CHAPTER XIVANIMAL DISPLAY
In a treatment of the relation between art and sexual life the facts must necessarily be classified under two different headings, namely, the influence of artistic activity upon sexual selection and the importance of erotic motives in works of art. These two points of view have indeed often been confounded with each other. But it will soon appear from the following how indispensable it is to maintain the distinction between them.
In modern literature there has scarcely appeared any treatise of the same importance, not only for the theory of art, but also for æsthetic proper, as the chapters on sexual selection inThe Descent of Man. As is well known, Darwin supposes a necessary connection between beauty and art. He takes it for granted that music, poetry, drama, and the rest chiefly aim at pleasing. When he sees that activities and forms, which at least technically correspond to the various kinds of art, are to be met with not only among the lower tribes of man, but even among some of the higher animals, he therefore explains these forms and activities as emanating from a conscious or unconscious endeavour to please through beauty. And for this endeavour he finds a reason inthe necessity of gaining preference in the favour of the female. By endowing the female with æsthetic attention and æsthetic judgment[262]he has been able not only to explain the appearance of art amongst savages and animals, but also to account for the importance of beauty in life.
In the foregoing arguments we have already with sufficient clearness pronounced our dissent from Darwin’s primary supposition. In the chapter upon the art-impulse we have tried to show that this tendency in its essence is something quite different from the tendency to “attract by pleasing.” But with all this theoretical argumentation it has of course not been proved that the endeavour of the males to win the favour of the females by singing, dancing, and other similar performances has exercised no influence on thehistoryof art. However little these activities may have to do with real art, they might, however, have afforded a raw material to be used by the art-impulse proper for its own purposes. In this connection it is necessary, therefore, to discuss the question, To what extent has æsthetic choice, exercised by either of the sexes in selecting a mate, favoured the development of artistic activities in the other sex?
The æsthetic theory of Darwin has its chief interest in the fact that it can be applied to the activities of animals as well as to those of men. Darwin himself has chosen the majority of his examples from bird life, and his critics have generally restricted the discussion to the zoological application of his thesis. As the data of animal psychology are less complicated than the corresponding facts in the mental life of man, it is in everyrespect advantageous to begin with this supposed animal art. When the illustrations are chosen from bird life the argumentation can, moreover, be handled with a freedom which would be impossible in discussing the delicate questions of human erotics and sexual life.
The theory of an appeal to some primordial æsthetic appreciation in the hen birds is one which, however well it may account for the beautiful plumage of some species and for the melodious singing of some others, necessarily must arouse objections from the point of view of comparative psychology. Æsthetic judgment presupposes a certain development not only of intellectual qualities, but also of moral self-restraint. In other words, it might be said that attention to beauty, whether manifested in forms or colours or sounds, always is what Ribot calls an “attention volontaire.”[263]It is hard to believe that the hen really has reached such a state of spiritual freedom that, when looking at the finery and the antics of her rival suitors, she could be able to bestow her attention upon the æsthetic qualities in the display. One has only to work out into all its details and consequences the idea of a bird who approves or disapproves the performance, and who, after balancing the merits of the various competitors, awards her prize to the one nearest her ideal of beauty, in order to realise the improbability, not to say the absurdity, of this avian connoisseurship. M. Espinas, who describes in detail the dilemma of the anxiously hesitating arbiter, has added nothing to the theory of æsthetic selection. But it may safely be said that his illustration of the thesis acts as a caricature of it.[264]
The improbability of an æsthetic judgment is yetmore palpable when one considers the state of mind in which the hen is likely to be on the occasion. It has indeed been contended with regard to some species—as, for instance, the satyr bird—that the hen behaves with a perfect calm and indifference during the display of the cock.[265]But it would be undoubtedly too rash to form any general conclusion on the ground of her outward show in some single instances. Amongst the wood-birds, on the other hand, the hens are known to be so excited during the “Balz” that they can easily be caught with the hands.[266]
To all thesea prioriobjections there may also be added the remark of Geddes and Thomson, that if the females of insects and birds had really called into existence all the detailed patterns on the dresses of their respective males by the exercise of æsthetic selection, they would possess more discrimination than is shown in their predilection for any sort of gaudy-coloured objects, such as pebbles, slips of paper, and rags.[267]
However great the psychological improbability of the supposed æsthetic selection, there is still more reason to take exception to it from an evolutionistic point of view. The female appreciation for gaudy and gorgeous dresses must necessarily, as Darwin himself remarks, in many cases give rise to a plumage, as a result of which the males become encumbered in their movements and easily discovered by their enemies.[268]Æsthetic judgment, which is in itself so incomprehensible, would thus have been developed in a continuous conflict with natural selection. This circumstance, more than anything else, makes it indispensable to look for some more utilitarian cause of the secondary sexual characters and activities than the hypothetical necessity of satisfying a sense of beauty in the female sex.
By the theory that has been advanced by Wallace, and further developed by Westermarck, the nuptial dresses of the males have indeed been accounted for in a simple way.[269]Reference to the need of recognisable marks for every different species can explain the most prominent characteristics in male plumage without any appeal to an æsthetic sense. This need, together with the equally great indispensability of protective colouring, must necessarily give rise to precisely such brilliant coloured spots on a monotonous or plain surface as are so often found on the bodies of the northern birds. The gaudier coloration of the tropical species, on the other hand, appears as a result of their more brilliant surroundings. Even here protective colouring often leaves to the colour of recognition only a narrow and limited space, on which this has to develop itself with so much the greater intensity. In this way one can find a reason not only for the decorations, which are beautiful according to our standard, but also for the inharmonious and glaring colour-combinations.
An adherent of sexual selection can, however, easily object that these theories, however sound and sensible they may be, still leave the main point in Darwin’s thesis quite unaffected. When trying to prove the existence of an æsthetic judgment in birds, he did not lay so much stress upon decorative plumage itself as upon the fact of its being displayed in the presence ofthe hen. If secondary sexual characters had their only purpose in facilitating recognition between individuals of the same species, then these elaborate performances would be quite superfluous. And this argument can of course be further strengthened by reference to the musical and dancing entertainments given by the males. Any theory which leaves these activities unexplained must therefore be regarded as incomplete.
In Mr. Wallace’sDarwinismdue attention has indeed been paid to pre-nuptial performances. But his explanation, viz. that the dancing and singing, etc., are only the effect of an inner impulse to movement and activity which accompanies sexual maturity,[270]can but incompletely unriddle the problem. For the purpose of affording an outflow to a surplus of vigour or of discharging a nervous tension, activities of a far simpler character would have been sufficient. As, however, amongst birds with gorgeous plumage every movement in the display tends towards exhibiting their splendour with the greatest possibleéclat, an influence upon the hen cannot be argued away. It is, as Darwin remarks, impossible to believe that the Argus pheasant, for instance, should have developed precisely such a curious and peculiar sort of dance, through which his beautiful dress is so effectively shown forth, if this dance had been of no effect upon its spectators.[271]This effect cannot, as has been shown above, be considered an æsthetic one. It is also difficult to believe that the hen, as it has been suggested, should appreciate the secondary sexual characters as signs of greater or smaller vital force, and thus prefer not the most beautiful, butthe most vigorous and ardent mate.[272]Whether it is founded on an æsthetic judgment or on an estimation of the force displayed, her conscious choosing seems to be alike improbable.
But if it is difficult to believe that the display of the males could call forth an intellectual activity in the hen, such as that of comparing and valuing the merits of the rival suitors,[273]one can safely assume that it might influence her emotional and instinctive life. And for the production of such an effect there is no need to suppose any intervening æsthetic activity. Considering the close parallelism which shows itself in the development of either sex, it would only be natural if a colour and voice alteration in the cock, which undeniably is dependent upon sexual ripening,[274]should directly and almost physiologically imply a reaction in the sexual life of the hen. The more energetically the male forces himself upon the attention of the female by the conspicuous visual and acoustic signs of his sex, the more powerful must necessarily be the emotional response in her.
If secondary sexual characters are interpreted in this way, as signs, by which the sex of the male is manifested in an unmistakable manner, then one can easily understand the influence of a prolonged display. When the cock is exhibiting his plumes or pouring forth his notes, and thereby impressing upon his female listener the notion of his malehood, he cannot but produce in her an enhanced inclination for pairing.[275]She needs no æstheticappreciation or intellectual judgment in order to comprehend the simple text of all his utterances. With all her instincts and impulses she can at once grasp the only thing she wants to know—the thing that is brought home to her with a greater and greater clearness during the continuation of his performance, namely, that the passionate actor in front of her is a mature representative of the other sex. And besides this, the secondary sexual characters and activities tell another tale of no less importance. If the colours and the tones of the cock, as Westermarck has shown, are of great consequence for facilitating from a distance recognition between members of the same species,[276]their biological significance is perhaps yet greater when they, during the display before the hen, accentuate the community of species. By virtue of her inherited constitution, the instinctive life of the hen will be deeper stirred the more the male is able to show that he “wears the feathers of her tribe.”
It is evident that the effect upon the hen must be greater in proportion as the sex marks and species marks of the male are more clearly defined, and therefore easier to perceive. Not only as means of recognition, but also as instruments for sexual incitement, colour-patterns with lucent points must be more advantageous than any other system of decoration. It is easily understood that a design like that on the tails of pheasants and peacocks is eminently capable of attracting the female attention to the displaying cock. But it would be stretching the theory too far if the marvellous “balls on sockets” were explained as nothing but conspicuous signals, the meaning of which the hen is able to decipher by help of her inherited instincts. Theinfluence of the display is amongst these species undoubtedly strengthened by an action which is quite independent of any sexual associations. Besides accentuating the sex and kind of the cock, these luminous spheres will, moreover, in virtue of their very smallness and brilliancy, provoke a stimulation in the mind of the hen before whom they are vibrated. To understand this effect, it is necessary to investigate the more general question of animal appreciation of brilliancy.
The powerful attraction exercised by lucent things can be sufficiently proved by numerous instances from the life of insects and fishes as well as of higher animals. It is needless to dwell upon the various means by which man has availed himself of this disastrous predilection in order to entice animals within reach of his weapons.[277]More important in this connection is the mania for collecting lustrous objects that has been noticed in the case of ravens, jays, magpies, jackdaws, goldfinches, chiff-chaffs, sea-pies, etc.[278]It has scarcely ever been suggested that the thievish jackdaw is prompted by anyæstheticliking for brilliant plate. But as it shows itself amongst the atlas birds and the bower birds, this exaggeration of the appropriative impulse has been regarded as an indication of artistic inclination. It has been contended that these birds not only appreciate shining and gorgeous objects, but even understand how to arrange them according to a decorative plan.[279]
No one will deny that structures, such as, for instance, the gardens of the atlas birds, which have been depictedby Beccari, are most wonderful specimens of animal industry.[280]But it is undoubtedly misleading to speak of them as artistic. As far as can be judged from the descriptions—which are seldom complete—the arrangement of the objects seems to be quite accidental. Darwin has indeed collected some most eulogistic accounts of the decorative taste of the Australian bower bird. But he has also, candidly enough, illustrated them with a picture, on which an irregular heap of shells and bones is to be seen in front of the bower. And the description he borrows from Mr. Strange is yet more significant. To judge from this account, which is further corroborated by the statement of Captain Stokes, the chief interest of the birds seems to be not the arranging of their treasures, but the playing with them. It has been noticed that the cock of the great bower bird amuses himself by flying to and fro in the bower carrying a shell in his bill, which he picks up on one side and carries to the other.[281]On an anthropomorphic interpretation such a behaviour would perhaps indicate a desire of trying some new decorative effect. But it seems more natural to assume that brilliant objects, even after they have been stored up in the nest, still exercise their irresistible attraction, and thereby tempt the birds to repeated trifling with them. If the supposed redecorations of the gardens be accounted for in this manner, then there is no reason for considering the collecting impulse in the Australian birds as anything more than a higher development of the same tendency which shows itself in our common magpies and jackdaws.
By the Australian instances, however, the generalpredilection for brilliant objects is brought into connection with the pairing dresses of pheasants, peacocks, and humming birds. The small and brilliant objects with which the bower birds play during their pairing season remind us irresistibly of the “balls on sockets” and of the ocelli designs of the colibri.[282]It is true that the pheasants carry on their tail what the Australian birds keep in their bill. But apart from this unimportant difference, the display seems to be the same in both cases. In Mr. Strange’s letter it is said that the cock, when performing the exalted antics that precede pairing, “runs to the bower, picks up a gaudy feather or a spotted leaf, pours forth some peculiar notes, and runs through the pavilion.” It is not quite clear from this wording whether the objects really are exhibitedbeforethe hen. But one may safely assume that she in any case has paid some attention to her consort’s performance. She has decidedly not, any more than the pea-hen, received any sort of æsthetic impression from the display. But the brilliancy has undoubtedly stimulated her, as it stimulates all the other birds quoted in this connection, in a purely physiological way. This action, on the other hand, is sufficiently explained by recent researches on the physiological effects which the contemplation of concentrated lustre produces on animal organisms. It is also well known that objects with exactly the same qualities as the ocelli on the peacock’s tail play an important part in hypnotic experiments. And the primitive shamans as well as the modern cultivators of “crystal-gazing” are acquainted with the peculiar effects of prolonged gazing on glass-balls or the shining surface of water. Morefamiliar still is the fascinating influence exercised by that lustrous little globe, the human eye.
In all these various examples the smallness of the object fetters the attention, and thereby makes the mind a defenceless prey to the images, feelings, and impulses which for the moment invade it. The lustre, on the other hand, will, to use the language of M. Binet, strengthen the intensity of these mental images.[283]There is no reason why these effects, which presuppose no sort of intellectual activity, should not take place in animals as well as in man. In the case of the peacock, therefore, the idea “male” will imprint itself with greater and more efficacy upon the mind of the hen when she is exposed on every side to the twinkling eyes on the expanded tail of her mate.
Even in the very cases that have been regarded as the most incontestable proofs of a taste for the beautiful, the influence on the hen can thus be explained as one which directly,i.e.without any æsthetic mediation, has served the interests of pairing. But it may still be asked, Whence the need of strengthening and intensifying the emotions in the female, which must already have been awakened by the mere presence of the male? This objection, however, is easily met by a reference to the psychological aspects of pairing. Throughout the animal kingdom the males have to conquer a resistance from the side of the females. This instinctive coyness, the importance of which for the maintenance of the species is incalculable and self-evident, constitutes by itself a sufficient cause for the supposed æsthetic characters and activities of the males.[284]It has made it necessary for them to have a stately carriage, whichmakes them bigger and more pompous than ever, and to display their bodies in flying tricks, or dances and antics,—in a word, to emphasise their sex as energetically as possible by colours and tunes and movements. And this necessity has, by means of anaturalselection, called forth a colouring which is not only easily recognisable from a distance, but which also forces itself on the senses when seen at close quarters.
The æsthetic judgment of the hen forms the pivot of the whole Darwinian theory. When it has been eliminated, it is therefore quite superfluous to controvert the assertion, which Darwin himself would not positively defend, that the performances of the males have originated in an artistic endeavour.[285]Once granted an instinctive coyness in the hen, which must be overcome by every possible means, one can easily understand that secondary sexual characters and activities would gradually appear in the males. The expressive movements in which they seek to relieve their nervous tension afford a material out of which natural selection will shape, as the most effective means of incitation, the various forms of display, or dance, or song. As is well known, Wallace,[286]Spencer,[287]and Hudson[288]have even contended that emotional pressure, or, as they put it, overflowing vitality, by itself constitutes a sufficient explanation of the “Balz.” In the above treatment of the question, which in its main points accords with the conclusive researches of Professor Groos, we have endeavoured to showthat the various sorts of display never could have reached their special and differentiated forms if it had not been for the necessity of overcoming female coyness. But, on the other hand, this necessity could never have created out of nothing all these complicated activities. It is difficult—perhaps even impossible—to make any general assertions about the relative importance of these two explanations.[289]The only point which it is necessary to bring out in this connection is that a sort of nuptial performance would have appeared amongst the males even independently of its influence upon the hen. The hygienic need of an outburst is one reason, and a very strong one indeed, for such motor manifestations. But it seems also as if their purpose ought not to be restricted to this cathartic effect. The “lek” of the wood-birds tends no doubt toincreasenervous force at the same time as it relieves the tension. M. Espinas thinks that the males, when collecting in great numbers during the pairing season, are led by an unconscious desire to stimulate their feelings by the view of other equally excited fellow-males.[290]Such an unconscious desire of enhancing nervous force probably lies also behind the inclination for brilliant objects and the trifling with them in the bowers.[291]That a sort of artificial stimulation really is necessary may perhaps be concluded from Brehm’s general remark about the sexual life of birds: “The pairing is often repeated, and still more often ineffectually attempted.”[292]In a private communicationto Groos, Professor Ziegler, the eminent zoologist, also refers to the increased nervous activity which is necessary for pairing, and the passionate preludes which precede it in so many animals.[293]
By these two principles, viz. the necessity of overcoming the instinctive coyness of the hen and that of stimulating the nervous system of the cock, it is, we believe, possible to account for all the secondary sexual characters and activities which in Darwin’s theory necessitated the hypothesis of an animal æsthetic. When the directly physiological importance of the nuptial preludes is acknowledged one can also, without appealing to the effects of association, explain the occurrence of a “lek” in birds who have already made their choice of mate.[294]And, on the other hand, we need not give up any one of the general results at which Darwin arrived in his researches. Although conscious selection on the part of the hen must be denied, the fact that she consents to couple only with the cock who has been able to stir her feelings better than any other, constitutes a kind of unconscious choice. It may seem unnecessary, therefore, to lay so much stress upon the theoretical inappropriateness of Darwin’s language. The æsthetical terms inThe Descent of Mancould easily be exchanged for more physiological ones without any important alteration in the main thesis of the book. And it must even be conceded that, owing to the extreme cautiousness which was such a remarkable peculiarity of Darwin, this substitution would not be required in more than a few passages. He himself often speaks of ornamental plumage as a means of “exciting,” or “charming,” or“fascinating” the females;[295]once he even restricts himself to saying that the hens “prefer, or are unconsciously excited by, the more beautiful males.”[296]From the biological point of view it would therefore be pretentious to claim any importance for this reformulation of the Darwinian theory. But, from what must be the dominating point of view in this work, it is by no means unnecessary to disentangle the confusion between æsthetic appreciation and physiological stimulation. The æsthetic corollaries, which are the most important in this connection, will be greatly modified as soon as the more physiological interpretation is applied to the various manifestations of animal art.
When Darwin chose to endow the hen with an aboriginal æsthetic judgment he was at once confronted by a difficulty which was perhaps even greater than that of locating the beginnings of art in the animal kingdom. The facts compelled him to admit that in some species this æsthetic judgment seemed to be a very bad one indeed.[297]When secondary sexual characters are regarded as signs by which the kind and sex of the males are accentuated, this apparent inconsistency is easily understood. The harsh cry and the inharmonious colouring of the macaw[298]tell their tale as eloquently and convincingly as any of the æsthetic characters of the other birds. The roaring of the battle bump,[299]the disagreeable miauling of the peacock, and the bleating call-note of the greenfinch[300]no doubt cause as great a pleasure in theirrespective hens as is ever caused by the song of the nightingale in his mate. That the secondary sexual characters of the birds on the whole are so much more beautiful than those of the mammals is not the result of any originally higher standard of beauty with their respective females. The superiority of the birds is quite sufficiently accounted for by the peculiar conditions of their life, which necessitate and call forth graceful shape as well as graceful movements. Their gorgeous colouring, on the other hand, is undoubtedly—as has been shown above—to some extent at least conditioned by the gaudy colouring of the tropical landscape. It must be remarked, moreover, that notwithstanding their undeniable splendour, the dresses of the birds by no means generally fulfil the claims of tasteful composition. When appreciating the plumage and the songs of the birds, we usually look upon them as pieces of nature. We admire them as we admire the woods and flowers and every other manifestation of nature and life. This attitude must necessarily be given up as soon as a conscious tendency is assumed in “animal art.” When we regard the secondary sexual characters in the manner of Darwin—as results of an æsthetic choice—we cannot help missing all the æsthetic qualities of harmony and composition, which are never expected, and therefore never missed, in the objects of nature. If the proper distinction between art and nature is maintained, it will be possible to combine an unabated admiration for the marvels of beauty in bird life with a denial of “animal art.”