Two Centuries of Costume in America, Volume 1 (1620-1820)Earle, Alice Morse
History
Two Centuries of Costume in America, Volume 1 (1620-1820)
Earle, Alice Morse
Clothing and dress -- United States -- History
The lack of likeness in the women’s dress is more through difference of
figure and carriage and an indescribable cut of the garments than in
detail, except in one adjunct, the sleeve, which is wholly unlike the
seventeenth-century sleeve in these portraits. I have ever deemed the
sleeve an important part both of a man’s coat and a woman’s gown. The
tailor in the old play, _The Maid of the Mill_, says, “O Sleeve! O
Sleeve! I’ll study all night, madam, to magnify your sleeves!” By its
inelegant shape a garment may be ruined. By its grace it accents the
beauty of other portions of the apparel. In these pictures of Puritan
attire, it has proved able to make or mar the likeness to the real
dress. It is now a component part of both outer and inner garment. It
was formerly extraneous.
In the reign of Henry VIII, the sleeve was generally a separate article
of dress and the most gorgeous and richly ornamented portion of the
dress. Outer and inner sleeves were worn by both men and women, for
their doublets were sleeveless. Elizabeth gradually banished the outer
hanging sleeve, though she retained the detached sleeve.
Sleeves had grown gravely offensive to Puritans; the slashing was
excessive. A Massachusetts statute of 1634 specifies that “No man or
woman shall make or buy any slashed clothes other than one slash in
each sleeve and another in the back. Men and women shall have liberty
to wear out such apparell as they now are provided of except the
immoderate great sleeves and slashed apparel.”
Virago-sleeve. Virago-sleeve.
Size and slashes were both held to be a waste of good cloth.
“Immoderate great sleeves” could never be the simple coat sleeve with
cuff in which our modern artists are given to depicting Virginian and
New England dames. Doubtless the general shape of the dress was simple
enough, but the sleeve was the only part which was not close and plain
and unornamented. I have found no close coat sleeves with cuffs upon
any old American portraits. I recall none on English portraits. You may
see them, though rarely, in England under hanging sleeves upon figures
which have proved valuable conservators of fashion, albeit sombre of
design and rigid of form, namely, effigies in stone or metal upon old
tombs; these not after the year 1620, though these are really a small
“leg-of-mutton” sleeve being gathered into the arm-scye. A beautiful
brass in a church on the Isle of Wight is dated 1615. This has long,
hanging sleeves edged with leaflike points of cut-work; cuffs of
similar work turn back from the wrists of the undersleeves. A _Satyr_
by Fitzgeffrey, published the same year, complains that the wrists of
women and men are clogged with bush-points, ribbons, or rebato-twists.
“Double cufts” is an entry in a Plymouth inventory—which explains
itself. In the hundreds of inventories I have investigated I have never
seen half a dozen entries of cuffs. The two or three I have found have
been specified as “lace cuffs.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account