Although there is a tendency to abolish stays, it does not, of course, prove that on occasion they may not be of use. Mr. Heather Bigg, the well-known surgeon, who is a specialist in cases of spinal curvature, and who adopts mechanical means of treatment,57 is in a position to offer an opinion on the use of corsets, as he uses special ones as precautionary means of support and where curvatures may threaten, as well as to be safeguards against relapse after the mechanical treatment of a curvature has been consummated. In one of his books he has much to offer in favour of the corset, and at the outset it may be well to say that Mr. Heather Bigg’s remarks are mainly directed against the views of the practitioner who, from the treatment that he advises, is called a gymnastic practitioner, and who, according to Mr. Heather Bigg, goes further than attacking matters of treatment, and in order to popularize his own practice endeavours to entwine with it revolutions that shall extend even to the simplest garments. For instance, the gymnastic practitioner maintains that corsets are detrimental to health.

Mr. Heather Bigg’s opinions practically are those with which most sensible people would entirely agree. The arguments which he brings forward in favour of them are not, however, very conclusive, as we hope to show. Corsets, he says, are intended in their right and proper use simply to stay and support the body in its natural shape, and not to mould it into funny forms according to the vagaries of fashion. The women of classic times did not use them for this purpose. On the contrary, they had no reason to do so, as their flowing garments did not permit them to display the outlines of their figures; they therefore simply wore corsets because it had been found by centuries of experience that they were conducive to health and serviceable in exertion.

His description of the original corset of Greece and Rome will show to what ancient form of stay the modern corset may be traced. The arrangements of the ancients consisted of three pieces, and these were worn either together or separately, as required. They consisted of supporting bands worn round the body in a way very similar to the “putties” worn for support round the legs by the present-day soldiery. The main and most useful portion of the corset was a zone, or loin band. Then there was the thoracic band, or strophion, intended to uphold the breasts and conserve the figure. And, lastly, there was the waistband, which filled up the space between the other two. It is from the conjunction of these triple bands that the modern corset has been evolved, as it is worn by women of every class throughout civilized Europe to-day. What was made before in three pieces is now simply manufactured in one.

Now let us consider the reasons given by Mr. Heather Bigg as to why “women of all dominant and civilized races always wear, and with advantage have worn, some binder or corset”; and again, why the whole history of the world shows that extraneous support is beneficial. In the first place, Mr. Heather Bigg says that in primitive and aboriginal races that practically wear no clothes, the girls may be perfect in form when they arrive at their full growth, but that they are, as a rule, “hideous objects of disfigurement after their first child.” The inference is that civilized women retain their beauty in later life owing to the fact that they have worn stays. On the other hand, the fact that the native girls lose their beauty must, according to the argument, be because they have not worn stays; but surely this can be compared with the fading of a flower or its changing colour after fertilization, and is rather due to the absence of any conditions or kind of selection which would tend to preserve the woman’s youthfulness. Besides, we need go no farther than our own country to find cases where married women gradually lose their beauty, and the Welsh and Italian women proverbially age rapidly.

The wearing of belts by navvies when they are doing heavy work is possibly a precautionary measure against strain, but it does not refer to the race as a whole, and one would take it that when it is said that Elijah girt his loins in order to run before the chariot of Ahab, it simply means that he fastened up his flowing garments. To the second question as to history showing that extraneous support is beneficial, Mr. Heather Bigg says that the answer is simple even if Darwinian. He may claim that the “if” saves him, though unintentionally, for in his argument he seems to ignore the main principles of evolution. He says, first of all, that it might just as well be asked why any clothing whatsoever should be found requisite by civilized mankind. He claims rightly, and so far he is in keeping with Darwinism, that man, according to his obvious mechanism and morphology, is a creature built on the quadruped pattern. The word is spelt “quadrupled,” though presumably this is a printer’s error; but he goes on to say that this building was done with the intent that his body should be horizontal instead of vertical. Of course, the body of the original quadruped was horizontal; but in the course of evolution such changes were made as enabled man to occupy an upright position. Mr. Heather Bigg talks as if it was an intentional act on the part of man when he says that he “managed to rear himself in a permanently erect position, and as he has chosen the upright position, so he has to experience some of the penalties attached to it.”

The state of affairs is this: man became perfectly well fitted for an upright position, and his internal organs were arranged quite properly for progress on two legs instead of four, although Mr. Heather Bigg claims to the contrary. What may be the case is, that natural selection no longer acts to keep man as perfectly constructed as he was, or to improve him, and some human beings may need support, owing to weakness or the undue development of their bust, just as those of us who suffer from short sight and bad teeth take advantage of eye-glasses and the skill of the dentist. We think it hardly time yet to say that all women need stays, any more than that we all need eye-glasses or should be provided with false teeth at a certain age.

Summing up the matter, when human beings take up work for which their bodies were not specially evolved, or when they wish to do things which at one time all human beings could do, but which, through the cessation of the action of natural selection, they are not now able to do, then they want help. This would explain why our soldiers when marching in South Africa found puttees so useful, as Mr. Heather Bigg maintains.

The case of dress brought forward by Mr. Heather Bigg is exactly a case in point. We have seen in the opening chapters of this book that man has lost his hairy covering, and, so far as cold climates are concerned, we must agree with Mr. Heather Bigg that it has been found by experience that clothing is necessary for healthful warmth. All the same, we should like to see some experiments tried to show whether even now it might not be quite possible to exist in this climate with little or no artificial covering. We do not agree at all with the statement that as man “has reared himself from four legs on to two, so he has found by similar experience that some sort of bandaged support is required in order to assist an abdominal mechanism that is inadequate for biped progression.”

In order to prove that the gymnastic practitioner is wrong when he says that corsets are injurious to health, Mr. Heather Bigg brings forward the results of experiments made by Professors Roy and Adami, which he says scientifically prove stays to be distinctly beneficial. These experiments were described at the British Association Meeting in 1888, under the title of “The Physiological Bearing of Waist-belts and Stays,” and the effects of these contrivances were tried not only upon men, but upon animals. It was shown that a gentle compression of the abdomen caused a greater flow of blood to other parts of the body, and conduced in consequence to an increase of mental and muscular activity. The experimenters do not seem to have waited to see whether in the course of time these effects were or were not obtained at the expense of the digestive organs, but they concluded that they had directly explained “the beneficial and extensive use of some form or other of waist-belt by all nations that had passed beyond the stage of absolute barbarity.”

The theory has been advanced that stays are derived from swaddling clothes, and that the custom has survived in the case of women alone, for we may neglect the occasional use of such garments by men in the past at the present time, for, judging from advertisements in the papers, their use is not confined to the fair sex. There seems, however, little evidence in support of this theory, and inquiry from a lady who has lived a long time in Palestine has elicited the information that while swaddling clothes are still in use in the Holy Land, stays do not form a part of native dress.

The other part of the body which nowadays appears to be deformed to the greatest extent is the foot. It seems to be considered absolutely necessary, if one is to appear elegant, for one’s toes to be pointed in such a way that the apex of the angle is in the middle of the foot instead of on the inner side; and although the two points are probably unconnected, we might here mention the idea that in a perfect foot the second toe ought to be longer than the great toe. This would make the extreme end of the foot a little nearer the middle line, and in Art the second toe is represented as being the longest in accordance with the Greek canon. These proportions were copied from the Egyptian representations, and the original is probably to be found in the negroes, according to Sir William Flower. The latter points out that the longer our big toe is, the further we are removed from apes; and he found, too, that amongst hundreds of bare and therefore undeformed feet of children in Perthshire, which he examined, he was not able to find one in which the second toe was the longest. These children would, of course, belong to the lower classes, and it would be interesting to know whether the same thing holds good in higher social circles when the foot remains normal. It may be well to remember that Sir William Flower was a surgeon, for Mr. Heather Bigg, who tilts with the gymnastic practitioner once more on the subject of boots and stockings, expresses somewhat different ideas upon the question. He alludes to the two classes of people in the British Isles who habitually discard boots and stockings—the fisher-folk and factory girls in some of the large Scotch cities. He says that he scarcely likes to be ungallant about the latter, but commends the adult feet of both of these classes to the inspection of those who would draft their children into the “bare-footed brigade.” He continues as follows: The truth is that the feet of those who have been unbooted till they have reached adult life are splayed and spread, large-jointed, and very generally deformed from all approach to the ideal foot as it is depicted by the greatest painters, or modelled by the greatest sculptors.

We have seen that the ideal foot of the sculptors is probably not a true ideal from an evolutionary point of view, and there is no doubt but that the ideal foot would be the one produced under natural conditions in which we cannot include boots and stockings. We should take it, however, that the stones of the seashore and the floor of a factory are not the ideal surfaces on which to habitually tread.

There is no doubt but that the deformities caused by shoes are often very great, and Sir William Flower sums up the matter in the following sentences:—“The English mother or nurse who thrusts the tender feet of a young child into stiff, unyielding, pointed shoes or boots, often regardless of the essential difference in form of right and left at a time when freedom is especially needed for their proper growth and development, is the exact counterpart of the Chinook Indian woman, applying her bandages and boards to the opposite end of her baby’s body, only with considerably less excuse; for a distorted head apparently less affects health and comfort than cramped and misshapen feet, and was also esteemed of more vital importance to preferment in Chinook society. Any one who recollects the boots of the late Lord Palmerston will be reminded that a wide expanse of shoe leather is in this country, even during the prevalence of an opposite fashion, quite compatible with the attainment of the highest political and social eminence.”58

After all, it is generally what our eyes are accustomed to that we consider to be right and fitting. The broad-toed shoes that were adopted in the reign of Henry VIII look clumsy to us; but so did the pneumatic tyres of bicycles after we had got used to the look of the narrow solid ones. It is not so much the wearing of boots of course, but the kind of boots that has to be considered.

The high heels of shoes add to the evil effects of the pointed toes, and a copy of a drawing from an advertisement figured by Sir William Flower recalls strongly the stunted foot of a Chinese woman which the wearer of the shoe would be one of the first probably to anathematize. This brings us to the malformation which has been caused through many centuries in a country that can claim a good deal of civilization, and is produced by special bandages after a long and very painful course of treatment.

There is very little evidence of alteration in the form of the head having been practised in this country, though one or two skulls have been found, and there is a tradition that the custom prevailed not very long ago in Norfolk. In France, however, it was well known until recent years, and even it may not have now become extinct. There are plenty of records in the works of early writers with regard to the practice, and some of the North-American Indians still follow the fashion of their fathers. The Chinook Indians flatten the skull between boards so that they get the name of Flat-heads, and other tribes produce an elongated skull by constructing bandages of deer hide. Deformation of the head seems to have little effect on the free-living American Indians, but the same statement does not hold good among Europeans. According to the reports of French physicians, they have traced all kinds of troubles to the practice.

If we have little evidence of head-deforming in this country by means of compression, we meet occasionally with prehistoric skulls which have been trepanned, and have had inserted into them a small piece of extraneous bone. It is curious that such an operation could have been successfully made when there were probably no instruments of metal with which it could be done, and one might well ask what object could possibly have been in view, especially as the individual so treated had met with no accident that could have rendered the operation necessary. It appears, however, that the piece of bone was probably that of some dead relative, the idea being that the incorporation of it in the head of the young man would give him the qualities of the chief who had departed. It is this notion which probably led to cannibalism. When a brave warrior was slain, his conqueror thought that by eating a small piece of him he might add his adversary’s prowess to his own, and no doubt when a respected relative died it was thought that his good qualities would pass to those who ate a portion of him.

Besides the alterations that have been permanently made in the shape of the body, there are many curious instances where clothes themselves have been utilized for the purpose of apparently altering its shape. We have seen that Punch’s curious figure is due to a costume, while the stuffed breeches adopted in the reign of James I, the great farthingale of Elizabeth’s reign, the hooped petticoat of Queen Anne’s, and the crinoline of the nineteenth century are instances of fashions that originated with or without apparent reasons.

Just as Mrs. Aria discovered what she terms the ancestress of the straight-fronted specialité corset on a bas-relief of a female figure from one of the mysterious forest cities in South America, so Mr. Rhead has reminded us of the festal dress of Otaheite which Captain Cook figured in his “Geography.”

Our grandmothers in their crinoline may have looked like walking hay-cocks; but the young women of Otaheite who carry presents from one person of rank to another look as if they were issuing from an immense drum. It is nothing new to make up deficiencies with padding that is intended to deceive, and while at one time our countrywomen may have made themselves flat-chested with the help of leaden weights, some, judging from articles which we now see displayed in the shops, are willing to call to their aid artificial contrivances which give the appearance of plumpness to their bust.

When speaking of padding, one might recall the fact that the most usual place in which it is to be found—in civilians’ clothes at least—is on the shoulder. This reminds us of the way in which sleeves were sometimes puffed up above the shoulder. The protuberance thus formed, Dr. Meyer tells us, was originally intended to prevent weapons from slipping off when they were carried over the shoulder. The fashion has since, however, been adopted in civilian costume both by men and by women.

XXXVI
FURTHER EFFECTS OF CLOTHES ON THE INDIVIDUAL

MENTAL EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT CLOTHES—PREFERENCES OF GIRLS FOR CERTAIN ARTICLES OF DRESS—MOVEMENTS THAT DEPEND UPON THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CLOTHES

Putting on one side the special points of detriment which clothes bring about with regard to the body, we may turn to more general effects. Our language is full of proverbial sayings as to the way in which clothes may give beauty, and also as to how much we owe to fine feathers and to our tailors. Quite apart from the results which clothes have upon other people, there are the mental effects which are produced on ourselves. That it is not, perhaps, comfort or discomfort altogether which causes our body to react on the mind, is shown by the results of some investigations made by Dr. Louis W. Flaccus among the schoolgirls of New York.59

Feelings of lightheartedness are the result of filmy clothes, and one girl of eighteen said that whenever she had on a garment of this consistency she always wanted to dance. The pleasant mental effects of gauzy stuffs and laces are said by the investigator to be due not only to their lightness, but to the mental associations with which they are connected. Such dresses as those which we have mentioned suggest some gay social function. Again, just as the putting on of a smoking jacket suggests relaxation to a man, so does the assuming of evening dress impart the idea that correct behaviour is necessary. Heavy clothes bring about mental depression.

“In a large, heavy hat my spirits are low,” says one of the girls who were interrogated, and Dr. Flaccus claims that the mood may change with the hat, while that he has evidence to go upon will be seen from the following answers: “A broad hat makes me feel jolly”; “If my hat is flat on my forehead, I feel depressed”; “If I have a fancy hat on, I am in a coquettish mood”; or again, “I feel brighter in a hat that rolls away from my face.” Then the effect which certain surfaces have upon various persons has to be taken into consideration when dealing with this aspect of the subject, for clothes are made of very different materials. To touch a blanket will set some individuals’ teeth on edge, and an irritable mood may result when rough material rubs against the skin. Again, while one person feels chills running down her back when she touches velvet, another will delight to feel a velvety surface. Another remarkable thing which Dr. Flaccus has brought before us is the striking difference between the preferences which girls have for certain articles of clothing.

Most of the girls to whom the questions were addressed put shoes first; gloves came very close, then neckwear, hats, underwear, jewellery, and ribbons; and though this may not fit in with the ideas of the humorists on the subject, the weakness for hats was shown to be less than one-third that for gloves.

Speaking of the effect that clothes may have upon the action of people, we may recall the way in which skirts and trousers may give rise to different habits. If one drops anything into a boy’s lap he instinctively brings his knees together to prevent the object thrown from falling between them; whereas a girl would throw her thighs apart in order to make a receptacle with her frock. Advantage has been taken of this fact by those who wished to discover whether a person with whom they were dealing was a woman, or a man masquerading in female attire.

More than one novelist has enlarged on this theme, and Mark Twain has used it effectively in the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” The occasion is when the hero visits Mrs. Judith Loftus at St. Petersburg, in order to find out what is going on with regard to the murder. Mrs. Loftus, whose suspicions were aroused, got the boy who was dressed up as a girl, to thread a needle, to throw a bit of lead at a rat, and having gained some evidence from these two experiments, she tried a third.

She says, “Keep your eye on the rats; you had better have the lead in your lap handy.” Huckleberry’s story continues: “So she dropped the lump into my lap just at that moment. I clapped my legs together on it, and she went on talking, but only about a minute. Then she took off the hank (he was holding some yarn), and looked me straight in the face, but very pleasant, and said:

“Come, now—what’s your real name?”

“Wh-what, mum?”

“What’s your real name? Is it Bill, or Tom, or Bob, or what is it?”

XXXVII
THE RISE AND FALL OF FASHIONS

REASONS WHY FASHIONS ARE FOLLOWED—GAY CLOTHES SEEN WHEN PERIODS OF DEPRESSION ARE OVER—CONDEMNATION OF FASHIONS BY THE CLERGY—QUAKERS—SUMPTUARY LAWS—THE KILLING OF FASHIONS

The rise and fall of fashions is a matter that affects every nation and practically every individual, for savages are quite as much harassed and tortured by them as any civilized people are. Fashions are perpetuated, as Herbert Spencer has pointed out, by imitation, and from two motives which are widely divergent. It may be prompted by reverence for the one imitated, on the one hand, or by a desire to assert equality with him. In the beginning, no doubt fashions arose with an idea to improve upon nature, though notions as to ideals of beauty must have been hazy in many cases.

Fashions have been advanced as evidence in support of the proverb that there is nothing new under the sun, and the way in which some of them come round again goes a very long way to prove it in the case of clothes. Luckily some enormities seem to have died out, but in the light of past history we can never feel quite safe, and we never know, on the other hand, where some slight change which in itself seems novel may not lead us to ridiculous extremes. Of course, many garments and styles are importations from other countries. The pelisse came from Persia at the time of the Crusaders, just as the kimono was brought in recent times from Japan. Fads and peculiarities and even deformities of Royalty, as we saw in the case of the peruke, have introduced fashions. The crinoline, according to all accounts, was first devised to hide the shape of a princess. Perhaps no other contrivance has brought more nuisance in its train or had more ridicule poured upon it; but it is only one instance of many fashions that have been carried to excess. It is true, as we shall have occasion to mention, that in earlier times laws were enacted to restrict the size of ruffs and the length of the toes of shoes, but often with little effect, and when shape and size did not occupy attention, the costliness of the garment caused restrictions to be made, while the clergy seem never to have ceased from inveighing against the follies of fashions.

In the twelfth century the devil was represented by an old illustrator in the costume of a fine lady with the long hanging sleeves and tightly laced bodice of the time. A hundred years later English preachers took exception to laced openings through which ladies showed their costly under-linen, and dignified them with the name of “gates of hell.” In the twentieth century ministers in the United States have wasted their time in scolding the lady members of their congregations for wearing fancy stockings. Sometimes, on the other hand, the clergy themselves have laid themselves open to criticism with regard to the gorgeousness of their apparel.

Periods of depression have been followed by fashions of the gayest. We may recall the times of Charles II, when England breathed again after the civil wars. After the French Revolution, when the reign of terror was over, the Merveilleuses went back to the dresses of antiquity, such as the Athenian costume and that of the Lacedemonian girls, whose tunics were slit down the sides from the hips. When this was not done the skirts were looped up on the left side above the knee with a cameo brooch. (See Figure 168.) One writer records a wager in which a lady betted that her dress, including trinkets, did not weigh two pounds. She afterwards retired and took off the dress, which was weighed, and the whole costume turned the scales at a little over a pound. One of these dresses went by the name of the “female savage,” and consisted of a gauze chemise over pink fleshings, with golden garters. It is not surprising that such costumes, like others before, brought down upon them the condemnation of the Church, and the following “bull,” dated at Rome on the 16th October, 1800, is reprinted from The Times of January 28th, 1801:—

“The Pope, so long engaged in reducing the Gallican Church within the Catholic pale, has not been negligent of the duty of recalling the female form within the petticoat and the handkerchief. After speaking in appropriate terms of the present scarcity of clothing, and of the sensations it may excite even in the withered bosom of a monk, and quoting the authority of St. Clement of Alexandria, His Holiness strictly enjoins his officers, civil and ecclesiastical, to repress, by fine or corporal punishment, according to the circumstances of the case, these crying enormities. He directs, too, that their punishment should be extended to such damsels as though at first sight they appear properly attired, are nevertheless decked in transparent robes, and with a voluptuous and magnificent attire display themselves in very seductive and tempting attitudes. Moreover, fathers, husbands, heads of families, who weakly or negligently permit their wives, daughters, servants, etc., to trespass against these rules, shall not escape with impunity. Also, all taylors, haberdashers, milliners and men-milliners, hairdressers, and others who contribute to these enormities of dress shall in no wise pass unpunished.” The bull goes on to state that “all priests, confessors, overseers, churchwardens, and others shall in no wise admit such delinquents to the Holy Supper; that they shall not allow women improperly dressed to enter the church, and if they come they shall be driven out, and if they resist, the higher powers shall be required to lend their aid.”

It is said that a Russian nobleman who was used to judge the position of ladies by the amount of furs and clothes that they wore, on seeing an English lady in a costume of the merveilleuse style offered her money in the belief that she was a beggar.

Fashions may have a special significance, as in the case of bell-bottom trousers of the costermonger, for it is said that by the cut of these garments the progress of the wearer’s courtship can be traced. When he first “walks out,” the bottoms of his trousers are of such an ample size that only the toes of his boots can be seen. As matters proceed and the wedding comes into view, the trousers assume more moderate dimensions below the knee, and when at last the man is married he is content with a bell of quite modest proportions, with what a writer in one of our comic papers describes as an almost total absence of “sauciness” in the cut of the garment.

The lengths to which women will go in their desire to appear in the fashion, even if they are not, is shown by the business which a lady in New York is said to have founded. According to all accounts, she deals in nothing but discarded Paris waistbands—that is to say, those which bear the names of well-known dressmakers. Women in plenty in New York will buy these little strips of silk in order to have them stitched into their own dresses, to give their friends the impression that their garments were made in the French capital.

Laws intended for the good of trade have brought in fashions, as in the case of the statute cap. The very objections made by religious sects such as the Puritans and Quakers, who have departed from extravagance and superfluity, have given rise to new fashions of plainness. Even Quaker ladies must have shown their love of dress, for at a meeting in 1726 the following message was sent by some of the stronger-minded of them to their fellow-women:—

“As first, that immodest fashion of hooped petticoats or the imitation, either by something put into their petticoats to make them set full, or any other imitation whatever, which we take to be but a branch springing from the same corrupt root of pride. And also that none of our ffriends accustom themselves to wear their gowns with superfluous folds behind, but plain and decent, nor go without aprons, nor to wear superfluous gathers or plaits in their caps or pinners, nor to wear their heads drest high behind; neither to cut or lay their hair on their foreheads or temples.

“And that ffriends be careful to avoid wearing striped shoes or red and white heeled shoes or clogs or shoes trimmed with gaudy colours.

“And also that no ffriends use that irreverent practice of taking snuff or handing a snuff-box one to the other in meeting.

“Also that ffriends avoid the unnecessary use of fans in meeting, lest it direct the mind from the more inward and spiritual exercises which all ought to be concerned in.

“And also that ffriends do not accustom themselves to go with bare breasts or bare necks.”

Perhaps in a minor way superstitions also have tended to keep up fashions. At a wedding, for instance, it is always said that a bride should wear

The enactments, however, which were directed against excess in dress do not seem to have always been so successful. The part which the law has played with regard to dress in our own country has been very considerable, and it may be of interest to consider briefly one or two of the so-called sumptuary laws.

In Edward III’s reign the people were ordered to dress according to their station, and those who were not of high rank were forbidden to use expensive furs and ornaments. These orders were so neglected that Henry IV revised and strengthened them. Slashed sleeves at the time of Edward IV were prohibited to yeomen and any one below their rank. Legislation was also introduced to lessen the preposterous length to which the toes of shoes had grown, for it was enacted that not even the gentlemen should have them of a greater length than two inches.

The Recorder of Chester shows the following order made by Henry VIII: “To distinguish the head-dresses of married women from unmarried, no married woman to wear white or other coloured caps; and no woman to wear any hat, unless she rides or goes abroad into the country (except sick or aged persons), on pain of 3s. 4d.”

Another law amounted to a tax on persons who dressed elegantly, for those who would not keep a horse and armour ready for the wars were fined heavily if they or their wives wore fine clothes or ornaments. It is probable, too, that Henry VIII’s officers took care to collect the fines.

Mary brought in a law against the use of silk, and a little later on the great ruffs claimed attention, for in 1562 it was ordered that no more than a yard and a half of kersey should be used in making a ruff. James I repealed all the sumptuary laws, though we have seen that he and his successors occupied themselves somewhat with the dress of the clergy.

In Scotland, after the rising of 1745, an Act was passed forbidding the wearing of tartan as part of Highland dress, under the penalty of six months’ imprisonment for the first offence and transportation beyond the seas for seven years for the second. No Highlander could receive the benefit of the Act of Indemnity without first taking the following oath: “I, A.B., do swear, and as I shall answer to God at the great day of judgement, I have not, nor shall have, in my possession any gun, sword, pistol, or arm whatsoever, and never use tartan, plaid, or any part of the Highland garb; and if I do so, may I be cursed in my undertakings, family, and property,—may I never see my wife and children, father, mother, or relations,—may I be killed in battle as a coward, and lie without Christian burial, in a strange land, far from the graves of my forefathers and kindred; may all this come across me if I break my oath.” This severe and harsh Act caused great discontent, and was repealed in 1772.

As showing the hindrances caused to trade by some of the peculiar regulations, we find that in 1565 the Recorder of London describes an interview which he had with civic tailors, who were puzzled as to whether they should “line a slop hose, not cut in panes, with a lining of cotton stitched to the slop over and besydes the linen lining straight to the leg.” The Recorder, on considering the words of the proclamation which had caused the trouble, gave it as his opinion that they could not; but the tailors, though they went away satisfied, came back to say that their customers had gone to other tailors outside the City, who made their clothes for them in the way that was first suggested. It was this contretemps which caused the Recorder to write to a higher legal authority.

Nowadays clothes and the law have little to do with one another, though occasionally ladies’ dresses about which there is a dispute are seriously tried on in court, the legal luminaries meanwhile making a studied pretence of ignorance with regard to the garments. Though there are no statutes to curb modern fashions, yet we are reminded of the rules that have had to be made in certain theatres on account of the overwhelming size of the matinée hat.

Although the law does not seem to have been able to change the fashions to a very great extent, they have sometimes been killed suddenly. In the days of public executions, criminals sometimes elected to wear fashionable garments, and in consequence the demand for them ceased. Sometimes, again, those who were interested in the suppression of the fashion persuaded the doomed man or woman to wear a particular dress, and a judge has been known to compass the same end by ordering the hangman who officiated to deck himself in the objectionable garment.

The wearing of nightgowns in the street by ladies was stopped owing to a woman being executed in her bedgown. The use of yellow starch had its death-blow when the hangman appeared in orange collar and cuffs. Black satin dresses went out of fashion because Mrs. Manning was hung when wearing one. Now, however, as there are no public executions, there is not this opportunity of getting rid of obnoxious styles, and society ought to look about for another means to repress them.

XXXVIII
DRESS REFORM

CLOTHES TO BE AVOIDED—NEED FOR WARMER GARMENTS—“RATIONAL” DRESS FOR WOMEN

It is evident from what we have said about the effect of clothes upon the body, that there is ample opportunity for improvement in our costume as regards its shape and the methods in which it is worn. We have already said also, when speaking of colour, that, in the case of men at any rate, it might often be more picturesque and brighter. There are several societies whose aim it is to bring about improvements. The Rational Dress League has general objects in view, and it also keeps in mind the special one of introducing bifurcated garments for women. There is also the Healthy and Artistic Dress Union which seems to have general objects.

Education is needed in order that knowledge of the evil results of wrongly shaped shoes and tight stays may be known, and what is more, such training as will enable that strength of mind to be acquired which will prevent the coming generation from being swayed by foolish fashions. The origin of these it is difficult to trace, but the pioneers of them, whether self-centred costumiers or willing victims, ought to be punished in some way. There are points to be borne in mind in connection with garments which have not yet been considered, and they cause otherwise unoffending clothes to do harm. There is no doubt but that the weight of one’s dress should be suspended from the shoulders, though the great majority of women hang much of their clothes from their waists. A good deal of the weight could easily be taken off this part of the body by the fastening of skirts and under garments to bodices, or by the use of shoulder-straps and the introduction of tunics.

Dr. Cantlie60 has very graphically shown the common features of a modern family, and he has given a picture (see Figure 169) of a group consisting of the average-sized mother, the taller and larger-framed daughter, and the insufficiently clad boy of poor physique. This author says that the sailor suit worn at the age of two and a half or three years is a recent innovation, and the rather puny young boy of to-day came in with the change. Dr. Cantlie has estimated that, except in very hot weather, children should have a pound of clothing for every stone they weigh, for the one great secret of rendering children healthy is to keep them warm. As a matter of fact, a girl that weighs three stone really wears clothes that weigh three pounds; but one of the small boys of the same weight, in a sailor suit, wears clothes that only weigh about half as much as his sister’s.

Dr. Cantlie also objects to short jackets which do not cover the loins, and says that the public school that will introduce the Norfolk jacket in the place of the Eton will thrive at the expense of its neighbours.

High collars worn by youths keep the head at the wrong angle, and also perpetuate the deformity of the jaw which is caused by breathing through the mouth. They also prevent the shoulders from being squared in the attempt to get rid of round shoulders. Dr. Cantlie urges a return to the brace worn by our fathers, and still occasionally seen, in which the straps are not united. It is impossible for any one wearing joined braces to stand erect with the shoulders squared, for they press on the neck and cause the wearer to poke his head forward. Dr. Cantlie, however, hopes that the difficulties in the way of obtaining separate braces will not lead to the adoption of the elastic belt, for the only place where this could be worn without bad effects is below the haunch bones, and in ordinary dress this would bring it below the waistcoat. It will be found also that the use of belts by labourers brings evils in its train which were not mentioned by Mr. Heather Bigg, when speaking of the advantages of girding up the loins. (See page 329.)

No account of dress and its developments would be complete without a reference to Mrs. Bloomer and the garments which now bear her name, and are emblematical of rational costume. That women have no absolute claim to petticoats as their own special dress has been made quite clear, and it is equally evident that in many places they wear trousers as a matter of course. Still, in this country there seems to be a rooted objection on the part of the majority to doffing skirts, though this seems, however, to be growing less day by day, in spite of the many reasons which cause the fair sex to cling to petticoats. As we have found before, garments which fall to the ground give dignity, and women sacrifice their dignity with difficulty. Yet, as need hardly be pointed out, men do not wear dressing-gowns when they are jumping, nor fur-trimmed mantles when they go to business. Dresses with trains could be kept for ceremonial occasions, or when there is nothing much to be done, or again, we might add, when there is little dust to be raised.

When lady gardeners were first employed at Kew Gardens, it was found that their skirts got in the way, and were liable to damage the plants. The Director ordered that the girls should wear a suitable costume, and they adopted divided garments, though it must be said that they covered them to some extent with an apron. In riding-dress of course ladies wear trousers under their habits when they use a side saddle, although it has been considered right of recent years for them to ride astride, and from time to time we hear that it is being done. In the time of Stephen and of Edward III women rode astride, and the ladies in Mexico and other parts of America regularly do so at the present time.

Chaucer described “The Wife of Bath” as wearing “on her feet a paire of spurries sharpe.” From this we may judge that she also adopted a cross saddle, and as a matter of fact in the Elesmere MSS. we find a picture of her, showing that she rode astride, and was dressed in a curious garment like a divided bag. On the Continent, ladies who go shooting very often dress like their husbands, and a year or two ago the American newspapers were full of accounts of a lady who imitated the riding costume of a hunting man to the smallest detail. Apropos of this, The Field61 told an amusing story of an English lady who in a measure unintentionally forestalled our American cousins, for after she had had the best part of her habit carried away by some aggressive brambles, she was seen scudding after her horse in a pair of real top boots.

Divided garments only appear unfeminine because we are unaccustomed to see them on ladies, and it is no secret that they are worn to a very great extent under skirts. Doubtless there may be some to whom the very idea of such a thing is abhorrent, and possibly there are still wardrobes like those of a good lady mentioned by Miss Alice Morse Earle62 in her book on the “Costume of Colonial Times.” She was the wife of a respectable and well-to-do Dutch settler in the New Netherlands, and her name was Vrouentje Ides Stoffelsen, and she left behind her in 1641, “a gold hoop ring, a silver medal and chain, and a silver undergirdle to hang keys on; a damask furred jacket, two black camlet jackets, two doublets, one iron gray, the other black; a blue, a steel-gray lined petticoat, and a black coarse camlet-lined petticoat; two black skirts, a new bodice, two white waistcoats, one of Harlem stuff; a little black vest with two sleeves, a pair of damask sleeves, a reddish mourning gown, not linen; four pair pattens, one of Spanish leather; a purple apron and four blue aprons, nineteen cambric caps and four linen ones; a fur cap trimmed with beaver; nine linen handkerchiefs trimmed with lace, two pair of old stockings, and three shifts. One disposed to be critical might note the somewhat scanty proportion of underclothing in this wardrobe, and as Ides’s husband swore ‘by his manly troth’ that the list of her possessions was a true and complete one, we are forced to believe that it was indeed all the underclothing she possessed.”

It seems, however, as we have said before, that the actual ugliness of many of the so-called bloomer costumes which were in vogue a few years ago, did much to keep back progress in the direction of their adoption. It seems as if women were frightened, as it were, to go the whole hog, and instead of wearing neat knickerbockers they had them exceedingly baggy and inelegant, or adopted a kind of hybrid costume, half bloomers and half skirt.

Let us see what the tendency now is with regard to a rational dress for women. Mrs. Bloomer had a skirt just below the knees, and trousers gathered in at the ankles. The modern bloomers come only to the knee, but really, as Dr. Bernard O’Connor says when writing in the Gazette published by the Rational Dress League,63 “they are made too full.” Dr. O’Connor recommends for active exercise, such as cycling, something like a sailor’s jacket and sailor’s trousers, but the latter should end and be gathered in at the knees. In addition there should be long tight stockings, and Dr. O’Connor adds that tights throughout would be preferable to the ordinary bloomers.

It would seem, however, that this dress for general use might be improved as regards both form and elegance, and that a long coat or tunic, reaching nearly to the knees, with fairly tight knickerbockers, is the rational dress that is most to be commended for women.

CONCLUSION

By way of ending, we would again point out that the account which we have given of survivals in dress and their history, shows that they in their development are governed by the same laws as those which act on the bodies and organs of living creatures, and we hope that what we have gathered together may be taken as a small contribution to “the proper study of mankind,” which we have been told times out of number is nothing more nor less than “man.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The small numbers given in the text correspond with those printed here.