|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
| | | | |
| | [[Under Shirt]] | | [[Under Shirt]] |
| − |
| |
| − | Although often completely hidden by outer garments, its necessity in this age before hot baths, cheap soap, and washing machines is obvious to anyone who has worn a wool suit jacket. There are occasional glimpses of coloured and even embroidered undersleeves poking out from cuffs; however, bearing in mind that this would probably be the most-washed garment on the body, I find it highly unlikely that these are glimpses of the undermost shirt. It is possible that these are sometimes faux-sleeves.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Fashion is conservative, usually differing more in minor hem length and tailoring than in actual innovation, even between generations. The garment in question here was not even meant to be seen by anyone beyond the immediate household. When the outer tunics are being cut with rectangular sleeves + square gores, it is a sure bet that the underwear is no fancier. But what about during the cotehardie craze (c 1350-1450), when 'Cut Was King'? Wouldn't a square-cut sleeve produce unsightly bunching, when milady was tightly laced into her sensuously-curved cotehardie top?
| |
| − | The cost of a tailored sleeve is two-fold: tailoring time and wasted material. A T-tunic can be cut without any waste at all. The burial shirt of Saint Louis shows that scraps cut from the neckhole were cleverly fashioned into neckline facing and gores for the armscye (the armpit region of the sleeve).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Personal experience in the SCA shows that underneath most lined cotehardies, armscye bunching does not show through. Under heavy fabric (velvet, heavy jacquards, fustian, etc), this would certainly be true. Relatively square sleeves and body patterns were de rigueur in the previous century, and were haute couture in the poofy-shirt era of the next century.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The shirt never needs to be so well tailored in the chest that it would require lacing or buttoning, nor have I ever seen a depiction of such a medieval shirt. A simple linen shirt, spreading out comfortably from the mid-point of the armscye, can be worn with a simple lace or button at the throat to close the collar. In order to protect high outer collars from sweat, a courtier would need a shirt that had a collar as well (although it might be a simple standing collar). If any mere shirts did have a button closure, the buttons were most likely handmade fabric ball-buttons. This is an age where a gift of some pins was the romantic equivalent of a bouquet of flowers; metal was not cheap, and neither were horn buttons.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The shirt appears to show at the cuff and hems of 11th through 13th c garments, even for the well-to-do. Sometime after this, it appears to be banished from the view of polite society until the Renaissance. There is still some argument for men's shirts retaining enough length to cover the crotch, even after outer hemlines rose. A crotch-length tunic is far warmer in the privy and while dressing, and it is at these moments (experience shows) that every bit counts. It's a simple matter to hike a longer shirt up underneath a fitted cotehardie, out of sight. In fact, as the painting of the execution to the right reveals (from an edition of Froissart's Chronicles, c1425), both generous sleeves and long hems could be hidden beneath tightly tailored clothing.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Padded, Doubled, & Fitted [[Undertunics]]: Gypons/Jupons/Paltocks/Gambesons/Doublets
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As mentioned in the previous section on Hosen, in the late 14th c the hemlines rose so high that it was necessary to tie them to an outer garment. This temporarily relieved tailors of the problem presented by fitting garments over the seat; hosen tied to a shirt had more room to move and stretch (from the shoulders) than if they were still tied to the waist. It also provided surer modesty and warmth, since it ensured there would be no gapping at the waistline. By the 15th c, this garment had migrated from under- to outer wear.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A simple shirt would not hold up to the daily tugging of points from a pair of hosen. The undertunic, which had become fitted along the lines of the cotehardie, was rugged enough for the task, and was outfitted with 4-6 or more pairs of holes through which the points of the hosen were passed & tied. As mentioned earlier, a medieval technique for making strong holes in fabric was to spread the threads out from a single "gap" in the weave with radial button stitches; thus, the fabric is never cut. It is reasonable to assume this buttonhole technique was also used here, to pass braided cords through.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Supposedly, this garment became heavily padded in the chest during the last decade of the 14th c, producing the "pigeon-breasted" apearance of young dandies seen in illustrations of King Richard II's court. I have been unable to conclusively verify this super-padding. In civilian garments; it may merely be an artistic convention, like the demi-grapefruit breasts which mysteriously grew from the chests of virgins in this period. On the other hand, this huge chest effect of young dandies continues into the Lancastrian regime, with seam details that were missing in most of these Richard II-era depictions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The corresponding military garment, the gambeson, was certainly padded. The very word "gambeson" comes from the Anglo-Norman French word gambeisé, "quilted".
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Women's Underdresses]] | | [[Women's Underdresses]] |
| | | | |
| − | Women's underdresses begin as loose-fitting shirts or chemises, probably cut simply to a T-tunic shape (i.e., without gussets). In the 12th & 13th c we see the loose, flowing bliauts bound just beneath the breasts with wide belts. The usual interpretation is that this "high-waisting" caused the dress to billow out over the belly, suggesting continual pregnancy and thus fertility. To appreciate this, we must free ourselves from the rather recent notion that "Thin Is In", and remember that the goal of any married couple was to have enough children to overcome infant (and maternal) mortality, with enough progeny to carry out the family chores. Men often remarried multiple times, in an age when divorce was unheard of. However, there may be one more practical reason for high-belting which I have never heard discussed. Underneath that freely-flowing bliaut was loose-fitting chemise, and under that, bare skin. Belting beneath the bosom cinched the breasts in place, providing support in a day when there was nothing yet resembling a brassiere to support the weight.
| + | [[Corsets]] / [[Bodices]] / [[Pair of Bodies]] |
| − | | |
| − | 13th c undersleeves scoop out of the external sleeves to envelope the hands of wealthy women. This serves a double purpose, to emphasize the class distinction from those who labour with their hands, and to protect costly embroidered sleeve cuffs from grease and grime. Clean, bleached linen cuffs could be easily replaced by the wealthy, recycled into lesser uses.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | By the 14th c they began wearing an under-[[cotehardie]] beneath the visible cotehardie; i.e., an undergarment became more highly fitted so as to not produce unsightly wrinkles in the sexy form of the tight cotehardies. Modern reenactors (of both sexes) can attest to how readily a fitted cotehardie of cotton or linen reveals bulges from underlying modern underwear. "Panty lines" from bulky underclothes which today are mildly unfashionable might have been unthinkably vulgar to a Medieval woman. This garment is not necessarily the innermost layer, by the previous arguments in the Shirt section. Instead, they might have been wearing a shirt of fine cloth, covered by a smoothing under-cotehardie, and finally an outer garment; in the manner of modern panties (for comfort & cleanliness), a slip (for smoothing), and a skirt (for show).
| |
| − | | |
| − | By the end of the 14th c we begin to see evidence of an underdress made of fine or sheer cloth peeking out of the bustlines and sleeves. Another glimpse of these delicate underdresses is found in depictions of nursing mothers, as with the Madonna (1453-4) by Jean Fouquet, where the underdress is almost sheer. Pictures of bathhouse attendant women appear in the Wenceslas Bible, made in Bohemia c1390-1400. These women were regarded in their day as being of dubious moral nature, or perhaps outright prostitutes, and are presumed to be dressed in contemporary underclothes (a rare Medieval instance of eroticizing underclothing).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Corsets / Bodices / Pair of Bodies
| |
| − | | |
| − | We will deal only briefly with this topic, as it is probably entirely post-Medieval. Janet Arnold, the renowned expert on Elizabethan clothing, proposes that the earliest remaining corset in England is from Queen Elizabeth's effigy in Westminster Abbey. Evidence exists for corseting as early as the beginning of the 16th c Various authors have explored the possibility that the narrow, stylized female torsos of the 15th c were the resulting of corseting; most conclude that if any restriction was used it was achieved by tight-lacing cotehardies.
| |
| | | | |
| | Bumrolls | | Bumrolls |
| | | | |
| | Believe it or not, there is at least one piece of evidence that this "figure aid" is Medieval. There is a diatribe by an English bishop against women who wear foxtails beneath their cotehardies, supplementing what Nature gave them! | | Believe it or not, there is at least one piece of evidence that this "figure aid" is Medieval. There is a diatribe by an English bishop against women who wear foxtails beneath their cotehardies, supplementing what Nature gave them! |
| | + | ===Links=== |
| | + | *[http://www.vertetsable.com/demos_underwear.htm Link to patterns and history of trews]. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Category:Garb]][[Category:Garb Undergarments]] |
Why We Wear Underclothing:
- Warmth
- Cleanliness (protect the outer, better garments from soiling)
- Shaping of the body (brassieres, corsets, foxtails, tightly fitting men's hosen)
- Control (restriction of the breasts and male pouch)
- Decorum
Rarity of Evidence from Period
Medieval underclothing was generally covered by outerwear almost as thoroughly as modern underclothing, but with a much lighter restriction on its display. Thus, we do have illustrations of workers at hard labour wearing nothing more than their "underclothes". Prisoners were displayed in their underclothing as a debasement, so paintings depicting the execution of contemporary notorious figures such as religious heretics and the Master of the Knights Templar provide rare complete views of these garments.
We occasionally get glimpses of the edges of these garments, as during periods when the undertunic peeks out from the sleeves or neckline of the outer wear, or through the slits in the bottom hem of tunics, but it is difficult to glean much more information than length out of these.
Since the Medievals did not seem to attach much erotic importance to underclothing, there are few "titillation" depictions of these, even in religious allegories of damnation. Lovers in bed are invariably depicted naked except for nightcaps. The damned in hell are typically portrayed either nude (naked and defenseless), or wearing the excessively rich and vain clothes for which they were condemned (exemplifying the mortal sin of vanities).
Materials
Linen was often chosen for comfort in garments worn next to the skin. It was easy to bleach: laid in the sun wet, UV light will oxidize the water and bleach the fabric (when laid out dry in UV, the plant fiber oxidizes instead, turning it yellow). However, this was still a luxury item: sunning linen would occupy scads of sunlit, flat, and presumably arable land.
Woolen undergarments appear in various references, which offered the sensibility of additional warmth at the cost of comfort; thus, there are occasional references to class distinctions, with the rich preferring linen underclothes. There are also admonitions to wear sensible wool for undergarments, instead of bowing to the (supposedly) unhealthy fashion to wear finer cloths.
Blended textiles were very common (e.g., fustian is sometimes described as a wool/silk blend), and might have made a pleasant compromise in warmth and comfort. Linen/wool underclothing is therefore believable, although I have never heard evidence of such. There are also references to linen linings for wool hosen.
Silk was tremendously costly, and, as today, was rarely used for garments which were not meant to be seen (modern erotic underwear does not meet this criterion). For hosen, however, there are some rare references to its use. Henry VIII ordered silk hosen to be made for his sister.
Cotton was probably not used at this time for underclothes. Although imported to Europe by at least the 13th c (from India and Arabia), it seems to have been prohibitively expensive. It is frankly poorly suited to these uses: it shrinks tremendously in washing, and continues to shrink, making it poorly suited to tightly fitted hosen (wool fibers stretch and relax back to near original size); it retains moisture, making it a poor insulator and a good rotter; it weakens when wet; it stains easily. Bear in mind when reading sources from our period that until the 18th c the term "cotton" or "coton" could refer to any of: wool fiber, cotton (plant) fiber, or various specific cloths made of wool or cotton or both.
Knitting is almost never mentioned in the manufacture of any garments except headgear, prior to the 16th c. Queen Elizabeth received a gift of knitted hosen from Spain, which quickly became the height of fashion for the well-to-do; the implication is that knitted hosen were unknown in England prior to this, and her father wore hosen cut of broadcloth.
German references mention the use of knitting to make berets, hats, and stockings (according to a post to H-Costume by Julie Adams dated Mon, 9 Oct 95 [Textilier Hausrat]). Apparently, the English were far behind the Germans and Spaniards in this regard. One member of H-Costume offered a plausible excuse for why it took so long before Europeans, who knew how to knit in various forms throughout the Medieval period, used it for hosen. After all, knitted items are extremely springy, waste no thread, and can form seamlessly fitted hosen; knitting seems ideally suited for hosen. However, she explained that in the time that it took her to knit one inch of a leg-sized tube, she could weave one foot of woolen cloth.
Under Shirt
Women's Underdresses
Corsets / Bodices / Pair of Bodies
Bumrolls
Believe it or not, there is at least one piece of evidence that this "figure aid" is Medieval. There is a diatribe by an English bishop against women who wear foxtails beneath their cotehardies, supplementing what Nature gave them!
Links
