At 14:58 03/03/2009, you wrote:
Surely the best thing would be to check what fur was available at the
time of the portrait? And what was worn by people of the status of
the Arnolfinis. Sumptuary laws may be relevant here - I don't know if
they had them in Holland.
Of course -- but if your options are "exactly historically correct"
= ermine vs. "gives an extremely accurate look" = hare and the
price difference is thousands for ermine vs. hundreds or less for
hare... I was just throwing it out there for an option. I wasn't
making any judgments about what the costume maker should or should
not use. I do know that weasels are small animals with short thick
pelts -- shorter than the fur painted in the portrait appears to be.
Artistic license or some other fur?
I don't know sumptuary laws, but I do know some about the historical
aspects of hunting and trapping. Large hares that turn white in the
winter are (were) much more available over all of Europe than the in
the respective peak times in the US.
My suggestions was to find out what fur was available, in order to
get a modern equivalent, not to spend a fortune on the real thing.
(Even when ermine is required for parliamentary robes in England, and
peers' robes, it is no longer used, but I believe rabbit is used
instead. And one peer recently used fake fur.) Some furs were not
supposed to be worn by people under a certain rank, and I am pretty
sure that ermine fits that rule. Rabbit, hare, squirrel are all more
likely, but I don't have access to my book on fur right now.
Suzi
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
