“though almost naked, these natives have a great idea of modesty, and consider it extremely indelicate to expose the whole person.  If either a man or woman should be discovered without the ‘maro’ or ‘liku,’ they would probably be killed.”

Williams, the great authority on Fijians, says that “Commodore Wilkes’s account of Fijian marriages seems to be compounded of Oriental notions and Ovalan yarns” (147).  Having been a mere globe-trotter, it is natural that he should have erred in his interpretation of Fijian customs, but it is unpardonable in anthropologists to accept such conclusions without examination.  As a matter of fact, the scant Fijian attire has nothing to do with modesty; quite the contrary.  Williams says (147) “that young unmarried women wear a liku little more than a hand’s breadth in depth, which does not meet at the hips by several inches;” and Seeman writes (168) that Fijian girls

“wore nothing but a girdle of hibiscus fibres, about six inches wide, dyed black, red, yellow, white, or brown, and put on in such a coquettish way that one thought it must come off every moment.”

Westermarck, with whom for once we can agree, justly observes (190) that such a costume “is far from being in harmony with our ideas of modesty,” and that its real purpose is to attract attention.  As elsewhere among such peoples the matter is strictly regulated by fashion.  “Both sexes,” says Williams (143), “go unclad until the tenth year and some beyond that.  Chiefs’ children are kept longest without dress.”  Any deviation from a local custom, however ludicrous that custom may be, seems to barbarians punishable and preposterous.  Thus, a Fijian priest whose sole attire consisted in a loin-cloth (masi) exclaimed on hearing of the gods of the naked New Hebrideans:  “Not possessed of masi and pretend to have gods!”

The alleged chastity of Fijians is as illusive as their modesty.  Girls who had been betrothed as infants were carefully guarded, and adultery savagely punished by clubbing or strangling; but, as I made clear in the chapter on jealousy, such vindictive punishment does not indicate a regard for chastity, but is merely revenge for infringement on property rights.  The national custom permitting a man whose conjugal property had been molested to retaliate by subjecting the culprit’s wife to the same treatment in itself indicates an utter absence of the notion of chastity as a virtue.  Like the Papuan, Melanesian, and Polynesian inhabitants of the Pacific Islands in general, the Fijians were utterly licentious.  Young women, says Williams (145) are the victims of man’s lust;