bunnyjadwiga (
bunnyjadwiga) wrote2008-01-17 08:37 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Seventeenth-century bath customs in Basel, Switzerland
In the morning the bath-keeper gives a horn blow, that everything is ready. Then the members of the lower classes [and] polite citizens undressed in the house and walked naked across the public road to the bath-house... Yes, how often the father runs naked from the house with a single shirt together with his equally naked wife and naked children to the bath. How often can I see (that is why I do not go through the town) little girls of 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 years, completely undressed, except for a short linen bath-coat (badehr) often torn. . . They run along the roads at lunchtime, to the baths. And beside them the totally naked 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 year old boys, accompanying these respectable young women.
--Guarinonius, 1610 quoted in Virginia Smith, Clean, p. 172
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Seems to be another example of the "naked in a shirt/shift" phrasing. Not what we would call naked, but "in a state of undress" - i.e. not *fully* dressed.
I did a show, years ago, where the stage directions quoted the Elizabethan document that inspired it, and said the character was discovered "naked in his shirt." Had to keep explaining to the director and actor that this didn't mean naked, or even wearing only a shirt but no pants - referring as it was to a gentleman of the court, it meant he wasn't wearing a doublet. He was in shirt and hose. (The actor was somewhat relieved. He'd been willing, but the thought of doing an entire very serious one act play without his pants wasn't thrilling him.)
It can be a pain, because then you have to figure out when, if ever, naked means stark naked. It rarely seems to have, though. (Note that we actually have a phrase that means "really truly naked" differentiating that from merely "naked.")
no subject
only on saturdays, apparently