A Definition of the Term, T R A D I T I O N A L

[Phil]

"Traditional" is not an easy term to define and is as if highland dress had perhaps reached a state of perfection beyond which no further change was either possible or acceptable. To have said such a thing in 1850 or perhaps 1950 would have rendered how we dress nowadays quite unthinkable given how styles have changed considerably even during my time on this earth. Anyone as old as me who remembers the TV shows of the 1960's (White Heather Club etc.) will recall that it was generally a Montrose that was worn by the likes of Kenneth McKellar and others. Until fairly recently the Montrose has been a rarity in favour of the PC but should we brand the PC as non-"Tradional" as a result? Should we regard the modern short kilt as un-"traditional" in favour of the great kilt? Where do we draw the line? Then again, we see here many examples posted of idiosyncratic styles adopted by individuals which are theirs and theirs alone, but are we also to accept that these are examples of "tradition" which we all should follow simply because they are Chief this or Lord that and must be correct as a result? Finally, who exactly are we going to accept to be the "Chief Arbiter of Tradition"? There are plenty here who have expressed strongly held views in the past on what can and what cannot ever be worn but we have never been party to what qualification they have to propound their views in this way. Do you have to be Scottish perhaps with an unblemished Highland pedigree, man and boy? Or should it be an individual intent on imposing his/her views on others even if, as usually happens, to challenge such views elicits a hostile and combative response? Many questions and it will be interesting to see how such a forum evolves. Let us hope that it is one of gentle advice rather than opinions set in stone, for opinions are what they are, no more and no less.

[Bugbear]

I just goofed and made a post in the traditional forum that ended up sounding more like a historical post. I removed what I wrote after I realized that the thread was in the traditional rather than historical forum.

Guess I need to be careful about posting in either forum until I'm used to the change.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Phil brings up an important point, and that is that different people mean different things by the word "traditional." A lot of times those ideas are compatible, but not always.

In my experience discussing Highland dress with various people, I have found two concepts of "traditional" to be prominant.

The first simply means "what I recall my grandfather wearing" (or some variation thereof). In other words, what are the prevelant styles considered "proper" within living memory?

The second view would equate "traditional" to "historic." If there is a record of it being commonly done in the past, it is traditional.

To illustrate how these viewpoints can yield differing results, consider the choice between a 4 yard box pleated kilt, or an 8 yard knife pleated kilt. I am helping someone purchase their first kilt, and they are trying to decide between these two styles. They ask me, "Which is more traditional?" What do I say?

Well, the four yard box pleated kilt was the original style of tailored kilt, from the end of the eighteenth century through to the mid-nineteenth. However, since the end of the nineteenth century, the eight yard knife pleated kilt has been the most common style worn, and is what most people think of as a "kilt" today.

Having read Rathdown's original post, he would likely consider the box pleated kilt to be "historic" and the knife pleated "traditional," and that's a very valid viewpoint. But someone else may consider the box pleated more traditional because it is older, or because it was the original style of pleating, etc.

I would argue that they are both traditional, but that we need to be aware that different people have different concepts of just what is meant by that term.

[Heming]

This is very interesteing indeed, and "traditional" is indeed difficult to define. My interpretation is that "historical" is something that WAS common, but is an extinct practice, whereas "traditional" WAS AND IS common, i.e. has been practice for a long time and is still considered appropriate today. The real nut to crack is to define how long something must have been common practice to deserve being called traditional.

I have a tradition for a nine course black tie supper on Hogmanay with a certain group of friends. We've been doing that for ten years. But I've also worn t-shirts to work for ten years. Is that traditional?

Clothing styles and fashion vary over both short and long periods. For instance, the male, western business suit has been more or less the same for the last 100 years or so, keeping in mind that different button arrangements and cuts are considered relatively minor changes (whereas changing from mostly kilts to mostly trousers would be a major change). In contrast, street fashion varies quite distinctively from season to season within the same year. Setting a standard for what is traditional becomes very difficult.

In my country there's a government body (!) that regulates (among other things) the education of makers of traditional and historical (national) dress. This body defines "traditional dress" as "clothing commonly worn since at least 1850 and uninterrupted up to today" and "historical dress" as "clothing commonly worn prior to 1850 over a lengthy period, which is no longer in common use"

I find their definitions quite useful, but when it comes to highland dress one might consider using a different year than 1850 - I suppose one should pick a time when the "modern" tailored kilt was more or less standardised in form. I'm sure others here are much more knowledgeable than me in that respect.

But I do suggest that "traditional" should imply WAS AND IS common, and that "WAS" should imply at least two or three generations back in time. Old is not necessarily traditional, in my opinion. Following this line, the oldest variety is not necessarily the most traditional, and thus a box-pleated kilt would in my mind be more historically correct, yet less traditional than a knife-pleated 8-yarder. As I am interested in both history and tradition, I would want to own both, and would use them both, but in different settings.

But I beleive Mr. Newsome is quite correct in his conclusion: Different people have different concepts of just what is meant by the term "traditional". Maybe the mod squad could make up a set of definitions that are valid for this forum, so that everyone knows what to expect?

[DWFII]

We had this discussion some time ago (here) and I thought then, and still think now, that there was a lot said that was especially relevant.

I keep wanting to find a source that everyone respects enough to use as a starting point. I can think of none better than the Oxford English Dictionary, which has this to say about "tradition:"

"The action of transmitting or ‘handing down’, or fact of being handed down, from one to another, or from generation to generation; transmission of statements, beliefs, rules, customs, or the like, esp. by word of mouth or by practice without writing. "

"That which is thus handed down; a statement, belief, or practice transmitted (esp. orally) from generation to generation."

"More vaguely: A long established and generally accepted custom or method of procedure, having almost the force of a law; an immemorial usage; the body (or any one) of the experiences and usages of any branch or school of art or literature, handed down by predecessors and generally followed. "

"Among the Jews, Any one, or the whole, of an unwritten code of regulations, etc. held to have been received from Moses, and handed down orally from generation to generation and embodied in the Mishnah.".

"In the Christian Church, Any one, or the whole, of a body of teachings transmitted orally from generation to generation since early times;"

As for the differences between traditional and historical...by this very definition traditional is historic .

In practical terms, for me at least, I think a box pleated four yard kilt is very traditional.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Both Phil and Matt (and others) have raised some cogent points regarding how hard it is to define traditional and where the line is drawn between traditional and historic (and in some cases, eccentric!) Highland attire.

Matt's observations on the box pleat kilt perfectly define the conundrum. If worn with a Crimean War military uniform the 4-yard box pleat kilt is historical; worn with a Prince Charlie coatee it most definitely becomes traditional. I'm actually a fan of the box pleat kilt because I consider it "traditional". Matt would most likely agree, and there are probably some who wouldn't.

Phil has hit the nail squarely on the head when he said that this form should be a place "of gentle advice, rather than opinions set in stone." I'm sure that's something we can all agree on.

[SteveB]

Gentlepeople,
This name change should help people be aware of what is expected here. Some time ago I posted on this forum pictures of myself kitted up to be given the opinions of the traditionalists on what of it is proper Highland Dress. There were many very pleasant and proper posts that enabled me to better put together kit in traditional manner. I do wear the kilt in non traditional settings, and keep those posts elsewhere.
As has been stated already, with respect, this can be a great way of looking at the traditional Highland Dress. It will be a forum that I visit often, and is an important one for XmarkstheScot.
Thank you traditionalists!

Slainte

[pdcorlis]

It seems that folks like me who simply click the "New Posts" tab on log-in and cruise the results will need to pay closer attention so as not to offend.

[The Guy in the Kilt at UC]

This is very interesteing indeed, and "traditional" is indeed difficult to define. My interpretation is that "historical" is something that WAS common, but is an extinct practice, whereas "traditional" WAS AND IS common, i.e. has been practice for a long time and is still considered appropriate today.

I like this definition of traditional, since it makes quite a bit of sense to me. I have known people my age (early to mid 20s) to resurrect old fashions to make them new again; not to be traditional in any way, but to be independent.

I am by no means a traditionalist, because I did not grow up with my family's Scottish tradition. The Scots in my family died before I was born, and it was never passed on. It is good to have this forum then, and leave historical discussion elsewhere, if only to better define the difference between the two.

[davidlpope]

Maybe the issue is, at heart, a semantic one and we just haven't found a term that really fits. Perhaps "classic" is really a better term to capture the style of highland dress that we're discussing. This captures the essence of what we're describing while side-stepping the confusion with "period" or "historic" attire.

To me this tends to be consistent with men's clothing styles in general. "Classic" men's attire could probably also be described as conservative, traditional, and, more or less, timeless, but it doesn't veer into the "vintage" realm.

For the purpose of explanation, take Matt's example- a 4yd box pleat, while very traditional, probably wouldn't be considered "classic" highland attire, since that would more accurately describe a 13oz or 16oz "8-yd" knife-pleated kilt. (No offense meant, BTW, since I personally own two of these wonderful kilts, myself, I'm just trying to be more precise in the terminology.)

Cordially,

David