An economic critic could dislike both trousers and vestments
The man who disliked vestments wore a pair of preposterous trousers.
Veblen provides a revealing contemporary comparison because he, too, treats ordinary modern dress as something that needs explaining. In chapter VII of The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), he argues that expensive, spotless, inconvenient clothing displays status and exemption from productive work. He also thinks modern fashion can sacrifice beauty to reputability; inherited national costumes may be more becoming. A secular critic could therefore share Chesterton's refusal to treat familiar modern clothing as an unquestionable aesthetic standard. Veblen, chapter VII, pp. 167–78.
But Veblen extends his criticism to priestly robes. Chapter XII interprets ornate, archaic clerical clothing as consumption on behalf of a divine master. Personal austerity does not contradict this explanation: the priest's consumption enhances the master's standing rather than his own comfort. Veblen accordingly accommodates ceremonial expenditure and mortification of the flesh within one account. He expressly brackets the truth and devotional value of religious beliefs when defining the inquiry. Chapter XII, pp. 293–94, 307–12.
This comparison sharpens the limits of Chesterton's reversal. Showing that modern fashion is eccentric can unsettle an accusation against vestments; it cannot establish that every critic of vestments endorses modern fashion, or that criticism of religious pomp necessarily conflicts with criticism of asceticism. Veblen offers a coherent competing standard. That does not settle whether his economic standard adequately understands worship. No evidence inspected identifies him as Chesterton's target or source here.
Sources
Revision 1 of 1 · 2026-11-07 · Suggest an edit