Tag Archives: Research

Interpreting Bridget

24 Thursday Apr 2014

Posted by in Events, History, Living History, Reenacting

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Shirts? What shirts?

Shirts? What shirts?

This weekend, we’ll be at the Brigade of the American Revolution’s School of Instruction, taking anxiety to the Hudson Highlands as I give a presentation on interpretation. Sure, it’s part of my day job to interpret objects and documents and even, sometimes, to do costumed interpretation, but experience has never prevented me from worrying. It has allowed me to focus my worries more productively and specifically. One of the things we’ll be trying, or attempting to try, are vignettes based on the shirt-stealing and selling ring of 1782.

Events from Captain Abbot’s Orderly Book for interpretive vignettes

Soldiers Steal a Shirt and dispose of same (~July 13-14, 1782)*
Cast: Two soldiers, officer who catches them
Props: shirts

Court-Martial July 15, 1782: Paul Poindexter and Titus Tuttle, for theft of a shirt
Cast: Two soldiers, accusing officer, three officers of the court
Props: Shirt; table and seats, orderly book (optional)

Discovered buying a shirt (~July 21-22, 1782)*
Cast: Bridget, soldier selling shirt, officer who catches them
Props: Shirt(s), money

Court-Martial July 23, 1782: Bridget tried for buying a ‘publick shirt’
Cast: Bridget, accusing officer, three officers of the court
Props: Shirt & money; table and seats, orderly book (optional)

Insolence to Officers of the 10th Mass (~July 23-24, 1782)*
Cast: Bridget, officers (two preferable, one adequate)
Props: None required, large stick probably handy

Court-Martial July 25, 1782: Bridget tried for insolence
Cast: Bridget, accusing officer, three officers of the court
Props: Table and seats, orderly book (optional)

Expelled from camp, July 25, 1782*
Cast: Bridget, drummer, officer(s), jeering onlookers; Francis skulking at the edge
Props: Drum, Bridget’s chattel

* Events are extrapolated from the Orderly Book as things that must have happened to cause the events that followed.

We’ll see…in the meantime, I’m finishing up a shirt for the Young Mr, so that his small clothes will no longer be too-small clothes, and so we have extra shirts for this black market ring.

Visual Illiteracy

23 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Art Rant, Clothing, Fail, Research, Snark, TV Review

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Banastre Tarlteon by Joshua Reynolds

Portrait of Sir Banastre Tarleton (1754-1833) by Joshua Reynolds, 1782. National Gallery (UK)


See update below!

By 9:00 on Sunday, I was asleep and missed “Turn,” which Mr S wasn’t even watching because, as he declared, “It’s just a bad show.” On Monday evening, I made it through the opening of the show and gave up for good. But those minutes made me think of the Banastre Tarleton portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and the suggestion on Twitter that “Turn” had no historical consultant.

It occurred to me, as I stared at the rather curious headgear worn by Captain Tallmadge (I think it’s stretch lycra over a “Roman” gladiator costume helmet glued to a baseball cap visor and edge-taped with gold foil) that perhaps the people doing the costumes simply lacked visual literacy. This could explain the refugees from Fort Lee who looked like they stepped out of an Emma Lazarus poem, and it could explain the very unfortunate helmet.

Tarleton_notes

Let us look at Banastre Tarleton, hunky bad boy of the British dragoons: he came to mind on Monday night, and what visual relief he is.

Note the light edge of the visor: this is a highlight. The leading edge of a polished surface will shine, and helmets, even of leather, will be reflective. Over time, the edges will polished by wear if not on purpose. I cannot speak to the helmet habits of the horse-mounted, but I know from paintings, and that edge is a highlight.

The Boys last July. Look, shiny, not-taped visor edges.

The Boys last July. Look, shiny, not-taped visor edges.

Reynolds painted what he saw, and just as the Young Mr’s cheekbones are reflecting light off the underside of his visor and Mr S’s helmet edge is shining in the direct light, so too is Colonel Tarleton’s helmet edge shining.

(Yes, there are both mounted and unmounted dragoons within a unit; but I just can’t help feeling that an officer would be mounted more often than he has appeared to be thus far.)

ETA: Heather has graciously pointed out a very nice blog on Turn, which is doing a far more even-handed and informed job of watching and commenting on the show. Thank you, Heather!

Use it Up, Wear it Out, Make it Do

07 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Clothing, History, Museums, Research

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bodice, painted Indian cotton, 1780-1795 RIHS 1990.36.27

Bodice, painted Indian cotton, 1780-1795
RIHS 1990.36.27

I’ve fallen behind again, as I spent considerable early morning time this past week working on a short presentation for a program in Worcester this past weekend. If you are among the people who do not wake at 4:00 AM panicking about the organization of your thoughts, or whom, exactly, might have worn a heavily-remade bodice, you are lucky indeed.

But I managed to present without falling all over myself, putting out someone’s eye, or causing mayhem and self-embarassment, so, phew! (I do this so much less often than I used to that my anticipatory anxiety is always high.)

Above you can see one of the items I talked about: a re-worked bodice from the collection of the Rhode Island Historical Society.

Sleeves, removed from bodice 1990.36.27. RIHS 1990.36.25A-B

Sleeves, removed from bodice 1990.36.27.
RIHS 1990.36.25A-B

I think, once upon a time, that bodice was part of a pieced-back closed-front gown with a matching petticoat.

And then I think someone decided (quite rightly) that the style was too passé for 1795, and altered the gown significantly.

Not only is there evidence of new sleeves being fitted into the gown’s armscyes, we have the sleeves-that-used-to-be. And my dear! No one is wearing sleeves like that this season!

I find these garments in limbo really fascinating. Was that bodice finished and worn with a matching petticoat? (Yes, there’s a panel of that left, too; what a lovely hem!)

Skirt panel, painted Indian cotton. RIHS 1990.36.33

Skirt panel, painted Indian cotton.
RIHS 1990.36.33

Who wore the gown? Was the woman who wore it originally the same woman who wore it altered? I can only guess at this point, and may never find the smoking diary or mantua-maker’s bill. The alterations are not as finely done as the original gown, so I think there are two hands at work here– whose were those hands? There’s always more to think about and learn.

In case you’re wondering, thanks to the Met, we can see what the gown probably looked like in its first incarnation, and then what the alterations were meant to achieve. (Link to the gown on the left; link to the gown on the right.)

Robe a l’anglaise, 1785-1795 MMA 2009.300.647
Gown and petticoat, 1790-1794 MMA C.I.45.6a,b

Pockets of Evidence

02 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Clothing, Reenacting, Research

≈ Comments Off on Pockets of Evidence

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Or is it evidence of pockets?

Pocket, 1770-1780 Rhode Island Linen, cotton and silk RIHS 1985.1.9

Pocket, 1770-1780
Rhode Island
Linen, cotton and silk
RIHS 1985.1.9

In any case, I thought it time to upgrade my pockets, since I have given so much attention to the rest of Bridget’s clothing. I have also been talking with a colleague about a pocket game activity, similar to the process I’ve used in thinking about Bridget: what is in your pocket? If I’m going to try that out in public, then I’d like not to be embarrassed about my pockets.

The first pocket I made was based completely on one in the RIHS Collection, and it annoyed the daylights out of me as it had exactly the same loop on top and twisted around under my petticoats, making the opening hard to find. I also realized that it was too small to be really correct for a woman’s pocket: those tend to be larger. Sew 18th Century has a really nice article on pockets here.

Pocket, 1789 American linen Gift of Miss Blanche Vedder-Wood, 1940 MMA Costume Institute C.I.40.159.4

Pocket, 1789
American
linen
Gift of Miss Blanche Vedder-Wood, 1940
MMA Costume Institute C.I.40.159.4

So I made a larger pocket based on this one at the Met, and made of a grey and cream striped linen with the slit bound in red calico. It’s dated to 1789, and technically that’s too late for my uses.

Pocket 1720-1730 block printed cotton and linen

Pocket
England, 1720-1730
Cotton; Linen
Winterthur Museum Collection 1960.0248

But the next one is too early.

Well, it has survived this long, and Wm Booth has that lovely shell print cotton, so what’s a sister to do? Pockets don’t take much fabric, so making a matched pair of printed pockets seems the thing to do.

Now the question is, what should be in those pockets?

Order in the Court

26 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Living History, Reenacting, Research

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Female court martial : held upon the conduct of an admirable lady. [London? : s.n., 1757] Lewis Walpole Digital Library 757.03.00.04+

Female court martial : held upon the conduct of an admirable lady.
[London? : s.n., 1757] Lewis Walpole Digital Library 757.03.00.04+

Everything I think I know about courts-martial I learned from the movies (The Caine Mutiny and Breaker Morant, or Paths of Glory) but thankfully I can realize that knowledge is probably not so applicable to Bridget and her context.

Thanks to Yale, it’s easy enough to find the  Rules and Orders for the Continental Army, as set down by the Continental Congress in 1775. I don’t have to know this, the guys know it, but it’s helpful for me to understand what’s happening. I also figure Bridget would have known how the system worked (or should have) since she was part of it, and would have observed life around her. In the same way that I understand the  organizational politics and policies of my workplace, she and the soldiers would have understood the rules and regulations under which they lived and worked.

In the first case, remember the shirt-selling soldiers? Here’s the regulation they were breaking:

“Art. XV. Whatsoever non-commissioned officer or soldier, shall be convicted, at a regimental court-martial, of having sold, or designedly, or through neglect, wasted the ammunition, arms, or provisions, or other military stores, delivered out to him, to be employed in the service of this Continent, shall, if an officer, be reduced to a private centinel; and if a private soldier, shall suffer such punishment as shall be ordered by a regimental court-martial.”

There you have it: they sold provisions or “other military stores” delivered to them to be employed in the service of the Continent, and suffered such punishments as were ordered.

And Bridget? Well, for one thing, she should have known she was subject to the articles, rules, and regulations. She was one of those “all persons whatsoever.”

“Art. XXXII. All suttlers and retailers to a camp, and all persons whatsoever, serving with the continental army in the field, though not inlisted soldiers, are to be subject to the articles, rules, and regulations of the continental army.”

Technically, I cannot find anything stating outright that one could not buy issued goods from the soldiers to whom it had been issued, but since selling it was wrong, receiving was wrong, too.

We know from the final punishment that Bridget probably breaks yet another article:

“Art. XL. No person whatsoever shall use menacing words, signs, or gestures in the presence of a court-martial then sitting, or shall cause any disorder or riot, so as to disturb their proceeding, on the penalty of being punished at the discretion of the said court-martial.”

I think the “the Insolence to the officers of [the 10th Massachusetts] Regiment” may have taken place at the court-martial, given the swiftness of her punishment.