Читать книгу Pogonologia; Or, A Philosophical and Historical Essay on Beards - J.-A. Dulaure - Страница 5

Table of Contents

IF we were well persuaded that most new fashions are invented to hide some secret imperfections of the body, or to satisfy the avidity of shopkeepers, it is most likely we should consider it of less importance; for, if we seek the cause of these changes, we find in general it proceeds from the ingenious ardour of a milliner, the bad shape of some fine lady, the long visage of a second, and the broad foot of a beau parson.

The first woman that ever wore a fardingale wanted to conceal the indiscreet fruit of her gallantry. This sort of hoop, of a cylindrical form, entirely concealed the waist. In a little time all the ladies followed this example; and every fashionable fair-one appeared as if her lover had brought her in the same situation as she that introduced the fashion.

The great large ruffs, which looked like a glory about the people’s necks, in the time of Henry IV.^[2] were invented in Spain to hide the hernia gutturis, a very common disorder among the Spaniards. Though the French had not this disorder, they eagerly adopted the new fashion.

It is most likely the fear of being sunburnt, or else that refined coquetry which conceals from public view what it means to raise a desire for, determined the ladies to cover their faces with a mask of black velvet. No lady was seen abroad without her mask. Tradition says nothing of the cause of this fashion; but there is no doubt but ugliness and decrepitness invented another sort of mask, which our old tabbies still continue the use of: this is a plaster of white lead and vermillion, laid on so thick, that it represents much better the ruddy countenance of a drunken sot, than the fine lively complexion of a beautiful damsel.

In the reign of Francis II. a tunbellied Person of high rank turned the heads of all the French. Every body was mad to have, not only a great belly, but likewise a very large false rump. At present, our ladies have not revived the fashion of great bellies; on the contrary, it has been remarked that they have a great dislike to them: but one of them, who had a bad shape, appearing with an enormous rump and hips, all the rest would have false ones; and all the well made women concealed their shape, as the others did their defects.

2.Henry IV. of France was the contemporary of Queen Elizabeth. T.

Geffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou, one of the most accomplished and handsome men of his time, had the misfortune to have a large excrescence on the tip of his great toe; in order to conceal this imperfection, and walk easy, he had some shoes made with points turned up of a sufficient length not to pinch him. No sooner had he these shoes, than every one was anxious to be like the count. This fashion was so much followed, and had such a run, that the different degrees of rank were known by the length of the points of the shoes. Those of the common people were six inches long, those of citizens a foot; but those of gentlemen, lords, and princes, were never less than two feet; from whence came the French proverb Etre fur un grand pied (to be in easy circumstances). These points to the shoes increased so in length, that it was feared lest they should affect public order and the established religion: sermons were preached and ordinances issued against them; the clergy anathematized them, and Charles V. expressly forbade their being worn.

Thus, every one appeared as if he had an excrescence on the tip of his great toe; so likewise, in most fashions, every one seems desirous of concealing imperfections that he has not.

Fashions have for a long time been considered as of great importance among the French, and their neighbours have often reproached them with it.^[3] If a new fashion appear, the whole nation is in an uproar: all are infatuated, mad: every one is in a hurry to have it; the contagion soon reaches all ranks; they seem as if they could never be soon enough more ridiculous than they were the day before. Taste is out of the question; ’tis opinion alone that decides. Were the new fashion ever so silly, not a word would be said against it, because of this sole and powerful reason: It is what is worn at present.

3.Baptist Mantuan, an Italian and Latin Poet, said of the French:

——Cito mobile pectus

Cordaque largitus, rerum sitibunda novarum.

Another Italian said, about two centuries ago: E Natione la Franceze che mai persiste ne sta ferme in una sorte d’habito, ma lo varie secondo i caprici. De gli habiti antichi & moderni.

The motive that actuates people to be at the height of the mode, is the vanity of being thought a person of consequence. How many are there who are penetrated with respect at the sight of a fine coat! how many are there who owe all the consideration they have to their outward appearance, and who might justly say: Ah! my coat, how much I am obliged to you! Their whole merit is in their wardrobe; and there is many a Frenchman, who, had he but that to his mind, would envy no one.

One sole form of a coat, let it be ever so elegant, would be insufficient to preserve the veneration of so many stupid asses; their idol must be differently set off every day: without that precaution their admiration would soon be over; this perhaps is what most contributes to keep up the love of novelty among the French. Peter the Great, emperor of Russia, was struck, when at Paris, with this national character; not being much accustomed to see a variety of dresses, he said, on seeing a lord in a different coat every day: Surely that man is dissatisfied with his tailor.

Why should we not have a dictionary Of Fashions? Surely it would be of as much use as many others. The different denominations which we give them would not be the least entertaining part of the work. Among the names of old hoops we find the Gourgandine (the flirting hoop), the Boute-en-train (the leading-mode hoop), the Tatez-y (the groping hoop), the Culbute (the flying-top-over-tail hoop), &c. Hats and shoes would likewise afford long articles. Then again there would be the great wigs worn in the reign of Lewis XIV.^[4] and which so much employed the attention of the courtiers and periwig-makers of that age: not only the head, but half the body was buried under this heap of curls. It was then only the outside of a Frenchman’s head that was ridiculous; now-a-days things are changed.

I would not have forgotten under the word canon the blunder of a German author, who, having translated Moliere’s Précieuses ridicules, and intending to bring this piece out at one of the theatres of his nation, was confoundedly puzzled how to explain this word. It never entered his brain that a canon was a piece of muslin worn round the knee. After maturely considering the passage, he resolved that Mascarille should have a brace of pistols in his pocket, which he was to pull out when he asks: How do you like my canons?

4.The contemporary of Charles II. of England.T.

The article of ladies’ head-dresses would fill a volume entire: we should find, that, in proportion as they have taken from their heads, they have added to their hips. The enormous hoop and the large high head-dress have alternately succeeded each other; these last have lately sunk under their own weight, if I may be allowed the expression, in order to let the great hips and false rumps be in vogue. The ladies are determined not to lose any of their bulk, so much are they persuaded that their merit is in proportion to the space they occupy in the world.

In one of those revolutions which ladies’ heads have suffered, a lady wrote to her friend as follows.

Many a short beauty complains and grows hot;

And to add to her height, on consulting the stars,

Learns from them that by raising the pattens she wears,

She’ll recover the loss felt by low’ring her top.

So much for the mode

Which (however absurd)

Sets all Paris Ladies in motion,

But the men’s heads are still

The same (if they will)

As they were: not the least variation.^[5]

5.Letter from the Lady of Lassay to the Duchess of ——.

Fashion and etiquette are nearly allied; but they must not be confounded: etiquette is as stable as the other is changeable. The motives that produce them are not the same; the one springs from self-love, the other from affectation. Etiquette seems to have been invented by a desire to govern, and fashion by a wish to please. Therefore, the former is much better observed by people of ripe years, and the latter by young ones. If etiquette is lasting and fashion unstable, this definition comprehends probably the sole cause of it.

People change the make and colour of their dress twenty times in a year; fashion may be looked upon as their play thing; but the laws of etiquette return as constantly as the season. Though it is often cold at Whitsunday, taffeties must be put on; and at All-saints day, though it is sometimes very hot, every body puts on satins and velvets, and no one is seen without a muff.

At court, among the great, etiquette reigns despotically; and its power diminishes according to the distance from the centre of sovereignty. The unambitious man, living at his ease on a moderate fortune, has only a sufficient acquaintance with etiquette to turn it into ridicule; while the man who aims at consideration, or any kind of power, submits to its laws, and often sacrifices his reason to it.

There are several states of life in which etiquette gives a consequence to him who follows it. A tradesman, for instance, to appear as he ought, should have his head shaved and wear a round wig; physicians and surgeons too should do the same. Who, in this enlightened age, would put the least confidence in a physician who wears his own hair, were it the finest in the world? A wig, certainly, can’t give him science, but it gives him the appearance, and that is every thing now-a-days.^[6]

6.Strip a physician of his wig, gold headed cane, ruffles, and diamond ring: what will he have left?

Fashion, while it vivifies commerce, encourages luxury. These are the two sides on which it should be politically viewed; it brings together the different conditions of society, which birth or opinion had separated. This is a moral good perhaps; but it confounds ranks, (which common honesty is interested in distinguishing,) by not leaving the smallest difference between a woman of virtue and a frail sister. In days of yore these two conditions so very different were kept distinct by sumptuary laws. In 1420, prostitutes were forbidden, by a sentence of the parliament of Paris, to wear gold girdles, which was the characteristical ornament of good morals. I’m led to think, it would be impossible now-a-days to put such a law into execution, because it is as difficult to distinguish a virtuous woman, by her manner, from a frail sister, as to draw a just line of demarcation between two states.