Avoiding the 'Diaper' Look

[Mac]

If am understanding everything correctly, by the time we are talking about the butt covering or joined hose we should be pointing to a doublet and not the braies or a belt, correct?

Absolutely, Greg. I think the doublet and the butt-covering-hosen evolved together. Each facilitates the other.

Mac

[Gregoire de Lyon]

If am understanding everything correctly, by the time we are talking about the butt covering or joined hose we should be pointing to a doublet and not the braies or a belt, correct?

Absolutely, Greg. I think the doublet and the butt-covering-hosen evolved together. Each facilitates the other.

Mac

Okay, I am catching on and buying in.

Now for the next, tangential topic - other than the CdB doublet, what sort of 14th century doublets are there that would have hosen pointed to them? I see lots of cotes in recreation and manuscripts for the later 14th - I suppose that those are all (or should be) being worn as an outer layer over a doublet. A well made, properly padded CdB is a warm garment to wear, particularly in our current climate - do we have other known options?

[Klaus the Red]

The doublet need not necessarily be padded or made in grand asiette style. You can do lightweight wool lined with linen, or two layers of linen, and be quite comfortable. Both patterns were used into the first third of the 15th century. According to Harmand, if I recall correctly, a doublet "in four quarters" was made for Jeanne d'Arc after she raised the siege of Orleans, because no tailor could be found locally who was capable of doing grand asiette technique.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

How are we defining doublet versus cote hardie versus cote?

Thanks everyone, as usual you are all giving me a top rate education!

[Klaus the Red]

They're somewhat interchangeable. Here's my preferred usage, which is very generalized and there are always exceptions. Doublet = a short coat/vest designed to hold up hose. Cote = coat = almost any upper-body garment, but usually something looser that goes over the doublet or shirt. (Rule of thumb- if it's baggy and pull-over, it's a tunic. If it has buttons somewhere, it's a cote.) Cotehardie = French for "bold coat," referring to a tight-fitting brightly colored garment with a short skirt, i.e., the cutting edge of fashion in the second half of the 14th century.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

They're somewhat interchangeable. Here's my preferred usage, which is very generalized and there are always exceptions. Doublet = a short coat/vest designed to hold up hose. Cote = coat = almost any upper-body garment, but usually something looser that goes over the doublet or shirt. (Rule of thumb- if it's baggy and pull-over, it's a tunic. If it has buttons somewhere, it's a cote.) Cotehardie = French for "bold coat," referring to a tight-fitting brightly colored garment with a short skirt, i.e., the cutting edge of fashion in the second half of the 14th century.

So by this usage, we could suggest pointing BCSH to either a doublet (a la CdB) or to a cotehardie (distinguished from CdB by lack of quilting and grande assiette sleeves)?

[Klaus the Red]

'tain't a suggestion, it's a requirement. And a cotehardie can be a doublet, but a doublet isn't necessarily "hardie."

[Tibbie Croser]

I don't know if this belongs here or in the "earliest joined hosen" thread, but i found a fascinating image on the British Library site, from a French manuscript of 1400-1415:

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminated ... llID=28600

This peasant man is wearing a partially unbuttoned gown, a shirt, snugly fitting short braies, and what look like split hosen. He's not wearing a doublet between his shirt and gown; it looks like the split hosen may be pointed to the waistband of the braies, like chausses. However, he has just arisen and is perhaps not fully dressed.

(Edit: I am mistaken. Upon looking again at the image, I think the man is wearing chausses, not split hosen.)

[Klaus the Red]

I disagree about the braes waistband. His doublet is coming down over the top of the braes, and the braes themselves are of the later "tidy whitey" style. AFAIK, only baggy boxer-style braes were used to support hose. The way the hose are sagging, I would say they have multiple points wrapping around the hip.

[thunderwinde]

I have to agree with Klaus. I don't see how the right braie/hose would be falling in that way if it were not either pointed in the back or joined to the left one. It looks to me like BCSH that have been pointed in the back first and are in the process of being pointed in the front.

[Tibbie Croser]

So the white garment beneath his gown is a doublet, not a shirt? Where's the bottom edge of his shirt? Is it tucked into the braies?

(I do primarily 1490 and later; I'm not used to hip-length doublets, or white doublets on peasants.)

[thunderwinde]

That's a good question. It definitely looks like a shirt, not a doublet/pourpoint. It looks to me, however, like he is wearing the later 'tighty whities' style of braies, though. Is the brown line under his right hand one of the ties?

[Sean M]

Period-obsessive though I am, I would rather wear white spandex compression shorts under split hose and give the proper appearance that have white linen braies that aren't tailored correctly.

I tend to agre with this. If only for the point that I have a pair of tailored braies that give the correct look, but fighting in them they rip out every time. Adding the appropraite "gap" to them would give them the diaper look.

MJ, have a look at this famous image from a Tacuinum Sanitatis (Rome, Bibliotheca Castanensis, MS. 4182: made in Lombardy about 1390). They have their hosen rolled down to their knees, and wear tight-fitting braes. I think that we can assume that they aren't worried about a wardrobe malfunction!

Playing at sword and buckler circa 1390 (edit: fixed link)

[Jan van Nyenrode]

Klaus,

are you sure on the pointing of the hose to a cotehardie? My interpretation of the art is that a CdB type doublet is worn underneath a cotehardie to get the proper silhouette without any stretching. Just like the woman wear a supporting kirtle underneath their outer dress.

My reasons for this assumption is the parallel to the female practice, and the lower sleeves which peek out from underneath upper garments ( my interpretation of different colored lower arms, and that pointed hose to the cotehardie would distort the garment too much.

Obviously proper 14th century clothing layers in this manner would be ill suited to the climates around the equator.

Regards,

Jan

[Klaus the Red]

I think you're postulating a system more complicated than it needs to be. I suspect one tightly-fitted garment worn over another would be very binding and restrictive, and in the case you seem to be suggesting of an outer layer made in a conventional pattern worn over a grand asiette garment, doubly so because of the interference of the cut styles. In any event, the Charles de Blois is a "cotehardie" by any definition, any there would be no point in covering up all that rich lampas unless you were going outside and need warmth.

[Jan van Nyenrode]

Klaus,

The system is no more complicated then what they actually did throughout the 15th century with a doublet and a gown on top. If you consider the CdB to be a cotehardie then I agree that you could point your hose to them. I personally envision different garments when I think of a Cotehardie.

Regards,

Jan

[Charlotte J]

I suspect that there may have been a variety of possibilities. IIRC, There are images of men wearing what looks like a short sleeved fitted garment over another fitted garment, as denoted by tippets and change of color in the sleeves. We women wear two fitted garments, one over the other, on a regular basis, and it's not necessarily constrictive. I do think, though, that Klaus has a point about the grande assiette sleeve under the regular set-in sleeve. That could potentially cause trouble. The CdB probably wasn't intended to be worn under a fitted layer, also apparent because of the proud buttons.

That said, I don't know that I'd call that the only way or even the preferred way. I would maybe go so far as saying that "typical" consisted of a shirt, fitted garment, and an overlayer, be that somewhat fitted, or be it a gown.

Terminology is tricky, too. "Doublet" refers to, technically speaking, a garment made with two layers (IIRC - now I'm at a cabin on a lake and don't even have access to my one and only book). A cotehardie is padded and made with rich fabric. A pourpoint is quilted and padded. I'm not sure that there's one standard terminology to refer to each layer in the order they were worn, or even that there was always that much differentiation between the types of garments.

[Karen Larsdatter]

Adding this one to http://larsdatter.com/hose.htm & figured I'd post him here, too.


St. Roch by Carlo Crivelli, c. 1493

[Harry Marinakis]

I die my braies black to match my hose.

Wait - You guys wear underwear?

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Spent some quality time at the Cleveland Museum of Art this past weekend and found some more possible evidence for joined hosen in the 14th century.

In this first piece, dated "around 1400", we clearly see a parti-colored cod piece adjacent to a gentleman with split hosen:









Disturbingly, in that last image of the split hosen guy, we can clearly see just how low rise his braies are.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Also from the Cleveland Museum of Art, from the beginning of the 15th century (1418, Florence):

[Klaus the Red]

That first one is pretty damn unequivocal. Everything else about his clothes puts him squarely in the late 14th century, and the hose are clearly joined- it's hard to argue with a parti-color codpiece!

[Gregoire de Lyon]

That first one is pretty damn unequivocal. Everything else about his clothes puts him squarely in the late 14th century, and the hose are clearly joined- it's hard to argue with a parti-color codpiece!

Yup, I was giddy. I had to really restrain myself from sitting down right there and making my family wait while I figured out how to post to the Archive from my phone...

[Mac]

Greg,

Thanks for posting that pic! I remember having seen that painting some years ago, but could not remember where it was.

Mac

[Galleron]

A lot of the cases of "diaper look" I saw this Pennsic could have been avoided by properly fitted single-point hose worn at the right height. There's no need for the back of your hose to hang lower than your gluteal fold. Except that if off-the-rack hose is sized so that it's wearable by almost everyone in that shoe size, it's shorter than it should be for most wearers. Unless you always wear a long coat, it's worth paying extra for hose that's the right length.

Also, a belt will do a better job of keeping them up than a drawstring.

I now have a version of Mac's breeches pattern with a belt inside the casing.

[LeoVIIIIV]

Old topic I know, but wouldn't the central rear pointing location on the CdB pourpoint indicate joined hose?

It is possible however for BCSH to have, at the rear edge, a single eyelet to allow the hose to be tied together at the very top (via the central rear pointing location)
This would give the option of untying the hose to allow greater movement, but does not solve the diaper look.

IMHO I suspect joined hose by 1364. At least in the rear to some extent, ( most likely from the top of the hose to the inseam to cover the buttocks, with a "codpiece" being added at a later date)

"In the Grand Chroniques de France from 1346 (cited in Newton, p.10), blame for the defeat of the French at Crecy is pinned on indecent noblemen, deserving of God's punishment for wearing the new fangled clothes so short and tight that they scarcely covered their buttocks, so that when they "bent to server their lords they showed their braies as well as what was inside them."

So we know for certain that in 1346ish braies show at the back,

That's 18 years for hose to evolve (from 1346 to 1364 if you agree with the CdB pourpoint dating).

I suppose finding an "end date" of period complaints about braies showing would be our best bet to find when hose were actually joined or completely covered the buttocks

As always, more research to do

[Klaus the Red]

I agree about the center point, though the doublet was "attributed" to Charles de Blois and preserved because of his quasi-saintly status; it may in fact be somewhat later than his lifetime.

[LeoVIIIIV]

Vincent de Beauvais, Speculum historiale, traduction française par Jean de Vignay. vol. III. (Livres XI-XIII). Date d'édition : 1370-1380 NAF 15941 Folio 30r

Similar style garment ca.1370-80 with what looks like GA sleeves

So 6 to 16 years difference

IDK, like I said, more research lol

[Mac]

"In the Grand Chroniques de France from 1346 (cited in Newton, p.10), blame for the defeat of the French at Crecy is pinned on indecent noblemen, deserving of God's punishment for wearing the new fangled clothes so short and tight that they scarcely covered their buttocks, so that when they "bent to server their lords they showed their braies as well as what was inside them."

So we know for certain that in 1346ish braies show at the back,

I would be careful about drawing that conclusion based on a sort of moralizing rant. If the author's complaint is literally true, it sounds more like what he is seeing is a sort of 14th C plumber's crack. He doesn't say that the braies are visible under normal circumstances, but when bent over. He does say that the buttocks are "scarcely covered", but that probably just means that their shape is visible... unlike with decent folks from his country and time etc.

That the braies (and perhaps the flesh of the butt) is visible when bending over may well indicate divided hosen. I think that is the most likely thing at that date. I also think that a well sewn pair of such hosen will do a pretty good job of concealing the braies most of the time.

Mac

[LeoVIIIIV]

Thanks Mac! I agree that the plumbers butt could be a possibility. Fitted braies seem to sit far lower on the hips than earlier types.
"bent to server their lords they showed their braies as well as what was inside them." - This could also be, as you said the shape underneath the braies showed due to their fitted nature.

There are multiple sources of more conservative types complaining about the revealing nature of this new fashion. A list I should compile and document.

I understand being weary of 20/20 hind sight, but it is pretty well understood that showing braies (for a noble especially in a court environment or other situations where complete dress was expected) was considered indecent and even shameful. I can almost hear the snickering in court after so and so bows.

I just find it hard not to speculate that a tailor of the time wouldn't make the connection to extend the hose at the back, or add a separate panel to cover the indecency for his patron. This in conjuction with the CdB rear center pointing location....and other reasons. I've contacted some heavy hitters in the tailoring department, hoping to hear their thoughts sometime tomorrow and this weekend.

[Sean M]

Old topic I know, but wouldn't the central rear pointing location on the CdB pourpoint indicate joined hose?

It is possible however for BCSH to have, at the rear edge, a single eyelet to allow the hose to be tied together at the very top (via the central rear pointing location)
This would give the option of untying the hose to allow greater movement, but does not solve the diaper look.

I have a pair of BCSH with a linen lining 95% completed so should have thoughts before May. I was also thinking that the back point could go through one eyelet on each leg, if I even need it.

I think that they should solve the second half of the diaper problem, which is hosen which are too short at the back.

The first half is wearing breeches which are too long and baggy. You solve that by cutting the breeches like you see in late 14th century art: "boxer shorts" not "bermuda shorts".

Split hosen still show up on paintings of San Rocco at the beginning of the 16th century, and separate rolled-down hosen show up in that late 14th century painting of sword and buckler play and in a painting by Altichiero. So it was not that one style of hosen appeared and replaced another.

[Mac]

Old topic I know, but wouldn't the central rear pointing location on the CdB pourpoint indicate joined hose?

It is possible however for BCSH to have, at the rear edge, a single eyelet to allow the hose to be tied together at the very top (via the central rear pointing location)
This would give the option of untying the hose to allow greater movement, but does not solve the diaper look.

IMHO I suspect joined hose by 1364. At least in the rear to some extent, ( most likely from the top of the hose to the inseam to cover the buttocks, with a "codpiece" being added at a later date)

Returning to your original question....

I don't think that the central point on the CdB garment necessarily indicates that the hosen were joined in any way. As Sean points out, split hosen continue to be used long after joined hosen are invented. Much seems to depend on whether the rest of your clothing will cover you well enough to be decent. In the case of the CdB, we can see from the placement of the ties and the fact that the skirt is split at the sides that it covered the wearer past the hip joints. When he was standing, the skirt would have covered his butt completely, like the miniskirts of the 70s. A competent hosier could have made split hosen that would not have shown anything untoward when worn with that garment.

This is not to say that I think it impossible that joined hosen were worn with the CdB. They may well have been. What I want to stress is that we should not judge the coverage of split hosen by what we see on modern reenactors.

If you have not stumbled across it already, I have a pinterest board of images of medieval and renaissance men in states of semi undress that might be useful to you.

Mac

[LeoVIIIIV]

Thanks Mac, Ill check out your Pinterest board.
I agree with the CdB's coverage, I will admit that instances where "indecency" would be rare. At a natural state of "rest" it is not likely to see any undergarments.

I myself am guilty of hose coverage, an issue to be remedied shortly.

There seems to be alot of debate on this topic. After speaking with one tailor it seems their opinion is that either joined or tailed hosen were worn with this particular garment. Hoping to speak with the others over the weekend at some point.

Thanks everyone for the input.

[Mac]

There seems to be alot of debate on this topic. After speaking with one tailor it seems their opinion is that either joined or tailed hosen were worn with this particular garment. Hoping to speak with the others over the weekend at some point.

I think there is a tendency for modern medieval tailors (and armorers ) to make generalizations based their own shortcomings and failures. They figure that if they personally tried a thing and it didn't work, that it must be impossible, and therefore the medievals didn't do it that way.

This is a very natural and human thing, and to a greater or lesser degree we are all subject to it. Never the less, we need to keep our minds open and to be skeptical of even the most renowned of experts.

Mac

[LeoVIIIIV]

As usual, sound advice Mac.

Ive spent some hours browsing frescos and miniatures and the earliest joined hose to date I can currently find is 1380's. There's more digging to do but, in the meantime ive found some nice examples of BCSH. Both examples would work with the CDBP center rear pointing location if tailored correctly.
The inner most rear eyelet holes on the hose could be brought together and pointed, leaving only a very thin vertical football shape,(of exposed briaes) for lack of a better description.
There is a painting (15th cent. I think) of a few gents putting a corpse on a plank into an incinerator if I remember correctly. One of the gents looks to have blown out the rear seam in his joined hose. I cant find the painting off hand, but this would give a similar effect of well tailored BCSH in relation to the center pointing location on the CDBP.