The History of Underclothes

by C. Willett

  FIG. 93. (left and right) MAN’S PYJAMAS. JAEGER, 1899; (centre) MAN’S PYJAMAS IN PURE STRIPED SILK, PETER ROBINSON, 1902

  5. COMBINATIONS

  A considerable number of men preferred to have vest and pants in one as a combined garment, a mode which was not yet obsolete, and in design extremely conservative. Even in 1898 they had been ‘year after year exactly the same.’

  FIG. 94. MAN’s VEST AND DRAWERS. AERTEX, 1906

  6. PYJAMAS

  These had become generally accepted in place of the nightshirt,6 though the pure-minded clung to the belief that any garment worn in bed must of necessity have improper implications, and ‘the advent of a leading actor on the stage clothed in the convenient pyjamas seemed to have shocked the superlatively sensitive ladies in the audience’ (1906).7

  WOMEN

  ‘Among the lower-class Englishwoman there still lingers a desire for heavy durable longcloth, but we do not call that lingerie. A wish for dainty underwear is generally actuated by a desire for cleanliness. The lingerie of the moment is as luxurious as ever, in fact, even more so’ (1901).7 On that note the new reign started. ‘There is an immense fancy again for black washing silk for lingerie but the fancy for coloured underclothing has somewhat gone out’3 (1901). And by 1905 ‘in the matter of lingerie the present-day modes show exquisite taste and simplicity. Nearly everything is of finest lawn or cambric, and white reigns supreme.’8 ‘Undergarments are lovelier than ever trimmed with Madeira work. . . . For day wear lingerie is often finished with fine buttonhole stitching and dots of different sizes, and the monogram simply but artistically embroidered. For evening wear it is of course more elaborate.’9 ‘Of recent years there has grown up an ultra-fastidiousness in the matter of underclothing . . . now beladed with baby ribbon.’1 (1906).

  This gives us a measure of Edwardian ‘simplicity,’ and the statement that ‘lingerie is by far the most important part of a trousseau’ implies its purpose.

  1. THE CHEMISE

  For day, of fine linen, batiste, or lawn; for evening of lawn or silk. ‘The days of combinations are certainly past and we all wear chemises, Empire pattern, sloped at the waist and tied with coloured bows at the shoulders. Evening chemises of kilted gauze, practically sleeveless. . .’I (1901).

  Within a few years, however, the chemise found its status once more threatened by its old rival, combinations having the advantage of giving a closer fit over the hips which loomed so largely in Edwardian modes.

  2. COMBINATIONS

  ‘Handmade knicker and camisole combinations in nainsook, trimmed with Valenciennes lace, 10/9-21/6’ (1903). The next year we are told, ‘nearly every woman, I presume, wears combinations of wool or silk and wool.’

  For the modest purse there were ‘pink flannelette combinations at 1/11 (1900), but we must not call these lingerie. ‘Combinations trimmed with imitation torchon lace, at 5/11 (1905), or ‘combination suit with lace insertion and baby ribbon, 13 /11 ’ (1906), indicated degrees of loveliness. In 1908, however, ‘combinations are slowly but surely disappearing; replaced by skirt-knickers which are seductive little garments mounted on a deep band.’ At the same time the chemise was rendered superfluous by ‘the cami-skirt, worn over the corsets and the skirt portion usually divided into two.’ Nevertheless both the chemise and combinations were by no means defunct, continuing their useful functions in the middle section of the community.

  FIG. 95. UNDERSKIRTS AND CORSETS. FROM ‘NEW ALBUM,’ 1906

  3. THE CORSET

  ‘Fashion decrees that very large hips and great splendour of figure should prevail but also superimposes a distinctly diminutive waist’ (1900).‘The stays are of course straight-fronted, giving support but leaving the figure graceful and supple; whilst narrowing the back in a most surprising manner. It keeps Englishwomen in the right place and allows their chest to expand’ (1901) .

  FIG. 96. JAEGER, 1899

  For Edwardian modes the new straight-fronted corset was essential, supplying that ‘solidity of figure’ which was so admired. ‘It is the feature of these stays that while they flatten the figure below they lend fullness to the chest thereby immensely improving the charm of the silhouette. A good waistline is after all very much a matter of one’s corset.’10

  In 1902 the new look, which had been immortalized by the American artist, Dana Gibson, presented ‘an upright poise of the shoulders, long sloping bust with straight front line and a graceful curve over the hips. The waist held in well below the figure; the chest carried well forward and the shoulders down; the waist long in front and short behind.’1 ‘Everyone has rushed into the straight-fronted corsets, often with deplorable results.’

  In 1905 ‘the Gibson Girl,’ as portrayed by Miss Camille Clifford, established an ideal, and with it ‘corsets are getting longer and longer below the waist and shorter and shorter above it. The cor-setieres of Paris bring the corset nearly halfway to the knees.’11 As a result ‘the hips at the back have taken a fresh development. Everyone looks the better for having visible hips and a good shaped bust.’ ‘You can face the world if you know you are all right behind.’ ‘For the usual height to-day, between 5 foot 6 and 6 foot in shoes, corsets between 20 and 25 in. will do quite nicely. It is the roundness of the waist and the curves of the hips, the way the figure is held in below it and carried up above it, that tells’ (1906).

  But alas! fashions are inconstant in their favours and the very next year, 1907, a willowy shape was dawning, so that ‘the hips are often a thorn in the minds of women who would fain dress well.’ The corset of 1908 was ‘cut so deep that to sit down would appear an impossible feat,’ and as hips sank into obscurity the famous corset disappeared.12

  4. THE PETTICOAT

  The Edwardian petticoat was always flimsy; not more than two were worn, the top one, particularly when coloured, often being referred to as an underskirt.

  It grew steadily more flared and fluffy and frilly. ‘Though cut very plain and tight-fitting round the hips, the amount of frou-frou from the knees downwards is immense,’ and the correct management of ‘frillies’ became a preoccupation. We learn from The Visits of Elizabeths13 their uses in a hammock. ‘As I knew my frillies were all right I hammocked—and it was lovely.’ The ‘moirette silk petticoat with all the advantage of a rustling silk,’ often with accordion- pleated flounce, was available from 12/9 to 21/9 (1900). With the yoked and much-gored day-skirt of 1903 a flounced petticoat served as a foundation, its border sometimes ‘stiffened with horsehair or even steel.’

  It was, of course, the evening petticoat that became specially exuberant. ‘Evening petticoats are far more elaborate than the skirt without, and are cut with a train’ (1901). A ‘glacé silk petticoat with deep shaped flounce; trimmed with frills, ruchings and pin tucks, 31/11’ (1903) would be a very ordinary example. The petticoat of that year was distinguished by a pocket at the foot just above the flounce.

  FIG. 97. SILK TRICOT CORSET. LONDON CORSET CO., 1904

  ‘Not so very long ago to wear lace on one’s flannel petticoat and lace frills on other articles of underwear, was simply to be considered quite immoral. Now, however, underclothing with double frills of white spotted net, either tucked or with satin ribbon stitched in rows, and deep flounces of this net round the hem of petticoats are quite fascinating’ (1904). Petticoat flounces of broderie anglaise require 5 to 6 yards, while ‘detachable glacé frills for underskirts’ cost 6/11 for 2 yards (1905).

  We learn that in 1906 ‘petticoats are peculiarly persuasive just now’—but their peculiar magic was beginning to fade. For though at the beginning of 1907 ‘these beautiful persuasions have an extravagant frou-frou of frills,’ by the autumn ‘petticoats are obviously on the decrease, the befrilled and laced jupon already carrying a démodé air when placed in close proximity with the soft falling, clinging skirts that, on being raised, reveal petticoats of an equally affectionate character.’14 But ‘one of the most disastrous aspects of the raised skirts is when the silk underslip is c
aught higher than the transparency, and reveals—well—anything there is to be seen.’

  With the new Empire mode revival there was little room for elaborate petticoats, and although ones of rose-tinted glacé silk or of charmeuse satin with soft kilted flounce were often worn ‘some dispense with petticoats and wear maillots instead,’ while with semitransparent summer dresses it was often apparent that directoire knickers were all-sufficing. By 1908 a petticoat was necessarily extremely narrow so that ‘the large thick-through woman arrayed in attenuated petticoats surmounted by a waistline of gigantic girth’ presented a lamentable spectacle of putting a quart into a pint pot. ”The present figure aimed at is calculated to drive despair to the heart of the irretrievably buxom.’

  The materials used were cambric, lawn, batiste, glacé silk, moirette, and in fact any fabric that was flimsy and flounce-able.

  5. DRAWERS

  ‘Nainsook knickers with frills of muslin embroidery, 5/6’ were advertised in 1900, while ‘French drawers of mull muslin or washing silk, with flounce and three rows of insertion, threaded with baby ribbon, worn under lace or silk petticoat, for those who like a froth of frillies beneath their dress skirts’15 (1904), supplied an exhilarating alternative to the combinations.

  ‘Knickers of fine flannel or alpaca with detachable nainsook linings are an economy but to my mind lack daintiness’ (1904). ‘Even our knickers which we don for athletic purposes are constructed upon a sound and becoming basis’ (1904). ‘Wide-leg knickers of India longcloth and Valenciennes lace, 3/-’ (1906). The same year we are told, ‘the divided skirt is the name for knickers with wide “skirt legs”.’

  As the period drew to a close the revival of the Empire style of dress required ‘directoire’ knickers or satin pantalettes, close fitting, or ‘the skirt-knickers which the up-to-date maiden delights in’ (1908).

  6. THE CAMISOLE

  ‘Petticoat bodices, or as we now call them “corset covers,” are made of thin silk en princesse with no sleeves. Underclothing becomes thinner and thinner’ (1906). They replaced the ‘slip bodice’ of the 1890’s, which usually buttoned down the front to hip level.

  7. BUST IMPROVERS

  ‘The patent bust improver, placing the possession of a bust modelled on that of the famous Venus de Milo at the disposal of every lady; of flesh-coloured material and less than 2 oz. at 7/6 a pair’16 (1902).

  ‘The Neena bust improver, cup-shaped perforated metal discs, weight oz. the pair’ (1905).

  8. THE BUST BODICE

  ‘Patent bust bodice worn above the corset, with centre lacing; in coutille, 3/6’ (1903). ‘With the prevailing fashion of corsets bust-bodices are essential’ (1904). ‘I look so nice in my bust bodice that I contemplate wearing Empire clothes for ever’ (1904). Jaeger’s ‘bust girdle’ (1904) was the forerunner of the brassière.

  FIG. 98. PRINCESS PETTICOAT BY CHARLES LEE, 1907

  9. NIGHTCLOTHES

  The nightdress was becoming more and more elaborately trimmed and of flimsier materials. ‘Viyella nightdress, cream or pink, 16/9 to 21/-; of nun’s veiling, 10/6 to 21/-’ (1900). ‘Some have large falling collars of exquisite lace with lace trimming in the deep frill at the hem and also forming a frill at the elbow’ (1901). ‘Nightgown, the square front and back with alternate bands of torchon and embroidery, ribbon-threaded throughout; short sleeves with ruffles, hand-sewn, 33/6’ (1903), with garments of a more diaphanous nature, such as shocked Evangeline’s friends. ‘The craze for Empire nightgowns still continues’ (1904).

  The garment described in 1906 as ‘sleeveless with hanging ruffles at the shoulders, and quite a trousseau item though not outside the requirements of an ordinary woman,’ leaves a good deal to the imagination.

  Although pyjamas were recognized as permissible, they do not seem, as yet, to have become popular. For one thing, they were not in keeping with the general impulse to have all ‘intimate garments’ fussily trimmed with lace, etc. Everything had to appear very ‘feminine,’ and garments having masculine associations were therefore unfashionable. To wear such would incur the risk of being thought a suffragette. As a daring novelty of 1906 the appearance on the stage of chorus girls in pyjamas, singing ‘We won’t wear a nightie any more!’ deserves to be recorded, as evidence of Edwardian progress.

  10. TROUSSEAUX17

  The following is the advice on choosing a trousseau given by The Lady’s Realm, 1903 : ‘Some form of combination, that very homely garment which can never be very attractive—two dozen will not be too many, twelve of fairly thick silk and wool mixture for winter and twelve of fine silk or gauze for warmer weather. These to-day are beautifully woven and fashioned at the waist so as to prevent any undue superfluity of fabric; they are mostly worn low and sleeveless.

  ‘Pretty chemises and knickers are attractive features of a trousseau. For evening there is nothing prettier than the “Empire” chemise in silk, muslin, lawn or even gauze. For day wear, in silk or lawn, cut square and decolleté with a broad band of contrasting colour across the bust through which is run a coloured ribbon.

  ‘Knickers are wider than ever and trimmed with a goodly amount of frills and ribbons. They are charming in silk with a wide frill of the same edged with narrow lace. The smallest number of chemises and knickers in a trousseau should be two dozen of each. If pink, blue and yellow suit you best by all means adopt them. Pink is a splendid washing colour and a generally becoming one.

  ‘You cannot do with less than three or four pairs of corsets. Black silk batiste is charming to wear with dark dresses. Then you must have two pretty brocaded pairs for summer and evening wear.

  ‘Besides your silk and brocaded petticoats you will require about a dozen in cambric.

  ‘There is nothing more charming, dainty and comfortable than the robe de nuit of the moment. Surely a touch of illusion in such a matter as a robe de nuit with an underlying current of coquetry is permissible in a young and charming bride. Two or three dozen nightdresses are not too many. . . . Americans and other ultra-smart folk are very fond of black silk or gauze nightgowns; but I do not think they should have a place in bridal trousseaux; I confess to a predilection for the purest white. Silk, fine French lawn, muslin and cambric are charming for night wear. . . . You should spend a large portion of your trousseau money on these important garments.’

  * * *

  1 The Tailor and Cutter.

  2 The Lady’s Realm.

  3 Elinor Glyn: The Vicissitudes of Evangeline, 1904.

  4 Striped flannel shirts cost 3/- to 6/-.

  5 The evening dress-shirt cost 4/- or 5/-.

  6 All-wool pyjamas cost from 10/6 to 15/-; in zephyr from 4/3 to 8/3.

  7 The Tailor and Cutter .

  8 The Lady’s Realm.

  9 The Lady’s Realm.

  10 The Lady’s Realm.

  11 The Lady’s Realm.

  12 ‘Elastic corsets for special circumstances, 22/6’ (1903).

  13 Elinor Glyn, 1900.

  14 Fashion journal.

  15 Fashion journal.

  16 Advertisement.

  17 Advertisement (1897):

  ‘Trousseau set, nightdress, chemise and knickers of exquisite cambric profusely trimmed with billowy frills, hem-stitched, 10/3.’

  ‘Corset, extra long waist, six fastenings, black Italian cloth, 14/11; in white coutil, 12/11.’

  ‘Princess slip bodice, in cashmere or silk, with high or low neck, short sleeves or trimmed armholes; fits the figure like a glove.’

  XII

  1909–1918

  THEoutstanding event of this period was, of course, the first World War. Its effect on the clothing of both men and women was certainly great, but it is scarcely sufficiently realized, perhaps, that these changes had already begun before 1914 and that the war merely hastened and developed them. The impulse was in being; the war gave it impetus towards a simplification, which enabled fashions to reach a still larger section of the community, at least in their cheaper forms. Such distincti
ons as remained were based more on wealth than on social status.

  Underclothes were permitting freer movement, but what was still more significant was the growing inclination to reduce the layers which covered the body. It was being slowly realized that in the active life of the modern world so much clothing was unnecessary and a relic of obsolete ideas. A new conception of decency began to appear which has characterized the underclothing of the last forty years.

  In men’s underclothing the symbols of social rank, except for formal occasions, were declining; the gentleman’s shirt and collar were no longer distinctive; the fashionable collar, or a good imitation of it, could be bought for 6d. or less, the reign of the soft shirt was established, and the frock-coat and top hat were tottering to their doom. In 1911 Mr. Seymour Lucas, R.A., lamented the growing uniformity of masculine apparel, sighing for the time when a duke could be recognized by his garb.’ Beneath the surface democratic novelties from America were coming into play in the direction of reducing the weight and substance of male underwear, as though we were no longer so fearful of our climate; or was it that we were discovering that, after all, it is admirably suited for an active life?

  As a result of these changes man’s underclothing became more rational and therefore ceased to be interesting. Being scarcely more than a detachable lining to his suit, its only trace of class distinction was the frequency with which it could be sent to the wash.

  Happily feminine underclothing has never for long surrendered to the dictates of reason, and in spite of two great wars clings for inspiration to the promptings of instinct. In 1909, however, fashion became abruptly serious; the prospects of war and the growing burden of taxation called a stop to the frivolous extravagance of Edwardian modes; underclothing was reduced in amount and much simplified. The new classical line was severe, and its attractive power did not depend on the mystery of suggestion. The actual outlines of the body itself were no longer disguised through the intermediary of complex lingerie.