From: "Philip Edward Cutone, III" Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 16:24:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 306, 5/12/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 306, May 12, 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 Please note that I am not the usual maintainer. If there is a problem with the digest please let me know (and forgive a few blunders.... :) This digest covers all messages through May 11, not appearing in previous digests. There were some problems at first, but I believe I've ironed them out, except for the date problem in the last message. :) Enjoy! Filip ------------------------------ Topics: Thanks, Hair dye Roseries Shoes Clothing for Clergy London/Paris costume resources Appologies re:18/19 C shoulders, deportment, corsetry 18th-century and Victorian posture and dance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 12:18:19 -0500 (EST) From: dbrowne Subject: Thanks, Hair dye Thanks to all of you that responded. Now come the expermenting time. I'll let you know the results... Kathy B Katrinn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 12:17:04 -0500 (EST) From: dbrowne Subject: Roseries Please forgive my spelling. I have been doing research on the rosary for the last year. The 1st written reference to a rosary that I have been able to find is concerning Lady Godiva (yes that Lady:-)) In her will she left her "Bedes" to some shrine I am not at home right now If there is intrest I can get the exact quote and source. They references go on from there. Many pictures of the Renaissance show a rosary even non religouis pictures. They are espically popular with the Itlians during the late 1400's and earlie 1500's. As far as stones and beads an such you can find then made of almost every material and not all of them turmenate in a Cross or crucfix, mine ends in a small silver heart that has a Cathrines wheel in relief on it. During this time there is no set way for the "decades" to be placed eather. They can come in groupes of three, seven, five or ten, and any thing in between. Stones are also very significant. The people of this time believed in the powers of certain stones to protect them from different things, disease-shipwreck-childbirth, lots' of different things. Hope this helps Kathy B Katrinn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: rosaries Has anyone mentioned yet in this discussion that the English word "bead" derives from a word meaning "prayer" (it's related to the German "bitte" - please) and had its meaning transferred due to the popularity of rosaries. Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:43:20 -0400 From: Ladyspnr@aol.com Subject: Shoes Here's another question. (I'm really enjoying having such a wealth of information to draw from that I'm getting out all those old questions that I've wondered about for a l-o-n-g time. Hope no-one is getting tired of hearing from me.) Anyway here's my question, what kind of shoes would be correct for a woman in the late 1700's in Northern Ohio or the Ohio Territory? I have seen everything from moccasins to wooden shoes to plain modern black flat shoes being worn. I have threatened to wear my moccasins inside a pair of wooden shoes if it doesn't stop raining around here soon, but would hate to invest in them if they are grossly incorrect for the period. Karri (Re-enacting in the rain, just re-enacting in the rain, what a glorious feel {yuck}, I'm soggy a-gain.) P.S. Sorry for that, spent last night watching old musicals) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 95 12:30:17 TZ From: Edward Wright Subject: RE: Clothing for Clergy The Whole Costumer's Catalog lists a company that makes disposable collars for the clergy. They've been in business since the 1800's. I don't have the catalog with me, so I can't give you the name at the moment. Perhaps someone else has it handy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 13:47:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jill P. Hoddick" Subject: London/Paris costume resources I am a costume designer and professor of theatre. I will be going to London and the Cotswolds and Paris and vacinity leaving June 20. Besides the Victoria and Albert, and Museum of Costume in Bath, does anyone know of additional places I can check out? Does anyone know of a costume museum in Paris??? I appreciate your comments in advance. Jill Hoddick, Univ. of Portland ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:21:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "B.M. O'Brien" Subject: Re: Appologies Greetings, I know I may be in the minority but....I have been enjoying this thread. So, if you post responses privately, would you include me, please? PS On Wed, 10 May 1995 Ladyspnr@aol.com wrote: > WOW - ask what seems a simple quick question . . . . > > Thanks to everyone who sent information to me. If anyone else wants to share > further information, please be kind to the others on the list and just send > me a private e-mail. > > Karri > [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Peggy Sue O'Brien pegisue@u.washington.edu University of Washington Lady Orfhlaith Ingen Bhriain Infectious Diseases, Mailstop SJ-10 Barony of Madrone, An Tir Seattle, WA 98195 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 95 13:26:45 PDT From: DGC3%Rates%FAR@bangate.pge.com Subject: re:18/19 C shoulders, deportment, corsetry I was hoping for some other posts in reply to Dee Wilson's message about the shoulders of women in 18th and 19th century paintings. Having seen none, I will take a stab at this interesting topic. Dee said: --------snip----------------------------- If I look at the portraits of 18C( and 17C too), and 19c women I notice a difference. When the portrait shows a SIDE view the 18C woman has her shoulders held far back. So far back that the shoulder line is BEHIND the neck line. 19C portraits tend to have the shoulders in line with the neck line. My personal attempts at recreating the 18C shoulder line using a portrait as a guide and a mirror show that it is difficult and painful to recreate this shape. --------snip----------------------------- Dee, you are not wrong. There is a definite difference in shoulders between the 18th and 19th centuries. It is achieved partially through corsetry, but also through the stance, which was based on dance training and deportment, as you correctly surmised. Dance manuals are the key here-- Fran Grimble will have more to contribute on this thread, I hope, as she teaches all these dances. The 18th century believed a "toes out" posture was more elegant [less natural?]. Try it-- you must throw your shoulders back and your chest out to compensate, achieving that "pouter pigeon" look at once. This will help with the pain, but remember, aristocrats have to suffer in order to prove that they are above the _hoi polloi_. The 18th C. corset helped by having straps that worked like a modern posture bra. I love the Kyoto Museum's _Revolution in Fashion: 1715-1815_ because their models have the correct posture -- it's so different from exhibits using modern fashion mannequins. How early Victorian women got rid of their shoulders is rather an enigma, but they were certainly not given to robust exercise. When late Victorian women take up exercise in the 1880s, contemporary writers remark about how exercise alters women's bodies. Perhaps the sloping shoulders came more easily if one languished on a sopha, doing Berlin work... The back boards continue to be used into the 19th century, and I remember being told in the 1950s that a neighboring teenager's beautiful posture was due to having marched about the house with a broom behind her arms. Erect posture was valued, but square shoulders were not-- even men's fashion plates have genteelly sloping shoulders around 1850. Was this an artistic conceit to distinguish the fashionable from the muscular working classes? A good source for further references is the museum catalog from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's wonderful exhibit of about ten years ago, edited by Edward Maeder, _An Elegant Art_ (hope I have the title right). There is at least one essay and a good bibliography on deportment and posture in the 18th C. Not to mention numerous dresses to die for. _Why_ did the shoulder line change, Dee asked? My guess is that the culture changed from one dominated by an aristocracy to one dominated by the middle classes. The dances change from elaborate ones (minuet) that require the attentions of a dancing master from childhood to simpler ones that can be mastered by a person with a life (waltz, polka, schottische). The French Revolution (1789) is the turning point, segueing into the Empire period. The process of simplification was gradual, as people danced quadrilles with elaborate footwork based on ballet positions in the early 19th century, but abandoned the footwork by mid-century, walking through the quadrilles. Hope this helps -- I would like to see other responses to Dee's posting, as I am fascinated by cultural change. Knowing people survived through other times of dramatic changes helps me get through the rapid changes we face today. Danine ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Danine Cozzens Internet: dgc3@pge.com Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:38:41 -0700 (PDT) From: amyc@unr.edu (Amy Coddington) Subject: Re: 18/19 C shoulders, deportment, corsetry > > OBSERVATION > > If I look at the portraits of 18C( and 17C too), and 19c women I notice a > difference. When the portrait shows a SIDE view the 18C woman has her > shoulders held far back. So far back that the shoulder line is BEHIND the > neck line. 19C portraits tend to have the shoulders in line with the neck > line. > > My personal attempts at recreating the 18C shoulder line using a portrait > as a guide and a mirror show that it is difficult and painful to recreate > this shape. > > [explanations removed to save bandwidth...] > > IMPLICATIONS > If there were these differences between the 18 and 19 cents - why? The > 19C was also very keen on an upright figure, deportment lessons etc. > The use of backboards is recorded up to the 1890s. Why did the 19c shoulder > line change ? Was it the impact of the Empire fashions around 1800 ? > [...] I believe that in the 18th century it was fashionable for men and women to have a narrow back. The backs of gowns and coats are cut quite narrow, and the armholes are higher than is comfortable today. This would encourage a person to keep the shoulders back and make the back look narrow. Training would also help achieve the fashionable figure, as you point out, and it is certainly likely that portrait painters tried to make their clients display the fashionable ideal. I haven't tried wearing 18th century costume for llong periods of time; perhaps someone on the list who has could tell us whether the posture is seriously uncomfortable in clothes of the time. I would assume that the difference between the 19th century and the 18th was a matter of styles changing, the way the fashionable shape for men changed from an hourglass in the 1840s to a rectangle at the end of the century and then to an inverted triangle by the thirties (if I've got my times straight). I think the change might have come about during the later Empire period--at least, I think the earlier Empire dresses still had the narrow back. Anyone else have better/more accurate ideas? --Amy Coddington amyc@unr.edu "Maybe someone should have labelled the future 'Some assembly required.'" (Garibaldi, "Babylon 5") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 95 19:16:38 PDT From: aterry@Teknowledge.COM (Allan Terry) Subject: 18th-century and Victorian posture and dance Re recent postings on the 18th-century "shoulders back" posture: yes, this was different from Victorian posture, but many extant Victorian garments also have extremely narrow backs. I think the very narrow backs and ribcages of any period that prized them were due largely to corsetry that began before adolescence to mold the skeleton to the desired shape. Plus a lack of exercise that would unduly (in the eyes of the period) develop the skeleton and muscles, plus posture/deportment training including dance. And of course, people wore clothing that gave the appearance of greater conformity to the desired body shape than they actually had. Portrait painters (and even photographers) helped the illusion along further. I'm 4'9" tall--a quite reasonable pre-20th-century woman's height--have a medium frame, am not overweight, and do not pump iron. Although I own many Victorian garments that fit me, I've also tried on many, styled for an adult woman, that were for someone my height, but with a _much_ narrower ribcage and back. Sometimes my biceps are too big to fit through the sleeves. Especially with 1880s dresses which have the narrowest torso of any period--even the bust seems to be suppressed. I think the differences between the desired 18th-century and Victorian body shapes and posture were due simply to fashion. However, I don't think this fashion change was necessarily connected to the "rise of the middle classes." As a historic dancer, I'd like to see a strong dance connection but am not sure this is true. The 18th century was a period in which movement in daily life was an indication of social class. People did, for example, walk with toes turned out. However, this is not technically difficult--it is simply a habit. It is not uncomfortable and does not affect balance. Although the upper classes in the 18th century did have, in many cases, a great deal of dance training not all the dances were hard. The minuet is fairly easy, as is the late-century allemande. Also, although the country dances did not use walking steps in this period they are quite easy. I've certainly known modern people who work full time at demanding careers (other than dance) and also manage to be good at 18th-century dance. On the other hand, although Victorian dance is easier than baroque dance the couple dances do require turnout, the five basic foot positions, attention to posture, and, to be done well, lessons. Also, dance manuals contain many interesting variations on the very basic waltzes, polkas, etc., generally seen at modern Victorian balls. I have 1850s manuals that indicate some people walked through quadrilles while others still did fancy footwork. There were also lots of quadrilles using the basic couple dances (e.g., polka quadrilles). Fran Grimble ------------------------------ End of Volume 306 -----------------------