Just to clear up that little point...

[desperance]

...the right to spoil two catskins a half is a privilege extended to pupils at Rugby School, as noted in "Tom Brown's Schooldays". A half is a half-year, a term of education; and a catskin is a top hat, which was uniform at the time. I tell myself - firmly - that it does not literally mean that the hat was covered with the skin of a cat, any more than moleskin trousers were made of the skins of moles. Or indeed any more than catgut strings were made from the guts of cats.

If I am wrong about this, I do not need to be told, okay? Let me hug my illusions. Cuddlingly. I like 'em.

And no, I'm not using a cat-icon on this post; for lo, it is nothing to do with cats. Have I not said so?

Comments

[syntinen-laulu.livejournal.com]

Sorry to butt in, so long after the fair, and sorry to bring distressing news; I have just stumbled on this thread while Googling for the reference in Tom Brown's Schooldays. Yes, those hats were made of cat fur. Expensive top hats were made of silk plush; cheap ones were made of fur felt. Nowadays fur felt for hats is made of rabbit fur (silk top hats are no longer made, alas - they are very plushy and handsome), but in the 19th century cat fur was used. In 17th to 19th century towns cat skins were always in demand, either for feltmaking or for cheap fur trimmings. If you had (or found) a dead cat you could sell its skin to a dealer; you wouldn't get much for it, maybe a couple of pennies, but it was better than nothing. Hence the proverb "more than one way to skin a cat" (don't believe anyone who tells you that's about skinning catfish! It isn't) and one you don't hear much these days, "what can you have of a cat but her skin?" meaning "you can't get more value out of anything than it intrinsically has".