braies question

[Mac]

Randall,Here is a list of things about having the suspension point of the hose be more toward the side than toward the front. .

The first is that the point of support is closer to your hip joint. This makes the hose less prone to tightening and loosening with each step.

The second is that you get to cover more of your leg. Have a look at the pics I posted on the first page of this thread. There is no bare leg visible in back.

The third is that it appears to be the most common cut in the late 14th C. Check out the putto by Donatello earlier on this page. See also the (admittedly later) representation of St Sebastian in the Catherine of Cleves hours. http://www.themorgan.org/collections/wo ... sp?page=97

The fourth is that if you faithfully follow the hose pattern from Herjelfsnes, that's where the point ends up. The back seam has a sort of asymmetry which makes the whole garment twist subtly so as to swing the point around toward the side.

Mac

[RandallMoffett]

Mac,

My comment was not so much about the suspension but the front opening of the casing being smaller. My mistake, I misunderstood what you were talking about. I thought you were stating the front opening in the casing had to be open all the way to the sides. The picture you have is basically exactly what I do except I have eyelets instead of the completely open side for the attachment of the hose. That is what I get for quickly reading this before class I guess.

RPM

[Steve S.]

It is great to come back to the Archive after a long hiatus to find this wonderful thread.

I have struggled with braies/hose for years, and posted some of my trials and tribulations here. I always assumed most of my problem was from being fat. I have fat thighs which make my legs very tapered, and consequently the hose are constantly being forced down by the wedge shape of my legs.

I have tried pointing the hose to my braies, but it presents a problem. When you try and tie the girdle tight enough to keep your hose from pulling it down, it cuts into the flesh horribly. And if you do any kind of bending or kneeling, it is even worse. In desperation, I finally changed out the girdle from a folded-over linen "cord" to a much wider deer-skin belt. The difference in comfort was amazing.

I'm so pleased to see and hear about evidence for such a thing for holding up the hose.

It sounds to me like the belt was a precursor to the pourpoint, which moved the load from the hips to the shoulders?

Steve

[Mac]

It sounds to me like the belt was a precursor to the pourpoint, which moved the load from the hips to the shoulders?

Steve

Steve,

The pourpointe does not really move the support to the shoulders. If it is fitted correctly, the skirts of the garment will act as a sort of broad belt. The bodice should be cut a bit long, to leave the shoulders more or less free. An extra inch or so of height from the waist to the shoulders allows the garment to "puff out" properly in the chest.

Mac

[coreythompsonhm]

The mention of the pourpoint reminded me of something. The Charles de Blois pourpoint has several points inside. There are three in the back, one on each side, and two in the front. All around hip level. The two on the sides are at a slightly higher level. Would I be correct to assume the three in the back and two in the front held up breas, while the ones on the sides held up the hose? Or do I assume wrong?

From my understanding, the garment was for non combat use. Charles de Blois also died in 1364.

[Mac]

Corey,

I think it would be best to assume that all of the points in the that doublet were for holding up hosen. Remember, that a fashionably dressed guy from that time had hosen that covered his butt.

Mac

[coreythompsonhm]

Hmm, thats interesting. Im not entirely familiar with hosen from this time period. So would they still be a split hosen, or would joined hosen be appropriate?

[Mac]

Hmm, thats interesting. Im not entirely familiar with hosen from this time period. So would they still be a split hosen, or would joined hosen be appropriate?

It is clear that some folks were wearing split hosen well into the 15th C., but it is much harder to know when the fashionable dressed fellows started having them joined. It's one thing for laborers to expose their undies to public view, but "dedicated followers of fashion" could not. I suspect that joined hosen came into existence by sometime in the fourth quarter of the 14th C. As soon as guys start wearing short skirts there is a need for hosen that don't expose the inner thigh, and I am sure that hosiers were right there to address that sartorial shortfall.

Mac

[coreythompsonhm]

Now a breas question... Was it possible that some of the more "fashion dedicated" would have owned dyed breas? Say in the same color as their hosen?

[Mac]

There are pictures of breas in colors other than white. Whether this would be a sufficient dodge around the fashion faux pas is very uncertain.

Mac

[Klaus the Red]

That seems unlikely. The point of having white underwear is that they can be washed in hot water. Dyed braes might look nice once, but then you would have to choose between keeping the color and making them sanitary again.

[Mac]

That seems unlikely. .

It does, doesn't it?....and yet it is true.
Here is one from Kyeser's Belifortis of 1405.

Here is another from the "Tres Riche Heures"


I have seen other examples as well. There is at least one depiction of colored undies on one of the thieves in a 15th C. Crucifixion. I will try to find that one later.

Mac

[Mac]

Here's one, but I don't think it was the one I was thinking of. By its self, you might think that the artist intended the breas to be understood as white, but the ones on the other thief show that he really meant some color other than white.



Mac

[Klaus the Red]

True enough, but let's say brown/natural falls into the same category as white for my arguement- i.e., not dyed. The light blue ones are very curious. My sense is that 15th century "speedo" braes are designed specifically to go under fully joined hose, since even closely-pointed individual hose would leave gaps with this style. Without hose in the same picture, though, it's only circumstantial.

[Mac]

Klaus,

I agree with you completely.

The other two examples might well be "natural" or unbleached stuff.

Kyeser's blue speedos, worn with seperate hosen produces a combination that would be constantly flashing bare flesh. That does not seem like an attractive fashion statement. In a sense, it comes down to the question of what the front of early joined hose looked like. If there is an overlap in the front, like a modern fly, the colored braes might be a sufficient answer. Have you ever seen anything that sheds any light on this?

Mac

[Klaus the Red]

Not I. Most of the images I've seen of late 14th to early 15th century hose that could be either "late separate" or "early joined" show them in the up position, and the braes are obscured by the doublet. On the other hand, in those images I have seen of men of the appropriate period with separate hose rolled down (the sword-and-buckler practitioners in the Cerruti Tacuinum Sanitatis come to mind), the braes always seem to be "boxer briefs" long enough to cover the gap.

Funny, I could have used some light blue braes last weekend, when I came into court for my Laurel elevation in blue hose and a brand new pourpoint that turned out too short on me.

[Tom B.]

Last night Christian Cameron point out this image:

Artist: Giacomo Jaquerio
From: Abbazia di Sant'Antonio di Ranverso, Buttigliera Alta, Italy
Dating: 1410

http://armourinart.com/40/49/

Click for full sized image




Bob Charrette pointed out that "with the draping of the hose, the implied second one in the back."

[Keegan Ingrassia]

At the lowest drape of the hose, there towards the back of his leg...is that a pair of ties? Or a drawstring to cinch the top of the hosen around the leg after they're pulled up, perhaps...?

[Tom B.]

Look at this guy further to the right in the same image:

Click for larger image

[Steve S.]

Fantastic images. Worthy of reviving this thread!

I do not see a drawstring in the first image at all. It is clearly a "point" of some kind. I do not understand the toggle thing. I first thought it was a toggle button, but clearly it won't fit through any hole in the hose.

I think this shows a front and rear point.

The final image to me shows very clearly a belt used to hold up the braies.

I forget if the belt idea had been demonstrated before. I think so. Anyway I love the belt idea because it makes the suspension of maille chausses far more plausible. I tried it with a simple cloth belt made of folded linen about 3/4" thick and it dug into me horrifically. "Battle" braies with a sturdy, wide belt could solve the problem.

Many of the Wisby bodies were found with a buckle in their pelvis. Braies belt buckle?

Steve

[Ernst]

I do not understand the toggle thing. I first thought it was a toggle button, but clearly it won't fit through any hole in the hose.

It doesn't need to be big enough for the toggle, just for the loop holding it. Pull the loop through the hole, and lock it using the toggle as a key. Tension should keep it in place.

[Sean Powell]

I do not understand the toggle thing. I first thought it was a toggle button, but clearly it won't fit through any hole in the hose.

It doesn't need to be big enough for the toggle, just for the loop holding it. Pull the loop through the hole, and lock it using the toggle as a key. Tension should keep it in place.

Functionally yes, or at least in wood which is rigid, but show me another piece of clothing that uses the technique. It would suck to be running along and have the toggle fall out and get lost in the grass then walk around all day holding your hose up. I'd slice the fabric and put in a button or fixed toggle pretty quickly. The artwork is good but I can't be 100% certain the toggle doesn't hide a simple button hole or not.

It would explain the brooch/buckles found at Wisby but I can't figure out why they would be on the side other than ease of construction. Side buckles are the least convenient location as they almost have to be 1-handed (especially for those of us gifted in girth).

Sean

[Klaus the Red]

Keep in mind that all the soldiers in this scene are caricatures, sloppily dressed. Perhaps the toggle on the braes is meant as a "poor man's buckle."

[Sean Powell]

Keep in mind that all the soldiers in this scene are caricatures, sloppily dressed. Perhaps the toggle on the braes is meant as a "poor man's buckle."

Showing off that the man is too poor to afford a real buckle or too slovenly to do something other than a stick. Yeah that could make sense... but if we rule out the scant evidence we do have then we have nothing left to recreate.

Sean

[Steve S.]

It would explain the brooch/buckles found at Wisby but I can't figure out why they would be on the side other than ease of construction. Side buckles are the least convenient location as they almost have to be 1-handed (especially for those of us gifted in girth).

It does seem like an odd placement for where the belt ends/buckle would be accessible.

Steve

[Galleron]

Here are my breeches with a casing for the breech-belt.

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... -belt.html

[Galleron]

Klaus,

I agree with you completely.

The other two examples might well be "natural" or unbleached stuff.

Kyeser's blue speedos, worn with seperate hosen produces a combination that would be constantly flashing bare flesh. That does not seem like an attractive fashion statement. In a sense, it comes down to the question of what the front of early joined hose looked like. If there is an overlap in the front, like a modern fly, the colored braes might be a sufficient answer. Have you ever seen anything that sheds any light on this?

Mac

If the intent was for breeches to provide coverage with separate hose and a short outer garment, the obvious solution would be the tight, short legged breeches in a color that matched the hose. But all of the colored breeches I've seen from the 15th century have been Speedos or g-strings. That suggests the color had some other purpose.

Also, there is one picture that shows hose worn with a colored Speedo, St Leonhard Rescuing a Prisoner from 1455-1465, and the breeches don't match the hose, and his crotch is covered by his shirt in any case:

http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 000779.JPG

[Galleron]

Oooh, look: I think the leftmost figure, the rider being whipped, is wearing an early version of the Lengberg g-string. From 1380-85

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4317/17234/

Update: looking again, I see a faint line on his upper thigh that suggests that these are the simply breeches with short legs.

[stallari]

i will try this Mac! also when i tried to get to the bries pattern site i got a femdom site. interesting but not what i was looking for!

[Ckanite]

YAY INTERNETZ! I wonder why it would be there of all places though...

[Keegan Ingrassia]

I think the url was either hacked, or snatched up and squatted on when the domain name expired...it got mentioned in a thread a few months ago, IIRC.

[Robert of Canterbury]

I've been meaning to put together a photo essay for forever on how I find Braies and split hose work for me in practice, so here it is.
NB, the Briefs are solely for modesty during the last 3 photos, they are not worn in practice (Watch out for the Stunt-Parsnip)

http://members.armourarchive.org/robertdc/Braies/

it's the being able to slip the braies out from under the belt, and not have to drop your hosen, go to the loo, and then slip them back under the belt that really does it for me. none of my clothing has to drop to the floor, I don't have to undo my hosen,

[Mac]

(Watch out for the Stunt-Parsnip)

http://members.armourarchive.org/robertdc/Braies/

That would be your bawdy double?


Mac

[Mac]

I am bringing this thread back up because I have returned to the underwear project and am making significant progress.

Back in 2011, I presented a pattern for braies which had a simpler line to the waist.



My thought was that they worked just as well as the ones which I had been making, which had a sinuous curve to the waist.


Having worn them some time now, I realize that they are inferior to my earlier patterns. Their chiefest fault is that the pouch is not stable and tends to capsize.

Looking at images of this type of braies in art, I see that the sides of the pouch should be better defined.



(for more pics, see my "underwear" page on Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/macs_shop/underwear/ )

I found that I could achieve something closer to this look by pulling some of the fabric of one of my earlier pairs of braies up over the drawstring. The resulting pattern is startling....



...but the fit is much improved.





The garment it produces is not at all strange looking. When laid out flat, all that curve of the waist gets straightened out, and it looks very like it should......



.... indeed, it even passes the "embarrassing the foolish magistrate test" a la Boccaccio.



Mac

[Paladin74]

Wear joined hosen. But seriously, I'm just out of the time period for that. I'll let the mid-14th guys give tips on how to keep your braies up, without needing a stranglehold on your waist.

About when does joined hose make its first debut?