Читать книгу Costume: Fanciful, Historical and Theatrical - Mrs. Aria - Страница 7

Table of Contents

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

A comparative simplicity marked the raiment of the thirteenth century, when the elaborate detail yielded place to ample folds of drapery, capacious mantles, and flowing trains. It was a simplicity, however, which cannot conscientiously be congratulated upon its economical habits, for the fabrics employed were of the richest and most sumptuous, and the breadth of the garments was prodigious. The dress which is so proudly worn by the Queen in the illustration on page 20, is characteristically splendid, and a glance at it shows that it was fashioned of a thick brocade traced in diamond design, and cut square in the neck and very long in the sleeves, where a few folds of white lawn appear becomingly above the wrists, the veil falling from neck to hem, and the enfolding gorget being fastened tightly under the chin. Pre-eminently typical was another dress honoured by this Eleanor of Provence—a most unpopular lady, by the way, even though her taste in costume might have made for some measure of success, at least amongst her feminine subjects. She chose "a gown of gold brocade, sleeves reaching to the wrists, while over this she wore a mantle bordered with gold and bearing a collar of ermine. The mantle was held up by a brooch of gold set with jewels, the head crowned with a Gothic design of floriated trefoils above a jewelled band."

HENRY III.'S QUEEN.

A SIMPLE BUTTONED GOWN.

The following description, commendably brief, which I have read of a dress worn by the wife of Edward I. will bring home the fashion of the day to the understanding of the least initiated:—"A long gown with loose sleeves; held at the breast by a narrow band is a long mantle, folds of this covering the feet; ornaments none." But then no doubt the amiable lady suffered from a popular leaning in favour of conjugal obedience, and it is well known that King Edward himself strenuously upheld all simple garb, though it must be admitted that his descendants showed but small respect for his prejudices when they buried him in "a dalmatic of red silk damask, a crimson satin mantle fastened on the shoulders by a gilt fibula decorated with precious stones; a stola of white tissue ornamented with gilt quatrefolds and knots crossed on the breast, and jewelled gloves upon his august hands. The lower part of his body was wrapped in a piece of cloth of gold."

Some severity also marked costume in France at this time, when there was a suggestion of the ecclesiastical in the high guimpe without which no dress was complete. This was a fancy inaugurated by the second wife of Philip III. for the special benefit of her long throat and flat chest; and worn in company with a pointed head-dress and a flowing veil, a closely-fitting long robe of brocade, and an embroidered mantle, the general effect must have been entirely dignified and impressive. Simplicity, however, did not reign here long, and Louis IX. of France appears to have been quite lenient towards extravagance, and to have had a nice taste of his own, judging from the picture which represents him wearing a velvet cap, a tunic open at the neck, and a robe of brown embroidered with red flowers, and possessing long sleeves trimmed with fur. Fur was amongst his weaknesses evidently, for a deep cape of fur covers his shoulders in another picture, where he is wearing a fur-trimmed robe and has indulged himself with red stockings and black shoes. This was the King who urged his courtiers to dress themselves well and neatly, so that their wives would love them the more, and their people esteem them higher.

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

[See larger version]

Philip the Fair, or Unfair, of France decreed that "No damoiselle, if she be not châtelaine or dame owning 2000 levies yearly, shall have more than one pair of gowns per year; and if she be, she shall have two pairs and no more"—an edict which was, of course, defied fearlessly. Sumptuary laws come somehow to be disregarded, proving the courage of women in defence of their idol—fashion.

Very curious is a coiffure which obtained in the reign of Philip the Bold, consisting of a covering like a plate in outline worn upon the head, with a veil falling over the cheeks and pendent at the back. Far more attractive must have been the head-dress of peacock's feathers which obtained about that time, when prodigality began to assert itself defiantly in magnificent jewels and gowns of condal emblazoned with rubies and sapphires; and when silken hose, gold and silver embroidery, and furred trimmings were amongst the attainable and the attained.

Lavishness ruled in Italy in the thirteenth century, when women wore long full gowns of silk velvet brocade, and tissues of gold and silver, and woollen materials dyed violet or scarlet. They had very large sleeves, their hands often being more than half covered with these, which touched the ground; and ornaments of pearls and borders of gold edged with pearls were chapters in the story of magnificence, little hoods adorned with gold and pearls and embroidery speaking the final word of splendour. The Italian matron wore a long mantle touching the ground, and open in the front, fastened with buttons or clasps enriched with pearls, and lined with silk and decked with gold, and when the hood was dispensed with, the hair was covered with a light transparent veil of silk.

The kirtle worn in England in the reign of Edward I. was in form plain to the point of severity, but over it on occasions there flowed a robe with a long train, the ladies of rank choosing the kirtle in as rich material as the robe, which they removed as a mark of respect when attending on illustrious guests.

The kirtle was a garment originally common to both sexes, and is best described as a smock frock, although the term at different times has been permitted to signify a cloak, a gown, a waistcoat, and even a petticoat, and in the fifteenth century it was disgraced into a habit of penance. Most frequently the kirtle was laced closely to the body and hung straight downwards to the hem.

In the latter years of this century was introduced the surkuane, which, according to a famous writer, was of Languedocian origin. He describes it as being a bodice cut down the front and displaying in the intervals left by the lacings, very wide apart, a transparent tissue of the chemise elaborately pleated and embroidered in gold and silver. The existence of this has, however, been disputed by no less an authority than Planché, who has failed to discover any trace of a thirteenth-century dress fulfilling such conditions. Yet it was at this time that an edict was passed prohibiting the cottes lacés and chemises brodées, and had there been no such fashion of bodice, there would have been no temptation for such luxuries, and no occasion for legislation to check the indulgence. The embroidered shift was forbidden to all save brides, who were permitted it on their wedding day and for the twelve succeeding months. Surely to have set such limit on the wear of dainty lingerie encouraged that reprehensible being the slatternly wife, whose charms do not outlive her trousseau. The costume of the bridegroom is not specialised, but man under less ecstatic circumstances seems to have been distinguished by a large cloak with full sleeves and a hood, a white linen coif tied under his chin, while a fantastic sort of close cap formed headgear common alike to France, Germany, and England, the origin being doubtful. Beneath the long cloak men wore a long gown reaching to the feet, and fastened at the waist, and as an alternative to this they could choose a tunic to the knee, with wide sleeves to the elbow, the fitting sleeves of the under-tunic terminating at the wrists and fastening with a closely-set row of buttons, or, if the buttons were omitted, sewn tightly round.

Briefly, women's dress in England in the thirteenth century consisted of a wimple and gorget swathed round the neck and fastened by pins above the ears, concealing alike brow and chin; the full gown worn loose had sleeves trailing on the ground, and the under-garment, which was generally darker than the gown, had tight-fitting sleeves turned up from the wrists. The poorer women wore a somewhat shorter gown caught up under the arm to reveal the under-garment, and high boots reaching to the calf of the leg and fastened with a double row of buttons. In France, however, the women of the middle and lower classes wore grey shoes, whence it is supposed the word "grisette" was born, which from modern usage has come to typify "somebody captivating who dwells in the Latin quarter."

There were, however, changes which deserve mention. The hood was still in favour, and the long wide circular cloak was worn fastened at the neck with double cords, and the trains of the dresses became abnormally extended, evoking from idle critics many more or less witty quips which may or may not have influenced the subsequent lessening of the trains. Gradually the width of the dresses decreased as their length increased, and the girdle had the privilege of existing merely as an ornament, while the cuffs of the under-sleeves were adorned with buttons, and the hanging over-sleeve was cut as a long bag from the elbow to the shoulders, where it fastened into the robe and fell to the floor.

Amongst the wise saws of ancient instance was the advice in the Romance of the Rose, "that ladies should let trailing robes hide the feet of those too large and unsightly, but that the more beautifully gifted could hold up their skirts and proceed in comfort." Herein may we realise that wisdom is no new counsellor in the ways of vanity, and I am quite convinced that some such philosopher must have guided the selection of the dame whose picture faces page 22 in draperies of pink over mauve, with a purple mantle lined with red. Nothing could be more becoming than the simple lines of her gown which flow from neck to hem, trimmed at the top with gold jewels set with emeralds, while round her brow is a golden fillet, with a fold of white lawn under the chin holding this from side to side. How attractive are these lawn folds may be noted again on a famous canvas, which portrays a dress of the same period in thick brocade, with a plain over-skirt bordered with embroidery, and the broad flat turban hat flanked on either side by wings elaborately decked with jewels, with a pendent veil from the back.

There is much virtue in the veil, and its length and condition were varied to suit the individual and her circumstance. On state occasions it would be overspread by another veil, and above it by the women of quality would be placed a crown of gold; or it would assert its influence over the hair, which was parted on the forehead, curled or plaited behind the ears, and confined in a gold net known as a crispine; women of highest degree choosing this crispine of gold thread set with jewels and encircling it by a gold band also jewelled, which would form the frame for the veil. This crispine in various forms was the common fashion for a long time, and when discarded the hair was bound tightly to the head with a silken fillet and garlands of flowers.

Alike in the decoration of the head and in the fabrics which were chosen to glorify the simple gowns, it appears to have been quite possible to evade the spirit, while obeying the letter, of the law of simplicity which the rulers demanded at the hands of fashion. Fashion granted it with a difference, and while rigidly austere in cut, clothes were so generally magnificent in their material and so generous in their width, that ruin might wait swiftly upon the prodigal with a pretty fancy in frocks. And to think that the security of a Married Women's Property Act was outside the ken and comfort of the weak and confiding lord, who loved his lady too well to deny her caprice!