CHAPTER XX.
Secondary Sexual Characters of Man—continued.
On the effects of the continued selection of women according to a different standard of beauty in each race—On the causes which interfere with sexual selection in civilised and savage nations—Conditions favourable to sexual selection during primeval times—On the manner of action of sexual selection with mankind—On the women in savage tribes having some power to choose their husbands—Absence of hair on the body, and development of the beard—Colour of the skin—Summary.
We have seen in the last chapter that with all barbarous races ornaments, dress, and external appearance are highly valued; and that the men judge of the beauty of their women by widely different standards. We must next inquire whether this preference and the consequent selection during many generations of those women, which, appear to the men of each race the most attractive, has altered the character either of the females alone or of both sexes. With mammals the general rule appears to be that characters of all kinds are inherited equally by the males and females; we might therefore expect that with mankind any characters gained through sexual selection by the females would commonly be transferred to the offspring of both sexes. If any change has thus been effected it is almost certain that the different races will have been differently modified, as each has its own standard of beauty.
With mankind, especially with savages, many causes interfere with the action of sexual selection as far as the bodily frame is concerned. Civilised men are largely attracted by the mental charms of women, by their wealth, and especially by their social position; for men rarely marry into a much lower rank of life. The men who succeed in obtaining the more beautiful women, will not have a better chance of leaving a long line of descendants than other men with plainer wives, with the exception of the few who bequeath their fortunes according to primogeniture. With respect to the opposite form of selection, namely of the more attractive men by the women, although in civilised nations women have free or almost free choice, which is not the case with barbarous races, yet their choice is largely influenced by the social position and wealth of the men; and the success of the latter in life largely depends on their intellectual powers and energy, or on the fruits of these same powers in their forefathers.
There is, however, reason to believe that sexual selection has effected something in certain civilised and semi-civilised nations. Many persons are convinced, as it appears to me with justice, that the members of our aristocracy, including under this term all wealthy families in which primogeniture has long prevailed, from having chosen during many generations from all classes the more beautiful women as their wives, have become handsomer, according to the European standard of beauty, than the middle classes; yet the middle classes are placed under equally favourable conditions of life for the perfect development of the body. Cook remarks that the superiority in personal appearance “which is observable in the erees or nobles in all the other islands (of the Pacific) is found in the Sandwich islands;” but this may be chiefly due to their better food and manner of life.
The old traveller Chardin, in describing the Persians, says their “blood is now highly refined by frequent intermixtures with the Georgians and Circassians, two nations which surpass all the world in personal beauty. There is hardly a man of rank in Persia who is not born of a Georgian or Circassian mother.” He adds that they inherit their beauty, “not from their ancestors, for without the above mixture, the men of rank in Persia, who are descendants of the Tartars, would be extremely ugly.”[448] Here is a more curious case: the priestesses who attended the temple of Venus Erycina at San-Giuliano in Sicily, were selected for their beauty out of the whole of Greece; they were not vestal virgins, and Quatrefages,[449] who makes this statement, says that the women of San-Giuliano are famous at the present day as the most beautiful in the island, and are sought by artists as models. But it is obvious that the evidence in the above cases is doubtful.
The following case, though relating to savages, is well worth giving from its curiosity. Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the Jollofs, a tribe of negroes on the west coast of Africa, “are remarkable for their uniformly fine appearance.” A friend of his asked one of these men, “How is it that every one whom I meet is so fine-looking, not only your men, but your women?” The Jollof answered, “It is very easily explained: it has always been our custom to pick out our worse-looking slaves and to sell them.” It need hardly be added that with all savages female slaves serve as concubines. That this negro should have attributed, whether rightly or wrongly, the fine appearance of his tribe, to the long-continued elimination of the ugly women, is not so surprising as it may at first appear; for I have elsewhere shewn[450] that negroes fully appreciate the importance of selection in the breeding of their domestic animals, and I could give from Mr. Reade additional evidence on this head.
On the Causes which prevent or check the Action of Sexual Selection with Savages.—The chief causes are, firstly, so-called communal marriages or promiscuous intercourse; secondly, infanticide, especially of female infants; thirdly, early betrothals; and lastly, the low estimation in which women are held, as mere slaves. These four points must be considered in some detail.
It is obvious that as long as the pairing of man, or of any other animal, is left to chance, with no choice exerted by either sex, there can be no sexual selection; and no effect will be produced on the offspring by certain individuals having had an advantage over others in their courtship. Now it is asserted that there exist at the present day tribes which practise what Sir J. Lubbock by courtesy calls communal marriages; that is, all the men and women in the tribe are husbands and wives to each other. The licentiousness of many savages is no doubt astonishingly great, but it seems to me that more evidence is requisite before we fully admit that their existing intercourse is absolutely promiscuous. Nevertheless all those who have most closely studied the subject,[451] and whose judgment is worth much more than mine, believe that communal marriage was the original and universal form throughout the world, including the intermarriage of brothers and sisters. The indirect evidence in favour of this belief is extremely strong, and rests chiefly on the terms of relationship which are employed between the members of the same tribe, implying a connection with the tribe alone, and not with either parent. But the subject is too large and complex for even an abstract to be here given, and I will confine myself to a few remarks. It is evident in the case of communal marriages, or where the marriage-tie is very loose, that the relationship of the child to its father cannot be known. But it seems almost incredible that the relationship of the child to its mother should ever have been completely ignored, especially as the women in most savage tribes nurse their infants for a long time. Accordingly in many cases the lines of descent are traced through the mother alone, to the exclusion of the father. But in many other cases the terms employed express a connection with the tribe alone, to the exclusion even of the mother. It seems possible that the connection between the related members of the same barbarous tribe, exposed to all sorts of danger, might be so much more important, owing to the need of mutual protection and aid, than that between the mother and her child, as to lead to the sole use of terms expressive of the former relationships; but Mr. Morgan is convinced that this view of the case is by no means sufficient.