0 Romantic Negligence - Seventeenth Century Fashion

by Deborah Swift

When investigating mid-seventeenth century fashion, you might well be misled by portraits of the time. This is because there was a craze during the mid and late seventeenth century for women to be dressed (or rather undressed) in what appears to be a lot of drapery. The portrait below of Moll Davis exemplifies this kind of look.

Moll (Mary) Davis by Peter Lely (wiki)

Mid-seventeenth century court etiquette demanded that only someone of a superior rank could receive a person of lower rank when in a state of undress. However, a person of inferior rank had to be formally attired, right down to hat and gloves, when attending a person of superior rank. Sitting for a portrait in a state of undress emphasized the fact that the sitter belonged to the upper classes, and soon the idea caught on, and everyone demanded these 'superior' portraits.

Barbara Castlemaine,  Royal Mistress

The drapery was often open at the front like a loose sleeveless coat, and was in fact known as a nightgown. It was worn over a chemise which was (to modern eyes) only just decent and showed the curve of the breasts. At the time a woman's neck and shoulders were considered extremely beautiful, and the clothing for portraits was designed to show off this décolleté neckline. It was fashionable to mimic the romantic clothing of fifty to seventy years earlier, very much as 'vintage' is fashionable today. Women wanted to look like the portraits of Van Dyck, with flowing curls and rich swathes of deep-hued fabric. In wealthy circles, satin was the most popular fabric, followed by velvet and textured brocade.

When not sitting for a portrait, the wealthy woman's dress was much more fussy. France was a large influence on fashion and the flamboyant Louis XIV (1638–1715) and his palace at Versailles became the leading fashion influence of the century.  The French led the production of silk, lace, (known as point) and brocade. Londoners imported French wares, along with the French taste for excessive embellishment with ribbons, bows, buttons and embroidery. Italian lace and ribbon was also popular.

Anna Maria Louise von Medici

From the 1650's over-skirts began to be parted to reveal decorative petticoats.  A mantua was where the over-skirt was hitched up at the front and sides to reveal an embroidered or fancy petticoat, a fashion which persisted into the 18th century. The outer part was often worn very long to form a train. This is an example (from the Met Museum) which must be for winter wear, as it is of a heavier and more durable fabric. Click on the picture for more information.

Poorer women might wear gowns made of wool or cotton with much simpler tailoring. A rich woman's bodice might be seamed together with dozen different panels to fit perfectly, but a poor woman's was often less shapely and designed to be handed on to other members of the family to get maximum wear. 

We have very few English portraits of women from the lower classes, but must rely on our Dutch and Flemish neighbours to show us what 17th century dress might have looked like. This picture by Gabriel Metsu shows a woman of servant class, and her skirt is of a much more practical length (no trailing train) and the skirts are protected by an apron. When writing novels set in the seventeenth century it is easy to take a simplistic view of what people wore, but the truth is immensely complex, and much more fascinating.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for reading! Find out more about me and my seventeenth century books by clicking the picture.

Her characters are so real that they linger in the mind long after the book is back on the shelf - Historical Novel Review

Detail: Romantic Negligence - Seventeenth Century Fashion

0 The first enduring historical novel for children

by Deborah Swift

1911 edition

I am in the middle of writing the second part of The Highway Trilogy for young adults (and adults!) which is set in the English Civil War. One of the characters spends a long time hiding in the forest  - in a similar fashion to Robin Hood, and I was reminded of The Children of the New Forest by Captain Marryat, a book that has been adapted for TV no less than three times.

The Children of the New Forest was one of the first historical novels specifically written for a young audience. I loved the book as a child, but my memory of it was hazy so I bought a copy and dived in. Immediately I was struck by the fact that this book, although being about children, was not necessarily tailored to meet their needs. The vocabulary is sophisticated - lands are 'sequestered', 'appellations' are used. Marryat could so easily have chosen simpler words like 'removed' or 'names'.

Of course some of the language is archaic because Captain Marryat was a contemporary of Dickens and The Children of the New Forest was written in 1847, but it seems that the idea of children as being somehow a separate species with different reading needs did not exist then. Although we think of Dickens' books as 'historical' they were actually contemporary to him - Marryat on the other hand, has written a genuine historical from 200 years before him. Did he adapt his Victorian language to make it sound more seventeenth century? We will never know.

1998 BBC TV series

The novel exemplifies the class structure of the era in which it was written - servants call young boys 'sir' if they are of a better class, and girls are expected to cook and clean, whilst the boys hunt. However what is clear from the book is that having a certain status also brings with it great responsibility - the young boys feel obliged to protect and take care of their sisters, and their servants, in a way which is quite touching. The eldest boy is very concerned with his family house - his 'inheritance' - which he fears he has lost. Of course for the historical novelist these are obvious ideas, but I urge you to try this book because it is threaded so completely with these attitudes it really helps to understand the 'feeling' of that sort of society, and how it affects everything in the narrative.

Lymington, Hampshire, where the book is set

Another difference from more modern historical novels for children is the attitude towards food. Very few children's books would now contain imagery of a thirteen year old boy shooting a stag in the head at point blank range until it 'fell down dead', and then show him disembowelling it. In those days, animals were meat, and did not have the sentimental attachment we accord them now. And of course we are expected to applaud his skill, not feel sorry for the stag.

The narrator is very obvious in the novel. He stops the narrative every now and then to explain,

'What is a Leveller?' thought Jacob.
As perhaps my readers might ask the same question they must know that a large proportion of the Parliamentary army had at the time assumed the name of Levellers ' etc

He goes on to explain for another half page! This sort of obvious narration is much out of fashion now, but it works perfectly well in the book. We might call it an 'information dump', but it works because it is very clear that we are leaving the story whilst we get educated!

Craig Kelly in the TV adaptation

The plot is an exciting tale of adventure and young love, full of misunderstandings and traitorous deeds, and tension between the rival factions of Cavaliers and Roundheads.
Clips on Youtube
Download and read Children of the New Forest for Free - Project Gutenberg

Shadow on the Highway - the first in the trilogy about real-life highwayman Lady Katherine Fanshawe, and set in exactly the same period as Children of the New Forest - is out now.

What is your favourite Children's Historical Novel?
(apologies, US readers, I just can't get used to leaving out the 'u' in favourite!)

Detail: The first enduring historical novel for children

0 Below stairs - the Footman

by Deborah Swift

' the lady of fashion chooses her footman without any other consideration than his height, shape, and tourniture of his calf'  Mrs Beeton

Horace Roome, a liveried footman at Shugborough Hall
(1920's)

The footman has been doing his duties in English upper class households since the seventeenth century. His name comes from the fact he was originally employed to run alongside the carriage, to make sure it was not overturned because the original tracks were rutted and full of boulders and tree roots. This then extended to the duties of opening and closing the carriage doors, or running errands when the Lord or Lady were out and about in town.

Image from The Telegraph

'In the eighteenth century they were frequently matched to run against horses and carriages. One of the last recorded contests was in 1770 between a famous running footman and the Duke of Marlborough, the latter wagering that in his phaeton and four he would beat the footman in a race from Windsor to London. His Grace won by a very small margin. The poor footman worn out by his exertions and much chagrined by his defeat, died, it was said, of over fatigue.'

from 'A Handy Book of Curious Information' William Shepard Walsh, 1913

The footman was a personal outdoor servant, who would assist a specific person within a household thus adding to their aura of luxury and status.

Appearances were important, so a tall personable footman was paid more than a shorter plain one. They were often dressed in impractical embellished liveries, which were at odds with the duties they were expected to perform. A 'livery' was a uniform that identified the servant’s employer. The heraldic arms of the employer’s family would be echoed in the colour and decorations of the clothes distributed to these servants. The word 'livery' comes from the French livree - to hand over. For more on livery in the 19thC see this article in Jane Austen's world.

Where more than one footman was employed, they had to match, like bookends, in terms of height and colouring. Because they were supposed to submerge their own personality, footmen were often given a name chosen by the employer. James and John for a matching pair, or John Thomas for a single footman were popular names.

Silent service was the order of the day, so shoes that squeaked were replaced, and a footman was not expected to speak or show signs that he had heard the family's conversation.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century, footmen began to do duties indoors, and one of their first and surviving indoor tasks was to clean all the boots and shoes of the family before they were required, in other words at night. This could be a long task, as several different pairs of shoes were worn each day by each person or guest. The polish was made of  'charcoal, spermicetti oil, treacle and white wine vinegar' in the 17th century.

Another indoor duty was to trim wicks, re-fill wall sconces, and in the later centuries to deal with the many oil lamps. At Belvoir Castle in the 1830's about six hundred gallons of oil were consumed for light in the four months of winter.

After World War I fewer households could  afford servants, so the position of footman is now rare except in the British Royal Household, where they wear a distinctive scarlet livery on state occasions.

As many of you know, I have been interested in the lives of the servant class, and my seventeenth century books are told from the perspective of ordinary people witnessing extraordinary events.

You might like this lovely Daily Mail article about the real life of servants at Downton Abbey
And this about the duties of the second footman at Manor House

Bibliography
The Duties of Servants Reprinted from 1894 publication by Copper Beech Publishing, Ltd.

The Victorian Domestic Servant - May

Early Modern England, A Social History - Sharpe

Detail: Below stairs - the Footman