Woman with footless hose, 16th century

[frualeydis]

Look at this cool engraving by Lucas van Leyden. It looks like the milkmaid is wearing trousers under her skirt. It's most likely however that they are footless hose, like her male companion is wearing. Hose for women are known from both the middle ages and the early modern period, while trousers or drawers are, with the exception of a few italian example who belonged either to the aristocracy or to courtesans, unknown in this time. And this is neither Italy, not the upper classes. Footless hose, on the other hand are mostly depicted on lower class people.
He also shows footless hose on a woman in a print of a group of beggars, again showing the very low social groups that these belong to. But I haven't found that print on the internet.

Comments

[therru.livejournal.com]

I suppose it would be practical with hose (for warmth and perhaps decency?) when you need to bunch up your skirts to work?

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Probably, and that women wore hose is well known. That they are baggy is also normal for lower class people, who often bough their hose ready made and not fitted to the individual.

Eva

Hose

[valina-anne.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting that picture. Very interesting.

[tonyadmay.livejournal.com]

Love it! You guys find the best engravings/paintings/etc. Yet another reason to be addicted to LJ. ;-)

[(Anonymous)]

And footless hose would help with the chafing of thighs that a lot of women get. :)

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Yes, women's hose were, according to other sources not longer than just above the knee, but one could of course make a pair of men's hose and point them to the corset if one wears one or to a belt under the kirtle, like men's hose were worn before they became pointed to a doublet.

Eva