Scholarly frustrations

[sstormwatch]

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.

Comments

[anonymous]

Here is what I think may be happening. Maria has a lot of background on Henry's things because she spent so much time with the inventories. The thing I wonder from what you are telling me is if she has studied costume history enough to be able to be up to date and correct about all her conclusions. There seem to be many people that know more about costuming than the scholars - Bob Trump, Drea etc. so that someone who hasn't studied the subject for 20 years will have a difficult time integrating all of the facts that are in the blogs, h-costume, webpages and journals that contribute to the whole picture. Especially if you do not study all of European costume history since it is so integrated. It takes years and years to read all this stuff! It's too bad that she made such an elementary error with the flea fur thing.

[sstormwatch]

I guess it does take some years to take it all in. I would love to have the access to the inventories she has obviously spent time with. I guess that since the book is in the style of Arnold, I was hoping for more accuracy and information that Arnold often provided.

[lorihalia]

I haven't gotten my hands on that book, but I'd have to agree with your thoughts on those 3 paintings.. The first two are regular gowns, with separate partlets, I can clearly make out the color difference between the gowns and the partlets. The second one especially, as it seems that her gown is satin, and the partlet velvet or wool. I also second the third one being a loose gown that's probably belted, especially after having poured over TT.

It's a shame, I'd thought hard about getting a copy, but I don't want to pay that much for a book with obvious errors. =(

[sstormwatch]

There are good parts to the book, don't get me wrong. There are aspects that I've not seen elsewhere, like the original transcriptions for the Wardrobe accounts from different time periods of Henry's reign. There are a few images I've not seen elsewhere, either, including extant garment images. It just would be nice if she was more like Arnold, and had done some deconstructions of those images, if the photo'd garments were still around (I am dying to know how the backs are actually pleated on the man's "demi-gown", if that's the right term).

It's just like I said, the errors have crept in that make me wonder the accuracy of *her conclusions*. And I haven't read too much yet, so maybe these are the minor issues.

[rwfranz]

Scholarly works usually contain errors. For all that someone has spent a lot of work writing and creating, to eradicate all errors and correct all statements is a lot of work. Admittedly, that step appears to not have been taken - but what if it was, by people who "knew" to be true the same information she presented?

[sstormwatch]

I don't understand the point of your question.

[tattycat]

I agree that the first two are glaringly obvious partlets. I have always been curious about/in love with that Katherine Parr gown, and desperately wish I could wrap my head around it enough to recreate it.

[sstormwatch]

I think the Parr gown is a loose gown, similar to the style seen in the full length Holbein portrait of Christina, Duchess of Milan. http://tudorhistory.org/people/christina/
In the book it is mentioned that this is mourning clothes, in the Italian style. The TT book has an appropriate pattern for a loose gown.

[ciorstan]

I happened to be wandering by and noted your comment, sorry I'm so very late to the party...

The cutting plan is in Tudor Tailor, and the caps, too. Note that Tudor Tailor thinks that Katherine Parr's undercap is the bizarre banded thingie shown on page 143, but I think it could be a plain coif with a tie/band around her hair a la Attack Laurel...

I like making them with straight panels in the back and curved lines on the side fronts; the center fronts are cut straight. This means the gown falls open, if desired, when one walks, and it sweeps dramatically like a cloak when one turns.

The Tudor/Elizabethan loose gown is, at heart, an updated houpelande. It's the little details that make it special to the century (and indeed the specific half-century, or in the case of the second half-century, a specific decade). Keep in mind that the mahoitered sleeve is paired to an open front gowns; tabbed-sleeved gowns are made to close.

At least, that's the way all the surviving sleeve treatments are coupled with openings in Arnold.

[sstormwatch]

Considering how few loose gowns survive, is it really appropriate to restrict the use of the mahoitered sleeves vs tabs to only certain styles of front openings? What about the types seen in effigies? Portraits?

And I would like to see your version of the gown as you've described it, at least as a simple pattern layout (I am rather visual). I am doing an open gown right now, and did it according to Margo's pattern set, but am wondering if there was another way to make it open and still have a nice flow to things.

[florentinescot]

I think I missed out on something ...

What book is this?

[sstormwatch]

Dress in the Court of King Henry VIII by Maria Hayward. Just recently released at the end of October.

[florentinescot]

OK. I thought that might be it, but I wasn't sure.

So, do you recommend the book?

[sstormwatch]

Yeah, at this point I would say yes, but with some reservations