PUDORE E PUDICIZIA

MODESTY AND CHASTITY. — Modesty belongs both to the sensitive-instinctive sphere and to the conscious-intellectual sphere: in the first case, we have modesty in the strict sense of the term; in the second, a higher organization of it which enters into the category of virtue and is called chastity.

I. INSTINCTIVE MODESTY

Nudists consider modesty to be a mere social convention, a taboo of primitive origin fundamentally arising from the habit of wearing clothing. It would be contrary to nature, because the resistance to erotic energies developed by it would be in opposition to man’s bio-physiological constitution. This doctrine, with a distinctly materialistic background, is based on a false concept of human nature that reduces it to the purely animal level. Spencer, S. Sergi, and others, with a positivistic outlook, regard modesty as the evolution of an aesthetic pain provoked in those who saw themselves without clothing. Durkheim links it to magic, seeing it as a form of defense to prevent harmful effluvia. W. James relates it to the sense of disgust aroused by the sight of certain parts of another’s body, a disgust that is turned back upon ourselves for self-preservation. According to Dumas, the desire to be appreciated lies at the root of this feeling; Freud considers it an essentially feminine quality, arising from a woman’s anatomical inferiority; finally, Guyau and Gurmont emphasize its biological function of preserving the species, which would be destroyed by sexual anarchy.

More recent studies show that modesty, contrary to what was believed by the positivist mentality of the 19th century, has the following fundamental characteristics: a) it is linked to man’s very psycho-physical constitution and is therefore universal, being found among all peoples according to the most careful ethnological studies, and never lacking in any normal individual (see below, no. III); b) it appears clothed in an innate quality that shows it to be antecedent to experience, indeed affirming itself as instinctive, at least as a driving force, and manifesting itself as an innate tendency of the reproductive instinct itself, which defends itself from aberrations; c) although instinctive, modesty does not exclude a certain plasticity common to all instincts, but rather implies II. Indeed, the finality of the instinct is essential: the attainment of this requires that the instinct be able to overcome obstacles and adapt to concrete conditions for its realization. The concrete conditions to which modesty adapts its prudential action are diverse, namely, age, the differing erotic attraction exerted by various parts of the body, the individual psychological type, etc. These different factors explain the diversity of forms of modesty among individuals, and the differences of race, environment, mentality, and prejudices account for the diversity of forms of modesty among peoples. Far from constituting an argument against the innate and instinctive nature of modesty, as positivism maintained, the concrete variation of its forms becomes one of its distinctive features.

In addition to modesty with a strictly sexual direction, there is also a modesty that may be called general, tending to inhibit everything contrary to the elevation of the self. To this modesty may be attributed the shame that Plotinus felt at seeing himself composed even of matter (Porphyry, Vita di Plotino, 1). General modesty is connected with sexual modesty, in that deviations in the sexual sphere are considered, and rightly so, to be in greater antithesis to the perfection and elevation of man. This modesty forms the connecting link between instinctive modesty and modesty as a virtue with a more distinctly intellectual content.

II. MODESTY AS A VIRTUE OR CHASTITY

It directs itself to circumstances (attitudes, things, thoughts) that, with respect to sexuality, assume the character of means for its realization. These means are often intercepted in their functioning under the influence of modesty, so as to impede activity and exclude their natural end, which, however, would be contrary to the moral norms of the subject in that given moment. Thus another dimension of modesty emerges: circumstances are excluded and thoughts are restrained because it is foreseen that their activity would produce a violation of moral order. This foresight, inherent in modesty, unites this virtue more than any other to the fundamental virtue of prudence.

From this immanence of prudence in modesty derives the characteristic manner of its action, which is eminently prudential: it usually enacts an indirect, precautionary defense, since in the sexual sphere there is a psychic insufficiency to dominate the instinct. If human education is the actualization of man’s potential values in their natural hierarchy and thus the affirmation of spiritual values over matter, it may well be concluded that the goodness of an education is measured by the development and refinement brought to modesty, which more than any other operative habit tends to affirm the spirit. Education in modesty must be indirect, because direct education would necessarily involve directing attention to the objects that modesty itself has the task of attenuating in their attraction. Opposed, therefore, to the dynamism of modesty are theories of complete openness both in the sexual sphere and in the educator’s non-interference to inhibit the free expansion of the individual (Adler). Although indirect, education in modesty must be positive: preparing that spiritual atmosphere which, besides preventing degradation in the sphere of brute sexuality, will make easier those revelations necessary at the proper time and with that gradation which is required to remain always on the prudential line of modesty. Even before the arising of the sexual instinct and thus of modesty in its full sense, those secondary individuations of modesty (attitudes, reserve, decency in actions, words, and thoughts) must be prepared in the child’s mind and manner of acting, which will channel, as a path already prepared, the development of modesty when it appears with a formally sexual direction.

Modesty has influence not only in the pedagogical-moral elevation of the individual but also has a social value, in that its violations lie at the root of many others with which penal codes deal, and the greater or lesser denial of it inevitably leads, by the psychological law of the correlation of dynamisms, to the domination of instinct consequent upon the humiliation of reason before it, and to the disintegration of society, which is essentially founded on the rational inhibition of instincts as represented by legal norms.

III. MODESTY AND CHASTITY AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES

For the evolutionists, who postulate the origin of man from the animal through slow evolution, modesty does not exist among primitives. Spencer, for example, in his Principles of Sociology, speaking of primitive sexual relations, states this clearly. He then considers and rejects the theory of primordial promiscuity, because the principle of force, according to him, governs sexual relations. This mentality is shared by Corso, who, with regard to the three main hypotheses on the origin of clothing (utilitarian, moral, and aesthetic), dismisses without hesitation the moral one. Even for Biasutti, modesty has little relation to clothing.

Faced with the approach of the evolutionists, one may ask what scientific foundation their assertions have: how, then, should scientific research on modesty and, in general, on the sexual ethics of primitive peoples be conducted? This question has already been raised by Mohr in his research on the peoples of East and Central Africa (v. BIBLICA) and answered as follows: the object of such an investigation is not the actual intimate life of these peoples, as some authors have unscientifically assumed. Among these are to be counted Corso and Biasutti, mentioned above. The aim is not, at least as a final objective, to illustrate the observance of their intimate morality. The proper object must instead be sexual ethics, that is, it must be ascertained how the moral consciousness of this or that people views intimate life and how it judges offenses in this regard. Now, while knowledge of sexual life and morality provides much material, it is a fact that the moral consciousness of a people is manifested essentially and properly in its unwritten laws and traditional customs; in such investigations, sociology and comparative jurisprudence cannot be disregarded. Furthermore, every conception of intimate ethics must be linked to the culture and the cultural complex to which it belongs, in order to explain the concrete variations observed among different peoples. If systematic studies of ethics in general are rare, those relating to this delicate specific field are even rarer.

Such problems, treated according to empirical data and considering all the peoples of the world, have been examined by E. Westermarck in his works The History of Human Marriage and The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas; by Crawley in The Mystic Rose: A Study of Primitive Marriage and Primitive Thought on the Subject; by Schmidt and Koppers in Völker und Kulturen. Soziologie und Wirtschaft der Völker; by Schmidt in The Origin and Growth of the Moral Ideas of God, where, being possible today, they are recognized within their cultural complexes (v. BIBLICA).

The sexual ethics of primitives must be distinguished into premarital and marital. Here we are not concerned with marital ethics (v. INCEST; INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE; MONOGAMY; POLYANDRY; POLYGAMY; PROSTITUTION), but with premarital ethics. With regard to this, it must be observed whether premarital sexual intercourse is permitted or not; in the case that it is not permitted, whether it is merely disapproved of, or also regularly punished. Then it must be clarified how one behaves with regard to premarital pregnancy: whether nothing reproachable is seen in it, or whether it alone is prohibited while premarital intercourse is permitted; whether it is punished in goods or in life, lightly or severely. Nor is it less significant to establish whether the freedom of intimate contacts before marriage is restricted in both sexes or in one only. It is also important to know whether society protects the moral welfare of youth before marriage and in what this protection consists. Finally, one must ask whether there is a special esteem for virginity, possibly combined with its explicit verification before marriage through some kind of test. Now, among the most ancient ethnological peoples, which have also been studied from this point of view in the aforementioned work The Origin and Growth of the Moral Ideas of God by Fr. Schmidt, it is incontrovertibly evident that many of them impose premarital chastity upon young women, most often as a command of the Creator. This is the case, for example, among the Maidu of California.

Among those peoples, however, that exhibit debased customs in this regard, the young man is forced to marry the girl as soon as she has been made pregnant by him, so that no child may be born out of wedlock, since having children out of wedlock is considered a disgrace that falls upon the mother and often leads to repudiation and other punishments. This is the case, for example, among the Koryaks in Northeast Asia, where if a girl becomes pregnant before marriage, she goes to give birth in the woods, kills the child, and buries it in the earth or snow. The seducer is beaten by the girl’s relatives. Indeed, in ancient times, the incident could even give rise to a war between the two families. Moreover, among some of these peoples, where free intercourse between young people of both sexes is permitted before marriage, such licentiousness is clearly of foreign influence: for example, among the Bambuti Pygmies of the Ituri in Africa, who, as demonstrated by their explorer Fr. Schebesta, have unfortunately imitated their Negro neighbors (Manvu, Balesi, and Mvuba). In conclusion, the premarital chastity of all the most ancient ethnological peoples is combined with monogamous marriage, usually contracted freely by the young (v. MONOGAMY).

But does the duty of premarital chastity correspond to an education in modesty and a favorable environment? The answer must be affirmative. Among the Pygmies of French Gabon (Africa), when a boy noticed the effects of puberty during sleep, he was required to inform his father. The father would wash him in the current of a nearby river and admonish him not to give in to forbidden pleasures; then he would point out the women he had to respect in particular, namely his mother, sisters, and cousins. Similarly, the daughter was cared for and admonished by her mother at the time of puberty and for a certain period was taken into the forest, where she was given prohibitions similar to those given to the boy. None of these peoples, as Fr. Schmidt expressly notes, practice complete nudity, not even in the hottest regions: men and women, but especially the latter, wore a loincloth, and this not for ornamentation but for modesty. Man noted this among the Andamanese he explored, saying that their clothing was reduced

They kept it to a simple leaf, but they prized it so highly that women would change it for long ones behind every backward glance in the shadow of the forest. Moreover, men and women never bathe together. Father Schebesta, for his part, never observed anything indecent either among the Semang or among the Bambuti. After discussing the freedom in intimate matters granted to the young before marriage—an institution called orobo—he concludes by saying: “Yet one would be mistaken who inferred from the unchastity of orobo a society of Pygmies where, in camp life, the stigma of lust or indecency prevailed. Except for some occasional but rare deviations, the Bambuti were everywhere decorous.” Only among the Semang did he once hear obscene words from a youth who was otherwise morally discredited, but he was immediately reproved by an elder who angrily cried out: “A sin against Carei!” (that is, against the Supreme Being), and the youth fell instantly silent. They also regard it as sinful to notice dogs when they couple, and the daytime commerce of spouses, as well as parents approaching children of the opposite sex during sleep; all such sins they believe must be atoned for with God through the sacrifice of their own blood.

A high esteem for chastity is manifested among the Samoyeds in the lives of those dedicated to God. When a boy or girl falls ill, they may be consecrated to Num, the Supreme Being, through the priesthood. The consecrated then remain celibate for life, must purify themselves weekly with smoke from contact with the garments of others, and it is certain that after death they go to heaven to God. Among one of these groups of primitive peoples, the North-Central Californians, chastity is so vivid a sentiment that—by excess—it is considered harmful the way children were begotten in marriage, since a myth of their religion tells how the Creator originally intended a different manner of human birth: only Coyote, the representative of evil and constant opponent of the good Supreme Being, arranged the present system of procreation. This is especially evident, for example, in the myth of the Maidu. Thus also among the peoples of south-eastern Australia and north-central California, in the initiation of the young—which is a solemn act of the community—the candidates are sternly warned to avoid sexual faults and above all to refrain from chasing girls. From what has been said so far, it follows that the most archaic peoples possess chastity as an instinct and as a virtue, and they manifest it in private and public conduct, regarding it as a moral law founded on the will of the Supreme Being, God.

Not only among the most ancient peoples ethnologically, but also among many of later ethnological culture, premarital chastity is required of the young. Nomadic shepherds impose the virginity of the bride with a public test at the wedding, a test in which all publicly rejoice with the parents, especially the mother, because they have preserved their daughter so chaste. But in the contrary case, dishonor falls upon the parents of the bride, who is held in contempt, while the marriage contract becomes invalid and void. Among the Kirghiz in this case the bridegroom would destroy the wedding tent with his sword, tear his garment of honor, kill the horse that had carried him, insult the bride, and reclaim the kalim (bride-price) that had been paid. Similarly, the test of virginity is required among the Arabs, the Jews, and several Hamitic peoples of North and East Africa. In his researches on the intimate ethics of the Hamitic and neighboring peoples of East and Central Africa, Mohr has identified three types of ethics, in one of which not only is every intimate commerce before marriage forbidden but it is also punished, even if no pregnancy results. The punishment falls on the seducer and consists of a fine, ordinarily of livestock. Besides fear of punishment, unmarried youth are safeguarded by having them sleep in separate houses for each sex and apart from adults. Moreover, the brother is responsible for the moral conduct of his sister, who is in this regard particularly protected by him.

Among the Banyancole or Bahima, for example, if a girl were to have illicit relations she would be dishonored and cast out of the clan; if she then became pregnant, shame would follow her all her life. As soon as the matter becomes public, the clan curses and repudiates her. She is exiled to the shores of Lake Karageve, in the western region of the country, where she remains until the birth of the child, after which she may return home. If the man who dishonored her does not marry her, she becomes a servant, whom only a man without honor, or at most a slave, would be willing to marry. In former times the punishment, at least among the higher classes, was even more severe and also struck the seducer, if he could be caught. Both culprits were drowned, with stones tied to their necks, in the Kagera River. But matters were far worse when a king or prince married a girl and found her pregnant; then not only was she drowned, but her parents and as many members of her clan as possible were also killed. Among the Bahima of Mpororo, or the Bastusi, besides premarital virginity, fidelity is also required after marriage and faithful affection between wife and husband. In the Sudan and other parts of Africa, for example in Danamica, the painful operation of infibulation is practiced to physically safeguard the virginity of young girls. Among the Somalis a seduced girl can no longer become a legitimate wife; among the Negroes of Togo a virgin fetches a higher price at her marriage. Father Schmidt links to the influence of nomadic shepherds the singular system of ascertaining virginity practiced in Polynesia and Samoa. Among the Teutons only virgins could marry; in Persia and Circassia a non-virgin bride could be repudiated; among several peoples of the Russian Empire in such a case an amende could be exacted, for example among the White Russians.

If to the premarital chastity of young women is joined the fidelity of the wife—a virtue required, for example, by archaic peoples and nomadic shepherds (v. INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE)—it is easy to understand that it must correspond to the chastity of young men and that both sexes require a genuine education in chastity.

Among other peoples, such as the Acciaio farmers of Portuguese East Africa at the northern mouth of the Zambesi River, the moral code explicitly includes an intimate ethics that imposes chaste conduct on both sexes. Father Schulien, who studied them while living as a missionary among them, reports that in their language *otakalia* means “to commit immoral acts,” including those concerning intimate life; *mi-kuali* means “shamelessness.” Thus, if someone seduces another’s wife or if a woman is unfaithful, it is called *otakalia*; likewise, if a man spends a long time laughing with a woman not related to him, if someone secretly watches women during ceremonies or when they are alone. Even thinking about such things is *otakalia*, and it is called *oroa viabure* to dream or imagine “sexual mischief.” All these things, Father Schulien adds, are also called *vilobo via manjaza*, that is, “matters of shame.”

Speaking of the prohibition of adultery, Father Schulien notes that everything leading to it is also forbidden. Just as one must not fantasize about intimate matters, one must not speak of them; certain words moreover must not be spoken in the presence of women. Women must not be mocked, nor must a pregnant woman be ridiculed. Indeed, as the same missionary recorded in his notebook, if ever a young man sees a pregnant woman and laughs at her, his companions reproach him, saying: “You mock that woman while she carries a child in her womb. You are wicked,” and they warn him “never to speak so again.” As abduction and violence against young women are forbidden, so too are they enjoined to cover their breasts out of shame. All teachings regarding intimate life, like the entire moral code, are imparted to the youth of the Acciaio in initiation ceremonies and are referred to God. After expounding their sexual ethics and the above prohibitions, Father Schulien concludes with these words: “These prohibitions protect woman and offspring. The prohibitions are ascribed to the will of God, whom they call Mulugu, for it is said: ‘Mulugu does not wish that His secrets be seen, His manner of creating.’”

Among the Aztecs of ancient Mexico, marriage was consummated only after four days of fasting, seclusion, and penance with aloe thorns and blood sacrifice. After the first union, the token of the bride’s virginity was brought to the temple. If the contrary was found, the marriage was dissolved and the marriage gifts were returned. The same was true among the Ciciemi of the same region and in Nicaragua.

A relaxation in intimate ethics and a conduct little or not at all chaste, by contrast, exists among totemistic peoples and those influenced by them. It must be said, however, that even among many totemistic peoples the institution of the young men’s houses was precisely intended to prevent familiarity with the women of the tribe (v. PROSTITUTION). This means that, in substance, a concern for safeguarding premarital chastity and a sense of modest conduct are still present even among those peoples.

From what has been set forth above, it must be noted that when treating of shame among primitive peoples, one must carefully distinguish which peoples are being discussed—a caveat that also applies to the particular question of clothing among them. Therefore, in examining the sexual ethics of primitives, it is of the utmost importance to avoid all undue and facile generalization if one truly and honestly wishes to bring into focus the entire problem so bound up with a clear and secure knowledge of the living sources of their psychology.