Immagini della pagina

and as if he were aware that the obvious advantages attending them would render vain all attempts to put them down.

Still he thinks it his duty to file a solemn protest against them. • Now we have many chimnies; and yet our tenderlines complain of rheums, catarrhs, and poses; then we had none but reredosses, and our heads did never ache. For as the smoke was supposed to be a sufficient hardening for the timber of the house, so it was reputed a far better medicine to keep the good man and his family from the quack or pose, wherewith then very few were acquainted.' He says, that in his younger days, there were not above three or four chimneys in the most uplandish towns in the realme, but that every man made his fire against a reredosse,' in the hall where he dined and dressed his meal.

We come now to the bed. In the early ages, skins were generally used both for bed and pillow. In travelling, the wayfarer was content to take a stone for a pillow, and having spread his upper garment on it, to sleep without any further preparation. Carpets were sufficient for this purpose with most of the people in later times, and had the advantage of being easily transported from one place to another. In order to take up his bed and walk, a man had nothing to do but to roll it up and place it under his arms. This seems to have been the only purpose for which carpets were used in ancient times. There are not many regions of the earth, even now, in which they are generally employed as a covering for floors. The old practice in England was to strew the floor with rushes, so that visiters, who could not find any other seat, might, without much inconvenience, deposit themselves upon the floor. But even as regards the interests of neatness, it would have been quite as well to have left it bare, for Erasmus, in describing respectable English houses, gives us to understand, that under the rushes with which the floor was spread, lay a collection of fragments, bones, beer, and a thousand other abominations. He says, that no doubt the frequent plagues in England were owing to this unsavory practice; and there has been no example of that disorder since the great fire in London, in the time of Charles II., purified the city. This exemption was, probably, ascribed to the operation of quarantine laws, since every nation makes it a point of honor to deny that plague or yellow fever ever originated at home.

But to return to the bed. In the times of the Hebrew


kingdom, the bed resembled a divan, consisting of a low elevation running round three sides of a small room.

This was covered with stuffed cushions of the same width, and bolsters were put on the back against the wall. They also had beds resembling our sofas; but these were luxuries; a carpet was enough for the greater proportion of the people. The Romans, luxurious as they were, do not appear to have made use of feather-beds much before the time of Pliny. In the early republican times they slept on leaves, afterwards they used hay and straw. The luxury of the Greeks and Romans did not consist in their sleeping accommodations.

The dining couch was a much more effeminate affair.

Till the close of the thirteenth century, straw was common in the chambers of palaces. The kings of England used to sleep, father and son in the same chamber. How retired a king's bed-chamber was, appears from a story told by Stow, of an early English king, whose treasury was near his bed. One evening a young man came in and stole some money, thinking that the king was asleep. Having secured that, he returned for more, but the sovereign, who had seen him all the while, said, “Thou art too greedie, young man, take what thou hast and be content, for if my treasurer come in, he will not leave thee one penny.'

There has been no regular improvement in the art of sleeping. It has varied with the taste of individuals and countries. Every one knows the story of the chieftain of Lochiel, kicking the snow-ball pillow from under the head of his huntsman, and telling him that he had no business to be more delicate than other people. The heath bed has enjoyed much reputation in Scotland. The author of Waverley tells us, that within his remembrance, after large parties, the ladies would sleep a score in a chamber, while the gentlemen asked no better quarters than the barn. Our ancestors in England were not too particular in this respect. Holinshed says, “Our fathers, and we ourselves, have lain full oft upon straw pallettes covered only with a sheet, under coverlets made of dagswaine or hopharlets, and a good round log under their heads for a bolster. If it were so, that the father or good man of the house had a mattress or flock-bed, and thereto a sack of chaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself to be as well lodged as the lord of the town, so well were they contented. Pillows, said they, were thought meet only for sick women.

As for servants,

[ocr errors]

if they had any sheet above them it was well; for very seldom had they any under to keep them from the pricking straws.

We must now give some little account of the subject of dress. The practice of weaving wool, cotton, and flax, is of very great antiquity. The Egyptians excelled in it; and that the Israelites profiled by their teaching, appears from the decorations of the tabernacle, which were made in the wilderness under every possible disadvantage. Woollen was less valued than cotton, and cotton less than linen, hair-cloth least of all. Cotton cloth was left white; the others were colored with a purple dye procured from a certain shell-fish. Scarlet was obtained from an insect found


the oak. The dark blue or hyacinth, was formed by an extract from the cuttle-fish. Party-colored cloths were most admired, and a coat of many colors was an object of as much ambition, as a shirt of furniture calico among our Indians now. The Hebrews, it is well known, were forbidden to wear a garment made of wool and linen united; probably, this order was intended to keep them apart from the heathen, by whom such a dress was very generally worn.

In one respect, the ancients differed materially from the moderns. With them a dress descended from father to son, and from generation to generation, without being subject to the proud man's contumely,' by reason of its being out of fashion. Those were days in which the tailor did not make the man; no cravat bound the throat, to remind the exquisite of the destiny to which all may come ; no bonds, save those of justice, ever imprisoned the free limb; no tight shoe gave anguish to the much-enduring toe. The garments might then be made at once for the life-time; and if neither moth nor thief reached them, they were a safe property, which did not lose its value. Perhaps some future lexicographer may find here the etymology of the word investment, which, albeit unauthorized in this sense by Johnson, is a word, which stirs like the sound of a trumpet, many a heart in our land.

a The most ancient garment was the tunic; which was a sort of

gown fitted to the form, having short sleeves and a girdle. This was worn by both sexes. There were two kinds of girdle; one made of leather and secured by clasps, the other of cloth ; both were employed as purses, having an opening through which money could be inserted. When a person had no garment but the tunic, he was said to be naked; a fact which throws light upon some passages of Scripture, and removes, in some slight degree, the reproach which rests upon the exercises of the Spartan girls.

The upper garment was a plain piece of cloth, generally ten or twelve feet long, and half as wide ; which we suppose would now be called a mantle. It was often woven in a single piece without a seam, and was thrown like a shawl over the shoulders; sometimes drawn over the left shoulder and fastened at two corners by a buckle on the right. It was on this garment that the Hebrews were directed by Moses to wear the blue riband which distinguished them from other nations. The poor used it as the Highlanders did their plaid, for bed-clothes by night; and for this reason, if the Hebrew creditor had seized this article of dress, he was compelled by law to restore it before night-fall. The chief difference between the male and female dress was, that the latter always wore the veil. Laboring men went to their work without the upper garment, which explains the prophecy, that at the siege of Jerusalem, they will have no time to return for their clothes. When they went to any distance on foot, they gathered the tunic in folds, and secured it with their girdle at the waist, that it might not embarrass their feet; this was called girding the loins.

The dress of the Greeks and Romans was not very different from this. It was flowing and graceful; but while we allow that in point of freedom and appearance their drapery 'was better than ours, we maintain, that in some other respects the advantage is decidedly our own.

What is now called linen, for example, an article so important that no man willingly dispenses with it, was wholly unknown to the ancients, and had they known it, its advantages would have been in a measure neutralized, by their practice of putting oil on their limbs and head. There are some respects in which the personal habits of the ancients will not bear investigation. The pocket-handkerchief, which is found in all but the most benighted portions of the modern world, was not among their comforts and blessings; and what supplied its place is more easily imagined than described. As one other slight indication, Pompey the Great appears to have been ridiculed by a satirist, because, with a remarkable effeminacy, he made use of but one finger in scratching his head.

It is no easy matter to tell when the modern dress was first used. Nothing resembling pantaloons was worn by Hebrew or Greek, nor the earlier Romans. It appears that they were known in Babylon, and were so made as to cover the foot, so that the hint of the stocking was evidently taken from an amputated leg of this garment. Something of the kind was also in use among the Gauls, who were in general by no means curious in such matters, and in the fifth century they were worn in Rome; but it was thought beneath the majesty of Rome to borrow fashions from a conquered people ; and a law was passed, compelling all who made or wore them to retreat with their new finery from the premises of the city. The modern small-clothes were first worn in the time of Louis XVI.; the article in Scripture, which bears a similar name, was nothing more than an apron gathered round the waist and falling to the knees. As this article of dress originated in France, it came near ending where it began. Few specimens of it being found in the regiment of Anacharsis Clootz, it was rejected from the revolutionary uniform, not so much by positive edict as gradual decay, and in this situation, like other patriots, they represented themselves as sacrificing their private comfort for the public welfare.

It would be amusing enough to trace the history of English fashions, but we have not room. It seems that they depended very much upon those of their neighbors.

After the successes of Edward I., most of the English ladies were provided with foreign dresses, and, as might be expected, we are informed by Stow, that the matrons being proud in their French apparelle, did brag.' In Henry IVth's time, says the same authority, was excessive pride in dress; gownes with deepe and broad sleeves, commonly called poke sleeves, which might be called receptacles of the divell, for they did bide what they stole in their sleeves, whereof some hung down to the knees full of cuttes and jagges.' From this it appears that the female fashion of the day is not without reason and example. Edward IV. ordained that no persons under a certain degree, should weare in their array any bolsters of wool or cotton. But there is no end to the list of extravagant fashions. Queen Elizabeth passed more laws than one to restrain extravagance in dress; as a comment on her judicious regulations we may mention, that at her death, more than three thousand dresses were found in her wardrobe, being probably



« IndietroContinua »