From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 12:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 101, 5/19/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 101, May 19, 1994 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 To get an index of available back issues of the digest, send a message with the words: index h-costume in the body of the message, to majordomo@lunch.asd.sgi.com. Then use the command: get h-costume hcos.yymmdd to retrieve the volumes you want. Apologies for the delay between this digest and the last. I've been at a conference and just returned. Thanks for your patience! --gretchen Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Actors moving in costume Kids/dolls/toys Therese De Dillmont Viking clothing pins Cameras and photographs ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 17:04:18 +1000 From: bclarke1@metz.une.edu.au (Bronwyn Clarke) Subject: actors moving in costume I'm just catching up on the digests after a hectic couple of weeks. Cindy Abel wrote: > Speaking of comfort, I was wondering if British designers of historic >costume, >fit actors differently than American designers or if British actors >are trained >more diligently than American actors in how to move in historic >costume. While >watching PBS dramatization of "Middlemarch," it was one of >the first things I >noticed--how comfortable, how naturally the actors wore >and moved with their >costumes. I recall a discussion with an actor friend of mine (ex Dr Who, Bergerac and numerous other British shows) to whom I commented that Helena Bonham-Carter (A Room with a View, etc) can't walk in period costume. He pointed out that a significant part of his training at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art related to movement - in costume, fighting, as different characters etc. Female students did even more, learning how to handle all sorts of different garments in different situations - walking, dancing, climbing stairs, fighting and so on. Unfortunately, many of the big budget film makers in both the US and Britain go for "big name" actors - many of whom haven't done formal training. In Britain, the likes of Helena Bonham Carter, Nigel Havers etc attract a lot of attention, and therefore roles, because of their high society connections rather than open competition with actors from lesser society backgrounds - they are more appealing to American audiences, too. It seems, too, that many American actors that attract the big roles have not undergone formal training either - and this is reflected in their performances when they're wearing period costume. Australian actors aren't exempt either - I'm always very irritated when watching Sigrid Thornton, although she has improved over the years. However, I have to confess to being impressed with Judy Davis - I was an extra on the film "My Brilliant Career" many years ago and watched fascinated as she approached the whole process with complete professionalism -including asking advice from one of the dancing extras on the correct way to hold her skirts in a particular dance scene. Anyway, that's my 2 cents' worth! Bronwyn Clarke, Assistant Staff Development Officer, Personnel Services University of New England, ARMIDALE NSW 2351, AUSTRALIA email: bclarke1@metz.une.edu.au Phone: (067) 733431 Fax (067) 733721 ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 94 00:18:00 PST From: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Maryanne Bartlett) Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys > I am in search of pictures (i.e.primary source or photos, thereof) > of children holding or playing with toys, from the years 600-1600 a.d.. Uu> This brought up an interesting question in my mind. When was the Uu> camera first invented. I thaught it was in the 1700's or 1800's? Uu> 1800's, I believe. Civil War pictures are the earliest that come to mind. I am thinking primarily in my question about dolls, toys, etc. about portraits like the one of Edward VI of England as a kid where he's holding what looks like a ferret or a small dog. Some of these kids have toys instead of pets. I found one, today, as a matter of fact, a 1577 portrait of the two-year old Arbella Stuart, daughter of the Earl of Lennox, holding a doll in a Spanish coat! There's also one of the three children of James VI where the center child, (a boy) is holding what looks like the same doll! --Anja-- ... "42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!" --- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR] -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!56!Maryanne.Bartlett Internet: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org ---------------------------- From: csy20688@ggr.co.uk Date: 13 May 94 12:09:00 BST Subject: Actors in costume I wonder how much impact has 'Method' acting had on American actors in this respect - I know they do a lot of work on motivation, and some on specific skills & therefore movement - but it doesn't seem to extend to periods/people when graceful movement (dancing/fencing etc) was part of the training of a gentleman/woman. Caroline ---------------------------- Date: 12 May 94 23:27:00 EST From: "Gina Balestracci" Subject: Therese de Dillmont I've been asked to post some information about the reference that I made to Dillmont's book, so here goes: Th. de Dillmont. The Complete Encyclopedia of Needlework. Philadelphia: Running Press, 1972. 787 pp. ISBN 0-914294-00-8 Chapter headings: Plain sewing, The Sewing and Embroidering Machine, Mending, Embroidery on White Materials, Linen Embroidery, Embroidery on Silk and Velvet, Gold Embroidery, Applique Work, Tapestry, Knitting, Crochet, Tatting, Macrame, Filet Lace, Openwork on Linen, Mebroidered Laces, Needle-Made Laces, Pillow Laces, Needlework Trimmings, Miscellaneous Directions The original date of publication is not mentioned anywhere, but by the look of it--typography and illustrations--it looks as if it's the same vintage as Caulfield, which is 1882. It might be a tad earlier. I *think* this book was still in print in the not-too-distant past, although I don't know if Running Press was still the publisher When I bought this book, the cover price was $4.95, so that tells you something about how long I've had it. While leafing though it just now, I found, typed on my old manual typewriter, a "translation" of the British crochet terms used in the text into American crochet terms, so this book must have been my first encounter with British usage in needlework instructions. My original posting about this book was in reference to hand stitching, and the chapter on Plain Sewing is very good. It discusses various seam and hem finishes, gathering, smocking; buttonholes, slits, and other types of stress points. The illustrations are very clear. The other chapter that I've used in relation to hand stitching is the one on Linen Embroidery. It shows a lot of nice variants on hem stitching. THere are also other goodies tucked into the chapters on Embroidery on White Materials and Mending. My copy of this book is quite well-thumbed. I refer to it often for matters about basic stitching, and it's never led me astray. It contains a great deal more than Caulfield about technique, and in much greater detail. The discussions of sewing technique all are the same as I learned as a child from nuns in Portugal, and that correlates with what's been written on French Hand Sewing. And all of the above agrees with what you see in old garments and things that are hand-stitched in Macao, the Philippines, or Madeira, the last bastions of mass-produced hand-stitched items. I'll end with one of my favorite passages: "Health--Much has already been said and written on the injurious effects that the use of the treadle machine may have on health. We are convinced that, as with many other forms of exercise, far from being harmful, it is beneficial if not indulged in to excess; but if one overtaxes one's strength and overtires oneself, serious consequences may be produced in the long run. "Two or three hours a day at the machine can do no harm to any person in normal health; and in workrooms injurious effects are no longer to be feared, thanks to the use of electricity." gb ---------------------------- Subject: Re: Photographs (was kids/dolls/toys) Date: Fri, 13 May 94 08:27:58 PDT From: Walter Nelson The question was asked "When were photographs invented?" The first photograph on a metal plate was produced in 1827 by a Frenchman named Joseph Niepce. There had been crude experiments suggesting the possiblity of photography for several decades before. They remained a rare curiosity through the 1830s and very few images from that early survive (though one of them is a photograph of Andrew Jackson). Photography did not become common until the 1840s, and has been getting easier and more widespread ever since. The moral is: don't bother looking for photographic evidence of costume or toys or much of anything else before the 1840s. Cheers, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE RAND | walter_nelson@rand.org | ___________________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 09:54:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys On Fri, 13 May 1994, Maryanne Bartlett wrote: > > I am in search of pictures (i.e.primary source or photos, thereof) > > of children holding or playing with toys, from the years 600-1600 a.d.. > > I am thinking primarily in my question about dolls, toys, etc. > about portraits like the one of Edward VI of England as a kid where he's > holding what looks like a ferret or a small dog. > I know the question was primarily interested in toys rather than pets, but there's one thing that should be kept in mind regarding painted portraits in which animals are included. Very often, the animal may have been inserted as a symbolic or alegorical figure rather than being an actual household pet. I have a suspicion that many, if not most, of the ermines in portraits may have been so (although I am aware that weasels _can_ make affectionate pets given a _lot_ of time and proper facilities). There are also a large number of portraits of small children manhandling European goldfinches -- which wouldn't have survived long as pets at that rate! An art historian could probably speak more accurately on this subject, however. Heather Rose Jones ---------------------------- Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys To: Maryanne Bartlett Date: Fri, 13 May 94 13:28:05 PDT Maryanne Bartlett wrote: > Some of these kids have toys instead of pets. I found one, today, > as a matter of fact, a 1577 portrait of the two-year old Arbella Stuart, > daughter of the Earl of Lennox, holding a doll in a Spanish coat! There's > also one of the three children of James VI where the center child, (a > boy) is holding what looks like the same doll! I remember reading somewhere (_Dress in the Age of Elizabeth_, perhaps?) that dolls were used as `fashion models' around this time... rather in the same manner as the dolls that replaced fashion shows in wartime in this century. The dolls would be dressed in the latest continental fashions, and then somehow passed over (given? sold?) to well-to-do/noble English ladies so that they could keep their wardrobes as up-to-date as possible. The out-of-date dolls would be natural playthings for the children of the family. As I remember, I think the doll in the portrait to which you refer is one of these dolls, and dressed in an early 1570's style. I'd imagine that the boy in the portrait of James' children is holding another one of these dolls- but that it's not the same doll. Pip-pip, Beth *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%* elizabeth_miles@hmc.edu ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 94 19:17:52 PST From: renpunk@prostar.com (Ren Punk) Subject: Viking cloth pins h> They were apparently used in pairs and were used to hold clothing h> together. Some of them have "coils of copper-alloy wire" (they look h> like springs) "on the shank which could be twisted through coarsely h> woven fabric." The coils are on the first two vertical sections of h> the tail part. h> h> The question is, how were these used? That's exactly the question. How were they used? If anyone has seen any evidence that these were actually used in the way suggested in this book I would love the documentation. As far as I can find it is speculation and nothing more. I can see that with the addition of button hole typw opwnings that they would be of use but what about the ones with nasty looking springs on them? Calling all these bits and pieces Viking buttons seems a bit unrealistic. Am I being to harsh? David S. McDonald --- * Freddie 1.2.5 * Non est quis esse sed quid portare! ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 20:25:42 -0700 From: "Sarah E. Goodman -- unless it's Clint Bigglestone" Subject: Cameras Maryanne Bartlett quotes someone as asking when the camera was invented. I checked with the local history and photo buff (AKA Beloved Spouse) who says that there is good indication that someone in Brazil in the 1820s came close to working out the details but the research was abandoned. As far as main-stream delopement, he says the first cameras were made in the 1830s or 40s, "depending on how you define 'camera'". {I didn't ask for details 'cause I know enough to know we'd end up in a big discussion about chemistry and it's much too Friday for that!} (Of course, all of this is assuming that we're talking about photographic cameras and not camera oscura or something like that. ) SEG-- ---------------------------- Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys Date: Sat, 14 May 94 0:30:10 PDT From: elizabeth Hi there- Sarah E.Goodman wrote: > Re Fashion Dolls--At least the ones that made it to the wilds of America > were not "demoted" to children's toys, but were eventually sent back to > Paris for new cloths and another round. If my memory serves, the dolls were > usually made of wax (at least the head and hands) which is NOT what you'd > call a really child-proof material. Hmmm... yeah- I don't recall what the dolls I read about were made of (?grammar), but if they were indeed partially wax, then I should wonder about this, too. Maybe a few got to be kept despite (or perhaps because of) their fragility, as "nice" dolls? Also, would a well-to-do family want the child's favorite (and therefore bedraggled) toy in a portrait? My impression of portraits is that they were oriented towards showing the subjects in the most splendiferous perspective possible... if one is spending the money for a portrait, one tends to try to look one's best. A stained rag doll, though loved, simply wouldn't cut it when it came to impressing the neighbors or posterity with one's standard of living. :) Speculation aside, does anybody know of surviving fashion dolls from the 16th century? Or from any other applicable times? Cheers, Beth *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%* elizabeth_miles@hmc.edu ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 19:10:04 -0700 To: emiles@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu, goodston@well.sf.ca.us Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys There's an exhibit of fashion dolls from World War (oops, I've forgotten which and the Threads are currently under a pile of fabric) that is touring right now. And I THINK I saw one at the Royal Ontario Museum (but that could be a crossed memory path). As to toys shown in portaits, I wouldn't be suprised if some of them weren't provided by the painter; but that's just speculation based on what I know to be in a good portrait photographer's "box". S-- ---------------------------- From: "Lassman, Linda" Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys Date: Sat, 14 May 94 10:49:00 PDT Actually, I seem to recall from an Art History course taken many years ago that at least itinerant painters in the late 18th-early 19th C, to save time, often carried with them canvases that were completely painted except for the heads, which was the reason given for why so often the heads didn't seem to fit the rest of the painting! If that is the case, it would mean that the dolls/animals/toys in those paintings would be generic rather than having anything to do with the child and his/her tastes as an individual. - Linda Lassman ---------------------------- End of Volume 101 -----------------------