Stockings

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:43 am

I'm looking for 14th &15th C. pictures of women's stockings. I had a great one of a woman being dragged by her hair- she was on her back with the skirt pulled up above her knees and her black stockings could be seen in their entirely (no comment on subject matter!) Of course now that I need to find it I can't.

I have a late 15th C. German woodcut that will serve if nothing else is available, but I'd sure love to have something earlier. Can anyone think of an image of women's short hose? I need the entire stocking, not just a flash of color at the ankle.

Any help appreciated!

Thanks-

Gwen

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:04 pm

Gwen, could that image you're thinking of be in the Edmond Pognan-edited _Boccaccio's Decameron_? I'm just guessing off the top of my head, given all the woman-beating going on in that illumination (!) ; books at home, I'm at work, grumble, grumble...

I know I've seen the one you're describing too. If you don't find it, I'll look in my collection later and see what I find.

-Tasha

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:52 pm

Yes, I thought it might be in the Pognon Decameron too and looked there first but no luck.

All the distressed women have nothing on their feet and legs.

Gwen

Tracy Justus · Post by **Tracy Justus** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 8:33 am

Tres Riches Heures. February. The woman in the foreground is being dainty but the couple in the background have their skirts hoicked up to their thighs. The 2002 book by Jean Dufournet has a good close up.

Regards, Clare

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:02 pm

Hi Tracy-

Thanks for the lead! You know, as many times as I've looked at that image, I never noticed the stockings. I suppose I was too distracted by their exposed nether bits!

Thanks!

Gwen

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 9:40 pm

Eureka, I found the one I was thinking of.

The Egerton Genesis, British, circa 1360, has an image of the Rape of Dinah, in which you can see her gartered stockings or short hosen. Here it is:

[img]http://www.cottesimple.com/misc/egerton_dinah_medium.jpg[/img]

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 9:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Marcele:
Eureka, I found the one I was thinking of.

The Egerton Genesis, British, circa 1360, has an image of the Rape of Dinah, in which you can see her gartered stockings or short hosen. Here it is:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*ahem*

My, this is such a ... colorful... era that we try to recreate!

I love this picture though. So many great elements, the hair, pouches, the layered gowns, the garters on her hose. I also like that you can tell her dress isn't skin tight down to the hips. Even if it's tight to the waist, it definitely is skimming the body below that, even though the standing sillhouette would have it look like it might be tight to the hips.

Is he supposed to be a monk? Looks monkish...

In amusement,
Charlotte

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 8:43 am

She really wants that new purse.

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:34 am

Hee hee. Jeff, you're very bad!

This is actually an illumination that conflates three scenes from Genesis -- Dinah visits the town of Shechem, greets a woman that looks just like her (the two holding hands), then waits her turn to buy a purse or a belt or a knife (her standing behind the veiled woman who's buying something at the stall) and then the scene where she's raped by the son of Hamor.

I got this from _The Egerton Genesis_ by Mary Coker Joslin and Carolyn Coker Joslin Watson. (yes, that looks like three last names, none of them hyphenated.)

Charlotte, what caught my eye in this picture (besides the rape, ugh!) was that Dinah appears to be wearing falsies-hair over her temples and the band that wraps around the front is thin while in the back it spreads out to (maybe?) give more support on the head. Interesting, eh?

Tasha

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:42 am

That's another good one, although it's not the one I was thinking of.

Someone actually sent me the image I was thinking of, although without any background information. Maybe when things get a bit more back to normal I'll ask Jeffrey to put it on our server and see if anyone else knows where it's from. Having the picture is great, but it doesn't do me much good documentation wise if I don't know who/what/where.

Thanks!

Gwen

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:51 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Marcele:
Charlotte, what caught my eye in this picture (besides the rape, ugh!) was that Dinah appears to be wearing falsies-hair over her temples and the band that wraps around the front is thin while in the back it spreads out to (maybe?) give more support on the head. Interesting, eh?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was looking at that, trying to figure it out too. That, or maybe it's some sort of crude artistic representation of the braids that are typically shown going around the back of the head? And where's their real hair?

Another interesing bit - if you look closely at Dinah's hair, you see those little hanging bits under the braids again. Hmm. I wonder if anybody here knows what those are? I should post my Marie de France pics...

-Charlotte

J.K. Vernier · Post by **J.K. Vernier** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:46 pm

Thanks for the Egerton Genesis picture. There is actually a so-so redrawing of this in the MoL Dress Accessories catalogue, p.19, but the authors are only concerned with the items in the market stall, and the action in the foreground is ignored completely, which has always bothered me.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:40 pm

"She really wants that new purse."

bwhahahahah! Funny!

Steve

ishrajl · Post by **ishrajl** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 10:45 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Charlotte:
 I also like that you can tell her dress isn't skin tight down to the hips. Even if it's tight to the waist, it definitely is skimming the body below that, even though the standing sillhouette would have it look like it might be tight to the hips.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you say that? If the dress is pushed up in the um, heat of the moment, wouldn't the hip part of the dress be pushed up as well to create the first roll of material over her waist? Or are the dresses of the time so tight that if the woman was turned upside down the waist area wouldn't shift?

hehe, I just pictured that

Kim

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:49 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ishrajl:
 Why do you say that? If the dress is pushed up in the um, heat of the moment, wouldn't the hip part of the dress be pushed up as well to create the first roll of material over her waist? Or are the dresses of the time so tight that if the woman was turned upside down the waist area wouldn't shift?
Kim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, what you say makes sense as well. That if it would push up, the wider part would be further up, creating the wrinkles. But that first wrinkle looks awfully loose to have come from a skin tight gown. Granted, there's always the fact that this is definitely not a photograph, and may have just been an artists interpretation of what a dress might look like in the *ahem* process of being pushed up.

The reason that this caught my eye, is that I *don't* like to make my gowns tight to the hips, or even the waist. I make them very tight for about 2 inches below the bust, at the ribcage, then have it skim the waist, and finally start to flare at the hips. I don't know if there's much of an argument out there, but many ladies have expressed concern to me about making this type of gown, that it will show off unsightly fat rolls around the waist. They don't think the gown will look good on them, but it's actually quite the opposite. This is a style that looks good on almost everybody. I've helped fit women now of almost every shape and size, and if the dress *isn't* tight there, like in this drawing, it's been flattering in every case.

I hope I'm making sense.

I just thought it was interesting to see a different drape, because most representations show the lady in an upright position.

-Charlotte