BEDROOM OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
Carpets were sometimes, but not generally used, the floors were still strewn with rushes and fresh boughs, especially the great halls and banqueting rooms. It was, however, usual to lay them on the steps going up to the great beds, and the floors of many of the rooms in the palaces were of wood, often inlaid.
They must have looked both magnificent and comfortable, those great bedrooms in the palaces and hôtels of the nobles. The huge bed in an alcove or corner, steps covered with rich carpets going up to it, and curtains of silk or some costly material, carved cupboards, chests and seats, beams of the ceilings painted or gilded, walls hung with tapestry, windows protected by trellises of iron and filled with stained glass, a huge chimney-place, sculptured all over with figures and armorial bearings, on the hearth of which blazed great logs, while by it at right angles a tall carved settle kept away the draught.
The Queen’s bath was of carved oak, furnished or lined with bath sheets or towels. Over it was a canopy with curtains, which drew all round.[176]
One thing appears to be certain, and that is that, although at this time houses were insanitary and the streets narrow and dirty, with open sewers in them, people were personally far cleaner than at a later day.[177] All through the Valois times, down to 1600, there were plenty of étuves, or public bath-houses, to which every one who had not baths in their own houses used often to go. There were hot and vapour baths, and some of these establishments were extremely luxurious and elegant, and were used for other purposes besides bathing. People who were starting on a journey often slept at them the night before, setting off from them in the morning; they were often much resorted to as rendezvous, and many were the scenes of license and revelry which took place in them when the young nobles and courtiers, led often by Louis d’Orléans, adjourned there after some supper or banquet.[178]
The priests were very angry with them, and often preached against them, and so, later on, did the Huguenot ministers. By 1600 they had much diminished in number and importance, and soon after they disappeared,[179] which was a great pity, for of course it did no good at all; people were just as immoral as before, and not nearly so clean. But this is another instance of the mischief done by the misplaced activity of those busy, fanatical folks, who, with the most excellent intentions in their attempts to reform either religion or morals, direct their attacks upon something which is in itself perfectly harmless, or even valuable to the majority of people, doing all they can to deprive them of it, simply because they see some persons make an improper use of it. The early Christians were always preaching against those magnificent Roman baths, the destruction of which was such an irreparable loss to the people.[180] The Puritans, thinking that the morals of many plays and the lives of many actors left much to be desired, would, even in the last generation, have done away with all theatres if they had been allowed. And in our own days have we not many instances of the same kind?
In spite of all the suffering she caused and the harm she did, we do not gather that Isabeau was at all actively harsh, cruel, or disagreeable. She seems to have been liked by the companions of her follies, the servants of her household, and her ladies, of whom she had four dames, four demoiselles de corps, and two others. Her vices, faults, and deficiencies were just the worst she could have had in the present crisis, for they made her not only useless, but mischievous. If she had had brains, decision of character, courage, and common sense, she might also have been proud, passionate, vindictive, or ambitious, to any extent, and yet have been a great queen, and perhaps the salvation of France.
But Isabeau’s faults were not those of a great character. She was selfish, lazy, frivolous, vain, and avaricious. She let the reins of government remain without an effort or complaint in the hands of the Duke of Burgundy, she allowed the overbearing interference of the Duchess until it became perfectly insupportable. She now occupied herself in amassing for herself an enormous private fortune, considering that the health of the King gave every cause for fear, and that she had had no dowry on her marriage. She had certainly secured to herself by letters of the King, 1394, a revenue of 25,000 livres, representing at that time an enormous sum;[181] but besides this she was constantly collecting and storing away in chests, gold, jewels, plate, unset diamonds, and other precious stones, title deeds of lands, everything she could lay her hands upon, in which she was assisted by her brother, Ludwig of Bavaria, who was constantly in France, getting a large share of the spoils, wrung by taxation from the people. Isabeau seems to have had more affection for him than for any one else, and never appears to have changed towards him. From what little can be known about him he must have been very much like her, he was generally with her and Louis d’Orléans, and the people hated him, perhaps, most of all. Isabeau caused him to be grand maître d’hôtel to the King for some years, and married him first to Anne de Bourbon, Comtesse de Montpensier, and then to Catherine d’Alençon, widow of Pierre de Navarre, both princesses of the blood. He was apparently corrupt, dissipated, greedy after money, shallow, and useless.
