From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #11 Reply-To: h-costume Sender: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Thursday, January 11 1996 Volume 4, Number 11 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Diane Barlow Close and Gretchen Miller Use in whole prohibited. Individual articles are the property of the author. Seek permission from that author before reprinting or quoting elsewhere. Important Addresses: Send submissions to: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com (or reply to this message). Adds/drops/archives: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com Real, live person: h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Topics: Re: Authenticity & Sources Re: Authenticity & Sources Re: Cotehardie Pictures on the Web? Re digest V4 #9 Authenticity Stupid Questions?...maybe Re: leather Sidesaddle Habits Re: Authenticity re: Men's Tights Burning our Corsets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:07:57 -0500 From: Kevin Richard-Morrow Subject: Re: Authenticity & Sources I do ask forgivness for previous ranting (not what I said, but how I said it). After retiring to my cold barren cell for penance and having an application of leeches to cool my fevered brow, I return flameless (if not blameless) to the authenticity arena. > > >At 12:24 PM 1/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Friends >> >>If I go to a Civil War reenactment, I expect to see authenticity in >>everything. If I visit a colonial village I expect to see authenticity in >>everything. In both these cases the people are paid to present an >>accurate account of their specific period. I do Revolutionary War but know people who do Civil War. The only time I or they got personally paid for our presence was for movie extra work. I, and others, do museum volunteer work at Saratoga park and some local historic sites. I have worked at schools where our unit got paid, not I. Please don't assume the reenactor you see at an historic site is on the payroll or that the equipment and clothes they have belong to the site. Reenactors may all be crazy but some of us are crazy for free! >> We may use polyesters for linen, but at least it looks >>like linen! > How about the linen look cottons or cotton/linen blends? They don't seem to cost alot, if any, more and don't burn like woven napalm. Suit yourself (pun intended) but test a swatch of polyester in an ashtray and see if that's what you want next to your skin. Remember a candle, as well as bonfire, is an open flame.(and, please, this post ISN'T) > > > >> >>What I do need is some assitance in a problem I have. My problem is in >>the definition of "primary sources" and "secondary sources". I have seen >>you list something as a primary source and 2 weeks later have someone else >>say that it was done with "artistic license" and therefore not acceptable. >>Can anyone give me a definition of primary source that will not be shot >>down by 6 other people? Ok, I'll bite, and probably get bitten in return. A "primary source" ,as I understand it, is a description, journal entry, letter, etc. or AN ARTIFACT ITSELF from the period under study. A "secondary source" is a ,more or less, studied view from a later time. Primary sources, at least in my view, are not always perfect. Terminology changes can lead to confusion. The term "cape" in 1650 may not mean the same in 1750 or 1996. The writer, although contemporary with the item or process, may not know what they were looking at. An original artifact can change due to age or been purposly altered between "then" and "now". "Originals" occasionally turn out to be fakes or forgeries. Kevin Richard-Morrow ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 14:44:26 -0600 (CST) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: Authenticity & Sources The difference between a primary and tertiary relic is such: A primary relic is a regarded as a piece of a holy person's body (or the whole corpus), which also includes hair, bones, the throw-away part of a circumscision etc. Really good relics are of actual gods, christ's blood, Thor's beard, Mithris' bone, etc. A secondary relic is regarded as something which has been in close contact during the primary relic's lifetime. Clothes, shoes, staffs, books, crosses known to have belonged to saints would all be considered secondary relics. St. Patrick's bell would be considered a secondary relic. A tertiary relic is an object which has come into contact with a primary relic. I take my rosary and touch it to a saint's body, voila a tertiary relic. The shroud of Turin would qualify if believed to have touched Christ's face (believe held in suspension for the example, please). Similar to this are sources:-) I am sure those people on this group who engage in the library sciences, and museum work will have a more professional and correct understanding that I do, but: A primary source is an object from the actual time peiod. A bog dress, a reliquary, an illuminated psalter that was produced in a particular period and so could be considered representative of, or an actual artifact of a specified and knowable time period would be a primary source. If I try and sew a dress based on fourteenth-century primary sources I might need an actual dress dredged from the Thames dated from 1325; a manuscript on health written by Brother Cupiditas at the Abbey of St. Denys in 1342 depicting an illumination of a woman in a dress; the description of the wedding and its participants' dress by the Chandos Herald at the Black Prince's marriage to Joan-in the original book/manuscript form only--say from the Bibliotheque Nationale; funerary bronzes of Sir Toadsticker and Lady Hubris from Exeter Cathedral when they died in 1395. (Don't take any of these as actual sources, I was making fun.) Of course primary sources are NOT always representative of the time-period's accoutrements. Funerary brasses were generally out-of-date, styled by a workshop or particular craftsperson, or used to convey a message; manuscript illuminators had form workbooks and generally followed an established dictated style of artistic representation for clothing, or in the portrayls of important people. (Note, all of this become easier and more reliable with the advent of "REALISM" in the artisitc world followed by corresponding moves in architecture and writing.) The point is that one has an original article manufactured in the time period and NOT a reproduction of it to work from. I need to be able to pick up that fourteenth-century shoe to see the inside rand and seams so a photograph or line-drawing will not do. Secondary sources are from those people who work with primary sources. A translater of the fourteenth-century french poem Roman de la vache, has potentially changed the original piece with his translation. An archaeologist who writes a dissertation on the digs of the fourteenth- century Lincolnshire site detailing buttons and fabrics is a secondary source. You are learning about the finds through someone's eyes and brain who is cataloging it for you. Photographs of primary source materials may fit into this category. Tertiary sources are people using secondary sources and adding commentary. All the 20,000 years of fasion type books are taking secondary sources arranging them and interpreting them in the author's decided manner. Line drawings of items are inherently different from either the original representation or a photograph of the original and thus open to massive change. Tertiary sources are not really sources unless you are commenting on the commentary illicited by such scholarship. For example, doing a paper on the misrepresentation of fashion in the middle ages by immanent Victorians would be a respectable topic of necessity utilizing sources beyond secondary. Tertiary sources can usefully provide pictures or commentary from sources not readily available, out-of-print, under copyright, etc. Most bibliographies or works cite separate the primary sources from secondary and other sources. For those of us not trained secondary and primary sources can be unrevealing or puzzling or even too technical. It is often very helpful to read and compare commentary on this level about this subject, try to relate it to the primary and secondary materials and compare it with others too draw a new conclusion. Depending on the type of research you are attempting this may or may not be valid for academic or publishing purposes. As many on this list have cited it is always most useful to get as large a variety of similar examples from as wide a range of media as possible for a subject before commenting or drawing conclusions on it. If I was attempting the dress from the fourteenth-century mentioned above I would try to use all of the sources mentioned, brass, manuscript, actual dress, romance, architecture from either primary or secondary sources and then go to tertiary sources as close as possible, e.g. usually academic journals and article commentary on primary or secondary to help with possibly correct interpretations. Thus all sources would be used. Or possibly, if you are not mobile, only secondary or tertiary, though primary source literature that is not translated, but published anew for scholars is widely availble. Always try to get information from people as close to the actual object as possible. Avoid relying on information that assumes the utility of a piece without period reference to it. "They must have used this to scrape the dirt from their pattens before entering places of ill repute." should be, "this object found by the door of a place documented by legal records as being a place of ill-repute is similar to five others dug up at similar sites and resembles an object in a manuscript of the period wherein someone seems to be scraping dirt off his pattens..." I am sure there are general rules of thumb in avoiding or judging sources and documentation (which may be spurious or not) from others here, which I would like to read. For instance, I really don't know where photographs of originals fit in here form a scholarly point of view, it might depend on legibility and details. There is a definite difference in sources and quality which must be understood if you really want to research, however. Your servant, Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:11:50 -0700 From: hill@cs.uwyo.edu (Robin Hill) Subject: Re: Cotehardie Pictures on the Web? My Webster's New International Dictionary (unabridged) has a nice sketch of a cotehardie with closely-spaced buttons down the front. ...And I like to encourage people not to neglect the old-fashioned references. Not that this group needs to be nagged about that. Robin Hill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 17:57:54 EST From: sgigate.sgi.com!smtpgwy.dlx.com!dlxibm!Liz_Jones Subject: Re digest V4 #9 Krista was writing about possibilities for hose other than yucky spandex, etc. I have done a fair amount of research into hose, but most of mine falls into the 14-16th centuries. They were usually cut on the bias, but I have also seen ways of folding fabric that were used. I recently was at the Cluny and saw a REALLY neat boot/hose thing, that I believe to be an ecclesiastical leg covering of some sort. I believe it was from the 13th-14th century, but I would have to check my notes. It was only knee high, and I believe that as thick as it was, it would probably have been worn over something else. At any rate, it was cut in a very interesting manner: enough for me to plunk down on the floor and start diagramming. Unfortunately, it was poorly lighted and my photos didn't really come out. I believe that around the 12th century the hose or legwear was still very unformed: certainly it had not reached the tailored point as in later Italy. I believe that in Boucher 20K Years or Davenport there are some statues from Chartres? showing shepherds? with were baggy hose that is bound. There is also a statue in the Cluny of a 15th Century swineherd that has leg bindings: mid thigh and tied at ankle and thigh, I believe. The Chartres? ones were incredibly long, it seemed, enough to provide bulk. I think for your purposes, you might be best to see what kind of upper garment you will use: as early as the 12th century I believe that garters were actually worn: some sort of belt with straps to hold up thigh high hose. I do not believe that any effort was made to cover the buttocks: this gradually happened over the next few centuries, and finally went back down, as trunkhose and nether stockings were worn. If your hubby is wearing 12th century, my guess is that he is wearing some sort of long tunic, but maybe not. Later on they wore hip length doublets to which the hose were tied with points: first there were "peaks" on the front and back of the hose, and only these pieces were attached. Later they went round the hips with more lacing holes and ties, and finally they started covering the buttocks. Before this happened totally, one just tucked the shirt into the backs of these two separate hose and toddled on their way. Little thought for modestly was given, and working class men or active men were often seen with them untied at the back. I can tell you from experience that this is because it is extremely difficult to get enough give in the butt to allow one to sit down, etc. Cod pieces were added as the doublets got shorter, and the hose started meeting in the back. If you are interested in making bias cut hose: it's not too difficult, especially if you are not too anal about closeness of fit: in the 12th century, you shouldn't be! Let me know if you want more precise info: here in the office I don;t have access to anything! Liz Jones ljones@datalogix.com (don't reply: address fresh each time!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:07:00 -0800 From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: Authenticity Reading all these posts about authenticity, I genuinely feel sorry for people who make the effort of creating a costume and attending an event and go away feeling bad about themselves or their efforts because of a few mis-mannered/rude individuals. Isn't that what we are really talking about or am I missing the main point? It is funny. I found that the more I have learned, I have become LESS critical than before. I have spent years researching historical clothing and needlework and the last few on concentrated research. I now understand that I am very priveledged to have been able to access what I have, and have had the opportunity for advanced education. Not everyone has that. Now when I look at things, I think that it is unfortunate that they didn't understand more about what they were doing, as opposed to them knowlingly doing something wrong OR I realize how much effort went into making such a nice garment (such as Loren Dearborn's Victorian gown I saw at the Age of Innocence Tea). At the recent SCA 12th Night I went to, there was an arts exhibit. There was a viking tunic that had Icelandic embroidery all over it. The embroidery was wonderful AND period. It was unfortunate that they embroidered it onto an unperiod fabric (a beige cotton denim twill). I kept thionking to myself "All that work!" Of course I said nothing other than explaining to my friends that the embroidery was exceptional. I later told them in private (they are eager to learn more about costuming and embroidery) that the ground fabric was not a good choice, yet it must have been extremely difficult to do all the intricate embroidery on TWILL. I would NOT have said it in public. I was also able to chat in person with someone who is on this list but I had never met before (her dress was wonderful by the way). We also talked about costumes (ours and others', good and bad) but we were having a private discussion as colleagues. We were not going about departing words of wisdom on unwilling recipients, though I have seen this done all too often. Another hazzard is that I am known as an "authority" (I dont like that word especially) in some areas and many people come right up to me and point at someone else's costume and say, "What do you think of that?". I find that embarassing really. I am very careful to say whatever I can about the best aspects of the costume and nothing else in public, "the fabric is quite beautiful and a good choice for an Elizabethan". If I have friends or pupils who are actively interested in learning, then I will mention to them in private what aspects they would want to change before endeavoring the same techniques, "that gown had very nice cartridge pleating but the bum roll was a little off scale for her size. Scale is an important consideration in costuming and difficult for some to master". Students learn from examples and it is important to notice what to do and what not to do when observing others' costume but rudeness and self-appointed Fashion Police or giving unsolicited (unflattering) opinions is NOT okay. I do try whenever possible to give unsolicited compliments, especially to new comers. Erin Moody ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 20:49:33 -0500 From: sunfire@muskoka.com (Stephen & Krista Fraser) Subject: Stupid Questions?...maybe Unfortunately, not all of us out here have the funds required to purchase new books, authentic materials etc., and we must make do with what we have. I live in a VERY small town where the reference section in the library is miserable for any kind of costuming research...and I haven't got a car to get to the city and go to a real library :) I check all the references I have before I ask a question on the list (to save bandwidth and people's time.) Please, I don't mean to sound like I'm angry at anyone...I'm not! I just think that before people respond to a question in a negative manner, or with a "why don't you just go find out for yourself" attitude...maybe they should consider that not everyone is in a position to buy the things necessary to get them the amount of knowledge that some of you out there have already. I come to this list seeking advice that I'm confident I can trust...not so I can be accused of asking stupid questions. Maybe I do ask stupid questions, but if you don't feel like responding, don't. There are enough people on this list with great advice and a willingness to give it anytime they're asked and to all those I say a heart felt THANK YOU!!! Krista sunfire@muskoka.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 22:16:00 -0500 From: NeaDods@aol.com Subject: Re: leather Kathleen writes: > I'm looking for a source of *cheap* 4 oz leather for my boyfriend's new armour. I've posted this before, but it bears a repeat. The best source of cheap, large pieces of leather I've ever found is a secondhand leather couch. Go look at the local Goodwill or Amvets or whatever. Nea neadods@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 22:29:45 -0500 From: LBowlby@aol.com Subject: Sidesaddle Habits Has anyone found any reference to sidesaddle riding habits that would indicate that women rode with pantaloons and petticoats...from any time period, but mostly from the last half of the 1800's? It is hard to convince some sidesaddle riders that these items were streetwear and not used from riding. I read that women would carry their petticoats (in a satchel?) when riding and put them on after reaching their destination. That way they would not get didrty. I have also found that the term pantaloons discribed trousers made of wool or chamise and were constructed like today's stirrup pants. Most sidesaddle riders, today, refer to pantaloons as bloomers, usually white, with lace or ruffled bottoms. What references can I use to document the correct wear? Linda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:31:17 -0800 (PST) From: "Alice Morgan" Subject: Re: Authenticity Some wonderful things have been said about sources, research, and authenticity. Since I'm more currently focused on using historical styles to make garments I personally enjoy wearing, I can ignore the authenticity issues myself for now. I've always thought that an interesting project would be to have a friend pick up a couple of random articles of clothing from a thrift shop or used clothing store, toss in a current or slightly out of date fashion magazine, and maybe a random mail order clothing catalog (even better if half the pages are destroyed first). Put these in a box, and then using these as your "research materials" see what kind of designs you would come up with as 1990's fashion. Then compare that to what you wear, as well as what you see others wearing at work, school, or play. How close could you come? How much would you see that "can't be documented"? Might be interesting, except I have no time for the project and very little interest in current clothing... Alice - -- Alice Morgan Spotted Dog Systems Never attribute to malice that which is adequately described by stupidity ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 00:54:44 -0500 From: COakley@aol.com Subject: re: Men's Tights I've recently done research on hosen or "tights" for my 14th-c. lord, and made two sets. My sources say the same general kind of hose was worn from the 12th century through the 16th, differing mainly in the refinement of fit and the shape of the foot. They were generally made with two separate legs that were fastened in some way at the waist. By the 14th century an undergarment called a "paltock" or "pourpoint", a waist length, close-fitting vest, was worn over the sherte and under the cotehardie, and both the hose and under-sleeves could be tied to it by means of points. I'm not sure what they used in the 12th century. I do know the pourpoint works quite well, though my lord now has trouble dressing himself. :) Hose were made of woven fabric, probably wool or silk, cut on the bias to give some stretch. In our experience, the stretch is needed horizontally around the leg, not so much lengthwise. I therefore cheated and used a run-resistant cotton knit with one-way stretch. My reading indicates that some knits may have been used in late SCA Period. Herbert Norris gives a pattern, which is repeated in Janet Winter's _Elizabethan Costuming_ which works very well for a man who is comfortable in size 34/30 jeans and is easily modified for other sizes. If someone in your Shire doesn't have one of these books (unlikely) use a leggings pattern and add feet. By the way, Period Patterns #21 shows either buttons or lacings at the front of a woman's cotehardie. Buttons on the forearm sleeves can definitely be functional, due to the tightness of the sleeves. In the late 14th c. a cotehardie might be worn without a surcote as an outer dress. It seems to have usually had another, "under-dress" cotehardie with long sleeves underneath it, and a chemise under that. Kate Oakley ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 02:18:54 -0500 From: kl94ag@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (Kathleen Leggat) Subject: Burning our Corsets Just a reminder that fashionable instruments of torture, including corsets, were not necessarily a woman's domain. Men through the ages have suffered through tight sleeves, stiffening, boning, corsetry, bad shoes, codpieces, silly hats, high heels, cloth tightly wrapped around their Adam's apples...not to mention those poor sardines during the Crusades boiling in the desert sun...and ever notice how much the modern tie resembles a noose? Okay, women have had the lion's share of torture devices. But basically I'd say the corset issue is a fashion issue, not a woman's issue. Kathleen (Catriona) Isn't it also fascinating the way alluring body parts come in and out of fashion? Some centuries you could show tremendous amounts of bosom, but don't dare show your wrists...or wrists were fine but ankles were taboo...or the Middle Eastern cultures that don't have a problem with bare wrists, feet and ankles, but cover everything else but the eyes. And isn't it also interesting the way women find ways of drawing attention to those parts that are supposed to be hidden away? Red stockings on ankles that aren't supposed to show...a provocative glimpse of lace edging that "accidently" peeked below your hemline... "Teehee," quod she, and clapte the windowe to. ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #11 ****************************** A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, send the command lines: unsubscribe h-costume-digest subscribe h-costume end in the body of a message to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. Thanks and enjoy the list!