Someone raised the question the other day as to why handkerchiefs in the pocket remain square. The handkerchiefs in the pocket are not always square – at least only a square since Louis XVI ruled that all handkerchiefs should be the same length and width. There is a Louvre photo of Henry IV’s time in which Parisienne holds a hexagonal pack handkerchief. It was the producers who begged the Lord to take out the square handkerchief of the bag. Which has acquired more or less since then.
Even the current definition of design and color did not want to change the nature of what is now a democratic issue in life. Because the handkerchief was not always in everyone’s line. There has been a noble work, and there has been political significance. Originally it was the emblem of the Eastern prince, who wore it on his belt, and that splendor of good power enabled Cyrus the Persian to prevent his subjects from holding their noses in front of the people would surely crush a slave who wanted to fight for supremacy. the right of his boss.
So at first, the handkerchief became a distinguishing mark of a good society, and the wise Greek youth had to decide whether to wipe their faces with a cloth or with a cloth. Since they were carrying two – one in the hand and one in the belt, – it was probably the first that served the face of the Classic. The Romans, who were obsessed with the Greek language, carried, not two, but, several handkerchiefs, each with a different name. Thus adding to the difficulty of the original Latin letters from the very first day.
The handkerchief then fell through the dark ages into sixteenth-century Italy. Which arrived there probably earlier by the tireless Marco Polo. And became fashionable abruptly and absurdly with such a zest to make it a matter of sumptuary rules. The “fazzoletto” was an important item on the chest of the Italian bride. And the bride was known for her richness and excellence. It then spread to France and eventually reached England. Where it is considered the worst generation by the older generation. There was even an Irish question on the handkerchiefs in the pocket.
The Court of Queen Elizabeth brought down upon it the criticism of the Connaught Empire. Not because these rebels were a little rebellious. But simply because of a misunderstanding of the handkerchief in the pocket. The Chief’s cupboard did not contain a handkerchief and at the same time was given to his wife.
After using it, the Chief threw it into the fire. This shocked the Court, which had not had a handkerchief for a long time. But gave him another, instructing an interpreter to put it in his pocket. This sparked is an uproar of Irish elegance. In which English women she criticized for being pagans who were willing to pocket. What they touched, which, when the Empire threw a second handkerchief into the fire.
Even in these days of democracy
The handkerchief seems to go hand in hand with dividing society. Kipps felt compelled to apologize for the absence of the handkerchief for a while. “I do not have the flu,” while the monogram or lace material or fabric texture indicates its owner accurately. In any case, its utilitarian purpose is only part of its function.
When Titania wanted to cry, Oberon gave her a moss. This is why there has always been dew on the cloth. And when the beggar wanted to explain the small size of the Chinese princess. He said that a handkerchief would pass through her ring. So it’s an unusual connection to the nose. Is a little snow under history, romance, and the emotional interests associated with it?