[Ansteorra] Undergarments and stuff

[Marc Carlson]

>From Michael Fenwic:
>>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.

Oh, absolutely.

Let's pretend for a moment though that this is a cut-away drawing.  It's not 
unheard of.  So the wind wouldn't be necessarily blowing around him.  And I 
will say from experience, popping up your skirts to get the heat, it's got 
to warm your hosen and breeches first.  Admittedly it's another layer of 
speculation on something that's already debateable.

>Sunny Briscoe sunnyday72 at gmail.com
>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"

Fair enough (I tend to forget that inside the SCA the Middle Ages tend to 
end a full century after everywhere else :) )

>Supposedly there is commentary (I have only heard about this, but haven't
>seen it for myself yet) about how , 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.

Ben Franklin (assuming that's who actually said it - I'd like to see the 
original) was speaking even two hundred years after the garments mentioned 
above, and on another continent.  It's tricky using colonial era information 
to make assumptions about 16th century stuff (much less medieval). I know, I 
have to do it often enough for shoemaking.

>There is a reference to Eleonora di Toledo's underpants.  She had several
>air 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'll have to look for those, but they are still a century and a half after 
Michael's Tres Riches Heures.

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

Sure, why not...

Marc/Diarmaid