shillings per yard.
But this didn't change human nature and although from time to time offenders were taken into court and punished, the wearing of fine clothing fashioned after the London mode continued and a few years later the ministers tried their hand again. Any kind of lace was anathema and "no garment shalbee made with short sleeves, whereby the nakedness of the arme may bee discovered." On the other hand, large sleeves were forbidden, so the maids and goodwives of the time must have been somewhat at a loss to know how lawfully to fashion their clothes.
The minister at Ipswich grew so ill-tempered over the ungodly state of the women in his town that he vented his spleen as follows: "When I hear a nugiperous Gentledame inquire what dress the Queen is in this week, what the nudius tertian of the Court, I look at her as the very gizzard of a trifle, the product of a quarter of a cypher, the epitome of nothing, fitter to be kickt, if she were of a kickable substance than either honoured or humoured."32
The minister in the adjoining town, Rowley, actually cut off his nephew from his inheritance because he wore his hair long in the prevailing fashion. Later in the century the offense of wearing long hair was forgotten in the unspeakable sin of wearing wigs. The Great and General Court again took a hand and in 1675 condemned "the practise of men's wearing their own or other's hair made into periwigs." Judge Sewall in his Diary alludes to the custom. In 1685 three persons were admitted to the Old South Church in Boston. "Two wore periwigs," comments the Judge.
"1708, Aug. 20, Mr. Chievar died. The Wellfare of the Province was much upon his Spirit. He abominated Periwigs."33
The Great and General Court at one time ordered that no person should smoke tobacco in public under a penalty of two shillings and six pence, nor in his own house with a relative or friend. But everybody smoked who wanted to, even the maids, and the repressive legislation in time met the usual fate of similar efforts to restrain individual liberty and manners.
It is sweet to fancy Priscilla at her spinning wheel wearing the coif and nun-like garb of the Puritan maiden of the poet and the artist. But the inventories of estate in the early years of the Colony, as well as at a later time, furnish evidence of a different character. The variety of fabrics listed is amazing and holds its own with the modern department store. There are most of the well-known fabrics of today, such as calico, cambric, challis, flannel, lawn, linen, plush, serge, silk, velvet, and many others; and there are also names that sound strangely in modern ears, viz.: cheney, darnex, dowlas, genting, inckle, lockrum, ossembrike, pennistone, perpetuana, sempiternum, stammell, and water paragon.
As for dress – the women wore bonnets, caps, silk hoods, coifs, forehead cloths, ruffs, and whisks. Gowns, cloaks, mantles, and muffs are mentioned frequently; as are many kinds of lace and even fans and veils. Shawls and scarfs were not unknown and there were gold, silver, and enamelled rings. Women possessed masks, and stomachers were not uncommon. Tortoise shell combs appear; all well-to-do persons wore gloves, and as for shoes – there were shoes with French heels, fall shoes, and those with silver buckles. Even shoe strings appear in the inventories. There were silver, pewter, and steel buttons and those of gympe, thread, and silk.
Laboring men wore leather and coarse fabrics and for others there were suits, doublets, waistcoats and breeches. Trousers are mentioned; also a cane and periwigs. Of caps and hats there were a number of kinds – felt, castor, demi-castor, and even straw. Capt. George Corwin, a Salem merchant, owned a cloth coat trimmed with silver lace, a velvet coat, a tabby doublet, an old-fashioned Dutch satin doublet, four cloaks of various kinds, two pairs of golden topped gloves, one embroidered pair, and a pair with black fringe. He also took his walks abroad wearing silk stockings, with a hat encircled by a silver band and carrying a silver-headed cane or a plate hilt rapier, according to fashion. He possessed two silver watches. Who shall say that the men and women of the New England colonies did not dress well and live well in the early days according to their means?34
In the late 1600's, and until comparatively recent times, working men very generally wore frocks, a custom in dress that dates back into the centuries. It was an almost universal custom for farmers and those employed in the mechanic trades to wear a frock. The farmer generally looked upon the frock as an outer garment – something to put on in colder weather or to slip on to protect underclothing or to conceal an untidy appearance. It was a garment to take off on coming into the house or to put on when going to the village or to market.
Carters or truckmen also habitually wore frocks. Drake, in his "Landmarks of Boston," describes the old-time trucks, not to exceed eighteen feet in length, with their loads of hogsheads of molasses and other heavy merchandise balanced on the one axle and the two horses harnessed tandem, the head horse led by the truckman. With the disappearance of these ponderous vehicles also went "that distinctive body of men, the 'Boston Truckmen,' who once formed a leading and attractive feature of our public processions, with their white frocks and black hats, mounted with their magnificent truck-horses. Hardy and athletic, it would be hard to find their equals on either side of the water. The long jiggers now used are scarcely less objectionable than the old trucks." Drake wrote this only seventy-five years ago but the "jiggers" of his time have now almost entirely disappeared.
The frock was a loose garment slipped on over the head and in length usually reached halfway between the knees and the feet. The opening in front reached from the neckband nearly to the waist and was closed by buttons, though sometimes a gathering string was used. The bottom was cut up eight or ten inches, on the sides, to permit greater freedom in walking. There were long frocks and short frocks, the latter being generally worn indoors. The frocks worn in workshops by mechanics were short.
One early source of information exists in the advertisements of runaway servants to be found in the eighteenth-century Boston newspapers. During the quarter-century following 1725, the Boston News-Letter printed thirty-seven advertisements asking for the detention of white male servants, twenty-one of whom ran away during the cold-weather months. Of the latter, six wore frocks or carried frocks in their bundle of clothing. It is fair to assume that some of these men may have taken with them only their best clothing and left working garments behind, hence the small number of frocks specifically mentioned. This possibly may have been the fact in the instance of an Irish servant, aged twenty-six, who ran away in December, 1741, from his master, James Hunt of York, Maine. He wore a broadcloth coat and jacket of a cinnamon color, a pair of orange colored plush breeches and a good beaver hat. The reward for his detention was £3.
John Davis, a servant of Mr. Okenden of Boston, absented himself from service in March, 1728, and among other clothing he took with him a brown fustian frock, and a pair of striped ticking breeches.
Frocks and "trouzers" were part of the personal effects of William Davison, a tailor, in King Street, Boston, that were advertised for sale at public vendue in November, 1729.
Charles Daly, an Irish boy, who ran away from his master in Boston, in December, 1732, wore a fustian frock and another Irish servant who ran away from a brigantine at Boston four years later, wore a new frock and trowsers.
An Irish servant of Captain Luce of Boston, a cooper by trade, took with him when he disappeared in December, 1737, a frock and a pair of "trowsers." Ten years later a negro servant who ran away from the North End of Boston, took with him a new ozen-brig frock.
The settlers came provided with English-made shoes it is likely of a quality similar to those provided by John Hewsen in 1629, the contract reading: "To make eight pair of welt-neat's leather shoes, crossed on the outside with a seam, to be substantial, good over leather of the best, and two soles, the inner sole of good neat's leather, and the outer of tallowed backs."35 In 1651, the stock of Robert Turner of Boston, shoemaker, was inventoried as follows: 23 pairs of children's shoes at 9d. per pair; 29 pairs of No. 11, at 4/4; of No. 12, at 4/8; of No. 13, at
Ward,
In the inventory of the estate of Henry Landis of Boston, Shopkeeper, deceased, taken, Dec. 17, 1651, appears his clothing, viz.:
