Wigs were de rigueur in Europe from the middle of the 17th century to the end of the 18th. Their popularity is commonly attributed to their practical benefits for personal hygiene: supposedly it was much easier to control headlice by shaving one’s hair and replacing it with a wig. I’m wondering if there is any proof that people wore them for this reason, or if it’s just wild speculation. My reasons for doubting it are as follows:
[ul]
[li]It was not uncommon for the wigs themselves to be infested with lice, as this diary entry by Samuel Pepys attests. Was it any easier back then to delouse a wig than to delouse a scalp? Even in modern times people have trouble getting rid of lice from textiles and other places they may be lurking.[/li][li]Just how short would you need to keep your hair in order to avoid lice? Did wig-wearing men shave their heads smooth every day? Wouldn’t this have been awfully inconvenient?[/li][li]Wigs disappeared from fashion around the end of the 18th century, though I’m not aware of any advances in scalp hygiene around that time which would have reduced the incidence of lice infestation. Was the nit comb invented around this time, or were people simply willing to sacrifice freedom from lice for the latest hair fashions?[/li][/ul]
A previous thread on historical wigs seems to contain a lot of uninformed speculation about how short the hair was worn under them, along with vague and unsupported references to “poor hygiene” in the 16th and 17th centuries and “improved hygiene” in the 18th century. Does anyone have any actual facts or contemporary sources indicating whether wigs were worn to prevent lice, and if so, why there was no further need to do so after the 18th century?
People just didn’t bathe in those days. This is just speculation, but since the wigs were powdered, they may have been worn to mask the smell of unwashed hair, sweat and dirt. Also, for upper class men, the dress was foppish and feminine, so the wig sort of completed the picture. The idea of germs being the cause of disease gained traction in the 1800s with Pasteur’s work, so there would have been an increase in hygiene taking place.
But does that have anything to do with headlice? As far as I know bathing, and even shampooing, is not an effective treatment for them.
Actually, people didn’t start powdering their wigs until a century or two after they first became popular. So this can’t be the reason why people started wearing them in the first place.
I’m sorry, but could you point to the sources for the claims in that thread? I see only three posts with citations: One of them claims that hair was shaved, and gives “historical movies I’ve seen” as the citation; the poster is at least courteous enough to question the reliability of this source. Another is someone’s vague recollection of a radio show which discussed how someone who may or may not have been Samuel Pepys once found small animals in the wig he received from a wigmaker; fortunately this claim need not be fact-checked as I’ve already located a diary entry from Pepys which more or less contains this anecdote. And the last one, from you, contains a lengthy quote from Wikipedia which, while it makes a number of factual claims about the very things I’m querying in this thread, fails to support any of them with sources.
I remember one article mentioning that wigs in England decreased when a high tax was put on them (introduced because it would target mostly the upper class and a luxury item).