From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 18:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 102, 5/19/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 102, 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. Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Kids/dolls/toys continues Fashion dolls Black powder bags Native American dress Question: Clothing of soldiers and women (Italian and Scottish) --------------------------- From: hb@math.wvu.edu (Hollie Buchanan) Subject: Toys in pictures Date: Mon, 16 May 94 1:44:59 EDT > > 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. > > 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! Stuff Deleted.. Has anyone yet pointed out the neato picture by Pieter Brueghel (sp?) done @1560. (Um, I'm guessing about the date so no fair flogging me if I'm wrong, you picky art historians). Anyhow, if memory serves, there are no fewer than 100 recognizable children's pastimes (although some we have no idea what they ARE). It's a pretty spiffy picture on its own merits, not to mention historic significance. (Children are pretty unpretentious, on the whole. Then and now, apparently.) Anyhow, for not formal, posed subjects, it's pretty unique, I believe. Well, that's my $.02. Thanks BTW, for all your help on my recent query regarding Victorian and Edwardian clothing. I'm still looking for a pattern for a black powder impedimentia bag( for want of a better term). Best to you, Annie _____________________________________________________________ <> _______________ Annie Buchanan hb@math.wvu.edu_______________ --------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 May 94 22:23:00 PST From: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Maryanne Bartlett) Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys Uu> As to toys shown in portaits, I wouldn't be suprised if some of them Uu> weren't provided by the painter; but that's just speculation based on Uu> what I know to be in a good portrait photographer's "box". Somehow this idea hadn't occured to me, but it makes sense, especially as I saw what seemed to be the exact same doll in two seperate portraits of families that were no relation to each other. --Anja-- --- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR] -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!56!Maryanne.Bartlett Internet: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org --------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 May 94 22:29:00 PST From: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Maryanne Bartlett) Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys Uu> 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 Uu> were > usually made of wax (at least the head and hands) which is NOT what you'd > call a really child-proof material. The ones that I've seen, which are fairly early, pre-american revolution, were wooden. Some of the ones in Williamsburg were of this type. I may be messed up on the time period that you are speaking of, but I have never heard of them being "re-cycled" in this way. Where did this occur? There are wax-on-a-wooden-armature religious figures dating back into the 1200's or so. The "Infant of Prague" is this kind of doll. He dates to 14th century Spain. The really nice wax dolls (1800's) were made for children for "Sunday toys" much as the Noah's Arks and other Biblical toys were. These toys were intended to be played with indoors, in good clothes, on a day when you were not supposed to run and shout and jump but play quietly. Therefore, they did not see the kind of hard use (initially) that would damage them badly. Hmmmm...I suppose we may not be "clicking" on the definition of a "fashion doll". What kind of doll are you speaking of. (I think that I may have missed part of this thread, somehow, please forgive me.) quoting the words of Elizabeth Miles: Uu> Hmmm... yeah- I don't recall what the dolls I read about were made of Uu> (?grammar), but if they were indeed partially wax, then I should Uu> wonder about this, too. Maybe a few got to be kept despite (or perhaps Uu> because of) their fragility, as "nice" dolls? Yup! (see comments above) Also, wax is not a fragile as you might think. Have you ever dropped a pillar candle on your toe? :-) Some of the really gorgeous wax dolls weigh as much as a real child. Many of the religious figures, such as creche dolls from Italy are hollow, but have survived generations of play. Uu> Also, would a well-to-do family want the child's favorite (and Uu> therefore bedraggled) toy in a portrait? Good point! >My impression of portraits is Uu> that they were oriented towards showing the subjects in the most Uu> splendiferous perspective possible... if one is spending the money for Uu> a portrait, one tends to try to look one's best. A stained rag doll, Uu> though loved, simply wouldn't cut it when it came to impressing the Uu> neighbors or posterity with one's standard of living. :) There are a few early American portraits such as those of the Ridgely family, of Hampton, Maryland (Baltimore has swallowed it!) that did have real toys in the portraits. There is one, (I think it is still there) that has a flattened, really ragged, leather ball at the feet of one child. Uu> Speculation aside, does anybody know of surviving fashion dolls from Uu> the 16th century? Or from any other applicable times? Definition of "fashion doll"? There are a couple in portraits that might qualify if a "fashion doll" is one that is dressed fashionably. One is in the hands of Arbella Stuart, 1577, the other is a portrait of the children of James VI where the center child, a boy young enough to be wearing leading strings (which his sister is clutching) has a doll in his hands that is wearing a style from the late Elizabethan. (History of Children's Costume, Ewing, Scribner, 1977, ISBN 0-684-15357-2) --Anja-- --- 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: 16 May 94 11:20:00 BST Subject: Fashion Dolls I must confess that, without having researched the subject, I have my doubts about fashion dolls being used in England in the 16th century (I do know that a parallel use of 'minatures' in furniture, where a travelling workman took round minature samples of types of furniture, showing styles and his skill, is later, 17th or even 18th century.) I have seen numerous requests for material/purchases of material (Paston letters/Lisle letters/household accounts) in late 15th, 16th century but never a mention of this type of doll. Outer garments (ie everything except for smocks/shirts/braies) were made by tailors who may or may not (see previous discussion!) have had a stock of paper patterns for garments. Would a tailor have used a fashion doll - either in learning the new styles, or showing them to customers? We do know provincial brasses show women wearing styles fifty or more years out of date - but this could be because the brass was standardised not that the woman was unfashionable. Even something as easy to wear as the French hood took a long time to displace the English Gable - which is far from easy to wear. It does raise the interesting question of how new styles spread - and how quickly they spread. I think garments in most of the portraits we have are likely to have been made by London or court-associated tailors - these are upper class or aristocrats wearing their best garments in order to impress. They would probably then be copied by ambitious provincials and their tailors (visiting London?). I doubt whether fashion dolls come into this. Does anyone know when fashion dolls came in? Caroline Mistress Nell --------------------------- Subject: Re: Toys in pictures Date: Mon, 16 May 94 08:30:45 PDT From: Walter Nelson There is an excellent article on shooting bags ("Black Powder impedimenta bags") in the Book of Buckskinning VI (It has a photo on the cover of a bookish looking gent in early 19th Century kit, sewing leather). It provides numerous photos of original and repro bags, patterns and extremely detailed instructions on the proper leather sewing techniques, for those who have not yet ventured into that field. It is available from re-enactor supply houses like James Townsend & son, and most black powder gun stores. Jas Townsend's number is (800) 338-1665. The price for Buckskinning VI is $16.95. If you are unfamiliar with the "Book of Buckskinning" series, I recommend it highly for those interested in early American costuming, though like so many such things, the quality of the material gets better with the later volumes. Cheers, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE RAND | walter_nelson@rand.org | ___________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 12:56:58 -0700 (PDT) From: John Burns Subject: Re: Fashion Dolls sZ Greetings; I did some research on fashion dolls when I made a doll for a SCA contest. There is mention in French accout book of a doll, designed to show current fashion, being made for a wife of Richard II of England. I don't have my notes here, so I'm not sure of the exact date, but it was the last part of th 14th c. It is unclear if it was made for his first wife, Anne, or his second wife, Isabell of France, do to the timing (it seems to be after the first one died and before he married again). I have the information of the primary source, but haven't been able to find it. a century later there is another record, in France, of a doll being made to be sent to a future French Queen to show her the current fashion in France. It was dressed twice as the first time wasn't good enough. With no other information besides the cost, a Victorian author desided that they were life size and the clothes where meant to be worn when they reached their destination. He has been quoted and misquoted by most toy /doll historians since. The information I would like to track down is a doll I found a picture of in an old toy book. It's a wooden tudor doll in a museum in England, I've only found the one mention of it and the book was about 50 years old. I have a list of authors and books from when I was researching, If anyone is interested I can send them to you. Susan Susan --------------------------- From: BPH3213@ZEUS.TAMU.EDU Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 17:38:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Native American Dress I also have an interest in American Indian clothing. My areas of interest are the coastal Virginia Indians circa 1500-1700's (Powhatan mostly) and the Great Plains circa 1830-1890's (emphasis on Cheyenne and Arapaho). Bryan Howard Dept. of Anth, Texas A&M BPH3213@VENUS.TAMU.EDU --------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 07:56:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Cynthia Abel Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys I forget the artist, but there is a portrait of Arbella Stuart, a claimant to the throne of Elizabeth I, at age two. She is holding a doll that might have been a "fashion doll"(wrong term I know)before being given to her as the doll's costume appears to have been very fashionable about 5-10 years prior to the date of the painting. Hope this helps. I've been on vacation in Rogers, Arkansas the past week. Their historical museum, small but excellent, has a current exibit "Final Respects--Mourning Customs during the Victorian era" There are 5-6 mourning gowns and several hats and bonnets included in the exibit. Rogers is a town of about 30,000 population and their downtown is nearly all turn-of-the-century buildings, most kept up or restored. Utterly charming and less crowded than Eureka Springs which starts getting really busy with tourists this time of year. Cindy Abel brujne@bluejay.creighton.edu Interlibrary Loan Health Sciences Library Creighton University 2500 California St Phone 402-280-5144 Omaha NE 68178-0400 Fax 402-280-5134 --------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 09:53:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine Kehl Subject: From an sca list These question were part of a longer set of questions written by an author to an SCA list -- if people have responses, his address is as listed below: John Attwood * Can a costume moghul out there clarify for me how men's dress, especially working dress of soldiers, changed from the short tunic and hose shown in all the Columbus stuff to the "doublet, hose, and punkin pants" look, and when, appropriate to Spain and Italy during the period? I especially need to have some idea what the common dude wore. I am left puzzled by the Osprey LANDSKNECHTs, whose illustrations do NOT match those from some contemporary sources, notably Guiccardini, who shows "old fashioned" stuff being worn much later than I thought. * Costume moghuls! Can you send me a readable description, bearing in mind the disadvantages of my nationality, of what an Italian woman of 1500 - 1520 would wear? From the skin out. I had a fair one from a lady correspondent on RIME but I would like a better check. How about a Scotswoman of the same period? I made something up that would do, but I'd like to be sure. The Scotswoman is a Householding Scot -- Lowland, as we would say today -- but of partiallyHighland descent. * Master Evan Graham of Montrose, Colonel, Graham's Greys * --------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 May 94 00:33:00 PST From: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Maryanne Bartlett) Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys Uu> Actually, I seem to recall from an Art History course taken many years Uu> ago that at least itinerant painters in the late 18th-early 19th C, to Uu> save time, Uu> often carried with them canvases that were completely painted except Uu> for the heads, which was the reason given for why so often the heads Uu> didn't seem to fit the rest of the painting! If that is the case, it Uu> would mean that the dolls/animals/toys in those paintings would be Uu> generic rather than having anything to do with the child and his/her Uu> tastes as an individual. They did, indeed. There is one painting in the Hampton mansion in Baltimore, Maryland of the four boys of the family that was done this way. I don't recall where the other three paintings that are almost exactly like it (but for the heads) are, but I remember that number. It is entirely possible that the items in the kids hands would be generic (that's where I figure all the cherries in the Cavalier pictures came from) but I would think it equally possible that a favourite toy or one with a family history might be painted in. --Anja-- --- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR] -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!56!Maryanne.Bartlett Internet: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org --------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 May 94 23:30:00 PST From: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Maryanne Bartlett) Subject: Fashion Dolls >I doubt whether Uu> fashion dolls come into this. Uu> Does anyone know when fashion dolls came in? I'm not sure that they ever did "come in". I just finished up with a book, "Dolls, Toys and Childhood", where they give truly excellent reasons for believing that the use of "fashion dolls" is a myth! I'm not going to try to go into the reasons, here, since I returnd the book to the library. If you're interested, e-mail me and I'll get it out again. --Anja-- --- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR] -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!56!Maryanne.Bartlett Internet: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org ---------------------------- End of Volume 102 -----------------------