Gendered Clothing from the Dutch Renaissance to Contemporary Fashion
Sarah Johnson
Northern Renaissance Art and the Birth of Fashion
Dr. Catherine Leslie and Dr. Diane Scillia
December 6, 2016
1
Beginning in the medieval ages and continuing into the Renaissance, Flanders and the
Netherlands saw a gradual social restructuring that led to a major change in gender roles for Dutch
women. Before the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the longstanding view of women in Dutch
society was focused on fertility, emphasized by silhouette as depicted in Renaissance paintings. A
woman’s role was to manage the home; this lifestyle distinction meant disparities in clothing that
warranted different levels of comfort and freedom of movement in female costume versus male dress.
But following the rise of Calvinism and an increase in globalization, women gained an increasingly larger
role in society. Women not only controlled the domestic sphere but also became highly involved in
business in trade, and this empowerment is seen in a decrease of gendered costume. As women’s roles
expanded beyond the home, gender distinction in garments became less apparent, with social and
economic prosperity the primary focus of distinction in costume, featuring luxurious detail that under
modern codifications is seen as somewhat feminine. In contrast, contemporary costume still leans
heavily on gender distinction in garments, though the attributes of gendered fashion are more complex
than the age-old pants-versus-skirts sex differentiation. Women’s empowerment in society and the
workplace has seen a shift in women’s fashion, although the interpretation of these styles is still viewed
as masculine, with the same issue arising in more androgynous, unisex styles. The empowerment of
women causes a definite shift in the distinction between male and female garments, represented by the
changing depictions of dress in Flemish and Netherlandish art of the fifteenth through the seventeenth
century.
Gendered clothing is here defined as garments that are intended for and marketed toward a
particular gender with silhouettes and detail that ascribe to contemporary Western notions of gender
and sex differences. In fifteenth century Dutch society, the major disparity between gender-related
costume was pants. Due to religious conventions of modesty, the skirt had long been associated with
2
women, and the bifurcated garment with men, emphasizing the masculine, powerful leg and allowing
for the most movement and thus empowering the man to exert control over his wife. The “battle for the
pants” in fact came to a head during the fifteenth century, and continued for hundreds of years to
come. As Martha Peacock explains in her dissertation on the “Powerful Housewife in Netherlandish Art”,
“The expression ‘de broek aanhebben’ (to have the trousers on) or ‘de broek dragen’ (to wear the pants)
referred to a person’s being master in the house. A woman who wore trousers not only signaled that
she had taken on male attributes but also that she had usurped the powers and privileges of her
husband.” Peacock goes on to say that “Visual representations of the Battle for the Trousers are even
more comical…when the wife is shown appropriating the trousers, the man is either left trouser-less or
wearing the skirts of his wife. The ridiculous appearance of an enraged, masculine wife who forces her
cowering husband to dress her with his pants makes the Battle for the Trousers image the most comical
and effective of themes dealing with the power of women. The frequent occurrence of this theme and
its long duration both suggest its popular appeal.” 1 Israhel van Meckenem engraved this “Battle of the
Pants”, also called The Angry Wife2, which goes so far as to demonize the wife overpowering her
Israel van Meckenem, The Angry Wife
1
Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini
and his Wife
Martha Lynn Moffitt Peacock, “Harpies and Henpecked Husbands: Images of the Powerful Housewife in
Netherlandish Art 1550-1700.” (PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1989,) 85.
2
Israhel van Meckenem, The Angry Wife (The Battle for the Pants), 1495-1503, engraving printed in black on ivory
laid paper, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.
3
husband in the dispute over the pants, showing her paralleled to a demon, her hair wild, face contorted
and breasts exposed. In contrast, the ideal Dutch wife was instead the picture of modesty, chastity, and
also fertility, as depicted in Jan van Eyck’s Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife3. Women’s fashion
of the time featured this ‘pregnant stance’ as accentuated by gathered fabric and padded bags around
the waist. The sloping shoulders of the popular relaxed chemises and kirtles further feminized and
softened the woman’s figure, and the hair was contained in a modest stiff cloth. During this time,
women remained mostly in the home and thus much freedom of movement was not required or
encouraged of them. Female fashion focused on luxury and stillness versus the freeing bifurcated tights,
breeches and trousers of Netherlandish men. But this area would soon experience conflict, globalization
and a change of power that would undoubtedly influence gendered fashion.
As Gaia Servadio states in Renaissance Women, the late Renaissance saw most of Europe ruled
by women, most notably Queen Elizabeth I of England.4 Towards the end of the 16th century, the
Netherlands experienced three female regents that irrevocably changed the view of women in Dutch
society. “Men needed women not just to run their homes but to help build the wealth of their country;
as a result, in the Netherlands the institution of marriage became a business partnership…not only was
the Dutch woman trusted but she was given the keys of both the home and the shop.”5 Martha
Peacock’s dissertation on the “Powerful Housewife in Netherlandish Art” also attributes the
development of the middle class to the change in marriage patterns during the early Renaissance, also
noting that this empowerment of Dutch women allowed them such liberties as owning property and
even running their own businesses.6 Servadio states that outsiders “commented that it was odd
that…men and women worked side-by-side spinning and weaving, and that in the same city women
3
Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, 1434, oil on oak, The National Gallery, London.
Gaia Servadio, Renaissance Women, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2005).
5
Servadio, Renaissance Women, 216.
6
Peacock, “Harpies and Henpecked Husbands,” 20.
4
4
formed one-third of the labour force and held official posts”7. Women were rulers of business and the
domestic sphere, the new ideal of a Dutch housewife. Vermeer’s Woman Holding a Balance8 portrays
the exemplification of feminine ideals of the period, the woman clothed in a luxurious mink-trimmed
coat with a modest head-covering; she holds a balance, reflecting on devotion as suggested by the Christ
image above her head. But it also suggests her personal balance of domestic work and business,
represented by the expensive jewelry and suggestion of money-handling. Servadio explains the
transition to domestic subjects during this period as further example of the empowerment of Dutch
women: “Because the Flemish woman was the catalyst of her house, she appears in portraits either
alongside her husband or often on her own. When the burgher’s wife became richer she wanted her
features to be remembered and so the art of portraiture reached the houses of the middle-class.
Because the Flemish sitter was neither a Colonna nor a Medici who needed no introduction, it was
essential for her to be flanked by objects which could demonstrate her background. So a new set of
symbols came to life…”9. These changing conventions were well understood and taken advantage of by
the artist Judith Leyster, a prolific genre and still-life painter who supported herself with her own work,
Johannes Vermeer, Woman Holding a Balance
7
Judith Leyster, The Proposition
Servadio, Renaissance Women, 216.
Johannes Vermeer, Woman Holding a Balance, 1664, oil on canvas, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
9
Servadio, Renaissance Women, 218.
8
5
had her own studio, and was the only female member of the Haarlem painters’ guild. Her painting, The
Proposition10, explores the new societal attitude towards women. She shows a woman quietly
embroidering, focused on her work; behind her, a man leans on her shoulder with one hand and, with
the other, offers her some coins, which she ignores. This painting shows the new understanding of the
ideal Dutch woman: focused on domesticity and also driven, determined. As Servadio puts it, “Women
were essential to the economy and a new type of hard-working and almost sexless woman was at the
forefront.”11 This represents a certain shift in attitude from the Early Renaissance focus on fertility.
Leyster’s Self-Portrait12 provides a fantastic example of fashion’s relationship with position; her
luxurious lace collar, satin corset and gown declares her a successful businesswoman by means of her
art, while her masculine posture asserts her personal confidence and importance. This work well
displays the empowerment that occurred with the inclusion of more women into artist’s guilds, trade
and business.
Judith Leyster, Self-Portrait
10
Ter Borch, Officer Writing a Letter, with a
Trumpeter
Judith Leyster, Man Offering Money to a Young Woman (The Proposition), 1631, oil on wooden panel,
Mauritshuis, The Hague.
11
Servadio, Renaissance Women, 215-221.
12
Judith Leyster, Self-Portrait, 1630, oil on canvas, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
6
The Golden Age saw changing in gender codes for men as well. In Ter Borch’s Officer Writing a
Letter, with a Trumpeter13, the officer is concentrated and intimate in his letter writing, sensitive in a
way that parallels Ter Borch’s depictions of Dutch women. The increase in female patrons as head of
household certainly influenced societal gender codifications. As Arthur K. Wheelock discusses, “Ter
Borch explores the possibility of understanding men and women in non-stereotypical ways. The pictures
transform the traditional ‘guardroom’ into a private, domestic, one might say less gendered space, part
boudoir, part drawing room, part workplace. In such a space, rigid distinctions between the categories
of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ lose their force. The usual polarizations in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
discourse about gender recede.”14 As a foil we can examine Vermeer’s Woman Reading a Letter15, a
strictly domestic scene. One cannot help but note the similarities in silhouette, color and detail between
her tunic and that of the trumpeter in Ter Borch’s work. It should also be noted that whereas the
trumpeter gazes out to the viewer, challenging and possibly erotic in nature, the woman reads her letter
privately and we look upon her almost voyeuristically. This intimacy and her commitment to this
Johannes Vermeer, Woman Reading a Letter
13
Ter Borch, Officer Writing a Letter, with a Trumpeter, 1658-1659, oil on canvas, Philadelphia Museum of Art,
Philadelphia.
14
Arthur K. Wheelock and Adele F. Seeff, The Public and Private in Dutch Culture of the Golden Age, (Newark:
University of Delaware, 2000,) 113-115.
15
Johannes Vermeer, Woman Reading a Letter, 1663, oil on canvas, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
7
domestic task reinforce Servadio’s understanding of the powerful Dutch housewife, dedicated to her
duties.
Pieter Bruegel, Peasant Wedding
In The Fashionable Dress, Joanne Entwistle notes that towards the end of the fifteenth century,
“fashionable dress had become so fantastical and absurd that it was difficult to tell men and women at a
distance” 16. Garment distinction related almost entirely to economic position, with prosperity
represented in both male and female costumes as voluminous sleeves, wide collars and intricate
pleating details executed in luxurious, natural fabrics. In Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Peasant Wedding17 of
the mid-sixteenth century it is clear that even in the beginnings of the changing Dutch society in the
Peasant class, male and female silhouettes were very similar from the waist up with large, bagging
sleeves, modest necklines and some simple organ-pipe pleating. An example of the similarities in
burgher costume can be seen in Rembrandt van Rijn’s Portrait of Maerten Soolmans18 and Portrait of
Oopjen Coppit19. Particularly from the waist up, his portrayal of this couple shows very little difference
16
Joanne Entwistle, The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Social Theory, (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2015,)
144.
17
Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Peasant Wedding, 1566-1569, oil on wood, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.
18
Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Maerten Soolmans, 1634, oil on canvas, Louvre, Paris.
19
Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Oopjen Coppit, 1634, oil on canvas, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
8
Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Maerten Soolmons and Portrait of Oopjen Coppit
between the man and the woman’s silhouette and detailing. The garments are executed in the same or
very similar luxurious black fabric, possibly silk or satin, with almost identical lace collars, belt detailing
and cuffs, though the woman’s cuffs offer slightly more volume. They share the same confident gaze
and stance popular with the rising middle class, furthering the argument that the most differentiation in
costume lay between classes rather than genders. As described in Fashion and Fancy: Dress and
Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings, Rembrandt was particularly devoted to portraying dress in order to
enhance the meaning and effect of his paintings, and the aforementioned works show him playing very
loosely with gender codification as Ter Borch would do in the late half of the century20.
It is interesting to consider the somewhat quick abandonment of the “sensitive man” that Ter
Borch was exploring in his works – and the femininity in general of garments during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth I and other powerful female rulers – because following the prosperity of the Dutch Golden
Age, masculine fashions became increasingly exaggerated in the wake of social revolutions and changes
in power. Gendered garments returned in full force (i.e., the codpiece) and have persisted to modern
20
Marieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2006).
9
times. In the modern world, it must certainly be appreciated that gendered clothing distinctions have
decreased in recent decades, however contemporary female clothing still represents a struggle towards
equality. As noted in The Fashioned Body, “…when women’s fashions move in the direction of suits,
angular shapes or coarser fabrics, they are described as ‘masculine’ or sometimes ‘androgynous’, both
of which point to the importance of gender as a way of making sense of fashion…”21. This prevalence of
phallocentrism in modern society is particularly exhausting considering the strides made by strong
Dutch women hundreds of years ago. The disparity of freedom through costume is represented today
not in “the battle for the trousers”, but through a lack of pockets in female garments, even in the
powerful pantsuits of Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, as noted in Chelsea G. Summers’ “The Politics of
Pockets”22. In Communicating Gender Diversity, DeFrancisco states that “as some distinctions disappear,
others appear…Western women’s clothing…lacks room, such as pockets, for practical things. This makes
purses a necessity, again limiting ease of movement”23. Pockets represent confidence and freedom; the
potential that women’s pockets could “carry something secret, something private, or something
deadly”24. But Summers also notes that Clinton’s marked pocketlessness declares that “Clinton’s suits
could not be more respectable. They are the answer to what women can wear to convey relatable
power. Seamless and sealed, these suits present Clinton’s body like a saint’s…there is nothing to hide in
Clinton’s pantsuit, for there is no place to hide it.” Empowerment for women through clothing continues
to evolve with the world around it, adapting to unfortunate shifts in power and societal changes.
The Dutch Golden Age saw an empowerment of women unparalleled in baroque Europe. The
late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance laid the groundwork for a societal shift in the roles of women
21
Entwistle, The Fashioned Body, 166.
Chelsea G. Summers, “The Politics of Pockets,” Racked, September, 19 2016, accessed December 1, 2016,
http://www.racked.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-suffragettes-women.
23
Victoria Leto DeFrancisco, Catherine Helen Palczewski, Communicating Gender Diversity: A Critical Approach,
(Los Angeles: SAGE, 2007,) 9.
24
Summers, “The Politics of Pockets”.
22
10
and the gender codes of men that would culminate in the late half of the 16th century when women
would be involved in artists’ guilds, business and trade. These changes blurred distinctions in male and
female garments, firmly placing difference in costume in the realm of class and not gender. In relation to
contemporary fashion, women’s garments still fall prey to gender codification through labeling as
‘masculine’, and the gender struggles represented in the Dutch Golden Age as the “Battle of the Pants”
are present in modern female dress in a lack of pockets. However, the evolution in depictions of women
by Netherlandish and Flemish artists in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries provides hard evidence
that a relationship lies in the empowerment of women in society and the prevalence of gendered
garments, giving hope that women will continue to redefine “feminine” style and adapt to the changing
societal landscape, empowering themselves through costume.
11
Bibliography
DeFrancisco, Victoria Leto and Catherine Helen Palczewski. Communicating Gender Diversity: A Critical
Approach. Los Angeles: SAGE. 2007.
De Winkel, Marieke. Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press. 2006.
Entwistle, Joanne. The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Social Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2015.
Peacock, Martha Lynne Moffitt. “Harpies and Henpecked Husbands: Images of the Powerful
Housewife in Netherlandish Art 1550-1700.” PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1989.
Servadio, Gaia. Renaissance Women. London : I.B. Tauris. 2005.
Summers, Chelsea G. “The Politics of Pockets”. Racked. September, 19 2016. Accessed December 1,
2016. http://www.racked.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-suffragettes-women.
Weelock, Arthur K. and Adele F. Seeff. The Public and Private in Dutch Culture of the Golden Age.
Newark: University of Delaware. 2000.
12
Image Citation
Borch, Ter. Officer Writing a Letter, with a Trumpeter. 1658-1659. Oil on canvas. Philadelphia Museum
of Art, Philadelphia.
Bruegel the Elder, Pieter. Peasant Wedding. 1566-1569. Oil on wood. Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Vienna.
Eyck, Jan van. Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife. 1434. Oil on oak. The National Gallery, London.
Leyster, Judith. Man Offering Money to a Young Woman (The Proposition). 1631. Oil on wooden panel.
Mauritshuis, The Hague.
Leyster, Judith. Self-Portrait. 1630. Oil on canvas. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Meckenem, Israhel van. The Angry Wife (The Battle for the Pants). 1495-1503. Engraving printed in black
on ivory laid paper. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.
Van Rijn, Rembrandt. Portrait of Maerten Soolmans. 1634. Oil on canvas. Louvre, Paris, France.
Van Rijn, Rembrandt. Portrait of Oopjen Coppit. 1634. Oil on canvas. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
Vermeer, Johannes. Woman Holding a Balance. 1664. Oil on Canvas. National Gallery of Art,
Washington, D.C.
Vermeer, Johannes. Woman Reading a Letter. 1663. Oil on canvas. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.