Orlaith Carey (orlacarey) wrote,
Orlaith Carey
orlacarey

Something is really bugging me

I'm current reading The identification of Lace by Pat Earnshaw and there is a section that is really bugging me. Is this right?


Embroidered Laces -Cutwork...The linen was handspun and handwove. It's handspun nature is identifiable by the frequent joins in the thread since only short lengths could be spun at a time and each join was makred by a slight lumpiness. Before the mid sixteenth century only a distaff existed, but then a form of spinning wheel with the wheel turned by a foot treadle, so that it left both hands free, was invented. In spite of later improvements to the spinning wheel, no truly mechanical spinning of linen was possible until 1825, and even then the threads were relatively coarse. Pg 25

I've been hearing most of my SCA "life" that slubbiness is not a preferred quality in fabric and that the quality of spinning/weaving in period is much better than common expectation. To the point that raw silk is frequently held up as being improper since people who could afford to have silk imported would not have paid for that poor a quality. So reading this strikes me as "typical mundane person assuming that things can only be done well with technology". On the other hand this is a lace scholar who has a very good reputation so in theory should know what she's talking about.
Tags: ?, books, lace
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 23 comments