Two points that came out in our discussion of clothing are: social restrictions imposed on men and women regarding the clothing and accessories they wore (sumptuary laws), and the bodily restrictions clothing imposed on the wearer.
Sumptuary laws made it possible to see/recognize social hierarchies, thus maintaining the stratification of social classes. These laws also stated society’s values; if early modern laws are quoting passages from the Bible or Early Christian writers, the laws are an attempt to renew or restore society’s morals and values. And, as Laura pointed out, clothing was a tangible thing that could be regulated; I think Laura stated that these laws might be seen as an expression of society’s “frustration.”
An interesting site: The Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto, Canada.
Despite that attempt to control societal dress, one of the authors stated that it was often very difficult to enforce these laws in the first place. There is most definitely a dichotomy between the laws that are passed and how they are actually implemented. For example, there are/have been laws prohibiting certain sexual acts in several states, but are these laws in fact, enforced? Often the answer is no because it is just too complicated to enforce the laws.
On another note, I personally find the scholarship of historical dress to be confusing. I think there are many contradictions which can be due to several things - including laws that were passed during the time, lack of real examples of clothing and the fact that we have based much research on examples of clothing in painting which may not always be accurately portrayed. As for contradictions in the articles, it was conveyed that the young women of noble families were the women who dressed in the best/most attractive clothing because they were used to represent the wealth and splendor of the family. However, another author claimed that it was the married women who were allowed to wear the most alluring clothing so that they could keep the interest of their husbands. That author also said that the unmarried women wore more simple clothing so that they would not attract male attention. Perhaps this was stating the differences between wealthy and poorer families but most scholarship is based on the wealthy because those with wealth are the ones who are remembered in history. Maybe I have completely misinterpreted the information, but I really came out feeling baffled after reading these articles.
These are excellent questions, and raise the issue that when we consider clothing and sumptuary laws, we must be very specific about location and date. To speak of “Europe” is too broad, even “Italy” is too broad (and non-existent in the early modern period).
When we use works of art as evidence for understanding society and culture, to what extent are we looking at an ideal of that society?
During our discussion yesterday I was wondering how women of the past expressed who they were if they couldn’t choose thier own clothes. It seems that men dressed them, or at least picked out the fabrics and enforced sumptuary laws on them. I remember in high school when it was cool to wear brand names all over your clothes because no one knew what they really liked yet. Now that we are in college, I think that we are all a little more sure of ourselves and use our clothing to express our mood and personality. Do you like bright or muted colors, patterns or solids, short or long, big or small?
How did anyone know who these women were? Men didn’t marry them for their personalities, so their husbands don’t know anything about them. And how could you make any friends if you were inside all day doing your “wifely duties?” I would go stark raving mad if I couldn’t choose my own clothes and couldn’t express myself to the outside world. It’s amazing that we know anything at all about these women.
That is an interesting point to make but I think that what we have to consider is the fact that the idea of the “individual” or the “self” is a more modern concept. During the 20th/21st centuries we have been encouraged, especially in America, to be individuals, to express ourselves, etc. That wasn’t the case in the early modern period. Women were defined by the family they were born into, they were defined by their husbands, by their children, by their “duties,” I could go on. I believe that these societies were more dependent on the collective than the individual.
I tend to agree with Kerry. Its likely that women of this period were largely unconcerned with individuality. It wasn’t just men that “dressed” women like this: mothers taught this behavior to their daughters, who in turn passed it on. This ideal feminine behavior was celebrated in the writing and paintings which we have examined so far. (Gender roles are usually self-replicating, and much of the same is true in our own attitudes towards clothing today. Again with the prom analogy: we expect girls buy expensive, uncomfortable shoes, and then have to dance barefoot–and yet, its usually the girls who choose their shoes.)
Then again, as we’ve seen so far, several women undoubtably found means to express themselves as painters or patrons…granted, the major commonality between Sofanisba, Lavinia, Vittoria Colonna, and Isabella d’Este is that they tended to present themselves as model women rather than individuals. (Lucky for us, that changes with Artemesia!)
A v. interesting discussion! For a comparative study that speaks to q. similar issues, particularly definitions of femininity and inter-generational relationships as articulated through material culture and fashion, see Dorothy Ko’s _Every Step a Lotus: Shoes for Bound Feet_ (UC Press, 2001). It’s also another wonderful reminder of the riches of the Bata Shoe Musuem…
Cheers,
Dr. Fernsebner
Dept. of History and Am. Studies / UMW
This is fascinating because it starts to tie in with some issues Professor Scanlon’s class is dealing with in regards to feet binding. Check out these three posts on feet binding and gender in the Asian American Literature class blog here, here, and here. The intellectual, cross-disciplinary connections abound on UMW Blogs!!!
while i do agree that individuality at the time was less pronounced, i believe that it was still an important issue, at least when it came to clothing. it seems to me that unique clothing was valued highly. the more rare the cut or fabric was, the more desirable it was, the more expensive it was, the more men wanted to buy it and “display” it on their wife or daugthers. i feel like individuality was valued so far as fashion is concerned, but prehaps not so much with developing the individual. in that case, you all are right. women were all taught to act a certain way by mothers and husbands, it was part of their socialization. but dont you think (or at least hope) that they found little ways to make their uniqueness known? and dont you think that, if done correctly, these little things could make them or their husbands well-known in a positive light? for example, a woman fixes her hair in a slightly new way that is striking on her. her husband’s friends all notice how beautiful she is, they envy him and tada! the husband gains status in the eyes of his contemporaries. these men then go back to their wives and order them to replicate the hairstyle and thus we have the beginning of a new trend. and prehaps this one extraordinary woman continues to develop ways to separate herself from the others; subtle, non-threatening ways to express herself, beautify herself, and make her husband proud. it is highly likely i am making this all up because i consider myself somewhat of a romantic. prehaps this didnt happen at all. maybe someone else with a few more facts and a little less imagination can let me know if anything i just said is actually plausible.
In response to Nicole, I do think that your speculations have some truth to them, although there is perhaps no tangible evidence. It makes sense to me that a woman who is restricted in so many ways, whether by law or by their husband’s word, would try in any way possible to express herself without breaking any codes of conduct. A trend has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is quite commonly an individual who is, a you stated, “trying to make [her] uniqueness known.” I don’t know if my support helps you at all but I just thought I would make it known
in regards to the whole individuality issue…. in the article about the middle ages the author was really keen on talking about how important clothing acted as a way to show ones individuality. Its hard to say exactly HOW or to what degree women could do this, but I think they pulled it off somehow, probably through use of bright colors/fabrics/styles or what not. It is hard to say really because there are so few (if any) actual dresses from differeing social classes and locations. I am starting to think showing your individuality really just depended on where you were and who you were.
I think on individuality and women’s fashion, it was entirely intended as a social construct, and agreeing with Nicole, it was not so much for personal gain. Women may not have been concerned with individuality as far as expressing themselves or their personal preferences, but rather expressing how they felt they should be seen in society, with regards to class and family roles. I like what Robert said about these “self-replicating” gender roles, as it shows what was defined as the standard from which individuality rose at the time (versus today’s concept or definition of individuality).
I agree that showing your individuality might have depended on where you were and who you were. If you look to the past or even today, in the end the idea of individuality is still somewhat restrained to what society thinks. The wealthy dressed for specific purposes or were portrayed a certain way in art, and the same goes for those with less wealth. (as seen from some of the examples in the other comments)
If we look at clothing today, stereotypes still exist, whether some one dresses “preppy,” “artsy,” “jock” etc….. Also, the concept of wealth with the amount of clothing, brand names or not buying brand names exists. I feel as though people still seem to hold onto their individulaity but might still conform to a group type, and that the ideas might go hand in hand.
Has anyone looked at the posts from Dr. Scanlon’s class about foot binding? They parallel the moment in our discussion when Professor Och asked us all to mimic the rigid posture of the woman in the painting. Both are fashions that cause women to suffer in order to produce some unnatural ideal of beauty.
I find it interesting that we’re appalled by these traditions when the current standards of feminine beauty aren’t any more comfortable or natural. A few students from Dr. Scanlon’s class compared food binding to wearing high heels. I would like to draw another comparison to contemporary fashion, between corsets and anorexia. It is no longer particularly common for women to wear corsets, yet emaciation is romanticized. Just as a corset prevents movement, anorexia prevents a body from being strong and capable. I feel that in this way the fashion industry encourages weakness in women.
I hope that our studies of women’s clothing in history will open our eyes to the oppressive nature of contemporary fashion.
Mollydollybigmonkeybird…
This reminds me of our conversation in the car on Saturday…and your proclamation on the streets of D.C. that you were always going to wear flats even when they go out of style. On our 39489834 mile hike from the Mall to the Kennedy Center, I was acutely conscious of the shoes I was wearing. While I would never consider wearing heels on a D.C. day, I definitely could have been wearing more comfortable shoes. But more comfortable shoes would not have been as “cute.” And why do we care about dressing cutely?
Let me just admit that the reason I was so aware of my shoes was NOT because they were cute, but because my feet HURT (and I have the blisters to prove it). I agree with Molly about it being interesting that people are sometimes shocked when it comes to older fashion trends/traditions like corsets and foot binding. In some respects I feel that the clothing restrictions placed on women in early modern Italy mirror the societal expectations that make women dress the way they do today. Black is slimming…heels make your legs look longer and slimmer…blue is the best color to wear when you have a job interview…you can’t wear white shoes and/or pants after Labor Day…even the style and cut of a stranger’s shirt seems to say a lot about their personality even before you have had a conversation with them.
ok…maybe I’ll figure out where I was going with this tomorrow.