No longer were the monarchs the only trendsetters of fashion. Later, toward the end of the century, clothing styles began to simplify as people looked to the country and to nature for fashion inspiration. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, men wore outfits similar to those worn in the previous century.
On their upper bodies wealthy men wore white linen or cotton shirts with a lace-edged jabot, or tie, topped with sleeveless waistcoats and a long-sleeved justaucorps, long overcoats. Below they wore satin knee breeches and silk hose held at the knee with garters. Working men wore much simpler, less well-made clothes of wool or cotton. By the middle of the century, wealthy men wore the same clothing, but the fit and decoration of these styles had changed quite a bit.
The skirts of waistcoats stuck out away from the man's hips with padding or boned supports, and knee breeches fit very tightly against the leg. The fabric for men's clothes was bright and often elaborately embroidered with flowers or curving lines.
Men's clothes at the end of the century, however, were very different. Most men wore dark clothes with little decoration.
Dressing for History: Teaching in Eighteenth-Century Clothing
With the rejection of decoration, the difference between a working man's clothes and a wealthy man's became noticeable only from the cut and the quality of the fabric. Women's clothing styles changed just as dramatically as men's. From the beginning to the middle of the century, women's clothing became larger and more laden with decoration.
- In This Article.
- FOR MORE INFORMATION.
- Hidden Among Us (Hidden Among Us 1);
- Peter Burgin and the Lords of Space.
Wealthy women wore dresses made of brightly colored stiff silk woven with bold floral and striped designs, and many chose Chinese fabrics for their dresses. By midcentury the skirts of women's dresses held many yards of decoration, including layers of ruffles, bows, and lace, and were held out away from the hips with the help of panniers, or stiff hoops. Typical women's dress of the eighteenth century included brightly colored fabric with bold floral and striped designs and layers of ruffles, bows, and lace.
In great contrast to the width of their skirts, women's waists were cinched tightly in corsets. The front of their gowns cut deep to display the tops of their breasts and were so revealing that some women tucked lace scarves, called modesty pieces, along their necklines to hide their breasts.
- Hidradenitis Suppurativa.
- Drive Me To Think.
- Make-up | Smithsonian Institution?
Most dresses had three-quarter length sleeves to which women added engageantes, or many tiers of ruffled white lace at the elbow. By the end of the century, however, women discarded these huge and elaborate dresses for the robe en chemise, a simple white cotton dress with a high waist and tiny sleeves. Before the eighteenth century, children wore smaller versions of adult clothes. But in the mid-eighteenth century, both boys and girls began to wear simple loose cotton dresses.
These were the first distinct children's clothes. They were developed due to a change in thought about children's education brought about by two philosophers, John Locke — and Jean-Jacques Rousseau — Locke and Rousseau said that children should be free to play and develop as individuals.
Without tight corsets and long coats, children could move more easily. These new ideas took a while to catch on; it wasn't until the early twentieth century that all children were dressed in practical clothing made especially for them.
Batterberry, Michael, and Ariane Batterberry. Fashion: The Mirror of History. New York: Greenwich House, Baumgarten, Linda. Looking at Eighteenth-Century Clothing. During this campaign arguments for the female vote developed into critiques of the ideology of separate spheres and the understandings of masculinity, femininity, and sexuality on which it was based.
From , frustrated at the lack of progress, the suffrage campaign turned militant. Some of those arrested were tried at the Old Bailey: see the trials of Emily Davison in and Emmeline Pankhurst in and Some of those imprisoned including Pankhurst went on hunger strikes. World War I intervened, but women over the age of 30 were finally given the vote in In every study of serious crime ever conducted, men's and women's criminality has appeared different.
Women are always accused of fewer, and different, crimes from men, and this was also true at the Old Bailey. By this point serious crime had come to be perceived as essentially a masculine problem. Increasingly, female deviance was perceived as a consequence and aspect of sexual immorality rather than crime, and was addressed through other agencies of protection and control. Throughout the period, female defendants in the Proceedings account for a significant proportion of the accused in only a small number of offences, particularly certain kinds of theft pickpocketing, shoplifting, theft from lodging houses, theft from masters, and receiving stolen goods and coining, kidnapping, keeping a brothel, and offences surrounding childbirth.
On the other hand, relatively few women were accused of deception, other sexual offences, breaking the peace, and robbery. The explanation of these patterns is complicated. Certain offences were legally or practically sex-specific: only men could be guilty of rape though women could be accessories and except in very rare circumstances of sodomy , while women were most likely to be accused of infanticide , concealing a birth , and unlawful abortion.
Although prostitution itself was not tried at the Old Bailey, keeping a brothel was, and women account for about a third of those prosecuted.
Gender, Taste, and Material Culture in Britain and North America, | Yale University Press
Beyond this, there are two sets of explanations for the gendered pattern of prosecutions at the Old Bailey: different attitudes towards male and female criminality; and different patterns of crime actually committed, owing to contrasts in the lives led by women and men. According to their prescribed gender role , men were expected to be violent and aggressive, and consequently male deviance was perceived to be more threatening, was more likely to be interpreted as crime, and was more likely to be prosecuted. Because women were generally perceived to be more passive, they were not thought to be prone to criminality, and therefore the crimes they did commit were seen as unusual, rather than as part of a general pattern.
At this time only a small fraction of crimes were actually prosecuted, and the less threatening crimes were least likely to be formally prosecuted.
Although women who stepped far outside expected gender roles through the use violence towards children, for example were prosecuted severely, most crimes committed by women were likely to be dealt with by less formal judicial procedures, such as informal arbitration and summary prosecution, or at the Quarter Sessions courts, and such cases do not appear in the Old Bailey records. A second explanation for the appearance of fewer women at the Old Bailey, and their being charged with different types of crime, is that women may have actually committed fewer and different crimes than men because of the nature of their lives.
Women, for example, were less likely to carry weapons or tools, or to spend time in alehouses, so they were less likely to become involved in spontaneous fights, and when they did they rarely had a lethal weapon to hand. Since they spent more time in the home they may have had fewer opportunities to commit crime, particularly temptations to steal.
On the other hand, women were never confined to their own homes and most had plenty of opportunities to commit theft. It is certainly likely that male and female patterns of theft differed, owing to the different types of work and leisure engaged in by each sex. Thus prostitutes stole from their clients and were accused of pickpocketing; female servants stole from their masters; and female customers, possibly motivated by desires to keep up with the latest fashions, stole from shops. In addition, women's participation in trading networks gave them skills suitable for buying and selling stolen goods.
On the other hand, men were far more likely to be involved in thefts from places of work such as ships, warehouses, docks, and places of manufacture; and, in rural areas, thefts of livestock. Overall, women did account for a significant proportion of theft prosecutions, particularly early in the period, and this can be related to the significant economic hardships women encountered in London, particularly young recent migrants. New immigrants to the metropolis were often cut off from networks of support such as family and friends, and women's wages were typically significantly lower than men's, and their jobs less secure.
Historians disagree about the cause and significance of the major decline in the proportion of female defendants tried at the Old Bailey between the early eighteenth and early twentieth centuries. In contrast, Peter King argues that the decline in both the number and proportion of women tried at the Old Bailey was not linear, reflected significant fluctuations in the number of men prosecuted in times of war and peace, and was not mirrored in the records of other English courts.
Perhaps most importantly, he notes that the late nineteenth-century decline in the number of women prosecuted reflected jurisdictional changes, as a large number of minor theft cases which frequently involved women were transferred to the lower courts. Ultimately, it is dangerous to draw wider conclusions about gender directly from evidence of the number of offenders prosecuted in a single court.
Appearing as a defendant at the Old Bailey must have been a significantly more intimidating experience for women than it was for men. There is some evidence that juries treated evidence presented by female witnesses more sceptically than that delivered by men and female testimony was more likely to be omitted from the Proceedings. At the same time, other evidence suggests that juries may have been more reluctant to convict women since, as explained in gender and crime , female crime was generally perceived as less threatening than that committed by men.
The legal principle of the feme covert , by which women could not be held responsible for crimes committed in the presence of their husbands since they were presumed to be following their husbands' commands was not often applied, but it may have led juries to exonerate some married women, particularly when their husbands were convicted for the same crime.
Only about a seventh of the victims or prosecutors of crime at the Old Bailey were women. The most important reason for this is the fact that theft was the most common offence prosecuted, and most marital property was deemed to be in the possession of the husband. Thus, even if a woman's clothes were stolen, if she was married her husband would have been labelled as the victim of the crime. It is also possible, however, that women on their own were reluctant to prosecute cases in the male-dominated environment of the Old Bailey courtroom.
Women account for a higher proportion of the victims who used less formal legal procedures such as summary jurisdiction and informal arbitration to prosecute crimes. The pattern of punishments for convicted women was significantly different from that for men, though when punishments for the same offence are compared the differences are not so great. There are some legal reasons for these differences, many of which reflect ideas about gender at the time:.
Related The Politics of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America (Gender and American Culture)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved