Folkways, by William Graham Sumner

A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages,
Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals

CHAPTER XI

THE SOCIAL CODES

Specification of the subject. — Meaning of "immoral." — Natural functions. — The current code and character. — Definitions of chastity, decency, propriety, etc. — Chastity. — Pagan life policy. — Modesty and shame. — The line of decency in dress. — Present conventional limits of decency. — Decency and vanity. — Modesty is the opposite of impudence. — Shame. — The first attachments to the body. — The fear of sorcery. — What functions should be concealed. — Restraint of expression within limits. — Violation of rule. — The suspensorium. — The girdle and what it conceals. — Modesty and decency not primitive. — What parts of the body are tabooed? — Notion of decency lacking. — Dress and decency. — Ornament and simplest dress. — The evolution of dress. — Men dressed; women not. — Dress for other purposes than decency; excessive modesty. — Contrasted standards of decency. — Standards of decency as to natural functions, etc. — Bathing; customs of nudity. — Bathing in rivers, springs, and public bath houses. — Nudity. — Alleged motives of concealment taboo. — Obscenity. — Obscene representations for magic. — Infibulation. — Was the phallus offensive? — Phallus as amulet. — Symbols in Asia. — The notion of obscenity is modern. — Propriety. — Seclusion of women. — Customs of propriety. — Moslem rules of propriety. — Hatless women. — Rules of propriety. — Hindoo ritual of the toilet, etc. — Greek rules of propriety. — Erasmus's rules. — Eating. — Kissing. — Politeness, etiquette, manners. — Good manners. — Etiquette of salutation, etc. — Literature of manners and etiquette. — Honor, seemliness, common sense, conscience. — Seemliness. — Cases of unseemliness. — Greek tragedies and notions of seemliness. — Greek conduct. — Seemliness in the Middle Ages. — Unseemly debate. — Unseemliness of lynching, torture, etc. — Good taste. — Whence good taste is derived. — The great variety in the codes. — Morals and deportment. — The relation of the social codes to morals and religion. — Rudeck's conclusions.

438. Specification of the subject. The ethnographers write of a tribe that the "morality" in it, especially of the women, is low or high, etc. This is the technical use of morality, — as a thing pertaining to the sex relation only or especially, and the ethnographers make their propositions by applying our standards of sex behavior, and our form of the sex taboo, to judge the folkways of all people. All that they can properly say is that they find a great range and variety of usages, ideas, standards, and 418ideals, which differ greatly from ours. Some of them are far stricter than ours. Those we do not consider nobler than ours. We do not feel that we ought to adopt any ways because they are more strict than our traditional ones. We consider many to be excessive, silly, and harmful. A Roman senator was censured for impropriety because he kissed his wife in the presence of his daughter.1380

439. Meaning of "immoral." When, therefore, the ethnographers apply condemnatory or depreciatory adjectives to the people whom they study, they beg the most important question which we want to investigate; that is, What are standards, codes, and ideas of chastity, decency, propriety, modesty, etc., and whence do they arise? The ethnographical facts contain the answer to this question, but in order to reach it we want a colorless report of the facts. We shall find proof that "immoral" never means anything but contrary to the mores of the time and place. Therefore the mores and the morality may move together, and there is no permanent or universal standard by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticised. Only experience produces judgments of the expediency of some usages. For instance, ancient peoples thought pederasty was harmless and trivial. It has been well proved to be corrupting both to individual and social vigor, and harmful to interests, both individual and collective. Cannibalism, polygamy, incest, harlotry, and other primitive customs have been discarded by a very wide and, in the case of some of them, unanimous judgment that they are harmful. On the other hand, in the Avesta spermatorrhea is a crime punished by stripes.1381 The most civilized peoples also maintain, by virtue of their superior position in the arts of life, that they have attained to higher and better judgments and that they may judge the customs of others from their own standpoint. For three or four centuries they have called their own customs "Christian," and have thus claimed for them a religious authority and sanction which they do not possess by any connection with the principles of Christianity. Now, however, the adjective 419seems to be losing its force. The Japanese regard nudity with indifference, but they use dress to conceal the contour of the human form while we use it to enhance, in many ways, the attraction. "Christian" mores have been enforced by the best breechloaders and ironclads, but the Japanese now seem ready to bring superiority in those matters to support their mores. It is now a known and recognized fact that our missionaries have unintentionally and unwittingly done great harm to nature people by inducing them to wear clothes as one of the first details of civilized influence. In the usages of nature peoples there is no correlation at all between dress and sentiments of chastity, modesty, decency, and propriety.1382

440. Natural functions. The fact that human beings have natural functions the exercise of which is unavoidable but becomes harmful to other human beings, in a rapidly advancing ratio, as greater and greater numbers are collected within close neighborhood to each other, makes it necessary that natural functions shall be regulated by rules and conventions. The passionate nature of the sex appetite, by virtue of which it tends to excess and vice, forces men to connect it with taboos and regulations which also are conventional and institutional. The taboos of chastity, decency, propriety, and modesty, and those on all sex relations are therefore adjustments to facts of human nature and conditions of human life. It is never correct to regard any one of the taboos as an arbitrary invention or burden laid on society by tradition without necessity. Very many of them are due originally to vanity, superstition, or primitive magic, wholly or in part, but they have been sifted for centuries by experience, and those which we have received and accepted are such as experience has proved to be expedient.

441. The current code and character. It follows that, in history and ethnography, the mores and conduct in any group are independent of those of any other group. Those of any group need to be consistent with each other, for if they are not so the conduct will not be easily consistent with the code, and it is when the conduct is not consistent with the code which is current and 420professed that there is corruption, discord, and decay of character. So long as the customs are simple, naïve, and unconscious, they do not produce evil in character, no matter what they are. If reflection is awakened and the mores cannot satisfy it, then doubt arises; individual character will then be corrupted and the society will degenerate.

442. Definitions of chastity, decency, propriety, etc. Chastity, modesty, and decency are entirely independent of each other. The ethnographic proof of this is complete. Chastity means conformity to the taboo on the sex relation, whatever its terms and limits may be in the group at the time. Therefore, where polyandry is in the mores, women who comply with it are not unchaste. Where there are no laws for the conduct of unmarried women they are not unchaste. It is evidently an incorrect use of language to describe the unmarried women of a tribe as unchaste, unless there is a rule for them. It can only mean that they violate the rule of some other society, and that can be said always about those in any group. There are cases in which women wear nothing but are faithful to a strict sex taboo, and there are cases where they go completely covered but have no sex taboo. Decency has to do with the covering of the body and with the concealment of bodily functions. Modesty is reserve of behavior and sentiment. It is correlative to chastity and decency, but covers a far wider field. It arrests acts, speech, gestures, etc., and repels suggestions at the limit of propriety wherever that may be set by the mores. Propriety is the sum of all the prescriptions in the mores as to right and proper behavior, or as to the limit of degree which prevents excess or vice. It is not dictated in laws. It is a floating notion. From time to time, however, dictates of propriety are enacted into police regulations. Propriety is guaranteed by shame, which is the sense of pain due to incurring disapproval because one has violated the usage which the mores command every one to observe. It is narrated of Italian nuns who had been veiled even from each other for half a lifetime that when turned out of their convents they suffered from exposing their faces the same shame that other women would suffer from far greater exposure. It could not 421be otherwise. Mohammedan women, if surprised when bathing, cover first the face. They are distinguished from non-Mohammedan women by the veil; therefore this covering is to them most important. Chinese women, whose feet have been compressed, consider it indecent to expose them. Within a generation the public latrines in the cities of continental Europe have been made far more secluded and private than they formerly were. Within ten years there has been a great change of standard as to the propriety of spitting. Beyond the domain of propriety lie the domains of politeness, courtesy, good manners, seemliness, breeding, and good form. The definition depends on where the line is drawn. That point is always conventional. It is a matter of tradition and social contact to learn where it lies. It never can be formulated. Habit must form a feeling or taste by which new cases can be decided. There are persons and classes who possess such social prestige that they can alter the line of definition a small distance and get the change taken up into the mores, but it is the mores which always contain and carry on the definitions and standards. Therefore it is to the mores that we must look to find the determining causes or motives, the field of origin, the corrective or corrupting influences, and the educative operations, which account for all the immense and contradictory variety of the folkways, under chastity, decency, modesty, propriety, etc.

443. Chastity. An Australian husband assumes that his wife has been unfaithful to him if she has had opportunity. In most tribes women are not allowed to converse or have any relations whatever with any men but their husbands, even with their own grown-up brothers.1383 Veth1384 thinks that the observance of the sex taboo by Dyak wives has been exaggerated, but that, at least on the west coast, it is better than that of the Malay women. The young unmarried women among the sea Dyaks take great license, and the custom of lending daughters exists, but such customs are unknown on the west coast. On the Andaman Islands there is no sex taboo for the unmarried and they use license. The girls are modest, and when married conform to the taboo of 422marriage. Their husbands "do not fall far short of them." The women will not renew their leaf aprons in the presence of each other.1385 The Yakuts use leather guarantees of their wives and daughters, similar to the mediæval device,1386 which always implies that the wife will make use of any opportunity. The Yakut women wore garments even in bed.1387 The Eskimo of eastern Greenland do not disapprove of a husbandless mother but of a childless wife.1388 Bushmen women observe a stricter taboo than their Kaffir neighbors. They refuse illicit relations with the latter, although the Kaffirs are a superior race.1389 The Zulu women observe a strict taboo with noteworthy fidelity.1390 Madame Pommerol1391 represents the Arab women of the nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes of southern Algiers as destitute of moral training. They have no code of morals or religion. [What she means is that they have no character by education.] They shun men, but handle the veil in a coquettish manner according to artificial and excessive usages. They act only between impulses of desire and fear of fathers or husbands. Fidelity has no sense, since they do not feel the loyalty either of duty or affection. The Mayas of the lowest classes sent out their daughters to earn their own marriage portions.1392 On the Palau Islands mothers train their daughters to make gain of themselves in the local shell money and bring the same to their parents. The girls become armengols; that is, they live in the clubhouses which are the residences of the young men, where they do domestic work and win influence. An insult to such a woman is an insult to the club. The origin of the custom was in war; the women were captives. Some are now given in tribute. "The custom is not a pure expression of sensuality." As there is no family life this is the woman's chance to know men and influence them. It is rated as education.1393 Semper1394 quotes native justification of the custom. A man's 423young last-wedded wife complained to his older wife that he made her serve the armengols. The older wife told her to remember that she had herself enjoyed this life and had been served by the married women. All girls liked to earn the money by which, when they came home, they got husbands. It was ancient custom and must be obeyed. If the married women refused to do their duty, the men would not be served, for a married woman might never show the world that she was on intimate terms with her husband. That would be mugul, and when once that word lost its force the whole island would perish. A woman argued to Semper that the custom was a good one because it gave the women a chance to see the other islands, and because they learned to serve and obey the men. It was, she said, their sacred duty. Any girl who did not go abroad as an armengol would get the reputation of being stupid and uncultivated, and would get no husband.1395 Cases in which husbands are indifferent to the fidelity of wives to the marriage taboo occur, but they are rare.1396 In some Arabic tribes of Sahara, even those in which the struggle for existence is not severe, fathers expect daughters to ransom themselves from the expense of their rearing by prostitution. The notion of sex honor has not yet overcome the sense of pecuniary loss or gain. The more a woman gains, the more she is sought in marriage afterwards. Tuareg married women enter into relations with men not their husbands like those of women with their lovers in the woman cult of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in central Europe. These women have decent and becoming manners, with much care for etiquette.1397 A thirteenth-century writer says of the Mongol women that they are "chaste, and nothing is heard amongst them of lewdness, but some of the expressions they use in joking are very shameful and coarse." The same is true now.1398 An Arab author is cited as stating that at Mirbat women went outside the city at night to sport with strange men. Their own husbands 424and male relatives passed them by to seek other women.1399 Amongst the Gowane people in Kordofan (who seem now to be Moslems)1400 a girl cannot marry without her brother's consent. To get this she must give to her brother an infant. She finds the father where she can.1401

444. Pagan life policy. Very naturally the pagan inference or generalization from the above customs was that a husband must be under continual anxiety about his wife, or he must divorce her, or he must cultivate a high spirit of resignation and indifference. The last was the highest flight of Stoic philosophy about marriage. Plutarch says: "How can you call anything a misfortune which does not damage either your soul or your body, as for example, the low origin of your father, the adultery of your wife, the loss of a crown or seat of honor, none of which affect a man's chances of the highest condition of body and mind."1402

445. Modesty. Shame. Aristotle1403 hardly rated shame as a virtue. He said that it is only a passing emotion, "an apprehension of dishonor." In his view virtues were habits trained in by education. He deduced them from philosophy and sought to bring them to act on life. He did not regard them as products of life actions. Wundt1404 says that shame is a specific human sentiment, because men alone of animals wear a concealing dress on one part of the body when they wear nothing else. He thinks that men began to cover the body in obedience to the sentiment of decency. The facts here alleged are all incorrect. There are many people who wear something on the body but do not cover the parts referred to (sec. 447). It is certain that pet animals manifest shame when caught doing what they have been taught not to do, — just like children. As to dress, it would be an interesting experiment to let pet dogs play together for a month, dressed in coats and blankets, and then to bring one of them to the meeting without his dress while the others wore theirs. Would he not show shame at not being like the others? A lady made a red jacket for a Javanese ape. He was greatly pleased, buttoned 425and unbuttoned the jacket, and showed displeasure when it was taken off. He showed that it aroused his vanity.1405 People who deal with high-bred horses say that they show shame and dissatisfaction if they are in any way inferior to others. It was recently reported in the newspapers that the employés in a menagerie threw some of the beasts into great irritation by laughing in chorus near their cages in such a way that the beasts thought that they were being laughed at. Shame is a product of wounded vanity. It is due to a consciousness, or a fear, of disapproval. It is not limited to exposure of the body, but may be due to disapproval for any reason whatever.

446. The line of decency in dress. The line of decency, for instance in dress, is always paradoxical. No matter where it may be drawn, decency is close to it on one side and indecency on the other. A Moslem woman on the street looks like a bundle of bedclothes. Where all women so look one woman who left off her mantle would seem indecent, and the comparative display of the outlines of the figure would seem shameless. Where low-necked dresses are commonly worn they are not indecent, but they may become so at a point which varies according to custom from place to place and from class to class. The women in modern Jerusalem regard it as very indecent to show themselves décolletées. They sit, however, in postures which leave their legs uncovered.1406 A peasant woman could not wear the dress of a lady of fashion. Where men or women wear only a string around the waist, their dress is decent, but it is indecent to leave off the string. The suggestive effect of putting on ornaments and dress at one stage is the same as that of leaving them off at another stage. Barbarians put on dress for festivals, dances, and solemn occasions. Civilized people do the same when they wear robes of office or ceremony. When Hera wanted to stimulate the love of Zeus she made an elaborate toilet and put on extra garments, including a veil.1407 Then taking off the veil was a stimulus. On the other hand, the extremest and most 426conventional dress looks elegant and stylish to those who are accustomed to it, as is now the case with ourselves and the current dress, which makes both sexes present an appearance far removed from the natural outline of human beings. Then, at the limit, that is at to-day's fashions, coquetry can be employed again, and a sense stimulus can be exerted again, by simply making variations on the existing fashions at the limit. It is impossible to eliminate the sense stimulus, or to establish a system of societal usage in which indecency shall be impossible. The dresses of Moslem women, nuns, and Quakeresses were invented in order to get rid of any possible question of decency. The attempt fails entirely. A Moslem woman with her veil, a Spanish woman with her mantilla or fan, a Quakeress with her neckerchief, can be as indecent as a barbarian woman with her petticoat of dried grass.

447. Present conventional limits. In our own society decency as to dress, words, gestures, etc., is a constant preoccupation. That is not the case with naked savages or half-naked barbarians. The savages put on ornament to be admired and to exert attraction or produce effect. The same effect is won by words, gestures, dress, etc. Our æsthetic arts all exert the same influence. We expel all these things from our artificial environment down to a limit, in order to restrain and control the stimulus. Then we think that we are decent. That is because we rest at peace in a status which is conventional and accustomed. Variation from it one way is fastidious; the other way is indecent, just as it would be at any other limit whatever. It is the comparison of the mores of different times and peoples which shows the arbitrariness and conventionality. It would be difficult to mention anything in Oriental mores which we regard with such horror as Orientals feel for low-necked dresses and round dances. Orientals use dress to conceal the contour of the form. The waist of a woman is made to disappear by a girdle. To an Oriental a corset, which increases the waist line and the plasticity of the figure, is the extreme of indecency — far worse than nudity. It seems like an application of the art of the courtesan to appeal to sensuality.1408 Perhaps the most instructive case of all is that of the Tuareg 427men, who keep the mouth always covered. The cloth has a utilitarian purpose, — to prevent thirst by retarding evaporation from the air passages. "They never remove the veil, on a journey, or in repose, not even to eat, much less to sleep." "A Tuareg would think that he committed an impropriety if he should remove his veil, unless it was in extreme intimacy or for a medical investigation." "At Paris I strove in vain to induce three Tuaregs to remove their veils for the purpose of being photographed."1409 No superstitious reason for this veil is known. Madame Pommerol1410 reports that a Tuareg man told her that men keep the mouth covered lest the play of it should expose their feelings to another man. Women, he said, had no such need, since enemies never approach them. Evidently we have here a case of an ancient fact that men are never seen with the mouth uncovered, which has produced a feeling that a man ought never to be seen with it uncovered, and rational and utilitarian reasons or explanations have been invented later. Those who paint the body are ashamed to be seen unpainted. In the tribes which are tattooed one would be ashamed who was not tattooed.

448. Decency and vanity. It is another case of shame or offended modesty if the taboo in the mores on acts, words, postures, etc., is broken in one's presence. It is a breach of the respect which one expects, that is, it wounds vanity.

We are ashamed to go barefoot, probably because it is an ordinary evidence of poverty. Von den Steinen has well suggested that some day it may be said that shoes were invented on account of "innate" shame at exposing the feet.1411 In recent years fashion has allowed young people to leave off all head-covering. It could permit them to go barefooted if the whim should take that turn. There is now a "cure" in which men and women walk barefoot in the grass. The cost to their modesty is probably very slight.

449. Modesty the opposite of impudence. Another sense of modesty is the opposite of impudence, shrinking from making demands or otherwise putting one's self forward in a way which 428bystanders might think in excess of one's social position or ability. In these cases vanity becomes its own punishment. The Kajans of the Mandalam refrain from injuring private or group interests from fear of public opinion. "Such a sentiment can exist only amongst those who have a feeling of shame strongly developed. Such is the case amongst these people, not only as to punishable offenses, but also in connection with their notions of propriety."1412 "Modesty was an unknown virtue to the bards of Vedic India. They bragged and begged without shame."1413 The same might be said of the troubadours of the Middle Ages.

450. Shame. Shame is felt when one is inferior, or is conscious of being, or of being liable to be, unfavorably regarded. Modesty is the reserve which keeps one from coming into judgment. One of the greatest reasons for covering the body is the conviction that it would not be admired if seen. One of us is ashamed if he is in excellent morning dress when the others wear evening dress, or ungloved when all the rest are gloved. A woman is ashamed to be without a crinoline or a bustle when all the rest wear them. A man, when men wore wigs, could not appear before a lady without his wig. An elderly lady says that when the present queen of England brought in, at her marriage, the fashion of brushing up the hair so as to uncover the ears, which had long been covered, it seemed indecent. No woman now is ashamed to be a woman, but in the first Christian centuries what they heard about their sex might well have made them so. A woman is not ashamed to be a widow in the Occident, but she may well be so in India. A woman may be ashamed to be an old maid, or that she has no children, or has only girls. It depends on the view current in the mores, and on the sensitiveness of the person to unfavorable judgments. "Shame, for Arabs, occupies the place which we ascribe to conscience. 'The tree lives only so long as its bark lives; and the man only so long as he feels shame.' Arabs, however, are not ashamed in abstracto, but before father and mother, before relatives, and before common talk. 'Be ashamed before Allah, as an honorable man is ashamed before his own people,' said Mohammed to 429a new convert, in order to make clear to him the unknown from the known, and to enlarge the morals of the village to that of the world."1414

451. The first attachments on the body. Ethnographical studies have established the fact that things were first hung on the body as amulets or trophies, that is, for superstition or vanity, and that the body was painted or tattooed for superstition or in play. The notion of ornament followed. The skull and body have been deformed and mutilated, and the hair has been dressed or removed, in order to vary it and produce effect. Savages lie in ashes, dust, clay, sand, or mud, for warmth, or coolness, or indolence, and they could easily find out the advantage of a coating on the skin to protect them from insects or the sun. Three things resulted which had never been foreseen or intended. (1) It was found that there was great utility in certain attachments to the body which protected it when sitting on the ground or standing in the water. Play seized upon the markings, and the men of a group at last came to use the same markings, from which resulted a group sign. The marks came to be regarded as ornamental. Some attachments had great utility for males in fishing, hunting, fighting, running, and some kinds of work. (2) Goblinism seized upon the custom and gave it new and powerful motives. The group mark became hereditary and maintained group unity with goblinistic sanctions. Some hanging objects were thought to ward off the evil eye. Others were amulets and prevented sorcery. (3) The objects hung on the body might be trophies taken from animals or enemies. These things consciously, and the others unconsciously, acted on vanity. When all wore things attached to the body a man or woman did not look dressed, or "right" without such attachments. He or she looked bare or naked. They were ashamed. This is the shame of nakedness. The connection of dress with warmth and modesty is derived and remote.

452. The fear of sorcery. The reason for retiring to perform bodily functions was the fear of sorcery, if an enemy should get possession of anything which ever was a part of the body. 430Hence the best plan was to go to running water. Once more, important but unanticipated and even unperceived consequences followed. The customs played the part of sanitary regulations. When it became the custom to retire it became indecent not to retire. Then it became a tradition from ancestors that one always must retire, and the ghosts would be angry if this rule was not observed. It was disrespectful to them, and would offend them to expose the body or not to retire. The Greeks said that it offended the gods. In the books of Moses the sanction for all the rules of decency is, "For it is an abomination unto the Lord." That is only an expression of the disapproval in the mores which God also was supposed to feel.

453. What functions should be concealed? What is the limit of the bodily functions to be concealed? A member of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, who were all celibate men, always wore an apron, even when alone in the bath. The genitals were impure and must not be uncovered to the eye of God. The same sect had elaborate rules like those in Deut. xxiii. 12 ff. When the Medes elected Deioces king he made a rule that no one should laugh or spit in his presence.1415 The Zulu king Chaka punished with death sneezing or clearing the throat in his presence.1416 At Bagdad, in the tenth century, the court of the caliphs had become luxurious, and a very severe and minute etiquette had been introduced. It was forbidden to spit, clear the throat or nose, gape, or sneeze in the presence of the sovereign. The nobles imitated this etiquette and adopted rules to regulate salutations, entrance into company, reception of visitors, table manners, and approach to one's wife. "If any one refused to conform to this etiquette, he exposed himself to universal blame as an eccentric person, or even as an enemy of Islam."1417 In the Italian novel Niccolo dei Lapi it is said in honor of the heroine that she never saw herself nude. It was a custom observed by many to wear a garment which covered the whole body even when alone in the bath. Erasmus gives the reason for this. The angels would be shocked at nakedness. He made it a rule for men. 431One should never, he says, bare the body more than necessary, even when alone. The angels are everywhere and they like to see decency as the adjunct of modesty.1418 The angels are here evidently the Christian representatives of the ghosts of earlier times. In 1 Cor. xi. 10 it is said: The woman was created for the man. "For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." It seems to be believed that the angels might be led into sin by seeing the women. For this idea there is abundant antecedent in the Book of Henoch and the Book of Jubilees.

454. Restraint of expression within limits. It is the rule of good breeding everywhere to restrict all bodily functions and to conceal them, such as gaping, sneezing, coughing, clearing the throat and nose, and to restrain all exuberant expressions of joy, pain, triumph, regret, etc., but the limits cannot be defined. They lie in the current practice of the society in which one lives. They are not rational. At the same time they are logical. They are correctly deduced from a broad view of policy. Orientals cover their heads to show respect; Occidentals bare the head for the same purpose. Each custom has its philosophy of respect. We think it disrespectful to turn the back on any one. Orientals generally think it respectful to pretend not to be able to look another in the face. If ladies are thought to have the right to decide whether to continue acquaintances or not, they salute first. If it is thought unbecoming for them to salute first, then men do it. Which of the great premises is correct it would be impossible to say. The notion of correctness fails, because it implies the existence of a standard outside of and above usage, and no such standard exists. There is an assumed principle which serves as a basis for the usage, and the usage refers back to the principle, but the two are afloat together.

455. Violation of rule. It results from the study of the cases that nakedness is never shameful when it is unconscious.1419 The same is true of everything under the head of decency. It is consciousness of a difference between fact and the rule set by 432the mores which makes indecency and produces harm, for that difference, if disregarded, is immorality.

456. The suspensorium. The device known as the suspensorium, represented by von den Steinen,1420 is obviously invented solely for the convenience of males in activity. It is not planned for concealment and does not conceal. By a development of the device it becomes a case, made of leaf, wood, bone, clay, shell, leather, bamboo, cloth, gourd, metal, or reed. It is met with all over the world.1421 Perhaps its existence in ancient Egypt is proved.1422 In almost every case, but not always, there is great disinclination to remove it, or part with it, or to be seen without it. The sentiment attaches only to the part which is covered by the apparatus. To be seen without it would do harm to the man. Women wear a pubic shield, held in place by a string. The conjecture immediately suggests itself that the girdle or string about the loins was anterior to any covering for the genitals. This conjecture is confirmed by the cases in which the girdle is used to cover the umbilicus, while nothing else is covered, for which there is a reason on account of the connection of the umbilicus with birth, life, and ancestry.1423 The primitive notion about the genitals is that they are the seat of involuntary phenomena which are to be referred to superior agents. Hence, more than any other part of the body, they are daimonic and sacred (mystery, passion, reproduction). This notion is an independent cause of rules about the organs, and of superstitious ways in reference to them, including concealment.1424 Waitz recognized in this idea the reason for covering the organ, or the part of it which was believed to be efficient. "Perhaps," he says, "we stand here at the first stage of human clothing," — a suggestion which deserves more attention than it has received.1425

433457. The girdle and what it conceals. Very many cases can be cited in which a girdle is worn, but nothing for concealment, unless it be of the umbilicus. In the Louvre (S. 962) may be seen a statue of a deformed primitive god of the Egyptians, Bes, who wears a string around the waist and nothing else. A girdle is often used as a pocket, without any reference to decency.1426 Convenience would then lead to the suspensorium arrangement or the pubic shell. Also from the girdle was hung any swinging glittering object to avert the evil eye from the genitals. There was no concealment and could be no motive of modesty. The aborigines of Queensland never cover the genitals except on special public occasions, or when near white settlements. The men wear the case only at corroborees and other public festivals.1427 On Tanna (New Hebrides) it is thought dangerous for a man to see another without any concealment.1428 The Indians on the Shingu show that such covering as they wear has no purpose of concealment, for it conceals nothing.1429 The device of the East Greenland Eskimo is also evidently for utility, not for modesty.1430 In order to escape flies, Brunache and his companions took refuge under a tree which is shunned by flies. It is from this tree that the women pluck the bunches of leaves which they wear dangling before and behind.1431

458. Modesty and decency not primitive. At the earliest stage of the treatment of the body we find motives of utility and ornament mixed with superstition and vanity and quickly developing connections with magic, kin notions, and goblinism. Modesty and decency are very much later derivatives.

459. What parts of the body are tabooed? Cases may be adduced to prove that the taboo of concealment does not always attach to the parts of the body to which it attaches in our traditions. Hottentot women wear a head cloth of gay European stuff. They will not take this off. The Herero "think it a great cause of shame if a married woman removes this national 434head covering in the presence of strangers." They wear very little else. A woman who stood for her photograph "would more readily have uncovered all the rest of her body than her head."1432 The Guanches thought it immodest for a woman to show her breasts or feet.1433 Yakut women roll cord on the naked thigh in the presence of men who do not belong to the house, and allow themselves to be seen uncovered to the waist, but they are angry if a man stares at their naked feet. In some places the Yakuts attach great importance to the rule that young wives should not let their husband's male relatives see their hair or their feet.1434 In mediæval Germany a respectable woman thought it a great disgrace if a man saw her naked feet.1435 The Indian woman of those tribes of the northwestern coast of North America which wear the labret are as much embarrassed to be seen without it as a white woman would be if very incompletely dressed.1436 The back and navel are sometimes under a special taboo of concealment, especially the navel, which is sacred, as above noticed, on account of its connection with birth. Peschel1437 quotes private information that a woman in the Philippine Islands put a shirt on a boy in order to cover the navel and nothing more. In her view nothing more needed to be covered. Many peoples regard the navel as of erotic interest. Instances occur in the Arabian Nights. It is very improper for a Chinese woman who has compressed feet to show them. Thomson1438 gives a picture which shows the feet of a woman, but it was very difficult, he says, to persuade the woman to pose in that way. Chinese people would consider the picture obscene. No European would find the slightest suggestion of that kind in it. An Arab woman, in Egypt, cares more to cover her face than any other part of her body, and she is more careful to cover the top or back of her head than her face.1439 It appears that if any part of the body is put under a concealment taboo for any reason whatever, a consequence is that the opinion grows up that it never ought to be 435exposed. Then interest may attach to it more than to exposed parts, and erotic suggestion may be connected with it. The tradition in which we are educated is one which has a long history, and which has embraced the Aryan race. To us it seems "natural" and "true in itself." It includes some primitive and universal ideas of magic and goblinism which have been held far beyond the Aryan race. Shame and modesty are sentiments which are consequences produced in the minds of men and women by unbroken habits of fact, association, and suggestion in connection with dress and natural functions. It does not seem "decent" to break the habits, or, decency consists in conforming to the habits. However, the whole notion of decency is held within boundaries of habit. Orientals and Moslems now have such different habits from Occidentals that latrines are very differently constructed for them and for Occidentals.

460. Notion of decency lacking. There are cases of groups in which no notions of decency can be found. It is reported of the Kubus of Sumatra that they have acquired a sense of shame within very recent times. "Formerly they knew none and were the derision of the villagers into whose neighborhood they might come."1440 Stevens never saw an Orang-hutan girl blush. Those girls have no feeling about their nakedness which could cause a blush.1441 The Bakairi show no sense of shame as to any part of the body. They are innocent in respect to any reserve1442 [i.e. no taboo of concealment exists amongst them]. A few cases are reported in which the awakening of shame has been observed. A bystander threw a cloth over a nearly naked man on the Chittagong hills. "He was seen to blush, for it was the first time in his life that he realized that he was committing a breach of decency in appearing unclothed."1443 No doubt the more correct explanation is that he felt that in some way he was not approved by the English visitors. Semon tells how he posed a Papuan girl for her photograph, in the midst of a native crowd. She was "proud of the distinction and attention." Suddenly she was convulsed with shame and abandoned the pose, blushing and 436refusing.1444 This explanation may not be correct. The feeling of one accustomed to be naked, if his attention is called to it, cannot be paralleled with that of one accustomed to be clothed, if he finds himself unclothed. The Nile negroes and the Masai manifest a "complete absence of any conventional ideas of decency." The men, at least, have no feeling of shame in connection with the pudenda. Complete nudity of males, where it occurs in Africa, seems almost always traceable to Hamitic influence.1445

461. Dress and decency. If the description of the Tyrrhenians given by Athenæus1446 can be taken as real, they would have to be classed amongst the people who had no notions of decency. Curr says of the Australians1447 that the tribes who wear clothing are more decent than those who are naked. The women of the former retire to bathe and the men respect their privacy. Evidently the dress makes the decency. If there was no dress, there would be no need to retire and no privacy. Wilson and Felkin1448 say of the negroes that their "morals" are inversely as their dress. The Australians practice no indecent dances.1449 The central Australians hold a man in contempt if he shows excessive amorousness.1450 The natives of New Britain are naked, but modest and chaste. "Nudity rather checks than stimulates." The same is observed in English New Guinea. The men wear a bandage which does not conceal, but they attach to this all the importance which we attach to complete dress, and they speak of others who do not wear it as "naked wild men."1451 In the Palau Islands women may punish summarily, even with death, a man who approaches their bathing place, but that place is, therefore, the safest for secret meetings.1452 The Dyaks, except the hill tribes, conceal the body with care, but they do not observe a careful sex taboo.1453 We are told of the Congo tribes, some of whom wear nothing, that there exists "a marked appreciation of the sentiment of decency and shame as applied to private actions."1454 Some 437of the women repelled the advances of men in Brunache's expedition.1455 Nachtigal1456 found the Somrai in Baghirmi modest and reserved. They proved "the well-known fact that decorum and chastity are independent of dress." On the Uganda railroad, near Lake Victoria, coal-black people are to be seen, of whom both sexes are entirely naked, except ornaments. They are "the most moral people in Uganda." The Nile negroes and Masai are naked. In the midst of them live the Baganda who wear much clothing. The women are covered from the waist to the ankles; the men from the neck to the ankles, except porters and men working in the fields. They provide decent latrines and have good sanitary usages as to the surroundings of their houses. They are very polite and courteous. This character and their dress are accounted for by their long subjection to tyranny. They are "profoundly immoral," have indecent dances, and are dying out on account of the "exhaustion of men and women by premature debauchery."1457 The Kavirondo are naked, but are, "for negroes, a moral race, disliking real indecency and only giving way to lewd actions in their ceremonial dances, where indeed the intention is not immodest, as the pantomime is a kind of ritual."1458

---

468. Bathing. Customs of nudity. The natives of Rotuma never bathe without the loin cloth. To do so is thought low conduct.1511 The people of Ponape rise early and bathe, the sexes always separating unless married.1512 Bock1513 says that the Dyaks, without hesitation, threw off their garments and bathed in the presence of himself and Malays, the sexes together. The sexes of the Yuroks in California bathe apart and the women never go into the sea without some garment.1514 The women of the Mandans had a bathing place. Armed sentinels were set to prevent men from approaching it.1515 In Hindostan the sexes now bathe together at certain times and places with very little clothing. Wilkins1516 says, "I have never seen the slightest impropriety of gesture on these occasions." Although at an earlier period some clothing was worn in bed, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in Europe, both sexes slept nude. Better beds and separate bed clothes led to this custom, because it was such a relief to take off woolen and fur worn in the daytime. Then nudity became familiar, and the concealment taboo was broken down.1517 The cities were soon compelled to pass ordinances forbidding any one to appear on the streets nude.1518 In Denmark the historian tells us that people slept naked because linen was dear, and that the custom lasted into the seventeenth century. In the sixteenth century nobles began to wear nightshirts.1519 Upon the entry of kings into cities, until the sixteenth century, mythological subjects were represented in the streets by nude women.1520 From the 443thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries it was the custom that girls served knights in the bath.1521 Through the Middle Ages the sexes bathed together, and not innocently.1522 The Germans were very fond of bathing and every village had its public bath house. The utility and pleasure of bathing were so great that bathing was forbidden as an ecclesiastical penance.1523 "A practice of men and women bathing together was condemned by Hadrian, and afterwards by Alexander Severus, but was only finally suppressed by Constantine."1524 The Council of Trullanum in 692 forbade the sexes to bathe together.1525 Other councils repeated the prohibition. This shows that Constantine did not suppress the custom, nor did any other civil or ecclesiastical authority do so. The ecclesiastics in Germany, from the eighth century, condemned the custom of the sexes bathing together, but never could control it.1526 Christian men and women bathed together at Tyre in the time of the crusades.1527 All the authorities, beginning with Erasmus (in the Colloquy, Diversoria), agree that bathing at a common bath house was abandoned on account of syphilis. Leprosy, which was brought from the East by the crusaders, had had less effect in the same direction. In the sixteenth century there were other epidemics, and wood became dear.1528 The use of body linen and bed linen which could be washed made bathing less essential to comfort and health.1529 The habit of seeing nudity was broken, and as it became unusual it became offensive. Thus a concealment taboo grew up again. Rudeck1530 is convinced by these facts that "it was not modesty which made dress and public decency, but that dress and the decay of objectionable customs made modesty." He seems to be astonished at this conclusion and a little afraid of it. It is undoubtedly correct. The whole history of dress depends on it.

444469. Bathing in rivers, springs, and public bath houses. In the fifteenth century it became the custom to bathe in rivers or at mineral springs. Wealth, luxury, fashion, and new forms of vice attended this change.1531 The convents of the fifteenth century are described as places of debauch.1532 An English globe trotter of the beginning of the seventeenth century describes the baths of Baden near Zurich, where the old custom of the sexes bathing together had been modified somewhat, but only for married women.1533 If the custom of bathing together does not still exist throughout Northern Europe, it must have been abolished within a few years. Retzius1534 describes it as existing in Finland in 1878, and many travelers have described the village bath houses of Northern Russia and Scandinavia. Retzius says that the bath house is a kind of sanctuary. Any misdemeanor committed there is considered far more wicked than the same fault elsewhere. Here we see the mores raising a special conventionalization to protect a custom which is expedient, but which transgresses the usual taboo. The fact is that the complete taboo on nudity in Central Europe is not over two centuries old. By itself, nudity was not regarded as shameful or indecent. Therefore in the bath, where it was in order, it was disregarded, just as now a workmen's dress, an athlete's dress, or a bathing dress is disregarded. During the centuries when the ecclesiastical authorities endeavored in vain to stop the sexes from bathing together, it must be that public opinion did not recognize in that usage any serious evil which called for repression. The English now express surprise that the sexes at American watering places go into the sea together, to which Americans attach no importance at all. If Americans bathed in English bathing dresses the sexes would speedily separate.

470. Nudity. In early Christian drama Christ was represented by a naked youth. Then he was represented by a youth who wore a breech cloth only. In the sixteenth century, at Naples, in a representation of the creation of Adam and Eve, the actors 445had only the privates covered. The stage fell and many were hurt, which was held to show God's displeasure at the show. The flagellants in the theater, in France, were represented naked, as penitents.1535

471. Alleged motives of concealment taboo. Herodotus says of the Lydians and almost all barbarians that they considered it shameful for one man to be seen by another naked.1536 The Jewish sect, the Essenes, concealed part of the body from the sun, as the "all-seeing eye of God," even in the bath. The Jew might not uncover the body in the face of the temple. The rules of the Essenes for bodily necessities were such that those necessities could not be satisfied on the Sabbath.1537 At Rome "oppedere, mingere, cacare towards persons or statues belonged to the grossest marks of contempt, and were so employed more than we think."1538 Patursson1539 bathed with aborigines near the mouth of the Ob. They would not bare the body below the waist and were shocked at his immodesty because he was not so scrupulous.

472. Obscenity. Another topic in this group of subjects, obscenity, is still harder to treat within the limits set by our mores. It offers still more astounding proofs that the folkways can make anything "right," and that our strongest sentiments of approval or abhorrence are given to us by the age and group in which we live. The tabooed parts of the body are not to be seen. It is obscenity when they are exposed to sight. We have already noticed, under the head of decency, a great range of conventions in regard to things and acts which are set aside from all the common activities of life. We have seen that there is no ultimate and rational definition of the things to be tabooed, no universal agreement as to what they are, no philosophical principle by which they are selected; that the customs have had no uniformity or consistency, and that those usages which we might suppose to be referable to a taboo of obscenity have an entirely different motive, while the notion of obscenity does not exist. 446There is no "natural" and universal instinct, by collision with which some things are recognized as obscene. We shall find that the things which we regard as obscene either were not, in other times and places, so regarded, any more than we so regard bared face and hands, or else that, from ancient usage, the exhibition was covered by a convention in protection of what is archaic or holy, or dramatic, or comical. In primitive times goblinism and magic covered especially the things which later became obscene. Facts were accepted with complete naïveté. The fashion of thinking was extremely realistic. The Japanese now cannot understand how facts can be made shameful. They have very exact and authoritative conventions which every one must obey, but the conventions are practical and realistic. They serve purposes; they do not create an unreal world of convention.1540 This is the extreme view of realism and nature. As has been shown above, however, so soon as objects were attached to the body for any purpose whatever, the conventional view that bodies so distinguished were alone right and beautiful was started, and all the rest of the convention of ornament and dress followed.

473. Obscene representations for magic. The Indians on the Shingu river, Brazil, wear little or no clothing.1541 They have full suits for dancing, but the tabooed organs are represented on the outside of these artificially and of exaggerated size. Evidently it was not the purpose of the dress to conceal organs the sight of which was tabooed.1542 In Central Borneo, in order to drive off evil spirits, rough figures of human beings are cut in wood, the tabooed organs being exaggerated. Those organs are the real amulets which exorcise demons, for they are often cut on the timbers of the houses without the rest of the figure. Then, by further derivation, such representations became purely ornamental on houses, weapons, etc.1543 The Egyptians used representations of what were later tabooed organs as hieroglyphics, and in their conversation admitted no taboo. Pictures in the tombs of the Twentieth Dynasty (1180-1050 b.c.) show the lack of any taboo, and there are inscriptions by them which show an absence of 447any restriction on realism.1544 This is evidently the naïve realism of children who have not yet learned any conventions. Reproduction and growth have direct connection with food supply, and abundance of reproduction means joy of life and merriment, with good cheer for men. Consequently the most matter-of-fact interest of man was intertwined with all the reproductive energies in nature. The popular and comic mimus of the Greeks is traced back to ritual acts of magic, in which the corn demons or growth demons are represented at work, making the reproduction and growth of the crops. The ritual was sympathetic magic, and it was securing the food supply. What was desired was success in agriculture, and the husbandman in his choice of rites, symbols, and emblems was entirely realistic. The growth demons, when they appear in art, are vulgar figures of an exaggerated sensual type. They were meant to suggest reproductive vigor, exuberance, and abundance. The tabooed organs are represented in various ways, but always obtrusively and with exaggeration. The demons wear an artificial phallus outside the dress, which fits the figure tightly.1545 The ritual developed into the Dionysiac rites and orgies, the main idea of which was to rejoice with the reproductive agencies of nature, to present them dramatically to the mind, and to stimulate hope and industry. In Greece these primitive rites of sympathetic magic in agriculture developed into the comic drama, and the demons became stereotyped figures of comedy, always recognizable by their masks (faces of a vulgar type), exaggerated hips, and above all by the phallus. The demon turned into the clown or buffoon, but the phallus was kept as an emblem of his rôle, like the later cap and bells of the fool, until the fifth century of the Christian era in the West, and until the fall of the Byzantine empire. In the Hellenistic period the clown took the rôle of the Olympic god, and wore the phallus. The Phlyakes in lower Italy had the same emblem and it was worn in the atellan plays of the Romans.1546 In the early Christian 448centuries the Christian martyr wore the emblem in the comedy, since that rôle was always represented by the simpleton or clown. Ecclesiastical persons also were represented with it, since the buffoon always wore it, whatever his rôle. It also passed to the karagoz (shadow play) of the Turks and to the pantin puppets of the Javans. In the comedy of Hindostan the phallus disappeared.1547 In Egypt, at least as late as the first half of the nineteenth century, a masked figure marched at the head of the bride's procession at a wedding with the same symbol and indecent gestures.1548

474. Infibulation. It appears that athletes in Greece bound the organ and tied it up to the girdle in a manner closely resembling the primitive suspensorium. The comedians wore a leathern apron with a large false organ of red leather on the outside. It became a sign of the trade of boxers, athletes, gymnasts, and comedians to bind the organ and tie it up, whereby it was twisted into a horn shape. The purpose was to protect it from injury, and it furnishes suggestion as to the purpose of the primitive suspensorium. The concealment was very imperfect and the notion grew up that the part concealed ought to be concealed, but no more. The Romans thought it indecent to lack the foreskin, and the Jews endeavored to conceal this lack. Infibulation was practiced in two ways, — by a ring through the prepuce or by a bandage around it. It was thought to prevent vice and preserve the voice of prophets, singers, etc. A seventeenth-century traveler, Walter Schultze of Haarlem, is quoted, who describes an ascetic sect in Persia who renounced wine, lived on gifts, and foreswore marriage. They were infibulated with a ring.1549

475. Was the phallus offensive? For more than two thousand years the most obscene figure we know was used by the clown in popular farce and by athletes as an emblem of their profession. It raised a laugh, but was not otherwise noticed. An interesting question arises whether there ever was any protest against it, or any evidence that anybody thought it offensive. 449The passage in Aristophanes' Clouds (530) has been so interpreted. It appears, however, that in that passage the author is comparing his comedy with that of others. He has admitted, he says, no low tricks appealing to vulgar tastes, no phallus which would make the boys laugh, no lascivious dance, no scurrilous stories, and no "knock-down business." This is not a criticism of the phallus on grounds of obscenity, but on grounds of buffoonery. In the Acharnians (243 and 259) are matter-of-fact references to the phallus worn by the actor, as he might have referred to his mantle. Other cases occur which are not so outspoken. In the Lysistrata the mention of the phallus in connection with the motive of the play is of the last degree of vulgarity. We cannot find that any Greeks, Romans, or Byzantines protested against these exhibitions of the phallus, which to us are so obscene. The mimus was the lowest and most popular kind of theatrical exhibition, and it was in it that the use of the phallus was most constant. Even Christian preachers who denounced the mimus as demoralizing, and who specified in detail what they found objectionable in it, never mention the display of obscene things. All people were accustomed to the phallus as the archaic symbol of the servants of Dionysus.1550 Christian preachers would have made no allowance for it on that account, — rather the contrary, — and they would not have refrained from objecting to it on account of the archaic, or artistic, or traditional element, if they had disapproved of it. It must be that everybody was indifferent to it.

The twin pillars which were common in front of Semitic temples and which stood before the temple at Jerusalem are interpreted as phalli.1551

476. Phallus as amulet. At Rome the phallus was an amulet and was worn by all children. The figure, therefore, cannot have been an obscene one. In the Roman gardens also were ithyphallic figures which appear to bear witness to a survival of the growth-demon idea, or to usages which originated in the growth-demon idea, and were perpetuated traditionally without knowledge of the original meaning. On mediæval churches 450figures were often carved, as an expression of naïve ideas and faiths, and in pure realism, which were frankly obscene. Paintings and stained glass often represented similar objects. In the second half of the sixteenth century such objects were removed, or covered, or modified. It may be that the notion of obscenity developed sooner in respect to literature than in respect to art. Susemihl1552 suggests that the lost tales of Miletus may have been obscene, and also the tales of Paxamos, and that their disappearance may be due to a war on them on this account. Literature would furnish food to the mind. It would not deal with fact. The popular judgment seems long to have refused to admit that facts of structure and function which were universally human could be put under a taboo and made improper to be known and seen. What is familiar tends to remain in our overconsciousness only. The same is true of what offends one's taste and from which one averts attention, although it cannot be caused to cease, like profane language. The cases of toleration of what would now be considered obscene are to be explained in this way.

477. Symbols in Asia. "In ancient times obscene symbols were used without offense to denote sex."1553 Such symbols were very common in western Asia. They are very common now in India. A Chinese woman's foot, an Arab woman's face, a Tuareg man's mouth, is obscene to persons educated in any one of those taboos, because it always is, and ought to be, concealed. It is not obscene to us. On the other hand, the lingam in India is obscene to us, but not to Hindoos who have never learned any taboo in regard to it. An egg or a seed might have been made obscene in some group on account of its connection with reproduction, if that connection had been developed in dogma and usage. An Englishman would never think of the garter as unseemly, but non-English men and women have thought it such. The crucifix shows us how conventionalization and familiarization set aside all the suggestion which an artifact really carries. The figure of a naked man dying in torture is purely horrible and repulsive. No one could get edification from an artistic 451representation of a man hanging on the gallows. Many people overlook so much of the crucifix and add so much in imagination that they get great edification from it. The language used in the communion about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ refers to nothing in our mores, and appeals to nothing in our experience. It comes down from very remote ages, very possibly from cannibalism.1554 If we heard that the Chinese or Mohammedans had a religious custom in which they used currently the figure of eating the body and drinking the blood of a man (or god), and if we had no such figure of speech in our own use, we should consider it shocking and abominable.

478. The notion of obscenity is modern. It is evident that the notion of obscenity is very modern. It is due to the modern development of the arts of life and the mode of life under steam and machinery. The cheapening and popularization of luxury have made houses larger, plumbing cheaper, and all the apparatus of careful living more accessible to all classes. The consequence is that all the operations and necessities of life can be carried on with greater privacy and more observation of conventional order and decorum. Then the usages and notions grow more strict and refined. It is only in poverty that exposures and collisions occur which violate decency and involve obscenity. Therefore the standards and codes of all classes have risen, and the care about dressing, bathing, and private functions, for the sexes and for children, has been intensified. Out of this has come the notion of what is obscene, as the extreme of indecency and impropriety. What we call obscene was, in ancient times, either a matter of superstition or a free field for jest. The conventionalization in favor of what is amusing must always be recognized. It has always entered into comedy in the theater. A jest will not cover as much now as it once would, but it still goes far. The ancient mythology long covered obscenity in drama. When Hephæstus caught Ares and Aphrodite in his net the gods all enjoyed the joke. The goddesses did not come to see the sight.1555 The difference between the masculine and feminine judgment as to whether a thing is funny or shameful is well drawn. Hera insisted to 452Zeus that their conjugal familiarity should not be seen.1556 The young women served the men in the bath, but Odysseus feared to anger Nausikaa if he exposed himself to her (although it is not certain that this was on account of his nakedness), and when she walked through the town with him she knew well what would shame her.1557 Odysseus also asked the women to withdraw while he bathed.1558 The mores were in flux and were contradictory. The interpretation of the text is not beyond question. It may not have been nakedness which caused shame, but the dirt and disorder of person produced by shipwreck. Various philosophies claim to have brought in the greater care and refinement of more recent times, but not one of them can show the documentary proof that the men of a time, at that time, showed revolt against the mores of that time in regard to this matter. What has happened is that, in modern times, steam and machinery, with the increase of capital and of power over nature which they have produced, have given social power to the lower middle class, as the representatives of the masses. This has brought into control the mores of those classes, which were simple, unluxurious, philistine, and comparatively pure, because those classes were forced to be frugal, domestic, careful of their children, self-denying, and relatively virtuous, on account of their limited means. The arts of life never can be the same for the poor and the rich. Wealth is often charged with introducing luxury and vice, but that tendency is offset by its giving command over the conditions of life, which makes refined usages possible.

479. Propriety. The rules of propriety apply to all the acts of life, but especially to those which take place in the presence or neighborhood of others; still more especially to those which affect others. A large section of such rules deals with the ordinary intercourse of persons of the two sexes, and regulates details of the sex taboo which are less important. Crawley gives a list of cases1559 in which brother and sister, father and daughter, are separated by the sex taboo. A woman of the Omaha tribe, 453whether married or not, if she walked or rode alone would ruin her reputation as a virtuous woman. She may ride or walk only with her husband or near kinsman. In other cases she gets another woman to go with her. Young men are forbidden to speak to girls, if they meet two or more on the road, unless they are akin.1560 A chief never ate with his guests amongst the tribes on the upper Missouri. He sat by and served them, meanwhile preparing the pipe to be smoked afterwards.1561 Junker1562 was warned that, in passing a princess in Buganda, he must not touch her robe of oxhide, for that would be an insult to her. If a woman of the Mongbottu gives coloring matter to a man, that is undue familiarity and will occasion the wrath of an offended husband.1563 An Andaman Islander, if he has occasion to speak to a married woman older than himself, must do it through a third person. He must not touch his younger brother's or cousin's wife, or his wife's sister. Women are restricted in the same way as to the husband's elder brother, or male cousin, or his brother-in-law.1564 The relations of relatives in law are a chapter in propriety.

480. Seclusion of women. In modern Korea women are secluded. It is not proper to ask for them. Women have been put to death by fathers or husbands, or are reported to have committed suicide, when strange men, by accident or design, have touched their hands. A servant woman gave as a reason for not saving her mistress from a fire in the house that she had been touched by a man, in the confusion, and was not worth saving.1565 In China, if a foreigner asks about the ladies, he is taken to refer to the mother, not the wife, of the Chinaman.1566 A young wife is not allowed, amongst the southern Slavs, to address comrades in the great-family house by their names, "out of modesty." She gives them special names, adopted for her intercourse with them. She is guilty of great impropriety if she chats with her husband in the presence of her parents-in-law.1567

455482. Moslem rules of propriety. To a great extent the legislation of Mohammed consisted in accomplishing reforms and innovations for which the Arabs were almost ready. When he tried to introduce ideas of his own, changing the mores, he failed. He tried many times to put a stop to the usages of mourning which were violent and excessive, — loud outcries, destruction of clothes and furniture, blackening the walls of the house and one's face, and shearing the beard. He did not succeed. These were ancient and popular customs and they were maintained.1575 It is improper for any Moslem, male or female, to uncover the head.1576 They uncover the feet to show respect. This was Semitic and is Oriental.1577 Robertson Smith1578 thinks that the reason was that the shoes could not be washed, unless they were mere linen socks, such as were used in the Phœnician sacred dress. By Moslem rules strangers should never see or hear a man's wives. Physicians may see only the affected parts of a woman. A traveler returning home may not enter his own house at night. Two persons of the same sex must never bare the body between the waist and the knee in presence of each other. The Koran1579 contains elaborate rules for women as to the concealment of parts of the body, and as to movements of the body and gestures as limited by propriety. Neatness, care, and order are religious duties; also devices to preserve and enhance beauty.1580 To an Arab, a blow on the back of the neck is more insulting than one on the face.1581 It is not proper for a man to look any Moslem woman in the face. When Vambery, talking to a lady, raised his eyes to her face she sternly told him to behave with propriety.1582

483. Hatless women. In contrast with the Moslem rule not to uncover the head is the Christian rule that men should uncover the head in church but that women should cover it. In 1905 Cranstock church in Newquay, Cornwall, England, was closed on account of the "irreverence of numbers of women, 456who, walking uncovered, presume to enter God's house with no sign of reverence or modesty upon their heads." A rule was adopted at Canterbury, in the same year, that no hatless women should be allowed in the cathedral. A reason or authority for this rule is said to be found in 1 Cor. xi. 4-7. An American church paper said that such a rule would half empty some American churches in the warmer latitudes.1583 A rector at Asbury Park, August 17, 1905, rebuked women for coming to church without hats, and said that the bishop of the diocese had asked the clergy to enforce the rule that "women should not enter the consecrated building with uncovered heads." Russian Jewish women at Jerusalem, being forbidden to wear veils, wear wigs, lest they may "dishonor" their heads by uncovering them.1584

457485. Hindoo ritual of the toilet, etc. According to ancient Hindoo custom, younger brothers should in all matters yield to elder brothers.1589 Brahmins use only the left hand for all acts of the bodily toilet. They have a very elaborate ritual for all such acts, and consider their houses defiled by the presence of Europeans who do not observe any such ritual. They remove shoes on entering a house on account of the impurity of leather.1590 It is not good manners amongst them to address the women of the house, or to ask for them. If a woman takes a man's arm in public she is supposed to be his mistress. Gallantry is never displayed. A wife would resent it as disrespectful, fit only for a woman of another grade. Only courtesans, dancers, and harlots are taught to read, sing, or dance. An honest woman would be ashamed to know how to read. Brahmins regard the use of the pocket handkerchief with the same disgust which a European feels for the Hindoo use of the fingers which European laborers practice. Hindoos clean the teeth with a fresh twig every day, and are horrified that Europeans do it with a brush made of the hair of an animal, and do it frequently with the same brush. There are days on which one must not brush the teeth on pain of hell. "Saliva is of all things the most utterly polluting."1591 For a woman to have to part with her hair is one of the greatest of degradations and the most terrible of all trials. Hindoo women never use false hair if they lose their own.1592 Women are safe and are treated with respect in public. The honor of a Hindoo requires that he look no higher than the ankles of a passing woman.1593 He must not touch a woman. If many men and women meet, for instance in traveling, they may lie down side by side to sleep without impropriety.1594 Not one man in a hundred in India ever tasted liquor, "but a Hindoo beggar may not eat bread made with yeast or baked by any but Hindoos of his own or a better caste."1595 The Angharmi of northeastern India consider 458it a reproach for a woman to bear a child before her hair is long enough to be tied behind. Until marriage the women shave the head. Spouses are therefore separated for a year after marriage.1596

Modern Egyptians think it improper for a man to "describe the features or person of a female (as that she has a straight nose or large eyes) to one of his own sex, by whom it is unlawful that she should be seen."1597 Modern Sicilian peasants at their balls dance in couples of men and couples of women, "such an idea as a man putting his arm around a woman's waist in a waltz being considered indecent."1598

486. Greek rules of propriety. Nausikaa disregarded the lack of dress of the shipwrecked when they needed help, but she had a complete code of propriety and good manners with which she compelled them to comply.1599 In the Greek tragedies modest and proper behavior for women is characterized by reserve, retirement, reluctance. They ought not to talk publicly with young men or to expose themselves to the gaze of men. They may not run out into the street with hair and dress disordered, or roam about the country, or run to look at sights. Clytemnestra told Iphigenia to be reserved with Achilles if she could be so and win her point, but to win her point. Iphigenia considered it a cause of shame to her that her proposed marriage was broken off.

487. Erasmus's rules. Erasmus wrote a book of manners for a youth, his pupil. He said that the teeth should be cleaned, but that it was girlish to whiten them with powder. He thought it excessive to rinse the mouth more frequently than once in the morning. He thought it lazy and thieflike to go with one's hands behind one's back. It was not well-mannered to sit or stand with one hand in the other, although some thought it soldierly.1600

489. Kissing. Kissing is another occasion for special rules of propriety. In China and Japan kissing is regarded with disgust. It is unknown amongst Polynesians, Malays, negroes, and Indians 460of South America.1614 They rub noses, or bite, or smell, instead. It is said of a Samoan girl, also, that she "looks upon kissing with disgust."1615 So far apart may human beings be racewise in their judgment of what is pleasant or disgusting! In Europe, in the Middle Ages, the custom of kissing was very extended. Newcomers were saluted with kisses; also partners in the dance. A bishop kissed the wife of Rudolf of Hapsburg when receiving her, but he was banished until Rudolf died.1616 From a fifteenth-century sermon it is learned that a young lady of rank in France, at that time, would rise in the midst of divine service, incommoding everybody, in order to kiss on the mouth a cavalier who entered the church at that time.1617 The custom of kissing became more general in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but discussion about it shows that there was some doubt whether it was expedient. "The mores won a victory over philosophy."1618 In modern times Europeans have taught half-civilized and barbarian peoples the custom of kissing. The Hottentots, for instance, in their zeal to imitate Europeans, have adopted this custom.1619

490. Politeness, etiquette, manners. Politeness, courtesy, and good manners are usages, but they rise to the level of the mores when they become a part of the character of a people, for then they produce characteristic traits which affect all societal relations.1620 Uncivilized people often pay punctilious attention to rules of etiquette about salutations, visits, meetings, the aged, etc. As all their rules are imperative and admit of no discussion or exception, they constitute a social ritual which may educate in certain sentiments, although it is by no means sure to do so. The functions of politeness and etiquette exist in order to make things go smoothly in all social contact. Orientals have very thorough training in this department. They have systems of good manners which have been practiced for thousands of years. The Chinese 461Li-ki ("Ritual of Propriety") dates from the beginning of the Christian era. It is an elaborate text-book of correct conduct in all affairs of life. It is of universal application, except for details of the mode of life in China, and it shows the value of such a code and the use of the habits it inculcates. Chinese and Japanese are well-disciplined people in all the matters of conduct and social contact which are controlled by the mores.

From this point on it will be noticed that the codes to be mentioned are further removed from the sex mores.

491. Good manners. The Andamanese of all classes show great consideration for the very young, weak, aged, or helpless.1621 A white man gave liquor to a native man on the Chittagong hills. The latter insisted on giving some of it to the women first, but they required much urging before they would take it.1622 The Samoans have very polished manners. They had a court language.1623 The Betsileo on Madagascar have a careful etiquette about the houses of their chiefs, about proper conduct in those houses, and about the utensils there; also words are reserved for chiefs which others may not utter.1624 In East Africa any violation of etiquette towards a chief is summarily and severely punished, sometimes by death.1625 Many an A-Sande has lost a finger or his life for an innocent word spoken to the wife of a chief.1626 The Tunguses of Siberia have so much habitual politeness that Wrangell called them "the French of the tundra."1627 The Yakuts think it bad manners to give a big piece of meat to a poor guest and a little piece to a rich one. Good breeding, according to their code, calls for the opposite conduct.1628 A Fuegian husband, giving an order to his wife, out of courtesy tells her to give the order to some one else, although there is no one else.1629 Amongst North American Indians the modes of sitting or squatting for each sex are strictly prescribed.1630 Sapper says of the Central American Indians that when the white man asks a question he often gets 462no answer because he has neglected something required by etiquette. He once on a journey asked a Kekchi Indian to ask the way of an Indian whom they saw coming. This was improper, because not any one in the company might ask that question, according to Kekchi etiquette, but only the leader of the company.1631 Schweinfurth1632 rates the Dinka above Turks and Arabs in respect to table manners and decorum of eating. All recline on the ground around a bowl of food, each with a gourd cup in his hand, but they manage this primitive arrangement with constant care for propriety.

492. Etiquette of salutation, etc. The modes of expressing good will and the etiquette of meeting or visiting would be another large section under this head. What things are possible is shown by the report that a Tibetan host at a feast "expressed his respect for us and his appreciation of our remarks by rising to his feet and extending his tongue at full length."1633

493. Literature of manners and etiquette. Denecke1634 is able to trace an indigenous cultivation of good manners by literature from the eleventh century, when there was taught courtesy to women, although not the woman cult of a later time. He mentions a series of books down to the nineteenth century, which inculcated good manners according to the changing notions and standards of the times. In the second half of the thirteenth century it was taught in von Lichtenstein's Frauenbuch, a manual of manners and morals for women, that a woman should not salute a knight at his approach lest he infer favor. She was to be covered like a nun; she did not share in banquets and did not kiss guests whom she received; she shunned outside festivities and kept a good name. Knights then neglected women because they cared only for rude pleasures, drink, and hunting. Later, rules were made for the conduct of men.1635 The history of manners shows that what was inculcated in books never became real practice. The conquest of the art of eating with propriety was accomplished by the introduction of forks. Before that the bread 463was a tool with which to eat, and it required cultivated skill to handle it properly. Salt and mustard still presented problems, — knife or fingers? Each one brought his own knife.

494. Honor, seemliness, common sense, conscience. Honor, common sense, seemliness, and conscience seem to belong to the individual domain. They are reactions produced in the individual by the societal environment. Honor is the sentiment of what one owes to one's self. It is an individual prerogative, and an ultimate individual standard. Seemliness is conduct which befits one's character and standards. Common sense, in the current view, is a natural gift and universal outfit. As to honor and seemliness, the popular view seems to be that each one has a fountain of inspiration in himself to furnish him with guidance. Conscience might be added as another natural or supernatural "voice," intuition, and part of the original outfit of all human beings as such. If these notions could be verified, and if they proved true, no discussion of them would be in place here, but as to honor it is a well-known and undisputed fact that societies have set codes of honor and standards of it which were arbitrary, irrational, and both individually and socially inexpedient, as ample experiment has proved. These codes have been and are imperative, and they have been accepted and obeyed by great groups of men who, in their own judgment, did not believe them sound. Those codes came out of the folkways of the time and place. Then comes the question whether it is not always so. Is honor, in any case, anything but the code of one's duty to himself which he has accepted from the group in which he was educated? Family, class, religious sect, school, occupation, enter into the social environment. In every environment there is a standard of honor. When a man thinks that he is acting most independently, on his personal prerogative, he is at best only balancing against each other the different codes in which he has been educated, e.g. that of the trades union against that of the Sunday school, or of the school against that of the family. What we think "natural" and universal, and to which we attribute an objective reality, is the sum of traits whose origin is so remote, and which we share with so many, that we do not know when or how we 464took them up, and we can remember no rational selection by which we adopted them. The same is true of common sense. It is the stock of ways of looking at things which we acquired unconsciously by suggestion from the environment in which we grew up. Some have more common sense than others, because they are more docile to suggestion, or have been taught to make judgments by people who were strong and wise. Conscience also seems best explained as a sum of principles of action which have in one's character the most original, remote, undisputed, and authoritative position, and to which questions of doubt are habitually referred. If these views are accepted, we have in honor, common sense, and conscience other phenomena of the folkways, and the notions of eternal truths of philosophy or ethics, derived from somewhere outside of men and their struggles to live well under the conditions of earth, must be abandoned as myths.

495. Seemliness. Honor, common sense, and conscience can never be predicated of groups except by a figure of speech. The case with seemliness is different. That also is an individual trait. It is lighter and less definable than honor and propriety. The individual alone must decide what it is fitting for him to do or refuse to do. He will get his standards for this decision from his nearest social environment. Seemliness, however, can be predicated of a society. A civilized state may act in a seemly or unseemly manner, that is, in a way worthy of its history and character, or the contrary. Also the people of a group, in their unorganized acts, can obey unworthy motives and yield to impulses, groupwise, which are beneath the level of culture which they really have obtained, or belong to policies which are narrower than those by which they pretend to act.

496. Cases of unseemliness. The Assyrians were fierce, cruel, bloodthirsty, and pitiless. They have left, cut in the hardest stone, — it must have been by immense labor, — pictures of cruel tortures and executions and of immense slaughters. A king is represented putting out the eyes of prisoners. What the pictures reveal is the lust of conquest, the delights of revenge, and the ecstasy of tyranny. After Assurbanipal took Susa he broke open the tombs of the old heroes of Elam, who had in their day 465defeated the Assyrians. He desecrated the tombs, insulted the monuments, and carried the bones away to Nineveh. It was believed that the ghosts of these dead heroes would suffer the captivity inflicted on their bones, and sacrifices were made to them just sufficient to prolong their existence and suffering. This policy was pursued with all the ingenious refinements which the dogmas suggested, in order to glut the vengeance of the Assyrian king.1636 The Babylonians were peaceful and industrial, but the Persians combined with great luxury and licentiousness a fiendish ingenuity in torture and painful modes of execution. It is very interesting to notice in Homer criticism of conduct from the standpoint of taste and judgment as to what is seemly.1637 Homer thought it unseemly for Achilles to drag the corpse of Hector behind his chariot. He says that the gods thought so too.1638 He disapproved of the sacrifice of twelve Trojan youths on the pyre of Patroclus.1639 In the poems there are recorded many unseemly acts. Achilles spurned the prayer of Hector that his body might be redeemed, and wished that he could eat part of the body of his conquered foe. The Greeks mutilated the corpse with their weapons.1640 Agamemnon and Ajax Oileus cut off the heads of the slain.1641 Odysseus ordered twelve maidens who had been friends to the suitors to be put to the sword. Telemachus hanged them. Melantheus, who had traitorously taken the suitors' side, was mutilated alive, member by member.1642 Odysseus tells Eurykleia that it is a cruel sin to exult over a dead enemy, but the heroes often did it. This doctrine expresses the better sense of the age, but a doctrine which was beyond their self-control when their passions were aroused. The Olympian household must be taken to represent the society of the time, especially if we throw out the stories of the violations of the sex taboo which were often myths of nature processes or survivals of earlier mores. The Olympian gods show no dignity, magnanimity, or moral 466earnestness. They entertain mean sentiments of jealousy, envy, offended vanity, resentment, and rancor. They are divided by enmities and feuds. The females are frivolous and shallow; their fathers and husbands are often angry with them for levity, folly, disobedience, and self-will; but they have to remember that the goddesses are females and make the best of it with a groan and a laugh. The gods have great weakness for feminine grace and charm. They make allowances for the women, pet them, and despise them. There is some recognition of a possibly nobler relation of men to women, but it is only a transitory ideal. The goddesses get into difficulties by their intrigues and follies, but they avail themselves to the utmost of their feminine privileges to escape the penalties. They fool the gods. It reminds us of a modern French novel. We meet with the same sentiments, maxims, and philosophy. What were the gods for? They were superfluous and useless, or mischievous, but theology taught that they kept the whole thing going. They dealt meanly with men. Athena took the form of Deïphobus in order to persuade Hector to meet Achilles and be killed.1643 They sent dreams to men to mislead them. What can men do against that? They mixed in the fights of men, but availed themselves of their godship, if things went against them, and especially in order to get revenge for defeat. There was no chivalry or nobility of mind or behavior. It is plain that the gods are not idealized men. They are worse than the men. Von der March1644 has collected evidence that the heroes were savage, cruel, cowardly, venal, rancorous, vain, and lacking in fortitude, when compared with German epic heroes. It is far more important to notice that this evidence proves that the Greeks did not have, and therefore could not ascribe to the gods, a standard of seemliness above what these traits of the picture disclose. Since that is so, it follows that the standard of what is fit, seemly, becoming, good form, is a function of the folkways, or rather of class ways, since it is only selected classes who cultivate seemliness. Seemliness is a light, remote, and less important form of propriety. It is a matter of taste, and taste is cultivated by the folkways.

467497. Greek tragedies and notions of seemliness. We think it unseemly to criticise the ways of Divine Providence, and we refrain from it, whatever we may think. Since Christianity is no longer imposed by pains and penalties, we think it unseemly to assail Christianity in the interest of a negative or destructive philosophy. The Greeks of the fifth century B.C. had not these notions. They upbraided the gods for their ways to men and for their vices. The antagonisms of the mores were antagonisms of gods. In the Eumenides the most tragic consequences follow from the antagonism of the mores of the mother and father family. The Furies do not insist on the duty of Orestes to kill his mother, in blood revenge for the murder of his father, because they belong to the old system, in which the son was of the mother's blood; but Apollo, the god of the new system, orders it. A new doctrine of procreation has to be promulgated. "The mother does not procreate the son; she only bears and cherishes the awakened life." [Here we see how the doctrines are invented afterwards to fit the exigencies of new folkways.] Orestes obeys Apollo and is a victim. Since the command comes from a god, how shall the man not obey? To us it is a simple case of a common tragedy, that an individual is the victim of a great social movement. In the Herakleidæ, Alcmena urges that a war captive be slain. The king of Athens forbids that any one be slain who was taken alive. The former prevailed. The Athenian doctrine was new and high and not yet current. In the Ion Ion tells Zeus and Poseidon that if they paid the penalties of all their adulteries they would empty their temple treasuries. They act wrongly when they do not observe due measure in their pursuit of pleasure. It is not fair to call men wicked when they imitate the gods. Let the evil examples be blamed. In the Andromache horror is expressed of the folkways of the barbarians, in which incest is not prevented. In the Medea Jason, who is a scoundrel and a cur, prates to Medea about her gain in coming to Greece: "Thou hast learned what justice means, and how to live by law, not by the dictates of brute force." She had not learned it at all — quite the contrary. In the Hekuba it is said to be a disgrace to murder guests in Greece, and in Iphigenia amongst the Taurians the same doctrine 468is stated when Greeks are to be the victims of the contrary rule. "Barbarian" was a cultural category. To be Greek was to have city life with market place, gymnastic training, and a share in the games.1645 These were arbitrary marks of superiority such as the members of an esoteric corporation always love, but the time came when the Greek history contained so many shameful things that the Greeks ceased to talk of the contrast with barbarians. It was proposed to Pausanias that he should repay on the corpse of Mardonius the insults inflicted by Xerxes on the body of Leonidas. He indignantly refused.1646 The old laws of war put the life and property of the vanquished, and their wives and children, at the mercy of the conquerors, but the Greeks, when the Peloponnesian war began, felt the shame of this law as between Greeks. Therefore they sinned against their own better feeling when in that war they enslaved and slaughtered the vanquished. That they knew better is shown by the conduct of the Athenians towards Mytilene, in 427. At first all adult males were sentenced to death, and the women and children to slavery, but later this sentence was revoked. Cases also occurred in which the law of war was not followed, but the conquered were spared. By retaliation they inflamed their own passions and went on from bad to worse until there was a revulsion of pure shame. Lysander put to death three thousand Athenians, captives, after the battle of Ægospotami, as reprisals for the barbarities executed by the Athenians against Sparta and her allies. The allies wanted to exercise war law on Athens, but Sparta would not consent. To her then belongs the honor of fixing a new precedent. It was her duty to do so after the act of Lysander. Beloch thinks that science made the greater humanity of the fourth century.1647 It is more probable that it was due to a perception of the horror and shame of the other course. The parties in the cities, in the later centuries, were also guilty of excess, rancorous passion, revenge, and oppression. These cases come under the head of unseemliness in so far as they show a lack of sense of where to stop. That sense, especially in the political acts of democracies, must be a 469resultant, in the minds of men of the most numerous classes, from the spirit and temper of the folkways.

498. Seemliness in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages very great attention was given to seemliness in the private conduct of individuals. Moderation especially was to be cultivated. Women were put under minute rules of dress, posture, walk, language, tone of voice, and attitude. The guiding spirit of the regulations was restraint and limit.1648 Public life, however, was characterized by great unseemliness, and the examples of it are especially valuable because they show how necessary a sense of seemliness is to prevent great evils, although the virtue itself is vague and refined, and entirely beyond the field of positive cultivation by education or law. When the crusaders captured Mohammedan cities they showed savage ferocity. A case is recorded of a quarrel between a man of rank and a cook. The former proceeded to very extreme measures, and the cook, since he was a cook, could get no redress or attention.1649 In the fifteenth century a rage for indecent conduct arose. The type which the Germans call the Grobian was affected. Rudeness of manners in eating, dancing, etc., was cultivated as a pose. This fashion lasted for more than a century. In 1570 a society was formed of twenty-seven members, who swore to be nasty, not to wash or pray, and to practice blasphemy, etc. When drunk such persons committed great breaches of order, decency, etc.1650

499. Unseemly debate. The folkways of the Middle Ages were fantastic and extravagant. The people had their chief interest in the future world, about which there could be no reality. They lived in a world of phantasms. The phantasms were dictated to them upon authority in the shape of dogmas of world philosophy and precepts of conduct. In discussing the world philosophy and its application they attained to extremes of animosity and ferocity. Whether Jesus and his apostles lived in voluntary beggary; whether any part of the blood of Jesus remained on earth; whether the dead went at once, or only at the judgment day, into the presence of God, — are specimens of the questions they 470debated. The unseemliness was in the mode of discussion, not in the absurdity of the subject. They all went into the debate understanding that the defeated or weaker party was to be burned. That was the rule of the game. All the strife of sects and parties was carried on in unseemly ways and with scandalous incidents. The lack of control, measure, due limit, was due to the lack of reality. Torture, persecution, violent measures, would all have been impossible if there had been a sense of seemliness. The punishments, executions, and public amusements grossly outraged any human and civilized taste. The treatment of the Templars, although it was no doubt good statecraft to abolish the order, was a scandalous outrage. In the face of Christendom torture was used to extort the evidence which was wanted to destroy the order, without regard to truth and justice.1651 The crusades were extravagant and fantastic, and were attended by incidents of shameful excess, gross selfishness, venality, and bad faith. It is one of the most amazing facts about witch persecutions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that jurists did not see the unseemliness of their acts compared with the civilization of the period and the character claimed by their states. How was it possible for grave, learned, and honest men to go on torturing and burning miserable old women? It is not until the end of the seventeenth century that we hear of sheriffs in England who refused to burn witches. One of the most unseemly incidents in history is the execution of Damiens for attempting to kill Louis XV. The authorities of the first state in Christendom multiplied tortures of the extremest kind, and caused them to be executed in public on the culprit. The treatment of the Tories in the American Revolution was unseemly. It left a deep stain on our history.

500. Unseemliness of lynching, torture, etc. It is an unseemly thing and unworthy of our age and civilization that persons should be lynched for alleged crime, without the trial and proof which our institutions provide for. The arguments in defense of lynching (except on the frontier, where civil institutions do not 471yet exist) never touch on this point. It is unseemly that any one should be burned at the stake in a modern civilized state. It is nothing to the purpose to show what a wicked wretch the victim was. Burning alive has long been thrown out of the folkways of our ancestors. The objection to reviving it is not an apology for the bad men or a denial of their wickedness: it is the goodness of the lynchers. They fall below what they owe to themselves. Torture has also long been thrown out of our folkways. It might have been believed a few years ago that torture could not be employed under the jurisdiction of the United States, and that, if it was employed, there would be a unanimous outburst of indignant reprobation against those who had so disgraced us. When torture was employed in the Philippines no such outburst occurred. The facts and the judgment upon them were easily suppressed. The recognition of Panama was unseemly. It was unworthy of the United States. It was defended and justified by the argument that we got something which we very earnestly wanted.

501. Good taste. Finally we may notice here also the matter of taste. Good taste is the most subtle of all the codes of judgment which are cultivated by the mores. What we now consider good taste was violated in the dramas of the Greeks and Romans. This is entirely aside from obscenity or vulgarity. For instance, it does not appear that the author of the Medea appreciated the dastardly conduct of Jason. De Julleville1652 says that in the thirteenth century no one knew the distinction between good and bad taste. The assertion is fully justified. The mediæval people may have had good taste in architecture, stained glass, and hammered iron (as we are told), but their literature, administration of justice, and politics show that they lacked good taste, and also the case shows what a high protection against folly and error good taste is. This last office it shares with the sense of humor. The sports of that age were cruel. People found fun in the sufferings of the weak under derision and abuse. "The Middle Ages did not shrink from presenting as funny situations which were painful or atrocious, the horror of which we to-day could not endure." Although the age was 472full of religiosity, the extravagances of which ought to have been restrained by good taste, if it had existed, there was, on the other hand, no true reverence for what were "sacred things." The churches were put to uses which would to-day be considered improper. Parodies and caricatures of ecclesiastical persons, institutions, and ritual called out no remonstrance. Mock sermons were a favorite form of monologue in a theatrical entertainment. In a morality produced late in the fifteenth century, called Les Blasphémateurs, the actors tortured and wounded the figure on a crucifix. The Virgin and two angels came down to catch in a cup the blood which miraculously flowed from the body, but the actors kept on. "The hideous scene is interminable." Personalities were employed beyond all decent toleration, not only in theological disputes, but in political conflicts of all kinds. Of course the fanaticism of the age accounts for the extravagance of the acts and doctrines, and good taste seems to be only a trivial defense against fanaticism, but good taste consists largely in a sense of due limits, and if there had been a good code of social usage tempered by taste, it would have prevented many of the greatest scandals in the history, especially the church history, of the period. Buffoons had a share in the great "moralities," although they did not have a rôle in the action. Their function was to interject comical comments from time to time. The comments aimed to be witty, but were generally gross, coarse, and obscene. Late in the fifteenth century, in France, a buffoon recited a prelude containing licentious jests to an edifying morality called Charity.1653

502. Whence good taste is derived. Good taste is a more delicate and refined philosophy of action than any which have been mentioned above. It would escape from any attempt to formulate it, more completely than propriety or politeness. It floats in the ways of the group, and is absorbed by those who grow up in it. It is a product of breeding. We have a well-worn saying that there is no disputing about it. That is true, but for equal reason there is no disputing about decency, propriety, obscenity, or sex taboo. Good taste is a product of the group. It is 473absorbed from the group. Like honor, however, it calls for an individual reaction of assent and dissent, and becomes an individual trait or possession in the form which it ultimately takes.

503. The great variety in the codes. All the topics which have been treated in this chapter are branches or outreachings of the social code. They show how deep is the interest of human beings in the sex taboo, and in the self-perpetuation of society. Men have always tried, and are trying still, to solve the problem of well living in this respect. The men, the women, the children, and the society have joint and several interests, and the complication is great. At the present time population, race, marriage, childbirth, and the education of children present us our greatest problems and most unfathomable mysteries. All the contradictory usages of chastity, decency, propriety, etc., have their sense in some assumed relation to the welfare of society. To some extent they have come out of caprice, but chiefly they have issued from experience of good and ill, and are due to efforts to live well. Thus we may discern in them policies and philosophies, but they never proceed to form any such generalities as do rationally adopted motives. There is logic in the folkways, but never rationality. Given the premises, in a notion of kin, for instance, and the deductions are made directly and generally correctly, but the premises could never be verified, and they were oftener false than true. Each group took its own way, making its own assumptions, and following its own logic. So there was great variety and discord in their policies and philosophies, but within the area of a custom, during its dominion, its authority is absolute; and hence, although the usages are infinitely various, directly contradictory, and mutually abominable, they are, within their area of dominion, of equal value and force, and they are the standards of what is true and right. The groups have often tried to convert each other by argument and reason. They have never succeeded. Each one's reasons are the tradition which it has received from its ancestors. That does not admit of argument. Each tries to convince the other by going outside of the tradition to some philosophic standard of truth. Then the tradition is left in full force. Shocking as it must be to any group 474to be told that there is no rational ground for any one of them to convert another group to its mores (because this seems to imply, although it does not, that their folkways are not better than those of other groups), yet this must be said, for it is true. By experience and science the nations which by name are Christian have reached ways which are better fitted, on the whole, for well living than those of the Mohammedan nations, although this superiority is not by any means so complete and sweeping as current opinion in Christian countries believes. If Christians and Mohammedans come together and argue, they never make the slightest impression on each other. During the crusades, in Andalusia, and in cities of the near East where they live side by side, they have come to peace, mutual respect, and mutual influence. Syncretism begins. There is giving and taking. In Egypt at present the Moslems see the power of the English to carry on industry, commerce, and government, and this observation produces effect on the folkways. That is the chief way in which folkways are modified or borrowed. It was by this process that Greeks and Romans influenced the folkways of barbarians, and that white men have influenced those of negroes, Indians, Polynesians, Japanese, etc.

504. Morals and deportment. Different groups and different ages have differed much in the place in the social codes in which certain subjects have been placed; that is, for instance, as to whether the treatment of women by men should be put under morals, or under manners, or under good taste; whether public exhibitions deserved more attention than deportment, etc. For instance: "There is hardly a word, in the instructions of Plutarch, upon schools and schooling, but he alludes casually to the strange scenes which boys were allowed to witness, — criminals dressed up with robes and crowns, and presently stripped and publicly tortured; paintings of subjects so objectionable that we should carefully explain to the child the distinction between art as such and art as a vehicle of morals. On the other hand, deportment was strictly watched: for example, it was the rule not to use the left hand unless it were to hold bread at dinner, while other food was taken with the right; to walk in the street 475without looking up; to touch salt fish with one finger; fresh fish, bread, and meat, with two; to scratch yourself thus; to fold your cloak thus."1654

505. The relation of the social codes to philosophy and religion. Amongst the widest differences of opinion would be that on the question whether the social codes issue out of and are enthused by philosophy or religion. We are told that "for most men, actions stand in no necessary connection with any theoretical convictions of theirs, but are, on the contrary, independent of the same, and are dominated by inherited and acquired motives."1655 Why is this not true? Also, "the antagonism between the principles of our religion and our actual behavior, even of the faithful, as well as the great difference in the ethical views of different peoples who profess the same religion, sufficiently proves that the motives of our acts, and our judgments on the acts of others, proceed primarily from practical life [i.e. from the current mores], and that what we believe has comparatively little influence on our acts and judgments."1656 Religion and philosophy are components of the mores, but not by any means sources or regulators of them.

506. Rudeck's conclusions. A recent German writer on the history of public morality1657 says of the moral development of the German people that one cannot bear to contemplate it, because the people face the facts with absolute indifference. There is not a trace of moral initiative or of moral consciousness. Existing morality presents itself to us as a purely accidental product of forces which act without sense or intelligence. We can find all kinds of forces in history except ethical forces. Those are entirely wanting. There is no development, for development means the unfolding and growth of a germ according to the elements which it contains. The people allow all kinds of mores to be forced on them by the work of their own hands, that is, by the economic and political arrangements which they have 476adopted. The German people has no subjective notion of public morality and no ethical ideal for public morality. They distinguish only between good and bad mores (Sitten und Unsitten), without regard to their origin.

507. Rudeck's book is really a chapter in the history of the mores. The above are the conclusions which seem to be forced upon him, but he recoils from them in dismay. The conclusions are unquestionably correct. They are exactly what the history teaches. They ought to be accepted and used for profit. The fact that people are indifferent to the history of their own mores is a primary fact. We can only accept it and learn from it. It shows us the immense error of that current social discussion which consists in bringing "ethical" notions to the criticism of facts. The ethical notions are figments of speculation. Criticism of the mores is like criticising one's ancestors for the physique one has inherited, or one's children for being, in body and mind, one's children. If it is true of the German people that there is no moral initiative or consciousness in their tone and attitude towards their mores, they are to be congratulated, for they have kept out one great influx of subjective and dogmatic mischief. Other nations have a "nonconformist conscience" or a party of "great moral ideas," which can be caught by a phrase, or stampeded by a catching watchword with a "moral" suggestion. "Existing morality does present itself as a purely accidental [i.e. not to be investigated] product of forces which act without sense or intelligence," but the product is in no true sense accidental. It is true that there are no ethical forces in history. Let us recognize the fact and its consequences. Some philosophers make great efforts to interpret ethical forces into history, but they play with words. There is no development of the mores along any lines of logical or other sequence. The mores shift in endless readjustment of the modes of behavior, effort, and thinking, so as to reach the greatest advantage under the conditions. "The people allow all kinds of mores to be forced on them by the work of their own hands," that is, by the economic and political arrangements which have been unconsciously forced on them by their instinctive efforts to live well. That is just 477what they do, and that is the way in which mores come to be. "The German people has no subjective notion of public morality and no ethical ideal for public morality." Nor has any other people. A people sometimes adopts an ideal of national vanity, which includes ambition, but an ethical ideal no group ever has. If it pretended to have one it would be a humbug. That is why the introduction of "moral ideas" into politics serves the most immoral purposes and plays into the hands of the most immoral men. All ethics grow out of the mores and are a part of them. That is why the ethics never can be antecedent to the mores, and cannot be in a causal or productive relation to them. "The German people distinguishes only between customs and abuses [Sitten und Unsitten] without regard to their origin." They are quite right to do so, because the origin is only a matter for historians. For the masses the mores are facts. They use them and they testify that they are conducive to well living (Sitten), or the contrary (Unsitten). The men, women, and children who compose a society at any time are the unconscious depositaries and transmitters of the mores. They inherited them without knowing it; they are molding them unconsciously; they will transmit them involuntarily. The people cannot make the mores. They are made by them. Yet the group is at once makers and made. Each one may put into the group life as much as he can, but the group will give back to him order and determination from which he cannot escape. The mores grow as they must grow under the conditions. They are products of the effort of each to live as well as he can, and they are coercions which hold and control each in his efforts to live well. It is idle to try to get outside of this operation in order to tell which part of it comes first and makes the other. "Our age presents us the incredible spectacle that the dependence of the higher social culture on the economic development is not only clearly recognized by social science, but is proclaimed as the ideal." Social science does not proclaim this as an ideal. It does not deal in ideals. It accepts the dependence of culture on economic development as a fact. In fact, Rudeck is not justified in saying (p. 426) that "culture is the unity of the moral will in all the life phenomena of a people," 478and that "that people alone is a culture people which sets before itself, as the purpose of its entire existence, the production of the greatest possible amount of specified moral qualities." These are notions of culture and of a culture people which an ethical philosopher might think it fine should be. Rudeck has just found that no such things ever have existed in Germany; yet Germany possesses culture and the Germans are a culture people. He is really complaining that these fine ethical notions have never had any place in history. Such being the case, the true inference would be that they are unrealities and ought to be discarded altogether. Rudeck can find, in the eighteenth century, only one act of the state which had an improving effect on "external morals." That was the abolition of obscene playing cards, and this improving effect was not won intentionally, but as an incidental consequence of a tax which was imposed for revenue. The case is interesting and instructive. It is thus alone that the state acts. It needs revenue and lays a tax. Other consequences follow. Sometimes "moral" consequences follow. The Methuen treaty caused Englishmen to drink port instead of claret for a hundred and fifty years, to the great increase of gout and drunkenness. The statesman might well be appalled if he should realize that he probably never can lay a tax without effects on industry, health, education, morals, and religion which he cannot foresee and cannot control. In the case of the cards, the consequence was favorable to good morals. That consequence was the purest accident. The state went on its way and got its revenue. The people met the effect through the mores and made the best of it, just as they did with the effects of the Methuen treaty. The cases are useful for a statesman to consider, when he needs to get revenue and the question by what taxes to get it is yet in his mind and before him. When he has decided and acted it remains only to take the consequences, for, through the mores, they will enter into the web of life which the people are weaving and must endure. That web contains all the follies and errors, just as well as all the wisdom and all the achievements, of the past. The whole inheritance passes on together, including all the luck.

1380 Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVIII, 4.

1381 Darmstetter, Zend-Avesta, I, 100.

1382 Marsden, Sumatra, 52.

1383 Curr, Austr. Race, I, 109.

1384 Borneo's Wester-Afdeeling, 251.

1385 JAI, XII, 94, 135.

1386 Schultz, D. L., 283.

1387 Sieroshevski, Yakuty (Polish), 342.

1388 Holm, Angmagslikerne, 54.

1389 Fritsch, Eingeb. Süd-Afr., 444.

1390 Amer. Antiq., XXIV, 77.

1391 Une Femme chez les Sahariennes.

1392 Bancroft, Races of the Pacific, I, 123; II, 676.

1393 Kubary, Soc. Einricht. der Pelauer, 51, 55, 91.

1394 Palau, 65, 324.

1395 Cf. Christian, Caroline Isl., 290.

1396 JAI, XV, 8; U. S. Nat. Mus., 1888, 339.

1397 Duveyrier, Touaregs du Nord, 340, 429.

1398 Rubruck, Eastern Parts, 79, Rockhill's note.

1399 Sprenger, Geographie Arabiens, 97.

1400 Probably 31° E. 13-1/2° N.

1401 Wilson and Felkin, Uganda and Sudan, II, 309.

1402 On Tranquil., 17.

1403 Nich. Ethics., IV, 9.

1404 Ethik, 127.

1405 Umschau, VI, 52, after Haeckel, Aus Insulinde.

1406 Goodrich-Frear, Inner Jerusalem, 257.

1407 Il., XIV, 179; cf. Od., XVI, 416; XVIII, 210.

1408 Vambery, Sittenbilder aus dem Morgenlande, 49.

1409 Duveyrier, Les Touaregs du Nord, 391.

1410 Une Femme chez les Sahariennes, 310.

1411 Berl. Mus., 1888, 199.

1412 Nieuwenhuis, In Centraal Borneo, I, 48.

1413 Zimmer, Altind. Leben, 196.

1414 Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, III, 194.

1415 Herodotus, I, 100.

1416 Ratzel, Hist. of Mankind, II, 444.

1417 Von Kremer, Kulturgesch. des Orients, II, 247, 250, 269.

1418 De Civilit. Morum Pueril., I, 3, 9, 10.

1419 Genesis iii. 7.

1420 Berl. Mus., 1888, 431; cf. 191, 192, 195; also Globus, LXXV, 6; Ratzel, Völkerkunde, I, 225, 298; Berl. Mus., II, Plates II, III, XIII, XIV; Hutchinson, Living Races, 59; Jhrb. d. Dtschen Archeolog. Instit., 1886, 295.

1421 Waitz (Anthrop., VI, 567 ff.) gives a number of cases from the islands of the Pacific.

1422 Globus, LXXIX, 197.

1423 Krieger, Neu Guinea, 373.

1424 No ethnographic evidence is known to exist to prove that there is an original sentiment of disgust in regard to the organs (Ellis, "Evolution of Modesty," Psychol. Rev., VI, 134).

1425 Anthrop., VI, 575-576.

1426 Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, II, 284.

1427 Roth, Queensland Aborig., 114.

1428 JAI, XXIII, 368.

1429 Berl. Mus., 1888, 173.

1430 Holm, Angmagslikerne, Plates VII, XX, XXII.

1431 Afr. Cent., 155.

1432 Fritsch, Eingeb. Süd-Afr., 230, 311, 349.

1433 N. S. Amer. Anthrop., II, 470.

1434 Sieroshevski, Yakuty (russ.), 562, 570.

1435 Weinhold, D. F., I, 164.

1436 U. S. Nat. Mus., 1888, 257.

1437 Races of Man, 172.

1438 Illustrations of China, II, No. 39.

1439 Lane, Mod. Egyptians, I, 69, 266.

1440 JAI, XIV, 123.

1441 Ztsft. für Ethnol., XXVIII, 170.

1442 Berl. Mus., 1888, 65.

1443 Lewin, Wild Races of S. E. India, 87.

1444 Austral. Bush, 350.

1445 Johnston, Uganda Protect., 765.

1446 Deipnosophists, XII, 14.

1447 Austral. Race, 99, 183.

1448 Uganda and Sudan, I, 223.

1449 JAI, XIII, 290.

1450 Spencer and Gillen, Cent. Austral., 471.

1451 Finsch, Ethnol. Erfahr., I, 92; II, 298.

1452 Semper, Palau Ins., 68.

1453 Ling Roth, Sarawak, I, 133.

1454 JAI, XXIV, 292.

1455 Afr. Cent., 55, 264.

1456 Sahara and Sudan, II, 590.

1457 Johnston, Uganda Protect., 37, 114, 642, 685.

1458 Ibid., 728, 730.

1459 Papuas, 169.

1460 Puini, Origine della Civiltà , 147.

1461 Globus, LXXVI, 306.

1462 Vannutelli e Citerni, L'Omo, 294, 305.

1463 Fritsch, Eingeb. Süd-Afr., 59.

1464 Globus, LXXXV, 73, 311.

1465 Holub, Sieben Jahre in Süd-Afr., II, 293.

1466 Wilson and Felkin, Uganda and Sudan, II, 53.

1467 Ratzel, Hist. of Mankind, II, 469.

1468 Ling Roth, Tasmanians, 21, 144.

1469 JAI, XXI, 200.

1470 Berl. Mus., 1885, 60.

1471 Codrington, Melanesians, 321.

1472 Berl. Mus., 1888, 193.

1473 W. R. Smith, Relig. of Semites, 437. Whatever the purpose of the loin cloth of the ancient Egyptians may have been, it cannot have been decency. The monuments show men at work with the loin cloth turned hindside foremost as if to save it from wear (Meyer, Egypt, II, 116).

1474 Globus, LXXVIII, 5.

1475 Brunache, Afr. Cent., 207.

1476 Johnston, Uganda Protect., 781.

1477 Johnston, Uganda Protect, 853.

1478 Ibid., 220.

1479 Wilson and Felkin, Uganda and Sudan, II, 49, 96.

1480 E.g. JAI, XXIV, 255, 281.

1481 Spix and Martius, Brasilien, 1224; Martius, Ethnog. Brasil., 388.

1482 Schweinfurth, Heart of Afr., II, 104.

1483 Globus, LXXXVIII, 89.

1484 Schweinfurth, Heart of Afr., I, 152.

1485 South Africa, II, 590.

1486 Bock, Reis in Borneo, 78.

1487 JAI, XIX, 391.

1488 JAI, XXVIII, 208.

1489 Paulitschke, Ethnog. N. O. Afr., I, 80.

1490 Schmidt, Ceylon, 37.

1491 Gli Amori degli Uomini, 40.

1492 Madras Gov. Mus., II, 198.

1493 Ztsft. für Ethnol., XIV, (181).

1494 Baelz in Ztsft. für Ethnol., XXXIII, 178.

1495 Vererbung und Auslese, 281.

1496 Humbert, Japan, 269.

1497 Ibid., 295, 334.

1498 Japan, 13.

1499 Pacific Tales, 276.

1500 JAI, XXVI, 394.

1501 Finsch, Ethnol. Erfahr., III, 26.

1502 Schweinfurth, Heart of Afr., II, 98.

1503 Century Mag., January, 1904.

1504 JAI, XII, 135.

1505 Reisen in Siberien, IV, 1429.

1506 Holm, Angmagslikerne, 34, 50-56, 112, 117, 162.

1507 Scribner's Mag., February, 1895.

1508 Bur. Ethnol., V, 479.

1509 Ratzel, Völkerkunde, II, 663.

1510 Globus, LXXVIII, 272.

1511 JAI, XXVII, 410.

1512 Pereiro, La Isla de Ponape, 112.

1513 Reis in Borneo, 39.

1514 Powers, Calif. Indians, 55.

1515 Smithson. Rep., 1885, Part II, 86.

1516 Hinduism, 219.

1517 Weinhold, D. F., II, 259; Schultz, Höf. Leben, II, 168.

1518 Scherr, D. F. W., I, 191.

1519 Lund, Norges Historie, II, 246, 380.

1520 Scherr, D. F. W., I, 191.

1521 Weinhold, D. F., II, 115.

1522 D'Aussy, Fabliaux, IV, passim.

1523 Weinhold, D. F., II, 114.

1524 Lecky, Eur. Morals, II, 311.

1525 Hefele, Conciliengesch., III, 310.

1526 Weinhold, D. F., II, 117.

1527 Prutz, Kulturgesch. der Kreuzzüge, 528 note.

1528 Zappert in Arch. für Kunde der Oester. Gesch.-Quellen, XXI, 41, 82, 132.

1529 The queen of Charles VII of France (1422-1461) said that she owned but two chemises of linen (Clement, Jacques Cœur, 246).

1530 Oeffentl. Sittlichkeit, 399.

1531 Schultz, D. L., 136.

1532 Dulaure, Hist. de Paris, 268; Schultz, D. L., 277, 283; cf. Janssen, VIII, 391.

1533 Coryate's Crudities, II, 244.

1534 Finska Kranier, 118.

1535 D'Ancona, Origine del Teatro in Italia (1st ed.), I, 213, 218, 280, 375.

1536 Herodotus, I, 10.

1537 Lucius, Essenismus, 62, 68.

1538 Grupp, Kulturgesch. der Röm. Kaiserzeit, I, 24; cf. sec. 211.

1539 Siberien i Vore Dage, 146.

1540 Hearn, Japan, 188-200.

1541 Cf. sec. 462.

1542 Berl. Mus., 1888, 199, 302.

1543 Nieuwenhuis, Centraal Borneo, I, 146.

1544 Erman, Aegypten, I, 223.

1545 Jhrb. des Dtschen Archaeolog. Instit., 1886, 260; Arch. für Anthrop., XXIX, 136.

1546 On the connection of these see Bethe, Gesch. des Theaters im Alt., 299 ff.

1547 Reich, Der Mimus, I, 17, 29, 58, 93, 95, 258, 321, 496, 498, 626, 691, 733.

1548 Burckhardt, Arabic Proverbs, 115.

1549 Stieda, Infibulation, 23, 25, 36, 40, 44, 56, 66.

1550 Reich, 503.

1551 W. R. Smith, Relig. of the Semites, 457.

1552 Griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit, II, 574.

1553 W. R. Smith, Relig. of the Semites, 457.

1554 Bull., Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris, 1904, 404.

1555 Od., VIII, 332.

1556 Il., XIV, 334.

1557 Od., III, 464; IV, 49; VI, 15, 109, 276; Keller, Hom. Soc., 209.

1558 Od., VI, 136.

1559 JAI, XXIV, 444.

1560 Bur. Eth., III, 365.

1561 Smithson. Rep., 1885, Part II, 457.

1562 Afrika, III, 633.

1563 Burrows, Land of Pygmies, 85.

1564 JAI, XII, 355.

1565 Bishop, Korea, 341.

1566 Globus, LXXVIII, 263.

1567 Ibid., LXXXII, 192 ff.

1568 JAI, XI, 199.

1569 Pischon, Einfluss des Islam, 17.

1570 Kubary, Soc. Einrichtungen der Pelauer, 73, 90.

1571 Pfeil, Aus der Südsee, 48, 74.

1572 Globus, LXXXVII, 129, 130.

1573 Darinsky in Ztsft. für vergleich. Rechtswssnsft., XIV, 189.

1574 Russ. Ethnog. (russ.), 219, 225, 291, 340, 355, 358.

1575 Von Kremer, Kulturgesch. des Orients, II, 250.

1576 Ibid., 215.

1577 Exod. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15.

1578 Relig. of the Semites, 453.

1579 Sura XXIV.

1580 Tornauw, Mosl. Recht., 86.

1581 Burckhardt, Arabic Proverbs, 1.

1582 Sittenbilder aus dem Morgenlande, 16.

1583 The Churchman, September 2, 1905, 343.

1584 Goodrich-Frear, Inner Jerusalem, 57.

1585 This explanation is no doubt a product of later rationalization. The rule is a very ancient Semitic one, due to the old connection between sacrifice and commensality. W. Rob. Smith, Relig. of the Semites, 283.

1586 Hanoteau et Letourneux, La Kabylie, II, and III, 190, 237, 240.

1587 Duveyrier, Les Touaregs du Nord, 430.

1588 Russ. Ethnog. (russ.), II, 445.

1589 Holtzmann, Ind. Sagen, II, 267.

1590 Monier-Williams, Brahmanism and Hinduism, 396.

1591 Ibid., 376.

1592 Ibid., 375.

1593 Nivedita, Web of Indian Life, 14.

1594 Dubois, Mœurs de l'Inde (1825), II, 280, 329, 332, 334, 441, 476, 480.

1595 Nivedita, Web of Indian Life, 11.

1596 JAI, XXVII, 27.

1597 Lane, Mod. Egyptians, I, 265.

1598 Alec-Tweedie, Sunny Sicily, 265.

1599 Od., VI, 285.

1600 De Civilitate Morum Puerilium, I, 1, 3, 5, 52, 54.

1601 JAI, XXIV, 231.

1602 Crawley gives a list of cases (JAI, XXIV, 435).

1603 Ibid., 433.

1604 Austral. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1892, 660.

1605 JAI, XII, 344.

1606 W.R. Smith, Relig. of the Semites, 279.

1607 Berl. Mus., 1888, 66.

1608 Bent, Ethiopia, 32.

1609 Bastian, Loango-Küste, I, 262.

1610 Junker, Afrika, I, 156.

1611 Monier-Williams, Brahmanism and Hinduism, 128.

1612 Borneo, II, 168.

1613 Paulitschke, Ethnog. N.O. Afr., I, 248.

1614 Martius, Ethnog. Brasil., 96.

1615 Becke, Pacific Tales, 179.

1616 Denecke, Anstandsgefühl in Deutschland, VII.

1617 Lenient, La Satire en France au M. A., 310.

1618 De Maulde la Clavière, Femmes de la Renaissance, 320.

1619 Globus, LXXXV, 80.

1620 See Mallory in Amer. Anthrop., III, 201.

1621 JAI, XII, 93.

1622 Lewin, Races of S. E. India, 311.

1623 Austral. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1892, 630.

1624 JAI, XXI, 223.

1625 Ibid., XXII, 119.

1626 Junker, Afr., II, 481.

1627 Hiekisch, Tungusen, 68.

1628 Sieroshevski, Yakuty, (russ.), I, 440.

1629 Scribner's Mag., February, 1895.

1630 Globus, LXXIII, 253.

1631 Globus, LXXXVII, 128.

1632 Heart of Africa, I, 157.

1633 Century Mag., January, 1904.

1634 Anstandesgefühl in Deutschland.

1635 Denecke, XII.

1636 Maspero, Peuples de l'Orient, III, 436-439.

1637 Professor Keller calls my attention to a number of words used by Homer to subject conduct to this test of seemliness. It seems to be for him the standard of right.

1638 Il., XXII, 395; XXIV, 51.

1639 Ibid., XXIII, 164.

1640 Ibid., XXII, 338.

1641 Ibid., XI, 147; XIII, 102.

1642 Od., XXII, 441, 447.

1643 Il., XXII, 226.

1644 Völkerideale, I, Chap. I.

1645 Burckhardt, Griech. Kulturgesch., I, 314.

1646 Herodotus, IX, 78.

1647 Beloch, Griech. Kulturgesch.,I, 470, 594; II, 103, 107, 364, 441.

1648 Weinhold, D. F., I, 159-168.

1649 Schultz, Höf. Leben, II, 448.

1650 Denecke, Anstandsgefühl in Deutschland, XXI.

1651 Lea, Inquis., III, 238, 260, 319; Schotmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens, I, 625.

1652 Comédie en France au M. A., 21.

1653 De Julleville, 21, 74, 86, 89, 107, 304.

1654 Mahaffy, The Greek World under Roman Sway, 324.

1655 Schultze-Gävernitz in Ammon, Gesellschaftsordnung, 117.

1656 Schallmeyer, Vererbung und Auslese, 231.

1657 Rudeck, Gesch. der Oeffentl. Sittlichkeit in Deutschland, 422.

Site Menu | Home | Guestbook | Religion Menu | You, A Real Christian? | Christian Cliches | Christian Family Values | Forum | Email