medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Hi, Henk
Two points:
1. Apropos who wore what when, this latest post from you is largely a rehash of material you had already proffered yesterday (Wednesday, October 21, 2009; 12:58 pm [my time]). Since no one has disputed you on who wore what when, I am at a loss to understand either the purpose or the value of such repetition.
2. On a scholarly list devoted to medieval religion (and especially on one the overwhelming bulk of whose contributions concern Christian religion) it is reasonable to expect that one will be able to distinguish between Mass and Office. So when I politely corrected you before by saying "officiating at Matins, not celebrating a Mass", I did not expect to receive a reply containing the utterance "Bishops who officiate at mass, does not matter when in the day". The text in question has been said repeatedly to relate an incident supposed to have taken place before and during a celebration of Matins (i.e. a liturgical Office) and not a Mass. This liturgical distinction could make a difference in regard to dress, as in later twelfth- or thirteenth-century southern Italy a bishop might ordinarily not have vested in the same fashion for Matins as for Mass. That in turn could conceivably contribute to an assessment of the overall degree of verisimilitude in this evidently proble
matic narration.
Best again,
John Dillon
On Thursday, October 22, 2009, at 2:24 pm, Henk wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> 2 points:
> 1 Female dress was not much different from male dress, except for length,
> from the Bronze Age until the middle of the 14th c. Some periods men
> of the
> higher classes wore long, instep reaching cottes, which was volubly frowned
> upon by the church. These periods were the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and
> 13th c.
> Yes, in all centuries before the 14th (and also later, on occasion) the
> nobles and their long, even trailing (11th and 12th c) dresses were
> ridiculed and admonished. Priests and monks have alwayd been supposed
> to
> wear long and stately clothing (ample, with enough folding) except when
> doing manual work. A priest in a woollen robe with normal sleeves wore
> basically the same clothing as a woman, the only difference was that women
> were supposed to wear kerchiefs or veils over their hair, while
> clerics were
> not supposed to wear any headgear to be sure their tonsure could be seen.
> This was ordered because this was the only way you could see the difference
> between a noble wearing a long simple frock (thet did not all wear
> silks or
> heavy orfrey splattered broadcloth) and a priest.
> 2 Bishops who officiate at mass, does not matter when in the day, wore
> their
> liturgical outfits, which hid the daytime costume underneath. There
> was no
> way other people at mass could have seen that the saint wore women's
> clothing under all that. And in 7th, 12th, and 13th c the difference between
> long male and female clothing was minimal anyway.
>
> Best,
>
> Henk
>
>
> Hi, Henk
>
> As I noted when I first brought this up), the text -- and therefore its
> intended audience -- is considerably later than the seventh century.
> When I
> last thought about its dating (back in 2005), I accepted the view that
> it
> probably was written in the later twelfth century. But that's only a
> guess.
> The Vita could be later still. Does anyone on the list know when the
> St.
> Jerome version of the trick (which I presume is earlier) is first attested?
> Not that that's likely to matter much in the issue of the clothing.
> Underlying all this is Deuteronomy 22:5, a text that presumes
> differentiation between men's and women's clothing. That text, however
> unverisimilar it may have been in the seventh century or in the twelfth,
> will have been known to Christian religious of every century.
>
> The Vita's placing of Vitalian's final years at the future site of the
> Benedictine abbey of Montevergine suggests a monastic origin (either at
> Montevergine or at some house elsewhere wishing to lay a claim to that
> abbey's legendary past). And therefore a monastic audience. So, whereas
> verisimilitude might not have been important for the Vita's author in
> the
> matter of different clothing for men and women -- just as it
> apparently was
> not in the Vita's story of V.'s enemies at [inland] Capua putting him
> in a
> sack which they then cast into the sea but from which V. escapes and then
> _rows_ [in what?] all the way to Ostia --, verisimilitude could well
> have
> been an issue in respect of the Liturgy of the Hours. The saintly
> bishop is
> said to have been officiating at Matins, not celebrating a Mass, and
> conditions of light in the chancel at the outset of Matins (before it
> begins
> to be light outside) are something with which a monastic audience will
> be
> quite familiar.
>
> Best again,
> John Dillon
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|