There is one more important link in the chain of Darwin’s reasoning,
which must be broken before his theory of Sexual Selection can be
regarded as demolished. The mad antics of the blackcock and other birds
have been already referred to; and some of the lower animals seem to
endeavour to surpass them, as, for example, the male alligator, who
strives to attract the attention of the female by splashing and roaring
in the water; “swollen to an extent ready to burst, with its head and
tail lifted up, he spins or twirls round on the surface of the water,
like an Indian chief rehearsing his feats of war.” “To suppose,” says
Darwin, “that the females do not appreciate the beauty of the males, is
to admit that their splendid decorations, all their pomp and display,
are useless; and this is incredible.”
But are there no other ways of accounting for all this “pomp and
display”? Certainly, several of them. We have seen that the most
vigorous males are those which are most highly ornamented, and that it
is the vigour and vivacity of the males that seems to decide the choice
of the females where there is any. Now instinct, _i.e._ inherited
experience, teaches the female the connection between vigour and display
of ornament, and influences her choice accordingly. Again, the males
indulge in their display for the purpose of arousing the attention of
the passive female. This supposition is rendered the more probable by
Darwin’s admission that “we must be cautious in concluding that the
wings are spread out solely for display, as some birds do so whose wings
are not beautiful.”
A third motive of display is the need of finding an outlet for
overflowing nervous energy and excitement. To this Mr. Wallace refers as
follows: “At pairing time the male is in a state of excitement and full
of exuberant energy. Even unornamented birds flutter their wings or
spread them out, erect their tails or crests, and thus give vent to the
nervous excitability with which they are overcharged.” “It is not
improbable,” he continues,—and this suggests a fourth use of
display—"that crests and other erectile feathers may be primarily of use
in _frightening away enemies_, since they are generally erected when
angry or during combat."
A fifth motive of display is suggested by an analogy furnished by human
butterflies and birds of Paradise. Among animals where the sexes differ,
it is commonly the male who is adorned the most. With us it is the
women. But woman’s fineries are not intended to charm the eyes of men,
but to excite one another’s rivalry and envy. Now it seems that male
birds, with whose plumes our heartless women are so fond of decking
themselves, are guilty of an analogous weakness. They will sometimes
display their ornaments, says Darwin, “when not in the presence of the
females, as occasionally occurs with grouse at their holy places, and as
may be noticed with the peacock; this latter bird, however, evidently
wishes for a spectator of some kind, and, as I have often seen, will
show off his finery before poultry or even pigs. All naturalists who
have closely attended to the habits of birds, whether in a state of
nature or under confinement, are unanimously of opinion that the males
take delight in displaying their beauty.” And, once more, “with birds of
Paradise a dozen or more full-plumaged males congregate in a tree to
hold a _dancing-party_, as it is called by the natives; and here they
fly about, raise their wings, elevate their exquisite plumes, and make
them vibrate; and the whole tree seems, as Mr. Wallace remarks, to be
filled with waving plumes.”
But if it be the unanimous opinion of naturalists who have closely
studied the habits of birds, “that the males take delight in displaying
their beauty,” why should not the females also take pleasure in
witnessing this display? Perhaps they do, sometimes; for even Mr.
Wallace admits that “the display of the various ornamental appendages of
the male during courtship may be attractive” to the female. But there is
a world-wide difference between this assertion and the doctrine that the
females are so greatly and so constantly influenced by their æsthetic
taste that they always prefer among males those that are slightly more
beautiful than the others, thus increasing their personal beauty by
transmission. This is an assumption unsupported by facts, and rendered
unnecessary because Natural Selection accounts for all the phenomena in
question.
Admiration of Personal Beauty does not appear, therefore, to enter
noticeably into animal love, except in so far as a slight amount of
æsthetic taste may be admitted in birds. This taste may be strengthened
by the sight of the brilliant masculine ornaments during the season of
love being associated with the remembered pleasures of courtship.
Indirectly, however, female animals promote the cause of beauty by
preferring the more healthy and vigorous individuals, who are commonly
also the most beautiful ones. And is not the same true of females of the
human persuasion, who likewise are much less influenced in their choice
by the beauty than by the boldness, energy, vivacity, and “manliness” of
their suitors? It seems to hold true throughout nature that the female’s
Love is weak in the æsthetic element, her taste being little developed
and too often neutralised by unconscious utilitarian considerations.