![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anteros_lmcI am slightly disappointed that none of you quite approved of Admiral James Saumarez line of swanky ethical knickers. Not practical for wearing under white breeches you sniffed.
As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lemurling pointed out:
They certainly didn't wear a black pair of undies. They'd have shown through the first time a big wave came over the bow!
So what did they wear? Never let it be said that I would pass up the opportunity for some serious naval history research* so off I went to find out what the officers of His Majesty's Royal Navy really wore under those lovely white breeches.
I have two books on naval uniform, Amy Miller's Dressed to Kill and John Fabb and Jack Cassin-Scott's Uniforms of Trafalgar. Unfortunately neither make any mention of underclothes of any kind which could lead one to the conclusion that underwear was unknown to the Royal Navy. I wonder what the naval equivalent of going commando is?! However I also recently picked up a copy of C. Willett and Phillis Cunnington's The History of Underclothes which is an absolute goldmine of information.
Through much of the 17th and 18th century men's underclothes took the form of drawers or detachable linings. These were normally short and tied at knee and waist with a drawstring or ribbon. Drawers and linings where commonly made of washable fabrics such as linen and flannel but wool and even "China" or silk were also used. In his diary entry for 18th October 1660, Samuel Pepys records ordering "a pair of black baize linings to be made me for my breeches." Baize being a worsted woollen cloth. Scratchy! If Benjamin Franklin is anything to go by, it was perfactly acceptable for a gentleman to lounge around his own house in his underwear. In his autobiography he related the following:
As breeches became shorter and tighter in the mid to late 18th century so did the drawers. In 1779 Jeremy Bentham complained of the discomfort of walking "in a pair of breeches woefully tight". And in Dressed to Kill Miller relates the tale of Sir Thomas Byam Martin, who as a midshipman in the 1780s "...was rigged out as a man, and so squeezed into tight dress as to leave no chance of growing...” Being sent aloft predictably resulted in “...rents in the lower garment (that) admitted more of the sharp north-west wind than was agreeable.”
Towards the end of the 18th century and into the beginning of 19th century longer drawers sometimes with stockinette feet were also worn, as trousers became fashionable. By this period cotton fabrics such as calico were also becoming more common. Another significant change towards the end of the 18th century was the resurgence of the notion of cleanliness. For gentlemen to be thought as such George "Beau" Brummel dictated "no perfumes, but very fine linen, plenty of it and country washing". As a result of this new fashion, spending on underwear increased significantly for those that could afford it.
Of course this is not to say that drawers and linings were ubiquitous. Whether they were worn or not likely depended on personal means and preference. If drawers were not worn long shirt tails fulfilled a similar function and Dressed to Kill includes a lovely example of a long cotton linen shirt dating to 1807.
So what of the navy boys? The inestimableesteven, to whom I am indebted, has helpfully provided canon evidence that Jack Aubrey did not wear drawers, much to Killick's annoyance, while Stephen Maturin would have worn drawers had his not been nicked by the French. The rotten buggers.
From Post Captain:
From Thirteen-Gun Salute:
I'm only half way through Forester's Hornblower series but so far I have found no evidence of underwear. However in Lieutenant Hornblower Forester treats us to this lovely description of Mr Bush:
The reference to "outer clothes" suggests that Mr Bush is still modestly attired in undergarments of some sort. Or it would do if Mr Forester didn't go on to describe Mr Bush...
Ahem.
So there you have it. Our lovely lieutenants either worn knee length drawers or linings beneath their breeches or they simply wrapped their shirt tails round their assets. Now as for how to extract said lovely lieutenants from their undergarments, well, I'll leave that to your imagination...
PS I am firmly convinced that Archie wore silk or nothing ;)
References
Fabb, J. and Cassin-scott, J., (1977), Uniforms of Trafalgar, Batsford, London.
Forester, C. S., (1959), Lieutenant Hornblower, Pan.
Miller, A., (2007), Dressed to Kill: British Naval Uniform, Masculinity and Contemporary Fashions 1748 – 1857, National Maritime Museum.
O'Brian, P., (1972), Post Captain, Harper Collins.
O'Brian, P., (1989), The Thirteen Gun Salute, Harper Collins.
Pepys, S., The Diary of Samuel Pepys: Thursday 18 October 1660, http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1660/10/18/
Willett, C. and Cunnington< P. (1951), The History of Underclothes, Michael Joseph, London.
I also came across this extremely informative LJ comment bysyntinen_laulu which I can highly recommend if you're interested in the appropriate terms used for describing undergarments of various sorts in the 18th century.
* Aye, right!
As
lemurling pointed out:They certainly didn't wear a black pair of undies. They'd have shown through the first time a big wave came over the bow!
So what did they wear? Never let it be said that I would pass up the opportunity for some serious naval history research* so off I went to find out what the officers of His Majesty's Royal Navy really wore under those lovely white breeches.
I have two books on naval uniform, Amy Miller's Dressed to Kill and John Fabb and Jack Cassin-Scott's Uniforms of Trafalgar. Unfortunately neither make any mention of underclothes of any kind which could lead one to the conclusion that underwear was unknown to the Royal Navy. I wonder what the naval equivalent of going commando is?! However I also recently picked up a copy of C. Willett and Phillis Cunnington's The History of Underclothes which is an absolute goldmine of information. Through much of the 17th and 18th century men's underclothes took the form of drawers or detachable linings. These were normally short and tied at knee and waist with a drawstring or ribbon. Drawers and linings where commonly made of washable fabrics such as linen and flannel but wool and even "China" or silk were also used. In his diary entry for 18th October 1660, Samuel Pepys records ordering "a pair of black baize linings to be made me for my breeches." Baize being a worsted woollen cloth. Scratchy! If Benjamin Franklin is anything to go by, it was perfactly acceptable for a gentleman to lounge around his own house in his underwear. In his autobiography he related the following:"during a hot Sunday in June 1750 I sat in my chamber with no other clothes on than a shirt and a pair of linen drawers."
As breeches became shorter and tighter in the mid to late 18th century so did the drawers. In 1779 Jeremy Bentham complained of the discomfort of walking "in a pair of breeches woefully tight". And in Dressed to Kill Miller relates the tale of Sir Thomas Byam Martin, who as a midshipman in the 1780s "...was rigged out as a man, and so squeezed into tight dress as to leave no chance of growing...” Being sent aloft predictably resulted in “...rents in the lower garment (that) admitted more of the sharp north-west wind than was agreeable.” Towards the end of the 18th century and into the beginning of 19th century longer drawers sometimes with stockinette feet were also worn, as trousers became fashionable. By this period cotton fabrics such as calico were also becoming more common. Another significant change towards the end of the 18th century was the resurgence of the notion of cleanliness. For gentlemen to be thought as such George "Beau" Brummel dictated "no perfumes, but very fine linen, plenty of it and country washing". As a result of this new fashion, spending on underwear increased significantly for those that could afford it.
Of course this is not to say that drawers and linings were ubiquitous. Whether they were worn or not likely depended on personal means and preference. If drawers were not worn long shirt tails fulfilled a similar function and Dressed to Kill includes a lovely example of a long cotton linen shirt dating to 1807. So what of the navy boys? The inestimable
esteven, to whom I am indebted, has helpfully provided canon evidence that Jack Aubrey did not wear drawers, much to Killick's annoyance, while Stephen Maturin would have worn drawers had his not been nicked by the French. The rotten buggers. From Post Captain:
Turning, he saw Stephen watching him from the companion hatchway. 'Good morning, good morning!' he cried, smiling with great affection. 'Here's our old friend the Bellone just to leeward.'
'Ay. So Pullings tell me. Do you mean to fight with her?'
'I mean to sink, take, burn or destroy her,' said Jack, a smile flashing across his face.
'I dare say you do. Please to remember the watch they took from me. A Breguet repeater, number 365, with a centre seconds hand. And three pairs of drawers, I should know them anywhere. I must go below.'
From Thirteen-Gun Salute:
Leaning over the rail he called out to the pilot, who was clawing up into the wind, 'All's well', and ran below, where a furious Killick was waiting with a towel, a dry shirt and trousers. 'And these here woollen drawers, sir,' he said. 'You done it again - you are always a-doing of it - but this time you will catch your death, without you put on these woollen drawers. Who ever heard of dipping his bare arse off of the Eddystone? It is worse than the North Pole: far worse.'
I'm only half way through Forester's Hornblower series but so far I have found no evidence of underwear. However in Lieutenant Hornblower Forester treats us to this lovely description of Mr Bush:
He threw off his outer clothes, and standing in his shirt he cast a final look round his cabin before putting out the light. Shoes and trousers were on the sea-chest ready to be put on at a moment's notice in the event of an emergency.
The reference to "outer clothes" suggests that Mr Bush is still modestly attired in undergarments of some sort. Or it would do if Mr Forester didn't go on to describe Mr Bush...
...lying on his back with his arms and legs spread wide so as to allow the sweat every chance to evaporate...
Ahem.
So there you have it. Our lovely lieutenants either worn knee length drawers or linings beneath their breeches or they simply wrapped their shirt tails round their assets. Now as for how to extract said lovely lieutenants from their undergarments, well, I'll leave that to your imagination...
PS I am firmly convinced that Archie wore silk or nothing ;)
References
Fabb, J. and Cassin-scott, J., (1977), Uniforms of Trafalgar, Batsford, London.
Forester, C. S., (1959), Lieutenant Hornblower, Pan.
Miller, A., (2007), Dressed to Kill: British Naval Uniform, Masculinity and Contemporary Fashions 1748 – 1857, National Maritime Museum.
O'Brian, P., (1972), Post Captain, Harper Collins.
O'Brian, P., (1989), The Thirteen Gun Salute, Harper Collins.
Pepys, S., The Diary of Samuel Pepys: Thursday 18 October 1660, http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1660/10/18/
Willett, C. and Cunnington< P. (1951), The History of Underclothes, Michael Joseph, London.
I also came across this extremely informative LJ comment by
syntinen_laulu which I can highly recommend if you're interested in the appropriate terms used for describing undergarments of various sorts in the 18th century. * Aye, right!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 01:33 am (UTC)am back up rather than still up with cramp here but have been reading
this is your usual standard and a most absorbing topic - himself is reading it with interest just now
sleep well - listen to Schuberts Dioskuren as a lullaby :)
have a new sleeping Horatio to inveil soon to go with sleeping Archie but it is not quite reasy yet.
Cramp going off now and Nodbear back to bed
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 01:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 01:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 05:29 pm (UTC)It's a hard life *sigh*
I now feel safe taking the boys breeches off without risking egregious anachronism.
Well heaven forbid that Archie should open Horatio's breeches and find an egregious anachronism! ;)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 05:40 pm (UTC)You're welcome. It's terribly hard work you know. I think I might need a wee recuperative lie down with a nice lieutenant.
And Archie's assets wrapped in silk.
Or Archie's assets wrapped in Horatio ;P
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 05:41 pm (UTC)Exactly!!
ow THIS time there is no way one could misinterpret this as drooling over some pretty boys in nothing but their... oh.
What? WHAT?! ;)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 07:52 am (UTC)From Post Captain:
They were looking after themselves, living with rigid economy; and there was no greater proof of their friendship than the way their harmony withstood their very grave differences in domestic behaviour. In Jack's opinion Stephen was little better than a slut: his papers, odd bits of dry, garlic'd bread, his razors and small-clothes lay on and about his private table in a miserable squalor; and from the appearance of the grizzled wig that was now acting as a tea-cosy for his milk-saucepan, it was clear that he had breakfasted on marmalade.
*g*
Purely in the name of research I watched the deleted scenes from MandC, and found that Jack's breeches were awfully clinging when he came out of the water after his swim. There is nothing that suggests underwear. Shame though there was no front shot of Mr Crowe...*sighs* What loss to research!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 05:45 pm (UTC)One again I am in awe of your dedication to research ;)
In Jack's opinion Stephen was little better than a slut
*speechless* I presume Jack is referring to the fact that Stephen is untidy rather than that he shags round which is what the term "slut" denotes to me!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 12:31 pm (UTC)Ah, Killick. I love him so much...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 05:49 pm (UTC)Well exactly! Mr Forester has a lot to answer for ;)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 07:04 pm (UTC)in that scene in Retribution where Bush wakes up to the sound of escaping prisoners and is seen in his shirt, I just like to think there's nothing under that shirt x)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 11:13 pm (UTC)I just like to think there's nothing under that shirt x)
In that case you are in very good company. See the discussion here: Am I missing something or is Mr Bush? ;)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 11:03 pm (UTC)Oh and wool underwear?! Pleasant.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 11:47 pm (UTC)Given this a lot of thought have you?? ;)
Oh and wool underwear?! Pleasant.
Well if you think so, I could get you some reproduction flannel undies for your birthday if you like?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-11-13 11:34 pm (UTC)I once had some woolen underdrawers and vests, knitted of Superwash wool in a pointelle pattern. We were trying to save on heating oil, you see. They were actually very soft and comfortable -- I bet they would have had a way to treat the wool and make it soft, even then. Maybe NOT wash out so much of the natural lanolin. If it were knitted of a fine enough yarn, it could have been perfectly comfortable.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 02:25 am (UTC)As far as going coomando, was it not Bush who believed in freeing up the sweat?
I think that proves he was into freely evaporating...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 10:31 am (UTC)As far as going coomando, was it not Bush.....
There, now look what you've done! You've gone and distracted me with thoughts of Mr Bush evaporating....
Sorry haven't had a chance to comment on your latest yet, hopefully later tonight...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 04:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 09:42 pm (UTC)