----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan B. Farmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So how is "a garment with a stiffened bodice" different from a boned
kirtle, and how is that *fundamentally* different from a corset? (aside
from the obvious thing that a corset in and of itself doesn't
have an attached skirt -- which is why I said "fundamentally")
Well, it's different, and it's not. Having a separate garment devoted to
the stiffening IS an important distinction; think of it in terms of bras.
Before the bra, there was a garment that provided bust support, but that
bust support was only a part of a whole garment. So are bras different than
corsets? Well, yes, and no. Same basic end; very different means.
While some of the bodices were boned, they seem to have been boned very
lightly until the last third of the 16thC; most common would have been just
a busk. Far more common than boning would have been the use of a slightly
stiffer fabric, as with the parchet in the inventory I quoted, or at most
buckram: "...some by wastes of wyre at the paste wyfes hand." So, though
they are stiffened, the stiffening is pretty minor; the stiffening effect of
the bodice isn't likely to be enough to even warrant being made into a
separate garment.
Also, the skirt is an integral part of the garment not only in terms of
being actually sewn onto it, but in terms of the function of the whole
garment. This whole garment was used to provide the right fundamental shape
for the style; that style included a firm body, and it included full skirts
and the illusion of large hips. When farthingales come into fashion, the
kirtle or petticoat worn under it performs the important function of
protecting your legs from drafts. Attaching that skirt to the bodice is
important in functional terms; you want both the form-changing bodice part
and the leg-warming skirt part as close to your body as possible, because
they work best and are most comfortable that way.
The whole garment is a solution to a specific body-shaping problem; a
problem which has been solved in different ways over the centuries, and
which must be solved in different ways the desired body shape changes over
time. In the 13thC, the solution was breast-wrapping; in the 14th, it was
the GFD; in the 15th, it was both a later version of the GFD and an early
version of the bodice-skirt kirtle; in the early 16th, it was the vasquine
and farthingale; in the late 16th, it was the payre of bodyes and
farthingale. In the 17th it was high waist lines then boned bodices; in the
18th it was stays and panniers; in the 19th it was corsets and hoops; in the
20th & 21st it is bras and bike shorts. So are they all fundamentally
different? Yes. No. Both! Same basic end; very different means.
-E House
(Help! I've been answering emails from various sources for 5 and a half
hours! Must stop while still have brain!)
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
