Some sewing, and researching kirtles, boning, and more.
I am sewing again, if slowly. It is the wool short gown (which is a mockup gown for a future silk one). I got the pieces cut out in wool, in the golden yellow cotton lining, and even in cotton muslin for the unseen portions of the skirts last week (it has been ages since I used muslin for anything, but it was in the stash, hence free and will be unseen). The skirt edges is faced with leftover portions of the yellow cotton. I started pinning the bodice portions together, but the afternoons are very hot in my sewing room so after pinning I came in her to sit and write this up.
The other thing I'm working on right now is gathering my kirtle information for G.W.W. class on fitted kirtles. Originally I was going to discuss the making up and the use of fitted & boned kirtles, instead of separate corsets as so many do. I was also going to discuss various boning materials in a hands-on way, with samples, and share how well each acts after washing and wearing from my own experience.
And as I thought about what I was going to cover, I realized that while I knew Henrician kirtles decently, I didn't know much about the historical evidence for kirtles and stiffening during the Elizabethan era, beyond general knowledge as discussed in many books and web sites. So, I decided to delve into kirtles in the Warrants pages Drea Leeds posted online, which go up to 1588 (she's working on the later entries from what I've heard).
The more I delved, the more I realized I didn't know. I didn't know about bents and great bents. I didn't know about whalebone, or buckram, or sweet leather, or the use of canvas and buckram in the GOWNS, not only the kirtles. I mean that I know what the items are, but I didn't know how they were used, in which garments they were used, and in which garments I found they were NOT used.
And I also realized, that the more I read the warrants, the more I realized that certain things are repeated over and over and over again, like the use of rolls bents in the sleeves (I presume the sleeve heads), or the making, repairs and remakings of farthingales. These are frequently listed in the warrants.
But there is something that is not frequently listed, and I am finding their silence surprising. What is missing is the making, remaking and repairs of stiffened with bents or whale boned pairs of bodies for any garment in the Warrants up through 1588. This is odd since bents, being some form of grass, would wear out with wearing as noted by the Plymouth Plantation ( my note on it here). After all, the farthingales with bents in them are made and remade, so why not the bodies?
There is one entry for a separate pair of bodies with bents, but I question if "rolls of" might be missing.
Item for alteringe of a peire of bodies and enlarginge the slevis with a partelett of prented cloth of golde coverid with a Shadowe of blak nettworke the slevis drawen oute with white nettworke the bodies lyned with sackecloth and buckeram aboute the skyrtes with bentes covrid with fustian with prented cloth of silver to performe it of our greate Guarderobe. fol 175 r Citation, 1582
I found another entry in 1583 for bents in a gown, but again unclear if the bents are in the gown bodies or in the sleeves, as both locations are mentioned.
Item for makinge of neewe bodyes enlarginge the sleeves and alteringe of a gowne of cloth of silver the bodyes lyned with canvas styffenid with buckeram the bentes coverid with fustyan , with like stuff and taphata to performe the same of our greate Guarderobe". fol 183 r, 1583
There are many entries starting in the 70s with pairs of bodies with "with rolls of bent coverid with fustian" (sometimes other fabrics) for the sleeves, over and over again. These two entries are in the middle of all those roll of bents for sleeves entries. There is also this earlier entry that make clear that bents are used in sleeves. … And for eightene yerds of greate Bente occupied in the slevis of our Gownes of our greate Guarderobe. Pg/Fol.: fol 37 v, 1571. Bents are used in sleeves during the 70s through 80s, that is clear. What I am questioning is if bents were used in the bodies of garments during the time frame of these warrants (1568-1588), not the sleeves.
I'm finding little info on stiffened kirtles even for the Queen, and that also has me frustrated. What I am finding that was stiffened, was usually in the GOWNS (rarely in kirtles or petticoats). This was also unexpected. I did find for stiffener, what was used was usually "lined in canvas", sometimes 'stiffened with buckram' or 'stiffened with buckram and canvas', sometimes stiffened with buckram in certain defined areas of the bodies like near the skirts or sleeves. I've even find mention of whale bone busks being made, but it is unclear to which garment they are being used. (btw, period buckram is not the same as modern buckram).
I have found individual pairs of bodies made, and often they are unstiffened, some are stiffened with canvas or buckram or both. Some are noted as being made for petticoats, kirtles and gowns. One forepart even had a pair of bodies made for it! Many of these underlayer garments have some sort of decorative something on them, from fine fabrics to bone lace and/or welts. However, even the few garments made for ladies other than the Queen do not have stiffened pairs of bodies made beyond canvas and maybe buckram, they get hose, farthingale, even lots of shoes and slippers, but nothing with any boning (bents or whale bone) noted. I don't even see them getting one of the whale bone busks but that may be on another type of list. I also note I'm not seeing felt being used, either.
So, even tho I am nowhere near done on my research, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the expected boned pairs of bodies for the court ladies, in the years up to 1588 is another costume myth!
I don't have access to the later warrants, but I did find this article on Drea's site that seems to show that boned French bodies comes in the 1590s (what we would call boned corsets).
French bodies show up regularly in tailor's bills of the later 16th century. Here are some listings found in the bills of Tailor's Bills of the 1590s:
2 pair of French bodies (1591)
3/4 [yard] of canvas for mistress Knevittes bodies (1591)
whales bone for the bodies
an elle of canvas for my mistress's Frenche bodies [and] six yards of green binding lace to them (1592)
2 yards of sacking for a pair of French bodies (1594)
a whale bone bodye (1590)
There is little info on if the sweet leather was any sort of stiffener, or just a leather garment, since this is the whole of the entry. for alteringe of a peire of bodies of sweete lether. fol 139 r, 1579.
So, the problem is in my mind that prior to the 1590s, I am not seeing evidence of boned kirtles, other the making (and presumed using) of whale bone busks, and am thinking that the bents in the two garments listed may have been a mis-writing by the clerk forgetting the "roll of" before bents.
And now my plans for what I was going to teach at GWW is being redone. And even my own understanding on Henrician stiffenings may need to be revisited, although I don't have access to his warrants, but I do have Mary Tudor's. I do think I will still offer a hands-on discussion of the role of modern boning, but it will now be in a very different light.
And after dinner, I will be digging further into the warrants for more clues. I'm now just reading them, page after page, since the searches sometimes miss something interesting. It will take awhile to get through them all, and something new may change my thought process.
In what I've written above, I don't think I was all that clear. Hell, it is still rumbling around my brain and I may be missing the obvious, or I may be blowing it out of proportion. Please, feel free to respond and share your thoughts on what I've written.
The other thing I'm working on right now is gathering my kirtle information for G.W.W. class on fitted kirtles. Originally I was going to discuss the making up and the use of fitted & boned kirtles, instead of separate corsets as so many do. I was also going to discuss various boning materials in a hands-on way, with samples, and share how well each acts after washing and wearing from my own experience.
And as I thought about what I was going to cover, I realized that while I knew Henrician kirtles decently, I didn't know much about the historical evidence for kirtles and stiffening during the Elizabethan era, beyond general knowledge as discussed in many books and web sites. So, I decided to delve into kirtles in the Warrants pages Drea Leeds posted online, which go up to 1588 (she's working on the later entries from what I've heard).
The more I delved, the more I realized I didn't know. I didn't know about bents and great bents. I didn't know about whalebone, or buckram, or sweet leather, or the use of canvas and buckram in the GOWNS, not only the kirtles. I mean that I know what the items are, but I didn't know how they were used, in which garments they were used, and in which garments I found they were NOT used.
And I also realized, that the more I read the warrants, the more I realized that certain things are repeated over and over and over again, like the use of rolls bents in the sleeves (I presume the sleeve heads), or the making, repairs and remakings of farthingales. These are frequently listed in the warrants.
But there is something that is not frequently listed, and I am finding their silence surprising. What is missing is the making, remaking and repairs of stiffened with bents or whale boned pairs of bodies for any garment in the Warrants up through 1588. This is odd since bents, being some form of grass, would wear out with wearing as noted by the Plymouth Plantation ( my note on it here). After all, the farthingales with bents in them are made and remade, so why not the bodies?
There is one entry for a separate pair of bodies with bents, but I question if "rolls of" might be missing.
Item for alteringe of a peire of bodies and enlarginge the slevis with a partelett of prented cloth of golde coverid with a Shadowe of blak nettworke the slevis drawen oute with white nettworke the bodies lyned with sackecloth and buckeram aboute the skyrtes with bentes covrid with fustian with prented cloth of silver to performe it of our greate Guarderobe. fol 175 r Citation, 1582
I found another entry in 1583 for bents in a gown, but again unclear if the bents are in the gown bodies or in the sleeves, as both locations are mentioned.
Item for makinge of neewe bodyes enlarginge the sleeves and alteringe of a gowne of cloth of silver the bodyes lyned with canvas styffenid with buckeram the bentes coverid with fustyan , with like stuff and taphata to performe the same of our greate Guarderobe". fol 183 r, 1583
There are many entries starting in the 70s with pairs of bodies with "with rolls of bent coverid with fustian" (sometimes other fabrics) for the sleeves, over and over again. These two entries are in the middle of all those roll of bents for sleeves entries. There is also this earlier entry that make clear that bents are used in sleeves. … And for eightene yerds of greate Bente occupied in the slevis of our Gownes of our greate Guarderobe. Pg/Fol.: fol 37 v, 1571. Bents are used in sleeves during the 70s through 80s, that is clear. What I am questioning is if bents were used in the bodies of garments during the time frame of these warrants (1568-1588), not the sleeves.
I'm finding little info on stiffened kirtles even for the Queen, and that also has me frustrated. What I am finding that was stiffened, was usually in the GOWNS (rarely in kirtles or petticoats). This was also unexpected. I did find for stiffener, what was used was usually "lined in canvas", sometimes 'stiffened with buckram' or 'stiffened with buckram and canvas', sometimes stiffened with buckram in certain defined areas of the bodies like near the skirts or sleeves. I've even find mention of whale bone busks being made, but it is unclear to which garment they are being used. (btw, period buckram is not the same as modern buckram).
I have found individual pairs of bodies made, and often they are unstiffened, some are stiffened with canvas or buckram or both. Some are noted as being made for petticoats, kirtles and gowns. One forepart even had a pair of bodies made for it! Many of these underlayer garments have some sort of decorative something on them, from fine fabrics to bone lace and/or welts. However, even the few garments made for ladies other than the Queen do not have stiffened pairs of bodies made beyond canvas and maybe buckram, they get hose, farthingale, even lots of shoes and slippers, but nothing with any boning (bents or whale bone) noted. I don't even see them getting one of the whale bone busks but that may be on another type of list. I also note I'm not seeing felt being used, either.
So, even tho I am nowhere near done on my research, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the expected boned pairs of bodies for the court ladies, in the years up to 1588 is another costume myth!
I don't have access to the later warrants, but I did find this article on Drea's site that seems to show that boned French bodies comes in the 1590s (what we would call boned corsets).
French bodies show up regularly in tailor's bills of the later 16th century. Here are some listings found in the bills of Tailor's Bills of the 1590s:
2 pair of French bodies (1591)
3/4 [yard] of canvas for mistress Knevittes bodies (1591)
whales bone for the bodies
an elle of canvas for my mistress's Frenche bodies [and] six yards of green binding lace to them (1592)
2 yards of sacking for a pair of French bodies (1594)
a whale bone bodye (1590)
There is little info on if the sweet leather was any sort of stiffener, or just a leather garment, since this is the whole of the entry. for alteringe of a peire of bodies of sweete lether. fol 139 r, 1579.
So, the problem is in my mind that prior to the 1590s, I am not seeing evidence of boned kirtles, other the making (and presumed using) of whale bone busks, and am thinking that the bents in the two garments listed may have been a mis-writing by the clerk forgetting the "roll of" before bents.
And now my plans for what I was going to teach at GWW is being redone. And even my own understanding on Henrician stiffenings may need to be revisited, although I don't have access to his warrants, but I do have Mary Tudor's. I do think I will still offer a hands-on discussion of the role of modern boning, but it will now be in a very different light.
And after dinner, I will be digging further into the warrants for more clues. I'm now just reading them, page after page, since the searches sometimes miss something interesting. It will take awhile to get through them all, and something new may change my thought process.
In what I've written above, I don't think I was all that clear. Hell, it is still rumbling around my brain and I may be missing the obvious, or I may be blowing it out of proportion. Please, feel free to respond and share your thoughts on what I've written.