At 04:36 PM 2/14/2006, you wrote:
Not sure why the 'gown shorter than the kirtle' idea? Can you explain?
As for the length of dresses seeming long, we in the modern era walk
differently than ladies of the historical era would have. If, when you are
walking, you let your toes drop to a relax point when stepping forward, it
is difficult to step on your hem, as you push it away with the toe of your
foot. There is also a little half kick/ swirl movement to move your back
hem (which is sometimes trained) out of the way when you turn around. The
only time I ever lift my skirt hem is when I'm climbing stairs.
Kelly/estela
Hi Kelly/estela
Thank you for your reply, and clarifications on how to walk in a long gown.
I was simply noting what I saw, and what Dr Jane Malcolm-Davies has written
on that page, as follows on the last image:
"Edith Pexall née Brocas (c1535) - Hem
The top layer (the gown) is shorter than the under layer (the kirtle). This
was described as characteristic of Englishwomen's dress by the Venetian
ambassador in 1554 (quoted in Carter, A [1984] Mary Tudors Wardrobe in
Costume, 18, 20)."
This image is direct, and shows what I mean.
http://www.jmdsrv1.dyndns.org/tudoreffigies/assets/main/95_137_main.jpg
I had always presumed that the outer gown was longer or the same length
than the kirtle worn underneath, yet that seems to not be the case in this
effigy, and apparently, in English gowns of the time. The kirtles shown in
the effigy are very long, over the feet long, as in they would be a few
inches lower than the ground long when you are standing. I don't follow how
the skirts would be constantly pooling around your feet when you are
standing and walking, and not trip a lot.
Kimiko
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
