|
Author
|
Topic: Piponnier and Mane, hemp, linen, and footnotes
|
Nikki
Member
Member # 27
|
posted 02-07-2002 11:37 PM
    
So, I'm flipping thru a library copy of the English version of Piponnier and Mane's _Dress in the Middle Ages_, and I'm getting confused. There is a fine bibliography, but no references or anything in the text, and I'd really like to know where some of their info is coming from, especially in some cases of seemingly contradictory and/or uncommon claims.frex:
on pg 22, "Coarser linen was used to make the smocks and pinafores worn as protection for the clothes underneath; these were not however very widely used." Not widely used? What? When? Where does this come from? on pg. 40-41, "The shift consisted of a full tunic with sleeves, long for women, shorter for men, usually made of hemp; linen, which was much more expensive, was restricted to a small elite." I'd like to know where this claim of hemp use is coming from, especially given his discussion of the use of linen by peasants a little further on: pg 47: "Labourers wearing loose shifts are frequently depicted. This linen garment was......... " "Charcoal burners, potters, and bakers all worked near sources of heat and many worked in a loose linen shift....." I realize that this book covers all of the middle ages, and the text does not usually note what time period it is addressing, but I'd really like to know where a lot of these claims are coming from. Does the original French version of this book have references or footnotes? I can almost certainly get the french copy from the library, and compare them. But is it worth doing that? Anyone have any experience with this book? There seems to be a lot of information in it, but since I usually can't verify what country or time period is being discussed, and can't verify the less-common claims, I don't know how much use I can really make of it, which is too bad.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
Anne-Marie
Member
Member # 8
|
posted 02-08-2002 02:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nikki:
[B]So, I'm flipping thru a library copy of the English version of Piponnier and Mane's _Dress in the Middle Ages_, and I'm getting confused. There is a fine bibliography, but no references or anything in the text, and I'd really like to know where some of their info is coming from, especially in some cases of seemingly contradictory and/or uncommon claims.
B]
I saw this book at the Louvre in Paris in French. I didnt buy it for exactly the reasons you state...he talks a lot about stuff and makes a lot of claims but none of them are cited or referenced! The pictures in the book were not unique enough to justify its purchase for them alone (ie i could spend the francs on some neat art books and one cool one on medieval furniture instead  ) --AM -------------------- "Let Good Come of It"
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
Gwen
Member
Member # 126
|
posted 02-08-2002 02:52 AM
To quote Month Python-"Run away! Run Away!" I bought the book without looking through it and I might have well just set fire the the $40 or whatever I paid for it. The book is utterly useless as a reference and certainly does not pass any reasonable test of a scholarly work. They might as well print the text large, add line drawings and make it a kid's coloring book. Feh. That's my 2¢ worth! Gwen
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Anna Kovacs
Member
Member # 142
|
posted 02-19-2002 12:48 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
two remarks here.
1. the authors are of the female gender. Both. Please use some of your French knowledge.
2. The book largely covers France and its environs in the Late Middle Ages, hence part of its limitations.
3. Mme Piponnier and Mme Mane are good scholars. Solid scholarship--see some European research periodicals and conference proceedings. That book as far as I can remember was solidly footnoted in the French version.
4. If you disagree with them--as I know there are many folks in academia who do...cite examples in your opinion's support as it's so often said on this board, and as a last resort, try to write to them to their research institute.
But just because one English translation of a book does not have exact footnotes (albeit it has ten pages of solid bibliograpy at the end...) please do not dismiss it as 'useless'. Do you dismiss Viollet-le-Duc for the same reason? We might not like his methods of what he did to some castles in France--but his Dictionnaire is still a treasure for anyone for studying medieval material culture--you just need to use other sources as well.Respectfully, Anna Kovacs -------------------- --Soldiers live. And wonder why--
Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Gwen
Member
Member # 126
|
posted 02-19-2002 01:32 PM
Since we are English speakers here, we can only evaluate this book's English version. If the French version is better it really won't help us.Perhaps someone else on this board has the time to go through the book in question and refute each and every questionable statement with a reference. I don't. Whether through inept translation, poor editing or mishandled compilation, the book is still virtually useless as a scholarly reference. Like Norris, it is probably useful for someone just beginning to do research and who will take a statement such as 'linen, which was much more expensive, was restricted to a small elite' at face value and without question. Most of us here won't, which severely limits the books usefulness. If someone told me they were looking for good reference work, I'd still suggest they spend the money elsewhere. Either that or they could buy my barely-used copy of this book for 50% off what I paid for it, and take it with my caveats. Gwen
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
