At 06:35 AM 2/6/01 -0500, you wrote:
>The 'Mithraic' explanation is indeed a common one. Another hypothesis, which
>might be more convincing, is that the mitre derives from the imperial diadem
>(headband). Roman emperors are routinely represented with the diadem on
>their coins.
>Luciana
A diadem is a proto-crown, not a mitre. The original form of the
mitre is not a crown, but a cap. To appreciate the difference, look at
contemporary regalia such as the formal crown of England which has a
"crown" structure and imperial arches around an interior velvet cap which
is the royal counterpart of a mitre. The symbolism involved in such things
was analyzed at length by P. E. Schramm in his studies on Herrschaftsregalia.
Confusion has become possible because of the way that the cap
evolved during the high middle ages into a more solid, more imposing
structure, but it is clearly a soft cap in its earliest depictions. (This
undercuts, as origin legends, the earlier analogies suggested between the
mitre and the "fish head" headgear of the Assyrians, as well as between the
mitre and the Gospel book, since the pointy high solid front and back which
evoke these comparisons are not originally part of this regalia.)
Popes did wear mitres prior to the development of the tiara at the
end of the middle ages. The tiara is a melding of a formal hard mitre
and--not one, not two, but--three crowns. I presume that, even after the
advent of the tiara, the popes normally wore mitres on liturgical
occasions, given that the tiara looks very cumbersome and aerodynamically
unstable. It would have been worn briefly on especially solemn occasions,
presumably usually while the pope was solidly enthroned. Papal
iconography does provide a great way to monitor the development of the
mitre. See the several volumes of Gerhart Ladner's _Papal
Portraits_ (these start in German but end in English).
John Howe, Texas Tech
|