On May 21, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Robin Netherton wrote:
John's paper covered the 15th c. His research on the wool economy
is very
impressive -- he was John Munro's student and spends a lot of time in
primary documents -- and I am inclined to trust his work. However,
I don't
remember this particular mention in his paper, as it was 20 minutes of
very dense detail.
It caught my ear, as we had talked about buckram before, and I asked
him for a copy of the paper, which he very kindly sent me.
That said, another paper I'm editing now includes references from the
Henry VIII inventory that mention quilts lined with "bockerame,"
and in
discussions with the author we determined that the word clearly went
through a number of meanings over several hundred years, given the
uses in
which it occurs. In the 16th c. it appears to have moved from being
a fine
fabric to a coarser or heavier one, and may have encompassed both
those
meanings simultaneously at some point. Most sources we found on
16th c.
fabrics suggested it was linen or maybe cotton or maybe both. That
doesn't
mean the term wasn't used to mean a wool fabric in the 15th! So I
think
the only safe interpretation of a given reference would have to be
closely
focused in locale and time period.
Yes, I must agree. Linthicum lists a reference to buckram being
cotton as early as 1295. (In that context--from the eastern travels
of Marco Polo--it probably was what we would call cotton, though
sometimes the word cotton was used to refer to a woolen fabric in
late medieval western Europe.) She also has a shirt of buckram from
1537, probably linen, and buckram hose for a man in 1522, possibly wool.
I guess my point in mentioning Oldland's reference was cautionary--
that this word had different meanings and shouldn't be assumed as one
thing or another. I should have said that at the time.
Melanie
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
