 |
| Disney | Eugene Lee Yang via youtube.com |
The Clues
Our wonderfully helpful context clues indicate "Aurora’s name before she knows she is a princess is Briar Rose, which is a rose that has been prevalent in England since ancient times." As it turns out Rosa rubiginosa is an invasive species of flowering plant prevalent throughout Europe and western Asia. I have to assume some intern (please, please let it be an intern) remembered the Tudor rose emblem from a college history class she slept through and decided they must be the same thing - especially since there's nothing distinctly English in the film, literally zero mentions of England in the film. Hanging this association on England is not just extraordinarily short sighted but also incredibly lazy considering so much is known about this fairy tale. Literally, it's just a Wikipedia click away.
 |
| That's exactly what happened, isn't it? |
The earliest narrative of Sleeping Beauty is found in an episode in Perceforest, a six book collection of poetry composed in French somewhere between 1330 and 1344 CE. The story we're most familiar comes from La Belle au bois dormant, written by Charles Perrault, a French academic from the mid-to-late 1600's. Aurora's alias of Briar Rose (from the German Dornröschen) was gifted to her roughly a century later from the Brothers Grimm.
The context clue for timeline: "Prince Philip says to King Hubert, “Now, Father, you’re living in the past! This is the 14th century!” when he thinks Aurora is a peasant and still wants to marry her." Disney directly handed over the timeline on a silver platter, but let's consider the content of this clue.
There is in no way, shape, or form the remote possibility that a crowned prince would be interested in marrying a commoner. He would have been raised from birth with the mindset that his control over the throne and position of power was everything. A crowned prince would only ever marry a woman of lineage, one preferably with ties to wealth and political power. Everything he would do in his lifetime, the entire fate of his kingdom and crown, would hinge on him having a legitimate (i.e. royally descended by both parents) heir. This is a point, in fact, which fueled the Hundred Years' War.
If a prince came across a commoner he desired he would simply bed her -- as was his right as royalty (not to mention the other aspects of non-consent in Sleeping Beauty that survived Disney's washing). Disney inserted the line to modernize the 1959 film with egalitarian ideals of the 20th century - which is cute, but absolutely out of place. Using this "context clue" as an indicator is weak at best. However, I must begrudgingly allow Buzzfeed this point, even if Disney did all the legwork.
But that's okay because their last remaining clue (first listed) utterly destroys any credibility they accidentally gained: "An illuminated manuscript with gold leafing opens the film." Hate to break it to you, B, but illuminated manuscript has been around since at least 400 to 600 CE. Illumination remained in fashion for much of the Middle Ages, taking up a span of ten hundred years. That's a pretty gigantic frame of reference.
Before we continue I just want to note that the search term left over in the link for the citation "Thanks to innovations in dressmaking...." was "how did women dress in 14th century england".
The Background
Life for Aurora as a peasant would have been a hard and dangerous one. The Little Ice Age caused heavy and frequent rain. Where floods and huge storms didn't destroy crops, soil exhaustion from the previous centuries did. The resulting Great Famine of 1315-1317 created high levels of crime, infanticide, and cannibalism. Desperate and short on food, peasants ate their stores of seed, having nothing leftover to plant the following Spring. To make matters worse, a new range of epizootics destroyed most of Europe's livestock. People began eating their draft animals - oxen, mules, and horses if they had them. One in ten died from the diseases their bodies were too weak from hunger to fight off. What little food was produced was exorbitantly expensive, causing the rich to become much, much richer while the remaining ninety per cent of the population continued to starve.
The Black Death came through Europe between 1346 and 1353 wiping out about 60 percent of Northeastern France within a single generation as it spread by contact (bubonic) or respiratory infection (pnuemonic). In Paris the Black Death killed at an average of 800 a day. People became sick and died within days, sometimes within hours of contracting the disease. The sick died faster than they could be buried, producing mass graves or being dumped unceremoniously into running rivers.
The church was no comfort as the Avignon Papacy under Pope Clement V was rife with corruption, the sale of holy relics and ecclesiastical offices, and the lavish greed of the clergy with their complete disregard to clerical celibacy besides. Religious fanaticism gained ground as a response to the Black Death, spawning Proto-Reformation sects and Christian cults of self-mutilation. Where you couldn't literally beat the sin out of yourself, you might turn to mysticism - meditate on the mysteries of the Bible and achieve salvation through the Eucharist and living a life as Jesus had. The latter of which became condemned as heresy for undermining the theological significance of the clergy and the Church.
Out of fear and despair many turned blame for the plague and famine to Jews or witches. It's important to note that witchcraft was generally disregarded in the French public eye until King Philip IV of France, seeking the treasuries of the Knights Templar, accused them of bestiality, homosexuality, devil-worship, and any other mortal sin you could think of at that time. This brought the concept to the common man that there might be some legitimacy to the idea of witchcraft and set a precedent for holding a trial for it. We all know how horribly this turned out.
Let's not forget the series of battles that later became known as the Hundred Years' War. When King Charles IV died without an heir, King Edward III of England made a claim to the French throne, reasoning that succession would pass to him through his mother, Isabella, who was Charles IV's sister. The French pointed out that a claim to the throne couldn't pass through a woman's hands as it was not a claim she could have possessed (please recall context clue number two). This kicked off a series of wars and temporary truces that stretched from 1337 to 1453. The wars were fought exclusively in France, devastating farmlands and tolling massive casualties. A nasty side effect of the wars (or rather, the cycle of war and peace) was the formation of marauding companies. Raiding was common particularly in Southern France and remained a troubling issue well into the 1400's.
But life would have been no picnic as a princess, either. Though profiting from the high price of agricultural export - which, by the way, was what saved French economy when the trade-based economies of England and Italy had collapsed - feudal lords continued to press peasants to pay high rents, feudal dues, and other royal taxes. When the English demanded a ransom for King John II at the Battle of Poitiers it was the working class that footed the bill through huge hikes in the royal tax. Completely fed up, the peasants in and around Paris rebelled in 1358.
Surviving aristocrats (not surprisingly) described the uprising carnage as something
out of a Game of Thrones novel. Peasants were said to have pillaged and burned castles, burning alive knights and squires, brutally raped pregnant women and their daughters, forced them to eat the charred remains of their husbands, and then killed them. Even those sympathetic with the peasants described an extreme level of violence. The rebellion spread throughout France, sometimes lead by a small cadre of knights or squires (most of whom were later pardoned; doubtful the peasants were so lucky). All in all more than 150 royal houses had been completely destroyed, their families brutally murdered. Though it was mere weeks before the rebellion was squashed it had dealt a fatal blow to feudalism in France.
TLDR: When Buzzfeed tries to infer that life was somehow better for a peasant because they had "more freedom", please feel free to punch them in the throat.
The Black Death came through Europe between 1346 and 1353 wiping out about 60 percent of Northeastern France within a single generation as it spread by contact (bubonic) or respiratory infection (pnuemonic). In Paris the Black Death killed at an average of 800 a day. People became sick and died within days, sometimes within hours of contracting the disease. The sick died faster than they could be buried, producing mass graves or being dumped unceremoniously into running rivers.
The church was no comfort as the Avignon Papacy under Pope Clement V was rife with corruption, the sale of holy relics and ecclesiastical offices, and the lavish greed of the clergy with their complete disregard to clerical celibacy besides. Religious fanaticism gained ground as a response to the Black Death, spawning Proto-Reformation sects and Christian cults of self-mutilation. Where you couldn't literally beat the sin out of yourself, you might turn to mysticism - meditate on the mysteries of the Bible and achieve salvation through the Eucharist and living a life as Jesus had. The latter of which became condemned as heresy for undermining the theological significance of the clergy and the Church.
Out of fear and despair many turned blame for the plague and famine to Jews or witches. It's important to note that witchcraft was generally disregarded in the French public eye until King Philip IV of France, seeking the treasuries of the Knights Templar, accused them of bestiality, homosexuality, devil-worship, and any other mortal sin you could think of at that time. This brought the concept to the common man that there might be some legitimacy to the idea of witchcraft and set a precedent for holding a trial for it. We all know how horribly this turned out.
 |
| Tell me this couldn't be construed as witchcraft. |
Let's not forget the series of battles that later became known as the Hundred Years' War. When King Charles IV died without an heir, King Edward III of England made a claim to the French throne, reasoning that succession would pass to him through his mother, Isabella, who was Charles IV's sister. The French pointed out that a claim to the throne couldn't pass through a woman's hands as it was not a claim she could have possessed (please recall context clue number two). This kicked off a series of wars and temporary truces that stretched from 1337 to 1453. The wars were fought exclusively in France, devastating farmlands and tolling massive casualties. A nasty side effect of the wars (or rather, the cycle of war and peace) was the formation of marauding companies. Raiding was common particularly in Southern France and remained a troubling issue well into the 1400's.
But life would have been no picnic as a princess, either. Though profiting from the high price of agricultural export - which, by the way, was what saved French economy when the trade-based economies of England and Italy had collapsed - feudal lords continued to press peasants to pay high rents, feudal dues, and other royal taxes. When the English demanded a ransom for King John II at the Battle of Poitiers it was the working class that footed the bill through huge hikes in the royal tax. Completely fed up, the peasants in and around Paris rebelled in 1358.
Surviving aristocrats (not surprisingly) described the uprising carnage as something
out of a Game of Thrones novel. Peasants were said to have pillaged and burned castles, burning alive knights and squires, brutally raped pregnant women and their daughters, forced them to eat the charred remains of their husbands, and then killed them. Even those sympathetic with the peasants described an extreme level of violence. The rebellion spread throughout France, sometimes lead by a small cadre of knights or squires (most of whom were later pardoned; doubtful the peasants were so lucky). All in all more than 150 royal houses had been completely destroyed, their families brutally murdered. Though it was mere weeks before the rebellion was squashed it had dealt a fatal blow to feudalism in France.
TLDR: When Buzzfeed tries to infer that life was somehow better for a peasant because they had "more freedom", please feel free to punch them in the throat.
So what would Aurora have looked like?
Women in 1300 France would have worn a linen or woolen chemise, whether loose or form-fitting, sometimes with a bra-like garment. Both common and royal women wore knee-high hose from woven fabrics ranging from wool, silk, and linen. Over the chemise was an ankle or floor length gown called a cotte, cotehardie, or kirtle. Closer to the end of the century the kirtle became more fitted and gores were added to make the skirt fuller. Usually the front of the kirtle was laced or, for the wealthier wearer, buttoned. The sleeves of the kirtle often fell pass the wrist, nearly covering the hands. Necklines became wider and shallower, resting across the collar bone and shoulders. Formal dress included a train.
Occasionally a sleeveless tabard derived from the cyclas would be worn over the kirtle. When outdoors women would often wear a cloak called a surcot or rotendellas. The sleeves of the surcot would usually open at the elbow into a tippet that hung down to the knee. Around 1360 the surcot became a sideless garment worn by the upper class for special occasions.
Sumptuary laws often dictated what materials peasants could and could not wear. Though most wore leather shoes, peasants in particular were restricted to them. For those who could afford it the leather may have been dyed, painted, embroidered, or etched. Royalty may have worn silk slippers decorated with embroidery or brocade.
It wasn't until a woman was married that she would begin cover her hair. Until then she kept her hair parted in the middle and braided in loops over her ears. If she didn't have enough hair it's possible she used false hair. Linen barbets, styled after the barbe or wimple, wrapped the chin and was worn under a linen fillet (headband) or coif (cap). A sheer or opaque couvrechef or veil made of silk or linen cut in a rectangle. The couvrechef may or may not have been worn with the barbet. A crespine, a type of net for the hair, was also in style at the time and would later become a metal mesh of jeweler's work that stayed in style well into the 15th century.
Though art from this time period does not often depict much in the way of embellishment on clothing - and it's likely the lower class did not -- archaeological evidence indicates appliqued fabric strips were sewn onto garments. The applique was typically made of wool or silk, silver or gold brocade, either in one color or multiple colors all depending on the status of the wearer. It is likely that the applique was placed at the hem, sleeves, and neckline.
Jewelry was primarily a luxury for nobility throughout the 14th century. Brooches were both functional and decorative, with designs that were geometric, religious, inscriptions, or floral. While circular in the 13th century they changed to become heart shaped in the 14th. Hip belts were also popular and were usually made of a series of connected metal plaques and embellished with jewels. Necklaces began to gain popularity in the 14th century, working their way up from strips of jewel-embellished ribbon to more complicated works of metal.
The Dress
Occasionally a sleeveless tabard derived from the cyclas would be worn over the kirtle. When outdoors women would often wear a cloak called a surcot or rotendellas. The sleeves of the surcot would usually open at the elbow into a tippet that hung down to the knee. Around 1360 the surcot became a sideless garment worn by the upper class for special occasions.
 |
| A woman wearing a red kirtle and blue surcot from the Romance of Alexander |
Sumptuary laws often dictated what materials peasants could and could not wear. Though most wore leather shoes, peasants in particular were restricted to them. For those who could afford it the leather may have been dyed, painted, embroidered, or etched. Royalty may have worn silk slippers decorated with embroidery or brocade.
It wasn't until a woman was married that she would begin cover her hair. Until then she kept her hair parted in the middle and braided in loops over her ears. If she didn't have enough hair it's possible she used false hair. Linen barbets, styled after the barbe or wimple, wrapped the chin and was worn under a linen fillet (headband) or coif (cap). A sheer or opaque couvrechef or veil made of silk or linen cut in a rectangle. The couvrechef may or may not have been worn with the barbet. A crespine, a type of net for the hair, was also in style at the time and would later become a metal mesh of jeweler's work that stayed in style well into the 15th century.
Jewelry was primarily a luxury for nobility throughout the 14th century. Brooches were both functional and decorative, with designs that were geometric, religious, inscriptions, or floral. While circular in the 13th century they changed to become heart shaped in the 14th. Hip belts were also popular and were usually made of a series of connected metal plaques and embellished with jewels. Necklaces began to gain popularity in the 14th century, working their way up from strips of jewel-embellished ribbon to more complicated works of metal.
So how does Buzzfeed compare?
In general it's a bad idea to use modern day silk blends when you're attempting to represent historically accurate costume. It would have been better had Aurora's garments been made of linen or wool with applique embellishments. Not only is the kirtle is not fitted, it's also poorly constructed. The tabard is incorrectly structured as it is completely open down the front rather than open or laced at the sides. It's unlikely (but not necessarily impossible) that the tabard would be made of such a thin brocade; most complex textiles were reserved for tapestries, not for clothing.
Aurora's hair is sparse, in which case she would have employed false hair. The sleeves of her kirtle have an artificial flare sewn into the pattern as seen here:
Aurora's pink surcot or rotendellas is made of a silk-like material and light-weight. Even for royals it likely would have been made of wool or a heavy brocade. Here she is wearing it open instead of closed. Had it been properly fastened in the front this pink garment might have been a houppelande, which would have been more historically accurate.
I'm not going to knock Buzzfeed for not making the coronet out of metal - but I am knocking them for the complete lack of barbet. It would have been an extremely fast and easy way to establish time frame and accuracy. And if not for that then for the lack of crespine.
The neckline depicted here is much too low. As shown in surviving art the neckline would have been fitted wide and shallow from shoulder to shoulder across the clavicle.
Bottom Line:
Considering we knew so much about this story and its setting compared to Aladdin, it's disappointing that so many more details were wrong. Buzzfeed completely disregarded the materials and cut of the clothing, resulting in a costume that is baggy and thin.
I hate to say this since so much about the movie was wrong, but even Sophie Marceau wore more historically accurate costumes in her role in Braveheart.
No comments:
Post a Comment