Quantcast
Channel: Costume Historian
Viewing all 168 articles
Browse latest View live

Fans – Special issue of Seventeenth-Century French Studies

$
0
0



Louis XIV R°" by Bruno Befreetv, via Wikimedia Commons 
For those with an interest in the history of fan the journal Seventeenth-Century French Studies has published an entire issue of the subject, Volume 36, Issue no. 1, 2014.

As you can tell from the contents listed below, two of the articles are in French and the rest in English:-




New Pleasure in Life Unfolding: Madeleine de Scudéry’s Friendship Fan, by Laura Burch. pp. 4–17
The frisson of No-Touch: A Fan’s Gallant Allegory of the Senses, Juliette Cherbuliez. pp. 18–27
Le don du roi, ou les vingt ans du Grand Dauphin, byMarie-Claude Canova-Green. pp. 28–37
Fanning The ‘Judgment of Paris’: The Early Modern Beauty Contest, by Elizabeth C. Goldsmith. pp. 38–52
Putti Galore: ‘Eventails de Bosse’ and the Judgment of Paris, by Karen Newman. pp. 53–72
A Battle for Hearts and Minds: Turenne and Louis XIV, by Harriet Stone. pp. 73–83
Introduction à l’éventail européen aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, by Pierre-Henri Biger. pp. 84–92

One woman’s clothes - 1628-1637

$
0
0
C Johnson. Unknown woman c.1630
 In an earlier post I looked at the clothes bought for Nicholas LeStrange for his marriage in 1630, and that post gives the background to the family. In this post I will look at the clothes provided to Elizabeth LeStrange between 1628 (when she was 13) and 1637 (after her wedding). As with the previous post I have not looked at the originals, but at the book on the LeStrange accounts. (Whittle & Griffiths, 2012)

Over the nine year period fifteen outfits were purchased, some included accessories others did not. Between 1628 and 1632, the time she reached the age eighteen, she would have been growing, and over this period she received seven outfits. Between 1633 and her marriage in June 1635 she received four outfits. Two outfits were purchased for her wedding, one four months after her wedding and one (the most expensive) in April 1637. These outfits did not constitute the whole of her purchases of clothing, as items such as shoes, stockings, linens, gloves etc. were purchased separately. In addition from the age of 21 she received an annual allowance for clothes of £40 a year, equivalent to the income of a tradesman’s family.

The outfits purchased for Elizabeth range in cost from £3 10s for a petticoat and waistcoat of black silk-watered mohair in 1635, to £61 17s 10d for a plush and silver and gold tissued grogram outfit given to her as a present after her marriage.

To get an idea of what her outfits might have looked liked above is a 1630 portrait by Cornelius Johnson of an unknown woman. Her outfit is very similar in style to this 1633 portrait, also by Johnson, of Lady Margaret Hungerford. Johnson was one of the most popular portrait painters of his day until Anthony Van Dyck returned to England in 1632. Using Van Dyck’s paintings as examples can be problematical because, as Gordenker(2001)has argued, Van Dyck can “simplify” his sitter’s dress to produce a style sometimes referred to as “careless romance.”

The garments

 There were: 10 Petticoats, 9 Gowns, 7 Waistcoats, 1 Kirtle, 3 Stomachers, 2 (pairs of) Bodies,
2 (pairs of) Sleeves, 1 Roll, and 1 (set of) Gorget and cuffs.

Petticoats: By this time separate skirts are referred to as petticoats, in the sixteenth century petticoats could be referred to as having an upperbody. (Huggett, 1999)Randle Holme (1688)(who will be much referred to) calls petticoats “the skirt of the gown without its body; but that is generally termed a peti-coat, which is worn either under a gown, or without it.” It is sometimes difficult in Alice’s accounts to pick out which fabric goes with which garment. Sometimes a petticoat and waistcoat will be purchased together as in “petticoat and waistcoat of watered sky-coloured taffeta with silver lace, £8 16s. However sometimes there is an amount of fabric purchased for a gown, possibly with an integral skirt, and a further amount for a petticoat to wear under it, as in 18 yards of crimson tammel for a gown, plus 9 yards of white and red Norwich damask for a petticoat.

1620s outfit photo c.1929
Gown: Gown is a term that, like petticoat, is changing its meaning. A gown can be what you wear over, either a waistcoat and petticoat combination, or a pair of bodies with sleeves and maybe a stomacher and a petticoat. In 1630 16 yards of black tufted grogram were purchased for a gown, and 12 yards of lemon coloured satin for a waistcoat to go with it.  There was a petticoat but we don’t know if it was black or lemon, only that half a yard of yellow perpetuana was bought to border the petticoat. Gowns rarely survive but there was one in a French collection before the Second World War, as shown in this very old photograph. A rear view of something similar can be seen in one of Hollar’s prints from his 1640 Ornatus Muliebris series. A gown can also mean the whole ensemble, the bodice part and the petticoat part, even though they are separate. Randle Holme (1688)describes a woman’s gown as having “several parts” among which he includes; the stays, the stomacher, the sleeves, and the skirt or gown skirt.


Waistcoats: Do not think of men’s waistcoats, these are very different. Randle Holme (1688)describes a waistcoat as “the outside of a gown without either stays or bodies fastened to it ....some wear them with stomachers.” He also speaks of them having gored skirts, so probably with a stomacher they looked like this 1620-1630 example in the Museum of London, a pattern for this appears in Waugh (1968), diagram no. 4; or without a stomacher like this pink silk waistcoat from 1610-1620 in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Detailed information, photographs and patterns for the pink silk waistcoat appear in North and Tiramani (2011) so I am not sure why the photos on the V&A website are in black and white.

Bodies: Elizabeth received two pairs of bodies, these are often seen as equating to eighteen century stays, or nineteenth century corsets, which they do to a certain extent. They are boned and can be undergarments, but can be covered with an outer layer making it suitable for visible wear. They can also come with separate sleeves, as in the pink set from the 1660s in the Victoria and Albert Museum, information and a pattern for this appear in the second North and Tiramani (2012) book. Both the outfits purchased for Elizabeth’s wedding came with bodies, a pair of bodies for 8s and a pair of damask bodies for £1 2s. In addition either the gown or, more likely, the waistcoat in Elizabeth’s black and lemon outfit was stiffened, as the accounts for it include a sum for bents. Bents were stiff or rigid reeds that were used instead of whalebone to provide stiffening to garments. 


Sleeves: Two pairs of sleeves appear in the accounts and in both cases they are listed with a stomacher. They may be like the sleeves that come with the pink bodies mentioned above, and lace to an armhole.

Van Dyck. Henrietta Maria
Stomachers: The stomacher is the infill covering the stomach, or as Holme says, “is that peece that lieth under the lacings or binding of the body of the gown.” This lacing over a stomacher can clearly be seen in this Van Dyck portrait of Henrietta Maria. Unfortunately stomachers rarely survive with the garment they were designed for, although several stomachers on their own do survive as in this late 17th century example in the Feller Collection.


Kirtle: One kirtle is listed. By the 1620s this is a very old fashioned term. It was falling out of use by the late 16th century as Huggett (1999)has shown in her comparison of wills from the third and fourth quarters of the sixteenth century. It is generally considered that a kirtle had a body, which could be made of a different fabric to the skirt, and was worn under the gown. (Mikhaila & Malcolm-Davies, 2006)


Roll: Farthingales had gone out of fashion by 1620, but some fashionable women still used what Holmes referred to as “bearers, rowls, fardingales” to “raise up the skirt at that place to what breadth the wearer pleaseth, and as the fashion is.”


Gorget and cuffs: A gorget according to the OED is a covering for the neck and breast. Unlike a neckerchief, which was usually square, the gorget was curved and was therefore bracketed with rails, which were a lightweight shoulder cape, as in Corbet’s circa 1635 poem which says, “To the Ladyes of the New Dresse, That weare their gorgets and rayles doune to their wastes.” An example is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, and is described in detail in North & Tiramani(2012, pp. 116-121). The bone (bobbin) lace on the cuffs, since they were purchased as a set, would probably have matched the lace on the gorget, and a £6 12s cost more than some of her petticoat and waistcoat sets. Here is a collar and cuffs set from the 1630s in the V&A, in this example the collar is tucked into the neckline of the gown and is not worn at the throat.

The fabrics

As well as fabrics most would recognise, such as satin, damask and taffeta, there are many fabrics that are less well known. Listed below are these fabrics and definitions for them as well as an indication of how they were used. The definitions used here all come from the OED online edition or Beck (1882) unless otherwise stated:

Baize (bays): This is not the baize we think of today used for covering snooker tables and the like. It was one of the new draperies. Beck states that it was introduced to England in 1561. The OED describes it as “A coarse woollen stuff, having a long nap,” but in the seventeenth century it is often described as slight or thin. In the accounts it is used for a scarlet petticoat,

Camel’s hair (camlet):This is a fabric which is very difficult to pin down, as Beck says, “the changes have been rung with all materials in every possible combination, sometimes wool, sometimes silk, sometimes hair.” It is often mentioned with, or conflated with grograms, as in a charter of 1641 which has “grogram or mohair yarne” and “chamletts or grograms” In the accounts it is used for a petticoat.

Grogram: The OED has this as a coarse fabric of silk, of mohair and wool, or of these mixed with silk; often stiffened with gum. This was used for three of the gowns, one of them is described as tufted grogram, and another, which is in silver and gold, as tissued. There is a later, 1660s, silver tissue dress in the Fashion Museum at Bath.

Perpetuana: Another of the new draperies. OED describes it as a durable woollen fabric, but Beck mentions that John May in 1613  complained that although it had kept its width and length its pitch (pick) had gone down from 1200 to 800. Half a yard of this fabric was used to border a petticoat.

Plush: A rich fabric of silk, cotton, wool, or other material (or any of these combined), Beck describes it as a long napped velvet. Twelve yards of this (cost £12), was used together with 11¼ yards of gold and silver tissued grogram (cost £36) to make Elizabeth’s most expensive gown.


Princely: This does not appear in the OED or Beck, so we really don’t know what it was.


Tabby: Is a general term for a silk taffeta, but in this case it is described as brocaded tabby, and 6 yards are used in the tissued gown.

Philizela: Is not in the OED or Beck, but may well be philoselle which in both is a wrought silk. This was used for a crimson gown.

Sarcenet: A very fine and soft silk material made both plain and twilled. This was used for a petticoat, a waistcoat and a gown.

Tammel: Now this could be stammel, which according to the OED is, a coarse woollen cloth, or linsey-woolsey. More likely, given the other fabrics purchased for her, it could be Tammy (also spelt as Tammis), which the OED describes as “A fine worsted cloth of good quality, often with a glazed finish.” This was used for three gowns.

The lace

There is tendency to think of lace entirely in terms of white, and of either bobbin or needle lace. Where the reference is just to bone (bobbin) lace, as in 10 yards of bone lace, then this is probably true, but Elizabeth also has black and metallic laces. Lace at this period can refer to lace in a modern sense, but it can also refer to what today we would probably refer to as braid. The metallic laces are listed not only by length, but by the weight of the metal in them, as in 28 yards of silver bone lace weighing 32¼ ounces. A bodice dating to 1650-70 in the Museum of London shows this type of heavy silver lace decorating the front. There was a law suit in the 1590s when a gentleman was charged by his tailor for a certain weight of metallic lace, his servant thought there wasn’t enough and took all the lace off and weighed it, discovering that it was 80 ounces less than had been paid for. (Levey, 1983) There are also references in Elizabeth’s clothing to galloon lace (which is a braid lace), whip lace, edging lace and comparsed lace.


The colours

Two of the gowns and four of the petticoat and waistcoat sets were black, which was an extremely popular colour, and appears in almost every fabric type, grogram, satin, taffeta, lace, tammel, damask, princely and mohair.  One gown and the kirtle with a stomacher were a pearl colour. One gown was silver, for her wedding, and another silver and gold, which was the most expensive garment purchased.

Reds were traditionally a colour often used for petticoats. Elizabeth has two gowns of crimson, one with a white and red damask petticoat, and the other with a watchet (light blue-green) and yellow stitched taffeta for the petticoat, sleeves and stomacher. Three yards of scarlet baize were used for a petticoat.

One of the black gowns, purchased at the time of her brother’s wedding, had a lemon coloured satin waistcoat, and half a yard of yellow perpetuana was used to border the petticoat.

Blue appears only as a watered sky coloured taffeta for a waistcoat and petticoat set.

One waistcoat and petticoat set was of green watered taffeta, and five yards of green stitched taffeta was used in another outfit, though it is not obvious what it was for.

References

Beck, S. W., 1882. The draper's dictionary. https://archive.org/details/drapersdictionar00beck. London: Wharehousmen and Drapers Journal.

Gordenker, E., 2001. Anthony Van Dyck and the representation of dress in seventeenth century portraiture. Turnhout: Brepols.

Holme, R., 1688. Academie of Armourie. s.l.:s.n.

Huggett, J., 1999. Rural costume in Elizabethan Essex: a study based on the evidence from wills.. Costume, Volume 33.

Levey, S., 1983. Lace: a history. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

Mikhaila, N. & Malcolm-Davies, J., 2006. The Tudor tailor. London: Batsford.

North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2011. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 1. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2012. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 2. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

Waugh, N., 1968. The cut of women's clothes 1600-1930. London: Faber.

Whittle, J. & Griffiths, E., 2012. Consumption and gender in the early seventeenth century household: the world of Alice Le Strange.. Oxford: O.U.P.

The two photographs from paintings are via Wikimedia Commons.

A Sixteenth Century Mitten from London – with pattern

$
0
0


Original mitten in Museum of London
Among the collection of sixteenth century knitted items in the Museum of London is a child's knitted mittenfound at Finsbury. It looks as though it could have been bought from Marks and Spencer, but is over 400 years old.  A similar mitten of a similar date is in the Norwich and Norfolk Museums’ collection, and a pattern for this has been published.(Huggett & Mikhaila, 2013)



The Museum of London mitten is 13 centimetres (5 inches) long by 7 centimetres (2¾ inches) wide including the thumb, and therefore probably belonged to a child of about five years of age.  Unfortunately the MoL has not put a measure in the photographs of it, but from the known width it would appear to be knitted at around 12 stitches to 5 centimetres (6 stitches to the inch)

Finished reproduction
The mitten is knitted in pale brown wool, with a three row decoration at the wrist in black wool. Unlike the Norwich mitten and most modern mittens, it is knitted from the top of the fingers down to the cuff. Very little of the actual cuff exists but appears to be 6 rows of garter stitch.

I am not the world’s best knitter (understatement of the year), however I have had a go at producing an adult size pattern – several goes actually but this one seems to work.


I used double knitting wool on a set of four 4mm (UK size 8, and US size 6) needles, this knits up as a roughly 24 stitches by 30 rows to a 10 cm square. The colours I used were gold for the main colour and dark brown for the contrast. The size given here fits me; I am a UK size 7 in gloves. Ihave indicated below how it can be altered for larger or smaller hands. I am not a follow the pattern type knitter so the instructions may not be what you are used to.

Start the top of the thumb.
Cast on 7 stitches over three needles, leaving enough of a tail to finish off and close any hole at the end.
K round.
K1, increase 1, repeat to end of round (14 stitches on the needles – this is enough for my thumb, large thumbs may require more stitches, smaller thumbs less)
K until the thumb reaches the length of your thumb, as in the photo.
Put the stitches to keep on a length of yarn, or a stitch holder, leaving a long enough tail to graft one side of the thumb to the hand.

Start the top of the hand.
Cast on 12 stitches over three needles, leaving enough of a tail to finish off and close any hole at the end.
K round.
K1, increase 1, repeat to end of round. (18 stitches on the needles)
K round.
K1, increase 1, repeat to end of round. (27 stitches on needles)
K round
K1, increase 1, repeat to end of round. (40 stitches on needles)
K round
K9, increase 1, repeat to end of round. (44 stitches on needles - this is enough for my hand, larger hands may require more stitches, smaller hands less)
K to bottom of fingers, as in the photo

Now we need to add in the thumb and play with needles. Four stitches from the thumb and four stitches from the fingers need to be put on a length of yarn, or a stitch holder, to be grafted together later. In the photo you can see the green yarn is holding the stitches.
You may find it easier to graft together these stitches now, rather than at the end.
Split the remaining thumb stitches across two of the needles. This will form the outer edge of the mitten, where you will later decrease to the wrist.
You should now have 50 stitches on your needles.

K round, you may need to knit into the grafted stitches at either side of the thumb, or you will end up with a hole.
K round (you will probably have 52 stitches on your needles now), until you reach the point where the hand starts narrowing to the wrist.

Next round starting at the thumb edge. K 8, k2tog, k until 10 from end of round. k2tog, k to end of round
Next round k
Next round K 6, k2tog, k until 8 from end of round. k2tog, k to end of round
Next round k
Next round K 4, k2tog, k until 6 from end of round. k2tog, k to end of round
Next round k
Next round K 2, k2tog, k until 4 from end of round. k2tog, k to end of round (You should now have 42 stitches on your needles.
Knit until you reach the wrist bone.
Now to add in the decoration.
New round k in the contrast colour.
Next round k1 contrast, k1 main colour, repeat to end of round.
Next round knit in contrast colour. 
Next round return to main colour, and knit until just short of the length you want it to be.
For the cuff - First round p, 2nd round k, repeat these two rounds twice and cast off.

Finishing
Sew up the hole at the top of the fingers and any holes at the top and bottom of the thumb.  Tidy in the ends of your contrast colour, and your cast off.

Reference:

Huggett, J. & Mikhaila, N., 2013. The Tudor Child. Lightwater: Fat Goose

Blandford Fashion Museum

$
0
0



Blandford Fashion Museum
Paid a visit to the Blandford Fashion Museum, housed in a mid 18th century house in the town of Blandford Forum, Dorset. The museum collection started life as the personal collection of the late Mrs Betty Penny. Mrs Penny used to go around the country with her collection holding catwalk fashion shows in which people wore the original garments she owned. Members of the museums community were horrified, but Mrs Penny over her lifetime raised over half a million pounds for charity by doing this. Late in her life Mrs Penny founded the museum, and in 2004 it received museum accreditation. The whole house, about 10 rooms, contains the collection, which has increased considerably since her death.
Blushing Brides

The garments are arranged sometimes by theme and sometimes by period. The collections start with the mid 18th century, in Room 2 done out as a Georgian parlour, and go up to the 1980s, Room 8 contains three Frank Usher outfits from the 1970s and 1980s. There are two rooms with exhibitions that change on a regular basis. At the moment there are two exhibitions, Blushing Brides (Room 3), and Passion for Pattern (Room 7). Blushing brides contains 19th century wedding dresses, some of which have original documentation including photographs of the dress being worn by its original owner. Passion for fashion covers the whole period of the collection, and all types of patterned garments. 
Passion for Pattern

The Dorset craft room contains specifically local items, and as well as the ubiquitous Dorset buttons, has examples of the local glove and lacemaking crafts. There are also examples of 19th century working women’s bonnets, and men’s smocks. 

 
The final room is a tea shop were one may purchase a reviving cream tea.

The website for further information is http://www.theblandfordfashionmuseum.com

The old laundry at Killerton

$
0
0

Figure 1
 This is not early modern but a nineteenth, stretching into early twentieth century laundry. It is a reminder that before electricity laundry techniques had changed little for centuries. The notes in the laundry indicate that on Mondays the laundry was collected, sorted, and entered into a laundry book. So they had a record of what had been laundered.

Figure 1: There is a wash copper heated from below, you can see were the coals were put in underneath to heat the water. To the right is a dolly tub with a dolly stick in it. Before the use of galvanised steel these tubs were made of wood. Garments were pounded using the dolly stick.

Figure 2
 Figure 2: This, according to the half vanished label, is a washing machine. A hand powered agitator would have fitted into the slot that can be seen at the back, and you can also see a drain tap at the bottom.

Figure 3
 Figure 3: Alternatively items could be washed in a sink using a washboard. Killerton sinks are distinctly up market as they have hot as well as cold taps.

Figure 4
Figure 4: After washing items could be mangled to get out the excess water. I have early memories of my mother and grandmother using one of these in the late 1950s, just before we purchased an electric washing machine with an integral mangle mounted on the top, so you could take the washing straight out of the water and put it through the mangle. 
Figure 5


Figure 5: Killerton being a grand house washing could be dried indoors in bad weather, in a drying cupboard. The drying racks pull in and out on runners, and the bottom of the cupboard has heated pipes to aid the drying.

Figure 6
Figure 6: Less up market families dried items on clothes horses in front of a fire.

 Figure 7: After drying comes ironing, and here is a selection of the flat and box irons, and a goffering iron on display at Killerton.


Figure 7




Several other stately homes have similar laundries which are on display to the public, for example Kingston Lacy in Dorset, Llanerchaeron in Ceredigion and Berrington Hall in Herefordshire

A farmer's wife - 1540s

$
0
0

From Heywood's Spider & the Flie. 1556

John (or possibly his brother Anthony (1470-1538)) Fitzherbert's Book of Husbandry, first published 1523, is a classic in the history of English farming literature. It goes well beyond just farming, and below is the book's description of the work of a farmer's wife, from a 1548 edition. I have modernised spellings, and split it into paragraphs, as the original is one long paragraph. 

"And when thou art up and ready, then first sweep thy house, dress up thy dishboard, and set all good things in order within thy house: milk thy cow, suckle thy calves, sye (strain) up thy milks, take up thy children, array them, provide for thy husband’s breakfast, dinner, supper, and for thy children and servants, and take thy part with them. 

And to order corn and malt to the mill, and to bake and brew withal when need is. And mette (take) it to the mill, and fro the mill, and see that thou have thy measure against the desired toll, or else the miller dealeth not truely with thee, or else thy corn is not dry as it should be.

Thou must make butter and cheese when thou maist, serve thy swine both morning and evening, give thy poleyn(?) meat in the morning, and when time of the year cometh, thy must take heed how thy hens, ducks and geese do lay, and gather up their eggs, and when they wax broody, set then there as no beasts, swine, nor other vermin hurt them. And thou must know that all whole footed fowls will sit a month, and all cloven footed fowls will sit but three weeks, except a peahen, and great fowls as cranes, and bustards, and such other. And when they have bought forth their birds, so see, that they be kept from the gleyd (?), crows, fullymartens, and other vermin.

And in the beginning of March, or a little afore, is time for a wife to make her garden, and to get as many good seeds and herbs as she can, specially such as be good for the pot, and to eat: and as oft as need shall require, it must be weeded, for else the weeds will overgrow the herbs. And also in March is time to sow flax and hemp, for I have heard old housewives say, that better is March hurds (?) than April flax, the reason appeareth: but how it should be sown, weeded, pulled, reaped, watered, washed, dried, beaten, breaked, tawed, heckled, spun, wound, warped and woven, it needeth not for me to show, for they be wise enough, and thereof may they make sheets, boardcloths, towels, shirts, smocks and such other necessaries, and therefore let thy distaff be always ready for a pastime, that thou be not idle. And undoubted a woman can not get her living honestly with spinning on the distaff, but it stoppeth a cap and must needs be had. The boles of flax when they be ripiled of, mus be riddled from the weeds, and made dry with the sun, to get out the seeds. How be it that one manner of linseed, called loken seed, will not open by the sun, and therefore when they be dry, they must be sore bruised and broken, the wives know how, and then winnowed and kept dry, till their time come again.
...
It is convenient for a husband to have sheep of him own for many causes, and then may his wife have part of the wool, to make her husband and herself some clothes. And at the least way, she may have the locks of the sheep. either to make clothes or blankets and covelets or both, and if she have no wool of her own, she may take wool to spin of cloth makers, and by that mean she may have a convenient living, and many times do other works.

It is a wife’s occupation to know all many of corns, to make malt, to wash and wring, to make hay, shear corn, and in time of need to help her husband to fill the muck wain or dung cart, drive the plough, to load hay, corn and such other. And to go or ride to the market, to sell butter, cheese, milk, eggs, chickens, capons, hens, pigs, geese and all manner of corns. And also to buy all manner of necessary things belonging to household, and to make a true reckoning and account to her husband, what she hath received, and what she hath paid. And if the husband go to the market, to buy or sell, as they oft do, he then to show his wife in like manner. For if one of them should use to deceive the other, he deceiveth himself, and he is not like to thrive. And therefore they must be true either to other."

Smock Shift Chemise

$
0
0

Figure 1: Engraving of a portrait of Nell Gwyn

I am fascinated by words and their origins. There are three words that describe what was the main women’s undergarment for over a thousand years – the smock, the chemise and the shift. Smock and chemise are part of that wonderful dichotomy that enriches the English language, and means that we have cattle and sheep in the field, but beef and mutton on the table. Smock is Old English, while chemise comes from the Latin and the French, and both terms appear to have been in use in the early middle ages – let’s say around the time of the Norman Conquest, so in different sections of Morris’s work on 12thcentury texts you have references to both, “Hire chemise smal and hwit” and “hire smoc hwit”. (1)  There being fashions in language, just as there are fashions in clothes, chemise more or less disappears in the middle ages.
By the middle of the 17th century people are still speaking of their smocks, but this is being replaced by that upstart word shift. Now shift comes from the idea of movement in the original use of the word, and by the late 16th, early 17th century people were using it in the way that we nowadays would speak of a change of clothes, so that for example of someone getting soaked on board ship it is said “He that had five or six shifts of apparel had scarce one dried thread to his back” (2) A hundred years later the shift has become a woman’s undergarment. By this time shift had also taken on the meaning of the women’s changing room in Restoration theatres. Pepys writes of visiting the theatre where the actress Elizabeth Knepp took him “up into the tireing-rooms: and to the women’s shift, where Nell [Gwyn] was dressing herself”. (3) A print of Lely’s painting of Nell in a smock/shift is at Fig 1. 
By the late 17thcentury the term shift was in common use, with the 1696 work “The Merchant’s Wharehouse laid Open; or The Plain Dealing Linnen-Draper” declaring yard wide holland to be “the bredth for shifts for a moderate-size body, but for a Lusty woman it is too narrow.” In 1712 Addison used the word shift in his example of the rags make paper circle, writing, “The finest pieces of Holland [a cloth often used for shifts], when torn to tatters, assume a whiteness more beautiful than their first, and often return in the shape of letters to their native country. A lady’s shift may be metamorphosed into a billet-doux, and come into her possession a second time. ” (4) The smock continued in occasional use, the London Tradesman in 1747 is quoted as saying that holland, cambric and other fine fabric is provided to be made into, “smocks, aprons, tippets, hankerchiefs...” (5)
Moving into the late 18th century early 19th century, chemise makes its reappearance as a term, with the fashion for the chemise gown. In the 1780s the fashion for the chemise gown is definitely for an outer garment. The Ipswich Journal of April 1786 describes, “The chemise has two collars and is made of a pale lilac India lutestring (a type of taffeta)...the breast knot with which the chemise is tied and the shoes are of the same colour.” (6) 
By the middle of the 19th century it was referring to an undergarment. In his 1850 autobiography Leigh Hunt writes that shift, “that harmless expression has been set aside in favour of the French word chemise.” (7) As with the smock/shift change over the divisions are not that hard and fast. The word smock is still around, in the Ingoldsby Legends published in the 1840s someone is described as saying, “You may sell my chemise, (Mrs. P. was too well—bred to mention her smock)”
1. Morris, Richard.Old English homilies of the twelfth century · EETS 53, 1873. London : Early English Texts Society, 1873.
2. Beste, George.A true discourse of the late voyages of discouerie... London : Henry Bynnyman, 1578.
3. Pepys, Samuel.Diary. [Online] 5th October 1667. [Cited: 26th August 2014.] http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1667/10/05/.
4. Addison, Joseph.The Spectator. 1712, Vol. No. 367.
5. Tobin, Shelley.Inside out: a brief history of underwear. London : National Trust, 2000.
6. Cunnington, C. W. and P.Handbook of English costume in the Eighteenth century. 2nd . London : Faber, 1972.
7. Hunt, Leigh.The autobiography of Leigh Hunt . London : Smith, Elder, 1850.

Hollar's Autumn

$
0
0

Figure 1 - P608


Having done blog posts on Hollar’s Winter and Spring, but not done one on his summer, now that the weather is changing I thought it a good idea to look at his Autumn. There are three Hollar Autumn figures (Pennington, 2002), his full length Autumn of 1644 – P608 (Figure 1), and his two half lengths of 1641 - P612 and P616 (Figures 2 and 3). The P numbers are the numbers given by Pennington to Hollar’s works.  
However much of what they wear is the same style as appears in the Winter and Spring clothing; the laced bodices coming down to a distinct point, the double neckerchief, and the soft hoods. Both the three quarter lengths have the “double” sleeve, that is a full length sleeve with a half length sleeve over it. Randle Holme’s (1688) comment on sleeves was that, “there is as much variety of fashion as days of the year.” This is similar to the style of bodice described and illustrated in Halls (1970) as being in the Museum of London, and dating to 1645-55 It is in pale blue silk and comes down to a point at the front, but does not have the double sleeve. A pattern for it appears in Waugh. (1968) Another surviving bodice of this period which does have the double sleeve also has a pattern in Waugh. This is a black velvet bodice in the Victoria and Albert Museum, unfortunately there is no image on the museum website.  
Figure 2 - P612
I admit to being a little confused by the apron of the full length figure, she appears to have a bodice with a short peplum or skirt, you can see by the change in direction of the shading lines between the sleeve and the apron. Her apron is worn over this, but appears to follow the line of the stomacher. I don’t think it is worn under it. It is difficult to work out what is happening.
Both the full length out of doors and the three quarter length P616 wear gloves, you can see the wrinkles in the leather. These are long gloves, reaching up as far as the elbow in some cases, and usually relatively undecorated, as in this 41 cm long examplefrom the late 17th century in the collection of the Glovers’ Company. Gloves were bought in vast quantities by the upper classes, over the course of one year the Marquis of Hertford’s family order 150 pairs of gloves, and these were for use, not associated with marriages or funerals where gloves might be given as gifts. (Morgan, 1945)
Figure 3 - P616
One thing that is interesting is that the full length wears a rectangle of fabric shawl like around her shoulders and tied at the front. This would not have been called a shawl as the word was not in use at this time. The earliest use of the word shawl in English is, according to the OED, in 1662 where Davies translating Adam Olearius’s voyages to Persia speaks of “another rich Skarf which they call Schal, made of a very fine stuff, brought by the Indians into Persia.” The word is originally Persian, and not used in English usage until the eighteenth century. The word scarf would more likely have been used at the time, except that it was used almost exclusively for men; scarves were at this time military or ecclesiastical.  This is not the only example of a rectangle of fabric being worn around the shoulders, presumably for warmth. Another Hollar illustration P1887shows a very similar figure. As you get later in the century Laroon depicts several poor street traders wearing similar, as in his hot baked wardens, or his London Gazette.
Halls, Z., 1970. Women's Costume 1600-1750. London: HMSO.
Holme, R., 1688. Academie of Armourie. s.l.:s.n.
Morgan, F. C., 1945. Private purse accounts of the Marquis of Hertford, Michaelmas 1641-2. Antiquaries Journal, 25(12-42).
Pennington, R., 2002. A descriptive catalogue of the etched work of Wenceslaus Hollar.. Cambridge: CUP .
Waugh, N., 1968. The cut of women's clothes 1600-1930. London: Faber.

Montaigne - Of the use of apparell

$
0
0

Michel de Montaigne

I have been reading the essay by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) on the subject of clothes, and since he says he wrote it in the chill-cold season, I thought it appropriate for a December post. The version below is the translation by John Florio (1553-1625) that was published in 1603. I have left the spelling as it was published. It is interesting to compare translations, as they use the terminology of their day, so later translations refer to this essay not as Of the use of apparel, but On the custom of clothing.

While Montaigne’s thoughts roam across both continents and history he does make a few interesting comments on the clothing of his own country and estate, speaking for example of “country swains” going bare breasted to the navel. He compares himself to local husbandmen (small farmers), saying that while he would not go unbuttoned or untrussed, they would consider themselves fettered by buttoning and trussing. Which brings to mind re-enactors arguments as to whether working class men trussed there points, that is attached their breeches to their doublets. 

From Montaigne’s Essays - Chapter 35: Of the use of apparell.

Whatsoever I aime at, I must needs force some of customes contradictions, so carefully hath she barred all our entrances. I was devising in this chil-cold season whether the fashion of these late discovered nations to go naked, be a custome forced by the hot temperature of the ayre, as we say of the Indians and Moores, or whether it be an original manner of mankind. Men of understanding, forasmuch as whatsoever is contained under heaven (as saith the Holy Writ) is subject to the same lawes, are wont in such like considerations, where naturall lawes are to be distinguished from those invented by man, to have recourse to the generall policie of the world, where nothing that is counterfet can be admitted. Now, all things being exactly furnished else-whence with all necessaries to maintaine this being, it is not to be imagined that we alone should be produced in a defective and indigent estate, yea, and in such a one as cannot be maintained without forrain helpe. My opinion is, that even as all plants, trees, living creatures, and whatsoever hath life, is naturally seene furnished with sufficient furmture to defend it selfe from the injurie of all wethers:
Proptereaque fere res omnes, aut corio sunt,
Aut seta, aut conchis, aut cano, aut cortice tectæ. -- LUCR. iv. 932.
Therefore all things almost we cover'd marke,
With hide, or haire, or shels, or brawne, or barke.

Even so were we. But as those who by an artificiall light extinguish the brightnesse of the day, we have quenched our proper means by such as we have borrowed. And wee may easily discerne that only custome makes that seeme impossible unto us which is not so: For of those nations that have no knowledge of cloaths, some are found situated under the same heaven, and climate or parallel, that we are in, and more cold and sharper than ours. Moreover, the tenderest parts of us are ever bare and naked, as our eyes, face, mouth nose, and eares; and our country swaines (as our fore, fathers wont) most of them at this day goe bare-breasted downe to the navill. Had we beene borne needing petticoats and breeches, there is no doubt but Nature would have armed that which she hath left to the batteries of seasons and furie of wethers with some thicker skin or hide, as shee hath done our fingers ends and the soales of our feet. Why seemes this hard to be believed? Betweene my fashion of apparell and that of one of my countrie-clownes, I find much more difference betweene him and me than betweene his fashion and that of a man who is cloathed but with his bare skin. How many men (especially in Turkie) go ever naked for devotions sake? A certaine man demanded of one of our loytring rogues whom in the deep of frosty Winter he saw wandering up and downe with nothing but his shirt about him, and yet as blithe and lusty as anot her that keepes himselfe muffled and wrapt in wanne furres up to the eares; how he could have patience to go so. 'And have not you, good Sir'(answered he)'your face all bare? Imagine I am all face.' The Italians report (as far as I remember) of the Duke of Florence his fool, who when his Lord asked him how, being so ill-clad, he could endure the cold, which he hardly was able to doe himselfe; to whom the foole replied: 'Master, use but my receipt and put all the cloaths you have upon you, as I doe all mine; you shall feele no more cold than I doe.' King Massinissa, even in his eldest daies, were it never so cold, so frosty, so stormie, or sharpe wether, could never be induced to put something on his head, but went alwaies bareheaded. The like is reported of the Emperor Severus. In the battles that past betweene the Ægyptians and the Persians, Herodotus saith, that both himselfe and divers others tooke speciall notice that of such as lay slaine on the ground the Ægyptians sculs were without comparison much harder than the Persians: by reason that these go ever with their heads covered with coifs and turbants, and those from their infancie ever shaven and bare-headed. And King Agesilaus, even in his decrepit age, was ever wont to weare his cloaths both Winter and Summer alike. Suetonius affirmeth that Cæsar did ever march foremost before his troupes, and most commonly bare-headed, and on foot, whether the sunne shone or it rained. The like is reported of Hanniball,
        ------ tum vertice nudo,
Excipere insanos imbres, cælique ruinam. -- Syl.
Ital. 250.
Bare-headed then he did endure,
Heav'ns ruine and mad-raging showre.

  A Venetian that hath long dwelt amongst them, and who is but lately returned thence, writeth, that in the Kingdome of Pegu, both men and women, leaving all other parts clad, goe ever bare-footed, yea, and on horsebacke also. And Platofor the better health and preservation of the body doth earnestly perswade that no man should ever give the feet and the head other cover than Nature hath allotted them. He whom the Polonians chuse for their King, next to ours who may worthily be esteemed one of the greatest Princes of our age, doth never weare gloves, nor what wether soover it be, winter or summer, other bonnet abroad than in the warme house. As I cannot endure to goe unbuttoned or untrussed, so the husband-men neighbouring about me would be and feele themselves as fettered or hand-bound with going so. Varrois of opinion, that when we were appointed to stand bare headed before the gods or in presence of the Magistrates, it was rather done for our health, and to enure and arme us against injuries of the wether, than in respect of reverence. And since we are speaking of cold, and are French-men, accustomed so strangely to array our selves in party-coloured sutes (not I, because I seldome weare any other than blacke or white, in imitation of my father), let us adde this one thing more, which Captaine Martyn du Bellayrelateth in the voyage of Luxemburg, where he saith to have seene so hard frosts, that their munition-wines were faine to be cut and broken with hatchets and wedges, and shared unto the souldiers by weight, which they carried away in baskets; and Ovid,
Nudaque consistunt formam servantia testæ
Vina, nec hausta meri sed data frusta bibunt. -- Ovid. Trist.iii. El. x. 23.
Bare wines, still keeping forme of caske stand fast.
Not gulps, but gobbets of their wine they taste.

The frosts are so hard and sharpe in the emboguing of the Meotis fennes, that in the very place where Mithridates Lieutenant had delivered a battel to his enemies, on hard ground and drie-footed, and there defeated them, the next summer he there obtained another sea- battel against them. The Romanes suffered a great disadvantage in the fight they had with the Carthaginians neere unto Placentia, for so much as they went to their charge with their blood congealed and limbes benummed, through extreme cold: whereas Hanniball had caused many fires to be made throughout his campe, to warme his souldiers by, and a quantitie of oile to be distributed amongst them, that therewith annointing themselves, they might make their sinewes more supple and nimble, and harden their pores against the bitter blasts of cold wind which then blew, and nipping piercing of the ayre. The Grecians retreat from Babilon into their countrie is renowned by reason of the many difficulties and encombrances they encountred withall, and were to surmount: whereof this was one, that in the mountaines of Armenia, being surprised and encircled with so horrible and great quantitie of snow, that they lost both the knowledge of the countrie and the wayes: wherewith they were so straitly beset that they continued a day and a night without eating or drinking; and most of their horses and cattell died; of their men a great number also deceased; many with the glittering and whitenesse of the snow were stricken blinde; divers through the extremitie were lamed, and their limbes shrunken up; many starke stiffe and frozen with colde, although their senses were yet whole. Alexander saw a nation where in winter they burie their fruit-bearing trees under the ground, to defend them from the frost: a thing also used amongst some of our neighbours. Touching the subject of apparell, the King of Mexico, was wont to change and shift his clothes foure times a day, and never wore them againe, employing his leavings and cast-sutes for his continuall liberalities and rewards; as also neither pot nor dish, nor any implement of his kitchen or table were twice brought before him.

Book review: Mathew Gnagy, The Modern Maker: Men's 17th Century Doublets.

$
0
0


This book was my Christmas present to myself. It is useful for two reasons, first it is on men’s wear and there is very little on the subject, and secondly it is a practical book on how to make early 17thcentury men’s doublets. It says volume one, so we can expect volumes on breeches and other items to follow.

 Mathew trained as a professional tailor, and it shows. The volume, 149 well illustrated pages, uses as its example a  pattern published in 1618 in Geometria, y traça perteneciente al oficio de sastres, by  Francisco de la Rocha de Burguen, this is not the doublet illustrated on the cover. The book is divided into eight sections, taking you through the principles of tailoring, choosing the fabrics, making the pattern, cutting the pieces, the hand sewing techniques to use, and then making up the garment. The final two sections cover information on surviving garments and construction details. Each section is well illustrated with coloured photographs showing step by step, for example, how to pad stitch, how to make a buttonhole, and how to wrap a silk button.

Mathew Gnagy, The Modern Maker: Men's 17th Century Doublets. 2014. ISBN 978-0692264843 £21.33 (Odd price because it is American $25)
For more information and some illustrations of inside pages have a look at http://www.themodernmaker.net/author/mathew-gnagy/
 

Probates inventories as a source of clothing information: a 1550-90 Oxfordshire case study.

$
0
0


Speed 1611
Probate inventories are a wonderful source for information on clothing, however they have their limitations, as Spufford (1984) said, “Inventories are too useful not to use, but when they are used heavily...it cannot be sufficiently stressed that their apparent tidiness and suitability for the historian seeking quick economic comparisons in fact conceals quicksands of very considerable magnitude.”
This is an analysis of the clothing listed in a series of Oxfordshire probate inventories. (Havinden, 1965) These inventories are from the diocesan court and peculiar jurisdictions of Oxfordshire, and there are 259 of them. Although they cover the period 1550 to 1590 the bulk of the inventories are overwhelmingly from the 1570s and 1580s.

The spread is, 2 probates from the 1560s have lists of clothes, 13 from the 1570s, 24 from the 1580s and 1 from the year 1590

Whose inventories?


The most of the people whose inventories appear are of the “middling sort”, tradesmen, craftsmen, husbandmen and farmers. Obviously, generally speaking the poor did not make wills, though there are some day labourers among the inventories, and the lowest valuation is for a mere 14s 8d. The richer merchants and members of the gentry and nobility also appear rarely, as their wills were more likely to be proved in the Prerogative Court at Canterbury. Only four people are described as gentlemen and none of these has a total worth of more than £48. Forty two of the inventories are from women, just over half (24) are described as widows. While it would appear that there is a general relationship between occupation and value, it is not particularly obvious. The richest person, worth £590 18s 1d., is a widow. The next richest is a yeoman farmer worth £408  0s  2d., only ten of the inventories are valued at more than £100, while 62 are valued at less than £10.

Clothing values

Of the 259 inventories 99 do not list or give any value for clothing, and 120 give just a total value for a person’s wearing apparel, or similar phrase. This means that only 40 inventories actually list any clothing. Are these valuations any indication of what a person’s wardrobe is actually worth?  
The range is considerable 6d to £23. The lowest valuation, the 6d, relates to “an old jerkin” belonging to William Mosley a carpenter, in his 1578 probate, his total worth was £28 6s 6d. The most valuable wardrobe, £23 belonged to the richest person on the list, the widow Katherine Doyle, her 1585 inventory specified that she had “woollen apparell £20”, her wearing linen was worth £3, and she also had jewels worth a further £37 12s-8d. 

Woodcut - The patient man's woe - 1610

However most people get a value that may well have been picked out of thin air. Thirty one have a valuation of £1, this is the commonest valuation and is applied to people whose total worth is anywhere between £4 1s 0d and £84 2s 0d. The next commonest valuation was 10s (17 people), followed by 6s 8d (a third of £1; 16 people), then 5s (13 people) and 13s 4d (two thirds of £1; also 13 people). These round figures do not seem to indicate that that a great amount of thought has gone into valuing the wardrobes.

So what do you get for your £1? Three men and two women have lists against their £1 valuations. John Ives, a husbandman worth £78 16s 0d in 1562, had two coats, one gown of cloth, one doublet of worsted, one cloth jerkin, a petticoat of white cloth, two pair of hose and two shirts for his pound. In 1580 Thomas Borman worth £27 5s 2d, also had two coats, with two jerkins, two trusses, two pair of hose, three shirts, one pair of shoes, one hat, and one night cap. However the clerk/parson Robert Cory, worth £36 13s 5d in 1587, had only two gowns and two cloaks for his pound. For the women in 1564 Joyce Bullen, worth £20 0s 10d, had only two gowns, one petticoat, and one cloak, but in 1583 Mary Tayler, a widow worth £13 8s 3d had a lot more. She had 2 gowns, 2 petticoats, 2 smocks, 4 kerchers, 3 neckerchers, a hat, a cap, a pair of hose and a pair of shoes.

What clothing is listed in the inventories

For men’s clothing the most common items are 31 shirts. For legwear there are 29 pair of hose, 10 pair of stockings including one listed as nether stocks, 6 pairs of breeches, and one pair of galyskins. For the body there were 25 doublets, 21 coats, 21 jerkins, 2 jackets, 1 waistcoat, 15 cloaks and 13 gowns. In addition three men had 4 petticoats between them.There were also 2 suits, one of satin and one of fustian that belonged to a gentleman who died at an inn, he also had a pair of velvet breeches and a trunk containing the rest of his apparel, the contents of which were not detailed. For head wear there are 12 hats, 3 caps and 1 night cap. For the feet there were 8 pairs of shoes and 3 pairs of boots. In accessories we have 9 bands, 5 partlets, 3 ruffs, 2 kercheifs and 2 handkerchiefs. Three people mention a total of 4 trusses, and truss in the sixteenth century has more than one meaning, so we don’t know what these are. The three definitions of truss that we have are 1) In Florio’s 1598 dictionary The World of Worlds Cotigie, is translated as “leather hosen, or trusses such as our elders were woont to weare”. 2) In 1552 Huloet describes it in its modern sense as a support saying, “trusse for a wrestler, or diseased body.” 3) Drayton’s Polyolbion of 1612 seems to indicate something more in the way of body wear saying “vnto his trusse, which bore The staines of ancient Armes.” One man owned  “2 payer of rofes and a lymbyck,” the ruffs are self explanatory but what is a lymbyck? The nearest thing that can be found is a limbec used in distillation, but nothing to do with clothing.


For women’s clothing, in underwear we have 14 smocks. For the main garments there are 8 gowns, 3 kirtles, 3 cassocks, 17 petticoats, 3 cloaks, a waistcoat and a frock. To go with some of these there are 9 foresleeves listed separately, and for wearing over the garments 16 aprons. For the legs and feet only 2 pair of hose and 2 pair of shoes are recorded. For the head 1 cap, 2 hats and 6 headcloths. For the neck there were 30 kerchefs, 13 neckerchefs and 7 partlets. Garments that require a little more explanation are the 18 rails and 1 tippet. Rails come in different types, there are head, neck and night rails, but in these probates they are only listed only as rails. Palsgrave (1530) gives a “rayle for a woman’s neck,” while Massinger (1630) gives “sickness feign’d that your night rails of forty pounds apiece might be seen.” The Egerton MS of 1588 has a charge for “mending, washinge and starching of a head raille of fine white sipers.” The Willoughby MS in 1552 has a purchase of “hollan cloth to make niyght rayelles and nyght kerchers.” They could also be worn by the poor as evidenced by a quote from Nashe (1592) “A course hempen rail about her shoulders.” A tippet is described by the OED as “A long narrow slip of cloth or hanging part of dress, formerly worn, either attached to and forming part of the hood, head-dress, or sleeve, or loose, as a scarf or the like,” which covers most of the possibilities.

What clothing is NOT listed in the inventories

It is interesting just to see what is missing. It is a very small sample but even so I would have expected to see some gloves. In 1608 one county Gloucestershire had 145 glove makers. The upper classes bought often gloves a dozen pair at a time. They were given as favours as weddings and at funerals. The merchant tailor Henry Machin records 100 pairs being given at the wedding of another merchant’s daughter. For women’s headwear although there are 6 headcloths, there are no coifs.  
Fabrics and colours
Fabric and colours are rarely mentioned. The most common fabric to appear in the probates is frieze, a woollen cloth with a nap usually on one side, this was used for 3 coats, 2 gowns, 3 jerkins, 2 pair of breeches, and 1 male and 2 female cassocks.   Cloth was mentioned twice, once for a jerkin and once for a gown, and leather was also mentioned twice, for a jerkin and a doublet. Worsted and canvas are mentioned for doublets. Russet appears twice, and here we have a dichotomy, is it a fabric or a colour, the russet coat is probably the fabric, but the silk russet cloak is more debateable. One pair of stockings are described as knit, and four of the aprons have fabrics, 2 linen, one worsted and one flannel. Apart from white, grey and black only one colour is mentioned, and that is red for 3 female petticoats. 

Why are things listed?

Why only 15% of the wills have clothes listed we don’t know. Obviously some of the people taking probate inventories didn’t think that clothing was important, 38% didn’t give any value for clothing, and 46% only gave a total value. Some people may indicate why there was a problem, as in William Cosynne’s 1582 inventory where it is stated, “besides suche goodes as are in the howse which at this time the administrator dare not enter upon.” Some administrators start a list, and give up, as in “two shurtes and an ol payre of hose with other such lyke 5s 0d,” or, “other trashe aboute the house 2s.” One point to take into consideration is that from 1530 to the Civil War there was a fee for probate. Estates under £5 in value were free apart from 6d for a copy of the will, between £5 and £40 the cost was 3s 6d and over £40 it was 5s. (Heley, 2007) Cox and Cox (2000) consider that there may be an effect caused by the fact that, if no inventory is taken and debts are more than the estate is worth, the administrator is liable for the difference. However probate inventories do give a good insight into what was being worn, and by whom.

Cox, J. & Cox, N., 2000. Probate 1500 -1800: A system in transition. In: T. Arkell, E. Nesta & N. Goose, eds. When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modem England.. s.l.:A Local Populations Studies Supplement, pp. 13-47.
Havinden, M. A., 1965. Household and farm inventories in Oxfordshire 1550-1590. London: HMSO.
Heley, G., 2007. The Material Culture of the Tradesmen of Newcastle upon Tyne 1545-1642. PhD. Durham: University of Durham.
Spufford, M., 1984. The great reclothing of rural England: petty chapmen and their wares in the seventeenth century. London: Hambledon Press.

Book review – Moroni by Giovanni Battista

$
0
0
Fig 1. - Book cover


This was going to be an exhibition review as well, but as I went on the last day of the exhibition it’s a book review since the book is still available. And it is well worth the £20 cover price for the paperback, though I got it at the Royal Academy for a discounted price since the exhibition was finishing. (Fig 1 Book Cover)

The book is well illustrated with good colour, and lots of details from the paintings. There were 42 items in the exhibition and these are all listed at the end of the book. Most of the paintings are by Moroni (c.1521/24-1579/80) but the first four are by Moretto (c.1492-1554), the man who taught him, and whose work I don’t remember having come across before. Moretto, like his pupil had a very good eye for clothing, have a look at the buttons and button loops on his King David. (Fig. 2)

Fig. 2 Detail from King David
The book starts with a revue of Moroni’s work, placing him in the political and religious landscape of the time, it also looks at the various judgements to which his works have been subjected since his death in 1579/80. There are then six chapters looking at his teacher Moretto, his early works, his aristocratic portraits, his portraits from nature, his altarpieces and his late portraits; this follows the organisation of the exhibition. The book finishes with a catalogue of all the material in the exhibition. 
Fig. 3 Detail of stockings

As I went around the exhibition I found myself looking at the costume detail, you can see these in the book illustrations, but I will accept that it is easier in front of a life size painting to see, for example, that the stockings on the gentleman in pink are from the vertical lines, almost certainly knitted. (Fig 3.) As a final example of costume detail you could probably draft a pattern from this blackwork collar. (Fig. 4)

Battista, Giovanni. Moroni. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2014. ISBN 9781907533822
Fig. 4 Detail of blackwork collar

“Ordinary” women’s wardrobes 1620-1646

$
0
0


Figure 1 - Hollar's Countrywoman
This is an examination of eighteen probate inventory accounts from the town of Marlborough in Wiltshire, covering the period 1620-1646. (Williams & Thomson, 2007) Of these thirteen only give a general amount for the value of the deceased’s clothing, but five have extensive descriptions, enough to try and reconstruct their wardrobes. The five women are four widows: Agnes Weeb (1620), Alice Wyatt (1623), Elizabeth Reynes (1633), Joane Furnell (1633), and a servant, Phillip Ingerom (1623). As we will see below Phillip and Elizabeth have the most comprehensive listings of their clothing.

Values
Of the 18 women the richest, Alice Wilkes(1646) a widow, was worth £114 19s 4d, and her clothing was worth £5. The poorest was Johane Titcombe(1637), also a widow, she was worth £5 3s 4d and her clothing was 10 shillings. By comparison the richest man, there were 70 men in the probate inventories, was worth £297 16s 9d and the poorest £2. I have placed a table listing all eighteen women, their status and total and clothing values at the end. In some cases the value of the clothing has a plus, this is because some clothing has been accounted with non clothing items and they cannot be separated.

The proportion of the women’s wealth that was tied up in their clothing varies considerably. Two women of similar wealth, respectively £12 10s and £12 12s 8d, have clothing worth 20.5% and 41.6% of their estate. The lowest percentage in the group 4.3% belongs to both a mid range woman, worth £33-1s-8d and the richest worth £114 19s 4d. The 41.5% mentioned above is the highest, however if you take away the £10 in debts owed to the servant Phillip Ingerom, her percentage rises to 51.6%, of her estate. None of the five women with lists was worth a lot of money, the richest these probates was for £34 3s 6d and the poorest £6 18s 2d.

Adam Martindale
One of the few, and best descriptions of women’s clothes below the gentry level, was given by Adam Martindale in his autobiography written around 1685. At the beginning of the book he is looking back to when is sister left home to go up to London, probably around 1626-7. She died of a “pestilence” shortly after her arrival. I quote it in full because it emphasises both the social mores involved in clothing, and the changes in outlook over time.

“Freeholders’ daughters were then confined to their felts, pettiecoates and wastcoates, crosse handkerchiefs around their neckes, and white cross-clothes upon their heads, with coifes under them wrought with black silk or worsted. ‘Tis true the finest sort of them wore gold or silver lace upon their wastcoats, good silk laces (and store of them) about their pettiecoats, and bone laces or workes about their linnens. But the proudest of them (below the gentry) durst not have offered to wear an hood or a scarfe  (which now every beggar’s brat that can get them thinks not above her) noe, nor so much as a gowne till her wedding day. And if any of them had transgressed these bounds, she would have been accounted an ambitious foole. These limitations I suppose she did not very well approve, but having her father’s spirit and her mother’s beauty, no persuasion would serve but up she would to serve a ladie, as she hoped to doe, being ingenious with her needle.” (Martindale, 1845, pp. 6-7)

The clothes in the accounts
Most of the women have just – “her wearing apparel” – and a value. In some cases it specifies “both woollen and linen”, or accounts for woollen and linen separately, as in Anne Biggs who has both “her wearing aparell £15 10s”, and “her childbed linene and her wearing linen £5.” This is also the case with Joane Furnell for whom we have “Her wearing apparel £2 10s”, but later we a separate list of linen that is not all clothes; “8 table clothes, one dossen and a halffe of napkins, five smockes, halffe a dosson of bands, fower coynes and fower neckcloths and one old waistcoat and eight apperns and fower pillowberes £2 4s”, again separately she also has “one payer of silke garters and two old hats 5s.” This may be why shoes, and to a lesser extent hats, don’t appear as often in inventories as one would expect them to, they cannot be classified as either woollen or linen clothing. 

Here is a caveat. One of the problems with identifying items in the accounts with particular garments, is that we don’t have original garments with original labels saying this is a ..... Two different clothing terms may be used for the same garment, depending on who is writing about it, think sweater-jumper-pullover. Garments change their names over the years, smock – shift – chemise is a good example, and terms can change their meaning, for example scarlet starts off as a colour, but can end up meaning a type of cloth.

What did they own
Smocks
The linen smock was the main item of underwear and all of the women own between three (Agnes) and seven (Phillip) smocks. It is interesting that the servant has the greatest number of smocks.

Figure 2 - Hollar's Wife of a Citizen of London
Petticoats
Over the smock they would have worn one or two petticoats, or more, depending on the weather, and whether they were wearing a gown over the top. All of the women whose woollen clothing is listed own petticoats. Agnes has two worth together 14s and one old one. Phillip has four wearing petticoats worth 6s 8d, Alice two petticoats and four old petticoats. Elizabeth has one old red petticoat and two old petticoats. Red was the traditional colour for petticoats so it is unsurprising that the only case in which colour is mentioned is red.

Bodies and waistcoats
On the top half they might have worn a pair of bodies, these are boned and today might be referred to as a corset, though they are not the same. Only one woman, Elizabeth, owned what are referred to in her inventory as “a payre of bodice.” They may have been similar in style to the ones that were found in the Sittingbourne Cache and have been described on the Goodwyfe Blog. Probably more common for lower class women are waistcoats, as Randle Holme says “It is an habit or garment generally worn by the middle and lower sort of women, having goared skirts, and some wear them with stomachers.” (Holme, 1688) Elizabeth, the woman who owned the payre of bodice, is also the only woman to own “two stomager.” An example of a 1610-20 embroidered stomacher is described in detail in North & Tiramani (2012, pp. 128-135). Agnes does not own a waistcoat, Joane has one, Phillip has two, Alice has three, and Elizabeth has four. Joane’s waistcoat is listed with her linen and may therefore be made of linen, though not as elaborate as this surviving linen waistcoat in the V&A. It is most probably this waistcoat and petticoat combination that can be seen in Hollar’s Countrywoman (Figure 1), where the goared skirts of the waistcoat can easily be seen.

Gowns
All of the women whose woollen clothing is listed own gowns. Agnes has four, one of which is described as old. Phillip has one gown, which at a value of 13. 4d is worth nearly as much as the 16s for three of Agnes’s gowns.  Alice has two best gowns and two old gowns, while Elizabeth only has one “old medley gown of the best 13s 4d.” A comment on who might and might not wear a gown was made by Adam Martindale who I quote above. Gowns were usually worn over a petticoat and sometimes over a waistcoat, though this is difficult to determine from the images we have. In this Hollar image of the wife of a citizen of London (Figure 2) this layering can clearly be seen. The skirt of the gown, which is open at the front, has been turned back and two petticoats can be seen underneath. Gowns add an extra layer of clothing and warmth at a time when houses did not have central heating, and coats for women were uncommon. The term medley, used to describe Elizabeth’s gown,  is used for a mixture of colours, as John Withals  A shorte dictionarie for yonge begynners, 1553 has it “Medley, color mixtus,” So you can get references to medley russet, and medley broadcloth.

Outerwear
There is little in the way of outerwear, though both Agnes and Alice own cloaks, and Agnes also has a safeguard. A safeguard is defined by the OED as “An outer skirt or petticoat worn by women to protect their clothing, esp. when riding.”

Neckwear
The women own a mixture of kerchiefs, bands, gorgets, partlets and pinners, requiring some definitions. These items can be worn in layers and it is often difficult to decide what is meant. Most of these are articles of clothing covering the neck and breast.
The kerchief is usually a square of material that can then be used folded as a neckerchief (Figure 2), or a headkerchief, or just square as a handkerchief. A plain square linen kerchief in the Victoria and Albert Museum is described in North & Tiramani (2011, pp. 142-143). Phillip has eight “kerchers” worth 4s. Agnes has “five singel kerchfes 1s 3d”, I’m not sure what the single means. Elizabeth has “one kerchieffe and one handkerchieffe 4s.” Joane has “half a dossen of kercheiffes, and fower neckcloths”, not to mention half a dozen of crosscloths and half a dozen of bands. Bands are again worn around the neck; the term is often used to refer to men’s collars, but is also used for women’s collars. The difference may be that bands are tied with band strings, rather than being pinned, and are also more likely to be shaped. Gorgets are another term which may indicate a shaped neckcloth, Agnes has two old gorgets worth 3s.  A pattern for a very elaborate lace trimmed band in the Victoria and Albert Museum is given in North & Tiramani (2011, pp. 128-135)

The term partlet was described in a 1658 dictionary (Phillips, 1658) as “a word used in some old Statutes, signifying the loose collar of a dublet to be set on or taken off by it self without the bodies, also a womans neckerchief”, which doesn’t really help. Costume historians have tended to take it as a fill in for the neckline. Agnes and Alice both have six partlets, while Phillip has seven. There is a pattern for a plain linen partlet of this period, now in the Gallery of Costume, Manchester. (Arnold, 2008, pp. 43, 100-101)

The more old-fashioned Elizabeth has 21 old pinners and ruffs, by 1633 ruffs were going out of fashion at all levels of society. Agnes has five pinners worth 1s. Pinners, are another term that is difficult, it can refer to anything that is pinned on, and by the late seventeenth century if had become identified with a type of cap with long lappets, but here it is also certainly neckwear. Arnold (2008, pp. 40, 96) has an example of what she describes as a pinner, now in the Gallery of Costume, Manchester.
Figure 3 - Detail of a Hollar woman from Ornatus

In this detail of a woman from Ornatus (Figure 3) you can see she is wearing something closed high at the neck, which maybe a partlet, she has what maybe pinners around the neckline of her gown, and over these she is wearing a kerchief.

Headwear
Surpringly only one of the women Joane has what might be coifs, she has among the list of linen “fower coines.” One would expect all the women to have some form of linen headwear.
All five of the women have hats. Only Phillip’s one wearing hat worth 1s has a value while the others are mixed with other items. Joane, Alice and Agnes all have two hats, while Elizabeth has a hat with a hat band. 

Aprons
All the women own aprons. Joane has eight aprons, Phillip seven worth in total 4s, Elizabeth five followed by one old woollen cloth, which may also have been used as an apron. Alice has 3 holland aprons, holland is a type of linen, while Agnes has one black apron.

Stockings and hose
Only two of the women list these; Phillip has “hosen” listed with her shoes and Elizabeth has “a payre of stockings” Although Joane has no stockings listed, she does own “one payer of silke garters”

Shoes
The same two women Phillip and Elizabeth have shoes. In both cases the shoes are worth 1s, and additional Phillip has “one peece of shooe leather”, and Elizabeth owns “one shooing horn.” Information on early shoehorns is in this blog post. I think the other women must have had shoes and stockings, but they are not listed.

Girdles and purses
Both Phillip and Elizabeth own girdles. Phillip has three girdles and one purse, and Elizabeth has one girdle and a pouch. 

Jewellery
Only Phillip owns jewellery, she has “one ring silver and guilt” worth 1s 6d.

References
Arnold, J., 2008. Patterns of Fashion 4 : the cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neckwear, headwear and accessories for men and women. London: Macmillan.
Holme, R., 1688. Academie of Armourie. s.l.:s.n.
Martindale, A., 1845. The life of Adam Martindale written by himself. edited by Richard Parkinson.. s.l.:Chetham Society.
North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2011. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 1. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.
North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2012. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 2. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.
Phillips, E., 1658. The new world of English words: or A general dictionary. London: Brooks.
Williams, L. & Thomson, S., 2007. Marlborough probate inventories 1591-1775. Chippenham: Wiltshire Record Society.

The women
No
Name
Status
Year
Total value
Clothing value
Clothing as a % of total worth
1
Agnes Weeb
widow
1620
£6-18s-2d
£2-10s-3d
36.4%
2              
Elizabeth Lane
widow
1622
£20-11s-4d
£2-0s-0d
9.7%
3              
Phillip Ingerom
servant
1623
£12-10s-0d
(£14-19s-2d)
£2-11s-2d
20.5%
(17.1%)
4
Alice Wyatt
widow
1623              
£12-12s-8d
£5-5s-0d
41.6%
5
Alice Pagett       
widow
1624
£64-8s-4d
£6-0s-0d
9.3%
6
Anne Bigges       
widow
1626              
£89-11s-7d
£20-10s-0d *
22.9%
7
Maud Patie
widow
1632              
£55-4s-8d
£9-0s-0d
16.3%
8
Elisebeth Winsor
widow
1632
£14-9s-0d
£1-0s-0d
6.9%
9
Elizabeth Reynes
widow
1633
£7-18s-2d
£1-8s-9d plus
15%
10
Joane Furnell     
widow
1633
£34-3s-6d
£2-15s-0d plus
8%
11
Joane Powell     
widow
1634
£7-15s-8d
£1-3s-4d
15%
12
Christian Hitchcocke
spinster
1636
£25-11s-0d              
£8-0s-0d
31.3%
13
Johane Titcombe
widow
1637
£5-3s-4d
£0-10s-0d
9.7%
14
Katherine Peirse

singlewoman
1638
£56-11s-0d
£3-0s-0d
5.3%
15
Elianor Browne 
widow
1639
£13-18s-2d
£1-10s-0d
10.8%
16
Elizabeth Newman 

1640
£33-1s-8d
£1-10s-0d
4.3%
17
 Jone Jones        
widow
1641
£23-17s-8d
£3-0s-0d
12.6%
18
Alice Wilkes
widow
1646
£114 19s 4d
£5-0s-0d
4.3%
The value is added incorrectly, this is the true amount
*Her wearing aparell £15 10s, her childbed linene and her wearing linen £5

Social structure and occupations: 1608 and 1688

$
0
0


Many within the various groups who do ECW re-enactment use Gregory King’s 1688 estimate of the population and wealth of England and Wales to provide a plan of the social structure of society in the mid 17th century. I have recently been working on a 1608 census type document, a muster roll for the County of Gloucestershire, for a talk on Gloucestershire occupations that I am going to give later in the spring. I thought it would be interesting to try to see how the two compare, one forty years before 1648 and one forty years after. So what are these two data sets?

Gregory King's estimate of population and wealth, England and Wales, 1688
Gregory King (1648-1712) is often regarded as the first great English statistician, a subject known at the time as “political arithmetic”. He was Lancaster Herald and heavily involved in the tax system, his major work  ‘Natural and political observations upon the state and condition of England, 1696’ attempted to estimate a range of information including population size, household size, age distribution, tax revenues, and wealth. It has been commented that it “betrays a number of common assumptions of the propertied”, in particular in having only five categories for the poorer half of society. (Hoppit, 2011) For a further discussion of the accuracy of King’s work have a look at G. S. Holmes. (1977)

Gloucestershire 1608
For 1608 all able-bodied men “fit for his Majestie’s service in the warrs”, and between the ages of 20 and 60 “within the City of Gloucester and the Inshire of the same” were listed. Bristol was not included as it was a county in its own right. The list contains the names of 19,402 men, and 135 women who although they could not serve themselves could provide arms. Of these men 109 were unable in body, and 17,046 gave an occupation or status. There are defects to the listing, as mentioned above over 2000 don’t give an occupation, and as John Smyth, steward to Lord Berkeley for whom the list was compiled, remarked of one place “many made default in this hundred and appeareth not”. The under reporting does not appear to be large. The listing, with over 150 occupations, is far, far more detailed than King’s breakdown which only has 26 divisions, of which only five deal with the bottom half the population. It is often difficult to try and fit some of the occupations into King’s subdivisions. (Tawney, 1934)

King’s top five subdivisions
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
160
Temporal Lords
40
6,400
2,800
26
Spiritual Lords
20
520
1,300
800
Baronets
16
12,800
880
600
Knights
13
7,800
650
3,000
Esquires
10
30,000
450
12,000
Gentlemen
8
96,000
280

The 1608 census doesn’t list anyone that fits the first three categories. Henry, Lord Berkeley, died in 1613 and since he inherited the title in 1553 was probably over the age limit. Henry Parry the Bishop of Gloucester probably didn’t actually reside in the county as he was only bishop from 1607-10. The 1608 list has 430 men (presumed heads of households), who are gentlemen, esquires or knights, and a further 27 men declare themselves to be sons or brother of the same.  

King’s “educated” classes
King has six groupings which I have somewhat unceremoniously lumped together as below.
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
5,000
Persons in Offices
8
40,000
240
5,000
Persons in Offices
6
30,000
120
10,000
Persons in the Law
7
70,000
140
2,000
Clergymen
6
12,000
60
8,000
Clergymen
5
40,000
45
16,000
Persons in Sciences and Liberal Arts
5
80,000
60

In the 1608 list there are only 62 people who fit these groupings. Among them are surgeons, schoolmasters, barristers, scriveners, musicians, mayors, chamberlains, constables, and clergymen.

King has these 12 top ranks of society as forming 4.5% of the population, while in the 1608 list they are only 3%, this is because of...

The problem of indoor servants
There is a problem with indoor servants because King includes them with their employer. So for example a gentleman, esquire or knight has a household of between 8 and 13 people according to King. Based on the 1608 list nearly two thirds of these people are going to be servants. In the 1608 list 1196 men declare themselves to be servants to these groups, including 122 who describe themselves as servants to women, presumably of some status, and possibly part of the households already mentioned. There is a different servant problem in that only three clergymen are listed, however we have servants to fourteen different clergymen. The indoor servants from these top social groups are just over 7% of the 1608 list. 

King’s Merchants, Shopkeepers and Tradesmen
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
2,000
Merchants and Traders by Sea
8
16,000
400
8,000
Merchants and Traders by Land
6
48,000
200
40,000
Shopkeepers and Tradesmen
180,000
45

This is obviously a very disparate group. Only one man in the 1608 listing declares himself to be a merchant. The largest group in 1608 are the butchers of whom there are 252 in the county, they are followed by 119 innkeepers, vintners and victuallers, and 109 bakers. Others relating to food sales include fishmongers, a cheesemonger, a grocer and a pearmonger. On the textile side there are 112 mercers, 30 drapers 12 haberdashers and 40 badgers, chapmen and pedlars.  Beyond these we have chandlers, barbers, apothecaries, stationers, and an ironmonger. People who are making rather than selling have been included with the artisans and handicrafts rather than this group. This group forms just under 5% of the population in 1608 and just under 3.7% in King.

King’s Artisans and craftsmen
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
60,000
Artisans and Handicrafts
4
240,000
40

This is where King and the 1608 listing depart from each other. It depends on your definition of artisan or craftsman, but for King these formed just over 4.4% of the population, whereas for 1608 it is over 34%.

Textile workers
Textile workers are the largest group forming over 15% of the 1608 list, the question is whether King would have considered them craftsmen, or placed them in his cottagers and paupers grouping. The largest number over 1,800 are weavers of one sort or another, but there are also fullers, dyers, shearmen, etc. There are also over 300 clothiers, these are men that actually sell the cloth so should perhaps be in the tradesmen section. In addition we have one knitter, one bone (bobbin) lace maker and one embroiderer, remember these are men, considerably more women would have followed these occupations. 

Leather workers
Again are these men King would have considered artisans or craftsmen. They are a small group 201 all told that include tanners, saddlers, collarmakers, curriers and a furrier.
Clothing makers
Most of these may well have been considered craftsmen by King, they form 7.5% of the 1608 list and include the obvious tailors, shoemakers and glovers, but also hatters, cobblers, hosiers, point-and garter-makers.

Craftsmen in wood
These form just under 4% of the 1608 list and two thirds of them are described as carpenters or joiners. As Gloucestershire includes the River Severn there is a small group of shipwrights and ship’s carpenters. Others in this grouping include coopers, wheelwrights, wheelers, turners, hoopers, bowyers, fletchers, shovel makers, basket makers, trencher makers, hive makers, and more.

The building trades
Again difficult to decide how many of these King would have included as artisans, but here forming around 2% of the list we have masons and freemasons, by far the largest group, slatters, tilers, thatchers, glaziers, stonelayers, plasterers, pargeters, painters, limeburners and paviors. 

Metal workers
A group forming 3.3% of the 1608 list of whom three quarters are smiths. The other occupations which can be included in this grouping are nailers, cutlers and pewterers. Six men are ironfounders and one is a bell founder. There are 8 wiredrawers and 5 pinmakers, plus tinkers, braziers, plumbers and two goldsmiths. 

Makers of food and drink
These form 1.5% of the list and comprise millers, the largest group, maltsers and brewers.

Miscellaneous
Finally for this section a group of occupations that can be considered artisanal or crafts, but otherwise don’t fit. Here we have paper, parchment, card and cardboard makers, also potters, bottle makers, a starch maker, and a saltpetreman. 

King’s farmers
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
40,000
Freeholders
7
280,000
84
140,000
Freeholders
5
700,000
50
150,000
Farmers
5
750,000
44

King does not list either yeomen or husbandmen, the two largest agricultural groups in the 1608 list. Generally speaking yeomen are freeholders and husbandmen are not, so perhaps the husbandmen equate to the 150,000 farmers King lists. These three groups above form 24% of households according to King but 30.5% of the 1608 list.

King’s labourers and out servants
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
364,000
Labouring People and Out Servants
1,275,000
15

For King these form 27% of the population, however even by taking all those who list themselves as labourers, all servants to yeomen and husbandmen plus those in towns who list themselves as labourers, all other agricultural workers (shepherds, warreners, etc.) and all servants to artisans and craftsmen,  I can only get this up to 19.3%. So I am adding in the 172 people in the mining and quarrying industries which takes it to 20.5%

King’s soldiers and sailors
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
5,000
Naval Officers
4
20,000
80
4,000
Military Officers
4
16,000
60
50,000
Common Seamen
3
150,000
20
35,000
Common Soldiers
2
70,000
14

Gloucestershire has no officers, nor does it have any soldiers, however it does have seamen. There are 18 fishermen, 194 sailors, 22 boatmen, watermen and trowmen. To these I am going to add the 62 other men who are related to transport; carriers, carmen and loaders. For King these formed nearly 7% of households, but for Gloucestershire it is just over 1.5%

The “missing” 30 percent
Number of families
Ranks, Degrees,
Titles, and Qualifications
Heads
per family
Number of
persons
Yearly income
per family
400,000
Cottagers and Paupers
1,300,000
6.5

King has almost 30% of the population as cottagers and paupers, and late Stuart poverty has been discussed by Arkell (1987) among others. Unsurprisingly no one in the 1608 list describes themselves as either a cottager or a pauper.  Undoubtedly some of the artisans and some of the agricultural workers were very poor, but it is difficult with the Gloucestershire list to separate them out from those that weren’t. Below is a table of the comparisons, figures do not add to 100% because of rounding.


1608
1688
King’s top five subdivisions &“educated” classes
3
4.5
Indoor servants
7
0
King’s Merchants, Shopkeepers and Tradesmen
4
3.7
King’s Artisans and craftsmen
34
4.4
King’s farmers
30.4
24
King’s labourers and out servants
20.3
27
Soldiers and sailors
1.6
6.9
Cottagers and paupers
0
29.4

100.3
99.9

Arkell, T., 1987. The incidence of poverty in the later seventeenth century. Social history, 12(1), pp. 23-47.
Holmes, G. S., 1977. Gregory King and the Social Structure of Pre-Industrial England. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume 27, pp. 41-68.
Hoppit, J., 2011. Gregory King (1648–1712)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/15563 [Accessed 16 Feb 2015].
Tawney, R. H., 1934. An occupational census of the seventeenth century. Economic History Review, 5(1), pp. 25-64.

Kersey and the Colours of Kersey

$
0
0
Woollen yarn dyed with woad.

What are kersies

Kersey is a twill woven wool fabric. Kerridge (1985) describes them in his book as “warp back cloths woven in twill order,” it is more complex than that, and I would go to Kerridge for a technical description if you are interested.

Kersey comes in several types, the 1552 Act divides them into ordinary, sorting, Devonshire (called dozens), and check kersies. Despite the name, Kersey is a town in Suffolk, kersies were made in various places. The Devonshire dozens were one type, and another statue refers to kersies made in York and Lancashire, but a large number were also made around Newbury in Berkshire by, among other people, John Winchcombe (c1487-1557) who was the Jack of Newbury of Thomas Deloney’s work. (1912) David Peacock’s PhD thesis on the Winchcombe family is available via Ethos. (Peacock, 2003)


One (standard) broadcloth was reckoned to be equal to three kerseys, this is less a matter of quality than of size. Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries both broadcloth and kersey were regulated by a series of Statutes. The Statute of 1465 set broadcloth as 2 yards wide and 24 yards long, while kersey was a yard and a nail (a nail is one sixteenth of a yard -2¼ inches) by 18 yards. However by the beginning of the seventeenth century some kerseys had shrunk to 1 yard by 16 yards, so three kerseys were 48 square yards of cloth, the same size as one broadcloth. That is for a standard broadcloth, long broadcloths were 28 to 31 yards in length. (Oldland, 2014)

How common is kersey

It is difficult to ascertain how common kersies were. They first appear in the mid 13th century, and by the 18thcentury Defoe wrote of Yorkshire kersey that one dealer traded for “£60,000 a year in kerseys only, to Holland and Hamburg.” (Defoe, 1748) In export terms in the first half of the sixteenth century, before the effects of the start of the Eighty Years’ War and the expansion of the new draperies, broadcloth and kersey appear to have formed 90% to 95% of cloth exports, with kersey being between 20% and 30% of this. (Hentschell, 2008)

Having said that they are produced in such amounts, they don’t appear very often in probate inventories, but as Margaret Spufford (1984) said of probate inventories, they conceal “quicksands of very considerable magnitude.” It may be that people compiling the inventories could not tell the difference between broadcloth and kersey once the fabric had been cut up and made into garments, but beyond that garments are rarely mentioned in inventories. An analysis of some Oxfordshire inventories, which are fairly typical, shows that 85% either don’t mention clothes at all or just say wearing apparel without specifying. Of the 15% that do list clothes, only one third mention a fabric.

References to kersies in common literature often refer to kersey being used for hose, and hose is a very movable term in the sixteenth century. In the OED we have from 1543–4, “For iij quarters of yallow carssey for hose”, from 1596, “Blacke karsie stockings” and from 1607, “The Stockings that his clownish Legges did fit, Were Kersie to the calfe, and t'other knit.” It was William Harrison (1577) in his famous Description of England who declared of the Englishman that “ Neither was it merriere with England than when he was knowne abroad by his own clothes, and contented himself at home with his fine carsie hosen.”

The colours of kersey

This section is based mostly on an article by David Peacock (2006) which examined Gresham’s Day Book for 1546-1552, this listed goods ordered for export to Antwerp. Kersies produced by Thomas Dolman of Newbury shows that the bulk of the cloths ordered between 1547 and 1550 were blue (20.6%), watchet, a light blue (46.8%) and azure 17.6%, so that in total 85% were in shades of blue. The picture above is one I have had for at least six years, but unfortunately I have no idea where it came from, it shows the range of blues that can be gained by dying with woad. The other 15% of colours include 13% red and 2% green. Thomas Dolman’s 1575 will shows him owing “one other howse in Cheapstreate...beinge a Dyhowse and also six oadefattes (woad vats) two flotefattes, one furnace of copper and another of brass.” The only producer in the Day Book going beyond these colours is William Bennett, who between 1548 and 1550 produced 1,647 kersies for Gresham, however the breakdown is very similar, 35% watchet, 24% blue, 3.6% plunked (a sort of grey-blue), and 2.4% azure. Beyond the blues we have 7% red, 3% green, and a tiny amount (3 kersies) in violet.

If we compare this colour range with that obtained from analysis of English wills, we get a very different grouping. This may well be because these are cloths for export, because they are specifically kersey, and because this does not include the large numbers of cloths which weren’t dyed and are described as sheep colour or white. There is also the problem of black, natural or dyed, which appears to be one of the most popular colours listed in wills. Research on Essex wills reveals the main colours to be black, white, blue or red, with blue being mentioned mainly for men’s coats, breeches and stockings, while red appears to have been used mainly for women’s petticoats. (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies, 2006) Peachey (2014) makes the same association of red with women’s petticoats and blue with men’s coats.

References

Defoe, D., 1748. A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain. 4th ed. London: Birt.

Deloney, T., 1912. The works of Thomas Deloney; edited by Francis Oscar Mann.. [Online]
Available at: http://archive.org/stream/workseditedfrome00delouoft/workseditedfrome00delouoft_djvu.txt

Harrison, W., 1577. Description of England. s.l.:s.n.

Hentschell, R., 2008. Culture of Cloth in Early Modern England: Textual Constructions of a National Identity. London: Ashgate.

Kerridge, E., 1985. Textile manufactures in early modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press..

Mikhaila, N. and Malcolm-Davies, J., 2006. The Tudor tailor. London: Batsford.

Oldland, J., 2014. Wool and cloth production in late medieval and early Tudor England. Economic History Review, 67 (1), pp. 25-47.

Peachey, S., 2014. Clothes of the common people in Elizabethan and early Stuart England. Bristol: Stuart Press.

Peacock, D., 2003. The Wincombe family and the woollen industry in sixteenth century Newbury. PhD thesis. [Online]
Available at: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.402908
[Accessed 12 Dec 2014].

Peacock, D., 2006. Dyeing Winchcombe kersies and other kersey cloth in sixteenth century Newbury. Textile History, 37(2), pp. 187-202.

Spufford, M., 1984. The great reclothing of rural England: petty chapmen and their wares in the seventeenth century. London: Hambledon Press.




Early Modern Knitting at the Clothworkers’ Centre for the Study and Conservation of Textiles and Fashion

$
0
0


On Friday I visited, The Clothworkers' Centre for the Study and Conservation of Textiles and Fashion, with a group from the Knitting History Forum. The Clothworkers’ Centre is the Victoria and Albert Museum’s storage facility in London, and any group can make an appointment to see material in store. There were about eight of us and some of us had made suggestions as to what knitted items we would like to see, ranging from the 16thcentury to the 20th century. We saw five items that I was particularly interested in. Because of copyright restrictions I can’t post the photographs that I took, but I have made links to the museums records, and to the right is a photograph looking across one of the tables that had been laid out for us, with the early 17th century jacket and the mid 17th century boothose. I recommend anyone, or group, with an interest in a particular area of clothing or fashion to make an appointment to see things that are in store, they are incredibly helpful. All the details are on the website. The items we saw included:

From the 16th century, the Triple layer cap No 1562&A-1901. I’ve seen lots of these knitted caps, but I don’t think I’ve seen one with three layers before, and the colour is a beautiful rich brown. The museum says it was found in a house in Worship Street, London. Worship Street runs from City Road east towards Spitalfields. If it was found then I assume it was not excavated. The Museum of London has a considerable collection of these types of cap mostly excavated. 

From the early 17th century an Italian silk knitted jacket  473-1893. The museum dates this to 1600-20, while Sandy Black in her book (2012) dates it to 1625-1650. It is very fine knitted in blue silk, blue silk covered with silver and yellow silk covered with silver. It is sized for a small person, under the armpits it is only about 78 cm (31 inches) round, at the bottom it is about 102 cm (40 inches). In length it is about 65 cm ( 25.5 inches). The bottom edging is a basket weave created by knitting alternate blocks of stocking stitch and reverse stocking stitch. Up the front of the jacket there is a linen strip containing the buttonholes for the 42 buttons.The turnback cuffs are kept in place with a stitch.


From the mid 17th century a pair of knitted woollen boot hose, T.63 & A-1910. These were knitted in two ply wool from the top down. In required casting on 375 stitches. The decoration of the boot hose top includes bands of cream wool alternating with bands of dark blue wool. The cream bands also have diamond patterns worked in purl stitch. After about 30cm the width of the boot hose top is brought down to leg size with rapid decreasing. Then at the top of the leg there is a roughly 10cm deep band of what looks like 4k, 5 purl rib.  At the ankle some of the blue decoration is knitted and some is embroidered. The foot is about 25-26cm (10 inches) long. Sandy Black has the gauge as 11 stitches and 21 rows to 2.5cm.

From the second half of the 17th century we had a cotton baby jacket  T.30-1932. This looks like you could go out and buy it from a baby shop today. Several of these early knitted baby jackets survive and there is a table of survivals with references in Ruth Gilbert’s article (2012) on a similar garment. There are decorative panels in knit and purl stitch along the bottom, either side of the centre front, at the centre back, along the length of the sleeves, and around the armholes.

From the early 18th century we had a Dutch petticoat T.177-1926, hand knitted in 2 ply wool. So, first cast on 2650 stitches, I would think that is enough to put anyone off. The finished garment is 312cm (10 feet 5 inches) round, and 77.5cm (10 inches) deep.  It is knitted at 88 stitches to 10 cm (4 inches). (Rutt, 1987) The petticoat is covered in motifs, the group stood around it pointing out obvious peacocks, camels, lions, monkeys, horses, toucans, and several less identifiable animals. 

Black, S., 2012. Knitting: fashion, industry, craft. London: V&A Publishing.
Gilbert, R., 2012. A knitted cotton jacket in the collection of the Knitting and Crochet Guild of Great Britain. Textile History, 43(1), pp. 90-106.
Rutt, R., 1987. A history of handknitting.. London: Batsford.

Book Review: Portrait Gallery of the Golden Age.

$
0
0


Portrait Gallery of the Golden Age. M Hell et al. Amsterdam: Museumshop Hermitage, 2014. ISBN 978 90 78653523. (English language version) €19.95

I suppose everyone has heard of the Nightwatch, but Rembrandt’s masterpiece is only one of a series of group portraits that were unique to the Netherlands. This book is a result of a collaborative exhibition of such portraits organised at the Hermitage Museum in Amsterdam in 2014. 

These portraits were mainly done for the civic guards and charitable institutions of various Dutch cities. The earliest civic guard group in the book is the 1529 painting by Dirck Jacobsz of the seventeen man squad of harquebusiers’ militia, two side panels were added in 1559 portraying a further fourteen men. The book charts and rise, function and ultimate decline of the group portrait. The most recent painting in the book is the 1705 Regents of the Oudezijds Huiszittenhuis, though a few commission continued to be made as late as the nineteenth century. The book ends with an Epilogue containing photographs of some current boards.

There is a chapter on the city in the Dutch “Golden Age”, defined for this as 1588-1700. There are illustrations of paintings of Amsterdam and Haarlem, often containing a vast amount of detail, for example the 1656 painting of Dam Square with the new town hall under construction, there is also a painting of the destruction of the old town hall by fire in 1652. In the painting of the new town hall you can see details of all levels of society; to the bottom right are foreign merchants in long flowing robes, a man in a bright red cloak draws the eye to the centre of the painting, and behind him is a wheelbarrow pushing member of the working class. 

There is a chapter on the prosperous burgher families that controlled the Republic. The book discusses how marriage, money, and appointments to various boards of governors or civic guards created a route to the top for such men. This is followed by a chapter on law and order and the heyday of the civic guard piece, by this point in time often painted while the group appear to be in the middle of a banquet. The book moves on to discuss the importance of trade to the Republic, illustrated both with paintings of various markets, such as the vegetable market at Leiden, and with group paintings of guildsmen and surgeons.

The work of the burgher families in supporting a range of charities is shown through various group portraits of the regents and regentesses of orphanages and almshouses. When men and women are depicted together the women are seated separately and off to one side. Where the women appear on their own they have their account books in front of them. 

This is a fascinating little book (128 pages), sumptuously illustrated and well priced at €19.95. it can be mined for a wealth of costume details.

Seventeenth and Eighteenth century whalers’ knitted caps

$
0
0


Figure 1
In the Nova Zemlya gallery at the Rijksmuseum is a case of seventeenth and eighteenth century whalers’ knitted caps which come not from Nova Zemlya but from Spitsbergen. Between 1979 and 1981 there were a series of archaeological expeditions to sites of Dutch whaling camps in the Arctic. Excavations took place at Smeerenburg on Amsterdam Island in the north-west corner of the Spitsbergen archipelago and at the nearby cemetery at Zeeuwse Uitkijk.   The sites produced a large quantity of textiles, including whole garments and a number of knitted caps. (Hacquebord, 2005)
 
Figure 2
The whaling camps in Spitsbergen were first used by the Noordsche Compagnie (Northern Company), which operated in the area of Smeerenburg from 1614 to 1642 when the company was dissolved. Dutch whalers continued in the area.  The museum has given the caps a broad dating range, as it was not possible to accurately date the burials, but the graves excavated date from approximately 1600 to 1750. The whalers were not just Dutch nationals, in the early years many Basques were also involved, and later there are references to Danes, English and Germans among the crews. 

Figure 3
The caps come from a later period than the collection over 30 sixteenth century caps and cap fragments found at various sites in London, and now held by the Museum of London. There are also a number of sixteenth and seventeenth century caps excavated from the sites of old canals in Copenhagen. The canals were mainly filled in the 1660s and the material is now in the Nationalmuseet. Two late seventeenth century caps were found on the Gunnister man and are now in the National Museums of Scotland. The seven caps shown here are the ones that are in the case in the Rijksmuseum. Better photographs are available via the Rijksmuseum website and permalinks to these are given below. Although the Rijksmuseum website offers a choice of Dutch or English, if you chose English the description of the garment will still be in Dutch. I have tried here to offer a description based on what the Dutch says and my own observations. You will note that there is a considerable difference between the colours in the photographs I took in the museum and the photographs of the same caps on the museums website.
Figure 4

The textiles from both sites were examined by Vons-Comis, who has written extensively on the subject. (Vons-Comis S. Y., 1984)(Vons-Comis S. , 1987 a) (Vons-Comis S. ,  1987 b)(Comis, 2005) At  Zeeuwse Uitkijk  there were 31 knitted caps, and leather cap trimmed with fur from 50 graves. Vons-Comis identified five types of cap. Some have been double knit, double knitting is a method by which two layers are knitted at once giving a double thickness with stocking stitch showing on both the inside and the outside.  Some have a finer outer with a coarser knit inner, the two then being sewn together. Sometimes there is a single layer the cap. Caps come with or without a turned up brim, and the brims may or may not have ear-flaps, the ear flaps are unfortunately impossible to see in these photos.
Figure 5

The colours vary considerably; there is a difference between caps from the Smeerenburg site and the Zeeuwse Uitkijk site. The caps from Smeerenburg have lost their original dyed colours and have taken a uniform brown from the soil, while the conditions at Zeeuwse Uitkijk mean that the colours have been retained. Some of the knitting yarns appear to have been tie-dyed using the ikak technique.

The caps on display, with their permalinks, are listed below

Date: ca. 1650 - ca. 1800
Size:  Circumference 60 cm by 25 cm tall
Description: This looks much redder in my photo than in the Rijksmuseum one. A dark brown cap, with a slight upturned brim, a tail at the top, and ear flaps.  Knitted in the round in stocking stitch the cap is double knitted. 
Figure 6



Figure 2: -

Date: 1600-1800
Size:  Circumference 48cm by 24cm tall
Description: This is knitted with a thicker yarn than some of the others. The wool according to the Rijksmuseum site appears to have originally been green for the body of the cap; however they describe the 5 cm deep brim as having darkandlight brownhorizontal stripesand dark bluerectangular blocks, but in the photo they look to be in the same colour as the main body. It is described as having earflaps.

Figure 3:-
Date: 1700-1800
Size: circumference 60 cm by 28 cm tall
Description: Cap in red, blue, green, black and light brown horizontal stripes of different widths. It is double thickness and the inner cap has the same stripes, it is described as having earflaps. According to the Rijksmuseum site this is not double knit but consists of two parts sewn together, each part is cut up at the top and sewn. Knitted in the round in stocking stitch, with forty-five rows per ten centimetres.



 
Figure 7
Figure 4:-
Date: 1650-1700
Size: Circumference 52cm by 22cm tall
Description: This is knitted in the round in stocking stitch. The Rijksmuseum site describes it as, light brown andfine knitwithfolded rim anda small tailat the top.

Figure 5:-

Date: ca. 1642 - ca. 1800
Size: Circumference 65 cm by 23cm tall
Description: Double knitin the round in stockingstitchin a fine, lightbrown wool.The brim is partiallyfolded, and is between two inches and four wide depending on whether it was fully or partially turned up, ithastwohorizontal bluestripes inside.Described as with ear flaps.

Figure 6:-


Date: 1700-1800
Size: Circumference 30cm by 26cm tall
Description: Again knitted in the round in stockingstitch, and intwo partssewntogether. The outer is in fineknitmulticolouredwoolwith light brown, light green, dark green and bluehorizontal stripes indifferent widthsandobliquesquares. The innercapis a thinker yarn andlight brown. Described as with ear flaps. Multiplerepairsare visible.

Figure 7:- 

Date: 1650-1800
Size: Circumference 60cm by 24cm tall
Description: Cap double knit in the round in stocking stitch, with ear flaps. The thicker yarn is a somewhat random blue and white pattern with the yarn described by Rijksmuseum as ikat dyed.

There are other caps in the Rijksmuseumcollection which are not on display, but there are photos and records on their website, for example:
Another Spitzbergen cap
Date: ca. 1650 - ca. 1700
Size:  circumference  58 cm by h 23 cm tall
Description: Cap in blue and orange striped  multicoloredwoolwith ear flaps. It has a slight brim. Knit in the round in stocking stitch.
And another
Date: ca. 1650 - ca. 1800
Size:  circumference  61 cm by h 30 cm tall
Description: Cap in a dark blue thickerwool.Knit in the round in stocking stitch. The turned up brim has stripes in red, light brown and blue.



Bibliography
Comis, S. (2005). Onderzoek van zeventiende- en achttiende-eeuwse kleding opgegraven op Spitsbergen: mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden [Investigation of seventeenth and eighteenth-century clothing unearthed Svalbard: possibilities and impossibilities]. In N. Boschman, L. Hacquebord, & J. W. Veluwenkamp, Het Topje Van De Isberg: 35 Jaar Arctisch Centrum (1970-2005) (pp. 61-69).
Hacquebord, L. (2005). Twenty five years of multi-disciplinary research into the17th century whaling settlements in Spitsbergen. In N. Boschman, L. Hacquebord, & J. W. Veluwenkamp, Het Topje Van De Ijsberg: 35 Jaar Artisch Centrum (1970-2005)(pp. 53-60).
Vons-Comis, S. (1987 b). Seventeenth century garments from grave 579, Zeeuwse Uitkijk, Spitsbergen. In P. a. Walton, Textiles in northern archaeology: NESAT 3. London: Archetype.
Vons-Comis, S. (1987 a). Workman's clothing or burial garments? seventeeth and eighteenth century clothing remains from Spitsbergen. Norsk Polarinstitutt Rapportserie, 38.
Vons-Comis, S. Y. (1984). Seventeenth and eighteenth century clothing remnants from Spitsbergen. . Kostuum , pp. 32-36.

Waterloo Study Day- 9th May 2015

$
0
0


I have just returned from the Waterloo Study Day organised by the Costume Society in Bath, to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. As you can see from the photograph several members dressed in circa 1815 outfits for the day. The day was split with talks from Rosemary Harden, curator of the Fashion Museum Bath, and Nigel Arch, former director of Kensington Palace for the Royal Historic Palaces in the morning, and a demonstration of dressing an early 19th century lady and gentleman in the afternoon.

Rosemary Harden spoke about the Duchess of Richmond’s ball, which took place in Brussels just days before the Battle of Waterloo. She gave information on the ball itself, on the fashions in ball gowns around 1815, and finally on two ball gowns in the collection of the Fashion Museum, which were reputedly worn at the ball.  A photograph of the two dresses can be seen on the Costume Society’s page for the event. She spoke about the dresses, and the research she has done since an article on them was published in Costume. (Byrde & Saunders, 2000). The family history the donor was that the dresses were worn by the sisters of a Mr. Perceval, and there was an Hon. Mr Perceval on the invitation list for the ball, but he cannot be pinned down, and nothing can be proved, though the dresses are the right date and style.

Nigel Arch spoke about the battle itself, and the uniforms that were worn at the time, describing them as fashionable, magnificent, but not practical. He described how certain elements of central European dress ended up in western European military uniform, the shako, the sabretache, and hussar uniform. He explained how the different armies wore different coloured uniforms, and why this might have come about. Nigel has written in the past about the use of the red coat as a brand for the British army. (Arch, 2007)

In the afternoon we had the on stage dressing of two people from the shirt out in the case of the gentleman and from the shift in the case of the lady. The two can be seen fully dressed to the left. The gentleman’s outfit was based on an original in Salisbury Museum, a militia coat that had belonged to a Captain John Swayne. The lady’s outfit was based on a morning dress of c.1798-1805, also in Salisbury Museum, and re-created from the pattern taken by Janet Arnold (1977).

Arch, N., 2007. The Wearing of the Red: The Redcoat and the British Brand. Costume, Volume 41, pp. 99-104.
Arnold, J., 1977. Patterns of Fashion 1: 1660-1860. London: Macmillan.
Byrde, P. & Saunders, A., 2000. The "Waterloo Ball" dresses at the Museum of Costume, Bath. Costume, pp. 64-69.

Umbrellas 1600-1720

$
0
0


Figure 1
Items such as umbrellas and parasols to give shelter from rain or shade from the sun have a long history; they appear in bas reliefs from Assyriain 700 BC, from archaeological digs in Chinaand in other ancient cultures. They seem to come late to Western Europe, one of the earliest depictions being in Jost Amman’s (1539-91) engraving of the Grand Procession of the Doge of Venice.
 
The appearance of the word in English comes at the end of the 16th century. Florio Italian English dictionary, A World of Words (1598), has the Italian word Ombrella translated as “a kind of round fan or shadowing that they use to ride with in sommer in Italy, a little shade.”  There is a watercolour of a horseman with an umbrella dated 1598 on Pinterest, it supposedly comes from the LACMAC (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) collection, but I have not been able to find it on the museum’s website. 

Coryat in his Crudities (1611)also speaks of umbrellas as being carried by Italian horsemen, and costing “ at the least a duckat.” He describes them thus; “These are made of leather, something answerable to the forme of a little cannopy, & hooped in the inside with divers little wooden hoopes that extend the umbrella in a pretty large compasse. They are used especially by horsemen, who carry them in their hands when they ride, fastening the end of the handle upon one of their thighs, and they impart so large a shadow unto them, that it keepeth the heate of the sunne from the upper parts of their bodies.”

So far the references are solely to umbrellas being used for shade, and both Randle Cotgrave's Dictionary of the French and English Tongues (1614)and Fynes Moryson's Itinerary (1617) have this meaning for the word. The term parasol seems to appear later, an early description is in 1676 when  John  Locke in his Journal of his Travels in France writes of, “Parasols, a pretty sort of cover for women riding in the sun, made of straw, something like the fashion of tin covers for dishes.”

By the early 17th century portraits are beginning to appear containing umbrellas, but not in England. Two from the 1620s are Van Dyck’s 1623 painting of the Marchesa Elena Grimaldi (Figure 1), and a portrait now in Versailles of Ann of Austria, attributed to Jean de St Igny, (Figure 2)  where the umbrella behind her is shut. In 1670 Charles Le Brun painted Chancellor Séguier and his suite, a painting now in the Musée du Louvre. (Figure 3)

Figure 2
By the beginning of the 18th century their use for by women keeping off the rain, was established in England, so that John Kersey's Dictionary (1708) describes an umbrella as a "screen commonly used by women to keep off rain". John Gay in his Trivia, or The Art of Walking the Streets of London (1716) writes of “underneath th’ umbrella’s oily shed, Safe thro' the wet, on clinging pattens tread.”  While Dean Swift in issue 228 of The Tatler (1710) wrote that, “The tucked-up sempstress walks with hasty strides, While streams run down her oil'd umbrella's sides.” 

It seems that some in London provided umbrella’s for their clients. In Thomas Baker’s play The Fine Lady’s Airs (1709) the aptly named Mr. Nicknack declares that “Mrs. Trapes in Leadenhall Street is hawling away the Umbrellas for the walking Gentry.” While a December 1709 issue of the Female Tatler advises somewhat sarcastically that, “The young gentleman borrowing the umbrella belonging to Wills Coffee House in Cornhill, of the mistress, is hereby advertised that, to be dry from head to foot on the like occasion, he shall be welcome to the maid’s pattens.”
Figure 3

Defoe in Robinson Crusoe (1719), gets Crusoe to make himself an umbrella, writing that, “"I spent a great deal of time and pains to make an umbrella....it was a most useful thing to me, as well for the rains as for the heats. I took a world of pains at it, and it was a great while before I could make anything likely to hold; ... I spoiled two or three before I made one to my mind. But at last I made one that answered indifferently well; the main difficulty I found was to make it to let down. I could make it spread, but if it did not let down too, and draw in, it would not be portable for me any way but just over my head, which would not do. However, at last, as I said, I made one to answer. I covered it with skins, the hair upwards, so that it cast off the rain like a pent-house, and kept off the sun so effectually that I could walk out in the hottest of the weather with greater advantage than I could before in the coolest, and when I had no need of it, I could close it, and carry it under my arm."

All three illustrations are from wikimedia commons, and links have been made to them. 
Viewing all 168 articles
Browse latest View live