From: Gretchen Miller Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 110, 6/10/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 110, June 10, 1994 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu To get an index of available back issues of the digest, send a message with the words: index h-costume in the body of the message, to majordomo@lunch.asd.sgi.com. Then use the command: get h-costume hcos.yymmdd to retrieve the volumes you want. Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Hogarth's "Before and After" 1899 Patterns Prositutes dress Underwear Colonial Men's clothing Adhesive for the face "Revolution in Fashion" French Court Dress Makeup ---------------------------- From: joneill@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (John O'Neill) Subject: Patterson on Hogarth Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 11:22:57 EDT Diana, The "famous Hogarth compiler and editor" you refer to is Ronald Paulson. I have read his commentary, as well as Sheshgreen's and many others--all I can find. I intend, in the article I'm writing, to challenge many of their conclusions. One of them is this statement you made: > You will note that > the woman's corset has been removed even before, and one of these > commentators > points out that she is therefore ready for seduction before any act of > the man's. There _is_ a corset on the chair in the foreground, but one might draw other inferences from that fact than are drawn by Sheshgreen and Paulson. I'd rather not "give away" all my reasoning just yet--but for what it's worth, I do not think a corset lying in plain sight on a chair is normally taken as an erotic sight. I agree with you, Diana, that the characters in the engraving are not of the *highest* class, but I am not satisfied that the two are of the same class. The man is what the eighteenth century calls a "gentleman"; he wears a wig and a full suit of clothes. If the woman is of the middle class, then the two of them are roughly equals. But if she is a servant, then they are not, and that certainly affects the dynamics of power as displayed in the engraving. Someone suggested to me this morning in a private note, not circulated to the list, that the woman is wearing a "morning dress." Do others on the list agree--and are there details in the engraving that support this? If so, then she and the "gentlemen" are of the same class. --John O'Neill ---------------------------- Subject: Re: LA Area Opportunity Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 08:58:59 PDT From: Walter Nelson -- Your message was: (from "Herandher@aol.com") Thanks for reading this commercial. P.S. we desperately need patterns/sources for MEN'S clothing appropriate to 1899, both business attire and clothing appropriate for tradesmen, laborers and agricultural workers. Any suggestions or help out there? ------------------ I have seen several patterns for frock coats, sack coats, morning coats, etc, but I have never seen a modern reproduction that achieved the standards of the originals. Even when assembled by an extremely competent seamstress/tailor, the qualtity of the fabric was still sub-standard, as far as Late Victorian/Edwardian gentleman's wear is concerned. Also, Victorian tailors were real artists, and had mastered skills of fitting and finishing that are almost lost today. It is a rare person who can still reach the minimum standard of the Victorian gentleman's tailor. There are still many original frock coats and morning coats available on the antique market, usually for far less than it would cost to recreate them today. I know you may have some concerns about trashing a piece of history with constant wear, but unfortunately, I think the only way you are likely to dress up to the standard of the gentleman of 1899, is to wear the same clothes they did--and just try to treat them gently. Fortunately, coats, vests and trousers of a Victorian cut were still being made well into the 20th Century, up until at least the '30s, so with a good eye and some persistance, you can probably find what you need at a place like the Rose Bowl Swap Meet or the Santa Monica Vintage Clothing Show. As to the clothing of the working class, many of them were wearing the cast-offs of the better sort, so the worn out antique might be servicable for the working man, but also some perfectly servicable and sturdy stuff can be bought off the rack from those who supply western and Civil War re-enactors. River Junction Trading Company and Fall Creek sutlery have some stuff that should do the trick. However, I would not recommend mail ordering from them. Quality with them, and with every ready-to-wear dealer I have seen varies wildly, and it is best if you can examine the wears before buying. River Juction (and a lot of other dealers) can be found at the Pomona Gun Show, and Fall Creek can be found at the Ft. Tejon Civil War re-enactments on the third Sunday of every month (April thru October). Of course, if you really want to work from a pattern, Amazon Dry Goods has an excellent selection (sorry, don't have the address handy). Cheers, Walter Nelson ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 11:49:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Frieda Davison Subject: Re: prostitute clothing On Wed, 8 Jun 1994, donna parker wrote: > KHC's booklet describes the portrayal: "The incription on Belle > Brezing's tombstone reads, "Blessed Be The Pure In Heart." Pure in > heart is hardly how some Kentuckians would have described Bresing, but > that didn't stop her from becomingon eo fthe state's most celebrated > entrepreneurs. For several decades, she ran a Lexington establishment > . . .retired after World War I. She was a pillar of the community and > left the University of Kentucky library a valuable collection of > memorabilia . . . " I lived in Lexington in the late '70's and early 80's. At that time the tradition was being touted that Belle Brezing was the basis for the Belle Watling character in Gone With the Wind. Don't know that it was ever fully proven or not. Lexington was quite proud of Belle Brezing. Her "collection" included letters from Senators, Ambassadors, etc. who had frequented her place of business. Frieda Davison Library Director Mississippi University for Women fdavison@sunmuw1.muw.edu ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 10:05:24 PST From: "Cindy" Subject: The invention of underwear ... >Samuel Pepys's diary, written 1659-69, records that his wife wore drawers. >One of Janet Arnold's books, _Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd_, has >photos of two pairs of late 16th-century drawers, one or both of which may >have been women's. And Ruth Anderson's _Hispanic Costume 1480-1530_ states >that Spanish women of this period wore drawers. Amusing. I brought the salient portion from C. Willet Cunnington's "The History of Underclothes" to cite the same source, Samuel Pepys Diary, tho' with different end. To wit: "We, however, have failed to find any evidence of drawers being worn by Englishwomen of any rank, except for a solitary reference in Pepys' diary (1663); when he suspected his wife for intended infidelity and watched her dressing. 'I am ashamed to think what a course I did take by lying to see whether my wife did wear drawers today as she did used to, and other things to raise my suspicions of her.' Mrs. Pepys, however, was a Frenchwoman and may have acquired the habit before her marriage." Notice, Cunnington says it is a sole source. Does this imply that she didnt wear split drawers, only closed ones, and that she had to go without in order to indulge in that "quickie" Fran mentioned? Cunnington also cites (English) country festivals with "smock races" in which young women _sprinted_ in "half-shirts and drawers" the winner receiving a new smock. He casts doubts on the frequency of the events. Anyway, American colonials came in many flavors. You neednt be anglo-centric. --cin ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 11:54:30 PST From: "Cindy" Subject: Colonial MENS' attire >Breeches ... >As with the ladies, nothing underneath! Once again, the Cunningtons' book(*) disagrees with you. He says "Breeches are often mentioned as having 'linings' of washable material, presumably detachable for that purpose. Indeed the term 'linings' to denote washable drawers was still employed by the artisan till the end of the 19th century". He also cites Somerville's "The Officious Messenger" 1730. "his drawers beneath his hanging paunch close ty'ed" and "In his best trousers he appears and clean white drawers." And Benjamin Franklin (_Autobiography_): "during a hot Sunday in June 1750 I sat in my chamber with no other clothes on than a shirt and a pair of long linen drawers." _Roderick Random_ "our money sewed between the lining and waistband of our breeches" Some what later, circa 1770, Macaronis introduced Artificial Calves to "accentuate the shapliness of the male calf" (CW&PC again). Now, there's a male vanity! --cin (*) _The History of Underclothes_, C. Willet and Phillis Cunnington, reprinted in a Dover books edition, 1992. ---------------------------- From: KeziaK@aol.com Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 17:38:09 EDT Subject: colonial dress Hello everyone -- Many thanks to all of you who have offered such wonderful information to me about colonial dress. This is truly one of the most valuable reference sources I've found - esp. since you give feedback! Deb - in my notes the gown with a fitted back is called the "robe a la angloise," as opposed to the "robe a la francoise" which had back pleats. I enjoyed the messages from Sheryl and Cindy about hoops, bumrolls, and farthingales in the 16th and 19th centuries. Interesting how this basic fashion kept popping up (though not literally!). Cindy - did you see THE PIANO? The heroine's crinoline had practically a "supporting role." Also, it might interest you to know that in the 18th century a chair style was designed to accommodate hooped petticoats. It was armless and I believe a bit wider than usual. Deb - not to belabor the hoop issue, but I'm still a bit puzzled. I know that the wider side-hoops were crucial for court wear and other fancy occasion, but what supported the petticoats at other times? Did the bell-hoop go right out or was it still used? Beth ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 14:10:24 PST From: renpunk@prostar.com (Ren Punk) Subject: soaping B> hair/eyebrows/widows peak in this case with soap I was in the DC cast of La Cage (the broadway musical) and we used water soluble glue stick. It is VERY IMPORTANT to use water soluble. This covered much better than the old soap technique. I believe it was developed when grease paint was still a staple in the theatre. Try it it really works REMEMBER water soluble. David S. McDonald --- * Freddie 1.2.5 * Non est quis esse sed quid portare! ---------------------------- From: Mrs C S Yeldham Date: 09 Jun 94 11:09:00 BST Subject: Drawers and farthingales Some comments: Drawers The only illustration I've seen of a woman wearing drawers from the 16th century is in "A Visual History of the 16th century" (sorry, I've forgotten the author) is a woodcut of a Venetian courtezan (PSW?), one showing her outer garments, and a duplicate which shows the drawers and very high pattens under the fine brocade gown - a warning to the innocent? Surely the passage from Pepys' diary could be read to mean that she normally did not wear drawers, so he suspected her because she was wearing them? The strong implication in what I've read is that drawers are worn by immoral women for immoral purposes (perhaps on the clothes are sexier than skin principle?), and a good, clean-living God-fearing woman doesn't. I have even been told that all those Victorian pantalettes were open crotched - which is an interesting sidelight on the sexual availability of the servants in the victorian household to the master of the household. An imoral women in the 16th century (at least a lower class one) could always use her hair to indicate her availability - a decent woman has hers covered, a loose one shows more, in disarray. We always have the potential to be 'cross-laced' as opposed to 'straight-laced' too! Mens drawers I am puzzled by - Kentwell men normally wear 'braies' (when they are not wearing Marks & Spencer knickers), which are somewhat similar to modern knickers, with a draw-string pouch at the front (just behind the codpiece). Does anyone have any further information on this? Someone in the debate on Colonial Mens's clothing was talking about baggy trousers. It must have been a question of fashion, 15th century mens long hose show it is possible to make cloth hose very tight fitting - skin tight indeed, and there was an exchange on this subject in this group recently (the problem area is the ankles - I'm still working on it!) And Farthingales I think it was Deb who said she had never been 'authentic' under a crinoline - you are missing one of the great pleasures of the world, a hot day, farthingale swaying gently in the breeze, cool air rising - try it some time. And so to farthingales - having fallen over several times wearing one I think I can comment! (Oh the perils of pavanning backwards!) I use crinoline steel for my farthingales (whalebone not being practical), and have found that, with the weight of the fabric, the farthingale tends to collapse into a demure oval when I fall over, thus preserving my decency! A farthingale is simply concentric ovals of steel in channels sewn onto a shaped petticoat (of calico usually). Was a crinoline made in a different style? I think I have seen, in an exhibition of victorian underwear at the Victoria and Albert, crinolines with vertical reinforcement (ie running from the waist to the ground) - this would tend to hold the garment in the shape given, so causing the problems charicatured by Victorian artists, and making it much more unwieldy to wear. Elizabethan corsets are there to create the correct shape, which involves a smooth front, and the extended inverted V in the later years, but I don't think there is any attempt to make us all flat-chested (forlorn hope in my case anyway!) Elizabeth seems to have been pretty skinny, so the fashion may have echoes that, but there are some fairly substantial women shown in the pictures! Re Modern Clothes It's modern make-up I find difficult when returning to the modern world. My eye adjusts to women's faces without make up, and returning to today, women's faces look very garish, with over-emphasised eyes and lips - I have to say it looks sluttish! Caroline Mistress Nell (who is a decent, straight-laced, God-fearing woman who is desperately trying to learn the Angelus (Ora pro nobis!)) ---------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 11:31:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Cynthia Abel Subject: book Someone on the list mentioned a book. Revolution in fashion : European clothing, 1715-1815 is the correct title. Thanks to the person on the list that mentioned it as I hadn't heard of it before. I will try to get it on ILL as it isn't available locally. I'd like to see it as I am researching the years 1793-6, fashion, gothic novels, City of Bath, etc just for fun but it might turn into a novel, someday. What I'd love to see is a color reproduction of the plates in Heideloff's "Gallery of Fashion" a fashion periodical that ran from 1794-1804. I've read Sitwell's history of this publication that reproduced a few of the plates from the first year, slightly reduced in size, in color, and UNO here in Omaha has 1794-1802 on black and white microfilm. Of course the thing is so rare, none of the few libraries that have it could lend it out and I can't get to any of them, but it would be a project for an interested party. From the plates I saw in Sitwell and a few other books, it was a beautiful and ruinously expensive history of English fashion during those years, especially during 1794-6 when it was the only fashion periodical of fine quality around. The descriptions of the plates are fascinating, terms given to colors, and fashions created by fads like the gothic novel, and oriental art. Cindy Abel brujne@bluejay.creighton.edu Interlibrary Loan Health Sciences Library Creighton University 2500 California St Phone 402-280-5144 Omaha NE 68178-0400 Fax 402-280-5134 ---------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 14:39:30 PDT From: aterry@Teknowledge.COM (Allan Terry) Subject: Fashion Plates & Underwear Cindy Abel asked about a color reproduction of plates from Heideloff's _Gallery of Fashion_. I don't know of any book. But a few plates from the _Gallery_ are reproduced in color in _The Fine Art of Fashion: An Illustrated History_, by Julian Robinson (Bartley & Jensen, n.d) and _Hand Coloured Fashion Plates 1770-1899_, by Vyvyan Holland (B. T. Batsford, 1988). I also recently mail ordered a book titled _A Gallery of Fashion_, by Leslie Gordon (Orange Books, 1993). It turned out to be a tiny little volume of the type you see near the cash register in tacky stationery stores, in a series with such gems as _Signs of the Zodiacs_. However, it does consist of color reproductions of fashion plates including 12 from Heideloff's _Gallery of Fashion_. Caroline brought up the question of drawers & respectability. I read Pepys' diary some years ago, but recall the implication was that his wife _did_ normally wear drawers. (She wasn't up to anything, but Pepys himself was, from time to time.) About the drawing of the 16th-century courtesan: My question is, did courtesans wear different underwear from everybody else? Or were they simply more likely to be depicted in their underwear? One can hardly imagine a respectable woman sitting for her portrait dressed thus. I have many pairs of Victorian and Edwardian drawers in my collection. The majority do have open crotches and were probably worn by highly respectable women. The open crotch is to facilitate going to the bathroom. The waist of the drawers is trapped under the corset and several layers of clothes, so you can't take them down like modern panties. Instead, you pull the slit open and bunch the fabric out of the way; they are gathered, especially the seat, to allow this. Fran Grimble ---------------------------- Date: 09 Jun 94 19:02:36 EDT From: "RICHARD L. ROY" <73503.3171@CompuServe.COM> Subject: French Court Dress Greetings.... I'm putting this question out in hopes that someone out there can help me with a little research work. I'm interested in the dress of the French Court, mid to late eighteenth C., esp. the elaborate dress of the men, i.e. accessories, cosmetics-rouge, patches, jewelry, etc. I guess I'm referring to the French noblemen referred to as "dandies", for lack of a better term. ;-) If anyone out there has any info, or has any idea how far these gents went in costuming themselves, I'd love to hear..... I'm doing research work on the decadence of the era. Merci, Maureen Denning-Roy ---------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 16:42:45 PDT From: aterry@Teknowledge.COM (Allan Terry) Subject: Period Cosmetics Re Caroline's comment that makeup looks too modern: Actually, obvious makeup was widely worn from the Elizabethan period through the 18th century, by women and some men. (Elizabeth 1 was known for heavy painting.) Although makeup fashions varied during this period, makeup was generally unsubtle, with a white-and-red effect. And dangerous--some popular cosmetics contained lead, mercury, or arsenic. Makeup was still worn, but more subtle, during the early 19th century. The Victorians were the ones who felt it should be absent or at least undetectable. Although cosmetics became somewhat more acceptable during the early 20th century, the modern cosmetics industry dates from the 1920s. It was fueled by lots of advertising and women's desire to look like Hollywood stars. Of course, makeup has also been worn in many (probably most) other periods and societies. An excellent book is _Fashions in Makeup: From Ancient to Modern_, by Richard Corson (Peter Owen, 1989). It is a huge book with lots of period quotes (including recipes) and pictures. Fran Grimble ---------------------------- From: KeziaK@aol.com Date: Thu, 09 Jun 94 20:24:46 EDT Subject: French court fashions Hi Maureen! I saw your question about 18th century French court wear for men. Jeepers, I've been trying to find anything 18th century that ISN'T focussed on the French court! There's just tons of stuff out there for you! I'm sure the others in the group will have full-blown outfits to describe for you. I'll just note that the French aristocracy surely did go "all out" in costume, though I don't think they were called "dandies." That strikes me as a Regency term. The Marion Sichel costume book, THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY (Plays Inc., 1977) has a lot, I'm sure, about the French mode, and should be available in your public library. Beth ---------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 19:34:24 -0700 From: "Sarah E. Goodman -- unless it's Clint Bigglestone" Subject: Underwear A couple of thoughts that popped into my mind while reading through the last rush of messages on this topic. Slit drawers--The reason drawers were slit are readily apparent the first time one tries to cope with the call of nature in full Victorian female garb. Unhooking closed drawers (with the waist under the corset) would be a real drag, and probably take more time than nature allowed one. (Praise all Powers, at least, for the Americans with Disabilities Act. It means there is usually a privy around I can at least fit into with the hoops et all!) I was once told by someone who's family had helped tame the Great American Desert that her grandmother told her that in full skirts one could just squat down in the middle of the praire if necessary and answer the call of nature in plain sight. (Of course, I didn't think to write down the details of who and when at the time, so I've lost this to hearsay.) While I shudder to think of the state of the inner petticoats after much of this, I've got to say it sounded good after a summer of camping out in jeans. Drawers in general--I can't imagine that chaffing thighs (the reason I wear drawers--in period and out, as it were) are a modern invention. Admittedly, we're better fed than our ancestors, so many of us have more padding. However, I'm willing to bet that if men had undergarments with two legs, women (at least women with large legs) were "borrowing" the idea. If it wasn't proper in your time and place, of course you wouldn't let on you did any such thing (unless you weren't proper), but what folks didn't know, etc. Between the legs, otherwise--I know that, pre-Sanitary napkins, women used "rags" to soak up menstral flow. (There's a family legend about an great uncle in the cloth trade who figured women would always do what his mother did, and therefore didn't go into partnership with Mr. Modess!) Does anyone know how the rags (which I suspect were folded pads of old cotton fabric kept for the purpose, not "rags" as we usually mean it) were attached? When I first had to deal with all this (before the days of self-stick pads) we had neat little elastic belts with clips to hook the end of the pad into, for and aft, but I don't know if such an item of clothing existed before throw away pads. SEG ---------------------------- End of Volume 110 -----------------------