I
THE THRALL OF DRESS

THE PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTION APPLIED TO CLOTHES

The numbers in the text refer to a bibliography at the end of the book

Unluckily, perhaps, we are born naked and helpless, but no sooner do we come into the world than we are provided with body-guards in the shape of clothes. In consequence, our social position is made manifest. Our vanity is flattered at the same time that our modesty is assured. On the other hand, however, our skin may be chafed, our hair worn away, and, should our equipment strictly follow the dictates of the Goddess Fashion, our bodies may even be deformed and our lives shortened. Moreover, there are other penalties to be paid; we are kept warm in summer as well as in winter, the purchase of our attire may entail the spending of much money, while the mere donning and doffing of our clothes gives rise to a prodigious waste of time.

Even tramps have at intervals to replace the rags which cover them, and while, for all practical purposes, every one else takes off his clothes when going to bed and puts them on again when getting up, many of those who are at work in the daytime “dress for dinner” in the evening. Moreover, Society may demand a further expenditure of time on the part of its members, and the rule may be laid down that the higher the standing of a civilized individual, the more often does he change his garments. In fact, more than one monarch, from the way in which he appears in different uniforms at various functions which follow one another in quick succession, has been likened to the now familiar “lightning change artist” of the music-hall stage.

It is thus quite clear that all of us are more or less under the thrall of dress. Those, therefore, who find the position irksome, will gain solace from the interesting investigations which can be made into the origin and development of costume. Others, again, whose clothes already find favour in their eyes, will enjoy looking at them from a different point of view.

As a matter of fact, our artificial coverings have become so much a part of our life that one may perhaps be allowed to apply the methods of the naturalist to their consideration, and deal with them as if they were part and parcel of the creature which wears them.

Darwin established beyond a doubt1 that the plants and animals of to-day are the direct descendants of older and often very different forms, and it is the task and delight of the naturalist to trace their genealogies. Most useful suggestions may be obtained from the small vestiges that remain in the bodies of present-day creatures, of structures which in early times were important and useful organs.

For instance, if the skin be lifted from the head of a “slow worm” we find a third eye, which tells us that once its ancestors, like the giant Cyclops, were able to look out from the middle of their faces.

Again, to take a case which applies to ourselves, and has a melancholy interest for us, one might mention the vermiform appendix. This is a remnant of a great sac which once was useful when our ancestors were vegetarians; now it is worse than useless, for it is very liable to become irritated and give rise to what is known as appendicitis.

So long as a quarter of a century ago Sir George Darwin pointed out2 that the great theory of evolution established by his father could be applied with much advantage to the study of dress, and it will be seen as we proceed that not the least fascinating part of the subject are vestiges similar to those which we have just described, and which have often survived solely for ornamental reasons.

Many of these are so familiar, that in running the eye in the ordinary way over a man’s usual costume, attention would not be drawn to them. There is the band round the outside of his hat and the little bow inside; the nick in the collar of his coat and the more or less useless buttons on his sleeves and back; while we must not forget the curious ornamentation on the toes of his boots, nor the crest on his signet ring.

When, however, an indication is given of the times and peoples to which these trivialities can be made to carry us back, interest is aroused to a remarkable degree. It can also be well maintained, for other clothes present similar quaint survivals for investigation, while the evolution of many individual garments is worth following, and special costumes have been handed down to the present day, practically unchanged.

Fortunately, the student of dress is in a much better position than the naturalist proper. The evidence available when the history of an organism in past ages is being unravelled, is very scanty in many cases. Sometimes the fossil remains recovered from the earth are very perfect and follow one another in unbroken succession, but they usually consist merely of the hard parts of the creatures. The individual development of an organism is also a help, but when the changes which have taken untold ages to perfect, are repeated, as in the case of the chicken in the egg, within the space of a few short weeks, it is not surprising that much is left out and obscured.

Man has existed in a civilized condition for a comparatively short time, and there remain all kinds of records and illustrations, not to mention actual clothes themselves, which can be consulted or examined. Moreover, primitive men in almost every stage of culture are, or were till quite lately, to be found somewhere in the world, and much can be gleaned from them as to the origin and uses of costume.

There is a point that may be borne in mind when seeking for curiosities of clothing, and it is that the more special or ceremonial the occasion, the more ancient or more primitive the costume which is worn. In this connection also it may be mentioned that the dress of the master of one generation may survive as that of the servant in another.

II
THE ORIGIN OF DRESS

In seeking the origin of dress we necessarily assume that once upon a time our primitive ancestors did not wear any clothes at all. Even nowadays, in our own country, at sports, in the ball-room, and on the stage, the garments worn, or some of them, may be reduced to the minimum that the rules of Society appear to demand. There are, moreover, two reasons why very early man did not trouble to dress: first of all, he was covered with hair like the majority of mammals; and, secondly, it is more than probable that his home was within the tropics. (See Plate I., Frontispiece.) The two ideas are quite compatible, for all the great apes—chimpanzee, orang-utan, and gorilla—which are the nearest relatives of man, have been found in the warmer regions of the world, and are well supplied with hair.

It has long been thought that the cradle of mankind is to be looked for in the south of Asia, and it is a striking fact that of recent years the bones of the earliest known creature that can with certainty be called a man (Pithecanthropus erectus) were discovered in Java.3 At the same time it appears that Pithecanthropus, although it walked erect, approximated more closely to the apes than does any more recent human being, and in making a restoration of the type in question, one would feel bound to endow it with a coat of hair. This has since been lost, and, according to Darwin, owing to æsthetic reasons, the members of one sex having chosen as mates those of the other who were the least hairy.

Man also has found his way into most parts of the globe, but he has not always acted with regard to dress in the same way in similar climates. The problem, therefore, which we have set ourselves to solve, proves to be less simple than it appeared at the outset, for great use may be made of clothes in one cold country and not in another, while they may be unknown in certain parts of the tropics, and adopted elsewhere within their radius.

Very often when it is sought to explain a matter, it is found that this can be done in two or three different ways, and it is quite possible that all of them may be correct. This fact may with advantage be borne in mind when seeking for the reasons which lead to the adoption of dress, for the first time, by any particular race.

Perhaps it will help us if we pause for a moment to consider why clothes are worn at the present day. There is no doubt but that in the case of many garments their ornamental character, real or supposed, is the first consideration. Others are chosen chiefly for protection and warmth, while, as already indicated, the rest suffice to satisfy the claims of modesty. Although the three reasons are now intimately combined, it is practically certain that any one of them is sufficient to have led to the adoption of clothes in the first place, and as if these were not enough there may be other contributing, if not actual causes.

We may now consider these matters in detail. It would seem from the study of modern peoples, who are still in a very simple state of civilization, as well as from one of the earliest drawings scratched by the cave-men who were contemporary with the mammoth in France, that ornaments are the most primitive part of dress. (See Figure 1 and Plate II.)

On the West Coast of Africa, where clothes are not a necessity owing to the heat, bracelets are worn in such numbers by the native belles as to cover a large part of the forearm, while anklets rise in succession nearly to the knee. (See Plate II.) Again, in New Guinea the women of some tribes who do not indulge in a single scrap of clothing, still wear ornaments on their heads and round their necks.

There is, however, something to be advanced on behalf of savages that cannot be said for white people who bedizen themselves with jewellery, or bedeck themselves with the feathers of rare and beautiful birds. Uncivilized people have no pockets nor safes in which to keep their valuables, and it comes about that these take a form which permits them to be worn on the person, so that many of the objects which take the place of ornaments—such as teeth, shells, and beads—serve as the currencies of their owners. Even now there are individuals of whom it is said that they “put all their money on their backs,” but, unfortunately for them, it depreciates sadly in value, and cannot be turned to account at a moment’s notice. Furthermore, one naked warrior is very much like another, and chiefs, in order that they may easily be identified, have come to wear certain ornaments just as at the other extreme with regard to covering, knights in full armour carried crests on their helmets and other devices on their surcoats and shields.

Clothes proper are of later origin, and, as we have already mentioned, would only be adopted for protective purposes after man had lost the greater part of his hairy covering.

It is probable that this had happened before the earliest settlers arrived in this country, although the cave-men made their drawings of themselves in the nude, and it is contended that the marks on their bodies are similar to those in the drawings of animals and are not mere attempts at shading, but indicate the presence of hair.

In the first place, man was a hunter pure and simple, and his clothes were made from the hairy skins of his quarry. At the present time the Eskimos are clothed in this way, and there is little doubt but that they are the descendants of the cave-men, who made the striking drawings to which we have already alluded. Their implements, stature, and so forth, all point this way, and the fact that their clothes are merely adopted as a protection against the weather, is shown by the fact that they remove them altogether when in their huts.

We have already said that it does not always follow that even when the climate is cold, complete dress is brought into use. When H.M.S. Beagle visited South America, some of the Tierra del Fuegians wore only an otter skin or some small scrap about as large as a pocket-handkerchief. It was laced across the breast by strings, and was shifted from side to side according to the direction of the wind. Others, both men and women, wore nothing. One of the latter, who was suckling a recently born child, came alongside the vessel in a canoe, and stayed there, out of pure curiosity, while the sleet fell and thawed on her naked bosom and on the bare body of her baby.4

Some races can make very passable clothes by hammering the fibres from the bark of trees into a kind of cloth, while when men took to husbandry and cultivated plants that produce fibres, they learned also to spin and weave materials from which to make their garments. The use of furs has always survived to a greater or less extent, but it is interesting to note that motoring has caused a return to primitive dress as regards external garments, for in order to withstand the air which is met when the car is in rapid movement, fur clothes and leather suits have been introduced, the latter of course being not quite so old in type as the former. It must not be forgotten at this point that climate is not the only enemy that man has had to face, and that armour was a development of dress, intended to preserve him from the onslaughts of his own species.

We have now noticed two ways in which clothes must have been brought into use, namely, as adornments and for protection. We have still to consider the third of the obvious reasons. Modesty is a habit, or one might perhaps call it equally well a fashion, which is so widespread that some have characterized it as being an instinct, and have stated quite wrongly that it is universal. The most curious point with regard to the matter is that very different ideas of modesty prevail in various regions of the world, one part of the body being covered by some people and another by others. Besides, it by no means follows that a naked race is less chaste than one which is clothed.

Although at the present day races exist where only the men cover themselves, it is very likely that clothes worthy of the name were first worn by women, for keen observers have pointed out that men dependent on their skill and speed in the chase would hardly encumber themselves with clothes, though having comely wives they might deem it advisable for them to be protected from the public gaze. This idea is still carried out in Eastern countries, where women cover even the greater part of their faces, and are usually secluded in a harem. As bearing out, however, what we have just said with regard to modesty, it may be mentioned that the peasant women in Egypt are perfectly happy so long as their faces and the backs of their heads are covered, and it is considered even more shameful to expose the latter than the former. The objection made not long ago to the appearance of English women in church without hats may be remembered in this connection.

Painting may often replace clothing, and members of races accustomed to decorate their bodies in this way, are much ashamed if they are seen unpainted. Tattooing also does away to a great extent with bareness, and it is obvious that unclothed black men and women never present such a naked appearance as do lighter-coloured races. In fact, a white man who bathed with a number of coloured people likened himself and his companions to an artificial, blanched, and sickly plant among its healthy dark green fellows.

Doubtless the hair of original man was coloured so as to match his surroundings, and it seems likely that the tint of his skin was reddish. We have now no need for protective colouration (except in war time), and as we do not live in the tropics, we should gain no advantage from being black; therefore pigment is but little developed in our skins, and it has been suggested that clothes sometimes have been adopted by white races for æsthetic reasons apart from their development from ordinary ornaments.

It seems possible, too, that man, upon realizing that he differed from other animals in having no natural covering, set about to provide himself with one.

There is, however, another contributing cause which may have led to the adoption of dress, and this depends on the action of women themselves. They may put on clothes for reasons of coquetry just as on occasion they may modify or discard them. For instance, fashion at a moment’s notice may obscure one part of the body that hitherto was obvious, and at the same time emphasize the natural outlines of others which before were hidden. Again, the bare necks and arms displayed in our ball-rooms afford another case in point.

III
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN COAT

THE ANCESTRAL SHAWL—PROBLEMATICAL BUTTONS

Now that we have considered the origin of dress as a whole, we may turn with advantage to the evolution of individual garments. People are very often pleased to allude to what are called the vagaries of fashion, but it is curious to notice how little real change is made in costume at the present time. The really useful characters are always retained, and our modern clothes can be reduced to a very few types. A skirt is a skirt whether it falls naturally, is held out all round with a hoop, or crinoline, or is only supported behind by what at one time was known as an “improver.” And in the same way it may be said that trousers remain trousers whether they have bell bottoms or are peg tops.

Even types which we recognize as being quite distinct, are often so closely related as to cause surprise when their family history is made known. Although it constantly alters as regards details, which from a constructional point of view are quite unimportant, woman’s dress does not seem to have varied to any very great extent. Consequently, there are not quite so many curious features to be seen as in the ordinary clothes or uniforms of men. On the other hand, however, we may with greater reason hope to find that some primitive characters have survived until the present day.

No article of clothing could well be simpler than the shawl, and though there is an art in its arrangement, the only point in its structure that would appear to invite attention is the presence of a fringe on only two sides. This seems to be a small matter, but it takes us straight back to the time when men had ceased to be hunters merely, and having become agriculturists had learned, as we have already indicated, to weave fibres with the help of simple looms. From the cloth thus made clothes were constructed, though skins continued to be used as outer mantles. When the stuff was taken from these early looms, the threads of the warp were left hanging from two opposite edges, and the fringe that we have now on our shawls is a direct survival of this accidental occurrence.

There seems not the slightest doubt but that we can trace the coat from the shawl. A simple improvement in the latter is to join two edges of the shawl together and make a tunic. Such a tubular garment was used in Greece, and, with some slight modifications, is worn by Egyptian women to-day. It came up to the armpits, was gathered up on to each shoulder and fastened with two brooches. (Figure 2.)

The next stage in development would be a sleeved tunic, and how easily this could be derived from a shawl can be seen by putting a narrow one over the shoulders and lifting up the arms as shown in Figure 3. The material has only to be sewn together under the arms, and if necessary cut into shape.

If the front be not sewn up, we get the coat as we know it; if the edges be joined along half their length or more, then we have a sleeved tunic, a shirt, or vest (see Plate III). The smock-frock (see Figure 4) and gown are more voluminous, while the jersey is short again, and has only a small opening at the neck. An interesting garment is found among the costumes of the Bronze Age chieftains of Denmark and their wives, which have been preserved in the oak coffins of these people, owing to the action of tannin from the wood which has preserved the woven material.5 The article in question belonged to one of the women, and though the front edges are joined for a short distance, it is practically a jacket. The sleeves are made all in one piece, and the garment is very nearly as highly evolved as the Cardigan jacket, which it very much resembles. (See Figure 5.)

It is by this time clear, that several important garments are the descendants of the shawl, which is still used by men in the British Isles under the title of the plaid, or maud.

Though differing, of course, in detail, the upper garments of men and women agree in general construction. One of the points alluded to is worthy of mention, namely, that the buttons on a man’s coat are on the right side and the buttonholes on his left, while in the case of women’s attire the exact opposite is found—at least, so far as one can ascertain—in European countries. In the East, the little knobs which are passed through loops and take the place of buttons, may in the women’s dress be on the right side, and in other Asiatic costumes the same thing holds good. In connection with this peculiarity, it may be pointed out that men and women have different ways of doing up buttons. The man takes hold of the button with his right hand, puts his left thumb into the buttonhole and pushes the button against it. Then he pulls the stuff over with his right forefinger and pushes the button through with his right thumb while he guides it with his left.

The woman, on the other hand, puts her right thumb through the buttonhole, takes hold of the button with the fingers of the same hand, and finally, if the other hand is at liberty, brings it up to finish the process. (See Figures 6 to 11.)

To explain the difference in the position of the buttons is not by any means easy. In the correspondence which has arisen out of lectures which the writer has given on the evolution of dress, it has, in the first place, been suggested that the arrangement of his clothing permitted a man to thrust his right and fighting arm into his jacket in order to keep it warm. This explanation, of course, does not account for the variation in the case of women.

Dr. Lyman, of Baltimore, has submitted the theory that a man wearing a loose cloak, toga, or plaid, would grasp it with the left hand and thrust the left side over the right so as to leave the right-hand free in order to hold a weapon or implement. A woman would grasp her attire with her right hand, and push it over the left side and leave her left arm unencumbered, wherewith to carry a child. It would, however, seem more natural for the right side to be pulled over the left, but it is unlikely that a man would fight in a loose cloak, and the toga was only worn in times of peace. Moreover, the jacket, as we have seen, was developed from the cloak through the tunic. A tunic was worn under the toga, and as the only loose edge of the latter lies in the same way as the buttonhole side of a man’s coat, it is feasible that the edges of the tunic beneath would for convenience be made to lap the same way.

To turn to women’s dress, it is customary, as Dr. Lyman says, to carry children on the left arm, and they are allowed to suck the left breast to a greater extent than the other. The left side of a bodice could, if the right lapped over it, be pulled back without exposing so much of the person as if the reverse held good, and in the case of tightly-fitting clothing, if the buttons have to be done up with the right hand alone, the task is made easier. Another interesting little point of difference between the clothes of the two sexes is, that while the buttons on a man’s wristbands are on the thumb side, those of a woman are on that which corresponds with the little finger. This arrangement is no doubt correlated with that previously discussed, but the reason for it is not obvious.

IV
BUTTONS AS CHRONICLES

EPISODES IN THE LATER HISTORY OF THE COAT AND CUFFS

We have gained some insight into the development of garments as a whole, and no doubt it is now obvious that the little details of construction will prove by no means the least attractive part of our subject. It has become customary to refer to a button as typifying something of specially small account, though very often much may depend in practice upon one of these despised articles.

We have already shown that the mere position of a few buttons that are still useful, may raise most curious points, and in the present chapter we shall proceed to investigate some episodes in the later history of the coat which have left their mark upon it, to a great extent in the shape of useless buttons. This topic will be dealt with in some detail, so that it may serve as a guide to those of our readers who may be induced to undertake the fascinating study of survivals in dress. Afterwards, the general survey of modern clothes will be continued, and here and there lines of research will be indicated, while some problems will be left for our readers to solve. In the second part of the book, it is intended to deal with a certain number of costumes which have been handed down to us as they are.

At the present time there are usually to be seen two buttons on the back of civilians’ coats, except in the case of lounge suits and dinner jackets, and there may be four or more on the great coats of policemen (see Figure 12) and on the tunics of some soldiers. The first question which we will endeavour to answer is, Why are they there? The two upper buttons in the case of uniforms are now used to support a belt, and at first sight it looks as if they were originally intended for this purpose. Their adoption in other cases might then be put down as a survival from a time when civilians carried swords. Unfortunately for this theory, it can be shown that the sword-belt was not necessarily worn outside the coat (see Figures 18 and 19).

We must therefore look round for further evidence, and we find that those coats which bear the pair of buttons, have a slit up the middle which gives rise to the skirts or tails. This arrangement carries us back to the time when there were no railways and few conveyances; when men commonly travelled on horseback and their whole attire was adapted to this end, so that they were ready for the saddle at a moment’s notice. The division in the coat which we are considering, allowed one tail to fall conveniently on each side of the horse after its rider had mounted it.

In long overcoats of to-day we find only a short slit, left for convenience in walking (see Figure 13); but it has a special interest for us, as in connection with it there are two or three buttons and buttonholes, usually hidden, which allow of the opening being closed up.

Here, then, we have buttons on the back of the coat still serving a useful purpose, and it is not at all difficult to trace the series of fastenings back to a much longer one, which in the seventeenth century was quite obvious. (See Figure 14.)

Each button and buttonhole was placed in the middle of similar pieces of lace or embroidery, so that the sides of the coat were made to look symmetrical. The object in view was the keeping of the skirts of the coat together when the wearer was not on horseback. At the present day the buttons have been duplicated and are on both sides of the coat, and they are still sewn to ornamental pieces in the uniform of the Grenadier Guards. The presence of the lower buttons on uniforms and coats is therefore explained. It might be assumed that the topmost button had also been doubled and raised above the slit, and that in this way we have obtained the two ornaments on the back of our coats.

Before accepting such a solution of the problem, however, it may be well to see if the buttons may not have had another origin; and on looking for some clue we find that two folds take their rise from the point where the buttons are situated. These may be expected to throw some light upon the question. The folds are now permanent, but on a voluminous coat, such as still used by horse soldiers, they can be produced temporarily (see Figure 15) by setting the two buttons further apart and running a tab from one to the other. Sir George Darwin has attempted to carry the history of these two buttons still further back.6 He has expressed the opinion that each is one of a pair that originally kept in place a small tab at the side of the coat, and so helped to produce a waist when required. (See Figures 17 and 18.)

In some drawings of coats (see Figure 18) the side tabs and their corresponding buttons are shown in addition to those on the back of the coat.

There is, however, evidence to show that the buttons were originally on the sides of the coat, for they are so wide apart as to be to all intents and purposes in that position, on the uniform overcoats of the London Electric Tramway drivers. (See Figure 16.)

They may well represent the topmost buttons of the lateral series, still found on the overcoat of the members of the Corps of Commissionaires. In this case there are three buttons on each side, of which the middle one is used for fastening the side-pocket.

It is worth while to consider side-pockets, which in their turn are remnants of lateral openings which were made in coats at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the following centuries. The sword-handle conveniently protruded through the left-hand slit, which, like its fellow, ran from the waist to the lower margin of the coat or stopped half-way. (See Figures 18 and 19.) In the latter case, the arrangement very much resembles the vertical pocket which has become common again of recent years. (See Figure 20.)

Occasionally a tab, such as that to which reference has been made, kept the parts of the coat together; but often there were buttons and buttonholes, at least at the upper end of the openings. These survive in several cases, such as in the overcoat of the commissionaire, while the pocket is sometimes represented by a mere flap (see Figure 21) ornamented with buttons as on the livery of certain footmen.

To sum up the matter, the topmost pair of buttons has come from the fastenings of the side slit and the lower ones from those of the back slit. Buttons on the skirt behind have in the meantime had a very intimate connection with the evolution of the “swallow-tail” coat (see Figure 24). They were used to fasten the corners of the ordinary riding-coat together, so that the linings should not be injured by the sweat of the horses. (See Figure 22.)

Mr. Deane Butcher tells me that he can remember this buttoning back being done in the case of his uncle, when the latter rode to market or to church; but in this case it was the two uppermost buttons which were again brought into use. At dances the coats were also subjected to similar treatment, and what at first was a temporary condition afterwards became a permanent one. It is obvious that the turned-back lining would often be of a different colour from the outside of the coat, and facings on old uniforms, and in that of the present dress of a lord-lieutenant (see Figure 23) are derived from the practice of fastening the corners of the coat together. In the “swallow-tail” the outer corners have been cut right away. (See Figure 24.)

The buttons, in the interesting cases which we have described, have been allowed to remain as part and parcel of our costume on account of their decorative character, and in a great measure the same is true of those on coat cuffs (see Figure 25). In many cases there are proper buttonholes, and it is possible to undo the sleeve buttons; but occasionally the arrangement has degenerated and the buttonholes are imitations or only the buttons remain.