Medieval Fashion, Occupation, and Social Status
A discussion of the garments worn by those in specific occupations and social classes is essential for a full picture of dress in the fourteenth century and the entire medieval period. This article will not exhaustively describe all garments worn by all members of various occupations and social classes but it will give enough of an overview to convey major distinctions in dress.
Liveries, of course, deserve some treatment. Typically, the livery is the uniform worn by a worker in the employ of a master or it can be garments distributed to important court officials and retainers. Indeed, one benefit of being a court retainer was that the court would often provide a fine array of clothing to ensure that those who came to court saw richly dressed retainers who would reflect the glory, largess, and richness of the court itself. When courts were too generous, it often led to shortages of money and when they were not generous enough, the retainers would grumble because they had not received the gifts and contributions they were expecting. England is notable in medieval history because the King’s purse strings were not entirely his to control. Parliament had some degree of control on spending and taxation. Therefore, the Office of the Exchequer was a relatively early check and balance of English governance that provides great details to modern scholars.
The fourteenth century English Royal court kept detailed records of which workers would receive which types of fabric, which types of furs and even what color fabric for their official liveries. For example, livery accounts for the English royal court records that heralds in 1364 received finer fur to line their garments than did the King’s minstrels, who only received lamb’s wool. [1] This would demonstrate that the herald’s status in the court was in some way superior. At the least, it demonstrates that the public role of a herald in some way required finer dress than that of a minstrel. Squires received liveries to wear the fashionable paltok while falconers received gowns made of russet cloth. [2] At the bottom of royal and clerical rolls were military invalids and pensioners who received housing in a monastery, food, and rough russet colored cloth. [3]
The Royal wardrobe records show the top tier of what was an essential part of medieval society. Even lower noble households would employ servants and dress them in rich liveries. When looking for servants in medieval artwork, look for figures who are smaller – literally drawn smaller to represent their lower status – figures that are carrying plates, dishes, cups and towels, and figures who are wearing matching outfits to other figures in the artwork. [4] In addition, servants are often in parti colored outfits prior to and after the mid-fourteenth century. However, parti colored outfits become fashionable among the elite in the 1340s and thus are not always a sign of service. [5] Even if a worker was not provided a livery or official uniform, many workers were paid their wages in room, board, and clothing – either by having certain pieces tailored for them or by giving employees bolts of fabric directly to be tailor made. Also remember that liveries are not necessarily the only clothes that an individual would wear. Instead, they were quite literally the clothing of service. When not in service the workers would often wear ordinary garments rather than the matching garments of service worn in the employ of their master.
Cities, too, dressed their magistrates, officials, and clerks in official garments. In Flanders the mayor, alderman, and magistrates of Bruges were granted suits and robes. Apparently, the robes were so fine and the men of the City so eager to impress that they made a grand show of their finery while at a state event in Paris. The men of Bruges were seated on benches without cushions. Rather than complain about their uncomfortable seating, the men took their gowns off, rolled them up and used them as cushions on the benches. When they went to leave, they left he gowns behind. The French attendants noticed this and attempted to return the garments to the group of men. They reportedly said that “we of Flanders when we have been invited to dine, have never been in the habit of taking the cushions away with us when we leave.” [6]
This tale demonstrates the reason why an employer, a city, or a king would want those associated to them to be well dressed. The greatness of dress reflects a bright light on the grantor of the dress and people will want to go where the largesse lies. Do not forget that this was a two way transaction. As a scholar, author, or artist, performer, craftsmen, or other tradesperson, if you can be counted among the members of the finest court in Europe then some of that greatness will rub off on you. Indeed, court’s offered such fine gifts as a way of attracting the best, brightest, and handsomest to their court which resulted in a feedback loop of grand expense.
Even merchants and guild members had liveries that matched to better identify themselves and their trade. These were not liveries in the sense of an official uniform provided by a king or employer, but more typically a matching color scheme worn on the hood and tunic by its members. [7]
The poor and needy also received a livery of sorts. French records show that the crown provided clothing and shoes for the deserving poor. From other records, the deserving poor seem to be those otherwise incapable of work and lodging. The Ordonnances of the French kings states that beggars, lazy people, dice players, street singers who were otherwise healthy were not to be given anything more than a single night’s lodging. [8] It was also not uncommon for wealthy merchants, as a final act of charity, to provide clothing for paupers that assisted in the funeral services. [9] The will of Thomas III of the le Blanc family provided that twenty livers should be distributed to paupers who assisted at his funeral and that they should be given forty ells each of cloth, forty shirts, and forty pairs of shoes between them. [10] Similarly, Jean de Vaux, who was a draper of Lyon ordered eleven paupers to be given black tunics and hoods in exchange for carrying his bier. [11] Sometimes individuals would create endowments to give shoes and tunics to students at schools or universities. Occasionally the motivation for this generosity was made explicit by the donor “for the aid and repose of my soul” as Nicolai Acciaiuoli put it. [12]
And while discussing the official uniform of various workers and members of society, we must remember the darker side of such customs. At various times and locales throughout the medieval period, and continuing in the 14th century, Jews were required to wear a distinctive dress or badge on their garments to mark them out. In France in the 1360s, the Jews were required to wear a red and white circle on the outermost garments of their dress. To make it clear that the sign was not to be hidden from view, the regulation specified that the outermost portion of the dress might be a “mantel, houce, cote, sercote ou autre vestment.” [13]
Although it may seem as though every member of society went about in uniform garments issued to them by their employer, this is not at all the case. Artisans, tradesmen, peasants – in short, the bulk of society – were left to their own devices to provide and maintain their own garments. One anonymous poem of the 14th century features a peasant who remarks to his fellow toiler that he wishes he could afford a houeplannde. [14] His fellow assures him that he will never be able to afford one, and thus, we see that same well-worn desire of the lower orders to achieve the fineries of their betters replayed yet again. Perhaps, then it is not surprising that the artwork of the period will often depict peasants in dress that is ten to twenty years behind the most current courtly trends. [15] However, the lagging in fashion did not necessarily equate to a diminution in esteem. Indeed, the 14th century glorified the peasant ploughman as the true heart of morality, spirituality, and industry.
Piers Ploughman and Chaucer’s ploughman in the Canterbury Tales demonstrate the surprising honor society attributed to the backbone occupation of society. Thus, to be dressed as a ploughman in the 14th century could be a virtue, and signal in its own way, the status of the wearer.
A word of caution, however, although ploughman, shepherds, and workers are typically depicted in plain clothing and less fashionable cuts, many pieces of medieval artwork take liberties with the dress of working people by gilding it in gold or adding uncharacteristic opulence such as long sleeves or other impractical aspects of dress. This is probably done to enliven the artwork for the patron rather than a failed attempt to reflect reality. [16] This word of caution also applies in a different way to biblical artwork. It is not uncommon to see Jesus or an apostle dressed in an anachronistic way with long robes, barefoot and in simple cuts. This was largely due to iconography as an effort to ensure the subject characters are always recognizable. It is essential to be aware that artwork would depict the apostles as part of their own distinct “profession” and dress them accordingly while others in the artwork are often painted to match the contemporary fashion of the day. [17]
Some of the biggest outliers in fashionable trends during the period were actors, minstrels, and fools. Mentions of troupes and performers often lump them in with traditional ne’er do wells and it is not uncommon for a writer to speak of beggars, thieves, and jugglers in the same breath. Nevertheless, there was certainly a desire and market for performers in the 14th century and the garments worn by these performers are often outrageous in form and execution. Remember, of course, that performers in permanent employ of a king or noble would likely be given a livery while iterant performers would have to supply their own vestments. Even so, itinerant performers were not typically freelancers as we think of the term today. Instead, they would typically be part of a band or confraternity of performers. Even if they did not travel together, they organized themselves in order to better meet needs, care for the sick, regulate practice, and to keep outsiders and interlopers out of a particular city or region. [18]
Look for fools particularly in illuminated Psalters at Psalm 53. The Fool is often depicted inside the capital D. This was a reference to the opening lines of Psalm 53 “Dixit Insipiens,” or "The Fools says in his heart there is no God." Fools are often depicted wearing bells on their belts or on their hats. Their clothing frequently features slashing on the sleeves which would rise in popularity in the late 14th century among the elite. Another common feature is tattered clothing, whether intentionally so or as a result of genuine poverty is open to debate. Fools would often also be depicted missing certain garments, wearing only one hose, wearing a hood with no shirt, not wearing a belt, or the like. It was a common feature of fools to play out the part of a person so out of his senses that he failed to properly care for his own hygiene. [19] Hoods and headwear are similar to the common trends of the day but often had spiked doubled or triple liripipes. However, although the fools fashion was outlandish in certain respects, it is also notable that the general form and cut of the clothing was often very similar to the clothing and fashion of the time. There is not specific uniform or template which defines the dress of the fool. Besides the gaudy hoods and the bells, the most distinctive part of the fool’s uniform is a bauble on a stick. Sometimes a face, sometimes merely cloth or leather hanging from a stick, the bauble on the stick seems to be the only true distinctive of the fool. Another common feature is an apple, as a reference to the foolishness of Adam and Eve in taking the apple in the Garden of Eden.
In reference to minstrels and other performers, it is notable that parti-colored dress is typical both before and after the 1340s, but that in the 1340s parti-colors were in vogue among the elite of society and thus seems to have fallen out of favor amongst performers. [20]
Other outlier groups of medieval fashion, although to a lesser degree, were academics and the clergy. The reason that the dress of academics was an outlier from typical fashion of the period is actually directly related to one of the essential functions of fashion – to indicate status. The dress of academics is interesting in that it was developed at the same time the universities were created. With the rise of universities in the thirteenth century, the dress of academics became formalized and averse to change. The garments themselves were a symbol of status and any change in the garments would have obscured the status that the wearer had worked so hard to obtain. Therefore, academic dress retained many of the features of thirteenth century fashion such as being full length and boxy. In addition, the garments were made of quality fabric and rich dyes such as scarlet. [21] The most common garment to see an academic wear is the houce, which was a gown like garment with full sleeves and always floor length. It is typically lined with fur and sometimes featured folding tabs on the chest which were also lined. The tabs were usually rounded and splayed across the chest. They are not always visible as they might be covered by a hood. [22]
Lawyers dressed much like academics and scholars with full length shapeless gowns which were contrary to the popular ruffled and billowing gowns of the mid to late fourteenth century. Lawyers are often but not always seen in cloth of purple or with purple elements in their dress. Doctors, like lawyers, also wore high quality cloth and after 1350 those who taught medicine in the University of Paris were required to wear violet cloth. [23] Their garments would remain little changed between 1250 and 1500 as means of signaling their status and distinction in society.
Clergy:
Similar to academics, the clergy are outliers because their distinctive dress signaled their distinctive role in society. Although this overview will not go into minute detail of clerical garments and vestments, it does well to note that priests, bishops, monks, nuns, deacons, and other church figures each wore distinctive dress. Like academics, the dress was often looser fitting and less stylish in its cut. However, do not let that lead you to believe that it was less impressive or magnificent. Indeed, a recurring complaint against clerics was that the shepherds of the church were fleecing their flocks to array themselves in fine clothing. The garments of priests, bishops, and cardinals were embroidered and decorated with images of holy figures or scenes. The bishops cope (a semi-circle of fabric worn over the shoulders) was typically made of fine cloth and richly embroidered.
A mid-thirteenth century poem, called the Song upon the Tailors addresses the metamorphoses that fabric will go through in a way that stresses the changeability of life. It is a highly allegorical, deeply satirical, and bitingly insightful critique of the church through discussions of clerical vestments. The poem derives its inspiration from Ovid’s Metamorphoses and uses the conceit of the tailor and his cloth to highlight the mutability of life in the realms of social, economic, religious and political change. The narrative of the poem follows a single piece of cloth through its changes to suit its owner’s ever changing needs. [1]
The fabric starts out as a bishop’s cope and through the course of the poem it is sewed, decorated, collared, squared, rounded, and furred into other garments such as a mantle, a hood, a clerk’s amuce, and a pair of gloves.[2] The author of the poem does not detail the design, decoration, or tailoring of the pieces in a literal sense – which is unfortunate to those who desire to understand the essentials of medieval tailoring. However, he does allegorize the various changes in composition to different changes of “body.” The garment is said to become like a circumcised Jew when it is defurred, it is cleansed by baptism when it is re-dyed, it is divorced, remarried, and widowed when cut, sewn and resewn with other cloth.[3]
The poem, likely written by a cleric, takes pains to highlight the failure of the clergy to uphold the role as a shepherd leading his people in humility. The poet’s focus is on the motivation behind the reworking of the illustrious bishop’s cope into other garments and highlights that these metamorphoses are not intended to help and aid the bishop’s people but to clutch onto his finery as long he can. While St. Martin, the patron saint of tailors, is famous for giving half of his cloak to a poor man in the dead of winter, the Song upon the Tailors features no such charity. St. Martin did not consider the finery of his clothes when assessing the need of others, he gave freely. In contrast, the bishops cope is formed and reformed for the bishop who cannot let the fine vestments be given over to a purpose other than his own. The garment finally becomes a set of gloves which are used when performing the mass and in holding the sacraments. In the allegory, the worthiness of the cloth having been remade and used as gloves does not cover the unworthiness of the priest who has falsely covered himself in the same way that Jacob covered himself in fur to trick his father Isaac. The poet describes the gloves by saying “being devoid of hair and worn of use, from Esau having become Jacob, when the hair is fallen from it, the process is inverted, and again conversely from Jacob it become Esau.” [4]
Even those who were sympathetic to the vestments of the clergy often spun themselves in circles trying to justify the finery worn by the humble servants of Christ. William Duran wrote his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum in 1286 about the medieval liturgy. He dedicated much discussion to the vestments worn by the clergy and why these vestments were the proper and necessary garments for God’s earthly servants. His lengthy discussion in Book III demonstrates his attempts to “reconcile the subtle disparities between traditional Church narrative about ecclesiastical vestments and actual contemporary practices.” [5] The work itself was so popular and enduring that over 200 years later, Martin Luther called Duran’s work a waste of time and suitable only for “idle” men. [6]
Duran focused much of his attention on the allegorical and typological meaning of clergy’s vestments. Allegorical meanings would be garments or aspects of the garments that point to or remind of a divine truth such as humility, charity or chastity. Typological meanings would be garments or aspects of the garments that point to or remind of Christ himself and point to the clergy as Christ’s earthly vicars. The vestments worn by the clergy during the liturgy were intended to follow those garments worn by the Old Testament priests working in the temple. [7] According to Pope Innocent’s De Missarum Mysteriis, the mass itself was designed to be a representation of Christ entering the world from his birth and proceeding through his death and resurrection and ascension. [8] The mass, as well as the vestments worn by the priest, were designed to allegorize the Old Testament temple practice as well as be a typology of Christ’s life.
This is where Durand’s work is so interesting. He used Innocent’s fundamental understanding of the mass to explain and justify the vestments of the clergy. He said that he has called his work the Rationale
"because just as “revelation and truth” were written on the pectoral of judgment that the High Priest bore on his vestments, so too that Rationale contains the reasons for the variations of the Divine Offices, and their inner meaning is described and made manifest. The prelates and priests of the Church should faithfully keep these truths in the chamber of their heart. In the pectoral of judgment, moreover, there was a stone by whose splendor the sons of Israel could know that God’s favor was with them. In the same way, the devout reader, instructed in the mysteries of the divine offices by the splendor of this book, will be able to know that God’s favor will be with us, unless we incur his indignation through the commission of some sin." [9]
Durand’s prose often allegorizes the physical vestments of the priests of Israel such as the pectoral vestment of the high priest which contained two stones, the urim and tummim, which would indicate God’s divine will. Durand allegorizes this idea of the stone revealing God’s favor with his readers who will find God’s favor by understanding the meaning of priestly vestments. This also works to eliminate the perennial critique of clerical wear which was its ostentatious and rich nature. After all, if the garments themselves will help understand the divine more fully, then it would be wrong not to wear the ornate and richly dyed garments.
He states that:
"The honor of the vestments does not confer pontifical glory, but rather the splendor of souls, since those things which flatter the carnal gazes more properly summon us to the things that ought to be understood by these vestments, so that whatever these clothes signified with glittering gold, in splendid gems, and with a wide variety of workmanship, can now show forth in good morals and deeds. Among the ancients, the visual appearance of something acquired as much reverence as what it signified, but for us, the experience of things is more certain than the enigma of figures. (bold added)." [10]
This explanation states that the richness of the garments does not confer glory in the wearing of the garments, but that by seeing the things which flatter and amuse our carnal gaze the observer will be reminded of certain underlying truths to which the garments point. He can justify the gems and glittering gold because they point to good morals and deed. Most interestingly, he concludes by stating that in ancient times the visual appearance of a thing was revered for what it signified and not purely for what it looked like. For his audience, the experience of seeing fine things is more definite than knowing what the thing signifies. In simple terms, he is saying that the ancients could see a crown of poorly carved wood on a king’s head and see the splendor of the crown because the king wore it. The opposite is true in his time, people would not see the king’s splendor without the gold and gem encrusted crown.
This last statement seems to be an appeal to a past Platonist understanding of the true form of things. The bishop was revered because he was a bishop and his appearance and aura elevated because of his office. He complains that in his time, the opposite is true, people can only understand the form – the enigma of the figure – through a visual experience of the thing to which it points. Based on this logic, Durand’s defense of gold and gems and fine vestments would mean that the vestments, while not directly conferring any splendor upon the wearer, remind the wearer and others of the splendor of the office.
With this basic understanding of why clergy wore fine vestments, Durand explicates the fifteen vestments that a bishop would wear and devotes a chapter to the meaning of each. [11] The first vestment is putting on sandals to “be mindful of the Lord’s Incarnation.” [12] The belt is worn to curb impulses to illicit behavior, gloves worn to avoid vainglory, and so on.[13] Durand even addresses perhaps his most difficult challenge – why the priests of the Old Testament wore eight priestly garments while the bishop wears fifteen. Durand attempts to exclude certain vestments from his time such as ornaments of the feet and hands which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. Durand still has too many garments, but his attempts to rationalize their existence and to anchor the garments to a biblical text is interesting and are done to support his earlier statements about the need for fine vestments to point people to the enigma of figures though fine clothing.
However, Durand’s greatest problem in his discourse on vestments is that he is calculating fifteen vestments for a bishop based on Pope Innocent’s earlier writing which discussed the vestments in the early thirteenth century. By Durand’s time nearly half a century later, two additional garments had been added. The first garment was a linen surplice which Durand said was to be worn over common garments and represent the clothing of Adam which he wore after the fall to cover his sin. [14] The garment was white to represent the purity of the wearer and the ample size represented ample charity and the cross like shape represented Christ’s passion. [15]
The second extra garment added to the fifteen since Pope Innocent was put on after all other garments which was the cope. As discussed above, this was a cloak like garment of fine fabric and usually finely embroidered with gold. The cope was often a different color for different feast days. Red copes for martyrs, green or brown for confessors, and saffron for matrons or betrothed women. [16] Durand explained that the cope:
"Is understood to be the glorious immortality of the body; and for this reason, we only wear it on major feast days, looking toward the future resurrection when the elect, having set aside the flesh, will receive two stole, namely, the eternal rest of their souls and a glorified body. This cope is appropriately wide-open on the inside and is not sewn together, but only held together out of necessity by a clasp; and this is because when bodies become glorified, they will no longer impede the needs of the soul. The cope is also decorated with fringes, since in the future, there will be nothing lacking for our perfection, but now, we only have partial understanding, but then, we will understand all things just as we ourselves are understood." [17]
While Durand’s style is decidedly scholastic and perhaps cloying to the modern reader, his perceived need to justify the cope is highly insightful. The cope became popular in the thirteenth century and was a ubiquitous vestment worn on feast days throughout the medieval period. Durand’s need to justify its existence through biblical allusion and allegory demonstrates his desire to silence critiques of this and other rich garments the clergy wore. Durand did not end the critiques or silence the debate about the appropriateness of such dress, but his writing was largely accepted and agreed upon by the church. What is more important, even though he wrote in the late thirteenth century, his reasoning for why garments were constructed in a certain way and worn for a certain reason helped serve to cement clerical vestments as a static fashion throughout the period. Certainly there were changes and developments, but the garments themselves remain mostly static through the medieval period – finery and all.
Members of monastic orders were often the exception to the finery of vestments. The monastic orders can be seen as a critique to the right of the clergy on their vestments. Critiques by the outside world could be defended through Durand’s logic. But critiques from within calling for greater austerity than the outside world were harder to overcome.
Each individual monastic order would have a different mode of dress with details about the clothing and accessories meant to remind the wearer his or her status and obligations to God. For example, the Franciscans wore a knotted belt which had three knots hanging down the front. The knots were meant to represent the trinity and the Franciscans vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. [18] Further, the Franciscans wore undyed woolen cloth habits. In practice this could result in a wide array of colors for a particular cloth depending on the mixture of wool in the fabric. In other words, a mixture of darker wool would result in a darker fabric. However, the undyed nature meant that the cloth would never be as white or as dark as dyed cloth. The Dominicans, on the other hand, were known for their black cloaks worn over a white scapular which was a narrow poncho like garment that reached to the ankles. [19] Finally, the Benedictines wore an all-black habit which was meant to represent humility and repentance. [20]
The different livery and dress worn by people of different occupations demonstrates the larger social context of fashion. Clothing was as much a mark of social status as it was of one’s occupation. The Omne Bonum of the late 1340s depicts various people in their professions and it is striking how the dress differs not simply by social status but also by occupation as has been discussed above. There are many excellent examples in this source. One is a depiction of a cleric scolding young tonsured clerics for wearing lay dress and carrying swords, bucklers, and spears. It is actually quite arresting to see the young “men of the cloth” armed and wearing fashionable garb with tonsured hair. [24] The men appear to be wearing short tunics and sort side cloaks. The belts are worn at the hip with sword and buckler attached. The senior cleric, in contrast, is wearing a long robe and mantle while carrying a book in his hands. The contrast is indeed striking because the young men are not supposed to be wearing these items or garments according to the conventions of their occupation. Yet, there they are, wearing the sword and fashionable tunics all the same.
Another demonstration of both social and occupation dress is found in F. 52 which depicts a knight alongside several lawyers. The lawyers seem to be more conservative in their dress with the longer and boxier cut style of tunic and a coif on their head. The Knight, also older, wears a full length tunic called a chlamys. [25] On the other hand, a depiction of a young couple shows the woman wearing a long dress with close fitting sleeves and a fashionable sleeveless kirtle with border decorations. The young man wears a belt pouch and dagger between his legs, a short tunic that reaches to the mid-thigh and a hood pulled off of his face to reveal his uncovered head. [26]
Although we often think of fashion as aspirational in nature, it is worth remembering that not all people in the upper echelons will want to participate in the latest trends. While there is a danger is being too daring, there is a danger, too, in not caring enough about one’s wear. In 1357 the poet Marchaut wrote in Le Confort d’Ami that the practice of young nobles dressing too simply and meagerly was bringing disgrace to their class because they too closely resembled their servants and attendants.[27] He explained that while the king and his lords should separate themselves in their dress from their inferiors and should distinguish themselves from other lords, the servants themselves should all dress the same livery. Marchaut appears to be driving at the importance, in his eyes, of the distinction between the servant and the master. His view was that all the servants should dress in matching livery and be immediately identifiable as a servant. On the other hand, the masters and lords should distinguish themselves in dress.
Sumptuary laws:
If liveries were meant to encourage uniformity among class and occupation in dress, the sumptuary laws are the opposite end of that same coin. The social order will be maintained if each distinct strata receives his or her proper clothing as a matter of course. However, when individuals who are not dressed according to the livery of an employer desire to disrupt that social order, the soft influence of livery and occupational dress will not suffice. Instead, rulers turned to the full force of the law to ensure proper social order in fashion.
The City of Lucca issued regulation in 1337 that applied only to women’s clothing. The regulation stated that no lady or woman may “presume to wear pearls on the head or any head-dress” over a certain value. Further, similar rules were applied to gold and jewels worn on belts, or gold fringe on new garments. Only plain silks were permitted and all velvets prohibited. Additionally, a cap was placed on what the total value of an outfit could be. [28] The Luccan regulations are striking in that some of the regulations are not post-hoc – they do not ban gold fringes on old garments, merely the manufacture or wearing of new garments with such fringes.
In Spain, the 1348 sumptuary regulations of King Alfonso XI of Castile were more focused on men’s dress and stated that no man could wear ornaments of gold braid, lace, ermine, rubies or other precious stones, buttons of gold, silver or enamel and prohibited embroidery with gold, silver or silk thread. Regulations touching on women addressed the long trains of dresses and forbade them except for when women were riding horseback. [29]
English sumptuary regulations in 1363 stated that the reason for the prohibitions was due to the “outrageous and excessive apparel of divers people.” It prohibited servants, grooms and artisan from wearing gold, silver, or enamel and the cloth used in their hose was not to exceed 2 marks per piece. The clothing of master craftsmen was not to exceed of value of 40s the piece and wives were not to exceed the costs of their husbands clothing. Contemporary accounts indicate that these English laws had no effect on the habits of the populace. [30]
Whether the sumptuary regulations of the day had any effect is almost beside the point for the study of fashion. What the laws do indicate is that modes of dress that contemporaries felt belonged to a certain social class was not contained within that sphere. Laws are not passed unless there is a violation – or perceived violation – of social norms or the status quo. It is interesting that so many sumptuary laws are passed in this period because it would suggest that artisans and merchants and others were gaining in wealth, power, and influence. These laws were thus partially meant to ensure that the distinction between the ruling elite and the wealthy merchant class remained intact. Another interesting aspect of many of the regulations issued by royals is that pearls, gold, and other precious materials were often the specific target. As discussed briefly above, there were known pearl shortages due to the strong demand for them in this period and therefore a royal prerogative to preserve the supply is likely a basis for the regulations.
Sumptuary laws were not strictly issued by Kings and governments, however. The church was also interested in regulating the dress of the faithful. Typical church restrictions were aimed at the falsity or lavishness of dress more often than at the particular garment. In 1310 the bishop of Florence gave orders that nobody of any class was to indulge in fraud by wearing, with the intent to deceive, false hair, hair pieces, strands of hair. However, provision was made for women with inadequate natural hair to wear flax, wool, cotton or silk ornamentation to give the appearance of natural hair. [31] Here, apparently, the bishop was kind enough in his restriction to consider women who needed to wear false hair by exempting women with inadequate hair from the restriction. Also notable is that this regulation applied to people of all social standing. This would suggest that, unlike most sumptuary laws, the bishop here issued the regulation out of a well-intentioned concern for the soul and not in an attempt to preserve a certain social order.
Conclusion:
For historical study, this article has only scratched the surface of how medieval dress was affected by class, social status, and occupation. For purposes of reenactment, I hope that this article helps in making well-informed decisions that make your next outfit your favorite yet.
[1]Fashion in the age of the Black prince at 68.
[2]Ibid. at 68.
[3]Ibid. at 69.
[4] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 80-82.
[5] Ibid. at 78
[6]Fashion in the age of the Black Prince at 68.
[7]Ibid. at 73.
[8]Ibid. at 72.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid.
[14]Ibid. at 74
[15]Ibid.
[16] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 85.
[17] Ibid.
[18]Fashion in the age of the Black Prince at 76.
[19]Ibid. at 82.
[20]Ibid.
[21] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 74.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid. at 77.
[24]Omne Bonum f. 137
[25]Omne Bonum f. 52
[26]Omne Bonum f. 58
[27]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince, 70.
[28]Ibid. at 131.
[29]Ibid. at 131-132
[30]Ibid. at 132.
[31]Ibid. at 131.
Clergy Section:
[1] Fashioning Change at 97.
[2] Ibid. at 97-98.
[3] Ibid. at 98.
[4] Ibid. at 106.
[5] Ibid. at 83.
[6] Ibid. at 84.
[7] Ibid. at 85.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid. at 87.
[10] Ibid. at 88.
[11] Ibid. at 89.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid. at 90-91.
[15] Ibid. at 91.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid. at 93.
[18] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 71
[19] Ibid. at 70.
[20] Ibid. at 69.
Liveries, of course, deserve some treatment. Typically, the livery is the uniform worn by a worker in the employ of a master or it can be garments distributed to important court officials and retainers. Indeed, one benefit of being a court retainer was that the court would often provide a fine array of clothing to ensure that those who came to court saw richly dressed retainers who would reflect the glory, largess, and richness of the court itself. When courts were too generous, it often led to shortages of money and when they were not generous enough, the retainers would grumble because they had not received the gifts and contributions they were expecting. England is notable in medieval history because the King’s purse strings were not entirely his to control. Parliament had some degree of control on spending and taxation. Therefore, the Office of the Exchequer was a relatively early check and balance of English governance that provides great details to modern scholars.
The fourteenth century English Royal court kept detailed records of which workers would receive which types of fabric, which types of furs and even what color fabric for their official liveries. For example, livery accounts for the English royal court records that heralds in 1364 received finer fur to line their garments than did the King’s minstrels, who only received lamb’s wool. [1] This would demonstrate that the herald’s status in the court was in some way superior. At the least, it demonstrates that the public role of a herald in some way required finer dress than that of a minstrel. Squires received liveries to wear the fashionable paltok while falconers received gowns made of russet cloth. [2] At the bottom of royal and clerical rolls were military invalids and pensioners who received housing in a monastery, food, and rough russet colored cloth. [3]
The Royal wardrobe records show the top tier of what was an essential part of medieval society. Even lower noble households would employ servants and dress them in rich liveries. When looking for servants in medieval artwork, look for figures who are smaller – literally drawn smaller to represent their lower status – figures that are carrying plates, dishes, cups and towels, and figures who are wearing matching outfits to other figures in the artwork. [4] In addition, servants are often in parti colored outfits prior to and after the mid-fourteenth century. However, parti colored outfits become fashionable among the elite in the 1340s and thus are not always a sign of service. [5] Even if a worker was not provided a livery or official uniform, many workers were paid their wages in room, board, and clothing – either by having certain pieces tailored for them or by giving employees bolts of fabric directly to be tailor made. Also remember that liveries are not necessarily the only clothes that an individual would wear. Instead, they were quite literally the clothing of service. When not in service the workers would often wear ordinary garments rather than the matching garments of service worn in the employ of their master.
Cities, too, dressed their magistrates, officials, and clerks in official garments. In Flanders the mayor, alderman, and magistrates of Bruges were granted suits and robes. Apparently, the robes were so fine and the men of the City so eager to impress that they made a grand show of their finery while at a state event in Paris. The men of Bruges were seated on benches without cushions. Rather than complain about their uncomfortable seating, the men took their gowns off, rolled them up and used them as cushions on the benches. When they went to leave, they left he gowns behind. The French attendants noticed this and attempted to return the garments to the group of men. They reportedly said that “we of Flanders when we have been invited to dine, have never been in the habit of taking the cushions away with us when we leave.” [6]
This tale demonstrates the reason why an employer, a city, or a king would want those associated to them to be well dressed. The greatness of dress reflects a bright light on the grantor of the dress and people will want to go where the largesse lies. Do not forget that this was a two way transaction. As a scholar, author, or artist, performer, craftsmen, or other tradesperson, if you can be counted among the members of the finest court in Europe then some of that greatness will rub off on you. Indeed, court’s offered such fine gifts as a way of attracting the best, brightest, and handsomest to their court which resulted in a feedback loop of grand expense.
Even merchants and guild members had liveries that matched to better identify themselves and their trade. These were not liveries in the sense of an official uniform provided by a king or employer, but more typically a matching color scheme worn on the hood and tunic by its members. [7]
The poor and needy also received a livery of sorts. French records show that the crown provided clothing and shoes for the deserving poor. From other records, the deserving poor seem to be those otherwise incapable of work and lodging. The Ordonnances of the French kings states that beggars, lazy people, dice players, street singers who were otherwise healthy were not to be given anything more than a single night’s lodging. [8] It was also not uncommon for wealthy merchants, as a final act of charity, to provide clothing for paupers that assisted in the funeral services. [9] The will of Thomas III of the le Blanc family provided that twenty livers should be distributed to paupers who assisted at his funeral and that they should be given forty ells each of cloth, forty shirts, and forty pairs of shoes between them. [10] Similarly, Jean de Vaux, who was a draper of Lyon ordered eleven paupers to be given black tunics and hoods in exchange for carrying his bier. [11] Sometimes individuals would create endowments to give shoes and tunics to students at schools or universities. Occasionally the motivation for this generosity was made explicit by the donor “for the aid and repose of my soul” as Nicolai Acciaiuoli put it. [12]
And while discussing the official uniform of various workers and members of society, we must remember the darker side of such customs. At various times and locales throughout the medieval period, and continuing in the 14th century, Jews were required to wear a distinctive dress or badge on their garments to mark them out. In France in the 1360s, the Jews were required to wear a red and white circle on the outermost garments of their dress. To make it clear that the sign was not to be hidden from view, the regulation specified that the outermost portion of the dress might be a “mantel, houce, cote, sercote ou autre vestment.” [13]
Although it may seem as though every member of society went about in uniform garments issued to them by their employer, this is not at all the case. Artisans, tradesmen, peasants – in short, the bulk of society – were left to their own devices to provide and maintain their own garments. One anonymous poem of the 14th century features a peasant who remarks to his fellow toiler that he wishes he could afford a houeplannde. [14] His fellow assures him that he will never be able to afford one, and thus, we see that same well-worn desire of the lower orders to achieve the fineries of their betters replayed yet again. Perhaps, then it is not surprising that the artwork of the period will often depict peasants in dress that is ten to twenty years behind the most current courtly trends. [15] However, the lagging in fashion did not necessarily equate to a diminution in esteem. Indeed, the 14th century glorified the peasant ploughman as the true heart of morality, spirituality, and industry.
Piers Ploughman and Chaucer’s ploughman in the Canterbury Tales demonstrate the surprising honor society attributed to the backbone occupation of society. Thus, to be dressed as a ploughman in the 14th century could be a virtue, and signal in its own way, the status of the wearer.
A word of caution, however, although ploughman, shepherds, and workers are typically depicted in plain clothing and less fashionable cuts, many pieces of medieval artwork take liberties with the dress of working people by gilding it in gold or adding uncharacteristic opulence such as long sleeves or other impractical aspects of dress. This is probably done to enliven the artwork for the patron rather than a failed attempt to reflect reality. [16] This word of caution also applies in a different way to biblical artwork. It is not uncommon to see Jesus or an apostle dressed in an anachronistic way with long robes, barefoot and in simple cuts. This was largely due to iconography as an effort to ensure the subject characters are always recognizable. It is essential to be aware that artwork would depict the apostles as part of their own distinct “profession” and dress them accordingly while others in the artwork are often painted to match the contemporary fashion of the day. [17]
Some of the biggest outliers in fashionable trends during the period were actors, minstrels, and fools. Mentions of troupes and performers often lump them in with traditional ne’er do wells and it is not uncommon for a writer to speak of beggars, thieves, and jugglers in the same breath. Nevertheless, there was certainly a desire and market for performers in the 14th century and the garments worn by these performers are often outrageous in form and execution. Remember, of course, that performers in permanent employ of a king or noble would likely be given a livery while iterant performers would have to supply their own vestments. Even so, itinerant performers were not typically freelancers as we think of the term today. Instead, they would typically be part of a band or confraternity of performers. Even if they did not travel together, they organized themselves in order to better meet needs, care for the sick, regulate practice, and to keep outsiders and interlopers out of a particular city or region. [18]
Look for fools particularly in illuminated Psalters at Psalm 53. The Fool is often depicted inside the capital D. This was a reference to the opening lines of Psalm 53 “Dixit Insipiens,” or "The Fools says in his heart there is no God." Fools are often depicted wearing bells on their belts or on their hats. Their clothing frequently features slashing on the sleeves which would rise in popularity in the late 14th century among the elite. Another common feature is tattered clothing, whether intentionally so or as a result of genuine poverty is open to debate. Fools would often also be depicted missing certain garments, wearing only one hose, wearing a hood with no shirt, not wearing a belt, or the like. It was a common feature of fools to play out the part of a person so out of his senses that he failed to properly care for his own hygiene. [19] Hoods and headwear are similar to the common trends of the day but often had spiked doubled or triple liripipes. However, although the fools fashion was outlandish in certain respects, it is also notable that the general form and cut of the clothing was often very similar to the clothing and fashion of the time. There is not specific uniform or template which defines the dress of the fool. Besides the gaudy hoods and the bells, the most distinctive part of the fool’s uniform is a bauble on a stick. Sometimes a face, sometimes merely cloth or leather hanging from a stick, the bauble on the stick seems to be the only true distinctive of the fool. Another common feature is an apple, as a reference to the foolishness of Adam and Eve in taking the apple in the Garden of Eden.
In reference to minstrels and other performers, it is notable that parti-colored dress is typical both before and after the 1340s, but that in the 1340s parti-colors were in vogue among the elite of society and thus seems to have fallen out of favor amongst performers. [20]
Other outlier groups of medieval fashion, although to a lesser degree, were academics and the clergy. The reason that the dress of academics was an outlier from typical fashion of the period is actually directly related to one of the essential functions of fashion – to indicate status. The dress of academics is interesting in that it was developed at the same time the universities were created. With the rise of universities in the thirteenth century, the dress of academics became formalized and averse to change. The garments themselves were a symbol of status and any change in the garments would have obscured the status that the wearer had worked so hard to obtain. Therefore, academic dress retained many of the features of thirteenth century fashion such as being full length and boxy. In addition, the garments were made of quality fabric and rich dyes such as scarlet. [21] The most common garment to see an academic wear is the houce, which was a gown like garment with full sleeves and always floor length. It is typically lined with fur and sometimes featured folding tabs on the chest which were also lined. The tabs were usually rounded and splayed across the chest. They are not always visible as they might be covered by a hood. [22]
Lawyers dressed much like academics and scholars with full length shapeless gowns which were contrary to the popular ruffled and billowing gowns of the mid to late fourteenth century. Lawyers are often but not always seen in cloth of purple or with purple elements in their dress. Doctors, like lawyers, also wore high quality cloth and after 1350 those who taught medicine in the University of Paris were required to wear violet cloth. [23] Their garments would remain little changed between 1250 and 1500 as means of signaling their status and distinction in society.
Clergy:
Similar to academics, the clergy are outliers because their distinctive dress signaled their distinctive role in society. Although this overview will not go into minute detail of clerical garments and vestments, it does well to note that priests, bishops, monks, nuns, deacons, and other church figures each wore distinctive dress. Like academics, the dress was often looser fitting and less stylish in its cut. However, do not let that lead you to believe that it was less impressive or magnificent. Indeed, a recurring complaint against clerics was that the shepherds of the church were fleecing their flocks to array themselves in fine clothing. The garments of priests, bishops, and cardinals were embroidered and decorated with images of holy figures or scenes. The bishops cope (a semi-circle of fabric worn over the shoulders) was typically made of fine cloth and richly embroidered.
A mid-thirteenth century poem, called the Song upon the Tailors addresses the metamorphoses that fabric will go through in a way that stresses the changeability of life. It is a highly allegorical, deeply satirical, and bitingly insightful critique of the church through discussions of clerical vestments. The poem derives its inspiration from Ovid’s Metamorphoses and uses the conceit of the tailor and his cloth to highlight the mutability of life in the realms of social, economic, religious and political change. The narrative of the poem follows a single piece of cloth through its changes to suit its owner’s ever changing needs. [1]
The fabric starts out as a bishop’s cope and through the course of the poem it is sewed, decorated, collared, squared, rounded, and furred into other garments such as a mantle, a hood, a clerk’s amuce, and a pair of gloves.[2] The author of the poem does not detail the design, decoration, or tailoring of the pieces in a literal sense – which is unfortunate to those who desire to understand the essentials of medieval tailoring. However, he does allegorize the various changes in composition to different changes of “body.” The garment is said to become like a circumcised Jew when it is defurred, it is cleansed by baptism when it is re-dyed, it is divorced, remarried, and widowed when cut, sewn and resewn with other cloth.[3]
The poem, likely written by a cleric, takes pains to highlight the failure of the clergy to uphold the role as a shepherd leading his people in humility. The poet’s focus is on the motivation behind the reworking of the illustrious bishop’s cope into other garments and highlights that these metamorphoses are not intended to help and aid the bishop’s people but to clutch onto his finery as long he can. While St. Martin, the patron saint of tailors, is famous for giving half of his cloak to a poor man in the dead of winter, the Song upon the Tailors features no such charity. St. Martin did not consider the finery of his clothes when assessing the need of others, he gave freely. In contrast, the bishops cope is formed and reformed for the bishop who cannot let the fine vestments be given over to a purpose other than his own. The garment finally becomes a set of gloves which are used when performing the mass and in holding the sacraments. In the allegory, the worthiness of the cloth having been remade and used as gloves does not cover the unworthiness of the priest who has falsely covered himself in the same way that Jacob covered himself in fur to trick his father Isaac. The poet describes the gloves by saying “being devoid of hair and worn of use, from Esau having become Jacob, when the hair is fallen from it, the process is inverted, and again conversely from Jacob it become Esau.” [4]
Even those who were sympathetic to the vestments of the clergy often spun themselves in circles trying to justify the finery worn by the humble servants of Christ. William Duran wrote his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum in 1286 about the medieval liturgy. He dedicated much discussion to the vestments worn by the clergy and why these vestments were the proper and necessary garments for God’s earthly servants. His lengthy discussion in Book III demonstrates his attempts to “reconcile the subtle disparities between traditional Church narrative about ecclesiastical vestments and actual contemporary practices.” [5] The work itself was so popular and enduring that over 200 years later, Martin Luther called Duran’s work a waste of time and suitable only for “idle” men. [6]
Duran focused much of his attention on the allegorical and typological meaning of clergy’s vestments. Allegorical meanings would be garments or aspects of the garments that point to or remind of a divine truth such as humility, charity or chastity. Typological meanings would be garments or aspects of the garments that point to or remind of Christ himself and point to the clergy as Christ’s earthly vicars. The vestments worn by the clergy during the liturgy were intended to follow those garments worn by the Old Testament priests working in the temple. [7] According to Pope Innocent’s De Missarum Mysteriis, the mass itself was designed to be a representation of Christ entering the world from his birth and proceeding through his death and resurrection and ascension. [8] The mass, as well as the vestments worn by the priest, were designed to allegorize the Old Testament temple practice as well as be a typology of Christ’s life.
This is where Durand’s work is so interesting. He used Innocent’s fundamental understanding of the mass to explain and justify the vestments of the clergy. He said that he has called his work the Rationale
"because just as “revelation and truth” were written on the pectoral of judgment that the High Priest bore on his vestments, so too that Rationale contains the reasons for the variations of the Divine Offices, and their inner meaning is described and made manifest. The prelates and priests of the Church should faithfully keep these truths in the chamber of their heart. In the pectoral of judgment, moreover, there was a stone by whose splendor the sons of Israel could know that God’s favor was with them. In the same way, the devout reader, instructed in the mysteries of the divine offices by the splendor of this book, will be able to know that God’s favor will be with us, unless we incur his indignation through the commission of some sin." [9]
Durand’s prose often allegorizes the physical vestments of the priests of Israel such as the pectoral vestment of the high priest which contained two stones, the urim and tummim, which would indicate God’s divine will. Durand allegorizes this idea of the stone revealing God’s favor with his readers who will find God’s favor by understanding the meaning of priestly vestments. This also works to eliminate the perennial critique of clerical wear which was its ostentatious and rich nature. After all, if the garments themselves will help understand the divine more fully, then it would be wrong not to wear the ornate and richly dyed garments.
He states that:
"The honor of the vestments does not confer pontifical glory, but rather the splendor of souls, since those things which flatter the carnal gazes more properly summon us to the things that ought to be understood by these vestments, so that whatever these clothes signified with glittering gold, in splendid gems, and with a wide variety of workmanship, can now show forth in good morals and deeds. Among the ancients, the visual appearance of something acquired as much reverence as what it signified, but for us, the experience of things is more certain than the enigma of figures. (bold added)." [10]
This explanation states that the richness of the garments does not confer glory in the wearing of the garments, but that by seeing the things which flatter and amuse our carnal gaze the observer will be reminded of certain underlying truths to which the garments point. He can justify the gems and glittering gold because they point to good morals and deed. Most interestingly, he concludes by stating that in ancient times the visual appearance of a thing was revered for what it signified and not purely for what it looked like. For his audience, the experience of seeing fine things is more definite than knowing what the thing signifies. In simple terms, he is saying that the ancients could see a crown of poorly carved wood on a king’s head and see the splendor of the crown because the king wore it. The opposite is true in his time, people would not see the king’s splendor without the gold and gem encrusted crown.
This last statement seems to be an appeal to a past Platonist understanding of the true form of things. The bishop was revered because he was a bishop and his appearance and aura elevated because of his office. He complains that in his time, the opposite is true, people can only understand the form – the enigma of the figure – through a visual experience of the thing to which it points. Based on this logic, Durand’s defense of gold and gems and fine vestments would mean that the vestments, while not directly conferring any splendor upon the wearer, remind the wearer and others of the splendor of the office.
With this basic understanding of why clergy wore fine vestments, Durand explicates the fifteen vestments that a bishop would wear and devotes a chapter to the meaning of each. [11] The first vestment is putting on sandals to “be mindful of the Lord’s Incarnation.” [12] The belt is worn to curb impulses to illicit behavior, gloves worn to avoid vainglory, and so on.[13] Durand even addresses perhaps his most difficult challenge – why the priests of the Old Testament wore eight priestly garments while the bishop wears fifteen. Durand attempts to exclude certain vestments from his time such as ornaments of the feet and hands which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. Durand still has too many garments, but his attempts to rationalize their existence and to anchor the garments to a biblical text is interesting and are done to support his earlier statements about the need for fine vestments to point people to the enigma of figures though fine clothing.
However, Durand’s greatest problem in his discourse on vestments is that he is calculating fifteen vestments for a bishop based on Pope Innocent’s earlier writing which discussed the vestments in the early thirteenth century. By Durand’s time nearly half a century later, two additional garments had been added. The first garment was a linen surplice which Durand said was to be worn over common garments and represent the clothing of Adam which he wore after the fall to cover his sin. [14] The garment was white to represent the purity of the wearer and the ample size represented ample charity and the cross like shape represented Christ’s passion. [15]
The second extra garment added to the fifteen since Pope Innocent was put on after all other garments which was the cope. As discussed above, this was a cloak like garment of fine fabric and usually finely embroidered with gold. The cope was often a different color for different feast days. Red copes for martyrs, green or brown for confessors, and saffron for matrons or betrothed women. [16] Durand explained that the cope:
"Is understood to be the glorious immortality of the body; and for this reason, we only wear it on major feast days, looking toward the future resurrection when the elect, having set aside the flesh, will receive two stole, namely, the eternal rest of their souls and a glorified body. This cope is appropriately wide-open on the inside and is not sewn together, but only held together out of necessity by a clasp; and this is because when bodies become glorified, they will no longer impede the needs of the soul. The cope is also decorated with fringes, since in the future, there will be nothing lacking for our perfection, but now, we only have partial understanding, but then, we will understand all things just as we ourselves are understood." [17]
While Durand’s style is decidedly scholastic and perhaps cloying to the modern reader, his perceived need to justify the cope is highly insightful. The cope became popular in the thirteenth century and was a ubiquitous vestment worn on feast days throughout the medieval period. Durand’s need to justify its existence through biblical allusion and allegory demonstrates his desire to silence critiques of this and other rich garments the clergy wore. Durand did not end the critiques or silence the debate about the appropriateness of such dress, but his writing was largely accepted and agreed upon by the church. What is more important, even though he wrote in the late thirteenth century, his reasoning for why garments were constructed in a certain way and worn for a certain reason helped serve to cement clerical vestments as a static fashion throughout the period. Certainly there were changes and developments, but the garments themselves remain mostly static through the medieval period – finery and all.
Members of monastic orders were often the exception to the finery of vestments. The monastic orders can be seen as a critique to the right of the clergy on their vestments. Critiques by the outside world could be defended through Durand’s logic. But critiques from within calling for greater austerity than the outside world were harder to overcome.
Each individual monastic order would have a different mode of dress with details about the clothing and accessories meant to remind the wearer his or her status and obligations to God. For example, the Franciscans wore a knotted belt which had three knots hanging down the front. The knots were meant to represent the trinity and the Franciscans vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. [18] Further, the Franciscans wore undyed woolen cloth habits. In practice this could result in a wide array of colors for a particular cloth depending on the mixture of wool in the fabric. In other words, a mixture of darker wool would result in a darker fabric. However, the undyed nature meant that the cloth would never be as white or as dark as dyed cloth. The Dominicans, on the other hand, were known for their black cloaks worn over a white scapular which was a narrow poncho like garment that reached to the ankles. [19] Finally, the Benedictines wore an all-black habit which was meant to represent humility and repentance. [20]
The different livery and dress worn by people of different occupations demonstrates the larger social context of fashion. Clothing was as much a mark of social status as it was of one’s occupation. The Omne Bonum of the late 1340s depicts various people in their professions and it is striking how the dress differs not simply by social status but also by occupation as has been discussed above. There are many excellent examples in this source. One is a depiction of a cleric scolding young tonsured clerics for wearing lay dress and carrying swords, bucklers, and spears. It is actually quite arresting to see the young “men of the cloth” armed and wearing fashionable garb with tonsured hair. [24] The men appear to be wearing short tunics and sort side cloaks. The belts are worn at the hip with sword and buckler attached. The senior cleric, in contrast, is wearing a long robe and mantle while carrying a book in his hands. The contrast is indeed striking because the young men are not supposed to be wearing these items or garments according to the conventions of their occupation. Yet, there they are, wearing the sword and fashionable tunics all the same.
Another demonstration of both social and occupation dress is found in F. 52 which depicts a knight alongside several lawyers. The lawyers seem to be more conservative in their dress with the longer and boxier cut style of tunic and a coif on their head. The Knight, also older, wears a full length tunic called a chlamys. [25] On the other hand, a depiction of a young couple shows the woman wearing a long dress with close fitting sleeves and a fashionable sleeveless kirtle with border decorations. The young man wears a belt pouch and dagger between his legs, a short tunic that reaches to the mid-thigh and a hood pulled off of his face to reveal his uncovered head. [26]
Although we often think of fashion as aspirational in nature, it is worth remembering that not all people in the upper echelons will want to participate in the latest trends. While there is a danger is being too daring, there is a danger, too, in not caring enough about one’s wear. In 1357 the poet Marchaut wrote in Le Confort d’Ami that the practice of young nobles dressing too simply and meagerly was bringing disgrace to their class because they too closely resembled their servants and attendants.[27] He explained that while the king and his lords should separate themselves in their dress from their inferiors and should distinguish themselves from other lords, the servants themselves should all dress the same livery. Marchaut appears to be driving at the importance, in his eyes, of the distinction between the servant and the master. His view was that all the servants should dress in matching livery and be immediately identifiable as a servant. On the other hand, the masters and lords should distinguish themselves in dress.
Sumptuary laws:
If liveries were meant to encourage uniformity among class and occupation in dress, the sumptuary laws are the opposite end of that same coin. The social order will be maintained if each distinct strata receives his or her proper clothing as a matter of course. However, when individuals who are not dressed according to the livery of an employer desire to disrupt that social order, the soft influence of livery and occupational dress will not suffice. Instead, rulers turned to the full force of the law to ensure proper social order in fashion.
The City of Lucca issued regulation in 1337 that applied only to women’s clothing. The regulation stated that no lady or woman may “presume to wear pearls on the head or any head-dress” over a certain value. Further, similar rules were applied to gold and jewels worn on belts, or gold fringe on new garments. Only plain silks were permitted and all velvets prohibited. Additionally, a cap was placed on what the total value of an outfit could be. [28] The Luccan regulations are striking in that some of the regulations are not post-hoc – they do not ban gold fringes on old garments, merely the manufacture or wearing of new garments with such fringes.
In Spain, the 1348 sumptuary regulations of King Alfonso XI of Castile were more focused on men’s dress and stated that no man could wear ornaments of gold braid, lace, ermine, rubies or other precious stones, buttons of gold, silver or enamel and prohibited embroidery with gold, silver or silk thread. Regulations touching on women addressed the long trains of dresses and forbade them except for when women were riding horseback. [29]
English sumptuary regulations in 1363 stated that the reason for the prohibitions was due to the “outrageous and excessive apparel of divers people.” It prohibited servants, grooms and artisan from wearing gold, silver, or enamel and the cloth used in their hose was not to exceed 2 marks per piece. The clothing of master craftsmen was not to exceed of value of 40s the piece and wives were not to exceed the costs of their husbands clothing. Contemporary accounts indicate that these English laws had no effect on the habits of the populace. [30]
Whether the sumptuary regulations of the day had any effect is almost beside the point for the study of fashion. What the laws do indicate is that modes of dress that contemporaries felt belonged to a certain social class was not contained within that sphere. Laws are not passed unless there is a violation – or perceived violation – of social norms or the status quo. It is interesting that so many sumptuary laws are passed in this period because it would suggest that artisans and merchants and others were gaining in wealth, power, and influence. These laws were thus partially meant to ensure that the distinction between the ruling elite and the wealthy merchant class remained intact. Another interesting aspect of many of the regulations issued by royals is that pearls, gold, and other precious materials were often the specific target. As discussed briefly above, there were known pearl shortages due to the strong demand for them in this period and therefore a royal prerogative to preserve the supply is likely a basis for the regulations.
Sumptuary laws were not strictly issued by Kings and governments, however. The church was also interested in regulating the dress of the faithful. Typical church restrictions were aimed at the falsity or lavishness of dress more often than at the particular garment. In 1310 the bishop of Florence gave orders that nobody of any class was to indulge in fraud by wearing, with the intent to deceive, false hair, hair pieces, strands of hair. However, provision was made for women with inadequate natural hair to wear flax, wool, cotton or silk ornamentation to give the appearance of natural hair. [31] Here, apparently, the bishop was kind enough in his restriction to consider women who needed to wear false hair by exempting women with inadequate hair from the restriction. Also notable is that this regulation applied to people of all social standing. This would suggest that, unlike most sumptuary laws, the bishop here issued the regulation out of a well-intentioned concern for the soul and not in an attempt to preserve a certain social order.
Conclusion:
For historical study, this article has only scratched the surface of how medieval dress was affected by class, social status, and occupation. For purposes of reenactment, I hope that this article helps in making well-informed decisions that make your next outfit your favorite yet.
[1]Fashion in the age of the Black prince at 68.
[2]Ibid. at 68.
[3]Ibid. at 69.
[4] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 80-82.
[5] Ibid. at 78
[6]Fashion in the age of the Black Prince at 68.
[7]Ibid. at 73.
[8]Ibid. at 72.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid.
[14]Ibid. at 74
[15]Ibid.
[16] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 85.
[17] Ibid.
[18]Fashion in the age of the Black Prince at 76.
[19]Ibid. at 82.
[20]Ibid.
[21] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 74.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid. at 77.
[24]Omne Bonum f. 137
[25]Omne Bonum f. 52
[26]Omne Bonum f. 58
[27]Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince, 70.
[28]Ibid. at 131.
[29]Ibid. at 131-132
[30]Ibid. at 132.
[31]Ibid. at 131.
Clergy Section:
[1] Fashioning Change at 97.
[2] Ibid. at 97-98.
[3] Ibid. at 98.
[4] Ibid. at 106.
[5] Ibid. at 83.
[6] Ibid. at 84.
[7] Ibid. at 85.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid. at 87.
[10] Ibid. at 88.
[11] Ibid. at 89.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid. at 90-91.
[15] Ibid. at 91.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid. at 93.
[18] Fashion in the Middle Ages at 71
[19] Ibid. at 70.
[20] Ibid. at 69.
|
|
|
|