That's what I originally thought about the Bruegel field workers, or that they were worn-out hosen that had been cut off below the knees. That's why I did a double-take when I saw the Bathsheba picture, because that guy is clearly not in his drawers, or about to do any field work.
Maybe, for the reasons previously mentioned, the artist was painting that guy in a gussied-up version of a peasant style. Or maybe the Bruegel drawings, which are thirty years later, show peasants wearing the castoffs of a flash-in-the-pan noble style. One reason I brought it up was to see if anyone else had any pictures of the same thing. I think it's especially interesting that Bruegel clearly shows a seam above the knee. I had even wondered if the knee parts were the tails of his undershirt drawn through, though that hardly seems practical. One leg of the guy in the Bathsheba image appears to also have this seam, so maybe it was just the way it was done. Anyway, glad I could share something surprising with you guys. It amuses me no end to see those knobbly knees in that painting. Tea Rose From: "David S. Mallinak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [h-cost] 16th-century short pants???? To: Historical Costume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Has anyone consider that the "short pants" under-drawers? Especial the Bruegel details show workers trying to keep cool working in the hot autumn weather. Your humble and obedient servant, David S Mallinak ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
