Dressing Gowns

[Guest]

There is an old tradition of receiving guests at home like this:







It is traditionally known as "undress" - the opposite of "full dress". Modern cheap bath robes do not count.

SATOR

[Guest]

Since we saw those last week, I thought someone might give us a bit of an Edwardian reminder. Just out of interest, if undress really is 'undress', what was lounge suit called in the un/half/full-dress hierarchy (pre formal/semi-formal/informal)?

[Guest]

The full dress/half-dress/undress hierarchy was always rather loosely applied beyond full dress. Full dress meant "dress clothes", that was easy. But below that sometimes they would talk about lounge suits as being undress, sometimes half dress. Ditto for the morning coat - at times this was called half dress and at others undress. When lounges really were casual dress, they were definitely called "undress".

Even mid-20th century a "black jacket and striped trousers" was called "informal dress" and a dinner jacket "informal dinner clothes". This business of having things minutely subcategorised into semi- quasi- demi- formal/informal/business/casual seems to be a 21st century internet thing.

Sator

[Guest]

Aren't the terms 'dress' and 'undress' primarily naval and military terms deriving from the introduction, in 1748, of British naval officers' uniforms? I am not convinced that they ever had any strict civilian application.
NJS

[Guest]

http://dept.kent.edu/museum/exhibit/men ... 0-1880.htm

SATOR

[Guest]

http://dept.kent.edu/museum/exhibit/men ... 0-1880.htm

SATOR

Of all the terms of dress described in books such as Dress and Insignia At His Majesty's Court by Herbert Trendell (Chief Clerk of the Ceremonial Department), with the authority of the Lord Chamberlain (Harrison & Sons, London, 1921), I see no references to dressing gowns as undress or any references at all to 'half dress'. But then, America chose coffee over tea for breakfast in 1776!!
NJS

[Guest]

The bibliographic reference to Waugh is to an English text. All textbooks on dress history are perfectly consistent on this point. Just as the military had uniforms for dress and undress so too were there civilian forms of dress and undress. I also refer you to The Handbook of English Costume in the 19th Century by Cunnington & Cunnington and The Male Image by Byrde which has an extensive entry on the subject. They are both by English authors.

Here is a painting dated 1747 with the commissioner in "undress". The term is older than the late 18th century.



Do you have a published reference stating that "dress" and "undress" were terms strictly restricted to military use? I would be most interested if you did. BTW are you saying that the term "full dress" is a strictly military dress code? If not why shouldn't "undress" be a civilian term too?

SATOR

[Guest]

No I am not saying that 'full dress' and 'undress' are terms restricted to the naval and military - after all, court dress preceded both. 'Half dress' is not a term which (so far as I know) British-English endows with any formal meaning and I do not accept that dressing gowns = undress in British English (undressed perhaps!). There are all sorts of types of uniform and states of dress: naval, military, for the consular and civil services as well as civilian and those for the royal households; for Lords Lieutenants of the counties and Deputy-Lieutenants, High Sheriffs and - scores of other ofice holders. They come in varieties of: full dress; undress; full court dress and levee dress (in three classes); there are still (technically) hot weather civil and consular service uniforms and a recent naval adaptation of naval hot weather uniform - known as 'Gulf' or 'Red Sea' rig'. On top of all this there is sometimes separate evening dress and (for the military) mess or dinner dress. My only point is that, outside a setting regulated by a Royal Court, the terms 'full dress' and 'undress' have come to bear something other than their original meanings and terms such as 'half dress' have been born. I suppose that the thrust of my point is that there is different terminology in America from that in the UK. But the difference needs to be recognized; especially since the UK version has always been strictly regulated right down to lengths of formed cuffs; distances between buttons and colour of collar velvet, facings, width of bullion, use of rosettes and so on. To the extent that ceremonial remains (and it does), these regulations continue to apply and they are not debateable terms as they exist in detailed descriptions in books such as Trendell.
NJS

[Guest]

For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that by 'civilian' I mean ordinary day and evening dress which is worn other than part of a formally prescribed uniform, by persons appearing in a purely private capacity. This dress is certainly, from time to time, described by accepted custom but not actually anywhere prescribed.
NJS

[Guest]

I do not accept that dressing gowns = undress in British English (undressed perhaps!).

Half dress is not that common a term, I agree - whether in British or American use. However, "undress" for house coats is quite clearly used in British English. I refer you to Byrde - there is a whole chapter on the subject there entitled "Dress and Undress". Byrde was once Research Officer at the Museum of Costume in Bath. There is a consensus amongst dress historians on this subject. If you feel strongly otherwise please cite a published reference or original period texts to support your position.

The use of these terms is very loose. For example, at times "undress" meant all day clothes including morning dress (Cunnington and Beard). "Common clothes" was an alternative term. Yet the term "dress clothes" could also refer to daytime dress clothes - not court dress, nor military dress, but morning dress. At other times "full dress" meant court dress and anything less for night or day was "undress".

Bibliography
Penelope Byrde: The Male Image, The Anchor Press, London, 1979
CW & PE Cunnington, Charles Beard: A Dictionary of English Costume, A. and C. Black, London. 1965

SATOR

[Guest]

Pardon me, but I forgot to give a bibliographic citation for this picture:



The caption to the picture on p62 of the book by Mackrell reads:

Portrait of Maurice Greene, painted by Francis Hayman, 1747. The nightgown, or banyan, was highly fashionable for informal wear. Hayman's portrait shows the Professor of Music at Cambridge (on the left) in the 'undress' of a fine red damask banyan...(National Portrait Gallery, London).

Alice Mackrell: An Illustrated History of Fashion. Costume and Fashion Press, New York, 1997.

Dr Mackrell is English, and based in Hamstead, London. She did her PhD at the Courtauld Institute of Art in London.

[Guest]

Just returning to our sheep, I fear that an acceptance that the term 'half dress' is not that common a term does less than justice to the matter. However, I shall rest content on that point. So far as the remainder of it goes, your hurdle is the identification of the point of reference and comparison by means of which one set of garments is denoted 'half dress' and another 'full dress', when there is not, outside a prescriptive setting, (as opposed to a merely customary setting), any fixed rule and point of reference at all. Trendell is a reasonably reliable authority for my propositions.
NJS

[Guest]

Pardon me, but I forgot to give a bibliographic citation for this picture:



The caption to the picture on p62 of the book by Mackrell reads:

Portrait of Maurice Greene, painted by Francis Hayman, 1747. The nightgown, or banyan, was highly fashionable for informal wear. Hayman's portrait shows the Professor of Music at Cambridge (on the left) in the 'undress' of a fine red damask banyan...(National Portrait Gallery, London).

Alice Mackrell: An Illustrated History of Fashion. Costume and Fashion Press, New York, 1997.

Dr Mackrell is English, and based in Hamstead, London. She did her PhD at the Courtauld Institute of Art in London.

I note that 'undress' is in inverted commas. This suggests to me that the author is knowiingly using a formal term to denote an informal situation and her use of the term is, despite her nationality and qualifications (wihich seem to be in art rather than costume, as such), probably neither here nor there.
NJS

[Guest]

. . . . 'Half dress' is not a term which (so far as I know) British-English endows with any formal meaning . . . . the terms 'full dress' and 'undress' have come to bear something other than their original meanings and terms such as 'half dress' have been born. I suppose that the thrust of my point is that there is different terminology in America from that in the UK. . . .

In American English, "undress" is now archaic at best, NJS; formerly, it had some limited currency in military and naval circles. Neither "undress" nor "half dress" is employed in the States to refer to private clothing rather than uniform.

The usage may differ in Sator's Australia.

RWS

[Guest]

. . . . 'Half dress' is not a term which (so far as I know) British-English endows with any formal meaning . . . . the terms 'full dress' and 'undress' have come to bear something other than their original meanings and terms such as 'half dress' have been born. I suppose that the thrust of my point is that there is different terminology in America from that in the UK. . . .

In American English, "undress" is now archaic at best, NJS; formerly, it had some limited currency in military and naval circles. Neither "undress" nor "half dress" is employed in the States to refer to private clothing rather than uniform.

The usage may differ in Sator's Australia.

RWS

Thank you RWS - the reason that I referred to American usage was because Sator cited the Kent University site as an authority for a proposition but now we have the position from you, I can safely retire to the beach for a little while - even knowing that there will be more.... in a little while .
NJS