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 undergarments out of the closet and into a format where all who desire can easily see the _structural_ aspects of costuming. From: dickeney at access2.digex.net (Dick Eney) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: period lengerie Date: 21 Mar 1995 20:36:35 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA In article <3kmi3c$1jds at freenet3.freenet.ufl.edu>, Ronald L. Charlotte <afn03234 at usenet.freenet.ufl.edu> wrote: >SL Beyer (slbeyer at aol.com) wrote: >: Well the Greeks did have something similar to a bikini, a stropha I >: believe it >: was called. I don't think that's what you're looking for. I've gotten >: used >: to not wearing bras at events and I'm a well endowed woman, some >: people just can't get used to being unrestrained, If I were one I'd find >: myself a corset. > >Interestingly, I've seen in a few woodcuts and paintings of partially >dressed women, an item that looks like a bandeau (a breast wide strip of >cloth). I'm not certain if it is intended to bind and flatten, or to >provide some support, but it certainly looks like the item you describe >survived the greek and roman eras. >-- Both of the above. The bandeau (often made of soft leather -- the supportive brassiere is out of period) was worn bound over the bosom when the Flat Look was in, and under it when, uh, emphasis was in style. Goes back at least to Roman days. The Greek picture, Tamar tells me, is of young women getting ready to exercise in the gymnasium. (Only in Sparta, I believe, did women also strip nude to work out, despite the literal meaning of "gymnasium".) |-----Mandarin 2/c Vuong Manh, C.P. (dickeney at access.digex.net)-----| From: IVANOR at delphi.com Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: SCA Fallacies Date: 10 Apr 1995 23:49:54 GMT Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation Quoting scale from a message in rec.org.sca > >Underpants are, too, period. > >Carolyn Boselli Host of Custom Forum 35 SCAdians on Delphi > >If you're not new at something, you're not growing. > Hello Carolyn, > Underpants?! Okay... I have to ask. Boxers or briefs! :) >Alright, so I wasn't very funny! Although I am interested... what >would be appropriate to wear as period underpants? Is there anything >mundanely today that comes even close? Thanks for the info, ciao... OK, I don't know about men's, but there is evidence for a couple of types of women's underpants. First, the bikini types that have already been cited here, and second, a pair that look remarkably like modern briefs made from woven fabric, carved into the back of a misericord from about the 14th century. We know they are underpants, because they are shown in the process of being put on. A sketch of this carving can be found at the bottom right hand corner of page 147 of Donald Matthew's _Atlas of MEdieval Europe_; ISBN 0-87196-133-4, Equinox, 1983. It looks as if they were constructed with a center panel extending from the waistband in front to the waistband in back, and two side panels in a wider oblong shape to complete the garment. Or else, they were fastened like sailor pants.... (Which was the standard way of fastening breeches for at least 2 centuries before it became restricted to sailor pants). Carolyn Boselli Host of Custom Forum 35 SCAdians on Delphi From: jldrake at tasc.com Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Underpants Date: 18 Apr 1995 22:04:59 GMT Organization: TASC Duchess Katerina Leona di Forzo d'Agra of Atlantia found a wonderful illustration of men's underpants. I belive it was a Durer woodcut of a bathhouse. They were basically a diaper cum loincloth. From: Esther Beukenhorst <beukenho at fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Underpants Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:02:26 +0000 Organization: Freie Universitaet Berlin On 18 Apr 1995 jldrake at tasc.com wrote: > Duchess Katerina Leona di Forzo d'Agra of Atlantia found a wonderful > illustration of men's underpants. I belive it was a Durerwoodcut of > a bathhouse. They were basically a diaper cum loincloth. > I have seen similar garments (actually I think these were made of a front and a back part tied together at the sides, so no seperate loincloth) on a painting (1550?) in the German Historical Museum in Berlin, worn by men swimming in an outdoor swimming pool; the women in the pool are too far in the water to see if they are wearing them as well (above the waist they wear nothing). From: powers at cis.ohio-state.edu (william thomas powers) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Underpants Date: 26 Apr 1995 22:06:40 -0400 Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science Esther Beukenhorst <beukenho at fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de> writes: > >On 18 Apr 1995 jldrake at tasc.com wrote: > >> Duchess Katerina Leona di Forzo d'Agra of Atlantia found a wonderful >> illustration of men's underpants. I belive it was a Durerwoodcut of >> a bathhouse. They were basically a diaper cum loincloth. >> >I have seen similar garments (actually I think these were made of a front >and a back part tied together at the sides, so no seperate loincloth) on a >painting (1550?) in the German Historical Museum in Berlin, worn by men >swimming in an outdoor swimming >pool; the women in the pool are too far in the water to see if they are >wearing them as well (above the waist they wear nothing).> There are several examples of men's underpants in _Peasants Warriors and Wives_ "Popular Imagery in the Reformation" by Keith Moxey, Univ of Chicago Press; isbn 0-226-54391-9 They occur in woodcuts from the 16th century dealing with the "Battle of the Sexes" and seem to consist of a square or rectangular piece of cloth with a strap at each corner for tying them on. I would especially commend to your attention "Battle for the Pants" an engraving by Israhel Meckenem, (photo, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz.) There are also several pictures that would be most appropriate for a "Ladies Sewing Circle and Terrorist Society" shirts. wilelm the smith From: dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Brassieres, and then back to period clothing Date: 7 Nov 1995 08:02:11 -0500 Organization: Panix In article <47mo31$elb at news2.delphi.com>, <IVANOR at delphi.com> wrote: >In the 1920s, when >flat-chested was the rage, the brassiere was developed to flatten, not >support. Developed in the '20s, perhaps, but it had its origins in the 1910s. Actually, when I had this as a reference question a while back, the sources said that the first "bra" was knotted together out of silk handkerchiefs by an enterprising young lady who wanted something to wear under an evening gown. Consequently, I doubt that it would flatten *or* support very well.... Getting back to a period topic, women's clothing in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries did tend to have a kirtle/"first layer" gown that served as a support garment. Later, of course, came the arsenal of corsetry. Earlier than that, I *have* seen references to women binding their breasts (the bliaut "corset" idea having been largely discredited in historical costuming circles, I believe). It was many years ago, but I remember a book (_Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings_, perhaps) that contained a sound bite from a clergyman of the period, warning women that those who bind their breasts now with linen bands will find them bound with bands of flaming fire in the hereafter. The clergy presumably would not speak out against a practice that no one practiced, so perhaps a good place to look (at least for starters) might be at religious writings of the time. D.Peters From: dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: "First layer" clarification (was brassiere stuff, wasRe: Names) Date: 7 Nov 1995 08:11:40 -0500 Organization: Panix As I was sending my last message, my spouse looked over my shoulder and observed that Joe Scadian-on-the-street might read this and think that "first layer" meant the layer touching the skin. That is *not* what I meant; Over one's shift, one would wear a kirtle/cote/what have you--*that* is the first layer.Over that, one wore a cote-hardie, or houppelande, or surcote, or whatever. Wearing that first layer fitted to *your* body and its idiosyncrasies means that just about any body shape can wear later fourteenth-fifteenth century clothing and look good. Hope that clarifies things. D.Peters From: afn03234 at freenet2.freenet.ufl.edu (Ronald L. Charlotte) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Brassieres, and then back to period clothing Date: 8 Nov 1995 12:41:45 GMT In <47nlcj$pui at panix2.panix.com>, dpeters at panix.com (D. Peters) wrote: > Getting back to a period topic, women's clothing in the fourteenth and > fifteenth centuries did tend to have a kirtle/"first layer" gown that > served as a support garment. Later, of course, came the arsenal of corsetry. > Earlier than that, I *have* seen references to women binding their > breasts (the bliaut "corset" idea having been largely discredited in > historical costuming circles, I believe). It was many years ago, but I > remember a book (_Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings_, perhaps) that > contained a sound bite from a clergyman of the period, warning women that > those who bind their breasts now with linen bands will find them bound > with bands of flaming fire in the hereafter. The clergy presumably would > not speak out against a practice that no one practiced, so perhaps a good > place to look (at least for starters) might be at religious writings of > the time. On page 286 of _Dress Accessories_ by Egan and Pritchard (ISBN 0 11 290444 0) is a picture attributed to the 15c manuscript Histoire de Girat de Nevers of a woman undressing. Visible under her dress is what looks like a bandeau or strip of cloth. Similar bands have been recorded in the mosaics of Pompeii. So I suspect that the practice is likely to be of long standing through much of period. -- al Thaalibi ---- An Crosaire, Trimaris Ron Charlotte -- Gainesville, FL afn03234 at freenet.ufl.edu From: jtn at newsserver.uconn.edu (Terry Nutter) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Names Date: 7 Nov 1995 20:49:50 GMT Organization: The University of Connecticut Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn. Lothar writes: : >: One thing: Brassieres were invented in the 19th century. If you are : >: quite worried about modesty, wear a large, plain kerchief around your : >: neck and stuffed down the front, over your tunic and under your bodice, : >: so as to prevent the "cherries of paradise" from "advertising their : >: presence" through the cloth of the tunic. If the bodice is made properly : >: and worn properly, it will have some supporting effect. : If you want to be that authentic with your garb. Plenty of people : in the SCA wear modern shoes and undergarments because those garments are : more comfortable than anything that the wearer could make. Ummm, Lothar? I suspect I have rather more direct experience than you with the relative comfort of brassieres versus either kirtles or corsets for large-breasted women...;^} My direct, personal experience is that (1) period undergarments for women, at least for the last roughly 250 years, are at least as comfortable as modern ones; (2) they are relatively easy to make; but (3) the _idea_ of making them is daunting, so most women don't try. There only thin in the world wrong with being daunted by an idea like that is that it discourages the attempt. There is no _need_ to make the attempt; but I suspect that many who make it will find it rewarding, and not only because they will feel more authentic. : In some styles of clothing women had fitted clothing that held : everything in place. In other styles I guess that the well-endowed just : lived with backaches. Actually, I suspect that in most of those styles, the stuff _underneath_ fitted much more closely in the, erm, relevant area than the stuff on top did. Certainly I have seen no evidence against that; although I have also no evidence for it in general, other than the knowledge that it is true in specific for some times in the late 13th C -- together with the direct, personal experience that more than just backaches is at issue, and if it were me, I'd find a solution; and I don't think I'm smarter or more ingenious than my medieval forebears (if anything, less ingenious; the culture I'm in solves so many more of my practical problems for me). Cheers, -- Angharad/Terry From: gfrose at cotton (Terry Nutter) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Questions about Medival Underclothes Date: 11 Jul 1996 05:26:51 GMT Organization: Not Much Greetings, all, from Katerine Rountre. Galleron writes: : >What do other ladies wear beneath : >their chemise? : If you're a medieval lady, nothing. John de Mandeville (14th c.) was : shocked to find that the women of India wore breeches. This is at best misleading. The lady is asking about all undergarments. The first thing to notice is that almost any sweeping answer will be wrong for some place and time in recognized period. The second, is that for much of Europe, you're looking at the wrong layer. We use the term "chemise" for the loose layer that went closest to the skin. Foundation garments (other than underpants, which in general were not worn) went _over_ the chemise, between it and the underdress. (One common ahistoricity of SCA clothing: most women wear too few layers.) There are others who know much more about it than I do; but that's where to look for kirtles, and later corsets. And, of course, on the lower legs, you have hose, which _are_ under the chemise, but I don't think that's what the lady meant.... Cheers, -- Katerine/Terry From: dickeney at access1.digex.net (Dick Eney) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Questions about Medival Underclothes Date: 11 Jul 1996 10:43:36 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960710224644.23780A-100000 at general1.asu.edu>, <innana at imap2.asu.edu> wrote: > >> Greetings from Arval! Galleron wrote: >> >> > > What do other ladies wear beneath their chemise? >> >> > If you're a medieval lady, nothing. >> >> At all times from 600 to 1600, in all places from Ireland to the Steppes? >> That rather strains credibility. > > If women wore no underpants *at anytime* what did they do when >menstrating. It should be fairly obvious that without some sort of >undergarment to hold rags or whatever near the nether regions the result >would be a huge bloody mess. It would seem logical that for at least one >week a month they were wearing SOMEThing. > I have a copy (which I have been promising to xerox for what seems a decade) of a French book inventorying and giving patterns for Joan of Arc's wardrobe. It does indeed contain undergarments, including panties that look like a modern bikini bottom. (But with string ties, of course, not elastic.) Basic cleanliness -- something with which our beloved ancestors were perfectly acquainted, though their plumbing didn't allow them to practice it as devoutly as we do -- requires that you wear something under your spiffy exterior garments, if only to absorb sweat and epidermal cells. These under-clothes, of course, would be intended to be easily changed and washed, so that the costly _ex_terior garment could be worn for quite some time before becoming unendurable. |---------Master Vuong Manh, C.P., Storvik, Atlantia---------| From: moondrgn at bga.com (Chris and Elisabeth Zakes) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Questions about Medival Underclothes Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:23:36 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications Internet customer posting mittle at panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) wrote: >Greetings from Arval! Galleron wrote: >> > What do other ladies wear beneath their chemise? >> If you're a medieval lady, nothing. >At all times from 600 to 1600, in all places from Ireland to the Steppes? >That rather strains credibility. Okay, here's some data, interpret it as you will: In the "February" picture of the Duc de Berry's Book of Hours, it shows three people sitting in front of a roaring fire. The second one is a man wearing ankle-length boots, just-below-the-knee stockings, a tunic and hat. Behind him is a woman wearing the same thing, with the addition of an underdress. In the field behind them is a man in a blue tunic wearing some form of underwear (it resembles short boxer shorts). This garment is seen again in the June, July and September pictures. I *think* all the figures are male, judging by the relative shortness of their tunics, but I could be wrong. I will grant things like "artistic interpretation", and "this is just one small corner of France", but is it possible that people wore what they wanted, just like now? -Tivar Moondragon C and E Zakes Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence) and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward) moondrgn at bga.com From: Lissa & Eric McCollum <ericmc at alliance.net> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Questions about Medival Underclothes Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:20:08 -0400 Gary J. Wolverton wrote: > As far as underwear -per-se- (this tidbit is semi-documented, I just > don't remember which book of mine it's in) some gentlefolk, both men > and women, wore a loincloth of sorts that I am assuming was of the > wrap and tuck variety. Unless of course you happened to be higher up > in the food chain and had available a pin or brooch of sorts. I'll try > and find the documentation and post it if this thread is still around > when I find it. I was leafing through the book "A History of Private Life", and came across a wood cut from 1574. (p. 586) It shows the 'master of the baths', dressed in what looks suspiciously like bikini bottoms, tied on the side. (I know they're not speedos, but still...) I can't tell for sure, but I think the woman seated behind him is wearing something similar. Now, this is a bathing situation, and not specifically underwear, but I would guess that something like this could have been used. Gwendolen Wold Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 23:36:23 -0700 From: "David Dendy" <ddendy at silk.net> To: <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: Re: Period underthings... (long) > I figured the most fruitful source of info on the subject would be > this very list. So, costume mavens, tell us: what did folks in our > period do for underclothes? If you look at the illustration for the month of February in the "Tres Riche Heures du Duc de Berry" (15th century France), you will see that for the common folk, at least, the answer is 'nothing'; this is likely so for the fine lady as well, but she is more fastidious about lifting her skirts. This lack of 'underthings' in our modern sense was probably general; modern non-scratchy and easily cleaned fabrics were not yet available, and people would not be anxious to wear wool that intimately. Also, at least according to Janet and Peter Phillips ("History from Below: Women's Underwear and the Rise of Women's Sport", *Journal of Popular Culture*, 27 (2), 1993, pp. 129-148), "Pre-20th-century women had to do without knickers and the like because of the perpetual threat of thrush. Thrush . . . or, to give it its medical name, *monilasis*, is a condition caused by infection from a fungus of the genus *Candida*, usually *Candida albicans*." They go on to explain (in rather unsettling detail) why constricting underclothes favour thrush, but if you want the details I refer you to the article. The authors also give a series of reference to the non-wearing of "knickers" (the authors are Australian, which explains that term), including C. Willett and Phillis Cunnington, *The History of Underclothes*. What was worn instead were petticoats and chemises, which protected between body and outer clothing, but are hardly underthings in our modern sense. Whether many of our authenticity mavens in the SCA actually wear authentic underwear is something I cannot answer, not having the hardihood to ask. (It's a little like asking a Scot what is worn under the kilt--you know what answer you'll get.) Incidentally, I once won a contest for period underwear at the Lionsgate Bardic Revel by submitting an empty box and the "Tres Riche Heures" illumination as documentation. Yours at doubtless too much length, Francesco Sirene (e-mail ddendy at silk.net) Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 07:48:15 -0400 From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <Hablutzel at compuserve.com> To: A&S List <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: Period Undergarments Well, what was worn depends upon the period. For the most part (I am an early period person, accept this bias), the women's undergarments were simply another gown, but made of something lighter. In the later cotehardie period, there are arguments that the undergarments were actually of heavier fabric to act as a foundation garment. Men pretty much wore their clothes. There are books on undergarments and occasionally costume guilds will have 'fashion shows' of these things, although they often end in the 18th century. Alban is correct, there were not many undergarment-like things in period, certainly not as we think of them with a separate pair of pants and the optional bra or shirt. I recently saw an article on the bra which did date it back only to the 18th centurty, with a precursor in the 17th. One thing that bugs me are the people who clearly need SOME support who are bouncing and sagging around with nothing on the argument that in period there was no underwear. It appears that the undergarments worn in period were more supportive than that, so they should wear something or have better-constructed garb. If for no other reason than the potential long-term damage to sensitive tissues. One darned good reason (in addition to comfort) that I wear modern undergarments with all my garb. ---D Morgan |/ Morgan Cely Cain * Hablutzel at compuserve.com From: Barbara Nostrand <bnostran at lynx.dac.neu.edu> To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Period Undergarments Noble Cousins! Lady Morgan wrote: >One thing that bugs me are the people who clearly need SOME support who are >bouncing and sagging around with nothing on the argument that in period >there was no underwear. It appears that the undergarments worn in period >were more supportive than than, so they should wear something or have >better-constructed garb. If for no other reason than the potential >long-term damage to sensitive tissues. One darned good reason (in addition >to comfort) that I wear modern undergarments with all my garb. While I am not going to tell anyone to stop wearing support undergarments, I do not believe that the above analysis is completely correct. Depictions of old women (frequently called witches) often show them with sagging breasts. Further, we have ample documentation (by cultural anthropologists) of entire cultures where women did not wear (at least until very recently) anything resembling underwear of any kind. Finally, I don't have a copy of the illumination mentioned earlier to look at. However, just because we have a picture which exposes the genital region does not mean that people commonly went without underwear. If you simply use this argument, then the existence of the bare butted monk in the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" could be used to prove that 20th century Englishmen (or at least 20th century English clerics) commonly went without underwear. Consequently, please tell us more about the illumination and in what context it was found. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 12:43:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jennifer E. Jobst" <jenj at cs.utexas.edu> To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Period Undergarments My persona is from the 1300's. From what I have seen with finds in the bogs and whatnot, most women seem to have worn a lighterweight chemise (the one I have seen was fairly wide-necked and sleeveless, about mid-thigh length) and nothing else underneath. Clothing for my period was fairly tight, with fitted undertunics often worn under a more volumous sideless surcote or other cote. While I usually wear a bra in mundane clothing, I find that if I fit my clothing well I really don't need a bra. I do, however, have a silk chemise which I usually wear with my wool cotehardies for comfort (and an extra layer of warmth). From what I can gather, many women layered their clothing because it was so much colder back then. As far as things worn on the lower half, I have found no references. Of course this does not mean they didn't exist. Someone pointed out that women do menstruate and it would be very messy if they weren't wearing SOMETHING underneath. If anyone has more detail on this I'd love to know. I've also seen a reference for a primitive corset made out of leather that was form-fitting, but not too tight. Whether or not this actually was the case I don't know, since the reference was in a book of wedding dolls from early greece to today. Anybody else got any info on this one? Jennifer Jobst University of Texas, Austin 475-9400 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:18:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Rooscc at aol.com To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: underthings thread Don't forget that cloth can be used in ways that don't count as *clothing*--i.e., constructed garments. A menstrual clout would be one example, but it may well be that women bound their breasts for certain activities or to accommodate certain fashions. References to the monthly use of rags--which were washed and reused--appear in modern literature up until very recently, but I have not found a medieval reference per se. I have found curious mention of the use of herbs as a "bed" for women--this is in Albert for example--in a context that makes me suspect that the Latin term should not be taken literally (that is, not the "bed" a person sleeps on). The herbs in question would not be absorbent but may indicate a deodorant or hygiene consideration. [My Latin just isn't strong enough to figure some of this out.] I also wonder if references to the "weakness" of women refers to menstrual cycles specifically. I read a polemic about women as university teachers which rested solely on this weakness, while admitting full competency in the subject matter to a particular woman scholar. A good bet for finding more on this would be rules for convents, but I don't know of any right off. Alysoun Middle Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 18:05:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "Shannon R. Ward" <sward02 at mail.coin.missouri.edu> To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Period Undergarments On Fri, 23 May 1997, mmy wrote concerning the Tres Riches Heures of the Duke of Berry, specifically the month of February: > However, in the same picture there are men working in the fields who > have wrapped the tails of their shirts through their legs and caught > the ends up in their belts. If they're wearing hose, as one might > expect, the bending over that they do in the course of their work > might expose them rather embarrassingly if they hadn't made this > arrangement with their shirt. Look further in this book to the month of June where the workers are havesting hay. Note the middle reaper is wearing a white shirt and what appear to be a pair of white skivies which start at the top of the thigh and appear to ride low on the hips. The third reaper also has short boxer-like undies, but it is harder to tell because of muddy colors (that eloborate gothic building in the background is Sainte-Chapelle for you architecture buffs out there). The same figure in white and his briefs are clearly see in the month of June. Now the September figure showing his tush in the vineyard might have his shirt tucked around and up between his legs, but as it is not a chilly scene and there are no gathers in the cloth, it would seem unlikely. But as we can't see the flesh of his hip, it is hard to tell. These seem to match the period men's underwear being sold at Pennsic one year. Does anyone have a pattern or remember who that merchant was? Tatiana Dieugarde who once almost had a heartattack when told her "smalls" were on the list field. The person apparently meant the "children". **whew!** Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:47:23 -0400 (EDT) From: ALBAN at delphi.com To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Period Undergarments Maggy Mulvaney suggested >>However, in the same picture there are men working in the fields who have wrapped the tails of their shirts through their legs and caught the ends up in their belts. If they're wearing hose, as one might expect, the bending over that they do in the course of their work might expose them rather embarrassingly if they hadn't made this arrangement with their shirt. << Did they fold their shirts under their belts for embarrassment's sake, or simply to get the shirt tails out from under their feet and out of their way? I've noticed, when I wear loose shirts with long tails, when I bend over as if gardening, and even more so if I'm on my knees, the shirt will hit the dirt quite often and soak up water and mud and such. If that were one of my only 2 or 3 shirts, you betcha I'd tuck it under the belt to keep it from getting too dirty. But then, I'd also likely tuck it in to keep from exposing myself.... Alban Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:32:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Marybeth Lavrakas <lavrakas at email.unc.edu> To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Breast support in garb [SCA] >I'm looking for breast support options for wearing under 5th century Irish >garb (linen tunic/bog dress styles). >Eachna ingen Gan Aimn - 5th century Irish Celt I sometimes use a cotton bra that is built rather like a sports bra--but it's not so tight. This provides decent enough support (and a little extra layer of camoflage if I'm wearing something a tad seethrough!), has very wide straps so they don't dig into my shoulders, and 'cause it's 100% cotton it breathes very nicely. I bought several of them a few years ago at Lane Bryant (large size chain store), but have been thinking of making one myself...um, maybe after I finish that overdress, and hem my leine, and sew the sleeves on that other dress... kathryn Rous Date: Tue, 12 May 98 09:12:41 CST From: <pwells at oknd.uscourts.gov> To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Breast support in garb [SCA] I wear a bustier under my chemises. If someone looks close enuff, you can see a few lines/seams, but I've been told it gives a delightful shape and cleavage. More importantly, it gives the necessary support. (I'm a "D" also.) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 07:23:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Sandy King <sandymail1 at yahoo.com> To: sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Re: Breast support in garb [SCA] I have experimented with a shelf-style bra and even separate bra cups (made for sewing into swimsuits), but have found they don't work too well in loose-fitting dresses. They do work somewhat better in tighter-fitting dresses, because the fit of the dress helps hold the bra in place. Have thought about sewing bra cups into a semi-fitted, sleeveless underdress made of thin cotton gauze, to minimize the layering/heat problem, but haven't tried this yet. My lord has (jokingly) suggested duct tape! (Apparently he DOES believe it will fix anything...) While some actresses actually do resort to tape (probably athletic tape) for support under tight/thin dresses, I'm not recommending it. But then, I haven't tried it, either! Caolan of Wolf Rock Calontir Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 07:45:44 -0700 From: "Melinda Shoop" <mediknit at nwinfo.net> To: <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: Re: Breast support in garb [SCA] I have heard, but not actually tried, that the binding of the breasts with an ace bandage is actually comfortable, and supports well. I recently tried going without a bra with my new Viking tunic and shift, and discovered that it was far more comfortable without the bra than with! And it fit better without the bra as well, even though I had made it to be worn with one. As an additional benefit, I found that the line of the garment was better, and hung more like the original. I guess that there weren't too many Viking women out there with DD bosoms!! Vigdis Bjornsdottir Date: Wed, 13 May 98 23:44:44 From: "Arianne de Dragonnid mka Grace Schosser-Payne" <arianne at trimaris.com> To: "sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu" <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: Re: Breast support in garb [SCA] On Tue, 12 May 1998 06:07:42 -0400, Gwen Morse wrote: >I'm looking for breast support options for wearing under 5th century Irish >garb (linen tunic/bog dress styles). <snip> >Surely there must be other women out there who yearn for "modern" support >under their "period" clothes? Any suggestions would be appreciated! ------------------- Good Gentles, First, let me mention that I have not tried the method I am about to suggest. Before my pregnancy, I was a B and could let them hang loose if I wanted to under the right outfit. Since then I've continually worn the best support I could find, period or not, so the extra weight wouldn't make them sag (my apologies to any lords reading this, but look at the subject line). I'm sure you know about the Greek form of the bra: a long strip of a soft cloth, wrapped around the breasts when compression was the style and just under when cleavage was. When I first joined, a large-breasted friend of mine suggested that as a period bra, although she suggested making attachable straps for it. Done in the right fabric, say a well-washed linen, this sounds like it would be quite comfortable. I would suggest making it long enough to go around twice and tie in front, whatever width you need in the center but tapering off until the ends are narrow enough to be tied together below the breasts without making a bulge. I would also suggest sewing the straps on in the back so you don't need help putting it on. If anyone tries this out or has better documentation for it, please let me know. After all these years, I'm seriously considering making one. Yours in the Dream, Arianne de Dragonnid From: rushmanj at expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jennifer Rushman) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: undergarments for ladies cotehardies Date: 15 Sep 1998 15:29:55 GMT Organization: Purdue University Eloise Beltz-Decker <eloise at ripco.com> writes: >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Carole & William wrote: >> I am looking for viable sources to make undergarments that will make my >> cotehardies look right. (Brassiere straps are just a little out of >> place!) If someone could guide me to either hard or electronic >> documentation I would be most grateful. In "Clothing and Textiles" there is an example of a 'chemise' to wear under a\ cotehardie. It is much like a slip. It has narrow shoulder straps, a scooped neck and backline and flares slightly. I have made myself an underdress that fits very closely and provides support to the bust. It sews shut on the side to improve the fit however, the period 'chemise' doesn't seem to have this. I think the 'chemise' was to act like an undershirt/slip and absorb sweat and allow a smoother line to the dress. I have found my underdress very valuable when wearing lightcolored cotehardies. Hope this helps you out. L. Clare Hele, Barony of Rivenstar, Middle Kingdom Jennifer Rushman, Graduate Student, Purdue University Go Boilers! From: geard at clear.net.nz (J Geard) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: undergarments for ladies cotehardies Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:56:27 GMT On 15 Sep 1998 15:29:55 GMT, rushmanj at expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jennifer Rushman) wrote: >In "Clothing and Textiles" there is an example of a 'chemise' to wear under a\ >cotehardie. It is much like a slip. It has narrow shoulder straps, a scooped >neck and backline and flares slightly. This sounds a lot like the clothing of bathkeepers shown in illuminations from the Bible of Wenceslas IV. Olga Sronkova, in _Gothic Women's Fashion_ (Prague: Artia, 1954) reproduces a number of pictures of bathkeepers, along with contemporary shots of women in childbed, as evidence for a garment which was probably the underwear of the late 14th century. It looks like a sleeveless cotehardi with shoulder straps. Alys le Chaunster From: tsunade at aol.com (Tsunade) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Fabric question? Date: 13 Oct 1998 03:12:29 GMT >Ronald Osborn wrote: >> I recently bought some wine-colored wool for an Elizabethan dress. >However, >> I am at a loss to decide what fabric to use for the underskirt. As this is >> only my second costume, what sort of fabric should I use for a noblewoman's >> chemise and underskirt? (Please keep in mind that I am still in high school, >> and my budget cannot afford silk right now. :) ) I am a big fan of "weaver's cloth" for making chemises out of. It runs about $3 a yard and is pure cotton. It has a more homespun look than broadcloth, and is available at just about anywhere fabric is sold. As for an underskirt, you can use just about anything in appropriate fabrics that will match the dress. If you are making an underskirt that fits your farthingale closely, you may want something stiffer(tapestry or brocade). If it's a more flowing underskirt, go with whatever will work and move nicely under the overskirt. Tsunade From: Eloise Beltz-Decker <eloise at ripco.com> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Petticoat problem Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:53:54 -0600 On 31 Oct 1999, JLNash55 wrote: > I have a small query about the Renaissance ladie's undergarments. The dates I > am interested in would be late 15th and early 16th century in countries such > as Italy and Germany. Specifically, I am trying to find out if ladies wore > anything under their dresses to "bell" the skirt out around their legs (such as > layered petticoats, the farthingale, etc.) I have found endless references for > the upper body but no information at all for undergarments of the lower body > and I want my dresses to fall right. From the paintings that I have seen it > seems that they must have used *something*. I would deeply appreciate any > information or direction that anyone could give me. Thank you all. Well, for Italy I have a cheap cotton skirt to wear under to help my outerskirts not to go between my legs when I walk. HOwever, German is a whole other thing, as my Guildmistress recently discovered. IF you make those pleats they wore about 12" deep, then roll the pleat like a cinnamon bun from tip to waistband, and then sew them on perpendicular like cartridge pleats, it's almost as good as having a wheel farthingale - and it looks *exactly* like the paintings. Anyone who saw TRM Arabella's stripey black-and-purple Germans that she wore to Midrealm Court at Pennsic has already seen what I mean. Eloise of Tree-Girt-Sea, who's putting a skirt like that on her next fancies. I want I want I want! :-> -- Eloise Beltz-Decker eloise at ripco.com http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~eloise/ ICQ #46704590 From: savaskan <savaskan at sd.znet.com> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Petticoat problem Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:49:33 -0800 Organization: Savaskan Anatolians Eloise Beltz-Decker wrote: > HOwever, German is a > whole other thing, as my Guildmistress recently discovered. IF you make > those pleats they wore about 12" deep, then roll the pleat like a > cinnamon bun from tip to waistband, and then sew them on perpendicular > like cartridge pleats, it's almost as good as having a wheel farthingale > - and it looks *exactly* like the paintings. But Germans should have a smooth cone shape, not a wheel farthingale shape. There is not a shelf at the waist where the pleats are attached. The pleats used in Germans are either, knife pleats, box pleats or organ-pipe pleats, which are cut on the round and shown in Blanche Payne, FIRST Edition (has diagram of bases done in organ pipe pleats from the period.) Juliana, OL, Caid Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:04:19 +0100 From: "Melanie Wilson" <MelanieWilson at bigfoot.com> To: <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: Re: Help needed-riding habits > So my question is: do you know what sort of crotches the > trousers worn under riding habits had? No crotch, buttoned, or sewn > as today? Since I've never ridden, I've no clue which would be more > comfortable and I'm not sure how much that would have mattered back then > anyway. Certainly most ladies hunting aside in my recollection use breeches as worn by men. In fact I'm pretty sure my side saddle books give pretty much those exact words (and most of them were written in victorian times) AS somebody who rides aside & wears victorian kit (not necessarily at the same time). A crotch is pretty essential IMHO. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere of ERI wearing leather breeches, fashioned after the male type for riding too. The crotchless knicks are esential for going to the loo in masses of petticoats etc, but as most of these were disposed of for riding & when riding to hounds , for instance, ones normal loo requirments tend to go in sweat ! Sorry that would be glow for victorians :) Hope that helps ? Mel From: gunnora at my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Any sources for migration era danish underwear? Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:39:59 GMT > RJ Bachner <trj at total.net> asked: > : I am looking for sources on Danish late migration era underwear > : as worn by late migration era danes. > : Did they wear underwear or did they go commando as it were? Tangwystyl answered: > Underwear tends to be a difficult topic to research (at least for many > eras and cultures) for two reasons: ordinary depictions of people in > ordinary circumstances will usually not show it, and in many cultures > the clothing layer nearest the skin was made out of (more > comfortable) plant fibers, which are less likely to survive in > archaeological contexts. <snippage> I wanted to clarify a little. What most modern people think of as "underwear" wasn't being worn until around the 1800s more or less. In general: No boxers. No panties. No bras. When we're talking about "medieval underwear" you're usually talking about a chemise on ladies, or a shirt on men, often made of linen as Tangwystyl mentioned. This would be the garment layer that kept the woolen layers off your skin. There doesn't appear to be a concern for "support garments" that kept the tender bits secure. So no, there were not Migration Age boxer shorts or briefs. Does this mean that the modern medievalist has to do without? Depends on your personal preference. For instance, in many layers of Viking Age women's dress, it can be a real challenge to hike everything up, then hike underthings down, prior to attending to matters in a privy. Sometimes you feel like before your're done adjusting layers the original matter you came to attend might become a moot point :-) That's why a lot of medievalist ladies don't wear modern underthings -- it's not for authenticity but because they're a pain to deal with. If you're really interested in trying the medieval way, I encourage you to try it. If you're chafing or things aren't being supported like you'd like, cheat a little and wear your modern underclothes layer for comfort. ::GUNNORA:: From: wtp at nds10758.cb.lucent.com (Powers) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Any sources for migration era danish underwear? Date: 13 Sep 2000 15:03:24 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus Ohio Gracious Gunnora; "Peasants Warriors and Wives" dealing with popular imagery of the reformation time period has quite a few depictations of undergarments (men and women fighting over who would wear the (under) pants in the family). Most of them appear to be simple rectangles of cloth with a tie at each corner. Not high middle ages but not 18th century either. Thomas -- Powers,W.Thomas x6895 From: <hrjones at socrates.Berkeley.EDU> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Any sources for migration era danish underwear? Date: 13 Sep 2000 17:44:33 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley gunnora at my-deja.com wrote: :> RJ Bachner <trj at total.net> asked: :> : I am looking for sources on Danish late migration era underwear :> : as worn by late