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
