ago poured fire and brimstone on this sinful and shameless
generation.” Another point of interest lies in the difference of
outlook with which nudity is regarded by the English and
Japanese. Among the latter it has been common for the sexes
to take baths together without clothing, while in England mixed
bathing, even in full costume, is even now by no means universal.
Yet in England the representation of the nude in art meets
with no reproach, though considered improper by the Japanese.
Even more striking is the fact that in civilized countries what
is permitted at certain times is forbidden at others; a woman
will expose far more of her person at night, in the ballroom or
theatre, than would be considered seemly by day in the street;
and a bathing costume which would be thought modest on the
beach would meet with reprobation in a town.
Modesty therefore is highly conventional, and to discover its origin the most primitive tribes must be observed. Among these, in Africa, South America, Australia and so forth, where clothing is at a minimum, the men are always more elaborately ornamented than the women. At the same time it is noticeable that no cases of spinsterhood are found; celibacy, rare as it is, is confined to the male sex. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that ornament is a stimulus to sexual selection, and this conclusion is enforced by the fact that among many comparatively nude peoples clothing is assumed at certain dances which have as their confessed object the excitation of the passions of the opposite sex. Many forms of clothing, moreover, seem to call attention to those parts of the body of which, under the conditions of Western civilization at the present day, it aims at the concealment; certain articles of dress worn by the New Hebrideans, the Zulu-Xosa tribes, certain tribes of Brazil and others, are cases in point. Clothing, moreover—and this is true also of the present day—almost always tends to accentuate rather than to conceal the difference between the sexes. Looking at the question then from the point of view of sexual selection it would seem that a stage in the progress of human society is marked by the discovery that concealment affords a greater stimulus than revelation; that the fact is true is obvious,—even to modern eyes a figure partially clad appears far more indecent than a nude. That the stimulus is real is seen in the fact that among nude races flagrant immorality is far less common than among the more clothed; the contrast between the Polynesians and Melanesians, living as neighbours under similar conditions, is striking evidence on this point. Later, when the novelty of clothing has spent its force, the stimulus is supplied by nudity complete or partial.
One more point must be considered: there is the evidence of competent observers to show that members of a tribe accustomed to nudity, when made to assume clothing for the first time, exhibit as much confusion as would a European compelled to strip in public. This fact, considered together with what has been said above, compels the conclusion that modesty is a feeling merely of acute self-consciousness due to appearing unusual, and is the result of clothing rather than the cause. In the words of Westermarck: “The facts appear to prove that the feeling of shame, far from being the 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.”
Primitive adornment in its earliest stages may be divided into three classes; first the moulding of the body itself to certain local standards of beauty. In this category may be placed head-deformation, which reached its extreme development among the Indians of North-West America and the ancient Peruvians; foot-constriction as practised by the Chinese; tooth-chipping among many African tribes; and waist-compression common in Europe at the present day. Many forms of deformation, it may be remarked in passing, emphasize some natural physical characteristic of the people who practise them. Secondly, the application of extraneous matter to the body, as painting and tattooing, and the raising of ornamental scars often by the introduction of foreign matter into flesh-wounds (this practice belongs partly to the first category also). Thirdly, the suspension of foreign bodies from, or their attachment to, convenient portions of the body. This category, by far the largest, includes ear-, nose- and lip-ornaments, head-dresses, necklets, armlets, wristlets, leglets, anklets, finger-and toe-rings and girdles. The last are important, as it is from the waist-ornaments chiefly that what is commonly considered clothing at the present day has been developed.
Setting aside for the moment the less important, historically, of these, nearly all of which exist in Western civilization of the present day, it will be as well to consider that form of dress which is marked by the greatest evolution. It is generally supposed that man originated in tropical or subtropical latitudes, and spread gradually towards the poles. Naturally, as the temperature became lower, a new function was gradually acquired by his clothing, that of protecting the body of the wearer. Climate then is one of the forces which play an important part in the evolution of dress; at the same time care must be taken not to attribute too much influence to it. It must be remembered that the Arabs, who inhabit an extremely hot country, are very fully clothed, while the Fuegians at the extremity of Cape Horn, exposed to all the rigours of an antarctic climate, have, as sole protection, a skin attached to the body by cords, so that it can be shifted to either side according to the direction of the wind.
Dr. C. H. Stratz divides clothing climatically into two classes: tropical, which is based on the girdle (or, when the attachment is fastened round the neck, the cloak), and the arctic, based on the trouser. This classification is ingenious and convenient as far as it goes, but it seems probable that the trouser, which also has the waist as its point of attachment, may itself be a further development of the girdle. Certainly, however, in historical times the division holds good, and it is worthy of remark that one of the points about the northern barbarians which struck the ancient Greeks and Romans most forcibly was the fact that they wore trousers. Amongst the most northerly races the latter garb is worn by both sexes alike; farther south by the men, the women retaining the tropical form; farther south still the latter reigns supreme. No distinct latitude can be assigned as a boundary between the two forms, from the simple fact that where migration in comparatively recent times has taken place a natural conservatism has prevented the more familiar garb from being discarded; at the same time the two forms can often be seen within the limits of the same country; as, for instance, in China, where the women of Shanghai commonly wear trousers, those of Hong-Kong skirts. The retention by women in Europe of the tropical garb can be explained by the fact that her sphere has been mainly confined to the house, and her life has been less active than that of man; consequently the adoption of the arctic dress has been in her case less necessary. But it is noticeable that where women engage in occupations of a more than usually strenuous nature, they frequently don male costume while at their work; as, for instance, women who work in mines (Belgium) and who tend cattle (Switzerland, Tirol). The retention of the tropical pattern by the Highlanders is due directly to environment, since the kilt is better suited than trousers for walking over wet heather.
Another factor besides climate which has exerted a powerful influence on dress—more perhaps on what is commonly regarded as “jewelry” as distinct from “clothing”—is superstition. Doubtless many of the smaller objects with which primitive man adorned himself, especially trophies from the animal world, were supposed to exert some beneficial or protective influence on the wearer, or to produce in him the distinguishing characteristics attributed to the object, or to the whole of which the object was a part. Such objects might be imitated in other materials and by successive copying lose their identity, or their first meaning might be otherwise forgotten, and they would ultimately exercise a purely decorative function. Though this factor may be responsible for much, or even the greater part, of primitive “jewelry,” yet it does not seem likely that it is the cause of all forms of ornament; much must be attributed to the desire to satisfy an innate aesthetic sense, which is seen in children
