San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-11-10
THE GRAMMAR OF DRESS.

The grammar OF feminine at
tire is q thousand times more com
plicated than that OF male habilt-
ments, and there Is more freedom
allowed.n "But on the other hand"
another put in, women are better
ada pied 10 master the subject, and
the fact that there is more freedom
given them makes 1t the more mex
cusable when they make a real
bIunder."
What q real blunder is was then
discussed, aud one of the speakers
said that he had that day met a
won an In deep mourning wearing
russell shoes. Tnis was universally
allowed as q gross and perfectly in
eXcuSable grammatical bIuGder. An
otbe" re- ated how q Chicago lady had
this summer appeared at a picnic in
the mountains in a gown of blue satin
trimmed with real lace-"at the
start, that is" he added, "before
we got home it was also trimmed
with pine-spills and dry leaves and
bugs. and all sorts Of trash, caught
in the lace" It was the opinion OF
the company that this also was a
grammatical blunder. Black trousers
with q light coat, or dark waist-
coat with an otherwise light SUIT were
pronounced ungramlnatical: and tue
same was said of a stiff hat on the
tennis its. although it was alIedge
that on the club grounds at Nahant
this summer this thing bad been
seen.
The dIift of the talk might ha7 Q
been formulated in "a way not unlike
that in which one would have fOTnu-
lated similar talk upon the use Of
language. 1t was implied or stated
that in dress one must consult PFC
priety, use and elegance. The former
would forbid the wearing of satin
frock, lace trimmed, to q picnic be-
cause the circumstances ct a picnic
make such q garment entirely inar-
propriate; just as in another way the
wearing of robe de chambre in a
parlOr or tennis suit TO a recep.
ton would be wholly inapprO
pirate. The fact that these DIFF.
iPrent garments have their in
dividual appropriateness must be
recognized and respected. The lady
who appeared in the drawing room in
q bathing suit would probably he
guilty of go gross q breach of the
grammar OF dress that it would prob
ably be regarded as running into pos
tive improperly. The same prinCi
pie applies 10 the wearing of dress
suits in the day time, and yet here
the principle of use comes in SO that
for waiter or a Harvard student on
class day 1T is not ungrammsttcal to
app ear in evening garb in the blaze OF
dav.
Use is hardly more than another
name for fashion. 1t is the made OF
the day that determines this. To
wear the small clothes and full but
toned wigs OF our grandfathers today
would be most uuErammatical, and
yet in the old time 1t would have been
equally an error to appear without
them. This is tluctuating rule Of
which it is true the principle remains
The same, but of which the APP
plicatiOn varies constantly. Every
body recognizes it, and everybody Is
more or less influenced by IL. 1t Is
needless TO point out that to be too
far behind or too much in advance of
the changing fashion is to be deplored,
but il is just here, 1t may be remarked
that this principle passes into the
next, that of elegance.
Elegance is indefinable, as 1t is the
highest branch of the art of dress. To
pe lacking in elegance may be ella. sed
as blunder, but it is only those gross
violations of elegance which it is fair
to put in the category of grammatical
hlunders. Vulgar and over eXtrava-
CANT displays of jewelry, for instance,
msy be taken as an example of this
sort of blunder. On the whole the
club gave themselves credit for dis
pc, ing pretty efectualIy Of the whole
subject, but they had not therefore
the right to suppose that the mum her
Of grammatical errors in the dress
Of their generation would be any
Lace