From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #59 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 Friday, March 8 1996 Volume 4, Number 59 Compilation copyright (C) 1996 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: renfair costumes Re: Materials Re: renfair costumes Armour, cloth covering and responses Re: Materials Re: Materials Re: Armour, cloth covering and responses Re: Wedding Information Re: Materials Re: RenFair costumes Re: Short Hair for Women Jacquard & Brocade Re: Ren Fair Costumes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:33:24 -0500 From: Kevin Richard-Morrow Subject: Re: renfair costumes Oh Boy, a flame war! Can I play too? " I assure you Madame, I have always looked down on low cut dresses" W. C. Fields At 09:26 PM 3/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >self proclaimed member of the authenticity police "tsk-tsking" those >ill-informed RenFaire folk in the guise of a query that was worded to make >the point that unless you are blood-curdlingly "historically accurate", then >you are to be looked down at. IF that was not the original poster's intent, >I apologized once, and I will do so again. > >My biggest objection is the waving of credentials then the proclaiming of >"This is OBVIOUSLY wrong" or "not in period" or the one that I love the most >"They never did such-and-so." How do we know they didn't? As as a negative argument can never be logicaly proven we can't know what "they" didn't do. A good stab can be made at what "they" did do, based on documentation. "Nothing we can make up could possibly be as interesting as what really happened" - (Wish I knew who first said this quote and if I have it right. I think I'll say Abraham Lincoln said it. You can't prove he didn't. :-P ) Please dress any way you wish, but If you hang an historic label on yourself (like "rennaissance") please try not to get too shocked if someone questions you about history. I am afraid I don't find being as "historically accurate" as possible particularly "blood-curdling". Kevin Richard-Morrow Badge number 1237 Authenticity Police, 18th Century Division, Thread count per inch Section "..To Hound and Disturb" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:51:27 -0500 From: PALM_CHAMBERLAIN_BETH Subject: Re: Materials Hi! The differences between brocade and jacquard confuse many people for a very simple reason. Brocade is a type of jacquard. They are woven on a jacquard loom which can controll a single warp (lengthwise) thread instead of a group of threads. Brocade, damask, some tapestries, and some ribbons are all types of jacquard. Brocade is a jacquard that is usually woven from silk - or rayon for contemporary clothes. An excellent reference book for textiles is " Textile Fabrics and their Selection" by Isabel Wingate ISBN 0-13-912865-4. Any public library "should" have it. Beth ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:21:26 -0800 (PST) From: "Sarah E. Goodman" Subject: Re: renfair costumes > with your contention that the display may be tasteless, and possibly > demeaning to women as well as offensive to some portion of the population. > > What I took issue with WAS the flavor of the post. What *I* saw was a > self-proclaimed member of the authenticity police "tsk-tsking" those > ill-informed RenFaire folk in the guise of a query that was worded to make > the point that unless you are blood-curdlingly "historically accurate", then HALT! I think some of the problem was the extensive "my bias" section of the original post (which sounded to me kind of like "Newsweek has an interest in X"--i.e., something included so that you could not later be accused of covering up a bias--but which had the effect of overshadowing the rest of the post) and MUCH of the problem has to do with people not reading the rest of the post carefully. The question asked was basically "since this is neither modern style nor period, where the hell did it come from and why are they doing it" -- NOT "why don't they do it right?" or "why are they showing their tits?". We have a couple of local costumers who go in for the pouter pigeon effect, and it IS quite astounding looking to see a full, rounded set of breasts around the collar-bones (AND not just in Elizabethan--in some other periods it' looks even odder), but the local RenFaire travesty is the moo-cow effect, which involves "peasant" bodices cut about an inch above the under-bust line, with a gathered chemise and no other support. This, on a large busted womean creates a spillover at a slightly downward angle which is very odd indeed, either to modern or "Elizabethan" eyes. BTW, the classic "ren fair" peasant costume--bodice, chemise, double skirts--has been around for At Least this century (and I assume the last one, too) and was known in the theatrical circles of my (pre-renfaire) youth as "Old Vic Basic Wench" and was used for Gilbertian Chorus's, Moll Flanders, Brigadoon and just about anything else vaguely rural set from about 1830 on, at least for the chorus in low-budget shops. (Other OBV standards I remember were "peasant" and "medival" . Don't know if the Old Vic can actually be held responsible for any of this. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:03:48 +0100 From: j.w.hubbard@sheffield.ac.uk (Bill Hubbard) Subject: Armour, cloth covering and responses I only get the digest version of this list: I presume I get a copy of every message, but sometimes I am not sure. I do not know why Teresa is responding so firmly or what claim was made when she says this - Teresa Shannon:> >If statments like this are being offered I would request the person below to >include citations and documentation to back it up, at least tell people > where to go to see examples since this runs counter to my concept of >general historical knowledge of the period. But since there is a didactic tone in the air :-), I would like to mention a few points: Teresa Shannon:> >Someone responded with misleading information on the existance of covered >breastplates, and I responded presenting citations and correcting the >source. It is this "misleading" message I am not sure I have. Teresa, could you reference your statements? Teresa Shannon:> >I am also quite surpised at the statement of plain armor in the 16th >century. Why? Plain (ie undecorated) armour existed at all grades of quality. Teresa recommends the Wallace Collection Catalogue: it should be borne in mind that this armour forms part of the collection which is of artistic artefacts. Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority of pieces in this collection are decorated. Even so, look at the Wladislas armour in this collection, made for the King of Bohemia in the first part of the 16th cent. From memory, this is plain, clean and functional with only a small band and plaque of etching on the breast-plate. Teresa Shannon:> >In fact, only in the >fifteenth century and after do we get elaborate heavily decorated armor >(mail doesn't take too well to decoration although you can do something >with it, and brigandines were always that inbetween composite for the >classes that couldn't afford plate in the 14th c.). No. Armour seems to have always been a field for decoration and could be treated as heavily as the available techniques and budget would allow: and 14th cent "brigandines" were not just for those who could not afford plate. The Maciejowski Bible (c.1250) shows elaborated painted helmets for the 13th cent: tournament helmets were decorated with silk, horn, leather, feathers, paint etc - see the Manessa Codex (late 13th cent) for illustrations. For the most telling 14th cent. example, see "A Record of European Armour and Arms Through Seven Centuries" by Sir Guy Francis Laking, 1920, G.Bell and Sons, London. Volume II. Quote: "In 1352, according to the description given in Douet-d'Arcq's "Comptes de l'Argent reie des rois de France", two suits of armour made for the Dauphin were fashioned in what we should term the brigandine manner. The silversmith, Etienne de la Fontaine, describes them as being covered respectively with blue and green velvet richly embroidered, and mentions the fact that while the corselets alone required six thousand silver rivets for the attachment of the metal plates, the rere- and vambraces, the cuisses, the jambs, and the sollerets made use of five thousand five hundred, irrespective of bosses and buckles. Half the nails or rivets had heads of bright silver in the shape of crescents, in other cases the rivets were round and gilt, doubtless in some allusion to the sun and the moon." Embroidered velvet with silver and gilt? Sounds richly decorated to me; and the Dauphin is not someone who could not have afforded plate. Unless, of course, since this is a tertiary source (or whatever level was decided on in that thread) none of this counts as evidence. Since, Teresa, as you say, the 14th century is your speciality, maybe you know of Douet-d'Arcq's "Comptes de l'Argent reie des rois de France" and can further reference it, recommend it or know why it can be ignored. Teresa Shannon:> >Since I needed to write an addendum, I may as well respond to this. What >in the world is this reference about Ms. Gerjuoy? The original poster >wanted to know if breastplates were covered with cloth as apparently shown >in a 15th century painting/depiction of St. George in Spain. I think the point is that the original post mentioned that the cloth was embroidered with a cross - the traditional arms of St George - which means there IS or MIGHT BE a heraldic connection. Again, in the fifteenth century, tabards and other cloth coverings were an opportunity for the wearer to display their heraldic arms. This was important since the shield was increasingly unused and there needed to be some "display area" to identify the knight through his heraldic arms. Any discussion of cloth covering of armour in the fifteenth century should take account of heraldry. I would like to say, Ms Gerjouy, thank you for your contribution. Regards, Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 16:12:57 -0500 From: Kevin Richard-Morrow Subject: Re: Materials At 02:51 PM 3/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >The differences between brocade and jacquard confuse many people for a >very simple reason. Brocade is a type of jacquard. They are woven on a >jacquard loom By my copy of the OED, the jacquard loom was a 19th century invention. So pre 1800's brocade can't be a jacquard can it? Now I'm confused. (Not an unusual event! :-/ ) Kevin Richard-Morrow ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 16:35:50 -0500 From: Carodec@aol.com Subject: Re: Materials Beth wrote: >Hi! >The differences between brocade and jacquard confuse many people for a >very simple reason. Brocade is a type of jacquard. They are woven on a >jacquard loom which can controll a single warp (lengthwise) thread >instead of a group of threads. Brocade, damask, some tapestries, and >some ribbons are all types of jacquard. Now I'm very confused. The jacquard loom was not invented until the very late 18th or very early 19th century (forgive me; I've forgotten the exact date), but brocade and damask surely existed before then. - ---Caroline in Pa Carodec@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:42:50 -0600 (CST) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: Armour, cloth covering and responses My reply included the orininal posting, I don't know why you don't have it. Also it appears the main problem is you don't know what we are talking about, (in the progressive sense.). The original inquiry was about something quite specific. Incorrect information was presented which was then rectified, by both my comments, and the poster I was responding to. It doesn't really matter, neither of us understood the original poster's request, as I had never seen the REAL original message, which has also been answered. > Why? Plain (ie undecorated) armour existed at all grades of quality. Teresa > recommends the Wallace Collection Catalogue: it should be borne in mind > that this armour forms part of the collection which is of artistic > artefacts. Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority of pieces in Plain armor was never an issue, I never denied it existed, you need the other part of the conversation here. It had been misstated that NO decorated plate armor existed after the fifteenth century. This is what I was reacting to, I concurred there was plain armor in the 16th century expecially (shudder) munitions grade, but that there are many examples of extremely fancy armor, and that the 16th century heralded much of the overfancy armor. The poster I responded to then corrected the statement and expanded on it. > >In fact, only in the > >fifteenth century and after do we get elaborate heavily decorated armor > >(mail doesn't take too well to decoration although you can do something > >with it, and brigandines were always that inbetween composite for the > >classes that couldn't afford plate in the 14th c.). Again, we are only talking breastplate. My response it that you must have the letter, it was included, I have no idea why you didn't get in the digest, it appears that way on the list. Maybe to save space they delete it? There is really no point responding, though I enjoyed your references, I'm afraid you're missing two parts here (the original request [though not the REAL request] and half of my post, i.e., to what I am reacting). No heraldry was not part of the question, sorry. I'll look through my files if you desperately want me to and its possible I may have saved at least my post with argument, but its unlikely. Still, if you just want blanks filled in I would be happy to do it, I understand how confusing it is to get part of the argument {part of the problem in the first place}, you just responded to it voluminously, perhaps you can help the original poster better than I can. Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:49:44 -0500 From: Booboopies@aol.com Subject: Re: Wedding Information I'd also like to know about this symposium. If anyone attends, could you e-mail me directly (booboopies@aol.com). I'm editor of the ALHFAM Historic Clothing Newsletter, and I'd like to include a brief article on the highlights of the symposium in an upcoming issue. Whoever writes the article will receive a byline and a copy of the newsletter (we're a non-profit organization after all!). Many thanks. Karen Mullian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:59:08 -0800 (PST) From: Catherine Kehl Subject: Re: Materials On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Kevin Richard-Morrow wrote: > By my copy of the OED, the jacquard loom was a 19th century invention. So > pre 1800's brocade can't be a jacquard can it? As I understand it, the "jacquard loom" just mechanized what had already been being done -- tediously and by hand -- for centuries. Catherine The jacquard loom used punch cards to control the pattern... much better than having to sit there and move all the warp threads around by hand! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:21:11 -0500 From: Morghana@aol.com Subject: Re: RenFair costumes In a message dated 96-03-08 13:29:27 EST, YUNGBLUT@checkov.hm.udayton.edu (laura yungblut) writes: :::large portion of post snipped for brevity's sake::: >All I'm saying is to try to bear in mind that RenFaires are for- >profit entertainment, and have to balance a great number of >considerations, most importantly what brings in patrons and what they >want to see once they are there. If you want near-absolute >historical accuracy, **there are other venues.** Please do not >impose your strict judgments (term chosen intentionally) in a blanket >manner on any and all period-esque endeavors. > >As in all spheres of human enterprise, there are many variations, >interpretations, and room for all of them. > >Laura Hunt Yungblut, Ph.D >Univ. of Dayton >Queen Elizabeth I, Ohio Renaissance Festival >Mistress Rosamund Beauvisage (OL), Society for Creative Anachronism >yungblut@checkov.hm.udayton.edu THANK YOU, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!!!! I am most humbly grateful for your words of reason and moderation. I hope that those who chose to see my point as castigating scholarship (which I am not) or demanding that "anything goes" without care for history and reason will read your posting and perhaps finally see the point. Again, thank you for saying so well what needed to be said. :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:56:41 -0800 (PST) From: Laura_Gruell@sfu.ca Subject: Re: Short Hair for Women On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, laura yungblut wrote: > Greetings from a long-time lurker! I teach Medieval History (among > other things) and a student asked me if I knew of any periods or > places where women wore their hair short -- that short hair was the > fashion, not an aberration. I told her that nuns throughout the > centuries before our own shaved their heads and that women would > sometimes cut their hair for medical reasons, but that I knew of no > examples before the early 20th century of short hair as a *fashion* > for women. Does anyone know of any examples/references? Greeetings from another Laura, I've been told that women in the middle ages cut their hair short when they were in mourning for a family member that died, especially a husband. Of course, these same women usually covered their hair with headdresses, so the short hair wouldn't be seen except when bathing. I have no documentation to back this up, it is just something I was told. When I began in the SCA, I had very short hair and was told that the above was a good excuse for me ("just tell everyone you are in mourning for your husband who recently died. . . ") Joan of Arc wore her hair short, emulating the monk's tonsure, and looking quite masculine (but that was her whole point. . . and this isn't really "fashion", she was more of an aberration.) Good luck in your search. Laura Gruell BA, Art History Vancouver, BC or if you're in the SCA Lady Yolande Chastellain Barony of Lions Gate Kingdom of An Tir ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 16:17:51 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Pedersen Subject: Jacquard & Brocade > > Brocade is a weave structure. It is a compound weave that utilizes extra > or supplementary weft yarn to form patterns that stand out from the > surface of the cloth. If one has patience brocade can be made on a two > harness loom, however, since the development of the jacquard loom > (jacquard being the name of the weaving machinery--loom), brocade most > typically is made on the jacquard loom. Prior to the loom, but post-draw > loom, it was most typically made on a draw loom. The jacquard loom was a > "descendant of the drawloom. Both have mechanisms that allow the machine > to "pick" up the needed warp threads to more easily create the brocade > weave structure. > > Source:Wilson, Kax (1979). A History of Textiles. Boulder, CO: Westview > Press. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > Elaine L. Pedersen > pedersee@ucs.orst.edu > - - - - - - - - - - - > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:38:18 -0500 From: HMHousman@aol.com Subject: Re: Ren Fair Costumes Hey there! I've been listening in on the conversation for the last few weeks; and, this is my first time chatting back, so I hope I do it right... I used to teach the Elizabethan Clothing class for the Living History Center which is the historical accuracy conscience for the Southern California Ren Faire (RPFS.) The standard for bodices is the top of the bodice must cover ones nipples. (I believe Tracey mentioned it, but wasn't sure.) The Costume Dept. does monitor bodices throught the run of faire; however, they don't always catch everyone who goes around with "saggy boobs," but they certainly try. They do this 1) since it's a "family show" and 2) "saggy boobs" are not accurate. This standard is based on 1) Bruegal's paintings showing Flemish peasants wearing sleaveless bodices which lace up the front, show moderate to above moderate cleavage, and mimic the French bodice fashion. 2) Portraits showing Elizabethan noble ladies wearing the French fashion of the bodice following the line of the corset which flattens the chest, covers the nipples, and pushes up ones cleavage. 3) Southern California weather in May and June is simply too hot to expect everyone to wear the higher neckline styles of the English fashion. 4) Cleavage and ale make the most money even at a "family show." Keep in mind England was experiencing a "mini-iceage" during the late 16th century, so clothing was often designed for warmth. Since most Ren Faires are held in warmer months, this is something we tend to "fudge" on. Hope this helps... Heather ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #59 ****************************** 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!