THE PNEUMONIA BLOUSE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 59, 6 September 1913, Page 13

THE PNEUMONIA BLOUSE

AND THE RHEUMATIC SKIRT. A remarkable article on the existing feminine modes is contributed by a correspondent to The Times. He remarks that we are in the height of a revolution in feminine clothes, such as has nob been seen since that other revolution gave sanction to the excesses of women in the Directoire and the Empire. 1 Five years ago women still wore skirts and bodices which covered them, Btockings thick enough not to show the colour of their skin, and sufficient stays and petticoats to conceal the details of their persons. " What is patent to the least observaht nowadays is that women wear almost nothing under their gowns, even in tho daytime. "Petticoai* went some time back, and were replaced by tights — or not replaced at all. The stockings are of such diaEhanous silk as to embarrass the beolder Who sees, even in the street, bo much of them, and they are not covered by any but Court shoes. So much for the foundation. " Over this is worn a filmy sheath of half-transparent material, cut almost as low by day as by night, and with such slashings and liftings in the skirt ajfmay fully display tho leg halfway to the knee and which show every movement of the limbs— almost of the muscles. " Certainly/ this correspondent adds, " there is an orgy of undressing going on, and it shows no signs of abating. And what is to be the end? It is dimcult to see ; but obviously, when you have gone on undressing for a certain time, you come to the end of what there is to take off, and the only thing to do is to put your clothes on again. But no one can foresee when that happy hour of sanity will be with usi There are no signs of it at present." "It is quite true that women arft Wearing less than ever," said a wellknown modiste in Hanover-street to the Evening News, "and that the afternoon frock of to-day is like the evening frock of a few years ago. But as long as they are ' the thing * people will wear them. Tho openihg in the uldrt has be* come a feature of evening frocks at fashionable dances, bub personally I think it hideous. It is not worn by the best people, and is probably only a passing vagary of fashion." This was the view of another establishment, which pointed out that there wete two schools of clients to be considered- • the dignified and the daring. The former, ;t thought, was the larger. Daring costumes were much loved by Americans, but did not appeal to the greaKmajority of Englishwomen. Even Englishwomen who tolerate the pheiiradnia bkmse,^ said one manager, "draw the line at the rheumatic skirt." " People are endeavouring to • find philosophical reasons for the present orgy of undress. It is quite unnecessary to do 60," says the Pall Mall, j "The whole thing can be summed up in four words 1 It is the fashion. Fashions take their origin, no doubt, from the Parisian cocotte, whose design is allurement. But those who follow are perfectly innocent of any intention at all save to wear exactly what their sisters wear, or to go one better, if possible. Dress may be ugly, immodest) anything you please. But if the modiste declares it to b» th* fashion, no power avails to wean lovely woman from it." " Napoleon pu*. down the fashion a century ago in hit own peculiar way," says the Mail. "There Is. a story told by Count Vandal h»v,- one night at the Luxembourg, wheh a number of great ladies were present in the most exiguous costumes, he ordered the domestics to pile up a monstrous fire, Baying pointedly, 'Do you not see that all these ladies are undressed?' Tha rebuke produced its intended effect, as there Were ' few even of the fair sex who would face this terrible- master's anger."