The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-01-30
BEAUTIES OF THE PAST.
THEY DON'T COMPARE WITH our
NINETEENTH CENTURY GIRLS.

The Standard of Beauty is Higher.
Mary Qeeen of Scots. So Often De-
scribed as FeautifII and Unfortu.
nate, Would Be Considered Plain
Now-womeu Become More Beauti-
f1l Generation by Generation.
From the Netc York Mail aud Express.
Is the Standard of beauty in woman adj
vancingl
One hears this question frequently nova
days. So frequently, in fact, that one is
tempted to bslieve.there is some good reason
for the query. aud that it may not be "old-
fogyism," which makes people say when q
handsome woman is mentioned: "She is not
so handsome as her mother was" But il it
is not old fogyism it is something equally
foolish, for there is no doubt that there are
more handsome women to day than there
ever were before, and that these handsome
women are haudsomer than were their
mothers or grandmothers before them.
Take, for instance, Mary Queen of Scots.
In her time she was one of the mos beauti-
full women in Der realm, but If she were to
walk into a drawing room to-day it is
doubtful if she would cause more than a
passing remark on the score Of her beauty.
1t is true that Mary was very captivating
in her manner-at least we must SO
conclude, for her portraits all show
us a face which disappoints us-and
this may account for her reputation
as beauty, on the basis that handsome is
Gs handsome does, " but the various like
nesses of "Scotia's beauteous queen, =" il they
be lkenesses, do not show us the face of a
woman who would to-day be termed hand
some.
THE STANDARD STEADILY RISING.
Since we of to-day are not satisfied with
the features which enraptured our fathers.
which sent the contemporaries of Mary OFF
their heads and was the occasion Of much
jealousy In her cousin Elizabeth, it is fair
to infer that the standard Of beauty has
risen-a rise which has been gradual, but
none the less constant, with eacn generation
making some advance over the one which
preceded it, This conclusion is irresistibly
reached after looking over the por-
traits of one family for several gen
erations This one can rarely find oppor-
tunity for doing In America, bat If you have
ever examined the family portraits in the
gallery of an old English family you may
have been struck with the change in types
Of beauty which the portraits display. The
further you go back the palmer the features
appear TO US; and IL we begin with the EARL.
est and progress to the ones taken in the
present generation, we observe that the
portraits grow steadily more beautiful as
we advance.
NOT THE FAULT OF THE PAINTERS.
1t may be objected that this is the fault
of the old painters-that they did not know
how to make good likeness. But the
works which some of the old painters have
left US seem, by their very excellence. to
refute this theory. The touch of the mas
ter's hand has not transferred to the canvas
a miracle OF painting and a caricature at
the same time. Look at Holbein's portrait
of Henry Will, and you must feel that the
pictures, full of life and character. are faith
full to the original-almost as if the real
Henry stood before you. And II this great
painter can give us lifelike picture of
Henry, shall he be pronounced incompetent
TO present to us any idea of Anne Boleynl
And the beauty of Anne Boleyn as Hol-
bein presents 1.-THE fatal beauty which
was the cause of Henry breaking his al
legiance to Catherine-is not beauty
about which men would rave in these latter
days.
Proof is not lacking either that Holbein
was able to datter his sitters even as are
also some OF the portrait painters of our day.
One of the best possible proofs Of this is the
fact that 1t was Holbein's picture OF "Anne
Of Cloves" which caused Henry to determine
TO marry chat princess, although the "Royal
Bluebeard," we are told, was "fearfullv dis
couraged and amazed" when Anne appeared
before him in propri0 persona. This seems
20 present another proof that the beauty of
the sixteenth century was measured by a
lower standard than that of the present
time This, it is evident, can have been
due only to the lack of higher degree Of
beauty from which to form an ideal.
VAN DYKES FACES PRETTIER.
The portraits of the ladies Of the next
century, however, show an appreciable ad-
vance in beauty over that Of their grand
mothers, who were the reigning bellies Of
their period. Indeed, it is among the ladies
of the reign of Charles l., who were painted
by Van Dyke, that we find the first who are
pretty according to our ideas of beauty:
even though they are somewhat monoto-
nous in consequence of the endeavors OF the
artist to give them all resemblance TO
Henrietta Maria.
Take, again the beauties Of the DAYS of
George III. Standing in this period we are
Ia the midst of the masters. They have
left to US record Of all that was noble and
beautiful in the reign Of the mad king. A
collection Of Reynoldses and Gainsboroughs
gives you at once the impression that the
entire feminine world Of that day was made
up or beautiful women-also tnat the pain
tiers were in great luck to have such fair
sitters for their brushes But q more care
full inspection is likely to convince you that
there IS more real attraction in the pictures
than IN the faces, and that the LUCK was
rather on the side of the sitter than on that
of the artist. There are plenty Of beautiful
faces among them, of course, but the beauty
is not general, and, above ell, there is no
beauty there that cannot be equaled and
even easily surpassed by the women of the
present day.
THE BEAUTIFUL" MISSES CUMMINGS.
If more definite and conclusive evidence
OF this were necessary, we need only refer
to the pictures OF the Misses Cummings
They were the most famous beauties of
their day. They were spoken of by their
contemporaries as the "handsomest women
alive" They were literally mobbed BY Gu
rious gazers If they walked in the park: il
is said that when they travelled people sat
up all night so as not to miss seeing them as
they got into their carriage in the morning;
and, to crown it all, when they were pre-
sented at court. the ladies stood upon the
chairs to get glimpse Of them.
Nothing OF this kind is seen to-day, how
ever-not because we have nothing t. ex-
cite our enthusiasm, nor that we admire
beauty less than did our fathers. but because
we have greater beauty and more of il to
admire tnan they had. In proof, the beauty
OF the Miss Cummings eau certainly have
lost nothing under the brush of Reynolds.
and yet his portraits of them show us moth
ing that we consider wonderful, nor which
we could not see surpassed almost any after
noon In short walk on uptown Broad way.
A fair comparison of the beauties of
aktrv-f ec {1xv