The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-10
QUESTIONABLE FACES.


Question is whether or not it is well, in any
|sense, for women to paint their faces in the
ktyles known to certain fashionable circles
IAnd gazed on with bewilderment by outsiders
land the next question is, What is the end
|aimed at by female fashionables who paint
|their faces in this year of grace, 1902
It is certain that women painted their faces
Ia long time ago. The women mentioned in
the Old Testament, who painted their faces
and stippled the skin at the corners of their
Beyes were not good women, or women to be,
|by any stretch of charity, tolerated We
hear of
"Troy's proud danes, whose garments swept the
ground
but nowhere are they written of as painting
their faces; and Roman matrons were above
suspicion of this peculiar adornment, But
SEvelyn, in his Diary, at the date June IL,
51654, says-'T now observed that the women
began to paint themselves, formerly most
Egnominious thing" yet our countrywomen
Ipaint their faces, and to an amount which ex-
bites astonishment and may lawfully be
Thought to command inquiry.
People tell us that to paint the skin of the
Face blue at the corners of the eyes for a
Bmall space, shading off in the direction of
fhe ear, gives languishing softness to the
countenance, and that it will make the great
kest of shrews look lovely, mild, and meek
Are all the ladies, then, who paint in this way
constitutionally given to look daggers? And,
@6f So which is better for mankind in general
THAT they should scowl by Nature or soften
away all signs of sullenness by Art?
We are also told that darkening the eyelids
kAnd the skin under the eyes is an East
ern custom, adding greatly to female
beauty and so to the pleasure of life and
The qualification of the lookers-on. But when
! u is replied that the ladies' spoken of are not
|flomestic characters, nor, in fact, Christians,
hn answer by acclamation declares that in the
Question of face painting there is neither
tight nor wrong-that it belongs to the in
erior considerations Of pretty or ugly-and
hat it cannot be treated on serious grounds.
We'll, be it so; and when
"AfTectatlon with a sickly mien,
Shows on her cheek the roses OF eighteen"
let us only inquire why she does it. She
Hoes it unblushingly, as might be expected;
but does she do it to command admiration
<Df course we speak of the painters of to-
Hay, notof those who belonged to past gene
tation.
u Of those painters of past times the present
writer had the honor, about thirty years ago,
bf dining with one who was supposed to be
fhe last of them. She was then nearer eighty
than seventy, and she died full of years and
good works, painted to the last.
"And, Betty, give this cheek little red:.
One would not sure look ugly though ones dead"
She might have said the words, and probably
did in plain prose give some such
instruction Anyhow, what was done was
done respectfully. was young when saw
this venerable-no, l do not think that
painted old age can ever be venerable, let me
great country house, and had husband and
children She had not changed her style of
dress for the evening for many years. She
was not eccentric in any other way, and she
had undoubtedly been beauty. She was an
active woman, who could walk about briskly
with no other help than that of toy-like
8gold headed cane. She wore flaxen wig
|with short curls, and two strings of Roman
fpearls round her head. She had Roman
pearl necklace on her ensmelled neck, and
her white satin gown was edged round the
skirt with gold fringe. Her whole CON-
plexion was exactly the pink and
white of delicately colored doll,
hnd the only defect was in her eyebrows;
they had grown bushy with age, and they had
not taken the dye well. She had no objection
10 talk of herself She had always painted.
dinner-party point which was called for by
the white satin; but a certain amount OF
pearl-powder and rouge was as much part
of her dress as her shoes and stockings.
She had no idea-neither, perhaps, had hel
husband or her children-of the effect she
produced upon strangers. She never dined
out, and they were a family who did not lead
(lives very full of human beings; they were
3certainly not ashamed-on the contrary,
Sshould say they were rather proud of her.
Extraordinary as all this may read, it is the
kind of painting most easy to understand
That girls worn out with balls and hot rooms
and too much croquet playing in the sum
mer, and constant excitement of one sort ol
kother, should so far fade as to take to paint
ing, very gently, just to make up for lost
charms till they can get back to the country
and renoyate their natural roses-this car
easily be understood, and even pardoned; fol
as to the ce-painting practice, people are, il
their opinions, like the faces themselves, o.
every shade. The practice is dangerous, ever
when used as temporary establishment
Rouge and its accompaniments hurt the skin
and after time make Rll natural renovation
impossible; still its use can be understood
and forgiven, though not recommended. Blu
the high art of blue, brown, and yellow; tn
get-up of artificial veins and eyes painte
into softness, and lips made languishing b
the help of bistre and camel-hair brush-a
that is too wonderful-and that all that is O
Il the increase, and there is more painting i
London among respectable people than i
! Paris or Vienna.
The really mystifyihg fact belonging to thi
style of painting is that such persons as de
vote themselves to it do not paint to deceive
No one can be in the near neighborhood O
such a face and not know that it is painted
Il Nobody ever pretends that people are stipple
blue by nature. 1t is not then, done to dC
ceive, but because, on deliberation, Art
preferred to Nature. Some women woul
rather be artificial than real. Can there b