Painted by Cornelis Janssens van Ceulen in 1635, Edward was Groom of the Bedchamber to the King, wounded at Edgehill and died of fever during the Siege of Oxford in 1643. He is pictured in some kind of drapy velvet thing, t(he kind of clothing that artists like for composition, but which do nothing for the wearer) over his gatherd shirt of fine, almost see-through linen tied at the neck by a black ribbon. The picture is in the collection of the Birmingham Museums Trust.
Painted sometime before 1650 by an unknown artist, One Eye (as he was presumably known to his friends) fought on the royalist side during the war and reputedly lost an eye at the Siege of Lathom. Consequently his roguish gaze has nothing to do with his character and everything to do with his war service.
He is bareheaded (with a thin comb-over) in this portrait and is wearing a leather lined gorget around his throat over a brown doublet that is decorated with some kind of cord piping around his waist echoing an earlier fashion of decorated points that would originally have connected to the breeches. His falling band is decorated with a thin edging of bone lace and an understated set of strings. The picture hangs in the Astley Hall Museum, Chorley.
The poet and soldier for the Crown, painted by John de Critz in college robes. Lovelace was educated at Oxford where he was granted the degree of Master of Arts. Despite being described in wikipedia as having fought for the King, it turns out that his military career was all on the continent and he was not involved in the Civil War at all. His most celebrated verses are from his poem entitled “To Althea, From Prison”:
“Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage;
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage”
Richard is wearing his masters gown over what looks to be a doublet and waistcoat beneath, as there are definitely two layers, both heavily buttoned. On his head he wears a scholar’s square cap and a plain linen band around his neck.
The tassels on his band strings appear to be made of tiny knots, rather like an example in Janet Arnold’s Patterns of Fashion 4.
In this detail you can see the intricate work on the buttons and also the embroidery on his glove cuffs.
………wherein is martially showne the order for driling the musket and pike : set forth in postures with ye words of comand and brief instructions for the right use of the same. Sold by Thomas. Jenner (at the foot of the Exchange in London) 1642.
An eight page drill book showing the standard pike and musket positions, published just before the war and including some nice plates of soldiers drilling in various costumes. These four caught my eye as they are all wearing the peaked cap with a folded outer skirt known at the time as a montero. There are scant few images of these hats from England in the 1640s, making these pictures quite rare to say the least.
The first chap seems to be dressed as an officer in long boots, nice breeches, gauntlets, armour consisting of back, breast and tassets and laced a falling band. His cap is decorated with plumes and conforms to the officer’s style with little room in the side skirt for folding. Why would you need protection from the cold when you could just go indoors?
The second figure, a musketeer is dressed more plainly. Shoes instead of boots, though his hose have a turn down that echoes boot hose. His breeches are decorated with some kind of top stitching and extravagant ribbon bows. He also appears to be wearing a doublet with slashed sleeves beneath a buff coat and plain linen collar and band. The montero is also plumed, but there is more room in this one for folds in the skirt. If you look closely, there are also some stitches drawn in around the peak.
The last guy, getting ready to spit his ball down his musket barrel has quite a lot of decoration on his kit, from the ribbon rosettes on his shoes, up the laced and pointed legs of his breeches to the slashed sleeve of his doublet and laced falling band. He’s quite a dapper fellow. His montero is again six panes and some sewing is visible on the crown this time.
Senior tutor at Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, painted by an unknown artist in 1653. Matthews is wearing standard academic clothing, black cap, a gown with hanging sleeves over a doublet with linen cuffs and falling band. The work on his doubled cuffs and the intricate band strings are particularly fine. The doublet buttons are enormous!
Pleasantly Disputing for Place and Precedence, The Brewers-Cart being Moderator. A small book by Henry Peacham written in 1636 and detailing an argument had between two forerunners of the London cabby on the streets of London. What is handy is that the text agrees with the pictures, dating the image securely and there is a description of what the two are wearing.
The One (the lesser of the two was in a suite of greene, after a strange manner, winnowed before and behind with Isen-glasse, having two handsome fellows in greene coats attending him; their lace coats were lac’d down the back with a greene lace suitable, so were their half sleeves which persuaded me at first they were some cast suites of their Masters; their backs were harnessed with leather cingles, cut out of a hide so broad as Dutch-collops of Bacon, whereat I wondered not a little, being but newly come out of the Countrie, and not having seen the like before.
Here he is in his green coat with half sleeves, over a doublet and breeches, as well as a tradesman’s cap and small falling band. Over all he has the leather straps (like Dutch collops) that spread the load of the sedan chair/
The odd thing about this description is that id doesn’t really tie in with the picture. However, if you look at this as a satyrical piece, you realise that the character “Coach” is actually the coach rather than the coachman!
The other was a thick burly square set fellow, in a doublet of Black-leather, Brasse-button’d down the brest, Backe, Sleeves, and winges, with monstrous wide boots, fringed at the top with a net fringe, and a round breech (after the old fashion) guilder, and on his back-side an Atcheivement of Sundry Coats in their proper colours, quartered with Crest, Helme and Mantle, besides here and there, on the sides a single Escutchion or crest, with some Emblematicall word or other; I supposed they were made of some Pendants, or Banners that had been stollen, from over some Monument, where they had long hung in a Church.
The actual description comes a bit further on, though I must admit I’m none the wiser, though I love the language here:
Beeing in this discourse comes whistling by with his Carre, a lustie tall fellow red-haired, and cheeks puffed and swolne as if her had beene a Lincoln-shire-baggpiper, or a Dutch Trumpeter under Grobbendonck, in a Canvas frock, a red-cap, a payer of high-shooes, with his whip in his hand
Here’s the carter in his leather doublet (note brass buttons in the text) and his livery coat over the top. Strangely no boots, though the woodcut seems correct in all the other departments.
An epic poem by John Quarles published in London in 1658. Slightly beyond our time, but this picture caught my eye today because of the cap being worn by the cavalry trooper in the foreground.
He is dressed in a short jump coat with slashed sleeves, breeches and riding boots. On his head he is wearing a montero cap, a woollen peaked cap with skirts that fold down for protection in bad weather. There aren’t many of these caps in illustrations from England, though they do appear in literature and seem to have been reasonably common for soldiers of the period. Nice simple sword too. The lady he is menacing has free flowing hair, often a sign of distress and a petticoat and bodies. The cavalry in the rear may also be wearing montero caps, though it’s tricky to tell.
The Anabaptist. believed that candidates for baptism should be able to make a confession of faith at the same time and as such rejected the accepted method of baptising infants. This was a hot topic in the 1640s and long tracts were written about it putting both sides of the argument. Both the candidate and the baptising minister are stripped to their underclothes, this being one of the only images from the period of a man wearing (under) drawers.
To cleanse that guilt which is a Leopard staine:
‘Tis but a fain’d conceit, contended for,
Since water can but act its outward matter:
Regenerate, new-born; these babes indeed
of watry Elements have little need.
Familists were a mysterious sect founded in the 16th century by Henry Nicholls (HN in the rhyme) and believed that things were ruled by nature, not directly by God as the popular opinion of the times would have it. They also rejected infant baptism and the movement appealed to the cognoscenti; artists, musicians and intellectuals. This chap is looking rather superior in a tall hat and coat.
Were all things Gospell that H.N. hath said,
A strange confused worke were newly laid:
A perfect state, like Adams, is pretended,
Whilst out wardly each day God is offended:
No Sabboth, but alike all daies shall be,
If Familists may have their Liberty.
Seekers were probably the forerunners of Quakers. They rejected the organised church system, preferring to wait for God’s revelation. Our seeker is wearing a tabbed doublet rather than a coat and is proffering his hat in a respectful way.
All Ordinances, Church and Ministry,
The Seeker that hath lost his beaten way,
Denies: for miracles he now doth waite,
Thus glorious truths reveal’d are out of date:
Is it not just such men should alwaies doubt
Of clearest truths, in Holy Writ held out.
The Divorcer. Not another sect, but someone who didn’t believe in the sanctity of marriage. The law allowed divorce in certain circumstances but this guy is obviously taking the law into his own hands. Mr and Mrs are wearing nice tall hats, the wife also in a smart petticoat and kerchief whilst the husband has a coat and plain falling band. I trust the staff is no bigger than his thumb!
To warrant this great Law of Separation,
And make one two, requires high aggravation:
Adultry onely cuts the Marriage-knot,
Without the which Gods Law allowes it not.
Then learn to seperate from sin that’s common,
And man shall have more Comfort from a woman.
1646 Spotters guide to the current tide of religious groups in England.
The Libertine. Not really a sect though the term was first coined by Calvin. Libertines were for physical pleasure over everything else and rebelled against moral restraints. This chap is just about to smash the ten commandments with a hammer in his short coat, tall hat and sword baldrick.
By wilfull lust, deserves just condemnation:
Repentance, though a Riddle, this Ile say,
Thou must unfold the same or perish aye.
Then least this holy Law thou yet dost sleight,
Shall presse thee one day with a dreadfull weight.
The Anti-Scripturian. This guy in a short coat (note the buttons on the back vent) is denying the power of the words in the bible. This doesn’t as far as I can tell seem to have been an actual sect, rather a feeling that not everything in the bible is literal truth.
By cursed words and actions to gainsay
All Scripture-truth, that ought to guide thy way,
Without all question, were it in thy power,
Thou would it all sacred Rules at once devoure:
Poor man, forbear, thou striv’st but all in vaine,
Since all mans might shall but confirme the same.
The Soule Sleeper believed that the human soul in not actually immortal, and that between death and Judgement Day the body is uncomprehending, in effect that the soul goes to sleep. This chap is obviously thinking long and hard about this in his coat (or doublet?) and falling band.
That soules are mortall, some have dar’d to say,
And by their lives, this folly some bewray;
Whilst (like the beast) they only live to eat,
In sinfull pleasures wast their time and state:
Meantime forgetting immortality,
To woe or joy for all eternity.
Continuing the pictures from the broadsheet from 1646/7, Here are three more.
The Arminian. Arminiansim was founded in the Low Countries and was based on the belief that every man had the free will to achieve his own salvation, and that it wasn’t predestined which way you would go after death as a lot of Independants believed. This chap is clothed in a gown over his clerical cassock (note the waist tie) with a wide brimmed hat and a ruff.
Would any comfortlesse both live and die?
Let him learne free wills great uncertaintie:
Salvation that doth unmov’d remaine,
Arminian Logick would most maintaine,
And faith that’s founded on a firme decree,
Is plac’t by them to cause uncertaintie.
The Arian. Arianism was an ancient belief that had been recently resurrected and concerned the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. A tricky one to explain, but indicative of the confusion of the times that some people were going back to the early days of Christianity for their beliefs. This chap is wearing a smart, short (or jump) coat over his doublet, a narrow brimmed hat and falling band.
What they dare to deny, Christians know,
Christ God and Man, from whom their comforts flow,
‘Tis sad, that Christians dive by speculation,
Whereby they loose more sweeter contemplation:
Where Christian practice acts the life of grace,
There’s sweet content to run in such a race.
The Adamite. As the name would suggest, these people wanted to go right back to the Garden of Eden, and professed to have regained the innocence of Adam by taking their clothes off. It was another throwback to the early days of Christianity and predated the 1960s by a considerable margin. Sadly there are no costume details here. This chap is wearing nothing but a smile.
Hath Adams sin procur’d his naked shame,
With leaves at first that thought to hide his staine?
Then let not Adamites in secret dare
Aparent sinfull acts to spread; but feare,
Since Adams sin hath so defil’d poore dust,
Cast from this Paradise by wicked lust.