#fashion history

[gadogroans]

Gorjus ‼️

Vampire party. Found this one in my older art folders.

[wisteria-lodge]

"Smallclothes"

I just reblogged a very interesting thread about historical inaccuracy in A Song of Ice and Fire, but it was doing a whole big picture thing and I didn't want to clog it up with one very small detail that just really specifically bothers me.

It's his use of the term "smallclothes." Basically, in ASOIAF smallclothes = panties/knickers.

Daario found his breeches and pulled them on. He did not trouble himself with smallclothes.

Jon’s anger flared. “No, my lord, I mean to set them to sewing lacy smallclothes."

“... before Lord Snow wets his smallclothes.”

"he looked like he was going to shit his smallclothes"

So okay. 'smallclothes' or 'small-clothes' is a historical term (from the 1700s) that means... underlayer. Here's it being used by Charles Dickens:

“Will you run over, once again, what the boy said?” asks Mr. Tulkinghorn, putting his hands into the pockets of his rusty smallclothes and leaning quietly back in his chair."

The idea being that he's casual/doesn't care and isn't bothering to dress up for his guest. not that he's in his undies. Here is a illustration from Nicholas Nickleby of a suitor who has inappropriately "displayed his small-clothes"

I've heard "smallclothes" refer to things like pocket-handkerchiefs, and anecdotally it's sometimes used to refer to knickers in linguistically stubborn places like Yorkshire, but that just is not how the word was used historically.

so okay. fine. It's a fantasy story, he's just made up his own word that means "panties."

Except NO. They straight up did not wear panties in the middle ages and renaissance. Sometimes you got loose under-breeches with a split crotch BUT - in general that long white shirt/chemise just WAS your undergarment. Think of how much easier it is to manufacture! And clean! Boxer brief type things weren't a thing until the 1900s, and modern-ish woman's panties ("step-ins") weren't a thing until the 20s, because the hemlines stopped working with pantalettes and bloomers. There are no "lacy smallclothes" like there is lacy lingerie. That only makes sense if you have industrialized clothing manufacturing!

Honestly I would have thought GRRM would be all over this, like it's kinda sexy that it's just thigh-high stocking or leggings underneath those big dresses, right? But he hasn't done that. Instead he's just ported in a modern article of clothing and gave it an old-timey name. Just a little hint that he hasn't actually properly got his head around how these clothes were made and used, and that devalues them.

And it's escaped containment! It's canon in Dragon Age, and in fanfiction I'm seeing "smallclothes" or "smalls" used to describe the underwear in in Our Flag Means Death, the Lord of the Rings, the Witcher. Just have nothing! None of these people should be wearing panties!!!!

[historical-fashion-polls]

submitted by @ub-sessed 🤍🩵

[jewellery-box]

VELVET, DAMASK & EMBROIDERED SILK EVENING GOWN, LATE 1880s

AUGUSTA AUCTIONS

[oak1985]

One thing I read for the Elizabethan era, which I would be willing to bet held true thru the Victorian age, is that wealthy people’s clothing was often handed down to servants, who would either wear it or sell it, so working class people could be wearing the same materials and styles as wealthy people, maybe just a few years out of date.

thinking about the infantiliztation and/or formalization of 19th-century women's clothing to modern audiences

like

our entire reference point for "wearing long skirts and outfits with decoration like lace, embroidery, appliques, etc." is either formalwear or fictional characters in children's media like Disney princesses. women's clothing is just so radically different now- not that those elements don't exist, but they're much less common in everyday clothing than they once were. some form of simple trousers and an equally simple top are de rigeur for everyday attire, and anything else is Fancy

combined with the fact- which is true! -that a lot of what survives to end up in big museums belonged to wealthy people, this ends up in wild assumptions like "basically our entire idea of what the Victorians dressed like is just Rich People Clothes really"

which has led to the eternal cry of "but what did NORMAL people wear?!?!?!" that will not be satisfied with real examples of middle or even working-class everyday clothing because it still looks too "fancy" to modern eyes

not Victorian, but a great example of this is what Abby Cox wore to portray a milliner (hatmaker) in Colonial Williamsburg. a working, middle-class woman:

(ignore the facial expression there)

this is the exact outfit she sported in a video that apparently got responses like "but that's just what rich women wore!" and it is, in fact, everyday attire for a working person. a person who worked in the fashion industry, it's true, but still

I had someone ask me about how to find examples of casual Victorian clothing because they were at their wits' end trying to research it. and I had to tell them that...what they were looking at WAS casual. in the sense of Clothing For Everyday Wear That's Not Especially Formal. there's nothing inherently formal, or exclusive to the wealthy, about a matched bodice-and-skirt dress, instep-length, with some trim. or even a trimmed blouse and skirt. obviously women working the absolute hardest outdoor, physical jobs might have adopted occupational trousers or similar, but we don't all dress like construction or farm workers all the time nowadays. why would they have back then?

Laundresses, probably 1850s or early 60s. Note that I can STILL date the picture based on their outfits and hair, and these are the furthest things from wealthy socialites.

Maid scrubbing steps, probably 1870s or 1880s. Note pleated trim on her skirt and what appears to be a peplum at the back of her bodice.

also, not all working women worked physical jobs any more than we do today. here is a teacher around the turn of the 20th century:

Teachers, 1887

"Breton Seamstresses," 1845, by Jules Trayer

were there differences in quality, type and quantity of trim, fit, etc? obviously. but some people are convinced that the basic outfit format can't POSSIBLY have been something ordinary women wore, because it looks formal and/or princess-y in a modern context

[dozydawn]

[artschoolglasses]

Memento Mori Finger Ring, black enamel and gold, 17th Century

From the London Museum

[toyastales]

A bracelet clasp with a Medusa on an emerald cameo. Gold is treated with diamond and enamel. 18th century. Made in England.

[achronalart]

FWIW, "mauve" was one of the coal-tar dyes developed in the mid-19th century that made eye-wateringly bright clothing fashionable for a few decades.

It was an eye-popping magenta purple

HOWEVER, like most aniline dyes, it faded badly, to a washed-out blue-grey ...

...which was the color ignorant youngsters in the 1920s associated with “mauve”.

(This dress is labeled "mauve" as it is the color the above becomes after fading).

They colored their vision of the past with washed-out pastels that were NOTHING like the eye-popping electric shades the mid-Victorians loved. This 1926 fashion history book by Paul di Giafferi paints a hugely distorted, I would say dishonest picture of the past.

Ever since then this faded bluish lavender and not the original electric eye-watering hot pink-purple is the color associated with the word “mauve”.

[laurenillustrated]

I started drawing the Ever After High girls in random historical fashion eras… why? I have no idea

Raven Queen in 1890s, Apple White in Italian Renaissance.

Briar Beauty in 1920s, Madeline Hatter in 1880s

No particularly reason for the eras, just the vibe I get from the characters and their designs!

[angstandhappiness]

Nice

Chanel couture white lace gown

c. 1935

Augusta Auctions

[historical-fashion-polls]

submitted by @dewdropsongrasss 🧡💛🤍

[marzipanandminutiae]

I was about to be irritated at a shitty "kids' education" website on 1770s clothing but then I learned that there's a staymaker buried at King's Chapel and now I'm just delighted to know the gravesite of a clothing worker from that era and I want to take him flowers

[die-rosastrasse]

François Martin-Kavel & pink fabrics

French, 1861-1931

[emmikay]

Dressing the Jellicles-

Historical Clothing for Jemima

1923 c. Over dress of black netting with extensive beading. Beneath is the original peach-colored slip, possibly of silk. From Xtabay Vintage.