What did medieval monks wear under their habits? While the image of the cloistered monk in a simple robe might suggest an uncomplicated answer, the truth is far more intricate—and contentious.
Research by Jacqueline Murray reveals how the topic of monastic underwear—specifically the presence or absence of undergarments like femoralia and bracae—became entangled in larger debates about modesty, masculinity, and monastic discipline throughout the Middle Ages.
Drawing on a range of sources from the fifth through the thirteenth centuries, Murray explores how different religious orders, individual communities, and even specific monks approached the issue of undergarments. For some, underwear was a practical necessity, while for others, it was a sign of moral weakness or spiritual failure. And in several cases, it became a flashpoint for theological and ideological disputes between rival monastic traditions.
The Rule of Saint Benedict, which became the foundation for many Western monastic customs, did not include undergarments as part of daily wear. Underwear was only permitted when monks travelled, and even then it had to be washed and returned upon their return to the monastery. This left considerable room for interpretation—space that medieval monastic communities were more than willing to fill with controversy.
Murray begins her study with a dramatic moment described by the twelfth-century abbot and chronicler Guibert of Nogent. After a fire broke out at the monastery of Saint-Germer-de-Fly, Guibert recorded that flames went up underneath the monks’ habits, “singeing off all their shameful pubic hair and burning the hair of their armpits (which some call the ‘goat-hair’), then the flames made their way out of the monks’ extremities by piercing through their socks and sandals.”
Murray reflects:
The fact that the fire—or perhaps lightning—penetrated socks and sandals but burned or singed pubic hair led me to wonder whether the monks had been wearing underpants. Would underpants have protected the pubic hair, allowing the fire to burn off more harmlessly, as it appears to have done with the socks and sandals? But if the monks were wearing underpants, Guibert would surely have mentioned them along with the socks and sandals.
This graphic image raises an even larger question: what were the monks wearing beneath their robes, and why does it matter?
Part of the complexity, Murray argues, stems from inconsistent terminology and the evolution of garments over time. The Latin term femoralia generally refers to thigh-length underpants, while bracae could describe longer breeches. Both terms overlapped in usage, and their meanings shifted across centuries and geographic regions. This linguistic ambiguity, coupled with differing regional climates, local customs, and personal piety, produced a range of practices across the monastic world.
Different orders developed divergent approaches. The Cluniacs, known for their relative comfort and ceremonial splendour, provided each monk with two pairs of femoralia, and altar servers received an additional pair to manage nocturnal emissions. Peter the Venerable, a leading Cluniac abbot, argued that wearing underpants was necessary for the sake of honour and purity. Meanwhile, the Cistercians, champions of austerity and simplicity, saw underwear as an indulgence.
According to Murray, the Cistercians’ stance led to criticism from observers like Walter Map, who ridiculed their indecent exposure and questioned their spiritual logic.
Map disapproved of this conventional strategy to preserve chastity, arguing that underpants were a respectable garment approved by all orders and that for the sake of decency all religious men should cover their private parts. He underscores this with a cautionary tale. One day, a Cistercian was walking along the road and saw King Henry II riding with a group of attendants. The monk rushed to get out of their way, only to stumble and fall. Predictably, he fell right in front of the king’s horse just as a strong gust of wind blew his habit up over his neck, leaving his naked genitals fully exposed. A monk, presumably of a different order, who was riding with the king, murmured sotto voce, “A curse on this bare-bottom piety.”
Map also observes that he and his companions, although they lived in the world, did not need their chastity preserved by cold winds and bare bottoms. This whole discussion may be nothing more than an attempt by Walter Map to embarrass the Cistercians or perhaps a story to entertain his readers, but regardless of intention, Map presumes his readers, religious and secular clerks alike, were accustomed to wearing underpants.
These disputes weren’t confined to monks alone. Secular clergy and wandering hermits also faced criticism for immodest clothing, especially when wearing short tunics over hose without any undergarments.
Meanwhile, Franciscans and Dominicans faced their own tensions. Saint Francis himself prescribed “short trousers” beneath patched tunics, possibly reflecting a view of friars as perpetual travellers in accordance with the Rule of Saint Benedict. However, by the thirteenth century, Franciscans debated how short their habits should be, and whether the “short trousers” were still worn underneath. The Dominicans, initially rejecting underwear, eventually reversed course, only to ban it again in 1255.
What emerges from Murray’s research is not a clear-cut timeline of changing fashion, but rather an evolving debate—sometimes humorous, sometimes bitter—about the role of the male body in monastic life. Underwear, or the absence of it, became a material symbol of interior discipline, moral strength, and theological allegiance.
As Murray concludes:
Whether worn or spurned, whether long or short, the controversies and debates about religious men’s underwear were ultimately controversies and debates about male sexuality… Underpants could reinforce bodily chastity, disguise unmastered virility, or hide the remnants of nocturnal emissions, all so important for monastic men living and sleeping together.
The article, “Inside and Out: What Did Religious Men Wear Under Their Habits?” by Jacqueline Murray is published in Florilegium, Vol. 37 (2020). Click here to access it.
Jacqueline Murray is professor emeritus of history at the University of Guelph and one of Canada’s leading historians of the Middle Ages.
Top Image: British Library MS Yates Thompson 13 fol, 174
Subscribe to Medievalverse
