Re-enactorisms

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:18 pm

Fox wrote:But I really think the onus is on someone claiming the modesty as a reason for head covering to prove it.


But Dude, thats what reenactors believe so we keep on doing it right?


Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'

Kurt's uncle Bob.

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:10 pm

Dave B wrote:
Fox wrote:But I really think the onus is on someone claiming the modesty as a reason for head covering to prove it.


But Dude, thats what reenactors believe so we keep on doing it right?


Isn't the definition of a re-enactorism?
[for the hard of thinking]



User avatar
JC Milwr
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Not so far from Berkeleleley
Contact:

Postby JC Milwr » Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:58 pm

Those pics are interesting, as IME cooking is a time you want long hair well out of the way!

The women also look as if they only have a kirtle on...


Dance like nobody's watching, love like you've never been hurt.

User avatar
Ben_Fletcher
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Southampton UK
Contact:

Postby Ben_Fletcher » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:35 pm



Don't bother running, you'll only die tired.

http://deeds-of-arms.org.uk/

The Following link contains rude grownup words and humour in text form. Please do not click if easily offended.
http://www.sfwchan.com/pics/13608937.gif

User avatar
craig1459
Post Centurion
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Postby craig1459 » Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:01 am

"The Cycle of the Months" a Bohemian fresco c1400 has plenty of fieldworkers in just their linen, as you say, and also a man doing the much less intensive work of leading oxen down the road in just his shirt and breeches. (next to two women gardening showing their hair :wink: )

I wish I could get a bigger image than this (I have the detail above in a book much larger lol)

April
Image


die Behmen hinder iren bafosen ... stunden vest wie die mauren

User avatar
Sophia
Post Centurion
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:46 pm
Location: Camberwell, London
Contact:

Postby Sophia » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:28 pm

OK Guys - Headcoverings!

Customs regarding covering of hair are varied by country and period.

For the religious stance you need to look at the Early Church Fathers and Medieval intepretations and commentaries on these texts. If I understand correctly there is a whole body of work outside the actual Biblical text which covers such things. I can certainly vouch for this being the case in Judaism - you should see the size of the basic introduction to Tzinius, i.e. the laws of modesty as practised by the ultra-orthodox that I own and it is not an original source work.

When it comes to representations in art you have a number of issues.

1) Period of artwork, there being definite fashions at different periods, cf. wimples of Lutteral Psalter with the headrails of the Tres Riches Heures. There were also passing fashions for semi-exposed hair in the C13th and C14th.

2) You should also beware of using any biblical scene as a source for correct headgear as they are full of symbolism which most of us are simply not familiar with. Loose hair in certain contexts was associated with virginity and purity.

3) In some areas it was considered acceptable for married women not to cover their hair (as is still the Jewish custom). This persisted until quite recently in those parts of Southern Europe where you will still see older married women wearing headscarves in rural areas. Given that the average age of marriage for commoners was a early to mid twenties and the lack of handy little labels on many pictures giving age and marital status makes it difficult to interpret them.

IMHO in terms of re-enactment for C15th given that a large majority of the women are appearing in a semi-military setting, I would suggest that they wear headgear if they are above puberty as they would wish to maintain their respectability if they did not wish to be thought of as "common women".

Sophia :D


aka Thomasin Chedzoy, Tailor at Kentwell Hall

User avatar
Colin MacDonald
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:43 am
Location: Jockland

Postby Colin MacDonald » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:10 pm

Ben_Fletcher wrote:Heres a few more, various people tagged Hatless in a collection of images I maintain on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hatless ... 4607%40N08


PORN! Filthy, filthy smut! You can see their... roots and everything.



User avatar
Karen Larsdatter
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Postby Karen Larsdatter » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:50 pm

craig1459 wrote:"The Cycle of the Months" a Bohemian fresco c1400 has plenty of fieldworkers in just their linen, as you say, and also a man doing the much less intensive work of leading oxen down the road in just his shirt and breeches. (next to two women gardening showing their hair :wink: )

I wish I could get a bigger image than this (I have the detail above in a book much larger lol)

That looks like the Castello Buonconsiglio frescoes (c. 1405-1410); REALonline has some good details from these. The young noblewomen (and noblemen) usually are depicted with carefully dressed hair, but not necessarily covered with hats; the working people tend to have some sort of practical headwear on, though not always.

So -- the image posted above is the month of April; better details here:
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006145.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006146.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006147.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006148.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006149.JPG
I think we have to interpret the women as frolicking in the garden, rather than the men who are hard at work, tilling the fields. (So, of course their headwear will be different; the ladies had their hair nicely dressed by their maids that morning, and the men are wearing whatever headwear is most practical for their work.)



Here's more of the frescoes (waiting on some emails, might as well be useful & post some links, eh?), along with some details from each ...

January
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006138.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006139.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006140.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006141.JPG

February
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006143.JPG

May
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006152.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006153.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006154.JPG

June
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006156.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006157.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006158.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006159.JPG

July
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006161.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006162.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006163.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006165.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006166.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006167.JPG

August
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006169.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006170.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006171.JPG

September
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006173.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006174.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006175.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006176.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006177.JPG

October
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006179.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006180.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006181.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006182.JPG

November
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006184.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006185.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006186.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006187.JPG

December
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006189.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006190.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006192.JPG



User avatar
Ben_Fletcher
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Southampton UK
Contact:

Postby Ben_Fletcher » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Colin MacDonald wrote:
Ben_Fletcher wrote:Heres a few more, various people tagged Hatless in a collection of images I maintain on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hatless ... 4607%40N08


PORN! Filthy, filthy smut! You can see their... roots and everything.


And thats just the stuff I have uploaded so far, might Sir be interested in something of a more specialised nature?


Don't bother running, you'll only die tired.

http://deeds-of-arms.org.uk/

The Following link contains rude grownup words and humour in text form. Please do not click if easily offended.
http://www.sfwchan.com/pics/13608937.gif

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby zauberdachs » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:53 pm



First thing I notice, as an obsessive hat wearer, all those pictures are of people inside. Is it usual for anyone in any time period to wear hats inside?

Honest question, not being sarcastic or anything before anyone "bites."


Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Postby guthrie » Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:06 pm

Given the lack of central heating, I don't see why it would not be done.



User avatar
Jenn
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Jenn » Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:08 am

Since most images (yes I know you've found lots of exceptions guys - how many are saints btw since that pretty much negates their use for the same reason as Elizabeth didn't have her head covered in most of her portraits but Our Lady would have) are of people wearing hats and there are indeed lots of practical reasons why people pre -good shampoo and decent hairbrushes, working near fires all the time would want to to keep their hats on (even leaving aside decency - I'm not going there at the moment )
As well warmth as Guthrie says we may safely say probably - which is about as sure as we can ever be!



User avatar
Laffin Jon Terris
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Postby Laffin Jon Terris » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:01 am

zauberdachs wrote:


First thing I notice, as an obsessive hat wearer, all those pictures are of people inside. Is it usual for anyone in any time period to wear hats inside?

Honest question, not being sarcastic or anything before anyone "bites."


Another point, the first three images are all from one work yes? ie all from one place and artist, this could be a regional variation (or the artist particularly liked doing plaited hair).


Knowing is only half the battle.
Image

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:29 am

There are loads of pics of women not wearing head gear, and men for that matter, that is not an issue and never was, certainly as far as I am concerned.

As has been pointed out, female saints and at time the Virgin Mary, the emphasis on the virgin bit.

As for the term 'modesty', well how about propriety, social norms, acceptability and convention? all of those are part of that. They all have their exceptions and context is the one, field workers, certain trades, environment etc. All of those contexts are not necessarily allowed to overlap, those things still exist today.

It may not be about eyes to the floor 'modesty' but it may well be about adhering to social custom.

As for fashion, what does that mean? the clergy wear their clothes of office and certainly in the middle ages worked within the constraints of their 'work clothes' to be fashionable, yet they were still wearing their clothes appropriate to their context.

Fashion is not an abstract concept, eg 'hey let's wear these things called hats', it usually stems from some sort of function, whether practical in the literal sense or practical to the status of someone. As mentioned above, fashion is often a way of making some practical things a bit more bearable, a bit more unique. But isn't it interesting that despite the variations of headgear, men and women, they have been consistently worn for hundreds of years until a few decades ago, what practical changes happened in the 1950s that made hats less viable? not many, some have suggested the rise of the teenager the youth, the female and male hairdo, the permissive society etc.

Why in some historical contexts is removing the hat in front of your superiors a notable thing, doffing etc?

Why is wearing a hat in church disrespectful (if a man) but not if a women?

Why was hat wearing ubiquitous in Europe? why is it still the norm in some societies, notably ones with a stronger link to religion and social behaviour?

To write off social pressure ahead of a nebulous idea of fashion is far too simplistic, also practical needs are well known to not be an inhibitor of the development of weird clothing or of buildings or of weapons etc.

They may well not have sat in the 15thc and worried about their head being uncovered as being disrespectful to God, regardless of any biblical links, but they may well have sat there and felt the need to conform to the prevailing social norms. That sense of social propriety certainly exists in the 20thc. That sense of feeling 'undressed' as Fox put it, is down to being incomplete, rather than morality, but the pressure does exist.

Social habits are part of wider issues, and religion, whether one is an atheist or not, forms societies in many many ways, directly and indirectly.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

Dathi
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Rotherham, South Yorkshire
Contact:

Postby Dathi » Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:49 pm

Dave B wrote:
gregory23b wrote:Not that long ago, even site labourers wore jackets, being dressed for work is a common and well founded principle, regardless of class.


They did on the odd occasion they were photographed. but did they really wear it labouring in the hot sun, when it was uncomfortable and hot and an expensive garment was being ruined.

Did the mindset of propriety above comfort, convenience and financial considerations aply throughout human history up until the 1960's or is it just something people did to look their best and paid lip service to at other times.

And we know from books of hours etc that men sometimes picked crops in shirt and brais, so who's to say a soldier wouldn't stir stew without a doublet?


If you look at the vast numbers of photos from the turn of the 20th Century to the 1950's I suspect you'll find that most pictures of men working in blue coller jobs are with some form of protective clothing, aprons and "lab coats" and the like, without jackets on. Out of work they'll be in jackets and hats. There is also a tendancy to have a working jacket and a best suit, like my grandfaaher who had a battered jacket that he wore to tinker on his car in or garden in when it was a bit nippy, there was also a jacket to wear to work or to go shopping with the wife and a suit to wear for best.



User avatar
Sir_John_Thomas
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Boston, in the Shire of Lincoln

Postby Sir_John_Thomas » Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:51 pm

I always wear a hat or a head cover of some description when out of doors, then remove it when entering a tent or building.

But maybe thats a habit I picked up in the forces (£5.00 fine and or put on a charge, depending on what mood the Corp or officer that catches you is in)

After speaking with my grandfather who is 81, and who owned a farm until he was 75, He always wore a hat, shirt, tie, trousers and waistcoat to work. Any labourer that worked with him could take their hat, tie off and go down to shirt and trousers.

But on a sunday, he always wore his best suit, and so did the rest of the ppl in the village.

Any other manner of dressing he says "is bloody indecent and downright rude to people"

this is going back all his adult life, and he wore these things because thats what his dad told him to do, and I should imagine that my great Grandad was told to do it by his dad, and so on and so on, maybe even back to our chosen period in history.


Any way, just my 2 Groats worth :-)



Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:57 am

I think that the point Fox is making is that your granpappy and all were wearing hats not for moral reasons but because they were a fashionable and social norm. I'd agree with that.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:06 am

"because they were a fashionable and social norm."

Switch the emphasis around where the social norm to wear hats creates a need to be different within the social norm, ie the fashion is secondary to the dictates of the society you are in.

There is a clear relationship in some cultures between covering head and ideas of modesty - genuine or otherwise, as mentioned above, it is also very likely that people have lost sight of the original reasons why they did so, but mere fashion does not answer the question fully enough, especially as we know that things like sumptuary laws were in place to (in theory) keep people in their place, fashion has its limits and at times was limited to class and estate.

Moreover, why have hats all but disappeared from our society in a matter of decades, despite there being clear practical reasons why hats should be a good thing, eg keeping sunlight of the face, keeping dry, the self same reasons why people have posited that it is merely a practical need, the needs have not gone, but the hats have. You could argue that for some the idea of a hat was as much a shackle as it was a symbol of 'respectability' or that it was redundant because the social order had changed so much post war that young people became more financially independent and able to make their own fashion choices, even if they bucked the social norm.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:56 pm

But it became a social and fashion norm for hats not to be wron in the 1960's and that has been the case since about that time. Having said that I enjoy wearing a baseball cap and do so unless told not to and many people yoounger than myself wear bandanas, wooly beanies, basebal caps and so on. I wear mine beacuse it says Celtic or Ireland or London Irish, not beacuse the Lord will strike me down if I do not.
Are there Sumpatry Laws that say hats must be worn?


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Maerwynn
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:16 am
Location: On the left panel of the triptych

Postby Maerwynn » Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:38 pm

why have hats all but disappeared from our society in a matter of decades?


Probably in part due to with the advent of central heating and car transport for the masses. Few people now need to be out in the weather for any period, so hats are unnecessary.

But it's probably also due to just plain cultural change, becoming unfashionable.

And once they're out, they can't come back in quickly, milliners now being rare. And to my chagrin, apparently only producing wedding-hats or Philip Treacy-esque sculptural creations. What's a girl to do?

Maerwynn (a born hat-wearer)


FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:29 am

Which brings me back to where we started.

People wore hats, because they did.

Telling people it was for modesty appears to be a re-enactorism.



User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:56 am

It seems to me that the biggest problem with Reenactors in this sort of respect is a reluctance to say 'We don't know' It's like the whole 'ritual purposes' thing.


Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'



Kurt's uncle Bob.

the real lord duvet

Postby the real lord duvet » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:50 pm

todays children wear hats and hoodies to hide their faces from CCTV.

Perhaps there were medieval painters sitting up sticks drawing the criminal classes back in olden thymes?



User avatar
Colin MacDonald
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:43 am
Location: Jockland

Postby Colin MacDonald » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:36 pm

Fox wrote:Which brings me back to where we started.

People wore hats, because they did.

Telling people it was for modesty appears to be a re-enactorism.


Dave B wrote:It seems to me that the biggest problem with Reenactors in this sort of respect is a reluctance to say 'We don't know' It's like the whole 'ritual purposes' thing.


I find myself 200% in agreement.

We tend to use "What Bob told that MOP at the last event" as provenance far too often.


Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

User avatar
Sir_John_Thomas
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Boston, in the Shire of Lincoln

Postby Sir_John_Thomas » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:46 pm

Back to the first post.

Archers salute, anybody done it on the field? I have, but I wonder how authentic it is. I have read about it in a few books, think its even on wiki.

But is it another Re-enactorism?



User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:48 pm

Sir_John_Thomas wrote:But is it another Re-enactorism?


I've seen nothing to suggest that it isn't. it was extensively debated here on a previous thread.


Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'



Kurt's uncle Bob.

User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Postby Dave B » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:59 pm



Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'



Kurt's uncle Bob.

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:17 pm

"Telling people it was for modesty appears to be a re-enactorism."

But not if it is told as social convention, which encompasses a whole range of possibilities.

Telling people it was only fashion or practical expedience is also a reenactorism because social pressure to conform is much more deep rooted than just getting people to wear somethign that is fashionable and in vogue, in fact in many cases being up to date with certain fashions is seen as unseemly (throughout history), so being fashionable on its own is not a strong enough case.

"Probably in part due to with the advent of central heating and car transport for the masses. Few people now need to be out in the weather for any period, so hats are unnecessary. "

Rain is still wet and the sun is still hot and the hat was in decline before central heating took off.

"But it's probably also due to just plain cultural change, becoming unfashionable."

Which nails practicability as a requirement for wear as possible but not mandatory.

"And once they're out, they can't come back in quickly, milliners now being rare. "

Medieval hats ranged from bits of rolled up cloth to highly elaborate and expensive items, today mass production can make as many hats as we like, granted they wont be blocked hats, but then headwear has not been solely shaped felt.


"But it's probably also due to just plain cultural change, becoming unfashionable. "

Yes, major social change, quite odd that we have been wearing hats for hundreds of years then suddenyl overnight, they are pretty much gone: the kinds of social change were significant:

the teenager

post war labour shortage, higher wages etc, the consumer society, hair does etc, all posited as possibles why the hat went.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

User avatar
Sir_John_Thomas
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Boston, in the Shire of Lincoln

Postby Sir_John_Thomas » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:44 pm

Thanx Dave, enjoyed reading that thread

well, that cleared that up thankyou, I need to get these things right as I have just started Re-enacting 100 yrs war and don't want to pick up any bad habits.

Regards



User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:44 am

gregory23b wrote:"Telling people it was for modesty appears to be a re-enactorism."

But not if it is told as social convention, which encompasses a whole range of possibilities.

Telling people it was only fashion or practical expedience is also a reenactorism because social pressure to conform is much more deep rooted than just getting people to wear somethign that is fashionable and in vogue, in fact in many cases being up to date with certain fashions is seen as unseemly (throughout history), so being fashionable on its own is not a strong enough case.


Still not sure where sexual modesty fits into that.

I think what your describing is fashion in it's broader sense, rather than in it's specific sense of "cutting edge". In short, we're all conformists, some of us are just conforming to a non-conformist sub culture.




Return to “1100-1500”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests