[Sca-cooks] baby clothes

[Laura C. Minnick]

At 01:14 PM 10/23/02 -0400, you wrote:
>    Did they differentiate baby genders back then?

Well, They were pretty darn excited when a boy was born! And disappointed
when it was a girl- remember Nursie "But it hasn't got a winkle! Fancy
that! A boy with out a winkle!"

Oh, you mean differentiated _clothes_? Why didn't you say so? ;-)

>Given that infant
>mortality rates were horrendous by modern standards, and that you might have
>to have several to get one that lived to maturity, I would tend the think
>that baby clothes would be pretty generic in nature. I  mean, you don't know
>if this one will live, or what the gender of the next one would be. And
>since I doubt seriously that the frugal and realistic folks back then would
>just pitch outgrown baby clothes, would there have actually been a
>difference?
>
>    Sieggy

Actually, baby clothes for the really tiny ones are pretty generic anyway,
infant mortality notwithstanding, especially since they didn't do the
pink/blue thing, and becasue boys were in gowns until they are 4-6 years old.

Tiny infants were swaddled, once they were semi-mobile they were in little
gowns, usually gathered at the neck. There's a terrific painting of the
Holy Family, late 15th c, with the toddler Jesus in a walker, wearing a
little gown (Mary is busy weaving, and Joseph is in the corner doing
carpenter things). And plenty of babies and children in other things...

'Lainie
____________________________________________________________________________
Sometimes Life makes drastic changes without our permission...