Women_s Bathing and Swimming Costume in the United States Claudia Brush Kidwell 1397 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Women's Bathing and
Swimming Costume in the United States
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Women's Bathing and Swimming Costume in the United States

Author: Claudia Brush Kidwell

Release date: October 1, 2011 [eBook #37586]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37586

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Harry Lamé and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WOMEN'S
BATHING AND SWIMMING COSTUME IN THE UNITED STATES ***

Please see Transcriber's Notes at the

end of this document.

United States National Museum Bulletin 250
Contributions from
The Museum of History and Technology
Paper 64

WOMEN’S BATHING AND
SWIMMING COSTUME IN THE
UNITED STATES
Claudia B. Kidwell

INTRODUCTION 3
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 6
BATHING COSTUME 14
SWIMMING COSTUME 24
CONCLUSIONS 32

Smithsonian Institution Press
City of Washington
1968
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402—Price 50 cents (paper cover)

Figure 1.—Bathing costume, from The Delineator, July
1884. (Smithsonian photo 58466.)

Claudia B. Kidwell

Women’s Bathing and Swimming
Costume in the United States

The evolution of the modern swim suit from an unflattering,
restrictive bathing dress into an attractive, functional
costume is traced from colonial times to the present. This
evolution in style reflects not only the increasing
involvement of women in aquatic activities but also the
changing motivations for feminine participation. The nature
of the style changes in aquatic dress were influenced by the
fashions of the period, while functional improvements were
limited by prevailing standards of modesty. This mutation of
the bathing dress to the swim suit demonstrates the changing
attitudes and status of women in the United States, from the
traditional image of the subordinate “weaker sex” to an
equal and active member of the society.
The Author: Claudia B. Kidwell is assistant curator of
American costume, department of civil history, in the
Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of History and
Technology.

Introduction
Women’s bathing dress holds a unique place in the history of American
costume. This specialized garb predates the age of sports costume which
arrived during the last half of the 19th century. Although bathing dress
shares this distinction with riding costume, the aquatic garb was merely
utilitarian in the late 18th century while riding costume had a fashionable
role. From its modest status, bathing gowns and later bathing dresses
became more important until their successor, the swimming suit, achieved a
permanent place among the outfits worn by 20th century women. The social
significance of this accomplishment was best expressed by Foster Rhea
Dulles, author of America Learns to Play, in 1940, when he wrote:
The modern bathing-suit ... symbolized the new status of
women even more than the short skirts and bobbed hair of
the jazz age or the athleticism of the devotees of tennis and
golf. It was the final proof of their successful assertion of the
right to enjoy whatever recreation they chose, costumed
according to the demands of the sport rather than the tabus
of an outworn prudery, and to enjoy it in free and natural
association with men.[1]
Since the prescribed limitations of women’s role in any given period are
determined and affected by many social factors, the evolution of the bathing
gown to the swimming suit may not only be dependent upon the changes in
the American woman’s way of life, but also may reflect certain
technological and sociological factors that are not readily identifiable. The
purpose of this paper is to describe the changes in women’s bathing dress
and wherever pertinent to present the factors affecting these styles.[2]
Anyone who attempts to research the topic of swimming and related
subjects will be confronted with a history of varying reactions. Ralph
Thomas, in 1904, described his experiences through the years that he spent
compiling a book on swimming:

When asked what I was doing, I have felt the greatest
reluctance to say a work on the literature of swimming.
People who were writing novels or some other thing of little
practical utility always looked at me with a smile of pity on
my mentioning swimming. Though I am bound to say that,
when I gave them some idea of the work, the pity changed
somewhat but then they would say “Why don’t you give us a
new edition of your Handbook of Fictitious Names?” As if
the knowledge of the real name of an author was of any
importance in comparison with the discussion of a subject
that more or less concerns every human being.[3]
Such reactions toward research about swimming probably discouraged
many serious efforts of writing about the subject. Its scant coverage and
even omission in histories of recreation or sports may be explained by the
fact that swimming cannot be categorized as simply physical exercise, skill,
recreation, or competitive sport. In trying to determine the extent to which
women swam in times past it is frustrating to observe the historians’
masculine bias in researching and reporting social history.
A study of women’s bathing dress meets with similar problems, and while a
discussion of bathing dress can evoke considerable interest, its nature is
usually considered more superficial than serious. Descriptions of, and even
brief references to, bathing apparel for women are very scarce before the
third quarter of the 19th century. Before this time only decorative costume
items were considered worthy of description and bathing costume was not
in this category. It is only within comparatively recent times that costume
historians have conceded sufficient importance to bathing dress to include
meaningful descriptions in their research.
Participation in water activities was widespread in the ancient world
although the earliest origins of this activity are unknown. For example, in
Greece and, later, in Rome, swimming was valued as a pleasurable exercise
and superb physical training for warriors. The more sedentary citizens
turned to the baths which became the gathering point for professional men,
philosophers, and students. Thus bathing and swimming, combined
originally to fulfill the functions of cleansing and exercise purely for

physical well being, developed the secondary functions of recreation and
social intercourse.
With the rise of the Christian church and its spreading anti-pagan attitudes,
many of the sumptuous baths were destroyed. Christian asceticism also may
have contributed to the decline of bathing for cleansing. In addition there
was a secular belief that outdoor bathing helped to spread the fearful
epidemics that periodically swept the continent. Although there is isolated
evidence that swimming was valued as a physical skill,[4] swimming and
bathing all but disappeared during the Middle Ages.
In 1531, long after the Middle Ages, Sir Thomas Elyot wrote of swimming
that
There is an exercise, whyche is right profitable in extreme
danger of warres, but ... it hathe not ben of longe tyme
muche used, specially amoge noble men, perchaunce some
reders whl lyttell esteeme it.[5]
This early English writer gave no instructions, but expounded on the value
of swimming as a skill that could be useful in time of war.
It herewith becomes necessary to differentiate between bathing and
swimming with their attendant goals, for it was the goals of each activity
which influenced the associated customs and costume designs. For this
discussion we shall define bathing as the act of immersing all or part of the
body in water for cleansing, therapeutic, recreational, or religious purposes,
and swimming as the self-propulsion of the body through water. When we
refer to swimming it is necessary to distinguish whether it was considered a
useful skill, a therapeutic exercise, a recreation, or a competitive sport. Thus
it is important to note that while bathing for all purposes and swimming as a
physical exercise, recreation, and sport died out during the Middle Ages, the
latter continued to be valued as a skill, particularly for warriors. This
function of swimming survived to form the link between the ancients and
the 17th century.
According to Ralph Thomas, the first book on swimming was written by
Nicolas Winmann, a professor of languages at Ingolstadt in Bavaria, and
printed in 1528. The first book published in England on swimming was

written in Latin by Everard Digby and printed in 1587. As Thomas has
stated, Digby’s book
... is entitled to a far more important place than the first of
the world, because, whereas Winmann had never (up to
1866) been translated or copied or even quoted by any one,
Digby has been three times translated; twice into English
and once into French and through this latter became and
probably still is the best known treatise on the subject.[6]
This French version was first published in 1696 with its purported author
being Monsieur Melchisédesh Thévenot. In his introduction Thévenot
indicates that he has made use of Digby’s book in his own treatise and that
he knows of Winmann’s publication. The English translation of Thévenot’s
version became the standard instruction book for English-speaking peoples.
Typically, his reasons in favor of men swimming were based on its being a
useful skill (i.e., to keep from being drowned in a shipwreck, to escape
capture when being pursued by enemies, and to attack an enemy posted on
the opposite side of a river).[7]
In the 18th and 19th centuries numerous other publications on swimming
appeared—too numerous to deal with in this paper. Nevertheless, the
refinement of the art of swimming was not related to the number of
instruction books. Few of these books actually offered new insights in
comparison with those that were outright plagiarisms or filled with
misinformation. In the meantime, bathing was reintroduced and as this
activity became more widespread swimming was regarded as more than a
useful skill, but only for men.
There is little evidence of women bathing or swimming prior to the 17th
century; these activities seem to have been exclusively for men.
Nevertheless, Thomas refers to Winmann as writing, in 1538, that
at Zurich in his day (thus implying that he was an elderly
man and that the custom had ceased) the young men and
maidens bathed together around the statue of “Saint
Nicolai.” Even in those days his pupil asks “were not the
girls ashamed of being naked?” “No, as they wore bathing
drawers—sometimes a marriage was brought about.” If any

young man failed to bring up stones from the bottom, when
he dived, he had to suffer the penalty of wearing drawers
like the girls.[8]
Thomas goes on to say that the only evidence he had found of women
swimming in England in early days was in a ballad entitled “The
Swimming Lady” and dating from about 1670. Despite these isolated
references it was not until the 19th century that women were encouraged to
swim.
After its decline in the Middle Ages, bathing achieved new popularity as a
medicinal treatment for both men and women. In England this revival
occurred in the 17th century when certain medical men held that bathing in
fresh water had healing properties. The resultant spas, which were
developed at freshwater springs to effect such “cures,” expanded rapidly as
the number of their devotees increased. By the mid-18th century, rival
practitioners claimed even greater health-giving properties for sea water
both as a drink and for bathing. An economic benefit resulted when, tiny,
poverty-stricken fishing hamlets became famous through the patronage of
the wealthy in search of health as well as pleasure.
When the early colonists left England in the first half of the 17th century,
the beliefs and practices they had acquired in their original homes were
brought to the new world. Thus, it is important to note that during this
period in Europe, swimming was a skill practiced by few, primarily soldiers
and sailors. It was not until the second half of the century that bathing for
therapeutic purposes was becoming popular in the old world.
The earliest reference to women’s bathing costume has been quoted
previously in Winmann’s amazing description of mixed bathing at Zurich.
He referred to women, wearing only drawers, bathing with men as a custom
no longer practiced when he wrote his book in 1538.
One of the earliest illustrations of bathing costume I have located is part of
a painted fan leaf, about 1675, that was reproduced in volume 9 of Maurice
Leloir’s Histoire du Costume de l’Antiquité in 1914. In one corner of this
painting, which depicts a variety of activities going on in the Seine and on
the river banks at Paris, women are shown immersing themselves in water
within a covered wooden frame. They are wearing loose, light-colored

gowns and long headdresses. An English source of the late 17th century
described a very similar costume.
The ladye goes into the bath with garments made of yellow
canvas, which is stiff and made large with great sleeves like
a parson’s gown. The water fills it up so that it’s borne off
that your shape is not seen, it does not cling close as other
lining.[9]
In the course of my contacts with other costume historians I have
encountered the belief that women did not wear any bathing costume before
the mid-19th century. Supporting this theory I have seen a reproduction of a
print, about 1812, showing women bathing nude in the ocean at Margate,
England, but the evidence already presented indicates clearly that costume
was worn earlier. Also certain English secondary sources refer to a
nondescript chemise-type of bathing dress that was worn during the first
quarter of the 19th century. Because little study has been given European
bathing costume, it is not possible to conjecture under what circumstances
costume was or was not used. We do know, however, that when bathing
became popular in the new world bathing gowns were worn by some
women in the old.

Cultural Environment
As many European cultural traits were transmitted to the new world via
England, so was the introduction of water activities. Nevertheless it
required a number of years for such cultural refinements as bathing to take
root in the new environment. The early colonists brought with them a
limited knowledge of swimming, but they did not have the leisure to
cultivate this skill. In New England the Puritan religious and social beliefs
were as restrictive as the lack of leisure time. In this harsh climate, self-
indulgence in swimming and bathing did not fulfill the requirements of
being righteous and useful. Thus the growing popularity of bathing among
the wealthy in Europe during the 17th and early 18th centuries had little
initial impact in the new world.
Although swimming as a skill predated the introduction of bathing to the
new world, I will first discuss bathing since the customs and facilities
established for it reveal the development of swimming in America, first for
men and then for women.

BATHING

One of the earliest sources showing an appreciation of mineral waters for
bathing in the new world is a 1748 reference in George Washington’s diary
to the “fam’d Warm Springs.”[10] At that time only open ground surrounded
the springs which were located within a dense forest.
Another entry for July 31, 1769, records his departure with Mrs.
Washington for these springs (now known as Berkeley Springs, West
Virginia) where they stayed more than a month. They were accompanied by
her daughter, Patsy Custis, who was probably taken in hope of curing a
form of epilepsy with which she was afflicted. In the latter part of the 18th
century hundreds of visitors annually flocked to these springs. Although the
accommodations were primitive, we early note that the avowed therapeutic
aims for visiting these waters were very quickly combined with a growing
social life on dry land.

Rude log huts, board and canvas tents, and even covered
wagons, served as lodging rooms, while every party brought
its own substantial provisions of flour, meat and bacon,
depending for lighter articles of diet on the “Hill folk,” or
the success of their own foragers. A large hollow scooped in
the sand, surrounded by a screen of pine brush, was the only
bathing-house; and this was used alternately by ladies and
gentlemen. The time set apart for the ladies was announced
by a blast on a long tin horn, at which signal all of the
opposite sex retired to a prescribed distance, ... Here day and
night passed in a round of eating and drinking, bathing,
fiddling, dancing, and reveling. Gaming was carried to a
great excess and horse-racing was a daily amusement.[11]
The more permanent bath houses found at the increasing number of springs
in the early 19th century were really only shanties built where the water
bubbled up. Nevertheless, as civilization moved in upon these resorts, the
current taboos and mores were soon imposed. These gave rise to customs,
facilities, and inventions peculiar to the pastime. The more permanent
facilities carefully separated men from women. Frequently the women’s
bath was located a considerable distance from the men’s and surrounded by
a high fence. Female attendants were at hand to wait upon the ladies, and
private rooms were prepared for their use both before and after bathing.
In the early 19th century the fame of Berkeley Springs was eclipsed
temporarily by the growing popularity of other springs, such as Saratoga in
the north and White Sulphur Springs in the south. The newest facilities,
however, and the completion of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, restored
Berkeley to its former prosperity in the early 1850s.
The bath houses at Berkeley Springs in the 1850s are an example of the
facilities that were considered convenient, extensive, and elegant during this
period. The gentlemen’s bath house contained fourteen dressing rooms and
ten large bathing rooms. In addition to the plunge baths, which were twelve
feet long, five feet wide, and four and a half feet deep, the men had a
swimming bath that was sixty feet long, twenty feet wide, and five feet
deep. The ladies’ and men’s bath houses were located on opposite sides of
the grove. As if this were not reassuring enough, we are told that the

building for the weaker sex was surrounded by several acres of trees. Thus
protected, feminine bathers could choose either one of the nine private
baths or the plunge bath, which was thirty feet long by sixteen feet wide and
four and a half feet deep, as well as use a shower or artificial warm baths.
[12]

The differences between the two bath houses show that women were not as
active in the water as the men. Judging from the kind of facilities that were
provided at Berkeley Springs, the ladies did less “plunging” than the men
and no swimming.
Although accepted in England, bathing in salt water did not become
popular in the new world until some time after bathing at springs was
established.
In 1794 a Mr. Bailey announced that he planned to institute “bathing
machines and several species of entertainment” at his resort on Long Island.
[13] “A machine of peculiar construction for bathing in the open sea” was
advertised a few years later by a hotel proprietor at Nahant, Massachusetts.
[14] There is some question as to what the term “bathing machine”
describes. Existing records show that W. Merritt of New York City received
a patent dated February 1, 1814, for a “bathing machine.” Unfortunately
neither a description nor a drawing can be found today. European patents
from the first half of the 19th century reveal that a bathing machine could
be a contraption in which an individual bathed in privacy. This is what the
above quotations seem to be describing. In general usage, however,
“bathing machine” could also have been a device in which an individual
removed his clothing to prepare for bathing; this type will be described
later.
By the early 19th century floating baths were established in every city of
any importance including Boston, Salem, Hartford, New York,
Philadelphia, Washington, Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah. One bath
located at the foot of Jay Street in New York City was described as follows:
The building is an octagon of seventy feet in diameter, with
a plank floor supported by logs so as to sink the center bath
four feet below the surface of the water, but in the private
baths the water may be reduced to three or even two feet so

as to be perfectly safe for children. It is placed in the current
so always to be supplied with ocean and pure water and rises
and falls with the tide.[15]
As was true at the springs, men and women were segregated; but in the
floating baths they were only separated by being in different compartments
rather than in different bath houses.
Although there were a number of these baths there were not enough to
cover all of the inviting river banks and sea shores. There are many
instances of men enjoying the water of undeveloped shores and there is
some evidence of women venturing into the bays and rivers (fig. 2).

Figure 2.—“Bathing Party, 1810,” painting by William P. Chappel.
(Courtesy of Museum of the City of New York.)

Nevertheless, few women ventured into the open ocean during the early
19th century. They were generally afraid to brave the force of the ocean
waves with only a female companion, since prevailing attitudes regarding
the proper behavior of a lady prevented them from being accompanied by a
man. When a few ignored this dictate, their bold actions gave rise to “ill-
founded stories of want of delicacy on the part of the females.”[16] An
unbiased traveler, who gave an account of this mixed bathing in 1833,
stated that parties always went into the water completely dressed and for
that reason he could see no great violation of modesty. Mixed bathing at the

seashore (fig. 3) was gaining acceptance, however, when it was reported
only thirteen years later that “... ladies and gentlemen bathe in company, as
is the fashion all along the Atlantic Coast....”[17]

Figure 3.—“Scene at Cape May,” Godey’s Lady’s Book, August
1849. (Courtesy of The New York Public Library.)

In place of the dressing rooms available in the floating baths, special
facilities were frequently provided. The bathing machine—in this case a
device in which one changed clothes—was used where there was a gentle
slope down to the water. This species of bathing machine was a small
wooden cabin set on very high wheels with steps leading down from a door
in the front. The bather entered and, while he was changing, the machine
was pulled into the sea by a horse. When water was well above the axles the
horse was uncoupled and taken ashore. The bather was then free to enter the

sea by descending the steps pointed away from the shore (fig. 4). Machines
of the 18th and early 19th century were frequently equipped with an awning
which shielded the bather from public view as she or he descended the steps
to enter the water. These awnings were left off the bathing machines during
the last half of the 19th century. Such machines were used to a great extent
in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the United States, however,
they were used only to a limited extent during the first half of the 19th
century. By 1870 they had practically disappeared—being replaced by the
stationary, sentry-box type of individual structure and the large communal
bath house.

Figure 4.—“The Bathe at Newport,” by Winslow Homer, Harper’s Weekly
Newspaper, September 1858.
(Smithsonian photo 59665.)

“Sentry-boxes” were used before the 1870s at beaches where the terrain did
not encourage the use of the bathing machines. At Long Branch, New
Jersey, and at one of the beaches at Newport, Rhode Island, lines of these
stationary structures were available to the bather for changing, one half
designated for women and the other half for men. Hours varied but it was
the practice to run up colored flags to signal bathing times for the ladies and
then the gentlemen. A male correspondent wrote from Newport in 1857:

If you are social and wish to bathe promiscuously, you put
on a dress and go in with the ladies, if you want to cultivate
the “fine and froggy art of swimming,” unencumbered by
attire, you wait until the twelve o’clock red-flag is run up—
when the ladies retire.[18]
From its early beginnings, in the late 18th and early 19th century, the
summer excursion to the resorts and spas grew in popularity. In 1848, a
writer of a Philadelphia fashion report explained that
Very few ladies of fashion are now in town, most of them
being birds of passage during the last of July and all of
August. Most Americans seem to have adopted the fashion
of visiting watering-places through the summer.[19]
As the summer excursion became a social event, the recreational
possibilities of bathing overshadowed its earlier therapeutic function.
Bathing became part of an increasingly elaborate schedule of activities
where each event—bathing, dining, concerts, balls, promenades, carriage
rides—had its appointed time, place, and proper costume.
In addition to stiff ocean breezes, seaside resorts had an extra appeal that
beguiled visitors away from the spas—namely mixed bathing. For during
the bathing hour at the seashore all the stiffness and etiquette of select
society was abandoned to pleasure.
Again and again I try it. Deliriusm! I forget even Miss ——,
and dive headforemost into the billows. I rush to meet them.
I jump on their backs. I ride on their combs, or I let them roll
over me.... I am in the thickest of the bathers, and amid the
roar of waves, am driven wild with excitement by the shouts
of laughter; burst of noisy merriment, and little jolly female
shrieks of fun. All are wild with excitement, ducking, diving,
splashing, floating, rollicking.[20]
Thus bathing was transformed from a medicinal treatment to a pleasurable
pursuit.
Excursionists had to be hardy individuals, firm in their resolve to complete
their trip. Although many railroad lines had been completed by the 1850s,

transportation problems were by no means solved. For example, a New
York tourist who planned to enjoy a summer at Lake George had to travel
by boat from New York City to Albany and Troy, then by railroad to
Morean Corner, and, finally, by stage to the lake. After listing the
difficulties endured by excursionists, a particularly embittered
correspondent commented in 1856, “... we envy these happy people in
nothing but the power to be idle.”[21]
By the 1870s, travel facilities were rapidly being improved and many new
summer resorts were established which appealed to a larger segment of the
population.
Comparatively few can stay long at one time at the springs
or seaside resorts, and hence the peculiar value of
arrangements like those for enabling multitudes to take
frequent short pleasant excursions down the New York Bay
and along the Atlantic coast, as well as up the Hudson, and
through Long Island Sound.[22]
Beaches that catered to a large cross-section of the population provided a
wide variety of informal activities that replaced the established functions
found at the more select bathing resorts. For example, the illustration of
Coney Island in 1878 (fig. 5) shows a puppet show; pony rides for children;
a hurdy gurdy; vendors of walking sticks, sunglasses, and food; and guide
ropes in the water for timid bathers.

Figure 5.—“Scenes and Incidents on Coney Island,” Harper’s Weekly
Newspaper, August 1878.
(Smithsonian photo 59666.)

In the 1890s foreign visitors were impressed by American concern with
finding opportunities to play; early in the century they had remarked on the
apparent lack of interest in amusements. The term, “summer resorts,” no
longer referred to a relatively small number of fashionable watering places.
The New York Tribune was running eight columns of summer hotel
advertisements aimed directly at the middle class. The popular Summer
Tourist and Excursion Guide listed moderate-priced hotels and railroad
excursions; it was a far departure from the fashionable tour of the 1840s.
Thus, as economic and technological factors changed, bathing was
transformed from a medicinal treatment for the leisure class to a recreation
enjoyed by a large portion of the population.

SWIMMING

As has been stated earlier, swimming was being practiced by men in Europe
when the early colonists were leaving their old homes. Nevertheless, the
task of establishing new homes left them little time to practice the “art of
swimming” or to teach it to fellow colonists.

Benjamin Franklin is no doubt the most famous early proponent of
swimming in the colonies. In his autobiography written in the form of a
letter to his son in 1771, Franklin revealed his early interest in swimming.
I had from a child been delighted with this exercise, had
studied and practiced Thévenot’s motions and position, and
added some of my own, aiming at the graceful and easy, as
well as the useful.[23]
Benjamin Franklin used every opportunity to encourage his friends to learn
to swim,
as I wish all men were taught to do in their youth; they
would, on many occurrences, be the safer for having that
skill, and on many more the happier, as freer from painful
apprehensions of danger, to say nothing of the enjoyment in
so delightful and wholesome an exercise.[24]
Not only was Franklin in favor of being able to swim but when requested he
advised friends on methods for how to teach oneself. His instructions, in his
letter of September 28, 1776 to Mr. Oliver Neale, were published a number
of times even as late as the 1830s.
America’s first swimming school was established at Boston in 1827 by
Francis Liefer. Two expert swimmers, John Quincy Adams and John James
Audubon, the ornithologist, visited the school and each expressed delight at
having found such an establishment.
Numerous books instructing men how to swim were brought into the United
States in the early 19th century and some were republished here, but the
first original work (i.e., not a plagiarism) by an American was not published
until 1846. In this book the author, James Arlington Bennet, M.D., LL.D.,
based his instructions upon his own personal observations as an
experienced swimmer. Dr. Bennet’s publication requires special note not
only due to the basic value of the information but because of the
extraordinary title (i.e., The Art of Swimming Exemplified by Diagrams from
Which Both Sexes May Learn to Swim and Float on the Water; and Rules
for All Kinds of Bathing in the Preservation of Health and Cure of Disease,
with the Management of Diet from Infancy to Old Age, and a Valuable

Remedy Against Sea-sickness). Thanks to this explicit title we learn that Dr.
Bennet was in favor of women learning to swim. This energetic aquatic
activity had long been considered a masculine skill and, despite such a
significant publication, this attitude continued until much later in the
century.
We have already noted in a previous discussion that the Berkeley Springs
bath houses of the 1850s provided a swimming bath for men but no similar
facilities for women. Also at certain seaside resorts of the same period, a
special time was set for men to practice the art of swimming without
clothing, but women had no similar opportunity. When the ladies entered
the water they were clothed from head to toe because men were also
present. The description of women’s bathing costume, which will appear in
a later section, clearly shows that women could do little more than try to
maintain their footing. Undoubtedly some “brazen” women did find the
opportunity to swim, but the general attitude was that women should only
immerse themselves in water.
By the 1860s there was a widespread health movement which gave
additional momentum to the belief that physical exercise was good for one’s
well-being. As a result, women were being encouraged to emerge from their
state of physical inactivity imposed by social custom. Swimming had
already gained recognition as a healthful exercise for men, but with this
fresh approach it was even being suggested that women should swim. A
column that appeared in 1866, entitled “Physical Exercise for Females,”
asserted that
Bathing, as it is practiced at our coast resorts, is, no doubt, a
delightful recreation; but if to it swimming could be added,
the delight would be increased, and the possible use and
advantage much extended.[25]
In answer to the possible objection that the facilities for teaching were not
always available, the writer maintained that in addition to the seashore there
were rivers, lakes, and ponds as well as the swimming baths found in most
large cities. He further asserted that if the demand were great enough,
certain days could be appropriated exclusively to women as was done in
some of the London baths.

The type of baths referred to in this case were not built simply to supply a
health-giving treatment or for recreation as described earlier. As part of the
health movement mentioned above, there was a growing concern in regards
to personal cleansing; it was realized that merely splashing water on the
face in the morning was not sufficient for good personal hygiene. While
facilities for washing the whole body were being installed in wealthy
homes, there was also a growing concern for the masses of people who
could not afford such extravagance. Thus philanthropic individuals
encouraged the building of public swimming baths in densely populated,
low income areas. It was hoped that, although the patrons would be covered
by bathing costume and would be seeking refreshment and recreation, this
unaccustomed contact with water would improve their personal hygiene.
In 1870 a reporter for Leslie’s, who was describing two elegant large
bathhouses (the type described above) in New York City, stated that
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays were set apart for ladies and Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Saturdays for gentlemen. These baths became quite popular
in the large cities, particularly among people who could not afford the time
or money to make trips even to the near seaside resorts. By the 1880s they
were so popular that bathing time was scheduled to allow many sets of
bathers to enjoy the water. Thus a number of women who had probably
never been completely covered with water before had the opportunity to
learn to swim.
While women were being encouraged to practice swimming as a healthful
exercise, this activity was being recognized as a recreation and sport for
men. The increasing affluence during the last three decades of the 19th
century, which made possible the widespread popularity of summer
excursions, encouraged swimming as an individual pastime as well as a
growing spectator sport. This was true not only for swimming but for nearly
every sport we enjoy today. In 1871 a reporter wrote:
It is not underrating the interest attached to yachting or
rowing matches, to say that swimming clubs and swimming
matches can be made to create wider and more useful
emulation among “the Million” who can never participate in
or benefit by those notable trials of skill and muscle.[26]

By the 1890s this growing interest in spectator and individual sports
evidenced several interesting results. Separate sporting pages were
established in the formats of many newspapers. In addition to being a
summer pastime, “the art of swimming” became an intercollegiate and
Olympic sport, and was included on the roster of events for the 1896 revival
of the Olympic Games held in Athens. Innovations in facilities and
techniques helped to alter the character of swimming. The most notable of
these were the development of the indoor pool and the introductions of the
crawl stroke into the United States.
It was in this time period that swimming for women was becoming socially
acceptable. In 1888, Goucher College, a prominent girls’ school, built its
own indoor pool and the following year swimming was listed in its catalog
for the first time. Writers, in turn, no longer felt it necessary to convince
readers that women should be more active in the water, but concentrated
instead on what a woman should know when she swims. This changing
attitude gained world-wide recognition in 1912 at Stockholm when the 100-
meter swimming event for women was included in the schedule.
The period of prosperity following World War I brought a marked increase
in the appreciation of recreation, resulting in an increase of swimming pools
and available beaches. Indoor pools, which made swimming a year-round
activity, were becoming even more numerous than beaches. Swimming was
now established as a sport and a recreation for both men and women.
According to a 1924 magazine article in the Delineator, seldom was a
swimming meet held anywhere in the country without events for women. At
Palm Beach, however, one of the few remaining citadels of “high society,”
an axiom of fashion dictated that a lady or gentleman not go into the water
before 11:45 in the morning; should one do so, one ran the risk of being
taken for a maid or valet. The masses, however, swam for pleasure without
regard to the inhibitions of high fashion.
This period was also marked by the advent of swimming personalities of
both sexes. Johnny Weissmuller became a popular hero for his
accomplishments in competitive swimming from 1921 to 1929. Even before
the war Annette Kellerman, star of vaudeville and movies, had become
famous for her fancy diving as well as her celebrated figure, which she
daringly exhibited in a form-fitting, one-piece suit. In addition to writing an

autobiography, she authored articles and a swimming instruction book for
women. As an example of what exercise, including swimming, could do for
women, Annette Kellerman also lent her name to a course of physical
culture for less “well-developed” ladies. Another product of this new age of
recreation was Gertrude Ederle, who learned to swim at the Woman’s
Swimming Association of New York. She rose to sudden fame in 1926 as
the first woman to swim the English Channel.
As previously stated, swimming was practiced through the Middle Ages as
a useful skill for men. Gradually this activity became regarded as also a
healthful exercise and then as a recreation. Finally by the late 19th century
swimming also had achieved the status of a competitive sport—but for men
only. It was not until the 1920s that social attitudes permitted women the
same full use of the water as men.
The restrictive attitudes defining women’s proper behavior in the water
prior to the 1920s were one element of the mores defining women’s
participation in society. Thus as more liberal attitudes gained acceptance
and modified the original concept of the “weaker sex,” women gradually
achieved social acceptance of their full participation in aquatic activities.

Bathing Costume
Bathing became popular as a medicinal treatment for both men and women
of the new world in the last half of the 18th century. It was the only aquatic
activity, however, that was considered proper for women until over a
hundred years later.
Like so many other customs, changes in bathing costume styles were
initially introduced by way of England. They were adapted or rejected
according to the special conditions of this continent. To give a clearer
picture of the costume worn in the colonies and in the United States,
descriptions of the English dress will be included where pertinent. I have
not, however, found any evidence showing that bathing nude was a practice
for women in this country.

THE EARLY BATHING GOWN

It is disappointing but not surprising to discover the lack of descriptions
pertaining to early bathing costume. This simple gown was utilitarian, not
decorative. Thus it deserved little attention in the eyes of the contemporary
bather.
No doubt it is due to the importance of the original owner that the following
example has survived. In the collection of family memorabilia at Mount
Vernon, there is a chemise-type bathing gown that is said to have been worn
by Martha Washington (fig. 6). According to a note attached to the gown
signed by Eliza Parke Custis, and addressed to “Rosebud,” a pet name for
her daughter, Martha Washington probably wore this bathing gown at
Berkeley Springs as she accompanied her daughter, Patsy, in her bath.

Figure 6.—Linen bathing gown said to have been
worn by Martha Washington. (Courtesy of The
Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association.)

This blue and white checked linen gown has several construction details
similar to the chemise, a woman’s undergarment, of the period. The sleeves
were gathered near the shoulder and were set in with a gusset at the armpit.
The skirt of the gown was made wider at the bottom by the usual method of
adding four long triangular pieces—one to each side of both the front and
back. The sleeves, however, are not as full as those one would expect to
find on a chemise of the period. Also a chemise would probably have had a
much wider neckline gathered by a draw-string threaded through a band at
the neck edge. Instead, this bathing gown has a moderately low neckline
made wider by a slit down the front which is closed by two linen tapes sewn
to either edge of the front. Although less fabric was used for the bathing
gown than was normally required to make a chemise, it was probably not
because of functional considerations as one might like to think, but because
of the scarcity of fabric. Close examination reveals that the triangular
sections of fabric used to add fullness to the skirt consist of several pieces.
In fact the two sections used in the back are made from a different fabric,
although it is still a blue and white checked linen. Frugal use of scraps in
linings and hidden sections of decorative costume was common practice in

the 18th century. The piecing of the bathing gown is further evidence of the
fact that it was a garment that had no ornamental purpose.
Of particular interest are the lead disks which are wrapped in linen and
attached near the hem next to the side seams by means of patches. No doubt
these weights were used to keep the gown in place when the bather entered
the water.
The following account of bathing in Dover, England, in 1782 suggests how
the bathing gown might have been used at Berkeley Springs:
The Ladies in a morning when they intend to bathe, put on a
long flannel gown under their other clothes, walk down to
the beach, undress themselves to the flannel, then they walk
in as deep as they please, and lay hold of the guides’ hands,
three or four together sometimes.
Then they dip over head twenty times perhaps; then they
come onto the shore where there are women that attend with
towels, cloaks, chairs, etc. The flannel is stripp’d off, wip’d
dry, etc. Women hold cloaks round them. They dress
themselves and go home.[27]
The earliest illustration showing costume worn in the United States for
fresh water bathing is dated 1810 (see fig. 2). Unfortunately the painting
reveals only that the bathing gowns were long and dark colored in
comparison with the white dresses of the period.
An 1848 article which described, in detail, the fashionable dress called for
by each activity at summer resorts, concludes with the following tantalizing
paragraph:
We have no space for an extended description of suitable
bathing-dresses. They may be procured at any of our town
establishments for the purpose. Much depends upon
individual taste in their arrangement, for uncouth as they
often of necessity are, they can be improved by a little tact.
[28]

This is the only reference to American bathing costume of the second
quarter of the 19th century that the author has found at this time.
Nevertheless, an English source describes what must have been a
transitional style between the chemise-type bathing gown and the more
fitted costume of the 1850s.
The Workwoman’s Guide, published in London, 1840, included instructions
for making both a bathing gown and a bathing cap. Health and modesty
were the main considerations that influenced the choice of color and type of
material.
Bathing gowns are made of blue or white flannel, stuff,
calimanco, or blue linen. As it is especially desirable that the
water should have free access to the person, and yet that the
dress should not cling to, or weigh down the bather, stuff or
calimanco are preferred to most other materials; the dark
coloured gowns are the best for several reasons, but chiefly
because they do not show the figure, and make the bather
less conspicuous than she would be in a white dress.[29]
The following details reveal that, in general, this 1840 bathing gown starts
as an unshaped garment similar to the gown attributed to Martha
Washington [brackets are mine].
As the width of the materials, of which a bathing gown is
made, varies, it is impossible to say of how many breadths it
should consist. The width at the bottom, when the gown is
doubled, should be about 15 nails [1 nail = 21⁄4 in.]: fold it
like a pinafore, slope 31⁄2 nails for the shoulders, cut or open
slits of 31⁄2 nails long for the armholes, set in plain sleeves
41⁄2 nails long, 31⁄2 nails wide, and make a slit in front 5 nails
long.[30]
The instructions for finishing this gown, however, show that the sleeves
were worn close around the wrists and that the fullness of the skirt was
secured at the waist by a belt.
In making up, delicacy is the great object to be attended to.
Hem the gown at the bottom, gather it into a band at the top,

and run in strings; hem the opening and the bottom of the
sleeves and put in strings. A broad band should be sewed in
about half a yard from the top, to button round the waist.[31]
By the addition of the above details this type of bathing gown more closely
approximates the style of the long-skirted blouse of the 1850s to be
described later.
In regard to the bathing cap we are told that,
These are made of oil-silk, and are worn, when bathing, by
ladies who have long hair.... It is advisable, however, for
those who have not long hair, to bathe in plain linen caps, so
as to admit the water without the sand or grit, and thus the
bather, unless prohibited on account of health, enjoys all the
benefit of the shock without injuring the hair.[32]
The “Scene at Cape May” (fig. 3) shows women wearing long-skirted,
long-sleeved, belted gowns as well as head coverings similar to the type
described in The Workwoman’s Guide.
Thus during the period when bathing became popular as a medicinal
treatment, women wore loose, open gowns perhaps patterned after a
common undergarment, the chemise. Although this chemise-type bathing
costume must have been very comfortable when dry, its fullness was
restrictive when wet. The bather could only immerse herself in water which
was all that was necessary for the treatment. As the recreational possibilities
of bathing began to overshadow its health-giving properties, women’s
bathing dresses also became more fitted, following the general silhouette of
women’s fashions.

BIFURCATED BATHING DRESS

During the first half of the 19th century in England and the United States, a
more tolerant attitude toward feminine exercise led women to abandon the
fiction that they were not bipedal while bathing. This acknowledgment,
however, was not fostered solely by the need for a more functional bathing
dress. It was first evidenced by a few daring European women who wore
lace-edged pantaloons trimmed with several rows of tucking under their

daytime dresses. The shorter, untrimmed, knee-length drawers which
quickly replaced the pantaloons, became an unseen but essential item in the
fashionable English lady’s toilette of the 1840s. These drawers, or a plainer
version of the longer pantaloons, were adapted not only to the female riding
habit but the bathing dress as well. An 1828 English source reported that
“Many ladies when riding wear silk drawers similar to what is worn when
bathing.”[33] With the increased interest in physical exercise for women,
ankle-length, open pantaloons also were being worn in the 1840s with a
long overdress as an early form of gymnasium suit. This evidence of the
early use of drawers suggests that, like English ladies, women in the United
States were probably wearing a type of drawers beneath their nondescript
bathing gowns during the second quarter of the 19th century. There is some
slight support of this theory in the following stanza of a poem that appeared
in 1845:

But go to the beach ere the morning be ended
And look at the bathers—oh what an array
The ladies in trowsers, the gemmen in blowses
E’en red flannel shirts are the “go” at Cape May.[34]

The rather crude but delightful sketch of seabathing at Coney Island in 1856
(fig. 7) shows the ladies wearing very full, ankle-length, trousers with a
sack top extending loosely only a few inches below the waist. This type of
bathing costume, which was primarily a bifurcated garment instead of a
skirted one, became the prevailing fashion as reported in English women’s
magazines of the 1860s.

scene at coney island—sea bathing illustrated.
Figure 7.—Sea bathing at Coney Island, from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated
Newspaper, September 1856.
(Smithsonian photo 58437.)

In contrast to the originally European skirtless costume, the Philadelphia
publication, Peterson’s Magazine, stated that bathing dress should consist of
a pair of drawers and a long-skirted dress. The recommended drawers were
full and confined at the ankle by a band that was finished with a ruffle.
These drawers were attached to a “body” and fastened so that, even if the
skirt washed up, the individual could not possibly be exposed. The dress
was made by pleating or gathering the desired length of material onto a
deep yoke with a separate belt securing the fullness at the waist. The bottom
of the hem was about three inches above the ankle and was considered
rather short. Loose shirt sleeves were drawn around the wrist by a band
which was finished with a deep ruffle as a protection against the sun.
According to this article many women wore a small talma or cape which
hid the figure to some extent. It was recommended that the drawers, dress,
and talma be made of the same woolen material.
Bathing-dresses, although generally very unbecoming can be
made to look very prettily with a little taste. If the dress is of
a plain color, such as grey, blue or brown, a trimming around
the talma, collar, yoke, ruffles etc ..., of crimson, green or
scarlet, is a great addition.[35]

To complete a bathing toilette the following items were considered
necessary: a pair of large lisle thread gloves, an oil cap to protect the hair
from the water, a straw hat to shield the face from the sun, and gum
overshoes for tender feet.

Figure 8.—Bathing dress, c. 1855. (Courtesy of
Philadelphia Museum of Art. Photograph by A. J.
Wyatt, staff photographer.)

The red, tan, and blue-green checked bathing dress shown in figure 8 is
jauntily trimmed with crimson braid edging the collar, belt, and wrist and
ankle bands. This costume is a variation of the style described previously.
The drawers, unlike those described in Peterson’s Magazine, are sewn to a
linen band with linen suspenders attached. The unfitted, unshaped skirt (8
ft. 8 in. in circumference) is pulled in at the waist by a belt attached to the

center back. A similar technique for forming a waistline is described in The
Workwoman’s Guide of 1840.
Women’s magazines in the United States from the third quarter of the 19th
century show illustrations of bathing costume, but in many instances these
publications used European fashion plates. Harper’s Bazar, (spelled thus
until 1929) particularly in its early years, used fashion plates and pattern
supplements from its German predecessor Der Bazar. Thus, in one issue
one can find a fashion plate showing the predominantly bifurcated
European bathing suit and, in a column on New York fashions, a separate
description of long-skirted bathing dresses with trousers. During the same
period Peterson’s Magazine had illustrations previously used in the London
publication, Queen’s Magazine.
American women seem to have accepted the majority of styles shown in
European fashion plates, except for the skirtless bathing suits. The writer of
an 1868 column on New York fashions sought to convince his readers to try
the more daring European style although he grudgingly admitted that the
“Bathing suits made with trousers and blouse waist without skirt are
objected to by many ladies as masculine and fast....”[36] This style was in
fact, very similar to the costume worn by men when they bathed with the
ladies. A year later, the writer of the same fashion column had given up the
campaign to dress all women in the skirtless suits and admitted that these
imports “... are worn by expert swimmers, who do not wish to be
encumbered with bulky clothing.”[37] Such practical bathing dress was thus
limited to a very small number of progressive women.
The majority, consisting of those who were strictly bathers, wore the ankle-
length drawers beneath a long dress as described or illustrated in the
majority of sources that originated in the United States. Why was the
European bathing suit not fully adopted by American women? Differences
between the bathing customs of the two continents undoubtedly encouraged
the development of different dress. While men and women in the United
States bathed together freely at the seashore during the latter half of the
19th century, this practice was not widely accepted in England until the
early 1900s. In the presence of men, American women probably felt
compelled to retain their more concealing dress and drawers.

In England swimming seems to have been more popular among women
than it was in the United States. While encouraging its readers to swim,
during the late 1860s, Queen’s Magazine used forceful language of a kind
that was not found in American publications until the late 19th century. If
swimming was more acceptable as a feminine exercise in England it is
understandable why English women were more receptive to a functional,
skirtless bathing suit—especially since it was worn only in the presence of
other women.
In 1858, Winslow Homer, who was later to become a well-known American
painter, was welcomed into the society at Newport until it became apparent
that he wanted to sketch the bathers for a weekly newspaper (see fig. 4). So
great were the ensuing objections that he was permitted to complete his
sketches “... provided he depicted the bathers only in the water and only
above the waistline and without divulging the identity of the bathers.”[38]
As can be seen in figure 4, these sketches serve more as a testament of
Homer’s fancy than as an accurate historical statement on style. The two
feminine legs exposed in the water from just below the knee to the toe and
the feminine head coverings appear to be anachronisms. According to
several other illustrations of the period, these women were undoubtedly
wearing long drawers. The young artist at 22, however, has been described
as having an eye for feminine beauty and a sense of fashion. He seems to
have exploited to the full the decorative possibilities of hoop skirts blown
by the breeze or agitated by some pretty accident to discreetly reveal a trim
ankle. A drama of breeze versus long skirt appears with the small feminine
figure in the left background of this print. The force of the waves and the
motion of the frolicking bathers gave the artist opportunity to show two
more pretty accidents. The only head covering he showed for feminine
bathers was a ruffled cap that framed the face. Other sources show Newport
bathers wearing the less attractive wide-brimmed straw hat (fig. 9). The
straw headgear worn over these caps seems more likely since Newport’s
fashionable belles would surely have sacrificed appearances and worn a
straw hat to avoid an unfashionable sunburn and tan.

Figure 9.—Bathing hat of natural color and purple straw, c.
1880. (Smithsonian photo P-65409.)

Nevertheless, Homer’s sketch reflects characteristics seen in certain
surviving examples from the 1860s—namely that the top was becoming
more fitted, being attached completely to a belt with the fuller skirt pleated
or gathered to the bottom edge of the belt. In the Design Laboratory
Collection of the Brooklyn Museum there is an 1860 black poplin specimen
that may be a bathing dress. This example is trimmed at the shoulder seam
with epaulets, an example of the extent to which fashion was finally playing
a part in bathing costume.[39]
The dresses described above appear peculiar not only to 20th century eyes,
but they also seem to have amused mid-19th century correspondents. One
writer in 1857 declared that,
We don’t think a man could identify his own wife when she
comes out of the bathing-house. A plump figure enters,
surrounded with a multitude of rustly flounces and scarcely
able to squeeze an enormous hoop through the door. She is
absent a few minutes, and presto change! out comes a tall
lank apparition, wrapped in the scanty folds of something
that looks more like a superannuated night-gown than
anything else, and a battered straw-chapeau knocked down

over the eyes, and stalks down towards the beach with the
air and gait of a Tartar chieftain![40] [fig. 10.]

Figure 10.—“How she went in,” from Harper’s
Bazar, August 1870. (Smithsonian photo 61585A.)

Another writer felt that he
... must say—even in the columns of Frank Leslie’s
Illustrated—that they don’t look very picturesque or pretty
when a la Naiade.... Rather limp, sacks tied in the middle,
eel-bottles, hydropathic coalheavers and “longshoremen,”
and preternaturally dilapidated Bloomers, would appear to
be the ideals aimed at.[41] [fig. 11.]

Figure 11.—“How she came out,” from Harper’s
Bazar, August 1870. (Smithsonian photo 61585B.)

This use of the term “Bloomers,” referring to long full drawers or trousers,
is a reminder of how similar the 1855 bathing gown with drawers (see fig.
8) was to the reform dress introduced in 1848 and worn by Amelia
Bloomer, the feminist, in 1852.
Despite the evident use of a new waistline treatment, the most popular
bathing costume of the 1870s, according to Harper’s Bazar, continued to
feature the yoke blouse that reached at least to the knee. This combination
of blouse and skirt was held in position at the waist by a belt. The high neck
was finished with a sailor collar or a standing pleated frill, while the long
sleeves and full Turkish trousers, buttoned on the side of the ankle,
concealed the limbs. In 1873 a column on New York fashions reported an
effort to popularize short-sleeved, low-throated suits then in favor at
European bathing places and which had been illustrated in the Bazar.
Nevertheless, the writer hedged this report by adding that
It is thought best, however, to provide an extra pair of long
sleeves that may be buttoned on or basted in the short puffs

that are sewn in the arm holes. Sometimes a small cape
fastening closely about the throat is also added.[42]
Nevertheless, sketches of bathing scenes from the seventies indicate that
some American women wore even shorter sleeves and trousers than those
prescribed by the fashion magazines.
Linen and wool fabrics were both suggested in the 1840s, but by the 1870s
flannel was most frequently used for bathing dresses, with serge also being
recommended. Navy blue, and to a lesser extent, white, gray, scarlet, and
brown were popular colors in checks as well as solid colors trimmed with
white, red, gray, or blue worsted braid.
Bathing mantles or cloaks were worn to conceal the moist figure when
crossing the beach. These garments were made of Turkish toweling with
wide sleeves and hoods, and were so long as “to barely escape” the ground.
In 1873 one good bathing cap was described as an oiled silk bag-crown cap
large enough to hold the hair loosely. The frill around the edge was bound
with colored braid. Many ladies preferred, however, to let their hair hang
loose and under a wide-brimmed hat of coarse straw tied down on the sides
to protect their skin from the sun (fig. 9).
Bathing shoes or slippers were generally worn when the shore was rough
and uneven. In 1871 manila sandals were worn, but the most functional
bathing shoes are said to have been high buskins of thick unbleached cotton
duck with cork soles. They were secured with checked worsted braid. Two
years later there were bathing shoes of white duck or sail canvas with
manila soles. Slippers for walking in the sand were “mules” or merely toes
and soles made of flannel, braided to match the cloak, and sewn to cork
soles.
Throughout this period the social aspect of bathing predominated over the
therapeutic goals and women were making a greater effort to transform
their bathing garments into attractive and functional outfits. Motivated by
the presence of men at the seashore and by the competition with other
women for masculine attention, ladies were more concerned with the style
of their bathing dresses and appropriate trimmings. Thus bathing costume
joined the ranks of other fashions described in women’s magazines.

Now that women were frolicking in the water rather than simply being
dunked several times, their costume became somewhat more functional.
Long trousers gave them greater freedom in the water although the skirts
which continued to be worn, tended to negate this improvement. Even as
early as the 1870s there were efforts to shorten sleeves and eliminate high
necklines. This trend to make bathing dress more practical increased in
momentum toward the end of the century.

PRINCESS STYLE BATHING DRESS

Although attitudes toward sports were more enlightened by the 1880s,
many women continued to wear the old bathing dress with its belted blouse
extending to a long skirt and a pair of trousers. As an alternate to this garb,
the “princess style” was developed with the blouse and trousers cut in one
piece or else sewn permanently to the same belt. A separate skirt extending
below the knee was buttoned at the waist to conceal the figure. This new
style in bathing costume was probably derived from an innovation in
women’s underwear. During the late 1870s a new style of undergarment, the
“combination” of chemise and drawers, had come into use. Petticoats could
be fastened to buttons sewn around the waist of the combination. This
streamlining of undergarments helped the lady of fashion to maintain a
desirably svelte figure. Apparently the advantages of this streamlining were
obvious, because it was not long before women were quietly adapting this
style to bathing dresses. By the 1890s the skirt was often omitted for
swimming (fig. 12), giving the more active women more freedom in the
water. Following popular dress styles, the top of the bathing costume was
bloused over the belt. The sailor collar, either large or small, was a great
favorite, but a straight standing collar with rows of white braid was also
worn.

Figure 12.—Bathing costumes from a supplement to The Tailor’s Review,
July 1895.
(Courtesy of Library of Congress.)

The “princess style” was not the only innovation available in bathing dress.
Harper’s Bazar reported in 1881 that imported French bathing suits[43] for
ladies were made without sleeves, since any covering on the arm interfered
with the freedom desirable for swimming. Nevertheless, according to other
contemporary fashion descriptions, American bathing suits retained their
long sleeves until the early 1880s when the foreign fashion of short sleeves
came to the United States. In 1885 it was reported that
The sleeves may be the merest ‘caps’ four or five inches
deep under the arm, curved narrow toward the top, and
lapped there or they may be half-long and straight, reaching
to the elbows, or else they may be the regular coat sleeves
covering the arms to the wrist. With the short sleeves it is
customary to add the sleeves cut from a gauze vest to give
the arm some protection from the sun.[44]
Sleeves were pushed up in 1890 and puffed high about the shoulders by
means of elastic tape in the hem. By 1893 fashion reports acknowledged
that sleeve length was a matter of individual choice.

Despite this neat resolution of the diminishing sleeve, contemporary
sketches of bathing scenes indicate that some women in the United States
were wearing the shorter sleeves even earlier.
Short full trousers, reaching just below the knee, accompanied by knee-
length skirts—sometimes worn even shorter—succeeded the long Turkish
trousers and ankle-length skirt. As the trousers diminished in length, long
stockings or bathing shoes with long stocking tops became a necessary part
of the bathing costume to cover the lower limbs, particularly in mixed
bathing (see fig. 1). The stockings, which were cotton or wool, plain or
fancy, and of any color or combination of colors in keeping with the
costume, were worn with a variety of bathing shoes, sandals, or slippers
when bathing off a rocky shore. Foot coverings were usually made of white
canvas; the slippers were held on by a spiral arrangement of braid or ribbon
about the ankles, while the laced shoes were often made with heavy cork
soles. A gaiter shoe or combination shoe and stocking was made of
waterproof cloth, laced up the sides, and reached to about the knees. Low
rubber shoes were also worn.
Bathing caps of waxed linen or oiled silk were used to protect the hair. They
had whale bone in the brim and could be adjusted by drawstrings in the
back. Blue, white, or ecru rubber hats were also used. These caps had large
full crowns—which held in all the hair—and wired brims. A wide-brimmed
rough straw hat, tied on with a strip of trimming braid or with ribbon, was
sometimes worn as protection against the sun (fig. 9).
Bathing mantles like those of the 1870s were still being worn by the late
19th century and these were frequently trimmed with colored braid. Cotton
tapes sewn in parallel rows, mohair braid, or strips of flannel were still
being used to make the bathing dress more attractive.
Navy blue and white, as well as ecru, maroon, gray, and olive were popular
colors for the bathing dress. In 1890 the writer of a fashion column thought
it pertinent to add that “... black bathing suits are worn as a matter of
choice, not merely by those dressing in mourning.”[45] Apparently the
wearing of black no longer had this exclusive significance when bathing,
but prior to 1890 it did.

As women became more active in the water and were learning to swim they
began to accept more practical changes in bathing costume. Not only the
style, as described previously, but also the fabric was considered for its
functional characteristics. Flannel was still widely used but was being
replaced by serge which was not as heavy when wet. Another indication of
this trend was that stockinet, a knitted material, was gaining in popularity at
the end of the century.
The “princess style” of the early 1890s combined the drawers and bodice in
one garment: the separate skirt fell just short of the ends of the drawers
which covered the knees. By the mid-1890s, however, the drawers which
were now called knickerbockers, were shortened so as to be completely
covered by the knee-length skirt. These knickerbockers were either attached
to the waist in the popular “princess style” or they were fastened to the
waist by a series of flat bone buttons.
During this same period, the mid-1890s, knitted, cotton tights were
sometimes worn in place of knickerbockers. Bathing tights differed from
the knickerbockers in that they were hemmed rather than gathered on an
elastic band at the lower edge and that they were not attached to the waist.
When tights were used they were completely concealed by a one-piece,
knee-length bathing dress. The use of the more streamlined bathing tights
was another step toward more functional bathing costume. Despite these
improvements, most women continued to wear stockings, usually black,
when they bathed or swam in public. The dictates of fashion and standards
of modesty continued to conflict with practical considerations.
As with street dress, corsets seem to have been an important though unseen
bathing article necessary for maintaining smart posture. In 1896 it was
reported that
Unless a woman is very slender, bathing corsets should be
worn. If they are not laced tightly they are a help instead of a
hindrance to swimming, and some support is needed for a
figure that is accustomed to wearing stays.[46]
While describing the bathing dresses available in 1910 an article noted:
“Some of these are made up with ... princess forms that are boned so as to
do away with the bathing corset.”[47]

The bodice of the bathing costume continued to be bloused, but by 1905 it
was modified to be merely loose. An article appearing in 1896 noted that
bathing suits should be cut high in the neck, not tight around the throat, but
close enough to prevent burning by the sun. The sailor collar continued to
be used during the late 1890s but became less fashionable shortly after the
turn of the century. Nevertheless there had to be some white around the
neck for the bathing dress to be considered smart. The puffed sleeves,
which had become popular in the late 1890s were modified in breadth and
length to allow free use of the muscles in swimming (fig. 13).

Figure 13.—Bathing dress of black “mohair,” c.
1900. (Smithsonian photo 60383.)

In 1897 fashion magazines were suggesting that skirts of bathing dresses
looked best when the front breadth was shaped narrower toward the belt,
while by 1902 the skirts were fitted over the hips in order to delineate the

figure. In 1905 pleated skirts again became fashionable, although flared
skirts were still acceptable.
Dark blue and black were the popular colors, although white, red, gray, and
green were also used. Flannel was no longer recommended for bathing
dress; serge and “mohair”—a fabric with a cotton warp and a mohair or
alpaca weft—were widely used. The impractical bathing dress of silk fabric
was worn by those who could afford this extravagance; thus, the
conspicuous consumption of the “leisure class” was even found at the
beaches.
Bathing hats were still being worn but it was considered more fashionable
to wear a rubber or oil silk cap covered with a bright silk turban when there
was a surf. For the bather who seldom ventured very far into the water the
most fashionable practice was to have no covering at all.
Throughout the 19th century bathing costume followed an impelling course
toward becoming more functional. As the popularity of recreational bathing
and then swimming for women increased, the number of yards of fabric
required to make a bathing dress decreased. Nevertheless, by the 1900s,
many women knew how to swim, but the majority were still bathers. Thus
bathing suits continued in use through the first quarter of the 20th century.

Swimming Costume
Bathing costume did not evolve gracefully into the swim suit, nor was there
an abrupt replacement of one garment for the other. Instead, a garb designed
for swimming emerged in the 19th century as tentatively and as poorly
received as had the suggestion that women should be active in the water.
The growing popularity of swimming and the changing status of women
eventually made it possible for the swimming suit to replace the bathing
suit in the 1920s. By the 1930s, however, this trend was accelerated by a
growing advertising and ready-to-wear clothing industry. Thus a history of
the swimming costume tends to divide itself into two sections: early
swimming suits and the influence of the swim suit industry.

EARLY SWIMMING SUITS

The earliest reference to swimming costume I have found was in 1869. At
this date swimming in the United States was considered a masculine skill,
exercise, and recreation; only men were provided with a real opportunity to
swim at popular watering places. As described previously, Harper’s Bazar
reported that American women in general rejected the European bathing
suit made with long trousers and a skirtless waist. Nevertheless, this
costume was “... worn by expert swimmers, who do not wish to be
encumbered with bulky clothing.”[48]
In the 1870s the rare descriptions of this more functional garment—called
“swimming suit” even at this early date—were limited to a sentence or two
buried within long columns of fine print describing popular bathing apparel.
One mentions a “... single knitted worsted garment, fitting the figure, with
waist and trousers in one.”[49] Another was made without sleeves as “one
garment, the blouse and trousers being cut all in one, like the sleeping
garments worn by small children.”[50] These more practical bifurcated
garments probably derived from the European suit of the 1860s that had
been rejected by the majority of American women. For example, an English
source reported that in 1866 the following garment was worn: “...

Swimming Costume, a body and trousers cut in one, secures perfect liberty
of action and does not expose the figure.”[51]
The descriptions of American swimming suits, however brief, offered
evidence that the pastime was growing in popularity with women.
Generally speaking, 19th century women’s magazines were mere
disseminators of fine and decorous ideas and practices for well-mannered
ladies; their editors were not innovators. With such an editorial policy it is
understandable that these magazines would not, as a rule, publicize trends
of popular origin until they were fairly well established. The skirtless
swimming suit of the 1870s was no doubt more common in the United
States than its meager description in Harper’s Bazar would seem to
indicate.
As long as feminine swimming was not generally accepted, however,
efforts to develop practical swimming suits remained isolated owing to the
lack of communication between manufacturer and consumer and to
traditional attitudes. Feminine interest in swimming and physical activities
threatened belief in the “weaker-sex” that contributed to maintaining the
traditional masculine and feminine roles; efforts to develop functional
swimming dress also attacked established standards of feminine modesty.
These challenges to the status quo were met with the weapon of the
complacent majority—silence. Consequently, from the third quarter of the
19th century, when we find the first reference to a specialized garment for
swimming in the United States, writings on swimming costume appeared
infrequently until the 1920s.
In 1886 two “ladies’ bathing jerseys” and two bathing suits of the traditional
type appeared in the First Illustrated Catalogue of Knitted Bathing Suits of
J. J. Pfister Company in San Francisco. The captions over the illustrations
leave no question that the briefer bathing jerseys were intended for
swimming while the others were for bathing. These jerseys—form-fitting
tunics that were mid-thigh in length—were made with high necks and cap
sleeves. Underneath this garment women wore trunks that extended to the
knee and stockings; there was also the alternate choice of tights, a
combination of trunks and stockings. To complete the outfit the feminine
reader was encouraged to buy a knitted skull cap.

Apparently these bathing jerseys were successful; three, instead of two,
jerseys appeared in the same catalog in 1890. It is obvious from this later
catalog, however, that there was a greater demand for bathing dresses since
twelve designs of the skirted costume were featured as opposed to the two
dresses in the first issue.
Even by the early 20th century it is difficult to find specific references to a
swimming suit in women’s magazines; only occasionally does a concern
with swimming obtrude into the traditional descriptions of bathing dress. In
The Woman’s Book of Sports, however, J. Parmly Paret was specific about
the requirements for a suitable swimming costume in 1901.
It is particularly important that nothing tight should be worn
while swimming, no matter how fashionable a dress may be
for bathing. The exercise requires the greatest freedom, and
a swimming costume should never include corsets, tight
sleeves, or a skirt below the knees. The freedom of the
shoulders is the most important of all, but anything tight
around the body interferes with the breathing and the
muscles of the back, while a long skirt—even one a few
inches below the knees—binds the legs constantly in making
their strokes.[52]
Although this costume (fig. 14) more closely resembles the traditional
bathing dress than the jersey described previously, this discussion illustrates
the growing dichotomy between bathing dress and swimming dress and
between fashionable styles and functional styles.

Figure 14.—The recommended costume for swimming from
J. Parmly Paret, The Woman’s Book of Sports, 1901.
(Smithsonian photo 58436.)

Photographs of East coast beach scenes in 1903 show a few women
wearing costumes different from the black or navy blue bathing dress worn
by the majority. These independent spirits seem to be wearing close-fitting
knitted trunks that cover the knees or, when with stockings, come within an
inch or two above the knee. Above these trunks they appear to be wearing
knitted one-piece tunics or belted blouses that cover the hips. This costume,
sleeveless or short-sleeved, and with a simplified neckline, must have been
the functional suit of its day.
An important impetus was given to the development of the swimming suit
with the entrance of women into swimming as a competitive sport. On

September 5, 1909, Adeline Trapp wore a one-piece knitted swimming suit
when she became the first woman to swim across the East River in New
York, through the treacherous waters of Hell Gate. Both the swimming suit
and the swim were part of a campaign devised by Wilbert Longfellow—of
the U.S. Volunteer Life Saving Corps—to encourage women to learn to
swim.
Adeline Trapp was a summer employee of the Life Saving Corps in 1909.
Mr. Longfellow saw in the 20-year-old Brooklyn school teacher a
respectable young woman who could be a source of publicity. He ordered
her to get a one-piece swimming suit for the swim. As early as 1899 in
England, a woman participating in competitions organized by the Amateur
Swimming Association could have worn a one-piece, skirtless, knitted
costume with a shaped sleeve at least three inches long, a slightly scooped
neck, and legs that extended to within three inches of the knee. Mr.
Longfellow may have had this English suit in mind. He might have known
of similar suits in the United States or he might have simply wanted to free
Adeline of yards of fabric to make her more competitive with male
swimmers. Nevertheless, Adeline Trapp did not know that the English suits
existed, nor did she know where she could find one. She spent many hours
going from one American manufacturer to another trying on men’s knitted
suits. She found that they were all cut too low at the neck and armholes and
did not cover enough of the legs to preclude criticism. At this point a friend
who worked for a stocking manufacturer offered to get her a suitable
costume from England. This costume, a knitted, gray cotton suit—whether
originally for a man or woman in England is not known—was the one
Adeline wore when she swam Hell Gate.
Although more than thirty men attempted the swim, the fact that a woman
accomplished the feat made newspaper headlines. Following this event,
Miss Trapp received a terse letter from the Brooklyn School Board stating
that they thought it improper for an educator of Brooklyn children to appear
in public so scantily dressed in a one-piece swimming costume. For her
future swims Adeline Trapp was careful to have someone carry a blanket to
throw over her as she emerged from the water.[53]
In 1910, Annette Kellerman arrived in the United States from Australia by
way of England. For her fancy diving exhibitions she wore sleeveless one-

piece knitted swimming tights that covered her from neck to toe—a
costume she had probably adopted in England.
The decade from 1910 to 1920 was a crucial period in the history of bathing
and swimming costume. Popular attitudes were changing in favor of the
woman who swam but, as frequently occurs in social reforms, there was a
cultural lag between public opinion and the policies of institutions. The Red
Cross, which began its excellent water safety program in 1914, taught
women to swim but did not admit women as Life Saving Corps members
until 1920. Symbolic of the conflict between old and new attitudes were the
relative roles of bathing and swimming costume during this period. As
Annette Kellerman described them:
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 of Vogue reported 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.

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

In the June 15, 1917 issue, Vogue modified 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 numerous illustrations. 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 of Harper’s Bazar and Vogue
were 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, Delineator solved 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 way
Delineator succeeded in satisfying nearly every degree of conservatism—
an amazing accomplishment.
The spring edition of Sears, Roebuck and Co. Catalog for 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 the Sears, Roebuck and Co. Catalog
were 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. Being quick 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.

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.

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 to self-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.”

SWIM SUIT INDUSTRY

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 in Harper’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 beach
uniforms were out and that beach styles were 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 was introduced 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.

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 were the 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]

Conclusions
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 in Iris Brooke and
James 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 in Dulles, America Learns to Play, p. 152.
[14] Fred Allan Wilson, Some Annals of Nahant (Boston: Old Corner Book Store,
1928), p. 77, as quoted in Dulles, 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 in Thomas, 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 in C. Willett and Phillis 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 in C. Willett and Phillis 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 in C. 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 type changed to chemise-type
as elsewhere; page 17: closing square
bracket deleted after what 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.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WOMEN'S
BATHING AND SWIMMING COSTUME IN THE UNITED STATES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in
the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project

Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to

you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the

efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment

including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a

copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.