Confused about 18th-century hairstyles

[florenonite]

I'm currently reading Tom Jones, by Henry Fielding. It was published in 1749, but it's one of those books that takes place over several decades, so the best I can place any part of it is sometime in the first half of the 18th-century. Anyway, one character's hair is described as follows:


Her hair, which was black, was so luxuriant that it reached her middle, before she cut it to comply with the modern fashion; and it was now curled so gracefully in her neck that few could believe it to be her own.

Now, I was always under the impression that cutting women's hair for fashion was something that didn't happen in Europe until the 20th-century, but this appears to contradict this. Furthermore, the description suggests (at least to me) that her hair is cut short, like a bob, which again I thought was a new thing in the 20th-century.

I've looked on Google for information on 18th-century hairstyles, but not found anything that seems helpful, so I'm asking here. Am I wrong in thinking Fielding means a bob? Does anyone have any resources that suggest that cutting hair was commonplace in the first half of the 18th-century?

TIA

[getoffmyskittle]

No, I am pretty sure the fashions have always varied. I think the bob was fairly new for women in the 20th century, but other than that, any length long enough to put up (since that was a s*xual more or something) was probably fair game.

ETA: I doubt he means a short bob, though. Hair that curls (and I get the impression from this passage that it IS curled, not naturally curly) a lot around the neck could be shoulder-APL, and/or in some sort of gathered style.

ETA2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1750%E2%80%931795_in_fashion#Hairstyles_and_headge ar especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_constable_1787.jpg

[Kuchen]

There was one phase (Napoleonic?) when the fashion really was for short hair - shorter than a bob. Or was it Regency? I'm not so clear, but short hair has been around a long while.

[Kuchen]

Here you go, the Titus (http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/fashion_costume_culture/European-Culture-18th-Century/Eighteenth-Century-Headwear.html) cut. Not sure if it's the right period though.

[florenonite]

I doubt he means a short bob, though. Hair that curls (and I get the impression from this passage that it IS curled, not naturally curly) a lot around the neck could be shoulder-APL, and/or in some sort of gathered style.


Hmm, that's a good point. It probably was only parts of it that were loose and the rest worn up.


Here you go, the Titus (http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/fashion_costume_culture/European-Culture-18th-Century/Eighteenth-Century-Headwear.html) cut. Not sure if it's the right period though.

It's about half a century too late, but it does show that it wasn't unheard of for women in the 18th-century to cut their hair.

[Tangles]

Very, very interesting--thanks for sharing! I thought the standard back then was about waist length.

[sneakybea]

All right so I'm a professional history geek, albeit for a much earlier period than this one, but this topic really interested me and I found a few links you might find helpful.

First there's this one, which has a lot of beautiful images, although not properly labeled:
http://www.dirjournal.com/info/the-history-of-coiffure-in-the-xviii-century/

This one seems to contradict the conventional notions of women's 18th c. hairstyles (as well as apparently contradicting itself in one spot, too!):
http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/howto/frisuren/frisuren.shtml

And then there's this one:
http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/18thhairwomen.htm

The first two sites mention short hairstyles that were popular in the earlier part of the century, whereas the third says that close-to-the-head styles were popular, and that could be short or just less elaborate long styles. A lot of the styles are difficult to evaluate due to the hats the women wear, and the fact that none of them is kind enough to have a portrait painted of the back of her head!

I'm also thinking that when the really enormous wigs became popular women had their hair cut short or even shaved underneath, but I don't remember where I read that. And of course there will have been a lot of variety according to class and region.

Fun question!

[Kuchen]

Those are great links! How fascinating.

[Roseate]

This book (http://books.google.com/books?id=o_hwrAoqxmQC&lpg=PA98&dq=18th%20century%20hairstyles&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=&f=false) makes a reference to a hairdo called the "Dutch Coiffure", popular in the 1730's-50's, which involves a bunch of ringlets at the back "hanging to the nape of the neck". That sounds similar to what he's describing.

Hair was definitely cut for fashion before the 20th century; in the 19th century all manner of bangs and side-locks were popular, and a pixie-length style was the height of fashion for a short time at the end of the 18th century.

[Bonkers57]

This amateur history geek says 'Thanks for the cool links!' I'd read that Mary Queen of Scots had very short hair and wore wigs all the time, at least later in life. This is an earlier period I know, but I'd think the same would carry over to the 18th century.

I also heard that women cut their hair short or shaved their heads to wear wigs. I imagine it would be a lot more convenient; plus head lice was a problem for even the wealthy.



All right so I'm a professional history geek, albeit for a much earlier period than this one, but this topic really interested me and I found a few links you might find helpful.

First there's this one, which has a lot of beautiful images, although not properly labeled:
http://www.dirjournal.com/info/the-history-of-coiffure-in-the-xviii-century/

This one seems to contradict the conventional notions of women's 18th c. hairstyles (as well as apparently contradicting itself in one spot, too!):
http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/howto/frisuren/frisuren.shtml

And then there's this one:
http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/18thhairwomen.htm

The first two sites mention short hairstyles that were popular in the earlier part of the century, whereas the third says that close-to-the-head styles were popular, and that could be short or just less elaborate long styles. A lot of the styles are difficult to evaluate due to the hats the women wear, and the fact that none of them is kind enough to have a portrait painted of the back of her head!

I'm also thinking that when the really enormous wigs became popular women had their hair cut short or even shaved underneath, but I don't remember where I read that. And of course there will have been a lot of variety according to class and region.

Fun question!

[Lamb]

In Oroonoko, by Aphra Behn, the female narrator describes herself like this:

"my own hair was cut short, and I had a taffety cap, with black feathers on my head; my brother was in a stuff-suit, with silver loops and buttons, and abundance of green ribbon."

The story was published in 1688. This is earlier than what you are looking for, I just wanted to mention. :)

*off to drool over those links*

[florenonite]

Thanks for the links, sneakybea.


This book (http://books.google.com/books?id=o_hwrAoqxmQC&lpg=PA98&dq=18th%20century%20hairstyles&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=&f=false) makes a reference to a hairdo called the "Dutch Coiffure", popular in the 1730's-50's, which involves a bunch of ringlets at the back "hanging to the nape of the neck". That sounds similar to what he's describing.

Thanks for that :)



Hair was definitely cut for fashion before the 20th century; in the 19th century all manner of bangs and side-locks were popular, and a pixie-length style was the height of fashion for a short time at the end of the 18th century.

I knew about the bangs, but I just had never seen anything to suggest that they'd cut all their hair, because long, tied-up hair seems to have been a fairly cultural norm.


In Oroonoko, by Aphra Behn, the female narrator describes herself like this:

"my own hair was cut short, and I had a taffety cap, with black feathers on my head; my brother was in a stuff-suit, with silver loops and buttons, and abundance of green ribbon."

The story was published in 1688. This is earlier than what you are looking for, I just wanted to mention. :)

*off to drool over those links*

And this is why, no matter how much I dislike a book I'm told to read, I should actually read it rather than skim through it :rolleyes:

This was one of the set texts back in first year ><