Jump to content

Talk:Kilt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damorbel (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 12 June 2023 (→The title.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Word Origin

According to the Dictionary of the Scots Language and Oxford English Dictionary, the noun derives from a verb to kilt, originally meaning "to gird up; to tuck up (the skirts) round the body", which is apparently of Scandinavian origin.

The above seems slightly misleading.

What the Dictionary of the Scots Language actually says is:

[O.Sc. kilt, to tuck up, from 1513, to hang, 1697, North Mid.Eng. kilt, to gird, a.1340. The n. is not found in O.Sc.]

In other words (and in common with the OED) the DSL confirms that the verb to kilt is Middle English, first recorded around 1340. It doesn't seem to have found its way into Scotland until 1513. Though its earlier origin into England may well have been 'Scandinavian' its direct origin as far as Scotland is concerned would seem to be from the English of England.

The noun 'a kilt' appears to have been first recorded in 1746 in both Scotland and England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OED has "Apparently a borrowing from early Scandinavian" as the origin and gives the etymology as "apparently of Scandinavian origin: compare Danish kilte (also kilte op) to tuck up..." and like the DSL cites Rolle in 1340. Gavin Douglas (Scottish bishop, makar and translator) has "Venus..With..Hir skirt kiltit till hir bair kne" in his 1513 translation of the Aeneid. OED agrees with DSL that the first recorded instance of the noun was in 1746 in Act 19 & 21 Geo. II c. 39 §17
Incidentally, the verb occurs in some Northumberland folk songs, chiefly as a means of preserving clothes when wading into the sea or a river.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the anon that the extant text does not really agree with the sources. There seems to be some original research here, like expanding the definition to 'to tuck up (the skirts) round the body'.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection?

We have, In the World War I, the regiment would be inspected by a senior officer who would have a mirror to look under kilts. Anyone found wearing underpants would be sent back to take them off. The source is terrible -- it's ascribed to a former soldier at a museum. Can we get better than this? It smells of legend. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has a distinct whiff about it. The idea that a senior officer would be so concerned about this, and walk about with an especially constructed mirror, seems laughably ridiculous and on-par with the scene in Carry On Up the Khyber. I think there is a lot of childish nonsense perpetuated about wearing kilts, and this is one of them, but better sourcing would help address it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source is The Times, which is usually regarded as reliable. I do wonder if this would be more likely during training than in normal service. Incidentally, and possibly ireelevant, such mirrors are standard issue for police and army to look under vehicles. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think car bombs were much of an issue in WW1. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, hence "possibly irrelevantly" (complete with spelling error - oops). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence as dubious and disputed, and completely off-topic in the "design and construction" section in which it was placed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox kilts, and kilts in modern fashion

Do you think this article should be expanded to include unorthodox kilts and kilts in modern fashion? examples would include the "half-kilt" jackets with pleated tails, or jackets with "half-kilts" sewn in?

Sincerely OGWFP (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a section, "Contemporary designs", in which such information could be placed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rawlinson

The "invention" of the fèileadh-beag by Mr Rawlinson is supported by only one article in the Scots magazine, published anonymously, many years after his death, it has no other supporting evidence and requires us to believe that in the long period up to then, Highlanders had not thought to use the remainder of a damaged or worn plaid to make a shorter version... It also ignores the fact that the fèileadh-mòr or great plaid is named before this supposed invention. Why call it a "Great" or big plaid unless to differentiate it from the small version? Given the unsupported and contentious nature of this invention perhaps it would be better if the text was changed to read something along the lines of "alleged" or "claimed" to have invented? 92.8.237.232 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson references two sources: The Culloden Papers and the Edinburgh Magazine of 1785. The magazine article is not anonymous but is signed by Evan Baillie of Oberiachan. More detail is given at History of the kilt. There is also a discussion at Thomas Rawlinson (industrialist)#Controversy. It should be noted that at the time of the magazine publications it was confirmed by "the two greatest authorities on Scottish custom of the time, Sir John Sinclair and John Pinkerton". It should also be noted that Rawlinson's business partner was Ian MacDonnell, head of the Glengarry MacDonnells, and the family support the testimony. So, "unsupported", clearly not. "Contentious", well yes, given that an Englishman was involved, but if the evidence supports such a thing it needs to be accepted despite instinctive feelings. "alleged" and "claimed", well this appears to be the result of a director of an American "museum" whose website appears to be mainly involved in sales. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But see:
Purser, John (1 May 2020). "Was it really an Englishman who invented the kilt?". The National.
There is no evidence at all to support the filibeg-invention story in Rawlinson's own copious detailed papers, and supporters of the story have shown a "mendacious" anti-Scottish bias. WP needs to stop reporting this story as if it were known fact (in any of these three articles), and present it as a long-running controversy with mutiple sides.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article starts by talking about the 1746 – 1782 Disclothing Act. A bit irrelevant to an invention which occurred in the 1720s. Likewise the whole George IV/Sir Walter Scott section is simply anachronistic. We then get a section about some modern authors before getting back to the contemporary accounts. The National article finally goes off on a tangent claiming that the whole account was a myth invented by Hugh Trevor-Roper "mendacious for the specific purpose of denigrating Scottish culture and iconography immediately prior to the 1979 referendum" which tells us more about Purser's politics than about history.

From the Culloden Papers:

Note — This Thomas Rawlinson, an Englishman, was the person who introduced the Phelie Beg, or short kilt, into the highlands. This fact, very little known, is explained by a Letter from Evan Baillie of Oberiachan, inserted in the Edinburgh Magazine for 1785.[1]

and later:

Note. – President Forbes's ideas regarding that part of the bill affecting the Highland dress seem very just. The English Readers, and most of the Scotch, will be surprised to understand that the Kilt or Pheliebeg was not the antient [sic] Highland garb, but was introduced into the Highlands about 1720 by one Thomas Rawlinson, an Englishman, who was overseer to a Company carrying on iron works in Glengarry's Country. The convenience of the dress soon caused it to be universally adopted in the Highlands. This circumstance is fully explained in a letter from Evan Baillie Esq. of Aberiachan, a gentleman of undoubted veracity, dated 1769, and inserted in the Edinburgh Magazine for 1785.[2]

The original letter is online:

The Felie-beg, no part of the ancient Highland Dress.—Part of a Letter from Ivan Baillie of Abereachan, Esq;

In answer to your inquiry, I do report, according to the best of my knowledge, and the intelligence of persons of credit and very advanced ages, that the piece of Highland dress, termed in the Gaelic felie-beg, and in our Scots little kilt, is rather of late than ancient usage.
The upper garment of the Highlanders was the tartan or party-coloured plaid, termed in the Gaelic breccan when buckled round by a belt, and the lower part plaited and the upper loose about the shoulders. The dress was termed in the Gaelic felie, and in the Scots kilt. It was a cumbersome unwieldy habit to men at work or travelling in a hurry, and the lower class could not afford the expence of the belted trowsers or breeches. They wore short coats, waistcoats and shirts of as great length as they could afford; and such parts as were not covered by thefe, remained naked to the tying of the garters on their hose.
About 50 years ago, one Thomas Rawlinson an Englishman, conducted an iron work carried on in the countries of Glengarie and Lochaber; be had a throng of Highlanders employed in the service, and became very fond of the Highland dress, and wore it in the neatest form; which I can aver, as I became personally acquainted with him above 40 years ago. He was a man of genius and quick parts, and thought it no great stretch of invention to abridge the dress, and make it handy and convenient for his workmen: and accordingly directed the using of the lower part plaited of what is called the felie or kilt as above, and the upper part was set aside; and this piece of dress, so modelled as a diminutive of the former, was in the Gaelic termed felie-beg (beg in that tongue signifies little;) and in our Scots termed little kilt; and it was found so handy and convenient, that, in the shortest space. the use of it became frequent in all the Highland countries, and in many of our northern Low Countries also. This is all I can say about the date and form of the felie-beg, and what was formerly used in place of it. And I certify from my own knowledge, that till I returned from Edinburgh to reside in this country in the year 1725, after serving seven or eight years with writers to the signet, I never saw the felie-beg used, nor heard any mention of such a piece of dress, not [even] from my father, who was very intelligent and well known to [acquainted with] Highlanders, and lived to the age of 83 years, and died in the year 1738, born in May 1655.
The felie-beg is in its form and make somewhat similar to a woman’s petticoat, termed in the Gaelic boilicoat; but differs in this, that the former is not so long nor sewed in the fore-part, but made to overlap a little. The great felie or kilt was formed of the plaid double or twofold; the felie-beg, of it single.
I use f and not ph in spelling felie beg, as, in my esteem, more adapted to the Gaelic.
March 22. 1768.[3]
Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Criticising Purser's article for having poor chronological organisation is not an argument in favor of the Rawlinson story. Nor is just repeating the Rawlinson story in great detail; no one suggests that the Rawlinson story didn't exist and or wasn't published, or that it didn't have detailed claims in it, or even that some later people didn't entirely believe it. You're even misrepresenting the Purser article as "claiming that the whole account was a myth invented by Hugh Trevor-Roper", which is not at all what it says. It's also an obvious fallacy to suppose that when writer A observes that writer B has taken an extremist position that aligns with their political career, that writer A is exhibiting an equal-but-opposite extremism. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, other than that you're a big fan of the Rawlinson story.

Banks & De la Chapelle in Tartan: Romancing the Plaid (pp. 71, 74) label the Rawlinson story a "legend", and suggest that the workers themselves may have invented the short kilt (they seem to accept the invention location). Dunbar in The History of Highland Dress doesn't seem to address the story at all. Barnes in The Uniforms & History of the Scottish Regiments (p. 265) says that idea of the short kilt "was attributed" to Rawlinson; i.e., he's repeating it as a story told, not as an ascertained fact. We need to see what other published works on Highland dress say on the matter. It's not our job as editors here to fight for uncritical presentation of ideas we like, or total suppression of ones we're suspicious of, but to make it clear to readers that the sources don't agree, when the sources don't agree.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've used available sources to improve our most detailed section on this, History of the kilt#The small kilt or walking kilt, as shown in this diff [1]. The sections at the other related articles should be edited to conform with this "Wikipedia isn't taking a side" cleanup, since the sources clearly conflict on the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next on the reading list about this, said to be "a response to Trevor-Roper's thesis": Pittock, Murray (2010). "Plaiding the invention of Scotland". In Brown, Ian (ed.). From Tartan to Tartanry. Edinburgh Universityh Press. pp. 32–62. ISBN 978-0748638772.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Update: I have this book on order, should get it this week.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the interim, I'm going over Trevor-Roper's essay in detail. I think his critics are correct that he's "mendacious" and politically motivated in his anti-Scottish ranting. (And our own article on him opens by labeling him a "polemicist".) The piece is extremely biased, right from its "Highlanders were just backward Irish castoffs" opening. Worse, it's drawing on trash sources. He cites the "Sobieski Stuarts" as if they are reliable authors instead of proven mountebanks (even though his later passages make it clear he knows they were mountebanks). And he calls John Pinkerton one of "the two greatest authorities on Scottish customs then living", but Pinkterton was a German-master-race theorist whose writings soundly condemn the Gaelic Scots as subhuman; he was even more mendaciously anti-Scottish than Trevor-Roper. The latter also claims that the Baillie letter has "excited no dissent", yet we see that it's excited quite a lot of dissent, starting at least in the early 1800s with Stewart of Garth. He claims that there's no pictorial evidence of short kilts in paintings until 1747, but Innes of Learney (1939) pointed out one from 1661, and Mackay (1924) pointed out more from 1659 and 1673. (On the other hand, I think Trevor-Roper is in agreement with nearly every modern writer on tartans that clan tartans date to around the beginning of the 19th century or late 18th at the earliest in a few cases.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for something else, but ran across this: Campbell, John Francis (1862). Popular Tales of the West Highlands. Vol. IV. Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. pp. 202–203. Lachlan MacKinnon, native of Skye, flourished in the middle of the seventeeth century. ... In a satirical song ... 'Breacan' and 'Feile,' tartan plaid and kilt, are mentioned as the dress worn by the Highland chiefs of the poet's time. Why would these have been presented as separate garments if they were not separate garments? For my part, I think it's plausible that the permanently pleated small kilt was invented (by Rawlinson or otherwise) at Rawlinson's factory, though we have no evidence of this at all other than an assertion in a letter by an alleged friend of Rawlinson (published much later, seemingly timed to coincide with a debate about stripping the Highland regiments of their kilts). But I'm struck by how easy it is to find, in other writers, references to or images of kilts that are not the breacan feile 'great kilt', in material that pre-dates Rawlinson (even if we discount D. W. Stewart as trying too hard to interpret "petticoats" and other references as kilts).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Forbes, Duncan George, ed. (1815), Culloden papers: comprising an extensive and interesting correspondence from the year 1625 to 1748, p. 103, retrieved 9 May 2023
  2. ^ Forbes 1815, p. 289.
  3. ^ The Edinburgh Magazine, for Literary Miscellany for March 1785, vol. I, Edinburgh: J Sibbald, March 1785, p. 235, retrieved 9 May 2023

Dress skirt

@Martin of Sheffield and/or anyone else: What exactly is a "dress skirt"? A Dress covers the upper and lower body. A Skirt covers the lower body only. Is this supposed to mean "a skirt" or is it supposed to mean "a dressy skirt"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll remove the word "dress". I think that it was originally added since kilts are often associated with formal dress wear, but they are not necessarily so. My reversion was changing "sarong" back to "skirt". There's no reason to start using a slightly ambiguous East Asian term. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizabeth G.H.L: you're fairly new around here, perhaps you've not yet had a chance to read WP:BRD which outlines the normal editing process. You make a Bold edit, it may be Reverted and if so you Discuss it. Just changing someone's reversion of your edit is not acceptable, and if you continue to do that it can escalate into an WP:EDITWAR. Being involved in an edit war can lead to administrator action ultimately to suspend or block your account.
Turning now to the substantive part. A sarong is a Malay word meaning 'to cover' or 'to sheath'. The OED defines a kilt as "A part of Highland dress, resembling a skirt reaching from the waist to the knee". I can see no reason to abandon a standard English word in favour of a Malaysian word that doesn't even look similar, sarongs are normally worn to cover the upper body as well. Your observation that skirt derives from an edge is not borne out by a perusal of the OED, indeed the etymology section shows skirt as being derived from shirt: "Old Norse skyrta (Icelandic skyrta , Norwegian sjørte , sjorte , sjurte ; Middle Swedish skiurta , skiorta , Swedish skjorta , Danish skjorte ) shirt". Looking down the definitions we see that "In extended uses: a border, rim, or protective covering", so the reverse is the case.
If you have any reason to debate this further, please do so on this talk page and do not change the article until consensus is achieved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, BRD is only one common editing technique, not "normal editing process", and the nutshell of BRD: -- "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." -- applies to both of you. Both editors are trying to improve the encyclopaedia and it is best if disagreement is resolved on talk rather than simply reverting each other.
For what it is worth, I agree that sarong is not a good choice of description. Dictionaries vary in whether they describe a kilt as a skirt or resembling a skirt. Possibly the latter definition is appeasing those Scotsmen who feel uncomfortable with their clothing being described in terms of what is perceived as a woman's clothing. Dictionaries vary in whether a skirt is described solely by its form or includes the claim that it is worn by women and girls. From this I would suggest that Wikipedia defining a kilt as a skirt or defining it as resembling a skirt are both valid, and depend on whether a writer feels skirts are solely for women/girls or are simply a particular kind of garment. The former (is a skirt) has been used by Wikipedia, AFAICS, for many years without complaint. -- Colin°Talk 21:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree with you that BRD in not the normal, but we'll let that lie. I've tried to get a discussion going with Elizabeth both here and on her talk page, but with an editor who has only four edits, and those to the same article, I wonder if she will be aware of talk pages. I seriously thought about doing a dummy edit to avoid charges of edit warring, but on thinking about it I decided that a dummy edit would achieve little, might be confusing, and ultimately wouldn't restore the status quo ante. I personally prefer "is a skirt" rather than "resembles a skirt", but would be happy to accept it in the interests of consensus building. What I can't understand is "sarong". Why not for example chiton or Fustanella? After all at least they are European terms and marginally closer to English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's "normal" depends on whether you're talking about BRD itself or Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. Also, most editing doesn't involve reverting or deserve discussion, so neither version of BRD is relevant to most edits.
Presumably one wouldn't pick Chiton (garment) because that's a dress (covers upper and lower body) instead of something that covers only the lower body.
I have no strong views about "is" vs "resembles" or any similar variation. I just don't want that "dress skirt" language to stick around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think readers will have even less idea what a chiton is vs a sarong. The point of a lead (and any definition really) is to help the reader understand the unfamiliar, and if our definition contains even more obscure terms (fustanella) than the subject, we are heading in the wrong direction. I know sometimes we need to use precise language but let's see if we can keep it simpler. The form of kilt that covers the upper body is historical, as the lead paragraph explains. I think readers will understand best if left described as/resembles a skirt, which is what the modern kilt looks like.
I wasn't sure what "non-bifurcated" meant and the wiktionary link was no help whatsoever. I didn't appreciate in what way it might be "in two" or not "in two". I googled and found Bifurcated skirt which explained that such a skirt had a division between the legs. Even our Skirt article doesn't mention that kind. If it did, however, then we could link to that instead. As it is, I think the fact that it is not a kind of skirt that is a pretty rare kind of skirt is a rather more obscure detail than deserves prominence in the lead sentence.
The resemblance with some kinds of sarong is that it is one length of fabric rather than a sewn tube one steps into. You wrap it around yourself and fasten with buckles. As our Sarong article explains, not all sarongs are like that, and some are sewn to a tube. Additionally a kilt is fastened with buckles down its length rather than tied at the waist, and the material is heavy wool and pleated, so not at all lightweight for hot weather. So I think describing it as a sarong is too misleading. But I think the fact that it is wrapped around the waist rather than stepped into like most skirts is something the lead should cover.
The lead sentence also says it has pleats round the back, which is incorrect, as they are at the sides too. The best dictionary description I have found is this 18th century one here here: A traditional Scottish garment, usually worn by men, having roughly the same morphology as a wrap-around skirt, with overlapping front aprons and pleated around the sides and back, and usually made of twill-woven worsted wool with a tartan pattern. Perhaps we could say "resembling a wrap-around skirt", drop the "non-bifurcated" aspect, and note the pleats are at the side and back. Saying "men's skirt" is a bit too close to enforcing a gender rule than documenting a typical wear usage. We also don't mention it is made from wool and has a tartan until the end of the lead paragraph, which is rather late. I see the body mentions "twill woven worsted wool". I've made an edit to try to include all these things. -- Colin°Talk 07:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The "chiton" and "fustanella" were meant as hyperbole, not a serious definition. It's just that I had to look up "sarong" to see what it was, the those two are just as obscure (unless you live in Malasia of course). Some readers might have a problem with "morphology", but then this is the English WP, not Simple English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I settled on "resembles" because the more I thought about its differences, the more I realised that although it looks somewhat like a skirt, it isn't a typical skirt that is made of a sewn tube, and it isn't tied at the waist like many female wrap-around skirts are. There's a considerable overlap of material (the "overlapping front apron" in our dictionary def above), and a set of buckles, that ensures no gap appears. I also thought "having roughly the same morphology" was just a highfalutin way of saying "resembles". -- Colin°Talk 10:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "resembling a wrap-around skirt" is an improvement over some of the previous versions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble: a kilt is fastened with buckles down its length – No, it's fastened with buckles at the top (left and right). A minority of kiltmakers use two buckles on the left, but both are well above the center of the kilt vertically.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title.

As an English boy living in Scotland for my secondary education, I had it hammered into me that the proper reference to a kilt was always to be 'The Kilt'. Don't ask me why, I'm English! Damorbel (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kilt&oldid=1159798306"