SWIM SUIT INDUSTRY

There are two kinds ... those that are adapted for use in water, and those that are unfit for use except on dry land. If you are going to swim, wear a water bathingsuit. But if you are merely going to play on the beach, and pose for the camera fiends, you may safely wear the dry land variety.... I am certain that there isn’t a single reason under the sun why everybody should not wear lightweight suits. Anyone who persuades you to wear the heavy skirty kind is endangering your life.[54]

Chic women’s magazines, however, were still reluctant to admit in their fashion pages that a more utilitarian costume existed. The June 1, 1917 issue ofVoguereported that there were two kinds of bathing suits: a loose straight suit and those on surplice lines, “... which hold their place by virtue of being so very becoming.”[55]

The most popular of these, the surplice, was not a novelty of the season but a continuation of 19th century bathing suit styles. Fashion illustrations show that the hemline of the skirt was approaching the middle of the knee, with the bloomers remaining hidden. There was also a revival of the style that permitted the bloomers to show several inches below the skirt. In this case the bloomers reached the knee and the skirt was several inches shorter. Both versions were shown with short sleeves or cap sleeves, or sleeveless; “V” necklines with collars and square necklines were widely used. The more fashionable creations were made of silk taffeta or “surf satin,” while the majority were made of “mohair,” wool jersey, worsted, or closely woven cotton. Black and navy blue were unquestionably the favorite colors.

The loose straight suit, which evidently gained its inspiration from the chemise frock of the period, had no waistline and hung straight from the shoulders (fig. 15); a belt or sash was frequently looped below the natural waistline on the hips. The chemise-type of bathing suit differed from the surplice only in having no fitted waist and requiring less fabric.

Black Silk Bathing DressFigure 15.—Black silk bathing dress, 1923.(Smithsonian photo P-65412.)

Figure 15.—Black silk bathing dress, 1923.(Smithsonian photo P-65412.)

In the June 15, 1917 issue,Voguemodified its position of two weeks earlier to acknowledge that there was a third style of costume worn in the water. Again, the descriptions of the surplice and chemise-type bathing suits were accompanied by numerousillustrations. No drawings, however, were published to show the knitted jersey suit that was described as “... usually sleeveless, quite short and fairly straight ...” and “... intended for the woman who swims expertly.”[56]

As late as the early 1920s, the fashion pages ofHarper’s BazarandVoguewere concentrated on the bathing suits, aiming at readers involved in the social life of the seaside resorts—lounging about the beach with occasional splashing in the water. The growing numbers of women who wanted swimming suits, however, had only to turn to the advertising sections of these same magazines to find that even in 1915 such shops as Bonwit Teller & Co. and B. Altman & Co. were advertising knitted swimming suits.

In June 1916,Delineatorsolved the dilemma of bathing versus swimming costume in an intriguing article written to sell a pattern for a bathing costume. In description and presentation of illustrations, the article emphasized a costume with “all the features essential to a practical swimming-suit.”[57]The blouse and bloomers were attached at the waist in this garment which had a square neckline and no skirt or sleeves. Made up in wool jersey, this would have been a practical swimming costume for the period. But this was not the only style available from this one pattern. The following variations were included: a sailor collar on a “V” neckline; a high-standing collar, long sleeves; and a detachable skirt with the fullness either pleated or gathered into a waistband, to be worn long to the knees or just short enough to show several inches of the bloomer. In this wayDelineatorsucceeded in satisfying nearly every degree of conservatism—an amazing accomplishment.

The spring edition ofSears, Roebuck and Co. Catalogfor 1916 offered a one-piece, or “California-style,” knitted worsted bathing suit with the underpiece sewn to a skirt. This costume was less elaborate than the other dresses shown, although it was still knee length. The 1918 spring catalog showed two one-piece knitted outfits suitable for swimming in striking contrast to the surplice bathing dresses that were also offered. By 1920 all of the bathing costumes illustrated in theSears, Roebuck and Co. Catalogwere of the more abbreviated and functional type.

In 1918 Annette Kellerman recommended that serious swimmers wear close-fitting swimming tights or the two-piece suits commonly worn by men. Beingquick to admit that this costume would not be tolerated at all beaches, she told dedicated swimmers to

... get one-piece tights anyway and wear over the tights the lightest garment you can get. It should be a loose sleeveless garment hung from the shoulders. Never have a tight waist band. It is a hindrance. Also on beaches where stockings are enforced your one-piece undergarment should have feet, so that the separate stocking and its attendant garter is abolished.[58]

Knitted swimming suits found in advertisements of the period were either one-piece or two-piece; the trunks were attached or separate, but they always extended a few inches below the brief skirt. Although this costume could be considered sleeveless, in some examples the suit was built up under the arm—a concession to the demands of modesty (fig. 16). The scooped or “V” neckline with no collar was relatively high; in order to put on or remove the suit it was unbuttoned at one shoulder.

Knitted Woolen Swimming SuitFigure 16.—One-piece swimming suit of knitted wool, c. 1918. (Smithsonian photo P-65413.)

Figure 16.—One-piece swimming suit of knitted wool, c. 1918. (Smithsonian photo P-65413.)

It was this type of swimming costume which evolved into the garment that dominated the fashion pages of the mid-1920s.

Changes in costume brought about by the acceptance of swimming also affected leg covering. By 1920 fashion pages showed stockings that reached only to the calf and many advertisements for the abbreviated knitted bathing suits presented the lower leg covered with only the high laced bathing shoe (fig. 17) or, in a few cases, bare. Bathing slippers were black satin or black or white canvas held on the feet by ribbon criss-crossed up the leg to tie at mid-calf. Shoes were of satin or canvas, laced in the front to mid-calf.

Bathing ShoesFigure 17.—Bathing shoes, 1910. (Smithsonian photo P-65417.)

Figure 17.—Bathing shoes, 1910. (Smithsonian photo P-65417.)

There was a wide variety of colorful rubber caps; some were gathered on a band or with a ruffle while others were closely fitted with brims. Also popular was a close-fitting rubber cap with a colorful scarf tied around it; swimmers did without the scarf.

Despite the distinction between the two types of bathing apparel, the beach cloak continued to be used by both the serious swimmer and those who stayed safely in the shallows. Some bathing wraps had large collars and were only mid-calf in length. Colorful beach hats, beach parasols, bags, and blankets were used, particularly by the bather who seldom got wet.

The acceptance of swimming as a feminine activity provided an impetus for the use of the knitted swimming suit; but standards of modesty had to change before this suit could gain wide acceptance. Bathing dresses of the 19th century had been designed to cover, conceal, and obscure not only the torso but the limbs as well. The swimming suit that was gaining acceptance in the early 1920s not only revealed the arms and a good part of the legs, but actually dared to follow the lines of the torso. Contemporary descriptions, that seem amusingly cautious today, included such statements as “... all Annette Kellerman Bathing Attire is distinguished by an incomparable, daring beauty of fit that always remains refined.”[59]Even less cautious was a statement that these bathing suits were “famous ... for their perfect fit and exquisite, plastic beauty of line.”[60]

The growing numbers of women who wore the new styles of bathing dress were a cause of concern toself-appointed guardians of decency. In 1917 the convention of the American Association of Park Superintendents at New Orleans adopted a series of bathing regulations for city beaches which dealt with the problems of the changing bathing suit. In general these regulations specified that “... No all-white or flesh-colored suits are permitted or suits that expose the chest lower than a line drawn on a level with the arm pits.”[61]In regard to ladies’ bathing suits these men agreed that

Blouse and bloomer suits may be worn with or without stockings, provided the blouse has quarter-arm sleeves or close-fitting arm holes, and provided the bloomers are full and not shorter than four inches above the knee.[62]

Regulations for knitted suits were similar, with the added caution that the skirt hem could be no more than two inches above the lower edge of the trunks. As late as 1923 these regulations were in effect at public beaches in Cleveland and Chicago.

By 1923 a permanent change was occurring in the design of beach apparel. The chemise-style bathing dress of black taffeta or satin still appeared in the fashion magazines (fig. 15), but by 1929 it had disappeared. The result of the struggle between the fancy bathing suit and the plain knitted suit became obvious even in the popular magazines of the period. In the opening paragraphs of a short story, Shirley, the villainess, donned a smart bathing suit of puffy black taffeta, with a patent-leather belt and a scarlet scarf, and baked in the shadow of a big umbrella. Margaret, the heroine, in a plain knitted suit and black cap was intent only upon diving, plunging, and splashing for her own enjoyment. In another story a young lady, who came out of the sea wearing a “... bathing suit so scanty it seemed a mere gesture flung carelessly to the proprieties ...” described herself as a modern young woman.[63]

In the early twenties advertisements capitalized on the functional characteristics of swimming suits. A 1923 advertisement declared:

No! No! Not a bathing suit! No! The Wil Wite is a swimming suit. The difference is great—very great. A bathing suit is something in which to “Sun” oneself and wear on the beach. A swimming suit is a garment made expressly for those who swim. It is free from frills and furbelows. It follows the form with the same sincerity that a neat silk stocking clings to a trim ankle. It fits when dry or wet ... it is a real swimming suit.[64]

The knitted swimming suit which achieved dominance over the bathing suit in the 1920s was similar to its earlier version except that both the armhole and the neckline were lower. This made it possible to put on the suit without unbuttoning one of the straps at the shoulder—a feature that was omitted in this newer style. Sometimes a sash was looped loosely around the waist; a geometrically shaped monogram provided a smart decoration. The affluent swimmer could distinguish herself from the masses by wearing silk jersey. During the last half of this decade women coquettishly adopted a man’s swimming suit, consisting of a striped sleeveless jersey shirt with dark colored trunks and a white belt.

Perhaps the last stand for the bathing dress was the appearance of the “dressmaker suit” toward the end of the 1920s and on into the early 1930s. The neck and shoulder line copied those of currently fashionable evening dresses, with a parallel treatment of the skirt, which was shortened to end just below the hips. This suit was worn by women reluctant to brave the revealingly unadorned but popular swimming suit.

A depilatory advertisement took advantage of the increasing “stockingless vogue” and explained that “Women who love swimming for the sake of the sport, find stockings a great hindrance to their enjoyment.”[65]By the end of the twenties, the stocking for bathing and swimming had become an article of the past.

Although women were accepted in athletics and had achieved a generally wider role in public life, white, untanned skin was still the ideal in the 1920s. Thus sunproof creams, beach coats, and beach umbrellas were still important.

According to the well-known “trickle-down” theory of fashion, styles of dress first become fashionable among the socially elite and wealthy and are then, in time, emulated by those at lower socio-economic levels. The knitted swimming suit, however, entered the fashion pages by a different route. It had its insignificant start with the skirtless bifurcated garments of the late 1860s. Going against popular opinion, some women did swim. They violated prevalent standards of modesty by continuing to wear a functional suit. Gradually the demand grew. A plain, utilitarian garment was needed; pressure increased. Thus, by the 1920s the swimming suit prevailed, complimenting the image of the newly emancipated “modern woman.”

Along with the increased popularity of swimming and the appearance of the knitted swimming suit we note the rapid development of the ready-to-wear swim suit industry. During the last half of the 19th century women frequently made their own bathing dresses with the aid of paper pattern supplements that appeared in women’s magazines of the period. Dressmakers also may have used these patterns to outfit their clients for their summer excursions. On the other hand, ladies in the large cities could purchase bathing dresses at furnishing stores or rent them at the large public beaches. A small advertisement inHarper’s Bazar, August 9, 1873, announced that in addition to gauze undershirts, linen drawers, collars and cuffs, Union Adams & Co. of New York had bathing dresses for sale. The notice is noteworthy when one considers that the ready-to-wear clothing industry and the field of advertising were in their infancy.

With the increased popularity of the knitted suit, knitting mills included men’s and women’s swimming apparel in their more prosaic lines of underwear and sweaters. Many companies advertised the new product, steadily increasing their range until the inevitable occurred. In 1921 a national advertising campaign for swimming suits was initiated by Jantzen, a hitherto obscure knitting mill whose production had been limited to sweaters, woolen hosiery, and jackets for Chinese workmen. Capitalizing on the growing interest in swimming, Jantzen prominently advertised swimming suits instead of bathing dresses. The retail stores selling these suits advertised locally, but national advertising became the domain of the manufacturers, educating the public to associate certain positive qualities with their names.

To the delight of the swim suit industry, swimming was more than a passing vogue. In 1934, a National Recreation Association study on the use of leisure time found that among ninety-four free-time activities swimming was second only to movies in popularity.[66]Although the number of swimmers was increasing, competition caused the swim suit industry to take a new approach. Manufacturers attempted to increase the volume of sales through advertising by emphasizing style. In 1927 one company advertised a national appeal to woman’s vanity by declaring that beachuniformswere out and that beachstyleswere in.

It was a general characteristic of the 1930s that swimming suits covered less of the bather. The attached trunks of the swimming suit no longer extended down the leg but it survived unseen beneath the vestigial remains of a skirt.

The diminishing coverage of the swim suit was also related to a changing attitude toward sun exposure. For years women had protected their delicate skin to prevent any unladylike, healthy appearance. The barrier against a lady having a tan deteriorated as women became accepted into athletic activities. By 1930, women eagerly sought a sun tan. Not only were there lotions to help the neophyte sun-worshiper acquire a rich even tan, but creams were available for the impatient who wished an instant tan. In line with this trend, swim suit manufacturers and sellers promoted and sold low sun-back or California styles, halter necks, and cut-out sections that exposed various portions of the midriff. The favorite suit, however, was the form-fitting maillot of wool jersey with no skirt.

In the early 1930s, the textile trade journals applauded the increasing stress on styling as a means of encouraging the consumer to buy a new suit rather than to use “last year’s.” Stylishness wasintroduced into knitted suits through the use of a greater range of solid colors. Parti-colored suits, with stripes and slashes of a second or even a third color, were also featured (fig. 18). Knitting mills were pressed to introduce novelty effects such as mesh, waffle motifs, and lace patterns in knitted fabrics.

Ten Woolen Knitted Swimming SuitsFigure 18.One-piece swimming suits of knitted wool, 1930. (Courtesy of Cole of California.)

Figure 18.One-piece swimming suits of knitted wool, 1930. (Courtesy of Cole of California.)

The insistent emphasis on novelty encouraged the development of such items as all-rubber swimming suits with embossed surfaces simulating knitted textiles. Although this innovation was not successful, because the suits were clammy and easily torn, rubber did find a definite use in swimming suits with the introduction of Lastex—a yarn made with a core of rubber wrapped by a fine thread of another fiber. The following advertisement for swimming suits made with Lastex best explains why this important innovation is still valued by the industry today:

There’s no wrinkle, no bag, no sag, even under the most ruthless sun! No other human device can even approximate that utter freedom, that perfection of fit, at rest or in motion, that airy but strictly legal sense of wearing nothing at all. There is no substitute for this elastic yarn, which imparts lasting elasticity to any fabric.[67]

Having exhausted the novelty effects of knitted swim suits, women in the late 1930s began to respond eagerly to the wide range of decorative possibilities found in woven fabrics. Cotton and the relatively new man-made fibers such as Celanese acetate and Dupont rayon were used in fabrics such as ginghams, chambrays, piques, and featherweight elastic satins. To the pleasure of the fashion editors, who claimed to be anxious for some relief from the nudity of the maillot, suits of woven fabrics were made with flared skirts. These had knitted linings of cotton, acetate, or wool which satisfied any taste as to warmth or coolness on the beach. The belief was prevalent that a wool swimming suit was needed for warmth. In the 1940s the two-piece, bare-midriff suit with tight shorts or flared skirt was a popular and logical development from the earlier suits with cut-out sections around the midriff. The more extreme French bikini, however, was not adopted by American women when it was first introduced in the 1940s.

By the end of the forties the one-piece swimming suit staged a comeback with a slight variation: the new suits were structurally sculptured to mold, control, and stay put while swimming or sunning. They werethe product of ingenious engineering, inside and out. The use of shirring and skillful cutting and handling of fabric focused attention on the bust line, while the frequent use of Lastex tended to streamline the hips like a girdle. Inside, the careful use of wire and plastic boning permitted many of these suits to assume a shape of their own and even to be worn without straps.

A short-lived revival of the covered-up look appeared in the fashion pages in 1954 but, unlike the suits with covered arms and neck of the previous century, these suits drew attention to the parts of the body that were covered. The fate of this unsuccessful novelty is a good illustration of the fact that, ultimately, the buyer has the final word in the volatile field of feminine fashion. The swim suit manufacturers apparently misinterpreted the American woman’s readiness to discard the more revealing two-piece suit in favor of an altered form of the maillot. Always ready with novelties to make last year’s suit obsolete, the manufacturers tried to encourage women into a more extreme covered-up look. Despite the power of national advertising women were unwilling to go back in time. The female beach-goer and sun-worshiper opposed a suit that might interfere with the tanning process.

By 1960, the production of swim suits had become a big business with mass distribution and mass markets. Expanded world-wide transportation facilities and increased leisure and affluence in the United States created a demand for midwinter vacation clothing for use in warmer climates, and the manufacturing of swim suits became a year-round undertaking, producing 14,728 million knitted and woven suits in women’s, misses, and junior sizes in 1960.[68]

The earliest bathing dress for women in the United States may have been an old smock or shift, followed by a bathing gown based on the shift or chemise. Although women’s bathing and swimming costume achieved an identity of its own during the 19th century, the evolution of this garb followed certain innovations in women’s underclothing, namely, drawers in the first half of the 19th century, the “combination” of the late 1870s, and the brassiere and panties of the 1930s. The greatest number of minor style changes, however, were direct reflections of fashions in street dress. The rising hemline and, at times, the discarding of a skirt during periods when women wore long dresses for other activities can be attributed to changes caused by the functional requirements of bathing and swimming; the shortening of sleeves and trousers in the last quarter of the 19th century were also functional improvements. The benefits of the shorter trousers, however, were minimized when modesty required women to cover their exposed legs with stockings.

Swimming suits have been considered a 20th century innovation; in fact one corporation is under the impression that a member of their staff was responsible for the first use of the term “swimming suit” early in the century. The findings presented in this paper show that some women were wearing “swimming suits” that were distinctly different from bathing dresses as early as the 1870s and that both co-existed for some 50 years. Bathing dresses disappeared in the 1920s with the widespread acceptance of its functional counterpart; “bathing suit” no longer referred to a special type of costume but became interchangeable with the term “swimming suit.”

The insistent trend toward more functional costume reached its ultimate conclusion with the refinements of the knitted swimming suit in the 1930s. Subsequent changes have not improved upon the functional design of this classic suit. In many instances these variations have been merely to satisfy the feminine desire for distinctive apparel and the industry’s need for perishable fashions. Female competitive swimmers have continued to wear the simple knitted suit—now of nylon rather than wool.

The changes since the 1930s have shown a trend toward diminution in the coverage of the swimming suit. One cannot be certain what this means for the future, but it is unlikely that either the swim suit industry or standards of modesty of the near future will permit a total elimination of swimming costume. We can be assured, however, that so long as women swim, they will not repeat history by swathing themselves with yards of fabric.

[1]Foster Rhea Dulles,America Learns to Play, 1607-1940(New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1940), p. 363.[2]The author is indebted to Mrs. Anne W. Murray, formerly Curator in Charge of American Costume, Smithsonian Institution, for the interest she has shown throughout the research and writing of this paper. The difficulties of this work would have been greatly compounded without the benefit of her experience and encouragement.[3]Ralph Thomas,Swimming(London: Sampson Low, Marsten & Company Limited, 1904), p. 15.[4]Joseph Strutt,The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England(London: Chatto and Windus, 1876), pp. 151-152.[5]Sir Thomas Elyot,The Boke Named the Governour(London, 1557), vol. 1, pp. 54-55.[6]Thomas, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 172.[7]Melchisédesh Thévenot,The Art of Swimming(London: John Lever, 1789), pp. 4-5.[8]Thomas, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 161.[9]Celia Fiennes,Through England on Horseback, as quoted inIris BrookeandJames Laver,English Costume from the Fourteenth through the Nineteenth Century(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 252.[10]George Washington,The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington: United States Congress, 1931), vol. 1, p. 8.[11]John J. Moorman,The Virginia Springs(Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1854), pp. 259-260.[12]Ibid., p. 264.[13]Henry Wansay,An Excursion to the United States(Salisbury: J. Easton, 1798), p. 211, as quoted inDulles,America Learns to Play, p. 152.[14]Fred Allan Wilson,Some Annals of Nahant(Boston: Old Corner Book Store, 1928), p. 77, as quoted inDulles,America Learns to Play, p. 152.[15]New York Evening Post(June 4, 1813).[16]James Stuart,Three Years in North America(Edinburgh: Robert Cadwell, 1833), vol. 1, p. 441.[17]J. W. and N.Orr,Orr’s Book of Swimming(New York: Burns and Baner, 1846) as quoted inThomas, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 270.[18]“Life at Watering-Places—Our Newport Correspondent,”Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(August 29, 1857), vol. 4, no. 91, p. 197.[19]“Chit-Chat upon Philadelphia Fashions for August,”Godey’s Lady’s Book(August 1848), vol. 37, p. 119.[20]“My First Day at Cape May,”Peterson’s Magazine(August 1856), vol. 30, no. 2, p. 91.[21]Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(July 26, 1856), vol. 2, no. 33, p. 102.[22]“Summer Recreation,”Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(June 18, 1870), vol. 30, no. 768, p. 210.[23]Jared Sparks,The Works of Benjamin Franklin(Boston: Tappan and Whittemore, 1844), vol. I, pp. 63-64.[24]J. Frost,The Art of Swimming(New York: P. W. Gallaudet, 1818), p. 57.[25]Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(August 25, 1866), vol. 22, no. 569, p. 355.[26]Ibid. (July 29, 1871), vol. 32, no. 826, p. 322.[27]Diary of John Crosier, 1782, as quoted inC. WillettandPhillis Cunnington,Handbook of English Costume in the Eighteenth Century(London: Faber and Faber, 1957), p. 404.[28]Loc. cit. (footnote 19).[29]A Lady,The Workwoman’s Guide(London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., 1840), p. 61.[30]Loc. cit. (footnote 29).[31]Loc. cit. (footnote 29).[32]Ibid., p. 68.[33]As quoted inC. WillettandPhillis Cunnington,The History of Underclothes(London: Faber and Faber, 1951), p. 130.[34]“Cape May,”Godey’s Lady’s Book(December 1845), vol. 31, p. 268.[35]“Fashions for August, Bathing Dresses,”Peterson’s Magazine(August 1856), vol. 30, p. 145.[36]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(August 8, 1868), vol. 1, no. 41, p. 643.[37]Ibid. (July 10, 1869), vol. 2, no. 28, p. 435.[38]B. Brooke, “Bathing-dress with Hat and Gloves,”Hobbies(August 1958), vol. 63, p. 90.[39]Photograph and pattern appears in Blanch Payne,History of Costume(New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 518, 583-584.[40]“An Excursion to Long Branch,”Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(August 22, 1857), vol. 4, no. 90, p. 182.[41]Loc. cit. (footnote 18).[42]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(July 19, 1873), vol. 6, no. 29, p. 451.[43]The term “bathing suit” as opposed to “bathing dress” came into use in the last quarter of the 19th century when the bifurcated bathing garment with a shorter skirt was widely accepted. The two terms, however, continued to be used interchangeably, with “bathing dress” appearing less frequently.[44]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(July 4, 1885), vol. 18, no. 27, p. 427.[45]Ibid. (July 5, 1890), vol. 23, no. 27, p. 523.[46]Ibid. (June 13, 1896), vol. 29, no. 24, p. 503.[47]Ibid. (July 1910), vol. 43, no. 7, p. 552.[48]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(July 10, 1869), vol. 2, no. 28, p. 435.[49]Ibid. (July 13, 1872), vol. 5, no. 28, p. 459.[50]Ibid. (July 25, 1874), vol. 7, no. 30, p. 475.[51]As quoted inC. Willett Cunnington,English Women’s Clothing in the 19th Century(New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1958), p. 225.[52]J. Parmly Paret,The Woman’s Book of Sports(New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1901), p. 74.[53]Telephone interview with Adeline Trapp Mulhenberg, May 1966.[54]Annette Kellerman,How to Swim(New York: George H. Doran Company, 1918), p. 47.[55]Vogue(June 1, 1917), vol. 49, no. 11, p. 85.[56]Ibid. (June 15, 1917), vol. 49, no. 12, p. 67.[57]“For the Modern Mermaid,”Delineator(June 1916), vol. 38, no. 6, p. 52.[58]Loc. cit. (footnote 54).[59]Harper’s Bazar(June 1920), vol. 55, no. 6, p. 138.[60]Ibid. (June 1921), 54th year, no. 2504, p. 101.[61]“Bathing Regulations for City Beaches,”American City(May 1917), vol. 16, no. 5, p. 537.[62]Loc. cit. (footnote 61).[63]Jane Pride, “Pick-up,”Delineator(May 1927), vol. 110, no. 5, p. 15.[64]Harper’s Bazar(June 1923), 56th year, no. 2528, p. 5.[65]Delineator(June 1923), vol. 102, no. 6, p. 95.[66]The Leisure Hours of 5,000 People; a Report of a Study of Leisure Time Activities and Desires(New York, National Recreation Assoc., 1934).[67]Harper’s Bazaar(June 1934), 68th year, no. 2660, p. 9.[68]Compiled from “Production of Selected Items of Knit Outerwear and Swimwear; 1960-1961,”Apparel Survey 1961(1962), series M23A(61)-2, p. 14.

[1]Foster Rhea Dulles,America Learns to Play, 1607-1940(New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1940), p. 363.

[2]The author is indebted to Mrs. Anne W. Murray, formerly Curator in Charge of American Costume, Smithsonian Institution, for the interest she has shown throughout the research and writing of this paper. The difficulties of this work would have been greatly compounded without the benefit of her experience and encouragement.

[3]Ralph Thomas,Swimming(London: Sampson Low, Marsten & Company Limited, 1904), p. 15.

[4]Joseph Strutt,The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England(London: Chatto and Windus, 1876), pp. 151-152.

[5]Sir Thomas Elyot,The Boke Named the Governour(London, 1557), vol. 1, pp. 54-55.

[6]Thomas, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 172.

[7]Melchisédesh Thévenot,The Art of Swimming(London: John Lever, 1789), pp. 4-5.

[8]Thomas, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 161.

[9]Celia Fiennes,Through England on Horseback, as quoted inIris BrookeandJames Laver,English Costume from the Fourteenth through the Nineteenth Century(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 252.

[10]George Washington,The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington: United States Congress, 1931), vol. 1, p. 8.

[11]John J. Moorman,The Virginia Springs(Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1854), pp. 259-260.

[12]Ibid., p. 264.

[13]Henry Wansay,An Excursion to the United States(Salisbury: J. Easton, 1798), p. 211, as quoted inDulles,America Learns to Play, p. 152.

[14]Fred Allan Wilson,Some Annals of Nahant(Boston: Old Corner Book Store, 1928), p. 77, as quoted inDulles,America Learns to Play, p. 152.

[15]New York Evening Post(June 4, 1813).

[16]James Stuart,Three Years in North America(Edinburgh: Robert Cadwell, 1833), vol. 1, p. 441.

[17]J. W. and N.Orr,Orr’s Book of Swimming(New York: Burns and Baner, 1846) as quoted inThomas, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 270.

[18]“Life at Watering-Places—Our Newport Correspondent,”Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(August 29, 1857), vol. 4, no. 91, p. 197.

[19]“Chit-Chat upon Philadelphia Fashions for August,”Godey’s Lady’s Book(August 1848), vol. 37, p. 119.

[20]“My First Day at Cape May,”Peterson’s Magazine(August 1856), vol. 30, no. 2, p. 91.

[21]Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(July 26, 1856), vol. 2, no. 33, p. 102.

[22]“Summer Recreation,”Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(June 18, 1870), vol. 30, no. 768, p. 210.

[23]Jared Sparks,The Works of Benjamin Franklin(Boston: Tappan and Whittemore, 1844), vol. I, pp. 63-64.

[24]J. Frost,The Art of Swimming(New York: P. W. Gallaudet, 1818), p. 57.

[25]Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(August 25, 1866), vol. 22, no. 569, p. 355.

[26]Ibid. (July 29, 1871), vol. 32, no. 826, p. 322.

[27]Diary of John Crosier, 1782, as quoted inC. WillettandPhillis Cunnington,Handbook of English Costume in the Eighteenth Century(London: Faber and Faber, 1957), p. 404.

[28]Loc. cit. (footnote 19).

[29]A Lady,The Workwoman’s Guide(London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., 1840), p. 61.

[30]Loc. cit. (footnote 29).

[31]Loc. cit. (footnote 29).

[32]Ibid., p. 68.

[33]As quoted inC. WillettandPhillis Cunnington,The History of Underclothes(London: Faber and Faber, 1951), p. 130.

[34]“Cape May,”Godey’s Lady’s Book(December 1845), vol. 31, p. 268.

[35]“Fashions for August, Bathing Dresses,”Peterson’s Magazine(August 1856), vol. 30, p. 145.

[36]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(August 8, 1868), vol. 1, no. 41, p. 643.

[37]Ibid. (July 10, 1869), vol. 2, no. 28, p. 435.

[38]B. Brooke, “Bathing-dress with Hat and Gloves,”Hobbies(August 1958), vol. 63, p. 90.

[39]Photograph and pattern appears in Blanch Payne,History of Costume(New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 518, 583-584.

[40]“An Excursion to Long Branch,”Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper(August 22, 1857), vol. 4, no. 90, p. 182.

[41]Loc. cit. (footnote 18).

[42]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(July 19, 1873), vol. 6, no. 29, p. 451.

[43]The term “bathing suit” as opposed to “bathing dress” came into use in the last quarter of the 19th century when the bifurcated bathing garment with a shorter skirt was widely accepted. The two terms, however, continued to be used interchangeably, with “bathing dress” appearing less frequently.

[44]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(July 4, 1885), vol. 18, no. 27, p. 427.

[45]Ibid. (July 5, 1890), vol. 23, no. 27, p. 523.

[46]Ibid. (June 13, 1896), vol. 29, no. 24, p. 503.

[47]Ibid. (July 1910), vol. 43, no. 7, p. 552.

[48]“New York Fashions,”Harper’s Bazar(July 10, 1869), vol. 2, no. 28, p. 435.

[49]Ibid. (July 13, 1872), vol. 5, no. 28, p. 459.

[50]Ibid. (July 25, 1874), vol. 7, no. 30, p. 475.

[51]As quoted inC. Willett Cunnington,English Women’s Clothing in the 19th Century(New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1958), p. 225.

[52]J. Parmly Paret,The Woman’s Book of Sports(New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1901), p. 74.

[53]Telephone interview with Adeline Trapp Mulhenberg, May 1966.

[54]Annette Kellerman,How to Swim(New York: George H. Doran Company, 1918), p. 47.

[55]Vogue(June 1, 1917), vol. 49, no. 11, p. 85.

[56]Ibid. (June 15, 1917), vol. 49, no. 12, p. 67.

[57]“For the Modern Mermaid,”Delineator(June 1916), vol. 38, no. 6, p. 52.

[58]Loc. cit. (footnote 54).

[59]Harper’s Bazar(June 1920), vol. 55, no. 6, p. 138.

[60]Ibid. (June 1921), 54th year, no. 2504, p. 101.

[61]“Bathing Regulations for City Beaches,”American City(May 1917), vol. 16, no. 5, p. 537.

[62]Loc. cit. (footnote 61).

[63]Jane Pride, “Pick-up,”Delineator(May 1927), vol. 110, no. 5, p. 15.

[64]Harper’s Bazar(June 1923), 56th year, no. 2528, p. 5.

[65]Delineator(June 1923), vol. 102, no. 6, p. 95.

[66]The Leisure Hours of 5,000 People; a Report of a Study of Leisure Time Activities and Desires(New York, National Recreation Assoc., 1934).

[67]Harper’s Bazaar(June 1934), 68th year, no. 2660, p. 9.

[68]Compiled from “Production of Selected Items of Knit Outerwear and Swimwear; 1960-1961,”Apparel Survey 1961(1962), series M23A(61)-2, p. 14.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969

Transcriber's notes:The original language has been maintained, including inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation, except as mentioned below.Changes made to the original text:chemise typechanged tochemise-typeas elsewhere; page 17: closing square bracket deleted afterwhat an array; page 65: quote mark inserted before footnote anchor[65].Footnotes have been moved to the end of the document; illustrations have been moved to where they fit best in the text.

The original language has been maintained, including inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation, except as mentioned below.

Changes made to the original text:chemise typechanged tochemise-typeas elsewhere; page 17: closing square bracket deleted afterwhat an array; page 65: quote mark inserted before footnote anchor[65].

Footnotes have been moved to the end of the document; illustrations have been moved to where they fit best in the text.

Back to Index Next