On Mon, 28 May 2007, otsisto wrote: > As was said, I am not an expert on this period. I remember when the > discussion of the cotehardie and sideless surcoat from Simplicity > (3888?) came up it was noted about the fastenings in the back and > someone who is an expert in the period (was it Robin?) had stated that > back closures were seen with these gowns.
Sorry, I have never seen a back closure on a "cotehardie" style of fitted garment from this period (roughly 1350-1430). In fact, I can't think of a back opening on any garment from this period, at least in Western Europe. There are a substantial number of images in multiple media that show visible front fastenings (lacings for the basic garment, lacings or buttons for the optional overlayer that goes over the basic garment). The majority of images of fitted garments show no visible fastening at all. Because most of those images show front views, some modern viewers assume that this means the fastening must be in the back. Because I have never seen a visible back opening at all, I don't make this assumption. I think it is far more likely that most artists did not show the fastening when the gown was closed. This may be artistic choice (as some artists do show visible lacings even on closed gowns) or it could indicate that it was common for lacing to be hidden in the seam -- and seams in this time are also rarely shown. Supporting this, I feel certain I have seen some illustrations in which a front lacing was not shown on a closed garment but was visible in another scene (from the same manuscript) in which the garment was open (dressing scenes, etc.). I would have to go and dig through a lot of images to find an example, which will not be happening in the coming weeks as I am deeply snowed under. I have seen occasional side lacings -- very rare, and the one that comes to my mind immediately is northern Italian. It is, of course, possible that in Eastern Europe, things were done differently, but I'd be very hesitant to assume the presence of back openings. By the way, my thoughts on this have absolutely nothing to do with the oft-stated factoid that "upper-class people have servants to dress them and so have back openings, while people who aren't rich enough for servants have to manage with front openings." Most people lived in households with other people, presumably able to lace each other up if it were necessary, regardless of class. Moreover, visible front lacings are quite evident on plenty of images of queens (I can think of effigies and manuscripts), as well as on nobles, so clearly front lacing was not a sign of lower class or lack of money. --Robin catching up on e-mail after four days away _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
