Veils & Hats: Is one preferable to the other?

Status
Not open for further replies.
First century women in Israel would in all likelihood wear something more like a headscarf, something close in appearance to a hijab, not the then long veil in iconography. Iconography are not really meant to reflect historical accuracy.
 
That’s actually what I had in mind in the Byzantine iconography. It’s still how Byzantine and Orthodox women veil themselves to this day.

Perhaps we should inquire as to the whereabouts of their hats?
 
I myself wear a headscarf similar to what Orthodox women wear. I don’t know why you are asking me about hats. I don’t wear hats.

However it is not sinful to wear hats.
 
Last edited:
Anything is sinful with a vain enough intention, lol. The question would be what is more conducive to humility? Not standing out in a crowd, or choosing to be different?
 
I wear a headscarf frequently also. It is a scarf that is sentimental to me because it was my moms and it works great for a headcovering at Mass.
 
StAugustine said:
Anything is sinful with a vain enough intention, lol. The question would be what is more conducive to humility? Not standing out in a crowd, or choosing to be different?
Click to expand...
What is more conducive to humility probably depends on whether the person enjoys standing out or (like me) would rather blend into a wall any chance they get. So I think it comes down to as you first mentioned, intention.
 
I already stand out in my church regardless of what I wear anyway.

I’m the only one who isn’t white.
 
Hmm , now what did my maternal parents and grandparents call it!

We also forget, that we must apply correct reading and interpretation of Biblical text. The ways of Biblical people are not our ways, nor their culture and traditions. And the translation of words and text can further lose the meaning intended.

For example St Paul uses ‘flesh’ a bit , in his texts and letter. The correct translation of flesh here is not of physical bodily parts.
 
Old advertisements don’t really prove what a culture will or will not translate.
We must agree to disagree on this. We don’t wear garments that consecrated clergy wear or use, We don’t use that terminology if wearing something of a similar cut.
 
The garments worn by women of that day, and men, were not veils, it’s a good idea to interpret what was being worn then, with historical facts at the ready
 
I showed those ads to show that the word veil historically always had different meanings. In our English language words can be used different ways and have different meanings and I dont believe we’re going to see this use and this way of using the word veil change anytime soon.

I also believe you might be applying more religious meaning to what the veils are and why women are wearing veils than what is there.

But I think you are right, we will have to agree to disagree.

God bless.

I
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
Religious wear veils. Laity wear mantillas or head coverings.
Click to expand...
Etymologically, the noun veil came into popular use in the 1200s. At that time, it did specifically mean a “nun’s head covering”.

The verb “veil” is a different story. It came into popular use in the 1300s and simply meant “to cover or obscure”. Many things could be veiled not just nuns. It is not associated with nuns unless you say “to take the veil.” Note: “veil” is still being used as a noun in this construction in the 1300s.

Having said that, in English, the meaning of words changes by popular usage. One cannot deny that today the noun “veil” does not strictly refer to the head covering of a nun. If I said, “the bride is wearing a beautiful head covering” people would look at me like I had 3 eyes. However, if I used the term “bridal veil” people would instantly know what I mean.

In current usage, the noun “veil” means a piece of thin material worn to protect or hide the face or head.

 
Actually, that’s an old blogpost of mine, consisting mostly of links to older photos showing Catholic women in church. But feel free to unlink it, moderators. (I’m sure the OP didn’t know the policy. Heck, I’ve been on this forum for ages and didn’t realize that’s the policy these days.)

Moving along, re: the Blessed Virgin…

I recently found out that there’s a fair amount of Talmud evidence that, just as not all first century Jewish men covered their heads except in the Temple, and even then it was sometimes only the really pious guys… not all respectable married Jewish women covered their hair, even at prayer, and unmarried women were under no pressure to do so. It got to be a Jewish thing in Greek and Roman cities, to make sure that women looked respectable to the pagans, and in medieval times, to make sure that women looked respectable to the Christians. Only in the 1700’s or so did Jewish women begin to cover their hair always, and even extend that to covering their hair even when in bed with their husbands. The use of wigs as a pious hair covering for women came along in the 19th and 20th century.

As with a lot of Jewish laws, your normal first century Jew out in the countryside farming a field was only going to follow the rules that explicitly applied to normal people not of priestly lineage; and the same thing went for his wife and daughter. It was only slowly that the Pharisaic idea of “putting a fence around the Law” began to make Jewish life really restrictive; and living right next door to pagans and Christians was part of the reason things got so strict.
 
And teeechnically, Roman women didn’t wear veils except on their wedding day (the rectangular red flammeum, which means “flame colored”, and which was wrapped around the head but left the face uncovered).

A married Roman woman wore a palla (“cloak” or “shawl”), which was pretty much an outer garment, pulled over the head to make a hood for the shawl. (The men’s version was the “pallium,” which was a big woolly philosopher’s cloak. A bishop’s pallium is a tiny baby version.) Indoors, a woman would usually just wear the palla across her shoulders as a shawl. (So St. Paul was basically telling women to behave like they were in public, keeping the shawl up, and not like they were dining privately at a friend’s house, with the shawl down.)

The original palla for women would have been good Roman wool, but they got gauzier and gauzier for the rich and fashionable. In the West toward the end of the Roman Empire, the palla continued to be worn for a very long time, and eventually turned into all sorts of mantles, shawls, hoods, headrails, etc., in the Middle Ages.

Byzantine women also started out wearing the palla; it got a little more elaborate. But noblewomen began to cover their heads with a headdress that let them put up their hair but also show it off, and which could have diadems balanced on top. (This also showed off the elaborate necklaces and collar embroidery of the day.) Since noblewomen could not wear the paludamentum worn by the empress, they began to go for semi-circular cloaks instead of the palla, or to wear the palla connected to their poofy snood/headroll hat. Ordinary women tended to stay with the two stolas (long sleeve and short sleeve) and a palla.

There’s a lot to be said about the history of Christian female fashion. But the main thing to be said is this: It varied. A lot. If you think something is typical of the Byzantine Church today, it’s probably typical of Greece after the Muslims had reigned there for a couple of hundred years. Anything from Southern Europe worn in summer is going to tend to be cooler than anything for Northern Europe worn in winter.

The main thing with hats is that they tended to be cooler and more mobile. So you had times when people wanted the dignity or sun protection of big hangy things on their heads, and other times when they really wanted something that would stay out of their face and their way.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
The verb “veil” is a different story. It came into popular use in the 1300s and simply meant “to cover or obscure”. Many things could be veiled not just nuns. It is not associated with nuns unless you say “to take the veil.” Note: “veil” is still being used as a noun in this construction in the 1300s.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that (at least for the last century or two) the English verb veil is used more in the sense of “obscuring” than it is in the sense of “covering”. I realize those are not mutually exclusive meanings but in English, the verb “veil” has the primary implication that something is to be intentionally hidden while the verb “cover” suggests the primary intention is protection, from or for, what is covered, even if the cover does not actually obscure what is under it. Sometimes it is just used to mean “over”.

When the Bible was written, the purpose for woman covering her hair may have been understood in both the protective and obscuring senses. But in the Latin Church it eventually took on a a purely symbolic meaning. For that reason a wide headband that did little to hide a woman’s hair was considered a perfectly acceptable head covering for Mass.
 
Last edited:
In early Roman times, there was also a strong association with social class. For example, a prostitute (the term was somewhat broad and could cover women not sexually immoral) would be forbidden the clothing of a respectable woman, as would a slave or a freedwoman. Being uncovered was associated with slaves (and like pretty much every era, the chastity of a slave was of no value - something that sometimes angered the roman elite when their slaves converted!).

I wonder perhaps if there was not some desire in the early church, to protect the modesty and chastity of women not typically considered “respectable” by Roman society. Especially given that roman “infamy” was both entirely permanent and not always in control of the woman.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top