| |
We are all aware of the value of a costume, such as
the dress of the Pompadour era: the Swiss peasant's
bodice, the Normandy cap, the _faldetta_ of the
Maltese, the Hungarian national dress, the early
English, the Puritan square-cut, the Spanish
mantilla, the Roman scarf and white cap--all these
come before us; and as we mention each
characteristic garment there steps out on the canvas
of memory a neat little figure, in which every
detail from shoe to head-dress is harmonious.
No one in his wildest dreams, however, could set out
with the picture of a marquise, and top it off with
a Normandy cap. Nor could he put powder on the dark
hair of the jaunty little Hungarian. The beauty of
these costumes is seen in each as a whole, and not
in the parts separately. The marquise must wear pink
or blue, or some light color; she must have the long
waist, the square-cut corsage, the large hoop, the
neat slipper, with rosette and high heel, the rouge
and patches to supplement her powdered hair, or she
is no marquise.
The Swiss peasant must have the short skirt, the
white chemisette, the black velvet bodice, the cross
and ribbon, the coarse shoes, and the head-dress of
her canton; the Normandy peasant her dark, striking
dress, her high-heeled, gold-buckled shoe, and her
white apron; the Hungarian her neat, military
scarlet jacket, braided with gold, her scant
petticoat and military boot, her high cap and
feather. The dress of the English peasant, known now
as the "Mother Hubbard" hat and cloak, very familiar
to the students of costumes as belonging to the
countrywomen of Shakspeare's time, demands the
short, bunched-up petticoat and high-heeled,
high-cut shoes to make it perfect.
We live in an age, however, when fashion,
irrespective of artistic principle, mixes up all
these costumes, and borrows a hat here and a shoe
there, the effect of each garment, diverted from its
original intention, being lost.
If "all things by their season seasoned are," so is
all dress (or it should be) seasonable and
comprehensive, congruous and complete. The one great
secret of the success of the French as artists and
magicians of female costume is that they consider
the _entire figure_ and its demands, the conditions
of life and of luxury, the propriety of the
substance, and the needs of the wearer. A lady who
is to tread a velvet carpet or a parqueted floor
does not need a wooden shoe; she needs a satin
slipper or boot. Yet in the modern drawing-room we
sometimes see a young lady dancing in a heavy
Balmoral boot which is only fitted for the bogs and
heather of a Scotch tramp. The presence of a short
dress in a drawing-room, or of a long train in the
street, is part of the general incongruity of dress.
The use of the Ulster and the Derby hat became
apparent on English yachts, where women learned to
put themselves in the attitude of men, and very
properly adopted the storm jib; but, if one of those
women had been told that she would, sooner or later,
appear in this dress in the streets of London, she
would have been shocked.
In the days of the French emigration, when highborn
ladies escaped on board friendly vessels in the
harbor of Honfleur, many of them had on the
long-waisted and full-skirted overcoats of their
husbands, who preferred to shiver rather than endure
the pain of seeing their wives suffer from cold.
These figures were observed by London tailors and
dress-makers, and out of them grew the English
pelisse which afterwards came into fashion. On a
stout Englishwoman the effect was singularly absurd,
and many of the early caricatures give us the
benefit of this incongruity; for although a small
figure looks well in a pelisse, a stout one never
does. The Englishwoman who weighs two or three
hundred pounds should wear a sacque, a shawl, or a
loose cloak, instead of a tight-waisted pelisse.
However, we are diverging. The sense of the
_personally becoming_ is still another branch of the
great subject of dress. A velvet dress, for
instance, demands for its trimmings expensive and
real lace. It should not be supplemented by Breton
or imitation Valenciennes. All the very pretty
imitation laces are appropriate for cheap silks,
poplins, summer fabrics, or dresses of light and
airy material; but if the substance of the dress be
of the richest, the lace should be in keeping with
it.
So, also, in respect to jewellery: no cheap or
imitation jewellery should be worn with an expensive
dress. It is as foreign to good taste as it would be
for a man to dress his head and body in the most
fashionable of hats and coats, and his legs in white
duck. There is incongruity in the idea.
The same incongruity applies to a taste for which
our countrymen have often been blamed--a desire for
the magnificent, A woman who puts on diamonds, real
lace, and velvets in the morning at a summer
watering-place is decidedly incongruous. Far better
be dressed in a gingham, with Hamburg embroidery,
and a straw hat with a handkerchief tied round it,
now so pretty and so fashionable. She is then ready
for the ocean or for the mountain drive, the
scramble or the sail. Her boots should be strong,
her gloves long and stout. She thus adapts her
attire to the occasion. In the evening she will have
an opportunity for the delicate boot and the
trailing gauze or silk, or that deft combination of
all the materials known as a "Worth Costume."
In buying a hat a woman should stand before a
long Psyche glass, and see herself from head to
foot. Often a very pretty bonnet or hat which
becomes the face is absolutely dreadful in that wavy
outline which is perceptible to those who consider
the effect as a whole. All can remember how absurd a
large figure looked in the round poke hat and the
delicate Fanchon bonnet, and the same result is
brought about by the round hat. A large figure
should be topped by a Gainsborough or Rubens hat,
with nodding plumes. Then the effect is excellent
and the proportions are preserved.
Nothing can be more incongruous, again, than a long,
slim, aesthetic figure with a head-gear so
disproportionately large as to suggest a
Sandwich-Islander with his head-dress of mats. The
"aesthetic craze" has, however, brought in one
improvement in costume. It is the epauletted sleeve,
which gives expansion to so many figures which are,
unfortunately, too narrow. All physiologists are
speculating on the growing narrowness of chest in
the Anglo-Saxon race. It is singularly apparent in
America. To remedy this, some ingenious dress-maker
devised a little puff at the top of the arm, which
is most becoming. It is also well adapted to the
"cloth of gold" costume of the days of Francis I.,
which modern luxury so much affects. It is a Frond
sort of costume, this nineteenth-century dress, and
can well borrow some of the festive features of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, if they be not
incongruous. We, like those rich nobles and
prosperous burghers, have lighted on piping times of
peace; we have found a new India of our own; our
galleons come laden with the spoils of all
countries; we are rich, and we are able to wear
velvet and brocade.
But we should be as true as they to the proprieties
of dress. In the ancient burgher days the richest
citizen was not permitted to wear velvet; he had his
own picturesque collar, his dark-cloth suit, his
becoming hat. He had no idea of aping the cian, with
his long hat and feather. We are all patricians; we
can wear either the sober suit or the gay one; but
do let us avoid incongruity.
A woman, in dressing herself for an evening of
festivity, should remember that, from her ear-rings
to her fan, all must suggest and convey the idea of
luxury. A wooden fan is very pretty in the morning
at a watering-place, but it will not do in the
evening. None of the modern _chftelaine_
arrangements, however ornamental, are appropriate
for evening use. The _chftelaine_ meant originally
the chain on which the lady of the house wore her
keys; therefore its early association of usefulness
remains: it is not luxurious in intention, however
much modern fashion may have adorned it.
Many a fashion has, it is true, risen from a low
estate. The Order of the Garter tells of a monarch's
caprice; the shoe-buckle and the horseshoe have
crept up into the highest rank of ornaments. But as
it takes three generations to make a gentleman, so
does it take several decades to give nobility to
low-born ornament. We must not try to force things.
A part of the growing and sad incongruity of modern
dress appears in the unavoidable awkwardness of a
large number of bouquets. A belle cannot leave the
insignia of belledom at home, nor can she be so
unkind as to carry Mr. Smith's flowers and ignore
Mr. Brown's; so she appears with her arms and hands
full, to the infinite detriment of her dress and
general effect. Some arrangement might be devised
whereby such trophies could be dragged in the train
of the high-priestess of fashion.
A little reading, a little attention to the study of
costume (a beautiful study, by-the-way), would soon
teach a young woman to avoid the incongruous in
dress. Some people have taste as a natural gift:
they know how to dress from a consultation with
their inner selves. Others, alas! are entirely
without it. The people who make hats and coats and
dresses for us are generally without any
comprehension of the history of dress. To them the
hat of the Roundhead and that of the Cavalier have
the same meaning. To all people of taste and
reading, however, they are very different, and all
artists know that the costumes which retain their
hold on the world have been preferred and have
endured because of their fitness to conditions of
climate and the grace and ease with which they were
worn.
|
|