[Illustration: FIG. 6.]
MR. G. H. BOUGHTON, A.R.A.
West House,
Campden Hill-road, W.
DEAR SIR,--The questions you send me regarding my opinion of the present
style of ladies' dress cover too large and varied a field to be disposed
of in a moment--that is, if one _could_ dispose of them even after many
and many a month, let alone moments. The one virtue of the women's dress
of to-day is its variety and individuality. Those who are really
_dressed_ and not merely clothed, have their dresses "created" for them,
and they belong to each other. The fair and the dark, the lean and the
reverse, do not now bedeck themselves with the same all pervading tint
or cut, whether it suits them well or ill, just because it is "all the
go." Even the almost universal cut of to-day is most usually graceful
and of quiet tone. And somehow girls seem to be of taller growth, and of
better health and colour, and to walk better than ever before. The
adoption of _bits_ of bygone fashions is now and then deplorable. One
sees queer jumbles of Marie Stuart ruffs and "Empire" bonnets, or of any
other period except of the Marie Stuart head-gear. Suppose a poor simple
masher of the male kind should try some historical head-gear--say a
cocked hat or a Charles II. with a wreath of feathers and lace--and
mount a jewelled sword, as a new incident to his usual Piccadilly
attire? It would be in no worse taste than the various mixture of
"periods" that some of the dear creatures of to-day startle the student
of costume with now and then. My ideal of "a beautiful woman,
beautifully dressed," is not yet defined. I am not very narrow-minded
with regard to either point. From the Princess in gold and white samite,
to the nut-brown maid with her gown of hodden gray and her bare feet,
there are thousands that are good enough for _me_. The only bad ones are
the pretentious and vulgar (dirt and fine feathers). I saw a little
"æsthetic" creature the other day, with a sad, woe-begone costume in
flabby colours, a mop of tousled hair, a painted mask of a face, all in
keeping, except the boots--"side-spring," if you please (if anything so
squashy could have a spring). She was only a passing vision--but enough.
I could but repeat with Madame Roland under the guillotine (_was_ it
Roland?) "O Liberty (and Co.), what crimes are committed in thy name!"
The subject is a fascinating one; but there are limits.--Yours
faithfully,