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.
[Illustration: FIG. 8.--First stage. FIG. 9.--Second stage.
Diagrams showing how a man does up a button.]
[Illustration: FIG. 10.--First stage. FIG. 11.--Second stage.
Diagrams showing how a woman does up a button.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--The buttons on the back of a policeman's great
coat.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 13.--The buttons that close the slit up the back of
an ulster.]
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.)
[Illustration: FIG. 14.--A back view of a seventeenth-century coat
showing the buttons and buttonholes.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.--The tab and buttons on the back of a soldier's
great coat which make a temporary waist.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 16.--The buttons and tab on a tramway driver's
coat.]
[Illustration: FIG. 17.--An eighteenth-century coat with side buttons
and tab.]
[Illustration: FIG. 18.--Side tabs and buttons at the back (after
Racinet).]
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.)
[Illustration: FIG. 19.--A coat worn at the end of the
seventeenth-century (after H. Bonnart).]
[Illustration: FIG. 20.--A modern coat with side pockets.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.--A footman's coat, modern, with vestigial pocket
flaps.]
[Illustration: FIG. 22.--Coat skirts buttoned back (after Hogarth).]
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.)
[Illustration: FIG. 23.--A coat with the skirts buttoned back and
showing the lining.]
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--A dress coat with skirts cut away.]
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.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.--A modern coat cuff with buttons.]
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--Turned-back cuff, end of seventeenth century
(after Bonnart).]
To find an explanation of this feature we shall have to go back again to
the seventeenth century, when so much was expended upon coats that it
became advisable to turn back the cuffs out of harm's way. To hold them
in position, series of buttons and buttonholes were devised, and just
as the turning back of the skirts was at first temporary and afterwards
came to be done once for all when the coat was made, so the turned-back
cuff grew into a permanent institution. In Figure 26 the buttons are one
above the other as in modern dress, but in the next two Figures (27 and
28) they are horizontal.
[Illustration: FIG. 27.--A coat sleeve (after Hogarth) with a horizontal
row of buttons.]
[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Sleeve of a coat of the seventeenth century,
reputed to have been worn by Charles I.]
A survival of this arrangement can still be seen in the coat sleeves of
the higher clergy. In ordinary dress, the turned-back edge of the cuff
may now only be represented by a band of braid or a row of stitches; but
in soldiers' uniforms, an ornamented cuff persists which represents
in reality the lining of the sleeve. Again, the turned-back cuff is
actually present in the clothes of costermongers, and has been revived
on overcoats to a considerable extent during the last few years. (See
Figure 29.)
As a rule, too, the vertical pocket already described accompanies the
turned-back cuff, as it did some centuries ago. (See Figure 20.)
[Illustration: FIG. 29.--The turned-back cuff on an overcoat, modern.]
[Illustration: FIG. 30.--A sleeve with vertical buttons and a
turned-back cuff as well (from a uniform, after Hogarth).]
It must not be forgotten that buttons have long been used on narrow
sleeves. They are undone when the hand is to be pushed through the
cuff, and afterwards fastened for the sake of warmth or to give a neat
appearance. It is therefore possible that the ring of buttons is more
properly a survival of the time when cuffs were turned back to preserve
them, and that the vertical row is really of earlier origin. A uniform
represented by Hogarth (Figure 30) shows both the row of buttons and the
turned-back cuff, which seems to be quite independent of them.
In this instance we may have the degenerated turned-back cuff and one
revived, shown together. Such a case, we need scarcely point out, could
hardly occur in the case of an animal structure, for if by a "throw
back" or "reversion to type" we get a vestigial character once more
fully reproduced, we cannot expect the original structure and the
vestige to be shown at the same time.
The adoption of buttons more or less for ornament has long been
practised. John Brandon, who died in the year 1364, is shown on his
brass (in the church of St. Mary, King's Lynn) with no less than forty
buttons on the sleeves of his undervest, which has embroidered cuffs
and is buttoned to the elbow (see Plate IV). We shall, however, have
something more to say with regard to buttons from this and other points
of view as we proceed.
[Illustration: REPRODUCTION OF A BRASS TO JOHN BRANDON AND HIS TWO
WIVES, IN THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY, KING'S LYNN. DATE 1364. ON THE MALE
FIGURE A CONTINUOUS ROW OF BUTTONS RUNS FROM THE WRIST TO THE ELBOW OF
THE UNDER VEST. THE WOMEN WEAR THE WIMPLE AND THE GORGET OR THROAT
CLOTH.
_PLATE IV._]
An interesting case of superfluous buttons on the front of clothes is to
be seen in the case of the short jackets of the postilions, belonging to
His Majesty the King. There is a useful row down the middle which closes
the garment, and two ornamental rows which start from each shoulder and
curve downwards towards the middle row. These are probably vestiges of
buttons that were once of use, and to seek an explanation it might be
well to study some uniforms of the past. We shall find that in the
eighteenth century it was customary to button back the revers of the
uniform coat, as in the case of the French coast-guard officer of 1775.
(See Figure 31.)
Fashion afterwards decreed that the coats should be fastened again with
hooks, but the two rows of buttons remained.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.--The uniform of a coast-guard officer of 1775
(after Racinet).]
In the coat of the postilion there is no trace of the revers which
showed the lining, and were consequently of a different colour from
the rest of the coat. We find, however, in the peculiar uniform of
the Lancers that there are the two side rows of buttons, to which is
fastened a red front. This appears to represent the two revers combined.
In the present year, 1907, a number of ladies' dresses are to be seen in
which the revers trimmed with a different material from the dress are
buttoned back against the latter.
In some ceremonial dresses and uniforms there are cross stripes on the
breast (see Figure 61) which, it has been pointed out, represent series
of buttonholes which have become hypertrophied, and are now exaggerated
beyond recognition. The braid on the cuff of the London Scottish
Volunteers seems also to represent buttonholes.
Such features as turned-back cuffs occur in women's clothes, and, as
we have seen, the arrangement of buttons may be copied from masculine
attire. In other cases buttons seem to appear which have, it would seem,
no hereditary right to their position; but it may be well, before
dismissing them, to see whether they have not a pedigree. We might cite
the case of the buttons that are sewn on to the frocks a little below
the knee. They are often at the head of a plait, and it would be worth
while to look into their history.
V
COLLARS AND BANDS
NICKS IN COAT LAPELS--THE WHY AND WHEREFORE OF THE WHITE SHIRT FRONT
Let us carry on our work of dissecting the clothes of a modern man, and
as we once more survey our subject, we may glance a little higher than
heretofore, until our eyes rest upon the collar of his coat. This
structure passes into the lapels, and at the point of junction there is
a curious nick which is repeated in the waistcoat if this be similarly
provided with lapels. (See Figure 32.)
[Illustration: FIG. 32.--The nicks in the coat and waistcoat.]
[Illustration: FIG. 33.--A stage when the nick was useful (Lucien
Bonaparte, after Paul Lacroix).]
There is always a temptation to invent some interesting theory in order
to explain the origin of vestiges, and a penny paper, which hardly
boasts of scientific accuracy, not long ago informed its readers that
the slit in the coat lapel is the outcome of a "unique and beautiful
custom among the orthodox Jews," for in former days, when death visited
a Jew's household, he cut the lapel of his coat. It was undoubtedly a
custom of the Jews to rend their garments, but it does not, on the
face of it, seem likely that the practice would have influenced modern
costume. It would appear, however, that the slit in the lapel has a
much more prosaic origin, and owes its existence rather to a practical
requirement than to a sentimental observance. When the collar of a coat
is made to stand up, it is absolutely necessary that a piece should be
cut out of the cloth, or the lapel will not lie down. In the exaggerated
garment of which we give an illustration (see Figure 33) this need is
most manifest; but a moment's thought will show that the provision
must be made, even if the collar be small. A trifling experiment will
indicate that at the present day the cut is not usually made deep enough
to allow of the collar being turned up without disturbing the lapels.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.--The "toothpick" on a dress coat.]
Another remarkable variation is to be found in the collars of some dress
suits. A little point is left on the collar known to tailors as the
"toothpick," which runs across the nick into the lapel (see Figure 34).
This structure is probably a survival of some particular kind of collar.
It might be pointed out here that the facings and collar that are of
silk or velvet represent the lining of the coat which came into view
when the collar was turned down and the lapels turned back. The case
is quite similar to that of the cuffs on uniforms, and to be quite
consistent, the whole coat should be lined with what is usually used now
only as a kind of trimming.
It is but a short step from the features that we have been discussing,
to the linen collar and the shirt front. The cutting away of the outer
garment to bring the shirt into view is a relic of the time when only
those who were very well to do could afford to wear linen, and they
showed it, in order to indicate their social position, or at any rate
their financial resources. At the same time, the women cut their dresses
low so as to show their underlinen; and not content with this, they
further, at the end of the thirteenth century, slit their gowns from the
armpits to the hips. The openings thus made were laced across, so that
the linen garments beneath could easily be seen.
The white shirt has long survived, and in spite of its depreciated value
has up to quite recently posed as a badge of respectability. Now at last
there are signs that its sway is over, and that soon it will come to be
only a garment of ceremony.
The linen collar of to-day is quite a small affair compared with some of
its forerunners. An interesting relic is to be seen in the two little
linen flaps which we call bands (see Figure 35). These are still worn
by preachers in conjunction with the Geneva gown, by barristers, and
by Blue-coat boys (see Figure 36), and we can easily trace their
relationship to the collar. Until a few years ago the choristers at
Jesus College, Cambridge, wore a peculiar collar which ended in two
flaps much resembling bands, and the descent of this from the large
structures which were called falling bands is not difficult to trace.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.--Modern bands.]
[Illustration: FIG. 36.--A blue-coat boy's bands.]
[Illustration: FIG. 37.--A chorister of Jesus College, Cambridge,
showing the collar worn until recently.
(From a photograph by the courtesy of Mr. H. Austin Wheaton.)]
The portrait of Jan Steen, which we reproduce, shows bands which are
less stiff and formal, but of ampler proportions. (See Figure 38.)
Going a little further back, we find the collar that covered the
shoulders, such as Milton wore, and which is shown in our picture of
John Pym. (See Figure 39.)
[Illustration: FIG. 38.--A stage in the reduction of the bands (portrait
of Jan Steen from the _Illustrated Magazine of Art_).]
[Illustration: FIG. 39.--Full-sized bands (portrait of John Pym from the
_Illustrated Magazine of Art_).]
At this point we may pause to recall a simple article which is known
as a bandbox, but which has been diverted from its original purpose of
holding bands, and is now commonly used as a receptacle for hats. Though
not itself part of dress, the bandbox furnishes an interesting instance
of adaptation to circumstances. It was well suited to contain articles
of dress other than those for which it was primarily intended, and
hence it has survived in the struggle for existence. (See Figure 40.)
[Illustration: FIG. 40.--A modern bandbox, now used for hats.]
[Illustration: FIG. 41.--Bands that survive at the present day.]
We must not, however, jump to the conclusion that bands are now only
represented by vestiges, for they are still to be seen in their full
glory on very small boys (see Figure 41), and the writer recalls a lad
of fourteen or so who had reached the dignity of trousers who wore the
same kind of collar. As he also had a trencher, or in common parlance, a
"mortar-board," it is possible that he was not an isolated survival, but
belonged to some school which adopted a special costume.
As linen collars are one of the articles of dress in regard to which
the wearer is allowed in a great measure to follow his own taste, it
is not surprising that a great many forms have from time to time been
invented. Quite a number are still to be seen here and there, while the
development of the more fashionable shapes one from the other would, in
itself, form a chapter in the Evolution of Dress. The clerical collar
may be singled out, as it fastens behind like the bands, though the
reason for this is not at all obvious.
In recalling the great ruffs and expanded collars of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, one may be inclined to smile at the lengths to which a fad may be
carried, and the curious, not to say monstrous, structures that are its
culminations. These, like the huge creatures of bygone ages, die out,
but differ in this respect that they sometimes revive for a time. For
instance, only a few years have passed since the collars of ladies'
mantles stood up round the back of their heads; but as the collars
usually lacked the decoration and colour of the Elizabethan period, they
appeared as if they were intended merely to keep the draught from the
necks of their wearers, and they did not last for long.
VI
VESTIGES IN THE HAT
HOW HATS WERE EVOLVED--WHY PLUMES ARE ON THE LEFT SIDE--THE GROWTH OF
THE BUSBY--HELMETS AND COCKED HATS