MODERN DRESS.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17043, 5 March 1927, Page 13 (Supplement)

MODERN DRESS.

THE POPE AND THE FASHIONS.

(Spectator.)

The Pope has embarked upon one of those periodical conflicts as to tho moral aspects of women's clothes, and the wickedness of fashions, in which throughout history the honours of war have always fallen to the adorned and adorable sex. The latest example is “the censure on immoral dress” just issued from the Vatican. The Pope, in a message to the Cardinal of Cologne, speaks in very plain language ;

“It is deplorable that dresses, whose natural aim is to cover the human body, should at the present time, when so many women forget their dignity, serve Instead to offend modesty, offering to everybody, especially young people, an inducement to sensuality. I have not lost an occasion to insist on the need to recall the people to modesty, and now I condemn this shameful behaviour.”

Further, the Pope at a reception of “a Catholic Men’s Society” yielded to the temptation, which few people can now resist, of using a "slogan”: “Dresses are intended to cover, not uncover, bodies” —a war-cry to which we may readily imagine the feminine retort: “He speaks to me who never wore a blouse.”

The high dignitaries of the Church have eagerly endorsed the attitude of the Holy See. Rome has spoken, and so there is an end of further discussion. The Archbishop of Bordeaux has, greatly daring, descended to detail. In language which seems to suggest the Ukase of a Modiste he thus addresses “Woman” in the abstract :

“Her dress should be high-necked, her arms should be covered by the sleeves at least to the elbow, the skirts of little girls should cover their knees completely, while the skirts of young girls and women should be of sufficient length to prevent any accusations of immodesty. I expressly forbid any of the clergy to administer Communion to, or hear confession by, anyone who does not comply with this warning. In addition to this, no woman who is not dressed correctly shall he allowed to act as a godmother or witness a marriage ceremony.” Sounds Very Brave. That sounds very brave, It has, indeed, the. flavour of the paterfamilias who declares' in stentorian tones that he will be master in his own house, and that the women who live under his roof shall he decently dressed, and not look like a mixture between chorus girls and skinned rabbits. Nothing, as we all know, comes of such fatherly explosions, and nothing will come of the new Papal admonition. The women will not argue, or even get angry, but will go on just as before; they will, that is, wear whatever the dressmakers tell them is being worn this season.

In view of these circumstances, the Pope is bound to be beaten. No one will defy him, or revolt, or use the language of mutiny; but there will not be any extra three inches below the knee or any extra two at the neck. To begin with, the decree could not possibly be enforced unless “Familiars of the Inquisition" were to attend all balls, theatres, and restaurants, armed with tape measures, and summarily arrest all the short-skirled or lownecked. But not even the most impulsive Cardinal could hope for that.

If the Pope is still sanguine we would venture with all respect to ask him to send for the sermons of that great and noble revivalist, San Bernardipo of Siena. He attacked immodest dress in the fifteenth century and thundered against the fashions in language even plainer and more vehement than that of the Pope. Yet nothing came of San Bernardino's biting oratory. By a piece of good fortune Messrs Gerald Howe, of 23 Soho Square, have just published a fascinating series of selections from the sermons of the revivalist of Siena, entitled “Examples of San Bernardino of Siena.” To show that we are not exaggerating when we speak of Bernardino's determination to put down what he termed immodesty in dress, and to pulverise the plea that women must be in the fashion, we will quote one of his “Examples":— “There are some women that, whenever they see a new fashion, or whenever they see a courtesan dressed up in the French style, they are at once struck by it, Is there a single girl or a single married woman in the city who is not dressed in the modern way? As soon as they see a new fashion they must pull their own gown to pieces, and has it re-made in the new style Do you know what ought to be done with them? First you ought to Lake and burn the woman who wears such clothes, then the mother that allows it and after that the tailor that makes them up. Certainly if I had my way there would be no such things as fashions. Cannot you understand that they are ruining your city? And this I would say as well. That whoever makes the gowns, or wears them, or allows them to be worn, is guilty of mortal sin. But most of all the tailor, who with his clever scheming is the occasion for so much evil.” O Vain Woman.

More specific is the following example : “Your sleeves are so long, O vam woman, that when it rains you can put one over your head. These sleeves came straight from the devil, because it is he that teaches you to make them so. O, women, when I see you with these great sleeves of yours, so wide and long, with so much cloth in them that when you walk they hamper your arms so that you can hardly bear them, and when you throw them over your shoulders again they hamper you there, then, think I, what squandering of your substance, and, oh, what squandering of your souls 1” Other examples might be quoted m which he denounced folded headdresses and sleeves which sweep the ground. Sleeves, indeed, are special red rags to him, and he speaks of them a 3 “wings of the dev3!." As we have said, San Bernardino was beaten, or rather, got no results whatever from his campaign. It is curious io note that he does not seem to have had any inkling of the fact that Fashion, which he so much denounced, was the very thing which saved the fantastic dresses from being immoral. That women wore them because they felt they must obey the fashion and not because they desired to make their dresses proveative, really saved the situation. The history of costume shows that the fashions have

very little to do with morality. Take, for example, the Victorian epoch. Queen Victoria and the court ladies of the period which we regard as so specially strait-laced, wore extremely decollete evening dresses. One has only got to look at a bound volume of Punch or of the Illustrated London News, or at any of the fashion books from 1850 onwards, to see how low dresses were cut in that day. The truth is that the people who alter the fashions proceed ,by the pendulum rules of change, and are not obsessed by any sinister designs against morality. In the last resort, no doubt, the trouble comes from the difficulty of a celibate organisation, understanding the motives which affect women in matters of dress. The father of a family may be stupid, but ultimately he gets a pretty clear idea of the impulses which are affecting his wife and daughters. Therefore we may be sure that nothing more will come of the new crusade than of the previous crusades in regard to women’s dress. The women will triumph, not because they are hostile to the Pope, but automatically. They can no' more defy the fashion than could Canute the tide.