24 JANUARY 1891, Page 13

DRESS versus CLOTHES.

THE lively controversy that has been carried on in the pages of the National Observer on the subject of man's

dress, does not yet seem to have been brought to a definite conclusion, even though the writer of the original article, "Ashamed to Dress," has been at the pains to explain the mdaning of his jeremiad, and to remove the not unintelligible misconceptions that had arisen in the minds of his corre- spondents. In truth, the original article was not a little obscure—perhaps the result of its being the outcome of two original thinkers, for the writer in question only confesses to being responsible for half of it—but with the help of that gentleman's subsequent letter, we have succeeded in arriving at some understanding of his position, and may at once frankly acknowledge that we altogether fail to sympathise with it. Briefly summed up, his complaint amounts to this: that men to- day rather clothe themselves than dress themselves; that they do the former without any regard to the beauty of the result, their one object being to combine the maximum of comfort with the smallest amount of painstaking care ; and that, "from sheer idleness and misplaced misanthropy, they have degraded their ancestral dress into dowdiness and a derision." And he winds up with the following appeal : "Give we our souls a brief holiday ; attire we our bodies more befittingly ; spend we more sensitiveness over a possession that abides with us but a little while : so shall life become gayer, our dull world more radiant, and the jest of our days be turned a little merrier." The plea shows no little ingenuity on the part of the pleader. As a rule, the advocates of fine feathers appeal to the personal vanity, the self-love, the individual selfishness of their audience: and here we are adjured to forget ourselves ; to think less of our own careless ease, and more of the delight of our neighbours' eyes ; to be less selfishly occupied in adorning the more personal and permanent property, our soul, and spare a little time for the propitiation of that: more fleeting possession, the body, which stands in the sight of all the world; and, in short, to think of our inward selves a little less and of the pleasure of the outward world a little more. The argument is judiciously addressed to our better feelings and philanthropy ; but, for all that, it is entirely unconvincing. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that a change in the direction that the writer indicates would be for the happiness of the greater number : our own eyes have been accustomed to find satisfaction, and even content, in the dullness of male drapery, and we believe the eyes of others to be constituted like our own ; and as to pro- pitiating our body at the expense of our soul, we fear the attempt will be useless on our part until we arrive at a more definite degree of dual consciousness, until we can persuade our body to take separate and individual pleasures of its own, in which our soul shall have no share. As it is, the clothes of men, unlike the dress of women, provided that they are neither unseemly nor unsightly, are most attractive when they attract the least, and should not be capable of stirring pleasure or admiration in our breasts; we regard their uniform dullness as a proper and fitting background for the beauty and bravery of the other sex in which our eyes rejoice ; and our testhetic sense would be offended should we see that background breaking out into gaudy colours of its own, and striving to engage our attention by varied forms. Let our garments be neat and decent by all means ; but above all let them be comfortable and unobtrusive. It is the duty of women to be beautiful; it is no business of ours. Indeed, it is our privilege to admire them, and offer no object of admiration in return,—a one- sided arrangement which commends itself naturally to the selfish sex.

But what do these gentlemen propose to substitute for the comfortable and sober garb to which they object P They wish to return to the costume. of our ancestors, in order that they may once more display a manly leg. Man, according to the National Observer, is a two-legged animal, whose chief claim to beauty lies in the possession of those two legs. Over the loveliness of the nether limbs the two writers lose themselves in a most poetical rhapsody, and implore their readers to veil no longer those shapely extremities by the use of bag-like pipings, but to encase them once more in the tightness of silk and satin, and so give back to the world the pleasing sight of well-moulded forms. It would be useless to remind these lovers of breeches and stockings that it is not every on that possesses a shapely leg, or that yearns to display it; but at least we might beg them to consider the difference in point of comfort that exists between a garment that has to be drawn on like a glove, and a garment into which one may lightly leap. Moreover, we fail to see why our arms should be any less worthy of attention and admiration than our legs, or why the owner of a splendid biceps should be denied an opportunity accorded to the owner of brawny calves. Let them consider, too, the usefulness and variety of a man's pockets, the cliffi- eulty that he even now experiences in stowing away his mani- fold possessions, and how painfully that difficulty would be increased by tightness of clothing. As to the dull monotony of our black evening-wear, that also saves our pockets in another sense. It may be true that we stalk like " melancholy and spectral visions to the dinner-table," but most of us would be still more melancholy if we had to provide ourselves with several new suits of coloured finery in the course of the year. And in what colours should we array ourselves P Should a man dress in red or green according to his political convictions, or show himself in blue or rose-colour according to the state of his feelings P "Motley's the only wear," said melancholy Jaques, and so it would be for men who cared to exchange the solid qualities of black cloth for the varied hues of frail silk. It is no crime to love bright colours. One of the most loveable, and also one of the most foolish of men, Oliver Goldsmith, frankly confessed that he did, not wish to go into the Church because he was fond of coloured clothes. Be presented himself to be examined for ordination in a pair of scarlet breeches ; and when better days dawned upon him, he immediately blossomed into the glories of blue silk and plum-coloured velvet. But we should remember also that Goldsmith's tailor, the patient Mr. Filby, was never fully paid, and that the greater part of his financial troubles, that BO embittered his life, was due to his indulgence of that harmless vanity. Its inexpensive simplicity and its durability are not the least merits of our present costume. How many bodies are clothed by one suit of sturdy cloth P Long after we have discarded that outer husk, it is carried by others through the world, passing from back to back until it adorns the farmer's stick and protects his corn from the thieving crows. "The Sanhedrim of stainless ghosts," as Tenfels- drockh calla an old-clothes shop, would be ill-stocked with silk coats and satin breeches : assuredly they would be of little use to our poorer brethren. But the mention of Herr Teufelsdrockh reminds one of the, account of the genesis of clothes given by one who went more deeply into their philo- sophy than any other thinker. "Clothes too, which began in foolishest love of ornament, what have they not become 1" To ornament, there succeeded bodily comfort, warmth, and sense of security ; and then, and not till then, did the idea of shame enter into and abide with us, bringing all manner of civilisation in its train. "Clothes gave us individuality, distinctions, social polity ; Clothes have made men of us ;" but, continues the philo- sopher, "they are threatening to make Clothes-screens of us." No, we have no wish to be converted into Clothes-screens ; let our clothes meet the requirements of shame, of comfort, and of warmth ; let them convey the idea of distinction where it is necessary, and the soldier flame in scarlet, the Judge wear his ermine, and the Bishop rejoice in his apron ; but do not let us revert to the age of " foolishest ornament," and think of them merely as decorations.

In a certain sense, we are "ashamed to dress," and we are not in the least ashamed to confess it. We have advanced beyond the primitive meaning of clothes, and would think shame to ourselves for wishing to return to it. Even if we were minded to make the attempt, we are far more likely to make ourselves objects of derision than of admiration, to add to the gaiety of the world in a way that was least flattering to our self-respect, and to turn the jest of our days merrier at our own expense. After all, what is there to complain of in our present dress ? The much-abused tall hat would be every whit as picturesque as a feathered cap, were it not for the difference of associations connected with it ; and, as it is, is a much more serviceable defence for the head. It is only when they try to be ornamental, and break out into coachman's buttons and strange flaps, that our coats are hideous ; as long as they are cut loosely for our comfort, they are quite good-looking enough. It is true that neither the frock-coat nor the dress-coat looks very well upon a gentle- man who is shaped balloon-wise; but it would be the fortune of the too rotund to look grotesque even in a toga. Let those

who will, rejoice in breeches and stockings; we will not give up our trousers. No amount of cruel coercion shall induce us to part with those treasured garments, emblems of liberty and freedom. And who shall say that one form of dress is more beautiful or more ugly than another P English people may admire the harmonious colours and flowing draperies of Japan ; but the Japanese are smitten with the charms of the black coat and tall hat, and make haste to adopt them. As it is, Englishmen enjoy the reputation of being the best- dressed men in Europe ; if they changed their costume, they would probably become the most ridiculous : they are not like. Orientals, and have no eye for harmonious colour.