(This is a paper I wrote for my ENGL 316 tech-writing class, and I’m just stuck up enough to think some clubbies might just be interested in reading it . Please forgive any errors, and any references to a certain Society that Cannot be Announced. My original plan was to include footnoted scans of all the artwork that I referenced, and I might still do that someday, but as it stands parts of it might be a little hard to follow — if you really want the juicy bits of my research, check out the books in my bibliography and follow along with the paper. I trust you all implicitly, but I still get to say that it’s copyright Ashley Lane, 2007, so don’t nobody try to say it’s theirs )

And here we go:

Of Past and Present: A guide to 16th century History Costume, by Ashley Lane

I have been thrilled to have the opportunity to play with and get to know members of the Society for Creative Anachronism (or SCA), an “international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of pre-17th-century Europe” (sca.org). After becoming a member myself, I became enamored with the “Known World” of the organization—the camping events with period pavilions parked alongside modern tents, the demonstrations of historic arts and crafts, and helping put on huge medieval feasts. But I think the aspect of the SCA that I found most intriguing was the some beautiful 16th century women’s clothing or ‘garb’ that would surround me at events, made with beautiful fabrics reminiscent of a renaissance painting and painstaking detail that practically gave the gown a life of its own. Though I knew how to sew, such elaborate projects seemed beyond my skill level, and would probably be incredibly uncomfortable at the camping-centered events I tended to take part in the most. Both of these assumptions turned out to be false.

Though the high noble gowns that recreate the look of the courts of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I are ambitious (to say the least) for a novice sewer, if one goes lower down the social ladder the construction becomes significantly less ornate while still maintaining some of the same silhouette and features that contribute to the distinctive style of the time. After working on a lower-to-middle-class ensemble and developing an understanding of the different layers involved, the overlap between lower and upper-class styles becomes more apparent.

While this guide is not meant to take the sewer through every step involved in making 16th century women’s garb, it serves as a primer to describe the basics of the style, as well as ways it can be adapted for different looks within the period.

Background: Research
Because of the historical nature of this project, the research process is integral to creating clothing with any degree of accuracy, and so has a place in this guide. It can be easy to take shortcuts in the process and end up with an attractive but ultimately lacking final product.
The novice 16th century costumer is lucky enough to find several dedicated internet sources for 16th century clothing construction, run by members of the SCA, Renaissance festival workers, or simply hobbyists who enjoy making historical costumes. Drea Leed (elizabethancostume.net), Melissa Heischberg (sempstress.org), and Jen Thompson (festiveattyre.com) are just a few of the dedicated web mistresses who take the time not only to research and create their own historical costumes, but to share their knowledge with anyone savvy enough to seek them out. They and others have helped to create entire communities of like-minded individuals that would otherwise never be able to come together.
However, the information available on this medium, while useful, simply cannot rise to the level of proper research of published works via a library or other source. The smart researcher should not discount the internet as a source, but when that source is exhausted, they should realize there is much more to be had. Fortunately, many of these same web pages are also smart enough to include bibliographies and other sources of their inspiration. By starting with these titles, I was able to come up with my own individual research into 16th century working class clothing.

The research available divides roughly into three parts: examples of contemporary styles via artwork and clothing samples; research of published historical costumers; and guides written by re-enactors and others who attempt to reproduce period garments. They all have weaknesses, but using all three in tandem can give the best preparation for trying to create historical clothing. Portraits and sketches from the time period give an idea of the look you want to portray, historians of costume can say how they were constructed, and reproduction sources will give the best methods of doing it yourself with the help of modern tools and materials.

What They Wore
The ideal silhouette of the later 16th century was “rather like an hourglass…narrowing to a small waistline then a gradually-expanding cone-shaped skirt” (Tortoba, Eubank 136). Upper classes tended to enhance this ideal with a Spanish-style farthingale that was stiffened with “osiers, bents, or whalebones which supported the skirts in a stiff cones shape” (Arnold 7). The lower classes tried to emulate this style to a degree, but it is reasonable to assume that they were either unable (because of means) or unwilling (because of their work) to go to the extremes that the nobility tried to push.

The farthingale is nonexistent on the lower classes, and the lines from the waist down are much softer, as seen in the work of artists such as Pieter Brueghel the Elder (Davenport, 415-17, fig. 111) and Joris Hoefnagel (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies, 11). The Hoefnagel painting “The Fête at Bermondsey” in particular shows the difference between noble women who are obviously wearing hoopskirts, contrasting with the dancing peasant women whose skirts are pleated or gathered to add bulk at the hips but are otherwise unstructured (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies 2-3). Another example of this difference is shown in the Dutch engraving “Fleshly Disguises”, showing a much different structured skirt that, according to costume historian Millia Davenport, “widened straight out from the waist, over a sausage-shaped bolster tied high about the hips…this French fashion was intensified into a drum-shaped silhouette, by a pleated ruffle going horizontally from the waist to, or beyond, the circumference of the skirt” (442). The engraving shows two noble women in the padded style of skirt, but also shows two servants or workers helping tie them around their waists. The skirts on these women, while coming out slightly at the hip, do not have nearly the bulk at the waist that the doughnut-shaped rolls provide for their charges, and would probably be a great inconvenience to the woman kneeling on the ground to tie a roll onto her lady. If working class women had padded skirts at all, they would have to be diminished significantly from those of the nobility to keep from getting in the way of their work.

Bodices on the working class gowns could be worn loose, as shown by the folds of fabric shown on a woman’s over-gown in “Dance of the Peasants”, though there is a later example of a Pieter Cornelisz painting “Keukeninterieru Met De Gelijkenis van de Rijke Man en de Arme Lazarus” dated 1621 that shows a servant woman wearing a corset while doing kitchen chores (Joachim Beuckelaer 160 fig. 32) so it might have been in use by the late part of the 1500s, and would explain the tightly-fitting bodices of working women portrayed by Vincenzo Campi and Lukas van Valkenborch in the 1590s (Joachim Beuckelaer 147-149 fig 21-23).
As an outer layer, the vast majority of paintings from the time show women wearing a gown of a contrasting color that has a laced opening several inches wide, showing the fabric of a kirtle or other type of under-gown underneath. The skirt of this over-gown could be split down the center front, as seen in Brueghel’s “Dance of the Peasants” (Davenport 417 fig. 111) and “Countrywoman 1570” by Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies (12). This does not seem to be indicative of all styles, however; a Franco-Flemish tapestry from the early part of the 16th century shows a “Country Life” scene with two women, one of whom wears an over-gown with a V-necked opening in front that ends at about the waist, worn over a darker kirtle or shirt. The other woman wears an apron over a dark over-gown (Davenport 469 fig. 1240).

These gowns were usually sleeveless, worn with a long-sleeved linen smock or chemise that was worn against the skin (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies, 20). Separate sleeves either matching or coordinating with the outermost layer could be pinned on at the shoulder, or the linen sleeves could be rolled up, revealing the arm. Joachim Beuckelaer’s subjects with this treatment tended to have the smock visible under the arm. (Joachim Beuckelaer 99, 102). Though Mikhaila and Malcom-Davies point out that even poor women could afford a few metal objects such as pins (32), Beuckelaer’s portrayal of the sleeve treatment can point toward the frugalness of lower-class women who would only use one pin per arm to attach their sleeves.

Accessories were wide and varied for 16th century women, even of the working class. They tend to be devoid of jewelry that adorns so many of the Tudor and Elizabethan ladies of the time—Catherine Parr, sixth wife of Henry VIII, posed for a portrait wearing several rings on each hand, necklaces, and a jeweled girdle with 20 miniature portraits linked together (Contini, 138-39)—however women of all classes wore a partlet (also called a “shoulder cape” or a “yoke” by Davenport) that came around the back of the dress, tied under the arms, and served to protect the open necklines of the square-necked gown from the elements and as a sign of propriety (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies 30) . Partlets of the nobility would be made out of finer materials and could be embroidered in black, white, silver, or gold threads (44). Paintings of the lower class usually featured partlets in white or black, and both could be worn at once in cooler weather like in Pieter Aertsen’s “Marktvrouw aan een groentekraam” (Joachim Beuckelaer 18). Hats were important to those who regularly worked outside; they tended to be wide-brimmed and made from straw.

Materials
Clothing was a major investment in the 16th century. Fabric had to be manufactured entirely by hand, and would only be produced by skilled professionals. It would take a day’s wages for a laborer to afford one yard of even the cheapest fabric available (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies 35). Clothing “represented stored wealth for rich and poor. They were a source of ready cash in times of crisis. Frippers or pawnbrokers were happy to extend loans against pledged clothes” (45). As a result, clothing was made to last, used until completely worn out, and picked apart and re-sewn to fit a new person or a new style (44). Wool, linen, silk, hemp, and occasionally cotton provided the raw fiber for fabric, and there could be much difference between two cuts of wool or linen depending on how it was woven and processed. Though many of the names are unfamiliar – “Scarlet, Stammel, Kersey, Frizado…,” terms like “broadcloth”, “Flannel”, and “worsted” are still in use today, and more or less still describe the qualities of the fabric (36, 38). Fabric made with wool would be processed until the wool felted and made the fabric stronger and warmer.

Russet or grey, which both described the type of fabric and the color (which was naturally found on a sheep), were “perceived as standard wear for country people”, though other colors were mentioned in Elizabethan documents (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies 39). Natural dyestuffs available to 16th century dyers could produce a wide range of colors, including purples, blues, greens, and numerous shades of red and brown.

Leather and fur was available, though agricultural workers and husbandmen were banned from wearing any of it on their clothing by sumptuary law. Yeomen were permitted to wear ‘English lamb or rabbit” (Mikhaila and Malcolm-Davies 38). Even among the upper classes leather and fur tended to adorn men’s clothing more than women’s (39), so it is unlikely that leather and fur would have played any role in the construction of clothing for working class women.

Application to historical costuming
Getting back to my initial quandary with creating 16th century clothing for the purpose of historical re-enactment and recreation, my research has led me to believe several things:

1. The work required of lower-class women in the 16th century could be very similar in scope to the type of work that goes on at SCA camping events.

Setting up camp, cooking over camp stoves or open flames, working in outdoor conditions, and carrying supplies and other goods over various terrains are all things that need to be taken care of at events, especially if water does not happen to be nearby. Though it cannot compare to the strenuous work of agricultural workers of the 16th century, full physical capacity of the body to move around makes the work much easier and much more effective. Working-class garb had this requirement, and as such is a good choice to wear to events where you will be expected to move around and help with the work.

2. Working class clothing can be adapted to many different weather conditions

Linen breathes well and wicks sweat and moisture away from the body. Wool provides warmth even when wet. Minimal layers of simply a linen smock and a wool kirtle can be comfortable even in summer weather, and more wool layers can be added via the over-gown, wool sleeves, wool partlet, or even a waistcoat featured in some Beuckelaer paintings (Joachim Beuckelaer 94). This makes doing this kind of garb very economical – effectively you can have numerous different looks from one complete outfit.

3. Lower-class clothing can be adapted to upper-class clothing by changing only a few outer garments and details.
The layers that are worn closest to the body like the smock are identical to those worn by the upper-classes, and a lower-class kirtle could easily be worn under a fancier over-gown or sleeves to bring up the class of the person wearing it. Jewelry and fur can be added to further enhance the status of the wearer. This also makes doing 16th century upper-class clothing more economical, once you already have the pieces from the lower-class garb.

My research has also led me to a greater love and understanding of the life and struggles of people who lived in the 16th century. This is the love that fuels the “dream” that exists in the Society for Creative Anachronism. By being at an SCA event, away from electricity, highways, and other trappings of 2007, I can step into a new world of a time long past but not forgotten. By putting the effort into creating accurate historical clothing I can take on the lives of my early ancestors, literally carrying their stories on my back. The demonstrations that I enjoy watching or taking part in can tie me to the men and women of hundreds of years ago.

Bibliography:
Arnold, Janet. Patterns of Fashion: The cut and Construction of Clothes for Men and Women c.1560-1620. Macmillan, London, 1985.

Contini, Mila. Fashion From Ancient Egypt to the Present Day. Odyssey Press: New York, 1965.

Davenport, Millia. The Book of Costume. Vol. 1 and 2. Crown: New York, 1948.

Mikhaila, Ninya and Jane Malcolm-Davies. The Tudor Tailor: Techniques and Patterns for Making Historically Accurate Period Clothing. Costume and Fashion Press: Hollywood, 2006.

Museum voor Schone Kunsten Ghent. Joachim Beuckelaer: Het market—en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550-1650. Gemeentakrediet, 1986.

Tortora, Phyllis and Keith Eubank. A Survery of Historic Costume. Fairchild: New York, 1989.
Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. http://www.sca.org