Are Pirate Gowns Real ?

We need not recreate the past to understand it but only to appreciate the facts. In our interpretation we can strive to get it exacting to a specific time, however, it is just as important to understand how things change from moment to moment. In particular how often ideas tend to overlap, with transitions never truly instantaneous, at least with New York. It is not unusual for historians to skirt around the New York issue, it is complicated with many tremulous years. Though, as we continue to explore we find that while politics and sovereigns were blown through like tissues, the culture of the colony was ever lasting. Founded with Dutch civil liberties and Cannon law and their obsession with all things worldly and unbridled curiosity; they, let fantasy become reality. They lived in a world where pirate gowns are real.

They turn up in both Dutch New Netherland and British New York. Except, they are not historically called pirate or cavalier dresses. On the Continent and in early American inventories this type of gown is called a Tabbaard. Common spellings: Tabbaard, Tabbard, Tabbart, Tabbert, Tabb...etc. The key to a good replica of a tabbaard - as compared to the costumes in movies - is a snug fitted bodice that compresses the bust not the waist and looks like it is mounted on pasteboard; with a skirt with many tiny pleats. The best part is... they are fair game for reenactors and historic sites.

The tabbaard is one of those dresses that is representative of people from a wide range of economic backgrounds. Whether your were a farmer in the town of Beverwijk - now the City of Albany, NY - the wife of a small town doctor on the Hudson River... or even the Electress of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe; the tabbaard was a gown accessible to people of various classes. It is reflective of the landscape these early Americans lived; where, while not royals, with industry and good provenance one could have a splendid gown of silk for weddings and holiday.

Below a cropped image: Magdalene Sibylle of Prussia (31 December 1586 – 12 February 1659) was an Electress of Saxony as the spouse of John George I, Elector of Saxony. i.0043, Photo from the Rüstkammer/SKD für die Ausstellung „Der frühe Vermeer“ Gemäldegalerie Dresden, 2010

History:

Deciphering fashions in the 17th century requires following a garment back to its place of origin. Then one can see it mature, spread and evolve into other styles. The Tabbaard got its start in Italy - likely Venetian -  and is seen there by the third quarter of the 16th Century (about 1580s). The tabbaard, however, gets picked up by various nations though in differing styles. For France, it will morph from the Italian style to a bodice with a front sloping "swan" waist at the turn of the century. Then to a high-wider waist in the 1630s as can be seen with Magdalene Sibylle of Prussia gown pictured above; and a long more up-right torso for the rest of the century. The Images below are all Central European extant tabbaards with known owners. Note the waist line drops from the left to the right as the century moves forward.

Below cropped images: Left (Dated to 1635-1645) and Center (Possibly 1645) gowns once owned by Magdalene Sibylle of Prussia (31 December 1586 – 12 February 1659), Right tabbaard bodice in the Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt Collection 1660.

The first two bodices are on display and are part of a show being held at the Dresden Rüstkammer museum in Germany. See link to the museum's site Scroll down to see VIDEO.

The Tabbaard in Holland:

The tabbaard is defined by Marieke de Winkel in her book Fashion and Fancy: Dress and the Meaning in Rembrandt's Paintings. It is a gown made up of a stiffen bodice that is laced up the back, it is not boned, but has a matching skirt. A petticoat is worn under the skirt. Fashion and Fancy includes a number of inventories and explanation of men and women's garments and accessories based on de Winkel's graduate thesis and an impressive number of primary sources.

In one of the inventories included in the book is that of a wealthy couple Captain Maerten Pietersez Dacey and his Widow Oopjen Coppit, November 1659. The inventory is massive and includes the following gowns:

In the bottom wardrobe

a plush tabbert of Oopjen Coppit
a "toers" tabbert of the same
a serge tabbert of the same

a red under pettcoat with passements
a green satin skirt of the same
a violet satin shirt of the same
an ash gray satin skirt
a green daily skirt
a small red under-petticoat
a white birds-eye skirt [petticoat]

When looking at Coppit's inventory we see a plush, "toers" and serge "tabbert". The plush is a velvet, the "toers" is a corded silk made in Belgium or Holland ( likely Leiden) woven in the Ottoman Empire fashion with blend of cashmere and silk; but sometimes with just silk. It is a slightly larger grain than modern silk fallie. (We will discuss corded silks in a later post.)


New Netherland and New York:

As we can see, both royal and wealthy merchant women of Europe are wearing the tabbaard. The images of the Electress's extant samples above were chosen in part because we know who owned them and when the she lived, with a death in 1659, making them easy to date and compare. In New Netherland and New York there is no royalty and it is not with the mega-merchants that we find three or four tabbaard per inventory; it is the growing middle class and frugal farmers that have acquired one tabbaard each. They are likely the wedding dresses that are later recycled into Holiday and special occasion wear. These wardrobes have another important outfit called the vlieger, which are more reserved in appearance and likely what was used for Sunday best. Though, due to the late date of these wardrobes it is also possible that these tabbaards were acquire to take the place of their vlieger even for Sunday best.

In an inventory from 1664, we see a fashionable couple with three little children sporting both vintage and the latest trends from Europe. They weren't living in  London, or Amsterdam or Paris, but in a little town called Wildwijk on the Hudson River. Looking at the 1665 inventory of Rachel de la Montagne (d. 1664) and Gysbert van Imbroch (d. 1665), we are seeing the inventory of doctor from a small town. Prior to arriving in Wildwijk, Gysbert supplemented is income by winning the bid to perform the duties of selling testaments and bibles for two years in Manhattan. It seems that selling books becomes a on-going side job, as his inventory taken in Wiltwijk could fill a town library. It included a variety of books on literature, gardening, medical and school books for children. It is not unusual for people to pick up side jobs to make some extra income. Unfortunately, they died young leaving a 5, 3, and 1 year old; the children of which went to live with family. Interestingly, not only have their children and inventory survive them but so has their stone house which can be visited in the old section of what is today called Kingston, New York. Also, we can see that while Imbroch was Dutch, de la Montagne was French Huguenot.

In de la Montagne's wardrobe is a "tabbaard" (spelled in her inventory as "Tabbard") that could be worn with one of her three petticoats and a number of white or black hoods, two fans, handkerchiefs both round and square and even two cosmetics. She also had two cosmetics; one red and one black. Plus a few night time forehead bands that would be infused with oils intending to reduce the likelihood of wrinkles. The rest of her inventory is made up of jackets.

1665 inventory of Rachel de la Montagne (d. 1664) & Gysbert van Imbroch (d. 1665), Wiltwijk, NN

A black silk gross grain "Tabbert" with "sarcenet" under (a type of soft lining)
A colored gross grain petticoat with green lining
A colored changeable [silk] petticoat with green lining
A red scarlet petticoat


Inventories in New Netherland and New York tend to point out when a garment is scarlet, red, purple and black. This is in part due to the high cost of these dyes combined with the labor. When the item is simply stated to be "colored" the only option - in an effort to guess the color - is to note the other colors that were mentioned and know it was not one of those. Alternatively, if there is something notable for instance "changeable" silk or if it is lined the recorder will point this out. In the original translation of this inventory from the 1900s, the "A colored changeable petticoat with green lining" was originally translated as "reversible", but it is actually "changeable". Research such as that done by De Winkel in her book Fashion and Fancy has traced many of the 17th Century clothing terms for us.

The Tabbaard comes on the scene in an early form for the wealthy of Continental Europe in the late 1500s, remains a gown of choice throughout this time, then starts to spread from nobility and large merchants to the burghers (small traders) and crafts people by the 1650s. Rachael and Gysbert were married in 1657, and it is possible she brought this gown with her from her hometown of Albany, NY.  Interestingly, both Rachael's tabbaard in New Netherland and Oopjen's tabbaard mentioned in the 1659 Holland inventory previously are both made of corded silk, or a corded cashmere-silk blend.

By the 1660s, the Tabbaard was accessible to well off farmers also. A second tabbaard is in a 1664 inventory from Fort Orange near Albany, the wardrobe of which had both vintage and modern clothing including; "1 tabbaard bodice [stored] in a piece of white cloth". It is possible that this bodice was a gross grain also as many other items including hoods and aprons were also made of gross grain, but may or may not be purse silk.

Below is a Tabbaart gown with matching bodice and skirt plus an under petticoat. This particular tabbaard would be very similar to the ones worn in the two 1660s inventories above. Also, over skirt were often sewn to the tabbaard.

Below self portrait, Zelfportret van Gesina, driekwart naar rechts, Gesina ter Borch, Joost Hermans Roldanus, 1661.

Here you can see both a family in formal tabbaard and the servants in more casual but also lovely tabbaard. Painting by Gillis van Tilborgh born 1625 Link.

Through each of these eras, the sleeves change to follow current trends while retaining the general silhouette, plus the bodice and the front princes seams on the torso. We can see the sleeve becoming longer. Many tabbaard in jacket form have attached sleeves whereas, the bodice versions or summer versions have attachable sleeves. Also, in the 1640s to 60s, it is a formal gown with matching bodice and skirt with under petticoat, it becomes more relaxed as a semi-formal and even casual wear in the 1660s and 70s.

By the third quarter (1670s), servants and laborers up-date their stays (a corset like garment) and jackets to look more like the tabbaard. The working class stays and jackets take on the princes-like seams and shape of the Tabbaard bodice but may or may not keep the sleeves.  See Dordrechts Museum Link.  for the image below. But simultaneously, for wealthier people the gown becomes formal again.

The 1664 Wiltwijk and Fort Orange inventories were not the only lists with a Tabbaard. Another can be found in the 1690s. A rather nice one appears in Lysbett van Eps's inventory who was a small trader-merchant; you may remember her as being the Albany shop keeper selling large qualities of Indigenous Leggings for adults and children.

Van Eps may have acquired her tabbaard when she made a trip to Amsterdam in the 1670s to purchase fabric for traded. While the one in the 1690s inventory has an unknown color it came with a detached skirt with both being made of fine "toers" corded silk. This is a fine grain fabric that has survived the centuries due to the quality. It is a silk that wares well, and from which modern bridal gown are be made. This is likely the Fort Orange tabbaard coming back into the formal-ware category again.


Re-Cap: 

1659 Holland, Marchant:  a plush tabbert, a "toers" tabbert, a serge tabbert

1664 Fort Orange, Farmer:  1 tabbaard bodice [stored] in a piece of white cloth

1664/65 Wiltwijk, Doctor's wife, book seller:  A black silk gross grain "Tabbert" w/ sarcenet lining

1693 Fort Orange, Shop keeper:  1 ditto [toers] "tabbaart" "cijt"


One of the nice things about these examples, is that it leaves the door open to women from different economic backgrounds as having access to this type of gown. It is something that can be worn formally or semi-formal, in matching top and bottom or mixed and match. Interestingly, this garment continued to be used under English sovereignty. It is possible that the large merchants of the colony had more than one tabbaard, whereas we can see that famers, shop keepers, and professional's wives may of had only one.

The tabbaard will continue to live on from the 17th Century and into the 18th Century. Below Left to Right is a 1659, 1690 and then 1745 painting. The tabbaard is also called a camisole in German and is part of the court costume throughout this time frame. While the tabbaard will come in and out of fashion in France and England, it had become part of the wardrobe for Central Europe since the 1630s.

Below Image Cropping Left to Right: Left Jeanne Parmentier by Bartholomeus van der Helst, 1656 ,  LINK. , Center Eleonore Magdalene von Pfalz-Neuburg LINK. , Right Madame Henriette (Louis XV's daughter) playing the Viola da Gamba in Court dress by Jean-Marc Nattier (1685- 1766) LINK. 

The tabbaard is not the only formal outfit that appears in inventories, however, it is the most fanciful or princes like. As we continue to explore we will see formal-ware was as important to the wardrobe as exotic and worldly robes from the east.

Colonial Labeling of Native Americans

One of the terms that seems to be rather difficult to translate into English is "wilde". This is because in part the Dutch use the term wilde for things, plants, animals and Native Americans. For the English the term "wild" is used for things and animals; while the word savage if reserved for indigenous people. The Dutch use the term wilde for only Native Americans but not Indigenous Persons from other nations (See the translation problem?). The English use savage as a general term for Indigenous Persons. But for all the Game of Thrones fans out there, you'll notice a trend where the term wilde is use in a similar way as "wild-ling" or person of nature or outside of urban European-cultural norms but with their own social-organizational patterns and laws. This recognition of separate cultural, legal system and sovereignty seems to be what separates the terms "wilde" and "savage". I don't know why the 17th Century Dutch choose this term, but lets look at the primary sources.

From the time of the first permanent European settlement in 1618 in Albany, New York to the seizure of Manhattan by the English in 1664 and then final transfer of sovereign control to the British in 1674, legal records were kept in Dutch. After 1674, all legal documents were mandated to be kept in English; many documents such as inventories, wills, letters and others continue to be kept in Dutch, and sometimes German and French. While I am not a language scholar, we can use primary sources to determine the meaning of labels and how they were applied to different people and groups. Translation dictionaries can often give us clues in how and when labels are utilized. Terms such as wilde, indian/indean, Japon and Turk are all terms that appear in 17th century books, letters, legal records and inventories. 

Bear with me, we are going to cover a topic that can be political. I ask that we look at it so that we can understand what 17th century people specific to New Netherland and New York were trying to state, explain or record in early documents.  

The savage pea plants of America ! : 
The term "wilde" may seem like an easy translation but it is not accurate due to the Dutch not using the word wilde in the same way English use savage, though there is consistency with the French and German. For instance, the Dutch would say "wild beast" which in English one could say "wild beast" or "savage beats". But the Dutch also use "wilde" for "wilde apple blossoms" and "wilde pea plants of America". Whereas, in English we don't say, "savage apple blossoms" or the "savage pea plants of America". (What a crazy movie that would be.) The term "wilde" for the Dutch is not interpreted as savage; "wilde" is meant to be interpreted as simply existing outside of the urban and formal farming culture, or "natural, in nature, of nature". 


Terminology: In the 1708 Groot Fransch en Nederduits woordenboek it states the following: 
"Sauvage", adj. Feroce, qui n'est point apprivoisé. Wildt, wreedt, ongetemt. 
Bete Sauvage. Een wildt beest. [ wild Beast ]
Pommier sauvage. Een wildt appelboom. [ wild apple bloom ]
Humeur Sauvage. Een mufien aart, een wildt inborst. [ a wild mood ]

This particular label is needed for interpreting court records such as the following. Note that the terms "natural" or "wilde" female and "black" female are used rather than "savage/sauvage", "Indian", "barbarous" or a variation on the N-word. (Side Note: This is not to say the N-word does not turn up regularly, it does appear often in different forms; but it is important for it to have its own post with attached primary sources.)   


New Netherland Council Minutes 1638 - 1649, page 37: 
Ulrich lupoldt fiscael....vs. Nicolaes Coorn Sargant....Bylen die he ende de soldaten waren Gedaen om hout te hacken, aende "wilden" voor zijn particulier te verruilen ende bevers tegens Sijn gedaenen eet in mijn coy heeft gehadt. ... Van gelijken tot verscheiden maelen "wildinnen"  [wilde females] ende Swartinennen [Black females] geheele nachten by hem gedachte hebben geslapen, in mijn Bet, tor presentie van alle de Soldaten." Page 37 Link.

"Ulrich Iupoldt fiscal vs. Nicolas Coorn Sargant... who by reason of his office was in duty bound to set a good moral example to his soldiers, has notwithstanding has been guilty of bartering with the wilde for private gain, the axes which were given him and the soldiers to cut wood and contrary to his oath has hidden the beavers in his bunk. ... Likewise, the defendant has at divers times had wilde females and black [swart=black] females sleep entire nights with him in his bed, in the presence of all the soldiers." 

The below is a cropping of the 20th century original transcript (not original document from 1638) of the New Netherland Council Minutes 1638 - 1649, page 37 section 27. These documents are available for free on the New Netherland Institute's website. 

Whereas, An Universal Etymological English Dictionary of 1731 states the following as the whole definition of "savage". The words savage and wild are separated. English Dictionary Link. 

Savage, wild barbarous people who keep no fix'd habitation, have no religion, law or policy. 


Here we get continuity, both colonial English and the Dutch use Barbarous (Dutch: Barbaar) for persons that appear to be a threat (though not to refer to themselves). When the Dutch wished to use a word closer to the English meaning of "savage" they used "barbarous", a barbarous people and may be associated with a person who purchases or drinks alcohol. This term has appeared occasionally in documents. 

On October 1656 Willem Hoffmeyr from Brazil and living in Fort Orange, was being accused of selling beer to "wilde-indian" in the opening statement, with a more detailed account of "on the 22d, 23d, and 24th of July last past, with five half barrels of good and small beer mixed together, sailed up the  river and sold and peddled the beer among the "wilde-barbar". The acusasaions continue with a reduction in the severity of "wilde-indian" and "wilde-babar" to "wilde" and the plural "wilden". - Fort Orange Council Minutes page 253 for the translated and also the original document from 1656 below. See the yellow underlines. Note that wilde is being used as the noun and Indian or barbarian as a descriptor. There are other nouns that are used in the same way such as Laken (a fulled twill woolen) vs. Serge Laken (a twilled woolen that is not fulled). The New Netherland Dutch tend to quantify many things in documents, so modifying the word wilde to meet the prosecutor's needs is not surprising. 

The term Indian does not readily apply either, and is use rarely in Dutch and even German documents. This may be due to the Dutch being regularly exposed to products from and writings about the nation of India. Roughly 2/3rds of men and 1/3 of women in the Netherlands were literate. This too may of helped, as did the regular education of both boys and girls in lower schools. 

In the 1655 Dutch book, Korte historian, ends jouraels aenteyckeninge, van verscheyden voyages in de vier deepen des wereldts-roune... the term "Indianen" is used to refer to the people of India, and rarely to the people of North America. The author having traveled to both regions and used separate terms to describe the people respectively.  Likewise, we see this in inventories; Wilde (Native people), Indian/Indean (India), Japon (Japan) and Turks (Turkish). All these terms are use in inventories in America often in the same inventory to delineate different items and their respective place of origin and value. 



Wilde, a People Recognized as a Nation: 
One interesting practice was international treaties. The Dutch enter into treaties for trade and peace with various indigenous tribes. Not only did the Dutch recognize that the Native Americans were legally able to enter into and sign contracts, they were treated as a separate nation and could not be punished under Dutch laws. A Native American could bare witness in a court cases against a European on trial, but could not be prosecuted themselves. However, any incident performed by an Indigenous Person would be reported to the person's tribal leaders. One governor Keift even tried to tax Indigenous person, but this did not comply with general Dutch legal structures of separate nations under treaties. This recognition of separate people as citizens under their respective nations and subject to separate sets of laws also distinguishes the term "wilde" from savage. This acceptance tends to carry over to the English occupation from 1664 to their sovereign control in 1667, and until the second granting of sovereignty in 1674. As a whole, Both the Dutch and English seem to treat Native Americans as a people with culture and subject to respective legal systems during the 17th Century. More study is needed to determine when the turning point is but the purchasing of property from Native Americans continues though the whole of the 17th century, with Indigenous persons signing contracts and deeds at least until the year 1700. 


Continued Use: 
Inventories also shed light on another phenomena, the term wilde continues to be used along side "Indian" ten, twenty and thirty years after the British were granted sovereign control. Wilde disappears from court documents in 1674, but continues in inventories and letters into the 1690s. 

Most interesting, people of Indigenous heritage are often referred to by name in Dutch and later New York era documents. Tribe names also make appearances, and the original Native American names for certain garments, material goods and other items create by indigenous persons are adopted by BOTH the Europen and British population. For instance, the term for a bag made by "wilde" is called "notassie" which is not a Dutch word but is regularly used by Europen people when referring to bags made by local Native Americans. Inventories in the Dutch from 1650 and in English from 1680s both use the term "notassie" (Dutch version) / "notase" (English version).  I don't know which of the Indigenous languages this word comes from but the Mohawk and Lenape terms for bag are "kaiarowá" / "nikaiar" and "putalas" / "xesinutay" / "menutesa" respectively. It may be that the "me-nutesa" which is a handbag or purse is our "notase", as the two "notase" are described as fitting into a travel bag. It seems that the name of the handband or purse was a Lanepe word, adopted by the Dutch and then later by the English. 

As we move forward through inventories whether under the Dutch or the English it is important to understand the different terms so to be able to appreciate the material goods in primary sources. The terms "wilde, barbarian, Indian, and savage" should be understood as accurately as possible and with understanding of the landscape it was used. 

Was this helpful in understanding term "wilde" in 17th Century Dutch New Netherland and English New York ?