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
