New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-06-17

formers, must quit the qbeenly robes aud
put on the attire of Work like the rest
There is sense is this, at least as far as work
and rural recreations are concerned. For ev
cry purpose of industry, for active life in the
country, for picnic in the woods or long
walk, adress admitting perfect freedom and
ease of movement, notencumbering the arms
or legs, or embarrassing the muscles, Us plainly
better than that proper for ceremony and the
elegant round of social life. Here we do
not mean Turkish dress by any means.
1t is simply absurd to resort TO the lazy and
luxurious harem and to tropical climate for
the working costume of American women.
Those bullying drawers of silk or diaphanous
muslin may be good for the latitude OF Con-
stantinople or Cairo, but they are neither
tasteful nor convenient for that Of New
York or Boston. The experience Of men
is worth consulting, and that decides in IA
vor of plain but moderately loose trowSer
as altogether best for the purpose. We
cant help thinking there Is some timdity
and affectation when our fair friends resort
to the unhappy victims of Moslem domestic
stupidity for patterns of their reform.
But because We say this let US not be
taken as justifying any of the denominations
against which the reform is aimed. We
would gladly see them banished forever
from human vision There Is neither ma
ture nor grace in the inventions whereof
fashionable Misunderstanding makes It's boast.
For artistic beauty the only costume is that
antique one whereof the Elgin marbles and
other Greclan sculptures preserve examples.
And what a difference 'wlxt that and the
whalebone and padding, the compressed and
elongated waist, and wide expanding skirt
of modern dame of the grand world. The
beauty of 4 costume should be TO adorn and
set off the human form, not to overlap it
with fantastic devices, nor vet TO render the
accidental defects of here and there person
standards of beauty for all, which is noto-
rlously the srigin of half the eccentricitleS
of fashion. And Is for the positive injury
to health resulting from the present dress of
women we see no good reason why it should
not be remedisd. The conservatives who
resist all change ought to see to it that this
reproach does not remain against them.
Thus it appears that the complaining ar
fists of London and the practical revolution
lists of America pursue different, but not OPP
posing aims. The former desire a dress of
leisure and social elegance, artistic and
beautiful for men tive latter are determined
to have an easy and convenient working
dress for women We should like to see
both these objects well attained but of the
two, the more practical Yankees seem to
stand the better chance for the glory of sue
cess, though we shall not be disappointed If
they accomplish great deal less than they
desire. But at the same time that we would
applaud every real improvement, 1t may be
worth while to remark that the ideals of cos
tune for either sex can scarcely be realized
at present, nor indeed ever, until Use and
Beauty, Utility and Art, Work and FESTIVE
ty are harmonized aud united in maturer
and nobler state of Society.