RATIONAL DRESS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XVI, Issue XXII, 30 May 1896, Page 640

RATIONAL DRESS.

(BY LADY COOK.) The souls of the • unco guid ’ are much exercised just now because of some recent developments in women's dress. Female vanity and fondness for change of attire have at all times tried their pious spirits. It would almost seem that Providence has specially provided these crosses for their behoof, else where would be the occupation of that numerous class * who’ve naught to do but mark and tell their neebors’ fauts and folly.’ And so from remote times, changes of fashions, especially female fashions, have been the cause of many prayers and wrestlings, denounced from pulpits, and the butts of secular scoffs and ridicule. Some years ago a handsome, accomplished, and well dressed young lady—an intimate friend of onrs—casually passing the open door of a rural Bethel about a mile or two from Penzance, ventured to enter. Her fashionable appearance in such a spot caused a general sensation. The ‘Local Preacher’ halted in the midst of his rustic eloquence, and gazed for a few moments at the lovely vision. Then thrusting Satan behind him with one hand, his heart boiling with holy wrath, he extended the other, and pointing to the delicate veil which flowed over her luxuriant tresses, shouted in stentorian tones and with an air of apostolic fervour, • Take off that hellrag !’ If a mere veil could have produced such a rude outburst of dissenting zeal, what would he have said had she entered in cycling knickerbockers ? Our young friend left the chapel of this latter day Bjanerges more rapidly than she entered it, and with the visible sympathy of the surprised congregation—for the Cornish are remarkable for their gentle and obtrusive politeness. Nevertheless, his character as a severe and fearless denouncer of pomps and vanities was thoroughly established.

This reformer must have numerous relations in Chicago, for we understand that women are arrested there by the police if they appear in public in knickbockers. And we have many who would welcome a similar course here. Some newspaper correspondents suggest it by saying that if they were to go about in their wives’ clothes they would be locked up. This is no doubt true. But then the ladies do not wear their husband’s clothes, but their own, made specially for themselves. There is no pretence whatever to pose as males, and no one is deceived as to their sex. Therefore the whole question resolves itself Into one of taste and convenience. If a woman feels that she can cycle with

less danger and more ease without a skirt than with one, what moral right has anyone to interfere so long as she preserves her sex distinction ? How would men like to be compelled to run and ride in petticoats ? Or why should women be denied the free play of their limbs, or even the admiration due to a well turned pair ?

It is nrged that it is an indecency for women to sit astride. We ask,; Why? Until‘Good Queen Anne ’ introduced the side saddle, the women of England always rode horseback astride like the men, as the women of many countries do to the present day. Physiologically considered, perhaps it would be fitter, if a distinction must be made, for men to use side saddles and women the others. It is nonsense to connect immorality with either mode, as it is simply a matter of custom, and when the novelty of seeing a woman astride has worn off, time will sanction both it and the knickerbockers, as it has sanctioned so many other things. It is somewhat amusing, however, to hear women who appear at public functions in the most decollette manner —semi-nude, arms and shoulders, backs and breasts bare to all beholders—disparaging the modest women who only display, to the extent of a few inches, the shape of a pair of wellcovered legs. Ladies of position have long been accustomed to accompany their male friends to cover and moor shooting, habited in knickers and leggings, and little notice has been taken, but the adoption of similar garments by the cycling commonalty is quite another thing, and requires police interference. Mankind have been trying all kinds of clothing, possibly to discover a rational dress, and have not found the suitable one yet. The disgusting fashion of short and tight breeches ‘ which rather exposed the wearer’s nakedness than hid it,’ was banished from Erance by an edict of Charles V. The beaux of Elizabeth’s reign, however, differed from those of Chaucer’s and Charles’ time. They stuffed their breeches with feathers, rags, and other light materials, until they were swollen to a huge circumference, and at the same time the ladies wore large hooped farthingales, something like modern crinolines, so that * two lovers aside could surely never have taken one another by the hand.’ In a print by Vertue, Lady Hunsdon, a leader of fashion, heads Elizabeth’s procession to Lord Hunsdon’s. Her * standing-up wire rug ’ rises above her bead, her stays reach to her knees, and the farthingale encloses her *asin a capacious tub.’ Disraeli says : ‘The amorous Sir Walter Raleigh must have found some of the Maides of Honour the most impregnable fortification his gallant spirit ever assailed : a coup de main was impossible.’ Old Stowe says of this reign, in that time he was held the greatest gallant that had the deepest ruff and longest rapier. We have seen an old French print of Adam and Eve in elaborate Eastern cos tumes, robed, jewelled, and turbaned, although we are told our Biblical ancestors commenced with fig leaves and did not advance beyond ‘coats of skins.’ The graceful and Greek like dresses of AngloSaxon times continued to linger long after the Conqueror. The conquest of France by the English introduced French fashions, and those and other refinements continued to come to ns at intervals from Italy and Holland also. The English dress of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was the most varied, the most bizarre, and the most ridiculous. In the reign of Charles II the Puritans kept a watchful and bilions eye upon every change of fashions. ‘ When cortlers wore monstrous wigs, they cut their hair short; when they adopted hats with broad plumes, they clapped on round black caps, and screwed up their pale religious faces ; and when shoe-buckles were revived they wore strings.’ So cantankerous is soured human nature.

We must not suppose that we have arrived at the Ultima Thule of dress yet. Possibly, judging from the trend of fashion, in course of time things will veer around and each sex adopt the costume of the other, the men wearing petticoats or kilts—which would be far more becoming than the present scanty jackets and tight trousers—and the women wearing lo"g coats or blouses, and breeches or Turkish trousers. A rational dress must be one which gives the largest freedom to the body, is healthiest, lightest, most comfort able and best adapted to climate and season. For picturesqueness perhaps the modern native Greek dress surpasses all others. For purposes of coquetry, it would seem that concealment is most effective. Tacitus tells us that the beautiful Poppea exposed only a part of her face, • to irritate curiosity ’ and to heighten by imagination the perfection of the remainder. But whatever we wear or however we dress, that must be most rational which best suite onr comfort and our circumstances, and whether knickerbockers or skirts, is of no lawful concern to any of the Peeping Toms, Paul Prys, and lip-pnrsed Prudes who howl at any change or recreation in which they do not participate. They who make the londest outcry are probably

those whose unshapely ankles and lege will not bear inspection, but as the race im proves in symmetry, and well-formed limbs become general, it is likely that very short dresses for the women and knee breeches, as in the graceful olden times, for the men, will be the universal fashion.