During the first half of the 19th century in England and the United
States, a more tolerant attitude toward feminine exercise led women to
abandon the fiction that they were not bipedal while bathing. This
acknowledgment, however, was not fostered solely by the need for a more
functional bathing dress. It was first evidenced by a few daring
European women who wore lace-edged pantaloons trimmed with several rows
of tucking under their daytime dresses. The shorter, untrimmed,
knee-length drawers which quickly replaced the pantaloons, became an
unseen but essential item in the fashionable English lady's toilette of
the 1840s. These drawers, or a plainer version of the longer pantaloons,
were adapted not only to the female riding habit but the bathing dress
as well. An 1828 English source reported that "Many ladies when riding
wear silk drawers similar to what is worn when bathing."[33] With the
increased interest in physical exercise for women, ankle-length, open
pantaloons also were being worn in the 1840s with a long overdress as an
early form of gymnasium suit. This evidence of the early use of drawers
suggests that, like English ladies, women in the United States were
probably wearing a type of drawers beneath their nondescript bathing
gowns during the second quarter of the 19th century. There is some
slight support of this theory in the following stanza of a poem that
appeared in 1845:
But go to the beach ere the morning be ended
And look at the bathers--oh what an array
The ladies in trowsers, the _gemmen_ in _blowses_
E'en red flannel shirts are the "go" at Cape May.[34]
[33] As quoted in C. WILLETT and PHILLIS CUNNINGTON, _The History of
Underclothes_ (London: Faber and Faber, 1951), p. 130.
[34] "Cape May," _Godey's Lady's Book_ (December 1845), vol. 31, p.
268.
The rather crude but delightful sketch of seabathing at Coney Island in
1856 (fig. 7) shows the ladies wearing very full, ankle-length, trousers
with a sack top extending loosely only a few inches below the waist.
This type of bathing costume, which was primarily a bifurcated garment
instead of a skirted one, became the prevailing fashion as reported in
English women's magazines of the 1860s.
In contrast to the originally European skirtless costume, the
Philadelphia publication, _Peterson's Magazine_, stated that bathing
dress should consist of a pair of drawers and a long-skirted dress. The
recommended drawers were full and confined at the ankle by a band that
was finished with a ruffle. These drawers were attached to a "body" and
fastened so that, even if the skirt washed up, the individual could not
possibly be exposed. The dress was made by pleating or gathering the
desired length of material onto a deep yoke with a separate belt
securing the fullness at the waist. The bottom of the hem was about
three inches above the ankle and was considered rather short. Loose
shirt sleeves were drawn around the wrist by a band which was finished
with a deep ruffle as a protection against the sun. According to this
article many women wore a small talma or cape which hid the figure to
some extent. It was recommended that the drawers, dress, and talma be
made of the same woolen material.
Bathing-dresses, although generally very unbecoming can be made
to look very prettily with a little taste. If the dress is of a
plain color, such as grey, blue or brown, a trimming around the
talma, collar, yoke, ruffles etc ..., of crimson, green or
scarlet, is a great addition.[35]
[35] "Fashions for August, Bathing Dresses," _Peterson's Magazine_
(August 1856), vol. 30, p. 145.
To complete a bathing toilette the following items were considered
necessary: a pair of large lisle thread gloves, an oil cap to protect
the hair from the water, a straw hat to shield the face from the sun,
and gum overshoes for tender feet.
[Illustration: Figure 8.--BATHING DRESS, c. 1855. (_Courtesy of
Philadelphia Museum of Art._ Photograph by A. J. Wyatt, staff
photographer.)]
The red, tan, and blue-green checked bathing dress shown in figure 8 is
jauntily trimmed with crimson braid edging the collar, belt, and wrist
and ankle bands. This costume is a variation of the style described
previously. The drawers, unlike those described in _Peterson's
Magazine_, are sewn to a linen band with linen suspenders attached. The
unfitted, unshaped skirt (8 ft. 8 in. in circumference) is pulled in at
the waist by a belt attached to the center back. A similar technique for
forming a waistline is described in _The Workwoman's Guide_ of 1840.
Women's magazines in the United States from the third quarter of the
19th century show illustrations of bathing costume, but in many
instances these publications used European fashion plates. _Harper's
Bazar_, (spelled thus until 1929) particularly in its early years, used
fashion plates and pattern supplements from its German predecessor _Der
Bazar_. Thus, in one issue one can find a fashion plate showing the
predominantly bifurcated European bathing suit and, in a column on New
York fashions, a separate description of long-skirted bathing dresses
with trousers. During the same period _Peterson's Magazine_ had
illustrations previously used in the London publication, _Queen's
Magazine_.
American women seem to have accepted the majority of styles shown in
European fashion plates, except for the skirtless bathing suits. The
writer of an 1868 column on New York fashions sought to convince his
readers to try the more daring European style although he grudgingly
admitted that the "Bathing suits made with trousers and blouse waist
without skirt are objected to by many ladies as masculine and
fast...."[36] This style was in fact, very similar to the costume worn
by men when they bathed with the ladies. A year later, the writer of the
same fashion column had given up the campaign to dress all women in the
skirtless suits and admitted that these imports "... are worn by expert
swimmers, who do not wish to be encumbered with bulky clothing."[37]
Such practical bathing dress was thus limited to a very small number of
progressive women.
[36] "New York Fashions," _Harper's Bazar_ (August 8, 1868), vol. 1,
no. 41, p. 643.
[37] Ibid. (July 10, 1869), vol. 2, no. 28, p. 435.
The majority, consisting of those who were strictly bathers, wore the
ankle-length drawers beneath a long dress as described or illustrated in
the majority of sources that originated in the United States. Why was
the European bathing suit not fully adopted by American women?
Differences between the bathing customs of the two continents
undoubtedly encouraged the development of different dress. While men and
women in the United States bathed together freely at the seashore during
the latter half of the 19th century, this practice was not widely
accepted in England until the early 1900s. In the presence of men,
American women probably felt compelled to retain their more concealing
dress and drawers.
In England swimming seems to have been more popular among women than it
was in the United States. While encouraging its readers to swim, during
the late 1860s, _Queen's Magazine_ used forceful language of a kind that
was not found in American publications until the late 19th century. If
swimming was more acceptable as a feminine exercise in England it is
understandable why English women were more receptive to a functional,
skirtless bathing suit--especially since it was worn only in the
presence of other women.
In 1858, Winslow Homer, who was later to become a well-known American
painter, was welcomed into the society at Newport until it became
apparent that he wanted to sketch the bathers for a weekly newspaper
(see fig. 4). So great were the ensuing objections that he was permitted
to complete his sketches "... provided he depicted the bathers only in
the water and only above the waistline and without divulging the
identity of the bathers."[38]
[38] B. BROOKE, "Bathing-dress with Hat and Gloves," _Hobbies_ (August
1958), vol. 63, p. 90.
As can be seen in figure 4, these sketches serve more as a testament of
Homer's fancy than as an accurate historical statement on style. The two
feminine legs exposed in the water from just below the knee to the toe
and the feminine head coverings appear to be anachronisms. According to
several other illustrations of the period, these women were undoubtedly
wearing long drawers. The young artist at 22, however, has been
described as having an eye for feminine beauty and a sense of fashion.
He seems to have exploited to the full the decorative possibilities of
hoop skirts blown by the breeze or agitated by some pretty accident to
discreetly reveal a trim ankle. A drama of breeze versus long skirt
appears with the small feminine figure in the left background of this
print. The force of the waves and the motion of the frolicking bathers
gave the artist opportunity to show two more pretty accidents. The only
head covering he showed for feminine bathers was a ruffled cap that
framed the face. Other sources show Newport bathers wearing the less
attractive wide-brimmed straw hat (fig. 9). The straw headgear worn over
these caps seems more likely since Newport's fashionable belles would
surely have sacrificed appearances and worn a straw hat to avoid an
unfashionable sunburn and tan.
[Illustration: Figure 9.--BATHING HAT of natural color and purple straw,
c. 1880. (Smithsonian photo P-65409.)]
Nevertheless, Homer's sketch reflects characteristics seen in certain
surviving examples from the 1860s--namely that the top was becoming more
fitted, being attached completely to a belt with the fuller skirt
pleated or gathered to the bottom edge of the belt. In the Design
Laboratory Collection of the Brooklyn Museum there is an 1860 black
poplin specimen that may be a bathing dress. This example is trimmed at
the shoulder seam with epaulets, an example of the extent to which
fashion was finally playing a part in bathing costume.[39]
[39] Photograph and pattern appears in Blanch Payne, _History of
Costume_ (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 518, 583-584.
The dresses described above appear peculiar not only to 20th century
eyes, but they also seem to have amused mid-19th century correspondents.
One writer in 1857 declared that,
We don't think a man could identify his own wife when she comes
out of the bathing-house. A plump figure enters, surrounded with
a multitude of rustly flounces and scarcely able to squeeze an
enormous hoop through the door. She is absent a few minutes, and
presto change! out comes a tall lank apparition, wrapped in the
scanty folds of something that looks more like a superannuated
night-gown than anything else, and a battered straw-chapeau
knocked down over the eyes, and stalks down towards the beach
with the air and gait of a Tartar chieftain![40] [fig. 10.]
[40] "An Excursion to Long Branch," _Frank Leslie's Illustrated
Newspaper_ (August 22, 1857), vol. 4, no. 90, p. 182.