A pair of stays dated circa 1620/1630, found under the floorboards of an old public house in Kent.
A woman of medecine Martin Engelbrecht, early 18th century, maybe 1730s
This is actually “A Doctor’s Wife”. I’m not sure if she’s reading that liquid (probably urine) as some kind of satire - there are a few German/French [Occupation]’s Wife prints out there that are satirical/humorous - or if doctors’ wives generally helped in their practices, or what.
Also, she’s wearing a robe battante, precursor to the française.
For all you fans of older attempts at historical costume out there. (I’m one, so there must be others.)
Marble head of a young woman
Head is from a funerary stela. It is 40.6cm high (16 inch.)
Greek, Classical period, 4th century BC.
Source: Metropolitan Museum
Folding fan with portrait medallions of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI.
Kittyinva: 1928 ad for Mallinson’s silks. Such a pretty summer dress!
beggars-opera said: Seriously what is UP with those tie-on sleeves???!!! Are we at a renfaire?!
I figured she was inspired by those 17th-early 18th century stays with tie-on sleeves or something? But they were kind of a surprise to see.
Question with 2 notes
Anonymous said: re: outlander costume post: terry say 'some historians' about the menstruation thing and also didn't say that women had blood all over their skirts. she was saying they didnt wear underwear and people did their business in chamber pots wherever necessary just as you said so i dont know where you got the stained with blood petticoats idea from. you're being rather overreactive and self-righteous about a simple post she made for the fans
No, she said they went “wherever and whenever was needed” because there were no toilets. I know she didn’t say they bled all over their clothes, but that’s the reality of what 18th century free-bleeding would have been - trickling down thighs and seeping into stockings, staining shifts and soaking into petticoats whenever they sat down.
If it weren’t for the :/ness in the comments, I probably wouldn’t have said anything. But she presented herself as an authority to others while giving erroneous information, and while overreacting in response to mild criticism, and that bothers me. Was some of the criticism not very gentle? Yes, but only after several earlier comments were rebuffed with sarcasm and pointed remarks.
It’s nice of her to put up those posts for fans, but I don’t see what’s self-righteous about pointing out her inaccuracies.
Post with 14 notes
I was trying to write a post on my proper blog about this, but I can’t come up with a way to do it that doesn’t seem really petty, so … it’s for Tumblr.
A few days ago, the costume designer for the series Outlander made a post about getting dressed in the 18th century. Unfortunately, it’s wrong on a lot of points.
- Dressing in stays and a gown isn’t “painstaking”, especially if you’re being dressed by someone used to it, as Claire was supposed to be. That it took the dresser and/or Annette Badland thirty minutes (!) to dress Claire is not a reflection of the reality of life in the 18th century, it just means that they weren’t prepared.
- “Some historians” is a sneaky way of saying “I found a single source alleging this”. That historical women free-bled once a month into their shifts, petticoats, and stockings - either ruining them or wearing them even when horrifyingly stained - is not a popular or sensible stance, and the smell of menses being erotic is pretty speculative. And there were very many chamber pots.
- Baths were taken more than once a year. I know that wealthy women might have had special bathing shifts, but I’m not aware of any proof that women generally bathed in their shifts.
- Women didn’t really wear separate “bodices”. When they did have a separate upper body outer garment, such as a jacket, it did not go beneath the underpetticoat. Speaking of which, both skirts were called petticoats, not just the hidden one. But anyway, gowns were by far more commonly worn than jackets + petticoats.
I love what Ms. Dresbach says at the end - for once the cameras were waiting on the actress getting dressed, rather than the director demanding shortcuts in the dressing to be quicker - but the comments are another matter.
If there is one thing that you can take away from this, it’s never use your years of experience as a reason others shouldn’t disagree with you. For one thing, it’s possible that they have many years of experience as well; if you have 25 years of experience in costume design, that doesn’t really trump 10 years of experience in studying authentic techniques of a specific period. Eg: Claire’s princess-seamed jacket with laced-on sleeves may represent many years of sewing and designing experience, but it’s so far from 1740s women’s dress.
For another, the body of knowledge in fashion history changes perhaps more quickly than in other branches of history, and it’s very easy for someone to come in more recently and learn the updated knowledge that you’ve missed while sticking to older “truths”. (If you’ve spoken to many stubborn older reenactors, you’ll be familiar with this.)
Page 1 of 89