Skip to main content

Why people wore powdered wigs

When I look at paintings of historic figures, I can't help but notice that a great deal of them sport powdered wigs.

Since my days as a youth in history class, I've wondered why this is so, and recently I stumbled upon an article that demystified the practice for me.

As it turns out, it was a syphilis outbreak in Europe in the late 1500s that triggered a huge demand for wigs. People used powdered wigs called perukes -- made of goat, horse, or human hair and coated with scented powder -- to hide the baldness, bloody sores, and unseemly aromas caused by the STD.

Interestingly, at the time, long hair was a trendy status symbol, and a bald head was considered hideous enough to besmirch one's reputation. Thus, it's no surprise people went to such lengths to acquire perukes and avoid that kind of shame.

Although common, wigs weren't considered stylish until 1655, when Louis XIV, the King of France, began wearing them to hide his balding. Five years later, Charles II -- the King of England and Louis's cousin incidentally -- followed suit when his hair began to gray. Courtiers and other aristocrats began sporting wigs, and the style soon trickled down to the upper-middle class. A new fad was born.

Although the cost of wigs shot up, they stayed around even after Louis and Charles had died. Wigs curbed the problem of lice; they were much easier to delouse (rid of lice) than a head of hair.

The trend began to fizzle out by the late 18th century, as the peruke fell out of favor in France during the Revolution and the British ceased wearing it after William Pitt levied a tax on hair powder in 1795. It was then that short, natural hair became the rage, and it would remain that way for another two centuries.

So, the next time you see a wig on sale at the store, you can impress your friends by telling them that a venereal disease, a pair of self-conscious kings, and lice all played a role in the hairpiece's rising popularity and wide usage around the world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you have Isolophilia? Find out...

You're probably asking yourself, "What in the world does Isolophilia mean?" It sounds like it would be something negative, doesn't it?  After all, words that end in "philia" (e.g., pedophilia) tend to involve things we want nothing to do with. But Isolophilia isn't something all people deplore. In fact, introverts like me welcome it. Put simply, Isolophilia is defined as having a strong affinity for solitude. It describes a person who relishes being alone. While extroverts can only take so much solitude, we introverts find that it rejuvenates us. In order to recharge our batteries, we need to retreat to a quiet environment where we we're left alone to rest and/or gather our thoughts. Extroverts, on the other hand, become bored and drained when they're alone for a lengthy period of time. Social interaction is the fuel that drives them. So while an extrovert would probably do anything to avoid feelings of Isolophilia in most cases, an...

Women vs. Men: Who likes to backstab more?

Whether it's on TV or in the workplace, the general consensus seems to be that women gossip, backstab, and stir up more conflict than men do. But, as with every other topic, I thought it only fair to put this so-called stereotype under the microscope. If you watch reality shows like Celebrity Apprentice, you'll notice it's the women who spend far more time bickering. While the men do at times become embroiled in tit for tat, it's the women who are portrayed as meaner and more hostile. In the workplace, I have noticed that women seem to gossip far more than their male counterparts. I haven't really seen any cases where a person blatantly backstabs the other, but I have caught both men and women in little white lies. If it is true that women are generally more into backstabbing and gossiping than men, why is this the case? I believe that it isn't fair to make a blanket statement like "all women play these games while all men keep to themselves and pre...

No response from someone IS a response

Make no mistake about it: When you don't get a response from someone -- whether they fail to answer your texts or return your phone calls -- it is  still a response, and a powerful one at that. When a person fails to respond, it's a direct reflection of their interest -- or lack thereof -- in the relationship. Few things are more aggravating than having to hound a partner, friend, or relative for some sort of reply after we've reached out to them. Yes, we get busy from time to time, but that doesn't give anyone the right to leave the other person hanging. A terse text with something like "Been busy, will reach out soon" doesn't say much, but at least it shows some effort to bring the other person up to speed on why they've fallen off the radar. Failing to provide a response for weeks -- if not months -- communicates that you are just not a priority, and that you'll have to wait your turn to get this individual's attention. This is n...