I fear that this article will be less meaningful in English because it is about the description of french words...
In my article about the Voyageur's Tuque, I quoted Jean-Baptiste d'Aleyrac, a french officer who served (1755-1760) in New France during the Seven years war. Here is the quote:
« Il n'y a pas de patois dans ce pays. Tous les Canadiens parlent un français pareil au nôtre. Hormis quelques mots qui leur sont particuliers, empruntés d'ordinaire au langage des matelots, comme amarer pour attacher, hâler pour tirer non seulement une corde mais quelque autre chose. Ils en ont forgé quelques-uns comme une tuque ou une fourole pour dire un bonnet de laine rouge (dont ils se servent couramment). Ils disent une poche pour un sac, un mantelet pour un casaquin sans pli (habillement ordinaire des femmes et des filles), une rafale pour beaucoup de vent, de pluie ou de neige; tanné au lieu d'ennuyé, chômer pour ne manquer de rien; la relevée pour l'après-midi; chance pour bonheur; miette pour moment; paré pour être prêt à. L'expression la plus ordinaire est : de valeur, pour signifier qu'une chose est pénible à faire ou trop fâcheuse. Ils ont pris cette expression aux sauvages. »
So the words put in bold roughly said that (in Canada) a ''mantelet'' is the word that French-Canadians uses instead of a ''casaquin sans plis'', the basic piece of outfit for a woman. In inventories in New France, it is ''habit de femme'' or ''mantelet'' that is mostly found.
 |
| Inventory of Navire du Roy le Chameau: the before last item named is ''habit de femme de ... gris sans doublure'' from État des effets et marchandises provenant du naufrage du navire du Roy le Chameau. |
Most archives is saying ''mantelet'':
 |
Extract of:
Consulted online on Archives numériques de BANQ
|
The problem is that in about the same period in France, ''mantelet'' is referring to another piece of clothing. It is a little cloak for woman, as described into L'art du Tailleur written by M. de Garsault, in 1769.
 |
Textual and visual description of a mantelet by M. de Garsault
Extract from L'Art du Tailleur, 1769
|
In the same book, M. de Garsault use another word to talk about the piece of clothing called ''mantelet'' by French-Canadians. It is not the ''casaquin'' that M. d'Aleyrac talk about either. M. de Garsault talk a ''juste'', it could be derivative from ''justaucorps''.
 |
Textual and visual description of a juste by M. de Garsault
Extract from L'Art du Tailleur, 1769
|
So a same word is used for two different piece of clothing depending of which side of the Atlantic the speaker stands by.
Little resume:
In France, ''casaquin'' or ''juste'' is used for the common woman clothes and ''mantelet'' for a little cloak for woman.
In Nouvelle-France, ''mantelet'' is used for the common woman clothes and ''capote'' for a little cloak for woman.
It is confusing!
 |
| A canadian ''mantelet'' ; a french ''casaquin'' or ''juste'' La fontaine, 1733 by Jean Siméon Chardin ( Museum not found) Update 2019-09-21: This painting is in the Toledo museum Thanks to Monique Picard who told me that information |
 |
| Two french""mantelets''; two canadian''capotes'' La toilette du matin from Jean-Baptiste Siméon Chardin around 1740 Nationalmuseum of Sweden, Stockholm |
So without the first extract I translated, you see how it is easy to confuse the definitions, because French-Canadians sources that talk about the ''mantelet'' never describe them and the French ''mantelet'' is not the same clothe at all! Let's imagine that a museum made that confusion and dress their female employee with only the little cloak over their shift and stays! Some rumors says that it did happened to a museum that made living history and for many years the error was there until they found M. d'Aleyrac letters... Since it is only rumors, I will shut the name of the designated museum. It is a proof that it is never vain to pursue researches.
Let's have a word about shifts
In New France, decency ask to covers your shifts. Being seen in shift is equivalent to be seen naked in the 18th century. In letters of this period in french, they have the tendency to specify: naked in shifts or naked without a shift. A saying of that period for saying that two person, or things, are inseparable, they are like ''cul et chemise'' literally like ass and shift.
In medical imagery, especially in X-rays, there is a saying that state: ''one view is no view''. If you want to know if a bone is fractured or not, you need al least two plans of X-rays photo to determine if the structures are or not touched. I would like to modify that saying to apply it to the History field: one source is good, two is better.. But plenty is the best! (it sounds more catchy in French, I swear) It is very delicate to only use one source to document the practice of something. Maybe the sayings are expressing the views of the author but not of the main population. Maybe it is ok for France and not for New France. Maybe the author wanted to appear at his best when writing and passed over bad things he did too. Maybe the author writes about a fact he lives 20 years earlier so the details may have changed thru the years... All those biases are for the historian to detect and to explain. In fact, identifying sources of biaises are the base of all scientific science, no matter which science it is!
Even if ex-votos found for the New France period tend to proof that French-Canadian were dressing almost like the French of the same period differences are possibles. Those differences can be like word used (the ''mantelet'' case explained above) or in pattern design. Some are noted in visitors of New France like Pehr Kalm (1749), like some others, notes that French-Canadian woman wears their petticoats shorter (guessed at mid-tibia) than the European woman of the same period.
I hope it is interesting for English speakers to have a more in depth information about the common clothes of woman in 18th century New France and the difference for the same word in France... I hope you liked it!
Even if ex-votos found for the New France period tend to proof that French-Canadian were dressing almost like the French of the same period differences are possibles. Those differences can be like word used (the ''mantelet'' case explained above) or in pattern design. Some are noted in visitors of New France like Pehr Kalm (1749), like some others, notes that French-Canadian woman wears their petticoats shorter (guessed at mid-tibia) than the European woman of the same period.
I hope it is interesting for English speakers to have a more in depth information about the common clothes of woman in 18th century New France and the difference for the same word in France... I hope you liked it!
Mlle Canadienne
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire