In the pages which follow we shall discover that the background of our subject is one of the richest and most picturesque we could desire to explore. Gloves have deeply affected the lives of human beings from the very earliest periods. They have descended to us from a remote antiquity, and are in very fact our inherited title to nobility, for they were bequeathed to us by the princely prelates, the kings and over-lords of the past, whose chief insignia and most treasured badge of honor was the glove. To comprehend all that they have brought with them down through the centuries we must retrace a vast deal of history, and let our imaginations play over scenes and customs far removed from our own day.
We shall find the glove intimately bound up with the development of social usages in every land. To solemn observances in which the glove filled a special role, much of the impressiveness of the stately rites of the mediæval church was due. The white linen glove on the hand of a bishop literally represented to the people the stainless purity of the revered palm raised in benediction. The glove itself was holy. No layman dared to clothe his hands in the presence of the clergy. Kings and the military, however, wore gloves with quite a different meaning. In appearance, also, their gloves were utterly unlike those consecrated for religious use. Of heavy leather, elaborately tooled or decorated, or the mailed gauntlet which formed part of a warrior’s armor, they signified authority, power, and were often conveyed from one prince to another as an expression of hostility, or as a promise of good faith.
Princely etiquette, indeed, revolved about the glove to such a degree that the latter became, as it were, the proxy of its master, his embassador, the mute herald of the royal will. What a high ethical bond and pledge of honor that leathern effigy of a ruler’s hand actually constituted! And as the glove descended with the customs of feudal tenure from sovereign to liege lord, and became gradually the regalia of a growing landed aristocracy, how the manners of semi-barbarous Europe were moulded and softened by the glove! At first we find it the jealous device of the royal few. Then it becomes the badge of superiority among the over-lords. Their followers receive it; and, slowly, through the centuries, this fascinating bit of personal apparel works like leaven until it at last is recognized as the mark of gentlefolk everywhere. It spreads in proportion as liberty and culture are diffused among the people. Follow the progress of the glove, and you trace the growth in enlightenment and refinement of the nations. One of the true forerunners of democracy—as democracy means the elevating, not the levelling, of mankind—the glove takes its place among the civilizing forces of the world.
No small part of the importance which attaches to the subject of these investigations lies in the relation gloves bear to the history of modern industry. We shall find that the position of the glove-makers among the mediæval craftsmen was unique, and of the utmost consequence to the industrial evolution of Europe. The life of a French city has depended for many centuries upon the development of the glove drama. And, in their turn, what have not the glove-makers of Grenoble meant to the wealth and artistic prestige of France? In the annals of the world’s trade—from the early days of barter and exchange down to the present methods of international commerce—gloves have always been conspicuous. The product in itself is worthy of our wonder. We may marvel at the beautiful finish, that anything so delicate can also be so strong; we may admire the style, the cut, the fit of the glove of to-day. And yet, the perfection of the glove art has by no means been reached.
To the simple prototype of four fingers, thumb, palm, back and wrist, the glove-makers of our time have added all that makes the present glove elegant beyond any which has preceded it. Here we have, perhaps, the most interesting article of personal apparel regardless of the wearer’s sex. For a glove is a glove, whether it graces a woman’s slender hand or a man’s stouter member. The same cannot be claimed for the shoe—at least, not since the passing of the mannish girl. The high-arched, French-heeled, parti-colored footgear which to-day is patronized by the feminine species has little in common with the broad-built, low-last article in which the male walks comfortably about his business. The tradition of the glove, however, is less erratic, and equally applicable to man or woman.
It is perfectly possible to out-countenance boredom by turning to our simplest, our most casually accepted, possessions. Even our gloves may kindle in us delight by their beauty, or may plunge us into the mysteries of the past. Gloves are history. Gloves are an art. Far from being the humble member of our wardrobe we sometimes have carelessly supposed them to be, they are of exceedingly ancient lineage, and have retained much of their original regal and aristocratic character. Though once a symbol and a cult, gloves have been adapted to our Twentieth Century needs, and the subtleties of a new age are finding expression in the tireless multiplying of the finest gloves to suit every conceivable occasion.
The glove which encases your hand—no matter how much a part of yourself through daily familiarity it may seem—never can be anything but a stranger to you and unappreciated, until you know gloves. Even the sense of politeness and prestige which you enjoy is not enough; the glove legend also should be yours. Not without good reason are we inspired to live up to our gloves.
Chapter II.
ANCIENT HISTORY OF GLOVES
“A man plucked off his glove and gave it to his neighbor: and this was for a testimony in Israel.”—Old Testament, Chaldaic Version: Ruth: ch. iv., vs. 7.
Gloves are so ancient that the first mention of them in literature is to be found in a great classic of three thousand years ago—the Bible. Zealous disputants in all kinds of causes have had a trick of twisting Holy Writ to serve the purpose of their arguments. But in appropriating the above lines from the Book of Ruth, the writer has not been guilty of taking liberties with the Scriptures—even though the passage does not read as he has quoted it in the King James Version.