Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
Also (sorry, I don't know where you are from, mundanely) don't be confused by the modern terms - pants are an outer garment in US English, but underwear only in UK English. Jean On 21/07/2012 03:20, albert...@aol.com wrote: Breeches is an English term. Like culotte is the French term (sans culottes were French revolutionaries who wore pantalon). And even Jodhpurs were those riding pants with wide hips (now, just riding pants) worn traditionally in duh Jodhpur, India. for riding. So I'd say when a 16th century English writer talks about breeches... he really just means whatever pants local people wear. But saying men in Persia wear no breeches implies they don't wear tight, knee-length pants. I don't think he would consider full persian pants to be breeches. -Original Message- From: Data-Samtak Susan pasov...@aol.com To: Historical Costume h-cost...@indra.com Sent: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English In the 21st Century, horseback riding pants are still called breeches, especially the ones that are a few inches shorter and end above the ankle to be worn inside tall slim boots aka riding boots. The longer version that cover the ankle , usually with a cuff, (so not suited for tucking into tall slim boots comfortably) are sometimes still referred to as jodphurs. Of curse the Western Wear pants are called Jeans, usually made of denim, but not exclusively, which can be tucked into the shorter height Western Boot, or left covering the boot tops. Susan On Jul 20, 12, at 2:41 PM, Jill wrote: Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: I'm trying to determine what the word breeches meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called breeches in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
I'm trying to determine what the word breeches meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called breeches in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: I'm trying to determine what the word breeches meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called breeches in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
In the 21st Century, horseback riding pants are still called breeches, especially the ones that are a few inches shorter and end above the ankle to be worn inside tall slim boots aka riding boots. The longer version that cover the ankle , usually with a cuff, (so not suited for tucking into tall slim boots comfortably) are sometimes still referred to as jodphurs. Of curse the Western Wear pants are called Jeans, usually made of denim, but not exclusively, which can be tucked into the shorter height Western Boot, or left covering the boot tops. Susan On Jul 20, 12, at 2:41 PM, Jill wrote: Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: I'm trying to determine what the word breeches meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called breeches in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
And with variations, even the 19th C. Men walking about in shirt sleeves without at least a vest, were naked. -Original Message- From: Jill j...@gjh.me.uk Sent 7/20/2012 2:41:58 PM To: Historical Costume h-cost...@indra.com Subject: Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. EnglishBreeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: I'm trying to determine what the word breeches meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called breeches in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
Breeches is an English term. Like culotte is the French term (sans culottes were French revolutionaries who wore pantalon). And even Jodhpurs were those riding pants with wide hips (now, just riding pants) worn traditionally in duh Jodhpur, India. for riding. So I'd say when a 16th century English writer talks about breeches... he really just means whatever pants local people wear. But saying men in Persia wear no breeches implies they don't wear tight, knee-length pants. I don't think he would consider full persian pants to be breeches. -Original Message- From: Data-Samtak Susan pasov...@aol.com To: Historical Costume h-cost...@indra.com Sent: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [h-cost] Meaning of breeches in late 16th to mid-17th c. English In the 21st Century, horseback riding pants are still called breeches, especially the ones that are a few inches shorter and end above the ankle to be worn inside tall slim boots aka riding boots. The longer version that cover the ankle , usually with a cuff, (so not suited for tucking into tall slim boots comfortably) are sometimes still referred to as jodphurs. Of curse the Western Wear pants are called Jeans, usually made of denim, but not exclusively, which can be tucked into the shorter height Western Boot, or left covering the boot tops. Susan On Jul 20, 12, at 2:41 PM, Jill wrote: Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: I'm trying to determine what the word breeches meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called breeches in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
