Sunday, May 5, 2013

The Fashionable Bustle, c. 1885

Sunday, May 5, 2013
Isabella reporting,

When I visited the Impressionism, Fashion, & Modernity exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,  one of the definite highlights for me were the dresses with bustles. Objectively I knew what bustles were: an exuberant silhouette in women's fashion that began in the late 1860s and continued for roughly twenty years, a style of skirt that offered an exaggerated backside in varying sizes, shapes, and amount of drapery. I'd seen examples before, too. But I was unprepared for the sheer size and magnificence of the exhibition's gowns with bustles from the early 1880s, when the style reached its most extreme.

For once the fashion plates and caricatures didn't really have to exaggerate.  The drawing from a French fashion magazine, upper left, shows how stylized the fashion had become, with the bustle jutting out to hold the skirts a good 12-18" behind the lady's waist. To modern eyes, the bustle appears like an extension for carrying small children, or perhaps one of those old vaudeville-style horse acts with a second person hiding beneath the skirts.

But the longer I looked at the bustles on the actual gowns like the one, right, the more I could see the appeal. (Here are two more examples from our Pinterest boards, here and here, and the rear view here of Mme. Bartholome's dress.) A woman in a dress like this would have definite presence. She would occupy so much space that she could not be overlooked or ignored. Her already-corseted waist would look tiny by comparison.

I would love to have seen the dresses on a 19th c. woman who was skilled at managing both the bustle and the train. My guess is that with practice that over-sized rump must have had definite come-hither qualities, twitching and swaying seductively with the owner's walk - and yes, this gown was considered a walking dress, meant for outdoor strolls.

Seeing the suport necessary for a bustle, lower left, is also an eye-opener. There were many variations of bustles – here's one, another, and three more – and I imagine every woman had her favorite style, or perhaps several variations to suit different dresses. The point was to offer volume and support to the skirts without excessive weight, and in the advertisements of the day they're often touted as being "hygienic" as well.

Of course, like any high-fashion style, this walking dress is an extreme example, worn by a wealthy woman who patronized the House of Worth and Parisian couture. Women who were working on farms or in factories, or as servants or nurses wouldn't have been dragging yards of costly fabric after them. But bustles were embraced as a stylish status-symbol by the middle classes, and there are many paintings and photographs of women in dresses with bustles riding streetcars, attending church, teaching school, collecting shells at the beach, playing tennis, dancing, and generally living their lives without any real hindrance from their bustle-bumps.

More thoughts on bustles coming later this week, plus a Friday Video that will feature a lesson in sitting in a bustle.

Upper left: Illustration from La Mode Illustrée, May 24, 1885. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Right: Walking dress, House of Worth, c. 1885, French. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Lower left: Bustle, c. 1885, American. Metropolitan Museum of Art.


Kaisa Kyläkoski said...

Fluent in French? Le mythe de la Parisienne en 1880 was just linked by Gallica to Twitter and you post popped to mind.

j3nnyclair3 said...

Do you have pictures of the maid's uniforms with bustles?

Isabella Bradford/Susan Holloway Scott said...

Kaisa, thank you for sharing that link! Fascinating to read a French commentary on what made "French style." Also fun to think that the author had seen the same exhibition that is now touring American museums.

J3nnyclair3, you've caught me in sloppy writing. Maids didn't wear bustles - it would have been a luxurious hazard that few mistresses would have condoned. What I'd intended to say was that maids would arrange their skirts with fullness in the back to give the illusion of a bustle. But I didn't *write* that, and I didn't make it clear - so I've just edited out the entire reference. Sorry to be confusing!

Unless, of course, you want to see this kind of bustle on an Edwardian fancy-dress French maid costume c. 1900 *g*;

Elizabeth Varadan, Author said...

Great post! It's really interesting, too, to see the understructure that made the bustles' effect so elegant. It must have been so uncomfortable to walk and sit with those things on, but I have to say, the gowns with bustles did look so beautiful.
I'm looking forward to the Friday video that shows how to sit while wearing a bustle.

Kathy said...

I'd like to know why they were called 'bustles' !

Adi said...

KWillow, I've never even thought about that but now I'm dying to know!

Isabella Bradford/Susan Holloway Scott said...

Adi and KWillow - I don't know! I've hunted through all my costume books and online as well, and haven't found an answer for you. No one seems to have a definite answer for when and why the word came to refer to the structure supporting skirts. If anybody out there can quote a 19th c. source as the "first mention", please share - I'd love to see it!

Plush Possum Studio said...

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience here. In doing some searches for information concerning the fine points of 1885 bustle fashions (1885 in particular), I've found this page to be one of the best currently available at Blogger.

Two Nerdy History Girls. Design by Pocket