Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shameless Beauty and Worldly Splendor On

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Gomez
    22 views24 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    22 views24 pages

    Shameless Beauty and Worldly Splendor On

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Gomez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 24
    ella 1574 is MIRACULOUS IMAGE re Late Middle Ages and Renaissance SHAMELESS BEAUTY AND WORLDLY SPLENDOR ‘ON THE SPANISH PRACTICE OF ADORNING ‘THE VIRGIN by Susan Verdi Webster ‘The miraculous Gothic sculpture of the Virgen de los Reyes sill presides in ‘egal splendor over the sumptuous Royal Chapel inthe Cathedral of Seville Renowned for is thaumaturgical powers and is intimate sasociation with the Spanish Crown, the sculpture is profoundly linked to the epriual, civic, and artistic history ofthe city. This stady investigates the influence of the Virgen ‘de los Reyes on the later development and widespread popularization of imi- (ges de vest, sculptures made to be clothed in actual garments." In the year 1600, members of the Spanish clergy celebrated synod in the southeastern city of Orihuela (Alicante). An important item on their agenda ‘as © review the popular manner of dressing and adoming processional sculpture, practice charal present roundly denounced. Members of the syn- ‘od unanimously voted to prohibit such practices ina richly descriptive ec: (One mat lment theft that inthe cece, wide procelons are exe Yate, snares of te ant and expec he most Blessed Virgin, ae ‘Adorned with such a shameles bear ad sich worl splendor aed tt they ar outed with sch aderamens and cores wit hing of sk ‘according wo the custom of profane women We ode ta rom he me orm the supers may not be dene in this anner scoring tothe ‘cmtom of ther women cafled wh the har in riaglet in comic gare or ‘eh garment loaned by profane women. nor dened in seca thing. * ‘The citcsms raised in this mod were not altogether new, forthe custom of clothing and adorning sculptures, particularly those intended for public pro- cessions, had provoked occasional ecdsiastical censure throughout Spain ‘hl wy represen the denopment nd expansion of an arpumct it poposed my ok, rent ali ge Se Sin Cnr and Pm Sp of iy Wa (einen, 198), 783. Sever autor have meno she Voge de bo eyes = precient for he Slang mt ut arent eer th ety eel Toe ‘Si athr to prove more tans pang commen i Joss Pomers Pen, Ls Yen ot 1 Sn Smt Se (ee 166), 1718. * Quoted in Creacencana Sara, “Repercis en Ep del Deri del Como de Tee eben” Bl dl Sinn dear rae Ape 2 (1960) 12916, 1 “ey gc deere de queens ghia, miners wlan proceso igen: de leet cho ms Beatin Virgen an arma con teller nn denen ‘Yum eplendr manda ys cmp om tn sr can de jer con at (ot deteda spin cntmbre dels mje pra Mannan que dene ser mo et ‘si de te do imagenes gn canine dear jes pina eet ‘ie ena cc cn ra enn cw tt es pr, 250 forat least a century prior. However, this synod marks the beginning ofa ver- itable explosion of clerical condemnations during the seventeenth century that vociferously attacked the practice of dressing sculpture. ‘The Spanish mystic Juan de Avila, writing in the mid-sixteenth century, de- cried the popular custom of clothing sculpture, observing that the garments were often indecent and did not inspire devotion. Avila avowed, “There isa very bud tendency in (the custom of] the clothing of images that are placed in churches, beease they are outfited in the same indecent maa ner as are profane women; from which arise such evils 2s may not even be spoken of, and may hardly even be believed. ‘Avila’s solution to the problem was not simply to prohibit the clothing of sculpture, but to abolish all sculpted images with the exception of the cruci- fied Christ, and to henceforth permit only paintings of religious figures. In Andalusia, where the custom of dressing sculpture was perhaps most ‘widely practiced, synods condemning or attempting to control such activities date from the late fifteenth century. During the sixteenth and seventeenth ‘centuries, however, synodal prohibitions grew increasingly frequent and strident. For example, the Sevillian Synod of 1604 demanded “= thatthe Images of Our Lady or of other female saints, which might be tak- fn out in processions or maintained on the altars of churches, be dresed ‘with their own clothing fr that purpose: and, when they do n0¢ have their ‘owm {garments} that the Sacrstns dress them with all ecorum: and in no ‘ngeance may they be oufitued with wigs, or ringlets or fils or lounces, nor Jndecent clothing. In 1685, Fray Bernardino de Villegas denounced the extravagant attire of fe- male processional sculptures “because in their clothing and adornments they do not look like heavenly saints, but women of the world.” He further com- demned the specifically profane elements, demanding “What does the Vir- gin Mary Our Lady, so honest and moderate in her dress, have to do with a sculpture in its hoop skirt, pointed sleeves, earrings, ringlets, and the like?" ® ‘Juan de Avila, Oras compas ed. FM. Hernéndes (Madi, 1971), 6: 74:"May mal uso hay en ox vesidos de las imagenes que se ponen en ls iglesias, porque lar tain con a profanidad ‘ques mujeres profanas se atin; de lo cual se siguen tales males ni son para dec, ya drs nas se podrian creer” “Wetter, Ar and Ritual, 120, * Cmticons dl Arahispade de Sei (160; eprint, Sei, 1962), % 11: “Qe la _gves de Nucatra Sefior 6 de ora santas, que se hubicren de sacar cn procenoncs ter ef ow ears de as iglsias, se aderecen con su propiaeveicuras para quel elect cuando no la veren propia lor Sacristanes las van on toda honesidad: yen ningun cso ls toquen ‘on copes, ni igs ni arandelas icon hibito indecent” * Quoted in Palomero Piramo, Las Vopr, 22: porque en mis vestidesy adorns no parece ‘sna de ciel, si dams del mundo" {-] “Pues qué tiene que ver la Virgen Maria Nutr: 251 Several principal objections emerge consistently from among the many crit ics and prohibitions. First, athough both male and female processional seuiptares were clothed in actual garments, virtually all objections to this cus- tom focus on the dress and adornment of the Virgin and the female saints. Sec- ‘ond, the objections specifically condemn elements of modish and extravagant secular dress and adornment, which were ofen donated from the wardrobes ‘of contemporary women.’ Critics viewed these elements a a profination of the reigious image: sculptures of the Virgin and the female saints were clear Iy becoming too worldly ad humanized forthe comfort ofthe clergy. Follow ing that line of reasoning, either the privileged position ofthe protorype was being challenged or compromised, or the people were guilty of idolatry. Despite the evidence of widespread clerical condemnation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its my hypothesis that the Spanish tradition of

    You might also like