frualeydis | For and against a linen kirtle

You're viewing

frualeydis's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Arguments against and for the linen garment from Rauma being a kirtle/bodiced petticoat and not a smock:

Against: It's linen and, as Pylkkänen says, there are later examples of smocks with a waist seam.
The fact that the bodice is from finer twill and the skirt from a coarser tabby is much like smocks from the 18th and 19th century.

For: On the other hand, there are examples of bodice and skirt being of different fabric on kirtles/bodiced petticoats in the 16th century (Tudor Tailor p 36).
The estimated hem width of the garment is 4,5 metres, which is very wide for a smock; unnecessary wide. The skirt is also pleated to the waist (from gored pieces), which isn't common on the later smocks with waist seams.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

jillwheezul.livejournal.com

I spent a little time reading through Textiler Hausrat last night on your linen question. She's very clear that from the inventories and wills that gowns and undergowns are made of linen from the period 1500-1650. The words used included the armelrock (sleeved gown) unterrock (undergown - not shift), halbrock (skirt) and a specific word that I have always interpreted as a kirtle, the stock. She unfortunately didn't actually footnote a reference to a linen undergown before the 1540's so I can't hand you any original source for specific date you wanted(yet). I say it's a pretty safe bet that records could be found. Maybe Marion has gathered more evidence, and I really want to look for more, but my class deadline is rapidly approaching - but only 3 more papers to write! If you want I could post the quotations for you.