An 1848 article which described, in detail, the fashionable dress called for by each activity at summer resorts, concludes with the following tantalizing paragraph:

We have no s.p.a.ce for an extended description of suitable bathing-dresses. They may be procured at any of our town establishments for the purpose. Much depends upon individual taste in their arrangement, for uncouth as they often of necessity are, they can be improved by a little tact.[28]

[28] Loc. cit. (footnote 19).

This is the only reference to American bathing costume of the second quarter of the 19th century that the author has found at this time.

Nevertheless, an English source describes what must have been a transitional style between the chemise-type bathing gown and the more fitted costume of the 1850s.

The _Workwoman's Guide_, published in London, 1840, included instructions for making both a bathing gown and a bathing cap. Health and modesty were the main considerations that influenced the choice of color and type of material.

Bathing gowns are made of blue or white flannel, stuff, calimanco, or blue linen. As it is especially desirable that the water should have free access to the person, and yet that the dress should not cling to, or weigh down the bather, stuff or calimanco are preferred to most other materials; the dark coloured gowns are the best for several reasons, but chiefly because they do not show the figure, and make the bather less conspicuous than she would be in a white dress.[29]

[29] A LADY, _The Workwoman's Guide_ (London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., 1840), p. 61.

The following details reveal that, in general, this 1840 bathing gown starts as an unshaped garment similar to the gown attributed to Martha Washington [brackets are mine].

As the width of the materials, of which a bathing gown is made, varies, it is impossible to say of how many breadths it should consist. The width at the bottom, when the gown is doubled, should be about 15 nails [1 nail = 2 in.]: fold it like a pinafore, slope 3 nails for the shoulders, cut or open slits of 3 nails long for the armholes, set in plain sleeves 4 nails long, 3 nails wide, and make a slit in front 5 nails long.[30]

[30] Loc. cit. (footnote 29).

The instructions for finishing this gown, however, show that the sleeves were worn close around the wrists and that the fullness of the skirt was secured at the waist by a belt.

In making up, delicacy is the great object to be attended to.

Hem the gown at the bottom, gather it into a band at the top, and run in strings; hem the opening and the bottom of the sleeves and put in strings. A broad band should be sewed in about half a yard from the top, to b.u.t.ton round the waist.[31]

[31] Loc. cit. (footnote 29).

By the addition of the above details this type of bathing gown more closely approximates the style of the long-skirted blouse of the 1850s to be described later.

In regard to the bathing cap we are told that,

These are made of oil-silk, and are worn, when bathing, by ladies who have long hair.... It is advisable, however, for those who have not long hair, to bathe in plain linen caps, so as to admit the water without the sand or grit, and thus the bather, unless prohibited on account of health, enjoys all the benefit of the shock without injuring the hair.[32]

[32] Ibid., p. 68.

The "Scene at Cape May" (fig. 3) shows women wearing long-skirted, long-sleeved, belted gowns as well as head coverings similar to the type described in _The Workwoman's Guide_.

Thus during the period when bathing became popular as a medicinal treatment, women wore loose, open gowns perhaps patterned after a common undergarment, the chemise. Although this chemise-type bathing costume must have been very comfortable when dry, its fullness was restrictive when wet. The bather could only immerse herself in water which was all that was necessary for the treatment. As the recreational possibilities of bathing began to overshadow its health-giving properties, women's bathing dresses also became more fitted, following the general silhouette of women's fashions.

[Ill.u.s.tration: SCENE AT CONEY ISLAND--SEA BATHING ILl.u.s.tRATED.

Figure 7.--SEA BATHING AT CONEY ISLAND, from _Frank Leslie's Ill.u.s.trated Newspaper_, September 1856.

(Smithsonian photo 58437.)]

BIFURCATED BATHING DRESS

During the first half of the 19th century in England and the United States, a more tolerant att.i.tude toward feminine exercise led women to abandon the fiction that they were not bipedal while bathing. This acknowledgment, however, was not fostered solely by the need for a more functional bathing dress. It was first evidenced by a few daring European women who wore lace-edged pantaloons trimmed with several rows of tucking under their daytime dresses. The shorter, untrimmed, knee-length drawers which quickly replaced the pantaloons, became an unseen but essential item in the fashionable English lady's toilette of the 1840s. These drawers, or a plainer version of the longer pantaloons, were adapted not only to the female riding habit but the bathing dress as well. An 1828 English source reported that "Many ladies when riding wear silk drawers similar to what is worn when bathing."[33] With the increased interest in physical exercise for women, ankle-length, open pantaloons also were being worn in the 1840s with a long overdress as an early form of gymnasium suit. This evidence of the early use of drawers suggests that, like English ladies, women in the United States were probably wearing a type of drawers beneath their nondescript bathing gowns during the second quarter of the 19th century. There is some slight support of this theory in the following stanza of a poem that appeared in 1845:

But go to the beach ere the morning be ended And look at the bathers--oh what an array The ladies in trowsers, the _gemmen_ in _blowses_ E'en red flannel shirts are the "go" at Cape May.[34]

[33] As quoted in C. WILLETT and PHILLIS CUNNINGTON, _The History of Underclothes_ (London: Faber and Faber, 1951), p. 130.

[34] "Cape May," _G.o.dey's Lady's Book_ (December 1845), vol. 31, p.

268.

The rather crude but delightful sketch of seabathing at Coney Island in 1856 (fig. 7) shows the ladies wearing very full, ankle-length, trousers with a sack top extending loosely only a few inches below the waist.

This type of bathing costume, which was primarily a bifurcated garment instead of a skirted one, became the prevailing fashion as reported in English women's magazines of the 1860s.

In contrast to the originally European skirtless costume, the Philadelphia publication, _Peterson's Magazine_, stated that bathing dress should consist of a pair of drawers and a long-skirted dress. The recommended drawers were full and confined at the ankle by a band that was finished with a ruffle. These drawers were attached to a "body" and fastened so that, even if the skirt washed up, the individual could not possibly be exposed. The dress was made by pleating or gathering the desired length of material onto a deep yoke with a separate belt securing the fullness at the waist. The bottom of the hem was about three inches above the ankle and was considered rather short. Loose shirt sleeves were drawn around the wrist by a band which was finished with a deep ruffle as a protection against the sun. According to this article many women wore a small talma or cape which hid the figure to some extent. It was recommended that the drawers, dress, and talma be made of the same woolen material.

Bathing-dresses, although generally very unbecoming can be made to look very prettily with a little taste. If the dress is of a plain color, such as grey, blue or brown, a tr.i.m.m.i.n.g around the talma, collar, yoke, ruffles etc ..., of crimson, green or scarlet, is a great addition.[35]

[35] "Fashions for August, Bathing Dresses," _Peterson's Magazine_ (August 1856), vol. 30, p. 145.

To complete a bathing toilette the following items were considered necessary: a pair of large lisle thread gloves, an oil cap to protect the hair from the water, a straw hat to shield the face from the sun, and gum overshoes for tender feet.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 8.--BATHING DRESS, c. 1855. (_Courtesy of Philadelphia Museum of Art._ Photograph by A. J. Wyatt, staff photographer.)]

The red, tan, and blue-green checked bathing dress shown in figure 8 is jauntily trimmed with crimson braid edging the collar, belt, and wrist and ankle bands. This costume is a variation of the style described previously. The drawers, unlike those described in _Peterson's Magazine_, are sewn to a linen band with linen suspenders attached. The unfitted, unshaped skirt (8 ft. 8 in. in circ.u.mference) is pulled in at the waist by a belt attached to the center back. A similar technique for forming a waistline is described in _The Workwoman's Guide_ of 1840.

Women's magazines in the United States from the third quarter of the 19th century show ill.u.s.trations of bathing costume, but in many instances these publications used European fashion plates. _Harper's Bazar_, (spelled thus until 1929) particularly in its early years, used fashion plates and pattern supplements from its German predecessor _Der Bazar_. Thus, in one issue one can find a fashion plate showing the predominantly bifurcated European bathing suit and, in a column on New York fashions, a separate description of long-skirted bathing dresses with trousers. During the same period _Peterson's Magazine_ had ill.u.s.trations previously used in the London publication, _Queen's Magazine_.

American women seem to have accepted the majority of styles shown in European fashion plates, except for the skirtless bathing suits. The writer of an 1868 column on New York fashions sought to convince his readers to try the more daring European style although he grudgingly admitted that the "Bathing suits made with trousers and blouse waist without skirt are objected to by many ladies as masculine and fast...."[36] This style was in fact, very similar to the costume worn by men when they bathed with the ladies. A year later, the writer of the same fashion column had given up the campaign to dress all women in the skirtless suits and admitted that these imports "... are worn by expert swimmers, who do not wish to be enc.u.mbered with bulky clothing."[37]

Such practical bathing dress was thus limited to a very small number of progressive women.

[36] "New York Fashions," _Harper's Bazar_ (August 8, 1868), vol. 1, no. 41, p. 643.

[37] Ibid. (July 10, 1869), vol. 2, no. 28, p. 435.

The majority, consisting of those who were strictly bathers, wore the ankle-length drawers beneath a long dress as described or ill.u.s.trated in the majority of sources that originated in the United States. Why was the European bathing suit not fully adopted by American women?

Differences between the bathing customs of the two continents undoubtedly encouraged the development of different dress. While men and women in the United States bathed together freely at the seash.o.r.e during the latter half of the 19th century, this practice was not widely accepted in England until the early 1900s. In the presence of men, American women probably felt compelled to retain their more concealing dress and drawers.

In England swimming seems to have been more popular among women than it was in the United States. While encouraging its readers to swim, during the late 1860s, _Queen's Magazine_ used forceful language of a kind that was not found in American publications until the late 19th century. If swimming was more acceptable as a feminine exercise in England it is understandable why English women were more receptive to a functional, skirtless bathing suit--especially since it was worn only in the presence of other women.

In 1858, Winslow Homer, who was later to become a well-known American painter, was welcomed into the society at Newport until it became apparent that he wanted to sketch the bathers for a weekly newspaper (see fig. 4). So great were the ensuing objections that he was permitted to complete his sketches "... provided he depicted the bathers only in the water and only above the waistline and without divulging the ident.i.ty of the bathers."[38]

[38] B. BROOKE, "Bathing-dress with Hat and Gloves," _Hobbies_ (August 1958), vol. 63, p. 90.

As can be seen in figure 4, these sketches serve more as a testament of Homer's fancy than as an accurate historical statement on style. The two feminine legs exposed in the water from just below the knee to the toe and the feminine head coverings appear to be anachronisms. According to several other ill.u.s.trations of the period, these women were undoubtedly wearing long drawers. The young artist at 22, however, has been described as having an eye for feminine beauty and a sense of fashion.

He seems to have exploited to the full the decorative possibilities of hoop skirts blown by the breeze or agitated by some pretty accident to discreetly reveal a trim ankle. A drama of breeze versus long skirt appears with the small feminine figure in the left background of this print. The force of the waves and the motion of the frolicking bathers gave the artist opportunity to show two more pretty accidents. The only head covering he showed for feminine bathers was a ruffled cap that framed the face. Other sources show Newport bathers wearing the less attractive wide-brimmed straw hat (fig. 9). The straw headgear worn over these caps seems more likely since Newport's fashionable belles would surely have sacrificed appearances and worn a straw hat to avoid an unfashionable sunburn and tan.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 9.--BATHING HAT of natural color and purple straw, c. 1880. (Smithsonian photo P-65409.)]

Nevertheless, Homer's sketch reflects characteristics seen in certain surviving examples from the 1860s--namely that the top was becoming more fitted, being attached completely to a belt with the fuller skirt pleated or gathered to the bottom edge of the belt. In the Design Laboratory Collection of the Brooklyn Museum there is an 1860 black poplin specimen that may be a bathing dress. This example is trimmed at the shoulder seam with epaulets, an example of the extent to which fashion was finally playing a part in bathing costume.[39]

[39] Photograph and pattern appears in Blanch Payne, _History of Costume_ (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 518, 583-584.