334 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Oct. 16, 1885, 



keeper refused to supply ladies with any horses for 

 riding. Trom her own experience during an Algerian 

 riding-tour, Miss Sharman Crawford confirmed the 

 disabling effects of side-saddles on horses, and also the 

 personal benefit derived from adopting a more natural 

 position. 



The Committee desire to civll the special attention of 

 the Society to this point, and to the dependence of 

 "I'ational riding " upon reform of a "rational" kind in 

 dress. 



Miss Sharman Crawford reports that a curious 

 instance of tyranny and intolerance in regard to feminine 

 attire occurred lately in America. Some ladies in a 

 town in the State of Montana, adopted for outdoor 

 wear a long, loose gown ungirt around the waist, some- 

 what resembling the Mother Hubbard Mantle. Not only 

 were the wearers of the dress hooted in the streets, 

 but, in deference to public opinion, which affirmed that 

 jiurity of morals was incompatible with such looseness 

 of attire, the objectionable innovation was suppressed hy 

 municipal decree. The newspapers which announced 

 the fact found no fault with the Mayor's action, nor did 

 any editor seem to find anything ludicrous in the infer- 

 ence to be drawn; namely, that tight-fitting jackets 

 were henceforth legally recognised as the visible evidence 

 of high principles and moral worth. The attention of 

 the Mayor of Philadelphia was likewise called to the 

 fact that ladies in his municipality were wearing the 

 Mother Hubbard costume. His worship was, however, 

 of opinion that the matter did not necessitate an official 



The English press still continues to discuss the subject 

 of dress reform with unflagging interest, and as all the 

 Rational Dress Society's members may not have seen the 

 articles which have appeared in various papers on the 

 question, your committee append a few extracts from 

 letters, &c., recently published, which will probably 

 interest the champions of Reform. 



In comment on an article which appeared in the Daily 

 News disparaging the artists of the present day, a member 

 of the Rational Dress Society writes as follows to the 

 editor of the Daily News : — " Sir, — Is not your brightly- 

 written leader on our unsuccessful artists a little hard 

 on them ? In one way, at all events, they have fallen upon 

 evil days. The costume of their time is contemptible. 

 The streets should be their schools — would have been 

 so in Florence, in Venice, in the Low Countries, in 

 times past. The artist had but then to draw fairly well 

 a figure as he saw it, and behold a picture ! For costume 

 was then picturesque. If, however, he only drew faith- 

 fully what I saw a few days ago in May fair, he would 

 pourtray a young girl who, between padding in some 

 places and pinching-in in others, had come to resemble a 

 stuffed pincushion. She could not walk. She literally 

 tottered, owing to her pointed-toed and high-heeled shoes, 

 her severe lacing, and cumbersome skirts. Think of the 

 difference between sitters who came to Vandyke, and 

 those, though they be their lineal descendants, who sit 

 for their portraits to day ! .... I will try to make a 

 faithful picture in words of a lady, an earnest devotee 

 of fashion, one who is a type of many women, and I 

 ask you what inspiration can a painter draw from her 

 r.nd others of her kind 1 Her waist, which is down 

 among her digestive organs — or physiology lies — measures 

 seventeen, or at most eighteen inches ; whereas the waist 

 1 f the little Medician Venus is twenty-six .... She 

 wears a crinolette or dress-improver, looking like what is 

 known in architecture as a flying buttress. I involuntarily 

 shudder lest she may snap at the narrowest point, but she 



does not, she does not even make moan .... She knows 

 she is in the fashion, ' II faut souffrir pour etre,' not 

 ' belle,' for no one with an eye for the beautiful could 

 call her so, but ' a la mode.' I'erlin] s n pniiittT of sardonic 

 humour might give her grotesipir cntliiii' n jilace in a 

 new 'Dance of Death' .... lint whi! ■ there in her 

 to gratify the artist's eye's lii-miv if f- . in ■ Rather 

 defoi-mity. Flowing drapery? Oli, no, nnhing but the 

 solid edification of that wretched tlyiug buttress. Grace 

 of motion 1 Not so much as is possible to a Dutch doll ! 

 Could Giotto have inveiiteil his Icjvely 'dancing girls' 

 had he looked on the r.-rau.:- m London in this year 

 of grace 1885? \V1m i ' ., n Guido's 'Hours' 



have been under such k ' ; : _ '■■<■ : iul circumstances as 

 oursl Is there not s' mi . xm , fur our unsuccessful 

 artists'?" 



A correspondent of the Fall Mall Gazette, in a letter 

 headed " Ladies' Dress, Esthetic and Artistic," says : — 

 "If we can teach the right principles that underlie 

 all good forms of dress, that is as much as we can 

 aim at. Taste is an individual possession, and as rare 

 as any other artistic gift. What above all things we 

 desire is to preserve the proper proportions of the 

 "human figiire while allowing as much freedom and 

 ease of motion as possible .... Being much interested 

 in the efforts of the promoters of the Rational Dress 

 movement I should like to add that the inconvenience 

 of their dress is owing, not to its eccentricity, but to the 

 necessitj- they are under of trying to make the divided 

 skirt look as though it were not divided, on account of 

 the intolerance of the British public. I trust the timo' 

 will not be long before we may be allowed to wear a 

 walking dress that is at once useful, comfortable, and 

 artistic." 



In an article in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 21st, a 

 member of the Rational Dress Society writes as follows : 

 • — " We of the Rational Dress Society look down as from 

 a proud eminence on those writers who have been 

 pleading in your columns for frills versus furbelows, and 

 puffs versus no puffs. As much misapprehension exists 

 with regard to the costume of the Rational Dress Society, 

 and especially respecting the diial skirt, I wish to 

 describe it with what may be even wearisome minute- 

 ness. The skirt is by no means the only reform we 

 advocate, but it is the only thing in our programme 

 which is a departure from received notions. The skii-f 

 should quite clear the ground. Each half of the dual 

 skirt should be a yard or three (|uarters (■! a yard at the 

 ankle. Our S. . :. i;> r- ihim : m 1 1,;, H ■ >l.irt and the 

 uuderclothiiij i ' ; i i I ,.: iiiiing round 



the hips, S" M\ ' ~ ■ d the waist, 



or, if prefei-i-i i|, I:.m|„^ . r Imi tii,- cini Im ,m ■/, n en a bodice 

 to correspond with buttonholes en the -kirt. If the 

 weight of the skirts be hung from the waist, and not 

 supported, as reason would dictate, bj' the bony framework 

 of the body, it causes displacement of internal organs. 

 For the top part of the dress, our Society favours any 

 loose body or jacket, but forbids bands, ligatures, or 

 pressure of any sort, from below the fixed ribs to the 

 top of the hips. In .air ,■. siuinr, the weight of clothing 

 is minimised, becau-i ilir ilii:! -l^iiis clothe the body 

 fully and evenly, few. r i::!!!.!!!!^ : re needed, and each 

 garment is of a siraph r f. rm, r, .|uiriii-- much less stuff 

 to make it. We arc far fn.in >;i\ In- tl; ; ,.ur costume 

 is absolute perfection, but as.' inmni;.]!! tlmt we hav.' 

 devised a di-ess by which i... int.ii;;'! rgan can be 

 injured, no muscle cranipe.l, no unj^eniLi.t of the body 

 impeded, and to which the wearer may add as much 

 grace and beauty as her own good taste may suggest." 



