Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 02:28:00 -1000
From: Maggie Percival
Subject: 1540s gowns and french hoods
Hello Tricia,
There are one or two Holbein sketches of the period which do suggest that there was
a seam at the back. Certainly one sketch - dated 1527 - shows a back seam and another
- dated 1541 - hints at the same.
> I'd made 1540s Tudor (Jane Seymour style) twice now, once with a back lacing (which
I'm inclined to think was wrong)
I agree with you and once with a front opening covered by a flap of material which
then fastens at the side. (Jane Seymour apparently fastened her bodice at the side
front with tiny gold headed pins)
OK, I am in the process of completing a 1540s gown - not based on a particular painting
but based on observations of a number of portraits - all by Holbein. Sometimes you
need to look back in time to find the answers. There is a Holbein sketch of the
More family (which is earlier
than the Jane Seymour portrait) which gives a hint as to how these gowns were fastened.
I have surmised that the gowns were fastened at the front (as is seen on the More
family portrait) but in order to hide the lacings a stomacher was secured on top
which I suspect was pinned on both sides. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the
gowns were laced at the side. Caroline - if you're reading this you might have a
comment on this one.
>
>Second question: French Hoods. The Clouet portraits of the 1540s Hoods all >show
ties under the chin. I've used this in my French hood, which attaches >over a small
cap, but it still drifts backward. That fall of velvet/velveteen at the back is very
heavy and the hood itself is not well
>balanced. I have to keep settling it forward.
I'm slightly nervous about replying to this one as this is another area that I am
experimenting with and I think I have a solution. It's very complicated to explain
but I suspect the key to the French Hood lies in the way you arrange your hair.
Remember that the ladies of the day wore
their hair very long (or as long as it would grow). Looking at the portraits the
suggestion is that the undercaps were very close fitting at the top of the neck -
too close fitting to allow hair to be coiled away down there. Coil it at the back
of the head and the resulting bulge prevents the black velvet at the back hanging straight;
if, however, you coil it at the back of the top of the head you can actually extend
the platform upon which your headdress is sitting. Hope you're
with me so far. So you have your plaits/coils whatever forming this additional 'platform'
at the back of the top of your head. Over this you place your cap (and the indication
is that they were cut to fit closely). There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that this was held in place by a strip of fabric (there is a sketch thought
to be of Queen Anne Boleyn by Holbein which shows this rather well). Now comes a
bit I am nervous about - I suspect that this same strip of fabric may have been the
filler in part between the two billements (the back and front jewelled bands). For those
of you who are somewhat skeptical about this there are two portraits that hint at
it. One is the portrait thought to be of Queen Catherine Howard (though that is
now open to question I understand) and the other is a pair of miniatures thought to be of the
same queen - all are by Holbein. One of those miniatures shows a tell tale white
flash between the coloured band of fabric and the hindmost of the two billments.
The first mentioned portrait (which shows a lady in black with large padded sleeve showing
what appears to be gold and black undersleeves) also shows the front edge of what
appears to be a strip of white (or off white) fabric between the two billements.
The front billement is placed at the front of the white undercap (and the indication from the
portraits is that they were tight fitting - you can actually see them pressing into
the cap quite clearly in some paintings) which helps to hold the whole lot in place.
The back
billement goes in front of the coils of arranged hair at the back of the head and
helps to secure the velvet hood as well as holding the whole thing in place. I
have actually done a rough version of this and it stayed in place quite securely
without the use of any ties though ties could be used for additional security if you wanted to.
By the way folks, please note I am talking about French Hoods found in the English
court circa 1540. They did change in style quite a lot throughout the
Tudor era. Incidentally a more detailed explanation of this is due to appear in THE
MANTLE in either issue 4 or issue 5.
OK, right, I've said my bit (very nervously), and I've got an awful feeling that a
lot of you out there may disagree. I am not trying to say that this is how it was
done, it may have been done this way it may not, but believe me this does appear
to work and the resulting headdress looks right. My hair is not terribly long (and as some
of you may recall has not been washed with shampoo for some time), but it is just
long enough to plait up and secure to the top of the back of my head.
>
>Is this something to do with the change in hair texture due to lack of washing? I
know pins just slide out of my hair, which is pretty fine.
I must admit that I have asked the same question quite a few times since I stopped
shampooing my hair.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:18:08 -1000
Reply-To: Margaret Rae Carignan
Subject: Re: French Hoods
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, The Polsons wrote:
> Is velvet a common material for that veil at the back of a French hood? I had always
seen/heard it as being more of a lightweight gauze, silk, or other sheer, light material.
>
Good Evening!
All the paintings I have been seeing over the years show opaque (usually black, one
dark blue, usually velvet or other similar stuff) drapes on the back. I have read
that sheer fabrics were common, but have never yet seen one in a painting. My theory
is that sheer veils were more "casual" (if any Tudor costume can be called casual!) and
the opaque ones more formal, but that is pure conjecture. I would like to see some
paintings of sheer veils - they would probably make the hoods easier to wear.
Meg/Francesca
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:53:28 -1000
Reply-To: "P. M. Ostwald"
Subject: Re: Tudor undersleeves
Lisa asked:
>
> The only back view I've been able to find of this style of gown is
>the 1540 sketch by Holbein and the lappet of the headdress covers the
>sleeve-shoulder area :\ The part of the sketch that I can see indicates
>that something does go up the back, but where does it go _to_? Would it
>taper off to a point and end somewhere at the back of the shoulder?
>Almost looks like the bodice back and sleeve are one piece although I'm
>sure it can't be.
The French Valois Tapestries book, that I mentioned recently, has several back views
of costumes. These gowns are 1560+ and French, but have a similar shape (as viewed
from the front) to the later Tudor gowns. They similarly have no shoulder straps.
The back of the gown comes straight or with slight upwards curvature, across at mid upper
back (above shoulder blades) and joins straight on to the sleeves.(you can see the
seams between sleeves and bodice clearly)
Tricia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 03:42:39 -1000
From: Margaret Rae Carignan
Subject: Re: Tudor undersleeves
Well, Lisa, between the two of you you have asked the questions that plague us all!
Having found no primary source of info on the construction of these gowns, I have
had to work from conjecture, and Jean Hunnisett like eveybody else.
I'm not sure about the jewels; I believe that they could have been sewn individually
onto the dress, but the possibility is certainly there that they were stitched as
a group onto a piece of fabric and mounted to the gown. I suspect that if the jewels
were going to be removed, they would not be put on a different gown in the exact same
pattern as the first, because that would be boring! No telling, though. Your minute
examination of these pictures (did you see them in person, or in books?) is commendable,
but might be misleading you. To give an example, in close scrutiny of Bronzino's portrait
of Eleanora of Toledo (the full-length one with the fabulous brocade), her pearls
appear to be transparent, and you can see her partlet through them! It is most likely that the painter just wasn't expecting people to look that closely and didn't bother
to completely cover the underpainted partlet.
When using paintings as documentation, you simply have to make personal, educated
guesses about what is and what is not real in them. That's all you can do, and as
long as you state that that is the case ("I propose that, upon examination of Bronzino's
portrait, Eleanora was wearing glass "pearls", or "Bronzino was having a bad pearl day"),
you have to go with your instincts, and hope that someone can offer you proof if
they are to argue with your interpretation.
About the sleeves, I firmly believe that there is no shoulder strap. Having said
that, I have a couple of ideas on how they were cut. If, perchance, the sleeve is
cut in two pieces, with the top of the sleeve being one with the back, and the underarm
part being seperate, then the sleeve head would end up on the bias (assuming the centre
back to be on the straight of grain), which it pretty much has to be for the sleeve
to fit the way it does. This would also imply a gusset under the arm, which would
make the thing more comfortable, while allowing it to fit the armscye that much more closely.
The sleeve could also be cut as per Hunnisett, but with no shoulder strap. In order
to stay up, a tape could be applied from the centre fron, running under the sleeve
head, to the centre back. This would help to maintain a straight line and keep the
sleeve up.
I, however, not being very confident in either of these theories, have yet to try
them, but instead went with Hunnisett's pattern with strap. It was less than perfectly
satisfactory, but the result was good enough for the SCA in my opinion. The next
time I "do Tudor", however, I am going to try a mock-up of the two other ideas, and see
what happens.
Please let me know how things turn out for you. Good Luck.
Meg/Francesca
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:59:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Tudor shoulders
Well, I checked my pictures of the 1540s, of Mary and Elizabeth and any others I could
find (mainly the Dynasties exhibition book). Not Jane Seymour as I can't find my
copy of Ashelford (lamentations through the house!).
I can't see *anything* under the jewellery which runs around the neck edge of these
gowns - the jewellery looks pretty solid to me, certainly on the young Elizabeth
there are lots of pearls! It makes sense to me that the jewels are mounted on the
very narrow shoulder straps. I know several people have said these gowns don't have these
straps and what we see are the sleeve heads, but I still don't see how the shoulders
would stay up!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:06:00 -1000
From: Mrs C S Yeldham
Subject: Tudor
Lisa wrote about Tudor Gowns: On some points I shall have to go home and check my
books, but I can react immediately to some questions.
> In all the paintings, the costume has the same (for lack of a
>better term) pattern of jewels on the headdresses, in the necklaces, and
>around the necklines, plus in the girdles for both Janes and Elizabeth).
>Since all the jewels match I would think that they would be removable so
>they could be worn with other gowns. Yes? If so, around the necklines
>and on the headdresses, what were they attached to?
It is always said that jewels were reused, which is why so few of these gowns survive.
I'm not 100% certain about these, they could have been sewn to strips of cloth and
then to the gown, but certainly some were sewn directly onto the cloth, some of the
late Elizabeth I gowns where the jewels are in a pattern across the whole of the gown,
it would be the only way to do it. I think Janet Arnold also mentions ecclesiastical
outfits where jewels were sewn directly to the outfit. The Francis Lady Chandos
gown from the 1590s has motifs in seed pearls all over the sleeves, stomacher and forepart
of her gown, which were almost certainly sewn directly onto it.
>To the chemise (which does show around the
>neckline too)? In Jane S.'s portrait, there is a strip of white under the
>jewels across the top of her bodice but what was that strip a part of?
The period term in England is smock or shift, not chemise (pet hate of mine). I would
have to check the picture but it is normal for the low square-necked style of gown
to show a little of the smock at the edge, which is often decorated (blackwork).
It is unlikely that the jewels would be attached to the smock since that is a separate
garment, which would be changed much more frequently than the gown.
>Also in the Jane S. portrait, on her left shoulder there is a narrow
>space between the jewels and sleeve with skin showing through which makes
>me think that they weren't attached to the gown itself.
> Also, at the point where her right armhole and bodice front meet there is
>a gap where there are no jewels even though you can can see the gold
>cording/embroidery almost down to her armpit. The Mary and Elizabeth
>portraits have the jewels completely edging the neckline.
This could be the junction of the main part of the garment and the front layer which
gives the smooth look to the front.
> Next question is about sleeves. Looking at the portraits,
>it appears that the only thing going over the shoulder is the sleeve head,
>which falls at or very close to the shoulder end of the clavicle. Is the
>sleeve "set into" anything or is the sleeve head just suspended between
>the bodice front and back? If they weren't attached to anything, how did
>they keep them from slipping off their shoulders? The pattern in Jean
>Hunnisett's book has a narrow strap going over the shoulder from the back,
>but as was pointed out to me, that is theater rather than history.
We've had this discussion before on the list, and I think we agreed to differ. Some
people think the shoulder strap was omitted and you do just see the sleeve head at
this point. Personally I think this would make construction, and keeping the sleeve
head in position very difficult (and its almost impossible anyway). I think there is
a very narrow shoulder strap covered by the decorative strip. The gowns before and
after this style (the evolutionary origins and development of this gown) both show
clear shoulder straps, sometimes appearing to run from the back down to armpit level at
the front, which helps keep the shoulders up. Hunnisett is pretty good.
> Or do those jewels cover the shoulder piece? There isn't any gown
>fabric under Jane Seymour's and Mary's jewels, although Elizabeth's could
>be hiding something. Mary's sleeve heads are edged with a strip of what
>looks like ribbon--doesn't seem to be attached to anything else. There
>are some lines under Jane Seymour's arm but I think those are folds rather
>than seams. If Holbein included all those tiny gold pins and edge on the
>stomacher, wouldn't he have included a sleeve seam if there was one too?
I'll have a look at my copies, but I'm not sure they are good enough to show this
kind of detail! Holbein may just not have bothered to show the fabric, since the
jewels would take the viewer's eye.
> The only back view I've been able to find of this style of gown is
>the 1540 sketch by Holbein and the lappet of the headdress covers the
>sleeve-shoulder area :\ The part of the sketch that I can see indicates
>that something does go up the back, but where does it go _to_? Would it
>taper off to a point and end somewhere at the back of the shoulder?
>Almost looks like the bodice back and sleeve are one piece although I'm
>sure it can't be.
I think that sketch has tormented all of us working in this period! And I'm not 100%
sure its English (that headdress looks more like continental contemporaries than
English ones). If so it is possible that the front is not as low as the English
went as some of the continental pictures have a higher front neckline.
It's the only back view I know of and the plain fact is that that deep V doesn't work
with the very wide square front. The shoulders fall off. I've seen at least a dozen
variants, women working independently on the same sources you are quoting, and I've
only known two that worked (ie the shoulders stayed on without the woman ending up
with chronic neck and shoulder pain after about 2 days). In the first case the woman
used the kirtle/gown principle I mentioned in my last mailing. She made the kirtle
very high, round-necked but extending out to the shoulders and then down into the square
front-neck. The gown had a very deep V, practically down to the waist. She then
pinned or sewed the shoulders of the gown to the kirtle, so the back-neck of the
kirtle kept the gown and shoulders in place.
The second variant (I must confess) was my own. Firstly I worked with an interlining
with *no* stretch in it, and fully interlined the bodice. I didn't take the V as
deep as shown, about down to armpit level at the back. I used an integral shoulder
strap which ran from the back down to the armpit in one piece and was very tight (I could
not lift my arms above my head when dressed). The top half of the sleeves was also
very tight, so the weight of the lower sleeves was on my upper arms and did not run
to the shoulder. It worked for a couple of weeks, but was beginning to stretch by the
end. All the other gentry women had falling sleeves after a day or two, shoulder
cramp from trying to keep them up and found the weight of the lower trumpet sleeves
quite painful.
As for the false undersleeves, I haven't made the really big ones, like the picture
of Elizabeth your refer to, but I have made ones like the Jane Seymour. They don't
need padding, but stiffening, or use a stiff fabric. I used a cotton brocade, interlined it at least partially to hold the puffs of false smock sleeve showing through slashes
in place, and lined it. The shape is not difficult, you can use the shape of a forearm
part of a sleeve as a pattern, move the seam to under the arm and then extend to the shape wanted. The fun bit was putting in the 'sunray' lines running up from
the wrist - raised tucks made with saddle stitch. I experimented in calico first
to get the shape (and allowance for the tucks) right.
Janet Arnold seems to start about 1550 and apart from Jean Hunnisett I don't know
anyone else writing on this period in the kind of detail needed. Pictures are all
we have for this kind of detail at the moment. I am told the Museum of London has
a lot of 16th century textiles in store but currently have not plans to publish (I am going
to try and pressurise on this!)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Seymour gown
I have made one of these, as well as earlier and later gowns. I think Maggie is right,
the explanation lies in where these gowns came from, the evolution of the style.
Going back to the turn of the century in England, (excluding working women) women
wore two main items of clothing over the smock, the kirtle and the gown, which reached
from neck to toes, cut through the waist, with sleeves. The fastening of these was
either side front or centre front (Italian dresses show side back closures but these
don't seem to have come into England) and women alternated these (ie if the kirtle was
centre front then the gown was side front). This can be seen clearly in the More
picture - you get both versions as well as the ease available for pregnancy. The
kirtles can be seen around the edge of the necklines, the forearms (where the gown sleeves
are turned back) and sometimes at the hems of the gowns. The variant where the centre
closing gown is worn open with decorative laces shows the kirtle underneath at centre
front.
The kirtle and particularly gown around 1500 were not particularly tight, but by the
1520s waists have come in, the top half is getting tighter and the bottom half looser
(and the gown lower sleeve bigger - a trumpet shape). Gradually the kirtle becomes
the lower half of the outfit alone with matching false sleeves. The idea continues
through the second half of the century where you get the forepart, stomacher and
undersleeves matching with a contrasting gown worn over them (Gower, Hilliard etc).
In the 1540's however the ideal of the top half seems to be this smooth, open square-necked
look, with a flat front (lots of Holbein's women). This works if you have an underlayer,
not seen, which is laced centre front - I found this needed to be quite heavily boned (but I am big busted, which most of the girls in the pictures aren't!). The side
closing decorative top part (again boned to be smooth) is attached at a side seam
and then pinned on the other side (I cheated and used hooks and eyes). Given the
position of the pinned edge, which is practically under the armpit, you need help to do
this! I have seen women do this as a separate stomacher pinned on both sides but
to my mind it was not successful, it tended to 'float' as a separate item, not looking
like an integral part of the garment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:02:33 -1000
From: Joan M Jurancich
Subject: Re: 16th C. costumes
At 04:57 PM 10/14/96 +1000, P. M. Ostwald (Tricia) wrote [excerpts]:
>Second question: French Hoods. The Clouet portraits of the 1540s Hoods all
>show ties under the chin. I've used this in my French hood, which attaches
>over a small cap, but it still drifts backward. That fall of
>velvet/velveteen at the back is very heavy and the hood itself is not well
>balanced. I have to keep settling it forward.
>
>Any ideas, suggestions? What about those Elizabethan versions of the French
>Hood which perches on the back of the hair? It is pinned to the hair ?
>(I've never noticed this in any portraits) How?
I think that the problem you may be having is in trying to attach the hood (the part
that drapes) to the crescent. I wore a French hood and crescent while participating
in the recently completed Renaissance Pleasure Faire North (in California, USA).
My headdress has three pieces: the coif, the hood, and the crescent. I found that if
I put a braid of my hair from (approximately) ear-to-ear, that I could pin the hood
and coif to my hair (the coif ties under the chin), and then put the crescent on
so that it was supported by the braid. (I also folded the hood up so that it would not blow
into my face.) When tied on under the back of the neck, I found the crescent quite
stable (I only lost it during a particulary hilarious bit while laughing uproariously)
for the full day of Faire (about 9 to 10 hours).
The hood I made is of two layers of black silk (remnants are grand things), so it's
not too heavy. I haven't done one in velvet.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:19:15 -1000
From: dlxibm!Liz_Jones%[email protected]
Subject: French Hoods, Tudor Sleeves & bodice, Foam Dress Forms
As quick (but long) a post as I can manage without reading these threads all the way
back. As usual, I am behind on my reading!
French Hoods: I have made two - one with, and one without a hood. Both successfully
stayed on my head, but I do confess to cheating and tacking a small hair comb in
each. Both forms were made out of buckram edged with millinery wire (covered with
thread, and rather sturdy), and then covered with fabric that had interfacing. At this point
in time I would omit the modern interfacing in favor of a heavy linen, as I am becoming
more of a purist these days (although not entirely without creativity). I wrestled
with the velvet fall issue before succumbing, for I could find no evidence of anything
but black (or very dark) velvet. I originally wanted to use black silk, but couldn't
justify it. I will give a helpful construction hint to anyone making these, as they
are not difficult: the "fall" pattern looks something like a modern sleeve pattern.
That is, there is a "hill" on top that is the same as a modern "seam under the arm"
cut that we do nowadays. The medieval and renaissance sleeves (for those that don't
know) usually went down the back of the arm, thereby creating an "S" (on it's side) on
the top of the sleeve pattern. (I didn't mean to digress into this, really!) At any
rate, with the French hood, you have to make sure to cut that "hill" or curve rather
high, in order to actually go over the top of your head. If you mess up, the headpiece
will naturally try to come off because it is simply not big enough. The rest of the
"sleeve" just goes round under the nape of your neck: I did actually sew mine into
a tubular sleeve form, although I am not sure it is entirely correct. The earlier ones certainly
had lappets that flapped about, as in the Holbein print.
Tudor Sleeves: More on this time period. I have become a better costumer in these
past six years, but I did make two Tudor dresses at that time. These are some things
I would change, but the lower sleeves worked all right on both. I did not use any
baleen-type stiffener, but simply interfaced them. I think they could have been stiffer,
but were not bad. I put a hook underneath my oversleeve that held them in place,
and they were just open at the top near the elbow - they did not close around the
forearm. As I do not know of any extant pieces, I am not sure this is accurate - it just worked.
The interesting thing about this thread to me, however, was the bit about bodices
and shoulder straps. In 1989, I was challenged by my then Laurel (in the SCA, that's
a master in an art) to "figure out" the construction of the Tudor shoulder seams. We
had both agonized over all the fitting issues with the non-visible straps in all
the references mentioned in this list, and did not have an answer. She gave me this
task as a way to improve my patterning, and solve an outstanding sewing mystery (of which I
have many left to solve). After spending several hours drafting, cutting and piecing
together pattern pieces, I did achieve the goal: a shoulder piece (the sleeve) that
fitted directly to the bodice, with the V-neck in the back and the square neck in front.
Yes, folks, those shoulders were tight, but not painful. I could NOT do my hair in
them without my arms going numb, but I'm sure that is an accurate feeling. The front
of the sleeve forms the side pieces of the rectangular front, and then the back bodice
starts at just in back of the shoulder and joins to the sleeve in back, giving a
"normal" seam look. The V is certainly not that deep (NOT down to the waist!), but
is comparable to the Holbein drawing. I covered the neckline edge with jeweled pieces that
were sewn on.
Now, I am not saying that this is the actual construction, and have spent many hours
after this debating it with various people. I do agree that patterns before and after
this time have the shoulder strap in them, and this type of information is usually
indicative. However, I am reporting to this list that the construction does work, is
comfortable (enough), and most importantly (!) stays on the shoulders (due to the
V-neck in back). So I felt that I rose to the challenge and gained information. I
will report also that a good friend has borrowed the first "field" Tudor, and is in terrible
pain after a few hours of wearing it. I can surmise therefore, that this is the type
of fit that MUST be done to only your own body, if you do not want to suffer!
Lastly: Foam dress forms - I took a class at SCA XXV year in Texas (that was in 1990)
on this subject. The man who taught it had made four, three of which he had there.
He did give handouts, and I still have them, but have not tried it myself. I found
it fascinating and always wanted to do one. In those, he did make a plaster cast of the
torso, then fill it with medical-type foam, as in the type used for casts. Therefore,
they do not "give" at all. If you want a corseted form, you must plaster your body
with a corset on, etc. They looked great, and I loved the method because it was exact.
After looking at dressmaker forms that are sold, I could never figure out how to
make them look like me! Too much bother - I'll just use my apprentice to fit me!
But these dress forms could be pinned, etc. He did admit to mistakes, and said it took some
practice.
Here I go: I am done with my SCA commitments for the fall, and will therefore offer
to copy this article for interested people. I also have the Gypsy Dress 16th century
article to send out, and will honor my promise on that if people will send me a SASE:
Liz Jones, 88 Park Street, Bristol, CT 06810 with their choice of article. I have a
feeling that I owe some other stuff, but can't remember what!
Liz Jones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
back