devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 24, 2011 22:08:44 GMT -5
Hi,
Please -- any help with
Terminology. In ~1814, a lady's dress or a lady's day dress or a lady's gown -- were these synonyms? If not how did they differ?
Fabrics. I think that muslin or calico were possibilities, but were both always white? (referring to ~1814)
Dotted muslin, sprigged muslin, were they always white? (again, ~1814)
What about other colors -- what cloth might be used? (~1814)
How might summer dresses differ in material from any other season? (always ~ 1814)
Thank you for any assistance.
Devin
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 24, 2011 22:25:50 GMT -5
More specifically -- It's a young lady (20 years old) of very modest circumstances walking during the day in the country on a dirt road after a recent rain.
|
|
Lady Sarah
Officer
"I cannot make speeches, Emma. If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more." Mr. K
Posts: 77
|
Post by Lady Sarah on Sept 25, 2011 1:40:38 GMT -5
I am guessing that the Lady's dress, and Day Dress, were the same thing. However, from everything that I have seen, a Gown was worn only in the evening and to events such as a performance of some kind or a ball.
Muslin dresses were white because the washing and dyeing process, if not done carefully, could easily ruin the material. Thus, dotted and sprigged muslin were in the same category. Any detail added to muslin was done in the weaving process.
Using the British definition, Calico was white or unbleached (so a cream or off white would work as well) and only slightly heavier than muslin, but still lighter than cotton.
If you wanted to wear a color, there was silk, satin, and cotton. If you wanted a "rolled" pattern then your best bet was for a light cotton.
"The color of garments for young ladies when not white, should be the most tender shades of green, yellow, pink, blue and lilac. These, when judiciously selected or mingled, array the graceful wearer breathing youth and loveliness." Page 74 from The Mirror of Graces (1811, but still relevant to 1814)
Fabrics worn in the summer were generally lighter in color and lighter in weight so that the wearer would not succumb to the heat of the day.
The young lady who was out walking, was she caught in the rain? If so, and if you want her to look a fright, then I would put her in a Muslin as the lightness of the fabric would maker her soaked appearance all the more shocking. If not, then cotton would be best.
I hoped that this helped!
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 25, 2011 8:12:53 GMT -5
That was very, very helpful. Exactly the sort of information I was looking for.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Sept 25, 2011 9:43:23 GMT -5
Hi Devin, There are a couple of points I want to add: First question for you: What are the social circumstances of this young lady? Does she have the social status and finances to own a white gown? A white gown was a “conspicuous consumption” item. It proved one had the money and/or the time/ability to launder and care for a white gown. It was extremely popular and there are written period indications that even servants might wear white on Sundays. Frequently, the period writings indicate disapproval to this practice. Those of the upper classes liked to be recognizably “above” the working/serving classes. It made them uncomfortable when they could not tell maid from mistress at a glance. In period, they did not use the word “dress” as we do today. “Dress” frequently indicated an entire ensemble. It referred to the whole outfit one would wear out. “Walking Dress” indicated on a fashion plate referred to the bonnet, the shoes, the stockings, the hair style the pelisse, spencer or cloak and of course, the gown. It meant the whole “look”. Fashion plates also show men in “morning dress”. This means the man has his clothing on for morning activities – perhaps riding... In this case, “morning dress” includes coat, waistcoat, breeches, shirt and cravat, boots, hat, etc. It in no way indicates the man might be wearing a woman’s gown. “Gown” was the word used for the garment. The item that we would call today a “dress” was then called a “gown”. There was no implication that the “gown” was for fancier wear. One might wear a calico gown or a coarse wool gown for everyday work. A poor rural woman might wear a coarse, homespun linsey-woolsey gown. There is lots of written document to support this. You can read “run-away” ads and household inventory lists to discover this use of the word. There are plenty of extent gowns in museum collections that indicate women often wore darker colours. Cottons came in all different weights and weave. Keep in mind that cotton was just becoming available to the less wealthy at this time. It is an imported fibre. It grows only in warmer climates. It had been considered a luxury fabric. Cotton was shipped to the Manchester area of England where it was manufactured into fabrics. England dominated the market for cotton. There was the Slater Mill built in 1790 in Rhode Island. But they were very small compared to the English production. In 1814 a mill was built in Boston. Shortly after that a mill was built in Lowell Massachusetts. This is the very beginning of the American cotton industry. Previous to this all cotton was shipped away to be milled overseas. Back to your heroine: Is she walking in the rain on a cold day? Would she wear a woollen gown? Is she concerned about the mud? Is her gown a few years old and a bit worn or is she wearing the newest of fashions? www.manchestergalleries.org/the-collections/search-the-collection/display.php?EMUSESSID=98e5f2f22365b726b823865beb31d3a0&irn=15172www.manchestergalleries.org/the-collections/search-the-collection/display.php?EMUSESSID=98e5f2f22365b726b823865beb31d3a0&irn=12381The following gown is interesting. This is a “bib-front” gown. (Also known as a “high stomacher gown”, “stomacher gown”, “apron-front gown” or a “drop-front gown”). It would be a design chosen by a woman for ease of dressing one’s self. The closure is a front closure (no back buttons or ties). This gown is shown with “false sleeves”. The gown itself actually has short sleeves. The false sleeves attach to make a full long sleeve. Also shown with this gown is a matching “chemisette”. The high collar is also separate. It’s very common during this period to have a low neckline on the gown. For day wear, women filled in the neckline with a either a “fichu” or “neck-handkerchief” which is, to our modern terminology, a scarf that fills in the neckline and either is pinned in front to the outside of the gown or is tucked inside the gown neckline. Or the neckline is filled in with a “chemisette”, which is very much like a dickey. It’s a collar with just enough fabric to tuck in under the neckline of the gown. It ties with a ribbon around the underbust to hold in position. There are no sleeves on it. So this orange gown is a short sleeved gown with a low open neck. It’s being worn with false sleeves and a chemisette. www.osv.org/explore_learn/collection_viewer.php?N=26.33.166a-dThis is a sewing pattern taken from an extent gown. The work gown was linen, woven in South Carolina. A working gown from 1814 would be very similar to this 1790’s gown, with perhaps a change in the sleeves. The 1790’s sleeve is narrower and shaped to fit the curve of the elbow. The 1814 sleeve may have more fullness in the sleeve cap. Otherwise this was a common design closed with drawstrings for flexible, easy fit. www.figleafpatterns.com/ItemDetail.php?ItemIdx=4&PHPSESSID=1e30fd13b5817fc7070afca7a954dfb2
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Sept 25, 2011 12:20:02 GMT -5
Devin, you don’t say if you’re in North America or in the UK. There is a difference in actual fabrics today. When someone says “fine muslin” in the UK they still mean the very sheer, very fine cotton fabric that was used in Regency period garments. The word “muslin” in North America means something very different: It refers to a low quality, heavy cotton fabric that is used in pattern making and sewing. A tailor will refer to a “muslin mock-up” garment that is used for fitting. It compares somewhat to “calico” in the UK. I believe “calico” on both sides of the ocean; can refer to printed quilting weight cotton. Additional reply to your specific questions: Terminology. In ~1814, a lady's dress or a lady's day dress or a lady's gown -- were these synonyms? If not how did they differ? I’ve mentioned that in the above post: “dress” refers to the whole outfit. It does not refer to a single garment. “Gown” is the garment that women wore. Fabrics. I think that muslin or calico were possibilities, but were both always white? (referring to ~1814) Again, refer to the above post. Cotton was an “upper end” fibre because it was grown in warmer climates and was shipped to be milled into muslins and calicoes. It could be dyed or printed. Block printing and roller printing were in use. There are certain dye colours that were not in use at this time. They come later with “chemical dye”. When you think of colours consider the colours achievable by natural dye methods. That’s not to say they didn’t have and use fantastic colours – they did. Dotted muslin, sprigged muslin, were they always white? (again, ~1814) Dotted (or spotted) or sprigged muslin, refers to the very fine (almost like Indian gauze) cotton fabrics. They may have a spot pattern embroidered or tufted or even printed on them. Sprigged refers to leaf-like or floral patterns spaced apart – often all over the fabric. This could also be embroidered or printed. While white muslin was worn for day wear by some, white muslin gowns were very common for evening wear (“evening” referring to the end of the day – not necessarily a special formal occasion – it could mean a dinner gown – people dressed for dinner – or for some other occasion.) At the time, a basic white muslin gown would be the “foundation” garment to a middle or upper class wardrobe. It could be constantly changed with the addition of a coloured spencer jacket, a shawl, a pelisse, a coloured undergown (the fabric is so sheer a pink or blue undergown or petticoat shows through the white fabric to a very pretty effect). There are examples of coloured muslin. There is an extent pale aqua coloured gown that comes to mind. I can’t recall the museum collection. What about other colors -- what cloth might be used? (~1814) Most colours were used. Keep in mind my reference to available dye. Fuchsia is one chemical dye colour that was not yet available, though purples and pinks were available. Common colours were indigo blues, reds (produced by Cochineal (more scarlet) and madder (more orange)) Yellows and golds, greens (bright green was particularly popular), browns, black was sometimes used as a fashion colour and was not only for “mourning”. Black was very expensive to produce because of the intensity of the colour. All natural fibres were available and were mixed and matched for an incredible variety of fabrics. Silk, wool, linen, cotton were common fibres used. There is an encyclopaedic book called “Textiles in America 1650-1870” by Florence Montgomery which covers the massive range of textile names and uses. Though the book indicates “America” the textiles in this book include fabrics from all over the world as textiles were a huge import business. British fabrics were dominant in the colonies and after the American Revolution. I highly recommend this book for research into fabric names and uses. www.amazon.com/Textiles-America-1650-1870-Florence-Montgomery/dp/039373224XHow might summer dresses differ in material from any other season? (always ~ 1814) Because cotton was the “fashionable” fabric, it was worn in all seasons by the “fashionable”. Wool and silk bodices, spencers, pelisses, etc were added to “the dress” and were worn over the basic gown. Wool gowns are often described as are silk gowns. (Silk can be surprisingly warm). Silk velvet might show up for a more formal gown. Linen becomes relegated to undergarments primarily. It is used in homespun and working class gowns. It is common in aprons and shifts and petticoats. It’s often used for men’s shirts. Linen can be woven into a very fine and delicate fabric and this may be used for beautiful ruffles on a mans’ shirt or for a fine cravat.
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 25, 2011 18:14:16 GMT -5
Wow. I keep leaving out sufficient detail.
In later July 1814 the family was mother, 43 years old, 24 year older sister, the twenty year old protagonist -- Elizabeth. They live in Kent, at the foot of the North Down and on the Pilgrims Way. An isolated declining village. (As they actually were in that area.)
Seven years ago, they and the father had their last London season, but Elizabeth was too young to presented at Saint James's.
The father is from generations of profligates that date to James I and and after 1807 nobody is given them credit.
The father's career is modeled after a genuine officer rising and able to provide from them, but not lavishly. Then in the father then leads a genuine famous charge at Salamanca which routes the French. But he, again genuinely, is shot from his horse and killed. Now, the dead were actually were left on the field that. In the story, the uncle seemingly steals the body -- so he is not officially dead. The uncle using presumably false documents has taken over. He has cut them out of contact with everyone except who his older sister and they have bought no clothing for two years.
Elizabeth was a total tomboy two years earlier and her only dress is old and worn and for church.
An eligible male accidental lands in the village with a dim memory of the beautiful older sister and through the aunt arranges a meeting through the a
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 25, 2011 19:05:55 GMT -5
I don't know why it cut off. Here is the rest
The young gentlemen arranges a meeting with the older sister through the aunt. The mother remembers the gentleman and remembers that Elizabeth is exactly his type and the older sister is all wrong. The older sister is indisposed and the mother eagerly substitutes Elizabeth. Elizabeth who is completely innocent is surprised to discover that she wants to meet him.
To do so the mother has redo a two year old dress of her own. Elizabeth is the least beautiful but still good looking and in the bloom youth and the most lively. The mother covers as little of her as acceptable and uses the flimsiest cloth acceptable. Elizabeth protests, but goes.
The day is overcast, but in midsummer in Kent and only slightly above sea level. It is not cold and the energetic athletic Elizabeth doesn't get very cold.
She meets him at the aunt's indoors at 2 pm and then they walk on the Pilgrim Way (a genuinely neglected dirt road at the time.)
I think that's it -- I would appreciate any additional help.
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 25, 2011 19:26:43 GMT -5
Oh, I do have her wearing a chemise but that can stay or go as required.
The three women each have 150 pound per year pensions (as the real family actually did) from parliament but the uncle appropriates that.
The mother never makes clear her long run plans, but if E and the young gentleman hit it off, they could elope to Scotland, and she would escape her uncle's control. The other two who are both over 21 could come live with her. But none of this happens in the novel.
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 25, 2011 19:42:41 GMT -5
And she is relatively, short, slender and unusually graceful.
As her sister points out she "small, firm, and high-breasted." This is not meant as a compliment. Her mother makes the most of what is there.
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 25, 2011 20:20:28 GMT -5
Did I say she has green eyes and brown hair with natural streaks of a lighter shade? She has an excellent complexion and "very brown" skin just like Marianne in Sense and Sensibility. (I have no idea exactly what that shade is.) She is three years older than Marianne but resembles her in personality more than other Jane Austen character. Like Marianne it is hard to look at her without delight. This makes her potentially a very attractive young lady to men.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Sept 25, 2011 21:13:59 GMT -5
All women, regardless of social class wore a shift/chemise. A chemise is a different garment than a chemisette. The chemisette is the dickey collar neckline filler garment. They were becoming extremely popular in the 18-teens. A chemise is like a knee length night-gown. It was the base garment, worn next to the skin. It’s the “underwear”. www.mfa.org/collections/object/shift-118902 By 1814 almost all women wore stays or a “corset”. A young woman in good figure may get away with a lighter, less rigid “half stays” but the longer style corset was becoming popular. You will hear all kinds of myths about Regency era women going around without foundation garments. There are paintings of French women in Empire dress and it’s obvious they do not wear stays, but English women wore them- and most of those paintings are closer to turn of the 18th and 19th centuries... circa 1800. Stays are not restricting nor are they uncomfortable at this point in time. They are lightly boned and/or corded. They are not worn to reduce the waist as the waist is not the focus of a high-waist Empire style gown. They are intended to support the bust and improve posture. Stays generally have a wooden (or bone or whalebone) busk running down the centre front. This busk prevents bending at the waist – one stoops to pick up things from the floor. The busk reminds the wearer to sit up straight and stand up straight. All children wore stays. These soft – lightly corded garments were thought to help children grow straight and strong. Boys leave off wearing stays when they are “breeched” – somewhere between ages 3 and 6. Girls wear stays all their lives. Even a “tomboy” would wear stays. Short stays and long stays from the Kyoto Costume Institute collection: www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1819stay.jpg The next garment worn is the petticoat. Because of the high waistline of the gown of this era, petticoats are either held to the underbust position by “braces” (suspender straps) or a small, sleeveless bodice. The petticoat is practical in that it supports the skirts and prevents them from winding around the legs when walking. They are necessary to wear under the very fine gowns. www.mfa.org/collections/object/woman-s-underdress-49958 During this era a young woman/daughter of an English officer would own more than one dress. “Tomboy” or not, she would have NEVER been allowed to wear boy’s clothing. Socially, it just wasn’t done. If she was a bit rough on her clothing – riding horses, climbing stiles, walking in the woods – she may have worn and mended clothing. If the family is destitute, they are still the family of an English officer and would have clothing (2 years old – if Papa is 2 years dead) befitting that status in society. Clothing holds a very important place in society at this time. It was much, much more important to people than it is today. Clothing is valuable. It announces to all one’s position in society. One is treated by others according to societal status. It is, therefore, important to appear to advantage. If you appear to be of higher class than you actually are, chances are people will treat you better. If you appear in old and worn clothing, hastily made, you will be treated as if you are from the lower classes. It’s possible this family may have sold some of their more valuable items of clothing. There was a good used clothing trade in the cities of England, but in 2 years since the fathers’ death, they would have repaired clothing beginning to show wear. They would still be trying to appear to be part of the social class they had been accepted in before the father’s death. With regard to “Mama” dressing her daughter to show off her daughter’s assets: There is a line between socially decent clothing that must not be crossed. A “fichu” or “tucker” must be worn to cover or “shade” the bosom. It is inappropriate for a young woman to wear a low and open neckline during the day. A young man of the time might be attracted, but would not be impressed with such a display.
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 26, 2011 1:56:45 GMT -5
I really appreciate -- extremely -- everything you have done, but I have to disagree on some points. The rule books may be rigidly written but there are always some who don't follow them.
Miss Fanshaw a Maria Edgeworth character of 1813, *** laughed in a disdainful manner at her mother's "partiality for stays," **** This suggests that some young women were in revolt against stay. She also wondered "how any body could think long waists becoming." Moral Tales, 1813
A gentleman writing in 1812 refers to women "generally leaving off stays and he hopes this odious practice will never be resumed again." An essay on diet and regimen By James Makittrick Adair
Didn't Caro dress as a page? Which reminds us that London society felt particularly free to break the rules. County gentry would probably be more strict.
The heroine in Northanger Abbey was from country gentry but at fourteen she preferred "cricket, base ball, riding on horseback, and running about the country." Do we really think she played ball without bending over? That word be hard on the ankles and shins. Elizabeth B. walked across a field and got six inches of mud on her petticoat. So the child in NA goes out every day in dress, chemise and petticoat and comes back her clothing filthy and probably torn every day. Maybe her overworked mother slipped her a pair of breeches a time or two.
Jane Austen had a list of things women don't talk about in the presence of men, but we know some women did. They even wrote about them and they were accepted in society.
Another book -- "the satin or silk half-boot -- although certainly inappropriate -- is partially introduced in evening or dress parties." In other words, some women break the rules. (The Repository of arts, literature, commerce, manufactures, fashions and ... By Rudolph Ackermann, Frederic Shoberl, 1812)
The young woman may not give the young man a totally clear shot at the upper round of her breasts, but the same source writes of a dress of walking length, with low bodice and round the bosom is laid "a fine scalloped lace." I will in response to you information, add the scalloped lace.
Again, I can't stress enough how much I appreciate the information you have given me, but the point is, that there always some women breaking the mold, and particularly in the Regency when women were relatively liberated compared to before and after. Again, thank you very, very much for everything.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Sept 26, 2011 10:00:19 GMT -5
Lady Caroline Lamb is hardly a “normal” example. The lady was almost institutionalized several times. She was considered to be extremely eccentric and possibly mad. Cross-dressing for her was part of the erotic game. I will repeat again: Stays are not restrictive. One can play cricket in stays – particularly short stays. Have a look at Diana Sperling’s paintings of her family in “Mrs. Hurst Dancing”: there are plenty of images of physically active young women properly dressed. Another image of short stays for you – modern drawing of extent stays from “Fashion in Underwear” by Jean Webber: Linen stays trimmed in blue silk c. 1790 www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/179stays.gifWith reference to your quotes about people “leaving off stays” one needs to put it into social context – not interpret it from our modern point of view. When “old fashioned stays” were discussed in 1814, this may well be what they were thinking of: www.nwta.com/patterns/pics/ebaystays/ebaystays.html If a young woman wore the short linen and blue silk stays shown in “Fashion in Underwear”; this may, indeed, be “leaving off stays”. The garment is soft, and unboned. I add a quote from “The Lady’s Stratagem, a Repository of 1820’s Directions for the Toilet, Mantua-Making, Stay-Making, Millinery & Etiquette” which is a recently translated and published collection of French instruction manuals for young women. Translated and published by Frances Grimble, the original titles are “Manuel des dames”, the “Manuel des demoiselles”, “The manuel complete d’economie domestique” and the “Manuel complet de la bonne compaģnie” Written by Mme Celnart. Also, “Art de la Couturière en robes” and “Art de faire les corsets, les guêtres, et les gants” written by Mme. Burtel. p. 297 “Stays à la Paresseuse. This kind of stays is useful when you are travelling, when there is little time to devote to the toilet; and if you are obliged to pass the night in a carriage, you need only tie and untie to make yourself comfortable, and by this means rest more tranquilly...” “These stays are likewise well to put on in the morning, before dressing. If only for an hour, a woman must not appear without this garment; she would have an air of untidiness which does not at all suit her sex. In England they are even more strict on this point than in France, because decorum does not permit a woman to appear without stays or with undressed hair, even in front of her brothers.” My final argument – you asked for research advice about what real people wore: I realize you’re writing fiction and if part of the fantasy is “no stays”, I’m hardly going to stop you. From a practical point of view – from a woman – it is UNCOMFORTABLE to go around without some sort of support. It is particularly uncomfortable to be athletic without support. It may have been done for shock-value, but it was not what was commonly done. The term “loose woman” meant just that... A woman without stays – loose – and it had implications that would not have been missed on a young man during the Regency era.
|
|
|
Post by amandamoose on Sept 26, 2011 12:10:45 GMT -5
I recently played Croquet in full dress-minus a tucker LOL shocking!, including long stays. I was very comfortable!!! I could easily stoop to move my ball if I needed to, I also helped in the clean up process picking up folding chairs and walking a far distance to where the car was parked. I think anyone over a "A" cup would like some support when gallivanting about the country just for comforts sake. I know some women wore pants in history but it was usually for a very specific reason, pretending to be a man or shock value. But writing a fiction work means you have the leeway to put a genteel lady in pants should you so wish.... I have a favorite Pride and Prejudice sequel where Lizzy wears a pair of pants once when she was trying to surprise Darcy with an impromptu private rendezvous...it worked for that story and it might work for yours as well only take care that she only do it in the company of someone who accepts her for who she is or in private so the realism is maintained. Just my two cents
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 26, 2011 12:36:13 GMT -5
A small breasted twenty year old is uncomfortable without support? I have heard a few young women say the opposite. And of course the young woman is not athletic in the modern sense -- she is not training for the decathlon with 7% body fat and rippling muscles.
There is a cartoon that suggests that two young women have very little on underneath. You don't lampoon something unless it is happening. You might not, on the other hand, see it in a formal portrait to be hung on the wall for all posterity.
And look at plate 2, for example, of Mrs Hurst Dancing. If Mrs. Sperling is wearing stays, they are not doing much of a job. And she is outdoors with others. The difference is not observable to a man -- and this is something we do -- observe these things. The informality of the drawings may encourage a little openness about women dress in real life.
(Also see the young ladies of the family dutifully riding the dangerous side saddle of the day and falling off. But we see one woman riding to the hunt and not committing suicide -- but riding astride.)
I really appreciate your help, but Maria Edgemont's young character just doesn't notice that she is a social leper? Hardly -- she seems to regard it as a laughing matter. A few insipid young friends disapprove -- mostly for disagreeing publicly with her mother, but not in a way that results in social consequences. And even her friends think that fashion is a matter that can be discussed, not simply obeyed.
Marrianne broke rules all the time and everyone loved her. She got dumped for money -- the young man loved her. The Colonel loved her.
These two women were meant as bad examples by their morally correct authors. Point is that these woman existed and they were accepted in society.
So we have four sources -- modest country gentry (Austen and Hurst), wealthy country gentry (Edgeworth) and Caro (London aristocracy). They cover the range of society and inform us that women broke the rules openly without social repercussion.
In a society as free and loose as the Regency -- people broke rules all the time without social consequences. Even the clothing was loose in comparison to earlier and later times. If you accept fashion books as gospel, you end up in an impossible position to defend. I show that women in all strata broke rules and got away -- then these are not absolute rules.
|
|
|
Post by amandamoose on Sept 26, 2011 13:14:41 GMT -5
LOL To be honest I think the perkier the breast the more comfort you are able to find with out support. I bounced around in my early 20s before an older lady fussed me for bouncing around too much. the bigger you are the more droopy you are the more support you want for comforts sake as well as to not look droopy LOL
If your character is a young perky 20 something I could see her getting away with out stays and only wearing a bodiced petticoat...
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 26, 2011 14:48:28 GMT -5
I'm sorry but here's one I can pass up -- from 1803 a little earlier:
"as I was walking in the evening through the Strand, I met a young woman dressed in an elegant white muslin gown, who to all appearance had no stays on . . "
It gets worse. Apparently she lacks that piece of lace or handkerchief that covers the upper round of her breasts. And he objects to her bold walk.
It turns out that she is a respectable young woman of respectable family -- but not aristocracy -- who see nothing wrong in her dress or walk and, in fact, a marriage has been arranged between her and the young man. Her family is outraged by the young man's effrontery -- the delicate young woman faints -- and the agreement is broken off with her family apparently happy to get rid of this young prude. (Wonderful Wives, 1803)
The broker or mutual friends who arranged the marriage, saw nothing wrong with the young woman. If you read this slim work, you will see that the author is a very unpleasant man. The entire is a nasty put-down of woman.
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Sept 26, 2011 14:49:26 GMT -5
I would agree with your observation about cartoon illustrations of the time. There are also illustrations lampooning corseting. When we are studying these satirical drawings, we are being pointed to look at the extremes of society.
Maria Edgeworth’s tale “The Good French Governess” is a moral tale. She is writing characters that will immediately resonate with her audience “this is a good person”, “this is an ignorant person”.
Incidentally, the passage that you noted, where Miss Fanshaw “laughed in a disdainful manner at her mother’s “partiality for stays”” is a period reference to precisely what I mentioned earlier. Everything in context: Miss Fanshaw is pointing to a drawing by Hogarth and laughing at “long waists” and whalebone stays. This small section of the story is discussing the stays of the 18th century that I showed a link to in my previous post. It in no way indicates that Miss Fanshaw or Matilda or Isabella are not wearing proper undergarments: Miss Fanshaw states, “Surely anybody … who has a taste for the antique figure, must acknowledge the present fashion to be most graceful.”
As a costumer, I know that the bustline shown in Regency period art does not happen by itself – even for small women. As one who has studied clothing styles and the social implications of clothing for about 20 years, I am VERY sure that Jane Austen never once suggested her heroines might be dressed outside of societal norms. As one who has, on occasion worn stays, I find them much more comfortable than modern bras.
For what it’s worth, athletic young women I am acquainted with wear sports bras. Bouncing can painfully stretch or strain the Cooper’s Ligaments. The stretching is permanent. Muscle does not support a woman’s breast.
|
|
ushhfan
Officer
Rare is the gentleman for whom navy blue and lace is not flattering.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ushhfan on Sept 26, 2011 15:20:14 GMT -5
A friendly word of caution, devin, based on the evidence you presented: please be wary of taking satire and parody as something that they are not intended to be. For example, you point to Miss Fanshaw in Moral Tales. I confess I have not read the entirety of the work but in the passages that I did read (including the pages surrounding the quote to which you referred above), it becomes very plain that Miss Fanshaw is intended to be taken for an uneducated, ignorant, arrogant and--generally speaking--very unpleasant person to be around. You also mention a cartoon which shows women with very little (or--if I'm thinking of the same one--nothing!) underneath their clothing. While you are right that there's no point in lampooning something that isn't happening, I would suggest that satire/parody exaggerates a trend in an obvious way so people recognize just how ridiculous it is. The reason that such books or cartoons would be humorous to contemporaries is because there would be an element of truth to them. In other words, the audience of the day (e.g. the vast majority of the public) would look upon such things as outlandish and unacceptable.
To put what I'm saying more into context, have you seen any of the "Wal-Martians" pictures that are floating around the internet? The ones that people have taken of crazy outfits of actual Wal-Mart shoppers (generally of people who are overwhelmingly obese wearing clothing far too small which exposes far too much)? Now, no one can argue that such outfits are being worn in 2011 in Wal-Marts or that, in as much as they exist, they are "tolerated" by the population at large. However, I don't believe that you could effectively argue that such people are "accepted" by society. On the contrary, they are ridiculed or even disdained in one way or another because their outfit/behavior is not something most of us believe should be emulated.
If your point is historic accuracy, just beware the "Kiera Knightly Heroine" approach: creating a feisty, too-ahead-of-her-time-to-be-appreciated beauty whose entire purpose is to cater to a 21st century audience's belief in the superior desirability of such "advanced" morals/behaviors. You will be able to create a gal likable to modern readers but who would be, in reality, the source of much eyebrow-raising and head-shaking in her time.
-uHf
EDIT: Apologies for the repetition, dawnluckham. I took so long to compose my own response I neglected to anticipate yours!
|
|