Talk:Bliaut

Cleaning up

I have added wikilinks, removed the orphan tag, standardized the reference formats, and added 2 images (one contemporary statue and the Leighton painting referred to in the text). I still think it's start class. - PKM 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pleats, gores

The section on pleats originally read:

Some historians insist the same effect results from what is modernly termed "honeycomb" smocking, which is a form of gathered fabric manipulation executed on the underside/interior. This is highly contested, as pleatwork of any kind then seems to largely disappear until the 16th century.

I have fact-tagged this ("some historians" - who? where? when?) and removed the "highly contested" phrasing, replacing it with recent scholarship (Owens-Crocker, 2004) citing pleated linen smocks in 10th century Viking graves, which certainly makes pleating possible for the 12th and 13th century.

Very reasonable. I have therefore removed 'some historians' bit for clarity and made the pleating section a new point of its own because damp-set pleats represent a different fabric manipulation subset than smocking.

I am also going to reference the wide skirts made with gores from the Greenland finds - will try to get a PD image of these. - PKM

Thanks very much. That would be welcome.--Heather 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I seem to have erased previous commentary with my reply. My apologies. This is a new forum for me. --Heather 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I put the missing bits back. It's hard to do permanent damage in Wikipedia. Welcome to the discussion! - PKM 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

I would be interested in creating illustrations (new, copyright released, illustrations) for this article, as it is a subject I've been researching for over a decade now. Jauncourt 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do as your time allows. I *can* draw, but you've more experience in both the needed illustrations and have a better hand at it than I. Heather 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the official Wikipedia policy against original research and be sure that any illustrations you create are based on reputable sources that can be cited and don't cross over into the territory of original research. The boundary is a bit murky in historical costume, since enthusiasts are often the only ones reading the art historians and the costume historians and the archaeologists, with hands-on experience to boot...

Also remember the Wikipedia guideline to be bold. - PKM 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current scholarship and some planned revisions

I'd like to expand the definition given, as current scholarship (dating back to Goddard, actually) is that the "bliaut" is in fact a unisex term, probably meaning a silk court garment, with the name probably being derived from the cloth, originally. Also, as the general style was fashionable for court wear for up to a century, and over a largish geographical area (from the Holy Roman Empire in Germany through France and Spain and down to Italy), there are variations and related garments that are excluded by the narrow definition given currently.

I'll get started on this as soon as possible. I'll also include some diagrams and line illustrations.Jauncourt 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great - I don't have any current scholoarship on this period except in Greenland. Thanks!! - PKM 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Termed 'maunch' sleeves"

A tautology. It would be better simply to say "Termed manches..." A manche is a noun, not an adjective; it signifies "sleeve". "Maunche" is a Middle English variant of manche: using it instead of manche looks a bit "ye olde". --Wetman 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling "maunch" may derive from heraldry, where a stylized version of this sleeve is used as a Charge (heraldry). But I agree that "maunch sleeve" is an awkward tautology and 'manche' is merely the French word for sleeve. - PKM 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for the tautology. I removed the term entirely from the entry because a reference to the charge is not the same as the costuming term. Additionally, permutations of the heraldic charge's depictions over time, while not as bad as that for, say, the Cap_of_Maintenance, will still impair the entry's clarity. Heather 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. - PKM 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New info

I found some contemporary scholarly info on bliauts (both men's and women's) that I will add here. Some of it is in the new 1100-1200 in fashion along with additional images. Will add it as time permits, but feel free to copy over anything that seems appropriate along with the footnotes. Quick answers: one AND two piece cuts, pleated and gored skirts, differences between men's and women's...

Reference is Janet Snyder, "From Content to Form: Court Clothing in Mid-Twelfth-Century Northern French Sculpture", in Désirée Koslin and Janet E. Snyder, eds.: Encountering Medieval Textiles and Dress: Objects, texts, and Images, Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0-3122-9377-1. - PKM 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bliaut/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have added wikilinks, standardized the reference formats, and added 2 images (one contemporary statue and the Leighton painting referred to in the text). I still think it's start class. - PKM 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)