Thoughts On a Saxon Princess…
This got really long...so I am inserting a cut for the sanity of those who do not wish to participate in my rambling thougth process....*grin*
It’s been awhile since I have made on of these gowns, and it really isn’t my focus anymore in the period (I don’t buy into them being common on the campaign trail): But this image got me thinking.
A few details stand out in this painting for me. The first is the woman bathing Bathsheba’s feet.
Note the brocade detail that seems to ‘trim’ her shirt. I think that this is a type of Brusttuck that has perhaps been stitched in place for the day (hey, they are rich, they can afford to have folks sew them into their clothes). What interests me is that it appears to go *all the way around*, instead of simply filling the the opening in the front of the dress.
Which got me thinking (again) about the construction on these dresses when they have the low, off the shoulder style - rather than the high standing collars. What the heck is holding them on the shoulders?
I have seen a wide variety of constructions, some of which I believe to be more ‘accurate’ than others. However, the deep dip in the back has always been a sticking point. How does one get those shoulders to stay in place if they aren’t sewn to those tissue thin shirts? How do those shirts withstand the weight of the velvet/brocade dress across their fronts and backs without the pleats/embroidery patterns being distorted? How could anyone even think about functioning in one of these things?
What if those aren’t ‘shoulders’ on the dress at all?
What if they are simply part of a Brusttuck that has been sewn into place?
This would eliminate all of the ‘stress’ on the shirt (since the only thing it would be holding up would be a shaped ring of brocade), It would allow the *extreme* off the shoulder look without slippage, and it would explain why you only see rich women in this style (because they have to get sewn into it).
So, what is covering the waist?
As you can see in the image above, there is clearly *something* covering the lower back/ waist area. In fact, it even appears that there may be some sort of ‘tie’ in the middle of the brocade band at the bottom where it is near the orange fabric (this detail is much easier to see in the original - you can zoom in and check in out yourself).
So what is it that is covering this gap? A modified ‘high waist band’?
While this could cover the gap between the ‘center back bottom’ of a sewn on Brusttuch and the waistline, it could not have gone ‘all the way around’ because of the traditionally white gap a the front of these dresses.
Perhaps a stomacher that laces across the belly?
This might work in some styles in the following fashion: Put on shirt, stitch on Brusttuck, hoist on skirts with attached ‘stomacher’/’lower back and rib panel’, stitch top of stomacher to back area of shirt-attached Brusttuck, lace front edges of ‘stomacher’ across belly, lace on sleeve bits to rings at the ‘shoulder’ of shirt-attached Brusttuck.
While this is possible, I don’t think there is any mention of ‘stomachers’ in the Textiler Hausrat (at least not in the sections currently translated by jillwheezul). This could be because the TH is from Nürnberg, and these are a Saxon only style. I know at least one person who builds these dresses in a similar fashion, but I have yet to get any documentation on their technique.
On the other hand, I do not believe that this ‘stomacher’ is simply an ‘extra wide’ waistband (even though it would effectively be one once it was attached to the skirt). Due to on attack_laurel's journal posting regarding the waistbands in petticoats** from a slightly later period, I tend to think that it is likely that waistbands in these dresses are similarly *tiny*. This would help in creating the waistline that is seen at the front of these types of dresses.
Despite the common reconstruction practiced in the RenFaire world: I don’t believe there was a ‘waistband’ that went all the way around the bottom of the bodice. I am guessing that it is more likely that the skirts are attached directly to the bodice or to a *tiny* waistband then sewn to the bottom edge of the bodice. I’ve seen folks recreate the ‘seamless’ connection of the front skirt to the white full-front ‘Brusttuck’ area above with a ton of snaps, clips and hooks to hold the edges of two pieces of garb together. However, if this area is created by holding two clothing pieces together (full Brusttuck and skirts) I think it is either a tiny waistband laying over the ‘Brusttuck’ *or* the skirt is sewn to a white ‘Brusttuck’ filler panel at the waistline.
I am starting to feel as if most of these issues are resolved by ‘they were sewn in’...
Honestly, what makes the most sense to me when thinking about the center front area of these dresses is a breast-level ‘Brusttuck sewn to the shirt (or anchored at chest level by some means), a *tiny* waistband that is virtually invisible, with the lacing across the stomach being done over the chemise. The lots-of-pieces-sewn-together-to-cover-all-the-bits solution does not explain all styles of this dress (see below - and explain how my idea would work with these sleeves/rib cage covering...).
Certainly, the first image of the women washing Bathsheba’s feet could simply be an artist attempting to keep some pretty brocade detail in a figure that wouldn’t have had it in real life. Sometimes these intellectual goose chases are fun just because they kick some ideas around.
I don’t plan on constructing by this method anytime soon (mostly because I’m not overly interested in this style of dress, but also because I don’t have the time to be sewn into my clothing in the AM)…but I thought I would put the idea out in the ether and see what happens…
**Please note: ‘Petticoat’ is simply the period term for a skirt. It is not necessarily worn *under* other items.
It’s been awhile since I have made on of these gowns, and it really isn’t my focus anymore in the period (I don’t buy into them being common on the campaign trail): But this image got me thinking.
A few details stand out in this painting for me. The first is the woman bathing Bathsheba’s feet.
Note the brocade detail that seems to ‘trim’ her shirt. I think that this is a type of Brusttuck that has perhaps been stitched in place for the day (hey, they are rich, they can afford to have folks sew them into their clothes). What interests me is that it appears to go *all the way around*, instead of simply filling the the opening in the front of the dress.
Which got me thinking (again) about the construction on these dresses when they have the low, off the shoulder style - rather than the high standing collars. What the heck is holding them on the shoulders?
I have seen a wide variety of constructions, some of which I believe to be more ‘accurate’ than others. However, the deep dip in the back has always been a sticking point. How does one get those shoulders to stay in place if they aren’t sewn to those tissue thin shirts? How do those shirts withstand the weight of the velvet/brocade dress across their fronts and backs without the pleats/embroidery patterns being distorted? How could anyone even think about functioning in one of these things?
What if those aren’t ‘shoulders’ on the dress at all?
What if they are simply part of a Brusttuck that has been sewn into place?
This would eliminate all of the ‘stress’ on the shirt (since the only thing it would be holding up would be a shaped ring of brocade), It would allow the *extreme* off the shoulder look without slippage, and it would explain why you only see rich women in this style (because they have to get sewn into it).
So, what is covering the waist?
As you can see in the image above, there is clearly *something* covering the lower back/ waist area. In fact, it even appears that there may be some sort of ‘tie’ in the middle of the brocade band at the bottom where it is near the orange fabric (this detail is much easier to see in the original - you can zoom in and check in out yourself).
So what is it that is covering this gap? A modified ‘high waist band’?
While this could cover the gap between the ‘center back bottom’ of a sewn on Brusttuch and the waistline, it could not have gone ‘all the way around’ because of the traditionally white gap a the front of these dresses.
Perhaps a stomacher that laces across the belly?
This might work in some styles in the following fashion: Put on shirt, stitch on Brusttuck, hoist on skirts with attached ‘stomacher’/’lower back and rib panel’, stitch top of stomacher to back area of shirt-attached Brusttuck, lace front edges of ‘stomacher’ across belly, lace on sleeve bits to rings at the ‘shoulder’ of shirt-attached Brusttuck.
While this is possible, I don’t think there is any mention of ‘stomachers’ in the Textiler Hausrat (at least not in the sections currently translated by jillwheezul). This could be because the TH is from Nürnberg, and these are a Saxon only style. I know at least one person who builds these dresses in a similar fashion, but I have yet to get any documentation on their technique.
On the other hand, I do not believe that this ‘stomacher’ is simply an ‘extra wide’ waistband (even though it would effectively be one once it was attached to the skirt). Due to on attack_laurel's journal posting regarding the waistbands in petticoats** from a slightly later period, I tend to think that it is likely that waistbands in these dresses are similarly *tiny*. This would help in creating the waistline that is seen at the front of these types of dresses.
Despite the common reconstruction practiced in the RenFaire world: I don’t believe there was a ‘waistband’ that went all the way around the bottom of the bodice. I am guessing that it is more likely that the skirts are attached directly to the bodice or to a *tiny* waistband then sewn to the bottom edge of the bodice. I’ve seen folks recreate the ‘seamless’ connection of the front skirt to the white full-front ‘Brusttuck’ area above with a ton of snaps, clips and hooks to hold the edges of two pieces of garb together. However, if this area is created by holding two clothing pieces together (full Brusttuck and skirts) I think it is either a tiny waistband laying over the ‘Brusttuck’ *or* the skirt is sewn to a white ‘Brusttuck’ filler panel at the waistline.
I am starting to feel as if most of these issues are resolved by ‘they were sewn in’...
Honestly, what makes the most sense to me when thinking about the center front area of these dresses is a breast-level ‘Brusttuck sewn to the shirt (or anchored at chest level by some means), a *tiny* waistband that is virtually invisible, with the lacing across the stomach being done over the chemise. The lots-of-pieces-sewn-together-to-cover-all-the-bits solution does not explain all styles of this dress (see below - and explain how my idea would work with these sleeves/rib cage covering...).
Certainly, the first image of the women washing Bathsheba’s feet could simply be an artist attempting to keep some pretty brocade detail in a figure that wouldn’t have had it in real life. Sometimes these intellectual goose chases are fun just because they kick some ideas around.
I don’t plan on constructing by this method anytime soon (mostly because I’m not overly interested in this style of dress, but also because I don’t have the time to be sewn into my clothing in the AM)…but I thought I would put the idea out in the ether and see what happens…
**Please note: ‘Petticoat’ is simply the period term for a skirt. It is not necessarily worn *under* other items.