From: Gretchen Miller Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 283, 4/17/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 283, April 17, 1995 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 Enjoy! ------------------------------ Topics: Cotton continued Removing mold Scottish vs Irish kilts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 19:15:36 -0400 From: KATHLEEN@ANSTEC.COM Subject: Re: Sigh, cotton. Forwarded to: ismtp[h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu.] cc: Comments by: David W. Rickman@Parks@DNREC -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- David -- The reference to Cromwell's issuing shirts to his troops was "one linen shirt and one *cotton* shirt" not a combination (i.e., fustian). Hope this helps.Also given the early citations that refer to cotton as *wool*, we could just as easily interpret that quote about fustian being a combination of linen and _wool_ as being a combination of linen and _cotton_. Sort of like interpreting the Bible. You see what you want to see. Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 18:08:46 EDT From: (David W. Rickman) Subject: ...no subject... Hello, Despite my protests, I feel I need to make a few comments on Bryan's posting of last night, which came in while I was typing my message. To begin with, bravo Bryan, for getting out there and tracking down those original sources. Great work. I am begining, however, to get the feeling that readers of my original message of March 31, and subsequent messages on the topic of cotton, might have gotten the wrong impression of what I am trying to do. I think some readers believe that I am arguing for the interpretation of the word "cotton" as interchangeable with "wool," wherever it is found in the early records. In rereading my earliest message, I cannot see how this happened. I state "In fact, in earlier times, "cotton" most often meant a _woolen_ fabric." Perhaps subsequent messages from me may have shortened this to "cotton" meant _wool_," and herein, I think, lies the origin of the problem. If I haven't done so already, let me make myself clear once and for all. I believe that from the 14th century to the mid 18th century, whenever we encounter the word "cotton" as a _textile_, it probably means a _woolen_ textile. And not just any woolen textile, but a coarse fabric with a raised nap. This nap was raised by a process called "cottoning" which is how this fabric got the name "cotton." It may even be that the term "cottoning" came about because the raised woolen nap on these fabrics resembled cotton wool (bombast). Though as early as 1757 the word "cotton" could also refer to a textile made of cotton fiber, the name "cotton" was used to mean this particular kind of woolen fabric well into the 19th century. I am not sure how I can get much plainer than this. For some time now, I have been perplexed by other members sending me messages which show from original sources that the word "cotton" could mean "bombast, cotton wool." Since I had never questioned this fact, I was at a loss as to why members sought to prove this to me. I even stated in my message of April 10 "I believe that it is clear by now that in England and America by the 17th century, the word "cotton" meant several things: a fibre from the "bombast" plant, a woolen cloth, and a process for raising the nap of that same woolen cloth by "cottoning." The reason I mention all of this is that I was baffled at the way Bryan's message concluded last night. >Altogether, I still maintain there is a large body of evidence to suggest >that cotton typically meant the fiber by the mid 17th century...If we talk >about times _before_ the mid 17th century, then yes, look into types of >wools. Since Bryan's conclusion refers to the fibre, and not the textile, I can only assume that he, like others, somehow thinks I do not believe that "cotton" means cotton wool when the _fibre_ is mentioned or described in early texts. The fact that Bryan, and possibly other readers might not have understood my views on this comes at the begining of this same message when Bryan states that what he found on the subject "will be of use to both sides of the cotton debate I would think..." In fact, what he found only supports my view that in early records "cotton" when used to mean a fibre means cotton wool (bombast), and when it is used as the name of a textile, it means a kind of _woolen_ one. Bryan then begins citing his sources. His first source is a statute of Henry VIII, refering to the cottons of Manchester, and the process of "frisyng." This refers to a woolen textile. His next source is a 1552 act for the "true making of woollen cloth" which mentions the cottons of Manchester, etc. Bryan then goes on to somehow conclude that while in the l6th century "cotton _could_ mean some kinds of wool(en textile)" nonetheless, "by the later 17th and definately (sic) the 18th century cotton as a term generally means the fiber." As if someone had said that cotton _couldn't_ mean the fibre. It had more than one meaning. To back up this conclusion, Bryan then gives us the reference about cotton candle wicks. Then the very interesting quote about _all cotton_ textiles being woven in Manchester in 1641. Good work Bryan. This is the earliest reference I've seen. It is quoted also in Florence Montgomery's book. Florence does not say what vermillion is, other than a cotton textile, but of dimity she quotes a 1696 draper's handbook which describes it as a plain weave, with or without nap, and used for "foot" stockings or to line breeches; also for men's waistcoats and women's petticoats. Bryan is mistaken when he says that he tracked down my reference in Thomas Fuller's _Worthies of England_ concerning fustian. I was quoting Fuller on the subject of _frieze_. I really cannot see how this quote of his "helps the case for cotton as cotton" since Fuller only gives a rather standard description of fustian, made with a linen warp and a cotton wool weft. Here again "cotton wool" refers to a fibre. Next comes a 1621 petition to Parliament in which some English wool merchants complain that the fustians are being made of a "a kind of down...commonly called cotton wool" and not "of any wool at all." Not surprising that wool merchants are upset that these new fustians of linen/cotton are competing against the older form of fustian, which was of linen/wool. Do notice that the wool merchants seem to be peeved that the cotton fibre is going by the name of "cotton _wool_" and seek to distinguish it from the fibre they manufacture, which is _wool_. Bryan notes that from this petition, we have evidence of a sizable cotton fibre industry in operation in England as early as 1600. I did point out several times in my posts that the first production of linen/cotton fustian came in 1554. And finally, Bryan wishes us to note that fustians were rather popular by the time of the English Civil War. I don't think that was ever an issue in this discussion. What Bryan and others have left undone is to link fustian or any textile made wholly or even partially of cotton wool to the word "cotton." We have known from the begining that the word cotton could mean a fibre, and it could mean a particular kind of textile, made of wool. But when did the word "cotton" come to have as one of its meanings a _textile_ made of the fibre _cotton_? No earlier than 1757, according to what Bryan has shown us. And even then, it did not supplant the older meaning, that of a kind of woolen cloth, until well into the 19th century. Today practically everyone in the world has forgotten the use of cotton to mean a woolen textile. When did this happen? When reading the early import lists, as Bryan does, the answer to this question is of no small importance. David p.s. again to Kathleen. I saw your earlier message to me today, the one in which you give the full reference to Cromwell's soldiers receiving two shirts apiece, one of linen and the other of cotton. I think this settles the question of a possible blend. I'll forward that message to the list after I sign off here. Thanks. I'll check your other message in just a moment. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 16:58:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Keith Subject: Re: moldy situation This is just a guess, but would vinegar work? I know it's good for other foul smells, and it might alter the ph to kill any live molds. I also don't think it would ruin any fabrics. Kelly ------------------------------ From: Edward Wright Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 19:51:17 TZ Subject: RE: Sigh, cotton. | If these references and citations from original sources are not enough to | back up my assertion that "cotton" meant _wool_ from the 14th century to as | late as 1822, I really do not know what else I can do. If someone out there | still thinks that "cotton" could mean a _textile_ made from bombast (cotton | wool) at any time from the 14th century to 1757, I will happily look at their | sources. The ball is no longer in my court. "Callicut famous... for that cotton cloth that was first hence transported to Europe." L. Roberts, The Merchant's Map of Commerce, London 1638, page 188, quoted in M. Channing Linthicum, Costume in the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, Oxford 1936, page 104. Calicut is the city in India from which calico takes its name. "Cambaia ...great quantities of cotton linens are here made, which we term callicoes of all sorts...." L. Roberts, The Merchant's Map of Commerce, page 179, again quoted in M. Channing Linthicum, Costume in the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. Clearly, Roberts did not mean wool when he wrote "cotton." Calico was, and is, made from cotton or cotton-linen, not wool, and India was not famous in the 17th Century for exporting wool to England. Linthicum also quotes a letter from the Turkey Company (an importer of cotton from Smyrna, Cyprus, Acra, and Sydon) to the Aleppo Factos, dated June 3, 1586: "For cotton yarn, we would have you send us 60 baggs at the least... for candells... and for fustians." Clearly, this use of "cotton" does not refer to a type of weave, because it refers to cotton yarn, not finished cloth. The source of the yarn and the intended use (candle wicks) also indicate that it was, indeed, cotton and not wool. | *The absence of frize in the same dictionary where it is used as a definition | is inconclusive. The fact that we have an earlier source defining frieze as | a cloth which must be wool is enough. And if Spence and Sheridan both | describe frieze as "a sort of coarse warm cloth" isn't it likely that they | mean wool? Linen and cotton have many fine qualities, but warmth is seldom | one ascribed to them. Really? I have a denim jacket, flannel shirts, and cotton blankets. While cotton is not as not as good an insulator as wool, there is no reason why a cotton fabric cannot be warm. | *Kathleen gave the original citation, and I believe that she said that the | shirts were of linen and cotton. But watch the inflection here. It does not | necessarily mean "these shirts were made from a combination of linen and | cotton." Why would they, when the common word for that was "fustian?" Linthicum calls fustian "a velure of cotton, or flax mixed with wool, so silky looking that it substituted for velvet." Linthicum documents the use of fustian for vestments, socks, waistcoats, aprons, doublets, gowns, and linings for various garments, but not shirts. | I did find a quote in the Oxford English Dictionary from Richard Hakluyt, the | early 17th century chronicler of sea voyages and explorers, that reads simply | "cloathes of cotton and bombast." I hesitated to cite this as a source | because it is secondary and incomplete, and because I haven't had a chance to | look up the original. However, here is an example of cotton listed alongside | bombast, and so a distinction is made between the two. Not necessarily. Writers often use what's called poetic redundancy (even in prose). "A dangerous, treacherous place...." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 20:40:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Heather Rose Jones Subject: Re: another Kilt question .... On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Carol E. Newby wrote: > I have been wondering what the difference is between a Scottish kilt and > an Irish kilt. I'm hoping someone here will be able to shed some light > on the subject as I have researched as thoroughly as my local resources > allow. (Being in the SouthWest it is *very* difficult to find sources on > highland/scottish/irish garb.) As far as I know, the "Irish kilt" is an invention of the modern (i.e., last couple of centuries) "picturesque ethnicity" industry. This is more or less the conclusion that H.F. McClintock comes to in "Old Irish and Highland Dress" (Dundalk: Dundalgan Press, 1943). Heather Rose Jones ------------------------------ From: KATHLEEN@ANSTEC.COM Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 09:59:40 EST Subject: Re: another Kilt question .... In response to Carol's question about the difference between Scottish and Irish kilts, if you are referring to modern kilts, the difference is that Irish kilts are solid colors (i.e., no tartan) and Scottish ones are of a tartan or plaid material. I have seen Irish [regimental] kilts of solid dark green, navy blue, and orange. Hope this helps. Kathleen kathleen@anstec.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 9:35:47 EDT From: (David W. Rickman) Subject: sigh, cotton redux Hello, Regarding the offering by Edward Wright, the ball is still out of my court, but interesting material nonetheless. >"Callicut famous... for that cotton cloth that was first hence >transported to Europe." L. Roberts, The Merchant's Map of Commerce, >London 1638, page 188, quoted in M. Channing Linthicum, Costume in the >Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, Oxford 1936, page 104. >Calicut is the city in India from which calico takes its name. Not much new here. Note that the word "cotton" modifies "cloth." In other words, the author is making the same sort of distinction we would expect for "woolen cloth." What we are looking for is when and where the word "cotton," standing alone, stopped meaning a coarse woolen cloth, and began meaning, in fact, "cotton cloth." >"Cambaia ...great quantities of cotton linens are here made, which we >term callicoes of all sorts...." L. Roberts, The Merchant's Map of >Commerce, page 179, again quoted in M. Channing Linthicum, Costume in >the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. I hope by now my message "Yes, cotton again" has gotten out onto the net. It was held up last night by a computer glitch. In that message, I tried to make clear that just finding the word "cotton" in an early reference does not, by itself, prove that "cotton" meant cloth made of cotton wool (bombast). We already know that _one_ of the meanings of "cotton" from the Middle Ages on was the fibre from the cotton or bombast plant. We also know, from many sources now, thanks to Bryan, that another meaning of "cotton" in those days was a coarse woolen cloth. So far, the only definitions we have of the word "cotton" when it stands alone, and refers to a textile, is a woolen. Here again, in this quote, the author is using "cotton" as a modifier of "linens." Clearly, he is not using "cotton" by itself to mean a textile. >Linthicum also quotes a letter from the Turkey Company (an importer of >cotton from Smyrna, Cyprus, Acra, and Sydon) to the Aleppo Factos, >dated June 3, 1586: "For cotton yarn, we would have you send us 60 >baggs at the least... for candells... and for fustians." Here again, "cotton" is used as a modifier, for "yarn." Edward then replys to something I wrote: | *The absence of frize in the same dictionary where it is used as a definition | is inconclusive. The fact that we have an earlier source defining frieze as | a cloth which must be wool is enough. And if Spence and Sheridan both | describe frieze as "a sort of coarse warm cloth" isn't it likely that they | mean wool? Linen and cotton have many fine qualities, but warmth is seldom | one ascribed to them. >Really? I have a denim jacket, flannel shirts, and cotton blankets. >While cotton is not as not as good an insulator as wool, there is no >reason why a cotton fabric cannot be warm. *To understand why Edward's wardrobe and bed linens are irrelevant to the question of what "frieze" meant in the 18th and preceding centuries, we need to look back at all the citations made in this discussion, beginning with the description of "frieze" as a woolen cloth that was "frizzed" to raise its nap. Hence the name "frieze." A similar process, known as "cottoning" was used to raise the nap on "cotton," also a woolen cloth. We then have a 1676 dictionary definition which Bryan found, defining "cotton" first as a "frize" (frieze) and only then as a fibre. Finally, we have a 1662 definition, also found by Bryan, which defines frieze as a cloth, produced in Wales, which is warmer than all others, and so on. Therefore, when Spence and Sheridan describe frieze as a "coarse warm cloth," without actually calling it a wool, I believe it is reasonable to assume that they mean a woolen cloth, not a cotton. | *Kathleen gave the original citation, and I believe that she said that the | shirts were of linen and cotton. But watch the inflection here. It does not | necessarily mean "these shirts were made from a combination of linen and | cotton." Why would they, when the common word for that was "fustian?" >Linthicum calls fustian "a velure of cotton, or flax mixed with wool, >so silky looking that it substituted for velvet." Linthicum documents >the use of fustian for vestments, socks, waistcoats, aprons, doublets, >gowns, and linings for various garments, but not shirts. *A closer reading would have revealed to Edward that I never said that Cromwell's soldiers were wearing fustian shirts, but was here trying to persuade Bryan of just the opposite. | I did find a quote in the Oxford English Dictionary from Richard Hakluyt, the | early 17th century chronicler of sea voyages and explorers, that reads simply | "cloathes of cotton and bombast." I hesitated to cite this as a source | because it is secondary and incomplete, and because I haven't had a chance to | look up the original. However, here is an example of cotton listed alongside | bombast, and so a distinction is made between the two. >Not necessarily. Writers often use what's called poetic redundancy >(even in prose). "A dangerous, treacherous place...." *Again, I have not had a chance to look up the original. Nevertheless, Edward must see the difference between a comma between "dangerous, treacherous.." and an _and_ between "cotton and bombast." This is would make no more sense than saying, "his blue jeans were of cotton _and_ denim." That is not poetic redundancy, but nonsense. Besides, take a look at what Kathleen's quote about Cromwell's soldier's shirts really reads like in the original. This was sent to me yesterday: >David -- The reference to Cromwell's issuing shirts to his troops was "one >linen shirt and one *cotton* shirt" not a combination (i.e., fustian). Hope >this helps. >Kathleen >kathleen@anstec.com So, Edward, a nice try, but inconclusive. Thanks anyhow. David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:36:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Jennifer Kubenka Subject: Re: another Kilt question .... (fwd) This is forwarded from a friend of mine who has an Irish kilt. I don't know much about them myself, but he has done extensive research on the topic. Me, I prefer Renaissance and Tudor garb, myself. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 9:32:32 -0500 (CDT) >From: I. Marc Carlson >To: jkubenka@sun.cis.smu.edu >Subject: Re: another Kilt question .... (fwd) In the 3rd volume _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish_ (New York: Williams and Norgate, 1873) Eugene O'Curry discusses in depth the diference between the Leine (Shirt) and Leinidh (Kilt). O'Curry is regarded by many of the later scholars I've read to be considered the first to examine the Ancient Irish based on extant sources, rather than just following the traditional folklore, and non-Irish references. The following quote is from p.105-107 and is from O'Curry's XXIII lecture: "He [Mac Conglinde] arose in the morning, and of course dressed himself. The Particulars of the dress are not given but we are told that he tucked up his Leinidh over his hips and wrapped his white cloak around his body. Here we have no account of the pantaloons nor of the frock, because they were close fitting items, that required no tucking up to facilitate the traveller's motion. The white cloak does not demand any particular attention; but the Leinidh which he tucked up above his hips, is an article that has not hitherto attracted the notice of any writer on Irish antiquities. The word *Leine* though written in two different ways, and signifying two different things, is and must be invariably pronounced the same way. When it signifies a shirt, as it does at the present day, it is written "Leine"; but when, as in the present case, it signifies a sort of petticoat or kilt, it is written "Leinidh"; but I am not able to explain the difference in orthography. I am very well aware that these words have been often thoughtlessly and carelessly written, one for the other, even in very old manuscripts; whenever we find a person described with a Leine of some beautiful stuff placed on his white skin, we may, however, be certain, whatever the orthography may be, that the article is a shirt. And again, when we find a person described with a leinidh having a costly border or fringe, and descending to his knees, we may be equally as certain that the article spoken of was a kilt or petticoat. I happen to have met two references to the word in its latter significance, that leave no doubt of its distinctive character or its assigned place on the human body. In the ancient tale called "Loinges nMac nDuildermaita", or "The Exile of the Sons of Duildermait", we are told that on a certain occasion as Ailill and Macha, the king and queen of Connacht, were in their palace of Cruachan, the warder of the castle came and told the queen that he saw a body of men coming towards them from the south; and then the story says that, "as they were looking out then, they saw the cavalcade upon the plain; and they saw a champion leading them, having on a crimson four-folding cloak, with its four borders of gold on it; a shield with eight joints of Findruine [White Bronze] at his back; a Leinidh reaching from his knees to his hips; fair yellow hair upon his head falling down both flanks of the horse he rode...." Here, I think, there can be no doubt of the precise character and use of the Leinidh; and the following passage from the ancient Gaedhelic Triads, gives us even the very law which regulated the wearing of the Leinidh, as well as the Ochrath, or trews; and the length of the hair (or beard). Thus speaks the Triad: "Three legal hansbreadths, are that, namely -- a handbreadth between his shoes and his Ochrath, or pantaloons; a handbreadth between his ear and his beard (or hair); and a handsbreadth between the border of his Leinish and his knees."" Note that there are a number of drawings, taken from a variety of sources, shown in (I believe) _A descriptive catalogue of the antiquities of stone, earthen and vegetable materials, in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy_, W.R. Wilde (Royal Irish Academy, Museum, 1857-1862) that show what appears to be either a separate kilt or very long shirt that has been pleated below the belt line. Marc ------------------------------ End of Volume 283 -----------------------