Well, I started out with the idea to write a book about Elizabeth Charlotte LaPorte, the daughter of John and granddaughter of Bartholomew, one of the founders of Azilum. She is the first character introduced, and she will be a major player in the book and its story. But the bulk of the first several chapters, at least--I'm on chapter nine, at 13,400 words right now--is all about Bartholomew!
He's a pretty fascinating guy, and I am imagining a lot about his character and personality since those types of details are few and far between. But because he was associated with Omer Talon in the founding of Azilum, and got to know Morris, Nicholson and a bunch of others who were involved in the land purchase for the location of the town, I've had to do quite a bit of research.
And I'm still learning. The other day I was looking at ship's logs from that era to get a feel for what a transAtlantic crossing would have been like in 1792-3. Then I had to learn all about early Philadelphia, including where some houses were, like Morris' house that was actually the President's Residence during this time! Today I was researching canals.
It was an interesting time full of interesting people with grand ideas. Some, like the men who invested in what would become Azilum, had money, or could borrow money. These are the people who took chances on things like the French Town and on canals and later, railroads. The chances some times turned out. And some times they didn't.
Which ties in neatly to the story of Elizabeth and her husband...later.
Saturday, 29 October 2016
Thursday, 8 September 2016
Period Garb and The Little Ice Age
Happy September!
I was musing this morning about the fact that in today's world, we who dress in period garb often mutter amongst ourselves about how warm the layers of clothing can be during the warmer months.
Even if one wears all natural fibers, which breathe and are actually cooler, just as they did 200 or 300 years ago, the padding and petticoats required to get the right shape and silhouette, or sometimes just the layers needed with some more diaphanous or light colored dresses from the Regency period, can really make it warm.
There may be a couple of reasons for this. First, we may be wearing modern clothing of centuries past, but we are still modern women. Likelier than not, we are rushing around at the pace we keep when wearing shorts and t shirts, despite our period garb, and so we get quite warm, quite quickly. Efforts to slow down may work for a short while, but overall we resume or usual pace and heat up again.
Did women in centuries past move more slowly? Possibly. Did they have servants to do things for them so they actually led lives of more leisure than we do today? Possibly, at least the 'better' classes, as they termed it then. Was perspiring and its attendant issues like stained and smelly clothing all less important than it is today? Certainly: sensibilities for that type of thing were quite different. Expectations were different and what people smelled like--even when clean--was also different. In fact, the smell of good clean sweat was thought by some to be attractive...but that's the subject for another posting!
As for moving more slowly and leading a more leisurely life, I do not know for certain, but I suspect it is partially true, at least. Think about it: you get dressed in the early morning: it's still fairly cool, especially inside a thick-walled stone house. Whether or not you have a maid to dress you, you arrive at breakfast quite fresh. After breakfast, perhaps you go cut some flowers for the house. A pleasant task and you do not need to exert a great amount of effort or energy. Your lip may perspire a bit, or your brow, but you likely wouldn't be soaking wet.
Afterwards, maybe you sew or embroider or play the piano--inside, or for the first two pastimes, outside if there is shade and a breeze. You might also read. Again, not sweaty activities. If visitors come in the afternoon, you sit and talk, probably inside. Ground floor rooms are probably fairly cool, but hand fans might be employed if it is warm or humid. If you have hot tea, that actually helps you feel cooler. Eating will also draw blood flow to your stomach, making the rest of you feel slightly cooler. And chatting is normally not an activity requiring great physical exertion.
So you've made it to dinner time without too much perspiring. Once the meal is over, evening pursuits are probably not much more strenuous than those of earlier in the day. Then it's time for bed, and the day is over.
The one thing I think would certainly produce an uncomfortably sweaty situation is a dance in summer time. I don't care if you only have a single layer--scandalous! no petticoat???--and if you are doing the most stately of gavottes: you get all those people together in a room, it'll be warm. And movement, no matter how stately, is movement. You're going to perspire.
So did women in, say, Georgian or Regency times, or even in the Victorian Era, perspire when they went to dances? I think they did, at least if the dance were in summer time, when it would be warm. Why aren't period films' heroines depicted as sweating as or after they dance? Because it isn't terribly attractive. Did people object to the smell of perspiration? Probably less than we do today (see above) and as the decades passed, better methods for cleaning clothing were developed. And because women wore their chemises, or 'shimmys' next to their skin, that article of clothing would absorb much of the perspiration and odor, saving the outer garments. Chemises were usually made of cotton and could easily be washed and women had more than one if they could afford it. So while the ball room might have a distinctly less than fresh odor wafting through it by the middle or end of an evening, the perspiring participants could go home, wash their soiled chemises and probably themselves to some degree, and carry on.
All of this speculation is mostly concerned with the upper or middle upper classes. But what about the lower classes? Again, speculation, but I think those women must have perspired just as much or more than their upper class contemporaries because they were actually working. A laundress, though she spends much time immersed to her elbows in water, must expend considerable, sweat making energy to accomplish her task. Some of the water is very hot, too, making it worse. Women who serve in others' homes as maids of all work, for example, or cooks, would have had to sweep and tidy the house, do the laundry, prepare the meals and clean up, all endeavors that require effort. Going to market and carrying back heavy supplies would equal perspiration. Hauling water from the river and emptying slop pails would also make anyone sweat in the heat. And these women wore as many layers as wealthier women did, although they may have had fewer scruples about hiking up their outer skirts for convenience and coolness during some of the more arduous tasks. They also had a chemise as their first layer of clothing, but unlike wealthier women, they probably only had one. What this meant was that it wasn't washed very often and after a while did little to protect the woman's outer clothing from absorbing the perspiration and odors.
But again, sensibilities and expectations were different then, something that is not easy to assimilate and even more difficult to live: just visit with re enactors or living historians during a heat wave, and you will see what I mean. No matter how die hard you may be, if faced with wearing authentic garb in 90 F degree humid, sunny days, you're going to reach for that modern antiperspirant and deodorant because in today's world the smell of sweat is not as acceptable as it was centuries ago.
But there's one other thing to consider as you look, as I have been this week, at the forecast, and eschew your more elaborate garb for the simplest and coolest you have for upcoming events. I've got a Revolutionary/French & Indian Primitive Encampment event this Saturday and Sunday at the Black Walnut Legion Post near Laceyville, where I'll be in garb selling my historical fiction about The Oldest House (shameless plug). I was going to wear a new 1770's outfit, complete with bum roll, and I was really excited about it, as it's a somewhat new look for me. But it'll be in the upper 80's to low 90's on Saturday, and humid, mid 80's and damp on Sunday, so I'm thinking Regency, and I'll probably remove my bonnet...
So what gives with how hot wearing garb can really be? How did they do it, sensibilities aside, centuries ago without getting soaked through on a hot summer day?
Two or three centuries ago, the weather was, at least in the northern hemisphere, actually cooler. No, it's not your imagination. And this is not a diatribe about global warming, either. Whether that's a factor or not, the fact is that there was something called the 'Little Ice Age' a few centuries back that meant the average temperature could be as much as five degrees cooler in summer over all of Europe and North America.
The Little Ice Age started about 1250-1300 depending on which events one uses to date the Age. Pack ice moved down from the North Pole into the North Atlantic at a remarkable rate around 1300 but the movement had begun a half century earlier. Although 1850 is an accepted terminus for the Age, some climatologists say that it wasn't until the first or second decade of the 20th century that the Age truly ended, followed by gradual warming.
Prior to the Little Ice Age there was what's referred to as the Mediaeval Warm Period, probably a climate similar to what we are experiencing now. This allowed, among other things, for great migrations of people across the globe, because the warmer temperatures allowed for easier travel. So, it's not all bad: if it weren't for the MWP, we might not be living where we are, or not in the same way.
So back to the Little Ice Age. In addition to the pack ice, there were recorded heavier snowfalls. In Europe, warm winters no longer were reliable: there was even one year known as 'the year without a summer' (1816). That was actually caused by volcanic ash that spread across the globe and caused overcast days and dropped temperatures dramatically. But it occurred during the LIA and right after one of the coldest periods of the LIA. This made the volcanic ash from Mount Tambora, which erupted in April of 1815, able to cool the temperature across the world significantly. Crops began to fail, resulting in famines, and also in a change to the way farming was done and which crops were grown. The famines led to emigration and in the U.S., spurred the westward migration. The downswing in agriculture may, I think, have also been a partial impetus for the First Industrial Revolution: if the agrarian way of making a living looked, to most, as though it were going to tank, it would have been natural to invent machines that would enable people to make a living in other ways.
The Thames famously froze over several times, and 'ice fairs' were held on its surface in London. The Baltic Sea froze over during one especially chilly period. In the LIA there were three especially cold periods, one from 1650-1670, one from 1770-1800 and another from 1850-1870. Look at the dates of the LIA and the very cold decades: they coincide exactly with the periods re enactors portray. We strive to faithfully recreate the layers and look of late Renaissance, Georgian, Regency, Victorian, Civil War, and Belle Epoque garb but we are living in a time when the weather is as much as five degrees warmer overall! If you don't think five degrees is much, think about 85F vs 80F. Especially if it is also humid. Big difference.
No wonder we perspire under our panniers!
The Little Ice Age and indeed, historical global climatology, has fascinated me ever since I learned about the LIA a couple of decades ago. If you're interested, just google it: there's a host of info out there, all of it intriguing and thought provoking.
And the next time you have to garb for an event, remember as you don your cotton petticoat and dress, pop your bonnet on your head, and suddenly feel unacceptably warm, that you are dressing for colder weather than what we are currently experiencing. Take a deep breath. Stay hydrated. Smile...and try to think of perspiration as just your personal 'glow.'
Good luck!
I was musing this morning about the fact that in today's world, we who dress in period garb often mutter amongst ourselves about how warm the layers of clothing can be during the warmer months.
Even if one wears all natural fibers, which breathe and are actually cooler, just as they did 200 or 300 years ago, the padding and petticoats required to get the right shape and silhouette, or sometimes just the layers needed with some more diaphanous or light colored dresses from the Regency period, can really make it warm.
There may be a couple of reasons for this. First, we may be wearing modern clothing of centuries past, but we are still modern women. Likelier than not, we are rushing around at the pace we keep when wearing shorts and t shirts, despite our period garb, and so we get quite warm, quite quickly. Efforts to slow down may work for a short while, but overall we resume or usual pace and heat up again.
Did women in centuries past move more slowly? Possibly. Did they have servants to do things for them so they actually led lives of more leisure than we do today? Possibly, at least the 'better' classes, as they termed it then. Was perspiring and its attendant issues like stained and smelly clothing all less important than it is today? Certainly: sensibilities for that type of thing were quite different. Expectations were different and what people smelled like--even when clean--was also different. In fact, the smell of good clean sweat was thought by some to be attractive...but that's the subject for another posting!
As for moving more slowly and leading a more leisurely life, I do not know for certain, but I suspect it is partially true, at least. Think about it: you get dressed in the early morning: it's still fairly cool, especially inside a thick-walled stone house. Whether or not you have a maid to dress you, you arrive at breakfast quite fresh. After breakfast, perhaps you go cut some flowers for the house. A pleasant task and you do not need to exert a great amount of effort or energy. Your lip may perspire a bit, or your brow, but you likely wouldn't be soaking wet.
Afterwards, maybe you sew or embroider or play the piano--inside, or for the first two pastimes, outside if there is shade and a breeze. You might also read. Again, not sweaty activities. If visitors come in the afternoon, you sit and talk, probably inside. Ground floor rooms are probably fairly cool, but hand fans might be employed if it is warm or humid. If you have hot tea, that actually helps you feel cooler. Eating will also draw blood flow to your stomach, making the rest of you feel slightly cooler. And chatting is normally not an activity requiring great physical exertion.
So you've made it to dinner time without too much perspiring. Once the meal is over, evening pursuits are probably not much more strenuous than those of earlier in the day. Then it's time for bed, and the day is over.
The one thing I think would certainly produce an uncomfortably sweaty situation is a dance in summer time. I don't care if you only have a single layer--scandalous! no petticoat???--and if you are doing the most stately of gavottes: you get all those people together in a room, it'll be warm. And movement, no matter how stately, is movement. You're going to perspire.
So did women in, say, Georgian or Regency times, or even in the Victorian Era, perspire when they went to dances? I think they did, at least if the dance were in summer time, when it would be warm. Why aren't period films' heroines depicted as sweating as or after they dance? Because it isn't terribly attractive. Did people object to the smell of perspiration? Probably less than we do today (see above) and as the decades passed, better methods for cleaning clothing were developed. And because women wore their chemises, or 'shimmys' next to their skin, that article of clothing would absorb much of the perspiration and odor, saving the outer garments. Chemises were usually made of cotton and could easily be washed and women had more than one if they could afford it. So while the ball room might have a distinctly less than fresh odor wafting through it by the middle or end of an evening, the perspiring participants could go home, wash their soiled chemises and probably themselves to some degree, and carry on.
All of this speculation is mostly concerned with the upper or middle upper classes. But what about the lower classes? Again, speculation, but I think those women must have perspired just as much or more than their upper class contemporaries because they were actually working. A laundress, though she spends much time immersed to her elbows in water, must expend considerable, sweat making energy to accomplish her task. Some of the water is very hot, too, making it worse. Women who serve in others' homes as maids of all work, for example, or cooks, would have had to sweep and tidy the house, do the laundry, prepare the meals and clean up, all endeavors that require effort. Going to market and carrying back heavy supplies would equal perspiration. Hauling water from the river and emptying slop pails would also make anyone sweat in the heat. And these women wore as many layers as wealthier women did, although they may have had fewer scruples about hiking up their outer skirts for convenience and coolness during some of the more arduous tasks. They also had a chemise as their first layer of clothing, but unlike wealthier women, they probably only had one. What this meant was that it wasn't washed very often and after a while did little to protect the woman's outer clothing from absorbing the perspiration and odors.
But again, sensibilities and expectations were different then, something that is not easy to assimilate and even more difficult to live: just visit with re enactors or living historians during a heat wave, and you will see what I mean. No matter how die hard you may be, if faced with wearing authentic garb in 90 F degree humid, sunny days, you're going to reach for that modern antiperspirant and deodorant because in today's world the smell of sweat is not as acceptable as it was centuries ago.
But there's one other thing to consider as you look, as I have been this week, at the forecast, and eschew your more elaborate garb for the simplest and coolest you have for upcoming events. I've got a Revolutionary/French & Indian Primitive Encampment event this Saturday and Sunday at the Black Walnut Legion Post near Laceyville, where I'll be in garb selling my historical fiction about The Oldest House (shameless plug). I was going to wear a new 1770's outfit, complete with bum roll, and I was really excited about it, as it's a somewhat new look for me. But it'll be in the upper 80's to low 90's on Saturday, and humid, mid 80's and damp on Sunday, so I'm thinking Regency, and I'll probably remove my bonnet...
So what gives with how hot wearing garb can really be? How did they do it, sensibilities aside, centuries ago without getting soaked through on a hot summer day?
Two or three centuries ago, the weather was, at least in the northern hemisphere, actually cooler. No, it's not your imagination. And this is not a diatribe about global warming, either. Whether that's a factor or not, the fact is that there was something called the 'Little Ice Age' a few centuries back that meant the average temperature could be as much as five degrees cooler in summer over all of Europe and North America.
The Little Ice Age started about 1250-1300 depending on which events one uses to date the Age. Pack ice moved down from the North Pole into the North Atlantic at a remarkable rate around 1300 but the movement had begun a half century earlier. Although 1850 is an accepted terminus for the Age, some climatologists say that it wasn't until the first or second decade of the 20th century that the Age truly ended, followed by gradual warming.
Prior to the Little Ice Age there was what's referred to as the Mediaeval Warm Period, probably a climate similar to what we are experiencing now. This allowed, among other things, for great migrations of people across the globe, because the warmer temperatures allowed for easier travel. So, it's not all bad: if it weren't for the MWP, we might not be living where we are, or not in the same way.
So back to the Little Ice Age. In addition to the pack ice, there were recorded heavier snowfalls. In Europe, warm winters no longer were reliable: there was even one year known as 'the year without a summer' (1816). That was actually caused by volcanic ash that spread across the globe and caused overcast days and dropped temperatures dramatically. But it occurred during the LIA and right after one of the coldest periods of the LIA. This made the volcanic ash from Mount Tambora, which erupted in April of 1815, able to cool the temperature across the world significantly. Crops began to fail, resulting in famines, and also in a change to the way farming was done and which crops were grown. The famines led to emigration and in the U.S., spurred the westward migration. The downswing in agriculture may, I think, have also been a partial impetus for the First Industrial Revolution: if the agrarian way of making a living looked, to most, as though it were going to tank, it would have been natural to invent machines that would enable people to make a living in other ways.
The Thames famously froze over several times, and 'ice fairs' were held on its surface in London. The Baltic Sea froze over during one especially chilly period. In the LIA there were three especially cold periods, one from 1650-1670, one from 1770-1800 and another from 1850-1870. Look at the dates of the LIA and the very cold decades: they coincide exactly with the periods re enactors portray. We strive to faithfully recreate the layers and look of late Renaissance, Georgian, Regency, Victorian, Civil War, and Belle Epoque garb but we are living in a time when the weather is as much as five degrees warmer overall! If you don't think five degrees is much, think about 85F vs 80F. Especially if it is also humid. Big difference.
No wonder we perspire under our panniers!
The Little Ice Age and indeed, historical global climatology, has fascinated me ever since I learned about the LIA a couple of decades ago. If you're interested, just google it: there's a host of info out there, all of it intriguing and thought provoking.
And the next time you have to garb for an event, remember as you don your cotton petticoat and dress, pop your bonnet on your head, and suddenly feel unacceptably warm, that you are dressing for colder weather than what we are currently experiencing. Take a deep breath. Stay hydrated. Smile...and try to think of perspiration as just your personal 'glow.'
Good luck!
Thursday, 30 June 2016
The Past as Therapy:Deep Thoughts on Historical Interpretation and the Modern World
More and more I find myself having brief 'out of body' experiences when watching television ads and news programs. I feel as though whatever is coming through to me on my television is part of a really bad science fiction film that I'm watching, about how horrible the future could be. Cataclysms, terrorist attacks, floods, and other disasters across the globe; extreme weather; reality tv programs that pander to prurience and sensationalism; even bombastic crayon-colored candidates for the highest office in the most powerful nation on the earth: they all make me feel as though this life is surreal. And not in a cool way.
So it's interesting to think that perhaps others are feeling disaffected with this situation, this milieu, this time, if you will. And if they are feeling less inclined to be happy with the present, then perhaps they would enjoy a respite by imagining themselves in another time. In the past, to be precise.
Not that the past was all rainbows and ice cream: far from it! But there were fewer people and statistically, therefore, less crime. Also, most people didn't travel very far from home, and when they did, it still wasn't really far. Therefore, disasters, attacks and similar atrocities in foreign lands, when heard about on U.S. soil, were not as immediately affecting, because they had happened so far away. Very few, if any, felt--as I did a couple of days ago, hearing about the attacks at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul--a personal shock when hearing of a disaster. Or said to themselves in disbelief, as I did, 'gee I've flown into and out of that airport!' Additionally, in the past, communication was far slower than it is today. Therefore, news about disasters, attacks, etc. was doubly removed by distance and by time, because by the time people heard about things that had happened, weeks or even months had gone by.
For all these reasons, and probably more that I could think of but will not address here, the past seems to us here in the present to have been a much simpler time: quieter, calmer, more gracious perhaps as well. And it draws us, particularly when we find today's world less than inviting. The past beckons--'take a rest in me,' it says, 'even for an hour or so, forget the modern world and return to me.'
When I first heard a presentation last year on effective historical interpretation, I was excited. My friends will tell you that that's because I get excited about a lot of things: enthusiasm is one of my character traits. I enjoy an informative presentation when I'm on a tour--something I do rarely, except at historic sites, and even then I prefer to do my own 'tour'--but I really dislike having the obvious presented to me, or stated. I have a brain, and I can read: tell me something I cannot learn on my own!
Taking that tack, when I began doing guided tours at The Oldest House in Laceyville, and now at the LaPorte House at French Azilum near Towanda, I attempted to imbue them with spirit, a bit of that excitement about the past that I felt, a bit of the love and respect for the people and things from former times that I felt, too. I read books on various theories of historical interpretation, and attended another seminar on the subject, and I developed a method of giving a tour in an historic home that invites the visitors to become a part of the house's mythos, inveigles them, for a brief time, to adopt the rôle, mentally of course, of a visitor to the house back in times gone by.
Those who are willing to let their guard down enough to do this, even a little bit, enjoy the tour a great deal. They seem quite willing to enter into the spirit of pretend, a variation on the old 'suspension of disbelief' that we all do from time to time: we know we are not really back in the 18th or 19th century, but isn't it fun to pretend that we are for an hour or so?
I invite the visitors who take my tours of these historic homes to see the homes through the eyes of visitors from centuries past, friends of the family who lived there at that time, perhaps, who are stopping by to say hello. Although the visitors are not dressed in period costume, I am, and I think this adds to that 'suspension of disbelief' for them: everything they are looking at, including me, evokes an earlier time or is, in fact, from an earlier time. My visitors are still cognizant of the fact that they are from the modern world, and still ask questions, like, 'what kind of lighting did they have back in 1836?' (or 1781, or whenever). But they readily slip into the ambience of a past century, if they allow themselves to. (This is one reason I ask for mobiles to be silenced during my tours. Not only would a ring tone be disruptive, it would break the fragile spell I weave around us all as we travel through the house. We are encapsulated in a little bubble of time past, but that bubble can break with the first note of an electronic message.)
Clearly, I enjoy it, too: just look in my closets. There are as many (well, nearly) outfits from 1770-1920 as there are 'modern' clothes; indeed, I appear at so many functions and in photographs online and in print media in period or vintage clothing that when people see me in normal clothes they sometimes don't recognize me right away! And if I go to a fancy function where semi formal or formal dress is the norm, you'll probably see me in period garb, since I actually like wearing the clothes. Also, wearing them typically engenders questions, and these lead to information I can share, about what I do and where I do it, with others who may not know.
When I tried this technique out the first couple of times, I was a bit hesitant, tentative: would my visitors like it, or would they think I was a fruitcake for suggesting they 'pretend they are visitors to the house, coming to pay a call, perhaps, or coming to see the family and their new house.' Would they do it? Or would they refuse, and trail after me inwardly thinking I was a jerk?
A woman on one of the very first tours I did using this imaginative approach gave me the confidence to carry on with it and now I will unapologetically tell you it has become my favorite part of being a docent at an historic home. When I said, 'I'd like you to imagine, if you will, that you've come today to visit the family here, and you've just alighted from your carriage and come into the house...' she smiled a little bit, closed her eyes, and was clearly seeing herself in a long traveling gown and bonnet, stepping into the centuries old home as a welcome guest of some former owner.
These days, given the state of the country and the world, I feel that people are longing ever more for an escape. Not everyone has the means to fly off to a tropical island where you have no mobile reception or television and can forget for a while the plagues of modernity. But most people have the few dollars that the average historic home requests as a donation to enter and have a tour. And while they may not think of it as an 'escape' as such when planning their visit to The Oldest House or the LaPorte House and French Azilum, subconsciously they welcome it when it is offered to them.
Escape the worries, anxieties, fears and pressures of the modern world, even if just for an hour. Visit an historic home--preferably one of the two I docent at, of course, if you can!--and give your brain a short respite with an imaginative, immersive visit to the past.
So it's interesting to think that perhaps others are feeling disaffected with this situation, this milieu, this time, if you will. And if they are feeling less inclined to be happy with the present, then perhaps they would enjoy a respite by imagining themselves in another time. In the past, to be precise.
Not that the past was all rainbows and ice cream: far from it! But there were fewer people and statistically, therefore, less crime. Also, most people didn't travel very far from home, and when they did, it still wasn't really far. Therefore, disasters, attacks and similar atrocities in foreign lands, when heard about on U.S. soil, were not as immediately affecting, because they had happened so far away. Very few, if any, felt--as I did a couple of days ago, hearing about the attacks at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul--a personal shock when hearing of a disaster. Or said to themselves in disbelief, as I did, 'gee I've flown into and out of that airport!' Additionally, in the past, communication was far slower than it is today. Therefore, news about disasters, attacks, etc. was doubly removed by distance and by time, because by the time people heard about things that had happened, weeks or even months had gone by.
For all these reasons, and probably more that I could think of but will not address here, the past seems to us here in the present to have been a much simpler time: quieter, calmer, more gracious perhaps as well. And it draws us, particularly when we find today's world less than inviting. The past beckons--'take a rest in me,' it says, 'even for an hour or so, forget the modern world and return to me.'
When I first heard a presentation last year on effective historical interpretation, I was excited. My friends will tell you that that's because I get excited about a lot of things: enthusiasm is one of my character traits. I enjoy an informative presentation when I'm on a tour--something I do rarely, except at historic sites, and even then I prefer to do my own 'tour'--but I really dislike having the obvious presented to me, or stated. I have a brain, and I can read: tell me something I cannot learn on my own!
Taking that tack, when I began doing guided tours at The Oldest House in Laceyville, and now at the LaPorte House at French Azilum near Towanda, I attempted to imbue them with spirit, a bit of that excitement about the past that I felt, a bit of the love and respect for the people and things from former times that I felt, too. I read books on various theories of historical interpretation, and attended another seminar on the subject, and I developed a method of giving a tour in an historic home that invites the visitors to become a part of the house's mythos, inveigles them, for a brief time, to adopt the rôle, mentally of course, of a visitor to the house back in times gone by.
Those who are willing to let their guard down enough to do this, even a little bit, enjoy the tour a great deal. They seem quite willing to enter into the spirit of pretend, a variation on the old 'suspension of disbelief' that we all do from time to time: we know we are not really back in the 18th or 19th century, but isn't it fun to pretend that we are for an hour or so?
I invite the visitors who take my tours of these historic homes to see the homes through the eyes of visitors from centuries past, friends of the family who lived there at that time, perhaps, who are stopping by to say hello. Although the visitors are not dressed in period costume, I am, and I think this adds to that 'suspension of disbelief' for them: everything they are looking at, including me, evokes an earlier time or is, in fact, from an earlier time. My visitors are still cognizant of the fact that they are from the modern world, and still ask questions, like, 'what kind of lighting did they have back in 1836?' (or 1781, or whenever). But they readily slip into the ambience of a past century, if they allow themselves to. (This is one reason I ask for mobiles to be silenced during my tours. Not only would a ring tone be disruptive, it would break the fragile spell I weave around us all as we travel through the house. We are encapsulated in a little bubble of time past, but that bubble can break with the first note of an electronic message.)
Clearly, I enjoy it, too: just look in my closets. There are as many (well, nearly) outfits from 1770-1920 as there are 'modern' clothes; indeed, I appear at so many functions and in photographs online and in print media in period or vintage clothing that when people see me in normal clothes they sometimes don't recognize me right away! And if I go to a fancy function where semi formal or formal dress is the norm, you'll probably see me in period garb, since I actually like wearing the clothes. Also, wearing them typically engenders questions, and these lead to information I can share, about what I do and where I do it, with others who may not know.
When I tried this technique out the first couple of times, I was a bit hesitant, tentative: would my visitors like it, or would they think I was a fruitcake for suggesting they 'pretend they are visitors to the house, coming to pay a call, perhaps, or coming to see the family and their new house.' Would they do it? Or would they refuse, and trail after me inwardly thinking I was a jerk?
A woman on one of the very first tours I did using this imaginative approach gave me the confidence to carry on with it and now I will unapologetically tell you it has become my favorite part of being a docent at an historic home. When I said, 'I'd like you to imagine, if you will, that you've come today to visit the family here, and you've just alighted from your carriage and come into the house...' she smiled a little bit, closed her eyes, and was clearly seeing herself in a long traveling gown and bonnet, stepping into the centuries old home as a welcome guest of some former owner.
These days, given the state of the country and the world, I feel that people are longing ever more for an escape. Not everyone has the means to fly off to a tropical island where you have no mobile reception or television and can forget for a while the plagues of modernity. But most people have the few dollars that the average historic home requests as a donation to enter and have a tour. And while they may not think of it as an 'escape' as such when planning their visit to The Oldest House or the LaPorte House and French Azilum, subconsciously they welcome it when it is offered to them.
Escape the worries, anxieties, fears and pressures of the modern world, even if just for an hour. Visit an historic home--preferably one of the two I docent at, of course, if you can!--and give your brain a short respite with an imaginative, immersive visit to the past.
Friday, 24 June 2016
EVERYONE LOVES THE INSIDE SCOOP!
Everyone loves the inside scoop, right? Everyone loves to know the little intricacies and details of things, the stuff only people in the sanctum sanctorum, the privileged, the elite, the inner circle, as it were, know, right?
ABSOLUTELY!
Do you love period drama? Are you a Jane Austen fan? Do you miss Downton Abbey? Does your jaw drop at all the glorious, stunning outfits the actors wear?
Well, your chance to find out all about period costuming and historical dress must haves and faux-pas is here!
Those of you within driving distance of French Azilum might wish to mark July 23 on your calendar. On that Saturday, we will be hosting three very special tours of the LaPorte-Hagermann House, focusing on some fabulous reproduction clothing on loan to us from the talented Lynne Symborski. Lynne is known nationally for the historical accuracy and the quality of her work and these garments are breathtaking and exquisite. We at French Azilum (I am on the Board, and I also Docent there now, as well as at The Oldest House) are very fortunate to have this great display this year.
But July 23 is the ONLY chance this year you will have to learn all about underpinnings, ensembles and outerwear for men, women and children from historical costumiers who will be leading the guided tours! (Yes, I'm one of them. The gracious Marny Gerhart and our knowledgable site manager Lee Kleinsmith are the others!)
You'll be greeted on the front porch of the LaPorte-Hagermann House by your historically costumed guide and ushered into the beautiful foyer. Here you'll learn a little bit more about French Azilum and the types of people who lived here (they were nobility or royal descendants, most of them, so there's a clue!), as well as their immediate descendant John LaPorte, who built the House you are visiting. Stunning architectural features will help you to forget the 21st century, and enter an era long past...
And then, the fun begins. Assume the guise of one of the LaPortes' guests, calling on the family, and enter the first reception room. Admire the period furnishings, learn of their provenance, and enjoy the beautifully costumed mannequins representing what visitors at that time might have worn to pay such a visit! It doesn't matter if YOU happen to be in flip flops, shorts or jeans: you can pretend you're wearing a sumptuous cape, gown or top hat like the mannequins. Learn the importance of dress, particularly when calling on friends and acquaintances, and even business partners.
Move on (in rather dramatic fashion if I'm doing the tour!) to the second reception room and learn a bit more about the ways in which the rooms in houses such as the one you are visiting might have been used: visiting, certainly. But what about dances, parties and receptions (as the name implies), even weddings! There's a surprise in this room, but I won't give it away.
You'll leave the public rooms, now, and traverse the grand staircase with its large window that looks out over the property, and pass into the private areas of the House.
Upstairs, mannequins in each of the three bed chambers--and learn why they are called that--represent the ways in which residents of the House might have dressed for bed and immediately upon rising in the morning. You'll get to see exactly how they wore various elements of clothing and undergarments, and why, to achieve the correct 'look' for the fashions of various periods. You will learn the importance of a lady's maid and settle once and for all the mysteries of closets and corsets.
And what about children? What did they wear? See examples and learn more about the theory of child rearing, such as it was, in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
On this floor, you'll also be treated to a peek at French Azilum's research library and even get to see the remarkable lath and plaster on the inside wall of the attic stair!
Returning to the ground floor, you'll be welcomed as a close friend of the family into the Ladies' Parlor. Here again, mannequins dressed for visiting will allow you to more easily assume the identity of such a 'caller' on the family in bygone days. More intriguing items from our past, both furnishings and ornaments, will be on show for your admiration.
Then it's on to the Library, where a more masculine flavor imbues the room and the mannequins are dressed for sport and outdoor activity of that era. Items here evoke John LaPorte: Pennsylvania's Surveyor General, U.S. Congressman and banker.
Finally, you'll arrive at the dining room, a spacious area where everyone can have a seat, a glass of iced tea and some home-baked goodies, and ask questions of the tour guides. It is really much more complicated to dress properly in period clothing than you might think, although having been through the tour, you probably will have a much better idea now, than before. (I mean, who knew there were so many types of stays, or 'bodies' or corsets to use their more modern name). Additionally, questions about the house or the families who lived here, if not asked and answered during the tour, will be invited at this time.
Additional history of the house and a visit to the 'new' kitchen, built some time before 1870, will conclude your tour and your glimpse into how people really dressed and lived, and why they wore what they did when they did, even out here in rural Pennsylvania!
So I hope you're intrigued and will decide to make the journey out to French Azilum, near Towanda, PA, on July 23 and visit me and my friends Marny and Lee and allow us to share with you the delight we have found in the LaPorte Hagerman House.
ABSOLUTELY!
Do you love period drama? Are you a Jane Austen fan? Do you miss Downton Abbey? Does your jaw drop at all the glorious, stunning outfits the actors wear?
Well, your chance to find out all about period costuming and historical dress must haves and faux-pas is here!
Those of you within driving distance of French Azilum might wish to mark July 23 on your calendar. On that Saturday, we will be hosting three very special tours of the LaPorte-Hagermann House, focusing on some fabulous reproduction clothing on loan to us from the talented Lynne Symborski. Lynne is known nationally for the historical accuracy and the quality of her work and these garments are breathtaking and exquisite. We at French Azilum (I am on the Board, and I also Docent there now, as well as at The Oldest House) are very fortunate to have this great display this year.
But July 23 is the ONLY chance this year you will have to learn all about underpinnings, ensembles and outerwear for men, women and children from historical costumiers who will be leading the guided tours! (Yes, I'm one of them. The gracious Marny Gerhart and our knowledgable site manager Lee Kleinsmith are the others!)
You'll be greeted on the front porch of the LaPorte-Hagermann House by your historically costumed guide and ushered into the beautiful foyer. Here you'll learn a little bit more about French Azilum and the types of people who lived here (they were nobility or royal descendants, most of them, so there's a clue!), as well as their immediate descendant John LaPorte, who built the House you are visiting. Stunning architectural features will help you to forget the 21st century, and enter an era long past...
And then, the fun begins. Assume the guise of one of the LaPortes' guests, calling on the family, and enter the first reception room. Admire the period furnishings, learn of their provenance, and enjoy the beautifully costumed mannequins representing what visitors at that time might have worn to pay such a visit! It doesn't matter if YOU happen to be in flip flops, shorts or jeans: you can pretend you're wearing a sumptuous cape, gown or top hat like the mannequins. Learn the importance of dress, particularly when calling on friends and acquaintances, and even business partners.
Move on (in rather dramatic fashion if I'm doing the tour!) to the second reception room and learn a bit more about the ways in which the rooms in houses such as the one you are visiting might have been used: visiting, certainly. But what about dances, parties and receptions (as the name implies), even weddings! There's a surprise in this room, but I won't give it away.
You'll leave the public rooms, now, and traverse the grand staircase with its large window that looks out over the property, and pass into the private areas of the House.
Upstairs, mannequins in each of the three bed chambers--and learn why they are called that--represent the ways in which residents of the House might have dressed for bed and immediately upon rising in the morning. You'll get to see exactly how they wore various elements of clothing and undergarments, and why, to achieve the correct 'look' for the fashions of various periods. You will learn the importance of a lady's maid and settle once and for all the mysteries of closets and corsets.
And what about children? What did they wear? See examples and learn more about the theory of child rearing, such as it was, in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
On this floor, you'll also be treated to a peek at French Azilum's research library and even get to see the remarkable lath and plaster on the inside wall of the attic stair!
Returning to the ground floor, you'll be welcomed as a close friend of the family into the Ladies' Parlor. Here again, mannequins dressed for visiting will allow you to more easily assume the identity of such a 'caller' on the family in bygone days. More intriguing items from our past, both furnishings and ornaments, will be on show for your admiration.
Then it's on to the Library, where a more masculine flavor imbues the room and the mannequins are dressed for sport and outdoor activity of that era. Items here evoke John LaPorte: Pennsylvania's Surveyor General, U.S. Congressman and banker.
Finally, you'll arrive at the dining room, a spacious area where everyone can have a seat, a glass of iced tea and some home-baked goodies, and ask questions of the tour guides. It is really much more complicated to dress properly in period clothing than you might think, although having been through the tour, you probably will have a much better idea now, than before. (I mean, who knew there were so many types of stays, or 'bodies' or corsets to use their more modern name). Additionally, questions about the house or the families who lived here, if not asked and answered during the tour, will be invited at this time.
Additional history of the house and a visit to the 'new' kitchen, built some time before 1870, will conclude your tour and your glimpse into how people really dressed and lived, and why they wore what they did when they did, even out here in rural Pennsylvania!
So I hope you're intrigued and will decide to make the journey out to French Azilum, near Towanda, PA, on July 23 and visit me and my friends Marny and Lee and allow us to share with you the delight we have found in the LaPorte Hagerman House.
Monday, 25 April 2016
Reflections on Back Lacing Being Back in the 21st Century
It seems as though most of March and April I spent in earlier times--or at least, dressed for earlier times! Between Downton Abbey themed events (Victorian, Edwardian), Titanic themed events (Edwardian) and regular Queen Victoria's Court Victorian teas, lunches, fashion shows, et cetera, each weekend brought at least one, and in one grueling but fun case THREE, events, each requiring (because I'm me) a different ensemble.
Yeah, yeah, I could just wear the same thing. But wouldn't that be, well, dull? And one thing my best friends will tell you: I am NOT dull!
So on with the corsets and petticoats and chemises and pantalettes and walking suits, gowns, tea dresses, gloves, fans, reticules and hats. And hair ornaments. And parasols. Whew.
If you think getting ready in today's world takes time, it's a breeze compared to what one has to go through and coordinate to dress in the style of centuries past!
This summer I will be helping out at the LaPorte House at French Azilum, in addition to my docenting at The Oldest House. The latter will be limited because of our foundation project at the House, which will give me time to ease my way in to the French Azilum routine. I hope that by next season, when I'll be docenting and curating period clothing exhibits at both homes, I'll be easy and adept at both.
But pursuant to the volunteering at Azilum--and if you don't know what I'm talking about, please google 'French Azilum' and find out about the refuge planned and built in the late 1700's for Marie Antoinette, would she have been able to successfully escape France. She did not, nor did her husband, Louis XVI, or their children. And although nothing but a foundation remains of the scores of little rustic houses built to house the Queen, and which did house some of France's nobility who did successfully escape, French Azilum is a thriving non profit historical site unique in the world. It also boasts the John LaPorte House, built in 1833-36 and quite grand for a house stuck out in the middle of nowhere.
Anyway, pursuant to that activity at Azilum I have been expanding my Georgian and Regency wardrobe because the Regency, of course, suits the LaPorte House (although, like The Oldest House, it was inhabited for decades and generations, and virtually any period of clothing from Regency through WW I or even later if you really want to be 'modern' would be suitable for a docent giving tours). Although the Georgian is too early for the LaPorte House it certainly works for the whole Marie Antoinette vibe. So I plan to wear both, depending on how energetic I feel and the weather.
Energetic, you wonder? Yes. I dress myself because I do not have a lady's maid. So I've made a couple of adjustments to the fastenings, in particular, of my gowns, so that I can get into them solo. Actually, getting out of them is more difficult, but that's another blog!
And while I'm at it, please allow me to weigh in on the subject of back lacing. My new Georgian gowns are both back laced. I like it. And I've figured out a way to do it without a lady's maid, a way which was unavailable to women back in the 18th century.
But--back lacing. This has recently reared its ugly head, due in large part to the popularity of the Starz series Outlander, taken from Gabaldon's books. The story is set in the Georgian period in Scotland and France, thus far. Several women are portrayed wearing back lacing gowns, jackets, dresses, etc. A couple of historical fashion mavens, who no doubt know a lot more about historical fashion than I do, have begun reaming the fashion designers of the program because they included back lacing gowns. So I have to have my say.
First, although I'm sure we've all studied hundreds of extant gowns, dresses, jackets, etc that have survived from this period, none of us lived then or time traveled back to that period. At least that I've heard of. So although we deduce from careful study, we do not empirically KNOW.
Having said that, let's also remember the constraints costume designers are working with, including time, and budget.
Also, I was once told by a woman whose grandmother had told her (and at the time this lady told ME, she was in her 90's) that women wore back lacing corsets and back fastening dresses and gowns ON PURPOSE to show that they were wealthy enough to employ a ladies' maid. Think about it: you cannot really properly do yourself up in a back lacing anything. You can try, but it won't be right. You need someone to lace you up and securely fasten the laces. So back lacing garments, according to this lady's grandmother, who had been born before the Civil War, in 1850, became a status symbol.
And finally, don't we think, honestly, that people back in 1750 or 1780 or whenever were as varied and individualized about their clothing as we are today? I do. They didn't all wear the same things. Yes, advances in dyeing and weaving in later decades made more choices available, and advances in indoor plumbing made washing oneself as well as clothing much easier, and both of these meant that brighter colors, patterns, etc. as well as whites became more usual by the later Victorian period. Wealth and status still drove--and still do-- how many outfits a woman had and what color and what material she could afford to choose for her clothing. But given their individual constraints of money and status don't you think that woman would have tried to have as many outfits of as many types and colors as they could?
So: back lacing. Why not? If a woman could afford a maid, or had a nanny, or even sisters who could help her to dress, why not wear a fashion that was just that much more special? I bet that fact made the wearer, especially if she was not born to wealth, feel particularly grand.
Just like the diatribes I read about front lacing bustier type garments not being worn: I doubt that they were worn by women of, well, of good reputation. But by serving wenches in busy portside taverns who perhaps plied another trade besides serving ale to earn some extra money? Sure: front lacing corset type garments are easy to undo and re-do and their very resemblance to undergarments is titillating--no doubt the reason behind the fashion.
So too, I doubt that back lacing gowns and dresses and corsets were usually worn by women from the working classes and lower classes: they were only worn by ladies who were dressed by someone, i.e., their maid or nanny. With some exceptions, see above.
Why aren't there very many back lacing gowns still around? Who knows? Maybe there were comparatively fewer of them because they were reserved for the elite, and so fewer have come down to us.
I look forward to the summer and swanning around French Azilum in my panniers (I have two types, cage and solid!) wearing my Georgian gowns with their stomachers and high fashion back lace design. I greatly enjoyed my Victorian and Edwardian dresses, gowns and suits, corsets and hats and gloves and fans and reticules...the number of pieces is astounding!
But this morning, as I pulled on my camisole, tied a scarf around my neck and shrugged into my jeans and linen blazer I smiled, because it felt so very easy to be back in the 21st century.
Yeah, yeah, I could just wear the same thing. But wouldn't that be, well, dull? And one thing my best friends will tell you: I am NOT dull!
So on with the corsets and petticoats and chemises and pantalettes and walking suits, gowns, tea dresses, gloves, fans, reticules and hats. And hair ornaments. And parasols. Whew.
If you think getting ready in today's world takes time, it's a breeze compared to what one has to go through and coordinate to dress in the style of centuries past!
This summer I will be helping out at the LaPorte House at French Azilum, in addition to my docenting at The Oldest House. The latter will be limited because of our foundation project at the House, which will give me time to ease my way in to the French Azilum routine. I hope that by next season, when I'll be docenting and curating period clothing exhibits at both homes, I'll be easy and adept at both.
But pursuant to the volunteering at Azilum--and if you don't know what I'm talking about, please google 'French Azilum' and find out about the refuge planned and built in the late 1700's for Marie Antoinette, would she have been able to successfully escape France. She did not, nor did her husband, Louis XVI, or their children. And although nothing but a foundation remains of the scores of little rustic houses built to house the Queen, and which did house some of France's nobility who did successfully escape, French Azilum is a thriving non profit historical site unique in the world. It also boasts the John LaPorte House, built in 1833-36 and quite grand for a house stuck out in the middle of nowhere.
Anyway, pursuant to that activity at Azilum I have been expanding my Georgian and Regency wardrobe because the Regency, of course, suits the LaPorte House (although, like The Oldest House, it was inhabited for decades and generations, and virtually any period of clothing from Regency through WW I or even later if you really want to be 'modern' would be suitable for a docent giving tours). Although the Georgian is too early for the LaPorte House it certainly works for the whole Marie Antoinette vibe. So I plan to wear both, depending on how energetic I feel and the weather.
Energetic, you wonder? Yes. I dress myself because I do not have a lady's maid. So I've made a couple of adjustments to the fastenings, in particular, of my gowns, so that I can get into them solo. Actually, getting out of them is more difficult, but that's another blog!
And while I'm at it, please allow me to weigh in on the subject of back lacing. My new Georgian gowns are both back laced. I like it. And I've figured out a way to do it without a lady's maid, a way which was unavailable to women back in the 18th century.
But--back lacing. This has recently reared its ugly head, due in large part to the popularity of the Starz series Outlander, taken from Gabaldon's books. The story is set in the Georgian period in Scotland and France, thus far. Several women are portrayed wearing back lacing gowns, jackets, dresses, etc. A couple of historical fashion mavens, who no doubt know a lot more about historical fashion than I do, have begun reaming the fashion designers of the program because they included back lacing gowns. So I have to have my say.
First, although I'm sure we've all studied hundreds of extant gowns, dresses, jackets, etc that have survived from this period, none of us lived then or time traveled back to that period. At least that I've heard of. So although we deduce from careful study, we do not empirically KNOW.
Having said that, let's also remember the constraints costume designers are working with, including time, and budget.
Also, I was once told by a woman whose grandmother had told her (and at the time this lady told ME, she was in her 90's) that women wore back lacing corsets and back fastening dresses and gowns ON PURPOSE to show that they were wealthy enough to employ a ladies' maid. Think about it: you cannot really properly do yourself up in a back lacing anything. You can try, but it won't be right. You need someone to lace you up and securely fasten the laces. So back lacing garments, according to this lady's grandmother, who had been born before the Civil War, in 1850, became a status symbol.
And finally, don't we think, honestly, that people back in 1750 or 1780 or whenever were as varied and individualized about their clothing as we are today? I do. They didn't all wear the same things. Yes, advances in dyeing and weaving in later decades made more choices available, and advances in indoor plumbing made washing oneself as well as clothing much easier, and both of these meant that brighter colors, patterns, etc. as well as whites became more usual by the later Victorian period. Wealth and status still drove--and still do-- how many outfits a woman had and what color and what material she could afford to choose for her clothing. But given their individual constraints of money and status don't you think that woman would have tried to have as many outfits of as many types and colors as they could?
So: back lacing. Why not? If a woman could afford a maid, or had a nanny, or even sisters who could help her to dress, why not wear a fashion that was just that much more special? I bet that fact made the wearer, especially if she was not born to wealth, feel particularly grand.
Just like the diatribes I read about front lacing bustier type garments not being worn: I doubt that they were worn by women of, well, of good reputation. But by serving wenches in busy portside taverns who perhaps plied another trade besides serving ale to earn some extra money? Sure: front lacing corset type garments are easy to undo and re-do and their very resemblance to undergarments is titillating--no doubt the reason behind the fashion.
So too, I doubt that back lacing gowns and dresses and corsets were usually worn by women from the working classes and lower classes: they were only worn by ladies who were dressed by someone, i.e., their maid or nanny. With some exceptions, see above.
Why aren't there very many back lacing gowns still around? Who knows? Maybe there were comparatively fewer of them because they were reserved for the elite, and so fewer have come down to us.
I look forward to the summer and swanning around French Azilum in my panniers (I have two types, cage and solid!) wearing my Georgian gowns with their stomachers and high fashion back lace design. I greatly enjoyed my Victorian and Edwardian dresses, gowns and suits, corsets and hats and gloves and fans and reticules...the number of pieces is astounding!
But this morning, as I pulled on my camisole, tied a scarf around my neck and shrugged into my jeans and linen blazer I smiled, because it felt so very easy to be back in the 21st century.
Monday, 4 April 2016
Update on Period Clothing Exhibit...s...PLURAL! And a new gown, and a new BOOK!
Well, if that headline isn't enough to get you reading this post, nothing is.
Hello. We have survived winter here in the Northern Hemisphere, and it was quite a mild one. However, our spring is being interrupted by a last smack from Winter: a couple inches of snow, some stiff breezes, and more cold temps. But it will not last. And I have hope.
So...update on the Period Clothing Exhibit. S. Plural. Yes. As most of you know, I own rather a nice amount of period clothing items, from 1770's through to the 1920's. The majority of this is on display at The Oldest House, along with a few items the House itself owns. I change things out seasonally, although the things owned by the House do not change.
I was recently honored by being asked to join the board of another Historic Home Museum in our area, French Azilum. You may not know it, and you probably won't believe it (I didn't at first) but here in northeastern Pennsylvania was the site where French Royalists built a little village for Queen Marie Antoinette to flee to, if she could escape France.
Well, she didn't. And the original structures in the village are gone. But the land is still there, and another Frenchman, LaPorte, built a nice, big, quite fancy house there in 1826--the LaPorte House. And as I am on the Board, I'll be bringing my expertise such as it is in period clothing to the items the LaPorte House and French Azilum, Inc. own.
I took a cursory view a few weeks ago, and they have some very nice things. The plan is to do this year more or less what was done last year, perhaps with a couple of small exceptions or additions: it depends. But next year, in 2017, I hope very much to be able to mount a clothing exhibit using mostly what French Azilum owns. I'll fill in with some pieces from my own collection, and a it's a very different sort of house to The Oldest House, the display at the LaPorte House will be quite apart from the Oldest House display.
I think this will be great fun, and I am absolutely gobsmackingly honored to think that I am now curating TWO Period Clothing Exhibits in this region. What an honor, truly, and I promise to do my best.
Ok, New Gown! Thanks to my friend Diana, I have discovered an absolute genius hidden away here in the Endless Mountains: this lady is a superb seamstress, but not only that, she knows how to work with antique fabrics! And...she LIKES that stuff! So last night one of the period clothing pages I follow posted this lovely shot of a gown from the late 1800's all embroidered at neck and hem with bees. There's lace and other stuff as well, but it was the bees that caught my eye. They may have been used by Napoleon (we won't discuss him, as I am descended from Louis VII of France, and so am clearly a Royalist!) but my name means 'bee.'
It was a no brainer, and half jokingly I sent the pic to my genius seamstress, Jean, and said, wanna make this for me?
Her reply: sure. Love it. Might be a little expensive tho.
My reply: full steam ahead! We've determined that we will bring the design forward a couple of decades, to about 1912, and give it more of an Edwardian than Victorian feel. I've sent her a rough sketch/photo of what I think I'd like and will have to set up a meeting with her soon so we can get started. It would be splendid if I had it to wear some time this year!
So that almost makes up for the fact that because of the aforementioned snow, I was unable to travel north (more snow, really awful roads and high winds) to the English Country Dance Brunch and Dance yesterday. Well, ECD classes resume the end of April, and there's a dinner in June, so I hope I'll be able to make that!
And finally...the new book. Yes, I'm on the last steps for the current murder mystery work in progress, due out late this summer. The newest murder mystery will be published the end of this week. But meanwhile, I've been thinking about what to do with Izzy ever since I left her in a rather precarious predicament at the conclusion of A CHRISTMAS IN TIME. All I can tell you is, I'm one chapter in, and having fun. When will this book publish? Probably this autumn. We hope the foundation project at The Oldest House will begin fairly soon now that our state budget is in place (that's another topic for another blog). With luck, we'll be able to have the annual Fancy Fair in October, and I'd like to try to have the new book...called CORRIDORS IN TIME...ready then. We'll see.
So, as always, thanks for reading. Find me on twitter at @LadyCourville, on Facebook as Deborah deBilly dit Courville and my page as Deborah L. Courville. Leave a comment, send me pictures, whatever. Thank you!
Hello. We have survived winter here in the Northern Hemisphere, and it was quite a mild one. However, our spring is being interrupted by a last smack from Winter: a couple inches of snow, some stiff breezes, and more cold temps. But it will not last. And I have hope.
So...update on the Period Clothing Exhibit. S. Plural. Yes. As most of you know, I own rather a nice amount of period clothing items, from 1770's through to the 1920's. The majority of this is on display at The Oldest House, along with a few items the House itself owns. I change things out seasonally, although the things owned by the House do not change.
I was recently honored by being asked to join the board of another Historic Home Museum in our area, French Azilum. You may not know it, and you probably won't believe it (I didn't at first) but here in northeastern Pennsylvania was the site where French Royalists built a little village for Queen Marie Antoinette to flee to, if she could escape France.
Well, she didn't. And the original structures in the village are gone. But the land is still there, and another Frenchman, LaPorte, built a nice, big, quite fancy house there in 1826--the LaPorte House. And as I am on the Board, I'll be bringing my expertise such as it is in period clothing to the items the LaPorte House and French Azilum, Inc. own.
I took a cursory view a few weeks ago, and they have some very nice things. The plan is to do this year more or less what was done last year, perhaps with a couple of small exceptions or additions: it depends. But next year, in 2017, I hope very much to be able to mount a clothing exhibit using mostly what French Azilum owns. I'll fill in with some pieces from my own collection, and a it's a very different sort of house to The Oldest House, the display at the LaPorte House will be quite apart from the Oldest House display.
I think this will be great fun, and I am absolutely gobsmackingly honored to think that I am now curating TWO Period Clothing Exhibits in this region. What an honor, truly, and I promise to do my best.
Ok, New Gown! Thanks to my friend Diana, I have discovered an absolute genius hidden away here in the Endless Mountains: this lady is a superb seamstress, but not only that, she knows how to work with antique fabrics! And...she LIKES that stuff! So last night one of the period clothing pages I follow posted this lovely shot of a gown from the late 1800's all embroidered at neck and hem with bees. There's lace and other stuff as well, but it was the bees that caught my eye. They may have been used by Napoleon (we won't discuss him, as I am descended from Louis VII of France, and so am clearly a Royalist!) but my name means 'bee.'
It was a no brainer, and half jokingly I sent the pic to my genius seamstress, Jean, and said, wanna make this for me?
Her reply: sure. Love it. Might be a little expensive tho.
My reply: full steam ahead! We've determined that we will bring the design forward a couple of decades, to about 1912, and give it more of an Edwardian than Victorian feel. I've sent her a rough sketch/photo of what I think I'd like and will have to set up a meeting with her soon so we can get started. It would be splendid if I had it to wear some time this year!
So that almost makes up for the fact that because of the aforementioned snow, I was unable to travel north (more snow, really awful roads and high winds) to the English Country Dance Brunch and Dance yesterday. Well, ECD classes resume the end of April, and there's a dinner in June, so I hope I'll be able to make that!
And finally...the new book. Yes, I'm on the last steps for the current murder mystery work in progress, due out late this summer. The newest murder mystery will be published the end of this week. But meanwhile, I've been thinking about what to do with Izzy ever since I left her in a rather precarious predicament at the conclusion of A CHRISTMAS IN TIME. All I can tell you is, I'm one chapter in, and having fun. When will this book publish? Probably this autumn. We hope the foundation project at The Oldest House will begin fairly soon now that our state budget is in place (that's another topic for another blog). With luck, we'll be able to have the annual Fancy Fair in October, and I'd like to try to have the new book...called CORRIDORS IN TIME...ready then. We'll see.
So, as always, thanks for reading. Find me on twitter at @LadyCourville, on Facebook as Deborah deBilly dit Courville and my page as Deborah L. Courville. Leave a comment, send me pictures, whatever. Thank you!
Sunday, 28 February 2016
BOOM BOOM STICKS & FANCY DRESS? WOMEN IN THE 18TH CENTURY SYMPOSIUM
Wow. Where to begin?
I had the joy of attending 'Beyond Boom Boom Sticks and Fancy Dress Balls: Women's Life in 18th Century America,' a Symposium, yesterday. Held at the lovely Washington Crossing State Park in Pennsylvania (a stone's throw from Jersey, LOL) it was skillfully conceived and orchestrated by the talented Kimberly Boice of Mrs. Boice's Historie Academie and the Friends of Washington Crossing Historic State Park. And before I go any further, please allow me to express my delight and thanks to Mrs. Boice for running everything so beautifully. Great venue, excellent speakers, good food and nibbles, and fascinating attendees. What more could anyone ask for?
And so to the meat of it: the presentations. There were four, and I do not mind telling you that two of them were very far outside my wheelhouse. Yet the speakers' obvious passion for their topics kept me interested and certainly informed. (The two mentioned were about women re-enactors in U.S. Army regiments and about weaving. Those of you who know me know my camping and hiking days are behind me LOL, and that my sewing or weaving ambitions extend to re-attaching buttons and creating rather knobby knitted scarves. Therefore, you can understand why these immersive experts' presentations really gave my brain a workout!)
I could write thousands of words about every aspect of the Symposium, but I will instead focus on the presentations, with emphasis on the two I found most directly applicable to my avocation as a docent at The Oldest House and my new position as a Board Member at French Azilum, Inc., both here in Northeastern PA.
Mary Miley Theobald, author of 'Death by Petticoat and Other Myths About Women in Early America,' was the first speaker, giving us a tantalizing sample of her list of de-bunked myths. I recommend her book, 'Death by Petticoat' and her website and blog to anyone who, like me, gives tours to visitors at historic homes or museums. We are probably all guilty of perpetuating untruths--all in good faith!--told to us by more experienced guides and docents, but this book can help us stick to the truth.
For example, 'sleep tight' may not really be exclusively from the tradition of making sure rope beds were tautly stretched to provide good support, although it is a logical assumption. I have often, in showing visitors to The Oldest House, pointed out our 1830's cannonball rope bed and repeated this very maxim. However, Theobald noted Saturday that the adjective 'tight,' used as early as the 1570's to mean 'drawn or stretched,' is however related to the Middle English word 'thight,' meaning dense or compact and by association, well put together or healthy. Her argument is that 'sleep tight' is really a wish for a healthy, refreshing night's sleep rather than a cautionary statement regarding the bed's rope suspension. The truth may be that the logic of the taut rope association combined with the original sense of the Middle English word, but that the latter was lost as the meaning of 'tight' in the language altered through time. Thus the modern myth that 'sleep tight' is entirely due to the need to have tightly strung bed ropes was born. It's an applicable side note that, although rope beds are as old if not older than the Greek civilization, tighteners specific to the rope bed were not invented until the 18th century and were expensive, so only the wealthy could afford them. For all we know, 'sleep tight' may at one time have meant a wish for the person retiring to sleep as well as the wealthy people who could tighten their beds with just a flick of the wrist.
Other myths, more specifically about women, were also addressed--no, women in the Victorian Era did not have a couple of ribs removed to create a tinier waist. First, there is no account anywhere in primary historical sources such as diaries or journals about such an operation. Also, and perhaps more convincingly, such surgery at that time would probably have resulted in death if not sepsis and deformity. This myth, Theobald asserted, is clearly a modern misinterpretation of a past situation. Yes, women's waists were smaller 150 years ago than they are now, generally speaking. Women (and men) were also a lot shorter then. It is only since WW II that people have attained, in general, the height and girth of today's population.
Corsets were tightly laced and medical study has proven that constant lacing did rearrange internal organs to some degree. How could it not? But no one had ribs removed to make the waist smaller.
Theobald's study ranges through a panoply of myths, some surprising, some we may dismiss out of hand as ridiculous. Both her blog and her book are well worth investigating.
The next two speakers awed me with the scope of their knowledge and experience, so far out of my area of expertise. Carrie Fellows, a member of the Augusta Co. Militia and Executive Director of the Hunterdon County NJ Cultural and Heritage Commission spoke on 'Best Practices for Women of the Army.' Noting that women in the armed forces are sadly under-represented in both art and writing of the period, Fellows spoke of her real experiences as an extremely authentic re-enactor--as with anything, there is a range of authenticity in re-enactments and re-enactors--with humor and veracity.
She recommends front lacing stays (corset) for obvious reasons, since this is the most practical if one must dress oneself, as women in the Army did.
And no, women in the Army were not always prostitutes. Although ladies of pleasure certainly were in evidence, Fellows pointed out that wives could and did choose to follow their husbands on march, even bringing their children at times, in order to keep the family together. And to perhaps keep their husbands from seeking 'pleasure' with those other ladies! The term 'camp follower,' which is generally a term of denigration, should not be, because women in the Army were most often wives, laundresses, sutlers and folks in other similar and respectable positions.
A valuable tip from Fellows about sources to use when researching women of the lower and working classes and their clothing was to use primary sources like newspapers, and consult the 'runaway ads.' These usually contained description of the runaway's clothing; Fellows mentioned that while wild color combinations were common, the re-enactor wishing to be authentic is encouraged to stay with colors that could have been obtained from natural dyes--all that were available until the middle of the 19th century. She also recommended Paul Sandby's drawings for insightful portraits of the average woman in Colonial times.
One thing Fellows didn't mention, probably because she did not have time to, were women who disguised themselves as men to serve in the Army. Incidences of this have been documented and while it wasn't common, it was perhaps more common than commonly thought!
Fellows stressed bringing only what you could carry yourself, and gave examples of the various bags and totes and sacks women of the period used--and which she herself uses when she is on march re-enacting--to carry belongings and supplies. Fellows also pointed out the need to adhere to modern safety and health practices while attempting authenticity while re-enacting. One example is that she will carry electrolyte 'Gatorade' type tablets with her on a long march because, as she says, 'people go down.' Not period correct, but you don't want to be so authentic a re-enactor that you become unconscious and ill from dehydration.
The third speaker was Mara Riley, and her topic was weaving in 18th century North America. While her myriad examples of various types of cloth along with their jaw-droppingly peculiar names like 'fustian' and 'shalloon' had me giggling and scribbling notes, my big take away from her presentation was the fact that spinning and particularly weaving in the 18th century was largely a proto-factory type of enterprise. In this sense, Riley echoed Theobald by de-bunking the myth of the Colonial housewife happily spinning at her large wheel before a cozy fire. Riley claimed that the spinning wheels visitors see in every historic home or museum, and I must say, The Oldest House has two of them, are often products of the late 19th century's Colonial Revival, not Colonial originals. And around those spinning wheels, she said, arose the mythos of the Colonial housewife spinning at the hearth.
Some women did spin wool into yarn, but they would have brought their yarn to a weaver or weaving enterprise to be made into cloth. They probably would have also brought their yarn to a dyer, since coloring yarn was another aspect of fabric making that quickly attained proto factory status. This does not mean that no housewives ever spun, dyed or wove their own cloth, she said, but the fact was that commercially available cloth was cheaper and certainly easier to obtain than doing it yourself.
Boggling--to me--details about the weft and the warp, for which one needs a wheel, were followed by a discussion of drop spindles or hand spindles. Also known as 'distaffs,' these items were in essence portable pre-spinning tools, meant to hold the flax or wool in an untangled manner so it would be ready for spinning. Certainly, Riley said, women couldn't drag a whole spinning wheel, even a small one, out with them if they were keeping a flock of sheep or doing other work, so the distaff became a ubiquitous accessory of the rural working classes.
I'm still a bit confused as to what's a weft and what's a warp but I do know that 'fustian' is made of a cotton weft combined with a linen warp. And 'shalloon' is a light weight twill.
The final speaker, if I had my toes put to the coals and were forced to pick just one, was the most inspiring. Kirsten Hammerstrom from Providence, RI's John Brown House (1786) discussed a relatively new approach in the presentation of historic house museums: immersive first person interpretive history experiences. Combined with vignettes composed of mannequins appropriately dressed and surrounded with artifacts and furnishing which immediately tell a story, this immersive approach allows docents and tour guides to assume the identity of someone who lived or worked in the historic home. (She was most adamant that anyone living in a house more than a one room shack would have had at least one servant and probably more than that, even if they were not especially wealthy people).
In this method, docents greet and interact with the visitors taking the tour through this adopted persona. If well done, Hammerstrom said, the approach gives visitors an unforgettable experience and an exciting impression of the home they are touring. Certainly, the competition for tourism dollars is part of every docent's awareness, so anything to give an edge is a good thing.
Certainly, this approach takes more time, and a bit more gumption perhaps, than just giving the rote speech: 'the house was built in blah blah by blah blah' and so on. But what an opportunity!
I have toured a couple of historic homes where this approach was taken, sometimes very successfully and sometimes less so. Often, the docents 'broke character' to make a comment or clarify something but this did not detract from their presentation, at least in my opinion. But Hammerstrom's talk really has inspired me to take this approach, at least when I give tours at The Oldest House in upcoming seasons.
Hammerstrom mentioned ways of building the character you choose, and suggested using newspapers and any diaries available to find out what was happening at various times in the past. This, she explained, would enable the docent to tie him or herself to the past quite firmly by discussing these events, and would also bring the visitors back in time, as it were, as well.
So, an invigorating, inspiring day, with lots of great people and tons of references--I've been busily downloading and ordering books etc. all day! I highly recommend Mrs. Boice's Historie Academie to anyone in the historical house/museum field and they have a Facebook page as well.
This year when I give tours at The Oldest House, you may possibly meet, well, me. But it's more likely that you'll meet Elizabeth Skinner Sturdevant, or Emma Lacey Mauselle Williams, the two female owners of the House who most 'speak' to me an an historical interpreter.
I would also like to take this approach when training tour guides at French Azilum's LaPorte House. However, I have more research to do and other work to complete before I can tackle that mission.
So, see you later...I'd best get busy researching!
I had the joy of attending 'Beyond Boom Boom Sticks and Fancy Dress Balls: Women's Life in 18th Century America,' a Symposium, yesterday. Held at the lovely Washington Crossing State Park in Pennsylvania (a stone's throw from Jersey, LOL) it was skillfully conceived and orchestrated by the talented Kimberly Boice of Mrs. Boice's Historie Academie and the Friends of Washington Crossing Historic State Park. And before I go any further, please allow me to express my delight and thanks to Mrs. Boice for running everything so beautifully. Great venue, excellent speakers, good food and nibbles, and fascinating attendees. What more could anyone ask for?
And so to the meat of it: the presentations. There were four, and I do not mind telling you that two of them were very far outside my wheelhouse. Yet the speakers' obvious passion for their topics kept me interested and certainly informed. (The two mentioned were about women re-enactors in U.S. Army regiments and about weaving. Those of you who know me know my camping and hiking days are behind me LOL, and that my sewing or weaving ambitions extend to re-attaching buttons and creating rather knobby knitted scarves. Therefore, you can understand why these immersive experts' presentations really gave my brain a workout!)
I could write thousands of words about every aspect of the Symposium, but I will instead focus on the presentations, with emphasis on the two I found most directly applicable to my avocation as a docent at The Oldest House and my new position as a Board Member at French Azilum, Inc., both here in Northeastern PA.
Mary Miley Theobald, author of 'Death by Petticoat and Other Myths About Women in Early America,' was the first speaker, giving us a tantalizing sample of her list of de-bunked myths. I recommend her book, 'Death by Petticoat' and her website and blog to anyone who, like me, gives tours to visitors at historic homes or museums. We are probably all guilty of perpetuating untruths--all in good faith!--told to us by more experienced guides and docents, but this book can help us stick to the truth.
For example, 'sleep tight' may not really be exclusively from the tradition of making sure rope beds were tautly stretched to provide good support, although it is a logical assumption. I have often, in showing visitors to The Oldest House, pointed out our 1830's cannonball rope bed and repeated this very maxim. However, Theobald noted Saturday that the adjective 'tight,' used as early as the 1570's to mean 'drawn or stretched,' is however related to the Middle English word 'thight,' meaning dense or compact and by association, well put together or healthy. Her argument is that 'sleep tight' is really a wish for a healthy, refreshing night's sleep rather than a cautionary statement regarding the bed's rope suspension. The truth may be that the logic of the taut rope association combined with the original sense of the Middle English word, but that the latter was lost as the meaning of 'tight' in the language altered through time. Thus the modern myth that 'sleep tight' is entirely due to the need to have tightly strung bed ropes was born. It's an applicable side note that, although rope beds are as old if not older than the Greek civilization, tighteners specific to the rope bed were not invented until the 18th century and were expensive, so only the wealthy could afford them. For all we know, 'sleep tight' may at one time have meant a wish for the person retiring to sleep as well as the wealthy people who could tighten their beds with just a flick of the wrist.
Other myths, more specifically about women, were also addressed--no, women in the Victorian Era did not have a couple of ribs removed to create a tinier waist. First, there is no account anywhere in primary historical sources such as diaries or journals about such an operation. Also, and perhaps more convincingly, such surgery at that time would probably have resulted in death if not sepsis and deformity. This myth, Theobald asserted, is clearly a modern misinterpretation of a past situation. Yes, women's waists were smaller 150 years ago than they are now, generally speaking. Women (and men) were also a lot shorter then. It is only since WW II that people have attained, in general, the height and girth of today's population.
Corsets were tightly laced and medical study has proven that constant lacing did rearrange internal organs to some degree. How could it not? But no one had ribs removed to make the waist smaller.
Theobald's study ranges through a panoply of myths, some surprising, some we may dismiss out of hand as ridiculous. Both her blog and her book are well worth investigating.
The next two speakers awed me with the scope of their knowledge and experience, so far out of my area of expertise. Carrie Fellows, a member of the Augusta Co. Militia and Executive Director of the Hunterdon County NJ Cultural and Heritage Commission spoke on 'Best Practices for Women of the Army.' Noting that women in the armed forces are sadly under-represented in both art and writing of the period, Fellows spoke of her real experiences as an extremely authentic re-enactor--as with anything, there is a range of authenticity in re-enactments and re-enactors--with humor and veracity.
She recommends front lacing stays (corset) for obvious reasons, since this is the most practical if one must dress oneself, as women in the Army did.
And no, women in the Army were not always prostitutes. Although ladies of pleasure certainly were in evidence, Fellows pointed out that wives could and did choose to follow their husbands on march, even bringing their children at times, in order to keep the family together. And to perhaps keep their husbands from seeking 'pleasure' with those other ladies! The term 'camp follower,' which is generally a term of denigration, should not be, because women in the Army were most often wives, laundresses, sutlers and folks in other similar and respectable positions.
A valuable tip from Fellows about sources to use when researching women of the lower and working classes and their clothing was to use primary sources like newspapers, and consult the 'runaway ads.' These usually contained description of the runaway's clothing; Fellows mentioned that while wild color combinations were common, the re-enactor wishing to be authentic is encouraged to stay with colors that could have been obtained from natural dyes--all that were available until the middle of the 19th century. She also recommended Paul Sandby's drawings for insightful portraits of the average woman in Colonial times.
One thing Fellows didn't mention, probably because she did not have time to, were women who disguised themselves as men to serve in the Army. Incidences of this have been documented and while it wasn't common, it was perhaps more common than commonly thought!
Fellows stressed bringing only what you could carry yourself, and gave examples of the various bags and totes and sacks women of the period used--and which she herself uses when she is on march re-enacting--to carry belongings and supplies. Fellows also pointed out the need to adhere to modern safety and health practices while attempting authenticity while re-enacting. One example is that she will carry electrolyte 'Gatorade' type tablets with her on a long march because, as she says, 'people go down.' Not period correct, but you don't want to be so authentic a re-enactor that you become unconscious and ill from dehydration.
The third speaker was Mara Riley, and her topic was weaving in 18th century North America. While her myriad examples of various types of cloth along with their jaw-droppingly peculiar names like 'fustian' and 'shalloon' had me giggling and scribbling notes, my big take away from her presentation was the fact that spinning and particularly weaving in the 18th century was largely a proto-factory type of enterprise. In this sense, Riley echoed Theobald by de-bunking the myth of the Colonial housewife happily spinning at her large wheel before a cozy fire. Riley claimed that the spinning wheels visitors see in every historic home or museum, and I must say, The Oldest House has two of them, are often products of the late 19th century's Colonial Revival, not Colonial originals. And around those spinning wheels, she said, arose the mythos of the Colonial housewife spinning at the hearth.
Some women did spin wool into yarn, but they would have brought their yarn to a weaver or weaving enterprise to be made into cloth. They probably would have also brought their yarn to a dyer, since coloring yarn was another aspect of fabric making that quickly attained proto factory status. This does not mean that no housewives ever spun, dyed or wove their own cloth, she said, but the fact was that commercially available cloth was cheaper and certainly easier to obtain than doing it yourself.
Boggling--to me--details about the weft and the warp, for which one needs a wheel, were followed by a discussion of drop spindles or hand spindles. Also known as 'distaffs,' these items were in essence portable pre-spinning tools, meant to hold the flax or wool in an untangled manner so it would be ready for spinning. Certainly, Riley said, women couldn't drag a whole spinning wheel, even a small one, out with them if they were keeping a flock of sheep or doing other work, so the distaff became a ubiquitous accessory of the rural working classes.
I'm still a bit confused as to what's a weft and what's a warp but I do know that 'fustian' is made of a cotton weft combined with a linen warp. And 'shalloon' is a light weight twill.
The final speaker, if I had my toes put to the coals and were forced to pick just one, was the most inspiring. Kirsten Hammerstrom from Providence, RI's John Brown House (1786) discussed a relatively new approach in the presentation of historic house museums: immersive first person interpretive history experiences. Combined with vignettes composed of mannequins appropriately dressed and surrounded with artifacts and furnishing which immediately tell a story, this immersive approach allows docents and tour guides to assume the identity of someone who lived or worked in the historic home. (She was most adamant that anyone living in a house more than a one room shack would have had at least one servant and probably more than that, even if they were not especially wealthy people).
In this method, docents greet and interact with the visitors taking the tour through this adopted persona. If well done, Hammerstrom said, the approach gives visitors an unforgettable experience and an exciting impression of the home they are touring. Certainly, the competition for tourism dollars is part of every docent's awareness, so anything to give an edge is a good thing.
Certainly, this approach takes more time, and a bit more gumption perhaps, than just giving the rote speech: 'the house was built in blah blah by blah blah' and so on. But what an opportunity!
I have toured a couple of historic homes where this approach was taken, sometimes very successfully and sometimes less so. Often, the docents 'broke character' to make a comment or clarify something but this did not detract from their presentation, at least in my opinion. But Hammerstrom's talk really has inspired me to take this approach, at least when I give tours at The Oldest House in upcoming seasons.
Hammerstrom mentioned ways of building the character you choose, and suggested using newspapers and any diaries available to find out what was happening at various times in the past. This, she explained, would enable the docent to tie him or herself to the past quite firmly by discussing these events, and would also bring the visitors back in time, as it were, as well.
So, an invigorating, inspiring day, with lots of great people and tons of references--I've been busily downloading and ordering books etc. all day! I highly recommend Mrs. Boice's Historie Academie to anyone in the historical house/museum field and they have a Facebook page as well.
This year when I give tours at The Oldest House, you may possibly meet, well, me. But it's more likely that you'll meet Elizabeth Skinner Sturdevant, or Emma Lacey Mauselle Williams, the two female owners of the House who most 'speak' to me an an historical interpreter.
I would also like to take this approach when training tour guides at French Azilum's LaPorte House. However, I have more research to do and other work to complete before I can tackle that mission.
So, see you later...I'd best get busy researching!
Monday, 11 January 2016
New Year, New (Old) Clothes!
Hello, friends!
As many of you know, I curate the Period Clothing Exhibit at The Oldest House in Laceyville, PA. This year, the House will open in late summer, because (we hope) we will be having the foundation repaired during the spring and early summer.
This means I'll be spending several days in late January and early February packing away all the lovely period clothing I've acquired and which has been on display at the House during the past three years. Everything will be safely stored while the work on the foundation is being done, and then once it's finished, everything will come out of storage and a new exhibit will be mounted.
So I've given quite a bit of thought as to what I might wish to display this year, and I've come up with a general concept. The 2016 and very likely 2017 display(s) will focus on work: around the house, in the fields, in the towns.
Because the very antique clothing from the 18th century is scarce, I'm just grateful for what we have. I cannot honestly say that the 1790's brocade 'round gown' would be worn for work, LOL. But I could create (I think) a small tableau with a maid/lady's maid figure dressed in the 1780's cotton 'indienne' and possibly with an apron as well, is lacing up the brocade gown, or otherwise in service, if you see what I mean.
Small challenge: most of my mannequins don't have arms, so it will be a bit of a challenge to make this look right, but I have confidence!
Also, the male 1780's figure in this area could be posed with some sort of antique instrument--a surveying thingie, maybe, or something else. I've just started thinking about this, so suggestions are welcome.
We know the folks in what was to become Laceyville by 1850 or so were largely farmers to begin with. But one man who lived in The Oldest House, Samuel Sturdevant, Jr., was also quite the businessman. He owned a couple of sawmills in the area and also other interests. I don't think he was a surveyor, and frankly I chose that profession because I think their instruments are small and light enough to fit in the display. Also, George Washington was a surveyor. So anyway, that might be what my 18th century man is doing.
The early 19th century people are another tableau. I suspect I'll put a riding crop in the man's hand (or where his hand would be if the mannequin had arms and hands LOL), to suggest that he has been out and about, perhaps on business. There are two female mannequins as well: I may just use one, however, and manifest an idea I had a while back: I'll put one of the authentic aprons I have from that period on her, as well, and put dried herbs and such in one hand and perhaps in a basket nearby or something. In these days, herbs and flowers were used to make or flavor many many things, from cordials to soap to tinctures that might help various illnesses. So in this way, she will be pictured as 'working.'
The next section of the display carries on from the Regency period to the early Victorian/Civil War and post Civil War Period. This is in the first bedchamber, which is quite a large space. Once the foundation is completed, I plan to switch around some of the furniture here, nothing too drastic but enough to make the flow of the display a little different. I have one male mannequin here, and I'm not sure what I'll do with him. I'll have to see. As for the women, I plan to bring the plainer dresses more to the fore, give them their shot in the spotlight, as it were. Prairie dresses and bonnets, traveling outfits, things like that. Depending on what plans other volunteers have for it, I could even have the antique sewing machine we were given a few years back as a highlight of this room, with a mannequin seated at it, and 'sewing.' We'll have to see.
The High Victorian room--and I'll be flipping the furniture here too, as this bedchamber is quite small, so I need to make more space!--will possibly have a typewriting display similar to the sewing display, with more utilitarian clothing on the mannequins.
And the Edwardian-WWI room--which is the largest area upstairs--will have mannequins in work clothes, including a WWI nurse, day wear, suits, etc. I plan to have a small display on Suffragettes as well, to tie in with the whole women in the workforce theme.
So, off I go now, to do more research!
Updates to come...thank you for reading...
As many of you know, I curate the Period Clothing Exhibit at The Oldest House in Laceyville, PA. This year, the House will open in late summer, because (we hope) we will be having the foundation repaired during the spring and early summer.
This means I'll be spending several days in late January and early February packing away all the lovely period clothing I've acquired and which has been on display at the House during the past three years. Everything will be safely stored while the work on the foundation is being done, and then once it's finished, everything will come out of storage and a new exhibit will be mounted.
So I've given quite a bit of thought as to what I might wish to display this year, and I've come up with a general concept. The 2016 and very likely 2017 display(s) will focus on work: around the house, in the fields, in the towns.
Because the very antique clothing from the 18th century is scarce, I'm just grateful for what we have. I cannot honestly say that the 1790's brocade 'round gown' would be worn for work, LOL. But I could create (I think) a small tableau with a maid/lady's maid figure dressed in the 1780's cotton 'indienne' and possibly with an apron as well, is lacing up the brocade gown, or otherwise in service, if you see what I mean.
Small challenge: most of my mannequins don't have arms, so it will be a bit of a challenge to make this look right, but I have confidence!
Also, the male 1780's figure in this area could be posed with some sort of antique instrument--a surveying thingie, maybe, or something else. I've just started thinking about this, so suggestions are welcome.
We know the folks in what was to become Laceyville by 1850 or so were largely farmers to begin with. But one man who lived in The Oldest House, Samuel Sturdevant, Jr., was also quite the businessman. He owned a couple of sawmills in the area and also other interests. I don't think he was a surveyor, and frankly I chose that profession because I think their instruments are small and light enough to fit in the display. Also, George Washington was a surveyor. So anyway, that might be what my 18th century man is doing.
The early 19th century people are another tableau. I suspect I'll put a riding crop in the man's hand (or where his hand would be if the mannequin had arms and hands LOL), to suggest that he has been out and about, perhaps on business. There are two female mannequins as well: I may just use one, however, and manifest an idea I had a while back: I'll put one of the authentic aprons I have from that period on her, as well, and put dried herbs and such in one hand and perhaps in a basket nearby or something. In these days, herbs and flowers were used to make or flavor many many things, from cordials to soap to tinctures that might help various illnesses. So in this way, she will be pictured as 'working.'
The next section of the display carries on from the Regency period to the early Victorian/Civil War and post Civil War Period. This is in the first bedchamber, which is quite a large space. Once the foundation is completed, I plan to switch around some of the furniture here, nothing too drastic but enough to make the flow of the display a little different. I have one male mannequin here, and I'm not sure what I'll do with him. I'll have to see. As for the women, I plan to bring the plainer dresses more to the fore, give them their shot in the spotlight, as it were. Prairie dresses and bonnets, traveling outfits, things like that. Depending on what plans other volunteers have for it, I could even have the antique sewing machine we were given a few years back as a highlight of this room, with a mannequin seated at it, and 'sewing.' We'll have to see.
The High Victorian room--and I'll be flipping the furniture here too, as this bedchamber is quite small, so I need to make more space!--will possibly have a typewriting display similar to the sewing display, with more utilitarian clothing on the mannequins.
And the Edwardian-WWI room--which is the largest area upstairs--will have mannequins in work clothes, including a WWI nurse, day wear, suits, etc. I plan to have a small display on Suffragettes as well, to tie in with the whole women in the workforce theme.
So, off I go now, to do more research!
Updates to come...thank you for reading...
Saturday, 2 January 2016
'The Season'
...'The Social Season, or Season, has historically referred to the annual period when it is customary for members of a social elite of society to hold debutante balls, dinner parties, and large charity events...it coincided with the sitting of Parliament and began some time after Christmas, and ran until late June.'
That is the Wikipedia entry for The Season and it is more or less correct. The reason The Season developed in the 17th and 18th centuries and really took off in the 19th century is because when the men (ahem, yes, they were all men then, as women didn't even have the vote) all went to the capital to do their work in Parliament; it was best on so many levels if their families and wives went with them.
Most people who participated in the Season were wealthy enough to afford both a country and a city home: the country estate was where they usually spent the various seasons for hunting game, which began in late summer early autumn, and the holidays. Then they returned to the city for the rest of the year.
In England, 'the city' generally meant London. On the continent, although this practice was not as formal, 'the city' would mean any state or country capital such as Paris.
Here in the U.S. 'the city' could mean Washington, but it could also mean any major metropolitan urbs, where the men went to work and the women and families followed. The city house would be opened and the Season would begin. Admittedly the Season was mostly adhered to on the East Coast of the US although some other parts of the country also emulated the practice. More often than not, however, a socially--erm--aggressive family would merely go to the nearest large metropolis that held specific Season-oriented events and de-camp there to partake.
The Season traditionally consisted of balls, dances and charity events where eligible bachelors could meet eligible young women of good family and reputation, and consider marriage. The Season was also capped by some young ladies' Presentation at Court where they would (in the UK) approach, curtsy and withdraw in front of the reigning sovereign.
By the time WW 1 arrived, the Season made a more or less graceful exit from most scenes, although debutante balls and cotillions carried on through the 1970's in socially prominent families both on the East Coast and the South; cotillions and their ilk are still a cherished part of some Southern and Spanish-descendant communities today (the Quinceanera).
Debuts and presentations being behind me, I now live permanently in the country. But I am finding that there is still a Season, even here, although one needs to look closely to find it!
The first event is in just over two weeks: the Downton Abbey Tea at the Stegmaier Mansion in Wilkes Barre. My friends from the Queen Victoria's Court group should be there as well as I, and my great friend Carroll. She's opted for a black and toffee colored Edwardian dress and a coordinating black, burgundy and toffee touring type hat. I suggest burgundy gloves and a black bag, and we'll work out the jewelry when she is here: I've got quite a bit! I am not entirely sure what I shall wear to that, as so much is weather dependent at this point. I am planning, however, on an Edwardian ivory/moss soutache embroidered gown with an ivory and pistachio and mauve touring type hat, and pistachio gloves (to the elbow, of course). Jewelry would likely be pearls. An ivory beaded bag with floral insets and very likely my ivory soutache cape will complete the ensemble.
Following closely on the heels of that event is a Dance at the end of January with my English Country Dance group. Although 'Festive Attire' is not a requirement, and although I always wear Regency Dress when I dance, I suspect I'll wear some type of Regency Gown or Dress with an extra measure of frippery: gloves, a fan, a hair ornament, jewelry, etc. I have my lovely black and claret Regency Coat to top it off, and two antique muffs to choose from as well. I have a new Regency Dress in a small gold and cream floral print so perhaps I'll team that up with light colored gloves (white is traditional but I have a soft pale gold pair that would be pretty I think), gold hair ornaments and pearl jewelry that is period correct. I've even got a coordinating fan!
In February, there's a Candlelight Tea with my friends from the Queen Victoria's Court group. I think I'll wear a deep chocolate brown Edwardian dress with soutache embroidery in silver grey to this event. Silver gloves and bag and probably the camphor glass parer with this. I'm not sure about the hat yet: I may just wear a sparkly hair ornament, or I may wear a hat if one of the new ones I've ordered works with the ensemble. I have a couple of stunning new hats, but they would look best with a suit, I do believe. We'll see.
In March, the members of Queen Victoria's Court and I will be doing a Downton Abbey Fashion Show at the WVIA studios as part of their Gala Dinner and Farewell to the program, which concludes its US showing of the final season that night. I am still working on my outfit for this event. It is going to be quite glamorous, even though it is in the daytime, so I am hoping to wear the authentic blue and silver beaded gown I've used in the Period Clothing Display at The Oldest House. If that works, I'll accompany it with greatx4 grandmother's tiara and some authentic Edwardian hemmed jewelry I have and am acquiring...details on that to come. Silver gloves, blue and silver bag, etc etc. If it's not freezing cold, I'll use a new faux fur arctic fox stole as a wrap. Again, time will tell.
My alternate choice for this is a new pale pink and gold Edwardian gown. I have pink/gold hemmed hair ornaments to go with this, and would probably wear very pale gold gloves. I've got a beaded bag that will work with this, but I'll have to think about the jewelry as most of my Edwardian stuff is silver. However, I do have a lovely although contemporary necklace of rose and yellow gold with gemstones, and will have to rummage through the earrings to find a pair that works.
Whatever I choose to wear, it will be what I have to have dinner in as well, so I'll have to keep that in mind.
April brings the English Country Dance ball and although I have a gorgeous sapphire blue silk and black velvet Regency Dinner Gown, it's a Dinner Gown. As such, it's too long for dancing although the train does loop up. So I have acquired a silver dupioni silk Regency gown; however, it is very plain, so I'll be trimming it to customize the look. I am sure white elbow length gloves will be my choice, and I'm planning on the Georgian paste (Georgian period just precedes Regency) earrings and necklace to round out the look. I'll probably wear the Regency Coat as well. There's a practice session before the Ball, so that means a cotton Regency Dress, and I can just bring the gown and jewelry and change in the ladies LOL!
In either March or April I hope to attend another Open Hearth Cooking Class. I'd love to do it in period garb, too, and I'd love it if a couple of my Colonial-minded friends would come along. It's a great day out and loads of fun! Pursuant to that, I'm quite excited to have been asked to attend the Historic Foodways Conference later in the year, in September. And as an aside, I am thinking about doing some Colonial re-enactment work with a local group...details to come.
May is empty of this kind of event so far (probably not for long) but June brings a mourning fashion show with my friends from Queen Victoria's Court, at Shawnee. I am not a huge fan of mourning attire, and have very little that is solid black. However, depending on a number of things, I may attend and wear something characteristic of 'half mourning'. Come to think of it, I don't have much of that, either! Oh well.
The end of June brings Founders' Day in Tunkhannock, and I'll be at the Historical Society with all three of my Oldest House Series books, doing signings and meet and greet all day. Thank goodness the building is air conditioned because I usually wear Post Colonial garb complete with padded panniers! I have a new gown from that period this year, so I may wear that, or I may revert to one of my favorite ensembles from past years that I've not worn much of late, and add some new accessories. It's always great fun, and if you have a chance, I urge you to come celebrate Tunkhannock and Wyoming County, PA, with us at the end of June. And come see me!
You may have noticed I haven't talked about The Oldest House much in this post. That's because, if all goes well, we should be having our foundation repaired this spring and summer. As such, we don't plan to open until the end of July at the earliest. So my April, May and June are clear for other events! Once the House is re-opened--and we're hoping to do a gala Open House and Musical Weekend--I'll be fairly busy with the 2016 incarnation of the Period Clothing Exhibit, and giving tours and so on. Then in the autumn we'll have our annual Fancy Fair, and the Christmas Tea, and so another year will have gone.
I'm excited at all the opportunities to share my love of period and antique fashions and life with everyone who attends these intriguing events, and I hope to meet you at one of them this year. Don't be shy: come up and introduce yourself!
And, as always, thank you for reading.
That is the Wikipedia entry for The Season and it is more or less correct. The reason The Season developed in the 17th and 18th centuries and really took off in the 19th century is because when the men (ahem, yes, they were all men then, as women didn't even have the vote) all went to the capital to do their work in Parliament; it was best on so many levels if their families and wives went with them.
Most people who participated in the Season were wealthy enough to afford both a country and a city home: the country estate was where they usually spent the various seasons for hunting game, which began in late summer early autumn, and the holidays. Then they returned to the city for the rest of the year.
In England, 'the city' generally meant London. On the continent, although this practice was not as formal, 'the city' would mean any state or country capital such as Paris.
Here in the U.S. 'the city' could mean Washington, but it could also mean any major metropolitan urbs, where the men went to work and the women and families followed. The city house would be opened and the Season would begin. Admittedly the Season was mostly adhered to on the East Coast of the US although some other parts of the country also emulated the practice. More often than not, however, a socially--erm--aggressive family would merely go to the nearest large metropolis that held specific Season-oriented events and de-camp there to partake.
The Season traditionally consisted of balls, dances and charity events where eligible bachelors could meet eligible young women of good family and reputation, and consider marriage. The Season was also capped by some young ladies' Presentation at Court where they would (in the UK) approach, curtsy and withdraw in front of the reigning sovereign.
By the time WW 1 arrived, the Season made a more or less graceful exit from most scenes, although debutante balls and cotillions carried on through the 1970's in socially prominent families both on the East Coast and the South; cotillions and their ilk are still a cherished part of some Southern and Spanish-descendant communities today (the Quinceanera).
Debuts and presentations being behind me, I now live permanently in the country. But I am finding that there is still a Season, even here, although one needs to look closely to find it!
The first event is in just over two weeks: the Downton Abbey Tea at the Stegmaier Mansion in Wilkes Barre. My friends from the Queen Victoria's Court group should be there as well as I, and my great friend Carroll. She's opted for a black and toffee colored Edwardian dress and a coordinating black, burgundy and toffee touring type hat. I suggest burgundy gloves and a black bag, and we'll work out the jewelry when she is here: I've got quite a bit! I am not entirely sure what I shall wear to that, as so much is weather dependent at this point. I am planning, however, on an Edwardian ivory/moss soutache embroidered gown with an ivory and pistachio and mauve touring type hat, and pistachio gloves (to the elbow, of course). Jewelry would likely be pearls. An ivory beaded bag with floral insets and very likely my ivory soutache cape will complete the ensemble.
Following closely on the heels of that event is a Dance at the end of January with my English Country Dance group. Although 'Festive Attire' is not a requirement, and although I always wear Regency Dress when I dance, I suspect I'll wear some type of Regency Gown or Dress with an extra measure of frippery: gloves, a fan, a hair ornament, jewelry, etc. I have my lovely black and claret Regency Coat to top it off, and two antique muffs to choose from as well. I have a new Regency Dress in a small gold and cream floral print so perhaps I'll team that up with light colored gloves (white is traditional but I have a soft pale gold pair that would be pretty I think), gold hair ornaments and pearl jewelry that is period correct. I've even got a coordinating fan!
In February, there's a Candlelight Tea with my friends from the Queen Victoria's Court group. I think I'll wear a deep chocolate brown Edwardian dress with soutache embroidery in silver grey to this event. Silver gloves and bag and probably the camphor glass parer with this. I'm not sure about the hat yet: I may just wear a sparkly hair ornament, or I may wear a hat if one of the new ones I've ordered works with the ensemble. I have a couple of stunning new hats, but they would look best with a suit, I do believe. We'll see.
In March, the members of Queen Victoria's Court and I will be doing a Downton Abbey Fashion Show at the WVIA studios as part of their Gala Dinner and Farewell to the program, which concludes its US showing of the final season that night. I am still working on my outfit for this event. It is going to be quite glamorous, even though it is in the daytime, so I am hoping to wear the authentic blue and silver beaded gown I've used in the Period Clothing Display at The Oldest House. If that works, I'll accompany it with greatx4 grandmother's tiara and some authentic Edwardian hemmed jewelry I have and am acquiring...details on that to come. Silver gloves, blue and silver bag, etc etc. If it's not freezing cold, I'll use a new faux fur arctic fox stole as a wrap. Again, time will tell.
My alternate choice for this is a new pale pink and gold Edwardian gown. I have pink/gold hemmed hair ornaments to go with this, and would probably wear very pale gold gloves. I've got a beaded bag that will work with this, but I'll have to think about the jewelry as most of my Edwardian stuff is silver. However, I do have a lovely although contemporary necklace of rose and yellow gold with gemstones, and will have to rummage through the earrings to find a pair that works.
Whatever I choose to wear, it will be what I have to have dinner in as well, so I'll have to keep that in mind.
April brings the English Country Dance ball and although I have a gorgeous sapphire blue silk and black velvet Regency Dinner Gown, it's a Dinner Gown. As such, it's too long for dancing although the train does loop up. So I have acquired a silver dupioni silk Regency gown; however, it is very plain, so I'll be trimming it to customize the look. I am sure white elbow length gloves will be my choice, and I'm planning on the Georgian paste (Georgian period just precedes Regency) earrings and necklace to round out the look. I'll probably wear the Regency Coat as well. There's a practice session before the Ball, so that means a cotton Regency Dress, and I can just bring the gown and jewelry and change in the ladies LOL!
In either March or April I hope to attend another Open Hearth Cooking Class. I'd love to do it in period garb, too, and I'd love it if a couple of my Colonial-minded friends would come along. It's a great day out and loads of fun! Pursuant to that, I'm quite excited to have been asked to attend the Historic Foodways Conference later in the year, in September. And as an aside, I am thinking about doing some Colonial re-enactment work with a local group...details to come.
May is empty of this kind of event so far (probably not for long) but June brings a mourning fashion show with my friends from Queen Victoria's Court, at Shawnee. I am not a huge fan of mourning attire, and have very little that is solid black. However, depending on a number of things, I may attend and wear something characteristic of 'half mourning'. Come to think of it, I don't have much of that, either! Oh well.
The end of June brings Founders' Day in Tunkhannock, and I'll be at the Historical Society with all three of my Oldest House Series books, doing signings and meet and greet all day. Thank goodness the building is air conditioned because I usually wear Post Colonial garb complete with padded panniers! I have a new gown from that period this year, so I may wear that, or I may revert to one of my favorite ensembles from past years that I've not worn much of late, and add some new accessories. It's always great fun, and if you have a chance, I urge you to come celebrate Tunkhannock and Wyoming County, PA, with us at the end of June. And come see me!
You may have noticed I haven't talked about The Oldest House much in this post. That's because, if all goes well, we should be having our foundation repaired this spring and summer. As such, we don't plan to open until the end of July at the earliest. So my April, May and June are clear for other events! Once the House is re-opened--and we're hoping to do a gala Open House and Musical Weekend--I'll be fairly busy with the 2016 incarnation of the Period Clothing Exhibit, and giving tours and so on. Then in the autumn we'll have our annual Fancy Fair, and the Christmas Tea, and so another year will have gone.
I'm excited at all the opportunities to share my love of period and antique fashions and life with everyone who attends these intriguing events, and I hope to meet you at one of them this year. Don't be shy: come up and introduce yourself!
And, as always, thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)