PUNCH’S BOOK OF BRITISH COSTUMES.

CHAPTER V. – THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD – (Continued).

ontinuing our study of the ancient books of fashion, we find that thought the Anglo-Saxons had no trousers, they were drawers, as may be seen by the drawings of them which are still left extant. These drawers did not descend, however, lower that the knee, ans so the modest Saxons mostly wore a sock of cow’s hide to cover up their calves; which, so far as we can judge from the artists of the period, appear to have been generally turned out to grass. This leather sock or buskin was called by them “scin hose,” but as Edingart informs us it was sometimes made of linen, it is probable the Saxons had then another name for it, though what that other name was we must let the reader guess. For aught we know or care, they may have called it “shin hose,” from its covering the shin, or they may have named it “thin hose,” because it was not thick.

Over this sock, hose, or stocking, they wore fillets, bands, or strips of cloth or wool, or leather, rolled, wound, or twisted round them from just above the ancle to just below the knee. From this exact description, which an eminent attorney has helped us to draw up, the reader doubtless will derive a very accurate idea of the nature of the garment which we wish him to conceive. We may, however, further assist him in conception of it, by telling him it looked like the hay-bands, of an ostler, excepting in so far as it looked somewhat different. We own that cloth, linen or leather docs not look much like hay, though now-a-days in rifle suits the first is much the colour of it. But the Saxons’ strips of stuff were wound round like our ostlers’ hay-bands, unless indeed the rolls were made to cross each other sandalwise, when they locked more like the buskins which are worn by our stage brigands, and which in youthful memories are coupled with bass voices and ferociously black looks.

The Saxon shoe (which, by the way, they now and then spelt “scoh” and now and then spelt “sceo;” but they had no Lord Malmesbury to look to their orthography) had an opening down the instep, and was fastened with a thong. In the illuminated manuscripts it is mostly painted black, but whether it was worn so in reality we know not. It is true that Day had not yet dawned in that dark age, nor could the Saxons’ shees have shone with the lustrous light of Martin. But it is possible the dandies may have somehow blacked their shoes, though how that somehow was we have no means now of determining. The common labourers, it seems, went generally barelegged, but no often with bare feet; in which respects, we think, if they were living now, it is probable that they would do exactly the reverse. It seems though, like good Christians, the princes and church dignitaries did their utmost to make up for the bareleggedness of their brethren; for we find their shoes and buskins represented as of gold, but as all’s not gold that glitters, they most probably were gilt.

These articles composed the civil costume of all classes; those who call themselves “superior” being distinguished by the fineness, not the form, of their apparel, and by the jewellery and ornaments with which they overlaid it. These apparently they wore in great profusion and variety; and besides such things as brooches, rings, and chains and crosses, the swells had golden belts, jewelled in no end of holes; and still more, made themselves conspicuous by wearing golden bracelets, which in our time are a part of solely feminine costume. These bracelets, we are told, King Alfred used by way of thief-baits; and had them hung up along the borders of the highways, to test the virtue of his people, and the vigilance of his police. But this fact is, of course, in the remembrance of the reader, and he will doubtless feel insulted if we venture to remind him that King Alfred was the first to introduce “the Force.” We doubt though if the reader have an accurate idea of how our first policemen looked, when they were out on duty; and as words would fail us to convey a fair description, we subjoin a full-length portrait of a Peeper of the period, which has been transmitted from a most authentic source.

POLICEMAN, TEMP. ALFRED.

The clergy in their dress were not distinguished from the laity, excepting when engaged in doing duty at the altar. The robes worn by the bishops consisted of the alb and stole, dalmatic and chasuble, with which our friends the Puseyites have made us well familiar, and which we think it therefore is quite needless to describe. When out of Church it seems they had a proneness to the pomps and vanities they preached against; for an order was put forth A.D. 785, forbidding them to wear “the tinctured colours of India,” colours which were doubtless looked upon as “fast.” It appears too, that they likewise did their best to look like laymen, by letting their back hair grow so as to cover up their tonsure: for a Canon was especially aimed against this practice, and fired off as is reported, just nine hundred years ago. But though forced to shave their heads, the clergy (at least some of them) were allowed, as a great luxury, to let the hair grow on their chins. By a Council which was held A.D. 1031, it was provided that a priest might wear a beard or not, precisely as he pleased: an indulgence which had long been extended to the bishops, but till then the lower clergy had not been indulged with it.

If we believe Tacius, and we don’t see why we shouldn’t, the Teutonic tribes were generally lovers of long hair; and by the Franks it was regarded as a mark of rank, an express law being made that only the first nobles should be suffered to grow ringlets. Whether the heirs of noble families, whose hair would not curl naturally, were suffered to use curling-tongs and curl-papers or not, we do not find it mentioned: but as ringlets were the mark of men’s being of high birth, we should think they spared no pains in their capillary cultivation. Among the Anglo-Saxons long hair was quite as fashionable as it was among the Franks: although they suffered more free trade in it, and passed no protective laws to limit its producers. The clergy preached for centuries against the sinfulness of wearing it; but it seems their preaching acted less like scissors than like bear’s grease, and their long sermons on long hair just made the hair grow all the longer.

Before we leave this head, it should be mentioned that civilians at this period wore no hats, but went about bare-pated like our Bluecoat boys and butchers. What their reasons were for doing so, it were a waste of time to guess. It is probable, however, that being proud of their long hair, they did not like to hide it, and so declined to wear the hide caps of the period, with which as we have shown, the soldiers were disfigured. Although not ornamental, these caps were certainly a cap-ital protection to the head, and shielded it from blows as well of weapons as of wind. It is on this account we wonder the civilians did not use them, for as they wore their hair so long, the slightest breath must surely have blown it in their eyes, unless they had a hat or cap to keep it out. For instance, when they marched out on a windy day in March, we can fancy how the air would “play in the ringlets” of their though why these creatures should be singled out as samples of insanity, no creature in his senses could undertake to say.

ANGLO-SAXON GENTS TAKING A HAIRING.

Back to PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT. <<< — >>> Next to AN ANECDOTE CORRECTED.