The History of Underclothes Read online

  When we observe the fantastical ‘fashions’ of the fifteenth century, with frequent changes of design, it is very remarkable that the underclothing should have remained undisturbed and unaffected by the novel expressions of class distinction and sex attraction which were so lavishly displayed in the outer garments.

  * * *

  1 The Draper’s Dictionary

  2 The Vision of Piers Plowman (1377). Cf. the chaste maiden, Cecile, in the ‘Second Nonnes Tale, who

  Under her robe of gold that sat so fair

  Had next her flesh yclad her in an hair.

  3 Memoirs of the Crusades, 1309.

  4 Hallam: View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, 1818.

  5 Kelly and Schwabe : History af Costume and Armour.

  6 Chaucer: The Rime of Sire Tophas, 1387.

  7 Froissart.

  8 Piers Plowman, 1362–92.

  9 The Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry.

  10 Eric and Enid (c. 1164). ‘. . . her daughter who was clothed in a full-skirted chemise, white and pleated. Over it she had put on a white robe; she had no other garment.’

  11 E. R. Lunquist.

  12 ‘The Milleres Tale’ (The Canterbury Tales).

  13 Marie de France: Le Lai de Lanval, c. 1180. ‘She was dressed in such a way, in a white gown and chemise, that both her sides were bare where they were laced from side to side.’

  14 Chaucer : The Romaunt of the Rose, c. 1370.

  ‘. . . through her smocke ywrought with silke

  The fleshe was sene as white as milke.’

  15 Kelly and Schwabe: History of Costume and Armour.

  II

  1485—1625

  THE end of the Wars of the Roses, which in England brought the Middle Ages to a close, saw the end of the medieval conception of dress. The changes associated with the Tudor regime were sufficiently profound to affect the nature and purpose of underclothes. Ceasing to be merely a layer serving to protect the skin, they now began to assist the external costume of both sexes in expressing class distinction. In women’s dress they also played a subsidiary, though not unimportant, part in the art of sex attraction.

  The new fashion for slashing men’s outer clothes exposed the fine quality of what lay beneath, and immediately brought the shirt itself, or a lining simulating it, into prominence. In order to attract still greater attention, the edge of the shirt was ruffled at the neck, a decoration which soon developed into a separate accessory, the ruff. This emergence of the shirt for occasional display is not the sole instance of this tendency in the wearing of underclothes in this period. For instance, the waistcoat, which originally was an undergarment, was shown, when the doublet was taken off, en deshabille.

  With women, underclothing had the new function of supporting the growing size and shape of the skirt. Petticoats became necessary for that purpose until the expansion reached a degree where a hooped contrivance—the farthingale—had to be employed. The huge skirt has always been woman’s most conspicuous method of expressing class distinction, either in the form of a sweeping train or as a circular shape supported on a hooped petticoat.

  Thus we see that for both men and women in the sixteenth century the undergarment was no longer an obscure drudge, but was promoted to serve in the general mode of expressing what the whole costume so extravagantly announced; and likewise to share in that extreme degree of finery and physical discomfort which became the acceptable hall-mark of the Social Superior.

  The excessively small waist of the Elizabethan lady, familiar in portraits, could only have been produced by a very unmerciful corset. We might be tempted to regard this as a method of sex attraction but the fact remains that the male waist seems to have been similarly constricted. The male silhouette resembled a caricature of the female outline, suggestive of a (perhaps unconscious) homo-sexual trait, and appearing to indicate that the pinched waist of both sexes was not so much ‘attractive’ as a sign of social superiority, like other devices for restraining physical freedom.

  We have to recollect that all female parts on the stage were played by male actors, often famous for their skill in ‘female impersonation,’ so that the appearance of males in female dress was quite familiar; and that in the literature of the period there is a lack of that erotic interest which men normally take in the concealed garments of women. In his Anatomie of Abuses (1583), the Puritan- minded Philip Stubbes, though fulminating against the extravagance of costume in both sexes, ignores the eroticism of feminine underclothing, which he surely would not have done if that aspect had been one of the ‘social evils’ of his day. His target is the abominable use of clothes for the purpose of class distinction. It remained for a later generation of poets to sing the charms of ‘the tempestuous petticoat’ and ‘the sweet disorder of her dress.’

  In the period under consideration, then, from the Tudors to the end of the Jacobeans, the new function of underclothes was much the same for both sexes; to exploit the grandeur of the costume as evidence of rank, and only by that indirect method to add to the wearer’s sex attractions.

  As such, this century and a half composes a distinct and unusual phase in the history of costume, and an interpretation of its underclothes helps us to comprehend the significance of its fashions.

  Moreover, with the sixteenth century we begin to obtain far more reliable information than previously on the subject from contemporary literature (especially the drama), portraits, and indeed a few actual garments.

  MEN

  1. THE SHIRT1

  Shirts were usually made of cambric or holland. They were very full and, until about 1510, had low necks. Here the material was finely gathered into a narrow band, which was often cut square in front, but sufficiently open to allow the shirt to be put on over the head. The sleeves also were full and were gathered into narrow bands at the wrists. The bands both at the neck and wrist were generally embroidered with gold thread and coloured silks, black and red predominating. Embroidery went out in the second half of the sixteenth century and was replaced by ornament in drawn or cut- work edged with bobbin lace.

  FIG. 11. SHIRT AND COLLAR SHOWING HOOKS AND EYES. AFTER PIETER BRUEGEL, c. 1567

  The shirt at this period, and until about 1545, was very largely exposed to view. From 1510 the front was also embroidered and its decoration revealed by leaving the doublet open.2 When no stomacher was worn the front was open as far as the waist. When worn with a low-necked doublet, the shirt emerged above it; with a short one, it would bulge out between the lower edge of the doublet and the waist. The wristbands protruded below the doublet sleeves. The decorative slashing of the doublet also showed portions of the shirt; and even when this fashion changed and the slashes were filled in with coloured silk puffings, the idea was still to simulate the revelation of an undergarment.

  Important changes were made in the line of the neck throughout the period. From 1510 a small frill was added to the neckline; but after 1525 the neckline was cut high and finished with a broad band fitted close round the neck, the front opening being fastened with strings or buttons. The band was edged with a small, turned-down collar, which developed into the ‘falling band’ or ‘fall,’ or else with a small frill, the origin of the ruff (figure 12).

  The upright neckband increased in height as the period advanced. At the same time frills or ‘ruffles’ were added to the wristbands of the shirts with ruffs, while turned-back cuffs were worn with the falling bands, and also occasionally with the ruffs. The ‘falling band’3 or turned-down collar continued with many variations to be worn throughout this period. It was usually attached to the shirt, and was very high when turned over the high collar of the doublet, but low, and spreading wide over the shoulders, when the doublet became collarless in the early years of the seventeenth century. The ‘standing band,’ or ‘whisk,’ was an alternative collar at the beginning of James I’s reign and lasted until about 1630. It was supported on a wire frame, known as an ‘under-propper,’ or ‘supportasse’; it fitted clos
e round the neck, and had a straight horizontal edge in front, spread out fanwise round the back of the head, and was fastened under the chin by ‘band strings.’ Both standing and falling bands were edged with broad lace.

  The ruff, at first a frill edging the neckband, developed into a goffered collar open in front (c. 1560). In 1580 it reached immense proportions and was usually put on separately from the shirt and fastened by band strings. By this time it was closed all round the neck, to form the large, ‘cartwheel’ ruff. The organ-pipe pleats or ‘sets’ radiated evenly outwards from the neck; and when the ruff was several layers deep it was popularly known as ‘three steps and a half to the gallows.’

  Ruffs were made of ‘cambric, holland, lawn, and the finest cloth that can be got,’ and were often embroidered with silk and edged with lace. They were stiffened by starch, introduced into England in Elizabeth’s reign, and coloured, yellow being a popular choice.

  Stubbes’ scornful, realistic comment—‘if it happen that a shower of rain catch them, before they can get harbour, then their great ruffs strike sail and down they fall as dishcloths fluttering in the wind’—indicated an objection which, however, could be avoided by wearing an under-propper, as used for whisks. The high ruff went out after 1620 and was replaced by the falling ruff which spread out over the shoulders in less formal pleats.

  FIG. 12. NECKS AND CUFFS, 1523–38. AFTER HOLBEIN

  The gradual change which marked the shirt during the first half of the sixteenth century has a psychological interest. At first the low-cut horizontal line exposing the top of the chest emphasized the breadth of shoulders and its broad masculinity was no doubt sex attractive. Gradually the neckline rose, the emphasis on the shoulders diminished, and with increasing constriction round the neck a new symbol of gentility developed (which survived in various forms of collar-like devices down to modern days).

  Henceforth the gentleman’s shirt was concerned chiefly to express his social rank. This change of symbolism in such an important garment, taking place in so short a time, is very remarkable. Its new function, in the eyes of some, seemed more detestable than its old. The Puritan Stubbes, always infuriated by the sight of his betters, declared: ‘I have heard of shirts that have cost some ten shillings, some twenty, some forty, some five pounds, and (which is horrible to hear) some ten pounds apiece.’ A marked contrast with the countryman’s

  Shirt of canvas, hard and tough,

  Of which the band and ruffles were both of one;

  So fine that I might see his skin them through.4

  In 1533 a Sumptuary Law enacted that no one under the rank of a knight might wear ‘plaited shirtes or shirtes garnished with silk, gold, and silver,’ evidence of the growing significance of the only undergarment which has obtained the honour of an Act of Parliament.

  Silk shirts, as worn by the country gentleman, were mentioned in 1582 (Essex Quarter Sessions Records), and early in the next century cambric, holland, and lawn were the materials which the travelling salesman usually offered his customers for shirts.

  Pure Holland is his shirt, which proudly faire

  Seems to outface his doublet everywhere.5

  FIG. 13. SHIRT WITH LOW COLLAR AND SMALL FRILL, 1531

  A curiosity were ‘historical shirts,’ described by Fairholt as those ‘adorned with worked or woven figures.’ They seem to have been favoured by lovers. ‘Having a mistris, sure you should not be without a neat historical sherte.’6

  2. WAISTCOAT

  This garment was worn under the doublet except when the doublet was taken off en deshabille. It was waist-length, with or without sleeves, and usually quilted or bombasted. Early in the seventeenth century, if not before, it was often called a ‘vest,’ the term still used by tailors. That it had pockets of some size is implied in these stage directions:

  KATHERINE . . . ‘Brother, I’ll look after yours’ (takes up his vest) . . . (FRANK searches first one pocket, then another, finds the knife, and then lies down.)7

  It was made of cloth, velvet, silk, or linen, and often embroidered. We read of waistcoats ‘of cloth of silver quilted with black silk and tuffed out with fine cambric,’ or ‘of white satin, the sleeves embroidered with Venice silver.’ Apparently the waistcoat was slipped on over the head like a vest—‘he puts on his armour over his ears, like a waistcoat.’8

  3. DRAWERS

  Drawers corresponded to modern pants, and were known as ‘trousers’ or ‘strossers.’ A youth, waiting for his tailor to bring his suit, is described as dressed ‘in his gown, waistcoate, and trouses.’9 They were either knee or ankle length, cut on the cross to give a close fit,10 and made of linen.

  4. NIGHTCLOTHES

  Wrought nightshirts are included in the wardrobe accounts of Henry VIII, and are alluded to in the drama (e.g. Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy , 1594). We assume them to have been similar to the day-shirts.

  FIG. 14. (left) SHIRT, LATE 16TH CENTURY; (right) CAMICIA, LATE 16TH CENTURY (ITALIAN)

  Night-caps were usual; frequently they were red in colour, perhaps to suggest the idea of warmth. Dr. Andrew Borde, in 1557, advised: ‘Let your nyght cap be of scarlet . . . to be made of a good thycke quylte of cotton, or els of pure flockes or of cleane wolle, and let the covering of it be of whyte fustyan.’ But William Vaughan’s theory was slightly different. ‘Let your night cappe have a hole in the top through which the vapour may goe out.’ (1602.)

  Night-caps were of sufficient value to be mentioned occasionally in wills.11 A ‘night cappe of black velvet embroidered’ would be for a fine gentleman, while the social inferior might have to content himself with

  A knit nightcap made of coarsest twine

  With two long labels buttoned to the chin.12

  5. CORSETS

  Though there is no definite evidence that the ‘exquisites’ of the late Elizabethan and Jacobean periods constricted their waists with corsets, it is more than suggested in Satire VII of Bishop Hall (1598):

  His linnen collar labyrinthian set,

  Whose thousand double turnings never met:

  His sleeves half hid with elbow pineonings,

  As if he meant to fly with linnen wings.

  But when I looke, and cast mine eyes below,

  What monster meets mine eyes in human shew?

  So slender waist with such an abbot’s loyne,

  Did never sober nature sure conjoyne.

  6. PRICES

  1522. ‘3 ells for a shirt, 6/. 3 ells of linen for two shirts, 1/1. an ell. Two yards of canvas to make the kitchen boy a shirt, /8.’

  From the wardrobe accounts of Prince Henry, eldest son of James I:

  Holland for shirts, 13/4 an ell.

  Night clothes 11/.

  Two waistcoats of fine cambric wrought in coloured silks, lined with sarcenet, bound in silver lace, £2.10.0.

  (An ell equals 1 yards.)

  FIG. 15. EMBROIDERED LINEN DRAWERS. LATE 16TH CENTURY (ITALIAN)

  WOMEN

  1. THE CHEMISE

  In this country the garment was spoken of as a ‘smock,’ even in its most elegant forms. The only specimen we know of is the Italian ‘camicia’ in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. As its lower portion is of later date, we do not know the original shape; but presumably the general outline corresponded to that of the man’s shirt, without the side vents.

  Following the masculine mode its collar developed and appeared above the top of the gown in a frilled border, becoming often a high collar, splayed open, and loosely tied at the neck with strings (c. 1540). The collar and the borders of the short neck-opening were embroidered in a manner similar to that of the male shirt.

  This type of chemise was worn with the high-necked gown. With the square-cut, deep décolletage, which persisted until the middle of the century, was worn a low-necked chemise, the border of which was either not seen or seen only as a narrow edging above the line of the décolletage. Sometimes the space above was covered by a ‘chemisette,’ or ‘fill-in,’ which in pictures may
be mistaken for a high-necked chemise.

  FIG. 16. CHEMISE. AFTER HOLBEIN, 1541–3

  Again in consonance with men’s fashions, the smock was no longer entirely concealed; and the edging was often left visible at the neck and wrists as well as through the slashed sleeves. Such devices displayed the quality of the material (e.g. figures 16, 17).

  FIG. 17. CHEMISE. AFTER HOLBEIN, 1543

  FIG. 18. CHEMISE. FLEMISH, 1529

  Chemises were usually made of cambric or holland; silk was only used occasionally. The unfashionable wore lockeram. Embroidery was in common use,13 and it seems to have been an acceptable compliment for courtiers to present Queen Elizabeth with elaborate specimens of this garment. Thus, ‘a cambric smock, wrought with black silk in the collar and sleeves, the square and ruffs wrought with Venice gold and edged with a small, bone lace of Venice gold,’ was given her in 1577. Spenser also describes:

  . . . a Camis lighte of purple silke

  Woven uppon with silver, subtly wrought,

  And quilted upon satin white as milke,

  Trayled with ribbands diversely destraught,

  Like as the workmen had their courses taught;

  Which was short tucked for light motion

  Up to her ham; but when she list, it raught

  Down to her lowest heele.14

  The chemise and many other garments of both sexes were often heavily perfumed. This was not only necessary to counteract the smell of our ancestors’ unwashed bodies. Their laundry methods15 are to us just as objectionable. The washing was performed in tubs, wood-ash being used in place of soap, and the laundress was directed to procure much ‘sweet powder, herbs, and other sweet things for the sweet keeping’ of the linen. This was perhaps more necessary from the practice, common in early times, of extracting the dirt by smearing the clothes with mud or scouring them with dung, which, says Harrison, gave them ‘such a savour that I cannot abide to weare them on my bodie.’16