I apologize for taking up so much bandwidth on this, but my computer
has managed to lose the name of the original questioner.
>At 04:18 AM 12/20/00 +0000, Mark wrote:
>
>>Here is again what I hope is a working link to a picture:
> >
> ><http://imagehost.auctionwatch.com/preview/ma/marwin/Nunfullcropped.jpg>
> >
>>My questions are: Which monastic order, is this the dress of, if any?
>>
>>Is she a Nun or a Canoness? Or just a Widow?
>>
>>If the monastic order or religious group can be identified, do you have any
>>information about it? Location? Dates? Anything else?
>>
>>If someone could point the way to some book I don't know about regarding
>>religious vestments I would appreciate it.
>>
>>For the record, I would gladly reciprocate for any help given me. I have a
>>fairly extensive library in 6 languages on the subject of Old Masters and
> >Christian iconography.
I might be able to shed some light on this, though I'm more on the
grad student level, not a "real" expert <g>.
I've downloaded this picture and looked at it, and I have some
questions. What does the rest of the painting look like? What context
is this lady being portrayed in? On what evidence is the date of the
painting based? Where was it painted? Does it look like it's supposed
to be a realistic portrait (and not, for instance, a character
dressed for a play, an allegory, or a saint)?
The reason I'm asking is that this, to me, has much more the look of
a nineteenth-century romanticized idea of what a nun or widow
"should" look like than of a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century person
of any sort.
Here's why I think so (and I could, of course, be cheerfully wrong on
any of this!).
Aside from the book she has her finger in, there are no religious
symbols at all visible.
Whether a wealthy widow, or especially a nun, if this is a portrait,
it's odd that she is not wearing *any* jewelry, either religious or
otherwise. A widow might be absolutely without jewelry; Mary Queen of
Scots was portrayed that way. But It was uncommon for a nun to have a
portrait painted, and it usually commemorated either her final vows
or her death, In either case she would probably be wearing both
jewelry *and* flowers, and carrying at least one or two conspicuous
religious symbols (cross, candle, book, statue or painting of a
saint).
Her headpiece is set so far back on her head that neither her cheeks
nor her chin are covered, and bits of her hair are showing. This is a
big no-no for nuns; it would be considered improper (in some
countries, until the 20th century). Also, if she were a widow, in at
least parts of the 16th century she would be wearing a "barbe", a
pleated width of linen that is attached under her chin from ear to
ear and hangs downward, although in that case it wouldn't be so
indecent for *some* of her hair to show.
The white cloth around her neck has a most illogical shape in its
lower part. It's shown lying *over* the black robe, I think, so that
has to be the shape the linen is cut in -- i.e. the shape wouldn't be
just the part that is showing if the black robe is partly covering it
up (though I can't see clearly what the black parts are doing). Nuns
wear this "guimpe" of (washable) linen in order to keep the top of
their (wool) robe clean, so there is absolutely no need for it to
extend below about breast level, and it's hard to see what an
extended waist-length "tab" could be for.
There is a sharp line showing on the guimpe just above breast level.
Either this is the neckline of her black robe showing through the
linen, in which case her neckline is awfully low (and much too low
for a nun at any period), or she is wearing a corset underneath,
which is not impossible for a nun or canoness, but odd. (One common
complaint about both canonesses and wealthy nuns at the time is that
they wore fashionable corsets, hoop skirts, fine silk veils, jewelry
and makeup!)
If she is a nun, her veil is the real puzzle. First of all, it's
white; most (though not all) nuns wear black veils, though sometimes
there is a white veil underneath. Second, it's very short; most nuns'
veils are at least waist length. Third, it's transparent, which is
not impossible if she's a widow, but in that case it *really* ought
to be black. I notice also that the top part of the veil appears to
be double, a possible indication that the veil is actually a circle
of fabric, with the front part (which can cover her face if
necessary) thrown back over her head in this picture.
Fourth, what is making the veil stand up in two little peaks above
her heart-shaped cap? The cap must certainly have a wire frame in
order to hold such a rigid shape; possible for a widow, rather odd
for a 16th-century nun. The veil looks almost as though it has a wire
support to make it hold that shape. That's how the similar late
15th-century "butterfly" veils were held up. It would take a *lot* of
starch to get that shape, and it wouldn't be very stable -- a few
quick movements would disarrange it.
The two biggest issues are these: in the 16th and 17th centuries,
there were relatively few orders of nuns, and IIRC, almost all of
them were cloistered (sisters who worked in hospitals being the major
exception that I know of). Mary Ward made history in 1617 by trying
to found an order of nuns who were *not* cloistered and could go out
and teach (they were nicknamed the "Galloping Girls"!). There are a
few paintings of nuns from that era that I'm familiar with, and *ALL*
of them without exception show a simple flat veil on the head (though
in one case it's black and gold brocade!).
What this looks like to me is the kind of headdress that came in
style in various parts of Europe (especially France) in the 19th
century. This is when you get the kind of tall, elaborate confections
of fine white linen and lace that you still see depicted in the "folk
costume" of various regions. These came into fashion because, for the
first time in history, you had a large and growing population of
rural farmers who were *not* grindingly poor; in fact, many of them
were quite wealthy, yet had no desire to move to the city and become
merchants, doctors et cetera (which had been the tendency in previous
centuries when peasants found themselves with lots of money). Thus
the proliferation of expensive, elegant and highly impractical
"peasant costumes," especially headdresses. (The "cone" headdress of
the Daughters of Charity, in fact -- prototype of the "Flying Nun"
headgear -- got its start as one of these.)
The 19th century is also when you get an explosion of new
congregations of nuns -- hundreds of new groups, some small, some
large, and usually all with distinctive costumes. Probably this is
the first century in history where you need a "field guide' to tell
what kind of nun you are looking at -- not that there weren't several
kinds before, but this is when they really get confusing.
* * * * * * *
On the whole, I doubt she's a nun. If this was painted in the late
16th/early 17th century, it looks, especially the wired cap, much
more like the garb of a widow at that date.
Even so, the shape of the cap is more exaggerated than anything I've
seen in the dozen or so paintings of widows and others wearing this
type of cap (called an "attifet"). The cap does indeed have a point
in the front -- that's where the term "widow's peak" for a hairline
of this shape comes from. But what originated as a cap with a flat
top, later bent (with wire support) into a dip or a point in front,
this artist has shown as a rigid, nearly vertical heart-shaped
"frame" for the face. And the veil is still very odd.
I hope this helps. I am finding that until very recently it has been
rare to find historians discussing *material* culture -- clothes,
jewelry, accessories, bookbindings, furniture -- as opposed to what
they tend to specialize in, which is historical events and concepts.
At the same time, many of these things don't survive to be studied by
archaeologists. So it's not too surprising that there aren't a lot of
reference guides out there yet.
And by the way -- I would not rely on modern (even pre-Vatican II)
books on religious orders to find what they were wearing some
centuries in the past. Nuns' costumes change just as ordinary
people's costumes do -- not as drastically, of course, but people
have a tendency to assume that anything religious continues forever
unchanged, which is not true.
If anyone would like pictorial examples of any of the points I've
been making, by the way, I'll be happy to e-mail a few scans.
Regards,
|