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.
Maggie Halberg -----Original Message----- From: Beteena Paradise <bete...@mostlymedieval.com> To: Historical Costume <h-cost...@indra.com> Sent: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) 1 Corinthians has a passage that says that if a woman doesn't cover her head, her hair should be cut off. And if she doesn't want to have her hair cut off, then she should cover her head. But I always thought that the grown woman was required to cover her head because her hair would be arousing to men. Teena ________________________________ From: Cin <cinbar...@gmail.com> To: Historical Costume <h-cost...@indra.com> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) 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 _______________________________________________ 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
