Are you? Is that even a question to discuss?
Apparently it is.
Who’s to say I’m wearing my underwear wrong? Or even if I’m wearing it right? This is such a personal question even for modern conversations, but how does it apply to those of us who make and dress in underwear from another time?
The question of wearing a 19th century chemise tucked or un-tucked in the drawers has been tossed around by my costuming friends for years. Just recently when I posted the information page on the new Victorian Undergarments class the question was posed again – by those simply looking at a photo of me in my underwear (see above).
Granted, I take a lot of risk putting myself out there on the interwebz in only my Victorian undies, but really, I’m a lot more covered than bikini pics on the beach last week from Saint-Tropez. But I digress…
So let’s look at what could possibly be the “right way” to wear a chemise.
I’m more of the opinion to wear it “un-tucked,” or rather, with it hanging over the top of the drawers, so that’s where I voice my opinion from.
First, if you’ve ever worn a set of undergarments with a corset for a few hours you know the challenges of using restroom facilities. It ain’t always easy even with my super, duper trick.
Yeah… There’s a reason, friends, why the Victorians left the crotch seam open on their lower undergarment. It’s to make a woman’s life easier. No need to go into detail, but one can’t simply pull down a pair of drawers when it’s tightened against the body under a firmly bound corset.
Because of this, why, Oh Why?, would one want to tuck their knee-length chemise around the legs then pull up the drawers over the top of all that fabric? They will have a mighty hard time trying to maneuver all that extra fabric to a place where doing one’s bathroom business doesn’t become as messy or risky as heck!
Even if you WERE one who wanted to tuck in the chemise because of, let’s say, modesty, and you decided to be smart and fasten the drawers OVER the corset, how is that saving any time or effort when you have to lift all those skirt layers anyway to unbutton the drawers and drop them to do your business? (Besides… the Victorian woman probably wouldn’t want any more extra layers on top of her corset because that would make the waist size a tiny bit bigger. They wouldn’t want that.) Drawers are split-crotch for a very good reason.
Also, have you considered that the chemise came first and then the drawers? The chemise was always hanging down loose around the legs. The new drawers in the 1820s didn’t change that.
I believe they were simply added UNDER the chemise which puts them under the corset as well. The corset cinched in the waist. They didn’t need the drawers to cinch the chemise down first.
Besides, it’s a whole lot easier to adjust the chemise under the corset while it’s hanging loose than when it’s tucked into a set of drawers. Yes?
I think the Edwardian postcards and “scandalous” historical photos we come across were posed with a bit of propriety with the chemises tucked into the drawers to eliminate them from becoming too “French.” That said, the Edwardian drawers were beginning to be worn *over* the corset as they helped support the flared skirt silhouette. And garter belts were now worn… but let’s not get too complicated here.
Thirdly, who’s to say they DIDN’T wear the chemise tucked or untucked. We can’t really assume until there’s documented proof like in a journal written by a woman of the era. People generally don’t write for posterity about things that are normal, or every day, or basic human stuff (i.e. here’s how you eat with your fingers and here’s how you blow your nose).
I think it comes down to personal preference. What do you feel comfortable with? How would your 19th century persona have worn your undergarments?
Why do we, today, need to bash others that they are “wearing them wrong?” Live and let live. And I’ll continue to wear my chemise untucked.
How do you wear yours?
I have always been untucked. When I first started reenacting 28 years ago, I had fully closed drawers. I learned after one event and having to use a port-a-potty to make the change to open drawers. The chemise gives me enough coverage that I don’t worry about exposing myself to the world.
This illustration is from the firts half of the victorian era but still, and the chemise looks un-tucked.
Then, in “Corset&Crinolines”p139 there’s a quote from”Souvenirs d’une petite fille”. The scene takes place in the late 60s (or late 50s) during a horse race. The weather is so hot the ladies don’t wear the “petit jupon” they should wear between the pantalon and the cage. During a moment, all the ladies bent over on their chairs and the little girl can see something she had never seen yet: bits of fabric coming out from the open part of the pantalon. The little girl’s uncle, quite confused, explains to her that this is the chemise coming out from the open pantalons and the little girl finds shoking the idea of “open” pantalons. It’s interesting to see how the little girl was unaware of the undergarments of the adults, to understand that children wouldn’t wear one, and to a tucked utilisation of the chemise 🙂
How interesting on that quote! Will have to explore that book more in-depth as there really are some great quotes in it.
I sidestep this conundrum by wearing a camisole instead of a chemise. I just make sure that it’s long enough that none of my corset is on bare skin. But I do pull my undies & drawers (non-split) up over my corset for simplicity’s sake. But thanks to a comment in your “How to Wear a Corset” post I’m thinking about giving bikini undies a try for the first time in decades and it’s a scary thought because I’m a size 24-26!
Oh, but they work wonderful for when you can’t, don’t, or simply don’t feel like wearing just drawers (time of the month, location, other issues/etc.). 🙂
I also wear a ” modern” camisole or tank top with thin straps. This way, my corset doesn’t touch my bare skin. I also wear open crotch pantalettes and they have a snap closure. Frankly, I find these to be so much more convenient for using the facilities as it’s quick and easy. Also, I wear a corset cover if white cotton but it’s long enough to be a semi chemise. In summer heat I wear a mesh corset. In cooler temps I have both a full cotton twill longline corset as well as a pink cotton twill waist corset. I’m definitely a less layers the better person!
I wear a tucked chemise because, as stated above, that’s how I was taught when first wearing 18th c. clothing. 🙂 Ten years later, I couldn’t imagine wearing it untucked, it just seems awkward. But I’m with the “to each their own” camp- however you feel comfortable.
Also, my understanding of drawers in the Civil War is that they were new, and were worn by younger women, but not by older. I think they’re worn more often because we’re used to them being closer to pants, but they’re not required. But again for some- they help with thigh chafing.
In full confession, I also wear modern underwear under my drawers. I really tried for an event or two to go without, and I was so uncomfortable with feeling the air on my naked bum that I couldn’t stand it. But again, to each their own.
In regards to the discussion of drawers under/over the corset, during the hoop and bustle periods, it really doesn’t matter, since everything under the waist would be covered by a hoop or bustle. I apply the same reasoning to how tightly the bottom of my corset is laced.
I’m an untucked lady. I’ve worn chemises with both 16th and 19th century clothing. Un- is the best for me because of the “bunching” that can happen when a too-full chemise is stuffed into a not-full-enouch pair of drawers. I’ve also worn both closed and open-seat drawers with fair-to-good success. If I’m wearing closed seat then I sew them with elastic and tuck them down around my hips. It’s awkward. Not as awkward as the split seat–but awkeward.
Splits pose other problems all their own. You have to make them nice and loose or you end up with the worst wedgie in history. That goes double for combinations.
However here’s the biggest problem that I have not yet found a soluction for: It’s the spllit-seat drawers/corset hygenicc issues. Corsets and multiple skirts make reaching for clean-ups something of a problem. Does anyone have a solution?
To support my argument for un-tucked with other reenactors I always said that it is a matter of personal preference, just like “do you wear panties with pantyhose”? I certainly wish I had been wearing a long chemise or a short “modesty” petticoat the time a large group was getting into cars to go to the local Dickens festival. I was in the middle car and lifted my hoops as I side stepped into the back seat- and MOONED the group in the last car. So mortifying 🙂
I wear my chemise untucked. I can’t imagine trying to go to the bathroom with all that fabric tucked into my drawers! 🙂
To be honest, more often than not I just skip the drawers. I’m sure many women did, too, back in the day. I wear my chemises long enough to completely cover my rear end while sitting, and that’s usually enough for me. Usually.
May I comment slightly off subject on the “split drawers” mentioned in this article and several others in this blog.
I once considered these split drawers and the totally separate legs of the “open drawers” to be historical artifacts from another time. They were only something to wear while reenacting or while studying historical evolution of clothing.
Not so!!!
Having spend much, MUCH of my life in those areas of the world with the “elephant ear” or “hole in the floor” toilets, I was frustrated by not being able to aim well enough to avoid leaving the stall having peed on some obvious piece of clothing such as my jeans leg near the ankle. The split crotch is awesomely better, more comfortable, and more functional in these situations. Wear them with a dress or skirt (which is usually considered more appropriate in the -often more conservative in dress- countries, and visiting the facilities is much easier.
It is indeed Shirley! Have you read my other post on the subject of using the facilities? 🙂
Thank you, Jennifer! You’ve given us creative wings of freedom again. Seriously, how much time have we all spent fretting over accuracy when we could have been sewing our garments? I have missed one or two deadlines for fun due to overthinking. You end up at home scrutinizing your pleats while everyone else is having a lovely time at the ball. With your kind and encouraging articles we’ve abandoned some of those fears knowing that whatever mistakes we’ve made can be corrected with a seam ripper and perseverance. Thank you again!
I wear my 19th century undergarments by first putting on a chemise, then a corset, then drawers on top of those with the chemise tucked in and the drawers fastened over my corset. I’m aware of the debate but I don’t think it matters. I could comfortably wear any arrangement; I think it depends on personal preference.
I don’t think this question HAS an answer. How do you wear your bras? Do you wear a thermal or vest over the top or do you go straight to the ‘outer layers’? Personally, I feel cold and naked without a vest over my bra and under my outer clothes – even in hot weather and I like the vest nice and long so I can tuck it into my pants (the underwear kind, not the trouser kind) to avoid an unsightly ‘builders bum’ look. I imagine the same principles applied to ladies wearing the chemise/drawers/corset combo – I imagine each woman wore hers slightly differently depending on the fabric, style and length. Personally, with split crotch drawers I’d want the chemise over the top but equally I can see modesty value in having it tucked in. Comfort would be down to the individual woman’s shape and size and the chemise itself – a lovely soft, worn chemise would be less uncomfortable than a crisp new one. Perhaps slimmer ladies wore theirs over the drawers and larger ladies (like myself) might have tucked in for extra comfort. As you rightly point out, unless we can find documented evidence, it is all speculation. But even documented evidence is not representative of the whole population.
Has it occurred to anyone that, like the standard length Kimonos, the chemise may be pleated upwards under the corset (where Kimono are pleated up under the Obi) as an extra layer of comfort and they might not have been worn down at the knees at all?
That’s an interesting question too about pleating it up. I wouldn’t think so as corsets are rather a bit tighter around the body than Obi (as far as I know). Mid-century chemises were a bit shorter (not much compared to the lengths in the decades both before and after) and were probably a bit easier to tuck if one wanted to do so.
Indeed, although as you point out in your original post, we have no documented evidence and I imagine many women simply did what was most comfortable and convenient for them at the time and dependant on the time of year, time of the month (if you know what I mean) and the nature of their outfit at the time. Just as we do today, I expect many women had their ‘nice’ undies they wore under certain dresses – ‘Oh, I’ll wear THIS corset under that evening gown as it has a better bust line under the taffeta’ and how they wore it depended on what was going on over the top – I would most certainly tuck if it was particularly cold as a cold breeze that manages to get past those petticoats would be most unwelcome on my split crotch drawers in the middle of winter. Similarly I’d want things as loose as possible in the summer heat. I might even want the extra layers to protect the skin of my legs from the edges of the bustle hoops. We can only speculate based on our experiences wearing reproduction items, but as you pointed out in a previous blog post, for all our attention to period detail, we are still modern women living in a modern world having grown up with modern dress and our version of comfort is probably very different and so the question on how to wear our reproduction undergarments is really a moot point. I think you’re right when you say ‘wear it however you want’ I just think it is worth considering that there might not BE a ‘correct’ way as perhaps there are simply many different ways of wearing it depending on the situation. The Sari is the same – it is a ‘lifetime’ garment that can be worn countless different ways for countless different situations. None of these ways is ‘wrong’ it is just adaptive.
Fantastic thoughts! Thanks for sharing.
From my own experience, if you want an obi (especially for formal wear!) to stay nice and smooth over the 2 to 6 layers of silk you’re already wrapped in, and to stay on at the proper high-waisted/’round the ribcage level, it has to be tied nearly corset tight. In fact, wearing a well tied obi and wearing a well fitted corset feel surprisingly similar! Actually, I find that my mannerisms and movement in historical European dress are nearly identical to the way I behave in kimono. Sure, in a hoop skirt you watch your hoops, and in kimono you watch your sleeves, and I’d never ever even *attempt* floor sitting in hoops, but the similarities are there.
Oh, and there are special half-length kimono out there for wearing under hakama, too! Since split hakama have a very low crotch, a knee length kimono doesn’t bunch at all underneath.
If your thighs don’t rub together when you walk it doesn’t matter, but mine do, and often the cut of the drawers leaves the top of the thighs bare. I tuck mine because it adds a layer of protection from chafing.
I agree with you about the chemise helping prevent chafing on the legs. I have that problem and the chemise tucked into my drawers definitely helps.
I’m a big lady on the bottom half but my split leg bloomers come right up to the top.of the inside of my leg. As I’ve got a large bum the bloomers split do still actually meet at theback when standing and I’ve never had and issue with draughts.
My bloomers are so comfy (a friend made them for my victorian steam punk wedding) I’ve worn them under modern clothes, and under regency and medieval! They are high enough to stop thigh chafing and I wear them chemise out.
I’d happily wear them all the time if it wasn’t for the fact I only have one pair!
I often work in 1840s attire and would find a tucked-in chemise uncomfortable and inconvenient. As there is no documentation one way or the other for that time period, and I’m not interpreting my underclothes, this works.
I’m an un-tucked chemise gal, as you say, in a small cubical, in a big gown, the less fabric one needs to deal with, the better 🙂
Great article BTW, thanks 🙂
Since I generally cheat on my underpinnings to suit my own needs and personal comforts, I probably shouldn’t comment–or maybe I should since that’s exactly what they would have done.
In the end there are two reasons to do something a particular way: 1. That’s how you were taught to do it or 2. That’s the way you found worked best for YOU. That said, and knowing how eminently practical the Victorians were, I’d say that some wore their chemises tucked in–and others preferred to wear them outside. Reasons might vary from a chemise that was too short (worn, torn or outgrown) to convenience when servicing ‘customers’ to ease for privy purposes.
I’ve never tried tucking my chemise in. It doesn’t seem comfortable to me. But then, the Japanese of antiquity tucked entire ankle-length kimonos into their pants, so obviously other people don’t necessarily mind.
I think it’s probably always been a matter of personal taste, just like, oh, soft-cup vs. underwire bras, or briefs vs. boxers today. I mean, if you were, say, a dance-hall girl, you might well want to tuck that chemise in. (Which might even be one reason for the tucked-in chemises of the “scandalous” photos–much like obi worn backward by the geisha or the courtesan stilt-shoes in Italy, it might have been something that was intended less for modesty and more for titilation!)
I don’t mean to stray from the undergarments topic, but I thought I would share my experience with kimono.
All kimono today, for men and women, are long in order to reach the ankle. However, men and women will also wear hakama (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by pants) for very formal occasions, or kendo practise. Women’s hakama are almost universally unsplit, but men’s can vary. From what I know, unsplit hakama don’t require tucking anything inside; it’s just like a skirt over the kimono. However, split hakama would be worn with the hem of kimono being folded up and maybe lightly tacked in place to allow room for the split.
As for wearing obi in front… that was common in Edo Period to indicate a married woman, but after the opening to the west, I believe it came to be more associated with Tayuu (not geisha!) of the Edo Era.
Thanks! I don’t know much about kimono so appreciate the thoughts.
I tried tucking my chemise in…once! It lasted about 20 minutes, but it was so uncomfortable that I quickly visited the restroom and untucked it!
Well, since the only real documentation is in the form of photos created for one of two purposes (1. To sell undergarments and 2. To sell something else) I would say we would have to look at the intent behind those photos to answer the question. When taking a photo to sell anything, you generally want to emphasize the item you are selling. So, it would stand to reason that in either of the above cases, the chemise would be tucked in to both accentuate the product, most likely the corset, and the person wearing the corset. As with photos of models today, what is portrayed is generally not the norm. While modesty was strictly practiced by the “proper ladies” of the day, that very modesty would indeed allow them the freedom of wearing their undergarments however they vhose. We know they took great liberties with embellishment and color in their undergarments because they were hidden from public view, so I personally would find it hard to believe they would not also do so with the tucking in of their chemise. Perhaps even leaving it untucked at home, where they spent most of their time and tucking it in for outside excursions, to protect their Victorian modesty from the occassional strong updraft. Since I spend a very small percentage of my life corseted up, my choice is to remain happily untucked.
Hi, first time poster, but since I’ve been wracking my brain over this particular subject for a while, I feel the need to chime in.
Having looked a a lot of contemporary sources, I’m quite confident that, at least from the 1890s onward (I’m working on the 1890s, so I would not dare to generalize), the most common order to wear underwear would be chemise => corset => drawers (or combinations => corset). Hooks on corsets would hold the drawers down a little bit under the waist, and in the mid-1890s, about half the drawers I found in fashion magazines are closed drawers (with a back flap). There *are* some period references, and when they give an indication, the indication is toward drawers worn over the corset.
I don’t care how anyone wears they underwear, but I do care when suppositions and personal preferences are presented as historical facts.
Thanks for the input! Yes, they do start to change as we get into the later 1890s and Edwardian years.