Monday, July 30, 2007

Thoughts over the weekend

As is typical for me, while I was finishing up production on the first patterns in the new 800-series (1740s-1790s), I began to think about something completely unrelated -- common people's clothing in the 15th through 17th centuries.

The truth is that I've been working on a new pattern that I haven't talked about to many people yet because I think it might be highly controversial -- the Netherlandish Working Woman's Outfit. "How is that different from 'The Flemish Peasant'?" you may ask. Well, this version is more vigourously researched. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but my research has shown that (#1) the market women in the paintings of Beuckalaer and Aertsen aren't peasants. Peasants are agricultural workers (see the works of Brueggel -- he painted lots of them). These women are working in market stalls in urban centers and their clothing is vastly different. Secondly, they're not "Flemish". The paintings are made by two men who may have been of Flemish origin, but they spent their careers in Netherlandish cities. At this time, the Netherlands encompassed Flanders -- that is true. But to say that Flemish = Netherlandish or vice versa is the same mistake as saying Holland = Netherlands (or indeed that all Americans are Pennsylvanians). So they're not Flemish (necessarily) and they're not peasants. But I digress...

Anyway, I've been playing around with construction of the Netherlandish Working Woman's Outfit when something occured to me. I have studied many extant garments. But the ones that I have actually held in my hands have been common people's clothing. Oftentimes the commoners' clothing seeks to ape the clothing of the noble classes, but the cut and construction of the common garments is always vastly different.

For example, the Dungiven Jacket is meant to be a pinked doublet in the late 16th century style. Yet it is constructed by wrapping a single width of wool around the body, eliminating the need for side seams and the waste they cause. The body is shaped through the additional of a small triangular gore at center back.

Another example is the Dungiven Trews. Although of exquisitely fine wool, these trews were cut without a single thread of waste. This makes the fitting very difficult, but it conserves every last scrap of fabric.

The sailors' clothing excavated from the wreck of the Mary Rose isn't a bunch of jerkins and hosen with elaborate codpieces like we'd expect to find on Henry VIII's flagship. They are wrap tops whose fronts overlap like kimono that can be made by non-tailors and fit a variety of sizes of men. They are cloth hose that only come to the knee. These garments lend themselves to the work of sailors and only vaguely resemble clothing worn by the nobility of the time.

As late as the 1690s, the Gunnister and Tawnamore coats were frock coats in shape and form, but were constructed with gussets and gores like a medieval tunic.

The Lesson: common people don't waste anything. They can't afford to.

As historical costumers, we tend to base common people's clothing on the clothing of their betters but instead make it out of less opulent materials. But my research is demonstrating that this approach is a mistake. The difference between upper class and common clothing isn't simply one of materials. It's one of cut and construction techniques. Except in the case of second-hand clothing, common people weren't having their clothing made by a professional tailor. They were making their own or having a local person do it. These people were not in the tailors' guild and didn't have access to the patterns tailors used. So they would look at an outfit and "figure it out". We see this over and over again in Irish extant clothing. The outfit looks like something worn in England at the same time (or 50 years earlier), but the way the Irish example is cut belies the tailor's familiarity with English styles. He knows how to cut clothes. He doesn't know how to cut those styles, so he makes something that "looks right".

Relevant to this study, the Shinrone Gown is a common woman's gown from the 16th century. Like those of the women in Aersten and Beuckalaer's paintings, it laces closed in the front and the lacing usually stops under the bust. Also like Aertsen and Beuckalaer's working women's clothing, the skirts are voluminous but short (just covering the knees). The Shinrone Gown was not found on a body or with any other garments, so we don't know with what other garments the gown was worn. But if we look at some of the works of Aertsen, we can imagine the Shinrone gown being worn with a modest partlet and pin-on sleeves, or even with a jacket.

When I work on a garment or outfit for which there are no extant garments, I look around at what is extant and make educated guesses based on that. The Lansknecht Wams und Hosen look more like the woodcuts if you construct them of squares and rectangles like a soldier on campaign would rather than how a city tailor would. The Golden Age of Piracy Sailor's Jacket and Slops are constructed simply, like the finds at Gunnister and Tawnamore and Lewis, instead of elaborately like the upper class garments of the same period in museums. When you follow these construction techniques, the clothing not only looks more like the pictures, they allow you to do real work in them. There is one test of common people's clothing -- work. If you can climb a rigging in reconstructed sailor's slops and they're comfortable, you've got something right. If you can milk a cow in a mildmaid's outfit without worry, you're okay.

In any case, if you want to hear more about the Netherlandish Working Woman's Outfit, the pattern with complete historical notes will be available in about a week.

© 2007 Kass McGann. All Rights Reserved. The Author of this work retains full copyright for this material. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial private research or educational purposes provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.


Catrijn vanden Westhende said...

I can't help but feel that you're being a little overly-pedantic in your comments toward your obliquely mentioned competition. She's been pretty clear that she's talking about women working in markets and kitchens, and whether 'peasant' is appropriate linguistic shorthand is a bit beside the point. Also, Aertsen and Beuckelaer were active in Antwerp, which is right on the border of East Flanders, and traditionally is included as part of the Flemish region. (Aertsen was native to Amsterdam and also painted there, but there doesn't seem to be clear provenance for which paintings were painted where.) So while the the distinction between Flanders and the Netherlands is valid, I'm not sure it's useful in this case.

At any rate, it'll be interesting to see a different take on the style; it's one that I plan on doing (eventually...) But yeah, this one probably will ruffle a few feathers.

Kass McGann said...

I don't know if "pedantic" is the right word for what I'm being. To my mind, I'm merely being more precise and precision is a requirement of good research else we fall into the same trap that made the "cotehardie" mean any tightly-fitted woman's dress (instead of a man's) or "bliaut" a garment at all (instead of a fabric type). Of course if you've read my rants on "Renaissance Celts," you well know how important the precision of words is to me.

Frankly, I wouldn't have thought about these words in a more precise manner had someone not brought the inaccuracies to my attention. But since they were brought to my attention, I consulted with a professor in Belgium -- where Flanders is modernly -- and asked her what was the proper adjective to use when referring to Aertsen and Beuckalaer. She said, "Netherlandish would be the better term." And I bow to the words of a resident (and art teacher) in that region.

That being said, it's not Drea who makes the mistake. It's the people who call these outfits by the descriptor "Flemish peasant". That's what's wrong. It's also the people who use information from Brueggel's paintings of agricultural workers (now THOSE are Flemish peasants!) married to Aertsen and Beukalaer's market women and come up with something else entirely.

I really don't want this to ruffle any feathers. But I can't not share what I've learned. And no matter how I present it, I will be accused of attacking Drea. I just hope she doesn't see it that way. I have more respect for her than that, even if I do wildly disagree with her construction methods on this outfit.

Marie said...

You can't see it but I'm doing the happy dance! Finally, someone else, with a solid scholarly reputation, is saying what I have thought for years.

Ok, I know I have a problem in putting my own thoughts and theories forward and I tend to wait for other folks to broach the topics first, so I tend to look like a "me too" type, I just need more confidence in what I do...but oh well, that's off the topic.

This is my area of deepest research, and I have often thought that Drea's attempt is good, for as far as it goes. But that her take on things was overly simplified in some areas, and not in line with other resources and items on other areas.

Yeup, I'm a chicken, and never wanted to bring up the topic because she is published, and recognized and etc. and who am I with my research to debate or debunk the "expert". Sigh... again with the off topic.

I'm Very Glad that you are ruminating over this and I'm interested to see if your ideas jive with mine.

Laren said...


Most good research ruffles feathers. I think anyone with any knowledge of the history of historical costuming would be the first to acknowledge just how little serious research into patterning has been done. Most work has been recent and only scratched the surface or looked at very specific examples of a type of costume.

All work that has gone before is useful, even if you disagree with it, often, deciding what you disagree with helps to clarify what you actually think!

Personally, I can't wait to see the patterns. It's a style I've always wanted to have a go at.


Oogie McGuire said...

"There is one test of common people's clothing -- work."

That is key and underscores my frustration with some patterns and guides from other sources. If I can't do the work that a person would have typically done in an outfit, then either I'm doing the work incorrectly, I'm not trained for the work properly or the outfit is wrong.

We need more commoner and peasant outfits with documentation!