The 14th century produced one particularly enigmatic garment: the corset. No, not that type of corset. It was most certainly not a reinforced bodice worn to shape the female figure. Many researchers have seen the word "corset" and assumed that familiar definition, but I assure you, that sort of corsetry dates from later centuries.
I cannot sew a garment and tell you "This is definitely exactly what corsets were." However, we do know a lot of things about them, and from these facts we can deduce what it might plausibly be. I am going to address the corset worn by ladies, though corsets were made for both men and women - most male and female versions of garments were pretty similar, having differences mainly in length between genders.
We can be sure that:
- corsets appear as early as 1322: "thirteen pieces of cloth for corsets for our said companion and her damsels" were ordered for Isabella of France (Strickland)
- and as late as 1403, made for Isabeau of Bavaria (Gibbons 385)
- one required 4 1/2 ells of cloth (Woolgar 233)*
- they did not form part of a suit (the set of cote, surcote, mantle, hood), and were sometimes accompanied by a matching hood or mantle (Newton 26, 33)
- the corset is suitable attire for dancing (Newton 74)
- they are usually made of "cloth" (i.e. wool) like the garments in a suit, and dyed in the same colors as other parts of a suit e.g. surcotes
- they could also be made of velvet (Newton 25)
- a corset could be richly embellished with pearls and embroidery, suggesting that it is an outer garment (Newton 56)
- a corset required slightly less fur to line than a surcote did: a surcote was lined with 386 bellies of miniver, while the manches and poignets required another 60 bellies; a contemporary corset required 300 bellies with another 40 bellies for manches and poignets (Newton 32)
- similarly, a corset required slightly less silk to line it than did a surcote (Newton 26)
- the corset was lined, like some surcotes, with a combination of squirrel furs and ermine (Newton 115)
- corsets ronts are mentioned in the period in which front fastenings were not yet fashionable; this term is used elsewhere to indicate that a garment goes on over the head, but may have some other meaning here (Newton 24)
- a corset could have ribbon ties/points, or buttons (Newton 25)
- the corset can be made for a man or a woman (unknown if they were identical, or like surcotes, could be cut to different lengths depending on gender) (Newton 55)
- a corset was a garment for noble people, i.e. expensive (Newton 74)
- a corset could be particolored (Newton 27)
- ribbon was used to make corsets, potentially to serve as ties (Newton 25)
First, some etymology. "Corset" is derives from the French "cors," body. "Corset fendu" ("split body-garment") is the specific name given in French to the garment which in English is named the sideless surcote. Meanwhile, the "manches" it has are sleeves, and "poignets" translates from modern French into "cuffs." This might refer to any lower part of a sleeve, either the lower half of a long sleeve or a tippet hanging from a short sleeve. (The corset we are seeking isn't a sideless - one wouldn't have to specify "fendu," and sideless surcotes very, very, very, very rarely have sleeves.)
As the corset has sleeves of some kind, and is differentiated from a mantle, we can determine that it is most like a surcote. It's not a mantle. It's not a cote - cotes aren't completely covered in decoration like some corsets were. Why hide your pearls under other garments? Similarly, its fur lining can be supplemented with ermine to give a richer look, revealing ermine at the visible parts of the lining or potentially using it as trim, after the fashion in which it was used on the surcote. But it is not a full surcote, as a surcote was part of a suit. It is different from the surcote in the amount of material needed to make it - approximately 3/4 as much as a surcote. It covers the torso and has sleeves, so this deficit must be evident in the lower half of the body.
This would provide a neat explanation as to why a corset was not part of the suit worn for formal occasions - the lower half of it did not have the length of a surcote necessary for optimum conspicuous consumption. One would look somewhat uncovered wearing the corset to a formal event.
I'll note from experience, the more sleeves you wear, the more difficult your life becomes, especially if they are fitted. If one is to wear a corset - a sleeved garment - one had maybe best avoid wearing a surcote, unless one's corset's sleeves are particularly large. It really does seem to be a surcote-replacement, being made with a matching hood or mantle much as other outfits would have a matching surcote and mantle or hood (for example, a wedding outfit which had a surcote matched to its mantle) (Newton 33). One could, perhaps, wear the corset instead of the surcote. This would be quite practical on the dance-floor, as the corset would not tangle the feet with the excess length present on surcotes. It would also get rather toasty wearing 3 lined garments to dance in. The corset would serve the function of preserving decency or a certain level of formality by covering the cote's upper parts, as well as a majority of the lower body, as the surcote did. I therefore think it most likely that one would wear either a corset or a surcote.
It does appear to be a 14th century innovation - certainly they must have existed before one was made for the queen in 1322, otherwise the term would have required some explanation for its account-entry, but I can find no mention of them. They also fall from favor after the end of the "age of the cotehardie," not appearing in accounts of the majority of the 15th century - the latest mention I have found is that Isabeau of Bavaria ordered corsets in 1403, when the fashions of the later 14th century were still popular (Gibbons 385). Therefore, if we are to find an illustration that may be a corset, we must seek it pretty much exclusively in the 14th century.
So, away we go to the world of illustration to seek a garment that is like a surcote in general cut (covering the torso, having sleeves) but is shorter, may or may not have any visible method of closure, may be lined in fur or silk, and is worn as some manner of outer garment in the fashion of a surcotte. There may be a hood or mantle worn with it. I have categorized 2 types of garments which fit the criteria of a corset: the garments which I casually call the "hunting surcote" and the "Coat-Thing."
Suspect #1: the "hunting surcote"
A "hunting surcote" (so named because the ladies of the Taymouth Hours are out hunting) features splits on the sides of the skirt, sleeves which are usually short with tippets, and a non-dragging skirt, shorter than the fashionable surcote. They appear to go on over the head. In this case the "poignets" might translate as "tippets." In this garment, some of the fabric savings is in reduced length, and some appears to be in less volume of skirt gore by the split.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778644937912/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778644940502/
A garment of the same cut can also be found here https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778647799228/
A slightly longer version, though not as long as fashionable dragging surcotes, and worn while dancing https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778647936233/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778651428294/ This image is sometimes labeled "the removal of the queen's corset" and the garment in question is clearly shorter than her cote - it barely drags the ground despite being held below shoulder level. It is worn over a laced-front cote. Newton remarks that "corsets ronts" could refer to corsets that went on over the head as this one does (Newton 24). Anne van Buren points out that the king and queen are dressed in penetential garb in these scenes (van Buren 66). This is more casual than the suit. It may or may not have slits; it is difficult to tell since it is in the process of being removed; it does have the particularly short length. (Thanks to Katerin ferch Gwenllian for pointing out this MS.)
Suspect #2: the "Coat-Thing"
The "Coat-Thing" features: an opening all the way down the front, with buttons closing at least part of the opening; sleeves, which may or may not be buttoned; and a non-dragging skirt, shorter than the fashionable surcote. In this case the "poignets" might translate as the lower part of the sleeve. This is different from the gardecorps of the 13th century in that it has no hood, is more fitted, has buttons, doesn't have those huge long dangling sleeves, and is shorter. All of these examples also appear later than the latest example of a gardecorps I can find. The reduced length, as well as the apparent lesser volume in the front of some examples, account for the smaller volume of materials used in the corset.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778648836438/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778648997442/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778648997453/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778648997402/ - a somewhat unclear carving, but has the buttons in front and open sleeves of other Coat-Things.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/257760778651428408/ - a masculine example: the pink garment on the grey-haired man is identified by van Buren as an "old-fashioned" corset (van Buren 66). It displays the buttoned sleeves featured on several Coat-Things. The lack of front button closure, an innovation developed through the 14th century, is what I believe makes it old-fashioned. (Also, if the queen is wearing a corset in this MS as labeled above, the king might be as well - and his garment clearly has short sleeves with tippets and is shorter than the cote beneath, like the "hunting surcotes.")
It can be noted that there are not a whole lot of images which fit the description of a corset. I think this is actually pretty logical. The corset was perhaps a casual garment, certainly not part of the formal suit of garments (cote, surcote, mantle, optional hood) which would be more at home in the usually formal situations of artwork. If the queen was to be depicted, she would generally be in some sort of formal garments, not in a specific style of garment reserved for more casual wear.
In conclusion, I think it is possible that "corset" is not necessarily a specific term for one specific cut of garment, but rather a general category, like a modern "dress." I would call a wide variety of garments with the same basic features "dresses." The "corset" may be a general term for "a garment which is like a surcote: it covers the torso, at least part of the arm, and most of the lower body, but is too short to be a proper surcote." This encompasses a variety of cuts of body and sleeve. All of the above garments might have been called "corsets." There is certainly no other term floating around with such previously ill-defined meaning as "corset," and these pictured garments all display the features of corsets as defined above, which would be quite strange if featured in a surcote. Though I have defined the two types of garments I have seen illustrated, it is theoretically plausible that other cuts of corset might exist.
Tl;dr: a corset is pretty much a short surcote, not acceptable for formal occasions which require a surcote.
*The length of an ell varied wildly by place; in England an ell was 45 inches, in Flanders it was 27, and wool cloth was generally woven to a wider width than silks, e.g. 1.75 yards wide - 63 inches. Imagine, therefore, what you could make out of between approximately 3.5 to 5.5 yards of approximately 60" wide fabric. It's a surcote-like quantity. (The Medieval Tailor's Assistant 63) (Newton 24)
Works consulted include Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince (Stella Mary Newton),
Lives of the Queens of England (Agnes Strickland),
The Queen as ‘social mannequin’: Consumerism and
expenditure at the Court of Isabeau of Bavaria, 1393–1422 (Rachel C. Gibbons),
The Medieval Tailor's Assistant (Sarah Thursfield),
Illuminating Fashion: Dress in the Art of Medieval France and the Netherlands, 1325-1515 (Anne H. van Buren),
and The Senses in Late Medieval England (C. M. Woolgar).
Illuminating Fashion: Dress in the Art of Medieval France and the Netherlands, 1325-1515 (Anne H. van Buren),
No comments:
Post a Comment