BOOKS.

THE ART OF BEAUTY.*

"IT is not wicked,' "says the authoress of this clever little book, "to take pains with oneself. In the present day, our altered system of education, and our improved conception of woman's capacities, may have a little blinded us. We have begun to think of the mind almost to the exclusion of the body." We agree with Mrs. Haweis that it is the duty of every woman, and man too, to endeavour to make the best of whatever personal advantages Providence has given to them, always in subordination to any higher considerations which may conflict with the endea- vour. Not to do so is a "sullenness against Nature," and a violation of the rule that we ought to give pleasure, resthetic or otherwise, to our fellow-creatures ; and moreover, the cultivation, within due limits, of our physical good-looks may assist whatever influence for good we may have upon others. We confess, how- ever, that we do not see much reason to fear that our fair friends will ever, to any very alarming extent, neglect their outward adornment for the inner graces of the mind. The evil lies not in the neglect of the former, but in the total absence of Vitae, and the ludicrously mistaken notions which prevail in regard to what is really graceful and becoming in dress and orna- • The Art of Beauty. By Mrs. newels. London: Chalk) eud \\ludo*. went. We recopect reading somewhere or other that a bighly intellectual American lady, one of those who strongly advocate the lights of the sex, and the equality, if not identity, of their mental powers with those of men, exclaiming, while con- templating the plain but convenient (and therefore not altogether ugly) attire of the men in a large mixed assembly, and comparing it with what she called the "utter imbecility" of that of the women, that she was almost tempted to give in, and to admit the

universal inferiority of the latter in common-sense and in the perception of the fitness of things.

Our authoress has studied the antiquarian and historical part of her subject with much attention, and her descriptions and illustrations of female costume, from the simple drapery of classic times, through the infinite varieties of the Saxon, Plantagenet, Tudor, and Stewart generations, down to the present, are both learned and entertaining. The portentous structure displayed in

a portrait of Queen Elizabeth from the British Musuem, which, but for the appearance of a face (evidently in pain from the weight of the whole edifice) and a pair of hands, cannot be recognised as that which contains a human figure at all, is worthy of profound study, as an exhibition of what horrors in costume are possible in an age of rapidly growing culture. So also are the horned head-dresses of a certain part of the fifteenth century, making a group of ladies look like a herd of bullocks ; and nearer our own period (1780), the marvellous head-gear actually three feet in height ! The gradual changes from one style to another, each beginning in a comparatively unobjectionable form, then getting grossly exaggerated and falling into decadence, a sort of reductio ad absurdum, and the reaction which naturally succeeded, are described with much skill and spirit. A good example of this is the violent change effected by the ideas of the first French Revolution, when men began to strut about in Roman togas, and the previously highly artificial female dress became a hideous travesty of the old classic sim- plicity :— "He [the painter David] viewed with disgust the melancholy de- cadence of the once beauteous Watteaa costume, and the prevalent uncleanliness, artificiality, ugliness, and waste of precious time entered into his soul. He believed that a return to the simplicity of the earlier world was the only reformation possible, and like other enthusiasts for reform at that terrible time, he went too far. Old Greece could not be resuscitated by a change of apparel, but he shared the universal mania for antique standards, and his influence on the fashion was very re- markable, for be succeeded in completely reversing the style of the -dress worn, and introduced the simplicity which in our colourless clime and una3sthetic minds soon developed into the worst ugliness. The waist was hoisted to the arm-pits, and the bodice became a mere legend. There were not too many petticoats, and no folds," &c.

Some of our readers are old enough to remember, and all have seen in portraits, the waistless figures and limp skirts, with the addition of huge sleeves, like immense bladders, which were the immediate descendants of the Reign-of-Terror costume. They were accompanied by hair brushed right up at the back of the head, as if preparing the neck for the guillotine.

Mrs. Haweis lays down two great principles,—(1.) "The costume shall not contradict and falsify the natural lines of the body, be the body slightly or fully expressed ;" and "perhaps," she remarks, "complete concealment is no gain to the moral, as it is a marked loss from the artistic point of view." (2.) "The attire shall express, to a reasonable extent, the character of the wearer." These general principles seem to us thoroughly sound. Perhaps the second is intended to include, though it does not clearly express, the rule of utility, and of fitness, in the case of each article of apparel, for its raison d'être, to which we have above alluded. Be it observed, we do not sternly demand that every article of dress or adjunct to dress should be strictly useful Some

may be purely ornamental, but the form of the thing (however beautiful it may be in itself) is necessarily bad, if it either impedes utility or suggests the idea that it does so. There are various indications throughout the book that Mrs. Haweis does not ignore this principle, though probably she will think that we state it too broadly ; and we think that she scarcely carries it out with sufficient firmness in practical detail. This is exemplified when she discusses the proper covering for the feet. In so far as she indignantly condemns boots which cramp the feet into unnatural shapes, she is orthodox enough. To omit denun- ciation of this would have been monstrous, but she betrays a cer-

tain leaning in favour of high heels, and has a penchant for the venerable institution of pat/ens for wet weather ! a drawing of

which she actually gives ; and she has even a weakness for the enormously elongated shoes (stuffed for many inches at the toe with hay) which were worn in the fifteenth century. Surely, when she eulogises the classic sandal, she does not mean it for out- door use. The feminine origin of this work would be curiously betrayed

—were it anonymous, and even were it not incredible that any male creature,not a man-milliner, should have the requisite know-

ledge of detail—by the importance attached to everything which has the effect of increasing the apparent height. We believe that women, as a rule, admire height in their own sex. Queen Elizabeth would not forgive Mary of Scotland for being an inch or two her superior in stature. But unless in the case of empresses and barmaids (see the advertisements for the latter),

we are not aware that men in general have any such preference. There is no doubt, however, that to a very large extent women do dress for their own sex, and in fear of their criticism, more than for the admiration of the other, strange as this may appear. On the bonnet of the present day (we write this with hesitation, for it is quite possible that before our ink is dry the mode may be completely changed, though the fashion in question is so bad that it has some chance of unusual permanence), Mrs. Haweis is deservedly severe :— " A wire edifice of tulle and velvet (two materials which, from their contrast, do not well mix), trimmed with a mass of valueless blonde, a sprig of tinsel, and perhaps a bird's-nest in an impossible position at one side, or something else equally bad in taste,—e.g., moths, beetles, lizards, mice, &c.. can never be a beautiful object, and when stuck on the top of a tall chignon, fails to soften or set off the face."

We actually saw a bonnet adorned with two stuffed mice, very recently. If the materials and ornaments of these fluffy little structures are bad, their general form and position on the head are still worse, and in gross violation of Mrs. Haweisis first rule.

Leaving the front and the greater part of the vertex uncovered and exposed to the elements, and perched on the back, almost beyond the head itself, with no visible means of fastening, we can hardly imagine anything more in violation of the principles laid down by our authoress, and of every conceivable rule of common-sense and artistic taste. We doubt if anything of the tribe technically called "bonnets," in distinction from hats, ever was good. All head- dresses, as Mrs. Haweis truly remarks, are or ought to be de- velopments either of the hat for summer, or of the hood or cap for winter. Most bonnets, if they are a development from either of these, are a degradation from the original type so great as not to be recognisable.

Much of the bad dressing of the present day results from the fact that fashions originate naturally with the very wealthy classes, who are seldom seen on foot, at least in town, and who inhabit., for the most part, spacious rooms. Hence, for example, the present train —which, if not too much "tied back," is, with the naturally placed waist now in vogue, really a graceful garment in such circum- stances—is apt, when worn in moderate apartments, to become a nuisance, and on a muddy or dusty street must either act as a broom, to the disgust of all beholders, or be tucked up and carried over the arm, to the infinite discomfort of the wearer.

The part of Mrs. Haweis's book which will create and already has created most controversy, is that in which she deals with those arts which are intended to improve personal beauty by something which savours more or less of deception. She advocates a certain amount of " padding " for thin figures, and the plucking-out of a portion of redundant eye-brows ; and she discourses thus of cosmetics :—

" Possibly, because paint is considered to be a characteristic of a cer- tain showy vulgarity which we cannot wish to imitate, an unnecessary amount of contempt and contumely has been cast on cosmetics. It seems to me that (apart from injury to the cuticle of the skin, a com- mon result of bad pastes and powders) there is no more harm or degra- datian in avowedly hiding defects of complexion, or touching the face with pink or white, than in padding the dress or replacing a lost tooth. Nor can half of the objection be urged against this practice that can be urged against that of wearing false hair. It is generally a harmless, and in some Cases a most necessary and decent practice. There are numberless girls who are most amiable, and who would be almost pretty, perhaps quite so, if they were not afflicted with thoroughly bad complexions."

Were the practice universal, as it once was (and in certain circles of society it has now become wonderfully common), the question of deception would fall to the ground, and the word which we have italicised in the above quotation- " avowedly "—would have some meaning. Until it becomes as universal, however, as false additions to the hair and false teeth now are, we apprehend that very few indeed will follow the practice avowedly. It will be done deliberately and con- sciously as a deception,—something the detection of which will be looked upon with a degree of shame which certainly does not now attach to additional hair or false teeth. In this state of things, we have no hesitation in denouncing it as demoralising, almost as much so as if the user of the cosmetics were to announce in words that the complexion which she displays in society is her

natural hue. It may be a merely conventional feeling, or it may be a healthy natural instinct, which leads us at least to look with very different emotions at a face which we know to

be painted, from those with which we see locks which we know to be partly borrowed, or at teeth which we know have come from

the hands of the dentist. If it is not avowed, or not so common as to be presumed, what are our feelings likely to be should it accidentally be detected? The real test in such matters lies, we

take it, in the distinction between something which is done to hide from the beholder a defect which gives him positive pain from its ugliness, and that which is worn merely to convey the idea of greater beauty than the wearer naturally possesses. A woman with a bald head is a most disagreeable object, and a toothless mouth still more so, besides interfering with speech and mastication. Artificial teeth are no worse than an artificial leg after amputation. An unusually pale or sallow complexion is not necessarily disagreeable, nay, it may be, and probably is, the only complexion which is in harmony with the general colour- ing and style. Some of Mrs. Haweis's critics have been very severe upon her in this matter, but we are inclined to think, from some words that follow the passage we have quoted, that her view is not so far removed from our own as it may at first appear. She speaks of complexions which "disgust one's friends," or "give them a turn." We can excuse any lady, old or young, who labours under an affliction to which these words are applicable, using some artificial means of concealing it. It becomes, indeed, a duty, in extreme cases. We cannot say, how- ever, that in our experience we have met with many such com- plexions, for they are certainly very rare indeed. Perhaps the only instances at all common are those of certain deep red patches which are called by medical men Nments maternus.

Patches and hair-powder do not fall under the category of "deception." Mrs. Haweis has a kindly feeling for both, from association in her mind, no doubt, with the very picturesque costume of the time when they were common. The object of patches (which must be used in great moderation) is, it appears, to direct the attention of the spectator to the best feature. We do not doubt that there may be a subtle art of the kind, but we take leave to doubt the principle involved, both on moral and msthetic grounds.

On the question of colours, both in regard to their suitableness to particular complexions and forms and to their relation to each other, Mrs. Haweis is especially sound and good, showing much true artistic perception. We do wish that our room decorators would keep in view the principle that the walls of a room and its carpet are not objects to be looked at in themselves, or intended to catch the eye, but are mere backgrounds for furniture, pictures, and human beings.

Though compelled to differ in some things from the contents of this volume, we heartily rejoice in its publication, and congratu- late its accomplished authoress on being one of the first to in- augurate something like an artistic study of things in themselves so important, so educating, and which enter so largely into the daily life of us all. Possibly the Utopia which she hopes for, when women will have the courage to cultivate and exercise their individual taste, will be the result of the growth of that very mental culture which she thinks is now interfering with due attention to outward charms ; but we fear it will have a long and hard battle to fight with the sheep-like tendency to follow the flock, and still more with the sordid interests of the manufacturer and milliner, whose very existence depends on the rapid changes of fashion, and the ignorance and indifference of their employers. We strongly recommend the study of Mrs. Haweis's book to the other sex, and to such of our own sex as have sufficient audacity to attempt to reform the taste of their female friends. There is a type of girlhood rapidly, we fear, on the increase, which we earnestly advise to ponder the description of "the mannish young lady," near the conclusion of the volume.