A bodice-ripping revolution: how Victorian women cast off deadly fashion trends

Corsets had been in fashion for centuries, but they became more widespread in the Victorian era. By the late 19th-century, the hourglass corset style emerged and gained popularity. These certainly looked beautiful – with fabrics of cotton, satin, silk, and embroidery adding to the era’s aesthetic that drastically accentuated the wearer’s bust and hips – but their design also put pressure on both those areas, and the stomach.

To create the desired silhouette, women were laced into a construction of whalebone (or reeds and steel alternatives), linen or silk. Eyelets and steel busks (rods that kept the garment upright) enabled the corsets to be drawn even tighter – down to 18 inches in circumference in some circumstances.

How dangerous were corsets really?

All of this put enormous strain on the body. There were cases when women were so restricted by their corsets that they fainted.

In an article looking at the health effects of women’s clothes – published by the British Medical Journal in 1887 – the author notes: “A stout kitchen-maid, aged sixteen, recently under my care, complained of fainting in her household work. The fainting-fits did not recur when the stays were worn looser. This is one of many cases. Cases of women dying in the streets, or even on the stage, attributed to tight-lacing, are often recorded in the daily papers.”

The dangers of corsets didn’t stop there. One cost-cutting method for manufacturers was to add hazardous substances to the fabrics used for corsets. These arsenic-laden dyes may have created vibrant and fashionable green shades, but they also posed significant health problems – from skin irritation to poisoning to even death (if you believe the post-mortem reports).

Cage crinolines – with their distinctive bell-shape – were first patented in 1856 by RC Milliet in Paris and quickly gained popularity. They were made using steel hoops suspended on cotton tape, which helped enhance the size of the skirt and gave the illusion of a smaller waist size.

Much like the corset, crinolines could be hazardous. They were heavy – making it difficult for women to move or walk through narrow spaces and down stairs. The 1862 edition of the satirical magazine Punch highlighted the ‘dangers’ women faced when wearing crinolines. Under the heading “fashion for the fireplace”, the journalist notes the “numerous cases” of crinoline-wearing women having “been burnt alive in consequence of their delightfully wide skirts catching fire”.

• On the podcast | The history of beauty: everything you wanted to know

While corsets and crinolines were physically restrictive, the impact of wearing these items went even further. Women wearing such items were not able to perform ordinary activities in the same way that men could; exercise and outdoor activities were much more difficult for them, with the result that these became far more masculine spheres.

Some feminist scholars have since highlighted how they have been used to control women. Valerie Steele's The Corset: A Cultural History (2001), for instance, makes the argument that corsets have historically worked as a means of disciplining women's bodies, emphasising their vulnerabilities and restricting them in a way that men are not.

Rebellion

From the 1850s, one woman attempted to change how people thought about women’s clothes, advocating for practicality and safety above anything else. Florence Wallace Pomeroy – or Viscountess Harberton – founded the Rational Dress Society in 1881. A keen cyclist, she thought that long Victorian skirts were heavy, impractical and hazardous for such outdoor activities. She championed dress reform and favoured knickerbockers worn under a shorter skirt.

In 1883, the Rational Dress Society funded an exhibition in London. It displayed many practical and groundbreaking garments that denounced the conventional norms of Victorian fashion, and was reported as follows in the 22 May 1883 edition of the North Eastern Daily Gazette:

“The exhibits include a costume for climbing (recommended to lady mountaineers); riding pants with an ingenious arrangement of small pleats at the back set up with elastic; a divided skirt, and polonaise flannel combination garment and silk chemise; a hat weighing one ounce; a complete walking costume, guaranteed "all wool," that weighs only three and a half pounds; a dress for a fancy ball Joan of Arc in full armour and lady's travelling dress that turns in five minutes into a stylish dinner costume and goes into a box ten inches long.”

One year later, in the 1884 pamphlet ‘Reasons for Reform in Dress’, Harberton and her fellows campaigned against tightly-laced corsets, high-heeled shoes, and voluminous skirts. They continually advocated for more health-conscious and practical solutions – such as divided skirts for cycling.

• Read more | How dangerous were Victorian corsets?

The dress reform movement was not without its critics. In 1898, Harberton was asked to leave a hotel because the landlady deemed her ‘rational dress’ attire – a skirt worn over voluminous trousers – inappropriate.

According to the Liverpool Mercury, the landlady “thought it was best in the interests of the good order in her house that ladies wearing rational costumes should not be admitted into the public room, which would be crowded with men of all sorts, some of whom would make jokes at the expense of the lady as to the size of her ankle.”

The case ultimately ended up in court, with the landlady charged with indictment (charges that were later dropped).

A poem published in the United States – in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine in 1858 – even went as far as comparing dress reformers to prostitutes. The American Amelia Bloomer – editor of the Lily, the first dedicated women’s rights newspaper – fought back in her own rhetoric: “Women should not dare to make a change in their costume till they have the consent of men – for they claim the right to prescribe for us in the fashion of our dress as well as in all things else.”

The dress reform movement from the 1850s through to the 1890s was a crucial fight for women’s rights, depicting how fashion could inspire social change. Women like Viscountess Harberton understood how garments like corsets and crinolines were not only physically restrictive, but also represented societal and cultural expectations women were imposed to follow.

Further revolutions in women’s wear would come in the Edwardian era – which saw movements towards freedom for women in other spheres, including political representation – and the First World War, which broadened the possibilities for women further. Yet these reform built on the ground that had been laid by Victorian women who fought back against the restrictive (and sometimes, deadly) fashions.

Mary Girerd is a public historian with twelve years of curatorial experience, focusing on Victorian culture, fashion, and social history