The History of Underclothes

by C. Willett

  Man’s undergarments received this useful addition shortly before 1800. It doubtless met a long-felt want. We read of a plump gentleman, in the tightest of buckskin breeches, attempting, at a ball, to bow to his partner, whereupon the breeches, stretched to capacity, suddenly shut up like a concertina round his ankles, so that he was immobilized. It may have been a war-time product that had let him down.

  The material used was leather, e.g. ‘a pair of morocco-leather braces, 5/–.’14

  The word used by the man of fashion for this appliance was, in his case, very appropriate. A ‘brace’ tightens a grip and his braces served not merely to suspend but also to tighten the buckskin breeches as much as possible. The name has survived long after a tight fit to breeches and trousers has ceased to be the mode.

  The labourer, on the other hand, who naturally could not work in tight garments on his legs, retained the old-fashioned word ‘gallows,’ which had been formerly applied to any kind of suspensory device for holding up a garment, and henceforth spoke of his braces as his ‘gallows.’

  4. CORSETS

  The dandy frequently wore this aid to beauty. Satirical caricatures show us the Prince Regent and others (e.g. figure 47) being laced in with difficulty, and Creevey also informs us that ‘Prinny has left off his stays and his belly now hangs over his knees.’ We also have a description of the fashion: ‘A man is to be pinched in and laced up until he resemble an earwig.’15 Contemporary illustrations show that after Waterloo the male waist became a conspicuous post-war attraction, and remained as a symbol of the exquisite for at least a generation. We are assured that ‘all people of fashion wore them in town,’ and that the exquisite would discuss the relative merits of ‘the Cumberland corset and the Brummell bodice.’

  FIG. 47. MALE CORSETS. ‘TIGHT LACING.’ ENGRAVING, c. 1815

  That they were not always reliable is clear from the entry in The Diary of a Dandy of 1818. ‘Sent for the tailor and stay-maker—ordered a pair of Cumberland corsets with a whalebone back. A caution to the unwary! The last pair gave way in stooping to pick up Lady B.’s glove. The Duke of C. vulgar enough to laugh and asked me in the sea slang if I had not missed stays in tacking.’

  Ten years later a London tailor advertised that he had a stay-maker on his staff ‘who designs and fashions the most approved stays for Gentlemen, from the Glasgow Stiffener to the Bath Corset.’16

  5. NIGHTCLOTHES

  These appear to have undergone no important change. Examples originally belonging to Thomas Coutts, the banker, may be seen at the Victoria and Albert Museum—a linen nightshirt, thirty-five inches wide, with a high folding collar and one button; and two knitted night-caps of jellybag shape, one single and the other double.

  6. UNDER-WAISTCOAT

  An example, which belonged to Thomas Coutts, is made of stock-ingette with a woollen lining, and is fastened down the front by thirteen Dorset thread buttons. The sleeves have a gap under the armpits and a narrow wristband with one button. It is twenty-eight inches long.

  WOMEN

  A revolutionary change in the structure of costume took place at the beginning of this epoch. The English invention of the high waist crossed the Channel and was shortly returned in the guise of the ‘classical’ style of dress, accompanied by an extensive shedding of superfluous undergarments. The English spirit of moderation, however, checked the ‘near-nudity’ movement in this country except for a few daring exponents of the ultra-French modes. For a few years stays were discarded by the ‘fashionables,’ but returned early in the new century.

  All through this period there was a continual outcry at the scanty garb of ‘the New Woman,’ but, by modern standards, the amount of underclothes worn was not alarmingly small. Indeed, its total weight was not less than was often worn, in summer, some twenty years ago.17 What was so shocking to the sense of prudery in Regency times was the novelty of a dress of such transparent material as to allow of a liberal revelation of the human shape, such as had not been seen in this country before.

  ‘Mrs. John Villiers was lately walking about Brighton in a muslin gown over a pair of grey pantaloons tied at the ankle with black twist, like those you may have seen William have,’ Lady Stanley wrote in disgust18 in 1801.

  We may regard it as a kind of veiled exhibitionism. The centre of attraction, throughout the period, was the breasts, emphasized by the high waistline. ‘One cannot see so many Ladies of high ton with the straps over the bosom, without thinking how much better they might have been employed over the shoulders.’19 Three years later the same paper comments: ‘The fashion of false bosoms has at least this utility, that it compels our fashionable fair to wear something’20 (figure 48). The voice of prudery is heard in the comment: ‘When I see a young lady displaying to every licentious eye her snow white bosom and panting breasts, with stays cut down before, the better to expose them to view—or when to shew a fine ankle the petticoat is shortened until half the leg is exposed—I blush for her indelicacy.’21

  The spirit of class distinction was temporarily suspended, and with it went the hoop and wide skirt, which survived only in Court dress until George IV abolished it when he came to the throne in 1820. Those Court hoops had become an anachronism. ‘You can form no idea what torments they were; it was like carrying a house on one’s back; so frightful, and so ridiculous too,’ exclaimed a lady subsequently.22

  FIG. 48. PATENT BOLSTERS. ETCHING DATED 1791

  The important innovation in this period was the introduction of drawers, which had hitherto been a purely masculine garment. The adoption of it by women was the first of that long series of larcenies from the male wardrobe by which woman has marked each stage of her emancipation, until now ‘the cupboard is bare and so the poor dog has none’ that he can call his own (figure 50).

  For us there is a certain irony in the fact that at first the wearing of drawers by women was considered extremely immodest. No doubt everyone was aware that it was a male garment; obviously only women of easy virtue would so demean themselves. So exceptional was it before 1800 that an instance obtained notice in The Times: ‘At the late Fandango ball in Dublin a certain Lady of Fashion appeared in the following very whimsical dress:—flesh coloured pantaloons, over which was a gauze petticoat, tucked up at each side in drapery, so that both thighs could be seen. . . .’23

  Early in the new century, however, the invidious garment was being adopted by ‘the dashers of the haut ton,’ and when Royalty, in the person of Princess Charlotte, not merely wore them but freely revealed the fact, its future career was assured. She was herself extremely ‘modern,’ being ‘forward, buckish about horses and full of exclamations very like swearing. She was sitting with her legs stretched out after dinner and shewed her drawers, which it seems she and most young women now wear. Lady de Clifford said, “My dear Princess Charlotte, you shew your drawers.” “I never do but where I can put myself at ease.” “Yes, my dear, when you get in or out of a carriage.” “I don’t care if I do.” “Your drawers are much too long.” “I do not think so; the Duchess of Bedford’s are much longer, and they are bordered with Brussels lace.” “Oh,” said Lady de Clifford in conclusion, “if she is to wear them, she does right to make them handsome”.’24

  The desire to exhibit a trophy so recently looted from man was natural enough; Regency prudery had not yet converted the garment into that Cimmerian mystery which so intrigued the Victorian male.

  The early years of this period was marked by a singular taste for wearing a bustle in front as well as behind. Noted by Horace Walpole in 1783 (see p. 91), we find it still being commented on ten years later. ‘The pretty prominent pads which now grace the first circles of female fashion, if they have no sanction in decency, can certainly find one in precedent.’25 Evidency of pregnancy, real or pretended, has always rather shocked the chaste male mind. ‘When our grandmothers were pregnant they wore jumps to conceal it. Our modern young ladies, who are not pregnant, wear pads to carry the semblance of it. From thence it may be infe
rred, our grandmothers had some shame, while their descendants had none.’26

  I. THE CHEMISE

  (The old term ‘shift’ had by now become quite unfashionable, even ‘vulgar.’) The garment, made of cotton or linen, was straight and ungathered, the shape being almost oblong. It was knee length. The neck opening was square and edged with a gathered muslin frill. The short sleeves were set in with a gusset in the armpit. Being wide, the chemise was sometimes omitted when the dress itself was narrow (figure 49). ‘Some of our fair dames appear, in summer and winter, with no other shelter from sun or frost than one single garment of muslin or silk over their chemise—if they wear one!—but that is often dubious.’ ‘The chemise, now too frequently banished.’ ‘The indelicacy of this mode need not be pointed out; and yet, O shame! it is most generally followed.’27

  2. THE PETTICOAT

  This was made of cotton, cambric, linen, or, for winter, sometimes fine flannel. The attached bodice was of coarser material, and the upper third of its skirt was opened down the sides to form a flap in front (to enable the garment to be put on), which was then fastened by tapes round the waist. The bodice was tied or buttoned in front and the back was cut high except when a low-necked dress was worn. This form of construction was known as ‘a low stomacher front.’ That even this garment was discarded by the more daring is expressly stated: ‘The only sign of modesty in the present dress of the Ladies is the pink dye in their stockings, which makes their legs appear to blush for the total absence of petticoats.’28

  FIG. 49. AN OPERATIC SINGER, SHOWING THE CHEMISE. FROM AN ENGRAVING, 1798

  ‘A lady with a well turned ankle should never wear her petticoats too short; cheap exhibitions soon sink into contempt; a thousand little natural opportunities occur to disclose this attraction without ostentatious display’29 (1806).

  In 1807, when dresses were narrow and tubular, there were advertised: ‘patent elastic Spanish lamb’s wool invisible petticoats, drawers, waistcoats, all in one.’ ‘The “invisible petticoats” were woven in the stocking-loom and drawn over the legs so that when walking you were obliged to take short and mincing steps.’30 Elastic petticoats were advertised at 3/6 in 1811, and cotton petticoats, 3/6. Elastic at this period meant stretchable material such as stockinette.

  From about 1815 onwards the petticoat had a pocket-hole on the right side through which a hanging pocket could be reached. By that date also the lower border was usually scalloped and trimmed with small flounces or a deep border of ‘Moravian work’ (later called ‘broderie anglaise’), while circular rows of piping, known as ‘rollios,’ extended upwards, often nearly to the waist. In these later years the petticoat was gored.

  By 1818, ‘women have learnt to wear full petticoats but not to lengthen them.’

  3. DRAWERS

  These began to come into fashion about 1806, and were at first made on the lines of the masculine article, the waistband drawn together by back lacing. The leg was either tubular or gathered into a band below the knee. A specimen, said to have been from the wardrobe of the Duchess of Kent, circa 1820, and now in the Gallery of English Costume, Platt Hall, Manchester (Cunnington collection) is illustrated. The legs are attached to a wide waist-band, band, and each is buttoned just below the knee (figure 50). ‘Cotton drawers at 3/9, worth 5/–’ are advertised in 1806. In 1811 ‘Ladies’ Hunting and Opera drawers in elastic India cotton,’ and in 1813, ‘drawers with attached feet’ were being advertised. These were made of knitted cotton.

  FIG. 50. (left) WOMAN’S DRAWERS IN KNITTED SILK, 1810–20: (right) WOMAN’S DRAWERS OF LAWN, c. 1820. WORN BY THE DUCHESS OF KENT

  We have to distinguish between drawers, which reached to just below the knee, and

  4. PANTALOONS

  This garment was distinct from drawers, which only reached just below the knee. Its name was quickly given a more feminine sound, and changed to ‘pantalettes.’ It differed in being extended down the leg to just below the calf, where it was bordered with lace and trimmed with four or five rows of tucks. In fact, the lower part was intended to be seen. This display was so opposed to the spirit of prudery that, at least in this country, the fashion for pantalettes did not survive beyond the 1830’s, except as a style for small girls.

  A fine example of the prudish comment comes from Lady Stanley’s letter of 1817—‘We were insulted by the presence of (Lady) Charlotte (Lindsay) in a green silk Spencer, green silk boots, and trowsers to the ankle much below the petticoat’ (i.e. pantalettes).31

  In some cases the two legs were constructed as separate items, very inadequately held in place, to judge from a lady’s complaint in 1820: ‘They are the ugliest things I ever saw: I will never put them on again. I dragged my dress in the dirt for fear someone would spy them. My finest dimity pair with real Swiss lace is quite useless to me for I lost one leg and did not deem it proper to pick it up, and so walked off leaving it in the street behind me, and the lace had cost six shillings a yard. I saw that mean Mrs. Spring wearing it last week as a tucker. . . . I hope there will be a short wearing of these horrid pantalets, they are too trying. Of course I must wear them for I cannot hold up my dress and show my stockings, no one does.’32

  It may be noted that French writers attributed the introduction of drawers for women to the English custom of schoolgirls wearing such things when doing physical exercises; this, observed by the French emigrées, inspired the Parisian women of the Empire to adopt the garment. That the generality of English women did not, as yet, wear this garment, is frequently proved by the caricaturist of the time, who did not hesitate to indicate the bare fact of its absence.

  5. CORSETS

  From 1794 to 1800 corsets were short, and were not worn universally. ‘Corsettes about six inches long, and a slight buffon tucker of two inches high, are now the only defensive paraphernalia of our fashionable belles, between the necklace and the apron strings.’33 From 1800 to about 1811 corsets were long, and from then to the end of the period they were, once again, short. It will be seen, therefore, that the phase of ‘no corsets,’ was, in this country, very brief and by no means general.

  The Long Corset was made of jean or buckram, well stiffened with whalebone. It extended downwards to cover the hips, and upwards to push up the breasts. The lower edge was often straight and not cut into tabs as before, though tabbing persisted as an unfashionable device almost till 1820 (figure 51). Sometimes the edge was vandyked; but as an alternative method padded, cup-shaped supports for the breasts were also used to ease the rigidity of the bosom. The corset was laced up behind, its back being made with a rigid bone or steel busk. As formerly the eyelet holes were oversewn and had no metal protectors.

  The Short Corset was equally rigid, and had back lacing. As the mode was to have small hips and a full bosom, there were sometimes bitter complaints.

  ‘By the newly invented corsets we see, in eight women out of ten, the hips squeezed into a circumference little more than the waist; and the bosom shoved up to the chin, making a sort of fleshy shelf disgusting to the beholders and certainly most incommodious to the wearer.’

  The fashion magazines of the period abound in advertisements of stays. In 1807, ‘The long elastic cotton stay obviates every objection complained of in Patent stays, not being subject to the disagreeable necessity of lacing under the arm, or having knitted gores . . . adapted to give the wearer the true Grecian form.’ Another maker assures us that her product (at three to four guineas, ready money) has succeeded in five thousand cases in removing with perfect ease the fullness of the stomach and bowels. We learn that ‘the present mode of bracing the digestive portion of the body in what is called Long Stays . . . compass into form the chaos of flesh.’ And we accept, without surprise, the news, in 1810, that ‘long stays are wholly exploded.’

  FIG. 51. WOMAN’S TOILET, SHOWING CORSET WITH BUST SUPPORT. ETCHING BY LEWIS MARKS, c. 1796–1800

  FIG. 52. WOMAN’S CORSET. ‘A LITTLE TIGHTER’. FROM A CARICATURE BY ROWLANDSON, 1791

 
To apply effectively the new short stay a mother is advised that her daughter should lie face down on the ground so that, by having a foot in the small of the back, the mother can secure a firm purchase on the laces.

  The Divorce Corset appeared in 1816. The name is misleading; at least it has misled a modern author into supposing that it reflected the current laxity of marital morals; whereas it was merely a device—not to separate husband and wife—but to separate one breast from the other. It consisted of a triangular piece of iron or steel, padded and with curved sides, the point projecting upwards between the breasts, thrusting them apart to produce a Grecian shape. It had almost the effect of a modern brassière.

  The ‘Pregnant Stay’ was described, in 1811, as completely enveloping the body from the shoulders to below the hips, and elaborately boned ‘so as to compress and reduce to the shape desired the natural prominence of the female figure in a state of fruitfulness.’ There was also the ‘Lucina belt for every lady expecting to be hailed by the endearing title of Mother.’

  6. THE BUSTLE

  For a few years before and after 1800 the bustle was discarded. By about 1810 it returned in the form of small rolls sewn into the back of the skirt; by 1815 it had become detached in the shape of a long sausage with tapes at each end by which it was tied round the waist. (Both types may be seen in the Gallery of English Costume, Manchester.) It seems that English ladies called the article a ‘Nelson,’ perhaps in compliment to the hero of the battle of the Nile when he was Rear-Admiral.

  Towards the end of this period the French fashion of wearing an outside bustle, known in this country as a ‘frisk,’ was a momentary mode. For a few years after Waterloo, the fashionable stance, known as the ‘Grecian bend,’ was effected by a forward stoop assisted by a large bustle, placed high up the back.