[48] E.g., Letourneau, L’Evolution de la Morale, p. 146.

[49] Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes of Central Australia, p. 683.

[50] J.R.  Forster, Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World, 1728, p. 395.

[51] Westermarck (History of Human Marriage, Ch.  IX) ably sets forth this argument, with his usual wealth of illustration.  Crawley (Mystic Rose, p. 135) seeks to qualify this conclusion by arguing that tattooing, etc., of the sex organs is not for ornament but for the purpose of magically insulating the organs, and is practically a permanent amulet or charm.

[52] Iliad, II, 262.  Waitz gives instances (Anthropology, p. 301) showing that nakedness is sometimes a mark of submission.

[53] The Celtic races, in their days of developed barbarism, seem to have been relatively free from the idea of proprietorship in women, and it was probably among the Irish (as we learn from the seventeenth century Itinerary of Fynes Moryson) that the habit of nakedness was longest preserved among the upper social class women of Western Europe.

[54] A.B.  Ellis, Tshi-Speaking Peoples, p. 280.

[55] Burnet, Life and Death of Rochester, p. 110.

[56] L’Annee Sociologique, seventh year, 1904, p. 439.

[57] Tallemont des Reaux, who began to write his Historiettes in 1657, says of the Marquise de Rambouillet:  “Elle est un peu trop delicate ... on n’oscrait prononcer le mot de cul.  Cela va dans l’exces.”  Half a century later, in England, Mandeville, in the Remarks appended to his Fable of the Bees, refers to the almost prudish modesty inculcated on children from their earliest years.

[58] In one of its civilized developments, this ritualized modesty becomes prudery, which is defined by Forel (Die Sexuelle Frage, Fifth ed., p. 125) as “codified sexual morality.”  Prudery is fossilized modesty, and no longer reacts vitally.  True modesty, in an intelligent civilized person, is instinctively affected by motives and circumstances, responding sensitively to its relationships.

[59] Memoires de Madame d’Epinay, Part I, Ch.  V. Thirty years earlier, Mandeville had written, in England, that “the modesty of women is the result of custom and education.”

[60] Goncourt, Histoire de la Societe Francaise pendant le Directoire, p. 422.  Clothes became so gauze-like, and receded to such an extent from the limbs, that for a time the chemise was discarded as an awkward and antiquated garment.

[61] Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1901, Heft 2, p. 179.

[62] In the rural districts of Hanover, Pastor Grashoff states, “even when natural necessities are performed with the greatest possible freedom, there is no offence to modesty, in rural opinion.”  But he makes a statement which is both contradictory and false, when he adds that “modesty is, to the country man in general, a foreign idea.” (Geschlechtlich-Sittliche Verhaeltnisse im Deutsche Reiche, vol. ii, p. 45.)