Ink
Having been trained as a scientist, I am apt to always question a statement, think about other ways things could have been done and ask for data to back up the statements. I have to thank Susan and her patience with me all day. The lack of written records because of the Great Fire in London frustrates us because many of the answers to these questions would have been recorded or derived from the record. But we have to try to derive the answers from the limited number of
embroidered examples.
When Susan brought up that the pattern outline was drawn on the linen by the tailor and then given over to the embroiderers workshop for the embroidery pattern to be applied, I had to question. Not because I thought she was wrong, but I always need to find the evidence to defend the position.
We had the sleeves in front of us. So I started looking closely at the inking. What I saw was that the outline for the sleeve was done in strokes and contained similar errors to my tracing of the pattern outline. Slight places where the ink was off track and a redo of that area happened a few times. Also where the ink was thicker where the stroke started and then thin where the ink ran dry. I asked if they had any evidence of tracing or template using. We didn’t come to a conclusion on that.
Then the inking of the embroidery pattern. It was much better done. There were thickenings of the ink and some places I noted where the drawing had elements that overlapped. Not printed for sure. The person who drew the pattern was very expert. The same deviations from the intended line weren’t seen – possibly the difference between a tracing and freehand drawing by an expert. What I did see that was interesting was an overlapping of motifs. Let me explain. On a particular butterfly, the outline of the wings contained stripe and half circle details. On one wing the pattern of half circles did not overlap the stripes. But on the other, one half circle overlapped a stripe – as if the drafter was free handing the design and couldn’t make the elements fit. I don’t know how the embroiderer would have treated this mistake in the drafting. There were several of these
types of errors when I took a cursory look.
Overall the pattern for the sleeve was custom for the shape and size of the sleeve, not a cut of a repeating pattern like ours is. It is beautiful and very complex. I would so love to analyze the ink on the outline and the embroidery pattern to determine if it was from the same bottle or not. 
Won’t happen, but wouldn’t it be interesting to know!
I do agree with Susan that an expert drafter made the embroidery pattern and that the tailor did the outline. But it was worth looking closely at the piece to support the claim. Susan suggested that the master embroiderer in the workshop may have been the pattern designer/transferrer. There is evidence to support that in the practices of today’s workshops. In the Japanese tradition, the only person who can make a new design is the master. Here you see me trying to trace our pattern.
Tricia
Tags: design, Susan North, tracing, Tricia, V&A
October 27th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Since I am personally about to transfer a large embroidery design to a piece (though for something from a much earlier embroidery style — Bayeux), I find this fascinating. I have my design worked out and will within a day or two be transferring it to the linen. It’s large enough that I’m going to use a window for my light box. I am heartened by hearing that there are clear start and stops on transferred patterns from extant examples — hopefully that will make me less frustrated when I have errors!
October 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I was wondering if the sources used by Janet Arnold and Santina Levy in their books on Queen Elizabeth’s wardrobe and the Embroideries at Hardwick Hall might have information on the costs of materials.I would guess that the cost of an el of linen or silk or the cost of a pair of embroidered sleeves must be in those roll books.Is the cost of goods in the late 16th century very different from the early 17th?
October 27th, 2008 at 11:42 am
From another textile tradition that supports craft division of labor – in Japanese yuzen dyeing of kimono fabric…one artists draws the design on to the silk, another overpaints the drawn lines with the rice paste resist, and then a third actually does the application of dye. At each stage, there is a bit of personal expression that contributes to the final work.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
This is a long comment, responding to several postings. My apologies, to an extent. As you might notice, I like the postings that concern the study of the artifact(s)in relation to the reproduction of the object.
Recently, Tricia repeats the often-spoken stuff about the Great Fire wiping out London records re: embroiderers:
“The lack of written records because of the Great Fire in London frustrates us because many of the answers to these questions would have been recorded or derived from the record.”
I’ve seen it before, here from The Magazine Antiques, “Seventeenth-century embroideries in the Burrell collection” (June, 1995) by Liz Arthur:
“Little is known about specific professional embroiderers in England, in part because the records of the Broderers’ Company were destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666.”
But, as they say, “it ain’t necessarily so” – below is a listing of the records held at the Guildhall Library in London pertaining to the Broderers’ Company. Fragements to be sure. But still, might be something worth seeing. I read these sorts of records on microfilm at the Mormon Library (Family History Library) for me, the closest is Hingham. But they are all over the place…you have to go there, order the film for a few dollars, they send to Salt Lake City & call you when it’s in. then you go & read it there. I have had good luck using digital camera to shoot the images of the film & then take them home to transcribe…but the hours roll by…
The partial catalogue entry from the Family History Library website (I deleted much later stuff)
Title Broderers’ Company records, 1511-1908
Notes Microfilm of original records at the Guildhall Library, London.
Format Manuscript (On Film)
Physical on 6 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.
Film Notes
Note – Location [Film]
Minute books, 1679-1689 – FHL BRITISH Film [ 1068847 Item 7 ]
Minute books, 1689-1812 – FHL BRITISH Film [ 1068848 ]
Freedom admissions, 1694-1728 — Apprentice bindings, 1694-1713, 1763-1877 — Receipts, 1557-1640, 1699-1830 — Subscription list, 1695 — Apprentice indentures, 1812-1878 — Papers, 1683, 1714 — Court minutes, 1511-1710 — Receipts, 1542 – FHL BRITISH Film [ 1068861 ]
————
There/s also 2 short histories of the company, written in the 20thc.
From British Library catalogue:
[Broderers] A Chat about the Broderers’ Company. By an Old Boy and Past Master (C. Holford). George Allen & Sons, 1910. Shelfmark: 8225.p.22.
[Broderers] Plain dealing fellows: a second chat about The Broderers’ Company, Percy R. Levy. Worshipful Company of Broderers, 1986. Shelfmark: YC.1987.b.6025
SO, I’ve pestered people with this before, and who in heaven’s name has enough time to chase that stuff down…I’ve worked through scads of these records for joiners and carpenters, you need a few lives to do it justice.
ALSO, there’s lots of places to learn about the prices/values of these things…and court is the best place. textiles were stolen regularly. Thus there are good records available. Here’s a sample:
“17 August, 17 Charles I.—True Bill that, at St. Martin’s-in-theFields in the night of the said day, John Johnson alias Becom laborer, Peter Gilpine laborer, and Joan Parsons spinster alias wife of William Parsons taylor, all three late of the said parish, broke burglariously into the King’s dwelling-house called “St. James House,” and stole therefrom a coronett of beaten gold worth one hundred and forty pounds, four foetemens coates with rich cognizances worth thirty pounds, two hundred ounces of gold and silver lace worth fifty pounds, twenty ells of fine holland worth twenty pounds, twenty ells of linen cloth called damaske worth twenty pounds, fifteen ells of blacke and redd silke stuffe worth five pounds, a wastcoate imbrodered with silver and gold upon silke worth six pounds, a wastcoate imbrodered with silver and colors of silke uppon white taffetye worth five pounds, a velvett night-bagge richely imbrodered with gold and silver and colours of silke worth five pounds, three imbrodered scarfes worth six pounds, a damaske table-cloth worth five pounds, the bodye of a doublett richely laced worth three pounds, two hundred yards of ymbrodered millard lace worth four pounds, a payre of hangers . . . ., a silver chamber pott worth sixteen pounds, together with other articles (whose descriptions are imperfect from injury done to the parchment), of the goods and chattels of . . . . Found ‘Guilty’ John Johnson was sentenced to be hung. Peter Gilpine was at large. No clerical memorandum touching Joan Parsons. G. D. R., 20 April, 18 Charles I.”
From: ‘Middlesex Sessions Rolls: 1641′, Middlesex county records: Volume 3: 1625-67 (1888), pp. 75-79. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66033. Date accessed: 15 March 2008.
BUT WAIT – there’s more. Has anybody read all that Randle Holme has about emroiderers? He depicts a tradesman working at a frame that seems to be integral to a table…and he also describes & illustrates the tools to a degree. Plimoth Plantation has the CD from the British Library, N. W. Alcock and Nancy Cox, “Living and Working in Seventeenth-Century England: An Encyclopedia of Drawings and Descriptions from Randle Holme’s original manuscripts for The Academy of Armory (1688)” (London: The British Library, 2000) – it’s now an old CD, made to run as a stand-alone website, but configured to run on Netscape Navigator…works on other browsers, but a little clunky. Mine works on IE run by Windows XP, but not as smoothly as it used to…
So, just some research directions for anyone with too much time on their hands…
PF