#18 - ... And Life Goes On...

Napoleon: the very definition of tastefully understated

Well, the French Revolution was fun and everything but as France went back to monarchy and everything mostly went back to the way it had been before, see-through dresses, as you might imagine, went out of vogue.  Fabrics became thicker and shapes became more rigid.   It became standard for women to wear dresses during the day which covered them from neck to wrist to ankle, reserving short sleeves and open necklines for evening gowns.

Men, on the other hand, began to strive to look somber, sober, and immaculate.  This was done by eschewing color, whimsy, peacock-y displays of embroider or jewels, and making sure his linens were fresh, white, and starched to a perfect crispiness.   I have already mentioned Beau Brummell, who was the first celebrity to be famous for simply being famous, and who was the pioneer of the dandy aesthetic.  So he, very certainly, was a huge influence on the trousers, quiet colors, and subtle details menswear is still judged by today.

But another element in men and women's wear is the idea of egalitarianism.   The middle class was growing larger, the rights of man were known to all, and the heretofore rigid class levels of Europe were beginning to slip a little.   Far better for the rich to embrace quiet somber respectable clothing and express their financial superiority in subtle quality rather than in flashy displays of wealth (which call into focus the vast differences in status.)  I mean, if you can dress like everyone else but just look better, thanks to your money, then that means you appear to simply be a superior person, right?  Like you were just born better?

"Obviously."

So that's how things were.  Let's look at some stuff.

So, by the 1810's we were here.  Waistline right under the bust but very definately not any visible breasts.  The top dress has a kerchief at the neckline.

This day dress from 1802 has a kerchief OVER the neckline.

I didn't mention it before, but during the height of the Regency/Empire style, the ladies here in the States did not go around with visible breasts.  They wore the same styles but just wrapped and tucked kerchiefs into the necklines to cover up.

Well, what happened next?  Let's see:

Surprisingly, one buttons this fancy-work Spencer in the back.

Check out the padded hem.  It's there to keep the skirt down
and in a pefectly rigid cone-shape.

And that, my friends, is how one puts lace on a hem.

This is a dress in the Hussar style, which means the front details are inspired by
the designs of military uniforms.

This is obviously a court robe (a dress worn at the royal courts.) You can tell 'cause it has a train.

Seashell ruffle insets AND a padded hem!  That skirt has it all!

By the 1820s, the waistline had dropped, with belts defining it, skirts were simpler and more cone-shaped, and puffy sleeves got their start.   As you can see, stuff started getting more ornate and fussy, with lots of shmancy details and ruffles and embroider, though all of them in the same color and pretty subtle.

"Hi Ho, Hi Ho, Dummies swing their arms like so..."

This dress is from the 1820's and the silk STILL looks fantastic!  Go arsenic-based dyes!

I believe this is actually the dress Cinderella was trying to make in the Disney movie...

Mmmm.... nothing says mid 1820's like a giant tippett/cape at your neck...

By the late 1820's waistlines dropped even more and the huge puffy sleeves and skirt which would dictate the rest of the century began to really take off.  In fact, by the 1830s, the sillouette was so puffy on top and on bottom

When you can't get enough tippett/capelet, just make the
ENTIRE FRONT OF YOUR BODICE a cape! Yay!

"Look at my eyes when I'm talking... oh.  Yeah, I guess I don't have eyes..."

Pink AND a capelet!

Enormously puffy sleeves in stealth mode.  Please note that there is also
a sheer silk overskirt which you can't see unless you look for the double
padded hem at the bottom of the dress.  Super sneaky!

that we are practically back at Tudor levels of puffiness.

"As is only right because we, My Royal Highness, are FANTASTIC!"

Well, similar puffy but with a key difference.   The waists of the 1830's are still pretty high (and mostly not pointed) and the shoulders are more slumpy.    Which seems weird to say because those sleeves are so huge, one would think the shoulders are big, too.

"Stare into my crooked eyes and pay no attention to my freakish banana feet...."

Well, that thinking would be wrong.  As these fashion plates demonstrate, the ideal sillouette for the 1830's doesn't have stand-up shoulders.  It has huge puffy sleeves (which were filled with pillows to keep them puffy), slumpy shoulders, and a horrifyingly tiny waist.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Queen Victoria is on the throne

"Heck yeah I am! For the next 63 years! Holla!"

and we have officially entered the age of the tight-laced CORSET!!!

"I say, old chap, perchance are you wearing a corset as tight as mine under your greatcoat?"
"Of course I am, you rapscallion!  I am incapable of supporting the weight of my own torso
without it! Now hold my hand."

Sigh.  Yes, even the men wore corsets.  Everyone wanted the hourglass shape.

This shape.

Right now "WHY?!" is the question you might be asking.   Men wore corsets because soldiers were required to, and as we have learned over and over, if military dudes wear something it won't be long before EVERYONE (male or female) wants to wear it, too.  Soldiers were required to corset because, when the corset is NOT tight-laced, it provides back support and helps the guys lift and throw cannon balls around without as many accidents.  And not being able to twist your torso, oddly, might be a benefit because then you can't do something stupid and twisty and rip your back out.

Also, if a man has a small waist, it makes his shoulders look bigger.  Most rich dudes spent their time managing their estates (doing paperwork in their study) in the mornings then wandering round for tea in the parlor in the afternoons.  (Well, unless they were officers in Her Majesty's Royal Armies and were attempting to colonize the natives.  Then they did paperwork in their tents and had tea outside.)  None of that makes someone look like this.

Which is a shame, really. 

And, bless their hearts, dudes kind of want to look like that because looking all puffy and muscled and bulky is a time-honored way to compete with other men.

See?  Two dudes competing = puffy.

This, so far, is the only reason I can come up with for jacked-up trucks and tight-laced corsets.  If you disagree or have other ideas, you may tell me about them on the test.

Anyway, that's men.  What about women?  They have been sporting the corset for years now.  Why the push for a small waist?   Well, in 1994 a study was done by Devendra Singh and Robert K. Young at the University of Texas at Austin where they had a bunch of college guys assess attractiveness of female torsos.  From they figured out that something called the Waist-To-Hip Ratio, (which means how small a woman's waist is compared to her hips) determines how attractive a woman is considered and also in a good indicator of fertility and lack of disease.

This was considered a cool idea filled with groovy facts and lots of popular articles were published on it.  When I considered the question of tight-lacing, this idea is what I thought of.

Well, thank goodness for Google because as I was researching the topic today, I found this study by Elizabeth Cashdan:

Waist To Hip Ratios Across Cultures: Trade-Offs Between Androgen- and Estrogen-Dependant Traits

And you can totally read that article if you have a library card with a university or want to pay eight dollars.   For everyone else, here's a neat article explaining Cashdan's research.   But, the basic gist is this - low WTH ratios (that's Waist-to-Hip not What The Heck) which look like this

are an indication of very much increased fertility and lack of disease.   High WTH ratios, which look like this:

indicates an increase of androgens, which are a group of hormones, and means the woman is stronger, has more stamina, and is better able to deal with stress.

According to Cashdan, the torso shape men prefer depends on what women are expected to do.  If a woman's only job is to sit around and have babies, then the low ratio is prefered.  If women are expcted to take care of themselves, find food for their families, or deal with massive amounts of stress, then the high ratio is awesome.  Sure, the woman without a waist isn't as fertile but it's probably an okay trade-off if it helps her survive a war, raise crops, or throw rocks at bears (or whatever).

Now, let's look again at what women wore during the French Revolution.

Yeah.  That's a pretty high waist-to-hip ratio.   Women fought in the revolution along with men, and the principles of equality for everyone were very much in vogue.

Thirty-ish years later women looked like this:

You might not know the morals of the Victorian era but given the extreme shape you probably won't be surprised to learn that women were considered delicate and were expected to have lots of babies -- and that's about it.  Queen Victoria had nine children herself, even though she hated being pregnant, thought babies were ugly, and viewed breast-feeding with disgust.

So the connection between social expecations for females and prefered sillouettes in historical fashion is NOT a study someone has done but I still think it's a cool idea to play around with.  Now go take a test!

TAKE YOUR TEST HERE!!!