C15 Bras from Lengburg castle

[RandallMoffett]

Has any one seen this before? It is late medieval, Boccaccio.

RPM

[MediumAevum]

Has any one seen this before? It is late medieval, Boccaccio.

Yep, although never in color.

[Klaus the Red]

It's hard to tell with the image of the Bocaccio woodcut being so small, but I seem to see a difference between the men and the woman. The men appear to have have a short line between crotch and leg, possibly representing the wrinkle formed by the "pouch." The woman's "panties" appear to have a smooth front. This could be completely superficial, but it could also mean the artist knows the difference between how men's and women's underpants fit their respective anatomy, and intended to show this woman wearing women's braes and not men's as a gender-flip.

[MediumAevum]

It's hard to tell with the image of the Bocaccio woodcut being so small, but I seem to see a difference between the men and the woman. The men appear to have have a short line between crotch and leg, possibly representing the wrinkle formed by the "pouch." The woman's "panties" appear to have a smooth front. This could be completely superficial, but it could also mean the artist knows the difference between how men's and women's underpants fit their respective anatomy, and intended to show this woman wearing women's braes and not men's as a gender-flip.

15th century woodcuts rarely if ever are that detailed, engravings can be. But that is Semiramis who is often depicted masculinized. In the Nuremburg Chronicle of the world 1493 she appears to be holding a pair of men's underwear in her hand.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

It's hard to tell with the image of the Bocaccio woodcut being so small, but I seem to see a difference between the men and the woman. The men appear to have have a short line between crotch and leg, possibly representing the wrinkle formed by the "pouch." The woman's "panties" appear to have a smooth front. This could be completely superficial, but it could also mean the artist knows the difference between how men's and women's underpants fit their respective anatomy, and intended to show this woman wearing women's braes and not men's as a gender-flip.

It looks like it is just a line showing the continuation of the thigh to me, while her "thigh line" ends at the pants. (Or may the men have the ability to open the fly's on theirs. )

[guthrie]

Has any one seen this before? It is late medieval, Boccaccio.

RPM

No, but have you an idea of what the context is, what story it is illustrating.

[RandallMoffett]

They are all women but Ninias/Ninus. He was relating several stories about women in history history. Seriramis was an Assyrian Queen, married to Ninias, their son was also Ninias. She was Queen alone for about half a decade.

RPM

[Steerpike]

But that is Semiramis who is often depicted masculinized. In the Nuremburg Chronicle of the world 1493 she appears to be holding a pair of men's underwear in her hand.

Hence the figure of the "Armed Woman" atop the pedestal on the right of the bed?
Or is this alluding to Semiramis as queen regnant?
(sorry if this seems OT, but I'm asking so as to get a grip on the iconography and context, which seems to be important)

[RandallMoffett]

But she is the one not shown in undies and the other women are. She is shown starkers. That is more or less besides the point though as the woman is supposed to be seducing the man and that is part of her legend and 'talents'. This is from a late 15th copy of De mulieribus claris or On Famous Women. This is the seduction/harlot section. So unless there is something manly about seduction I think we can see this as famous women who used their femininely powers of persuasion to gain power and influence from and over men. To me there is nothing manly about a women showing her under clothing off to gain a mans attention. I think we can then safely say this is not gender reversal as suduction if more often than not coupled with women in the medieval period.

Interesting though is that other women shown in more what I'd be thinking gender reversals, ruling for example, are in normal women's clothing.

RPM

[Bertus Brokamp]

Some more thoughts on fitted female underwear:

http://m-silkwork.blogspot.nl/2012/08/1 ... hloss.html

[Tracy Justus]

Thanks for that link, Bertus. She always has interesting and well-thought-out things to say and finds art that I've never seen before. I'm glad she found some 14th c example of fitted sleeveless shifts beyond the Bohemian bathhouse babes.

T.

[MediumAevum]

But she is the one not shown in undies and the other women are. She is shown starkers. That is more or less besides the point though as the woman is supposed to be seducing the man and that is part of her legend and 'talents'. This is from a late 15th copy of De mulieribus claris or On Famous Women. This is the seduction/harlot section. So unless there is something manly about seduction I think we can see this as famous women who used their femininely powers of persuasion to gain power and influence from and over men. To me there is nothing manly about a women showing her under clothing off to gain a mans attention. I think we can then safely say this is not gender reversal as suduction if more often than not coupled with women in the medieval period.

Interesting though is that other women shown in more what I'd be thinking gender reversals, ruling for example, are in normal women's clothing.

RPM

Randall,
The entire image is suspect because of the content and context. Once again, Occam's razor, if there is a reason to put the image with the vast majority of images it is the most likely interpretation. If you wanted to try to make an argument that a distinction should be made in this image then you have to show other images of seduction where the woman is wearing underwear. All that I know of don't show that. Your trying to state that there is a distinction because you can rationalize a reason for a distinction. Your rationalization is just that unless it is accompanied by other evidence. If your interpretation is right then you should be able to find depictions of it not in an image with a known gender reversal.

[MediumAevum]

But that is Semiramis who is often depicted masculinized. In the Nuremburg Chronicle of the world 1493 she appears to be holding a pair of men's underwear in her hand.

Hence the figure of the "Armed Woman" atop the pedestal on the right of the bed?
Or is this alluding to Semiramis as queen regnant?
(sorry if this seems OT, but I'm asking so as to get a grip on the iconography and context, which seems to be important)

Iconography and context are important but they are messy. This is why you have to gather multiple images and look for patterns and relationships to other things, for example in this case a text. If you find 20 images and they all have commonality then you have to place importance of that commonality in your interpretation. It can also be made more complicated by artists copying each other.

[RandallMoffett]

B.,

The issue is that you cannot prove that holding underwear or that wearing it means they are imitating men or mannish behavior either so lets cut the ring around the rosies here Brent. Of the few you have shown I think several might be a number of things apart from your claim. I do not study primarily or secondarily sexuality, or find gender-bending all that interesting so I am not an expert or largely tied to this issue - nor are you- but I see little hard evidence aside from your own vehement interpretation on the matter to 'prove your point'. You could show a million pictures and claim they show what you want but until art is not interpretive or ambigous that means it is your own opinion.

I think you discrediting the text in various cases as largely odd and disturbing.

I went back and found the Boccaccio section this relates to and it does not in any way support your thesis and seems to tie into women who seduce men and has them opening their outer clothing and showing their stuff off. Hard to take that as a gender reversal eh Brent. Woman seduces a man is as clear cut as can be. So let us look at occam's razor. The simplest answer is the likeliest. So let us compare for a moment the two lines of thought here. Some abstract thesis you created based on an interpretation in a number of illustrations or a illustration with text supporting a theme. So I have text that backs it up and you have your own theory.... which should I go with. Sorry Brent, I think you either A- need to get past ambiguous and interpretive studies here and provide some hard proof like text or B- go back to the drawing board or lastly C- there could be further reasons why women are shown in underwear or wore underwear BESIDES your own preconceived theory of gender reversal. Your interpretation does not counter Boccaccio's own words in my mind. You can keep ripping everything I or any one posts down but in this case the evidence seems so straight forward and clear I see no reason why I should not accept it as what it states, a non gender reversal, an example of women that seduced men.

[MediumAevum]

Randall,
Your missing the whole point. The evidence is fundamentally problematic for a known reason. Every image put forward so far, and it isn't like there are many, has a connection to gender reversal. Which means you cannot assume there is not a connection.
Why do I dismiss the text? Because nothing in the text can remove them from being in the same frame as Semiramis.
If you want to talk about the text find another image of them in underwear, where they are not in the same frame as Semiramis. Or at the very least another image that shows the same thing from another source.
For a second lets say you are right. All you have is an image which isn't enough evidence for really anything, maybe the artists was uncomfortable with vagina. Lets even go a step further and add the fountain of youth. You now have the same amount of evidence I have for kidney belts as they are used in the SCA. That still is just a coincidence.

Now atleast you have a potential lead on evidence as you have a known text that you can look for.

And for the record I didn't come up with the connection it was shown to me years ago when I came across that woodcut.
We can go round and round and we can have people take sides and all that.
Without more evidence it doesn't matter because its only a single source.

[MediumAevum]

An added note. We aren't talking about gender bending we are talking about gender role reversal and yes seduction can play into that.

[RandallMoffett]

No Brent. This is still running in circles. The only thing I can agree with is your last line. The two pictures I have posted have 0 to do with gender reversal in any way shape or form. The second especially is very clear. Truth is one only needs one strong piece of evidence to bring down a thesis, especially one that is flawed. The thesis is flawed. If you take any illustration with a woman in underwear and claim gender reversal, general reversal, it demonstrates a very limited and ultimately impossible model. To me this is a classic art history abstract concept that has turned into a fascist goliath but is more like a giant house of cards.

As to the authors fear of vaginas... get more familiar with evidence before shredding it. Since in other pictures he shows women naked in their glory I think you need to start really reviewing the works you are trying to debase. To me is shows the futility of you trying to keep your paradigm working when it does not in the ways you are using it.

And I cannot say how on earth you are saying a women seducing a man is gender reversal.... Appears you are either ignoring what is one of the most common stereotypes of medieval history or decided it does not fit your current thesis and simply trying to shoot it down. Over and over in medieval literature the role of seducer is that of a women. If anything the man should be wearing the dress in your view of hard and fast gender reversal tied to clothing. There are exceptions but if I had to put a number on medieval stories with seduction the pendulum is in the lower end of single digits for men as the active seducer.

You are picking and choosing the Semiramis story in a very questionable way as well. Yes she came to power and in your mind should then wear underwear. But that is not what is being shown in the picture here nor what the text focuses on. They focus on her using her 'talents' of persuasion to get her needs. Hardly gender reversal in any way shape or form to me. She was a seductress to the illustrators mind. In fact in many medieval and classical stories of her all over the world from Europe to Asia that is all she is known as, a woman who slept her way to the top quite literally. Some have her more or less categorized as a prostitute.

So you find a few illustrations that you feel show your thesis and fine. I am not saying they could not be. The issue to me though is that not all do and you need to refocus because if your thing with seduction is a gender reversal in the medieval period you have some serious errors in your medieval construct. I found two illustrations that don't and to me nice and simple it means that the general reversal is not universal in medieval art and second there are more reasons hence that artists are showing women in underwear. You can argue and whatever as long as you like but there is evidence which is a solid exception to your 'universal construct' of women's underwear.

RPM

[Bertus Brokamp]

Thanks for that link, Bertus. She always has interesting and well-thought-out things to say and finds art that I've never seen before. I'm glad she found some 14th c example of fitted sleeveless shifts beyond the Bohemian bathhouse babes.

T.

She said to me she had intended to include the Wenzel bible missies, but forgot while writing the post...

Here's the first progress of an interpretation of that Schwäbisch Gmünd bra-shirt: http://deventerburgerscap.blogspot.nl/2 ... art-i.html

[MediumAevum]

Randall, you win, if you can't see a mocking over rationalization as being that then your simply arguing to argue. In the end all you have are two images of something which is proof for little more then an idea. And I unlike you have little doubt that I can find more images that fit my argument interpretation but you don't even take the time to look up something like why women are masculinized in the Middle Ages instead of men feminized. Despite the still popular reference to who wears the pants in a relationship. And if you go to the beginning of the thread you'll find I'm not the first one to bring these up. So you win cause your a better rationalizing then I am, as all I'm doing is putting forth the status quo of scholarship.

Bertus, You are an extremely lucky man to get to help with that project.

[RandallMoffett]

First off Brent you know as well as any that in academia there is no one monolithic force in art history. There are more theories than you can shake several sticks, or pens, at which is why I shifted more and more out of it as a primary or secondary focus during my MA. Art History to me is a very colorful and beautiful place with all sorts of uses but still often a landmine field. I still read a fair amount about it but of all the subgroups of the study of history this is often the most abstract and interpretational. With literature there is interpretation but not anything on the level here.

Now as to what you seem to be missing through my last few posts. I never said the thesis that there are not artists showing gender reversal with underwear as a key symbol. I am sure this is true in situations. My main issue was with the idea it is universal in medieval art, which is unlikely to impossible and thus one should not take a concept and shoehorn everything into it.

RPM

[Effingham]

Has any one seen this before? It is late medieval, Boccaccio.

RPM

Here's a bigger version:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... roject.jpg

[Tailoress]

Some more thoughts on fitted female underwear:

http://m-silkwork.blogspot.nl/2012/08/1 ... hloss.html

Really great ideas there, and I think they have merit for exploration. Looking forward to seeing more as it develops. I'm still bemused that I started this game with lace-up chemises as my means of support and then abandoned them, thinking I had made too much of a suppositional leap. Now I'm envisioning a future in which I return to my beginnings, this time with more actual evidence.

[Karen Larsdatter]

Here you go: just posted a 15th century image with a woman clearly wearing a bra up on my Tumblr page.

http://larsdatter.tumblr.com/post/29331 ... enform-bra

[Effingham]

I love you, Karen.

[Tailoress]

Some more thoughts on fitted female underwear:

http://m-silkwork.blogspot.nl/2012/08/1 ... hloss.html

Really great ideas there, and I think they have merit for exploration. Looking forward to seeing more as it develops. I'm still bemused that I started this game with lace-up chemises as my means of support and then abandoned them, thinking I had made too much of a suppositional leap. Now I'm envisioning a future in which I return to my beginnings, this time with more actual evidence.

Although, I will point out that lacing on a fashion-layer dress indicates a tightness beyond the ability to pull it on and off over the head. I can't come up with a reason why medieval people would have wasted the time, skills, and materials on adding superfluous lacing if all they intended to do was pull something over the head. (I could see the effort for fake buttons being put in before the effort for lacing, which was not, AFAIK, in and of itself a fashion adornment; more a means to an end.) If something can be pulled over the head, it can't really support The Girls on women with any heft to their bosums, except possibly in an incomplete manner and in the case of women with really narrow shoulders. So this begs the question: why lacing on a fashion-layer dress? If their undergarment did the supporting, why would lacing have been as prevalent as it appears to have been? Perhaps this indicates a couple of things: some women got their support from an undergarment, some just got it from a laced dress; some got it from a combination of both; some didn't get any at all, depending on size and personal comfort levels and modesty of whatever variety.

I would have to wonder if the 14thc was a transitional time with regards to this dilemma -- a little bit of both solutions was probably in play. Interestingly, the 14thc was also a transitional time for armour, given the improvement in plate size. All around, an interesting time.

[Galleron]

Some more thoughts on fitted female underwear:

http://m-silkwork.blogspot.nl/2012/08/1 ... hloss.html

Really great ideas there, and I think they have merit for exploration. Looking forward to seeing more as it develops. I'm still bemused that I started this game with lace-up chemises as my means of support and then abandoned them, thinking I had made too much of a suppositional leap. Now I'm envisioning a future in which I return to my beginnings, this time with more actual evidence.

Although, I will point out that lacing on a fashion-layer dress indicates a tightness beyond the ability to pull it on and off over the head. I can't come up with a reason why medieval people would have wasted the time, skills, and materials on adding superfluous lacing if all they intended to do was pull something over the head. (I could see the effort for fake buttons being put in before the effort for lacing, which was not, AFAIK, in and of itself a fashion adornment; more a means to an end.) If something can be pulled over the head, it can't really support The Girls on women with any heft to their bosums, except possibly in an incomplete manner and in the case of women with really narrow shoulders. So this begs the question: why lacing on a fashion-layer dress? If their undergarment did the supporting, why would lacing have been as prevalent as it appears to have been? Perhaps this indicates a couple of things: some women got their support from an undergarment, some just got it from a laced dress; some got it from a combination of both; some didn't get any at all, depending on size and personal comfort levels and modesty of whatever variety.

I would have to wonder if the 14thc was a transitional time with regards to this dilemma -- a little bit of both solutions was probably in play. Interestingly, the 14thc was also a transitional time for armour, given the improvement in plate size. All around, an interesting time.

Absolutely. Henri de Mondeville has a enlightening passage on different approaches in the early 14th c.:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... ls-of.html

[RandallMoffett]

Tailoress,

We see some major transitions in clothing of men and women during this time so I do not doubt it could be when this is moving in. May be at the time this was worn with specific clothing as well.

Galleron,

Seems a very good bit of textual evidence for the medieval methods of breast support.

RPM

[Galleron]

But she is the one not shown in undies and the other women are. She is shown starkers. That is more or less besides the point though as the woman is supposed to be seducing the man and that is part of her legend and 'talents'. This is from a late 15th copy of De mulieribus claris or On Famous Women. This is the seduction/harlot section. So unless there is something manly about seduction I think we can see this as famous women who used their femininely powers of persuasion to gain power and influence from and over men. To me there is nothing manly about a women showing her under clothing off to gain a mans attention. I think we can then safely say this is not gender reversal as suduction if more often than not coupled with women in the medieval period.

Interesting though is that other women shown in more what I'd be thinking gender reversals, ruling for example, are in normal women's clothing.

RPM

According to De Mulieribus Claris, Semiramis made her maids wear chastity belts to keep them from sleeping with Ninias. I believe that's what's being shown here.

[Charlotte J]

So this begs the question: why lacing on a fashion-layer dress? If their undergarment did the supporting, why would lacing have been as prevalent as it appears to have been? Perhaps this indicates a couple of things: some women got their support from an undergarment, some just got it from a laced dress; some got it from a combination of both; some didn't get any at all, depending on size and personal comfort levels and modesty of whatever variety.

I would have to wonder if the 14thc was a transitional time with regards to this dilemma -- a little bit of both solutions was probably in play. Interestingly, the 14thc was also a transitional time for armour, given the improvement in plate size. All around, an interesting time.

I agree, in that personal preference may have played as large a part as anything else. Trends, variations in region and precise style, etc. might make a difference. I also think that a laced up garment in addition to an undergarment could have interesting results. For one, even if the lacing doesn't provide the support, it could allow the dress to skim the body perfectly. In addition, a laced garment could provide more shape than just the undergarment might provide on its own. Essentially, "bra" for lift, dress for squish.

I can't wait to get all of this laundry done (and guests here and gone) so I can play.

[RandallMoffett]

Could be. I could not say the illustration had to be one event of the story or the other. Boccaccio states that she was so lustful all her other deeds were overshadowed by her ways. Even Chaucer hits along the same lines. Not even sure I know of any medieval accounts of her that are not focused on her in that way. They do not look like what I think of as chastity belts. Not sure that'd keep some one from the king but could be. Regardless does not show gender reversals so I think it still stands

Dante around the same time as Boccaccio states of her something to the effect of her reputation setting her in the circle for lust.

Whereupon said I: "Master, who are those People, whom the black air so castigates?"
"The first of those, of whom intelligence Thou fain wouldst have", then said he unto me,
"The empress was of many languages. To sensual vices she was so abandoned,
That lustful she made licit in her law,

To remove the blame to which she had been led.
She is Semiramis. . .
She succeeded Ninus, and was his spouse;
She held the land which now the Sultan rules.[12]

Interesting character. Appears in other places she was looked at even worse.

Just did a Google search and found this- Hard to part legend and myth from reality but gives an idea of what

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/ancie ... iramis.htm

RPM

[Tailoress]

Absolutely. Henri de Mondeville has a enlightening passage on different approaches in the early 14th c.:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... als-of.htm

Some women, unable or unwilling to resort to a surgeon, or not wanting to reveal their indecency, make in their chemises two sacks proportioned to their breasts, but shallow, and they put them on every morning, and compress them as much as they can with a suitable bandage. Others, like the women of Montpellier, compress them with tight tunics and laces...

Oh Em Gee, Galleron, Oh Em Gee!

I've never seen that reference before, but it's pretty much exactly the kind of reportage we need on this topic. Thank you!

[Tailoress]

And perhaps we focus too much on support of the bosum and not enough on the modesty factor of containing and reshaping the bosum away from its natural contours. In these modern times it's certainly considered an immodest and sexually provocative behavior to go out in public without a bra on. Might a similar sensibility have existed in 14thc Europe, when dresses were growing tighter and thus more able to show the natural shape of the bosums beneath them?

Of course it took women zero time flat to figure out how to achieve a wondrous new form of bosum allure while reining in their natural contours...

[Bertus Brokamp]

Galleron, great find.

Tasha, nice thought. That would be in line with the FitAoftBP quote from c. 1345:
And the women surpass the men in their clothing which is so tight that they hang
fox-tails under their dresses at the back to hide their arses, ...

[Baron Alcyoneus]

And I thought that fashion came from the Renaissance (fair).

[Baron Eirik]

Lengberg underwear

Photos available here

on sale at Pennsic or on the HE website**. $21.95

(**Available August 5)

Looked for these at Pennsic & didn't see them (admittedly I couldn't spend much time looking on my one shopping tour), and I don't find them on the website at the moment.