New discoveries in--ahem--medieval underwear

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by veinglory

Couldn't the same be said of modern bras?

True, but back then all clothing was handsewn and hand decorated. The amount of hand labor was incredible, and they only did it where they had to. Nothing was decorated unless it was to be seen.

Some underwear back then had elaborate embroidery, but it was usually on the cuffs and collar of chemises and shirts, the parts that would show when one was dressed.

Evidence exists that fancy brocade underskirts were sometimes no more than a strip of fabric at the bottom of an otherwise plain petticoat, that fancy brocade sleeves which showed were sometimes tied onto a plain underdress or kirtle.

Under the circumstances, if I see a decorated garment from the Renaissance, I'm going to assume it was meant to be seen.

These days embellishment is cheap and easy. Lace has gone from something worth its weight in gold to something you can buy by the yard for pennies. People like embellished clothes, so decorated modern bras are readily available. It's a totally different attitude towards clothes.

[Shakesbear]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

True, but back then all clothing was handsewn and hand decorated. The amount of hand labor was incredible, and they only did it where they had to. Nothing was decorated unless it was to be seen.

Some underwear back then had elaborate embroidery, but it was usually on the cuffs and collar of chemises and shirts, the parts that would show when one was dressed.

Evidence exists that fancy brocade underskirts were sometimes no more than a strip of fabric at the bottom of an otherwise plain petticoat, that fancy brocade sleeves which showed were sometimes tied onto a plain underdress or kirtle.

Under the circumstances, if I see a decorated garment from the Renaissance, I'm going to assume it was meant to be seen.

These days embellishment is cheap and easy. Lace has gone from something worth its weight in gold to something you can buy by the yard for pennies. People like embellished clothes, so decorated modern bras are readily available. It's a totally different attitude towards clothes.

The strips of fabric were sometimes taken off and cleaned - which is why they were strips. Women's skirts/dresses in the Victorian had such strips on hemlines so that actuals skirt did not get soiled as the skirt swept along the ground.

As to what women used during their menstrual cycle. I did (may have mentioned this) my first thesis on women's foundation garments. I became very curious as to what women used before commercial pads and tampons were available. To my surprise I found that sanitary towels were available from, iirc, c1880. They were made by Southall Bros and Barclays. I spent time asking elderly women what they used as young women. This was back in 1977/8 so the women I spoke to were, mostly, in their 80's and had mothers who were Victorians. Most of them wore a sort of nappy/diaper for protection. Some of them had been given a bolt of fabric and had to cut and hem it. After being used they were boil washed in the copper in the scullery. One of my fellow students was a nun and she told me that the convent she lived in had a copper for the same reason. She smiled when she said that it was rarely used.

As to knickers, my understanding was that women did not wear such garments until the roughly the end of the 18 and start of the 19 centuries. Simple logistics - how the hell did you get to pull down all your knickers with a huge great skirt in the way. Of course the ever inventive Victorians used a pair of knickers, they were not stitched down centre seam.

Some women did wear britches when riding, but I think that was a rural rather than a city thing, and this may go back to the 16th century. Not sure.

One of the reasons that the hunt was so popular in England was that the chaps followed the women, not out of chivalry or politeness but in the hope that they would part company with their horse and land head first in a ditch with their skirts over their heads.

I am finding all this so interesting - learning as well. Thank you all.

[thothguard51]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I read somewhere that men wore briefs before women wore underwear. I also read in the same article that men wore full length stockings before women. I think the time period for the article was Europe, around 1500.

I really need to start saving these articles for future references.

I also remember reading in another article that after the great plagues that ravaged Europe, even the church suggested women should dress more seductively. Out of this was born a style of dress with cut outs under the sleeve to the waist, which tended to give a side view of the breast, which suggested the women did not wear undergarments. This style was referred to as the Gates of Hell, if I remember right.

[DianeL]

thothguard51, the Gates of Hell style and other erogenously-exposing fashions are covered in the links here, if you're interested. I haven't heard the connection to the plague, but that is a plausible and fascinating possibility - might have to do some hunting on that! It seems extremely likely indeed that, yes, men wore something much more like full length (up to the hip, but not closed and connected at the crotch, as modern pantyhose are) given the fashions of the 14th through 18th centuries, heavily featuring men's legs before women's were getting clad in the same way. I believe there was also a fairly early (possibly also 14th-c?) woollen legging with leather soles as well, which may have been a unisex garment, but would have to refer to sources I'm not getting up to research just now!

[thothguard51]

I can't remember the source for the connection with The Gates of Hell dress style and the plague but it was back when I was an active member of the SCA.

[L.C. Blackwell]

In case anyone's interested in the links Diane mentioned, which are hidden in the article--and some are linked from the links--I'm posting more direct ones:

http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/regency/dress-magazine-articles/dress-1999-26-waugh-bliaut.pdf

http://thehairpin.com/2011/07/the-17...e-before-bras/

http://www.modehistorique.com/resear...20corsetry.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roaring_Girl

Ok, the last one is just incredibly cool and I never knew about it.

[benbradley]

But does it lift and separate?

[DianeL]

L. C., my apologies, I did not realize that linking my blog would be considered "hiding" those resources. No inconvenience was intended.

[ULTRAGOTHA]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

That they were "decorated" suggests that they were garments meant to be seen, and thus meant to be on the outside of clothes.

Originally Posted by Little Anonymous Me

But chemises and stockings were also adorned. They were certainly not for public viewing....

Even earlier than that there are bits of garments that have survived from Saxon and Viking times that have decorative stitching inside. I wouldn't make a broad brush statement that decorating means they were meant to be seen. Or that because it took a lot of time they wouldn't have spent it on things not meant to be seen in public. There was a lot of spare time back then.

[L.C. Blackwell]

Originally Posted by DianeL

L. C., my apologies, I did not realize that linking my blog would be considered "hiding" those resources. No inconvenience was intended.

It wasn't "hiding" per se; I just had the darndest time finding them in your blog, and figured others might too.

I love the links, especially the long article you wrote. Sorry I didn't word my comment better.

[DianeL]

L. C., thank you. I try not to shill, really, but it seemed relevant. (I'm just so wordy, to me that was not long at all!)

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by thothguard51

Someone please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I read somewhere that men wore briefs before women wore underwear. I also read in the same article that men wore full length stockings before women. I think the time period for the article was Europe, around 1500.

I really need to start saving these articles for future references.

I also remember reading in another article that after the great plagues that ravaged Europe, even the church suggested women should dress more seductively. Out of this was born a style of dress with cut outs under the sleeve to the waist, which tended to give a side view of the breast, which suggested the women did not wear undergarments. This style was referred to as the Gates of Hell, if I remember right.

1. Men were wearing a sort of underpants as early as the fourteenth century, going by manuscript illuminations, and probably earlier. Women did not wear anything over their forks until the Victorians sewed together the lacey leg tubes women wore under their Napoleonic gowns and created those ankle-length drawers (and yes, the crotches were not sewn because it was impossible to lower the things once the rest of the outfit was worn). Any kind of closed pants on a female were considered unimaginably racy. Women did not regularly wear what we would consider underpants until the 1920s.

2. Women did not need full length stockings since their skirts reached the ground, or at their shortest before the twentieth century, the ankles. Men's stockings were nearly always full length, or at least as long as necessary to cover every bit of skin not covered by their other lower garments, but women's stockings did not generally reach much past the knee, if that, until skirts shortened in the early twentieth century.

3. The cut-out gown was an overdress. It was always worn over an entire other garment. I was told it was called a "robe royal," but I can't find verification for this. I'll see if I can scare up some visual references.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by thothguard51

I also remember reading in another article that after the great plagues that ravaged Europe, even the church suggested women should dress more seductively. Out of this was born a style of dress with cut outs under the sleeve to the waist, which tended to give a side view of the breast, which suggested the women did not wear undergarments. This style was referred to as the Gates of Hell, if I remember right.

The woman in the middle of this early fourteenth century illumination is wearing an early version of the gown, with only slightly enlarged arm holes. The gown is orange with lighter embroidery around the armholes and neck, and the underdress is dark blue with little buttons going from the elbow to the wrist.

This is a tomb effigy of Margaret de Bower from around 1450. (By 1450 this style is hugely old fashioned) Her arm is broken off, so you can see fully her open-side overgown. The huge pleated skirt is attached to a wide hip belt of fabric which rises up between the breasts and only widens over the shoulders to stay on.

This is the same effigy from a different angle. You can see the little belt around her natural waist over her undergown. The big open-sided dress hangs at about hip level.

Jeanne de Bourbon, Queen of Charles V of France, who died in 1377, has both a famous freestanding statue and a funeral effigy dressed in the robe royal -- it was decidedly associated with nobility. I'm afraid I haven't been able to find good images online. The effigy is almost exactly like the one of Margaret de Bower. The statue is a slightly different style, with a broad U-shaped stomacher with buttons down the front holding up the skirt.

So, to sum up, the robe royal (or whatever it was called) was never worn over bare skin and was associated with queens and conservative highborn ladies.

In other words, no, it was probably not meant to show off breasts.

That sounds like a prurient story of the Victorians or later anyway.

[DianeL]

Alessandra, the source I linked was a scholarly article, with direct sources - not a prurient Victorian. There is an array of primary sources cited in a bibliography taking up nearly 30% of the length of the piece itself, and much of the discussion focuses also on actual (contemporary) illustrations. I don't pretend to be a scholar, but I don't share theoretical foolishness without consideration nor discernment.