So let us assume for a moment that we have a peice of evidence that supports the idea that educated, probably mostly humanists, decided that wearing linnen in summer was a good idea and indicates they took up the idea. The letter might go something like this.

Nichola, this TS is the freakin bomb, wearing linnen in the summer when its hot is a freaken cool idea. We need to get ourselves some linnen threads to wear.

Ok so we now have evidence that some educated people took up the idea of wearing linnen in the summer when its hot. So lets say it catches on in some humanist circles and we end up with a couple of hundred humanists running around northern Italy in the summer time in linnen laughing at everyone else because they are wearing wool.

So we have evidence for a select group of people doing it but we still lack any evidence that other people took up the practice. So who do we have evidence of people wearing linnen outer garments.

Italian Humanist: Yes
Average Italian: No
Burgundians: No
Germans: No
French: No
English: No

Atleast on some level everyone on this board is looking to portray some sort of norm from a place and TS does not fullfill those evidentiary requirements alone. Without more evidence I don't think many people here will be convinced.

Ok now I want to take a minute to go away from the topic a little bit and look at what hot is in Europe.

These are the modern average high on the hottest day of the year in the following cities.

Naples 85°F
Seville 96°F
Madrid 91°F
Rome 84°F
Venice 81°F
Florence 88°F
Lyon 81°F
Bern 76°F
Paris 76°F
Brussels 72°F
London 71°F

Brent the English Sumptuary law to which you are referring is almost certainly the 1463 Act of Apparrel of Edward IV. This mentions fustian and it mentions dioublets but not together ...

First Fustian ...

And Moreover, he hath ordained and established, That no Man but such as hath possessions of the yearly value of xl s. [shall wear] in Array for his body, from the said Feast, any Fustian, Bustian, nor Fustian of Naples, scarlet Cloth in Grain, nor no [Furr] but black or white Lamb; all Mayors, Aldermen, Sheiffs, Barons of the Five Ports, Bailiffs of Cities and Boroughs, and other before provided, and their Wives, and the menial servants of Yeomens degree, of Lords, Knights, Esquires, and other Gentlemen having Possessions of the said yearly Value of Forty Pounds except; upon Pain of Forty Shillings to be forfeit to the King for every such Default;

and then doublets ...

And also he hath ordained abd stablished, That no Yeoman, nor none other Person under [the same] Degree, from the said feast of Saint Peter called ad vincula, which shall be in the Year of our Lord M CCCC lxv. shall use nor wear in Array for his Body, and Bolsters nor stuffing of Wool, Cotton, nor Cadas, nor [any] stuffing in his Doublet, but only Lining according to the same; upon Pain to forfeit to the King's Use for every such Default Six Shillings and Eight-pence.

By the 1483 Act Fustian has disappeared. Within the context of this and the changes in northern european trade it seems likely that earlier in the C15th Fustian was a prestige cloth, but by the late C15th - early C16th the increased availability of fustian from Germany appears to have transformed it into a relatively cheap and commonplace fabric ... being a staple cloth for labourers in the C16th.

Although a slight digression from the topic, there is reason in my madness.

When considering the suitability of a fabric for use in a set of clothes there are many factors to be considered, not least the relative worth of the cloth. As the C15th progressed the heavier wools of the old draperies (the English staple broadcloths) began to give way to lighter 'new drapery' cloths from the low countries (Says and Bays).

Social requirements will often outweigh personal convenience.

I'll mull over a few other thoughts when I get a chance and finish reading what else has been said ... however it would be better to quote the references to linen clothing if possible as the context can be enlightening ... there are plenty of inventories where linen and lining are not always obviously one of the other.

Also Jorge ... often gowns are referred to as double or single indicating both lined and unlined. Also Linings could vary according to the part of the garment ... just as today it would not be unusual to have different, often lighter weight, cloth in the arms compared to the body .. a few examples are listed in the Household accounts of Sir John Howard.

I can’t say I follow your process through, as the TS made its way all over Europe; it most certainly wasn't the purview of a select group of humanists in Northern Italy by any stretch! As I recall, even the Manager recommends foods for their “properties”, and the same issues are discussed in John Russell’s book. The point I was making was if people are cooking by the theory, why wouldn’t they try dressing that way as well?

As I said when I started the thread, I don’t believe it is right to make overgowns of linen. I’m fascinated that noone else believes it’s right, noone believes the evidence is there to support the practice, noone would let linen outer garments in their group, yet most of the participants on this thread are supporting my making them for sale. At this point I suppose I’m still in the discussion to find out why this is, not to convince or be convinced that it is historically accurate to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:

I can’t say I follow your process through, as the TS made its way all over Europe; it most certainly wasn't the purview of a select group of humanists in Northern Italy by any stretch! As I recall, even the Manager recommends foods for their “properties”, and the same issues are discussed in John Russell’s book. The point I was making was if people are cooking by the theory, why wouldn’t they try dressing that way as well?

---

Well TS is not the only work that talks about such thing. All of the volumes I could find were produced in Italy or S.Germany(end of the 15th century). But anyways. I'll offer you a better question to ask. Instead of asking if they was wide spread advise about food from such ideas, why does the Manager and John Russel take up the idea of Linnen as outer garments. Instead of focusing on the linnen issue perhaps you should step back and try to understand why certain advise on Humours apears widely, ie food recomendations, but other stuff is found only in a single source, the linnen. And here is another thing to consider. Maybe the advise about linnen in TS did get spread around and it is actually to be found in more sources but the scholarship simply hasn't been done. I'm just discussing it cause I'm a sad, pathetic and lonely person with no life and the subject is somewhat interesting.

quote:

---

As I said when I started the thread, I don’t believe it is right to make overgowns of linen. I’m fascinated that noone else believes it’s right, noone believes the evidence is there to support the practice, noone would let linen outer garments in their group, yet most of the participants on this thread are supporting my making them for sale. At this point I suppose I’m still in the discussion to find out why this is, not to convince or be convinced that it is historically accurate to do so.

---

Because we live in a capitalist society that tells us that if there is a market for a product and you can make money off of it then the product should be made to increase profit. I think we all believe that there is a market, specifically with the SCA for such garments and we believe that you can increase your market and therfore profit by producing linnen garments. Now the logical question would be, why are the lot of us for producing a quasi-historical product for sale to mostly SCAers to increase your profit. Because we as general consumers of your products know that as your market increases you have more money to invest in the developement of new historically accurate products that we might want.

Ha! All the other dithering aside, now I think you're being honest, and I thank you for calling the kettle black!

Fortunately (or unfortunately I suppose) my business isn't all about money; mostly I make things *I* think are cool. Because the Universe seems to like me, lots of other people think they are cool as well and viola', there's a market.

If it was all about the money I'd be making party frocks and pirate pants and raking in the big bucks. As it stands, I allow my conscience and reasonable research to be my guide, and I intentionally don't produce things I don't feel good about, even though there is a high probability people will want them. What kind of screwy business plan is that???

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the input. To quote one of my favorite bands- "what a long strange trip it's been".

As to the cotton undergowns- you're absolutely correct- my offering them but not linen overgowns is rather hypocritical. For the record I don't like the sideless surcoats, either. They are remnants from an earlier time when my standards were different, and I suppose I've just gotten accustomed to them, like bad wallpaper that I'll get around to changing "someday". Oh well, I'm human, see my feet of clay...

Brent, you say I think we would all rather see SCAers in more or less correct linnen garments. It was my understanding the argument was that we didn't care what was worn in SCAville at all. Did I miss something here?

Actually, it's not geographic, it's just the people that I choose to hang out with. I've moved quite a bit, but when I get to a new place, I tend to find the other people who are interested in the same things that I'm interested in. I frequent some mailing lists that are populated, in general, with folks who are more interested in accuracy than the general population. I also host workshops that I have minimum requirements for - if somebody wants on the list, they have to use wool or silk, unless they're allergic.

Then, my auth friends and I go to events, and get a kick out of what we see around us. We won't say anything to anybody's face, but we admittedly have a lot of fun behind our cupped hands!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:

As to the cotton undergowns- you're absolutely correct- my offering them but not linen overgowns is rather hypocritical. For the record I don't like the sideless surcoats, either. They are remnants from an earlier time when my standards were different, and I suppose I've just gotten accustomed to them, like bad wallpaper that I'll get around to changing "someday". Oh well, I'm human, see my feet of clay...

---

If it were me I wouldn't worry about it. I'd just put up a Fabric Page that gave a small blub about the appropriateness of fabrics for different things and let the consumer decide what they want. Most of us on this board have a pretty good idea of what we are suppose to have or our groups have specific rules that tell us what we are suppose to have. I'm betting that some re-enactment groups who aren't as rabid as we are would find it acceptable so its not just the SCAers.

quote:

---

Brent, you say [b]I think we would all rather see SCAers in more or less correct linnen garments. It was my understanding the argument was that we didn't care what was worn in SCAville at all. Did I miss something here?
[/B]

---

We don't care what is worn in SCAville but we have an interest in spotting those in SCAville who might be interested in something more than SCAville has to offer. The easier thier access is to better clothing the easier it will be to spot them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlotte:
Many are also looking for summer clothes, while Grey's, at least, doesn't do midsummer events. SCAdians want "court clothes" for all weather, where if I'm at a midsummer SCA event, there's no way I'm wearing my fur lined gown.

---

The irony is that by going for Linen, when you know it to be inaccurate, you may well be being worse than those who unwittingly wear acrylic.

By that, what I mean is that the choice of linen is clearly an attempt to claim some degree of authenticity, but one which is on the balance of probability and the evidence false.

Personally have no problem with people wearing anything from a false fur loin cloth to cloth of gold ... it's their choice. My concern comes when they then 'claim' that what they have is authentic ... or worse go into a scholl and tell children that it IS authentic.

Gwen, your web site has indicators of historical authenticity ... that in itself is what matters to me. In the new gowns you mention that some of what you have done is summation rather thn knowledge. that's fine.

As this thread shows there is no absolute Yes or No, just shades of musterdevilliers.

To return to Charoltte's quote ... medieval people varied their clothes according to the time of year just as we do (except Geordies on the raz on a Saturdy night ... I'll explain/translate if necessary). Gowns frequently had different linings and part linings, or no linings according not only to class or wealth but requirement .. otherwise all of Edward IV's wardrobe would be lined in the finest cloths and furs ... and it wasn't.

Purfelling was a common practice ... for a summer gown ... make it LOOK like it's fuly lined by the trim ... that's perfectly authentic and an be explained to the public as another point of interest.

Have a light wool gown with fur trim that you're wearing ... maybe lined in the main in 'black lining' ... probably of linen dyed with oak gall) and purfelled as appropriate to your degree. But also have your winter gown fully lined next to you.

Take my word for it a castle can be cold on the hottest day.

That's what I was thinking, but I'm not about to presume to tell Grey's what their standard should be.

In making Jeff's clothes for the July events in Scotland, I'm lining the wool gown with thin silk and trimming it with black fur. I have enough fur to line it completely but [I thought] that would be madness for midsummer events. Still, he's portraying a man wealthy enough to be tournamenting, so I want to embellish at least one of his gowns with fur. I'm also going to try another gown of silk lined with silk to see if I can get that rumpled, fashionably déshabillé look you see in René on some of the Duke Of Brittany's posse. I'll let you know how that turns out.

As for Geordies out on a raz... one of my dearest friends is a Geordie, so I know to a Geordie, every night is Saturday night!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
[b]medieval people varied their clothes according to the time of year just as we do... Gowns frequently had different linings and part linings, or no linings according not only to class or wealth but requirement .. otherwise all of Edward IV's wardrobe would be lined in the finest cloths and furs ... and it wasn't.

That's what I was thinking, but I'm not about to presume to tell Grey's what their standard should be.
[/B]

---

Just so there's no confusion, we don't require that everything is lined or unlined, or lined in linen vs. fur, etc. We request that most outergarments be made of wool (there's still some debate on doublets vs. *arming* doublets), and that if they are lined, it's with an appropriate fabric (so people aren't lining with muslin, poly, etc.)

I probably typo'ed linen and lining at some point...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlotte:
What evidence? As far as I know, there's little to no material evidence for the mid-late 15th century, for England, France, or the low countries. I'd love it if somebody could make a liar out of me...

---

I don't know if this could help since once again it doesn't have to do with the 15th century ;

This is from the papal bull "Supra Montem" which dates from 1289. It's an extract describing the acceptable clothing for the Third Order of St Francis.

"Let the brothers above all of this fraternity, commmonly be dressed in cloth humble in price and color, not utterly white nor black, unless it has been dispensed for a time in some place by means of the Visitators on the counsel of the ministers, on account of a legitimate and manifest reason. Also let the abovesaid brothers have cloaks [chlamydes] and leather clothing [pelles], without low necklines [absque scollaturis], split down the front [scissas] and/or whole, nevertheless clasped or open, as befits honesty, and [with] closed sleeves. Also let the sisters dress in a cloak, and a tunic made from humble cloth of this kind, and/or at least let them have with the cloak a long gown [guarnellum], or a Piacenzean garment [placentinum], white or black in color; or a full cloak [paludellum] made from hemp, or linen, stiched without any ruffling [crispatura]. Concerning the humbleness of the cloth and the leather of the sisters themselves, one can be dispensed in accord with the condition of each, and the custom of the place. Let them not use tight [bindis] or silken bindings [ligaturis sericis], [and] let both the brothers as well as the sisters have nothing fancier than [dumtaxat] lambskins, purses made of hide and shoe-ties, made simply without any silk [serico] and not otherwise, after having put off the other vain ornaments of this age (in accord with the sober counsel of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles)."

It's unclear precisely what a "full cloak" means but it appears to be an outer garment, which is to be made in "hemp or linen". From my understanding of this text, linen would be considered as "humble" and, curiously enough, there's no specific mention of wool for this particular order's clothing.

If anyone wants to check out the full source googling "supra montem" will find it both in English and the original latin.

And the following is from "First Rule of the Third Order" in: Habig, Marion A. (ed), St. Francis of Assisi: Writings and Early Biographies English Omnibus of the Sources for the Life of St. Francis (Franciscan Press, 1983) p169. (from a 14th century manuscript originaly writen in 1221).

It's a near contemporary reference to a linen gown, which appears to be for outerwear, worn specifically as a poor garment. From the section on female dress :

"The sisters in turn shall wear an outer garment and tunic made of the same price [ie same price as the men - not to exceed six Ravenna solidi an ell] and humble quality; or at least they are to have with the outer garment a white or black underwrap or petticoat, or an ample linen gown without gathers, the price of an ell of which is not to exceed twelve Pisa denars."

There's also "The Craftman's Handbook". It's a 15th century Italian "how-to be a painter" book, and there's a section in it that deals with block printing. The text is in Italian. (ie, the translation specifies "linen"... does this mean that children wore decorated linen clothing? Is it really just kids, or would adults also have printed clothes?

Here's a link to the text ; http://www.noteaccess.com/Texts/Cennini/13M.htm

Linen as outerwear is also supported by Romano Brit - finds and descriptions of the Welsh.

The source is Wills and probate inventories from across the UK, Yorkshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Essex, Oxon, Derbyshire and Cheshire. Clothing appears on inventories, due to it's inherent value, normaly as a simple statement and value. But there are inventories and wills where clothing is listed and gifted. Some rough analysis can be made on those clothing mentions that provide details.

The clothing tpes mentioned are Gowns, both male and female, jackets, coats, frocks, cassocks and cloaks, these form the other layer. Hose, stockings, breeches, kirtles, doublets, jerkins, waistcoats and petticoats form the main body of clothing.

Gowns are almost always woollen cloth, frieze and broadcloth are the main materials mentioned. Frequently lined with fur, either budge, coney, fox, or martin or silks such as satin. Outer layer fabrics are all wool, frieze, russet, worsted or very rarely broadcloth. The doublet layer is almost always leather, linen canvas, sackcloth or fustian. There are a few kersay, worsted or sayes woollen cloth doublets and a few silk, damask or velvet doublets. Jerkins are leather, frieze, russet or rarely cloth, which may be broadcloth. Hose is mostly frieze, russet or leather. Breeches are mostly canvas, sackcloth, leather, fustian with a few russet examples. Kirtles appear to be in fustian, worsted, chamlet or some satins.

Thus it appears that for the time frame 1480-1660 the main body clothing, the doublet, is in a lightweight cool fabric or a working fabric that can resist thorns. Over this may be worn a jerkin, either in leather to protect or a warm layer. The outer layer, the coat/jacketlayer is always wool. The Cassock/cloak layer is also wool. Where full leg hose is worn, it's in a wool fabric, where breeches are worn it's again in a working protective fabric or a cool layer.

But thanks for the input anyway!

[ 06-25-2007: Message edited by: DavidEvans ]

I think the above account even though it relates to clergy members is still likely a good hint that this was taking place though by no means definitive for all Europe and all classes of society.

That said I can list several works that lists linen that has been colored though that does not help at all to decide if it can be used for the outer layer-
London Plea and Memoranda
London Letter Books
Bridgehouse rolls (P.464- 8th year of Henry V reign, dyed linen for 19 garments)
Southampton's Black Books
Southampton's Portage Books.

In the memoranda books of London it does list linen bought for the 'uniforms' of a group of soldiers sent out in 1338 that was several hundred ells red and green of color. As well in the Register of Prince Edward he buys white and green linen for soldiers from his Welsh lands. Whereas it does not say how this was to be used it seems unlikely either would be buying uniform colored linen for their undertunics but I suppose it is inside the realm of possibilities.

RPM