World News

By Hugo Rifkind

FORGET about David Beckham’s sarongs, or the leather kilts of Jean Paul Gaultier. From the togas of the ancient Romans to the three-quarter length "vests" of Charles II, men have been wearing skirts since they started wearing anything at all.

The trouser, by contrast, is a relative newcomer. One only need look at the official costume of the Lord Chancellor to see that. Trousers as we (roughly) know them have been widely worn only since the early 19th century, when Beau Brummel started strutting round court in a pair of sailor’s pantaloons.

Prior to this a gentleman was expected to wear breeches, and prior to that, Charlie Faulkner-style hose or tights. Both would have been considered indecent if not partially covered by a longer top coat, at least to mid-thigh.

Interestingly, the lower flaps of such coats were known as "skirts" – the word coming to refer to feminine garments only in later years, when female outer skirts stopped being known as "petticoats".

And while we are on the subject of petticoats, there is nothing intrinsically feminine about them, either. Young boys wore them routinely as recently as the late 18th century, until they were "breeched" into adult attire between the ages of four and eight.

Historically, the skirt has often been used as a display of hyper-virile masculinity. Think of ancient Greek Olympians lobbing javelins. Think of Russell Crowe, as a leather-kilted Roman in Gladiator.

Indeed, think of the Scottish kilt today. What could be more butch than a stocky-legged Caledonian, swathing his vitals in bristling wool?

Even today it is only Western culture that feels the need to draw a link between manliness and this new-fangled business of lower garment bifurcation. The South Indian lunghi could be considered a skirt, as could the Tahitian pareo, the traditional Greek foustanela or the Malaysian sarong. All are comfortable, practical, and considered perfectly respectable. Mind you, I would hesitate to wear them down the pub.