THE INFLUENCE OF THE CRUSADES.
1270 TO 1350.
Severity of feminine costume—Long gowns and
_guimpes_—Marguerite of Provence—“Fermaux”—Reappearance
of splendour in dress—Eastern customs—The priests
of fashion—Haberdashery and peacock-feathers—Female
embroiderers—Taste for embroidery—Continual
temptations—Earliest sumptuary laws—Furs—St. Louis’s opinion
on dress—Prohibitions by Philippe le Bel; speech made by his
wife—Crépine.
Owing to the influence of the Crusades and the predilections of St.
Louis, the dress of women assumed much of that severity proper to
masculine garments. Under Louis VIII. a mantle had been the distinctive
mark of a married woman. It is asserted that St. Louis’s daughters, whose
legs and feet were ill-shaped, contrived to wear very long gowns in order
to hide them. This was surely a pardonable piece of coquetry, and long
skirts became the order of the day. Similar causes have led to similar
results in more recent times.
When once the long skirt had been introduced, it resisted many attempts
to dislodge it. In the reign of Philip III. women hid their busts under
a “guimpe,” and looked almost like our sisters of Charity. The coat and
the guimpe seem to have been introduced by Marie, the king’s second wife,
whose throat was too long, while her bust was absolutely flat, and the
wives of the courtiers in this instance also copied the Queen of France.
Imbued with the religious spirit that exercised at that time so great a
power over the imaginations of mankind, or at any rate overmastered by
it, the ladies of the court, with few exceptions, were modest in their
attire. They added indeed to the elegance of their veils, but continued
to wear them in obedience to ecclesiastical decrees. Queen Marguerite
of Provence wore a dress close-fitting in the bodice, the sleeves were
long and narrow; her mantle was embroidered with _fleurs-de-lis_, and was
made with long open sleeves. Her veil was folded with a band beneath the
chin, but not setting closely to the face. Her head-dress was not unlike
a turban.
But such humility as this could not long prevail over the malicious demon
of coquetry. On the one hand, people of wealth indulged themselves in
luxury and splendour, and many knights on returning from the Crusades,
retained in France the habits they had acquired in the East, and on the
other, the middle and lower classes tried to walk in the steps of the
nobles, and the bourgeoises endeavoured to array themselves like the
haughty consorts of the Crusaders.
In consequence of the relations existing between France, Europe, and the
East, and notwithstanding the deep religious convictions of the time,
innumerable artisans and working women were employed in the service
of Fashion; drapers or weavers, dress cutters and makers, trimmers,
ribbon-makers, manufacturers of thread, or silk-fringers who made coifs;
weavers of the coarse flaxen thread called “canevas,” sellers of precious
stones or jewellers, who exhausted their ingenuity in hundreds of new
inventions; goldsmiths, whose art astonished the world; gold-beaters and
silver-beaters, dyers, skilful in altering the colours of materials;
moulders of buckles and delicate clasps; furriers who possessed the
rarest and most costly furs; and makers of brass, copper, and wire
buttons.
It was at the shops of haberdashers that the wives of the nobles bought
the splendid “parures” with which they ornamented their heads. Gowns of
siglaton and cendal (a material like modern silk) were ornamented with
rubies and sapphires.
Head-dresses in Paris were sometimes surmounted with peacock’s feathers;
and these soon called into existence “paoniers” or peacock-hatters. One
Geneviève had great custom as a feather-seller, and after having made a
large fortune by her trade, she devoted it to the decoration of a chapel.
A very striking head-dress, though simpler than that of peacock’s
feathers, consisted of wreaths of natural flowers, principally roses,
and was prepared by the herbalists or floralists who abounded in several
parts of the capital.
Epernon, the haberdasher of Rue Qui-qu’en-poist (Quincampoix), had
certainly the largest choice of ornamental finery for feminine attire.
His fame was in every one’s mouth, and his shop always crowded with
customers.
A large number of embroideresses obtained a living in Paris; there were
also many who made up purses with beautiful embroidery, or elegantly
worked borders. These purses were fastened to the waist-band, and were
called “aumônières sarrasinoises,” or Saracen alms-bags. Their name
recalled their benevolent object to the wearers, though they were used to
hold other articles besides coin for the poor.
Within their castles noble ladies employed their long hours of leisure in
needlework, imitating and sometimes excelling the work of the East. They
embroidered veils, scarfs, armlets, belts, alms-bags, gloves, and shoes;
they copied the family coat-of-arms in silken, gold, or silver embroidery
on their gowns, their surcoats, and their mantles.
The bourgeoises also devoted their time to needlework, so as to increase
the elegance of their dress, without infringing the regulations of the
sumptuary laws.
Glove-makers made use of sheepskin, grey fur, hareskin, and doeskin in
their factories. They also made woollen or silken gloves; long buttoned
gloves and scented gloves, and “gloves made of kid prepared with violet
powder.” Italy, Spain, and several French towns were famous for their
skill and trade in gloves. But it was not enough to possess those
articles; it was also necessary to wear them according to the latest
fashion, and on suitable occasions.
There were numerous makers of felt hats, flower head-dress makers of
both sexes, makers of cotton, and of peacock-feathers, without counting
the women weavers of silken head-coverings (a sort of milliner), women
who made hats of orfrey, and silk-spinners. The principal towns of the
kingdom abounded in hosiers, manufacturers of cloth, linen, or silk
hose; in tanners; in clever shoemakers, who well knew how to turn the
point of a shoe _à la poulaine_—that is, extravagantly curved upwards
and resembling the prow of a ship. Generally speaking the shoe _à la
poulaine_ distorted the foot very unpleasantly.
In the goldsmiths’ shops women’s eyes were dazzled by clasps, bracelets,
necklaces, and other articles of marvellous workmanship; tailors
exhibited goods that were in fact only too splendid. Some few mirror
manufacturers kept open shops; their wares were exquisitely lovely.
We may mention one mirror representing a betrothal, that may still be
admired in a celebrated collection.
On every side there was constant temptation. Fortunes were swallowed
up by the passion for dress, and poorer people made the most senseless
sacrifices in the same cause. It was becoming impossible to determine the
rank of a Frenchwoman by her garments.
In order to restore respect for the inequality of ranks, which inequality
was a fixed principle actually corroborated by dress itself, and to
prevent one woman from wearing garments exclusively reserved for another,
sovereigns began to issue sumptuary laws.
Philip Augustus raised his voice against fur; though his court set no
example of simplicity. “The gown and furred cloak of the Queen, at St.
Rémy, cost twenty-eight pounds, less three sous.”
It is interesting to learn what St. Louis, ninth of the name, thought
about fashion and its rights. He said to his courtiers: “You should dress
yourselves well and neatly, in order that your wives may love you the
more, and your people also will esteem you the higher for it.” Women of
rank consequently dressed with great splendour. They frequently wore a
long train fastened to their outer garment, and gilt belts enriched with
jewels. They often wore two tunics, and a veil that was brought round
under the chin. The fastenings of their mantles were of gold and jewels.
They had rosaries of bone, ivory, coral, amber, or jet.
Luxury knew no bounds. The copes, or mantles without hoods, made of
silken cloth, and trimmed with ermine, embroidery, and edgings of gold
were magnificent, and overloaded with ornament.
After the Crusade the ruling powers endeavoured to repress the prevailing
extravagance. St. Louis issued several enactments previous to the
prohibitions of Philippe le Bel respecting dress.
The wording of those prohibitions enlightens us considerably with regard
to the manners and customs of those times. No bourgeoise may possess a
chariot. “No bourgeois and no bourgeoise,” says Philippe le Bel, “may
wear minever, or grey fur, or ermine, and all such persons must get rid
of those furs in their possession within a year from next Easter, and
they may not wear gold, nor jewels, nor belts, nor pearls.... Dukes,
counts, and barons, with six thousand livres a year or more, may have
four pairs of gowns a year and no more, and their wives may have as
many.... No damosel, unless she be châtelaine in her own right, or lady
of two thousand livres a year or more, shall have more than one pair
of gowns a year, or if she be, then two pairs only and no more....
No bourgeois nor bourgeoise, nor esquire, nor clerk shall burn wax
lights....”
It was forbidden to barons’ wives “howsoever great” to wear gowns of a
higher value than twenty-five sous (of the Tours mint) by the Paris yard;
the wives of knights-banneret and lords of the manor were restricted
to materials at eighteen sous; and the gowns of bourgeoises might cost
sixteen sous nine deniers by the yard at the very most. The sumptuary law
of Philippe le Bel proceeded probably from the following circumstance. On
the occasion of his wife’s solemn entry into Bruges in 1301, she had seen
the bourgeoises so gorgeously apparelled that she exclaimed, “I thought
_I_ was the Queen, but I see there are hundreds!”
From a document relating to the king’s household in 1302, we learn that
the complete costume of a lady of the palace cost eight livres, that
of a woman of inferior rank one-third less, and that of a waiting-maid
fifty-eight sous. The price of a Parisian bourgeoise’s cashmere shawl at
the time of the Restoration would have renewed the whole wardrobe of a
court lady.
According to another document of 1326, Isabelle de France wore a
head-dress, sugar-loaf shape, of prodigious height; a veil of the finest
gauze depended from it and concealed her hair.
Certain head-dresses of the period were ornamented with feathers, others
were shaped like bushels of greater or less altitude. Occasionally
the hair was confined in a net, called a “crestine, crépine,” or
“crespinette.” The side-locks were shaped into horns. Sometimes, too,
women dyed their hair, or wore false hair.
Guimpes were arranged something like collerettes; and were made lighter
and lighter in material, so as to harmonize with every kind of costume.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: Charles V 1364-1386
Charles VI 1380-1395]