Science of Dress/Chapter XI
CHAPTER XI.
A NEW SYSTEM OF DRESS FOR WOMEN.[edit]
WHEN stays are not worn, it becomes a matter of some difficulty how to fasten the clothes so that their weight shall not fall unduly on any particular part of the body, and so that they shall not press tightly on any part; the figures of most young girls are so slight that their garments have a strong tendency to slip down over the narrow hips. To counteract this tendency it is necessary either that union garments should be worn, or that all separate skirts and drawers should be fastened to a bodice.[1] Only recently a correspondent of the Queen recommended a bodice for this purpose, but, according to her description of it, the bodice was to be cut only to reach the waist. (See Plate 5, line A, B.) This is a mistake, for in this case the weight of the clothes would hang entirely from the waist, and would press upon the soft parts of the pelvis, thus causing perhaps serious mischief. The bodice should be cut well down over the hips, and the buttons placed round the bones of the hips so that the weight of the clothes may be supported by these bones as in the accompanying engraving.
A high-necked and long-sleeved woollen combination vest and drawers should be worn next the skin. Over this should be a closely-fitting flannel bodice, on to which the suspenders of the stockings should be buttoned, and to which the drawers can be fastened if made separate from the vest. On to the bodice also is fastened what is called the divided skirt—loose trousers made of the material of the dress, the bottom of each leg being finished with a kilting. The above illustration, which the National Health Society has kindly lent me, shows the sleeves and neck of the vest, the bodice, and the divided skirt.
These form the whole of the under-clothing, though in very cold weather an extra pair of woollen drawers may be worn under the divided skirt. The advantages of this system of dress are manifold. It clothes every part of the body evenly and warmly, permits perfect freedom of movement, gives the maximum of warmth with the minimum of weight, and, as none of the garments fasten round the waist, injurious pressure on the abdominal and pelvic organs is avoided.
Besides the advantage to health in adopting this plan, as the thickness of the clothing is removed from the waist its natural outline is shown; and if the figure is beautiful, its light is not hidden under a bushel, as in the former case. It is said that all the weight of the clothes should fall upon the arch of the shoulder and the pelvic bones; but, as in the young these bones are not sufficiently prominent to serve as supports, the weight has to fall chiefly upon the shoulder. Now many people, knowing the evil of tight clothing, have their children's things made so loose, that the hand can be passed up between them and the body; the weight thus falls entirely on the shoulder, and the bones, not having attained their full growth and firmness, are liable under this strain to become deformed. The weight of the dress, owing to trimming, &c., is not equal on all sides; hence, if it drags towards the front the neck is poked forward, while the shoulders grow round and protruding; if heavier on one side than the other, one shoulder is constantly hitched up, and grows higher than the other, and the head is twisted to one side to retain the centre of gravity. The spine may become curved and the pelvis deformed owing to the way the body is twisted. The chest is also compressed by the weight hanging over it, and breathing becomes laboured—an accident which brings with it a whole train of evils, of which the chief is general debility, brought about by insufficient aeration of the blood. The weight of the clothes is, moreover, rarely supported on the shoulder arch, but on the upper part of the arm itself, which it pinions to the side. This is caused by the bad way in which clothes are generally cut. If—as, for example, in chemises—the garment is low in the neck, the band or sleeve, which is supposed to rest upon the shoulder, almost invariably slips down over the arm, causing a painful dragging at the shoulder (see Plate 5, line C, D), and preventing the possibility of raising the arms over the head. High-necked garments also are frequently cut too long on the shoulder—a fault which brings about much the same unpleasant result; and armholes are generally made too small to allow those free movements of the arms which are necessary to their healthy development and to the development of the lungs.
The great desideratum is, that clothes should fit, in the proper sense of the word. They should be neither too tight nor too loose. As I said in a former chapter, clothes in their action are supple
The bodice itself should be made of flannel, for if it were constructed of a stretchy material, it would give too much to properly support the weight of the garments attached to it. It should be high in the neck, but need not have long sleeves; it should be cut very short on the shoulders (see Plate 5, line G, H), and well sloped out under the arms, so as not to impede their movements. Over each hip a button should be sewn to support the suspenders of the stockings (Plate 5, c, d). Here be it observed that woollen stockings should always be worn, and that suspenders ought invariably to be substituted for the ordinary elastic garter, which tends to interfere with the circulation of the lower part of the leg, producing cold feet, and has even been known to cause varicose veins by checking the return of the blood towards the heart. Above the buttons for the suspenders should be four, one towards the front of each hip and one towards the back, for the petticoat to be attached to; this will also require two buttons on the abdomen, as shown in the picture, and two about three or four inches apart on the back to support it properly. They should be placed on the curve a, b, in Plate 5. If the drawers are fastened to the bodice, buttons for them can be sewn on between those for the suspenders and those for the petticoat. (See Plate 5, E, F.) The petticoat shown in Fig. 14 is the much-maligned "divided skirt," which I think my readers will agree with me is not such a very dreadful-looking thing after all. It must be obvious that each petticoat that is worn not only adds to the weight of the dress, but also impedes the movements of the legs by constantly pressing against them in the act of walking. This is one great reason why girls, when walking with their brothers, become fatigued so much sooner than the boys do.
Men complain of fatigue in the same way if they walk in those long ulsters which flap against the legs, and I remember to have read somewhere of a gentleman of a scientific frame of mind, who determined to make the experiment of walking in petticoats in order to estimate the disadvantage under which women labour in regard to dress. He walked for a mile up hill; but was so exhausted by the endeavour that he gave up, with the remark that women must be stronger than men, or they would never be able to stand it. Somewhat in the same strain the London Medical Record observed some time ago: "Many women complain of feeling tired after a short walk, whilst they are really carrying a weight which would soon tire a strong man. Their waists are encircled with a belt or hoop, to which a load heavier than a felon's chain is attached, and the shoulders and chest are compressed by an additional burthen. Breathing is laboriously performed, and the contents of the trunk and pelvis are thrust down with a force which, if represented in pounds, would occasion considerable surprise. It would be a matter of great interest if medical men would ask their female patients to ascertain precisely the total weight of the clothes they wear in-doors and out."
These remarks are obviously made by a man considerably ignorant of the mysteries of female attire—-instance what he says about "the belt or hoop," which is apparently a metaphorical representation of the bands with which petticoats and skirts are usually fastened; but they nevertheless are, in the main, true, and the subject is deserving of attention.
I have said that one of the great objects which it is desirable to attain in dress is to obtain the maximum of warmth with the minimum of weight. As already shown, the use of all-wool materials goes a long way towards the attainment of this end; but it may be furthered also by the construction of garments. The petticoats and skirts ordinarily worn are decidedly the heaviest part of the dress; hence it is necessary that some reform should be effected in these.
Ordinarily cotton drawers are worn, and if the legs feel cold, extra petticoats are piled on; moreover, as these articles of dress hang loose from the legs and allow the cold air to get up underneath them, the warmth they give is quite inadequate when compared with their extra weight. By substituting woollen for cotton drawers, we do much to lessen the number of petticoats required; but a still greater advantage may be gained by clothing each leg separately, as the passage of cold air which takes place beneath the petticoats is hereby avoided. This advantage is offered by the divided skirt. As may be seen in Fig. 14, the skirt is very like a loose pair of trousers, and it is made to fasten at the side like buttoned drawers. It may be made of any warm woollen material, or even of felt, so that in the coldest weather only the one petticoat, if we choose so to call it, need be worn. By the use of this dual garment the back push of the petticoats in walking is also avoided, and the sense of freedom and lightness experienced by the wearers of under-clothing such as I have described is simply delightful. Whether stays are worn or not, the divided skirt may be adopted with equal advantage; it can be buttoned on to the stays just as well as on to the bodice.
The principle of the divided skirt can be carried out in the dress as well as in the petticoat, but this is by no means necessary.
One of the chief battle-grounds of dress reform has for years been the divided dress, or the question of whether each limb should be clothed separately. That it is desirable that the lower limbs should be separately clothed is evident when we consider that by this means an increase of warmth with a decrease of weight is obtained, and we have been advancing towards this end for some time past. On the persons of our great-grandmothers, the petticoat principle, if I may so call it, was carried out to the fullest extent. They did not even wear drawers; but chemises were made long, and the petticoats and skirts clung about the limbs in order to keep them warm.
In the seventeenth century children's frocks were made to reach the ground, and even much later than this trousers were not worn, although in the year 1800 they had already found a place on the persons of one or two "advanced thinkers." About a quarter of a century later they were adopted by the Court circle and some of the upper ten thousand, but the form of garment was merely casings for the legs gathered into a waistband, and draping the limbs in thin material without properly covering them. Even then nurses and mothers stood out against the "new-fangled notion." "Trousers for girls!" they exclaimed, "quite unnecessary; why, they would look like boys! and such things must be unwholesome." It was in this spirit that the Countess of Mountcashel, who wrote a book upon the care and management of children, said: "It has lately become the fashion for children of both sexes to wear trousers at an early age; but I recommend mothers not to allow boys to wear them under the age of four, and girls—never!" Even the medical world shook its head at the innovation, and, although giving its sanction with some hesitation to children wearing the new garment, maintained that it should be surrendered as soon as girls entered their teens.
It would sound rather odd at the present time to hear one lady ask of another if her "Mary had left off her trousers yet," but it was formerly an equivalent to the question, "Has Mary taken to long frocks?" which we often hear. The medical sages of the old school prophesied that the coming generation would not enjoy the stamina of its ancestors if it adopted customs borrowed from the Sybarite East; and even in the upper classes a considerable section of the male sex viewed the change in dress with dislike. Like all useful innovations this was violently opposed, nor has the opposition wholly died out even yet. The Lancet, in 1879, said, "We consider this article of dress unnecessary, and in many ways detrimental to health and morals." The Lancet had apparently taken leave of its senses for once, unless a too-zealous compositor turned what was intended as an affirmative sentence into a negative one: for the majority of physicians will, I am confident, hold with me that the absence of proper covering to the lower limbs is detrimental to health and morals. It was again in a strain of old-fashioned intolerance that, writing on the Rational Dress question in 1883, the same journal remarked, "That monstrosity of fashion the divided skirt is an outrage not to be countenanced—an unnatural costume which must be productive of unwomanly ways which are to be deprecated. Moreover, as it approaches the trouser in form and in use, it must engender an increase in the heat of the body which is most undesirable." It is a pity that so excellent and high an authority as the Lancet should have stooped to express such hasty and evidently ill-considered opinions. It seems probable from the above that the writer had never even seen a divided skirt, and he was certainly ignorant of the plan and purpose of its construction.
The general adoption of drawers as an article of dress was due to a freak of fashion. When, owing to Royal example, the fashion of distending the skirts with hoops was universally adopted alike by princess and peasant girl, this distension of the petticoats rendered it absolutely necessary to cover the legs, and the pantaloon became universal. Children's frocks had for a long time been made quite short, and when the little skirts were by means of hoops set out from the figure, it became necessary to have an efficient covering for the sake of appearance, as well as to prevent cold from striking the body; this led to more substantial drawers being made and fastened at the side, according to the present fashion for children.
When drawers were thus adopted chemises were shortened, and this was the first step in the evolution of the divided dress. Afterwards came the Bloomer movement, when it was boldly affirmed that European ladies should take a lesson from their sisters in the East, and adopt Oriental trousers; but the feeling against the Bloomer costume was very strong, for though it had many good points about it, it represented too violent a change from the fashion of the time, and ladies would not adopt it for fear of appearing ridiculous. Reform, as I have said before, to be effective must be gradual, and it takes some time for the public to become accustomed to a new idea even in dress.
Ever since the Bloomer costume, however, the idea has been gaining popularity, although but slowly, and at the Health Exhibition at South Kensington several divided dresses of the most pronounced type were shown, and met with favourable comment; some of these were very attractive, some not. For example, the Rocky Mountain travelling costume, devised by Mrs. Bishop, however useful it may be, is certainly far removed from the beautiful. It is made of dark cloth, with a skirt to the knees, below which appear a sort of Turkish trousers gathered in to the ankles and finished with senseless little frills pinked out of the cloth. But this kind of dress need not be either ugly or absurd. Mrs. Fleming Baxter exhibited one also intended for highland and mountaineering use, which is really charming. It is made of dark blue cloth with gaiters, knickerbockers, a skirt reaching to the knees, and a very pretty short coat like a gentleman's shooting-jacket, with a hat to match. This is a fair type of the kind of dress to which I now refer, and many similar ones have been seen at various times, differing in unimportant details. Dresses of this sort save the wearer from the friction and weight of long skirts, which form an impediment to the movement of the limbs, and are the means of wasting a considerable amount of energy. They, moreover, clothe the body evenly and warmly, and are comfortable as well as light. Thus, from a health point of view, these dresses are excellent. They are, more-over, extremely chic; but, unfortunately, they are attended with that great disadvantage inherent in all dresses of the kind—that those ladies who first were brave enough to attire themselves in this way would be called, not brave, but bold. The same objection applies to the costume made by Mrs. Louisa Beck, of 24, Connaught Street, Hyde Park; but in this case it can easily be removed, as I shall presently suggest. She calls this very effective costume her "trouser dress." In the materials of which the one exhibited at the Healtheries was made it would be very suitable for summer wear. It is extremely light, weighing altogether only 3 lbs. 2 oz. It consists of the cutaway coat, fastening at the throat, according to present fashion (see Fig. 16); the waistcoat and collar are of ruby-coloured velvet, and a large bunch of ribbon velvet bows make a very pretty finish at the throat. The skirt falls in loose double box-plaits more than half-way down the calf, and below it the trouser legs show for three or four inches. The coat, skirt, and trousers are made of pale grey beige. The objection to this dress could be entirely done away with by making the skirt an ordinary dress length, so as to hide the trousers. Of course, lengthening the skirt in this way reduces the dress to the condition of a divided petticoat, such as I described in my last, covered by an ordinary dress skirt, with the exception that the trousers are longer, and fit more closely to the legs than the petticoat shown in my illustration, and I may add that this is an advantage, for the closer the under garment hangs to the legs the warmer it feels. Divided dress skirts may, however, be made so artfully that an outsider would not know the difference between them and an ordinary dress. A lady friend of mine, wearing one for the first time, told her son what it was, and met from that youth the consolatory, if not elegant rejoinder, "O bosh! You don't come that sort of 
hoax on me." An arrangement of the dress material prevents the division being obvious, the ends of the two skirts being finished with kilted flounces, which fall into each other, and look like one flounce. A really elegant walking costume in cashmere and silk, with divided skirt, was shown by Mrs. Beck at the Healtheries, which hardly differed in appearance from an ordinary dress.
Many people are curious to know what the divided skirt is really like, and, as a matter of curiosity, I am pleased to be able to publish the above illustration, which has been kindly lent me by the Rational Dress Society, and which represented the divided dress as advocated by the Society.
The young ladies in this picture do not, as far as I can see, look in the least unwomanly in spite of the Lancet's dictum on that point. Dresses made in this way are doubtless very healthy, but there is an objection to them in the fact that the lower part of the skirt wears out very rapidly owing to the friction between the legs in walking.
With the system of under-clothing I have described, however, there is no great objection to the dress being made in the ordinary way, provided it is not too heavy. It should not weigh more than four pounds for any growing girl, and for little girls it should weigh very much less than that, being just as light as possible. The trimming then must not be heavy. Beaded trimmings must be avoided, but embroidery and lace do not add much to the weight of dresses, and greatly increase their elegance. It is not necessary, however, that growing girls should be elaborately dressed; and indeed the more simply they are clothed the better, both from the point of view of health and of good taste, They should not be dressed in velvets or velveteens, as these materials are heavy without being particularly warm.
It is quite possible to dress in a perfectly healthy way, and yet retain the semblance of fashion.
The best form of dress is the Princess robe, the weight of which is equally distributed, as, being cut all in one, the weight of the skirt depends entirely from the bodice. Dresses cut in this way may be trimmed in any style, so that they may look fashionable, even when the Princess robe is not in vogue. If this form is not adopted, the dress skirt should be fastened either to the dress bodice or the under bodice, but never hooked round the waist with a narrow band, according to the prevalent mode. For those whose figures are formed, dress skirts may be made with shaped bands to fit over the hips, as in this case the weight falls properly on to the bones of the pelvis. (See the shaded portion on Plate 5, E, F, a, b, c, d.) Fancy belts should never be worn outside the dress, as they are too apt to be tightened.
A word now about the fitting of dresses, and these remarks will apply equally to the bodice, of which I have already spoken. The great difficulty in fitting garments is to prevent the movements of the body being cramped. This difficulty is entirely obviated if jerseys are worn, and I therefore strongly recommend them. Their adoption in the case of growing girls is beneficial, not only from the point of view of health, but also from that of economy; for, if ordinary dress bodices are worn and fit as they should, they are very soon outgrown, and must then be given up, or they will prove injurious.
For growing girls the expanding dress, made by Mrs. Beck, is most suitable; by a peculiar arrangement of gathering in the front of the body, the dress expands as the body moves. It is so elastic that it expands as the lungs inspire and contracts as they expire, this renders the dress extremely healthy and suitable not only for growing girls as a point of economy, but also for singers and violinists, who respectively require freedom for their chest and arms. Mrs. Beck is to be recommended not only as a maker of hygienic specialities of her own invention, for which she has taken medals at the Exhibitions of the Rational Dress Society and of the National Health Society in 1883, and at the Health Exhibition of 1884, but also as conscientiously following out the instructions of her customers, and fitting well; she is, in fact, not to be classed under the head of ordinary dressmakers, of whom I am about to speak.
Dresses should fit loosely enough to allow full expansion of the lungs, and yet not too loosely, or their weight will not be properly distributed: and here it is necessary to observe that a dress which may fit properly in one position of the body may be unduly tight in another. Dressmakers always fit their customers standing up, but from the following measurements of a girl's figure it is obvious that this custom requires some reform. For standing erect with little air in the lungs the waist measured twenty-one inches; with the lungs fully expanded, twenty-two and a half inches; and stooping forward with the lungs still expanded, no less than twenty-four inches. Now, as a great part of a girl's time is unfortunately spent in stooping over books, drawing, or the pianoforte, it may be readily understood that this natural thickening of the waist should be allowed for in her clothing. When a dress is being fitted, the girl should be made to put herself into a variety of positions in order to see whether it is perfectly comfortable in all of them.
In order to prove whether dresses already in wear are of the proper dimensions, the mother should measure her child's waist in the morning before she has dressed, so that there can have been no previous compression, and with the lungs fully expanded, and then compare this measurement with that of the dress. Dresses which have been outgrown, unless they can be let out, must be given up at once, although frequently slight alterations will permit them to be passed on to a younger sister.
The dress bodice should always permit both arms to be raised straight up above the head, and this position should be tried when they are being fitted on. Some of the prevalent faults which prevent this movement being accomplished are that the dress is cut too long on the shoulder, and too tight in the armholes, while the side seam is not long enough from the waist to the armpit, and, if the plan suggested be adopted, these can be remedied in time. Sleeves cut high, mounted, and fulled on to the shoulders according to the recent fashion, give great freedom to the joint, and are very comfortable; it is therefore a great pity that Fashion is apparently regretful of having been sensible for once, and that the sleeves are gradually returning to their former flat condition, for a distinct retrogression may be observed in this respect.
We may do well to follow the method of cutting sleeves in vogue in 1883-4; but sleeves should never tighten on the arm, for, besides the discomfort of this, and the restriction of movement, the circulation is interfered with, and the hands become cold, or swell, and get red.
The ideal of a "good fit" which most dressmakers hold is to reduce the arms and figure to the resemblance of a tightly stuffed pin-cushion; but this is an ideal by no means consistent with health or the definition of beauty I have been concerned to maintain.
The fitting of a dress is a thing not to be hurried, and mothers should carefully supervise it themselves, for dressmakers are shifty folk at the best; and, as it is generally easier to do anything badly than well, the children will suffer from neglect in this respect.
It wants both knowledge and firmness on the part of the mother to get a dress properly made; for the maker, as a rule, has a powerful store of arguments by which she defends her errors, and the genus dressmaker is too apt to keep the genus lady in a state of hopeless and miserable subjection. I think it is time that we should strike against this tyranny, and refuse to employ any couturière who will not allow us to have some voice in the construction of our own garments. Why not form an Anti-Dressmakers' Tyranny League, something in the same style as the Early Shopping Association? Surely we have our rights as well as the lower classes, although philanthropists too generally ignore them.
- ↑ The plan proposed by many so-called dress reformers of supporting women's clothes by braces is most objectionable. In this case, as when the clothes are supported entirely from the shoulders, the weight of the clothing drags the shoulders forward, and inclines to curvature of the spine. Moreover, the friction of the braces would hinder the development of the breasts in young girls, and chafe those delicate organs in adults. Men would stoop less, and have better-developed chests if they managed without braces; why then should women be urged to adopt these injurious articles of dress?