Among the inhabitants of the islands of the Pacific we meet with apparent exceptions.  These natives are practically amphibious, spending half their time in the ocean, and are therefore of necessity clean.  So are certain coast negroes and Indian tribes living along river-banks.  But Ellis (Pol.  Res., I., 110) was shrewd enough to see that the habit of frequent bathing indulged in by the South Sea Islanders was a luxury—­a result of the hot climate—­and not an indication of the virtue of cleanliness.  In this respect Captain Cook showed less acumen, for he remarks (II., 148) that “nothing appears to give them greater pleasure than personal cleanliness, to produce which they frequently bathe in ponds.”  His confusion of ideas is made apparent in the very next sentence, where he adds that the water in most of these ponds “stinks intolerably.”  That it is merely the desire for comfort and sport that induces the Polynesians to bathe so much is proved further by the attitude of the New Zealanders.  Hawksworth declares (III., 451) that they “stink like Hottentots;” and the reason lies in the colder climate which makes bathing less of a luxury to them.  The Micronesians also spend much of their time in the water, for comfort, not for cleanliness.  Gerland cites grewsome details of their nastiness. (Waitz, V., Pt.  II., 81, 188.) The Kaffirs, says Gardiner (101), “although far from cleanly,” are fond of bathing.  In some other cases the water is sought for its warmth instead of its coolness.  In Brazil the morning air is much colder than the water, wherefore the natives take to the river for comfort, as the Japanese do in winter to their hot tubs.  All Indians, says Bancroft (I., 83), “attach great importance to their sweatbaths,” not for cleanliness—­for they are “extremely filthy in their persons and habits”—­but “as a remedial measure.”

Unless they happen to indulge in bathing for comfort, the lowest of savages are also the dirtiest.  Leigh writes (147) that in South Australia many of the women, including the wives of chiefs, had “sore eyes from the smoke, the filth, and their abominable want of cleanliness.”  Sturt (II., 53) refers to the Australian women as “disgusting objects.”  At funerals, “the women besmear themselves with the most disgusting filth.”  The naked boys in Taplin’s school “had no notion of cleanliness.”  The youths from the age of ten to sixteen or seventeen were compelled by custom to let their hair grow, the result being “a revolting mass of tangled locks and filth.” (Woods, 20, 85.) Sturt sums up his impressions by declaring (II., 126):  “Really, the loathsome condition and hideous countenances of the women would, I should imagine, have been a complete antidote to the sexual passion.”

CORPULENCE VERSUS BEAUTY

An instructive instance of the loose reasoning which prevails in the esthetic sphere is provided by the Rev. H.N.  Hutchinson, in his Marriage Customs in Many Lands.  After describing some of the customs of the Australians, he goes on to say: