Interesting 1773 Description of Kilt

**Bugbear** · 12th July 10, 01:34 PM

From book cited in OP, on Friday, 8th October, Boswell writes of the people of Col:

They can all dye. Heath is used for yellow; and for red, a moss which grows on stones. They make broad-cloth, and tartan, and linen, of their own wool and flax, sufficient for their own use; as also stockings. Their bonnets come from the main land. (324)

That might be interesting to the reenactment folks.

I had to take an excursion into reading up on Scottish horses because he discusses the horses of the island, a little earlier in the entry, without naming the breed. Apparently they did not shoe their horses on Col.

Then after traveling to Sky on, Sunday, 12th September, he writes:

I was highly pleased to see Dr. Johnson safely arrived at Kingsburgh, and received by the hospitable Mr. Macdonald, who, with a most respectful attention, supported him into the house. Kingsburgh was completely the figure of a gallant Highlander,--exhibiting 'the graceful mien and manly looks,' which our popular Scotch song has justly attributed to that character. He had his Tartan plaid thrown about him, a large blue bonnet with a knot of black ribband
like a cockade, a brown short coat of a kind of duffil, a Tartan waistoat with gold buttons and gold button-holes, a bluish philibeg, and Tartan hose.
He had jet black hair tied behind, and was a large stately man, with a steady sensible countenance. (244)

Once again, the kilt is not described as tartan. The hose are, in this and the other quote, specifically described as tartan. The "plaid" is also described as tartan etc, but not the kilt. Why would the kilt not be described as tartan if all these other items are described as tartan, unless the kilt were not tartan? Just saying...

I also note the long hair tied back.

**Cygnus** · 12th July 10, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbear

...Once again, the kilt is not described as tartan. The hose are, in this and the other quote, specifically described as tartan. The "plaid" is also described as tartan etc, but not the kilt. Why would the kilt not be described as tartan if all these other items are described as tartan, unless the kilt were not tartan? Just saying...

Just to play the Devil's advocate

:

Maybe he didn't describe the kilt as being tartan because he felt the word "kilt", to his audience, would imply that it was made of tartan cloth?

Just a thought.

**Bugbear** · 12th July 10, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cygnus

Just to play the Devil's advocate

:

Maybe he didn't describe the kilt as being tartan because he felt the word "kilt", to his audience, would imply that it was made of tartan cloth?

Just a thought.

Well, I could point to his statements on the importance of small details, like shoe buckles, near the beginning of the work, but I'm not sure that would be a good defense. I don't think I can assume that the kilts are tartan by these descriptions.

**artificer** · 12th July 10, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbear

Once again, the kilt is not described as tartan. The hose are, in this and the other quote, specifically described as tartan. The "plaid" is also described as tartan etc, but not the kilt. Why would the kilt not be described as tartan if all these other items are described as tartan, unless the kilt were not tartan? Just saying...

I also note the long hair tied back.

Might it be that the kilt was a tweed (as suggested earlier). When patterned fabric needs repairs, they show pretty readily.

If I was wearing something out in the bracken and it might be (probably WAS) my only one, I'd prefer it to be easily repaired (or at least, to hide the repairs made).

The tartan items might be their 'finery' with the real work-horse made in a more plain material.

I don't have a ton of historical expertise in Highland wear, but it makes sense to me.

ith:

BTW: This is a fascinating discussion, thanks again for posting this

**Bugbear** · 12th July 10, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by artificer

Might it be that the kilt was a tweed (as suggested earlier). When patterned fabric needs repairs, they show pretty readily.

If I was wearing something out in the bracken and it might be (probably WAS) my only one, I'd prefer it to be easily repaired (or at least, to hide the repairs made).

The tartan items might be their 'finery' with the real work-horse made in a more plain material.

I don't have a ton of historical expertise in Highland wear, but it makes sense to me.

ith:

BTW: This is a fascinating discussion, thanks again for posting this

No problem, and you can download the two digital texts at those PG links I posted; though Samuel Johnson does not describe kilts or tartan in his text, as far as I can tell. I'm trying to focus on those types of things, but there are lots of other very interesting things being discussed and described throughout. I suggest reading Boswell's journal because he seemed to be aware that future generations might be interested in it.

I don't know if it's a tweed like fabric being described here, it just doesn't sound like tartan.

**figheadair** · 12th July 10, 11:38 PM

The is no evidence that tweed existed until towards the middle of the C19th. It's much more likely that the overall hue of the cloth, plain or patterned, was being described.

Originally Posted by artificer

Might it be that the kilt was a tweed (as suggested earlier). When patterned fabric needs repairs, they show pretty readily.

**Bugbear** · 12th July 10, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by figheadair

The is no evidence that tweed existed until towards the middle of the C19th. It's much more likely that the overall hue of the cloth, plain or patterned, was being described.

I would guess so, all of the references in the texts to tweed are discussing the river Tweed, and none describing fabric.

Thanks for pointing that out, figheadair.