When we first meet Anne Catherick, at this time still only known as “the woman in white,” Hartright dedicates a paragraph to describing her. It is a longer paragraph, focused on her physical appearance. Hartright describes her features and the clothes she is wearing, but pays special attention to pointing out her modesty. He says, “there was nothing wild, nothing immodest in her manner” (Collins 26). The sentiment of Catherick’s modesty, while not explicitly mentioned, is carried throughout the rest of Hartright’s description. He uses words and phrases like “meagre,” “youthful,” “quiet and self-controlled,” and “free” (26). Again, these words are not in direct reference to the woman’s sexuality (or lack thereof), but they reaffirm Catherick’s modesty to the reader. The paragraph ends with Hartright directly assuring the reader, yet again, that the woman’s intentions are honest, “even at that suspiciously late hour and in that suspiciously lonely place” (26).
Why repeatedly mention her modesty? Why does Hartright include this detail so painstakingly in his narrative?
An obvious answer might be that this feature stood out in Hartrights memory as he recounted the story, and he deemed it essential for the reader to know. But I ask again, why?
The opposite of sexuality is the absence of it, not modesty. The repeated mentions of Catherick’s modesty call the reader to think of sexuality in the novel. If Willkie Collins did not intend for the reader to have thoughts of sexuality in regards to the woman and how Hartright views her, he would not have brought it up.
I do not think that the reader is meant to view Catherick as a sexual figure or to believe that Hartright sees her sexually. But I do think we are meant to pay attention to what this could mean going forward. Hartright falls desperately in love with a woman who looks eerily similar to Catherick. At the same time, he is being haunted by thoughts of Catherick and her possible connections to his life. I’d be interested to see what comes of Hartright’s sexual mentions as the story continues, and what other repetitions might reveal.
I think that this is a really interesting take on Walter’s descriptions of Anne in contrast to his descriptions of Laura. Both are continuously described as youthful, yet stand on opposite ends of the spectrum; whereas Anne is youthful in an innocent, and as you said, modest, manner, Laura is youthful in a romantic way indicating that she is a young woman on the cusp of transitioning to adulthood and entering into conversations of love, marriage, and sexuality. That Walter makes such a deliberate effort to remove any essence of sexuality from Anne Catherick by calling her “modest”, is really interesting, because it implies that she can express sexuality but chooses not to, or distinctly is not in that moment.
Your points on the intersections between sexuality and modesty are well made and I must heartily agree with you that “The opposite of sexuality is the absence of it, not modesty.” The opposite of love is indifference. I would wonder however why you would argue so vehemently for the reader to connect the ideas of sex and modesty in our minds, again an argument well formed and convincing, to then backtrack and go on to say, “I do not think that the reader is meant to view Catherick as a sexual figure or to believe that Hartright sees her sexually.” I think that for all that talk about modesty that Hartright definitely at least is thinking about her sex.
I really liked your point on the opposite of sexuality not being modesty. It would be interesting to track Hartright’s mentions of modesty throughout the book, as I am sure they come up again. This could also be in conversation with the descriptions he later gives of Laura. While he describes them both in a feminine manor, he uses this differently for each of them and aligns their femininity with having different implications for their roles in his life.