[Sca-cooks] pocketbooks

[Ron Carnegie]

>
> From: "Phlip" <phlip at 99main.com>
> Date: 2003/04/28 Mon PM 06:43:36 EDT
> To: <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] pocketbooks
>
>
> Ene bichizh ogsen baina shuu...
>
> > So, why is it called a "pocketbook"? Seems more like what paperbacks
> > should be called. Pocketbooks aren't small enough to put in a pocket
> > are they? And even if they are, they aren't generally carried in your
> > pocket are they? What was the period term for such things? "Purses"?
> > for both men and women?
> > Stefan
>
> Well, think about it, Stefan- they function as an external pocket (women's
> clothes rarely have pockets, and in those that do, the pockets are the next
> best thing to useless). Furthermore, they open and close like books. I would
> suspect the term came into play the early part of the 20th century when
> purses started using those hinged openings, and that the term is staying,
> despite all the variations we have more commonly today- saddlebag looking
> things, drawstrings, et al.
>
> Phlip


    I do not know when the term began to be used, but it is in common use the the later half of the 18th century.  The item that goes by that term in that period is a male's item.  It does contain money, but it often carries a good deal more with writing implements and small journals being common.  I assume that it is called pocket book however, because it closes like a book, though many are trifold.  All the originals that I have seen have larger than most modern men's wallets.

   As far as to fitting into pockets, well that depends upon the pocket doesn't it.  Many of the historical pockets that I am familiar with (including the pre 17th century ones) are far larger than the useless pockets often found on modern clothing.

Ranald

R.Carnegie at verizon.net
"Argue for your limitations, and they are yours."
             R. Bach