The History of Underclothes

by C. Willett

  Men’s Shirts, long or half sleeves, in brown cotton, lisle thread, gauze cotton, blue, pink and fancy stripe Imperial Cotton, merino (single or double breasted) in natural, red drab or fancy colours. Summer shirts in gauze merino and India gauze. Winter lambs’ wool shirts, Saxony or Cashmere. Scarlet lambs’ wool shirts. Worsted and Segovia shirts. Longcloth shirts with linen fronts, bands and wrists, to button in front or behind. Pure linen shirts, dress shirts with French wrists, printed Regattas and striped Jeans.

  Men’s Drawers and Pants of merino, lambs’ wool, brown and white cotton, and chamois. Calico nightshirts, 45 and 50 inches long.

  Women’s vests and drawers in merino, lambs’ wool, white cotton, and chamois.

  2. DRAWERS, AND UNDER-VEST

  Of these we have been unable to find any reliable account. In 1857 Rev. James Round paid 7/6 for linen drawers, 2/6 for cotton drawers and 4/6 for a merino vest.6

  3. BRACES

  At about this period braces1 embroidered in Berlin woolwork of many colours came into notice (figure 70). What is remarkable about them, apart from their colours, is the fact that they were so often worked by young ladies and given as presents to the sterner sex; this at a time when prudery forbade the mention of the garments to which they were destined to be fastened. Perhaps we should regard them as symbols of a secret attachment.

  Fashion plates (of French origin) show occasionally gentlemen attired for ‘le sport’ in trousers pleated on to a tight waistband and without braces. We have not found an English photograph showing this style.

  4. NIGHTSHIRTS

  These do not appear to have undergone any striking change. The novelist was chary of describing sleeping garments, lest the susceptibilities of each sex might be disturbed by details of the other’s night apparel. All we are told of Mr. Franklin Blake’s famous nightgown (Wilkie Collins: The Moonstone, 1868) is that it was made of longcloth and that it must have been ankle-length.

  FIG. 70. EMBROIDERED BRACES, C. 1850; AND MAN’S NIGHT-CAP, l800–20

  WOMEN

  1. THE CHEMISE

  The shape remained unaltered. A specimen in the Cunnington collection, dated 1857, is scarcely distinguishable from those of a generation earlier. Longcloth or linen was the usual material, which, by 1864, was sometimes trimmed with scarlet cotton designs.

  2. THE CAMISOLE

  Continued to be worn over the corsets.

  3. THE CORSET

  As the waist shortened by 1860 the corset shortened with it.7

  ‘The taste for coloured corsets is rapidly increasing’ (1862). Scarlet merino corsets cost 10/6 in 1864.

  As soon as the crinoline began to diminish tight-lacing returned: ‘all efforts tend to make the figure appear as small as possible below the waist’ (1864). Stays made in the French pattern consisted of pieces of white silk elastic joined together by narrow strips of white tape forming an open network containing very few bones; they opened in front and were fastened by small straps and buckles, the back being laced. But ‘the old-fashioned stays are still too generally worn,’ often of red flannel, boned.

  Thanks to the new model such phrases as ‘her figure magnificently developed, though slender-waisted and lithe as a serpent’8 became the novelists standard pattern for a certain type of heroine.

  4. THE CRINOLINE

  The name has become so associated with the ‘artificial crinoline’ or ‘cage petticoat’ that we shall use it to denote any kind of petticoat which was strengthened by metal or whalebone hoops. It appeared in December 1856, as ‘the Parisian Eugénie Jupon Skeleton Petticoat, at 6/6 to 25/-’ Early the next year whalebone was discarded for watch-spring. ‘It is impossible to make any dress sit well without the hoop petticoat. This should consist of four narrow steels; that nearest the waist should be four nails (1 nail = 2 in.) from it and be 1 yards long; the other three should be 2 yards long and placed—one at six nails from the upper steel, the other two each two nails from the second steel. None must meet in front by yard, except the one nearest the waist.’9 But ‘many ladies of the highest taste and fashion wear four or five skirts of starched muslin,’ flounced or unflounced, instead of a crinoline (1858). By 1860 the day-crinoline would have nine hoops of watch-spring and the evening one as many as eighteen.

  FIG. 71. CRINOLINE HOOPS, l86l

  All through its career there were innumerable varieties in shape and material. From 1857 to 1859 the shape was that of a dome; gradually it became more pyramidal and by 1862 was very distinctly flattened in front, so that by 1866 the bulk of the garment projected backwards, the front being flat and without springs. The ‘Sansflectum’ had the hoops covered with gutta-percha and was washable (figure 71); ‘Thomson’s Crown Crinoline’ had very narrow steels so as to be more flexible, and ‘the American cage’ of 1862 had only its lower half encased, the upper being in skeleton form, thus reducing the weight to half a pound. We are informed that the Crown variety ‘do not cause accidents, do not appear at inquests, are better than medicine for the health, are economical, graceful, modest, ladylike and queenly’;10 while in the Ondina waved crinoline of 1863 ‘so perfect are the wave-like bands that a lady may ascend a steep stair, throw herself into an arm-chair, etc., without inconvenience to herself or provoking the rude remarks of the observers, thus modifying in an important degree all those peculiarities tending to destroy the modesty of English women.’11 An ingenious device, for evening dress, was to have the front halves of the lowest two hoops hinged at the sides, so that, by means of a concealed string passing up inside the skirt to the waist, it was possible to draw up the front of the crinoline enough to clear the ankles when ascending stairs.

  By 1866 many were discarding crinolines for flounced muslin petticoats; or using a crinoline which would fold inwards when the wearer was seated. Examination of some thousands of contemporary photographs reveals that most Englishwomen never wore the huge ‘cage’ seen in fashion plates, while many appear not to be wearing a crinoline of any kind.

  FIG. 72. (Left to right) SCARLET FLANNEL CRINOLINE, 1869; SANSFLECTUM CRINOLINE, 1863; CRINOLETTE, 1873

  Contemporary advertisements indicate a wide variety of design and material. Thus ‘Woolsey petticoats with patent steel springs and flounced, 10/9’ (1858), and in the following year ‘The Victoria crinoline lined with flannel, 25/-’ would have been for day-wear. The ‘18 hoop watch-spring petticoat with silk band and tapes, 16/6’ (of 1860), and ‘Watch-spring skeleton petticoats with 10 to 100 springs, 6/6 to 31/6’ (1861) would be light enough and large enough for ball dresses. The ‘Sansflectum Crinolines, the hoops covered with refined gutta-percha, 10/6 to 25/-’ served for wet weather, while the ‘puffed horsehair jupons, 21/- to 33/-,’ of 1864 indicated that the ‘cage’ was declining in favour.

  FIG. 73. FROM “CUPID AND CRINOLINES,” 1858

  The quality varied greatly; watch-spring crinolines were preferred to those made of wire as being less liable to break, and those bearing the name of Thomson were considered superior to all others of English make.

  5. OTHER PETTICOATS

  The crinoline made the wearing of so many under-petticoats unnecessary, though some used ‘the woven woollen petticoat to imitate knitting, in all colours’ (1863).

  Beneath the skirt over the crinoline was worn an ornamental petticoat, while in summer ‘stiff muslin petticoats flounced, set out the dress in a more graceful fashion than does a crinoline; a .moderate-sized steel petticoat and a muslin one, with, of course, a plain one over it, make a muslin dress look very nice.’ Many white petticoats had a deep hem scalloped or embroidered with broderie anglaise (figure 74), and by 1862 they were flounced and trimmed with rows of insertion.

  FIG. 74. (above) PETTICOAT WITH BRODERIE ANGLAISE BORDER; (below) WOMAN’S DRAWERS, c. 1860–70

  Day-petticoats (except with light summer dresses) were usually coloured, scarlet being fashionable. ‘Linsey petticoats, scarlet, violet and all fashionable colours’ (1859). With the looped-up skirt the exposed part of the petticoat was e
laborately trimmed with scalloping (often with white wool or scarlet), and with bands of braid or velvet. In 1863 striped plaid petticoats were the mode ‘being trimmed almost as much as dresses,’ and ‘the inevitable flutings are even put round crinoline casings.’ In this year also petticoats were being made with gores and attached to a waistband ten inches deep.

  Materials used were camlet, cashmere, flannel, taffeta, rep, alpaca and quilted silk;12 for morning wear alpaca was common.

  By 1866 a petticoat of crinoline material was replacing the cage, and ‘coloured petticoats in stripes are much worn by day.’

  6. VESTS

  High in the neck, with long or short sleeves; of merino or flannel.

  7. DRAWERS

  ‘If drawers are worn they should be trimmed with frills or insertion’ (figure 74). In winter coloured flannel knickerbockers were frequently worn, of a brilliant scarlet. ‘The knickerbockers are confined just below the knee by elastic; those who are fond of gardening will find these most judicious things to wear.’ Such colours were obviously not intended to be entirely hidden from accidental view, and their use may be regarded as an erotic device.

  8. THE NIGHTDRESS

  ‘The hem of the nightdress should be 2 to 3 yards wide.’ Usually of longcloth, the collar, cuffs and front trimmed with embroidery.

  The night-cap had become old-fashioned.

  9. POCKETS

  In addition to the pocket in the skirt there were occasions when the old detachable pocket in the shape of a bag with a side slit- opening was suspended round the waist under the crinoline. We find advertised in 1857 ‘patent safety railway pockets, 1/6,’ an article often used by travellers up to the end of the century.

  * * *

  1 Gazette of Fashions , 1861.

  2 Whyte Melville: Good for Nothing, 1861.

  Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine.

  3 R. T. Surtees: Ask Mamma, 1858.

  4 R. T. Surtees: Ask Mamma, 1858.

  5 R. T. Surtees: Plain or Ringlets, 1860.

  6 Accounts of the Rev. James Round of Coyhester, 1857 : ‘Cotton braces, ad. A pair of India Rubber braces for Master James, 2/6.’

  7 Advertisements: ‘Stays with patent front fastenings, 8/6 to 15/6; family stays, 816 to 21/-’ (1857).‘F ront fastening corsets, 3/6 to 4/6’ (1861).

  8 G. A. Lawrence: Guy Livingstme, 1857.

  9 Fashion magazine—quoted in English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century.

  10 Advertisement.

  11 Advertisement.

  12 ‘Eiderdown petticoats in quilted silk four yards round, 50/- to 63/-’ (1863).

  IX

  1867—1882

  THE revolutionary disturbances which had marked the close of the previous period settled down, as happens after revolutions, into apparent stability. The demand for greater physical freedom was grudgingly admitted, provided this was limited to a distinct category of clothing to be worn only in the country. In town, fashion once more exercised a rigid control. This, however, had changed in spirit. Man’s costume, resplendent in that play of colours which had transfigured the middle distance, faded into a sombre respectability where social class could only be distinguished by a nice observance of details. Such fragments of his ‘linen’ as were still visible had subtle significances of which only the gentleman of breeding was fully conscious; the stiff upstanding collar, which held his chin erect above the common herd, was once more the mode, an obvious mark of class, but its exact pattern for each particular occasion would mark the man of birth from him of mere wealth. One observes, too, that as the day shirt-front became obliterated the collar and cuffs grew in importance, stiff with starch, with the wearer entombed in frock coat and monumental trousers. By 1878 we learn, ‘it is the correct thing to vote a showily dressed man a snob’ (The Tailor and Cutter). Only when garbed for sport might his shirt go into mild stripes.

  The contrast between the sexes in this respect was immense. Feminine dress exhibited a sensuous combination of colours and curves—the latter mainly based upon the structures concealed beneath. The period presents one of those phases of extreme eroticism, usually lasting some fifteen or twenty years, which often intervene between periods of feminine sobriety. It had succeeded one of dignified expansion, long developing; it was followed by one of prudish austerity destined, in its turn, to be replaced by the notably seductive Edwardian modes. We may suppose that each generation of women is bored by the technique which their mothers found successful, or that after fifteen years of it men at last become disillusioned. Then, refreshed by an astringent interlude, they can savour with enthusiasm the alluring curvatures of the couturier’s art.

  A fashion journal of 1875 explained that ‘the reason for the present extraordinary luxury in dress is that the surplus million of women are husband-hunting and resort to extra attractions to that end’; but the pursuit had to be masked in prudery. That frank exhibition of underclothing allowed by the later crinoline was no longer thought decent and was replaced by elaborate concealment made as alluring as possible. In this, underclothing played an important part. The curves of nature, enriched by corset and bustle, became prominent features. ‘A well-developed bust, a tapering waist, and large hips are the combination of points recognized as a good figure’ (1873), and when the trailing skirt was momentarily raised a fascinating complexity came into view.

  Presently the bulk of underclothes became massed at the rear, as though the wearer were about to emerge from its embrace; and then, near the close of the epoch, the encumbrance was discarded and the tightly swathed shape required almost as scanty underclothing as in the Regency period. ‘It would be impossible to make closer drapery; the limit has been reached. The modern gown shews the figure in a way which is certainly most unsuitable for the ordinary British matron.’1 But she, presumably, was not husband- hunting.

  To appreciate the changes exhibited in these fifteen years we have to recollect that it was an epoch of extreme extravagance in dress, and one of growing disharmony between the sexes. From this the lady’s refuge was prudery and the gentleman’s prostitution; never was the one more studied or the other more cultivated. The erotic attractions of underclothes, of which the professional had made a fine art, became innocently employed by the pure as a ladylike fashion. After all, it was the social duty of a young lady to get married; the pathetic appeal of one to The Englishwomen’s Domestic Magazine—‘Be good natured, do, and tell us how to look fascinating, or at least good looking’—was being mutely answered by the bustle, the corset, and petticoats that ‘are really works of art.’ About that complex world of underclothes of the 1870’s there seems to cling a faint odour of patchouli.

  The use of costly materials such as silk or lace had become permissible, supplying perhaps a kind of narcissus satisfaction. The period saw the introduction of undergarments shaped to the figure in the form of ‘combinations,’ of coloured silk vests, and nightdresses made discreetly ‘attractive.’ The fascination of underclothes became so marked, in fact, that by 1875 the dress itself seemed to imitate them, and in the ‘cuirasse bodice’ mode, the ballroom debutante seemed to be clothed in corset and petticoats, ‘suggesting that the wearer has forgotten some portion of her toilet. Few husbands or fathers would allow their wives or daughters to appear in public thus undressed.’2

  But while the world of fashion was practising the art of sex attraction by such methods, there was the lesser, though perhaps more important, world of progress towards physical freedom. There the walking costume, becoming the ‘tailor-made,’ was severely chaste, with knickerbockers and ‘sanitary underclothing,’ hygienclly devoid of superfluous charm. It suggested a growing awareness that a woman might have other functions in life than attracting the male or expressing in her clothes the social rank in which he had placed her. In those serge knickerbockers and sex-allergic combinations, mercifully hid from man, woman was revolting—from male supremacy.

  MEN

  1. THE SHIRT

  For town wear the day-
shirt, the curved hem about an inch shorter in front than behind, was of plain white linen, with cuffs and front more starched than formerly, and in 1877 many were ‘rounded and fulled into a yoke.’ The V opening above the waistcoat varied a good deal, tending however to diminish. At first two studs would be revealed, later only one, except for summer when a deeper cut was allowed. The lounge suit, however, in the form of the ‘Oxford and Cambridge (lounge) coats’—‘Cambridge coat or jacket as some call them’—was buttoned so high that practically no shirt-front was visible. Gradually other forms of coat adopted this style, so that by 1877 ‘the waistcoat is so seldom seen,’ and the shirt- front still less.

  All through the period to expose an inch too much shirt-front (by day) was a social stigma indicating that the wearer was ‘not quite.’ On the other hand, the summer suit was cut to reveal as much as three studs, so that to appear a gentleman one had to watch the calendar.

  The collar for formal day wear became a shallow upright with a small V gap between the points. These points curved slightly outwards, a style of 1870 patronized by Mr. Gladstone, and—later— becoming historical as ‘the Gladstone collar’ (exaggerated, of course, by the pencil of Harry Furniss).

  With the upright collar a bow tie, becoming steadily narrower, was the usual wear. A variation was the satin made-up ‘octagon tie.’3 The knotted scarf tie, often very narrow, was less common than the bow. In 1877 we read there should be ‘sufficient opening to display a stand up linen collar and a scarf tied in a sailor’s knot, a long scarf for the wearer to tie and fold himself being the most fashionable with stand up collars.’4 With the deep opening of the summer waistcoat, showing three studs, the small bow tie was de rigueur. With the broad cravat, sometimes seen, the horseshoe breastpin was replaced, in 1870, by a monogram pin.