Underwear before, during and after the 14th century THL Uta Boucht
The cover picture shows the reality? Les Tres Riches Heures de Duc de Berry, February, 1412-16
What I call ”underwear” during this lecture: - clothes touching the skin -> broadens the choice way beyond drawers o breeches, shifts / chemises, hose, and even coifs
Sources - pictorial evidence can be found, but not in vast numbers th o therefore I’m using pictures from before and after the 14 c. too § the models don’t seem to have changed very much from the 13th to the 15th centuries (except breeches…) § it has earlier been said that underwear was not used before the 14th century, but I guess that conclusion was made because of lack of pictures showing them – before the 14th century the fashion was for longer, looser clothes that covered any sign of underwear · evolution of illumination / painting etc: more details o there’s definitely NOT so much pictures when it comes to women § all in all, the illuminations etc. represent men rather than women, and when it comes to showing something as revealing as underwear… § underwear was seen as very sexual, because it was closest to the skin · when nothing was usually shown or seen, underwear and half-nakedness was considered erotic · lovers could donate each other underwear, or strips of underwear § underwear was also seen as the symbol of the soul (in literature), so it was something very private in that sense, too o but, as it happens, the pictures that you find, are underwear worn by hardworking labourers, or people being murdered, tortured, or otherwise suffering (often nobles, or future saints) (blood and gore…)
- textual references in wills, inventories, chronicles, literature etc. o for instance the wardrobe accounts of the royals (England, France), and novels like “The White Knight: Tirant Lo Blanc”, by Joanot Martorell and Marti Joan de Galba, 1490 - archeological finds o are not many, as with all the medieval textiles § actually even less, because underwear was not saved for the posterity (St. Louis tunic an exception) AND linen / hemp disappears in the ground o some hoses, coifs, chemises o the Hull’s friary excavations in England may reveal new information (thumbs up!)
Materials - mostly linen, or hemp, or other vegetable fibre (like nettles?) - hard, if not impossible to tell the difference between the fibres once they are excavated o linen was more appreciated than hemp - winter underwear could be made out of linen-wool o so far, the Hull excavations have only revealed woollen clothes, and even woollen breeches have been found
Tacuinum Sanitatis (illuminated medical manuals based on texts translated from Arabic into Latin)
XLVI. Woolen Clothing (Vestis Lanea) Nature: Warm and dry. Optimum: The thin kind from Flanders. Usefulness: It protects the body from cold and holds warmth. Dangers: It causes skin irritation. Neutralization of the Dangers: With thin linen clothing.
XLVII. Linen Clothing (Vestis Linea) Nature: Cold and dry in the second degree. Optimum: The light, splendid, beautiful kind. Usefulness: It moderates the heat the body. Dangers: It presses down on the skin and blocks transpiration. Neutralization of the Dangers: By mixing it with silk. Effects: It dries up ulcerations. It is primarily good for hot temperaments, for the young, in summer, and in the Southern regions. - so no wonder the underwear was mostly made of linen – keeping in mind that clothing was mostly made of wool - silk was used by those who could afford it o Dangers: Linen presses down on the skin and blocks transpiration. Neutralization of the Dangers: By mixing it with silk.
- colours were mostly white in all its shades o linen was “bleeched” by leaving it out in the sun
- underwear was usually made at home, sewn by family members or maids, or women hired to do the job o professional underwear makers are extremely rarely mentioned - sewn with silk or linen thread
Men: - linen, hemp - white - before the mid-14th century they reached the knees, and were loose and baggy - you might see a slit at the legs left open, tied around the ankles or knees, or lifted up to the waist – page 2, 1st row:
13th c. (source?) de Brailles Hours, England 1240 Maciejowski Bible, mid-13th c
- braies were tightened around the waist o actually not the waist, mostly you see them hanging down on the hips o the waist had a casing, with a slit in front (for tying the string) and slits on the sides (maybe for tying up the lifted trouser legs (see Breviari d’Amor; Maciejovski) page 2, 2nd row:
Missale Remense, Matfré Ermengaud de Bréziers: Torture of the traitor Ganelon, Grandes Crucifixion, 1285-97 Lo Breviari d’Amor, Catalonia, Chroniques de France, 14th c. (BNF) 1st half 14th c.
- you see the waist rolled down o one theory: rolling down eased the pressure that the tie, or the cord put on the skin nd o 2 theory: might just be to lift the braies / the bagginess up
- after the mid-14th century and the change in the fashion (tighter, shorter), the breeches got shorter and tighter, too – IF the man followed the fashion th o you can still see long breeches (not long johns, though…) in the late 14 -c. page 3, 1st and 2nd rows:
Execution of the followers (by A.Harmand, real source?) Martyrdom of St. Erasmus, of Thomas de Marle, Hours of Catherine of Cleves, who had rebelled against Louis VI, Flanders c. 1440 king of France. Grandes Chroniques de France, 14th c. (BNF)
o when the fashion was new, making short and tight breeches was more expensive than making long, baggy ones § Royal Wardrobe account in England 1343-44: the king was made linen roba / robarum (unmentionables, apparently, because they are using the generic term for clothing…) · “frounced and lined in the new fashion, 14 d / pair” · in the old fashion, 7 d / pair” (d = denarius?) § why more expensive, when you needed less fabric, less thread and less sewing? · demanded new skills, and hey! novelties cost!
- sometimes underwear was seen: page 3, 2nd row: o breeches or shirt?
Men revealing their underclothes? Romance of Alexander, fol. 93r, c. c. 1340 (Bodleian Library)
Women: “Women did not wear breeches…” - I’m sure some women wore breeches sometime somewhere, but the use was definitely not as regular or common as men’s o the moor influence through Spain might have effected some areas, like south-western Europe (Moorish women had trousers) - some pictorial examples of similar breeches as the men had o so: linen, hemp; and white o BUT one should remember, that pictures may have alternative interpretations (pages 3-4) § one theory is, that a woman (like poor Brunehilda) could not be represented without proper coverage, and if she couldn’t hide herself with something, they drew her with
men’s breeches… Brunehilda, Romance of Alexander, fol. 42v, c. 1340 (Bodleian Library)
§ OR, like the picture with women standing next to a bed, is said to represent women with chastity belts (which, as we know, were much more LESS common than later historians have thought, but they may have seen chastity belts everywhere…)
Johan Boccaccio, De las mujeres illustres en romance, Zaragoza, Paulo Hurus, Alemán de Constancia, 1494
§ the 3rd picture – a girl dressing – may also have alternative explanations, like that misericords often displayed situations where normal scenes of life were turned upside down, and showed the ridiculousness of some features: a woman with trousers => she was the head of the house, not the man
Misericord from St. Cernin, 15th century?
Patterns - these are just theories, because breeches haven’t been found and examined, as far as I know o except the Hull’s friary woollen breeches, but they have not been made public yet
Thursfield http://scamelee.freeservers.com/braies_personal.html
http://www.bumply.com/Medieval/braies.htm A. Harmand
- I tried the first one here (except I didn’t have as much fabric as I would’ve needed) and found out that it really creates lots of bagginess between the legs o with harsh linen it doesn’t feel very comfortable, though… - the old pair is almost made according to the pattern #4
Chemise, shift, smock, pinafore
Men: page 5, 1st row
Les Tres Riches Heures de Duc de Berry, Execution of Olivier de Clisson and the Breton June (1412-1416) knights accused of treason, Jean Froissart, Chronicles, Flandres 15th Century (BNF)
- long-sleeved, long enough to be tucked in the breeches o probably that’s the reason why it can’t usually be seen under the cotes, except glimpses from the sleeves and collar § is the Romance of Alexander picture on page 3 an exception to the rule? o if it can be seen, it’s either worn by workers, or “future saints” and other tortured men - loose, until fashion changed for the tighter clothing o I have no proof of that, though – I can only guess that a very ample chemise, with wide sleeves, wouldn’t be very comfortable under a very tight cote o but I doubt the men’s chemises were ever of exactly the same cut as the outer layers! (think Charles de Blois – a rather loose chemise of fine linen / silk could well fit under it, without the need to imitate the cut of the cote) - slits in the hem, in front and / or in the sides - linen / hemp, probably silk for those who could afford it - white – except if you look at Riches Heures: are they all wearing undershirts? - the so-called St. Louis tunic is probably a chemise, but it is earlier than 14th c. (St. Louis died in 1270) (pattern on page 7) th o tunic is also quite big, it fits fine under a loose pre-mid-14 c. robe, but not under a short, tight cote (it reaches me to the ankles, and is wide enough for me and my twin…)
The first shift for women: - the under most layer the women could wear, was a sleeveless shift, reaching the knees or the ankles, like the ones the famous Bohemian Bathhouse Keepers are wearing (page 5, 2nd row)
Wenceslaus Bible, late 14th century, Bohemian Bathhouse Keepers
o it has been shown with and without straps – how ever that was possible, IF it was done o it was not seen under the clothes, if it was even widely used § for instance, did the poor have the means to have this kind of extra layer? o besides the bathhouse keepers, it can be seen on women in childbeds, so one can conclude it wasn’t just a working outfit for bathhouse keepers, but the under most layer one could have § BTW, the keepers often have a colourful sash tied around their hips, and a hairnet worn in a special kind of way § we’ve been experimenting with self supporting shifts… - linen / hemp, silk? - white, again - the only extant sleeveless shift, or chemise that could have dated from the 14th c. has disappeared during World War II, leaving the photo as the only (?) evidence (the photo is for instance in Köhler’s “History of Costume” (not the most reliable source…) )
(page 5, last row)
th o the chemise was found with other items that were dated to the 14 c., but the dating was done in late 19th c. - an interesting side note: Romance of Alexander, a manuscript from 1340, has a picture of a sleeveless dress made of fur (fol. 80 verso) o probably not underwear, but could it be a detachable fur lining? (page 5, last row)
A fur lining? Romance of Alexander, fol. 80v, c. 1340 (Bodleian Library)
Women: - chemise shaped like other clothes: long sleeves and long skirts – or shorter (page 6, 2nd row)
Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meung, Woman’s smock, c. 1400 (by Willett & Le Roman de la Rose, fol. 68v, 1348 Cunnington, but what’s the real source?) (Bodleian Library)
- wasn’t shown in public, but you could see it here and there (page 6, 1st and last row)
Women revealing their underclothes, Romance of Alexander, Les Tres Riches Heures de Duc de Berry, June (1412-1416) fol. 97v, c. 1340 (Bodleian Library)
o the hem could be decorated (Romance of Alexander) § to fake a 2nd layer, when you only could afford the 1st and 3rd?
- obviously the poorer ones could only afford one underdress and one overdress, but the wealthier ones could add layers - linen / hemp, silk - white
Patterns
- St. Louis’ tunic is made of linen, probably undershirt, but Kragelund and Skjoldehamn tunics are woollen – but there design is such that it could be used in making chemises, too o as I said about the St. Louis tunic – it is big. (and partly torn + displayed the wrong side up)
St. Louis’ tunic, (died 1270) Kragelund tunic, wool, around 1100 Skjoldehamn tunic, wool, late 14th-early 15th c.
Hose, chausses - the successors of the Roman calceus, and similar outfits by the Gauls
Men:
- a monk? pulling on his hose (page 8, 1st row)
Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meung, Le Roman de la Rose, fol. 68v, 1348 (Bodleian Library)
- hose reached the thighs, but there were also short ones, or the longer ones were rolled down
(page 8, 2nd row)
Servant, Le livre de chasse de Les Tres Riches Heures de Duc Gaston Phoebus (1387-89), de Berry, February, 1412-16 ordered by Jean sans Peur in 1407?
- were tied to the breeches from the upper corner
(page 8, 1st and last pictures)
Maciejowski Bible, Chausses of St. Sebastian, mid-13th c. Hours of Catherine of Cleves, Flanders c. 1440 - after mid-14th c. hose could also be tied to the underside of the hem of the tunic (Charles de Blois) - a side note: in the 15th c. the hoses could be tied together from the “bum”, and to the hem of the even shorter tunic o a braguette made its appearance – united the hoses and hid the “treasures” o separate hoses were still worn! - could have an extra binding or a decoration below the knee: a garter, a strip of cloth or leather, woven band - for fighting purposes, the hoses could be gamboised / guilted / padded - all the colours you had back then! (different colours for different legs, see Phoebus) - made from wool (tabby and twill) – cut on the bias to give some elasticity o silk – at least some ecclesiastical chausses (page 9, 2nd row)
Pontifical stocking of Arnaud de Via, Archbishop of Bayonne (died 1331), silk brocade from 13th c. Lucca
o leather? – like in Gaston Phoebus’ Le livre de chasse § at least the soles were sometimes made of leather (page 8, 1st row)
Marco Polo ”Li Liures de Grant Caam”, c. 1400 (Bodleian Library)
o linen? – perhaps… no surviving examples
- several models, even extant pieces (Bremen, Bocksten, Herjolfsnes, London)
(page 9, 2nd row)
Hose of the Bockstenman, early 14th c .
Women: - hoses reached the knees, otherwise same materials, same cut etc. as the men’s - tied below the knees with a garter (cloth, leather, woven bands etc.) - very few pictures!
Roman de la Rose Woman being pulled by the hair, wearing black hose held up by c. 1380-1400 garters, Roman de la Rose, late 15th c. France (MS. Douce 332 MS.) Patterns (page 10)
- I chose to show 2 patterns from archaeological finds – hence the quality of drawings… - my hose…
Hose from an archiepiscopal grave in Bremen, early 13th c. Short hose from Herjolfsnes, 14th-15th c.
Coif, kerchief (English), couvre-chief, cal, coiffe, torque (French) - from 12th c. on th o from soldier’s cap worn under the helmet, to a civilian headwear, very popular during the 14 c. th o finally only old men and children wore it (16 c.) o fitted closely the head o sometimes “frounced” / gathered at the neck o usually made from too pieces, with a seam in the middle, going over the head
(page 10, below)
Maciejowski Bible, mid-13th c. Missale Remense, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, On the Crucifixion, 1285-97 Properties of Things, 15th c. (BNF) - in the 14th c. also a bigger version: kerchief / couvre-chief o basically looked like a linen square
Men:
- wore it alone, or under a helmet, hat or a hood
Benoît de Sainte-Maure, Le roman de la guerre de Troie, Italy, 1st quarter of the 14th c. - as a nightcap - lots of pictures, from farmers to kings - materials varied from linen to silk nd o the coif of a Spanish prince was made of multicoloured silk (page 11, 2 row)
Coif from Las Huelgas, Spain, early 13th c. § the Las Huelgas convent near Burgos, Spain, apparently has several coifs
Women: - a woman would always cover her hair, completely or at least partly, except young, unmarried women and sometimes prostitutes - coif, could be a night cap, or worn under other headwear – not much evidence of the use! - hardly ever seen in pictures! o possible coifs on women on page 11
A midwife with a coif? (source?!) A coif? Guiart des Moulins, Bible Historiale, 1350-55
- a sign of widowhood? - the coif of St. Birgitta o linen, with a lace / embroidery (needlelace?) as the middle seam
Coif of St. Birgitta, 14th c.