Clothes under robes, kilts (was Re: Snape's nationality and worst memory)

[junediamanti]

No: HPFGUIDX 76152

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sleepingblyx" 
<sleepingblyx at y...> wrote:
> Wearing clothes under the robes seems to come about from the film, 
> not 
> > the book. If they wear normal clothes under the robes, why 
bother 
> at 
> > all with the robes? Secondly on the train, why would Hermione 
> leave 
> > when the boys change into their robes if they are only putting 
> them on 
> > over their normal clothes?
> > 
> > "president0084"
> 
> I think the adding of clothing in the movies was possibly about 
the 
> pressure to separate Harry Potter from the "Evil Satanic Folk" <g> 
> that still renders criticism of the books today. 
> 

Not wearing anything under robes is not a "witchy" thing it's a 
historic thing.  People didn't wear trousers under robes because 
they weren't invented in the societies where people wore robes.  
There weren't a lot of underpants around for that matter either.  
The robes are early mediaeval in style.  That means a breechclout 
for men and women, a shift for ladies and an undertunic for men.  
Thats it with regard to underwear.  Yes there were trousers in the 
early mediaeval period, as worn in Scotland.  Trousers were also 
worn by the Gauls during Roman Times.  But the Romans also wore 
nothing under their togas and tunics.  (They presumably also liked a 
bit of a breeze around their privates...)

June

"It is a comfort in wretchedness
To have companions in woe."

Christopher Marlowe, Dr Faustus
> Going naked, or with as little clothing as possible, under the 
robe 
> is a tradition synonymous with magic practice. While J.K.R doesn't 
> go into what wizards might have been doing in the ancient times, 
if 
> they were perhaps a bit more into ritual, then not wearing much or 
> anything at all would have simply been a custom, tradition, etc, 
> that carried into the latter centuries.
> 
> ^v^ Blyx ^v^