Clothes for Tots
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal ( Sat-Sun March
18-19, 2017) entitled “Kid’s Style: The New Order” by Kari Molvar. According to Molvar, there are on-line
couture sites dedicated to children’s clothing and accessories for parents (
and presumably grandparents and other gift givers) specializing in the very
high end , and price!, attire for the kiddie set. While there are retail
outlets for children’s clothing at the mall, the variety is, admittedly,
somewhat limited. I remember shopping
in Lisbon, where nearly every third shop specialized in clothing for infants
and children. This got me thinking of
the history of clothing for children and the lack of information available,
especially in the times prior to the 17th century.
After the 1700’s there is more information on this subject
of youth fashions ,which can be found readily on the Internet. It was not until the mid 1800’s that
journals gave detailed descriptions of children’s wear.
However, before that
time there is scarce reference to the
costumes worn by children. We get
information of the past through paintings, drawings and literature created at
the time. While not always totally accurate,
there is a tendency to put on a “good face” when rendering life styles, these
sources do give clues from which
historians can draw plausible conclusions.
Herein lies our problem. There
are few pictorial references to children in early history. One of the few references I found was a
painting now in the Louvre “The Dauphin Charles Orland” 1495 by Maitre Des
Moulins. According to Francoise
Boucher, ( 20,000 Years of Fashion), in the 16th C children’s
costume “was still largely practical: flannel gowns, linen bibs, caps with
turned up flaps worn over *‘beguins’.
In the course of the century they began to be dressed like miniature
adults”.
Harry Abrams, Inc, NY
It is reasonable to assume that before the emergence of the
middle classes in the 1800’s, few had the financial ability to hire portraits
of their family. Most paintings that
were not of religious nature were those commissioned by nobility and,
therefore, not an accurate representation of the general populace. There is, sadly, another reason that children were generally not represented in
early times. The rate of infant
mortality was extremely high. Many
infants did not survive to childhood, many children did not survive past the
age of five years. Perhaps, it was not deemed necessary to provided anything
but the basic clothing of tunics and stockings and caps. Until children reached an age when they were
put to work in the fields (or later in factories) there was no perceived need
for children’s costumes. Even as they
aged, as referenced by Boucher they were dressed in scaled-down versions of
clothing worn by their parents.
Now, even the young toddler has a sense of what they would
prefer to wear. As I have said
previously, I volunteer in the Children’s Room of our public library. Every week for Pre-school Story-time 2-5
year olds attend dressed in costumes of their fictional heroes, or dress as
seen in the media, choosing their dress
and accessories for themselves. Occasionally, their choices are humorous,
albeit, whole hearted. Nevertheless
they are confident in their fashion style.
*Beguin- a folded piece of linen worn as a hood, under a
cap, in the Flemish style.
No comments:
Post a Comment