Pockets 2.0

Pockets the First
Pockets the First

At left, Pockets 1.0 or perhaps beta. The far left pocket, when worn alone, was definitely beta. Then came the striped pocket, and then sewing them both to the tape. That helped– and I use the small pocket for things like wallet, phone, car keys and Band-aids, and the larger pocket for interpretive things. I try to follow the Under the Redcoat kind of model: one pocket is modern, one is historical; that way I don’t pull the car keys out along with the knitting, or am at least less likely to.

Too much stuff.
Too much stuff.

Here’s the stuff I carry in my purse today, actually a backpack-purse, downsized from a messenger bag. That’s a lot of stuff. But if you compare the list to the list of what might have been in an 18th century pocket, you’ll find a lot of similarities.

There’s a pen and a pencil, wallet and checkbook, granola bar, chewing gum, change purse, keys, more keys, and phone. All of those are just modern analogues for paper money, coins, orange or apple, candy, book and notebook, since the phone can fill in for so many things– notebook, money, keys, pen, book…

DSC_0174

The historical assortment is much more attractive, in part because I don’t use these things every day, and they don’t get tangled up and worn in a bag. Mitts, kerchief, hankie, my husband’s pay, knife, thimble, spoon, and knitting (I may never get a pair of stockings knit): these are all accurate to carry, though the knitting needles will have to change before that’s taken out in public.

DSC_0173

All that, or some combination of like things, will go into one pocket, and the modern mess into the other. I fear these new pockets are, for now, too nice for Bridget. I may just stick with my old, mis-matched ones for now.

What would you carry?

The V&A’s extensive article includes many hints about what might be in woman’s pockets.

Pocket ca. 1784, American cotton, wool Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art,  Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009; Bequest of Marie Bernice Bitzer, by exchange, 1996  MMA 2009.300.2241
Pocket
ca. 1784, American
cotton, wool
Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009; Bequest of Marie Bernice Bitzer, by exchange, 1996
MMA 2009.300.2241

Sharon Burnston, on the Historic New England site, points out that “Pockets thus represent the kind of dilemma that objects of material culture can present to scholars. Much is known about how and when these items were made, but evidence of how they were used remains fragmentary and tantalizing.”

Fragmentary and tantalizing indeed!

Another scholar posits that “Pockets empowered women in many ways: they allowed them to carry possessions around with them for practical and personal uses, and gave them rights of ownership and privacy. I argue that decorative pockets also heightened women’s self-esteem by making them to feel more attractive – and that they esteemed their pockets in return.

From the Workwoman’s Guide

As we can see from this diagram from the Workwoman’s Guide, pockets could take many shapes, and the extant evidence bears this out. There are oblong pockets, and more rectangular pockets, rounder pockets, longer and shorter and wider pockets. One suited one’s self, and cut one’s pattern to one’s cloth.

The identification of pockets with self, with intimacy and privacy, is explored in Women’s Pockets and the Construction of Privacy in the Long Eighteenth Century, by Ariane Fennetaux.
Fennetaux’ article and the V&A page on pockets were particularly useful in enumerating more specific kinds of items that might be carried in an 18th century woman’s pocket.

Nutmeg grater ca. 1690, British Cowrie shell, silver Gift of Irwin Untermyer, 1968 MMA 68.141.278
Nutmeg grater
ca. 1690, British
Cowrie shell, silver
Gift of Irwin Untermyer, 1968
MMA 68.141.278

Using cases from the Old Bailey, we can begin to draft possible contents lists.

A pair of silver buttons
A pair of buckles
A pen knife
Thimble
Coins
A silver spoon
A pair of scissors
Keys
Needlecase
Biscuit
Nutmeg and grater
Smelling bottle
An orange or an apple
A pocketbook
Comb
Snuff box
Jewellery
Needlebook
Pocketbook
Paper
Pen or pencil

When Pamela runs away, she takes with her, in her pocket, two handkerchiefs, two caps and five or six shillings.

Of all the listed things, what might Bridget have carried? Some of the things she carried would be needed, but others would be wanted.

Pockets of Evidence

Or is it evidence of pockets?

Pocket, 1770-1780 Rhode Island Linen, cotton and silk RIHS 1985.1.9
Pocket, 1770-1780
Rhode Island
Linen, cotton and silk
RIHS 1985.1.9

In any case, I thought it time to upgrade my pockets, since I have given so much attention to the rest of Bridget’s clothing. I have also been talking with a colleague about a pocket game activity, similar to the process I’ve used in thinking about Bridget: what is in your pocket? If I’m going to try that out in public, then I’d like not to be embarrassed about my pockets.

The first pocket I made was based completely on one in the RIHS Collection, and it annoyed the daylights out of me as it had exactly the same loop on top and twisted around under my petticoats, making the opening hard to find. I also realized that it was too small to be really correct for a woman’s pocket: those tend to be larger. Sew 18th Century has a really nice article on pockets here.

Pocket, 1789 American  linen  Gift of Miss Blanche Vedder-Wood, 1940  MMA Costume Institute C.I.40.159.4
Pocket, 1789
American
linen
Gift of Miss Blanche Vedder-Wood, 1940
MMA Costume Institute C.I.40.159.4

So I made a larger pocket based on this one at the Met, and made of a grey and cream striped linen with the slit bound in red calico. It’s dated to 1789, and technically that’s too late for my uses.

Pocket 1720-1730 block printed cotton and linen
Pocket
England, 1720-1730
Cotton; Linen
Winterthur Museum Collection 1960.0248

But the next one is too early.

Well, it has survived this long, and Wm Booth has that lovely shell print cotton, so what’s a sister to do? Pockets don’t take much fabric, so making a matched pair of printed pockets seems the thing to do.

Now the question is, what should be in those pockets?

Any old Shirts?

DSC_0041
The photos people have of the Millinery Conference at Williamsburg– well, they’re a little envy-inducing. All the silks gowns on such a beautiful site are a little overwhelming if you like historic costumes, but if I was all about silk gowns it might be harder to do what I am doing.

I did discover a fool-proof way to unnerve the teenager in the living history household. If you get dressed in your 18th-century clothing early enough on a Sunday morning, the child will ask, “Um, Mom? Are you just fitting, or do we have an event?” You get one glorious moment to decide whether or not to torture the child before he figures out that even you are not crazy enough to go to an event in March without stockings.

Bridget’s gown is done, but for the hem, which is turned up and about a quarter sewn. I tried it on yesterday to make sure it fit. I threw most caution to the wind and made up the new Golden Scissors English Gown pattern without making  a muslin because I’d checked my own self-fitted pattern pieces to the English Gown pieces and found them nearly identical. Anything likely to need work– shoulder straps– I knew could be done in the lining and not matter terrifically.

Why, you ask, did I bother with a new pattern? In part because my own has migrated (my backs have been trending too wide of late) and because I needed a solid, step-by-step guide to more correct assembly. The sleeve pleats still annoy me, mostly because they get done on a dress form and not on me, but they allow movement and that really counts. DSC_0047

The stomacher front style is a compromise: I want to be able to wear this at events earlier than 1782, so I’m working on the assumption that Bridget didn’t migrate to the more fashionable center-front closing style in the 1780s because she couldn’t.

The accessories are chosen because they were affordable ways to upgrade appearance: it takes hardly any chintz for a stomacher, and a handkerchief is bright but small. The hat is more common than a bonnet among working women, and the mules were chosen because they appear in an engraving of a crippled soldier and his family. All Sandby’s women wear heeled and buckled shoes in styles not to be found ready-made in my size, so  mules are my compromise.

I still think Bridget looks too clean and too pretty, but until I find fabric I like for a bedgown, this will have to do. The details, should you care for them:

Hat, Burnley and Trowbridge, lined with a Wm Booth remnant, trimmed with B&T ribbon. My hair is out up with straight pins from Dobyns & Martin, and under the hat in a lappet cap with the strings tied on top of my head.

The coral necklace is from In the Long Run, I’ll replace the grey poly ribbon with black silk ribbon once it’s in from Wm Booth.

The neckerchief is from B&T, again, and selected because the pattern was similar to the one worn by the young woman in the Domestick Employment: Washing print.

DSC_0051The gown fabric is from the second floor discount loft at the Lorraine mill store in Pawtucket. It’s 100% cotton, yes, it really does flame, and I’ll just have to be careful. (The women who cook in cotton at OSV are probably vastly more graceful than I, and do not fall into things.) It’s a light brown and white tiny check weave, and looks a great deal like a homespun gingham. I chose it because it tends to wrinkle badly and should show the dirt well: in short, I chose it because I don’t expect it to wear particularly well.

The petticoat is from the last of some ‘madder’ linen Burnley & Trowbridge had a few years ago, and the mules are from them; I think the apron linen was, too, but I can’t remember.

Those shirts are blue and white check from Wm Booth, and I have no idea how they got into my apron. Stop asking, or I’ll get my stick.