From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #101 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, April 25 1996 Volume 4, Number 101 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: silk Re: Elizabethan Partlets Re: re:re: re waists re: Re: Elizabethan Partlets Boots Re: Boots Re: Boots Re: Elizabethan Partlets Re: Waist sizes/corsets RE Boots boots Coutil Why smock is a dirty word Re: Boots Smocks and Partletts Re: Waist sizes/corsets Re: Coutil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:43:39 -0700 From: Susan Fatemi Subject: silk Re: silk for veils and difficulty of finding, etc. Yeah, I know I'm spoiled being in the Bay Area, but one of the best sources for silks and *reasonable* is still Thai Silks in Los Altos, Calif. They do *mail-order* and are pretty zippy about it, too. Their address has been posted several times on this list and I believe Diane has included it in the archives. Area code is 408 or 415. They will supply info over the phone. A *complete* swatch pack is available for a $20 deposit. (I kept mine!) Have heard good things about Oriental Silks too, in L.A. (also in archives) I have to start keeping an address file at work, I know. Susan Fatemi susanf@eerc.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:49:45 -0400 (EDT) From: aleed Subject: Re: Elizabethan Partlets I have one more question about partlets that's been puzzling me for a while. I've heard it said that elizabethan women wore both partlets and chemises, and also that they wore only a partlet or a chemise but not both. If they wear both, what do you do with the chemise sleeves--crowd them inside the partlet sleeves? Or were chemises worn underneath partlets sleeveless? In either case, does the partlet go over or under the corset? Anyone with any info on the above, please tell me. Thanks, Drea - ------------------------------- We've secretly replaced their dilithium crystals with new folgers crystals. Now let's watch them go to warp. - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:55:10 -0400 From: rebus@madbbs.com Subject: Re: re:re: re waists >And people were realy much smaller in the past for a number of reasons: >1)poor diet for the poor >2)child labor >3)chronic ill health >4)marraige at 13 or 14 so there was no adolescent growth spurt (they were >having babies instead) >5)adult labor (12-15 hour days) at age 13 Just observe the average height in third world countries which still have these circumstances...The average height of a woman world wide today is 4'11''...When I worked with migrant people in a barrio in south Florida I was one of the taller women at just under five feet tall...some friends who were in the Peace Corps in South America said that they had a name for most North American women "vaca" which referred to their height and build...which was so much taller and more robust than theirs...Lili Lili Pintea-Reed Adjunct Prof. Psy. SUNY/Jamestown rebus@madbbs.com http://www.madbbs.com/rebus/rebus.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 13:02:24 MDT From: mgriggs@shepards.com Subject: re: Re: Elizabethan Partlets aleed Wrote: | I have one more question about partlets that's been puzzling me for a | while. I've heard it said that elizabethan women wore both partlets and | chemises, and also that they wore only a partlet or a chemise but not | both. If they wear both, what do you do with the chemise sleeves--crowd | them inside the partlet sleeves? Or were chemises worn underneath | partlets sleeveless? In either case, does the partlet go over or under | the corset? | | Anyone with any info on the above, please tell me. | | Thanks, | | Drea Well, I don't know if I can help much, but here goes from lots of helpful hints and advice from the list and a bit of research. If any of this is wrong, I hope someone will correct me. Apparently the ladies wore a shift (not really known as a chemise until much later) which was rather like a standing collared, long shirt split open at the front. It could also have a square neck line which would not show above the corset and bodice. Someone gave me some really great instructions on making one of these yesterday. I think it was posted to the list. If not, I can send it to you. The shift is worn under the corset. The corset will hold it closed or open depending upon the look desired. A partlet can either be one of these shifts or just a partial shirt and collar, kind of like the yoke on a blouse with a standing collar attached. In this form, it has no sleeves and could be combined with a chemise/shift. For early period Elizabethan and Edwardian it was actually worn over the bodice and tied under the arms. You can see the lacings hanging down in some pictures. For later periods it appears to have been worn over the corset and under the bodice. I believe the ties would still be the same. With the sleeveless partlet, whether worn over or under the bodice, I assume a shift, probably square necked is also worn under the corset to absorb sweat as it would be much easier to wash than the corset. Much of this information was gathered from the wonderful comments sent to me by the list members. If any of it is incorrect, I extend my apologies and ask for more enlightenment. :) Thanks! Lyssa - ----------------------------------------------- Lady Leofsige O Caoimh Dragonsspine, Outlands mgriggs@shepards.com lyssa@kktv.com http://www.usa.net/~norseman/dragon.html - ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:10:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "Rachel E. Mast" Subject: Boots I am looking for about knee high boots with 1-2 inch heels. But they must have good traction. I fence and ride horses in the SCA and need them to be rather universal. I've looked into english style riding boots , but they haven't traction enough for wood floors. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions on this. I also need them to be some what period (1300-1400). Thankyou Kind Gentles Sasha rmast@risc.usi.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:50:05 -0700 (PDT) From: David & Yvonne Britnell Subject: Re: Boots One thing that you could do (if you don't mind putting out the cash for riding boots) is have rubber soles added to the bottom. Most shoe repair shops have the means to do this, and it is usually not very expensive. I have had it done on most of the shoes I use for theatre, so I know it works.(Stages are generally very slippery places.) The rubber is very thin and unobtrusive so it won't be like you are wearing platforms. Hope this helps, Yvonne Britnell (SCA Bianca Lucrezia) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:56:47 -0400 From: Kevin Richard-Morrow Subject: Re: Boots At 02:10 PM 4/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >I am looking for about knee high boots with 1-2 inch heels. But they >must have good traction. I fence and ride horses in the SCA and need >them to be rather universal. I've looked into english style riding boots >, but they haven't traction enough for wood floors. I was wondering if >anyone has any suggestions on this. I also need them to be some what >period (1300-1400). > >Thankyou Kind Gentles >Sasha > rmast@risc.usi.edu > > > Several army surplus supplers have had a leather German military riding boot for a resonable price (circa $25). It has a "rubber" (neo-preen??) sole that should meet your traction needs. It may take a little work to give a proper period look. I know several officers in revwar groups use these after adding leather extentions to the upppers and otherwise working them over. I recall seeing them in a catalog for a company called "U.S. Cavalry". I don't have the address here but they have a Web page that a search engine should find for you. I can get the address tomorrow if all else fails. Kevin Richard-Morrow ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:11:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Mary Larose Subject: Re: Elizabethan Partlets I have generally found in my research that a partlet is an item of clothing that was separate from the chemise and was designed to be worn to keep the shoulders warm...in paintings it is worn just under the bodice of the garment and as one woman described is like just having the yoke of a blouse which is attached under the arms and then maybe with a tie in front...this would be done over the corset and under the bodice. For tudor garb the partlet often had a collar. In Elizabethan garb the had some sort of collar which apparantly was used to keep the ruffs away from the neck so that they lasted longer and were protected from the skin. I think there is some patterns in Jean Hunnisett's Costume for stage and Screen book, you might want to try there. There is also a book that I found in the children's section of the library that was on Tudor costuming (there is a whole series of them)...at first I thought this book looked rather hokey but it had good patterning and used all the proper terminology. I'm afraid I don't have the name or author of that book here but a trip to your local library might give you the info you need. Mary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:28:02 -0400 From: Booboopies@aol.com Subject: Re: Waist sizes/corsets And here's my 2 cents -- In the beginning of Gone With the Wind, Scarlet O'Hara IS 17 years ago and has to be squeezed down to an 18" waistline. Karen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:10:07 -0600 From: Stephen & Roxanne Coslett Subject: RE Boots Sasha, I remember using some anti-slip stuff that came in a tube. I don't know if it's still available or not. I found it in the shoe care section of a dept. store. It may be a inexpensive solution to the slippery sole problem. If you can't find it then I would suggest getting thin rubber applied to the soles of your boots at a shoe & and boot repair shop. Just my.02 cents Roxanne Coslett ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 96 08:19:04 GMT From: dodom@fogelson.csf.edu (Odom Cheryl TEMPORARY) Subject: boots I am a costume designer and am often confronted with the need for traction. I have always used dance rubber which is a light-weight textured rubber which can be bonded to the bottom of your boots-will only stick to leather soles. Since you only have one pair, your local shoe repair is probably the best place to have it done. It will probably cost about $15.00. Since I do it so often, I do it myself for about $2.00 per pair of shoes. There are also a variety of products which can be applied to floors to create traction. Any local dance company could probably help with this. Cheryl Odo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:57:20 -0700 From: Joan Broneske Subject: Coutil Does anyone know if the fabric stores still sell coutil or can it only = be obtained by mail order? Is it still called coutil or does it go by a = different name? Thanks for all your help, Joan Broneske ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 21:41:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Allan Terry Subject: Why smock is a dirty word In case anybody's wondering why "smock" was a vulgar word and superceded by "shift" or "chemise"--I looked it up in _Dictionary of Early English_ by Joseph T. Shipley (Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1963). It says, "From its use as a garment next to a woman's skin, _smock_ came to be used, especially among 16th and 17th century playwrights and often with double meaning, to refer to a woman herself." There are many examples; among them "You don't smoke, I warrant you, but you smock" (Swift, _Polite Conversations_, 1738). A _smock-agent_ or _smock-officer_ was a pander; a _smock-fair_ was "happy hunting grounds for whores"; _smock-employment_ was prostitution; _smockage_ was intercourse; a _smocker_ was a lecher; a _smockster_ was a bawd or go-between; _smock-faced_ was effeminate. Fran Grimble ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:26:37 GMT From: db-cos@westmore.demon.co.uk (David Brewer) Subject: Re: Boots In message "Rachel E. Mast" writes: > I am looking for about knee high boots with 1-2 inch heels. But they > must have good traction. I fence and ride horses in the SCA and need > them to be rather universal. I've looked into english style riding boots > , but they haven't traction enough for wood floors. I was wondering if > anyone has any suggestions on this. I also need them to be some what > period (1300-1400). Working from memory (not from proper sources) the period thing is not to have heels. I could be wrong. Instead you might consider a side-laced turn-sole boot with a pair of pattens, that is a pair of removable wooden over-shoes. The traction with pattens on hard floor is non-existant, so you take them off, and walk on the leather soles. Equally I suspect they'd be removed when riding. ...but they'll be the dog's own bollocks for walking through shit. - -- David Brewer ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 96 10:06:00 GMT From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: Smocks and Partletts I was puzzled by the reference to partletts with sleeves, all the partlett designs I know about are sleeveless. A Tudor/Elizabethan woman *always* (see Frans remarks!) wears a smock (or shift) under the corset or bodice (the top upper garment can be a boned bodice with no corset underneath). Partletts come in two fabric weights. The fine ones look like the finest weight silk, the heavy ones are often black (linen?) or match the gown fabric. A fine partlett goes over the corset (if worn) and under the gown (which is what you wear over the corset - shall I get into kirtles at this stage?). The heavier partlett, as seen in Mary Tudor's portraits with the high neckline, is worn over the gown, but she seems to tuck hers into the top of the gown. The sleeves seen there are gown sleeves - see the contemporary pictures (eg the young Elizabeth) where no partlett is being worn. They are indeed to keep the shoulders warm, in the square-necked gowns they are very useful. One point against an extra layer of sleeves, is that in the late Tudor style of gown has very tight upper sleeves and sleeve head (in fact someone of the list has suggested in the past that some of these gowns did not have sleeve heads over the top of the shoulder - its the top of the sleeve) in order to keep the sleeves up with the wide neckline. This high neckline of the heavy-weight partlett seems to move over to doublet necklines (worn by men and women - earlier men's necklines are lower) when the ruff comes in, to support the ruff, with sweet little pickadills to help support the ruff (not that they are so sweet when you have to make and decorate them - they are tiny little tabs like the ones seen at waistlines). The smock neck protects the ruff (a little, and it is interesting that when the smock ceases to be seen (some late Elizabethan women) the ruff tends to be open, framing the face and neck. Size - just a quick comment Beware of false comparisons! :) Third World women today may well be married at 13 or 14 and start having babies immediately, but that does not mean that medieval Europe had the same patterns - for one thing the population was rising very slowly in medieval Europe - not the current 3rd world pattern! For one thing, the emphasis of the Catholic church with regards to marriage and sex has changed profoundly in the last 500 years. The average age of marriage in 15th and 16th century England (don't know about earlier or much of Europe) was 27 for men and 25 for women - after apprenticeships etc had been completed. The aristocracy married earlier, about 18 or so, but even where marriage was earlier they still did not necessarily cohabit until later - certainly by this period they were well aware of the health effects of early childbearing on mother and children. They had the example of Henry VII's mother in front of them, she very unusually married at 14, one posthumous child the following year (which may be the reason for the early marriage and bedding, married at least twice more and never produced another child. I have also read a paper (years ago) about 14th century Genoa. Average age of marriage of aristocracy was 14, but of the rest of Genoa it was again in the mid-20s. I am strongly of the opinion that Romeo and Juliet would not have been viewed as romantic in Shakespeares day (illicit marriage at 13, her mother married at 13!) but a tragedy about those corrupt Italians. BTW - the summer-time working day for agricultural workers was sunrise to sunset (with, in Tudor times, a legal requirement for a short break morning and afternoon and 1.5 hour break mid-day) and that is 12 - 15 hours. The winter working day however was much shorter, 8 or 9 hours of daylight, and much of that would be maintenance work around the farm, a much easier life than harvest time. As for poor diet - that varied enormously. In late medieval Lincoln the *average* number of pigs per family was 3, which is a goodly amount of meat for the average family (NB not vast numbers of children either). I am in the process (still!) of reading an archaeological report on animal bones found in Lincoln from Roman to English Civil War (50 digs in the city) - fascinating! I'm not convinced by the 'nasty, brutish and short' argument, it smacks to me of the 'things are so much better now', which I find equally unconvincing! I really will have to hide that soapbox! :) Caroline ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:01:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Katy Bishop Subject: Re: Waist sizes/corsets On Wed, 24 Apr 1996 Booboopies@aol.com wrote: > And here's my 2 cents -- In the beginning of Gone With the Wind, Scarlet > O'Hara IS 17 years ago and has to be squeezed down to an 18" waistline. > > Karen > My 2 cents, "Gone with the Wind" was a book written in 1936, with many historical inaccuracies. Is this where the whole myth of the 18" waistline started? The following quote is from "Personal Beauty" (Original title: The Laws of Health in Relation to the Human Form), 1869, by B. G. Brinton, MD and George H. Napheys, MD, originally published in Springfield MA. Reprint published by Applewood Books Bedford, MA, 1994, ISBN: 1-55709-226-5. Applewood Books, 18 North Road, Bedford, MA 01730 (to write for free catalogue). In regards to recommended waist size: p. 65, "The circumference of the waist in a woman 5 foot high should not be less than 25 inches, and from this it should increase half an inch in circumference for every additional inch in height so that a woman 5 foot 8 inches high should measure 29 inches around the waist. Of course without the clothing." There is also a table of ideal weights, for a woman of 5 foot 2 inches 120 pounds is the preferred weight. Katy Bishop, Vintage Victorian vintage@netcom.com Authentic reproduction gowns of the Victorian Era. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:25:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Agnes Gawne Subject: Re: Coutil I have only been able to get it from Raiments/AlterYears. I have never found it in the fabric stores in the Bay Area or in Seattle. Perhaps the eastern states get it, or the garment districts of L.A. or New York City??? On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Joan Broneske wrote: > Does anyone know if the fabric stores still sell coutil or can it only be obtained by mail order? Is it still called coutil or does it go by a different name? > > Thanks for all your help, > > Joan Broneske > ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #101 ******************************* 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!