Victorian Combination

Orianna2000 · Jan 22, 2012

Prior to the 1870s, women traditionally wore a chemise and drawers as their basic underwear. Over that would go the corset and petticoats, etc. When fashions became slender in the late 1870s, many women abandoned the bulky chemise and drawers for a slim one-piece garment called a "combination" (because it combined chemise and drawers). It was sometimes known as a Union suit, and I could be wrong, but I believe this was more of a rural American slang.

My question is, if I described a Victorian woman stripping down to her combination (in a historic romance), how many of you would know what I was talking about? I don't want to waste time explaining what a combination is, but I don't want to confuse readers who aren't familiar with the term, either. Right now, she wears a chemise and drawers, because that's what I assumed readers would know, but considering this is Paris, 1881, she really ought to be wearing a combination. So, how many of you know what a combination is?

Siri Kirpal · Jan 22, 2012

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I know what a union suit is, but I would have had no idea what a "combination" was...except that you just told me. I wouldn't use the term unless you explain what you mean first.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Puma · Jan 22, 2012

I wouldn't. I would know what a union suit is (but I usually associated those with men.) What's the definition of skivvies? Would that work? Puma

thothguard51 · Jan 22, 2012

Raises hand, I would not have known unless you described it the first time...

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 22, 2012

Sorry. I know exactly what it is, but I am an accumulator of obscure clothing trivia. Also, I have made my own set. I think you would baffle most readers. This is where visual artists have a real advantage, since on seeing a woman in a combination, most people would instantly recognise it as a common type of Victorian ladies' underwear.

A combination looks like a nightgown that turns into bloomers. Maybe you could do something with that.

Orianna2000 · Jan 22, 2012

Alessandra Kelley said:
Sorry. I know exactly what it is, but I am an accumulator of obscure clothing trivia. Also, I have made my own set. I think you would baffle most readers. This is where visual artists have a real advantage, since on seeing a woman in a combination, most people would instantly recognise it as a common type of Victorian ladies' underwear.

A combination looks like a nightgown that turns into bloomers. Maybe you could do something with that.

One of my hobbies is historical dressmaking, so I've sewn a couple pairs of combinations, too. I had a suspicion that the average person wouldn't have a clue, since I didn't know what one was before I really got into the hobby. Here's how I described it, so far (the woman is looking through a bureau filled with clothing):

I even found several of the new combinations, a one-piece undergarment designed to replace the chemise and drawers.

Does that give enough of a description? Or am I going to run into people who don't know what a chemise and drawers are? I'm trying to avoid a mirror-image description, but it's hard when you have to depict something that most modern readers have never heard of.

thothguard51 · Jan 22, 2012

Somewhat, yes.

I still have no idea what it looks like, but that would not stop me from using my own imagination, which readers do all the time.

CheekyWench · Jan 22, 2012

I think your description line is fine - though I may add italics to combination to set it apart.

Your mileage may vary.

mccardey · Jan 22, 2012

Somewhere waaayyy at the back of my mind is the idea that Noel Streafield had one of the Fossil girls in a garment that their nanny described as looking like combies. I always thought that it was a pluralised word in the same way that "knickers" is. I'd have thought one can have a "combination suit" but other than that, it would be "combinations". Or - combies if you were somebody's nanny...

I could be totally wrong - it's just one of those things I've always imagined I knew.

pdr · Jan 23, 2012

Ah yes.

This is a US/UK thingie.

Never heard of a union suit but combinations, ah yes. And they are pluralised.

Cristin_B · Jan 23, 2012

I've never heard of it, but it wouldn't bother me if I came across the term in prose, as long as the setting gave me at least enough understanding that it was a piece of clothing. I don't think you would need to describe it in detail.

Tom from UK · Jan 23, 2012

I would recognise it (if pluralised) as underclothing. I wouldn't know exactly what it looked like - but would that matter?

Shakesbear · Jan 23, 2012

Made me giggle! Sorry, but this side of the Pond combinations can also refer to male all in one underclothes. My grand dad wore combinations. I have heard of women's undies called combinations. Why not just say she stripped down to her underwear?

Orianna2000 · Jan 23, 2012

Tom from UK said:
I would recognise it (if pluralised) as underclothing. I wouldn't know exactly what it looked like - but would that matter?

I'm wondering if the pluralized form might be a UK/Australia thing, because the historic pattern website I bought my combination pattern from doesn't pluralize it, and when I checked Harper's Bazar, an antique fashion magazine, they just called it a "combination garment". So, either it's a regional thing, or perhaps the name became less formalized over the years. I know some ladies nickname them "combos", but I haven't a clue how period that is.

Shakesbear said:
Why not just say she stripped down to her underwear?

I'm a historic dressmaker by hobby, so getting the fashions right is important to me. Also, because it's a historic romance and I'm trying to immerse the reader in the past. "Underwear" is fairly generic, but to a modern reader it might give the impression of modern underclothing. Too often I've read a book set in the 1800s where the heroine stripped down to her panties while changing clothes or during a love scene. It totally ruined the entire story for me, because "panties" didn't exist until the 1920s or so. Before then, it was drawers or a combination, which both look very different from modern underwear. I don't want to risk any anachronisms, even by implication.

Siri Kirpal · Jan 23, 2012

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I think your passage is fine, but I agree with the other poster that it would help to italicize "combination."

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

mccardey · Jan 23, 2012

Orianna2000 said:
I'm wondering if the pluralized form might be a UK/Australia thing, because the historic pattern website I bought my combination pattern from doesn't pluralize it, and when I checked Harper's Bazar, an antique fashion magazine, they just called it a "combination garment". .

Yes, but I think "combination garment" is fine because combination is modifying garment which is singular. But I suspect that when you shorten the phrase to just the modifier, then it becomes pluralised in the same way as "knickers" or "pants" (because of the doubled nature of the garment).

Someone who understands what they're talking about in linguistic terms would be able to explain this a whole lot better.

ETA: Oh, to answer your actual question - I think it would be a matter of assuming the meaning from context. Not difficult to do.

Orianna2000 · Jan 23, 2012

Siri Kirpal said:
I think your passage is fine, but I agree with the other poster that it would help to italicize "combination."

I thought you were only supposed to italicize foreign words? I don't recall reading any historic novels where period-specific words were italicized, but I could be remembering wrong.

frimble3 · Jan 23, 2012

Orianna2000 said:
I thought you were only supposed to italicize foreign words? I don't recall reading any historic novels where period-specific words were italicized, but I could be remembering wrong.

Perhaps from the L.P. Hartley line: "The past is another country"?

Siri Kirpal · Jan 23, 2012

Orianna2000 said:
I thought you were only supposed to italicize foreign words? I don't recall reading any historic novels where period-specific words were italicized, but I could be remembering wrong.

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

You can italicized any word the reader is likely to misread as something else. It's just a flag saying, "I'm different."

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

mirandashell · Jan 23, 2012

I reckon most readers will have a rough idea what you are talking about with the description.

ULTRAGOTHA · Jan 23, 2012

I would know but I'm not your average reader when it comes to historical clothing. I *hand sew* mine.

Your descriptive sentence looks good to me.

I thought it was combinationS also.

I would not italicize.

Orianna2000 · Jan 23, 2012

frimble3 said:
Perhaps from the L.P. Hartley line: "The past is another country"?

Clever!

ULTRAGOTHA said:
I would know but I'm not your average reader when it comes to historical clothing. I *hand sew* mine.

Your descriptive sentence looks good to me.

I thought it was combinationS also.

I would not italicize.

Goodness, I'd be lost without my sewing machine. I do the important bits by hand, such as buttonholes, basting, hemming, and any embellishments, but it always flares up my arthritis.

Looks like everyone's vote is for pluralized "combinations". Guess I'll tack an s on the end and call it good.

ULTRAGOTHA · Jan 24, 2012

Yeah, well you probably do clothing from eras where a sewing machine existed. I don't, alas!

It was amazing to me to realize that one can see at a glance, once one looks for it, when seams are done by hand or on a machine. Even when the hand stitches are as small as the machine stitches. It really makes a difference when you're competing in a juried demo.

(Military Through the Ages at Jamestown Settlement in Virginia is, in addition to a fantastic weekend of public demos from a multitude of time periods, an historical accuracy competition.)

Orianna2000 · Jan 24, 2012

ULTRAGOTHA said:
Yeah, well you probably do clothing from eras where a sewing machine existed. I don't, alas!

It was amazing to me to realize that one can see at a glance, once one looks for it, when seams are done by hand or on a machine.

I admit to using my machine even for an 18th century dress. But then, I wasn't entering any contests with that one. I do have an antique petticoat from the 1890s that has some hand stitching. It's remarkable how neat and even the stitches are. You almost can't tell the difference.

Since you're a hand-sewer, do you use Butterick's 1911 edition of The Dressmaker? It's a bit late for the periods I'm guessing you sew for, but most of the techniques are still valid. I've learned a great deal from it, and I've found many of its techniques used on extant garments.

Back on topic, The Dressmaker also calls them "combination garments", which I find interesting. Is "combinations" a more recent shortening of the term, perhaps? I find "combination garments" too bulky of a phrase, so I'll stick with "combinations" for my novel.

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 24, 2012

ULTRAGOTHA said:
Yeah, well you probably do clothing from eras where a sewing machine existed. I don't, alas!

It was amazing to me to realize that one can see at a glance, once one looks for it, when seams are done by hand or on a machine. Even when the hand stitches are as small as the machine stitches. It really makes a difference when you're competing in a juried demo.

(Military Through the Ages at Jamestown Settlement in Virginia is, in addition to a fantastic weekend of public demos from a multitude of time periods, an historical accuracy competition.)

Wow! I'm impressed. I handsewed an 1820s-style corded linen corset once. Took forever and drove me batty.

Although, now I think about it, I handsew rather a lot in my art projects.. Machines just don't have the subtlety needed, and I am totally incapable of making them work with knits. So, for example, the second outfit down in my link, which is made of cotton jersey, is entirely handsewn.

Victorian Combination

Freelance Writer

Swan in Process

Retired and loving it!

A Gentleman of a refined age...

Sophipygian

Freelance Writer

A Gentleman of a refined age...

O.o

knows a hawk from a handsaw

Freelance Writer

Swan in Process

Freelance Writer

Heckuva good sport

Swan in Process

Merovingian Superhero

Freelance Writer

Merovingian Superhero

Freelance Writer

Sophipygian