Men's Fashion
(Photo Archive)

(R. Broby Johansen, An Illustrated History Of Custom, Reinhold Book Corporation, 1968, pp. 192, 193.)

At the beginning of the nineteenth century legs had been the most emphasized part of the male body. In the 1860’s the focus of attention moved to the torso. A stovepipe top hat was worn by men, and the slender coat gave away to an elaborately cut jacket. The tails of the ceremonial redingote were cut away to such an extent that it became the ‘bonjour’ that we call now the morning coat. The tails were also cut away from the waist at an angle to become the swallowtail coat or the tailcoat of today.

As time went on, tails became shorter and the coat developed into the present-day jacket. Trousers were made from checked or striped material which drew attention to the legs, but the trouser legs were so wide that the leg itself was not so much in evidence. The flap opening on the front of the trousers was replaced by a placket buttoned up inside a fly.

Male dress was made up in three distinct colours: one for the jacket, one for the waistcoat and a third for the trousers. These colours were discreet in tone, the most favoured being London Fog, Algerian Dust and Russian Green. After 1850, the only coloured garment was the waistcoat, and this convention lasted for about ten years.

The dress of the middle-class gentlemen was, because of its uniformity, the embodiment of democracy and equality of man. As late a the Rococo period, kings and queens had not troubled to hide their legs beneath a mass of material. But now the clothes of the ordinary citizen concealed more than his body. Like the wild animal in the jungle, the man of business assumed the monotonous drab greys and browns of his surroundings. Evening dress adopted the black and white markings of the zebra. At a time when Karl Marx was propounding his theory of the merciless class war, black tails and white tie became established evening wear, equally uncompromising in contrast and effect. The one was not a consequence of the other but symbolized an unsophisticated attitude to the problems of life.

In spite of its anonymous character, make dress displayed as many absurd paradoxes as did the almost defiant styles adopted by women. Men expressed their conservative nature by retaining many old fashions such as lapels and neck scarves. Lapels became pointed only very gradually and high collars developed into the formal white collar in the 1860’s. The collar had to be white to prove that the wearer was not debased by physical labour. The cravat degenerated into the narrow tie. The scarf has remained in its original form up to the present day.

Dress had previously denoted the profession or nature of work carried out, be the man king, nobleman or chimney-sweep. From now on it was necessary to see a man at work to know his occupation.

Distinctions of vocation or milieu no longer applied. All were engaged in the one trade, in making money, and the dress of the banker or the business man became standard civilian uniform.

The man who dressed like a wealthy banker stood a better chance in his quest for love or marriage. Where a broad chest and strong muscles had provided the best guarantee of material security in the old days, a bank account was now the best assurance. All gentlemen, a term which lost some of its meaning when men ceased to be slaves, had to appear as if they were something in the city.

The Puritans took the view that work along with everything connected with the sinful world was bad and that love of life was the devil’s snare. Work was endured by the Puritans as a burden necessitated by original sin. Industry and thrift were regarded as worthy because of the profits to be made, and a man's worldly success or failure were considered an index of his spiritual condition. The mind of the Puritan was most happily occupied in dealing with accounts. Disdain of manual work and respect for unsoiled hands had religious significance. The body was sinful and sex even worse. Therefore, the shameful body had to be shrouded in dark coverings so as not to disclose man’s sensual and animal characteristics. Only the face and hands could be seen, but the neck must be covered. To show even the hands was felt to be slightly bad form, and any immoderate gesture was scrupulously avoided. How much safer to hide the hands in one’s pockets!

The general lines of male dress came to have much in common with the pistons of the great machines and the tall factory chimneys.

Although men certainly did not abandon colour out of courtesy to the opposite sex, the result was to provide woman with a monopoly of bright colours, like birds in the mating season. It alone indicated the change that had taken place in the relationship between the sexes. Man had relinquished his position of natural dominance; no longer was he the more decorative one of the couple.

The divergence between the clothing of men and women went much deeper than just the matter of colour. From now onwards, women’s underwear became romantic while men’s underwear became comical. This development proved that puritan spirit never really worsted the female sex. Although, women’s clothing has retained a sense of fun, frivolity and decorativeness. Unlike male garments, women’s underwear did not seek to hide its intention or to practise hypocrisy; it has always openly shown its true colours, like a flag of war.