And that was why it was an interesting tidbit... since no mention
was made of other theories. This was surprising with a person of
these credentials. It is a survey work, but it makes one wonder what
other things she glosses over. I am not very far into it as yet...
Beth
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:57:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robin Netherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Beth and Bob Matney wrote:
> Scott, Margaret. Medieval Dress & Fashion. ...
>
> An interesting tidbit is the derivation of "scarlet" as "shorn cloth"
> (ie. a fulled and shorn woolen cloth) on pg 19.
John Munro summarized the thinking on this point in the article he wrote
in this year's volume of MC&T. He gives a pretty good argument that
although this theory has been around for a century or so and is still
widely accepted, the hard evidence from the period doesn't support it --
many woolens were fulled and sheared, not just scarlets, and there was
nothing different or more expensive about the shearing process used for
scarlets. He has offered his own theory, first published in his landmark
article on "The Medieval Scarlet" in 1983 and reprinted elsewhere, that
links the name to the kermes dyestuff, which is indeed the differentiating
characteristic between these cloths and others (and accounts for a huge
proportion of the price difference). Scott certainly would have had no
trouble finding other sources that repeat the older theory, but it's a
shame she didn't pursue the matter by reading the more current (and
well-known) work by Munro.
--Robin
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
