ourselves with mentioning a few to show how these have survived. When
speaking of studs, we had occasion to mention the swastika or fylfot,
which is probably the earliest known symbol. It is the forerunner of
the cross, and it occurs on ecclesiastical vestments as well as civil
clothes, and the well-known key pattern was derived from it. On Plate
VII, Figure F, it may be seen on the shoulder of the Romano-Egyptian
man, and its use seems to be almost universal. The pine pattern which we
see on shawls is of Eastern origin, and it is said that it originally
was taken from a map of some rivers in Cashmere.
Checks and plaids are among the commonest of our present-day designs,
and the Gauls and those of our forerunners, who flourished at the time
of Cæsar, wore breeches of chequered patterns. In fact, the very name of
breeches is derived from "breac," which means striped or spotted, and in
Gaelic also signifies the trout, which is speckled. Usually the ancient
breeches showed a number of colours, in which, according to Diodorus,
red predominated. Queen Boadicea wore a tunic apparently of plaid,
the colours of which had a mixture of blue, red, and yellow. The real
shepherd's plaid of Scotland is of a plainer character, being merely
black and white, but it is in the special tartans of the Scotch clans
that we find the system of coloured lines and squares carried to great
perfection.
These tartans, as we may judge, date back to times of which we have no
record, but they have been used continuously in historic times. In the
accounts of King James III of Scotland, in 1471, there are several
entries with regard to money spent on tartans. The tartans, of course,
were a distinguishing mark of the various Scottish clans, but sometimes,
when attempts have been made to identify the patterns, confusion has
arisen owing to the fact that many clans had more than one tartan; in
fact, there may be the common clan tartan; that which was worn only
by the chief and his heir; a dress tartan; a fourth for hunting, and
a fifth for mourning. For instance, while the dress tartan of the
MacPhersons consists chiefly of black and white, with thin lines of red
and yellow, the hunting tartan of the same clan is black and buff, with
lines of blue and red. Similarly, in the Royal Stuart tartans, we find
that the ordinary Royal Stuart has large red squares, the hunting
tartan is mostly green and blue, while the dress Stuart has a large
amount of white in its composition. There was, of course, a wonderful
variety in colours, and it is interesting to note that all the dyes
required were obtained from common native plants.
In England, after the Norman Conquest, there seems to have been little
pattern used up to the time of Henry II, when diaper began to appear.
Just as damask takes its name from Damascus, so diaper originally
was derived from D'Ypres, meaning "of Ypres," a town which was noted
for rich stuffs and fine linen. In Edward II's time pied cloth and
parti-coloured silks came into vogue, while costumes of a parti-coloured
character, which developed in the following reign to such an extent,
were seen for the first time. Sometimes the whole dress would be
symmetrically divided, so that half was of one colour and half of
another. Again, the clothes would be striped in various directions, or
one would find the right arm and left leg coloured blue, while the other
two limbs were red. We get something of the same kind of ornamentation
nowadays, as already noticed, in the dress of jockeys and the colours of
athletic clubs.
In studying decorative patterns, the way in which some natural object
has often become conventionalized is very interesting to trace, and if
this is so in the case of art of civilized people, it is still more
true of savage decoration. Our object is not, however, to deal with the
evolution of ornamentation pure and simple, though we commend its study
to our readers.
Turning to the Jews for a moment, we may recall that part of the
adornment of the High Priests consisted of pomegranates and bells. The
connection does not seem at all obvious, and Mrs. Finn has suggested
that the bells are probably the flowers of the pomegranate which have
been conventionalized.
XXXIV
IMPRESSIONS TO BE GAINED FROM DRESS
CLUES FROM CLOTHES--INDIVIDUALITY NOT DISGUISED BY THEM--MODERN
DRESS OF OTHER COUNTRIES--SIGNIFICANCE OF CLOTHES
If we turn our attention once more to clothes and their effect upon the
outsider, there are questions to consider with regard to what may be
judged from dress. First of all, as to the matter of social status, it
must be confessed that it is very much more difficult nowadays than it
was years ago to make any pronouncements from clothes, though it must be
pointed out that there is a way of wearing clothes, quite irrespective
of their kind, that will help us considerably in making a judgment.
The reason for the levelling up or down as the case may be, is due, of
course, to the standard of luxury having been raised and the price of
materials for clothing having been lowered. As regards the determination
of the profession of the wearer from his or her dress, it must be
said that often we remain quite at a loss in the matter. Bearing and
expression and general action may again afford a clue.
Characteristic costumes are now rare. We can tell the cleric as a rule,
though some, especially those who have belonged to some other profession
previously, will not adopt the collarless coat of black, the choker, or
the white tie.
Servants' liveries may be left out of consideration here, but the man
that has to do with horses proverbially looks "horsey." To the list of
uniforms to which we are accustomed there has been added of recent
years that of the hospital nurse. The garb of various sisterhoods
still catches our eye, and there are certain points which may help us
occasionally in identifying a doctor, a lawyer, a schoolmaster, and an
actor. According to a recent article by a detective in one of the daily
papers,[52] the characteristics and individuality of a man will show
through his clothes, and the writer alluded to, suggests the putting
of a clergyman into a soldier's or a sailor's uniform, or again, the
dressing of a valet in his master's clothes. "He will look quite
different. He will give a fresh character to the clothes, and you will
realize at once that he is a second-hand copy."
Mr. Chevasse says that if you walk down Oxford Street, Piccadilly, or
through the City, you may pick out the ex-army officer, in his mufti
tweed, for his instinct for dress is so ingrained that it is easy to
recognize him. Mr. Chevasse would tell the fashionable physician from
the following signs. His frock coat, scrupulously cut, his silk hat
correctly quiet, which fit in with his sleek manners and the sang-froid
of his superior knowledge. The dress dummy is another type--the man with
the airs of a peacock, whose every article of dress is meant to attract
attention. Of the actor whom one meets in the Strand, it is said that
the odds and ends which he wears are typical of the parts he plays, but
that his real individual character is not disguised as sometimes he
might wish it to be.
In similar fashion we are given the points of the modern solicitor, of
whom there are, we are told, two classes. The first type is dressed to
exhale prosperity, and to convince the litigant that he is a safe man,
but the character of his waistcoat will tell you more often than not
that he robs Peter to pay Paul. The dress of other solicitors beams out
sincerity, truth, reliability; the cloth is good and plain, and is well
fitted to inspire trust and confidence.
At the present time so many visitors from other countries, who are
sojourning here for a while or have come to stay, are to be seen in our
streets, that it may be of interest to see what the Editor of the
_Tailor and Cutter_[53] has to say upon the subject of their dress, or
so far as that of the men goes. He says that, as a rule, in the case of
the members of the aristocracy of all nations, their garments give
the impression of having been made in London, and are free from the
peculiarities which characterize those of other countries. Generally
speaking, however, it is not difficult to tell the nationality of a man
by his clothes. The American's garments are usually made two sizes too
large for him. The collar of his coat is very narrow, and the shoulders
and back, on the other hand, exceedingly wide. His jackets are often
extremely long, his trousers are peg-tops, finished with raised seams.
In some ways the German is a modified American, though often there is
to be found a seam up the front of his coat from the waist, as he likes
plenty of room about his chest, of which he makes much. While the
American, however, often has his coat finished in some extraordinary way
which he fancies to be original, there is a lack of personality about
the German, and the uniformity of his garments would appear to be the
result of his military training. The American likes a lounge suit, and
the German the same, or a morning coat, while the Frenchman favours
the latter or a frock coat, which he has finished off with as much
ornamentation as possible in the way of silk facings, braided edges,
and fantastic flaps. His garments are close-fitting, and the waist is
emphasized.
The Spaniard is like the Frenchman with modifications, for his garments
are tasteful and neat, with few peculiarities. In warm weather he wears
no vest, and his jackets are close-fitting and finished with a low roll.
In Austrian and Hungarian clothes French and German ideas seem to be
skilfully blended, while Italian dress has more of the French than of
the German characters. Norwegians and Danes are like Englishmen, though
there is perhaps a little more preciseness and stiffness about their
clothes. The colonial has no desire for show, and his tweed lounge suit
is cut for comfort and made up for strength.
The impressions to be gained from dress that we have hitherto mentioned
in this chapter are chiefly those which are unintentionally given to
us by their wearers. The significances which it is meant that clothes
should bear are still most numerous and important.
To-day, on ordinary occasions, rank is not shown by any special dress,
which those in high stations themselves wear, though the case of their
servants is different. In earlier times in our history, especially under
the earlier Tudors, rank was indicated in civilian dress. Now the frock
coat worn by King and Peer is considered just as necessary in many
businesses, and is characteristic of the shop-walker. Men of assured
position can even afford to dress badly, though the poor man cannot.
Here and there we have met with survivals of class costumes (see pages
150 and 308), and to these we may add that of the costermongers, for
in the dress of both men and women there are peculiarities which single
them out.
In the same way we find remnants here and there of special dresses that
are characteristic of trades. The blue blouse of the butcher, the white
clothes of the butterman or man cook, and the white cap of the latter
are cases in point; and in connection with certain duties and modern
manufactures we have special dresses. We might allude to the overalls
of furriers, feather merchants, and stationers. Divers, sewage men, and
miners have special dresses, and boiler cleaners have a curious dress of
coat and trousers made in one, which recalls one form of the military
tunic used by the Norman soldiers, which sometimes ended in closely
fitting trousers. It was first drawn on the legs, and the arms were
then put through the sleeves. Such combination garments are shown in
contemporary drawings, and it has been questioned whether these were
really made in one piece, but the artist, though he might not indicate
with certainty the openings through which they were put on, is hardly
likely to have left out the lines which would have made clear a division
at the waist.
At the present time in England there are very little differences in the
costume of single and married women, though it was once compulsory for
them to dress differently. The remains, however, of the custom are to be
found in plenty in foreign countries.
In many professions rank is indicated by the dress or its
ornamentations. In the Army and Navy, the Church, the legal profession,
such points are obvious. We have had occasion to deal with academical
costume, and in the knightly orders the same holds good. Just as an
undergraduate has a stuff gown, while a graduate may have a silk one, a
Proctor is given velvet sleeves and the Chancellor of the University an
embroidered gown and train, so, for instance, in the order of Knights
of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the Knight of Grace has a stuff
gown, the Knight of Justice a silk one, while the Grand Prior is habited
in velvet.
XXXV
THE EFFECT OF CLOTHES UPON THE INDIVIDUAL
THE ORIGIN OF STAYS--TIGHT LACING NO NEW THING--ITS EFFECTS--MR.
HEATHER BIGG ON THE NEED FOR SUPPORT--THE IDEAL FOOT--SKULL
DEFORMITIES--PADDING
We have already seen (page 111) that the human form may be directly
mutilated in connection with the wearing of ornaments and in order to
produce scars or tattoo marks which are considered to be embellishments
and often in a way take the place of clothes, in so much as they do away
with the appearance of nakedness. Now we may consider the distortions
which are actually caused by clothes and bandages. There are cases for
which, as a rule, we have to look outside the confines of Europe in
which special contrivances are worn for a time in order to permanently
alter the shape of some part of the body. Then, again, we meet among the
races which claim to be most highly civilized instances which are not
one whit less barbaric, but in which some article of dress is intended
to cause or allowed to produce distortions, which satisfy the dictates
of some particular fashion. It may be that an appearance of elegance or
smartness is aimed at which may be the natural attribute of some persons
and the envy of others, or a false idea of symmetry may lead to the same
thing.
The idea of altering bodily conformation is very ancient, but following
our usual plan we will touch, first of all, on the modern examples of
the custom before tracing the older ones. Not very long ago, and not for
the first time in history, a great many women became imbued with the
notion that there was nothing more desirable in this world than a
wasp-like waist; and there are rumours, not to say signs, even in the
twentieth century, when it might be supposed that we were getting more
sensible, that a similar madness is again to overtake the gentler sex.
Now we may discuss the apparatus which has been degraded into carrying
out the painful duty of producing an attenuated figure. The name stays
indicates exactly the original intention of the clothing to which it is
applied; but unfortunately something more than mere support has been
sought after at various times since the classic period to which the
beginnings of stays may be traced. The pair of stays which together form
the modern corset--sometimes ignorantly and by false analogy supplied
with an extra "s"--is what is now used for purposes of compression.
Proximately the idea is that of improving the figure, as it is called,
and ensuring that it can be covered with garments of a fashionable
shape. The ultimate results are about as bad as they can be, and it is
not a question of opinion in this case, for the evil effects can be
easily demonstrated. Sir William Flower[54] refers to the practice as
being "one of the most remarkable of all the artificial deformities
produced by adherents to a conventional standard, in defiance of the
dictates of Nature and of reason." He points out that in the process of
deforming the skull, to which we shall allude later, the latter being a
solid case with tolerably uniform walls, its capacity remains the same
whatever alterations may be made in the shape, but in the case of the
body it is quite another matter. It can, in fact, be well likened to a
cylinder of fixed length which is closed above and below by a framework
of bone, and circular compression must actually diminish the area which
has to be occupied by some of the most vital organs. He goes on to
say that the framework of the chest is a most admirable and complex
arrangement of numerous pieces of solid bone and elastic cartilage
joined together in such a manner as to allow of expansion and
contraction for the purposes of respiration--expansion and contraction
which, if a function so essential to the preservation of life and health
is to be performed in an efficient manner, should be perfectly free
and capable of variation under different circumstances. So, indeed, it
has been allowed to be in all parts of the world and in all ages with
one exception. It was reserved for mediæval civilized Europe to have
invented the system of squeezing together, rendering immobile, and
actually deforming the most important part of the human frame; and
the custom has been handed down to, and flourishes in, our day,
notwithstanding all our professed admiration for the models of classical
antiquity, and our awakened attention to the laws of health.
The crusade against corsets is by no means confined to this country;
even the educational authorities in America and on the continent of
Europe have dealt pretty drastically with the matter. It is said,
moreover, that the Queen of Portugal has brought before the ladies of
her Court the evils of tight lacing, by means of radiographs. There
have been other times when even laws have been made with regard to the
corset, which, it appears, was first employed for a wrong purpose in
mediæval times. It is said of the time of Henry III of France that the
corset was no longer the simple basquine that was inoffensive enough at
first.[55] The corps piqué which was endured by the fair ladies of the
period was an instrument of torture. A hard solid mould into which the
wearer had to be compressed, there to remain and suffer in spite of
the splinters of wood that penetrated the flesh, took the skin off the
waist, and made the ribs ride one over the other. Montaigne and Ambrose
Paré are witnesses, and the latter must have known something about the
question. It is not, perhaps, surprising that Charles IX and Henry III
brought in stringent laws on the subject.
We are told[56] that with Catherine de Medici's ascent to the throne the
habit became compulsory. She gave her subjects no choice, and said that
all women of good birth and breeding should wear corsets which would
reduce their waists to the abnormal size of thirteen inches.
In our country on various occasions lacing was carried to extremes, as
in the time of Henry VIII. In Elizabeth's time, the forerunner of the
busks was not fastened to the stays, but consisted of a piece of carved
wood which was pushed down inside the bodice. (See Plate XI.) Some of
the outer bodices in the times of the early Georges seem to be as hard
and unyielding as if they were intended for armour. Tin stays were not
unheard of in the days of the earlier colonists in America.
[Illustration: WOODEN STAY BUSKS. THESE INCIDENTALLY SHOW SURVIVALS OF
PRIMITIVE ORNAMENT.
_From the "Reliquary," by kind permission of Messrs. Bembrose & Sons,
Ltd._
_PLATE XI._]
The craze for tight lacing once more made itself felt at the beginning
of the nineteenth century, and not many years before the end one heard
from time to time of the cruelty that was practised at high-class
schools for young ladies, where the girls were made to sleep in
specially tight and rigid corsets.
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.