Not a dandy

[Costi]

In Celeste Albaret’s book “Monsieur Proust”, the maid who served him for the last ten years of his life makes a series of astute remarks on her former master’s choices in dress and grooming rituals, sculpting the shape of a certain Style also discernable in the personality of the “Narrator” from “A la Recherche du Temps Perdue”.

He had that supreme elegance of being, quite simply, what he was

– she writes. What better definition of Style?

It cannot be said his dress was really smart. His wardrobe was very simple and very correct, nothing more.

The perfect, quiet frame for a complex personality. Of course, this is not uneducated and unimaginative simplicity, but rather the result of refinement (as in discarding the superfluous) and good taste in making choices, as revealed in a further episode:

It appears he fancied odd waistcoats. Once he liked a piece of cloth so much (red silk doubled with white silk) that he ordered a waistcoat made from it. As he was trying it on in front of the mirror he said, as quoted by Celeste:

Definitely not. This may work for a dandy like Boni de Castellane. I don't want to be ridiculous.

He never wore it...

His physical hypersensitivity (of his skin, of his lungs), as well as that of his psyche made him feel as attached to old things as he was reticent to new ones. He would only use his old (even if ragged) handkerchiefs, because they had become soft and pleasant, and Celeste’s repeated attempts to trick him into using newer ones (though washed and ironed several times before, to take the newness out of them) ended up in his destroying them with a pair of scissors in front of Celeste to prevent further attempts.
His wardrobe consisted of few pieces, made by his favourite (English) tailor who would measure and fit him in his appartments. However, his commissions were very rare and Celeste only remembers him buying one new pair of black button boots in ten years. He preferred his old gloves and umbrellas and out of shape hats to anything new and strongly protested when his driver announced his intention of buying a new, “more comfortable” car to replace the old jalopy. Patina and familiarity were very dear to him.
His Style was rich and subtle, like a Mahler adaggio. He had a lot of magic in his eyes, a charming personality and a way to win people’s hearts and minds. But he never let his Dress speak for him, it was just there, kept discreetly quiet, toned down but discernible, like a basso continuo providing the harmonic foundation and bringing to the fore his Style.

[Gruto]

good taste in making choices

You are probably aware of it, Costi, but If we go to the Latin root of elegance, we will find that the original meaning of elegance is something like "knowing how to choose". I think that puts the discussion of elegance in a different light. Elegance is very much the art of producing balance and unity, but it might be better to look at it as an art of choosing. The elegant man shouldn't have a purpose with dressing, not even balance or unity. To be truly elegant, he should be guided by his senses only - and thats why we must educate and refine our senses (rather than learning rules), if we wish to become elegant men

[Costi]

To be truly elegant, he should be guided by his senses only - and thats why we must educate and refine our senses (rather than learning rules), if we wish to become elegant men

I agree with that, Gruto, we should let our senses and instincts choose, not our minds, but the intellect - used well - can throw some light into these mechanisms, similar to developing a photographic cliche (another proustian comparison) so we may understand and know ourselves better. This is harmony and unity on yet another, more profound level.

[storeynicholas]

Not to disagree but to seek further thoughts: if I have to decide what is my mind and what is my intellect (such as it is), I find a difficulty and make my point, about my intellect exactly. Maybe you mean to point a distinction between intellect and soul but, still, I am not sure that my actual soul is concerned very much with clothes, to the extent of choosing them. But I can see the point. What are the distances between one's mind; one's intellect and one's soul is an interesting one and proceeds on the premise that we have souls that are distinct from our minds and intellects. If we do have souls that may be discerned (quite apart from our worldy concerns and our manners in dealing with them), how would they consider clothes, which are worldly things, at all? I point an example: Mahatma Gandhi: often seen in a loincloth and bearing a crooked stick. Yet he had an intellect, mind and soul that undid the jewel in the crown of an Empire.
NJS
PS I should add that Gandhi did not do it all himself, despite the film...

[Costi]

Nicholas, I used "mind" and "intellect" as synonyms in my post, although I understand there may be a distinction; I meant the thinking, reasoning, rational part of us.
Gandhi didn't always dress like that, as I am sure you know (there are some pictures from his youth in perfectly fashionable English attire). His later dress was a statement and its simplicity (along with the national character) were very powerful. How does the soul consider clothes? That is a very good question, I'll think about it. For the time being, my intuition tells me Gandhi's dress proceeded more from his soul than from his senses or mind (although there was undoubtedly a rational choice involved, too), but I need to reflect if I am to ellaborate on it. Great food for thought, thank you!

[storeynicholas]

Costi, also, there are great thinkers who are atheists and would deny that we have any soul (or eternal part) at all and some of them can, no doubt, dress well. So how do they figure? This is not a statement or a point of view just a suggestion for analysis. A few atheists who could dress well: W Somerset Maugham; Nehru; Delius (a broad spectrum). Of course, there have been others such as Einstein who could not.
NJS

[Costi]

Dear Nicholas, it's very simple: the fact that their brains deny the existence of their souls does not preclude the latter from existing and exerting its etherial action... If they can dress well, that should make them reconsider their position, but it doesn't - and they don't!

That reminds me of a joke with an atheist whose foot gets stuck in a train track while trying to cross it. He struggles for a long time but does not succeed in liberating his foot. Suddenly a train approaches and, facing sure death, the atheist cries desperately: "God help me!"; with an extreme effort he manages to set himself free in the last moment to escape death.
After the train passes, the atheist gets back on his feet, trims his clothes and wanders off saying: "Well, after all I managed without any help form God".

[storeynicholas]

Costi - and then, as there are two points of view (I won't say arguments because there is not an agreed subject matter), the component of the soul remains imponderable. However, maybe, on reflection, the problem is not as I originally saw it because most atheist great thinkers would probably consider that they had hearts, born out of humanism and social conscience. If we call it heart rather than soul, we take the religion out of it and remove the impediment (this raises the question of the meaning of the expression 'heart and soul'*). The older I grow, the more I think that if we took organized religions out of it all, we would remove a lot of impediments to human happiness. Certainly, there would be fewer bombs going off.
NJS
*As in Deuteronomy 6:5 - "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy might."

Even here there is a distinction between three components of the incorporeal essence of mankind. 'Might' is sometimes put as 'understanding'.

[Costi]

Certainly, there would be fewer bombs going off.

Yes, in some parts of the world - whereas in others there would probably be more of them.
The fact that religions make the "soul" their domain doesn't make the "soul" a religious notion to me, just the way botany does not precede flowers or make them its invention. Let's call it "spirit" then. Perhaps the "heart" has more to do with our passions than with our ethical being.
Some people simply hate to think they owe anyting to anyone, let alone their life - when in fact we go through life making debts, whether we aknowledge it or not; just like others owe a lot to us, too - whether they admit it or not. Still others hate to think they are responsible to anyone for what they do or what they think - that's very childish, but frequent.

Argh, the smoking talk was such a piece of cake!

[storeynicholas]

Well, Costi, I've waited a long time to hear you imply : "Bring back smoking".

On the main point: are the ethically admirable, the best dressed; at least, on the face of it. I bet Satan would be very well dressed, just as much as he can quote scripture. Moreover, the mentally enfeebled (who might well have very pure souls) might not be able to dress themselves at all. I realize that these are extremes but do they point nowhere?
NJS

[alden]

A few atheists who could dress well: W Somerset Maugham; Nehru; Delius (a broad spectrum). Of course, there have been others such as Einstein who could not.

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”

-Albert Einstein

These words ring true to me. But has an emboldened Science become the dominant religion of the day? Yes, a religion, that denies the existence of mystery and assures us that in a few more decades all will be revealed.

I suspect Einstein would be unhappy to think that modern science has bluffed mankind into forgetting, even denying, the mystery. Get out of the city. Take your family some place far away from urban illumination. Watch the stars. Try to count them. Accept “the fundamental emotion” inspired by what you are seeing.

Mystery is a fundamental of Style and in dressing: nuance, suggestion, understatement, contrasting harmonies, truths that are not at all self evident as opposed to straight, clean, decisive, self absorbed, stark, clinical bold lines.

Cheers

Michael

[storeynicholas]

Michael,
I expect that many of those who are now said to be or to have been 'atheists' probably shared Einstein's sense of mystery and would be appalled at the attempts of modern science to rationalize existence and so they might well be 'religious' in this sense too. But are you saying that Einstein was a religious man and a snappy dresser? I don't see it in your post.

I also think that the further the discussion goes, the less clear it is to me whether it is heart, spirit/soul or intellect which governs good taste. Possibly, we all agree that style/taste derive from these combined components but that doesn't supply the whole answer because in certain cases, these components might be out of balance. For example, let us take the Duke of Windsor; let's forget his abdication; political views and so on and consider him at his best - say on his tour of India as Prince of Wales; after which, there is little doubt, he was held in high esteem and affection (which makes his fate all the more tragic). Most people would agree that he was a great dresser (let's leave some experiments and mistakes out) and he was assisted in this by factors by which most people are not assisted (but again, let's set those aside); he was not very clever but he had compassion and generosity and he let his heart run away with his head over Mrs S. We don't know much about his personal religious views: probably he just held to the beliefs that he was spoon-fed (as many do). So put all this in the pot and stir it up and you get the most noted and reported male dresser of the 20th Century. Any analysis or attempt at analysis still leaves us with mystery. It's because we'll never get the full answer and we know that we won't, that we go on talking about it because we do glimpse the truth, through the trees, along the way; not least in the act of exchanging of our views.

[alden]

I expect that many of those who are now said to be or to have been 'atheists' probably shared Einstein's sense of mystery and would be appalled at the attempts of modern science to rationalize existence and so they might well be 'religious' in this sense too. But are you saying that Einstein was a religious man and a snappy dresser? I don't see it in your post.

Any analysis or attempt at analysis still leaves us with mystery. It's because we'll never get the full answer and we know that we won't, that we go on talking about it because we do glimpse the truth, through the trees, along the way; not least in the act of exchanging of our views.

NJS,

In this forum we have embarked on a study of the mysteries of Style. I am not sure how many concrete scientific answers exist or if they are important to the extent that we investigate it with the same spirit and passion evidenced in Einstein's words.

Einstein, not a dandy but not bereft of style, called himself a religious man but refused to accept the notions and constructs of organized religion. If you read his comments carefully he never disavows the possibility of a God. He writes more about what God is not: the vindictive or forgiving beings of the Old and New Testament. I think his intellect informed him that there were secrets that could never be revealed. That prompted him to believe in something. He believed in mystery. We need to be more open minded about both mystery and spirituality today. And leave the spectre of organized religion aside in doing so. Words like spirit or soul can also be used to describe a man's essence.

Let’s also leave Windsor aside for a moment and think about the greatest dressers and dandies in history. They are a population of mysterious, creative and, almost exclusively, artists.

Windsor was the King of the richest country of his time, loved clothes, had good taste, was bold (or foolish) enough to follow his instincts, had unlimited resources, the best tailors in the world, and was vaulted to celebrity by a USA raging with anglophiles. I prefer to study the Baudelaire, Balzac, Byron, Brummels, (and that is only the Bs.)

[storeynicholas]

...and, in alphabetical order, conveniently enough, Buchanan...

[Costi]

Style may be regarded as a particular kind of faith: in oneself, in one's power to make a difference, to be more than a non-descript grain of sand in an endless desert. "Know yourself" is an urge for the mind to acknowledge the spirit and seek to understand it. When that begins to happen (as it may never be fully accomplished), one projects this faith in oneself in everything one does. So perhaps Style does not issue forth either from the mind or from the spirit, being instead a manifestation of the harmony and cooperation between the two. This would explain why Style does not depend on sex, education etc., as Michael points out, and is so diverse (if not really uniquely particular to each lucky individual who possesses it): it doesn't matter what kind of spirit and what kind of mind (which may just as well be evil, as Style seems to be amoral).
When this faith in oneself is sweetened by the noble faith in others (generosity, trust, responsibility) and elevated by faith in something that is beyond and above ourselves, call it the mysterious) one may indeed CHOOSE to orbit around a shining sun, rather than a black hole.
What do clothes represent in this mystical equation? Zero! - yet a powerful zero capable of multiplying a value, IF it is already there. Care for the body - hygene, perfume, food, fitness, dress - is profoundly spiritual for the man who "knows himself".
Back to Proust:
"It is life that, little by little and case by case, gives us the opportunity to observe that it is not by reasoning that we find out what is more precious to our heart or to our spirit, but by other capacities. And then the mind itself, realizing their superiority, yields - out of reason - to them and accepts to collaborate and serve. Experimental faith."