Sunday, March 21, 2010

the joy of stays

I've been studying what made up a woman's clothing in the 18th-century and it is quite complicated! No underwear, for starters. Can you imagine? Then there were those pesky stays that were made of bone and fabric (usually) and shaped a woman's upper body (or tried to) into a cone shape. Add a shift, several petticoats, some stockings and garters, and then top it with a dress and you are still not done! In one collection of ballgowns I've been perusing, the dresses are over 200 years old and the only defect on most are the sweat stains beneath the arms:) Try dancing for hours on end without deodorant, in a crowded ballroom, lit by heat-inducing candles and no air-conditioning in 90 degree summer temps. Now you have the idea of what it was like being a colonial belle...

Interesting facts:
~George Washington did wear underwear, unlike most men, and ordered his from a tailor in London to go beneath his clothes.
~Thomas Jefferson suffered so from the cold he also followed George and ordered underwear from London. Think longjohns here.
~Colonial women among the gentry sometimes took hours to dress, then changed several times a day for tea, dinner, riding, etc.
~Pregnant women in colonial America did not disguise their condition and often rode, danced, visited, shopped and did all else till their "reckoning" in their normal clothes which were simply altered.
~The preferred color for colonial wedding gowns was yellow.
~Powdered wigs were de rigueur for the gentry; if you ran out of powder, flour sufficed.
~If you wanted to brush your teeth (given you had any) you would use "Essence of Pearl" tooth powder. I think that sounds quite charming, actually! And best not put that in your book because I am:)

I have a little secret to share with you. Take a look at Morrow's book cover. Though I love it wholeheartedly and would not change a single thing, there is one interesting historical error therein. I saw it immediately when the final copy was sent to me. But I don't give a hoot as it is so incredibly well done (in my humble opinion, which doesn't sound very humble right here). If you know your history you'll be able to detect it. If not, don't sweat it. Most readers don't know the difference or give a hoot either:)

45 comments:

  1. boy, you've given quite a challenge. I'm not really sure what is the error on the cover picture.
    Is it the earring?
    ????????????
    I'm curious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good guess, Lisa:) I might have said the ear-ring, too. I'll see if a few more people chime in before saying. Aren't you glad you didn't wake up this morning and get stuffed into stays and whatnot? I sure am:)

    ReplyDelete
  3. We all might have better posture, but goodness... what discomfort we would live in. And your description of dancing in such conditions... oh boy, I'll never watch a rollicking country dance in a period film again without imagining how the room must have reeked!

    I can't see what's wrong in the cover picture and would only be wildly guessing. Probably it's something I should know by now! Maybe a larger sized photo will help. I'll see if I can find one on Amazon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Still not sure about this, but is it the low back neckline of the gown? The lace obscures it but I think it's cut a bit low for the period.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Love these guesses! You've hit upon another thing, Lori, that I hadn't considered:) I don't think I'll ever look at another movie or reenactment with the same, "Oh, isn't that lovely" thought either. These colonials often didn't bathe, either!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I shudder to think how uncomfortable women were in the days when they were forced to wear so many layers of clothing. Some of their undergarments, such as stays and the corsets of the next century, had to be downright painful.

    As to the error, I can only guess, since I've not studied the time period. Would it be the hairstyle? Did women wear it loose as the model is?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very interesting pieces of information. I think the one that surprises me the least is the one about pregnant women. I'm not certain how correct I am, but I always had the impression the idea of confinement began with the Victorians. I'm going to take a wild guess here, and say it's the color of Morrow's dress.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hmmm. Is it the fullness of the dress in the front, sort of matching the back? I think the gowns were more flat in the front and fuller in the back. Fun puzzle!

    ReplyDelete
  9. VERY interesting. I had no idea they didn't wear underwear! I used to want to try out that time period, now I'm not so sure. :-/. And TWO hours to dress?? 5 minutes is WAY too long for me!!

    No idea what the historical error is on the cover, her hair maybe?? Probably not, but it's a guess anyway. LOL! I just think it's one of the most beautiful covers I have ever seen. :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Keli, I'm shuddering right along with you - and we haven't even begun to talk about their shoes! There were no right or left shoes but we won't go there... Can you imagine all these layers in the heat of summer, especially down south? On the flip side, they must have been toasty warm in winter.

    Your guess of hairstyle is certainly legitimate as it is something I've seen girls/young women wear today. It seems to be more of a Regency style but am not sure. However, women did wear their hair this way at times, per my research. But I'm learning that everytime you call something a fact, you uncover an exception:0

    Bless you for your guess!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good guess, Michelle. The color is very bright - I call it raspberry silk for lack of anything better. Strangely enough, colonial gowns tended to be almost garish with peacock blues and teals and coppers and scarlets (from the research I've been doing). There were some beautiful understated gowns but they sure liked those bright textiles!

    I'm glad you mentioned the Victorians as I was wondering when the idea of hiding a pregnancy was introduced and how the whole prudish angle came about. Bet you're right about the Victorians.

    Oh, this is fun stuff (my husband is yawning)!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Myrna, You've made me look at the gown in a new way:) I wonder what an 18th-c. historian would say? I might find Morrow is more out in left field than I thought. So good to see your name pop up here. I think I'll hold off on telling the answer a little longer as I love the comments coming in!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ok Laura.....this is probably TMI, ha but I can certainly and do love to go without a BRA but I could never do without UNDERWEAR, ha whereas Mark ALWAYS does without underwear! LOL! Maybe we both should have lived way back in that era! ha ha......love all your posts! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Casey! Two guesses for Morrow's hair:) I'm so glad you like the cover like I do. Everyone at my publishing house seems to love it, too. I'm afraid book 3 has a hard act to follow!

    I don't know how to say this delicately, but women back then did wear underwear once a month so I probably should have mentioned that. But I won't tell you why or how:) Am sure you can guess. How far womens' hygiene has come...

    Hallelujah:)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rhonda, You always make me laugh out loud:) I'm so glad you're my cousin! Don't tell Mark, but he may be onto something...

    Counting down till the Smoky Mountains! Oh my, forgot to send Aunt Janice the you know what. So glad you popped up here and my memory was jogged. Thinking of you all and hope you are well!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, the history of underthings! Honestly, I love learning these little gems of history passed. I honestly can't imagine going without undies....however, i do have a photo somewhere of an ancestor of mine that will make you thank the lord for supportive bras ;)

    As for Morrow....I think...but am not certain....the bustle of the dress is catching my eye as perhaps the issue? At first glance, I might assume she was costumed for the later 1800s with the bustling of the back/front of the dress. Im not sure what era you're writing, but if its the late 1700s, my guess is her dress would have been flat-fronted and the back maybe just slightly gathered. The low back neckline might not have been an issue really because the ladies (and gents, I'm sure!) of your era loved their low slung necklines....there are fashion dolls on record that show a little bit...uh....well, LOTS of bosom ;) to the point of TMI ;)

    Is that a good guess???

    ReplyDelete
  17. Of course, even that said, this cover is gorgeous beyond gorgeous! It creates such a striking mood. And Morrow is lovely! I know an author who had to go through and change her character's hair from brown to blonde to match her cover's illustration error...oops! So a slight fashion faux pas is no biggie!

    ReplyDelete
  18. OK, I'm just guessing here: Does it have something to do with the fan Morrow is holding? That IS a fan, isn't it? Since the image isn't larger, I suppose it could be a book or a letter, but I'm pretty certain it's a fan.

    Clue us in soon---I'm so curious!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ok, so I cheated and looked at my trusty book of fashion dolls....maybe it isnt the bustle? might it be the sleeves? It seems like most of the fancy dresses had sleeves that were only fitted to the elbows and then belled out with fabric or lace. But who knows...that might have just been a fashion of a select time...I am not certain at all!~ ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. LOL! Absolutely, we have improved by leaps and bounds. Except now, we could use with a little bit more...ahem... covering in certain departments. :D Maybe we need to take a tiny step back. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is an interesting post, and some great conversation, too! Your posts are so enlightening ...ha, hem. :) It looks to me like Morrow might have a zipper on her dress rather than having it laced up in the back.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eeeeeeeeewwwwwwww! I think you've just spoiled some of the romance in historicals! No underwear? When did the pantelet come into vogue? I'm glad Lael was fond of her baybeary soap. :-) And I was going to ask you about the whole monthly thing so thanks for clarifying that. Eeeeeeewwwwwwww!
    With that lovely image in my head and adding in mosquitoes and black flies in the summer months I'm thinking I'm pretty glad I was born in the century I was. Eeeeewwwwwwwwwww, I still have the heebiejeebies.

    I think it's the sleeves in Morrow's dress that are wrong. Shouldn't they be pouffier?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Heather, you are right about the back of the gown. It does look like a bustle. It's really drawn up in the polonaise style with little strings underneath so the whole skirt, front and back has a poufy look.

    Since you're an artist, it really means a lot to hear the cover works for you as you have such an eye for this sort of thing and are a history lover like me.


    Ohhhhhh, you all are so doggone
    clever:) Each one of you have had me looking at the dress again. A case could be made for every one of your comments!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Casey, You are so right. Let's leap back in time and cover up today. At least Morrow has a lace kerchief for her bosom!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Mary, So glad you've jumped in here! The art team actually had a little trouble with Morrow's hands and the fan so you have a very good eye. I wish you could see the book's spine as it shows her facing frontwards and her fan is fully displayed:) So pretty! She looks quite different from that angle. Good guess!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Carla, Now that I've looked again, it does resemble a zipper! My husband is now asleep. But I love this sort of thing. Even though it may be much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare would say, I love this sort of thing:)

    So glad you came by!!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Kav, Truly, this sort of historical talk tends to rub the shine right off the romance! You gave me a good chuckle here:) As always. I used to say I'd been born 2 centuries too late but that was when I was young and foolish and hadn't done my research...

    You are spot on, as my friend Rel says in Australia, about the sleeves. How on earth did you know that?!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Heather, You and Kav figured it out:) Wish I had some sort of prize here! Your book of fashion dolls sounds so neat. I'm thinking they're the ones seamstresses used to copy patterns/gowns, etc? In the 18th-century they were called "London babies" per my stuff.

    So to clarify, the sleeves on Morrow's dress would actually have been 3/4-length like you and Kav guessed. Often they had lace spilling out at the elbow or were flounced or scalloped where the sleeve ended, etc. Very rarely were sleeves long. Even plain dresses tended to have sleeves ending at the elbow though they were without all the little furbelows (spell check needed!).

    History lesson over! And I'm so sad! Let's do this again soon...

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm so thankful for bloggers like you, Carla. You all make it such fun!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would have never realized that about the sleeves. This has been a fascinating discussion today. I've enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. That was VERY fun. And I'm so relieved to know the answer! The whole discussion about...underthings had me laughing. So entertaining. You have a very fun and informative blog, Laura. And, by the way, good for you for restricting more how often you update. At a recent retreat I attended we talked about the importance of occasionally "unplugging" from all our electronics and doing real life. Bless you...

    ReplyDelete
  32. I was wrong....... i guess i get an F on that History test.
    so it's the sleeves, huh?
    interesting.
    it was fun reading through all the comments on this post. some were pretty funny!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Whoops, Kav, I forgot! I think those pantaloons came in with those prudish Victorians! That's the one thing I like about the colonials. They were quite earthy:)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Lisa, Myrna, and Michelle, Thanks for being so encouraging. That means a lot. I have trouble coming up with fresh ideas sometimes after blogging for 2 years but you make it so worthwhile! And Myrna, I needed the confirmation about unplugging. So vital to one's health! Thanks so much for that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. LOL. True confession time. I read this while I was at work at my part-time job in a college library. The college has a costume design course so I checked in a book of period costume and noticed all those pouffffffyyyyy sleeves. (You think they could have saved some of that material and made themselves some underwear, don't you?)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Kav, Oh the joys of libraries... I so needed a laugh today and you are it:) Bless you bunches!

    ReplyDelete
  37. I tried for 20 minutes to leave a comment about this yesterday. Oh, I'm so tired of blogger and its antics!

    I thought I knew a lot about 18th and 17th century fashion, but I suppose I really don't. I know that Marie Antoinette wore her hair much higher that of Morrow's. But they may not have been the style in colonial America. Perhaps she's supposed to have sort of mobcap?

    All I have to worry about in my books is making sure my characters are dressed. My poor little mountain people were fortunate to have shoes(as was Lael Click. So you understand that.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh Britt, Blogger drives me to distraction at times!! I'm sorry you've been having trouble, too. Yes, you know very well what our southern mountain people wore. Lucky to have shoes, indeed:) That's what made them all the more remarkable! So glad you persisted and broke through at last! I sure enjoy hearing from you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ha. I totally miss the long sleeves. Soon as you said it though I was like, of course.... I knew it would be something I should have spotted. :)

    I'm like you, Laura, it does get hard to think of entertaining and/or informative and/or interesting posts and I'm in awe of those who just keep putting them out, daily in some cases. Yours are always so well written and draw such fun discussions. Like this one.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks so much, Lori. Sometimes I think it would be fun to be part of a group blog like Seekerville or Inkspirational Messages but going solo has its advantages, too. You can post when inspiration strikes - or you don't have to:) This one was truly fun, thanks to you all, and will be a hard act to follow!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi, I'm a little late for the guessing part...but I've really enjoyed reading through the comments!
    I'm a "first-time visitor" (sounds like my church service!), and I'm so glad I found your blog!
    Having just finished The Frontiersman's Daughter, I had to hop on the web to see when your next book was available...how exciting to see your next one is set in this time period!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Suzanne, So happy to meet you! I chuckled at the first time visitor comment. Hope you feel as welcome here. Thanks for taking time to find out about Morrow after you finished Lael's journey. I'm so thankful you want to read another 18th-century story. There aren't nearly enough of them out there, I've decided!

    You are my third artist friend to visit on this blog. There's Laurie Pace in Texas and Heather in Oklahoma and we all came together because of TFD. Heather's blog reminds me so much of one of yours that I peeked at (but didn't stay long enough as supper is almost ready). Hope you come back and visit! I will do the same. Bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thank you, Laura, for the warm welcome. I've visited Heather's blog before and love her work, and now I'll have to visit Laurie's!
    I live in the NW, but grew up in the south, as I see from your book's bio you did as well. So nice meeting you!
    (ps. my main blog is Painter of the Past....the others are just selling blogs.)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thanks so much, Suzanne. Funny to think we're both on the same coast and southerners, to boot! Am going to check out your Painter of the Past right now. Sounds so interesting!

    ReplyDelete