"Whereas excess in apparel amongst us is unbecoming a wilderness condition and the profession of the gospell, whereby the riseing Generation is in danger to be corrupted, which practices are testifyed against in God's holy word, it is therefore ordered by this Court and authority thereof, that what person soever shall wear Gold or Silver Lace, or Gold or Silver Buttons, Silk Ribbons, or other costly superfluous trimings, or any bone Lace above three shillings per yard, or Silk Scarf es, the List makers of the respective Townes are hereby required to assesse such persons so offending, (or their Husbands, parents, or masters under whose government they are) in the list of Estates at one hundred and fifty pound Estate; and they to pay their Rates according to that proportion, as such men use to pay, to whom such apparell alowed as suitable to their Rank, provided this law shall not extend to any magistrate, or a like publique officer of this Colony, their wives or children, whoe are left to their discretion in wearing of apparell, or any setled military commission officer, or such whose quality and Estate have been above the ordinary degree, though now decayed.
"It is further ordered that all such persons as shall for the future make, or weave, or buy any apparell exceeding the quality and condition of their persons and Estates, or that is apparently beyond the necessary end of apparell for covering or comeliness, either of these to be judged by the Grand Jury and County Court where such presentments are made, shall forfeit for every such offence ten shillings; and if any Taylor shall fashion any garment for any child or servant contrary to the mind of the Parent or Master of such a child or servant, he shall forfeit for every such offence ten shillings."
Think of the position of the Grand Jury and County Court which were to decide as to whether "apparell" went beyond the "necessary end for covering or comeliness!" Imagine the grave and reverend judges and the sapient jurymen putting their wise heads together over the question as to whether Mistress Anne's "wascote" was an inch too long for the mere needs of covering, or whether Mistress Jane's coif was decorated with lace beyond the absolute requirements of comeliness! The law doubtless meant well, but from its nature it was not capable of enforcement.
A fairly comprehensive understanding of the wardrobe of a lady of the mid-seventeenth century may be furnished by reproducing, in all the glory of its original orthography, the list of the clothes of Jane Humphrey, as given in her last will and testament. Mistress Humphrey died in Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1668, and she seems to have had no possessions beyond her wardrobe. This, however, was not uncommon at the time, when clothes had a value that came from their rarity of stuff and necessary skill in fashioning, so that such a list as that of the deceased lady represented a considerable amount in those days.
"Ye Jump. Best Red Kersey Petticoate. Sad Grey Kersey Wascote. My blemmish Searge Petticoate & my best hatt. My white Fustian Wascote. A black silk neck cloath. A handkerchiefe. A blew Apron. A plain black Quoife without any lace. A white Holland Appron with a small lace at the bottom. Red Searge petticoat and a blackish Searge petticoat. Greene Searge Wascote & my hoode & muffe. My Greene Linsey Woolsey petticoate. My Whittle that is fringed and my blew Short Coate. A handkerchief. A blew Apron. My best Quife with a lace. A black Stuffe Neck Cloath. A White Holland apron with two breadths in it. Six yards of Redd Cloth. A greene Vnder Coate. Staning Kersey Coate. My murry Wascote. My Cloake and my blew Wascote. My best White Apron, my best Shifts. One of my best Neck Cloathes, and one of my plain Quieus. One Calico Vnder Neck Cloath. My fine thick Neck Cloath. My next best Neck Cloath. A square Cloath with a little lace on it. My greene Apron."
It is not probable that many women of the present day, far less any man, will be able to recognize all the stuffs that are here represented; but we can easily gather that Mistress Humphrey was well provided in the matter of "apparell", and the fact that her wardrobe was deemed worthy to be so divided into small portions--for each period as printed represents a beneficiary, the name being omitted as of no interest to us--of itself proves the value that in those days attached to the smallest articles of clothing. Yet a gown could be made at a cost of but eight shillings for the mantua-maker; the whole of the expense lay in the stuff, which was costly in proportion to its difficulty of attainment. Indian stuffs were very popular among the later colonists and in the days immediately after the Revolution. In the matter of general fashions at this time it may be best to quote from a work written by a woman concerning feminine costume in the older days of our country:
"We can gain some notion of the general shape of the dress of our forbears at various periods from the portraits of the times. Those of Madam Shrimpton and of Rebecca Rawson are among the earliest. They were painted during the last quarter of the seventeenth century. The dress is not very graceful, but far from plain, showing no trace of Puritanical simplicity; in fact, it is precisely that seen in portraits of English well-to-do folk of the same date. Both have strings of beads around the neck and no other jewels; both wear loosely tied and rather shapeless flat hoods concealing the hair, Madam Shrimpton's having an embroidered edge about two inches wide. Similar hoods are shown in Remain de Rooge prints of the landing of King William, of the women in the coronation procession. They were like the Nithesdale hoods of Hogarth's prints, but smaller. Both New England dames have also broad collars, stiff and ugly, with uncurved horizontal lower edge, apparently trimmed with embroidery or cut-work. Both show the wooden contour of figure which was either the fault of the artist or of the iron busk of the wearer's stays. The bodies are stiffly pointed, and the most noticeable feature of the gown is the sleeve, consisting of a double puff drawn in just above the elbow; in one case with very narrow ribbon loops. Randle Holme says that a sleeve thus tied in at the elbow was called a virago sleeve.
Madam Shrimpton's sleeve has also a falling frill of embroidery and lace and a ruffle around the armsize. The question of sleeves sorely vexed the colonial magistrates. Men and women were forbidden to have but one slash or opening in each sleeve. Then the inordinate width of sleeves became equally trying, and all were ordered to restrain themselves to sleeves half an ell wide. Worse modes were to come: 'short sleeves whereby the nakedness of the arm may be discovered' had to be prohibited; and if any such ill-fashioned gowns came over from London, the owners were enjoined to wear thick linen to cover the arms to the wrist. Existing portraits show how futile were these precautions, how inoperative these laws; arms were bared with impunity, with complacency, and the presentment of Governor Wentworth shows three slashes in the sleeves.
"Not only were the arms of New England women bared to an immodest degree, but their necks also, calling forth many a 'just and seasonable reprehension of naked breasts.' Though gowns thus cut in the pink of the English mode proved too scanty to suit Puritan ministers, the fair wearers wore them as long as they were in vogue.
"It is curious to note in the oldest gowns I have seen, that the method of cutting and shaping the waist or body is precisely the same as at the present day. The outlines of the shoulder and back-seams, of the bust forms, are the same, though not so gracefully curved: and the number of pieces is usually the same. Very good examples to study are the gorgeous brocaded gowns of Peter Faneuil's sister, perfectly preserved and now exhibited in the Boston Art Museum."