> No library digging needed for this one, I think; I suspect you can give me > enough for my purposes off the top of your head! Thanks... wow. > > Here's the situation: I'm editing an article that refers to depictions of > the Virgin in 14th and 15th century European paintings as showing clothes > decorated with such rich ornamentations as "ermine, jewels, and pure gold > lace." I'm quite familiar with the paintings of this period, and I've > never seen anything in them that could reliably be called "gold lace,"
I agree with you about the "gold lace" probably being a misapplication or a misinterpretation of the term. As far as is known lace evolved in the realm of linen fibers, not in the metalics. Bone lace, or bobbin lace, didn't show up until mid or near the end of the 16th century. And that was the breakthrough that led to metalic threads first being formed into patterns of lace and applied to clothing. The first records of the bone laces all seem to refer to linen fibers, but are soon filled out with laces in gold, silver and copper. Prior to that... there is all types of embroidered work, both in and above the cloth. Passamentiere work can be mistaken for lace in some cases. Now there is plenty of woven metalic edgings and ribbons that could have a pattern that appeared to be lacey. A pattern in the ribbon worked in gold on a ground of the same color as the garment... that's possible, maybe. Hope that's good enough... I don't have my Levy right next to me and I'm working from memory. BTW... an aside and a small rant... If this author is talking about or referring to the Prague exhibit in any way... they might be falling vicitim to some errors I saw in the exhibit information. There was one chausible, lovely thing, all 14th century embroidery, but the card next to it failed to mention that the orphrey (?) had been remounted sometime in the 16th or 17th century. Because there on the chausible all about the edge was a bobbin lace border of gold and silver thread.... <gah!> so, just FYI. Bridgette so > I suspect that the author (not being a costume person) is misapplying a > modern term to another type of decoration. She probably just means trim > borders or embroidery, but I can't put words into her mouth. In asking her > exactly what it is she's trying to call attention to, I need to explain > that the wording she's used won't work, because lace (as readers would > interpret the term) wasn't used yet. I'd like to be on firm ground when I > say that, and it would help if I could say that "what is commonly thought > of as lace trim on clothing doesn't appear until X period; I suspect > you're describing something else." > > So, I don't need a specific date for the technique, just a ballpark > half-century or quarter-century in which something visibly recognizable as > "lace" became commonly used as clothing decoration. I know I see > recognizable lace all over Elizabethan art, and I don't see it in 14th > century art. But I don't have a sense for when exactly it starts cropping > up as a typical feature in depictions of clothing. _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
