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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: Frontal nudity okay in period??

Expand Messages
  • Willow Polson
    ... Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
    Message 1 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
      At 03:51 AM 6/2/2004 +0000, you wrote:
      >To be honest, I think it's a sensationalist article which is taking
      >things out of context as support for its dodgy theory.
      >You may notice that they never define anywhere exactly what they mean
      >by "bared breast", and the only woodcut they do show has cleavage,
      >not what most people would call a breast.

      Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts
      including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
      coronation of William & Mary with Mary's full breasts exposed. That's what
      I saw anyway... maybe they changed the slide show since this morning.

      - Willow MacPherson
    • JessicaHie@aol.com
      .........what ever floats one boat..... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
        .........what ever floats one boat.....


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • wodeford
        ... a ... The first edition of Playford s The English Dancing Master dates to 1651. Jehanne de Wodeford
        Message 3 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "hunyddthered"
          <mel_elliott100@h...> wrote:
          > Can't speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from
          a
          > Lochac point of view, the whole 1660's thing seems to be becuase we
          > do a lot of country dances that were first recorded in the mid-
          > 1600s.

          The first edition of Playford's "The English Dancing Master" dates to
          1651.

          Jehanne de Wodeford
        • Maura Folsom
          ... Actually, I understood that the 1650 tolerance had less to do with cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts, period or not,
          Message 4 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
            "Cathal@..." wrote:

            > The confusion over the 1650 usage comes from the mid 1970's when a brief flirtation
            > with 'cavalier' costume in some of the Kingdoms became a chronic manifestation. Things
            > were a lot looser back then and no-one really wanted to bully folk on the grounds of a 50
            > year deviation in costume choice. Once it became tolerated, however, it didn't take long
            > for the great masses of the misinformed to assume that it was a change in Da Rules
            > (tm).

            Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
            cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
            period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
            where it came from originally in the West.

            I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let the 1650
            thing go now, right?"

            Marguerie
          • rowen_g
            ... 1650 ... Somehow I m not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We get a fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
            Message 5 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Maura Folsom <jauncourt@v...> wrote:
              > Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
              > cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
              > period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
              > where it came from originally in the West.
              >
              > I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let the
              1650
              > thing go now, right?"
              >

              Somehow I'm not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We get a
              fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
              comunity, and from a number of older folk who were told "1650's ok"
              when we joined (yes, I got it too) and tend to stick with it. I keep
              to pre-1600 myself, but a nice 1630s outfit doesn't bother me nearly
              as much as any number of other things.

              Rowen
            • Hasoferet@aol.com
              In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... William n Mary were crowned 1689, though. Really post-period. I haven t actually read this
              Message 6 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                willow@... writes:


                > Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts
                > including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                > coronation of William & Mary with Mary's full breasts exposed. That's what
                > I saw anyway... maybe they changed the slide show since this morning.

                William'n'Mary were crowned 1689, though. Really post-period. I haven't
                actually read this article, so can't say nothin' about it, but 1600s portraits tend
                to show a lot of nipple. Usually just one, peeking out from under the edge of
                your chemise, but definately a lot of nipple on display. It's a cute look,
                but not one I've seen during our period...

                Raquel, who tends to behave badly in London's National Portrait Gallery.

                (Not as badly as the random man who attached to her and a friend there,
                though, to inform us that James I was 'the first known homosexual'.)

                ((Ah, the 1600s--age of nipples on display, and men who wore sober suits with
                Fredericks of Hollywood mules...))
                _______________________________________________________
                Kamatz katan le'olam!


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • bex_1014
                These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period (before 1600). Connecting
                Message 7 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                  These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did
                  note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period
                  (before 1600). Connecting the fashion post-1600 with
                  the "Agnes Sorel" picture, IMO is going too far. The AS
                  picture in question can be seen here:
                  http://gallery.euroweb.hu/cgi-bin/gallery/highlight.cgi?
                  file=html/f/fouquet/madonna.html&find=Agnes+Sorel
                  (Hope that link works. If it doesnt, go to the Web Gallery of Art and
                  search for Agnes Sorel, by Jean Fouquet, c.1450.) It is clearly
                  allegorical/mystical, albeit in a rather odd way. (Painting the
                  king's mistress as the Virgin Mary???)
                  While what the article proposes may be more accurate for the 17th
                  century, in certain circles, I would still not think that bare
                  breasts were common for the average woman. But that is OOP anyway, so
                  I'll leave it.
                  Rebecca
                • Sharon L. Krossa
                  ... Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper (Scottish male skirt) are
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                    At 12:10 PM -0500 6/2/04, Maura Folsom wrote:
                    >Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                    >cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                    >period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                    >where it came from originally in the West.

                    Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made
                    sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper
                    (Scottish male skirt) are an 18th century invention, so extending
                    period to 1650 doesn't help at all for them. Plaids worn belted, of
                    course, (modernly often called "belted plaids" or "great kilts") are
                    entirely period by the official definition, the first unambiguous
                    description dating to 1594 (in Gaelic, no less, and contrasting the
                    attire of Scottish Gaels to that of Irish Gaels -- as said,
                    unambiguous ;-) so no extension of period is needed for them.

                    Affrick
                    --
                    Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                  • Wanda Pease
                    I always understood that the 1650 date came from an early, maybe first, printing of the Known World Handbook, and Queen Carol s Guide. Neither of these were
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                      I always understood that the 1650 date came from an early, maybe first,
                      printing of the Known World Handbook, and Queen Carol's Guide. Neither of
                      these were blessed as "canon" by the Board of Directors of their day. In
                      later years the 1650 date was pretty firmly disavowed by the BoD which
                      caused screams of "They're changing the SCA arbitrarily!!!!!" The fact
                      that nothing was being changed had nothing to do with it. I've seen a 1st
                      generation copy of the original Articles of Incorporation, and they said
                      "Pre-17th Century" very clearly. These are the ones that established the
                      SCA so we could go and play in a Berkley (?) park.

                      Regina
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Sharon L. Krossa [mailto:skrossa-ml@...]
                      Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:52 PM
                      To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [Authentic_SCA] 1650 Tolerance (was: Frontal nudity okay in
                      period??)


                      At 12:10 PM -0500 6/2/04, Maura Folsom wrote:
                      >Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                      >cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                      >period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                      >where it came from originally in the West.

                      Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made
                      sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper
                      (Scottish male skirt) are an 18th century invention, so extending
                      period to 1650 doesn't help at all for them. Plaids worn belted, of
                      course, (modernly often called "belted plaids" or "great kilts") are
                      entirely period by the official definition, the first unambiguous
                      description dating to 1594 (in Gaelic, no less, and contrasting the
                      attire of Scottish Gaels to that of Irish Gaels -- as said,
                      unambiguous ;-) so no extension of period is needed for them.

                      Affrick
                      --
                      Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • mastergunner1588
                      ... I don t think I d agree with that. Number 4 certainly appears to be Elizabethan, not Jacobean. It closely resembles some of the dresses worn by
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                        --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "bex_1014"
                        <tonkin.rebecca@s...> wrote:
                        > These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did
                        > note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period
                        > (before 1600).
                        > Rebecca

                        I don't think I'd agree with that. Number 4 certainly appears to be
                        Elizabethan, not Jacobean. It closely resembles some of the dresses
                        worn by Elizabeth. There are also a number of broadsheet wood cuts
                        that do show similar styles that cut across a broad section of
                        society from the Elizabethan period. (not at home or I'd post some
                        links). Was it common? Not something that every woman would wear, I
                        would say, but not unheard of, either.

                        Just as a nitpick, I saw a lot of people rush to say 'not period' on
                        the list. The article covers a lot more than just the headline, and
                        does discuss more than just 17th C. I would hope that people on this
                        list would not be more concerned with a modern attitude to these
                        fashions, rather than historical accuracy, and use the 'not period'
                        argument to dismiss the entire article.

                        Hawkyns
                      • Aliskye
                        It should be noted that a number of the flyers for early events before things were codified do state before 1650 for the cut-off. regards, aliskye ... with ...
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                          It should be noted that a number of the flyers for early events
                          before things were codified do state before 1650 for the cut-off.

                          regards,

                          aliskye

                          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "rowen_g" <rowengr@h...> wrote:
                          > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Maura Folsom <jauncourt@v...>
                          wrote:
                          > > Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do
                          with
                          > > cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing
                          kilts,
                          > > period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least
                          that's
                          > > where it came from originally in the West.
                          > >
                          > > I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let
                          the
                          > 1650
                          > > thing go now, right?"
                          > >
                          >
                          > Somehow I'm not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We
                          get a
                          > fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                          > comunity, and from a number of older folk who were told "1650's ok"
                          > when we joined (yes, I got it too) and tend to stick with it. I
                          keep
                          > to pre-1600 myself, but a nice 1630s outfit doesn't bother me nearly
                          > as much as any number of other things.
                          >
                          > Rowen
                        • Marc Carlson
                          Not that it will alter anything, nor that it should - but when I was first introduced to the SCA (in 1979 in Ansteorra) I was taught that the ending date was
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                            Not that it will alter anything, nor that it should - but when I was
                            first introduced to the SCA (in 1979 in Ansteorra) I was taught that
                            the ending date was 1600 with a slop-over date of about 50 years for
                            people who wanted to go that far. OTOH, I was also taught that you
                            shouldn't claim to be anything you can not prove yourself to be (i.e.
                            Elf, Witch, Priest, Doctor, whatever). And those are more or less the
                            guidelines I've tried to stick with for me.

                            Marc/Diarmaid
                          • Ealasaid nic Suibhne
                            delurking to add: And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain percentage of folk out there that think 17th Century means 1700 through
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                              delurking to add:

                              And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain
                              percentage of folk out there that think "17th Century" means 1700
                              through 1799. I've had mild arguments with several SCA people who
                              didn't understand that the 17th Century started on January 1, 1601.

                              Ealasaid nic Suibhne
                              Kingdom of Atenveldt
                              main focus of study: very early period textiles/embroidery
                            • aheilvei
                              Personal opinion. The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth it s been dead a while and the continued flogging isn t doing any good.
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                Personal opinion.

                                The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth
                                it's been dead a while and the continued flogging isn't doing any
                                good.

                                Personal opinion.

                                Smiles,
                                Despina de la gets to go home from work before 11pm for the first
                                time this week - bubye
                              • Dianne & Greg Stucki
                                ... From: aheilvei To: Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1650 Tolerance
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "aheilvei" <aheilvei@...>
                                  To: <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:58 PM
                                  Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1650 Tolerance (was: Frontal nudity okay in
                                  period??)


                                  >
                                  > Personal opinion.
                                  >
                                  > The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth
                                  > it's been dead a while and the continued flogging isn't doing any
                                  > good.

                                  So it's an ex-horse? It has ceased to be?

                                  Laurensa de la watched too much Monty Python today....
                                  >
                                  > Personal opinion.
                                  >
                                  > Smiles,
                                  > Despina de la gets to go home from work before 11pm for the first
                                  > time this week - bubye
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----------------------------------------------------
                                  > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Sharon L. Krossa
                                  ... and ... While I agree that the 17th century is, roughly, the 1600s, I advise against insisting on too precise exact end points for it (or other
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                    At 5:28 PM -0400 6/1/04, Cathal@... wrote:
                                    >It's a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The
                                    >Governing Documents of the SCA specify "pre-17th century western
                                    >culture" and always have. In even the most generous of
                                    >interpretations, that means the SCA's period of focus ends at 12:00
                                    >midnight on 31 December, 1600 CE. That, imo, settles the 'official'
                                    >end of things

                                    and

                                    At 8:17 PM +0000 6/3/04, Ealasaid nic Suibhne wrote:
                                    >And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain
                                    >percentage of folk out there that think "17th Century" means 1700
                                    >through 1799. I've had mild arguments with several SCA people who
                                    >didn't understand that the 17th Century started on January 1, 1601.

                                    While I agree that the 17th century is, roughly, the 1600s, I advise
                                    against insisting on too precise "exact" end points for it (or other
                                    centuries).

                                    Precise hours are too exact and even precise days are not safe -- in
                                    many SCA period cultures the calendar year did not start on 1 January
                                    (in England, for example, it started on 25 March until the mid-18th
                                    century) and, further, circa 1600, because some countries had adopted
                                    the Gregorian Calendar but others had not, 1 January occurred on
                                    different days in different parts of Europe.

                                    Calendars and associated concepts, such as named/numbered centuries,
                                    are socially constructed concepts and not inevitable absolutes, and
                                    as such they tend to change and vary and they aren't always derived
                                    logically purely from consistent first principles. So even whether
                                    the 17th century starts with 1601 or 1600 is not clear cut and is
                                    legitimately arguable... **

                                    And this isn't even to get into the issue of "long" centuries as used
                                    by historians to lump together trends that don't fit neatly into
                                    numbered centuries!

                                    Africa

                                    **PS In anticipation of those who will try to argue it is not
                                    arguable, based on appeals to logic, just contemplate the "logical"
                                    consequences of a year numbering system where the (6th century AD)
                                    inventor set the theoretical beginning of "Year 1" on the 1 January
                                    after the 25 December birth of Christ but where later people, without
                                    changing the year numbers, changed the beginning of the year to 25
                                    March, the anniversary of the conception of Christ -- and then later
                                    others, at different times, changed it back to 1 January (not to
                                    mention others still changing the start of the year to yet other
                                    dates...). Logic doesn't provide one inevitable answer, nor is actual
                                    practice -- usage by different people and/or in different times --
                                    consistent (as evidenced by the huge celebrations over 31 Dec 1999-1
                                    Jan 2000 compared to 31 Dec 2000-1 Jan 2001 ;-).

                                    PPS It occurs to me to wonder -- when did Europeans start
                                    numbering/naming centuries, that is, using terms like "10th century",
                                    "17th century", etc?
                                    --
                                    Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                                  • Karen Hall
                                    ... As common usage, at least it was in the nineteenth century. There is quite a lot of scholarly writing on the Victorian period and cultural understandings
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jun 4, 2004
                                      > PPS It occurs to me to wonder -- when did Europeans start
                                      > numbering/naming centuries, that is, using terms like "10th century",
                                      > "17th century", etc?

                                      As common usage, at least it was in the nineteenth century. There is quite a
                                      lot of scholarly writing on the Victorian period and cultural understandings
                                      of history. But that's probably not relevant to this list, so anyone wanting
                                      part of chapter one of my thesis can contact me offlist :).

                                      Alessandra
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.