![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kirachi
Colonial Settler
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 04 2007
Status: offline
|
 Posted - October 09 2007 : 6:42:46 PM
|
I ended up in an argument with my friend the other night as he is convinced that ladies did not wear any kind of underwear in the 1700's other than corsets and underskirts!
I find that very hard to believe!
I mean surely a type of bloomers exisited?!
Surely in a time were everything was so prudish and proper women would not have well...gone out in the breeze!
A very odd question but one that has been bugging me. All i can find online is refs to 1800 bloomers and nothing before that other than corsets and skirts.
Can anyone shed any light on this strange subject? lol
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
blackfootblood
Devoted Tribal Member
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 22 2007
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 09 2007 : 6:47:46 PM
|
LOL!  Cute question! Hope you find your answer! My guess says that they did..... |
"Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain!"
"Live well, love much, laugh often!" |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Monadnock Guide
Council of Elders
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
March 14 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 09 2007 : 7:04:02 PM
|
| In spite of the rumors, I wasn't there to check on "things". However, I recall WW posting something about that awhile ago. Seems the chicks of the day were sans undies - "way back when". If WW reads this maybe she can clear things up. Not likely from experience of course. ;) |
you can keep "The Change" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 09 2007 : 8:31:42 PM
|
Kirachi, your friend is absolutely correct. Women did not begin to wear any kind of underdrawers until prior to the Civil War era in the mid-1800s. And when they did, they were knee-length and were split-crotch. It wasn't until sometime later on, after the Civil War that bloomers or underdrawers with a closed crotch came into being.
The interesting thing about the 1700s is that it was not a prudish time. I think you may be confusing it with the Victorian era, which was very prudish for some classes of people. The 1700s were a very bawdy time. Look at the period paintings of the women with the very low cut gowns exposing much of their bosoms. Look at the drawings of Hogarth, who portrayed the very basic, rather seedy side of life. The out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate was extremely high in the 1700s. If I recall correctly, I believe I read that during our Revolutionary War period, there was a 25% illegitimate birth rate.
Would you like to know what women wore in those days? I can tell you the order of dress for a woman in the 1700s.
The first thing she would put on would be her shift (chemise if you are French). This was a white linen garment that served as a nightgown as well as an undergarment during the day. It protected her other clothing somewhat from sweat and dirt from her body and it was easy to launder. It had sleeves that came just below the elbow and a low, scooped neckline that would be plain or have a small ruffle around it. The body of the shift was sort of A-shaped and it came to just below her knees.
Next came the stockings, which were gartered just above her knees, and her shoes. I can tell you it is necessary to put these on first because once you have your stays on, it becomes difficult to bend well enough to put them on.
So, then came her stays (corset if you are French). These were fully boned, usually with whalebone (actually the baleen). They were shaped to give her a nice cone shape, with a smooth flat front. Bosoms were pushed upwards and well-supported. Most laced in the back, but some laced both front and back. Some had shoulder straps and some were strapless.
Next, she tied a pair of pockets around her waist. These were fairly large and could be accessed through side slits in her petticoats and gowns.
If she was an upper class lady, dressing in a very elegant gown, she might tie on a pair of side hoops to give her that nice wide look.
Then, she began layering on her petticoats. She would wear at least two, and more could be used for fullness or for warmth. These were pleated onto tapes, which were tied around her waist.
Over the petticoats she would wear either an open-robe gown or a short jacket or shortgown, or a working class bedgown. The bedgown was not worn to bed, but was a loose, comfortable thigh-length sort of shirt that was worn by working class women.
The open-robe gown could be very plain, made of linen, or it could be very fancy, made of brocaded or hand-embroidered silk or plain colored silk satin. If fancy, it could be decorated with various kinds of trim, such as ruching or fly fringe. Not usually any lace, however, except on her sleeve ruffles.
If she was wearing a fancy silk gown and was a young woman, she would not cover her upper bosom and chest, but would boldly let it show. But if she was an older, mature lady she would wear a neck handkerchief for modesty. If she were a working or middle class woman, she would wear a linen neck handkerchief to protect herself from the sun and for modesty.
On her head, she would wear a white cap of various designs. And when she went outdoors, she would put on a straw or felt hat with a wide brim, tied on with a ribbon.
And there you have it. It literally takes me up to 1/2 hour to get fully dressed in these clothes, including fixing my hair up in a bun.
Yes... they wore a lot of clothes. Just no underdrawers! |
"It is more deeply stirring to my blood than any imaginings could possibly have been." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kirachi
Colonial Settler
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 04 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 08:26:56 AM
|
Wow! that's was fasinating I have to say!
Thanks very much WW, what a history lesson!!
I can't believe that they didn't have underdrawers lol It's quite odd but i guess with all those skirts these was little need at the end of the day, your modesty was covered by all that...unless you fell over  lol
Maybe I am more thinking of the Victorian era but I do have the idea that most past eras were quite prudish at least by todays terms. But yes, the LOW cut dresses, I have noticed them and wondered how on earth they didn't fall out of them lol
But thanks again WW that really was a joy to read.
I have to now admit i was wrong but hey, live and learn lol
I admire the fact you have the patience to put all that on!
So, what about men? just a pair of pants and a shirt right? they get off so much easier!!  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 09:05:09 AM
|
| I remember at one of the Mohican Gatherings Lady Ann giving me an indepth lesson on the history of undergarments. Very interesing, indeed. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 09:38:21 AM
|
Men wore drawers, except probably for those "disgusting" frontiersmen, which, by the time of the Civil War, went from the waist to the ankles (where they were snugged up by little drawstring ties). They usually had a 1- or 2- button fly. They could be made of thin cotton for the hot months and (an extremely warm) cotton flannel for the cold months.
BTW, did you know that "flannel" is strictly a loosely-woven woolen cloth, whereas what we would call flannel today is actually "cotton flannel" if you want to get technical (or historically accurate) about it. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Fitzhugh Williams
Mohicanland Statesman
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 17 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 10:14:58 AM
|
Actually, men didn't wear drawers as underwear. The undergarment was the shirt, over which you always wore a waistcoat. To not wear a waistcoat was to be seen in your underwear. Even when working in the fields, they carried a waistcoat with them and laid it close to hand in case a visitor should come by. They wore breeches with the long shirt tail tucked in and serving the purpose of drawers. Drawers were sometimes issued in New France if the wool of the breeches was too rough, and the breeches were not lined. If they were lined, or were linen, cotton, or fustian, none were used. Of course they wore stockings which came up over the knees, and shoes, usually with buckles. They ALWAYS wore a neckstock and a head covering of some kind. Now, if you were wearing a breechcloth, then you couldn't tuck the shirt in, but you didn't wear a breechcloth in polite society.
|
"Les deux pieds contre la muraille et la tete sous le robinet" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 10:33:49 AM
|
I'm glad you found it interesting, Kirachi. Thanks!
But, no... men did not have it easy, either. It was not just a shirt and pants. They, too, wore a lot of layers, depending on their class or station. Sorry, Obi, but men did not wear underdrawers in the 1700s. I believe that came along at some point in the 1800s, as well.
Here is what a man had to put on:
First was his shirt, usually a white linen or cotton shirt that was long enough to come to his knees or longer. Military, middle class, or lower men would also wear checked shirts of green or blue or brown and white. It had long voluminous sleeves that gathered into a cuff at the wrist. It had a collar that ranged from anywhere between 1 inch to 6 or 7 inches in width. This shirt was the only thing that was right next to his skin, much like the lady's shift. He could use it as a night shirt, as well. Dressier shirts had ruffles at the wrist and the front neck opening.
Around the neck, he would place a white linen neck wrap. This was about a 6-foot long, 6-inch wide strip of hemmed cloth. It was wrapped around the neck, over the top of the collar, twice and tied in front in a variety of manners. This was the forerunner of the modern necktie.
Then he put on his stockings, which came up to his knees. These were gartered just below the knee, often with a narrow leather strap that buckled.
Next came his breeches, which came to just below the kneecap. When he put these on, he used his long shirt to tuck in underneath himself. This created the barrier between his body and his breeches. If the weather was cold, he may put on a pair of linen underbreeches, then his outer breeches over those. The underbreeches tied at the knee and the outer breeches buttoned. The outer ones could be linen, cotton canvas, fustian (linen and cotton mixed), wool, or silk, depending on the man's class and station in life.
Then, because a man would usually not appear in public in just his shirt, he would put on a waistcoat. This was a sleevless, close-fitting garment that buttoned down the front and came down to below his hips in the F & I period. It, again, could be made of any of the above listed fabrics. If a silk one, it could be highly decorated with brocading or embroidery.
Over that, he would put on some sort of coat. This varied widely, again, with fabric, style and decoration. In the F & I period, these coats were quite long, coming down nearly to the knee. As the century progressed, they became shorter.
If he was a frontier man or a longhunter, he would put a hunting shirt on over his other shirt and breeches. You've all seen pictures of the hunting shirt with fringed shoulder capes and collars. Some of these men chose to forego the breeches or trousers and went with an Indian breechclout and leather leggings and moccasins.
On his head, he might wear a wig, dressed in the latest style, or he may use his own hair, worn long and tied back at the nape of the neck. He would always have his head covered when in public, with at least a close-fitting linen cap. He would wear a hat, of a variety of styles. The one you think of most commonly is, of course, the tricorn, but there were others.
For a military soldier, there would be many more accouterments that would be draped or buckled on, which I am not yet knowledgeable enough to list.
So, you see? Men did not have it easy, either.
Gentlemen who re-enact... is there anything you want to add or correct me on? I am still learning all the ins and outs of men's clothing.
Edit: Ooops... Fitz posted his reply as I was working on this. But, I see that he is substantiating a couple of points that I made, so I guess I am on the right track! Any other comments, Fitz?
|
"It is more deeply stirring to my blood than any imaginings could possibly have been." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Steve S
Pathfinder
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 05 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 1:10:37 PM
|
In hot weather,A chap could get by in a sleeved waistcoat,instead of waistcoat and coat,In fact,the French military adopted this style as their regular summer uniform....British military waistcoats being sleeveless,the light infantry fixed their coat sleeves to them for summer kit,leaving the shell of the coat to be worn overall when it got chillier.
Steve |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Light of the Moon
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
December 18 2004
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 1:22:00 PM
|
| Whoo! No wonder people passed out a lot back then! I get sweaty just thinking about it! |
I live in my own little world - but that's okay, they know me here! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Fitzhugh Williams
Mohicanland Statesman
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 17 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 1:24:28 PM
|
I will just say that there were differences between how the British and French dresses, or for that matter, how the Germans, Dutch, Spanish, etc. dressed. For instance, almost all French waistcoats (vestes) were long sleved, whereas the British ones were usually short sleeved. But not always. French wore mostly wool clothes, and would layer vestes at times. There was the gilet, a sleeveless, waist length veste that was worn under the veste for extra warmth. Womens clothes differed too. If reenactors clothes are properly made, you can look at a person and tell if he is British or French.
Another LOTM error. Look at the French at the siege of Fort WH. The ones who have their justaucorps off are wearing sleeveless vestes which is wrong. Well, actually they shouldn't have been wearing vestes at all. Montcalm ordered the troupes to leave the vestes at Fort Carillon and wear only the justaucorp. So two errors in one, sort of. |
"Les deux pieds contre la muraille et la tete sous le robinet" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 1:30:00 PM
|
Well, bear in mind, Light, that they were more used to dealing with it than we are. We have become so accustomed to air conditioning that we can't seem to tolerate warmer temperatures as well.
Also, everything they wore was made of natural fibers. Linen is very cool to wear because it has a more open weave and it breathes very well. Cotton is pretty good in that respect unless it is a really tight, smooth weave, which they most likely could not produce on looms back then. Wool is warm, yes, but wool also breathes.
When you sweat, the natural fibers of the clothing absorb the moisture and wick it away from your body. When it reaches the outer layer, it begins to evaporate, which creates a natural cooling effect on your body. Manmade fibers, such as nylon, rayon and polyester, simply cannot do that. They trap the moisture in, making you feel as though you are encased in a sauna. That's when the trouble begins!
The trick is to stay very well hydrated to replace the moisture you are losing through the wicking and evaporization process.
Thanks, Fitz, for the additional comments. |
"It is more deeply stirring to my blood than any imaginings could possibly have been." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Monadnock Guide
Council of Elders
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
March 14 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 1:50:20 PM
|
| Welcome aboard Steve, - are you involved in reenacting? If so, who with? Nice to have you around, - hope you stay and enjoy. ;) |
you can keep "The Change" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
winglo
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2007
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 4:51:25 PM
|
Phew! All I have to say is thank goodness I don't have to put all those clothes on.
So, what brought on the underwear revolution, then? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
blackfootblood
Devoted Tribal Member
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 22 2007
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 5:16:48 PM
|
I don't' know about y'all but if I lived back then, I would be runnin' around in me skivvies all the time!!  |
"Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain!"
"Live well, love much, laugh often!" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kirachi
Colonial Settler
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 04 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 6:53:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by winglo
Phew! All I have to say is thank goodness I don't have to put all those clothes on.
So, what brought on the underwear revolution, then?
Yes, i was just wondering that.
Was it the more prudish 1800's? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 10:13:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wilderness Woman
.....
But, no... men did not have it easy, either. It was not just a shirt and pants. They, too, wore a lot of layers, depending on their class or station. Sorry, Obi, but men did not wear underdrawers in the 1700s. I believe that came along at some point in the 1800s, as well.
.....
I only wrote about what I know--and that's the way it was in the mid-19th century. Just think if they'd had bikini undies or (gasp!) speedos!
[rant on]IMHO the necktie is the most useless article of clothing ever invented![rant off] |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 10 2007 : 10:26:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackfootblood
I don't' know about y'all but if I lived back then, I would be runnin' around in me skivvies all the time!!
No you wouldn't! Because you would know nothing different, so you would dress as you were supposed to.
Winglo, from what I have been able to find out, women in Europe began wearing underdrawers in the very early 19th century. I don't believe it was due to prudishness, but merely another fashion statement. Then by about 1820 or so, it became more widespread. By the time the large round hoops came into fashion, it was standard practice to have the underdrawers on for modesty. Those hoops could fly up very easily, exposing everything underneath. And even though the underdrawers were split crotch, they were so voluminous that they covered what needed to be covered. |
"It is more deeply stirring to my blood than any imaginings could possibly have been." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kyfrontiersman
Colonial Militia
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 18 2004
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 10 2007 : 11:46:24 PM
|
"you didn't wear a breechcloth in polite society"?
Is that why folks keep lookin' at me kind'a funny? 
Mike |
http://rumpingproductions.org/
"Kentucke, situated on the fertile banks of the great Ohio, rising
from obscurity to shine with splendor, equal to any other of the
stars of the American hemisphere." ...... John Filson |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kirachi
Colonial Settler
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 04 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 11 2007 : 05:22:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wilderness Woman
quote:
Originally posted by blackfootblood
I don't' know about y'all but if I lived back then, I would be runnin' around in me skivvies all the time!!
No you wouldn't! Because you would know nothing different, so you would dress as you were supposed to.
Winglo, from what I have been able to find out, women in Europe began wearing underdrawers in the very early 19th century. I don't believe it was due to prudishness, but merely another fashion statement. Then by about 1820 or so, it became more widespread. By the time the large round hoops came into fashion, it was standard practice to have the underdrawers on for modesty. Those hoops could fly up very easily, exposing everything underneath. And even though the underdrawers were split crotch, they were so voluminous that they covered what needed to be covered.
Just another fashion statement?
wow it's kinda strange isn't it lol being brought up in a world of underdrawers it's hard to imagine life without them. People must have been cold! I jest, I jest hehehe
Glad to hear men didn't have it easy either haha
Really interesting stuff anyway WW, youa re a well of wisdom  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Monadnock Guide
Council of Elders
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
March 14 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 11 2007 : 07:45:23 AM
|
| "A well of wisdom"??? .... Geez, now you've done it, - she'll be walking around with a big head. |
you can keep "The Change" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 11 2007 : 07:53:20 AM
|
Hmmmmm...... Wilderness Woman, Well of Wisdom. Kinda has a nice ring to it, don't ya think?
Big head, MG? Nah. Not me. Not my style.
|
"It is more deeply stirring to my blood than any imaginings could possibly have been." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 11 2007 : 11:07:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirachi
...it's hard to imagine life without them. People must have been cold! I jest, I jest hehehe
I know you are kidding, but just let me say that it doesn't feel as drafty as you might think. The weight of 2 or 3 heavy petticoats, especially if they are wool, helps to keep that from happening. It's actually quite comfortable, and it really makes doing -- er... certain things... cough...  -- much easier, when wearing stays that prevent easy maneuvering in a small, plastic "French Sentry Booth." (Sorry, Fitz. That's what we call them, especially if they are blue!)
|
"It is more deeply stirring to my blood than any imaginings could possibly have been." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Steve S
Pathfinder
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 05 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 11 2007 : 2:47:50 PM
|
Looks like I'm going to have to get up really early to answer posts here....Damn time zones!
Steve |
| report to moderator |
|
|
winglo
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2007
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 11 2007 : 3:36:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S
Looks like I'm going to have to get up really early to answer posts here....Damn time zones!
Steve
I just checked your profile, Steve, and don't see a geographic location for you. What time zone are you in? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.59 seconds |
 |
|
Underwear?
