Re-enactorisms

Moderator: Moderators

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

Postby gregory23b » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:41 pm

"At the risk of seeming fractious, yes I did put forward evidence in the form of citations, but we were inadvertently discussing different time periods and perhaps some people didn't read far enough. "


If you mean me, say so and do not hide behind fake politesse, there is really no need, otherwise your concern in the first clause becomes self fulfilling. I certainly do not use such sideways language nor had I meant any slight to you when I said what I did, you were right I had missed it. As I said, call a spade a spade and all will be well.

"but we were inadvertently discussing different time periods"

Yes we were and that did need clarifying from me as far as my contention went and then it was. Given the above discussion do you agree that the use of the word 'braies' in relation to English (because that was the language of the masses and of the nobility) of the 14thc onwards is somewhat

a) absent

b) at best an archaism in the 15th and is for a slightly different garment (surgical truss)

in which case a better and more accurate word, for example breech might be more appropriate?

Or do you maintain that they are parallel terms in the later middle ages, and if so then you do need to supply evidence to that effect.

I personally don't care one way or the other, but I was a (un)dyed in the linen 'braies' wearer, an unquestioning one until it was pointed out that it may be inappropriate for the period my group portrays and now I cannot find a single entry for it in English of the period or as aforesaid the OED and MED.

What is interesting is that many of us take on new information without question, esp historical 'facts', reenactment is full of the old cliches and whatnot, we owe it to ourselves to have these exchanges if only to confirm what we know or to establish new information.

I think that sets us back on course, I hope.


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

Postby Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:49 am

My first thought is that this forum is labelled 1100 - 1500.

Jorge's personal strong interest in the period 1440 - 1485 shouldn't stop a wider discussion, since many people re-enact history other than that.

gregory23b wrote:English (because that was the language of the masses and of the nobility) of the 14thc onwards

[citation required]
I couldn't find the reference I was looking for to when court language was officially changed from French to English.
I did however notice that it was noted that Edward III spoke English as well as French. The arrangement of that phrase suggests the possible novelty of that; that would be mid 14thC.
If my recollection that Henry V changed the language of the court is correct [and it by no means is] then that would put move away from French [at least at the most formal level] into the 15thC.
I need to do some proper digging, but, unless someone else knows better, I'd like to label Jorge's statement as "provinence unknown" for the time being.

I also think we should have this in perspective.
While there is no need for us to unnecessarily use the "wrong" word, the importance of this very minor differentiation to even the most history oriented of the public is remarkably small.
Moreover, I don't recall the last time I used the word "braise" to a member of the public; it may, literally, be years ago.



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

Postby Colin Middleton » Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:57 pm

Our group do a history of costume talk for local schools, WI groups, etc, so it is a point that I'm pushing on there.

While very few (if any) of the public will be able to pull us up on using the wrong term (and even fewer would bother), does this kind of inaccuracy not provide the 'thin end of the wedge'. If it's fine to use braise instead of breeches, then we can use Overkirtle, instead of Gown and Kirtle instead of Overkirtle. this opens the door for all the women in the group wearing just a kirtle, but no gown to be 'properly dressed', which is misleading the public (and a battle that I beleive a number of authenticity officers are currently waging). Follow that train far enough, you end up dressing like 'The Tudors' on the BBC!

That said, we have much more glaring errors that could do with pinning down, before we worry about what we call our pants...


Colin

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

Image

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

Postby zauberdachs » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:00 pm

Fox wrote:My first thought is that this forum is labelled 1100 - 1500.


It would be really nice to have this forum split into an mid and later medieval forums.


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

User avatar
John Waller
Post Knight
Posts: 1551
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Surrey

Postby John Waller » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:05 pm

zauberdachs wrote:It would be really nice to have this forum split into an mid and later medieval forums.


But where would you draw the line?


Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

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

Postby Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:34 pm

Colin Middleton wrote:That said, we have much more glaring errors that could do with pinning down, before we worry about what we call our pants...


I couldn't agree more. Moreover, it doesn't appear there's a right/wrong in this case, until you are talking about a specific time and class.

But mostly, I think we generally know much less than we think, and while I find this sort of discussion enlightening and even entertaining, in the real world we should focus on the most obvious errors first (and not just costume, or even equipment based, ones).



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

Postby Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:38 pm

It also occurs to me that we're having a discussion about the use of one very specific word over another.

I was under the impression that dialects in the medieval period were so divergent that it was quite possible that a man from one area could not be understood by a man from another. [Actually, I've known that to be true in a specific instance in my lifetime....]
Is that over stating the case?

And if not, what does it tell us about this discussion (except that written sources are a very limited cross section of language).



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

Postby zauberdachs » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:49 pm

John Waller wrote:
zauberdachs wrote:It would be really nice to have this forum split into an mid and later medieval forums.


But where would you draw the line?


Indeed. Split one forum into two slightly smaller blocks similar to the way later periods are divided and the whole system would come crashing down! :lol:


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

User avatar
Merlon.
Post Centurion
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: under a pile of cables in a server room

Postby Merlon. » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:06 pm

Fox wrote:I did however notice that it was noted that Edward III spoke English as well as French. The arrangement of that phrase suggests the possible novelty of that; that would be mid 14thC.


The tipping point would appear to be 1362.
That was the first year that the king -Edward III- addressed Parliament in English

"Then in 1362 a statute, itself written in French, declared that as the French tongue, was but little understood, all pleas should be "pleaded, shown, defended, answered, debated and judged in the English tongue".
This is the Statute of Pleading.

Ref: Chap IV p85 The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. , Frederick Pollock, Frederic William Maitland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898. Two volumes.



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

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:42 pm

I might agree with Fox if i could understand a word he was saying.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
lucy the tudor
Post Knight
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:57 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Postby lucy the tudor » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:04 am

pants













!


lucythetudor@gmail.com

a filthy, arse-grabbing strumpet, masquerading as a demure two-door lady.

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

Postby Fox » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:22 am

Marcus Woodhouse wrote:I might agree with Fox if i could understand a word he was saying.


If you weren't an illiterate navvy then perhaps you'd be able to keep up.



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

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm

Ahgowannya big hibbitygibbit hoaryarsed rowrdyman.

(I'm away now to drain the lower fields soir.)


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!


Return to “1100-1500”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests