Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:35:00 -1000
From: Robin Netherton
Subject: Re: H-COST: Elizabethan partlets (& modern equivalents!)
I wrote:
> >Yes, it's certain that one needs a washable layer between body and corset,
> >and I've always understood that the Elizabethans called that layer a
> >smock, both from images and from written accounts. This smock could be
> >visible (and decorated) and stand on its own, or it could be covered by a
> >partlet that sits over the corset, under the bodice. So, I can agree that
> >this smock would be the "square-necked layer" sometimes visible under a
> >partlet. But I'd be much obliged if you could point me to an example of a
> >next-to-the-body smock visible behind another layer worn over the corset
> >that is not a partlet, or could not be a partlet. I'm having trouble
> >envisioning a second full garment with sleeves (another smock, a shirt,
> >whatever you want to call it) that lies over the corset, under the bodice.
Danielle replied:
> Well, unfortunately we have no proof either way. There are many depictions
> of Ladies wearing a low square-necked smock and something either partlet or
> second smock over it. For examples, look at the front and back covers of
> QE's Wardrobe. The picture on the front cover "The Pelican Portrait" I
> think lends credence to the concept of two layers. Notice how the
> blackwork pattern in the upper area of the partlet/smock (neckline) matches
> the blackwork pattern in the sleeves. This leads me to believe in the
> strong possiblity that it is a single garment, i.e. smock.
Yes, this looks like a smock to me, too. But I don't see how this
necessarily implies two layers. I could see still this smock as the layer
worn closest to the skin -- in other words, the sort of smock I referred
to above as "visible (and decorated) and stand[ing] on its own." I don't
think there's any argument that some smocks were low-necked and others had
high collars. The one in this portrait would be a high-collared one, and I
don't see a sign of a low-necked one behind it. The bosom is bare. The
line of lace across the bottom of the triangle of open bosom could be an
inset (it's a slightly different pattern than the lace running down the
open edges of the smock, and there's no continuation of that line showing
through the smock at the sides of the neckline). The smock would thus have
two open straight edges down the front, and be easy to arrange (I've worn
one like this, and arranging it under the corset helps keep it in place).
Oddly, now that I've written the above (and I won't rewrite it, as it
shows how I viewed the picture on my first look), I see that Arnold has a
completely different interpretation of this portrait, on p. 22. She reads
it as "matching sleeves and partlet." She further adds that the sleeves
and partlet are themselves double-layered, with the base layer being linen
embroidered with black silk, and the outer (protective) layer made of
transparent cypress. The gold threads are worked on the cypress. At the
sides of the neck opening, we presumably see the linen layer edged with
black needle lace, and over that the cypress layer edged with gold bobbin
lace. (I'm guessing that these two layers are built together, not two
separate garments.) Most interesting, she reads that edge at the bottom of
the bosom as the edge of the smock neckline.
Given that interpretation, I think I can see the separate shimmer of the
cypress overlay in the jacket photo. It's probably clearer on the original
painting (so many things don't come through in reproductions), so I'll
trust Arnold's reading more than mine.
On the Phoenix portrait (back cover and page 23) I see a partlet, with the
line of the smock showing horizontally above the bodice (the slight
difference in the lace edging indicates two different garments). Arnold
sees the same. No sleeves to wonder about here, and no reason to think
this is anything but a partlet.
> There are extant smocks/shirts which are gathered into a high neckband (see
> Arnold's "Shirts..." article) as well as plenty of depictions of them. See
> the picture "Queen Elizabeth I and the three goddesses" pg. 150 QE's
> Wardrobe.
Yes, plenty of high-collared smocks around at this time (1569 for the
painting) with attached small ruffs at the neck. These high-collared
smocks seem to disappear as the big ruffs come in. (The work I've been
doing lately has been c. 1600, so I'm not well-versed in the sequence of
changes that occurred over the 30 years preceding that.)
My initial question arose because of the suggestion that one smock would
be worn *under* the corset and a second worn *over* it. I can see wearing
a single smock (high or low neck) under the corset, or a smock under and a
partlet over -- but I still haven't seen any reason to assume two smocks,
one in each position. That doesn't mean this never happened, or that there
aren't some pictures somewhere that suggest this possibility, but I
certainly haven't seen it as the norm, either in written descriptions or
in images. I might see differently if I went back through hundreds of
portraits looking specifically for an example of two smock layers, but
even if I found one or two, that doesn't mean that this would be typical.
And that's all I was getting at.
> >Ashelford writes... "Where
> >partlet and sleeves were made as a matching set it is impossible to decide
> >whether one is looking at the separate matching sleeves of the partlet or
> >the sleeves of the smock."
>
> The problem with this is, I've never seen any evidence for partlet and
> sleeve sets. I've never seen any extant ones or any mention of them in
> wardrobe accounts, wills, or period writings like Stubbes, "The Fair
> Perfectioning of Ladies," etc... If I remember correctly, Arnold makes no
> mention of them in her "Shirts..." article either.
But she does on p. 22 of QEWU: "Elizabeth had many pairs of sleeves,
smocks, and partlets embroidered in blackwork on fine white lawn." This is
the same passage in which she identifies the "matching sleeves and
partlet" in the Pelican portrait.
And now I am out of my depth. I have not studied this at all, which is why
I'm going by Arnold and Ashelford, and asking questions when I don't
understand someone's interpretation.
> To me, the partlet with sleeves seems like another one of those insidious
> costuming myths. Besides which, how does a partlet with sleeves differ, in
> terms of the number of layers worn, from a second smock? Your still
> talking about two sets of sleeves.
I personally would find a crucial difference in bulk under the arms and
around the torso.
> >Today some of my V-necked suit-style dresses come with little strips of
> >lace or silky fabric to button across the point of the V, to imitate a
> >camisole or shell top. Much like those 15th-century black insets at the
> >points of V-necked dresses (reminds me, I have to prepare a paper on
> >*those* this month, eek).
>
> This of course brings up another issue, Why do think that the "insets" in
> the 15th century dress are faked? I've seen some good research on those
> "Burgundian v-necked gowns" which explain it as a modified/evolved
> houppeland with the under-dress/kirtle showing underneath. That makes much
> more sense to me but, this isn't my area of expertise.
Good question, and I have half of a good answer. The paper I'm working on
right now (which is on the dresses, not the insets -- I didn't make that clear above) points out that there are actually two distinct "V-necked"
styles in this century (possibly more, I'm still working on it). Aside
from the V neck, the styles are quite different in cut, silhouette,
evolution, and time/place distribution. But everyone seems to notice only
the V-neck, and assumes that all V-necked gowns are variations of the same
thing. Once I learned to recognize the difference, I found I could walk
through the museums in Flanders, dating the pictures from a distance by
the V-necked gowns -- "1440s..." "1470s..."
As far as I'm concerned, you're right on the mark regarding the style of
the early 1400s, with the narrow, deep V that shows the underdress. (In
fact, I think the development of this style from the houpelandde was part
of a lecture I gave in your area about eight years ago, so maybe my work
has contributed to the research you've heard.) However, the style of the
later 1400s is built much differently, and there are reasonable
indications that the black panel at this late date is vestigial. (On the
other hand, it's possible that every underdress of the 1470s was black...)
But I'm still working on this paper. I have about 300 slides and prints
to analyze and chart before I can make any definitive statements. (And I'd
better get it done within the next few weeks.)
--Robin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:01:24 -1000
From: Dietmar
Subject: H-COST: Re: Fiber testing
> Does anyone know how to tell if a fiber is poylester or nylon?
> Whenever I've done a burn test, I can't tell the difference.
Nylon
Burns or melts? melts&burns
Retreats from flame? yes
Smell? celery or vegetable smell
Residue? hard cream-and-coffee color bead
Misc? flames come from finish, drops of melted nylon may fall from swatch
________________
Polyester
Burns or melts? melts&burns
Retreats from flame? yes
Smell? icky sweet chemical smell
Residue? hard creamy color bead, may be dark if burnt for awhile
Misc? black smoke, melting polyester drips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 04:23:00 -1000
From: aleed
Subject: Re: Short Sleeves
It's a bit later than tudor--but in the 1550s, lower-class Flemish women wore short-sleeved gowns, with tight cap-type sleeves coming to the top of the bicep, over a sleeveless kirtle & smock. So the smock sleeves would show underneath, unless sleeves were drawn over them and pinned to the gown's short sleeve. There's a painting of a marketwoman by Beuckelaer with a short-sleeved gown and the smock sleeves showing underneath, rolled up to her elbows. That would be a really cool style for summer.
Drea
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Lynne Tolton wrote:
> I too have seen these late 15th C dresses shown in Flemish paintings where
> the lady is obviously wearing a short sleeved overdress over a long sleeved
> tunic. With summer coming up and Pennsic I think this would be a really
> good idea. Is there an official opinion? ? ?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:47:44 -1000
From: Julie Adams
Subject: Re: H-COST: German Tudor question
In the lingo of the German Renn costumers here on the west coast, we call that a "placket-front Cranach gown". In period its a style common to central Germany, many pictured are from Saxony and would have just been a "rock" (gown). There are a number of paintings that show the placket open in front, baring the breasts to a dagger in "Lucretia" paintings. In these paintings it is clear that the placket is one piece separate from the bodice, that has an embroidered band sewn on the outside top edge. It is not heavily boned and falls softly to the front when the laces are open.
The skirts on the "placket-front Cranach gowns" are organ-pipe pleated (most common), and more rarely knife or box pleated. These are cut as a circle skirt with the pleats pinched at the waist and set with weights and stay tapes on the inside to hold their shape. The skirt must be sewn to a ribbon or band (Eliz. Pidgeon-Ontis said she found mention of this in a German source that she couldn't recall off-hand). The band is basted to the inside of the bodice _and_ the placket. The opening is on one side of the front bodice.
In the Bayerisches Museum in Nuremberg, there are folk costumes dated about 1650 that are still constructed like the Cranach placket gown. The lacing across the placket is done with special lacing hooks. These are sort of like sideways "S" where the lace is hooked in rather than threaded through for easy access. The laces always stop below the decorative band (which in scale is often the width of the bustline). The bodice hooks to the band with hooks and eyes on the top and bottom of the band on each side of the bust.
The sleeves in the upper class gowns are sewn in and most of the puffing is built on a sleeve base. Occasionally there are ones with open armscyes and elbows and the shift bags and puffs out in those places. But in the upper class gowns, you usually see black under the rows of puffs.
Unfortunately, IMHO, the gold with black designed fabric seen in most gowns is no longer made. The period examples I saw in Germany on ecclesiastical garments were cloth of gold with the design in narrow velvet lines.
Though the lovely Cranach ladies don't seem to be wearing any undergarment support. I can pretty much guarantee that any "woman of substance" will find that the placket and lacing won't lie right unless you are wearing some kind of bodies. I use a corselet which goes under the bust.
Julie Adams
http://www.znet.com/~savaskan/germans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:55:50 -1000
From: LYN M PARKINSON
Subject: Re: Short Sleeves
Below are some of the notes I've made/saved on the Flemish short sleeves.
> In another painting, David paints St. Catherine (the fashion plate of> the Hagiography) as the donor's wife in _Triptych of the Nativity_, Bauman, Guy. _Early Flemish Portraits 1425-1525_ Metropolitan Museum of> Art. NY 1986. She is also wearing an early Tudor--or whatever the> Flemish called it--with short sleeves, banded in black velvet. Her gown is a bronzey/pumpkin with black brocade, in a large pattern. Her undersleeves are sanguine silk (don't you just love artists who paint textures!) and very full. Either they have no cuffs, or are long enough to cover any wrist fastening. They look like the moderate 'wing' sleeve. The donor is not working, and she is not in the Middle East, but St.> Catherine of Alexandria is definately from the Middle East.
>>Was this the> artist's imagination? the donor's summer gown?
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 [email protected] wrote:
> but still.
> > November 1: "Breaking flax for linen" from Heures de la Bienheureuse Vierge> Marie, Novembre. French, early 16 C. (For all the "shift under a shirt"> proponents, the sleeves showing under the dress sleeves are colored: clearly> the long sleeves of an undergown.) Other interesting details on two different> women.
> > September 1: "Spinning with a distaff" from an edition of Boccaccio "Le Livre> des cleres et nobles femmes" (The Book of Virtuous and Noble Women) French, 15th C. Although I've never been quite sure what is going on in this dress! Red square-necked gown with short velvet sleeves over a gold long-straight- sleeved underdress over a white shift, with a black velvet partlet? No tippets. Also a truncated hennin and veil.
> > June 1: Haying (June) Les tres riche heurs du duc de Berry, French 15th> C.
> > May 25: Dairy scene from The de Costa Hours, Flemish c. 1515. and others.
Went through several books, yesterday, looking for short sleeves. A number can be seen in the 1998 _Medieval Woman_ Calendar. January has the repro of one of Gerard Daid's paintings, in which St. Barbara wears a Green velvet Tudor overgown with short sleeves, which appear to be cuffed with fur. Since the opposite undersleeves are so different in color--representing light--and since her hair flows out of her hat, as well as a few other peculiar details, I'm not sure how much he knew or cared to faithfully represent costume.
end notes
Regards,
Allison
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:25:10 -1000
From: LYN M PARKINSON
Subject: Re: Another Tudor question
Morgaine, you see some short sleeved gowns in Flemish art, about that time period. We never quite settled on whether we thought this was a Flemish style, or a Flemish painter's sign that he was painting a Biblical/Mid-Eastern person. There are also some German paintings of saints painted like that, with fur cuffs on their short sleeves. It's not English Tudor. I started researching it for an article, and got side-tracked. If you get any good info, aside from the list where I'll see it, too, please let me know.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:49:05 -1000
From: WICKHAM Raymond
Subject: Re: unusual accessories
The web address for Moscow hide and fur is Moscow fur and skins http://www.hideandfur.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:59:34 -1000
From: aleed
Subject: Re: Short Sleeves
> That sounds perfect. Do you happen to know any more about the painting??
That particular painting I've only found one (black & white) picture of, in a book. I have a bunch of other paintings showing similar dress at
http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets/lowerclass/piclist.html
> Also, this may be dumb of me, but what do YOU mean when you say smock and
> kirtle? We really do need that vocabulary list someone was suggesting.
>
That's not a dumb question--the kirtle is one of the most polymorphous
articles in the history of costume. The kirtle I'm talking about, in
these paintings, is a sleeveless underdress with a low, square neckline,
either laced up the back or loose enough to pull over the head, with a
flaring, gored skirt. It is most likely not gathered at the waist. I'm
working on an article on Tudor & Elizabethan kirtles; when it's finished,
it'll go on the Elizabethan Costuming Webpage when it's done.
The smock is a t-tunic like dress, with relatively close-fitting sleeves
not gathered to cuffs and a square neckline like the kirtle. There's a
photo of a similar smock at
http://www.dnaco.net/~aleed/corsets/chemise.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:36:16 -1000
From: Merkley-Karen
Subject: Dyed linen question
In reply to:
> >> I've read that my time period didn't use dyed linen for overgowns.<<
>
> Please share the reference source with us.
I was quoting from an unpublished booklet of late 12th and early 13th century clothing put together by two gentles who are considered to be among the most authentic representatives of their time period here in our Principality of Northshield. I fear that I may have misinterpreted what was intended. The statement made was:
"Linen was used for towels, bedclothes, tablecloths, and headwear, as well as undergarments. It was often woven in patterns, and could be left in its natural light brown or bleached white. There is nothing so far in the historical record to indicate that linen was dyed." THAT statement was footnoted as being based on the book Medieval Finds from Excavations in London: Textiles and Clothing. I have a photocopy of parts of that book so I
went home at lunch and checked it out. Linen was apparently not very plentiful in the archaeological excavations because it deteriorates terribly. However, there was no mention of linen being used for gowns (as opposed to undergarments and other things, which were mentioned). An appendix on the use of dyes at the back of the book does not list any findings of dyed linen at all. However, all this means is that they didn't find anything in London. I also happened to have at home an ILL copy of Women's Costume in French Texts of the 11th and 12th Centuries, so I skimmed it. Linen is mentioned as suitable gown material, and I cannot imagine it not having being dyed like everything else. As an aside, the Plichtho, which is a kind of late period "recipe book" of dyes and the dyeing industry, indicates that linen does dye differently than wool or silk. I think what is really lacking here (in my limited knowledge) is a "body" of conclusive evidence with regard to how linen was used in the 12th century or earlier. Guess I'll add that to my list of "on the burner" research projects.
Sorry if I seemed to mislead anyone.
Christiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:41:27 -1000
From: Diana H
Subject: Re: H-COST: Italian Ren. question
> >Making a foray into Italian Ren (I usually stick with 14th century
> >England), I have a couple questions:
>
> >Are buttons down the bodice (decorative or otherwise) appropriate?
> >Can the sleeve "pieces" have trim on their edges?
> >What type of hats and/or head dresses are appropriate?
Hello Kristen,
You have asked a question about my particular area of costume expertise! I have done a study of Italian Renn women's clothing from 1450-1550 where the styles changed drastically every 10-20 years. If you can narrow down what time frame you are looking at, I will be happy to give you details about how to do the outfit. I might even be able to give you online painting links to show you what the outfit looks like!
And Eve responded to your post with some good info which I would like to
add some specifics to....
> I don't recall buttons being used on Italian Ren bodices. Normally
> you're seeing back lacings, diagonal side lacings and the occasional
> front (single) lacing.
Please don't forget side lacings. I have found several examples that
were hard to see at first but are definitely there!
> I don't think I've ever seen an Italian Ren portrait of a woman with buttons on her front.
I haven't seen this that I can think of, either.
> The sleeves can be hooked onto button-like beads at the shoulders, if you like.
Depends on what time period you are looking at. For some styles this was done, for others it wasn't.
> Trim on sleeve pieces? I've seen cording used to beautiful effect (La
> Donna Velata by Raphael - gold cord trim on white brocade). However,
> if you're talking about inch+ wide stuff, once again, I haven't seen
> it personally. Try Spanish for that. I have seen narrow trim or more
> likely good embroidery on the necks and wrists of camisae, usually in
> red or black.
I believe Eve is talking about stuff around 1500 where the sleeves have
"cutouts". And yes, narrow trim or cording was used. For other styles
of sleeves, a range of trim sizes and styles could be used.
> Hats and headresses: you're in luck if you have gorgeous long hair
> (pref. blond). Take what you've got, put it in a pretty bun with all
> the braids and tendrils and rolls you can think of (no poofy front
> pieces though, thank you, that would be Victorian) and wind pearl
> strands and ribbons and stuff through it. Pluck your forehead back (if
>
> you're insane).
This would work from 1450 to about 1490. There are even pictures of
little skull-caps and various styles of caps with beading on them.
> Wear lovely metallic hair nets adorned with gems.
This trend starts in the 1520's.
> Put a gem on a narrow black band across your forehead (can help to
> keep
> your elaborate headress in place too).
This style goes with the encased braids from 1495-1508.
> Or you can stick all your hair
> in a pull-on style ribbony style hat or turban.
The turban style started around 1520 and lasted until 1540 or so and was
very prevalent.
> Or you can wear a
> lovely heart shaped headress - a soft diamond shape stuffed frame,
> gemmed, with a mini net sewn in the gap (wear a real net under the
> damn thing to keep your hair under control).
Don't know which style Eve is referring to here. Can you give me a
reference point, Eve?
> And if you're younger,
> wear a little beaded cap with your hair braided straight down your
> back and encased in a fabric tube which is then ribboned etc.
This was only done from about 1495 to 1508 or so.
Hope this will clarify things a little. If you can get back to me about
which time frame you are looking at, I would be happy to help you with
the specifics of the style!
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Hope H. Dunlap"
Subject: RE: H-COST: Italian Ren. question
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 03:17:23 -1000
Try to get your hands on Jaqueline Herald's Book *Renaissance Dress in Italy 1450-1550.* Great book, though you may have to interlibary loan it. It's about 10 years old, and badly in need of a next edition, as it tends to get
stolen from wherever it is, its so good. The headgear is highly regional. Garlands of flowers, feathers, gold flowers, pearls etc are the most popular, but there's a lot of other more theatrical choices. Yes, trim on the edges of
the sleeve pieces. http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/ and
http://ps.tulane.theatre.tulane.edu/Period.Styles/Costumes/
will provide you with an alternate source of images. Any headgear that was heart-shaped I think would have been a non-Italian Northern Style--anything that looked like it was horned. But the Balzo was a stately large bubble of wicker framing (yes diamonds the way the branches crossed), padded and covered with human hair or fabric and pearls and jewels (from the area north of Venice) which was emblematic of this period.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:21:07 -1000
From: Ella Lynoure Rajamaki
Subject: Re: Graph Paper (was Re: costume book.......comments anyone?)
> I have a great little shareware program called gpaper that will allow you
> to print out pages of grids in any size you want - you can specify the
> number of sqares per inch. Let me know if you want a copy and I'll email it.
Do you mean the program that can be found at
http://perso.easynet.fr/~philimar/graphpapeng.htm ?
If you do, one can down load it from there, also.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:01:10 -1000
rom: Lady Osanna Zephyrine de Bordeaux
Subject: Re: Bliaut
The satin weave or the tabby weave, or a
>twill, have all been found as pieces or scraps in archeological digs, and
>they are listed in inventories and bills of lading.
True. You would not believe how much trouble I had convincing someone of
this...
Silk with slubs is currently fashionable--especially the price!--but wasn't during our time period. If you have some new documentation that controverts that, we would all love to have it!
I do, but bear with me, I'm going to be unavailable for about 3 weeks, and
I'll have to dig through my piles of paper and research to find it. If you
haven't heard anything in about 3 weeks or so, email me privately to remind
me. Due to a medical condition, I tend to forget things sometimes, so
reminders help!
>Were you the one putting our bliaut article together? Did it ever get
>written or webbed by you or anybody?
Yup. Thanks to Christiana who put up my web address for the bliaut. I did
some additional research later about velvet in period, black dye, and more
clothing and accessories. If you want to check them out (and critique
them-I'm open to all comments!
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/5459/cover.htm (Inventive name I know.)
Lydie.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:43:50 -1000
From: Irene leNoir
Subject: Documentation - Results
questions regarding documentation.
I packaged my documentation in a three-ring binder. On the cover, I pasted a color photocopy of a picture of me wearing the dress. Inside, the first page contained a one-paragraph summary of the dress, a table of contents, and several notes on how to use my documentation. After the first page, four sections followed, each separated by labeled divider tabs.
The first section was a three and a half page summary of my knowledge of the historic garment. I covered everything I have learned about the garment in all of my research.
The next section was a one-page description of my garment, explaining what
choices I made and why.
Next was my collection of sources. It included 6 black and white photocopies, 19 color photocopies, 1 page of text excerpts, and 27 color slides. The sources were all numbered, and were referred to by number in the preceding two sections.
The last section was a bibliography of all of my sources.
I attached a 10x slide loupe to the binder, for use in viewing the slides. In the section of notes on the cover page, I included tips for using the slide loupe.
Also in the notes section, I indicated that I was aware that I had included
a lot of sources. I also suggested that, because of this, the judges might
wish to only refer to those sources that were given as examples of those points that they were not familiar with.
I also included extra copies of the text of my documentation. There was one less copy when I picked the binder up at the end of the day, so at least one person found it useful.
All in all, I think I did okay. I received an average score of 20 out of a
possible 25. One judge did leave a few comments in which he challenged some of my sources, but he didn't actually challenge the formatting of the documentation. (Another acquaintance who didn't actually judge the category said that he read my documentation and that he liked its format/presentation.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:31:51 -1000
From: LYN M PARKINSON
Subject: Re: Dyed linen question [long]
I think your source probably means that we don't have samples of *household* linens being dyed. If only they, too, had had Martha Stewart! ;-) I'm trying to remember if I've seen any table runners or embroidery backings that were dyed. The bed hangings so interestingly embroidered and appliqued by Mary, Queen of Scots and Bess Hardwicke were
all of velvet.
Linthicum has a section on Linen in
Linthicum, M. Channing. _Costume in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries_ . Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1936.
Although the book is an old one, the relevant documents she cites are the period wills, ladings, etc. She says that the names of the different types were used more than the general term 'linen'. bis, canvas, dowlas, holland, lawn, lockram, and tiffany [with various spellings] all appear.
Bis doesn't appear in 16th C. wardrobe accounts, but it was used for hangings. It was a silky linen, similar to cypress [Latin footnote???] and it seems to have been made in colours as well as in white, and sometimes interwoven with gold thread. It's used to symbolize royal or noble estate. Bis is also a color. May have been used for clothing prior to 16th C.
Cambric [1507, her first documentation] was for shirts and ruffs, Skakespeare showed Virgilia making 'spots' on cambric [Coriolanus] the spots might have been colors. Lawn was much the same, so was Holland. These were probably undyed, although bleached, and were sometimes used as a ground for emboidery, which would have given the color, even if only black or another monocrome.
Canvas [occurring in English accounts 1260] could be made into doublets [arming doublets, for instance] and were painted for stge costume. "making the brown canvass doublet trimmed with blue silk and silver lace L1.16.11" "an elle and a hlf of taffeta to cover your olde canvas dubblet" It was made in several qualities, from clothing to household linen to aprons for workmen.
Dowlas [since 1300] was used by bakers for bolting the flour, but also for amices, albs, surplices, like lockram. Used by rich persons for cloak bags and cases, and by the poor for neckware and clothing. The ecclesiastic use might have been only white; does anybody know when liturgical colors began to be used during the church seasons?
Holland [first made in Holland, in England from 1423] A fine quality for shirts, for smocks, kerchiefs, and other garments; and a coarser quality whch was used for bed linen and linings for clothes. Some sheets were made of the finest holland.
Inkle was linen tape of all kinds and qualities, often colored. [used by 1502 in England]
Lockram [1300] from the German 'lock raum' or thick thread--a loosely woven fabric of hemp. kerchiefs, household linen, and linings for garments for the lower classes, also their ruffs, falling bands, and coifs. Uncertain whether as linings, it might have been dyed.
Tiffany is a corrupted form of Epiphany, name applied to a thin gauze-like fabric of soft silk and linen. Could be had in black and fancy weaves. Approppriate for the first lining in slashed garments, where it showed in the puffs. Also used for neckwear. Do you suppose that the white puffs that are supposed to be smock but which can't be due to the construction, could be a white Tiffany?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:50:05 -1000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: It.Renn.query
<<
I have looked at the pictures several times and believe that the
ornamentation you are referring to is embroidery on the sleeve of the camisa. It is easily documentable that camisas, chemises, shifts....the undergarments of the gowns....were frequently embroidered, sometimes with great intricacy. A later period example of this is the painting of Queen Elizabeth c. 1574, by
Nicholas Hilliard, known as the Pelican Portrait. >>
Actually, those embroidered sleeves on Queen Elizabeth are NOT her smock (the
French called it a chemise) but are exactly that, embroidered sleeves (which,
incidentally, lace into the arm scye). Be very careful about making assumptions that white fabric, embroidered or plain, showing anywhere is
underwear. It is often true in the Italian Renaissance, but it is very rarely
true in 16th century England. The Elizabethan fashions have very complex
"rules" of their own and should not confused with other cultures and periods.
There is, however, an extant Italian chemise (although I think it's from the
early 16th century) that has beautiful embroidery on the neck and sleeves. (I
can give you the source later, when I get home from work if you like.)It's
hard to say if it was intended to be seen though. Many Elizabethan shirts and
smocks were embroidered, but were never intended to be seen by the public.
The folks with the money and leisure to embroider their underwear (or buy
embroidered underwear) wouldn't have gone around in public with their
underwear hanging out. ;-)
HL Dulcia MacPherson
Trimaris