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.
[CHAPTER X]
THE LIBERTY OF CHOICE.
It would be easy to adduce numerous instances of savage and barbarous tribes among whom a girl is far from having the entire disposal of her own hand. Being regarded as an object of property, she is treated accordingly.
Among many peoples the female children are usually “engaged” in their earliest youth. Concerning the Eskimo to the north of Churchill, Franklin states that, “as soon as a girl is born, the young lad who wishes to have her for a wife goes to her father’s tent and proffers himself. If accepted, a promise is given which is considered binding, and the girl is delivered to her betrothed at the proper age.”[1286] Early betrothals are among the established customs of the Chippewyans,[1287] Columbians,[1288] Botocudos,[1289] Patagonians,[1290] and other American peoples.[1291] Among the African Marutse, the children “are often affianced at an early age, and the marriage is consummated as soon as the girl arrives at maturity.”[1292] The Negroes of the Gold Coast, according to Bosman, often arranged for the marriage of infants directly after birth;[1293] whilst, among the Bushmans, Bechuanas, and Ashantees, children are engaged when they are still in the womb, in the event of their proving to be girls.[1294]
In Australia, too, girls are frequently promised in early youth, and sometimes before they are born.[1295] The same is the case in New Guinea,[1296] New Zealand,[1297] Tahiti,[1298] and many other islands of the South Sea, as also among several of the tribes inhabiting the Malay Archipelago.[1299] Mariner supposed that, in Tonga, about one-third of the married women had been thus betrothed.[1300] In British India infant-marriage has hitherto been a common custom; and all peoples of the Turkish stock, according to Professor Vámbéry, are in the habit of betrothing babies.[1301] So also are the Samoyedes[1302] and Tuski;[1303] and among the Jews of Western Russia, parents betroth the children whom they hope to have.[1304]
Among some peoples, it is the mother,[1305] brother,[1306] or maternal uncle,[1307] who has the chief power of giving a girl in marriage. In Timor-laut, Mr. Forbes says, “nothing can be done of such import as the disposal of a daughter without the advice, assistance, and witness of all the villagers, women and youths being admitted as freely to speak as the elder males;”[1308] and in West Australia, according to Mr. Oldfield, the consent of the whole tribe is necessary for a girl’s marriage.[1309] Yet such cases are no doubt rare exceptions, and give us no right to conclude that there ever was a time when children were generally considered the property of the tribe, or of their maternal kinsfolk.
It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that, among the lower races, women are, as a rule, married without having any voice of their own in the matter. Their liberty of selection, on the contrary, is very considerable, and, however down-trodden, they well know how to make their influence felt. Thus, among the Indians of North America, numberless instances are given of woman’s liberty to choose her husband. Schoolcraft asserts that their marriages are brought about “sometimes with, and sometimes against, the wishes of the graver and more prudent relatives of the parties,” the marital rite consisting chiefly in the consent of the parties.[1310] Heckewelder quotes instances of Indians who committed suicide because they had been disappointed in love, the girls on whom they had fixed their choice, and to whom they were engaged, having changed their minds, and married other lovers.[1311] Among the Kaniagmuts, Thlinkets, and Nutkas, the suitor has to consult the wishes of the young lady.[1312] Among the Chippewas, according to Mr. Keating, the mothers generally settle the preliminaries to marriage without consulting the children: but the parties are not considered husband and wife till they have given their consent.[1313] The Atkha Aleuts occasionally betrothed their children to each other, but the marriage was held to be binding only after the birth of a child.[1314] Among the Creeks, if a man desires to make a woman his wife “conformably to the more ancient and serious custom of the country,” he endeavours to gain her own consent by regular courtship.[1315] Among the Pueblos,[1316] &c.,[1317] “no girl is forced to marry against her will, however eligible her parents may consider the match.”