Verecund

Verecund (pronounced ver-i-kuhnd)

Bashful; shy modest, unassuming (rare).

1560–1570: A learned borrowing from the Latin verēcundus (shy, diffident, modest), the construct being verē(rī) (to fear or revere) + -cundus (the adjectival suffix).  The Latin verērī in the hands of medieval translators caused a minor theological dispute which lasted into the twentieth century.  In Latin verērī meant (1) “I have respect for, revere, stand in awe” & (2) “I am afraid, fear; dread”.  What entered ecclesiastical use and ultimately English translations of the Bible was the phrase “fear of God” which most modern scholars think was intended to covey the idea of being “in awe of” Almighty God but because of the way “fear” came to be understood, the other sense was generally assumed.  Of course, the idea of the “vengeful God” was popular among many clergy and theologians so there were those who would prefer their congregations to be afraid rather than merely reverential.  The equally rare adjective inverecund of course means “not modest” but in literary use (it’s doubtful if often appears elsewhere) it can be deployed to convey not only that but also something in the range of shameless to slutty; it’s surprising it’s so rare.  Verecund is an adjective and verecundity is a noun; the noun plural is verecundities.

Verecund entered the language about the same time as some others which have rather better sustained popularity including flare, gondola, monitor, parallel & vacuum but it was never common.  In the nineteenth century it seems to have enjoyed the odd spike but that was always from a low base although the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) entry in 1916 makes no mention of it being rare, or archaic, let alone obsolete.  It has thus never quite gone extinct but it’s not hard to suspect much of the use in the internet age is in lists of rare words confirming the rarity although it was in the script of the play Translations by Brian Friel (1929-2015), first performed in 1980.  That though was set in 1833 and part of the verisimilitude was that some members of the cast were well versed in the classics.

Verecund fashion is an amusing way of describing women’s clothing which displays rather less skin than much of which draws the eye of magazine editors deciding what to publish.  As something new "modest fashion" is almost wholly illusory because, by volume, most of the clothing sold around the word is, and has long been, of a modest cut which doesn’t reveal enough skin much to be noticed.  There are exceptions to that such as the somewhat misleadingly named burkini (the construct a portmanteau of bur(k)a + (bi)kini)) which was an ankle-to-hair-to-wrist swimsuit which while it showed little flesh was still sufficiently figure-hugging to be condemned by a number of mullahs and muftis.  The novelty is the publicity granted to "modest fashion" 

As a specific market segment however, modest fashion represents various industry players indentifying a way of applying their labels to quite unexceptional styles and marketing them to women with higher disposable income who for whatever reason wish to dress in a manner described usually as “conservative”.  The ideas of modesty can adhere to principles associated with religious belief and cultural practice or simply be personal preference.  There are suggestions modest fashion has introduced a higher level of style to a previously under-serviced market but it’s doubtful what has been displayed in recent shows differs greatly from what could have been found in catalogues in years gone by but as a high-priced range to be added to designer labels, it should deliver a solid profit especially in emerging markets where there are an increasing number of upper middle-class women anxious to spend disposable income and show the label.

In philosophy, the ad verecundiam fallacy deals with aspects of appeals to authority or expertise.  Essentially, the fallacy describes the acceptance as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone taken to be an authority actually lacks the required expertise or position.  This typically happens when someone offers an opinion on a matter in which they have no particular competence and is not restricted to pop culture celebrities because more than one Nobel laureate has noted the absurdity of them being invited to comment on subjects about which they know no more than any intelligent layman. The phrase was a clipping of the Latin expression argumentum ad verecundiam, which deconstructs as argumentum (argument) + ad ("to" or "at") + verecundiam, the accusative singular of verecundia (coyness, modesty; shame).  The idea has a similar manifestation in law where the question of “real or ostensible authority” is involved.  In many common law jurisdictions, there are circumstances where it can be a defense that an unlawful act was undertaken because a person who the defendant could reasonably believe to possess the requisite authority to give permission for the act to be performed did so.  If a defendant acting in reliance on the belief the permission was lawfully and correctly granted, it can be a defense.  In one Australian case, a member of a parliament (a senator) gave "permission" for a protestor to stand in a certain place within the environs of the parliament and after doing so the protester was duly charged with trespass.  The court found (1) the senator had no authority to grant permission for an act of trespass to be immune from prosecution and (2) it was unreasonable for the defendant to believe a senator possessed either real or ostensible authority in this matter.  It seems still a rather harsh ruling but the conviction stood.

Portrait of John Locke (1697), oil on canvas by Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723).

Although he wouldn’t have recognized the term “ad-fallacies”, it was the English philosopher and physician John Locke (1632-1704) who unintentionally laid the basis for the class of what are in philosophy now known as the “ad-arguments” or “ad-fallacies”. In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), he identified three kinds of arguments, the ad verecundiam, ad ignorantiam, and ad hominem, each of which he contrasted with ad judicium arguments (those based on “the foundations of knowledge and probability” which are reliable routes to truth and knowledge).  Locke did not use the word “fallacies” but instead described the three as the kinds of arguments “that men, in their reasoning with others, do ordinarily make use of to prevail on their assent; or at least so to awe them as to silence their opposition.”

While the latter two have been embellished in application beyond Locke’s original thoughts, his characterization of the ad verecundiam is considered still the classic example of appeal-to-authority arguments.  When considered a fallacy, it’s either on the basis that the relevant authority is fallible or because an appeal to authority is an abdication of an individual’s responsibility to determine the veracity of knowledge.  Read literally of course, that would imply Locke was suggesting nobody should ever rely on the expertise of others but that seems improbable.  What is more likely is that he was contrasting the legitimate authority of knowledge with the illusory authority of social standing; the granting of respect and deference to others purely on the basis of their place in the social hierarchy, something even more pronounced in the seventeenth-century than today.  The language Locke used in connection with the ad verecundiam (“eminency”, “dignity”, “breach of modesty” & “having too much pride”) does hint what he had in mind was the kind of authority that demands respect merely for “being who they are” rather than for “what they know”, compelling someone to accept a conclusion because of their modesty or shame, rather than the quality of argument.  In deference to Locke therefore, it’s best to translate ad verecundiam literally, as “appeal to modesty.”