Underwear in the 18th Century.
As The Costumer’s Manifesto say:
Many authors of modern historical Romances have a way of meticulously costuming their 18th Century heroines for their activities in the ballroom and drawing rooms, but conveniently forgetting the awkwardness of such attire in the bedroom. In order to live up their racy titles and covers, Romantic fiction portrays 18th Century passion as occurring as rapidly as if every dress seam was merely closed with Velcro, and corsets were fastened with zippers.
This is obviously not a good thing, so here is a short run down of what 18th Century ladies and gentlemen would be wearing underneath their gorgeous outer clothes, and what that means in terms of bedroom activity.
Ladies first, naturally:
The basic undergarment is a shift (aka a ‘chemise’ if you’re French, or a ‘sark’ if you’re Scottish.) A woman in her shift is ‘undressed’ for the purposes of the 18th Century. Though covered, she would no more walk about in it than a modern woman would walk to town in bra and pants.
The shift comes to somewhere just below the knee – short enough so that it does not show under any of the petticoats. Nothing is worn underneath except for stockings. Knickers did begin to come in towards the end of the century, but were regarded as being for prostitutes and women of loose morals only.
Stockings are not the sheer, lacy-topped things we are accustomed to in the 21st Century. They are knitted like hiker’s socks. In the best cases, however, when they are knitted of fine silk, they can be fine as a thick pair of modern tights. They are put on like modern stockings, but there is no suspender belt to keep them up. Instead, garters are tied around the leg just below the knee, and the top of the stockings can be folded down to sit comfortably on top of it. This means that in practice ladies’ stockings look like knee-socks.
Once she’s got her stockings on, the next thing a lady would put on would be her shoes. It’s much easier to do it at this point, while she can still bend in the middle!
Next comes the first of her petticoats (pleated skirts)
Then on top of the first petticoat comes the stays (corset)
(These stays by http://www.TheStaymaker.co.uk).
These are laced up the back, ideally by someone else. If the laces are long enough, you can put the stays over your head while loosely laced and then tighten them up yourself, but it’s much harder to make sure the lacing is evenly tight throughout. An upper class woman will have a lady’s maid to do this for her, a lower class woman will either have to do it herself or have a mother/sister/daughter do it for her.
A woman wearing a single petticoat and stays over her shift is regarded as being dressed. That is, a working class woman who had no outer garments would not be chastised for being indecently dressed if that was all she wore. It would be a mark of extreme poverty, though, not to have at least one outer layer.
If the lady is upper class, she may now put on hoops or panniers, to give her that fashionable galleon in full sail look:
If she wears panniers, she’ll tie her pockets underneath them. If not, the pockets tie on directly over the stays. The pockets are little bags tied onto a ribbon which ties around the waist. The lady will be able to reach them through slits made in the sides of her upper petticoat.
They are very capacious. She could easily carry a little dagger in one of them without disturbing the line of her dress at all.
On top of that goes a second petticoat, with the slits lined up above the slits in the pockets.
On top of that goes a fichu – a large square neckerchief folded into a triangle with the point down the back, which protects the gown above it from the unwashed skin beneath. It also conceals the cleavage, for modesty, and protects the lady’s assets from the vulgar tanning effect of the sun.
On top of that goes either a gown or a short jacket
In this case the gown is being worn on top of a petticoat made of the same material as the gown. The ruffles are sewn onto the sleeves of the gown and are not part of the underclothes.
The gown will be pinned shut, possibly over an embroidered stomacher
The whole dressing process takes at least three quarters of an hour – more, if the lady is wearing higher status clothes. So it goes without saying that she will not be willing to undress lightly.
The Gentlemen
The gentlemen get off fairly easily. Their basic undergarment is the shirt
This – like the woman’s shift – comes down to roughly knee-height.
Unlike women, a man may wear drawers under his breeches – cut and shaped like the breeches, but made of thin linen. (Still trying to find a picture of these. I know I’ve seen one somewhere!) Gentleman’s stockings are rolled as far up the leg as they will go (mid thigh) and secured with a garter around the knee, just as women’s are, but their breeches will stop the top part of the stockings from rolling down.
The gentleman then tucks his shirt between his legs and puts on a pair of breeches:
Breeches can be fly fronted (as these are) or drop fronted. In both cases the front of the breeches can be undone without undoing the waistband. In addition to being buttoned at the waistband and fly, they are also buttoned or buckled at the knee, often tight enough to pinch and restrict movement.
A gentleman wearing shirt and breeches is considered to be undressed. Though modestly covered by modern standards, by 18th Century standards he is considered to be in his ‘small clothes’ – his underwear. If he wants to take off his tight, movement-restricting coat anywhere where he might be seen, even in his own house, he will replace it with some other piece of outerwear such as a banyan (kimono-style dressing gown).
With his breeches and shirt on, he then ties a neck-cloth such as a cravat around the neck. On top of his breeches goes a waistcoat (with numerous buttons, all done up) and then a frock coat. The frock coat is cut in such a way as to pull the shoulders back and give an upright posture.
This young man has rolled his stockings over the cuffs of his breeches rather than wearing them underneath – that’s a fashion from early in the century.
But though restrictive, the gentlemen’s clothes are easier to get on and off than the ladies’. They probably could strip off with relative ease if they wanted to. Evidence suggests, however, that generally they didn’t care to:
Pornographic prints from the 18th Century almost always depict the people who are having sex as at least partially clothed. But 18th Century porn is a whole new post. I can recommend
if you want to delve into that a bit deeper. If not, there is an interesting sample, very much not safe for work, here:
I haven’t gone onto wigs and powder, cosmetics, or hats, because that seems like a subject for another post too, but here is a gorgeous snippet from ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ which demonstrates the process of getting dressed in such a way as to show that the clothes themselves have a slightly pornographic appeal.
August 18, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Great post. I must do more half undressed scenes. I worry so much about getting them naked and it’s really not necessary.
Those pictures are shocking!!
🙂
August 18, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Fabulous stuff, honey. I shall refer to this often.
PS Am so glad I live now and make do with my very small smalls…
August 18, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Lovely post. I haven’t written quite that far back in history, but excellent post to refer to.
August 18, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I must do more half undressed scenes. I worry so much about getting them naked and it’s really not necessary.
Those pictures are shocking!!
*g* I have to admit that I’ve started enjoying the half undressed scenes a lot, if only because it gives you lots of new textures to play with, and at least one of my characters enjoys getting bruised by buttons 😉 It makes the getting naked scenes that much more intimate as well.
August 18, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Fabulous stuff, honey. I shall refer to this often.
PS Am so glad I live now and make do with my very small smalls…
Hee! Thanks Charlie! But I’ve discovered after wearing stays for a couple of days that I really like them. Not only do they give you fabulous posture, but they also take away backache 🙂
August 18, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Lovely post. I haven’t written quite that far back in history, but excellent post to refer to.
Thanks Jeanne! Yes, it’s surprising what a difference your undergarments make 😉 I’ve started doing 18th Century reenactment, and this is the first fruits of my experience with that. I’m glad to finally find out what ‘smalls’ are!
August 19, 2008 at 11:01 am
Wow this is so enlightening and *useful* because I have this bodice ripper novel I set in the late 18th century and may be resurrecting…
Now I can double check I haven’t got them wearing anything anachronistic (ouch).
^___^
August 19, 2008 at 11:43 am
Thanks Clare 🙂 Yes, it’s easy enough to rip a bodice because they’re only pinned on with pins in the first place. But getting through the undergarments is another matter! One thing I didn’t mention is that it’s all surprisingly comfortable when it’s on. The stays aren’t tight laced, so all they do is support your bust and back. If you lace them too tight they dig into your hips, but even then they don’t restrict your breathing.
August 19, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Wow! I am bookmarking this in my research folder. Thanks! I love that scene from DL too!
August 19, 2008 at 5:20 pm
*g* Thanks Margaret, I’m glad it will come in useful 🙂 Erastes dug up the clip from DL, which I haven’t seen, but on this evidence I must!
August 20, 2008 at 11:08 pm
HMMMMM!!! It makes you think back to when women who were looking to get married proclaimed rape about the men they chose! Because there is just no way a man is going to take that long to undress a woman just to rape her! Kind of scary to think of how unhappy men could be married to a liar and how scary it must be for those women to be married to him knowing if he wanted to beat the living crap out of her, there was nothing she could do about it!
August 21, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Thanks for the comment, Danielle! Sadly though the clothes don’t provide any defence against rape. They just mean that any assailant wouldn’t bother to undress the woman first. With skirts and no pants, there’s not a lot of a barrier there. As for women entrapping men into marriage, asap it’s usually been the other way around!
August 21, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Even tho those clothes are painful, if you remember the undergarments of the ’50’s and ’60’s, the funnel bras and girdles, the garter straps for stockings, oh my god, how did those poor men ever get past it all.
Altho I never wore them, I certainly have seen my mother pour herself into them – but what a difference they make!! The waistline appears, the flesh firms beneath, and the bust lifts and separates.
They don’t make underwear like they used to, and that may or may not be a good thing.
Reminds me of the scene in Bridget Jones Diary, where she’s trying to decide to wear the cute little panties, in case she gets lucky, but opts for the grandma support brief, because without it she won’t get lucky!!
What a surprise the men got, once all that restraint was removed!! That unspringing of luscious flesh must have been inspiring, just take a look at the women the artists of the past painted. Full, round, bodacious!!
August 22, 2008 at 9:51 pm
*g* Thanks for the comment, Lynn! And yes, it is amazing the difference that underwear makes to your shape. I’ve just started doing 18th Century reenactment and discovered that the corsets are nowhere near as painful as people think. In the 18th Century they aren’t used for creating a waist – they give you a sort of cylindrical shape, with your breasts like a shelf on top 😉 But the upshot of that is that they don’t constrain your breathing and they’re actually about on a par with a modern underwired bra for comfort. And boy do they give you presence! That whole ramrod straight back thing makes you feel – and makes people treat you – as if you’re intimidating 🙂
LOL! But yes, being of Rubinesque stature myself, I’m all in favour of anything that gives me a waist. And I’m also really charmed by the gorgeous plump women of Georgian porn. They look like they really know how to enjoy themselves in lots of ways 😉
September 3, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Dear Alex,
It would have been nice to ask before using my stays image! or at least to have credited it.
Ian
The Staymaker
http://www.TheStaymaker.co.uk
September 4, 2008 at 7:27 am
Sorry Ian. I’m not sure why, but it didn’t occur to me. I have edited the post now to credit you, but if you would prefer me to take it down I can do that instead. I do apologize and I will be more diligent at crediting in the future.
October 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm
mens underweare should be as comfortable as possible because men always engages in a lot of physical work“’
October 24, 2011 at 9:46 pm
[…] Undressing Romance: 18th Century Underwear Overview of Rococo The French Revolution via SparkNotes Fashion after Rococo: Regency Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
January 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm
What undergarment would you recommend was the “usual” undergarment used when wearing a quilted petticoat. Just finished my silk taffeta quilted petticoat, but torn on what should go underneath. Pannier, pocket hoops or bum roll. Looks best with pannier, but is that correct? Thank you,
January 5, 2012 at 10:21 am
That’s where it gets difficult. I imagine it’s different depending on whereabouts in the century you’re re-enacting. If you’re aiming to represent the fashion at a specific date, try Googling for that date. But if you’re not being that specific, go with what you like best.
April 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Esprito…
[…]Underwear in the 18th Century « The Macaronis[…]…
April 12, 2013 at 6:36 am
Hello!
Thank you so much for all this information! I’m doing an essay about the history of undergarments for school and this helped me SO much. I’m just wondering do you have a post about the 19th century undergarments???
Thanks again
Julieanne
April 12, 2013 at 10:08 am
I’m glad it helped 🙂 I don’t think we do have a post on 19th Century undergarments, unfortunately. Maybe that’s something I should look into. Thanks!
October 18, 2013 at 3:40 pm
I love doing 18C reenactments, but mostly I loved my stays! Talk about comfortable! I was lucky in that they did not did into my hips as some ladies have this problem. Although from all of our research we could not find any sort of undergarments for women other than the chemise. And I can tell you, that yes, it does take a bit of time to get dressed. Usually running to a friends tent (if not married) to get “laced up.” I have also done 1812 reenactments, and I am here to tell you there is no way you can dress yourself, or for that matter undress yourself, without help in either Century. But both Centuries offer women like me with no bust to speak of, a bust! I loved that clothing and would wear it everyday if I wasn’t afraid they would send me to the loony bin, especially now that I am retired and don’t have to work. I believe, however I could, and probably will be, proven wrong, that pantaloons/knickers, as such, didn’t come into common usage until the middle 19th Century (1800’s).
October 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Yes, my understanding is that knickers didn’t come into common usage in the 18th century either. And yes, although I have dressed myself as an 18th Century reenactor, it involved pulling the stays over my head while half laced and then tightening them with my arms behind my back, which was not only extremely hard but also not as effective as having someone else do it for you. You can’t get the right tightness in the upper back that way.
But I agree, they’re great clothes, and give you a sense of importance and presence you don’t get with modern clothes. I could probably do without the bonnets though!
October 31, 2013 at 11:11 am
[…] the heck IS a cutty sark, anyway?? Tiny, titillating underwear, 18th-century style (an era when women’s underwear consisted of a loose shift… and no drawers). But you’ll have to read the poem for yourself to get the […]
November 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm
What did women use for their period?
November 8, 2013 at 6:35 pm
I don’t know, I’m afraid. Being a m/m writer, it’s not a question I normally have to worry about.
January 13, 2020 at 2:33 am
rags, commonly, hence the old adage. Also
ingredients such as:
Cotton fibres and waste
Oil silk which was easier to wash.
Wood
Wool wadding
Linen
November 10, 2013 at 1:01 am
[…] Undergarments: An Easy, Authentic 18th Century Petticoat Pretty, Pretty Petticoat Instructions for Hooped Petticoat/Panniers 1720-1780 Quilted Petticoat and Pannier c.1750 How to make Panniers American Duchess: Late 18th Century Skirt Supports American Duchess: How to Make an 18th Century Petticoat Historic Romance: Underwear in the 18th Century […]
May 3, 2016 at 1:14 pm
[…] none of us posting there in ages, the site still gets lots of hits, especially for such posts as Underwear in the 18th century or Male bodies and beauty through the ages. It’s a really good […]
May 11, 2016 at 3:11 am
We’re looking for a ladies set of ‘bloomers’, but we want them to have a trap door bottom. Bloomers may be the wrong nomenclature. Her waist is between 28 and 29 inches, US. Is there anyone out there that knows where we can find some, I’ll even go custom made if needs be.
my email is valserb@yahoo.com
Thanks in advance.
October 31, 2016 at 4:03 am
[…] the heck IS a cutty sark, anyway?? Tiny, titillating underwear, 18th-century style (an era when women’s underwear consisted of a loose shift… and no drawers). But you’ll have to read the poem for yourself to get the context… and to find out […]
November 20, 2016 at 4:35 pm
IT’S NOT TRUE AT ALL that “pornographic prints from the 18th century almost always depict the people who are having sex at least partially clothed”!THAT’S WRONG!In fact,most of the pornographic prints from the 18th century DEPICT THE PEOPLE FULLY NAKED!It is a proven fact!So,it can’t be said that “evidence suggests that generally they didn’t care” to undress.On the contrary,THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT GENERALLY PEOPLE HAD SEX FULLY NAKED,so it’s clear that they striped off their clothes when they had sex!It’s ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to suggest that in the 18th century the majority of people had sex dressed with their clothes!
November 20, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Hi Ralfie,
You seem very impassioned about this. Can you offer some links to sources so we can see the relevant evidence for ourselves?
November 20, 2016 at 11:57 pm
Well,you also didn’t offer any link to support what you said.I will offer such links when you will offer them,too.And,besides that,I have to sat that pornographic pictures were almost ONLY PORN,so they AREN’T AT ALL a good evidence for sex habits of that age!
November 21, 2016 at 8:46 am
In the post above, I offered as evidence, a book – City of Laughter by VAC Gatrell and a link (see “Naval Naughtiness”) to a picture in which a couple was having sex, she in a bed jacket and stockings, he with his top half still in uniform.
Look, you seem to think I’m wedded to this belief and I can only be converted by you shouting at me. That’s not the case. Show me your evidence and if it’s convincing, I’ll change my mind. That’s how proving things works.
April 30, 2017 at 12:41 am
Your “evidence” it’s only A PICTURE,NOT “ALMOST” ALL THE PICTURES OF THOSE TIMES,as you said!That’s why,THIS IS NOT CONVINCING EVIDENCE in support of what you said!Then,”proving things” IT’S NOT WORKING by showing only those things that support you,but also THOSE WHICH DON’T SUPPORT YOU! You should also show the pictures from those times in which people are presented having sex completely naked because THERE ARE QUITE A LOT of those pictures!
And I’m not “shouting at you”,I’m just EMPHASIZING some of the things that I say! And I don’t know whether you’re “wedded” to this belief or not,but YOU CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THIS IDEA!I’m not trying to “convert” you,but only TO SHOW YOU that you are wrong!
I want to add that I STRONGLY DISAGREE with what you said in a post above,that “the corsets are nowhere near as painful as people think” and that “they’re actually about on a par with a modern underwired bra for comfort”.I’m sorry,but the last idea IT’S A NONSENSE!The corsets from XVIIIth century SIMPLY CAN’T BE AS COMFORTABLE AS ANY MODERN BRA!And even if they aren’t as painful as it can be thought,THEY ARE A BIT PAINFUL,nonetheless! Also,YOU CAN’T SAY that in XVIIIth century corsets “aren’t used for creating a waist”!Of course that the corsets from XVIIIth century WERE USED TO CREATE A WAIST,though not as much as those from the XIXth century!In fact,some of the corsets from those times WERE PROBABLY THE MOST COERCIVE FORM OF CORSET to be ever worn. I don’t know what corsets did you wear,but CERTAINLY THEY WEREN’T XVIIIth century’s corsets!
Then,IT’S NOT TRUE that those clothes “give you a sense of importance and presence you don’t get with modern clothes”!MODERN CLOTHES ALSO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF IMPORTANCE AND PRESENCE,even more than those from old times!Also,I must say that IT’S NOT TRUE that “there is no way you can dress yourself, or for that matter undress yourself, without help”,as someone said.YOU CAN VERY WELL DRESS AND UNDRESS YOURSELF IN THOSE TIMES,as you proved dressing yourself in XVIIIth century clothes!Indeed,it can be difficult,but BY NO MEANS IMPOSSIBLE!
April 30, 2017 at 2:00 pm
Hm. Well, the corsets that I’ve worn were approved by http://www.manneredmob.com/ the mannered mob, a re-enactment society who are good enough at what they do to be the go-to re-enactors for the National Trust. I personally found them as comfortable as a bra – I didn’t tight lace them. I laced them to the point where they were comfortable and I wore them all day. By the end of the day my hips were a little sore. However, by the end of a day in a bra my underarms and upper chest are a little sore, so I stand by the point that – in my experience at least – they are equivalent in discomfort.
Have you worn an 18th Century corset yourself? Are you speaking from experience or from theoretical belief?
Again, it was my own personal experience that when dressed in 18th Century clothes I felt more poised and important than I normally do. This may be only my own personal truth, but truth it still is, unless you think you know better about my experiences than I do.
I do however agree that it is possible to dress yourself in 18th Century clothes. Putting the corset on yourself is a nightmare and I never figured out how to lace it to a decent tightness without someone doing it for me. Taking it off again is also a nightmare that involves a great deal of undignified flailing. It is *possible*, I’ll give you that, but it’s also very much not ideal.