Pull Those Pants UP!

[hsifeng]

OK,

For years I have been coached to believe that German wore their pants with high waists (or at least “above the natural waistline, and certainly higher than most modern men are comfortable with”) during the 16th century. This assertion appeared to be borne out in the art from the period. For example, from the “German Single Leaf Woodcuts 1500-

Comments

[afrodyte5150]

Could there be another garment that covers the gap? Kinda like.. a really, really wide fabric belt? I don't know German clothing well at all, but its a thought.

[hsifeng]

Not in the inventories that I know of, and they are usually pretty detailed. It is a thought though. However, I don't really see that in the woodcuts. *shrug*

Mysteries are so much fun!

[sstormwatch]

Maybe the difference between fashion ideals, as seen in the woodcuts, and fashion reality?

[hsifeng]

See, that is sort of what I thought too. *eeps*

[kass_rants]

Are we certain that the extant garments were not altered and their waistlines lowered to more "fashionable" levels in later centuries? For example, many items that are now in English museums spent centuries in family dress up boxes, where they were often used as costumes for fancy dress parties. Perhaps in the 19th century, the high waistline was thought ugly, so the owners of the extant garments altered them so they could wear them to parties or on special "historical" ocassions. This would explain the difference.

I fervently believe that high waists were the norm (we see it in more than just Landsknecht woodcuts, but in both English and Italian pictures and sculpture of the same decades).

[hsifeng]

Yes, but it seems to also be the case that the pants in the Sture grave finds are lower waisted than they "should be". These are later period, so maybe the same rules don't really apply; but I do seem to recall that the art of the later period was still depicting high waists...

[kass_rants]

No. The art of the 1560s shows lower waistlines. The Sture garments are pretty much in line with that.

But I just noticed something as I look at these extant garments -- none of them are contemporary with the Landsknecht woodcuts. The woodcuts are from the 1520s and 30s. The only extant garment dated says 1540s-50s, but I would argue that the later date is more correct. These fashionably slashed or paned garments are the later style, contemporary with the Sture garments, when the waistline had dropped to natural waist or hips.

[anjabeth]

Damnit, Kass! That's just what I was about to say, but you beat me to it! ;) I think we are looking at lowered waistlines as the century wears on. (pardon the pun). Hmm, now I want to look at later woodcuts, adn see if the artwork bears this out.

[jillwheezul]

The knitted hose supposedly belonged to August von Sachsen who did not inherit the title until 1556. They are likely from that date or afterwards. His inventories are still extant so they perhaps could be found in those, but they are still in manuscript form (grrr).

I also think you are looking at 2 different fashion styles timewise. The waistline moves downward when Charles takes over both Germany and Spain, and the Spanish fashion starts to dominate. The lower hose makes sense because you would want to reduce unecessary bulk under the doublet.

[hsifeng]

Thank you for nailing down some date information on those knit hose: It is nice to be able to firmly place them in an “after 1550” era. The Spanish vs. German fashion ideals thought totally works for me as well. *nods head*

Mostly, I figured if I posted the images that were confusing me, I would get a lot of expert replies - and I have! It’s good to have smart friends. *grin* I didn’t expect to have unearthed anything earth shattering, and assumed that there would be some very simple answers once the ball got rolling.

Thank you for your input!

[bedpimp]

Does this mean we're going to need to make another pants pattern?

I'm not sure I can deal with another weekend of my junk in your face while you poke me with pins quite yet. ;-)

[hsifeng]

Nope! Kass and Katherine are working hard to un-spin my head = see their comments if you want a full explaination of why we don't have to make you a new pattern. *grin*

[ext_118772]

Well, Kass and Katherine also nailed what I was going to say that 20-30 yrs does make a difference. I would also like to point out that comparing military fashion (the woodcuts) with civilian (silk and velvet) fashion is likewise problematic. Whoever wore those extant pieces were very likely *not* running about in muddy ditches, bending down into a defense against horse. :)

And, finally, two extant pieces does not a pattern make. Even if these were from the 1520s and were identified as military, two counter examples does not overthrow the many examples in woodcuts, paintings, tapestries and sculpture. It would, however, be worth raising so folks can take a look and we all can be better informed.

[hsifeng]

“It would, however, be worth raising so folks can take a look and we all can be better informed.”

Which is precisely why I did so! I figured that either a) information would surface on the dates/origins of these extant pieces, b) other folks would start pulling out similar example to add to the head scratching or c) a combination of the two.

I have two goals here: To not make assumptions on things, just because I’ve been told that they are true. To try and encourage dialogue.

Plus, I sometimes come up with “WTH” moments without the time to explore the research in greater detail on my own. That’s when I turn the Community of Fellow History Geeks to see what they come up with.

Certainly, military and civilian fashion isn’t always the same (even though one may follow the other). Certainly a span of 20-30 years is going to make a difference in what people are wearing. Certainly it is hard to tell if artists drew “true to life” or followed an idealized image.

But playing around in the Petri dish of though is always rewarding!