Part 3

We have now noticed two ways in which clothes must have been brought into use, namely, as adornments and for protection. We have still to consider the third of the obvious reasons. Modesty is a habit, or one might perhaps call it equally well a fashion, which is so widespread that some have characterized it as being an instinct, and have stated quite wrongly that it is universal. The most curious point with regard to the matter is that very different ideas of modesty prevail in various regions of the world, one part of the body being covered by some people and another by others. Besides, it by no means follows that a naked race is less chaste than one which is clothed.

Although at the present day races exist where only the men cover themselves, it is very likely that clothes worthy of the name were first worn by women, for keen observers have pointed out that men dependent on their skill and speed in the chase would hardly encumber themselves with clothes, though having comely wives they might deem it advisable for them to be protected from the public gaze. This idea is still carried out in Eastern countries, where women cover even the greater part of their faces, and are usually secluded in a harem. As bearing out, however, what we have just said with regard to modesty, it may be mentioned that the peasant women in Egypt are perfectly happy so long as their faces and the backs of their heads are covered, and it is considered even more shameful to expose the latter than the former. The objection made not long ago to the appearance of English women in church without hats may be remembered in this connection.

Painting may often replace clothing, and members of races accustomed to decorate their bodies in this way, are much ashamed if they are seen unpainted. Tattooing also does away to a great extent with bareness, and it is obvious that unclothed black men and women never present such a naked appearance as do lighter-coloured races. In fact, a white man who bathed with a number of coloured people likened himself and his companions to an artificial, blanched, and sickly plant among its healthy dark green fellows.

Doubtless the hair of original man was coloured so as to match his surroundings, and it seems likely that the tint of his skin was reddish. We have now no need for protective colouration (except in war time), and as we do not live in the tropics, we should gain no advantage from being black; therefore pigment is but little developed in our skins, and it has been suggested that clothes sometimes have been adopted by white races for æsthetic reasons apart from their development from ordinary ornaments.

It seems possible, too, that man, upon realizing that he differed from other animals in having no natural covering, set about to provide himself with one.

There is, however, another contributing cause which may have led to the adoption of dress, and this depends on the action of women themselves. They may put on clothes for reasons of coquetry just as on occasion they may modify or discard them. For instance, fashion at a moment's notice may obscure one part of the body that hitherto was obvious, and at the same time emphasize the natural outlines of others which before were hidden. Again, the bare necks and arms displayed in our ball-rooms afford another case in point.

III

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN COAT

THE ANCESTRAL SHAWL--PROBLEMATICAL BUTTONS

Now that we have considered the origin of dress as a whole, we may turn with advantage to the evolution of individual garments. People are very often pleased to allude to what are called the vagaries of fashion, but it is curious to notice how little real change is made in costume at the present time. The really useful characters are always retained, and our modern clothes can be reduced to a very few types. A skirt is a skirt whether it falls naturally, is held out all round with a hoop, or crinoline, or is only supported behind by what at one time was known as an "improver." And in the same way it may be said that trousers remain trousers whether they have bell bottoms or are peg tops.

Even types which we recognize as being quite distinct, are often so closely related as to cause surprise when their family history is made known. Although it constantly alters as regards details, which from a constructional point of view are quite unimportant, woman's dress does not seem to have varied to any very great extent. Consequently, there are not quite so many curious features to be seen as in the ordinary clothes or uniforms of men. On the other hand, however, we may with greater reason hope to find that some primitive characters have survived until the present day.

No article of clothing could well be simpler than the shawl, and though there is an art in its arrangement, the only point in its structure that would appear to invite attention is the presence of a fringe on only two sides. This seems to be a small matter, but it takes us straight back to the time when men had ceased to be hunters merely, and having become agriculturists had learned, as we have already indicated, to weave fibres with the help of simple looms. From the cloth thus made clothes were constructed, though skins continued to be used as outer mantles. When the stuff was taken from these early looms, the threads of the warp were left hanging from two opposite edges, and the fringe that we have now on our shawls is a direct survival of this accidental occurrence.

There seems not the slightest doubt but that we can trace the coat from the shawl. A simple improvement in the latter is to join two edges of the shawl together and make a tunic. Such a tubular garment was used in Greece, and, with some slight modifications, is worn by Egyptian women to-day. It came up to the armpits, was gathered up on to each shoulder and fastened with two brooches. (Figure 2.)

The next stage in development would be a sleeved tunic, and how easily this could be derived from a shawl can be seen by putting a narrow one over the shoulders and lifting up the arms as shown in Figure 3. The material has only to be sewn together under the arms, and if necessary cut into shape.

If the front be not sewn up, we get the coat as we know it; if the edges be joined along half their length or more, then we have a sleeved tunic, a shirt, or vest (see Plate III). The smock-frock (see Figure 4) and gown are more voluminous, while the jersey is short again, and has only a small opening at the neck. An interesting garment is found among the costumes of the Bronze Age chieftains of Denmark and their wives, which have been preserved in the oak coffins of these people, owing to the action of tannin from the wood which has preserved the woven material.[5] The article in question belonged to one of the women, and though the front edges are joined for a short distance, it is practically a jacket. The sleeves are made all in one piece, and the garment is very nearly as highly evolved as the Cardigan jacket, which it very much resembles. (See Figure 5.)

It is by this time clear, that several important garments are the descendants of the shawl, which is still used by men in the British Isles under the title of the plaid, or maud.

Though differing, of course, in detail, the upper garments of men and women agree in general construction. One of the points alluded to is worthy of mention, namely, that the buttons on a man's coat are on the right side and the buttonholes on his left, while in the case of women's attire the exact opposite is found--at least, so far as one can ascertain--in European countries. In the East, the little knobs which are passed through loops and take the place of buttons, may in the women's dress be on the right side, and in other Asiatic costumes the same thing holds good. In connection with this peculiarity, it may be pointed out that men and women have different ways of doing up buttons. The man takes hold of the button with his right hand, puts his left thumb into the buttonhole and pushes the button against it. Then he pulls the stuff over with his right forefinger and pushes the button through with his right thumb while he guides it with his left.

The woman, on the other hand, puts her right thumb through the buttonhole, takes hold of the button with the fingers of the same hand, and finally, if the other hand is at liberty, brings it up to finish the process. (See Figures 6 to 11.)

To explain the difference in the position of the buttons is not by any means easy. In the correspondence which has arisen out of lectures which the writer has given on the evolution of dress, it has, in the first place, been suggested that the arrangement of his clothing permitted a man to thrust his right and fighting arm into his jacket in order to keep it warm. This explanation, of course, does not account for the variation in the case of women.

Dr. Lyman, of Baltimore, has submitted the theory that a man wearing a loose cloak, toga, or plaid, would grasp it with the left hand and thrust the left side over the right so as to leave the right-hand free in order to hold a weapon or implement. A woman would grasp her attire with her right hand, and push it over the left side and leave her left arm unencumbered, wherewith to carry a child. It would, however, seem more natural for the right side to be pulled over the left, but it is unlikely that a man would fight in a loose cloak, and the toga was only worn in times of peace. Moreover, the jacket, as we have seen, was developed from the cloak through the tunic. A tunic was worn under the toga, and as the only loose edge of the latter lies in the same way as the buttonhole side of a man's coat, it is feasible that the edges of the tunic beneath would for convenience be made to lap the same way.

To turn to women's dress, it is customary, as Dr. Lyman says, to carry children on the left arm, and they are allowed to suck the left breast to a greater extent than the other. The left side of a bodice could, if the right lapped over it, be pulled back without exposing so much of the person as if the reverse held good, and in the case of tightly-fitting clothing, if the buttons have to be done up with the right hand alone, the task is made easier. Another interesting little point of difference between the clothes of the two sexes is, that while the buttons on a man's wristbands are on the thumb side, those of a woman are on that which corresponds with the little finger. This arrangement is no doubt correlated with that previously discussed, but the reason for it is not obvious.

IV

BUTTONS AS CHRONICLES

EPISODES IN THE LATER HISTORY OF THE COAT AND CUFFS

We have gained some insight into the development of garments as a whole, and no doubt it is now obvious that the little details of construction will prove by no means the least attractive part of our subject. It has become customary to refer to a button as typifying something of specially small account, though very often much may depend in practice upon one of these despised articles.

We have already shown that the mere position of a few buttons that are still useful, may raise most curious points, and in the present chapter we shall proceed to investigate some episodes in the later history of the coat which have left their mark upon it, to a great extent in the shape of useless buttons. This topic will be dealt with in some detail, so that it may serve as a guide to those of our readers who may be induced to undertake the fascinating study of survivals in dress. Afterwards, the general survey of modern clothes will be continued, and here and there lines of research will be indicated, while some problems will be left for our readers to solve. In the second part of the book, it is intended to deal with a certain number of costumes which have been handed down to us as they are.

At the present time there are usually to be seen two buttons on the back of civilians' coats, except in the case of lounge suits and dinner jackets, and there may be four or more on the great coats of policemen (see Figure 12) and on the tunics of some soldiers. The first question which we will endeavour to answer is, Why are they there? The two upper buttons in the case of uniforms are now used to support a belt, and at first sight it looks as if they were originally intended for this purpose. Their adoption in other cases might then be put down as a survival from a time when civilians carried swords. Unfortunately for this theory, it can be shown that the sword-belt was not necessarily worn outside the coat (see Figures 18 and 19).

We must therefore look round for further evidence, and we find that those coats which bear the pair of buttons, have a slit up the middle which gives rise to the skirts or tails. This arrangement carries us back to the time when there were no railways and few conveyances; when men commonly travelled on horseback and their whole attire was adapted to this end, so that they were ready for the saddle at a moment's notice. The division in the coat which we are considering, allowed one tail to fall conveniently on each side of the horse after its rider had mounted it.

In long overcoats of to-day we find only a short slit, left for convenience in walking (see Figure 13); but it has a special interest for us, as in connection with it there are two or three buttons and buttonholes, usually hidden, which allow of the opening being closed up.

Here, then, we have buttons on the back of the coat still serving a useful purpose, and it is not at all difficult to trace the series of fastenings back to a much longer one, which in the seventeenth century was quite obvious. (See Figure 14.)

Each button and buttonhole was placed in the middle of similar pieces of lace or embroidery, so that the sides of the coat were made to look symmetrical. The object in view was the keeping of the skirts of the coat together when the wearer was not on horseback. At the present day the buttons have been duplicated and are on both sides of the coat, and they are still sewn to ornamental pieces in the uniform of the Grenadier Guards. The presence of the lower buttons on uniforms and coats is therefore explained. It might be assumed that the topmost button had also been doubled and raised above the slit, and that in this way we have obtained the two ornaments on the back of our coats.

Before accepting such a solution of the problem, however, it may be well to see if the buttons may not have had another origin; and on looking for some clue we find that two folds take their rise from the point where the buttons are situated. These may be expected to throw some light upon the question. The folds are now permanent, but on a voluminous coat, such as still used by horse soldiers, they can be produced temporarily (see Figure 15) by setting the two buttons further apart and running a tab from one to the other. Sir George Darwin has attempted to carry the history of these two buttons still further back.[6] He has expressed the opinion that each is one of a pair that originally kept in place a small tab at the side of the coat, and so helped to produce a waist when required. (See Figures 17 and 18.)

In some drawings of coats (see Figure 18) the side tabs and their corresponding buttons are shown in addition to those on the back of the coat.

There is, however, evidence to show that the buttons were originally on the sides of the coat, for they are so wide apart as to be to all intents and purposes in that position, on the uniform overcoats of the London Electric Tramway drivers. (See Figure 16.)

They may well represent the topmost buttons of the lateral series, still found on the overcoat of the members of the Corps of Commissionaires. In this case there are three buttons on each side, of which the middle one is used for fastening the side-pocket.

It is worth while to consider side-pockets, which in their turn are remnants of lateral openings which were made in coats at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the following centuries. The sword-handle conveniently protruded through the left-hand slit, which, like its fellow, ran from the waist to the lower margin of the coat or stopped half-way. (See Figures 18 and 19.) In the latter case, the arrangement very much resembles the vertical pocket which has become common again of recent years. (See Figure 20.)

Occasionally a tab, such as that to which reference has been made, kept the parts of the coat together; but often there were buttons and buttonholes, at least at the upper end of the openings. These survive in several cases, such as in the overcoat of the commissionaire, while the pocket is sometimes represented by a mere flap (see Figure 21) ornamented with buttons as on the livery of certain footmen.

To sum up the matter, the topmost pair of buttons has come from the fastenings of the side slit and the lower ones from those of the back slit. Buttons on the skirt behind have in the meantime had a very intimate connection with the evolution of the "swallow-tail" coat (see Figure 24). They were used to fasten the corners of the ordinary riding-coat together, so that the linings should not be injured by the sweat of the horses. (See Figure 22.)

Mr. Deane Butcher tells me that he can remember this buttoning back being done in the case of his uncle, when the latter rode to market or to church; but in this case it was the two uppermost buttons which were again brought into use. At dances the coats were also subjected to similar treatment, and what at first was a temporary condition afterwards became a permanent one. It is obvious that the turned-back lining would often be of a different colour from the outside of the coat, and facings on old uniforms, and in that of the present dress of a lord-lieutenant (see Figure 23) are derived from the practice of fastening the corners of the coat together. In the "swallow-tail" the outer corners have been cut right away. (See Figure 24.)

The buttons, in the interesting cases which we have described, have been allowed to remain as part and parcel of our costume on account of their decorative character, and in a great measure the same is true of those on coat cuffs (see Figure 25). In many cases there are proper buttonholes, and it is possible to undo the sleeve buttons; but occasionally the arrangement has degenerated and the buttonholes are imitations or only the buttons remain.

To find an explanation of this feature we shall have to go back again to the seventeenth century, when so much was expended upon coats that it became advisable to turn back the cuffs out of harm's way. To hold them in position, series of buttons and buttonholes were devised, and just as the turning back of the skirts was at first temporary and afterwards came to be done once for all when the coat was made, so the turned-back cuff grew into a permanent institution. In Figure 26 the buttons are one above the other as in modern dress, but in the next two Figures (27 and 28) they are horizontal.

A survival of this arrangement can still be seen in the coat sleeves of the higher clergy. In ordinary dress, the turned-back edge of the cuff may now only be represented by a band of braid or a row of stitches; but in soldiers' uniforms, an ornamented cuff persists which represents in reality the lining of the sleeve. Again, the turned-back cuff is actually present in the clothes of costermongers, and has been revived on overcoats to a considerable extent during the last few years. (See Figure 29.)

As a rule, too, the vertical pocket already described accompanies the turned-back cuff, as it did some centuries ago. (See Figure 20.)

It must not be forgotten that buttons have long been used on narrow sleeves. They are undone when the hand is to be pushed through the cuff, and afterwards fastened for the sake of warmth or to give a neat appearance. It is therefore possible that the ring of buttons is more properly a survival of the time when cuffs were turned back to preserve them, and that the vertical row is really of earlier origin. A uniform represented by Hogarth (Figure 30) shows both the row of buttons and the turned-back cuff, which seems to be quite independent of them.

In this instance we may have the degenerated turned-back cuff and one revived, shown together. Such a case, we need scarcely point out, could hardly occur in the case of an animal structure, for if by a "throw back" or "reversion to type" we get a vestigial character once more fully reproduced, we cannot expect the original structure and the vestige to be shown at the same time.

The adoption of buttons more or less for ornament has long been practised. John Brandon, who died in the year 1364, is shown on his brass (in the church of St. Mary, King's Lynn) with no less than forty buttons on the sleeves of his undervest, which has embroidered cuffs and is buttoned to the elbow (see Plate IV). We shall, however, have something more to say with regard to buttons from this and other points of view as we proceed.