Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-11-11
THE RAGE FOR SHOW.
UnbridIed ExtraTaganee I'm Modern
Social Life-Aetresses Partly Re
spOnsibIe for the Decentralization.

We hear a great deal in these DAYS of the
extravaganza of women, especially of
women who aim to De fashionable. Much
of the present feminine extravaganza is Ow-
ing, no doubt, to a spirit of rivalry in the
sex. One woman wants this or that, be-
cause another woman has it, or has it not,
and on account of this disposition to equal
and excel, raimental improvidence is en-
couraged, sustained and increased.
One of the greatest causes Of this is TO be
found in the metropolitan stage. For
some years past the three distinctive
comedy theatres, Wallack's, Days Fifth
Avenue and the Union Square, have been
particularly distinguished for feminine
toilets. Each house has tried to exceed
the Others in this particular. Consequently,
each season has been an advance upon the
previous season; so that, at present, the
actresses are glorified through their sump-
tuous gowns.
In ''The Sphinx" for instance, Charlotte
Thompson and Clara Morris are newly and
magnificently attired in each act; the
things they wear awaking the admiration
and envy of Seven-eighths Of the women in
the audience. 4 heir costumes for that
play alone are said to have cost from S10,-
600 TO $1,000, jewels Of course excepted.
When they portray new paris they will have
new dresses, and these must be equally ell
eCaiIt and expensive. Whatever an actress
wcJ's is so carefully examined, with the
aid uf lorgnettes, from the feminine front
of lie house, that she could not wear it
again during the same season without its
ceTt an recognition.
( my Davenport, as Lady Teazle, in
the school for Scandal" which has just
been withdrawn from the Fifth Avenue,
shines resplendent in i've splendid cos
tunes, composed of the richest silk, satin,
lace and embroidery. Her entire Lady
Teazle robes and their accompaniment
cOuldnot have been purchased for less than
10000.
There are very few New Workers, how
ever wealthy, who can afford to dress their
wives and daughters as the actresses of the
city theatres dress. How can members of
the dramatic profession indulge in extrav-
agance which milliOnaireS cannot? Clara
Morris, popular as she is, does not receive,
it is likely, over 500 a week, and Fanny
Davenport has not probably more than $3.50
a week. Sincs neither of them plays but
eight or nine months in the year, the price
of their stage clothes for asingle piece often
exceeds their annual earnings. b. what
they manage their affairs?
fheieXplanation seems to be that the
manager pays for a certain portion Of their
magnificent wardrobe, and the houses that
furnish them make liberal discount for
the advertising they receive on the play
bills. Otherwise so profuse an expendi-
ture would not be possible.
The first woman on the stage TO gain
distinct reputation for her clothes was Mrs.
Hoey, at Wallack's. She could do that
sort of thing because her husband. John
HOey, Superintendent Of Adams Express
Company, is very rich and was very glad
to crafty his wife's luxurious tastes.
Madeline Henriques, now Mrs. L. J. Jen-
ningS, was the next apostle of the dry
goods drama. She, too, had wealthy rela-
tives, and was wont to say that her salary
did not keep her in boots and G loves,
which was, no doubt, entirely true.
Since then, particularly since DAILY be-
came a theatrical manager, actresses have
far outstripped Mrs. Hoey and Miss Henri
ques in vestmental display. What th-Se
ladies wore would to-day appear quite
plain and ordinary.
If this extravaganza of dress continue to
grow as ii has grown, husbands Will be
compelled TO yield the greater part OF their
incomes to the adornment of their wives,
while whole months receipts of theater
will be required to buy single gown for
an actress. Women in society will never
be willing to be outdressed by women on
the stage. SO long as these glitter in
plumeS so radiant, so long viii those insist,
at least, in keeping even with their hiStri-
onic sisters. Nowadays $4,000 is not
thought to be an extr1vagant sum to invest
annually in feminine wardrobe, provided,
of course, you have the money to invest.
What becomes of the wretched women
whose natural masculine protectors cannot
allow them more than $1,000 or 1000 for
clothes is too distressing a subject to con-
template.