costume--history

In the seventeenth century, something interesting started to happen with clothing and dress. Men (and women) began to wear clothes that expressed what they believed in or stood for. A prime example of this can be found in Europe with the division between those who dressed in a sober manner and the more gaudy fashions of the upper classes. Whether from religious or social scruples, a rather puritanical mode of dress gained a powerful foothold with the professional and middle classes.

In England, the civil strife of the times took a bloody turn. King Charles I was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell and his Commonwealth followers. Dress played a role in the conflict of the ensuing years. Even the Restoration of Charles II couldn’t erase the indelible mark of the plainly dressed Roundheads. Their clothing was a statement of ideology.

As a consequence, this strain of plain versus elaborate adornment entered Western dress. It would go through countless permutations over the years, until it reached George “Beau” Brummell and became part of the modern men’s wear code. Dressing like a Cavalier would be remembered as something strictly for playtime or posturing. Another intriguing twist of the seventeenth century: while Cavalier men dressed like peacocks, their women more often resembled peahens. Don’t you think this was rather unfair?

We can see, therefore, that fashion originated as a mode for the elite, long before the age of haute couture. This connotation is stamped deeply within our consciousnesses. Would it also explain why we crave fashion so much? Do we see it, as our ancestors did, as a means of social uplift? Fashion now grew ever stronger as society matured. By the time of the Renaissance in Europe, fashion as a means of social control had become a weapon in the arsenal of the ruling classes.

By 1500, the notion of a “well-fashioned” man or woman had come into consideration. The use of clothing to flaunt or proclaim was popular, certainly among the wealthy and titled. Suggestive male clothing features such as the codpiece and tight hose enjoyed a vogue. Some courtiers, influenced by Nicolo Macchiavelli, began to favor black as a color for their clothing, joining judges, scholars, and professional men in the belief that the color gave them a dignified gravity, or substance, in the eyes of society.

Perhaps the worlds of daily reality and art were beginning to merge. To me, portraiture from the 1500s and 1600s shows virile men while women are depicted with a touch of the otherworldly. Does this have to do more with idealization or with the fact that women were kept so firmly in their place back then?

p.s. I’ve been listening to all the conversations about Michelle Obama’s inaugural ball gown, designed by Jason Wu. A majority of people weren’t as happy with it as they expected to be, but also have had a hard time explaining just why they didn’t like it. I think that the gown was simply too young a style for her. She needed a gown with a more dramatic cut that would flatter her tall, lithe figure. Oh well, she still looked lovely…

I’m always delighted and relieved when people actually make comments. Thanks, Colin and John, for pointing out that the “Dark Ages” are less so than they first seemed, and that the Church had an active interest in keeping bodies draped. John also noted that tailoring and court fashions truly changed the tenor of dress. I’ve wondered in return if this was an early example of human nature and its craving for interesting dress trumping the religious morality of the times...

With fashion firmly established during the Middle Ages, what can be said about the creation of fashionable styles? Clothing styles that had previously existed for long periods, even decades, now began to change on a more rapid basis. Sometimes fashions manifested themselves as changes to specific garments, and the houppelande became a ready palette for such stylistic change.

By definition, the houppelande was a long, full-skirted gown with a high collar. Worn by both sexes, it was a staple garment from the 14th through 16th centuries. The way that the upper classes and nobility wore the houppelande, however, dramatically demonstrates the effects of fashion, as we see in this wonderful illustration from the time of Richard II of England. The taste for exaggerated sleeves and shoes with turned up points, known as poulaine, marked the wearer as a privileged person – someone who definitely didn’t need to do manual labor. Royalty and their noble-born followers were so intent on preserving the ability to make fashions unique to themselves, they failed to notice how quickly the lower classes were able to ape their betters. And so we see an early example of the power of fashion at work within an unequal society.

Once they did take notice, the upper classes discarded their fashions with practiced ease, moving on to the next enthusiasm in dress. The invention of tailoring in the 14th century not only aided the development of court fashion and military uniforms, it also offered more practical garment adjustments. The fashion cycle was spinning more frequently, in a continuing quest to renew itself as something fresh and ready to be envied and admired. In other words, becoming more like what we’re familiar with, eh?

The transition to the Middle Ages, or the Medieval era, occurred when information—including fashion changes—became better spread by trade and travel. Royal courts exchanged information (and spies) on what rivals were doing and wearing. Monarchs and court favorites were studied for their fashion innovations, in a manner quite similar to the recent media scrutiny of Hilary Clinton’s South Sea pearls during her confirmation hearing. The upper classes dressed to impress and their inferiors scrambled to imitate them when they could. Class status was preserved when better dress could be denied to those of lower class status, giving rise to sumptuary laws for clothing and textiles that only begged to be broken.

The nobility considered themselves the arbiters of fashion, while increasingly finding themselves threatened by the growing merchant and middle classes. Almost as soon as nobles ventured out of their castles in the latest fashions, wealthy merchants’ sons were spurred to copy their dress. Imitators included those in the affluent middle class whose goal was upward social mobility. Even transvestism now had a place in creating mobility between the sexes. Isn’t it fascinating to realize that these patterns of social mimicry became prevalent in the Medieval era, long before the time of Jay Gatsby?

p.s. Although I may be wrapped up in the past right now, I’m still mindful of what day today is. January 20, 2009. Inauguration Day. Have you been following the spate of stories and articles in the media about how the fashion industry is looking to Michelle Obama for salvation? C’mon, get a grip! Instead of looking to one woman, however wonderful and stylish she may be, why doesn’t the fashion business look to what really is the problem? Wretched designs, that’s what! Lose those baby dolls and shrunken scale jackets. We’ll all spend money again if there’s actually something to buy out there!

The influence of the early Christian Church was pervasive in this time period. Divided between Byzantium in the east and the Western Roman Empire, men and women were more draped in garments than ever before. Although the term the “Dark Ages” has fallen out of favor in recent years—in fact its use can incite the mildest of medievalists—it can be used to indicate the period between the fall of the Roman Empire (3rd century A.D.) up to the ninth century, when cultural standards waned along with command of the Latin language. Monasteries and places where religious orders gathered were bastions against illiteracy and the decline in the quality of life. Islam appeared in the early seventh century and united disparate nations in the Middle East.

A place for fashion and dress in these times seems subordinate to the drama playing out across Europe. Only when feudal monarchies developed, to the point of launching Crusades against the Ottoman Turks who controlled the Holy Land, did dress take on more substantial meaning. And even then, it served to distinguish faiths from each other or the rise of improved arms and armor. National and regional costumes originated in this period. The Dark Ages passed when travel increased and greater contact was established amongst peoples. I don’t know if it’s just me, but does this time seems remoter than other periods?

“Fashion as we know it in the West, is not and never was a universal condition of dress. It is a European product and is not nearly as old as European Civilization.”
----Quentin Bell (1910-1996)

The Bible says that when Adam and Eve sinned, they were forced to cover their nakedness. The clothed body certainly became an essential part of the human condition. What people did with their clothing, however, was derived from diverse motivations. Geography, climate, and a growing list of social impulses triggered basic decisions about garments. The ancient Egyptians learned that fine unbleached linen wore well in their desert environment while the indigenous people of the upper North American continent relied on animal skins for necessary protection against the elements. Class distinctions sprang up in all early societies, regardless of their geographical location, further dictating who would wear what.

Since our educational system in the twentieth and twenty-first century remains largely based on Western civilization, I feel compelled to look there first. This doesn’t mean that non-Western cultures haven’t contributed greatly to clothing and adornment. With my theme of fashion as a social force in mind, I’m going to first review dress across the centuries (with an emphasis on Western dress, and some selective diversions) and what was important about the way people wore their clothes. After this review, a new path for investigation will emerge…

It’s useful to know what I always discuss with my Costume and Fashion History classes: the correct subject headings for searching Library holdings are Costume and Clothing and Dress. Fashion is a workable heading, but Fashion Design will garner fewer results than you might expect.

Ah, the new year! What lies ahead for us? 2008 produced many surprises on the economic front, a youthful, energized President-elect, and a world-weary sense that we need to learn from our mistakes. The past half-dozen years have been one long shopping frenzy, but now the coins have left our collective pockets, along with our 401[k]s. While the flames smolder and smoke from our bank statements and credit cards, it’s time to review how we got to this point. As always, fashion as a social force can be blamed in part. We were led to believe that everything was ours for the asking—or so our society seemed to promise.

Why does fashion, that ever powerful force, play so great a role in our lives? The answer isn’t as straightforward as we’d like. While there’s still much to learn from the adage everything old is new again, the stories of when, how, and why we made changes in our mode of dressing are also part of the history of humanity. Even colors play a role. In the Middle Ages, prostitutes wore red gowns and pious men swathed themselves in black. Nowadays, red is the color of allure and power, while black has acquired a multiplicity of meanings. When we look back at the reasons for these developments, they take on an even richer context when fashion as a social force is factored in.

This means that I’ll be leaving the 1920s and 1930s and taking us anywhere and everywhere for a while, with meaningful stories from the history of clothing—and fashion—as a theme for my post musings. At some points, I may seem like Don Quixote tilting at the windmills. But never fear! Like so many storytellers, I’m taking us somewhere in the end. As one American Indian author recently said when writing about Native life today, “our stories are all we have.” Well, I think that statement goes for the human condition as well…