- So you are a woman in
the mid-18th century. You're getting dressed,
and in order to do that, you put on your shift,
your petticoat, your hoops, because you feel like being ~a bit posh~, your second petticoat,
your stays, your pocket, your gown, your cap,
fichu, ruffles, et cetera, or perhaps you are a woman
of the mid-19th century, in which case, you've got your chemise, your corset, crinoline, petticoat, skirt, bodice, shoes, shawls, and bonnet, or maybe you're an Elizabethan,
where instead you are opting for smock, partlet, pair of
bodies, bum roll, farthingale, underskirt, overskirt,
bodice, cap, and ruff. The question looms eternally: With all those layers
interconnecting and overlapping, especially around the waist area, how did anyone get
anything off efficiently to pee multiple times per day? You will perhaps notice that
the one garment not included in your daily dressing throughout
any of these periods is, in fact, what we today would
think of as "underwear", for a simple logical reason
that, for the most part, women just didn't wear them. For the sake of this video, by the way, I'm going to be referring
to this particular garment as "underwear", and not
meaning the general concept of garments worn
underneath other clothing, since yes, they did indeed
wear many more things under their other things than we do today, but the word "pants"
confuses the Americans, and "panties" confuses the British, and any more obscure reference
to said small clothes is just generally unnecessarily unfair to our multilingual friends, so underwear, it shall be. I say women "for the most
part" didn't wear underwear, because as is the
precarious way of history, we're all just interpreting
the selected evidence that happens to survive to us,
however many centuries later, and that subsequently
there is no such thing as a straightforward fact, when speaking about things that we have
no firsthand experience in. And while this no underwear thing is where the evidence points us at present, there will undoubtedly be uncovered, at some point in future,
some evidence to suggest that one woman somewhere was, in fact, regularly wearing what we
might call underwear today. There is, for example, the
textile finds uncovered in Lengberg Castle in
Austria, including this pair of what distinctly looks to be underwear, and although confirmably similar in style to the undergarments worn by men in the circa-15th
century period attributed as the date of origin, it was found amongst fragments of a
distinctly women's undergarment. So anything is possible, but
for the most part, evidence, or the comparative lack of
surviving evidence thereof, and not just surviving garments, but lack of written indications
in journals, inventories, dictionaries, and wills, indicates that, for the most part, these garments
were not a prevalent part of the average woman's wardrobe until about the 19th century. But we'll get to that. When you think about it,
it kind of makes sense. When you've already got layers of shifts and petticoats and skirts going on with the lower half of your
outfit, who would have said, "Hey, you know what would
be a really great idea? An additional little garment that we have to surgically
extract from under our skirts and stays every time we have to pee." It is far easier not to have
to extract anything at all, but rather to just lift up your skirts, position your chamber pot
accordingly, and go. "But wait!", I hear you ask. "What was one supposed to
do at that time of moon when one might actually prefer to have something a bit tighter going on, despite the additional inconvenience?" References to 18th century
menstrual management are rare, save for the implication
of an apron being used. Abby Cox has experimented with a theory of using an apron made of absorbent diaper woven
cloth on her channel, if you care to investigate in greater detail on this subject. There are copious references
and advertisements by the latter part of the
19th century for reusable, and later disposable,
towels that could be clipped to sanitary belts, and sanitary belts, as well as absorbent aprons
worn to protect the back of the skirts, were
prevalent in advertisements by the early 20th century. (music from the ball scene
in a Regency period drama) The transition from no
drawers to yes drawers is not one that happens overnight, but is one that occurs gradually sometime around the 19th century, such that the Workwoman's
Guide states by 1838 that drawers are, quote,
"worn by men, women, and children of all classes,
and almost all ages." I should note that Queen Victoria ascended the English throne only
one year before in 1837, and drawers have already apparently become a ubiquitous necessity according to the reference from 1838, so we can't necessarily
blame delicate Victorian sensibilities for their adoption. Visual representations of
fashionable dress continue to depict commando ladies all the way up until at least 1811, but this image, dated a
mere seven years later, to 1818, is already showing
a woman wearing drawers as part of her usual dressing routine. Much like a change from
the term stays to corset, the adoption of drawers
wasn't a transition that happened overnight, but rather more likely over
the course of a generation. Nevertheless, despite the
adoption of drawers under dresses in the 19th century, these
still didn't pose any impediment to peeing, as in the vast
majority of surviving examples, the crotch seam of 19th-century drawers, and later combinations,
was generally left open. I say generally, because there are examples
of sewn drawers that, if museum dating can be trusted, would have existed towards the mid to early later part of the 19th century, well before sewn drawers
became widespread, but the circumstances in
which these were worn, whether by a staunchly
anti-corset lady, an invalid, or just someone particularly committed to completely undressing
in order to pee is unknown. And of course, it is also unconfirmable as to whether or not these
garments even were worn, considering that the
ones that survive seem to be... surprisingly pristine...? It is around the very
end of the 19th century, and into the Edwardian era, that we begin to see
this seam being closed, first with buttons in
some surviving examples, so that the seam could
still be opened easily without the entire garment
needing to be extracted from under the corset, and finally sewn up completely,
as we approach the 1920s. (that vaguely '20s-sounding vlogger music) The simplification and
shortening of skirts, and the adoption of the
brassiere in place of the corset, are likely significant
factors in this evolution, since fewer foundational
layers simultaneously meant less layers of
protection and concealment, but also easier potential for extraction of a pair of closed-seam
underwear at necessary moments. The term "pair of underwear", by the way, comes from their
ancestral pair of drawers, and the two individual legs
from which they were comprised. The prevalent adoption of underwear is thus a surprisingly recent event. There is evidence of
men's underpants occurring throughout periods of history, from the linen briefs
of the medieval periods, to the occasional
evidence of linen drawers in the 18th century, despite
most visual evidence suggesting that drawers were likewise uncommon in menswear by this time as well. But this isn't wholly irrelevant
to the dilemma of peeing, since men's styles of dress
were, if not less layered, at least constructed so that
they were easily dismantlable for peeing purposes with codpieces, fall fronts, and button flies. So that was me sufficiently
taking six whole minutes longer than it should have to answer this exceedingly simple
question, but if you are not here for unnecessarily passionate explorations into the urinary habits of
pre-20th century humans, then honestly... I don't even
know why you're still here.
I love her, but she has since dispelled any illusions that heroines can rip their undergarments to serve as bandages on the fly, and that has been a disappointing revelation
That is soo interesting! But what about the splashes tho
I've gone down a bit of a Bernadette Banner/Costube rabbit hole over the past couple of months, and it's been very fun and refreshing.
Bernadette is the best thing ever. One of my fave YouTubers
I watched this just a few days ago and it was so good!! For any historical romance writers like myself, her videos are so useful for answering questions about how to costume your heroes and heroines (especially when you’re writing sex scenes and you just have to know what’s coming off lol).
I know this isn't strictly romance-related, but I figured its historical romance adjacent enough to be of interest to you guys. :)
I loved her video on how to do her hair style! And the one where she washed her hair in a homemade shampoo with egg lol. That was a good one.
This is WHY I love Historical Romance as a genre. I have a thing about the small parts of history. I don't care about great battles and huge historical events. I care about fashion and how people cooked and how you managed to pee while wearing a ridiculous dress like that.
Bernadette is AMAZING!!!