Figure 1.--This unidentified Philadelphia boy is wearing a plain white dress, pobably in the 1880s. He is posing for this cabinent card portrait with a large stuffed horse at the studio. Written on the back of the mount is the boy's age, "4 yrs 8 mths old". The photo was taken by the P E Chillman Studio."

The photographic record shows that age 4 was a mixed age as far as boys wearing dresses. It was still a pre-school year so the boys were mostly at home being looked after by mother. There were no nursery schools at the time. We see many boys who have been breeched, but there are also many boys who have not yet been breeched. Many parents who did not breech boys at age 3, did so at age 4. This varied, however, from family to family. Thus we see fewer boys wearing dresses at age 4. There are numerous portraits showing boys that had not yet been breeched. This varied chronologically. We are not sure how to assess the numbers. We would say the boys not yet breeched were a minority, but they were still large numbers. An example is an unidntified Massachsusettes boy, probably in the 1880s. A Pennsylvania boy looks to be 4-5 years old. We notice 4-year old Gordon Bently wearing a simple but bodly detailed dress in 1879. Here there were various factors involved, but family conventions were very strong as were social class factors. In addition to dresses, we see a lot of boys in the late 19th century wearing kilt suits and after the turn-of-the 20th century wearing tunic suits. A shift to breeching boys a little earlier may have resulted from the Fauntleroy craze. We believe that social class factors were involved here. Boys from working-class families were most likely to be breeched by age 4. Boys from affluent families were more likely to be still wearing dresses. Boys at this age had few contacs outside the family. Perhaps they had a few neighborhood friends, but most boys until old enough for school spent almost all their time at home with family. There were very few outside activities for boys this age. Some may have tagged along after older bothers. We note both plain and fancy dresses. A good example of a plain dress is an unidentified Philadelphia boy, probably in the 1880s (figure 1).

Prevalence

Many parents who did not breech boys at age 3, did so at age 4. The photographic record shows that age 4 was a mixed age as far as boys wearing dresses. We see quite a few 4 year old wearing dresses or by the 1870s the related skirted garment, kilt suits. But we also see many boys who have been breeched and are wearing suits of various kinds. It is difficult to assess the prevalence. We definitely see fewer boys wearing dresses at age 4. We would say that most boys were breeched at age 4 in the sence of the majority. There were still a substantial number of 4 year olds. We see many boys who have been breeched, but there are also many boys who have not yet been breeched. There are numerous portraits showing boys that had not yet been breeched. We would say the boys not yet breeched were a minority, but they were still large numbers. An example is an unidntified Massachsusettes boy, probably in the 1880s. A Pennsylvania boy looks to be 4-5 years old. We notice 4-year old Gordon Bently wearing a simple but boldly detailed dress in 1879.

Chronology

The number of 4-year olds still wearing dresses seem to have varied chronologically. We are not sure how to assess the numbers. We do not have a good chronological picture. There are a relatively small number of paintings from the early-19th century. Photograpgy did not appear until the 1840s and the nummber of images from the 940s is limited. There are more images from the 1950s, but images show mostly very young boys wearing dresses. Beginnung in the 1860s as a result of the CDV we have a much larger number of images. We have found some images that look like 4-year olds, but wehave found more from the 1870s and 80s. We are not yet sure how to interpret this. It could be that rising levels of affluence increased the number of boys kept in dresses, especially older boys. But our archive is still too limited to draw any firm conclusions.

Activities

Age 4 was still a pre-school year so the boys were mostly at home being looked after by mother. There were no nursery schools at the time. Boys at this age had few contacs outside the family. Perhaps they had a few neighborhood friends, but most boys until old enough for school spent almost all their time at home with family. There were very few outside activities for boys this age. Some may have tagged along after older bothers.

Family Trends

There were no definitive rules about the age at wgich boys were breeched. This varied from family to family. Here the mother's own experiences were an important factor. But we believe there were other factors. We thinkn that social-class factors were important, but we can not yet substantiate that. We do not know if other demographic patterns may have affected family trends. There may have been a variety of factors involved, but family conventions were very strong as were social class factors. We believe that social class factors were involved here. Boys from working-class families were most likely to be breeched by age 4. Boys from affluent families were more likely to be still wearing dresses.

Garments

In addition to dresses, we see a lot of boys in the late 19th century wearing kilt suits and after the turn-of-the 20th century wearing tunic suits. A shift to breeching boys a little earlier may have resulted from the Fauntleroy craze.

Dress Types

We note both plain and fancy dresses. A good example of a plain but fashiomable dress is an unidentified Philadelphia boy, probably in the 1880s (figure 1). As it is white we doubklt it was for everyday wear around the house. We note both fancier dresses and dresses which were plainer and showed more wear. These differences are interesting both for stylistic reasons and becauuse they suggest how the dress was bein worn. Fancy dresses were presumably for special occassions, including formal events. We believe that paliner dresses were more common for boys than girls. But this was up to the mother and some boys wore dresses just as fancy as the girls. Plainer dresses were more likely to be worn for everyday around the house. Young children are of course very messy and mothes, even in the very formal late-19th century would hesitated to have boys wear fancy dresses done in expensice fabric for everyday wear.

Created: 10:28 PM 5/20/2008
Last updated: 5:13 AM 12/11/2010