Happy Friday! What better way to celebrate than with FRIDAY FASHION FACT? Fabric patterns are, in my opinion, one of the most fascinating sides of fashion history. The designs range from stark and simplistic to incredibly elaborate, and everything in between. Most people look at a fabric pattern and assume it was created purely for the aesthetics- basically, someone just thought it was pretty. To be fair, that is often the case, particularly with modern fashion. Sometimes, though, the pattern holds deep significance. There is arguably no pattern that has more history and significance than paisley.
The origins of paisley can be traced to Persia in the 1st Century AD. At this time, the pattern was barely recognizable to the teardrop shape we are familiar today. Instead, it was shaped as a stylized tree full of flowers, inspired by the cypress tree, which believed to be the Tree of Life. The Persians dubbed the pattern “boteh” meaning tree or shrub, a name by which the pattern is still known in many areas today. In its early days, the design was mainly created in precious metals, whether through embroidery or sculpted on decorative metal objects, and it was geared towards royalty.
Throughout the centuries, the pattern spread across the Middle East, India, and Asia. Each culture developed the pattern in its own way. There is some debate as to why the curved tip was created, but most believe that it was inspired by the bent cedar tree, which in Persian tradition was symbol of resistance or stregnth. The pattern gained significant popularity in the late 16th and 17th Centuries, during the Mughal Empire, when shawls became a popular formal fashion for men. These shawls would be woven with boteh patterns at the edges, the symbolism appropriate for ceremonies at which the shawls were commonly worn.
These shawls became highly popular in Western society thanks to the East India Trading Company. The accessory was imported across Europe, where it was far more popular for women than men, yet Indian weavers could not keep up with demand. Therefore, European textile artists worked to recreate the look en masse. However, most looms could not accommodate enough colors to create the elaborate designs which European women craved. Some shawls were printed, but the effect was not nearly as luxurious. However, around the turn of the 19th Century, workers in the small Scottish town of Paisley, which at the time was known for silk production, proved themselves to be particularly skilled at creating the ornate design. Soon, Paisley became the epicenter of European shawl production, causing the pattern to be renamed as we know it today.
Paisley shawls remained popular through the Victorian Age. However, by the 1870s, technological advancements meant that detailed patterns became much more affordable, taking away much of the novelty of the elaborate paisley shawls. The paisley pattern itself did not fully fade from fashion, though. The pattern was still used from time to time in various aspects of dress. Many of the shawls, in fact, were turned into dresses and other pieces, since the shawls were so large and contained several yards of fine fabric. The pattern has had a few revivals since this time, most notably in the 1960s. It has been solidified as a classic design, and can still be found commonly today.
Have a question about fashion history that you want answered in the next FRIDAY FASHION FACT? Just click the ASK button at the top of the page!
Time for FRIDAY FASHION FACT! I mention the French Revolution in these posts all the time. A few months ago, I discussed why this war (and others) had such a huge impact on fashion (read here.) Now I’m going to delve a little deeper, and discuss how exactly fashion morphed in the years leading up to and following the French Revolution.
There are many misconceptions surrounding this tumultuous era. Many people believe that when the monarchy fell, the extreme opulence fell simultaneously. They think that women quickly switched to simple classical gowns because Napoleon introduced the style. Of course, much of this misunderstanding has to do with a lack of knowledge of French history. As I stated in the post referenced above, dramatic changes in fashion do not happen overnight. The Revolution began in 1789, and Napoleon did not become Emperor until 1804. By the time he gained the title, women were already wearing the simplistic classical styles. In fact, the peak of the simplicity occurred right before Napoleon had a chance to become fully settled into his supreme role. So then how did this style come to be?
Classicism had actually been creeping its way into Western society for well over a century. The Renaissance brought a new-found appreciation and interest in Greek and Roman art and architecture. The Enlightenment, and the scholarly pursuits which accompanied it, were an added catalyst for widespread interest in these ancient cultures. Naturally, this interest was reflected in the art of the time. While myriad art forms were impacted, for our purposes, we’ll just talk about portraiture. Kings were depicted wearing the laurels of caesars. Women were depicted as goddesses and muses. Sometimes the classical inspiration was blatant, other times it was very subtle, such as a woman wearing soft chiton or toga-like drapery.
The first instances of neoclassical dress outside of portraits were in fancy dress. Characters from mythology were a common choice for masquerade costumes. Yet it was Marie Antoinette, who everyone thinks of as the Queen of Opulence, who in the early 1780s introduced simple, loose dress into everyday fashion with the chemise a la reine (which I previously wrote about here.) However, the classicism was taken to another level during the Directoire Era- aka, the years following the Revolution (ca. 1795-99.) Without getting into a whole history lesson, this was when France was run by a (incredibly unsuccessful) Republic, which was inspired by the governments of ancient Greece and Rome. This classical inspiration saturated French culture in many ways, but particularly the arts and fashion. Dresses became incredibly simplistic, typically cotton gowns with next to no tailoring and minimal embellishment, inspired by the pristine marble sculptures from ancient Rome. And as we all know, if the French wore a style, the rest of the Western world did, too.
Around the year 1800, when the French government was changing hands and incredibly unstable, fashion reached the apex of simplicity. The French fashion industry, along with the rest of the economy, had taken a nosedive. Additionally, times of social turmoil often result in simplistic fashion, as style seems to be frivolous when such important issues are at hand. Shortly after the turn of the 19th Century, though, when Napoleon took over and introduced a stable Empire to France, embellishment and opulence began to make its way back into fashion. That, though, is another post for another day.
Have a question about fashion history that you want answered in the next FRIDAY FASHION FACT? Just click the ASK button at the top of the page!
Welcome back to FRIDAY FASHION FACT! I went on a bit of an 18th Century spree this week, so this seems like the perfect time to focus on the most iconic piece of 18th century fashion: women’s pompadour hair! You know what I’m talking about- those towering, larger than life styles, powdered and accessorized with a what seems like a full garden and jewelry box all at once. There are a lot of misconceptions about how women actually wore their hair in the 18th Century (specifically around 1760s-80s, the peak of the Rococo Era) so let’s separate fact from fiction.
By the second half of the 18th Century, the Rococo opulence began to develop by way of volume of fashion. Dresses grew wider, and hair grew fuller. While women had been wearing their hair in rolled curls for many years, these curls now sat upon a steadily growing poof, or pompadour (named for Louis XV’s mistress, Madame de Pompadour.) As with all fashion of that time, the more elaborate the style, the more it showed off wealth. It showed that a woman not only had occasion to wear such fancy styles, but also that they had the time to dedicate to creating the look, and the help to achieve it. Of course, there were plenty of women who were not wealthy who would don the sizable styles. Since they required more skill than funds to create, their were plenty of women who wore the look to give the impression that they were of a higher class or had more wealth than was true.
So how did they create these elaborate styles? Really, it was not too different from how many hairstyles are created today. Women at the time did not shampoo, condition, mousse, and spray their hair as they do today. Instead they used a pomade typically made of animal fat and other natural ingredients. It worked much like pomades and waxes today, holding styles in place. This was then topped with powder, which prevented the hair from getting greasy, along with creating the fashionable pale color. This practice was not as dirty as it sounds. All those rumors about heads full of bugs are simply that: rumors. While there may have been a some lice outbreaks (which still happen on occasion today, even in our hyper-hygenic society,) women did not have hair full of maggots as is often believed.
Also contrary to popular belief, women’s hairstyles (unlike men’s) were very rarely wigs, and were instead created using the wearers natural hair, which was always grown long. The volume was created with stuffed rolls, typically wool. You know those little donuts that are used to create perfect buns? Yeah, it was like that. There were plenty of ladies who could achieve the style on their own, much like all those Pinterest and YouTube hair tutorials that some women can inexplicably replicate on themselves. Of course, those who could afford it would hire a professional. There would be decorations placed among the curls, typically flowers, feathers, ribbons, or even strings of pearls. However, women were not always walking around with a full ship and sails on their heads as the drawings would have you believe. That is not to say that it was never done, but these particularly over the top styles were only worn for very special events, most commonly masquerades or similar parties.
Any time there is an unusual fashion, cartoonist and satirists have a field day, and depict overly exaggerated caricatures of the style. There is perhaps no time in history when this was more true than the Rococo Era. They called out the obscene opulence which was used and abused by the upper classes, which helped spur on the French Revolution. Yet these images remain, and have led to the modern misconceptions about these iconic hairstyles.
Have a question about fashion history that you want answered in the next FRIDAY FASHION FACT? Just click the ASK button at the top of the page!
White silk having sheer sleeveless V-neck bodice with silver lace trim and beaded back tassel over short sleeve bodice with wide silver lace band, vertical lace bands edge front and back looped panels over full skirt, pale pink silk lining, cloth flowers at waist
White chiffon evening dress with cape-like drape over bodice forming a v neckline, pink silk satin under dress extending below chiffon overdress has self-ruffle at hem, high waist with wide pink satin waist girdle, short kimono sleeves, trimmed with crystal beading in Greek key design and fringe, small pastel chiffon rosette stitched over beaded design on bodice and over skirt
going through Google Books looking for pocket-related sources and I found something interesting in an 1875 issue of the magazine “The Spirit of ‘seventy-six”
it’s a letter to the editor, written by someone who signs herself “A Revolutionary Young Person” but later makes it clear that she’s a woman. and she is incensed about These Disgraceful Pockets Nowadays
she went through a man’s everyday outfit, based on general observations, and counted up a total of 25 pockets between all the different articles of clothing. this, to her, seems a gross unfairness compared to “these little shallow things, with the opening level with [one’s] bottom or a little lower, of which they sometimes allow us one in a dress…” she’s also transported with delight at the earlier, separate pockets she’s seen on display at American centennial fairs
based on my own study of extant garments, the “modern” pockets she’s talking about are often around 9 inches by 11 inches
so there might be a bit of an answer to the question of “why was there an association between women’s rights and women’s pockets in a time period when, by our standards, they were quite lavishly pocketed indeed?”
some of them were comparing their pockets to a truly excessive number in men’s outfits, and to the size of 18th-century examples. getting just as frustrated as we are today at our pocketless pants, fake pockets, and tiny pockets barely big enough for half a hand
“As to living another hundred years in this way, it isn’t to be thought of.” oh honey. I have some good news and some bad news…
1875 men’s fashion apparently
I have to quote this because the young lady was so Unhinged about pockets that I wish to go back in time and propose Boston Marriage
Look at a man. He’s just a mass of pockets. See his Ulster overcoat. Two pockets in the breast, to put his dear hands in when they are cold. Two pockets in the skirt [long hanging portion of the coat] to put his hands when he doesn’t know what to do with them, and what man ever does? One pocket just under the belt. Small change for [street]car-fare, is what he says that is for. One side pocket higher up on the breast, for his pocket handkerchief. Well, we don’t object to that. One pocket in the cuff. Heaven knows what that is for. All this on the outside.
Now just unbutton his coat and there, as I’m a living woman, three more pockets inside. Probably under his Ulster he has another light overcoat, many of these tender creatures do, but in that you will not find more than five pockets, so let that go. Then there is his [suit jacket]. Skirts, two pockets; breast, two pockets; another small pocket for change. Oh! if they only had money in any proportion to the pockets they have to keep it in, wouldn’t they be better worth having than most of them are now? Which? No matter which, the men or the pockets, which ever you please, or both together, for we have to take them that way if at all.
Then at least four more pockets in the vest. Then as to [trousers], I found a pair the other day without a man in them, and just counted the pockets myself. Let me see; there were two, where they always put their hands when they have no overcoats on. There was one, said to be a watch pocket, but this is on historical or traditional evidence entirely. No man has carried a watch there since- well, I’m sure I don’t know when- certainly not since the war with Mexico [1846-48]. Then, last of all, a pocket on the hip slanting backward. A girl who has brothers says they call this a pistol pocket…
Now, let me see. There is the Ulster, seven. The overcoat, five. The [suit jacket], five. The vest, four. The trousers, four- total, twenty-five pockets, to say nothing of others which I don’t know about and don’t care to.
Why do women carry things in their hands? humph! Why do women lose their purses? Why do women stuff things in their muffs? These are the questions which men with their twenty-five pockets are forever asking. Why don’t you keep a cash account [written log of money spent]? Why don’t you have a diary [planner]? What do you always want to borrow a knife for? Where’s that pencil I lent you?…What do you want a bag for? Think of their impudence, with all their twenty-five pockets, to ask such questions as these.
is her count correct, or typical of the period? I have no idea. is her energy IMMACULATE? Y E S
