Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 02:28:00 -1000
From: Maggie Percival
Subject: 1540s gowns and french hoods
Hello Tricia,
There are one or two Holbein sketches of the period which do suggest that there was
a seam at the back. Certainly one sketch - dated 1527 - shows a back seam and another
- dated 1541 - hints at the same.
> I'd made 1540s Tudor (Jane Seymour style) twice now, once with a back lacing (which
I'm inclined to think was wrong)
I agree with you and once with a front opening covered by a flap of material which
then fastens at the side. (Jane Seymour apparently fastened her bodice at the side
front with tiny gold headed pins)
OK, I am in the process of completing a 1540s gown - not based on a particular painting
but based on observations of a number of portraits - all by Holbein. Sometimes you
need to look back in time to find the answers. There is a Holbein sketch of the
More family (which is earlier
than the Jane Seymour portrait) which gives a hint as to how these gowns were fastened.
I have surmised that the gowns were fastened at the front (as is seen on the More
family portrait) but in order to hide the lacings a stomacher was secured on top
which I suspect was pinned on both sides. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the
gowns were laced at the side. Caroline - if you're reading this you might have a
comment on this one.
>
>Second question: French Hoods. The Clouet portraits of the 1540s Hoods all >show
ties under the chin. I've used this in my French hood, which attaches >over a small
cap, but it still drifts backward. That fall of velvet/velveteen at the back is very
heavy and the hood itself is not well
>balanced. I have to keep settling it forward.
I'm slightly nervous about replying to this one as this is another area that I am
experimenting with and I think I have a solution. It's very complicated to explain
but I suspect the key to the French Hood lies in the way you arrange your hair.
Remember that the ladies of the day wore
their hair very long (or as long as it would grow). Looking at the portraits the
suggestion is that the undercaps were very close fitting at the top of the neck -
too close fitting to allow hair to be coiled away down there. Coil it at the back
of the head and the resulting bulge prevents the black velvet at the back hanging straight;
if, however, you coil it at the back of the top of the head you can actually extend
the platform upon which your headdress is sitting. Hope you're
with me so far. So you have your plaits/coils whatever forming this additional 'platform'
at the back of the top of your head. Over this you place your cap (and the indication
is that they were cut to fit closely). There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that this was held in place by a strip of fabric (there is a sketch thought
to be of Queen Anne Boleyn by Holbein which shows this rather well). Now comes a
bit I am nervous about - I suspect that this same strip of fabric may have been the
filler in part between the two billements (the back and front jewelled bands). For those
of you who are somewhat skeptical about this there are two portraits that hint at
it. One is the portrait thought to be of Queen Catherine Howard (though that is
now open to question I understand) and the other is a pair of miniatures thought to be of the
same queen - all are by Holbein. One of those miniatures shows a tell tale white
flash between the coloured band of fabric and the hindmost of the two billments.
The first mentioned portrait (which shows a lady in black with large padded sleeve showing
what appears to be gold and black undersleeves) also shows the front edge of what
appears to be a strip of white (or off white) fabric between the two billements.
The front billement is placed at the front of the white undercap (and the indication from the
portraits is that they were tight fitting - you can actually see them pressing into
the cap quite clearly in some paintings) which helps to hold the whole lot in place.
The back
billement goes in front of the coils of arranged hair at the back of the head and
helps to secure the velvet hood as well as holding the whole thing in place. I
have actually done a rough version of this and it stayed in place quite securely
without the use of any ties though ties could be used for additional security if you wanted to.
By the way folks, please note I am talking about French Hoods found in the English
court circa 1540. They did change in style quite a lot throughout the
Tudor era. Incidentally a more detailed explanation of this is due to appear in THE
MANTLE in either issue 4 or issue 5.
OK, right, I've said my bit (very nervously), and I've got an awful feeling that a
lot of you out there may disagree. I am not trying to say that this is how it was
done, it may have been done this way it may not, but believe me this does appear
to work and the resulting headdress looks right. My hair is not terribly long (and as some
of you may recall has not been washed with shampoo for some time), but it is just
long enough to plait up and secure to the top of the back of my head.
>
>Is this something to do with the change in hair texture due to lack of washing? I
know pins just slide out of my hair, which is pretty fine.
I must admit that I have asked the same question quite a few times since I stopped
shampooing my hair.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:18:08 -1000
Reply-To: Margaret Rae Carignan
Subject: Re: French Hoods
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, The Polsons wrote:
> Is velvet a common material for that veil at the back of a French hood? I had always
seen/heard it as being more of a lightweight gauze, silk, or other sheer, light material.
>
Good Evening!
All the paintings I have been seeing over the years show opaque (usually black, one
dark blue, usually velvet or other similar stuff) drapes on the back. I have read
that sheer fabrics were common, but have never yet seen one in a painting. My theory
is that sheer veils were more "casual" (if any Tudor costume can be called casual!) and
the opaque ones more formal, but that is pure conjecture. I would like to see some
paintings of sheer veils - they would probably make the hoods easier to wear.
Meg/Francesca
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:53:28 -1000
Reply-To: "P. M. Ostwald"
Subject: Re: Tudor undersleeves
Lisa asked:
>
> The only back view I've been able to find of this style of gown is
>the 1540 sketch by Holbein and the lappet of the headdress covers the
>sleeve-shoulder area :\ The part of the sketch that I can see indicates
>that something does go up the back, but where does it go _to_? Would it
>taper off to a point and end somewhere at the back of the shoulder?
>Almost looks like the bodice back and sleeve are one piece although I'm
>sure it can't be.
The French Valois Tapestries book, that I mentioned recently, has several back views
of costumes. These gowns are 1560+ and French, but have a similar shape (as viewed
from the front) to the later Tudor gowns. They similarly have no shoulder straps.
The back of the gown comes straight or with slight upwards curvature, across at mid upper
back (above shoulder blades) and joins straight on to the sleeves.(you can see the
seams between sleeves and bodice clearly)
Tricia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:08:44 -1000
Reply-To: Julie Adams
From: Julie Adams
Subject: Re: Belts
Yup, thems the ones:-) I have never seen any documentation of that "O" ring tangless
buckle. And have looked. hard. If a tang is added (which is pretty darn easy) and
holes punched in the belt, then there are examples in earlier periods (like I think
14th and 15th), but 16th c. belts are normall narrow -- around an inch wide, and have buckles.
Narrow sashes and cords are also seen quite a bit in the first 1/2 of the 16th c.
That metal ring was probably originally used because it was very quick and easy to
make and was readily adjustable for various size people.
Anyway, just my guess....
Julie Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 03:42:39 -1000
From: Margaret Rae Carignan
Subject: Re: Tudor undersleeves
Well, Lisa, between the two of you you have asked the questions that plague us all!
Having found no primary source of info on the construction of these gowns, I have
had to work from conjecture, and Jean Hunnisett like eveybody else.
I'm not sure about the jewels; I believe that they could have been sewn individually
onto the dress, but the possibility is certainly there that they were stitched as
a group onto a piece of fabric and mounted to the gown. I suspect that if the jewels
were going to be removed, they would not be put on a different gown in the exact same
pattern as the first, because that would be boring! No telling, though. Your minute
examination of these pictures (did you see them in person, or in books?) is commendable,
but might be misleading you. To give an example, in close scrutiny of Bronzino's portrait
of Eleanora of Toledo (the full-length one with the fabulous brocade), her pearls
appear to be transparent, and you can see her partlet through them! It is most likely that the painter just wasn't expecting people to look that closely and didn't bother
to completely cover the underpainted partlet.
When using paintings as documentation, you simply have to make personal, educated
guesses about what is and what is not real in them. That's all you can do, and as
long as you state that that is the case ("I propose that, upon examination of Bronzino's
portrait, Eleanora was wearing glass "pearls", or "Bronzino was having a bad pearl day"),
you have to go with your instincts, and hope that someone can offer you proof if
they are to argue with your interpretation.
About the sleeves, I firmly believe that there is no shoulder strap. Having said
that, I have a couple of ideas on how they were cut. If, perchance, the sleeve is
cut in two pieces, with the top of the sleeve being one with the back, and the underarm
part being seperate, then the sleeve head would end up on the bias (assuming the centre
back to be on the straight of grain), which it pretty much has to be for the sleeve
to fit the way it does. This would also imply a gusset under the arm, which would
make the thing more comfortable, while allowing it to fit the armscye that much more closely.
The sleeve could also be cut as per Hunnisett, but with no shoulder strap. In order
to stay up, a tape could be applied from the centre fron, running under the sleeve
head, to the centre back. This would help to maintain a straight line and keep the
sleeve up.
I, however, not being very confident in either of these theories, have yet to try
them, but instead went with Hunnisett's pattern with strap. It was less than perfectly
satisfactory, but the result was good enough for the SCA in my opinion. The next
time I "do Tudor", however, I am going to try a mock-up of the two other ideas, and see
what happens.
Please let me know how things turn out for you. Good Luck.
Meg/Francesca
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 04:19:01 -1000
From: Margaret Rae Carignan
Subject: Re: Tricia--Hennin questions
The whole issue of hairline plucking or shaving, once again makes me glad to be Italian!
In the pictures that I have of the Italian equivalent of a hennin (often seen in
profile, making it hard to judge the actual shape), their hair showed at the front,
and the back came very low on the head, hiding the natural hairline. Unless you, like
me, have the lowest hairline possible, no plucking would be required.
These hats have no wires in the front. The one I made (after "Man and Woman at a Casement"
by Lippi) needed a weight in the padded roll to keep it in place. I used three or
four heavy pipe washers in the centre of the roll, and the jewel at the centre helped too. I put one of those nice continuos flexible hair combs in the front, and wore
my hair in a high ponytail. The thing stayed on great, and was surprisingly comfy
(no getting into a car, though). The biggest problem was the drape, which is longer
on one side, and quite heavy with pearls and spangles. The next one I make will have a
counterweight in the shorter side of the drape. I think those covered continuous
drapery weights would work nicely...
Meg/Francesca
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:59:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Tudor shoulders
Well, I checked my pictures of the 1540s, of Mary and Elizabeth and any others I could
find (mainly the Dynasties exhibition book). Not Jane Seymour as I can't find my
copy of Ashelford (lamentations through the house!).
I can't see *anything* under the jewellery which runs around the neck edge of these
gowns - the jewellery looks pretty solid to me, certainly on the young Elizabeth
there are lots of pearls! It makes sense to me that the jewels are mounted on the
very narrow shoulder straps. I know several people have said these gowns don't have these
straps and what we see are the sleeve heads, but I still don't see how the shoulders
would stay up!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:06:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Tudor
Lisa wrote about Tudor Gowns: On some points I shall have to go home and check my
books, but I can react immediately to some questions.
> In all the paintings, the costume has the same (for lack of a
>better term) pattern of jewels on the headdresses, in the necklaces, and
>around the necklines, plus in the girdles for both Janes and Elizabeth).
>Since all the jewels match I would think that they would be removable so
>they could be worn with other gowns. Yes? If so, around the necklines
>and on the headdresses, what were they attached to?
It is always said that jewels were reused, which is why so few of these gowns survive.
I'm not 100% certain about these, they could have been sewn to strips of cloth and
then to the gown, but certainly some were sewn directly onto the cloth, some of the
late Elizabeth I gowns where the jewels are in a pattern across the whole of the gown,
it would be the only way to do it. I think Janet Arnold also mentions ecclesiastical
outfits where jewels were sewn directly to the outfit. The Francis Lady Chandos
gown from the 1590s has motifs in seed pearls all over the sleeves, stomacher and forepart
of her gown, which were almost certainly sewn directly onto it.
>To the chemise (which does show around the
>neckline too)? In Jane S.'s portrait, there is a strip of white under the
>jewels across the top of her bodice but what was that strip a part of?
The period term in England is smock or shift, not chemise (pet hate of mine). I would
have to check the picture but it is normal for the low square-necked style of gown
to show a little of the smock at the edge, which is often decorated (blackwork).
It is unlikely that the jewels would be attached to the smock since that is a separate
garment, which would be changed much more frequently than the gown.
>Also in the Jane S. portrait, on her left shoulder there is a narrow
>space between the jewels and sleeve with skin showing through which makes
>me think that they weren't attached to the gown itself.
> Also, at the point where her right armhole and bodice front meet there is
>a gap where there are no jewels even though you can can see the gold
>cording/embroidery almost down to her armpit. The Mary and Elizabeth
>portraits have the jewels completely edging the neckline.
This could be the junction of the main part of the garment and the front layer which
gives the smooth look to the front.
> Next question is about sleeves. Looking at the portraits,
>it appears that the only thing going over the shoulder is the sleeve head,
>which falls at or very close to the shoulder end of the clavicle. Is the
>sleeve "set into" anything or is the sleeve head just suspended between
>the bodice front and back? If they weren't attached to anything, how did
>they keep them from slipping off their shoulders? The pattern in Jean
>Hunnisett's book has a narrow strap going over the shoulder from the back,
>but as was pointed out to me, that is theater rather than history.
We've had this discussion before on the list, and I think we agreed to differ. Some
people think the shoulder strap was omitted and you do just see the sleeve head at
this point. Personally I think this would make construction, and keeping the sleeve
head in position very difficult (and its almost impossible anyway). I think there is
a very narrow shoulder strap covered by the decorative strip. The gowns before and
after this style (the evolutionary origins and development of this gown) both show
clear shoulder straps, sometimes appearing to run from the back down to armpit level at
the front, which helps keep the shoulders up. Hunnisett is pretty good.
> Or do those jewels cover the shoulder piece? There isn't any gown
>fabric under Jane Seymour's and Mary's jewels, although Elizabeth's could
>be hiding something. Mary's sleeve heads are edged with a strip of what
>looks like ribbon--doesn't seem to be attached to anything else. There
>are some lines under Jane Seymour's arm but I think those are folds rather
>than seams. If Holbein included all those tiny gold pins and edge on the
>stomacher, wouldn't he have included a sleeve seam if there was one too?
I'll have a look at my copies, but I'm not sure they are good enough to show this
kind of detail! Holbein may just not have bothered to show the fabric, since the
jewels would take the viewer's eye.
> The only back view I've been able to find of this style of gown is
>the 1540 sketch by Holbein and the lappet of the headdress covers the
>sleeve-shoulder area :\ The part of the sketch that I can see indicates
>that something does go up the back, but where does it go _to_? Would it
>taper off to a point and end somewhere at the back of the shoulder?
>Almost looks like the bodice back and sleeve are one piece although I'm
>sure it can't be.
I think that sketch has tormented all of us working in this period! And I'm not 100%
sure its English (that headdress looks more like continental contemporaries than
English ones). If so it is possible that the front is not as low as the English
went as some of the continental pictures have a higher front neckline.
It's the only back view I know of and the plain fact is that that deep V doesn't work
with the very wide square front. The shoulders fall off. I've seen at least a dozen
variants, women working independently on the same sources you are quoting, and I've
only known two that worked (ie the shoulders stayed on without the woman ending up
with chronic neck and shoulder pain after about 2 days). In the first case the woman
used the kirtle/gown principle I mentioned in my last mailing. She made the kirtle
very high, round-necked but extending out to the shoulders and then down into the square
front-neck. The gown had a very deep V, practically down to the waist. She then
pinned or sewed the shoulders of the gown to the kirtle, so the back-neck of the
kirtle kept the gown and shoulders in place.
The second variant (I must confess) was my own. Firstly I worked with an interlining
with *no* stretch in it, and fully interlined the bodice. I didn't take the V as
deep as shown, about down to armpit level at the back. I used an integral shoulder
strap which ran from the back down to the armpit in one piece and was very tight (I could
not lift my arms above my head when dressed). The top half of the sleeves was also
very tight, so the weight of the lower sleeves was on my upper arms and did not run
to the shoulder. It worked for a couple of weeks, but was beginning to stretch by the
end. All the other gentry women had falling sleeves after a day or two, shoulder
cramp from trying to keep them up and found the weight of the lower trumpet sleeves
quite painful.
As for the false undersleeves, I haven't made the really big ones, like the picture
of Elizabeth your refer to, but I have made ones like the Jane Seymour. They don't
need padding, but stiffening, or use a stiff fabric. I used a cotton brocade, interlined it at least partially to hold the puffs of false smock sleeve showing through slashes
in place, and lined it. The shape is not difficult, you can use the shape of a forearm
part of a sleeve as a pattern, move the seam to under the arm and then extend to the shape wanted. The fun bit was putting in the 'sunray' lines running up from
the wrist - raised tucks made with saddle stitch. I experimented in calico first
to get the shape (and allowance for the tucks) right.
Janet Arnold seems to start about 1550 and apart from Jean Hunnisett I don't know
anyone else writing on this period in the kind of detail needed. Pictures are all
we have for this kind of detail at the moment. I am told the Museum of London has
a lot of 16th century textiles in store but currently have not plans to publish (I am going
to try and pressurise on this!)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:01:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Various
T-tunics
First a quick comment on T-tunics, tho' I won't go into detail until I've had a chance
to look more closely at Julie's long list! I have got and seen some of those pictures,
but will have to hunt for others.
However, I think someone put her finger on the question when she mentioned definitions.
I think I have quite a tight definition of T-Tunic, which I gave before - essentially
I think of it as an *unfitted* garment with as few seams as possible. Julie has
quite a broad definition, which includes fitting, and gores. My question on this
is whether this is a useful way to discuss these garments, particularly with neophytes.
I suspect it may mislead them, especially if they have the same definition as I
do!
My reading too would indicate that the normal width for weaving was 22" to 27", but
I'm not sure the Museum of London Textiles book is specific except for luxury fabrics.
Would any handweaver amongst us care to comment on the width that is convenient
for throwing the shuttle?
This is particularly important on the question of fitting. I know not everyone agrees
with me, but I am always struck in the pictures by how *well* clothes fit everyone
except the very poor. The problem arises with modern people, in that most of us
think of *loose* as *comfortable*, and tight as uncomfortable (the only exceptions that
spring to mind are lycra etc, which don't restrict movement, and tailored garments
- which most people associate with formal, uncomfortable clothing). These are generalisations, but in my experience it is difficult to persuade the ordinary 20th century person
that a fitted garment made of wool can be comfortable, and anything that hinders
that understanding is to be avoided!
Vote for wool! and linen!
Jane Seymour gown
I have made one of these, as well as earlier and later gowns. I think Maggie is right,
the explanation lies in where these gowns came from, the evolution of the style.
Going back to the turn of the century in England, (excluding working women) women
wore two main items of clothing over the smock, the kirtle and the gown, which reached
from neck to toes, cut through the waist, with sleeves. The fastening of these was
either side front or centre front (Italian dresses show side back closures but these
don't seem to have come into England) and women alternated these (ie if the kirtle was
centre front then the gown was side front). This can be seen clearly in the More
picture - you get both versions as well as the ease available for pregnancy. The
kirtles can be seen around the edge of the necklines, the forearms (where the gown sleeves
are turned back) and sometimes at the hems of the gowns. The variant where the centre
closing gown is worn open with decorative laces shows the kirtle underneath at centre
front.
The kirtle and particularly gown around 1500 were not particularly tight, but by the
1520s waists have come in, the top half is getting tighter and the bottom half looser
(and the gown lower sleeve bigger - a trumpet shape). Gradually the kirtle becomes
the lower half of the outfit alone with matching false sleeves. The idea continues
through the second half of the century where you get the forepart, stomacher and
undersleeves matching with a contrasting gown worn over them (Gower, Hilliard etc).
In the 1540's however the ideal of the top half seems to be this smooth, open square-necked
look, with a flat front (lots of Holbein's women). This works if you have an underlayer,
not seen, which is laced centre front - I found this needed to be quite heavily boned (but I am big busted, which most of the girls in the pictures aren't!). The side
closing decorative top part (again boned to be smooth) is attached at a side seam
and then pinned on the other side (I cheated and used hooks and eyes). Given the
position of the pinned edge, which is practically under the armpit, you need help to do
this! I have seen women do this as a separate stomacher pinned on both sides but
to my mind it was not successful, it tended to 'float' as a separate item, not looking
like an integral part of the garment.
Prostitutes
Someone mentioned that prostitutes didn't cover their hair, which I have always understood
in the past. However, reading that it occurred to me that the only pictures I've
seen of prostitutes show them wearing normal headgear. These are some woodcuts of
taverns from about 1600, showing them with revealed breasts and pretty little coifs,
and some French(?) and German(?) woodcuts from the 1500s or 1520s showing bathhouses
which, as far as I remember, show them uncovered but the hair dressed normally (pinned up) or wearing turban things. Has anyone any evidence about this, or is it something
that comes from what they wore when doing penance? There is a woodcut from about
1590s/1600s of a madam, who was associated with one of the playhouses and she is
dressed as a normal wealthy middleclass woman.
Back Princess seam
What is this? Apart from overgowns, the Janet Arnold Patterns of Fashion shows gowns
which are waisted and cartridge pleated at the waist. The seam lines might be the
back of the bodice, where you get a straight centre seam and/or curved side seams.
Puzzled!
Caroline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 01:43:24 -1000
From: Eric Praetzel
Subject: Re: 13th century cut/T-tunics
In terms of the archives. I'm still keeping everything in zip compressed files: available
by ftp from ece.uwaterloo.ca in pub/jpeg/h-costume
or
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~praetzel/hobby.html about half of the way down the page.
The files are:
-rw-r--r-- 1 praetzel users 151810 Jun 25 08:02 hcos93.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 praetzel users 1446598 Jun 25 08:03 hcos94.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 praetzel users 2561831 Jun 25 08:03 hcos95.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 praetzel users 1264067 Jun 25 08:04 hcos96.zip
Julie wrote:
> The other thing to note is that many early period "T" cuts have the selvage
> and a seam at the Center Front and Center back. This provides 4 seams to
I have never run across any such details and I've been making mine with the selvage
around the neck, arm cuffs and waist. You simply cut the fabric so that the only
non-selvage seams are on your side seams.
I thought that was a great discovery in terms of making a tunic that required no
finishing on the edges :-)
My last attempt had 6' of selvage gathered at the neck (2' wide pieces for front/back/arms)
and that was not comfortable on the side. I gored it but the problem seems to be
not enough width in the torso when the arms are raised. I'd also say that 2' of material is not enough for really puffy arms. I still have not managed to get the
really puffy look since the fabric just falls. I'm starting to think that the sleves
have to be lined with a stiff material of sorts.
- Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:02:33 -1000
From: Joan M Jurancich
Subject: Re: 16th C. costumes
At 04:57 PM 10/14/96 +1000, P. M. Ostwald (Tricia) wrote [excerpts]:
>Second question: French Hoods. The Clouet portraits of the 1540s Hoods all
>show ties under the chin. I've used this in my French hood, which attaches
>over a small cap, but it still drifts backward. That fall of
>velvet/velveteen at the back is very heavy and the hood itself is not well
>balanced. I have to keep settling it forward.
>
>Any ideas, suggestions? What about those Elizabethan versions of the French
>Hood which perches on the back of the hair? It is pinned to the hair ?
>(I've never noticed this in any portraits) How?
I think that the problem you may be having is in trying to attach the hood (the part
that drapes) to the crescent. I wore a French hood and crescent while participating
in the recently completed Renaissance Pleasure Faire North (in California, USA).
My headdress has three pieces: the coif, the hood, and the crescent. I found that if
I put a braid of my hair from (approximately) ear-to-ear, that I could pin the hood
and coif to my hair (the coif ties under the chin), and then put the crescent on
so that it was supported by the braid. (I also folded the hood up so that it would not blow
into my face.) When tied on under the back of the neck, I found the crescent quite
stable (I only lost it during a particulary hilarious bit while laughing uproariously)
for the full day of Faire (about 9 to 10 hours).
The hood I made is of two layers of black silk (remnants are grand things), so it's
not too heavy. I haven't done one in velvet.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 04:38:02 -1000
Comments: Environmental Systems Research Institute
From: Dale Loberger
The thing I think people hate most about Empire gowns is that they are "too" low in
the neckline (they can be as low as the bust point and still be quite correct, depending
upon how fashionable your character is) and that they are "too" tight in the armscye/sleeve area. Add that to the lack of waistline definition and we modern folks get
real confused as to how in the world this was ever seen as a flattering, liberating,
much less provocative, style. You have to think like they did and remember what
they were used to seeing, or not seeing, just before this style came into being. I ll
elaborate on this in a minute.
First of all, re: the Folkwear pattern. It is fine, it s just often seen made out
of cheap poly-cotton cloth and badly fitted, and that makes it look like some Kindergarten
dress. The sleeves are set correctly, the seaming is correct, the bodice gathering centers in the front and back as many did. It is a good basic pattern, and very
simple. It looks better with a corset, and looks horrible with a bra. This is entirely
due to the silhouette of the period, which is perfectly easily re-created using this dress.
By the way, there are more of these becoming available Rocking Horse Farm, Period
Impressions, etc. all have new 1812 /Jane Austen dresses. Watch for my own line coming Very Soon I Promise it will be available nationally
under the name "Thistles and Roses Patterns for Living History." Some of them are
available now, but only through me. I have farm/work dresses, as well as daygowns,
a wrapper, and aprons.
Anyway, with any period dress you all know how important the right underwear can be.
This is the only period I know of where there was often actually padding to *increase*
the waist size, and that is a little known fact. But it s crucial if you re going
to capture the look, unless your waist really is thick in relation to your bustline
and your hips. (I have been so impressed with the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice
because the costuming has been so meticulously built for each character s body type
to give a perfect period silhouette. Watch it and you will see exactly what I am going
to describe here.) First of all, I am going to assume Carol is looking to recreate
an American or British 1812 look. A lot of what I am going to say here has absolutely nothing to do with the French of the period they went totally off in a different
direction and a lot of what the American and English women did was in direct rejection
of the French look of this period.
OK, first of all, understand that the whole Empire line was scandalous to most eyeballs
when it first appeared. Many women refused to wear it until well into the nineteenth
century. Why, you ask? Well, what was different about it? What did it reveal that hadn t been seen since I don t know, help me out, you SCA folks the fourteen
hundreds or something before the invention of the farthingale? HIPS!!!! All of
a sudden you could actually see a woman s hips and legs moving under her gown when
she gasp walked!! (Now, think of that scene when Caroline Bingley is trying to get Darcy
to notice her, and she keeps walking back and forth across the room. She finally
gets Elizabeth to "come take a turn about the room with me. It s so refreshing!"
Still Darcy refuses to look up as she passes. Finally, she says, "won t you join us, Mr.
Darcy?" And he says, "That would defeat the object." "Whatever can you mean? We
insist on knowing your meaning, sir!" And Darcy says, "Why, that your figures appear
to best advantage when walking, and I might best admire them from my present position."
Caroline: "Shocking! Abominable reply! Eliza, how can we punish him?")
Generally, the more conservative a woman was, the more respectable she wished to appear,
the more padding she wore under the Empire gown to disguise the real shape of her
figure, and make it nearly impossible to guess, it would seem, where her hips actually were located under that columnar gown. Now, does it start to make sense? Also,
many more conservative woman actually wore more of a combination empire/round gown
with fuller, gathered skirts instead of the flat-fronted, back-gathered silhouette
popular among the younger and more fashionable. (like the older housekeepers and maids
in the BBC Pride & Prejudice production). The proper resting place for the waistline
of the gown was somewhere between the point of the bust and the chest wall -- ___not___
on the chest wall itself, as we might think from a first glance at the silhouette.
This caused the front of the gown to ride away from the stomach, and just skim the
outer hips at the sides. The bum roll, worn for dress-up and again by respectable
women more often with day gowns, disguised from the back just where the buttocks were, by
causing the dress to just skim over it to the floor. It also pushed the dress away
from the figure to extend gracefully behind, very often in a train. And so, completely
hiding the shape of the womanly figure to all but the imaginative male eye. Still,
the way a woman moved made it possible for more to be revealed about all this feminine
mystery than had been in anyones memory, due to the absence of abundant gathered
skirts and many petticoats. Often only one narrow one was worn, with the chemise.
Now, for the foundation or corset contrary to popular belief, women did not just
"throw away" their corsets during this period. Again, I m not talking about the
French here. English and American women often continued to wear their eighteenth
century corsets under these high-waisted gowns, resulting in "pleasing mounds of flesh" riding
high up and out of the low necklines of these dresses, (as they did in the 18th c.
face it, they were used to seeing lots of bosom) and a flat fronted torso directly
below. Later, toward the end of the first decade, a straight, long-lined corset appeared,
and *it* was often padded in front in a large diamond shape, to fill in a woman s
naturally concave area (at least before childbirth) below the bustline and make it
appear more conical or columnar. These corsets laced up the back and had busks on either
side of the lacing, and could have a busk up the front, too, but a girl with good
posture could forego that. These corsets were often said to have been laced very
tightly, from the bottom of the bust to below the hips, in order that the whole body be forced
into a straight, columnar shape. The waist was not necessarily constricted, for
to do so would disturb that columnar ideal.
So, if you re going to attempt to duplicate the 1812 line, you have to re-think your
body. Realize the emphasis and focal point was the upper chest and neckline area.
Everything else is meant to draw the eye upward and away from those scandalously
obvious legs and hips. Decide whether you re going to be more comfortable with either pretty
collars and chemisettes to fill in the low neckline or the WonderBra look. (Don t
try wearing one of these, though. Bras don t work here they are much too obvious
and difficult to hide, besides the fact that they don t give the right silhouette to
build on.) Try it with your 18th c. corset first, remembering that the waistline
of the dress does not go down below the bust against the chest wall but just above
it. If you aren t satisfied with this look, you can try the 1830 corded stays Saundra Altman
has at Past Patterns but you almost have to wear it with the busk in order to avoid
drooping if you have any chest at all. Fit the waistline wearing the corset or stays
you plan to wear. Try things like the bum roll or chest padding if the dress doesn
t seem to duplicate the incredibly smooth, columnar shape. Absolutely NO bumps or
bulges allowed they all must be disguised/flattened/hidden /skimmed over. If you
like trying graphed patterns, there are some stays for this period in the Norah Waugh _Corsets
& Crinolines_ book. Unfortunately, there are none that I know of with the diamond
shaped inset in the front, but there are pictures. Maybe you can experiment. I
just read Loren Dearborn s message do you have a pattern for the regency corset you
mention? Would you share???J
As to the fact that your movement is restricted even more so than you may be used
to in other eras the arms are still pulled back, the chest is held up and out, the
sleeves are small and tight and often don t allow you to reach your arms up to do
your hair comfortably. If you have to be in something that doesn t restrict movement (such
as to be able to operate a shuttle at a loom, for instance), make a fuller sleeve
and add a little at the upper side seam at the armhole. Many different sleeves are
available, however, besides the short, tight puffed look the marmaluke sleeve, with the
series of puffs down the arm, the long, fitted sleeve that flares at the wrist, often
with a separate little buckled band made of self-fabric worn over it, the elbow length
tapered sleeve, with a little fullness in the upper arm, and fitted at the elbow.
As to the movement of the waistline seam, it first began rising in the late 1780 s
(in France, natch) and by 1790 was definitely on the way up towards the bustline.
By 1800, of course, the most fashionable were wearing it way up there, with the
lowest of low necklines. It stayed up pretty high until skirts started getting fuller again
toward the end of the teens. Toward the end of the 20 s it was down to between
2 & 3 inches above the normal waistline, and skirts were relatively full.
I think that s about enough from me on this! But if anyone wants to know more, feel
free to e-mail me privately.
Susannah Eanes, Mantua Maker and Fine Tailoring
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:19:15 -1000
From: dlxibm!Liz_Jones%[email protected]
Subject: French Hoods, Tudor Sleeves & bodice, Foam Dress Forms
As quick (but long) a post as I can manage without reading these threads all the way
back. As usual, I am behind on my reading!
French Hoods: I have made two - one with, and one without a hood. Both successfully
stayed on my head, but I do confess to cheating and tacking a small hair comb in
each. Both forms were made out of buckram edged with millinery wire (covered with
thread, and rather sturdy), and then covered with fabric that had interfacing. At this point
in time I would omit the modern interfacing in favor of a heavy linen, as I am becoming
more of a purist these days (although not entirely without creativity). I wrestled
with the velvet fall issue before succumbing, for I could find no evidence of anything
but black (or very dark) velvet. I originally wanted to use black silk, but couldn't
justify it. I will give a helpful construction hint to anyone making these, as they
are not difficult: the "fall" pattern looks something like a modern sleeve pattern.
That is, there is a "hill" on top that is the same as a modern "seam under the arm"
cut that we do nowadays. The medieval and renaissance sleeves (for those that don't
know) usually went down the back of the arm, thereby creating an "S" (on it's side) on
the top of the sleeve pattern. (I didn't mean to digress into this, really!) At any
rate, with the French hood, you have to make sure to cut that "hill" or curve rather
high, in order to actually go over the top of your head. If you mess up, the headpiece
will naturally try to come off because it is simply not big enough. The rest of the
"sleeve" just goes round under the nape of your neck: I did actually sew mine into
a tubular sleeve form, although I am not sure it is entirely correct. The earlier ones certainly
had lappets that flapped about, as in the Holbein print.
Tudor Sleeves: More on this time period. I have become a better costumer in these
past six years, but I did make two Tudor dresses at that time. These are some things
I would change, but the lower sleeves worked all right on both. I did not use any
baleen-type stiffener, but simply interfaced them. I think they could have been stiffer,
but were not bad. I put a hook underneath my oversleeve that held them in place,
and they were just open at the top near the elbow - they did not close around the
forearm. As I do not know of any extant pieces, I am not sure this is accurate - it just worked.
The interesting thing about this thread to me, however, was the bit about bodices
and shoulder straps. In 1989, I was challenged by my then Laurel (in the SCA, that's
a master in an art) to "figure out" the construction of the Tudor shoulder seams. We
had both agonized over all the fitting issues with the non-visible straps in all
the references mentioned in this list, and did not have an answer. She gave me this
task as a way to improve my patterning, and solve an outstanding sewing mystery (of which I
have many left to solve). After spending several hours drafting, cutting and piecing
together pattern pieces, I did achieve the goal: a shoulder piece (the sleeve) that
fitted directly to the bodice, with the V-neck in the back and the square neck in front.
Yes, folks, those shoulders were tight, but not painful. I could NOT do my hair in
them without my arms going numb, but I'm sure that is an accurate feeling. The front
of the sleeve forms the side pieces of the rectangular front, and then the back bodice
starts at just in back of the shoulder and joins to the sleeve in back, giving a
"normal" seam look. The V is certainly not that deep (NOT down to the waist!), but
is comparable to the Holbein drawing. I covered the neckline edge with jeweled pieces that
were sewn on.
Now, I am not saying that this is the actual construction, and have spent many hours
after this debating it with various people. I do agree that patterns before and after
this time have the shoulder strap in them, and this type of information is usually
indicative. However, I am reporting to this list that the construction does work, is
comfortable (enough), and most importantly (!) stays on the shoulders (due to the
V-neck in back). So I felt that I rose to the challenge and gained information. I
will report also that a good friend has borrowed the first "field" Tudor, and is in terrible
pain after a few hours of wearing it. I can surmise therefore, that this is the type
of fit that MUST be done to only your own body, if you do not want to suffer!
Lastly: Foam dress forms - I took a class at SCA XXV year in Texas (that was in 1990)
on this subject. The man who taught it had made four, three of which he had there.
He did give handouts, and I still have them, but have not tried it myself. I found
it fascinating and always wanted to do one. In those, he did make a plaster cast of the
torso, then fill it with medical-type foam, as in the type used for casts. Therefore,
they do not "give" at all. If you want a corseted form, you must plaster your body
with a corset on, etc. They looked great, and I loved the method because it was exact.
After looking at dressmaker forms that are sold, I could never figure out how to
make them look like me! Too much bother - I'll just use my apprentice to fit me!
But these dress forms could be pinned, etc. He did admit to mistakes, and said it took some
practice.
Here I go: I am done with my SCA commitments for the fall, and will therefore offer
to copy this article for interested people. I also have the Gypsy Dress 16th century
article to send out, and will honor my promise on that if people will send me a SASE:
Liz Jones, 88 Park Street, Bristol, CT 06810 with their choice of article. I have a
feeling that I owe some other stuff, but can't remember what!
BTW: Erin, I would be really interested in the Eleanora Grave Study that you mentioned
as being recently published and in Italian. Did I miss the info on that?
Liz Jones
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:31:49 -1000
From: Trudy
Subject: wedding rings
i happened to find a book yesterday which discuessed (only a little) wedding rings
and on which finger they were worn...i just wrote down some notes, so i'm only paraphrsing
here:
during the period of george I in england, the wedding ring was usually worn on the
thumb (although it was placed on the fourth -- i guess what we consider the ring
-- finger during the ceremony). apparently very large wedding rings were fashionable
which necessitated waering them on the thumb.
in france from the 11th to the 15th centuries, they wre usually on the right hand,
middle finger; s in some areas they were on the fourth finger.
the guals and the britons of the 1st century wore the ring on the middle finger (didn't
say which hand).
the order of matrimony in england, pre-freformation said that men should wear their
wedding ring on their right hand, women on the left.
chirlandajo's frescoes in the curch of santa croce in florence show the betrothal
of the ivrgin (make that virgin...no backspace c key here) mary -- the ring is placed
by joseph on mary's fourth vinger, right hand.
during the betrothal of lucrezia borgia with giv ARGH make that giovanni sforza on
feb. 2, 1493, the wedding (engagement) ring was placed on her fourth finger, left
hand.
and finally, an idea that might explain the custom of wearing the wedding ring on
the thumb -- the second digit of the thumb was dedicated to the virgin mary.
this is all from "rings for the finger", by george frederick kunz, dover press, 1917
(repreinted i believe late 1940s). i found thi s book used at Green Apple Books
on Clement St. in San Francisco (i didn't buy it so it's still there ) if any bay
area people are interested.
-Kendra Van Cleave
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:29:10 -1000
From: "Rachel E. Mast"
Subject: Re: T-tunic
My fiance and I found a wonderful pattern for a t-tunic. A woman in SCA published
it in a news letter we get (Members only). It uses basic geometrical shapes and
my fiance made a vewry impressive tunic with about 1 yard of fabric, and very little
scrap. I can send it to you if you would like to look at it...
Rachel Mast
SCA: Sasha
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 03:06:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Definitions
>From Teddy
>I also think that either a set of agreed definitions is needed
The list perennially hits the problem that drawing is impossible on email - so we
end up discussing pictures only some of us have seen - pity we can't have a reference
library on the Web parallel to the archives - would that be possible? The problem
with any of the books, like Cunningham, is that again, not everyone has a copy, or they
disagree with the book!
>Kirtle: Is there an accepted definition, it seems to me to change according
>to the nationality of the person posting a piece <> the periods
>they are used to dealing with/are writing about. Corset/Pair of
>bodies/bodice : I'm not sure I could sort out where the lines are
>drawn on these ones. Similarly, I have (not necessarily on h-
>costume) encountered discussions of gowns, overdresses and surcoats,
<> refering to the same garment.
Well, usage of some (most?) terms changed over time, so people interested in different
specific periods may well refer to different garments by the same name. So our definitions
could work two ways, the item worn (eg a full-length skirt) and what it was called in different periods; or the name (eg kirtle) and what that signified over various
periods. To illustrate some of the problems:
On kirtles, in the 15th century (not sure about earlier) a kirtle was a full-length
garment, neck to toes, worn (usually) under a gown. By 1550 a kirtle was an underskirt
worn over the farthingale, possibly with a decorative forepart attached, or entirely decorated, again worn under a gown.
On corset/pair of bodies/bodice - I don't think the term corset is used in the 16th
century, its a 'pair of bodies' which may be worn as an undergarment (or corset)
or as the top garment (well, a gown could be worn over them). The terms 'corset'
or 'bodice' might be used by a 20th century costumer working on the 16th century in order to
distinguish between the two types of 'pairs of bodies'.
So a working woman would be perfectly well dressed in a pair of bodies and a kirtle
(well, assuming coif, smock, shoes and hose), but a gentry lady would be in her underwear.
>Also, some confusion occurs when people refer to particular periods
>by established terms (Tudor, Elizabethan, Regency etc) though not
>necessarily restricting them to the COUNTRY that the term originated
>in. I confess that I think of the <> covered by these
>terms, and sometimes forget about the geographical location part.
>Unfortunately, it gets very confusing (for example) when someone
>refers to "Elizabethan" when describing a garment that happened to
>be worn in Italy, during Elizabeth I's reign in England.
Well, some terms cover the whole of Western Europe, and some are specific - the ones
Teddy quoted are all specifically English, and you would have to talk about 'foreign'
(non-English, rest of Europe) influences on them. Terms like 'Renaissance' or 'counter-Reformation' (tho I've never seen that used in a costume context) were more general,
but would occur at different times in different places, Italian Renaissance can be
as early as 1450, but much later in northern Europe. IMHO its not just confusing
to refer to a late 16th century Italian dress as 'Elizabethan', or refer to Italian fashions
in that context, except as an influence on Elizabethan dress, its meaningless. Also,
of course, the term 'Italian' has limited meaning, and not the same as today. The Italian city states were self-governing, and had their own fashions and legislation
on fashion.
>It stated that the commemorative brasses, effigies and statues were often
>comissioned while the person was still alive, in order that an
>acceptably good likeness be achieved. This, I think, was
>particularly true of those effigies depicting couples, the surviving
>partner (usually the woman if the man waskilled in battle etc.) would
>comission both likenesses, and it may be many more years and changes
>of fashion before she actually went legs-up herself. This all sounds
>quite reasonable to me.
Not convinced about the likeness - brasses look fairly generic to me. The second
point is reasonable. Another theory, its in a book on Suffolk brasses, is that the
makers of brasses would have a stock of brasses already engraved and the customer
would choose one they liked, so they might well be old-fashioned.
>> However, I don't think I can think of an example where one element
>> of an outdated fashion is 'tacked-on' to a more modern fashion -
>> tho you do get this with foreign fashions - Stubbs is very funny
>> about this.
>A-ha! ASSUMPTIONS!
>dramatic pose .
>You're saying foreign fashion as an English person, thinking
>(mostly) in terms of English conventions. A lot of the postings on
>h-costume (probably the majority) are not made by English people and
>some may be using examples from other countries, or several, because
>they are all from the same period.
Interesting point, and it may cause some of the confusion we see. I was thinking
as an English person interested in English 15th and 16th century fashions, and the
later 16th century was a period when the English were 'magpies' on foreign fashions
(interesting lecture by Janet Arnold given with the Dynasties exhibition, pointing out the
various 'foreign' elements). To clarify, that's what I meant by 'foreign'.
There is an interesting study to be written about how much interplay there was between
the different nationalities in terms of clothes, but at the moment, I don't think
we know the answer. One indication of the period difference may be the books published in the mid 16th century, there are a couple by Dutchmen, on clothes worn by different
nationalities. They, and we, can certainly see differences, which were presumably
persistent.
A modern European will see great differences between European countries, and make
assumptions about differences in the past (which may well be eroneous, or mis-placed).
A modern American may well have different views on the effect of geography on people!
In this context, does anyone have any idea when 'folk costumes' were established?
I have a feeling they are 19th or even early 20th century and don't seem to have
much to do with what people were wearing back in the middle ages. Does anyone have
any information?
Caroline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 13:07:05 -1000
From: Susan Carroll-Clark
Subject: Italian Corsets?
Greetings!
I was not under the impression that early (pre 1450-1500 or so) Italian women's garmets
_had_ corsets. If you look through the glossary in Jacqueline Herald's book on the
period, you'll notice that there does not seem to be a word or description of anything that could be a corset. Look at the silhouettes--the bustlines are rounded, and
held in just below the waist. Past experience tells me that this silhouette is consistant
with two or more layers of laced (front or side or perhaps side-back) garments, at least one of which is made of substantial material. The look generally is flowing
and soft.
Now, after, say, 1500-ish, the silhouette does begin to change, and the front of the
garment flattens, similar to Tudor and Spanish fashions, although there are stylistic
differences. For this period, it seems clear that some kind of corseting was probably used. By the time of the Eleanor of Toledo dress in Janet Arnold (which looks more
Italian than Spanish to my eye) and such, corsets are definitely in use.
Please, if anyone has info to the contrary, please post!
Cheers!
Susan Carroll-Clark
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:49:00 -1000>
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Gowns, theatrical or otherwise
I'm not sure where this started, but I could like to reply to Sharon's comments from
a re-enactor's point of view. I have not made for the theatre, but I have looked
at quite a lot and have also gleaned some of what is said below from Janet Arnold
and Jean Hunnisett's books.
On the question about making a Renaissance gown - Jean Hunnisett's book of patterns
covering Medieval - 1500 has lots of useful information on Italian Renaissance construction.
On the question about a doublet bodice on an Elizabethan gown - I've never made one
as I have a similar problem (big bust). However, a friend has and according to her
a curved seam running from the front of the arm (about half-way down), over the bust
and into the waist, is very useful for taking in excess material over the bust. The
front closure is also not straight but curved. It works for overgowns and 15th century
kirtles - which I have made!
Caroline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 04:47:38 -1000
From: Dawn Vukson-Van Beek
Subject: Re: Italian Corsets?
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 18:07:05 -0500 wrote...
>Greetings!
>
>I was not under the impression that early (pre 1450-1500 or so) Italian
>women's garmets _had_ corsets. If you look through the glossary
>in Jacqueline Herald's book on the period, you'll notice that there
>does not seem to be a word or description of anything that could be
>a corset. Look at the silhouettes--the bustlines are rounded, and
>held in just below the waist. Past experience tells me that this
>silhouette is consistant with two or more layers of laced (front
>or side or perhaps side-back) garments, at least one of which is made
>of substantial material. The look generally is flowing and soft.
I would agree with this whole-heartedly. The inventory lists that I have read do
not list any corsets- though bodices are listed. The bodice of Elenora Toledo is
velvet and linen-lined, but not boned. It is closed with hook and eyes, not laced.
I believe the stiff nature of this bodice achieves the silhoutte, not a corset.
>Now, after, say, 1500-ish, the silhouette does begin to change, and
>the front of the garment flattens, similar to Tudor and Spanish fashions,
>although there are stylistic differences. For this period, it seems
>clear that some kind of corseting was probably used. By the time
>of the Eleanor of Toledo dress in Janet Arnold (which looks more Italian
>than Spanish to my eye) and such, corsets are definitely in use.
I differ here. Eleanora of Toledo was buried in a bodice, not a corset. If a woman
who had eleven children by age forty doesn't need a corset- then who does? I still
believe the later silhouette is achieved with a bodice, not a corset- and no farthingales either, though Janet refers to Spanish Farthingales in _Patterns of Fashion, 1560-1620_.
Her conclusion is based on a bronze of Isabella of Portugal. Even though Eleanora
is from Spain, the Spanish farthingale fashion came in after she had been in Italy for over 20 years. I don't think that stays and bones were a part of Italian dress.
This is my theory, but I haven't found anything conclusive to contradict this.
I hope to hear more on this discussion!
Keep 'em in stitches,
Dawn
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:32:02 -1000
From: Diana Habra
Organization: none
Subject: Re: Italian Corsets
Dear Readers,
I would have to agree with Dawn's comment that bodices were not really necessary to
achieve the correct silhouette in Italian Rennaisance fashions.
I have made two of these types of dresses and with a somewhat generous bust, I believed
a corset was necessary. Just in case, though, I lined my bodice with horsehair braid
(the stuff they use for suit lining) and an inner lining of a substantial cotton.
What I realized after wearing them a couple times is that if made properly, there
is no need for a corset. With the bodice being stiff, it acted LIKE a corset and
was actually much more comfortable considering that there were no bones to contend
with.
I will have to comment that the first one I made was a back lace gown (diagonal lacings,
of course) and was made out of a heavy upholstery fabric which gave much smoother
lines. The second was made out of a twill with the same lining materials and was
front laced. It does not give as smooth a silhouette (some slight wrinkling can be seen
in places) and it was necessary to put a metal bone on each side of the lacings in
order for it to fit together properly without gapping.
There again is my two cents. I hope to hear other comments and suggestions on this
topic.
Rose
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:33:20 -1000
From: Margaret Rae Carignan
Subject: Re: Italian Corsets
Yes, I think we are all in agreement about pre-1500 Italian gowns not requireing what
we think of as a corset - a stiff, boned thing that makes you flat. I have heard,
however, that Italian costumes (such as the giorino, the organ-pipe pleated gown
like in Lotto's "Man and Woman at a Casement" was worn over a PADDED underbodice (padded
with bundles of reeds laid horizontally). I can't remember where I heard this, but
I have yet to see a reference to it in print. We should also remember that not all
"corsets" are boned, but are merely foundation garments that make a shape, whether rounded
or flattened, or whatever.
As to Eleanora of Toledo, two things. Yes she was Spanish, but lived in Italy, and
probably wore Italian fashion (perhaps with a little Spanish twist). She was also,
not surprisingly, dead when she was buried (or at least, we like to assume this),
and therefore might have lost some weight before she died. She certainly wouldn't have needed
as much corset as a live, healthy woman!
If you look at all the portraits of Eleanora by Bronzino (or school of), they all
look pretty flat and corseted to me. A broad survey of the available evidence (pictoral
mostly) suggests to me that come Italians went corsetted, and some did not. Some
bodices are as flat as a Spaniard's and some have a definite curve.
As far as farthingales are concerned, Kohler states that Italians didn't wear them,
but wore instead "stiffened petticoats". What is the difference, pray tell? Again,
some dresses look loose and "flowy" and some are certainly conical.
Oh, the questions!
Meg/Francesca
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:42:43 -1000
From: Gary Stephens
Subject: Re: Italian Corsets?
Susan Carroll-Clark wrote:
>I was not under the impression that early (pre 1450-1500 or so) Italian
>women's garmets _had_ corsets.
At the moment I'm reading _Dress in Italian Painting 1460 - 1500_, by Elizabeth
Birbari. An extremely informative book, BTW. I think perhaps the confusion some people
have is identifying corsets with laced bodices - an error of which I am formerly
guilty.
Indeed there are rather constricting bodices throughout the1450-1500 period.
However, like you, I find no reference to corsets.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 06:02:20 -1000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Hennins
Recent discussions of hennins have led me to a discovery. About a year ago when the
subject came up, I reported seeing numerous illuminations of other sorts of women's
headgear, of the same period, with the characteristic little black forehead loop.
This led me to wonder whether the loop was connected to a cap under the hennin, and not
the hennin itself. No one seems to know.
Well, the "June" illustration in 1997's Medieval Women calendar shows something really
interesting! The picture is a "tree of consanguinity" from a 1471 French manuscript.
Numerous women in various headgear (and dress styles) are shown. One is wearing a
sort of fez with the little forehead loop -- and one has no hat on at all. Apparently
a young girl, she is wearing her hair in a single ponytail. A black band covers her
hairline -- and IT'S got the forehead loop. That's right, all by itself.
Now, I don't want to leap to conclusions on the basis of one picture, and I don't
have the time to do a lot of library research right now. But is it possible that
the loop is just something connected to a hairband of some kind, and that various
headgear was pinned to the hairband? The loop would help hold everything on. When I get a chance,
I will experiment.
Gail Finke/[email protected]
PS: For those interested, the reference is: MS Fr. 202, fol. 15v.,
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 18:43:37 -1000
Reply-To: don and carolyn richardson
Sender: Historic Costume List
From: don and carolyn richardson
Subject: Re: Italian Corsets
I've found that either a corset or a reasonably stiff interlinig can work equally
well. While I make all my Italians to go over a short corset that holds my bust up,
I've also successfully worn the same dresses without it. And that was *without*
a heavy interlining. But I do bone the side seams (side opening on one side) with cable ties
as bones. This keeps the dress from bunching up around the waist since I like longer
waisted Italians.
On the other hand, I've seen Italians that were supposed to go over some sort of stiff
underwear, or that needed stiffening, and looked terrible witout either one. I'd
say use your judgement on what you want. I personally like a corset because I don't
have to wash the dresses so often, and I think it holds my breasts better (36D with
a small back).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 03:42:00 -1000
From: Susan Evans
Subject: Re: Cloth of Gold
The book "Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400-1500" by Jacqueline Herald, part of the
History of Dress series from Humanities Press has a chapter on cloth of gold. They
date to early 15th century in Italy. Also contained in this chapter is information
on other textiles that incorporated gold thread embellishment in the weaving process.
Sue Evans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:55:57 -1000
Subject: Re: Cunningtons
The Cunnington "Handbooks" for various centuries have been out of print for years,
as far as I know. The books turn up very rarely in used bookstores. I've seen only
a couple in the ten years I have been costume booking, and they were about $60 each
at Black Oak in Berkeley four years ago. The Cunningtons also did books on dress for marriages,
burials, and christenings, and on working class dress. Plus a charming little essay
called "The Perfect Lady," with color photographs.
Another author deserving reprint, IMHO, is R. Turner Wilcox, whose books on "Hats
and Headresses" and "Shoes" were printed 50 years ago on war-rationed paper. Her
costume books are widely available in paperback, especially for art students, but
the accessories seem overlooked.
M. Channing Linthicum's "Costumes in Plays of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries"
is another out-of-print gem. And the charming books by the woman whose collection
is now at Bath.
Perhaps Mr. Shep can advise whom we might lobby for reprints? Is it a problem with
estates owning the rights to reprinting?
Danine
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 1630s suit/Cunningtons
Author: [email protected] @ BelmontSMTP at NOTES_DIRECTORY
Date: 10/29/96 6:23 PM
The book I alluded to is "Handbook of English costume in the seventeenth century"
by C.Willett Cunnington and Phillis Cunnington. They wrote a whole series covering
different periods, including contemporary quotations and illustrations. The 17c one
has been published in the USA (Boston, Mass.: Plays, 1972, ISBN 0823801357) but I don't
know if it's still in print.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:27:39 -1000
From: "Penny E. Ladnier"
Subject: Re: Time periods
The following are the time periods in costume history as I was taught in my
C.H. class last year.
Middle Ages: 1110-1300 A.D
Early Gothic: 1300-1400
Late Gothic: 1400-1459
Transitional: 1460-1499
Renaissance: 1500-1580
Elizabethan: 1580-1620
Cavalier: 1620-1660
Restoration: 1660-1710
Early Georgian: 1710-1760
Late Georgian: 1760-1780
Empire: 1780-1820
Romantic: 1820-1850
Crinoline: 1840-1870
Bustle: 1870-1890
Fin de Seicle (Gay Ninties): 1890-1902
Edwardian: 1902-1913
The War Years: 1914-1920
Roaring 20's: 1920-1929
Then rest are referred to by the decade names.
Penny
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 06:58:15 -1000
From: [email protected]
Subject: lacing
In reply to the lacing question: I don't know what "diagonal lacing" is. But there
is a definite difference in the fit and appearance of a garment that is laced crosswise
(like we do our shoes) and from the bottom up, like a spiral. With spiral lacing,
the two edges of your garment end up much closer together -- assuming, of course, that
you want them that way. You can certainly lace more loosely. At least for all the
medieval and Italian Renaissance garments I have ever seen, this is the correct way
to lace.
Is it a pain to do? Yes. You tie the lace to the bottom hole and just keep spiraling
up. Tie again at the top. Be careful not to miss a hole! If you are a woman with
a B-size or bigger bust, lacing a very tight-fitting cotehardie, you'll probably
want to do it in front of a mirror because you will not be to see. It takes a while but it
looks great and is very comfortable. It's one of those little details that makes
a huge difference in appearance -- like not tying your points in bows. Make a loop!
That doesn't make much sense without a picture, but just take a good look at any picture of
tied points and you will see what I mean.
Gail Finke/[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:18:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Time periods
I'm afraid I have to disagree with some of Penny's terms! I'm working strictly from
an English point of view.
Penny wrote:
>Middle Ages: 1110-1300 A.D
>Early Gothic: 1300-1400
>Late Gothic: 1400-1459
>Transitional: 1460-1499
These sound architectural rather than costume to me! I certainly wouldn't apply the
term 'Gothic' to the early 15th century. The term 'Middle Ages' or 'medieval', surely
covers from ?end of Roman Empire ?500 AD (this is very vague to me) to the 1490s.
Late Medieval is 1300 to 1490s. We tend to refer to terms such as Wars of the Roses
for the 1450s - 1480s.
>Renaissance: 1500-1580
The English don't really have the Renaissance until Elizabeth. Its more
useful in relation to Italy, when 1470 - 1520 is probably the span.
Tudor 1490s - 1558
>Elizabethan: 1580-1620
Elizabethan 1558 - 1603 (well that's when she reigned!)
Jacobean 1603 - 1620
>Cavalier: 1620-1660
Surely a term which relates to the Civil War, contrasted to the contemporary Roundhead
style, so 1640-1660. I would refer to Charles I for 1620 - 1640 (I'm not sure of
his date of accession).
>Restoration: 1660-1710
>Early Georgian: 1710-1760
>Late Georgian: 1760-1780
>Empire: 1780-1820
>Romantic: 1820-1850
>Crinoline: 1840-1870
>Bustle: 1870-1890
>Fin de Seicle (Gay Ninties): 1890-1902
>Edwardian: 1902-1913
>The War Years: 1914-1920
>Roaring 20's: 1920-1929
>Then rest are referred to by the decade name
Don't know enough to query these, but they seem rather general to me - what about
William and Mary (Dutch influence after 1688) or Queen Anne? Surely 1780 to 1820
is too broad a stretch for Empire? I thought Empire was late 1790s - and then it's
Revolutionary really?
As for other countries, why don't people post their areas of knowledge and what they
call them and we'll see if we can line them up.
Caroline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:45:15 -1000
From: Sheridan Alder & David Webb
Subject: Re: Time periods
R.L. Shep said:
>I think it is really interesting, all these variations......
Let's face it, between "newbies" and people becoming deeply involved in a particular
discussion, this is going to be a recurring problem. The only solution will be to
keep reminding each other, hopefully with good nature and good humour, to be specific
about "where" and "when".
>If we are talking about English periods then why Empire? That has to
>do with France.
One of my favorite experiences was the time we visited Deerfield Village a couple
of years ago. (A site designed for mega furniture freaks by mega furniture freaks
- the interpretors appeared to know nothing else) One interpretor proudly announced
that the Empire style was the first "American" furniture style. It was difficult to fight
down the temptation to ask "But why was it called "Empire" then? The U.S. didn't
have an empire. Wasn't it called "Empire" after the French style? Then it was part
of an international style then, eh?" Later on another interpretor pointed out a General Wolfe
punch bowl and fireback and tentatively explained it by wondering "Maybe he was a
friend of the family?" She was much surprised when we told her Wolfe was a popular
hero as a result of his conquest of Quebec. To be fair, though, so many sites have to rely
on volunteers and students now, and so often facts become fractured as they're transmitted
through the staff.
I consider 1810 Regency - or Late Georgian, if we are
>talking about England.
This is my particular period of interest and quandary too! (Granted, if you wanted
to be tight-assed about it, the Regency didn't really start until 1811, when the
Prince was officially appointed Regent. My apologies - and here I am claiming to
be trying to avoid nit-picking and info- bashing! A vile hyprocite! We do War of 1812, but I'm
also interested in costume c. 1795-1815. This doesn't fit into a neat category. While
the Connoisseur Period Guides consider late Georgian to be 1760-1810(!) and the Regency 1810-1830, I've come across sources referring to up to 1836 as "late Georgian"!
So the possibilities for squabbling are endless.
>If we are talking about the US then we have to look at Colonial,
>Revolutionary, Federalist, etc.
>I suppose for all of us, since the net is spread out over the world and
>the world gets smaller everyday it would be best to refer to all costume
>periods by date and not these labels that don't make sense to others.
>(of course some cultures don't use our dating system either, but they
>usually do understand and accept it).
I second this, but we're going to have to keep jogging each other's memory. Pleasantly,
I hope.
Sheridan Alder
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 05:52:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Terms
I was interested in Michelle's note. I was taught that for convenience, 1492 (Europe
- discovery of America) and 1487 (England - end of Wars of Roses, beginning of Tudor
dynasty) were the dividing dates between late medieval and early modern history -
which have more importance for the historian than for people living at the time. We
didn't use a term like 'transitional' at all - after all, every period could be described
as transitional, and if you used it in a neutral context who would know which period you were talking about?
I've just purchased a book called 'Standards of Living in the Late Middle Ages', which
concentrates on the 14th and 15th century - 'Standards of Living in the Transitional
Age' doesn't sound half as interesting! Its by Christopher Dyos BTW, and if I ever
get it off my husband I gather its very interesting!
back