by Ian Mortimer
Gloves you might find perfectly straightforward – until you realise that there is a huge range, from sheepskin gloves at 8d a pair and dog-skin ones at 1s, to the most expensive sort, costing several pounds, which are not actually meant to be used. They are covered in furls of silver and silk ribbon and are intended only for show, being carried, not worn.21 Similarly, some gloves are valued for the scents imbued in the leather. The earl of Bedford has gloves into which ‘jessemy butter’ has been rubbed to give them a jasmine aroma. He has other pairs scented with frangipane or musk mallow.22 As for his umbrellas or ‘umbrelloes’ – the very latest in fashion accessories in 1687 – he pays 16s 6d for one that year. This is the ultimate in conspicuous consumption. Two years later, he pays £4 2s 2d for two more umbrellas.23 That’s the equivalent of two months’ wages for many tradesmen. For just two umbrellas! It is even more incredible when you reflect that they are designed to keep off the driving heat of the oriental sun, not the rain, which is rather more common in Buckinghamshire.
THE WORKING TRADES, COUNTRY PEOPLE AND THE POOR
It goes without saying that not everyone can afford to dress in the aforementioned manner. However, as stated at the outset, this style sets the pattern for others to follow – albeit with some constraints of practicality and affordability. Both are important issues. A working man needs to look prosperous in order to convey the impression that he is good at his trade; however, there is no point dressing a blacksmith in lace. The basic clothes of a working man in the 1660s include his doublet or jerkin, breeches, shirt, stockings, shoes and hat or cap. Just one such set of new garments is likely to set you back in the region of 12–15s: working men’s shirts are rarely cheaper than 2s 8d, shoes the same, stockings 12d, hat 2s, breeches 2s and doublet 3s. That is a considerable amount of money for someone earning just £10 or £15 per year. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there is a considerable trade in second-hand clothes. When a man dies, his clothes are not simply thrown away, but are handed out to those who will use them. If you do have to buy new, remember that, even at this social level, the practice is to buy the cloth you require and then have it made up for you by your wife or a tailor. Occasionally you do find a business that sells ready-made clothes. Thomas Feris, a glover from Lincoln, has made-up leather breeches for sale in his shop, alongside his gloves.24 A widow in the same city uses her dressmaking skills to sell made-up clothes in her haberdashery, including mantles (long cloaks) and loose gowns for men and women, shirts, petticoats and coats, as well as the usual array of gloves and hosiery.25
SCOTTISH CLOTHING
You may have some notion that, as soon as you head north of the border, all the men you meet will be wearing a kilt and a sporran. That is, after all, the traditional Scottish dress, is it not? Well, not exactly. Tartan woollen cloth is traditional but the idea that all the clans have their own design of tartan will not catch on until about 1745. What’s more, the kilt as you know it is unknown before the 1730s – and then, dare it be said, it will be an Englishman who invents it.26 But traditional Scottish dress does exist and is widely worn, in the form of the belted plaid. This is an enormous tartan garment, between 12 and 18ft long and about 5ft wide, wrapped around the body to form both a skirt and a trunk, thrown over the shoulder, wrapped around the chest and pinned. The skirts are kept in pleats by the belt and the top half is turned over in such a way that items can be carried in its front fold. The whole ensemble is that of a man wearing a huge tartan blanket.
Walking around the streets in Glasgow or Edinburgh, you will notice that not everyone wears the plaid. Follow a tradesman down a city street on a summer’s day in the 1690s and the chances are that he’ll be wearing a long coat over a long waistcoat and a pair of breeches that end just below the knee, with stockings below and shoes with square silver buckles.27 He’ll also have a hat or a wig – very similar to the men in an English town. But then you see a group of countrymen, some of them riding perhaps, or driving their cattle to market on foot. All of them are wearing plaids. And in the cold of winter, the tradesman you followed earlier will be wearing a great overcoat, which might well be made of tartan. The patterns of woollen cloth all around you will leave you in no doubt that you’re north of the border.
Contemporaries draw a distinction between the use of the plaid in the Lowlands and its more frequent use in the Highlands. One visitor states that:
The low-land gentry go well enough habited but the poorer sort go (almost) naked, only an old cloak, or a part of their bedclothes thrown over them. The highlanders wear slashed doublets, commonly without breeches, only a plaid tied around their waists, etcetera [and] thrown over one shoulder, with short stockings to the gartering place, their knees and part of their thighs being naked: others have breeches and stockings all of a piece of plaid wear, close to their thighs.28
That last point, about ‘breeches and stockings all of a piece’, is a reference to ‘trews’ or long breeches of tartan, which are worn by those wealthy enough to ride a horse. Such gentlemen wear a tartan jacket or a plaid over the top, and a flat hat or bonnet, which is often coloured blue. Common men go bare-headed. The reference to some Lowlanders wearing their bedclothes is a reminder that many poor men sleep in the same plaid they wear during the day. It does not often get washed. You may start to associate plaids with a certain aroma.
The best description of the Highlanders’ dress is in William Cleland’s poem of 1678. In this he reveals that Highlanders might wear the plaid over a jacket, or clothing dipped in tar to protect them from the weather:
But those who were their chief commanders,
as such who bore the pirnie [striped cloth] standards;
who led the van, and drove the rear
were right well mounted of their gear:
with brogues, trews, and pirnie plaids,
with good blew bonnets on their heads,
which on the one side had a flipe,
adorned with a tobacco pipe.
with dirk, and snap-work, and snuff-mill,
a bag which they with onions fill,
and as their strict observers say,
a tame horn filled with usquebay [whisky].
A slashed-out coat beneath their plaids,
a targe [shield] of timber, nails, and hides;
with a long two-handed sword,
as good as the country can afford –
had they not need of bulk and bones,
who fight with all these arms at once?
It’s marvellous how in such weather
O’er hill and moss they came together;
how in such storms they came so far;
the reason is, they’re smeared with tar
which doth defend them heel and neck,
just as it doth their sheep protect …29
If you do visit the Highlands and see a large group of fellows dressed in the manner described above, carrying two-handed swords and wearing dirks between their legs, just remember there is a reason. In these parts they still continue the custom of the blood feud.
These are their work clothes.
Women’s Clothing
UNDERWEAR
It is a bit of a leap from tar-streaked hairy Highlanders to women’s underwear but, nevertheless, this is where our story now takes us. A woman’s principal undergarment is her smock or shift. In some ways this has much in common with a man’s shirt. It is made of undyed linen on account of the coolness of the fabric in hot weather, its absorbent properties (which allow it to soak up sweat and thus clean the body) and its softness, which means it can be worn under much heavier, coarser garments and protect the sensitive areas from chafing. As you don’t have the option of wearing a brassiere at this time, a good linen smock is a necessity. Again, the best-quality cloth is holland, followed by cambric and coarser forms of linen. Also like men’s shirts, the addition of picots, lace trimmings and specially embroidered sections bump up the price. Unlike men’s shirts, however, women’s smocks are tailored with gores in the s
ide seams, rather than being left open. They are thigh-length, with bunched sleeves that are closed around the upper arm, and cut low over the breast. Often they are perfumed.30 A cord draws the linen together in folds over the neck opening at the front, creating the effect of a series of pleats where the fabric lands over the breasts. Some women fold the linen over this cord so that it bunches up and creates an attractive ruffled effect.
Most of the time you will not be showing your smock. Even if it happens to be laden with lace, only you and your maidservants will appreciate it. Showing your bare arms above the elbow is risqué. Showing your bare legs is considered even more erotic. But in certain circumstances you might end up revealing all. There is a tradition of holding smock races around the country, in which women run against each other, dressed only in their smocks, in order to win a prize. Crowds turn up, hoping that the drawstring comes undone, and more than one competitor has had to decide between losing a race and running naked.31 Another reason for revealing your smock is debt. It is widely believed that if a girl gets married in nothing but her smock, she will be cleared of all her debts. The thinking is that if a husband takes her with nothing in the world, then if she has debts, he won’t have to take them on with her and, because she is now his wife, she won’t have to pay them. What’s more, if he has debts, then nothing of hers by inheritance can be taken by his creditors. Thus the smock wedding is, in theory, to the bride’s advantage, whether or not she has debts. The actual legalities do not accord with this belief but that does not stop a few women standing at the altar, shivering in next to nothing, feeling the eyes of all the congregation on their bare arms and legs.32
Women’s undergarments tend not to be the most straightforward subject for a man to describe at any time in history, and the Restoration is no exception. Corsets (otherwise known as ‘stays’), petticoats, under-petticoats, waistcoats and bustles all have their place in a lady’s clothes chest. Be glad you don’t have to wear them all at once. In fact, with regard to the stays, be wary about wearing them at all. They are not designed for your comfort but to appeal to your vanity and the appreciative male gaze. They are a development of the bodice, which is an outer garment in the 1660s but by the 1680s has sunk beneath the folds of the gown. Several pieces of whalebone reinforcement running up and down through the stays give shape to them; thus, when tightened appropriately, they make the wearer appear to have a narrow waist and a fuller upper body, pushing up the breasts for the cleavage to be displayed to maximum effect. They can be uncomfortable to wear, even painful, if over-tightened. With regard to the other items of underwear in the above list, a woman’s waistcoat is a form of vest, made of linen and put on over the head, and is worn for warmth over the smock. Petticoats are similarly meant to keep you warm. Sometimes they are designed to be visible, under the open section of an overskirt or gown, in which case they will be made of a showy material like sarcenet (a fine silk), taffeta (woven silk) or tuftafetta (a form of taffeta, also known as ‘tuff’). Striped patterns are generally considered fashionable, perhaps with a slight train and trimmed with lace, if you can afford it. Under-petticoats are shorter and meant never to be visible to the public; these are often made of linen for comfort, but the most expensive are of silk. The bustle is an innovation of the 1680s: a fashionable bolster to make the skirt protrude more over the bottom. Strange though it may seem to our generation, for whom ‘Does my bum look big in this?’ is a catchphrase, some Restoration women looking in the mirror wonder ‘Does my bum look big enough in this?’
It is possible you will hear people speak of women wearing drawers. This is very unusual.33 Short drawers are a man’s undergarment, and the impression given when a woman wears a man’s undergarments is – how should I put this? – that she’s on the pull. When Samuel Pepys suspects his wife of having an affair with her dancing master, he hides ‘to see whether my wife did wear drawers today as she used to do’.34 If someone shows you a pair of ladies’ drawers, you’ll realise from the shape and the embroidery that they are garments designed to be seen, and no one can show off that much leg in the seventeenth century without giving out powerful messages of enticement. Some smock races are actually run in men’s drawers. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is an early indication of women wearing appropriate athletic costume. The purpose is to allow spectators more than a glimpse of the young women’s legs. A ballad you might hear, called ‘The Virgins’ Race’, tells the story of some Yorkshire women who run in half-shirts and drawers for the prize of a silver spoon. Similarly, you’ll come across advertisements for races between local beauties for the prize of a new holland smock: these often have the purpose of drawing in a larger crowd to another event, such as a cricket match. Sometimes these announce that the competitors will run only in drawers. Rest assured, if someone refers to a woman wearing drawers, it is not her warmth or her athletic performance that he has in mind.35
OUTER CLOTHES
Many of the most famous images of Restoration ladies, especially those painted by Sir Peter Lely, show them wearing voluminous gowns of dazzling colours over a loose chemise. The ensemble creates a romantic image of wantonness, not least because such huge garments are nightgowns and are not worn out of doors. It is all a bit misleading as to what women actually wear on those rare occasions when they are not sitting for their portrait in front of a Delphic temple in an Arcadian grove. In reality, women’s clothing is more restrained than this – and more restraining too. Thomas Mace writes in 1676 that until recently women have been
so pent-up by the straightness and stiffness of the gown-shoulder sleeves that they could not so much as scratch their heads for the necessary removal of a biting louse; nor elevate their arms scarcely to feed themselves handsomely; nor carve a dish of meat at a table, but their whole body must needs bend towards the dish.36
Changes in women’s fashion occur just as frequently as those in men’s styles. In 1662 Pepys and his wife go for a walk to Gray’s Inn specifically to observe women of fashion because Mrs Pepys is planning to make some clothes for herself. If you follow her example, I would recommend that you do not cut your cloth before Easter, for only then are you likely to see the new fashions that will be in vogue in summer.37 As with men’s clothing, most of the changes from year to year are in the little refinements. Thomas Rugg notes in his diary for July 1660 that ‘this month came up a fashion that women did wear satin and taffeta gloves’.38 It is this sort of detail that catches the eye – the attention to minutiae that shows you are both aware and up to date. Over the whole period, however, women’s clothing goes through a transformation as significant as that of men’s clothing.
In the 1660s and 1670s, the usual style is for women to wear a bodice and skirt. The bodice or ‘pair of bodies’ is the predecessor to a pair of stays and very similar, in that it is a whalebone-lined garment designed to shape a woman’s upper body into a desirable form. The main difference is that, as it is worn as an outer garment, it is much more lavishly decorated. It is no more comfortable, however: one male contemporary describes it as ‘pernicious beyond imagination’. He adds that ‘by straight-lacing themselves, to attain a wand-like smallness of waist … [young women] shut up their waists in a whalebone prison’ and make themselves ill.39 On the positive side, not only do women like the shapely results but the garments can be spectacular in their own right. A fine bodice may have very thin ribbings encased in silk, with a tapering of the waist and a tailpiece of ribbon. It may also have a matching busk or stomacher at the front – a piece of tailored fabric that fills the gap where the bodice is drawn together. Necklines are usually low and edged with lace. Sleeves (which may be detachable) are worn full to the elbow and then turned back in cuffs or decorated with frothy bunches of lace just above the wrist.
A major new trend sweeps across London around 1680 as women take to wearing a gown instead of a bodice and skirt. Often the skirt of the gown is left open at the front to reveal the petticoat beneath. The gown may be loose all over, as in the French sa
c or nightgown, or it may be tight to the upper part of the body. In the latter instance it is drawn into a V shape at the front, where it may reveal a stomacher or an embroidered pair of stays. You will be glad to know that the bodice of a gown is not constrained by whalebone. Often the skirts are worn hitched up to reveal the petticoat, and from the 1680s they are worn over a bustle. A popular form of gown from the early 1680s, the mantua, is made of silk and has a long train sweeping elegantly along behind the wearer. Another is the sultane, which is trimmed with buttons or loops.
Women’s cleavage tends to be revealed most deeply in the 1660s, when the rakes are striking their blows for free love, but throughout the period bodices and gowns are cut low. This does not mean everything is always on show, however; a judicious use of neckwear can be employed, as the occasion demands. The bosom might be draped in diaphanous silk scarves or, until the 1680s, covered by a gorget. This is a sort of shoulder-cape, normally of lace. From the 1690s you might wear a steinkirk muslin scarf like the men, or a ‘pinner’ – a piece of muslin, lawn or lace pinned to cover your modesty. Don’t worry too much about its arrangement. As Robert Herrick puts it so perfectly in Hesperides (first published in 1648):
A sweet disorder in the dress kindles in clothes a wantonness:
a lawn about the shoulders thrown into a fine distractión,
an erring lace, which here and there enthralls the crimson stomacher,
