Re: [h-cost] Modesty vs Silly Putty was (no subject)
I would question the statement " early Christians believed that the Virgin Mary was impregnated thru the ear.". What evidence do they have for this, or is it one of those made up "see how stupid our ancestors were? My experience with wimples is that they are very flattering. Also, castles and most homes in period are quite cool (cold from our point of view) and drafty. Many of our pictures show people outside. That wimple not only can keep you warm, but it can protect from sunburn. If you are hot, dampen it and you cool right down. Personal experience. I like mine cut as a circle and folded on the bias. Makes easier to talk and eat because of the natural stretch. Of course like all fashions it came in and out of favor in various forms over the centuries. Regina Sent from my iPad On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:01 PM, "Franchesca Havas" wrote: > I agree with you Marjorie! > > Love the comparison. :D > > Franchesca > > > -Original Message- > From: h-costume-boun...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-boun...@indra.com] On > Behalf Of Marjorie Wilser > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:40 PM > To: Historical Costume > Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) > > Sounds like a tremendous load of cr34 to me. Unlike Cin, I do read the Bible > and there's nothing remotely suggesting anything like a wimple; only advice > for women praying to cover their heads in modesty. Cover can mean almost > anything. > > Sounds as if the authors were manufacturing facts out of silly putty. > > ==Marjorie Wilser > > @..@ @..@ @..@ > Three Toad Press > http://3toad.blogspot.com/ > > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Laurie Taylor 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? > > ___ > 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
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
It is not actually a head covering. It is worn under a veil, sort of a swathe of fabric, covering the throat (and sometimes the base of the chin.) It was worn in Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries, generally by married women. It then became part of the habit of some orders of nuns - those that were founded at that time - which is what many modern people think about when they hear the term. (Orders usually based their habits on the ordinary clothing of a matron or widow of their time.) Now - it seems quite possible that the author *meant* the veil, not the wimple... which would itself indicate just how trustworthy this is as a source... The veil is the part that covers the head. They are two different pieces, even when worn together, sometimes of two different fabrics. (The veil is worn without the wimple in many periods - the wimple is not generally worn without the veil, which may cause the confusion.) Veils were worn by many women in many cultures. Ancient Greek and Roman women usually wore something over their heads when they went out in public... it's not just a Judeo/Christian thing. Anne On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Becky wrote: > What is a wimple? I assume it is a head/hair covering. Any images of one? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 24, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Anne Murphy wrote: > >> Given that the "Earliest Christians" didn't wear wimples... that >> sounds like nonsense to me. >> >> Wimples developed late in the Middle Ages - when it started getting >> colder, for one thing. And I do remember someone (possibly on this >> list, years ago) commenting that it did indeed keep her much warmer. >> >> Anne >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Laurie Taylor >> 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 ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
Yo know the images of old time nuns with the white part going around the face and neck different of the veil? That is oneexasmple. -Original Message- Date: Saturday, March 24, 2012 5:55:30 pm To: "Historical Costume" From: "Becky" Subject: Re: [h-cost] (no subject) What is a wimple? I assume it is a head/hair covering. Any images of one? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Anne Murphy wrote: > Given that the "Earliest Christians" didn't wear wimples... that > sounds like nonsense to me. > > Wimples developed late in the Middle Ages - when it started getting > colder, for one thing. And I do remember someone (possibly on this > list, years ago) commenting that it did indeed keep her much warmer. > > Anne > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Laurie Taylor > 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. F ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
What is a wimple? I assume it is a head/hair covering. Any images of one? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Anne Murphy wrote: > Given that the "Earliest Christians" didn't wear wimples... that > sounds like nonsense to me. > > Wimples developed late in the Middle Ages - when it started getting > colder, for one thing. And I do remember someone (possibly on this > list, years ago) commenting that it did indeed keep her much warmer. > > Anne > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Laurie Taylor > 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
Re: [h-cost] (no subject)
Given that the "Earliest Christians" didn't wear wimples... that sounds like nonsense to me. Wimples developed late in the Middle Ages - when it started getting colder, for one thing. And I do remember someone (possibly on this list, years ago) commenting that it did indeed keep her much warmer. Anne On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Laurie Taylor 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
Re: [h-cost] "pumpkin" bonnet?
Calash, from the French caleche (with accents I don't know how to add in email)--from the carriage of the same name with a similar collapsible top. But where that term for the carriage came from, I don't know. Ann Wass -Original Message- From: Bambi TBNL To: h-costume Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:54 am Subject: Re: [h-cost] "pumpkin" bonnet? Calacsh? Or calabash? I believe i have heard that term ib Europe ( a la.ge umpkin like vegetable) used for a bubble like shaped like bonnet from the late 700s early 1100 . On my phone i Cant be more specific than that. Original Message- ate: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:51:13 pm o: "Historical Costume" rom: "Cin" ubject: Re: [h-cost] "pumpkin" bonnet? Could it be a calash that you're looking for? It's a 18th c thing. an we have a picture of the item you're trying to date? -cin ynthia Barnes inbar...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Suzanne wrote: Hello 19th century experts! I'm trying to date a bonnet which was donated to he museum where I work -- but 19th century bonnets are not my area of xpertise. The donors called this a "pumpkin" bonnet from "early 1800s" but I ave doubts about that, and the only similar examples I found in a quick nternet search were American Civil War era. I'm inclined to go with a "circa 860" date but I'd be delighted to hear from someone who actually knows omething! :-) The bonnet is made of brown silk, constructed in concentric rows of thick uching, with tiny bows at the top center of each row, and a short bavolet. It's softer and more spherical in shape than this one (because the back is less efined and the bavolet is not as heavily gathered): http:// ___ -costume mailing list -cost...@mail.indra.com ttp://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] Wimple origins - was (no subject)
-- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:03:11 -0700 From: "Laurie Taylor" To: "'Historical Costume'" Subject: [h-cost] (no subject) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 * I could believe the 'impregnated aurally' bit as I think at least one of the gospels just says something like 'and God spoke to Mary and she was with child' and sillier ideas have come of less. On the other hand I'm extremely dubious about the wimple because it was not a very common item of clothing until the late 12th or early 13th century, and there's rather a long time between that and 'early Christian'. Pre 12th century Christian women often wore large veils that they wrapped around their necks and shoulders in some way, but these weren't what I would call a wimple. Note that the reason nuns wore wimples pre Vatican II is that around this time (late 12th, early 13th centuries) was a time of reformulation of some monastic orders, and the foundation of some of the most popular ones. Religious orders took up what was essentially an extremely modest form of contemporary dress at the time, and then modified it very little thereafter. As to where the wimple actually came from, I expect it was a development of either the earlier large wrapped veil (a wimple is somewhat less cumbersome), or of the 'chinstrap' part of the 'fillet and barbette' headdress. Claire ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
