An introduction to evidence based research for historic costuming
Newcomers to
costumed historical interpretation or reenacting often spend much time asking
“do I need to wear …?” The natural instinct is to just ask those closest, or
those you have bumped into on the internet. Sometimes that’s great, sometimes
not so much. Either way, at some point you need to start doing your own
research and setting your own standards based on that. Unfortunately the type
of research you need to do is far from
what we were taught in high school or college. That knowledge might help you
find a picture but you need to know how to “read” the picture. You need to
glean the details from it not just paste it into a report. The good news is
that in the past fifteen years an astonishing amount of primary sources for the
19th century have found their way onto the internet.
How do
you use those primary sources to decide if you need to wear x, y, or z? Let’s
start with gloves. Partly because I’m in the midst of some research on them and
they are on my mind, partly because I hear that question a lot. And, I too
often hear a myth that women always wore gloves when they went outside.
So…do I need
to wear gloves when I go outdoors?
It fairly
safe to start of with some assumptions to start (be prepared to be wrong once
and a while though). We’ll start with the assumption that some women wore
gloves some of the time. It can help you frame the real questions – who, when,
where, and what did they look like.
Let’s look at
a few pictures, if you want to know what people really did pictures are
wonderful. Magazines will tell you what they aspired to do, just like Cosmo and
Martha Stewart tell us what we are supposed to aspire to. I’m pretty sure they
attained those aspirations at the same low rate we do.
Gloves can be
hard to spot so blow up the picture…detail of some hands.
And another
of some officers and ladies at Fort Monroe
And another closeup.
It’s actually
difficult to find photographs, set outside, with women wearing gloves which are
clear enough to see any detail. Lucky for us many women donned their outerwear
for studio shots, like the lovely Miss Chapman.
Again, zoom
in to see what is really going on. Are they bulky or sleek? Loose or tight? If
we can see the outline of her nail and the creases over her knuckles they must
be both tight and thin. One picture is not enough to base things off though so
keep looking, also pay attention to the length. How far over the wrist are
they? Are there any decorations? If they have gloves but aren’t wearing them
what are they doing with them?
There is much
that photographs can’t tell us about the gloves. Color for one. Museum
collections come in handy to answer that, and more.
Zoom in to get a good look, what do you notice? The seams
are on the outside, not inside like most modern gloves. The leather is very
fine and light/thin. There is no lining. There is a slit on the inside of the
wrist, you need that to be able to get such tight gloves on. The little buckle
and ribbon (or elastic) would close it up to keep it snug at the wrist.
Were they all black or white? Don’t let gray scale photographs fool you,
they loved color. A lovely lavender pair from the MET, http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/80032192?rpp=20&pg=3&ao=on&ft=gloves&when=A.D.+1800-1900&pos=46#fullscreen
Look closely and you’ll see they are quite similar. The cuff
has some pretty decoration and the buckle has been replaced by buttons but
aside from that there isn’t much different.
Genre paintings and fashion illustrations will also help us confirm that women did indeed wear gloves outdoors.
The "Cordovan" from Godey's August 1861
Genre paintings and fashion illustrations will also help us confirm that women did indeed wear gloves outdoors.
Henry Alexander Bowler’s “The Doubt: ‘Can these Dry BonesLive”, 1855
The "Cordovan" from Godey's August 1861
Lady’s magazines can help fill in the holes regarding
styles, colors, types available, seasonality, etc. What did Godey’s have to say
about gloves in 1861?
In April:
“Straw-colored gloves, with two buttons, and worked with lavender
color”
“Gloves worked with wine-color to match the dress.”
“Gloves worked with green.”
Looking at the fashion plate and
wondering where the gloves are? Zoom in and you can just barely see three lines
on the backs of their hands, the hands also look a bit flat in color compared
to their faces. The lighter colors – straw, lemon, buff – can be hard to spot
in both fashion plates and photographs. Look for traces of their detail and odd
lines at the wrist.
Newspapers
can help you determine what was available and when. The two following ads ran
in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle throughout 1861. The kid gloves were
advertised all year, the silk taffeta on the other hand only shows up June
through September.
Don’t rule
out fiction of the day as a source. It can be especially helpful for shedding
light on the who and when. Watch for clues about context – are they in the city
or the country, is the character wealthy or poor, are they lauding the person
or poking fun at her, and such. Returning to Godey’s from 1861:
From “Sunshine
and shade; or, the governess”: “…on the morning before Christmas we find her
and her two pupils dressed for a short journey; they are going to Augusta to
spend the holidays, and as they stand before the sitting-room grate, drawing on
their gloves, Martha and Mary bewail the inopportune illness of the overseer…”
What clues
are here? Late December can be cold, even in the South where this takes place.
Even in just cool weather sitting in an unheated carriage for hours might
prompt the hardiest of women to want gloves. The young ladies are of a class to
have a governess so they are likely better off. A few sentences later it's confirmed that they are on a
plantation.
From “A new
version of Paul and Virginia”: “…They admired the folding of her veil over the
bonnet, the neatness of her gloves, even the manner in which her shawl was
pinned; one judges character by trifles. She had with her a crimson-lined traveling
bag, not crowded but full of dainty luxuries…” when Virginia reached her
destination: “Miss Rachel, divested of garden gloves and dress, in a clean chintz
wrapper, superintended Virginia’s unpacking”
Again, gloves
for travel and someone rather better off. But, also there were specific gloves
for gardening.
From “Mr and
Mrs Rasher”: “…Well! You’re able to stand a little imposition, and you don’t
suppose I’m going to let ’em see I ever stepped into a kitchen. My hands show
it! No, they don’t; and I’m going to keep ‘em done up nights in old gloves, and
oil ‘em every night with – lard oil? – stuff! with rose cream”
When you
wear out you gloves they still have a purpose! Take a closer look at the story though. The Rashers seem to have started in lower place and made enough money to move up in society but they are still in transition. That likely explains the switch from lard oil to rose cream.
Of course you
want to look at more sources than what I have here but, hopefully, this gives
an idea of what to look for and how to look at it. So, back to the original question…Should
I wear gloves?
Did women
wear gloves? Yes
Did women
always wear gloves outdoors? No
How to choose
then?
Given your time, place, activities, and socioeconomic
status what types of gloves would you have owned and would they have been worn
daily, saved for good, or just for specific work?
Do you have,
or can you get, gloves which look like, and fit like, their gloves?
Exactly
where you draw the line depends upon your own standards as well as the wishes
of the group you're associated with or museum you’re working for. Never be afraid to bring new information to the table if you think a group might have missed something, that's the only way we'll move forward instead of backward. My own
standard? If it’s an accessory it's not necessary, you can go out without gloves –
they did. If the only gloves you have are bulky, loose fitting modern ones and
it’s 80 degrees out leave the gloves home, they will detract from the better
items you’re wearing and you’ll be more comfortable without them. If the mercury
dips to single digits that’s another matter. Frostbite might be historically
accurate but it’s really not an appropriate sacrifice! Unless you can find someone making good reproduction gloves (and if you do please tell me who!) you need to find where you are happy along that spectrum.
Hopefully
this has helped someone to get started on doing her or his own research!
