On Partlets

https://costumehistorian.blogspot.com/2023/06/what-is-rail-or-night-rail.htmlIf we ignore the fact that Dame Partlet was a term first used by Chaucer in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale to signify a hen,[1] then the first use to signify clothing would appear to be in the Wardrobe Accounts of Henry VII, when two partlets are listed in the year 1504-5, with a further two in 1505-6.[2] In 1515 one of Henry VIII’s Acts of Apparel mentions, “Any pynchyd shyrt or pynchyd partlet of lynnyn cloth or playn shyrt garnysshyd or made wyth sylke or gold or sylver.”[3]

In the early years of the sixteenth century partlets, as an infill at the front of the neck, are something that appears in the records of both men and women. Henry VIII’s wardrobe accounts for 1516 has two deliveries, one of a yard and a half of green satin, and one of a yard and a half of black satin, each “for a partelet for the kings grace.” Henry continued to wear partlets throughout his reign, and at his death in 1547 there were two types in his wardrobe; four partlets of velvet lined with satin and embroidered with gold, and two of “white threade” which were with his shirts.[4] It is not that obvious when men stop using partlets, but they disappear from the records.

Partlets are also being worn by women. When Henry VIII married Anne of Cleves in 1540, on January 3^rd, three days before the wedding, Anne was reported as being dressed “after the Dutche fassyon” and had “about her necke..a partelet set full of riche stone which glystered all the felde.” The best known portrait of Anne, by Holbein shows a neckline infill with lines of embroidery or similar across it. A slightly later portrait of Anne by BartholomaeusBruyn the elder shows a similar, heavily pearl encrusted infill, which was probably a partlet. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Anne of Cleves by Bartholomaeus Bruyn the Elder. St John's College, University of Oxford

 

These partlets for women appear to be smaller than the men’s partlets. While Henry’s partlets required a yard and a half of fabric, those purchased for the Princess Elizabeth in 1551 only required half that amount, “halfe a yarde and di. quarter of… velvet for partelettes.”[5] These velvet partlets are also being worn by women further down the social scale, but still rich enough to wear velvet. In 1560 Emma Beckett, a widow, left in her will “To Margaret Folkes my daughter my gown next the best lined with worsted, my kirtle next the best, my red petticoat next the best, 1 velvet partlet…”[6]  Black velvet was popular for partlets, and when worn with a black gown it is less obvious that a partlet is being worn, though the Fitzwilliam portrait of Mary I does show the partlet extending under the armpit, and with a standing collar. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Mary Tudor. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

 

Linen partlets were also in use, in 1606 Margaret Pickering left “a little cambric partlet” which was to be converted into a band by its male recipient.[7] They could be plain linen, or much more decorative, and some had matching sleeves. In 1565 Queen Elizabeth I paid the embroiderer David Smith for, “enbraudering of a gathered partelet and a paire of wide slevis of lawne wrought allover with sondrie sortes of byrdes and floures made of gold and silver.”[8] These incredibly heavily embroidered items can be seen in several portraits of Elizabeth in the 1570s, for example one in the National Museum ofWales.(Figure 3) In portraits there is the question of whether what appears at the neck is an embroidered smock, or a separate partlet. It is more obvious when the linen partlet is worn on top, as in this detail from Joachim Beuckelaer’s Fire in his c.1570 Four Elements series. (Figure 4) Here the partlet appears to be pinned under the arm and has an integral collar with a ruffle.

 

Figure 3. Elizabeth I. National Museum of Wales

The use of partlets by women further down the social seems to be most common in the last two decades of the sixteenth century. In Hampshire there are three women from different financial levels having partlets in their probates. Agnes Hall in 1595 left an estate valued at just over £10, she owned two partlets. Margaret Cooper in 1597 had an estate of over £28, her four partlets were valued at 6s. In 1585 Margaret Swathing, whose estate was worth over one hundred pounds had three partlets, valued at only one shilling.[9]

 

Figure 4: Detail from Joachim Beuckelaer. The Four Elements, Fire. National Gallery.

Partlets continue to appear in wills and probates in the first quarter of the seventeenth century, but for women only. They are valued in inventories at prices between tuppence ha’penny and one shilling and eight pence. Several of these are described as old as in, “to old partlekes and a apurne and other small implements 1s 6d.”[10] In the early seventeenth century partlets also seem to be associated with rails, when Katheryn Pearne dies in 1606 her inventory includes, “twelve partletts with Rayles, three parlets without rayles.”[11] Partlets seem to disappear from inventories after about 1625.

In 1617 Elizabeth Blakeborne, who owned a sizeable number of garments, had two workday partlets, and listed separately five partlets and five gorgets.[12] Which raises the question of terminology, as that implies that partlets and gorgets are not the same thing. By 1658 the word partlet was considered old fashioned, “Partlet, a word used in some old Statutes, signifying the loose collar of a dublet to be set on or taken off by it self without the bodies, also a womans neckerchief.”[13] While its use for an item of armour goes back to the late fifteenth century,[14] the word gorget does not appear as an article of women’s wear until the 1570s, with the Oxford English Dictionary having the first use in 1575.[15] In 1635 Bishop Richard Corbet, wrote a poem that associated gorgets with rails, it was entitled, “To the ladyes of the new dresse, that weare their gorgets and rayles downe to their wastes,”[16] Blount mentions gorget in his 1656 and 1661 definitions of a cravat, “Crabbat..is often used Substantively for a new fashioned Gorget which women wear.”[17] However by the 1674 edition the definition of cravat changes to indicate men’s neckwear. Randle Holme describes gorgets as “round Dresses plaited [pleated] to be deep about Womens Necks.”[18]

It is interesting that gorgets are specifically described as pleated. Partlets do not seem to be pleated, if they are gathered they are described as such. Elizabeth I had her silkwoman, Alice Montague, work in 1565 both “a gathered partelet of lawne with drawne worke of crimson silk” and “a gathered partelet of laune beinge wrought alover with diverse works of silk of sondrey colours.”[19] In 1620 the gentlewoman Jane Aubrey left in her will, “one fine gathered night partlet edged about with bone lace.”[20]

A linen survival from the 1630s in the Filmer Collection in Manchester has been described as a partlet, and a pattern was taken by Janet Arnold.[21] This survival while providing an infill at the front does not extend under the armpit, and the back is much shorter than the front. The collar that it is attached to it is pleated, so it may have been described at the time as a gorget, rather than a partlet. Unless a garment from the period turns up with a label attached that says I am a …, we may never know for certain.

---

[1] “ Seuene hennes..Of whiche the faireste hewed on hire throte Was cleped faire damoysele Pertelote”

[2] Hayward, Maria, Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII. Leeds: Maney, 2007. p.81.

[3]  Act 7 Henry VIII c. 6 §4.

[4] Hayward, Maria, Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII. Leeds: Maney, 2007.p.54.

[5] Quoted in Cunnington, C.W. & P. Handbook of English Costume in the 16^th Century. Rev. ed. London: Faber, 1970.

[6] Emmison, F. G., Essex wills (England), vol 1: 1558-1565. Washington: National Genealogical Society, 1982. p.211.

[7] Phillips, C. B. and Smith, J. H., eds. Stockport probate records, 1578-1619.  Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1985, vol. 124, p.50-2.

[8] Arnold, Janet, Queen Elizabeth’s Wardrobe Unlock’d. Leeds: Maney, 1988. p.150.

[9] Hants. RO 1595A/035, Hants. RO 1597A/023, Hants. RO 1585B/66.

[10] Brinkworth E.R.C. and Gibson, J.S.W. eds. 1985 Banbury wills and inventories. Pt.1, 1591-1620. Banbury Historical Society, vol 13, 302.

[11] Quoted in Spufford, M. and Mee, S., The Clothing of the Common Sort 1570-1700. Oxford: OUP, 2017. p.150.

[12] Presland, M. ed., Angells to Yarnwindles: the wills and inventories of twenty six Elizabethan and Jacobean women living in the area now called St. Helens, St Helens: St. Helens Association for Research into Local History, 1999, p.46.

[13] Phillips, Edward., The New World of English Words. London: Printed by E. Tyler for Nath. Brooke, 1658.

[14] In William Caxton, The book of the Ordre of chyualry. Early English Text Society, STC3356. “The gorgette enuyronneth or goth aboute the neck of a knyght by cause it shold be deffended fro strokes and woundes.”

[15] The first quote in the OED is from Robert Langham’s Letter describing “The Magnificent Pageants

presented before Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth Castle in 1575.” The quote reads “A side gooun of kendall green‥gathered at the neck with a narro gorget.”

[16] Corbet, Richard. The Poems of Richard Corbet, late bishop of Oxford and of Norwich. [Online] [Cited: June 17, 2023.] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65375/65375-h/65375-h.htm.

[17] Blount, Thomas, Glossographia . London: Thomas Newcomb, 1656. 

[18] Holme, Randle, Academy of Armory. Chester: The Author, 1688.

[19] Arnold, Janet, Queen Elizabeth’s Wardrobe Unlock’d. Leeds: Maney, 1988. p.149.

[20] Hants. RO 1620A/003.

[21] Arnold, Janet, Patterns of Fashion 4: the cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neckwear, headwear and accessories for men and women c.1540-1660. London: Macmillan, 2008. p.100-1.

Rachel, Countess of Bath: Accessories for a “super-rich” lady of the 1640s.

1870s photo of the Van Dyck portrait

Everyone is aware of the modern idea of the super-rich woman being someone who thinks nothing of spending on a handbag, what for most people is a year’s income. As part of my researches for The Stuart Tailor I have been looking at the General Account Book of Rachel, Countess of Bath, for 1639-54, and she counts as mid seventeenth century super-rich, hubby is Charles I’s Lord Privy Seal. She was also one of the last people to have her portrait painted by Van Dyck, he returned to England in May of 1641, and was already ill. In her June 1641 accounts are two payments, “to Sir Anthony Vandick in part for my picture £10” and “to Sir Anthony Vandick for my picture £10, for the frame £4, to his man £1.” (1)  Van Dyck died in November 1641. The whereabouts of this painting are unknown, meaning that it is probably in a private collection somewhere. The picture on the right is from a 1870s photograph of the painting. 

In some respects it is difficult to compare what Rachel is spending with the income of an ordinary woman of the time. A 1645 list of the servants at the Baths’ Tawstock estate shows three female servants being paid £2 a year. Women who were employed on an annual basis by the gentry Le Strange family of Hunstanton received between £1 10s and £2 a year, while the two female servants listed in the 1642 memorandum book of yeoman farmer Henry Best were paid £1 4s and £1 8s.  However as has been pointed out servants were provided with board, lodging and clothing in addition to this money. Day labourers also received food and drink as part of their remuneration and there was a statutory equivalent of the “minimum wage”. In Suffolk in 1630, for female reapers and binders of corn, this was 4d a day. (2)

Hollar's Winter 1644

So what, for Rachel, was the mid 17^th century equivalent of a modern Hermes Birkin handbag? Here left is Hollar’s Winter from his 1644 seasons, and this lady is wearing examples of several items that Rachel buys, a muff, a fur stole, a hood, and shoes roses. 

Apart from jewellery, which is discussed at the end, furs are among her most expensive purchases. In 1650 she pays for “a rich sable muff” £22, while in 1640 she had purchased “a sable for my neck” for £8 10s 0s. 

She buys a large number of hoods ranging in price from 3s for a black hood in 1639, to 12s in 1640 for a tiffany hood laced. In 1644 she buys three hoods for a total of 13s, of love, described by the OED as a thin crape or gauze material, of ducape, described by the OED as a plain-wove stout silk fabric of softer texture than Gros de Naples, and of sarcenet, which is a fine, soft silk fabric.

Looking at Winter’s feet the front of her shoe is covered by a shoe rose. In 1643 Rachel purchases “a pair of roses and 3 yards of pink coloured ribbon for your Ladyship bought at Mr Gumbletons 5s” The ribbon is probably for gartering, in 1644 she buys “gartering ribbons 7s”, and in 1650 “3 yards of blue gartering for my Lady 5s.” The shoes on the other hand are a lot less expensive, in 1644 “for a pair of shoes for your Ladyship 3s 6d”, even decorated shoes as in 1646 “for a pair of laced shoes for your Ladyship 4s” and in 1646 her slippers were 2s 6d. 

 In the winter engraving you can’t see the stockings, but Rachel’s are usually of silk at around £1 2s to £1 5s a pair. In 1639 we have “for 3 pair silk stockings £3 15s” and in 1649 “2 pair of silk stockings 46s,” there are other stockings listed. These silk stockings are in the Livrustkammeren in Stockholm and date from 1654.  

 You can’t tell if Hollar’s winter is wearing gloves but Rachel buys lots, “paid my glover 6th May 1641 £4 10 0,” and a 1646 bill has “paid for 12 pair of white and 11 pair of brown gloves Mrs Everatt 19s.”  These are probably the plain elbow length gloves that can be seen in this Van Dyck portrait of Anne Carr where the glove is shown carried. A slightly later (c1685-1700) pair, with a little decoration, survives in the Glovers’ Collection.

She buys fans. In 1647 she buys one for 2s and another for 3s. She also buys them with other things, for example “for gloves & a fan £1 0s 6d,” and in 1647 in a small spending spree, “for a fair laced scarf and hood & 2 pair of pearl pendants & a screen fan £3.” The assumption is that a screen fan is a solid fan, as opposed to a folding fan. This folding brise fan in the collection of the V&A dates to the 1620s.

For her neckwear she has gorgets, these are deep, usually circular, cape like collars, as can be seen in this rear view from another Hollar engraving right. In 1640 she pays for a tiffany gorget 10s, in 1641 for making 2 gorgets & tiffany to one of them Miss Antony £1. Tiffany is a kind of thin transparent silk. Her neckwear wasn’t always of silk, in 1649 we have “for 2 handkerchiefs, cuffs and a gorget of plain Holland £2”  

Rachel also purchases a sweet bag in 1640 for the sum of £6 10s. Sweet bags are small purses often given as gifts, and sometimes containing a scented “sweet powder,” enabling them to be put with clothing in the same way as lavender bags are used today.  Shortly after buying her sweet bag she spends £1 6s 8d on “silver and gold lace for my best sweet bag.” The Victoria and Albert Museum has an excellent collection of examples from the first half of the 17^th century. Jacqui Carey has written a book on the whole subject of sweet bags. (3)

 

Finally we have Rachel’s jewellery. Her largest expense is in 1652 for “for one fair diamond £40,” but she buys a fair number of small, cheaper items. Some of these items must have been similar to what was found in the Cheapside Hoard. She buys pendants together with a mask for 10s in 1640, and in 1642 she spends 14s on “a cornelian ring & crystal pendants.” The Cheapside Hoard contains several pendants, for example in amethyst and emerald, plus a much cruder crystal pendant.  Two pair of pearl pendants where mentioned above in her 1647 shopping spree, and there is a pearl and wirework pendant in the Cheapside Hoard. (4)  In 1649 she spends £2 5s for “3 great pearls.” In 1652 she buys “two lockets £4 1s 6d”, and one can speculate as to whether the lockets might have been of the type circulating among royalist supporters after Charles’s death. The final entry for jewellery actually mention her jeweller, and goes into some detail as to what he is making for her, “£30 to Mr Grumbleton for 4 diamonds and making two pair of lockets the one 18 diamonds and the other 25 and 17 & a little ring 5s with 5 diamonds.”

Rachel often mentions where she purchases her items, the Exchange and Paternoster Row in London are mentioned. This engraving of the Royal Exchange, and with more detail Abraham Bosse’s engraving of one of the shops in the Galerie du Palais, show the sort of shop involved. However looking at some of her purchases, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t realise, that most of the time there is a civil war going on.  Oh and the Hermes Birkin equivalent? I think it has to be the sable muff. 

Bibliography

1. Gray, Todd. Devon Household Accounts 1627-59. Part 2. Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series, vol. 39. 1996.

2. Whittle, J. and Griffiths, E. Consumption and gender in the early seventeenth century household: the world of Alice Le Strange. Oxford : O.U.P., 2012.

3. Carey, Jacqui. Sweet bags: an investigation into 16th and 17th century needlework. Ottery St Mary : Carey Company, 2009.

4. Forsyth, Hazel. The Cheapside Hoard: London's lost jewels. London : Philip Wilson , 2013.