It is evident, as might be proved by more numerous and detailed references than it has been possible to adduce above, that precisely such bodily deformations, such systems of distinguishing ornament, and such conspicuous articles of clothing and decoration as are most generally found among both the primitive and the cultivated tribes of mankind have been of especial importance as means of sexual attraction. Nothing could be more natural, therefore, than to explain the various forms of cosmetics as so many endeavours to work upon the preferences—whether arising from the æsthetic sense or from associated ideas of sexual excitement—of the opposite sex. Such an explanation, moreover, derives support from the assertion of the primitives themselves, who often positively state that they dress and array themselves for the purpose of winning the love of their women. And it has on its side the merits of simplicity and unity. By bringing together under one head all the different forms of self-decorative art it disentangles the different questions of primitive æsthetics in a most plausible manner.

However alluring this uniform explanation may be for lovers of clearness and theoretical consistency, it must nevertheless be abandoned upon an impartial examination of the ethnological facts. It is no doubt conceivable that a more or less conscious desire of acquiring the favour of the opposite sex should have called forth all the various means of attraction. As was shown above, they could in such a case have scarcely developed a more effectual conformation than they really have done. But from the effect we are not entitled to draw any conclusion as to the intention. When considering all the various motives, often almost incomprehensible to the civilised mind, which govern the activities of primitive man, one loses the confidence that is necessary in order to accept any general explanation, however probable it may seem. A careful and impartial examination can only lead to the result that scarcely any form of dress or ornament can be quoted which could be considered with certainty as an outcome of the impulse to attract and charm the opposite sex.

To begin with the class which stands in the closest connection with sexual life, we have already shown that all the various coverings by which primitive man conceals his nakedness, by attracting the attention are likely to produce a sort of sexual stimulation in the primitive spectator.[310] In some cases,—for instance that of the dancing girdles, which are especially put on for the occasion of erotic dances and festivals,—this stimulation is evidently intentional.[311] But it seems impossible to assume that a knowledge of this effect can have been the motive for the use of those phallocrypts which are worn by the Amaxosas in South Africa, by the natives of Central Brazil, by the Melanesians in the Admiralty Islands and on the north-western and south-western coasts of New Guinea, by the Australians of north-western Central Queensland, and by the Polynesians of the Marquesas Islands.[312] As far as we know, it is only in Australia that these things are especially employed at corroborees and public rejoicings.[313] Nor is there anything that could attract the eye in all the simple bamboo sheets that can be seen at the Museum für Völkerkunde in Berlin. In some cases they have perhaps been worn for the purely practical purpose of protecting a sensitive part against insect bites.[314] But it seems more probable, on an examination of their shape, that they really are intended as means of concealment in the proper meaning of the word. There is of course no reason why they should not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of modesty. But even if such be their purpose now, it is difficult to assume that they were originally called into existence by a feeling which, from the evolutionist point of view, one rather would consider as a product of clothes than as their cause.[315]

This difficulty, however, is easily avoided by reference to another feeling which in psychical evolution has probably preceded the appearance of modesty. It is perhaps impossible to decide at what stage sexual life began to be surrounded with feelings of shame,—in other words, in what instances one is entitled to speak of modesty and conscious chastity. But there is no doubt that even among the lowest savages the facts of generation are regarded with a wonder which sometimes approaches awe, and sometimes rises to religious respect.[316] Since at a somewhat higher degree of development phallic symbols occupy so dominant a place in religious systems, it is only natural to suppose that the realities represented by these symbols have been regarded by the primitive with superstitious feelings. It is probable, therefore, that there are many primitive tribes which, in the same way as the aborigines of the New Hebrides, cover themselves in the most scrupulous manner, “not at all from a sense of decency, but to avoid Narak, i.e. magic influence,” the sight even of another man’s nakedness being considered as most dangerous.[317] The large prevalence of phallic motives in amulets and magically protecting paintings,[318] the supposed effective sorcery of indecent gestures, so widely used even now by the modern Italians,[319] indicate that the organs of generation have been universally considered as the seat of a powerful and dangerous magic. Perhaps this superstitious idea has even been the original source of the notion that exposure involves the gravest offence against the honour of the beholder.[320] Sometimes, on the other hand, dread of this supposed mysterious power may have prompted the evolution of moral institutions, and thus indirectly furthered the moral feelings. But it is evident that even before any such transformation took place regard for public safety may have induced the males to conceal the seat of so dangerous an influence.

The reproductive organs, however, are not only, in virtue of their connection with the mysterious miracle of life, objects of superstitious awe: they themselves, owing to the same consideration, need more than anything else to be protected against dangerous influences. Fear of the evil eye has thus, as Ratzel suggests, had something to do with the origin of male and female dress.[321] And the notion of malignant looks is only one of the superstitions that keep the savage man in a state of constant fear. All the innumerable spirits that populate his atmosphere constitute so many dangers, against which he has to protect himself by every possible means. This necessity is probably even greater for the female sex than for the men.

In Messrs. Spencer and Gillen’s work on Australia there is one passage which suggests another possible cause for the origin of female dress. When speaking about the souls of ancestors, which, for the purpose of reincarnation, try to find a way to the bodies of young women, the authors say that “spirit children are also supposed to be especially fond of travelling in whirlwinds, and on seeing one of these, which are very frequent at certain times of the year, approaching her a woman will at once run away.”[322] Now, this notion that the wind is capable of bringing about impregnation is by no means confined to the Australian aborigines. Mr. Hartland has been able to adduce testimonies of its occurrence not only in savage tribes, but also among the Romans of Virgil’s time.[323] And the Hottentots have an almost similar superstition, viz. that a pouring rain, when falling on the naked body, promotes conception.[324] The belief in the fertilising powers of sunshine, well known from European folklore and frequently illustrated in literature, from the Danaë legends upwards to the mysterious warnings of Hamlet to Ophelia, can of course be quoted as indications of the same universal “folk-belief.”[325] It would only be natural if the women, who so anxiously try to escape from the dangers of fecundation that surround them on all sides in the atmosphere, had found out the simple expedient of protecting themselves by clothing.

We cannot, of course, positively assert that the wearing of clothes was originally due to superstitious reasons. We have only wished to point out that such an hypothesis can be proposed and consistently defended. It accounts not only for the especial character of the simplest dresses, but also, which is more important, for the fact of their being adopted only when sexual maturity is reached.

There are other reasons, moreover, why this last-mentioned circumstance, which apparently affords so strong support to the theory of Darwin and his followers, cannot be adduced as decisively solving the problem of purely decorative garments. In laying so great a stress upon the time of life when the body is decorated for the first time,[326] the advocates of the theory of erotic propitiation seem to have overlooked that almost everywhere sexual maturity coincides with civic majority. There is thus something to be said for the view that tattooing, feather-dresses, and so on, are conferred upon young men and women as outward signs of their changed status. And similarly all ulterior decorations can be explained as indications of later acquired rank. In ethnological literature, especially in German works, a great body of facts has been produced which speak in favour of such an analogy between primitive ornaments and modern signs of rank and merit.[327] By relying on this interpretation too we may often explain, without any reference to the advantages of courtship, the fact that in primitive races men are generally more decorated than women. An extreme Darwinist may perhaps object that the proportion between the ornaments of the sexes has been inverted since the male sex began to practise selection. But it is to be remembered that even now in the classes for which rank distinctions are most important, viz. in military and diplomatic circles, men generally are more gorgeously arrayed than women.[328] And it may further be adduced as an exception which proves the rule that on Pelew and Ponape Islands, where mothers give children their rank, women are richly tattooed.[329]

It cannot of course be contended that man at the lowest stages of culture could have intentionally created a fixed system of signs for denoting rank and merit. Anything of that kind presupposes a social differentiation which has not yet been arrived at by all savage tribes. In thus substituting distinction-marks for the means of attraction one might therefore apparently be exposed to the reproof of preferring the complex to the simple. Such a criticism must, however, lose its force when applied to the theories which try to trace the development of distinctive marks back to their most simple and primitive sources. Von den Steinen, in whose work these questions are subjected to a detailed study, has, with special reference to the Xingu tribes in the interior of Brazil, succeeded in amply corroborating the theory of Spencer that the simplest ornaments have been trophies of war and chase. In the feather crowns of the chiefs, for example, we may thus see only a later development of proudly arranged spoils of chase, by which a successful hunter proclaims his achievements.[330] And the incised scars so common among savage tribes can, in accordance with the same ingenious explanation, be considered as imitations of the glorious wounds with which eminent warriors have been adorned when returning from battle.[331]

In the cases where this interpretation holds true the chief aim of the decoration is, of course, not to make the man more beautiful and charming, but only to show off his skill and courage, and thus to inspire respect and fear. It is needless to point out that in times of war such decorations must be of eminent advantage by inspiring their wearer with pride at the same time that they strike his enemies with terror. But boasting adornments are by no means restricted to military purposes. Many apparently ornamental scars and tattooings are probably worn as proud traces of heroic feats performed at initiations or funeral ceremonies.[332] And, to quote instances of less lofty pride, there is no end to the cases in which gems are worn chiefly for producing an impression of wealth.[333] It would be absurd to suppose that this show of valour or wealth must always be addressed to women. The impulse to ostentation has thus undeniably, independent of sexual selection, aided in the origin of self-decoration.

It is not necessary for the present purpose to submit to a close analysis all the other theories of bodily embellishment which oppose an unrestricted application of the Darwinian interpretation. Suffice it to say that facts exist which support almost every one of these views. Thus it seems quite unquestionable that tattooings often serve as a means of conveying intellectual information.[334] Not only are exploits of valour which provide an occasion for boasting ornament registered by incisions on the body, but this primitive record may also be used in order to commemorate other events that have made a great impression on the individual in question.

The most instructive example of such essentially commemorative self-decoration that is known in ethnological literature is no doubt the tattooing of Tepane, the native of the Eastern Island whom Dr. Stolpe met in Tahiti. On his right fore-arm this highly interesting individual wore a pattern which, although insignificant at first sight, on closer examination showed itself to be nothing less than a pictorial description of the memorable event when the great stone idols, now outside the British Museum, were hauled down from their original place to the British ship which was going to take them over sea. Among the figures on this little historical picture Tepane himself was able to point out the first and second officer of the Topaz, who, standing somewhat apart, watched the work of the sailors.[335] It is indeed exceptional to meet with such complete realistic drawings among the “motives” of tattoo. But there is no doubt that by symbolical representation sights and events have often been recorded on the body, this most primitive of all commonplace-books.

There is no default of instances showing that decoration, fixed as well as detached, has been largely used as a magical protection against illness, bewitching, or evil eye.[336] This superstitious intention appears with unmistakable evidence in the decorations of the Xingu tribes of the interior Brazil, where children and pregnant women, i.e. persons who particularly need to be guarded against malignant influences, are richly decorated with collars of beads, teeth, bones, and so on.[337] Among these Indians Professor von den Steinen was also able to find some typical examples of the process, which has been observed in several other tribes, by which a cosmetic painting of the body is developed from a purely practical greasing with earth or fat, executed in order to preserve the skin against weather or insect bites.[338]

Perhaps more important still than any of the above-mentioned motives is the one to which Herr Lippert has called attention.[339] In a nation where, owing to the undeveloped division of labour, all people necessarily become more or less like each other, the individual must, he thinks, feel a strong desire to develop a fixed ego, a personality apart, which can be distinguished from all his fellows. This craving may perhaps, as Lippert thinks, have something to do with the growth of a philosophical consciousness. But it may also be considered from a purely practical point of view. In the same way as ornaments on weapons and implements often serve as owners’ marks,[340] so the ornaments on the body may serve as means of identifying, for social and political purposes, the man who is decorated with them. The Moko patterns of the Maoris, for instance, have in fact been used as legally recognised marks, and copies of them applied, instead of signatures, to documents.[341] Whether the utilitarian or the more philosophic explanation be preferred, it is evident that, even if there had been no necessity to attract the attention of the opposite sex, the impulse to create an appearance which is at least to some degree personal would have led to the different systems of embellishment. Thus among people who wear clothes any details in dresses and gems would be made distinctive; where the naked body is lightly coloured, so as to make tattooing conspicuous, distinguishing patterns would be incised; among darker nations, on the other hand, simple scars would be cut; and finally, in the blackest tribes, on whose skin not even scars stand out, modes of hair-dressing would afford a last expedient for differentiation. And it is evident that tribes in their intercourse with each other would be led by the same considerations as individuals.[342] Even in a fictitious unisexual mankind there might thus have appeared precisely the same kind of common and fixed signs by which tribes are differentiated from each other, and of individual signs by which members of the same tribe are distinguished by variations from the common type. These signs must necessarily, as was shown in the foregoing, exercise a powerful influence on the opposite sex, and their development may therefore have been to some extent furthered by sexual selection. But it seems impossible to contend that they have been invented only for the purposes of courtship.[343]

We have deemed it superfluous to report in this connection all the instances which show that among sundry tribes of mankind self-decoration is executed especially with a view of pleasing. For copious collections of such facts it is sufficient to refer to the works of Westermarck and Joest. Other interesting instances have later been communicated by Finsch, Stirling, Stoke, and others.[344] While necessarily sceptical with regard to theories on sexual preference as a universal, art-creating influence, we have of course no reason to doubt the accuracy of individual statements. From the point of view of the present research we have only to emphasise the fact that there is no possibility of deciding with any certainty in how great a degree considerations for the favour of the opposite sex have influenced the development of self-decoration.