Debunking the pin-on sleeve

To discuss research into and about the middle ages.

Moderator: Glen K

User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Debunking the pin-on sleeve

Post by Charlotte J »

Introduction:

"In reenacting and SCA circles, the ubiquitous 15 th century women’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 15 th 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?"

For the rest:
http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/Docum ... leeves.pdf

T. Finkas, this is what I was talking about in the soft kit thread.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
Cet
Archive Member
Posts: 2985
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: jobstown, nj. usa
Contact:

Post by Cet »

Fig 21 is from Memlings' Advent and Triumph of Christ 1480


Very nice presentation. I've saved a copy for later :)
User avatar
AZPapillion
Archive Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:14 pm
Location: Ashburn, VA
Contact:

Post by AZPapillion »

Char-

Great summary of the images that are out there and for not always following the crowds.. :)

Its that pic on the front cover I know we've discussed about there possibly being the same underdress under both 14th and 15th c - or at least a very similar one.. :)

Wonderful work as usual.

Kim
AZPapillion

Wife to James B.
SCA: Baroness Katharine Devereaux in the Kingdom of Atlantia
Living History: Member of La Belle Compagnie
_______________________________________
"Mistakes only cost time and money."
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

Cet wrote:Fig 21 is from Memlings' Advent and Triumph of Christ 1480


Very nice presentation. I've saved a copy for later :)
Thanks! I figured that cite would turn up. :) I've fixed it and updated it.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

AZPapillion wrote:Its that pic on the front cover I know we've discussed about there possibly being the same underdress under both 14th and 15th c - or at least a very similar one.. :)
It could be very similar. There's certainly enough evidence of dresses without a waist seam in the 15th c. If it laces up the front and has buttons on the sleeves, it would look very 14th c. indeed. I think there might be some changes in the neckline and maybe in the shaping of the bodice, but all of the other elements are there.

I'm guessing that the top layer has some sort of hidden side lacing, a là Jean Fouquet.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

Interesting stuff.

Does the ratio of normal women to special/marys etc represented in art reflect an accepted demographic?

I ask because if we accept a nominal 1: 10 rich to poor (special to normal) in a population then if that is reflected in art then the numbers of pinned on sleeves (or anything connected to that demographic) would then be much higher.

How does the ratio of 'normal' women to specials stack up in artistic representation?

I would think that the two would have to match (whatever the real ratios turn out to be) to give a rough idea of real distribution.

Food for thought indeed.
User avatar
T. Finkas
Archive Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Pennsic Adjacent

Post by T. Finkas »

Thanks!
lorenzo2
Archive Member
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 1:01 am

Post by lorenzo2 »

Fascinating work! It shows how important it is to check assumptions about what we "know".
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

grimstone bar wrote:Interesting stuff.

Does the ratio of normal women to special/marys etc represented in art reflect an accepted demographic?

I ask because if we accept a nominal 1: 10 rich to poor (special to normal) in a population then if that is reflected in art then the numbers of pinned on sleeves (or anything connected to that demographic) would then be much higher.

How does the ratio of 'normal' women to specials stack up in artistic representation?

I would think that the two would have to match (whatever the real ratios turn out to be) to give a rough idea of real distribution.

Food for thought indeed.
GB - I did actually think about those angles while I was writing the paper. I decided not to pursue them, because in the end, I determined it didn't change my thesis any.

Almost all of the women in these images could be considered "special" in some way. For those that were not saints, there were other allegorical figures, many of the women were from Arthurian or other "historical" tales, or had some other characteristic which made them "special".

To answer part of your question (I believe) not every image of MM had pin-on sleeves. She's also depicted wearing other odd outfits.

If the pin-on sleeves appeared more on women that were "normal", or at least just historical, instead of these particular saints, or women in private space, I'd take that more that it was just a style that was underrepresented in art. As it is, most of the women who were wearing the sleeve had a special circumstance that somehow tied them to being partially undressed, or in private space.

Apparently "normal" women were usually painted wearing a plain long sleeve. This includes servants, attendants, women working, women in the background of the image. If I saw the pin-on sleeve in the background more, instead of as a deliberate character in the forefront of the image, I might be more willing to assume that these normal women were simply underrepresented. It's not rich women or poor women who are specifically portrayed this way. It's specifically women who may not be completely dressed.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
DavidS
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:18 am

Post by DavidS »

Charlotte,

My feelings on this are that some (most) of the long sleeved variants are actually gowns being worn over a kirtle. This is quite clear in some as there is evidence of a coloured layer underneath rather than a linen smock. I'm not saying that there were no long sleeved kirtles, but that a lot of the pictures of 'ordinary' women seem to me to be of plain, simple 'ordinary' gowns. There may be a short-sleeved kirtle underneath.

In this way I think that there are actually fewer pictures of 'kirtles' than you have cited.

My take on the pin-on sleeve issue is that in public, women do not show their smock. They usually wear a gown over their kirtle (the kirtle is essentially underwear). In order to make a kirtle 'decent' without a gown, pin-on sleeves can be added to a short-sleeved kirtle. Women shown with a short-sleeved kirtle and no pin-on sleeves are usually in some state of undress or undergoing trauma (such as being tortured/martyed!). Exceptions seem to be women working alongside men who are also shown in thier underwear, implying very hot weather (such as in the Tres Riche Heurs).

My thoughts, anyway.
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Re: Debunking the pin-on sleeve

Post by chef de chambre »

Charlotte J wrote:Introduction:

"In reenacting and SCA circles, the ubiquitous 15 th century women’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 15 th 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?"

For the rest:
http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/Docum ... leeves.pdf

T. Finkas, this is what I was talking about in the soft kit thread.
Hi Charlotte,

Good for you for taking the time to research the paper, and put it into electronic format. Please do not take the following the wroing way, it is intended as constructive criticisim.

1. I would retitle your paper, because it is a pretty large order to "debunk" an idea when evidence exists for a practise. Something on the order of "the case for long sleeved dresses in 15th century Europe" might be a better titleing, without putting yourself into a position of criticisim and potential conflict. Your setting yourself up for some harsh critiquing.

2. Your definitions of "private" space and "not" seem to be very arbitrary, and there are activities you put some images into as being private that I do not think can reasonably be classed as such.

3. Making a case entirely on artwork is hazardous and imo unhealthy to do, if you are interested in serious research, unless your research is *about* artwork. While we don't have extant dresses to go by, there is a fair abundance of middle class wills and inventories out therre - not checking your ideas against existing documentation before 'publishing' is a bad practise. If you start finding common reference to 'sleeves' in mid 15th cenury womens wills, then your idea will be set on it's ear (I don't know, I haven't looked for such items).

4. You are taking one view of the art - that is, of what types of people and activities are the paintings depicting, and entirely ignoring relevant data that might concievably alter some of your ideas, possibly radically. For instance, you have not apparently (in my reading) looked to the art on a regional basis, Flemish, vs. French, manuscript illumination vs. large painting, or even a comparitive based on time - which decades, and in what proportion are the items in question found in which dacades and which regions seems to be a significant consideration to me.

Basically, in my thoughts, you have to go back and reconsider your subject a little more closely, and review more data, and work on your thesis. Myself, I wouldn't consider this to be anywhere near ready for publication and review were it somethig I was working on.
User avatar
Tailoress
+1
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:01 am
Contact:

Post by Tailoress »

Bob, I think you make some valid points, but I think too that you are missing the scope of Charlotte's paper. She is taking the standardly accepted and reviewed art that is commonly available to re-enactors who wish to mimic the look found within and breaking down the popularity of certain sleeve styles.

What she has proven is that the use of "pin-on sleeves" in re-enactment circles is far more common than any of the art would suggest it should be, given that it has long been an accepted belief that the art justifies the practice.

Do you honestly think that the average re-enactor who wears pin-on sleeves has done the level of research YOU suggest in order to justify their use of them? I hope not, because that would be flat-out untrue and we all know it.

What you are suggesting that Charlotte do is, while admirable, not possible in a paper the size of hers. It is more suited to a master's thesis.

-Tasha
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »

Tasha,

Not to be blunt, or hostile - that is hardly my intent, I am trying to help. She has ignored a number of sources, and dissmissed other evidence out of hand for easily disputable reasons. In short, she hasn't proven her point at all, in my estimation. Your mileage may vary, but I'm using the same yardstick I use on myself, not borrowing a different one for her.

Were it me, I'd do a lot more footwork, before I submitted a paper that is going to be considered as "proof" by people who, as you say, haven't done the research. If you want to be an authority, or considered an authority on a subject, it behooves a person to do the appropriate ground work.

I consider it mkore important being a friend in trying to give her another set of critical eyes, and help her improve her work to reach her goal, rather than giving her an "atta girl" or lavish praise for something that is the beginning of an investigation or research, and not an end.
User avatar
Tailoress
+1
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:01 am
Contact:

Post by Tailoress »

chef de chambre wrote: I consider it more important being a friend in trying to give her another set of critical eyes, and help her improve her work to reach her goal, rather than giving her an "atta girl" or lavish praise for something that is the beginning of an investigation or research, and not an end.
Okay, I've stopped laughing hysterically now. :roll:

And now I'll tell you what *I* think you're doing: I think you're being condescending. You are implying that Charlotte needs instruction on the fact that there are many other levels of analysis for such a topic. As if.

I also think you're implying that *I'm* giving her an "atta girl" by defending the FACT that she has accomplished the goal she set for herself in that paper.

A research paper is successful when it accomplishes the goal it sets for itself. She chose an argumentative approach (as opposed to purely analytical), defined the scope of her sources (consciously excluding all the other obvious stuff you mention) and made a supportable argument as a result. Period. That's what the structure of the paper demanded, and that's what she did. If you feel she's missing important visual sources (because that IS the scope -- visual sources), then why don't you simply tell her exactly which ones? Or do you expect her to ask you for them humbly? If you are offering constructive feedback, as you claim, then do it. Hand over the sources. Be helpful.

-Tasha
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »

I'd prefer concentrating on the currently existing internal flaws - i.e., definition of "private space", and the arbitrary classifications of some evidence, and dismissal of others already present.

If she wants more information, I'd be happy to give it to her, especially concerning where she can find middle class wills. Pin on sleeves vs. full length ones in a 15th century context are neither my area of interest, or research, but if I can see fundamental flaws with a thesis, it seems to me to be helpful in trying to point them out, so she can remove the holes from it.

I don't know why you are personalizing this discussion, and why you are in essence attacking me, when I am trying to be helpful. I will refrain from further commentary until I hear from the principle in the thread - Charlotte.
Maeryk
Archive Member
Posts: 71527
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:01 am

Post by Maeryk »

A research paper is successful when it accomplishes the goal it sets for itself. She chose an argumentative approach (as opposed to purely analytical), defined the scope of her sources (consciously excluding all the other obvious stuff you mention) and made a supportable argument as a result. Period. That's what the structure of the paper demanded, and that's what she did. If you feel she's missing important visual sources (because that IS the scope -- visual sources), then why don't you simply tell her exactly which ones? Or do you expect her to ask you for them humbly? If you are offering constructive feedback, as you claim, then do it. Hand over the sources. Be helpful.
I havent read it, so PLEASE do not take this as a snark on Charlotte, her work, or the topic in question. This is based only on your statement here, Tasha, and having read a number of "other" works submitted for A&S comps in the past.

One can base things all they want on visual sources, but as soon as a _real_ tactile source is found, it can blow every bit of that basis right out of the water, which is what I think Chef is trying to say. Pictorial evidence is notoriously sketchy to use as the sole basis for a thesis.

Once again. Not an attack on Charlotte, on her work, or on you, even.

Maeryk
User avatar
Tailoress
+1
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:01 am
Contact:

Post by Tailoress »

Maeryk wrote: One can base things all they want on visual sources, but as soon as a _real_ tactile source is found, it can blow every bit of that basis right out of the water, which is what I think Chef is trying to say. Pictorial evidence is notoriously sketchy to use as the sole basis for a thesis.
Don't worry, I'm not taking it as an attack. I understand fully what Bob is saying and I don't actually think it's what you just said, which is an off-shoot that could muddy the issue, potentially. (see third paragraph)

What I'm saying in response is that no-one here, including Charlotte, thinks that visual sources alone will solve the case in all perpetuity. The scope of Charlotte's paper was limited and those limits were fulfilled. She is claiming no more or less. This is academically sound. Wade into art history study and see lots of summary analysis of material culture based solely on art. It's a form of intellectual exercise and it holds weight for what it is -- but it does not claim to be the full answer for historical questions on material culture. I am not disagreeing that more can be done using other types of sources -- more can be done on every topic under the sun!

As for one tactile source blowing every bit of some other assumption based solely on art out of the water, I'd be hard pressed to agree. One source does not proof make beyond "XYZ doohicky existed". Unless the thesis is claiming an "always" or "never" scenario, one piece of extant whatever only adds another layer of understanding and often opens up more questions than it answers.

-Tasha
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »

Tasha McG wrote:
Maeryk wrote:
As for one tactile source blowing every bit of some other assumption based solely on art out of the water, I'd be hard pressed to agree. One source does not proof make beyond "XYZ doohicky existed". Unless the thesis is claiming an "always" or "never" scenario, one piece of extant whatever only adds another layer of understanding and often opens up more questions than it answers.

-Tasha
One source only proves that one item was made in X fashion, it is when larger numbers of objects exist showing a trend, but then the question arises that "do larger numbers of objects exist in Y material, because more were made, or because Y is a more survivable material for some reason?". For instance, what spurs were made of - which specific instance seems to indicat iron being the more widely used metal of the sporrier in his craft, when you find a far higher proportion of them in dug objects (the conditions working against the survival of ferrous metal objects, even tinned ones, over long periods, in most soild conditions in North Western Europe). The best sort of evidence is pictorasl, coupled with extant objects, full sized replication in sculpture, and written documentation - when you begin to combine the evidence, a case becomes more powerful.

Your point that the paper isn't intended to be an end all, is why I make my first argument that the paper is unfortunately titled - if you can see, one 'debunks' a myth, and to do so, one must have some conclusive evidence, not evidence for some trends. The simplest fix, in my mind, is titleling the paper in a fashion so it doesn't come off as being the end word on the subject - especially, in an environment, where as you point out, a lot of people are relying on information from more experienced people.
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

Hm. Wow. I stay off of the archive for 24 hours, and I can see that I have a lot to respond to. :D

Bob, (and to a lesser extent, Maeryk, as you say that you didn't read it), did you read this part of the paper?

[quote]The source pool does not include documentary evidence such as inventories and wills, due in part to the scope of this project, and the relevance of the information. If “Agnesâ€Â
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

chef de chambre wrote: Your point that the paper isn't intended to be an end all, is why I make my first argument that the paper is unfortunately titled - if you can see, one 'debunks' a myth, and to do so, one must have some conclusive evidence, not evidence for some trends.
Well, the title of my paper doesn't say anything about "debunking", that's just the shorthand that I used for the post. I did explain this on another thread on firestryker, maybe you didn't read it.

Anyway, I *do* think it's a myth that all women went around wearing pin-on sleeves all of the time. I don't think that any groups can show me evidence to prove that every woman in camp should be wearing that particular outfit. I certainly cannot hope to *prove* that scores of people didn't wear this fashion in the same place at the same time, but I don't think there's much of an argument for the positive, either.

Ok - NOW I'm done. Really. :wink:
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
Tailoress
+1
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:01 am
Contact:

Post by Tailoress »

chef de chambre wrote:[The best sort of evidence is pictorasl, coupled with extant objects, full sized replication in sculpture, and written documentation - when you begin to combine the evidence, a case becomes more powerful.
Absolutely. No argument here. It's a life's work, though. No-one is ever finished, IMO.
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

"I decided not to pursue them, because in the end, I determined it didn't change my thesis any. "

I think you will find it might if you are trying to use the numbers in art as reflections of real usage.

If your thesis is merely about saying that in art pinned on sleeves are not that well represented then yes fair enough if reenactors were solely representing a statistical spread of medeival paintings. However you are using the presence or lack of pinned-on sleeves in art to reflect actual distribution in real life.

This is especially difficult for me to accept because as I was getting at before, pinned-on sleeves seem to be often parts of working clothes and given the relative paucity of real people working moreover in any great detail then it does stand to reason that there will be more.

Medieval art is not a series of images showing real slices through a medieval demographic by any means.



Hopefully to exemplify

"there are far too many jacks used in WOTR reenactment as they do not reflect the numbers portrayed in medieval art"

True - if weighing up actual reenactor use of jacks purely against their actual portrayal - jacks are not as commonly portrayed as much as other harness eg Froissart big battle pictures, so 'Too many' reenactors wear them on that basis alone.


"There are far too few jacks being used in WOTR reenactment"

True - if we accept that there is a fair bit of documentary evidence (probably more mentions of them than different portrayals of them in art) to support not only their presence but in fact a demand and sometimes lack which the relatively few portrayals of them would never be able to illustrate. There are too few for precisley the reason set out in the first one, a general lack of presence in art and more tin.

Both are 'true' however one of them is actually wrong in reality.


To make the connection between a lack in art of an item in real life based on its lack in art is making a big leap without cross-checking.

"as depicted in art"

is not as "in real life."

As far as I am aware supposed reenactment is not about copying verbatim what is shown in art otherwise as I said your thesis would most likely be spot on but it has two parts to it and they do not seem to marry up, as yet.


"I don't think that any groups can show me evidence to prove that every woman in camp should be wearing that particular outfit."

is it not also a myth that all women in reenactment wear pin-ons? or are you really talking about a perceived over-use?

I honestly think the problem may well be what activities those pinned-sleeve reenactor women are actually doing. As far as I see it they are practical items of clothing, certainly the 'normal' use images you provide back that up. Assuming your idea that they are 'un-dress' items then if the re-enactor women were portraying milk-maids (or other) then there is surely no issue as there were a fair few about (as stacked up with how few milk maids are portrayed) and it would be quite acceptable in the right context for them to not have them covered up. If anything a 'military camp' in the sticks or near a village would indeed be a very appropriate place for a local gal to selll her stuff (carefully ignoring the often dubious nature of many reenactment camps anyway).

That is the core issue not the numbers but the actual reenactor context.

If anything your thesis indicates that pin on sleeves are almost always associated with 'working women' in the case of Magdalene the sleeves may well be there as visual prompts to remind us that she was 'normal' especially as she was described in the middle ages as many things (of mainly low status) as well as a reformed prostitute so even a link (I know you didn't say so) between the pin ons and that particular calling are not very strong. Ie she could just be portrayed as a working woman (with or without pin on sleeves) when juxtaposed to Mary. In which case she is no longer that special and may well represent all women and therefore adds to the numbers.
Tracy Justus
Archive Member
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Burlington. NC

Post by Tracy Justus »

Charlotte, did you include this sleeve in your survey? A color version is in From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ainsworth and Christiansen, 1998. I think that's Saint Veronica in the foreground with a possible pin-on sleeve.

Do you have any opinions on the sleeve in this Van der Weyden Presentation in the Temple?

Clare
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

Tracy Justus wrote:Charlotte, did you include this sleeve in your survey? A color version is in From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ainsworth and Christiansen, 1998. I think that's Saint Veronica in the foreground with a possible pin-on sleeve.

Do you have any opinions on the sleeve in this Van der Weyden Presentation in the Temple?

Clare
I figured there'd be pin-on sleeved that I'd missed in my search. Of course, I certainly also haven't found all of the long sleeves either. :)

Would it be possible for you to take a scan of the larger, color version of that image? From the BW image, I'd have to put it in the ambiguous category. I just can't tell, and there are also a lot of images of women wearing short sleeves over long in biblical contexts. I'd also be interested in seeing what the other women in the image (I think there are some in the background) are wearing.

Regarding the Columba Altarpiece, I have a hard time pinning that one down too (ha! very punny...). I've looked at it over and over to try to figure out what's going on. There's strange bunching both on the sleeve and on the dress, which leave the layers somewhat of a mystery, to me, at least. Then there's the center of the upper back of her dress. It's under a thin piece of fabric, but it looks more the color of the sleeves than of the green gown. But then there's the white skirt with the fur guard at the bottom? As with so many other images, there's a disconnect between how many layers we see in each place. There's so much odd about this figure. The split skirt, the goofy hat, the belt that vdW paints on his Magdalenes, the fact that she's a spitting image of the Braque Triptych painted five years before... Admittedly, she confuses me.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

You might also be interested in these Simon Bening images, circa 1515 - From the Da Costa Hours. I should think they are valid as the thesis includes the SAC (and its extended 'period) and is also showing progression of fashion or arguably a continued use not too far from the 15thC also all women at work.


woman bundling straw
http://www.spamula.net/blog/i16/dacosta08.jpg


two women - one with basket on head, one gathering hay
http://www.spamula.net/blog/i16/dacosta07.jpg


Milkmaids - two one milking one churning
http://www.spamula.net/blog/i16/dacosta04.jpg


woman preparing some fibres
http://www.spamula.net/blog/i16/dacosta11.jpg

All from one manuscript.

In addition there is a later Bening showing a woman with pin-ons scything.
'July' MS 18855 f 109v

more bening
woman gathering wood
http://jrider.web.wesleyan.edu/wescours ... gricu6.jpg

woman planting or gathering greens
<a href="http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cheminsdumoyena ... Bening.jpg" target=_new>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cheminsdumoyena ... 20paysanne... (long link)</a>


seems Bening saw a lot of pin on sleeves at work.
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

grimstone bar wrote:You might also be interested in these Simon Bening images, circa 1515 - From the Da Costa Hours. I should think they are valid as the thesis includes the SAC (and its extended 'period) and is also showing progression of fashion or arguably a continued use not too far from the 15thC also all women at work.
I quite deliberately ended my survey around 1480 or 1490, because of the general and significant change in clothing styles at that time. I'm aware that a pin-on sleeve is quite popular in 16th cent. Flemish art, but was rather trying to get an idea of its popularity in the 15th cent. Fifty years later doesn't do me much good. A fashion being popular and acceptable in the 16th cent. doesn't prove anything for the 15th.

I did conclude that the fashion existed to some extent, but was not nearly as popular as seems to be reflected in reenactor costume.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
chef de chambre
Archive Member
Posts: 28806
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
Contact:

Post by chef de chambre »

Yes, with a but.

That is to say, you created some catagories in an arbitrary fashion (the private-public space thing), without considering the other context of the depictions. I believe this has skewed the results of your survey.

Grimstones posts, in example, show other contexts to consider what is being depitced, and I think his points are very valid. I keep mentioning the definition you have of "public" and "private" space as being an oddity, and some of your classifications off, because you have put working women into both examples, where I think the proper catagory would be 'women engaging in amnual labour', vs. women not engaging in manual labour.

One could argue the very notiuon of public and private space, in all save the wealthiest of peoples in the middle ages is an odd notion in itself, as the concept of privacy in the society is a more modern one than a medival one, and most people lived out most of their life in the public eye (even beds were often shared, or most commonly shared,), even parts of their life we would consider to be very private.

At any rate, the ideas is to help you polish your work, and sharpen your ideas, not beat them down. Nevertheless, I think the paper has problems standing as a whole, for various reasons outlined above, and illustrated best by Grimstone and some others.
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

I understand your aim, however there are a few things to consider when comparing say art in the 1470s and the 1500s - ignoring the fashions for a moment - is that there is an increased tendency to realism the later you go.

Moreover in the bening examples the subjects are identical to the Tres Riche heures nearly a century earlier in that the Months depictions are invariably believable wherever you look, even if those depictions are part of a larger book of hours which will also include religious themes where greater liberties are taken with interpretation far more.

As to changes in fashion, yes there were significant changes, certainly when comparing upper end fashion, but a working woman's kirtle of 1515 is not as different from one of 1480 than a posh nobs outfit is of 1515 is to one of 1480 (even less so to 1490). Trends do not stop and start at convenient markers like 1490, certainly not for the working classes.


"but was not nearly as popular as seems to be reflected in reenactor costume."

Because you are basing the prevalence of pinned on sleeves in art as an indicator of their actual prevalance in real life. They are not compatible arguments unless you can prove that the balance of portrayals in art is a clear breakdown of the same in real life. Which so far you haven't, more precisely chose not to.

All you have proved is that some reenactor women are wearing (in your mind) more pinned on sleeves that are seen in art. No argument there (possiby), but you then extrapolate that to the real world, that is where the thesis stops making sense.

You have also not stated what you think the reenactor women are doing when wearing these sleeves, you say 'casual wear', but what does that actually mean? You are also pre-supposing that they have not got access to information that you may not have, certainly on an individual basis you can't say they are wrong.

You have the bones of a very interesting document but not an argument that proves that reenactor women are over-doing it.

The reader only has your word for it that there are seemingly too many pin-on sleeves, no images showing them in great profusion or in innappropriate contexts etc, no evidence even subjective evidence to actually argue against, no interviews from women who wear them and why, information that surely is quite easy to get.

By the way no one is saying you are wrong, you may well be right, but you have not presented the case to allow people to see both sides of the equation. Hence myself and Chef pointing out, as readers that it is not quite complete or resolved.
User avatar
Gyszel
Archive Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:47 pm
Location: East Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Gyszel »

Your statistics on the artwork you studied is impressive and well thought out. I like the "scientific" nature of that part of your paper, and I accept most of your classifications.

However, your thesis completely falls apart because you didn't prove the other side of your point. You made vague statements like:

"In reenacting and SCA circles, the ubiquitous 15th century women’s casual outfit consists of a short-sleeved fitted kirtle, with long sleeves pinned on at the shoulders."
"If it was worn at all, was it as common a style as one might deduce from a general survey of modern reenactor wardrobes"
"was it as common as many modern-day reenactors and medieval recreationists believe?"

implying that your paper is set out to prove that in "real life" of the times, the sleeves are not as popular as reenacted in today's groups.

However, you have no statistics at all to show how many women who wear 15th century dresses in reenactment actually wear the pinned-on sleeve, compared to those who don't. (In my own observations, I don't see this trend very much at all.) Nor do you give statistics on what those women are doing/reenacting when they are wearing pinned-on sleeves. Perhaps they are laboring, or in a state of undress, or being martyred at the time.

Lastly, you make no mention in your summary of reenactors, or their propensity for wearing pinned-on sleeves. So you don't seem to open and close with the same point...you open with implications that reenactors wear these sleeves too much, and close with the point that the sleeves were not worn in real life very often. Those thoughts don't seem to match up, to me.

I'd like to see more evidence on what you are claiming you see in SCA and reenactment circles, and I would love this paper much more. :)
Herrin Gyszel Adeler

"The bonds which link one's true family are not those of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's lives. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof".
-Richard Bach
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

Re Social demographics

Hanawalt in The Ties that Bound talks about a poll tax return of 1381 for a Suffolk village in which the job/social demographic went something like this:

Servants 40%
labourers 39%
craftsmen and tradesmen 14%
cultivators 7%
gentry 1%

The section is actually about servants/extended family, also she acknowledges that the demographics do and did vary from village to village. However the overall figures of labourers and general agricultural practices etc do not start to change until the mid and late 16thC.

Not only that but the ratios to urban and non-urban were something along the lines of 1:10 and urban areas still having immediate access to agriculture etc, so by implication the presence of the mysterious pin-on sleeves is not that big a deal.

So even though it is 1381 up to a hundred years before your time frame the sample demographics alone even if you really mucked around with them would not change the main ratio of rich to everyone else nor urban to country.

Now given that pin-on sleeves are merely protective and removable sleeves (for men as well as women http://www.wga.hu/art/f/fouquet/bookhour/miniatu6.jpg) and used by labourers and others given those figures even halving them would still mean the overall percentage of users of sleeves will be much higher than you present. Certainly in areas say where dairy is prevalent certainly in areas where harvesting takes place, which in say England in 15thC is a fair bit of the land use. But even if they were not the primary agricultural activities for say a region (like wool country) many had cows even if only for their own use.

And whilst you disregard the Bening images you have to accept that they present a wider range of use for pin-on sleeves than agriculture, eg prepping flax/wool.

Even though to you there seems to be a range of use for these sleeves there may well be wider applications than you imagine and than are portrayed.

Also in many of the images the pin-ons are almost all pinned to short sleeves, short sleeves appear a lot as you say in art. Now given that pin-ons are removable it does suggest to me that some of the women in those images may just not be using them. Think of them as wellingtons or galoshes, useful in certain circumstances, useless in others.

To make comparisons with a reenactment camp, most of which are proabably way off whack and are made up to suit reenactors is probably not the best way to argue your case.

Finally, ok there are some people here who are spending time on this, chances are you don't like it. However the question is why? the reason I am taking time to do this is because I actually believe that reenactment has enough myths that inhibit its progess and although you are trying to 'debunk a myth' you are in danger of not only preaching to the converted but also creating another myth and reinforcing bad practice in reaching conclusions.

That is when your thesis becomes important to me, I do not see it as a useful document in its present shape for the aforesaid reasons by myself and others and would actually warn people off it due to its lack of concrete argument, thesis and anti-thesis.

Sounds harsh, possibly but as I said reenactment is already full of myth and semi-formed ideas, we all suffer from it either directly or otherwise. Which having said that is a real shame because you have doubtlessly put lots of effort into it and it also has the potential to much more than as it currently stands. Our critiques may seem harsh or even irrelevant to you, that is up to you to decide of course, we are just a few of the readers and by no means any representative number, but I do feel if this was reviewed in its current state by clothing professionals and historical statisticians it would be reviewed much more harshly indeed, if even reviewed at all.
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

I'll offer the same explanation that I offered on the thread on firestryer. We were visiting friends and at a La Belle meeting this weekend, and the rest of the week I was catching up on things around here after the event the previous weekend. The article was just one of five entries into an SCA pentathlon competition, and my house was a disaster zone. :) If I haven't responded to a post, it's because I want to give full consideration to each answer. I'll get to what I can tonight.

I'll start near the end. :D

Gyszel, thanks for your feedback. I did consider giving more evidence to back up my claim that this is common in 15th c. circles, but decided against it. I don't want to single out any one person or any one group. I have personal theories on why this fashion is popular, but I don't know how to go about explaining why without referencing individuals. I can tell you that I've worn them, they have been popular in my own group, and that I have seen standards for other very respected 15th c. LH groups that list the pin-on sleeve as a requirement. In the SCA, it's known in this kingdom as "Atlantian Business Casual."

How does that work with the goal of the article? I'm not aiming to write a paper to be published in a journal proving how "wrong" I think reenactors are. I'm just hoping to convert a few people from their pin-on sleeves to long ones, in order to create a more realistic balance. Somebody starting out in 15th c. might read my article, see that the ratio of long sleeves to pin-on in art is anywhere from 8:1, to 44:1, and make a decision based on that information. I'm not terribly worried that pin-on sleeves will disappear entirely.

I understand that you are mainly focused on German? Perhaps you just don't have the exposure to fully understand where I'm coming from. That's not meant to be a cut, but rather an observation that there might be a disconnect between your experiences, and what I feel comfortable specifically presenting. I really hope that my claim is someday out of date, anyway. ;)

Regarding the introduction and the summary. In the intro, I asked if the fashion was common, what the most common fashion in art actually was, and what other fashions were options. In the summary, I explain that the fashion is rare, compared to a long sleeve, and that the long sleeve is the most common. I did answer the question about other options in the section just prior to the summary.
Gyszel wrote:Perhaps they are laboring, or in a state of undress, or being martyred at the time.


Hee hee! You're silly. :wink: Often times reenactor women are laboring (though pin-on sleeves are still just a drop in the bucket). We should be fully dressed when out and about in camp among the men. Perhaps women in other groups portraying camp followers might have some more leeway on this, but in our group we don't have that portrayal. Most of us (in our group) portray wives or a lady's attendant.

And I know some reenactors play the martyr, but I don't think they know they're doing it... :twisted:
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

chef de chambre wrote:Yes, with a but.

That is to say, you created some catagories in an arbitrary fashion (the private-public space thing), without considering the other context of the depictions. I believe this has skewed the results of your survey.
I'm not certain how much this could have skewed my survey results. I placed two images in the category "private space". One image showed women in a birth chamber in various states of undress. Another image showed a woman in the process of dressing. The category "private space" was created, because neither of these images can be considered "good" evidence for the use of pin-on sleeves as a common fashion.

Regarding St. Barbara, the captivity angle is a possible explanation for the reason that she's depicted in multiple places wearing the sleeves. I present it as a possibility, nothing more. I don't think the four images falling under these categories are enough to significantly skew the results.

Even if you consider ALL of the pin-on sleeves to be unflawed evidence of a particular fashion, the ratio of long sleeves to pin on sleeves is still 8:1.
Grimstones posts, in example, show other contexts to consider what is being depitced, and I think his points are very valid. I keep mentioning the definition you have of "public" and "private" space as being an oddity, and some of your classifications off, because you have put working women into both examples, where I think the proper catagory would be 'women engaging in amnual labour', vs. women not engaging in manual labour.
One could argue the very notiuon of public and private space, in all save the wealthiest of peoples in the middle ages is an odd notion in itself, as the concept of privacy in the society is a more modern one than a medival one, and most people lived out most of their life in the public eye (even beds were often shared, or most commonly shared,), even parts of their life we would consider to be very private.
If you consider everything to be public space, and all clothing in those spaces to be "valid" fashions, then why wouldn't a woman wearing simply a smock be considered dressed? These images that I show in the paper are of women dressing or undressing. Would it help if I retitled the section "Undressing"?
At any rate, the ideas is to help you polish your work, and sharpen your ideas, not beat them down. Nevertheless, I think the paper has problems standing as a whole, for various reasons outlined above, and illustrated best by Grimstone and some others.
Thank you for your input.
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
User avatar
Charlotte J
Girl Genius
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:01 am
Location: I <3 Colorado
Contact:

Post by Charlotte J »

Dang, I still haven't caught up. Instead of trying right now, I'm going to offer a general note, then head to bed, if Jeff doesn't drag me off of the computer before I'm done. :D

Some of the disconnect here might be because, in essence, I'm trying to prove a negative. We all know what a logical mess that can be. :D

Let's start from scratch. Let's say you're new to 15th century clothing. You don't know anybody who does it, so other people's opinions don't matter a whit to you. First, a few questions.

Do you and your group attempt to portray the "normal" or "average"?

How common does an item have to be to make the cut for everybody to wear/have?

Does your group police "abnormal" items, that is, only allow one person in camp to wear the uncommon hat or armour item?

Now let's go looking for some sources. First, check for any archaeological finds. Bummer, there aren't really any for the 15th century, at least not anything for women's clothing, giving construction information. (I would love anybody who could prove me wrong on this count...) Any wills? Ok, they talk about "gounes", but nothing specific. Literature and letters? The Paston letters mention many gowns, a few kirtles, a pair of doublet sleeves, and a pair of "slevys of rosset" (1). These sleeves are in an inventory - no mention of who they were for, or how they were worn. (But interesting!)

That didn't tell us much. Let's go look at the art.

There are a LOT of images of v-neck gowns and houppelandes. I didn't count how many (out of scope), but as picking plain dresses out of the crowd was often a difficult task, I would hazard a guess that there were several hundred special gowns in the art sources that I surveyed. Most women shown in the art seemed to be wealthy, but there are plenty of examples of women working wearing this dress.

Next we see 178 women wearing some sort of fitted dress, as opposed to a v-neck gown or houppe.

143 of these women are wearing a plain long sleeve, working, doing a variety of tasks, standing around.

19 are wearing a pin-on sleeve, working, allegorical figures, dressing, undressing, making exciting underwear... (Just checking to see if you're still reading.)

14 are wearing a short sleeve over a smock or over another long sleeve, working, dipping their feet in a pool, running from soldiers.

There are a few images where you just can't tell what is going on. *In all categories, there are a cross section of wearer types - workers, attendants, fictional women, etc.*

What do you do? If you've decided against the v-neck or houppe, what kind of a dress do you choose? Why? What percentage do you consider "normal" enough to say that you want to portray it?

Now your best friend calls you up and says "we should wear pin-on sleeves! It seems pretty common." You, knowing that the long sleeve is more common, say "Prove it."

There's 19 people wearing this. Over half of them (10) are images of Mary Magdalene. That seems awfully suspicious, don't you think? Is a strong tendency towards MM what you're looking for? Toss those images out, look at the other nine.

Two are St. Barbara. Funny that she's drawn wearing this too, in a couple of places. As a saint, she's fairly unreliable. One woman is pulling on a pair of braies. Is she still getting dressed? Unreliable evidence. Two women are in a birth chamber, one is taking off her sleeves. Did she just take off another gown that she would have had on outside of the birth chamber? Again, sketchy.

There's four images left. That's 4 images, out of 178 women, where the evidence seems fairly reliable. That's two percent. If 14% was enough to be "common", is 2%? Maybe we'll just throw out Mary Magdalene. The fashion seems so well tied to her that it's the most unreliable of the bunch. Now we have 9 somewhat reliable pin-on sleeve wearers, out of 168 (I should throw those 10 out of the total - my mistake in the paper, I didn't do that). That's a little over 5%. Is that common enough?

What other factors make these few pin-on sleeve images so important that they override the overwhelming majority of plain sleeves, and would convince me to wear them?

As a side note, I'm not at all surprised that people are disagreeing with me, or angry that I'm getting feedback. I wouldn't post something if I didn't want discussion over it.

(1) Thanks to our resident web goddess - Karen Larsdatter
http://www.geocities.com/karen_larsdatter/paston.htm
Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
DavidS
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:18 am

Post by DavidS »

I think you're missing the point here, Charlotte. Whilst I agree with the arguments from Chef and Grimstone against the validity of your argument (from a robust academic standpoint), there is a much simpler counter-argument. Terminology is all a bit complicated as different garments are called different things in contemporary sources, but for the sake of this, I shall be referring to the kirtle as the undergarment (worn over the smock, but under the gown), and the gown as the uppermost layer. There are very few pictures of kirtles. Kirtles are essentially underwear, and so are not depicted as often as gowns. Kirtles are almost always shown short-sleeved (I can think od exceptions, including sleeveless, but my comment still stands). I repeat, kirtles are essentially underwear. Pin-on sleeves are worn with kirtles (exact reason debatable - protection, or more likely to make underwear 'decent' so that you're not showing your smock). Plain long sleeved gowns are worn over the top of kirtles. There is a lot more variation in style of gowns because they are the outer, publically acceptable layer - the V necked for the wealthy and fashionable, but a plain gown for 'normal people'. While I agree that a plain long-sleeved gown is depicted more often than a kirtle (it's obvious why, one is fully-dressed, the other isn't), kirtles depicted without a gown are ususally worn with pin-on sleeves (exeptions of torture and everyone in the picture shown in their underwear as noted in my previous post).

So yes, it is more representative to wear a gown over your kirtle most of the time - for most people this will be a simple, plain dress - looking like a long-sleeved variation of the kirtle. When working/very hot, it may be preferred to take the gown off, showing your short-sleeved kirtle - which is normally worn with pinned on sleeves.

Wearing a kirtle and gown together is definitely a preferred option, but not always practical. Pin-on sleeves are not a different fashion to the gown, but a practical alternative. Having both allows you to be more formal in your gown, yet still be fully dressed without it, by swapping the gown for the pinned on sleeve. In this way I don't think thre is any myth to be debunked. The pin-on sleeve is something that is worn when it is appropriate to do so, otherwise the long sleeved gown is worn.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, I thought I was clear last time I posted. Long sleeved gowns and kirtles are not the same thing.
User avatar
earnest carruthers
Archive Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: East Anglia, UK

Post by earnest carruthers »

To add to what David said as a general thing about the in pin on also there is the distinct possibility that some can be pinned over gown sleeves too.

We are under the impression that the climate dictates the amount of clothing and specifically the pin on or not, however check out the Bening winter pic where the woman is gathering wood, she looks fully attired, it would make no sense to wear a short sleeved kirtle (and therefore be cold) merely to wear pin-ons to gather wood, but putting on false sleeves to stop the wool being snagged by the wood does.

Men of the print used to wear false sleeves up to a few decades ago, they often went over their main clothing too, ie shirt, trousers and jacket, at times where clothing, even work clothing dictated a rank, and gentlemen compositors were seen as highly regarded in their own profession. Basic cleanliness and economics without affecting the clothing underneath.

So that adds another aspect as to why someone may or may not be wearing sleeves at any given time, the assumption that they are or only should be put on short sleeved garments may well also be false.

See the fouquet link re the exectutioner. Is he wearing a short sleeved doublet (very seldom seen in mid 15thC) or are they false over sleeves to stop the gore?

I think the danger is that pin-on sleeves are going to be perceived as somehow exotic merely by their presence in art is very strong, that logic can be applied to many many rarer representations that logic tells us cannot be the case. I cite things like carpenters' tools, yes they feature, often as part of the St Joseph identity also as normal scenes. Do we elmininate St Joe as being special or do we use common sense to say in fact tools are as common as the carpenters* that used them. Ergo it doesn't matter that few are represented. The few references there are are good ones - see Bourdichon - but again holy trinity.

*also adding to the confusion that not all carpenters are joiners but timber framers so the tools are not identical - reducing the information to even smaller quantities.

There are lots of things that appear rare in art yet it is funny how it seems to be the day to day rather than the actual exotic. The subject matters are weighted to story, fable, religion not objective visual analyses of daily life. Even chronicles do not do that even though it is their intent to educate, If we used the mid 15thC Froissart pics as defining references for what the english archers wore in the 14thC we would be going nowhere fast.
Post Reply