Jewis dress before 1215
Fernando Teixeira
Fernando
Michael Farthing
Teixeira <fer...@netcabo.pt> writes
>What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran (1215)?
>Fernando
>
>
answering their enquires before they submit another.
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
Software House
Paul J Gans
>What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran (1215)?
>Fernando
Where there were no special restrictions they dressed just
like everyone else. The men usually kept their heads covered,
but then so did everyone else.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
To piggyback on my own post, the answer is in your question.
The reason why the Council required distinctive dress was
that otherwise they looked just like anyone else.
Unless you were close enough to see their horns... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
William Black
"Fernando Teixeira" <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:3e2555b7$0$12829$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
> What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran (1215)?
> Fernando
I imagine like anyone else, but probably with a hat.
However as most people seem to wear hats in the illustrations that survive I
imagine that doesn't make them terribly special.
I also imagine that the reason for making them wear special distinctive
clothes was to make them stand out, as they obviously didn't stand out
before...
Although Tiggy reckons you can spot Jews by facial characteristics.
So did Eichman...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Michael Farthing
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Fernando Teixeira" <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
>news:3e2555b7$0$12829$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
>> What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran (1215)?
>> Fernando
>
>I imagine like anyone else, but probably with a hat.
The word "imagine" here is what distinguishes the discipline of history
from that of science. :-)
>
>However as most people seem to wear hats in the illustrations that survive I
>imagine that doesn't make them terribly special.
>
>I also imagine that the reason for making them wear special distinctive
>clothes was to make them stand out, as they obviously didn't stand out
>before...
About 30 years ago the UK passed a law that all motor cyclists must wear
helmets, I imagine this was for safety reasons, as they obviously
didn't wear them before... [For youngsters and non UK folk, prior to
the law the helmet was not universal but was more commonly worn than
not].
My point being, that the decision in certain countries that Jews "must"
wear a (special type of) hat or other clothing, though motivated by the
requirement to make them stand out, might have been influenced by the
existing customs. Thus, in the current day climate, if (when?) we
decide that Arabs should be instantly recognisable by their clothing
then the obvious clothing to choose would include Arab headdress, rather
than something dreamed up on the spot. That Jews were compelled to wear
distinctive clothing after 1215 is clear, as are the reasons. Some
aspects of the clothing imposed might be artificially imposed (I'm
thinking of the yellow badging), but to assume that Jews did not wear
some of the distinctive clothing before 1215 is certainly not tenable
without some primary evidence to that effect. [Equally, of course, we
cannot assume that they did unless we have some evidence: we should
really be saying, "It is not known"].
Note in particular David's version of the quotation from the Lateran
Council in the parallel thread:
"Whereas in certain provinces the difference in their clothes sets Jews
and Saracens apart from Christians, in certain other lands there has
arisen such confusion that no differences are noticeable."
This clearly shows that Jews had distinctive clothing prior to 1215 in
some places, and that even in those places in which the distinction is
less the words suggest that the "problem" may be recent - "there has
*arisen* such confusion that no differences are noticeable" - a hint
perhaps that this situation is recent and unusual - or maybe just that
*some* Jews in these places had abandoned traditional dress.
Michael Farthing
David C Pugh
news:fPAnl6Bo...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
I agree, especially in the light of IV Lateran's pointing out that the
Jews were supposed *by their own law* to be wearing clothing that
distinguished them from Christians. The Church was then setting out to
enforce (at any rate what it thought was) Jewish law on the Jews.
> Note in particular David's version of the quotation from the Lateran
> Council in the parallel thread:
>
> "Whereas in certain provinces the difference in their clothes sets Jews
> and Saracens apart from Christians, in certain other lands there has
> arisen such confusion that no differences are noticeable."
>
> This clearly shows that Jews had distinctive clothing prior to 1215 in
> some places, and that even in those places in which the distinction is
> less the words suggest that the "problem" may be recent - "there has
> *arisen* such confusion that no differences are noticeable" - a hint
> perhaps that this situation is recent and unusual - or maybe just that
> *some* Jews in these places had abandoned traditional dress.
This is the Twelfth-Century Renaissance: rapid social change,
dissolution of norms, people don't keep to their place, don't know what the
world is coming to any more.....
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
William Black
> In message <b044mg$sh2$5...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
> <ga...@panix.com> writes
> >Fernando Teixeira <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> >>What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran
(1215)?
> >>Fernando
> >
> >Where there were no special restrictions they dressed just
> >like everyone else. The men usually kept their heads covered,
> >but then so did everyone else.
>
> How do you know?
Because contemporary illustrations show most men wearing hats.
As one reasonably distinguished medievalist once said to me when I asked him
why people in the middle ages wore hats 'Have you any idea how unpleasant it
is to spend long periods outside in Northern Europe without a hat?'
No buses, no trams, no cars, no umbrellas. If you're going anywhere
you're exposed to the elements, and the elements include rain, so you wear
a hat.
David C Pugh
news:b06q2t$mfm$3...@venus.btinternet.com...
Or a hood, or a cowl.
Michael Farthing
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qfSqBmCh...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <b044mg$sh2$5...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
>> <ga...@panix.com> writes
>> >Fernando Teixeira <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>> >>What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran
>(1215)?
>> >>Fernando
>> >
>> >Where there were no special restrictions they dressed just
>> >like everyone else. The men usually kept their heads covered,
>> >but then so did everyone else.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>Because contemporary illustrations show most men wearing hats.
I was meaning the suggestion that Jews dressed like everybody else, not
the general wearing of hats.
E. C. Lee
I believe there was a negative connection to the color yellow. It was
used to identify prostitutes as well as Jews. That being the case, I
rather doubt that this particular color of hat would be chosen because
it was traditional amongst the Jews.
I seem to recall reading something else as far as distinctive manners
of dress is concerned. Most Western European women did not wear
earrings during the Middle Ages. However, Jewish women (who might
have had been more influenced by the Eastern fashions) did.
Eve
David C Pugh
news:f0cfed5b.03011...@posting.google.com...
(megasnip)
> I believe there was a negative connection to the color yellow. It was
> used to identify prostitutes as well as Jews. That being the case, I
> rather doubt that this particular color of hat would be chosen because
> it was traditional amongst the Jews.
Hm..... so when did yellow become the colour of the Papacy?
> I seem to recall reading something else as far as distinctive manners
> of dress is concerned. Most Western European women did not wear
> earrings during the Middle Ages. However, Jewish women (who might
> have had been more influenced by the Eastern fashions) did.
>
E. C. Lee
> "E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cfed5b.03011...@posting.google.com...
>
> (megasnip)
>
> > I believe there was a negative connection to the color yellow. It was
> > used to identify prostitutes as well as Jews. That being the case, I
> > rather doubt that this particular color of hat would be chosen because
> > it was traditional amongst the Jews.
>
> Hm..... so when did yellow become the colour of the Papacy?
>
LOL! I don't know. Maybe it just means "heads up"? ;-)
William Black
> I was meaning the suggestion that Jews dressed like everybody else, not
> the general wearing of hats.
Because there's no mention of distinctive dress before it was imposed on
them.
The obvious reason to impose such a costume is so that you can spot people
to persecute, or actively persecute people who don't conform.
All the sumptuary laws have that in mind. And of course they don't just
apply to Jews.
In England servants should wear blue, and silver and gold jewellery were
reserved for the upper social ranks.
The repeated passing of the sumptuary laws in England seem to indicate that
nobody took any notice anyway. The effectiveness of sumptuary laws is
something that people were talking about a lot about ten or so years ago,
but it's not fashionable these days.
Uwe Müller
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b09mmv$3bu$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7FMOn5BZ...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>
> > I was meaning the suggestion that Jews dressed like everybody else, not
> > the general wearing of hats.
>
> Because there's no mention of distinctive dress before it was imposed on
> them.
AFAIK dress will in most pre-industrial societies pinpoint your origin by
showing designs particular to a certain village or even family.
>
> The obvious reason to impose such a costume is so that you can spot people
> to persecute, or actively persecute people who don't conform.
AFAIK one of the reasons was, that everybody was judged according to his
law, e.g. Laws from the place he came from. In the illustrated
Sachsenspiegel different people from different backgrounds can be seen, who
are distinguished by dress. Offhand I remember Saxons, Slavs, Franks and
Jews.
Since there is a passage saying that, if in court you have committed
yourself to one law you can't change that again, I'd imagine, transferring
oneself from one people to another was more of a personal decision.
I know of an example for Luebeck Germany, where a flamish trader was known
as Johannes the Fleming, after having immigrated to Luebeck. When he set up
a trading post in Bergen, he was known as Johannes de Luebeck, was member of
the Luebeckan community in Bergen and answered to Luebeck Law.
>
> All the sumptuary laws have that in mind. And of course they don't just
> apply to Jews.
>
> In England servants should wear blue, and silver and gold jewellery were
> reserved for the upper social ranks.
>
> The repeated passing of the sumptuary laws in England seem to indicate
that
> nobody took any notice anyway.
In Germany they seem to have been renewed every couple of years too,
although usually only at a local level. There were comparable laws
concerning the expenditure for weddings, christenings, etc.
> The effectiveness of sumptuary laws is
> something that people were talking about a lot about ten or so years ago,
> but it's not fashionable these days.
There is little more to say. They seem to have been without any enduring
effects. I could imagine, they were used for internal strife. You could pass
a law and something everybody was doing turned into a criminal offence. Good
for the Law and Order fraction.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Martin Reboul
William Black wrote ..
>
>Michael Farthing wrote...
>
> > I was meaning the suggestion that Jews dressed like everybody else, not
> > the general wearing of hats.
>
> Because there's no mention of distinctive dress before it was imposed on
> them.
>
> The obvious reason to impose such a costume is so that you can spot people
> to persecute, or actively persecute people who don't conform.
>
> All the sumptuary laws have that in mind. And of course they don't just
> apply to Jews.
>
> In England servants should wear blue, and silver and gold jewellery were
> reserved for the upper social ranks.
I wonder if Mrs Thatcher knew that?
> The repeated passing of the sumptuary laws in England seem to indicate
that
> nobody took any notice anyway. The effectiveness of sumptuary laws is
> something that people were talking about a lot about ten or so years ago,
> but it's not fashionable these days.
I can't recall reading of a single instance of anyone being prosecuted for a
'sumptuary offence' either? I was told at school it was more an attempt to
restrict ridiculous extremes in fashion, such as piked shoes so long they
needed support chains, or puffed sleeves so camp that the King was afraid
we'd be seen as a nation of nancies and cease to terrify the French. There
may have been something in that?
The only 'sensible' fashion I can see was the first inarnation of the
platform sole, no doubt rather useful in muddy streets - though I daresay
they looked just as ridiculous five C. ago as they do now...
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
E. C. Lee wrote...
> I believe there was a negative connection to the color yellow. It was
> used to identify prostitutes as well as Jews. That being the case, I
> rather doubt that this particular color of hat would be chosen because
> it was traditional amongst the Jews.
Yellow is often associated with death and sickness in magical associations
and lore. It is a 'sickly' colour sometimes, not always associated with
lemons and sunlight. Worst of all, (apart from cowardice), it is the colour
of cars which fade in UV light from the sun and are impossible to get a
decent paint match for - never buy a yellow car!
Cheers
Martin
Simon Pugh
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> writes
is also used on some hazard labels and nature uses it as a warning too.
I'm thinking of wasps and the like.
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
Michael Farthing
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7FMOn5BZ...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I was meaning the suggestion that Jews dressed like everybody else, not
>> the general wearing of hats.
>
>Because there's no mention of distinctive dress before it was imposed on
>them.
Based on your reading of all the documents for the whole of Europe prior
to such date, no doubt? I don't think so. Even had you accomplished
this feat you still are presenting an argument on the basis of proof by
lack of evidence. Had you something which said, "Only after they had
been talking for several hours did he realise that the merchant was a
Jew" that might constitute positive evidence - for one particular time
at one particular place. As it is, however, the assertion looks very
dubious. Jews had long been merchants, used to travel, used to settling
in foreign countries: at first sight it is highly unlikely that they
would immediately adapt the clothing of the folk among whom they were
settling. You might be right - but before I gave any credence to such
a sweeping opinion I'd want more than a one line comment without any
references.
Fernando Teixeira
is free in their tastes; otherwise, what we'll do with the yellow?"
Fernando Teixeira
"Simon Pugh" <Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> escreveu na mensagem
news:fDgt2fOj...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
Fernando Teixeira
some facts. There are several medieval manuscripts and stained glasses with
the Tree of Jesse, where the figure of Jessé had the pointed hat of the
Jewish. We know the Latran's Council of 1215 required distinctive dress to
the Jewish, but some of the figures of Jessé are prior of the Council.
Hypothesis: Before the Council, the (most) part of the Jewish, at least in
the countries where the manuscripts and stained glasses were made, used a
distinctive dress, including the point hat. What do you think about?... Are
there other evidences?...
Fernando
"Fernando Teixeira" <fer...@netcabo.pt> escreveu na mensagem
news:3e2555b7$0$12829$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
David C Pugh
> Thanks to all the people who answered to my first question. I'd like to
add
> some facts. There are several medieval manuscripts and stained glasses
with
> the Tree of Jesse, where the figure of Jessé had the pointed hat of the
> Jewish. We know the Latran's Council of 1215 required distinctive dress to
> the Jewish, but some of the figures of Jessé are prior of the Council.
> Hypothesis: Before the Council, the (most) part of the Jewish, at least in
> the countries where the manuscripts and stained glasses were made, used a
> distinctive dress, including the point hat. What do you think about?...
Are
> there other evidences?...
>
You have a Jew in an illustration in a religious book or window, you
have to *show* that he's a Jew so that everyone can understand. No good
having a caption in the window, at least, since this is "the Bible of the
illiterate". It's precisely analogous to the way the Capitalist always wears
a stovepipe hat in cartoons, preferably with a dollar-sign painted on it. Or
look at "Uncle Sam" -- did anyone ever wear that get-up? Of course not.
French Jews might have worn those hats. Or they might not, but the
illustration gave them one anyway to convey the vital piece of information.
E-mailed to Eve, our resident expert on iconography -- which is what
this is.
Fernando Teixeira
some facts. There are several medieval manuscripts and stained glasses with
the Tree of Jesse, where the figure of Jessé had the pointed hat of the
Jewish. We know the Latran's Council of 1215 required distinctive dress to
the Jewish, but some of the figures of Jessé are prior of the Council.
Hypothesis: Before the Council, the (most) part of the Jewish, at least in
the countries where the manuscripts and stained glasses were made, used a
distinctive dress, including the point hat. What do you think about?... Are
there other evidences?...
Fernando
"Fernando Teixeira" <fer...@netcabo.pt> escreveu na mensagem
news:3e2555b7$0$12829$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
E. C. Lee
Thanks! I don't think I'm exactly an expert here, but thanks for the
vote of confidence! I think David has said what I would have said,
only with better grammar and no typos! ;-)
There are several people here who are quite knowledgable about the
clothing worn during this period. Heather, for example, always seems
well informed. Do any of our experts in this particular area have
anything to contribute?
Eve
Martin Reboul
Simon Pugh wrote
>Martin Reboul writes
> >
> >E. C. Lee wrote...
> >
> >> I believe there was a negative connection to the color yellow. It was
> >> used to identify prostitutes as well as Jews. That being the case, I
> >> rather doubt that this particular color of hat would be chosen because
> >> it was traditional amongst the Jews.
> >
> >Yellow is often associated with death and sickness in magical
associations
> >and lore. It is a 'sickly' colour sometimes, not always associated with
> >lemons and sunlight. Worst of all, (apart from cowardice), it is the
colour
> >of cars which fade in UV light from the sun and are impossible to get a
> >decent paint match for - never buy a yellow car!
> > Cheers
> > Martin
> >
> Does any one know the history of the negative connotations of yellow? It
> is also used on some hazard labels and nature uses it as a warning too.
> I'm thinking of wasps and the like.
The direst warnings are usually in yellow and black - wasps and hornets may
be something to do with it, it's always intrigued me? Missile launch
buttons, hazard warnings, cranes, whatever.
David C Pugh
news:b0k0ns$vkq$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Oh, Martin, do hasten to reassure me that this is not the voice of
experience and you've never been that close to a missile launch button!!!!
:-)
Simon Pugh
<davi...@online.no> writes
Shudder =:o
Paul J Gans
Michael: I don't understand why you seem so heated over
this. There would have been no reason to legislate
specific visible indicators had the Jews dressed in a
distinctive style.
Jews may have been merchants, but that does not imply that
they were used to settling in foreign countries. French
Jews based in Rouen, for example, may have travelled to
Flanders and England, but they lived in Rouen and likely
had for generations.
Western European dress up to say 1350 was more or less
the same from place to place. That is, it doesn't seem
possible to deduce nationality or locality by just looking
at illustrations of the period, though there may well have
been other markers not seen in simple pictures.
But the basic point is that it is anti-Occam to postulate
clothing differences in the absence of direct evidence for
them. Certainly they spoke the vernacular (with most of
the men also being able to read and write Hebrew) and mingled
with the general population. Ghettoization of Jews seems not
to have started much before the 12th century.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In message <b04lqe$716$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, William Black
><black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Fernando Teixeira" <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
>>news:3e2555b7$0$12829$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
>>> What was the jewis dress in Europe before the IV Concil of Latran (1215)?
>>> Fernando
>>
>>I imagine like anyone else, but probably with a hat.
>The word "imagine" here is what distinguishes the discipline of history
>from that of science. :-)
Less than you might think. A *lot* of science depends
on extrapolation.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
David C Pugh wrote...
> Martin Reboul wrote...
My dear chap, I used to *make* the things!
Contrarius
news:b0k0ns$vkq$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The direst warnings are usually in yellow and black - wasps and hornets
may
> be something to do with it, it's always intrigued me? Missile launch
> buttons, hazard warnings, cranes, whatever.
It's the brightest of colors, and great swaths of it are rarely found in
nature, so it's the color most likely to get attention. It's no accident
that yellow is the most popular color for taxis. Cab drivers prefer it
because it makes them easy to spot, especially at night - good for business
and it lessens their chance of being hit by another vehicle. It's also the
hue of Hell's second best-known export, which may explain why Christians
and Nazis forced Jews to wear it. (I'm only speculating about the brimstone
connection, but it seems plausible, and what better forum for speculation
than SHM?)
C
Michael Farthing
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>Michael Farthing <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Based on your reading of all the documents for the whole of Europe prior
>>to such date, no doubt? I don't think so. Even had you accomplished
>>this feat you still are presenting an argument on the basis of proof by
>>lack of evidence. Had you something which said, "Only after they had
>>been talking for several hours did he realise that the merchant was a
>>Jew" that might constitute positive evidence - for one particular time
>>at one particular place. As it is, however, the assertion looks very
>>dubious. Jews had long been merchants, used to travel, used to settling
>>in foreign countries: at first sight it is highly unlikely that they
>>would immediately adapt the clothing of the folk among whom they were
>>settling. You might be right - but before I gave any credence to such
>>a sweeping opinion I'd want more than a one line comment without any
>>references.
>But the basic point is that it is anti-Occam to postulate
>clothing differences in the absence of direct evidence for
>them.
Had I done so you might have a point.
As I didn't you haven't.
It is precisely my point that you and William have made a categorical
assertion without any direct evidence that is what I am criticising.
The truth or otherwise of the assertion is secondary: it is your shoddy
methodology which is being questioned. Your view might be right, but
before I gave any credence to such a sweeping opinion I'd want more than
a one line comment without any references.
--
Uwe Müller
"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:r9FK5vF2...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
> snip >
> It is precisely my point that you and William have made a categorical
> assertion without any direct evidence that is what I am criticising.
> The truth or otherwise of the assertion is secondary: it is your shoddy
> methodology which is being questioned. Your view might be right, but
> before I gave any credence to such a sweeping opinion I'd want more than
> a one line comment without any references.
>
In the Heidelberg Manuscript of the Sachsenspiegel, late 14th c., different
peoples are depicted by differences in dress, haicut, etc.
compare some pictures:
http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/vvv/2001/geist-soz/3/Bilder/Index/bildind_s
.htm
and
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/cpg/cpg164.xml?docname=cpg164&pag
eid=PAGE0001
There should be an English edition of the Illustrated ms., if not, try to
get Walter Koschorrek, Der Sachsenspiegel in Bildern. Aus der Heidelberger
Bilderhandschrift. Frankfurt/M 1976.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
David C Pugh
news:b0oqmb$iva$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> In the Heidelberg Manuscript of the Sachsenspiegel, late 14th c.,
different
> peoples are depicted by differences in dress, haicut, etc.
>
Yes, and "The Economist" regularly accompanies its articles on European
issues with little pictures. The Germans are this fat guy in lederhosen and
with either a crew-cut or a felt hat with a feather, the French are this
thin guy in a striped jersey, a beret and a string of onions around his
neck..... Need I go on?
Uwe Müller
"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gpTX9.14449$CG6.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:b0oqmb$iva$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
>
> > In the Heidelberg Manuscript of the Sachsenspiegel, late 14th c.,
> different
> > peoples are depicted by differences in dress, haicut, etc.
> >
>
> Yes, and "The Economist" regularly accompanies its articles on European
> issues with little pictures. The Germans are this fat guy in lederhosen
and
> with either a crew-cut or a felt hat with a feather, the French are this
> thin guy in a striped jersey, a beret and a string of onions around his
> neck..... Need I go on?
>
Yes, because in the accompanying text Koschorrek states, that the pictures
were drawn so that illiterate people could still understand the laws. This
would have been impossibel, if peculiarities of dress were not well known.
(I take it, The Economist was rather rare in 14th c. Saxony).
So even if there is no proof for a typical costume as being compulsary, the
majority would have worn a dress in that style.
By the way, up to the 1950's you'd have been surprised on how many Bavarians
you could have seen in the street, fat, with a crew cut and of course
Lederhosen. Not everything in The Economist is wrong, or so it would seem.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
David C Pugh
>
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:gpTX9.14449$CG6.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> > "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> > news:b0oqmb$iva$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >
> > > In the Heidelberg Manuscript of the Sachsenspiegel, late 14th c.,
> > different
> > > peoples are depicted by differences in dress, haicut, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, and "The Economist" regularly accompanies its articles on European
> > issues with little pictures. The Germans are this fat guy in lederhosen
> and with either a crew-cut or a felt hat with a feather, the French are
this
> > thin guy in a striped jersey, a beret and a string of onions around his
> > neck..... Need I go on?
> >
> Yes, because in the accompanying text Koschorrek states, that the pictures
> were drawn so that illiterate people could still understand the laws. This
> would have been impossibel, if peculiarities of dress were not well known.
> (I take it, The Economist was rather rare in 14th c. Saxony).
No, I still don't buy it. These book illustrations were an illiterate's
guide to the law, right? And you have a situation where if the victim is a
Bavarian and the perpetrator is a Frisian, then this happens, but if the
perpetrator is a Swabian and the victim is a Saxon then that happens, right?
So the illiterate has to be shown that this is a Saxon and that is a
Frisian. You can't use captions because he's illiterate, so you use iconic
stereotypes.
Obviously the iconic stereotypes have to be based in some sort of
reality, or else they won't work, as you rightly point out: but it doesn't
follow that the wearing of that distinctive dress was universal or belonged
to the age in which the Sachsenspiegel was actually written. If everyone had
worn that dress a hundred years previously but now looked the same, it would
still work, because it is visual shorthand for the various sub-nations.
Presumably there once really were Frenchmen who rose bicycles in striped
jerseys with onions round their neck, even if only a few, but I've never
seen one. (And of course, the beret is actually Basque, but the English
don't seem to know that.)
A LOT of medieval art is what we would now call "political poster art"
or even "cartoons".
> So even if there is no proof for a typical costume as being compulsary,
the
> majority would have worn a dress in that style.
>
> By the way, up to the 1950's you'd have been surprised on how many
Bavarians you could have seen in the street, fat, with a crew cut and of
course
> Lederhosen.
<shudder>
Not everything in The Economist is wrong, or so it would seem.
Now here's another point. Can we imagine a historian writing in the year
3002 not being aware that the wearing of Lederhosen by fat crew-cut
Bavarians in German cities was common in the 1950s but not in the 2000s? I
certainly can; what's 50 years from his perspective? We generalise about
"the Middle Ages", do we not, a period of a thousand years at a bit, so why
shouldn't he or she?
And going back to poster art, is Norman Rockwell a reliable source for
American life, and if so, in what periods?
I'm copying this to Eve.
--
William Black
> It is precisely my point that you and William have made a categorical
> assertion without any direct evidence that is what I am criticising.
> The truth or otherwise of the assertion is secondary: it is your shoddy
> methodology which is being questioned. Your view might be right, but
> before I gave any credence to such a sweeping opinion I'd want more than
> a one line comment without any references.
Then I'm afraid you're going to have to get your arse into a serious library
instead of fishing for the truth on the Internet.
Michael Farthing
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:r9FK5vF2...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>
>> It is precisely my point that you and William have made a categorical
>> assertion without any direct evidence that is what I am criticising.
>> The truth or otherwise of the assertion is secondary: it is your shoddy
>> methodology which is being questioned. Your view might be right, but
>> before I gave any credence to such a sweeping opinion I'd want more than
>> a one line comment without any references.
>
>Then I'm afraid you're going to have to get your arse into a serious library
>instead of fishing for the truth on the Internet.
Fishing for truth on the internet is an activity I rarely engage in;
fishing for truth on usenet rarer still.
Paul J Gans
I have never seen a reference to specialized clothing for Jews
before the first edicts began to appear in the 12th-13th century.
That's the best I can do and it is the best that anyone can do.
My shoddy methodology, as you put it, is quite appropriate for
the situation. You asked a question in a public, informal forum.
You got a public, informal answer. Had you wanted a research
answer, complete with references, you should have said so.
---- Paul J. Gans
Uwe Müller
> snip >
> Obviously the iconic stereotypes have to be based in some sort of
> reality, or else they won't work, as you rightly point out: but it doesn't
> follow that the wearing of that distinctive dress was universal or
belonged
> to the age in which the Sachsenspiegel was actually written. If everyone
had
> worn that dress a hundred years previously but now looked the same, it
would
> still work, because it is visual shorthand for the various sub-nations.
And it would give a date in the late 13th c. for different peoples wearing
different styles of dress. Now, since the argument was, that there could be
no way to tell in the absence of proof, I'd like you to reconsider, because
these pictures proove, that such peculiarities of dress were known, were
widespread and could be used to tell to what peoples a person belonged to.
>
> Now here's another point. Can we imagine a historian writing in the
year
> 3002 not being aware that the wearing of Lederhosen by fat crew-cut
> Bavarians in German cities was common in the 1950s but not in the 2000s? I
> certainly can; what's 50 years from his perspective? We generalise about
> "the Middle Ages", do we not, a period of a thousand years at a bit, so
why
> shouldn't he or she?
If you parallel the 3rd millenium with the Medieval, there are a number of
problems arising, the least being the increasing movement of people or the
rising population in towns. Would you accept the notion of the 31st c.
historian, that since there was no dress distinction in his times, there
couldn't have been one in earlier times?
The argument, concerning the absence of proof, works both ways in the dress
debate. Now that proof has been presented for the existence of a dress code,
you would need to present proof against it.
The laws regulating dress, styles, material and decoration, could be such an
argument, if it could be shown, that it had a bearing not only on town folk
(5% of the population, lots of them not being locals) but for rural
communities as well.
> snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
David C Pugh
> > snip >
>
> > Obviously the iconic stereotypes have to be based in some sort of
> > reality, or else they won't work, as you rightly point out: but it
doesn't
> > follow that the wearing of that distinctive dress was universal or
> belonged
> > to the age in which the Sachsenspiegel was actually written. If everyone
> had worn that dress a hundred years previously but now looked the same, it
> would still work, because it is visual shorthand for the various
sub-nations.
>
> And it would give a date in the late 13th c. for different peoples wearing
> different styles of dress.
Eh? I've just described how it doesn't prove that necessarily, although
there might have been a previous time when they were universal.
Now, since the argument was, that there could be
> no way to tell in the absence of proof, I'd like you to reconsider,
because
> these pictures proove, that such peculiarities of dress were known, were
> widespread and could be used to tell to what peoples a person belonged to.
No, I don't accept that they "prove" any such thing. That's because any
illustrations that have such a heavy loading of iconographical ulterior
motive are IMHO suspect. An agricultural manual showing peasants doing their
thing, on the other hand, would be an OK source for peasant dress. Ditto for
pictures of knights fighting, providing they were all Christians. The moment
you get *ethnic* differences, however, you muddy the waters. Pictures of
knights fighting Saracens may (not will, may) show the latter almost as
demons, just like in modern newspaper cartoons of the Good Guys versus the
Terrorists. Pictures of Jews will have "marker" features, just as they did
in the pages of Der Stürmer --- and yes, that *is* a fair comparison. And if
the Sachsenspiegel is designed partly as a Lawyer's Guide to Different Kinds
of German, the same iconographic imperatives will be operating.
> > Now here's another point. Can we imagine a historian writing in the
> year 3002 not being aware that the wearing of Lederhosen by fat crew-cut
> > Bavarians in German cities was common in the 1950s but not in the 2000s?
I
> > certainly can; what's 50 years from his perspective? We generalise about
> > "the Middle Ages", do we not, a period of a thousand years at a bit, so
> why shouldn't he or she?
>
> If you parallel the 3rd millenium with the Medieval, there are a number of
> problems arising, the least being the increasing movement of people or the
> rising population in towns.
It wasn't a parallel between social conditions, it was a point about the
compression of time by greater time.
Would you accept the notion of the 31st c.
> historian, that since there was no dress distinction in his times, there
> couldn't have been one in earlier times?
No, that's going to some opposite extreme. And I'm not saying that there
WERE no dress distinctions between Saxons and Bavarians in the 13th, or that
French Jews did NOT wear funny hats in the 12th, I'm quite agnostic about
both -- I am saying only that people must be aware of the iconographical
conventions of that age, or of our own age for that matter, before
interpreting propaganda or didactic illustrations as reflecting objective
reality.
> The argument, concerning the absence of proof, works both ways in the
dress
> debate. Now that proof has been presented for the existence of a dress
code,
> you would need to present proof against it.
No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming that
the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
question is still open.
As Paul said about the Jews, a text in which some merchant said, "I
thought he was a Bavarian because he was fat, wore Lederhosen and played the
tuba badly, but to my surprise he turned out to be from Lübeck", such a text
might be evidence -- or there again, you might have a German version of
Walter Map who was forever taking the piss.
> The laws regulating dress, styles, material and decoration, could be such
an
> argument, if it could be shown, that it had a bearing not only on town
folk
> (5% of the population, lots of them not being locals) but for rural
> communities as well.
Yes, such laws would be good evidence for what the authorities *thought*
everyone ought to be wearing.
It is also unlawful to smoke on the platforms of the Paris metro. So
people don't. Do they? :-)
> have fun
>
You too. Mind them Bavarians ;-)
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
P & E Eve and Paul
Michael Farthing
<davi...@online.no> writes
> No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
>doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming that
>the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
>question is still open.
This won't do.
You HAVE to have a view one way or the other.
And stick to it.
Through thick and thin.
You can't sit on the fence like this.
How can we have a PROPER argument if we don't know which side everybody
is playing for?
You're a CHEAT.
Michael Farthing
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>I have never seen a reference to specialized clothing for Jews
>before the first edicts began to appear in the 12th-13th century.
>That's the best I can do and it is the best that anyone can do.
That's fine.
>
>My shoddy methodology, as you put it, is quite appropriate for
>the situation. You asked a question
Actually it was someone else...
>in a public, informal forum.
>You got a public, informal answer.
> Had you wanted a research
>answer, complete with references, you should have said so.
I didn't ask the original question, but in response to the original
reply I did ask for some justification. I did not ask for, and no one
ever has asked for, "a research answer complete with references", and
neither was one expected. The suggestion that it was seems like an
attempt at moving the goal posts to make it look as if I'm asking
something unreasonable. What I actually said was "How do you know
this?" That is NOT a call for a research answer. It might invite
references, but certainly not an exhaustive discussion. I do not think
any reasonable person would interpret it otherwise, and the post to
which you are replying made it quite clear that all I thought was
missing was an indication of the *level* of authority of the reply.
There are (at least) three possible types of reply to the original
question:
a) Bold assertion without qualification.
b) Quick answer with quick caveat to indicate level of reliability
c) Detailed analysis.
(b) (as provided by you above) is no harder to provide than (a). This
may be an informal public forum, but you hold yourself out as informed
in this subject, and at the very least claim some areas of specialised
knowledge. You make no secret of the fact that you teach in these
areas. (Please note that I am not saying that you parade the fact, and
nor do I think it). You presumably hope that this group contributes to
better understanding of the subject rather than worse. Given that, I am
surprised that you do not aspire to good practice but think that because
it is an "informal public forum" anything goes. Well even in an
informal public forum (indeed especially so), if you make bold
assertions you must expect others to query them, and to point out that
they are indeed bold assertions.
So, management summary:
1) Questions in a public informal forum may get public informal answers
2) Public informal answers in a public forum may get criticised.
I'm sorry I made the emotive comment about sloppy methodology: it *is*
an informal group and we should not demand from each other what might
(or ought to) be required for publication. Nevertheless, I think it is
reasonable that we pick up on others where we feel they are over-stating
their case. Perhaps on this we differ and you feel it is not
appropriate to pick up on other people is this way? :-)
[Meanwhile, back in the main thread, there's actually some good, if
slightly heated, discussion going on about what evidence there might
actually be and whether it's worth regarding as evidence]
David C Pugh
> In message <bS6Y9.19435$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no>, David C Pugh
> <davi...@online.no> writes
>
> > No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
> >doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming
that
> >the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
> >question is still open.
>
> This won't do.
>
> You HAVE to have a view one way or the other.
> And stick to it.
> Through thick and thin.
I think you're confusing SHM with Middle Earth.
> You can't sit on the fence like this.
So sue me.
Or did you forget the smiley?
Uwe Müller
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:b0qom6$1p0$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
>
> > > snip >
> >
> > > Obviously the iconic stereotypes have to be based in some sort of
> > > reality, or else they won't work, as you rightly point out: but it
> doesn't
> > > follow that the wearing of that distinctive dress was universal or
> > belonged
> > > to the age in which the Sachsenspiegel was actually written. If
everyone
> > had worn that dress a hundred years previously but now looked the same,
it
> > would still work, because it is visual shorthand for the various
> sub-nations.
> >
> > And it would give a date in the late 13th c. for different peoples
wearing
> > different styles of dress.
>
> Eh? I've just described how it doesn't prove that necessarily,
although
> there might have been a previous time when they were universal.
And You gave a rough estimate for 'previous time', which I used. The
manuscript is from the late 14thc. so a hundred years prviously would date
the underlying custom to the late 13th c.
>
> Now, since the argument was, that there could be
> > no way to tell in the absence of proof, I'd like you to reconsider,
> because
> > these pictures proove, that such peculiarities of dress were known, were
> > widespread and could be used to tell to what peoples a person belonged
to.
>
> No, I don't accept that they "prove" any such thing. That's because
any
> illustrations that have such a heavy loading of iconographical ulterior
> motive are IMHO suspect.
So You wouldn't accept the notion of a rigid style of dress, because it was
solely based on opinion, while you refrain from using the evidence on a
basis that is Your opinion, that it is full of ulterior motives.
Since You didn't provide evidence for Your opinion, as You required others
to do, I can only remark, that absence of evidence is no evidence of
absence. And neither the Stuermer nor The Economist are evidence for
medieval Saxony.
> An agricultural manual showing peasants doing their
> thing, on the other hand, would be an OK source for peasant dress. Ditto
for
> pictures of knights fighting, providing they were all Christians. The
moment
> you get *ethnic* differences, however, you muddy the waters. Pictures of
> knights fighting Saracens may (not will, may) show the latter almost as
> demons, just like in modern newspaper cartoons of the Good Guys versus the
> Terrorists. Pictures of Jews will have "marker" features, just as they did
> in the pages of Der Stürmer --- and yes, that *is* a fair comparison. And
if
> the Sachsenspiegel is designed partly as a Lawyer's Guide to Different
Kinds
> of German, the same iconographic imperatives will be operating.
The Laws are written on one side of the paper. The content of a single law
is then presented as a picture on the other side, for instance the leasing
of land. Since the Sachsenspiegel was Law only for the Saxons, problems
arising with other peoples had to deal with two or more sets of laws,
slavic, frankish, jewish. In this context it was important to show the
origin of the peoples, and what procedures were to be applied to them.
AFAIK the Sachsenspiegel was not designed, not even in parts, to be a
lawyers guide to different ethnicities (jewish and slavic people were
certainly not German). Where did You find that notion?
>
> > > Now here's another point. Can we imagine a historian writing in
the
> > year 3002 not being aware that the wearing of Lederhosen by fat crew-cut
> > > Bavarians in German cities was common in the 1950s but not in the
2000s?
> I
> > > certainly can; what's 50 years from his perspective? We generalise
about
> > > "the Middle Ages", do we not, a period of a thousand years at a bit,
so
> > why shouldn't he or she?
> >
> > If you parallel the 3rd millenium with the Medieval, there are a number
of
> > problems arising, the least being the increasing movement of people or
the
> > rising population in towns.
>
> It wasn't a parallel between social conditions, it was a point about
the
> compression of time by greater time.
Dress is a function of social conditions, not of time.
>
> Would you accept the notion of the 31st c.
> > historian, that since there was no dress distinction in his times, there
> > couldn't have been one in earlier times?
>
> No, that's going to some opposite extreme. And I'm not saying that
there
> WERE no dress distinctions between Saxons and Bavarians in the 13th, or
that
> French Jews did NOT wear funny hats in the 12th, I'm quite agnostic about
> both -- I am saying only that people must be aware of the iconographical
> conventions of that age, or of our own age for that matter, before
> interpreting propaganda or didactic illustrations as reflecting objective
> reality.
Implying that the Sachsenspiegel pictures were propaganda or didactic
illustrations. Any evidence for that?
>
> > The argument, concerning the absence of proof, works both ways in the
> dress
> > debate. Now that proof has been presented for the existence of a dress
> code,
> > you would need to present proof against it.
>
> No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
> doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming
that
> the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
> question is still open.
>
Up to now you spoke of your opinion. Now you claim to have proven that the
pictures from the Sachsenspiegel are
a) a lawyers guide to ethnic differences
b) propaganda
c) didactic illustrations
All at the same time, in order of appearance or whatever fittet best? : )
>snip>
Yes, evidence to proove that notion wrong or right, is hard to come by. And
it is not clear what ethnicity means, concerning Saxons, Franks, Jews and
Slavs living together.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
David C Pugh
> manuscript is from the late 14thc. so a hundred years prviously would date
> the underlying custom to the late 13th c.
Ah, now I see. I thought the Sachsenspiegel was early 13th, but your
manuscript (the link to which seemed broken, BTW) is later. Okay. Whatever.
I was just trying to point out how an *iconographic tradition* can survive,
by at least a century if not more, the realities that once inspired it -- as
with the Frenchmen and his onions. Might be relevant to the German
situation, might not.
> > No, I don't accept that they "prove" any such thing. That's because
> any illustrations that have such a heavy loading of iconographical
ulterior
> > motive are IMHO suspect.
>
> So You wouldn't accept the notion of a rigid style of dress, because it
was
> solely based on opinion, while you refrain from using the evidence on a
> basis that is Your opinion, that it is full of ulterior motives.
I haven't a clue what you are trying to say here. The only thing I am
*refusing to accept* is that ethnic portraits in medieval illustrations are
to be taken as solid evidence of a universal dress code applicable to that
particular ethnicity. I have said, apparently in a different part of the
multiverse, that it is quite possible that French Jews wore funny hats and
Saxons dressed differently from Bavarians, but that..... oh, why bother.
> Since You didn't provide evidence for Your opinion, as You required others
> to do I can only remark, that absence of evidence is no evidence of
> absence. And neither the Stuermer nor The Economist are evidence for
> medieval Saxony.
<sigh> They are not evidence of medieval Saxony, they are illustrations
of contemporary iconography.
Illustrations
Of
Contemporary
Iconography.
That is, illustrating the principle that not all illustrations are a
faithful literal record of reality. I can't say it better, or more clearly.
You are systematically distorting everything I have ever said.
> > An agricultural manual showing peasants doing their
> > thing, on the other hand, would be an OK source for peasant dress. Ditto
> for
> > pictures of knights fighting, providing they were all Christians. The
> moment
> > you get *ethnic* differences, however, you muddy the waters. Pictures of
> > knights fighting Saracens may (not will, may) show the latter almost as
> > demons, just like in modern newspaper cartoons of the Good Guys versus
the
> > Terrorists. Pictures of Jews will have "marker" features, just as they
did
> > in the pages of Der Stürmer --- and yes, that *is* a fair comparison.
And
> if the Sachsenspiegel is designed partly as a Lawyer's Guide to Different
> Kinds of German, the same iconographic imperatives will be operating.
>
> The Laws are written on one side of the paper. The content of a single law
> is then presented as a picture on the other side, for instance the leasing
> of land.
Yes, textbooks and things do this, then as now. So far so good.
Since the Sachsenspiegel was Law only for the Saxons, problems
> arising with other peoples had to deal with two or more sets of laws,
> slavic, frankish, jewish. In this context it was important to show the
> origin of the peoples, and what procedures were to be applied to them.
Yes, the operative word is "show the origin of the peoples".
Iconography.
> AFAIK the Sachsenspiegel was not designed, not even in parts, to be a
> lawyers guide to different ethnicities (jewish and slavic people were
> certainly not German). Where did You find that notion?
That's the impression you gave me, maybe I misunderstood. Please note
the word "if" above.
> Dress is a function of social conditions, not of time.
And the change of social conditions does not occur in time? The fact
that you no longer wear multi-coloured hose, pointy shoes and a sword has
nothing to do with this funny stuff called "time"?
> > No, that's going to some opposite extreme. And I'm not saying that
> there
> > WERE no dress distinctions between Saxons and Bavarians in the 13th, or
> that
> > French Jews did NOT wear funny hats in the 12th, I'm quite agnostic
about
> > both -- I am saying only that people must be aware of the
iconographical
> > conventions of that age, or of our own age for that matter, before
> > interpreting propaganda or didactic illustrations as reflecting
objective
> > reality.
>
> Implying that the Sachsenspiegel pictures were propaganda or didactic
> illustrations. Any evidence for that?
*You yourself* said that the S. pictures were put in to illustrate
provisions in the law regarding aliens (non-Saxons). I took this to mean:
"The law regarding Bavarians is -- look, this guy is a Bavarian -- so and
so." That means didactic. If the purpose of the illustration is not this but
something else, I will stand corrected.
The "propaganda" referred to medieval pictures of Jews, for example in a
stained-glass window, not to the Sachenspiegel at all. Which is where we
started, wiuth Fernando Teixera and his Tree of Jesse in St. Denis. (For the
record, there is no conceiveable connection between Der Stürmer and the
Sachsenspiegel, but modern iconography of Jews is not entirely irrelevant to
medieval iconography of Jews.) I would continue to assert that all
illustrations of Jews (and Muslims, heretics etc.) in medieval Christian
sources have some propaganda angle and must be treated with caution.
> > No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
> > doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming
> that the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
> > question is still open.
> >
>
> Up to now you spoke of your opinion. Now you claim to have proven
I claim to have "proven"? Big word, proven. Challenging the notion that
a picture is rock-solid evidence of social reality is how I'd put it myself.
that the pictures from the Sachsenspiegel are
>
> a) a lawyers guide to ethnic differences
> b) propaganda
> c) didactic illustrations
>
> All at the same time, in order of appearance or whatever fittet best? : )
I'm trying to figure out, based on *your* information as to what the
Spiegel actually is, what the function of its illustrations are, and
endeavouring --- entirely without success, it seems -- to introduce the idea
of "iconography" and how medieval iconography is not the same thing as
photo-realism.
I will admit that the portrayal of Jews with funny hats on a
stained-glass window is a much better example of this point I am --- so
vainly -- endeavouring to make than is the Sachsenspiegel. It may well be
that my attempt to apply a cautionary principle relating to medieval
iconography to the Sachsenspiegel is unsuccessful; it might help if I could
see the damn thing, but then I'm not a professional iconographer anyway or
even a professional historian. But there is an important principle here
which deserves, I think, survive both my mistakes and your cheap sarcasm.
David
Fernando Teixeira
session of the city council it was decided to force all Jews to wear a cone
shaped headdress in addition to a badge, to be recognized from a distance.
This was called the Pileum Cornutum and it became a distinctive attire which
is prevalent in many medieval woodcuts illustrating Jews".
Fernando Teixeira
"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> escreveu na mensagem
news:r9FK5vF2...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
Michael Farthing
<davi...@online.no> writes
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:wn7sfMFR...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <bS6Y9.19435$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no>, David C Pugh
>> <davi...@online.no> writes
>>
>> > No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
>> >doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming
>that
>> >the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
>> >question is still open.
>>
>> This won't do.
>>
>> You HAVE to have a view one way or the other.
>> And stick to it.
>> Through thick and thin.
>
> I think you're confusing SHM with Middle Earth.
Thinks: Did I stick to a single point of view when discussing Middle
Earth? Dunno really. Can't remember. Did David? Dunno. Can't
remember that either!
>
>> You can't sit on the fence like this.
>
> So sue me.
>
> Or did you forget the smiley?
Oh dear. One should always keep ones powder dry, but keeping my humour
dry (surely it was only dry-ish?) seems to lead me into all sorts of
difficulties. Yes, David, add a smiley.
And there was me thinking that I was sticking up for you - particularly
as I doubt that I can find a single word of what you've written in this
thread that I disagree with. [I vaguely recall that I didn't disagree
about Middle Earth either].
Paul J Gans
>I have just found this note: "1267. May 12, Vienna (Austria) - At a special
>session of the city council it was decided to force all Jews to wear a cone
>shaped headdress in addition to a badge, to be recognized from a distance.
>This was called the Pileum Cornutum and it became a distinctive attire which
>is prevalent in many medieval woodcuts illustrating Jews".
>Fernando Teixeira
Which is excellent, if indirect evidence that without the
headdress and the badge, the Jews couldn't be told from
the other Austrians.
It is also direct evidence that the Jews did not wear the
hats of their own volition.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> snip >
>> snip >
>have fun
>Uwe Mueller
I've been trying to follow all this and I've gotten quite
confused.
I thought the argument was about distinctive dress for the
Jews. I have no problems with distinctive regional dress
for the inhabitants of a given region, nor do I think anyone
else does either.
Exactly what that regional dress was in reality is another
argument having to do with the reliability of illustrations,
etc.
But so far the only evidence I've seen here (or elsewhere)
pertaining to the Jews is that they had to be *ordered*
to wear something distinctive. That is strong evidence
that their normal dress was NOT distinctive, i.e. was
essentially the same as that of a non-Jewish citizen.
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> > Or did you forget the smiley?
>
> Oh dear. One should always keep ones powder dry, but keeping my humour
> dry (surely it was only dry-ish?) seems to lead me into all sorts of
> difficulties. Yes, David, add a smiley.
Oh, goody. You were savaging William and Paul so, I thought the Eye had
turned to me now. ;-)
Actually, after posting I inclined more and more to the idea that you
were being ironic. :-)
> And there was me thinking that I was sticking up for you - particularly
> as I doubt that I can find a single word of what you've written in this
> thread that I disagree with.
Oh bless you, Michael, can I buy you a virtual pint? I am not a great
Netwarrior, as you've probably noticed years ago, and was feeling
increasingly beleaguered. Back to back now! (Which one of us is Legolas and
which is Gimli?)
David C Pugh
news:b0rnlg$rgk$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Fernando Teixeira <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> >I have just found this note: "1267. May 12, Vienna (Austria) - At a
special
> >session of the city council it was decided to force all Jews to wear a
cone
> >shaped headdress in addition to a badge, to be recognized from a
distance.
> >This was called the Pileum Cornutum and it became a distinctive attire
which
> >is prevalent in many medieval woodcuts illustrating Jews".
> >Fernando Teixeira
Hmmm, does that make the Dan Akroyd movie an extremely learned piece of
anti-Semitism, then? ;-) ;-) ;-)
> Which is excellent, if indirect evidence that without the
> headdress and the badge, the Jews couldn't be told from
> the other Austrians.
Yeah. I find the Norwegians can often "spot" me as an Englishman from a
hundred metres. I buy my clothes in the same shops, but there must be
something subtle..... So if you can't tell a Viennese Jew from a Christian
without a silly hat, well then.
David C Pugh
> I've been trying to follow all this and I've gotten quite
> confused.
>
> I thought the argument was about distinctive dress for the
> Jews.
Yes, it started there.
I have no problems with distinctive regional dress
> for the inhabitants of a given region, nor do I think anyone
> else does either.
Someone was saying that dress was in fact pretty uniform across Europe.
I don't know, I'm not a folklorist. I would, however, mention that the
colourful and varied "national" or folk costumes of Norway (<bunad>), which
some people try to tell tourists go back to the Middle Ages, are actually
18th-century -- the men's are inspired by the uniforms of the Danish army.
> Exactly what that regional dress was in reality is another
> argument having to do with the reliability of illustrations,
> etc.
Yes, that is where I'm coming from. I'm suspicious of any illustrations
of ethnic groups, because the purpose of the picture may -- may -- be
iconographic symbolisation and not realistic depiction. That the
Sachsenspiegel pictures are stereotypical cartoons (on the model of the
Frenchmen with his beret and onions) is probably less likely than than
illustrations of Jews are so, but I wanted to stake a claim to the
possibility.
> But so far the only evidence I've seen here (or elsewhere)
> pertaining to the Jews is that they had to be *ordered*
> to wear something distinctive. That is strong evidence
> that their normal dress was NOT distinctive, i.e. was
> essentially the same as that of a non-Jewish citizen.
Yes, and what no one has mentioned hitherto is that the IV Lateran
decree was explicitly motivated by the fear of miscegenation, which means
that the communities must have been interacting sexually. Nursemaiding was
another hot button -- lots of Christian babies being given Jewish breasts,
and this was, apparently, very upsetting to the Church. Protection of our
Vital Body Fluids, don't y'know. :-)
David
Uwe Müller
> snip >
> I'm trying to figure out, based on *your* information as to what the
> Spiegel actually is, what the function of its illustrations are, and
> endeavouring --- entirely without success, it seems -- to introduce the
idea
> of "iconography" and how medieval iconography is not the same thing as
> photo-realism.
I thought the links were working, they did when I posted them, and that the
Sachsenspiegel was well enough known, which it obviously wasn't. My mistake.
I thought you were confusing things on purpose.
>
> I will admit that the portrayal of Jews with funny hats on a
> stained-glass window is a much better example of this point I am --- so
> vainly -- endeavouring to make than is the Sachsenspiegel. It may well be
> that my attempt to apply a cautionary principle relating to medieval
> iconography to the Sachsenspiegel is unsuccessful; it might help if I
could
> see the damn thing, but then I'm not a professional iconographer anyway or
> even a professional historian. But there is an important principle here
> which deserves, I think, survive both my mistakes and your cheap sarcasm.
>
I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning church windows or other pictures,
which had no practical use.
The Sachsenspiegel is a book of Saxon laws, and there are a number of
manuscripts, which have added pictures, showing people who act out the law
stated. And in these pictures, different origins are indicated by difference
of dress. They are probably, as you mentioned, not contemporary, especially
compared with the late 14th, when the Heidelberg manuscript was finished
Some of those traits shown in the pictures can on the other hand be proven
to have been correct, for instance when a saxon is carrying his knife, the
sax.
From the facts that at least four different peoples are characterized by
differences in dress, haircut etc., and that these differences are kept up
throughout the book, saxons are always shown with a typical dress, I drew
the conclusion, that differences in dress were common and were used at that
time to show an origin.
As with the famous Lederhosen, the way the material was treated and cut, the
materials used for decorations and their pattern and colour, indicated a
specific village and family as the point of origin. Everything I know about
pre-industrial dress points to fixed dress codes reaching back at least into
the neolithic.
So, even though I agree about a specific group of pictures being more
iconographic than true to life, I would still support the notion of a
specific type of dress for people with a specific origin. There is little
evidence between 800 (around 1000 in the north, no holyday dress worn in
christian burials) and 1500, but it is abundant before and after.
And I'll try to polish that cheap sarcasm into a witty remark.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Michael Farthing
<uwemu...@snafu.de> writes
>
>"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:p0aY9.19475$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no...
>
>> snip >
>> I'm trying to figure out, based on *your* information as to what the
>> Spiegel actually is, what the function of its illustrations are, and
>> endeavouring --- entirely without success, it seems -- to introduce the
>idea
>> of "iconography" and how medieval iconography is not the same thing as
>> photo-realism.
>
>I thought the links were working, they did when I posted them, and that the
>Sachsenspiegel was well enough known, which it obviously wasn't. My mistake.
>I thought you were confusing things on purpose.
>
The links worked for me, but I did have to undo the line-wrap my
newsreader forced into the middle of the relevant line. That might be
the problem for David? Easily done.
Michael Farthing
<davi...@online.no> writes
> Oh, goody. You were savaging William and Paul so, I thought the Eye had
>turned to me now. ;-)
Hmm.. Was I so vicious?
Well it may be little comfort to those licking their wounds and bleeding
to death, but it is only possible on this newsgroup to receive either
praise or savaging if you fall into either of these two categories:
a) New poster
b) Respected poster.
All else is killfiled ruthlessly.
And since neither Paul nor William are new...
[Just remember this in case you ever become a victim].
> Oh bless you, Michael, can I buy you a virtual pint? I am not a great
>Netwarrior, as you've probably noticed years ago, and was feeling
>increasingly beleaguered. Back to back now! (Which one of us is Legolas and
>which is Gimli?)
Well given the cruel treatment Gimli received by the film-makers I'd go
for Legolas - but unfortunately I'm short with bad eyesight..
David C Pugh
> In message <uCdY9.19569$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no>, David C Pugh
> <davi...@online.no> writes
>
> > Oh, goody. You were savaging William and Paul so, I thought the Eye
had
> >turned to me now. ;-)
>
> Hmm.. Was I so vicious?
Well, since they're both used to Hines and Tiggers I expect they'll
survive :-)
> Well it may be little comfort to those licking their wounds and bleeding
> to death, but it is only possible on this newsgroup to receive either
> praise or savaging if you fall into either of these two categories:
>
> a) New poster
> b) Respected poster.
>
> All else is killfiled ruthlessly.
>
> And since neither Paul nor William are new...
Ah.......
> [Just remember this in case you ever become a victim].
Okay, I shall wear it as a badge of honour :-)
> > Oh bless you, Michael, can I buy you a virtual pint? I am not a great
> >Netwarrior, as you've probably noticed years ago, and was feeling
> >increasingly beleaguered. Back to back now! (Which one of us is Legolas
and
> >which is Gimli?)
>
> Well given the cruel treatment Gimli received by the film-makers
Oy! You're not wrong there. I had very few grumbles about FotR, and
fewer still that were not repaired by the Extended DVD (a must!!!), but I
don't think a few restored scenes is going to rescue his honour on TTT.
I'd go
> for Legolas - but unfortunately I'm short with bad eyesight..
Me too. Sort of half-pint Ringwraith, then? ;-)
David C Pugh
Piggybacking, because the post to which you are replying never showed on
my server.
> >I thought you were confusing things on purpose.
On purpose? I don't care to interact any further with someone whose
preferred explanation is that I am "confusing things on purpose".
End of discussion with Mr. Müller.
> The links worked for me, but I did have to undo the line-wrap my
> newsreader forced into the middle of the relevant line. That might be
> the problem for David? Easily done.
Thanks for the thought, but what I got was something not unlike a 404.
Anyway, I'm through on this now.
Michael Farthing
<davi...@online.no> writes
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2QZdyABa...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>
> Piggybacking, because the post to which you are replying never showed on
>my server.
>
>> >I thought you were confusing things on purpose.
>
> On purpose? I don't care to interact any further with someone whose
>preferred explanation is that I am "confusing things on purpose".
Wait for the post to appear before being too hasty. It is in fact very
conciliatory.
Paul J Gans
>That's fine.
>So, management summary:
Sorry I got emotional. At my age it is good to know that
my emotions still function, but still, that's no excuse.
Apologies.
I have no problem with being criticized. Goodness knows
there are some who have made a career of it... ;-)
>[Meanwhile, back in the main thread, there's actually some good, if
>slightly heated, discussion going on about what evidence there might
>actually be and whether it's worth regarding as evidence]
Well, I still think that the best evidence is that various
councils thought it necessary to *force* Jews to wear distinctive
garb or a distinctive sign. It seems to me that would hardly
be needed if they were already wearing distinctive dress.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:wn7sfMFR...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <bS6Y9.19435$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no>, David C Pugh
>> <davi...@online.no> writes
>>
>> > No, that's not how it works. You present evidence, I show that it
>> >doesn't prove what you say it does, that is not the same as my claiming
>that
>> >the contrary position is already proven and nailed down. For me, the
>> >question is still open.
>>
>> This won't do.
>>
>> You HAVE to have a view one way or the other.
>> And stick to it.
>> Through thick and thin.
> I think you're confusing SHM with Middle Earth.
>> You can't sit on the fence like this.
> So sue me.
> Or did you forget the smiley?
No no David, he's right. The arch-demon is coming to
a war zone near you and we are back in the 100% for us
or die mode.
And I thought this *was* Middle Earth. Was I misinformed?
:-)
You should have seen the large thread on LotR in mediev-l.
I got the impression that Smeagol was so real that he got
to everyone.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>news:b0ro72$rgk$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> I've been trying to follow all this and I've gotten quite
>> confused.
>>
>> I thought the argument was about distinctive dress for the
>> Jews.
> Yes, it started there.
>I have no problems with distinctive regional dress
>> for the inhabitants of a given region, nor do I think anyone
>> else does either.
> Someone was saying that dress was in fact pretty uniform across Europe.
>I don't know, I'm not a folklorist. I would, however, mention that the
>colourful and varied "national" or folk costumes of Norway (<bunad>), which
>some people try to tell tourists go back to the Middle Ages, are actually
>18th-century -- the men's are inspired by the uniforms of the Danish army.
I like the uniforms of the Presidential Guards in Prague. Straight
out of a stage musical. Really.
>> Exactly what that regional dress was in reality is another
>> argument having to do with the reliability of illustrations,
>> etc.
> Yes, that is where I'm coming from. I'm suspicious of any illustrations
>of ethnic groups, because the purpose of the picture may -- may -- be
>iconographic symbolisation and not realistic depiction. That the
>Sachsenspiegel pictures are stereotypical cartoons (on the model of the
>Frenchmen with his beret and onions) is probably less likely than than
>illustrations of Jews are so, but I wanted to stake a claim to the
>possibility.
>> But so far the only evidence I've seen here (or elsewhere)
>> pertaining to the Jews is that they had to be *ordered*
>> to wear something distinctive. That is strong evidence
>> that their normal dress was NOT distinctive, i.e. was
>> essentially the same as that of a non-Jewish citizen.
> Yes, and what no one has mentioned hitherto is that the IV Lateran
>decree was explicitly motivated by the fear of miscegenation, which means
>that the communities must have been interacting sexually. Nursemaiding was
>another hot button -- lots of Christian babies being given Jewish breasts,
>and this was, apparently, very upsetting to the Church. Protection of our
>Vital Body Fluids, don't y'know. :-)
Well, there is the unremarked observation that Jews in any
particular area quickly begin to resemble the inhabitants
of that area. Either Jews have a chameleon gene (which I
doubt) or physique is often dictated by environment and food
plus a little bit of miscegenation.
As for Vital Body Fluids, that's still an issue in some
places.
----- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ydSMBGB2...@cyclades.demon.co.uk...
Uwe just said that he thought you were familiar with the link (and / or
the book) and thusly was mistaken re. your intentions.
Don't be so hasty, young David C. Skywalker - the lure of the
Dark Side is strong ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Farthing
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>Well, I still think that the best evidence is that various
>councils thought it necessary to *force* Jews to wear distinctive
>garb or a distinctive sign. It seems to me that would hardly
>be needed if they were already wearing distinctive dress.
Well, yes ... and no.
Laws are often passed to reinforce custom, or to reimpose a custom that
is lapsing. I think in an earlier post (though it may have been one I
thought better of and threw away) I made the analogy of the law on motor
cyclists wearing crash helmets, passed in the UK in the 1970s (I think -
memory a bit hazy). This law was not passed because motor cyclists did
not previously wear helmets - it was passed because not *all* motor
cyclists wore helmets. Similarly seat belt legislation.
The passages from the IV Lateran quoted earlier in the thread do give
hints that distinctive dress was then already being worn by Jews in some
regions - but OTOH this itself may have been the result of local dress
regulations already in force.
David C Pugh
>
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:p0aY9.19475$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no...
>
> > snip >
> > I'm trying to figure out, based on *your* information as to what the
> > Spiegel actually is, what the function of its illustrations are, and
> > endeavouring --- entirely without success, it seems -- to introduce the
> idea of "iconography" and how medieval iconography is not the same thing
as
> > photo-realism.
>
> I thought the links were working, they did when I posted them, and that
the Sachsenspiegel was well enough known, which it obviously wasn't. My
mistake. I thought you were confusing things on purpose.
I've already said what I think about that automatic assumption, but at
the request of the two Michaels I shall let you live. :-)
(The monarch's trusted advisers plead for the life of the writhing
supplicant before the throne; he tips the wink to his faithful chronicler
and monastic brown-noser in the corner, who takes notes. Ah me, immortality
as King David the Merciful!)
> > I will admit that the portrayal of Jews with funny hats on a
> > stained-glass window is a much better example of this point I am --- so
> > vainly -- endeavouring to make than is the Sachsenspiegel. It may well
be that my attempt to apply a cautionary principle of medieval
> > iconography to the Sachsenspiegel is unsuccessful; it might help if I
> could see the damn thing, but then I'm not a professional iconographer
anyway
or even a professional historian. But there is an important principle here
> > which deserves, I think, to survive both my mistakes and your cheap
sarcasm.
> >
> I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning church windows or other
pictures, which had no practical use.
Whazzat? Teaching the ruling ideology has no practical use? Pictures
were part of that immense religious, political and economic conglomerate we
call the Church. Even if you set aside the Official Propaganda aspect, which
you jolly well shouldn't, then at least consider this: a church with no
pretty pictures will attract fewer pilgrims -- they would probably call this
the Interactive Window Experience in the modern tourist industry -- and the
offerings boxes of the Ecclesiastical Visitor Centre will become dangerously
empty. Cash-flow problem, inability to make capital investment (translation:
new fake relics), economic vicious circle, religious recession, universal
misery. Not practical!?
> The Sachsenspiegel is a book of Saxon laws, and there are a number of
> manuscripts, which have added pictures, showing people who act out the law
> stated.
That sounds like iconography to me. Visual aids, they call them in
school.
(...)
> From the facts that at least four different peoples are characterized by
> differences in dress, haircut etc., and that these differences are kept up
> throughout the book, saxons are always shown with a typical dress, I drew
> the conclusion, that differences in dress were common and were used at
that time to show an origin.
It depends whether any of the book's purpose involves "How to Recognise
Germans (Number One: The Saxon)". If it's like "If you have been raped by a
Saxon -- and this is how to tell a Saxon -- then complain to the duke of
Saxony, but if you have been raped by a Bavarian -- and this is what a
Burgundian looks like -- then bring suit at the duke of Bavaria's court",
then yes, this is excellent evidence that Saxons and Bavarians really did
dress differently, so much so that they could be readily identified.
But that is not the only way things might be. What I have been
endeavouring to convey is the idea that the situation may (not must, may) be
as follows: the book involves instructions or guidance about how to deal
with Saxons and Bavarians, who actually dress much the same, so you have to
find out by other means who is who (e.g., dialect, or asking the buggers);
but there are these neat little illustrations to the text, which for
iconographic purposes show the different nations in highly stereotyped
dress, as a more amusing alternative to captioning them. This situation is
what I was endeavouring to convey with my parallel to The Economist's silly
little drawings of striped-jersey-beret-and-onions Frenchmen.
Or maybe the literate are supposed to read the one side and the
illiterate are supposed to look at the "IKEA instructions" on the back?
Didn't you suggest that might be so? If that is indeed the deal, then the
peoples HAVE to be easily distinguished visually, by conventions that need
have nothing much to do with contemporary reality.
<click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
Your reference to "showing people who act out the law stated" to me
strongly suggests that it's merely illustrative iconography. Visual aids.
Therefore, if the Sachenspiegel ms. was the *only* source for sharply
codified German regional dress in the 14th, which is probably isn't, then I
would exhort to extreme caution. If there are many other sources, then it's
a different ball game.
> As with the famous Lederhosen, the way the material was treated and cut,
the materials used for decorations and their pattern and colour, indicated a
> specific village and family as the point of origin.
<click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
Well, I don't know from Lederhosen, but the above has a suspicious
similarity to the Tartan Charts and Maps sold to tourists in Scotland,
showing the different tartans worn by the various clans --- which I promise
you is 100% chemically-pure and immaculate Bullshit, a nineteenth-century
invention and a twentieth-century tourist industry.
Or maybe Sir Walter Scott was on holiday in Germany, was told how the
Lederhosen could be identified by village and family, and decided that
Scotland needed to be given a similar tradition........
Everything I know about> pre-industrial dress points to fixed dress codes
reaching back at least into> the neolithic.
At least the neolithic? You mean, with an outside possibility of the
Pre-Cambrian? =8-O
<click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
> So, even though I agree about a specific group of pictures being more
> iconographic than true to life, I would still support the notion of a
> specific type of dress for people with a specific origin. There is little
> evidence between 800 (around 1000 in the north, no holyday dress worn in
> christian burials) and 1500, but it is abundant before and after.
Okay, so there is a theoretical possibility that these regional dresses
developed after 1500, the way the Norwegian regional <bunad>s developed in
the 18th?
> And I'll try to polish that cheap sarcasm into a witty remark.
I look forward to the results. :-)
<click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
* That will make sense if you've seen all the early Monty Python shows.
Michael Kuettner
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:b0rr30$855$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >
> > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:p0aY9.19475$Rc7.2...@news2.e.nsc.no...
> >
> > > snip >
> > > I'm trying to figure out, based on *your* information as to what
the
> > > Spiegel actually is, what the function of its illustrations are, and
> > > endeavouring --- entirely without success, it seems -- to introduce
the
> > idea of "iconography" and how medieval iconography is not the same thing
> as
> > > photo-realism.
> >
> > I thought the links were working, they did when I posted them, and that
> the Sachsenspiegel was well enough known, which it obviously wasn't. My
> mistake. I thought you were confusing things on purpose.
>
> I've already said what I think about that automatic assumption, but at
> the request of the two Michaels I shall let you live. :-)
>
Huh ? Who requested that ?
I just wanted you to explain to him in a nice and reasonable tone
why you'll flay him alive. ;-)
> (The monarch's trusted advisers plead for the life of the writhing
> supplicant before the throne; he tips the wink to his faithful chronicler
> and monastic brown-noser in the corner, who takes notes. Ah me,
immortality
> as King David the Merciful!)
>
As a Paid Sycophant (tm) of Paul Tiberius Gans, remarks like these force
me to take a basic approach to politics by reaching for the red-hot poker
....
<snip church windows>
> Whazzat? Teaching the ruling ideology has no practical use? Pictures
> were part of that immense religious, political and economic conglomerate
we
> call the Church.
Don't forget that the donator of the church window (the churches didn't
pay for them in most cases, they were donations) had the privilege -
AFAIR, of course - to be immortalized in the window - IOW, you'll find
his face there (at least from ca. 12. century onwards).
Inhowfar the ruling ideology influenced a peasant looking at the
face of his corrupt major smiling at him from the church window
is a rather fascinating topic ...
<snip>
> > The Sachsenspiegel is a book of Saxon laws, and there are a number of
> > manuscripts, which have added pictures, showing people who act out the
law
> > stated.
>
> That sounds like iconography to me. Visual aids, they call them in
> school.
>
Yep; but that's the point :
A visual aid which has no base in everydays experience is no
visual aid.
<snip>
> But that is not the only way things might be. What I have been
> endeavouring to convey is the idea that the situation may (not must, may)
be
> as follows: the book involves instructions or guidance about how to deal
> with Saxons and Bavarians, who actually dress much the same, so you have
to
> find out by other means who is who (e.g., dialect, or asking the buggers);
> but there are these neat little illustrations to the text, which for
> iconographic purposes show the different nations in highly stereotyped
> dress, as a more amusing alternative to captioning them. This situation is
> what I was endeavouring to convey with my parallel to The Economist's
silly
> little drawings of striped-jersey-beret-and-onions Frenchmen.
>
Yes; but those stereotypes _have to have_ an origin somewhere -
otherwise iconography wouldn't use them.
The real questions should be : How exaggerated are those icons and
when did they start where ?
I rather doubt that the iconography re. Jews in HRE and Jews in
France was the same from the beginning (hat against star of David, eg)
<snip>
> <click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
>
> Your reference to "showing people who act out the law stated" to me
> strongly suggests that it's merely illustrative iconography. Visual aids.
Yes. But where did it come from ?
A caricature is worthless if nobody recognizes the person(s) behind it.
A visual aid which has no root in reality is worthless, too.
> Therefore, if the Sachenspiegel ms. was the *only* source for sharply
> codified German regional dress in the 14th, which is probably isn't, then
I
> would exhort to extreme caution. If there are many other sources, then
it's
> a different ball game.
>
There are other works which show different trades and peoples by these
and similar "visual aids".
> > As with the famous Lederhosen, the way the material was treated and cut,
> the materials used for decorations and their pattern and colour, indicated
a
> > specific village and family as the point of origin.
>
> <click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
>
Exactly. A visual aid derived from reality.
> Well, I don't know from Lederhosen, but the above has a suspicious
> similarity to the Tartan Charts and Maps sold to tourists in Scotland,
> showing the different tartans worn by the various clans --- which I
promise
> you is 100% chemically-pure and immaculate Bullshit, a nineteenth-century
> invention and a twentieth-century tourist industry.
>
Yep. There are also Lederhosen and Janker sold to tourists over
here; but they have - apart from the look-alike effect - nothing in common
with the genuine thing ("Tracht" from "tragen" - to wear).
<snip>
> Okay, so there is a theoretical possibility that these regional
dresses
> developed after 1500, the way the Norwegian regional <bunad>s developed in
> the 18th?
>
In some areas, yes. In others, definitely not.
Some dress-codes from Lungau come to mind (part of the county of Salzburg)
which can be traced back to the 11. century, e.g.
> <click-thunk> "Number One: the Saxon" *
>
<click-thunk> "Number two : How not to be seen " *
To summarize my point (if I have one and not just a modem and time
on my hands ;-)) :
Church-windows and the Sachsenspiegel used iconography.
But where did it come from if not from things people have seen for them-
selves ?
If nobody recognizes an icon it's rather pointless, isn't it ?
>
> * That will make sense if you've seen all the early Monty Python shows.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
PS : Is there a special reason for your lederhosen fixation ? ;-)
<Ducking and running for cover>
Dick Wisan
in children's books, is it fair to conclude that (all? most? a
few?) 20th century American farmers wore a goatee, a straw hat,
blue overalls, and a corn-cob pipe?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Paul J Gans
>Given the way farmers have been and often still are, especially
>in children's books, is it fair to conclude that (all? most? a
>few?) 20th century American farmers wore a goatee, a straw hat,
>blue overalls, and a corn-cob pipe?
Of course. Are you claiming it isn't true?
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
news:b0vdek$9fk$1...@rex.ip-plus.net...
> Huh ? Who requested that ?
> I just wanted you to explain to him in a nice and reasonable tone
> why you'll flay him alive. ;-)
Oh, I see. How'm I doing then? :-)
> > Whazzat? Teaching the ruling ideology has no practical use? Pictures
> > were part of that immense religious, political and economic conglomerate
> we call the Church.
>
> Don't forget that the donator of the church window (the churches didn't
> pay for them in most cases, they were donations) had the privilege -
> AFAIR, of course - to be immortalized in the window - IOW, you'll find
> his face there (at least from ca. 12. century onwards).
Oh yes, thanks for bringing that in! So the church window was also
corporate sponsorship.
> Inhowfar the ruling ideology influenced a peasant looking at the
> face of his corrupt major smiling at him from the church window
> is a rather fascinating topic ...
Well, they could always hope, couldn't they? Like the debate as to
whether advertising has any effect or not. Ever enjoyed a well-made TV
commercial without buying the product?
> <snip>
> Yep; but that's the point :
> A visual aid which has no base in everydays experience is no
> visual aid.
Indeed, and there's where the debate should be running, not in the
apparent denial that medieval pictures had any element of visual aid-ery.
There's still a hell of a range between "no base" and "photorealism".
And I would challenge the "everyday", as we've seen several examples of
an iconographic convention that has outlasted its reality, if any, by many
decades. Dick Wisan has just brought up another one.
> <snip>
> Yes; but those stereotypes _have to have_ an origin somewhere -
> otherwise iconography wouldn't use them.
See above.
> The real questions should be : How exaggerated are those icons and
> when did they start where ?
Exactly!!! :-)
> I rather doubt that the iconography re. Jews in HRE and Jews in
> France was the same from the beginning (hat against star of David, eg)
Right. It's even possible that the French iconography was based on
something the Jews wore of their own accord (a special hat) while the HRE
iconography was based on something they were forced to wear (the star of
David).
Have there been Western cartoons of Saddam Hussein in a kheffiyya? If
so, that would be an example of an assigned characteristic, because I'm sure
he's never worn one, whereas his military beret is entirely realistic.
> > Your reference to "showing people who act out the law stated" to me
> > strongly suggests that it's merely illustrative iconography. Visual
aids.
>
> Yes. But where did it come from ?
These Germans must at some time have worn *something* that allowed the
development of these standard caricatures. My point was merely to challenge
the Sachsenspiegel manuscript as being irrefutable evidence for rigid dress
codes at the time when it was written and drawn.
> A caricature is worthless if nobody recognizes the person(s) behind it.
> A visual aid which has no root in reality is worthless, too.
Reality and reality. How much reality is there, or ever was, in the
Frenchman in a striped jersey and beret riding a bike with a string of
onions around his neck?
Or how about the portrait of Russia(ns) as a bear? I guess the
cartoonist didn't know enough to draw them in their national costume
(embroidered blouses? Soviet suits?). Why does a bear always mean a Russian
and not a Canadian or an Alaskan? Convention.
I would submit that sometimes the reality is a "consensus reality", we
all agree that X can be represented by Y, like when a certain kind of
triangle means "Stop and give way". Or when I call you a "#&%!" National
caricatures can be placed on a spectrum from the based-on-the-reality like
the fat Bavarian in his Lederhosen, through the exiguously real like the
striped-jersey Frenchman, to the almost entirely consensual like Uncle Sam
and the Bear.
> > Therefore, if the Sachenspiegel ms. was the *only* source for sharply
> > codified German regional dress in the 14th, which is probably isn't,
then I would exhort to extreme caution. If there are many other sources,
then
> it's a different ball game.
> >
> There are other works which show different trades and peoples by these
> and similar "visual aids".
A nationwide and multi-century consensus convention, or realism, or a
mixture? There's the discussion.
> In some areas, yes. In others, definitely not.
> Some dress-codes from Lungau come to mind (part of the county of Salzburg)
> which can be traced back to the 11. century, e.g.
The thing about a code is that it wouldn't be necessary if everyone was
wearing the whatevers......
> To summarize my point (if I have one and not just a modem and time
> on my hands ;-)) :
> Church-windows and the Sachsenspiegel used iconography.
> But where did it come from if not from things people have seen for them-
> selves ?
Well I've never *seen* a Frenchman in a striped jersey and beret riding
a bike with a string of onions around his neck. Have you? I've also never
*seen* a big black bear with a military cap. Or a burglar with a mask and a
sack labelled SWAG. Or a terrorist openly carrying a bomb of the round kind
with a burning fuse sticking up. There are really an awful lot of these
conventions that I have never witnessed in reality. But hey, I lead a
sheltered life. :-)
> If nobody recognizes an icon it's rather pointless, isn't it ?
Of course, but the audience can be *trained* to recognise them.......
<click-thunk> "Number Ten: the Jew".
> PS : Is there a special reason for your lederhosen fixation ? ;-)
> <Ducking and running for cover>
Eh? The minutely-traceable lederhosen thing, that wasn't me who brought
up. You'd be better off trying to get me for kilt fixation. :-)
Fernando Teixeira
to use, *for the force of his own law*, dresses that distinguished them. The
Church manifested the intention of imposing the Mosaic Law to the Jewish.
That idea apeared in this talk, but I didn't find in the Bible the specific
rule imposing such dresses. Who can help me?...
E. C. Lee
> Given the way farmers have been and often still are, especially
> in children's books, is it fair to conclude that (all? most? a
> few?) 20th century American farmers wore a goatee, a straw hat,
> blue overalls, and a corn-cob pipe?
Excellent example.
One that touches me even more is in today's depiction of the "hippie".
I lived in that era and I seem to recall "tie dye" being a passing
phase of the times. For a short while it was popular among the peace
and love set, but it was also just a fashion amongst youth in general.
However, in Chicago, it wasn't all that big at all.
Now, possibly due to the influence of the "deadhead", any suggestion
of a sixties counter culture type tends to wears tie dye. It has
become an essential ingredient to the hippie costume for our current
younger set. This is how they identify the hippie and even the
sixties as a whole. If one was to dress up as as a hippie, be it for
a play or for Halloween, tie dye would be a major factor in the
ensemble.
So there you have it. Something that WAS worn, though not
universally, by a certain group of people and has now become
identified with them exclusively. The tie dye served as an
iconographic signal of hippie dress for those in later generations.
I just wanted to add one more thing. Did any of you see the movie,
"Far From Heaven"? I was listening to a talk show where a woman was
furious about how the film depicted the 50s. She LIVED through the
fifties and it wasn't like that at all. What she didn't understand
was that this wasn't *about* the fifties. It was about about a
certain type of film of the fifites. And it was a brilliant depiction
of that.
The fact is that many of our memories are not of the past, but of how
the past has been depicted, even in it's own time. My main man once
complained about the inaccuracy of another film which tried to
recreate the fifties though vivid color, when "everyone knows that the
fifties were in black and white!" ;-) Later generations think about
the fifties in terms of technicolor or black and white, starbursts
motifs, constant cocktail parties, and ameoba shaped coffee tables.
That's because their basic exposure to that time period WAS through
film, television and the now popular retro artifacts. And that may
well be how the the visual memory of the fifties will be recorded for
the rest of history. Sure it reveals some truth about the times, but
hardly a recreation as to how things really were.
Anyway, I have to go with David on this. You have to be very careful
in how you read the visual images you take from historical sources.
They aren't necessarily reflective of "realities" although the study
of them can teach us much about the past. In fact, the very errors
recorded in these depictions can probably teach us much about how
people looked at things even if they don't teach us how people
actually looked. Of course, something similar can also be said about
literature and historical writing!
(BTW, I liked Michael and David's discussion on the use of stained
glass windows in churches. It was just too true!)
JMHO,
Eve
Paul J Gans
I suspect that you are heading down the wrong track. But
then I might be wrong.
I believe that the medieval Jews were to keep away from
Christians for fear of being converted or, in the case
of women, sexually assaulted.
Do not forget that Christianity and its subsequent
treatment of Jews is the worst disaster, from the
Jewish point of view, that ever befell Jews.
----- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> Fernando Teixeira <fer...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> >The IV Lateran Council (1215) vehiculated the idea that Jewish were
supposed
> >to use, *for the force of his own law*, dresses that distinguished them.
The
> >Church manifested the intention of imposing the Mosaic Law to the Jewish.
> >That idea apeared in this talk, but I didn't find in the Bible the
specific
> >rule imposing such dresses. Who can help me?...
Well, if such a Jewish law existed, I expect it would be in Talmud
rather than "the Bible". But I did say that IV Lateran imagined it was
enforcing *what it thought* was Jewish law on the Jews.
Accuracy on the beliefs of the other faiths was not a great medieval
virtue. (For example, a Muslim wrote of the Christians: "Now among the
Franks a woman who gives herself to a celibate man commits no sin, and her
justification is even greater in the case of a priest, if chaste men in dire
need find relief in enjoying her.")
Michael Kuettner
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:b0vdek$9fk$1...@rex.ip-plus.net...
>
> > Huh ? Who requested that ?
> > I just wanted you to explain to him in a nice and reasonable tone
> > why you'll flay him alive. ;-)
>
> Oh, I see. How'm I doing then? :-)
>
> > > Whazzat? Teaching the ruling ideology has no practical use?
Pictures
> > > were part of that immense religious, political and economic
conglomerate
> > we call the Church.
> >
> > Don't forget that the donator of the church window (the churches didn't
> > pay for them in most cases, they were donations) had the privilege -
> > AFAIR, of course - to be immortalized in the window - IOW, you'll find
> > his face there (at least from ca. 12. century onwards).
>
> Oh yes, thanks for bringing that in! So the church window was also
> corporate sponsorship.
>
AFAIR, not exactly that. Like being buried in the church it granted
a better afterlife.
> > Inhowfar the ruling ideology influenced a peasant looking at the
> > face of his corrupt major smiling at him from the church window
> > is a rather fascinating topic ...
>
> Well, they could always hope, couldn't they? Like the debate as to
> whether advertising has any effect or not. Ever enjoyed a well-made TV
> commercial without buying the product?
>
Most of the time, yes.
McDonalds could deliver the best spot of the year, I still wouldn't touch
their garbage.
> > <snip>
> > Yep; but that's the point :
> > A visual aid which has no base in everydays experience is no
> > visual aid.
>
> Indeed, and there's where the debate should be running, not in the
> apparent denial that medieval pictures had any element of visual aid-ery.
> There's still a hell of a range between "no base" and "photorealism".
>
Well, of course. That's my point - we'll have to examine what (and how
well founded) that base was.
That's where I think you and Uwe talk past each other.
He's trying to show that _local_ iconography depicted the experience
of the audience for which it was written (or painted).
He is talking about how iconography made sense and was understood
in a limited geographical area and reflected everyday life and
dress _in this area_ .
Your point is about _universal_ (or maybe a more abstract form of)
iconography.
IMO, there were (are) different levels of iconography.
It can be shown that different parts of the population of certain areas
were recognizable by a certain style of dress or weapon.
Let's call that local iconography because it would only be understood
by people of (or in contact with) these groups.
Then there are "universal" icons - like depicting a peasant with a plough
or a craftsmen with his tools, eg. carpenter <-> hammer
(I use "universal" in the context of medieval Europe.).
A Spanish peasant would understand the plough as an icon but not the
dresses or weapons of the Sachsenspiegel.
Universal icons tend to get simplified (eg. a stick with a lump at the end
means hammer) which means that they can't be used to describe the
_details_ of life back then.
Local icons can't be simplified very much (one can't draw any old sword
to bring the concept of Saxon across) so their use for gleaning details
is higher.
> And I would challenge the "everyday", as we've seen several examples
of
> an iconographic convention that has outlasted its reality, if any, by many
> decades. Dick Wisan has just brought up another one.
>
Yep; but that is iconography of the _literate_ age which is a different
kettle of fish (or can of worms ;-)). Here it is sufficient to invent
a motive, couple it with a slogan (or short description), pump
it through the media (until it's firmly planted) and voila, another icon.
> > <snip>
> > Yes; but those stereotypes _have to have_ an origin somewhere -
> > otherwise iconography wouldn't use them.
>
> See above.
>
Ditto ;-)
> > The real questions should be : How exaggerated are those icons and
> > when did they start where ?
>
> Exactly!!! :-)
>
> > I rather doubt that the iconography re. Jews in HRE and Jews in
> > France was the same from the beginning (hat against star of David, eg)
>
> Right. It's even possible that the French iconography was based on
> something the Jews wore of their own accord (a special hat) while the HRE
> iconography was based on something they were forced to wear (the star of
> David).
>
Yes. The first step would be to determine whether this was a local
or an universal icon.
If it was a local icon, the dress could be either that of a special
group of Jews (like baikeles) in that area or a locally enforced dress.
If it was universal it could be a traditional dress of them as a group.
How would we know whether it was universal ?
If the Jews were depicted in France and HRE with pointy hats while
at the same time a dresscode which forced them to wear yellow
trousers can be shown to have existed in HRE, one could tentatively
conclude that the pointy hat was worn by all of them out of tradition.
> Have there been Western cartoons of Saddam Hussein in a kheffiyya? If
> so, that would be an example of an assigned characteristic, because I'm
sure
> he's never worn one, whereas his military beret is entirely realistic.
>
Re. pre-literate and literate iconography see above.
I don't think they can be compared (but that's just MO).
<snip>
> These Germans must at some time have worn *something* that allowed the
> development of these standard caricatures. My point was merely to
challenge
> the Sachsenspiegel manuscript as being irrefutable evidence for rigid
dress
> codes at the time when it was written and drawn.
>
See above.
> > A caricature is worthless if nobody recognizes the person(s) behind it.
> > A visual aid which has no root in reality is worthless, too.
>
> Reality and reality. How much reality is there, or ever was, in the
> Frenchman in a striped jersey and beret riding a bike with a string of
> onions around his neck?
>
> Or how about the portrait of Russia(ns) as a bear? I guess the
> cartoonist didn't know enough to draw them in their national costume
> (embroidered blouses? Soviet suits?). Why does a bear always mean a
Russian
> and not a Canadian or an Alaskan? Convention.
>
Again, modern iconography.
<snip>
> > > Therefore, if the Sachenspiegel ms. was the *only* source for sharply
> > > codified German regional dress in the 14th, which is probably isn't,
> then I would exhort to extreme caution. If there are many other sources,
> then
> > it's a different ball game.
> > >
> > There are other works which show different trades and peoples by these
> > and similar "visual aids".
>
> A nationwide and multi-century consensus convention, or realism, or a
> mixture? There's the discussion.
>
Not exactly. Local against universal.
<snip>
>
> Eh? The minutely-traceable lederhosen thing, that wasn't me who
brought
> up. You'd be better off trying to get me for kilt fixation. :-)
>
This fixation can get you kilt in Scottland ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David C Pugh
news:f0cfed5b.03012...@posting.google.com...
> One that touches me even more is in today's depiction of the "hippie".
> I lived in that era and I seem to recall "tie dye" being a passing
> phase of the times. For a short while it was popular among the peace
> and love set, but it was also just a fashion amongst youth in general.
> However, in Chicago, it wasn't all that big at all.
>
> Now, possibly due to the influence of the "deadhead", any suggestion
> of a sixties counter culture type tends to wears tie dye. It has
> become an essential ingredient to the hippie costume for our current
> younger set. This is how they identify the hippie and even the
> sixties as a whole. If one was to dress up as as a hippie, be it for
> a play or for Halloween, tie dye would be a major factor in the
> ensemble.
>
> So there you have it. Something that WAS worn, though not
> universally, by a certain group of people and has now become
> identified with them exclusively. The tie dye served as an
> iconographic signal of hippie dress for those in later generations.
I heard that Playboy had a cover with a "hippie chick", and you can just
imagine the suits doing the research and brainstorming to find out what
iconographic elements should be included. I also heard that some real
hippies were quite annoyed :-)
(...)
> The fact is that many of our memories are not of the past, but of how
> the past has been depicted, even in it's own time. My main man once
> complained about the inaccuracy of another film which tried to
> recreate the fifties though vivid color, when "everyone knows that the
> fifties were in black and white!" ;-)
ROTFLMAO!!!
And in the early years of last century, everyone walked in jerky
movements, right?
You know that in the debate over Recovered Memory Syndrome, those who
say that this is (sometimes) fraudulent point inter alia to laboratory
findings that show that it is actually quite easy to implant false memories,
in anybody. That's because repeated acts of imagining something that didn't
happen seems to create a memory -- different process, but the results are
indistinguishable.
Later generations think about
> the fifties in terms of technicolor or black and white, starbursts
> motifs, constant cocktail parties, and ameoba shaped coffee tables.
> That's because their basic exposure to that time period WAS through
> film, television and the now popular retro artifacts. And that may
> well be how the the visual memory of the fifties will be recorded for
> the rest of history. Sure it reveals some truth about the times, but
> hardly a recreation as to how things really were.
> Anyway, I have to go with David on this. You have to be very careful
> in how you read the visual images you take from historical sources.
> They aren't necessarily reflective of "realities" although the study
> of them can teach us much about the past. In fact, the very errors
> recorded in these depictions can probably teach us much about how
> people looked at things even if they don't teach us how people
> actually looked.
Got any nice examples?
Of course, something similar can also be said about
> literature and historical writing!
One of my chief interests in history is, in fact, consideration of the
different "blind spots" of different cultures and times.
> (BTW, I liked Michael and David's discussion on the use of stained
> glass windows in churches. It was just too true!)
>
Thanks!
David C Pugh
> > > > Whazzat? Teaching the ruling ideology has no practical use?
> Pictures were part of that immense religious, political and economic
> conglomerate we call the Church.
> > >
> > > Don't forget that the donator of the church window (the churches
didn't pay for them in most cases, they were donations) had the privilege -
> > > AFAIR, of course - to be immortalized in the window - IOW, you'll find
> > > his face there (at least from ca. 12. century onwards).
> >
> > Oh yes, thanks for bringing that in! So the church window was also
> > corporate sponsorship.
> >
> AFAIR, not exactly that. Like being buried in the church it granted
> a better afterlife.
Yes, the burial thing was for the next life, but are you sure the window
thing wasn't all about this life?
There's a good anecdote about Notre-Dame de Paris, where the guilds were
all commissioning windows, and the prostitutes' guild wanted one too. The
objections were less than one might imagine -- of the present feminist
debate as to whether prostitution is abuse or female work, the medievals
were firmly on the latter side: "Prostitutes must be counted among the
mercenaries. They hire out their bodies and supply labour.... Whence this
principle of secular justice: she does evil in being a prostitute, but she
does not do evil in receiving the price of her labour, it being admitted
that she is a prostitute. Whence the fact that it is possible to repent of
practicing prostitution while keeping the profits of prostitution for the
purpose of giving alms." No, the problem with the glass window was that the
series was supposed to show the guilds actually practicising their
crafts......
Si no e vero, e bene trovato (is that spelt right?)
IMHO we've been conditioned not to "see" the economic aspect of
churches. There was a really bad SF film on TV the other day, with a Mars
mission spacecraft bearing the logos of Pepsi and Nike and so forth on its
fuel tanks. I see a church in much the same light. Remember, after all, that
the medieval church, at least the nave, was the early community centre,
meeting-hall, council chamber, courthouse, stock market and all sorts of
other things later vested in seperate buildings. This wandering around in a
reverent hush is quite unhistorical.
> > > Inhowfar the ruling ideology influenced a peasant looking at the
> > > face of his corrupt major smiling at him from the church window
> > > is a rather fascinating topic ...
> >
> > Well, they could always hope, couldn't they? Like the debate as to
> > whether advertising has any effect or not. Ever enjoyed a well-made TV
> > commercial without buying the product?
> >
> Most of the time, yes.
> McDonalds could deliver the best spot of the year, I still wouldn't touch
> their garbage.
Good for you, but that won't stop 'em trying :-)
> > Indeed, and there's where the debate should be running, not in the
> > apparent denial that medieval pictures had any element of visual
aid-ery. There's still a hell of a range between "no base" and
"photorealism".
> >
> Well, of course. That's my point - we'll have to examine what (and how
> well founded) that base was.
Sounds good to me.
> That's where I think you and Uwe talk past each other.
> He's trying to show that _local_ iconography depicted the experience
> of the audience for which it was written (or painted).
I read him, perhaps wrongly, as treating the whole idea of
iconographical convention as stupidity and perversity on my part.
> He is talking about how iconography made sense and was understood
> in a limited geographical area and reflected everyday life and
> dress _in this area_ .
> Your point is about _universal_ (or maybe a more abstract form of)
> iconography.
> IMO, there were (are) different levels of iconography.
> It can be shown that different parts of the population of certain areas
> were recognizable by a certain style of dress or weapon.
Can it? If our source for that is in something that might be
iconographic stereotypes, then it's a circularity.
> Let's call that local iconography because it would only be understood
> by people of (or in contact with) these groups.
> Then there are "universal" icons - like depicting a peasant with a plough
> or a craftsmen with his tools, eg. carpenter <-> hammer
> (I use "universal" in the context of medieval Europe.).
> A Spanish peasant would understand the plough as an icon but not the
> dresses or weapons of the Sachsenspiegel.
That's for sure.
> Universal icons tend to get simplified (eg. a stick with a lump at the end
> means hammer) which means that they can't be used to describe the
> _details_ of life back then.
Yeah, like trying to deduce the details of modern life from airport
direction symbols, eh?
> Local icons can't be simplified very much (one can't draw any old sword
> to bring the concept of Saxon across) so their use for gleaning details
> is higher.
This seems very wise and sound, but I am still inclined to think that if
(stress if) the purpose of the Sachenspiegel images is to exemplify a
discussion of what happens when a Saxon has a dispute with a Bavarian, and
thus to inform the illiterate what happens independently of the text, then
the two guys must be distinguished by dress simply because there's no other
way to do it; and that this might reflect universal visible differences in
the real world, or less-than-universal differences, or differences that are
now obsolete but retained for iconographic purposes, or conceivably
differences that are largely satirical. But if the illustrations are there
just for fun, so to speak, with no didactic purpose, or intended as
realistic in the same manner as portrayals of agricultural year and so
forth, the probability that they are accurate representations of regional
codes seems to me to be considerably higher.
> > And I would challenge the "everyday", as we've seen several examples
> of an iconographic convention that has outlasted its reality, if any, by
many decades. Dick Wisan has just brought up another one.
> >
> Yep; but that is iconography of the _literate_ age which is a different
> kettle of fish (or can of worms ;-)). Here it is sufficient to invent
> a motive, couple it with a slogan (or short description), pump
> it through the media (until it's firmly planted) and voila, another icon.
This looks like an interesting topic. You imply that the middle ages
couldn't generate a new icon in the same way, albeit naturally more slowly?
> > > The real questions should be : How exaggerated are those icons and
> > > when did they start where ?
> >
> > Exactly!!! :-)
> >
> > > I rather doubt that the iconography re. Jews in HRE and Jews in
> > > France was the same from the beginning (hat against star of David, eg)
> >
> > Right. It's even possible that the French iconography was based on
> > something the Jews wore of their own accord (a special hat) while the
HRE iconography was based on something they were forced to wear (the star of
> > David).
> >
> Yes. The first step would be to determine whether this was a local
> or an universal icon.
> If it was a local icon, the dress could be either that of a special
> group of Jews (like baikeles) in that area or a locally enforced dress.
> If it was universal it could be a traditional dress of them as a group.
> How would we know whether it was universal ?
> If the Jews were depicted in France and HRE with pointy hats while
> at the same time a dresscode which forced them to wear yellow
> trousers can be shown to have existed in HRE, one could tentatively
> conclude that the pointy hat was worn by all of them out of tradition.
Yes, tentatively. There might in principle be a lost dresscode. But if
there was a dresscode in HRE which mandated yellow trousers, but in all our
illustrations they were wearing the pointy hat but not the yellow trousers,
what would that mean? The complete ineffectiveness of the dress code? An
illustrator who thought it didn't work for him artistically and decided to
do something else (his descendants are currently in Hollywood adapting books
for the screen)? Or "Jews in pointy hats were good enough for my grandfather
so they're good enough for me"?
> > Have there been Western cartoons of Saddam Hussein in a kheffiyya?
If so, that would be an example of an assigned characteristic, because I'm
> sure he's never worn one, whereas his military beret is entirely
realistic.
> >
> Re. pre-literate and literate iconography see above.
> I don't think they can be compared (but that's just MO).
Could you say more about why not?
> <snip>
> > These Germans must at some time have worn *something* that allowed
the development of these standard caricatures. My point was merely to
> challenge the Sachsenspiegel manuscript as being irrefutable evidence for
rigid
> dress codes at the time when it was written and drawn.
> >
> See above.
You mean you agree that it's not irrefutable evidence, or not?
> <snip>
> > Eh? The minutely-traceable lederhosen thing, that wasn't me who
> brought up. You'd be better off trying to get me for kilt fixation. :-)
> >
> This fixation can get you kilt in Scottland ;-)
>
You're sporran' me on to new stinkers here.
Michael Kuettner
<snip church windows>
I certainly agree with you that there was a big economic aspect in
churches. I just wanted to point out that there were other aspects, too.
<snip>
> > That's where I think you and Uwe talk past each other.
> > He's trying to show that _local_ iconography depicted the experience
> > of the audience for which it was written (or painted).
>
> I read him, perhaps wrongly, as treating the whole idea of
> iconographical convention as stupidity and perversity on my part.
>
No, he was arguing along the lines of "local" and "universal" iconography
(my terms).
> > He is talking about how iconography made sense and was understood
> > in a limited geographical area and reflected everyday life and
> > dress _in this area_ .
> > Your point is about _universal_ (or maybe a more abstract form of)
> > iconography.
> > IMO, there were (are) different levels of iconography.
> > It can be shown that different parts of the population of certain areas
> > were recognizable by a certain style of dress or weapon.
>
> Can it? If our source for that is in something that might be
> iconographic stereotypes, then it's a circularity.
>
It can be (and has been) shown by archaeology.
You can easily tell Saxon from Alemannian graves because of the
weapons (but also from textiles, if they haven't decomposed),
to give one example.
And the type of dress and weapons found from the period is
the type depicted in the Sachsenspiegel.
> > Let's call that local iconography because it would only be understood
> > by people of (or in contact with) these groups.
> > Then there are "universal" icons - like depicting a peasant with a
plough
> > or a craftsmen with his tools, eg. carpenter <-> hammer
> > (I use "universal" in the context of medieval Europe.).
> > A Spanish peasant would understand the plough as an icon but not the
> > dresses or weapons of the Sachsenspiegel.
>
> That's for sure.
>
> > Universal icons tend to get simplified (eg. a stick with a lump at the
end
> > means hammer) which means that they can't be used to describe the
> > _details_ of life back then.
>
> Yeah, like trying to deduce the details of modern life from airport
> direction symbols, eh?
>
Exactly.
> > Local icons can't be simplified very much (one can't draw any old sword
> > to bring the concept of Saxon across) so their use for gleaning details
> > is higher.
>
> This seems very wise and sound, but I am still inclined to think that
if
> (stress if) the purpose of the Sachenspiegel images is to exemplify a
> discussion of what happens when a Saxon has a dispute with a Bavarian,
It isn't.
It states the law of the Saxons and _when_ Saxon law is to be applied
to Bavarians, Franks or Schwaben.
For example book I, Art 30 :
"Jowelk ingekomen man untseit erue binnen deme lande to sassen na
des landes rechte.
unde nicht na des mannes rechte. He si beier. oder suaue. oder uranke."
"Everybody who has come to Sachsen inherits according to the
law of Sachsen and not by his own law, be he Bavarian or Schwabe or
Frank."
or book III, Art. 54, par. 4 :
"[..]wen alse de uranke sin lif nicht uorwerken en mach he en werde
in der hanthaften dat geuangen. oder eme en si sin urenkes recht
uor delet.[..]".
"A Frank can't be sentenced to death by Saxon law except when he
is caught while commiting the crime or when he when he has been
deprived of his Frankian law."
(I tried to capture the essence of the passages with my translations,
they aren't word for word.)
> and
> thus to inform the illiterate what happens independently of the text, then
The illustrations weren't for the illiterate; we're talking about a law
book.
> the two guys must be distinguished by dress simply because there's no
other
> way to do it; and that this might reflect universal visible differences in
> the real world, or less-than-universal differences, or differences that
are
> now obsolete but retained for iconographic purposes, or conceivably
> differences that are largely satirical. But if the illustrations are there
> just for fun, so to speak, with no didactic purpose, or intended as
> realistic in the same manner as portrayals of agricultural year and so
> forth, the probability that they are accurate representations of regional
> codes seems to me to be considerably higher.
>
I'd call it iconography for the educated; a sort of memory aid.
Frankian law was the law of the _king_; it stood above the Saxon law.
The consequences of wrongly sentencing a Frank by Saxon law
could be dramatic - hence the memory aids.
> > > And I would challenge the "everyday", as we've seen several
examples
> > of an iconographic convention that has outlasted its reality, if any, by
> many decades. Dick Wisan has just brought up another one.
> > >
> > Yep; but that is iconography of the _literate_ age which is a different
> > kettle of fish (or can of worms ;-)). Here it is sufficient to invent
> > a motive, couple it with a slogan (or short description), pump
> > it through the media (until it's firmly planted) and voila, another
icon.
>
> This looks like an interesting topic. You imply that the middle ages
> couldn't generate a new icon in the same way, albeit naturally more
slowly?
>
_Much_ too slowly because of propagation.
Don't forget that the lower clerus wasn't very educated; so it would
have been very hard to get him to understand an icon from outside of the
sphere of his personal experience.
It would mean that we have found an universal icon which derived
from a certain dresscode.
We don't know whether that code was still in effect, of course.
> The complete ineffectiveness of the dress code? An
> illustrator who thought it didn't work for him artistically and decided to
> do something else (his descendants are currently in Hollywood adapting
books
> for the screen)? Or "Jews in pointy hats were good enough for my
grandfather
> so they're good enough for me"?
>
It would mean that the Jews wore a pointy hat because of tradition
and continue to wear it although some of them were also forced to
wear yellow trousers.
Or that they had worn the pointy hat for quite some time so that it
became part of folklore.
Or ....
;-)
> > > Have there been Western cartoons of Saddam Hussein in a kheffiyya?
> If so, that would be an example of an assigned characteristic, because I'm
> > sure he's never worn one, whereas his military beret is entirely
> realistic.
> > >
> > Re. pre-literate and literate iconography see above.
> > I don't think they can be compared (but that's just MO).
>
> Could you say more about why not?
>
I could try to marshall an argument among the lines of
-speed of propagation
-cheapness of medium
-quality of audience
-control of production (mass-print vs. hand-written)
-etc ;-)
It's like comparing apples with oranges (IMO, of course)
> > <snip>
> > > These Germans must at some time have worn *something* that allowed
> the development of these standard caricatures. My point was merely to
> > challenge the Sachsenspiegel manuscript as being irrefutable evidence
for
> rigid
> > dress codes at the time when it was written and drawn.
> > >
> > See above.
>
> You mean you agree that it's not irrefutable evidence, or not?
>
Irrefutable evidence in history is a rare beastie ;-)
But I'd say that the pictures in the Sachsenspiegel are supported
by archaeological evidence.
An isolated painting on a church window is another thing.
> > <snip>
>
> > > Eh? The minutely-traceable lederhosen thing, that wasn't me who
> > brought up. You'd be better off trying to get me for kilt fixation. :-)
> > >
> > This fixation can get you kilt in Scottland ;-)
> >
>
> You're sporran' me on to new stinkers here.
>
_DON'T_ treat the Scots as unwashed savages (lest EDEB will unleash
his haggis^Wwrath on you) ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David C Pugh
>
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:RX8Z9.15824$CG6.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> > news:b12067$h04$1...@rex.ip-plus.net...
>
> <snip church windows>
> I certainly agree with you that there was a big economic aspect in
> churches. I just wanted to point out that there were other aspects, too.
Yes, that's what makes it all such fun, isn't it? Let's leave the
monovariables to the tabloids :-)
> <snip>
> > I read him, perhaps wrongly, as treating the whole idea of
> > iconographical convention as stupidity and perversity on my part.
> >
> No, he was arguing along the lines of "local" and "universal" iconography
> (my terms).
Well, that message certainly didn't get through! His English is
naturally much better than my German, but you are really something else as
regards fluency in English.......
> It can be (and has been) shown by archaeology.
> You can easily tell Saxon from Alemannian graves because of the
> weapons (but also from textiles, if they haven't decomposed),
> to give one example.
> And the type of dress and weapons found from the period is
> the type depicted in the Sachsenspiegel.
Aha, whole different ball game. In the absence of this knowledge my line
made more sense --- and contrariwise!
> "A Frank can't be sentenced to death by Saxon law except when he
> is caught while commiting the crime or when he when he has been
> deprived of his Frankian law."
> (I tried to capture the essence of the passages with my translations,
> they aren't word for word.)
Don't think the minutiae of the law make much difference: if you have a
picture of a Frank and a Saxon to illustrate the above algorithm, we can
still wrangle about whether those pictures are realistic or stereotypes. The
archaeology stuff, however, is a torpedo under the waterline :-)
>
> > and
> > thus to inform the illiterate what happens independently of the text,
then
>
> The illustrations weren't for the illiterate; we're talking about a law
> book.
Well, Michael, somebody stated or implied or gave me the impression
(hey, you've got me talking like one too) that one page was text and the
back was the same in pictures, so that the illiterate could watch the Frank
murdering the Saxon and getting caught red-handed, or whatever. I thought it
seemed odd, for the reason you state, but that's what seemed to come over
the net (the tennis kind) at me, so I returned the serve.
> I'd call it iconography for the educated; a sort of memory aid.
> Frankian law was the law of the _king_; it stood above the Saxon law.
> The consequences of wrongly sentencing a Frank by Saxon law
> could be dramatic - hence the memory aids.
But doesn't that strengthen my case? A memory aid had jolly well better
be iconographic, the various actors have to look memorably different.
> > This looks like an interesting topic. You imply that the middle ages
> > couldn't generate a new icon in the same way, albeit naturally more
> slowly?
> >
> _Much_ too slowly because of propagation.
> Don't forget that the lower clerus wasn't very educated; so it would
> have been very hard to get him to understand an icon from outside of the
> sphere of his personal experience.
I dunno. This looks a priori reasoning to me, but I'm not sure how I'd
go about supporting or unsupporting it.
> > > If the Jews were depicted in France and HRE with pointy hats while
> > > at the same time a dresscode which forced them to wear yellow
> > > trousers can be shown to have existed in HRE, one could tentatively
> > > conclude that the pointy hat was worn by all of them out of tradition.
> >
> > Yes, tentatively. There might in principle be a lost dresscode. But
if
> > there was a dresscode in HRE which mandated yellow trousers, but in all
> our illustrations they were wearing the pointy hat but not the yellow
> trousers, what would that mean?
> It would mean that we have found an universal icon which derived
> from a certain dresscode.
You mean the hat that they are wearing or the yellow trousers that
they're supposed to be wearing and aren't? I'm confused now.
> We don't know whether that code was still in effect, of course.
>
> > The complete ineffectiveness of the dress code? An
> > illustrator who thought it didn't work for him artistically and decided
to
> > do something else (his descendants are currently in Hollywood adapting
> books for the screen)? Or "Jews in pointy hats were good enough for my
> grandfather so they're good enough for me"?
> >
> It would mean that the Jews wore a pointy hat because of tradition
> and continue to wear it although some of them were also forced to
> wear yellow trousers.
> Or that they had worn the pointy hat for quite some time so that it
> became part of folklore.
That's what I meant about the persistence of iconographic convention.
> Or ....
> ;-)
Indeed :-)
> I could try to marshall an argument among the lines of
> -speed of propagation
> -cheapness of medium
> -quality of audience
> -control of production (mass-print vs. hand-written)
> -etc ;-)
>
> It's like comparing apples with oranges (IMO, of course)
Obviously the speed is going to be much lower, c.f. the explosion of
pamphleteering post-Gutenberg, the quality of which must have made many
people think the whole business was a mistake, just like with the Internet
and its rants. I'm not sure about quality of audience though. You really
think today's Giwer-fodder a "higher" level of audience than medieval
peasants?
> Irrefutable evidence in history is a rare beastie ;-)
> But I'd say that the pictures in the Sachsenspiegel are supported
> by archaeological evidence.
That's heavy guns :-)
> An isolated painting on a church window is another thing.
Yeah, maybe I should have stayed with the Jew in the funny hat in Saint
Denis. :-)
At least you're defeating me politely, though :-)
> > > > Eh? The minutely-traceable lederhosen thing, that wasn't me who
> > > brought up. You'd be better off trying to get me for kilt fixation.
:-)
> > > >
> > > This fixation can get you kilt in Scottland ;-)
> > >
> > You're sporran' me on to new stinkers here.
> >
> _DON'T_ treat the Scots as unwashed savages (lest EDEB will unleash
> his haggis^Wwrath on you) ;-)
??? I meant "stinker" puns, Michael.
And better haggis than lutefisk!
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Michael Farthing" <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >survive, I imagine that doesn't make them terribly special.
>> than something dreamed up on the spot. That Jews were compelled to wear
>> distinctive clothing after 1215 is clear, as are the reasons. Some
>> aspects of the clothing imposed might be artificially imposed (I'm
>> thinking of the yellow badging), but to assume that Jews did not wear
>> some of the distinctive clothing before 1215 is certainly not tenable
>> without some primary evidence to that effect. [Equally, of course, we
Well, any shawl that the men wore would have tzitzis, ritual fringes at
the corners.
Metzger (Jewish Life in the Middle Ages) tells us that there is no
manuscript-illustration evidence of Jewish garb before the last third
of the 13th century, so trying to figure out what went on before 1215
is difficult.
>> cannot assume that they did unless we have some evidence: we should
>> really be saying, "It is not known"].
> I agree, especially in the light of IV Lateran's pointing out that the
>Jews were supposed *by their own law* to be wearing clothing that
>distinguished them from Christians. The Church was then setting out to
>enforce (at any rate what it thought was) Jewish law on the Jews.
"What it thought was" is open to debate, I think. I've reveiwed the
Jewish law on the subject, and there seems to be a difference between
the Jews of dar al-Islam and the Jews of Xtian Europe on this back into
the 12th century at least. Maimonides, writing in about 1170, codifying
the law as observed by the Jews under Islamic rule, writes (in Laws
relating to Idolatry 11:1) (emphasis mine):
: 1) One may not follow the practices of idolaters [in matters other than
: idolatry as well], and ONE MAY NOT DRESS LIKE THEM, or style one's hair
: like them, et cetera, for it is written, "And you shall not follow the
: practices of the nations", and it is further written, "...neither shall
: you follow their practices", and it is also written, "Guard yourself
: that you not ensnared into following them". All these verses come to
: warn us not to copy idolaters, but A JEW SHOULD BE [distinct and] DIFF-
: ERENT FROM THEM IN HIS MANNER OF DRESS and other actions, in the same
: way that he is different from them in his knowledge and characteristics.
: It is also written,"...and have segregated you from the peoples " - DO
: NOT DRESS IN THEIR STYLE OF CLOTHING; do not grow the forelocks of your
: heads in the same style that they do; do not shave the sides of your
: heads leaving the hair in the middle plaited like they do; do not shave
: your head from ear to ear leaving a pony-tail at the back like they do;
: do not build temples like the temples of idolaters, which they build in
: order to accommodate many people. Anybody who commits any of these
: actions is liable to flogging.
Which punishment indicates that he holds all of these rules to be Biblical
(that is, literally in the Pentateuch, or derivable by certain set exegetical
rules therefrom).
However, the Hagahot Maimoniyot, writing in 13th or 14th-century France,
says of the third highlighted phrase, "R' Eliezer of Metz wrote that we
shouldn't add by logic to the opinions of the Sages as to what constitutes
a violation, because we have received as a tradition what constitutes "ways
of the gentiles". A rather cryptic comment; apparently he thought Maimo-
nides was making unauthorized extensions to the law.
Various sources citing Maharik (R' Joseph Colon, Italy/France, 15th C.)
may offer the resolution: that Maimonides meant (it's not clear that that's
so) only to prohibit clothing that is PARTICULAR to non-Jews, which they
wear out of immodesty, or showiness, or whatever. This implies that
(as most Jews today hold) we only avoid stuff that is PARTICULAR to non-Jews,
such as priest-wear, but clothing that everybody wears regardless of religion,
we wear too.
So I think we would be prohibited from wearing saris, since in the US they
are only worn by non-Jews, but in India, if everyone wore saris, then Jews
would be permitted to as well.
>> Note in particular David's version of the quotation from the Lateran
>> Council in the parallel thread:
>> "Whereas in certain provinces the difference in their clothes sets Jews
>> and Saracens apart from Christians, in certain other lands there has
>> arisen such confusion that no differences are noticeable."
Here's the original Latin (from the Jewish Encyclopedia, of all places)
if any of you care to translate:
: "Contingit interdum quod per errorem christiani Judaeorum seu Saracenorum
: et Judaei seu Saraceni christianorum mulieribus commisceantur. Ne igitur
: tam damnatae commixtionis excessus per velamentum erroris hujusmodi,
: excusationis ulterius possint habere diffugium, statuimus ut tales utriusque
: sexus in omni christianorum provincia, et omni tempore qualitate habitus
: publice ab aliis populis distinguantur."
A more complete discussion of this issue can be found at
<http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=83&letter=B>
>> This clearly shows that Jews had distinctive clothing prior to 1215 in
>> some places, and that even in those places in which the distinction is
>> less the words suggest that the "problem" may be recent - "there has
>> *arisen* such confusion that no differences are noticeable" - a hint
>> perhaps that this situation is recent and unusual - or maybe just that
>> *some* Jews in these places had abandoned traditional dress.
> This is the Twelfth-Century Renaissance: rapid social change,
>dissolution of norms, people don't keep to their place, don't know what the
>world is coming to any more.....
Nope, nope.
Anyway, as to what the Church thought the law should be, about required
non-Christian dress, does not seem to match what the law was in 13-th
century Xian Europe. It is, however, difficult to ascertain this in
general, because no complete code was written for Ashkenazic (Western
European) Jewry until the 15th century.
Maimonides' requirement of separate dress seems, however, to have been
his own invention, esp. since the issue is not directly addressed in the
Talmud, only in the extra-Talmudic (and parallel in time of composition)
Halachic Midrashim.
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy birthday, trees!
jjb...@panix.com |
New on Webpage: On Mendelssohn's Biur <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/biur.html>
David C Pugh
news:b13jqn$cfs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
(...)
> > I agree, especially in the light of IV Lateran's pointing out that
the
> >Jews were supposed *by their own law* to be wearing clothing that
> >distinguished them from Christians. The Church was then setting out to
> >enforce (at any rate what it thought was) Jewish law on the Jews.
>
> "What it thought was" is open to debate, I think.
C.f. my sardonic remark to Fernando in the same thread, on medieval
notions of what the other guys were into. I don't have any problem with the
Pope being entirely mistaken. :-)
I've reveiwed the
> Jewish law on the subject, and there seems to be a difference between
> the Jews of dar al-Islam and the Jews of Xtian Europe on this back into
> the 12th century at least. Maimonides, writing in about 1170, codifying
> the law as observed by the Jews under Islamic rule, writes (in Laws
> relating to Idolatry 11:1) (emphasis mine):
>
> : 1) One may not follow the practices of idolaters [in matters other than
> : idolatry as well], and ONE MAY NOT DRESS LIKE THEM, or style one's hair
> : like them, et cetera, for it is written, "And you shall not follow the
> : practices of the nations", and it is further written, "...neither shall
> : you follow their practices", and it is also written, "Guard yourself
> : that you not ensnared into following them". All these verses come to
> : warn us not to copy idolaters, but A JEW SHOULD BE [distinct and] DIFF-
> : ERENT FROM THEM IN HIS MANNER OF DRESS and other actions, in the same
> : way that he is different from them in his knowledge and characteristics.
> : It is also written,"...and have segregated you from the peoples " - DO
> : NOT DRESS IN THEIR STYLE OF CLOTHING; do not grow the forelocks of your
> : heads in the same style that they do; do not shave the sides of your
> : heads leaving the hair in the middle plaited like they do; do not shave
> : your head from ear to ear leaving a pony-tail at the back like they do;
!! It's news to me that the Muslims of al-Andalus wore their hair like
that, it's something I associate more with the Huns and other steppe
peoples, although come to think of it the harem eunuchs of bad movies do
too....... :-) In Muslim miniatures, everyone's wearing a turban so you
can't see!
> : do not build temples like the temples of idolaters, which they build in
> : order to accommodate many people.
Now this interests me. Why is building a place of worship to accommodate
many people a *bad* thing? Is it a Maimonidean virtue to have people unable
to squeeze in, or is he suggesting the idolaters are just showing off?
(It may not be a coincidence that Maimonides came from Cordoba, which
had the biggest mosque anywhere, while the preserved Cordoban synagogue is
tiny, much smaller than the one in Toledo.)
> However, the Hagahot Maimoniyot, writing in 13th or 14th-century France,
> says of the third highlighted phrase, "R' Eliezer of Metz wrote that we
> shouldn't add by logic to the opinions of the Sages as to what constitutes
> a violation, because we have received as a tradition what constitutes
"ways
> of the gentiles". A rather cryptic comment; apparently he thought Maimo-
> nides was making unauthorized extensions to the law.
If I might ask, I have been discussing medieval Jewish and Christian
views of sex with a Jewish friend, who thinks Judaism free from the "You can
do it, but you mustn't enjoy it" attitude of the Church. But I've seen some
negative stuff from Maimonides (and Nahmanides), and am wondering how
representative Maimonides was about anything really...... I mean, he's
really high-profile among non-Jews, whereas we've not heard of the Hagahot
Maimoniyot.
> Various sources citing Maharik (R' Joseph Colon, Italy/France, 15th C.)
> may offer the resolution: that Maimonides meant (it's not clear that
that's
> so) only to prohibit clothing that is PARTICULAR to non-Jews, which they
> wear out of immodesty, or showiness, or whatever.
Ironic, since, according to Eve, in Northern Europe ear-rings were worn
only by Jewish women, not Christians.
This implies that
> (as most Jews today hold) we only avoid stuff that is PARTICULAR to
non-Jews,
> such as priest-wear, but clothing that everybody wears regardless of
religion,
> we wear too.
>
> So I think we would be prohibited from wearing saris, since in the US they
> are only worn by non-Jews, but in India, if everyone wore saris, then Jews
> would be permitted to as well.
I'm not sure whether the sari is supposed to be specific to Hindus, or
to everyone except Muslims. I mean, there are the St. Thomas Christians,
other Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and tribals. If all these folk are
supposed to be wearing the salwar kameez, for instance, so that the sari is
the mark of the Hindu, then I guess Indian Jews can't wear it after all?
Have I understood this aright?
> Maimonides' requirement of separate dress seems, however, to have been
> his own invention, esp. since the issue is not directly addressed in the
> Talmud, only in the extra-Talmudic (and parallel in time of composition)
> Halachic Midrashim.
Thanks for a great post!
D. Spencer Hines
and duplicitous ---- litany and special pleadings we hear so often here from
the Usual Suspect ---- that the *Christians* were solely responsible for
FORCING the Jews to dress differently.
So, he's DEAD WRONG AGAIN....
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Note The Jewish Law ---- Infra ---- Codified By No Less An Important Figure
Than Moses Maimonides [1135-1204] "Rambam" Himself.
This is another excellent example providing hard evidence for Joseph Suriol's
contention that the Jews WANT to be separate ---- do business only with each
other whenever possible ---- dress differently ---- and so forth.
Deus Vult.
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like 'em myself. They're
pretty bad ---- I grieve over them long winter evenings. And I don't mind
your ritzing me or drinking your lunch out of a bottle, but *don't* waste your
time trying to cross-examine me." Humphrey Bogart [Philip Marlowe] to Lauren
Bacall [Vivian Sternwood] in "The Big Sleep" [1946], Howard Hawks Directed.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:R8dZ9.15932$CG6.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
Michael Kuettner
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> news:b13dth$1df$1...@rex.ip-plus.net...
> >
> > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:RX8Z9.15824$CG6.2...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> > > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
> > > news:b12067$h04$1...@rex.ip-plus.net...
> >
> > <snip church windows>
> > I certainly agree with you that there was a big economic aspect in
> > churches. I just wanted to point out that there were other aspects, too.
>
> Yes, that's what makes it all such fun, isn't it? Let's leave the
> monovariables to the tabloids :-)
>
The symbolism of church windows (and what aspects of it _weren't_
symbolism but economical, spiritual or other aspects) could and
have filled bookshelf after bookshelf ...
> > <snip>
>
> > > I read him, perhaps wrongly, as treating the whole idea of
> > > iconographical convention as stupidity and perversity on my part.
> > >
> > No, he was arguing along the lines of "local" and "universal"
iconography
> > (my terms).
>
> Well, that message certainly didn't get through! His English is
> naturally much better than my German, but you are really something else as
> regards fluency in English.......
>
Contrary to Usenet custom Uwe always is careful to state only "facts"
(I've used "" as to not invoke the wrath of the mighty G) which he can
back up (he's an archaeologist, after all).
Before he starts generalizing, he says so.
He's one of the posters which I hold in high esteem.
And he has been drawn in (and rather unfairly mauled) simply by
correcting a broad generalization with an example; which led to
some misunderstandings.
> > It can be (and has been) shown by archaeology.
> > You can easily tell Saxon from Alemannian graves because of the
> > weapons (but also from textiles, if they haven't decomposed),
> > to give one example.
> > And the type of dress and weapons found from the period is
> > the type depicted in the Sachsenspiegel.
>
> Aha, whole different ball game. In the absence of this knowledge my
line
> made more sense --- and contrariwise!
>
As I've said, Uwe knows what he's talking about.
> > "A Frank can't be sentenced to death by Saxon law except when he
> > is caught while commiting the crime or when he when he has been
> > deprived of his Frankian law."
> > (I tried to capture the essence of the passages with my translations,
> > they aren't word for word.)
>
> Don't think the minutiae of the law make much difference: if you have
a
> picture of a Frank and a Saxon to illustrate the above algorithm, we can
> still wrangle about whether those pictures are realistic or stereotypes.
The
> archaeology stuff, however, is a torpedo under the waterline :-)
>
Of course. Bugger fair fighting ;-)
> >
> > > and
> > > thus to inform the illiterate what happens independently of the text,
> then
> >
> > The illustrations weren't for the illiterate; we're talking about a law
> > book.
>
> Well, Michael, somebody stated or implied or gave me the impression
> (hey, you've got me talking like one too) that one page was text and the
> back was the same in pictures, so that the illiterate could watch the
Frank
> murdering the Saxon and getting caught red-handed, or whatever. I thought
it
> seemed odd, for the reason you state, but that's what seemed to come over
> the net (the tennis kind) at me, so I returned the serve.
>
Yep - Usenet confusions.
> > I'd call it iconography for the educated; a sort of memory aid.
> > Frankian law was the law of the _king_; it stood above the Saxon law.
> > The consequences of wrongly sentencing a Frank by Saxon law
> > could be dramatic - hence the memory aids.
>
> But doesn't that strengthen my case? A memory aid had jolly well
better
> be iconographic, the various actors have to look memorably different.
>
Yes and no.
In the case of the Sachsenspiegel, the various parties depicted _were_
looking different.
In the case of the Saxons you even have an easily distinguishable
weapon - the Sax.
The interesting question would be : Was the Sachsenspiegel just a
lucky coincidence (re. local iconography) or are other works equally
realistic ?
> > > This looks like an interesting topic. You imply that the middle
ages
> > > couldn't generate a new icon in the same way, albeit naturally more
> > slowly?
> > >
> > _Much_ too slowly because of propagation.
> > Don't forget that the lower clerus wasn't very educated; so it would
> > have been very hard to get him to understand an icon from outside of the
> > sphere of his personal experience.
>
> I dunno. This looks a priori reasoning to me, but I'm not sure how I'd
> go about supporting or unsupporting it.
>
In another thread - long ago and in another galaxy, but in the same news-
group- I've posted some references to surviving educational books for
the lower clergy; they give a rather good picture of what could be expected
from them. I'll see if I can find it.
> > > > If the Jews were depicted in France and HRE with pointy hats while
> > > > at the same time a dresscode which forced them to wear yellow
> > > > trousers can be shown to have existed in HRE, one could tentatively
> > > > conclude that the pointy hat was worn by all of them out of
tradition.
> > >
> > > Yes, tentatively. There might in principle be a lost dresscode.
But
> if
> > > there was a dresscode in HRE which mandated yellow trousers, but in
all
> > our illustrations they were wearing the pointy hat but not the yellow
> > trousers, what would that mean?
>
> > It would mean that we have found an universal icon which derived
> > from a certain dresscode.
>
> You mean the hat that they are wearing or the yellow trousers that
> they're supposed to be wearing and aren't? I'm confused now.
>
No, it would mean that the hat was part of the dresscode; it became
an universal icon.
The trousers they are wearing would be a detail; but not an icon -
at least for some years. Then they could become an icon in the
part of the land where a) the dresscode is enforced and b) Jews are
living.
> > We don't know whether that code was still in effect, of course.
> >
> > > The complete ineffectiveness of the dress code? An
> > > illustrator who thought it didn't work for him artistically and
decided
> to
> > > do something else (his descendants are currently in Hollywood adapting
> > books for the screen)? Or "Jews in pointy hats were good enough for my
> > grandfather so they're good enough for me"?
> > >
> > It would mean that the Jews wore a pointy hat because of tradition
> > and continue to wear it although some of them were also forced to
> > wear yellow trousers.
> > Or that they had worn the pointy hat for quite some time so that it
> > became part of folklore.
>
> That's what I meant about the persistence of iconographic convention.
>
Yep; but where does it start ? How long does it take for an item to
become an icon ?
> > Or ....
> > ;-)
>
> Indeed :-)
>
> > I could try to marshall an argument among the lines of
> > -speed of propagation
> > -cheapness of medium
> > -quality of audience
> > -control of production (mass-print vs. hand-written)
> > -etc ;-)
> >
> > It's like comparing apples with oranges (IMO, of course)
>
> Obviously the speed is going to be much lower, c.f. the explosion of
> pamphleteering post-Gutenberg, the quality of which must have made many
> people think the whole business was a mistake, just like with the Internet
> and its rants. I'm not sure about quality of audience though. You really
> think today's Giwer-fodder a "higher" level of audience than medieval
> peasants?
>
Careful : Not the quality of the material counts but just how many
people one reaches (quality of audience means just that they are
able to read and know where to get their paper).
Let's start a thread about that in shem ?
Like "Early caricatures and their audience" ?
> > Irrefutable evidence in history is a rare beastie ;-)
> > But I'd say that the pictures in the Sachsenspiegel are supported
> > by archaeological evidence.
>
> That's heavy guns :-)
>
Of course; but I can rely on Tilmann and Uwe to spike my guns
if I start seeing fairies ;-)
> > An isolated painting on a church window is another thing.
>
> Yeah, maybe I should have stayed with the Jew in the funny hat in
Saint
> Denis. :-)
>
N*zi ! ;-)
> At least you're defeating me politely, though :-)
>
Dunno about defeating; I just like an interesting conversation which
usually has two winners.
> > > > > Eh? The minutely-traceable lederhosen thing, that wasn't me
who
> > > > brought up. You'd be better off trying to get me for kilt fixation.
> :-)
> > > > >
> > > > This fixation can get you kilt in Scottland ;-)
> > > >
> > > You're sporran' me on to new stinkers here.
> > >
> > _DON'T_ treat the Scots as unwashed savages (lest EDEB will unleash
> > his haggis^Wwrath on you) ;-)
>
> ??? I meant "stinker" puns, Michael.
>
I know what you meant. YHBT ;-)
> And better haggis than lutefisk!
That's like saying "Better Ebola than Black Death".
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David C Pugh
> The symbolism of church windows (and what aspects of it _weren't_
> symbolism but economical, spiritual or other aspects) could and
> have filled bookshelf after bookshelf ...
Which is why I like the perspective of the church being a tourist-trap
for fleecing the suckers -- it means I don't have to read all those heavy
books on Pseudo-Dionysian symbolism ;-) ;-)
> > Well, that message certainly didn't get through! His English is
> > naturally much better than my German, but you are really something else
as
> > regards fluency in English.......
> And he has been drawn in (and rather unfairly mauled) simply by
> correcting a broad generalization with an example; which led to
> some misunderstandings.
Insofar as I "mauled" him, Michael, it was for getting ad hominem,
sarcastic and offensive on me with no provocation. You've known me a while
here, you know I don't bite people every day. You yourself have championed
his line and gotten a much nicer exchange; now why might that be? :-)
> > Don't think the minutiae of the law make much difference: if you
have
> a picture of a Frank and a Saxon to illustrate the above algorithm, we can
> > still wrangle about whether those pictures are realistic or stereotypes.
> The archaeology stuff, however, is a torpedo under the waterline :-)
> >
> Of course. Bugger fair fighting ;-)
Ha! Gotcha! Homer nods. That metaphor doesn't mean unfair, you're thinking
of "hitting below the belt". A torpedo below the waterline is not unfair --
just very, very effective.
> The interesting question would be : Was the Sachsenspiegel just a
> lucky coincidence (re. local iconography) or are other works equally
> realistic ?
There's a doctoral thesis for someone :-)
> In another thread - long ago and in another galaxy, but in the same news-
> group- I've posted some references to surviving educational books for
> the lower clergy; they give a rather good picture of what could be
expected
> from them. I'll see if I can find it.
That would be fun. There's a famous English reference to the English
lower clergy being "dumb dogs", but the bishop or whoever said it may have
been in a bad mood that day...... You know this word "illiterate" -- as Paul
has pointed out, it often means being able to read the vernacular but not
Latin, but sometimes it means being able to write Latin, but not as well as
Cicero. I came across an example of that the other day, might have been the
author of Chronica Adefonsi imperatoris.
(snip yellow trousers, I'm losing the plot)
> > That's what I meant about the persistence of iconographic
convention.
> >
> Yep; but where does it start ? How long does it take for an item to
> become an icon ?
Darn good question. You know, I've often wondered when The Economist
will develop its silly caricatures for the new entrants to the EU. We have
our Frenchman (whom we've done to death), our German (really a Bavarian), I
think I remember Spaniards with matador hats (yeah, right), the Danes with
their horned Viking helmets (I dare you to defend that one), the Dutch with
their clogs, can't remember how they do the Italian -- but how on earth do
you symbolise a Czech or a Slovene or a Romanian in such silly little
sketches? You don't, you can't, no stereotype has yet crystallised out in
England (though I bet a Hungarian cartoonist can draw a Romanian in his
sleep). I wonder if it ever will. I mean, if some day the Slovene foreign
minister turns up at a EU meeting wearing his trousers inside out, God
forbid, that might do it for the next hundred years.
> > Obviously the speed is going to be much lower, c.f. the explosion of
> > pamphleteering post-Gutenberg, the quality of which must have made many
> > people think the whole business was a mistake, just like with the
Internet
> > and its rants. I'm not sure about quality of audience though. You really
> > think today's Giwer-fodder a "higher" level of audience than medieval
> > peasants?
> >
> Careful : Not the quality of the material counts but just how many
> people one reaches (quality of audience means just that they are
> able to read and know where to get their paper).
Um. You know that ever since Independence the Indian political parties
had icons, which are their sole identifiers vis-a-vis the illiterate; and as
Congress splintered, there got to be quite a lot. But from what I heard,
these illiterate Indian villagers and urban workers can keep mental track of
dozens of the things, and can be pretty savvy politically. Whatever is wrong
with India it certainly isn't that people are shy of speaking their minds
and going to the polls to "throw the buggers out". It would be nice to think
that the mere fact of literacy inculcates other higher brain functions, but
that would be an over-ambitious assertion :-(
> Let's start a thread about that in shem ?
> Like "Early caricatures and their audience" ?
Never been to shem!
> > > An isolated painting on a church window is another thing.
> >
> > Yeah, maybe I should have stayed with the Jew in the funny hat in
> Saint Denis. :-)
> >
> N*zi ! ;-)
?????
> > At least you're defeating me politely, though :-)
> >
> Dunno about defeating; I just like an interesting conversation which
> usually has two winners.
Nicely put.
> > And better haggis than lutefisk!
>
> That's like saying "Better Ebola than Black Death".
I dunno, the only time I've eaten haggis, namely in the cafeteria of
Edinburgh Castle, I liked it. I would classify lutefisk, however, as a siege
weapon. :-)
Reminds me of when some tourists dumped their army tinned black bread on
me. I suddenly understood the Blitzkrieg. "Well, lads, you can stay here and
open a tin of black bread, or you can advance another fifty kilometres and
eat what you can find."
William Black
> Anyway, as to what the Church thought the law should be, about required
> non-Christian dress, does not seem to match what the law was in 13-th
> century Xian Europe. It is, however, difficult to ascertain this in
> general, because no complete code was written for Ashkenazic (Western
> European) Jewry until the 15th century.
I wonder if what we're seeing is a fashion thing for men.
Religious Jews wear beards with 'corners'
I wonder if that was an indicator, until Christian men started wearing
beards...
No evidence, but it fits.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Jonathan J. Baker
>> : do not build temples like the temples of idolaters, which they build in
>> : order to accommodate many people.
> Now this interests me. Why is building a place of worship to accommodate
>many people a *bad* thing? Is it a Maimonidean virtue to have people unable
>to squeeze in, or is he suggesting the idolaters are just showing off?
Probably the latter, given the tenor of the rest of the paragraph. There
certainly were big synagogues in Egypt, where Maimonides spent much of
his adulthood - the one in Alexandria was reputedly so large that one
needed semaphore signals to let people in the back know when to stand up
or sit down. The Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo, which was erected probably
during Maimonides' lifetime (the synagogue with the famous Geniza which
contained several manuscripts in Maimonides' own hand) is not that small;
I've been there. It could probably seat several hundred.
> (It may not be a coincidence that Maimonides came from Cordoba, which
>had the biggest mosque anywhere, while the preserved Cordoban synagogue is
>tiny, much smaller than the one in Toledo.)
Could be. Also, with the prohibition on riding on Sabbath, synagogues
have to be smaller so as to be within walking distance for their congregants.
>> However, the Hagahot Maimoniyot, writing in 13th or 14th-century France,
>> says of the third highlighted phrase, "R' Eliezer of Metz wrote that we
>> shouldn't add by logic to the opinions of the Sages as to what constitutes
>> a violation, because we have received as a tradition what constitutes
>"ways
>> of the gentiles". A rather cryptic comment; apparently he thought Maimo-
>> nides was making unauthorized extensions to the law.
> If I might ask, I have been discussing medieval Jewish and Christian
>views of sex with a Jewish friend, who thinks Judaism free from the "You can
>do it, but you mustn't enjoy it" attitude of the Church. But I've seen some
>negative stuff from Maimonides (and Nahmanides), and am wondering how
>representative Maimonides was about anything really...... I mean, he's
>really high-profile among non-Jews, whereas we've not heard of the Hagahot
>Maimoniyot.
Well, on a lot of things he's quite representative. On philosophical
issues, well, he's representative of those of a philosophic bent, but
philosophical Maimonideans are few & far between these days, most people
preferring Kabbalistic explanations of God and His relationship to the
world. On sex ethics, a lot of people take issue with him. I don't
really know details on this.
>> Various sources citing Maharik (R' Joseph Colon, Italy/France, 15th C.)
>> may offer the resolution: that Maimonides meant (it's not clear that
>that's
>> so) only to prohibit clothing that is PARTICULAR to non-Jews, which they
>> wear out of immodesty, or showiness, or whatever.
> Ironic, since, according to Eve, in Northern Europe ear-rings were worn
>only by Jewish women, not Christians.
So?
> I'm not sure whether the sari is supposed to be specific to Hindus, or
>to everyone except Muslims. I mean, there are the St. Thomas Christians,
>other Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and tribals. If all these folk are
>supposed to be wearing the salwar kameez, for instance, so that the sari is
>the mark of the Hindu, then I guess Indian Jews can't wear it after all?
>Have I understood this aright?
I don't know who wears Saris, I just know that Indians wear them.
If they're particular to certain sects, then no, Jews can't wear
them.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> Anyway, as to what the Church thought the law should be, about required
>> non-Christian dress, does not seem to match what the law was in 13-th
>> century Xian Europe. It is, however, difficult to ascertain this in
>> general, because no complete code was written for Ashkenazic (Western
>> European) Jewry until the 15th century.
>I wonder if what we're seeing is a fashion thing for men.
>Religious Jews wear beards with 'corners'
That's just what happens if you don't trim your beard, to some
men. It happens to me. That's when I know I need to trim it,
when it gets corners.
As for the Biblical prohibition on shaving the corners of the beard,
that's locations on the face, not on the extremities of the hair.
Essentially, areas next to & below the ears.
>I wonder if that was an indicator, until Christian men started wearing
>beards...
Huh?
>No evidence, but it fits.
No relevance, because it doesn't.
Paul J Gans
>KAWHOMP!!!
>KERSPLAT!!!
>Deus Vult.
>D. Spencer Hines
>Vires et Honor
Disinformation again. You (as is often the case) purposefully
deleted the relevent portion of Baker's post -- the part
where he points out that this particular interpretation seems
to be Maimonides' alone.
But of course you'd delete that.
----- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> Could be. Also, with the prohibition on riding on Sabbath, synagogues
> have to be smaller so as to be within walking distance for their
congregants.
Is this to any extent part of the reason why Jews seem to be very urban
in the Middle Ages -- even if they were allowed to own land yadda yadda,
being a peasant in the boonies would mean you couldn't get to synagogue?
> > If I might ask, I have been discussing medieval Jewish and Christian
> >views of sex with a Jewish friend, who thinks Judaism free from the "You
can
> >do it, but you mustn't enjoy it" attitude of the Church. But I've seen
some
> >negative stuff from Maimonides (and Nahmanides), and am wondering how
> >representative Maimonides was about anything really...... I mean, he's
> >really high-profile among non-Jews, whereas we've not heard of the
Hagahot
> >Maimoniyot.
>
> Well, on a lot of things he's quite representative. On philosophical
> issues, well, he's representative of those of a philosophic bent, but
> philosophical Maimonideans are few & far between these days, most people
> preferring Kabbalistic explanations of God and His relationship to the
> world. On sex ethics, a lot of people take issue with him. I don't
> really know details on this.
Thanks.
> >> Various sources citing Maharik (R' Joseph Colon, Italy/France, 15th C.)
> >> may offer the resolution: that Maimonides meant (it's not clear that
> >that's so) only to prohibit clothing that is PARTICULAR to non-Jews,
which they wear out of immodesty, or showiness, or whatever.
>
> > Ironic, since, according to Eve, in Northern Europe ear-rings were
worn
> >only by Jewish women, not Christians.
>
> So?
If you're saying that the Jews thought the Christians immodest and
showy, well, the Christians returned the compliment. It's usual enough for
opposed groups to consider the other one oversexed, promiscuous and so
forth -- as you probably know, the Christian perception of Mohammed in the
MA was of a sexoholic who died by being eaten by pigs.....
E. C. Lee
> "E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cfed5b.03012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > One that touches me even more is in today's depiction of the "hippie".
> > I lived in that era and I seem to recall "tie dye" being a passing
> > phase of the times. For a short while it was popular among the peace
> > and love set, but it was also just a fashion amongst youth in general.
> > However, in Chicago, it wasn't all that big at all.
> >
> > Now, possibly due to the influence of the "deadhead", any suggestion
> > of a sixties counter culture type tends to wears tie dye. It has
> > become an essential ingredient to the hippie costume for our current
> > younger set. This is how they identify the hippie and even the
> > sixties as a whole. If one was to dress up as as a hippie, be it for
> > a play or for Halloween, tie dye would be a major factor in the
> > ensemble.
> >
> > So there you have it. Something that WAS worn, though not
> > universally, by a certain group of people and has now become
> > identified with them exclusively. The tie dye served as an
> > iconographic signal of hippie dress for those in later generations.
>
> I heard that Playboy had a cover with a "hippie chick", and you can just
> imagine the suits doing the research and brainstorming to find out what
> iconographic elements should be included. I also heard that some real
> hippies were quite annoyed :-)
>
> (...)
>
> > The fact is that many of our memories are not of the past, but of how
> > the past has been depicted, even in it's own time. My main man once
> > complained about the inaccuracy of another film which tried to
> > recreate the fifties though vivid color, when "everyone knows that the
> > fifties were in black and white!" ;-)
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> And in the early years of last century, everyone walked in jerky
> movements, right?
>
And even that is based on a misunderstanding of the medium. In the
old silents the speed was variable, so that the speed we see them in
today doesn't reflect the speeds in which they were shown.
> You know that in the debate over Recovered Memory Syndrome, those who
> say that this is (sometimes) fraudulent point inter alia to laboratory
> findings that show that it is actually quite easy to implant false memories,
> in anybody. That's because repeated acts of imagining something that didn't
> happen seems to create a memory -- different process, but the results are
> indistinguishable.
>
Very frightening.
> Later generations think about
> > the fifties in terms of technicolor or black and white, starbursts
> > motifs, constant cocktail parties, and ameoba shaped coffee tables.
> > That's because their basic exposure to that time period WAS through
> > film, television and the now popular retro artifacts. And that may
> > well be how the the visual memory of the fifties will be recorded for
> > the rest of history. Sure it reveals some truth about the times, but
> > hardly a recreation as to how things really were.
>
> > Anyway, I have to go with David on this. You have to be very careful
> > in how you read the visual images you take from historical sources.
> > They aren't necessarily reflective of "realities" although the study
> > of them can teach us much about the past. In fact, the very errors
> > recorded in these depictions can probably teach us much about how
> > people looked at things even if they don't teach us how people
> > actually looked.
>
> Got any nice examples?
>
How about 18th century pastoral paintings? Not exactly an accurate
picture of the rural folk. But it does tell us a lot about the people
who commissioned the paintings.
> Of course, something similar can also be said about
> > literature and historical writing!
>
> One of my chief interests in history is, in fact, consideration of the
> different "blind spots" of different cultures and times.
>
I think it's a rather interesting topic as well. And not just in the
study of history but in our understanding of who we are (and aren't)
today. It's far too easy to be blindsighted by those clever
contemporary images that we're given in ads, films, TV, magazines,
store windows, etc. It's really all the same thing when you get down
to it!
JMHO,
Eve
David C Pugh
(...)
> > And in the early years of last century, everyone walked in jerky
> > movements, right?
> >
> And even that is based on a misunderstanding of the medium. In the
> old silents the speed was variable, so that the speed we see them in
> today doesn't reflect the speeds in which they were shown.
Oy! Didn't know that.
> How about 18th century pastoral paintings? Not exactly an accurate
> picture of the rural folk. But it does tell us a lot about the people
> who commissioned the paintings.
Yeah, they used to call it Potemkin Villages in Russia..... Goya as
Reaganite?
;-)
E. C. Lee
> "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:b13jqn$cfs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > Various sources citing Maharik (R' Joseph Colon, Italy/France, 15th C.)
> > may offer the resolution: that Maimonides meant (it's not clear that
> that's
> > so) only to prohibit clothing that is PARTICULAR to non-Jews, which they
> > wear out of immodesty, or showiness, or whatever.
>
> Ironic, since, according to Eve, in Northern Europe ear-rings were worn
> only by Jewish women, not Christians.
>
Actually, the reason I've seen given given for Christian women not
wearing earrings was because of their elaborate headdresses. They did
wear jewelry on many other places on their bodies. The lack of
earrings wasn't any kind of modesty thing. The hats were surely
considered quite showy.
One might also assume that Jewish women did NOT wear the same
elaborate headdresses, thus enabling them to wear earrings. My
references also stated that the Jews were more influenced by Byzantine
fashions where women wore earrings and probably less elaborate
headgear.
Eve