Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than her face. Sharon C. -Original Message- From: h-costume-boun...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-boun...@indra.com] On Behalf Of Chris Laning Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:19 PM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Maggie Halberg wrote: I think sometimes we try to apply too much they did this because to fashion. Can't something be worn because its thought to be becoming and fashionable in its time? Just look at how necklines go up and down. Why is it OK to have an open neckline in 1500 but not in 1600? Why do skirts go from being OK to show ankles in the 1830's to dresses being floor length again in the 1860's? Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? Why the tall hairstyles in the 1700's? Why the large drum shape skirts in the 1600's and a bustle shape in the late 19th century. Its simply all because the fashions changed. People tweeked what was being worn until it got to the point where it looked like something else. Perhaps something was being done and the daring new fashion was to do it the opposite way. I agree. The human is a storytelling animal -- we have an instinctive drive to find patterns -- so it's easy to understand why such explanations are so popular. But human behavior does not always have logical reasons behind it. Sometimes something is fashionable just because everyone thinks it's fashionable. That said, it's also true that there are periods when you rarely see a woman's ears exposed. Some time periods seem to count covering a woman's ears as part of the cover your head imperative, other time periods seem to think a woman's head is respectably covered as long as all her hair is under wraps. I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html (Sometimes it's amusing when I have made friends with someone at historical events, and then when I first see them in blue jeans and a T-shirt they look quite different because they have HAIR!! ;) OChris Laning clan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
Small note: the cone shape was area specific, not across Europe and the British Isles. I understand your point though. -Original Message- Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
Who is the artist and period? De -Original Message- I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
On 4/4/2012 1:18 AM, Sharon Collier wrote: It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than her face. Well, it's covered with a veil, and the baby's ear is reddish too. But the Virgin's looks practically separate from her head, a bit too far to the left. I wonder if it *was* meant to evoke the idea of a sex organ! --Robin -Original Message- From: h-costume-boun...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-boun...@indra.com] On Behalf Of Chris Laning Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:19 PM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Maggie Halberg wrote: I think sometimes we try to apply too much they did this because to fashion. Can't something be worn because its thought to be becoming and fashionable in its time? Just look at how necklines go up and down. Why is it OK to have an open neckline in 1500 but not in 1600? Why do skirts go from being OK to show ankles in the 1830's to dresses being floor length again in the 1860's? Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? Why the tall hairstyles in the 1700's? Why the large drum shape skirts in the 1600's and a bustle shape in the late 19th century. Its simply all because the fashions changed. People tweeked what was being worn until it got to the point where it looked like something else. Perhaps something was being done and the daring new fashion was to do it the opposite way. I agree. The human is a storytelling animal -- we have an instinctive drive to find patterns -- so it's easy to understand why such explanations are so popular. But human behavior does not always have logical reasons behind it. Sometimes something is fashionable just because everyone thinks it's fashionable. That said, it's also true that there are periods when you rarely see a woman's ears exposed. Some time periods seem to count covering a woman's ears as part of the cover your head imperative, other time periods seem to think a woman's head is respectably covered as long as all her hair is under wraps. I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html (Sometimes it's amusing when I have made friends with someone at historical events, and then when I first see them in blue jeans and a T-shirt they look quite different because they have HAIR!! ;) OChris Laningclan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4913 - Release Date: 04/03/12 -- Robin Netherton Editor at Large ro...@netherton.net voice: (314) 439-1222 Life is just a bowl of queries. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Robin Netherton wrote: On 4/4/2012 1:18 AM, Sharon Collier wrote: It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than her face. Well, it's covered with a veil, and the baby's ear is reddish too. But the Virgin's looks practically separate from her head, a bit too far to the left. I wonder if it *was* meant to evoke the idea of a sex organ! Both versions of the painting are considered to be, e, somewhat less than masterpieces of painting, I think. ;) No one seems to have decided exactly who painted either of them, as I mention in the article. It may just be that no one has gotten around to researching these paintings specifically. As you might imagine, I'm always a sucker for paintings of the Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus playing with beads ;) OChris Laning clan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Maggie Halberg wrote: I think sometimes we try to apply too much they did this because to fashion. Can't something be worn because its thought to be becoming and fashionable in its time? Just look at how necklines go up and down. Why is it OK to have an open neckline in 1500 but not in 1600? Why do skirts go from being OK to show ankles in the 1830's to dresses being floor length again in the 1860's? Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? Why the tall hairstyles in the 1700's? Why the large drum shape skirts in the 1600's and a bustle shape in the late 19th century. Its simply all because the fashions changed. People tweeked what was being worn until it got to the point where it looked like something else. Perhaps something was being done and the daring new fashion was to do it the opposite way. I agree. The human is a storytelling animal -- we have an instinctive drive to find patterns -- so it's easy to understand why such explanations are so popular. But human behavior does not always have logical reasons behind it. Sometimes something is fashionable just because everyone thinks it's fashionable. That said, it's also true that there are periods when you rarely see a woman's ears exposed. Some time periods seem to count covering a woman's ears as part of the cover your head imperative, other time periods seem to think a woman's head is respectably covered as long as all her hair is under wraps. I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html (Sometimes it's amusing when I have made friends with someone at historical events, and then when I first see them in blue jeans and a T-shirt they look quite different because they have HAIR!! ;) OChris Laning clan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
On 25/03/2012 4:51 PM, Robin Netherton wrote: 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. To follow up on what Robin states, I have to say this is the first time I've ever heard this claim (either about wimples or about the BVM's ear.) And this is fairly significant, since the focus of my doctoral work was 13th century popular religion (and wimples were definitely fashionable at the time). The reason the wimple was adopted by nuns had more to do with the fact that wimples were eventually associated with married women, and when a woman became a nun, she married the church (often complete with ring). Susan ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
This to any who are interested. I've noticed a significant lack of mention of the 'coif', which is an integral part of the habit of the Benedictines nun's attire, with the wimple and the one or two part veil. It was explained to me, by the historian of an abbey, that their habit dates from their founding by Benedict and has been kept in that style. In that habit the head covering consists of the three or four pieces mentioned. We did not discuss the meaning of these pieces or the purpose or symbols of them, if any - and I'm sure there are.. Audy in the high boonies of Central Texas PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
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
