on his knee and sang to her about 'the old, old man and the old, old
woman who lived in the vinegar bottle together,' ... or again, when
General Greene writes from Middlebrook, 'We had a little dance at my
quarters. His Excellency and Mrs. Greene danced upwards of three hours
without once sitting down. Upon the whole we had a pretty little frisk."

And does not John Adams lose some of his aloofness when we see the
picture his wife draws of him, submitting to be driven about the room by
means of a switch in the hands of his little grandchild? In the
eighteenth century home life was evidently just as free from unnecessary
dignity as it is to-day, and possibly wives had even more genuine
affection and esteem for their husbands than is the case in the
twentieth century. Mrs. Washington's quiet rebuke to her daughter and
some lady guests who came down to breakfast in dressing gowns and curl
papers, may be cited as at least one proof of consideration for the
husband. Seeing some French officers approaching the house, the young
people begged to be excused; but Mrs. Washington shook her head
decisively and answered, "No, what is good enough for General Washington
is good enough for any of his guests." Indeed much of this famous man's
success must be attributed to the noble encouragement, the
considerateness, and the unsparing industry of his wife. The story is
often told of how the painter, Peale, when he hesitated to call at seven
in the morning, the hour for the first sitting for her portrait, found
that even then she had already attended morning worship, had given her
niece a music lesson, and had read the newspaper.

Brooke in _Dames and Daughters of Colonial Days_ furnishes another
example of the kindly consideration so common among colonial husbands
and wives. Mrs. John Adams, who was afflicted with headaches, believed
that green tea brought relief, and wrote her husband to send her a
canister. Some time afterwards she visited Mrs. Samuel Adams, who
refreshed her with this very drink:

"The scarcity of the article made me ask where she got it. She
replied that her sweetheart sent it to her by Mr. Gerry. I said
nothing, but thought my sweetheart might have been equally kind
considering the disease I was visited with, and that was
recommended as a bracer."

"But in reality 'Goodman' John had not been so unfeeling as he
appeared. For when he read his wife's mention of that pain in her
head he had been properly concerned and straightway, he says,
'asked Mrs. Yard to send a pound of green tea to you by Mr.
Gerry.' Mrs. Yard readily agreed. 'When I came home at night,'
continues the much 'vexed' John, I was told Mr. Gerry was gone. I
asked Mrs. Yard if she had sent the canister. She said Yes and
that Mr. Gerry undertook to deliver it with a great deal of
pleasure. From that time I flattered myself you would have the
poor relief of a dish of good tea, and I never conceived a single
doubt that you had received it until Mr. Gerry's return. I asked
him accidently whether he had delivered it, and he said, 'Yes; to
Mr. Samuel Adams's lady.'"[117]

American letters of the eighteenth century abound in expressions of love
and in mention of gifts sent home as tokens of that love. Thus, Mrs.
Washington writes her brother in 1778: "Please to give little Patty a
kiss for me. I have sent her a pair of shoes--there was not a doll to be
got in the city of Philadelphia, or I would have sent her one (the shoes
are in a bundle for my mamma)."[118] And again from New York in 1789 she
writes: "I have by Mrs. Sims sent for a watch, it is one of the cargoe
that I have so often mentioned to you, that was expected, I hope is such
a one as will please you--it is of the newest fashion, if that has any
influence in your taste.... The chain is of Mr. Lear's choosing and such
as Mrs. Adams the vice President's Lady and those in the polite circle
wares and will last as long as the fashion--and by that time you can get
another of a fashionable kind--I send to dear Maria a piece of chintz to
make her a frock--the piece of muslin I hope is long enough for an apron
for you, and in exchange for it, I beg you will give me the worked
muslin apron you have like my gown that I made just before I left home
of worked muslin as I wish to make a petticoat of the two aprons,--for
my gown ... kiss Maria I send her two little handkerchiefs to wipe her
nose..."[119]


_XI. Woman's Sphere_

With all their evidence of love and confidence in their wives, these
colonial gentlemen were not, however, especially anxious to have
womankind dabble in politics or other public affairs. The husbands were
willing enough to explain public activities of a grave nature to their
help-meets, and sometimes even asked their opinion on proposed
movements; but the men did not hesitate to think aloud the theories that
the home was woman's sphere and domestic duties her best activities.
Governor Winthrop spoke in no uncertain terms for the seventeenth
century when he wrote the following brief note in his _History of New
England_:

(1645) "Mr. Hopkins, the governour of Hartford upon Connecticut, came
to Boston and brought his wife with him (a godly young woman, and of
special parts), who was fallen into a sad infirmity, the loss of her
understanding and reason, which had been growing upon her divers years,
by occasion of her giving herself wholly to reading and writing, and had
written many books. If she had attended to her household affairs, and
such things as belong to women, and not gone out of her way and calling
to meddle in such things as are proper for men, whose minds are
stronger, etc., she had kept her wits, and might have improved them
usefully and honorably in the place God had set her."

Thomas Jefferson, writing from Paris in 1788 to Mrs. Bingham, spoke in
less positive language but perhaps just as clearly the opinion of the
eighteenth century: "The gay and thoughtless Paris is now become a
furnace of politics. Men, women, children talk nothing else & you know
that naturally they talk much, loud & warm.... You too have had your
political fever. But our good ladies, I trust, have been too wise to
wrinkle their foreheads with politics. They are contented to soothe &
calm the minds of their husbands returning ruffled from political
debate. They have the good sense to value domestic happiness above all
others. There is no part of the earth where so much of this is enjoyed
as in America. You agree with me in this; but you think that the
pleasures of Paris more than supply its wants; in other words, that a
Parisian is happier than an American. You will change your opinion, my
dear madam, and come over to mine in the end. Recollect the women of
this capital, some on foot, some on horses, & some in carriages hunting
pleasure in the streets in routes, assemblies, & forgetting that they
have left it behind them in their nurseries & compare them with our own
country women occupied in the tender and tranquil amusements of domestic
life, and confess that it is a comparison of Americans and angels."[120]

And Franklin writes thus to his wife from London in 1758: "You are very
prudent not to engage in party Disputes. Women never should meddle with
them except in Endeavors to reconcile their Husbands, Brothers, and
Friends, who happen to be of contrary Sides. If your Sex can keep cool,
you may be a means of cooling ours the sooner, and restoring more
speedily that social Harmony among Fellow Citizens that is so desirable
after long and bitter Dissension."[121] Again, he writes thus to his
sister: "Remember that modesty, as it makes the most homely virgin
amiable and charming, so the want of it infallably renders the perfect
beauty disagreeable and odious. But when that brightest of female
virtues shines among other perfections of body and mind in the same
mind, it makes the woman more lovely than angels."[122]

What seems rather strange to the twentieth century American, the women
of colonial days apparently agreed with such views. So few avenues of
activity outside the home had ever been open to them that they may have
considered it unnatural to desire other forms of work; but, be that as
it may, there are exceedingly few instances in those days, of neglect of
home for the sake of a career in public work. Abigail Adams frequently
expressed it as her belief that a woman's first business was to help
her husband, and that a wife should desire no greater pleasure. "To be
the strength, the inmost joy, of a man who within the conditions of his
life seems to you a hero at every turn--there is no happiness more
penetrating for a wife than this."[123]

Women like Eliza Pinckney, Mercy Warren, Jane Turell, Margaret Winthrop,
Catherine Schuyler, and Elizabeth Hamilton most certainly believed this,
and their lives and the careers of their husbands testify to the success
of such womanly endeavors. Mercy Warren was a writer of considerable
talent, author of some rather widely read verse, and of a History of the
Revolution; but such literary efforts did not hinder her from doing her
best for husband and children; while Eliza Pinckney, with all her wide
reading, study of philosophy, agricultural investigations, experiments
in the production of indigo and silk, was first of all a genuine
homemaker. In fact, some times the manner in which these true-hearted
women stood by their husbands, whether in prosperity or adversity, has a
touch of the tragic in it. Beautiful Peggy Shippen, for instance, wife
of Benedict Arnold--what a life of distress was hers! Little more than a
year of married life had passed when the disgrace fell upon her.
Hamilton in a letter to his future wife tells how Mrs. Arnold received
the news of her husband's guilt: "She for a considerable time entirely
lost her self control. The General went up to see her. She upbraided him
with being in a plot to murder her child. One moment she raved, another
she melted into tears. Sometimes she pressed her infant to her bosom and
lamented its fate, occasioned by the imprudence of its father, in a
manner that would have pierced insensibility itself." "Could I forgive
Arnold for sacrificing his honor, reputation, duty, I could not forgive
him for acting a part that must have forfeited the esteem of so fine a
woman. At present she almost forgets his crime in his misfortunes; and
her horror at the guilt of the traitor is lost in her love of the
man."[124]

Her friends whispered it about New York and Philadelphia that she would
gladly forsake her husband and return to her father's home; but there is
absolutely no proof of the truth of such a statement, and it was
probably passed about to protect her family. No such choice, however,
was given her; for within a month there came to her an official notice
that decisively settled the matter:

"IN COUNCIL
"Philadelphia, Friday, Oct. 27, 1780.

"The Council taking into consideration the case of Mrs. Margaret
Arnold (the wife of Benedict Arnold, an attainted traitor with
the enemy at New York), whose residence in this city has become
dangerous to the public safety, and this Board being desirous as
much as possible to prevent any correspondence and intercourse
being carried on with persons of disaffected character in this
State and the enemy at New York, and especially with the said
Benedict Arnold: therefore

"RESOLVED, That the said Margaret Arnold depart this State within
fourteen days from the date hereof, and that she do not return
again during the continuance of the present war."


It is highly probable that she would ultimately have followed her
husband, anyhow; but this notice caused her to join him immediately in
New York, and from this time forth she was ever with him, bore him four
children, and was his only real friend and comforter throughout the
remainder of his life.


_XII. Women in Business_

Despite the popular theory about woman's sphere, men of the day
frequently trusted business affairs to her. A number of times we have
noted the references to the confidence of colonial husbands in their
wives' bravery, shrewdness, and general ability. Such belief went beyond
mere words; it was not infrequently expressed in the freedom granted the
women in business affairs during the absence of the husband. More will
be said later about the capacity of the colonial woman to take the
initiative; but a few instances may be cited at this point to show how
genuinely important affairs were often intrusted to the women for long
periods of time. We have seen Sewall's comment concerning the financial
ability of his wife, and have heard Franklin's declaration that he was
the more content to be absent some time because of the business sense of
Mrs. Franklin. Indeed, several letters from Franklin indicate his
confidence in her skill in such affairs. In 1756, while on a trip
through the colonies, he wrote her: "If you have not Cash sufficient,
call upon Mr. Moore, the Treasurer, with that Order of the Assembly, and
desire him to pay you L100 of it.... I hope a fortnight ... to make a
Trip to Philadelphia, and send away the Lottery Tickets.... and pay off
the Prizes, etc., tho' you may pay such as come to hand of those sold in
Philadelphia, of my signing.... I hope you have paid Mrs. Stephens for
the Bills."[125]

Again, in 1767, he writes her concerning the marriage of their daughter:
"London, June 22.... It seems now as if I should stay here another
Winter, and therefore I must leave it to your Judgment to act in the
Affair of your Daughter's Match, as shall seem best. If you think it a
suitable one, I suppose the sooner it is compleated the better.... I
know very little of the Gentleman [Richard Bache] or his Character, nor
can I at this Distance. I hope his expectations are not great of any
Fortune to be had with our Daughter before our Death. I can only say,
that if he proves a good Husband to her, and a good Son to me, he shall
find me as good a Father as I can be:--but at present I suppose you
would agree with me, that we cannot do mere than fit her out handsomely
in deaths and Furniture, not exceeding the whole Five Hundred Pounds of
Value. For the rest, they must depend as you and I did, on their own
Industry and Care: as what remains in our Hands will be barely
sufficient for our Support, and not enough for them when it comes to be
divided at our Decease...."[126]

Much has been written of the shrewdness, carefulness, industry, as well
as general womanliness of Abigail Adams. For years she was deprived of
her husband's presence and help; but under circumstances that at times
must have been appalling, she not only kept her family in comfort, but
by her practical judgment laid the foundation for that easy condition of
life in which she and her husband spent their later years. But there
were days when she evidently knew not which way to turn for relief from
real financial distress. In 1779 she wrote to her husband: "The safest
way, you tell me, of supplying my wants is by drafts; but I cannot get
hard money for bills. You had as good tell me to procure diamonds for
them; and, when bills will fetch but five for one, hard money will
exchange ten, which I think is very provoking; and I must give at the
rate of ten and sometimes twenty for one, for every article I purchase.
I blush while I give you a price current;--all butcher's meat from a
dollar to eight shillings per pound: corn is twenty-five dollars; rye
thirty per bushel; flour fifty pounds per hundred; potatoes ten dollars
per bushel; butter twelve shillings a pound; sugar twelve shillings a
pound; molasses twelve dollars per gallon; ... I have studied and do
study every method of economy in my power; otherwise a mint of money
would not support a family."[127]

Thus we have had a rather varied group of views of home life in colonial
days. In public there may have been a certain primness or aloofness in
the relations of man and woman, but it would seem that in the home there
was at least as much tender affection and mutual confidence as in the
modern family. In all probability, wives and mothers gave much closer
heed to the needs and tastes of husbands and children than is their case
to-day; for woman's only sphere in that period was her home, and her
whole heart and soul were in its success. Probably, too, women more
thoroughly believed then that her chief mission in life was to aid some
man in his public affairs by keeping always in preparation for him a
haven of comfort, peace, and love. On the other hand, the father of
colonial days undoubtedly gave much more attention to the rearing and
training of his children than does the modern father; for the present
public school has largely lessened the responsibilities of parenthood.
Both husband and wife were much more "home bodies" than are the modern
couple. There were but few attractions to draw the husband away from the
family hearth at night, and hard physical labor, far more common than
now, made the restful home evenings and Sundays exceedingly welcome.

Due to the crude household implements and the large families, the wife
and mother undoubtedly endured far more physical strain and hardships
than fall to the lot of the modern woman. The life of colonial woman,
with the incessant childbearing and preparation of a multitude of things
now made in factories, probably wasted an undue amount of nervous
energy; but it is doubtful whether the modern woman, with her numerous
outside activities and nerve-racking social requirements has any
advantage in this phase of the matter. The colonial wife was indeed a
power in the affairs of home, and thus indirectly exerted a genuine
influence over her husband. And not only the mother but the father was
vitally interested in domestic affairs that many a man of to-day, and
many a woman too, would consider too petty for their attention.

In spite of all the colonial disadvantages, as we view them, it seems
undeniably true that those wives who have left any written record of
their lives were truly happy. Perhaps their intensely busy existence
left them but little time to brood over wrongs or fancied ills; more
probably their deep love for the strong, level-headed and generally
clean-hearted men who established this nation made life exceedingly
worth while. Surely, the sanity, order, and stability of those homes of
long ago have had much to do with the physical and moral excellence that
have been so generally characteristic of the American people.


FOOTNOTES:

[75] _Several Poems Compiled with Great Variety of Wit and Learning_,
1678.

[76] _Letters of A. Adams_, pp. 10, 89, 93.

[77] Brown: _Mercy Warren_, pp. 73, 95.

[78] Brown: _Mercy Warren_, p. 98.

[79] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 85.

[80] Smyth: _Writings of B. Franklin_, Vol. III, p. 245.

[81] Ravenel: _Eliza Pinckney_, pp. 93, 175.

[82] Bassett: _Writings of Col. William Byrd_, pp. 356-358.

[83] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 153.

[84] Page 242.

[85] _English Garner_, Vol. II, p. 584.

[86] Earle: _Home Life in Colonial Days_, p. 160.

[87] Earle: _Home Life in Colonial Days_, p. 183.

[88] Page 71.

[89] Fisher: _Men, Women & Manners of Col. Days_, p. 275.

[90] Sewall: _Diary_, Vol. I, p. 59, ff.

[91] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 123.

[92] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 193.

[93] Vol. I, p. 122.

[94] _Diary_, Vol. I, p. 369.

[95] Vol. I, p. 423.

[96] Ravenel: _Eliza Pinckney_, p. 17.

[97] _Memoirs of an American Lady_, p. 29.

[98] _Letters_, p. 93.

[99] Brooks: _Dames and Daughters of Colonial Days_, p. 197.

[100] Sewall: _Diary_, Vol. II, p. 31.

[101] Ebenezer Turell in _Memoirs of the Life and Death of Mrs. Jane
Turell_.

[102] _Letters of A. Adams_, p. 57.

[103] _Letters of Franklin_, Vol. I, p. 324.

[104] _Letters of Franklin_, Vol. III, p. 378.

[105] Vol. II, p. 93.

[106] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 228.

[107] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 116.

[108] Smyth: _Writings of B. Franklin_, Vol. II, p. 87.

[109] Smyth: _Writings of B. Franklin_, Vol. III, p. 431.

[110] Smyth: _Writings of Franklin_, Vol. IV, p. 359.

[111] Smyth: _Writings of Franklin_, Vol. III, p. 325.

[112] Ford: _Writings of Jefferson_, Vol. IV, p. 101.

[113] _Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 208.

[114] Vol. I, p. 83.

[115] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 170.

[116] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 492.

[117] Pp. 188-9.

[118] Wharton: _M. Washington_, p. 127.

[119] Wharton: Martha Washington, p. 205.

[120] Ford: _Writings of Jefferson_, Vol. III, p. 8.

[121] Smyth: _Writings of Franklin_, Vol. III, p. 438.

[122] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 87.

[123] Wharton: _Martha Washington_, p. 86.

[124] Humphreys: _Catherine Schuyler_, p. 183.

[125] Smyth: _Writings of Franklin_, Vol. III, p. 323.

[126] Smyth: _Writings of Franklin_, Vol. I, p. 31.

[127] _Letters of A. Adams_, p. 104.




CHAPTER IV

COLONIAL WOMAN AND DRESS


_I. Dress Regulation by Law_

Who would think of writing a book on woman without including some
description of dress? Apparently the colonial woman, like her modern
sister, found beautiful clothing a subject near and dear to the heart;
but evidently the feminine nature of those old days did not have such
hunger so quickly or so thoroughly answered as in our own times. The
subject certainly did not then receive the printed notice now granted
it, and it is rather clear that a much smaller proportion of the bread
winner's income was used on gay apparel. And yet we shall note the same
hue and cry among colonial men that we may hear to-day--that women are
dress-crazy, and that the manner and expense of woman's dress are
responsible for much of the evil of the world.

We should not be greatly surprised, then, to discover that early in the
history of the colonies the magistrates tried zealously to regulate the
style and cost of female clothing. The deluded Puritan elders, who
believed that everything could and should be controlled by law, even
attempted until far into the eighteenth century to decide just how women
should array themselves. But the eternal feminine was too strong for the
law makers, and they ultimately gave up in despair. Both in Virginia
and New England such rules were early given a trial. Thus, in the old
court records we run across such statements as the following: "Sep. 27,
1653, the wife of Nicholas Maye of Newbury, Conn., was presented for
wearing silk cloak and scarf, but cleared proving her husband was worth
more than L200." In some of the Southern settlements the church
authorities very shrewdly connected fine dress with public spiritedness
and benevolence, and declared that every unmarried man must be assessed
in church according to his own apparel, and every married man according
to his own and his wife's apparel.[128] Again in 1651 the Massachusetts
court expressed its "utter detestation that men and women of meane
condition, education and calling should take upon them the garbe of
gentlemen by wearinge of gold or silver lace or buttons or poynts at
their knees, or walke in great boots, or women of the same ranke to wear
silke or tiffany hoods or scarfs."

A large number of persons were indeed "presented" under this law, and it
is plain that the officers of the times were greatly worried over this
form of earthly pride; but as the settlements grew older the people
gradually silenced the magistrates, and each person dressed as he or
she, especially the latter, chose.


_II. Contemporary Descriptions_

The result is that we find more references to dress in the eighteenth
century than in the previous one. The colonists had become more
prosperous, a little more worldly, and certainly far less afraid of the
wrath of God and the judges. As travel to Europe became safer and more
common, visitors brought new fashions, and provincialism in manner,
style, and costume became much less apparent. Madame Knight, who wrote
an account of her journey from Boston to New York in 1704, has left some
record of dress in the different colonies. Of the country women in
Connecticut she says: "They are very plain in their dress, throughout
all the colony, as I saw, and follow one another in their modes; that
you may know where they belong, especially the women, meet them where
you will." And see her description of the dress of the Dutch women of
New York: "The English go very fashionable in their dress. But the
Dutch, especially the middling sort, differ from our women in their
habit, go loose, wear French muches, which are like a cap and a head
band in one, leaving their ears bare, which are set out with jewels of a
large size, and many in number; and their fingers hooked with rings,
some with large stones in them of many colors, as were their pendants in
their ears, which you should see very old women wear as well as young."

As Mrs. Knight was so observant of how others dressed, let us take a
look at her own costume, as described in Brooks' _Dames and Daughters of
Colonial Days_: "Debby looked with curious admiring eyes at the new
comer's costume, the scarlet cloak and little round cap of Lincoln
green, the puffed and ruffled sleeves, the petticoat of green-drugget
cloth, the high heeled leather shoes, with their green ribbon bows, and
the riding mask of black velvet which Debby remembered to have heard,
only ladies of the highest gentility wore."[129]

The most famous or most dignified of colonial gentlemen were not above
commenting upon woman's dress. Old Judge Sewall mingled with his
accounts of courts, weddings, and funerals such items as: "Apr. 5, 1722.
My Wife wore her new Gown of sprig'd Persian." Again, we note the
philosopher-statesman, Franklin, discoursing rather fluently to his wife
about dress, and, from what we glean, he seems to have been pretty well
informed on matters of style. Thus in 1766 he wrote: "As the Stamp Act
is at length repeal'd, I am willing you should have a new Gown, which
you may suppose I did not send sooner, as I knew you would not like to
be finer than your neighbours, unless in a Gown of your own spinning.
Had the trade between the two Countries totally ceas'd, it was a Comfort
to me to recollect, that I had once been cloth'd from Head to Foot in
Woolen and Linnen of my Wife's Manufacture, that I never was prouder of
any Dress in my Life, and that she and her Daughter might do it again if
it was necessary.... Joking apart, I have sent you a fine Piece of
Pompadore Sattin, 14 Yards, cost 11 shillings a Yard; a silk Negligee
and Petticoat of brocaded Lutestring for my dear Sally, with two dozen
Gloves...."[130]

A letter dated from London, 1758, reads: ... "I send also 7 yards of
printed Cotton, blue Ground, to make you a Gown. I bought it by
Candle-Light, and lik'd it then, but not so well afterwards. If you do
not fancy it, send it as a present from me to sister Jenny. There is a
better Gown for you, of flower'd Tissue, 16 yards, of Mrs. Stevenson's
Fancy, cost 9 Guineas and I think it a great Beauty. There was no more
of the sort or you should have had enough for a Negligee or Suit."[131]

And again: "Had I been well, I intended to have gone round among the
shops and bought some pretty things for you and my dear, good Sally
(whose little hands you say eased your headache) to send by this ship,
but I must now defer it to the next, having only got a crimson satin
cloak for you, the newest fashion, and the black silk for Sally; but
Billy sends her a scarlet feather, muff, and tippet, and a box of
fashionable linen for her dress...."[132]

He sends her also in 1758 "a newest fashion'd white Hat and Cloak and
sundery little things, which I hope will get safe to hand. I send a pair
of Buckles, made of French Paste Stones, which are next in Lustre to
Diamonds...."[133]

Abigail Adams also has left us rather detailed descriptions of her
dresses prepared for various special occasins. Thus, after being
presented at the English Court, she wrote home: "Your Aunt then wore a
full dress court cap without the lappets, in which was a wreath of white
flowers, and blue sheafs, two black and blue flat feathers, pins, bought
for Court, and a pair of pearl earings, the cost of them--no matter
what--less than diamonds, however. A sapphire blue demi-saison with a
satin stripe, sack and petticoat trimmed with a broad black lace; crape
flounce, & leave made of blue ribbon, and trimmed with white floss;
wreaths of black velvet ribbon spotted with steel beads, which are much
in fashion, and brought to such perfection as to resemble diamonds;
white ribbon also in the van dyke style, made up of the trimming, which
looked very elegant, a full dress handkerchief, and a bouquet of
roses.... Now for your cousin: A small, white leghorn hat, bound with
pink satin ribbon; a steel buckle and band which turned up at the side,
and confined a large pink bow; large bow of the same kind of ribbon
behind; a wreath of full-blown roses round the crown, and another of
buds and roses within side the hat, which being placed at the back of
the hair brought the roses to the edge; you see it clearly; one red and
black feather, with two white ones, compleated the head-dress. A gown
and coat of chamberi gauze with a red satin stripe over a pink waist,
and coat flounced with crape, trimmed with broad point and pink ribbon;
wreaths of roses across the coat; gauze sleeves and ruffles."[134]

Although it is absolutely impossible for a man to form the picture, this
sounds as though it were elegant. Again she writes: "Cousin's dress is
white, ... like your aunts, only differently trimmed and ornamented; her
train being wholly of white crape, and trimmed with white ribbon; the
petticoat, which is the most showy part of the dress, covered and drawn
up in what are called festoons, with light wreaths of beautiful flowers;
the sleeves white crape, drawn over silk, with a row of lace round the
sleeve near the shoulder, another half way down the arm, and a third
upon the top of the ruffle, a little flower stuck between; a kind of
hat-cap, with three large feathers, and a bunch of flowers; a wreath of
flowers upon the hair."[135]

It is apparent that no large amount of Puritanical scruples about fine
array had passed over into eighteenth century America. Whether in New
England, the Middle Colonies, or the South, the natural longing of woman
for ornamentation and beautiful adornment had gained supremacy, and from
the records we may judge that some ladies of those days expended an
amount on clothing not greatly out of proportion with the amount spent
to-day by the well-to-do classes. For instance, in Philadelphia, we find
a Miss Chambers adorned as follows: "On this evening, my dress was white
brocade silk, trimmed with silver, and white silk high-heeled shoes,
embroidered with silver, and a light-blue sash with silver and tassel,
tied at the left side. My watch was suspended at the right, and my hair
was in its natural curls. Surmounting all was a small white hat and
white ostrich feather, confined by brilliant band and buckle."[136]


_III. Raillery and Scolding_

Of course, the colonial man found woman's dress a subject for jest; what
man has not? Certainly in America the custom is of long standing. Old
Nathaniel Ward, writing in 1647 in his _Simple Cobbler of Aggawam_,
declares: "It is a more common than convenient saying that nine tailors
make a man; it were well if nineteen could make a woman to her mind. If
tailors were men indeed well furnished, but with more moral principles,
they would disdain to be led about like apes by such mimic marmosets. It
is a most unworthy thing for men that have bones in them to spend their
lives in making fiddle-cases for futilous women's fancies; which are the
very pettitoes of infirmity, the giblets of perquisquilian toys.... It
is no little labor to be continually putting up English women into
outlandish casks; who if they be not shifted anew once in a few months
grow too sour for their husbands.... He that makes coats for the moon
had need take measure every noon, and he that makes for women, as often
to keep them from lunacy."

Indeed Ward becomes genuinely excited over the matter, and says some
really bitter things: "I shall make bold for this once to borrow a
little of their long-waisted but short skirted patience.... It is beyond
the ken of my understanding to conceive, how those women should have any
true grace, or valuable virtue, that have so little wit as to disfigure
themselves with such exotic garbes, as not only dismantle their native
lovely lustre, but transclouts them into gant-bar-geese, ill
shapen-shotten-shell-fish, Egyptian Hyeroglyphics, or at the best French
flirts of the pastery, which a proper English woman should scorn with
her heels...."

The raillery became more frequent and certainly much more good-natured
in the eighteenth century. Philip Fithian, a Virginia tutor, writing in
1773, said in his _Diary_: "Almost every Lady wears a red Cloak; and
when they ride out they tye a red handkerchief over their Head and face,
so that when I first came into Virginia, I was distressed whenever I saw
a Lady, for I thought she had the toothache."

In fact, the subject sometimes inspired the men to poetry, as may be
seen from the following specimen:

"Young ladies, in town, and those that live 'round,
Let a friend at this season advise you;
Since money's so scarce, and times growing worse,
Strange things may soon hap and surprise you.

"First, then, throw aside your topknots of pride,
Wear none but your own country linen,
Of Economy boast, let your pride be the most,
To show clothes of your own make and spinning.

"What if home-spun, they say, is not quite so gay
As brocades, yet be not in a passion,
For when once it is known, this is much worn in town,
One and all will cry out--''Tis the fashion.'

*       *       *       *       *

"Throw aside your Bohea and your Green Hyson tea,
And all things with a new-fashion duty;
Procure a good store of the choice Labrador
For there'll soon be enough here to suit you.

"These do without fear, and to all you'll appear
Fair, charming, true, lovely, and clever,
Tho' the times remain darkish, your men may be sparkish,
And love you much stronger than ever."[137]

A perusal of extracts from newspapers of those days makes it clear that
a good many men were of the opinion that more simplicity in dress would
indeed make women "fair, charming, true, lovely, and clever." The _Essex
Journal_ of Massachusetts of the late eighteenth century, commenting
upon the follies common to "females"--vanity, affectation,
talkativeness, etc.,--adds the following remarks on dress: "Too great
delight in dress and finery by the expense of time and money which they
occasion in some instances to a degree beyond all bounds of decency and
common sense, tends naturally to sink a woman to the lowest pitch of
contempt amongst all those of either sex who have capacity enough to put
two thoughts together. A creature who spends its whole time in
dressing, prating, gaming, and gadding, is a being--originally indeed of
the rational make, but who has sunk itself beneath its rank, and is to
be considered at present as nearly on a level with the monkey
species...."

Even pamphlets and small books were written on the subject by ireful
male citizens, and the publisher of the _Boston News Letter_ braved the
wrath of womankind by inserting the following advertisement in his
paper: "Just published and Sold by the Printer hereof, HOOP PETTICOATS,
Arraigned and condemned by the Light of Nature and Law of God."[138]
Many a scribbler hiding behind some Latin pen name, such as Publicus,
poured forth in those early papers his spleen concerning woman's
costume. Thus in 1726 the _New England Weekly Journal_ published a
series of essays on the vanities of females, and the writer evidently
found much relief in delivering himself on those same hoop skirts: "I
shall not busy myself with the ladies' shoes and stockings at all, but I
can't so easily pass over the Hoop when 'tis in my way, and therefore I