Back to Salome again, but only briefly, as I am loaded with work and will not be able to pursue this thread further (I spent way too much time online this week).
Suzanne wrote (among many other things in a very thoughtful and helpful post): > I suggest that we break up the question into 2 parts: > (1) WHO was Salome? In the 21st century, what does "everybody know" > about her? In the 15th century, what did "everybody know" about her? > (2) WHAT is she wearing in this depiction? Is this style ever seen > any where else? Does it have an iconographic meaning? That last question is probably even more important than the first one. What people knew about a religious character or story in the 15th century is the starting point; the key element for our purposes (interpreting an image) is how that knowledge became translated -- and cemented -- in artwork. And iconographic conventions don't always match historical, religious, or theological understanding. Sometimes they are holdovers from earlier eras. Sometimes they are the result of confusion. (Consider the images of Catherine of Alexandria that show her with a wedding ring in the "Mystic Marriage." Whoops -- that's Catherine of Siena's story. Oh well.) So, before I would feel comfortable stating what is going on in a picture like this one, I'd want to be reasonably familiar with how artists of that place and time handled that particular scene, so I could determine what elements of the scene were routinely repeated, and how this artist followed that convention, and where he chose to depart from it. I'm afraid I don't know Salome images from 15th c. Spain. And I have not made a significant study of Salome depictions overall (as I have with some other figures). However, I do know enough Salome representations from elsewhere and elsewhen in Europe to hazard some guesses on *possibilities* that may be at play in the mind of a 15th c. artist. Salome might be considered, and represented, as: -- a historical figure -- a religious figure -- a foreigner -- an evildoer (I know, she was just doing what her mother said, but she's still seen as an evildoer because she was instrumental in John the Baptist's death) -- a dancer -- a princess. Thus a medieval artist might draw on any of these themes in dressing Salome; the choice would depend in large part on what was customary for presentations of that scene in his place and time. More than one of these devices might be present at once. I have seen a c. 1300 English illumination that depicts Salome as a "dancer" in one panel (and this is where "informal" dress comes into play, as she was wearing only an undergown in that scene) and as a "princess" in the adjacent panel, on the same page. In early 15th c. France, the Limbourg brothers gave her an odd little tiara (which might have meant "foreigner" or might have meant "princess"; it's hard to tell), and dressed her in a currently fashionable gown but added stripes of a type that, elsewhere in the book, appear on Biblical/historical/exotic figures -- and, interestingly, on a couple of dancing girls. (The history of stripes as a real-life marker for prostitutes may be relevant here as well.) Yet I have seen many, many people look at this Salome image and assume that because the gown is of the fashionable style, the stripes must be evidence of contemporary fashionable decoration. No -- they are some sort of marker for her character. It would be quite extraordinary for Salome to be unmarked in 15th c. Spanish art; there is certainly something, maybe many things, about her dress in this scene that are there specifically to differentiate her from the contemporary fashionable woman. But without knowing what is considered normal, and what shows up in other religious art, and particularly what shows up in other Salome scenes, I can only guess at which elements are the ones you cannot trust. The hoop skirt might be one such element. Or it might not -- it might be currently fashionable dress in the Catalan style. The point is, this picture will never tell us, because Salome's depiction is deviant by definition. By the time you know enough (from a study of other artwork) to know how to interpret it, you'll have better evidence from elsewhere. Other artwork could eventually show us how to interpret Salome's dress, but Salome's dress can't tell us much in itself. This post is already longer than I intended, so I'll add just one small clarification. Suzanne wrote: > Going on to question #2, since the painting in question shows > everyone fully dressed, right down to their hair and jewellery, I > don't see any reason to re-interpret this as an informal scene. And > for reasons that I stated yesterday, I don't believe that the other > [non-Salome] depictions shared by list-members need to be interpreted > as informal scenes. It seems I was not clear in what I meant by "informal." I was not referring to the *scenes* as informal situations. I was referring to a manner of wearing dress (in this case, an undergown without the overgown that would be added for full formal dress). Artists have been known to use this device to make a point. The painting I was talking about was the Birth of Mary, a scene in which (in some Flemish examples of this period that may overlap with Spanish artistic convention) the absence of the formal overgown in a gathering of women attending a childbirth helps signal the intimacy and privacy of a scene. The Flemish painters, and others, also used that same "informal" dress in many other contexts. Realistically, it can indicate a working woman, or a prostitute, or a person in great distress. Less realistically, it became the "uniform" for Mary Magdalen among some Flemish painters, probably for a variety of reasons, some related to the circumstances just noted. I agree that the Salome *scene* is not informal, and don't think I said it was. However, I have seen Salome depicted elsewhere in what is recognizably not-formal dress, specifically when presented in the role of dancer. As I explained several posts ago (at least I think I tried to), it is not impossible that this form of dress may have been become part of the "Salome" identification, copied and elaborated on from one image to the next, and over time became used by some artists to represent "Salome" regardless of what scene she appeared in. You see the same thing happen with many other characters -- i.e. elements of costume are used to identify certain people even if (in real life) that person would not have been wearing that style in that particular situation. (An obvious example is the depiction of a king or queen in bed, naked or in a shift, but still wearing a crown.) Is this what happened -- as Emma first wondered -- with Salome in what was supposed to be seen as an undergown? I have no idea! But I think it's a possibility worth considering and investigating, even if it turns out wrong. I have raised a lot of those possibilities. They certainly can't all be right. They might all be wrong. I'm not arguing for any of them. I am, however, trying to make the point that when you look at dress in religious or historical paintings, there's a lot going on that can't be explained by the logic of the situation being depicted. About the one thing I *can* state with certainty (and really the only point I've been hoping to make in this whole thread) is that I don't think it's wise to use a handful of examples, most of which have religious or iconographical contexts, as evidence for fashionable wear. Before you can figure out whether those examples are reliable representations, you need a lot more study of *other* artwork (and literary and historical evidence about dress if available) ... which, in this case, I am not going to do. But perhaps someone else reading this who is interested can use the suggestions I posted as a source of ideas for what to look at in chasing this down. (And I do think that the Catalan angle would be well worth investigating.) --Robin never one to make things simpler _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
