Scholarly frustrations
I just have to say before I head off to bed... that it is very frustrating to me, to read a scholarly book on Henrician garments (my new book), and have a few "errors" for lack of a better word creep into the book, and hence the scholarship of the book.
First, the writer continued the myth of "flea furs" but in calling the furred capes and collars as such... and then in the next paragraph, talk about the article on zimbelinis (however that's spelled). This tells me the author read that article, and the article supposedly tells where this "flea fur" term came from (a Victorian writer, iirc) and debunks the whole flea fur myth!!!! I say supposedly, because I havent read the article yet (the book it is in is on my wish list), but I did spend time with the author of that article in her class on zimbelinis, and she debunked it, and explained carefully where that "flea fur" myth came from, and said it was in her article!
And then there's the section where she is describing this gown and partlet combo (at least to my eyes) and this one that appears to be similar, and this last one.
And she calls all three a new masculine style of bodice, possibly a doublet with what is modernly called a "Medici collar", although none of the records has any entries for women's doublets. ??? ... wtf? Two appear to be the standard gown with a high necked partlet of black that is a different material than the gown, since the paintings show light reflecting differently there. The same partlet I just made for my Tudor gown. The third appears to be a loose gown. The only thing all three have in common is the style of their collars, which is what we modernly call a "Medici" collar.
It is these two things that make me question, yes, publically question, the scholarship of this much vaunted writer. No, I am not a scholar. I don't have a degree, but these errors as I see them, that I do understand the differences of, make me wonder what else is in error that I don't understand. Does that make sense? Yeah, I am a bit frustrated. And no, I am not saying I am better than this writer/scholar... I am saying I don't follow her logic.
But not all is annoying news, there are some interesting bits in the contemporary writings of the time that does shed some light on things, even if I don't follow all of the funny spelled words, or even understand or agree with the writers conclusions. But again... that shadow of a doubt is laying over it all now.
Well, off to bed... hopefully I will understand better as I progress through this book. Which I am skipping through some sections to get to other sections that has the meat of what I am looking at. I will read it all in order someday... just not right now.
And if anyone else who is reading the same book can understand what I am missing, please correct me.
First, the writer continued the myth of "flea furs" but in calling the furred capes and collars as such... and then in the next paragraph, talk about the article on zimbelinis (however that's spelled). This tells me the author read that article, and the article supposedly tells where this "flea fur" term came from (a Victorian writer, iirc) and debunks the whole flea fur myth!!!! I say supposedly, because I havent read the article yet (the book it is in is on my wish list), but I did spend time with the author of that article in her class on zimbelinis, and she debunked it, and explained carefully where that "flea fur" myth came from, and said it was in her article!
And then there's the section where she is describing this gown and partlet combo (at least to my eyes) and this one that appears to be similar, and this last one.
And she calls all three a new masculine style of bodice, possibly a doublet with what is modernly called a "Medici collar", although none of the records has any entries for women's doublets. ??? ... wtf? Two appear to be the standard gown with a high necked partlet of black that is a different material than the gown, since the paintings show light reflecting differently there. The same partlet I just made for my Tudor gown. The third appears to be a loose gown. The only thing all three have in common is the style of their collars, which is what we modernly call a "Medici" collar.
It is these two things that make me question, yes, publically question, the scholarship of this much vaunted writer. No, I am not a scholar. I don't have a degree, but these errors as I see them, that I do understand the differences of, make me wonder what else is in error that I don't understand. Does that make sense? Yeah, I am a bit frustrated. And no, I am not saying I am better than this writer/scholar... I am saying I don't follow her logic.
But not all is annoying news, there are some interesting bits in the contemporary writings of the time that does shed some light on things, even if I don't follow all of the funny spelled words, or even understand or agree with the writers conclusions. But again... that shadow of a doubt is laying over it all now.
Well, off to bed... hopefully I will understand better as I progress through this book. Which I am skipping through some sections to get to other sections that has the meat of what I am looking at. I will read it all in order someday... just not right now.
And if anyone else who is reading the same book can understand what I am missing, please correct me.