Huh, I was under the impression that the covered head (regardless of location or specific era) was from something in Leviticus. You'll have to find someone more aware of things Biblical than I am for further info.
In any case, and I havent read the article, linking a fashion trend to "what everybody knows" sounds like a stretch. I have no evidence or inclination towards of aural insemination, just a hunch that it's a quaint old wives tale written down & oft repeated cuz it's so marvelously silly. I'm off to think Ragtime era thoughts. --cin Cynthia Barnes cinbar...@gmail.com On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Laurie Taylor <mazarineblu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Greetings all, > > I've been mulling this bit of trivia around in my head for the longest time. > I think I need to share it and see if any of you know of any support or > documentation for this information. > > "Most Unusual Concession to Modesty: The earliest Christians believed that > the Virgin Mary was impregnated through her ear and that other women as well > had used their ears as reproductive organs. For that reason, an exposed > female ear was considered no less an outrage than an exposed thigh, and a > woman would not appear in public unless clad in a tight-fitting wimple." > > Felton, Bruce, and Mark Fowler. "Part II, Behavior." The Best, Worst, and > Most Unusual: Noteworthy Achievements, Events, Feats and Blunders of Every > Conceivable Kind. New York: Galahad, 1994. 428. Print. > > So, the wimple had to develop for some reason. Is this reason believable? > Documentable? Are there any other reasons that would be more legitimate > based on available documentation? > > > Laurie Taylor > Phoenix _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
