Well I guess my question doesn’t apply to ancient times ONLY, but anyway, how did people back in the day stand to wear all that clothing? What were the materials made of? I refer to European styles, mainly. Especially the women, who are practically walking around naked today compared to two or three hundred years ago.
You get used to it.
Also, there was a “little ice age” in the Middle Ages, generally accepted to have started in the 1400s (which was an age of Big Clothes). The cold period apparently lasted until the late 1800s, and this past century has been warming up considerably (cite of which I only understand the first two paragraphs; another written in a more accessible manner).
A woman in Victorian times wore around six layers of clothing. She wore a chemise (which is a loose garment, knee-length usually, sort of like a nightgown of today) and a pair of pantalettes, which were often open at the crotch to facilitate calls of nature. Both were usually made of plain white cotton. In the museum in which I work, we have some which are considerably thinner than others, so I suspect some were “summer” wear, and some were for colder times.
Over the chemise, she wore a corset. A lot of the corsets we have in our collection are pretty loose-- say a 27’’ waist, lightly boned. Just a few are very small, with stiff metal stays. Most ladies did not lace themselves tightly. Even the tiny corsets that you see in museums usually had a gap in the back when the lady wore it. Some, however, are very tiny. A lot of them were saved because of how small and pretty they were. The comparison you could make for today, I suppose, is that some ladies wear lower heels to work, while a smaller percentage wear high heels. The high heeled shoes may be in a museum 200 years from now, but the “plain” lower heeled shoes might not be donated because they’re so ordinary. If you didn’t know any better, you might assume from the ones you see in the museum that all ladies wore high heels.
Over the corset, she sometimes wore a thin cotton cover. Next, she had her stockings. Since elastic wasn’t invented yet, she had garters which held the stockings up with snaps.
At certain times, a bustle was worn. These came in different styles. The most simple, which was worn with straighter skirts was a little pillow which tied around the waist. In times when bustles were larger, they became stiff wire cages which sat above the rump.
Finally, she put on her petticoats. She usually wore at least three of them. The bottom petticoat, or the one closest to her skin, was usually of plain white cotton. The top petticoat was usually more decorative, especially around the hem which might peek out on occasion. The hoop petticoat was often made of wires, which was sewn into a petticoat-style garment.
Remember, the dress I have described is that of an upper-class woman. A woman who worked in the fields wouldn’t be wearing all of these things. For her, usually a chemise, loose “stays”, pantalettes and one petticoat sufficed.
And of corse, over all of this came the dress. In summer times, it was made of lighter materials-- cottons or silks. Depending on the style at the time (and the time of day the dress was intended for) the neckline might be lower and the arms exposed, which would help cool her a bit.
How did they stand all of these garments in the heat? Well, they got used to them. If you wear your coat while inside a building, your body temperature adjusts to the point where you don’t notice it as much.
Wealthy ladies often napped during the hottest parts of the day, and fanned themselves, used cool wet rags on their foreheads, and reclined in shaded areas. If visitors were not expected, a lady might wear a “morning gown” while inside her home, which is a loose garment somewhere between a dress and a bathrobe. Under this, she usually just wore her chemise and pantalettes. I’m sure this option was utilized quite frequently on the hottest summer days. (Corsets were not required under morning gowns, but some ladies wore them anyway. Some wore their corsets to bed, out of fear of losing their shape.)
I’m sure they were miserable at times. Hell, I can’t imagine life without an air conditioner, and as you said, I’m half-naked compared to the ladies of the Victorian era. But you adjust to discomfort, and find ways around it.
I missed your question as to what the clothes were made of: until fairly recently*, the most common materials were linen and wool - linen most generally being worn on the layer closest to the skin, with wool for warmth and weight. Cotton was more expensive.
*by which I mean some time within the last couple hundred years
If you have a specific time period - even a century - in mind I could dig around my fashion history stuff and get back to you.
they must be pretty oppressed if one of the ways doesn’t include t-shirt and jeans…
do they wear these all the time? only when they go out? only during functions? all the time??
They don’t wear them at all, anymore. 
Corsets were worn all the time. They were the “supportive undergarment” of previous decades and centuries - like a bra is to a modern woman. NOT wearing a corset, at least in public, would have signified that the woman was “loose” (as in slutty).
During the Victorian era, dress was closely linked with morality. A woman who was not “properly” dressed was not acting in a lady-like fashion, and thus her morals were suspect.
As I said before, a lady at home when guests were not expected could wear the more comfortable morning gown, but if she was going out of the home, or people were calling on her, she had to have the full ensemble.
As racinchikki said, corsets were worn almost all the time. Girls as young as eight years old began with a “training” corset. There was a vague belief that a woman’s body, being the weak and frail thing that it is, needed the support and shaping of a corset in order to be “normal.”
Doctors railed against tight lacing, especially for pregnant women, but from the volume of articles, it seems to have been a problem for as long as women wore corsets. As I said, the majority of women wore their corsets snugly, but not crushingly laced-- only a minority seems to have squished themselves.
They were uncomfortable. I’ve worn one in a historical re-enactment. I had it on for four hours, and it was the longest four hours of my life. As a modern woman, I am used to the freedom of being able to bend at the waist, lean back in a chair, and breathe unencumbered. The corset allowed none of these things. It made my back rigid (my mother would have been proud to see my posture on that day!) and dug into my stomach and underarms. Because the material is so heavy, I sweat beneath it.
Specifically, from the 18th century…they seem to be quite elaborate. The thought of wearing all of that wool-must of been hot! At any rate, given the poor state of dry cleaningin that era, how ofen did they wash their clothes? I can’t imagine how the court of King Louis XIV must have smelled!
Louis XIV era 1635-1715 (barely considered 18th century) court dress would have been made primarily out of silk and cottons. AND yes, it would have been smelly by our standards today. Hence, the scented handkerchiefs used along with fans to keep air moving around the faces.
AND when everyone “smelled”, you are not aware of it (you do get used to it) until you are no longer in that environment.
A point should be made also of the large rooms that the wealthy were living in: fireplace heating, is not efficent enough to warm a small cabin, let alone a large ballroom where the numbers of “court” paintings would have shown.
To illustrate this point, later in the century–in America, these quotes are documented:
"On DEC 21, 1797, John Innes
Clarke of Providence [RI] wrote to a friend: “This month has been more
pleasant. It is however, exceeding cold, the thermometer in our dining room
with a
good fire being about 48 degrees.” 6
Sarah Emery [born 1787 in West Newbury MA] recalled that "the winter of 1820 &
21 was remarkably cold…China cups cracked on the tea table from the
frost, before a rousing fire, the instant the hot water touched them; and plates
set to drain in the process of dishwashing froze together in front of the huge
logs, ablaze in the wide kitchen fireplace." 7
On JAN 4, 1835, Thomas Robbins [East Windsor CT] described “an extreme cold
day” when the thermometer in the back chamber did not rise above 14 INDOORS
[emphasis added] all day long. On DEC 17 of that year he noted: “thermometer
this morning above 3 [degrees]. My ink and other things were frozen hard in my
chamber.” 11
William Pyncheon noted that on DEC 12, 1786, in Salem [MA], the night was so
cold that “few could sleep.” 12
Sarah Bryant’s [1768-1847, Cummington MA] diary also includes regular
comments about the annual deepening of the cold. Her entry for DEC 5, 1830, is
typical: “colder than it has been this season, froze in the house last night.”
from York Upper Canada(now Toronto Ontario)
in 1794:
March 4th - The weather extremely cold.Tho’ I wore three fur tippets I
was so cold I could hardly hold my cards this evening.This is the
first time we have felt the want of a ceiling, which we have not had
made in our drawing room as the room was rather low.
March 5th - Very cold. I divided the room by hanging across it a large
carpet, which made it warmer.
Jan 7 1792: Farenheit’s thermometer 23 degrees below.I rub silk gowns
with flannel to see the beautiful streams of fire which are emitted
with a crackling noise during the cold weather."
I can tell you from personal experience, that the inside of a log cabin is much cooler than outside–February 2003, temps outside were 19 below and inside the cabin, 30 with a blazing fire going for three days before. The water buckets on the hearth barely a foot and a half away from the fire froze.
However, May 2002, the cooler temperature of the cabin was a welcome relief. 90 outside and humid, and 65 inside plus the shade factor was very much needed.
I agree that work schedules will be changed to accomodate comfort regarding light and heat of the day.
Another point I want to make is that during the later part of the 18th century in America, clothing was primarily made from linen, cotton and wool with some silk and numerous cloths made from combinations of those fibres. Linen is a cooler fabric and worn in summer clothing, along with cotton which not only was produced in the Americas but also was imported. Thomas Jefferson is one of many who calculated out that imported cotton was cheaper to outfit slaves in compared to costs of other fabrics. (I am disagreeing here with Lissa’s statement that cotton was more expensive—look at the virginia runaway ads as one illustration that the numbers indicate a lot of cotton being worn http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-costa?specfile=/web/data/users/costa/costa.o2w )
The dress in the 18th century was also adapted to the activities done by the wearer and there is sufficent proof that less clothing was worn during times of physical activity. ( Woodmason’s horror at the dress of the frontier inhabitants is one of the many sources for this). A woman to be properly dressed would have worn a shift (chemise) stays or partially boned stays called jumps (corset with out the shaping of the victorian period styles) stockings and shoes(leather, moccasins, wood or none at all depending on what you are doing), petticoats (skirts) one or more of them, a gown or short gown or jacket and an apron, cap, (bonnet of some sort) and then whatever clothing to protect their “real clothes” and to provide warmth whether it be a cape or frock. (note there are no underwear as we know them)
Men are appropriately dressed in shirt (shift) knee breeches or trousers if working or needed for protection from the elements --stocking and shoes, leggings or gaitors if protection from the elements during work, a sleeveless waistcoat (vest), frock coat, neckerchief or stock around neck, headcovering (this is a clear indication of when work dictated what type of hat worn along with protection from the weather being a deciding factor.) over that the workman would wear a frock to protect his clothing. However, there are numerous mentions in diaries and journals of men going around in breechcloth and leggings and a simple shirt during the heat of the summer.
I personally have dressed 18th century for 160 days in a year. You get used to the fashions. I find that I can be more comfortable in 18th century wear, even in stays. (Lissa–your corset was probably not the right fit if you could not do it for four hours–I have worn my stays which slims my waist by up to four inches for 36 hours at a stretch and not been uncomfortable, granted if they are not laced correctly, they can chafe and become bothersome, but then I usually just undress to that point and have someone else lace me up–the trick is not lace from the bottom but from the top so that the diaphragm is not hindered in any way and the stays and or corset should not be able to move when wearing them during sitting standing bending activites.)(Oh and if you look at the “x rated” sketches and paintings of the 18th century, you will find that the method of achieving the activites of the “toilet” were achieved in the opposite of the manner which we do now and so this activty is uncomfortable to achieve now.)
REgarding washing of the clothing, washing in lye soap which was the only manner available is very harsh on fibres and so it was not done very often. The once a week washing habit, to my knowledge, did not come into being until after the civil war. It should be pointed out that Ben Franklin was in the habit of airing out his clothes everyday while he took his “airbath”. From other writings, this was probably the custom among the elite. (does not mean that it was not done by all but documentation of the lower classes does not mention it but that does not mean it did not happen)
So, to sum up the 18th century answers to the OP, it was a necessity and you get used to it and do not realyze that you might be uncomfortable until you get out of the environment.
RESPECTFULLY,
MD
You’re probably right-- my corset was borrowed for the occasion, so it really wasn’t my size. Corsets somewhat conformed to the wearer, much in the way that shoes eventually form to fit your feet. They were laced up by a friend, but she’d never done such a thing before. So, between the two of us, I imagine we muddled the job somewhat.
Also, I bet you have a pair of good quality stays. Some of the ones in our museum collection look horrendously uncomfortable even if worn properly. From all of the period ads I have seen for “comfort corsets”, I can imagine that the quest to find a truly comfortable corset was consuming for some women. (From what I have read, wealthy women seem to have had theirs made to their exact measurements by a stay maker, whereas less wealthy women bought theirs from catalogs. Getting a correct fit may have been difficult, especially since there was no standard sizing. A woman of moderate means who bought the wrong corset size may have been stuck wearing it until she could afford another if the maker didn’t take returns.)
marge, what is the source of these quotes? (One of the people you quoted may be an ancestor of mine.)
Thanks!
I have worn a stifflly-boned Victorian corset and a Renaissance corset, and I loved every moment! I did not find them uncomfortable at all, I liked the way they improved my posture and just made me feel very supported.
You get used to it.
People who live in L.A. will wear fur when it’s a chilly 70º, and look at you like you’re crazy if you ask why the theme parks and beaches aren’t packed on such a beautiful day- they want 90º at least.
Lissa, in the 18th century, all stays were made to order. In fact at one time during the 18th century, there were British laws regarding that with only men to be in that occupation. Poorer classes would have shared design styles with neighbors such as referred to in “A midwife’s diary”. Also stays could have been made out of leather by those with those types of means. The leather stays I own have more give than the boned ones.
It does take practice to make stays and to lace them up properly, but once you get the hang of them, they work better for me–a normal size D cup.
And Robby, the source for the quotes are primary documentation summed up in the book “Our Own Snug Fireside_ by Jane C. Nylander, 1993, ISBN 0-394-54984-8,
pages 75-7.” It sure is fun to find someone who might be a relative quoted in any book. 
Happy researching!!
RESPECTFULLY,
MD
I was referring to Victorian times, the era with which I am most familiar, clothing-wise.
I do want to note that while stays may have been made to order for their original owner, there was a massive used clothing market, and many women bought used stays.
Even better are the “quilted” type stays, which are made of heavy cloth with sewn gathers which act as the bones. We have several of those type in our collection-- most of which seem to have been for larger women. (Children’s training corsets were sometimes made the same way.)
I’m a very tiny woman, actually around the size of what a Victorian woman would have been. When I wore the corset, it didn’t “shape” to my form. It was snug at the waist, but loose around the underarms. (The woman who loaned it to me has a longer waist and larger chest than I have. She made it herself, to fit her form, and she’s the size of a “normal” modern woman. At first, I had thought that corsets were somewhat one-size-fits-all, and could be reduced to fit me properly. I learned otherwise very quickly.) It dug in in all the wrong places. I needed the smaller waist-length corset, rather than the hip-legth one I was wearing.
I find Tudor and 18th century corsets (yes, they are technically called ‘stays’) more comfy than Victorian ones- they’re worn more for uplift and to give the proper shape than to totally reconfigure the body. Victorian and Edwardian corsets pinch in more at the waist, and the S-curve must be hell on your back.
Underdrawers, bloomers, whatever you want to call them- they didn’t become common until the 1850’s, I think. There was public outcrying at women wearing such ‘masculine’ clothing. Closed ones didn’t become common until at least the 1870’s, I think.
Wait- I recall seeing pics of Regency chicks in knee-length bloomers. I’m all conflicted now. Somebody help.
There are some lovely descriptions of all the layers of female clothing in These Happy Golden Years- one of the Little House books. From the descriptions I’m assuming 1870’s. I just about sweat to death imagining wearing a chemise, corset, corset cover, drawers, under-petticoat, hoops, over-petticoat, underskirt, and polonaise with a high neck.
As a former 17th & 18th cent. reenactor, just dying to get my two cents in. A borrowed pair of stays can be hell - but not as bad as the usual selection of footwear available. Stays that hit at the hip can jab and gnaw and dig into the flesh like they were burrowing in for the winter. And if they don’t fit at the armpits - even more glorious tortures, I agree. But a well-fitting pair of stays that hit either just above or below the waist can be quite comfortable for long periods of time. I particularly liked how I could sit and slump inside them and they would hold me up after a long, hard day. I could almost take a nap sitting up in my homemade pair. And don’t forget the rush you get when you loosen them and your ribs expand again! The feeling of freedom when you take them off is as nice as the feeling of support.
For Californio Women in the 1800’s (WOmen in Colonial California) High Fashion was stuck in the 1700’s, since they had no access to the latest European styles.
But day to day clothing seemed to be the chemise, something like the pantalettes, and the dress over it, with a shawl and a mantilla, and simple shoes. This was basic for most women, except the few rich who would’ve had a corset and lace or silk.