When the Napoleonic period began, it brought along a massive shift in the cultural view of undergarments.  What was once taboo, rarely discussed and often joked upon came out from hiding, along with the natural female form.

Suddenly, undergarments were not only a topic of discussion for the fashionable, but it was actually acceptable to glimpse them in public. 

Prior to this, undergarments were generally considered taboo, and if mentioned at all, were often the butt of humour. They provided a distinct structure and silhouette, but were otherwise invisible (fig.1).

Around the turn of the century they came out of hiding, along with the natural female form (fig. 2). Fabrics became more diaphanous and silhouettes slimmed down, forcing the antiquated structures of the 18th century to follow suit. Their new purpose was no longer to give shape - the figure was relied upon for that - but to provide enough light layers to create an opaque screen to hide the body from view.

fig 1. 1793- Vernet- Incroyables et Merveilleuses	fig 2. Regency Undergarments

The issue of exposure was a popular topic for satirists of the day and gives us a wonderful view into the cultural reaction to the new mode, as well as the undergarments themselves. These caricatures appeared in the 1790s when gowns drastically changed but appropriate undergarments lagged behind, literally leaving fashionable women out in the cold.

 
Not everyone chose fashion over decency in the Regency period. In fact, women often wore as much underneath their clothing as they had twenty or thirty years before. The stiffening was gone and the cuts had slimmed and trimmed, but it was all still there. And when it wasn't, the world was certain to hear all about the indiscretion.

Chemise

A shift, now more commonly called a chemise, still retained its long-standing purpose of keeping both the wearer and her clothes clean.  This durable garment could be changed and washed often to save more expensive materials from odor and rot.  However, it also gained a new purpose of modesty, making sure one could not see all the way through a lady's gown to the lady herself.  Some daring women did forego the chemise to allow for fashionably slimmer gowns, much to the chagrin of proper society. “Some of our fair dames appear, in summer and winter, with no other shelter from sun or frost than one single garment of muslin or silk over their chemise – if they wear one! – but that is often dubious.” (The Mirror of the Graces, 1811).  That it was even possible to tell whether a lady was wearing a shift or not shows just how much the styles had changed and how necessary it was to wear one under a gown.  Despite this, it was still not considered appropriate to show the shift outside of the clothing due to a low neckline or a lifted hem. The construction of chemises of this era varies little from its earlier cousins.  The extant chemises are made from a fine cotton or linen, often white.  The seams were felled and edges were turned using small, fine stitches to keep the fabric from fraying under heavy use and washing.  While most garments had eight to ten stitches to the inch (ie. 3mm stitch length), it isn't unusual to see fourteen to an inch (1.8mm stitch length) on chemises.

fig 7. Diderot's Encyclopedia, Lingerie plate

Since it was cut using very simple rectangles and wedges, this garment was one that could be made at home quite easily, requiring few patterning skills.  Its body, once assembled, resembled a long trapezoid.   The fabric width and the person’s figure determined the size of the body and how it was pieced together.  The low, square neckline usually contained a drawstring in a channel, which allowed the wearer to gather it up and adjust the exposure. Occasionally, small ruffles of trimming in lace or fine cotton finished off the neckline or the sleeves (fig.8).  The only distinct change in chemises of the early 19th century was the sleeve shape.  Fashion could not handle the excess gathers and volume of the earlier styles, slimming and shortening the sleeve to keep them hidden.  The underarm gores remained to allow some movement to be retained. This chemise at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is from the turn of the century, showing slight gathering still remaining in the sleeves... ...while this example, from the same museum, shows a distinctly shorter and narrower sleeve. Another chemise, at the Met Museum, has narrow sleeves and a very wide neckline finished off with a small ruffle.

fig. 8 Robert Dighton, 1807 A Fashionable Lady in Dress and Undress

fig. 9 Progress of the Toilet - The Stays

Drawers & Pantalettes

Two of the most distinct types of undergarments of this period are the drawers and pantalettes.  Neither style was at all acceptable until after the turn of the century, since they were considered to be a male domain, but they quickly blossomed into popular, and often useful, garments.  Even Princess Charlotte openly wore them.  Both drawers and pantalettes provided coverage that modern gowns did not.  There these two garments diverged.

Drawers fastened under the knee, similar to men’s breeches, but pantalettes actually reached to mid-calf with loose, open legs.  The sight of the hem, often decorated, was acceptable when lifting the gown.  That’s not to say that they didn’t cause their fair share of scandal, however; complaints from women survive about their length showing indecently far below the gown hem.  But, it was still considered more appropriate to see the hem of pantalettes when stepping over a puddle than to see too much stocking.

fig. 10 1810 Fashion Plate - The Swimsuit edition That notion was rendered void with ruffled pantalettes, made to match the gown, showing far below the hem.  Perhaps they were intended to keep the lady from showing an indecent amount of stocking while lounging on the shore?	fig. 11 James Gillray - A Squall ...or perhaps it was to prevent an embarrassing moment while strolling along the beach?
The materials used in construction included cotton, linen, and silk.  Some were in a regular woven form, while others were machine knitted, allowing for stretch.  Drawers were cut with a waistband or drawstring around the waist, tying or buttoning at the knee.   Pantalettes were often built as two separate legs that tied around the waist.  This design did lead to horror stories of a leg slipping down and falling off in the street!  Their hem was often embroidered, trimmed with lace, or had small tucks.	fig. 12 1810-1820 Drawers, Redrawn from The History of Underclothes, pg. 113
In a wonderful painting from 1803 we not only see a woman showing off her pantalettes trimmed with lace, but we also see how to properly lift one's skirt. “When tripping over the pavement (as they say), you should gracefully raise your gown a little above your ancle.  You should hold together the folds of you gown with your right hand and draw them towards your right side.  To raise your gown on both sides, and with both hands, is bad ton.  This ungraceful practice may be tolerated only for a moment, when the mud is very deep.” (The Ladies Strategem)	fig. 13 Passer Payez, 1803 Louis Leopold Boiley
Lucienne Bonaparte's family sketch pictures a younger girl wearing her pantalettes very long; a style most often found on children. fig. 14 1813, Family of Lucienne Bonaparte
The two young ladies in the lower left corner of this image have unusually short petticoats, showing off a great deal of their pantalettes.  The girl near them has a similar style, but one which was considered appropriate for younger girls who ultimately would be the only ones to continue wearing this garment after the 1830s. fig. 15 Edward Francis Burney - An Elegant Establishment for Young Ladies

Even though these drawers, from the V&A, are of a later period, their style is no different than what was worn twenty years prior.

This pair of pantalettes, from the MFA, shows just how easy it might be to lose a leg.

Another two pairs from the Met here and here, both with connected legs, have lovely embroidered hems.

Petticoats

Underpetticoats were likely to have been the most varied of undergarments from this period.   All styles prevented transparency and most gave fullness to the hem of the gown, often with the use of small tucks running around the lower edge of the skirt.  More daring women chose to wear rose colored stockings in lieu of a petticoat. 

“The only sign of modesty in the present dress of the Ladies is the pink dye in their stockings, which makes their legs appear to blush for the total absence of petticoats.” (Chester Chronicle, 1803).

While all underpetticoats evolved from the same original style, three major branches appeared.  It all came down to how this garment, formerly sitting upon the natural waist, would be kept from slipping down when worn at the newly fashionable high waist. 

1. One very simple option was to place two straps along the shoulders which held onto the wide waistband.
2. Another was to build a bodice with a low front onto the skirt that fastened on the side or in back.
3. The third option allowed the wearer to lose their corset entirely by adding some boning to the petticoat bodice.

fig. 18 1811 Fashion Plate

The petticoat skirts changed only slightly from their predecessors, losing their pocket slits and adjusting their pleats.  One simply could not hide a bulging pocket under the slim gowns of the day, so ladies began to carry a small reticule with them instead, rendering side openings in the petticoat obsolete. 

The pleats changed for the same reason. In straight petticoats (usually two or three widths of fabric), pleats moved away from the front to keep any fullness concentrated in the back, or pleats could disappear altogether with a skirt that narrowed at the top and angled out to the hem.  Hems were adorned with small tucks, ruffles, or even embroidery (fig. 18).  Those tucks would later be corded as the style trended towards a bell shape.

These were all built from fine cotton, cambric, linen or light wool flannel, with only one exception.  The “invisible petticoat” was advertised in 1807 to give an answer to fashionably narrow gowns of the time.  It was woven on a stocking-loom, giving it enough stretch to fit the body quite tightly.  Restricted, delicate movements were essential.

This petticoat from the Met Museum has a bodice that buttons up the back as well as a finished hem of tucks and embroidery.

A white petticoat with a beautifully embroidered hem from the Old Sturbridge Village.

Resources

Patterns and discussion of building Regency undergarments can be found in a handful of books, commercial patterns, and websites.  Linda Baumgarten’s Costume Close-up shows an original turn-of-the-century shift and discusses its construction.  Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion 1 has an 1800 riding habit with a bodiced petticoat.  The Lady’s Strategem by Frances Grimble, while originally written in the 1820s, has instructions on knitting your own drawers and petticoats.  The Workwoman’s Guide from 1838 has plates on shift and drawers patterning, as well as narratives on their construction.

[Outside the USA? Use these links from Archive.org for the The Workwoman’s Guide.  Shift patterning, drawer patterning, construction of shifts, construction of drawers ]

Kannik’s Korner and Country Wives offer patterns for chemises.  The Mantua-Maker has a pattern for drawers.  Sense and Sensibility offers a pattern for a chemise which also contains a pattern for short stays and two chemisettes.

La Couturiere Parisienne offers instructions on how to pattern and sew your own 18th c. chemise.  Sense and Sensibility shows how to build a bodiced petticoat using a gown pattern.  There are also innumerable journals and postings by other seamstresses on their own ventures into Regency undergarments.

References

Arnold, Janet. Patterns of Fashion 1 London: MacMillan Publishers, 1977.

Baumgarten, Linda. Costume Close-up Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1999.

Bradfield, Nancy. Costume in Detail 1730-1930 New York: Costume & Fashion Press, 1997.

Cunnington, C. Willett & Phillis. The History of Underclothes New York: Dover Publications, 1992.

Distinction, Lady of.  Mirror of Graces, 1811 Mendocino: R.L. Shep, 1997.

Grimble, Frances.The Lady’s Stratagem, San Francisco: Lavolta Press, 2009.

Waugh, Norah. The Cut of Womens Clothes 1600-1930. Routledge: Theatre Arts Book, 1968.