COLONIAL WOMAN AND DRESS
_I. Dress Regulation by Law_
Who would think of writing a book on woman without including some
description of dress? Apparently the colonial woman, like her modern
sister, found beautiful clothing a subject near and dear to the heart;
but evidently the feminine nature of those old days did not have such
hunger so quickly or so thoroughly answered as in our own times. The
subject certainly did not then receive the printed notice now granted
it, and it is rather clear that a much smaller proportion of the bread
winner's income was used on gay apparel. And yet we shall note the same
hue and cry among colonial men that we may hear to-day--that women are
dress-crazy, and that the manner and expense of woman's dress are
responsible for much of the evil of the world.
We should not be greatly surprised, then, to discover that early in the
history of the colonies the magistrates tried zealously to regulate the
style and cost of female clothing. The deluded Puritan elders, who
believed that everything could and should be controlled by law, even
attempted until far into the eighteenth century to decide just how women
should array themselves. But the eternal feminine was too strong for the
law makers, and they ultimately gave up in despair. Both in Virginia
and New England such rules were early given a trial. Thus, in the old
court records we run across such statements as the following: "Sep. 27,
1653, the wife of Nicholas Maye of Newbury, Conn., was presented for
wearing silk cloak and scarf, but cleared proving her husband was worth
more than £200." In some of the Southern settlements the church
authorities very shrewdly connected fine dress with public spiritedness
and benevolence, and declared that every unmarried man must be assessed
in church according to his own apparel, and every married man according
to his own and his wife's apparel.[128] Again in 1651 the Massachusetts
court expressed its "utter detestation that men and women of meane
condition, education and calling should take upon them the garbe of
gentlemen by wearinge of gold or silver lace or buttons or poynts at
their knees, or walke in great boots, or women of the same ranke to wear
silke or tiffany hoods or scarfs."
A large number of persons were indeed "presented" under this law, and it
is plain that the officers of the times were greatly worried over this
form of earthly pride; but as the settlements grew older the people
gradually silenced the magistrates, and each person dressed as he or
she, especially the latter, chose.
_II. Contemporary Descriptions_
The result is that we find more references to dress in the eighteenth
century than in the previous one. The colonists had become more
prosperous, a little more worldly, and certainly far less afraid of the
wrath of God and the judges. As travel to Europe became safer and more
common, visitors brought new fashions, and provincialism in manner,
style, and costume became much less apparent. Madame Knight, who wrote
an account of her journey from Boston to New York in 1704, has left some
record of dress in the different colonies. Of the country women in
Connecticut she says: "They are very plain in their dress, throughout
all the colony, as I saw, and follow one another in their modes; that
you may know where they belong, especially the women, meet them where
you will." And see her description of the dress of the Dutch women of
New York: "The English go very fashionable in their dress. But the
Dutch, especially the middling sort, differ from our women in their
habit, go loose, wear French muches, which are like a cap and a head
band in one, leaving their ears bare, which are set out with jewels of a
large size, and many in number; and their fingers hooked with rings,
some with large stones in them of many colors, as were their pendants in
their ears, which you should see very old women wear as well as young."
As Mrs. Knight was so observant of how others dressed, let us take a
look at her own costume, as described in Brooks' _Dames and Daughters of
Colonial Days_: "Debby looked with curious admiring eyes at the new
comer's costume, the scarlet cloak and little round cap of Lincoln
green, the puffed and ruffled sleeves, the petticoat of green-drugget
cloth, the high heeled leather shoes, with their green ribbon bows, and
the riding mask of black velvet which Debby remembered to have heard,
only ladies of the highest gentility wore."[129]
The most famous or most dignified of colonial gentlemen were not above
commenting upon woman's dress. Old Judge Sewall mingled with his
accounts of courts, weddings, and funerals such items as: "Apr. 5, 1722.
My Wife wore her new Gown of sprig'd Persian." Again, we note the
philosopher-statesman, Franklin, discoursing rather fluently to his wife
about dress, and, from what we glean, he seems to have been pretty well
informed on matters of style. Thus in 1766 he wrote: "As the Stamp Act
is at length repeal'd, I am willing you should have a new Gown, which
you may suppose I did not send sooner, as I knew you would not like to
be finer than your neighbours, unless in a Gown of your own spinning.
Had the trade between the two Countries totally ceas'd, it was a Comfort
to me to recollect, that I had once been cloth'd from Head to Foot in
Woolen and Linnen of my Wife's Manufacture, that I never was prouder of
any Dress in my Life, and that she and her Daughter might do it again if
it was necessary.... Joking apart, I have sent you a fine Piece of
Pompadore Sattin, 14 Yards, cost 11 shillings a Yard; a silk Negligee
and Petticoat of brocaded Lutestring for my dear Sally, with two dozen
Gloves...."[130]
A letter dated from London, 1758, reads: ... "I send also 7 yards of
printed Cotton, blue Ground, to make you a Gown. I bought it by
Candle-Light, and lik'd it then, but not so well afterwards. If you do
not fancy it, send it as a present from me to sister Jenny. There is a
better Gown for you, of flower'd Tissue, 16 yards, of Mrs. Stevenson's
Fancy, cost 9 Guineas and I think it a great Beauty. There was no more
of the sort or you should have had enough for a Negligee or Suit."[131]
And again: "Had I been well, I intended to have gone round among the
shops and bought some pretty things for you and my dear, good Sally
(whose little hands you say eased your headache) to send by this ship,
but I must now defer it to the next, having only got a crimson satin
cloak for you, the newest fashion, and the black silk for Sally; but
Billy sends her a scarlet feather, muff, and tippet, and a box of
fashionable linen for her dress...."[132]
He sends her also in 1758 "a newest fashion'd white Hat and Cloak and
sundery little things, which I hope will get safe to hand. I send a pair
of Buckles, made of French Paste Stones, which are next in Lustre to
Diamonds...."[133]
Abigail Adams also has left us rather detailed descriptions of her
dresses prepared for various special occasins. Thus, after being
presented at the English Court, she wrote home: "Your Aunt then wore a
full dress court cap without the lappets, in which was a wreath of white
flowers, and blue sheafs, two black and blue flat feathers, pins, bought
for Court, and a pair of pearl earings, the cost of them--no matter
what--less than diamonds, however. A sapphire blue demi-saison with a
satin stripe, sack and petticoat trimmed with a broad black lace; crape
flounce, & leave made of blue ribbon, and trimmed with white floss;
wreaths of black velvet ribbon spotted with steel beads, which are much
in fashion, and brought to such perfection as to resemble diamonds;
white ribbon also in the van dyke style, made up of the trimming, which
looked very elegant, a full dress handkerchief, and a bouquet of
roses.... Now for your cousin: A small, white leghorn hat, bound with
pink satin ribbon; a steel buckle and band which turned up at the side,
and confined a large pink bow; large bow of the same kind of ribbon
behind; a wreath of full-blown roses round the crown, and another of
buds and roses within side the hat, which being placed at the back of
the hair brought the roses to the edge; you see it clearly; one red and
black feather, with two white ones, compleated the head-dress. A gown
and coat of chamberi gauze with a red satin stripe over a pink waist,
and coat flounced with crape, trimmed with broad point and pink ribbon;
wreaths of roses across the coat; gauze sleeves and ruffles."[134]
Although it is absolutely impossible for a man to form the picture, this
sounds as though it were elegant. Again she writes: "Cousin's dress is
white, ... like your aunts, only differently trimmed and ornamented; her
train being wholly of white crape, and trimmed with white ribbon; the
petticoat, which is the most showy part of the dress, covered and drawn
up in what are called festoons, with light wreaths of beautiful flowers;
the sleeves white crape, drawn over silk, with a row of lace round the
sleeve near the shoulder, another half way down the arm, and a third
upon the top of the ruffle, a little flower stuck between; a kind of
hat-cap, with three large feathers, and a bunch of flowers; a wreath of
flowers upon the hair."[135]
It is apparent that no large amount of Puritanical scruples about fine
array had passed over into eighteenth century America. Whether in New
England, the Middle Colonies, or the South, the natural longing of woman
for ornamentation and beautiful adornment had gained supremacy, and from
the records we may judge that some ladies of those days expended an
amount on clothing not greatly out of proportion with the amount spent
to-day by the well-to-do classes. For instance, in Philadelphia, we find
a Miss Chambers adorned as follows: "On this evening, my dress was white
brocade silk, trimmed with silver, and white silk high-heeled shoes,
embroidered with silver, and a light-blue sash with silver and tassel,
tied at the left side. My watch was suspended at the right, and my hair
was in its natural curls. Surmounting all was a small white hat and
white ostrich feather, confined by brilliant band and buckle."[136]
_III. Raillery and Scolding_
Of course, the colonial man found woman's dress a subject for jest; what
man has not? Certainly in America the custom is of long standing. Old
Nathaniel Ward, writing in 1647 in his _Simple Cobbler of Aggawam_,
declares: "It is a more common than convenient saying that nine tailors
make a man; it were well if nineteen could make a woman to her mind. If
tailors were men indeed well furnished, but with more moral principles,
they would disdain to be led about like apes by such mimic marmosets. It
is a most unworthy thing for men that have bones in them to spend their
lives in making fiddle-cases for futilous women's fancies; which are the
very pettitoes of infirmity, the giblets of perquisquilian toys.... It
is no little labor to be continually putting up English women into
outlandish casks; who if they be not shifted anew once in a few months
grow too sour for their husbands.... He that makes coats for the moon
had need take measure every noon, and he that makes for women, as often
to keep them from lunacy."
Indeed Ward becomes genuinely excited over the matter, and says some
really bitter things: "I shall make bold for this once to borrow a
little of their long-waisted but short skirted patience.... It is beyond
the ken of my understanding to conceive, how those women should have any
true grace, or valuable virtue, that have so little wit as to disfigure
themselves with such exotic garbes, as not only dismantle their native
lovely lustre, but transclouts them into gant-bar-geese, ill
shapen-shotten-shell-fish, Egyptian Hyeroglyphics, or at the best French
flirts of the pastery, which a proper English woman should scorn with
her heels...."
The raillery became more frequent and certainly much more good-natured
in the eighteenth century. Philip Fithian, a Virginia tutor, writing in
1773, said in his _Diary_: "Almost every Lady wears a red Cloak; and
when they ride out they tye a red handkerchief over their Head and face,
so that when I first came into Virginia, I was distressed whenever I saw
a Lady, for I thought she had the toothache."
In fact, the subject sometimes inspired the men to poetry, as may be
seen from the following specimen:
"Young ladies, in town, and those that live 'round,
Let a friend at this season advise you;
Since money's so scarce, and times growing worse,
Strange things may soon hap and surprise you.
"First, then, throw aside your topknots of pride,
Wear none but your own country linen,
Of Economy boast, let your pride be the most,
To show clothes of your own make and spinning.
"What if home-spun, they say, is not quite so gay
As brocades, yet be not in a passion,
For when once it is known, this is much worn in town,
One and all will cry out--''Tis the fashion.'
* * * * *
"Throw aside your Bohea and your Green Hyson tea,
And all things with a new-fashion duty;
Procure a good store of the choice Labrador
For there'll soon be enough here to suit you.
"These do without fear, and to all you'll appear
Fair, charming, true, lovely, and clever,
Tho' the times remain darkish, your men may be sparkish,
And love you much stronger than ever."[137]
A perusal of extracts from newspapers of those days makes it clear that
a good many men were of the opinion that more simplicity in dress would
indeed make women "fair, charming, true, lovely, and clever." The _Essex
Journal_ of Massachusetts of the late eighteenth century, commenting
upon the follies common to "females"--vanity, affectation,
talkativeness, etc.,--adds the following remarks on dress: "Too great
delight in dress and finery by the expense of time and money which they
occasion in some instances to a degree beyond all bounds of decency and
common sense, tends naturally to sink a woman to the lowest pitch of
contempt amongst all those of either sex who have capacity enough to put
two thoughts together. A creature who spends its whole time in
dressing, prating, gaming, and gadding, is a being--originally indeed of
the rational make, but who has sunk itself beneath its rank, and is to
be considered at present as nearly on a level with the monkey
species...."
Even pamphlets and small books were written on the subject by ireful
male citizens, and the publisher of the _Boston News Letter_ braved the
wrath of womankind by inserting the following advertisement in his
paper: "Just published and Sold by the Printer hereof, HOOP PETTICOATS,
Arraigned and condemned by the Light of Nature and Law of God."[138]
Many a scribbler hiding behind some Latin pen name, such as Publicus,
poured forth in those early papers his spleen concerning woman's
costume. Thus in 1726 the _New England Weekly Journal_ published a
series of essays on the vanities of females, and the writer evidently
found much relief in delivering himself on those same hoop skirts: "I
shall not busy myself with the ladies' shoes and stockings at all, but I
can't so easily pass over the Hoop when 'tis in my way, and therefore I
must beg pardon of my fair readers if I begin my attack here. 'Tis now
some years since this remarkable fashion made a figure in the world and
from its first beginning divided the public opinion as to its
convenience and beauty. For my part I was always willing to indulge it
under some restrictions: that is to say if 'tis not a rival to the dome
of St. Paul's to incumber the way, or a tub for the residence of a new
Diogenes. If it does not eclipse too much beauty above or discover too
much below. In short, I am for living in peace, and I am afraid a fine
lady with too much liberty in this particular would render my own
imagination an enemy to my repose."
Perhaps, however, in this particular instance, men had some excuse for
their tirade; it may have come as a matter of self-preservation. We can
more readily understand their feelings when we learn the size of the
cause of it. In October, 1774, after Margaret Hutchinson had been
presented at the Court of St. James, she wrote her sister: "We called
for Mrs. Keene, but found that one coach would not contain more than two
such mighty hoops; and papa and Mr. K. were obliged to go in another
coach."
But hoops and bonnets and other extravagant forms of dress were not the
only phases of woman's adornment that startled the men and fretted their
souls. The very manner in which the ladies wore their hair caused their
lords and masters to run to the newspaper with a fresh outburst of
contempt. In 1731 some Massachusetts citizen with more wrath than
caution expressed himself thus: "I come now to the Head Dress--the very
highest point of female eloquence, and here I find such a variety of
modes, such a medley of decoration, that 'tis hard to know where to fix,
lace and cambrick, gauze and fringe, feathers and ribbands, create such
a confusion, occasion such frequent changes that it defies art,
judgement, or taste to recommend them to any standard, or reduce them to
any order. That ornament of the hair which is styled the Horns, and has
been in vogue so long, was certainly first calculated by some
good-natured lady to keep her spouse in countenance."[139]
This last statement proved too much; it was the straw that broke the
camel's back; even the meek colonial women could not suffer this to go
unanswered. In the next number of the same paper appeared the following,
written probably by some high-spirited dame: "You seem to blame us for
our innovations and fleeting fancy in dress which you are most
notoriously guilty of, who esteem yourselves the mighty, wise, and head
of the species. Therefore, I think it highly necessary that you show us
the example first, and begin the reformation among yourselves, if you
intend your observations shall have any with us. I leave the world to
judge whether our petticoat resembles the dome of St. Paul's nearer than
you in your long coats do the Monument. You complain of our masculine
appearance in our riding habits, and indeed we think it is but
reasonable that we should make reprisals upon you for the invasion of
our dress and figure, and the advances you make in effeminency, and your
degeneracy from the figure of man. Can there be a more ridiculous
appearance than to see a smart fellow within the compass of five feet
immersed in a huge long coat to his heels with cuffs to the arm pits,
the shoulders and breast fenced against the inclemencies of the weather
by a monstrous cape, or rather short cloak, shoe toes, pointed to the
heavens in imitation of the Lap-landers, with buckles of a harnass size?
I confess the beaux with their toupee wigs make us extremely merry, and
frequently put me in mind of my favorite monkey both in figure and
apishness, and were it not for a reverse of circumstances, I should be apt
to mistake it for Pug, and treat him with the same familiarity."[140]
_IV. Extravagance in Dress_
To all appearances it was less safe in colonial days for mere man to
comment on female attire than at present; for the typical gentlemen
before 1800 probably wore as many velvets, brocades, satins, laces, and
wigs as any woman of the day or since. Each sex, however, wasted more
than enough of both time and money on the matter. Grieve, the translator
of Chastellux, the Frenchman who made rather extensive observations in
America at the close of the Revolution, says in a footnote to
Chastellux's _Travels_: "The rage for dress amongst the women in
America, in the very height of the miseries of the war, was beyond all
bounds; nor was it confined to the great towns; it prevailed equally on
the sea coasts and in the woods and solitudes of the vast extent of
country from Florida to New Hampshire. In travelling into the interior
parts of Virginia I spent a delicious day at an inn, at the ferry of the
Shenandoah, or the Catacton Mountains, with the most engaging,
accomplished and voluptuous girls, the daughters of the landlord, a
native of Boston transplanted thither, who with all the gifts of nature
possessed the arts of dress not unworthy of Parisian milliners, and went
regularly three times a week to the distance of seven miles, to attend
the lessons of one DeGrace, a French dancing master, who was making a
fortune in the country."[141]
Such a statement must not, of course, be taken too seriously; for, as we
have seen, many women, such as Mrs. Washington, Abigail Adams, and Eliza
Pinckney, were almost parsimonious in dress during the great strife.
Doubtless there were many, however, particularly in the cities, who
could not or would not restrain their love of finery, especially when so
many handsome and gaily uniformed British officers were at hand. But
long before and after the Revolution there seems to have been no lack of
fashionable clothing. The old diaries and account books tell the tale.
Thus, Washington has left us an account of articles ordered from London
for his wife. Among these were "a salmon-colored tabby velvet of the
enclosed pattern, with satin flowers, to be made in a sack and coat,
ruffles to be made of Brussels lace or Point, proper to be worn with the
above _negligee_, to cost £20; 2 pairs of white silk hose; 1 pair of
white satin shoes of the smallest fives; 1 fashionable hat or bonnet; 6
pairs woman's best kid gloves; 6 pairs mitts; 1 dozen breast-knots; 1
dozen most fashionable cambric pocket handkerchiefs; 6 pounds perfumed
powder; a puckered petticoat of fashionable color; a silver tabby velvet
petticoat; handsome breast flowers;..." For little Miss Custis was
ordered "a coat made of fashionable silk, 6 pairs of white kid gloves,
handsome egrettes of different sorts, and one pair of pack thread
stays...."[142]
These may seem indeed rather strange gifts for a mere girl; but we
should remember that children of that day wore dresses similar to those
of their mothers, and such items as high-heeled shoes, heavy stays, and
enormous hoop petticoats were not at all unusual. Many things unknown to
the modern child were commonly used by the daughters of the wealthier
parents, such as long-armed gloves and complexion masks, made of linen
or velvet, and sun-bonnets sewed through the hair and under the
neck--all this to ward off every ray of the sun, and thus preserve the
delicate complexion of childhood.
That we may judge of the quality and quantity of a girl's apparel in
those fastidious days, examine this list of clothes sent by Colonel John
Lewis of Virginia in 1727 to be used by his ward, in an English school:
"A cap ruffle and tucker, the lace 5 shillings per yard,
1 pair White Stays,
8 pair White Kid gloves,
2 pair coloured kid gloves,
2 pair worsted hose,
3 pair thread hose,
1 pair silk shoes laced,
1 pair morocco shoes,
1 Hoop Coat,
1 Hat,
4 pair plain Spanish shoes,
2 pair calf shoes,
1 mask,
1 fan,
1 necklace,
1 Girdle and buckle,
1 piece fashionable calico,
4 yards ribbon for knots,
1-1/2 yd. Cambric,
1 mantua and coat of lute-string."[143]
One New England miss, sent to a finishing school at Boston, had twelve
silk gowns, but her teacher "wrote home that she must have another gown
of a 'recently imported rich fabric,' which was at once bought for her
because it was suitable for her rank and station."[144] Even the frugal
Ben Franklin saw to it that his wife and daughter dressed as well as the
best of them in rich gowns of silk. In the _Pennsylvania Gazette_ of
1750 there appeared the following advertisement: "Whereas on Saturday
night last the house of Benjamin Franklin of this city, Printer, was
broken open, and the following things feloniously taken away, viz., a
double necklace of gold beads, a woman's long scarlet cloak almost new,
with a double cape, a woman's gown, of printed cotton of the sort
called brocade print, very remarkable, the ground dark, with large red
roses, and other large and yellow flowers, with blue in some of the
flowers, with many green leaves; a pair of women's stays covered with
white tabby before, and dove colour'd tabby behind...."
It seems that in richness of dress Philadelphia led the colonial world,
even outrivaling the expenditure of the wealthy Virginia planters for
this item. While Philadelphia was the political and social center of the
day this extravagance was especially noticeable; but when New York
became the capital the Quaker city was almost over-shadowed by the
gaiety displayed in dress by the Dutch city. "You will find here the
English fashions," says St. John de Crevecoeur. "In the dress of the
women you will see the most brilliant silks, gauzes, hats and borrowed
hair.... If there is a town on the American continent where English
luxury displayed its follies it was in New York."[145]
All the blame, however, must not be placed upon the shoulders of
colonial dames. What else could the women do? They felt compelled to
make an appearance at least equal to that of the men, and probably
Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these men. Even the
conservative Washington appeared on state occasions in "black velvet, a
silver or steel hilted small sword at his left side, pearl satin
waistcoat, fine linen and lace, hair full powdered, black silk hose, and
bag."[146] Such finery was not limited to the ruling classes of the
land; a Boston printer of the days immediately following the Revolution
appeared in a costume that surpassed the most startling that Boston of
our times could display. "He wore a pea-green coat, white vest, nankeen
small clothes, white silk stockings, and pumps fastened with silver
buckles which covered at least half the foot, from instep to toe. His
small clothes were tied at the knees with ribbon of the same color in
double bows, the ends reaching down to the ankles. His hair in front was
well loaded with pomatum, frizzled or craped and powdered. Behind, his
natural hair was augmented by the addition of a large queue called
vulgarly a false tail, which, enrolled in some yards of black ribbon,
hung half way down his back."[147]
Surely this is enough of the men; let us return to the women. See the
future Dolly Madison at her first meeting with the "great, little Mr.
Madison." She had lived a Quaker during her girlhood, but she grew
bravely over it. "Her gown of mulberry satin, with tulle kerchief folded
over the bosom, set off to the best advantage the pearly white and
delicate rose tints of that complexion which constituted the chief
beauty of Dolly Todd."[148] The ladies of the Tory class evidently tried
to outshine those of the patriot party, and when there was a British
function of any sort,--as was often the case at Philadelphia--the scene
was indeed gay, with richly gowned matrons and maids on the arms of
English officers, brave with gold lace and gold buttons. One great fête
or festival known as the "Meschianza," given at Philadelphia, was so
gorgeous a pageant that years afterwards society of the capital talked
about it. Picture the costume of Miss Franks of Philadelphia on that
occasion: "The dress is more ridiculous and pretty than anything I ever
saw--great quantity of different colored feathers on the head at a time
besides a thousand other things. The Hair dress'd very high in the shape
Miss Vining's was the night we returned from Smiths--the Hat we found in
your Mother's Closet wou'd be of a proper size. I have an afternoon cap
with one wing--tho' I assure you I go less in the fashion than most of
the Ladies--none being dress'd without a hoop...."[149]
And, again, perhaps the modern woman can appreciate the following
description of a costume seen at the inaugural ball of 1789: "It was a
plain celestial blue satin gown, with a white satin petticoat. On the
neck was worn a very large Italian gauze handkerchief, with border
stripes of satin. The head-dress was a pouf of satin in the form of a
globe, the creneaux or head-piece which was composed of white satin,
having a double wing in large pleats and trimmed with a wreath of
artificial roses. The hair was dressed all over in detached curls, four
of which in two ranks, fell on each side of the neck and were relieved
behind by a floating chignon."[150]
Unlike the other first ladies of the day, Martha Washington made little
effort toward ostentation, and her plain manner of dress was sometimes
the occasion of astonishment and comment on the part of wives of foreign
representatives. Says Miss Chambers concerning this contrast between
European women and Mrs. Washington, as shown at a birthday ball tendered
the President in 1795: "She was dressed in a rich silk, but entirely
without ornament, except the animation her amiable heart gives to her
countenance. Next her were seated the wives of the foreign ambassadors,
glittering from the floor to the summit of their head-dress. One of the
ladies wore three large ostrich feathers, her brow encircled by a
sparkling fillet of diamonds; her neck and arms were almost covered with
jewels, and two watches were suspended from her girdle, and all
reflecting the light from a hundred directions."[151]
Nor was this richness of dress among foreign visitors confined to the
women. Sally McKean, who became the wife of the Spanish minister to
America, wore at one state function, "a blue satin dress, trimmed with
white crape and flowers, and petticoat of white crape richly embroidered
and across the front a festoon of rose color, caught up with flowers";
but her future husband had "his hair powdered like a snow ball; with
dark striped silk coat lined with satin, black silk breeches, white silk
stockings, shoes and buckles. He had by his side an elegant hilted
small-sword, and his chapeau tipped with white feathers, under his
arm."[152]
There were, of course, no fashion plates in that day, nor were there any
"living models" to strut back and forth before keen-eyed customers; but
fully dressed dolls were imported from France and England, and sent from
town to town as examples of properly attired ladies. Eliza Southgate
Bowne, after seeing the dolls in her shopping expeditions, wrote to a
friend: "Caroline and I went a-shopping yesterday, and 'tis a fact that
the little white satin Quaker bonnets, cap-crowns, are the most
fashionable that are worn--lined with pink or blue or white--but I'll
not have one, for if any of my old acquaintance should meet me in the
street they would laugh.... Large sheer-muslin shawls, put on as Sally
Weeks wears hers, are much worn; they show the form through and look
pretty. Silk nabobs, plaided, colored and white are much worn--very
short waists--hair very plain."
Of course, the men of the day, found a good deal of pleasure in poking
fun at woman's use of dress and ornaments as bait for entrapping lovers,
and many a squib expressing this theory appeared in the newspapers.
These cynical notes no more represented the general opinion of the
people than do similar satires in the comic sheets of to-day; but they
are interesting at least, as showing a long prevailing weakness among
men. The following sarcastic advertisement, for instance, was written by
John Trumbull:
"To Be Sold at Public Vendue,
The Whole Estate of
Isabella Sprightly, Toast and Coquette,
(Now retiring from Business)
"Imprimis, all the tools and utensils necessary for carrying on
the trade, viz.: several bundles of darts and arrows well pointed
and capable of doing great execution. A considerable quantity of
patches, paint, brushes and cosmetics for plastering, painting,
and white-washing the face; a complete set of caps, "a la mode a
Paris," of all sizes, from five to fifteen inches in height; with
several dozens of cupids, very proper to be stationed on a ruby
lip, a diamond eye, or a roseate cheek.
"Item, as she proposes by certain ceremonies to transform one of
her humble servants into a husband and keep him for her own use,
she offers for sale, Florio, Daphnis, Cynthio, and Cleanthes,
with several others whom she won by a constant attendance on
business during the space of four years. She can prove her
indisputable right thus to dispose of them by certain deeds of
gifts, bills of sale, and attestation, vulgarly called love
letters, under their own hands and seals. They will be offered
very cheap, for they are all of them broken-hearted, consumptive,
or in a dying condition. Nay, some of them have been dead this
half year, as they declare and testify in the above mentioned
writing.
"N.B. Their hearts will be sold separately."
When all the above implements and wiles failed to entrap a lover, and
the coquette was left as a "wall-flower," as the Germans express it, the
men of the day satirized the unfortunate one just as mercilessly. Read,
for example, a few lines from the _Progress of Dullness_, thought to be
a very humorous poem in its time:
"Poor Harriett now hath had her day;
No more the beaux confess her sway;
New beauties push her from the stage;
She trembles at the approach of age,
And starts to view the altered face
That wrinkles at her in her glass.
* * * * *
"Despised by all and doomed to meet
Her lovers at her rivals' feet,
She flies assemblies, shuns the ball,
And cries out vanity, on all;
* * * * *
"Now careless grown of airs polite
Her noon-day night-cap meets the sight;
Her hair uncombed collects together
With ornaments of many a feather.
* * * * *
"She spends her breath as years prevail
At this sad wicked world to rail,
To slander all her sex impromptu,
And wonder what the times will come to."
During the earlier years of the seventeenth century, as we have noted,
this deprecatory opinion by men concerning woman's garb was not confined
to ridicule in journals and books, but was even incorporated into the
laws of several towns and colonies. Women were compelled to dress in a
certain manner and within fixed financial limits, or suffered the
penalties of the courts. Many were the "presentations," as such cases
were called, of our colonial ancestors. As material wealth increased,
however, dress became more and more elaborate until in the era shortly
before and after the Revolution fashions were almost extravagant. Costly
satins, silks, velvets, and brocades were among the common items of
dress purchased by even the moderately well-to-do city and planter folk.
If space permitted, many quotations by travellers from abroad,
accustomed to the splendor of European courts, could be presented to
show the surprising quality and good taste displayed in the garments of
the better classes of the New World. To their honor, however, it may be
remembered that these same American women in the days of tribulation
when their husbands were battling for a new nation were willing to cast
aside such indications of wealth and pride, and don the humble homespun
garments made by their own hands.
FOOTNOTES:
[128] Fiske: _Old Virginia_, Vol. I, p. 246.
[129] Page 76.
[130] Smyth: _Writings of B. Franklin_, Vol. IV, p. 449.
[131] _Ibid._ Vol. III, p. 431.
[132] _Ibid._ Vol. III, p. 419.
[133] _Ibid._ Vol. III, p. 438.
[134] _Letters of A. Adams_, p. 282.
[135] _Letters of A. Adams_, p. 250.
[136] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 227.
[137] Buckingham: _Reminiscences_, Vol. I, p. 34.
[138] Buckingham. Vol. I, p. 88.
[139] Buckingham, Vol. I, p. 115.
[140] _Ibid._
[141] Vol. II, p. 115.
[142] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 59.
[143] Quoted in Earle: _Home Life in Colonial Days_, p. 290.
[144] Earle: _Home Life in Colonial Days_, p. 291.
[145] Wharton: _Through Colonial Doorways_, p. 89.
[146] Wharton: _M. Washington_, p. 225.
[147] Earle: _Home Life in Colonial Days_, p. 294.
[148] Goodwin: _Dolly Madison_, p. 54.
[149] Wharton: _Through Colonial Doorways_, p. 219.
[150] Wharton: _Through Colonial Doorways_, p. 79.
[151] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 230.
[152] Crawford: _Romantic Days in the Early Republic_, p. 53.