An experience most of us can relate to is a bad haircut. You go to the hairdresser with high hopes that are soon dashed – either the first time you look in the mirror after your cut or in the days that follow. And for me, at least, the shorter the hair cut the more likely the regrets.
Regency women were no different. But for them getting their hair cut short wasn’t just one option out of many at the hair salon. It meant adopting a daring, ground-breaking style that broke the centuries-long tradition of long hair for women.
When the fad for short hair first hit the fashion scene in the 1790s, many women eagerly embraced it. And it’s easy to see why: the new look gave women welcome freedom from the elaborate hairdos of the 18th century.
Women were happy to say goodbye to powder and pomatum, along with sitting for hours as hairdressers teased and arranged their long hair over pads and cushions to make their coiffures rise to unlikely heights.
From 1800 to 1810, the style that was all the rage for women (and men, too) was à la Titus. This short cut was a more natural look, styled with hair devoid of any powder.
The grisly inspiration for this cut was the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Aristocrats condemned to death on the guillotine had their hair cut short to make it easier for the blade to do its work. Like its fashion inspiration, the à la Titus style also exposed the neck.
Besides the dictates of fashion, another reason this unpowdered style became popular in Great Britain was the Duty on Hair Powder Act passed by Parliament in 1795.
In effect, this “duty” was a tax that had to be paid by anyone purchasing hair powder. There were a few exceptions (including the royal family, some clergy and military men) but otherwise there were substantial fines for anyone who violated the act.
So, this seemed to many like a good time to ditch the hair powder. There was still a need for a bit of pomatum; scented pomades were used to create a tousled effect in the short hair, and to define curls. But powder was definitely yesterday’s news. (Never fear – hair powder has made a comeback in our time, reincarnated as dry shampoo.)
Some people were appalled by the new style. They deemed it unnatural, ugly and masculine. But that didn’t deter fashionable women from embracing the Titus cut. It must have felt liberating after the towering, time-consuming hair styles they’d worn before.
Plus, this daring new hair cut had a few variations. For those who were reluctant to chop all their hair off, tresses could be cut short in the front and sides, and left long in the back.
That may sound familiar – the look resurfaced in the 1970s-80s with the mullet, which is perhaps better known as “business in the front, party in the back.”
Jane Austen might have had something resembling a mullet. In a letter to her sister Cassandra in 1798 she explains why she loves to wear caps:
“I have made myself two or three caps to wear since I came home, and they save me a world of torment as to hair-dressing, which at present gives me no trouble beyond washing and brushing, for my long hair is always plaited up out of sight, and my short hair curls well enough to want no papering [curlers].”
Sometime later Jane confessed she’d gone ahead and had her short hair curled, but she regretted it. She thought the curls looked “hideous and longed for a snug cap” to hide them.
Jane also was critical of the Titus cut, especially the short-all-over variation. When her niece Anna boldly chopped off her locks in accordance with the latest fashion, Jane described the girl’s “sad, cropt head,” adding that the haircut was very much regretted. (I couldn’t help but wonder, though, if it was Aunt Jane or Anna who regretted the cut.)
Women who got the cut and then had second thoughts about sporting short hair found ways to modify their new look. And they had more than caps to work with.
Wigmakers did a thriving business, and in addition to wigs, fashionable women used swatches of false hair and braids to augment their shorn locks. Feathery plumes, flowers, jeweled combs and ropes of pearls also dressed up their new hairstyles.
Today we have many more choices when it comes to how we wear our hair. However, one thing remains constant from the Regency era to our own: with or without a new hairstyle, a bad hair day is always a possibility.
Sources for this post include:
Voices from the World of Jane Austen, by Malcolm Day, a David & Charles Book, F&W Publications, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, 2006.
Jane Austen’s Guide to Good Manners, Compliments, Charades and Horrible Blunders, by Josephine Ross and Henrietta Webb, published by Bloomsbury USA, New York, 2006.
The Regency Companion, by Sharon H. Laudermilk and Teresa L. Hamlin, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York and London, 1989.
“Coiffure Legendaire: the story of Titus haircut, the 1st short hairstyle,” by the editorial team of Estetica Hair Magazine, January 12, 2014.
The American Duchess Guide to 18th Century Beauty, by Lauren Stowell and Abby Cox, with Cheyney McKnight, Page Street Publishing Co., Salem Massachusetts, 2019.