Debunking the pin-on sleeve

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:15 pm

common where? in paintings or real life?

Common in terms of paintings is mere counting appearances

Common in terms of actual use is far less simplistic.

How common is 15thC English stained glass?

How common are 15thC visual references for England?

which type of common are you getting at?

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:28 pm

There you go Jeff, not too hard was it?

That way you get at least some information as to the initial premise.

I shall pass this on to our gals.

May I suggest asking what the wearers of pin ons used them for, fashion or work, eg of work.

That might give an idea as to the wearer's perception on what they are for, big clues then to appropriateness. If group X is the guild of dairy maids then at least they are cleared to go...

Woodwindy · Post by **Woodwindy** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:53 pm

chef de chambre wrote: If you've been looking at thousands of images, how did you manage to miss "Tres Riches Heurs" of the Duc de Berry, which is perhaps the most famous medieval book of hours of all, nevermind the most famous 15th century book of hours?

The paper clearly states a starting date of 1435, and gives reasons for doing so. I see that you and others have questioned the chronological limits set for the article, which is certainly a valid point of discussion. However, implying that Charlotte was somehow negligent by not including images from a work completed before 1416 (and that's being generous -- most sources put it around 1410) in a paper that *specifically says* it's not covering early 15th-century artwork due to stylistic issues is... well, let's say that it's not a particularly impressive argument.

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:55 pm

grimstone bar wrote:There you go Jeff, not too hard was it?

Seems I may have been mistaken about being wrong. A further review of your posts here & elsewhere indicates that it is quite probable you are intentionally being rude. This post is evidence that you are also a bit of a condescending prick.

But that's just based on the one data point.

Black Swan Designs · Post by **Black Swan Designs** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:04 pm

Nope, I've met the man in person and he's an absolute sweetheart, not to mention being a total crackup. He's just incredibly sharp, knows a lot and has got a typically English sense of humour and debating style. He can also talk faster than anyone I've ever met!

He's a bit of a badger, and you've given him something to sink his teeth into. I guarantee he's considering this an interesting exercise in logical argument. Believe me, if he wanted to insult you, you'd know it without question.

Gwen

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:15 pm

Black Swan Designs wrote:Nope, I've met the man in person and he's an absolute sweetheart, not to mention being a total crackup. He's just incredibly sharp, knows a lot and has got a typically English sense of humour and debating style. He can also talk faster than anyone I've ever met! He's a bit of a badger, and you've given him something to sink his teeth into. I guarantee he's considering this an interesting exercise in logical argument. Believe me, if he wanted to insult you, you'd know it without question.

Gwen

I may have erred about being mistaken about being wrong, but I think I have the condescending aspect pegged.

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:06 am

Jeff

You carry on attacking people because all that will prove is you are unable to defend your (the thesis') position without getting personal.

I could easily have read your list tagged onto my quote as being sarcastic 'go on then' but I refrained as I am not so stupid as to claim the ability to read tone of voice in this medium. Maybe you possess some psychic abilities as yet unrecorded, if you do your radar would have been off in that case. <<--Sarcasm - just in case it isn't working again..

You posted up a list of questions which I think is a good thing as i said it wasn't too hard. The point being that half of your defence of the weakness of the thesis is that there is only so much time to do one. Absolutely, so one way is to follow a path of least resistance and start with the obvious by asking questions, better late than never.

"intentionally being rude. "

No, only in your defensive frame of mind, because, now it is my time to get psychic and by all means call me out on it, you have a vested interest in the thesis and the author which clouds not only your judgement but your reaction to any form of criticism other than saying how wonderful it is. I have no such vested interest, none whatsover. I do have an interest in what gets promoted as 'reenactor theory' being one I am going to be influenced by it as are other people. What you are consistently failing to see is that this thesis, right or wrong has created interest, that is a good thing as it means that myself, Chef no doubt others have if nothing else picked up on a subject they may not have done before.

Even though Gwen is a friend we do not see eye to eye on a few things, mainly about interpretation but that is the positive nature of that game, had she posted up anything like this thesis I guarantee you she would have had the same response, oh and had she reacted as you had again the same responses. However the liklihood of those two events happening is slim indeed.

I am not interested in your local petty playground personal rivalries, they get in the way of what could be useful to the community you purport to value, well if the community is so valuable to you step back a bit and ask yourself why are people seemingly reacting in the same way and ask yourself if you can actually be objective about things and not pursue quite openly hostile agendas (yes I do read the spats because they are interspersed in otherwise useful info and they don't do anyone any favours).

Who were you calling a prick again.?

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:29 am

Woodwindy wrote:
chef de chambre wrote: If you've been looking at thousands of images, how did you manage to miss "Tres Riches Heurs" of the Duc de Berry, which is perhaps the most famous medieval book of hours of all, nevermind the most famous 15th century book of hours?
The paper clearly states a starting date of 1435, and gives reasons for doing so. I see that you and others have questioned the chronological limits set for the article, which is certainly a valid point of discussion. However, implying that Charlotte was somehow negligent by not including images from a work completed before 1416 (and that's being generous -- most sources put it around 1410) in a paper that *specifically says* it's not covering early 15th-century artwork due to stylistic issues is... well, let's say that it's not a particularly impressive argument.

The reasons it gives for doing so are rather arbitrary, and in my opinion, not valid. Not when one sees peasant women labouring in the field in the same cut of dresses in 1413 (last I checked), and in the second decade of the 16th century. When one sees that phenomenon, then one ought reassess ones cutoff and beginning dates.

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:44 am

grimstone bar wrote:common where? in paintings or real life?

Tell me without using painted references how could you tell the difference? Lots of things exist in inventories but that does not tell us how they were used. As I have added to the conversation through art you can see women did in fact wear long sleeved dresses to work in the field.

Now I am not saying you guys didn't make good points, I only challenged using art way off in date to justify all women wearing pin on sleeves when art from the era is showing women with long sleeves doing hard work. The whole idea is to challenge our set perceptions off what was used and how commonly it was used. Pin on sleeves are convenient from a modern standpoint, you take them off when you are going to get dirty, I don't doubt that was the mentality in 1515 but in almost every 15th century reenactment picture I have seen in the USA or UK almost every gal not in a high born ladies dress is wearing pin on sleeves, how about some verity like the art is showing existed?

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:49 am

chef de chambre wrote:The reasons it gives for doing so are rather arbitrary, and in my opinion, not valid. Not when one sees peasant women labouring in the field in the same cut of dresses in 1413 (last I checked), and in the second decade of the 16th century. When one sees that phenomenon, then one ought reassess ones cutoff and beginning dates.

Tie on sleeves are in art of the 1430s for menÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s doublets and extent 1560s doublets have tie on sleeves, does that mean it was common between?

Also I don't see Char saying no one should have pin on sleeves only that we have it too often.

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:56 am

grimstone bar wrote:Jeff

You carry on attacking people because all that will prove is you are unable to defend your (the thesis') position without getting personal.

I could easily have read your list tagged onto my quote as being sarcastic 'go on then' but I refrained as I am not so stupid as to claim the ability to read tone of voice in this medium. Maybe you possess some psychic abilities as yet unrecorded, if you do your radar would have been off in that case. <<--Sarcasm - just in case it isn't working again..

The thesis is quite adequately defended. I have been making an effort to NOT defend it, as that is the perogative of the author. My objection is the rude, badgering manner and condescending attitude of some of those attacking it. Those are readily apparent in the posts and I applied appropriate labels.

You posted up a list of questions which I think is a good thing as i said it wasn't too hard. The point being that half of your defence of the weakness of the thesis is that there is only so much time to do one. Absolutely, so one way is to follow a path of least resistance and start with the obvious by asking questions, better late than never.

The survey was a lark, and very poorly designed. I would never presume to put a legitimate survey out where it is not my place. If Charlotte deems a survey neccessary, then she will be the one to create and disseminate it. I'm reasonably certain it would not be in the middle of a thread on the Armor Archive. That approach would be an extremely poor data-collecting practice, certain to skew the results, and it's extremely funny that you latched onto it.

"intentionally being rude. "

No, only in your defensive frame of mind, ....

And to many others who have privately contacted Charlotte showing support for her being so patient in such an openly hostile environment.

get psychic and by all means call me out on it, you have a vested interest in the thesis and the author which clouds not only your judgement but your reaction to any form of criticism other than saying how wonderful it is. I have no such vested interest, none whatsover. I do have an interest in what gets promoted as 'reenactor theory' being one I am going to be influenced by it as are other people. What you are consistently failing to see is that this thesis, right or wrong has created interest, that is a good thing as it means that myself, Chef no doubt others have if nothing else picked up on a subject they may not have done before.

I believe she is quite concious of the interest. What's interesting to me is the strength of the reaction to a simple premise. I have to wonder what some people's vested interests might be.

Even though Gwen is a friend we do not see eye to eye on a few things, mainly about interpretation but that is the positive nature of that game, had she posted up anything like this thesis I guarantee you she would have had the same response, oh and had she reacted as you had again the same responses. However the liklihood of those two events happening is slim indeed.

I've been her friend a lot longer and dare say I know her far better. I'm positive she would have reacted competely differently, but that is not an issue, here.

I am not interested in your local petty playground personal rivalries, they get in the way of what could be useful to the community you purport to value, well if the community is so valuable to you step back a bit and ask yourself why are people seemingly reacting in the same way and ask yourself if you can actually be objective about things and not pursue quite openly hostile agendas (yes I do read the spats because they are interspersed in otherwise useful info and they don't do anyone any favours).

Which is good, because you seem to be reading far more into the situation than exists. (I believe you neglected to remove your psychic hat)

Who were you calling a prick again.?

You - but I'd just stuck with "Condescending".

AZPapillion · Post by **AZPapillion** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:05 am

Can we get back to the topic at hand? Enough of this name calling - take that to the Off Topics section if you want.

The topic:
Is the 15th c use of pin-on sleeves a bit overdone in reenactment groups, based on the art?

Kim

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:38 am

AZPapillion wrote:Can we get back to the topic at hand? Enough of this name calling - take that to the Off Topics section if you want.

The topic:
Is the 15th c use of pin-on sleeves a bit overdone in reenactment groups, based on the art?

Kim

You mean actually discuss CONTENT?!?

Maybe we should keep it just to the historical research aspect - What women wore in the period under discussion (not before, not later). What reenactors do is immaterial to historical research (topic of this forum).

Tracy Justus · Post by **Tracy Justus** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:50 am

Sabine--- The bulk of the TrÃƒÂ¨s Riches Heures was indeed painted in the early 15th c, but the manuscript was left unfinished and was not completed until the early 1480s by Jean Colombe. In the 12 illuminations of the months Colombe painted November (a solitary hunter) and the lower half of September (harvesting grapes).

There are women in the September illumination but as it is not on the Web Gallery of Art or in the BFN (the manuscript is in the MusÃƒÂ©e CondÃƒÂ©) it was not included (I presume) in Charlotte's survey.

Clare

Charlotte- sorry I haven't scanned the Met painting, my scanner is wonky- I hope to have the time by the end of the week to deal with it. - C

earnest carruthers · Post by **earnest carruthers** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:46 am

Jeff

"'m positive she would have reacted competely differently, but that is not an issue, here. "

GB
"had she posted up anything like this thesis I guarantee you she would have had the same response, oh and had she reacted as you had again the same responses."

was what I said but it seems unclear to you...just so you are I will type slowly.

had gwen posted up something similar she would have had the same response <from me> had she reacted as you have again the same response <from me>.

Ie her relationship would be irrelevant to me, I know it and she knows it. Your relationship to her is even less relevant to me, but thanks all the same for sharing.

"I would never presume to put a legitimate survey"

So why get the arse at my initial response then? make your mind up. FWIW it made a lot more sense than you imagine, which I am not surprised at. I take it you also laughed at your colleague who posted up, or was it part of the 'joke'? Seems you are not too sure.

"in such an openly hostile environment."

Spare me the violins, the issue has been queried, her integrity has not, any conception of that is yours and whoever else's. Charlotte's work effort is not in question by any means, you seem to think so, sorry bub it aint. Because you read words like 'selective' and 'arbitrary' you see them as insults, well that really is your problem. You will not find any personal attacks on Charlotte from me, challenges to the thesis, yes, why not? I am more than happy to discuss any issues of personal attacks (perceived or otherwise) with her, I have no problem with that whatsoever because there were none.

I would be using the same level of energy to defend it if I saw reason to, my mistake was in thinking that people can actually step away from personal to discuss an issue, evidently they cannot, I should have really known that from the offset.

You seem to be under the impression that this is some personal thing, it isn't it, can't be as there is nothing to be personal about, we are talking about an article. The only personalising is from you who can't it seems from one reaction to another make his mind up whether he has been offended or not, quite bizarre and rather futile.

"Which is good, because you seem to be reading far more into the situation than exists.

It was not this thread that I was referring to but the barely suppressed personal rivalries that you and others seem to have with people and how they come up quite frequently as part of other topics. So please do not involve me in your little gang fights, not interested, I am interested in the topics at hand, good or bad. I try to retain a policy of treating each thread as a separate event, likewise any such exchanges like this in order not to be party to petty grudge matches, not worth the effort IMHO. So do not be too disappointed that I wont be carrying this over somewhere else.

But since you have made it personal in this thread I see no reason to feed you any further, I shall leave that honour to someone else.

James B. I would be happy to continue discussing this with you as your questions via pm if that suits?

Jeff J · Post by **Jeff J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:04 am

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:57 am

Jeff J wrote:I may have erred about being mistaken about being wrong, but I think I have the condescending aspect pegged.

On balance, this line needs a smiley. It certainly got an LOL out of me. More than one of the disputants here is doing this entirely for fun!

AZPapillion · Post by **AZPapillion** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:33 pm

There has been a lot of discussion here on the specifics and methodologies of proving her point. Were the facts proven in a scientific manner? I don't believe this really plays a part.

When I read her paper - the point to me appeared to be about common misconceptions. She just wanted people to look at additional sources and a thought to see a different view.

My question to you - are you looking at the sleeve options for women a different way? If so, I believe she accomplished the goal of her paper.

Kim

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 pm

Yes, yes, we're all a bunch of overly-sensitive disagreeing bastiges!

I offer here a recent snippet from me, over in OT, in response to James B concerning the G63 garment:

As for it being an SCA thing, Historic Enterprises has done more than just about anyone else to popularize that style, both within SCA and LH, and a good thing too, because it looks damn spiffy on men, IMO.

So you see, even *I* can be nice to Gwen and say, "nice job!" from time to time. Many of us disagree, and vehemently so, on a semi-regular basis, and I do think grudges get held. We all seem to so love our tempests in the teapot.

We don't always treat our common opponents with the benefit of the doubt, and just as I complained that I couldn't see the detail of the braid in the Historic Enterprises newsletter (so sue me -- I'm a braid nut!), folks are dog-piling on Char here, probably as a rare chance to get her back for some past perceived slight or just out of envy for her cussed brilliance!

I must say though that it's wonderful to see so many people giving serious, in-depth thought to a topic that appears to have been somewhat neglected for some time (the whole issue of the "proper" use of pin-on sleeves). Whatever comes of this multi-pronged spat, there's no doubt that a lot of people have learned a lot, either through Char's paper, or through their own investigations, or through what's been challenged, etc.

That's the coolest part in my eyes.

-Tasha

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:29 pm

chef de chambre wrote:
Okay Charlotte, here is an example. Perhaps the reason it is a "thing" with her (Mary Magdelene) , is because she is the portrayal of 'everywoman', as Grimstone has pointed out.

Why do you see MM as an "everywoman"? In the 15th century, and in many other time periods, she was seen as a whore. Maybe that makes her representative for those who are portraying prostitutes, but not necessarily for the rest of us.

You have yet to address the point I have made regarding regional distribution of images, which sleeves varients could *possibly* be catagorised by.

Why? Because I haven't been sitting on the computer all day. Patience, please. And no, I'm not responding to things in order.

You also dismiss placing short and pin on sleeves into the same catagory, and pin on sleeves are nothing more than short sleeved dresses with sleeves pinned on. It isn't sound to do so, when the *possibility* remains that these dresses with short sleevews could have been intended to be worn with long sleeves, as appropriate to task or situation.

The *possibility* exists for a lot of things. I'm not interested in assumptions and possibilities. I think there have been enough of those already when it comes to this fashion. I categorized them as I saw them. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. To say that all short sleeves would have pin-on sleeves over them is a leap. I'm surprised at you chastising me for not willing to make such a leap. It isn't sound to make such assumptions!

AZPapillion · Post by **AZPapillion** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:32 pm

Jeff J wrote:
AZPapillion wrote:Can we get back to the topic at hand? Enough of this name calling - take that to the Off Topics section if you want.

The topic:
Is the 15th c use of pin-on sleeves a bit overdone in reenactment groups, based on the art?

Kim
You mean actually discuss CONTENT?!?

Maybe we should keep it just to the historical research aspect - What women wore in the period under discussion (not before, not later). What reenactors do is immaterial to historical research (topic of this forum).

Actually Jeff, the first paragraph of her paper discusses how reenactment portrays the history...
"In reenacting and SCA circles, the ubiquitous 15th century womenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s casual outfit consists of a short-sleeved fitted kirtle, with long sleeves pinned on at the shoulders. While this fashion certainly existed to some extent in 15th century Western Europe, was it as common as many modern-day reenactors and medieval recreationists believe? What was the most common fashion, as depicted in art? What options are there other than the pin-on sleeve?"

Maybe this topic should be moved over to Historical interpretation?

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:40 pm

Tracy Justus wrote:Sabine--- The bulk of the TrÃƒÂ¨s Riches Heures was indeed painted in the early 15th c, but the manuscript was left unfinished and was not completed until the early 1480s by Jean Colombe. In the 12 illuminations of the months Colombe painted November (a solitary hunter) and the lower half of September (harvesting grapes).

As well, parts of October are now believe to have been painted at some point mid-15thc, given the cockscomb silhouette of the chaperone worn by the man walking his doggie in the mid-ground near the walls of the chateau. No one has to take my word for it, but that is the latest report of Dr. Patricia Stierneman, during a lecture she gave on the TrÃƒÂ¨s Riches Heures at the U. of Penn. in January. If anyone disagrees, please do take it up with her. She lives in France.

The Limbourgs, talented young men that they were, appear to have all been killed in a wave of early 15thc plague, and more the loss, forevermore. They weren't even out of their 20s yet. Imagine what they might have gone on to do, aside from finishing the TrÃƒÂ¨s Riches Heures... or don't imagine, if you don't want to get depressed.

What I don't understand is why this wonderful manuscript is even considered a problematic omission (date of painting aside), as there is nary an exposed pin-on sleeve to be found in it (that I recall, anyway), and if anything, would only serve to bolster the numbers Charlotte has extrapolated to date.

-Tasha

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:00 pm

chef de chambre wrote: The reasons it gives for doing so are rather arbitrary, and in my opinion, not valid. Not when one sees peasant women labouring in the field in the same cut of dresses in 1413 (last I checked), and in the second decade of the 16th century. When one sees that phenomenon, then one ought reassess ones cutoff and beginning dates.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. The cut of certain items of clothing often remained quite similar through large periods of time, but doesn't always pertain to the question at hand. Take it a few centuries earlier, where the cut of the basic tunic remained unchanged for hundreds of years. That doesn't mean that other parts of fashion were the same, or that somebody wanting to get a picture of what people wore in the 12th century should include research from the 9th century.

Are you reading the thread on firestryker as well? If you want me to have time to answer all of your other questions, then please stop asking me questions that you can see I've already addressed elsewhere.

As I said there, the early 15th century tends to stylistically have more in common with the late 14th century than the rest of the 15th century. I did not see any pin-on sleeves worn without a gown over them until 1435. Around the beginning of the second quarter of the 15th century, you start to see fewer and fewer plain fitted dresses without another gown over them. Women's fashion seems to be undergoing a shift at this point.

Towards the end of the 15th century, women's fashion underwent another major shift. Before that, the styles simply changed subtly throughout the century. The gown was basically the same style, with the neckline widening, the sleeves shrinking, the collar flattening. In the late 15th c., more recognizable Tudor fashions came into play, which were often strikingly different. I realize that this doesn't necessarily change what the lowest laborer is wearing, but I have to look at general trends.

I could pick 1400-1500, but I believe those dates would be much more arbitrary than the ones I did choose.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:03 pm

A crosspost from FireStryker, principly because it concerns art, research, and why some sources (art) are reliable in some cases, but not in others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James,

You just aren't getting it.

1. I have no horse in this race, I copuld give a damn less about sleeves that pin on vs long sleeves - it isn't my personal area of research and interest, and the women in Wolfe Argent happen to have both sorts of dresses. Your commentary regarding the "whys" of this generated controversy are thus far off the mark.

2. I happen to like Charlotte, I've only met her once, but I've never had an unkind thing to say about her, nor do I think she has had anything unkind to say about me - her percepttion of me may have unfortunately changed due to the heat generated over this paper, but I still think well of her, and I have only criticisim for this paper, as research and amature scholarship - not her.

My chief concern regarding this paper as research, and impacting wether clothing history, reenactment, or SCA circles is this.

The paper is fundamentally flawed. Not in a minor way, but in a major way. There are four major flaws that I can see with how the paper itself has been put together, and one major flaw that completely invalidates the paper, and invalidates the first premise that is the foundation of the paper. I will summarise them below, in bold.

1. The theseis uses art alone as conclusive evidence for a medieval practise. (The response in argument has been that art has been the 'scope' of the paper)

A classic example of why this is unsound,a s are the cut off dates for the phenomenon of pinned on sleeves is provided by Marianne

quote:As to the question of when "pin-on sleeves appeared"... I don't know the answer, but a few months ago I was discussing 13th century Spanish dress in another forum when I was very surprised to find textual evdence of "extra sleeves":

* A saya with two pairs of sleeves:
"Mando a Gonzalo MartÃƒÂnez, clÃƒÂ©rigo, ela mÃƒÂa saya del pres nueua con dos pares de mangas e las calzas desse mismo pres." (I send to Gonzalo Martinez, clerk, my new dress of pres
with two pairs of sleeves and hose in the same pres) Note: pres must be some kind of cloth.
1282, AnÃƒÂ³nimo, Testamento [Documentos de la catedral de LeÃƒÂ³n], en:
J. M. RuÃƒÂz Asencio, Centro de Estudios e InvestigaciÃƒÂ³n "San Isidoro"-Caja EspaÃƒÂ±a- Archivo Diocesano de LeÃƒÂ³n (LeÃƒÂ³n), 1994

* One saya of pres with two pairs of sleeves:
"Mando a Pedro RemÃƒÂ³n el mÃƒÂo manto e ela mÃƒÂa garnacha de bruneta morada e gardacos de sarga e i saya de pres con dos pares de mangas."
1274, AnÃƒÂ³nimo, Testamento [Documentos de la catedral de LeÃƒÂ³n], op. cit.

Both appear to be talking of common garments, given away in testaments. Both are talking of sayas, which appear to be the lower layer of dress. However, I've never seen an image that shows clearly these sleeves in use. As I said it was a total surprise and I have no clue as to what these sleeves must have been like.
I can't even discount that they meant "alike" when they wrote "pairs" (I did try to check and found one 13th c. use of "pairs" when talking about the pairs of animals entering Noah's ark, but most texts aren't totally clear).

I also found a couple of 15th c. texts that speak of pair of sleeves. This time it seems no dress is associated with them, as they are mentioned by themselves (dated 1466 and 1477 - 1491). This was a quick search and I'm sure there's more. But these don't add anything to the issue of origin, or how the sleeves were used.

2. The paper assumes that art indicates a realistic reflection of daily life, especially proportion of objects in daily use. (It has been pointed out, several times on the AA and here, that if art is unerringly a reflection of daily medieval life, then almost no jacks must have been worn by medieval soldiers, and society must have principly been composed of wealthy people, supported by a lesser number of labourers and craftsmen. Documentary eveidence, on the other hand, proves the reverse is the case - decisively so in the last instance. With these, and other examples that could fill a database, thus it is provben that what we see in art is in no good way a guide to daily medieval life, or commonality of everyday items.)

3. The paper examines the evidence as a European-wide phenomenon, and does not consider evidence on a region by region case. Evidence exists for regional variation in many things, dress, and arms and armour, to name two obvious ones to people looking at art - Differences between Germany and France, for instance, or France and Italy, or Germany and Italy, or Norther Italy vs. Southern Italy - not to belabour the point. Regional variations might exist for pinned on sleeves, but the way the paper is currently constructed does not even consider such an examination.

4. The paper creates debatable catagories, defining what the viewer is seeing to the convenience of the author - classicvally, refusing to seriously consider short sleeved dresses as possibly, or even probably evidence for the practise of having sleeves to put on or take off with them (witness the documents Marianne quotes, where in at least one case completely seperate sleeves exist, unassociated with any specific dress).

If you examine short sleeves vs. long sleeves as mere fashion on a dress, then one might have the seperate catagory. However, what we well could be seeing is pin on sleeves equating to the apron of a carpenter, or a baker, or a smith - utilitarian principly, as riding boots are, and existing for certain tasks - as in people riding in riding boots, to protect their legs and spare their hosen dirt and wear (some are specifically refered to as galoshes in some documents), and not an item you would walk around in unless you were intending to ride.

Heck, some of the sleeves might pin on *over* long sleeves dresses in some instances, as apparently they do over the executioners doublet in the Foquet illumination. The papers catagories, however, don't allow in any serious way for these possibilities - which I believe are foolish to dismiss out of hand, without a *lot* more solid evidence for the dismissal.

The fifth, and thesis sinking hole you could sail the Iowa through, that invalidates the paper completely in it's current state is this. A basic assumption is made, and argued against (too many pin on sleeves present in reenactment), and not a single item of data establishing numbers, or proportions of long sleeves vs. pin on in the community the thesis concerns.

And to address one final thing -

quote:Did so many women have pin on sleeves as we reenactors represent is the heart of the problem. I think we over do it, Char's article shows a big percentage of long sleeves and I posted on the Archive a great image of a long sleeved gal cutting wheat. I for one think she is making a great case for more long-sleeved in our reenactments instead of being cookie cutter and doing what is easy from a modern standpoint.

Is the scuttle butt because there are minor flaws or because she makes a great point about our representations of the 15th century?

--------------------

James Barker

THe paper establishes nothing of the sort, as I pointed out - the paper is fundamentally flawed. It can only be considered "valid" by someone who places the evidence of art as being the final determining factor in what was, and what was not done historically, and what is an accurate representation. Much later medieval art is extremely realistic in portraying the individual details of objects - the patterns of cloth, the shape of candlesticks, what a hammer looked like, etc.. What it is terrible at protraying is realistic occurances - these are not photographs of events, no matter how well painted, they are highy symbolic, and often allegoric masterpieces, reflecting the values and concerns of wealthy art patrons - NOT showing slices of daily life.

If they completely reliable sources of daily life, we must assume many things.

1. Knights made up the majority of all armies, and they always (or nearly) fought on horseback, even in the 14th and 15th centuries. A minority of people were footsoldiers, and the ones that existed wore almost as much armour as knights (all of this is utter rubbish)

2. The saints bodily visited the Aristocracy and Royalty of Europe with frightening regularity, almost as frequently as popping in for an afternoon tea once a week. Along this theme, most of them, including the Holy Family primarily resided in Flanders, particularly favouring Bruge and Ghent (although they apparently had winter houses in Spain and Italy)

3. The bulk of society was composed of well to do Burghers and Aristocrats, and perhaps 10-20% of the remaining population composed all of the farmers, peasants, labourers and craftsmen - these people were almost invariably physically smaller, and almost invariably uglier, and with darker skin than the aristocrats (who never suffered from warts or blemishes themselves, apparently)

4. The physical landscape and basic rules of geograpy, as well as the perspective of the landscape has altered radically in the last 600 years.

This is of course all very silly, but I hope it establishes clearly one point - if nothing else

Medieval art is not a reliable depiction of daily life, or demographics of same

The paper assumes it does, and so must be fundementally flawed internally, even if it does eventiually incorporate statistics showing the demographics and distribution of pin on sleeves in the reenactment community. Without considering evidence outside the realm of art, it will be shot out of the water faster than the HMS Hood was - every time. Mariannes contribution has pretty clearly established that (elsewhere, and in the paper , Charelotte has argued pin on sleeves not existing prior to 1435, because that is the first artistic depiction of them - here we have 13th century evidence, for the practise of seperate sleeves for womens dresses.)

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:07 pm

AZPapillion wrote:There has been a lot of discussion here on the specifics and methodologies of proving her point. Were the facts proven in a scientific manner? I don't believe this really plays a part.

When I read her paper - the point to me appeared to be about common misconceptions. She just wanted people to look at additional sources and a thought to see a different view.

My question to you - are you looking at the sleeve options for women a different way? If so, I believe she accomplished the goal of her paper.

Kim

Kim,

There is no other way to put this - you are wrong. Not trying to be unkind, but unless the evidence provided is a reliable indicator, how can a point possibly be made?

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:15 pm

Chef

I get your argument and I said you guys have good points. I think Char has made a good point to, in the art long sleeves are depicted and to a point they are depicted more often, why then in reenactment are they so rare? To that I add the question, as reenactors are we over doing the pin on sleeve because it works best for us as modern people?

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:57 pm

James B. wrote:Chef

I get your argument and I said you guys have good points. I think Char has made a good point to, in the art long sleeves are depicted and to a point they are depicted more often, why then in reenactment are they so rare? To that I add the question, as reenactors are we over doing the pin on sleeve because it works best for us as modern people?

Hi James,

I don't think Char has made the point you think she has.

Read what you wrote interting these words-

in the art Rich people are depicted and to a point they are depicted more often (than the poor), why then in reenactment are they so rare?

in the art Knights are depicted and to a point they are depicted more often (than common soldiers), why then in reenactment are they so rare?

in the art Angels are depicted and to a point they are depicted more often (than mere humans), why then in reenactment are they so rare?

I hope I finally made my point clear - Medieval art does not accurately portray a slice (the demographics of) medieval life - therefore, unless very carefull notes are made regarding what is being depicted, and then comparing them with other evidence - art alone, unsupported as evidence, is not reliable.

Man, I feel like Im talking in English, and some of you are hearing it in Esperanto, or ancient latin!

Basically, she needs to work more on her paper - her idea might be a good one, but she hasn't made a point until she accumulates more, and different kinds of evidence.

For the record, at last count, women in Wolfe Argent had a 1-2 ratio of pin on, to long sleeves on dresses.

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:33 pm

I undestand you Chef but let me ask like this. Unlike Jacks and army ratios which we have great written accounts about what do we then trust in a case like pin on sleeves when we are likely to never find a social written account of thier day to day use? Wills and inventories cannot give us insight into the common use and you feel art cannot be trusted to give us a balanced ratio either so what then do we do?

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:04 pm

James B. wrote:I undestand you Chef but let me ask like this. Unlike Jacks and army ratios which we have great written accounts about what do we then trust in a case like pin on sleeves when we are likely to never find a social written account of thier day to day use? Wills and inventories cannot give us insight into the common use and you feel art cannot be trusted to give us a balanced ratio either so what then do we do?

Wills and inventories will give us a clearer picture of how more common an object was - more so than relying on very subjective opinions regarding ambiguous paintings, showing skewed social demographics.

Surely, you can see the point of this - x,y,z objects, listed in a middle or lower class persons will, or post-mortm inventory - give an actual, factual data point regarding how many there are, in regards to how many other types of objects - much more reliably than peering at daubs of paint, that show what the rich people who commissioned them idealised.

(Real life - removed several steps from person comissioning art, with specific *demands* of what is to be portrayed - often based on an ideal, or an allegory -, then filtered through the artists eyes.)

Looking at the data together is how data passably reliable is arrived at.

I'm sorry, it's not a quick or easy solution - but it is how research is done.

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:12 pm

chef de chambre wrote:Surely, you can see the point of this - x,y,z objects, listed in a middle or lower class persons will, or post-mortm inventory - give an actual, factual data point regarding how many there are, in regards to how many other types of objects - much more reliably than peering at daubs of paint, that show what the rich people who commissioned them idealised.

Yes and no. Again it proves they owned the listed items but it does not prove they didn't own others and if they owned both a long sleeve dress and a short sleeved one with sleeves it does not give us insight into use or common use.

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:00 pm

Tracy Justus wrote:Sabine--- The bulk of the TrÃƒÂ¨s Riches Heures was indeed painted in the early 15th c, but the manuscript was left unfinished and was not completed until the early 1480s by Jean Colombe. In the 12 illuminations of the months Colombe painted November (a solitary hunter) and the lower half of September (harvesting grapes).

There are women in the September illumination but as it is not on the Web Gallery of Art or in the BFN (the manuscript is in the MusÃƒÂ©e CondÃƒÂ©) it was not included (I presume) in Charlotte's survey.

Clare

Charlotte- sorry I haven't scanned the Met painting, my scanner is wonky- I hope to have the time by the end of the week to deal with it. - C

Ah, interesting! No, I wasn't aware that part of that MS was painted later. The September image wasn't included in the survey, because I had thought that the entire manuscript was pre-1416. I actually have a copy of it, it's sitting open on my lap to September right now, in fact.

If I do another version, I will remedy that.

No worries about the Met painting. I totally understand not having time to deal with things.

Thanks,
Charlotte

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:22 pm

James B. wrote:
chef de chambre wrote:Surely, you can see the point of this - x,y,z objects, listed in a middle or lower class persons will, or post-mortm inventory - give an actual, factual data point regarding how many there are, in regards to how many other types of objects - much more reliably than peering at daubs of paint, that show what the rich people who commissioned them idealised.
Yes and no. Again it proves they owned the listed items but it does not prove they didn't own others and if they owned both a long sleeve dress and a short sleeved one with sleeves it does not give us insight into use or common use.

No, you are wrong - flat out. Pray god ask a genuine historian, please.

It gives proof they owned x,y,z items, which is a heck of a lot more solid evidence than an illumination in a rich mans manuscript, or an altarpiece owned by a rich man.

Most *especially* if you examine a number of such wills and inventories, and people in the *same demographic* are consistantly shown as owning them.

Relying on art alone as evidence for medieval activitis is as amature as it gets - sorry to be blunt, but that is a fact. Research it's not, not when it is the sole source taken for evidence - especially when other sources of evidence exist.

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:29 pm

chef de chambre wrote: Relying on art alone as evidence for medieval activitis is as amature as it gets - sorry to be blunt, but that is a fact. Research it's not, not when it is the sole source taken for evidence - especially when other sources of evidence exist.

Throwing out the good for the sake of the perfect. Not a great plan, IMO. You sound indignant, as though living historians all around you have actually applied the rigor you describe to their justification for pin-on sleeves and it's just Charlotte who has oddly missed the giant boat everyone else is on. Would that they had done such a thorough and complex job in advance -- Char would not have needed to start with the basics to get everyone thinking about their assumptions.

My strong hunch is that this little "amateur paper" of Char's has caused more frantic back-documenting than the average SCA arts and sciences competition ever could.

-Tasha

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:53 pm

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.

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

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.

Charlotte J · Post by **Charlotte J** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:55 pm

Oops, Tasha. I didn't refresh before I responded, to see your "perfect is the enemy of good" comment.