The record-union., 1897-05-21
DRESS EVILS.
Jules Lemaitre Makes Some Statements
"A Partisan Sensation.
Famous Dressmakers Retort Smartly
and Tell How Fashions Grow
Follow Natural Law.

'eThe object of clothing" replied jules
Lemaitre to a question recently askeo
by a Paris Journalist, lis to protect the
body against the cold and, afterWafd'
to ornament it. It's usefulness IS deslr-
able, its convenience a matter OF I'M
portance. it's ideal that it may be a
safeguard without imposing any super
f1uous discomforts. It should, therefore,
compress no one part of the body. How
much less then should it defOrm II!
IF. therefore. after having consid-
cred clothing as a necessity, we look
upon it as an ornament, it is evident
that it can only beautify the body on
condition that it respects its contours
and does not break the harmonious
unity of the whole. The materials en-
ployed for clothing are principally
woven fabrics. which fall naturally,
forming folds which are in themselves
graceful. This must be respected also,
and in consequence these tissues must
not be wrapped around the body. These
principles are carried out perfectly in
ancient costumes, as can be seen by a
study of the figures in Grecian and
Roman vases.
THE costume was the same in its
did not dissimulate the difference Of the
sexes. but it did not attempt to accent
uate it. The tunic was but a shorter
'stola.' The mems garment was draped
as profusely as the women's, and was
for both sexes floating and ornamental.
ITO turn now to the toilets of our
contemporaries.
I'VE see at once that it is at vari-
ance with every known principle. Two
things stand out prominently. First,
the garment is always more or less
deliberately adjusted: second, it differs
very materially according to the sex.
Doubtless the adjusted garment
might in the first instance be explained
by the climate, against which 1t was
necessary to take precautions But II
is certainly clear to the most casual
observer that this utility is at present
only an accessory in the minds of our
tailors and dressnlakers.
None of the rules are observed to-
day in feminine attire. The corset IS
no longer worn as a protector; it COM
presses and deforms. The materials
are stretched over a rigid framework,
which notably modifies the form OF the
breast. and for the last ten years the
skirts have been either too ample or too
narrow, spreading out over artificial
and proportionless contours or display
ing as much as possible of the real fig
ure by their scantiness-two perfectly
opposite fashions destined to convey the
same impression.
What impression"
THE modern fashion maker has
taken pains to exaggerate all the parts
which nature has made most prominent
in the body. All the little artifices of
detail have been brought into play to
complete this first artifice.
The curves of the body have been
brought into bolder relief by the corset;
and, following the fashion of the times.
by paniers and bustles; the enormous
sleeves have tendency to accentuate
the waist, and the high Louis XIV.
heels throw the bust more prominently
forward and impose on the movements
of the body a restraint which reveals
its formation more clearly. In a gen
eral way the feminine figure is consd-
erably amplified-and cut in the mid
die
You can see for yourself the effect of
this division. The unity of the form
being broken. one glance no longer en-
braces it easily; our eyes are separately
attracted by the two parts which COM
pose it, and in each part by its pro-
tuberances. In fact the waist as un-
derstood by our contemporaries is no
longe4 large and supple as il was in
women of ancient times. but is a de-
formation of the body. and in the dis
arrangement of the thoracic cage di-
vides the woman in two-to localiZe our
attention.
In a few words. the feminine dress
has become essentially expressive of
sex The actual dress Of women to-
day is the irreconcilable enemy TO their
natural duties These are the sad but
true facts of the case"
The publication of this interview nat
uraIly made some sensation in Paris.
and some of the famous dressmakers
were interviewed upon the subject.
Doucet said
There is a great deal of truth in
what these critics say, but We are not
responsible for the fashions any more
than are the fashionable women who
enjoy the credit of creating them"
But who. then, does set the fash
ions2" asked the interviewer
No one. Neither myself nor my con-
y