Clothing Longevity II: The Poor

Welcome to Part II of my research series on how long clothing was expected to last in the years c. 1840-1870. [Intro.] This section explores the clothing of the extremely poor, particularly inmates, servants, and enslaved people. This body of data is largely shaped by institutional records/reports and advice written by the people providing clothing allowances to these groups.

Garment quantities and frequency of distribution (if not duration of use) are relatively well-defined. From context, we know that style and ornament are not important considerations. As a result, I think these sources provide a sort of baseline for how long clothing can last as an almost purely functional matter: providing the socially-acceptable minimum of coverage, comfort, and respectability that the benefactors are willing to pay for. Additionally, here we will see a few literary references which mention a poor character's clothing with reference to quantity, quality or other clues for how long clothing is expected to last or how long it can be made to endure. I also ended up with a bit of a tangent about servants' clothing; while less qualitative, the literature is inherently focused on the idea that clothing should last as long as possible.

How many garments are used/owned simultaneously, and the exact duration of each is less clear than the rate at which they are distributed. Having one new suit of clothes each year might mean the person only has one set of clothes at a time, or it might mean that the person has multiple sets of clothing and that the oldest set is being replaced each year (for example, if each suit actually lasts two years, that person would generally have a set of new-this-year clothing and an older set that was new last year).

Please note that some of the primary sources quoted or linked is this section use racial terms and stereotypes, particularly for Black or Irish persons, which are not preferred in the modern day. The word "insane" is likewise used in naming some institutions. There is, unsurprisingly, also a ton of classism.

 

Yearly Allowances

Institutional financial records provide some clues as to how the very poorest members of society were attired. The most explicit as to clothing duration is from the UK, where the Gorey Union workhouse report of 1842 specifies that a suit of clothes (with mending) lasts for 11 months, and that each person would wear out 2 pairs of stockings and 1.5 pairs of shoes in that time. It is also indicated that each poor person was only allotted one suit of clothes at a time. From the same parliamentary report, annual clothing allowances at Rathkeale Union workhouse for men include 1 jacket, 1 pair trousers, 1 shirt, 1 cap, 1 pair suspenders, 2 pair stockings, 2 pair shoes. At the same, women get a cotton wrapper, 2 petticoats (flannel and linsey-woolsey), 1 shift, 1 apron, 1 cap, 2 pair stockings, and 1.5 pairs shoes. Mending and alterations are also worked into the budget. The other workhouses listed in the reports either give aggregate numbers, or describe a similar baseline amount of clothing.

Clothing allowances for prisoners in the UK in 1841 describe the clothing provided, but not the duration it is expected to last. I expect that answer depends on the inmate's sentence and the kind of work they are assigned, but wouldn't be surprised if it follows the workhouse timeline above. Each person is issued one set of clothing at a time. For example, at Preston, Lancashire, the uniform is a jacket, trousers, shirt, and clogs for male prisoners, and shift, petticoat, upper petticoat, bedgown, cap, apron, and clogs for female prisoners. The bedgown/upper petticoat combination suggests an unfitted two-piece outfit like that worn by working women in the previous century. The Liverpool Goal provides a similar outfit to male prisoner (with the addition of a cap and neckerchief), while the women receive a dress, chemise, clogs, cap, and kerchief.

A pamphlet, "Management of Negroes Upon Southern Estates," published in Tennessee in 1851 outlines the author's system of clothing distribution. The average yearly amounts of clothing are given as follows:

"I give to my negroes four full suits of clothes with two pair of shoes, every year, and to my women and girls a calico dress and two handkerchiefs extra...

Clothing should be sufficient, but of no set quantity, as all will use or waste what is given, and may be no better clad with four suits than others with two. I know families that never give more than two suits, and their servants are always neater than others with even four...

My rule is to give for winter a linsey suit, one shirt of best toweling, one hat, one pair of shoes, a good blanket, costing $2 to $2.50, every other year (or I prefer, after trying three years, a comfort). In the summer, two shirts, two pair pants, and one straw hat. Several of my negroes will require two pair pants for winter, and occasionally even a third pair, depending mostly upon the material. Others require another shirt and a third pair of pants for summer. I seldom give two pair of shoes." 

Under this author's system, laundry is done weekly. The exact duration each garment lasts is not specified, but given the small number of garments and the hard physical labor undertaken, as well as the phrasing around "requiring two pair pants", I suspect that these garments are well worn by the end of the year, and may not be in a condition to use the following year. Thus, each person would have just the one suit for winter, to be replaced by the three for summer (or two winter and two summer), year in and year out. The reference to "families that never give more than two suits" in contrast to the authors's four suit plan gives an even lower threshold for dress: in both cases, basic garments are lasting between 3 and 6 months (2-4 sets per year), with some seasonal variation, and a pair of shoes between 6 and 12 months. I will note that the author contradicts himself on whether two pairs of shoes per year per person is standard or "seldom" in his example. 

Ohio laws (1861) require each patient admitted to the state asylum to have two dresses or suits, a pair of shoes or boots, and outerwear, all new or like new. The New York State Hospital in the same year considered "two suits of clothing and several changes of undergarments" as the bare clothing requirement for patients; while the rate at which these should be replaced is not specified, the other admission requirements treat 6 months a minimal stay, so it may be that these two suits or dresses are expected to cover that period. An article in The Lancet (1846) emphasizes the importance of seasonable clothing being provided in asylums (including distinct winter and summer wardrobes) and gives an average use period of  9 months for a suit or dress, if properly maintained. It also notes that clothing wears out faster for patients engaged in agricultural work. While the phrasing of these reports suggests that two changes of clothing are sufficient for a 6-month period, I will note that not all such institutions actually provided or required adequate clothing: a review of British asylums, describing systematic improvements from 1842 to 1852, includes a horrible description of initial conditions in Haverford-West Asylum, with patients either naked or having no changes of linen available. 

A much later account (1895) of the Wayne County Asylum includes itemized quarterly clothes allowances. This state reports unfortunately only gives total clothing/board expenses for inmates at the Detroit House of Corrections, but clothing for the residents of the asylum are listed by item type and price for each person. The prices are consistent across types of garments, implying that all of the socks, dresses, shoes, etc., were of similar quality and material. I ran some statistics on the first twelve women listed alphabetically, and found that they received an average of 5.5 dresses per year (4, 5, or 6, with one outlier who received 9 dresses), 5.3 skirts (ranged between 1 and 10 each), 4.5 chemises, 3 pair drawers, 5.5 pair hose, 4 pairs shoes, 5.3 aprons, 5 handkerchiefs, 1 nightdress*, 1 pair slippers, and 1.5 vests or undershirts. Not all of the women received a pair of slippers, and only four actually received nightdresses (the average is skewed by one woman who only received nightdresses, hose, and chemises after the first quarter, suggesting that she couldn't leave her bed). Outerwear was not given to all the women, with only 2 receiving woolen jackets, and 1 a shawl. Three were issued hats, two were issued hoods, and five were given neckties (one woman receiving 5 over the course of the year, the other only one necktie a piece). Elastic was routinely mentioned at the end of the clothing lists, but only the price and not the amount or purpose.

The Emigrant in Australia (1852) advises that travelers pack for 4 months without laundry access. The bare minimum of clothing over this period is given as: 6 shirts or shifts, 6 pairs of stockings, 2 pair shoes, and two complete sets of outer clothing (for men) or two gowns and two petticoats (women).

An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy (1855) gives suggested annual clothing allowances for most servants. Footman should expect 1 or 2 suits of livery to be provided, as well as an informal suit and a hat. Coachmen and undercoachmen just the one set of livery, but two hats and two pairs of boots; grooms should receive two sets of livery and two sets of clothes suitable for stable work. Maids are not generally issued clothing, but instead a recommended budget is included. It allows for three gowns per year (price and material varying with wages), 3 pairs of shoes, 4 petticoats, 1 or 2 bonnets, 3 or 4 pairs of stockings, 1 shawl, 2 pairs of gloves, 6 aprons, and fabric for an unspecified number of caps, handkerchiefs, and undergarments. 

The Careful Nursemaid (1844) gives a recommended wardrobe for a new servant: two changes of linen per week (times the interval that washing is done at), as well as two flannel petticoats, two upper petticoats, two pairs of stays, three gowns, 7 aprons (4 common, 2 nicer, 1 woolen for scrubbing the nursery), 2 pairs of black stockings, 1-2 pairs white stockings, 1 pair sturdy walking shoes, 1 pair thinner house shoes, caps, kerchiefs, handkerchiefs, a plain straw bonnet, a pair of gloves, one warm shawl or coat for winter. The exact duration all of this is supposed to last is unclear, but the wording about winter coats makes me think this is a year's clothing. At the very least, it is 'enough clothing to get started with' as the new nursemaid will have her wages to buy replacements as needed.

 

Clothing Duration in Contemporary Fiction

Exactly how long clothing lasts is going to vary based on what it is made of, how it is treated, and how often it is being worn. Most of the literary references I came across indicated the age and condition of characters' clothing through descriptions of its appearance rather than giving its exact age; "turned" and mended clothing will be handled in a future installment.

 In the story "Wait and See" published in Arthur's Illustrated Home Magazine (1859), a poor grandmother has only had two new dresses in the last seven years, both of them calico.

In The Wide Wide World (1850) little Ellen and her sick mother both expect to make one new merino dress last the whole winter. An anonymous benefactor gifts her a second length of merino and a quilted silk bonnet (on the grounds that her pasteboard bonnet isn't warm enough for the weather), which suggests that while 'one warm dress' may have workable for the season, it was far from desirable or comfortable.

In Les Miserables (1862), impoverished formerly-bourgeoisie law student Marius Pontmercy wears his suits for two years: his newest suit is reserved for formal occasions, with last year's suit for everyday use. By the end of the second year, that everyday suit is 'impossible' and so badly worn out that he looks like a beggar. 

Eugene Sue's Mysteries of Paris (1838/44), includes a detailed discussion on buying secondhand clothing. Out of her 100 francs per year clothing budget, the grisette (independent working class girl) Rigolette generally spends 5-6 francs per used dress (though one cost 15 francs), and 2-3 francs per pair of shoes. Her savings also comes out of this budget line (an average of 30 francs per year) as do her stockings, shawl, and bonnet (which have no prices given) and presumably undergarments. Extrapolating from there, we can infer she's acquiring absolutely no more than 10 dresses per year, and likely closer to 4, in order to afford her linens, stockings, and shoes. She has at least two dresses at that time in the story: the purple merino she's wearing, and a blue levantine reserved for Sundays. We can also presume that the character is making each dress last more than two months, given the way she refers to the "old" clothes she is buying as only having been worn one or two months before going on the second-hand market. 

"Servant-gal-ism" or What Not to Wear if You are Poor

"Every person's dress should harmonize with his or her employment." -Letter from Mrs. Pierson, The Ohio Cultivator, 1855

This is a bit of a sidestep, but it was a recurring theme when I sought out descriptions of servants' clothing, and seems worth addressing. Basically, there is a stereotype that some poor people, especially female servants, waste their money on either fancy garments unsuited to their way of living or on cheap, gaudy garments that imitate higher class clothing. This is presented as wasteful (whether because the finery is ruined through work or through being very low quality), and in poor taste. The recommended alternative is that one instead purchases items suited to one's lifestyle, choosing quality material that will last over flimsier items that look pretty, and that one mends this clothing diligently. Since this form of spendthrift behavior is often presented in part as a function of the clothing's duration of use, I thought it right to include here.

"Photographs of New York" in The New Monthly Magazine (1858) uses clothing to illustrate/accuse immigrant maidservants of vanity and wastefulness. In the given example, the archetype German servant girl spend all of her earnings on showy clothes, while continually demanding higher wages and easier work. From a calico dress and barehead, she progresses to a fashionable muslin with a bonnet (and veil!), then silk dresses with a white bonnet, and finally kid gloves and lace mantillas, then cheap jewelry and coarse hoops. In addition to poor budgeting, the author accuses this imagined maidservant of extreme vanity, with all free time and money devoted to displaying this clothing (at the theater or getting photographed), at the cost of spiritual or mental cultivation (for, the author assures us, these immigrant girls do not attend church or even serious theater.) The articles of clothing described are perfectly respectable middle- to upper-class garments, except maybe for the 6-carat gold pin with "stones" which is bordering into what Miss Leslie would call "coarse finery" or "trumpery" and the "barrel hoops" which are likewise a poor imitation of more expensive garments. Both betray a lack of the 'taste' which supposedly differentiates a true lady from an overdressed woman. Otherwise, the problem, as presented, is in who is wearing these silk dresses and kid gloves (a person of lower class), why (personal vanity), and at what cost (future financial difficulties, lost opportunities for 'improvement.') 

The same theme, without detail of the garments, appeared twenty years earlier in the pamphlet "Hints to Girls on Dress" (1836).  In a brief parable about two servant girls, one of them (Ann) wastes her wages on fancy clothes and ends up poor, while the other (Lucy) is deliberate in her purchases and careful about mending, which allows her to save up enough money to give to charity and live comfortably.

Jane Swisshelm's 1853 Letters to Country Girls includes a fair amount of advice on dressing genteel on a budget (more on that anon), but particularly focuses on material quality and the time wasted in constantly replacing items. Not unlike the accusations against the above servants, this audience of "country girls" is accused of wasting their money buying cheap, gaudy materials that don't last. While Mrs. Swisshelm claims to make her own (mostly silk) dresses last for seven years, and that a good French merino might last twenty, she accuses her readers of wasting their time on poorly-dyed polychrome fabrics that run on the first wash or cashmeres that "soon look faded and old-fashioned." One again, a dichotomy is presented between wasting money on clothing out of vanity, and careful expenditures (which conveniently also result in one having better clothing to wear and spending less time making it).

Why do servants of the 19th century dress as they do? echoes these complaints, though it does not actually bring up the issue of clothing longevity, being mostly focused on maintaining class distinctions.

Cartoon from Punch, November 1863. As in the text examples, the servant's hoops are both unsuited to the task at hand, and apparently improvised. Note the maid's  "lamp" shape compared to the employer's "bell."

"The New School for Wives" an 1852 article in Household Words, describes a night-school for female factory-workers in Birmingham, England. The author claims that 3/5 of the women didn't know how to sew a hem or seam, and the remainder did so poorly. Whether there was a real skill deficit, or the assumption that working people are poor because they lack middle class industrious habits, the author goes on to note that the students resist mending and "prefer making gowns to all humbler work," subtly reinforcing the stereotype that poor women are more interested in display than in practicality.

The Popular Educator's 1856 article no. II on "Female Education" also addresses the need for young working class women to be able maintain their own clothing (sewing, washing, and ironing). It calls for schools to teach remedial sewing, and recommends pamphlets on cleaning clothing. Notably, this entire article focuses on bodily hygiene, clothing, and "general habits of order." These are held up as a necessary prerequisite for young working women seeking to make "mental and moral progress," which reveals something about the author's biases. [In fairness, this series is focused on self-education, and the the first article mentions resources for reading, writing, mathematics, geography, and history. However, the relative column space given to each of those subjects versus the detailed instructions here on cleanliness and mending are telling.]

The Teacher's Visitor opens its discussion of clothing for poor children with the aphorism that "the love of dress" is "the source of all frivolity and vanity in women." It goes on to recommend plain clothing for charity-school students ("all finery" is to be prohibited), for the purpose of fitting them to their station in life. The children should also be taught to care for their clothing, always appearing clean and tidy. While the duration of garment use is not with the scope of this short article, the idea of making clothing that lasts does appear: "We should recommend them to purchase the durable material, the strong calico, the good washing print, preferring at all times wear and usefulness to shew[sic]."

The Farmer (1844) summarizes its ideas on suitable clothing for farming families: "Everything beyond what is necessary for cleanliness and comfort, and for neatness and decency of appearance, should be avoided in dress, whether it be of male or female." The book notes that alternating between two pairs of shoes (allowing them to fully dry between wearings) prolongs their useful life, and advocates for "strong cloth or other stout stuff" and for wools in preference to cottons for women's outerwear, as the latter "loses its color, and does not wear so long." While specific duration are not given, the advice centers on using quality materials, which should be mended as needed, and re-purposed in due time, all in order to make one's clothing last as long as possible.

 

Conclusion 

At the very poorest end of society, persons living in the mid-Victorian period might have as little as single set of clothing to wear at one time. The few sources which specify how often this clothing would need to be replaced suggest that shoes might last 4 months to a year (more often 6-7 months per pair), while dresses and men's suits would need replacing between once and four times a year. Where more than a single outfit is allowed, changes of bodylinen and aprons are used for cleanliness and to protect the clothing. While these minimal allowances do not include clean linens and stockings every day, all but the most severe do allow extras to change. I have seen no indication of clothing routinely lasting more than a year or two, much less a decade, at this level of society.

Mid-Victorian didactic literature aimed at the poor emphasizes the need for clothing to be strong, suitable to one's occupation, and carefully maintained. Functionality, including maximizing the clothing's usable duration, is the ideal; showy clothing is cast as the inherent opposite of such practicality. It follows that the clothing provided to society's poorest members (including the imprisoned and enslaved) would adhere to these strictures as much as possible, with a strong preference for durability over fashion.

Clothing Longevity c.1840-1870, Part 1: An Introduction

This project stated with the broad question of "How long did mid-Victorian clothing last?" (and it's reenacting corollary: "Can one justify wear a dress with specifically 1840s style elements at an event set in the 1850s, 1860s, or later by pretending to be old, poor, or rural?"). I've since come to realize it's really a series of related questions encompassing among other things:

• How frequently are dresses (or clothing more generally) being replaced?
• How long is a particular dress expected to be used in its original configuration by its original owner?
• How long can a particular dress (or other garment) continue to be used as clothing in some capacity by any person at all?
• Which people have the means, ability, and inclination to update old garments? Are there groups who do not?
• What assumptions or stereotypes do period writers attach to wearing outdated or outworn clothing?
  

Related to this, of course, is the issue of what happens to a garment after it's initial period of service. Is it being "turned" or altered to continue being used by the same person in the same capacity? Is the garment being altered to serve a different purpose for the same person? Is it being passed on, intact, for use by another? Is it being remade to a different purpose for a different person to use? Is the garment's fabric being re-used for a non-clothing purpose? Or is fiber itself being recycled?

Consider a woman's formerly 'best' silk dress...

• which has been re-made for/by the owner to keep the sleeve shape and other style elements up to date, for continued use as her best silk.
• which has been re-made for/by the owner as a wrapper for wear around her own house, with a new dress taking the role of "best."
• which has been sold through a used clothes dealer and bought by someone else to wear as-is.
• which has been gifted to a servant and re-made to suit the new owner's size, taste, and social station.
• which has been been taken apart and used to make a mantel for the original owner's daughter
• which was put away for several years, and later cut up to make a "crazy quilt"
  
• which has been used for one or more of the above, until the last pieces are finally picked apart by a rag-merchant and sold to a fertilizer company.

Arguably, most of these events can mark the end of the dress, if not the end of the fabric's useful life. And, unfortunately, the sources available to use don't always differentiate between one of these fates and another, especially when it comes to the issue of remaking the dress. As a result, my answers here are going to take a few different forms, and there will be a certain amount of uncertainty about how remade and altered dresses fit into the "life expectancy" of the middle class wardrobe. I'm mostly sticking to sources from the period 1840-1870, excepting The Workwoman's Guide (1838) and a beautifully comprehensive guidebook published in 1873 which brings together many of the elements suggested and implied in the 1850s and 1860s sources.

I'd also like to observe, before we get too much further, that different materials may perform very differently, not only due to their inherent properties, but also on account of how they are worn, laundered, and repaired. Sheer dresses (cotton, silk, or wool) can be very fragile; figured weaves can snag and collect fuzz; cotton prints may be subjected to harsh laundry methods; woolen materials are preyed upon by moths; an expensive silk might entail a much higher level of care than a cheaper material and be worth re-modelling.

And, as a final aside, modern clothing really can't be a guideline in this matter, in my opinion. The materials out clothing it made out of has changed drastically; the manufacturing processes of the fibers themselves produce different fabrics; wear patterns have changed; laundry methods have changed; the frequency a given garment is worn has changed; mending and alterations are much less common; there's greater tolerance for idiosyncrasies in dress; and the way our garments work together are all very different from the practices of the 1850s and 1860s. A modern person retaining clothing from 20+ years ago is not evidence that people in the year 18-- commonly did so without censure.

Vegetables in Season (1823)

While considering salad receipts for Sunday, I can across a handy marketing chart in The Cook's Oracle (1823) showing not only the expected dates when different vegetables would be in season, but also their earliest "forced" dates (when the item would be rare and commanding the highest price due to the extra effort needed to grow it out of season) and when each is at its cheapest price in London. Given an on-going frustration with my local food history research (specifically that non-staple "garden" produce is recorded only in general terms) and the climate similarities, I'm finding it a helpful supplement for deciding when to use which ingredients.

Marketing Guide for London, from The Cook's Oracle (5th ed, 1823) pages 412-413.

Intriguingly, I can document the use of garden frames quite early in pre-Territorial Washington, so depending on the context, some of those "forced" dates could possible for local events. Looking over the chart, here in early June I might be choosing from the last Jerusalem artichokes [admittedly not a plant I've documented here], early French [green] or kidney beans, Windsor (fava) beans, red beets, carrots, cauliflower, maybe forced cucumbers, endive (which is just coming to useful size in my garden), lettuce (also in the garden), cabbage, parsley (doing very well in containers), potatoes, radishes, red & white turnips, small salad (micro-greens?), the last of the sea kale, spring spinach (abundant in my garden), turnips, and turnip greens for salad.

Christmas Dishes in A Christmas Carol

Let's take a closer look at early Victorian Christmas foods, as depicted in Charles Dickens's 1843 novella A Christmas Carol.

The Ghost of Christmas Present, on his throne of seasonal delicacies.

There are four places in A Christmas Carol where Dickens goes into detail about food served at Christmas. The first, and briefest, is a list of treats served at Fezziwig's Christmas party during Scrooge's youth:

"There were more dances, and there were forfeits, and more dances, and there was cake, and there was negus, and there was a great piece of Cold Roast, and there was a great piece of Cold Boiled, and there were mince pies, and plenty of beer."--Stave II: The First of the Three Spirits

It's worth remembering that this sequence is not set in the story's "present day" (approximately contemporaneous to 1843), but rather at an unspecified point in the past. I've seen adaptations put this c.1790s-1810s, but all we really know for certain is that Scrooge himself was an apprentice--probably in his late teens or early twenties--at the time of Fezziwig's party, which must have been several decades prior to the story's opening.

The other important pieces of context for this moment is that Fezziwig's party it is explicitly a private dance, which logistically lends itself more to a standing supper than a traditional Christmas dinner. The presence of cold meats (both 'boiled' and 'roast') fits well with this service model, while negus is also associated with parties. Furthermore, this is a party being given by a businessman for his family, apprentices, servants, and neighbor's servants. Class distinctions are alive and well in Victorian cookery, and it strikes me that the dishes mentioned here are neither the kinds of cheap food accorded to the very poor nor the especially expensive or impressive dainties laid out to impress middle/upper class guests at an important function. Instead, we're seeing the commonplace luxuries of a middle class family dinner (joints of meat, cake, pie), which would have been rarer treats for the guests at this party, at least one of whom is described as not being fed enough by his employer. The most distinctly Christmas element that I notice here is the mince pies.

The rest of our food descriptions come in during the Ghost of Christmas Present's sequence. He enters the scene with a horn of plenty, surrounded by Christmas decorations, and enthroned on similarly seasonal food:

"Heaped up on the floor, to form a kind of throne, were turkeys, geese, game, poultry, brawn, great joints of meat, sucking-pigs, long wreaths of sausages, mince-pies, plum-puddings, barrels of oysters, red-hot chestnuts, cherry-cheeked apples, juicy oranges, luscious pears, immense twelfth-cakes, and seething bowls of punch, that made the chamber dim with their delicious steam." --Stave III: The Second of the Three Spirits

From their close association with Christmas Present (literally supporting him at his first appearance), these would appear to be the foods that Dickens thinks will most represent the Christmas celebration to his readers. Indeed, the exclusive use of greenery, fires, and food suggests that those are the most iconic physical objects of his 1840s English Christmases. There aren't religious or recreational accoutrements, presents, stockings, bells, or any of the familiar modern symbols of Christmas accompanying Christmas Present: just food, light/warmth, and foliage. These items not only arrive with the second spirit, but are also named a second time on their departure: "Holly, mistletoe, red berries, ivy, turkeys, geese, game, poultry, brawn, meat, pigs, sausages, oysters, pies, puddings, fruit, and punch, all vanished instantly."

The foods themselves are all seasonal to the middle of winter, including meat, preserved meat products, nuts, shellfish, and hard tree fruit (the easiest fruit to store long-term, along with the citrus which would need to be shipped in from warmer climates). Twelfth cake, in the receipts I've found from this period, tends to be made with dried and candied fruits, which are likewise shelf-stable through this time of the year, while punch frequently features citrus fruit with various alcohols. The foods featured here also also luxurious to some extent: this symbolic and idealized presentation of Christmas feasting doesn't include the bread or vegetables that often accompany the meats (or, in humble circumstances, replace them), but focuses instead on the more aspirational and luxurious seasonal foods: things that would make Christmas meals special or even unique.

Immediately after this apparition, Scrooge and the spirit move into the streets, where the scene description encompasses the gloomy weather and cheerful countenances of the passersby, but also includes the different shops still open for last-minute customers. This third food description focuses on the ingredients being purchased on Christmas itself:

"The poulterers' shops were still half open, and the fruiterers' were radiant in their glory. There were great, round, pot-bellied baskets of chestnuts...There were ruddy, brown-faced, broad-girthed Spanish onions...There were pears and apples clustered high in blooming pyramids; there were bunches of grapes, made, in the shopkeepers' benevolence, to dangle from conspicuous hooks that people's mouths might water gratis as they passed; there were piles of filberts, mossy and brown...there were Norfolk Biffins, squab and swarthy, setting off the yellow of the oranges and lemons, and, in the great compactness of their juicy persons, urgently entreating and beseeching to be carried home in paper bags, and eaten after dinner. The very gold and silver fish, set forth among these choice fruits in a bowl..."

"The Grocers'! ...the blended scents of tea and coffee were so grateful to the nose, or even that the raisins were so plentiful and rare, the almonds so extremely white, the sticks of cinnamon so long and straight, the other spices so delicious, the candied fruits so caked and spotted with molten sugar as to make the coldest lookers-on feel faint, and subsequently bilious. Nor was it that the figs were moist and pulpy, or that the French plums blushed in modest tartness from their highly-decorated boxes, or that everything was good to eat and in its Christmas dress..."--Stave III: The Second of the Three Spirits

These different food stores are the only businesses described in this section: there's no last-minute gift shopping, only last-minute food shopping. Once again, the only tangible product worthy of note at Christmas is the food. The ingredients in the shops are given in more detail and variety than in the previous sequence, though the types are the same: we hear about nuts (chestnuts, filberts, almonds), fruit (pears, apples, grapes, oranges, lemons, raisins, figs, plums), and poultry, now joined by fish, drinks (coffee, tea), spices, confections (candied fruits), and finally a vegetable (onions). All that's missing are the pork products and baked goods. Which  I abridged this passage, Dickens's language here is evocative of all the senses, conjuring the color and shape and taste and smell of all these special Christmas foods.

Our fourth and final detailed look at food comes from our introduction to the Crachit household. The material is woven throughout a longer passage describing the family's dress and interactions, but it provides a glimpse of not only what the Crachits were eating, but also how they prepared it (and thus what amenities their house had for cooking):

"Mrs. Cratchit...laid the cloth, assisted by Belinda Cratchit, second of her daughters...while Master Peter Cratchit plunged a fork into the saucepan of potatoes.. And now two smaller Cratchits,boy and girl, came tearing in, screaming that outside the baker's they had smelt the goose, and known it for their own; and, basking in luxurious thoughts of sage and onion, these young Cratchits danced about the table, and exalted Master Peter Cratchit to the skies, while he...blew the fire, until the slow potatoes, bubbling up, knocked loudly at the saucepan lid to be let out and peeled."

"...the two young Cratchits hustled Tiny Tim, and bore him off into the wash-house, that he might hear the pudding singing in the copper."

"Bob...compounded some hot mixture in a jug with gin and lemons, and stirred it round and round, and put it on the hob to simmer, Master Peter and the two ubiquitous young Cratchits went to fetch the goose, with which they soon returned in high procession...Mrs. Cratchit made the gravy (ready beforehand in a little saucepan) hissing hot." 

"Eked out by apple sauce and mashed potatoes, it was a sufficient dinner for the whole family; indeed, as Mrs. Cratchit said with great delight (surveying one small atom of a bone upon the dish), they hadn't ate it all at last!"

"...the pudding, like a speckled cannon-ball, so hard and firm, blazing in half of half-a-quartern of ignited brandy, and bedight with Christmas holly stuck into the top." 

"The compound in the jug being tasted and considered perfect, apples and oranges were put upon the table, and a shovel-full of chesnuts [sic] on the fire." --Stave III (pages 88-95)

To recap, the entirety of the Crachits' feast is a stuffed goose with gravy, apple sauce, and mashed potatoes, followed by a boiled Christmas pudding. After dinner there's fruit, chestnuts and hot punch (shared in three glasses). The narration that I omitted makes it clear that goose is a rare treat for the family, and that the pudding was very small for the number of people eating. 

Interestingly, none of this cooking takes place in a kitchen, or possibly on a stove. The fire in the main room is apparently where most of their cooking takes place: Mrs. Crachit heats the gravy, Peter boils the potatoes, and Bob prepares a festive punch on this heat source, which is called both fire and hob--whether that means a small cook stove, a small heating stove being used for cooking, or a fireplace with some fixture for supporting a saucepan is unclear to me. At any rate, contrary to certain popular adaptations, this cooking area is not sufficient for roasting, baking, or boiling the main menu items. Instead, the goose (stuffed with onion and sage) has been sent out to be baked by a professional, while the pudding is being boiled in the laundry room's copper [basically a proto-water heater: a large, built-in copper vessel over a fire, used to heat water in quantity for washing, etc.]. Both goose and pudding are small, but the Crachits still do not have a designated cooking space that can handle this quantity of food, despite the need to feed at least seven people on a daily basis. Are they routinely boiling their dinners in the copper? Or is their daily hot food limited to the cooking area on the hob? Or, are they among the poor population mentioned in a previous conversation between the Spirit and Scrooge who rely on commercial bakers, and may only eat one hot dinner per week? 

We don't get any firm answers to this, though it strikes me that Tiny Tim's miraculous recovery might be related to the family's increased income providing them with better food and the tools they need to cook it.

And that's a wrap. I didn't have a particular research question in mind with this project, but instead wanted to muse over how food is handled in A Christmas Carol. Dickens is very intentional about using food both to give a sense of place, and as a tangible symbol of Christmas itself, which I think has interesting implications for the importance of food to early Victorian Christmas celebrations. It's giving me an idea for a literature review on cooking facilities across class lines...

Medieval Disability Sourcebook

 August is my busiest month for reenactments (and rush through projects), so I'm way behind on writing them up. As I start on the backlog, however, here's something fun: a free sourcebook about people with disabilities living in western Europe during the middle ages.

Medieval Disability Sourcebook: Western Europe, ed. McNabb

Independence Day, Washington Territory

Reading through the earliest newspapers in Washington Territory offers a glimpse into how July 4 was celebrated in the territory during the 1850s.

1852: No newspaper existed in "North Oregon" on July 4, but the first issue of The Columbian in September reprinted an "Oration delivered by D. R. Bigelow at the celebration of the Fourth of July in this city [Olympia]."

1853: The July 9 issue of The Columbian included an article outlining the "Proceedings of the Fourth" in Olympia, which included a sunrise gun salute; a choir performing "America",  "The Star-Spangled Banner", and "Hail Columbia" at the Methodist church; prayers; a reading of the Declaration of Independence; a procession; and an outdoor meal in an arbor by the capitol.

1854: The Pioneer and Democrat described flags flying throughout Olympia, and gun salutes made at dawn, noon, and dusk. However, as the holiday fell on a Sunday, no major events were planned and the day was spent "quietly" and with "utmost propriety." The paper does report that a private group took a pleasure cruise on two ships, and held a ball and supper in the evening.

1855: Per the Pioneer and Democrat, a large party from Olympia gathered at Issac Wood's farm, where they were greeted by a flag flying overhead. A nearby clearing was equipped with seating for 150 people and a speakers' stand for the speeches. Starting at noon, there was a procession led by a band; the reading of the Declaration; an oration; and a large meal with "beef, mutton, roast pig, turkey, chicken, venison, and every vegetable in season," followed by toasts and more speeches.

1856: The July 11 issue of the Pioneer and Democrat reported that the Fourth was observed with a boat trip and picnic, an evening ball, and multiple gun salutes, as well as numerous flags.

1857: There was no coverage in the Pioneer and Democrat. Other museum volunteers claim that no public festivities were held on account of the political situation at the end of the Puget Sound Wars.

1858: Again, the Fourth fell on a Sunday, and was observed as a "quiet Sabbath," with the only public celebration being a sermon by Rev. Whitworth of the Presbyterian Church. However, this year, the Pioneer and Democrat reported more events happening around the day itself: Saturday July 3 apparently started the festivities with a minstrel show and midnight gun salute, which were followed by the burning of tar barrels (?) and a dance on the evening of Monday, July 5.

1859: This year saw a much larger assembly in Olympia, estimated at 1200-1500 attendees. There was again the dawn cannon salute, and in the late morning a procession with the Olympia Band and various fraternal orders in attendance. This ended in a  "shady grove adjacent to the capitol building" for an invocation, an oration, a reading of the declaration, and the band playing "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "Hail Columbia." Another gun salute was fired at noon, followed by a reading of Washington's Farewell Address (noted as a new addition to the festivities) and then a free supper including "roast beef, sheep, shoats, pigs, etc. and as for pies, cakes, etc. there was no end to them." The program concluded with a procession back into town. Later that afternoon, some groups sailed on the sound. More gun salutes followed in the evening, which ended with a firework display and a grand ball. 

More Early Modern (& Medieval) References Online

It's faire season again. Last year I compiled some of my favorite easy-to-read books for refreshing on early modern social history and interpretation. This year, it's blogs and electronic references. These include primary (or at least photographs of actual artifacts), secondary, and tertiary sources which I believe be reliable. 

Blogs & Reference Sheets

The Internet Medieval Sourcebook and Internet Modern Sourcebook are the Holy Grail of searchable digitized original texts.

In addition to handwriting references, the National Archives' palaeography page also has handy references lists of county abbreviations, non-decimal currency units, term for land measurement, how Roman numerals were used in early modern English texts, and calendar peculiarities.

A Compendium of Common Knowledge contains introductory information on a wide variety of topics related to daily life in England c.1558-1603, from where to buy different goods in London to lists of the ranking peers.

Dr. Brett Devereaux's blog has (fully cited) essays on the logistics of military campaigns in the ancient through early modern period, as well as other topics relevant to pre-modern economics and warfare (like an overview of bread production). Note that this blog covers a wider time period that just the early modern, and that a number of its essays are focused on how fantasy media does or does not portray the historic systems it is nominally based on (which is great if you like overthinking LotR or GoT in addition to pre-modern history).

 Dr. Eleanor Janega's Going Medieval blog also has fully-cited, highly conversational essays on a variety of subjects, particularly those related to sex and death in medieval Europe.

Medievalists.net functions as a news site for medieval research: it announces new books, has essays on various topics, writes up current news related to medieval topics, and even has funny listicles (medieval swear words, anyone?).

 

Salt, c.1515-1530, Amgueddfa Cymru/National Museum Wales

Museum Collections

Portable Antiquities Scheme. Index of archeological finds in the UK. Lots of little metal items such as brooches. The UI is a little old-fashioned, but the search filtering is a delight.

Amgueddfa Cymru (National Museum Wales). The collection search doesn't include a filter by date range, but a search for "post medieval" turns up all sorts of metal and ceramic pieces, including the lovely Tudor lady salt dish above. Also lots of arrow heads...

Scottish National Museum. Also no date-filter on the collection search, but there are many cool items, such as medieval leather shoes and 17th century candle lanterns.

Museum of London has a lot of interesting artifacts found in the city. I especially like the medieval purse frames recovered from the Thames.

UK National Trust. Online collection database for historic sites across the UK. Mostly modern period, but there are some earlier pieces.

Victoria and Albert Museum. Focused on art and design, the museum's pre-1600 collection includes decorated ceramics, ecclesiastical items, and more textile fragments than one might expect.

National Gallery Tudor and Jacobean Portraits Database. Includes most of the early modern English portraits you've heard of. There's also some interesting essays on art history and conservation.

British Library Manuscript Viewer. Original manuscripts: useful for content, writing voice, letter shapes, and all kinds of illustrations. See also the British Library Digital Catalog of Illuminated Manuscripts for an illustration-search.

British Museum. Does have some items from Britain. Browsing the "medieval" and "post-medieval" period tags reveals pottery, glass, and metal artifacts.

Royal Armouries Collection. Not my usual, but if you're looking for early modern English arms and armor, this is the place.

Rotterdam Archeology has some very complete medieval metal and ceramic items (badges, sheers, pots) and even textiles. Amsterdam: Below The Surface likewise has a wide variety of items from pre-history to the 21st century. 

Geese from the Luttrell Psalter, British Library

Transcriptions of Tudor Charters, Accounts, Letters, etc.

Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII vol 1 & Materials for a History of Henry VII vol 2

Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York.

Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland: A.D. 1506-1507 

Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court, in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I

The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth

The Girlhood of Queen Elizabeth: A Narrative in Contemporary Letters 

Queen Elizabeth and Her Times: A Series of Original Letters (vol 2)

Different, but related to period literature: JSTOR Understanding Shakespeare database.

1870s Cotton Print Dress Research

Still on the train projects, specifically my living history outfit. This one was almost weirdly hard to research: a cotton print dress for c.1873. I did find some written instructions, such as the statement that plain cotton should be made with no ruffles or trim when intended for housework

The shape which I wanted for this dress is the layered 'tunic' (bodice joined to a half-length skirt) over a matching skirt/petticoat, as seen in this silk example:

Dress, c.1870, in the Met. Conveniently with each piece photographed separately.

Similar dresses, in cotton, appear in the July 1871 issue of Demorest's Monthly Magazine:

Cambric and striped percale cottons, per the descriptions.

Cotton walking dress, c.1871. VAM.

 

 

The material I have in mind is not a sheer, but I will include this lovely example just because there are so few cotton dresses to look at: 

Sheer dress, c.1872. The Met.

The Met also has a couple of cotton wrappers or morning dresses from this period what are made of more substantial cotton prints, like this:

 

Morning dress, c.1872-4. The Met.

There is no fiber content listed for this dress, but I find the simple lines of it (if not the exact sleeve shape) useful for envisioning the plain dress described in the magazine. For the record, the skirt appears backwards in this photograph:

 

Dress, c.1868-72. VAM.

Where the previous dress may be a little early for this project—the target year being 1873—this last dress is verging on being too late, with an estimated date of 1880. However, it's the dress most like my intended project (a plain tunic and matching skirt out of an opaque printed cotton), so I think it worth including. If I'm careful to keep to 1873 norms with the shoulder seams, waist position, sleeve shape, something like this would do nicely:

Dress, c.1880. LACMA.

Evening Dress Ideas, c.1903

Another event-based deadline, so it's time to post some of the research and inspirations.

For this one, I need a fashionable evening dress for a c.1903 dinner.

Of course, I quite spoiled by all the specimens available at the Met. There's a number of sleeve options (elbow, short, very short length), of which I'm leaning towards the elbow-length sleeves of layered net.

Evening Dress, 1901-1905, from the Met.

 

There's also this dress with its more dramatic net sleeves:

Lucie Monnay Evening Dress, 1902-3. From the Met.

 

I like this dress's use of striped fabric to add color, texture, and contour along the skirt gores.

This next one is definitely worth clicking through for the full view: the embellishments are heavily layered on, adding more contrasting textures than colors. You can also see the train on the skirt, and the ruffles supporting it from the underside.

Evening dress, c.1900. From LACMA.

 

I wish VAM had more images to accompany this c.1902 evening dress, which has a very detailed description listing all the trims and decorative techniques used on it: self-fabric tucks, embroidered net, silver & pearl embroidery, and net insertion.

Backview of a c.1902 evening dress at VAM.

Though I think this one from c.1900-1905 is closer to what I might be able to attempt in the available time, given that there's apparently little trim on the bodice or skirt, with the embellishments largely confined to the net sleeves.

Taken all together, there are some key details I'll want to include to make my dress read as 1903:

• Gored skirts with a train, with minimal bulk through the hips
• Soft fullness at the front waist (hint of a pigeon-breast shape)
• Wide neckline out to the shoulder, fairly square
  
• Diaphanous mid-length sleeves
• Pastel palette, especially tending to pale yellows and pinks
  
• Fussy layering of trims, with different textures [especially with heavy beading/embroidery/sequins on very light fabrics like net and chiffon]
  

Pattern Resource from LACMA

This dolman is now on my to-make list,
despite having no 1885 outfit to wear it with.

I love the photographs on  LACMA's online collection, and was pleasantly surprised to find that they have free pattern diagrams available. Undertaking the Making: LACMA Pattern Project has 13 garments with detailed descriptions of the textiles and construction methods, along with line-drawings of the component pieces.

Bustles, 1870s

Still working my way through the railroad event costumes. My own character was from 1873, so among my other accoutrements, I needed to make a bustle. I wanted something distinct enough to say '1870s bustle period' but also small enough to be practical under a simple cotton dress (without a train).

So, I thought it was meet to check out the options.

We have some lovely transitional hoops which have that bustle shape at the top back, like so:

Bustle cage from LACMA c.1862-1870.
A little early for my purposes

The V&A has several lovely examples of this style in various shapes. If I needed evening wear, I'd probably try for something like this (or else a covered version like these):

"Princess Louise Jupon" 1871, VAM.

 

Fortunately, there are also a plethora of shorter bustle options in various materials:

Evolved skeleton skirt. Bustle, c.1872-4. MET.

 

Fabric and steel "crinolette", c.1870. VAM. A similar one from LACMA.

Down-filled bustle pad, c.1875. VAM. [Another.]

Not sure about the shaping, but this one would be easy to make.
Bustle, 1870-5. LACMA.

But I think my favorite might be the horsehair pads. They come in several variations with ruffles and puffs, and combinations thereof:

The winner. Bustle, c.1875. LACMA.

 

Demorest's Monthly Magazine also shows several varieties of horsehair bustles in July 1875, including a long version worn under a trained gown, and three of the shorter ones.

Short horsehair bustle #2.

1578 Plague Book

Found this in my bookmarks, with the ominous date of 2020, and thought it would be fun to share: instructions from Elizabeth I's government about controlling the spread of Plague. This book, in the library of the University of Virginia, is currently thought to have been printed in 1578 or 1579.

 

 

Title page from the Plague Book, c.1578.

I may need to think of a way to work this into street bit for Faire...

Petticoat Quantities, c.1838-1865

This developed as both a side-project off of my research on flounced petticoats, and of a long-running project I've had to document the use of corsets and petticoats among the poor. I'm mostly looking at sources for pre-hoop petticoat arrangements, approximately 1850-1856, with the earliest source being the 1838 Workwoman's Guide. A few relevant passages featuring hoops, c.1856-1864, are also included.

Petticoat, c.1850s, in The Met.

General Remarks on Petticoat Layers

The clearest reference I know of for the number of petticoats worn is in Hints On Dress (1854), which advises wearing two petticoats only, in materials suited to the weather. The author mentions ladies wearing 3-4 petticoats to achieve their desired silhouette, though the author advises a 2.5 petticoat approach with a horsehair bustle/apron when additional loft is needed.

Harper's jokes in 1856 about women wearing ten layers including the dress, lace petticoat, hoop petticoat, cotton petticoat, corded petticoat, moreen petticoat, etc. This is definitely exaggerated for comic effect, though most of the garments named are attested elsewhere--they're just not all worn at the same time.

In this anecdote from 1850, a woman wearing four petticoats is perceived as being pregnant, when she is actually trying to prevent her clothing from being stolen. To me, this implies that the norm was less than four petticoats, or else it would not have looked odd to the narrator.

A pickpocketing victim (the wife of a pawnbroker) described her pocket arrangement, which includes a pocket in her under petticoat, accessed through slits in her gown and over petticoat. 

Meigs' A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of Children (1858) describes the standard dress for children (which he deems insufficient) as including a flannel petticoat and one muslin petticoat.

Mrs. Weaver's instructions for a crochet petticoat (1862) advises that little girls wear them under hoops for warmth--along with the "usual" flannel. 

 

Late in the hoop period (1864), diminishing skirt fullness is supported by a single white petticoat worn over the crinoline, or a horsehair petticoat with a starched one above it.  

 

Clothing Allowances and Packing for Travel

British workhouse inmates at Gorey Union c.1842 are allowed 1 flannel petticoat and 1 cotton or linsey-woolsey petticoat as part of a whole suit of clothes. This outfit, intended to last for 11 months, includes one of each article of clothing, plus an extra pair of stockings.

In the same source, workhouse women and girls in Nottingham are also allowed 1 flannel petticoat and 1 woolsey petticoat as part of a single outfit. At Rathkeale Union, the budget also allows each woman 1 flannel and 1 woolsey petticoat. In this list, girls only have the flannel petticoat named, but this may be because their budget line is abbreviated in other ways relative to the adults (unlike the women, the girls' list has no shoes, caps or aprons). In the Clifton workhouse, women and girls are both allowed two petticoats; in Killmallock the two petticoats are specified to be flannel and linsey.

At a rather higher class, Miss Leslie's (1852) advice for sea-travel refers to both upper petticoats (of linen, worsted [wool], or silk) and wadded petticoats (silk). She does not give numbers for each, but her phrasing implies singular, at least while aboard the ship.

 

The Emigrant in Australia (1852) advises packing for 4 months without reliable laundry facilities. It gives "two flannel petticoats" (and no others) in the minimum supply list for female passengers; the middling example has two flannel petticoats and four other petticoats. To me, this suggests the wearing of one flannel petticoat at a time is possible for the destitute, but that 1 flannel petticoat along with 1-2 other petticoats at a time is assumed of the the middling emigrant, though this is speculative. Alternatively, the poorest woman could be wearing her two flannel petticoats at the same time, however that would mean having no changes for 4 months.

Real Life in India (1847) distinguishes between cambric slips, petticoats, and flannel petticoats, recommending that a lady pack for her trip 24, 36, and 4 respectively. The duration of the trip is not specified, but the packing list calls for 48 chemises (as well as 6 evening gowns of various types, if you were wondering about class), which suggests to me both an expectation of 6-7 weeks between laundry opportunities, and that the wearer is a relatively well-dressed individual. The distinction between cambric and plain petticoats might be related to activity or to different layers, with the different quantities allowing fresh (clean and pressed) petticoats to be substituted as needed. Proportionately, this wardrobe has 6 cambric slips and 9 petticoats per flannel petticoat. I'd guess that the lady is likely wearing at least two petticoats at a time, possibly 3 depending on the activity and weather.

 

At the opposite end of the social spectrum, a group of workhouse orphans traveling from England to Bermuda c.1851 had 3 flannel petticoats and 2 upper petticoats allotted to each girl (for scale, each had 6 shifts and 4 frocks). The terminology of "upper" and the ratio suggest to me that one flannel petticoat and one upper petticoat are worn at a time, with the flannel petticoats being changed more often. 

 

An 1853 charity school dress code allows each girl a white flannel under petticoat and calico upper petticoat. The pupils are poor residents of Marylebone (London), aged 10-14, primarily being trained for domestic service. Upon leaving the school at age 15, each girl is allowed to take her best gown and upper petticoat, a new flannel petticoat, two new shifts, two new pairs of black stockings, and a pair of new shoes.

Similarly, a clothing allowance for female prisoners in the UK in 1841 includes both a "petticoat" and an "upper petticoat" in the Kirkdale and Preston gaols. At nearby Salford, only one linsey petticoat is mentioned, though as it is in conjunction with a jacket and waistcoat of the same (and no dress/gown), this might indicate the skirt of a three-piece outfit rather than an undergarment. At Lancaster Gaol, a woolen petticoat and an under petticoat are issued. Leicester's list has "two petticoats." At Louth, one petticoat is supplied (worn under a gown). Cold Bath Fields has one flannel petticoat issued per prisoner.

Lower-paid female servants are advised to purchase 4 petticoats per year (and 3 gowns), while more highly paid servants with a 150% higher budget are advised to either purchase 6 petticoats total, or to buy 4 that are more expensive.  

The Careful Nursemaid (1844) advises girls going into domestic service to plan sufficient clothing to last between washing days; this includes two changes of linen per week, as well as "two flannel petticoats and two colored upper petticoats."

 

Instructions for Making Different Kinds of Petticoats

I'm including these sources because they flesh out the distinction between flannel and upper petticoats, and offer some insight into what kinds of petticoats were being made.

The Workwoman's Guide (1838) only has flannel petticoat instructions (in adult sizes). 

Plain Needlework (1852) likewise only gives cutting instructions for flannel petticoats. Which isn't conclusive, but I find it interesting.

 

Miss Leslie gives instructions for how to make a wadded or quilted petticoat out of old silk dress-skirts, and how to stitch flannel petticoats. She also has sewing and washing tips for brown holland petticoats and for making stiffeners and scallops on white petticoats.

 

Another example of the upper/flannel dichotomy occurs in this list of garments made at a needlework school. I like that they include the yardages used per garment, which works out to 2 panels for the flannel and 3 panels for the upper petticoats, each approximately 45" long when cut. An instruction book for such schools names the materials and amount of fabric to use for both flannel petticoats and upper petticoats.

 

The Common Things of Everyday Life (1857) advocates for wearing flannel near the skin, and gives instructions for flannel petticoats. The only other references to petticoats are for how to starch a 'supportive petticoat' (apparently with hoops) and how to pack a trunk (in which "petticoats that can bear weight" are listed separately from 'flannels").

These doll instructions (1860) include a flannel petticoat, hoop petticoat, and white petticoat.

Petticoats in Fiction & Miscellaneous Notes

Flannel petticoats appear multiple times in the 1836 central criminal court findings.

Not so helpful on the number's front, there's an amusing passage from Arthur's Magazine (1857) complaining about hoops and dress reformers alike: it gives preference to crinoline petticoats as being more graceful than hoops, while corded petticoats take second place: 

 

The always amusing Why Do the Servants of the Nineteenth Century Dress as They Do? (1859) complains about servants wearing corded petticoats, white petticoats with trimming, and hooped petticoats, instead of more practical dark petticoats without hoops. Three of these dark petticoats are sufficient to last one girl the whole winter. In one anecdote, a servant girl wears three starched petticoats over hoops, which prevents her from getting through doorways easily. 

 

In  "The Cage at Cranford" (1864, set 1856) Mary is judged by the Cranford laundresses for having two corded petticoats (deemed excessive).

 

In another short story, a lady wears her silk petticoat directly under her dress, with a flannel petticoat below the silk one.

In a third parable,  a wealthy lady rewards two poor orphans with sufficient flannel and stuff to make each of them a petticoat and a dress.

I'm not sure how to interpret this story, but it uses "corded petticoats" as a topic of conversation among sensible women with domestic knowledge (in contrast to elegant ignorance and accomplishments).

 

 

Conclusion

 

Depending on the year and occasion, the number and type of petticoats worn seems to vary between two and four, with two apparently being both the bare minimum and the most common number. Some English jails allow prisoners only a single petticoat, but otherwise two petticoats seems to be the accepted minimum, even for servants and for destitute women and girls in prison, workhouses, or charity schools. 

 

The most common arrangement seems to be a flannel petticoat worn below, with an upper petticoat of cotton, linsey or silk above it. The specific materials and colors vary with the season and the wearer's occupation: warmer fabrics in winter, lighter ones in summer; dark petticoats for work, exercise, or poor weather; finer white cotton or silk under fancy dresses. Ideally, servants should not be wearing fine white cotton petticoats with adornment (though that doesn't stop them from wanting to dress nicely).