Myth: It is ancient tradition that each of the clans of Scotland has it's own unique tartan.
Sadly, this is a myth. I've always thought it was rather fun to find the family tartan. But this 'tradition' is actually the result of a 19th century marketing scheme to capitalize on the popularity of the romanticized Highlander myth.
The colorful tartan pattern seems to have originated in Flanders and came to the Highlands through the Lowlands. Sixteenth century writers note that the plaids of chiefs were colored and those of their followers were brown, indicating that any differentiation in color was a mark of social status rather than being connected with a particular clan. The clan system itself had been destroyed after the Scottish rebellion of 1745, when acts of Parliament removed chiefs from their jurisdictions and banned any Highland costume. This last act wasn't lifted until 1782, at which point the general population of the Highlands, having become used to trousers, didn't see any reason to return to the traditional belted plaid or tartan, or the new convenient kilts (invented in 1727, a topic for another post!) The upper classes, on the other hand, enthusiastically picked up the traditional garb reclaiming their lost 'heritage'.
The romantic movement had swept in, bringing with it the cult of the noble savage. The endangered traditional Highlander fit perfectly into this romantic notion. Romanticized Scottish history was given a further boost when King George IV made a momentous visit to Edinburgh in 1822. The King wished to see Highlanders in their traditional garb, and thus created a huge demand for tartans. The biggest manufacturing firm was William Wilson and Son of Bannockburn. Messrs., which released a "Key Pattern Book" in 1819 when the royal visit was first announced, showing samples of their various tartans and which clan they belonged to. When the King finally arrived in Scotland, he himself was dressed in a kilt and gave a toast to "the chieftains and clans of Scotland."
But the most important figures in the creation of clan tartans were the brothers Allen, an eccentric pair who often appeared at fashionable events dressed "in all the extravagance of which the Highland costume is capable-- every kind of tag and rag, false orders and tinsel ornaments." In 1829 they presented their aristocratic patron, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, with a manuscript entitled "Vestiarium Scoticum", or The Garde-robe of Scotland. According to the brothers, this manuscript had belonged to John Leslie, Bishop of Rosss, the confidant of Mary Queen of Scots. Supposedly it had been written much earlier by a knight named Sir Richard Urquhart, and featured descriptions of the different clan tartans. But it wasn't until 1842, and under the new patronage of Lord Lovat, that the Vestiarium was published in a lavish limited edition with colored illustrations. Then in 1844, the Allen brothers published an even more lavish folio, titled "The Costume of the Clans", which cited ancient sources and claimed that Highland dress was actually a relic of the universal dress of the Middle Ages.
Unfortunately for the Allen brothers, their works received little notice. They themselves were discredited in 1847. After making numerous claims of royal blood, the brothers, who had at this point changed their name to Sobieski Stuart, were exposed as phonies in an editorial in the Quarterly Review. The brothers never recovered, and their works never gained a great amount of publicity. However, the idea of clan tartans was growing ever more popular, and the rest of the century saw the publication of numerous books of clan tartans, all derived from the Vestiarium.
There is so much more fascinating detail to this story than what I have put here, so if you'd like to learn more I highly recommend the article The Highlander Myth by Hugh Trevor Roper.
 | ||
| The lords of three Scottish clans from Disney/Pixar's movie Brave (2012). |
The colorful tartan pattern seems to have originated in Flanders and came to the Highlands through the Lowlands. Sixteenth century writers note that the plaids of chiefs were colored and those of their followers were brown, indicating that any differentiation in color was a mark of social status rather than being connected with a particular clan. The clan system itself had been destroyed after the Scottish rebellion of 1745, when acts of Parliament removed chiefs from their jurisdictions and banned any Highland costume. This last act wasn't lifted until 1782, at which point the general population of the Highlands, having become used to trousers, didn't see any reason to return to the traditional belted plaid or tartan, or the new convenient kilts (invented in 1727, a topic for another post!) The upper classes, on the other hand, enthusiastically picked up the traditional garb reclaiming their lost 'heritage'.
The romantic movement had swept in, bringing with it the cult of the noble savage. The endangered traditional Highlander fit perfectly into this romantic notion. Romanticized Scottish history was given a further boost when King George IV made a momentous visit to Edinburgh in 1822. The King wished to see Highlanders in their traditional garb, and thus created a huge demand for tartans. The biggest manufacturing firm was William Wilson and Son of Bannockburn. Messrs., which released a "Key Pattern Book" in 1819 when the royal visit was first announced, showing samples of their various tartans and which clan they belonged to. When the King finally arrived in Scotland, he himself was dressed in a kilt and gave a toast to "the chieftains and clans of Scotland."
But the most important figures in the creation of clan tartans were the brothers Allen, an eccentric pair who often appeared at fashionable events dressed "in all the extravagance of which the Highland costume is capable-- every kind of tag and rag, false orders and tinsel ornaments." In 1829 they presented their aristocratic patron, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, with a manuscript entitled "Vestiarium Scoticum", or The Garde-robe of Scotland. According to the brothers, this manuscript had belonged to John Leslie, Bishop of Rosss, the confidant of Mary Queen of Scots. Supposedly it had been written much earlier by a knight named Sir Richard Urquhart, and featured descriptions of the different clan tartans. But it wasn't until 1842, and under the new patronage of Lord Lovat, that the Vestiarium was published in a lavish limited edition with colored illustrations. Then in 1844, the Allen brothers published an even more lavish folio, titled "The Costume of the Clans", which cited ancient sources and claimed that Highland dress was actually a relic of the universal dress of the Middle Ages.
Unfortunately for the Allen brothers, their works received little notice. They themselves were discredited in 1847. After making numerous claims of royal blood, the brothers, who had at this point changed their name to Sobieski Stuart, were exposed as phonies in an editorial in the Quarterly Review. The brothers never recovered, and their works never gained a great amount of publicity. However, the idea of clan tartans was growing ever more popular, and the rest of the century saw the publication of numerous books of clan tartans, all derived from the Vestiarium.
There is so much more fascinating detail to this story than what I have put here, so if you'd like to learn more I highly recommend the article The Highlander Myth by Hugh Trevor Roper.
 |
| Photo Credit |
Myth: Is it true that only lewd women wore underwear before the 20th century?
It depends on what you consider underwear. If this is what you consider underwear:
Victoria's Secret Models
Then no, women didn't wear underwear like that before the 20th century. But if this is what you consider underwear:
1830s Undergarments from The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Then yes, women have been wearing underwear for thousands of years!
Before industrialization and mass production, clothing was extremely expensive. Not only was fabric time consuming to produce, the making of the garments themselves was a time consuming process. People didn't have a million pieces of clothing like we do today. Colorfast dyes, ie dyes that won't wash away, are a relatively new invention, having only been around for a couple hundred years. So clothing was not washed very often to preserve the color, and also to save the textile from too much wear. Furthermore, clothes had to be protected from the grime of the human body. Something needed to be worn directly against the skin, which would absorb sweat and oils, and could be washed regularly. And, after shaped silhouettes came in style, women needed something to mold their outerwear into the correct, fashionable shape. Thus, underwear was very important. Undergarments were almost always white, and could be washed and changed regularly.
Underwear changed through the ages. Ancient women tied bands of cloth around their breasts for support, a very very early form of the bra. The base garment for all women since the middle ages is the chemise or shift, a plainly cut white garment that fit close to the body. The historic equivalent of an undershirt. At various times, women have also had bloomer-like garments, which fit around each leg and connected around the waist. It's important to note though that these were always crotchless, to make going to the bathroom easier. Once we get further into history, women started adding petticoats and shaping garments and padding in order to achieve the correct silhouette. In fact, the most important part of an historic garment is the underwear, as that is what gives the garment the correct shape.
It depends on what you consider underwear. If this is what you consider underwear:
Victoria's Secret Models
Then no, women didn't wear underwear like that before the 20th century. But if this is what you consider underwear:
1830s Undergarments from The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Then yes, women have been wearing underwear for thousands of years!
Before industrialization and mass production, clothing was extremely expensive. Not only was fabric time consuming to produce, the making of the garments themselves was a time consuming process. People didn't have a million pieces of clothing like we do today. Colorfast dyes, ie dyes that won't wash away, are a relatively new invention, having only been around for a couple hundred years. So clothing was not washed very often to preserve the color, and also to save the textile from too much wear. Furthermore, clothes had to be protected from the grime of the human body. Something needed to be worn directly against the skin, which would absorb sweat and oils, and could be washed regularly. And, after shaped silhouettes came in style, women needed something to mold their outerwear into the correct, fashionable shape. Thus, underwear was very important. Undergarments were almost always white, and could be washed and changed regularly.
Underwear changed through the ages. Ancient women tied bands of cloth around their breasts for support, a very very early form of the bra. The base garment for all women since the middle ages is the chemise or shift, a plainly cut white garment that fit close to the body. The historic equivalent of an undershirt. At various times, women have also had bloomer-like garments, which fit around each leg and connected around the waist. It's important to note though that these were always crotchless, to make going to the bathroom easier. Once we get further into history, women started adding petticoats and shaping garments and padding in order to achieve the correct silhouette. In fact, the most important part of an historic garment is the underwear, as that is what gives the garment the correct shape.
Myth: Did some Victorian women really have their lower ribs removed in order to have a smaller waist?
Short Answer: No.
Long Answer:
The idea of using surgery to fix some unsatisfactory part of the physical appearance is extremely new. Unnecessary surgery is only possible with highly developed, modern surgical practices.
In the early 19th century, surgery was mainly confined to amputations and the removal of external problems. Anesthesia of any kind was first used around the 1840s, which allowed surgeons to start fixing internal problems. The risk of infection was also extremely high, with the germ theory of disease first being applied to surgery by Joseph Lister around the 1870s. However, it would take quite some time for surgery to become as sterile as we know it today. Instruments were beginning to be sterilized, but there were still plenty of ways for bacteria to enter the body. Antibiotics were only just starting to be discovered around the same time, but the science wouldn't really take off until the 20th century.
The Gross Clinic by Thomas Eakins, 1875
In the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art
Eakins' famous picture, The Gross Clinic, shows a typical Victorian surgical scene. The surgery is performed in an open auditorium with several spectators, and the doctors themselves are wearing street clothes and working with their bare hands. Even if the instruments were sterilized, it would still be extremely easy for an infection to take hold and the poor man being operated on to die.
If you survived all of that, there is still the pain that comes post surgery. Painkillers as we know them didn't really exist in the Victorian period, so for pain control a person had to turn to some sort of drug that was probably not very safe. For a point of comparison, remember when you had your wisdom teeth out? I recently had mine taken out, and even with my sophisticated, modern pain medication I was still pretty miserable for a few days afterwords. Now imagine an operation that didn't use modern surgical practices, and didn't involve modern painkillers to control post-operative pain.
No one in their right mind in the 19th century would voluntarily go under the knife unless it was absolutely necessary for their survival.
On the next episode of MythBusters: Fashion History Edition, underwear myths! Is it true that only lewd women wore underwear before the 20th century? Did Joan of Arc wear anything under all that armor? Find out soon! As always, if you have a myth you'd like to see busted, leave a comment and I'll research it!
Short Answer: No.
Long Answer:
The idea of using surgery to fix some unsatisfactory part of the physical appearance is extremely new. Unnecessary surgery is only possible with highly developed, modern surgical practices.
In the early 19th century, surgery was mainly confined to amputations and the removal of external problems. Anesthesia of any kind was first used around the 1840s, which allowed surgeons to start fixing internal problems. The risk of infection was also extremely high, with the germ theory of disease first being applied to surgery by Joseph Lister around the 1870s. However, it would take quite some time for surgery to become as sterile as we know it today. Instruments were beginning to be sterilized, but there were still plenty of ways for bacteria to enter the body. Antibiotics were only just starting to be discovered around the same time, but the science wouldn't really take off until the 20th century.
The Gross Clinic by Thomas Eakins, 1875
In the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art
Eakins' famous picture, The Gross Clinic, shows a typical Victorian surgical scene. The surgery is performed in an open auditorium with several spectators, and the doctors themselves are wearing street clothes and working with their bare hands. Even if the instruments were sterilized, it would still be extremely easy for an infection to take hold and the poor man being operated on to die.
If you survived all of that, there is still the pain that comes post surgery. Painkillers as we know them didn't really exist in the Victorian period, so for pain control a person had to turn to some sort of drug that was probably not very safe. For a point of comparison, remember when you had your wisdom teeth out? I recently had mine taken out, and even with my sophisticated, modern pain medication I was still pretty miserable for a few days afterwords. Now imagine an operation that didn't use modern surgical practices, and didn't involve modern painkillers to control post-operative pain.
No one in their right mind in the 19th century would voluntarily go under the knife unless it was absolutely necessary for their survival.
On the next episode of MythBusters: Fashion History Edition, underwear myths! Is it true that only lewd women wore underwear before the 20th century? Did Joan of Arc wear anything under all that armor? Find out soon! As always, if you have a myth you'd like to see busted, leave a comment and I'll research it!
Unfortunately I am hopeless when it comes to anything related to science, so I can never be a real MythBuster. But I can be a fashion history MythBuster! So I'm reaching out to you, my faithful readers, to give me fashion history myths to bust, confirm, or declare plausible. If you have heard something crazy about fashion history and want to know if it's true, ask away and I will research it and give you an answer! Remember, questions don't just have to be about clothes. They can be about odd hairstyles, wacky accessories, did they really put that on their faces, anything you can think of that has to do with the history of personal appearance!
On the next episode of MythBusters: Fashion History Edition- Did some Victorian women really remove their lower ribs so that they could have tinier waists?
And because no episode of MythBusters is complete without one, here. Have some explosions.
On the next episode of MythBusters: Fashion History Edition- Did some Victorian women really remove their lower ribs so that they could have tinier waists?
And because no episode of MythBusters is complete without one, here. Have some explosions.
Posts
