and deplore. They are the principal instigators of the mischief,—the aiders and abettors of the destruction of their own credit and good name. For they openly show their admiration for women's clothes more than for the women clothed,—that is to say, they are more easily captured by art than by nature. No group of male flatterers is ever seen round a woman whose dress is un-stylish or otherwise "out-of-date." She may have the sweetest face in the world, the purest nature and the truest heart, but the "dressed" woman, the dyed, the artistically "faked" woman will nearly always score a triumph over her so far as masculine appreciation and attention are concerned.
The "faked" woman has everything on her side. The Drama supports her. The Press encourages her. Whole columns in seemingly sane journals are devoted to the description of her attire. Very little space is given to the actual criticism of a new play as a play, but any amount of room is awarded to glorified "gushers" concerning the actresses' gowns. Of course it has to be borne in mind that the "writing up" of actresses' gowns serves a double purpose. First, the "creators" of the gowns are advertised, and may in their turn advertise,—which in these days of multitudinous rival newspapers, is a point not to be lost sight of. Secondly, the actresses themselves are advertised and certain gentlemen with big noses who move "behind the scenes," and are the lineal descendants of Moses and Aaron, may thereby be encouraged to speculate in theatrical "shares." Whereas criticism of the play itself does no good to anybody nowadays, not even to the dramatic author. For if such criticism be un-
