by physiologists, psychologists, and ethnographists, few or no attempts
appear to have been made to reach a general synthetic statement of these
facts and suggestions. It is true that a great many unreliable, slight, or
fragmentary efforts have been made to ascertain the constitution or basis
of this emotion.[1] Many psychologists have regarded modesty simply as the
result of clothing. This view is overturned by the well-ascertained fact
that many races which go absolutely naked possess a highly-developed sense
of modesty. These writers have not realized that physiological modesty is
earlier in appearance, and more fundamental, than anatomical modesty. A
partial contribution to the analysis of modesty has been made by Professor
James, who, with his usual insight and lucidity, has set forth certain of
its characteristics, especially the element due to "the application to
ourselves of judgments primarily passed upon our mates." Guyau, in a very
brief discussion of modesty, realized its great significance and touched
on most of its chief elements.[2] Westermarck, again, followed by Grosse,
has very ably and convincingly set forth certain factors in the origin of
ornament and clothing, a subject which many writers imagine to cover the
whole field of modesty. More recently Ribot, in his work on the emotions,
has vaguely outlined most of the factors of modesty, but has not developed
a coherent view of their origins and relationships.

Since the present _Study_ first appeared, Hohenemser, who
considers that my analysis of modesty is unsatisfactory, has made
a notable attempt to define the psychological mechanism of shame.
("Versuch einer Analyse der Scham," _Archiv für die Gesamte
Psychologie_, Bd. II, Heft 2-3, 1903.) He regards shame as a
general psycho-physical phenomenon, "a definite tension of the
whole soul," with an emotion superadded. "The state of shame
consists in a certain psychic lameness or inhibition," sometimes
accompanied by physical phenomena of paralysis, such as sinking