By these two principles, viz. the necessity of overcoming the instinctive coyness of the hen and that of stimulating the nervous system of the cock, it is, we believe, possible to account for all the secondary sexual characters and activities which in Darwin’s theory necessitated the hypothesis of an animal æsthetic. When the directly physiological importance of the nuptial preludes is acknowledged one can also, without appealing to the effects of association, explain the occurrence of a “lek” in birds who have already made their choice of mate.[294] And, on the other hand, we need not give up any one of the general results at which Darwin arrived in his researches. Although conscious selection on the part of the hen must be denied, the fact that she consents to couple only with the cock who has been able to stir her feelings better than any other, constitutes a kind of unconscious choice. It may seem unnecessary, therefore, to lay so much stress upon the theoretical inappropriateness of Darwin’s language. The æsthetical terms in The Descent of Man could easily be exchanged for more physiological ones without any important alteration in the main thesis of the book. And it must even be conceded that, owing to the extreme cautiousness which was such a remarkable peculiarity of Darwin, this substitution would not be required in more than a few passages. He himself often speaks of ornamental plumage as a means of “exciting,” or “charming,” or “fascinating” the females;[295] once he even restricts himself to saying that the hens “prefer, or are unconsciously excited by, the more beautiful males.”[296] From the biological point of view it would therefore be pretentious to claim any importance for this reformulation of the Darwinian theory. But, from what must be the dominating point of view in this work, it is by no means unnecessary to disentangle the confusion between æsthetic appreciation and physiological stimulation. The æsthetic corollaries, which are the most important in this connection, will be greatly modified as soon as the more physiological interpretation is applied to the various manifestations of animal art.

When Darwin chose to endow the hen with an aboriginal æsthetic judgment he was at once confronted by a difficulty which was perhaps even greater than that of locating the beginnings of art in the animal kingdom. The facts compelled him to admit that in some species this æsthetic judgment seemed to be a very bad one indeed.[297] When secondary sexual characters are regarded as signs by which the kind and sex of the males are accentuated, this apparent inconsistency is easily understood. The harsh cry and the inharmonious colouring of the macaw[298] tell their tale as eloquently and convincingly as any of the æsthetic characters of the other birds. The roaring of the battle bump,[299] the disagreeable miauling of the peacock, and the bleating call-note of the greenfinch[300] no doubt cause as great a pleasure in their respective hens as is ever caused by the song of the nightingale in his mate. That the secondary sexual characters of the birds on the whole are so much more beautiful than those of the mammals is not the result of any originally higher standard of beauty with their respective females. The superiority of the birds is quite sufficiently accounted for by the peculiar conditions of their life, which necessitate and call forth graceful shape as well as graceful movements. Their gorgeous colouring, on the other hand, is undoubtedly—as has been shown above—to some extent at least conditioned by the gaudy colouring of the tropical landscape. It must be remarked, moreover, that notwithstanding their undeniable splendour, the dresses of the birds by no means generally fulfil the claims of tasteful composition. When appreciating the plumage and the songs of the birds, we usually look upon them as pieces of nature. We admire them as we admire the woods and flowers and every other manifestation of nature and life. This attitude must necessarily be given up as soon as a conscious tendency is assumed in “animal art.” When we regard the secondary sexual characters in the manner of Darwin—as results of an æsthetic choice—we cannot help missing all the æsthetic qualities of harmony and composition, which are never expected, and therefore never missed, in the objects of nature. If the proper distinction between art and nature is maintained, it will be possible to combine an unabated admiration for the marvels of beauty in bird life with a denial of “animal art.”

CHAPTER XV
ART AND SEXUAL SELECTION

The explanation which we have given in the preceding chapter of the pairing dresses of the birds can of course be equally well applied to the secondary sexual characters of man. And it holds good also, we believe, with regard to the most primitive voluntary alterations in the appearance of either sex. It is true, indeed, that artificial embellishments or deformations, the work of the individual himself, never can appeal so strongly to the instincts of the other sex as those alterations which are physiologically connected with sexual development. But when, as is the case with most primitive tribes, the so-called means of attraction have remained almost unchanged during innumerable successive generations, one may safely conclude that the instincts of either sex will gradually grow prompt to react with eminent force upon impressions received from such individuals as exhibit these conventional signs of their sex and tribe. Whether the acquired qualities are considered as hereditary, or whether the consistency in the predilections of all the members of the same tribe be explained—in the Weissmannian or the neo-Darwinian way—as a result of selection, there will always be found in either sex a sort of constitutional liking for certain fixed qualities in the appearance of the opposite sex. An appearance and a behaviour which, in the ancestors of an individual, male or female, have stirred the instinctive life of the opposite sex through generations past by, must needs improve his or her chances in courtship. The more a suitor approaches the ideal which unconsciously, and one may say physiologically, is embodied in the inherited impulses of every female, the more helplessly is she exposed to the fascination of his charms. And when, at a certain higher state of development, the males begin to practise a selection between rival females, they will undoubtedly be influenced in their choice by the same sort of inherited predilections. And there is no reason why these predilections should be restricted to anatomical qualities—why artificial adornments, perhaps even detached gems, which have only been traditional during some generations, should not influence sexual preferences in the same direct way—that is, without any intervention of an æsthetic judgment, as secondary sexual characters proper influence them. This circumstance justifies us in treating the outward physical appearance and the conventional means of embellishing it in conjunction with each other. An outward sign, whether natural or artificial, which has often enough been connected with the impression of the other sex will necessarily tend to awaken sexual feelings.

For such an effect it is of course not indispensable that these signs should have originated in an endeavour to charm the sex. As in the foregoing chapter, we have to keep the question of influence upon the other sex apart from the question of the positive causes—that is, conscious or unconscious motives, which have called forth the various secondary sexual characters and activities. For convenience of exposition it is advantageous to begin with the first-mentioned phase of the problem.

Without as yet pronouncing any definite views as to the aims the pursuit of which has led to the different systems of adornment, we may safely maintain that any conspicuous garments, independently of their ornamental qualities, which have served to distinguish the adult and marriageable individuals from other members of the tribe, have been of importance as means of attraction. According to the ingenious explanation of Dr. Westermarck, even clothing was originally invented not to conceal nudity, but to set it off.[301] There is room, as will be shown later on, for objecting to any definite statement with regard to a question such as this, the answer to which is to be sought for in several directions at once. But there can be no doubt about the fact that the simplest dresses, and especially those which have been interpreted as indicating a sense of modesty, practically accentuate the things they technically conceal. At a stage of development where nudity is the normal state, veiling must necessarily suggest the same emotions as unveiling in a civilised society. As Dr. Westermarck has been able to show, dresses are adopted by a majority of tribes on the attainment of puberty and on the occasions of great feasts; it is therefore natural that they should act as powerful sexual incitements.[302] And this view receives additional support from the arguments of its opponents. The large collection of facts that Dr. Schurtz has quoted in proof of his assertion that clothing originally aimed at “the concealment of sexual differences” may of course be interpreted with equal and, we believe, with greater probability in the inverse sense.[303] One has only to look, for example, at some of the richly-embroidered cinctures of the Guiana natives in order to understand that these coverings, whatever may have been their original purpose, can never have acted as an effective means of diverting the attention.

The differences between the sexes will, however, be emphasised not only by the special garments for which Dr. Schurtz proposes the above-mentioned explanation, but also by every article of dress or ornament. For the intellectualistically prejudiced observer it is undoubtedly most natural to consider the various kinds of fixed or detached ornament, such as paintings and tattooings, ribbons, laces, collars, and so on, as means of influencing an æsthetic sense in the spectator. But it is evidently more in accordance with the principles of comparative psychology to assume that all these garnitures originally had their main significance not as beautifying things or as things of beauty themselves, but as marks by which the personality of the decorated man or woman was distinguished. To illustrate this argument it is not necessary to go back to the primitive stages. Even among civilised men, gems and jewels, when seen on a member of the opposite sex, have chiefly a symbolic value. In the string of pearls which encircles a woman’s neck, or in the gay feather of a man’s hat, the charm and fascination of a whole human being are concentrated to a single focus. To the lover’s attention everything that has some connection with the beloved shines with a borrowed light. We all know that handkerchiefs and shoes can be adored with an almost fetichistic devotion. All the more must a gem which is conspicuously carried on the body be able to imbibe and exhale the charms of its wearer. The lyrical poetry of all ages is there to prove the emotional value which can thus be attached to lifeless things. And the psychology of the emotions in its turn gives a simple explanation of the fact that loving imagination always dwells with predilection upon some single part of the attire of the beloved. A small and conspicuous object which can easily be embraced by the senses affords a vehicle which can carry into the mind the whole complex of feelings and impulses that are attached to the notion of the beloved. Well knowing this law of emotional mechanics, an intelligent woman who is anxious to please does not cover herself with jewels and ornaments. She prefers some single brilliant gem, which does not so much call for admiration itself, as draw attention to her charms and heighten the impression which they produce.

It may seem very far-fetched to explain the primitive means of attraction by reference to the art of pleasing among modern men. But however much the forms of courtship may have been changed by higher development, their psychological basis is still the same at all stages of culture. There is no need, as far as purely erotic purposes are concerned, to embellish the appearance; what is wanted is only to enable the appearance itself to produce its most effectual impression. When this point is kept in mind, it is easily understood that ornaments such as a simple piece of glass in the hair or a band of shells twisted around the neck can be as charming in the eyes of primitive man as any of the gems that are used among civilised nations. And there is no reason to doubt that the savage beaux and belles really have increased their chances by putting wooden slabs in their lips and ears, or pins of bone through their nose.

In the last-mentioned cases the effect has, moreover, been strengthened by the appearance of strangeness that is given to the face by deforming adornments. Eyes that might pass by with indifference an accustomed impression, are unavoidably arrested by any extraordinary character. As amongst the birds and mammals, horns, accrescences, and gorgeous plumage, independently of their possible æsthetic qualities, assist the males in courting the females, so also amongst men any means of correcting the normal appearance, be it through flattening the head, filling, extracting, or blackening the teeth, elongating the ears or compressing the waist, will, in virtue only of its singularity, act as an effectual instrument of charming.[304] For the marriageable individual it has evidently been advantageous to be distinguished by these extravagant transformations, which, as is well known, are usually inflicted at the very time of puberty. And, on the other hand, among individuals so distinguished, those who extort an interest for their person by the most singular qualities ought to have an increased chance of charming the opposite sex. In the discussion of sexual preferences there has been much talk of a supposed constitutional predilection for novelty and variation. But it is undoubtedly more in accordance with the strictly psychological position to doubt whether, in the primitive stages, novelty really has been appreciated for its own sake, or whether it is only by facilitating the attention, and thereby intensifying the impression, that it has gained the favour of the opposite sex for one particular male or female.

Whichever formula may be preferred in the interpretation, it remains as an indisputable fact that even in some of the higher animals an exceptional appearance gives an advantage in courtship. It is needless to point out to how great an extent in civilised communities man is influenced in sexual preference by a bias for a peculiar appearance which distinguishes the chosen one from any other man or woman. This predilection, however, is always neutralised by a repugnance for everything that deviates too much from the common characteristics of the group. The two principles which have regulated the development of secondary sexual characters—to wit, the necessity of marks for accentuating sex-distinction and that of tribal signs—are thus brought into conflict with each other. This conflict is particularly conspicuous in the lower stages of development. Owing to the peculiar conditions of life which prevail here, the second principle will generally be of especial importance among the savage tribes of mankind.