Startups – a contentious word

Startups are an incredibly contentious thing among early modern re-enactors.  So, what is a startup – good question – because even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they do not appear to be certain of anything beyond the fact that they are footwear.

They are mentioned in 1551-2, Edward VI has, an Act against Regrators and Ingrossers of Tanned Leather. Chapter 15, section 5. “no Person or Persons shall ship … over the Seas as Merchandise to be sold or exchanged there any Shoes, Boots, Buskins, Stertups or Slippers.”

First appearance of the word seems to be in 1517 when the Testamenta Eboracensia has “j par sotularium quæ dicuntur stertuppes” (a pair of shoes that are said [to be] stertuppes).

Re-enactors have taken them to be working men’s shoes/boots based on John Withal’s 1574 Dictionary, which says, “In a manner all husbandmen doe Weare Startuppes.” However, in 1572 the Documents for Queen Elizabeth I’s Revels list several pairs of “white startops of cloth of sylver.” Also, in 1608, is “Her neat, fit, startups of green velvet bee, Flourisht with silver.” Neither cloth of silver or green velvet are likely to be worn by husbandmen. But Drayton in 1606 wrote of “a shepheard any thing that could, But greazd his startups black as Autums sloe.”

In 1574 John Baret’s An aluearie, or, Triple dictionarie in Englishe, Latin, and French .. has: “A high shooe of rawe leather called a stertvp”

Randle Holme’s Acadenmy of Armory mentions startops more than once, there is:

“and Startops from the top of the Feet to the middle of the Legg, turned down into Fouldings,”(page221)

“with Startops on his Leggs” (page 243)

OF the Ornaments for … the Feet, as Hose, Startops, Garters, Shoos and Broges (Book 3, C1)

And “Star-tops or hose foulded downe belowe the knees.”

 

By the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century startups only appear in dialect dictionaries, and usually indicate leggings

Startops, ..stirtups, a Kind of Button'd Buskins—Not High Shoes as Littleton represents them This is from Horæ Subsecivæ (MS Bodl. Eng. lang. d.66) 411, a manuscript glossary of words compiled by Robert Wight of Wotton-under-Edge in c .1777.  

Start-ups, short gaiters: long ones being styled leggings. This is from Anne Baker’s Glossary of Northamptonshire words and phrases published in 1854.

So – make your own decision about what starups were in the seventeenth century.

The next question is how common were they. An analysis of 9,000 wills and probate inventories dating 1600-1700 has no references to startups. There are shoes, boots, galoshes, buskins, pantofles, pattens, and slippers, but no startups. In Spufford and Mee’s work, ‘The clothing of the Common Sort 1570-1700’, where they analyse probate accounts (these are different to probate inventories) there are no startups, though they do have reference to high shoes, these might be startups.  Obviously in the literature beyond wills and probates there are references, so they must have existed, but how common they were is debateable.

 

The Early Tied-on Pockets

 The history of the tied-on pocket pre 1700 is fragmentary. Unsworth’s examination of the early pocket covers both integral pockets, especially in men’s wear, and the appearance of the tied-on pocket for women pre 1630. (1) Van Der Krol suggested that tied-on pockets came to replace the suspended drawstring bag or purse towards the end of the seventeenth century, however tied-on pockets certainly existed earlier. (2 p. 13)

An early pocket appears in the frescos of the Gaddi Chapel in Santa Maria Novella, Florence. The frescos are by Alessandro Allori and date from 1577. The image of vanitas is a woman looking into her mirror, she is wearing what looks far more like a tied-on pocket, rather than a suspended purse. 

Figure 1: Vanitas fresco, Gaddi Chapel, Santa Maria Novella, Florence. 1577

Slightly later, three of the plates in Karel van Mallery’s series Vermis Sericus, engraved after Jan van der Straet’s work, [plates 3, 4 and 6] show women around 1595 wearing pockets. Often, as in Figure 2, an apron or gown has been held or bunched up, therefore showing the pocket, which is normally hidden underneath.

 

Figure 2: Karel van Mallery after Jan van der Straet.  Plate 4 from Vermis Sericus. ca. 1595. Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

There are few early English references to pockets. One reference that is probably not for separate pockets is in 1628 when Margaret Day, who was the widow of a glover, had in her stock “seaventeene paire of pocketts 2s.” However, these are likely to have been the type of leather pockets that were for putting into men’s breeches. (3 p. 68) She also had in stock pouches, bags and purses. A 1681 reference more likely to refer to separate pockets, is a probate account listing  “paid for 4 yards of blanketing [for] pockets and making them”     (4 p. PRC 2 / 39 / 222) One wonders if, when Samuel Pepys complained about a young woman, “I could perceive her to take pins out of her pocket to prick me if I should touch her again,” the pocket was a tie-on or sewn in. (5 p. 18 Aug 1667) Also in the 1660s Giles Moore purchased pockets for his niece Martha Mayhew, paying tuppence for one and three pence for another. (6 p. 71 & 73)

Randle Holme in his 1688 Academy of Armory described, under the heading “Parts of women’s gowns”, “Pocket, or Pocket holes; are little Bags set on the inside, with a hole, or slit on the outside; by which any small thing may be carried about, or kept therein,” but that does not necessarily indicate they were separate. The pocket that Jonathan Swift wrote about in Mrs. Harris' Petition of 1699 is certainly separate, she says: "Therefore, all the money I have, which, God Knows, is a very small stock, I keep in my pocket, ty'ed about my middle, Next to my smock." 

Figure 3: Lady Clapham’s pocket. 1690s. Victoria and Albert Museum

 

Most surviving pockets do so because they are decorated with embroidery. It has been suggested that pockets made from plain weave linens that were common in the seventeenth century, may be the oldest to survive. (7 p. 14) This might be because the earliest datable survival in England is probably the one accompanying the 1690s doll, Lady Clapham, in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum as she has a tie-on pocket.[Figure 3] It is a single pocket made of white linen sewn to a linen tape, however the doll also has a quilted petticoat with two sewn in pockets. There is also a loose, brocaded silk drawstring purse which the museum considers is part of the ensemble of her partner doll, Lord Clapham. The tie-on pocket is therefore one of a range of containers that could be worn or carried simultaneously. (8 p. 34)

It is often difficult to decide whether a reference to a pocket is for a sewn in or tied-on pocket. The classic term for cutting and stealing a purse is cutpurse, however in the Old Bailey records for 1676 is an indictment for “cutting a Gentlewoman’s pocket, and taking from her a box and five shilings, and three groats.” (9) This might well be a tied-on pocket containing the box and money. Pockets continue to be mentioned in Old Bailey proceedings throughout the 1680s and 1690s and a full list of cases can be found in Burman. (8 p. 224)

 

Figure 4: Pair of pockets, 1700-25. London Museum

 

A pocket, in the sense of a tied-on pocket, was made of fabric, in a more or less rectangular shape, usually with a vertical slit for access, and was tied around the waist, and not suspended.  Pre 1750 most surviving pockets are linen, and those with embroidery are often dated by the style of the embroidery on them. Figure 4 shows a pair of pockets in the London Museum, these were dated to 1700-1725, and are of linen embroidered in silk thread on the front in an open scrolling design.

 

Figure 5: Cross stitch embroidered pocket. 1700. Glasgow Museums

 

Dateable pockets attributable to individuals are rare. Glasgow Museums have a pocket with the initials E. H. and the date 1700 embroidered on,  whilst the ground is linen the embroidery is worked in wool not silk; it is unusual in that the embroidery is worked in cross stitch. [Figure 5] In the Victoria and Albert Museum collection is a single pocket made between 1718 and 1720 by Hannah Haines. [Figure 6] Like the London Museum pair it is embroidered in yellow silk thread on linen. An unfinished pair of pocket fronts, also attributed to Hannah Haines, are in the Victoria and Albert Museum collection and show the design drawn in ink and then partially worked over in red silk thread.

 

Figure 6: Hannah Haines pocket, 1718-20. Victoria and Albert Museum.

 

A pair of pockets in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum, New York are dated to the first half of the eighteenth century, but the embroidery techniques are very similar to seventeenth century embroideries - a detail of this embroidery is at Figure 7.

 

Figure 7: Detail from pocket 1700-50. Metropolitan Museum, New York

 

Many tie-on pockets were large, allowing them to carry a great number of items. The Glasgow Museums pocket is 37cm by 21.5cm (14.5 inches by 8.5 inches). The London Museum pockets are 45cm by 26cm (17.5 inches by 10.2 inches) The single finished Hannah Haines pocket is 27cm by 17 cm (10.5 inches by 6.5 inches), but its smaller size may be because it was made by and for a child. A pair of white fustian pockets lost in 1725 contained: “a silver purse, work'd with scarlet and green S.S. In the purse there was 5 or 6 shillings in money; a ring with a death at length in black enamell'd, wrapp'd in a piece of paper; a silver tooth pick case; 2 cambrick handkerchiefs, one mark'd E.M. the other E5D; a small knife; a key and pair of gloves, and a steel thimble. &c.” (10)

References

1. Unsworth, Rebecca. Hands deep in history: pockets in men and women's dress in Western Europe, c.1480-1630. Costume. 2017, Vol. 51, 2.

2. Van de Krol, Yolanda. "Ty'ed about my middle, next to my smock": the cultural context of women's pockets. University of Delaware, Masters Theses. [Online] 1994. [Cited: October 29, 2025.] https://udspace.udel.edu/items/d15b54ef-c1bd-4711-9f02-e404cc31678b.

3. George, E. and S. eds. Bristol probate inventories, Part 1: 1542-1650. Bristol Records Society publication. 2002, Vol. 54.

4. Kent Archaeological Society. Kentish Documents, c.1530-1810 - A Transcription Project. . [Online] 2015. [Cited: June 30, 2025.] https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/13/01/30.pdf.

5. Pepys, Samuel. Diary. [Online] https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary.

6. Bird, Ruth, ed. The Journal of Giles Moore of Horsted Keynes, 1655-1679. Lewes : Sussex Record Society, 1971.

7. Burman, Barbara and Denbo, Seth. Pockets of history: the secret life of an everyday object. Bath : Museum of Costume, 2006.

8. Burman, Barbara and Fennetaux, Ariane. The pocket: a hidden history of women's lives, 1660-1900. New Haven : Yale University Press, 2019.

9. Old Bailey Proceedings Online January 1676. Sessions paper (16760117). [Online] 1676. [Cited: October 2025, 30.] https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/16760117.

10. Victoria and Albert Museum. Women's tie-on pockets. [Online] [Cited: October 30, 2025.] https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/womens-tie-pockets.