Evening star., 1916-12-24
rilliant C0l0rs Are Worn by the Children

in keeping children alive and bring
ing them ntoInaturity.
| In other centuries child had to pe
content with the swathing clothes
made after the fashion of those its
l,mother wore. Bandages, flannels, stin
materials that caught the art ana
were not washable, folds around the
/ feet collars around the neck and thick
hoods over the head were the evils
that killed children soon after birth.
| We have only to look at the por
traits of children whom the great mas
| ters have immortalized to feel a wave
of pity under the realization that
youngsters We're asked to struggle
through the world in such impedimenta
as their mothers put on them.
| Just when did this unhygienic, dirty,
uncomfortable and hideous method of
dressing children drop out of history?
When was the revolution, and what
brought it about? We know that
modern hygiene, spread through public
schools, taken into the very tenements
by the social workers and passionately
! clung to by every intelligent woman
with child, is a reformation of recent
| years. We can put our finger on that
| beginning. But somewhere, som chow,
in the last century, there was strong
|
tai or moral force that entirely changed
| womenS ideas concerning juvenile ap-,
parel and turned children from ugly
| limitations of their elders into adorable
| Juveniles with style of their own.
| 1t is easy to remember that Kate
| Greenaway changed the dressing of
| children in England. However, she did
not put them into snort skirts, and her
| influence did not extend far enough to
| produce bare legs and arms, an absence
| of fannels, and sandals instead of
shoes.
| Roger Boutet de Monvel told me one
| day in Paris when speaking of his
| fathers drawings of children, which
was the elder de Monvel's recreation
| between hours of serious work like the
| Jeanne dare panels, that his father
was dumfounded to find that he had
more influence with Americans than
with the French. He drew his juveniles
in the sheer spirit of fun. so said his
son, with no idea of reforming their
| apparel He liked the bare knees, the
f, bobbed hair and the tiny little shift
which served as costume, and when
| he was suddenly confronted with the
| fact that all America had taken these
| children a sermon in juvenile clothes
he was immensely surprised and
pleased.
| The modern version of the elder de
| MonveIs children was Buster Brown,
| and that small person, with his bobbed
| hair, was merely repetition, in less
| elegant and skillful manner, of the en-
| T
Monvel put into the history of draw
ing.
| Well. whatever the reasons. what
| ever the history behind the fact, the
| truth is sufficiently interesting as it is.
Here in the year 1917, which will be-
| gin in week, children are dressed in
| a healthy, hygienic and comfortable
| manner. They have a niche to them
not slavish imitators of grown-ups and,
| let it be whispered, 1T looks as though
| they lead the way for the adults in
many cases. Young mother, in a skirt
| far above her shoetops, MILDLY blouse
and a soft sport hat is copying her lit
tie daughter. Such is the wheel of for
tune and fashion; it revolves backward
and forward.
Emerson may call consistency the
vice of small minds, and if this is true
designing minds that govern clothes
are free from vice, because they are
full Of Inconsistency.
They present absurd juxtapositfons
in children's apparel, as well as in
that for women. For instance, a fur
coat that is warm enough for the poles
leaves uncovered bare legs below it
that belong in the tropics. The theory
of health that has run like a thread
through the warp and woof of our re-
cent activities is that one can harden
any part of the body by constant ex-
posure and. therefore, free the mind
from any thought of danger there. |
Women who are accustomed to the low |
evening gown are no more sufferers
from colds than women who do not in |
dulge in this practice. The children, |
therefore, do not consider it dangerous |
to leave their bodies exposed from the |
knees down.
Starting out with this fundamental
fashion there is an immense variety
elsewhere. They must contribute their
mite of Inconsistency to the picture /
and, having done SO. they are free to
go along the orthodox lines.
Children have adopted medieval
clothes, but this is not announcing a |
revolution, for they have insisted upon
straight lines for years.
The real revolution is that they have
taken up colors and do not put all their |