REIGN OF FRANCIS I.
1515 TO 1545.
The court of Francis I.—A speech of Charles V.—The
king’s liberality—Order of the Cordelière—Word-paintings
of the fashions of the day, by Rabelais—Costumes of
the seasons—Feather-fans—Sunshades—The “hoche-plis” or
vertugadin—Mme. de Tressan saves her cousin’s life—Satires
and songs—Mdlle. de Lacépède—“Contenances”—Silk shoes with
slashes—Head-dress called a “passe-filon”—Increase of love of
dress—The bean-flower—Artistic head-dresses—Twists of hair
called _ratraprenades_—Ferronières—Coaches in Paris; their
influence on the fashions.
Under the gallant knight, Francis I., the court of France shone with
a new and more refined splendour than that of the Middle Ages, and to
this was added all the magnificence of Italian art. An eye-witness has
described the court of Francis for us with characteristic and intelligent
simplicity. Michael Suriano, the Venetian ambassador, makes the following
remarks:—
“His Majesty expends 300,000 crowns on himself and his court, of which
70,000 are for the queen. The king wants 100,000 crowns for building
abodes for himself. Hunting, including provisions, chariots, nets, dogs,
falcons, and other trifles, costs more than 150,000 crowns. Lesser
amusements and luxuries, such as bouquets, masquerades, and other
diversions, 100,000 crowns. Dresses, tapestries, and private gifts cost
as much more. The lodgings of the king’s household, of the Swiss, French,
and Scottish guards, more than 200,000. I am now speaking of men. As for
the ladies, their salaries, it is said, amount to nearly 300,000 crowns.
Thus there is a firm belief that the king’s person, his household, his
children, and the presents he makes, cost yearly a million and a half
crowns. If you saw the French court the sum would not surprise you.
There are generally six, eight, ten, even twelve thousand horses in the
stables. Prodigality is boundless; visitors increase the expenditure by
at least one-third, on account of the mules, carts, litters, horses, and
servants that are necessary for them, and that cost more than double the
ordinary prices.”
On his journey through France, Charles V. saw the treasury and the
crown jewels. “There is a weaver of mine at Augsburg,” he disdainfully
exclaimed, “who could buy up all that!” It is not the less true,
notwithstanding the words of the envious Charles V., that the court of
Francis displayed the utmost magnificence, and that the king himself
lived in the midst of dazzling splendour. The court of this sovereign,
nicknamed “Long-nose,” or “Nosey” by the people, was a rendezvous for the
pursuit of pleasure.
Judging from prints of the time, the court of Francis I. differed
considerably from that of his predecessors. The ladies no longer took up
their station near the queen exclusively, nor did the men remain by the
king. The two sexes mingled together at the daily receptions, and Francis
I. formed a court in the true sense of the word. His liberality was very
great; he gave away presents of clothes far beyond any gifts of his
predecessors. Brantôme tell us that many ladies possessed wardrobes and
coffers so full of clothes given them by the king, “that it was a great
fortune.”
Women soon acquired extraordinary influence; everything was in their
hands, “even to the appointing of generals and captains.” Ladies of the
palace were nominated and lived at the Louvre. They belonged to an order
of knighthood called the Order of “la Cordelière,” intended to reward the
most prudent and virtuous women among the nobility. Francis I. almost
invariably wore a very splendid costume, and was considered the finest
gentleman in the kingdom. We are not concerned here with the numerous
different fashions adopted by the king and his nobles, suffice it to
mention that the “robes” of the gentlemen of the time were no whit less
magnificent than those of the ladies, and that consequently there was a
struggle for pre-eminence between the two sexes.
Feminine dress was coquettish, and generally speaking, very graceful in
form. François Rabelais, that encyclopædic writer who treated of every
subject, whether serious or trifling, describes the fashions of his time
in the following words:—
“The ladies wore scarlet or crimson stockings, the said stockings
reaching three inches above the knee, and the edge thereof finely
embroidered or cut out. The garters were of the same colour as their
bracelets, and fitted tight both above and below the knee. The shoes
or slippers of crimson, red, or violet velvet, were snipped like the
edges of a crab’s claw. Over the chemise they wore a fine vasquine
(corset) of rich silk camlet; on the vasquine they placed the vertugade
(hoop) of white, red, salmon-coloured, or grey silk. Above this the
cotte, in silver tissue, embroidered in fine gold needlework, produced
a charming effect. Or, if it pleased them better, and was in accordance
with the weather, their cottes were of satin, or damask, or of velvet,
orange-coloured, salmon, green, grey, blue, light yellow, crimson, or
white; or of gold cloth, silver cloth, or embroidery, according to the
festivals. Dresses were made, according to the season, in cloth of
gold crossed with silver, of red satin embroidered in gold canetille,
of white, blue, and black silk, of silk serge or camlet, of velvet,
of cloth, of silver, of drawn gold, or of velvet or satin with gold
threads variously interwoven. In summer ladies sometimes wore, instead
of dresses, graceful marlottes (or wrappers) of the aforesaid stuffs, or
bernes (sleeveless marlottes), after the Moorish style, in violet velvet
ornamented at the seams with small Indian pearls. And at all times they
wore the beautiful bouquet of feathers (or panache), according to the
colour of their muffs, thickly spangled with gold.”
In winter, silk dresses of the colours just described were lined with
costly furs.
To complete the costume we must add rosaries, ornaments in goldsmith’s
work hanging from the girdle, rings, gold chains, jewelled necklaces,
and carbuncles, balas rubies, diamonds, and sapphires; finally emeralds,
turquoises, garnets, beryls, pearls, and “unions d’excellence,” as
Rabelais says.
That great man almost seems to have written expressly in order to give us
these details of Parisian dress. He omits nothing, neither shape, nor
price, nor colour. He instructs us as to the fashions of each season; he
mentions fans, and “éventoirs” in feathers.
We observe, however, that there is no mention of autumn fashions in his
interesting description. We must infer, therefore, that the fall of the
year was included half in the summer and half in the winter season, and
that the ladies of the sixteenth century were as yet unacquainted with
that refinement of fashion at the present day, the autumn costume.
Umbrellas, which at first were ill-made, did not “take” in France. They
were considered inconvenient things. “There is no season more inimical,”
says Montaigne, “than the burning heat of a hot sun, for the umbrellas
that have been used in Italy from the time of the ancient Romans, fatigue
the arm more than they relieve the head.”
Head-gear varied with the seasons. In winter it was worn according to
the French, in spring to the Spanish, in summer to the Turkish fashion;
except on Sundays and festivals, when women covered their heads in the
French style, as being more honourable and more suggestive of “matronly
chastity.” On those occasions they generally wore a velvet hood with
hanging curtain.
The cap of the women of Lorraine consisted of a piece of stuff wound
about the head in cylinder shape; that of the Basque women resembled
a horn of plenty upside down, it was made of white lawn trimmed with
ribbon; and that of the Bayonne women was a “guimpe” arranged like a
turban, with a little peak or horn in the front.
The greatest innovation in feminine costume was the appearance of the
vertugadin, or hoop, in 1530. Dresses were stretched over wide, stiff
petticoats mounted on hoops of iron, wood, or whalebone. A band of coarse
linen, supported by wire, lifted them up round the waist.
It is said that Louise de Montaynard, the wife of François de Tressan,
contrived, by the aid of her hoop, to save the life of her cousin, the
brave Duc de Montmorency. The duke was hard beset by a great number of
the enemy in the town of Béziers. Louise bade him hide under her huge
bell-shaped hoop, and thus saved him from the vengeance that threatened
him.
The fashion of wearing three gowns, one over the other, shows the
prejudices of the time with respect to distinctions in dress:—
“Pour une cotte qu’a la femme du bourgeois,
La dame en a sur soy l’une sur l’autre trois,
Que toutes elle faict également paroistre,
Et par là se faict plus que bourgeoise cognoistre.”[16]
Songs and satires against “vertugadins” abounded. The “Débat et
Complainte des Meuniers et Meunières à l’Encontre des Vertugadins”
appeared in 1556, and the “Blason des Basquines et Vertugales, avec la
Remontrance qu’ont faict quelques Dames, quand on leur a remontré qu’il
n’en falloit plus porter,” in 1563. Next came the “Plaisante Complainte
...,” by Guillaume Hyver, beginning as follows:—
“Ung temps fut avant telz usaiges,
Lorsque les femmes estoient sages....”[17]
This epigram was quickly answered:—
“La vertugalle nous aurons,
Maulgré eulx et leur faulse envie,
Et le busque au sein porterons;
N’est-ce pas usance jolye?”[18]
Charles IX., Henri III., and Henri IV., all issued edicts against the
hoop. But far from disappearing, it became more and more generally worn.
Little shopkeepers imitated the great ladies; and in the “Discours sur la
Mode,” published in 1613, we read as follows:—
“Le grand vertugadin est commun aux Françoises,
Dont usent maintenant librement les bourgeoises,
Tout de mesme que font les dames, si ce n’est
Qu’avec un plus petit la bourgeoise paroist;
Car les dames ne sont pas bien accommodées
Si leur vertugadin n’est large dix coudées.”[19]
In Paris, the royal edicts against hoops had fallen into disuse, but in
the provinces certain parliaments had maintained a merciless severity.
It is recorded that at Aix a Demoiselle de Lacépède, the widow of the
Sieur de Lacoste, having been accused before the court of wearing a hoop
of seditious width, appeared before the counsellors and gave her word of
honour that the “exaggerated size of her hips, which was the cause of
complaint, was simply a gift of nature.” The judges laughed, and she was
acquitted.
The fashion of vertugadins was especially pleasing to women of humble
birth, who also wore hooped gowns, and thus, like high-born dames and
maidens, attained a likeness to pyramidal towers or gigantic beehives.
This extraordinary whim of fashion was destined to reappear, with various
modifications, at different periods.
Muffs, like those of the present day, were already used by women of rank.
They were called “contenances.” Long gold chains, or cordelières, were
twisted in the waist-band, and fell almost to the feet.
The women vied with the men in splendour of dress. At court or in town
they wore an under-skirt, showing below the gown, which was made with
pointed bodice, the skirt widely opened in front, with narrow sleeves to
the elbow, where they suddenly widened, and were bordered with lace or
fur. The bodice was cut low, disclosing a collerette of fine open-worked
cambric or of lace.
Silk and satin shoes were still in fashion, widely opened on the instep,
which, it must be owned, was not conducive to the elegance of the foot.
Some ladies preferred slashed shoes.
But if there was little change in shoes, there was much in the fashion
of head-dresses. Small rounded coiffures in satin or velvet, forming a
harmonious frame to the face, succeeded to the ancient head-gear; or else
graceful turbans, whose delicate softness could be perceived beneath a
network of pearls or precious stones. The head-dress “à la passe-filon,”
dating from the time of Louis XI., retained its place:—
“Les cheveux en passe fillon,
Et l’œil gay en émerillon,”[20]
says Clément Marot.
The hair was sometimes worn in curls round the face, and falling on the
neck. Many women, however, imitated Marguerite of Navarre, by wearing
ringlets on each side of the temples, and drawing back the hair above the
forehead. Wire pins were first imported from England about 1545; before
this invention ladies made use of extremely fine and flexible wooden pins
or skewers. We have already mentioned these.
There were, in fact, two distinct periods in the fashions under Francis I.
From 1515 to 1526 feminine attire was still influenced by the Middle
Ages, not only as regards form and cut, but also as to colouring, which
was somewhat grave. Ladies were averse to low dresses, nor did they care
for any fanciful trimmings. Some few even abstained from jewels and
diamonds; their dress was graceful, but without studied elegance.
From 1530 to 1545, on the contrary, tastes wholly changed. Women began to
wear necklaces and beads, light-coloured stuffs, and rich trimmings; they
became accustomed to baring the bosom and shoulders, and the habit grew
yet more upon them. Dress became a mass of small details, and women were
ingenious in contriving not to omit one of the thousand trifles intended
to add to their attractions.
In one word, coquetry began to wield its exclusive sway over the actions
of women. To please became their only business. They used perfumes of
all sorts—violet powder, Cyprus powder, civet, musk, orange flower,
ambergris, rosemary, essence of roses. They refreshed their complexions
with an infusion of the bean-flower, and washed with musk soap.
In the latter part of the reign of Francis I., feminine head-dresses
assumed a thoroughly artistic character, of almost exaggerated grace. The
Church and certain writers began to murmur, but with as little effect
as in the fifteenth century. A book entitled “Remontrance Charitable
aux Dames et Damoiselles de France sur leurs Ornements dissolus,”
implored women to renounce their “twists of hair,” which the author calls
“ratrapenades.” Another work, “La Gauléographie,” thundered against the
indecency of plaits; and a pamphlet, “La Source d’Honneur,” bestowed good
advice on women, which they were careful not to follow.
La belle Ferronière invented the head-dress which bore her name. A
skull-cap of velvet or satin, splendidly embroidered, was set amidst
curls that only reached to the shoulders. A narrow ribbon, or chain, in
the centre of which was fixed a jewel or _ferronière_, passed across the
brow and was fastened in a large knot at the back of the head.
Another style of head-dress formed the hair into bands half concealed
by lappets falling over the cheeks and a veil; the folds at one end
were gathered together into a golden tulip terminating in a cluster of
precious stones. The art of the goldsmith was thus combined with that of
the hair-dresser, and the most celebrated beauties adorned themselves in
every conceivable way.
They must have dreaded, especially after nightfall, the numerous thieves
abounding in the capital. Fancy going on foot so dazzlingly arrayed!
It is well to bear in mind that in the time of Francis I. there were but
three coaches in all Paris: one belonged to Queen Claude of France, a
daughter of Louis XII.; another to Diane de Poictiers, who at the age of
thirty-two had lost her husband, Louis de Brézé, Count de Maulevrier,
High Seneschal of Normandy, and who always wore the widow’s garb even
in the days of her greatest prosperity; and the third to a gentleman
named Réné de Laval, who could not mount on horseback on account of his
enormous size.
Our ancestors had nothing to fear from blocks of carriages, nor from the
mud by which we are often splashed in crowded streets.
At the end of the fifteenth century, Gilles le Maître, High President
of the Paris Parliament, executed a contract with his farmers, by which
the latter were bound “on the eves of the four great festivals of the
year, and at the time of the vintage, to provide him with a covered cart,
with good clean straw inside, in which his wife, Marie Sapin, and his
daughter, Geneviève, could be comfortably seated, and also to bring a
foal and a she-ass, on which their serving-women should ride, while he
himself should go first, mounted on his mule, and accompanied by his dog,
who would follow him on foot.”
Truly a humble conveyance for the wife of a High President, who himself
rode modestly on a mule!
If we examine the prints of the time of Henri IV., we shall be at a loss
to conceive how such very smart personages could pass through the streets
on foot, and with Brantôme, we shall begin to admire Marguerite de
Valois’s litters, as represented by the artists of that period, “heavily
gilt, and splendidly covered and painted with many fine devices, and her
coaches and carriages the same.”
The succeeding century witnessed great changes. The wife of the High
President, Christophe de Thou, was the first Frenchwoman, not a princess,
to whom permission to possess a carriage was granted. The bourgeoises
long envied her that delightful privilege!
It is difficult to understand how ladies, dressed in the costumes
handed down to us by artists of the time, contrived to get into their
litters. These must have been very roomy, and much like our modern closed
carriages. It is true, however, that a litter was used by one person only.
The use of carriages has contributed to the development of fashion,
for by their means ladies in very light attire are enabled to go long
distances, from one house to the other, without danger from exposure to
the weather, and without attracting the attention of thieves.
Hence, from the first appearance of coaches to the elegant carriages of
our own day, a particular style of dress has existed, suitable only for
persons possessing equipages, and ridiculous when worn by pedestrians
through rain, mud, and dust.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: Henry II 1547 to 1548
Henry II 1555 to 1558]