Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1876-04-21
The Tyranny of Fashion.

puPcIs'
The Tyranny Of Fashion.
Society is monarch and fashion its right
hand. Over no department does this Off
cial preside with moro sovereign power than
dress. a revolt by simplicity, taste or econ
omy against the edict of Cooley, Demorsst
or Buttrick would result in ignomiuious sui
eide. With man it is not wholly as with
woman. lie may exercise some individual.
ity in the choice of styles and yet maintain
his rank. But the latter knows no such Ii.
cense. She shall adopt all the delormities,
distortions and encumbrances, Of fashion or
society will be to her as a quarantined city.
Each recurring season brings new shapes,
colors and fabrics which however fantas tic
or unnatural she is bound to respect.
Whether it be a furlong trail or a bias Of
triple fold, each must be accepted without
dissent.
Little knows the milluer who remodels
the hat or forms anew the basque how weighty
a responsibility is hers. II is she who by
her puuctuality or delinquency can Gil or
empty the sanctuary. For the house Of wor.
ship is often bazaar where women resort
to compete in lace and silk, in jewel and
Partisan style. Not always is this true but
frequently enough to establish what men
call general principle. We all have in
mind women Of the fashion.Serving type who
rather than offend what they deem the cter-
nal fitness of things by wearing a last sea.
sons bonset, an indiscrimiuate shade of kids
or garment without the latest caprice of
style in frill or bias, wsuld stimulate the
gossip of whole community and cause
many anxious conjectures as to their absence
from church. Here though the Creator they
serve takes cognizance only Of hearts aud
souls, they convene to display the many
plated skirt or the UNDETERMINED hat.
BE it far from US to impute the blame en-
tirely to women. The studious regard for
appearance is human. The question is, how
shall these excuses in fashion that serve
neither for ornament nor utility be avoided ?
How shall womans miud-we speak not of
all women-be diverted from an absorbing
study Of style into channels that lead to more
digni6ed achievement Better a calico
gown with a well.inlormed mind than a
dress solid with folds Of satin and an empty
frivolous head. The truth is, women-even
those having the instincts Of culture-are
toe often the votaries OF the god ito seem. v
Whether reform in dress is possible no man
can say. But we have already seen a star
Of style fall like rocket aud the gitteriug
jewel that radiated the selectest hucs and
rays of metropolitan society has become like
charred and lustreless carbon. Never was
there more proptious time to Install hab
its Of simplicity in dress than to-day.
When young men contemplate the awful
realities Of an omnipotent fashion, marriage
appears to them terrible mou0ply main
tanned by bonanzas. Aud their conviction
is not dissipated by surveying the debris o.
style.wrecked fortunes. Rather than forgc
or emJe2zle they prefer the quiet Loneliness
of the single life aud a small balance on thu
credit side. They are forced to the conclu
sion that marrying is the direct antipodes Of
outstanding their income.
But if, after all, dress is made for woman
and not woman for dress, and if beauty ant
purity and devotion are better than the ere
dentials Of apparel, why as We enter upoI
the second century of our national life, ma,
there not be return by wives and daugh
tiers to the old-time simplicity of raiment
if such there ever was, and if not, may W,
not be wiser than our ancestors ?
1t is this enslavement to fashion that actu
ates many young lady to choose a wealth!
rake rather than an honorable man Of lin
itOd resources, and repent for years the foil.
Of fatal Eyes"
When the Napoleon dynasty was over
thrown and the milIiuers Of Eugene cease
to fix the fashion plates of the world, on
own expresses Of style sprang up to answe
the call for models and standards. And n
doubt the press itself has served to enhanc
the inordinate hunger and thirst for neV
quips and cranks IN dress. The bazaars an
magazines of style Of the great cities ar
simply panoramas that allure the imagination
aud beget rural imitation, thus producin
effects absolutely pernicious. Why do PEG
pie of sincerity assume to counterfeit tn
bold extravagances Of the false, artificial soc
ETY. of metropolis 1t seems stra nge tba
the same persons who would resent with th,
loftiost scorn the charge of copying in con
duct, are willing to lose every trace of pei
sonality in what they wear.
Many have read the satire "nothing h
wear" which draws a faithful portrait of
certain extremely fastidious class. Aud ye
the same dissatisfaction essentially has creI
> into many rural home. Wives and daugt
ters living upon farms ought to congratulate
themselves that their fathers neither EMO
the emoluments, nor incur the disrepute,
belonging to rings. There is an elegance i
simplicity and economy which the ruffle an
the rustic Of fashion are impotent to supply
Why clOthe yourself in way that dstract
all attention from yourself to what you hal
pen 10 wear? Think Of il.