quote:

---

Originally posted by Taylor Ellis:
Can someone explain to me how exactly hosen, such as HE's 15th century style are fitted and worn? Do they have a drawstring like modern shorts or trackpants, or do they always require to be looped through a torso garment? Lastly, for those who have worn them, does the codpiece effect movement in any way?

I'm deciding to go for HE's 15th century hose or the full hosen. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

---

ummm..what do you mean by "full hosen" as opposed to "HE's 15th century hose"?

do you mean modern dance tights (two legs joined at the crotch with an elastic waist) vs period 15th century hose (two legs, joined at the crotch with a discrete codpiece. No elastic or drawstring, they're held up by tying your points to your doublet)? or are you talking about the 14th century chausses, ie the two sepearate leg kind, held up by points tied to your undies?

as for the codpiece restricting movement at all, ahem, I'm sure I have no idea, not wearing such things myself . I dont see a lot of guys walking funny in 'em, though? And Jeff (and friends) ride horses just fine in 'em.

--Anne-Marie, once and future Pennsic Shopgirl

--------------------

It has sleeves, therefore it is a doublet.

Period artwork also demonstrates how to avoid getting too much gore on your lovely hosen; you roll 'em down. Among other things, this detail from Rogier van der Weyden's St. John Altarpiece also shows us lovely details of the seams on the hosen, how a man's linen shirt should look, even the seams inside the lining of his doublet.

Though again ... it is icky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
"Yuck"

It has sleeves, therefore it is a doublet.

Gwen

---

Hi Gwen -

The Pourpoint of Charles de Blois also has sleeves. What differentiates a Pourpoint from a doublet if both have sleeves?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:

It has sleeves, therefore it is a doublet.
Gwen

---

Pourpoint is French for Doublet ... I do not believe this is a differentiation we can make. Certainly not the usual re-enactors sleeve vs no sleeve. The only English reference I can think of where both pourpoint and doublet occur alongside each other is in Fastolf's inventory ... but I'd like to see the original before using this too prove the case. Certainly in the acts of Parliament where the English and French are shown alongside each other Pourpoint is translated as Doublet. Also I think the Fastolf inventory includes the same items more than once with differning names ... but I haven't looked for some time. However this would, if true, suggest the names were interchangable rather than differentiating

Another thing worth noting is the difference in the waist height of the reconstructed hose as illustrated and those of the John the Baptist hose ... in the majority of mid-fifteenth hose the top edge of the hose reaches the hips rather than the waist. This means that they will fall down if not attached to a doublet ... the solution is to wear the doublet around the waist ... it works and is visible in an earlier Memling (Scenes from the Passion of Christ c.1470)

The higher waist-height hose appear later in the century and into the C16th ... when you do start to see hose worn without doublets ... Breugel, later Schilling Chronicles etc.

As to the stiffness of the doublet, there are certainly records which include doublets lined with buckram, however, the majority probably weren't ... but that doesn't mean the doublet won't be stiff. If a good quality tight woven wool is used you'll get just the same effect.

If one wants absolutely authentic hosen, they should be custom made out of bias cut wool. There is a perfectly adequate pattern for these hosen in "The Medieval Tailor's Assistant" by Sarah Thursfield, along with the doublet to hold them up.

Dave gives the complete answer to the "doublet vs. pourpoint" issue. It would be useful if he could further explain how the layers work, and how the doublet is not intended as an outer garment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
I only posted the picture of the hose I offer because Taylor asked about them specifically. I make them high enough to wear without a doublet because that's what people want.
Gwen

---

If so, Gwen, do you do (or would you do) a 15th century version of something like that?

Gordon, who just stays confused.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
I only posted the picture of the hose I offer because Taylor asked about them specifically. I make them high enough to wear without a doublet because that's what people want.

If one wants absolutely authentic hosen, they should be custom made out of bias cut wool. There is a perfectly adequate pattern for these hosen in "The Medieval Tailor's Assistant" by Sarah Thursfield, along with the doublet to hold them up.

Dave gives the complete answer to the "doublet vs. pourpoint" issue. It would be useful if he could further explain how the layers work, and how the doublet is not intended as an outer garment.

Gwen

---

Your upper layers would be shirt, doublet, and then a gown. Depending precisely on where and when gives you the length and cut. Mid 15th century Flemish art seems to portray them for the prosperous middle class about mid thigh, and with enough fabric that they are gathered in vertical pleats like the fashionable gowns of the upper classes (in the back of the "Annunciation", by van der Weyden you can see two chappies out Marys window, leaning over a bridge wearing gowns of this sort, apparently spitting into the water. They also wear chaperons.

--------------------