Chats on Costume

by G. Woolliscroft Rhead

Who, then, shall dare to belittle the importance of costume? or to affirm that character can rise superior to its environment? Our subject is one of the most significant which can be presented to the reader's consideration. It provides one of the most curious and fascinating studies in the world.

"LUDOVICUS REX."
From "Paris Sketches."

The materials upon which we base our knowledge of the dress of the earlier periods of the world's history are necessarily scanty. For the Egyptian and Assyrian period we are dependent upon monumental inscriptions and carving, and the few papyri which have survived the ravages of time. For the Greek and Roman period, upon sculpture, pottery, and the written description of the more considerable authors. For the Byzantine, Frankish, and Gothic periods, upon mosaic, monumental effigies, and illuminated MSS. It is not until what may be called the age of the painter that we may be said to emerge into the broad light of day, and the pencils of Holbein, Rubens, and Vandyke make things clearer for us. The sumptuary laws, however, enacted at various periods, against excess in apparel and extravagance in dress, let in a flood of light on the manners and customs of the times, and in them will be found many curious and interesting details. The principal Acts are the following: 2 Edw. II. c. 4; 37 Edw. III. cc. 8, 14; 3 Edw. IV. c. 1; 22 Edw. IV. c. 1; 1 Hen. VIII. c. 14; 6 Hen. VIII. c. 1; 7 Hen. VIII. c. 6; 24 Hen. VIII. c. 13; 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary, c. 2; 8 Eliz. c. 11. All these laws were repealed by an Act of 1 Jac. I.

This grandmotherly legislation, which was never effective, always evaded and even defied, had a double object in view, first to induce habits of thrift amongst all classes of the people, and secondly on æsthetic grounds.

In the thirty-seventh year of the reign of Edward III. (A.D. 1363), the Commons exhibited a complaint in Parliament against the general usage of expensive apparel not suited either to the degree or income of the people; and an Act was passed by which the following regulations were insisted upon: Furs of ermine and lettice, and embellishments of pearls, excepting for a head-dress, were strictly forbidden to any but the Royal Family, and nobles possessing upwards of £1,000 per annum.

Cloths of gold and silver, and habits embroidered with jewellery, lined with pure miniver, and other expensive furs, were permitted only to knights and ladies, whose incomes exceeded 400 marks yearly.

Knights whose income exceeded 200 marks, or squires possessing £200 in lands or tenements, were permitted to wear cloth of silver with ribands, girdles, &c., reasonably embellished with silver, and woollen cloth, of the value of six marks the whole piece; but all persons under the rank of knighthood, or of less property than the last mentioned, were confined to the use of cloth not exceeding four marks the piece, and were prohibited wearing silks and embroidered garments of any sort, or embellishing their apparel with any ornaments of gold, silver, or jewellery. Rings, buckles, ouches, girdles, and ribands were forbidden them, and the penalty annexed to the infringement of this statute was the forfeiture of the dress or ornament so made or worn.

In the reign of Henry IV. these laws were so little regarded that it was found necessary to revive them with considerable additions. It was enacted that—"No man not being a banneret, or person of high estate," was permitted to wear cloth of gold, of crimson, or cloth of velvet, or motley velvet, or large hanging sleeves open or closed, or gowns so long as to touch the ground, or to use the furs of ermine, lettice, or marten, excepting only "gens d'armes quant ils sont armez." Decorations of gold and silver were forbidden to all who possessed less than £200 in goods and chattels, or £20 per annum, unless they were heirs to estates of 50 marks per annum, or to £500 worth of goods and chattels.