by C. Willett
The ‘hobble skirt’ mode preceding the war no longer presented a built-up area on an expensive foundation; with the reduction in the amount of underclothing here was a style which offered equal opportunities to all.
The first two years of the war, when most women were but spectators, revived the romantic appeal of flounces and frillies, but as increasing numbers became active participants that exuberance disappeared. Those in uniform learnt to accept patterns of garments from which traces of glamour had been officially banned.
Underclothing became, of necessity, more ‘practical.’ Shortage of labour and laundrywork meant that lingerie needing elaborate washing and ironing became an impossible luxury. Gone for ever were those lacy white allurements; the realism of war demanded muscular legs.
A natural urge to maintain femininity produced in 1916 a daintier version of combinations, which received the name of‘cami-knickers,’ and helped to preserve the wearer’s self-respect, however austere might be her outward appearance.
But by the end of those disruptive years woman was arranging for herself an entirely new shape, with—in the phrase of a fashion writer—‘the careful avoidance of what used to be known as a figure.’ By the aid of long cylindrical corsets every curve was suppressed.
Underclothing no longer functioned to emphasize hetero-sexual features but, on the contrary, to obliterate them. The ideal model was not Venus but Ganymede. For this, ‘lingerie’ would have been quite inappropriate; a new name was needed for garments which by attenuation were becoming slightly absurd, though still preserving a traditional power of charm clinging to their wispy filaments. A kind of playful pet-name was obviously required, and woman’s innate genius immediately supplied it. Lingerie became undies. The change marked more than just the end of a war; it betokened the end of an ancient attitude of mind, of a defensive taboo, and— perhaps—of a means of attack.
MEN
An examination of catalogues issued by firms supplying men’s underwear during the years preceding the first war shows a progressive increase in the variety of articles available. The orthodox pattern of each appears in a dozen different forms, each, no doubt, to suit individual tastes and purposes as well as purses. Evidently the customer was in the happy position of being able to dictate to the trade his personal requirements. The refinements of civilized life—so far as clothing is a test—had reached a high level. ‘Fashions’ had become available for the many in a wide range of quality.
During the pre-war years the gentleman still clung desperately to the principle that his clothing must be uncomfortable to distinguish him from the rest, while a new version of the semi-gentleman— known as the ‘knut’—burst into view, resplendent ‘in pink shirts, orange ties and purple socks.’
1. THE SHIRT
‘The long-fronted white or printed shirt is now obsolete’ (1909).
The ‘business shirt’ had a stiff front of 10 in., and usually detachable cuffs, but for day the white shirt was being steadily displaced by the soft-fronted, made of flannel in winter and of negligée French print (at 4/6) or cambric in summer. These often had pleated fronts, the pleats varying from 1 in. wide to narrow tucks, and were commonly in shades of green or heliotrope with ties to match (1909). They were worn with a white double collar. The day-shirt of soft crépe de Chine with soft double collar and cuffs was a luxury form.
The soft-fronted tunic shirt, with soft collar, became a feature of the pre-war years, especially in summer, while for formal wear the starched white shirt with shortened front and double or winged collar not exceeding 2 in. deep, remained the correct wear.
It was observed with regret, in 1912, that Eton boys had taken to wearing dickeys. ‘Can a gentleman wear anything that is unreal, a cheat, a sham and a substitute? Taxation must have hit the aristocratic papa very hard.’ (The Tailor and Cutter.) Worse still, gentlemen were observed playing golf in shirt-sleeves, which ‘we have always regarded as against the etiquette of the game.’ Tradition still claimed that man’s shirt was essentially an under-garment not to be freely exposed, except for its specially prepared front, to the eyes of ladies; and a gentleman accidentally caught in his shirtsleeves by them would be apologetic.
The day-tie was generally the scarf in a narrow knot, though the made-up ‘four-in-hand’. or the bow knot were also popular. A curiosity of 1913 was the hand-painted poplin tie, at 1/6. The war years rapidly swept these refinements away. ‘Stiff white collars are disappearing and soft collars are worn by all classes.’(The Manchester Guardian, 1917.)
The dress-shirt saw a revival of the pleated front with four to eight pleats on each side. ‘Even waiters are taking up the pleated shirt’ (1909). With it the winged collar was usually worn.
2. VESTS
With long or short sleeves; made of unbleached cotton, white gauze or net for summer, and of merino, llama and flannel for winter (figure 99.)
Summer merino vests, 3 /6—4/9. Natural summer viyella, 4/9—5/3- China spun silk vests, 6/6—7/6. (Prices of 1914.)
3. DRAWERS AND PANTS
Of unbleached cotton, calico, gauze, merino, llama and flannel. Trunks are advertised.
Summer merino pants, white, 3/9-5/-. Gauze merino, 2/9-4/-. China silk, 7/9-9/- (1914 prices.)
4. COMBINATIONS
These were still being worn by many men, to judge from the advertisements.
FIG. 99. (left and centre) MAN’S UNITED GARMENTS, JAEGER, 1914-15; (right) MAN’S UNDER-VEST AND PANTS, JAEGER, 1914
5. NIGHT WEAR
Longcloth nightshirts, 2/6—5/6. Of white or coloured silk, 17/6. Of flannel, 6/6-11 /6.
Pyjamas: Flannel, 12/6-21/6. Viyella, 18/6-20/6. Silk, 27/6. (1915 prices.)
The effect of the war was to produce a rapidly increasing scarcity of woollen materials, so that by 1918 ‘the cost of materials is two or three times pre-war.’
By the end of the war the following comparative figures (from The Tailor and Cutter, 1918) indicate changes of cost:—
WOMEN
The new silhouette, with a skirt of 1 yards round the hem, left little space for expansive underclothing. But this managed, nevertheless, to preserve a somewhat more frivolous note than appeared on the surface. ‘All up-to-date lingerie boasts of broad threaded ribbon’1 (1909), while insertion and lace decorated the borders. A romantic note was struck during the war with ‘regimental-crested undies,’ and ‘what could be more delightfully sentimental than his name embroidered on one’s garter?’ (1918).
1. THE CHEMISE
This was in the Empire style, often square-cut with narrow shoulder straps, and the top enriched with insertion. Nainsook was a popular material.
Although the garment lost favour it by no means disappeared; thus in 1917, ‘crêpe de Chine chemise, vandyked edge, ribbon-slotted waist, ribbon shoulder strap, in white, sky, pink and helio, 24/6,’ was being advertised.
2. COMBINATIONS
‘The fashion is to replace chemise and skirt-knickers by skin- fitting combinations and silk pantalettes; but it is more amusing than words can describe to observe how frequently the fashion is ignored’2 (1909).
FIG. 100. NIGHTDRESS, CHEMISE AND DRAWERS, 1911
FIG. 101. ‘NUFORM’ CORSET. WEINGARTEN BROS.,1911
‘Summer combinations, low or high neck, short sleeves, some being made to open all down the front. Of pure wool, 4/11’ (1911). These, we are told, ‘outline the figure with admirable accuracy,’ being close-fitting and reaching just below the knees. They were also made of silk.
In the early years of the war ‘white mull combinations with wide leg knickers trimmed with lace’ had a brief return.
3. THE CORSET
‘In all corsets whether back lace or front lace, boning was all- important. The strain on the garment was terrific.’3 Though whalebone was still in use an improved method of rust-proof boning was introduced; in 1912 clock-spring steel covered with hard rubber or celluloid was adopted and ‘the whalebone industry never recovered from the blow.’4
&nb
sp; Under the heading ‘The Corset Makes the Figure’ it was stated, in 1912, that ‘the contour of the season’s figure gives the effect of the natural waist—which simulates both the Grecian and the Oriental—with long lines and a slightly curved but closely confined hip.’2
Throughout the period the corset remained straight-fronted, while steadily shortening above the waist and lengthening below, thus producing ‘a sheath of cloth and steel’3 (figure 101).
4. THE PETTICOAT
During the pre-war years the Princess petticoat was in high favour, that of crêpe de Chine being recommended as ‘a chic allurement.’ For the modes of 1911 ‘the Princess petticoat is absolutely indispensable,’ often with wide border of broderie anglaise surmounted by rows of insertion. As the skirt narrowed the petticoat became almost tubular; some, however, preserved accordion pleating from the knee level.
With the wider skirts of 1915 and 1916, the garment had a brief return of its ancient glory. Yoked and fitting close at the hips, it became wide at the hem and much flounced and frilled. ‘The petticoat is a truly exuberant tempestuous affair’ (1916). ‘Not a few are set out with a line or two of wire,’ and there were fears of the crinoline returning in the midst of a world war.
FIG. 102. (left) CORSET WITH SHOULDER STRAPS AND SUSPENDERS, 1918; (right) BOUDOIR CAP AND LINGERIE, 1918
Washing silk was a popular material, or ‘the new petticoat in triple ninon, knife pleated with picot edges and finished with ruching, 29/6,’ while some were made with detachable frills of moirette, taffeta, etc. ‘Some petticoats are cut with a flare, others triangular, some almost equilateral triangle in shape, to give the required swish of the present fashion.’5 When made of taffeta ‘the frou-frou of silk skirts is heard once more in the land’ (figure 103).
‘How our grandmothers would have wondered could they have seen the underwear of the present day, so gossamer. . . . Some people in mourning wear black underwear made of thin black batiste.’ Suitable, no doubt, for merry widows.
The grim realism of 1917 and 1918 sobered the petticoat to a simpler form, and by the end of the war it had lengthened slightly with a straight-hanging flounce. ‘White cambric petticoat with under flounce, prettily trimmed with Valenciennes, and insertion, embroidery and threaded ribbon, 15/11.’ (Summer, 1918.)6
5. THE brassière
This appeared under that name in 1916—‘the new undergarment which takes the place of the old-fashioned camisole.’ ‘Gowns of utmost softness and semi-transparency have made a bust support essential’ (1916). ‘The French and American women all wear them and so must we; a modiste will insist on a brassière to support the figure and give it the proper up-to-date shape.’7
5. THE CHE MI-KNICKERS
In 1917 appeared ‘the new underslip, worn over the corset, helping to reduce the number of undergarments; a button and loop can be put at the lowest hem to catch the skirt together in divided skirt fashion.’8 The garment speedily became known as the ‘cami-knickers.’
6. THE KNICKERS
Of two types—the French, with wide frilled legs (figure 106); and the close-fitting directoire type, often of woven materials. These were sometimes known’ as ‘culottes,’ e.g., ‘fine stockinette culottes with ribbon bow at the knee and elastic at waist and knee, 3/3’ (1911), which appealed to those who preferred to be clad in French words.
FIG. 103. UNDERSKIRT, 1916
In 1913 ‘the tango and the peg-top fashion between them are
FIG. 104. FLEECY-LINED KNICKER. MORLEY, 1912
FIG. 105. ‘SHOT’ KNICKER. MORLEY, 1912
responsible for a completely new form of skirt-knickers. The characteristic of the new garment is that it is formed entirely of one length of material falling from the waist in front to the knees, and up again to the waist at the back, with slits at the sides for the legs.’9
With the wider skirts of 1915 ‘some petticoats are divided into two wide legs and covered with frilling.’ ‘Skirt knickers trimmed with Valenciennes, 15/-’ were announced in 1915.
FIG. 106. (left to right) COMBINATIONS AND PYJAMAS, 1918; CHEMISE AND DRAWERS, 1918; CAMISOLE AND PETTICOAT, 1918
The pre-war years saw the nightdress in the Empire style continuing, the top trimmed with insertion and lace;10 others were
FIG. 107. MERINO FINISH SPENCER. MORLEY, 1912
made with a yoke, the neck square, or round, often with Peter Pan collar, and with long sleeves frilled at the wrist. In the ‘romantic’ war years ‘low-necked nightgowns with short sleeves are an extravagant necessity of the hour. Some are absolutely sleeveless’ (1916).
But the pyjama suit was a growing rival. ‘In response to a steadily growing demand’ ‘pyjama suits in pure zephyr at 7/6 or in silk at 27/6, the jacket fastened with brandenburgs’ (1912). War conditions hastened the change.
Certain less fashionable undergarments, but none the less very frequently worn, were the woollen vest and the knitted spencer; these had persisted from early Victorian days among those for whom extra warmth in winter seemed even more important than following the increasingly chilly footsteps of fashion.
* * *
1 The Lady.
2 The Lady.
3 Fashion journal.
4 Information kindly supplied by Messrs Warner Brothers.
5 The Lady, 1916
6 The Lady.
7 The Queen, 1916.
8 The Lady,
9 The Lady.
10 ‘Nightgowns of nun’s veiling, square-cut neck and lace insertion, elbow sleeves, ribbon bows.’—The Lady, 1912.
XIII
1919–1939
THE period between the two Great Wars was remarkable for a new attitude of mind towards the function of clothing, and especially towards that of underclothing. It is sometimes assumed that this was but repeating the experience of the Napoleonic wars, when there was an extraordinary reduction in the amount of underclothing worn by women. The resemblance, however, is misleading. Then the aim of costume was to emphasize the bodily shape—in the case of women by flimsy clinging dresses and of men by tight breeches; there was very little actual exposure of the skin. The conspicuous intention was to outline the regions normally sex attractive. But in the period from 1919 onwards it was the actual surface of the body which was to be exploited.
A kind of ‘skin worship’ became almost a new religion. Devotees tanned their bodies by sunlight, real or artificial, or by stains; women improved their faces by paints, lotions, and skin foods containing —it was hoped—the latest hormones, to say nothing of powders of every conceivable shade. To concentrate attention on the face they cut off their hair and tore out their eyebrows. It was accompanied by an outlook and habits essentially juvenile, and the juvenile shape of body became the feminine ideal, described enthusiastically by a fashion writer as ‘such enchanting, sexless, bosomless, hipless, thighless creatures.’ It was the glorification of youth.
Several factors contributed to this curious phase. The first war released, like a genie from its bottle, an aggressive spirit opposed to the symbols of class distinction in costume, and there is, after all, no more thoroughly democratic fabric than bare skin, which is entirely free from evidence of class. There was, too, the desire to strip off conventional trammels, especially those associated with the previous generation responsible for the war. A popular longing to return to ‘the simple life’ is not uncommon when civilization has got into a thorough mess. What more desperate resource than a nudity camp?
The majority of both sexes, however, were content with degrees of denudation, underclothes being reduced in number, extent and thickness. Men shortened their pants into trunks, and ‘fight shy of woollen undergarments, at any rate the younger men’ (The Tailor and Cutter, 1929). The American influence on men’s underwear became very noticeable with the gradual introduction of the singlet in place of the buttoned vest and the union combination garment instead of separate vest and drawers, together with the preference for thin materials such as artificial silk. Women’s undergarme
nts shrank until a brassière and short panties under a dance frock were considered adequate.
As a result a considerable area of skin was, in both sexes, merely covered by a single layer of fabric—the dress or the suit, as the case might be. Obviously underclothing had lost two of its original functions; it no longer preserved the warmth of the body, nor did it disguise its essential shape. Formerly it would have been thought necessary to have a layer of washable material covering the skin, but perhaps the ‘hot bath’ habit, becoming so general after the first war, was thought a sufficient substitute, together with the modern development of dry cleaning of clothes. It seems that the skin itself had become less sensitive to changes of external temperature, and more sensitive to contact with textiles which had therefore to be as smooth as possible. For this nothing was more suitable than artificial silk, which had become available to all.
To regard this widespread reduction in the amount of underclothes as primarily erotic in purpose is, we think, to misinterpret the evidence. It is surely significant that in the 1920’s young women were at great pains to obliterate the breasts and to reduce the feminine shape of the hips by excessive slimming; while the actual regions which were exposed bare by day were the arms, and the legs below the knee, a kind of display very characteristic of childhood, but which has only slight sex appeal.
Nevertheless, however attenuated feminine underclothing became, it preserved—and still preserves—its old erotic association of ideas. Undies are not made unimportant by being called ‘amusing,’ and their importance has become insisted upon by a very significant change affecting, indeed, the underclothes of men as well. It is not the reduction in amount but the taste for colours that expresses the erotic impulse. Both sexes have discarded the use of white underwear. For centuries ‘white’ had been recognized as a symbol of the chaste ‘pure mind’; it has no emotional tone. It represents the antithesis of erotic colours. That it should have fallen into dissuetude after the first war when there was a marked relaxation of sexual inhibitions is more than a coincidence. The instinctive desire for coloured undergarments was, of course, given a wider scope by the improved methods of dyeing washable fabrics following the war, but the supply was produced by the demand. And the demand meant that underclothes, both for men and women, should be given an emotional background. This was certainly not a move in the direction of making them more ‘rational.’ Nightwear showed a similar impulse. A girl, we may suppose, was cheered by the thought that beneath her workaday attire she looked ‘a perfect peach’ in peach-coloured undies, and the bachelor, in pyjamas striped like a tiger, would feel that he, too, in certain circumstances, could simulate a beast of prey.
