A number of contemporary texts take issue with seventeenth-century trends in women's cosmetics towards complete "falseness" of face.

In The Lady's Looking-Glass, To Dress Herself by: or The Art of Charming by Aphra Behn, there is a chapter on "Iris's Complexion." The writer takes the voice of a mirror:

"Say what you will, I am confident, if you will confess your Heart, you are, every time you view yourself in me, surpriz'd at the Beauty of your Complexion; and will secretly own, you never saw any thing so fair. .... But 'tis most certain, your Complexion is infinitely fine, your Skin soft and smooth, as polisht Wax, or Ivory, extreamly white and clear; though if any Body speaks but of your Beauty, an agreeable Blush casts itself all over your Face, and gives you a thousand new Graces.
And then two Flowers, newly born,
Shine in your Heav'nly Face:
The Rose, that blushes in the Morn,
Usurps the Lilly's place:
Sometimes the Lilly does prevail,
And makes the gen'rous Crimson pale.
The writer is clearly extolling the unadorned face.

The Gentlewoman's Companion: or, A Guide to the Female Sex. Of Habit, and the neatness and property thereof. Of Fashions, and their ridiculous apish imitation is an anonymous work ascribed to Hannah Woolery. The writer "... cannot imagine whence our Ladies borrowed that monstrous and prodigious custom of patching their faces; if they did borrow it from the French, they did ill to imitate such, who it may be made use of the fashion out of pure necessity, and not novelty; having French-pimples, they needed a French-plaister.... I have read, that the Indians did accustom themselves to paint the volume of their bodies all over with Apes, Monkies, and other Beasts.... By the impertinent pains of this curious Facespoiling-mender, the Exchanges (for now we have three great Arsenals of choice Vanities) are furnished with a daily supply and variety of Beautyspots ... and these Patches are cut out into little Mons, Suns, Stars, Castles, Birds, Beasts, and Fishes of all sorts, so that their Faces may be properly termed a Landskip of living Creatures. The vanity and pride of these Gentlewomen hath in a manner abstracted Noah's Ark, and exprest a Compendium of the Creation in their Front and Cheeks. Add to this the gallantry of their Garb, with all the Ornamental appurtenances which rackt Innvention can discover, and then you will say ... That she was defective in nothing but a vertueus mind."

The 1620 pamphlet Hic Mulier; or, The Man-Woman: Being a Medicine to cure the Coltish Disease of the Staggers in the Masculine-Feminines of our Times, Expressed in a brief Declamation: Non omnes possumus omnes focuses primarily on the dangers of women becoming too manly, too free. Yet the writer certainly defines the ideal woman as natural and modest, not artificial.

"The fairest face covered with a foul vizard [mask] begets nothing but affright or scorn, and the noblest person in an ignoble disguise attains to nothing but reproach and scandal. Away then with these disguises and foul vizards, these unnatural paintings and immodest discoveries! Keep those parts concealed from the eyes that may not be touched with the hands; let not a wandering and lascivious thought read in an enticing Index the contents of an unchaste volume. Imitate nature, and, as she hath placed on the surface and superficies of the earth all things needful for man's sustenance and necessary use (as Herbs, Plants, Fruits, Corn and suchlike) but locked up close in the hidden caverns of the earth all things which appertain to his delight and pleasure (as gold, silver, rich Minerals, and precious Stones), so do you discover unto men all things that are fit for them to understand from you (as bashfulness in your cheeks, chastity in your eyes, wisdom in your words, sweetness in your conversation, and severe modesty in the whole structure or frame of your universal composition). But for those things which belong to this wanton and lascivious delight and pleasure (as eyes wandering, lips billing, tongue enticing, bared breasts seducing, and naked arms embracing), oh, hide them, for shame hide them in the closest prisons of your strictest government! .... Thus shall you be yourselves again and live the most excellent creatures upon earth, things past example, past all imitation."

But just as conservative writers today bemoan societal ills, the reality of the time is that women of means did what they could to "enhance" themselves. Inigo Jones's sketches for the costumes of lady masquers in the Caroline period, and some of his masque costumes, "give some indication of what William Prynne was complaining about in his Histrio-Mastix, when he so violently objected to kings and queens, and women generally, performing in masques and joining in mixed dances. Bare-breasted styles for unmarried women were common...." Norton Topics On-Line.

And the National Maritime Museum (London) website describes seventeenth-century costmetics. In style was a very pale complexion, demonstrating that one was rich enough not to have to work outside in the fields. Masks worn outdoors helped to preserve this paleness -- a very elementary sunscreen! Powders and creams could also help achieve pallor. J. Bulwer wrote that English ladies "are seldome known to be contented with a face of God's making, for they are either adding, detracting or altering continually, having many fucusses (creams) in readiness for the same purpose. Sometimes they think they have too much colour, then they use art to make them look pale and faire. Now they have too little colour, then Spanish paper, red leather or other cosmeticall rubrigues must be had."

Pre-FDA make-up ingredients included powdered white chalk, white lead, and even urine. Cheeks were reddened with cerise powder (white lead with red coloring), red Spanish paper rubbed on the skin, fruit juice, or cochineal. Of course, these dangerous ingredients ultimately resulted in scars and blemishes. To hide these it became the fashion for both men and women to wear patches on the face. These were cut into a huge variety of shapes and patterns, including stars, diamonds, crescent moons, even a tiny coach and horses.

Perhaps the most telling "reality check" lies in the fact that the era's most powerful women were the mistresses of powerful men. The "mistress portraits" of the say didn't capitalize on lily-white skin and dewy blushes. They were frequently depicted in full "war paint," in wanton poses, breasts bared, even in the nude. Their power lay in their sex appeal, and their power was captured in these paintings, critics be damned. After all, powerful people then as now could consider themselves exempt from the rules of the land.

Week Four: Costume in the Elizabethan Movies

I watched A Man for All Seasons, (1966), from the play by Robert Bolt. Oscars for Best Actor (Paul Scofield), Best Color Cinematography (Ted Moore), Best Color Costume Design (Joan Bridge and Elizabeth Haffenden), Best Director (Fred Zinnemann), Best Picture (Fred Zinnemann), and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (Robert Bolt).

Sir Thomas More, principled Chancellor of England, refuses to condone Henry VIII's divorce of his second wife to marry his mistress Anne Boleyn and ensure an heir. For taking this stand, he is beheaded (and ultimately canonized by the Catholic Church).

The film is a classic big-studio costume drama. The language is formal, conveying the different cadences and usages of the 16th century. There are flashes of humor throughout as well. The cast is loaded with star-power: Orson Welles, Paul Scofield, John Hurt, Robert Shaw.

This is different from many of the movies on the list of options, as it centers almost completely on a male cast. There are very few women's dresses, though their lines seem appropriate. I am unsure about the accuracy of the chinstraps on all the headdresses, though. The lines of the men's costumes seem accurate, though there are no ruffs in evidence, not even the small ones popular in Henry VIII's time.

For having won an Oscar for "best color costume design," the costumes, surprisingly, seem very monochromatic. In the pivotal courtroom scene when More is condemned, nearly the whole gallery is in shades of gray, tan, and brown -- mirroring the stone setting. The exceptions are the cardinals in red and his now-adversary and former protege, in brilliant teal.

The overall effect of the was more theatrical than cinematic. The silhouettes were basically correct, but the fabrics and ornamentation seemed much simpler than in period illustrations or in movies of the 1980s and later. This is perhaps because of the movie's genesis on Broadway. It did not detract from the film at all, and had I not been paying particular attention because of this assignment, I probably would not have been aware of this.

Week Three: The Poulaine in the English Middle Ages

Poulaines, long, pointy-toed shoes, were extremely popular throughout Europe in the 1300s and 1400s. In 1382, King Richard II of England wed Anne of Bohemia, who quickly gained popularity in England.(1) Her entourage included noblemen wearing foot-long tips on their shoes. The fashion spread through England, and the shoes were called "crackowes" (from the Polish city) or "poulaines" (from Old French for "Polish").(2) It appears celebrities have been setting the fashion long before our own media-driven time.

The style became so popular that noblemen began to resent seeing commoners emulating it. A number of sources (none contemporary, however), speculate that the fashion became so extreme that gentlemen had to tie the tips of their shoes to their knees to enable walking. Marc Carlson, a participant in Renaissance Faires, quotes John Stow's 1598 The Survey of London....:

In Distar Lane, on the North side thereof, is the Cordwainers or Shoemaker's Hall, which company were made a brotherhood or fraternity in the 11th of Henry IV. Of these Cordwayners I read, that since the fifth of Richard II (when he took his wife Anne�), by her example the English people had used piked shoes, tied to their knees with silken laces, or chains of silver or gilt, wherefore in the fourth of Edward IV, it was ordained and proclaimed, that beaks of shone and boots, should not pass the length of two inches, upon pain of cursing by the clergy, and by Parliament to pay 20 shillings for every pair.

He speculates the most extreme styles, then as today, were worn by only a very few daring individuals.

Another source says it was King Edward III who enacted a sumptuary law stipulating that "no Knight under the estate of a Lord, Esquire, or Gentleman, nor any other person, shall wear any shoes or boots having spikes or points exceeding the length of two inches, under forfeiture of forty pence."(2) Several sources list the various lengths approved for respective stations in life, up to 24 inches for a nobleman.

At the beginning of the fifteenth century, men's shoes were still exaggeratedly pointed. As the century drew to a close, the points of shoes became less noticeable and finally disappeared, while the soles broadened and gradually became stubby during the reign of Henry VIII.(3)

There is an excellent diagram of a poulaine under construction, based on an original excavated in London, here.

An interesting essay from a podiatrist's viewpoint is here.

Printed sources:

1. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001.

2. An Underground Education, Richard Zacks, Doubleday, 1997.

3. What People Wore, Douglas Gorsline, Bonanza Books, 1952.

Week Two: A Good Ancient Jewelry Link

Visit http://www.addgr.com/jewel/elka for GREEK JEWELLERY -- Five Thousand Years of Tradition, a site maintained by The Hellenic Silver- and Gold-smith Centre (ELKA).

Week One assignment: How Clothing Defines a Group

I belong to a group of Victorian reenactors, and my sister and her family are Civil War reenactors. We wear, on as many occasions as we can, costumes from the second half of the 19th century. My group is pretty forgiving about aspects of accuracy, and generally encourages participation in thrift-shop finds or cleverly put-together Macy's ensembles over "sitting out" an event because a suitable dress isn't available. Therefore, I'll focus on the Civil War group.

While my brother-in-law and nephew mostly enjoy "playing soldier," my sister is, as am I, more interested in the social aspects -- food and cooking, tea, visiting customs, mourning customs, et cetera. The modesty that contrasts so sharply with today's mores is attractive, too. Our respective organizations give us the opportunity to immerse ourselves in another world.

The men's costume indicates rank very clearly, in established military markings. The women's class distinctions, while less subtle, are there as well. The fabric and cut of a dress indicate whether you're a visiting townswoman or a camp follower -- the wife or sister of a soldier, keeping the "home fires burning" even at the edge of the battlefield. Many of my sister's dresses are cotton homespun dresses, with aprons and layers of petticoats rather than actual hoops -- clothing more suitable for open-air cooking and tent life. It is only for the regimental celebrations -- the annual "dining-in," for example -- that the laces and corsets and hoops come out.

In both sexes, authenticity and historical accuracy of costume (and other camp accoutrements) are highly valued. This is why many of the soldiers will be wearing woolen uniforms even during summertime battles, and why the most scrupulous women reenactors will only wear silk or cotton, when it would be much more affordable -- especially in a dress containing a dozen yards or more of fabric -- to use a blend or man-made fabric.

Back to my homepage.