The History of Underclothes
Page 8
FIG. 33. SHIRT AND STEINKIRK. EFFIGY OF SIR R. JENNENS, d. 1722, ACTON CHURCH, SUFFOLK
FIG. 34. SHIRT. BUST OF SIR EDWARD WALPOLE BY L. F. ROUBILIAC, 1735
3. NIGHTCLOTHES
The linen nightshirt (always to be distinguished in this, as in former centuries, from the ‘nightgown’ or negligée) resembled the day-shirt except that it was slightly longer and fuller in cut.
It had, however, a wide, flat, turned-down collar, the neck being closed with two buttons.
The neck opening descended somewhat lower than in the day-shirt, and often there were no cuffs at the wrists but merely a short frill and side openings.
Night-caps of linen or dimity embroidered in colours were the usual mode, and were always worn in bed. They were baggy and had no tassel. Fielding and Smollett provide us with some evidence. A lady describes as a spectacle far from attractive the appearance of her elderly bridegroom ‘in his three-fold nightcap, his flannel shirt . . .’13; we read of a quilted night-cap fastened under the chin in Humphrey Clinker (1771), and in Roderick Random of a worsted night-cap buttoned under the chin. Worsted, however, was worn only for extra warmth; otherwise it was an unfashionable material.
4. ARTIFICIAL CALVES
This accessory was introduced by the Macaronis—from about 1770 onwards. Its purpose was to accentuate the shapeliness of the male calf of the leg, which below the tight breeches of the period was regarded as so captivating. The importance of this device lies in its proving—if proof indeed were needed (figure 35)—that the male leg was then in the ascendant as a feature of sex attraction. It is sufficiently described in Sheridan’s version, brought up to date, of Vanbrugh’s comedy The Relapse, and renamed A Trip to Scarborough (1777).
LORD FOPPINGTON. . . . The calves of these stockings are thickened a little too much; they make my legs look like a porter’s. . . .
MR. MENDLEGS. My lord, methinks they look mighty well.
LORD FOPPINGTON. Ay, but you are not so good a judge of these things as I am. I have studied them all my life. Pray therefore let the next be the thickness of a crown-piece less.
MR. MENDLEGS. Indeed, my lord, they are the same kind I had the honour to furnish your lordship with in town.
FIG. 35. MAN’S TOILET, SHOWING CALF-PADS. ETCHING BY LEWIS MARKS, c. 1796–1800
LORD FOPPINGTON. Very possibly, Mr. Mendlegs; but that was in the beginning of the winter; and you should always remember, Mr. Hosier, that if you make a nobleman’s Spring legs as robust as his autumn calves, you commit a monstrous impropriety, and make no allowance for the fatigues of the winter.
Similarly in The Lord of the Manor14 we are told that ‘the military leg, with six yards of flannel roller to sweat the small and prop the calf. . . will be all the go.’
The same play also introduces us to an undergarment which the fop had recently revived; we read of one with ‘his stays laced.’ Henceforth for the next hundred years or so the elegantly dressed gentleman, proud of his close-fitting ‘smart’ clothes and shapely waist, not uncommonly wore stays.
FIG. 36. CORSET, CHEMISE AND UNDERSKIRT. FRENCH, c. 1780
WOMEN
I. THE CHEMISE
This reached to just below the knees. The top of the garment, edged with lace and threaded with a draw-string, was scarcely on the shoulders, and followed the line of the low décolletage of the bodice, above which the lace edging showed. The full sleeves, gathered in at the top, were elbow length with a lace frill which was revealed below the sleeve of the gown. But when, about 1740, the bell-shaped sleeves came into fashion, the chemise sleeves ceased to be visible.
A chemise, dated 1775, is at the National Museum, Copenhagen. Its length is 44 in., the hem 79 in., the width at base of sleeve gore 26 in., and sleeve length 14 in. It is gathered into a narrow band with two buttonhole fastenings. During this century the chemise or shift varied greatly in quality; and in the less fashionable classes was often quite plain. The usual material was linen, but Richardson’s Pamela (1741) is described as making her shifts of Scots cloth, though she speaks of ‘two yards of black ribband for my shift sleeves,’ and the rest of her underclothing comprised a linsey-wolsey petticoat, two flannel ‘undercoats’ (i.e. ‘waistcoats’) and a ‘pair of pockets.’ She was a domestic servant aged fifteen.
2. HABIT-SHIRTS
This relatively short-lived garment appears for the first time in the eighteenth century. Since it has not been described elsewhere, we propose to quote some accepted examples of the type.
In the eighteenth century woman’s riding costume resembled in many respects a man’s and included a ‘habit-shirt’ worn under a waistcoat. Parson Woodforde bought ‘4 yards of long Lawn at 3/6 per yard for Nancy to make her riding Habit Shirts and yard of corded Muslin for Ruffles at 9/ per yard.’15 The City Museum, Hereford, has recently been given three specimens of this rare garment, hitherto not described in the books on costume. They are identical in design and made of fine cambric; the construction resembles that of a modern ‘coat-shirt,’ the front being 15 in. deep and the back 11 in. To the back hem is attached a long tape for tying round the waist (figure 37).
A frilled jabot, 12 in. deep and 2 in. wide, surrounds the upper part of the front opening which is without fastenings.
The neckband, 14 in. round, has an attached collar 2 in. deep with two Dorset thread buttons, one above the other, by which it is closed. The sleeves, 21 in. long, and 8 in. wide at the elbow, are attached at the shoulder, with a gusset in the armpit and a narrow gusset above pointing to the neck and reinforced by lateral bands.
The wristband, with a 3-in. side slit, is square cut and has a frill 1 in. deep, which also surrounds the side slit. It is closed by a single button.
On the three shirts all the buttons are of the Dorset thread ring type except one which is of the ‘high top’ pattern.
FIG. 37. (above) WOMAN’S HABIT-SHIRT, SHOWING LINK-HOLES. EARLY 18TH CENTURY: (below) WOMAN’S HABIT-SHIRT, c. 1780
The garment has in many respects a masculine appearance but the tape attached to the back for tying round the waist is surely a feminine device.
We have provisionally assigned a date of about 1780 to these interesting garments, and in this we have been supported by Dr. Boucher of L’Union Française des Arts du Costume, who has examined them with us.
They differ from the ‘habit-shirts’ of the nineteenth century, which were sleeveless and scarcely more than ‘fill-ins’ above the top of the habits. As such those may be regarded as ‘dress accessories’; but these of the eighteenth century, worn like a man’s shirt under a waistcoat, may reasonably be included as undergarments.
So too, perhaps, may be the habit-shirts worn about the turn of the century. In 1801, Susan Sibbald thus describes her sister and herself: ‘how smart I thought we looked in our hats and feathers, habits with lapels, which when opened displayed waistcoats, frilled habit shirts, stand-up collars and black silk handkerchiefs round our necks, so that to look at us through the windows of the carriage if it were not for the feathers and curls, we might have been taken for two youths.’16
The City Art Gallery, Leeds (Sanderson collection) has a specimen of habit-shirt which we assign to the early part of the eighteenth century when The Spectator (1712) commented on the masculine appearance of the woman rider’s costume (figure 37).
It is of fine homespun linen, the front panel 15 in. deep, the back 12 in., the two joined at the sides and gathered into the neckband. The opening extends 8 in. down the front and is surrounded by a frilled jabot 1 in. wide. The attached stand-up collar, 13 in. round, is 1 in. deep and fastened by two ‘high top’ buttons.
The front and back hems have each a narrow band, 7 in. long, in the centre, to which the material is gathered; tapes are attached to the sides of the back for tying round the waist.
The sleeves, 18 in. long and 12 in. wide at the middle, have a small gusset below the collar attachment and a large one in the armpit; a narrow reinforcing band runs from the neck across to
the shoulder. The narrow wristband is closed by link holes, with a 1-in. frill attached which also surrounds the 3-in. side slit. The ‘link holes’ were probably for a ribbon fastening. The sleeves are gathered into the shoulders and wrists. Unlike the Hereford specimens, this had to be put on over the head.
FIG. 38. (above) INTERIOR OF CORSET, SHOWING THE REINFORCEMENT, c. 1777: (middle) CORSET AND SEPARATE STOMACHER, 1730–40: (below) CORSET OF WHITE FLOWERED SILK, c. 177O
3. THE CORSET
This was singularly rigid and compressing throughout the period, and was worn from childhood. The coarse material of which it was made was closely stitched in rows from top to bottom, enclosing stiffenings of cane or whalebone. Its lower margin was cut into tabs so that the garment could be adapted to the shape of the hips. The front, supported by bones, ended in a point below the waist. The back, also boned and usually made higher than the front, had attached shoulder straps which were brought forward and fastened to the top edge in front, while the sides were hollowed out under the armpits. For the low décolletage of Court dress these shoulder straps were passed round the tops of the arms (figure 38).
Back lacing with a single thread was usual; the eyelet holes oversewn with silk since metal eyelets had not yet been invented. (This point is important in dating specimens) (figure 38). The ‘open corset’ was laced in front and behind, and for stout people extra side lacings might be added. The discomfort of the fashionable corset in 1779 may be gathered from The Sylph, a novel by Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire: ‘Poor Winifred broke two laces in endeavouring to draw my new French stays close. You know I am naturally small at bottom, but now you might literally span me. You never saw such a doll. Then they are so intolerably wide across the breast that my arms are absolutely sore with them; and my sides so pinched! But it is the ton, and pride feels no pain.’ Occasionally corsets were covered with dress material, and formed the bodice of the gown, with eyelet holes round the armholes by which detachable sleeves could be secured.
FIG. 39. CORSET SHOWING BACK-LACING, c. 1770
Specimens of corsets of the eighteenth century are often difficult to date with precision. A type may be found with an iron stiffener curved round the upper border in front and embedded in the material. A letter of Horace Walpole’s (March 28, 1777) clearly refers to this as a new fashion:
‘There has been a young gentlewoman overturned and terribly bruised by her Vulcanian stays. They now wear a steel busk down their middle, and a rail of the same metal across their breasts. If a hero attempts to storm such strong lines, and comes to a close engagement, he must lie as ill at ease as St. Lawrence on his gridiron.’
The projection of this iron ‘rail’ would support the bouffante or ‘pouter pigeon’ corsage which was fashionable for the next ten years or so (figure 39).
A comfortable substitute for such a corset as was usually worn was the negligée known as ‘jumps,’ a loose kind of unboned bodice. ‘Bought my wife a new pair jumps instead of stays. She paid 36/6 for them.’17
4. THE HOOPED PETTICOAT
This was made of a strong material stiffened with whalebone hoops increasing in circumference from the waist downwards. Until about 1720 the shape was pyramidal. The Weekly Journal of 1718 remarked: ‘Nothing can be imagined more unnatural, and consequently less agreeable. When a slender virgin stands upon a base so exorbitantly wide, she resembles a funnel (inverted)—a figure of no great elegancy; and I have seen many fine ladies of a low stature who, when they sail in their hoops about an apartment, look like children in go-carts’ (figure 40).
At first its function, to the male eye, seemed clear. The Spectator of 1711 stated: ‘The hooped petticoat18 is made use of to keep us at a distance.’ The unsophisticated country folk were astounded when the fashion first reached them. The shape, steadily expanding, became in the 1720’s dome-shaped, and in the next decade the front and back were flattened, with extra width at the sides. In 1739 a lady writes that hoops are ‘two and three-quarter yards wide.’ By the 1740’s the width was so vast that to pass through a doorway the wearer had either to go sideways or else to flatten the hoop by pressure on the flexible rings. But the headlong career of a fashion is not to be baulked by such obstacles; by the half-century two devices were employed. Either a pair of hooped bustles (then called ‘false hips,’ to which the Victorians preferred the nicer name of ‘panniers’) were worn, one on each hip (figure 40); in each of these was an opening for a pocket suspended within. Or, to obtain still greater breadth, the substructure was crowned on each side with three metal hoops which, being hinged, could be folded up under the arms when occasion required (figure 41).
FIG. 40. (above) BLUE LINEN PANNIERS, c. 1740; (below) HOOPED PETTICOAT OPENING AT THE BACK, c. 1740–50
FIG. 41. HOOPED PETTICOAT SUPPORT IN BENT WOOD, c. 175O
A lady, aged 68, whose waist was only 20 inches, writes in 1741: ‘I desire you will send mee a very good whale bone hoop Peticoat of the newest fashion. It must be three yards and a quarter round at the bottom and it must draw in a Top for a wast half a yard and a nail round, and the length from the hip to the bottom a yard and a quarter.’19
The breadth continued unabated till the end of the 1760’s when the dome-shape returned and, except for Court dress, by 1775 the hoop had given place to the bustle.
From the household accounts of a County family (obtained from a private source) we extract some prices:
1745.
A hoop 8/6.
1756.
Miss ——’s stays bound round the top and cut lower before, 2 /.
Her loose slip altered and made to fit the new stays 5/.
Mrs. ——’s stays let out a lap on each side and bound 5/.
Mrs. ——’s stays let out three bones on each side /3.
5. THE BUSTLE
This was a large roll pad, tapering at the ends and tied round the waist. It was stuffed with cork or any light cushion stuffing (see figure 42). The revival of this ancient device seems to have appeared, in the fashionable world, early in the 1770’s. The Universal Magazine of 1776 describes the structure of ‘the modern girl’:
Let her gown be tucked up to the hip on each side,
Shoes too high for to walk or to jump,
And to deck the sweet creature complete for a bride,
Let the cork-cutter make her a rump.
Thus finished in taste while on Chloe you gaze,
You may take the dear charmer for life.
But never undress her, for out of her stays,
You’ll find you have lost half your wife.
In more elegant language, Horace Walpole, writing to the Countess of Ossory (January 7, 1783) comments:
‘On prétend that certain invisible machines, of which one heard much a year or two ago, and which were said to be constructed of cork, and to be worn somewhere or other behind, are now to, be transplanted somewhere or other before, in imitation of the Duchess of Devonshire’s pregnancy. . . .’
That the purpose of this appliance was something more than a mere arriére pensée seems to be implied in a letter from a disconsolate damsel of nineteen, complaining that she has so far failed to capture an admirer:
‘. . . I begin, indeed, to think there is nothing at all in beauty; what a deal of pains have I taken to improve my face and my shape! But if you cannot put me in the way to make something of myself after all, I will actually unfrizzle my hair, throw my rouge in the fire, stuff a cushion with my bustle, press down my handkerchief to my bosom—and in short appear exactly as Nature made me. . . .’20 A desperate remedy indeed.
FIG. 42. BUSTLES. FROM AN ETCHING, 1787
From the same source we gather a description by an admiring husband of his wife’s charms, as displayed at Ranelagh: ‘. . . She was without any stays and being quite free from such an encumbrance the fine play of her easy shape was exhibited in a very advantageous light. She had nothing on but a white muslin chemise, tied carelessly with celestial blue bows; white silk slippers and slight silk s
tockings, to the view of every impertinent coxcomb peeping under her petticoat. Her hair hung in ringlets down to the bottom of her back, and even rested upon the unnatural protuberance which every fashionable female at present chuses to affix to that part of her person.’
6. THE UNDER-PETTICOAT
Contemporary illustrations reveal that the under-petticoat was generally quite narrow and tubular, and that it did not reach below the small of the leg. A hoop raised in walking would have freely exposed a flimsy petticoat which could have revealed the shape of the legs. The petticoat was made of cambric, dimity, flannel or calico, frequently with coloured bands bordering it (figure 43). For warmth some preferred a quilted under-petticoat.21 ‘You must send a neat white quilted Callico petticoat for my Mother, which must be a yard and four inches long.’ ‘The Marseilles Quilt petticoat is so heavy my Mother cannot wear it.’22 For evening the garment would be more elaborate and carry embroidery.
FIG. 43. (above) WOMAN’S UNDERSKIRT, c. 1770: (below) WOMAN’S UNDERSKIRT, c. 1780
We do not know whether more than a single under-petticoat was usually worn, but illustrations suggest not. ‘Send my Mother for under petticoats 16 yards of tufted Dimmothy to wear under an Hoop, and three or four yards of very fine cambric,’23 suggests materials for day and evening respectively.
The under-petticoat was known as a ‘dicky.’ ‘Of all her splendid apparel not a wreck remained . . . save her flannel dicky’ (1787).24