ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The pencils of the famous portrait painter, Sir Peter Lely, and of his successor, Sir Godfrey Kneller, have preserved for us not a few representations of the fashionable attire of the times in which they flourished, and abundant illustrations of it are afforded by the contemporary literature. Thus Randal Holmes in his notes on dress, preserved in the Harleian Library, and written about the accession of Charles II., furnishes the following description of a fashionable gentleman's dress: "Ashort-waisted doublet and petticoat breeches; the lining being lower than the breeches is tied above the knees; the breeches are ornamented with ribands up to the pocket, and half their breadth upon the thigh: the waistband is set about with ribands, and the shirt hanging out over them." The hat was worn with a high crown, and was adorned with a plume of feathers. Long drooping lace ruffles depended from the knee, and a rich falling collar of lace, with a cloak hung carelessly over the shoulders. High-heeled shoes tied with ribbons completed the attire of the Restoration beau. Of course, as may be supposed, all fine gentlemen did not dress precisely alike. Some decorated their persons with an infinite amount of finery; others exercised more economy in this respect. Not every fop of that age, for example, attired himself in form and fashion like to Beau Fielding-Handsome Fielding as he was styled by the Merry Monarch-the beau par excellence of his day. That individual, whenever he took his walks abroad, carried spoils on his person from all quarters of the globe. Some idea of the sumptuousness of his own apparel can be formed from that which was worn by his footmen, whom he required to attend him in his progress through the streets clad in yellow liveries, relieved by black sashes wound round their bodies, and black feathers waving in their hats. It should be mentioned that under the Restoration all classes of the community wore their hair very long, allowing it to flow in natural ringlets around their shoulders; and so widely did this fashion prevail, that in the year 1664 the ample periwig or peruke was introduced into the country by the votaries of fashion, from the court of Lewis XIV., there being no English head of hair sufficiently luxuriant. Samuel Pepys, a careful observer of the contemporary fluctuations of fashionable attire, records in his "Diary" that the Duke of York appeared in public wearing a periwig for the first time on February 5, 1664, and that he beheld Charles wearing one for the first time on the 18th day of April. Nearly about the same time, too, the crowns of men's hats began to be lowered, and the fashion crept in of laying feathers upon their brims. It cannot, however, be said that any very important changes in English male attire were effected until fully six years after the Restoration. In the year 1666, Charles was

heard solemnly to announce in council his firm determination to adopt a certain habit which he was steadfastly resolved never to alter; and for the gratification of the curiosity of those who may be interested in the details of antique attire, we may say that this wonderful habit consisted of a long close vest of black cloth or velvet, pinked with white satin, over which was thrown a loose surcoat or tunic of an Oriental character, and buskins or brodequins in place of the timehonoured shoes and stockings. According to the diary of Evelyn, the king "solemnly " attired himself in his new habit on the 18th day of October, and the gossiping Pepys, who allowed little, if indeed anything, to escape his notice, made, under date of the preceding day, the following entry in his "Diary": "The Court is all full of vests, only my Lord St. Albans (Jermyn) not pinked, but plain black; and they say the king says the pinking or white makes them look too much like magpies, so hath bespoke one of plain velvet." We are further told by Evelyn that not a few of the courtiers and high-souled gentlemen about the English Court presented their sovereign on that occasion with gold, as a sort of wager that he would never adhere to his resolve of wearing this peculiar costume. We cannot doubt that the Merry Monarch lost his wager, since the fashion does not appear to have been more than one of two years' duration, its ruin, in all probability, having been accomplished by the insolence of the French King, Lewis XIV., and his courtiers, who, to manifest the contempt that they entertained for "His Majesty of England," clothed all their servants and retainers in the very costume which his capricious fancy had devised. But though the fashion was abandoned its influence was considerable. In the vest probably was contained the germ of the long square-cut coat by which it was succeeded, and in the tunic most likely was contained the germ of the waistcoat, almost as long, which was worn under the coat, and almost entirely concealed the breeches. The sleeves of the coat extended no further than the elbows, where they were turned back and formed large cuffs, those of the shirt bulging forth from beneath, ruffled at the wrists and adorned profusely with ribbons. Both coat and waistcoat were, of course, adorned with buttons and button-holes from the collar downwards to the knee. The Restoration era, being essentially the age of "the dangling knee fringe and the bib cravat," it was only natural that the stiff band and the falling collar, which had been worn under the tyranny of Puritan ascendency, should have given place to neckcloths or cravats of Brussels or Flanders lace tied with ribbons beneath the chin, and with the ends hanging down square.

In this age of Puritan sobriety in dress, it is difficult to

comprehend the mania which seized the breasts of fine gentlemen of the Caroline age for lace. We find Pepys in 1662 putting on his "new lace band," and recording in his "Diary" his complete satisfaction with his appearance in it. "So neat it is," wrote he, "that I am resolved my great expenses shall be lace bands, and it will set off anything else the more !" Charles II., in the last year of his reign, actually expended £20. 12s. for a new cravat to be "worn on the birthday of his dear brother ;" and James II. expended almost as much as £30 upon a cravat of Venice point lace in which to appear on the anniversary of the birthday of his consort. King William III., notwithstanding his iron, phlegmatic constitution, entertained a genuine Dutch taste for lace, so much so, indeed, that his bills for that article in 1695 amounted to the modest sum of £2,459. 195., a fad which would have served admirably to point the moral of the political reformer or to adorn the tale of the mob demagogue, had such people then existed. Among the more astounding items of this bill appears the following :—“ 117 yards of 'scissæ temæ,'cut work for trimming 12 pocket handkerchiefs, £485. 14s. 3d. And 78 yards for 24 cravats at £8. 10s., £663." The expenditure for six new lace razor cloths amounted to £270, and on twenty-four new indusiis nocturnis, in plain English, night-shirts, the sum of £499. 10s. was bestowed. King William's consort, the handsome Mary of Modena, approached, but did not quite reach her husband, in lace expenditure, seeing that in 1694 her lace bill attained the respectable total of £1,918. It will not surprise any one to learn that lace had one of its sunniest epochs in the eyes of all from the Restoration to the Revolution. From the king to the plebeian all retained a deep-seated affection for it. These were the days when all young military men wore lace, and prepared their cravats with far greater pains than the three Graces of classical antiquity ever bestowed upon the goddess Venus. Even the volunteers deemed it incumbent upon them to go to the camp wearing a quantity of lace, and very happily did the dramatist Thomas Shadwell satirise the folly in his comedy of "The Volunteers or the Stock Jobbers," as the following dialogue will serve to illustrate :-" Major General Blunt.-What say'st, young fellow? points and laces for camps? Sir Nicholas Danby.-Yes, points and laces. Why, I carry two laundresses on purpose. Would you have a gentleman go undress'd in a camp? Do you think I would see a camp if there were no dressing? Why, I have two campaign suits, one trimmed with Flanders lace and the other with net point."2

1 Diary, i. p. 171.

2 Shadwell's Works, ed. 1730.

case.

Our readers would be very greatly mistaken were they to conclude that female attire under the Restoration was any the less sumptuous, any the less gaudy, or any the less costly than that which was ordinarily worn by the opposite sex. The very reverse was the A great change was effected during the reign of Charles II. in the female costume of England, but it was one that was confined almost exclusively to that which was worn by the upper classes of society. As before, the middle and lower classes, the wives of the citizens, and those who would have been denominated countrywomen, adhered tenaciously to the wearing of high-crowned hats, of French hoods, of laced stomachers, and of yellow starched neckerchiefs. Very little traces of innovation were apparent before the Revolution; and then only such as were of minor importance. Where the mutations of women's attire were most visible while Charles occupied the throne, was in that of the beauties who thronged the halls of his palace at Whitehall. No unpleasant reminders of the heyday of Puritanical austerity were suffered to intrude themselves within the walls of that princely abode. No external insignia of saintly profession, of real godliness, of high degrees of spiritual advancement, could there dare to lift up their heads. Nothing in the matter of attire was countenanced at court or in polite society that was not untainted with Puritanism. We see this reflected in a remarkable degree in the contemporary literature, particularly the veracious diaries of Pepys and Evelyn, who appear to have paid special attention to the costume worn by those with whom they were thrown into contact. Symptoms of the coming change began openly to manifest themselves six years before the downfall of the Commonwealth. "I now observed," wrote Evelyn in his "Diary," under date of May 11, 1654, “how the women began to paint themselves, formerly a most ignominious thing." In 1660 Pepys mentions that he saw the Princess Henrietta (sister of Charles II.) "with her hair frizzed up to her ears;" and almost coeval with the revival of this fashion was the introduction by ladies of the practice of wearing black patches, since Mrs. Pepys was able to wear one "by permission," on November 4, 1660. It would seem as if it was by the ladies that peruques were first worn, seeing that under date of March 24, 1662, Pepys records that "By-and-by came La Belle Pierce to see my wife and to bring her a pair of peruques of hair as the fashion now is for ladies to wear, which are pretty, and one of my wife's own hair, or else I should not endure them." I In the month of April following we find Pepys mentioning "petticoats 1 Pepys' Diary, ed. Lord Braybrooke, 1848, i. p. 337.

of sarcénet with a broad black lace printed round the bottom and before,' as having newly come into fashion, and as being one that had found favour in the eyes of his spouse. On May 30 in the same year, the English Court was electrified by the sight of the monstrous fardingales or guard infantas of the newly arrived Queen Catherine of Braganza and her ladies, the Portuguese not having yet laid aside those curious offsprings of fashionable taste. Evelyn does not forget to mention and describe "Her Majesty's foretop," as long and turned aside very strangely. Vizards, according to Pepys, came into fashion in 1663, the journalist purchasing one for his wife in that year. So great was Pepys' sense of the importance of fine clothes, that it led him to take note of those which were worn not only by himself, but by almost every well-dressed person with whom he came into contact, particularly the ladies. Thus, for instance, he gives a very graphic description, under the date of July 13, 1663, of the personal appearance of the queen and some of the Court ladies while riding in Hyde Park. "By-and-by," he writes, "the king and the queen, who looked in this dress (a white-laced waistcoat and a crimson short petticoat, and her hair dressed à la negligence) mighty pretty, and the king road hand in hand with her. Here was also my Lady Castlemaine who rode amongst the rest of the ladies; she looked mighty out of humour, and had a yellow plume in her hat (which all took notice of), and yet it is very handsome. . . . . I followed them up into Whitehall and into the queen's presence, where all the ladies walked, talking and fiddling with their hats and feathers, and changing and trying one another's by one another's heads and laughing. . . . . But, above all, Mrs. Stewart in her dress, with her hat cocked and a red plume, with her sweet eye, little Roman nose, and excellent taille, is now the greatest beauty I ever saw, I think, in my life." Pepys also mentions that silver-laced gowns were a revived fashion in 1664, and speaks of yellow bird's-eye hoods as being in vogue, under the date of May 10, 1665. From another passage in Pepys' "Diary" we gather that the ladies' riding-habits resembled very closely those of the dandies. "Walking in the galleries at Whitehall," writes Pepys, under date of June 11, 1666, "I find the ladies of honour dressed in their riding garbs, with coats and doublets with deep skirts, just for all the world like men, and buttoned their doublets up the breast, with perriwigs and with hats. So that, only for a long petticoat dragging under their men's coats, nobody could. take them for women in any point whatever, which was an odd sight and a sight that did not please me. It was Mrs. Wells and another 1 1 Diary, ii. p. 194.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »