MR. G. F. WATTS, R.A.
Little Holland House,
Kensington, W.
DEAR SIR,--I don't know that the present style of "ladies' dress," when
not pushed to extremes and exaggerations, can be very much objected to.
Mr. du Maurier, in _Punch_, is able, without violating truth, to make it
look very graceful and charming. Such portions as are easily put on and
taken off need not be soberly, much less severely, criticised. It is
natural, and even right, that considerable elasticity should be claimed
by fashion--fancy and trade are encouraged. All, however, that is
calculated to effect permanent injury to health must be very severely
condemned. Tight lacing, pointed shoes, and high heels--these, unless
the fashion changes (which, being very ugly, it probably will not),
leave permanent disastrous results. No lady can be really well and
beautifully dressed if what she wears outrages Nature's intentions in
the structure of the human frame. Such outrages are: a waist like a
stove pipe, shoes that compress the toes into a crumpled mass of
deformity, and, it might even be added, gloves that confine the hand
till it looks little better than a fin--but as this inflicts no
permanent injury, it does not matter--but the foot is irredeemably
ruined, to the destruction of spring and grace in movement, and to no
inconsiderable injury to health. It is a very common thing to hear a
lady say, "The foot is an ugly thing!" Her shapeless shoe has told her
this; but it will be seen how untrue it is if one looks at a cast from
the foot of an Indian woman, or the drawing of a foot by Sir Frederic
Leighton. No doubt the crumpled clump of deformity common from wearing
modern abominations, is a thing an ancient Greek would have shuddered
at; and this is to be the more lamented as the modern young lady is
often of splendid growth and form, such as probably the ancient Greek
never saw.
Perhaps, the real test of the highest taste in dress would be, whether
it could be put into sculpture; but that would be too rigid a rule. One
may say, however, that no lady can be well dressed who, for the sake of
tasteless vanity, decks herself in the spoils of the most beautiful of
created creatures, cruelly indifferent to such destruction; or sticks
reptiles and repulsive insects about her.
To your question, "What is your ideal of a beautiful woman?" I would
answer, That form which, tall or short, or of light or dark colour, most
emphasises human characteristics furthest removed from suggestions of
the inferior creatures--a principle so well understood and acted upon by
the great Greek artists. How beautiful when, in the words of Ruskin,
"Fairest, because purest and thoughtfullest, trained in all high
knowledge, as in all courteous art--in dance, in song, in sweet wit, in
lofty learning, in loftier courage, in loftiest love--able alike to
cheer, to enchant, or save the souls of men."
This would, I think, do for an ideal.--Very truly yours,