On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Carol Symes wrote:
> It should be stressed, when talking about distinctive dress in the Middle
> Ages, that EVERYONE wore such dress: [...] That's what
> sumptuary laws were for; that's why dressng up as a woman, if you happened
> to be a man was considered transgressive.
Carol makes an important and useful point; however, it must also be
again emphasized that legislation does not necessarily equal practice.
Indeed, one might suspect that the reiteration of sumptuary legislation
rather indicates practice in the opposite direction, at some points.
One might also want to hang on to a qualitative difference between
codified modes of dress (which often worked by forbidding certain items
or colours to certain persons), and what Robert Folz has called 'stigma
symbols', such as the rotae, the cross used to denote those who had had
contact with heresy, and so on. I think that there is an important
continuum between these symbols and wider structures of clothing - but
that there are also important differences.
[nb I'm not trying to suggest that Carol has missed any of this!]
cheers
john arnold
Centre for Medieval Studies
Kings Manor
Exhibition Square
York YO1 2EP
ENGLAND
(01904) 433966
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|