underwear-msg - 1/24/08
What to wear under garb. SCA and period.
NOTE: See also these files: underwear-lnks, corsets-msg, linen-msg, silk-msg, p-hygiene-msg, soap-msg, p-privies-msg, bathing-msg.
************************************************************************
NOTICE -
This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.
This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org
I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.
The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.
Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous
Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
From: think!ames!decwrl!decvax!tinhat!meg at EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Megan ni Laine)
Date: 20 Mar 90 07:27:49 GMT
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism
What do people in the SCA wear ? From my observations in the changing
rooms, most people wear mundane underthings, using the assumption that
no one will know if its period or not. Of course, there are notable
individuals who wear truly authentic underthings...it is always a
pleasant surprise to discover this. (such discoveries are usually made
in the summer at camping events.)
One important factor in period underwear's favor is that certain types
of garb require a specific silouette, which modern underwear cannot
approximate. Therefore a period corset is necessary to give the
correct shape. And some gowns, especially 15th century Flemish, have
such low cut shoulders that a modern bra would show, front, top and back.
Some people get around this by replacing their modern bra straps with
velvet, and I've even seen one that faked the look of a smocked
chemise.
I know very little about early period dress, so I couldn't tell you
what they wore under their outer clothes. The chemise evolved from an
underdress worn beneath a warmer overdress in the winter into a kind of
a slip worn under a gown. Sometimes the chemise was an intrinsic part
of the look of the neckline, showing up to several inches, with
intricately embriodered bands accross the front. Holbein's painting of
St. Ursula of 1522 shows a lovely chemise which is gathered quite full
in the front into a 2 inch band of blackwork across the bodice. The
sleeves are very full, and protrude from the sleeves of the dress,
which are tied on to the arms. In this period, the chemise was worn by
men, women and children. Men's chemises tended to have high collars
which could be tied, but which are depicted untied.(a rakish sort of
nonchalance) In the early part of the sixteenth century, men's
necklines were lower.(they gradually got higher) Children's chemises
were very like the womens, with lower necklines than adult mens,
although older boys began to wear higher collars. The collars on men's
chemises were often embroidered, and had a small ruffle at he top.
They appeared to be smocked or gathered into this narrow band of
embroidery. In nearly all cases they were white.
Not many men in the SCA wear period chemises. Why not?
Megan
--
Linda Anfuso Megan ni Laine, OL, Baroness Stonemarche
Forest Road Barony of Stonemarche
Wilton, NH 03086, U. S. A. East Kingdom
From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 28 Oct 91 03:53:07 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago
Islamic Underpants
There have been several postings on the subject of underpants. In the
Islamic world, the length of underpants is a religious, and perhaps
also ethnic, issue. There are Traditions of the Prophet stating, as I
remember, that underpants should come to below the knee but above the
foot. And I think I have read somewhere that the Persians wore ankle
length underpants and that this was considered womanish by Arabs and
such.
A King's Book of Kings (The Houghton Shahnamah) has a miniature,
Persian and late period, showing someone stripped down; as I
remember, the underpants are long, loose, probably drawstring. Arab
Painting has some earlier pictures, probably Syrian or Iraqi, showing
what look like loose drawstring underpants, coming to a
little below the knee. Max Tilke's book Le Costume has detailed
pictures of out of period traditional drawstring underpants from the
Islamic world, some of which look as though they might be the same
sort shown in the period pictures.
Cariadoc
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Period Foot/Combat Wear
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 20:46:21 GMT
kreyling at lds.loral.com (Ed Kreyling 6966) writes:
>A Count in Trimaris, who is period to the point of period underwear (I thought
>that was a joke, until I saw him in his underwear!) fights in tennis shoes
>covered in knee high leather boots.
What's funny about period underwear? I own and regularly wear a
14th c. style shirt and braes around the house. The braes are
wonderfully comfy and loose about the crotch. When worn with 14th c.
hosen the effect is much more comfortable than wearing dance tights over
jockey shorts. Much less constriction around the crotch, don't have to
pull up your hosen, easier to put on and take off.
Furthermore, for serious costuming, in some cases you HAVE to
work from the skin out in order to get the rest of the costume to work
right.
Lothar \|/
0
From: sbloch at ms.uky.edu (Stephen Bloch)
Newsgroups: rec.music.early,rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Authentic Underwear
Date: 29 Nov 1993 19:04:27 -0500
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
On Tue, 23 Nov 1993, Hope Ehn Dennis Ehn wrote:
>> . . . the whole business of costumes is
>> a can of worms. After all, people in the Renaissance and Baroque eras
>> didn't perform in "costumes": the clothing performers today wear as
>> costumes were ordinary clothes back then! Besides, I understand (but may
>> be wrong) that people didn't wear underwear until fairly recently; I dare
>> say that few of us are likely to be willing to be that authentic!
Oh, it's not that bad. I don't particularly enjoy wearing bluejeans
against the skin, but a long tunic with nothing underneath can be
quite comfortable. I usually wear a fancy tunic with a simple, easily-
washable undertunic (as Elizabeth describes below), but nothing else
is required.
Elizabeth Randell <erandell at GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU> replied:
>People then DID wear underwear, it just wasn't panties and jockey shorts.
>Shirts and blouses are the modern descendents of historical
>underwear--linen garments that were worn under the woolen or brocade
>jackets or dresses. Some lace at the neck or wrist could show, if one was
>truly daring. The point is, such linen "liners" worn next to the skin
>could be laundered more easily than could the outer garments (no dry
>cleaners).
I'm not sure what period Elizabeth means when she says "some lace ...
could show, if one was truly daring"; my impression is that in the
Middle Ages and Renaissance, wearing multiple layers visibly was a
mark of high fashion, indicating that you could afford that much
fabric. So my undertunic is carefully cut several inches LONGER than
the overtunic it goes with.
>Now, as for pants I'm not as sure. Men wore one-piece union suits ("long
>johns") as early as the 19th century, but I'm not sure when they were
>invented. Early 19th-century women (in America and England, at least)
>wore pantalettes, cotton or linen lace-trimmed pants that came down to
>mid-calf (think Kate Greenaway illustrations). Women always wore
>petticoats, but I'm not sure about pants.
There are marginal illustrations from as early as the 14th century,
I believe, showing adult males who, due to either acrobatic tricks or
pratfalls, are upside-down with their outer clothing around their
shoulders or over their heads. Most or all are wearing loose, light-
colored knickers (from memory; I'm sure some of the costume experts on
rec.org.sca can provide more details).
--
Stephen Bloch
sbloch at s.ms.uky.edu
From: UDSD073 at DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike Andrews)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Unmentionable request
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 14:56
Organization: The University of Oklahoma (USA)
Neil Perkins(980-9892" <jackalope!neil at zazen.attmail.com>, writes:
>I was asked the other day by some "mundane" friends
>about a medieval topic I had never considered. To wit,
>underclothes.
>
>What did folk in our period do for underwear?
According to Thomas Merton (in his book, *The Seven-Storey
Mountain*), when he entered the Trappists (?), he was given his
habit and a _long_ strip of fabric, which he assumed was to be
used as some sort of undergarment; he was given no instruction
in the use, wearing, or arrangement thereof.
On a more practical level, H.L. Claire Margaret di Cuneo (Thea
Goldsby in the real world) makes and wears period 16th C.
undies, and I have several photos of the same, both occupied and
unoccupied. Email me for her Email address; I don't want to post
it to the world.
Janice Arnold has patterns, drawings, photos, and discussions
of some period undies in at least one of her books.
I have been told by some that only prostitutes wore underwear
before, say, the late 15th. C., and by others that no decent
woman would have anything between her nether limbs except
her husband, and so on and so forth. No documentation was
provided for these claims, so take them as worth the price.
>// Jost
--
Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra
From: dickeney at access.digex.net (Dick Eney)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Unmentionable request
Date: 12 Sep 1994 21:02:05 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Neil Perkins(980-9892" <jackalope!neil at zazen.attmail.com>,"jackalope) <jackalope!neil at zazen.attmail.com> wrote:
>Greetings to those who gather by the Bridge, from Jost
>
>I was asked the other day by some "mundane" friends
>about a medieval topic I had never considered. To wit,
>underclothes.
>
>What did folk in our period do for underwear?
Wore -- if they were wealthy enough to afford it -- singlets for the
upper body, which looked something like a modern tee-shirt, and breeks
for the lower body. These looked something like running shorts or swim
trunks, but of course with tie strings rather than elastic. I have a
collection of patterns from Joan of Arc's wardrobe and her panties looked
for all the world like a modern bikini bottom.
|-----Mandarin 2/c Vuong Manh, C.P. (dickeney at access.digex.net)-----|
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: rorice at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice)
Subject: Re: Unmentionable request
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 11:03:14 GMT
Greetings from Lothar,
C. Willet Cunnington's "A History of Underclothes" is the only
decent book solely dedicated to the study of this topic. It doesn't really
cover the Middle Ages and Renaissance in much depth, since there isn't a
whole lot of information out there.
Throughout most of the medieval period men wore loose linen knee-
length pants with ties at the knees and waistband as underwear.
They look vaguely like knee-length pajamas or sweat pants and are
fabulously comfortable to wear. Often the hose (thigh length hose made of
stretchy wool cut on the bias) were attached to the waistband of the
braes, so the braes acted as a sort of suspenders as well.
As men's fashions required a shorter tunic and tighter fitting hose
the braes got shorter and tighter, finally ending up as something that looks
very much like a pair of jockey short by the middle of the 16th c. Then
as fashions got looser again the braes became looser as well, returning
to a slightly slimmer-legged version of their original form. These late
period garments were often trimmed with lace or embroidery if you could
afford it.
Linen seems to have been the most common material for undergarments
since it was light and soft.
Over the torso, a man would wear a shirt which was also made of
linen. The cut of the shirt varied with the fashions, but was usually a
loosely fitting garment with long, tapered sleeves with a hemline which
came to about the hips. It might, or might not have had a button or a
drawstring at the neck or sleeves depending on the period. From the 14th
c. on it would not have been uncommon for a shirt to have set-in sleeves,
rather than being made from a T-tunic pattern. In the 15th c. as the
doublet and coat were cut to expose the shirt, shirts might be heavily
embroidered. By the 16th c. some shirts were works of art, with gorgeous
blackwork embroidery and elaborate smocking. In this time period, some
shirts would also be trimmed with lace.
Women wore some variation of the shift all through Period. This
was, essentially, an ankle length dress with tapered sleeves made from
linen. In all other respects (closure methods, decoration, cut) womens'
shifts were like men's shirts except for the length. However, as women's
fashions changed to reveal more decolletage shifts changed. In the 14th c.
the low cut of some of the more risque' cotehardies required a shift that
looked essentially like a tube dress with spagetti straps. The straps
presumably could be moved to be hidden under the cote.
In the 15th and 16th c. the shift often came over the dress to close
at the neck, while the dress itself was fairly low cut. In this case the
shift might be heavily decorated with embroidery or made from extremely
sheer fabric (which might have been silk gauze, but I don't know). Decoration
and smocking was much the same a for men's undergarments of the same period.
I do not know if women wore underpants as such before the 16th c.
There is a 16th c. woodcut by Vellochio (sp?) of a Venetian whore with her
skirt cut away to reveal the incredible height of her shoes (they look
vaguely like platform shoes) and her drawers (which look like bloomers.) I
don't know if women other than prostitutes wore such garments. Women in
the 15th and 16th c. certainly did wear petticoats, hoops, underskirts,
and other such foundation garments as the fashion demanded. They didn't
seem to wear bras though. The construction of Period womens garments is
such that the seem to provide enough support on their own. (Or so my lady
and female friends tell me.)
If you are interested in the topic I suggest that you start looking
at pictures of period artwork or any costume book by Janet Arnold or
Cunnington. There are some other good books by other authors whose names
escape me at the moment, but there are also a lot of truly awful costume
books out there so I hesitate to recommend other books. (Burn anything you
find by Iris Brooke. Very bad.)
Lothar
From: dnb105 at psu.edu (Ferret)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Period unmentionables (yet strangely overmentioned)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:53:27 GMT
Organization: Penn State University
>gbrent at rschp1.anu.EDU.AU (Geoffrey Brent) writes:
>>> Men wore lacy white underpants, women wore wool...
If you are an 8th Cent. Frank you wore a linen shirt and linen drawers
beneath your hose and tunic. from Einhart's (8th Cent.) description of
national dress of the Franks in his history of Charlemagne (8th Cent.)
in Vita Caroli book III p. 23 (from translation by Lewis Thorpe)
(note that hose rather than bracae or breaches are mentioned but
that the lacing of the "shoes" is up the leg over the "hose" in
traditional Northern European fashion. (Germanic's and Gallic's dress has
many similarities, probably due to equestrian neccessities).
Frettchen von Rheinpfalz (Ferret)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: cat at system9.unisys.com (Cat Okita)
Subject: Re: Unmentionable request
Organization: Unisys GIS (Toronto)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:16:13 GMT
In article <Cw49DF.3zB at usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> rorice at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (rosalyn rice) writes:
>and other such foundation garments as the fashion demanded. They didn't
>seem to wear bras though. The construction of Period womens garments is
>such that the seem to provide enough support on their own. (Or so my lady
>and female friends tell me.)
Actually, the bra as we now know it didn't start develop until the Victorian
era, and as such is *vastly* out of period...
<pet peeve - I've got lots, just ask - but they're really cute and furry...>
Which isn't to say that they didn't *need* and *use* support - there are
few things less attractive than late period garb with no supporting
garments, at all - they were there, just better hidden.
cheers!
cat
============================================================================
Cat Okita | I swear I left her by the river
Junior Systems Administrator | I swear I left her safe and sound
G.I.S. Unisys, Canada | I need to make it to the river
From: vjohnson at iws005.sc.intel.com (Valeri Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Unmentionable request
Date: 14 Sep 1994 18:50:02 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Here are some sources I have (if it is sources you want). This has been a
topic on the Historical Costume "newsletter"(?) I get.
It looks like women didn't wear undies until around Lucrita Borga's day, and
it was scandleous at that time. Queen Eliz. I received a pair of silk stockings
on, I think, a late birthday.... I didn't keep any of the posts, so it's
just my memory.
Dress and Undress: a history of women's underwear.
Elizabeth Ewing. New York: Drama Book Specialists, c1978.
191p.: ill. Index.
An Tir has a book "From The Skin Out" but it appears that it is controlled by
a guild and is only available to guild members.
Any one else?
Valeri
From: corliss at hal.PHysics.wayne.EDU (David J. Corliss)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Undergarments
Date: 15 Sep 1994 10:12:05 -0400
Rosalyn Rice writes that "they didn't seem to wears bras", holding this garment
to be Victorian. Cat Okita replied that foundations were worn in late period
just the same.
A bra is a short form of a corset, supporting the bust but not confining the
waist. As an indication of this, in late period, many corsets were laced up the
front, so there wearer needed no assistance in getting them on. The laces would
be tied in a bow between in the center of the bust and the ends tucked into the
corset. Often times, the ends of these laces would be decorated, just as laces
for any other purpose. Thus, this pretty little bow became a standard part of
the fashion of the corset. It may still be found on many bras today, long after
the original purpose has been forgotten, and still displays the ancestry of the
bra from a garment of stays and laces.
.......this has been a public service message from the Middle Kingdom
College of Sciences........
.......which is looking for some well qualified
person or persons to write A&S crtiteria for the engineering aspects of
costuming: hopefully, this will help to bring work on foundations and other