Reactions Toward Medieval Fashion Change
|
|
Attitudes toward Fashion and Cultural Change:
Fashion of the 14th century underwent great change. However, the reaction to this deserves further discussion. When a fashion changes, it also, necessarily, reflects some change in the culture. In Fashioning Change: The Trope of Clothing in High and Late-Medieval England, Andrea Denny-Brown addresses this phenomena of culture change through the lens of fashion. [1] Denny-Brown argues that fashion has the ability to change people and to change their practices, habits, and intentions. [2] Therefore, while the changes of the 1340s do demonstrate a new mode of fashion and new cultural norms, one must recognize that there were prior modes and prior cultural norms to which people were accustomed. In other words, changes in fashion are changes in tropes of a culture and demonstrate the culture's views not just of the material world but of themselves. [3] Therefore, when a profound change in fashion occurs such as what we see in the 1340s, it behooves us to discuss the deeper cultural impact that such changes could have and recognize why such changes would rankle feathers and cause disapprobation among commenters of the day.
To frame her argument, Denny-Brown turns to Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy which encapsulates the turns of fortune and the mutability and changeability of life. [4]In the Consolation, fortune literally strips the protagonist of his clothing. He is imprisoned, bereft of friends, and naked. The Consolation presented clothing as representing all of Fortune’s good gifts – “when nature produced you from your mother’s womb, I found you naked and lacking in everything.” [5] Throughout Consolation, Boethius refers to habitus as both literally meaning one’s clothing and also referring to a condition of being. However, Christian theology also recognizes in man’s first sin that he became aware of his nakedness and covered himself in fig leaves. Therefore, clothing is a signifier of status and of Fortune’s graces, but also a signifier of man’s underlying diseased and sinful condition. [6] Building on this theme, Lady Philosophy asks:
"Do you try to satisfy your desires with external goods which are foreign to you because you have no good within you which belongs to you? What an upside-down state of affairs when a man who is divine by his gift of reason thinks his excellence depends on the possession of lifeless bric-a-brac! Other creatures are content with what they have; but you, made in the likeness of God by virtue of your reason, choose ornaments for your excellent nature from base things, without understanding how great an injury you do to your Creator." [7]
Boethius deftly positions our vestments as contrary to human nature – indeed, he even suggests that the animals themselves wear no clothing. This comparison is particularly biting because Christian teachings state that humans are created in God’s divine image, made a little lower than the angels according to Psalm 8. Yet Boethius asserts that we who are made a little lower than the angels are giving affront to God himself.
Boethius’ critique of fine clothing rests itself on the very idea that fine clothing confers status upon the wearer. He is not suggesting that clothing, in itself, is bad. Rather, he argues that people should not seek worldly praise or excellence through clothing. Further, to do so is to reject God’s greatest gift to humans, namely our intellect and reason.
In another passage Boethius discusses the truth that fine clothing brings praise to its maker or to the fine material and does not bring direct praise to the wearer. [8] This distinction builds upon previous arguments. If fine vestments do not enhance the unique gift of reason given to humans, then in the same way, the skill and talent needed to make fine clothing does not transfer to the wearer. Instead, the praise for making fine garments belongs to the tailor for the accomplishment of creating a beautiful and worthwhile item. The wearer adds nothing to the item and derives no incidental praise for wearing or possessing the item.
Boethius was extremely popular during the entire Medieval period and his views of garments and material possessions cannot be underestimated. His views, and the views of other philosophers and theologians such as Aquinas (discussed further below) serve well to remind how the medieval mind confronted fashion. While some were rich, some were poor, some desired and some were content, all were subject to Fortune’s changing circumstances and Consolation confronts that dynamic as it relates to fashion in ways that were both mundane and profound. A relevant conclusion to draw from these texts, then, is that one must examine closely one’s “attachment to material objects that facilitate that change [in fortune] and to the self-perpetuating habits of practice that they generate. This lesson begins with a reexamination of the garment that each person wear on his or her body each day.” [9] Following this theory to its conclusion, Denny-Brown reviews depictions of fortune herself in the medieval period and notes that fortune is often shown stripping away and redressing people as they wend their way around Fortune’s wheel. [10]
Further, the writing De discipline falsely attributed to Boethius was also much studied in the medieval period. This work was likely written in the first part of the thirteenth century and surviving commentaries on it done by Nicholas Trevet c. 1300 and by William Wheatley in 1309 reflect the categories of thought regarding fashion in the time period. Although spurious, its attribution to Boethius allows the modern historian to understand more clearly how the medieval world viewed Consolation. In one particularly insightful comment on De discipline, Wheatley notes that the use of the word luxuria has three types in de discipline “luxury in sexual matters, luxury in matters of food and drink, luxury in the choice of clothing. He clearly shows us in the same work how a man is led to ruin by any one of these forms of luxury.” [11]
These comments in the early 14th century about luxury in clothing are almost prescient for addressing what will soon be a watershed in fashion history. Further passages in Pseudo-Boethius’ De discipline state that the vice or ornament
"Rejoices in the variety of a large supply of clothes, and in the little figures which adorn these clothes on every limb, and in making the hair shiny with the help of a comb, in taking unseemly delight in tight curling irons and a display of various flowers, in forcing fancy foods down the throat, admiring frequent smoothings of the skin with a razor, filling the bosom with perfumes and the neck with bejeweled necklaces, revealing to the common people a stomach held flat by Parthian girdle, and rejoicing in walking about like a queen with pointed and high-soled shoes, with neck held aloft, throat puffed up, eyebrows plucked, with a shameless eye and a haughty extravagant gait." [12]
The medieval scholar and cleric, and thus those most likely to write and describe changes in fashion, would certainly be familiar with Boethius and also likely with De discipline. Thus, when Boethius describes in Consolation the idea that false beauty “means being resplendent in clothing of every variety,” it should not surprise us to hear echoes of this in the commentators to come who address the changes in the new fashion.
Building on the idea that a change in fashion will necessarily reflect a change in the culture, it is also important to ask what was happening in the 1340s in other ways and why the fashion would change in the way it did. While I will not discuss each and every significant historical event, it is perhaps too convenient to overlook that Petrarch, the humanist and scholar, was crowned poet laureate of Rome in the year 1341. A society that can support a professional poet is informative for fashion. The emphasis on poetry and literature for its own sake suggests a movement toward leisure, enjoyment, and self expression. Petrarch was famously the first medieval tourist to travel for travel’s sake and write about his experiences. It is no coincidence that the social, political, religious and artistic trends of the fourteenth century would also encourage startling fashionable change.
The Sources:
The first surviving commentator on the new fashion of the 1340s is Galvano Della Flamma in 1340. Writing in Italy, Della Flamma said that Milanese dress had taken a turn for the worse. He said that young men had taken to wearing tight clothing in the “Spanish style,” cutting their hair in the “French style,” and growing out their beards in the “German style.” [13] He said that women’s dresses were too tight and that they were cut too low at the neck. He also bemoaned that women were wearing gold broaches and brocade fabrics and that they had begun to wear shoes with long beaks.
Giovanni Villani, and the comments he made on the changing fashion, however, left a more lasting legacy than Della Flamma’s. In 1342, Villani wrote in his Cronica recording the arrival of Walter de Brieenne II in Florence. [14] De Brienne, who was from France, was to take the position of capitano and conservatore del popiolo in the commune of Florence in 1342. De Brienne soon gained popularity among the commune of Florence and was appointed as the signore.
Villani, apparently, was not thrilled with these developments and had no taste for de Brienne. He wrote his uncle by marriage, Robert, King of Naples, to decry de Brieene’s meteoric rise. He noted that it was de Brienne who had introduced the new vulgar change in dress in Florence. He complained that young men were wearing tunics so tight and short that they could not dress without help. [15] His complaints did not stop there, he also complained that the men were wearing showy buckles and points, wore elaborate pouches hung over their fronts in the German style. He complained that their hoods were worn long, like cowls and that they hung down over their fronts and reached their waist. He said that the hoods and mantles were cut into patterns around the edge and that the liripipes of the hoods reached to the ground or were wrapped around the head for warmth. He also suggested the men began to wear long beards to display a fierce countenance. [16] He added that the young women had also adopted ridiculous sleeve pieces on their dress. Villanni also complained de Brienne had repealed the sumptuary laws for women and that this had led women to dress as they liked and to spend inordinate amounts of money on their garments.
What made Villani’s histrionics over the new fashion so interesting is that he equated the change to a change in the very fabric of Florentine society – and a change for the worse at that. He said that the people of Florence were not dispositionally frivolous or eager to follow the trends of foreigners. [17] Indeed, Villani linked the sensible style of Florence to that ancient toga worn by the Romans and felt that the change in fashion was the equivalent of the Florentine youth disregarding the commune’s ancient and storied past.
The impact of the new fashion in the 1340s is further made known by Cola di Rienzo writing in Naples in 1343. He wrote that the change was sudden and immeasurable. He wrote that men began to wear long peaks on their hoods and tight clothing in the style of the Catalans. [18] He said that men began carrying daggers in their belts and wore little hats on top of their hoods. He said men started wearing beards like soldiers in the Spanish army. He said that only hermits, Spaniards, and ne’er do wells wore beards before, but now all of the young men were growing them out. He further lamented that if one did not adopt these trends in fashion, there were given little regard. [19]
This critique, like so many critique of new modes of fashion, begs the reader to make an implicit link between the undesirable and the adoption of a new fashion. If thieves wear beards and beards are now fashionable in Naples, the argument goes, then the youth of Naples are sure to become criminals and ne’er do wells, just like the thieves. This phenomenon deserves discussion because the surviving written evidence of the new fashion may lead to incorrect conclusions about the overall impressions upon society. Simply put, those with the most angst and anxiety over new fashions may not accurately reflect the feelings of the general population but they will certainly write and talk about their anxiety more than the general population. Thus, the surviving accounts may be the equivalent of various pundits giving a “hot take” on something they personally did not like but which younger people readily adopted with no ill effect.
Jean de Venette, a chronicler of the Chronique Latine de Guillaume de Nangis, writing in the 1360s, wrote about the periods of the 1340s including Edward III’s navel victory at Sluys in 1340. He further commented upon the recent drastic change in dress in 1340.[20] Although he is writing over fifteen years later, the time frame of his description matches those of other writers commenting upon the new fashion so we must at least acknowledge that his general impressions are accurate. De Venette remarked that in 1340:
"Men, and particularly noblemen and especially high-born squires and their following, as well as some citizens and practically all servants, began to redesign their mode of dress. They started to wear short clothing, and that so short that both their buttocks and their private parts were pretty well visible, which was really very strange because previously things had been getting more decent. All men began to grow longer beards, a fashion which almost everybody who was not of royal blood took to, and one which provoked more than a little ridicule from the common people." [21]
One notable absence in this description is to blame another country for its genesis. This may, but not certainly, indicate that the change in fashion was primarily borne of France. What is more, this description does seem to match the descriptions of others from the period and there is no reason to believe that the 15-20 year gap between 1340 and the writing of the chronical has resulted in an inaccurate account. Indeed, sometimes a few years of distance from the new fashion serve to solidify those elements which truly represent a new fashion and thus give a later author a better overall impression of the changes.
What is unclear about Jean de Venette’s account is his description of the shortness of garments exposing men’s buttocks. This probably indicates that the form of the body was visible beneath the braies because men certainly still wore undergarments in this period. While it is true that the cuts of tunics had become tighter, it does not appear that they were significantly shorter than earlier decades. Knee-length to mid-thigh length was quite commonly seen among men. Perhaps the combination of significantly tighter cuts and lowered waist-lines generated an overall effect of shortening skirts. Another possibility is that he was speaking of men who were wearing arming garments such as doublets and pourpoints which were being cut shorter to accommodate new forms of armor and to improve mobility in plate armor. If he is remarking on men wearing arming garments, which is not at all certain, then the next question would be whether those men were wearing arming garments in strictly martial contexts or if they wore them as a fashionable garment in itself. If the latter is the case, this would indicate that men wore martial garments in a fashionable context and thus did not always wear a cote/surcote to accompany it. Again, this is speculation, but I believe that this would explain why men were exposing their braies at this period. Simply put, the fashionable wear was not this short in this period but the arming garments would have been.
English writer John of Reading wrote in 1366-68 that the change in fashion in England had been brought about by the Hainaulters – those in the entourage of Edward III’s wife Philippa of Hainault – he said that the long and ample cuts of the past had been abandoned in favor of short, narrow, hampering cuts that are laced up, with buttoned tunics and tippits on the sleeves of over-tunics. [22] He states that:
"Ever since the arrival of the arrival of the Hainaulters about eighteen years ago the English have been madly following outlandish ways, changing their deformed varieties of clothing yearly. They have abandoned the old, decent style of long, full garments for clothes which are short, tight, impractically slashed, every part laced, strapped or buttoned up, with sleeves of the gowns and the tippits of the hoods hanging down to absurd lengths, so that, if truth be told, their clothes and footwear make them look more like torturers, or even demons, than men. Clerics and other religious adopted the same fashions, and should be considered not “regulars,” but “irregulars.” Women flowed with the tides of fashion in this and other things even more eagerly, wearing clothes that were so tight that they wore a fox tail hanging down inside their skirts at the back, to hide that arses. The sin of pride manifested in this way must surely bring down misfortune in the future." [23]
The Brut chronicler also weighed in on the fashion changes. In an entry describing Edward of Woodstock investiture as Prince of Wales, the author states that:
"In this time Englishmen so much haunted and cleaved to the wodness and folly of strangers that they change their clothing every year, especially since the coming of the Hainaulters years ago. Sometimes their clothes are long and wide, at others they are short, tight, dagged and cut about and boned all round. The sleeves of their surcoats like their hoods have tapets, long and wide which hand down too far. They look, to tell the truth, more like tormentors and devils in their clothing than like normal men. And the women surpass the men in their clothing which is so tight that they hand fox-tails under their dresses at the back to hide their arses, a kind of behavior which may well have provoked many of the evils and misfortunes that have beset the kingdom of England."
[24]
Whether the Brut entry took John of Reading as a source or if there is a general consensus among the English that Queen Phillapa’s entourage is to blame for the change in fashion is unclear. However, the Brut account does follow Reading's nearly word for word in some places. Also worth noting is that while Readings account is written in Latin, the Brut is written in English. Nonetheless, there is a recurring trend of blaming foreigners for the outlandish fashion is notable in England as well as Italy. What is unclear about the Brut reference is the mentioned of “boned.” This could be a reference to buttons that has been miscopied or misunderstood. It is unlikely that it is a reference to the use of boning in clothing which is not attested anywhere else and which would not become popular for quite some time. It is also notable that changes fashion is blamed for pride, sinful lusts and societal woes. The Brut was written after the 1340s had ended and there may be a reference to the changes in fashion being a direct cause of the Black Death. More on that later.
However, the English were not the only writers to wonder if a national calamity was God’s way of judging a nation for its indiscreet fashion. After the crushing 1346 defeat of France at the battle of Crecy, a chronicler wondered if the destruction of French knighthood was God’s judgment for the sins of pride, greed, and indecency. [25] He said that some had taken to wearing clothing so short that when men bent over their braies were exposed. He further said those standing behind could see what was inside the braies. In addition to this, their clothes were so tight that they needed help both in dressing and undressing it seemed as though when one was being undressed, he was literally being skinned. Others among them had their tunics gathered at the back over their loins like women’s dresses. Moreover, their hoods were minutely cut about all round and, given the chance, made of one cloth on one side and another on the other. The liripies of their hoods as well as their sleeves hung almost to the ground so that they looked more like minstrels than anything else. So, in view of this kind of thing, it was not surprising that, to correct these French excesses, God employed the king of England as his scourge. [26]
Again we see a complaint that men’s braies or private parts are exposed. However, this reference indicates that it is only when men bend down. However, as noted above, the skirts in this period are not so short that this would likely be a common or frequent occurrence. Further, this reference to seeing what is inside the braies – or even the mention of seeing braies at all – is odd because artwork such as the Morgan Bible of the 13th Century had depicted men working the fields with no clothing but braies. Thus, it would be unusual to find it unseemly to see a person in braies when this would be a common sight among farmers in the countryside. Then again, that answer may be the reason why a French writer discussing the plight of the French nobility felt that French fashions were so shameful. The peasant farmer exposed their braies through necessity of their hard work. French courtiers and nobles did so through excesses of their fashion's pride.
What may also be at play is that during this period, hose had gotten longer and covered more of the leg. Therefore, the braies shortened with the growth of hose. Braies went from very loose flowing and baggy to short trousers which had little extra coverage. To see the braies of the 1250s was to see long, billowing excesses of fabric. To see the braies of the 1340s would be similar to seeing a pair of boxer shorts today. Add to this that linen, in certain lights and certainly if wet with sweat, will become transparent and it is not at all unlikely that men in court – not mere farmers – were showing far more than genteel society felt was decent.
It is also interesting that the author refers to some of the outlandish fashion as similar to what was worn by minstrels. Again, this would suggest that the author felt there were certain fashions that were beneath the nobility and flower of chivalry. His descriptions of the fashion would seem to indicate that parti colored tunics were popular in this period. Parti colors were indeed popular among minstrels and performers.
In 1347 English chronicler Henry Knighton writing the Chronicon Angliae wrote about women’s fashions at tournaments. He explained that the women were themselves a side show at the tournaments and that their clothing had become very masculine. [27] What he means by masculine is not immediately apparent and it is unclear if the women were wearing men’s clothing or if they were merely altering traditional feminine attire to match the changes in men’s fashion such as closer fitting tunics, the addition of buttons and lacing, tighter sleeves, and dagging on sleeves and hoods. He does say that the women wore parti-colored tunics and long liripipes twisted around their heads. He said that the girdles (belts) were worn low over the belly and lavishly decorated.
What makes the discussions of parti colored clothing all the more interesting is that Fortune is often depicted in artwork as wearing parti colored clothing. This was done to represent Fortunes constant changes and thus the fickleness and inconstancy of life. [28] However, this association with Fortune and fickleness to parti colored dress may also explain part of the reason why many commentators of the day recoiled to see young people of distinction wearing this fashion. Additionally, the popularity of parti colored dress among performers – routinely viewed as one step above prostitutes – would also explain such disdain for this fashion and why it is routinely mentioned as being among the undesirable changes of the period.
The English Great Wardrobe is especially fascinating for this study. It was a royal department that was responsible for supplying the court with clothing and household furnishings such as chamber pots, tents, packing cases, utensils and the like. The great wardrobe was designed to be moveable but spent most of its time in London – although not always in the same place in London. What is invaluable to us today about the great wardrobe is that clerks who oversaw the keeping of the great wardrobe kept records of its contents. The keepers also were responsible to maintain the wardrobe and update it as needed. Tailors and tent makers and other occupations were employed to keep and maintain the wardrobe. Indeed, royal armorers working permanently at the Tower of London in the 14th century fell under the department of the great wardrobe. Also interesting is that embroiderers worked out of the Tower as well in a permanent location. The reasons for this might be that embroidery thread was often woven with gold and silver strands and therefore required the tools and assistance of smiths and it may have also been because much of the embroidery done by the department was for military banners and pennants and thus had a more martial than domestic function. [29]
The surviving records of the Great Wardrobe from the 1320s through the 1340s bear out the change in the new fashion. For example, there is no mention of buttons in the 1320s or early 1330s. [30] In 1337-1338 the records reflect that the King was now wearing two kind of suits, one long and one short. What is interesting is that prior to this, the valets of the court had been described as wearing short suits. Thus, this change, like many in fashion, was not initially a top down change. [31] 1337-1338 is the first time buttons are mentioned. One detailed description of a garment is as follows:
“1 short suit of red mixed cloth for the King, a gift of the lord W. Northampton, made and lined with fur, with silver gilt buttons and jewels in the form of doublets worked on the courtpiece of the same.” [32]
Another description states “1 long suit of four garments and one short suit of two garments made and lined with fur for the king.” [33] What is notable is that only one suit has a reference to buttons in 1338. This may be because the buttons described were silver gilt and thus were deemed important enough to remark on. Or, it may reflect the newness of the style with the introduction of buttons into garments. However, by reviewing accounts from the early 1340s, the latter explanation seems more likely. In the account for 1342-43 described tunics as being buttoned down the front and most entries remark on the positioning of the buttons as though this were a novelty. The description seems to indicate that the buttons did not follow the entire front of the garment, but rather buttoned merely over the chest (ante pectum). [34]
One fascinating thing about these and other descriptions from the 1340s in the Great Wardrobe is that it explicitly acknowledges that the king wore suits of two fashions – the new shorter fashion with buttons and frounced skirts and the older fashion of long and amply cut garments. One description for braies states the king had “six pairs of linen robarum for the king made frounced and lined in the new fashion, each pair xiiijd. vijs. Twelve pairs of linen robarum made for the king in the old fashion each at vijd a pair.” [35] (Emphases added). Thus, it would appear that the under garments were altered to accommodate the new fashion in some way. In addition, a new description of a lined shirt “made in the new style” is listed in the account which states that it is buttoned down the front as far as the knee and has long lined sleeves buttoned up the forearm. This is distinct from the buttoning down the chest (ad pectum). [36] Another aspect of the fashion that gains special attention the royal wardrobe accounts is the embroidery work, particularly the cost and gold and silver used in the garments.
Interestingly, French royal records from the era do not make the sharp distinction between new fashion and old fashion. There is little mention of buttons or where they are placed. However, there is still an apparent change in fashion because the records indicate that garments were beginning to use less fur in their linings. [37]
Remember, though, that descriptions of the royal entourage’s wardrobe are not descriptions of the dress of a young knight, squire, or merchant, let alone a peasant farmer. The dress of different social classes still does have variation and the lower classes did not always adopt the new fashion with rapidity. This is especially true when you observe the illuminations on the Lutrell Psalter of the 1340s. The Psalter depicts women being dressed by attendants and what is notable is that the attendants are not dressing in the newer fashions. Further, the Lutrell Psalter depicts men wearing coteharides with long sleeves and buttons down the front. These men would appear to have adopted the new fashion. However, other men, particularly those working the fields, still seem to be wearing the older cuts and looser garments of the old fashion.
There is a distinct element of class and social standing – at least at first – in the adoption of the new fashion. What is interesting is that certain communities and tailor guilds responded to the extravagance of the fashion by dictating that for traditional dress consisting of an under-tunic, surcote, and hood, tailors could only charge a flat fee. But for dress in the new fashion, such as being lined with fur or with elongated sleeves, tailors were free to charge whatever they chose. [38] This seems to suggest a recognition that a standard robe of clothes should be affordable to all as a necessity of life while a robe after the new fashion was a luxury good that should be priced accordingly. This is especially interesting because the process a tailor would use to cut a garment in the new fashion would necessarily involve fitting the garment to the wearer using precise measurements and in person fittings. On the other hand, garments made after the old fashion would not necessarily require such precision and could be readily made after taking a few basic body measurements to ensure fit.
The Plague:
What the Brut author perhaps hinted at, Gilles li Muisis, the Abbot of St. Martin’s at Tournai, made explicit in his account written in 1349. In 1347, the Black Death entered Europe and devastated the populace. Those who survived sought reasons for the calamity and often arrived at the conclusion that the widespread death was a divine judgment. Li Muisis pondered this question and wondered
"What can I say, of clothes and their decorations? The men’s so tight, so short that their private parts could often be seen beneath them, which was shocking. And what can I say of the dress of the women? Their dress and their ornaments were made in the likeness of men’s, so tight that their nude bodies could be seen through their clothing. And they went to church, through the streets, and, by turns, to weddings and funerals with their heads decorated with false hair, wearing horns like beasts. People of all stations of life and of all ages went about in public dress in cloths and jewels that cost more than their total wealth." [39]
li Muisis continued that because of the obvious sins and excesses in dress, people had repented of their behavior and taken up more modest clothing and formed bands of penitents who engaged in self-flagellation and scourging in the streets.
Fashion of the 14th century underwent great change. However, the reaction to this deserves further discussion. When a fashion changes, it also, necessarily, reflects some change in the culture. In Fashioning Change: The Trope of Clothing in High and Late-Medieval England, Andrea Denny-Brown addresses this phenomena of culture change through the lens of fashion. [1] Denny-Brown argues that fashion has the ability to change people and to change their practices, habits, and intentions. [2] Therefore, while the changes of the 1340s do demonstrate a new mode of fashion and new cultural norms, one must recognize that there were prior modes and prior cultural norms to which people were accustomed. In other words, changes in fashion are changes in tropes of a culture and demonstrate the culture's views not just of the material world but of themselves. [3] Therefore, when a profound change in fashion occurs such as what we see in the 1340s, it behooves us to discuss the deeper cultural impact that such changes could have and recognize why such changes would rankle feathers and cause disapprobation among commenters of the day.
To frame her argument, Denny-Brown turns to Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy which encapsulates the turns of fortune and the mutability and changeability of life. [4]In the Consolation, fortune literally strips the protagonist of his clothing. He is imprisoned, bereft of friends, and naked. The Consolation presented clothing as representing all of Fortune’s good gifts – “when nature produced you from your mother’s womb, I found you naked and lacking in everything.” [5] Throughout Consolation, Boethius refers to habitus as both literally meaning one’s clothing and also referring to a condition of being. However, Christian theology also recognizes in man’s first sin that he became aware of his nakedness and covered himself in fig leaves. Therefore, clothing is a signifier of status and of Fortune’s graces, but also a signifier of man’s underlying diseased and sinful condition. [6] Building on this theme, Lady Philosophy asks:
"Do you try to satisfy your desires with external goods which are foreign to you because you have no good within you which belongs to you? What an upside-down state of affairs when a man who is divine by his gift of reason thinks his excellence depends on the possession of lifeless bric-a-brac! Other creatures are content with what they have; but you, made in the likeness of God by virtue of your reason, choose ornaments for your excellent nature from base things, without understanding how great an injury you do to your Creator." [7]
Boethius deftly positions our vestments as contrary to human nature – indeed, he even suggests that the animals themselves wear no clothing. This comparison is particularly biting because Christian teachings state that humans are created in God’s divine image, made a little lower than the angels according to Psalm 8. Yet Boethius asserts that we who are made a little lower than the angels are giving affront to God himself.
Boethius’ critique of fine clothing rests itself on the very idea that fine clothing confers status upon the wearer. He is not suggesting that clothing, in itself, is bad. Rather, he argues that people should not seek worldly praise or excellence through clothing. Further, to do so is to reject God’s greatest gift to humans, namely our intellect and reason.
In another passage Boethius discusses the truth that fine clothing brings praise to its maker or to the fine material and does not bring direct praise to the wearer. [8] This distinction builds upon previous arguments. If fine vestments do not enhance the unique gift of reason given to humans, then in the same way, the skill and talent needed to make fine clothing does not transfer to the wearer. Instead, the praise for making fine garments belongs to the tailor for the accomplishment of creating a beautiful and worthwhile item. The wearer adds nothing to the item and derives no incidental praise for wearing or possessing the item.
Boethius was extremely popular during the entire Medieval period and his views of garments and material possessions cannot be underestimated. His views, and the views of other philosophers and theologians such as Aquinas (discussed further below) serve well to remind how the medieval mind confronted fashion. While some were rich, some were poor, some desired and some were content, all were subject to Fortune’s changing circumstances and Consolation confronts that dynamic as it relates to fashion in ways that were both mundane and profound. A relevant conclusion to draw from these texts, then, is that one must examine closely one’s “attachment to material objects that facilitate that change [in fortune] and to the self-perpetuating habits of practice that they generate. This lesson begins with a reexamination of the garment that each person wear on his or her body each day.” [9] Following this theory to its conclusion, Denny-Brown reviews depictions of fortune herself in the medieval period and notes that fortune is often shown stripping away and redressing people as they wend their way around Fortune’s wheel. [10]
Further, the writing De discipline falsely attributed to Boethius was also much studied in the medieval period. This work was likely written in the first part of the thirteenth century and surviving commentaries on it done by Nicholas Trevet c. 1300 and by William Wheatley in 1309 reflect the categories of thought regarding fashion in the time period. Although spurious, its attribution to Boethius allows the modern historian to understand more clearly how the medieval world viewed Consolation. In one particularly insightful comment on De discipline, Wheatley notes that the use of the word luxuria has three types in de discipline “luxury in sexual matters, luxury in matters of food and drink, luxury in the choice of clothing. He clearly shows us in the same work how a man is led to ruin by any one of these forms of luxury.” [11]
These comments in the early 14th century about luxury in clothing are almost prescient for addressing what will soon be a watershed in fashion history. Further passages in Pseudo-Boethius’ De discipline state that the vice or ornament
"Rejoices in the variety of a large supply of clothes, and in the little figures which adorn these clothes on every limb, and in making the hair shiny with the help of a comb, in taking unseemly delight in tight curling irons and a display of various flowers, in forcing fancy foods down the throat, admiring frequent smoothings of the skin with a razor, filling the bosom with perfumes and the neck with bejeweled necklaces, revealing to the common people a stomach held flat by Parthian girdle, and rejoicing in walking about like a queen with pointed and high-soled shoes, with neck held aloft, throat puffed up, eyebrows plucked, with a shameless eye and a haughty extravagant gait." [12]
The medieval scholar and cleric, and thus those most likely to write and describe changes in fashion, would certainly be familiar with Boethius and also likely with De discipline. Thus, when Boethius describes in Consolation the idea that false beauty “means being resplendent in clothing of every variety,” it should not surprise us to hear echoes of this in the commentators to come who address the changes in the new fashion.
Building on the idea that a change in fashion will necessarily reflect a change in the culture, it is also important to ask what was happening in the 1340s in other ways and why the fashion would change in the way it did. While I will not discuss each and every significant historical event, it is perhaps too convenient to overlook that Petrarch, the humanist and scholar, was crowned poet laureate of Rome in the year 1341. A society that can support a professional poet is informative for fashion. The emphasis on poetry and literature for its own sake suggests a movement toward leisure, enjoyment, and self expression. Petrarch was famously the first medieval tourist to travel for travel’s sake and write about his experiences. It is no coincidence that the social, political, religious and artistic trends of the fourteenth century would also encourage startling fashionable change.
The Sources:
The first surviving commentator on the new fashion of the 1340s is Galvano Della Flamma in 1340. Writing in Italy, Della Flamma said that Milanese dress had taken a turn for the worse. He said that young men had taken to wearing tight clothing in the “Spanish style,” cutting their hair in the “French style,” and growing out their beards in the “German style.” [13] He said that women’s dresses were too tight and that they were cut too low at the neck. He also bemoaned that women were wearing gold broaches and brocade fabrics and that they had begun to wear shoes with long beaks.
Giovanni Villani, and the comments he made on the changing fashion, however, left a more lasting legacy than Della Flamma’s. In 1342, Villani wrote in his Cronica recording the arrival of Walter de Brieenne II in Florence. [14] De Brienne, who was from France, was to take the position of capitano and conservatore del popiolo in the commune of Florence in 1342. De Brienne soon gained popularity among the commune of Florence and was appointed as the signore.
Villani, apparently, was not thrilled with these developments and had no taste for de Brienne. He wrote his uncle by marriage, Robert, King of Naples, to decry de Brieene’s meteoric rise. He noted that it was de Brienne who had introduced the new vulgar change in dress in Florence. He complained that young men were wearing tunics so tight and short that they could not dress without help. [15] His complaints did not stop there, he also complained that the men were wearing showy buckles and points, wore elaborate pouches hung over their fronts in the German style. He complained that their hoods were worn long, like cowls and that they hung down over their fronts and reached their waist. He said that the hoods and mantles were cut into patterns around the edge and that the liripipes of the hoods reached to the ground or were wrapped around the head for warmth. He also suggested the men began to wear long beards to display a fierce countenance. [16] He added that the young women had also adopted ridiculous sleeve pieces on their dress. Villanni also complained de Brienne had repealed the sumptuary laws for women and that this had led women to dress as they liked and to spend inordinate amounts of money on their garments.
What made Villani’s histrionics over the new fashion so interesting is that he equated the change to a change in the very fabric of Florentine society – and a change for the worse at that. He said that the people of Florence were not dispositionally frivolous or eager to follow the trends of foreigners. [17] Indeed, Villani linked the sensible style of Florence to that ancient toga worn by the Romans and felt that the change in fashion was the equivalent of the Florentine youth disregarding the commune’s ancient and storied past.
The impact of the new fashion in the 1340s is further made known by Cola di Rienzo writing in Naples in 1343. He wrote that the change was sudden and immeasurable. He wrote that men began to wear long peaks on their hoods and tight clothing in the style of the Catalans. [18] He said that men began carrying daggers in their belts and wore little hats on top of their hoods. He said men started wearing beards like soldiers in the Spanish army. He said that only hermits, Spaniards, and ne’er do wells wore beards before, but now all of the young men were growing them out. He further lamented that if one did not adopt these trends in fashion, there were given little regard. [19]
This critique, like so many critique of new modes of fashion, begs the reader to make an implicit link between the undesirable and the adoption of a new fashion. If thieves wear beards and beards are now fashionable in Naples, the argument goes, then the youth of Naples are sure to become criminals and ne’er do wells, just like the thieves. This phenomenon deserves discussion because the surviving written evidence of the new fashion may lead to incorrect conclusions about the overall impressions upon society. Simply put, those with the most angst and anxiety over new fashions may not accurately reflect the feelings of the general population but they will certainly write and talk about their anxiety more than the general population. Thus, the surviving accounts may be the equivalent of various pundits giving a “hot take” on something they personally did not like but which younger people readily adopted with no ill effect.
Jean de Venette, a chronicler of the Chronique Latine de Guillaume de Nangis, writing in the 1360s, wrote about the periods of the 1340s including Edward III’s navel victory at Sluys in 1340. He further commented upon the recent drastic change in dress in 1340.[20] Although he is writing over fifteen years later, the time frame of his description matches those of other writers commenting upon the new fashion so we must at least acknowledge that his general impressions are accurate. De Venette remarked that in 1340:
"Men, and particularly noblemen and especially high-born squires and their following, as well as some citizens and practically all servants, began to redesign their mode of dress. They started to wear short clothing, and that so short that both their buttocks and their private parts were pretty well visible, which was really very strange because previously things had been getting more decent. All men began to grow longer beards, a fashion which almost everybody who was not of royal blood took to, and one which provoked more than a little ridicule from the common people." [21]
One notable absence in this description is to blame another country for its genesis. This may, but not certainly, indicate that the change in fashion was primarily borne of France. What is more, this description does seem to match the descriptions of others from the period and there is no reason to believe that the 15-20 year gap between 1340 and the writing of the chronical has resulted in an inaccurate account. Indeed, sometimes a few years of distance from the new fashion serve to solidify those elements which truly represent a new fashion and thus give a later author a better overall impression of the changes.
What is unclear about Jean de Venette’s account is his description of the shortness of garments exposing men’s buttocks. This probably indicates that the form of the body was visible beneath the braies because men certainly still wore undergarments in this period. While it is true that the cuts of tunics had become tighter, it does not appear that they were significantly shorter than earlier decades. Knee-length to mid-thigh length was quite commonly seen among men. Perhaps the combination of significantly tighter cuts and lowered waist-lines generated an overall effect of shortening skirts. Another possibility is that he was speaking of men who were wearing arming garments such as doublets and pourpoints which were being cut shorter to accommodate new forms of armor and to improve mobility in plate armor. If he is remarking on men wearing arming garments, which is not at all certain, then the next question would be whether those men were wearing arming garments in strictly martial contexts or if they wore them as a fashionable garment in itself. If the latter is the case, this would indicate that men wore martial garments in a fashionable context and thus did not always wear a cote/surcote to accompany it. Again, this is speculation, but I believe that this would explain why men were exposing their braies at this period. Simply put, the fashionable wear was not this short in this period but the arming garments would have been.
English writer John of Reading wrote in 1366-68 that the change in fashion in England had been brought about by the Hainaulters – those in the entourage of Edward III’s wife Philippa of Hainault – he said that the long and ample cuts of the past had been abandoned in favor of short, narrow, hampering cuts that are laced up, with buttoned tunics and tippits on the sleeves of over-tunics. [22] He states that:
"Ever since the arrival of the arrival of the Hainaulters about eighteen years ago the English have been madly following outlandish ways, changing their deformed varieties of clothing yearly. They have abandoned the old, decent style of long, full garments for clothes which are short, tight, impractically slashed, every part laced, strapped or buttoned up, with sleeves of the gowns and the tippits of the hoods hanging down to absurd lengths, so that, if truth be told, their clothes and footwear make them look more like torturers, or even demons, than men. Clerics and other religious adopted the same fashions, and should be considered not “regulars,” but “irregulars.” Women flowed with the tides of fashion in this and other things even more eagerly, wearing clothes that were so tight that they wore a fox tail hanging down inside their skirts at the back, to hide that arses. The sin of pride manifested in this way must surely bring down misfortune in the future." [23]
The Brut chronicler also weighed in on the fashion changes. In an entry describing Edward of Woodstock investiture as Prince of Wales, the author states that:
"In this time Englishmen so much haunted and cleaved to the wodness and folly of strangers that they change their clothing every year, especially since the coming of the Hainaulters years ago. Sometimes their clothes are long and wide, at others they are short, tight, dagged and cut about and boned all round. The sleeves of their surcoats like their hoods have tapets, long and wide which hand down too far. They look, to tell the truth, more like tormentors and devils in their clothing than like normal men. And the women surpass the men in their clothing which is so tight that they hand fox-tails under their dresses at the back to hide their arses, a kind of behavior which may well have provoked many of the evils and misfortunes that have beset the kingdom of England."
[24]
Whether the Brut entry took John of Reading as a source or if there is a general consensus among the English that Queen Phillapa’s entourage is to blame for the change in fashion is unclear. However, the Brut account does follow Reading's nearly word for word in some places. Also worth noting is that while Readings account is written in Latin, the Brut is written in English. Nonetheless, there is a recurring trend of blaming foreigners for the outlandish fashion is notable in England as well as Italy. What is unclear about the Brut reference is the mentioned of “boned.” This could be a reference to buttons that has been miscopied or misunderstood. It is unlikely that it is a reference to the use of boning in clothing which is not attested anywhere else and which would not become popular for quite some time. It is also notable that changes fashion is blamed for pride, sinful lusts and societal woes. The Brut was written after the 1340s had ended and there may be a reference to the changes in fashion being a direct cause of the Black Death. More on that later.
However, the English were not the only writers to wonder if a national calamity was God’s way of judging a nation for its indiscreet fashion. After the crushing 1346 defeat of France at the battle of Crecy, a chronicler wondered if the destruction of French knighthood was God’s judgment for the sins of pride, greed, and indecency. [25] He said that some had taken to wearing clothing so short that when men bent over their braies were exposed. He further said those standing behind could see what was inside the braies. In addition to this, their clothes were so tight that they needed help both in dressing and undressing it seemed as though when one was being undressed, he was literally being skinned. Others among them had their tunics gathered at the back over their loins like women’s dresses. Moreover, their hoods were minutely cut about all round and, given the chance, made of one cloth on one side and another on the other. The liripies of their hoods as well as their sleeves hung almost to the ground so that they looked more like minstrels than anything else. So, in view of this kind of thing, it was not surprising that, to correct these French excesses, God employed the king of England as his scourge. [26]
Again we see a complaint that men’s braies or private parts are exposed. However, this reference indicates that it is only when men bend down. However, as noted above, the skirts in this period are not so short that this would likely be a common or frequent occurrence. Further, this reference to seeing what is inside the braies – or even the mention of seeing braies at all – is odd because artwork such as the Morgan Bible of the 13th Century had depicted men working the fields with no clothing but braies. Thus, it would be unusual to find it unseemly to see a person in braies when this would be a common sight among farmers in the countryside. Then again, that answer may be the reason why a French writer discussing the plight of the French nobility felt that French fashions were so shameful. The peasant farmer exposed their braies through necessity of their hard work. French courtiers and nobles did so through excesses of their fashion's pride.
What may also be at play is that during this period, hose had gotten longer and covered more of the leg. Therefore, the braies shortened with the growth of hose. Braies went from very loose flowing and baggy to short trousers which had little extra coverage. To see the braies of the 1250s was to see long, billowing excesses of fabric. To see the braies of the 1340s would be similar to seeing a pair of boxer shorts today. Add to this that linen, in certain lights and certainly if wet with sweat, will become transparent and it is not at all unlikely that men in court – not mere farmers – were showing far more than genteel society felt was decent.
It is also interesting that the author refers to some of the outlandish fashion as similar to what was worn by minstrels. Again, this would suggest that the author felt there were certain fashions that were beneath the nobility and flower of chivalry. His descriptions of the fashion would seem to indicate that parti colored tunics were popular in this period. Parti colors were indeed popular among minstrels and performers.
In 1347 English chronicler Henry Knighton writing the Chronicon Angliae wrote about women’s fashions at tournaments. He explained that the women were themselves a side show at the tournaments and that their clothing had become very masculine. [27] What he means by masculine is not immediately apparent and it is unclear if the women were wearing men’s clothing or if they were merely altering traditional feminine attire to match the changes in men’s fashion such as closer fitting tunics, the addition of buttons and lacing, tighter sleeves, and dagging on sleeves and hoods. He does say that the women wore parti-colored tunics and long liripipes twisted around their heads. He said that the girdles (belts) were worn low over the belly and lavishly decorated.
What makes the discussions of parti colored clothing all the more interesting is that Fortune is often depicted in artwork as wearing parti colored clothing. This was done to represent Fortunes constant changes and thus the fickleness and inconstancy of life. [28] However, this association with Fortune and fickleness to parti colored dress may also explain part of the reason why many commentators of the day recoiled to see young people of distinction wearing this fashion. Additionally, the popularity of parti colored dress among performers – routinely viewed as one step above prostitutes – would also explain such disdain for this fashion and why it is routinely mentioned as being among the undesirable changes of the period.
The English Great Wardrobe is especially fascinating for this study. It was a royal department that was responsible for supplying the court with clothing and household furnishings such as chamber pots, tents, packing cases, utensils and the like. The great wardrobe was designed to be moveable but spent most of its time in London – although not always in the same place in London. What is invaluable to us today about the great wardrobe is that clerks who oversaw the keeping of the great wardrobe kept records of its contents. The keepers also were responsible to maintain the wardrobe and update it as needed. Tailors and tent makers and other occupations were employed to keep and maintain the wardrobe. Indeed, royal armorers working permanently at the Tower of London in the 14th century fell under the department of the great wardrobe. Also interesting is that embroiderers worked out of the Tower as well in a permanent location. The reasons for this might be that embroidery thread was often woven with gold and silver strands and therefore required the tools and assistance of smiths and it may have also been because much of the embroidery done by the department was for military banners and pennants and thus had a more martial than domestic function. [29]
The surviving records of the Great Wardrobe from the 1320s through the 1340s bear out the change in the new fashion. For example, there is no mention of buttons in the 1320s or early 1330s. [30] In 1337-1338 the records reflect that the King was now wearing two kind of suits, one long and one short. What is interesting is that prior to this, the valets of the court had been described as wearing short suits. Thus, this change, like many in fashion, was not initially a top down change. [31] 1337-1338 is the first time buttons are mentioned. One detailed description of a garment is as follows:
“1 short suit of red mixed cloth for the King, a gift of the lord W. Northampton, made and lined with fur, with silver gilt buttons and jewels in the form of doublets worked on the courtpiece of the same.” [32]
Another description states “1 long suit of four garments and one short suit of two garments made and lined with fur for the king.” [33] What is notable is that only one suit has a reference to buttons in 1338. This may be because the buttons described were silver gilt and thus were deemed important enough to remark on. Or, it may reflect the newness of the style with the introduction of buttons into garments. However, by reviewing accounts from the early 1340s, the latter explanation seems more likely. In the account for 1342-43 described tunics as being buttoned down the front and most entries remark on the positioning of the buttons as though this were a novelty. The description seems to indicate that the buttons did not follow the entire front of the garment, but rather buttoned merely over the chest (ante pectum). [34]
One fascinating thing about these and other descriptions from the 1340s in the Great Wardrobe is that it explicitly acknowledges that the king wore suits of two fashions – the new shorter fashion with buttons and frounced skirts and the older fashion of long and amply cut garments. One description for braies states the king had “six pairs of linen robarum for the king made frounced and lined in the new fashion, each pair xiiijd. vijs. Twelve pairs of linen robarum made for the king in the old fashion each at vijd a pair.” [35] (Emphases added). Thus, it would appear that the under garments were altered to accommodate the new fashion in some way. In addition, a new description of a lined shirt “made in the new style” is listed in the account which states that it is buttoned down the front as far as the knee and has long lined sleeves buttoned up the forearm. This is distinct from the buttoning down the chest (ad pectum). [36] Another aspect of the fashion that gains special attention the royal wardrobe accounts is the embroidery work, particularly the cost and gold and silver used in the garments.
Interestingly, French royal records from the era do not make the sharp distinction between new fashion and old fashion. There is little mention of buttons or where they are placed. However, there is still an apparent change in fashion because the records indicate that garments were beginning to use less fur in their linings. [37]
Remember, though, that descriptions of the royal entourage’s wardrobe are not descriptions of the dress of a young knight, squire, or merchant, let alone a peasant farmer. The dress of different social classes still does have variation and the lower classes did not always adopt the new fashion with rapidity. This is especially true when you observe the illuminations on the Lutrell Psalter of the 1340s. The Psalter depicts women being dressed by attendants and what is notable is that the attendants are not dressing in the newer fashions. Further, the Lutrell Psalter depicts men wearing coteharides with long sleeves and buttons down the front. These men would appear to have adopted the new fashion. However, other men, particularly those working the fields, still seem to be wearing the older cuts and looser garments of the old fashion.
There is a distinct element of class and social standing – at least at first – in the adoption of the new fashion. What is interesting is that certain communities and tailor guilds responded to the extravagance of the fashion by dictating that for traditional dress consisting of an under-tunic, surcote, and hood, tailors could only charge a flat fee. But for dress in the new fashion, such as being lined with fur or with elongated sleeves, tailors were free to charge whatever they chose. [38] This seems to suggest a recognition that a standard robe of clothes should be affordable to all as a necessity of life while a robe after the new fashion was a luxury good that should be priced accordingly. This is especially interesting because the process a tailor would use to cut a garment in the new fashion would necessarily involve fitting the garment to the wearer using precise measurements and in person fittings. On the other hand, garments made after the old fashion would not necessarily require such precision and could be readily made after taking a few basic body measurements to ensure fit.
The Plague:
What the Brut author perhaps hinted at, Gilles li Muisis, the Abbot of St. Martin’s at Tournai, made explicit in his account written in 1349. In 1347, the Black Death entered Europe and devastated the populace. Those who survived sought reasons for the calamity and often arrived at the conclusion that the widespread death was a divine judgment. Li Muisis pondered this question and wondered
"What can I say, of clothes and their decorations? The men’s so tight, so short that their private parts could often be seen beneath them, which was shocking. And what can I say of the dress of the women? Their dress and their ornaments were made in the likeness of men’s, so tight that their nude bodies could be seen through their clothing. And they went to church, through the streets, and, by turns, to weddings and funerals with their heads decorated with false hair, wearing horns like beasts. People of all stations of life and of all ages went about in public dress in cloths and jewels that cost more than their total wealth." [39]
li Muisis continued that because of the obvious sins and excesses in dress, people had repented of their behavior and taken up more modest clothing and formed bands of penitents who engaged in self-flagellation and scourging in the streets.
|
|
The Bible and the Christian faith of course also play a role in the change of fashion and the perception of that change. Pride, lust, and ostentation are condemned in the Bible. Paul writes to women to avoid gold rings and fancy dress. While this article will not discuss the specific cultural meaning behind the wearing of these article in the first century, the meaning for those in the medieval period is very clear. The faithful were not excessive in their dress or immodest in their fashions. Thomas Aquinas, writing nearly 100 years before, addressed the issue of modesty and had written that men should not seek admiration through excessive attention to dress – whether that might mean fine or plain clothing Aquinas was addressing the pride derived from what one wore. Women, however, he thought should be more careful about their clothing because they had to balance looking attractive to their husbands with the danger of causing others to fall into temptation or to lead themselves into sin. He did, however, remark that there is no harm in women wearing clothing befitting their station in life or to follow the current customs of the day.
Still, in spite of the Black Death and religious condemnations of pride, lust, and ostentation, the new fashion continued to develop. By the 1350s, the waistline on men’s tunics had lowered along with their belts. Curiously, men began to tailor/pad the belly of the cote or doublet to make it protrude and sag over the belt. This in turn created a serpentine and close fitting back. It is notable that young men tailored the belly to create this effect but that older men – and those naturally more corpulent – did not need to resort to this to achieve this effect. Remember though, that a rounded stomach is still in line with what came before – the closer fit and extravagant use of color, embroidery, and decoration. And it was the extravagance that was particularly distressing to writers as the new fashion cemented itself into the fabric of the 14th century.
In 1356, a chronicler writing in the Continuareur of de Nanges expressed disapprobation that nobles and knights had embraced extravagant modes of dress by decorating their hoods and belts with pearls and precious stones to a degree that the pearls became scarce and the costs increase precipitously. [1] Further solidifying the extravagance of fashion in the period was the creation of performative and tournament based clothing among the noble classes. In England the order of the Garter was created between 1347 and 1349 and France followed suit in 1351 by creating the Ordre de l’Etoile. These societies were intended to be theatrical and performative in nature bringing to life the fantastical narrative of chivalric romances and adventures of knight’s errant. Thus, the clothing worn in court by members of these societies was ostentatious and exotic as part and parcel of participation. One particular opportunity to express this taste for ostentation was in headwear which become increasingly decorated, embroidered, and lined with rich furs and made of silks and velvets.
With these, and other similar chivalric orders, the primary purpose was to create fraternal – and political – bonds between the members which would engender a sense of brotherhood and companionship. The bonds were strengthened through feats of martial prowess, hunting, common ideologies and world views, and, of course, through fashion. The men of these orders would routinely reenact scenes from chivalric romances and would each dress up as characters from King Arthur’s court. In addition, they would often arrive at court or tournament in matching garments. Thus, by dressing in coordinating or outright matching costume, the members joined together in a special bond and confraternity. [2] Edward III was particularly known to dress himself and others in matching dress or to coordinate in a theme when entering tournaments including as the pope and his cardinals, the members of town councils hosting the tournaments, and as Tartars. [3] The Ordre de l’Etoile similarly adopted ostentatious dress for its members with a 1351 letter written by King Jean le Bon directing members of the Ordre in their dress. He writes:
A company of knights [is to] be formed, which will be called the Knights of Our Lady of the Noble House, each of whom shall wear a suit described as follows: that is to be understood as a white cote, a vermilion sercot, a hood, when he appears without a mantle. And when he wears a mantle, which shall be made like that of a newly created knight, when he enters, or is present in the Church of the Novel House, it shall be vermilion lined with miniver, not with ermine, or with cendal or samite; and beneath this mantle shall be worn a white sercote or a white cote hardie, black hose and gilded shoes; and he shall always wear a ring around the edge – verge – of which shall be written his name and surname; on this ring shall be a flat enamel plate, on it a white star and in the center of the star a blue roundel, in the middle of the roundel a tiny gold sun, and on the mantle, over the shoulder, in front of the hood, a clasp on which shall be a star of exactly the same pattern as that on the ring. [4]
This very detailed example of dress in a chivalric order is not the only one, nor is it exclusively to chivalric orders. Indeed, guilds and other medieval fraternal orders sought unity through initiative and exclusive dress.
After Poiters:
After the French were crushingly defeated at Poiters On September 19, 1356, the national mood was grim. The French King Jean Bon was captured and the treasury could not pay the ransom for his release. In the southern Langue d’oc region of France, an inquest decided that if the king could not be released by the end of the year, that no man or women was to wear gold, silver, pearls, miniver, or gris. They were also forbidden from wearing garments or hoods that were decoratively cut or to have any extravagant dress. Finally, minstrels and jugglers were not to perform. [5] This was a nation in mourning and in austerity and the fashion in France took an austere turn to reflect this.
On the other side of the English Channel, the English were exuberant and even the French King Jean Bon himself was being treated to the most lavish feasts while being held captive in London. The King himself maintained a rather large household while captive and his secretary was granted safe conduct between England and France in order to bring the King garments, books, money, and other necessaries. [6] However, records show that the French King – and his son the Dauphin now acting as regent in France – lived rather sparsely given their rank during the captivity. On the other hand, the English were now flush with cash from ransoms paid by the noble elite captured after Poiters. It is no surprise, then, that writers in the coming years began to note the new extremes of fashion.
John of Reading, mentioned above, wrote addressing the return of the Plague and said he was not surprised at its return in the mid-1350s because the fashions at the time. He said that hoods had become so close fitting that they needed to be buttoned on and could hardly be pulled on the head. He complained that the liripipes on hoods were thin as string and hung down over the paltok and other short and close fitting garments worn by the adherents of the new fashion. He said that men’s hose had become long (probably meaning that the hose now reach to the torso). He said that the hose were now tied to the paltok instead of the braies which was the traditional place to point hose. He, echoing other authors, noted that men had begun to wear daggers hanging from their belts between their legs. [7] Although it is never made explicit, the reasons contemporaries felt this fashion was improper is hard to ignore.
Similarly, in 1362 a chronical known as the Eulogium feared for England because the whole nation had fallen prey to “corporeal ornamentation [such] that a judgment of God was to be feared.” [8]
The author said that the super tunics were worn short to the hips. He said that those super tunics worn long were worn in the women’s fashion because they did not open at the sides for movement of the legs and that from behind, the men looked like women. He says that this new supertunic is called a gown but, employing some wordplay, he said it should be pronounced “wounyg” because it is “crazy.” [9] He noted that the men wore hoods with long liripipes as the fools and entertainers do and that they are embroidered all over. He discussed the paltok, which he described as a short garment barely covering the loins and said that men were wearing parti colored or striped hose which were tied to the paltok. He said that “they look more like minstrels and jesters than barons, more like actors than knights, and more like comics than men-at arms. We learn from reading the book of Kings that Solomon had never worn that sort of thing during the whole of his life.” [10]
The padding of the belly had gone out of fashion by the 1360s in favor of following the contours of the torso much more closely to give a narrow waist. Instead, the tailoring in the 1360s moved to the chest to give at its most extreme a wasp looking waist and enlarged chest. Sleeves now often extended beyond the wrist to the knuckle to form a bell shape over the top of the hand. The hanging sleeves of the 1340s had fallen out of favor – but not permanently as the style did rebound in the late 14th century. While the sleeves remained tight on the forearm, the upper arm expanded in the 1360s and was looser fitting. It also was occasionally padded in the upper arm to follow the fit of the chest. If an overly simplified thumbnail sketch of the torso between 1340 and the 1360s can be given it would be that in the 1340s the torso was cut close and followed the contours of the torso. In the 1350s, the belly was padded and the curve of the back emphasized. In the 1360s, the trim waist was emphasized and the chest was padded to emphasize the martial chest in contrast to the thin and fit waistline.
In general, the paltok can be regarded as similar to a doublet but with a martial flair. Paltoks were almost always padded and have quilting all over which would indicate padding underneath being held in place by diamond, vertical, or even spiraled quilting. The spiral stitching would follow the contours of the rounded, padded chest which would enhance the narrow waist and the large chest effect. They were worn short and the hose pointed to the bottom of the paltok. Often the lacing had metal aglets and was designed to have flashy while sturdy eyelets as well. The paltok almost certainly is inspired by the aketon or pourpoint which were padded arming garments. This also would explain why men began pointing their hose to doublets and paltoks. Prior to this, soldiers pointed their maille hose to an aketon at the bottom and by pointing the hose to the doublet of paltok, men were signaling that their association with martial endeavors.
The gown on the other hand was a garment meant to exude decadence. It was also often called a houpelande and it is unclear what if any difference there is between the gown and houpelande of the period. Even the short gowns of the period would be worn extremely wide with long and showy sleeves. The gown, in truth, is seen in almost any length on men. It could be as short as the upper thigh or as long as the ground. The gowns frequently had frounced or ruffled skirts which added width to the skirts. The gown does not appear to have been popularly worn in England until after Poiters in 1356. It is not clear when the gown became popular in France.
Another development of the period after Poiters was a lightweight knee-length garment called the jack or Jacque. It was an over garment worn over the paltok and made of linen outer and lining fabric. It also appears to have often been padded with linen. As referenced above, this garment was of French origin. It was a humble padded arming garment worn over the clothing that became popular among the fashionable because it was an outer garment that could visibly demonstrate the martial focus of the wearer. While the doublet and the paltok were often worn under the surcote, cotehardie or gown, the jack was worn over it and would always be on display.
The tailors and the industry:
It was not as though a tailor made all types of clothes for all people. There was a degree of specialization within the trade. A man called Jehan de Brabant was a doublet maker called a “pourpointier.” [11] In addition, there were people employed as embroiderers who decorated and embroidered garments; furriers who lined and trimmed garments with fur; cousturies who made gowns, hoods and general garments; chaussetiers who made hose; alterers who, in addition to making alterations to garments, would also remake garments or recut them to keep in step with the latest trends. In 1443 Hayne de Necker made alterations to a duke’s doublets and replaced the sleeves, which were too narrow. He took various garments to pieces to remake them in the new fashion because the duke felt the garments were tool old fashioned. [12]
One intriguing piece of information is that in 1424 Henry VI allowed chaussetiers to make any garment they wished and to sell it at retail – rather than only making garments to order – which had previously been forbidden. A similar statute in Bernay allowed chaussetiers to keep one apprentice per master for a term of three years. A further point of interest is that the Bernay statute required chaussetiers to make their hose on the bias. [13] The reason for such a mandate is that bias cut wool has natural stretch and will produce a better fit. However, cutting along the bias is more wasteful of the fabric. A tailor that does not cut hose along the bias is cutting corners and selling an inferior product.
The issue of selling at retail is an interesting one. For the majority of the medieval period, it seems that tailors would typically make garments to order and that the client supplied the raw cloth to the tailor for the purpose. Guilds disliked selling at retail because it could allow a rival to buy bulk fabric and make garments that were more competitively priced. It was likely out of this same concern that in 1431 a second hand clothing shop in Paris was prosecuted for violating a 1427 edict which forbade second hand dealers from making clothes from new cloth. Apparently, it was permissible rework clothes from old cloth or to resell old garments but not to do the same with new cloth. [14]
Conclusion:
Consider the commentaries when considering your style of dress and your persona for reenactment purposes. Are you reenacting a persona that would decry these changes and take comfort in the cuts and fashions of the early 14th century? Or are you reenacting one who embraces the godlessness of luxury? In either case, I hope you found this article helpful.
Still, in spite of the Black Death and religious condemnations of pride, lust, and ostentation, the new fashion continued to develop. By the 1350s, the waistline on men’s tunics had lowered along with their belts. Curiously, men began to tailor/pad the belly of the cote or doublet to make it protrude and sag over the belt. This in turn created a serpentine and close fitting back. It is notable that young men tailored the belly to create this effect but that older men – and those naturally more corpulent – did not need to resort to this to achieve this effect. Remember though, that a rounded stomach is still in line with what came before – the closer fit and extravagant use of color, embroidery, and decoration. And it was the extravagance that was particularly distressing to writers as the new fashion cemented itself into the fabric of the 14th century.
In 1356, a chronicler writing in the Continuareur of de Nanges expressed disapprobation that nobles and knights had embraced extravagant modes of dress by decorating their hoods and belts with pearls and precious stones to a degree that the pearls became scarce and the costs increase precipitously. [1] Further solidifying the extravagance of fashion in the period was the creation of performative and tournament based clothing among the noble classes. In England the order of the Garter was created between 1347 and 1349 and France followed suit in 1351 by creating the Ordre de l’Etoile. These societies were intended to be theatrical and performative in nature bringing to life the fantastical narrative of chivalric romances and adventures of knight’s errant. Thus, the clothing worn in court by members of these societies was ostentatious and exotic as part and parcel of participation. One particular opportunity to express this taste for ostentation was in headwear which become increasingly decorated, embroidered, and lined with rich furs and made of silks and velvets.
With these, and other similar chivalric orders, the primary purpose was to create fraternal – and political – bonds between the members which would engender a sense of brotherhood and companionship. The bonds were strengthened through feats of martial prowess, hunting, common ideologies and world views, and, of course, through fashion. The men of these orders would routinely reenact scenes from chivalric romances and would each dress up as characters from King Arthur’s court. In addition, they would often arrive at court or tournament in matching garments. Thus, by dressing in coordinating or outright matching costume, the members joined together in a special bond and confraternity. [2] Edward III was particularly known to dress himself and others in matching dress or to coordinate in a theme when entering tournaments including as the pope and his cardinals, the members of town councils hosting the tournaments, and as Tartars. [3] The Ordre de l’Etoile similarly adopted ostentatious dress for its members with a 1351 letter written by King Jean le Bon directing members of the Ordre in their dress. He writes:
A company of knights [is to] be formed, which will be called the Knights of Our Lady of the Noble House, each of whom shall wear a suit described as follows: that is to be understood as a white cote, a vermilion sercot, a hood, when he appears without a mantle. And when he wears a mantle, which shall be made like that of a newly created knight, when he enters, or is present in the Church of the Novel House, it shall be vermilion lined with miniver, not with ermine, or with cendal or samite; and beneath this mantle shall be worn a white sercote or a white cote hardie, black hose and gilded shoes; and he shall always wear a ring around the edge – verge – of which shall be written his name and surname; on this ring shall be a flat enamel plate, on it a white star and in the center of the star a blue roundel, in the middle of the roundel a tiny gold sun, and on the mantle, over the shoulder, in front of the hood, a clasp on which shall be a star of exactly the same pattern as that on the ring. [4]
This very detailed example of dress in a chivalric order is not the only one, nor is it exclusively to chivalric orders. Indeed, guilds and other medieval fraternal orders sought unity through initiative and exclusive dress.
After Poiters:
After the French were crushingly defeated at Poiters On September 19, 1356, the national mood was grim. The French King Jean Bon was captured and the treasury could not pay the ransom for his release. In the southern Langue d’oc region of France, an inquest decided that if the king could not be released by the end of the year, that no man or women was to wear gold, silver, pearls, miniver, or gris. They were also forbidden from wearing garments or hoods that were decoratively cut or to have any extravagant dress. Finally, minstrels and jugglers were not to perform. [5] This was a nation in mourning and in austerity and the fashion in France took an austere turn to reflect this.
On the other side of the English Channel, the English were exuberant and even the French King Jean Bon himself was being treated to the most lavish feasts while being held captive in London. The King himself maintained a rather large household while captive and his secretary was granted safe conduct between England and France in order to bring the King garments, books, money, and other necessaries. [6] However, records show that the French King – and his son the Dauphin now acting as regent in France – lived rather sparsely given their rank during the captivity. On the other hand, the English were now flush with cash from ransoms paid by the noble elite captured after Poiters. It is no surprise, then, that writers in the coming years began to note the new extremes of fashion.
John of Reading, mentioned above, wrote addressing the return of the Plague and said he was not surprised at its return in the mid-1350s because the fashions at the time. He said that hoods had become so close fitting that they needed to be buttoned on and could hardly be pulled on the head. He complained that the liripipes on hoods were thin as string and hung down over the paltok and other short and close fitting garments worn by the adherents of the new fashion. He said that men’s hose had become long (probably meaning that the hose now reach to the torso). He said that the hose were now tied to the paltok instead of the braies which was the traditional place to point hose. He, echoing other authors, noted that men had begun to wear daggers hanging from their belts between their legs. [7] Although it is never made explicit, the reasons contemporaries felt this fashion was improper is hard to ignore.
Similarly, in 1362 a chronical known as the Eulogium feared for England because the whole nation had fallen prey to “corporeal ornamentation [such] that a judgment of God was to be feared.” [8]
The author said that the super tunics were worn short to the hips. He said that those super tunics worn long were worn in the women’s fashion because they did not open at the sides for movement of the legs and that from behind, the men looked like women. He says that this new supertunic is called a gown but, employing some wordplay, he said it should be pronounced “wounyg” because it is “crazy.” [9] He noted that the men wore hoods with long liripipes as the fools and entertainers do and that they are embroidered all over. He discussed the paltok, which he described as a short garment barely covering the loins and said that men were wearing parti colored or striped hose which were tied to the paltok. He said that “they look more like minstrels and jesters than barons, more like actors than knights, and more like comics than men-at arms. We learn from reading the book of Kings that Solomon had never worn that sort of thing during the whole of his life.” [10]
The padding of the belly had gone out of fashion by the 1360s in favor of following the contours of the torso much more closely to give a narrow waist. Instead, the tailoring in the 1360s moved to the chest to give at its most extreme a wasp looking waist and enlarged chest. Sleeves now often extended beyond the wrist to the knuckle to form a bell shape over the top of the hand. The hanging sleeves of the 1340s had fallen out of favor – but not permanently as the style did rebound in the late 14th century. While the sleeves remained tight on the forearm, the upper arm expanded in the 1360s and was looser fitting. It also was occasionally padded in the upper arm to follow the fit of the chest. If an overly simplified thumbnail sketch of the torso between 1340 and the 1360s can be given it would be that in the 1340s the torso was cut close and followed the contours of the torso. In the 1350s, the belly was padded and the curve of the back emphasized. In the 1360s, the trim waist was emphasized and the chest was padded to emphasize the martial chest in contrast to the thin and fit waistline.
In general, the paltok can be regarded as similar to a doublet but with a martial flair. Paltoks were almost always padded and have quilting all over which would indicate padding underneath being held in place by diamond, vertical, or even spiraled quilting. The spiral stitching would follow the contours of the rounded, padded chest which would enhance the narrow waist and the large chest effect. They were worn short and the hose pointed to the bottom of the paltok. Often the lacing had metal aglets and was designed to have flashy while sturdy eyelets as well. The paltok almost certainly is inspired by the aketon or pourpoint which were padded arming garments. This also would explain why men began pointing their hose to doublets and paltoks. Prior to this, soldiers pointed their maille hose to an aketon at the bottom and by pointing the hose to the doublet of paltok, men were signaling that their association with martial endeavors.
The gown on the other hand was a garment meant to exude decadence. It was also often called a houpelande and it is unclear what if any difference there is between the gown and houpelande of the period. Even the short gowns of the period would be worn extremely wide with long and showy sleeves. The gown, in truth, is seen in almost any length on men. It could be as short as the upper thigh or as long as the ground. The gowns frequently had frounced or ruffled skirts which added width to the skirts. The gown does not appear to have been popularly worn in England until after Poiters in 1356. It is not clear when the gown became popular in France.
Another development of the period after Poiters was a lightweight knee-length garment called the jack or Jacque. It was an over garment worn over the paltok and made of linen outer and lining fabric. It also appears to have often been padded with linen. As referenced above, this garment was of French origin. It was a humble padded arming garment worn over the clothing that became popular among the fashionable because it was an outer garment that could visibly demonstrate the martial focus of the wearer. While the doublet and the paltok were often worn under the surcote, cotehardie or gown, the jack was worn over it and would always be on display.
The tailors and the industry:
It was not as though a tailor made all types of clothes for all people. There was a degree of specialization within the trade. A man called Jehan de Brabant was a doublet maker called a “pourpointier.” [11] In addition, there were people employed as embroiderers who decorated and embroidered garments; furriers who lined and trimmed garments with fur; cousturies who made gowns, hoods and general garments; chaussetiers who made hose; alterers who, in addition to making alterations to garments, would also remake garments or recut them to keep in step with the latest trends. In 1443 Hayne de Necker made alterations to a duke’s doublets and replaced the sleeves, which were too narrow. He took various garments to pieces to remake them in the new fashion because the duke felt the garments were tool old fashioned. [12]
One intriguing piece of information is that in 1424 Henry VI allowed chaussetiers to make any garment they wished and to sell it at retail – rather than only making garments to order – which had previously been forbidden. A similar statute in Bernay allowed chaussetiers to keep one apprentice per master for a term of three years. A further point of interest is that the Bernay statute required chaussetiers to make their hose on the bias. [13] The reason for such a mandate is that bias cut wool has natural stretch and will produce a better fit. However, cutting along the bias is more wasteful of the fabric. A tailor that does not cut hose along the bias is cutting corners and selling an inferior product.
The issue of selling at retail is an interesting one. For the majority of the medieval period, it seems that tailors would typically make garments to order and that the client supplied the raw cloth to the tailor for the purpose. Guilds disliked selling at retail because it could allow a rival to buy bulk fabric and make garments that were more competitively priced. It was likely out of this same concern that in 1431 a second hand clothing shop in Paris was prosecuted for violating a 1427 edict which forbade second hand dealers from making clothes from new cloth. Apparently, it was permissible rework clothes from old cloth or to resell old garments but not to do the same with new cloth. [14]
Conclusion:
Consider the commentaries when considering your style of dress and your persona for reenactment purposes. Are you reenacting a persona that would decry these changes and take comfort in the cuts and fashions of the early 14th century? Or are you reenacting one who embraces the godlessness of luxury? In either case, I hope you found this article helpful.
[1]Fashioning Change: The Trope of Clothing in High and Late-Medieval England, Andrea Denny-Brown, Columbus, Ohio State University Press, 2012, at 2.
[2]Ibid. at 3.
[3]Ibid. at 10.
[4]Ibid. at 19.
[5]Ibid. at 28.
[6]Ibid. at 32.
[7]Ibid. at 41.
[8]Ibid. at 42.
[9]Ibid. at 48.
[10]Ibid. at 54.
[11]Ibid. at 57.
[12]Ibid. at 57-58.
[13]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince at 7.
[14]Ibid. at 6.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid. at 7.
[18]Ibid. at 8.
[19]Ibid.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid.
[22]Ibid. at 9.
[23]Fashioning Change at 12.
[24]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince at 9.
[25]Ibid. at 10.
[26]Ibid. at 10.
[27]Ibid.
[28]Fashioning Change at 76.
[29]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince at 14-15.
[30]Ibid. at 15.
[31]Ibid.
[32]Ibid.
[33]Ibid.
[34]Ibid. at 16.
[35]Ibid. at 17.
[36]Ibid.
[37]Ibid. at 24.
[38]Ibid.
[39]Ibid. at 29.
[1]Ibid. at 31.
[2]Ibid. at 41.
[3]Ibid. at 42.
[4]Ibid. at 47-48
[5]Ibid. at 53.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Ibid. at 53-54.
[8]Ibid. at 54.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Late Gothic Europe, 1400-1500 at 72.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid.
[14]Late Gothic Europe, 1400-1500 at 74.
[2]Ibid. at 3.
[3]Ibid. at 10.
[4]Ibid. at 19.
[5]Ibid. at 28.
[6]Ibid. at 32.
[7]Ibid. at 41.
[8]Ibid. at 42.
[9]Ibid. at 48.
[10]Ibid. at 54.
[11]Ibid. at 57.
[12]Ibid. at 57-58.
[13]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince at 7.
[14]Ibid. at 6.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid. at 7.
[18]Ibid. at 8.
[19]Ibid.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid.
[22]Ibid. at 9.
[23]Fashioning Change at 12.
[24]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince at 9.
[25]Ibid. at 10.
[26]Ibid. at 10.
[27]Ibid.
[28]Fashioning Change at 76.
[29]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince at 14-15.
[30]Ibid. at 15.
[31]Ibid.
[32]Ibid.
[33]Ibid.
[34]Ibid. at 16.
[35]Ibid. at 17.
[36]Ibid.
[37]Ibid. at 24.
[38]Ibid.
[39]Ibid. at 29.
[1]Ibid. at 31.
[2]Ibid. at 41.
[3]Ibid. at 42.
[4]Ibid. at 47-48
[5]Ibid. at 53.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Ibid. at 53-54.
[8]Ibid. at 54.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Late Gothic Europe, 1400-1500 at 72.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid.
[14]Late Gothic Europe, 1400-1500 at 74.