Depiction of Mixed Medieval Choir?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 633
    This image (attached) appears to depict a liturgical choir in the chancel containing a woman on the right hand side of the image. Anybody have any explanations for this?
    Messenger_creation_A81A6B91-0A7C-4923-A50D-DDCC761F5EBF.jpeg
    782 x 1200 - 273K
    Thanked by 1GerardH
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,789
    Is it a joint monastery? All the women are obviously nuns.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,189
    I think the figure you mean, who is apparently wearing a surplice and a cowl (?) and no wimple, is a little odd, but is not a woman. As tomjaw says, the women in this picture are the figures higher up on the left: they are dressed as nuns.

    (Google showed that) This is XV century Flemish book of hours, currently in the Getty in LA. But I think fifteenth-century Flanders is the wrong place and time for double monasteries.

    That said, the question remains, who wears that kind of vestments in choir?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,478
    The nearest figure in the choir stall to the right appears to me to be wearing a wimple, or at least a headdress with the flat top characteristic of a wimple, monastic cowls usually have a seam ending in a corner at the top back.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/RCampin.jpg/166px-RCampin.jpg
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 633
    I agree with Hawkins here; it looks like female headgear.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 481
    FWIW, canonesses regular wear a rochet as part of their liturgical choir dress. Perhaps that explains it in part.

    (As an aside, this is one way I would justify vesting female choristers in a surplice/rochet, but over a tunic à la a religious habit instead of the male cassock)
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw Andrew_Malton
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 417
    Consecrated Virgins used to have the Office of chanting the psalm after the reading during Mass. in Medieval times Consecrated Virgins were primarily religious nuns who received the consecration. They were also permitted to wear the maniple while fulfilling their office.

    Scandalous, I know.
    Thanked by 2GerardH ServiamScores
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,189
    Here's another image, with three figures similarly vested. It does look like female -- headgear.

    They also appear to be chatting with each other while the Bishop is preaching. Srsly.

    https://images-cdn.bridgemanimages.com/api/1.0/image/600wm.XXX.16279230.7055475/3294082.jpg

    This is from the British Library, I’d say also about 1450.
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn GerardH
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,189
    So finally I think this garment is a form of the “almuce” (almutium) which has been more like a hood, more like a cope, and sometimes no more than a symbol of (canonical) office, over the centuries.

    Here is an (19th c) image of a (14th c) canon wearing exactly the same head covering.

    Here is another, I think taken from a brass.

    Other reasons the figures cannot be a women, as proposed: these people are all wearing essentially the same vestments, except for the head covering, but women and men dressed differently from each other all the time in the 15th century; people did not sit in choir in the 15 c in mixed groups; these people are not in ordinary clothes and must vest for the ceremony, but there are no women's vestries.
    Thanked by 5a_f_hawkins trentonjconn ServiamScores M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 633
    That is a well-researched and logical answer, and one which I buy completely. Many thanks!
    Thanked by 4ServiamScores Andrew_Malton tomjaw CHGiffen
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    I think we need to remember that chanting the office in a big medieval church in the dead of winter without modern hearing aids would have been a frigid affair, to say the least. These head coverings were likely borne out of a very practical solution to a very real problem. At least, that’s my bet.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 633
    I'm going to start wearing one at the bench.
    Thanked by 2Andrew_Malton tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,367
    err not only that

    The surplice itself is meant to be worn over furs. That's what it means. Superpelliceum literally means that! In modern times, I've seen a priest wear his puffy vest with a surplice. It's awkward but necessary.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    Do any of my Ordinariate colleagues here have Canterbury caps?
    They cap off nicely a cassock and superpellicum and can be had from Almy or Wippel's.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 633
    I do not have one...but that might be fun. St. Aelred is a very medieval Ordinariate parish aesthetically, so it wouldn't be out of place. Certainly would be quirky...
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,189
    Anyone wearing a Canterbury cap looks like Thomas Cranmer to me.
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn CHGiffen
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,478
    Just think St John Fisher instead.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/San_Juan_Fisher_Obispo_de_Rochester_y_Mártir.jpg/185px-San_Juan_Fisher_Obispo_de_Rochester_y_Mártir.jpg
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen tomjaw
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    Yes, and St Thomas More.
Add a Comment