I posted this under the ecclesiastical fabrics thread originally. My basic question is how are we supposed to portray the 15th century, and somehow leave out all the class distinctions? My contention is that most LH groups tend to blurr class distinction (in dress specifically), and end up giving the impression that there was some sort of egalitarianisim going on. Gwen addressed this before whith her excellent points on forms of address, to ones social equals, inferiors, and superiors. I think we also need a clear visual distinction between classes - after all, this is what sumptuary laws were all about. Here is the body of my previous post.

Hi All,
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.

------------------
Bob R.

I'm endeavoring to portray "Gaston de Poitou", who in 1362 is squired to one of the knightly retainers of the ruling Lusignan family in Cyprus.

As I see the persona, Gaston is not without some means, but his family holdings have been looted and ruined by the English and he no longer has income from them. Since he is in the retinue of King Pierre I in His tour of Europe to raise a new Crusade, it would be somewhat important to the King and certainly to his knight that he did not look poor or shabby.

I'm thinking that the quantity of Gaston's belongings would no longer be extensive, but what he did own would be of quality.

I think we are reading different parts of the same page. My point was that based on the paintings I had looked at I thought use of historically based brocades would be an okay thing for someone trying to portray upper middle class or a minor noble, until I sat down and considered who was wearing the brocades. When I limited my view to people of an identifiable and historical nature rather than allegorical I found that the perpoderance of fabrics were velvets not brocades. Further from what I could see, the historical figures who were wearing brocades were either high church officials, part of the great families, or close buds with the great nobles (i.e. member of the order of the golden fleece). This seems to jive with your inventory where, if I am reading it correctly, out of eight overgarments listed one is of high quality brocade; for a guy who while still only Sir John was favored by the king and part of his retinue.
(BTW I do not think myself particuarly well read in matters and am apt to change my views based on questions that are asked and any research that I do in response to them.)

For me the consequence is to realize that by chosing to use a brocade I am choosing to portray myself at quite a high station, and that that will affect many of my other decisions for my kit. I don't believe that you can do an effective lower class portrayal with $1/yd fabric, you need to save your pennies and plan to pay $4/yd; similarly I don't belive you can do an effective upper class protrayal on $6/yd brocades, I think you need to save your money look closely at what your persona would have had and splurge on that one special garment with several other nice ones.

I agree that we have a hard time dealing with portraying a highly classed society when we come from one that tries its damndest to blurr all class distinctions. I think it is an important distinction to make but I also think this has to be balanced with the fact that most of our organizations have fewer than 20 members and we still want to play with our friends even if we are portraying different classes. It's not like ACW where there are a mass of guys happy to be privates.

Interestingly enough, a list of cloth puchased and distributed for clothing survives for the Household of Charles the Bold distributed to prepare for a meeting with Emperor Sigismund. Just as you might suspect, everything is neatly detailed down to what types of cloth were used for what social level of servant - down to wool for the grooms.

I think what you see as a brocade is a cloth of gold or silver (as in gold or silver thread woven into a pattern on velvet BTW. Much of the middling layer of servents are dressed in brocade. Now, you will say to me that "AHA, but this is the Household of a Duke! A soveregn of a series of territories in his own right, and as powerful and wealthy as a king."

Of course you are right, but for one small detail. The Burgundian court had an absolute mania for protocol and proper station. It had been this way since the days of John the Fearless, and grew under Philip the Good. Charles the Bold had it regimented to the utmost degree, and ran his household like a military unit (there is an apocraphal contemporary story of him killing a slovenly soldier at a review on the spot). He was no where near as extravagant as his father. In fact, every one of his servants was dressed in the utmost best as appropriate and allowed to their station. Wool for the grooms and menials, brocade for the ecuyers of the pantry, cloth of silver or gold for councilors, etc...

Keep in mind that this is the man labeled by his Dutch subjects during his lifetime as "The Hard Worker", and who sat in on every session of his recievers office, balancing the account books alongside them, and not allowing the accounts closed till he signed off on them himself. His Father partied all night - he worked through it usually. His nature was puritanical, and he was not the man to brook any nonsense.

The Duke of Burgundy would have something like a rich velvet as a work smock. There are listings of clothing owned by various of the Valois dukes, and they consisted of clothing so rich as to make the holy families clothing in those paintings look like a peasants rags. (As an example, how about Philip the Bolds black velvet suit embroidered in silver & gold thread and set with gems estimated to be worth 100,000 crowns)

Just some food for thought.

How would you feel about a gratuitous hatchet job?

IT'S A JOKE!!!! Sometimes these threads get so serious I just feel like sticking my fingers in my ears and making rude noises.

Gwen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
Bob H says [b]"I'd be glad to be constructively corrected."

How would you feel about a gratuitous hatchet job?
Gwen
[/B]

---

Hatchet job? From you? Absolutely, any time!

Haha, you know the reason for my overcautiousness, considering my more familiar environment and the way such a statement would be treated there. Sorry that defensiveness carried over.

I'm feeling more at home here every day, thanks to all of you.