Dress in the Nineteenth Century
Many cultural forces contributed to the stylistic changes of the nineteenth century. These included the industrial revolution, the
French Revolution, changes in women's roles, changes in the political climate, the expansion of the United States, and artistic
movements.
The industrial revolution produced not only technological but also social and economic changes that affected dress. The ability to
produce textiles rapidly and less expensively facilitated participation in fashion. As industrialization brought more women into the
workforce, giving them less time to make clothing for their families, by the end of the century, some garments were being mass-
produced. Rural workers who migrated to urban areas needed different kinds of clothes.
As the United States expanded, it gradually took on a more important role in the Western world as a producer of raw materials
and manufacturer of goods. Technological innovations and refinements made in the United States such as the patenting and
distribution of the first commercially successful sewing machine, the development of the sized-paper pattern, and the invention
of machines that could cut multiple pattern pieces contributed to the growth of mass fashion. Immigration brought skilled
workers to work in the mass production of clothing, and immigrant consumers expanded the market for inexpensive ready-to-
wear.
Although ready-to-wear fashion came later to Europe than to the United States, Europe remained the center of innovation in
fashions. British tailoring set the international standard for menswear. And the beginnings of the haute couture in Paris at mid-
century confirmed the preeminent place of Paris in women's fashion.
Charles Worth is considered to have been the father of the haute couture.
The nineteenth-century movement of Europe and America toward more egalitarian societies contributed to an overall revolution
in men's dress. The lavishly decorated eighteenth-century suits with knee breeches worn by the nobility were, henceforth,
replaced by dark, trousered, three-piece suits. The skill of its tailoring and quality of the fabric in these suits attested to the status
of the wearer.
Through its ornamentation and obvious cost, women's clothing had to bear the burden of attesting to the wealth and social
standing of the family. Thorsten Veblen (1857–1929) recognized this role for women in his classic study, Theory of the Leisure
Classes. He noted that upper-class women's clothing showed that their husbands or fathers could afford to spend lavishly on
elaborate clothing (conspicuous consumption) and, furthermore, these women could not do any menial labor when encumbered
by such dresses (conspicuous leisure) (Veblen 1936).
At the same time, some women were beginning to question the roles assigned to them in nineteenth-century society. After the
accession of Queen Victoria to the throne of England in 1837, the ideal Victorian matron was wife and mother of a large family who
ran the household smoothly, supervised the servants, and led a sedate, scandal-free life. The example set by abolitionists working
to free the slaves at the time of the American Civil War led some women to state that they, too, were held in a type of bondage.
Some women active in the women's suffrage movement believed that women's clothing was a severe handicap to freedom of
movement and physical activity. Attempts to reform dress and establish more rational styles for women such as the Bloomer
costume were not especially successful at first. The Bloomer costume (named after women's-rights author and lecturer Amelia
Bloomer, one of its more visible proponents) consisted of a shorter version of the full-skirted dress of the 1840s worn over a pair of
full trousers gathered in to fit tightly at the ankle. The style was based on the dress worn by women in European health sanitariums
(Foote 1980). Though abandoned by suffragettes after a few years, photographs show that the style was adopted by some
American women settlers for the westward trek and the rigors of pioneer life. Variations of the style also showed up in gymnastics
classes for young women, evidence of increased importance given to women's health and fitness.
By the 1890s, women were participating actively in many sports. Bicycling was especially popular and special dress, including
bloomer suits called rationals and split skirts, had been adopted.
Silhouette and style changes.
The nineteenth century was marked by increasingly rapid style changes. Costume historians recognize this by dividing the
century into a number of relatively short fashion periods that cover ten to twenty years. These periods were characterized by
an incremental evolution of fashions year-by-year that eventually added up to a distinct new style.
The more somber styles worn by men throughout the 1800s showed only relatively subtle changes. One can see parallels in
the cut of men's suits and the silhouette of women's dresses. When women's sleeves were large, men's tended to be enlarged;
when women's waists were narrow, tailors made men's jackets with nipped-in waistlines. But it was in women's clothing that
the more pronounced changes in style were evident.
The Empire period (1790–1820) is named after Napoleon Bonaparte, the first Emperor of France. For women, the high-
waisted, relatively narrow silhouette first seen in the late 1700s continued to be the predominant line throughout this period.
In fashion terminology, this high waistline placement is still known as an "empire waist.“
The expanded trade with the Far East and the military campaigns of Napoleon in Egypt fueled fashions with Asian links.
Imported cashmere shawls were all the rage. Napoleon tried to ban the importation of these shawls in order to protect the
French textile industry. Soon European mills were copying them. The output of the mills in the town of Paisley, Scotland, was so
prodigious that the shawls became known as paisley shawls.
Year by year, subtle changes appeared in the Empire styles until the high waistline had moved lower, approaching the
anatomical waist, the skirt had flared out, and sleeves had grown larger, eventually becoming enormous. By the 1820s, that
line was distinctive enough for costume historians to see this as a new period that they named after the art and literary
movements of the same time: the Romantic period (1820–1850).
Reforming Fashion, 1850-1914
Reforming Fashion, 1850-1914 is about the women’s dress reform
movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. Fashionable dress
in the 19th century went through several silhouette changes from
tubular to hourglass and back to tubular. The fashion of the dress
silhouette was not dependent on the natural human body but rather
on a range of undergarments including chemise, petticoats, hoops,
bustles, and corsets to create an artificial shape. A growing number of
people including feminists, health advocates, physicians, artists, and
educators began to believe that women’s clothing, particularly
fashionable dress, was harmful to women’s health.
Solutions promoted by the dress reformers included trousers, reform
underwear, and artistic dress. The reformers had a lasting impression
on dress as trousers were adopted by sports enthusiasts and became
part of the archetypal gymnasium suit worn at colleges and high
schools. Reform styles eventually became fashionable dress as artistic
reformers created more comfortable gowns with empire waists and
soft drapable fabrics.
The Trouble with Fashion: Getting Dressed in the 1880s
Problems with fashion were evident throughout the nineteenth
century. The fashionable woman reshaped her body not with diet and
exercise, but with many layers of undergarments, a built-up structure
that then supported and created what became the correct and ideal
silhouette for her gown. The process of getting dressed of 1885 was a
time consuming ritual. Women did not just jump out of bed, throw on
a bra, slip, panty hose, pumps and a comfortable knit dress before
dashing out the door.
When getting dressed, the fashionable woman first put on her
stockings, which were gartered above the knee with elastic bands that
could reduce circulation of the legs. She might then put on her high
cut button shoes because, once the corset was on, it then became
difficult to bend down to button the shoes. The next two pieces were
drawers and chemise. Drawers were knee-length or longer cotton
trousers that buttoned at the waist, often left open for ease in
elimination. Over the drawers she put on either a hip-length knitted
vest and a short petticoat or a chemise. The next essential garment
was the corset stiffened with thin strips of whale bone. If a woman
tight laced she risked squeezing her intestines and internal organs. Her
breathing would be restricted as well. Over this, a woman put on a
corset cover and then a bustle, a contraption made of coils that was
tied around the waist and hung in back. Another petticoat would be
worn over this.
Finally, the fashionable woman would put on her gown, which might
consist of a boned bodice and stiffened skirt to match. Strings or
elastic might be attached inside the skirt to keep the back fullness and
the bustle in place. If it were cold, the fashionable woman might wear
a jacket decorated with jet beads, which could add as much as ten
pounds to her clothing. In all, her complete outfit could weigh as much
as 25 pounds.
Examples of trousers for women in appropriate conditions, such as cycling
and gymnasium sport activities.
Ladies in Trousers One of the first elements of fashionable dress to come under the reformers’
fire was the long full skirt. Long skirts dragged on the ground, sweeping up
tiny vermin and debris from the street with the wearer’s every step, to be
then deposited indoors. Petticoats hung heavily on the waist, cage crinolines
could swing out and flip up in the wind, trains and bustles were heavy and
awkwardly balanced. Women’s skirts made walking up and down stairs
treacherous and running nearly impossible.
The reformers chose a solution which they believed was both practical and
modest. They did not elect to reveal women’s legs for that would have been
improper, indeed, unthinkable. Rather, they chose to wear a dress made like
other fashionable dresses except for its knee-length skirt worn over
matching trousers. A similar style was worn by Turkish and Syrian women
and had been worn on stage and for masquerade dress. Trousers, called
pantalets, had also been worn under skirts by women in France in the early
1800s, and later became the fashion for young girls. Pantalets were seen on
gymnasium outfits as early as 1830. Trousers also were worn by women in
sanitariums and in communal societies.
Although fairly restricted in use, trousers caught the attention of a young
feminist, Elizabeth Smith Miller. She adopted the costume for her own
everyday dress and introduced it to her cousin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and
Stanton’s friend, Amelia Bloomer, editor of The Lily, a feminist tract devoted
to temperance and women’s reform. Bloomer began wearing the shortened
skirt and trousers in 1851, the advantages of which she described in a Lily
article. The local newspaper in Seneca Falls, NY, The Courier, also
commented favorably on the style worn by Mrs. Bloomer, and soon
newspapers picked up the account and named the style, the “bloomer”.
Although coverage was widespread, Amelia Bloomer observed that “some
of our editorial brethren” commend us highly, while others cry out against
this “usurpation of the rights of man.”
In the 1850s commendations of the bloomer costume were indeed widespread; women in Europe–Britain
and Germany– adopted a similar costume. Supporters in America noted the practicality and convenience
of the new costume, as well as its health benefits. They saw moral and patriotic qualities in its simplicity.
On the other hand, opponents have strong arguments for rejecting the bloomer. Some simply believed
that it was bad fashion, or immoral or unpatriotic because it was based on foreign styles (Middle Eastern).
Perhaps the strongest argument used was the belief that the bloomer was incongruous with prevailing
ideology regarding women’s roles. There was strong antagonism towards women wearing trousers, and
those who wore the bloomer in public faced harassment. Numerous cartoons played upon deep-seated
fears of people regarding gender and fashion.
Eventually, bloomers became associated with the women’s rights movement, an effort not wholly
embraced by Americans. Indeed, feminists shared Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s opinion that woman’s dress
perfectly described her condition: “her tight waist and long trailing skirts deprive her of all freedom.” Yet
notwithstanding the recommendations given in The Lily, many feminists ceased wearing the bloomer after
a few years. They believed that the ridicule became counter productive to gaining rights for women. When
asked why she returned to fashionable dress, Amelia Bloomer noted the new cage crinoline greatly
relieved the heavy weight of the petticoats, and as a newcomer in Iowa, she needed to be sensitive to
local fashion.
Some women activists continued to wear trousers and did not stop their promotion that the trousers
were better for women for health reasons. Those that advocated bloomers for health implied a weakness
to women which was then not met with as much criticism. The mid-nineteenth century saw a huge
increase in the interest of exercise which further linker the trousers to the health of women and made it
acceptable for a variety of sports and outdoor activities, such as mountain climbing, swimming, and
bicycling. This continued through the early twentieth century. Trousers may not have been readily
accepted as fashionable dress, however, they were accepted for physical activities such as bathing,
bicycling, and gymnastics.
Reform Underwear
Ivory cotton twill “equipose”
corset/underbodice with no bones, c.
1880-1884. Kent State University
Museum.
Many of the objections to
fashionable dress were in fact
directly related to abuses caused by
undergarments. Remember that the
fashionable woman of the 1880s
wore too much underwear; it
restricted her and weighed her
down. It could be too hot in the
summer and not warm enough in the
winter. (Even the cage crinoline, that
mercifully reduced the number of
petticoats, allowed air to blow
around a woman’s legs). The corset
was generally worn too tight. The
many skirt layers created bulk at the
waist and the weight of the clothing
was unevenly distributed. If the
excess bulk were removed, then a
woman would not have to resort to
tight-lacing which, according to many
health experts, greatly damaged
women’s internal organs and caused
disease.
One of the first reform undergarments to be promoted in America was the “emancipation union under flannel” patented in
1868. This union suit combined a knit flannel waist (shirt) and drawers in one. The combination, as the union suit was often
called, was continuously improved by various knitwear companies and reformers in America. Susan Taylor Converse of
Woburn, Massachusetts, designed an improved version in 1875 and named it the Emancipation Suit. A gathered section
across the bodice freed the breasts from compression, and sets of buttons at the waist and hips helped suspend several
layers of skirts. The Emancipation Suit also could have been purchased as two separate parts that buttoned together at the
hips.
The Emancipation Suit was endorsed by the New England Women’s Club, one of the earliest organizations to advocate
undergarment reform. In 1873 their dress-reform committee, headed by Abba Goold Woolson, sponsored a series of
lectures on the hazards of fashionable dress by four eminent female physicians. These lectures were later published in 1874
under the title, “Dress Reform.”
One of the best known reformers of underwear was the German-born Dr. Gustav Jaeger, who published a book on rational
dress titled in 1880 “Die Normalkleidung” (Rational Clothing). Jaeger’s knit union suits were particularly popular with
reformers in England after they were featured at the International Health Exhibition in 1884. This Kensington exhibition
included a section on hygienic dress and featured noted architect and theatrical designer Edward Godwin as a speaker on
dress reform.
Dress Systems
Several individuals devoted to reform devised whole systems of underclothing that included no corset at all. In the 1890s,
one of America’s best known health reformers, Dr. J. H. Kellogg, developed a dress system at the Battle Creek Sanitarium
which was “practical, healthful and artistic”. Kellogg stated that “any young woman who has not permanently ruined her
body by badly constructed apparel can in a short time learn to stand like the Venus Genetrix”. His dress system attempted
to minimize the weight on the hips and shoulders previously emphasized in fashion. Corsets and tight bodices were
discarded. Through the sanitarium women could order patterns or ‘garments made in the Dress Department’. The general
plan for the dress system included designs for gowns and undergarments. For the latter, women could choose from the
following selections to best suit their needs for warmth and comfort: the union suit, jersey tights (worn over the union suit
for extra warmth), a combination suit (instead of chemise and drawers), the Dr. Lindsay divided skirt (knitted for warmth),
the improved divided skirt (without visible divide), skirt waists (to be sewn or buttoned to skirts), the improved Freedom
waist (with two rows of buttons for attaching the dress skirt and petticoat or drawers, or umbrella drawers (a yoked skirt,
divided skirt, and ruffled drawers with yoke).
Annie Jenness Miller, a frequent lecturer, author, and publisher on the subject of physical culture and correct dress, also
devised a dress system to replace the fashionable chemise and drawers, corset, corset cover, and petticoats. As illustrated in
her journal, Dress, the Jenness Miller Magazine, this system was similar to Kellogg’s and included, leglettes and chemilettes,
to replace petticoats, and a model bodice, to replace the corset.. The Jenness-Miller system also included a bosom support
for stout women, a garment similar to a brassiere.
Although not a separate undergarment, the gown form provided by both Kellogg and Jenness-Miller was essential as a
foundation for the outer dress. The gown form cut in the princess style not only replaced the lining of a fashionable skirt,
but was so arranged “that graceful drapery [could] be formed upon it, and the weight evenly supported” by the body. It
also eliminated tie backs around the legs and had no band at the waist. Patterns for the both systems could be purchased
from the publisher or from various dress reform outlets across the country.
The new reform underwear systems of Kellogg, Jenness-Miller and others were meant to distribute the weight of clothing,
eliminate the heavily boned corset, and reduce excessive bulk and weight. These undergarments could be worn without
being readily noticed and were a great improvement over the more fashionable, but distorting undergarment.
Artistic Dress
View from Upper Snowden Gallery of various styles of artistic reform dress.
In order to make visible the damaging effects of the corset many authors of dress reform literature showed the statue
of Venus de Milo, the epitome of natural beauty, contrasted with the distorted body of a corseted woman. However, it
was the proponents of artistic dress who most heartily adhered to classical ideals of beauty reflected in the Venus
statue. They applied the principles of art, upon which these ideals were founded, to dress. For them the artificiality of
fashionable dress “the corset, crinoline, bustle, and other disguising elements of fashion” went against nature and thus
destroyed the beauty of a woman’s natural form.
Among the earliest aesthetic dress reformers were those associated with the English Pre-Raphaelite
painters. As the Pre-Raphaelites and their devotees gained recognition in the 1860s and 1870s, the public
had opportunity to see historic and aesthetic dress in paintings and on women who attended exhibitions
at the Royal Academy and the Grosvenor Gallery in London. Many of the fabrics for artistic dress were
supplied by Liberty’s, the shop on Regent Street which had been established in 1875 by Arthur Lasenby
Liberty as the East India Shop. Specializing in the silks most suitable to clinging robes and draperies worn
by the artistic community, Liberty’s introduced delicate pastel tints which they called ‘Art Colors’ to dye
imported silks.
In 1884 Arthur Lasenby Liberty asked reformer Edward Godwin to direct the dress department in the
Liberty store, making artistic dresses readily available. In its catalogs the Liberty Company offered artistic
dresses which were modified to follow the conventions of modern life, but shared design elements with
classical Greek clothing as reinterpreted during the Empire and Renaissance periods. The Liberty gowns
were given appropriate names such as “Jacqueline”, a velvet and silk crepe gown fashioned after a French
fifteenth-century gown for indoor use, or “Josephine”, an Empire-style (high-waisted) evening dress and
they worked well with Liberty’s soft and very drapable fabrics. Liberty gowns were well publicized and
available in their own Paris shop and other stores throughout Europe as well as New York.
