The truth about pants (dedicated to a disgruntled Toronto Star reader)

People tell me I’ve hit the big time when I receive hate mail.

I write as the men’s entrepreneurial image expert in the Toronto Star‘s Small Business section, and one day, I got a 4 am email from an intelligent but angry reader who couldn’t believe that I would waste his time talking about something as unimportant as socks.

He got personal, saying that I was the best journalist this side of Fox news, and expressed an interest in reading future posts he envisioned such as, “Belts vs Suspenders, which one makes you more money?” and “The Truth About Pants”.

I thought the latter would make a fine blog topic, so in honour of this angry man, I’m pleased to tell you the truth about pants!

History Costume is divided into five major types of clothing: draped (a wrapped cloth – e.g. togas), slip-on (over-the-head – e.g. poncho), closed sewn (e.g. tunic, shirt), open sewn costume (long cloth closed, stitched, worn over other garments – e.g. coats, caftan, Russian tulup), and sheath (sewn and tubular, fitted closely to the body – e.g. breeches, skirts).

There is evidence in Bronze Age paintings found in the Spanish Levant that men wore some kind of leather trouser that was adorned with fringe and sometimes garters, and there is mention of “linen breeches” for all “the sons of Aaron” in Exodus XXVIII, but it wasn’t until people started riding horses that these leg tubes caught on. Before this, men wore the types of clothing women wore – robes, mantles, and tunics.

When horses became the prime mode of transportation, riding with two free legs was preferable, so the garment was adopted by individual riders and mounted armies who, over time, made them part of military uniforms.

In Asia and Europe had some form of pants. In Japan, the Samurai wore a kind of pleated split skirt called the hakama, Turks had harem pants, and the Gauls and Celts wore breeches (brit-chez) and trousers.

European breeches morphed into hose or chausses, which looked like hip-waders made of wool that tied to the braies, short drawers tied around the waist.

Bracae, Latin for breeches took a while to catch on in Rome, though Italy was surrounded with cultures that wore some kind of leg covering. Ancient Roman men generally avoided wearing trousers or pants of any kind, considering them barbaric, and worn by “uncivilized” people who lived outside areas controlled by Rome, like the Gauls who lived in present-day France, or the Celts in the north. But during the Roman conquests of cooler northern Europe, the chilly Roman army adopted the local dress of short, tight leg coverings for warmth and protection, which were eventually brought to Rome.

These breeches they would have worn looked like pajama bottoms, tied to the waist and held to the legs by criss-crossed bands of linen or other material. Feminalia were snugly fitting knee-length pants that covered the length of the thighbone, or femur (hence the name). Augustus Caesar (63 B.C.E. –14 C.E. ), the famous Roman emperor wore feminalia through the winter “to protect his sometimes fragile health”. 

Evolution Parti-coloured hose in Medieval Spain In the 14th century, the cut and construction of men’s hose improved, and parti-coloured hose, hose with different coloured legs, were popular in Europe. These hose were made of knitted wool, sometimes lined with linen, and often coloured red, black, or brown – popular colours of the period made so with dyes of iron ore.

During Henry VI’s reign, men’s hose got a little more structured and laced to the doublet which, I assume, gave an increased feeling of security to the wearer. The 15th century saw the inclusion of the infamous codpiece that began as a triangle of fabric laced to the crotch to cover a gentleman’s tackle.

By the time of Henry VIII, codpieces were the order of the day, padded and exaggerated in size, sometimes used as pouches for coins and such. Codpieces peeked out from the divide of a Tudor gent’s waistcoat skirts, not to be ignored!

Hose separated into two parts in the middle of the 16th century, becoming upper and lower hosen. The lower hose were more like a stocking and the upper hose looked like puffed shorts, made of brocades if the wearer could afford it. This upper piece was known as trunk hose.

From this point in time, the trunk hose grew in length, becoming nether hosen during the Elizabethan reign, then into huge pleated knee-length slops in 1600, and heavily pleated bag breeches later in the century. For the next few hundred years, the lower garments grew longer and slimmer, becoming pantaloons by the 19th century.

Long pants as we know them today appeared during the early 1800s and have kept on since, varying in widths and rise lengths (the distance from waistband to crotch) during different eras. Front openings have evolved from tie-on crotch covers (codpieces) to button front flaps (fall-front) to a modern zippered fly.

Lots of changes, lots of forms. That is the true story of pants, an interesting and complex evolution of leg tubes developed for equine travel.

Views: 1345

Comment

You need to be a member of Art of Manliness to add comments!

Join Art of Manliness

Comment by Leah Morrigan on November 1, 2012 at 10:22am

Thanks Margie and Carl for your comments - it doesn't feel good to receive someone else's anger, but the trick is to turn it into a positive. Glad you liked it!

Comment by Carl Monster on October 26, 2012 at 1:27pm

Great, fascinating reading here. I stumbled upon this only because of Margie's comment; thanks Margie.

I especially like the development of the codpiece, never gave it serious thought but apparently men of that time did! 

You need more angry readers ;) to put out such cool, informative stuff, thanks!

Comment by Marlie on October 26, 2012 at 1:04pm

I thought the latter would make a fine blog topic, so in honour of this angry man, I’m pleased to tell you the truth about pants!

Good for you, Leah! lol

I'd previously missed this blog post of yours. I just never find myself over on this side of AoM unless I happen to see someone responding to Carl's blog. And as I've mentioned to you, I don't have all that much interest in men's clothing and yet I still enjoy your posts. I couldn't help noticing that your site has over 40,000 hits.

Congratulations! That's quite an accomplishment.

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Exactly. It's an officer doing his job. "Terry stops" ARE "stop and frisk". You've bought a lie. Stop believing it."
17 minutes ago
sumanta nandi updated their profile
19 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Shane you're talking about something different here.  This is a situation where an officer who's patrolled an area for a long time observes suspicious activity (24 times).  This does not appear to be a "stop and frisk"…"
25 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"I'd be good with an Anderson Cooper "town hall" style debate. We won't get it though because he has a co-moderator next debate."
33 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Did they use the word "racial"? Because the Supreme Court in an 8-2 decision sure as fuck doesn't think it's racial profiling. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1 It's called "behavioral…"
41 minutes ago
Native Son replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"I did not do a second by second parsing of the debate. What I saw, was both candidates were relying on the debate tactics the got them the primary victories and party nominations. Clinton doing her "cool, collected professional" bit, and…"
45 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Every LEO I've ever heard talk about it, says it's is profiling.  I don't know where you are getting your information, but feel free to share it with us..."
53 minutes ago
Native Son replied to GK's discussion Calling in sick to attend a job interview?
"One discreet way I've seen, and used, is this: You get the interview, etc., scheduled. You inform your employer you have an appointment and need to take such-and such a date off work. I wouldn't specify you're taking a sick day…"
1 hour ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service