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

Re: cote-hardie question

Expand Messages
  • wodeford
    ... Go for it, cher Baron. I m still learning... Jehanne de Too Many Books Too Little Time Wodeford
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.