Pub Date : 2020-11-23DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1835256
A. Sheng
substantial income. The third chapter considers the sixteenth century, when the exaggerated court dress characteristic of the European early baroque was informed by Ottoman traditions of layering shirts, coats and sleeves. Highly particularised headgear makes for satisfying visual comparisons. In this chapter and the following, Jirousek shows the impact of entertainment; costumes from operas set in the Islamic world helped spread ideas about dress, whether based in reality or imagination. The fourth chapter focuses on changes in the seventeenth century, especially the shift from tightly corseted silhouettes to more relaxed and less formal modes of dress — many of their elements kaftan-like. It also points out the role of the Ottoman army; even some women’s garments incorporated the more picturesque elements of Ottoman uniforms as depicted in prints and paintings. The eighteenth century brought a wealth of oil paintings depicting Ottoman costume in Istanbul itself, some worn by locals and some by visitors to the Empire, the subject of the fifth chapter. Women’s headgear remains a salient borrowed feature, but at this point, too, Ottomania was being overtaken by chinoiserie and an equal fascination with South Asia. Exoticisms competed. The last chapter and postscript consider the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The industrial revolution, the advent of mass production and mass fashion, and the availability of ready-made garments all helped spur a sea change in dress. Ottoman elements, like fezzes, were all the more valued for their picturesquerie. By this point, too, earlier European styles were being revived and, with them, the Ottoman elements they had already incorporated. The confections of L eon Bakst and early Hollywood costume design emphasise again the role of performance. The book is lavishly illustrated in colour; many images have lengthy and helpful captions. A brief glossary is also useful, as is a more comprehensive index. The illustrations include only a very few of the surviving garments from the periods and categories in question — dress survives poorly. For this reason, Jirousek relies on prints, paintings, the odd sculpture and photography and film for the later period — these are the best and sometimes only sources. Their limitations as evidence, and their dissemination, might be an area for further research: how did women in sixteenth-century Brittany, for instance, come to wear hats resembling the borks worn by janissaries (the Sultan’s cadre of elite soldiers)? Could a print communicate colour, material and texture, as well as form? These questions remain open, though perhaps impossible to answer. The tricky-to-define relationship between the Ottomans and Europe, in geography and historiography, also highlights further questions. Should Ottoman dress be considered a subcategory of European dress, and therefore written back into European histories? Or is it more useful to see exchange between two (or more) somewhat distinct
{"title":"BuYun Chen, Empire of Style: Silk and Fashion in Tang China","authors":"A. Sheng","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1835256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1835256","url":null,"abstract":"substantial income. The third chapter considers the sixteenth century, when the exaggerated court dress characteristic of the European early baroque was informed by Ottoman traditions of layering shirts, coats and sleeves. Highly particularised headgear makes for satisfying visual comparisons. In this chapter and the following, Jirousek shows the impact of entertainment; costumes from operas set in the Islamic world helped spread ideas about dress, whether based in reality or imagination. The fourth chapter focuses on changes in the seventeenth century, especially the shift from tightly corseted silhouettes to more relaxed and less formal modes of dress — many of their elements kaftan-like. It also points out the role of the Ottoman army; even some women’s garments incorporated the more picturesque elements of Ottoman uniforms as depicted in prints and paintings. The eighteenth century brought a wealth of oil paintings depicting Ottoman costume in Istanbul itself, some worn by locals and some by visitors to the Empire, the subject of the fifth chapter. Women’s headgear remains a salient borrowed feature, but at this point, too, Ottomania was being overtaken by chinoiserie and an equal fascination with South Asia. Exoticisms competed. The last chapter and postscript consider the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The industrial revolution, the advent of mass production and mass fashion, and the availability of ready-made garments all helped spur a sea change in dress. Ottoman elements, like fezzes, were all the more valued for their picturesquerie. By this point, too, earlier European styles were being revived and, with them, the Ottoman elements they had already incorporated. The confections of L eon Bakst and early Hollywood costume design emphasise again the role of performance. The book is lavishly illustrated in colour; many images have lengthy and helpful captions. A brief glossary is also useful, as is a more comprehensive index. The illustrations include only a very few of the surviving garments from the periods and categories in question — dress survives poorly. For this reason, Jirousek relies on prints, paintings, the odd sculpture and photography and film for the later period — these are the best and sometimes only sources. Their limitations as evidence, and their dissemination, might be an area for further research: how did women in sixteenth-century Brittany, for instance, come to wear hats resembling the borks worn by janissaries (the Sultan’s cadre of elite soldiers)? Could a print communicate colour, material and texture, as well as form? These questions remain open, though perhaps impossible to answer. The tricky-to-define relationship between the Ottomans and Europe, in geography and historiography, also highlights further questions. Should Ottoman dress be considered a subcategory of European dress, and therefore written back into European histories? Or is it more useful to see exchange between two (or more) somewhat distinct ","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"263 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1835256","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44043518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-23DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1835253
Alla Myzelev
opened up an apparently endless supply, and until 1800 beaver fur was the main trade between America and Europe: the 21 million hats made in Britain for export between 1700 and 1770 consumed 60 million pelts. Fur founded the fortunes of the Hudson’s Bay Company and of John Jacob Astor, the wealthiest American of his era. Less fortunate, however, were Native American hunters, whom traders set against one another, destroying the tribes’ ecology and social systems. The poor beavers, meanwhile, were only saved by the advent of the silk top hat. The beavers’ story is painful, but the central theme of Smith’s book is the shocking impact of hats on the bird world. A felt hat demands ornament, unless you are a Puritan. Most of us are Cavaliers and we like feathers — which, of course, have no real function. Feathers on military headgear might be said to make leaders visible to their men. Not always a good idea: in Sarajevo the helmet of Archduke Ferdinand sported green ostrich feathers, making him an all-too visible target. Ostrich plumes were a favourite hat-trim, and in North Africa ostriches were hunted to near-extinction. Farming in nineteenth-century South Africa saved them — until feathers became pass e in 1912, when the birds were shot or left to fend for themselves. Hummingbirds, parrots and kingfishers were massacred for nineteenthcentury millinery — but the truly terrible slaughter was of the egret. Its delicate, desirable plumes grew in the breeding season, and because the bird had to be killed before the feathers lost their lustre, chicks were left to starve. A conservationist in Florida in the 1890s followed ‘the screams of young birds ... [and saw] heaps of dead Herons... the back of each bird raw and bleeding ... young Herons left to perish from exposure and starvation’. This is one of many horrific descriptions we find in Smith’s book, and if I have any reservations about the book it would be a sense of overload: too many deaths become numbing. Are we justified in exploiting the natural world for survival? Or for personal adornment? These are difficult but important questions, and Smith is convincingly condemnatory in his answers. The chapter on ‘Ladies with Influence’ charts the battle for protective legislation, and he acknowledges the efforts of American and British conservationists — mainly women — who fought to regulate the trade. Protective legislation was fiercely opposed but passed by 1918. It was, however, fashion rather than the law that saved birds: the 1920s cloche had no space for feathers, thus ending (for the moment) the big feathered hat. In this respect, the book underplays the potency of fashion, that ‘something in the air’, an implacable force that caused such carnage and then quite arbitrarily brought it to a halt.
{"title":"Jools Gilson and Nicola Moffat, eds, Textiles, Community and Controversy: The Knitting Map","authors":"Alla Myzelev","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1835253","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1835253","url":null,"abstract":"opened up an apparently endless supply, and until 1800 beaver fur was the main trade between America and Europe: the 21 million hats made in Britain for export between 1700 and 1770 consumed 60 million pelts. Fur founded the fortunes of the Hudson’s Bay Company and of John Jacob Astor, the wealthiest American of his era. Less fortunate, however, were Native American hunters, whom traders set against one another, destroying the tribes’ ecology and social systems. The poor beavers, meanwhile, were only saved by the advent of the silk top hat. The beavers’ story is painful, but the central theme of Smith’s book is the shocking impact of hats on the bird world. A felt hat demands ornament, unless you are a Puritan. Most of us are Cavaliers and we like feathers — which, of course, have no real function. Feathers on military headgear might be said to make leaders visible to their men. Not always a good idea: in Sarajevo the helmet of Archduke Ferdinand sported green ostrich feathers, making him an all-too visible target. Ostrich plumes were a favourite hat-trim, and in North Africa ostriches were hunted to near-extinction. Farming in nineteenth-century South Africa saved them — until feathers became pass e in 1912, when the birds were shot or left to fend for themselves. Hummingbirds, parrots and kingfishers were massacred for nineteenthcentury millinery — but the truly terrible slaughter was of the egret. Its delicate, desirable plumes grew in the breeding season, and because the bird had to be killed before the feathers lost their lustre, chicks were left to starve. A conservationist in Florida in the 1890s followed ‘the screams of young birds ... [and saw] heaps of dead Herons... the back of each bird raw and bleeding ... young Herons left to perish from exposure and starvation’. This is one of many horrific descriptions we find in Smith’s book, and if I have any reservations about the book it would be a sense of overload: too many deaths become numbing. Are we justified in exploiting the natural world for survival? Or for personal adornment? These are difficult but important questions, and Smith is convincingly condemnatory in his answers. The chapter on ‘Ladies with Influence’ charts the battle for protective legislation, and he acknowledges the efforts of American and British conservationists — mainly women — who fought to regulate the trade. Protective legislation was fiercely opposed but passed by 1918. It was, however, fashion rather than the law that saved birds: the 1920s cloche had no space for feathers, thus ending (for the moment) the big feathered hat. In this respect, the book underplays the potency of fashion, that ‘something in the air’, an implacable force that caused such carnage and then quite arbitrarily brought it to a halt.","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"260 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1835253","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41766847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1851512
{"title":"Pasold Research Fund/Taylor & Francis Textile History Open Access First Publication Award","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1851512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1851512","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"117 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1851512","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47921763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1835254
A. Phillips
{"title":"Charlotte Jirousek with Sara Catterall, Ottoman Dress and Design in the West: A Visual History of Cultural Exchange","authors":"A. Phillips","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1835254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1835254","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"262 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1835254","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43580244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1812472
J. Styles
In February 1777, Imbert de St Paul, the French government’s inspector of manufactures at Nimes, witnessed a spinning jenny at work for the first time. An experienced member of the state industrial bureaucracy, he had already heard about the jenny, which had been introduced into France by one of his colleagues in 1771. Nevertheless, he had to confess it ‘is a very ingenious machine, though very simple, and seeing it work, we were all simply astonished we had failed to guess its secret’. Invented in England in the mid-1760s by the Lancashire weaver James Hargreaves, this simple but ingenious machine remains a familiar icon of the Industrial Revolution, its origins and its impact repeatedly interrogated in the search for explanations of Britain’s eighteenth-century economic transformation. The jenny features as a key technical breakthrough — a ‘macroinvention’ — in the two most influential recent interpretations of the Industrial Revolution: Robert Allen’s The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective and Joel Mokyr’s The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700–1850. For Allen the spinning jenny was a macroinvention because it was a new technology with big effects. Its importance lies in its impact, setting in train a long trajectory of advance that resulted in huge increases in productivity. It is ‘the industrial revolution in miniature’, the machine that exemplifies Allen’s argument that the demand for technological innovation was shaped by the relative prices of factors of production — for the jenny, principally labour and capital — in an eighteenth-century English economy characterised by high wages, but cheap capital. Mokyr, by contrast, insists that macroinventions are only very weakly related to economic forces, if at all, and that their precise timing is difficult, perhaps impossible, to explain. He presents them as radical new ideas that emerge without clear precedent, but have dramatic economic consequences. Less invested than Allen in the economic theory of induced innovation, he presents the jenny as just one of a cluster of macroinventions in cotton spinning that emerged in Lancashire between 1760 and 1780, a cluster that included Richard Arkwright’s water frame and
1777年2月，法国政府驻尼姆的制造业检查员因伯特·德·圣保罗(Imbert de St Paul)第一次目睹了珍妮纺纱机的工作情况。作为一名经验丰富的国家工业官僚机构成员，他已经听说过珍妮机，它是在1771年由他的一位同事引入法国的。然而，他不得不承认，“这是一个非常巧妙的机器，虽然很简单，看到它的工作，我们都很惊讶，我们竟然没有猜到它的秘密。”17世纪60年代中期，兰开夏郡的织布匠詹姆斯·哈格里夫斯在英格兰发明了这种简单而巧妙的机器，它仍然是工业革命的一个熟悉的标志，在寻找英国18世纪经济转型的解释时，它的起源和影响一再受到质疑。在最近对工业革命最有影响力的两本解释中，珍妮机是一项关键的技术突破——一项“宏观发明”:罗伯特·艾伦的《全球视角下的英国工业革命》和乔尔·莫基尔的《开明的经济:1700-1850年的英国经济史》。对艾伦来说，珍妮纺纱机是一项重大发明，因为它是一项影响巨大的新技术。它的重要性在于它的影响，它开启了一条漫长的发展轨迹，导致生产率的大幅提高。这是“工业革命的缩影”，这台机器证明了艾伦的观点，即对技术创新的需求是由生产要素的相对价格决定的——对珍妮来说，主要是劳动力和资本——在18世纪的英国经济中，工资高，但资本廉价。相比之下，Mokyr坚持认为，宏观发明与经济力量的关系非常微弱，如果有的话，而且它们的精确时间很难，甚至不可能解释。他把它们描述为激进的新思想，没有明确的先例，但会产生戏剧性的经济后果。与艾伦相比，他在诱导创新的经济理论上投入较少，他认为珍妮机只是1760年至1780年间出现在兰开夏郡的棉纺领域的一系列宏观发明之一，这些发明还包括理查德·阿克赖特的水架和
{"title":"The Rise and Fall of the Spinning Jenny: Domestic Mechanisation in Eighteenth-Century Cotton Spinning","authors":"J. Styles","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1812472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1812472","url":null,"abstract":"In February 1777, Imbert de St Paul, the French government’s inspector of manufactures at Nimes, witnessed a spinning jenny at work for the first time. An experienced member of the state industrial bureaucracy, he had already heard about the jenny, which had been introduced into France by one of his colleagues in 1771. Nevertheless, he had to confess it ‘is a very ingenious machine, though very simple, and seeing it work, we were all simply astonished we had failed to guess its secret’. Invented in England in the mid-1760s by the Lancashire weaver James Hargreaves, this simple but ingenious machine remains a familiar icon of the Industrial Revolution, its origins and its impact repeatedly interrogated in the search for explanations of Britain’s eighteenth-century economic transformation. The jenny features as a key technical breakthrough — a ‘macroinvention’ — in the two most influential recent interpretations of the Industrial Revolution: Robert Allen’s The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective and Joel Mokyr’s The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700–1850. For Allen the spinning jenny was a macroinvention because it was a new technology with big effects. Its importance lies in its impact, setting in train a long trajectory of advance that resulted in huge increases in productivity. It is ‘the industrial revolution in miniature’, the machine that exemplifies Allen’s argument that the demand for technological innovation was shaped by the relative prices of factors of production — for the jenny, principally labour and capital — in an eighteenth-century English economy characterised by high wages, but cheap capital. Mokyr, by contrast, insists that macroinventions are only very weakly related to economic forces, if at all, and that their precise timing is difficult, perhaps impossible, to explain. He presents them as radical new ideas that emerge without clear precedent, but have dramatic economic consequences. Less invested than Allen in the economic theory of induced innovation, he presents the jenny as just one of a cluster of macroinventions in cotton spinning that emerged in Lancashire between 1760 and 1780, a cluster that included Richard Arkwright’s water frame and","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"195 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1812472","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44741019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1799731
A. Quye, D. Cardon, J. B. Paul
The Crutchley Archive is a rare book collection with over a thousand dyeing instructions and colourful dyed patterns from an eighteenth-century wool fabric dyeing business in Southwark, London, owned by John Crutchley and his family. Our research of the outstandingly detailed dyeing materials and methods by text study, dyed textile history, dye analysis and colorimetry reveals unprecedented insight for ‘in grain’ and ‘out of grain’ dyeing of medium to high quality wool fabric using cochineal, stick lac, madder and other dyes, and shows the dyers to be skilled colourists. Other novel discoveries are instructions translated from Flemish or Old Dutch into English, a range of dyed patterns with broadcloth ‘lists’ (distinctive selvedges) and monogrammed dyeing calculations. Customer cash transactions were from 5s to £2,586. This research has resulted in UNESCO Memory of the World Programme recognition of the Crutchley Archive as significant documentary heritage for UK textile history.
{"title":"The Crutchley Archive: Red Colours on Wool Fabrics from Master Dyers, London 1716–1744","authors":"A. Quye, D. Cardon, J. B. Paul","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1799731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1799731","url":null,"abstract":"The Crutchley Archive is a rare book collection with over a thousand dyeing instructions and colourful dyed patterns from an eighteenth-century wool fabric dyeing business in Southwark, London, owned by John Crutchley and his family. Our research of the outstandingly detailed dyeing materials and methods by text study, dyed textile history, dye analysis and colorimetry reveals unprecedented insight for ‘in grain’ and ‘out of grain’ dyeing of medium to high quality wool fabric using cochineal, stick lac, madder and other dyes, and shows the dyers to be skilled colourists. Other novel discoveries are instructions translated from Flemish or Old Dutch into English, a range of dyed patterns with broadcloth ‘lists’ (distinctive selvedges) and monogrammed dyeing calculations. Customer cash transactions were from 5s to £2,586. This research has resulted in UNESCO Memory of the World Programme recognition of the Crutchley Archive as significant documentary heritage for UK textile history.","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"119 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1799731","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41807992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1741217
Nicole Villarreal
make in this book is a methodological one. They aim to demonstrate the utility of what they term ‘object-attentive’ scholarship by examining extant objects alongside more ‘traditional’ written and pictorial sources. They do this very effectively, particularly in their analysis of the textiles, stitching, marking, mending and signs of wear found in and on surviving tie-on pockets, which provide information about the material features of and practices surrounding pockets not recorded elsewhere. The book is liberally illustrated in full colour, and the bibliography contains a list of the numerous pockets the authors studied in public collections, a practice that will hopefully become more widespread in future dress histories. In sum, The Pocket is an enlightening and engaging account of both the use of tie-on pockets and women’s material lives in the long eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and is to be highly commended.
{"title":"Anne Grosfilley, African Wax Print Textiles","authors":"Nicole Villarreal","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1741217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1741217","url":null,"abstract":"make in this book is a methodological one. They aim to demonstrate the utility of what they term ‘object-attentive’ scholarship by examining extant objects alongside more ‘traditional’ written and pictorial sources. They do this very effectively, particularly in their analysis of the textiles, stitching, marking, mending and signs of wear found in and on surviving tie-on pockets, which provide information about the material features of and practices surrounding pockets not recorded elsewhere. The book is liberally illustrated in full colour, and the bibliography contains a list of the numerous pockets the authors studied in public collections, a practice that will hopefully become more widespread in future dress histories. In sum, The Pocket is an enlightening and engaging account of both the use of tie-on pockets and women’s material lives in the long eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and is to be highly commended.","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"112 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1741217","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48881083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00404969.2020.1741273
Jenny Gilbert
{"title":"‘La Vie en Rose’, Museo Del Traje, Madrid, Spain, 16 November 2018–19 May 2019","authors":"Jenny Gilbert","doi":"10.1080/00404969.2020.1741273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00404969.2020.1741273","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43311,"journal":{"name":"TEXTILE HISTORY","volume":"51 1","pages":"86 - 88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00404969.2020.1741273","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47220998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：