18th century robe a la Francaise. Image @Rijksmuseum
During the 18th century and much of the Regency era, trains were popular on evening and court dresses, and at times on walking gowns. The length of the train shortened as the 18th century progressed, but even shorter trains swept over lawns and grounds and sidewalks. This fashion turned out to be quite expensive, for after several short walks, the fabric would be quite soiled or would need replacement. Oliver Goldsmith wrote in Citizen of the world (1760):
Nothing can be better calculated to increase the price of silk than the present manner of dressing. A lady’s train is not bought but at some expense, and after it has swept the public walks for a very few evenings, is fit to be worn no longer, more silk must be bought in order to repair the breach, and some ladies of peculiar economy are thus found to patch up their tails eight or ten times in a season.”
One imagines that the delicate muslin trains of the Regency era were as easily wrecked by wear and tear, and that only the rich could afford such an extravagant consumption. There were ways to save one’s train. In 1996’s Emma, Gwynneth Paltrow is seen holding up her train during the dance.
Emma's train is attached to her wrist.
In Northanger Abbey, Jane Austen described how Isabella Thorpe and Catherine Morland pinned up each others trains.
They called each other by their Christian name, were always arm in arm when they walked, pinned up each other’s train for the dance, and were not to be divided in the set; and if a rainy morning deprived them of other enjoyments, they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together.”
1800 sprigged muslin gown. Image @Christies
One can only conclude that trains (or tails, as Goldsmith called them) were an extravagance that the ordinary working woman did not indulge in wearing, for until mass production made cloth more affordable, the added lengths of cloth, plus the constant need for laundering and patching, would make this fashionable feature prohibitively high for most women.
Note: That Isabella and Catherine met “in defiance of wet and dirt” meant something, for shoes and fabrics were so delicate at the time, that ladies tended to stay indoors on rainy days.
Vic,
perhaps it’s just my current view. If I were forced to wear a similar gown, with tail, and even walking carefully I’m sure I would fall in the first ten steps!
Sorry, this is a different topic, but what has happened to “London Calling”? It was a very interesting blog…
I liked it too. Tony deleted it, sadly.
I love the look. However I’ve always wondered how exactly they would continue to wear these dresses with the wear and tear upon them. So I’d imagine you had to have extra fabric left from the original making of the dress? or perhaps they added lace or something to cover the obvious? The loops on the end for carrying is quite handy as it is on wedding dresses today.
Thank you for this post. I’ve wondered about those trains. I can understand a little better not wanting to go out on a “dirty” day. If it meant that you had to spend your month’s pin money to fix the train, one would think twice before taking that risk. Would it have been OK to use the pinning up method for walking about the streets? Adding pattens?
BTW, the book that Jfwakefield recommended on her post today mentioned a catalog of the empire fashions. I found it is available on amazon.com. It is much less expensive than ordering it from amazon.uk.com.
Does anyone know how they would go about replacing the damaged fabric? When I look at the muslin gown, it would seem like you would have to replace the whole back of the dress or at least the skirt for it to look well. Would they have had that much extra fabric? Might they have simply altered the skirt to eliminate the train, or would all gowns have had trains in 1800? (I have seen pictures of gowns with skirts coming to just below the ankles without trains, but am not sure of the timeframe.)