Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • marshamclean@rogers.com
    I can only speak for Elizabethan, but in my experience there are, indeed, a number of garments referred to as kirtles . There is the A-line garment worn
    Message 1 of 24 , May 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      (In case it didn't come through, I wasn't referring to you, or to anyone specifically on this list.)
       
      Let's take the term 'kirtle' for example; it had different meanings at different times (and sometimes different meanings at the same time).  I've seen one person define 'kirtle' as the fitted A-line dress you see on Drea's site, and ONLY that type of dress, and another person define 'kirtle' as any underdress, and another person define 'kirtle' as an Elizabethan underskirt, and another person define 'kirtle' as a general term, synonymous with gown, and another person defines it as a men's knee-length tunic or cote, and another person defines it as a coat of any sort (eg "kirtle of paint"), and another person defines it as an early 18th century short jacket, and so on and so on and so on. (I'll stop now.  I could fill several pages.)  And ALL of these definitions are accurate in that they were used that way at various times in period; what is not accurate is saying that kirtle can SOLELY mean whatever their pet definition says it means.
       
      One just cannot make kirtle mean only one thing.   One cannot even say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can't be done, not with any respect for historical accuracy.  It was not used as a specific term by the people we try to emulate, and we should not try to force it to become a specific term now as a part of our attempt to emulate them.
       
      But I'm not really here to offer a solution, I'm just here to bitch about the problem.  Plus, I'm up so far past my bedtime that I'm thinking I should just stay up, so my brain isn't working well enough right now.  Good thing I'm self-employed.
       
      E
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:22 AM
      Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

      --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:
      > Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
      > I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern
      people than they were defined in period.  I really, really do
      understand how handy it is for recreators to have super specific
      terms, really I do.  I just wish that rather than redefining (and
      when the term is made more specific than it really is, it's
      redefining) the term, people would come up with a new term.  (Like
      calling it a Gothic fitted dress.  That? Fine.)

      Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean here... Do you mean that the
      term 'kirtle' and 'cote' are redefined terms for other, original
      meanings? If so, please let me know more about the terms -- I'm
      always looking for such information. I'd also welcome further ideas
      on the two dresses -- because they are distinctly different and serve
      different purposes. When you are describing an outfit that consists
      of a chemise layer, an underdress layer, and an overdress layer, how
      would one 'name' those layers? "Gothic Fitted dress" is a great
      descriptor for the look in general, but it doesn't help people figure
      out which layers to wear together -- does one wear one G.F.D. and be
      done with any further detail? Or, does one wear two G.F.Ds, of style
      A and B together?

      I can well imagine that in period folks had no need to be specific
      due to the fact that everyone just "knew" how the dresses went or
      didn't go together. However, as you've pointed out, recreators need
      to be able to define the pieces of the 'roba' (entire outfit). I'm
      completely open to suggestions on this, as I haven't comfortably
      settled down with any set words yet. I've been using kirtle and cote
      for lack of anything else concrete yet. Ideas?

      Marcele de Montsegur



      ----------------------------------------------------
      This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      ----------------------------------------------------
      This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Cilean_69
      No, Cotehardie is a Middle French name, literally meaning Bold Tunic. The cotehardie was a medieval European garment for both men and women. For men, it was
      Message 2 of 24 , May 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        No,

        Cotehardie is a Middle French name, literally meaning Bold Tunic.
        The cotehardie was a medieval European garment for both men and
        women. For men, it was generally a long sleeved, thigh length,
        belted garment. For women, it was usually full length. The
        cotehardie was designed to fit closely to the curves of the body and
        closed by buttoning or lacing it shut.


        Okay so If you would like to make a cotehardie, I can give you some
        mundane (normal) patterns in which to construct these. The sleeve
        will not be a period sleeve, as yet I have not found a sleeve pattern
        on the regular market to make one, however if you make the usual arm
        you are still 'okay' find a Laurel in your area or if you give me
        some time I will scan in my arm and show you why it is different.

        McCall's has had this pattern for the past 10 years it has changed
        numbers all the time it was 7957, 2885 but it is an 8 looks in one
        pattern. You can also use 3129,

        Vogue has one as well for the people who are smaller chested or size
        challenged!! I would not give this to a curvy person or an hour glass
        shaped person. It is 8696

        Simplicty does have a 'costume' pattern you can adapt for a good
        cotehardie, it is 9891, when we made this one I am pretty chesty and
        I had to bring up the neckline by 3 inches or risk having my chest
        pop out of the top!

        Okay, stepping up on soapbox,

        1. Cut 2 for the front, do not use it as it says with the folds, it
        makes it easier to adjust when you do this.

        2. Do not use the fabric guides on the patterns, I know I should not
        have to say this but....

        3. You will need to add 3 yards (depending how tall you are) to make
        this lovely dress as voluminous as it should be. If you take a yard
        stick and extend your pattern guideline, kind of make each side a
        triangle....so the extra fabric will be eaten up with that.

        4. Make sure to remember to check the legnth of the pattern to your
        hieght, I am 5 10 so I sometimes have to add 7 inches to a dress.

        Link to a great informational cotehardie page.
        http://www.geocities.com/ariedin/index.html

        I hope this helps!!

        Cilean
      • wodeford
        ... pattern ... arm ... That would be because modern sleeves have the seam running from mid armpit to the inside of the wrist. This allows you to do a
        Message 3 of 24 , May 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "Cilean_69" <aubergine_dreams@y...> wrote:
          > Okay so If you would like to make a cotehardie, I can give you some
          > mundane (normal) patterns in which to construct these. The sleeve
          > will not be a period sleeve, as yet I have not found a sleeve
          pattern
          > on the regular market to make one, however if you make the usual
          arm
          > you are still 'okay' find a Laurel in your area or if you give me
          > some time I will scan in my arm and show you why it is different.

          That would be because modern sleeves have the seam running from mid
          armpit to the inside of the wrist. This allows you to do a
          symmetrical cut on a fold to make a sleeve shape. (Hmmm, wonder if
          this is a development of mass produced clothing?)
          The "cotehardie", or fitted Gothic gown as Netherton calls it, has
          the sleeve seam running down the outside edge of the arm. This
          requires an asymmetrical cut and some fitting. (As soon as I get
          Gaius' new surcote finished, I have to cut and fit sleeves for the
          dress I've been working on on-and-off since before I moved. And
          buttonholes. And stuffed buttons.....)

          Jehanne
        • wodeford
          ... Hi, Marilyn. Who fit you? Jenne or Isabeau? ;- ... Did you try the lying-down back and front seam fitting? Brynn did mine for the muslin I used for my
          Message 4 of 24 , May 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Marilyn Hillvic <hillvicus@y...> wrote:
            > A lady in my shire, who is a coathardie expert,
            > helped me fit the under-gown for my coathardie.
            Hi, Marilyn. Who fit you? Jenne or Isabeau? ;->

            > The process involved 4 parts of linen fabric with
            > the front seam pinned in place straight down the
            > front, the back seam fitted to the curve in your spine
            > (I thought it looked like the dorsal fin of a fish as
            > it was pinned and the selvages stood up), then the
            > side seams and shoulders were "hauled up", along with
            > the pair of bodies, and pinned with industrial-strengh
            > pins, until the fabric became the shape of a shelf for
            > the pair of bodies to rest on. This is not a 1-step
            > process, but a fine-tuning of pinning, wiggling
            > around, and taking in what stretches out. The
            > under-gown ultimately laces up the front with spiral
            > lacing for bulk-free support, and a fitted over-gown
            > (a coathardie with all those lovely buttons) will be
            > put on, resting on this wonderful support under
            > garment to create that Duc-du-Barry look.
            Did you try the lying-down back and front seam fitting? Brynn did
            mine for the muslin I used for my Irish dress and for the as-yet-
            unfinished cote I've been fiddling with. It really works.

            My Italian is finished (except for sleeves). Must get pictures. I
            amazed myself with what a good fit I got with a commercial pattern. I
            decided to bone the edges of the bodice, simply because it gave a
            sturdier platform for the eyehooks to be attached to. Vittoria,
            thanks again for the Campi painting links. I think I came up with
            something that looks pretty close - but could be easily dressed up
            with fancier sleeves.

            Jehanne
          • Gwendoline Rosamond
            Just to point out, Robin calls the garment a gown - which in her research she has found is the correct name for the garment. However, gown was used in many
            Message 5 of 24 , May 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Just to point out, Robin calls the garment a gown - which in her research
              she has found is the correct name for the garment. However, gown was used
              in many periods for completely different styles and she uses "Gothic Fitted
              Dress" as an explanatory name for her classes or subject lines in emails -
              rather than thinking that is the actual name of the garment. If you have
              issues with her stuff, I would be happy to forward them to her.

              Cheers,
              Gwendoline

              At 09:07 AM 5/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
              >Hehe, this touches on MY pet peeve:
              >I hate it when terms get 'defined' far more strictly by modern people than
              >they were defined in period. I really, really do understand how handy it
              >is for recreators to have super specific terms, really I do. I just wish
              >that rather than redefining (and when the term is made more specific than
              >it really is, it's redefining) the term, people would come up with a new
              >term. (Like calling it a Gothic fitted dress. That? Fine.)
              >
              >Hmph. Hmph, I say. 10 years from now, people are going to redefine
              >'dress' to mean '4 panel pieced front-laced overgown with slightly flared
              >sleeves in c1495 Dutch style, generally looser than its counterpart in
              >France, made in wool twill and bound at the neck and sleeves in gold,' and
              >my head is going to explode, hopefully getting the ickiest bits up their
              >collective noses.
              >E
            • Steven Proctor
              Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne... The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the arm. I have seen at least one
              Message 6 of 24 , May 7, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...

                The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the arm.
                I have seen at least one illumination where the seams runs to the
                armpit...

                Ta

                Morgan


                wodeford wrote:

                > That would be because modern sleeves have the seam running from mid
                > armpit to the inside of the wrist.

                > The "cotehardie", or fitted Gothic gown as Netherton calls it, has
                > the sleeve seam running down the outside edge of the arm.
                >
                > Jehanne

                --
                It's 6:15, she thought, and the newspaper should be here by now, then
                she opened her door and realized with disgust that the paper boy was
                still in her bedroom.
              • wodeford
                ... Go for it, cher Baron. I m still learning... Jehanne de Too Many Books Too Little Time Wodeford
                Message 7 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
                  > Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...

                  Go for it, cher Baron. I'm still learning...

                  Jehanne de Too Many Books Too Little Time Wodeford
                • demontsegur
                  ... their pet definition says it means. ... say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can t be done, not with any respect for historical
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:
                    > what is not accurate is saying that kirtle can SOLELY mean whatever
                    their pet definition says it means.
                    >
                    > One just cannot make kirtle mean only one thing. One cannot even
                    say that there is a sole definition in each era and area. It can't be
                    done, not with any respect for historical accuracy. It was not used
                    as a specific term by the people we try to emulate, and we should not
                    try to force it to become a specific term now as a part of our
                    attempt to emulate them.
                    ___________________________________________

                    Greetings,

                    <disclaimer -- I didn't think you were picking on me -- I'm
                    interested in the topic, so I'm happy to continue the dialogue.>

                    I've read your argument and I understand your issue. I was not aware
                    that the term was being used by others to mean "only X-type of
                    dress". That said, I don't think that using the term 'kirtle' in
                    reference to the Gothic Fitted Dress (nod to Robin Netherton) is an
                    implicit statement that it's the only meaning of the word. I've
                    personally never assumed it was, and have also heard of the term
                    being used for different garments in other periods. The one thing all
                    these versions seem to have in common is that the kirtle layer is
                    versatile -- because it can be worn as an underlayer and as the top
                    layer. Feeling casual? Wear it over a chemise and it's your top
                    layer. Feeling dressy? Put on a fancier layer over it.

                    What we all seem to agree on is that there is no concrete term for
                    the decorative underdress that shows up in wardrobe accounts and in
                    in the paintings of the 14th and 15th centuries. We know it's there,
                    we know it takes several forms, and we know it can be worn alone or
                    with another dress on top of it. Another common denominator appears
                    to be that this versatile layer has long sleeves, with or without
                    buttons. These dresses were worn all over -- England, France,
                    Germany, Italy, etc. Each culture had any number of names for them.
                    For these reasons, we modern-day folks are left with little option
                    for an obviously definitive name. We could be more generic and call
                    these dresses "decorative underdresses", but that verges on the rest
                    of your complaint -- getting overly descriptive with the name. In the
                    midst of a conversation about 14th-15th century dress, it seems
                    reasonable to me to use the term 'kirtle' and still be clear. It
                    helps to define your terms at the beginning of the conversation, of
                    course.

                    All of this argument applies to the word 'cote' as well -- it's a
                    term used in period, and it's safer than using 'cotehardie' which is
                    a term that I've only ever read about as a reference to male clothing
                    of the period. In addition, the term 'cote' as used in period implies
                    a top layer -- something _always_ worn as a top layer. Judging from
                    our limited information of the jargon used in period and the art of
                    that time, I've come to the conclusion that it is necessary to
                    distinguish between the two layers and to use a reasonable and
                    simple 'name' for each layer for the purpose of communication and
                    instruction. I've settled on 'cote' (for now, anyway). Again, if
                    anyone has contrary information or suggestions for better names,
                    please share. As I've stated before, I do not assume that I've
                    figured out everything there is to know on the subject and I do
                    welcome new angles.

                    Cheers,
                    Marcele de Montsegur
                  • Nessaofthelox
                    Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it? Always in search of documentation, Agnes
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it?

                      Always in search of documentation, Agnes




                      --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
                      > Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...
                      > The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the arm.
                      > I have seen at least one illumination where the seams runs to the
                      > armpit...
                      > Ta
                      > Morgan
                    • Steven Proctor
                      Hmmm. Thought I could find it on line, but apparently I can t. It s from the Belles Heures of Jean de Berri, one of the executioners is wearing a cote, and as
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 7, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hmmm. Thought I could find it on line, but apparently I can't. It's from
                        the Belles Heures of Jean de Berri, one of the executioners is wearing a
                        cote, and as his arm is raised for the beheading stroke toy can see his
                        armpit clearly...

                        I may have a scan of it at home, if I do I'll upload it and let people
                        know...

                        Ta

                        Morgan



                        Nessaofthelox wrote:
                        >
                        > Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it?
                        >
                        > Always in search of documentation, Agnes
                        >
                        > --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
                        > > Ummmm, if I may take exception, ma cher Jehanne...
                        > > The cotehardie *may* have the seam running down the outside of the
                        > arm.
                        > > I have seen at least one illumination where the seams runs to the
                        > > armpit...
                        > > Ta
                        > > Morgan
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------
                        > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                        --
                        It's 6:15, she thought, and the newspaper should be here by now, then
                        she opened her door and realized with disgust that the paper boy was
                        still in her bedroom.
                      • arhylda@aol.com
                        In a message dated 5/7/02 11:14:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 8, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 5/7/02 11:14:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                          Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com writes:

                          << Wow! There is an Illumination that shows seams, where did you find it?

                          Always in search of documentation, Agnes >>

                          I'm wondering...what kind of evidence other than pictorial are you all using
                          to devise your patterns? I personally was disappointed with Ms. Netherton's
                          presentation at Known World Costume Symposium last year. While her theories
                          were interesting, they were entirely based on pictorial sources. Convince me
                          that they would have actually done that extreme amount of pattern draping in
                          that period! ; )

                          Doubting Mairi (hey, I always annoyed my mother, too..."But why? But how? But
                          why? But how?")
                        • Gwendoline Rosamond
                          ... ... You make excellent points. Now, personally I would call the layers smock, kirtle, and gown but I am working from an English perspective. Oh,
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 8, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 02:22 PM 5/6/2002 +0000, you wrote:
                            >--- In Authentic_SCA@y..., "E House" <sig-sauer@c...> wrote:

                            <snip>

                            >Hmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean here... Do you mean that the
                            >term 'kirtle' and 'cote' are redefined terms for other, original
                            >meanings? If so, please let me know more about the terms -- I'm
                            >always looking for such information. I'd also welcome further ideas
                            >on the two dresses -- because they are distinctly different and serve
                            >different purposes. When you are describing an outfit that consists
                            >of a chemise layer, an underdress layer, and an overdress layer, how
                            >would one 'name' those layers? "Gothic Fitted dress" is a great
                            >descriptor for the look in general, but it doesn't help people figure
                            >out which layers to wear together -- does one wear one G.F.D. and be
                            >done with any further detail? Or, does one wear two G.F.Ds, of style
                            >A and B together?
                            >
                            >I can well imagine that in period folks had no need to be specific
                            >due to the fact that everyone just "knew" how the dresses went or
                            >didn't go together. However, as you've pointed out, recreators need
                            >to be able to define the pieces of the 'roba' (entire outfit). I'm
                            >completely open to suggestions on this, as I haven't comfortably
                            >settled down with any set words yet. I've been using kirtle and cote
                            >for lack of anything else concrete yet. Ideas?
                            >
                            >Marcele de Montsegur

                            You make excellent points. Now, personally I would call the layers smock,
                            kirtle, and gown but I am working from an English perspective. Oh, and
                            I've been lately looking at wills that are very late 14th century and early
                            15th century and kirtle and gown have both been mentioned. However, the
                            most bizarre thing I've found is a "pourpoint" left to a woman...

                            Cheers,
                            Gwendoline
                          • demontsegur
                            ... and early ... However, the ... Fascinating! How did you find the wills? And do you think that the pourpoint being left to a woman might indicate that the
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 9, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Gwendoline Rosamond <dameg@a...> wrote:
                              > I've been lately looking at wills that are very late 14th century
                              and early
                              > 15th century and kirtle and gown have both been mentioned.
                              However, the
                              > most bizarre thing I've found is a "pourpoint" left to a woman...
                              >
                              > Cheers,
                              > Gwendoline

                              Fascinating! How did you find the wills? And do you think that the
                              pourpoint being left to a woman might indicate that the word might
                              have been used for women's gowns/outer layers? Or possibly something
                              was left to a woman for recycling purposes, for their offspring's
                              use, or maybe because this lady was one of those cross-dressing
                              tournament-attenders I've read about in _Fashion in the Age of the
                              Black Prince_!

                              Apparently, cadres of upper-class ladies liked to get together, dress
                              in masculine fashions, and then attend tournaments and generally
                              raise a ruckus. Contemporary writings describe them as independent
                              and heartless, if I remember correctly, though those exact words were
                              probably not used. I'll have to go home and look this up..

                              Marcele de Montsegur
                            • Gwendoline Rosamond
                              ... I get them in book form. I have no idea why it was left to the woman, I m only just getting into the 15th century stuff - I usually work with 16th
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 11, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 02:10 PM 5/9/2002 +0000, you wrote:
                                >--- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Gwendoline Rosamond <dameg@a...> wrote:
                                > > I've been lately looking at wills that are very late 14th century
                                >and early
                                > > 15th century and kirtle and gown have both been mentioned.
                                >However, the
                                > > most bizarre thing I've found is a "pourpoint" left to a woman...
                                > >
                                > > Cheers,
                                > > Gwendoline
                                >
                                >Fascinating! How did you find the wills? And do you think that the
                                >pourpoint being left to a woman might indicate that the word might
                                >have been used for women's gowns/outer layers? Or possibly something
                                >was left to a woman for recycling purposes, for their offspring's
                                >use, or maybe because this lady was one of those cross-dressing
                                >tournament-attenders I've read about in _Fashion in the Age of the
                                >Black Prince_!

                                I get them in book form. I have no idea why it was left to the woman, I'm
                                only just getting into the 15th century stuff - I usually work with 16th
                                century. From everything I've read however, I don't think that women would
                                normally wear such a garment. These are mainly merchant class wills so its
                                really hard to tell....

                                >Apparently, cadres of upper-class ladies liked to get together, dress
                                >in masculine fashions, and then attend tournaments and generally
                                >raise a ruckus. Contemporary writings describe them as independent
                                >and heartless, if I remember correctly, though those exact words were
                                >probably not used. I'll have to go home and look this up..
                                >
                                >Marcele de Montsegur

                                Well, the reference says "to Edith, their servant (servienti), one white
                                "parpyne"" so it is most like a case of recycling...

                                Cheers,
                                Gwendoline
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.