their persons.[1094] Among the aborigines of the New Hebrides, New Hanover, New Ireland,[1095] and Australia,[1096] adornments are almost entirely monopolised by the men, the “fair sex” being content with their natural charms.

It has been suggested that the plainer appearance of the women depends upon their oppressed and despised position, as well as upon the selfishness of the men.[1097] But it is doubtful whether this is the true explanation. Savage ornaments, generally speaking, are not costly things, and even where the state of women is most degraded a woman may, if she pleases, paint her body with red ochre or put a piece of wood through her lip or a feather through the cartilage of the nose. In Eastern Central Africa, for instance, the women are more decorated than the men, although they hold an inferior position, being viewed as beasts of burden, and doing all the harder work. “A woman,” says Mr. Macdonald, “always kneels when she has occasion to talk to a man.”[1098] Almost the same is said of the female Indians of Guiana;[1099] whereas in the Yule Island, on the Coast of New Guinea, and in New Hanover, the women are less given to personal adornment than the men, although they are held in respect, have influence in their families, and exercise, in some villages, much authority, or even supremacy.[1100]

Of all the various kinds of self-ornamentation tattooing is the most laborious. Yet, in Melanesia, it is chiefly women that are tattooed, though they are treated as slaves; whilst in Polynesia, where the _status_ of women is comparatively good, this practice is mainly confined to the men.[1101] In Fiji, where women were fearfully oppressed, genuine tattooing was found on them only.[1102]

It is expressly stated of the women of several savage peoples that they are less desirous of self-decoration than the men. Speaking of the Aleuts on the Fur-Seal Islands of Alaska, Mr. Elliott says, “In these lower races there is much more vanity displayed by the masculine element than the feminine, according to my observation; in other words, I have noticed a greater desire among the young men than among the young women of savage and semi-civilised people to be gaily dressed, and to look fine.”[1103] Among the Gambier Islanders, according to Beechey, the women “have no ornaments of any kind, and appeared quite indifferent to the beads and trinkets which were offered them.”[1104] In Tierra del Fuego, Lieutenant Bove found the men more desirous of ornaments than the women; and Proyart made a similar observation with regard to the people of Loango.[1105] Again, touching the Crees, Mackenzie remarks that “the women, though by no means inattentive to the decoration of their own persons, appear to have a still greater degree of pride attending to the appearance of the men, whose faces are painted with more care than those of the women.”[1106]

It is difficult, then, to believe that the inferior position of the weaker sex accounts for the comparative scarcity of female ornaments. The fact may to some extent be explained by Mr. Spencer’s suggestion, that ornaments have partly originated from trophy-badges, and Professor Wundt’s, that they indicate rank and fortune: but these explanations apply only to a few cases. If it be true that man began to decorate himself chiefly in order to stimulate the passions of the opposite sex, we may conclude that the vanity of the men is, in the first place, due to the likings of the women, and that the plainer appearance of the women is a consequence of the men’s greater indifference to their ornaments. Mr. Darwin has shown that, among our domesticated quadrupeds, individual antipathies and preferences are exhibited much more commonly by the female than by the male,[1107] and the same, as we shall see, is in some measure the case with man also. It is the women rather than the men that have to be courted. Thus, with reference to the natives of Gippsland, Mr. Brough Smyth, on the authority of Mr. Bulmer, states, “The ornaments worn by the females were not much regarded by the men. The woman did little to improve her appearance; ... if her physical aspect was such as to attract admirers she was content.”[1108]

It should also be noted that among savages it is, as a rule, the man only that runs the risk of being obliged to lead a single life. Hence it is obvious that to the best of his ability he must endeavour to be taken into favour by making himself as attractive as possible. In civilized Europe, on the other hand, the opposite occurs. Here it is the woman that has the greatest difficulty in getting married—and she is also the vainer of the two.

The hypothesis as to the origin of the customs in question, set forth in this chapter, presupposes of course that savage girls enjoy great liberty in the choice of a mate. It will be seen subsequently that there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of that presumption.

At a higher stage of civilization the tendency of mankind is to give up savage ornaments, and no longer to regard mutilations of the body as improving the appearance. In Persia, women still wear the nose-ring through one side of the nostril,[1109] but to a European such a custom would be extremely displeasing. In the Western world the ear-ring is the last vanishing relic of savage taste.

* * * * *

From the naked body the ornaments were transferred to clothing, partly because climate made clothes necessary, partly for another reason. “A savage begins,” Professor Moseley says, “by painting or tattooing himself for ornament. Then he adopts a movable appendage, which he hangs on his body, and on which he puts the ornamentation which he formerly marked more or less indelibly on his skin. In this way he is able to gratify _his taste for change_.”[1110]

It is usually said that man began to cover his body for two reasons: first, to protect himself from frost and damp; secondly, on account of a feeling of shame.

There can be no doubt that, when man emigrated from his warm native home and settled down in less hospitable zones, it became necessary for him to screen himself from the influences of a raw climate. The Eskimo wrap themselves up in furs, and the wretched natives of Tierra del Fuego throw a piece of sealskin over one of their shoulders, “on the side from which the wind blows.”[1111]

The second motive, too, seems acceptable at first sight. The savage men of the tropics, though otherwise entirely naked, commonly wear a scanty dress which Europeans might readily suppose to be used for the sake of decency. Nothing of the sort is found in any other animal species; hence Professor Wundt concludes that shame is “a feeling specifically peculiar to man.”[1112]

But why should man blush to expose one part of the body more than another? This is no matter of course, but a problem to be solved.

The feeling in question cannot be regarded as originally innate in mankind. There are many peoples, who, though devoid of any kind of dress, show no trace of shame, and others who, when they dress themselves, pay not the least regard to what we consider the first requirements of decency.

Thus, in the northern parts of the Californian Peninsula, both men and women have been found in a state of nudity.[1113] Among the Miwok, according to their own confession, persons of both sexes and of all ages were formerly absolutely naked.[1114] Lyman found the same to be the case with the Paiuches in northern Colorado, Columbus with the aborigines of Hispaniola, Pizarro with the Indians of Coca, v. Humboldt with the Chaymas, Wallace with the Purupurús, v. Schütz-Holzhausen with the Catamixis, Prince Maximilian with the Puris at St. Fidelis, Azara with certain Indians in the neighbourhood of the river Paraguay.[1115] In some Indian tribes the men alone go naked,[1116] in others the women.[1117] Again, in North America, Mackenzie met a troop of natives, of whom the men wore many ornaments and much clothing, but had, apparently, not the slightest notion of bashfulness. And of the Fuegians we are told that, although they have the shoulder or the back protected by a sealskin, the rest of the body is perfectly naked.[1118]

The men of most Australian tribes, and in many cases the women, wear no clothes except in cold weather, when they throw a kangaroo skin about their shoulders. “They are as innocent of shame,” says Mr. Palmer, “as the animals of the forests.”[1119] In Tasmania, too, the aborigines were usually naked, or, when they covered themselves, they showed that the idea of decency had not occurred to them.[1120] The same is said of some tribes in Borneo[1121] and Sumatra,[1122] the people of Jarai, bordering upon the empire of Siam,[1123] the inhabitants of the Louisiade Archipelago,[1124] Solomon Islands,[1125] Penrhyn Island, and some other islands of the South Sea;[1126] whilst, in others, only the men generally go naked.[1127] The Papuans of the south-west coast of New Guinea “glory in their nudeness, and consider clothing to be fit only for women.”[1128] In one part of Timor, on the other hand,[1129] as also in a tribe of the Andamanese,[1130] it is the women that are devoid of any kind of covering.

Passing to Africa, we meet with instances of the same kind. Concerning the Wa-taveita of the eastern equatorial region, Mr. Johnston remarks that “both sexes have little notion or conception of decency, the men especially seeming to be unconscious of any impropriety in nakedness. What clothing they have is worn as an adornment or for warmth at night and early morning.”[1131] The Wa-chaga and Mashukulumbe generally go about naked,[1132] and so do the Bushmans, except when they use a piece of skin barely sufficient to cover the back.[1133] Again, among the Bubis of Fernando Po[1134] and the natives of Balonda[1135] and Loango,[1136] the women have no sort of covering, whilst, among the Negroes of the Egyptian Soudan,[1137] the Baris,[1138] Shilluk,[1139] Dinka,[1140] Watuta,[1141] and Masai,[1142] this is the case with the men only. Apud Masaios membrum virile celare turpe existimatur, honestum expromere, atque etiam ostentare.[1143] In Lancerote also, according to Bontier and Le Verrier, the men used no covering; and, in Teneriffe, “the inhabitants went naked, except some few who wore goatskins.”[1144]

It might perhaps be supposed that the feeling of modesty, though not originally innate, appeared later on, at a certain stage of civilization, either spontaneously or from some unknown cause. This seems, indeed, to be the opinion of Professor Wundt, who says that man began to cover himself from decency.[1145] But let us see what covering savages often use.

A fashionable young Wintun woman, says Mr. Powers, wears a girdle of deer-skin, the lower edge of which is slit into a long fringe with a polished pine-nut at the end of each strand, while the upper border and other portions are studded with brilliant bits of shell.[1146] The Botocudos use a covering which has little resemblance to a garment; and their neighbours, the Patachos and Machacaris, make this trifle still smaller, a thread being sufficient clothing, according to their notion of modesty.[1147] When a Carib girl attained the age of ten or twelve years, she assumed around the waist “a piece of cotton cloth worked and embroidered with minute grains of shells of different colours, decorated in the lower part with fringe.”[1148] Similar ornamental skirts are in use among the Macusís, Arawaks, and other South American peoples.[1149] Among the Guaycurûs, the men had no covering, except a narrow bandage round the loins, which was of coloured cotton, and often adorned with glass beads.[1150] The Australians of Port Essington occasionally wear girdles of finely twisted human hair, and the men sometimes add a tassel of the hair of the opossum or flying squirrel, suspended in front.[1151] The women on the Lower Murray manufacture round mats of grass or reeds, which they fasten upon their backs, “tying them in front, so that they almost resemble the shell of a tortoise.”[1152] In Tahiti, a “maro,” composed of red and yellow feathers, was considered a present of very great value, and the women thought it “most ornamental” to enfold their loins with many windings of cloth.[1153] Dr. Seemann states that, in Fiji, the girls “wore nothing save a girdle of hibiscus-fibres, about six inches wide, dyed black, red, yellow, white, or brown, and put on in such a coquettish way, that one thought it must come off every moment.”[1154] A similar practice is common in the islands of the Pacific, fringes made of cocoa-nut fibre or of leaves slit into narrow strips or filaments of bark, frequently dyed with gaudy colours, being, in most of these islands, the only garment of the natives. This costume, with its conspicuous tint and mobile fringe, has a most graceful appearance and a very pretty effect, but is far from being in harmony with our ideas of modesty. In the island of Yap, according to Cheyne, “the dress of the males, if such it may be called, is slovenly in the extreme. They wear the ‘maro’ next them, and, by way of improvement, a bunch of bark fibres dyed red, over it.”[1155] In New Caledonia, in Forster’s time, the natives only tied “a string round the middle and another round the neck;”[1156] whilst, in some other groups, the costume of the men consisted of nothing but a leaf,[1157] a mussel,[1158] or a shell.[1159]

In Sumatra, according to Marsden, young women, before they are of an age to be clothed, have a plate of silver in the shape of a heart hung in front by a chain of the same metal.[1160] Among the Garos of Bengal, the women wear merely a very short piece of striped blue cotton round the waist. The men have a very narrow waist-cloth tied behind and then brought up between the legs; the portion hanging over in front is sometimes adorned with brass boss-like ornaments, and white long-shaped beads.[1161] In Lukungu, the entire covering of most of the women consists of a narrow string with some white china beads threaded on it.[1162] The Hottentot women, according to Barrow, bestowed their largest and most splendid ornaments upon the little apron, about seven or eight inches wide, that hung from the waist. “Great pains,” he says, “seem to be taken by the women to attract notice towards this part of their persons. Large metal buttons, shells of the cypræa genus, with the apertures outwards, or anything that makes a great show, are fastened to the borders of this apron.”[1163] The Bushman women of South Africa, met with by the same traveller, had as their only covering a belt of springbok’s skin, the part which was intended to hang in front being cut into long threads. But the filaments, he says, “were so small and thin that they answered no sort of use as a covering; nor, indeed, did the females, either old or young, seem to feel any sense of shame in appearing before us naked.”[1164] And among the Negroes of Benin, according to Bosman, the girls had no other garment than some strings of coral twisted about the middle.[1165]

It seems utterly improbable that such “garments” owe their origin to the feeling of shame. Their ornamental character being obvious, there can be but little doubt that men and women originally, at least in many cases, covered themselves not from modesty, but on the contrary, in order to make themselves more attractive—the men to women, and the women to men.

In a state where all go perfectly nude, nakedness must appear quite natural, for what we see day after day makes no special impression upon us. But when one or another—whether man or woman—began to put on a bright-coloured fringe, some gaudy feathers, a string with beads, a bundle of leaves, a piece of cloth, or a dazzling shell, this could not of course escape the attention of the others; and the scanty covering was found to act as the most powerful attainable sexual stimulus.[1166] Hence the popularity of such garments in the savage world.

Several travellers have noticed that there is nothing indecent in absolute nakedness when the eyes have got accustomed to it. “Where all men go naked, as for instance in New Holland,” says Forster, “custom familiarizes them to each other’s eyes, as much as if they went wholly muffled up in garments.”[1167] Speaking of a Port Jackson woman who was entirely uncovered, Captain Hunter remarks, “There is such an air of innocence about her that clothing scarcely appears necessary.”[1168] With reference to the Uupés, Mr. Wallace records his opinion that “there is far more immodesty in the transparent and flesh-coloured garments of our stage-dancers, than in the perfect nudity of these daughters of the forest.”[1169] In his ‘Africa Unveiled’ Mr. Rowley remarks, “When the sight becomes accustomed to the absence of raiment, your sense of propriety is far less offended than in England, where ample clothing is made the vehicle for asserting defiance, if not of actual law, yet of the wishes and feelings of the more virtuous part of the community.”[1170] And, speaking of the Fuegians, Captain Snow says, “More harm, I think, is done by false modesty,—by covering and _partly_ clothing, than by the truth in nature always appearing as it is. Intermingling with savages of wild lands who do not clothe, gives one, I believe, less impure and sensual feelings than the merely mixing with society of a higher kind.”[1171]

The same view is taken by Dr. Zimmermann,[1172] and by Mr. Reade, who, with reference to the natives of Central Africa, remarks that there is nothing voluptuous in the excessive _déshabillé_ of an equatorial girl, nothing being so moral and so unlikely to excite the passions as nakedness.[1173] Speaking of the Wa-chaga, Mr. Johnston observes, “We should be apt to call, from our point of view, their nakedness and almost unconsciousness of shame indelicate, but it is rather, when one gets used to it, a pleasing survival of the old innocent days when prurient thoughts were absent from the mind of man.”[1174] As a careful observer remarks,[1175] true modesty lies in the entire absence of thought upon the subject. Among medical students and artists the nude causes no extraordinary emotion; indeed, Flaxman asserted that the students in entering the academy seem to hang up their passions along with their hats.

On the other hand, Forster says of the natives of Mallicollo, that “it is uncertain whether the scanty dress of their women owes its origin to a sense of shame, or to an artful endeavour to please;” and of the men of Tana, that “round their middle they tie a string, and below that they employ the leaves of a plant like ginger, for the same purpose and in the same manner as the natives of Mallicollo. Boys, as soon as they attain the age of six years, are provided with these leaves; which seems to confirm what I have observed in regard to the Mallicollese, _viz._, that they do not employ this covering from motives of decency. Indeed, it had so much the contrary appearance, that in the person of every native of Tana or Mallicollo, we thought we beheld a living representation of that terrible divinity who protected the orchard and gardens of the ancients.”[1176] Speaking of the very simple dress worn by the male Hottentot, Barrow says, “If the real intent of it was the promotion of decency, it should seem that he has widely missed his aim, as it is certainly one of the most immodest objects, in such a situation as he places it, that could have been contrived.”[1177] Among the Khyoungtha, there is a native tradition worth mentioning in this connection. “A certain queen,” Captain Lewin tells us, “noticed with regret that the men of the nation were losing their love for the society of the women, and were resorting to vile and abominable practices, from which the worst possible results might be expected. She therefore prevailed upon her husband to promulgate a rigorous order, prescribing the form of petticoat to be worn by all women in future, and directing that the male should be tattooed, in order that, by thus disfiguring the males, and adding _piquancy to the beauty of the women_, the former might once more return to the feet of their wives.”[1178]

Moreover, we know that some tribes who go perfectly naked are ashamed to cover themselves, looking upon a garment as something indecent. The pious father Gumilla was greatly astonished to find that the Indians on the Orinoco did not blush at their nakedness. “Si les Missionnaires” he says, “qui ignorent leurs coutumes s’avisent de distribuer des mouchoirs, surtout aux femmes, pour qu’elles puissent se couvrir, elles les jettent dans la rivière, où elles vont les cacher, pour ne point être obligées de s’en servir; et lors qu’on leur dit de se couvrir, elles répondent: ... ‘Nous ne couvrons point, _parce que cela nous cause de la honte_.’”[1179] That this is no “traveller’s tale” merely, appears from the following statement made by v. Humboldt with reference to the New Andalusian Chaymas, who, like most savage peoples dwelling in regions excessively hot, have an insuperable aversion to clothing:—“Under the torrid zone,” he asserts, “ ... the natives are ashamed, as they say, to be clothed; and flee to the woods when they are too soon compelled to give up their nakedness.”[1180] Again, in an Indian hut at Mucúra in Brazil, Mr. Wallace found the women entirely without covering, and apparently quite unconscious of the fact. One of them, however, possessed a “saía,” or petticoat, which she sometimes put on, and seemed then, as Mr. Wallace says, “almost as much ashamed of herself as civilized people would be if they took theirs off.”[1181]

There are several instances of peoples who, although they generally go perfectly naked, sometimes use a covering. This they always do under circumstances which plainly indicate that the covering is worn simply as a means of attraction. Thus Lohmann tells us that, among the Saliras, only harlots clothe themselves; and they do so in order to excite through the unknown.[1182] In many heathen tribes in the interior of Africa, according to Barth, the married women are entirely nude, whilst the young marriageable girls cover their nakedness,—a practice analogous to that of a married woman being deprived of her ornaments and her hair.[1183] Mr. Mathews states that, in many parts of Australia, “the females, and more especially young girls, wear a fringe suspended from a belt round the waist.”[1184] Concerning the natives of Botany Bay (New South Wales), Barrington remarks that “the females at an early age wear a little apron, made from the skin of the opossum or kangaroo, cut into slips, and hanging a few inches from the waist; this they wear till they grow up and are taken by men, and then they are left off.”[1185] Collins says the same of the girls at Port Jackson;[1186] Mr. Palmer of some other Australians;[1187] and Captain Snow of all those tribes among whom he had been for several weeks.[1188] Again, on Moreton Island, according to Macgillivray, both men and women went about altogether unclothed, but the female children wore a small fringe in front. The same naturalist reports that, in almost all the tribes of Torris Strait, the women wear a petticoat of fine shreds of pandanus leaves, the ends worked into a waistband, upon the construction of which much labour is expended; but it is only “sometimes put on, especially by the young girls, and when about to engage in dancing.” Under this, however, another covering is usually worn.[1189] Among the Tupi tribes of Brazil, as soon as a girl became marriageable “cotton cords were tied round her waist and round the fleshy part of both arms; they denoted a state of maidenhood, and, if any one but a maiden wore them, they were persuaded that the Anhanga would fetch her away.... It cannot,” Mr. Southey adds, “have been invented for the purpose of keeping the women chaste till marriage, for these bands were broken without fear, and incontinence was not regarded as an offence.”[1190] Among the Narrinyeri of Southern Australia, girls wear a sort of apron of fringe until they bear their first child, and, if they have no children, it is taken from them and burned by the husband while they are asleep.[1191] In the Koombokkaburra tribe also, the young women wear in front an apron of spun opossum fur, which is generally given up after the birth of the first or second child.[1192]

There are several cases in which only the married women are clothed, the unmarried going entirely naked.[1193] But such instances do not conflict with the hypothesis suggested. Through long-continued use covering loses its original character and becomes a sign of modesty, whilst perfect nakedness becomes a stimulus. Usually, where nudity is considered indecent, the garments of the girls of barbarous peoples are restricted as much as possible, whilst those of the older women are comparatively seemly. Thus, among the African Schulis, the married women wear a narrow fringe of string in front, the unmarried wearing nothing but bead ornaments.[1194] Among the natives of Tassai, New Guinea, the former use a larger and thicker kind of petticoat of pandanus leaf, divided into long grass-like shreds, reaching to the knee; while that worn by the latter consists merely of single lengths made fast to a string which ties round the waist.[1195] In Fiji, the liku—a kind of band made from hibiscus-bark—is before marriage worn very short, but after the birth of the first child is much lengthened;[1196] and a similar practice occurs in other islands of the South Sea.[1197]

The dances and festivals of many savage peoples are notoriously accompanied by the most hideous licentiousness. Then the young men and women endeavour to please each other in various ways, painting themselves with brilliant colours, and decorating themselves with all sorts of ornaments.[1198] On such occasions many tribes who go naked in everyday life put on a scanty covering. Mr. Bonwick states that, among the Tasmanians, a fur string or band of emu feathers was used by some tribes, but only on great festivities; and the women wore in the dance a covering of leaves or feathers, which, as among the Australians on similar occasions, was removed directly afterwards. Tasmanian dances were performed “with the avowed intention of exciting the passions of the men, in whose presence one young woman had the dance to herself.”[1199] Among the Australian Pegulloburras, who generally go entirely naked, the women on festive occasions wear round the middle small fringes.[1200] Speaking of the Brazilian Uaupés, Mr. Wallace asserts that, “while dancing in their festivals, the women wear a small ‘tanga,’ or apron, made of beads, prettily arranged. It is only about six inches square, but is never worn at any other time, and immediately the dance is over, it is taken off.” Besides, their bodies are painted.[1201] The same was the case with the Tahitian Areois—a sort of privileged libertines, leading a most licentious life, and practising lewd dances and pantomimes,—who also sometimes, on public occasions, put on a girdle of the yellow “ti” leaves, which, in appearance, resembled the feather girdles of the Peruvians or other South American tribes.[1202] As to the South African Basutos, Mr. Casalis states that marriageable girls “frequently indulge in grotesque dances, and at those times wear, as a sort of petticoat, long bands composed of a series of rushes artistically strung together.”[1203]

Very generally in the savage world, where climate does not put obstacles in the way, both sexes go naked till they reach manhood, covering being resorted to at the same period of life as other ornaments.[1204] A South Australian boy, for instance, when fourteen or sixteen years old, has to undergo the initiatory rites of manhood as follows:—he is smeared all over with red ochre and grease, the hair is plucked from his body, and all his friends gather green gum bushes, which they place under his armpits and over the _os pubis_, after which the boy is entitled to marry.[1205]

In conformity with other ornaments, what we consider decent covering is said to be more common with savage men than with women. “If dress were the result of a feeling of shame,” Professor Waitz observes, “we should expect it to be more indispensable to woman than to man, which is not the case.”[1206] In America, according to v. Humboldt—among the Caribs, for instance—the men are often more decently clothed than the women.[1207] The same is stated of the Nagas of Upper Assam;[1208] and Barth, who had a vast experience of African savages, remarks, “I have observed that many heathen tribes consider a covering, however poor and scanty it may be, more necessary for man than woman.”[1209] Whether this is the rule among savage peoples is doubtful. At any rate, the egoism of the men cannot be blamed for the nakedness of the women. For a savage Eve may pluck her clothes from the trees.

In support of the psychological presumption which underlies the hypothesis here adduced, it may be added that some peoples are in the habit of covering other parts of the body also, in order to “excite through the unknown.” Thus, among the Tipperahs, the married women wear nothing but a short petticoat, while the unmarried girls cover the breast with a gaily-dyed cloth with fringed ends.[1210] Among the Toungtha, the bosoms of women are left uncovered after the birth of the first child, but the unmarried girls wear a narrow breast cloth.[1211] The Chinese consider small feet to be the chief charm of their women, and the girls have to undergo horrible torture while their feet are being compressed to the smallest possible size. It might be supposed that they would at least have the pleasure of fascinating the men by a beauty so painfully acquired. But Dr. Stricker assures us that, in China, a woman is considered immodest if she shows her artificially distorted foot to a man. It is even improper to speak of a woman’s foot, and in decent pictures this part is always concealed under the dress.[1212] The women of Agades, according to Barth, generally go unveiled, and if they sometimes cover their heads, this is done rather from coquetry than from a feeling of shame.[1213] Mr. Man remarks that a Hindu woman who attempts to hide her face, while she wears a gauze which displays her whole form, in her simulated modesty always appears as if attempting to convey an _arrière pensée_.[1214] Among the Tacullies, it is customary for the girls to have over their eyes a kind of veil or fringe, made either of strung beads or of narrow strips of deer skin garnished with porcupine quills;[1215] and, among the Chawanons, according to Moore, those young women who have any pretensions to beauty, as soon as they become marriageable, “muffle themselves up so that when they go abroad it is impossible to see anything but their eyes. On these indications of beauty they are eagerly sought in marriage.”[1216]

Finally, it is worth noting that this covering, or half covering, is only one of the means by which savage men and women endeavor to direct attention to that which civilized man conceals from a sense of shame. Among the Admiralty Islanders, the only covering is a shell, which shell is often tastefully engraved with the usual zigzag patterns, whilst its dazzling whiteness forms a very striking contrast with the blackness of the skin.[1217] On reaching puberty, the Tankhul Nagas assume, instead of a shell, a horn or ivory ring from an eighth to a quarter of an inch in breadth; being apparently of opinion that exposure, if so attended, is not a matter to be ashamed of.[1218] Some of the Brazilian Tupis, according to Castlenau, “mentulam inserunt in annulum ligneum, unde appellantur Porrudos, _i.e._ mentulati;”[1219] and, in several of the South Sea Islands, those parts of the body which civilized people are most anxious to conceal, are decorated with tattoos.[1220] De indigenis Tanembaris et Timorlaonis dum loquitur Reidel, adulescentes et puellas dicit saepe consulto abradere pilos pubis nulla alia mente, nisi ut illæ partes alteri sexui magis conspicuæ fiant.[1221]

Above all the practice of circumcision should be noticed in this connection, since, as I believe, it owes its origin to the same cause. It is by no means a specifically Jewish custom, but is widely spread over the earth. It is in use among all the Mohammedan peoples, among most of the tribes inhabiting the African West Coast, among the Kafirs, among nearly all the peoples of Eastern Africa, among the Christian Abyssinians, Bogos, and Copts,[1222] throughout all the various tribes inhabiting Madagascar,[1223] and, in the heart of the Black Continent, among the Monbuttu and Akka. Moreover, it is practised very commonly in Australia, in many islands of Melanesia,[1224] and in Polynesia universally. It has also been met with in some parts of America: in Yucatan,[1225] on the Orinoco,[1226] and among certain tribes in the Rio Branco in Brazil.[1227] The Jews, Mohammedans,[1228] Abyssinians,[1229] and some other peoples being excepted, it is always performed when the boy attains manhood—_i.e._, at the same age as that at which he is tattooed or painted, or begins to dress or adorn himself. Indeed, through the operation of circumcision, the boy becomes a man, and, where it is wanting, some other operation or deformation of the body supplies its place.[1230] Thus, in Australia, some tribes practise circumcision, others knock out teeth, when the youth becomes virile.[1231] Where circumcision is in use it is generally considered an indispensable preliminary to marriage, “uncircumcised” being a bad word, and the women often refusing all intercourse with such a man.[1232]

Several different explanations of this custom have been suggested.[1233] Some authors believe that it is due to hygienic motives. But circumcised and uncircumcised peoples live under the same conditions in the same neighbourhood side by side, without any difference in their physical condition.[1234] Mr. Sturt remarks that, in Australia, “you would meet with a tribe with which that custom did not prevail, between two with which it did.”[1235] Moreover, as Mr. Spencer observes, while the usage does not exist among the most cleanly races in the world, it is common among the most uncleanly.[1236] Among the Damaras and Bechuanas, the boys are circumcised, though these peoples are described as exceedingly filthy in their habits,[1237] and so also among the people of Madagascar and the Malays, who are far from being so cleanly as might be desired.[1238]

Again, according to Mr. Spencer, circumcision involves an offering to the gods. He suggests that in the first instance vanquished enemies were mutilated in order that a specially valuable trophy after a battle might be presented to the king Then, “in a highly militant society governed by a divinely-descended despot, ... we may expect that the presentation to the king of these trophies taken from enslaved enemies, will develop into the offering to the god of like trophies taken from each generation of male citizens in acknowledgment of their slavery to him.”[1239] This conclusion Mr. Spencer draws from the single fact that, “among the Abyssinians, the trophy taken by circumcision from an enemy’s dead body is presented by each warrior to his chief.” But there is no evidence whatever that this curious custom is of common occurrence. Circumcision is spread over a very large part of the earth, and prevails even in societies which are not “governed by a divinely-descended despot,” who could require all his subjects to bear this badge of servitude. With regard to the Australian aborigines, many tribes of whom practise circumcision, Mr. Curr says, “On the subject of government (by which I mean the habitual exercise of authority, by one or a few individuals, over a community or a body of persons) I have made many inquiries and received written replies from the observers of about a hundred tribes to the effect that none exists. Indeed, no fact connected with our tribes seems better established.”[1240] Since there is nothing to indicate that there ever was a different state of things in Australia, how are we to reconcile these facts with the interpretation offered by Mr. Spencer?

In the Book of Genesis the practice of circumcision is presented as a religious rite, deriving its origin from a command of God. But among most peoples it appears to have little, if any, religious significance.[1241] Sometimes, indeed, it is performed by a priest of the community, but, as Herr Andree justly remarks, this has no necessary relation to the question, the priests generally being the physicians of savage tribes.[1242] Moreover, as has already been pointed out, almost every ancestral custom may by degrees take a religious character. Thus, the ancient Peruvians’ habit of enlarging the lobe of the ear, so as to enable it to carry ear-tubes of great size, is supposed to have been connected with sun-worship; for Spanish historians mention that elaborate religious ceremonies were held at the Temple of the Sun at Cuzco, on the occasion of the boring of the ears of young Peruvian nobles.[1243] But we should not be warranted in inferring that this custom had originally anything to do with religion. With regard to circumcision among the Jews, I agree with Herr Andree that its religious character was almost certainly of a comparatively late date.[1244]

The peoples among whom this practice prevails are themselves unable to give any adequate account of its origin. With reference to the circumcision of the Southern Africans, the Rev. H. H. Dugmore says that they do not know how it began and that they have no traditionary remembrances about it, except that it has prevailed as a national custom from generation to generation. “Our forefathers did so, and therefore we do the same,” is all that the present generation can say about the matter.[1245]

That the practice of circumcision arose from the same desire as that which led to other kinds of mutilation, is rendered more probable by the fact that disfiguration is sometimes effected in quite a different way. Novae Zealandiae incolas Cook narrat non solum se non circumcidere, sed contra tam necessarium habere praeputium, ut anteriorem eius partem redimire soleant ligamento, quo glandem penis tegant.[1246] The same curious usage is met with in some other Islands of the South Sea;[1247] and in Brazil, according to Dr. Karl von den Steinen, among the Trumaí.[1248] Indigenae Portus Lincoln pueros pubertatem ingressos mirum in modum secant: quarzi fragmento penem ex ore secundum inferiorem partem usque ad scrotum incidunt itaque totum longitudinis spatium detegunt.[1249] In defence of this practice, says Mr. Schürmann, the natives had nothing to suggest except that “it was observed by their forefathers, and must therefore be upheld by themselves.”[1250] In Ponapé, boys are always subjected to semi-castration, as Dr. Finsch remarks, in order to prevent the possibility of orchitis, and, further, because the girls consider men thus disfigured handsomer and more attractive than others. According to Captain Wright, the same custom prevails in Niutabutabu, of the Tonga Islands.[1251]

Among many peoples of Africa, and in certain tribes of the Malay Archipelago and South America, the girls also undergo a sort of circumcision, and this is looked upon as an indispensable preliminary to marriage.[1252] Sunt autem gentes, quarum contrarius mos est, ut clitoris et labia minora non exsecentur, verum extendantur, et saepe longissime extendandur. Atque ista etiam deformatio insigne pulchritudinis existimatur.[1253] De indigenis Ponapéis haec adnotat Dr. Finsch; labia interna longius extenta et pendentia puellis et uxoribus singulare sunt incitamentum, quae res eodem modo se habet apud alias gentes, ut apud Hottentottas.[1254]

It certainly seems strange that such deformities should have been originally intended to improve the appearance. But we must remember the rough taste of savages, and the wish for variety so deeply rooted in human nature. These practices evidently began at a time when man went in a state of perfect nudity. The mutilations, as the eyes became accustomed to them, gradually ceased to be interesting, and continued to be inflicted merely through the force of habit, or from a religious motive. A new stimulus was then invented, parts of the body which had formerly been exposed being hidden by a scanty covering: as the Chinese women at first had their feet pressed in order to excite admiration, but afterwards began to conceal them from coquetry, or as the Tassai beauties, though entirely naked otherwise, wear two or three petticoats one over another.[1255]

* * * * *

How, then, are we to explain the connection which undoubtedly exists between nakedness and the feeling of shame? The hypothesis here set forth cannot be regarded as fully established until this question is answered.

“The ideas of modesty,” Forster truly says, “are different in every country, and change in different periods of time.”[1256] As v. Humboldt remarks, “A woman in some parts of Asia is not permitted to show the ends of her fingers; while an Indian of the Caribbean race is far from considering herself naked, when she wears a ‘guajuco’ two inches broad. Even this band is regarded as a less essential part of dress than the pigment which covers the skin. To go out of the hut without being painted with arnotta, is to transgress all the rules of Caribbean decency.”[1257] In Tahiti, a person not properly tattooed would “be as much reproached and shunned, as if with us he should go about the streets naked;”[1258] and, in Tonga also, the men would think it very indecent not to be tattooed.[1259]

M. Letourneau reports that, at Basra on the Euphrates, it was the duty of a woman, if surprised when taking her bath, to turn her face; no further concealment was considered necessary.[1260] The same habit prevailed among the fellah women in Egypt;[1261] while, in Arabia, according to Ebers, a woman acts even more indecorously in uncovering the back of the head than in uncovering the face, though this also is carefully hidden.[1262]

The Tubori women in Central Africa wear only a narrow strap, to which is attached a twig hanging down behind; but they feel greatly ashamed if the twig happens to fall off.[1263] A Chinese woman, as previously stated, is not permitted by the law of modesty to show her feet; and the Samoans considered it most disgraceful to expose the navel.[1264] The savage tribes of Sumatra and Celebes have a like feeling about the exposure of the knee, which is always carefully covered.[1265] Speaking of the horrible mouth adornment worn by the women of Port des Français (Alaska), which makes the lower part of the mouth jut out two or three inches, La Pérouse remarks, “We sometimes prevailed on them to pull off this ornament, to which they with difficulty agreed; they then testified the same embarrassment, and made the same gestures, as a woman in Europe who discovers her bosom.”[1266] Et Polynesios, quamquam eum tenent morem, nullam ut aliam corporis partem nisi glandem penis tegant, hanc tamen nudare vehementer pudet. Ita Lisiansky animadvertit indigenas Nukahivae, qui praeputium peni abductum habent et extremam eius partem lino constrictam, linum illud magni aestimare manifesto apparere. “Accidit enim,” inquit, “ut frater regis, ubi navem meam ascendit, linum amitteret, qua occasione mala quam maxime angebatur. Qui cum constratum navis ingrederetur, illa re commotus partem non redimitam manibus velavit.”[1267] Dr. Mosely asserts that the Admiralty Islanders, who wear nothing but a shell, always cover themselves hastily on removing the shell for barter, and evidently consider that they are exposing themselves either indecently or irreligiously, if they show themselves perfectly nude.[1268] The Kubus of Sumatra have a tradition that they are descendants of the youngest of three brothers, the first and second of whom were circumcised in the usual way, while it was found that no instruments would circumcise the third. This so _ashamed_ him that he betook himself to the woods.[1269]

Ideas of modesty, therefore, are altogether relative and conventional. Peoples who are accustomed to tattoo themselves are ashamed to appear untattooed; peoples whose women are in the habit of covering their faces consider such a covering indispensable for every respectable woman; peoples who for one reason or another have come to conceal the navel, the knee, the bosom, or other parts, blush to reveal what is hidden. It is not the feeling of shame that has provoked the covering, but the covering that has provoked the feeling of shame.

This feeling, Dr. Bain remarks, “is resolved by a reference to the dread of being condemned, or ill-thought of, by others.”[1270] Such dread is undoubtedly one of the most powerful motives of human action. Speaking of the Greenlanders, Cranz says that the mainspring of all that they do is their fear of being blamed or mocked by other men.[1271] Among savages, custom is a tyrant as potent as law has ever been in civilized societies, every deviation from a usage which has taken root among the people being laughed to scorn, or regarded with disdain. The young ladies of Balonda, wholly unconscious of their own deficiency, could not maintain their gravity at the sight of the naked backs of Livingstone’s men. “Much to the annoyance of my companions,” he says, “the young girls laughed outright whenever their backs were turned to them, for the Balonda men wear a dress consisting of skins of small animals, hanging before and behind from a girdle round the loins.”[1272] By degrees a custom is associated with religion, and then becomes even more powerful than before. Mr. Williams tells us of a Fijian priest, who, like all his countrymen, was satisfied with a “masi,” or scanty hip-cloth, but on hearing a description of the naked inhabitants of New Caledonia and of their idols, exclaimed, contemptuously, “Not have a ‘masi,’ and yet pretend to have gods!”[1273] And, as Peschel remarks, “were a pious Mussulman of Ferghana to be present at our balls, and see the bare shoulders of our wives and daughters, and the semi-embraces of our round dances, he would silently wonder at the long-suffering of Allah, who had not long ago poured fire and brimstone on this sinful and shameless generation.”[1274]

Covering the nakedness has, for the reason already pointed out, become a very common practice among savage peoples; among those of the tropics, no other sort of clothing is generally in use. Hence, through the power of custom, the feeling of shame aroused by the exposure of the nakedness. If this is the true explanation, some may be disposed to infer that savages who, for the sake of cold, cover almost the entire body, will feel ashamed to bare even such parts as may elsewhere be shown without compunction. But this would be to overlook the essential fact that the heat of their dwellings, where they spend most of the winter, and the warmth of the summer sun, in many cases make it necessary for them, as they think, to throw off all their clothes. When this is done, they seem to be devoid of any sense of shame. Thus, the Aleuts undress themselves completely in their warm jurts, and men and women have for ages been accustomed to bathe together in the sea; “they do not think of there being any immodesty in it, yet, any immorality is exceedingly rare among them.”[1275] The Tacullies, who usually take off their clothes in summer, though they are well clad in winter, manifest, according to Harmon, as little sense of shame in regard to uncovering “as the very brute creation.”[1276] The Eskimo of Etah, who in the winter are enveloped to the face in furs, nevertheless, according to Kane’s description, completely put aside their garments in their subterranean dwellings;[1277] and the demeanour of the wife of Hans the Eskimo on board Hayes’s ship, plainly showed that she had no idea of decency.[1278]

On the other hand, we know that peoples living in warm climates who cover only the nakedness are utterly ashamed to expose it. The Andamanese, although they wear as little clothing as possible, exhibit a delicacy that amounts to prudishness, the women of the tribes of South Andaman being so modest that they will not remove their small apron of leaves, or put anything in its place, in the presence of any person, even of their own sex.[1279] Speaking of the Fijians, Wilkes asserts that, “though almost naked, these natives have a great idea of modesty, and consider it extremely indelicate to expose the whole person. If either a man or woman should be discovered without the ‘maro,’ or ‘liku,’ they would probably be killed.”[1280] The female natives of Nukahiva have only one small covering, but are so tenacious of it that the most licentious will not consent to take it off.[1281] Among those Australian tribes, in which a covering is worn by the women, they will retire out of sight to bathe.[1282] In Lukunor and Radack, men and women never appear naked together;[1283] and among the Pelew Islanders, according to Semper, the women have an unlimited privilege of striking, fining, or, if it be done on the spot, killing any man who makes his way in to their bathing-places.[1284]

These facts appear to prove that the feeling of shame, far from being the original cause of man’s covering his body, is, on the contrary, a result of this custom; and that the covering, if not used as a protection from the climate, owes its origin, at least in a great many cases, to the desire of men and women to make themselves mutually attractive.[1285] To some readers it may perhaps seem probable that the covering of the nakedness was originally due to the feeling which makes intimate relations between the sexes, even among savages, a more or less secret matter. But, whilst this feeling is universal in mankind, there are, as we have seen, a great many peoples who attach no idea of shame to the entire exposure of the body, and these peoples are otherwise not less modest than those who cover themselves. Their number is, indeed, so great that we cannot regard the absence of shame as a reversion or perversion; and it may be asserted with perfect confidence that the modesty which shows itself in covering is not an instinct in the same sense as that in which the aversion to incest, for example, is an instinct,—an aversion to which sexual bashfulness seems to be very closely related. Travellers have observed that, among various naked tribes, women exhibit a strong sense of modesty through various attitudes. But these attitudes may, like concealment by clothing, have been _originally_ due to coquetry. They imply a vivid consciousness of certain facts, and the exhibition of this consciousness is far from being a mark of modesty. It may, further, be supposed that decent covering was adopted for the protection of parts specially liable to injury. This may hold good for some cases; but the general prevalence of circumcision even among naked tribes shows that savages are not particularly anxious about the safety of their persons.