On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, otsisto wrote: > -- linen dyed in strong colors, e.g. cranberry, deep green, bright > red, black (I've been using the hot pink for mock-ups!) > > What is wrong with using these for medieval clothing?
Hmm, I guess it's been a while since this came up on the list. In very very brief (without rehearsing all the lengthy discussion), the available evidence strongly suggests that linen was not generally used for the outer layer of gowns (i.e. the fashion fabric). It shows up in documentary and archaeological evidence for many other things: (undyed) for chemises, shirts, and other body linens, as well as veils and aprons; (occasionally dyed?) for clothing linings; (again undyed) for a huge variety of household uses, such as bed linens, table linens, towels, plus (coarser) wrapping, sacking, sails, etc. I believe there's also evidence for some specialized occupational garments made of heavy linen, probably undyed, such as warriors' gambesons. And certainly some ecclesiastical garments were done of linen. However, I have yet to find a reliable reference to a colored linen gown/tunic/surcote/etc. from medieval Western Europe. This preference would be consistent with the assumption that period linens were unlikely to take period dyes with much depth/permanency, and colors were preferred in gowns. Before anyone starts sending me counterexamples: Note that I am *not* using an SCA definition of "medieval." My own work is strictly 11th to mid-15th c. (and mostly 13th/14th c.). I realize there are ample references from the later 16th c. to linen garments (other than body linens) -- that's not what I'm talking about. The economics and methods involved in clothing construction were very different in the Elizabethan era! I also would not be surprised if linen were used for garments in medieval Italy and/or Spain, which were warmer in climate, enjoyed more influences from the East and South, and had a rather different range of garment styles and construction approaches. However, those countries fall outside of my field of inquiry. There would still be the color issue (which perhaps accounts for the greater abundance of pastel shades in clothing depicted in Italian art, but that's simply a musing at this point). I am told that while people using medieval dye recipes today may have success in getting strong, durable colors in modern linen, this reflects the use of certain modern fiber treatments that make modern linen more amenable to dyeing. I am inclined to trust the fiber experts I know who say that period linens, lacking these treatments, would not have been so willing to accept and retain dye. And while there are extant examples of dyed linens, they seem to be used in places that do not get much light exposure (e.g. linings). I'm not absolutely wed to this argument, but I've been keeping an eye out for evidence to the contrary for the last decade or so, and haven't seen anything that strongly counters this hypothesis. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence for wool as the default fiber for the fashion layer of gowns/tunics/surcotes of all classes, as well as silk for the wealthy. So if I do eventually find a good reference for a linen garment, it would simply indicate that this is a highly rare, not typical, usage. So: I'm not saying linen was never used for body garments. But it does appear that it was not at all typical. And unless I find good reason to think that it was more than vanishingly rare, I don't want to use it for my work. (My main purpose in making medieval clothing is to test and then demonstrate construction methods, meaning I need to approximate the most likely/typical materials.) I realize that many re-enactors routinely recommend linen for garments, but I think this is a misreading based simply on the fact that linen was one of the two dominant fibers available at this time. Not all fibers were used for all purposes; they have different properties and were used in a specialized fashion. A lot of re-enactors also assume that wool = hot, so linen must have been the default for summer, and should be used for re-enactment in the generally warmer temperatures of modern America. I don't find this to be a valid argument for a variety of reasons (chiefly that a wool garment doesn't have to be hot!), but it's a common one. (Now: PLEASE don't anyone go saying "Robin Netherton says they never used linen in period!" As I've tried to make clear, I'm talking about a specific sort of use, of a specific kind of linen, in a specific region, in a specific time period. Funny how these sorts of nuances get lost when people go repeating things, and it comes back to me months or years later that I've said something was always/never done, without any of those carefully stated qualifications!) > -- moire (the modern stuff that looks like wood-grain in texture, > probably rayon), in light blue or ivory or yellowy-white > > Early tudor. One or more of the unicorn tapestries has a woman wearing > what appears to be moire (the wood grain looking stuff) The moire-looking fabric there is actually watered silk, which has a puddle-ripple sort of design made from allowing water to pool on the silk; it's a rather different sort of look, and made by a different method. (When I did a display piece based on this, I actually found a damask with a woven pattern in that sort of shape; not the right texture, but the right visual effect!) It's true, though, that anyone happy enough with rayon satin probably isn't going to fuss about the shape of the pattern. But I am wondering when the wood-grain version, which is created by pressing the pattern into the surface of the fabric, was introduced. --Robin _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
