"Clothing of Russians of the XIII-XVII Centuries"
by M.G. Rabinovich

Part 2 of Chapter 4 of Drevyaya Odezheda Narodov Vostochnoj Evropy

[Translator's Note: As usual, parenthesis are from the original Russian text. Items in brackets are my comments .]

Now we will try to present costume as a whole – the set of clothing of different ages and social groups of Russians in the 13th to 17th century.  Writings, artifacts, and artistic sources characterize women’s, men’s, and children’s clothing of Russian peasants, poor and rich city dwellers, and nobility.  The coverage of this, obviously, is not even; about men’s costume there is more information than about women’s, about children’s – very little; about peasants less than about the city dwellers, and most of all is known about costume of nobles.  There exists also some information about military dress.

Peasant clothing.  Direct or indirect descriptions of peasant costume in written sources survive to us not earlier then the 17th century. In the year 1649 in the city of Shuya “in the planting” was found a dead body, obviously the body of the peasant.  “Dress on it kaftanishko armyachnoe [camel wool fabric] smuro [dark mixed color – brown-black-gray] lightweight, a rubashenko and pants [porty] and gray trousers [shtany], thin gray leg wraps, on truschenko [trusy and trusiki are undershorts] poyasnenko [poyas = belt] and zhichenoe (that is of colored wool yarns. – M. R.), and lapti and a cross on him was not” (ASh, No 64, p. 115-116) – this, undoubtedly, was the dress of poor peasant, in which he could come to town.  In Voronezhskaya street in 1679 in a similar case on a “dead body of male sex” was “shuba naked sheepskin, kaftan yellow goatskin, pants goatskin, in lapti, without a hat” (T. Vor. UAK, V, No 8186/1956, p 5-7).  That, obviously, is an incomplete description: not recorded linen, belt, and leg wraps.  In 1628 V. Ya Vorontsov complained that on the road from the city of Shuya he was robbed by peasants – village elder Ondryushka Efremov, “chelovek” (probably, a house serf) – Oleshka Semenov and peasant Potapko Dement’ev.  They carried on 3 carts the clothing of their lord and his wife, which were placed “for safekeeping” in the city of Shuya with one merchant person.  For this theft not only of the masters things, but also stripped the very coachman.  On the village elder was “kaftan of wool homespun, kaftan of sheepskin, warm, cap azure broadcloth nastrafil’no [cheaply made?], mittens sheepskin”, on the peasant – “kaftan wool homespun, kaftan sheepskin, hat cherry broadcloth lundysh [lunty is a type of peasant shoe?] on fox” (Ash, No 28, p. 49-51).  Here is a enumerated only the upper clothing.  But it is important to note that the warm fur kaftan served as a winter road [travel] garment and that peasant hats were of better quality than the remainder of the dress; they, evidently, were valued and had, as we may now say, prestige meaning.  It is interesting to compare color:  light blue odnoryadka, red kaftan and cherry hat of the house serf, the “naked”, in all probability, caftan of the village elder and the peasant in their hats – azure and cherry.

In 1666, in s. Black Zavod’ of Yaroslavskaya Street was robbed a prosperous peasant.  Here is the report of what was taken:  “kaftan gray, shapka cherry, cross silver, belt silk” (BS, A. No 69, p. 12).  More south, in Voronezhkaya Street, in a similar case from a landowning peasant was taken “zipun and shuba, pants [shtany], rubakha, portki [leg wraps or pants], and a cross” (T. Vor. UAk, V, No 2947/1721, p. 598) that is, he was stripped to the skin.  The theft, according to the plaintiff, was committed in May.  One must think that the shuba of the peasant was taken on the road in the situation of a cold night.  In the city of Romanov, Voronezhskaya Street in 1678 was robbed 5 peasants.  From them were taken 5 sheepskin shuby, 5 mittens (evidently, 5 pair of mittens), 5 shapki, 5 shtany – only warm upper clothing (T. Vor. UAK, V, No 2947/1721, p. 396, No 8408/2182, p. 598). 

In depictions of peasants one may differentiate a rather short (to knee) upper garment – zipun or kaftan, from under which was sometimes visible the sleeves of the rubakha.  Often peasants are depicted also in one rubakha, especially at work (plowing, sowing, building (fig. 31-32).  The rubakha is relatively short (a little higher than the knee), and belted; the sleeves narrow, at the hands buttoned/fasted or tied (ZhS, l. 128, 150 ob.)

Peasant women are depicted in all, one time – in the book of A. Mejerberg [mid 17th cent].  On “muscovite peasant woman” – kichka-shaped headdress, long rubakha, appearing from under a ponyova with fringe (Mejerberg, 1903, l. 86).  The set of women’s clothing with ponyova is recorded in 1678 in Voronezhskaya Street, again among stolen property: “rubakha, ponyova, pokrom (that is the edge of some fabric, possibly the towel-like headdress – M.R.)” (T.Vor. UAK, V, No 8169/1943, p. 524).  Another record “women’s ponyova” relates to Tul’skaya Street (year 1608).  In a pamphlet in landowning family Sukhotinyj it says that one of them, “gathering with such thieves and their advisor, raising a warrant and substitute/commutation [znamena] and zabiv [nail up? struck? outdo? score? beat up?] in bubny [diamonds? tambourine? parasite?] and navyazav [bind? fasten? impose?] women’s ponyovy, set out from Tula Koluskaya Doroga to serve him, robber Matyushki” (Aleksandrov, 1971, p. 120).  [I obviously have no idea what that last sentence means.]

There is an interesting inventory of peasant property, containing also different objects of clothing.  For exampled, in the izba [Russian log cabin] of peasant living in Voronezh in a chest lay “linen hemp 4, remains of linen alenoj [scarlet?], scarf muslin, tablecloth hemp, edge/selvedge “cochineal”, kodman [women’s jacket? colored rubakha?], ponyova, delanka [?], womens alenaya [scarlet?] rubakha, 2 women’s hemp rubakhas, skein yarn of blue cloth [?], women’s branaya [sewn?] polka [width of cloth?], women’s silver rings 3, iron sheath [knife?], sickles 6, platter wood 4”.  If one does not consider the horse fetters, all the remaining is specifically women’s property, among which also a full set of modest clothing.  In other inventories of peasant property we find: “shapka martin, vershik [?] red of good broadcloth, linen 1000 cubits, rubashki [shirts] 20” (T. Vor. UAK, V, No 2750/1524, p. 332; No 1282/56, p. 16-17); “2 sukmana [broadcloth (sukno) kaftan or sarafan or garment made of sukanina], 10 rubakh” (AMG, II, No 653, p. 404); kaftans warm 3, kaftans wool homespun 3, odnoyadki 2, telogreya warm 2, shapka women’s 2, rubakha men’s and women’s 12, portok [pants?] 6, novin [unbleached linen] 10 (BS, A, No 32, p. 5-6).  This is clothng of a peasant of a Yaroslavskoj manor lady.

Peasant clothing is found also in wedding contracts.  As, in 1612 in s. Baranov Kubenskyj vol. was entered, evidently in every second marriage peasants of Spaso-Prilutskoj monastery.  For the wife was “broadcloth on odnoryadka blue nastrafil’ [настрафиль ?], and shushun very cold [студеной] broadcloth green worn, and odnoryadka kept, and shushun warm worn, and ozherel’e pearl, and for it 6 buttons, and 2 women’s shapki damask azure and red, one with lace pearl, and two earrings silver with pearls gilded, and for 4 daughters a pair each of earrings…”  For the groom “odnoryadka nastrafil’, and earring twin and single red stone gilded silver” (AYu, No 395, p. 419-420).  The old men’s things of the wife, and the earrings of the husband were evidently left from their first marriages.  These peasants were not poor, but clothing at that time was all kept and carefully accounted.

In descriptions of a dowry of a rather wealthy bride from Rovogor’ya in northern Dvina (1647) we find:  “shushun broadcloth red with fancy dress [с нарядом] of value 4 rubles… krashennik [dyed linen?] with fancy dress of value 20 altyn… 1 ½ ruble for shapka and lace on hat pearl value 1 ruble and another shapka cotton cloth light blue value 10 altyn… boots calfskin red with silk and other prishvy [boot tops? Sewn items?] value 2 polotina [a 50 kopeck coin]… koshel’ki (that is, earring plaited of pearl – M.R.) value 2 rubles, searrings silver under gold with chain silver with two crosses value 8 grivna… a chest with linens value 5 rubles” (AGO, I, No 3, l. 21-21 ob.).  We did not skip showing the price of things in order to show that here is described 2 sets of women’s clothing – holiday and simple.  The first – a red shushun, hat with pearl lace, red boots – supplemented by pearl earrings and cost almost 9 rubles – in that time not minor money.  It is possible, that in this “chervchatom” [cochineal red] outfit planned even to marry.  The second – krasheninnik, light blue had, prishvy, gilded silver earrings – cost less than 2 rubles.  It must be that this was everyday clothing.  We note, that both suits appear as outfits with sarafans [the shushun and krasheninnik].

In far Siberia, in Tura, in 1637 a peasant dowry was such:  “svitka nastrafil’naya [?] with fancy dress, svitka summer, kortel’ [fur-lined letnik] koschatoj [koschaya is a grass good for mowing, kosa is braid/scythe/spit ?], povoloka [veil] dyed linen with down [fluffy white ear decoration?], boots red, shapka girls linen of three sable, earrings single [bead] silver, 3 rings silver – teremchatoj [теремчатой] and 2 printed, shirinka [term has many meanings – probably here a fancy handkerchief, scarf, maybe an apron without a bodice] silk sewn with threads and perevyazki [maiden’s head bands?], shushun dyed linen [крашенинный], 4 rubashki with borom [many meanings including a women’s pleated collar and a necklace of beads, amber and metal granules] and verkhnitsa [blue sarafan?], chest, “bolster” [actually, text says зголовье, while изголовье is a bolster or head of bed] and pillow with pillowcase with silk embroidered, olen’ya postel’ [deer hide bedcovering]” (AYuB, III, No 334, stb. 287).  Specifically Siberian here only the deerhide bedcover, all the rest frome the same set of clothing the shushun-sarafan, as also preivous from the Russian north.  Frankly the sarafan under this term was named in the sill of a wealthy peasant woman d. Luskaya Permitsa of Loemskoj area in 1691.  Prokofij Borodin willed to give out to his daughter and married niece and to give to each of them in dowry “svitka good broadcloth, sarafan, kumach [bright red/blue cotton for sarafans], shapka, boots, bashmaki [shoes] and koty [women’s halfboots]” (AYuB, I, No 86 – IV, stb. 565-568).  The set of clothing, as evident, is the same, but distinguished by the variety of shoes.

The cited materials, unfortunately, are fragmentary and do not give a complete picture in geographic connections.  But, is appears, one can say that in the 17^th cent. existed still 2 sets of women’s costume, characteristic also for later times.  On sorochka and upper clothing in the south they wore ponyova (it spread from Moscow to the south); in the north – the sarafan.  As upper garment served the svita, kortel’ and shuba.  For women more often than for men are noted leather shoes – sapogi, bashmaki, koty.  Men’s peasant costume was monotonous.  On the sorochka and porty [pants] was wore still shtany [trousers] and (evidently not always) still one rubakha.  Over this rubakha – zipun or kaftan, and in winter – still one kaftan (on fur) or shuba.  Shoes usually consisted of lapti with onuchi, boots were rare.  The most fancy was the shapka, which evidently, was usually not made at home, at least, not made of homespun fabric, as the other garments; the hat cost, as we have seen, a lot.  In birchbark letters of the 2^nd half of the 13^th cent. is recorded shapka with value of 13 grivny, that is almost 1 ½ pounds of silver (Artsikhovskij, B.G., p. 292).  Objects of urban style, even such widely spread as the odnoryadka, are met almost exclusively for manorial servants.  For us there is no information about the cut of the peasant kaftan, but here we also, as in the case with the sarafan, have issue with the spread of an eastern term “kaftan” on an old garment, called at one time svita.

We saw that the sources mention sometimes both holiday, more valuable clothing of peasants (especially – peasant women), and more simple, everyday.

Clothing of city dwellers.  About urban clothing, in the details of clothing of ordinary citizens of the 13-15 cent., we can judge mainly by depictions.  In the first place here – ornaments and initials of Novgorod manuscripts of the 14^th cent., where are met extremely realistic depictions of city dwellers, mainly without headdress, in rather short – to the knee – upper garments, cut fitted to the waist, belted with sashes; sleeves of garment in some cases short (may be, rolled up?), from under which are visible narrow, clinging-to-arm sleeves of rubakha.  Artist showed also embroidery (or attached cuffs? [zapyast’ya]) (Stasov, 1877, tabl. 69, 7, 12; tabl. 65, 13, 17, 24 etc.).  All city dwellers were shod in boots of various colors.  Sometimes people shown in rubakhas, for this usually different color than the shtany (for example white rubakha with yellow belt and blue shtany, exists also dark-blue rubakha (Artshikhovskij, B.G., p. 228).  In one depiction – a person in sheepskin coat [tulup].  To the 14^th century is related also the famous sculpture self-portrait of Novgorod master-metalcaster Avram (Rig. 33).  The artisan shows himself in boots and upper open-down-the-front garment of the type svita, zipun or kaftan, belted with a belt (in three turns with tassels) and reaching the knee.  (Artsikhovskij, 1948, p. 282-283).  A.V. Artsikhovskij (p. 282-283) considered that on Abram is a rubakha, and not an upper garment.  But the lapel is clearly visible.

Sources of the 17^th cent. keep lists of objects of clothing.  Thus, in enserfment record of a nizhegorodskoj landowning person, dated to 1684, says that in leaving period of servitude the master must “give in land parcel to one, Aleksej, and  to my wife and children our clothing:  kaftan shubnyj, kaftan wool homespun, shapka, mittens, sapogi”, for wife – “telogreya, rastegaj (sarafan? – M.R.) kumashnyj [cotton fabric? kumachnyj?], treukh [type of hat], bashmaki, chyulki and for our children the same” (AYuB, III, No 360- I, stb. 429).  This custom – the departing worker, “shod, dressed, as people are kept” – was, evidently, very durable and widespread.  The master-artisan in ending the period of study had to supply the student/apprentice not only with the necessary instruments, but also clothing.  In some records stipulate more in detail:  “shuba new, kaftan new gray…”, “shuba, kaftan wool homespun, shapka, boots”.  Sometimes recorded also lower garments – “rubakha, porty” (Tal’man, 1948, p. 70).  In other cases, for example in one rare list from Novgorod in 1684, is says that the student receives from the master only upper garments, while “rubashka and portki paternal [i.e. from the student’s father, not the master]” (AYu, No 205, p. 216-217).  In 1823 a Shuya iconpainter [ikonnik] complained that a runaway student “took” with him “kaftan shubnyj, zipun homespun, shapka blue broadcloth nastrafilno [?] with down/fluff, boots, shtany homespun” (Ash, No 22, p. 40-41), that is a whole set of upper garments.  A bail/surety letter about the appearance in court of city of Uglich in 1675 enumerated all these things:  hat with down, kaftan wool homespun, kaftan shubnyj, mittens, belt (AYu, No 307 – IV, p. 40-41).  However, in given case is not stated, that these things (valued at 3 ½ rubles) belong to enslaved serf or artisan student, but still clear that this set of upper clothing of ordinary city dweller.  And an example in the same time in the city of Voronezh in homes of landed people among described in chest of property we meet:  “rubakha mens 2, portki 1, rubakha women’s hemp 2… kodman… tulup [coat] sheepskin… shapka mens with sable… 6 sarafans (3 red, yellow, cherry, and azure), rubakha womens scarlet [аленая]… 2 gold soroki [women’s headdress] (of them 1 new), earrings, monisto [necklace] with crosses, 5 silver corsses, 4 women’s rings [perstni], silver chain, scarf [plat] muslin, 2 scarlet scarves [platka], sewn with silk shirinka [little kerchief]… 4 shirinki sewn with silk, 2 scarlet linen hat scarves [шапочных платок] and 6 half-finished boots” (“boots beef cut, not sewn”) (T.Vor. UAK, V, No 2750/1524, p. 331-333), and also in every home – materials (linen, dyed linen, etc.) in pieces, skeins of yarn – hemp, wool, silk, etc.  In property of a city dweller was everything for weaving, sewing and embroidering clothing and even parts for boots.

From what is present, it is evident that the costumeof ordinary city dwellers consisted of porty and sorochki, rubakhi and shtany, zipun or kaftan (Fig. 34).  The kaftan was belted with a sash.  Outdoor upper outfit consisted of, in cold times, shubnoj (fur) kaftan or sheepskin shuba, on the head – a shapka (rather valuable), on the hands – mittens [rukavitsy].  The kaftan and zipun often were wool homespun, that is of homewoven rough broadcloth.  In a word, poor city dwellers were dress the same as peasants, but a fundamental difference in their costume was in the boots, almost excluding from the city lapti.  For this we do not find large territorial differences: in Voronezh, Moscow, Shuya, Uglich, Nizhnyj Novgorod, Novgorod the Great, we meet all the same list of items of men’s costume.  Stronger was differentiated from ancient women’s costume.  One must say, that the material about it is more scant, than about men’s costume, but even for poor women (including the family of an enslaved bondsman) not in one of the recorded cities not was was named the poneva, however, as we saw earlier, in rural places south of Moscow it still widely existed.  In the city, in this period was firmly established the set of women’s clothing with the sarafan (in different variations).

Still one important difference in urban clothing was the clear revelation in it of clothing specifically for children.  The opinion of researchers about this, is that a unique garment of chilcren of both sexes was a long rubakha (Gilyarovskaya, 1945, p. 11), based, probably, on material of peasant clothing of later time and on one statement of A. Olearij.  In Ladoga in 1634 this traveler was astonished that “all – both girls and boys – were in short-cut hair, with curls, haing from both sides, and in long rubakhas, such that never were distinguished boys from girls” (Olearij, p. 18).  About this same says also several depictions about which will discuss ahead.  But in written sources of the 17^th cent., we find not only “rubashki child’s” or “child’s” [ревачьи vs детинные], but also “two kaftantsa valuable children’s”.  And “shuba sheepskin child’s new” and even “tafejka [skullcap?] childs broadcloth red” (AYuB, III, No 329, stb. 270-272; ASh, No 61, p. 42).  True, these records are rare and usually related to wealthy families, but all the same, one must think that if children of peasants and the urban poor darted about in one rubashka, that for children of nobles and generally wealthy people were sewn clothing in general the same as for adults.  Regarding shoes, one cans say more definitely, because finds of children’s shoes among archeological excavations are frequent.  For children were sewn the same boots as for adults, but obviously, smaller in size.  In excavations, therefore, one can find, for example, the front of a large men’s boot, from which was cut out a small child’s sole.

Clothing of rich city dwellers and nobles.  We already said that clothing they tried to make and keep at home.  In the home of wealthy city dwellers, and even more of major nobles this grew sometimes into a significant household problem.  The needs in clothing (both in quantity and in quality and in selection) far outgrew the ability of the family, granted even with serfs.  Therefore the Domostroi did not forbid from needlework servant maids:  “and the woman needleworker that shows [or gives instructions?] rubashka made or ubrus [scarf] to take [брати?] or weave, or gold or silk paylichnoe [пяличное?] activity” (that is, embroider) (D, st. 29, p. 28).  But long with that it recommends to have “workshop of own tailor and cobbler” (D, st. 41, p. 40) and all tools necessary for it – “gear… tailor’s shop and cobblers” and for women’s needlework other that oneself makes nothing hears, in a strange court does not go” [? I guess I need to look at Pouncy’s translation of the Domostroj again].  The simplest material – sheepskin, linen canvas [polotna], linen [kholsty] – is prepared and dyed at home:  “linen and ouschin [оусчин] an linen made and on that prigozhe [comely] other dyed for letnik and for kaftan and for sarafan… for home everyday re-cut and re-sew, and will too much for everyday make linen [poloten] or ouschin or linen [kholst] or tablecloth or shirinok [kerchief?] or other something that can sell… and rubashki red men’s and women’s and porty… for yourself cut out”.  For this, as always, the Domostroi recommends to strict economy:  it is necessary to gather and carefully keep all scraps (listed for example, 9 types of material) “scraps and pieces so rescue, and to market you will tire putting in order for that person and three roads buying, and sometimes even not put aside/save” [I think it basically means, “save your scraps so you don’t have to go to the market and waste money”].  Childrens clothing was recommended to sew for growth:  “the edges [кроячи] turn up a vershok [about 2 inches] or two or three at the hem and along edges and along seams and along sleeves, and as grows out the years 2 or 3 or 4, opening the seam of that garment and turning it out straight again becomes good” (D. st. 30-32, p. 29-31).  For daughters as they grow it follows to prepare the dwory:  “And linen and vuschin [same as ouschin?] and shirinok and ubrus and rubashka and all years for her in prishennoj [пришенной] chest keep and garment, and ornaments [саженье?] and necklace [monisto] and holy relic and sudy [суды, related to judging? Courts?]… gathered up/increased so will not much suddenly be anxious” [i.e. if you prepare in advance, you won’t be caught by surprise and have to worry about suddenly paying for a proper dowry].  The pragmatic mood of the composer of the Domostroi is such that he writes, that if a daughter dies, then all this that one has on hand is “for the memory of her soul” [i.e. to give to the church for prayers for her?] (D, st. 16, p. 14).  Expensive imported materials and furs the Domostroi recommends to buy at once in large quantities (of course depending on the market situation) (D, st. 41, p. 39-40).  It listed also objects of clothing, that are sewn in home conditions.  Besides the already mentioned lower and upper (“krasnykh”) rubakhas, porty, sarafans, kaftans and letniks, are named shuba, terlik, odnoryadka, kortel’, kaptur, shapka, nogovitsy (D, st. 31, p. 29).  Not overlooked was dreiciton, when best to launder:  “if bread bake, then also garments wash”.  “Beautiful” rubashki and better garments wash with soap and ashes, rinse, dry, press in a mangle (irons then not were known).  The benefits were 2:  economy of firewood and ash arm in arm.  There is, of course, also recommendation for how to keep clothing and ornament:  “and bed and dress along gryatkam [гряткам] (shelves – M.R.) and in trunk and in box and oubrany [оубраны?], and rubashki, and shirinki all would be nice and clean and belen’ko suvercheno [беленько суверчено] and sukladeno [сукладено] and not rumpled… and sazen’e [саженье], and necklace, and better dress always would be in a trunk and in a box locked, and key would (by housewife – M.R.) be kept in a small box [ларце]”.    And dress lesser – “vetchanoe [evening?], and travel, and serving” (mentions epanchi [cloak?], shlyapy [hats], mittens [rukavitsy]) – propose to keep in the shed [клет].

We look now, at how is reflected the set of rich clothing in different types of sources.

Sometimes the property of a nobleman could for some reason be kept in a shed of his peasants.  In 1638, Yaroslav female landowner M.A. Ulova gave complaint about a theft from a peasant shed.  Among the stolen is given:  “letnik kindyashnyj [red cotton], and letnik valuable with voshvy [decorative appliqués], telogreya kindyashnaya on rabbit fur, telogreya valuable chervchataya [“cochineal”] on squirrel, ozherel’e pearl, buttons silver gilded, ozerel’e black braid with buttons, necklace [monisto] on it 15 crosses, 15 rings silver, shapka women’s sewn on satin chervchatomu [“cochineal”], 3 earrings, linen fabric 30, rubashki women’s 20 and stannykh [standing?] rubakhas 2, rubashek men’s 3 – two sewn with button loops, and the 3^rd – insertion/inserted, two belts sewn with tassels, 2 ubrusy embroidered” (BS, A, No 32, p. 76).  Among all this property one can define as if there were two women’s costumes – kindyachnyj (letnik and telogreya) and sukonnyj [broadcloth] (valuable – also letnik and red telogreya).  For each was its own ozherel’e.  And this is what could be kept in the home of a rather wealthy noble.  The thief stole from Andrej Aristov in a list of other property men’s, women’s, children’s clothing and “lyudskuyu”, that is, in this case evidently, houseserf clothing.  Probably, to the aristocrate [barin] belongs the 16 rubakhas, of which 6 were sewn with gold, kaftan, 2 shuby, shapka, 2 treukh [another kind of hat].  For the aristocrat’s wife [baryna] – 5 rubakhas, 4 sarafans, 10 kokoshniks, a telgreya, an okhaben’, a shuba and ornaments – crosses, rings, earrings.

For the child – 2 of the recorded above rubakhas, 2 kaftans, a shuba.  Servant – sarafan, 3 wool homespun and 4 sheepskin kaftans (AYuB, III, No 529, stb. 270-272).  If such a reserve of clothing had to be kept, evidently by a not very wealthy noble, so he could present himself, what were the storehouses of clothing for the great princely and tsarist court, from which stand out luxurious dress of courtiers and “little boyars” [дети боярскийe] for taking part in various ceremonies. 

In the middle of the 16^th cent. one Novgorodian pawned for 6 rubles “odnoryadka barova [?] scaled [аспидна?] belt on it gold, buttons taffeta, telogreya marten under damask, damask on a “cochineal” ground patterned silk ore-yellow [рудожелт], torlop [fur-lined letnik] white belly fur and on it damask kufter’ [an eastern fabric] light blue, voshvy velvet [aksamit] gold, ozherel’e women’s on black braid made with silver volochonym [wire?], cuff with silver sewn and gold, ptur (Kaptur? – M.R.) sable” (DAI, I, No 51-VIII, p. 76) – all new.  If one does not consider the odnorydaka, which could be either women’s or men’s, before us is a set of upper women’s clothing.  In 1576, streltsy commander pawned to Spaso-Prilutskyj monastery (Kubenskaya vol. to the west of Moscow) for 16 rubles shubka “women’s green bryukshina [a sarafan], letnik damask “cochineal” voshvy [appliqués] velvet green with gold, torlop martin, and on them voshvy [actually, says povoloki but see below] valuable azure voshvy velvet colored kaptur sable naked and two tablecloths [skaterti], one embroidered, and the other branaya [patterned weave]” (QYu, No 248, p. 266).  Here is a full set of rich women’s clothing.  The combination of colors draws attention:  green sarafan, red letnik with green voshvy with gold, a torlop of dark fur with light blue voshvy, a hood [kapor] of dark fur.  Possibly not less risky combination of colors could be seen also in men’s costume.  Late fall 1644 in the town Bol’shie Soli (former Kostromskoj uezd) was robbed a certain A.< Deryabin.  Besides a belt, was taken a cherry odnoryadka with silver gilded buttons, a yellow valuable feryaz’ with silk “cochineal” lace and cuffs, an azure epancha, a “cochineal” with sable shapka (BS, A, No 36, p. 6), in other words, all that he was wearing except the lower garments and boots.  Here is clearly visible, how was dressed the city dweller on a cold fall day:  over the rubakha – cherry odnoryadka, on it yellow with red feryaz’, and above – azure raincoat and a red with sable shapka.

N.I. Kostomarov brings the wardrobe of pod’yachyj [government servant, court clerk?] Krasulin, exiled in the 17^th cent. in the city of Kola:  2 pairs of shtany, 3 kaftans, 3 odnoryadki, 1 feryaz’, 2 standing ozherel’ya and 4 shuby, of them – one especially fancy, covered with damask with silver lace and buttons (Kostomarov, 1860, p. 81).  In this case this, evidently, was distinctive official clothing of command.

We already spoke about the abundance of wardroom of noble and wealthy people.  But in a list  of things – in wills, inventories of dowries, etc. – one can find descriptions of the set of costume both for women and for men.  For example, in the inventory of the very rich dowry of the daughter of V.I. Bastranov, which was given out in 1668 in the city of Shuya for stol’nik [a title] prince F.F. Shcherbatov, was set apart a special section where enumerated things set aside as traditional “mylennyj [clean?] gift” for the newlywed.  “And to myl’ne [clean?] dress:  sorochki with porty and ozherel’i, ozerel’ya strung on 6 ends, with bottons 2 yakhont azure [sapphire] and emerald, fastened grains burmitskimi [small freshwater pearls], okhaben’ moiré cranberry with lace silver, obrastsy [обрасцы, overgrown?] strung, ferez satin colored on sable, nashivka [stripe] kizilbashskaya [kizil is dogwood or cornel cherry or…], kaftan satin yellow cold, buttons obniznye [?], ozherel’e standing obniznoe, shapka green velvet with edging and with loops pearl, shtany damask “cochineal”, chulki [stockings] silk, bashmaki [shoes] ‘cochineal’” (Ash, No 103, p. 188).  This is a full (excluding the shuba) set of rich men’s clothing, which without shame was worn even by prince Shcherbatov.  Underwear – sorochki and porty, evidently, also upper richly embroidered sorochka (required a multiple quantity), to it, evidently, the ozherel’e luxurious with precious stones, which is describe in detail, and red silk shtany, silk chulki and red bashmaki.  Upper clothing – yellow satin kaftan with another pearl ozherel’e.  Thus the prince could walk at home, while going outdoors, he wore also a sable satin feryaz’ or okhaben’ of cranberry color (and maybe, both the feryaz’ an the okhaben’) and green velvet hat.  However, in formal situations the prince even at home could wear all of the recorded items at once.

In rich dowries often was not listed sarafans.  But custom listed telogreyas and shubas over one [через одну – an extra one?] (AYuB, III, No 334-VIII, stb. 298-300), however telogreya sometimes “cold”, and all this makes one think that here is described some variation of the same sarafan set of women’s costume, that the telogreya and shuba made up one suit/costume.  For example, in Penza in 1701, a girl from the family Yumatovaya received in a dowry kindyachnaya shuba on rabbit fur, kindyachnaya telogreya, damask new shuba on squirrel, hat Polish with marten, a martin treukh [kind of hat] (AYuB, III, No 334-IX, stb. 300-302).

And here such an impression was conveyed by Russian clothing on foreign travelers.  The majority of those known relate to rich clothing of city dwellers (most often of all – nobility), which, naturally caught the gaze first of all.  At the end of the 16^th cent. G. Fletcher described rather detailed men’s and women’s costume.  The men’s rubakha “richly decorated with embroidery because in summer they at home wear it alone”, open-front silk zipun, long to knee, narrow, long to ankle kaftan “with Persian sash, on which carry knife and spoon”; lined with fur feryaz’ or okhaben’, very long with sleeves and collar, decorated with stones.  Over all, as write Fletcher, is worn odnoryadka of thin broadcloth without a collar.  On the legs – Moroccan leather boots with leg wraps.  The foreinger noticed also the maner of wear on the head richly embroidered taf’ya, which he calld “night cap”.  “On neck, always unadorned,” he wrote also, “is worn ozherel’e from prescious stones width in 3 or 4 fingers”.  From the Englishman did not sli away even social difference: “for boyar dress is all gold, for dvoryan sometimes only the kaftan brocade, and all the rest broadcloth.  “Muzhiki” (evidently, all city dwellers, not peasants, as follows from further description) dressed very poorly:  under odnoryadka for them – kozhukh “of crude white or blue broadcloth”, on the head – fur had, on the legs – boots.  “A woman, when she wants to dress up, wears a red or blue dress and under it a warm fur shuba in winter, while in summer – only 2 rubakhas one on the other both at home and going out from the yard.  On the head they wear shapka of whatever colored material, many also of velvet or gold brocade, but for the most part a head band [povyaska].  Without earrings silver or of other metal and without a cross on the neck you do not see women, neither married nor maidens”.  On the head of women, writes Fletcher, a band of taffeta, most often – red, over it – white ubrus, hten – shapka “in form of headdress of gold brocade” with fur edging, pearls and stones.  Recently noble women stopped stringing hats with pearls, because the wives of deacons and merchants were imitating them.  In the ears of women are earrings “in 2 inches and more”.  In summer they wear linen white covering, “tied up at chin with 2 hanging tassels”, strung with pearls.  In rain women wore shlyapi with colored ties.  On the neck – ozherel’e, on the hands/arms – cuffs [zapyast’ya] “width of a finger or 2”.  From upper women’s clothing Fletcher described the feryaz’ over which they wore the letnik with wide sleeves and brocade voshvy, on it – still the opashen with sleeves “to the ground”.  Gold and silver buttons were, according to Fletcher, “like walnuts”.  The outfit was supplemented by sapozhki [little boots] of white, yellow, light blue “or other color leather, embroidered with pearls” (Fletcher, p. 125-127).  We see, that foreigners not always could analyze the names, cut and order of the various upper men’s and women’s garments, the complex construction of women’s headdress, but as a whole the keenness of their powers of observation allowed him to compose a true presentation about the costume and the manner of its wear.  Fletcher saw, certainly, the towel-like headdress and kokoshniks.  He beautifully captured also the manner of wearing for portliness possibly more garments, one on another, and the richness of various pearled ornaments and embroidery – from boot to shapka.

After more than 100 years, in 1689, B. Tanner also describe men’s and women’s clothing with very long, gathered in folds sleeves (for men he called it “svitka”), high men’s shapka, shlyapi and over them – a cover for women, colored boots (yellow, light blue, green, cheaper – black), “tightly envelope the leg”.  He noticed also age differences (in particular, more short – above the knee – kaftan of young fellows).  The richness and variety of Russian furs especially struck him.  Tanner says not only of ermine, but also of furs “forest cat” (probably, lynx), fox, rabbit, dog and, of course, of black and white Astrakan sheepskin (Tanner, p. 101-108).

Portrayals of figures belonging to the higher levels of society are met often.  We mention only a few.  On Novgorod initials of the 14^th cent. we see urban official figures:  town crier with staff of authority and trumpet, various other magistrates with their staffs.  All of them are dressed in long – to the shins – kaftans, evidently with fur edging, with wide belts.  On the town crier – a formal, high kolpak [pointed hat], on the others – round shapki with fur edging.  All are shod in boots (without heels).

In the middle of the 15^th cent. (1467) is dated a Novgorod icon on which (according to a custom widespread in the middle of the century) is depicted also the customers – donators – in this case – a whole family of noble Novgorodians (Fig. 35).  The men are dressed in long cloak-like garments with laid-down collars and decorative loops along the chest.  Under these “cloaks” (as rightly noticed A.V. Artsikhovskij, strongly distinguished from ancient Russian korzna) (Artsikohskij, B.G., p. 289) are visible open-front garments of valuable fabric (a type of svita or kaftan), long to the knee, with skirt flaps obviously marked by the painter, belted with wide belts and narrow pants, tucked into boots.  From under the upper garments are visible the white collar of the sorochka.  The heads of the men are uncovered, the hair of each braided in one braid.  The woman is also in a long cloak-like garment, boots or bashmaki, and a light-colored towel-like headdress.  The children (two of them) are in white lower than the knee rubashki, belted with a cord with tassels hanging in front.  On another Novgorod icon on the shoulders of a man is thrown on also an open-front garment, but not cloak-like, and with long, freely hanging sleeves.  A.V. Artsikhovskij is correct, naming these garments okhaben’ (Artsikhovskij, B.G. p. 297).  He mentions also that in book miniatures the dress of merchants, boyars, courtiers and prince, as a rule, is long, lower than the knee (Artsikhovskij, B.G., p. 277), at the same time as ordinary city dwellers and peasants are in shorter clothing.  We already said, that peasants and ordinary city dwellers for the most part are shown without upper clothing.  Probably, this convention, accepted by illustrators in order to emphasize social differences (we already brought in description of set of the set also of peasant costume, necessarily including the same objects of upper clothing).  In depictions of crowds and in individual portraits of the 16-17^th cent. figures belonging to higher levels of society of that time, depicted in formal shapka and in the majority an upper garment such that from under the upper garment was visible the one worn below.  Typical is a portrait of a Russian sent to France, stol’nik P.I. Potemkin (Fig. 36).  Potemkin is shown in a murmolka [hat] with diamond agraffe, in a fur-edged ferezeya, from under which is visible still another kaftan, belted with a wide fabric sash.

From all presented is visible that the set of clothing of the ruling class is distinguished first of all by the abundance and quality of things (Fig. 37).  If linens (porty, rubakha) differed from the ordinary person only in the quality of the material, then already the upper men’s and women’s sorochki, shtany, taf’ya, ubrusy, kichki, soroki and kokshniki were distinguished by richness of embroidery and valuable ornament, just as also the women’s shubka-sarafan, and the men’s zipun and kaftan.  The remaining variety of upper garments which we already described, as a rule, ordinary people generally did not use (excluding the odnoryadka and simple shuba).  For nobles and rich merchants such garments were worn many at the same time.  It is necessary still to emphasize that women of the upper classes in this period, like city dwellers in general, never wore the poneva.

The hairdo in this period was more stable for maidens and women (loose or even curled hair or braids of maidens; the “matron” hairdo – 2 plaited braids).  However, one time in Novgorod even women were bareheaded [!], but against this fought the church (Klyuchevskij, 1867, p. 192).

For men were various styles – both for time and for territory.  We already said that in the 15^th cent. in Novgorod the Great and Pskov (possibly, in all the Novgorod land) men also braided hair in one braid.  In the Moscow state int eh 16^th cent., as noted Fletcher, the hair on the head was cut very short and only the disgraced grew long hair.  The wear of beards, evidently, was accepted for mature people, of age.  People younger might or might not wear a beard.  We note that in the Novgorod initials part are depicted beardless people, at that the beard was not worn not only by the fishermen, but also the town crier – an official figure.  Interestingly a description of marked simultaneously 26 robbers (city Shuya, year 1641).  More than 2/3 of them (18 people) wore a beard (indication of color – for example “chermna ikrasna”, in other words, as would say now, red-haired; “pale” – and size – “great”, “small”).  About 2 was said, that “they shaved”, about one – “sechet” [slashed? torn? whipped?], about 4:  “youths, beards none, still not shaving”, finally about one simply – “beard none” (Ash, No 51, p. 95-96).  Until 15-16^th cent. beard and long hair and dark color of clothing was not required even for clergy (Gilyarovskaya, 1945, p. 103-105).  In the 16^th cent. Fletcher noted that a priest put his long hair behind his ears.

Clothing of military and ecclesiastical figures.  We already said that elements of military uniform existed already in the 9^th-13^th century, as much as this arose from the necessity of distinguishing in battle the fighting sides.  Even in the 14^th cent. such difference, evidently existed.  In any case, the Tale of the Mamaev battle says that before the Kulikovskaya battle, in building regiments, the voevody [commanders] “clothed in garments… local” (PKB, p. 34).  It was speaking, undoubtedly, about some clothing worn over and distinguishing from different territorial militias with local distinctive features, that made easier for commanders the management of battle.  The luxurious clothing of Russian boyars, worn over armor was noted Chensler and Fletcher.  Such clothing – nalatnik – a short jacket with short wide sleeves, slanted flap and unsewn sides (so as to form a hole)- kept in the collection of the museums of the Moscow Kremlin (Levinson-Nechaeva, 1954, p. 309-312).  Noticing by foreigners the luxury of the nalatnik (brocade and velvet), evidently, related to distinguishing marks of commanders.  To us has already happened to write, that a sign of command from old times was the gold helmet, gold cloak and gold belt (Rabinovich, 1947, p. 96).  In 14^th-17^th cent, these signs could be various.  Korzno [cloak] was changed to the privoloka [a short, wide cloak].  Later, evidently, over the chainmail (a then even without it) was worn [недавались] nalatniki with sleeves.

With bringing in of a regular army – strel’tsy – clearly is outlined a military uniform.  For the strel’tsy this is a shapka-kolpak with narrow fur trim, long (to ankle) kaftan and boots, that is, national clothing as whole.  Documents about supply of the strel’tsy regiments speak usually about kaftans “shubnye”, that is, on fur;  are met sometimes in this connection the name “kaftan baranij” (AMG, I, No 266, p. 299) referring to the fact that here was used sheepskin.  Here is a list of clothing sent in 1677 from Boronezh to the Don for the supply of strel’tsy regiments:  “shapki sheepskin under different colors of poor broadcloth 100… varegi with galitsami (mittens – M.R.) 100, kaftans shubnye new… 859 (in this number polichenykh [received? Numbered?] also the bad 100), good shubnye kaftans… 100, kaftans wool homespun gray and black 315… broadcloth wool homespun gray and black and white 1500 arshin [measure about 28 inches] of them wasted by moths 72 arshins” (T. Vor, UAK, V, No3040/1814, p. 433).  We see that here enumerated by no means first class fitting-out of uniforms, and frequently had already former use.  The were prepared for the strel’tsy in Tambov and were tested by distant transport and bad storage.  But in principle, the uniform of the strel’tsy was practical, comfortable and picturesque (at that time principle of defense [armor?] was still not applied) (Fig. 38).  Artistic were the combination of colors of kaftan, shapka and boots.  E. Pal’mkvist brings information about 14 strel’tsy regiments, each of which were given a basic color of kaftan (and button loops), shapka and boots (for example, kaftan red with raspberry loops, shapka dark gray, boots yellow; kaftan light blue, with black loops and brown lining, shapka raspberry, boots yellow; kaftan ore-yellow with green loops and lining, shapka raspberry, boots green, etc. (Gilyarovskaya, 1945, p. 92-94).

For his poteshnye [play soldiers?] (before they were dressed in the “German” uniform coat) Peter [the Great?] ordered some kind of special “poteshnye kaftans”, in the opinion of several researchers, shorter than the strel’tsy (Levinson-Nechaeva, 1954, p. 326).  Besides the strel’sty, uniform clothing had the tsarist bodyguards – the ryndy, on celebratory occasions they dressed in white kaftans and tall, also white, shapki, the zhil’tsy – the horse guard, of different type of coachmen.  The last were called “terlishkniki” since they wore a special type of terlik with portrayal of a 2-headed eagle on the chest and on the back (Levinson-Nechaeva, 1954, p. 314-318).

Clerical figures in daily life were dressed the same as their parishioners, but over the usually dress the priest wore first an odnoryadka, and then a cassock [ryasa] with wide collar and sleeves, while a bishop wore also a special mantle of white silk “with many embroidered stripes of white satin in width of 2 fingers” (Fletcher, p. 95-97) and klobuk [clerical hat], which in various bishoprics the tradition was not identical (for example, in Novgorod the Great – is known “white klobuk”, about the origin of which was composed a legend).  About the clothing of monks, Fletcher says briefly that it consisted of white flannel rubakha, mantle with leather belt and cassock.  An undercassock [podryasnik] with narrow long sleeves they wore under the cassock, but sub-deacons and in general the lowest parish clergy wore it even as everyday dress.

Clothing in the family and society.  As we see, in the family, in domestic situations, men could wear an incomplete set of clothing; embroidered upper rubakha was considered rather proper home clothing even for nobles.  But in the upper levels of society it was accepted (however, not necessary) even at home to ear a little cap – taf’ya.  Custom to be in a taf’ya everywhere was so deep-rooted that was needed a special decree of the church council in 1551 forbiding to go into church in a shapka or taf’ya even the prince and aristocrats (Klyuchevskij, 1867, p. 188).

Concerning women, they first of all had to, even at home, carefully cover their hair.  B.O. Klyuchevskij proposed that all the same, women did not wear all parts of their complex headdress at home:  sufficient was, for example, a volosnik [net cap], while the kichka or kokoshnik could be removed (Klyuchevskij, 1867, p. 192).

With some such requirement of women’s clothes is connected, evidently, even the family drama of Ivan the Terrible.  On several grounds, the quarrel ending with the murder of the tsar’s son – tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich – began from the fact that the wife of the tsarevich appeared not sufficiently dressed when unexpected came in her father-in-law.  It is known that this came not from an eyewitness, but from a foreigner who was in Moscow 3 months after the murder, who recorded that she was “in one simple rubashka” (Solov’ev, B.G. p. 323).  Whether it follows this to record that the tsar’s daughter-in-law was without only the “vershnitsy” [a type of sarafan?] and sarafan or that literally the rubashka was her only garment, in other words that there wasn’t a headdress, to say is difficult.  One way or another, here is reflected the idea about a necessary minimum of home clothing.  If we remember that in the time presented, a bareheaded woman could even somehow injure outside men, one could figure that this caused the original irritation of the suspicious/paranoid tsar (Rabinovich, 1981, p. 137-140).  [And the tsar himself didn’t even like to go into church without his taf’ya on.)

Going outside, they wore upper dress depending on the weather, their social position and the purpose for which they were going out.  As a whole, the quantity and quality of dress caused, as we would now say, the prestige of a person.  Not for nothing from long ago existed the saying that we meet by dress.  This circumstance even determined the large changeability of upper outside clothing in comparison with lower and upper indoor clothing.  Peasants and ordinary city dwellers could in warm weather be in the rubakha even outside, women and girls – the the sarafan or poneva.  Ancient custom, agreeing with which men took off hats in a sign of respect, was preserved in the course of  all this period.  At the end of the  17^th cent., B. Tanner noted that for the appearance of the tsar – all without hats, even outdoors (Tanner, p. 108).  On the other hand, celebratory situations required possibly more full (according to the social position of the given figure) costume.  Therefore, courtiers had to be in court in formal upper clothing, even in quarters – in shuba and gorlatnaya shapka (under which, was we know, was worn also the taf’ya).  Thus a boyar, for example, sat in the Duma.

Ivan the Terrible for his whole life remembered that one of the Shujskij princes, in the period of his youth, appeared in court in insufficiently luxurious shuba (PIG, p. 134).  IF a boyar was dressed in his own clothing, then for dvoryanins and little boyars the luxurious upper garments for receptions, celebratory meetings any ceremony were given out for temporary use from the tsar’s treasury.  “Around 2 o’clock appeared bailiff, dress in sable shuba, covered with green silk”, I. Korb wrote at the end of the 17^th cent, “this shuba they received for the performance of special errands, on condition returning, from the tsar’s treasury, as if from the innermost storeroom” (Korb, p. 84).  In the things of the Armory palace were kept much information about preparation of a large amount of uniform clothing for different groups of svity for celebratory appearances of the tsar.  In 1680 was issued even a special order “About various clothing in which different ranks must appear on holiday and celebratory days for state excursions”.  Kotoshikhin wrote that sometimes official figures and church parish clergy – priests, deacons, subdeacons, “stirrup men”, falconers, stokers, strel’tsy, choristers – are given from the treasury cuts of material for garment.  To boyars, okol’nichi [very high rank in the state], Duma members, stol’niki, courtiers and deacons – velvet gold shuby on sable (Kotoshikhin, p. 58).

To representation was given great meaning.  For example, for meeting an honored guest [gost’] it was necessary to present a formal/festive crowd.  A Moscow dvoryanin was required for this to wear “colored’ dress.  Is known a case (15^th cent.), when a Moscow metropolitan humbled before all the Galich prince Yuri Dmitrievich, seeing he met him “narod” in wool homespun coat.  Also was given out from the tsar’s treasury clothing for different types of public ceremony, for example, for the well-known procession for Palm [вербное] Sunday, when I the central squire they imitated the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, for which in the role of Christ appeared the patriarch.  As a special sign, boys threw under the legs of his horse red garments and pieces of material – all given out from the treasury (Rabinovich, 1978, p. 95, 119-120).

In general, the dress even of ordinary city dwellers was dividied usually into 3 categories:  working clothing (this in the majority of cases was old, “ragged” dress), clothing for every day [будничная], as we would now say, everyday [повсекневная], and holiday, formal costume.  The first clearly about this says in the 16^th cent. the Domostroj, recommending the servants of rich city home to have even 3 (not less) changes of dress:  “ragged” (old) – for work, clean everyday clothing – to wear before the master and better – “in holiday for good people or to the ruler where they are” (D, st. 22, p. 19-21).  Still in the middle of the 19^th cent. in Toropitsa this was called dress “good”, “a little good”, and “third” (Semevskij, 1864, p. 127).  Rather often are instructions that the church orders to wear better clothing, for example, in confession (one thinks that also in general for attending church).

In a whole series of situations was in order certain clothing.  Researchers, in our view, are fair to propose that, for example, the custom to wear better clothing in certain agricultural work (the first mowing, etc.) is extremely ancient (Maslova, 19768, p. 16-29).  The same can be said about family ceremonies.  The Domostroi orders diverse holiday clothing for weddings.  In the 1^st day of the wedding, when completed were folk and church rites of the wedding ceremony, the bride, matchmaker and possibly even the women in general – participants in the wedding ceremony had to be in red sarafans and yellow letniki;  the groom and other men – in colored (as far as possible – gold) dress, necessarily in kaftans (it seems, preferably in terliki).  On the 2^nd day for certain circumstance at the table could the upper dress remove.  Colorful holiday dress contrasted with dress “quiet” – of the same cut and quality, but darker colors – black, clove, cherry, brown, crimson/burgundy, worn for sad situation – as a sign of mourning or (for courtiers) tsar’s disgrace (Sav., p. 128).  Quiet dress happened, evidently, for wealthy people, in other times of formal dress.  But, judging by later information, a widow had to be always dressed in dark clothing; old women wore head dresses and sarafans of dark colors.  In domestic life, the great prince himself, or the tsar, was dressed sometimes not particularly well, as noticed, for example Chensler in the 16^th cent. (Gilyarovskaya, 1945, p. 17).

One can say that always was an especially esthetic view on clothing, presentation about what exactly properly to wear, how must appear a well-dressed person – a dandy.  This presentation, it is understood, changed.  Thus in the end of the 16^th cent, it was the fashion for men to sew upper clothing fitted to the body, clearly portraying the figure.  In the beginning of the  17^th cent. Dutch resident alien Isaak Massa wrote that the tone of the Moscow dandies was set by the brothers Romanov.  “The oldest of the brothers was Fedor Nikitich, a beautiful man, very gentle ot all and so graceful that in Moscow went a saying for tailors to say, when a garment sat on someone well: “a second Fedor Nikitich”.  He so well sat on a horse, that any seeing him were taken by surprise.  The remaining brothers resembled him”.  (Mass, 1937, p. 42).  Such was in youth the future patriarch and ruler of government, Filaret.  After approximately half a century in fashion was a full men’s figure (that noticed, as already said, Olearij) and dandies specially belted not along the waist, but lower, in order to show the stomach.  Bernard Tanner wrote that at the end of the 17^th cent in fashion were boots “tightly, well embracing the leg”.  (Tanner, p. 102).

Very durable turned out to be the manner of women’s abuse of cosmetics – whiting, antimony, etc.  This was noticed already in the 16^th cent. by Fletcher, explaining in his own way the bad natural color of the face of Russian women.  He wrote, that whiting covered the face of women completely, and antimony wore the eyes, and brows.  “From terrible women they turn into beautiful dolls” (Fletcher, p. 125).  “Whiting, rouge and antimony,” V.G. Belinskij wrote 2 ½ centuries later about Moscow petty bourgeoisie, “eyes, lifeless face and black teeth.  This lower middle class exists everywhere, wherever there is a Russian city, be it even larger than a trade village” (Belinskij, 1845, p. 69).  Similar information (without such emotional coloring) appeared in the Geographic Society for several northern Russian cities in the middle of the 19^th cent.

In the 17^th cent. it was considered extremely important in celebratory situations to be necessary to be in Russian traditional dress, even foreigners.  Thus, in 1606, Marina Mnishek was married in Moscow in Uspenski Cathedral to False-Dmitri I as a genuine boyar in Russian dress [but apparently in a Polish catholic ceremony!].  Later formal Russian clothing was given out to seeral foreign ambassadors especially for celebratory presentation of state.  G. Kotoshkhin recorded:  “on the ambassadors gold satin shuby on marten and on squirrel, and odnoryadka red broadcloth with lace, kaftan damask under, shapki, boots”.  We see here a full set of men’s upper clothing.  Along the streets the ambassadors travel here in the odnoryadka (which, as we just said was rather elegant).  “Before the tsar” they took off the odnoryadki and put on the shuby (Kotoshikhin, p. 52, 54).

* * *

Turning to the problem of the mutual influence of the Russian clothing and its neighbors, we must define in it 2 questions.

The traditional ancient folk clothing changed in this period most of all as a result of processes, beginning already in more ancient times, in the 9-13^th cent.  From the pan-Slavic features a long times was preserved only a little (the tunic-shaped rubakha, some types of shoes).  Were obliterated the old tribal distinctive features of eastern Slav costume, and in the 14-15^th cent. These distinctions (prmimarily in women’s holiday finery) disappeared completely.  In the 15^th cent. are not met already rich temple rings, nor ozherel’e of beads characteristic of ancient tribes, nor the corresponding finger rings.  Approximately in the 15^th to beginning of the 16^th cent. developed a new type of women’s costume, connected with the spread of the sarafan, the origin of which, as already said, is extremely complex.  In all probability, correct are researchers who consider that along with the development of elements of traditional women’s costume here one can see also the influence of the peoples of Eastern and Western Europe, in particular the Volga region and the Pre-Baltic.  However, one should never ignore that the set of clothing with the sarafan in particular strongly was spread in cities (even in the southern have of Eruopean Russia, where the village population firmly kept the set of clothing with the ponyova), then as peasants assimilated the sarafan primarily in northern sections settled by Russians.  Analogous influences of clothing with shoulder straps are seen in the polikovaya [?] rubakha.  Influence in the area of traditional women’s costume was mutual, in that it shows, fore example, Russian names of many parts of the costume for the people of the Volga region and the Pre-Baltic (see chapters VII-X).

As a whole, ancient clothing was preserved everywhere as under wear – the tunic-shaped sorochka, tunic-shaped men’s rubakha and narrow porty.  Also national in cut were even the upper rubakha (men’s and women’s), and complex women’s headdress.

Much more is novel in upper indoor and outdoor clothing.  There appeared many new varieties of times of clothing and men’s headdress.  But this concerns, for the most part, people of the wealthy ruling classes and those close to them (including, as we saw, servants). 

The very names of the valuable materials form which was sewn this toilet – some of western, some of eastern origin.  The names of the overwhelming majority of times of upper clothing are eastern:  Turkic (Turkish, Tatar), Iranian, Arabian.  For example, such concerns age-old Russian dress, like the shuba, bearing an Arabian name (dzhubba – upper garment with long sleeves).  One can think that several other eastern names were spread on ancient Russian clothing (we already spoke, for example, about the possibility of the spread of the name “kaftan” on the ancient Russian common people’s “svita”).  But undoubtedly, eastern influence had a significant place in the clothing of the ruling classes, widespread after the Tatar-Mongol conquest and especially strong in the 15^th cent.  It is indicated, probably, most clearly of all in the manner  of wearing the taf’ya – skullcap, and in the custom of women outside to cover the face with a scarf (but this was by no means the eastern Muslin veil).  Not surprisingly therefore, a similar sort of change even for the ruling classes concerned only the upper clothing.  The tsar himself wore a rubakha of the same cut as even a peasant, although this rubakha was of valuable material and embroidered with gold.  At the end of the 16-17^th cent. among the ruling classes all the more widespread was the aspiration to imitate the clothing of western Europeans.  At first, for Boris Godunov, this was Polish, then Hungarian fashion.  In second half of the 17^th cent. began to spread also pan-Western European (called in Russian “German”) style.  Even the very heir to the throne Aleksej Mikhailovich already during the life of his father acquired for himself a “German” kaftan.  The court young people gladly imitated him.  This fashion (here one can say – as almost any) met resistance from ardent supporters of the old customs (Bogoyavlenskij, p. 14).  Evidently, a decisive role was played by the disapproval of the clergy:  on becoming tsar, Aleksej Mikhailovich appeared only in Russian dress.  However, his son, Fedor in his short reign expressed the wish that couriers and officials wore short clothing.  Thus, the reform of clothing that was undertaken by Peter the First [another son of Aleksej Mikhailovich], was not so unexpected.  The order of 4 January 1700 (and possibly, existed even an earlier command) ordered all, except peasants and clergy, to wear Hungarian, and then even “German” dress.

In further exclusion of traditional clothing went more quickly in cities and more slowly in rural places.  In this, the ruling classes outdistanced the main mass of city dwellers and even more – peasants.  Unevenly went the penetration of Western European costume, men’s and women’s.

At the end of the 18^th cent. I. Georgi wrote that in St. Petersburg all servitors (except military and postal, having special uniforms) and “noble burghers” wore the coat of St. Petersburg province – a blue kaftan with brilliant buttons, an “under” dress – white, but “whoever for himself lives and from others does not depend, can… without any disgrace and humiliation dress according to ancient custom and as strangely as he wishes”.  Women follow the English or other Western European style, however Moldavian and Georgian women wear their national dress.  “The proper Russian clothing of both sexes was preserved in its own ancient form not only for simple people, but also for the most part of people of middle condition… visible in the capital, regardless of foreign fashion, merchants and others completely so dress as in provinces within the state, with beard or without beard etc.  Many however follow in their dress different foreign customs.  But simple people nothing foreign in their clothing have.”  Further, Georgi made several paradoxical comments, that women of middle status were less adherent to the old “and often visible that the husband and sons wear Russian, and women in the home –foreign and most stylish dress” (Georgi, 1794, p. 604-605).  The comment on first glance is more strange, in that 100 years later in other Russian cities (in particular, small ones, for example Galich, Torzhka, Toropitsa, etc.) could be observed the reverse relationship:  women continue still to wear sarafans and kokoshniks, at the same time as men were dressed in frock coats and sibirki [short kaftans?].  Evidently, Georgi with characteristing for him keenness of observation noted a specific capital city, where bourgeoisie women turned out closer to the new trends, following in general with the highest classes in fashion.

Occurred in areas clothing even if distinctive counter-reform, to which the middle level of the population related negatively.  Thus, when Pavel I, barely stepping into the throne, forbade in the capitals – St. Petersburg and Moscow – to wear tail coats, vests, and rounds hats in the French style, and instead “to wear German kaftans and longish kamzols [vests]”, for “except traveler in Russian dress” (that is, petty bourgeoisie and in part merchants), “all revolution and great rumors and sayings made, but obeyed” (Tolchenov, p. 316), however, immediately after a palace coup and the murder of Pavel, they emphatically returned to the previous style.

On the whole, the manner of dressing, the choices in relation to costume still long was attached large meaning as characteristic not only of property and social position of one or another person, but also his way of thought.  Here wrote on these grounds in the middle of the 19^th cent. V.G. Belinskij.  “Let us assume that to wear a tail coat or frock coat instead of a sheepskin tulup, blue armyak or dark kaftan still does not mean to make European; but from it for us in Russia also studying somebody or other, both occupied with reading, and revealing a love and taste to elegant art only people, dressed European?  Whatever you may say, even a tail coat with frock coat – objects that appear completely external, not a little act on internal “good looks” of a person.  Peter the Great understood this, and from it came his persecution on the beard, okhaben, terlik, shapka-murmolka and all the other fond accessories of the “Moscow toilet” (Belinskij, 1845, p. 55).

About how changed later the position about the prestige of traditional Russian costume, we can conclude, if we remember  that in “Russian” costume deliberately were dressed in the beginning of the 20^th cent. as representing advance intelligentsia, such as, for example, V.V. Stasov, L.A. Andreev, M. Gor’kij, F.I. Shalyapin.  On the other hand, in the tsarist court happened in the 19-20^th cent. receptions for which ladies-in-waiting necessarily were dressed in “Russian”, as then understood it to be, costume.  But Gor’kij, Stasov and others were dressed in the Russian ordinary person’s dress, and the courtiers – in “boyarskij”.