# data[].attributes.body
Emphasized shoulders and hips

Large sleeves

Early 1830’s the sleeves puff at the shoulders, by 1836 the puff moved to the forearm

Patterned materials

# data[].attributes.body
Large hats

# data[].attributes.body
Hair styles were elaborate

Involved curls and ribbons

# data[].attributes.body
Large coats

Brass buttons

Carried canes

# data[].attributes.body
There are four kinds of coats which a well dress man must have

business coat

frock coat

dress coat

overcoat

# data[].attributes.body
"The dress of a gentleman should be such as not to excite any special observation, unless it be for neatness and propriety. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid even the appearance of desiring to attract attention by the peculiar formation of any article of attire, or by the display of an immoderate quantity of jewelry, both being a positive evidence of vulgarity. His dress should be studiously neat, leaving no other impression than that of a well dressed gentleman."
Martine's Handbook of Etiquette, 1866

# data[].attributes.body
Dress & speak to impress

Always be respectful and curtious to ladies

# data[].attributes.body
Ladylike

Never lift dress off floor unless absolutely necessary

“When tripping over the pavement, a lady should gracefully raise her dress a little above her ankle. With the right hand, she should hold together the folds of her gown, and draw them towards the right side. To raise the dress on. both sides, and with both hands, is vulgar. This ungraceful practice can only be tolerated for a moment, when the mud is very deep.”
#actlikealady

# data[].attributes.body
"In passing through a door, the gentleman holds it open for the lady, even though he never saw her before. he also precedes the lady in ascending stairs, and allows her to precede him in descending."
Polite Society at Home and Abroad, 189
#chivalryisalive

# data[].attributes.body
Upon seeing a lady, always raise a hat for acknowledgement

Acknowledge everyone, even those you dislike

“One should always recognize lady acquaintances in the street, either by bowing or words of greeting, a gentleman lifting his hat. If they stop to speak, it is not obligatory to shake hands. Shaking hands [between a lady and gentleman] is not forbidden, but in most cases it is to be avoided in public."
Our Deportment, 1881

# data[].attributes.body
Respectful to men and their gestures

Speak softly and never undermine men

Never address a man without being introduced

#malesuperiority

# data[].attributes.body
“Keep up appearances whatever you do"
Charles Dickens in Martin Chuzzlewit, 1843
#looksmatter

# data[].attributes.body
“Gentleman began wearing more practical fabrics such as wool, cotton and buckskin - shapes and drapes changed as well. Limited availability of fine textiles during the French Revolution, along with the fear of looking aristocratic enough to be delivered to the guillotine, were partially behind this swing toward a more sedate silhouette.” Historical Emporium

# data[].attributes.body
As seen in Huck Finn, Col. Grangerford was the epidemny of a gentleman, both in mannerisms and appearance.
“Col. Grangerford was a gentleman, you see. He was a gentleman all over; ...he was clean shaved every morning...and every day he put on a clean shirt and full suit from head to foot made out of linen so white it hurt” (106).
#ColGrangerfordisaboss #beast

# data[].attributes.body
"...on Sundays he wore a blue tail coat with brass buttons on it. He carried a mahogany cane with a silver cane” (106).

# data[].attributes.body
“There was ever no frivolishness about [Col. Grangerford], not a bit, and he warn’t ever loud” (106)
#gentleman

# data[].attributes.body
“When [Col. Grangerford] and the old lady come down in the morning, all the family got up out of their chairs to give them a good day, and didn’t set down again till they had set down” (106
#famfirst #loyalty #respectful

# data[].attributes.body
“Tom and Bob went to the sideboard where the decanters was, and mixed a glass of bitters and handed it to him, and he held it in his hand and waited till Tom’s and Bob’s was mixed, and then they bowed and said “Our duty to you, sir, and madam;” (106)

# data[].attributes.body
Upon meeting Aunt Sally, Tom adressses her in the respectful and expected way for the time period.
“When [Tom] got afront of us, he lifts his hat ever so gracious and dainty, like it was the lid of a box that had butterflies asleep in it and he didn’t was to disturb them...”(228).

# data[].attributes.body
Southern Hospitality is a phrase used to describe the sterotype of residents of the Southern United States as particularly warm, sweet, and welcoming to visitors to their homes, or to the South in general.
When Tom tells Aunt Sally he will walk to Nichols’s, Aunt Sally replies, “But we won’t let you walk-it wouldn’t be Southern hospitality to do it. Come right it” (229).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Growing up in a small town in south Georgia-so small and bucolic, even finding it on the map is a challenge-I was raised to believe that hospitality isn't a choice. It's more of an institution in my household, where we abide by Southern rituals and customs beyond swinging on the front porch, sipping on sweet tea, and gathering together on Sunday for a sit-down potluck supper.

While most would define Southern hospitality as being neighborly and welcoming family, friends, and, yes, even strangers into our homes, the catch-all term comes with myriad definitions. In fact, one survey conducted by Twiddy narrowed it down to six definitive qualities, with politeness and down-home cooking topping the list, as well as the Southern states that are the most (and least) hospitable. Here, we explore those six primary characteristics of Southern hospitality that are as consistent as our famously hot summers.

Politeness

Despite what society says, there's still a place for manners in the South. Before most children are taught how to spell or how to count, they learn these few magic words: "yes, ma'am," "no, sir," "please," and "thank you." The idea is that if we're taught at a young age how to be polite, it'll carry us through the rest of our lives as adults. And because we love company and, admittedly, talking, conversations with loved ones and guests are never rushed. The motto of the South is "What's the hurry?" and that is certainly reflected in the way (and pace) in which we speak and engage other people.

Good Home Cooking

Entertaining and delicious food go hand in hand in the South. Most Southerners know how to whip up a warm peach cobbler or a classic Hummingbird Cake. We make no apologies for loving our tub of lard and embracing tradition in the kitchen, often preparing time-tested recipes passed down through generations. Our thinking in the South is that one dish is never enough because you never know when you'll have unexpected guests or relatives for dinner. And you can rest assured, a slow cooker or cast-iron skillet is almost always involved in cooking comforting and soul-satisfying food emblematic of the South.

We treat our guests like they're family in the South. As the saying goes, "There are no strangers, just friends we haven't met yet." And we extend this kindness to everyone, forming lifelong connections and opening our homes and hearts. The most powerful gesture of kindness in the South is often a simple handshake, where a good, firm grip still goes a long way here.

Helpfulness

You can forget about fixing your own plate or helping with the dishes as a guest in a Southern home. We take pride in preparing a home-cooked meal, serving company, and cleaning up once we hang up our hosting hats. We're gracious enough to lend a hand to our neighbors, and we're always willing to offer directions if you're lost on some old back road. That is, if you don't mind hearing a few stories or settling for navigation guided by town landmarks.

What some deem as charming is just the natural Southern way of being kind, witty, and considerate to everyone we encounter, whether it be at the post office, grocery store, or church. Having grace under pressure and making others feel welcome and comfortable is also part of the Southern charm. Yes, we take our pleasantries very seriously in the South, and we hate saying goodbye to guests who come over. But eventually, we're willing to wave them off as a polite host should.

The golden rule in the South is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, without expecting reciprocation. Southerners don't give or dole out favors as an obligation, but we do it out of courtesy, respect, and mere habit, in hopes that you'll return again and again.

Most Hospitable Southern States

While the South is known as being a friendly and hospitable region, a few states stand out as being a little more welcoming than others. The survey lists Georgia as the most hospitable state, followed by Louisiana and Texas. The least hospitable states, according to the survey, are Mississippi, Connecticut, and Kansas. If you're looking for the best home cooking, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky earn the honors. The most polite folks can be found in Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Alabama.

Guide to Southern Hospitality

Whether navigating a potluck, a Southern wedding, or unexpected guests, you may find you need to brush up on the rules of etiquette. After all, you don't want to be the topic of discussion at the next neighborhood potluck. Check out our etiquette and manners tips to make sure your Southern hospitality practices are up to date.

Regardless of how you define Southern hospitality, there's one thing we can all agree on: In the South, there's truly no place like home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Qualities That Define True Southern Hospitality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One survey narrowed down the characteristics of Southern hospitality to six qualities, with politeness and delicious home cooking topping the list.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Text by Andrew G. Gardner
Photos by Dave Doody

Many a modern mother and father brood about the matches their sons and daughters will make. Whom will the kids bring home to meet them? Will there be tattoos? Nose rings? The anxiety is quickened by the feeling that society has been on the road to ruin since maybe Miles Standish's day and that the prospects of their offspring walking the path to the altar with a nice young man or sweet young woman have greatly diminished since John Alden and Priscilla Mullins made the trip. Not a few parents pine for the courtship rules and rites of, let us say, those halcyon colonial times, when, as they understand it, propriety tempered ardor, virtue checked passion, and abstinence made the heart grow fonder.

"Distance," as Thomas Campbell wrote in 1799, "lends enchantment," and two centuries later, for many worry-ridden parents, the perfect courtship model follows in the footsteps of Jane Austen's smoldering Mr. Darcy and the demure Miss Elizabeth Bennett, where ne'er a lusty thought or word between them passed. But the rituals of Austen's Pride and Prejudice -idealistically drafted in 1796-as shining examples have long since been passed over, and courtship, that delicate art of hooking a prospective mate and playing the fish all the way to a preacher, is all but dead. Leon Kass of the University of Chicago says that nowadays "for the great majority, the way to the altar is uncharted territory: It's every couple on its own bottom, without a compass, often without a goal. Those who reach the altar seem to have stumbled on it by accident."

It may be that the traditional route to conjugal correctness-chaste courtship, formal engagement, church wedding, consummation, and parenthood, in that order-is less traveled. But historians say the modern, mixed-up, anything-goes form of bonding that includes physical intimacy and permanent or temporary cohabitation, with children born in or out of wedlock, is not altogether different from some of the practices of segments of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century populations.

As far as chaste courtship is concerned, the good old days have been overrated, almost as mythical as the Standish-Mullins-Alden triangle that Longfellow invented. Blame human nature if you like, but for want of a better phrase, hanky-panky was as prevalent among some eighteenth-century folks as it is among some of the twenty-first's. Beyond doubt, most people stayed strictly within the bounds of propriety, but in the mid to late 1700s, more than one girl in three was pregnant when she walked down the aisle. In parts of Britain, 50 percent of brides were great with child.

Court records are a trove of intimate tittle-tattle and gory details that shamefaced ladies and gentlemen would have preferred to keep private. Lawsuits transcend social class, and the documents of the disputes leave the impression that all the way up to the lesser gentry, there was dirty linen.

For upper-class English and Americans, keeping up appearances was paramount, and heaven forbid that a daughter should tie the knot with, in the vernacular, a bun in the oven. The family would be mortified. Of enormous concern to quality folk was the social standing of a child's potential mate. In Romeo and Juliet tradition, status, property, and wealth were the dealmakers or the dealbreakers.

In early colonial days, marriage might have little to do with the emotional entanglement of two young people. Emotions were fickle and not to be trusted. Romantic love did not figure in the parents' equations, and it was not until about the middle of the eighteenth century, when parental influence began to decline, that the concept of love got serious consideration as a matrimonial prerequisite. Today, love is popularly considered the reason for a marriage, but for the best part of 150 years, colonial marriages among the gentry were arranged in the same way that they are still agreed upon in parts of the world. The higher up the colonial ladder of success and status, the greater was the pressure for the children to marry well. The survival and consolidation of the families' power and prosperity were at stake. Courtship and marriage were arrangements that would be of mutual benefit to the families. Love would have to wait.

There were instances when young women and men tried to circumvent the order of the day. But any red-blooded young male who independently set his cap at a particular young lady and approached the parents with a view to instigating a formal courtship was in for a hard slog. Influential relatives had almost complete control of the course of events. The lad had to sit at the negotiating table with the young woman's parents or guardians and show that financially he had what it took to keep his future wife in the style to which she was accustomed. The wealth that he could bring to the table came from his kinsfolk: the ones who could promise money, land, and support.

The problem was that a swain eager to start a household of his own often had to wait until his father or guardian saw fit to dispense his property in the son's favor. Sometimes a younger son or daughter could not be betrothed before his or her elder siblings. In such situations, couples had to wait into their late twenties before formally entering the connubial state-which some historians say created fertile ground for extracurricular shenanigans, broken promises, and court battles. For the more unfortunate, if the parents disapproved of their son's choice, they could veto the alliance.

The woman's father was expected to provide a dowry. The well-heeled were aware that there were scurrilous and ruthless fortune hunters looking to ensnare wealthy heiresses. Often, negotiations fell apart. For some couples there was heartbreak; for others, resignation. And for a couple determined to buck tradition and marry without the blessing and support of their families, it was a choice between love and money.

For the lower end of the social scale, property was not such a problem. There was not much. That made romance less of an ordeal. Since the Middle Ages, it had been accepted in England that a couple could have a common law-in effect, a do-it-yourself-marriage arrangement, and as immigrants flowed into the New World, they brought the custom along. The arrangement was a spoken marriage contract-in Latin verba de praesenti -taken alone or before witnesses. For couples that could not secure their families' blessings, this was a consolation.

You joined hands and declared that you took each other to be a lawfully wedded spouse, and lived together. Henceforth you were man and wife. This short but sweet ritual went by the name "handfasting" or "spousal." Parental permission did not enter the picture. No priest, minister, magistrate, or license was called for, although it was not unusual for blacksmiths to officiate-the anvil becoming a symbol of where long-lasting unions were forged.

The ceremony could as easily be performed in a field, a garden, an alehouse, or, as was often the case, in a bedroom. What could be easier, or more open to abuse? It's easy to imagine a libidinous youth promising in a few words to have and to hold in order to secure his wicked way with a young country maiden, later to renege on the deal.

Sometimes these affairs ended happily, sometimes not. For young girls, it was prudent to hide a couple of friends in the closet to secretly witness the pledges and forestall backsliding. They could be summoned to give evidence in a breach of promise case if the young suitor was less than honorable and had turned his eye elsewhere. There are in court records countless stories of such skullduggery.

For spousals that were genuine and well intentioned, there was often the gift of a bent coin or half a broken silver sixpence to cement the union. The new husband would keep one half, until death did them part-or he did a runner and disappeared.

There was a version of the contract called the spousal de futuro, which was something like a modern engagement-a marriage contract to be consummated at a later date. If, as was often the case, the couple jumped the gun and began living together, and the girl became pregnant, the contract automatically was bumped up to a full-blown marriage, and the couple became man and wife in their neighbors' eyes. To colonial communities, pregnancy made the marriage.

By the middle of the eighteenth century, parental control was on the wane. There was a spike in the illegitimacy rate. The old fire and brimstone Puritans like Phillip Stubbes would have been shaking their heads and assigning blame where they thought it belonged ...on dancing:

Dancing, as it is used (or rather abused) . . . is an introduction to whoredom, a preparative to wantonness ...and all kinds of lewdness. For what smooching and slabbering one of another, what filthy groping and unclean handling is not practiced everywhere in these dancings?

From the top to the bottom of the social scale, dancing featured in colonial courting-as it does today. But there is perhaps another reason for the increased waywardness of the age, the adoption and practice of bundling. If the Puritans thought dancing was bad, bundling must have set their black hats ablaze with fury.

"Bundling" is a word that you will not find in Dr. Spock or any other modern parenting manuals. In the eighteenth century, bundling was roughly equivalent to a night out with a hot date in a Chevy back seat at a mid twentieth-century drive-in, except that the cavorting took place at the girl's home and more often than not was encouraged by the parents. It is a subject that intrigues academics, and their conclusions make for interesting reading.

It's said that the precedent for bundling came from the biblical story of Ruth and Boaz, in which Ruth, a young widow, and Boaz, a wealthy landowner, spend a night together on a threshing room floor and go on to become husband and wife.

Bundling, or bed courting, as it was also known, was introduced to the American colonies by the early flood of Scots, Welsh, and other European immigrants. Doubtless, the cold, damp nights of their northern climes contributed to its popularity. Bundling under the covers panders to a certain Scottish thriftiness toward winter heating bills, as an eighteenth-century ditty confirms:

Since in a bed a man and maid,
May bundle and be chaste,
It does no good to burn out wood,
It is just needless waste.

A bishop congratulated the devil for promoting bundling because it was "the smartest thing he's done since he put the snake in the garden." For today's parents, the idea of bundling takes some adjustment. Mom and Dad may be okay with sleepovers, but bundling adds a dimension.

The idea was that if a couple was seriously courting, it should spend a night together in the girl's bed to ensure compatibility. There were ground rules: underclothes must be kept on at all times, parents would retire to their own bedroom, and there should be no hanky-panky. To that end, the bundling board or the bundling sack might make an appearance. The bundling board was a large plank placed between the two lovers. It has to be said that as a form of contraception it is suspect. The bundling sack was like a double sleeping bag sewn up the middle.

Bundling ensured that when, as happened regularly, the young girl became pregnant, there would be witnesses to hold her suitor to account and to make sure that the marriage knot was tied good and proper. These young adults were not saints. Temptation and opportunity yielded the inevitable result. Marriage by a spousal contract or in the church followed, the community accepted the offspring, and life went on in much the same way as it does today.

Andrew Gardner, who writes on Canada's Salt Spring Island, contributed to the summer 2007 journal an article about veterinary medicine and practices of old.
Suggestions for further reading:

J. A. Leo LeMay, ed., Robert Bolling Woos Anne Miller:Love and Courtship in Colonial Virginia, 1760 (Charlottesville, VA, 1990).

G. R. Quaife, Wanton Wenches and Wayward Wives (London, 1979).

Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America (New York, 1984).

Lawrence Stone, Uncertain Unions and Broken Lives: Marriage and Divorce in England, 1660-1857 (Oxford, 1995).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Text by Andrew G. Gardner Photos by Dave Doody Many a modern mother and father brood about the matches their sons and daughters will make. Whom will the kids bring home to meet them? Will there be tattoos? Nose rings?

# data[].attributes.body
- no sexual contact before marriage
- intelligence or any interest in politics was not desired
- walk apart from the male in the courtship
- no interaction with a man at her home unless there was a family member present
- courtship with one from the same social status
#marriageispolitical #noloveherefolks

# data[].attributes.body
Flirting was done with signals from her fan:

Fan fast: Not looking for a relationship
Fan slow: I’m engaged
Fan with left hand in front of face: Leave me
Fan open and shut: Wanted a kiss
Fan half open: Friendship

#flirtatiousfanning

# data[].attributes.body
Allowed courting couples to share the same bed, but required them to be fully clothed and with a “bundling board” between them or a cover that tied around the woman’s legs
#handstoyourself #chastity #roomforjesus

# data[].attributes.body
“Etiquette requires us to admire the human race” Johnson #respect #crossyourlegsladies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 1830s was another transformative decade in 19 th century fashion. Like the 1820s, it was a span of years which stood between the Regency era (1811-1820) and the Victorian era (1837-1901), providing a bridge from the often extreme, gigot-sleeved confections of the 1820s to the tight-sleeved, form-fitting bodices of the 1840s. The 1830s was also the decade in which the pendulum of fashion swung from large, ornate sleeves to large skirts embellished with various pleats and trimmings. Or, as fashion historian C. Willett Cunnington describes it, the decade in which women's gowns moved from the "exuberantly romantic" to the "droopingly sentimental."
*Please note: These are primarily visual guides - fashion CliffsNotes, if you will. For more in depth information, please consult the recommended links.
1830

Beginning the decade, sleeves were still en gigot. Gowns were low in the waist and, if worn for day, were often adorned with a belt and buckle or a sash tie. Skirts were ankle-length and scantily trimmed. Below is a perfect example of this variety of gown. It is a peacock blue British carriage dress with gigot sleeves, made of silk and trimmed with a belt and metal buckle.

Evening dresses of 1830 were typically cut low off the shoulders. Sleeves were short and full. Skirts were generally ankle-length with trimmings and ornamentation beginning at the level of the knee, as illustrated by the silk evening gown below.

1831

According to C. Willett Cunnington, belts and "deep gilt buckles" were still very popular in 1831, as evidenced by this beautiful, printed cotton day dress.

Evening dresses were "less square across the bosom" and tended to be drawn down the center or crossed with drapery or trimmings. Sleeves in eveningwear were large even when short and were often in the "beret" or "double bouffante" style. The below image of evening dresses from 1831 clearly shows the belted silhouette, full, short sleeves, and plain skirts which were in fashion. Note that the skirts are embellished with one line of trim at the knees and no more.

This same style can be seen in the below paintings. Both show belted waists, off the shoulder gigot sleeves, and plain skirts. The right portrait is an example of a short, puffed sleeve with a sheer net oversleeve.

1832

Day dresses for 1832 changed little from the previous year. Sleeves en gigot were still quite popular in all their variations. Meanwhile, skirts were gradually becoming longer and wider. C. Willett Cunnington states that as a result of the increase in material, the hem of the skirts was stiffened with flannel or muslin to preserve the shape of the pleats. The increase in the size of the skirts and the pleating is evident in the below image of an 1832 printed cotton day dress.

For evening, bodices were cut low and off the shoulders. Double bouffant sleeves were still in fashion as were "soufflet sleeves," which Cunnington describes as being "very short and full with separated puffs." Short, puffed sleeves with sheer oversleeves continued to be a favorite. The below portrait by Friedrich von Amerling provides a lovely example of this style.

The below image of an 1832 evening gown highlights the fashion in full skirts and short sleeves with separated puffs. This gown also has a slightly pointed bodice - a feature which began to be quite popular that year, especially for evening dresses.

1833

Moving into 1833, Cunnington reports that "the skirts are now of the most extravagant and ungraceful width; the pleats doubled and often trebled." He also remarks on the sudden popularity of the "pelisse-robe."

The 1833 edition of The Court Magazine and Belle Assemblée gives an example of a pelisse robe, as illustrated by the lilac/blue carriage gown at far right. This image is described in the magazine as follows:

"A pelisse robe of lilac gros des Indes, a plain high corsage, adorned down the centre of the front with white fancy silk trimming, a row of which descends from the waist down each side of the front of the skirt, in the form of a broken cone. The centre of the skirt is ornamented with knots of satin riband to correspond, laid at regular distances on a satin rouleau. Satin ceinture tied in a bow, and short ends before."

In other respects, gowns were relatively unchanged from the previous year. Pointed bodices continued to be very much in favor for evening dress. And belts and ribbon bows round the waist were still all the rage, though occasionally a lady might replace her belt with a decorative cord and tassel.

Meanwhile, ball gowns were frequently trimmed with lace along the neckline and sleeves. The 1833 issue of The Court Magazine and Belle Assemblée contains many images of this popular style. I have included two of them below. The Court Magazine describes the dresses on the left as follows:

"Blue watered silk façonnée rayée with tulle and satin folds on the body, and blonde to fall all round, blonde sabots, chip hat with three blue feathers. Yellow satin dress with a black blond cap and bows of riband, black blonde sabots. - Head-dress of black blonde and riband."

1834

As we advance into 1834, Cunnington reports that bodices "are high and close to the shape." Skirts were relatively plain and still quite full. Waists were now primarily round, but could occasionally be pointed. Meanwhile, the gigot sleeve continued its reign of popularity - though you will note that, in some styles of gowns in 1834, the sleeves were not reaching the enormous proportions of the late 1820s and early 1830s. This is illustrated by the rather modest sleeved wool gown below.

1835

Entering 1835, bodices remained plain for day dresses, with wrapped fronts popular for morning gowns. Skirts continued to be full and were often heavily pleated. You can observe several fashionable trends at work in the wool and silk afternoon dress below. It is set off the shoulders with a wrapped front, pleated skirts, and gigot sleeves with a puff that ends at the elbow. The remaining fabric on the sleeves is then pleated from elbow to wrist.

The gradual changes in gigot sleeves continued throughout 1835. According to Cunnington, the sleeves were now frequently "set in lower than formerly with narrow longitudinal pleats at the shoulder." The Court Magazine and Belle Assemblée of 1835 also mentions that sleeves were "less puffed out than usual" and "not quite so large." An example of these pleats, as well as of the reduction in the bulk of the sleeves, can been seen in the evening dress below.

1836

In 1836, the ever-controversial gigot sleeve shrank dramatically. It was so much reduced that, by the summer, people were proclaiming that the era of the gigot sleeve was completely at an end. Cunnington quotes an unnamed 19 th century source who, upon the demise of the gigot sleeve, declared:

"The only absolute rule is to flatten the sleeve on the shoulder and banish forever the memory of those enormous artificial balloons which gave to the delicate form of female beauty a breadth proportionate to Holbein's Dutch women."

Meanwhile, the skirts were still full and the length remained short enough to reveal the foot. For daytime wear, pelisse-robes which fastened down one side in a series of ribbon knots were the height of fashion. While for the summer, pelisse-robes with open skirts and one or two flounces became a favored style of gown.

For evening dress, open robes over an under-dress were also very popular. The 1836 issue of The New Monthly Belle Assemblée printed a detailed description of an "open robe" style gown with a corresponding image. It reads as follows:

"Evening Dress - Petticoat of India muslin, trimmed with a single flounce, embroidered round the border and surmounted with embroidery. Open robe of the same material, low corsage, square behind, and descending in the demi coeur style in front; it is drawn in with a little fullness round the waist, and is bordered by two folds, through which pale pink ribbon is ran; the space between the folds is beautifully embroidered in a lace pattern. The same trimming descends down the fronts of the dress, and round the border. Long sleeves, bouffanted at the top, tight in the centre, trimmed above the elbow with a double bouffant, which descends below it, and from thence to the wrist quite tight. The sleeve is ornamented with embroidery, and a rosette of pink ribbon.

Bodices were still cut low and off the shoulders in 1836. Short sleeves were very short, frequently worn "close to the shoulder" and long sleeves were tight to the arm or, as Cunnington states, made with "a series of small bouffants." Dresses were trimmed with blond lace, ribbon knots down the front, or ribbons on the sleeves.

1837

As 1837 commenced, gowns began to have longer skirts and much tighter sleeves. Embellishment on the sleeves was still common with some having puffs or bouffants on the upper arms or knots of ribbon on the shoulders. Short sleeves were also tight to the arm, but they were often so heavily trimmed with tulle, lace, and ruffles that they appeared to be much fuller than they actually were.

For daywear, bodices remained plain and tight to the shape and, as Cunnington reports, the bosom was sometimes partly open, revealing the chemisette beneath. The pelisse-robe was still popular, especially when trimmed down the front with knots of ribbon. And for morning dresses, many ladies wore a Fichu Corday - a piece of grenadine gauze worn like a shawl to cross over the bosom and then tie behind.

The 1837 edition of The Ladies' Cabinet of Fashion illustrates the Fichu Corday in the image of a Visiting Dress at right. This ensemble is describes in the magazine as follows:

"The robe is composed of one of the new mousselines Cachemires; the corsage is half high, square, fitting tight to the shape, and a little pointed at the bottom. Long tight sleeves, made to fit the arm; they are trimmed with manchettes of white grenadine gauze, disposed in a double bias fold, and set on just above the elbow, being headed by a band and knot of pink ribbon; plain tight cuffs en suite, ornament the bottoms of the sleeves. Rice-straw hat; a low crown without any curtain, and a brim of excessive depth, standing quite out from the face; a band and knot of pink ribbon, and a sprig of white lilac, decorate the crown. Fichu Corday of grenadine gauze; it is bordered by a broad hem, through which a pink ribbon is run, and the ends, tied at the bottom of the waist behind, fall low over the skirt."

Evening dresses changed little from the previous year. Bodices were still cut low and off the shoulders. Skirts were long and full and sometimes trimmed with a flounce of lace. Open robes remained very popular. An example of an 1837 open robe style evening dress is below. Note the fall of lace on the short sleeves, the double flounce of lace on the hem of the petticoat, and the ribbon belt at the waist.

1838

Entering 1838, Cunnington reports that there was a preference for open necks in day dresses. Meanwhile, skirts remained full and pleated at the waist.

Pelisse-robes were still in fashion for daywear, as were fichus, which were now worn with both day and "demi-evening" dresses. Note the open necks on the day gowns below which reveal a glimpse of the underlying chemisette.

For evening dress, sleeves were tight and short, coming just to the elbow. They were often trimmed with falls of fine lace. Bodices were still cut very low and off the shoulder with waistlines tapering down to a point. This particular style of pointed bodice is evident in the 1838 Eduard Magnus portrait below.

1839

By the close of the decade, Cunnington reports that the lines of ladies' gowns continued to slope downwards so as to "accentuate the appearance of drooping." Bodices were longer, tighter, and came to a point at the waist. Sleeves were set below the shoulders, which made it difficult for a lady to raise her arms. Cunnington states:

"The general effect is to produce long pointed Gothic angles, emphasized by the acute points of shawls and mantles."

For evening dress, the 1839 issue of Godey's Magazine describes a fashionable ball gown of the season as having a pointed waist, both back and front, with very short sleeves in two small puffs, trimmed with frills of blonde lace. As was common in 1839, the bodice was also trimmed with lace, going round the "bosom of the dress" and "deep in the shoulders and at the back." Godey's describes the open robe skirts of this ball gown as being trimmed with bouquets of "full blown roses" and "wide white ribbon."

Alas, Godey's did not include an accompanying image. Fortunately, the below portrait by Franz Xaver Winterhalter provides a beautiful example of the sloping silhouette and excessive lace trimming which was so prevalent in the evening gowns of 1839.

So many subtle changes over the course of a decade can be a bit hard to take in. With that in mind, I present you with a side-by-side comparison of an 1830 gown and an 1840 gown to better illustrate the fashion journey we have been on together throughout this decade.

In closing...

I hope you have found the above overview to be helpful in navigating your way through the fashionable gowns of the 1830s. Again, I remind you that this is just a brief, primarily visual guide. If you would like to know more about the changes in fashion during the 1830s, I encourage you to consult a reliable reference book. The following links may provide a starting point:
Nineteenth Century Fashion in Detail by Lucy Johnston English Women's Clothing in the Nineteenth Century by C. Willett Cunnington
I leave you with this 1834 caricature by César Hipólito Bacle which satirizes the balloon-like properties of many gowns of the early 1830s.
Sources
The Court Magazine and Belle Assemblée. Vol. II. London: Edward Bull, 1833.

The Court Magazine and Belle Assemblée. Vol. VI. London: Edward Bull, 1835.
Cunnington, C. Willett. English Women's Clothing in the Nineteenth Century. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1939. Godey's Magazine. Ladies' Cabinet of Fashion. New Monthly Belle Assemblée. Vol. V. London: Old Boswell Court, 1836. Vol. XI. London: G. Henderson, 1837. Vol. 18 - 19. Philadelphia: Louis Godey, 1839.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 1830s in Fashionable Gowns: A Visual Guide to the Decade | Mimi Matthews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1830s was a bridge between the gigot-sleeved confections of the 1820s and the tight-sleeved, form-fitting bodices of the 1840s.

# data[].attributes.body
Early 1830s hair was parted in the center and dressed in elaborate curls, loops and knots extending out to both sides and up from the crown of the head. Braids were fashionable, and were likewise looped over either ear and gathered into a topknot. #middlepart

Bonnets with wide semicircular brims framed the face for street wear, and were heavily decorated with trim, ribbons, and feathers.

Married women wore a linen or cotton cap for daywear, trimmed with lace, ribbon, and frills, and tied under the chin. The cap was worn alone indoors and under the bonnet for street wear.