Fashion - the mirror of history

[frualeydis]

I've started on a pile of books I thought I'd check up before writing an application for research funds. I started by trying to find most of the books in the literature list of the excellent book Sexing La Mode, by Jennifer M Jones.
One of the books listed was Fashion - the mirror of history by Michael and Ariane Batterberry and I tell you, it really sucks. The text is totally un-scholarly and filled with the usual anecdotes and myths about both history and costume. There are also some rather amusing/irritating obvious errors. I know it's from 1977, but there was lots of good research in those days too, so there is no real excuse:


The text accompanying this picture says:"Ladies in day dresses in aniline colours."

Though one aniline dye was discovered in the 1820s, it was not used commercially until the "mauvine" from 1956. This fashion print is definitely pre-1856.



Well, you can read the caption yourself. As I recall this photo is generally accepted as an example of a retouched photo, and besides "more than one determined woman achieved an eighteen inch waist by the surgical removal of the lowest ribs"!. Come on, in 1900? It appears that it doesn't matter how many times this myth is proved false, or that is contrary to all knowledge of victorian medicine; people will keep on repeating it.


And then there's the text to this portrait of Elizabeth:

"With age, Elizabeth abandoned the décolleté 'tudor ruff' for a throat-concealing round ruff."
What on earth is a "tudor ruff"? The only décolleté ruffs are the later, open ruffs; which Elizabeth certainly wore after this 1570s picture was made.

The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. These are just the examples that jumped at me when I glanced through the book, the text is probably full of them.

Comments

[operafantomet.livejournal.com]

Ouch, ouch.... It is really annoying to know that people will read these books and believe what's written. It is sad to see inaccurasies being published and reckoned by others as the truth.

I experienced some weeks ago that Norwegian Elle called Marie Antoinette "The fashion queen of the Baroque era". That was the headline of the article. It's just as annoying when they call whatever-frilly-white shirt out there as "Victorian", when it's clearly not. But hey, that's a fashion magazine. A book about historical fashions should definitely go through more research and editing before published, because those books will be available in libraries for at least 50 years to come.

[mirazandar.livejournal.com]

And that people will read them and think they learned something really useful

i know i did at the very beginning

[clothsprogs.livejournal.com]

One I came across the other day said Madder was used as a dye "as early as 1860"

Which while technically true implies that it wasn't used *before* 1860.

Teddy

[pinkdiamond.livejournal.com]

I will virtually bang my head on my desk, but not in actuality.

You are bringing back so many memories of my first introduction to costuming books...

[ginger-dragon.livejournal.com]

Come on, in 1900? It appears that it doesn't matter how many times this myth is proved false, or that is contrary to all knowledge of victorian medicine; people will keep on repeating it.
Well, I got into an argument with a woman once who claimed that they did surgically remove ribs in the 18th century! God, she was so stupid!

[myladyswardrobe.livejournal.com]

I may be wrong but the corset lady doesn't look like she is in a 1910s corset anyway! It looks more like an 1880s/90s corset. There is a difference!

Costume mistakes in so called costume books are a problem for me. Also, in apparently scholarly historical biographies showing a portrait of a "lady in a ruff" and calling her Anne Boleyn *really* gets on my nerves.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Yes, I have seen earlier dating of that picture too, but still, rib surgery?