Lucretius long since remarked and Montaigne after him, are careful to
conceal from their lovers the _vita postscenia_, and that fantastic fate
which placed so near together the supreme foci of physical attraction and
physical repugnance, has immensely contributed to build up all the
subtlest coquetries of courtship. Whatever stimulates self-confidence and
lulls the fear of evoking disgust--whether it is the presence of a beloved
person in whose good opinion complete confidence is felt, or whether it is
merely the grosser narcotizing influence of a slight degree of
intoxication--always automatically lulls the emotion of modesty.[34]
Together with the animal factor of sexual refusal, this social fear of
evoking disgust seems to me the most fundamental element in modesty.
It is, of course, impossible to argue that the fact of the sacro-pubic
region of the body being the chief focus of concealment proves the
importance of this factor of modesty. But it may fairly be argued that it
owes this position not merely to being the sexual centre, but also as
being the excretory centre. Even among many lower mammals, as well as
among birds and insects, there is a well-marked horror of dirt, somewhat
disguised by the varying ways in which an animal may be said to define
"dirt." Many animals spend more time and energy in the duties of
cleanliness than human beings, and they often show well-marked anxiety to
remove their own excrement, or to keep away from it.[35]
Thus this element
of modesty also may be said to have an animal basis.
It is on this animal basis that the human and social fear of arousing
disgust has developed. Its probably wide extension is indicated not only
by the strong feeling attached to the constant presence of clothing on
this part of the body,--such constant presence being quite uncalled for if
the garment or ornament is merely a sort of sexual war-paint,--but by the
repugnance felt by many savages very low down in the scale to the public
satisfaction of natural needs, and to their more than civilized
cleanliness in this connection;[36] it is further of interest to note that
in some parts of the world the covering is not in front, but behind;
though of this fact there are probably other explanations. Among civilized
people, also, it may be added, the final and invincible seat of modesty is
sometimes not around the pubes, but the anus; that is to say, that in such
cases the fear of arousing disgust is the ultimate and most fundamental
element of modesty.[37]
The concentration of modesty around the anus is sometimes very
marked. Many women feel so high a degree of shame and reserve
with regard to this region, that they are comparatively
indifferent to an anterior examination of the sexual organs. A
similar feeling is not seldom found in men. "I would permit of an
examination of my genitals by a medical man, without any feeling
of discomfort," a correspondent writes, "but I think I would
rather die than submit to any rectal examination."
Even
physicians have been known to endure painful rectal disorders for
years, rather than undergo examination.
"Among ordinary English girls," a medical correspondent writes,
"I have often noticed that the dislike and shame of allowing a
man to have sexual intercourse with them, when newly married, is
simply due to the fact that the sexual aperture is so closely
apposed to the anus and bladder. If the vulva and vagina were
situated between a woman's shoulder blades, and a man had a
separate instrument for coitus, not used for any excretory
purpose, I do not think women would feel about intercourse as
they sometimes do. Again, in their ignorance of anatomy, women
often look upon the vagina and womb as part of the bowel and its
exit of discharge, and sometimes say, for instance,
'inflammation of the _bowel_', when they mean _womb_. Again,
many, perhaps most, women believe that they pass water through
the vagina, and are ignorant of the existence of the separate
urethral orifice. Again, women associate the vulva with the anus,
and so feel ashamed of it; even when speaking to their husbands,
or to a doctor, or among themselves; they have absolutely no name
for the vulva (I mean among the upper classes, and people of
gentle birth), but speak of it as 'down below,' 'low down,' etc."
Even though this feeling is largely based on wrong and ignorant
ideas, it must still be recognized that it is to some extent
natural and inevitable. "How much is risked,"
exclaims Dugas, "in
the privacies of love! The results may be disillusion, disgust,
the consciousness of physical imperfection, of brutality or
coldness, of æsthetic disenchantment, of a sentimental shock,
seen or divined. To be without modesty, that is to say, to have
no fear of the ordeals of love, one must be sure of one's self,
of one's grace, of one's physical emotions, of one's feelings,
and be sure, moreover, of the effect of all these on the nerves,
the imagination, and the heart of another person.
Let us suppose
modesty reduced to æsthetic discomfort, to a woman's fear of
displeasing, or of not seeming beautiful enough.
Even thus
defined, how can modesty avoid being always awake and restless?
What woman could repeat, without risk, the tranquil action of
Phryne? And even in that action, who knows how much may not have
been due to mere professional insolence!" (Dugas,
"La Pudeur,"
_Revue Philosophique_, November, 1903.) "Men and Women," Schurtz
points out (_Altersklassen und Männerbünde_, pp. 41-51), "have
certainly the capacity mutually to supplement and enrich each
other; but when this completion fails, or is not sought, the
difference may easily become a strong antipathy;"
and he proceeds
to develop the wide-reaching significance of this psychic fact.
I have emphasized the proximity of the excretory centres to the sexual
focus in discussing this important factor of modesty, because, in
analyzing so complex and elusive an emotion as modesty it is desirable to
keep as near as possible to the essential and fundamental facts on which
it is based. It is scarcely necessary to point out that, in ordinary
civilized society, these fundamental facts are not usually present at the
surface of consciousness and may even be absent altogether; on the
foundation of them may arise all sorts of idealized fears, of delicate
reserves, of æsthetic refinements, as the emotions of love become more
complex and more subtle, and the crude simplicity of the basis on which
they finally rest becomes inevitably concealed.
Another factor of modesty, which reaches a high development in savagery,
is the ritual element, especially the idea of ceremonial uncleanness,
based on a dread of the supernatural influences which the sexual organs
and functions are supposed to exert. It may be to some extent rooted in
the elements already referred to, and it leads us into a much wider field
than that of modesty, so that it is only necessary to touch slightly on it
here; it has been exhaustively studied by Frazer and by Crawley. Offences
against the ritual rendered necessary by this mysterious dread, though
more serious than offences against sexual reticence or the fear of causing
disgust, are so obviously allied that they all reinforce one another and
cannot easily be disentangled.
Nearly everywhere all over the world at a primitive stage of thought, and
even to some extent in the highest civilization, the sight of the sexual
organs or of the sexual act, the image or even the names of the sexual
parts of either man or woman, are believed to have a curiously potent
influence, sometimes beneficent, but quite as often maleficent. The two
kinds of influence may even be combined, and Riedel, quoted by Ploss and
Bartels,[38] states that the Ambon islanders carve a schematic
representation of the vulva on their fruit trees, in part to promote the
productiveness of the trees, and in part to scare any unauthorized person
who might be tempted to steal the fruit. The precautions prescribed as
regards coitus at Loango[39] are evidently associated with religious
fears. In Ceylon, again (as a medical correspondent there informs me),
where the penis is worshipped and held sacred, a native never allows it to
be seen, except under compulsion, by a doctor, and even a wife must
neither see it nor touch it nor ask for coitus, though she must grant as
much as the husband desires. All savage and barbarous peoples who have
attained any high degree of ceremonialism have included the functions not
only of sex, but also of excretion, more or less stringently within the
bounds of that ceremonialism.[40] It is only necessary to refer to the
Jewish ritual books of the Old Testament, to Hesiod, and to the customs
prevalent among Mohammedan peoples. Modesty in eating, also, has its roots
by no means only in the fear of causing disgust, but very largely in this
kind of ritual, and Crawley has shown how numerous and frequent among
primitive peoples are the religious implications of eating and
drinking.[41] So profound is this dread of the sacred mystery of sex, and
so widespread is the ritual based upon it, that some have imagined that
here alone we may find the complete explanation of modesty, and Salomon
Reinach declares that "at the origin of the emotion of modesty lies a
taboo."[42]
Durkheim ("La Prohibition de l'Inceste," _L'Année Sociologique_,
1898, p. 50), arguing that whatever sense of repugnance women may
inspire must necessarily reach the highest point around the womb,
which is hence subjected to the most stringent taboo,
incidentally suggests that here is an origin of modesty. "The
sexual organs must be veiled at an early period, to prevent the
dangerous effluvia which they give off from reaching the
environment. The veil is often a method of intercepting magic
action. Once constituted, the practice would be maintained and
transformed."
It was doubtless as a secondary and derived significance that the
veil became, as Reinach ("Le Voile de l'Oblation,"
op. cit., pp.
299-311) shows it was, alike among the Romans and in the Catholic
Church, the sign of consecration to the gods.
At an early stage of culture, again, menstruation is regarded as a process
of purification, a dangerous expulsion of vitiated humors. Hence the term
_katharsis_ applied to it by the Greeks. Hence also the mediæval view of
women: "_Mulier speciosa templum ædificatum super cloacam_," said
Boethius. The sacro-pubic region in women, because it includes the source
of menstruation, thus becomes a specially heightened seat of taboo.
According to the Mosiac law (Leviticus, Chapter XX, v.
18), if a man
uncovered a menstruating woman, both were to be cut off.
It is probable that the Mohammedan custom of veiling the face and head
really has its source solely in another aspect of this ritual factor of
modesty. It must be remembered that this custom is not Mohammedan in its
origin, since it existed long previously among the Arabians, and is
described by Tertullian.[43] In early Arabia very handsome men also veiled
their faces, in order to preserve themselves from the evil eye, and it has
been conjectured with much probability that the origin of the custom of
women veiling their faces may be traced to this magico-religious
precaution.[44] Among the Jews of the same period, according to
Büchler,[45] the women had their heads covered and never cut their hair;
to appear in the streets without such covering would be like a prostitute
and was adequate ground for divorce; adulterous women were punished by
uncovering their heads and cutting their hair. It is possible, though not
certain, that St. Paul's obscure injunction to women to cover their heads
"because of the angels," may really be based on the ancient reason, that
when uncovered they would be exposed to the wanton assaults of spirits (1
Corinthians, Ch. XI, vv. 5-6),[46] exactly as Singhalese women believe
that they must keep the vulva covered lest demons should have intercourse
with them. Even at the present day St. Paul's injunction is still observed
by Christendom, which is, however, far from accepting, or even perhaps
understanding, the folk-lore ground on which are based such injunctions.
Crawley thus summarizes some of the evidence concerning the
significance of the veil:--
"Sexual shyness, not only in woman, but in man, is intensified at
marriage, and forms a chief feature of the dangerous sexual
properties mutually feared. When fully ceremonial, the idea takes
on the meaning that satisfaction of these feelings will lead to
their neutralization, as, in fact, it does. The bridegroom in
ancient Sparta supped on the wedding night at the men's mess, and
then visited his bride, leaving her before daybreak.
This
practice was continued, and sometimes children were born before
the pair had ever seen each other's faces by day. At weddings in
the Babar Islands, the bridegroom has to hunt for his bride in a
darkened room. This lasts a good while if she is shy. In South
Africa, the bridegroom may not see his bride till the whole of
the marriage ceremonies have been performed. In Persia, a husband
never sees his wife till he has consummated the marriage. At
marriages in South Arabia, the bride and bridegroom have to sit
immovable in the same position from noon till midnight, fasting,
in separate rooms. The bride is attended by ladies, and the groom
by men. They may not see each other till the night of the fourth
day. In Egypt, the groom cannot see the face of his bride, even
by a surreptitious glance, till she is in his absolute
possession. Then comes the ceremony, which he performs, of
uncovering her face. In Egypt, of course, this has been
accentuated by the seclusion and veiling of women.
In Morocco, at
the feast before the marriage, the bride and groom sit together
on a sort of throne; all the time, the poor bride's eyes are
firmly closed, and she sits amidst the revelry as immovable as a
statue. On the next day is the marriage. She is conducted after
dark to her future home, accompanied by a crowd with lanterns and
candles. She is led with closed eyes along the street by two
relatives, each holding one of her hands. The bride's head is
held in its proper position by a female relative, who walks
behind her. She wears a veil, and is not allowed to open her eyes
until she is set on the bridal bed, with a girl friend beside
her. Amongst the Zulus, the bridal party proceeds to the house of
the groom, having the bride hidden amongst them.
They stand
facing the groom, while the bride sings a song. Her companions
then suddenly break away, and she is discovered standing in the
middle, with a fringe of beads covering her face.
Amongst the
people of Kumaun, the husband sees his wife first after the
joining of hands. Amongst the Bedui of North East Africa, the
bride is brought on the evening of the wedding-day by her girl
friends, to the groom's house. She is closely muffled up. Amongst
the Jews of Jerusalem, the bride, at the marriage ceremony,
stands under the nuptial canopy, her eyes being closed, that she
may not behold the face of her future husband before she reaches
the bridal chamber. In Melanesia, the bride is carried to her new
home on some one's back, wrapped in many mats, with palm-fans
held about her face, because she is supposed to be modest and
shy. Among the Damaras, the groom cannot see his bride for four
days after marriage. When a Damara woman is asked in marriage,
she covers her face for a time with the flap of a headdress made
for this purpose. At the Thlinkeet marriage ceremony, the bride
must look down, and keep her head bowed all the time; during the
wedding-day, she remains hiding in a corner of the house, and the
groom is forbidden to enter. At a Yezedee marriage, the bride is
covered from head to foot with a thick veil, and when arrived at
her new home, she retires behind a curtain in the corner of a
darkened room, where she remains for three days before her
husband is permitted to see her. In Corea, the bride has to cover
her face with her long sleeves, when meeting the bridegroom at
the wedding. The Manchurian bride uncovers her face for the first
time when she descends from the nuptial couch. It is dangerous
even to see dangerous persons. Sight is a method of contagion in
primitive science, and the idea coincides with the psychological
aversion to see dangerous things, and with sexual shyness and
timidity. In the customs noticed, we can distinguish the feeling
that it is dangerous to the bride for her husband's eyes to be
upon her, and the feeling of bashfulness in her which induces her
neither to see him nor to be seen by him. These ideas explain the
origin of the bridal veil and similar concealments.
The bridal
veil is used, to take a few instances, in China, Burmah, Corea,
Russia, Bulgaria, Manchuria, and Persia, and in all these cases
it conceals the face entirely." (E. Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_,
pp. 328 et seq.)
Alexander Walker, writing in 1846, remarks: "Among old-fashioned
people, of whom a good example may be found in old country people
of the middle class in England, it is indecent to be seen with
the head unclothed; such a woman is terrified at the chance of
being seen In that condition, and if intruded on at that time,
she shrieks with terror, and flies to conceal herself." (A.
Walker, _Beauty_, p. 15.) This fear of being seen with the head
uncovered exists still, M. Van Gennep informs me, in some regions
of France, as in Brittany.
So far it has only been necessary to refer incidentally to the connection
of modesty with clothing. I have sought to emphasize the unquestionable,
but often forgotten, fact that modesty is in its origin independent of
clothing, that physiological modesty takes precedence of anatomical
modesty, and that the primary factors of modesty were certainly developed
long before the discovery of either ornament or garments. The rise of
clothing probably had its first psychical basis on an emotion of modesty
already compositely formed of the elements we have traced. Both the main
elementary factors, it must be noted, must naturally tend to develop and
unite in a more complex, though--it may well be--much less intense,
emotion. The impulse which leads the female animal, as it leads some
African women when found without their girdles, to squat firmly down on
the earth, becomes a more refined and extended play of gesture and
ornament and garment. A very notable advance, I may remark, is made when
this primary attitude of defence against the action of the male becomes a
defence against his eyes. We may thus explain the spread of modesty to
various parts of the body, even when we exclude the more special influence
of the evil eye. The breasts very early become a focus of modesty in
women; this may be observed among many naked, or nearly naked, negro
races; the tendency of the nates to become the chief seat of modesty in
many parts of Africa may probably be, in large part, thus explained, since
the full development of the gluteal regions is often the greatest
attraction an African woman can possess.[47] The same cause contributes,
doubtless, to the face becoming, in some races, the centre of modesty. We
see the influence of this defence against strange eyes in the special
precautions in gesture or clothing taken by the women in various parts of
the world, against the more offensive eyes of civilized Europeans.
But in thus becoming directed only against sight, and not against action,
the gestures of modesty are at once free to become merely those of
coquetry. When there is no real danger of offensive action, there is no
need for more than playful defence, and no serious anxiety should that
defence be taken as a disguised invitation. Thus the road is at once fully
open toward the most civilized manifestations of the comedy of courtship.
In the same way the social fear of arousing disgust combines easily and
perfectly with any new development in the invention of ornament or
clothing as sexual lures. Even among the most civilized races it has often
been noted that the fashion of feminine garments (as also sometimes the
use of scents) has the double object of concealing and attracting. It is
so with the little apron of the young savage belle. The heightening of the
attraction is, indeed, a logical outcome of the fear of evoking disgust.
It is possible, as some ethnographists have observed,[48] that intercrural
cords and other primitive garments have a physical ground, inasmuch as
they protect the most sensitive and unprotected part of the body,
especially in women. We may note in this connection the significant
remarks of K. von den Steinen, who argues that among Brazilian tribes the
object of the _uluri_, etc., is to obtain a maximum of protection for the
mucous membrane with a minimum of concealment. Among the Eskimo, as Nansen
noted, the corresponding intercrural cord is so thin as to be often
practically invisible; this may be noted, I may add, in the excellent
photographs of Eskimo women given by Holm.
But it is evident that, in the beginning, protection is to little or no
extent the motive for attaching foreign substances to the body. Thus the
tribes of Central Australia wear no clothes, although they often suffer
from the cold. But, in addition to armlets, neck-bands and head-bands,
they have string or hair girdles, with, for the women, a very small apron
and, for the men, a pubic tassel. The latter does not conceal the organs,
being no larger than a coin, and often brilliantly coated with white
pipeclay, especially during the progress of _corrobborees_, when a large
number of men and women meet together; it serves the purpose of drawing
attention to the organs.[49] When Forster visited the unspoilt islanders
of the Pacific early in the eighteenth century, he tells us that, though
they wore no clothes, they found it necessary to cover themselves with
various ornaments, especially on, the sexual parts. "But though their
males," he remarks, "were to all appearances equally anxious in this
respect with their females, this part of their dress served only to make
that more conspicuous which it intended to hide."[50] He adds the
significant remark that "these ideas of decency and modesty are only
observed at the age of sexual maturity," just as in Central Australia
women may only wear aprons after the initiation of puberty.
"There are certain things," said Montaigne, "which are hidden in order to
be shown;" and there can be no doubt that the contention of Westermarck
and others, that ornament and clothing were, in the first place, intended,
not to conceal or even to protect the body, but, in large part, to render
it sexually attractive, is fully proved.[51] We cannot, in the light of
all that has gone before, regard ornaments and clothing as the sole cause
of modesty, but the feelings that are thus gathered around the garment
constitute a highly important factor of modesty.
Among some Australian tribes it is said that the sexual organs
are only covered during their erotic dances; and it is further
said that in some parts of