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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , May 7 5:48 AM
    • 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 2 of 24 , May 7 7:16 AM
      • 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 3 of 24 , May 7 7:32 AM
        • 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 4 of 24 , May 7 7:32 AM
          • 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 5 of 24 , May 7 8:28 AM
            • 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 6 of 24 , May 8 5:19 AM
              • 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 7 of 24 , May 8 4:42 PM
                • 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 8 of 24 , May 9 7:10 AM
                  • 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 9 of 24 , May 11 6:07 PM
                    • 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.