In devoting a volume to the romance and folk-lore of Virginity, it may not be inappropriate first to examine the psychology of a word and a quality as magical as they are misused.

What is virginity? Is it the possession intact of that delicate piece of membrane, the poets’ ‘flos virginitatis,’ or is it some indescribable, intangible attribute in no sense dependent on physical perfection? Does it imply abstention from and ignorance of all sexual pleasures, or must it be a chastity which falls little short of stupid, even criminal, innocence?

To us moderns, blessed (or cursed) with a smattering of science, woman is virginal just as long as we know or believe her to be, physical qualities notwithstanding. By the poet of the past, the romanticist, the mediÆval lover, and the ignorant, physical as well as spiritual proofs were probably required or expected. To them, virginity was something tangible; to us it is not.

Nor is the reason far to seek. For while Havelock Ellis, the greatest authority on sexual psychology the world has known, describes the hymen as having acquired in human estimation a spiritual value which has made it far more than a part of the feminine body, ... “something that gives woman all her worth and dignity, ... her market value,” he goes on to point out that the presence or absence of the hymen is no real test of virginity.

“There are many ways,” he writes, (Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Philadelphia, 1914: vol. 5: Erotic Symbolism), “in which the hymen may be destroyed apart from coÏtus.... On the other hand, integrity of the hymen is no proof of virginity, apart from the obvious fact that there may be intercourse without penetration.... The hymen may be of a yielding or folding type, so that complete penetration may take place and yet the hymen be afterwards found unruptured. It occasionally happens that the hymen is found intact at the end of pregnancy.”1

And while the foregoing is the exception rather than the rule, it goes far to prove the fallibility of the physical, tangible test.

To most of us, virginity is a quality supposedly prized at all times and by all races. This is far from the case. As Havelock Ellis points out, (op. cit.), virginity is not usually of any value among peoples who are entirely primitive. “Indeed, even in the classic civilisation which we inherit,” he writes, “it is easy to show that the virgin and the admiration for virginity are of late growth; the virgin goddesses were not originally virgins in our modern sense. Diana was the many-breasted patroness of childbirth before she became the chaste and solitary huntress, for the earliest distinction would appear to have been simply between the woman who was attached to a man and the woman who followed an earlier rule of freedom and independence; it was a later notion to suppose that the latter women were debarred from sexual intercourse.”

A French Army Surgeon, Dr. Jacobus X—, (Untrodden Fields of Anthropology: Charles Carrington: Paris, 1898), has some interesting remarks on the subject, and we offer no apology for reproducing them at length. Writing on the “Unimportance of the signs of virginity in the negress,” he says:—

“The Negroes of Senegal do not attach, as the Arabs do, considerable importance to the presence of the real signs of virginity in young girls.... The non-existence of the material proofs of virginity seldom give rise to any complaint on the part of the husband.... Moreover, the size of the virile member of the Negro2 renders it difficult for him to detect any trick. The black bride, on the wedding night, shows herself expert in the art of simulating the struggles of an expiring virginity, and it is considered good taste for the girls to require almost to be raped. The least innocent young women are often the most clever at this game.

“Thus, throughout nearly all Senegal, the European, who has a taste for maidenheads, can easily be satisfied, provided he is willing to pay the price.3 At St. Louis women of ill-fame procure young girls, who bear the significant name of the ‘unpierced,’4 and vary from eight or nine years to the nubile age. It is even easier to obtain a young girl before she is nubile than afterwards, on account of the certainty of her not bearing any children. The price is within the range of all purses, according to quality, and you can have a negro girl, warranted ‘unpierced’ (belonging to the category of domestic slaves), for the modest sum of from eight to sixteen shillings. Of course, the respectable matron pockets half this sum for her honorarium....

“ ... The ‘unpierced’ soon lose their right to the title when they have to do with a Toubab, but, on account of the size of their genital parts, the loss of their maidenhead is not such a serious affair for them as it would be for a little French girl who was not yet nubile. I have never remarked in a little negress, who had been deflowered by a White, the valvular inflammation, which, with us, is noticed as the result of premature copulation before the parts are sufficiently developed.... If the reader will remember that the European, who is below the average dimensions in regard to his penis, is like a little boy in proportion to the negress of ten or twelve years old, it is not difficult to imagine that the negress he has deflowered can entirely take in the yard of the White, the dimensions of which are much less than that of the adult black.

“ ... When the girl has to do later with a negro husband, an astringent lotion will render the bride a pseudo-virgin. The deceived husband, not having the anatomical knowledge necessary to assure himself of the real existence of the signs of virginity, feels a difficulty in copulating, and is far from suspecting any trick.5

“Does not much the same kind of thing prevail also in Europe? How many girls who have been deflowered get married without their husband ever suspecting anything, although he has not the same physical disadvantages that the black has to prevent his seeing through the trick? Is it to this amorous blindness that the Greeks and Romans alluded when they represented Cupid with a bandage over his eyes? One is almost tempted to believe it.

“ ... In opposition to those who exact the virginity of the bride, there are others who attach no importance whatever to it.... The ancient Egyptians used to make an incision in the hymen previous to marriage, and St. Athanasius relates that among the Phoenicians a slave of the bridegroom was charged by him to deflower the bride.6 The Caraib Indians attached no value to virginity, and only the daughters of the higher classes were shut up during two years previous to marriage.

“It appears that among the Chibcha Indians in Central America virginity is not at all esteemed; it was considered to be a proof that the maiden had never been able to inspire love.

“In ancient Peru the old maids were the objects of high esteem. There were sacred virgins called ‘Wives of the Sun,’ somewhat similar to the Roman vestals.7 (The nuns of the present day, do they not style themselves the ‘Spouses of Christ’?). They made a vow of perpetual chastity.... It is also said they were buried alive when they happened to break their vow of chastity, unless indeed they could prove having conceived, not from a man, but from the sun.

“Several authors worthy of credence assure us that these vestals were guarded by eunuchs. The temple at Cuzco had one thousand virgins, that of Caranqua two hundred. It would appear, however, that the virginity of these vestals was not so very sacred after all, for the Inca Kings used to choose from among them concubines for themselves or for their principal vassals and favourite friends.

“Marco Polo narrates how young girls were exposed by their mothers on the public highway in order that travellers might freely make use of them.8 A young girl was expected to have at least twenty presents earned by such prostitutions before she could hope to find a husband. This did not prevent them from being very virtuous after marriage, nor their virtue from being much appreciated.9

“Waitz assures us that in several countries of Africa a young girl is preferred for wife when she has made herself remarked by several amours and by much fecundity. (C.f. Havelock Ellis, op. cit., vol.6: ‘Equally unsound is the notion that the virgin bride brings her husband at marriage an important capital which is consumed in the first act of intercourse and can never be recovered. That is a notion which has survived into civilisation, but it belongs to barbarism and not to civilisation. So far as it has any validity it lies within a sphere of erotic perversity which cannot be taken into consideration in an estimation of moral values. For most men, however, in any case, whether they realise it or not, the woman who has been initiated into the mysteries of love has a higher erotic value than the virgin,10 and there need be no anxiety on this ground concerning the wife who has lost her virginity.’)

“It was impossible,” continues Dr. Jacobus X—, “ever to find the signs of virginity among the Machacura women in Brazil, and Feldner explains the reason thus:—

“‘Among them a virgin is never to be found, for this reason: that the mother from her daughter’s tenderest years endeavours with the utmost care to remove all tightness of the vagina and obstacle therein. With this end in view, the leaf of a tree folded in the shape of a funnel is held in the right hand, then while the index finger is introduced into the genital parts and worked to and fro, warm water is admitted by means of the funnel.’ (Journey Across Brazil, 1828.)

“Among the Sakalaves in Madagascar the young girls deflower themselves, when the parents have not previously seen to this necessary preparation for marriage.

“Among the Balanti of Senegambia, one of the most degraded races in Africa, the girls cannot find a husband until they have been deflowered by their King, who often exacts costly presents from his female subjects for putting them in condition to be able to marry.

“Barth, (1856), in describing Adamad, says that the chief of the Bagoli used to lie the first night with the daughters of the Fulba, a people under his sway. Similar facts are related of the aborigines of Brazil and of the Kinipeto Esquimaux.

“Demosthenes informs us that there was a celebrated Greek hetaira, named MÆra, who had seven slaves whom she called her daughters, so that being supposed to be free a higher price was paid for their favours. She sold their virginity five or six times over, and ended by selling the whole lot together.

“The god Mutinus, Mutunus or Tutunus of ancient Rome used to have the new brides come and sit upon his knees, as if to offer him their virginity. St. Augustine says: ‘In the celebration of nuptials the newly wed bride used to be bidden sit on the shaft of Priapus.’ Lactantius gives more precise details: ‘And Mutunus, in whose shameful lap brides sit, in order that the god may appear to have gathered the first-fruits of their virginity.’ It appears, however, that this offering was not merely symbolical, for when they had become wives, they used to return to the favourite deity to pray for fecundity.11

“Arnobius also asks: ‘Is it Tutunus, on whose huge organs and bristling tool you think it an auspicious and desirable thing that your matrons should be mounted?’

“Pertunda was another hermaphrodite divinity that St. Augustine maliciously proposed rather to name the Deus Pretundus (who strikes first); it was carried on to the nuptial bed to aid the bridegroom: ‘Pertunda stands there ready in the bed-chamber for the aid of husbands excavating the virgin pit.’ (Arnobius.)

“The Kondadgis (Ceylon), the Cambodgians, and other peoples charged their priests with the defloration of their brides.

“Jager communicated to the Berlin Anthropological Society a passage from Gemelli Cancri, which mentions a stupratio officialis12 practised at a certain period among the Bisayos of the Philippine Islands: ‘There is no known example of a custom so barbarous as that which had been there established, of having public officials, and even paid very dearly, to take the virginity of young girls, the same being considered to be an obstacle to the pleasures of the husband. As a fact there no longer exists any trace of this infamous practice since the establishment of the Spanish rule, ... but even to-day a Bisayo feels vexed to find his wife safe from suspicion, because he concludes, that not having excited the desire of anyone, she must have some bad quality which will prevent him from being happy with her.’

“On the Malabar Coast, also, there were Brahmins whose only religious office was to gather the virgin flower of young girls. These latter used to pay them for it, without which they could not find husbands. The King of Calicut himself used to grant the right of the first night to a Brahmin; the King of Tamassat grants it to the first stranger who arrives in the town; whereas the King of Campa reserves to himself the jus primÆ noctis13 for all the marriages in the kingdom. (De Gubernatis, Histoire des voyageurs italiens aux Indes Orientales: Livourne, 1875.)

“Warthema says that the King of Calicut, when he took a wife, chose the most worthy and learned Brahmin to deflower the maiden; for this service he received from 400 to 500 crowns. At Tenasserim fathers used to beg of their daughters to allow themselves to be deflowered by Christians or Mohammedans.

“Pascal de Andagoya, who visited Nicaragua between 1514 and 1522, says that it was usual for a grand-priest to lie during the first night with the bride, and Oviedo, (1535), speaking of the Acovacks and other American nations, relates that the wife, in order that the marriage should be happy, passed the first nuptial night with the priest or piache, and Gomarra, (1551), relates the same thing of the inhabitants of Cumana.

“In Europe, young girls who are not very virtuous, and who have studied all the various forms of flirtation, are most generally passed off as virgins when they marry. Even when it does not really exist, there are many ways by which a virginity—which perhaps has been sold over and over again by expert and clever procuresses—can be simulated. A little time before going to the nuptial bed, the girl inserts into her vagina a few drops of pigeon’s blood; or in some cases she selects for her wedding day the last day of menstruation. A sponge, skilfully placed, allows the blood to flow at the moment of the catastrophe, when a sudden ‘Oh!’ announces to the unsuspecting husband that the temple has been violated for the first time, and that the veil of the sanctum sanctorum has really been rent by him. Add also to these methods injections so astringent that, at the required time, they will give to a prostitute, whose gap has been widened by a thousand customers, a tightness greater than that of a real virgin.”

The more one examines the question, the more one is convinced that virginity or chastity has come to be regarded as a spiritual and moral asset only in civilised, or comparatively civilised, society. “In considering the moral quality of chastity among savages,” writes Havelock Ellis (Studies in the Psychology of Sex, vol. 6, p. 147), “we must carefully separate that chastity which among semi-primitive peoples is exclusively imposed upon women. This has no moral quality whatever, for it is not exercised as a useful discipline, but merely enforced in order to heighten the economic and erotic value of women.

“Many authorities believe that the regard for women as property furnishes the true reason for the widespread insistence on virginity in brides. Thus A. B. Ellis, speaking of the West Coast of Africa (Yoruba Speaking Peoples, pp. 183 et seq.), says that girls of good class are betrothed as mere children, and are carefully guarded from men, while girls of lower class are seldom betrothed, and may lead any life they choose.”

Virginity in woman, it seems, has been set on a pedestal unsupported by history, science, or investigation. It is obviously the outcome of man’s desire, when he buys or acquires, to obtain unsoiled goods. Comes a time, however, when the value of these so-called unsoiled goods grows questionable. Something virgin, in terms of common sense, is not necessarily something valuable; here enters the thinking, and, ultimately, the erotic, element. Let a man fall to asking why he demands virginity, and he will speedily begin to realise that it is the last thing he requires. Virginity spells ignorance, awkwardness and obstacles; maturity means understanding and co-operation. Thus, by easy stages, we reach the conclusion, mentioned by Havelock Ellis and quoted above, that for most men, whether they realise it or not, the love-wise woman has a greater erotic value than the virgin.14

Quoting Westermarck (History of Human Marriage), he goes on to refer to the fact that the seduction of an unmarried girl “is chiefly, if not exclusively, regarded as an offence against the parents or family of the girl,” and there is no indication that it is ever held by savages that any wrong has been done to the woman herself.

“Westermarck realises at the same time,” adds Havelock Ellis, “that the preference given to virgins has also a biological basis in the instinctive masculine feeling of jealousy in regard to women who have had intercourse with other men, and especially in the erotic charm for men of the emotional state of shyness which accompanies virginity.”

Here, in all probability, are the most powerful reasons for the value placed on virginity; each reason, too, is highly practical. Who among us truly wants to share his most treasured possession? And the shy charm of virginity ‘neath the attack of the amorous lover is as undeniable as it is indescribable. Hence the virgin’s lure for the old and worn-out rouÉ, who finds in her shrinking reluctance a stimulant to his erotic prowess which sympathy, boldness, even lewdness, have no power to furnish. That quaint old book, “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure,” (London, 1780), gives a typical account of the attempt and failure of an aged rake to ravish the then virginal heroine of the story.15

At certain times and with certain peoples the virgin maid has been fenced about with all manner of safeguards up to the very hour of her marriage; but have these and other peoples ever troubled to preserve the virginity of their daughters as they were at pains to guard the chastity of their wives? What nation ever inflicted that ghastly contrivance, the Girdle of Chastity, upon its virgin daughters? This bar to erotic pleasure was reserved exclusively for the potentially froward wife.

Originating in the woollen band worn by the Spartan virgins16—a garment removed for the first time by the husband on the wedding night—these Girdles of Chastity, with their padlocks and keys, were undoubtedly in use in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and in use for an unmistakable purpose. “The first to employ this apparatus,” says Dr. Jacobus X—(Ethnology of the Sixth Sense: Charles Carrington: Paris, 1899), “was Francis of Tarrara, Provost of Padua in the fourteenth century. It was a belt having a central piece made of ivory, with a barbed narrow slit down the middle, which was passed between the legs and fixed there by lock and key. A specimen of this safety apparatus is to be seen actually at the MusÉe de Cluny in Paris.”

Dr. Caufeynon, the great authority on the subject, believes, however, that these girdles only date from the Renaissance.17 In his remarkable little work, La Ceinture de ChastetÉ (Paris, 1904), which contains numerous engravings and photographic designs, he gives an illustration of the specimen in the MusÉe de Cluny. Quoting BrantÔme (Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies), he adds:—

“In the time of Henry the king there lived an ironmonger who brought to the fair of St. Germain a dozen of certain machines to bridle the parts of women; they were fashioned of iron and went round like a girdle, and went below and were closed with a key. So cleverly were they fashioned that it was not possible for the women, when once bridled, to arrive at the sweet pleasure, there being but a few small holes in it for pissing.

“‘Tis said there were five or six jealous husbands, who bought these machines and bridled their wives with them in such fashion that they might well have said ‘Farewell, happy time,’ had there not been one who bethought her of applying to a locksmith very skilled in his art, to whom she showed the machine, her own, her husband being then out in the fields; and he applied his mind so well to the matter that he made for her a false key, with which the lady opened or closed the machine at any time and when she willed.

“The husband never discovered aught to say on the matter; and the lady gave herself up to her own good pleasure, despite her foolish, jealous, cuckold husband, being ever able to live in the freedom of cuckoldom. But the wicked locksmith who fashioned the false key tasted of it all; and he did well, so they say, for he was the first to taste of it.

“They say, too, that there were many gallant and honest gentlemen of the court who threatened that ironmonger with death did he ever presume to carry about such merchandise; so much so that he was afraid and returned no more and threw away all the rest, and no more was heard of. Wherein he was wise, for it were enough to lose half the world, for want of any body to people it, through such bridles, clasps and fastenings of a nature abominable and detestable and enemies to human multiplication.”

The troubadour Guillaume de Machault speaks of a key given to him by Agnes of Navarre; this key was obviously intended to unlock a girdle of chastity. Nicolas Chorier, in his erotic Dialogues of Luisa Sigea (Paris: Isidore Liseux, 1890), mentions the apparatus. Although the existence of such girdles has often been denied, “the presence of many undoubted specimens in several of the most important museums of Europe,” says Dr. Jacobus X—(Ethnology of the Sixth Sense), “places their authenticity beyond all doubt. This custom existed more particularly during the time of the Crusades, ... but a very curious instance is mentioned as having occurred as late as the middle of the eighteenth century, for it is recorded that the advocate Feydeau pleaded before the supreme court of Montpellier on behalf of a woman who accused her husband of making her undergo this shameful treatment. (Petition against the introduction of padlocks or girdles of chastity, Montpellier, 1750.)”

All this only goes to show that virginity and chastity are two very different things, and that the latter was obviously of more account than the former in the eyes of mediÆval man. Much the same obtains to-day. To a certain extent we seek to preserve the virginity of our daughters; but is there any limit to the precautions with which a jealous husband will fence about his wife? In short, virginity concerns alone her who loses it; is any man’s for the taking. Chastity is another person’s property.

This slight survey of virginity would be incomplete without a reference to the operation of infibulation18—the artificial adhesion of the labia majora by means of a ring or stitches with a view to the prevention of sexual intercourse. Kisch, (The Sexual Life of Woman: translated by M. Eden Paul: London: Wm. Heinemann), quotes the authority of Ploss-Bartels for saying that this operation is practised by many savage peoples, among them the Bedschas, the Gallas, the Somalis, the inhabitants of Harrar, at Massaua, etc.

“The purpose of this practise,” he adds, “is to preserve the chastity of the girls until marriage, when the reverse operative procedure is undertaken. If the husband goes away on a journey, in many cases the operation of infibulation is once more performed upon his wives. Slave-dealers also make use of this operation so as to prevent their slaves from becoming pregnant. It is reported, however, that the operation does not invariably produce the desired effect.”

Nothing we have said or quoted, however, can alter the fact that virginity has been and will always be a certain asset in civilised or semi-civilised communities. There is a romance attached to the term which neither cynicism nor materialism can kill. Incidentally, there is a strong business side to the question. Who, as we said before, wants to feel that his dearest possession has been shared by others? Who, in more modern parlance, wants damaged goods?

While life lasts, the virgin maid will lure the normal lover, common sense and cold facts notwithstanding. What the poet sang and the amorous swain coveted in those by-gone times of pomp and paganism, in the days of chivalry, and even in that dreary early Victorian era, will be sung and coveted centuries hence. Science, new discoveries, new theories, new ideals, new conditions, cannot oust human nature, our undeniable birthright. The sanctity and value of virginity are traditions; and, as Havelock Ellis says, in that singularly beautiful postscript to his Studies, “there can be no world without traditions; neither can there be any life without movement. As Heracleitus knew at the outset of modern philosophy, we cannot bathe twice in the same stream, though, as we know to-day, the stream still flows in an unending circle. There is never a moment when the new dawn is not breaking over the earth, and never a moment when the sunset ceases to die. It is well to greet serenely even the first glimmer of the dawn when we see it, not hastening toward it with undue speed, nor leaving the sunset without gratitude for the dying light that once was dawn.

“In the moral world we are ourselves the light-bearers, and the cosmic process is in us made flesh. For a brief space it is granted to us, if we will, to enlighten the darkness that surrounds our path. As in the ancient torch-race, which seemed to Lucretius to be the symbol of all life, we press forward torch in hand along the course. Soon from behind comes the runner who will outpace us. All our skill lies in giving into his hand the living torch, bright and unflickering, as we ourselves disappear in the darkness.”

Beautiful words, and fitting monument to a man who gave thirty years of his life to the production of a work that will live for all time. Hardly applicable to our present theme some, perhaps, will say. We take leave to differ. In the relations between man and woman all life is epitomised. Each bears the torch, and the race they run is the life they lead. To almost all is granted the chance to hand on the torch in living, breathing prototype.

Let us recognise new conditions, new ideas; let us welcome, examine and weigh them, that none may say we do not ‘greet serenely the dawn.’ But let us also remember that theory cannot oust fact, nor materialism human nature.

Down the ages man has altered in custom and habit, but in his spiritual essence not at all. Save for local and racial differences, humanity has shared the same passions of pain, sorrow, happiness, anger, laughter and lust throughout all time. Human nature alone does not change; our birthright is immutable. Human nature ever has, and ever will, set store by virginity. It has become a tradition. And without tradition, as the great psychologist has truly told us, there is no world.