This week the ever-engaging Inquisitores Generales of Coutorture have been conducting a lively discussion of the morality of wearing fur. The ethics of fur is, of course, a relatively recent problem in mainstream Western culture. Until the rise of efficient indoor heating systems & heat-retaining fabrics we were too preoccupied with fighting the cold to think about fur as a moral issue.
Which isn't to say that fur was entirely unproblematic. Centuries ago everyone wore fur to keep warm, from the poorest parishioner to the parish priest, which meant that in winter the priests were covering up their distinct liturgical garb. The line between clergy and congregation was blurred, and as medieval theologians savvily intuited, from there it would be just a short hop to folk guitars and interpretive dance.
What was a high churchman to do?
Here's your answer. The white garment above is a surplice, derived from the Latin super pellicium, literally, "over a garment made of skins." As you can see, although priests (Catholic and otherwise) no longer have to wear fur to keep warm during services, the surplice continues to live on in liturgical garb . . .
And women's wear!
In a semantic evolution that some would decry as further evidence of the collapse of meaning in today's secularized society, the word "surplice" has come to refer generally to "a neckline which is formed when two pieces of fabric wrap around each other to create a V-neck opening." Not only is the surplice no longer placed on top of fur coats--you can even find it on the beach!
Leave a comment