Apparel Proclaims the Man
It is very difficult to treat the subject of Dress adequately. In the first place, the fashion of one people differ from that of another; even among the same people there are as many styles of dressing as there are grades or ranks in society; nay, the style varies even with individuals of the same grade or rank. In the next place, the vagaries of the world of fashion are proverbial. An article of dress that may be in the height of fashion today may be absolutely laughed at tomorrow. Thirdly, a dress suited to one occasion may be quite incorrect for another, No one would, for instance, put on a wed-ding dress when going to attend a funeral. In less extreme cases it is considered equally out of etiquette to attend a formal dinner in one’s office suit. For reasons not quite obvious, the modern world insists that every one who claims to be called a gentleman should be correctly dressed. Indeed, correctness in dress is, in some circles, considered a higher duty than correctness of style in writing. Dress is such an important affair of modern life that considerable books have been written on the subject of fashion in dress, and weekly gazettes, announcing the latest style of dress are issued from the headquarters of fashion with the same regularity and bearing the same imprint of authority as the official gazette issued every week from the headquarters of Government.
Leaving apart the question of style, and speaking of dress generally, there are two extremes that strike the observer at once as wrong. The one is eccentricity, the other is foppishness. Eccentricity in dress would appear in adopting a style of studied negligence, or in any other peculiarity which would make one a marked man at once. Foppishness consists in being over-particular in point of neatness, and in caring more for show than for use or propriety. Both savour too much of affectation, and are prompted by a feeling of fancied superiority to others. Both defeat their end, and serve only to make a person an object of ridicule, instead of an object of note. The middle course is to adopt a style which is neither vulgar nor coxcombical. The true art of dressing is in concealing the art. As has been well said, “Dress either defaces the wearer or effaces itself.”
Dress is a matter of the utmost importance for man in society, for it often reflects a person’s character. “The apparel oft proclaims the man,” says Shakespeare. An empty-headed coxcomb is at once known by his showy dress; the grave scholar appears plainly from his sober suit; the niggardly miser cannot long be disguised in his shrunken garments made of some wretched stuff that nobody else-ever buys for clothes. No one can help drawing unfavourable conclusions from the sight of a slovenly-dressed man;—he might be a rich merchant, or a great mathematician, or a big landowner; but there can be no question that he is lacking in refinement, at least to the extent of not being able to dress well. Likewise, the practised swindler or the cunning rogue cannot long hope to escape detection from under his disguise of careful dress. Nor can the charlatan long pass for a gentleman, for, as the poet says-
“The churl in spirit, up or down
Along the scale of ranks, thro’ all,
To him who grasps a golden ball,
By blood a king, at heart a clown;
The churl in spirit, howe’er he veil
His want in forms for fashion’s sake,
Will let his coltish nature break
At seasons thro’ the gilded pale.”
In India the question of dress presents a peculiar difficulty by reason of the prevalence of two antithetical styles side by side,—the European and the Indian. The former is western in its origin, the latter, eastern; and in this respect the two styles may be said to stand in marked antithesis. Both styles are, of course, excellent in their own way; but the question that often exercises the mind of educated Indians is, which style he is to adopt for himself. Having received some English education, and having studied European dress and manners to some extent, he feels strongly tempted to adopt the English style of dressing, so as to look like the educated man he is, or believes himself to be. There is, of course, nothing criminal or immoral in an Indian gentleman’s dressing in European style; but it might well be asked how both European and Indian society look upon it. This is the crux of the whole question. Different individuals have expressed different views. Some Europeans are of opinion that an Indian gentleman looks best in Indian dress, and that if he adopts the European style he only makes himself ridiculous in European eyes. Others think that an educated Indian looks much smarter in European dress than in his indigenous chapka. Indians themselves hold the same conflicting views on this question, and adopt the same conflicting practice. Some Indian youths assume European costume from their very college days; others stick to their national dress throughout life; others again make a compromise between the two, or rather a confused mixture. There is no harm in an Indian’s adopting European dress, provided he does it correct-ly; and correctness in etiquette is a matter of great difficulty to those who have no opportunities of mixing freely in European society. The result is that an Indian gentleman, dressed in
European style from head to foot, often provokes a sly smile by inaccuracies in the matter of etiquette, such as going to an evening party in a pair of buckskin boots, or attending some other social function in a lounge suit. It requires deep study and close observation for an Indian to learn what the appropriate dress is for particular occasions. The most convenient dress for an Indian gentleman is therefore his Indian style, according to which the same suit can serve for all occasions without giving rise to any criticism. The Indian style is also a very comfortable one, in hot and cold weather alike. In winter, the extra length of the achkan gives extra warmth; in summer, the extra losseness of the same garment conduces to greater ease and freedom; while at home there is nothing that can surpass the universal Dhoti for comfort and coolness in the hot weather.
It is very difficult to decide what the proper dress is, both in the case of particular individuals and entire communities. There is one principle, however, which can put the question at rest,—viz., the principle of means. A homely proverb says, “Cut your coat according to the length of your cloth.” The European style of dressing is unquestionably more expensive than the Indian style; and to those who can afford the money, and who possess the means and the faculty of adapting themselves to the western mode of dressing, let it by all means prove wel-come. On the contrary those, who cannot afford the cost or the time, or those who fear they cannot bestow that amount of care needed to keep upto date, had better retain their ancestral style of dressing, and save themselves from what they cannot help regarding as a “fearful brother.”
The cardinal rule of Dress is to dress healthily, sensibly, and decently;
“Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not expressed in fancy : rich, not gaudy.”
The next rule, which is most important of all, is to dress according to one’s occupation and condition in life, so as not to provoke popular criticism. The middle station of life is the one in which a man feels the greatest difficulty in the matter of suitable costume. Problems of dress do not trouble the poor, nor need they much vex the great man, the man who has risen to eminence and esteem. The latter may put on what sort of dress he likes, even indulge in a little eccentricity with comparative impunity. The Late pandit Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar insisted on wearing a simple dhoti and a pair of Bengal slippers even when on a visit to the Viceroy; and no one took it-ill or thought it incongruous. Men of lofty genius can take similar liberties with their dress. It is the middle-class folk who are bound by rigid rules of etiquette which they cannot disregard without fear of hostile criticism on the part of the public or the reproaches of conscience in the privacy of their own hearts.
