new thread
Hello guys. I would have love to share with you the word contents of a vintage pro-long hair pamphlet called AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN by Phil O. Trichos (an obvious pseudonym using the greek word of Trichos which I think means hair tresses.
This was published in 1964 by Berkeley Pamphlets at 86 East Tenth Street, New York City and is one of the earliest attempt to address the topic of long hair on men. This was published during the beatnik era and in the same year as I believe the BEATLES first visited America. It is very supportive of men's rights to have long hair and vigorously advocates this.
I purchased it a few years ago from a bookseller who owned it for more then 40 years and who was also a fellow long hair.
Anyone know who the author's real identity was?
Collecting old books on many different themes is one of my hobbies and I have successfully managed to locate some interesting books and other paraphernalia on the topic of long hair.
Here's the first section:
ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN
If a man today wears his hair to the shoulders, he is immediately branded by most people as being either beatnik or crazy. And so branded, he is a modern-day outcast.
He cannot get a job, for beatniks and the insane cannot get jobs. He will not be invited to social gatherings, with his friends, unless his friends also have long hair.
The police, being naturally suspicious of a deviation from "normal" behaviour, stophim from their squad cars, motion him close, and ask him what his name, address, means of income, religious and political beliefs are. They hope, if he answers are unusual, to arrest him for vagrancy or, if he is a socialist, or an atheist, for "observation." It is interesting to note, however, that if he has a job, the police cannot find anything wrong with him, and so content themselves with asking him why he has grown his hair long. After all, isn't it reasonable that the police must know the answer to this question?
Other people do not restrain themselves to an academic curiosity. They feel that the long-haired man is some sort of threat to them.
If the long-haired man is physically weak, he may be attacked. They may wait, like Delilah did, until he is sleeping, and then sneak up to him and cut off his hair.
If that does not work, they may resort to beating him with sticks, until he is unconscious, and then they will cut his hair.
If that does not work, or if the long-haired man is stronger then they, then they must content themselves with calling him names or shouting insults at him. They may call him "beatnik", several times in order to get some rise out of him. Or, failing that, they may referring to the Blessed Lord, ask him where Mary is. Or even failing that, they might flick nickels at his ears, or throw rocks.
Most people are afraid of the long-haired man. Cars slow down, people twist their necks in order to catch a glimpse of him, and perhaps hurl an insult or two, speeding on in their car. On the street people stop dead in their tracks, open their mouths in amazement or horror, buy their eyes out, and look, in the main, as though they've seen the ghost of Azazel.
A few people, more brave than most, will stop to talk to the long-haired man, ask him why he has grown his hair, perhaps smile or wonder at his answer and move onward. These people are rare, however.
We may say without very much fear of being in error that people in general are prejudiced against men wearing long hair, and generally afraid of the man who wears his air long. I can account for unreasonable attacks and vociferous insults directed to the long-haired man in no other way.
Most people will tell you that long hair on a man is ugly. There is something about long hair on men that turns the stomach. Could this be a feeling about long hair in general? No, it could not.
Americans look at one dollar bills with a picture of a long-haired man engraved upon its surface and do not get sick. But, of course, Washington is not only the Father of our country, but there is nothing repulsive about the fact.
Many people have pictures of a long-haired Christ hanging in their bedrooms and gaze fondly at Him each night, just before they go to bed. Do they get sick? Hardly, for they believe that Christ is the Perfect Man. Yet, strangely, enough, they would be damned if they'd have a picture of a long-haired, ordinary man hanging in their bedroom.
If it may be considered that the long-haired man is obeying a longhaired Christ who said, "Fellow me," why then do many today attempt to stone him? And why,if long hair was ever considered to add dignity to manhood, as it did for the ancient Greeks and Semites do people point their fingers today and snicker under their breaths, saying that it makes a man of today look feminine?
And why is it, if long-hair is tolerated on great religious figures, illustrious philosophers, phenomenal strongmen, and historical figures, the fathers of our country, plus hordes of respected artists and others who have tried to make life of this miserable planet a little more interesting and beautiful do people look askance at the long-haired man as though he has committed some nefarious crime? (end of first section- to be continued)
AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN by Phil O. TRICHOS
PART TWO
It may come as somewhat of a surprise to know that history is loaded with more cultures where the fashion among men wearing long hair overrode the fashion of short hair. And, in those cases where short hair was the fashion, the fashion was usually associated with considerable social misery.
Most people are unaware of any meaning given to the length of the hair. They are unaware that they have set up a standard, which, if broken, releases a hostility that eventually forces the long-haired male to cut off his locks and reluctantly conform to the norms of society. It is only in extremely willful and independent individuals that the social forces which promote conformity have little or no effect.
To the usual person, however, the suggestion the he rebel and deliberately break a certain custom is viewed with a curious indulgence. Perhaps one reacts in this way because of the inculcated feeling that doing anything different, like wearing bright or "loud" clothes or long hair, exposes oneself to the criticism of ones peers. John Stuart Mill noted:
"It does not occur to them to have any inclinations except for what is customary. Thus, the mind itself is bowed to the yoke; even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is the first thing thought of; they like in crowds; they exercise choice only among things commonly done; peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct, are shunned equally with crimes: until be dint of not following their own nature they have no nature to follow; their human capacities are withered and starved; they become incapable of any strong wishes or native pleasures, and are generally without either opinions or feeling of home growth, or properly their own."
In the matter of the mind and body, the individual is supreme; no amount of criticism should defer or deter his behavior. His eccentric behavior is intrinsically important and may in the future, as in the case of most new ideas, gain acceptance by society and in some way benefit it, even if a new idear does no more then to show itself scientifically impossible or in someway unhealthy.
The ability and the will to bear the criticism of society, is a trait too often lacking in our society. If an individual does not exercise those choices he deems proper to him, make his own decision and follow his own mind to whatever conclusions it may lead, then he, as Mill says, "has no need of any other faculty then the ape-like one of imitation."
END OF PART TWO (More to come)
AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN by Phil O. TRICHOS
PART THREE
Long hair on males has been considered by various cultures at different times and places throughout history to be one of the personal symbols of adornment which denote a man's social class, fertility, sex, physical strength, vigor, beauty, gracefullness, artistic skill, wisdom, dignity and or independence from social pressures. We will examine different cultures and societies and attempt to determine what cultural or social characteristics are common to societies whose custom it is that males wear their hair long. We will also examine the meaning each culture has given to the length of the hair and attempt to derive from these meanings, a common or general expression which explains or tends to explain all the reactions people may have to the length of the hair.
Among ancient civilizations long hair was generally considered an ob ject of personal beauty. The Greeks, for instance, loved rich waving hair. In Homer, the Greeks are repeatedly spoken of as the "long-haired Greeks," and to almost every character in the Iliad and Odyssey some epithet is applied in allusion to the beauty of long hair.
Other ancient peoples observed the custom of letting the hair grow, because they enjoyed its natural beauty. According to Herodotus the Babylonians wore their hair long and bound it with a turban. Assyrians and other Semites wore their hair at shoulder length. The Assyrians especially paid particular attention to the adorning of their persons. Besides wearing numerous ornaments, they most carefully and elaborately plaited their hair. The hair was parted over the forehead, and fell from behind the ears on the shoulder in a large bunch of ringlets. Among the Israelites, the hair usually hung freely at the back of the neck. A luxuriant growth of hair on the head was regarded by the Israelites as a mark of beauty and as lending dignity to manhood.
The cutting of, or loss of the hair usually had several meanings to ancient civilizations. Generally, however, the cutting of the hair meant some kind of a loss; a loss of a friend or relative through death or the loss of individual freedom and admission of dependence upon a superior or stronger power. The voluntary cutting of the hair was never used to indicate joy or happiness among ancient peoples.
The custom of cutting the hair short as a sign of mourning was practiced by the Greeks, Moabites, Ammonites, Edonites, Arabians, Babylonians, Philistines, and Egyptians. It will be remembered that Achilles made a sacrifice of his yellow hair at the funeral pyre of Patroclus, in honor of the friend he loved. Achilles also dedicated his hair to the river god Spercheus on condition of his safe return from Troy.
In Greece from the time of the Persian Wars, even though the men wore their hair shorter then before, it was not cut too short for that was the mark of the slave.
Spartan boys always had their cut short, much like today's crew-cut, but as soon as they reached puberty they let it grow long. The custom of the Athenians was different.
They wore their hair long in childhood; bu the youths cut off their flowing locks around the age of seven, and as a religious ceremony, consecrated them to some god. On attaining the age of manhood, they again let the hair grow.
The Egyptians as a nation were all shaven and shorn. They even shaved the heads of young children, leaving only certain locks as an emblem of youth. All classes among the people, the slaves imported from foreign countries not excepted, were compelled to submit to the tonsure.
Caesar recognized the humbling and humiliating effect of having ones long hair cut off and he used it to an advantage; he always ordered the long hair of the conquered races to be shaven off in submission to the Roman arms. Perhaps he believed that humiliated man was far less likely to resist the authority of the Empire than a proud man. Thus, the shortly cropped hair at that time came to symbolize subservience to the state.
During the decline of the Empire, whenever a province revolted, the patriot leaders urged the adoption of the fashion of wearing long hair as a mark of freedom and independence. Holingshed, the historian, observed much the same thing about the Norman Conquest of England.
Among the Anglo-Saxons in the middle ages it was considered a great disgrace to have the hair cut entirely off; to have done so was a mode of punishment inflicted upon criminals. The Anglo-Saxon warriors, on the other hand, wore a profusion of hair, and parted on the forehead, it fell naturally to the shoulders. Aneurin, the Welsh Bard, says that the warriors were as proud of their long hair as women, decking it with ornaments and beads. The Danes, like the Anglo-Saxons, also took great pride in their hair. The English Women, we are told, were not a little captivated with some Danish officers, who especially delight in combing and tending their hair; and we read of one Harold with the fair locks, whose thick ringlets reached his girdle.
During the early Middle Ages men usually wore their hair long, especially if they were members of the upper classes. A typical description of the hair styles worn by the upper classes was: "the hair was usually cut with a long, curled fringe which was plastered down on the fore-head in an arrangement of curls, curling outward from the center. It was worn in ringlets reaching to just below the shoulders, and sometimes it was longer with the ends forming a loose loop of curl."
(TO BE CONTINUED )
AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN by Phil O. TRICHOS
PART FOUR
This particular style lasted from the tenth century to the time of the Crusades. It is believed that one noticeable and lasting effect of the Crusades on fashion was that of shorter cut hair. Long and elaborately curled hair was found to be unsuitable by the Crusaders for their long journeys into warmer lands and thus the shorter mode was introduced and remained the most popular style during the thirteenth century.
After the thirteenth century, however, men again wore their hair long, sometimes almost to the shoulders. This style continued until approximately 1530, when men again began to wear their hair short.
This period of short hair for men lasted about 60 years, from 1530 to 1590 when the Lovelock came into style. The Lovelock was a wisp or curl left to dangle over the forehead. After 1650, the Lovelock, too went out of style and men began to wear wigs.
Wigs were still worn long, but very long wigs, such as the full-bottomed wig, were reserved by custom for legal and ecclesiastical dignitaries and by members of the medical profession. Cut wigs, which were cut short and uncurled were worn by the working classes. Thus, even in the styles if wigs, the relationship between long hair and aristocracy were evident.
There were a few individuals who refused to conform with the custom of shaving their heads and wearing wigs. About the middle of the 18th century it was usually the case that English artisans wore their own hair, if not a wig. About 1765, this rebellion spread to the younger men of the upper classes who also began to wear the natural hair. Thirty years after this rebellion of the younger men, a tax was put on all hair powder which led to the final abandonment of wigs as a generally accepted custom. After this abandonment, the hair of the men again grew long and natural, and in different styles to suit the individual from "Vandyke curls" to Brutus heads - long crops of hair with a wind-blown dishevelled appearance.
Thus, the fashion of the hair, and more especially the length of it, also had among ancient civilizations a social and political significance. This is, among socially oppressed people the hair was usually kept cut short. Among the less socially oppressed, the hair was kept long and considered by the men and women to be beautiful in itself
END OF PART FOUR (To be continued)
AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN by Phil O. TRICHOS
PART FIVE
Long hair on men is frequently regarded as having some spiritual significance. This feeling is probably the result of its rapid growth and hence is regarded as a special seat of life. In primitive magic, possession of a man's hair was esteemed a potent means of getting and retaining hold on him. In folk tales a man's soul or strength is sometimes represented as bound up with his hair, and that when it is cut off he dies or grows weak. So the natives of Amboyna used to think that their strength was in their hair and would desert them if it were shorn.
A criminal under torture in a Dutch Court of Amboyna persisted in denying his guilt of a crime till his hair was cut off, when he immediately confessed. One man, who was tried for murder, endured without flinching the utmost ingenuity of his torturers till he saw the surgeon standing with a pair of shears. On asking what this was for, and being told that it was to cut his hair, he begged they would not do it, and confessed all. In subsequent cases, when torture failed to wring a confession from a prisoner, the Dutch authorities made a practice of cutting off his hair.
The American Indians, as part of their puberty rights, cut a lock of hair from the crown of a boy's head and dedicated it to Thunderbird, their tutelary of war. When the hair grew out again, it was parted, braided, and war honors worn on it. This lock of hair was taken when the dead enemy was scalped as a vehicle which transported the magic power or vital strength of the man to the victor.
Long hair on males has also been long associated with holiness or divinity. The Old Testament advises long hair for holy men in no uncertain terms: "He shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow." (Numbers 6:5) It was believed at this time that long hair represented the symbolic bond of union between man and God. In the story of Samson, for instance, Samson's hair was regarded not as the source of his strength, but as a bond of union between himself and God, from whom he received his phenomenal strength. When Samson's hair was cut, the bond between himself and God was severed, and hence he lost his strength until his hair grew back.
If an important part of life was conceived as residing in the hair, as in primitive magic, we can see why the hair of consecrated persons was so cared for. From Ezekiel 44:20 we gather that certain priesthoods, like those of Egypt, shaved their heads; others, like Samuel, let the hair grow long. Profanation was avoided on the one hand by preventing its growth and on the other by keeping it untouched.
Since this practice of wearing long hair was intimately related with the with the worship of pagan deities, it was forbidden by the Mosaic Law (Deut. 14:1), and especially for Israelite priests (Lev. 21:5). But when, in subsequent centuries, it lost its pagan and idolitrous significance it was no longer denounced by the prophets and the practice was slowly but naturally resumed.
In many places in the Old Testament, reference is frequently made to the feeling that the cutting of the hair implied some kind of a punishment. In Jeremiah 7:29, for instance, it says "Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem, and cast it away , and take up a lamentation in high places: for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath." In Nehemiah 13:25 plucking off the hair is used as a punishment by man inflicted on man: "And I contended with them and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair..."
The classical example of the association of long hair with divinity, however, to most people is the example of Jesus Christ, who, regarding the customs concerning hair styles, followed the commandment of his Father and "let the locks of the hair of his head grow."
It is only in the New Testament that long hair on men is discouraged, and by none other then Saint Paul the Apostle. In a letter to the Corinthians (1:11:14) St. Paul makes the following observation and distinction: "Doth not even nature teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
The purpose of Paul's teachings, we are told by Biblical scholars, was to bring about the complete separation of Christianity from heathen society. In his first letter to the church at Cornith, Paul goes on, page after page in vituperative prose, condemning the congregation for clinging to the customs of Roman society. In making his attack on long haired men, Paul hoped to increase the gap between Christianity and Judaism, since the Lord had made it perfectly clear in the Pentateuch that holy men were to be long haired. Indeed, the most powerful heor in Judaism was one of those long haired "Nazarites," Samson.
Had Jesus and his cousin John been alive at this time, they would probably have ordered Paul excommunicated. They were both advocates of the Essenes group of Judaism, which clung to the long haired teaching of the Old Testament.
Paul's scheme to ride the world of holy men by eliminating the bond of union between man and God spread like hell-fire throughout the jurisdiction of the church.
The clergy were naturally the first to get the shears for they were obliged to the church for their souls. But is was a no-mean task for the church to convert the entire male human race to near baldness. Again and again the denunciations of the clergy were directed against the practice of wearing the long hair, but with only partial results; the old Teutonic love of flowing locks was too strong to be extinguished by the threatenings of the church. Frantic councils were held at Limoges, in 1031, by Gregory VII in 1073, and again at Rouen in 1095 on this much-discussed sin. Anselm, the archbishop of Canberbury, refused his benediction to those who would not cut their hair. Serlo, the bishop of Seez when Henry was in Normandy, took the matter in his own hands, and, during one of his sermons, docked the king and all his courtiers on the spot. St. Wulstan, bishop of Worchester, snipped off a lock of hair whenever anyone with long hair knelt to receive his blessing, and threw it in their prostrated face, bidding them to cut of the rest or they would burn in hell.
In France, the denunciations of the clergy were as little heeded as in England. Louis VII, however, sacrificed his hair to save his soul; he shaved himself as close as monk and so disgusted his pleasure-loving queen, Eleanor of Guienne, by his denuded aspect and asceticism that she soon divorced him. Such are the wages of sin.
END OF PART FIVE. (one more part to go!)
AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN by Phil O. TRICHOS
PART SIX
Nowadays, the custom of wearing the hair shortly cropped seems firmly established. It is generally believed that the crew-cut looks collegian, efficient and athletic, while the long-haired male is primarily considered to be a beatnik.
Yet, the associations go beyond this. A recent survey conducted among a group of college students showed that the crew-cut is associated with the military, conformity, financial success, and "neatness". The long-haired male, however, had all sorts of romantic and sexual associations. It seems that once the initial shock or "repulsiveness" of the long-hair wears off, all the associations of the ancients return in full force: that long hair embodied wisdom, divinity, creativity, strength, freedom, and a great deal of sexuality; while a certain sort of sterility or moribund aspect seems to cluster about the crew-cut.
Most people still do not recognize these feeling - long repressed or suppressed by society and the result is a hostility towards the long-haired man which is really quite out of proportion to the natural beauty of long hair. Nevertheless, hair can't get much shorter, and so must get longer. Perhaps someday soon our natural feeling for long hair will return and we shall again be able to enjoy the bounteous and beautiful lock of a Milton or an Apollo.
END OF FINAL PART SIX.
Hope you enjoy. It was a wet day where I am so I thought it would be a good time to write this up. cheers, Duncan
That was a great read, Duncan! Thanks very much for posting it! All of that history is really interesting.
Joey
Many thanks for that, Duncan.
It's hard for us today to appreciate just how revolutionary long hair on dudes was back in 1964. And amazing to realise that it had become almost ubiquitous on young men in the Western world within only three or four years after that was published.
Damon
Never mind that i've got long hair and have worked for the same
company now for 26+ years.
i've been to lots of soical gatherings, even though most of
my friends have short hair.
I should note that where I work we have lots of police who
are customers.
Now when I go to shopping many of the women have hair that is
shorter than mine.
This is a real treasure of longhair history... thanks so much for taking the time to post this here!
--Val
Duncan,
That was an extremely well-written document that captured much of what it is to be a longhaired male. Do you know if this can be found all in one place somewhere on the internet? I would like to create a link to it.
Jason
Hello Jason, I agree that this work should be preserved for more people to be able to read it. Unfortunately no link to the work exists on the internet. I typed all of this up by hand over 3-4 hours on a wet cold day and posted the contents here. There are a few typos and photos of the original pamphlet and pages would be better for people to read. I have sent you a private message through Facebook with some ideas on how best to achieve this.
Cheers, Duncan
Yeah. I looked through pages and pages of google to find it with no luck. This is the only archived and typed copy of it on the internet. Just a suggestion, but we should move this to either a new site altogether or a new page on a current linked website and add a link for this writing on our links page. In the mean time, I'm gonna try to find myself a hard copy.
Hello Jarvis,
I agree with you that it would be a good thing to link this anonymous author's work onto a website.
When I bought the softcover pamphlet AN ESSAY ON THE LONG-HAIRED MAN it cost me US$90.00 but was worth it.
It's quite a tiny booklet on long hair history and would fit inside your back pocket of your jeans and hid out of sight there.
That was nearly 5 years ago. I have looked for other copies since then and there just haven't been any. It is extremely rare. I am an active rare book hunter and believe me have look everywhere on the net.
Here's an excellent substitute which you will not regret ever owning. It's also quite cheap to get second hand and you will get a fantastic account of the history of attitudes to hair length down through the ages on both men and women and a section covering the public attitudes and reactions to long hair at the time the book was written.
Check this out: ( another pro-long hair book)
THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT: Five Thousand Years of Fun and Fury over Hair.
Author: Bill SEVERN
Published by David McKay Company in New York in 1971.
125 pages with 100 + illustrations.
18 copies on AbeBooks.com (largest search website for 2nd hand books in the world)
The book is quite cheap and ranges in price from $1.99 up to $25.00. It examines in detail the history of men's hair. It is in my opinion just as good a read as the rarer one.
The last paragraph reads (this was written in 1971)
"Eventually today's longhairs will be the older generation, perhaps the ones to rise in fury against a new short-haired generation. But perhaps the revolt of the 1960's had achieved a greater victory than the right to wear hair long, a tolerance for the appearance of others, whether their hair was long, short or absent entirely, the dawning of an age when one human no longer snap-judged another by his color, accent, dress, or haircut. That could be what it was really all about. It could be."
Cheers,
Duncan
An extremely interesting read, Duncan -- and THANK YOU for posting it here!!!
Before I also forget to say something else to you: for what it's worth, I love love LOVE your new avatar pic!!!! I was also absent when you did your update pics; but have been trying my best to catch up with the board here recently -- so better late than never to say how much I enjoyed your update posts!!
Anyway, thanks again, as I always enjoy your contributions to this board!
- Ken
Thank you for sharing this, Duncan. It was a very interesting read.
Lee
Thats good stuff. Thank you so much for sharing this and putting the work into typing it up :D
Much Love and Support,
Danielle