History Hub聽 permalink
The rise and rise of the historical novel.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 14th May 2011
In the olden days some historical novels and books had disclaimers which said in brief, "any similarities to those living or dead is purely coincidental". Some studios (who made films from the books) were so rich and depended upon the ignorence of the masses that they didn't bother. Flora Robeson as Elizabeth I in "Fire Over England" and Katherine Hepburn in "Mary Queen of Scots" spring to mind and Bette Davis and Erroyl Flynn in everything, historical during the 1930s and 1940s.
Today it seems that we have less knowledge of History than ever before. "1066 and All That" a sytarical novel of how History was taught published for fun has few followers because History is not taught at school any more. Unless one is interested in ladies "Glass Ceilings", "the Nazis" or "the Tudors" all is lost, nothing is chronilogical, which is surely what History is attempting to explain? Cause and effect = History! So waving goodbye to History as it was formerly known, we have to depend are upon "historical novels". These are usually presented to us by Alison Weir, Philippa Gregory and all comers. Only today in Tescos I saw that Ms Gregory's "White Queen" (Elizabeth Woodville) had been usurped by her "Red Queen"(Margaret Beaufort) as best selling novel.Why?
We are told that History is a sexy subject today and yet I've known several people who have dropped it at university level because it "wasn't what they thought it would be like". I read historical novels when young, Norah Lofts, Jean Plaidy, Antonia Frazier and loved them all, accessible and factual. Alison Weir and Philippa Gregory et al have simply re-organized the facts to make money and distort history. And yet they appear to be consumed by the "masses". Enormously glossy historical films are made about the Tudors, (always the Tudorsis seems!) but they are historically innacurate. These films are often taken from the novels -i.e. "The Boylen Girl". History has become distorted in the public mind.
Historical truth no longer appears to matter, it's all bread and circuses. Give the people what they want, Jack the Ripper, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Richard III the child killer. Who cares? Margaret Beaufort was a nasty woman and it seems very unlikely that her grandfather was John of Gaunt, more Hugh de Rouet. Her son Henry Twdwr had no legitimate royal blood flowing through his veins, a bit of French, a bit of English and Welsh and was no War Lord and yet he became King of England. Since 1485 ALL Monarchs have been his descendants. It's a joke! As is Monarchy. At least Wiliam the Conqueror(the first French invasion) had great aunt Emma legitimately married to Aethlred and Canute and mother of Edward the Confessor. But these are silly facts!
When did History leave the buildings and Historical novelists take sway over the public mind? (Yes I know the spelling is bad, written in haste and do I care anymore?Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 2
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 14th May 2011
I care that I should have closed the brackets! ) and worded it all better but on the whole I didd't expect any answers. I beieve we all know it to be true. Why did I ask?
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 3
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
Well, we here might not understand it but there are many people who just don't like history and historical novels are a good way to learn without (for those who are bored with it) feeling like history is being rammed down their throats.
I have a daughter of like mind, she is bored silly by it and maintains that all history is the same. The only things that changes are names, dates and places and she may well have a point! But over the years I have encouraged her to read historically accurate novels and through this medium I've managed to get quite a lot of history into her brain without her really realising it.
In fact, as both my children have been mainly educated in Greece and their schooling was spent studing ancient and modern Greek history I've used historical accurate novels, not only as a way to keep up their English language skills but also as a way of teaching them the history of their English and Irish heritage, rather than have them being totally dominated by their Greek heritage.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 4
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
islanddawn, my grandson has dual nationality: British and Czech, so he will learn about history as it has affected his family and from different vewpoints.
Phillipa Gregory seems to have sold out to TV producers, who love heaving chests and lavish costumes, plotting and intrigue. imo her early novels were much better; In particular 'A Respectable Trade' about the slave trade in 18C and the two books about the Tradescants: 'Earthly joys' and 'Virgin Earth' against the background of Court intrigues, the Civil War and plant hunting
I read historical novels with a background of medicine and there are some interesting ones. Came across an American novelist: Mel Starr, who has wrtten several books about a surgeon in Wyclif's England, mainly in Oxfordshire. First one 'The Unquiet Bones'. It is set in an Oxfordshire village, the complicated history of which i know well.
Minette, people need to be enthused about history. Whether that enthusism is fired by a well researched historical novel or a good teacher, does it matter?. No use grumping that students don't want to learn history if there are no teachers or lecturers to help them understand why they should study the subject..Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 5
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
Good point Silver Jenny, the ability or inability of a teacher to present his/her subject has a profound effect on us all, sometimes for life.
Thankyou for the book tip also, I shall have a look for Mel Starr on Amazon. The children and I are always on the look out for new authors in our historical reading, and anything medical is my daughter's forte.
I've just noticed that there are a few mistakes in my post above, for which I apologise, it was written (as ever) in haste.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 6
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
ID, his full name is Melvin R.Starr.
[ My posts have mistakes - usually noticed after the send button has been pressed!.]Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
Minette Minor
There are various particularities- I would suggest- that continually stoke up your own passion for History- not least that degree course that combined Politics and History, for presumably you learned to look at the Past as an example of a continuum that was/is still active in our collective life.
Not everyone "kept the faith"-- and this was already a crumbling situation back in the Sixties.. Here is something that I wrote about that:
****
In the early Sixties, as Professor J.H. Plumb observed in an article entitled 鈥淭he Historian鈥檚 Dilemma鈥, it was an angry woman who was a great hit on Broadway in Edward Albee鈥檚 play 鈥淲ho鈥檚 Afraid of Virginia Woolf?鈥 鈥楽he鈥 is the historian鈥檚 wife and the message is clear. 鈥淗istory and life are doomed to live it out in hate, in distrust, in mutual failure. They are lost in timeless falsehood, bound by dreams of the past that may never have existed, and enslaved by their own lies about the future. And this, as the audience streamed out into the flashing neon lights of Broadway, seemed to have the force of truth. History is without meaning, without power, without hope.鈥 And Professor Plumb asked 鈥淚s it?鈥
The article was published as Professor Plumb鈥檚 contribution to the collection of articles entitled 鈥淐risis in the Humanities鈥 in 1964; and in his editor鈥檚 introduction he wrote 鈥 [History].. has lost all faith in itself as a guide to the actions of men: no longer do historians investigate the past in the hope that it may enable their fellow men to control the future. Its educational value, they feel, lies in the exercises it provides for the mind and not for what it contains.鈥
The path of Progress that was so evident to H.A.Fisher was no longer so obvious. Almost ten years later in 1973 Dr. Jacob Bronowski, summing up his series on 鈥淭he Ascent of Man鈥, could say 鈥淎nd I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into-- into what?... It sounds very pessimistic to talk about western civilization with a sense of retreat. I have been so optimistic about the ascent of man; am I going to give up at this moment? Of course not. The ascent of man will go on. But do not assume that it will go on carried by western civilization as we know it. We are being weighed in the balance at this moment. If we give up, the next step will be taken- but not by us. We have not been given any guarantee that Assyria and Egypt and Rome were not given. We are waiting to be somebody鈥檚 past too, and not necessarily that of our future.鈥
****
My 1973 "The Summer Before the Dark " thread has tried to bring out how the Crisis in the Humanities accompanied that post-war confidence in the ability of science and technology (in their widest forms) to provide the means by which the Future could be managed by human will and intelligence..
But 1973 and the next couple of years really broke that illusion and life, and politics, became merely crisis management- with the role cast to the majority of the public by the "men in grey suits" being one of "just keep yourself amused while we sort this out."
To go back to Plumb: " [History].. has lost all faith in itself as a guide to the actions of men: no longer do historians investigate the past in the hope that it may enable their fellow men to control the future. Its educational value, they feel, lies in the exercises it provides for the mind and not for what it contains"
Over the last few decades "exercises for the mind" have gone out of fashion, and people now expect everything to be entertaining- And school, its seems, should be about "having fun" and not about laying down foundations for life.
CassLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 8
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
I suspect that historical fiction was always dependent on and indeed those that are very careful with the facts can end without strong characters and stories. I have read the odd Nigel Trantor and while I think his history is probably quite accurate (though when I queried one of his events, people said he couldn't possibly know that) and his geography very detailed (I think his real passion is for place, as he describes everything in detail and the travel involved in it), his characterisation was poor and relationships stereotyped.
Minette likes her stories to reflect her own interests, and in the earlier 20th century novelists (and presumably the public) were very imbued with the romance of the Stuart dynasty. That interest has changed this generation to the Tudors as much as anything. But unless you write sagas, chronology can only be given in a novel in either long explanatory passages in speech (a la Sharon Penman) or via family tree diagrams. A story based on one main character isn't going to (and can't) give the whole of British history in order.
But if you take out the more populist novels there are plenty of good historical novels around. In the past few years I have read (sticking to British history) Pat Barker's Regeneration series, and other war stories like The Book Thief and the Boy in Striped Pyjamas, some CJSansom set in the Spanish Civil War or Tudor church circles, Julian Rathbone with interesting takes on a variety of times in British history, Jane Gardam's Old Filth set in recent England and former India, several Kazuo Ishiguros, set in various times, The Underground Man by Mick Jackson, a lovely fictional study of an individual, and Tennyson's Gift by Lynn Truss, more a study of a group of people. And The Other Boleyn Girl, which I enjoyed very much as a romance. The Flashman books have been written through the 70s - 90s and are full of what I gather is accurate history.
There's plenty of very good historical fiction out there, though it pays not to be too settled in your mind about what interpretation you take on various issues. And coming to history via popular fiction is perfectly acceptable. Just like coming to literature via comics is.
By the way many books, not just historical ones, still have a disclaimer about their work not being based on anyone or any event. It doesn't usually seem to be true; there is often someone they have in mind with their characters.
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 9
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 16th May 2011
There's plenty of very good historical fiction out there, though it pays not to be too settled in your mind about what intepretation you take on various issues. 聽
Agreed. "Wolf Hall", published in 2009, is a good example. Historical novels don't come much better than this one. Meticulously researched and powerfully written, yet for many Mantel's presentation of Thomas Cromwell is all wrong and her vilification of Thomas More unfair.
Still a brilliant book though.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 10
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 16th May 2011
Anyone for Shakespeare?
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 16th May 2011
In defence of Shakespeare, though of course many people may read him more than watch productions of his plays, a playwright does not play God quite in the same way as someone writing a novel since the time that the fiction format changed to incorporate the writer as Omniscient creator endowed with total knowledge of all that they describe within their virtual reality.
Arthur Miller has described just how collaborative was the process of writing some of his plays, and Shakespeare, as a working actor - and part of a company- , could be more rounded than Miller even in the writing. And it is very obvious that Shakespeare plays have been adapted according to time and place ever since.
But perhaps- to go back to Minette's OP- perhaps the historical novel reached its peak two hundred years ago.. And perhaps this should serve as a warning from history..
Both T.B. Macaulay and George Macaulay Trevelyan have written in lavish praise of the important work of Sir Walter Scott in bringing the Past to life in his great Waverley Novels. Certainly both those major and popular " English" historians saw Scott's introduction of reat art into the recreation of the Past as exemplary for their kind of historical writing, and a way to encourage present generations to be as strong and heroic characters as those that throng Scott's work.
It was probably not this that caused the great wave of militarism during the last decades of the Nineteenth Century. But it may well have impacted on the way that the "English-speaking (and reading) world reacted to those events.. and hence to the willingness of the Lost Generation to go off and try to be heroic during the First World War.
CassLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 12
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Margaret Beaufort was a nasty woman and it seems very unlikely that her grandfather was John of Gaunt, more like Hugh de Rouet. 聽
I wasn't going to say anything, but it's raining and I'm bored.
Minette, I have tried very hard in the past to defend you and some of your wilder statements: in so doing I have - alas - no doubt confirmed suspicions about my own sad lack of judgement. Thoughts such as these are very uncomfortable and have, it must be admitted, necessitated a spot of squirming recently, but, squirming now done, I must - yet again - move onwards and sideways. In short, I have to point out things in your OP which strike me as daft.
Your Message 1 condemns - rightly - lack of accuracy and the deplorable modern tendency to sensationalise history. Yet you, Minette, are so often guilty of these very faults. You are in the statement I have quoted above.
Who on earth was Hugh de Rouet? Do you mean Hugh Swynford, the first husband of Katherine de Roet, the mistress and later third wife of John of Gaunt? It is true that John of Gaunt was not the grandfather of Margaret Beaufort, if by Margaret Beaufort you are referring to the Countess of Richmond and Derby, the mother of Henry VII. Gaunt was her great grandfather. The Margaret Beaufort who *was* Gaunt's granddaughter was born in 1409 and died in 1449 - she married Thomas de Courtenay, the 13th Earl of Devon. This Devon MB was the nasty MB's auntie. (There was of course yet another Margaret Beaufort - the Stafford one - but we'll leave her out of this for now.)
Am I just indulging in unpleasant nitpicking - carping, petty criticism - on this wet and miserable Wednesday? Maybe I am, but facts *do* matter. Historians are supposed to get them right. What on earth would you have said if Alison Weir - that unfortunate creature whom you despise so much - had made these errors?
Then your apparent suggestion that Hugh Swynford, not John of Gaunt, was John Beaufort's father. This is a sensational claim indeed - on what do you base it?
It's true we do not know for certain when Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt became lovers, and the actual date of birth of John Beaufort is disputed, but it seems incredible that Katherine would claim her son was a bastard - even a little royal one - when he was not. The evidence submitted to the Pope in the legitimacy petition of 1396 admits that John of Gaunt "adulterously" knew Katherine, but states that she was " free of wedlock" (i.e. widowed) when he "begot offspring of her."
Froissart's claims are not to be trusted and the dates derived from the annuity granted to John Beaufort by Richard II in June 1392 are problematical. Are you thinking perhaps of the "in double adultery begotten" accusation in Richard III's proclamation of 1485?
As to your other assertion that Margaret Beaufort was "a nasty woman", well that is rather an emotive statement. A calmer, more scholarly observation would surely be that MB was an intelligent and astute woman - the "ablest politician of the 15th century", as Diarmaid MacCulloch has called her. It is true that I have myself once in an unguarded moment referred to the lady as "that cow", but that was in younger, wilder days. I've since changed my mind.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Temperance
Do not complain about being blessed with rain. That is becoming a painful subject here in the SE.
CassLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 14
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
Dear Temperance,
I'm extremely glad that you were bored and have pointed out my mistakes. I have put this site "off limits" for me, yet being slightly bored I've wandered in and to my surprise found a post I'd made which wasn't "hidden". Extraodinary! Is there anyone I have offended yet? And SST nobody takes me seriously. Did you have "younger and wilder days"? Must have blinked! And please, please don't attempt to defend me. You have a reputation to maintain.
You are of course correct in pointing out my shocking misdemeanors but I really didn't think anyone would read it, no defence in the eyes of the law so to clear up Katherine Swynford's father first, Sir Payne de Rouet of Guignies, possibly 1310 to 1351, a Flemish herald who accompanied Philippa of Hainault when she married Edward III. It's thought by many that he married Catherine d'Hainault, daughter of Willem III d'Avesnes and so we have Katherine and Philippa (who married Chaucer). However I find Hugh Swynford far more interesting.
Hugh's dates are given as born and died between 1298 and 1371/2. However we do know that he was of predominantley Saxon descent, often got into brawls and faught at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 where he was knighted. It's suggested that he left home at 15 (after a brawl) to fight, so this may point to him being born around the 1330 mark, it's rare to have someone under 20 knighted for action in battle. We also know that he married Katherine de Roet at St. Clement Danes Church, London in 1365/6. Katherine's birth date is usually given as 1350. This marriage was arranged by Philippa of Hainault.
Hugh went on campaign to Scotland with John of Gaunt before his marriage to Blanche, when he was merely Earl of Richmond and returned to his manor of Kettlethorpe in Lincolnshire. Katherine appears to have had Blanchette in 1367 and Thomas 1368. It's recorded that Katherine was a favourite of both Philippa the Queen and John of Gaunt's wife, Blanche. (hence Blanchette?) and was escorted to Bolinbroke to spend Christmas and the New Year with Duchess Blanche, also pregnant, in 1366. In May 1367 John of Gaunt stood as sponsor for Blanchette and gave her a gilt and silver cup as a baptismal gift. It appears that two years before Blanche's death, John of Gaunt had "noticed" Katherine openly, as had his wife.
In 1369 when both Queen Philippa and Duchess Blanche died of the plague in London, Katherine was in London, looking after the Duchess's children and was a member of her Funeral Train. Hugh was in Lincolnshire. When Katherine returned to Kettlethorpe and her husband, John of Gaunt presented her with an armiger in her own right and rewarded her with a pension, "all issues from, and profits from his towns of Waddinton and Wellingere to be paid yearly". He also arranged for Hugh to go off to France to fight again. In 1371 he was seriously wounded, transported back to Bordeaux in John of Gaunt's Train and his own physician, William Appelton, looked after him.
Katherine was also shipped to Bordeaux but was meant to travel with John as part of his Train to pick up his new wife Constanza of Castille but instead she went to see Hugh. Apparently John was not best pleased. However she was given an escort, Nirac de Bayanne. He crops up later. It was rumoured that he confessed to having poisoned Hugh, although he declared John knew nothing of this. Within a week of Katherine's arrival in Bordeaux, Hugh was dead. The body was brought back to England but Katherine stayed on in France with John of Gaunt.
So. Katherine's husband was dead, John of Gaunt's "intended wife" Constanza was awaiting collection and the merry and romantic couple went missing. It was a scandal. Eventually John of Gaunt picked up his new wife and Katherine returned to England, very pregnant. It was generally assumed that Katherine was pregnant with Hugh Swynford's posthumous son. It was not until Katherine's next child Henry was born in 1376 that John claimed to be the father of BOTH children. This was four years after John Beaufort's birth.
At this stage one may tend to think of "Jeremy Kyle" no DNA testing then. However, John Beaufort, first of the House of Beauforts through whom Henry Tudor would claim descendancy from John of Gaunt, albeit illegitimate, and Margaret Beaufort would push her royal Lancastrian ancestry, seems to be the only Beaufort who has a very large question mark above his name as to who his real father was.
At the time he was generally believed to have been the posthumous son of Hugh Swynford. Today it is a ludicrous suggestion to make. Henry, Thomas and Joan Beaufort were all clearly the illigetimate children of Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt. And yet the MOST important child of this love affair/liason, whose name and ancestry would come to mean so much to British History is unknown. Too many documents of the time refer to John as Beaufort/ Swynford and vice versa and his year of birth can be either 1371 or 1372. These are the facts we are presented with.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 15
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
Oh Temperence!
The more you know the less you less you know, this is what history tells us and never, ever underestimate the power of the royal illegitimate child! The Dukes of St Alban's, and Grafton are all illegitimate offspring of Charles II Nell Gwynne and Barbara Palmer/Villiers is some how connected to most peers of the realm. I could continue ad nauseum. The devil as always is in the detail.
And you may lecture me about dear Margaret Beaufort, the daughter of the second Duke of Somerset, (the first was Marquis, Earl and Duke and NOT always in that order) mother of Henry Tudor but dipping in and out of books and gleaning information ad hoc does not an historian make. When Joan Beaufort (daughter of John and Katherine) married Sir Robert Ferrers of Raby and then Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland and 23 Beaufort/Nevilles were let loose upon the aristocracy and it takes time to sort it all out. I was plunged into History when a mere child, I blame my parents, and I'm still struggling BUT somethings hold true. It's no good coming up with the right answers unless you know what questions to ask. This is why so many people who do their Phds etc., spend so long wondering what questions to ask!
Only the other day I was wondering what became of Tamkin? Thomas Beaufort, only to realize that he, who was legitimized by Richard II, was Constable of Pontefract Castle when Richard II was killed there. There's graititude for you! Then we have the comparisons drawn between William the Conqueror and Henry Tudor, which don't exist. William may have been illegitimate but was steeped in royal English blood through his great aunt Emma, mother of Edward the Confessor, wife of Aethlred the Unready and king Canute. He also took an active part in the battle of Hastings, something Tudor never did. Tudor used chivalric law but never excercised it. After 1485 the monarchy in England existed not by Divine Right but through custom. If John Beaufort was the son of Hugh Swynford then since 1485 there have been no royal houses, only imposters and custom. Unthinkable! Yet one must think it.
Frankly Temperence I don't need or want you to "defend" me. I don't enjoy being patronized either. I knew you were intelligent when you arrived here and hopefully fostered your intellect but I think you have lost the plot. You need to study History at university, be challenged and prodded and poked by people who don't want your approval simply original thought. You've fallen into a trap here where it's good to be popular with sound bites.
You can't "do" Ersamus in a place like this. Let alone "do" Thomas More or "the Enlightenment" etc., we need to be taught, unrelentingly before pontificating. I'm still learning and have a lot still to learn. This is the "Weir Trap". I'm reading a book at the moment - well almost, "Know a Lion by its Claws". The woman who wrote it knows nothing formerly about History and believes that Edward V was Erasmus. What I don't understand is how the editors allowed her to publish! She says that Warwick the Kingmaker was Edward IV's cousin, Jane Seymour was beheaded and so much more. She's an American phsyicic, with no historical background, not unlike Weir whose editors say she learned History when training to be a teacher. That's a laugh! Thank God she's older than I am but we are of the generation where if your A'Levels were not good enough you went to Teachers' Training Colege, if they were, you went to University.
You used to be a nice, kind and funny person Temperance. What went wrong? Incidentally I expect you have thought of reading History at university already. I can only hope so. And aim high. Jesus have been so nice to me. X Factor or Oxbridge? Mind you Warwick is lovely, especally at this time of year. LOl
Pax. Minette. Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 16
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
Dear Caro,
Please don't use me as a case study. You know nothing about me. I studied the Stuarts when they were not a popular subject, I was curious as to why. Simple.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 17
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
Welcome back, Minette! I hope you and SST work things out and end up friends again.
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 18
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
Islanddawn
I can recommend a good read for young adults.
It is called, 'A History In Shorts' by Don Lister.
The book contains 24 fictional short stories woven around actual events and characters in British history. The author tells an 'alternative' version of events as opposed to what was reported at the time. Characters include Francis Drake, Lord Nelson, Elizabeth 1st, King John, Boudicea etc. Also, there are stories regarding events such as the great fire of London, and some about the plight of ordinary people during some of our more traumatic times.
The tales are fanciful, but the historical facts are accurate. The book is designed to get young (and older) people interested in history again.
RoosterLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 19
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 2nd June 2011
Oh Minette!
Thank you for the additional information. If I'm honest everything I know about Katherine Swynford is usefully summarised here:
I read your posts late last night and I was pretty angry at first (huh - first she says I'm like that devious cow, Margaret Beaufort, then she calls me stupid - blah, blah, blah), but - as usually happens - I've woken up this morning seeing the funny side of it all. I was actually reminded of the Harry Enfield sketch "Women - Know Your Limits!" - "Temperance - Know Your Limits!"
Alas, Minette, I do.
... dipping in and out of books and gleaning information ad hoc does not an historian make. 聽
Absolutely - shades of Mary Bennet - and who wants to be like *her*? Remember that devastating quotation from P&P?
" 'What say you, Mary? For you are a young lady of great reflection I know, and read great books and make extracts.'
Mary wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how."
Voracious reading and wild, undisciplined enthusiasm are sadly not enough. That's true of the serious academic study of any subject, but perhaps it's especially true for the student of History: it's what you're capable of doing with your reading that counts. Without originality of thought and a confident, cool, *analytical* brain, you're never going to make it as a serious historian. I do understand that. TwinProbe - in his usual gentle and gentlemanly fashion - tried to point this out to me ages ago. He was right of course.
So no, I'm not going to attempt a History degree - I decided that some time ago - but all is not lost. I'm the proud possessor of half a History AS Level (one module on my beloved Reformation) and even if Lady Margaret Hall (I don't aspire to Jesus) aren't exactly falling over themselves to offer me a place - well, I can live with that. We can't all be Catigerns .
You used to be a nice, kind and funny person Temperance. What went wrong? 聽
Now that did get to me, especially as a friend in real life said much the same thing a couple of weeks ago. I blame the lack of drink. Born again teetotallers are such a miserable bunch. I shall purchase a bottle of decent Sancerre at Sainsbury's this afternoon, drink it and then post something silly about Richard III - perhaps even start a new thread? Maybe then we could all get back to having some fun.
SST.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 20
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 2nd June 2011
So no, I'm not going to attempt a History degree聽
I still haven't given up on tempting you at least to look into that Advanced Undergrad Diploma via the 'net, Temp. I met one of the tutors from ContEd and she said that they only used Oxfordshire places as examples, so there may be scope for local Prayer Book Rebellion stuff yet. In the meantime, you might consider offering something to one of the periodicals published by the likes of the British Assoc. for Local History (I understand they even *pay* their authors...).
When it comes to Oxford colleges, one must consider important questions such as 'Do they have a college cat?' and 'What's their nickname?' (ranging from the hideous 'Brasenostrils' to Harris Manchester's rather more appealing 'HaMsters'...).
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 2nd June 2011
Hi SST
If I really did say that (however gently) I've had plenty of opportunity to regret it since. No posts give me more pleasure than yours and one always has the impression of vast untapped resources under the surface. Are you doing any original historical work at the moment?
Mind you a history degree at Oxford would be a wonderful thing, think of all the marmalade you could eat.
Kind regards,
TPLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 22
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 2nd June 2011
Mind you a history degree at Oxford would be a wonderful thing, think of all the marmalade you could eat. 聽
And all the commas I could use!
Any chance you could give the link for that course again Catigern? Thanks.
Are you doing any original historical work at the moment? 聽
Well, only if wandering around Morebath clutching a copy of Eamon Duffy's "The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village" counts as "original historical work", TP.
Oh to be Hilary Mantel! There's possibly a good historical novel to be written based on Duffy's work - or rather based on the wonderful parish records of Sir Christopher Trychay (call me Trickey-To-Rhyme-With-Dicky). These are no ordinary boring accounts - dry records of parish income and expenditure (although of course they do contain all that) - but are, as Duffy says, "packed as well with the personality, opinions and prejudices of the most vivid county clergyman of the English sixteenth century, and with the names and doings of his parishioners."
Sir Christopher was the vicar of this little Exmoor village for over fifty years, and for what a fifty years - from 1520 until his death in 1574. He was a real character indeed: "opinionated, eccentric and talkative". Thank goodness he was!
His records also tell of the the terrible events of 1549 when Morebath was caught up in the doomed Prayer Book Rebellion - "the avalanche of change loosed by the Reformation swept Morebath into armed protest. Amazingly the priest carefully documented the equipping and financing of the young men of Morebath to join the peasant army besieging Exeter, in revolt against the religious Reformation and the financial and social crisis presided over by the boy-king Edward VI's divided government." Five of Morebath's "yong men" went off to rebel - and never returned home.
The Prayer Book Rebellion was a terrible business - a real crisis - and could easily have turned into nationwide Civil War. The government in London panicked badly and the rebellion was brutally suppressed. The siege of Exeter ended in bloody defeat and a wave of savage executions followed. Over three thousand (possibly as many as five thousand) - so many husbands, sons and brothers - died in all. The leaders of those hitherto law-abiding West Country men were left to rot on gibbets that stretched from Exmoor to Bristol.
SST.
PS Irony of ironies - after all my lecturing of Minette on the need for accuracy and rigour in our work, what do I do? I misquote Jane Austen (hanging offence). Mr. Bennet actually says: "What say you, Mary? For you are a young lady of *deep* reflection I know, and read great books, and make extracts."Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 23
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 3rd June 2011
Hi SST
Well, you've got a wonderful topic for a historical novel so I suppose you either have to get on with it or accept that "full many a flower is born to blush unseen". Or if you'd prefer to forgo the cream teas and help with the on-going study of the spun silk industry in a harsh northern city that has already lasted over two years (and doesn't look like stopping any time soon.....) - I could meet you off the train.
Kind regards,
TPLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 24
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
Here you are, Temp.:
If you're tempted, it might be worth dropping a line to the department to get a clear statement re how far you'd be able to pursue your particular interests.
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 25
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
Hi Catigern,
Many thanks for the link - I could well be tempted to investigate further.
Hi TP,
Thank you for your kind words.
...on-going study of the spun silk industry in a harsh northern city... 聽
Sounds like one for a Mrs. Gaskell, rather than me, TP, but very interesting! I had no ideas there *was* a northern spun silk industry - thought it was all cotton in those dark satanic mills up north.
But your message reminds me of Charlotte Bronte going to buy material for new dresses (I think in Leeds - will have to check) - like Jane Eyre, CB could not be persuaded that a pale pink silk would suit her; she opted instead for a more demure pearl-grey:
"Mr. Rochester obliged me to go to a certain silk warehouse: there I was ordered to choose half-a-dozen dresses. I hated the business; I begged leave to defer it... I persuaded him to make an exchange in favour of sober black satin and pearl-grey silk..."
SST.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 26
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
The discussion of silk reminds me of a novel by Vanora Bennett about the silk industry in the 15th C and incidentaly about R3 I believe you have read it too SST, I had no idea that there was such an industry either. Good luck with the studies!!
GranLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 27
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
Hi SST
I don't want to bore you but you can make silk textiles with the silk unwound in long lengths from silk worm cocoons; this is nett silk. Macclesfield was an important centre for this industry in the north and it still has a fascinating silk museum.
Alternatively you can take 'wild' or waste silk and spin it into a thread like you can cotton, alpaca or wool fibres. This, naturally, was spun silk. It was used to make velvets, imitation seal skin and furniture plushes which were all immensely popular in Victorian England. Manchester and Bradford were centres of this trade, and Bradford once has the largest silk mill in Europe.
TPLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
Twinprobe,
what one all can learn on these interesting history 麻豆约拍 boards (not sure of the position of "all" in the word order.... used my "Dutch language" background...)
Kind regards and with high esteem for all your contributions to these boards,
Paul.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 29
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
I believe the silk industry flourished in Bradford etc for the same reason as cotton; there was abundant water and the moisture in the air helped the strands to 'stick' together and not fray when being spun.
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 30
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
The discussion of silk reminds me of a novel by Vanora Bennett about the silk industry in the 15th C and incidentaly about R3 I believe you have read it too SST, I had no idea that there was such an industry either. Good luck with the studies!!
骋谤补苍听
I haven't come across that particular book yet, Gran - the only two Vanora Bennett novels I've read so far are "Blood Royal" and "Portrait of an Unknown Woman". "Figures in Silk" does sound good - Richard III *and* silk in one offering - an excellent combination!
Fabric is such a fascinating topic. I'm particularly interested (of course) in the sumptuous materials - silk, satin, damask, taffeta, tissue -worn by the wealthy and the royal folk of the 15th and 16th centuries. The use of our word "tissue" has always confused me - I used to think this particular fabric was a light, flimsy stuff, rather like muslin, but apparently it's not. And I'm still trying to find out how the amazing cloth-of-gold was made. There was also a cloth-of-silver. Both must have been very heavy to wear.
The silk women of that era were vey special people and their particular skills were very much in demand. I believe the great households would often employ their own "embroiderer" who was (usually) paid well.
On the subject of fabric cost, I've found it very interesting to compare what Henry VIII (sorry, I manage to drag him into every discussion) spent on Anne Boleyn's clothes in just one year with what was going on in Morebath (the little village I mention in my post above) over a *twenty* year period. In 1532 Henry forked out of the Privy Purse 拢330 (拢106,293) for AB's expenses, most of which she spent on clothes, including the making up of a fabulous black satin "nightgown" (more like a modern houserobe than an actual nightie). This was lined with black taffeta and edged in black velvet. This one garment cost more than Princess Mary's dress allowance for the whole year!
In Morebath meanwhile the vicar and his parishioners were in the fourth year of saving up to purchase a set of new black vestments for the priest to wear "to dignify the parish's funerals and the annual Palm Sunday dirige for all the benefactors of the church". They had another sixteen years to go before the target of 拢6/2/4d (拢拢1,226.45p) needed to pay for a lovely new chasuble, fannon, stole and cope of "fustian knapis" (a kind of velvet) was reached. Eamon Duffy puts it beautifully:
"... in July 1547 a twenty-year wait had come to a joyful end.Twenty years of painfully slow saving, the dribbling in of the priest's meagre wool-tithe, the sixpences and shillings coaxed from dying parishioners, the negotiations with executors and widows to divert bequests to this project above others, the formulaic reporting at every year's sheep-count of the snail-like progress of the fund: after all that the priest now had enough money to buy the black vestments he had coveted for the whole of his time in the parish. He was beside himself with pleasure..."
Twenty years! And at last, in the year Henry died and fifteen years after Anne Boleyn had posed provocatively for the king in her black satin, Sir Christopher got his heart's desire! I hope he looked as good in his black robe as she undoubtedly had in hers!Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 31
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
I've found the Charlotte Bronte letter which mentions her purchase of silk, TP. She did go to Leeds not Bradford for her material - to a place called Hunt and Halls. Was this a silk mill or just a big drapery shop, I wonder? I'm actually rather surprised at how much silk cost - even the cheaper stuff was 3/-. per yard. This seems very expensive when you think a governess earned only 拢30 a year, and a salary of 拢100 for a female teacher was considered by CB to be "riches". It was the pink lining for her bonnet which Charlotte thought was too bold, not the pink silk ( that was simply much too expensive at a whopping 5/- a yard). Here's what she says in her letter to Ellen Nussey, talking first of the bonnet:
"... (it) seemed grave and quiet there amongst all the splendours - but now looks infinitely too gay with its pink lining - I saw some beautiful silks of pale sweet colours but had not the spirit or the means to launch out at the rate of 5s per yd and went and bought black silk at 3s after all - I rather regret this - because Papa says he would have lent me a sovereign if he had known. I believe if you had been there you would have forced me to get into debt."
Having a lovely silk dress was obviously important for Victorian girls - something they aspired to. I always remember feeling so sorry for Meg in "Little Women" when she was embarrassed at only having a poplin frock to wear to Sally Moffat's ball. All the other richer girls of course were decked out in beautiful silks. Poplin was a cotton mix fabric, I think, either cotton woven with a cheap silk, or even sometimes cotton with a worsted.
I was surprised to learn that English silk weaving originally sprang up in the Spitalfields area of London - the skill being brought to the capital by the Huguenot refugees from France. Was imported French silk always considered to be the best silk for clothing - far superior to the English fabric - or was that just French fashion hype?Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 32
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi SST
One of the tools of my trade are the Victorian Trade Directories hosted on-line by the University of Leicester. So I can tell you (from the 1847 Leeds & the Clothing Districts Directory) that Hunt and Hall, 42 Commercial Street, Leeds were milliners. Leeds has always been more involved in retail and wholesale clothing, whereas Bradford, Huddersfield and Halifax did more combing, spinning and weaving.
As you probably know Lancashire is famous for its cottons, since Liverpool was the port of entry for this crop from the southern USA. The Mill in 'North & South' was a cotton mill. West Yorkshire specialised in woollen cloths and I assume originally used local Dales and Wolds wool. Bradford is famous for worsted, which technically is a 'stuff' not a 'cloth'. The village of Worsted is in Norfolk and I believe it was Flemish weavers that introduced this trade.
The building stone, soft water and coal supplies made Yorkshire a good factory weaving area after the demise of hand-loom weaving. Manufacturers were on the look-out for new fibres. Sir Titus Salt introduced alpaca and his Mill and community at Saltaire was a fantastic achievement. Samuel Cunliffe Lister (later Lord Masham) became of the richest men in England having developed a process for weaving velvets and plushes from waste silk. He was not enlightened in the treatment of his workers and the failure of a bitter strike at his Manningham Mills led directly to the formation of the Independent Labour Party in Bradford.
I think it is true to say the Italian and French silks were the finest products In Europe, although Chinese & Indian silk fabrics were magnificent too.
TPLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 33
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi SST
I don't want to bore you but you can make silk textiles with the silk unwound in long lengths from silk worm cocoons; this is nett silk. Macclesfield was an important centre for this industry in the north and it still has a fascinating silk museum.
Alternatively you can take 'wild' or waste silk and spin it into a thread like you can cotton, alpaca or wool fibres. This, naturally, was spun silk. It was used to make velvets, imitation seal skin and furniture plushes which were all immensely popular in Victorian England. Manchester and Bradford were centres of this trade, and Bradford once has the largest silk mill in Europe.
罢笔听 twinprobe I am sure i remember something called raw silk being a desirable fabric. Did I just make that up or was it a different process for its manufacture.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 34
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
We went to a funeral at the church we then attended and the vicar wore a magnificent funeral cope made, as far as I can remember, of black damask, or at any rate, a substantial figured fabric with a sheen. When I admired it afterwards he said it belonged to the parish, not to him.
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 35
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi Jenny
Now this is a really interesting, and I'm quite sure you didn't make it up!
Raw silk can mean natural silk of course but I think it also refers to the gum that coats the silk from the silk worm and helps ensure the integrity of the cocoon.
The 19th century silk men had a great deal of trouble dyeing the wild silk from Assam and other parts of India but Sir Henry Wardle of Macclesfield discovered that the gum had to be removed first for the dye to 'take'. Some of the wild silk moths eat oak-leaves rather than mulberry and the oak tannin turns their silk a rather lovely beige colour.
A garment made from raw wild silk would have an attractive colour and sheen and might well be what you have seen.
TP
Sir Henry's wife (Elizabeth I think) was a famous seamstress and her group was responsible for that copy of the Bayeaux Tapestry they have in Reading Museum.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 36
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
TP, thank you, that is most interesting. Fascinating subject.
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 37
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011
It's interesting what we can learn about fashion and fabric from reading novels - not just historical novels where authors have hopefully done their homework properly - but from books actually written during the 19th and 20th centuries.
I re-read Chapter 9 of "Little Women" last night and found quite a few details about what was fashionable and "chic" in 1860s New England.
Louisa M. Alcott's Meg March is actually in despair about her clothes (so what's new?). She goes to stay with the wealthy and fashionable Moffat family (who actually, one suspects, have more money than taste) and she soon realises that nothing she has packed is suitable. She does take a poplin gown which she planned to wear "on Sunday and for the small party", but alas, the poplin is "too heavy for spring" and , as Meg realises as she gets ready, all wrong for an evening party: the other girls are all dressing in "thin", silk dresses and they look delightful - like "gauzy butterflies". So the heavy poplin is abandoned and Meg puts on her best gown, the one she had been saving to wear at "the big party". This is her "old white tarlatan". I had no idea what tarlatan was - I looked it up and learnt that it was an open-weave light cotton fabric, a type of muslin. She wears it over a borrowed muslin petticoat - surely a charming, fresh and pretty look for a sixteen-year-old girl. Meg is nevertheless embarrassed and ashamed because she thinks her frock looks "older, limper and shabbier" compared with the other girls' more expensive and newer *silk* gowns.
Meg shouldn't have worried. She is much admired at the party: silk does not a beauty make - in fact Mrs. Moffat, overweight and overdressed, is described in a devastating sentence. She comes "lumbering in, like an elephant in silk and lace." Not a good look to be sure.
Other dresses are described in this chapter: a grey "walking suit", a blue housedress "turned and freshly trimmed" and a "silk sacque". A sacque was a loose, informal gown and although Meg's is made of silk, it is not of a stylish cut and is totally inappropriate for a formal evening party.
Poor Meg - even her umbrella is all wrong. Annie Moffat's is made of silk (seems everything had to be silk!) *and* it has a gold top (sounds awful). But at least she has a pair of silk stockings and these, with two new pairs of gloves, she describes touchingly as "my comfort".
Imported French or Italian (or British?) silk must have been difficult and expensive for American women to get hold of during the Civil War - shades of "Gone With the Wind" when Scarlett O'Hara makes a rahter fetching gown out ot the drawing room curtains!
There's a lovely exchange about dress material in Jane Austen's "Northanger Abbey". I'd like to quote it in full because it's so delightful. Catherine Morland has just met Mr. Tilney at the Lower Rooms in Bath:
"They were interrupted by Mrs Allen: - 'My dear Catherine,' said she, 'do take this pin out of my sleeve; I am afraid it has torn a hole already; I shall be quite sorry if it has, for this is a favourite gown, though it cost but nine shillings a yard.'
'That is exactly what I should have guessed it, madam,' said Mr. Tilney looking at the muslin.
'Do you understand muslin, sir?'
'Particularly well; I always buy my own cravats, and I am allowed to be an excellent judge; and my sister has often trusted me in the choice of a gown. I bought one for her the other day, and it was pronounced to be a prodigious bargain by every lady who saw it. I gave but five shillings a yard for it, and a true Indian muslin.'
Mrs. Allen was quite struck by his genius. 'Men commonly take so little notice of these things', said she. 'I can never get Mr. Allen to know one of my gowns from another. You must be a great comfort to your sister, sir.'
'I hope I am, madam.'
'And pray, sir, what do you think of Miss Morland's gown?'
'It is very pretty, madam,' said he, gravely examining it,' but I do not think it will wash well; I am afraid it will fray."
'How can you be so,' said Catherine, laughing, 'be so - ' she had nearly said, strange. "
SST.
'Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 38
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011
Now, do male writers of that period have that sort of detail, I wonder? Did Fielding describe what Sophia wore, or Richardson what Pamela or Clarissa were wearing while they were about to be raped? Or Dickens? He described the rags on the boy in Bleak House - did he say what Lady Dedlock was wearing. Or Nancy?
I think the Anne books by LM Montgomery also talked at times about suitable dress and had Anne despairing of her red hair and how it didn't go with certain colours (mostly pink). I think I remember Aunt Josephine's heavy clothing being described. And Anne's rival Christine, though maybe that was more her face and figure.
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 39
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011
Hi SST
I imagine the Union blockade of the Confederacy led to shortages of silk, but what is absolutely certain is the devastating effect the American Civil War had on the Lancashire Cotton Trade.
Unemployment, privation and near starvation was the lot of many of the workers once the supply of raw cotton was cut off. Despite this, in a gesture which should still be a matter of pride to every Mancunian, a meeting of cotton-workers at the Free Trade Hall decided to send a letter of support to Abraham Lincoln on the basis that slavery was a 'foul blot on civilisation and Christianity'.
They received a reply to their letter, and gifts of food, from the US Government.
TPLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 40
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011
"turned and freshly trimmed" 聽
Another example of poor Meg's valiant attempt to keep up with the Moffats!
The gown would have been unpicked and the pieces turned face inwards so that the fabric looked new. It would be re-made, then new trimmings, perhaps braid or lace, were sewn on in the hope it would look like a new outfit.Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 41
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011
Temperance,
shades of "Gone With the Wind" when Scarlett O'Hara makes a rahter fetching gown out ot the drawing room curtains!聽
Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 42
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 18th June 2011
Temperance
Re English silks they suffered two fold problems.
The people of the Mediterranean lands must have been fully aware of the impact of the smuggling of silk worms out of China had upon the previous and carefuly guarded Chinese secrets about the production of silk. This happened in the last days of the Roman empire, and there was a great effort to preserve the "mysteries" of this trade- that like so many other Medieval trades- were only revealed to those who were sworn into apprenticeships. When the Lomb Brothers brought the secrets of silk-throwing to Derbyshire in the early eighteenth century and set up one of the first water-driven textile mills, the sudden death of either Thomas or John (?) soon afterwards was commonly ascribed to that well known aspect of Italian culture the vendetta/revenge killing because of this industrial espionage.
Politics was also very much in favour of protecting the great wollen staple industry- as it had been for decades.. But politics played into the hands of the Huguenots, many of whose communities were focussed on valleys like the twisting one in the Cevennes that is still studded with castles along its length, and where every town and village still has Mulberry trees and its own craft silk trade. For reasons of Stuart politics anything that promoted the frustration and failure of the policies of the French monarchy and Crown government had popular appeal in England, all the more so when Louis XIV turned to the active policy of genocide against Protestantism and for a Divine Rule by a an absolute monarch backed by the Papacy. The Huguenots were treated as our friends because our enemy had made war upon them.
In a way what Louis XIV did was not totally unlike Idi Amin's decision to get rid of the Ugandan Asian business community, which arrived in GB in the early Seventies with little more than their suitcases and their business acumen. Now they are probably the richest ethnic group in the country. In the same way London- enjoying the rerturn of courtly spending etc with the Restoration- understood that silk was going to mostly be used for frills, trimmings and accessories that would merely enhance the more traditional textiles- and in fact encourage more fashionable spending. And in any case the textile trades in London were well-protected (hence the cotton industry was encouraged to try Lancashire where such protections and regulations were largely absent).
Only with the Lombe Brothers Mill c1709 did the industrial revolution bring the possibility of larger scale silk-cloth production; but the production of the raw material- the Mulberry trees and the worms that needed to be tended- could not be expanded so easily as for example raw wool, or linnen of cotton-wool.
But as far as fashion was concerned, I think that it was very common for English women to buy silk ribbons and trimmings in order to make-over their existing garments for much of the eighteenth century. Even in the court of Versailles I seem to remember it was argued that widows wore black because in those days a dress "was for life"- and the best way of cleaning it of the fleas etc was to have it dyed a darker colour. By the time that you had no husbands to pay for new dresses all the lighter shades of pale had been exhausted and only black would cover up all the previous tints adequately.
CassLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 43
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011
Thank you for the additional info, Cass, but I'm not sure dying clothes black was actually an economical thing to do: it certainly wasn't a cheap option in the 16th century.
Dr Tarnya Cooper, curator of sixteenth-century portraits at the National Portrait Gallery, says this:
"It takes a lot of dye to make a fabric really black. Much cheaper to produce clothes that were fawn or beige or some other light colour. So black clothes in the sixteenth century were nearly always a sign of prosperity."
A black outfit proclaimed you were a reasonably well-off, reasonably respectable and reasonably reliable sort of person. Cooper is actually talking about the sitter in the famous Chandos portrait of Shakespeare. We don't know for certain that the man in the black suit *is* WS, but he certainly looks like WS ought to look - a balding, confident, not unhandsome man, with kind, intelligent eyes and a sensual mouth. The rather rakish gold earring adds a nice balancing bohemian touch.
The peasants had to make do with unbleached, undyed stuffs.
I'm not sure when everyone - whatever his or her class - started to make the financial effort to dress "in mourning" to display grief. Was black as the colour of mourning the prerogative of the middle and upper classes until the 19th century? Was it easier to produce a cheap black dye after the 16th century?Link to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
-
Message 44
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011
Temperance
I think that the information I was referring to applied to the kind of circles that set the tone at Versailles. And, although it may take a lot of dye to make things black, if you start off with fawn or biege and go down through all of the gradations of darkness over 10-12 dyeings, you can probably arrive at black..
But we are talking about the kind of circles in the post-Renaisance world when, like at the court of Elizabeth a court dress was a major investment. I am not sure that it did not cost the ambitious courtier like Raleigh almost as much as a man of war that such people were expected to provide, much as later on they financed Army Regiments. The Elizabethan dress was expected to be bedecked with jewels and precious metals.
As for the mourning of the poor, I think that the points I lifted on to other threads from David Stannard's "The Puritan Way of Death", which was based on traditions in the Puritan colonies in America may well have applied more generally. In this respect he referred to the fact that, when people really lived with a sense of community, the weight of mourning and sense of bereavement was shared by the wider community and thus fell less heavily upon a few individuals who consequently felt obliged to make a very public display of their personal sense of loss.
I think that the black trimmings of later post-cards was probably a hang-over from the habit of wearing something black in societies when sunday suits were still not possible for most people.
In this respect, last Sunday we visited our daughter in the Chilterns and I noticed in the local "Newspaper" a number of entries about an ex inhabitant who had moved away some years ago, and who had just passed away. A coach had taken about fifty people from this little market town down to the South Coast to attend his funeral.
CassLink to this forum: The rise and rise of the historical novel.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.