I can be more specific if you like tomorrow, but I have to relinquish the computer now- houseguests want to go to bed!

Two positive observations that I have made about brocades is that big patterns do not seem to be uncommon and that the medieval asthetic was not particuarly concerned with making sure a pattern was centered on a particular object. Examples of large patterns include: the cloth drape behind the virgin in van der Weyden's Virgin and St Luke (Bruges), the pattern is about the size of her head; Barbara van Vlanderbergh's dress in the Moreel triptych (Memling), there are less that two repeats in the skirt; and the emperor figure on the right panel of the Triptych with the Martyrdom of Saint Hippolyus (Bouts/van der Goes), there appears to be about 3 repeats in a shoulder to ankle garment. Examples of off center usage can be found in the emperor's garment where one of the pommegranates is unevenly bisected a t-shaped collar; St Barbara's dress in the Moreel triptych which is significantly off center; and the MOL pouches which randomly chop off patterns. (okay, so I do have one book with me on this trip... :-))

If I remember correctly though you are interested in 14th century, which is much harder to document appropriate patterns for because of the nature of the art. Still I can't remember patterns involving crosses while I can picture lots of ones with pomegranates, lions, griffins, five petaled flowers, etc.

Brocades are a difficult topic... IMHO it's diffcult to find appropriate ones manufactured today. There are plenty of people depicted in plain fabrics too, even donors. Is there are particular project you are looking to use this brocade for?

Talk about a lavish use of brocade, sigh... And it was probably all silk, sigh...

Ummmm.. this is a procession of *kings*. Kings who are welcoming the Christ Child. It looks like the circus has come to town, with the leopards, etc.

The religious dude with them is riding a donkey, and his clothes are pretty plain.

The soldiers may be soldiers, but it looks more like they are the king's body guards, and they're probably wearing livery that the king gave them. A king doesn't want his lackeys looking bad, makes him look like he can't dress them properly. Lackeys should property reflect their employer's status.

None of these brocades look "ecclesiastical" to me. Symetrical, yes, but not like the eclessiastical brocades. (Note: most eclesiastical brocades follow an antique Byzantine sort of form which is usually out of step with current designs-- unless you're a Byzantine)

Looks like the "average guys" like the falconer and archer are not wearing these rich fabrics.

My opinion is that Bob may be able to get away with a rich brocade if he's in the retinue of a king who is doing the tourney circuit. He'd want his lackeys to look good!

I don't know what your portrayal is Alastair, so I can't comment.

Do you guys know about the Fishbach fabric design book?

One other thing (just another quick reference to brocades), in Geertgen's "The Holy Kinship"(1470), note the lady in the foreground seated to the right, she is wearing a lovely brocade skirt/dress. http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/geertgen/index.html
To the best guess of my untrained eye, she does not appear to be of upper nobility (other than quality of clothing). Any comments/corrections?

Lessee...We've got Mary's mom Ann and dad Joachim to the far left, then Mary, Joseph and Jesus next to them. Don't know my biblical lineage well enough to know who the woman in the front right is, but she's doubtless related somehow. This *is* the "Holy Kinship", so I guess it's a matter of debate as to whether being related to Jesus makes the woman in question non-noble.......

You say "she does not appear to be of upper nobility (other than quality of clothing)". Since you don't know this woman, can't talk to her and the painting has no particular caption, the artist is using quality of clothing as one of the distinguishing characteristics of social class. If we were discussing sumptuary laws and how they were applied day to day, I'd say there would be plenty of arguments for and against a blurring of the line between clothing wearing and social class. However in this case the artist uses costume to visually define and reinforce class.

The brocade in question is probably one of those glorious and hugely expensive silk velvets imported from Italy, probably woven in Lucca or some North Italian place; it would be more middle eastern looking if it came from Sicily. Note the HUGE scale of the pattern which is something Mitake pointed out. Quite glorious, and as I say- very, very expensive in its day.

JK, you're the man with the art degree so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Alasdair, here's some things to watch for when looking at these religious paintings:

• Devotional and/or religious subject paintings like the one you cite constitute a significant portion of the artwork for this period. The late 14th & early 15th period sees the rise of secular painting to compete with religious painting. Realize that artists were getting all woobly about capturing and depicting contemporary scenes on canvas, and the Church was coming down on them with an iron fist saying that the only good painting was a painting that depicted some religious scene. Artists skirted the fine edge of the Church's wrath by putting nominally religious subject paintings in contemporary (and unbelievably photorealistic) settings. The Church couldn't object too much because the painting was a Madonna, and the artist served his purpose by painting her in a contemporary setting. While contemporaries understood this premise, it can create confusion for the modern viewer, unless you know what to look for.

• The folks in the middle of these paintings (let's call them the Subject) are usually Mary, Jesus, Saints, et al. You can identify Mary as she's the one with the long flowing hair and baby in her lap. She's also invariably wearing blue, and irises, lilies, a book of hours, a rosary, a small dog and other things show up to reinforce who she is to the viewer.

• There may be saints around Mary, and they can usually be identified by the symbols that surround them- St. Catherine usually is carrying or appears next to a wheel; St. Barbara usually appears in front of a tower, or carries a tower and/or flame of some sort in her hand, Mary Magdalene usually appears with uncovered head and weeping wildly. There may be others, but these are the Big Three™. The costumes of the subject are usually not historically correct, as they want to evoke "a long ago time in a faraway land". Fabrics may be correct, and so may certain details, but usually you can't depend on anything these people are wearing to be accurate for the time depicted. Usually their clothing is at least 50-100 years out of date.

• The less important characters in the painting appear behind and in the background, and their clothing is often correct to the date. The more paintings you look at, the more you'll be able to reliably determine who is dressed correct for the period and who is not.
  

IMHO, a brocade such as the one in the painting would only be worn by someone with big bucks, or who works for someone with big bucks.

If you are interested in learning more, I'd recomend reading the chapter on interpreting painings in Elizabeth Birari's book. I'm not wild about the rest of the book, but that one chapter was a revelation for me in understanding art. I think it will open your eyes to what to look for in paintings.

Iconography in art is an entire field of study. I can't recomend any of the books on that that I've waded through (Baxandal, Panofsky) because they made my brain hurt... However, I'll post the info on the Birbari and Fishbach books when I get to my shop.

Please realize that I'm not the resident art expert, so I'm asking those that are to correct *me* when I'm wrong. We all have things to learn!

Gwen

Of course, the use of was lavish. The Medici family had the Procession of the Magi turned into a family portrait! And I'll still bet it's all silk brocade. That stuff is truly amazing. A friend of mine got to go to a weaver's in Florence where they still made silk brocade in the original Renaissance patterns. The selections they showed her started at $1000 per yard. She said it was amazing--it was crisp but still flowed in the hand. Sigh...I just want to touch a piece. At least I've had my hands on real silk velvet.

What does fascinate me are Lorenzo's legs. Is that some type of a guard he's wearing to protect his hose? Is it a flap to facilitate getting them on? Is it a boot flap? Either way, there's some type of gold decoration (couch work? embriodery? trim? gilded leather?) Any ideas?

My 2c as a costume historian...anyone else with a better eyesight?

Take care,
Anna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
Gwen sez (oh, no, not again.... )

Lessee...We've got Mary's mom Ann and dad Joachim to the far left, then Mary, Joseph and Jesus next to them. Don't know my biblical lineage well enough to know who the woman in the front right is, but she's doubtless related somehow. This *is* the "Holy Kinship", so I guess it's a matter of debate as to whether being related to Jesus makes the woman in question non-noble

Gwen

---

It's probably a safe wager that the woman pictured there is St. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist....but I don't know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenna:
What does fascinate me are Lorenzo's legs. Is that some type of a guard he's wearing to protect his hose? Is it a flap to facilitate getting them on? Is it a boot flap? Either way, there's some type of gold decoration (couch work? embriodery? trim? gilded leather?) Any ideas?

---

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, I'm assuming the red hose and leg guard on the fellow in this detail http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/b/benozzo/magi_d3.jpg

Another suggestion that has been put forward is armour that co-ordinates and blends in with one's outfit. The modern equivalent would be ceramic plates inserted into an expensive peice of clothing so that some famous person could have bullet protection and still look stylish. The clearest example of this that I am aware of is in Mantua at the ducal palace of the Gonzagas. This isn't a very good picture (i'll try to post a better one this evening) http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/m/mantegna/2/sposi01.jpg . But the guys to look at are the ones in the center panel. It seems pretty evident that the guy in the white hose is wearing cased greaves and that the little boy is wearing a breast plate under his doublet. In a presentation at the Wallace Collection Armour Study Day a couple of years ago Christopher Dobson mentioned several inventories that suggest the presence of such camoflaged armours in the possession of the great Italian families. I don't know that he has found a place to publish his findings but would be interested to see them if he has.

In the case of this guy it could be suggested that the shape of his over garment is generated by a breastplate and fauld combination. The combination of a shin bauld without any upper leg protection is quite a bit wierd but then again the guy in Mantua doesn't seem to have upper leg protection either.

Mitake.

Anyway on the way home I started trying to think about a way to quantify how much of the minor nobility and rich merchant class would wear these brocades. While looking for my Mantua pictures I spotted From Van Eyck to Bruegel on the bookshelf and remembered that a substantial potion of the show was about portraiture. So I hauled it out. The section on portraiture contains about 30 separate paintings from the 1425 to 1569. These are either details of donors from larger works or are portraits in and of themselves. It's a small sample but it's of people who existed contemporary to the painter and are decked out in the finest clothes they could afford.

The majority of the clothing depicted appears to be either wool or velvet, often fur lined but very little in the way of brocade. There were four instances of brocade on donors: the lady customer in Petrus Cristus' Saint Eligius (1449), the cope of the Abbot of Anchin (1509-13) also prominent in the portrait is a bishop's miter, and the sleeves on a pair of portraits by Quentin Massys (1520) the gentleman in this portrait is wearing a collar with a golden fleece pendant.

Based on this albeit small sample, I would venture that the use of fancy brocades is a mark of high nobility. The people in these portraits were minor nobility and rich middle class. The kinds of people who today can afford $2000 suits from Brooks Brothers or $200 blouses from Saks fifth avenue. The ones with brocades were the level who can afford to drop $15-30K on a couture suit. The implication of putting brocades on Mary was that she is the queen of heaven.

I know it's a guard of some kind, I'd be wearing one too. (Heck, I wear half chaps now when I ride to protect my legs from my undecorated stirrup leathers. They can PINCH, LOL.)

I just wanted to know what kind of guard it was. Greaves, reinforced boot flaps, (Renaissance half chaps ) what have you. I don't think I ever noticed it before--I've usually been way too busy studying the caparisons. I'm going to make one like that one day--when I win the lottory! (If you're going to dream, dream big!)

What are they and what is the decoration on them. Trim, gilt, etc. I wonder if we'll ever know?

That being said, this poses a problem for reenactors, especially our SCA friends. I know from experience that the SCA loves brocade. So our poor guy makes a great robe made out of a rich red wool trimmed in fur just like the ones in the paintings, and when he gets to the event all of his buddies wonder why he's wearing such "plain" clothing, or someone asks him why he bothered to use fur on such plain fabric.

I know this can happen because I just finished up a 15th C. woman's overgown for an SCA client who insisted that the body fabric be brocade and the sleeves velvet because the fabrics in the paintings were too "plain". It's a great dress made with the brocade, but it's not historically correct.

Interesting tangental story- Jeff has a pleated coat like Bob's, but made out of a dark maroon velvet. He wore it to a reenactment with his chaperone and fancy rondel knife, spurs and the whole ball of wax. Turns out a guy who participates with the White Company was there, and he gave Jeff good natured grief all night, calling him "Lord" this and "Master" that. When Jeff finally said something to him, the fellow said "Well look at your fine coat made of velvet, and your knife and everything- you wouldn't be anything less than a lord, would you?" The point was that even though there were people there in brocade, Jeff was the one wearing velvet and high quality accessories, therefore he must be the highest ranking person in the room. A very interesting moment, one that made me really *think*.

Anyway, I agree with Mitake, but would understand completely why someone might want to go with the less historically correct decision, depending on circumstances.

Gwen, I really like your story about Jeff and the velvet. People and perceptions are funny things. I think for me the greatest result of this conversation is that it has made me really look at who was wearing what, and think about how I want to apply that to my impression.

(BTW, I know it has been written that this Magus is Lorenzo de Medici, but I've never bought this. Three generations of Medici (Including the young Lorenzo and Giuliano) are portrayed in the same fresco over to the right, in the cavalcade, and their portraits are well-observed and individualized. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the magus is also an idealized version of Lorenzo - it is a very generalized, idealized youthful person (I just checked and Diane Ahl is of the same opinion in her recent book on Gozzoli, pg 95).)

In regards to the Mantegna fresco: I believe the duke (In Gray) is wearing a breastplate as well as greaves. I'm not so sure about the children. You can see the bottom flange of the duke's breastplate just below the waist (he's not wearing tassets), but the childrens' doublets don't show this. I know of other examples in Italian art of men wearing greaves without upper leg armor. There are a number in Carpaccio's St. Ursula cycle in Venice. Most seem to be men at arms but some look like fashionable layabouts trying to look tough. Given our discussion about riding protection, I might propose that the duke in Mantegna's picture is wearing greaves in part for this reason -he is wearing spurs, and his horse, dogs and attendants are in an adjacent panel. The use of greaves as riding leggings reminds me of the hardened leather leggings used by ridiers earlier in this century - Army cavalry used them, and they still turn up as surplus.

Anna, I don't think I can entirely agree with your conclusions. The paintings we are referencing are donors portraits for the most part. They are shown in attitudes of reverence towards Saints and members of the Holy family - the center of attention being those saints. Perhaps it is a convention to not outshine the object of reverence? Would it not be 'les Majestie' to be better dressed than the saints in what are essentially portable altar pieces? Perhaps it is a convention of piety - we can never examine such evidence outside of the social mores of the society that created them.

How do you compare these portraits with inventories that are most assuredly at odds with the pictures you have referenced? As an example, here is Dave Keys post on what a gentleman might bring on campaign. The reference is to the Howard household books, and the campaign is specificaly a naval venture undertaken against the Scots in 1482 I believe. Here is the list of the clothing in specific.

Item, vij peir hosen
Item, a long gown of blak satin, lyned with purpil velwet
Item, ij. dobletz of cremesyn satin
Item, a doblet, popegay colour
Item, a mantelyn of blewe velwet
Item, a schorte gown tany velwet
Item, a jaket of cloth of golde
Item, a jaket for the child, Tousain
Item, ij. peir schone for caltroppes
Item, a peir arming schone
Item, ij. peir new slippers
Item, iij. peir other schone
Item, a piec of xxxvij. elnes for tabul cloth
Item, ij. newe tabul clothes for my Lord
Item, iij. coarser tabul cloth
Item, iij. coarser toayles
Item, a long gowne, russet, forred with leopardes.

He is still Sir John at this time - not the Duke of Norfolk.

Gwen, why should Jeffrey be taken aback at the reference to being a lord. He portrays Sir Tristan Keck, does he not? A captain of a Mercenary company? He represents a succesful man at arms and Gentleman of some standing in his profession.

I think that there is a definite problem with our portrayals, and it is not that we are all dressed too well. The problem I percieve is that there is a blurring of class in the portrayal of a very class concious society. We as a rule do not show these class differences.

There should be a distinct visual difference (to give the civilain and 'military' equivilants side by side) between a semi-skilled labourer/pikeman, a middling to prosperous artisan/mounted archer, and a gentleman. Any man serving as a man at arms doing 'knight service' a-horseback with a full harness should quality as the latter - even if he is on the bottom rung of the second estate.

People were expected to live up to their income, and to show their station - not be frugal. My answer to the ribbing would have been on the order of "and ye should shew proper manners to thy betters - churl". I don't think it would be out of line for a Knight to treat an uppity lesser in such a fashion, even if it goes against all modern convention. I guess the point is Jeff is portraying a 'lord', or someone who would be addressed as 'my lord' by someone who was not of the second estate.

The problem swings the other way too. In most Medivalesque or Medivally themed social orginizations, one sees people playing at being Barons, Dukes, Princes, Queens, Contessas, Empresses, and they are dressed like shlubs. I think the best that a re-enactor could comfortably and reasonably realistically portray is a gentleman, and then there will still be some compression in the scale of things, such as menial servants (we generally don't have any, although there are retinues), less horses than we would have normally - but I still think a reasonable impression of a gentleman can (and should - otherwise viewers and participants will never grasp the concept of a classed society) be given. Right now I would be hard pressed to pull off Sir John Howard unless I were to double my salary (not inconcievable, and definately still not be wealthy), but I can reasonably portray someone from the same class, but a few rungs down the ladder. I could never 'reasonably' portray any great lord, from a baron on up however..

I'm cross posting this as a seperate topic, as I think it needs to be adressed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
That being said, this poses a problem for reenactors, especially our SCA friends. I know from experience that the SCA loves brocade. So our poor guy makes a great robe made out of a rich red wool trimmed in fur just like the ones in the paintings, and when he gets to the event all of his buddies wonder why he's wearing such "plain" clothing, or someone asks him why he bothered to use fur on such plain fabric.

---

Since I can't afford silk velvet, what would be a good velvet for a cotehardie? Would a nice all-cotton velour be similar to medieval velvet? I'm afraid I'll have to satisfice on this one, the car I drive didn't even cost $1,000 a yard....8o)