On 3/23/2012 1:03 PM, Laurie Taylor wrote:
"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.
There are some bits and pieces here that ring true, but the entirety doesn't.
First: There's a tale that appears in some medieval bestiaries that the weasel
(or marten or ferret or any similar animal) conceives through the ear and
gives birth through the mouth. (T.H. White, in his study on bestiaries, claims
also that some sources have it the other way around.) In any case, those
animals were frequently associated symbolically with childbirth. I'm pretty
sure there are some writings, somewhere, that draw the parallel between this
tale and the fact that the Virgin Mary conceived through God's word, which
entered through her ear. This symbolic connection with weasels may appear in
some paintings of the annunciation, though none come to my mind at the moment.
However, that's as far as I've ever heard it go -- I've never heard this used
as a justification for women being required to cover their ears, and I suspect
that idea was probably a fanciful invention of some 19th-century scholar that
got passed off as "fact" showing how quaint and stupid our forebears were.
(I'm also remembering a passage from one of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books in
which Laura's mother says that in her youth, it was considered inappropriate
for a girl or woman to show her ears. That would have been mid-19th century as
well, so the modesty connection might have rung true to the costume
historians, and their audience, at that time.)
As to the particular headcovering method: I should note also that "wimple"
refers to more than one construction depending on era. Anglo-Saxon scholars
understand the wimple as a one-piece headwrap that covers both head and neck.
As someone else noted, the later wimple of the 14th century is a separate neck
covering typically worn in conjunction with a veil. The effect of covering
both head and neck is the same, and the same term was used in both periods,
but the structure of the covering changed over time.
The wimple, by that name, was not a garment of the "earliest Christians." Of
course, there can be other headgear that covers the ears, and other names for
such headgear. So "ear-covering" and "wimple" are overlapping but not
identical sets. Still, it's likely that a later writer who isn't a costume
specialist would use the word "wimple" to refer to any ear-covering headdress
without regard to whether the wearers used that word in a particular place or
time.
(For those who are interested in the use of the term "wimple," Lucia Sinisi
had an article in Medieval Clothing & Textiles, volume 4, called "The
Wandering Wimple," which traces the linguistic use of that term.)
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?
Cloth headcoverings, some of which cover the ears or neck or both, have been
worn in many cultures and for many reasons, including practical ones
(cleanliness, weather protection) as well as modesty or fashion. It seems
pretty far-fetched to claim the wimple was a result of some obscure
commandment to cover the ear because it was the Virgin Mary's sex organ.
--Robin
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
