On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Beth and Bob Matney wrote:
Note the cut of the "sideless surcote" and the minimal headcovering (a ribbon?). On the page 93 detail, note the fur lined cloak and what appears to be buttons down the front bodice (buttons are shown along the sleeves of the GFD underneath in both images). Some form of closure would be required on both, given the high neckline. In both surcotes are what appear to be slits for hands and a full gore set into the front.
Late 13thc (1200s) I think is a bit early for anything that would really be characterized as a GFD (Gothic Fitted Dress). My understanding is that the trend from baggy, roomy tunics toward more closely fitted clothing has really just gotten started at this point, and that the only really close fit is in the lower sleeves (to probably over-generalize wildly). I actually think you can see in the first of the two illustrations that there is quite a bit of roominess still in the shoulders and upper sleeves of the blue garment worn under the red surcoat.
I wear clothing from this century often, so I like to explain that at this time there had begun to be a creeping trend toward a closer fit -- which began at the wrist, but by "my" era (1270s-1290s) it had only progressed as far as the elbow!
I then go on to summarize (humorously) Robin Netherton's theory of the evolution of the GFD by explaining that the "sinister" trend toward a closer fit* started at the wrist, crept up the arm, and then overtook the armhole (thus making a closer fit across the shoulders possible -- while still allowing you to move your arms). In the next stage, a front opening with lacing was invented, which allows you to closely fit the rest of the torso down to the waist and hips, while still letting you get into and out of the dress (since you don't have to pull it on over your head any more!)
My own inclination is to start describing it as a Gothic Fitted Dress only when it gets to the point of closely fitting through the torso -- because that's where you start to see the interesting way the gown shapes and supports the body, which loose tunics certainly never did.
(*Granted, it's only a "sinister" trend if you follow the lead of some churchmen of the time and decry closely fitted clothing as too revealing and sinful!)
____________________________________________________________ O Chris Laning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
