REFERENCES
- See especially De Geschiedenis van de Leidsche Lakenindustrie: II. De Nieuwe Tijd (Zestiende tot Achttiende Eeuv); III. De Lakenindustrie en Verwante Industreen. 2 vols, s’-Gravenhage, 1939.
- There is an excellent short account in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edn, 1910–11. The famous siege is brilliantly described in J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic. See also R. Freen, Siege and Relief of Leiden, 1574 (1927).
- See for example Ciba Review 14. Cloth Making in Flanders (Basle, October 1938).
- D. Coleman, ‘An Innovation and its diffusion: the New Draperies ’, in Economic History Review 2nd Series, XXII, 3 (1969), 426.
- These are the definitions given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1934 edition.
- In C. T. Onions, A Shakespearian Glossary, p. 27.
- Coleman, Opecit., p. 426.
- C. Wilson, ‘Cloth Production and International Competition in the Seventeenth Century ’, in Economic History Review, 2nd Series, XIII, 2 (1960 ), 213.
- See Posthumus OpeCit., III, 882. His actual figures are.:
- Posthumus, Opecit., III, 941.
- Wilson, Opecit., p. 213.
- Wilson, Opecit., p. 213.
- Wilson, Opecit., p. 213, cited Posthumus II, 12–14.
- Wilson, Opecit., p. 215.
- Posthumus, Opecit., III, 1098–9.
- Posthumus, Opecit., II, 129.
- J. de L. Mann, The Cloth Industry in the West of England from 1640 to 1880 (Oxford, 1971 ), p. 27 ex p.R.a. S.P. 29/379/5.
- E. Lipson, The Economic History of England, Vol. III (4th edn 1947), 320.
- Posthumus, Opecit., III, 930–1.
- Posthumus, Opecit., III, 1098–9.
- Posthumus, Opecit., III, 930–1. Is the duplicate figure a mistake?
- Posthumus, Opecit., II, 327–9.
- Wilson, Opecit., p. 217.
- M. Hughes, ‘Marco Polo and the Silk Trade’, article to be published in Textile History, Vol. VI (1975).
- Wilson, Opecit., p. 217, quoting fom Downing-Clarendon, the Hague, 14 February 1664 O.S. ex T. H. Lister, Life and Administration of Edward, First Earl of Clarendon (1837), Vol. III, 361.
- Textile Institute. Terms and Definitions, 6th edn, 1970. Textile Industry, Manchester, p. 7.
- Both remain well-known types of cloth, the doeskin being one of the finest of all traditional woollen cloths, while the duffel is a cheap version of a similar type.
- Posthumus, Opecit., III, 1098–9.
- Posthumus, ibid., II, 317–18.
- Posthumus, ibid., III, 930–1 and 1098–9.
- The statistics are, of course, ex Posthumus, Opecit., III, 317–18 and 1098–9, and I am greatly indebted to Miss J. de L. Mann for these interpretations.
- Posthumus, Opecit., II, 129 for 1574–1620; III, 930–1, for 1620–1700; and III, 1098–9 for 1700–1800.
- Posthumus, ibid., II, 329; and III, 930–1.
- Posthumus, Table 151, ibid., III, 1098–9.
- For the Utrecht painting see K. G. Ponting: Clothmaking in Sixteen Scenes from about 1760, Textile History, Vol. IV, 1973, 109, etc., and for the Waldstein drawings see H. Freudenberger, The Waldstein Woollen Mill (Massachusetts, 1963).
- Conveniently reproduced in the frontispiece of the Ciba Review No. r 4, Cloth Making in Flanders (Basle 1938).
- C. H. de Groot, A Catalogue Raisone of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of the Seveeenth Century, Vol. VIII, I, 1927.
- J. Rosenberg, S. Stein, E. H Tiel Kuile, Dutch Art and Architecture 1600–1800, Pelican History of Art, 1966, p. 48.