Some thoughts on hoods in 1640s England

 

I’ve written about hoods before. Most female re-enactors, certainly in England, when presenting the 1640s wear a coif, but hoods were also being worn. To be fair hoods were around for all of the first half of the century, but they start becoming more fashionable, more mainstream, in the late 1630s. William Dobson painted his wife Judith, probably around 1637-40, wearing a hood. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/dobson-portrait-of-the-artists-wife-t06640 t

Judith Dobson by William Dobson. Tate Gallery. CC-BY-NC-ND

 The Howard of Naworth household is obtaining coifs for my Lady in the 1610s and 1620s, and are also buying hoods in the 1620s and 1630s. The Seymour family (Marquess of Hertford) in 1641,and 1642, do not buy any coifs, but they do buy seven hoods, and Rachel, Countess of Bath, in her 1639-54 accounts, has no coifs but many, many hoods. These are all upper class; the question is when did hoods reach down the social scale. The account book of Giles Moore, rector of a Sussex parish, shows purchases for his niece, who came to live in the household when she was about 12 years old in 1667. After an initial purchase of coifs, all the headwear bought for her were hoods, indicating that by that date hoods had become normal provincial middle class wear.

In Hollar’s Ornatus of 1640 there are plates of 26 English women, mostly from the gentry and nobility, and some merchant’s wives. Thirteen of the women are bare headed, one wears a veil, five wear various styles of coifs, a further three wear coifs under hats, two a hat without a coif under, and finally two wear hoods.

The Douce Portfolio set of Cries of London from about 1655 has eleven women, ten of whom wear hats with some form of coif underneath, the detail is difficult to discern, however at least one woman, hot codlings, is wearing a hood.

By the 1680s and Laroon’s Cries and Hawkers of London we have 17 women wearing a hood with a hat over it, and five wearing just a hood on its own, some are worn untied. Only three of the women are wearing coifs, all of the turn back front style and all with a hat over, and one woman wears a very out of date head wrap.

A hood, of very fine fabric and dated to around 1640, is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum New York. It is perhaps a half way between the early hoods that survive and the later hoods that appear in paintings, but for which we do not seem to have survivals. As can be seen from the back view, it looks as though the gather that was at the top of the head in coifs, has moved to the back of the head. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/116177

Hood. c.1640. Metropolitan Museum, New York. Public Domain

 

Lots of coifs survive from the first half of the 17^th century, because they were heavily embroidered, and were retained for their embroidery. Hoods were rarely embroidered, certain in their later form, though the V&A has three from between 1600-1630. These three, unlike later examples, were not designed to be tied under the chin.

1600-1625 Linen, embroidered with black silk in a design of scrolls and flowers, with linen bobbin lace trimming https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O357673/hood-unknown/

1600-1630 Linen, embroidered with black silk in a design of scrolls and flowers, with linen bobbin lace trimming. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O73312/hood-unknown/

1610-1620 Linen with a linen bobbin lace edging and insertions. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O357664/hood-unknown/

A fourth example in the V&A they describe as a coif, because the structure of the top is that of a coif, however the sides extend down like a hood. It is considered to be earlier, 1550-1600, and is of linen with needle lace insertions and edging. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O117937/coif-unknown/

There is a rare English portrait of a woman wearing what might be one of these earlier hoods, though since we can’t see the back it may just be a veil.  It is of Mary Hawtrey, Lady Wolley (1587-1638) by someone in the circle of Marcus Gheeraerts the younger (1561-1636) https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/mary-hawtrey-15871638-lady-wolley-56129

A back view of a hood in a 1640 Hollar engraving of an Englishwoman in winter clothes shows the gathers at the back looking horizontal rather than drawn into a circle. It is impossible to tell if this is on a drawstring, or if the gathers have been placed on a band https://hollar.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/hollar%3AHollar_k_1810

Detail from Hollar's Noble woman in winter clothing. 1640

 

One of Hollar’s women’s heads in circles, again from the 1640s, shows a front view, and like many she seems to have created a roll of fabric at the front of the hood. https://hollar.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/hollar%3AHollar_k_1864

 

Hollar. Woman's head in a circle

Hoods seem to come in white or black. Black appears to be mainly for outdoor wear, while white appears to be more for indoor wear, though this is not necessarily always the case. In Ter Borch’s  The Letter of c. 1660 a woman is wearing a black hood over a white hood indoors. https://www.rct.uk/collection/405532/the-letter

At the top end of the market these hoods were made of gauze, ducape, love, alamode, lutestring, sarsenet, tiffany and taffeta, all types of silks. In the 1650s they seem to have cost around 5 shillings. Hoods were also made of cloth, serge, camlet and calico, the earliest mention of a calico hood I have found is 1657. By 1680 cheap calico hoods were selling for 2d each.

 

Coifs and other non-hat headgear for women, 1600 to 1650

 

Coifs are regarded, certainly among English Civil War re-enactors, as the thing that women must wear on their heads. It is a little more complex than that, and looking at women’s probates across the Stuart period you can see a distinct dividing line; pre 1650 90% of the non-hat headgear for women are coifs, post 1650 90% of the non-hat headgear are hoods. Unsurprisingly Gregory King’s 1688 “Annual consumption of apparel” does not list coifs at all, but has two sections for women’s non-hat headwear, “Hoods, dressing and commodes” of which he believed there were 400,000 a year, and the less common, but more fashionable, “Tours and locks” of which there were only 4,000 a year. (1)

Non Coifs

Figure 1 William Dobson's portrait of his wife wearing a hood. 1635-40. Tate Gallery

While pre 1650 coifs were by far the most common women’s headgear, there are references to other types of headgear. In the early years of the century French hoods were still around, in 1604 Elizabeth Jenyson left her daughter, “both my french hoods, [and] my bonegrace.” (2) Fynes Moryson in 1617 described a bongrace as “A French shadow of velvet to defend them from the sunne …now altogether out of use with us.” (3) Despite Moryson’s comment, bongraces do continue in the records, though they are uncommon as well as unfashionable. Their use and make up changes in two ways. Firstly, they become used for children, “Burn-graces in Summer to save childrens Faces” (4). In 1650 one of Edward Harpur’s daughters, Esther, is given “a head lace and a bowne grace” (5 p. 271) Secondly, although the OED says it is difficult to distinguish, they may have become more of a hat, though certainly still something shading the face, as in a 1690 description, “her Bongrace was of wended Straw.” As Moryson mentioned, another term used for the bongrace was shadow. Florio writes of “bone-graces, shadowes, vailes or launes that women use to weare on their foreheads for the sunne.” (6) Lawn was a fabric that was used for shadows, Henry Best wrote that, “Lawne..is much used for fine necke-kerchers, and fine shadowes.” (7)  In 1637 George Weston had among other goods in the hold of his ship “two newe shadows for women.” (8 p. 104)

By the 1630s hoods were making their appearance as an item of soft headwear among the gentry and nobility. In 1633 the Howard of Naworth accounts show “for one black taffatie hudd for Mrs Elizabeth Howard 3s” (9) In 1641 the Seymour accounts show several hoods being purchased for “the young ladies” including “for two white scarcenett hoods for my Lady Jean 7s” and “two black taffetie hoods for my Ladie Francis, 7s” (10) The accounts for the household of the Countess of Bath, which cover 1639-1654, have no purchases of coifs, but a large number of hoods. (11) The type of hood that may have been purchased is shown in Figure 1, a portrait by William Dobson of his wife Judith.

Prices, Purchasing and Making of Coifs

Coifs appear at all levels of society and a vast range of prices, from as little as one penny each for three linen coifs in 1610 (12), to fifteen shillings for “a gould quoife” belonging to Venetia Stanley in 1624 (13), although most of the value of that would have been in the gold work. An example of a gold and silver work coif survives in the Burrell collection in Glasgow, and is shown in Figure 2, the link to the museum record has images of the reverse. 

Figure 2. Gold and silver worked unmade coif in the Burrell Collection, c.1610-20. CC BY NC 4.0

Coifs could be purchased ready-made. In 1610 Philip Helwys, a merchant of Ipswich, had 93 coarse coifs in stock, valued at 2d each. (14) In 1624 the peddler and widow Avis Clarke, had “nine quives of black and tawney 3s” and “aleven drawne work quives 3s,” they were therefore worth between 3d and 4d each. (15) In 1634 Thomas Nelmes, a Bristol grocer, had both blew and drawn work coifs in stock ,the blew were 2d each and the drawn work 3d. (8)

Coifs could also be made at home, though records for this are few. In the Harpur probate accounts are several records of purchases of cloth for making coifs for the Harpur daughters. In 1650 purchase was made of “2 yards of calico for Anna and Sarah with 1 yard of holland for coiffes 5s 6d” and in 1653 “for ½ an ell of holland pro Anna and Saras coifes 3s 6d” (5) The fabric could also be drawn, that is have a pattern drawn on them, for a child or adult to embroider. In the probate accounts of John Tayler of Kent, who had a charge value on his estate of just over £16, so he is not rich, there is for “draweing of a coyfe for the said minor and for Cruell.” (16 p. 93) His accounts end in 1630, and it would seem from this that his daughter embroidered her coif in crewel wool. Crewel wool coifs do not survive, but a jacket of roughly the same date, embroidered in a fine black wool, is in the Museum of London collection.  Figure 3 shows a detail of the design of barberries on the jacket. 

Figure 3. Barberries embroidered in fine black wool on linen from a jacket in the Museum of London. 1610-20.

Who wore coifs and what were they made from?

At the lowest levels of society poor children were provided with coifs by overseers of the poor and other charitable institutions  in both the Suffolk and Kent records. (16 pp. 51-54). In Christ’s Hospital, Suffolk, older girls were provided with coifs made from lockram, while the younger girls had coifs of check lined with hamborough. (16 p. 51) Both lockram and hamborough are linens, which seem to have sold for between 7d and 12d an ell. (17 pp. 163, 172, 191)

Far more expensive and of better quality was holland, another type of linen, and Spufford’s analysis of the prices of holland between 1610 and 1660 showed an average price of two shillings, at least twice the price of cheaper linens. (18) In 1620 Jane Aubrey, a gentlewoman, left in her will, “a plain Holland coif edged with bone lace.” (19)

Though linen based fabrics are by far the most common, coifs could be made from other fabrics. In 1625 Joan Gooch, a widow, left her daughter two fustian coifs. (20 p. 129) It is possible that people had what they might call workaday coifs and holiday coifs, the holiday coifs being of a better quality cloth, the fourteen year old Elizabeth Harnett had coifs of both holland and bustian. (16 p. 93) In 1635 Alice Edmunds left her sister a silk coif, and 3 holland coifs. (21 p. 335)  There is also mention of tiffany being used for coifs, this is an expensive, very fine, transparent fabric, which could be either silk or linen. In 1619 “a tiffany coife worth twelve shillings” was stolen in London. (22)

Embellishment of coifs

As has already been discussed coifs could be embellished with embroidery, and lace. In 1612 the Howard accounts show a payment of 18d for “working a coyfe for my lady”. (9 p. 11)  Blackwork was a popular choice in the early years of the century, in 1613  “one blacke wroughte quoife worth eighteen pence” was stolen in London. (23) An example of a late 16^th – early 17^th century coif embellished with black silk embroidery is shown in figure 4. This coif is in the Cooper-Hewitt Collection

Figure 4 Blackwork coif embroidered with a scrolling design of strawberries, apples, etc, and incorporating birds, butterflies, snails, etc. Public domain.

 

Figure 5. Detail from a coif in Worthing Museum.

The drawn work coifs mentioned in the stock of Clark and Nelmes, also appear in probate inventories and wills. In 1620 the Howard accounts have “a drawnen work coyfe for my lady 16d” (9 p. 124) In 1632 Elizabeth Lee in Durham left a drawn work coif. (24 pp. 113-4) Platt Hall in Manchester has several coifs from the second quarter of the 17^th century that incorporate drawn thread work, and Figure 5 shows a detail from an example of a cut and drawn thread work coif in the Worthing Museum. 

Coifs could also be embellished with lace. This was not necessarily an expensive lace, in 1661 ten pence was paid for “a yard and a halfe of lace for a coife” for one of the Harpur daughters. (5 pp. 266-98) A letter from Elizabeth Isham has samples of lace attached that cost two, six, seven and ten pence a yard. (25 p. f.162)  The lace was usually used at the edge of the coif, and a drawn and cutwork coif with an edging of a wider lace is shown in Figure 6, it is in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. 

Figure 6. Cut and drawn thread work coif. C.1625. Victoria and Albert Museum.

 

References

1. Harte, N. B. The Economics of Clothing in the Late Seventeenth Century. Textile History. 1991, Vol. 22.

2. Wood, H. W. ed. Wills and inventories from the registry at Durham, part 4, [1603-1649]. Publications of the Surtees Society. 1929, Vol. 142.

3. Moryson, Fynes. An itinerary. London : Printed by John Beale, dwelling in Aldersgate Street, 1617.

4. Gayton, Edmund. Pleasant notes upon Don Quixot . London : Printed by William Hunt, 1654.

5. Phillips, C. B. and Smith, J H. Stockport Probate Records 1620-1650. Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 1992, Vol. 131.

6. Florio, John. A worlde of wordes, or most copious, and exact dictionarie in Italian and English. London : A Hatfield for E. Blount, 1598.

7. Best, Henry. The Farming and Memorandum Books of Henry Best of Elmswell, 1642. London : British Academy, 1984.

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

9. Ornsby, G. ed. Selections from the Household Books of the Lord William Howard of Naworth Castle. Publications of the Surtees Society. 1878, Vol. 68.

10. Private Purse Accounts of the Marquis of Hertford, Michaelmas 1641-2. Morgan, F. C. 1945, Antiquaries Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 12-42.

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

12. Middlesex Sessions Rolls. Middlesex County Records: Volume 2, 1603-25. Originally published London: Middlesex County Record Society, 1887. [Online] [Cited: 18 January 2022.] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol2/pp58-70.

13. —. Middlesex County Records: Volume 2, 1603-25. Originally published London: Middlesex County Record Society, 1887. [Online] [Cited: 18 January 2022.] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol2/pp176-186.

14. Reed, Michael, ed. The Ipswich probate inventories 1583-1631. Suffolk Records Society. 1981, Vol. 22.

15. Jones, J, ed. Stratford-upon-Avon Inventories,volume 1, 1538-1625. Stratford-upon-Avon : Dugdale Society , 2002.

16. Spufford, Margaret and Mee, Susan. The Clothing of the Common Sort 1570-1700. Oxford : OUP, 2017.

17. Spufford, Margaret. The great reclothing of rural England: petty chapman and their wares in the seventeenth century. London : Hambledon Press, 1984.

18. —. Fabric for seventeenth century children and adolescents' clothes. Textile History. 2003, Vol. 34.

19. Victoria County History: Hampshire. Farleigh Wallop Probate Material, 1601-1620. . [Online] [Cited: 20 January 2022.] https://www.victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/explore/sites/explore/files/explore_assets/2015/10/20/jane_aubrey_gentlewoman_will_inv_hro_1620a-003.pdf.

20. Allen, M. E. ed. Wills in the Archdeaconry of Suffolk 1625-1626. Woodbridge : Suffolk Records Society, 1995.

21. Evans, Nesta, ed. Wills of the Archdeaconry of Sudbury 1630-1635. Suffolk Records Society. 1987, Vol. 29.

22. Middlesex Sessions Rolls. Middlesex County Records: Volume 2, 1603-25. Originally published London: Middlesex County Record Society, 1887. [Online] [Cited: 22 January 2022.] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol2/pp142-150.

23. —. Middlesex County Records: Volume 2, 1603-25. Originally published London: Middlesex County Record Society, 1887. [Online] [Cited: 21 January 2022.] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol2/pp84-94.

24. Briggs, J. and McGhee, R. Sunderland Wills and Inventories, 1601-1650. Publications of the Surtees Society. 2010, Vol. 214.

25. Levey, Santina. Lace: a history. London : Victoria and Albert Museum, 1983.