RE : [sig] Re: Dushegreya
- Poklon ot Sofya!
>However, I thought the TatarsActually, (according to MacKenzie and Curran's "A History of Russia, the Soviet Union and Beyond") Moscow was burned to the ground at the time of the Mongol conquest and at that time was a relatively minor possession of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes. Moscow gained its power from the superior political ability its princes - to propagandize the exploits of Alexander Nevski (who was busy playing with the Teutonic knights when the rest of Rus was being burned by the Mongols), play its rivals against each other and kiss up to the Mongol overlords - and/or because Moscow's central position on the remaining key river trade routes in Rus after the routes to the south (which benefited Kiev) were blocked by Polish/Lithuanian/Mongol/Turkish activities.
>didn't make it up into Moscow and Novgorod which is why Moscow became the
>capitol over Kiev.
>I read somewhere that the sarafan was popular only in northern Russia untilYou don't think a Viking-origin (very debatable) sarafan could have been paired with a Tatar-origin dushegreya? Just because one is from the north and one is from the east in a land where East/West & North/South have collided and intermingled for millenia? Or is there another reason?
>after our period... That makes sense to me if one considers the sarafan
>to have evolved from the Viking apron-dress.
>My point is with those two bits of information it
>seems unlikely that the dushegreya would have become paired with the
>The dushegreya has me stumped because I can't find a correspondingMaster Mordak earlier presented his opinion that the dushegreya is of eastern origin.
>article of clothing in another culture, although China appears the most
>The reason I feel it is Imperial (Baroque, Colonial,Well, E.V. Kireyeva presents the dushegreya as part of the costume of Muscovite period women from the 15th-17th centuries in "The History of Costume", 1970, as translated by Mistress Tatiana Nikolaevna Tumanova. While she is not more specific about the time of its appearance (surprise, surprise) even interpreting it conservatively as a 17th century item puts it earlier that the 1700s. Which would give it time to be commonly portrayed in those portraits you were talking about.
>whatever, 1700's) is because paintings from that time period show women
>wearing them over sarafans.
For what it's worth, Rabinovich says that the poneva began to be replaced by the sarafan in the middle or at the end of the 14th century. Although he then admits that the question of the sarafan's origin and spread has not been fully answered. Especially since the original use of the term "sarafan" in the written sources of the period was for a _men's_ garment.
Since everyone seems so interested, my initial translation of this section of Rabinovich is now available, hot off the FTP:
Now back to the rest of the translation... only 20 more pages to go in chapter 4!
Lisa M. Kies, MD
Mason City, IA
Lady Sofya la Rus
Shire of Heraldshill, Calontir
"Si no necare, sana."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]