Debunking the pin-on sleeve

[chef de chambre]

Chef,

I am perfectly willing to accept that using art alone has its flaws. However, when there is a dearth of other evidence, sometimes that's all we have to look at.

There isn't a "dearth", especially in your context. A number of 15th century wills and post mortem inventories exist for people of very small means, in England.

Therefore, your conclusion that it's all we have to look at is erroneous.

It seems to me that you are allowing the best to be the enemy of good.

No, I am not. In research, ther is good, and there is bad, there is correct factual data, and there is speculation - supportable, or unsupportable, placed alongside the data. It is nobody elses fault if you chose only one sort of evidence to look at, and then placed that evidence without considering the full context of it.

If you did not want honest critiqueing of your work, why on earth did you present it?

I didn't set out to write a thesis-length article, just an overview for people trying to make a choice. A lot of people use a few images to justify their use of the sleeves, where they should be looking at a lot more information, images, or whatever. Some people don't even think about the subject of the image and what their clothing might mean.

Then you have taken on your shoulders a responsibility to properly research the subject. If other people are relying on your research, and you setr out to inform them, then you accept a burden of responsibility to do a thorough job of it. If what you produce does not meet any recognisable tandard of scholarship, or if your thesis has flaws, the burden is upon you to accept that your scholarship may be flawed, and correct it. The cosequences of not doing so is to have cirticisim presented when the flawed thesis is presented publicly.

Kim is right. All I really set out to do was question the status quo. Now a lot of people are looking into it, and thinking about it. I consider that a huge success.

You and I measure success differently then, because what you have presented is incomplete at best, and flawed. I write in a different style, and I limit the range of what I write, to attempt a more thorough job of a smaller ranging subject, and I gladly accept critique for it, and modify it based on sound critiquing backed by evidence. I generally want it done before I make a public presentation.

Hey, if your only goal is to present it in an A&S competition, and this meets or surpasses the standard of scholarship accepted, then more power to you. Don't delude yourself into thinking that it would be recieved well or without criticisim in a setting with higher standards. As a friend, I tell you that you need to do a lot of work on this if you intend to present it in any other format, because it hurts a lot more recieving criticisim when something goes to press, and people in the field read it.

[James B.]

I still don't see how in this case wills will tell us how they used one style of dress over another. I understand the point about making demographics with them but how often are terms ambiguous? Listing dresses and sleeves does not mean all the dresses were short sleeved and it does not answer which type was more common among women working in fields/farms. You still have to make assumptions.

[Charlotte J]

and I limit the range of what I write,

And yet, you refuse to accept the limits that I put on my scope. This doesn't make any sense. I limited it to a certain date range based on trends in fashion. I've limited it to art because the existance of sleeves in wills and inventories tells us nothing of how they were worn. If I can find any other evidence of *how* this fashion was worn, I will gladly include it.

I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, but I've explained that I'm planning on making some modifications. It's not going to happen anytime soon, though. You continue to insist that there is absolutely no value in the data because of some flaws that you see. I do not accept all of your arguments, just as you do not accept all of mine. Somehow, me not accepting all of your arguments means that I'm not open to critique?

I don't mind an honest critique. I do mind continued harping on certain points after I have addressed them again and again. I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with you. There is constructive criticism, and then there is belabouring the point. You are also assuming that I haven't had anybody of worth read this before presenting it here. I would suggest that you do not know who my readers were, and by saying such, you are being somewhat insulting to them. Do you honestly think I wrote this, had nobody read it, submitted it for the SCA competition and only used their comments for my critique? I thought you knew me better than that. I have had both professional researchers and writers read this. My most vehement critics have been enthusiastic amateurs.

To review some of the suggestions that have been made:

I recognize that art is not a perfect reflection of life. If I thought that, I would think that there are 19 wonderful references for pin-on sleeves worn in public, without considering the context of the image, or the subject wearing the sleeves. Though some people automatically accept the "rule of three", I do not when there is other data to be considered. I saw many, many plain long sleeves on women working or non-upper class women. My mistake was in not presenting more data about the class of the women, or showing more images of these lower class figures.

Regarding geography, I'm not entirely certain how I feel about this. On the surface, it is a good idea, but the workability might be tricky. First of all, not all of the images can be pin-pointed to a certain country. There would be a large pile of "unknowns" that will leave the data less than representative. Secondly, when it comes to pin-on sleeves, there is so little data. 19 images aren't a lot to break up, geographically. I can tell you now that there would be no pin on sleeves in England, 10-15 Flemish figures, a couple of German, and on or two French. I don't think that breakdown necessarily reflects reality, and will be more flawed than you believe the original survey. I won't know until I try it if there is any value, mostly I won't know if I can identify the originating country in enough images. I am specifically leaving out other parts of Europe, because fashion was different enough in those places.

Regarding data of current pin-on sleeve wearers. I don't care. I really don't. I'm not going to say that there are 3 groups out there that require pin-on sleeves for the women, or that I know 42 people who wear them. I have no interest in calling out people, whether by name or situation. This data is also necessarily fluid, and could be quite different in six months. This article is simply aimed at anybody who has an interest in 15th c. women's clothing. Perhaps that means I have to change the format, I don't know yet. I'll think about it.

Regarding scope, I'm not going to significantly change that. I'm not going to include 16th century sleeves. I might include a reference to them, and discuss that they seem to become more popular in that century, but I'm not going to use the 16th c. as evidence for 15th century styles. Let's agree to disagree. I also don't intend to survey images much earlier than the 1430s, and I have explained why. I don't accept a mention of 13th century Spanish sleeves to be much in terms of evidence for what 15th century people did in other parts of Europe. The existance of sleeves in wills and inventories also do not tell us anything of *how* they were worn. You can keep hitting on that point all you want, but it does not magically make me change my mind. I'm not interested in making assumptions like that. If I can find some sort of textual reference that would illuminate how sleeves are worn, I'd happily include that. It might also be worth mentioning that the sleeves definitely exist (as per the wills), but I've never disputed that fact.

Again on the assumptions front, I'm not going to assume that somebody wearing short sleeves is necessarily going to pin sleeves over them. Besides, not all of the short sleeved examples were of short sleeves over smocks. Some of them were short sleeves over another long-sleeved dress. Maybe I will break those images out. I'll ponder that.

In general, some good points were made. There were also points made that I completely disagree with. I'll will take these ideas and see what I can do with them. Please don't expect me to roll over and make every single change that you ask of me, when I disagree with some of your assumptions. I respect my own judgement better than to do that.

And Chef, I take nothing personal out of this. I'm perfectly able to have a debate with a friend. Heaven knows, we've all certainly debated plenty in the past!

[chef de chambre]

Charlotte, we will have to agree to disagree.

I can't imagine any scholar, reading this paper, and critiquing it honestly giving you any sort opf strong positive commentary, and would rather expect more along the lines of what I have written to this topic.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying by limiting scope - I generally mean approaching it from not only time, but region, and social demographic. I would never base any research entirely on art, - not even a research paper coveriing an artist painting a specific painting. If I couldn't make my point from several different types of evidence, I would deduce I had not accumulated enough evidence to formulate anything worth writing about, and surely not in as strong a way as you have made your opinions out in your paper.

Anyone approaching this paper, and reading this topic here, and on FireStryker will see a comparitive mountain of good evidence why your conclusions are inappropriately arrived at, and with inappropriate confidence.

My concern is with good scholarship, and a number of people will read this, and assume the paper is authoritative in a way it most certainly does not warrent.

[chef de chambre]

POne final point.

When presented with evidence contrary to a cherished opinion, regarding historical data - refusing to consider the evidence seriously, or modify ones stance to include the evidence does not say anything positive about ones research.

In example - Art of any sort, from anywhere in Northern Europe, post the dating of the fisrt Flemish pin-on sleeve is good, and all lumped together - regardless of the fact that the art in no way depicts a realistic demographic of a material objet, common use of which falls outside of the demographic usually portrayed in said art.

Conversely, real life data from the society - sleeves appearing in inventories and will are no good as evidence of the items commonality because they don't show pictures of how they were used!!!!

Sit back and consider that stance, I think when carefully considered by you, or any unbiased observer, the considereation will lead to a re-evalutation of your opinions regarding what is good, or bad evidence.

This is a precisely direct comparison.

Going by your espoused methodology, jacks were seldom, if ever worn by medieval soldiers - far more of them wore nearly complete to complete suits of plate armour, because that is the sort of armour depicted as commonly used by all ranks - and the only evidence we have for large numbers of jacks is inventories - which of course, don't show anything regarding how they were used..

The position is completely devoid of logic.

[James B.]

Conversely, real life data from the society - sleeves appearing in inventories and will are no good as evidence of the items commonality because they don't show pictures of how they were used!!!!

Not at all what I said. My point being that knowing lots of people had separate sleeves does not tell us how and when they were used. Also listing a dress or many dresses does not tell us if it is long-sleeved or short. I am saying we still have to make assumptions.

I do however agree such a study would greatly enhance Char's paper.

This is a precisely direct comparison.

Going by your espoused methodology, jacks were seldom, if ever worn by medieval soldiers - far more of them wore nearly complete to complete suits of plate armour, because that is the sort of armour depicted as commonly used by all ranks - and the only evidence we have for large numbers of jacks is inventories - which of course, don't show anything regarding how they were used..

The position is completely devoid of logic.

No a fair comparison, muster rolls give us a clear view of demographic use because we know what men were issued or brought to a battle to wear. Wills don’t tell us a woman wore a sleeve style more commonly.

To make a good comparison you would have to talk about design of the jack which muster rolls give us no reference too. Was it short sleeved, was it laced or buttoned, was it 10 or 30 layers. Art helps us here.


None of this is to say you don't make a good point about using different types of sources.

[earnest carruthers]

Call me mad.


"No a fair comparison, muster rolls give us a clear view of demographic use because we know what men were issued or brought to a battle to wear. Wills don’t tell us a woman wore a sleeve style more commonly."

Q: How do you know those muster rolls exist and how do you know they contain that information?

Answer: because someone researching jacks or something else has found them and published them. That knowledge you have of those ordinances has not sprung up as a result of looking at art. Had they not found them and all you had was art, then this is where we would be now. The only difference is that you/we know about jacks because you/we have read about them, we know less about sleeves, pinned or otherwise because you/we haven't.

How many wills have been looked at so that "Wills don’t tell us a woman wore a sleeve style more commonly"? None as far as we can tell. You are telling us that you think that to be the case, not that it is the case.

So by saying 'they don't' without knowing 'they don't' is not helping the situation, which is kind of the whole point.

If you haven't looked for it, you cannot claim it does not exist nor wont help you, a series of negatives that do not end in a positive result by definition.

But so this is a positive thing, I suggest looking up the

Middle english dictionary online - google it. Look up lots of interesting ME words you will find they are sourced from a huge range of places, wills, probate lists, letters and literature, in many many cases actual descriptions exist of pretty much anything you care to mention.

Paston Letters - online - again letters which do a good job of describing things and function, as people have tended to do forever.

Two easily available and FREE online resources that can and will help, as it happens sleeves and related words appear a lot, in various contexts and connections, I wont say what I have found or not in the ME


When Chef or anyone is talking about 'wills' it actually means a will as an example of records, not the only example. But re jacks, they appear in wills too as you might discover on the ME online, but you would never have know that by looking at a picture.

gb

oao

[chef de chambre]

Conversely, real life data from the society - sleeves appearing in inventories and will are no good as evidence of the items commonality because they don't show pictures of how they were used!!!!

Not at all what I said. My point being that knowing lots of people had separate sleeves does not tell us how and when they were used. Also listing a dress or many dresses does not tell us if it is long-sleeved or short. I am saying we still have to make assumptions.

I do however agree such a study would greatly enhance Char's paper.

I was actually responding to Chars last post with that. Take a closer read of what she said James.

This is a precisely direct comparison.

Going by your espoused methodology, jacks were seldom, if ever worn by medieval soldiers - far more of them wore nearly complete to complete suits of plate armour, because that is the sort of armour depicted as commonly used by all ranks - and the only evidence we have for large numbers of jacks is inventories - which of course, don't show anything regarding how they were used..

The position is completely devoid of logic.

No a fair comparison, muster rolls give us a clear view of demographic use because we know what men were issued or brought to a battle to wear. Wills don’t tell us a woman wore a sleeve style more commonly.

To make a good comparison you would have to talk about design of the jack which muster rolls give us no reference too. Was it short sleeved, was it laced or buttoned, was it 10 or 30 layers. Art helps us here.


None of this is to say you don't make a good point about using different types of sources.

Wrong on two points - 1. I didn't mention muster rolls. I specifically mentioned inventories because they give a clearer picture of numbers in a noblemans retinue, for example. and

2. If you are talking about things like the Bridgeport muster roll, or the Elmwine Half-Hundred, you are wrong in the assumtion it showing us what X person is wearing. Those are rolls of readiness, prepared by a county sherrif - giving the names of people responsible for providing equipment - not neccessarily the people wearing them. The Bridgeport roll clearly gives us several people with multiple sets of equipment, and it also gives us women heads of household, responsible as heads of household for maintaining and providing equipment - not for using the equipment.

So, not a good demographic of use either.

So, we have art, showing us an unrealistic representation of medieval demographics by the arts very nature.

We have things like muster rolls, providing information of available equipment, but sometimes misleading information regarding use (uniformed peoples conjuring up small hordes of English Amazons in the Wars of the Roses, for instance, or people wearing and using three sets of equipment simultaneously)

And then, we have inventories, which gives us rock solid data regarding what people owned when they died.

Thus, you have to look at all of the information together - not take one type of information in isolation from the rest, to do a thourough job, you have to look at context - in the case of types of equipment envisioned to be worn by English soldiers, at least town levies, things like the Coventry Leet book, for instance. Looking at any one set of information in isolation leads to skewed results.

Sometimes we only have one sort of information, or a single example or two of a material object - god knows this happens a lot in early periods, and in that case, you work with what you have, and cheer gleefully anytime archaeology uncovers something new, or someone turns up a previously unknown bit of documentation covering a subject.

But fer gawds sake, when the information is available, it's a sin against proper scholarship and research not to use it.

[James B.]

You guys have made some great points, thanks for sharing them. I agree 100% we have to look at everything.

Just to make my point a little further about art and clues I stumbled on a German page today looking up an unrelated topic and found these:

Ladies in the field with pin on sleeves:
[img]http://www.werbeka.com/ffha/weinlese.jpg[/img]

A woman cooking or doing laundry in long-sleeves
[img]http://www.werbeka.com/ffha/kuche.jpg[/img]

And some women hauling stuff with short sleeved dresses over long-sleeved ones without pin on sleeves attached:
[img]http://www.werbeka.com/ffha/gangmuhl.jpg[/img]

[Tailoress]

James, in that first picture I'm seeing a woman in the foreground with what looks like a fur-lined over-gown (see the V-neck looking part of it?), with a purfelled (matching fur) hem on her short sleeves, and a long-sleeved gown underneath. What are you seeing? Is there another woman in that picture with pin-on sleeves? I can't tell.

Also, the middle picture is probably dated a lot earlier than the top and bottom ones. It's from the Vienna Tacuinum Sanitatis, IIRC. That's dated to around 1390-1400 (I think?).

-Tasha

[James B.]

James, in that first picture I'm seeing a woman in the foreground with what looks like a fur-lined over-gown (see the V-neck looking part of it?), with a purfelled (matching fur) hem on her short sleeves, and a long-sleeved gown underneath. What are you seeing? Is there another woman in that picture with pin-on sleeves? I can't tell.

I thought that was the shirt showing, the art is a bit small you could be right.

Also, the middle picture is probably dated a lot earlier than the top and bottom ones. It's from the Vienna Tacuinum Sanitatis, IIRC. That's dated to around 1390-1400 (I think?).

My mistake, I thought with the men's style this was a few decades later. The page I was looking at was in German and lacked dates.

I meant to illustrate that a will has things listed but they can be worn in different combination when we turn to the art. I guess we will never be able to truely know how common these combinations were without a social comentary document, which may or maynot exist.

[chef de chambre]

Regarding the top picture -

To me, that looks like a short sleeved blue gown, worn over a linen kirtle, with detatched sleeves of a different colour. There is no rule saying sleeves and body of dress must be of matching colour - if you look to examples of indisputable pin-on sleeves, there are examples where clearly the sleeves are of a different material than the dress. This is one such case.

That is not a furred short sleeved dress, and I've never heard of such a thing in a 15th century context - the outermost layer of a gown would be fur trimmed or lined (if it was trimmed or lined with fur at all - the vast bulk of clothing was not fur lined). I sincerely doubt a labourer in the field, stooped over a vine plucking grapes would be wearing a fur lined gown. That person is a lower class labourer, not a lady.

[Black Swan Designs]

Top image is 16th C. You can tell by a couple of quick clothing markers-

-Back neck V of woman's gown is very low
-Obvious pin on sleeves
-Woman's white coif no longer has "wings", and has assumed typical 16th C. syle.
-Shape of man's hat
-Man's hose are high enough to stay up without being pointed to doublet.
-Genre- there is an explosion of this type of art in and around Bruges in the early years of the 16th C. This could well be a Simon Bening, which would date it around 1510-20 or so.

Francena (my Order Manager, known in SCA circles as Baroness Mistress Fia NaHeed) wears the G39 a lot, and she almost always unbuttons and flips the cuffs back. Interesting seeing that the woman from the Tacuinum have done the same thing.

Gwen

[Charlotte J]

That is not a furred short sleeved dress, and I've never heard of such a thing in a 15th century context - the outermost layer of a gown would be fur trimmed or lined (if it was trimmed or lined with fur at all - the vast bulk of clothing was not fur lined). I sincerely doubt a labourer in the field, stooped over a vine plucking grapes would be wearing a fur lined gown. That person is a lower class labourer, not a lady.

Fur linings are not just for women with the rank of "Lady", though I'm not sure about this laborer. Though that image looks more 16th c. to me, and it also looks like a smock showing between the short sleeve and the pin-on sleeve, there are examples of short-sleeved fur dresses. Most of them are in biblical settings, so take them for what they're worth.

http://www.wga.hu/art/b/bouts/dirk_e/1/1simon.jpg
http://www.wga.hu/art/m/master/zunk_fl/ ... barbar.jpg
http://www.wga.hu/art/b/bouts/dirk_e/2/lament1.jpg
http://www.wga.hu/art/c/christus/1/lastjud.jpg
(early 16th) http://www.wga.hu/art/m/massys/quentin/1/st_anne5.jpg
(early 16th) http://www.wga.hu/art/m/massys/quentin/1/st_john2.jpg

[Tailoress]

worn over a linen kirtle,

Do you mean a smock/chemise? I tend to think of a kirtle as a clothing layer beyond "under wear". That seems to be how the literature of the time describes it too, unless the meaning has changed by the late 15thc (which I don't know much about).

... in a 15th century context - the outermost layer of a gown would be fur trimmed or lined (if it was trimmed or lined with fur at all - the vast bulk of clothing was not fur lined).

Are you absolutely certain about that? Have you read Elspeth Veale's book yet? I get the impression that a significant percentage of clothing at all class levels were indeed fur-lined, though I couldn't tell you if it were an outright majority. I'd be rather hesitant to say "the vast bulk" was not, though. Regardless, I don't think that particular line of questioning informs this particular picture's interpretation. It's so small, I can't tell either way what's exactly going on -- white chemise or white fur. Doesn't much matter to me, but let's not get off on a tangent arguing about whether or not fur was or wasn't used in "vast bulks".

I sincerely doubt a labourer in the field, stooped over a vine plucking grapes would be wearing a fur lined gown. That person is a lower class labourer, not a lady.

There were detailed rules for all classes of people and the furs they were allowed to wear and not wear. Poor people wore it, but maybe it was cat or coney or if they were discerning, a second-hand skin of squirrel. No, they probably couldn't afford sable/marten, but fur was pretty darn common in European clothing during the 15thc, not just for fashion but most certainly for warmth.

There is a poem Iris Origo translates in The Merchant of Prato which dates to the first half of the 15thc that talks about the vair (squirrel) who was once the ornament of ladies and knights but now is treated like dirt by the spinner and weaver and gets pawned, being treated cheaper than a mouse. (I'm paraphrasing from Veale's citation of it, p. 138)

None of that bears on my sketchy interpretation of the first picture James posted.

-Tasha

[Black Swan Designs]

It's fall, and it's the harvest. The sun is shining, and the weather is so mild that both the fellow in the middle and the cart driver are in their shirt sleeves and whatever those sleeveless "vests" were called in the early 16th C. The women are not wearing hoods or their collars.

I am so certain the gowns are not fur lined that I would bet money on it.

But as pointed out before, nothing about this matters as it is early 16th C. and outside the scope Charlotte is covering.

Gwen

[DavidS]

Coming back briefly (it was all getting a little too heated and personal for me to be bothered with), and please excuse me wandering back to some old points, I've not been keeping up to date with the discussion.

As I said before (please excuse the repitition), it seems to me that even within the context of just looking at visual sources, you are comparing these long sleeved dresses with pin-ons in an erroneous way. I know that you don't accept that many of these long sleeved dresses are probably gowns, being worn over the top of a short-sleeved kirtle, but in assuming that they are not, you are still making an assumption. Plain long sleeved dresses are often clearly depicted as 'overgowns'. Pictures of long sleeved kirtles certainly exist (such as Agnes Sorel as the Madonna), but as I have already said - pictures of kirtles are much rarer than pictures of gowns. Kirtles are practically underwear. Yes, pin-on sleeves are uncommonly shown, buy so are kirtles at all.

Now I agree that in order to depict the most common, we should possibly see more people wearing long-sleeved gowns over the top of their kirtles, depending on what they are doing or working at. I think that is more what the scope of your paper is able to show, and I don't think it in any way invalidates the short-sleeved kirtle with pin-ons in suitable circumstances.

However, I do think a more interesting analysis would be one of *just* kirtles (using all available sources). Even if you wanted to limit it to visual sources as you have done here, it could be interesting. When are kirtles depcited in 15thC art? What is the proportion of short sleeved kirtles worn with pin-ons to those worn without? What are the situations being depicted? If a woman is being shown burnt at the stake with her hair down and no pin-ons, we can clearly see that she is in a state of undress!

I am not a re-eanctor, so I honestly don't know how rules are made up and implemented, BUT, if women are doing manual work in a camp setting, (or to be honest, if it is very hot!), and so they are not wearing gowns over their short-sleeved kirtles (which I still believe if the more common sleeve type on a *kirtle*), is it more appropriate to wear pin-on sleeves, or have their smock sleeves showing? Bearing in mind that people doing activities on a camp are unlikely to include being tortured or sleeping! How often are short-sleeved kirtles worn in respectable situations without pin-ons? The agricultural labourers in the Tres Riche Heurs instantly springs to mind, but then again, even the men are shown in their underwear, so lack of pin-ons seems perfectly reasonable! Should pin-on sleeves should be worn with a short-sleeved kirtle to make it 'decent' when not wearing a gown? Without doing the analysis I'm not sure how sensible this is, but it seems a plausible way of thinking to me.

[AZPapillion]

I think that is more what the scope of your paper is able to show, and I don't think it in any way invalidates the short-sleeved kirtle with pin-ons in suitable circumstances.

David - I don't think Charlotte was trying to invalidate the pin-on sleeved to the short sleeved gown. There is definate evidence of them. I believe she was just trying to show that there are other options than *just* the pin-on sleeve.

Women are pictured in both short sleeved and long sleeved gowns, with or without pin-on sleeves - lots of options.

Kim

[chef de chambre]

worn over a linen kirtle,

Do you mean a smock/chemise? I tend to think of a kirtle as a clothing layer beyond "under wear". That seems to be how the literature of the time describes it too, unless the meaning has changed by the late 15thc (which I don't know much about).

The details of descriptive words for womens underthings in the 15th century bore me - kirtle, smock, chemise -- whatever. Linen underthingie, if you prefer it. What it is beyond reasonable doubt is a linen long bodied and sleeved undergarment - not fur lining.

... in a 15th century context - the outermost layer of a gown would be fur trimmed or lined (if it was trimmed or lined with fur at all - the vast bulk of clothing was not fur lined).

Are you absolutely certain about that? Have you read Elspeth Veale's book yet? I get the impression that a significant percentage of clothing at all class levels were indeed fur-lined, though I couldn't tell you if it were an outright majority. I'd be rather hesitant to say "the vast bulk" was not, though.

I'm completely comfortable saying it - stating it as factual data, in point of fact. Leaving off linen undergarments as a catagory of clothing, just to be fair, the vast bulk of clothing produced and worn, at least in a 15th century context is the middle layer of garments - doublet and hosen for men, kirtle or whatever the heck you want to call it for women, and stockings. These appear as a general rule on a ratio of 2 or 3 -1 in the various documents I have seen, with fewer gowns of any sort. These are invariably unlined with fur.

Secondly, from my research into the daily parcels accounts of John Howard, as many *unlined[/i]* gowns, or gowns lined with velvet or silk, or whatever other fabric, appear for every gown lined or trimmed with fur of any sort - from budge to leopard.

This makes perfect sense when one takes into context the times of year these purchases, and linings occur - easy to fathom finding the furring occuring in poor weather or in anticipation of it, and the unlined or lightly lined (not fur lined) garments appearing mostly the rest of the year. It seems to be nearly a 50-50 distribution as to not lined with fur, to lined with fur, but I haven't gone over it entry by entry, and I haven't the inclination to do so for another couple of years anyway, after my last prolonged delving into it.

Nobody is disputing they lined gowns with fur, from budge to ermine or sable (a more popular fur amongst the aristocracy in the 15th century) - they are pointing out people didn't line their hosen, doublets or linens with them. Thus, the bulk of all clothing produced would be unlined with fur (sometimes fur *trim* was done, no doubt giving the effect, while making the garment more tolerable to wear)

Yes, all (or rather most) classes of people had access to fur/cheap fur/budge, what have you lining for at least one of their outer layer gowns/garments. Frankly, most reenactments occur at times of year when fur lined outer gowns would have been set in the wardrobe for storage

Regardless, I don't think that particular line of questioning informs this particular picture's interpretation. It's so small, I can't tell either way what's exactly going on -- white chemise or white fur. Doesn't much matter to me, but let's not get off on a tangent arguing about whether or not fur was or wasn't used in "vast bulks".

Well, we ought not, because I believe my explaination should clear up what I meant by vast bulks of clothing produced not being furred (lined in fur).

I sincerely doubt a labourer in the field, stooped over a vine plucking grapes would be wearing a fur lined gown. That person is a lower class labourer, not a lady.

There were detailed rules for all classes of people and the furs they were allowed to wear and not wear. Poor people wore it, but maybe it was cat or coney or if they were discerning, a second-hand skin of squirrel. No, they probably couldn't afford sable/marten, but fur was pretty darn common in European clothing during the 15thc, not just for fashion but most certainly for warmth.

[/quote]

See above. They certainly wearn't wearing it at the same time others were stripped down to their skivveys and shirts toiling away at the harvest. Fur lining was a seasonal thing as much as a status thing, and there was as much status (and more comfort) in lining a gown with silk, satin, or velvet. Labourers obviously wouldn't be doing thus.

There is a poem Iris Origo translates in The Merchant of Prato which dates to the first half of the 15thc that talks about the vair (squirrel) who was once the ornament of ladies and knights but now is treated like dirt by the spinner and weaver and gets pawned, being treated cheaper than a mouse. (I'm paraphrasing from Veale's citation of it, p. 138)

None of that bears on my sketchy interpretation of the first picture James posted.

-Tasha

Understood, but not relevent, as you are arguing against an argument I did not make, which should be clear. Veale. BTW, as you point out, addresses the fur trade in England, and of course the information does not directly transfer wholesale to the continent (where they did wear fur trimmed or lined outer garments as well, of course), one would have to look at a book like that (or better, the primary documents such books are created by researching) on continental practises, region by region, before anything decisive could be stated about specific regions - which was a part of my initial argument regarding the thread, you really have to focus on these things region by region, instead of looking broadcast, if accuracy is the end intent.

[earnest carruthers]

I suggest looking up the word 'kirtle' in the ME dictionary, will be enlightening for all, wont make the issue easier though, but adds to the mix.

[Tailoress]

The details of descriptive words for womens underthings in the 15th century bore me - kirtle, smock, chemise -- whatever. Linen underthingie, if you prefer it.

As I said, unless the definition of kirtle changed significantly in the 15thc, it does not mean a linen underthingie. I wish it weren't boring to you, as I do think it's an important distinction. The literature appears to make it clear that a kirtle is a fashion layer, not an underthingie, at least in English lands. Please reference Women's Dress Lexicon from Fourteenth-Century England by Traci L. Austin. This is a dissertation presented in 2003 at the University of Nebraska. She surveyed a large selection of 14thc English literature for women's clothing terms and it becomes clear the shirts/smocks are underthingies and kirtles (while not defined *exactly*) are something else, presumably a fashion layer. Many literary descriptions make a point of mentioning both items -- a shirt (for a man) and kirtle, or a smock (for a woman) and kirtle.

Again, if there's a change in the 15thc, I would love to know about it, as it's outside my general scope of interest and understanding.

the vast bulk of clothing was not fur lined).

I'm completely comfortable saying it - stating it as factual data, in point of fact.

"Clothing"? Okay, sure -- if you're throwing in all garments worn on the body. I assumed you meant, specifically, gowns, surcottes, "outer layers", what-have-you. If you just look at those outer-most layers, they're not so statistically tiny.

Secondly, from my research into the daily parcels accounts of John Howard, as many *unlined[/i]* gowns, or gowns lined with velvet or silk, or whatever other fabric, appear for every gown lined or trimmed with fur of any sort - from budge to leopard.

So you're guessing that for the wealthy it's about a 50/50 ratio, fur-lined/purfelled to some other lining or no lining at all? That sounds pretty much like what I would expect too.

sable (a more popular fur amongst the aristocracy in the 15th century)

Yes, it was the most highly prized form of marten during that time period.

Well, we ought not, because I believe my explaination should clear up what I meant by vast bulks of clothing produced not being furred (lined in fur).

It does, when I understand you also mean all kinds of garments, not just those "normally" earmarked for the fur question.

Veale. BTW, as you point out, addresses the fur trade in England, and of course the information does not directly transfer wholesale to the continent

No, but she does touch heavily on German sources (mostly Hanseatic) with a sprinkling of French, Scandinavian and Russian. Her discussion does touch the continent enough to at least inform your understanding of the fur trade throughout those lands, and is a useful read for everyone who re-enacts this time period anywhere in Europe.

you really have to focus on these things region by region, instead of looking broadcast, if accuracy is the end intent.

Yes, agreed.

[earnest carruthers]

"unless the definition of kirtle changed significantly in the 15thc, it does not mean a linen underthingie."

A kirtle had many meanings, many obviously skirt related, some as alternatives for gown.

Men's and women's clothing have kirtles or are kirtled.

Seems as much a distinction between similar items as it does a name of a particular one. Interestingly kirtle is oftne used in the plural for singular happenings, ie 'she was wearing her kirtles'

Adam and Eve had kirtles made from the skin of beasts, so anyone's guess as to the real meaning of kirtle.

[Karen Larsdatter]

The use of the word "kirtle" seems to have evolved, in terms of precisely which sort of garment it means (and whether it's a word for a man's garment or a woman's) in the 14th and 15th centuries. Rather than re-bloviate, I'll just post a link to where I've yammered about this before -- http://www.wolfeargent.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 200216&p=2 (about midway down the page)

[Tailoress]

Thanks for the link to that topic, Karen. It was interesting and informative for late 15thc use of the word "kirtle". I do think that you and also David Key would appreciate that dissertation I mention above, as it fills in another puzzle piece, i.e. literary use of the term (well beyond Chaucer), and also makes clear that kirtle was a women's garment (in addition to male), at least in the 14thc, so it's not a matter of it morphing from a male to a female garment, but rather a question of whether or not it stopped being a male garment by description.

-Tasha

ETA clearer language.