ness of the costume for action. A. cricketer desires to
make as comely an appearance as possible before the spectators ; but he would no more think of bowling or batting in a "busby " than the "long-stop" would of wearing jack-boots. The competitors in a rowing-match at Oxford would be vexed to cut a dowdy figure be- fore bright eyes; but there is not a man in any one of the boats who would think of putting on a padded jacket with tight arm- holes, or a leathern stock, however " manly " the buckling-up might make him look. Every action has certain essential con- veniences which ought first to be consulted. The swordsman wants a free hand, perhaps with some defence for the wrist ; the horseman wants thighs at ease, though a booted shank might be very suitable. The soldier in active movements, with an altering sky, requires a compact head-dress and a shade over the eyes. In most branches of the English service, an outer coat sufficiently compact to the body without being too tight is requisite for effi- ciency as well as comfort. It happens, however, that in almost every kind of bodily activity, the dress which is the most con- venient is, from the nature of the ease, picturesque. The steel armour of the middle ages was intended for use, yet it has been a favourite object in picture ever since. Cumbersome as it was, it tended to run into picturesque forms, because it had to accommo- date itself to picturesque action—for vigorous physical action always is picturesque. The natural shades for the sun—the broad hat of the Roman bandit, the linen covering of the Neapolitan girl, the turban of the Mahometan, the straw hat of the American planter— are in the same way comely as well as useful. There is therefore no fear that a costume designed to gather the horseman's clothes about him and yet to leave his limbs free would result in forms other than picturesque. Let the horseman or the rifleman or the foot-soldier clothe himself, and the artist would he satisfied with the result.
If something were still desired for uniformity and ornament, it might well be added to the essential; but why permanently fasten these ornaments to the clothing ? Why confound the goldsmith's business and the tailor's? Why compel the young officer to change his trinkets every time he puts on a fresh coat? The infliction through the bill is serious enough to the individual, while nothing appears to be gained to the state. Something perhaps is lost. If the distinctive ornaments of rank were permitted to be separate from the tailor's work, and were to become the permanent posses- sion, accumulated with the increase of rank, the wearer would. feel a pride and attachment to the ensigns of his advancement, which he cannot now feel for the scales and buttons that he changes with every caprice in the fashion. They might be more costly, and yet not so heavy a tax.
The principles upon which we insist, then, are, that the basis of the costume should be designed by a class that has to wear it— the dragoon's uniform by the dragoon, the light-horseman's by the light-horseman, the rifleman's by the rifleman ; that the ornaments indicating rank should be separate from the tailoring, and not to be changed, however they might be modified by accumulations. We believe that the result would conduce to economy, service- ableness, picturesqueness, and the honest pride of the wearer. .
Previous page
