Dear Sir, - I should like, with your permission, to address the following open letter to one "J. H. G.", whose disquisition on female beauty heads the correspondence section in the issue of "London Life" dated August 24th: Dear "J, H. G. ", - I read with approval the opening lines of your letter, wherein you so justly condemn those readers of "London Life" who imagine (if any sincerely do, which I doubt!) that the essence of true beauty lies in such things as high heels, tight corsets, outfits in shiny rubber, etc., etc., and so confuse the accessory with the substance, the ornament with the object adorned. But then, to my great surprise, you went on to describe a highly individualistic scheme of feminine attire that you state you would like to see displayed on your ideal girl whom you do not describe! Surely by so doing you go back on your premise, and give the impression that your chosen costume surely, but a decorative adjunct to its wearer, if you stop to think - has in itself the power of producing an effect of true beauty, regardless of the wearer!
Now, my dear "J. H. G.", what in the name of all that is weird (your own words!) do you imagine to be the correct definition of the word beauty? The art of dressing in good taste? The power of evoking sentimental memories? The expression of one's own individuality? Surely, none of these! As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as absolute beauty. Beauty lies in the perfection wherewith any object illustrates in itself the standards of taste traditional among a given people at a given moment; e.g., among ourselves in our own day. Now the essence of female beauty according to Western standards - very different are Oriental or native African standards - lies in the possession of a face and figure, hair and eyes such as the cumulative experience of many generations of our ancestors had lead us to regard as typical of the highest physical perfection among our countrywomen. Clothing, jewellery, style of hairdressing, the presence or absence of certain bodily peculiarities, are all accessories, that may serve to heighten the already present beauty from the point of view of this person or that, of this period of taste or that, but accessories only, changing in their appeal as fashion changes of little avail (though many unthinking people may imagine otherwise) without that substratum of the essential that we are all agreed on.
You say nothing about your ideal girl, but something tells me she is golden-haired, blue-eyed and light-footed - the type above all others popular today. And to such a one your detailed scheme of adornment might certainly be appropriate under the right circumstances, and, doubtless in the eyes of every many people, would impart greatly enhanced charm. But others, no less conscious than you of the beauty of the girl herself, might think it better set off by the crinoline and poke bonnet of 1860, and by the piled up hair and "Gibson girl" figure of the end of the last century or by their antithesis, the "hobble" skirt and mushroom hat of 1910 or the "sunray" skirt and well-set "perm" of to-day, or even 7« inch heels and a 15 inch waist with a rubber cape over all! But none would agree that any of these things could produce beauty in a girl with squint, mousy ill-kept hair, a blotchy complexion and coarse, beefy hands. They would only enhance their ugliness, as comic artists and music hall comedians know so well.
So, too, with the monopede, "tapping along on her neat crutches," as you put it. Obviously the mere fact that she is one-legged and uses crutches, however expertly, doesn't by itself make her beautiful. Interesting, perhaps, but beautiful, no! Not even the most ardent monopede-admirers would claim that though in their eyes her condition may greatly enhance whatever of more conventional charm she may display.
Surely, my dear "J. H. G.", the strongest possible warning to those who confuse the trappings of beauty with actual feminine beauty itself is conveyed by the inevitable failure of all synthetic "London Life Girls". Smothered under the weight of a mass of extravagant adornments, whatever of real personal beauty the model may claim is totally obscured, only the bizarre remaining, to arouse the wonder or perhaps derision even of those to whom any one out of the embarras de richesse of ornaments would by itself seem a valuable aid to beauty. And if anyone contradicts me I can only reply to him in your own forceful, if inelegant, terms: "nuts!" "bosh!" "rats!"
[N.B. - Do you really think your ideal costume, with its hint of extreme youthful innocence and insouciance, would suit the sophisticated "Candy?" To me it seems more appropriate to a pantomime fairy queen!]
Yours truly,
C. D. B.