by C. Willett
The bicycle was, of course, only a stage in the process of physical emancipation which had started in the 1860’s with the ‘walking costume,’ developing into the ‘tailor-made’ of the 1870’s, and the ‘tennis costume’ of the 1880’s. In this progression man led the way, and woman followed. The effect was to produce, with both sexes, a modification of the underclothing adapted to the new activities, while for formal wear the old constrictions persisted. As a result men and women began to require a double wardrobe including two categories of underclothes. The gentleman’s ‘town’ attire still strove to indicate his social position in his shirt and collar; even in his sporting garb there was a curious reluctance to abandon those distinctive features which were apparent in the coloured shirt with attached white collar and white cuffs. So, too, the lady, playing tennis, shrank from doing so uncorseted or ungloved.
Both sexes accepted the hygienic rule of ‘wool next the skin,’ and the wearing of underclothes singularly lacking in charm. The scientist rather than the artist was responsible for the garments designed by Dr. Jaeger, early in the 1880’s. Illustrations of these models remind us of his German origin, for no mere French brain could have conceived underwear so Teutonic. But, after all, why should the influence of sex attraction be allowed to penetrate into the deeper layers which propriety occluded from vision?
Such at least was the dictate of prudery in the 1880’s, when every nice-minded girl was trained to be oblivious of a large area of her body. ‘Those are things, my dear,’ explained an elder, ‘that we don’t talk about; indeed, we try not to think of them.’ There were physical facts which the shadow of Mrs. Grundy veiled in impenetrable obscurity. We hear of a young lady exclaiming, at the prospect of marriage, ‘How awful it must be, to be seen, by one’s husband— in—one’s petticoats!’ But it seems that marriage—at least in the 1880’s—might entail more awful shocks even than that. There was a bride who wrote home to her mamma that she was horrified by the sight of her husband’s night-shirts; and that she was spending the honeymoon ‘making him nice long night-gowns so that I shan’t be able to see any of him.’
Such evidence is valuable; it explains the undergarments of the period and the unconscious attempt to free them from erotic associations, in exactly the same spirit as inspired the tailor-made costume on the surface. Such protective armour, guaranteed to be non-attractive, was a symbol of revolt against the slavery of the sex instinct.
Some, then, would hail the advent of those inauspicious garments as denoting an underground resistance movement against male oppression; others would regard this era of anti-erotic underclothes as evidence of sex repression, or as an interlude between the erotic exploitation of the 1870’s and the still more erotic Edwardian period. Whatever view we choose to take of the 1880’s—whether we agree with that writer commenting in 1882 on current fashions and suggesting ‘is it not possible that forty years hence they may be classified by our successors among the rococo absurdities of a bygone age?’—or whether, at a distance of seventy years, we are now more disposed to regard them as evidence of growth towards light and air through a soil of uncompromising aridity—we shall probably agree that the manifestations of the sexual instinct are never more absurd than when we deny their existence. Technically the period developed some novel features; ideas flowing from across the Atlantic began to modify the Englishman’s underwear—especially for less formal occasions—breaking down a number of conventions, together with the more general acceptance of coloured shirts.
But not even America could soften the inflexibility of the starched shirt-front and collar, worn with the frock-coat.
MEN
Methods of expressing class distinction in costume change more slowly than methods of expressing sex attraction. And as man’s clothes tend in the main to be inspired by the former, and woman’s by the latter, his ‘fashions’ appear almost stationary as compared to hers. The difference becomes more marked, of course, as democracy levels out class. As the insignia of social rank depend ultimately on wealth, a period of economic depression hastens their obliteration, while the natural instinct of sex attraction is scarcely affected. In the depression of the 1880’s the gentleman’s white shirt collar—its exact size and shape—grew in importance, serving to keep the flag flying. Gone for ever were those blissful days when a nobleman could ‘jog along on £20,000 a year.’
A social feature of this period was the exquisite, known as ‘the masher’; and it is significant that he relied chiefly on his shirt-front, collar and cuffs, to distinguish himself from ordinary mortals.
I. THE SHIRT
FIG. 81. SHIRTS. FROM ’THE TAILOR AND CUTTER,’ 1883
The day-shirt for formal wear remained white and starched, with rectangular shaped cuffs. The side slits, by 1890, had a small gusset inserted, and by now the lower border, front and back, was invariably curved. As in the previous period, the amount of shirt- front exposed by the cut of the waistcoat varied with the season; the summer shirt was visible in a V opening deep enough to show one or even two studs, and was generally worn with a butterfly collar, while the winter shirt was only seen in a slight V opening, and had an upright collar presenting a slight V gap between the points.
The height of the collar steadily increased, so that by 1894 it was said ‘before long we shall reach the 3-in. standard.’ By 1896 the upright collar might have the points overlapping by in., and had a 3-in. front and 2-in. back; or it might be replaced by a high-band turnover. We learn, in 1890, that ‘the Duke of Clarence is a whale on collars and cuffs, possessing the most elaborate and varied assortment of neckwear that can be found anywhere in the Queen’s dominions.’
The nice choice of shirt, collar and tie was a matter of supreme importance, a slightly larger tie being called for in the afternoon than in the morning; a bow-tie for summer wear; the scarf-tie always safe, expecially in the striped patterns, and the octagon for men of substance; while in 1890 the ‘four-in-hand’ tie became fashionable, the ends being knotted and passed through a ring and then drawn under the waistcoat on each side to expose the centre stud or studs. Though we are told in 1894 that ‘the laws that govern dress seem fast ceasing to be very irksome,’ and that ‘the change from the formal made-up bows and ties has given place to a looser and more artistic class of cravat,’1 the relaxation was only relative, and a gentleman ‘to be fashionably dressed must wear his collars and cuffs attached to his shirts.’ Actually, however, a democratic innovation was creeping in; not only was there the detachable collar, but detachable cuffs which could be reversed when one edge was soiled. Worse still was the ‘cuff protector’ which was slipped on over the cuff to protect it for office work. And the false shirt-front or ‘dickey’ was becoming popular in the commercial world. ‘Shirt fronts with collars attached are still a feature of the lower and middle class trade’1 (1895), where they were, unofficially, known as ‘cheats.’
The social status of the white shirt was further threatened by fancy coloured shirts ‘with stiff bosom and cuffs, for day—drab and wood shades in medium vertical stripes; with them a white collar is often worn’1 (1894). And in hot weather ‘coloured shirts in pale pink or blue stripes with soft front but stiff white collar and cuffs.’1 Such innovations emanating from America were accompanied with the challenge that ‘coloured shirts are now held to be perfectly good form even with frock coats. Solid colours are barred; neat stripes in pink and blue are favourites’1 (1894). It seemed a threat to the very citadel of class distinction.
The hot summer of 1893 introduced the cummerbund in lieu of a waistcoat with ‘an amazing display of shirt-front’; City gentlemen were driven ‘to dispense with braces and wear sash or even belt, and some venture to wear soft striped flannel shirt and white silk tie,’ while others indulged in low-cut flowered waistcoats displaying almost as much shirt-front; but we are warned that ‘gentlemen endowed with abdominal convexity should avoid’ these modes.
The relaxation affected ‘sports’ shirts, the tennis shirt of 1887–88
having a starched turned-down collar (the ‘polo collar’), which, by 1890, became soft, worn, of course, with an Oxford tie. By 1896 the cricketing shirt, the front fastened with pearl buttons, had a Shakespeare collar, also worn with a tie. Oxford shirting, a heavy cotton fabric, in coloured stripes, was becoming popular, together with ‘regatta shirts,’ of cambric, in vertical stripes, sold with two detachable collars, and these flourished profusely on the esplanade in summer.
FIG. 82. THE NEW ‘COURT’ SHIRT, BY WELCH, MARGETSON AND CO., 1883
The Dress-Shirt. While ‘the masher’s dress coat shews an immense amount of shirt front with large diamond in centre of same’2 (1885), ordinary folk were content to display much less, showing one or two studs. The dress ‘smoking jacket’ of 1888 required two studs and these in 1896 were often black. The front remained plain until the pleated front came from America in 1889 as a rival. In 1896 the one-stud front became the more correct, and at this date some dress-shirts were made to button behind. By the close of this period the American influence (which had been affecting English costume of both sexes since the early 1880’s) introduced the ‘coat-shirt’ buttoned down the front so as to obviate having to slip it over the head; the method was accepted for the dress-shirt, but hardly as yet for the day. The tab at the base of the shirt-front, to button on to the drawers, was becoming usual (figure 82).
The butterfly collar with narrow bow continued, the tie of lawn or piqué being 1 in. wide, ‘somewhat broader at the ends than the middle and brought into the butterfly shape by the hands of the wearer’ (1894).
FIG. 83. SHIRT FORMS. FROM ’THE TAILOR AND CUTTER,’ 1889 MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN AND MADAME ADELINA PATTI.
The material of the dress-shirt was white linen or fine piqué. The period, it will be seen, introduced an expanding variety of types of shirts, collars and neckties, and a relaxing of the stricter rules of etiquette as to the wearing of them. In the main this may be attributed to American influence.
FIG. 84. MAN’S SCARLET VEST, BY WELCH, MARGETSON AND CO., 1883
2. THE VEST
Often described as the ‘undershirt.’ By 1894 ‘ventilated undershirts of lambs’ wool, with perforations in the armpits,’ silk undershirts (at 40/- a dozen wholesale), and vests in natural wool were usual. ‘Scarlet flannel vests lined with perforated chamois leather’ were under-waistcoats worn over the under-vests (figure 84).
FIG. 85. MAN’S JAEGER NIGHTGOWN, EARLY 1880’S
3. DRAWERS
In natural wool and lambs’ wool. The loop of tape outside the waistband, through which the tongues of the braces were passed, became general towards the close of this period. Short pants of absorbent stockinette were worn for bicycling. ‘The various kinds of sanitary underwear have steadily gained in popularity … there are tastes, however, that only delicate colour effects can satisfy, and flesh tint, heliotrope, lavender, and light blue and other delicate shades have been provided to satisfy their wants …. Lightweight woollens will be worn more than ever before’ (1895).
4. BRACES
A number of variations appeared in the 1890’s such as ‘the patent adjustable brace with crosstree at the back,’ while some were dispensing with the article altogether. ‘Americans, French and Germans have been trained to dispense with braces from childhood’ (1889).3
5. NIGHTCLOTHES
Pyjamas, in the 1890’s, were steadily replacing the nightshirt which, in fact, was being far less advertised. ‘Pyjamas in wool and silk stripes, 42 /- a dozen, wholesale,’ must stir envious thoughts in the minds of to-day.
6. CORSETS
The statement that ‘the corset is worn by thousands of men. This is really a stiff band with ribs and is fastened to the pants,’ must be accepted with a certain degree of doubt, though the article was certainly advertised and presumably often bought; perhaps chiefly by figures of a certain social prominence.
FIG. 86. JAEGER COMPLETE SLEEPING SUIT, 1885
7. DRESS ACCESSORIES
‘Flannel and chamois leather chest protectors, 9/- to 21/- a dozen, wholesale’ (1883).
The 1890’s saw the general use of sock suspenders, tie clips, metallic devices for holding down the tie round the upright collar, ingenious varieties of studs and cufflinks, etc., designed to simplify the task of dressing.
* * * *
It may be convenient to mention here the principal forms of necktie worn during the second half of the nineteenth century.
1. Napoleons
These, usually of black silk or satin, resembled the earlier stock, being a deep swathing band round the neck, the narrow ends coming to the front and there tied into a flat bow. They were fashionable in the 1850’s and survived until near the end of the century.
2. Twice-round Scarf
Usually of fancy silk. Fashionable in the 1870’s.
3. Derbys
Neckties with straight sides but with one end shorter than the other, the centre being slightly narrower than the ends.
4. Oxfords
Narrow straight ties throughout, the ends indistinguishable.
5. Ascots
The ends expand gradually to a width of some three inches; both ends are of equal width and length, and reversible. Can be tied either flat or ‘puffed.’
6. Batswing
Both ends are equal in length, but the wide portions are short; for tying into a bow with ‘butterfly’ ends.
7. Made-up Cravats and Octagons
Of silk or satin. The narrow end is armed with a stiffener which is slipped through the back of the cravat when in position, and held by a pin or other fastener.
All forms of necktie also appeared as ‘made-up’ shapes.
* * * *
FIG. 87. WOMEN’S JAEGER SANITARY COMBINATIONS, 1885
Very little has been recorded about the underclothing worn by the ‘working man’ of last century. The following information has kindly been supplied us by a number of correspondents:
1. A sleeveless vest, usually of white flannel.
2. A flannel body-belt ‘about half a yard wide and stitched across from end to end and tied round with tapes.’
3. A flannel shirt of ‘about three yards of material with sleeves down to the elbows.’
4. Above this was worn ‘a top shirt made of fine striped flannel or flannelette, and in winter a waistcoat lined with red flannel.’
The shirt was made ‘on a similar pattern to what sailors now wear,’ and with gussets under the armpits. Some had feather- stitching down the tucked fronts.
Coloured shirts and drawers for working days, and white for Sundays.
5. Drawers, known as ‘linings,’ of flannel or twilled calico, made with a wide waistband, and tied round the ankles with tapes.
6. Garters were a strip yard long of knitted material wound round the top of the stockings, which reached nearly up to the knee.
WOMEN
The prosaic wearing of ‘wool next the skin’ was described as necessary ‘to absorb perspiration.’ ‘But surely,’ complained one writing in 1885, ‘a gentlewoman rarely does anything to cause such an unpleasant thing!’ Nevertheless the more progressive woman was advancing so rapidly that she frequently perspired. Active outdoor exercise tended to reduce the bulk of underclothing, and combinations were a convenient substitute for some of the petticoats. Enterprising young women were indulging in such daring adventures as walking holidays, for which ‘a companion is highly desirable, not so much as a defence against that bugbear to most women, “a man,” but in case of mishap. For clothing “Flannel next the skin” should be the rule; beneath a dust-coloured woollen dress the woollen undergarment must come up to the neck and down to the middle of the thighs, with long sleeves to the wrists; this, with flannel drawers and a light-coloured petticoat is all that is needed for underclothing.’ While for bicycling, in the 1890’s, ‘the simplest and best costume consists of warm combinations, a thick woollen vest or knitted bodice, and a pair of tweed or cloth knickerbockers, with a skirt of waterproofed cloth made
close fitting and rather long in front so as to display not a too liberal allowance of ankle. . .
In the fashionable world, however, the hygienic gloom gradually lifted, and by the 1890’s underclothes once more essayed the art of being ”attractive,’ with C bewitching silk petticoats’ (1895), and the lavish use of coloured ribbons; the new note was implied in the statement that ‘there is a decidedly fussy element in all good underclothing’ (1896). The New Woman is gently reminded of the old technique so successful in the past; of‘the petticoat, foamingly soft, adored by Man,’ which skilful prudery could make so effective ‘if Woman is to be that soft, sweet, tender bit of humanity which Heaven distinctly intended her to be.’ Such, at least, was the advice of a woman’s magazine.
1. THE CHEMISE
This continued as in the previous period until the end of the .1880’s when the ‘Empire chemise’ appeared, with a high waist and puffed shoulder sleeves, sometimes also with a frill of lace round the hem.
Early in the 1890’s longcloth was said to have become quite demode, and the chemise itself was frequently replaced by combinations.
2. COMBINATIONS
Usually of woollen material, Dr. Jaeger’s models being of‘natural wool’ (figure 85); later, more fashionable forms were made of silk, nainsook, or surah, trimmed with lace insertion, the neck being drawn in with coloured ‘baby-ribbons.’ With these ‘no chemise is needed but a short white petticoat buttoned round the stays and worn under the flannel one.’ ‘The new cellular cloth of cotton, wool or silk’ appeared in 1888.