Commonly Held Misconceptions About Historic Costume

Commonly Held Misconceptions About Historic Costume

by Elizabeth Walton

http://www.clotheslinejournal.com/victorian.myths.html

Author's note:
The following paper is a response to questions people have asked or opinions I have seen stated as fact. Those of us who study costume at length learn early that many commonly held beliefs are wholly untrue or only partially true. As these beliefs are common, false information is often passed without question. There is rarely an easy answer to any question of dress and history and for this reason, I want to give a more lengthy, detailed, and researched account for interpreters and enthusiasts to refer to or start from. I hope that this paper, and this site, can answer many of the questions people have and I welcome any questions you have heard and answers you wish to know.

Common misconceptions about historic costume

The study of costume is based on the most fundamental needs and wants of humans. Since the dawn of time we have worn clothing for many purposes, including warmth, modesty, seduction, show of wealth, social standards, and cultural identity. Clothing has subtly or obviously been a part of every historical event and period, so naturally questions arise. This paper focuses primarily on the fashions and customs of the European and American middle and upper classes in the last three centuries. It is in this time span that dress as we know it today developed.

These questions also tend to bring up subjects that are much more vast than can be discussed thoroughly in this article. Changing ideas of masculinity and femininity, technological advances, child rearing techniques, social movements, medical advances and philosophies all play large roles in the clothes we wear and those worn by our ancestors. Nothing in this field is concrete and easily answered. The answers offered here can, at times, bring up more questions. Further clarifications can be found in the sources cited below.

Most current misconceptions stem from ideas passed down from the Victorian era. Of all periods of history, the Victorian era is among the most important and familiar to people of today. It is also one of the most misunderstood. Behind the exorbitant amounts of cloth used for clothing were strict social guidelines and stiff, restrictive undergarments. By today's standards, Victorians were known to be easily shocked (by women's pants and bare ankles for example). At the same time, they were not as conservative as people tend to think today. Their way of life greatly affected our own and remains misunderstood in many ways.

Corsets

Corsets fascinated people for centuries, probably since their inception. They have altered the shapes of women and men to suit the ideals of beauty. They have been heralded by the medical community as necessary for the health of weak bodies and at the same time blamed for maladies and even deaths to these same bodies. They have been both the targets of sexual fetish and a staple in most female wardrobes. Corsets have been seen as symbols of the restrictions put upon women even in their most intimate state. Though the shape of the corset, and even the names for it have changed over time, women and men have remained fascinated with this curious contraption.

Did women really pull their corsets so tight that they had 16 inch waists like Scarlet O'Hara?

This belief is almost certainly untrue. The belief that waists could be so small stems from a great deal of photographic and written "proof." However, most, if not all of this "proof" is extremely arguable.[1] Actual proof, for example, surviving corsets and garments, have not been found despite the fact that smaller pieces of clothing are more likely to survive through the generations as so few people could wear them. The 17 inch waist was a memorable feature of Gone With The Wind and like much of the book, an exaggeration. If such a small waist did exist it was more likely the result of a fetish related behavior deemed "tight lacing."

The two primary sources of proof of waists laced as small as fourteen inches are photographs and magazine editorials. Since the invention of photography people have tended to believe what they see. However, the manipulation of images to create what is wanted rather than what is true is not a recent occurrence. Many examples of retouched waists have been found, all of which present an impossibly small waist. These images may have been created for a tight lacing woman herself or for an admirer with this particular fetish. Written correspondence and even medical literature has also proven to be highly unreliable upon close examination. These letters and articles were published in small circles and include aspects of common fetishes including masochism and bondage.[2]

The actual size of a sixteen inch waist is rarely physically imagined and as a result, "Visitors to costume exhibitions exclaim with horror at the sight of nineteenth century corsets. Yet the measure of existing nineteenth century corsets and dresses are not excessively small: twenty-one or twenty-two-inch waists were not uncommon... and sixteen inch apparently nonexistent."[3]

Waists on these dresses do appear very small by today's standards, especially to the untrained eye. Mid 19th century corsets create waists that appear rounder and shorter than the ideal waists seen in today's media. A "flat" stomach was not the ideal and hips appeared much larger due to the movement of flesh from the waist. The external forces of the corset have become internal by the forces of diet and exercise needed to create the ideal figure of today.

Did women really remove ribs to have a smaller waist?

This belief remains strong and particularly fascinating to many people. As a matter of fact, rumors of rib removal remain in today's society (Cher is most commonly mentioned). Such urban myths easily spread as they sound so interestingly gory. Many factors make this highly unlikely. The primary factor is the idea of surgery itself. In the twentieth century we became accustomed to the idea of improving our looks through surgery. In the latter half of the century surgeries were developed that could "fix" the most minor of flaws with seemingly little or no risk. The nineteenth century (and earlier) was not characterized by such a casual idea of surgery.
Medicine was still primitive by today's standards and risk of infection was very high (antibiotics were not yet found). Needed surgeries were often deadly and it is unlikely that someone would be vain enough to risk death so boldly. [4]

These beliefs may also come from the photographic images discussed above. Through time the unbelievable has been manipulated to become believable to many people. No reliable evidence has proven that rib removal has ever been more than conjecture.
These myths seem to come about from people speculating from jealousy or disbelief. My own speculation is that someone wonders, "how can that girl's waist be so tiny? She must have removed ribs to make that possible." Eventually, like a game of telephone, it changes to "that girl had ribs removed."

Women

Is it true that WWI shocked people so much that women got the vote, stopped wearing corsets and shortened their skirts in a wave of feminine liberation?

This is a common idea based ideas of before and ideas of after, without looking at the war years themselves. Despite the war, women on the home front still wanted some vestige of normality and still looked to fashion. In America, women still sought out fashion as the US was not in the war until 1917. Magazines mourned the loss of Paris styles and applauded female war workers on both sides of the fight. Corsets were becoming less necessary to create the ideal form both before and during the war as the fashionable shape changed. The "youthful" figure which gradually replaced the S-curve did not require corsets shaped like those from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Furthermore, around this time the brassiere was greatly advertised and worn with corsets that held in the hips. The word corset was also gradually being replaced with descriptions like girdle or foundation which still contained the boning seen in corsets.

The fashions of the late teens and early twenties further show that "flappers" did not suddenly appear. Hemlines began to rise in 1913, not 1918 and the high collars and long sleeves of the Victorian era were being rejected as early as 1908. Dress reform movements of the late nineteenth century criticized the need for corsets and promoted loose comfortable clothing. Mariano Fortuny and Liberty of London both found success in "reform" dress long before the first World War.

Many of the behaviors associated with flappers began earlier than 1919 when these women were still children or young ladies. Magazines of the early teens refer to women driving, voting, dancing, smoking, and going out without escorts. Women were participating increasingly in sports and other physical activities which helped them become comfortable being seen in looser, more freeing styles. While the Great War did have a role in changing society, other factors had great roles also. These included art and theater movements, cinema, music, prohibition, and increased urbanization.

The wearing of restraining garments also did not end with the war. To create the desired "boyish" look women wore girdles to restrain the hips and chest. Though many of the layers of the past were cast aside, the everyday wear of the 1920's was not generally as daring as we tend to believe when seeing the most daring images on film.

Isn't it true that when the economy is bad skirts get longer?

This is a 20th century belief that has arisen from some fashion trends, but is overall unsubstantiated and coincidental. The first instance that is quoted of this phenomenon is the 1920s flapper dresses, during a time in which the financial markets were booming. However, as I stated above, skirts began shortening long before the boom of the twenties. They also began to lengthen again before the stock market crash of 1929. The changing of skirt lengths are more a result of a fashion growing old and being reacted to or are the result of other circumstances.

This was the case in World War II. During the war the American economy boomed. However, skirt lengths shortened directly because of rationing. Government regulations forbid the use of excess fabric on new clothes and women strove to appear patriotic. After the war designers returned to excessive use of fabric because it had been forbidden for several years.

In the 1960s short skirts again came into fashion, but no major economic forces were there to react to. The impetus was primarily social and cultural as fashion turned away from tradition and towards youth culture. The Seventies and Eighties were characterized by constantly shifting hemlines in the fashion press as designers strove to create and adapt to the new practices of the fashion industry.

Weren't women kept immobile by their clothes until the 20th century?

Generally, yes. For the fashionable elite clothing was created from yards and yards of fabric and supported by layers of undergarments which limited the ways in which a woman could move. Some garments were made for specific sports, but remained more restrictive than that of men in order to retain the ideals of modesty and feminine silhouettes.

In public life, women who could afford it wore clothes which gave the impression that there was no need to work. Being fashionable exclaimed social status. Women who needed to work (most of the population) wore clothes which allowed for necessary movement. Women working in fields even wore pants on occasion (see next section). While working in the kitchen women wore informal clothes. They also did not expect to be seen by anyone other than family and very close friends. They were most likely not fully corseted either. Some support would be wanted, as we wear bras today, but women were not impractical and did not generally seek pain. A loosely laced corset for everyday wear would supply this.

The increased participation of women in sports caused the creation of new forms of clothing in the late 19th century which helped bring about the freedom of movement we know today. Tennis, archery, horseback riding, badminton and other pastimes each had their own "uniform" which was related to current fashion and was publicly acceptable in the right circumstances. They were not however as freeing as today's athletic equipment and clothing.

Swimwear was especially restricting for women until well into the twentieth century. In the early nineteenth century women began to go to the beach and step into the water. Acceptable and specialized clothing developed, but was only slightly less voluminous than normal day wear. These ensembles were made of wool and fully covered the body. When wet these outfits could weigh as much as 50 pounds, making it virtually impossible for women to do more than step a few feet into the water.

Isn't it true that women never wore pants until 50 years ago?

It is true that skirts have been the accepted wear for women throughout the world for centuries. However, women did wear pants, in public, on occasion. In the Eighteenth century, costume balls were enormously popular. Empress Elizabeth of Russia regularly required that women dress as men and vice versa. [5] When riding horseback she would wear pants much like that of her male counterparts. Costume balls continued to be popular in wealthy circles and it was not unusual for women to wear shortened skirts with visible pants. [6]

In the early 1850s the "bloomer" or "Turkish" costume was created as a form of dress reform to give women a more comfortable and practical form of women's dress. Shorter skirts with loose trousers were controversial. They were worn by feminists of the time including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Amelia Bloomer (after whom it was named).

These outfits never gained wide popularity but remained a symbol of dress reform and liberation and were worn for several decades by a small number of women. [7] These ensembles also allowed for greater movement and comfort for women who worked in fields. Wonderful examples and photographs of these outfits can be found in the book Dressed for the Photographer by Joan Severa.

In the twentieth century pants slowly gained acceptance as casual wear. Movie stars, especially Marlene Dietrich and Katherine Hepburn, were shown wearing pants and were emulated by many, though not all women. It was not until the 1970s that pants gained acceptance in public and formal spheres.

Weren't Victorian women always covered up?

As Victorian etiquette followed specific rules, the amount of skin remaining visible could easily indicate a person's class and or personality. Modesty was an admirable trait for women to possess and public display of immodesty could greatly affect a reputation. However, looking at an evening gown, one might be surprised at the amount of visible cleavage (décolletage) which would never be seen on the street. The necklines of evening gowns would display bare shoulders, necks and backs. The well-covered styles usually associated with the Victorians are more typical of daytime wear, where it was not seemly to display excess skin.

Is it true that only loose women wore makeup before the 1920s?

It is true that women would not wear any amount close to what is worn now during much of the Victorian era, but cosmetics were available in the forms of face power, rouge and hair dyes. As women were conscious of their flaws as much as today, it is not surprising that they would enlist the help of cosmetics.

Cosmetics have been in existence for centuries. The ancient Egyptians used charcoal eyeliner. Elizabethans "used white lead to obtain their fashionable pallor"[8] In the eighteenth century a person could not be fashionable without white face powder and rouge. Victorians tended to look down on cosmetics as unclean in their "fetish for cleanliness."[9] Cosmetics were used surreptitiously by respectable women wanting to improve their appearance. Rouge and face creams were commercially available in the late nineteenth century though, "it could be risky to buy commercial beauty products" [10] due to the uncertainty of the contents.

Didn't people see how ridiculous bustles and hoops looked?

My response to this question is: Didn't you know you looked ridiculous in high school? It is a safe question as everyone looked ridiculous at some point in his or her life. Also, it makes them think about the tendency to judge others based on today's standards.

During those periods of extreme fashion, wide hoops and bustles, poofy pants, layers of petticoats people knew that they were greatly exaggerating the true figure. The fashions began deliberately. Much of this provided a means for conspicuous consumption, meaning a way to show off how much unnecessary fabric you can afford to buy because you are so rich and desirable. This is related to label lovers today. The more designers you wear, the wealthier you are. As fashions tended to trickle down from the wealthy, others would imitate the shapes and designs often in less expensive ways.

Furthermore, these hoops often were not as cumbersome as they appear. The large hoops of the second half of the 19th century were initially a relief for women who were trying to have fashionable silhouettes with heavy layers of underskirts. The crinoline provided a lighter and more flexible support for the fashions of the day. They also, however, contributed to the increase in size and awkwardness of later fashions. As shapes of hoops developed and changed so did ways of moving and even furniture shape (the chaise lounge for instance) to allow for women to sit and rest at a social function while keeping a graceful appearance. Nor must we think that all hoops were enormous. Women wore hoops of different sizes for different occasions and could forego hoops and crinolines at home. At royal courts, hoops reached record widths in the 18th century, even after they were very much out of style in other circumstances. The greater weight and difficulty of hooped fashions were the yards of cloth draped over them, at times forming a train as well.

Children

Why did they dress little boys like little girls?

The way children have been dressed first relates to ideas of infancy, development, and gender identity. Until the eighteenth century most babies were wrapped in swaddling cloth, put in short dresses, then dressed in miniature adult clothing while still quite young in preparation for adult roles. The 1760's brought in philosophies of Rousseau which promoted clothing that allowed for children's natural development. Dresses promoted movement and ease for both sexes. Though adult roles were extremely gender specific, small children's clothing was not. The specifics of dress in every period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries cannot be discussed here as they changed with fashion, science and culture. General theories and tendencies, however, can be discussed.

Many images of small boys from the Victorian period and earlier appear feminine by today's standards. Some images show young boys in dresses almost identical to those of girls. Late nineteenth century images show boys in the little pantsuits with lace and velvet deemed the Little Lord Fauntleroy suit after one described in the Frances Hodgeson Burnett book. Boys' clothing was not dissimilar to women's fashions of the nineteenth century. It was not unusual in the nineteenth century for small girls to wear bloomers, or pants beneath their dresses as well. Though the shapes and details of this form of dress are feminine by today's standards, people living at the time would not confuse these boys for girls, nor would a parent be appalled at the idea of someone thinking their infant son was a little girl or vice versa.

Like many other aspects of dress, the visible implicators of masculine and feminine have changed over time. The color schemes we associate with the identification of an infant's gender did not develop until the early to mid twentieth century. Pinks and blues were used interchangeably on children when colors were used, but infants of the nineteenth century would most likely be attired in white. It displayed purity and could be bleached clean, an issue of practicality. Visible designs and accessories were recognizable by contemporaries as masculine or feminine, but the dress itself would not necessarily be an indicator. Finally, the use of pants for infant and toddler boys could create additional difficulties as fasteners commonly used today (snaps, zippers and velcro) were not available until the twentieth century. In the time before a child was potty trained, dresses would provide cover and access to diapers.

Until recent decades parents were not as concerned with declaring a child's sex. Children would rarely be exposed to strangers until well into their toddler years due to the more home-based lives most people lived.[11] Gender would not need to be advertised to others who most likely knew the parents and the gender of the child already.

Beliefs about the nature of children also supported the idea that children developed personalities and individual traits as they grew, but were not necessarily born with them. Until babies grew into toddlers (2 or 3 years old) gender would not play a role in their lives. This may have been partially due to the high rates of infant mortality. This lack of individuality may have been a form of psychological protection for parents facing the likelihood of losing infant children.[12]

Men

Wasn't it revolutionary for men to have long hair in the sixties?

Hair length has often had some connections with ideas of masculinity and femininity. The idea in the 1960s that men with long hair were revolutionary and turning society upside down was true only in the narrow ideals of mid-twentieth century America. In past centuries men have often worn long hair and women have on occasion worn short hair. Men of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries wore long elaborate hairstyles created with their own hair or wigs. In the Napoleonic Era women wore classically inspired short hairdos.

**All photographic images are courtesy of the Phoenix Art Museum Fashion Design Collection.

Notes
1 Kidwell, Claudia Brush and Steele, Valerie. Men and Women: Dressing the Part. (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.) 53
2 ibid. pg. 53. This aspect is further examined in Fashion and Eroticism by Valerie Steele
3 ibid. p. 52
4 Steele, Valerie. Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty from the Victorian Era to the Jazz Age. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). p.170
5 Maroger, Dominique, ed. The Memoirs of Catherine the Great. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955.) p. 78
6 Kidwell, Claudia Brush and Steele, Valerie. Men and Women: Dressing the Part.
7 Severa, Joan. Dressed For the Photographer: Ordinary Americans and Fashion, 1840-1900. (Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 1995)
8 De Castelbajac, Kate. The Face of the Century: 100 Years of Makeup and Style. (New York: Rizzoli 1995) p. 7
9 Ibid. p. 7
10 Mulvey, Kate and Richards, Melissa. Decades of Beauty: The Changing Image of Women 1890s-1990s. (New York: Octopus Publishing Group, 1998.) p. 20
11 Kidwell, Claudia Brush and Steele, Valerie. Men and Women: Dressing the Part. p. 29
12 Ibid. p. 24

Bibliography

Buxbaum, Gerda, ed. Icons of Fashion: The 20th Century. New York: Prestel, 1999.
Chenoune, Farid. Beneath It All: A Century Of French Lingerie. New York: Rizzoli, 1999.
De Castelbajac, Kate. The Face of the Century: 100 Years of Makeup and Style. New York: Rizzoli 1995.
Ewing, Elizabeth. History of Children's Costume. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1977.
Ginsberg, Madeleine. Victorian Dress In Photographs. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers
Kidwell, Claudia Brush and Steele, Valerie. Men and Women: Dressing the Part. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
Maroger, Dominique, ed. The Memoirs of Catherine the Great. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955.
Mulvey, Kate and Richards, Melissa. Decades of Beauty: The Changing Image of Women 1890s-1990s New York: Octopus Publishing Group, 1998.
Perrot, Phillipe. Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Severa, Joan. Dressed For the Photographer: Ordinary Americans and Fashion, 1840-1900. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 1995.
Steele, Valerie. Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty from the Victorian Era to the Jazz Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Walkley, Christina. The Way to Wear'em 150 Years of Punch in Fashion. London: Peter Owen, 1985.