A Brief History of Modesty by Abigail Williams - 2014

In the "New Covenant" made by our Creator God with humanity (Jeremiah 31:31-34) every person can know God from within - because the Holy Spirit is revealing our Creator to all who are willing to know the Lord and trust in Him. We can still help each other along the way; so may you be pleased to find here a variety of helps to the life of faith in God through Jesus Christ. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

👉 23.  A Brief History of Modesty by Abigail Williams - 2014 

In "Revue de la Société d'études anglo-américaines des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles" pp 135-156

1    The title of this essay conveys something of its content. As “A Brief History of Modesty,” it gestures towards a significant historiographical claim (a “history”) and also a rhetoric of reasonable humility (a “brief” history). It is a title which attempts to balance moderation and excess, and in this piece I shall argue that by looking at modesty as a key term or value in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we can start to unpick the complexities of the politics and aesthetics of measure and moderation. I shall show the way in which the evolving use of the word “modest” demonstrates tensions between naturalism, restraint and passion, and highlights the relationship between virtue, and the appearance of that virtue.

2    The word “modest” is a term that is everywhere in the long eighteenth century: in political rhetoric; aesthetic debate; new science and quantification; and in evolving ideas of gender and politeness. Looking at its semantic history in the OED, it is a word whose use and meaning has shifted considerably over time. For early twenty-first century readers, it most commonly signifies a personal attribute – having “a moderate or humble estimate of one’s own abilities or achievements” (“modest, adj.” def. 3a). But historically, its earliest meanings are closely related to the more general balancing of extremes. The use of the word modest in English comes from the Middle French adjective modeste, attested from the fourteenth century in the sense “Modéré, éloigné de tout excès”: moderate, free from excess (“modeste, adj.” def. 1). The English adjective is first recorded in the mid-sixteenth century, with the related sense of “[a]voiding extremes of behaviour; well-conducted, temperate; not harsh or domineering” (“modest, adj.” def. 1). The first citation in the OED comes from an expanded edition of Sir Thomas Elyot’s bilingual dictionary, Bibliotheca Eliotæ (1548), in which the Latin adjective modestus is defined as “temperate, well aduised, modeste, that vseth a meane in all his dooynges” (2T2r). Two centuries later, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary (1755) echoes this definition by rendering the fourth sense of modest as “Not excessive; not extreme; moderate; within a mean” (2: 16Q2v).

3    Everyone wants to be modest in the eighteenth century: the poet and clergyman Samuel Wesley defines modesty in his Epistle […] Concerning Poetry (1700) as a stylistic virtue: “STYLE is the Dress of Thought; a modest Dress, / Neat, but not gaudy, will true Critics please” (5). For Eustace Budgell, writing in no 373 (1712), modest assurance is intrinsic to gentlemanly behaviour: “what we endeavour to express when we say a modest Assurance; by which we understand the Just Mean between Bashfulness and Impudence” (405). Modesty is much admired in aesthetic form, and particularly, in architecture. We see, for example, that Oliver Goldsmith’s virtuous vicar in The Deserted Village (1770) has a house to match his social humility:

There, where a few torn shrubs the place disclose,

The village preacher’s modest mansion rose.

A man he was, to all the country dear,

And passing rich with forty pounds a year;

Remote from towns he ran his godly race,

Nor ere had changed, nor wish’d to change his place;

Unpractised he to fawn, or seek for power,

By doctrines fashioned to the varying hour[.] (139-46)

1  Given the etymology of the word, it is ironic that Tobias Smollett in his Travels should see no ev (...)

4    In Alexander Pope’s epigrammatic Essay on Criticism (1711), modesty is the perfect cover for the would-be literary critic: when in doubt, “Distrustful Sense with modest Caution speaks,” and in more inspired moments “modest Plainness sets off sprightly Wit” (lines 626, 302). It was something that every lady needed to be mistress of, as ‘T. C.,’ writing in the Lady’s Magazine, advised in 1775: “MODESTY, commonly mistaken for bashfulness, is a just medium for all our words and actions” (377). This idea that modesty is the “chief Ornament” of the female sex is also stressed in Spectator essays by Richard Steele and others, even as these writers warned that female modesty was being dangerously devalued in contemporary society. Yet modesty was not the exclusive preserve of women. It also characterised general polite behaviour, and was recommended by Budgell in Spectator no 197 (1711) as an essential element of good conduct in disputes: “if you are at any time obliged to enter on an Argument, give your Reasons with the utmost Coolness and Modesty, two things which scarce ever fail of making an Impression on the Hearers” (274). And above all, despite the fact that it originated in medieval France, modesty was quintessentially English: as Addison claimed in Spectator no 407 (1712), “MOST Foreign Writers who have given any Character of the English Nation, whatever Vices they ascribe to it, allow in general, that the People are naturally Modest” (520).1

5    In many ways, modesty is a term that encapsulates modern assumptions about the spirit of this period: an age of reason, order, and neoclassical restraint. The quotations I have given above suggest balance and propriety, values that had their uses in a whole range of contexts: in behaviour and social conduct; in argument; in specifically female virtue; in national identity; in the display of wealth and architecture. I shall begin by looking at the use of modest in the sense of temperate and restrained. This meaning is widely invoked in the rhetorical culture of the long eighteenth century, and it is here that we find some of the most obvious signs of the tension between modesty and excess. If we look at the vast number of seventeenth- and eighteenth- century titles containing the word modest, we begin to get some sense of the usefulness of the word: in the most crude measure, a search of the English Short Title Catalogue for modest and modeste brings up over 800 titles containing the adjective between 1561 and 1800. There are modest enquiries, modest pleas, modest proposals, modest apologies, and modest defences. A small sample of the use of modest in print titles in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries gives a sense of its rhetorical function:

A cleare, sincere, and modest confutation of the unsound, fraudulent, and intemperate reply of T.F. (1616)

A modest confutation of a slanderous and scurrilous libell, entituled, Animadversions upon the remonstrants defense against Smectymnuus (1642)

Bang as bang can; or, Wo be to the convocation. Being a modest defence of the present Bishop of Bangor (1717)

Calumny display’d: […] Being a modest and impartial reply to an impudent and malicious libel, intituled, A letter to a gentleman in Edinburgh, &c. (1740)

A modest and serious defence of the author of The whole duty of man, from the false charges and gross misrepresentations of Mr. Whitefield, and the Methodists his adherents (1740)

It is evident merely from these few, very random examples, that there is a common pattern in these titles – the modest claims of the author are pitched against the unreasonable and extreme forces and words of those he or she is writing against. Here, as elsewhere, there is a rhetorical symbiosis between modesty and excess – one is dependent on the other. This dependence is important. It is evident in many of the contemporary dictionary definitions of the word modest, which define it in negative terms – Samuel Johnson, we recall, gives one sense of the word as “[n]ot excessive; not extreme.” One cannot understand modesty without knowing its other, extremity or excess.

6    The rhetorical co-existence of the two poles is nowhere more obvious than in the flurries and skirmishes of contemporary political and religious print culture. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, thousands of satirical, polemical, and vituperative pamphlet exchanges were published. Their idiosyncratic and often dyspeptic arguments and counter-claims over matters of religion, politics, history, policy, and character created a noisy forum for contemporary debate. The pamphlet market that evolved during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was both a space for the exchange of ideas, and a very visible commercialisation of arguments and opinions. Mark Knights, writing of political discourse in late Stuart Britain, has argued that the polemical extremity of print culture was driven by the market: “[p]rinted polemic tended to polarize arguments, often favouring the irreverent or pugnacious expression of bold and uncompromising views, since fierce controversy sold better than quiet moderation” (236). Rhetorical extremity flourished in a competitive polemical arena, and within that, there was a special place for modesty. Modesty thrives in the intersection between money and ideas: it is a prized commodity in a bear market which is shaped by rhetorical excess. In the rowdy, competitive print arena of the late seventeenth century, most writers depicted themselves as lone voices of moderation and reason. However hysterical or immoderate one’s arguments might actually be, it was essential to pretend to be moderate and reasonable, and to paint one’s adversary as unrestrained by truth or conscience. The term modest was a crucial weapon in this rhetorical game of feigned logic, as we can see from its numerous uses in the titling of the pamphlet literature of the period.

7    Digging a bit deeper into the modest pleas and apologies of the era, we can see that the rhetorical restraint implied by the use of the word modest in a title is often supported by textual and paratextual gestures towards objectivity and order: within the pamphlets claiming to present a modest argument, there are enumerated points of debate, recurrent invocations of authorial humility, or a heavy use of the language of quantitative analysis – the phrase modest computation was especially popular.

8    It is within the context of these publications that we should view Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal – or to give it its full title, A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick (1729). Swift’s celebrated and shocking response to the economic crisis in Ireland advocates the alleviation of poverty and overpopulation by eating the children of the Catholic poor. A Modest Proposal is in itself a cleverly balanced exercise in measure and excess – a thin veneer of logic and ordered argument is layered over an hysterical anxiety about the state of Ireland and over the horrific idea of cannibalism. Setting out the rudiments of the scheme, Swift’s projector calculates the potential of human life; his posture of public-spirited rationality soon modulates into a rhetoric which isolates and dehumanises the “savage” poor:

I DO therefore humbly offer it to publick Consideration, that of the Hundred and Twenty Thousand Children, already computed, Twenty thousand may be reserved for Breed; whereof only one Fourth Part to be Males; which is more than we allow to Sheep, black Cattle, or Swine; and my Reason is, that these Children are seldom the Fruits of Marriage, a Circumstance not much regarded by our Savages; therefore, one Male will be sufficient to serve four Females. (111)

9    For some critics, the logical detachment of A Modest Proposal is an approach calculated to push privileged readers to address their own abdication of social duties towards the poor. Summing up this reading, James Ward has remarked that “it is by comparison with obscene normality that the Proposal achieves its modesty” (80). By exploiting the rhetorical symbiosis between modesty and excess, Swift prompts his readers to diagnose the corresponding and harmful symbiosis in reality between the inertia of the rich and the excessive suffering of the poor.

10    A Modest Proposal is now the only modest proposal that has survived the topical maelstrom of eighteenth-century pamphlet debate. It has become a byword for the satirical undercutting of the literature of political proposition. Robert Phiddian has argued that the Proposal “enters a deconstructive dialogue with its pre-texts,” blurring the boundaries between orderly and subversive discourse, and exposing the inhumanity of all logical and systematic thinking (21-22). But in many ways, A Modest Proposal works rather like Swift’s other famous prose satire, Gulliver’s Travels, in that it draws heavily on the forms it parodies. Gulliver’s Travels mocks the truth claims and outlandish inventions that were characteristic of contemporary travel writing; similarly, A Modest Proposal parodies the false humility and the contrast between modest claim and immoderate content that are established features of the discourse of contemporary pamphlets. Rather than seeing A Modest Proposal as a countercultural piece which uniquely exposes and recognises the fallacies of political argument, we might equally well see it as a text which emerges from a well-established tradition of pamphlet genres – the hundreds of modest pleas and modest arguments that we see listed in ESTC. They too were peddling the potent combination of rational argument and fantastical idea.

11    What A Modest Proposal highlights – and what that whole genre of modest pamphlets also highlights – is that because of the rhetorical utility and over-usedness of the term modest, it came to embody a semantic uncertainty. Modesty was everywhere and nowhere in eighteenth-century culture – it was the title of a hundred pamphlets, but evident in none of them. It was something that needed to be proclaimed, but not necessarily, in reality, to be exercised.

12    There was nothing new in this – we can trace suspicion about claims to modesty back to classical rhetoric. The Rhetorica ad Herennium (c.86-82 B.C.), formerly attributed to Cicero, was the most popular Latin rhetorical treatise of the early modern period, appearing under its own separate title in fifty unabridged editions and translations printed between 1470 and 1700 (Green & Murphy 124-26). It argues that modesty – in the form of an author saying that they are too modest to write – is in fact a sign of great arrogance:

For if modesty consists in saying nothing or writing nothing, why do they write or speak at all? […] It is as if some one should come to the Olympic games to run, and having taken a position for the start, should accuse of impudence those who have begun the race[. …] These Greek rhetoricians do likewise. When they have descended into the race-course of our art, they accuse of immodesty those who put in practice the essence of the art; they praise some ancient orator, poet, or literary work, but without themselves daring to come forth into the stadium of rhetoric. I should not venture to say so, yet I fear that in their very pursuit of praise for modesty they are impudent. (235, 237; IV. iii. 4-5)

13    So although I began by arguing that the terms modest and modesty played a crucial role in defining the balance between measure and excess, and were invoked by many as a kind of golden mean, neither too much nor too little, they were also terms which were apt to extend to denoting the mere appearance of those qualities. In classical rhetorical theory, there was a niggling sense that the claim to be modest was actually deeply immodest, a sleight of hand designed to secure one’s writing from accusations of vanity or self-interest. What we see in Swift’s Modest Proposal and the other modest pamphlets of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is a recognition of the importance of seeming modest. And over the course of the eighteenth century, the superficial role of modesty came to be perceived as no less important than the real thing.

14    This idea that modesty was an appearance, something that it was crucial to demonstrate, a thing of surface and perception, is evident in the historical usage of the word. As well as documenting the changing meanings of modest, the OED records some rarer uses of the word in compound forms, such as modest-looked, modest-looking, and modest-seeming (“modest, adj.” spec. uses). All these compounds illustrate the way in which modesty was coupled semantically with appearance. Modesty is in the eye of the beholder. And when we look at the uses of these terms there is often a gendered aspect to this idea of “appearing modest.” The OED’s first recorded use of modest-looking comes from Samuel Richardson’s Clarissa (1748), and more specifically from the pen of Lovelace, laying out his plan to trick Clarissa by enlisting two women to impersonate his well-bred relatives. Lovelace names one of the women as “my little Johanetta Golding, a lively, yet modest-looking girl” (5: 207). Johanetta is “ashamed of nothing but detection,” a pretender to the virtue and decorum underpinning female modesty. Yet Johanetta’s modesty, like her fellow actress’s respectability, is a fiction so powerful that she herself believes it: both women are “in their own conceit, when assuming top parts, the very quality they ape.”

15    Here we can see the way in which the notion of modesty as a thing of appearance, rather than substance, intersects with the gendered meaning of modesty, as sexual virtue. The second sense of modest in the OED relates primarily to female behaviour and dress: it is defined as “Of a woman: decorous in manner and conduct; not forward, impudent, or lewd; demure” (“modest, adj.” def. 2a.). Johnson is more particular in setting the sexual sense of modest apart from its more general connotations of good conduct and manners: the third sense given in his dictionary is “[n]ot loose, not unchaste” (2: 16Q2v). This meaning of modesty becomes increasingly dominant over the course of the eighteenth century. And this sense of modesty, I will argue, is also more complex than it initially seems. Modesty is both the defining quality of a virtuous woman, and a quality that can be feigned. This makes it a word vulnerable to a double reading.

16    The double-edged use of the word resonates throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For example, if we look at Milton’s uses of the word, we find very few, but those that are there tend to speak to this dual sense. There is one instance each of the words modest and modesty in Paradise Lost (1667; expanded 1674). The noun occurs in Adam’s description of his first encounter with Eve in book 8. Describing her virtuous demeanour, this is what he says of her:

Yet innocence and virgin modesty,

Her virtue and the conscience of her worth,

That would be wooed, and not unsought be won,

Not obvious, not obtrusive, but retired[.] (8.501-04)

In this context, Milton’s emphasis on modesty is tricky. In his edition of Paradise Lost, Alastair Fowler follows Dennis Burden in trying to explain away the problem by saying that Eve’s “modesty springs not from guilt but a sense of the ‘sole propriety,’ the exclusive privacy of love” (456). However, to read Milton’s description of Eve is to be reminded of the common connotations of modesty, as a pattern of learned, social behaviour, an art of seeming demure and chaste. Adam’s reference to Eve’s modesty and her consciousness of her worth, its social function, and the fact that she must be wooed seem to suggest that there is an artfulness in her demeanour that is not as innocent as it ought to be. Eve’s value is defined here in opposition to what it is not: sinfulness, or immodesty, or obviousness. It is also defined by competition amongst suitors, needing to pursue her. All of these definitions are meaningless in Paradise, where there is only innocence, where there is no sexual shame, and where there is only one man and one woman. Does modesty only have meaning in a fallen world? That was certainly what Bernard Mandeville thought. In his cynical dissection of contemporary morality in The Fable of the Bees (1714; expanded 1723), he takes special issue with the notion of modesty, and its perceived importance in contemporary society. One of his complaints about modesty is that it only has meaning in a social context – it has no meaning in a private situation, and is essentially a virtue that only exists or matters as perception:

But when we are by our selves, and so far remov’d from Company as to be beyond the reach of their Senses, the Words Modesty and Impudence lose their meaning; a Person may be Wicked, but he cannot be Immodest whilst he is alone[.] (72)

Mandeville’s conception of modesty exposes the moral hollowness of eighteenth-century social conventions, and highlights the dissonance which Milton risks by ascribing modesty to Eve. As Fowler puts it, the problem is that “many passions are only imaginable in fallen communities larger than two,” and modesty is one of those concepts (456). However, Milton’s wordplay harbours the potential to close this breach between fallen and unfallen worlds. Christopher Ricks has revealed how Milton uses words in their etymological or primary senses to recreate a “pre-lapsarian state of language,” shadowed by the post-lapsarian meanings more familiar to his audience (110). Thus, modesty, etymologically derived from the Latin modestus, meaning temperate, can be read as another of the Latinisms which in Milton’s poem chime with the earlier purity of language, without entirely letting go of its later corruption.

17    Milton’s sole adjectival reference to modesty in Paradise Lost comes in book 4, in his famous description of Eve’s appearance. Here he is, describing her hair:

She as a veil down to the slender waist

Her unadorned golden tresses wore

Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved

As the vine curls her tendrils, which implied

Subjection, but required with gentle sway,

And by her yielded, by him best received,

Yielded with coy submission, modest pride,

And sweet reluctant amorous delay. (4.304-11)

Many critics have noticed Milton’s choice of language in this passage: Eve’s “wanton” ringlets, “coy submission,” “sweet reluctant amorous delay,” and, interestingly for us, her “modest pride” – all of which have perfectly innocent seventeenth-century meanings, but which also connote a degree of sexual playfulness, a knowingness of the value of appearing to be reticent and modest. Once again, modesty is linked to artifice and artfulness in this, the primary inscription of unfallen woman. Feminist readers of Paradise Lost have seen in Milton’s depiction of Eve a conventional patriarchal construction of female sexuality, as both a God-given ornament and a force which requires control. Commenting on this passage, Catherine Belsey observes that Christian moralists from St Paul onwards have seen women’s hair as “at once a glory and a danger,” capable of both modestly concealing female sexuality and displaying its temptations (65). This is a fallen perspective, which, without trapping Eve in an anachronism that makes her sinfulness inevitable, foreshadows the loss of sexual innocence at the Fall.

18    For the purposes of my argument, this passage is important because it is symptomatic of a wider set of associations between modesty, restraint, naturalism, and artifice that we see elsewhere and later in eighteenth-century culture. When Milton uses the adjective modest in Samson Agonistes (1671), it is once again to describe a woman whose appearance is as a veil, signifying virtue while potentially concealing something else. Speaking of Delilah, after she has betrayed Samson, the Chorus says:

Seeming at first all heavenly under virgin veil,

Soft, modest, meek, demure,

Once join’d, the contrary she proves, a thorn

Intestin, far within defensive arms

A cleaving mischief [.] (1035-39)

Modesty is here very explicitly cast as a deception which is assumed, part of the feigning of female innocence. Milton was clearly worried about this aspect of female behaviour. In The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (1643), a tract advocating the radical reform of the laws prohibiting divorce, Milton had cautioned his readers to be aware of the false allure of modest demeanour: “who knows not that the bashfull mutenes of a virgin may oft-times hide all the unlivelines & naturall sloth which is really unfit for conversation” (249). Milton’s tone here and the voice of the Chorus in Samson Agonistes betray a profound suspicion of female behaviour, and of the construction of virtue. The unwary male can be tricked into the false appearance of modesty. In this context, modesty might be seen as part of a wider vocabulary of misogynistic criticism, the fear that women might not be as faithful, beautiful, or transparent as they seem on the surface.

19    Nowadays we use the phrase “false modesty” to describe behaviour which, by appearing self-effacing, is actually calculated to attract attention and acclaim. But in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, false modesty meant feigned virtue, something that was far more morally threatening. In A Treatise Concerning the Causes of the Present Corruption of Christians (1700), a translation from the French of the Swiss Protestant pastor Jean Frédéric Ostervald, “false Modesty” is invoked as one of the mainstays of sinful behaviour among the faithful (165). It is “that Shame, which hinders Men to do that which they know to be their Duty,” and it stems from the vanity of men striving to maintain their reputations in society: “The true Cause then of this false Modesty, is a feeble regard to Mens Judgment, and a fear of falling under their Contempt or Hatred” (166, 168).

20    Ostervald’s work suggests that – for men at least – the performance of false modesty is an effective safeguard against the condemnation of others, since “few People love or practise” Christian virtues in contemporary society (168). For women, however, the performance of modesty is far more strongly associated with sexual virtue, and more open to suspicion. The fourth and final definition of modesty in Johnson’s dictionary conveys the gendered meaning of the word, defining it as “[c]hastity; purity of manners” (2: 16Q2v). Each of the three quotations Johnson provides to illustrate this sense relate to women, and the first is an indictment of false modesty:

[…] Would you not swear,

All you that see her, that she were a maid,

By these exterior shews? But she is more,

Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty.

Of all the modesty in literary history, Samuel Johnson has chosen an instance in which once again, modesty is about appearance – false appearance. The quotation comes from Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (c.1598-99; printed 1600), and is part of Claudio’s speech interrupting his own marriage service to denounce Hero, his bride, as a whore (4.2.36-40). The whole scene is about the underlying carnality of women, the possibility that they can seem, and yet not be, virtuous. How does anyone really know what lies beneath a modest demeanour? Hero’s defence of her “maiden modesty” goes unheard in the onslaught of Claudio’s accusations, and the sign of modesty, her blushing, is interpreted as guilt (4.2.179).

21    The examples, from Much Ado and from Milton, betray an unease about the possibility of female trickery, the notion that modest behaviour might bely a voracious sexual appetite, or “a cleaving mischief.” Examples from Milton and Johnson echo this sense of concern about the dissimulation of modesty, defined as sexual virtue. In one of his Sermons to Young Women (1766), the celebrated preacher James Fordyce warns that among women the “more accomplished ensnarers” are not those who behave without decency or shame, but those who pretend to virtue:

[I]t must be owned, there are those of them [young women] who, […] without any remains of natural modesty, yet practise the art of feigning its decent demeanour; […] In this instance, no doubt, […] the operations of Nature may be counteracted by violence, and her most speaking features silenced by dissimulation. (1: 101-02)

22    But not everyone thought that this acting out of modesty was a bad thing. In the advice literature of the later eighteenth century we can also see a more pragmatic approach to the adoption of a modest behaviour. The Polite Lady: or, a Course of Female Education (1760) was a popular pedagogical handbook in epistolary form. Written by Charles Allen, it was published with the fictitious claim to be a collection of letters exchanged by a mother and her daughter at school. Allen’s considerate mother devotes one of her later letters to a discussion of modesty, which she defines as a performance that makes

Modesty, my Dear, is the outward expression of a pure and chaste mind: and therefore, every word you speak, every action you perform, every gesture of your body, every look of your eyes, every part of your dress; in fine, every thing, by which the inward dispositions of the mind can be expressed and discovered, comes under the regulation of this virtue. (213)

In practice, however, she acknowledges that modesty is just as much about maintaining decorum on the surface as it is about revealing the substance of a “pure and chaste mind”:

But, my Dear, modesty regards not only the matter of your conversation, but also the manner of it; not only what you say, but likewise how you say it. And, indeed, this is such an essential part of modesty, that it frequently appears more visibly in the manner of expressing a thing, than in the nature of the thing itself. (213-14)

She then goes on to give some very specific instructions on how to convey modesty in speech and gesture:

Nothing, my Dear, is more inconsistent with modesty, than to talk with a loud, shrill, and harsh tone of voice. This is very unbecoming, even in a man, but much more in a woman […] ’Tis the duty of a young lady to talk with an air of diffidence, as if she proposed what she said, rather with a view to receive information herself, than to inform and instruct the company. (214-15)

She moves on to gestures, another important signifier of modesty:

[Modesty] is expressed by a certain decent, graceful, and composed gesture, equally removed from the pert and forward air of impudence on the one hand, and the awkward and clumsy gait of sheepishness on the other: and to teach you this graceful gait, ought to be the principal, if not the only end of dancing. (216)

2  For discussions of ideas of modesty in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century culture, see Yeazell an (...)

23    According to this conduct book, modesty is about how you look, how you speak, how you convey your ideas (or not!) and how you dance. The idea that modesty is a form of learnt behaviour, a guise under which to seem virtuous or moderate is not exclusive to discussions of female or sexual behaviour. Most critics who have studied the notion of modesty in this period have focussed almost exclusively on female modesty.2 But modesty was also important in the understanding of social identity and social performance in general, and we find a lot of discussion of the role of modesty in speaking, acting and writing. So, for example, in An Essay on Criticism, Pope’s early ars poetica in which he establishes a series of Horatian precepts by which to judge literature, one of the most important qualifications for being a critic is modesty. He defines it in the following terms:

Be silent always when you doubt your Sense;

And speak, tho’ sure, with seeming Diffidence. (566-67)

3  Pope’s poetic maxims translated easily into advice genres – a quotation from Pope’s “Epistle to Co (...)

“Seeming diffidence” is a good way of describing the role of modesty here. Pope’s injunction to “speak […] with seeming Diffidence” also forms a precedent for The Polite Lady’s advice to “talk with an air of diffidence.”3 This performance of self-restraint inherent in modesty was not merely applicable to secular and social contexts. In his liturgical handbook The Sublime Reader (1784), the Reverend John Trusler provides instruction for worshippers in how to understand and participate in church services. Good conduct begins at the church door:

Your Entrance into Church should be humble, modest, quiet and sedate; remembering, you are treading upon hallowed ground, and in the presence of a Superior Being, who truly examines into the minutest parts of our conduct. (8)

24    Modesty was a social performance designed to convince others that one was virtuous, but also something to adopt for the inspection of an all-seeing God. Just as in Paradise Lost Milton described Eve in Paradise using language that could easily be construed as impure, so Trusler recommends that worshippers adopt a manner in church that could be seen as affected. Yet neither writer was advocating feigning innocence, but rather, bringing impure language and imperfect modesty into contexts where more innocent forms of language and modesty could be imagined, though not fully achieved.

25    What all these examples of modesty, innate and assumed, male and female, show is that there is a tension in the understanding of the concept of modesty in this period, which centres on the idea of naturalism and restraint. On the one hand, modesty is about the suppression of natural urges, passions, and ambitions. It is about veiling ambition in seeming diffidence; adopting a reserve which gives no hint of passion; voicing one’s deeply felt arguments and ideas in moderate and measured ways.

26    Yet on the other hand, modesty was also seen as profoundly natural, in contrast to the excesses of artifice. Shakespeare was crucial here, since the touchstone for this version of modesty in the eighteenth century was the repeated invocation throughout the period of Hamlet’s advice to the players to “o’erstep not the modesty of nature.” Having derided the excessive roaring and gesturing of actors capable of “o’erdoing” even the most haranguing characters, Hamlet continues:

Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance – that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature. (3.2.16-19)

In this passage, modesty is understood as natural behaviour and appearance, as opposed to the excesses and distortions of exaggerated acting styles. This quotation was cited again and again by eighteenth-century readers, who drew from it a sense of naturalism. They linked it to propriety of characterisation, of speaking and acting.

27    The resonances of the passage can be seen in the official souvenir engraving for the Stratford-upon-Avon Shakespeare Jubilee of 1769. The piece was created with the consent of the festival’s presiding genius, David Garrick, and modelled on a portrait which Garrick commissioned from Thomas Gainsborough in the Jubilee year. It shows the great actor-manager propping himself familiarly against a pedestal, on which sits a bust of Shakespeare and an inscribed scroll. Garrick gestures open-handed towards the inscription on the which is also inscribed on the engraving itself: “o’er step not the modesty of Nature.” On the left, a group of Shakespearean characters, including Ophelia and Sir John Falstaff, pay attention as Garrick presents Hamlet’s dictum. Given the prominence in this engraving of Hamlet’s advice not to “o’er step” proper bounds, it is ironic that all of its figures are seen in a complex exchange of roles. Hamlet’s instruction is presented as a decree from Shakespeare himself. Garrick, meanwhile, delivers Hamlet’s admonition not to his fellow actors, as might be expected, but to an audience of characters who appear to have stepped directly out of the eighteenth century’s collective Shakespearean imagination. Finally, as Michael Dobson explains, Garrick’s posture enables him to speak for Shakespeare himself, not simply as an actor delivering lines but also as an adapter of Shakespeare’s texts: “Garrick, speaking for the ghostly author, is Prince, Shakespeare’s characters merely the Players, for whom Garrick thus attains the authority to set down and insert as many speeches of some dozen or sixteen lines as he pleases” (171). Garrick’s apparent advocacy of the modesty of naturalistic acting can thus be seen as an assertion of his own authority to “o’er step” the role of actor and become Shakespeare’s editor and executor.

28    One of the contexts for understanding the great interest in Hamlet’s words in this period was the elocution movement of the 1760s and 70s, and the upsurge of enthusiasm for learning to read out loud. Of course, rhetoric had a long and well-documented history, and was the subject of numerous treatises from the Sophists onwards. What happened in the mid-eighteenth century, however, was that ideas about delivery and linguistic effect were repackaged in more accessible forms for aspirational audiences eager to acquire skills of self-improvement. Reading out a written text became a popular art form, hobby, spectator sport, subject of academic enquiry, and topic of satire. As book after book was churned out for eager readers and orators, Hamlet was on hand to give advice. In William Enfield’s The Speaker (1774), an anthology for students of elocution, which achieved wide popularity in Britain and America, would-be orators and readers-aloud are told to follow Hamlet’s stricture, whether their passions are simulated from life or from the theatre:

accustom yourself either to follow the great original itself, or the best copies you meet with, always however, “with this special observance, that you O’ERSTEP NOT THE MODESTY OF NATURE.” (xxiv-xxv)

29    John Raithby, the anonymous author of an epistolary manual for trainee lawyers, The Study and Practice of the Law Considered (1798), urges the recipient of his letters to present himself with confidence, “which, if not permitted to overstep the modesty of nature, produces no unpleasing effect” (82). Samuel Johnson’s great praise of Joseph Addison’s essays in his Life of Addison (1781) is that “He never ‘outsteps the modesty of nature,’ nor raises merriment or wonder by the violation of truth” (2: 677).

30    Modesty was not just about speaking and writing, and but extended to other aesthetic values. The Scottish judge and philanthropist Francis Garden, Lord Gardenstone, embarked on a European tour in his old age and published an account of his travels in the 1790s. In it, he described a visit to the church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome, where he saw Michelangelo’s marble statue of Moses:

Though I cannot much relish those collossal figures, which exceed the limits of truth; and to use Shakespeare’s expression, “Overstep the modesty of nature”; yet I could not help admiring the boldness of execution, and the striking expression of authority and displeasure conveyed in the figure and features of this remarkable statue. (3: 137)

31    In her preface to The Countess of Dellwyn (1759), Sarah Fielding shows how novelists more widely linked Hamlet’s notion of acting in accordance with the limits of what is natural and real with their own project of the accurate construction of realistic fictional characters:

If the Word Writing was substituted instead of Playing, the Speech in general would be full as applicable to the Author as the Player; and when the former deviates from the Paths of Nature, in either stopping short of her Mark, or wildly running beyond the Limits she prescribes, it is natural for the Reader, as well as for the Spectator at the Theatre, to join with Hamlet in his Observation, that “Some of Nature’s Journeymen have made Men, and not made them well; they imitate Humanity so abominably.” (1: viii-ix; the quotation from Hamlet refers to 3.2.32-34)

32    There is profound irony in all of these quotations of Hamlet, and of his advice. The first irony is that Hamlet’s words come from his advice to the players – that is, he is telling the actors how to pretend to be real. So the source is itself about feigning naturalism. And the second, related, irony, is that all the examples listed here are also about projections of identity: they are about the way one should perform when speaking lines in the drawing room, or the court room; they are about how one should construct characters in a novel; or about how Michelangelo should make his statues. So they are using a fictional character, who is giving fictional actors advice on how to seem more real, and they are using this advice to illustrate how people or writers or artists should act modestly in order to seem more authentic. The layers of meta-fiction, or perhaps it is meta-modesty, are bewilderingly complex. So we return full circle to the idea that modesty is a form of dissimulation, and that it is only by artfully dissimulating modesty that one can hope to appear “natural.”

*

33    What this short history of modesty shows is that all these terms, which seem to be in antithesis with one another – passion and restraint, or naturalism and artifice – are all, in fact, dependent on one another. Modesty in speech and conduct depends on excess for its meaning and value. Modesty is associated with nature, but naturalism in self-presentation, or artistic creation, depend on the artificial dissimulation of modesty. I have shown here that modest and modesty are key terms in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They are very useful terms, because they imply a sense of balance that can be translated into all kinds of different arenas. So we have seen how the word modest is useful as a way of suggesting rhetorical moderation; it is a key – and for many, the main – quality of female virtue, somewhere between coquettishness and prudishness. And it was also important to the understanding of self-projection and social performance. Yet in each one of these contexts, what we see is an acknowledgement, or sometimes an anxiety, that this virtue which was so often called innate or natural, was in many ways an act of dissimulation. Modesty was a virtue that was all about perception and performance – and that made it vulnerable to claims that it was nothing more than surface appearance. This is something we see coming through very strongly, for example, in Milton’s treatment of modesty. But the very importance of the appearance of modesty, the idea that it was something which could be performed, became increasingly useful in an era of such self-consciousness about how to act, and how to improve oneself. Modesty was both a profoundly serious criterion for understanding moral, aesthetic, political and social conduct in this period – and also a meaningless cliché, something that everyone talked about, and no one did. This sense of the link between modesty being everywhere and nowhere leads, in conclusion, to an epigram quoted by Alexander Pope in the second edition of The Dunciad Variorum (1729). Pope writes of James Moore Smythe who had plagiarised his work:

M–re always smiles whenever he recites;

He smiles (you think) approving what he writes;

And yet in this no Vanity is shown;

A modest man may like what’s not his own. (3: 2.46, note)

Bibliographie

Primary sources

Addison, Joseph. No. 407. The Spectator. Ed. Donald F. Bond. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. 520-23.

Allen, Charles. The Polite Lady: or, a Course of Female Education. London, 1760. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Budgell, Eustace. No. 197. The Spectator. Ed. Donald F. Bond. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. 271-75.

Budgell, Eustace. No. 373. The Spectator. Ed. Donald F. Bond. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. 403-06.

‘T. C.’ “An Essay on Modesty.” Lady’s Magazine; or, Entertaining Companion for the Fair Sex. No 6 (1775): 377-79.

Cicero, attrib. Ad C. Herennium De Ratione Dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium). Harry Caplan, trans. London: Heinemann; Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 1954.

Elyot, Sir Thomas. Bibliotheca Eliotæ: Eliotis Librarie. Rev. Thomas Cooper. London, 1548. Early English Books Online. Web. 27 February 2014.

Enfield, William. The Speaker. London, 1774. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Fielding, Sarah. The History of the Countess of Dellwyn. 2 vols. London, 1759. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Fordyce, James. Sermons to Young Women. 2 vols. London, 1766. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Gardenstone, Francis Garden, Lord. Travelling Memorandums, Made in a Tour Upon the Continent of Europe, in the Years 1786, 87 & 88. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1791-95. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Goldsmith, Oliver. Collected Works. Vol. 4. Ed. Arthur Friedman. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.

Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2 vols. London, 1755. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 1 April 2014.

Johnson, Samuel. The Lives of the Poets. Ed. John H. Middendorf. 3 vols. New Haven: Yale UP, 2010.

Mandeville, Bernard. The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits. 2nd ed. London: 1723. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 9 April 2014.

Milton, John. Complete Prose Works. Vol. 2. Ed. Ernest Sirluck. New Haven: Yale UP; London: OUP, 1959.

Milton, John. Complete Works. Vol. 2. Ed. Laura Lunger Knoppers. Oxford: OUP, 2008.

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Alastair Fowler. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1998.

“Modest, adj.” OED Online. Oxford UP, March 2014. Web. 1 April 2014.

“Modeste, adj.” Greimas, Algirdas Julien, & Teresa Mary Keane. Dictionnaire du Moyen Français: La Renaissance. Paris: Larousse, 1992.

Ostervald, Jean Frédéric. A Treatise Concerning the Causes of the Present Corruption of Christians, and the Remedies Thereof. Trans. Charles Mutel. London, 1700. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 11 April 2014.

Pope, Alexander. Poems. Vol. 1. Ed. E. Audra & Aubrey Williams. London: Methuen; New Haven: Yale UP, 1961.

Pope, Alexander. Poems. Vol. 3. Ed. Valerie Rumbold. Harlow: Longman, 2007.

Raithby, John. The Study and Practice of the Law Considered, in Their Various Relations to Society. London, 1798. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Richardson, Samuel. Clarissa. Or, the History of a Young Lady. 7 vols. London, 1748. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 9 April 2014.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Ann Thompson & Neil Taylor. Arden Shakespeare. Third series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

Shakespeare, William. Much Ado About Nothing. Ed. Claire McEachern. Arden Shakespeare. Third series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

Smollett, Tobias. Travels through France and Italy. 1766. Ed. Frank Felsenstein. Oxford: OUP, 1979.

Swift, Jonathan. Prose Works. Vol. 12. Ed. Herbert Davis. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.

Trusler, John. The Sublime Reader. 2nd ed. London, 1784. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 14 April 2014.

Wesley, Samuel. An Epistle to a Friend Concerning Poetry. London, 1700. Early English Books Online. Web. 1 April 2014.

Secondary sources

Belsey, Catherine. John Milton: Language, Gender, Power. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.

Dobson, Michael. The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Authorship, 1660-1769. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

Green, Lawrence D. & James J. Murphy. Renaissance Rhetoric. Short-Title Catalogue 1460-1700. Rev. ed. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.

Knights, Mark. Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart Britain: Partisanship and Political Culture. Oxford: OUP, 2005.

O’Brien, Karen. Women and Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: CUP, 2009.

Phiddian, Robert. Swift’s Parody. Cambridge: CUP, 1995.

Ricks, Christopher. Milton’s Grand Style. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.

Ward, James. “Which Crisis? The Politics of Distress in A Modest Proposal.” Swift Studies (2006): 76-86.

Yeazell, Ruth Bernard. Fictions of Modesty: Women and Courtship in the English Novel. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1991.

Notes

1  Given the etymology of the word, it is ironic that Tobias Smollett in his Travels should see no evidence of it in his experience of French society: “Modesty, or diffidence, I have already said, is utterly unknown among them, and therefore I wonder there should be a term to express it in their language” (57).

2  For discussions of ideas of modesty in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century culture, see Yeazell and O’Brien.

3  Pope’s poetic maxims translated easily into advice genres – a quotation from Pope’s “Epistle to Cobham” also appears on the title page of The Polite Lady: “ ’Tis Education forms the tender Mind, / Just as the Twig is bent, the Tree’s inclin’d” (“Epistle to Cobham” 101-02).

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Abigail Williams, « A Brief History of Modesty », XVII-XVIII, 71 | 2014, 135-156.

Référence électronique

Abigail Williams, « A Brief History of Modesty », XVII-XVIII [En ligne], 71 | 2014, mis en ligne le 17 mai 2016, consulté le 22 février 2021. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/1718/399 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/1718.399

Auteur

Abigail Williams

St Peter’s College, University of Oxford

Droits d’auteur

Creative Commons License

XVII-XVIII is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

https://journals.openedition.org/1718/399 

----------------------------------------------------------------

In the "New Covenant" made by our Creator God with humanity (Jeremiah 31:31-34) every person can know God from within - because the Holy Spirit is revealing our Creator to all who are willing to know the Lord and trust in Him. We can still help each other along the way; so may you be pleased to find here a variety of helps to the life of faith in God through Jesus Christ. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2006-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

MOD - Modern or Modest? - by Flavia Fernandes - Mumbai, July 2009

In the "New Covenant" made by our Creator God with humanity (Jeremiah 31:31-34) every person can know God from within - because the Holy Spirit is revealing our Creator to all who are willing to know the Lord and trust in Him. We can still help each other along the way; so may you be pleased to find here a variety of helps to the life of faith in God through Jesus Christ. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

👉 19.  MOD - Modern or Modest? - by Flavia Fernandes - Mumbai, July 2009

Scandals can come through various sources, e.g. profane paintings and sculptures, immodest dresses, loose lifestyles and even toys. All these may cause the loss of many souls. Immodesty in dress, apparent in everyday life, is the most common source of scandal. It is not only a major problem in our own times, but it is also one of the greatest stumbling blocks to our own salvation and to the salvation of others. Though modesty or immodesty is usually attributed to women, this is not entirely true, for even men may dress immodestly.

The heart of a person can be seen by how he/she attires his/her body. We have only to go back in time and reflect on how Satan duped our First Parents Adam & Eve, to see where we stand today.

Clothing has been in existence since time immemorial; in fact, since Adam and Eve. Before their fall it was Sanctifying Grace that covered their nakedness. Genesis 2:22-25 tells us “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame,” because God had created them in His own image and likeness: holy and pure; without sin, blemish, or guilt. Indeed, they were one with God and with each other.

After their fall, through the sin of Disobedience, they lost Sanctifying Grace, Integrity and Immortality: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons… (Genesis 3:7)

By violating God’s command, their whole being, body, soul and spirit, was profoundly affected by sin. Even after covering themselves with fig leaves, Adam was still hiding from God, because he was afraid on account of his nakedness. It is from this point on that the tale began of immodest dress, which, on account of fallen human nature, arouse the base passions of men and leads them into sin. Instinctively, therefore, Adam felt that his own and his wife’s nakedness needed to be covered.

We know that leaves are fragile and would disintegrate in no time, so they could not provide the required protection. Could it be that, since these aprons did not provide enough coverage in God’s eye, “the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them”? (Genesis 3:21)

If God had permitted nakedness, he would not have clothed our first parents. But God did want them to be clothed and so clothed them Himself! How misguided therefore are the nudists, who have created nudist colonies, thinking they are going back to nature.

It is obvious that in order to make garments of skins for our first parents, an animal had to be sacrificed to obtain the skin to cover them. This can be interpreted as being symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus the true lamb on the cross in expiation for sin.

From the pierced side of Christ flowed the sacramental life of the Church: From the Water which cleanses, there issued forth The Sacrament of Baptism, from the Blood, which gives life, there flowed the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Sacrament of Baptism is the first of all the Sacraments, because it makes us children of God, and because, without it, no other sacrament can be received. The white garment placed on the newly baptized signifies Sanctifying Grace that was lost as a result of Adam and Eve’s Original Sin. When the Priest lays the white garment on a baptized person he says: “… you have become a new creation and have clothed yourself in Christ. See in this white garment the outward sign of your Christian dignity. With your family and friends to help you by word and example, bring that dignity unstained into the everlasting life of heaven.”

Thus it has become our duty to help others by word and example, particularly by our modesty, to keep their souls unstained. How much will we be held accountable on judgment day, if by our immodest dress, we have been the cause of the downfall of others! On the other hand, how much shall we be blessed for having been, by our modest dress, a source of good example to others!

Those who have had the misfortune of giving bad example, thus wounding souls and exposing them to eternal perdition, should take care to make reparation in this world, in order to avoid being subjected to a most terrible expiation in the next. It was not in vain that Jesus Christ cried out, “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!” (Mathew 18:7)

There was a time in history, not all that long ago, when ladies adorned themselves in apparel, which was feminine, yet graceful and altogether modest. But as years went by, the decline of our society greatly influenced the fashion industry. And so immodest fashions came into being, created by the spiritually depraved, who were eager to lead others along the same road!

Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel or Coco Chanel, as she was popularly called, was a dancer, actress and cabaret singer, before she went into designing hats and then women’s clothing. She had affairs with certain wealthy men, who financed her fashions. She created women’s clothing made out of wool jersey (stretchy knit fabric, not woven), which had been used only for men’s underwear, and she used it to make clingy dresses.

Luis Reard, a French automotive engineer who was running his mother’s lingerie business, created a two-piece “atom-sized” swimsuit for women. He named it ‘Bikini’ after the testing site, Bikini Atoll, of the atomic bomb in the Pacific Ocean. His choice of the name is so apt as the bikini too has an appalling destructive nature – destruction of Souls. Since the bikini was so tiny, none of the models in Paris would wear it on the fashion runways. So Reard hired Micheline Bernardini, whose regular job was a nude dancer at the Casino de Paris. She had “no qualms” about strolling down the runway in this bathing suit.

We now live in an age where, in the name of modernity and progress, so many people have lost all sense of modesty. Satan has duped the world via the media and carnal standards around us that nakedness is not only uncovered, but actually exalted! Another ploy of Satan is seen in clothes that fully cover the body but are so form-fitting and/or transparent that it is as if the body is fully exposed. Many Clothing Houses all over the world follow the dictates of Satan creating apparel to kill the soul. The aprons that Adam & Eve made of fig-leaves would put these apparels to shame. Fashion shows propagate such sinful apparel, which are blindly followed. We see the effects in almost all walks of life – dancers, singers, actors, sportsmen & sportswomen, cheerleaders, royalty, etc and the common people.

Different dress codes like casual, formal, informal etc. have been created by the world for different occasions like sports, meetings, funerals, receptions and even for audiences with Kings and Queens. What about the dress code “Modesty” that should be followed when we go to Church or Chapel? There is a sacred tradition dating back to biblical days that the Lord should be worshipped in holy attire – “Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name; worship the Lord in holy array” (Ps.29:2). The Church is a holy place where God himself, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, dwells in our midst: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Wearing immodest clothing in Church makes a mockery of this holy place. With what audacity do we find the King of Kings insulted in his own House by His own people who come immodestly clothed? How often our Churches on Sundays, on Solemn Feast Days of Christmas and Easter look like a fashion parade! How often do we also see the garments worn by the godparents/relatives of the child being baptised, 1^st communicants, Confirmation candidates, brides and their attendants sadly lacking in modesty.

Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Sacra Propediem on January 6, 1921 (which is relevant even today):

“One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Hoy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passion to the Holy Altar, where one receives the Author of Purity.”

This story is told of Archbishop Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) when he was Papal Nuncio in Paris (France) : He was invited to a dinner at which also a very immodestly dressed woman was present. Conscious of this open insult to his dignity as representative of the Vicar of Christ, he decided to give her a mild rebuke. After dinner, he approached the woman with an apple from a bowl of fruit and offered it to her. She replied that she had eaten sufficiently. The Cardinal, however, persisted saying gently, “But I do think you should eat this apple. The woman asked, “Why should I eat it?” The Papal Nuncio replied, “Madam, it may help you to eat the apple. It was only after Eve at the apple that she realized she was naked!”

In our days too, do many people realize they are half naked? Today, how many Catholics dress immodestly and no one seems to bother or warn them. Indeed, the road to hell is far smoother and more attractive today than ever before. Many ignore God’s Word in the Bible about modesty. Maybe that is why He has sent Our Lady time and again to warn against immodest fashions.

Our Lady revealed to Blessed Jacinta, one of the three seers of Fatima: “Fashions will be introduced, which will offend Jesus very much”.

On 25.5.1970 at San Damiano, Italy, Our Lady told Mamma Rosa Quattrini:- “Pray, pray for young people, because so many of them, by their way of life, are on the road of sin, on the road to impurity, which cause the loss of many souls. With their immodest fashions, they make heaven and earth tremble… Listen, young people, listen to Me, your Heavenly Mother. Listen to Me, while there is still time, for when you will present yourselves at God’s Tribunal, what will become of you?”

In the Marian Movement of Priests, which was established by Our Lady, She urges the faithful who support Her Movement to follow “An austere manner of life by repudiating styles which are ever increasingly provocative and indecent.” (Msg.26 Nov.1, 1973)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, herself the epitome of Modesty, would be the very BEST model of Modesty for a woman to imitate and St. Joseph her most chaste Spouse would be the BEST model for a man to imitate. In all her apparitions all over the world, Our Lady appears modestly clothed.

She is also the BEST model for mothers to imitate, when it comes to training their children in modesty. Catholic Tradition tells us that Jesus’ tunic, “woven without seam from top to bottom” (Jn.19:23) was woven by her. Now, as a loving and concerned Mother, She offers us Her treasured garb, the Brown Scapular. It is a holy garment that joins us to Mary in a mystical union. All Catholics should take advantage of this spiritual armour, which so perfectly shields us from the wiles of the wicked one. When we place ourselves under Her Blessed Mantle, we should consciously observe chastity, according to our state of life. By all means we should avoid wearing immodest clothing, for that would amount to a sacrilegious use of Her Scapular.

Jesus was stripped of the modest clothing Our Lady had made for Him, when, by the brutal scourging, the fury of Hell vented itself upon His Sacred Body. Truly He was bruised for our iniquities, for our immodesty, sensuality and immorality.

When meditating on the 10^th Station of the Cross – “Jesus was stripped of his garments” :

We should remind ourselves that Jesus submitted to this ignominious suffering in order to atone for our immodest way of dressing.

We were bought with a price and hence should glorify God in our bodies (ref.1Cor.6: 19-20)

We should resolve to take corrective action to bring back Christian modesty in dress.

Mod – Modern or Modest? (Part II)       By Flavia Fernandes, Mumbai, July 2009

Guidelines for Modest Clothing

In order to take corrective action in regard to immodest dress, it is necessary to know and understand why people indulge in wearing such clothes:

Lack of knowledge of Scripture, weak faith and refusal to follow God’s commands.

The desire to look modern, attractive and acceptable to Society and/or to one’s peer-group.

Imprudent parents who accustom their children to live scantily clothed and so lose their sense of modesty.

Bad example of parents, who themselves wear immodest clothes.

Parents who encourage their own daughters to follow the latest fashions, even if they are immodest, in order to get good jobs, husbands, etc.

Desire to impress people and so exert influence upon society

Lack of time and/or expertise to make one’s own garments.

Cheaper clothing produced on a large scale versus expensive tailored ones.

The fashion industry making it hard for families to find wholesome clothing.

God has not compromised about modesty and wants His people to reflect His own Holiness. This applies both to the Old and New Testaments. If we sincerely wish to please God, we should respond to His call to seek his desires on how we should be clothed. “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7). The Holy Bible gives instructions right from Priests to the laypeople.

When God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, He also gave him various other instructions. One of the instructions about clothing for the Priests was, “And you shall make them linen breeches to cover their naked flesh; from the loins to the thighs they shall reach;” (Ex.28:42).

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”(Deut.22:5). However, in our days we find more and more women wearing masculine clothing reducing the boundary line between man and woman, leading to distressing consequences in family and in society.

In Leviticus 19:28, God forbids tattooing of the body. Yet, we see some people wearing immodest clothing, showing off tattooed exposed parts of their bodies.

God says to come out and be set apart, holy and consecrated to Him. Therefore, whatever we do, everything should be done for the glory of God (ref.1 Cor.10:31)

Since faith formation is primarily given in the family, it is the bounden duty of parents and godparents to form their children firmly in the faith, so that they will not stray from it. Our Lady has warned that lack of discipline “is manifested by the flouting of those obligations which are proper to one’s state of life…” (MMP msg.169).

Lack of discipline in childhood will easily continue and reflect itself as the years go by. It manifests itself in the sharp drop of vocations to the Priesthood and to Religious Life. But even if some vocations come out of these families, they find it difficult to conform to the strict rules of their vocation and to the spirit of the founder of their Religious Society, so they try to bring in the spirit of the world into it. “Today each one tends to direct himself according to his own tastes or free choice, and with what scandalous facility are violated the norms of the Church, which have been reaffirmed again and again by the Holy Father, such as the obligation for Priests to wear the ecclesiastical dress!” (MMP Msg.169).

Here is a story from purported revelations by Our Lord to a holy old sister in Rome. It was the time soon after the 2^nd Vatican Council when Religious seemed to have lost their bearings and nuns began to give up their habits in order to adopt the dress or ordinary worldly women, in the vain hope that in this way they would be able to attract young girls to the religious life. What actually happened was that thousands of nuns lost their vocation, and, God forbid that a good number of them may have lost their souls as well! Jesus was telling the aforesaid holy nun that many sisters had abandoned their habits and had turned to a worldly life. Then all of a sudden He told her to look up into the sky. At that moment a soul was crossing the sky like an arrow and plunging into hell. Jesus commented sadly that she was a nun who had adopted the minigonna, which obviously no girl should ever adopt because it invites people to lustful looks and desires and thus becomes guilty of the sins others may commit on her account!

Hence, if Priests and Nuns follow fashions, the laity would not think it amiss to do the same. Keeping God’s commands foremost in our minds, let us strive to take measures to come out of this darkness into His wonderful light. It is possible to dress modestly and yet look good.

Here are a few important points to keep in mind and remedial measures that could be taken, remembering that modesty is one of the Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit.

A few types of clothing to be avoided:

We should remember that generally a dress becomes immodest when it tends to tightness and form-fitting, or exposes flesh and draws attention to the “body”. Hence:

where women are concerned, the immodest attires would be: sleeveless, bare midriffs, shorts, mini or micro-mini skirts, low necklines showing cleavage or more, halters, backless, off-shoulder, shoulder-less, spaghetti straps, slacks, transparent garment material; sensual styles eg. Dresses that reveal halter-straps of bras, those that have petticoat or bra patterns on the outside of the dress, those that have a slit at the skirt either at its side/s, back or front showing a lot of leg that are often more provocative than other dresses a man’s carnal nature is often stirred more by a dress that leave more to the imagination than is actually seen. Women should also be careful that their garment should not be revealing even when bending over or raising their arms.

Where men are concerned, immodest attires would be: form-fitting, transparent, sleeveless, unbuttoned shirts, exposed chests, shorts, tight trousers, trousers having pattern of briefs on the outside as popularised by the late Michael Jackson.

Some exceptions:

Where sick, old or patients having intolerable medical ailments may be allowed to wear certain clothing that could border on immodest e.g. a wider neck, thinner material, sleeveless, in order to give them relief from their physical suffering.

Remedial measures:

Follow Marylike standards for modesty in dress while purchasing or making garments, which meet this standard. According to this standard, dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer, they do not emphasize unduly, parts of the body and have sleeves extending at least to the elbows and skirts reaching below the knees. They also require full coverage (even after jacket, cape or stole are removed) for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders. They also avoid improper use of flesh-coloured fabrics and do not admit transparent fabrics (e.g. laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc.) unless sufficient backing is added. However, moderate use as trimmings is acceptable. (It is said that because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical approval until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress).

Make use of full cotton petticoats for all dresses.

Insert a pleat or godet into the offending slit of the skirts to cover one’s modesty.

Where sarees are concerned, they should not be draped below the navel nor tightly to accentuate the shape of the body. If the blouse is of thin material, it should have a lining. The ‘pallu’ should be draped in such a way to cover the body instead of falling loose.

In the case of ‘Salwar-kameez’, a pleat or godet should replace the slits at the sides of the Salwar and use should be made of full petticoat. The kameez too should not be of thin material as otherwise the legs could be viewed against the light.

Care should be taken when buying branded clothing as they promote certain evil tendencies e.g. ‘Killer’ jeans. Avoid buying such brands. It is safer to get clothes tailored.

Never buy/wear clothes/T-shirts that have anti-Christ symbols or messages on it e.g. “OM”, swastika, dagger. It’s an open invitation to the evil one.

Never buy/wear T-shirts with a foreign language printed on it, which you do not understand. It may have a bad or evil message on it.

Where it is impossible to redeem a garment, open it up and make a patchwork sheet/curtain/bedcovers/suitcase covers, bags, rugs or use as kitchen rags. Never give immodest clothing to charity.

If women have to wear trousers where it is the dress code laid down by the Company, hospitals, airlines etc. the women should see to it that the blouses reach well below the fork-length (at least mid-thigh) and the trousers are not form-fitting but loose enough. There could be a collective request from the staff to the management to change the dress code.

Inculcating a holy attitude by doctors, nurses and other attendants in hospitals/homes towards patients who have to expose their bodies for medical treatment or care.

Keeping the Virgin Mary as their model, those who teach tailoring should instill in their students the values of modesty and teach them to follow the tenets of modesty.

Male tailors who tailor ladies clothing should inculcate a holy attitude when measuring ladies bodies.

Certain clothing houses in some Western/Catholic countries sell only modest clothing, which can be bought online through the Internet anywhere in the world. A search of ‘Mary-like standards of dressing’ on the Internet helps not only find such clothing houses but also gives a detailed spiritual guidance on modesty.

There is an urgent need for experts to take up the challenge to teach tailoring of modest clothing, at a low cost, in our Schools/Parishes/Institutes.

Parishes could join together to place orders for modest clothes directly from the manufacturer in order to get good clothes at a cheaper rate.

Some pious practices:

Wearing clothes too can become a prayer for us as it does for a Priest. When he dresses for Mass,

The Amice reminds him of the blindfold put upon Jesus by the soldiers, when they struck Him in the face (worn in Latin-rite Masses)

The Alb reminds him of the white robe the soldiers put on Jesus when they mocked him and treated him like a fool;

The Cincture reminds him of the ropes with which Jesus was dragged from place to place;

The Maniple reminds him of the cords with which the hands of Jesus were tied (worn in Latin-rite Masses)

The Stole reminds him of the Cross Jesus carried to Calvary and on which He died;

The Chasuble reminds him of the robe which the soldiers took from Jesus when they nailed Him to the Cross

Make the Sign of the Cross before changing our clothes: to ward off any temptation, To prevent our nakedness from being exposed in case of sudden death or untoward incident. The following scripture verse, which refers primarily to the soul, may also be applied here: “Lo, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is he who is awake, keeping his garments that he may not go naked and be seen exposed!” (Rev. 16:15)

Resort to the Sacrament of Confession where Jesus awaits us with love.

We as Catholics are called to be the salt of the earth and light to the world. As we sow, so shall we reap. If we do not follow our calling, we will only invite chastisement through the likes of the Shivsainiks, Ram Senas and Talibans of this world to shame us.

May our Blessed Mother the Virgin Mary – the Woman clothed with the Sun and crowned with Stars be our model, guide and support on our journey via the narrow path through this world to our eternal home.                        👈

----------------------------------------------------------------

In the "New Covenant" made by our Creator God with humanity (Jeremiah 31:31-34) every person can know God from within - because the Holy Spirit is revealing our Creator to all who are willing to know the Lord and trust in Him. We can still help each other along the way; so may you be pleased to find here a variety of helps to the life of faith in God through Jesus Christ. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2006-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +