Lies-To-Costumers*

Rather an aggressive title, isn't it? There are a great many myths, mythconceptions, minor mistakes, egregious mistakes, and out and out lies perpetuated amongst costumers. I mean, it's not like the kind of mean spirited lie that happens when you assure the woman you don't really like that yes, she would looks *smashing* if she wore an electric blue latex mini dress to her 25th high school reunion (not that I've actually done that, mind you), or where you spread a rumor around the office about someone who got the raise that you feel you deserve (I'm going to hell, aren't I?), or anything like that. Mostly, it's more like the kind of lie told by a woman I know who's been 29 for three years, or a chemistry teacher I knew who always gave his weight converted to Celsius, or telling a child that cookies after dinner will make their teeth fall out. I mean, it's mostly harmless, right? Sometimes the best of motives are behind these things. Some of the little lies out there are told to simplify the whole process of costuming, to make it easier for beginners to feel confident in their skills. So what's the problem?

Well, actually, there's a bunch of problems. The most obvious of these is that we're trying to recreate period looking gowns, but we're ending up doing it on faulty information. The little white lies that made it easier to get into costuming without it being all so overwhelming, in the long run, will keep you from attaining the goals you strive for. (Well, it will if you're me, and then you'll get really annoyed about the whole thing, and take three go's at starting this article before it comes out even vaguely constructive. Hrmph.) I also see a lot of flame wars on costuming newsgroups (and, occasionally, in person) that boil down to "my costuming myth is better than your costuming myth so nyah". It's not pretty. There's a bunch of other problems, I'm sure, those are just the two I'm focused on right now. So, here's my little list of myths, lies, and misconceptions, and any information I have on what a more accurate take on the matter would be. Read at your own risk. If you feel that I've missed couple (I'm sure I have, and I haven't even started writing yet!), please drop me a note and I will endeavor to research the point and include it. The author claims no responsibility for opinions or beliefs damaged or mangled inside this article.

Myth: Elizabethan skirts are cut cut from straight panels/ not gored/rectangular before pleating No. The skirt patterns shown in Alcega's pattern layout book and in the women's section of the Milanese Tailor's Handbook predominantly show at least slight gores, or the addition of triangular gore panels. The dresses studied in Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion are all gored in some fashion, with the exception of a petticoat from the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth which may have been adapted for use with a french or wheel farthingale. Additionally, portrait evidence seems to show that the skirt is fitted evenly over any undersupport (ie, farthingale or petticoats), and that the bottom is at least as full as the top. This is not to say that skirts were never cut on the straight. But available evidence suggests that they were frequently gored.

Myth: Spring Steel is the One True Boning(tm). Nothing else can work, especially not on larger women. Yeah, and I'm a tiny delicate flower. I don't own a corset (or any other garment) boned with steel. I use cable ties, and recently, I've been going through a lot of hemp cord. Copious examples of the effectiveness of non-steel boning can be found in my photo gallery for cable tie boning and here or here (in depth) for hemp cording. I do sew for other people, of various sizes. I've used cable ties quite successfully with very large women who swore that only steel would work. (I've also done alterations for a couple and found, amazingly, that the 'steel boned bodice' that the swore by used cable ties, so this is apparently an older trick than I realized!) Incidentally, spring steel is not a period boning material. Honest. (I know, cable ties aren't either. I'm short on spare whales.)

Myth: You must wear a boned farthingale and padded bum roll under all Elizabethan Noble or Middle Class costumes. Not so much, as it turns out. This depends a lot on how you made your skirts and petticoats. A good corded petticoat will keep skirts at a perfectly acceptable drape for middle class dresses, which were generally depicted as being of a more modest diameter. Also, adding some kind of stiffening to the bottom hem of a skirt (as seen at the bottom of this page or here) will hold a skirt out enough that it appears to be supported from underneath or made of a much stiffer fabric. Patterns of Fashion covers several dresses that have strips of heavy linen or felt around the bottom to provide some stiffness to the hem. The heavily embroidered guards and stiff cordings used in period would probably also have aided this effect. Additionally, some areas (notably, the italies and germany) never seen to have caught on to the farthingale thing. Now, I am not in any way, shape, or form saying that you don't ever need to wear a farthingale. I'm just saying that it's no a de facto matter of necessity. As far as hip pads and bum rolls, I've found recently that padded pleats (seen here and, more modestly, here) work admirably to give the same effect. For far more scholarly information on the historical accuracy (or dubious nature thereof), you should check out Sarah's article on the topic.

Myth: If you do not make your chemise/shirt out of pure, 100% linen, you will die. The ground will open up and swallow you, and all the damned will mock you for your obvious lack of knowledge when you get to hell. No. Goodness. I was actually told that once (although, not so creatively). Make the costume out of what you can afford, and that includes the chemise/shift. Sure, linen makes better little neck and wrist ruffles than some other fabric, but I rather like cotton chemises. The nicest, comfiest, most durable one I have is made of fine weight wool, and I love it dearly (and have loved it to pieces). No matter who tells you what, I am unaware of any costuming mistake that will actually send you to hell.

Italien women never wore corsets or anything stiffened or boned enough to be corset like. No. Not unless large women were just a lot less lumpy back then, but reubens' work would rather indicate to the contrary. Sorry, I'm on the small side of italien girl (yes, I am part italien. While we're at myths, here's another one: I am aware that the rest of you spell italien with an 'a'. It is not necessary for any other living soul to mail me and tell me that I don't know how to spell. I already *know* that I'm a phonetic spellist at best. I will not spell check the site. Can't make me. I refuse. *pthribt* (Note: I just spell checked the site a little less than a year after writing this. And I added 'italien' to my mac's dictionary. ;) )), and I'm significantly lumpier than the larger side of italien women seen in those portraits. Trust me here. Artistic licence only goes so far. If the norm of the time was for people to walk around all flopsy and lumpy (ala the "more romantic" eras), then that would have been the ideal of beauty at the time and they would not have painted something else. Never underestimate the power of vanity.

Myth: Pink is not period.(Sent in by Sarah)
Oh yeah? This is one of those things that makes me wonder how someone can make such a statement in the face of millions of pieces of artwork done prior to 1600 that completely suggest otherwise. Go look at anything by any Italian artist working from 1400-onward. Lots and lots and lots of pink garments, on real people and allegorical people. I think this myth was one of those things that started out with Ren Faire and just blossomed into one of the most outrageous myths to ever get repeated (right up there with "They didn't have buttons in the middle ages"). My guess is that it began with the classic ren faire problem of how to let the patrons easily identify who is who (those who are unfamiliar with renaissance faires/festivals must remember that it's not about "living history" but about breaking history down into easily digestible, bite-sized, candy-coated tidbits, and it is essentially live theater. The emphasis on costume as an identifying element is such that your average Joe can walk into a faire off the street without a clue and be able to understand who the King/Queen is and all the various levels of society in between). A classic ren faire-ism is "the Nobility wears dark colors" and pink ain't all that dark.

Myth: Only the Queen was allowed to wear purple.(Sent in by Sarah)
This is another classic "ren faire-ism" which again stems from the need to provide visible differences between classes and characters portrayed at faire. However, this is somewhat based in fact, although it's not ever well defined. *Some* shades of purple were "reserved" for the Queen's privilege, the most important being the color that was obtained from a prohibitively expensive dye called kermes, which had been renown since Roman times. It's made from squishing the dried egg cases of the female Kermes insect. It was a pricey dye, even in that time, and the color was extremely fugitive and that meant it took loads of the stuff to keep a purple garment purple for any length of time. It's not so much that people other than the King/Queen weren't allowed to wear purple garments, it's that it took a whole lot of money and usually the only person with that kind of cash was the ruler. Sumptuary laws were issued that regulated the use of purple, but if you had enough money, you could always buy your way out. The caveat pertains to people portraying characters at a faire that might be reading this and thinking "Hey, I'm going to challenge the head costumer on that!". Don't. You won't win. It is notoriously difficult to change the mind of the costume department at any faire... No amount of research will convince them that you should be allowed to wear something they say you shouldn't. Again, it's all because you are expected to give a set of visual cues to your audience (the patrons) so they will be able to say to themselves "Ah, this is a peasant/merchant/noble/royalty we're looking at because of the way they're dressed."

Myth: Allegorical paintings are useless for costume study.(Sent in by Sarah)
This one drives me up a wall. I'll concede that, yes, *some* allegorical paintings are unreliable costume sources, particularly ones that depict set biblical or mythological scenes, such as "The Deposition from the Cross" or Botticelli's"Venus and Mars" (even though both the people shown in the painting were real human beings painted as the mythological characters). However, if you notice that there's a couple of people hanging around the picture that don't look like they belong, you've got what is known as a "donor portrait" and these are as good a source as any for costume study. Donor portraits were extremely popular from roughly 1400-1500, before the beginning of the Reformation in particular. For a great deal of time it was one of the only ways to have your picture painted if you weren't a Medici or king of something. And donor portraits are always painted with the donor (or donors) in their personal clothing. A terrific example of a donor portrait is the "Portnari Altarpiece" which has several styles of Flemish clothing to study. So when people say that allegorical paintings are useless, you might do yourself a world of good to sit down with a good art history book and see for yourself how "useless" they really are.

Myth: Cotton is not period.
I've heard people say this, and it's rather disturbing. Yes, cotton is period. No, cotton was *not* discovered in ye olde new worlde. It's been growing in egypt and india for a terrifyingly long time. Cotton as a cloth was used by itself and with other fibers, and cotton wadding and cotton bombast were used as padding and stuffing in slops, peascods, rolls, and other bits that required padding and stuffing. There are even descriptions of cotton plants growing in india from period - something about a plant that grows lambs upon it's branches, which bend down to the ground so the lambs can graze. (History is so often stranger than anything I could make up on my own.)

Myth: "It's ok, no one will see your shoes."
Yes, they will. Honest. *You* can't see your shows when you're wearing hoops, but that doesn't mean that no one else ever will. Just get something vaguely slipper looking with a thin sole if you can't get/aren't going to shell out for period reproduction shoes (and I certainly don't blame you if you don't want to - they're expensive, hard to get, and they look deucedly uncomfortable), and remember that clog lookin' things actually are period for middle and lower classes. (Well, ok, they'd have probably been worn over your nice indoor slippers, but that's not my point here.)

Myth: Pfaltzgraffina Dorothea Von Sabine's corset is a surviving example of pre-1600 Elizabethan corsetry and that's how all tudor to mid-reign corsets should be made.
The corset in question is from 1598, which is spitting distance from 1600. Now, I'm not saying that that's *not* now pre-1600 corsets were made. I'm saying that we cannot, definitively, say that it is. Even if the corset dated to 1557 or something, it's existence would not mean that *all* elizabethan corsets were made that way. Incidentally, "pfaltzgraffina" is hardly an english title.... We're dealing with a corset of germanic persuasion.

More coming as I have time....

* The title is taken in spirit from "The Science of Discworld" (Pratchet, Stewart, Cohen -- surprisingly, it's more about science than fiction, and even more about how we learn science like things - great read if you have a sneaking suspicion that you missed something very important in physics and chemistry). One of the things the authors discuss is that, as children, we're taught an overly simplified view of science, most of which is technically wrong but accurate enough to seem plausible, and from which we are able to understand things well enough to understand the real answers when we get to them in, say, college, assuming that science has come up with a better answer by then. They call this system of well intentioned miseducation "lies-to-children", and compare it to "lies-to-parents" and "lies-to-bosses" (which we probably all understand without explanation, I think, but if you don't, carefully consider your answer to the question, "So, where were you on friday when I thought you were home sick?").