REMARKS ON PARTICULAR COSTUMES.
We must now offer a few brief remarks upon certain costumes which
appear to us most worthy of our attention and study, for their general
elegance and adaptation to the figure.
Of the modern Greek we have already spoken. The style of dress which
has been immortalized by the pencil of Vandyck is considered among the
most elegant that has ever prevailed in this country. It is not,
however, faultless. The row of small curls around the face, however
becoming to some persons, is somewhat formal; and although the general
arrangement of the hair, which preserves the natural size and shape of
the head, is more graceful than that of the time of Sir Joshua
Reynolds, we think it would have been more pleasing had it left
visible the line which divides the hair from the forehead. With
regard to the dress itself, it is apparent, in the first place, that
the figures are spoiled by stays; secondly, that the dress is cut too
low in front; and thirdly, that the large sleeves sometimes give too
great width in front to the shoulders. These defects are, in some
degree, counterbalanced by the graceful flow of the ample drapery, and
of the large sleeves, which are frequently widest at their lower part,
and by the gently undulating line which unites the waist of the dress
with the skirt. The Vandyck dress, with its voluminous folds, is,
however, more appropriate to the inhabitants of palaces, than to the
ordinary occupants of this working-day world. The drapery is too wide
and flowing for convenience. The annexed cut, (Fig. 73,) representing
Charlotte de la Tremouille, the celebrated Countess of Derby, exhibits
some of the defects and many of the beauties of the Vandyck dress.
Lely's half-dressed figures may be passed over without comment;
they are draped, not dressed. Kneller's are more instructive on the
subject of costume. The dress of Queen Anne, (Fig. 74,) in Kneller's
portrait, is graceful and easy. The costume is a kind of transition
between the Vandyck and Reynolds style. The sleeves are smaller at the
shoulder than in the former, and larger at the lower part than in the
latter; in fact, they resemble those now worn by the modern Greeks.
The dress is cut higher round the bust, and is longer in the waist
than the Vandycks, while the undulating line uniting the body and
skirt is still preserved. While such good examples were set by the
painters--who were not, however, the inventors of the fashions they
painted--it is astonishing that these graceful styles of dress should
have been superseded in real life by the lofty head-dresses and
preposterous fashions which prevailed during the same period and long
afterwards, and which even the ironical and severe remarks of Addison,
in the "Spectator," were unable to banish from the circles of fashion.
Speaking of the dresses of ladies during the reigns of James II. and
William III., Mr. Planche, in his "History of British Costumes," says,
"The tower or commode was still worn, and the gowns and petticoats
flounced and furbelowed, so that every part of the garment was in
curl;" and a lady of fashion "looked like one of those animals," says
the "Spectator," "which in the country we call a Friesland hen." But
in 1711 we find Mr. Addison remarking, "The whole sex is now dwarfed
and shrunk into a race of beauties that seems almost another species.
I remember several ladies who were once nearly seven foot high, that
at present want some inches of five. How they come to be thus
curtailed I cannot learn; whether the whole sex be at present under
any penance which we know nothing of, or whether they have cast their
head-dresses in order to surprise us with something in that kind which
shall be entirely new: though I find most are of opinion they are at
present like trees lopped and pruned, that will certainly sprout up
and flourish with greater heads than before."
The costume of the time of Sir Joshua Reynolds, as treated by this
great artist, though less splendid, appears to us, with the exception
of the head-dress, nearly as graceful, and far more convenient than
the Vandyck dress. It is more modest, more easy, and better adapted to
show the true form of the shoulders, while the union of the body of
the dress with the skirt is effected in the same graceful manner as in
the Vandyck portraits. The materials of the drapery in the latter are
generally silks and satins; of the former, it is frequently muslin and
stuff of a soft texture, which clings more closely to the form. That
much of the elegance of both styles of dress is to be attributed
to the skill and good taste of the painters, is evident from an
examination of portraits by contemporary artists. Much also may be
ascribed to the taste of the wearer.
There are some people who, though habited in the best and richest
clothes, never appear well dressed; their garments, rumpled and
untidy, look as if they had been pitched on them, like hay, with a
fork; while others, whose dress consists of the most homely materials,
appear well dressed, from the neatness and taste with which their
clothes are arranged.
[Illustration: Pl. 10.
Figure 73. Charlotte de la Tremouille.
75. After Gainsborough.
76. After Gainsborough.
77. Costume of Mrs. Bloomer.
]
Many of the costumes of Gainsborough's portraits are elegant and
graceful, with the frequent exception of the extravagant head-dress
and the high-heeled shoes. The easy and very pleasing figure,
(Fig. 75,) after this accomplished artist, is not exempt from the
above defects.
In our next illustration, (Fig. 76,) Gainsborough has not been so
happy. The lady is almost lost in her voluminous and fluttering
drapery, and the dishevelled hair and the enormous hat give to the
figure much of the appearance of a caricature.
Leaving now the caprices of fashion, we must notice a class of persons
who, from a religious motive, have resisted for two hundred years the
tyranny of fashion, and, until recently, have transmitted the same
form of dress from mother to daughter for nearly the same period of
years. The ladies of the Society of Friends, or, as they are usually
called, "Quakers," are still distinguished by the simplicity and
neatness of their dress--the quiet drabs and browns of which
frequently contrast with the richness of the material--and by the
absence of all ornament and frippery. Every part of their dress is
useful and convenient; it has neither frills, nor flounces, nor
trimmings to carry the dirt and get shabby before the dress itself,
nor wide sleeves to dip in the plates and lap up the gravy and sauces,
nor artificial flowers, nor bows of ribbons. The dress is long enough
for decency, but not so long as to sweep the streets, as many dresses
and shawls are daily seen to do. Some few years back the Quaker ladies
might have been reproached with adhering to the letter, while they
rejected the spirit, of their code of dress by adhering too literally
to the costume handed down to them. The crowns of their caps were
formerly made very high, and for this reason it was necessary that the
crowns of their bonnets should be high enough to admit the cap crown;
hence the peculiarly ugly and remarkable form of this part of the
dress. The crown of the cap has, however, recently been lowered, and
the Quaker ladies, with much good sense, have not only modified the
form of their bonnets, but have also adopted the straw and drawn silk
bonnet in their most simple forms. In the style of their dress, also,
they occasionally approach so near the fashions generally worn, that
they are no longer distinguishable by the singularity of their dress,
but by its simplicity and chasteness.
We venture now to devote a few words to the Bloomer costume,
(Fig. 77,) although we are aware that we are treading on tender
ground, especially as the costume involves a sudden and complete
change in the dress. Independently of its merits or demerits, there
are several reasons why it did not succeed in this country. In the
first place, as we have before observed, it originated in America,
and was attempted to be introduced through the middle ranks. In the
second place, the change which it endeavored to effect was too sudden.
Had the alteration commenced with the higher classes, and the change
been effected gradually, its success might possibly have been different.
Thirdly, the large hat, so well adapted to the burning sun of America,
was unnecessary, and remarkable when forming a part of the costume of
adult ladies in this country, although we have seen that hats quite as
large were worn during the time of Gainsborough. Another reason for
the ill success of the Bloomer costume is to be found in the glaring
and frequently ill-assorted colors of the prints of it, which were
every where exposed in the shop windows. By many sober-minded persons,
the large hat and glaring colors were looked upon as integral parts
of the costume. The numerous caricatures also, and the injudicious
attempts to make it popular by getting up "Bloomer Balls," contributed
to render the costume ridiculous and unpopular.
Setting aside the hat, the distinguishing characteristics of the
costume are the short dress, and a polka jacket fitting the body at
the throat and shoulders, and confined at the waist by a silken sash,
and the trousers fastened by a band round the ankle, and finished off
with a frill. On the score of modesty there can be no objection to
the dress, since the whole of the body is covered. On the ground
of convenience it recommends itself to those who, having the
superintendence of a family, are obliged frequently to go up and down
stairs, on which occasions it is always necessary to raise the dress
before or behind, according to circumstances. The objection to the
trousers is not to this article of dress being worn, since that is a
general practice, but to their being seen. Yet we suspect few ladies
would object on this account to appear at a fancy ball in the Turkish
costume.
The disadvantages of the dress are its novelty--for we seldom like a
fashion to which we are entirely unaccustomed--and the exposure which
it involves of the foot, the shape of which, in this country, is so
frequently distorted by wearing tight shoes of a different shape from
the foot. The short dress is objectionable in another point of view,
because, as short petticoats diminish the apparent height of the
person, none but those who possess tall and elegant figures will look
well in this costume; and appearance is generally suffered to prevail
over utility and convenience. If to the Bloomer costume had been added
the long under-dress of the Greek women, or had the trousers been as
full as those worn by the Turkish and East Indian women, the general
effect of the dress would have been much more elegant, although
perhaps less useful. Setting aside all considerations of fashion, as
we always do in looking at the fashions which are gone by, it was
impossible for any person to deny that the Bloomer costume was by far
the most elegant, the most modest, and the most convenient.