To: albertcat@aol.com
-Poster: Noelle Nicol
Tho'
> hook & eye tape is not period, lacing thru metal rings or eyes is [I was
> thinking 18th c. here].
Okay, hook-and-eye _tape_ may not be period, but hook-and-eye assemblies, and even
just lace hooks, have been documented back to the 16th century . . . .The tape,
in my mind, simply makes correct spacing for large areas like bodice closures easier.
Just my .02 =)
Noelle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 04:40:06 -1000
From: "Penny E. Ladnier"
Subject: H-COST: Fashion Avenue
The people who sponser my web page has a new community on the internet
called Fashion Avenue. It sponsors hundreds of fashion and costume related
web pages. This "community" is two weeks old and has lots of growing room.
They also GIVE (free) away space (2 megs) to create personal web pages.
They have special easy-to-use tools to create your web page (also free).
I would love to see more costume related web pages!!!
Fashion Avenue, also, has it's own chat room. So if you want to talk to one
of your historic costume friends, one-on-one, go to one of their private
rooms. This sure will save me money on my long distance calls to some of you!
The addresses (URL):
Fashion Avenue-
http://www.geocities.com/FashionAvenue
Free Web Pages-
http://www.geocities.com
Fashion Chat Group-
http://www.geocities.com/BHI/newchat.html
Have fun...Penny
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 07:51:39 -1000
Subject: Textile Dictionary
Textile Dictionary
at http://www.ntg-inter.com/ntg/textile.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:51:18 -1000
From: Chris Laning
Subject: H-COST: Inventory of Henry VIII
There's an article in the July/August issue of the magazine _Archaeology_
about a forthcoming book, a three-volume _Inventory of Henry VIII_, which
includes jewelry, gold, munitions, ships, furnishings, et cetera. The first
volume is due out at the end of this summer; the other two in 1998.
The article describes some interesting findings, including a
re-identification of a well-known portrait. The portrait, which shows a
young woman in a gold dress with huge turned-back fur cuffs reaching well
above the elbow, has been thought to be Lady Jane Grey; however, she is
wearing a brooch that the inventory shows belonged to Queen Catherine Parr,
Henry's last wife. An independent researcher, who used the Henry VIII
inventory as one of her sources, has traced the history both of the brooch
and of the painting, and is convinced that the portrait is actually of
Catherine Parr.
The publisher is "London: The Society of Antiquaries of London and Harvey
Miller Publishers, in press." That's all the article says about it -- no
ISBN, no price. I believe the title actually will be _The Inventories of
Henry VIII_ but I'm not even sure of that, the way the article phrases it.
They also mention that Volume 1 (due out late this summer, they say) is the
inventory itself, and volumes 2 and 3 (due out in 1998) will contain "22
illustrated essays on the main categories of objects."
Sounds like a real drooler . . . unfortunately, also sounds pretty pricey.
Will it be _Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd_ times three? We'll have to
wait and see, I guess . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:14:04 -1000
-Poster: Eric Praetzel
> -Poster: Mrs C S Yeldham
> Does anyone happen to know where the archives are now. I had them
> bookmarked but that isn't working.
I still have them pointed to from
http://sca.uwaterloo.ca
They are currently in the anonymous ftp archive on
ece.uwaterloo.ca in pub/jpeg/h-costume
These are the zip archives from 93, 94, 95 and 96.
I now have the disk space to unzip them; and would have no problem
in setting up a search engine for web browsers; but don't know how
and don't have the time to figure it out right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:13:25 -1000
From: Joycelyn Falsken
Subject: H-COST: Re: Removing iron marks?
Gail, There's three marks left in overpressed fabric. 1. A shiny patch,
2. an embossed impression, 3. a scorch mark. (Scorch marks won't come
out.) This trick works for removing the shiny marks of overpressing in
wool, it might work for your rayon too. Cover the affected area with a
pressing cloth, generously spray with a vinegar and water solution (20%
should do it), then pressing lightly, steam the heck out of it. The
steam should lift the fibers eliminating the embossed impression and the
vinegar takes out the shine.
(BTW, vinegar in rinse water is a remarkable fabric softener!)
Good luck!
Joycelyn
jfalsken@ricochet.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:05:21 -1000
From: "Gina Balestracci"
Subject: H-COST: teabag dying
Regarding different types of teas producing different dyes, one way to get an
extremely nice gold-colored cord is to take nylon rope (or string for narrow
cord) and dye it with a strong solution made from equal parts Twinings Lapsang
Souchong and dried chamomile blossoms.
Many years ago I was making a Spanish men's costume for a friend and I needed
some narrow gold braid. I had a tube of nylon string (the pretty silky one
that's two or three twisted strands) and a cupboard full of various sorts of
teas. I made a bunch of different cups of very strong teas and put short
lengths of this string in each, taking lengths out after different times to
check on the color.
The above mixture produced the nicest gold color (of course today I would have
made that particular costume out of very different materials than I did then!). It
worked out well--although I love all sorts of teas, lapsang souchong and chamomile
are two that I absolutely cannot stand!
I used this recipe just a couple of years ago when I was doing the costumes for a
student production of Purcell's Dido & Aeneas. I put everyone in white tunics tied
with gold cord, and I used 1/4-inch nylon rope for the cord. I made it into a loose
skein, put it into my oval roasting pan, and simmered it for two hours with the tea mixture.
The rope felt rather crunchy while it was hot and wet, but after it dried for a
few days on the clothesline (and got rained on into the bargain), it was fine. The
rope sashes are still being used by the opera workshop for all sorts of things, and they've
retained their color. The bits on that Spanish costume have held their color, too.
So tea *can* dye some synthetics. Just test everything first.
Gina Balestracci
balestracci@saturn.montclair.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:23:49 -1000
To: "Carol E. Newby"
Subject: Re: H-COST: Enlarging those scale drawings
> Last night I was trying, again, to draft a pattern using one of
>those books that has a good basic shape drawn to scale.
Have you ever tried radial projection? (I know, it sounds like something
you would do with a Ouija board!) It's SO much easier and faster to
enlarge patterns accurately this way once you get the hang of it.
1. Make a photocopy of the picture in the book, then cut it out of the
photocopy (you can leave a little paper around it--you shouldn't cut right
on the line). Tape it to the middle of a large enough piece of whatever
paper you use to make patterns. (Large enough to hold the full-sized
pattern piece.)
2. Pick a point on the little picture and make a dot there. If there is a
straight edge on it, it's easiest to pick a corner of that.
3. Now figure out how many times you need to enlarge it. That is, work
out the scale: does it need to be four times the size of the little
picture? etc.
4. Draw lines radiating out from your chosen point onto the pattern paper.
Make the lines long enough that they will go past the probable edges of
your full-sized pattern.
5. Pick a line. Measure from your chosen point out to where the edge of
the little pattern shape intersects with the line. Multiply this
measurement by the number of times you need to enlarge the pattern. (If
you need it four times as large, multiply by four.)
6. Measure out the new measurement just obtained on the line, and make a mark.
7. Continue to do this on all the lines, then connect the dots, trying to
recreate the original shape as much as possible. Obviously, the more lines
you have radiating, the more accurate your shape will be.
I've enlarged patterns both ways, and believe me, this is faster! If you
have any questions, I would be happy to elaborate.
Good luck!
Melanie Schuessler
mail to mjschues@students.wisc.edu
or visit the Costume Goddess Home Page
http://labweb.soemadison.wisc.edu/users/schuessler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 20:43:05 -1000
From: Kerri Canepa
Subject: Re: H-COST: trade beads in the 16th c.
Yet another one of my many interests; beads. The short answer is that I
haven't seen much evidence in art or archaelogical evidence that European
trade beads were actually used in European jewelry. Granted, most of the
extant jewelry comes from collections from noble families and is going to
represent elite tastes and cash flow. It's tough, as you know, to figure
out what the common or middle class people actually wore on a daily basis
since formal portraits would be presenting them at their conspicuously
consumative best.
While I might not be an authority on a lot of subjects, I do excell at
one thing; book collecting. So here's a partial list of books on jewelry
and beads that might help you out.
Evans, Joan. _A history of Jewellery, 1100-1870._ 1989 reprint of 1970
edition, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-26122-0. I admit I bought it for
the pictures and photographs which aren't in color but that doesn't
really matter too much. I had the most fun with the cover portrait which
is in color of Katherina Knoblauch by Conrad Faber. It's either German or
the Low Countries by the look of the outfit from the 1530s or so. She's
got SEQUINS all over her chemise neck and the inner bodice. Such fun!
Seriously though, it's worth having a look at if for no other reason than
to get a start on looking at jewelry.
Beck, Horace C. _Classification and nomenclature of Beads and Pendants._
1981, George Shumway Publisher, ISBN 0-87387-061-1. More than you'll ever
want or care to know about technically describing beads. However, it will
come in handy when someone describes beads as "long, double chamfered
cylinders." And bead students will, trust me.
Francis, Peter, Jr. _The Bead Dictionary; A complete revision of a short
dictionary of bead terms and types_ 1989, Lapis Route Books, ISBN
0-910995-11-7. This is exactly what it says but it includes venacular and
formal names of beads.
Francis, Peter, Jr. _The Glass Trade Beads of Europe; their manufacture,
their history, and their identification._ 1988, Lapis Route Books, ISBN
0-910995-10-9. Looks like something that should be a "must read" for you.
It's rather thorough about the trade beads industry, history and
production but I don't know if it addresses local use of trade beads. I
haven't had the opportunity to read the whole book yet. And the
bibliography is amazing.
Tait, Hugh, ed. _Jewelry; 7,000 Years._1991, Harry N. Abrams, Inc, ISBN
0-8109-8103-3. A gorgeous book with lots of photos of existing jewelry.
Because it covers the entire world over seven centuries it is
understandably brief in the details of any one place and time. But what's
in there is very cool.
McConnell, Sophie. _Metropolitan Jewelry._ 1991, Metropolitan Museum of
Art, ISBN 0-8212-1877-8 or 0-87099-616-9. Not just existing jewelry but
also examples of jewelry depicted in art, all of it from the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. A lot of the art is pre 17th c but goes back to the way
back Egyptian stuff.
Dubin, Lois Sherr. _The History of Beads._ 1987, Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
ISBN 0-8109-0736-4. Truly an amazing book with more examples in color of
beads from many times and places. My favorite part of the book is the
time line of beads foldout (which is available by itself without the
book). The narrative is pretty good without going into a lot of detail.
I have more but it focuses on more specific areas (amber, glass making,
Islamic jewelry, etc). There are two organizations that may have other
info of interest to you; The Bead Museum in Prescott, AZ and The Center
for Bead Research in Lake Placid, NY. I haven't checked the net to see if
those two places are available on line or what other things are out
there, but maybe you ought to go surfing.
Hope this helps,
Kerri
Who works in a library; can you tell?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Henk 't Jong"
Subject: H-COST: Underclothes
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 02:22:00 -1000
Hello List,
DC wrote:
> Agreed that people wore light clothes in the summer. My problem is in
> documenting what those clothes were. Seems that most of what we have togo
> on is paintings and usually the subjects dressed up in their best (and
> usually hottest) clothes for the portraits.
If it's paintings you use for researching underclothes, you'll not find
many; they are indeed rather formal. I advise you to look at miniatures,
and especially those depicting the seasons or the 'droleries' in the
margins thereoff. But remember: everything whitish you see peeping out of
necklines or sleeves is supposedly part of the 'camise' or 'chemise' or
'hemet, hemede, hemd' etc. (except for breast-clothes of late 15th-17th c
women). Since the early middle ages these undershirts and -kirtles were
made of supple linen and they were fairly voluminous. They were shorter
than the next item of clothing worn over it. Those for women were longer
than those for men (except for monks) and both had splits at the sides.
Necklines were wide, so your head could pass through it, as were sleeves.
They were mostly wider than the sleeve of the cotte over it. This looks
odd, but if you try it, you'll feel that these shirtsleeves acts as a kind
of lining for the cotte and move very smoothly around you arms, with the
material of the cotte-sleeves clinging to the undershirtsleeves.
During the 15th c, but maybe even in the late 14th c for the more well to
do people, the neck came to be gathered with a split in front and a cord
through a tunnel to tie it together. Nearer 1500 a narrow standing band had
grown from this tunnel and was sewn on the gathered neckline, and somewhat
later a little ruff was seen to appear on top of that, because smockwork
was done on the band. But even in the 15th and 17th c the simple medieval
camise was still in use with simple people, as Brueghel proves. Only
sometimes you see a little split in front, so the collar was not as wide as
during the 6th-15th c.
Underbreeches for men are very old as well, but there are hardly any
illustrations of them before ca 1100. They were also wide and voluminuos
and had comfortably low crotches until the second half of the 14th c, when
dress for fashion-conscious men became too short and narrow to comfortably
house these breeches. Then they became short and close-fitting. Because
separate hose were pulled over these breeches, the legs had to be tied
together under the knee. Just this week I got proof that this practice at
least dates from about 1250, i.e. now I have documented evidence, which
does not mean that this way of tying the breeches wasn't older. It's simply
practical, else they creep up your legs all the time.
On this list people have written about the question if women wore some sort
of breeches. Personally I think they did most times and in most places, but
there were probably times and places when or where they did not or could
not. The only proof I have is based on a misericorde-carving in the St
Cernin church (I don't know where that is; it sounds French), where one may
see a young woman with late 15th c dress and headcovering pulling on a pair
of shorts, suspiciously like those of men from the same period. It might be
that this is a social comment (the wife wearing the breeches instead of the
husband), as that was what a lot of these misericords were about. But this
little carving does not look like a satire; it's more a domestic scene of a
gril dressing.
Other proof are the breeches worn by 16th c Italian (Venetian?) courtisans
in which they shamelessly exposed themselves. Would this be just titilating
or did they don male clothes to shock the punters? I don't know and will
bow to anybody who has something to say about this that cuts wood. Having
been around living history players, among which a lot of women, for a long
time, it strikes me as an immensely practical thing to wear for the
ladies, as the not-wearing of them is pretty impractical for at least a
part of the time.
So far about underclothes. I hope this hits the spot,
Bye
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:31:57 -1000
From: Ninni M Pettersson
Subject: Re: H-COST: 15th cent. midriff pleats (long)
Greetings!
>
> I also have a picture of a rather bizarre ensemble with a panel of
>inset pleats that I think must be fanciful rather than realistic. The
>only reference the book (_Milestones of History, EXPANDING HORIZONS_,
>Neville Williams ed., p. 48) gives is that it's the adoration of St.
>Vincent showing Prince Henry the Navigator from the Museo de Arte Antiqua
>in Lisbon. A woman with an unusual headdress and scarlet overgown are on
>the left. Aside from the pleated front panel which goes all the way up to
>the neckline, the sides are cut into fingers in a nebuly pattern. The
>picture is pretty well detailed and you can see linings, underdress(es),
>and several other things I can't even begin to describe. If anyone else
>has seen this picture of the outfit, how much of it do you think could
>have been real? I don't know who the woman is supposed to be--if anyone
>does, that may be a clue.
>
> Although there aren't any real references or dates for the
>pictures, this book has many clear, colored copies of 15th and 16th
>century paintings. I wish I could sit with some of you knowledgeable
>people and go through the details of them one by one *sigh*.
This woman has puzzled me exceedingly for years! If someone can offer any
suggestions regarding her strange dress and headdress I too will be very
grateful. I can offer some added information about the picture, to help in
identifying it:
This painting occurs in one of my Swedish history books. (_Europas
expansion_ "The expansion of Europe", one volume in a set of books on world
history published in the middle of the 80s here in Sweden.) Here it it is
stated that the artist is named _Nun~o Goncalves_ and that it was painted
around 1465 as an altar painting for the Cathedral of Lisbon.
/Ninni Pettersson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:52:12 -1000
From: Margo Anderson
Subject: H-COST: Ditchley Gown
Thanks for all your input on my Ditchley Dress project. By the way, the
reason I'm making it in 1/3 scale is as an entry in a doll show.
I found a very good reproduction of the painting online, at
http://dept.english.upenn.edu/~jsaeger/english-30/materials/introduction/eli
zabeth_1-g2.jpeg.
My husband took me on a "guided tour" of the dress, using the miraculous
powers of Paint Shop Pro. I`'ve made the following clonclusions, and I'd
like opinions from you all.
Firstly, the fabric of the gown,(the part that shows at the sides of her
skirt) which Arnold says is silver and gold, is definately red and gold.
If there are silver parts in the design, they're very small. I can't tell
anything about the texture, so I don't know if it's a looped pile or not.
At any rate, I doubt I can teach myself Pretty Punch well enough to do it on
this small scale by October, so I'll be using brocade.
I believe that the gridwork on the heart-shaped collar/veil is a metal
supportasse, as the jewelwork around the edge would have been far too heavy
for a simple wired edge to hold.
And, of course, I have new questions to wonder about. Arnold says the
jeweled buttons on the gown are set with pearls, rubies, and diamonds. I
see pearls and rubies, but the other stones are black! My husband diddled
(technical term) around with the colors, and he's convinced it's not just a
case of a colored stone photographed darker. The stones in the jewelry and
in the crown are also black and red. This seems unlikely to me. I know
they had jet, but it just doesn' tseem right. Could it be the pigments in
the paint changing over the years, or some other cause? Could any of the
list members in London run down to the National Gallery and check for me?
And, finally, does anyone know where I can get teardrop shaped pearls
smaller than 1/4" long?
Margo Anderson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: H-COST: RE: Series: Costume of the Western World
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:24:00 -1000
-Poster: DUNHAM Patricia R
according to OCLC:
either published in one volume (vol. 3) (with individual authors):
Early Tudor / James Laver. -- The last Valois / Andr=E2e Blum. --
Elizabethan and Jacobean / Graham Reynolds. -- The dominance of Spain /
Brian Reade . -- The great age of Holland / Frithjof van Thienan. -- Early
Bourbon /Andr=E2e Blum.
or separately (with time periods)
Early Tudor, 1485-1558
The last Valois, 1515-90
Elizabethan and Jacobean, 1558-1625
The dominance of Spain, =DFc 1550-1660
Early Bourbon, 1590-1643
The great age of Holland, 1600-60
These 6 are all that show up.
Patricia R. Dunham - Eugene Public - 100 W 13th Ave - 97401
patricia.r.dunham@ci.eugene.or.us - 541-984-8321
http://204.203.17.34/library (EPL) <<<>>>
http://members.aol.com/gerekr/medieval.html (home)
----------
| From: Tudorldy@aol.com
| To: h-costume-digest@world.std.com
| Subject: H-COST: Series: Costume of the Western World
| Date: Monday, August 18, 1997 7:00PM
|
| -Poster: Tudorldy@aol.com
|
| Costume of the Western World appears to be a series of monographs
which were
| published in the early 1950s by George G. Harrap & Company, Ltd.
Although I
| would normally regard costume history works of that vintage with some
doubt,
| the four volumes I have been able to locate are fairly authoritative
and use
| contemporary portraiture and representations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Henk 't Jong"
Subject: Re: H-COST: Various necklines and breeches
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 05:51:26 -1000
>
> >During the 15th c, but maybe even in the late 14th c for the more well
to
> >do people, the neck came to be gathered with a split in front and a cord
> >through a tunnel to tie it together.
>
> This is what I am not at all sure about - assuming Henk is talking abouta
> drawstring neckline. I'm looking at the late 15th and 16th century in
> England and Northern Europe, and I haven't seen any (might be there, but I
> haven't seen them). All the ones I've seen in this period are plain hemmed
> necklines for men and women until the early 16th century. Then they seem to
> be sewn to a neckband (or, looking at Durer's self-portrait, gathered
> behind, but still not drawstring).
>
Hieronymus Bosch (working ca 1475-1517) has painted in his works
undershirts closed at the neck, gathered with drawstring and without and
with a split middle-front with and without closing means.
Albrecht Duerer (working 1486-1528) has several types of undershirts for
men and women: gathered with very wide neckopenings with embroidery and
smockwork, with and without ruffs (ruffs mostly after ca 1510) (mainly
young men and women, hangmen\executioners and soldiers), smooth with a
middle split
(mainly farmers and simple burghers), gathered with a middle split and an
unseen fastener (Hook and eye? farmers and burghers), standing bands with
ruffs or without, hook and eye (Virgin and child 1512, Lucas van Leyden
1521, Melanchton 1526, Patinir 1521), long middle splits with two or more
fasteners, probably of the hook and eye type (mainly women), standing band
with ruff and no split to be seen in frond, but fairly narrow, so at the
side or back? (Bernhard von Resten 1521). Lucas van Leyden had a lot of the
same types of collar and necklines.
Holbein has several portraits done from the late teens to the fourties of
the 16th c with drawstring (that was the word I was searching for!) shirts
in front or on one side (f.i. Georg Gisze 1532)(with or without standing
bands, both plain and embroidered or smocked. The standing bands often have
two drawstrings. Even king Henry VII (1537) has a splendid standing band
with a slight ruff, both gold embroidered, as has prince Edward (1539?),
but on a much smaller scale. Henry has a very plain one in 1540 but also
with two strings. About that time blackwork was used a lot to embroider
collarbands, as several portraits prove.
Cranach, Burgkmair, Funk, Furtenagel, Gruenewald, Herrant, Huber, Faber von
Kreuznach, Amberger, Maler; all German or Swiss painters working in the
years 1500-1540 had all these different types of necklines in the shirts of
their portraits. The wide neck seems to have gone out of fashion after
1520, and ruffs came on, at first very small, after 1510. Drawstrings and
hooks and eyes seem to have existed during the whole period, even little
buttons were used. But not only Germans used these types of collars, people
like the early Titian, Botticelli, Giorgione, Lotto, Lippi, del Sarto (who
has painted a side closure in a standing band once), Rafael, etc have drawn
and painted the same types of collar.
It's a pity the 15th c portraits have all these high jacketcollars, but if
you look carefully, there's sometimes a narrow white stripe around the
neckline, which must be the undershirt. This cannot be a wide neckopening,
it has to be a gathered type of opening. The same goes for late 14th c
nobles dress, like houppelandes (the one with the not too high standing
collars, that is): narrow white lines. It could be lining, but most linings
were coloured, and sometimes the lining can be seen either in sleeves or in
skirts and seen as a differnet colour from white. Dave, no doubt, could add
to this. But perhaps he has other experiences as well, as the 15th c is
more his field than mine.
I have seen so many 14th c picture-sources during the last 7 years that I
don't know how to point you to all the artists (who for a large part are
unknown anyway), but a little research in the right direction will bear me
out. For the record: this type of neckline will only be worn by rich
people, court circles, some servants, etc. Common people had until the 17th
c wide open shirtopenings with sometimes a split in front.
> >Nearer 1500 a narrow standing band had grown from this tunnel and was sewn
> on the gathered neckline,
>
> The neckband turns up in 1520s in England, not much earlier, but I haven't
> seen the evidence to say it grows from a drawstring tunnel.
Neither have I, I must confess. I may be wrong here. It looked logical at
the time I wrote it, but I'm not so sure now.
>
> >smockwork was done on the band.
> I've seen blackwork, goldwork and white work (V&A has a blue-worked shirt)
> on the neckband and along seams, or on body of shirt (geometric, often
> counted stitch monochrome work). We may be disagreeing over semantics here,
> but I assume 'smockwork' to mean decorative work on top of smocking or
> gathering and that I haven't seen in this period.
It is sometimes rather hard to see, but if you have a little ruff coming
out of a band with a kind of natural coloured (the same as the material)
embroidery on it, doesn't it follow that the band has been gathered in to
make the ruff all wavy? I have been puring over my (mainly German) sources
with a magnifier, and it certainly looks that way. Sometimes the band is
seen to be gathered fairly clearly all in very narrow vertical pleats.
>
> >But even in the 15th and 17th c the simple medieval
> >camise was still in use with simple people, as Brueghel proves. Only
> >sometimes you see a little split in front, so the collar was not as wide as
> >during the 6th-15th c.
>
> Absolutely, although friends of mine studying the 17th century (England
> again) say they haven't seen drawstrings in that period either.
>
> >On this list people have written about the question if women wore some sort
> >of breeches. Personally I think they did most times and in most places, but
> >there were probably times and places when or where they did not or could
> >not.
>
> Well, I've said before, I don't, and from what I've learnt about later
> women's underwear, *closed leg* underpants took a long time to come in even
> when women were wearing them.
>
>
> social comment (lots of it in misericordes!)
>
> >Other proof are the breeches worn by 16th c Italian (Venetian?) courtisans
> >in which they shamelessly exposed themselves. Would this be just titilating
> >or did they don male clothes to shock the punters?
>
> Having just visited an exhibition on Venetian Arts and Crafts from 1300 to
> 1800, which included an extant pair of these breeches in a heavy weight
> linen cloth, embroidered all over in geometric stitch with 'I want the
> heart' in Italian as a motif, certainly the exhibitors thought these were
> 'transgressive' garments worn to show the pseudo-male role and education of
> the courtesans - they were supposedly much better educated and had more
> freedom than the 'decent' women of Venice.
Very interesting.
>
> There is other evidence of breeches - some Spanish evidence from the 1490s
> Fran Grimble has quoted several times (involving black silk velvet, which
> sounds horrific in a Spanish summer!). There is also a pair of breeches
> from 1603 on Queen Elizabeth I's effigy in Westminster Abbey I've mentioned
> before. They are made of fustian (unnapped) and Janet Arnold thinks they
> were riding breeches.
>
> As someone who doesn't think they were worn normally, although possibly on
> specific occasions or by specific women, this doesn't seem like a lot of
> evidence to me!
>
Nor does it to me. Women on medieval miniatures did not appaer without
'chemise' or else they wore only that or they were completely naked and
appeared in a biblical or mythological context. One has to grab at the
little one can get though (sorry, for the risque pun!). And, as I said,
especially in medieval dress (before 1500) for common burghers and peasants
it is very well possible to wear breeches and not be uncomfortale in them
when trying to loosen or fasten these (as Queen Elisabeth certainly must
have been; serves her right for wearing these rediculous dresses).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: H-COST: Breeches or smocking - fools rush in!
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 06:43:00 -1000
Returning to the discussion after a short absence..
Drawstring necklines:
Henk quotes quite a lot of pictures, most of which I know, such as
>Holbein has several portraits done from the late teens to the fourties of
>the 16th c with drawstring (that was the word I was searching for!) shirts
>in front or on one side (f.i. Georg Gisze 1532)(with or without standing
>bands, both plain and embroidered or smocked.
Well, this is where we do disagree, I don't think they are drawstring, I
think they are gathered (ie sewn down). Even looking at the following ones:
>The standing bands often have
>two drawstrings. Even king Henry VII (1537) has a splendid standing band
>with a slight ruff, both gold embroidered, as has prince Edward (1539?),
>but on a much smaller scale. Henry has a very plain one in 1540 but also
>with two strings. About that time blackwork was used a lot to embroider
>collarbands, as several portraits prove.
You see this style of neck with women to the 1560's and 70's and there it is
clear that it is not drawstring, but sewn gathers. On several pictures (I'll
go and have a look at the Elizabethan Icon if you want references) the lower
of the two gathered lines is not done up, the strings hang loose, but the
gathers hold their place, which strongly suggests to me they are sewn.
I'm not denying there were the various sorts of necklines and fastenings you
are talking about - I am saying they could just as well be sewn as
drawstring, and I see no evidence they were drawstring. For example, on some
of the painters of informal scenes in the mid-16th century, eg Breugel you
might see the occasional undone string, or neckline extended to show off the
girls charms, as is so common in re-enactors!
> >smockwork was done on the band.
> I've seen blackwork, goldwork and white work (V&A has a blue-worked shirt)
> on the neckband and along seams, or on body of shirt (geometric, often
> counted stitch monochrome work). We may be disagreeing over semantics here,
> but I assume 'smockwork' to mean decorative work on top of smocking or
> gathering and that I haven't seen in this period.
>It is sometimes rather hard to see, but if you have a little ruff coming
>out of a band with a kind of natural coloured (the same as the material)
>embroidery on it, doesn't it follow that the band has been gathered in to
>make the ruff all wavy? I have been puring over my (mainly German) sources
>with a magnifier, and it certainly looks that way. Sometimes the band is
>seen to be gathered fairly clearly all in very narrow vertical pleats.
Well, Germany always seems to disprove any rule from anywhere else, and
Julie is right, we have discussed this extensively elsewhere. However, I
spent several years specialising in 16th English embroidery, and nothing of
this kind turns up there! All the embroidery I've seen from this
period/place, and indeed elsewhere (eg the Italian 1550s shirts from the
Venice exhibition) was embroidered on the flat and then might be gathered
according to the needs of the garment.
The only self-colour embroidery I know (NB, 16th century, English) is
whitework, which also removes part of the ground fabric - this is usually
worn against something contrasting to show the pattern and I haven't seen it
either on neckbands or on the ruffs emerging from neckbands - although
cutwork and whitework is used on the big ruffs prior to and contemporary to
lacework.
The embroidery I've seen on neckbands, and wristbands for that matter, is
contrasting, not toning.
Talking of whitework, I saw Charles I's nightcap at Carisbrooke Castle, the
Isle of Wight recently - absolutely beautiful work.
My other comment on this type of ruff is that I have tried gathering it under
the neckband to make the ruff and found it didn't work very well, too skimpy.
The best way to make a good ruff is to gather the neckline into the neckband
and use a separate piece of cloth to make the ruff. This is certainly the
way the big ruffs developed.
>Nor does it to me. Women on medieval miniatures did not appaer without
>'chemise' or else they wore only that or they were completely naked and
>appeared in a biblical or mythological context.
I know it may be doubtful evidence, but what about the bathhouse pictures?
If women wearing breeches was 'transgressive' as per the Venetian evidence,
and therefore presumably exciting, you would expect to see them. Again,
looking at the Elizabeth and the Three Graces picture, Venus has taken off
her chemise (beautifully embroidered and, BTW - sewn gathers, not drawstring)
but no breeches!
Caroline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:18:25 -1000
From: HCD or SIR SPUD I
-Poster: HCD or SIR SPUD I
Melanie Schuessler wrote:
>
> >HI! Are there any costume CD-ROMS? The only one I know of is _The
> >Clothes We Wore_ put out by E.M.M.E Interactive.
>
> I've never heard of this--could you give more information about it, where
> to get it, etc? I imagine the rest of the list would probably be
> interested as well. I don't remember this ever being mentioned before.
The CD, The Clothes We Wore, was a gift. I'm not sure how my parents
found it, but I have the company's address and phone numbers.
E.M.M.E. Interactive USA
1200 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06905
- 406-4040
- 406-4043 fax
Hope this helps. Good Luck!
HCD
hcdspud@midwest.net
back