mui aon Techniques and patterns for making , historically acgurate period clothing Ninya Mikhaila Jane Malcolm-DaviesNinya Mikhaila and Jane Malcolm-Davies THE TUDOR TAILOR Reconstructing 16th-century dress with additional research by Caroline Johnson and illustrations by Michael Perry Costume and Fashion Press an imprint of Quite Specific Media Group, Ltd Hollywood‘Teh o Nina Mid Je MDa toe ta ata os ek bon sero y em cache Car, espns an Piers Act 188, Youre © nats A eps exer, No ptf is uienton maybe ern any fm ya mes rete tui Ce 1DSadhembe Seat vee anostks cn (ute pete Woda Gr trond, cA 0088 rat ogee 28) 951-5797 we, 2 8515708 thar te Specie Ms Gop pets 2 Design Pest Enrnmerro Imsetare by ta! ey rsoyacry Heat Gre Pam oat Corgan TxtCONTENTS Acknowledgements 4 Foreword 5 1. MAKIN PART 7 2. CLOTHING THE PEOPLE 15 3. LOOKING THE PART 27 4, CHOOSING THE MATERIALS 35 5. CONSTRUCTING THE GARMENTS: THE PATTERNS 48 Footnotes 156 Bibliography 158 Suppliers 159 Index 160Acknowledgements All reliable research stands upon the shoulders of previous giants. The inspirational work of Janet Arnold and FG Emmison has provided many of the puzzle pieces with which we have worked co produce our picture of L6th-cencury dress. ‘Our grateful chanks go to the team of costumed interpreters at Hampron Court Palace (1992-2004), who wore our eatly ‘experiments in reproduction clothing, reported on thei usefulness and then agreed to cry the next prototypes. Daly wear and sliscussion with the visting public have been key ingredients in the process of demystifying clothes ofthe Tudor era. ‘We would aso like to thank che following people who have provided encouragement, tested patterns, been photographed in reproduction costume or commented on the text for this book (and in some cases all four) ‘Sarah Augbaya, Holly Bailey the curators at Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich, Lucy Capito, Bess Chilver, Suzi Clarke, Valerie ‘Cumming, Alesandra de-la-Haye, Colin Dixon, David Hicks, Caroline Jobnson, Rita Kelly, Emily Knapp, Drea Leed, Jessica Lasker, ‘Constance Mackenzie, Pam Macmillan, Susan North, Michael Petry, Roy Porter, Luke Purser, Laura Rushton, John Sherlock, Matthew Tyler Jones, Louise Wheeler and Catherine Weiss, [Any remaining erors ate our own, Please visit www:cudortailor.com to tell us about them. We began our careers in costumed interpretation as volunteers at Kenewell Hall's annual re-creation of Tudo life in Suffolk, England ‘where we were inspired by the power of dress to communicate ideas about the past. We hope that our book will encourage others t0 discover mote about 16th-century people and their world. Jane Maleolm-Davies, Godalming Ninya Mikhaila, NottinghamFOREWORD Ieisfisng thar I write this foreword on 31 October 2005, Hallowe'en being one of the prime dressing-up occasions in contemporary ‘western sociery. Dressing up has evolved dramatically in the past 40 years. From entertainment, both amateur and profesional in a ‘wide variety of media, costume has taken on an important educational purpose. Historical reenactment is now both hobby and industry ~ an imaginative recreational pursuit as well a key interpretive activity in tourism and histori sites around the world. Increasing knowledge ofthe past drives an ever-growing demand for accuracy in re-enactment. In turn, historical interpretation ‘vorzciously seeks new information from current research in archacology, ar, social and dress hisrary. ‘The Tudor Tailor isa superb compilation of new and current research on 16th-century dress, with the prime purpose of encouraging, accurate reproduction dress. The combined talents ofthe authors in dress history and clothing construction offer a well-researched and extremely practical approach tothe subject. New visual sources and studies of 16th-century documents provide valuable factual ‘evidence. Drawing on a wide range of recent secondary sources that include economic history, climate change, archacology and the history of medicine, the authors examine in detail the physical characteristics and social importance of dress at all levels of Tudor society. Based on in-depth study and long experience of making and wearing reproduction dress, the patterns provide complete ‘ensembles for both men and women, This book has much to offer a range of readers. The principles of reconstruction and re-enactment cleaely defined in the firse chapter are useful guidelines applicable ro the dressing of any period of history. Teachers and students dressing a school play ot pursuing & history project will find straightforward and useful informacion and instruetions. For coscumiers of the stage and film, the advice on fabrics, acessories and construction will ensure a convincing result. Students and scholars of dress history will find excellent information on 16th-century clothing in the fst four chaprrs, with carefully assessed evaluations of appropriate visual and documentary sources and how they can be employed in research. Re-enactors, historical interpreters and those running such programmes in cultural institutions wil find this book an excellent guide to planning and executing visually exciting and sartoraly Properly resarched, accurately made reproduction historical costume has an important role beyond the stage oF historic ste. Ie operates as a form of empirical research or laboratory experiment for dees history. Clothing has a functional as well as decorative purpose: each garment must work as an article of artre encasing the body yer able to accommodate regular movement. The proof is in the wearing. Ie is impossible to use surviving historical dress to discover whether details actually work: whether the wearer can walk, sc dwn, ascend and descend sti in a particular style of garment. In addition, reproduction dress re-creates the dynamic splendour of clothing ofthe past. Movement can be considered the fourth dimension of dress ~ one that portaiture and museum dlisplay can never caprure. The sweep ofa cloak, the flow of a train and the ripple ofa veil, which mighe otherwise be forever lost ro us come alive in che carefully studied, skilfilly made re-creation of historical dres. ‘The Tudor Tailor isan excellent guide co understanding and re-creating the splendour of 16th-century dress Susan North Gurator of 17th- and 18th-centuty fishion. Victoria and Albert Museum|. Pekd ik tie 1810-1625 ny on. 208) ‘SueozesNatmaluseum a Muni, Germ1. MAKING A START Know first who you are; and then adorn yourself accordingly Epictetus (55-135AD) Fragments of 16th-century clothing are scattered all over the world (fig 1): shoes ina monastery in Germany; the frame of headdress in London, a trunk fall of murder victim’ clothes in Sweden, a sik jerkin in Los Angeles and an cmbridcred bodice in Tokyo. These are some of the frustratingly smal clues that hint atthe hidden world of historical clothes. The demanding detective work ‘quired 10 reconstruct the dress of a long-gone 16th-century petson is daunting and yet as with any good mystery, the discoveries alo he way promise to he as cicing che solution Tour min sources of evidence are availble for sri. Each as its strengths and weakness. Tether, they provide archer insight ino the cloths ofthe past than woud any single source. There fa natural endency to give pictorial teerenes premier postion ver the ther hte, which are writen documents of the ped the archaeological record and vesearch by reputable costume horns Onty this st resource deliberately sets ot to provide a clear record of what was being wom, by whom and for wha, ata specific dae. When studying the other sourecs, he motivation oftheir orginarors and the processes chat resed in their preservation are importa considerations The mos decile visual references are ports, which provide not only fanm but bth colour anda treatment of texture tha can be of et ws i undersanding fabrics. However, compared with later centuries, Tudor portraits re telatvely rare They are formal, and unt the 1530s show only the upper body from the font. Paintings and drawings can be more helpf for example, The {eld ofthe clo of gold shows» gentleman's gown from behind (fg 7), nd olin ofers rar and crucial ook atthe back of 1540s lady (fig 2) plus he del ofa shoe (fg 3) lustratve prints in books and representations of the dead fon church monuments (fig 4 have thee own imitations expecially where {question of date ate concerned. Whatever the medim, all representations roquite {Sell imerpretacion. Often, discusions of painting a a wor of ae. inching is symbolism and social significance are of more relevance than works dang specibcaly with costume. However, there tno subsicuefor looking (a length and ofen, i pose) a orginal paincngs. As with pcre, when comes writen mater from the 16th century he tlaiv value ofdferene sources has tobe assed, The vivid word pictures of Saubbes' Anatomic of Abuses, for example, are coloured by his moraliing. 2.0) To sos os vaman waaig a ts ey Hans ai, 128-30 (0 The Tastes he sh sem, Lando 2. tom wai by Hrs abe, 150 (© Aataea Moun Crd,MAKING A START 4 Aoge wearing creo es a renaen St ‘Gorge es ais Wo wes Maret ol Ma, 157 {Al Sots’ Chath Bohne, Drei (© Nya Moai ‘20 ne Mac Dave, For John Basset ~ he hath never a good gown but one of camer .. very ill fashioned, bue itis now aimending. His damask gown is nothing worth, but if it be possible it shall make him a jacket, because his coat of velvet was broken to guard his camlet gown 1535, The Lisle Letters, 826 Similarly, playwrights exaggerate for dramacic effect and court gossips co increase their own importance or according to thet politcal prejudices. Documenta evidence is riddled with bias — what one observer regards as outlandish may be commonplace to another ~ and is rarely provided by a trained eye. Most historical commentators (ambassadors, playwrights esaysts and the ike) are not garment rakers. They are ignorane as to how their own clothes are constructed, let alone those of others. This isa problem exacerbated by cultural and language differences, since observers noting their comments are often visitors from other regions or countries. ‘Some of the most detailed and reliable informacion is co be gleaned from the al letters from the country commissioning ‘most mundane of sources, such as pers purchases in town, oF routine household accounts. Records covering a number of | years can permit tentative generalizations about the sizeof a person's wardrobe ot the proportion oftheir clothing that was made of silk. Two sets of records can allow a comparison berween «wo diferent ranks in society When it comes to archacological remains, there is very litle surviving L6th- cencury clothing. [eis nor that textiles do not survive four centuries ~ ehere are tapestries ofthe same period stil going strong ~ but that clothing textiles were just +00 valuable to leave in the wardrobe or pack away in the attic once the garments were outgrown or outdated. When Lady Lislés daughters went to court, they teqqited new gowns, but each had two kirtls made out of the fabric of old gowns that were no longer fit ro wear? ‘What docs exis is fagmentary and rarely epresentative of more than one person ata particular place and time. The items of male dress from the excavation of the ‘Mary Rose (an English ship which sank in 1546) ae invaluable in providing a mass of individual accoutrements. However there are major styles, fashionable for decades, of which there are no extant examples, Mos ofthe garments in existence are very fragile and available for examination only with an appointment, Acces 0 ‘some ofthese items is provided by one of Janet Arnold invaluable books, Patterns of fashion: the cut and construction of clothes for men and women ¢, 1560-1620, This provides highly detailed scale drawings of garments, diagrams of the patern pieces required, together with photographs and drawings of details, to demonstrate tailoring techniques, fastenings and linings Arnold’ introduction is a scholarly esay on tailoring, textiles, fashion and the ‘obtaining and wearing of clothes, copiously ilustaced with photographs of garments and reproductions of lesser-known contemporary pictures, Sadly, bbook cannot be comprchensive because so many styles and types of garments ‘common in the 16th century have not survived to enter museum collections. The majority ofthe items discussed may be of limited relevance to cultural contexts ‘other than their place of origin (for example, Sweden or Italy) As with paintings, there is no substitute for examining the items themselves. There are many of the surviving examples which are yet co be treated to exhaustive serutiny.” Its useful co consider another book which distisa lifetime's experience: Jean Hunniset’s Period costume for tage and screen: patter: for women’s dress 1500-1800, Only the early part of the book refers to the 16th century, and men’s clothes are not discussed. However, compared with Janet Arnold's book, this one approaches the matter from the other end of the process in that it sear with the need to reproduce wearable castume rather than the deuals of existing garments. This said, the book is based on an excellent knowledge of fashion history and. period cutting, “Most secondary sources rely on pictorial evidence rather than the study of actual garments or contemporary documents, It is important ro recognize thatsecondary sources frequently disagree and rhe date of an author’ work is highly as research has become more rigorous. Some historians have been misled by terminology overtime: for example, ‘oxton’ denotes two different the 16th and 19th centuries, Secondary sources often include drawings fiom primary sources that betray the artis’ ignorance of construction techniques, ‘Once al for sources have been thoroughly exhausted, attention turns to the body on which the costume isto be worn It soften choughe that people are bigger today than they were in the past, and thar this makes accurate reconstruction of historical dees impossible. This isnot tre. Research into the sizes of skeletons reveals that height and limb length fluruaces through time (sve ‘ear enough to today’s average height from the Roman era: "There wete tll and small people in all periods of London’ history: although in the 18th and 19th centuries the average heighe of the inhabitants was a its lowest. Specific evidence from che 16th century is provided by che skeletal remains of the men drowned on the Mary Rose. Tit left femurs were used to calculate heights, which ranged fiom Sie 3in (1.6m) to Sfe11in (1.8m). The average height ‘was Sf in (1.7m). Careful comparisons with records of military conscription in subsequent centuries suggests dha che ships crew were ‘not as tll asthe tallest, ‘modesn Dutchmen or Scandinavian men, [but] they were no shorter than theit ‘modern counterpart." Table 1: London body heights ea Feet & Inches | Centimetres Female Female Feet & Inches | Centimetres Prehistory 5f¢ Tin 170 Ste 2Kin 158 Roman | 5f 6Yin 169 Sf 24in 158 Saxon 5c 8in 173 Stein 163 Medieral | 5f 7!in 72 Ste 3in 160 Tudor | Sf 7in m | se 2 158 Georgian | Sf 7%in m1 | sf 157 Vieworian | 58 5%in 166 | fe 156 1998 5fe9in 175 5ie3) 162 Studies of climate history suggest chat 16th-century people needed more garments than we do. Although the fist half of the 16th century was genial (in comparison to the hea of che Middle Ages) and there were warm springs and summers from 1520 to 1560, there were three very cold years, from 1527 to 1529, when che ‘Thames froze. From around 1560, temperacures dropped significantly. The ‘weather became stormier and one ofthe coldest era of ‘Little Tee Age’ began, albeit with some years less severe than others. The summers of the 1570s were very cold, alchough the 1590s was the coldest decade. Climate data suggests tha the temperature in Europe was between 0.5 and 2.0" cooler than ie was from 1901 £0 1960 (equivalent to a change of berween 0.9 and 3.6°P), and the lett period ‘was cooler than i is today by a least 1,0°C (1.8°F)” On average, the 16th century was colder than today by atleast two degrees cchius. This may nor sound much, bu it takes a drop of only five degrees for pertinent ~ the confident assertions of earlier costume scholars have been reassessed table 1). Work ar the Museum of London has shown that residents ofthe city grew ‘There is also incredulity nowadays abour the quantity of clothes worn in the past. MAKING A START ‘5 Te arta ms oentelne by a bende che, cing Bad: aod stad erm The tke of be mvc ol oo, 1512" +» deliver yearly to Mary Russell, being at our finding, asmuche damaske as will make her a gowne and velvet to garde the same, with byning, making, lace & silke for the same, asmuche yelow damaske as will make her a french kirtell with edging lyning and making, asmuche grosgrain chamlere as will make her ‘gowne and velvet to garde the same with making lyning lace & silke for the same 1554, Mary Tudor’ accountsMakING a START {Apia ten nko wma, 19886 Ney Mia, 7. ek or The al oe co ft ait ann Te Fel Catecton © 2005 Her Maat ue za) 10 slaciation vo occur. The people ofthe 16th century needed to wrap up more warmly chan we do (ig 6), especially in homes with earth floors and even palaces, where tapestries and rush matting could nor keep the chill wind at bay. On warmer day, the populace were notin the habic of throwing off their clothes as we do. Contemporary depictions of bare heads, disordered dress or nakedness The way reconstructions are worn is signalled distraction, madness or poverty crucial to their succes as communication tools. Standing up straight, keeping stil walking as though God is ever watching, and respectfully reverencing one’ betters with a bow or cursy were all necessary to avoid drawing critical atention to oneself in the 16th century. Reconstructions are best worn with the same mindset Tei wise t have decided the aim of a costume projec before ic begins. There is an identifiable hierarchy of activities: replication, reconstruction and re-creation. ‘The firs isan attempe to duplicate an extant item exactly; the second involves some justifiable speculation; and che third uss guesswork and imagination. This book is primarily concerned with reconstruction. The aim of the project will also determine the integrity with which che costume is used once itis made, I is better eo be cleat that an item isthe product of a restigatve one forthe benefic ofthe end user — the visiting public, the audience of ehe student. A Key issue inthis regard isthe creative process rather than an i notion of authenticity, The word has moved beyond its original meaning, which to the Oxford English Dictionary. “sic authentic? isthe old-fashioned (and grammatically corre) way of posing the question, and this requires ayes ora no answer, IFa garment isan original, itis authentic. IFit isa replica a reconstruction ora re-creation, ics not authentic. The oftenvasked is ‘genuine’, accord question “How authentic ie” demonstrates thatthe word now represents a scale ‘on which to measure costume, ‘Accuracy’ better reflects what is under discussion. The more accurate a reproduction costume is, che more valuable i wil be as an ‘educational too. ‘What constcutes an accurate costume is rately defined. One commentator rast ‘otlly stylistic’ costume wich ‘historically accurate’ costume, the former being inspired by historical sources rather than true to them in every detail ‘Accuracy telatesto both materials and consteuction method. In the 16th century clothes moulded the body, rather chan the other way around, The paper pattern had not yet appeared and the modern use of darts to eliminate wrinkles was tunknown, Tailors often sewed cercain kinds of garments only: They worked with a team of specialists, including professional hosiers,cappers, farthingale makers and ‘embroiderers. Isa tall order for one person in the 21st century to reproduce an coutfir thae was the work of an army of experts in the 16th century. An accurate costume requires considerably higher investment (in terms of research, materials specialist labour and cime) than a stylized costume, However, this higher invesement pays off in terms ofits educational value ‘Whatever specific purpose a cos piece), i serves as a form of communication, which means there i a great deal ne has (fora play, an interpreter or asa study more than the garment itself to consider. Successful interpreters and educators use their clothes as entrées to topics as divers a politics, economics, trade, conquest and culture. Each garment has a cultural biography, courtesy of the society that ‘made it, A reconstruction takes shape asa biography is buile for it."* The cultural biography of a garment is inked to that of ies weare. In the 16th century dress played a conventional role a shorthand for the wearer’ financial and spiritual wort, Plato, the Bibl. demonserated a person higher proportion of people's incomes than isthe case today. The cost of a suit of Erasmus and Shakespeate all agree that clothes ner self chrough exterior display.” Clothes demanded aclothes was equal to year's salary for many Tudor people, In 1533, man with an 1d up t0 6s 8d a yard om his gown fabric, by a year. The Earl of Lei annual income of £4 might sp The yardage required would cost one hitd of his £4 othing than Shakespeare paid for a house in Stratford pid more for one item of tpon-Avon Decisions as to what ro wear were on a par with setting up home «dually constructed an individual’ Clothes were accumulated over time and public self They displayed gender, age, marial status, positon in the family and social status, Clothing was an index to income, household, occupation and the type of work undertaken by the wearer. Ata broader level, dress was influenced by sographical location, religion, and the availabilty of labour and materials. In any sociey where there ate few possesions, clothes unite symbolism, aesthetics, utility and financial investment. “Many ofthese aspects of an individual’ clothes are defined by reference to thes in society. They are not cleaely identified as opposites, such as old/young or Fich/poor, but as gradations along an imprecise spectrum. Tudor society comprised lemen (including the four sore, according to a contemporary commentator: g nobility, citizens or bu ;comen artficers and labourers. There were approximately 50 noble families, 350 knightly families, and 10,000 esquires or 1500 ro four sgenclemen in a population that rose from two and a half million million in 1600, Siyles of dress, colours and fabrics were conventionally assigned ro the various ranks of society, be itis dffcul vo ascertain with certainty which belonged 3, sumptuary laws, local custom and convention al played a and 9) where. Social pare in derermining what people wore. A contemporary crowd scene (Rg SEP Tait pening (nag of cid ps hs Cos eamparc nd conrad to comply tnlares and diferencs in dros Reproduction elo acquire meaning in comparison with others within, for example, a team of imerpreters, the cast ofa play, or participants in a re-enactment rin Tudor society was less about understanding yourself bout knowing your place. Clothes did not hrosde individuality bu rather where s/he fitted into socery. A long look atthe individuals represented in Study for a family portrait of Thomas More of people, cach of whom knew their place and adorned themselves MAKING A START ‘an 9 Osta rn Te Fe aOrdinary people’s clothing ays ~ g fae Sey : BS Joramveder S65 s0Gaomma 968A kien 89 ep AS) cs xB artcamoywara 510 ‘AIS 1572 sseace 182 Astomanoran AIG Cameo ese Mcan 508 ems 7. i ‘8Catiwaman 604 ——_-AYBSavante 1600 ‘ent tere. 600 2Clothing of the elite 10 0s For utr dts se Faas, pgp 1582. CLOTHING THE PEOPLE Two fayre new kirtles to her backe ‘The one was blue the other black . She had three smockes, she had no less Thomas Churchyard, 1575 Hiszories of 16th-century deess usually chart chronological changes through the clothes ofthe tp three to five percent of people. They concentrate on whae was Fashionable rather than what was ubiquitous, This chapter discusses the main {garments worn by the majority of people in Tudor England from birth tothe grave ‘The range of clothes avilable to-men and women was distinct to cach sex with few exceptions and changed litle in basic form throughout the 1Gth century, Gender roles were reinforced by notions of propriety in dress. Equally influcntial were the conventions appropriate to rank and status. A persons place in society was identifiable by the quality of chee clothes and the number of garments available for them r0 wear. These conventions remained remarkably static despite the 16th century's dynamiam in terms of trade, exploration and the ats, ‘Clues co ordinary people’ dress have been gleaned for this book from a varie of sources, including an extensive survey of Elzabechan wills from Essex. Ten volumes contain 10,630 documents with 2,230 references to clothing. Although wills were rarely made by the very poor, and the majority ofthe tstatrs are described as husbandman or yeoman, there are also a good number written by Lkbourers, sailors, servants and che lower sorts of eratsmen and tradesmen, such a carpenters, blacksmiths, bakers and butchers, Women, unfortunately, are described only as widows or single women (wives having no property oftheir ‘vn t0 bequeath). However, they are likely tobe ofthe same socal levels as the men represented Neatly everyone began and ended their life wrapped in linen of some kind. A baby was swaddled in linen bands for most of his or her frst year. A nursing manual published in 1612 advises that children be completly swaddled forthe frst month. Thereafter, thie arms were fre, until eight or nine months, when swadding was abandoned. A shoemaker’s wife lists what was necessary fora baby init early years: "Beds, shirts, biggins,watecoats, head-bands, swadlebands, crosse dlothe, bibs, eaiclouts, mantles, hose, shooes, coates, petticoat.” The bed was a cloth which lay under the body and was folded up over the feet and pinned at the breast. Tailclouts were nappies or diapes, also known as doubleclouts because they were folded in owo for use. Stockings, shoes, coats and petticoats would not be required until the child had been unswaddled.* ‘Alice wadding and within the Rist year of life, children graduated from long ‘wrappings to short coats (peticoats) and emerged from babyhood to be dressed in smaller versions of adule clothes, bue wth some notable concessions. The main 2. eta rm The emt at oer at eto Te ay Clacton © 2005 Hr ty Dine Een + (pz Han, So Lard ao Haront Fane Fomsh Som, 1575, wo sas ve 9 she a scout Tees poet hse (e Wee Gate.CLOTHING THE PEOPLE {Abrané cont te ant eee he wrt sang nan error st (vet. 2884 1880 4 Atal 20 tes of aed alan er vets wth ore fd race vay, 381-194, © 100-1603 (© Te Rea Amaya, pte 16 identifiable differences berween adult and childrens dress, seen in paintings and hinted atin other sources, ate shorter skies than are necessarily fashionable, back lacing gowns, protective aprons, sensible shocs, simple headwear and, cowards the end ofthe century, leading strings. Lady Anne Clifford makes reference to her daughters leading reins in May 1617: ‘Upon the first I cut che child strings off from her coats and made her use the togs [coats] alone, so she has two or three fills at fist but no hurt with them.” Liele boys were dressed in skies, chough the trappings of gender were reinforced even at this young age: boys in portraits carr swords and wear manly hats and doublets (ig 8, page 11), Lite girls have simpler versions of the finery worn by their older sisters and mothers. The younger the g the simpler her coifure and jewellery, neckwear and foundation garments, and the more likely she is to be weating an apron. The next transition took place at the age when a boy was deemed old enough ro put aside his skirts and wear breeches. Some accounts suggest this happened at or even younger. Prince Edward was breeched at seven years some sy five the laest by six years two months.° After breeching, a boy wore some or all of the typical garments ofthe day: hose, double, coat, jekin and gown (fig 2). His underwear, like that of adule men, was a long shirt the hem reaching to a least mid-thigh, The side seams were left partly open so that the shirt ould be cucked between the legs:*A shirt worn in this way, put on clean every day, would make drawers unnecessary. However, there is evidence that some men owned them and it may be that he late medieval styl, al the frst half of the 16th century. Bees were short and close fitting and were pouched atthe front by a drawstring atthe waist. The fac that shires and smocks were intended to survive regular washing i bras, continued to be worn, a least for ‘evident in the construction of extant examples, The stiches ae very regular and tiny ‘often so smal as to be almost invisible to the naked eye. The srengch ofthe selvedges was exploited in the long seams down the sides, which were bured together. Seams made along a cut edge have the raw part carefully folded under and w of stitching (fig 6). The basic shapes of shirts and smocks femained unchanged chroughout the century. They were made ofa series of rectangles, squares and triangles (squares folded or cut in half) The width ofthe jatment was determined by the width ofthe cloth Ifa larger chan average shirt oF Smock yas needed, wider linen was used. The rst ofthe pactern pices fied neady aon enclosed with anothe ide each other, With no curved lines, there was very litle waste when the pieces were cut out. The variations in style were mainly at the neckline and collar, ‘which changed according to the fashion of the outer garments, Shirts and high necked smocks were usually fastened with cord tes ac neck and cuff fig 5. Piceovial evidence suggests that lower-class shirt sleves were sometimes simply hemmed, g gathered inco a eulf, and could be rolled up out of the way. Those that had cuffs may have been fastened with ties or a cloth ot thread button (Big 3) ‘All men, throughout the century, wore hose on their legs. Early hose were made with each leg cut as one piece from waist 0 foot. A woven fabric was cut on the bias to give the necessary elasticity forthe hose to hug the leg. These were made with or without integral fet. The common method of construction is revealed by