Tag: Research

Use it Up, Wear it Out, Make it Do

On By kittycalashIn Clothing, History, Museums2 Comments
Bodice, painted Indian cotton, 1780-1795 RIHS 1990.36.27
Bodice, painted Indian cotton, 1780-1795
RIHS 1990.36.27

I’ve fallen behind again, as I spent considerable early morning time this past week working on a short presentation for a program in Worcester this past weekend. If you are among the people who do not wake at 4:00 AM panicking about the organization of your thoughts, or whom, exactly, might have worn a heavily-remade bodice, you are lucky indeed.

But I managed to present without falling all over myself, putting out someone’s eye, or causing mayhem and self-embarassment, so, phew! (I do this so much less often than I used to that my anticipatory anxiety is always high.)

Above you can see one of the items I talked about: a re-worked bodice from the collection of the Rhode Island Historical Society.

Sleeves, removed from bodice 1990.36.27. RIHS 1990.36.25A-B
Sleeves, removed from bodice 1990.36.27.
RIHS 1990.36.25A-B

I think, once upon a time, that bodice was part of a pieced-back closed-front gown with a matching petticoat.

And then I think someone decided (quite rightly) that the style was too passé for 1795, and altered the gown significantly.

Not only is there evidence of new sleeves being fitted into the gown’s armscyes, we have the sleeves-that-used-to-be. And my dear! No one is wearing sleeves like that this season!

I find these garments in limbo really fascinating. Was that bodice finished and worn with a matching petticoat? (Yes, there’s a panel of that left, too; what a lovely hem!)

Skirt panel, painted Indian cotton. RIHS 1990.36.33
Skirt panel, painted Indian cotton.
RIHS 1990.36.33

Who wore the gown? Was the woman who wore it originally the same woman who wore it altered? I can only guess at this point, and may never find the smoking diary or mantua-maker’s bill. The alterations are not as finely done as the original gown, so I think there are two hands at work here– whose were those hands? There’s always more to think about and learn.

In case you’re wondering, thanks to the Met, we can see what the gown probably looked like in its first incarnation, and then what the alterations were meant to achieve. (Link to the gown on the left; link to the gown on the right.)

Robe a l’anglaise, 1785-1795 MMA 2009.300.647
Gown and petticoat, 1790-1794 MMA C.I.45.6a,b

Pockets of Evidence

On By kittycalashIn Clothing, Reenacting

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?

Order in the Court

On By kittycalashIn Living History, Reenacting1 Comment
Female court martial : held upon the conduct of an admirable lady. [London? : s.n., 1757] Lewis Walpole Digital Library 757.03.00.04+
Female court martial : held upon the conduct of an admirable lady.
[London? : s.n., 1757] Lewis Walpole Digital Library 757.03.00.04+

Everything I think I know about courts-martial I learned from the movies (The Caine Mutiny and Breaker Morant, or Paths of Glory) but thankfully I can realize that knowledge is probably not so applicable to Bridget and her context.

Thanks to Yale, it’s easy enough to find the  Rules and Orders for the Continental Army, as set down by the Continental Congress in 1775. I don’t have to know this, the guys know it, but it’s helpful for me to understand what’s happening. I also figure Bridget would have known how the system worked (or should have) since she was part of it, and would have observed life around her. In the same way that I understand the  organizational politics and policies of my workplace, she and the soldiers would have understood the rules and regulations under which they lived and worked.

In the first case, remember the shirt-selling soldiers? Here’s the regulation they were breaking:

“Art. XV. Whatsoever non-commissioned officer or soldier, shall be convicted, at a regimental court-martial, of having sold, or designedly, or through neglect, wasted the ammunition, arms, or provisions, or other military stores, delivered out to him, to be employed in the service of this Continent, shall, if an officer, be reduced to a private centinel; and if a private soldier, shall suffer such punishment as shall be ordered by a regimental court-martial.”

There you have it: they sold provisions or “other military stores” delivered to them to be employed in the service of the Continent, and suffered such punishments as were ordered.

And Bridget? Well, for one thing, she should have known she was subject to the articles, rules, and regulations. She was one of those “all persons whatsoever.”

“Art. XXXII. All suttlers and retailers to a camp, and all persons whatsoever, serving with the continental army in the field, though not inlisted soldiers, are to be subject to the articles, rules, and regulations of the continental army.”

Technically, I cannot find anything stating outright that one could not buy issued goods from the soldiers to whom it had been issued, but since selling it was wrong, receiving was wrong, too.

We know from the final punishment that Bridget probably breaks yet another article:

“Art. XL. No person whatsoever shall use menacing words, signs, or gestures in the presence of a court-martial then sitting, or shall cause any disorder or riot, so as to disturb their proceeding, on the penalty of being punished at the discretion of the said court-martial.”

I think the “the Insolence to the officers of [the 10th Massachusetts] Regiment” may have taken place at the court-martial, given the swiftness of her punishment.

The Shurts off there Backs

On By kittycalashIn History, Living History6 Comments
Francis Wheatley, 1747-1801, British, Soldiers and Country Women, undated, Pen and black ink with watercolor on medium, smooth, cream wove paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection
Francis Wheatley, 1747-1801, British, Soldiers and Country Women, undated, Pen and black ink with watercolor on medium, smooth, cream wove paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Among the things I wondered about Bridget Connor and her court martial was from whom she’d bought that “publick shurt.” Why would a soldier have an extra shirt, or be willing to sell an extra shirt?

There are some circumstances in which it is plausible.

ClothingRegs1776_77

While shirts could have been sent from home,  regulations established in 1777 called for soldiers be issued two shirts, or an equivalent bounty. A soldier who wanted cash for alcohol or other non-regulation and non-issued goods or services might sell his second shirt, or steal a shirt to sell.

With the context of what soldiers should have been issued, we can  begin to tease the story out of the orderly books.

Regimental Orders July 15th 1782

At a Court Martial whereof Capt Dean was pre
sident, was tried Paul Pendexter & Titus Tuttel
soldiers in the 6th Company 10th Massachusetts Regt
For Stealing a Shurt and Disposing of the Same
ware Both found Guilty and Sentancd to Sixty Lashes
on there Naked Backs—the Colo approves
the opinion of the Court and orders it to
take this Evening and the prisoners to Return
to Duty——-The Court Martial of
which Capt Dean is president is Desolvd

The quote above is a full seven days before Bridget appears at her own Regimental Court Martial “for purchasing a publick Shurt from a Soldier.”

Paul Pendexter and Titus Tuttel were just the guys to get caught, until Bridget was discovered. It does make me wonder if there was an extensive ring for black market shirts (and where did they go once Bridget had them? Did she try to sell them back into the public stores, i.e. the quartermaster)?

Criminal masterminds these people weren’t, but it does seem possible that the Shirt Ring was fairly busy before it was collared.