Frock (pronounced frok)
(1) A gown or dress worn by a female, consisting of a skirt
and a cover for the upper body.
(2) A loose outer garment worn by peasants and workers; a
smock.
(3) A coarse outer garment with large sleeves, worn by
monks in some religious orders; a habit.
(4) In naval use, a sailor's jersey.
(5) In military use, an undress regimental coat (now less
common).
(6) To clothe (somebody) in a frock.
(7) To make (somebody) a cleric (to invest with priestly
or clerical office).
(8) In US military use, to grant to an officer the right
to the title and uniform of a rank before the formal appointment is conferred.
1300–1350: From the Middle English frok, frokke and froke
and twelfth century Old French froc
(a monk’s habit; clothing, dress), from the Frankish hrok and thought probably related to the Old Saxon and Old High
German hroc (mantle, coat) which
appears to have spawned the Old Norse rokkr,
the Old English rocc, and Old Frisian
rokk.
Most etymologists seem to think it’s most likely all ultimately derived
from the primitive rug or krek (to spin or weave); the alternative
view suggests a link with the Medieval Latin hrocus, roccus and rocus
(all of which described types of coats) which they speculate was the source of
the Old French from, again from the Old Frankish hroc and hrok (skirt,
dress, robe), from the Proto-Germanic hrukkaz
(robe, jacket, skirt, tunic). That does
seem at least plausible given the existence of the Old High German hroch and roch (skirt, dress, cowl), the German rock (skirt, coat), the Saterland Frisian Rok (skirt), the Dutch rok
(skirt, petticoat), the Old English rocc (an
over-garment, tunic, rochet), the Old Norse rokkr
(skirt, jacket) and Danish rok (garment). Another alternative (more speculative still) traces
it from the Medieval Latin floccus, from
the Classical Latin floccus (flock of
wool). The meaning "outer garment
for women or children" was from the 1530s while frock-coat (also as
frock-cost & frockcoat) dates from the 1820s, the garment itself fading
from fashion a century later although revivals have been attempted every few
decades, aimed at a rather dandified market ignored by most. Frock & frocking are nouns & verbs,
frocked is a verb and frockless, frocklike & frockish are adjectives; the
noun plural is frocks.
Frocks and Brass Hats
The phrase “frocks and brass hats” was coined in the
years immediately following World War I (1914—1918) in reaction to the large volume
of memoirs, autobiographies and histories published by some of the leading
politicians and military leaders involved in the conflict, the phrase derived
from (1) the almost universal habit of statesmen of the age wearing frock coats
and (2) the hats of senior military personnel being adorned with gold braid,
emulating the physical polished brass of earlier times. Many of the books were polemics, the soldiers
and politicians writing critiques of the wartime conduct of each other. Politicians no longer wear frock coats and
although some of the hats of military top brass still feature a bit of braid,
it’s now less often seen. However, the
term persists although of late, academics studying institutional conflict in
government have extended it to “frock coats, mandarins and brass hats”,
reflecting the increase in importance of the part played by public servants,
especially the military bureaucracy, in such matters. So structurally, the internecine squabbles
within the creature of the state have changed, the most obvious causes the twin
threads of (1) the politicization of the upper reaches of the public service
and (2) the creation of so many organs of government as corporate entities
which enable the frocks (the politicians) to distance themselves from unpalatable
policies and decisions by asserting (when it suits them), the “independence” of
such bodies. Of course, such
functionaries will find their “independence” counts for little if the frocks
start to feel the heat; then brutally the axe will fall, just as it did on some
of the Great War generals.
Men in frock coats: The “Big Four” at the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), outside the Foreign Ministry headquarters, Quai d'Orsay, Paris. Left to right: David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922), Vittorio Orlando (1860–1952; Italian prime minister 1917-1919), Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; French prime minister 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) and Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924; US president 1913-1921).
At the time, nothing quite like or on the scale of the
Paris Peace Conference had ever been staged.
Only Orlando anticipated the future of fashion by preferring a lounge
suit to a frock coat but he would be disappointed by the outcome of the
conference, leaving early and to his dying day content his signature never
appeared on the treaty’s final declaration, a document he regarded as flawed. Not even John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US
president 1961-1963) or Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) on their
tours of European capitals received anything like the adulation Wilson enjoyed
when he arrived in Paris in 1919. His
successors however were there more as pop-culture figures whereas Wilson was
seen a harbinger of a "lasting peace", a thing of much significance
to the French after four years of slaughter.
Ultimately Wilson's hopes would be dashed (in the US Senate as well as
at the Quai d'Orsay's conference table) although, historians will likely
continue to conclude his Nobel Peace Prize (1919) was more deserved than the
one awarded to Obama (apparently on the basis he wasn't George W Bush (George
XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009)).
Lloyd George's ambitions in 1919 were more tempered by realism and he
too regarded the terms of final document as a mistake, prophesying that because
of the punitive terms imposed on the defeated Germany: “We shall have to fight another war again in 25 years' time.” In that, he was correct, even if the expected
wait was a little optimistic. Only
Clemenceau had reasons to be satisfied with what was achieved although, has his
instincts been allowed to prevail, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1920)
would have been more onerous still. It
was the Englishman Eric Geddes (1875–1937; First Lord of the Admiralty (the civilian head of
the Royal Navy) 1917-1919) who coined the phrase "...squeeze the German lemon until the pips
squeak." but it's doubtful that sentiment was ever far from
Clemenceau's thoughts.
In idiomatic use, “frock” has proved as serviceable as the garment. A “frock flick” is a film or television production noted for the elaborate costuming and most associated with costume dramas (typically sixteenth-nineteenth centuries) in which the frocks of the rich are depicted as big & extravagant. To “frock up” is used by young women to describe “dressing-up” for some event or occasion and in the (male) gay community to refer either to much the same thing or cross-dressing. A “cock in a frock” (“cocks in frocks” the collective) is a type of trans-woman (one without the relevant medical modification) and what used to be called a transvestite (a once technical term from psychiatry now (like “tranny”) thought derogatory except in historic use). A “smock frock” was a garment of coarse, durable material which was worn over other clothing and most associated with agricultural and process workers (and usually referred to either as “smock” or “frock”. In fashion there’s the “sun frock” (one of lightweight material which exposes more than the usual surface area of skin, often in a strappy or strapless style. A “housefrock” was a piece of everyday wear form women which was self-explanatory: a simple, practical frock to be worn “around the house” and well suited to wear while performing “housework”. “Underfrock” was a now archaic term for a slip or petticoat. The A coat with long skirts, worn by men, now only on formal occasions. The “frock coat” (also listed by some as the “Prince Albert coat”) is characterized by a knee-length skirt cut all around the base, ending just above the knee. Among the middle & upper classes, it was popular during the Victorian and Edwardian eras (1830s–1910s) although they were widely into the 1920s. Although some fashion houses may have had lines with detail differences, there was really no difference between a “cocktail dress” and a “cocktail frock” except the latter seems now to be used only humorously.
Variations on the theme of the cocktail dress: Lindsay Lohan in vintage Herve Leger at Arrivals For Cartier’s Declare Your Love Day VIP cocktail reception, Cartier Store, New York, June 2006 (left) and in black Dion Lee cocktail dress with illusion panels and an off-the-shoulder silhouette, January 2013 (right).
A cocktail dress does however differ from a cocktail gown because they straddle the gap between daywear and ball gowns. Intended to be worn at formal or semi-formal occasions (classically of course, the “cocktail party”) including wedding receptions or dinner parties, they’re typically shorter in length than a gown, the hemline falling somewhere between just above the knee to mid-calf. There’s no exact template for a cocktail dress but they should be identifiable by their simplicity and elegance, thus the utility of their versatility. While not exactly post-modern, they appear in many fabrics and just about any style including empire, bandage, A-line or sack, featuring a range of necklines, sleeve lengths, and embellishments. Historically, befitting the sophistication once associated with the cocktail party, the dresses were characterized by modesty and severity of line, the classic motif the tailored silhouette, relatively uncluttered by details. Vogue magazine labeled the accessories (shoes, jewelery, a clutch and sometimes a wrap) the “cocktail dress ensemble” but in recent decades there’s been a rise in stylistic promiscuity and some discordant elements have intruded.
A “man of the frock” is a clergyman of some description (almost always of some Christian denomination) and the apparent anomaly of nuns never being described as “women of the frock” (despite always wearing something at least frock-like) is explained presumably by all women once being assumed to wear frocks. To “defrock” (literally “to divest of a frock”) is in figurative use used widely to mean “formally to remove the rights and authority of a member of the clergy” and by extension this is casually applied also to “struck-off” physicians, lawyers etc. “Disfrock” & “unfrock” are used as synonyms of “defrock” but none actually appear in Roman Catholic canon law, the correct term being “laicization” (ie “returned to the laity). Despite the popular impression, the Vatican has revealed most acts of laicization are pursuant to the request of the priest and performed because they feel, for whatever reason, unable to continue in holy orders (ex priests marrying ex-nuns a thing and there must be some theological debate around whether they’ve been “brought together by God” or “tempted by the Devil”). Defrock dates from the 1580s in the sense of “deprive of priestly garb” and was from the fifteenth century French défroquer, the construct being from de- (used her as a negative prefix) + froque (frock) and familiar also as the verb “defrocked”. The modern English verb “frock” (supply with a frock) seems to have come into use only in the 1820s and was either a back-formation from defrock or an evolution from the noun. The verb was picked up by the military and “to frock” is used also as a jocular form of “to dress”.