underwear-msg - 9/22/14

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: <removed at request of the author>
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 separate 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

>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

<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

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 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.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this characterization (the more
general one about "underwear wasn't worn until the 19th century"), unless
you mean to refer to the specific forms of modern garments.  In the sorts
of contexts I mentioned above, there are plenty of artistic
representations of men -- and occasionally women** -- wearing what can
only reasonably be described as "underpants".  That is, a garment
primarily designed to cover (and protect?) the genitalia region, which was
not normally expected to be visible as an outer garment.  Of course, we
have artistic evidence of it because sometimes it _was_ visible, but the
conditions under which people are shown with "underpants" visible make it
fairly clear that they are special and fairly limited circumstances.  The
coverage and nature of garments in this general class can vary a fair
amount, and we don't have artistic evidence from _every_ pre-1600 culture
that specifically addresses the question.  But we do have evidence from
enough various cultures spread over space and time that it could easily be
as reasonable a presupposition that a culture _did_ have some garment of
this sort as that it didn't (in cases where there is no direct evidence).

What I'm objecting to, is the impression given by your response that
nobody before the 19th century had any garment that could fall in the
functional category "underwear".  I don't think this was what you meant to
say, but it's how the average person is likely to read it.

** I have a little "picture file" collected of medieval European artwork
showing "women in underpants".  It isn't very large, but there _is_ stuff
in it.  In addition to the factors that women (when wearing skirts) can
find the no-underpants state more convenient, and have less "need" of a
layer to prevent chafing against pant-like outer garments, one can't
entirely discount the greater historic tendency for artists to present
women -- far more frequently than men -- in a state of complete nudity.

Tangwystyl
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones         hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************


From: <hrjones at socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Any sources for migration era danish underwear?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 17:48:11 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

Powers <wtp at nds10758.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
: 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.

On the other hand, this is a case where we have to examine carefully what
the the artistic representation is trying to "say".  The old saw about
"who wears the pants in the family" is specifically and explicitly about
women "usurping a man's rightful place" by appropriating a specifically
masculine garment.  So, while this particular motif (and I've seen a fair
numbers of examples of it) is useful evidence about the nature of _men's_
garments, it is less clear that it says anything about _women's_ garments.

Tangwystyl
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones         hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************


From: sergei592 at aol.com (Sergei592)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Any sources for migration era danish underwear?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 20:21:04 GMT

NO underwear till the 1800s? Ewww! That explains the Middle English jingle 'he
that scytteth with his hole/But he wippe it klene/On his britches it shall be
sene'.

Sometimes change IS really progress.


Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:41:11 +1030
From: Rebecca Tonkin <rebecca.tonkin at student.adelaide.edu.au>
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: 14th C underwear

While looking through the books in the library
in search of women's 14th C underwear, I came across
"A history of the breast" by Marilyn Yalom, 1997.
In it (ch2) she quotes the 14th c poet Eustache Deschamps
as recommending sewing into one's dress "2 pouches into
which the breasts are squeezed... and thrust upwards"
(quote). The source is given as "cited in J Houdoy,
<La beaute' des femmes dans la litterature et dans
l'art du VIIe au XVIe siecles>, p 60-61".

Does anyone know if this is a reliable source ?

It sounds like a kind of built in breast support in
the undergarment, which could be rather useful 
as an alternative to corsets or bandages, 
but as I do not read French I don't know how to 
document it further...
Any thoughts appreciated.
Rebecca.


From: ghelena661 at aol.com (Ghelena661)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: 27 Nov 2001 10:42:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Elizabethan Men's Underclothes?

     According to Janet Arnold in her book Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd,
it is doubtfull that people in Eliz. times wore underwear as we know it.  I am
refering to 'tighty whiteys', BVDs, Hanes, ect.  I personally do not wear
modern underwear underneath my garb because I find it uncomfortable.

     There are a couple of sets of bottoms style underwear in the QEW, but
Arnold believes that they were worn by sick or infirm people and not every day
folk.  Queen Elizabeth's wardrobe was very well documented for expense purposes
and there are no drawers bought, made, or given to her.  Some really personal
stuff was listed (portable toilets are my favorite aka 'closed stool'), there
would have been no proprietary reason not to list drawers.

     In answer to your question, I think you can safely wear any sort of
underwear you like and feel comfortable in.  Since Eliz. men often laced thier
breeches to thier doublets, there was no fear of thier pants coming down
unexpectedly.  You may find it easier not to wear modern underwear.  Frankly,
it is much easier to visit the restroom without it.  Mundane undies also bind
and chafe a little under some period clothing.

May your threads never tangle,
Roxanne Greenstreet


From: Heather Rose Jones <hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Elizabethan Men's Underclothes?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:50:59 -0800
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Ghelena661 wrote:
>      According to Janet Arnold in her book Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd,
> it is doubtfull that people in Eliz. times wore underwear as we know it.  I am
> refering to 'tighty whiteys', BVDs, Hanes, ect.  I personally do not wear
> modern underwear underneath my garb because I find it uncomfortable.
> 
>      There are a couple of sets of bottoms style underwear in the QEW, but
> Arnold believes that they were worn by sick or infirm people and not every day
> folk.  Queen Elizabeth's wardrobe was very well documented for expense purposes
> and there are no drawers bought, made, or given to her.  Some really personal
> stuff was listed (portable toilets are my favorite aka 'closed stool'), there
> would have been no proprietary reason not to list drawers.

On the other hand, this is the inventory records for a woman, and the
question was about men's underclothes, so the conclusions may not transfer.

I would be extremely surprised to discover that Elizabethan men did not
wear any "underpants", since this would be a complete change from what
we see in artistic representations of semi-dressed men through the
centuries up to that date.  On the other hand, I would be unsurprised to
discover that Elizabethan _women_ did not wear "underpants", since the
evidence for women's underpants in centuries leading up to then is
scanty to non-existent.

Tangwystyl
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu
*********


From: Nils K Hammer <nh0g+ at andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Elizabethan Men's Underclothes?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:34:22 -0500
Organization: Csd Education - Phd, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I know a historian who has woodcuts showing boxers when the
wind lifts up peoples kilts. As for the guys who wear tights
that go all the way up, they can't have anything on their
behinds, since huge numbers of life size renn. paintings seem
to concentrate on mens rears in great detail, and no lines
are showing.

Nils


From: Heather Rose Jones <hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Elizabethan Men's Underclothes?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:52:56 -0800
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Nils K Hammer wrote:
> I know a historian who has woodcuts showing boxers when the
> wind lifts up peoples kilts. As for the guys who wear tights
> that go all the way up, they can't have anything on their
> behinds, since huge numbers of life size renn. paintings seem
> to concentrate on mens rears in great detail, and no lines
> are showing.

But there are also huge numbers of Renaissance paintings of men with
joined hose where the points have been partially unlaced and you can see
underwear where the top of the hose is sagging.  (For some reason,
portrayals of the soldiers involved in the crucifixion habitually
feature this sloppiness of dress.) Keep in mind that these are generally
hose cut from woven fabric, not thin knit like modern tights.  I doubt
that they would show "panty lines" much.

Tangwystyl
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu
*********


From: zebee at zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Elizabethan Men's Underclothes?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:16:52 GMT

In rec.org.sca on Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:40:19 -0500
Nils K Hammer <nh0g+ at andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>cool, I have got to see more art.
>
>Anybody know where we should look to solve the great
>question of our day, whether the boxers had a fly?

The only pics I've seen that show umm.. access provisions are the
aforementioned y-fronts.   They seem to have a horizontal seam about
where y-fronts do.  Whether they functioned as y-fronts are supposed
to [1] isn't clear as while Renaissance artists did delineate the male
form in loving detail, there are some things even they didn't consider
suitable for chapel ceilings.

Be interesting to know when the fly came about!  Presumably after the
18thC drop front, but what did your average 18thC gent wear under his
drop front pantaloons?  Drop front boxers?

I recall a set of interviews with people who had been born around
1900.  That generation had seen so many changes, the interviewer asked
which ones had affected them most.

One woman said "elastic".  Made underwear so much easier to get on
with.

Silfren

[1] A quick survey of local male aquaintance indicated that of those
who admitted to having worn y-fronts, none of them used them the way
they were intended...


From: ghelena661 at aol.com (Ghelena661)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: 02 Dec 2001 13:15:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Elizabethan Men's Underclothes?

There is a photograph of short underwear in the Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe
Unlock'd.  There is another photograph of a long version.  Arnold believed that
the short pair were for men and the long ones for women.  Once again, Arnold
did not believe they were a common item worn by either sex in the late 1500's.

     Also, by 1580 the codpiece was going out of fashion.  It was replaced by a
button front fly.  Please refer to Patterns of Fashion by Janet Arnold. 
Curiously enough the buttons that were used were very small and set close
together.

May your threads never tangle,
Roxanne Greenstreet


From: Heather Jones <hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Female underwear in the 12th century
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:26:14 -0800
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Julie wrote:
> Does anyone happen to know whether women in the 11th or 12th century wore
> underwear? (I'm thinking England, specifically, either Saxon or Norman.)
> I'm not talking about a shirt or a chemise, but something similar to
> breeches for men.  Actually, if anyone knows whether women wore anything on
> their upper legs under their regular clothes, that would be really helpful.

Current research indicates that, in Europe at this period (in
fact, pretty much going up to the 16th century), it was not the
norm for women to wear anything identifiable as underpants.  In
fact, it was so not the norm that the motif of "women wearing
underpants" is used as a symbol of an unacceptable appropriation
by women of male attributes.  For this reason, whenever this
topic comes up, there will be a number of images offered in
evidence that purport to show medieval European women wearing
underpants ... and every image of this type that I have ever
become aware of can be identified as "a woman appropriating male
attributes, as indicated by the wearing of underpants".  It makes
it a rather complicated topic to discuss, particularly since the
images offered in evidence have often been removed from their
original context.

Whether or not you choose to wear underpants yourself is, of
course, a personal decision, but it would not appear to be
historically accurate for the context.

Tangwystyl
(who may be presenting an academic paper on this very topic ....)


From: Heather Jones <hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Female underwear in the 12th century
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:54:37 -0800
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Cynthia Virtue wrote:
> Heather Jones wrote:
> > fact, it was so not the norm that the motif of "women wearing
> > underpants" is used as a symbol of an unacceptable appropriation
> > by women of male attributes.
> 
> Is your conclusion that any sort of underwear fits this category, not
> merely the difference between a woman in panties and one in men's briefs?

I want to qualify the scope of what I'm talking about fairly
precisely.  By "medieval" I'm not covering the Roman Empire
material (where we have both pictorial and archaeological
evidence for women wearing "bikini underpants") and not covering
the Renaissance evidence (which I believe is still a subject of
some debate) that may support a "bloomer" like" underpants for
women.  I'm also specifically covering Christian Europe (noting
that, at the same period, trousers were obligatory, rather than
forbidden, for women in many Islamic cultures).

Within that scope, I know of no evidence of women wearing
underpants that does not fall in one of the known genres of
"women appropriating men's attributes".  Some of these known
genres include:

- Depictions of legendary or mythological figures notorious for
appropriating male characteristics, e.g., Queen Semiramis.

- Depictions of proverbial sayings or motifs, including the image
of "the fight over who wears the pants in the family" (to put it
in the modern expression), e.g., several carved misericordes with
this motif.

- Depictions of cross-dressing saints (although I'm not certain
that I've seen any showing underpants specifically); this is an
entire genre of early saints involving women who typically run
away from forced marriages to pass as male hermits or monastics.

Tangwystyl


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: djheydt at kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
Subject: Re: Female underwear in the 12th century
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:15:26 GMT

Heather Jones  <hrjones at socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Current research indicates that, in Europe at this period (in
>fact, pretty much going up to the 16th century), it was not the
>norm for women to wear anything identifiable as underpants.  In
>fact, it was so not the norm that the motif of "women wearing
>underpants" is used as a symbol of an unacceptable appropriation
>by women of male attributes.  For this reason, whenever this
>topic comes up, there will be a number of images offered in
>evidence that purport to show medieval European women wearing
>underpants ... and every image of this type that I have ever
>become aware of can be identified as "a woman appropriating male
>attributes, as indicated by the wearing of underpants".  It makes
>it a rather complicated topic to discuss, particularly since the
>images offered in evidence have often been removed from their
>original context.

I can think of one exception.  The calendar page for February in
the _Tres Riches Heures_ shows a snowy scene outdoors, and
indoors three farmfolk warming themselves by the fire.  The woman
has hiked up her skirts to warm her legs, and she is wearing
braies or something like them.  The men have hiked up their
tunics for the same purpose, and they are not wearing any
underwear at all.  (I suspect they had been wearing braies and
hosen, but took them off when they came indoors, possibly to dry
them.)  This doesn't have the feel of "world turned upside down
signalled by woman wearing braies."  Merely of "Gee whiz it's
cold and damp out there, much better to sit indoors by the fire."

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt at kithrup.com	


From: "Adam Rezzelle" <arezzelle at rarezzelle.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Female underwear in the 12th century
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:56:32 -0500

You can see that here:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/images/heures/february.jpg
-- 
Rory
BorderVale Keep

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt at kithrup.com> wrote 
> I can think of one exception.  The calendar page for February in
> the _Tres Riches Heures_ shows a snowy scene outdoors, and
> indoors three farmfolk warming themselves by the fire.  The woman
> has hiked up her skirts to warm her legs, and she is wearing
> braies or something like them.  The men have hiked up their
> tunics for the same purpose, and they are not wearing any
> underwear at all.  (I suspect they had been wearing braies and
> hosen, but took them off when they came indoors, possibly to dry
> them.)  This doesn't have the feel of "world turned upside down
> signalled by woman wearing braies."  Merely of "Gee whiz it's
> cold and damp out there, much better to sit indoors by the fire."
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djheydt at kithrup.com


Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 21:00:29 -0500
From: Cynthia Virtue <cvirtue at thibault.org>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Female underwear in the 12th century

Of course, the TRH stuff is 300 years later than the lady's inquiry.

Some think that nothing was worn, even for menstruation, that the 
shift/chemise took care of it.  This site which discusses it, may be of 
interest:  http://www.mum.org/whatwore.htm
-- 
Cynthia Virtue and/or
Cynthia du Pré Argent


From: Sunny Briscoe <sunnyday72 at gmail.com>
Date: September 20, 2006 8:30:36 PM CDT
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Undergarments and stuff

On the realm of Venus website, there are images to a couple of pairs of
women's underpants.
http://realmofvenus.renaissancewoman.net/wardrobe/extdraw1.htm  Some of her
images come from the books "Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd" and "A
History of Underclothes"

Supposedly there is commentary (I have only heard about this, but haven't
seen it for myself yet) about how the only thing that should be between a
women's legs is her husband, that women shouldn't wear underpants, because
whores do, etc...  My understanding of human nature is that we don't
complain about stuff that people aren't doing (Ben Franklin's comment would
not have made sense unless at least some women were wearing underpants of
some sort).  My understanding of the female body is that we very much want
some sort of underpants - women are messy.

There is a reference to Eleonora di Toledo's underpants.  She had several
pair in her wardrobe, and at least one fur lined (blech!) pair. in the book
"Moda a Firenze 1540-1580: Lo stile de Eleonora di Toledo e la sua
influezea"

I don't believe it's unreasonable to assume that women's underpants would
follow a similar form as men's fashions either.

Elisabetta Morosini

On 9/20/06, mikea <mikea at mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:58:49PM -0500, Marc Carlson wrote:
>> I'd like to thank folks who've offered suggestions on where to research this
>> topic, but honestly that wasn't what I was writing for earlier.  I've been
>> researching this topic for a long time now, so when I say that there aren't
>> any extant examples, I mean it.  All we have are pictures and guesses.
>>
>> BTW, Michael, I suspect that the picture you are describing (folio 2v
>> "February") could be showing any number of things - particularly with the
>> peasant working in the field with his skirts tucked up and showing *his*
>> braes.  My take on it is that he's shed his undergarments to help get warm.
>
> Certainly could be the case, and I've wondered about that, but _why_
> would he want the wind whistling around his goolies while he was
> trying to use radiant heat to warm 'em? Self-defeating. Could be some
> artistic license. Sample of one: not enough to draw _any_ sort of
> general conclusion from.
> --
> Mike Andrews        /   Michael Fenwick    Barony of Namron, Ansteorra
> mikea at mikea.ath.cx  /   Amateur Extra radio operator W5EGO
> Tired old music Laurel; Journeyman Chirurgeon; SCAdian since AS XI


To: Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com
Subject: New Janet Arnold Book and Underwear as Outerwear
Posted by: "Folo Watkins" folo at advancenet.net   folo01
Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:58 am (PDT)

Totally oop for us in Regia but possibly of interest to y'all, this 
just came over the Aussie Living History list:

"This modern fashion trend [of underwear as outerwear], which seems 
to us to reflect our more easy-going attitudes to our bodies, is 
strikingly similar to the layering and glimpsing of undergarments of 
English 16th and early 17th Century costume.

"This week sees the posthumous publication of the fourth volume in 
the great costume historian Janet Arnold's meticulously detailed 
series, Patterns of Fashion.

"Having documented every item of outer clothing for the period, 
Arnold has turned her attention to Tudor and Stuart underwear. The 
book is sumptuously illustrated with photographs of surviving items 
of the clothing our forebears wore next to the skin, including 
gorgeous detail of lavish embroidery, lace-work and stitching. And it 
shows clearly the ways in which men and women of substance also 
enjoyed letting their expensive underwear show.

"Indeed, the most striking difference between underwear-flaunting 
then and now seems to have been that in Tudor times, it was not only 
women, but men too who adopted fashion designs which allowed them to 
reveal their undergarments."

The full story--with illos of Elizabethan fashion--is at 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7689554.stm

Cheers, Folo
www.micelfolcland.org


To: Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: New Janet Arnold Book and Underwear as Outerwear
Posted by: "Terri Morgan" online2much at cox.net   thatdamehrothny
Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:13 am (PDT)

It is a great book and has totally changed my idea of how to put together
shirts and chemises. In fact, now I *have* to make a little shirt, just to
play with the seams!

Hrothny, whose apprentice has an advance copy and lets her read it (wheeee!)


To: Authentic_SCA at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: New Janet Arnold Book and Underwear as Outerwear
Posted by: "kittencat3 at aol.com" kittencat3 at aol.com   elllid
Date: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:29 pm (PDT)

<<< Ooh! Sounds intriguing! What's the earliest chemise in it, do you remember?
Leonor, being tempted... >>>

The dates on the book are 1560-1620, I believe.

Also, since Arnold helped to restore them, this will likely contain the 
details on the Medici grave clothes, including Eleanora of Toledo's pair of 
bodies. Should be quite fascinating.

Sarah Davies


To: gleannabhann at yahoogroups.com
Subject: For those costumer people
Posted by: "davidduggar" ddugga at lsuhsc.edu davidduggar
Date: Mon May 16, 2011 8:49 am ((PDT))

The April 15, 2011 issue of Library Journal lists in its "Best of 2010: Reference" column the following book:

Cole, Shaun. The Story of Men's Underwear. Parkstone Intl. 255p. illus. bibliog. ISBN 9781859956229. $39.95.
No book on this list drew as much fanfare as this first serious reference work on men's underwear. From the loin cloths recovered from King Tut's tomb to the enhancement styles of Andrew Christian and the playful patterns of ginch Gonch, Cole describes the shift of men's underwear from its original utilitarian purpose to today's attention-seeking designer waistbands. Also covered are European codpieces; union suits first made by BVD in 1876; briefs, which showed up in France in 1906; and the creative genius of Calvin Klein's 1980s marketing campaign. Lavish full-color illustrations (many from period paintings or advertisements), a glossary, and bibliography complete the work.


This may be a good source for documentation (or to other good references in its bibliography) for those looking at costuming in men's undergarments. Check your public and academic libraries.(Only 4 months till Kingdom A&S).

Rory (librarian)


Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:08:38 -0400
From: Marie Stewart <maricelt at gmail.com>
To: Atlantia - MerryRose <atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
Subject: [MR] Research WOW: Medieval Underwear - for Women found.

Hi folks.
I'm almost incoherent with excitement.
but check out the link to the Daily mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Found-castle-vault-scraps-lace-lingerie-rage-500-years-ago.html

And the one to the NESAT article:
http://www.nesat.org/abstracts/lecture_nutz.pdf

Bridgette


Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:12:15 +0000
From: Lena Schlena <schlena at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] period ladies underwear
To: <lochac at lochac.sca.org>

Altho I reside on Lochac's western coast these days, I happen to be from Austria and just looked this issue up on google.
I came across the website of the castle Lengenberg itself, which states the same information about the underwear as the UK newspaper article: 

http://www.schloss-lengberg.at/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=68

The download page of this website has a document about the finds:
http://www.schloss-lengberg.at/index.php?option=com_ionfiles&view=tmpl&Itemid=70

This document (p.2) states that the find included:Hundreds of silver and brass coinsOver a hundred coloured playing cards and other gaming implements (including 4 german games)GlassDifferent wooden containers and implementsImported ceramics, for example from SpainRemains of clothing, bags, and weaponsA great amount of leather shoes (from children, women, men)50 scrollsA one-handed wooden flute
There are other articles on this website as well, one stating that Beatrix Nutz, the lady who is cited by the UK newspaper article, has written a dissertation on the female underwear since.

If there is interest, I can translate the documents on the website and do some research regarding said dissertation.
Kind regards,
Helena Scheithauer


Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karen <karen_larsdatter at yahoo.com>
To: The Merry Rose <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
Subject: Re: [MR] medieval underware

We've been chatting about this find over at the Armour Archive as well -- the surviving "undies" are apparently a bit too wide for a woman, and seem to resemble what we see in some men's undergarments of the time.

Regarding menstruation, you may want to read the Trotula (see http://amzn.to/SGmOQL for an English translation); there are also some related quotes from various medieval English health manuals at
http://www.livinghistory.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=20706&start=30

Karen Larsdatter
www.larsdatter.com


Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:34:46 -0400
From: Marie Stewart <maricelt at gmail.com>
To: Atlantia - MerryRose <atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
Subject: [MR] More information on medieval undies discovered in
	Austria.

Found another link of interest.
http://medievalhistories.com/medieval-lingerie/

Happy Hunting.
Bridgette

<the end>
Edited by Mark S. Harris	underwear-msg	Page 38 of 38