Veil, Hat or Hair? t 25

Veil, Hat or Hair? Reflections on an Asymmetrical Relationship

Gabriela Signori*

The letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthian community were a keystone in the edifice of Christian thought during the Middle Ages, as far as evaluating the positions of men and women went. Particularly decisive in this regard was the section of the letters in which Paul explained why women were expected to wear the veil in church while men had to keep their heads uncovered. The history of the reception of this section of the Corinthian letters has till now not been traced. This history was an asymmetrical one: it hinged mainly on the references to women, occasionally on those to members of the clergy, but rarely did men of the laity figure in the discussion.

In the First Corinthians, one of the four letters the apostle Paul addressed to the inhabitants of Corinth, the relationship between man and woman in the community of Christians has been defined as one of superiority and subservience. At the zenith of the Christian order stands God: God stands above Christ, Christ above man and man above woman. Man is the mirror-image of God and his glory (imago et gloria), while woman reflects the glory of man alone. The gender of a person also determines the external features that mark the dialogue with God: the man keeps his head uncovered during prayer or prophecy, whereas the woman’s head must be veiled. Paul sermonises through oppositions. He does not provide reasons or causal explanations; rather, his statements follow in parathetical sequence,

* Historisches Seminar, University of Münster, Domplatz 20-22, D-48143, Münster, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]. The Medieval History Journal, 8, 1 (2005) Sage Publications t New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, London DOI: 10.1177/097194580400800103 26 t Gabriela Signori

one upon the other. His argument becomes obscure when he resorts to syllogisms. For a woman to be bare-headed during prayer, so the argument goes, would be tantamount to her being shorn of her hair. Should she not wish to cover her head, she should then shave off her hair. But since a shorn head spells dishonour, it follows that she be veiled. According to this, honour would appear to be the second reason for Paul’s prescription of the veil for women during prayer. Also difficult to follow is the state- ment: ‘For this reason a woman must carry a sign of authority (potestas) on her head because of the angels’.1 The confusion is finally compounded by the additional remark that wearing one’s hair long is disgraceful for a man, but an honour for a woman, as long hair has been gifted to her and is akin to a veil. Why would a woman need a second, artificial veil when she is already in possession of a natural one, her hair? To this, Paul’s curt reply: ‘But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God’.2

The Veil

While there has been a considerable amount of writing on the significance of these words of the apostle, the history of their dissemination and reception has hardly been investigated.3 This is surprising, especially in view of the fact that more than other sections of the Bible, the Corinthian passage in particular had a lasting effect on the ways in which in medieval European societies imagined the ordering of gender relations on earth. This particular text came to acquire central importance, as we shall see, in defining the norms of behaviour in church, though it applied only to women. Two, or rather three, objects inhabit from the outset the heart of the biblical interpretation: veil, hat and hair. It would then follow that the interrelationship of these objects be brought to light. Yet this in itself is a difficult task, as the veil, hat and hair stand for entirely different ‘things’. The symmetrical oppositions drawn by Paul in relation to hair hardly existed in medieval social practice: long hair was, over centuries, a source of honour not only for women, but equally for men. A shorn head was

1 First Cor. 11, 10. 2 Ibid.: 11, 16. 3 A number of questions centring on these issues that remain open will be addressed in the course of this article. See Wire, Women Prophets: 116–34; Kraemer, Share of the Blessings; MacDonald, Early Christian Women: 144–54. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 27

associated with subjection, servitude, submission and humiliation.4 The hat was never the male counterpart of the veil, not even in Paul’s version. In his prescription, it was the bare head of the man that completed the polarity. In other words, the veil was the sign of subordination, the un- covered male head that of freedom, the signum libertatis, as designated in the Glossa Ordinaria,5 a biblical commentary originating probably in Laon in the north of France, towards the end of the eleventh century, at a historical juncture when an increasing number of cities clamoured for freedom from feudal bonds.6 Freedom, as expounded in this commentary, is meant to be understood as an antithesis rather than as political gain: it is constituted in opposition to the signum subjectionis, the veil. Men and their headgear rarely figure as a subject in the Corinthian exegesis, except when the question of dishonourable hair length is raised.7 According to the First Corinthians, closely cropped hair or a clean-shaven head was obligatory only for the clergy.8 Since the fifth century, tonsure served as an additional feature that marked the hairstyle of the clergy as distinct from that of the lay public.9 The circular Roman tonsure, widely prevalent among the clergy of the Western Church and which echoed the form of the corona, Christ’s crown of thorns, was according to the First Corinthians meant to reinforce the notion of its bearer’s likeness to God.10 It is for this reason that ordinary members of the clergy were explicitly forbidden from wearing a hat.11 The earliest references to transgressions of this rule date from the eleventh century, the period of the investiture

4 Burkart, ‘Zwischen Körper’: 61–91. 5 Biblia sacra: col. 284: ‘In capite sunt omnes sensus spirituales, sicut in capite corporali corporales. Et quia viri caput est Christus sine alio mediante: and per Christum Deus in signum libertatis, non habet velum quod est subiectionis signum.’ On the Glossa, see Smalley, Study of the Bible: 55–66; Milburn, ‘The People’: 294–96. 6 Schulz, Kommunale Aufstände: 49–73. 7 First Cor. 11, 14. See, among others, Platelle, ‘Le problème’. 8 First Cor. 11, 7. This was especially in the Western Church, where the clergy also refrained from growing a beard (Andrieu, Le pontifical romain: 338). On medieval norms prescribing beardlessness for the clergy, see Bvrchardi, vt videtur: 103–114. 9 On tonsure, see Gobillot, ‘Sur la tonsure’; Bock, ‘Tonsure monastique’; Trichet, La tonsure: 69–92. 10 First Cor. 11, 4. This applied, according to Pater Bock, only to the tonsure of clerics; among monks, the tonsure signified humility, submission and penance. In Bock’s view, monks wore for a longer period of time the tonsura sancti Pauli, that is, their heads were fully shorn. It was only in the twelfth century that they adopted the customs of the clerics (Bock, ‘Tonsure monastique’: 383–90; also, Constable, ‘The Ceremonies’). 11 Zimmermann (Ordensleben: 99–100) has not found any reference in the rules for the monastic orders to headgear other than the hood and felt cap during winter. 28 t Gabriela Signori conflict.12 Their numbers become abundant in the Synod records from the thirteenth century onwards. Rules prohibiting clergymen from wearing their hair long or curled were disproportionately numerous. Decrees prescribing severe punishment for neglect of tonsures also reappear in the records at regular intervals.13 Even earlier than the tonsure, it was the veil that came to be constituted as a social marker of a consecrated virgin. This was not so in the early third century, when Tertullianus first made a move to make the veil obligatory for all virgins. Referring to the First Corinthians, Tertullianus regarded the veil as armour, shield or bulwark against the evil eye and desires of the flesh.14 A hundred years later, all consecrated virgins wore the veil, but this was the bridal veil and no longer a form of armour.15 All references to the Corinthians had disappeared, and in its place the Can- ticle, a section of the Old Testament, appeared more and more frequently, as for example in the writings of Ambrosius, Bishop of Milan (d. 397).16 It was at this point of time that the first doubts regarding the claim that man alone was created in the image of God, came to be hesitantly ex- pressed. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (d. 430), pointed out that according to the story of the Creation, both woman and man were created for each other, in the image of God.17 Moreover, authors such as Church Father Hieronymus (d. 419/420), went as far as to put forward the view that in

12 Zimmermann cites from the life history of Petrus Damian, which suggests that many monks even at that point of time wore a form of headgear. The reference is to broad bands, the copulae, ‘that covered their heads like hats’: ‘quibus quasi quibusdam pileis capita contegebant’. Damian prohibited this on the grounds that only a hood was appropriate for a monk. See Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 144: col. 141A. 13 Pontal, ‘Recherches sur le costume’. 14 Tertullianus, Le voile: 138–42, 150–58, 176–78, 182–84. Also, Hauschild, Der böse Blick: 5–20. 15 Muschiol (‘Famula Dei’: 279) relativises, as opposed to Metz (‘Le statut’), the importance of the ‘velatio’ (handing over of the veil) in early medieval Gaul, arguing that here the tradition was marked by a change of clothing. For a critical view on this position, see Potthof, ‘Habitus non facit’: 10–16. The veil is not central in the ‘Pontificale romanum’ either; rather, it is considered as one element of one’s garb, along with clothing, ring and crown. The liturgy at no point refers to the Letter to the Corinthians; it cites Mt 25, 1–13, that is, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Andrieu, Le pontifical: 411–25). 16 S. Ambrosii; also Eliott, Song of Songs: 23; Bugge, Virginitas: 59–79. Chrysostomos (d. 407), Gregory of Nyzanz (d. 379) and others engaged more intensively with the First Corinthians (7, 28–38). See Clark, ‘1 Corinthians 7’. 17 Augustinus, Über den dreieinigen Gott: 177; also, Bright, ‘Biblical Ambiguity’; and Smalley, Study of the Bible: 22–24. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 29

Christ both man and woman were alike and equal.18 In the eyes of other exegetes, however, such a position exceeded the bounds of acceptability. Towards the end of the fourth century, the so-designated Ambrosiaster sharply critiqued such notions of equality. Not much is known about this author, except that he lived in Rome during the time of Pope Damasus (366–84), was a cleric and wrote anonymously.19 Ambrosiaster dis- mantled the symmetry of opposites constructed by the apostle Paul, reinforcing considerably the notion of subordination. In other words, he traced the roots of the obligation to cover one’s head back to the Fall and to original sin and exhorted every woman, irrespective of social status, to obey this norm. He viewed the woman as being less than the man, as only one part of him, for she was formed out of his ribs, and therefore subject to his authority (imperio eius subjecta).20 The woman had to cover her head, since she was not created as God’s likeness. Her headgear was a sign of her subordination to the man. As it was she who first violated the law (praeuaricatio), she was allowed to enter the church or appear in the presence of a bishop only if suitably veiled. When in church, it was forbidden to her to speak her mind.21 That the main source of this norm lay in original sin (reatus originem), is reiterated further in the text.22 This position was subsequently replicated, almost word for word, in the writings of the Carolingian scholar Hrabanus Maurus (d. 856).23 Even the Decretum Gratiani, a treatise on canonical law, drew upon on the account of Ambrosiaster,24 as did finally the Rationale divinorum officiorum, the widely disseminated handbook on liturgical questions compiled by Wilhelm Durandus (d. 1296). Durandus’ stipulations applied only to the interior of a church. In the presence of a priest, the woman was to keep silent and cover her head, as in the presence of the divine judge, for she was not a likeness of God and

18 Galater 3, 28. See Saint Jérôme, Lettres: no. 127, 136–48; Forenza, In Memory: 205–241. 19 The name ‘Ambrosiaster’ was coined by Erasmus of Rotterdam (d. 1536). On the author, Stuiber, ‘Ambrosiaster’; Smalley, Study of the Bible: 22; Hunter, ‘The Paradise’; idem, ‘Clerical Celibacy’. 20 Migne, Patrologia latina: vol. 17, col. 253B. 21 First Cor. 14, 34 (ibid: col. 253D). Paul, however, does not speak of the Church as a location or a community. See Neyrey, ‘What’s Wrong’. 22 Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 17: col. 254A. Also Schreiner, ‘Si homo non’. 23 Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 112: col. 99–105, containing the important qualification that man and women were equal in spirit (col. 100 C–D). Also Smalley, Study of the Bible: 57–60; Rissel, Rezeption: 310–19. 24 Decretum: 1255; Metz, ‘Le statut’. 30 t Gabriela Signori

bore responsibility for the Fall. Durandus used the terms praeuaricatio and reatus (guilt), not peccatus (sin), a clear indication that, disregarding the advice of his editor, he drew upon the text of Ambrosiaster and not on the Corinthians.25 The same was true of Heinrich von Langenstein’s (d. 1397) tract on sin, Erkantnus der sund. Drawing upon the Corinthians, he laid down:

It is to be noted that the colour yellow26 in veils or in the adornments of all kinds that make up the female headdress, must be avoided and punished. The reason for this is that the veil to be worn by women is a symbol of her sub- servience. The woman wears a headdress so that it may be recognised that she is subordinate to the man, who ranks above her. The veiled head is also a sign that woman transgressed the first commandment and violated its terms.27

At the end of his argument, Langenstein refers explicitly to Ambrosiaster:

Ambrosius states that through this it can be recognised that she is subordinate to her husband and that original sin was committed by a woman. And since the veil carries with it woman’s humility, it would displease the Lord greatly, should the woman behave arrogantly towards it.28

The history of the Corinthians’ reception did not however follow the clearly linear path which the focus on Ambrosiaster would appear to suggest. Sedulius Scottus and Haimo of Auxerre, for example—two authors who wrote during the ninth century—expressed their displeasure over the discussion. They raised the question as to why headgear was a subject for the apostle Paul in the first place. The reason, in their view, was probably that at the time when the apostle lived and wrote, the women of Corinth must have expressed a disinclination to wear the veil in church. If so, the authors objected, that was past history, with little relevance to the present.29 The issue of the historical specificity of Paul’s words was

25 Gvillelmi Dvranti Rationale: 27; also Durandus’ Rationale: 34. On Durandus, see Fasolt, Council and Hierarchy: 64–72; Gy, Guillaume Durand. 26 See Jaritz, ‘Das Bild: 210; Simon-Muscheid, ‘Schweizergelb und Judasfarbe’: 333, n. 42 and 338–43 for a discussion on the colour of the veil. 27 Langenstein, Erchantnuzz: 165; on Langenstein, see Kreuzer, Heinrich von Langenstein. For the idea of ‘subservience’, the Latin term ‘oboedientia’ was normally used, see Grubmüller, Frühneuhochdeutsches Glossenwörterbuch: 755. 28 Langenstein, Erchantnuzz: 165. 29 Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 103: col. 150 and vol. 117: col. 567. Smalley, Study of the Bible: 39–40; Contreni, ‘The Biblical Glosses’. Wearing a veil in church was a Veil, Hat or Hair? t 31 equally the point of departure for the Glossa ordinaria, a medieval text that was almost as widely disseminated and read as Durandus’ Rationale.30 The author of the Glossa used the commentary of Sedulius Scottus.31 However, more often than not, he referred to Augustine’s text on the Trinity in which the Church Father observed that Paul’s words in the First Corinthians did not accord with the story of Creation.32 The notion of subordination lost its edge also in the Postilla literaris, written by the Franciscan monk Nicolas of Lyra (d. 1349).33 From the twelfth century onwards, the wimple, a form of female headdress that enveloped the head, ears and chin, gained acceptance as a marker of social position for married women.34 Attempts to justify the rationale behind this norm became progressively infrequent; decrees and mandates issued by the town council were now more concerned with questions relating to the quality and design of this headdress. It was listed in contemporary dress laws very often right at the beginning, to suggest that this, more than any other article of clothing, was a marker of identity for women. Equally informative in this context are late medieval illustrations of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins.35 Only girls and unmarried women were free from the obligation to cover their heads: ‘She who does not have a man’, as the dress law issued by the city of Speyer in 1356 stated, ‘may wear a hair band (schappel) encircling her head and let her braids hang out below, till she has been married off.’36 After that, the statute continues, ‘she may wear neither the hair band nor her braids.’37 Whether girls also wore their hair open in church remains unknown. Well-known preachers of repentance during the fifteenth century, such as Bernhardino of Siena or Johannes Capestran, were in favour of all women, unmarried, married or widowed, wearing long-established practice. Later, the veil came to be replaced by the wimple, a social marker of the married woman. 30 Biblia sacra: col. 283. 31 Ibid.: col. 285f., 288. He also cites Chrysostomos (d. 407) once. 32 Ibid.: col. 286f. 33 Ibid.: col. 283–89; Smalley, Study of the Bible: 264–81. 34 Gardner, ‘Hair and Head-Dress’; Schier, ‘Die mittelalterlichen Kopftrachten’; Steigerwald, ‘Gugel, Gebende’. 35 Mt. 25, 1–13. See Vavra, ‘Klug oder töricht’; Körkel-Hinkfoth, Die Parabel: 107– 117. 36 Mone, ‘Sittenpolizei’: 59. Also Eisenbart, Kleiderordnungen; Hughes, ‘Sumptuary Law’, ‘Frauenmoden’. 37 Mone, ‘Sittenpolizei’: 59. 32 t Gabriela Signori

the veil. Visual representations confirm this position; their intent was in this respect not illustrative but prescriptive.38 During the late medieval period, the association of headdress with female honour became closer than it had ever been earlier. For instance, adultery came to be frequently punished by abrogating the right of the adulteress to wear the wimple: the punishment could be enforced either at certain selected moments, such as during the public procession intended to display repentance for adultery, or else for an indefinite period, in those cases where the punished woman was unable to pay the stipulated fine, as the practice in Nuremberg shows.39 This was also the reason that the public prosecutor of Cérisy sentenced a woman to walking bare- headed (caputio denudata) through the Palm Sunday procession, as well as barefoot and clothed in a penitent’s beltless shirt.40 Similar stipulations can be found in the statute books of the city of Schlettstadt (present-day Séléstat in Alsace), drawn up between 1372 and 1401.41 According to Jutta Zander-Seidel, the prohibition of the wimple was among the most frequent of those punishments meted out to adulteresses, which used clothing as a means to signify dishonour.42 A new chapter in the history of female headgear opened in the sixteenth century, when patrician women in Nuremberg took to wearing ‘men’s hats’ or the beret, a rounded cap fitting closely to the edges.43 References to this phenomenon can be encountered as early as the second half of the fourteenth century, though mainly in the form of prohibitions: ‘No woman, married or unmarried, may wear a man’s cloak or a modern hat with slits on either side’, ran the statute in the Speyer dress law.44 In the minds of the law makers, gender and headdress, when it came to women, were inextricably bound up with each other. Yet, to draw a provisional conclusion, the European Middle Ages do not furnish evidence of a single, uniform doctrine on this question, one that could be understood as an echo of the apostle Paul’s words. The Church Fathers had put forward varied—indeed, often contradictory— interpretations of the First Corinthians (11, 3–16) that could then be

38 Rusconi, ‘San Bernardino’; Muzzarelli, ‘“Contra mundanas”’; Izbicki, ‘Pyres of Vanities’. 39 Zander-Seidel‚ ‘Das erbar gepent’. 40 Schreiner, ‘“Nudis pedibus”’: 73; also Carbasse, ‘“Currand nudi”’. 41 Schreiner, ‘“Nudis pedibus”’: 73. 42 Zander-Seidel, ‘“Das erbar gepent”’. 43 Ibid. 44 Mone, ‘Sittenpolizei’: 59. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 33

adapted according to need.45 Whatever the choice of interpretation, it was clear that the ‘problem’ did not relate to men. Disputes or differences over the question of headgear had evidently to do only with women.

Hats

Being bare-headed, not in the sense of a condition, as with the clergy, but as an action or a gesture, was in the case of men central to quite a different context of discussions. Bare-headedness was inscribed within a complex field of displays of deference and recognition, or within another equally complex field of ritual humiliation and self-abasement associated with public penance or asceticism.46 The hat could be a marker of age, office, rank, dignity,47 or, as in the case of the Jew’s hat, of stigma, of belonging to another religious community.48 The association of the hat with the male gender per se was rarely drawn, except ex contrario, in instances when women were bold enough to wear men’s hats. And this they did, as prohibitions of the practice suggest, more often than expected.49 Mas- culinity, in other words, was rooted in a man’s hair and beard, not in his headgear.50 The hat has had a mercurial career, though its history during the medieval period remains to be investigated. At least from the fourteenth century onwards, every man wore a hat, including the cleric and the monk. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are better researched in this respect, as this was a period of time when the hat played an important role in discussions on rank that predominated over all other social issues.51 This was also a juncture when the hat, according to Thomas Maissen, emerged as a symbol of freedom.52 As is well known, the idea was subse- quently seized upon by the revolutionary ferment of the late eighteenth

45 Metz, ‘Le statut de la femme’: 59f. 46 Schreiner, ‘“Nudis pedibus”’: 73. 47 Huttenroth, Handbuch: 236–56, 339–42; Heyne, Körperpflege und Kleidung: 297– 302; Hadwich, ‘Die rechtssymbolische Bedeutung’. 48 Sacrorum conciliorum: vol. 23, col. 1174; Sansy, ‘Chapeau juif’. 49 Mone, ‘Sittenpolizei’: 59; also Eisenbart, Kleiderordnungen: 96f., 148. 50 Whatever Paul’s objections to long hair may have been, it retained its attraction for persons of both sexes over many centuries: see Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings; Bartlett, ‘Symbolic Meaning’; Bvrchardi, vt videtur: 47–130. 51 Corfield, ‘Ehrerbietung und Dissens’; Scheidegger, ‘Von altrussischen Hüten’. My sincere thanks to Frank Kämpfer (Münster) for the reference to Scheidegger’s wonderful article. 52 Maissen, ‘Der Freiheitshut’; also de Chapeaurouge, Einführung: 144f. 34 t Gabriela Signori

century. Influential modern histories of culture invariably cite Schiller’s famous words: ‘A human being’s adornment is the hat, for he who, in obeisance to kings and emperors, may not wear the hat, is not a man of freedom’53—an idea also encountered in Schiller’s play, William Tell, completed in 1804. Yet, Schiller was more concerned with the present than with history.54 The anecdote wherein the Swiss confederates were expected to defer to Gessler’s hat ‘with bent knees and bare heads’, comes from Schiller. According to the Weißes Buch von Sarnen, a history of the Swiss con- federates that recounts the myths of their origins, the courageous con- federates simply refused to bow before a mere hat.55 They would have bowed before the bailiff, had he been there in person, but not before a headless hat:56 ‘What should I do with this hat, which does me neither good nor ill? My lord would I gladly honour, had he been here in person.’57 According to Ägidius Tschudi (d. 1572), Schiller’s main source of information, William Tell ‘showed it’, that is, the hat, ‘no reverence’.58 The absurdity of showing deference to an object was a proof, among others, of the arbitrary rule of the landed chief. Far more important in this context is the continuation of the story, to be found in the original version of William Tell: here it is recounted that Gessler had repeatedly attacked the women and children as well as the land and possessions of the confederates.59 Freedom was defined during this time not as freedom from authority, but as freedom from tyranny. The humanist writer, Sebastian Brandt (1458–1521), well-known for his satirical work, The Ship of Fools (Das Narrenschiff), articulated this understanding of freedom in his poem on liberty, Freiheitstafel.60

53 ‘Des Menschen Zierrat ist der Hut, denn wer den Hut nicht sitzen lassen darf vor Kaisern und Königen, der ist kein Mann der Freiheit’ (Schiller, Die Piccolomini: 143). Also Timidior, Der Hut und seine Geschichte; Schier, ‘Der Hut als Spiegel’. 54 Schiller, Wilhelm Tell: 20. 55 Das Weiße Buch: 14; Petermann Etterlins Kronica: 94, speaks of ‘showing reverence to the hat and addressing it as if the lord himself were present’. 56 The episode offers valuable insight into the limits of medieval thinking on the notion of representation. 57 ‘Was eer sol ich anth n disem h t, / Der mir weder g ts noch boeß th t? / Minem herren wolt ich gern eer anth n, / So er hie wer in eigner person’ (Das Lied von der Entstehung: 79. 58 Tschudi, Chronicon Helveticum: 230. 59 Das Weiße Buch: 6, 8–10, 10–12. 60 Knape, Dichtung, Recht und Freiheit: 417–72. On the notion of tyranny, see von Eyb, Spiegel der Sitten: 359–61; Signori, ‘Frauen, Kinder, Greise’. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 35

Research on the history of the hat defines it as a sign of the free man. Accordingly, the interest in the tale of William Tell is great, but this is Schiller’s William Tell. During the medieval period, references to attitudes towards the hat, whether positive or otherwise, are seldom to be found. Equally rare are references such as the early, and exceptional, example from the Mâcon Council decree of 585. Canon 15 of this decree attempts to lay down the forms of conduct regulating the dealings between the clergy and the laity. Central to the subject of behaviour was the mode of greeting. When a lay person encountered a member of the higher clergy, he was expected to show his deference by bowing. Should the encounter take place while both were on horseback, the lay person had to greet the clergyman by raising his hat. In a situation where the clergyman was on foot and the lay person astride a horse, the latter was expected to alight from his horse to pay his respect to the clergyman.61 It is only from the fourteenth century that references to the uses of the hat multiply. The chronicler Johann von Viktring (d. 1345–47), for in- stance, describes the meeting between Frederick the Fair and Johann, the King of Bohemia. Upon this occasion, the latter raised his hat, while Frederick merely gestured in the direction. Viktring speaks here of pileo ad modicum elevato, the slightly raised hat.62 In a similar instance, John, Baron of Zimmern raised his hat ‘as was the custom’ to Emperor Sigmund (1368–1437) and ‘bent to his knees’, while he excused himself for stand- ing up in the presence of Sigmund. With his he wished to demonstrate that he was a free man who owed no one anything.63 The so-designated ‘rules of the laity’, composed in the early fifteenth century by the schoolmaster Dietrich Engelhus (d. 1434), contain numer- ous prescriptions that were intended to help regulate social intercourse.64 Engelhus discusses questions of clothing, work, play and sociability befitting one’s status, but also the subjects of socially acceptable marriages and the upbringing of children. His was a conservative spirit. He would have loved to have the ‘world’ in a way that its signs were recognisable to all: ‘That is why, dress the way your social status requires you to’, he admonished his readers, ‘and not above your rank’. His text divides society of his time into the groups: knights, landlords, revenue-holders, service men and the ‘common man’. Immediately following the question

61 Sacrorum conciliorum, vol. 9, cap. 15: ‘De honore clericis honoratioribus a saecu- laribus exhibendo, adeo ut clerico pedestri eques obviam saecularis ad terram desiliat.’ 62 Johannes Victoriensis: 405; also Hillenbrand, ‘Der Geschichtsschreiber’. 63 Die Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern: 147. 64 On Engelhus, see the articles in Honemann (ed.), Dietrich Engelhus. 36 t Gabriela Signori

of clothing, the author embarks on the subject of ‘how to greet’.65 Here, the emphasis is on symbols and symbolic gestures. Central to the dis- cussion are acts around the hat: the raising of the hat, touching the hat, falling on one’s knees or bowing in front of office-holders and dignitaries:

‘How to greet’ 1. Pope, emperor, cardinal, king Falling on the knees 2. Bishop, abbot, standard-bearer Bowing 3. Clerics and knights Raising one’s hat 4. Mayors and jurors Touching one’s hat 5. Children vis à vis a parent Raising one’s hat

Engelhus sought to order the world as seen through the eyes of a clergy- man. He addressed only men and assumed that every man wore a hat. In the hierarchy of deferential gestures laid down by him, however, the raising of one’s hat appeared in the third position, subsequent to the gestures of kneeling and bowing.66 More often, it is in late medieval liturgical commentaries, than in con- duct books or pedagogical tracts,67 that the question of raising one’s hat can be encountered.68 As opposed to the letter to the Corinthians, which rested on the assumption of man’s likeness to God, it is the idea of defer- ence that is primary here. Wilhelm Durandus was among the first to call upon all lay persons to observe the status reverentiae during the reading of the Gospel, that is, standing in reverence.69 The clergy had already been exhorted 200 years ago by Petrus Damian (d. 1072) to remain stand- ing during mass. Did not the sacredness of the place demand that when in church, one stand in reverence? Non mereatur saltem stantium reveren- tiam clericorum?70 Did not God speak to Moses in the Bible: ‘You must remain standing in front of me, so that I can proclaim to you the law, the commandments and rights in their entirety’.71 He did not say sit or lie,

65 ‘Eine Laienregel des XV. Jahrhunderts’ (Rules for the laity in the fifteenth century), in Langenberg, Quellen und Forschungen: 98. 66 Stollberg-Rilinger, ‘Rang vor Gericht’. 67 The subject is also repeatedly encountered in the discussions of Erasmus of Rotterdam with his disciples, who admonishes them: ‘Whenever someone to whom you owe respect addresses you, stand up and take off your hat’. (‘Sooft dich jemand anredet, dem du Ehrfurcht schuldest, steh gerade und nimm die Kopfbedeckung ab’), in his Famili- arium colloquiorum: 47. See also Bömer, Die lateinischen Schülergespräche: 71–94. 68 Franz, Die Messe. 69 Gvillelmi Dvranti Rationale: 351. 70 Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 145: col. 645B. 71 Deutoronom 5, 31. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 37

but ‘stand by me’, so that Moses learnt while standing that which he later preached while sitting. At the end of the fourteenth century, Jean Gerson (d. 1429), mystic, church reformer, and for a period of time, Chancellor of the Sorbonne, linked the status reverentiae to the act of raising one’s hat: ‘When the Gospel is read, you must listen with reverence to the sweet words which flow from the mouth and heart. And men must stand up and raise their hats when they listen’.72 Gerson does not refer to women, though in many places, according to the Roman custom, they too stood up during the reading of the Gospel.73 The same instructions can be found in the fourteenth century devotional book, Der Große Seelentrost, also applying only to men: ‘When the Gospel is being read, you must stand and take off your hat or hood’.74 In his Praeceptorium divinae legis, Gottschalk Hollen (d. 1481), the Augustinian monk from Westphalia, criticised those persons of noble ranking who wished to stand up not only while the Gospel was being read, but also during the reading of the Epistles; for Paul, whose letters made up most of the Epistles, had been a nobleman like them and therefore a companion in rank. Other churchgoers, according to Hollen’s critique, retained their headgear for the same reasons during the reading of the Gospel.75 Wilhelm Durandus had narrated a similar ‘anecdote’ 200 years earlier, though in his time the question pertained to standing during Gospel reading and not yet to taking off one’s hat. The hat was added on later, towards the end of the fourteenth century.76 And then, it was not raised in the presence of one and all, but exclusively when meeting an elderly person, one superior in rank, in some places also in the presence of aristocratic women, as laid down by Robert de Blois in his Chastoie- ment des dames, a mid-thirteenth-century didactical tract written in verse for noble women.77

72 Gerson, ‘Comment on se doit maintenir à la messe’, in his Oeuvres complètes: 321–23; also Reinburg, ‘Liturgy and Laity’. 73 Letter from Eneas Silvius to Giuliano de’ Cesarini (Milan, July 1434) in Wolkan, Der Briefwechsel: no. 16, 33; Wurstisen, Baszler Chronik. 74 ‘Wan man lest dat Ewangelium, so schaltu stan vnde schalt dynen hot edder dyne kogelen [Gugel] van deme houede nemen’ (Der Große Seelentrost: 95). 75 Cited in Franz, Die Messe: 22; on Hollen, see Eckermann, ‘Hollen, Gottschalk’; idem, Gottschalk Hollen: 127–35. 76 Gvillelmi Dvranti Rationale: 322; Durandus’ Rationale: 103; also Eckermann, Gottschalk Hollen: 231–32 and 318–21. 77 See Blois’ Le Chastoiement in Fox, Robert de Blois: 143–44. 38 t Gabriela Signori

The Corinthian exegesis, to draw a second conclusion, was not inter- ested in men. The passages where men are mentioned were intended for the clergy and not for men of the world. This changed only in the thirteenth century, when an increasing number of writings discussed the norms of comportment of lay persons in church and during the Mass.78 The subject of raising one’s hat, however, acquired currency only in the fourteenth century, for it was at this time that almost every man wore a hat or a cap. The necessity of taking off one’s hat during the reading of the Gospel was not however derived from the Corinthian passage, from its idea of man being created in the likeness of God. Rather, the gesture was understood as an expression of relationship, of deference towards he who held the highest rank.

Mitres

Turning to the clergy, the same phenomenon could be observed: from the fourteenth century onwards, every male member, whether priest or member of an order, had to stand up during the Gospel and take off his hat. Prior to this period, council stipulations relating to the headgear of the clergy were rare, as Louis Trichet sums up.79 In 1287, the Council of Liège explicitly prohibited clergymen from wearing the mitre in church: ‘Members of the clergy belonging to orders or holding sinecures may not wear any form of headgear while in church’.80 At the same time, they were exhorted to renew their tonsures seven times in a year.81 In 1310, the Synod of Trier frowned upon the custom of wearing a hat, for it was seen to dishonour the priestly status of the clergy by rendering the tonsure, the marker of belonging to this social group, invisible.82 Other provincial synods launched an offensive against clerics who wore a beard or grew

78 Russel, ‘Vernacular Instruction’; Boyle, ‘The Fourth Lateran Council’; Foss, ‘John Mirk’s Instruction’; McC. Gatch, ‘Basic Christian Education’. 79 Trichet, Le costume du clergé: 86f. and 101f. The question of whether the plague constituted a point of rupture with regard to the clothing of priests remains an open one; for reservations on this issue, see Bulst. ‘Der schwarze Tod’. 80 Concilia Germaniae, vol. 3: 697. ‘Statuimus, ne clerici mitras, seu cucusas in capitibus suis in choro deferant, dum ibidem Divina celebrantur’ (ibid., vol. 4: 242). The terms used here do not give a clear idea of the form of headgear; at one point, the reference is to ‘mitra seu biretum’ (mitre or beret, ibid., vol. 5: 573), at another, to ‘mitra seu capucium’ (mitre or hood, ibid.: 14). 81 In 816, the Council of Aachen had demanded that hair be cut 25 times in a year. 82 Concilia Germaniae, vol. 4: 131 and vol. 5: 242. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 39 their hair, or who, like Chaucer’s Absolon,83 showed a predilection for curls or a middle parting.84 Throughout the following centuries, the subject never lost currency. The prohibitions enacted in Liège and Trier were related to the interior of a church. Outside of a church building, the mem- bers of the clergy had been wearing a black headdress since a long time. This is what was now also demanded by the Council Fathers. Ten years before the Council of Trier, it had been decided in Cambrai that all priests of the diocese receiving benefices were to wear a felt hat, pileus, when they moved in public, so that they could be distinguished from other clergymen.85 In other places, it was obligatory for all clerics to keep their heads covered when in public.86 The synods repeatedly took up arms also against those who had started wearing ‘worldly’ hats, that is, fashionable ones with holes, slits or pom-poms, or those stitched in gold or silver threads, which had embroidered motifs or were inlaid with precious stones.87 This time onwards, members of the clergy also wore hats, whose function was to render their clerical status and individual rank visible to the outside world. The actual ‘hat revolution’ within the clergy occurred at a later point of time, when the synods made it a priestly obligation to wear a liturgical headdress during the Mass, that is inside the church. This decision was taken for the first time in 1314 in the North Italian city of Ravenna.88 But it took its time for the stipulation to gain general acceptance. In synodal documents from the German regions, comparative decisions with regard to liturgical headgear appear to be missing at the outset. The earliest stipulation in this respect dates to 9 June 1435, contained in the Reform Decrees of the Council of Basel:

He who conducts the canonical prayers should enter the church dressed in a choir robe reaching the ankles, a pure choir shirt that reaches mid-way down the legs, a beret that would vary according to season and region—not a hood, but a choir cap or biretta.89 83 Beichner, ‘Absolon’s Hair’. 84 Concilia Germaniae, vol. 4: 588 for Mainz; 318, 604 for Trier; 279, 406, 493 for Cologne; vol. 5: 13 for Halberstadt; 242 for Cambrai; 288 for Prague; 473, 570 for Eichstätt; 554 for Constance; and 604 for Bamberg. 85 Ibid., vol. 4: 76, 242. 86 Ibid., vol. 5: 268 and 510, with reference to Freising. 87 Ibid., vol. 4: 401. Also Bringemeier, Priester- und Gelehrtenkleidung: 9–27; Trichet, Le costume du clergé: 86. For the evidence of estate inventories, see Mane and Piponnier, ‘Entre vie quotidienne et liturgie’. 88 Sacrorum conciliorum, vol. 25: col. 543. 89 Quellen zur Kirchenreform: 354–55. 40 t Gabriela Signori

It would appear that latest by the middle of the fifteenth century, the practice of wearing a headdress in church had established itself in the regions north of the Alps. Evidence to this effect can be found in, among other texts, the Carthusian monk Dionysius’ (d. 1471) commentary on the Corinthian passage,90 and following this, the references multiply. The Canon of Strasbourg, Peter Schott (d. 1490), drafted a short treatise, whose title appeared to suggest that it dealt with the question of whether it was acceptable for members of the clergy to wear their hair long. In the text, however, Schott is primarily concerned with whether priests had to remove their headgear during prayers.91 The issue of clerical headgear was also an important subject dealt with by Synod of Basel, summoned by Christoph von Utenheim (d. 1527) in 1503.92 Information relating to these issues was also carried in the late medieval Consuetudines (customs for monks). They begin with the customs of the reformed community of Subiaco,93 which were also to merge with the customs of Melk and Trier.94 Both members of the ordinary clergy and of monastic orders now wore a headdress during Mass, which they were expected to take off at the appropriate moments as a sign of reverence to God (propter dei reverentiam).95 The same was resolved in 1476 by the provincial chapter of the Franciscans at Mainz.96 The general obligation to wear a hat did not come to a halt upon reaching the monastic establish- ment: the hat had apparently become more important than man’s likeness to God. By way of a third conclusion, it may be said that the issue of priestly headgear went through three phases: the first prohibitions made their appearance in the eleventh century; in the thirteenth, wearing a hat in public became obligatory; and finally, by the end of the fourteenth cen- tury, the wearing of a liturgical headdress in church during Mass became an established norm. It was meant to be taken off at the appropriate moments during the service, a gesture that was premised not upon the content of the Corinthian passage, which was the starting point of this essay, but upon the argument of visualising reverence.

90 Dionysius der Kartäuser, ‘Enarratio in epistolaem’: 175. 91 The Works of Peter Schott: 246–49. 92 Concilia Germaniae, vol. 6: 16–17. 93 Caeremoniae regularis: 38–40. 94 Breviarium caeremoniarum: 30–34; Consuetudines et observantiae: 22–23. 95 Caeremoniae regularis: 38. 96 Analecta Franciscana, vol. 2 (1887): 461 (1476); Browe, ‘Die Evelation’: 494. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 41

The ideological apparatus that had over centuries kept the laity apart from the clergy came to be dissolved, as far as the central question of headgear was concerned, during the late medieval period. From this point of time onwards, all heads were covered, though following different ways and means—men in hats or caps, women wearing the wimple that did not have to be taken off in anyone’s presence. Soon it would follow that even women wore hats or berets, though exclusively in the upper social ranks, while scarves and veils were reserved for women of the lower orders and domestic servants. This headgear was however not to be removed in church. For women, the terms of the First Corinthians con- tinued to apply, and in many places, do so to date. The history of men’s headgear took an entirely different turn, also encompassing the ranks of the clergy, where this development had not been expected. Office, rank and dignity shaped the ways and forms of wearing the hat. At the dis- cursive level, the gender of wearer was of secondary importance. The symmetry of oppositions drawn up by Paul broke down and was trans- formed into an asymmetrical relationship, which drew its meanings from different discursive fields. It was in this manner that well into the modern period, headdress signified honour for some and subordination for others. The perspective of the exegetes and the late medieval law makers did not necessarily overlap with that of the wearers. The term gloria could be translated not only as reflected glory, but also as ornament. The oldest political treatises written by women deal with the right to adorn oneself, and do so by referring to the First Corinthians.

(Translated from German by Aparna Rao)

References

Analecta Franciscana sive chronica alioque varia documenta ad historian Fratrum Minorum spectantia.—Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi) Prope Florentiam. Andrieu, Michel. 1940. Le pontifical romain au moyen âge, vol. 3: Le pontifical de Guillaume Durand (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Studi e testi 88), Vatican City. Augustinus, Aurealius. 1936. Über den dreieinigen Gott (l. 12, c. 7), edited by Michael Schmaus, Leipzig. Bartlett, Robert. 1994. ‘Symbolic Meaning of Hair in the Middle Ages’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, vol. 4: 43–60. Beichner, Paul E. 1950. ‘Absolon’s Hair’, Medieval Studies, vol. 12: 222–33. Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria. 1617, Antwerp. Blaschitz, Gertrud (ed.). 1992. Symbole des Alltags, Alltag der Symbole. Festschrift für Harry Kühnel zum 65. Geburtstag, Graz. 42 t Gabriela Signori

Bock, Pater Columban. 1952. ‘Tonsure monastique et tonsure clericale’, Revue de droit canonique, vol. 2: 373–406. Bömer, Aloys. 1897. Die lateinischen Schülergespräche der Humanisten. Auszüge mit Einleitungen, Anmerkungen und Namen- und Sachregister (Texte und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Erziehung und des Unterrichts in den Ländern deutscher Zunge, 1), Part 1, Berlin. Boyle, Leonard E. 1985. ‘The Fourth Lateran Council and the Manuals of Popular Theology’, in Thomas J. Heffernan (ed.), The Popular Literature of Medieval England, Knoxville: 30–43. Breviarium caeremoniarum monasterii Mellicensis. 1987. Edited by Joachim Angerer (Corpus Consuetudinem monasticarum 11/2), Siegburg. Bright, Pamela. 1994. ‘Biblical Ambiguity in African Exegesis’, in Duane W. H. Arnold and Pamela Bright (eds), De doctrina christiana. A Classic of Western Culture (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 9), Indiana and London: 24–32. Bringemeier, Martha. 1974. Priester- und Gelehrtenkleidung. Ein Beitrag zur geistes- geschichtlichen Kostümforschung (Rheinisch-westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. Beihefte 1), Münster. Browe, Peter. 2003. ‘Die Evelation in der Messe’, in his Die Eucharistie im Mittelalter. Liturgiehistorische Forschungen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Absicht, with an Introduction by Hubertus Lutterbach and Thomas Flammer, Münster. Bugge, John. 1975. Virginitas. An Essay in the History of a Medieval Ideal (Archives internationales d’histoire des idées 17), The Hague. Bulst, Neithard. 1979. ‘Der schwarze Tod. Demographische, wirtschafts- und kultur- geschichtliche Aspekte der Pest-Katastrophe von 1347–1352. Bilanz der neueren Forschung’, Saeculum, vol. 30: 45–67. Bvrchardi, vt videtur, abbatis Bellevallis, apologia de barbis. 1985. Edited by Robert B.C. Huygens (Corpus christianorum. Continuatio mediaeualis 62), Turnhout. Burkart, Günter. 2000. ‘Zwischen Körper und Klasse. Zur Kulturbedeutung der Haare’, in Cornelia Koppetsch (ed.), Körper und Status. Zur Soziologie der Attraktivität, Constance: 61–91. Caeremoniae regularis observantiae sanctissimi patris nostri Benedicti ex ipsius regula sumptae, secundum quod in sacris locis, scilicet specu et monasterio Sublacensi practicantur. 1985. Edited by Joachim Angerer (Corpus Consuetudinem monasti- carum 11/1), Siegburg. Carbasse, Jean-Marie. 1987. ‘“Currant nudi”. La répression de l’adultère dans le Midi médiéval (XIIe-XVe siècle)’, in Jacques Poumarede and Jean-Pierre Royer (eds), Droit, Histoire & Sexualité, Lille and Toulouse: 83–102. Clark, Elizabeth A. 1999. ‘1 Corinthians 7 in Early Christian Exegesis’, in her Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity, Princeton: 259–329. Concilia Germaniae. 1760. Edited by Johannes Friedrich Schannat annd Joseph Hartzheim, Cologne. Constable, Giles. 1987. ‘The Ceremonies and Symbolism of Entering Religious Life and Taking the Monastic Habit, From the Fourth to the Twelfth Century’, in Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedioevale occidentale (Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo 33), Spoleto: 771–834. Consuetudines et observantiae monasteriorum sancti Mathiae et sancti Maximini Treverensium ab Iohanne Rode abbate conscriptae. 1968. Edited by Petrus Becker (Corpus Consuetudinem monasticarum 5), Siegburg. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 43

Contreni, John J. 1976. ‘The Biblical Glosses of Haimo of Auxerre and John Scottus Eriugena’, Speculum: A journal of mediaeval studies, vol. 51: 411–34. Corfield, Penelope J. 1992. ‘Ehrerbietung und Dissens in der Kleidung. Zum Wandel der Bedeutung des Hutes und des Hutziehens’, in Klaus Gerteis (ed.), Zum Wandel von Zeremoniell und Gesellschaftsritualen in der Zeit der Aufklärung, Hamburg: 5–19. Das Lied von der Entstehung der Eidgenossenschaft. Das Urner Tellenspiel. 1952. Edited by Max Wehrli (Quellenwerke zur Entstehung der Schweizerischen Eidgenos- senschaft. Abt. III: Chroniken und Dichtungen 2), Aarau. Das Weiße Buch von Sarnen. 1947. Edited by Hans Georg Wirz (Quellenwerke zur Entstehung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. Abt. III: Chroniken 1), Aarau. de Chapeaurouge, Donat. 1991. Einführung in die Geschichte der christlichen Symbole, Darmstadt (first pub. 1984). Decretum magistri Gratiani. 1879. Edited by Aemilius Ludouicus Richter and Aemilius Friedberg, Leipzig. Der Große Seelentrost. Ein niederdeutsches Erbauungsbuch des vierzehnten Jahr- hunderts. 1959. Edited by Margarete Schmitt, Cologne and Graz. Die Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern. Handschrift 580 und 581 der Fürstlich Fürsten- bergischen Hofbibliothek Donaueschingen. 1964. Edited by Hansmartin Decker- Hauff, vol. 1, Sigmaringen. Durandus’ Rationale in spätmittelhochdeutscher Übersetzung. Die Bücher I-III nach der Hs. CVP 2765. 1974. Edited by G.H. Buijssen (Studia Theodisca 13), Assen. Dionysius der Kartäuser. 1909. ‘Enarratio in epistolaem 1 beati Pauli ad Corinthos’, in his Opera omnia, vol. 13, Tournai: 123–60. Eisenbart, Liselotte Constanze. 1962. Kleiderordnungen der deutschen Städte zwischen 1350 und 1700. ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des deutschen Bürgertums (Göttinger Bausteine zur Geschichtswissenschaft 32), Göttingen. Eckermann, Willgis. 1967. Gottschalk Hollen OESA: Leben, Werke und Sakramentlehre (Cassiacum 22), Würzburg. ———. 1983. ‘Hollen, Gottschalk’, in Burghart Wachinger (ed.), Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, second, fully revised edn., vol. 4, Berlin and New York: col. 109–116. Eliott, Mark W. 2000. The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 7), Tübingen. Erasmus von Rotterdam. 1982. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae/Schülergespräche, trans. and edited by Lore Wirth-Poelchau, Stuttgart. Fasolt, Constantin. 1991. Council and Hierarchy. The Political Thought of William Durant the Younger, Cambridge. Forenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. 1985. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York. Foss, David B. 1989. ‘John Mirk’s Instruction for Parish Priests’, in W. J. Sheils and Diana Wood (eds), The Ministry: Clerical and Lay (Studies in Church History 26), Oxford: 131–41. Fox, John Howard (ed.). 1950. Robert de Blois, son oeuvre didactique et narrative. Étude linguistique et littéraire, suivie d’une édition critique avec commentaire et glossaire de ‘l’enseignement des princes’ et du ‘chastoiement des dames’, Paris. Franz, Adolf. 1963. Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen Volkslebens, Darmstadt (first pub. Freiburg i. Br., 1902). 44 t Gabriela Signori

Gardner, Arthur. 1950. ‘Hair and Head-Dress 1050–1600’, The Journal of the British Archaeological Association, Third Series, vol. 13: 4–13. Gerson, Jean. 1973. Oeuvres complètes, edited by Palémon Glorieux, vol. 10, Paris. Gobillot, Abbé Ph. 1925. ‘Sur la tonsure chrétienne et ses prétendues origines païennes’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 21: 99–145. Grubmüller, Klaus (ed.). 2001. Frühneuhochdeutsches Glossenwörterbuch. Index zum deutschen Wortgut des ‘Vocabularius Ex quo’ (Vocabularius Ex quo 6), Tübingen. Gvillelmi Dvranti Rationale divinorvm officiorum I–IV. 1995. Edited by A. Davril and T.M. Thibodeau (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaeualis 140), Turnhout. Gy, Pierre-Marie (ed.). 1992. Guillaume Durand. Évêque de Mende (v. 1230–1296). Canoniste, liturgiste et homme politique (Actes de la table ronde du CNRS, Mende 24–27 mai 1990), Paris. Hadwich, Rudolf. 1952. ‘Die rechtssymbolische Bedeutung von Hut und Krone’, un- published doctoral dissertation, Rechts- u. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, University of Mainz. Hauschild, Thomas. 1982. Der böse Blick. Ideengeschichtliche und sozialpsychologische Untersuchungen (Beiträge zur Ethnomedizin 7), Berlin (first pub. 1979). Heyne, Moriz. 1903. Körperpflege und Kleidung bei den deutschen von den ältesten geschichtlichen Zeiten bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, Leipzig. Hillenbrand, Eugen. 1982. ‘Der Geschichtsschreiber Johann von Viktring als politischer Erzieher’, in Helmut Maurer and Hans Patze (eds), Festschrift für Berent Schwine- köper, Sigmaringen: 437–53. Honemann, Volker (ed.). 1991. Dietrich Engelhus. Beiträge zu Leben und Werk (Mit- teldeutsche Forschungen 105), Cologne and Vienna. Hughes, Diane O. 1983. ‘Sumptuary Law and Social Relations in Renaissance Italy’, in John Bossy (ed.), Disputes and Settlements. Law and Human Relations in the West, Cambridge: 69–99. ———. 1993. ‘Frauenmoden und ihre Kontrolle’, in Christiane Klapisch-Zuber (ed.), Geschichte der Frauen, vol. 2: Mittelalter, Frankfurt am Main: 147–70. Hunter, David G. 1992. ‘The Paradise of Patriarchy: Ambrosiaster on Woman as (not) God’s Image’, The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 43: 447–69. ———. 1999. ‘Clerical Celibacy and the Veiling of Virgins: New Boundaries in Late Ancient Christianity’, in William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey (eds), The Limits of Ancient Christianity. Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, Ann Arbor: 139–52. Huttenroth, Friedrich. 1895. Handbuch der deutschen Tracht, Stuttgart. Izbicki, Thomas M. 1989. ‘Pyres of Vanities: Mendicant Preaching on the Vanity of Woman and Its Lay Audience’, in Thomas L. Amos (ed.), ‘De Ore Domini’. Preacher and Word in the Middle Ages, Kalamazoo: 211–34. Jaritz, Gerhard. 1993. ‘Das Bild des ‘Negativen’ als Visualisierung der Übertretung von Ordnungen im Spätmittelalter’, Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums und Berichte aus dem Forschungsinstitut für Realienkunde, vol. 9: 205–213. Johannes Victoriensis und andere Geschichtsquellen Deutschlands im vierzehnten Jahrhundert. 1843. Edited by Johann Friedrich Boehmer (Fontes rerum germanicarum 1), Stuttgart. Knape, Joachim, 1991. Dichtung, Recht und Freiheit. Studien zu Leben und Werk Sebastian Brants 1457–1521 (Saecvla Spiritalia 23), Baden-Baden. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 45

Körkel-Hinkfoth, Regine. 1994. Die Parabel von den klugen und törichten Jungfrauen (Mt. 25, 1–13) in der bildenden Kunst und im geistlichen Schauspiel (Reihe 28: Europäische Hochschulschriften. Kunstgeschichte 190), Frankfurt am Main. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. 1992. Her Share of the Blessings. Women’s Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World, New York and Oxford. Kreuzer, Georg. 1987. Heinrich von Langenstein. Studien zur Biographie und zu den Schismatraktaten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Epistola pacis und der Epistola concilii pacis (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte. NF 6), Paderborn. Langenberg, Rudolf. 1902. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Mystik, Bonn. MacDonald, Margaret Y. 1996. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman, Cambridge. McC. Gatch, Milton. 2000. ‘Basic Christian Education from the Decline of Catechesis to the Rise of Catechism’, in his Eschatology and Christian Nurture. Themes in Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Religious Life, Aldershot: 79–108. Maissen, Thomas. n.d. ‘Der Freiheitshut. Ikonographische Annäherungen an das republik- anische Freiheitsverständnis in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft’, unpub- lished lecture. Mane, Perrine and Françoise Piponnier. 1992. ‘Entre vie quotidienne et liturgie: le vêtement ecclési-astique à la fin du Moyen Age’, in Gertrud Blaschitz (ed.), Symbole des Alltags: 489–95. Metz, René. 1985. ‘Le statut de la femme en droit canonique médiéval’, in his La femme et l’enfant dans le droit canonique médiéval, London: 59–113. Migne, Jacques Paul. 1844–55. Patrologia latina, 217 vols, Paris. Milburn, Robert L. P. 1969. ‘The People’s Bible: Artists and Commentators’, in Geoffrey W. Lampe (ed.), The West from the Fathers to the Reformation (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2), Cambridge: 294–96. Mone, Franz. 1856. ‘Sittenpolizei zu Speyer, Straßburg und Konstanz’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, vol. 7: 58–61. Muschiol, Gisela, 1994. ‘Famula Dei’. Zur Liturgie in merowingischen Frauenklöstern (Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinertums 41), Münster. Muzzarelli, M. G. 1986. ‘“Contra mundanas vanitates et pompas”: Aspetti della lotta contro i lussi nell’Italia del XV secolo’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, vol. 40: 371–90. Neyrey, Jerome H. 1994. ‘What’s Wrong with This Picture? John 4, Cultural Stereo- types of Women, and Public and Private Space’, Biblical Theology Bulletin, vol. 24: 77–91. Petermann Etterlins Kronica von der loblichen Eydtgnoschaft, jr harkommen und sust seltzam strittenn und geschichten. 1965. Edited by Eugen Huber (Quellenwerke zur Entstehung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. Abt. III: Chroniken 3), Aarau. Platelle, Henri. 1975. ‘Le problème du scandale: les nouvelles modes masculines aux XIe et XIIe siècles’, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, vol. 53: 1071–96. Pontal, Odile. 1973. ‘Recherches sur le costume des clercs des origines au XIVe siècle d’après les décrets des conciles et des synodes’, in Mélanges offerts à Pierre Andrieu- Guitrancourt (L’année canonique 17), Paris: 769–96. 46 t Gabriela Signori

Potthof, Gregor, OSB. 1997. ‘“Habitus non facit monachum, sed professio”’, Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige, vol. 108: 10–16. Quellen zur Kirchenreform im Zeitalter der großen Konzilien des 15. Jahrhunderts. Zweiter Teil: Die Konzilien von Pavia/Siena (1423/24), Basel (1431–1449) und Ferrara/Florenz (1438–1445). 2002. Trans. and edited by Jürgen Miethke and Lorenz Weinrich (Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 38b), Darmstadt. Reinburg, Virginia. 1992. ‘Liturgy and the Laity in Late Medieval and Reformation France’, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 23: 526–47. Rissel, Maria. 1976. Rezeption antiker und patristischer Wissenschaft bei Hrabanus Maurus. Studien zur karolingischen Geistesgeschichte (Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters 7), Berne and Frankfurt am Main. Rusconi, Roberto. 1982. ‘San Bernardino, la donna e la “roba”’, in Atti del convegno storico bernardiniano in occasione del sesto centenario della nascità di San Bernardino da Siena, L’Aquila: 97–110. Russell, George H. 1962–63. ‘Vernacular Instruction of the Laity in the Later Middle Ages in England: Some Texts and Notes’, The Journal of Religious History, vol. 2: 98–119. S. Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi de virginitate liber unus. 1952. Edited by Egnatius Cazzaniga (Corpus scriptorum latinorum paravianum), Turin. Saint Jérôme. 1961. Lettres trans. and edited by Jérôme Labourt, vol. 7, Paris. Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectio. 1759–98. Edited by Ioannes Dominicus Mansi, vol. 9, Florence and Venice. Sansy, Danièle. 1992. ‘Chapeau juif ou chapeau pointu? Esquisse d’un signe d’infamie’, in Gertrud Blaschitz (ed.), Symbole des Alltags: 349–75. Scheidegger, Gabriele. 2002. ‘Von altrussischen Hüten und internationalen Staatsaffären’ in Frank Kämpfer and Reinhard Frötschner (eds), 450 Jahre Sigismund von Herber- steins Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii (1549–1999), Wiesbaden: 263–83. Schier, Bruno. 1953a. ‘Die mittelalterlichen Kopftrachten im Spiegel des mittelho- chdeutschen Schrifttums’, in Beiträge zur sprachlichen Überlieferung (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Volkskunde 2), Berlin: 141–55. ———. 1953b. ‘Der Hut als Spiegel der sozialen Stellung und seelischen Haltung seines Trägers’, Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, vol. 50: 261–70. Schiller, Friedrich. 1936. Die Piccolomini 4, 5 (Meisterwerke deutscher Klassik 11), Fürstenwalde. ———. 2000. Wilhelm Tell. Schauspiel, Stuttgart. Schreiner, Klaus. 1992. ‘“Si homo non pecasset ...” Der Sündenfall Adams und Evas in seiner Bedeutung für die soziale, seelische und körperliche Verfasstheit des Menschen’, in Klaus Schreiner and Norbert Schnitzler (eds), Gepeinigt, begehrt, vergessen. Symbolik und Sozialbezug des Körpers im späten Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit, Munich: 41–84. ———. 2001. ‘“Nudis pedibus”. Barfüssigkeit als religiöses und politisches Ritual’, in Gerd Althoff (ed.), Formen und Funktionen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Mittelalter (Vorträge und Forschungen 51), Stuttgart: 53–124. Schulz, Knut. 1992. ‘Denn sie lieben die Freiheit so sehr ...’: kommunale Aufstände und Entstehung des europäischen Bürgertums im Hochmittelalter, Darmstadt. Veil, Hat or Hair? t 47

Signori, Gabriela. 2000. ‘Frauen, Kinder, Greise und Tyrannen. Geschlecht und Krieg in der Bilderwelt des späten Mittelalters’, in Klaus Schreiner and Gabriela Signori (eds), Bilder, Texte, Rituale (Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung), Berlin: 139–64. Simon-Muscheid, Katarina. 1995. ‘“Schweizergelb und “Judasfarbe”. Nationale Ehre, Zeitschelte und Kleidermode um die Wende vom 15. zum 16. Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, vol. 22: 317–43. Smalley, Beryl. 1964. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Indiana. Steigerwald, Frank Neidhart. 1979. ‘Gugel, Gebende und gebrechliche Konsolen’, Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, vol. 18: 43–92. Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. 2001. ‘Rang vor Gericht. Zur Verrechtlichung sozialer Rangkonflikte in der frühen Neuzeit’, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, vol. 28: 385–418. Stuiber, Alfred. 1978. ‘Ambrosiaster’, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 2: 356– 62, Berlin. Tertullianus, Quintus S. F. 1997. Le voile des vierges, edited by Eva Schulz-Flügel and Paul Mattei (Sources chrétienne 424), Paris. The Works of Peter Schott (1460–1490). 1961. Edited by Murray A. Cowie and Marian L. Cowie, vol. 1, Chapel Hill. Timidior, O. 1914. Der Hut und seine Geschichte. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Mono- graphie, Vienna and Leipzig. Trichet, Louis. 1986. Le costume du clergé. Ses origines et son évolution en France d’après les règlements de l’Église, Paris. ———. 1990. La tonsure. Vie et mort d’une pratique ecclésiastique, Paris. Tschudi, Aegidius. 1980. Chronicon Helveticum, Part 3, edited by Bernhard Stettler (Quellen zur Schweizer Geschichte VII/3), Bern. Vavra, Elisabeth. 1992. ‘Klug oder töricht—Heilige oder Sünderin. Zur Gestaltung der Jungfrauenparabel in der bildenden Kunst’, in Gertrud Blaschitz (ed.), Symbole des Alltags: 417–44. von Eyb, Albrecht. 1989. Spiegel der Sitten, edited by Gerhard Klecha (Texte des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit 34), Berlin. von Langenstein, Heinrich. 1969. Erchantnuzz der sund, edited by Rainer Rudolf (Texte des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit 22), Berlin. Wallace-Hadrill, John M. 1962. The Long-Haired Kings and Other Studies in Frankish History, London. Wolkan, Rudolf (ed.). 1909. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini. Briefe aus der Laienzeit (1431–1445), vol. 1: Privatbriefe (Fontes rerum autriacarum 61), Vienna. Wire, Antoinette Clark. 1990. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric, Minneapolis. Wurstisen, Christian. 1580. Baszler Chronik, Basel. Zander-Seidel, Jutta. 1985. ‘“Das erbar gepent.” Zur ständischen Kleidung in Nürnberg im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert’, Waffen- und Kostümkunde, vol. 44: 119–40. Zimmermann, Gerd. 1973. Ordensleben und Lebensstandard. Die Cura corporis in den Ordensvorschriften des abendländischen Hochmittelalters (Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 32), Münster.