Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1874-10-02

There was also q costly stuff at those
times in England called by the people
aurifrisium what It was named in En-
glish know not, but imagine IL to sig
nifty embroidery with gold. Whatsoever
IL was, it was much desired by the
Popes, and highly esteemed in Italy.
What the habits, both civil and mill
tary, were in the time of King John,
Henry III. and the succeeding ages
may better appear by their monumental
old glass windows, and ancient arms,
than be found in writers of those times
as also the robes (Which the King then
allowed to each Knight when he was
dubbed of green or burnet. Neither is
il to be doubted but successive time and
English mutability brought in continual
ly new cuts, as in the time of King Ed
ward Ill, which may be understood by
this rhyme, then made:
Long boards, heartless,
Painted hoods, witless,
Gay coats, graceless,
Make England thrlftless."
Many statutes were made to prevent
the abuses of dress; an ancient history
called Eulogium proves no less. "The
Commons (saith he) were besotted in
excess of apparel, in wide fur coats
reaching to their loins, some in garment
strutting out on the sides, so that on the
back they make men seem women, and
this they call by ridiculous name
gown. Their hoods are little, tied under
the chin, and buttoned like the women,
but set with gold, silver and precious
stones. Their girdles are of gold and
silver, some worth twenty marks. Their
shoes and pattens are shouted and piked
more than finger long, crooked upward
and fastened to the knees with chains of
gold and silver. And thus were they
garmented who las this author saith
were lions in the hall and hares in the
field. The book of Worcester reporteth
that in the year 1869 they began to use
caps of different colors, especially red,
with costly Innings; and in 1872 they first
began to wear new round short garment
called the cloak" Here you may see
when gowns, clOaks and caps first came
in use, though, doubtless, they had some
such IKE attire in different names.
How strangely they were attired in the
times of King Richard II. Chaucer will
tell us: Alas, may not man see, as
in our days, the sinful costly array of
clothing, and namely in too much super
fluffy of clothing, such that maketh it
so dear, to the harm of the people, not
only the cost of embroidering, the dis
guised indenting, or barring, ounding,
plating, winding, or bending, and sem
blable waste of cloth in vanity but there
is also the costly Turing in their gowns,
so much pouncing of chissel to make
holes, so much dagging of sheirs forche,
with the superfluity in length of the
aforesaid gowns trailing in the mire on
horse and also on foot as well of man
as of woman, tnat all that trailing is
verify as in effect wasted, consumed,
and threadbare, rather than given to the
poor"
They had also, about this time, a kind
of gown called git, or jacket without
sleeves; a loose cloak like a herald's coat
of arms, called tabard; short breeches
called court pie; gorget called q
chevesail, for as yet they used no bands
about their neck. Queen Anne, wife to
Richard H., who first taught English
women to ride on side-saddles, as before
they rode astride, brought in high head
attire, piked with horns, and long trained
gowns for women.
Not many years after foolish pride so
descended to the adorning of the foot
that it was proclaimed that no man
should have his shoes broader at the toes
than six inches.
Neither was the clergy clear from this
pride, as we may perceive from Pierce
Plowman, though we are assured that
the clergy never wore silk or velvet un.
til the time of the pompous Cardinal
Wolsey, who opened that door to pride
among them.
The variations in our dress since that
time are too we'll known to be mentioned
here; we shall only, therefore, conclude
with observing that even in this age of
luxury we have no great reason to think
| ourselves more absurd in point of dress
than our ancestors, and that the only
difference between us lies rather in the
popularity of our fashions than the prev.
alence of absurdity in the other-Har.
I1p1,'S RIzdr