WOMEN'S DRESS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 151, 30 June 1925, Page 14

WOMEN'S DRESS

EVOLUTION OF CLOTHING

CONDEMNATION OF ISAIAH

BARE ARMS AND SHORT SKIRTS.

"Never did women in Western civilisation wear less clothing than they do today, declares "A Mere Man" in the Melbourne "Age." One might even go further and affirm that since Eve appeared in Eden never have civilised women been' more scantily clad. The ladyof Kden progressed, from no clothes to fig leaves.; then to a coat mado of skin, and finally no doubt to that amplitude of robe familiar to all Eastern women. It must not be supposed, however,- that even, the womori of the chosen race were always renowned for ■ simplicity and modesty ;df dress. One prophet, at any rate, found material for denunciation in tho fashions of tho ladies of Jerusalem. In a rich vein of satire, Isaiah mimicked their ogling and mincing /gait, and described m surprising detaiL their gow-.ga.Wß: and meretricious ornaments. Some of them suggest the modern style, 'car-rings, arm chains, head bands, pendants, .and hand mirrors. Not yet have our modern women got to ankle chains or nose rings, and while this should: make us thankful, it would bo premature to boast. No one knows what is next to be tho fashion., The cut 6f: clothing moves in cycles, for as Montaigne reminds,us, not all the tailors in the world can .furnish whimwhams enough to feed our vanity: withal. . Invention cannot keep pace, with human inconstancy in dress, and thus, forsooth, the latest - fashion is more or less an old ono_ revived. Tho ancients often caused their; hair to hi : pinched off, and the <jauls wore- it long in front and very short behind, and would be the now familiar process of shingling. Nothing new.:under the sun. _■■■■':'.■'.'

. .Modern fashions date from the fourteenth century, probably the surest indication of ■ the new era being the complaints, of clothes being "cast aside for something more attractive because more novel. If one has before him a reliable series of: pictures, illustrative of changes m, dress from that century till bur own /certain, very remarkable .impressions will .be registered. The men at first' wear .the tight hose so -as.to show the extra leg m that covering. Gradually one notices .that tunic or coat;lengthening and the_nrst. promise of 'trousers appearing in the shape, of "smalls" /or knickers JJurmg these centuries the women's dresses change in circumfcranco and ornament, but never an ankle is shown ■and.scarcely^even a toe peeps out below*6 .sk'^-' Then mark the next stage. Man, the forked radish, : appears in trousers,^legs wholly covered, and woman..slowly, but surely/develops the short skirt, and. as, Jo-day that, contraption which can only be. called a kilt. Man covers his lower climbs, woman in some measure reverses the process. : -.!,That.'does not complete the'tale. Man never was bai-e armed, but woman has always; hankered after it.i One remembei's his grandmother appearing in wonderful array, with beautiful lad drapins gracefully the, upper,arm, and leaving the lower arm uncovered. This: was on

State occasions. Nowadays you sea women gadding about with skirt to the knee, or but little lower, and arms bare to the shoulder, except for a gold bangle which, save the mark, imprisons a handkerchief. What next? At the ball or wedding, not content with displaying arms and legs, they proceed to leave a good part of the back bare to public inspection; Alas, did they but know wliat people think and sa.y about them! Here is man, with all his vices and foibles, clothing himself in most modest garb, miserable enough in respect of grace and dignity, but in any case quietly and soberly, and without offence. And it would seem that the more man puts on the more woman puts off.

r' ■ CHANGING FASHIONS. Not so long ago the train was in fashion, and-.my lady swept the streetß with a thoroughness which left nothing to be desired. Then sho found someone to invent a cord which went round her waist and caught like a pair of tongs the lower part of her skirt to save it from the mud and dust. Behold the two extremes, the train and the kilt. The indictment is not yet complete. Miss Hardcast'le, of date about 1770, wore a skirt so voluminous and of such length as to satisfy tho sternest proprieties, gave room for comfortable locomotion, and more especially for an elaborate curtsey. Ladies now living tell us four yards was the width of the skirt in their youth, and they held up their hands in horror when the width was reduced to two yards. Now it is one yard. Th 6 Jerusalem ladies took to_ ankle chains to limit their steps to a mincing pace; the modern girl secures tho same result by a skirt-which, to the uninitiated, seems about .18 inches wide. , ■,■--■" A letter to _ the "Spectator" in Addison's day points out another extravagance into which tho sex had run. .The petticoats, after a period of heaving and swelling, were presently blown up into a most enormous concave, and, contrary to all rules of architecture, widened the foundations, while, they shortened the superstructure. The ladies pleaded tho coolness of the hew ' fashion; but ■ the "Spectator" asked why they needed more cooling than their mothers. Speculative persons believed that the., hoop petticoats were invented to keep men at a distance, that a woman's honour was better entrenched amidst such a ■variety■.'of outwards and' lines of eir-. cumvallation. '-.. ' '•:•,/ . -

The crinoline had its name from the French 'word for hair, because', it was originally a fabric of horsehair. About 1855 steel wire, was substituted, and crinolines were often' from twelve to fifteen feet.in circumference.. 'As early as 1744 a woman was said to occupy the space of six men, and if the .crinoline was so large,* what number of yards of stuff .would /be required.' for ..'the dress that covered' it? Quaint old Pepys admits that he had many vests made out of his wife's, old dresses. In those days men loved a dash of the colour, in their clothing, even when it had ,to -be provided out of what a wife had discarded. The poor man would not get' many vests out .of ,the skirts . now in. vogue. No longer is it possible..to..hide,behind a woman's skirt. ,; r;, ■'..','

Something, pathetic attaches to the Mrs. Bloomer who, in 1849, appeared in a jacket with dole sleeves, a skirt'falling a little belowthe knee, and beneath it a pair of Turkish trousers.; She.was

courageous enough to give lectures on this department of the woman's rights' movements, but she found very few prepared to face the social martyrdom it involved. The women of the day did not want their rights embodied in that particular manner, and, of course, had the right to choose their rights. But has not Mrs. Bloomer triumphed? Have not our modern girh out-bloomered Bloomer by not only accepting her style, but, as they think, improving on it' by discarding sleeves altogether?

SENSIBLE DRESS WANTED.

, Is there any hope whatever of standardising a sensible dress, which shall at once satisfy the demands of comfort, modesty, and beauty? How can a man bo expected to answer, such a question? Yet, a couple of philosophers, and for aught wo know many more, have indicated their replies. Amiel says woman is a Sphinx to us and a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She is mystery itself. A woman is something irrational,; indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory, the delight and the terror of man. Lbtze, going -a little deeper, says that we prolong the consciousness of our personal existence into any foreign body brought in. contact with the.surfaces of our owriibody, so that we grow taller with high head gear and more'agreeable with fluttering laces and ribbons, and, in short, become, possessed of a new consciousness with every new garment we acquire. It follows that if:our clothes are to yield iis a maximum, of pleasure wo must havenot only new clothes but-now styles of clothes. With all respect to Lotze, it may be said that as far as tho bulk of men are concerned 1 they hate the feeling of new clothes and new fashions.

I have a notion that tailors and "dressmakers are rather melancholy people, perhaps -because^their business iis, a con-' tinual reminder that dress was necessary only because man became a fallen creature. He is the only animal who needs artificial clothing. A woman has been defined by one of the''ancient fathers as an-animal that delights-in finery. She is certainly more alive to artistic influences in dress. Who prescribes the fashion she adopts no-mortal can tell, but the _ apparel proclaims the woman. Meanwhile one mere man '.dare declare that we shall heighten our esteem,for the - sex. in proportion as theyv make their skirts and sleeves longer, and be content with exposing their faces; and not their backs. '.■'.:' .- t