The author, Kelly Olson, hoped to compile information mainly regarding how access to cosmetics affected the lives of Roman women, and how they were perceived by history/literature. She begins by disclosing that the cosmetics themselves did not determine a woman's status in the 400 year period of Roman history that she is analyzing. Cosmetics and their containers were readily available to women of most economic statuses. However, the evidence of women's makeup application is mainly pulled from male writings, so a diverse source of material was required to avoid compiling a completely masculine perspective on the subject.
The male perspective on feminine cosmetic use has often been suspicious. In Les femmes et les fards dans l'antiquite Grecque (Women and Makeup in Ancient Greece) by Bernard Grillet, it points to the two purposes men assumed cosmetics were for:
kosmêtikon tês iatrikês meros (the preservation of beauty)
kommôtikon (the "unnatural embellishment" of looks)
The unnatural embellishment of looks is what underwent more hostility from males, and often obscured the textual recordings of the first purpose. Because of that, Kelly Olson looked to remedy by writing on the cosmetics themselves and their day-today use in life for a Roman woman.
Like in many cultures, the pale 'snowy' skin complexion of women was attributed to the leisure class, Martial and Ovid were some of the few to record how women whitened their skin. In the 'Substance' section, the first cosmetic that is discussed is cerussa, cakes of vinegar dissolved lead shavings, which would contribute to the paling of skin-tone when applied. The peoples of Ancient Greece were aware of the poisonous properties of white lead, so a chalk dust - vinegar paste was used as a substitute by some. Other cosmetics used to whiten skin were melinum, a greasy mixture of clay from Melos (a southeastern island off Greece) and calcium carbonate, crocodile dung, and milk baths.
Rouge is the next most recorded substance used by Greek and Roman women. Poisonous substances were also cited for rouge use, red lead (minium) and red mercuric sulphide (cinnabar), however, red chalk, red ochre, alkanet, rose and poppy petals, wine lees, and crocodile intestines were non-poisonous substances appear in writings as well.
Olson contemplates the re-occurrence of crocodile for the use of cosmetics, as crocodilea was potentially an Egyptian reference to soil, and it already known that fertile soils were prized for health and beauty properties. Potentially, the reference to women lathering their faces in excrement could have been derived from an anti-cosmetic attitude of male writers at the time. She notes that Roman art depicting effigies of women have natural complexions, not whitened faces and rouged cheeks.
In Ovid's writings, eyeliner or 'magnifying the eye' was often referred to as platyophthalmon. Poisonous substances were not usually used to make up the cosmetics for eyeliner. Kohl soot, lamp grease, antimony, and ash mixtures all have been recorded for the use of eyeliner. The mixtures were formed into tablets and sold, often applied by a needle or a dainty stick.
Coloring in the eyebrow was more elaborate, as kohl tubes were constructed to apply colors to accentuate the eyebrow. Green and black often appeared in multi-tubed applicators made of bone/ivory, glass or wood. It appears that ancient writers such as Ovid, Claudius, Martial, and Petronius wrote of a beautiful single eyebrow (uni-brow), and that the space between the brows was often filled in.
Lip coloring did not appear in ancient Roman of Greek texts, and was unmentioned until Tertullian cautioned Christian women against painting their mouths with 'false substances'.
Treatment for skin conditions appear to be most abundant in recordings. Anything from pimples, rashes, lesions, dry skin, scars, and freckles had remedies. Animals fats, mushrooms, snails, honey, flowers, lentils, soda, and gum arabic all are listed as ingredients for skin cleaners and facial creams to restore a clear complexion. White lead and mercury were also recommended, yet still very poisonous.
The pains of body hair removal are ancient in fact, as the male preference for a hairless female body was written by Ovid, Lucian, and Potestas. Ancient Greek and Roman women used pumice stone, plucking, pitch, and resin to remove hair from the arms, legs, and pubic areas to fit the beauty standards of the times.
Section three of the article tackles the negative reception men had against cosmetics. The use of cosmetics by women was often interpreted as overtly sexual, self-centered, and false. More so, the witnessing of makeup's application was considered grotesque, as the deceiving process lead to the misleading result.
Another reason for the distasteful view towards cosmetics could be the link of similar mixes and compounds being used for medicinal purposes. Ingredients that appeared in cosmetics could be used for wounds, illnesses, internal maladies, and even abortions. The physical appearance of a cosmetic could insinuate a licentious woman, or perhaps a woman with an illness or grave injury that was being concealed. Even application tools had medicinal connotations.
Towards the conclusion Olson notes that ancients used many of the toxic cosmetic substances for artistic or architectural endeavors, and the irony that women could have used the same materials to make themselves into works of art, while the artistic depictions of them that survive display a more natural female.
Lastly, the use of cosmetics was an ironic cycle in of itself. Male standards of beauty required a specific complexion of a woman's body and face, yet to enhance a woman's natural features to match these standards (and her potential social standing) was not only considered distasteful but was dangerous to their health (and complexion too!).
What I'm wondering is, has anything really changed since then?
Citations from:
Kelly Olson. "Cosmetics in Roman Antiquity: Substance, Remedy, Poison." Classical World 102.3 (2009): 291-310. Project MUSE. Web. 22 Jan. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment