cl-13th-fem-art - 12/26/09

"A Brief Critical Look at Women's Thirteenth Century Dress" by Mistress Nicolaa de Bracton of Leicester.

NOTE: See also the files: clothing-msg, clothing-L-msg, clothing-MN-msg, fashion-msg, underwear-msg, R-EP-Costume-art.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This article was submitted to me by the author for inclusion in this set of files, called Stefan's Florilegium. 

These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

Copyright to the contents of this file remains with the author or translator.

While the author will likely give permission for this work to be reprinted in SCA type publications, please check with the author first or check for any permissions granted at the end of this file.

Thank you,
Mark S. Harris...AKA:..Stefan li Rous
stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

A Brief Critical Look at Women's Thirteenth Century Dress
 by Mistress Nicolaa de Bracton of Leicester.

	It's not Norman.  It's not a cotehardie.  What is it, then? The thirteenth century marks a transitional period for women's costume.  This is the last major style of clothing to appear before the new developments in tailoring which appear in the mid-fourteenth century (such as the cotehardie, with its tight, set-in sleeves).  Surprisingly enough, the thirteenth century has not been studied nearly so much as earlier periods;  as compared to, say, Viking clothing styles, there is a real dearth in serious research.  No single work has been dedicated to the styles of the thirteenth century, and I have found that many works are thus still repeating assumptions which are as much as fifty to sixty years old. This article is thus an attempt to give a fresh (albeit brief) look at this era, based on newer research and my own examinations of illuminations and other such evidence.

	Part of the dearth of published material may be due to the lack of surviving garments.  Indeed, the only garment which I know of which survives intact from this period is the shirt/undertunic of Louis IX which is stored in the treasury of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.  (This is excepting ecclesiastical garments, which are ceremonial in nature and do not reflect current fashion). However, this one surviving garment does serve to destroy a few myths about thirteenth century clothing.  Both Cunnington and Davenport claim that the style par excellence  in this period featured sleeves which were cut in one piece with the rest of the garment.  Here we have proof that this was not always true. Louis' shirt was cut from 22" wide material, a fairly standard width, and features seams at the shoulders.

	This does not necessarily preclude sleeves which were partially  cut as one with the body of the garment, which is a far more likely scenario than the one-with-the-body construction, which would waste a lot of material.  According to Robin Netherton, who spoke on costume at the Ealdormere RUM last year, sleeves were often cut in two pieces, with a seam somewhere on the middle of the upper arm (similar to the Islamic shirt found in Cut my Cote .)  This seam was sometimes hidden with embroidery or card-woven trim (characteristic of Norman styles) and is the point at which tippets are attached on cotehardies. In any case, in the thirteenth century the predominant style featured a fairly loose upper arm and a tight, close-fitting lower arm.

	So, we have two possibilities for sleeves, both equally valid.  How about the body?  The Louis IX shirt features a rectangular cut with inserted gores to add body to the lower part of the tunic.  This treatment seems to be a standard one for early-period clothing.  Triangular and rectangular pieces allowed one to conserve fabric and yet give the fullness which was popular at this time.  The drapery of the statuary examples I have found show the fabric begins to fall in folds at the bustline, meaning that the gores were inserted directly under the arms.

	So far I have been discussing the generic gown or kirtle of the thirteenth century.  The standard style for both England and France for the majority of the thirteenth century consisted of a very roomy gown belted at the waist, often with decorated belts.  The gown was often bloused over the belt somewhat. It was worn over an undergown, which one can clearly see showing at the neck of some of the statuary examples I have found.  The overgown' neckline could have a triangular shape, allowing the undergown to show thorugh, or  a keyhole neckline, often secured with a fancy pin at the throat, though illuminations also show that a round neckline was also used. There is no need for backlacing in a gown of this type, as the loose fit allows one to put on the garment as is. These gowns were commonly worn with a semi-circular cloak.  Women often are portrayed holding on to the long fasteners which permitted the cloak to cover the back and sides and still exposed the front.

	To this in about the mid-1200's was added a new development:  the surcote.  Men had been wearing the surcote for perhaps fifty years before the women adopted their own version of this garment.  Originally a military fashion (worn over mail), the surcote was adopted for civilian dress by men quite early in the century.  Women followed more slowly; many costume books in fact date its appearance among women far too early. It is not until the final third of the century that the surcote becomes the dominant style in statuary and illumination, though during the middle third it seems to have existed alongside the earlier belted robe style.  Davenport, for instance, shows an assortment of women and men found on a portal at Bourges Cathedral; one of them is apparently wearing a surcote, but  another woman on the lower rank in the same sculpture is still wearing the older style.  These surcotes feature sleeve holes cut just below the armpit or a bit lower, though the Spanish (who seem to have adopted the fashion earlier) have their own unique variations on it.  The surcote style does not come to dominate English fashion until about the reign of Edward I, and examples of the earlier style still occur.  This trend will continue into the fourteenth century as the surcote evolves into the sideless variety, but never completely displaces the gown worn alone.
	
Fabrics and treatments:
	Some examples of thirteenth century textiles now in the Chicago museum give the lie to the belief that elaborate textiles did not exist in this century.  In fact, patterned silks (perhaps brought back from the Crusades) and wools in interesting weaves (such as herringbone and lozenge twill) had been available for some time. Archaeological finds from London in the thirteeth century show a preference for simple 2/2 twills (the same type of twill seen in modern denim)  Of course, England was particularly known for superior wool, while Flanders and the Low Countries, with their damp conditions preferable to flax-growing, were known for linen production. And about the middle of the century velvet (a kind of silk) makes its first appearance. Evidence from illuminations shows that the upper classes preferred bold, jewel-toned colours (which tended to involve more costly dyes made from insects or which required metallic mordants) while the working classes wore colours, such as russet,  yellows, and medium blues, which one could obtain with simpler vegetable dyes.

	We do not know much about decoration beyond the fabric itself.  In the thirteenth century, the emphasis seems to have been on a few pieces of fine jewellery, rather than on embroidery as a way to liven up fabric.  However, with English embroidery nearing its summit at this time, we should probably not discount its use entirely.  Sculpture and illumination often lack the detail which might have existed on the actual garments. In general, however, one should avoid wide, elaborate trims and focus instead on the patterning of the fabric itself.

	 On the shirt of Louis IX all the seams were finished.  Techniques, such as French and flat-felled seams, of finishing seams date back at least to the Viking period  and are thus not surprising.  Also, the neck of the Louis shirt is finished with what an eyewitness tells me resembles nothing so much as "bias tape".

Headgear:
	Two varieties (and a mix and match of these) are common.  The first of these consists of a veil combined with a full wimple (probably bias-cut for a nice fit) while the second consists of a linen band (sometimes flared, crimped, or fluted) worn over a linen chinstrap (pinned on top of the head) and a hairnet (see drawing below).  Cunnington says the hair was rolled at the neck underneath, a very likely arrangement.  Some of these hairnets survive to this date; they're made of silk knotted in a half-hitch pattern.  Surviving statuary shows that these various pieces were often assembled in different combinations: veil with wimple, veil with no wimple, linen band with chinstap and wimple, etc. etc.  There is no one "definite" style.

	Thirteenth century women's dress is deceptively simple.  A beginner can get a serviceable set of garb which is different than the common t-tunic with just a few hours work,  but perfecting the flowing lines of this style involves becoming familiar with the way fabric drapes and flows over the human form.  I have not given patterns here, but rather simple outlines of the basic garment shapes. If you have a basic tunic pattern, you should be able to adapt it to make these garments.  For those of you who wish to do more research, look at as many illuminations and sculptures as you can;  it is only by doing so that you can begin to develop a critical eye. I am still in this process myself, so should you make any great discoveries, by all means let me know! 

Select Bibliography:

Boucher, F. 20,000 Years of Fashion.  (New York, 1987), pp.173-189.  Not very detailed for my period, but a few nice photos.

Burnham, Dorothy. Cut my Cote  (Toronto, 1973). Contains the shirt of Louis IX, as well as important information on weaving and fabric.

Crowfoot, E. et. al. Textiles and Clothing c. 1150-c.1450.  London: HMSO (Museum of London), 1992.  Excellent narrative, pieces of surviving fabrics, hair nets.

Cunnington, C. and P. Handbook of English Medieval Costume.  London, 1969.  A decent source as a starting point.

Davenport, M. The Book of Costume. (New York, 1948) p. 151, 165-189.  Lots of nice pictures, commentary OK but occasionally out of date.

King, Donald. "Embroidery and Textiles." From an Exhibition Catalogue entitled Gothic Europe, (London, 1987).  This thick book contains introductory chapters on just about every medieval craft, followed by a huge selection of plates of existing objects.

Mayer Thurman, C.C. "Recent Aquisitions: A Collection of Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Woven Fabrics in Chicago".  Textile History  20 (2), 249-63.  Existing pieces of fabric.

Newton, S.M. Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince . (Littlefield, 1980).  This time, the focus is on fourteenth century clothing, but Newton's introduction discusses what came before and is excellent.
	
Owen-Crocker, Gail Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. (Manchester, 1986).  Does not cover the thirteenth century, but good for details of early period cut.

Sauerländer, Willibald.  Gothic Sculpture in France, 1140-1270. (New York, 1970).  A great source for statuary.

------
Copyright 1996 by Susan Carroll-Clark, 10 Markbrook Lane #1106, Etobicoke, ON M9V 5E3 CANADA.  Permission granted for republication in SCA-related publications, provided author is credited and receives a copy.

If this article is reprinted in a publication, I would appreciate a notice in
the publication that you found this article in the Florilegium. I would also
appreciate an email to myself, so that I can track which articles are being
reprinted. Thanks. -Stefan.

<the end>
Edited by Mark S. Harris	cl-13th-fem-art	Page 4 of 4