ness of their ladies’ breath, only one, as far as I know, being blunt enough to say:
“And in some perfumes there is more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.”
But the sum and substance of Havelock Ellis’s exhaustive inquiry on this point is undoubtedly this, that if a lover loves the aroma of his lady, that is because of his love, not because of her inherent sweetness. In other words, the attraction, subtle though it be, at least in the early or romantic stage, is seldom or never obviously olfactory. It is the suggestion of closer intimacy that constitutes the attraction of her nearer environment, and this suggestion is the offspring of the lover’s imagination.
As to the influence of her personal emanation in the second, the realistic, stage, there also, it would seem, its power is subsidiary, certainly to that of touch, although more active than that of sight and hearing, seeing that the holy of holies is only unveiled in darkness and in silence.
As for our opinion in everyday life, I think most people will subscribe to the old adage “Mulier bene olet dum nihil olet.”
