INGENUITY AND LUXURY 



skirts, for example, remained in use for a good part of 

 two centuries despite reasonable arguments, satire, 

 and ministerial condemnation, and have only fallen 

 into disuse in our own generation. 



The Church was continually preaching against ex- 

 travagance in dress, particularly during the seventeenth 

 and eighteenth centuries, without any effect whatever; 

 and occasionally a monarch took a hand, and even set 

 an example for his subjects. The "merry monarch," 

 Charles II, attempted to change the ridiculous fashion 

 of his time by adopting a plain type of dress not un- 

 like the modern suit, declaring that he should wear 

 no other style during the remainder of his life. De- 

 spite the secret smiles of his courtiers he kept his word 

 for some time. Then his luxurious neighbor across 

 the channel, Louis XIV, heard of Charles's decision, 

 and promptly adopted the English monarch's costume 

 as livery for his servants. This was too much even 

 for a reformer; and Charles quickly surrendered and 

 returned to his former costumes. 



In England, at least, the plagues were responsible 

 for some changes in fashions, and for the continuance 

 of fashions in vogue, and a tendency to simplicity in 

 dress. The great plague of 1665 almost completely 

 depopulated certain districts of London, some well- 

 worn thoroughfares being so deserted that grass grew 

 in the streets. It came to be generally believed at 

 that time that imported garments were the cause of 

 infection, and even fashionable gallants became chary 

 of purchasing new clothes. The result was that tail- 

 ors were obliged to close their shops, and some usually 



