From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:55:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 211, 1/19/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 211, January 19, 1995 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Brother Cadfael on PBS Handling linen before sewing ISO Pattern/Info for 19th C man's wallet ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 16:38:42 PST From: susanf@EERC.Berkeley.Edu (Susan Fatemi) Subject: Bro. Cadfael Does anyone else watch the Mystery series on PBS? They had the 1st Brother Cadfael (sp?) by Ellis Peters on last night. I've always liked this book series as the Bro is a 12th c. *herbalist* monk. I don't know about the history, but the author appears to do her homework on "useful" herbs. Mostly medicinal, but some dying, i think. Anyway, the costumes looked peculiar to me. I'd like to see commentary by any of you "historical" types about this. I'd swear the boys cloaks were velveteen, the veils or lack thereof looked odd, and there seemed to be a lot of purple, which I thought was rare in them days. (could be my TV of course). the "nun's" wimple/veil not only looked odd, but appeared to be out of some sort of diaperish knit stuff, maybe a pointelle. Let's get the ball rolling! Looking forward to a 3-day weekend, I remain Susan Fatemi exhausted cataloguer susanf@eerc.berkeley.edu ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 02:35:20 -0800 (PST) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: Bro. Cadfael It's been years since I've seriously researched this period (assuming I really have a fix on when Stephen and Maud were duking it out), but my initial reaction was "oh, wow, early SCA raid on the curtain fabric remants". (And the colors! We won't even go into the colors!) Then I got enough interested in the acting to decide that it was Theatre not Recreation, and stopped paying much attention. (Well, I did get distracted by the leper's make-up, and after they had done such a good job on his hands, too.) Why "Old Vic Basic Medival" bothers me somewhat more in video/cinema than it would on stage is an interesting question. (On the other hand, I really liked Jacobi as Cadfael, much to my suprise. I think Jacobi is one of the greatest actors out there, but I thought Cadfael should look like Sean Connary!) ****************************************************************** I am the mother of all things, and all things must wear a sweater! ****************************************************************** Sarah E. Goodman goodston@well.sf.ca.us Senior Designer and Chief Cat Herder goodston@netcom.com Wee Cottage Daly City, California, USA ****************************************************************** ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 10:54:50 +22318332 (EST) From: Beth Stegenga Subject: Re: Bro. Cadfael On Fri, 13 Jan 1995, Susan Fatemi wrote: > > Does anyone else watch the Mystery series on PBS? They had the 1st > Brother Cadfael (sp?) by Ellis Peters on last night. I've always liked > this book series as the Bro is a 12th c. *herbalist* monk. This was supposed to be set in the 12th c.???? Good God, they were way off. I had guessed it to be in the 15th when I watched it last night. > Anyway, the costumes looked peculiar to me. I'd like to see commentary > by any of you "historical" types about this. I'd swear the boys cloaks > were velveteen, the veils or lack thereof looked odd, and there seemed > to be a lot of purple, which I thought was rare in them days. (could be > my TV of course). the "nun's" wimple/veil not only looked odd, but appeared > to be out of some sort of diaperish knit stuff, maybe a pointelle. > Let's get the ball rolling! I study the 12th century, and the attire for all in this series is wrong, which maybe the exception of the monks. The squires' cloaks looked velvet to me too, and the hats they were wearing were very rennaisance in appearance. I must say, though, that I really liked the show. I get little chance to watch anything that takes place in the middle ages, I just wish they could get the historical aspects correct. Beth Stegenga nobam@huber.com ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:54:10 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Hall Subject: Re: Bro. Cadfael Yes, I watched the Brother Cadfael mystery. I found it quit entertaining, although I had trouble shaking the monk's physical likeness to Newt Gingrich (or is that just me?). I don't know about the costumes, but I enjoyed the show. -Grotesque and Arabesque -Sir.Real ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 20:58:08 -0800 (PST) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: Bro. Cadfael On Sat, 14 Jan 1995, Beth Stegenga wrote: > > > > Does anyone else watch the Mystery series on PBS? They had the 1st > > Brother Cadfael (sp?) by Ellis Peters on last night. I've always liked > > this book series as the Bro is a 12th c. *herbalist* monk. > > This was supposed to be set in the 12th c.???? Good God, they were way > off. I had guessed it to be in the 15th I do early English history by Kings, not dates, but the Cadfael books start in the middle of the war between Stephen and Maud, and go on from there. ---------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 00:20:37 -0800 (PST) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: Bro. Cadfael On Fri, 13 Jan 1995, Susan Fatemi wrote: > Does anyone else watch the Mystery series on PBS? They had the 1st > Brother Cadfael (sp?) by Ellis Peters on last night. ... > Anyway, the costumes looked peculiar to me. I'd like to see commentary 1) The girl's outfit (and hairstyle) was something I'd give a "nice try" at a SF convention. 2) The nun's "wimple" was one of those "cut an oval hole in a piece of cloth" jobs that they tell you how to make in cheap theater costume books. 3) The colored veils on the older women may well have some sort of 12th century evidence, but _I_ have yet to find it. Frankly, I expect better from the BBC. Heather Rose Jones ---------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 20:09:39 -0500 (EST) From: Elizabeth McMahon Subject: Re: linen answers On Fri, 13 Jan 1995, erin k. gault wrote: > that you aren't supposed to preshrink it because I wanted to cut it out > tonight. But, I guess I'll have to wait for Saturday. At least it will > be easy to wash when it gets dirty. I just remembered another question I > had. If I make it into a cotehardie, will I have a problem with the back > getting all wrinkly everytime I sit down? Yes, you will, but wrinkles are very medieval ;*). A good way to think of it is that linen was useed in the Middle ages the way that we use cotton (ie, easy and cheap to get and just this side of disposabel, until you get into special weaves like nifty jacquards and fine batistes and voiles. Some of the voiles coming out of India lately are nearly transparent and yet still have a nice thread count.) Cotton was more of a luxury fiber, and was frequently used in blends with other fibers. WTW, I wash everything (washable that is) that comes into my house as soon as it enters (or, rather as soon as I my next trip to the laundromat), and then its ready to be cut out even if inspiration hits at 3 am on a Tuesday! I find a lot of goods get denser and more supple when they are washed, and I prefer this feeling for my historic clothing. -*-*- Beth in the office 212-741-4400 ---------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 21:12:41 -0500 (EST) From: Elizabeth McMahon Subject: Re: Bro. Cadfael > > Does anyone else watch the Mystery series on PBS? They had the 1st > Brother Cadfael (sp?) by Ellis Peters on last night. I've always liked Oh goody :*) I'm so glad someone brought this up! I've been digesting this since Thursday evening, and I still am pretty darn disappointed in the production fo these. Especially since I rewatched a bunch of Poirot's done by the BBC last night, and was amazed again at the production values - everything from hats and hairstyles and furniture and buildings just seemed so lovingly done. (Or, most disappointing thought... Can it be that I just know enough less about that period that I don't notice the mistakes? Say it ain't so, BBC!) Things I liked: 1. Cadfael traveling by mule. 2. The fact that the nobles were differentiated by finer cloth and more color. This struck me as accurate, although my sense of color from this time, largely from lots of study of manuscripts, tells me that the color aesthetic that was used was too modern - should have been more madder reds and blues and golds. But I am no dyer, and haven't pursued this much - Anybody want to tackle a description of fashionable 12th c. color? 3. The fact that minor "backwoods" nobility didn't have more than a change of clothing. And the fact that they weren't heavily gemmed or gilded, a la Hollywood. 4. I thought the scenes at the abbey were nice, especially the monks at prayer and song. Their habits looked ok to me. Things that bothered me: (and please feel free to quibble-that's what makes this list so interesting ;*) 1. Derek Jacobi. Too effeminate! Cadfael always struck me as much more of a man's man, and probably pretty ruggedly handsome while we're at it. Someone else had commented Sean Connery, which, oddly enough, is what my Mom and I concluded too! oh well. 2. I am really really disgusted with the Hollywood convention that the heroine's wedding dress doesn't have to have anything to do with the rest of the costumes, or with the period in question. And I really expected better in this series. What on earth was that supposed to be?!? And did they have to put her in pink just because she was pretty? Blech! 3. The yellow veil worn by the Bride to be's aunt looked really nasty synthetic. And her monologue at the end was a bit over the top. Thank you, Great Thespian! > by any of you "historical" types about this. I'd swear the boys cloaks > were velveteen, the veils or lack thereof looked odd, and there seemed > to be a lot of purple, which I thought was rare in them days. (could be The boy's cloaks did seem to be velveteen, which of itself didn't bother me, because silk velvet is a lot more expensive to come by, but their collar banding or yoke trim looked awfully science fiction-y. Anybody seen anything like it out there? As far as the use of velvet, that could go either way, and I'd love some more knowledgeable comments on this. I have seen coptic textiles with linen napped loops added, so I know that it was technically possible, but I'm iffy on when velvets became avalable (and, presumably a hot item because it was the latest thing, and so very pretty!) > my TV of course). the "nun's" wimple/veil not only looked odd, but appeared > to be out of some sort of diaperish knit stuff, maybe a pointelle. On this point I disagree. The fabric looked like a medium coarse handwoven wool to me, which is pretty plausible. It also looked neatly hand hemmed, which was nice. I agree with someone else's comment that it looked like a coif with a face circle out of it, but that is one way to make that shape, so who knows. I found her character a little disturbing. I'm sure in the book some reason was given that she and her lover didn't marry, but I wish they'd restated it for our benefit. I wihs some of the other womens' clothing had looked as hand made as hers, but still neat. I expected there to be more people in the stories. Cadfael is always going into town and passing people by. Someone else commented on the colored veils for the women. I do have a source for that. In the Giulia Bologna _Illuminated Manuscripts_ book, p. 106, there is a page from Liber Floridus, from the second half of the 12th century showing a Madonna and chile with an angel. She is definitely wearing a veil that is green under her crown. I find it difficult to believe that women wouldn't have worn veils in colors to match their outfits in general. And I suppose my especial quibble with the clothes have to do with the fact that the womens gowns looked like sacks of potatoes on them. I've spent a fair amount of empirical fiddling with Romanesque styles, and I've discovered some tricks to getting the snugger styles of later in the century. Now, was the girl's aunt supposed to be a fashionable woman? Possibly not. But I think any number of us could have done as good a job or better. Hugh Beringar was cute! But isn't he supposed to have been black haired? And his garment seemed odd as well. Enough for now. I really logged in to work, honest. -*-*- Beth in the office 212-741-4400 ---------------------------- From: PFlemm1002@aol.com Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 21:32:00 -0500 Subject: men's mid 19th century wallets I am looking for a pattern, image or book describing men's wallets during the mid 19th century. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks Paul Flemming ---------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 9:30:21 -0600 (CST) From: Deb Subject: RE: Bro. Cadfael >Things I liked: >1. Cadfael traveling by mule. Straight out of the book! I too noted it, and liked it. I remember Cadfael begrudging the slowness of the beast, when he had a short time to find information about the murder. >Things that bothered me: >1. Derek Jacobi. Too effeminate! Well, that didn't bother me. However, the book series makes rather a point of Cadfael's being "portly" and round, and walking with an almost sea-farer's roll. I did notice Derek Jacobi attempting the walk, at one point, and I suppose I'll forgive him not being actually stout. But it was noticably missing! >> from somebody else: bothered that Huon didn't marry his mistress. >From reading the books, I gather that one just _didn't_ marry out of class. Also, Avis states that she was "honest" in the bargain she had made with Huon, and was not ashamed of it. Just as she would honestly testify about it. I don't recall reading of any _desire_ that the bargain change into a marriage. I'm not familiar enough with the period to have noticed any costume discrepancies -- except that I did appreciate that the poor were distinguished from the wealthy, both by styles and by color. I appreciated that the languaged used was straight out of the book (at least, where I noticed it). "If he could father a child, he'd have got one by now" is probably not the modern way to phrase it, using "got" as in "begot". I was quite impressed with the production! Deb Baddorf ---------------------------- End of Volume 211 -----------------------