This beautiful glass-beaded purse was most recently displayed on the footstool in the master bedroom of Dalnavert Museum. The precise beadwork on both sides features plum-coloured flowers, pinky-red roses with green leaves, and white beads that frame the floral design in a stripe formation. The purse’s shape is rectangular, but the bottom of the purse flares outwards, likely so as to create more room inside. The strap is a double-braided cord, tied together in two knots on the sides and connected to the purse by small metal loops. The purse is secured by a double closure: a flap front is held shut by a corded loop and a large black bead, while a metal clasp beneath the flap keeps the purse’s contents safe. The flap is lined by a cord made of the same material used to close the purse. Inside, the purse has one large compartment that is lined with black fabric. Dating from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, this purse is in nearly perfect condition: the beads appear untouched, the strap looks new, and only a few loose threads are visible.

Women’s purses and handbags became popular in the eighteenth century, though bags had, of course, been around for centuries. A drawstring pouch that dangled from a belt was used by both women and men from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries.¹ Similar to lavender bags, women’s ‘sweet bags’ (filled with perfumed herbs to fend off bad smells) were introduced in the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth century, prior to the introduction of the purse or handbag, women used pockets to carry their belongings. While today’s modern pockets are sewn into our clothes, pockets were originally designed as separate pieces of fabric that women knotted around their waist to stay put. Women accessed these pockets through small slits in the skirts of their gowns. At the time, fashionable women wore gowns that were wide, flouncy, and large in volume, which allowed them to store necessities in their pockets without worrying about the pocket showing.² Though hidden beneath their clothing, these pockets were often decorated with fancy stitching or ribbons.

In the early 1800s, however, women’s fashion changed and flouncy, poofy dresses gave way to tighter fitting dresses. Unfortunately, this meant that even small pockets could not fit under their dresses without being noticeable and unflattering. This is why women began using delicate drawstring bags called reticules:³ these were small, but could fit “a handkerchief, fan and dance card, a scent bottle, [or] some face powder.”⁴ However, these reticules were not immediately appreciated by all women. Given that women’s pockets had been worn both under a woman’s gown and against her skin, they were considered undergarments.⁵ Caroline Cox notes that “these early handbags were… daring, one of the first examples of underwear as outerwear.”⁶ These purses were consequently seen by some as scandalous, and to many women, they were an inconvenience in comparison to their beloved pockets, which they had worn under their dresses and which they did not have to worry about losing. Some female commentators rallied against these new handbags because they were impractical and inconvenient. They wanted to have functional pockets built into their clothes, in the same way pockets were built into clothes for men. As the curators of the Women’s Museum explain, “for these women, pockets for men and handbags for women became symbolic of the inequality between the sexes and the struggle for women’s equal rights.”⁷

Despite the existence of concerns, purses became more widely used and accepted in the course of the nineteenth century and they also improved in quality and functionality. Dalnavert’s black beaded purse (one of several purses in the Museum’s collection) was a newer type of handbag than the reticule, with a metal clasp and a flap closure rather than a simple drawstring closure. Like the elaborate beading, the tight metal clasp on this purse, which makes it difficult to open, suggests that the purse was created more for show than for everyday use. Stylish and carefully-made items of dress and accessories were, as Madeleine Seys notes, a marker of “identity, class… and fashion.”⁸ A beautiful-looking handbag was an effective way for a Victorian woman to show off her social status and wealth as well as her taste. As Seys observes, “in the Victorian Era… women and men alike wore their status on their often lavish, embellished sleeves.”⁹ Some women even did the handiwork featured on their purses themselves, allowing them to display their accomplishments in practices such as beading, embroidery, and netting. Unlike today, when purses are often mass-produced, many purses in the Victorian era were carefully handcrafted, making purses even more special and meaningful, as each one was an original.

A purse was more than just a beautiful accessory or a convenient way to transport items. A purse is a valued object that secures its owner’s privacy, storing personal and intimate items, such as feminine hygiene products, cosmetics, identification, and trinkets of sentimental importance. Public places in the Victorian era were male-dominated spaces, and purses were linked to “women's consumption and property, work, [and] their mobility.”¹⁰ Women often carried money in these purses, which, “depending on their race and class position as well as… proximity to towns and markets,”¹¹ allowed married women to make purchases without their husbands being present. Further, purses were a place of privacy for women, a safe space even, as purses were “one of the few spaces under female control.”¹² For these reasons, this beaded purse symbolizes a step towards equality for women. Purses gave women a sense of ownership, individuality, and privacy, as well as independence from men. While this beaded purse may strike some viewers as nothing more than a beautiful accessory, it played a central role in securing a Victorian woman a sense of privacy, independence, and security in public places that were widely viewed as the domain of men.