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.