By Cordelia Fitzgerald (Rated G)
Artfully placed plant fronds and convenient animals have been bestowed by the more modest artists in front of Adam and Eve in the garden, but others, of a franker historical type, portray our father and mother in their full nude glory. One wonders, in this age of highly sexualized everything, what exactly that idea of innocent nakedness looked like before the Fall, but it is unlikely that we shall ever know for certain. However, it does seem possible to lay forth three main reasons, stemming from the Fall, for the transition from that state of naked bliss to our current state: clothed.
The first two, as they are universally recognized, can be dealt with summarily. Firstly, clothes have a practical purpose: that of temperature regulation. In colder environments, coverings serve to preserve warmth; in warmer climes, they keep the sun off. In either case, it would be reasonable to assume that, given cases such as these, they were unnecessary in the garden of Eden.
Modesty tends to be a bit more divisive than this first shoo-in. Being the second reason for the adoption of clothes, it is clearly set forth in the first book of the Bible when Adam and Eve saw that they were naked and covered themselves. Concupiscence had arrived, and with it the recognizance of the propriety of shielding from view. The specifics of modesty, including the lengths of skirts and neckline heights, are among those hotly contested topics which will be shunned here, but they segue neatly into the third point.
“There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.” ~ Pope St. John Paul II
Clothes are an attempt, in the post-Fall world, to regain some form of the pre-Fall state. As they cover for modesty, they hide that part of a person that most inspires lust in an attempt to direct attention to the personhood of the man or woman. This could be seen as a negative (or subtractive) effect of clothes. Post-Eden, however, in order to achieve the same end, they also have a positive (or additive) effect: that of displaying status.
One has only to briefly peruse a history textbook to observe the truly astounding number of different hats that humanity has invented in the space of even just four thousand years. There are priests’ hats, charwomen’s hats, peasants’ hats, crowns, tiaras, baby bonnets, native headdresses, hijabs, veils, cowboy hats, helmets, turbans… And each category has subcategories to address different hierarchies within them. There are tiaras or headscarves that are only worn by married women, crowns with more or less jewels depending on the level of royalty, and priests that have birettas or receive miters if they are consecrated bishops.
Catholics have another tradition that is still somewhat followed to this day, despite a drastic change in dress: the propriety of a man, upon entering a church, to remove his hat, and for a woman to veil her hair. (Intriguingly enough, the tradition of the man is almost universally followed, while the woman’s has fallen out of fashion, although often veils and scarves can still be seen today in many Catholic churches.) A man removes his hat because it is his status symbol. Less so today, but from ancient times that hat (crown, cap, or hood) signaled to the world how important or inconsequential this man was. Upon setting foot in God’s house, however, all men doff their hats and become equals, simply “fellow-passengers to the grave,” as Dickens says. According to some, one reason women would cover their hair would be for similar motives; a woman’s glory being her hair, she would cover it in church to give God the greater glory and eschew comparison with other women.
This sentiment can be applied to clothes in general. Man* needs clothes in order to show his fellow creatures what sort of person he is. Cultures have styles and preferences, made evident in their fashion choices, as do individuals. Is she a girly girl or a tomboy? Does he like Journey, or football, or both? Clothing hides (for modesty) in order to show personality, status, and who a person is. In other words, clothing attempts to restore the order that existed before the Fall, when man could meet woman and, undistracted by concupiscence, see her soul as God does. Adam said, “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” and rejoiced in her company, while “they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:23, 25). Then, there was no barrier soul to soul; now, we know too much, and cannot see the forest for all the trees. Now we need signs on every tree proclaiming to the heavens that “This is a Forest!”
“…For we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” ~G.K. Chesterton
Our Father needs no graphic tees to know who we are, nor the color of our skins or inflection of our voices to tell us apart. He sees us as we would have seen each other, had not humanity fallen, as even children are closer to understanding than us all-knowing adults. He sees not the barrier and billboard of our bodies, but rather looks into the soul with love unceasing. Would that we were more like Him!
*In the ancient sense: humanity. No sexism here, and no unnecessary pronouns.
LogoSophia Magazine 