C15th Clothing Conondrums

Moderator: Moderators

Friesian
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:16 pm

Re: C15th Clothing Conondrums

Post by Friesian »

behanner wrote:
Friesian wrote:
garment waws closed at the back with lacing. The original stitched eyelets have been preserved."

"It is therefore probably an undergarment, over which a second, sleeveless coat was worn. Long sleeved red undercoats of this type are found, for example, in miniatures for the epic of Girart de Roussillon (Vienna, Osterreichische National bibliothek, Cod. 2549, f.9v)."

As I said previously there is nothing to prevent points being attatched inside a garment allowing an outer doublet ( or tunic if you deem the word doublet inapropriate) to be worn over .
Whoever wrote that should be sacked. Portaits show that most gowns and doublets for that matter opened in the front. There are a variety of closures that hints can be seen of. Several costumers have seriously questioned the idea of this garment being closed in the back and without further evidence then what is currently availible openly I'd have to agree.
The determination of it being an undergarment would be based on whether or not it has a place to point hose on the inside. While it could I doubt it.
The fact that they reference Cod. 2549 shows that they aren't experts in costume or art history. Cod. 2549 is dated before 1450, so like 20-30 years before the garment in question. With the number of manuscripts made for the Burgundian court in that period its a horrible choice to look at.
It is very well know for this image.
Image
and here is another one from it.
Image
Just because someone says it is something and they are called an expert doesn't make it so.
Are there sleeveless garments that can be worn over that garment or a doublet or other kinds of gowns, yes but they have absolutely nothing to do with the image at the begining of this thread.
When I first viewed this garment I also thought it more likely to lace at the front , however I have not had the benefit of sitting alone with it for hours on end (let alone taking it apart !).
I have been trying (unsuccesfully ) to upload a manuscript held in Musse Conde -Chantilly that shows a hunting scene with a riders gown open over the saddle at the back .This gown also seems to have a low collar at the back compared to the front as the garment in question . The image is found on page 121 of 'Medieval Panorama ' edited by Robert Bartlett 2001 .I am therefore prepared to give Karen Christee & JohanPietsch the benefit of the doubt rather than sacking them

As for determination of whether its an undergarment or not , how on earth do point holes become wholey relevant ? It COULD be worn over a doublet/porpoint to lace the hose but under another doublet/tunic ? ...
I agree that its unwise to accept all 'expert' views blindly , but on this occasion I tend to except their expaination of the garment over yours , untill further research proves otherwise .

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: C15th Clothing Conondrums

Post by Colin Middleton »

I'm with Friesian on that point. I'd like to know an awful lot more before I start condeming the schollars for not understanding the garments that they've studied. Personally I'm quite intregued by the idea that they seem to posit that it was an 'under-gown', worn over the doublet, but with another gown/coat over the top of it. I wonder if there's any other evidence supporting that idea?
Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
behanner
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:39 am

Re: C15th Clothing Conondrums

Post by behanner »

Friesian wrote: When I first viewed this garment I also thought it more likely to lace at the front , however I have not had the benefit of sitting alone with it for hours on end (let alone taking it apart !).
I'd be more up in the air about it if every historical costumer I've seen comment on it said it should go the other way. It is kinda like that re-assesment of women's viking clothing not to long ago. Someone having a lot of time with something doesn't necisarily mean good results, especially if they spent most of their time with the garment and not comparing it to other sources from the time period.
I have been trying (unsuccesfully ) to upload a manuscript held in Musse Conde -Chantilly that shows a hunting scene with a riders gown open over the saddle at the back .This gown also seems to have a low collar at the back compared to the front as the garment in question . The image is found on page 121 of 'Medieval Panorama ' edited by Robert Bartlett 2001 .I am therefore prepared to give Karen Christee & JohanPietsch the benefit of the doubt rather than sacking them


I have the book and I'm not so sure about the colar, it is to hard to tell with his posture what it is doing, and the slit back and front for that matter is reasonably common in the mid-15th century. The short riding coat comes in shortly there after so I'm not sure if you see as much splitting.
As for determination of whether its an undergarment or not , how on earth do point holes become wholey relevant ? It COULD be worn over a doublet/porpoint to lace the hose but under another doublet/tunic ? ...
Because the very definition of undergarment or support garment is the doublet and hose. You could certainly wear a gown over a gown but you don't see any fashions in this period that would indicate the need for something other then what a doublet would provide, and you even see fashions that heavily show off the doublet and hose such as just wearing a cape over one shoulder.
I agree that its unwise to accept all 'expert' views blindly , but on this occasion I tend to except their expaination of the garment over yours , untill further research proves otherwise .
And you have every right to but in the end we aren't talking about that garment, we are talking about the doublet in the first post. My assesment is based off of a lot of evidence, you could take away most of it and still have a valid interpretation. You are putting forth a single garment and an interpretation of it that is not accepted by many. We can go round and round about that garment but it looses all relevance to the initial question. I think your right that we aren't going to agree on this garment without spending hour and hours going over images which probably isn't worth either of our time for a single garment. As Jorge has thoroughly shown the second image in the original post is almost certainly a two color doublet.

Post Reply