I was lurking on the MOW list and found the following:

"Anyone know the period names(s) for the white linen undermost>women's dress/garment?"

and this reply:

"The undergarment is called a camisa in Spain and chemise for most of the rest of Europe. It has a drawstring neckline, drawstring wrists and was made of linen mostly. The rich could afford to more expensive cotton. Here is a photo of it."

This gal may be well intentioned, but the photo she sent you to is NOT what you need under your 15th C. dress. The 15th C. smock is a very simple trapezoid shape with tubular sleeves. I don't have it here but there are some really good illos of (what I feel is a) proper 15th C. smock in my copy of the Decameron which I'll scan and post tomorrow.

As for your comments about cotton being improper- you're right and she's wrong.

On another thread you asked about wearing linen gowns instead of wool- there's records of linen being dyed, and of linen clothing, it's just difficult to tell what garment is made of what.

Wool is indeed easy to produce and can be made into an incredibly fine fabric- we're just accustomed to seeing it in coat weight. If you've ever seen knit wool underwear from the '20's you'll know how fine it can be. Wool has a longer staple than flax and is much easier to spin. Linen is incredibly labor-intensive compared to wool.

Gwen

quote:

---

"The undergarment is called a camisa in Spain and chemise for most of the rest of Europe. It has a drawstring neckline, drawstring wrists and was made of linen mostly. The rich could afford to more expensive cotton. Here is a photo of it."

---

I don't think I have ever seen a drawsting closure of any either in photos or contemporary art.

Not that it is relavent to us, but what about 16th-19th C?

I know excatly the book to look up the terminology for french...I'll let you know when I can borrw a copy from someone (its rather expensive)

part of the reason we have so little documentation for undies is that they seem to have ALWAYS been made from linen, and so disintegrated in middens or digs, as well as being able to be recycled into smaller and smaller bits until there was nothing left but TP! (at least this is my spin on it)

the one extant example of an undergown is the 14th century one with no sleevees. Linen. No Drawstring.

we have contemporary illos of the sleeves of the underdress object that clearly show no drawstring.

methinks her victorian bias is showing!
--AM

I did post a reply to that post somewhere/somewhen. (what does MOW stand for?) and at the time I said that in England Smock is most definitely the standard usage name (unless you think they called gowns togas of course).

Also the illustrations I've seen of Smocks almost without exception (just incase I've forgotten) have a pattern essentially the same as the male shirt (just longer) and as you describe. A trapezoid (made from a folded rectangle with traingular gores inserted to give increasing width from the chest to hem). with similarly shaped sleeves which leave a loose cuff (this is gathered by the kirtle &/or gown sleeves.

The neck has a scooped front but occasionlly there are signs of a centre-front opening, presumably for breast feeding which may have been closed with a cloth hoop and button or by lacing or even the action of the kirtle closure (but not a drawstring as already said) which reaches the hip line, a good example is Sloth in Rene of Anjou's Book of Love.

As for linen gowns ... not impossible but on the balance of what evidence there is I would agree with Gwen ... wool.

Cloth is not always mentioned but when it is it is almost invariably one of the multitude of wool cloths, and if not it is silk.

In the Howards' Household Accounts when the garment for which a cloth is mentioned is referenced then linen is strictly shirts and smocks (and I think one pair of breeches). Everything else is wool or silk.

I haven't got it with me, but tomorrow i will bring in and put up a little discussion on the subject of linen, wool, and silk garments that are in my current toys (the two tacuinum sanitatis books). There are enough mid-spring/early fall events where the temp in the mid-atlantic east coast can easily get up into the 80's, that wearing layers of wool, even just one layer of wool, is pretty unpleasant. It would be really nice to be able to feel justified in wearing only linen clothes. (I can scan in some photos from Stoudtsburg two years ago, when it was very humid and in the 80's (F, 27-32 C), and in the afternoon after a demo, everyone came back and lay exhausted and dead on the ground for 4 hours). Little Ice Age notwithstanding (and i am pretty sure that it was only beginning in the 1460's, but i can easily find this out, and more detail if anyone wants (i am a grad student in meteorology at mit, and i can bug some of the climatologists downstairs)) and even with considerably lower summer temps than around here, i would think that working out in the fields and stuff in the summer would just be ugly in wool even with temps around, say 70 F (21 C). The field workers in Tres Riches Heures have discarded their hosen and shoes, and the women are in short sleeves (June? July?), but is that enough? Would the cost of having a set of summer linen clothes be prohibitive for the lower classes? And since linen is so difficult to dye, is it safe to assume that non-white clothing in illustrations was probably wool?

Since I am starting to babble on here, I think i will just leave it at that right now.

-nikki

Jen: Drawstrings: I see them in lots of costumer stuff but I don't know of any extant ones. You get a drawcoard in the neckline of shifts from about the late 1700, but it's just slight control of the neck edge, not to pull in those great billowy deals the RenFaires and movies are so fond of.

Dave: This thread and your post was on the "Men of Warwick" list which I was reading last night. Actually, I was confused over terminology myself; I knew one term was more appropriate than the other but I always forget which way it goes. It's doubly confusing for me because everyone wants to use the "common" term which is chemise. I'll be able to remember your explaination, thanks.

Nikki- experience tells me to recommend not making the sleeves of your smock too tight- they'll tend to bind under your overgown sleeves when you stretch your arms out to work. Also, if they are too tight you won't be able to roll them up out of the way when you need to do messy/wet thinks like laundry or washing dishes. My experience is that being able to roll them up is infinitely preferable to pushing them up, since they'll fall right back into your work if they are just pushed up.

Re: silk- I doubt very much if any lower middle class person would be using silk. Even my veils and smocks are of linen, and I'm the Captain's wife. If you're a campfollower or soldier's wife who's on campaign with him, you shouldn't be wearing silk.

"women are in short sleeves (June? July?), but is that enough?"
I go to Pennsic every year- Pennsylvania in August is bloody hot and humid. I have heavy fustian undergowns with short sleeves and I'm fine. I've even been able to wear my longsleeved wool gowns on cooler days. The trick for me is wearing a linen - NOT cotton - smock- it does make a difference; rolling my smock sleeves up off my forearms, not wearing my tucker, so my neck isn't covered, and having my hair up. It's amazing how much heat I lose through my bosom and neck. I'll sometimes put a cool cloth on the back of my neck and I'm fine. That's saying something since I'm almost always warm anyway.

"And since linen is so difficult to dye, is it safe to assume that non-white clothing in illustrations was probably wool?"

No, I don't think this is a safe assumption. It's true that wool naturally comes in a range of colors from cream through the tans, browns, and russets to black which make having colored woolen clothes cheaper than clothing made of dyed linen. The clothing of the lowest classes probably runs through toward these colors because wool doesn't need to be dyed to have a color. However, several dyes are relatively inexpensive - like madder, for example- I think it's safe to say that even "peasants" could have some madder dyed clothes. BTW, madder over brown wool makes the most gorgeous mulberry color, just about the same color you see on manypeasants in paintings!

Dave can correct me if he has better info, but I believe if your portrayal is of a class that can purchase fabric, you can have dyed colored clothing, including dyed linen. I think most of our groups fall into this catagory. I don't know of any reference that restricts dyeing to woolens, although I would agree that wool is the #1 fiber with linen running second. There is a direct relation between color and quality/type of cloth which you should keep in mind when purchasing fabric for your portrayal. For instance, if you're the company washerwoman and you want a blue dress, try to find a coarsely woven linen or wool dyed a pale or muddied shade of blue like robin's egg. If you're the Captain's wife, you could look for a finer wool or linen dyed a bright clear blue; a noble lady might wear a very fine wool cloth dyed deep rich royal blue. Your washerwoman might wear a gown of pale salmon or berry pink, the Captain's wife red, and the noble lady deep blood red or vermillion. The darker the color, the more time it spends in the dyebath and the more dye it takes to produce the color.

this is one of the three (3) pictures I have with any sort of clues as to what kinds of stockigns girls wore. It almost looks like her garters are attatched, doesnt it?

Don't underrate wool over linen. It's not as hot as you might think. Wool over cotton is a COMPLETELY different matter.

Linen under wool is much cooler than cotton under wool. I know I'm perfectly comfortable even in Pennsylvania in August, wearing my flatted, linen lined doublet over a linen shirt and my woolen hose. Cotton sticks to your body when only slightly damp, where linen does not. Yes, I get a bit sweaty, but just enough to keep cool. Using linen as the undergarment is necessary in the equation.

The wool also helps wick the moisture and evaporate it, helping the cooling process. Using thin wool over a linen smock would probably be bearable even in the warmest weather, where a cotton smock would make you feel icky.

Now I wouldn't wear a coat over my doublet...

------------------
Cheers,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anne-Marie:
anyone else notice in our little "slothgirl" picture her stockings???!!!!!!

this is one of the three (3) pictures I have with any sort of clues as to what kinds of stockigns girls wore. It almost looks like her garters are attatched, doesnt it?

--AM

---

Hmm now you've got me thinking. In the past I had assumed that these were her boots, and these are the ties to close them. This form of boot of ankle boot with a loose top and wrap around ties is fairly well represented archeologically and in some illustrations ... I'll find them if wanted.

However it is possible she has slipper shoes (boots are not as uncommon as might be thought looking at women re-enactors .... at least in the UK) and these are her hose.
Hose for women is a different topic if someone is interested there is some info available.

Cheers
Dave

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:

Re: silk- I doubt very much if any lower middle class person would be using silk. Even my veils and smocks are of linen, and I'm the Captain's wife. If you're a campfollower or soldier's wife who's on campaign with him, you shouldn't be wearing silk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptfrau:

"And since linen is so difficult to dye, is it safe to assume that non-white clothing in illustrations was probably wool?"

No, I don't think this is a safe assumption.
...

Gwen

---

This would support the supposition that typically linen was not dyed but it doesn't stop it being so.
My real hesitation with it in re-enactment is we too often use linen because we find it more acceptable rather than following medieval precedents.
Personally I'd not 'reject' a good linen article of clothing dyed in a period dye ... but to dye linen a dark shade takes more dye than it takes to dye wool a dark shade and Gwen well illustrates the implications of this on cost.

The more colour depth ... the more dye (and probably dyebaths) ... the more cost ... both for the dye, the labour and, if repeatedly redyeing, the cost of the cloth as dyes can damage fabric ... the more you dye it the better the quality of the cloth that is needed to take the dye ... and hence gain the cost increases.

It's probably not an issue in England, but we do events where the temp. can easily reach 100* F / 38* C. Jsmart went down with heat prostration at the October event because he didn't want to compromise his portrayal and walk around in his shirt and hose. It becomes a matter of "do I abandon my wool doublet because I could die if I wear it, or do I wear a linen doublet because it won't be hazardous to my health?" I don't think it's an egregious compromise to allow the linen clothing, as long as it's used judiciously. I HATE seeing the guys in just their shirts and hose because I don't think that was an acceptable way to be seen in public, or maybe the weather just didn't warrant it. Whichever is the reason, my mental picture of "how it was" does not include soldiers walking around in their underclothing as a matter of course.

but to dye linen a dark shade takes more dye than it takes to dye wool a dark shade
Again, I agree in a general sense, but noone said they wanted a dark color. I've dyed linen some great soft colors like peach, salmon, pale purply grey that look just like the colors I see in the paintings. I feel these could be used quite effectively by us middle classers.

The more colour depth ... the more dye (and probably dyebaths) ... the more cost
If an upper class person wanted to wear linen in the summer because it was cooler than wool, they could afford any color they wanted to, expensive or not. Actually, a deep toned linen would be a very good example of a luxury textile and obvious conspicuous consumption! I agree that for us soldiers, wives and campfollowers we should stick to more muted colors.

But of course, this is all speculation at best, since we can't prove *anything* beyond a shadow of a doubt.

No arguement here

I'd merely emphasised what you'd already said ... and we've discussed before ... think in tones and hues rather than bland colours (that's how most colours are described anyway in the sources)

Provided that the implications of dark colours are understood and accepected then no problem.

Also I do have sympathy for the heat issue. If you look at a lot of (particularly c16th but Duc de Berry shows the same) you see men is shirts working in the fields.

There are a couple of considerations that think are useful.
1. the way the clothes were worn. If you look at a fair number of medieval illustrations the doublet is removed but remains attached to the hose and is draped over the belt.
In other instances the hose & doublet (probably) are removed and a simple gown worn. This may be wool it may be linen ... they are often white/off-white ... I'd hesitate to say.

2. The prevelance of the information.
Finding specific reference to linen or fustian doublets is hard work but the evidene is there.
(Fustian becomes much more common as the century progresses and would be more availablein Flanders than England, In c.1450 I feel it's quite rare ... by 1470 fairly common and by 1500 widely available ... that's the other dimension the world trade markets!!!).

Finding even a reference to a kirtle is hard work, let alone a linen one.
Gowns are fairly commonly recorded in inventories but here they are wool or silk ... this is not particularly surprising as so are men's gowns.
By inference I'd suspect that linen kirtles, not gowns, were worn but it's hard to tell.

As I said I'd never stop someone wearing one and especially if someone needs one then no problem, but like you I think that too many people wear it because it's easier on their modern perceptions of hot & cold than because it actually is.

BTW if I recall ome of the linen I am aware of that's dyed is a pale blue, and if I recall correctly the reference to dyed linen is mainly blue, red and black. but I'd hesitate to qupote me on either of these as it's really memory dredging.