The Dominion FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1910. MEN'S FASHIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1012, 30 December 1910, Page 4

The Dominion FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1910. MEN'S FASHIONS.

The other day some of our touchy Radicals were made extremely angry by, a report that Me. Moheland, the headmaster of Christ's College, in Christchurch, had decided that tho boys must wear a distinctive costumo. It was no business of theso watchful slaves of their Juju what the headmaster might decree; they are not obliged to attend Christ's College—perhaps . unfortunately— nor are thoy obliged to send their offspring there. , But it was the part of .Radicalism'to object to such an "affront-to the democratic spirit of the country," or whatever is the right phrase. They will be' much relieved to learn that all that Mr. Mof.eland intends is tho prescription of a decent seusiblo. cut that, will be maintained whatever Fashion may do. There aro ; many obvious advantages' in such an -'arrangement, , llutwith theso most people who have noticed the incident -\rill be less concerned than with: the large question of which' it' is. only a facet, namely, the slight variations in the fashion-, able dress for men. By keeping to the sn me . .coat Sir Eoger de CovEjt'LßY went in and out of tho fashion half a dozen ,times ,in thirty •years; and this little feat has since been remembered chiefly 'as a comment' up oi} the feminine instability of masculine modes in • the. days of Anne._ . There have' been, of- course,; "fashions, for. men" of a sort ever since, but tho Victorian ago found, and very nearly' left, Man ■ as a thing not bqtter adapted for decorative effects than a cabbage... If,•• a smgle : cylinder engine stops with tho., piston at doad, centro, no amount of unaided . steam, will. " start it off again. ' So it' is possible that, in her. whirlings Fashion may blunder into a costume that is less a costume, than a cul-dr-mc —an inert mode that defies, the tailor's desire either 'for reaction or progress. Something like this ■ seems to have' occurred in the early Victorian era; it is a theory to which almost any old family album will give some colour. In all the fundamentals that costume still holds the ;field. There havo been modifications, necessarily, but until near .tho end of the nineteenth century' these were . slight; and came slowly. Then, however, the changes became more emphatic and more frequent, ' and to-day. Fashion is as keen and imperious upon man's dress as upon woman's. Tnc scope.for its, operation is. of course much narrower than, in the caso of the' women, but only as the sonnet is a narrower and more rigid form than the. 1 , ode. .. It is the! trousers that • paralyse the hand ,of the imaginative tailor.' You' cannot do much with trousers. They must remain much what they arc, or give way to kilts;.and the tailor is accordingly limited in his experiments with the coat , and vost and hat, as the architect .would be restricted if the lower half of every building had to be. plain unbroken "stucco."

. There are few men who, on thinking the thing out, will not see that there is far, more artistic expression, and a more really artistic consciousness in the little changes in. the evening vest, tho tail coat, the, length and flare of the lounge coat, the necktie, and the masculine hat than in the sweeping revivals and reversals in woman's dress, _ To say that male dress develops like the British Empire and women's dress like a new country under. Radical Government is to state an analogy that goes much below the surface. It is the difference between order and lawlessness, between caution and irresponsibility. A good many people hate Fashion and its follies, and would dress all women alike, but if these people we're to argue the question on the basis of male dress, a good many of them would change their minds. The changes }n_ the evening dress of men are negligible —for centuries, • there is no reason to doubt, evening dress will still be what Mr. Max Beerdohm has'.called it, "certain congruities of dark cloth - and the rigid ; perfection ■ of linen." In the, ordinary "lounge suit" tho changes, though subtle and in some ways vital', are- not diagrammatically large. With most of them nobody will quarrel who realises that Fashion is simply Art working through clothc3. We know that the usual explanation of "the whims of Fashion" has sometbing 'to do with cloth manufacturers' stocks or tho cupidity of foreign tailors who want everybody to order a new suit every week and who "change tho Fashion" in order t» give people an excuse for extending their wardrobe. There is something in' this, perhaps; but, whatever may bo the case, with the ladies—who have no fixed principles where. _ clothes are concerned—no tailor living can establish a new fashion for men that , runs counter to the taste of the

male public. Men have some conscience in the matter of dress. It may be a natural inclination towards neatness and reasonableness, or it may be the cowardice and timidity of beings haunted by their trousers. In any result the effect is the same: tho only fashions that are allowed by male public opinion are generally such as make clothes easier to wear or such as reduce extravagance in finish. This the male fashions of tho last two decades have certainly done, and they have done it despite the permanent handicap that every chango must leave the trousers unaccented. The boys at Christ's College will accordingly never be quite out of the fashion. And while tho parents will welcome tho headmaster's vory sensible edict, no tailor who really loves his art will entirely condemn it.