Greetings--
I'm going to address my comments in context. I do have some background in
the study of medieval dress, including the dress of the religious orders,
with a specialty in the 13th century.
>Let the brothers above all of this fraternity, commmonly be dressed in
cloths humble in price and color, not wholly white nor black, unless it has
been dispensed for a time in some place by means of the visitators on the
counsel of the ministers, on account of a legitimate and manifest reason.
Also let the abovesaid brothers have coats [chlamydes] and leather
cloathing [pelles], with collars [absque scollaturis], vested [scissas] or
whole-nevertheless clasped or open, as befits honesty-and [with] closed
sleeves.
I would definitely not use "coat"--"cloak" might be better. I think what
they might be trying to do here is to distinguish these garments from the
closed copes worn by some academics. "scissas" means "split", which would
mean the cloak could be open down the front (all the way or partially) or
closed (like a poncho.) The "pelles" could be a leather or skin garment
worn the same way as the cloak.
Also let the sisters dress in a coat, and a tunic made from humble
cloth of this kind, or at least let them have a dress [guarnellum] with a
coat, or a blouse [placentinum], white or black in color; or a full jacket
[paludellum] made from hemp, or linen, without any sewn ruffles.
The way I would translate this sentence would be thusly:
And the sisters should be clothed in a cloak and a tunic of the same sort of
humble cloth, or at least they should have an underdress or roomy gown of
hemp or linen along with the cloak, sewn without gathering.
"Ruffles" is not quite the term you want; there were no ruffles in 13th
century clothing, but there might be gathering or pleating. (Did the "black
or white" get left out?)
>Concerning
the humbleness of the cloth and the leather of the sisters themselves, one
can be dispensed in accord with the condition of each, and the custom of
the place. Let them not use tights [bindis] nor pleated bindings [ligaturis
sericis],
I agree with the suggestion that these may refer to lacing. They're
definitely not "tights". Women in the 13th century generally wore hosen
gartered just under the knee (there are some wonderful depictions of these
in illuminations of couples having sex fully clothed :-), and "bindis" would
not really describe these items. The terms may just generally refer to
fancy fastenings and lacing without specific reference to a style;
interestingly enough, in the late 13th century, the current fashion in
France and England was for fairly roomy clothing with only the lower sleeves
laced tight; while in Spain the fashion was for a roomy surcote over a
tighter-laced (on one side, interestingly enough) saya (gown). Not quite
sure where Italy would be on this spectrum...
>[and] let both the brothers as well as the sisters have nothing
fancier than [dumtaxat] lambskin jackets, leather shoes [bursas] and
shoestrings, made simply without any pleating [serico] and not otherwise,
after having put off the other vain ornaments of this age (in accord with
the sober counsel of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles).
"Bursa" is a purse, so " ....leather purses made simply without cords of
silk...."
Hope this helps...
Susan
|