Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-03-26
ORNAMENT In DRESS.

The Old Style OF Margaret OF Anjou-
The True Criterion Of Art I'm Dress
Modern Costume and Its Extreme
Folly - Sensible Criticism Upon
Dress.
After looking at fashion plates back be-
yond the time of Margaret of ADjou, of
France, we have come to the conclusion
that there was never as much senseess or
nament in dress used in any era as in our
own. Nothing that does not suggest use is,
in the finest sense, beautiful. A trimming
that has no reason, line that might end
anywhere or anyhow, never fails to offend
the eye. Where an effect is had it will be
found that it was false in intention.
a pendant wrapper of silk, or q
jewel seWed to a foundation and
used to clasp nothing is superfuous. A
bow which BY no possibility can fasten the
parts, merely stuck on as an ornament, is
ridiculous. Thus, judged by the criterion
Of art, nearly every lady whom we meet, in
her attire is in more than one sense ridicu-
lous. Never were there so many saw-teeth,
Vandyke points, acute lines, angles, and
ugly excrescences on the dress of woman
kind as now. The uncultivssed, if not
vulgar, dressm2ker, seeking nothing but
novelties, without the remotest reference
to grace or harmony in attire, invents forms
of dress that would be secuted and ignored
were not the taste of the wearers as crude
and uniformed as her own. Thus the very
theory of dress is false, artificial, and, it
cannot be denied, in thousand forms base
in It's very conception.
The maiden who bedecks herself may be
innocent and pure no less the dress that
she wears had its inception in the unhal-
lowed thoughts of the Partisan denli-nonde.
And who dare say that any woman can
long wear the average Voluptuous ball
room dress in utter consciousness of its
suggestions or its effects. No; the under
lying thoughts of costume must be pure,
as well as fit, to fulfil the highest mission Of
human attire. But the modern costume is
not only false; with but few exceptions it
is unmitigstedly ugly. Our streets, our
homes are filed with i'll and vulgar dress
ing. One very good reason why peasants
nearly always look picturesque, even in
their rags, is the true motive apparent in
everything they wear. Th9 bright
kerehief that covers the PEASANTS
shoulders = how much more graceful
it Is than the bodice trimmed in the form
Of kerchef. The outer dress, that really
covers an under dress fully and fairly-how
much more satisfactory than one that
merely pretends to do so, snd betrays its
deceit in the most unexpected places.
Anything that looks useful and is artificial
is bad. A hood that at the first glance we
see is incapable of going over the head;
false apron; g veil that is never meant to de-
scend over the face, but is tackled to the
back of the head or bonnet in an exasper-
ating manner; slashes sewed upon the gar
ment, instead of breaking through tin
fine everything false in dress, as in charac-
ter, leaves the eye unsatisfed, discontented,
often disguised.
But what shall be said of any form of at
tire that not only offends the sight, but out
RACES the very sense of propriety and de-
cency. For example, contemplate the
dress skirts which for the last year have
formed the velvet and silken scaVenger of
the filthy streets. How can a woman, re-
fined and pure, traverse miles ofpavement.
conscious at every step that she is
sWooping up into the finest fabrics of her
raiment, into the very pores of her skin,
the fifth AID refuse of the streets Yet
this is being done every hour by the most
refined (outwardly) of Americans, and still
being persisted in; although, with all our
aplng OF european style, such fashion to-
day 10 Paris is deemed the quintessence of
vulgar and dirty display.-BrOoklyn IN.
" Eagle. = At