Nebraska advertiser., 1881-03-17
Simplicity in Dress.
PIIOItF IN DI Noos
Miss NJ. r. Oakley in Harper's for March.

| MISS M X Oakey IN Harpers Tor March.
Our young girls in America do not
seem to have the sense of simplicity in
dress. No young girl looks syoung OF
as lovely in heavy velvets and loaded
trimmings as in simple muslins and
soft, clinging materials. They detract
from their own fresh charms by calling
attention to their adornment. | should
be inclined to say that no jewels, unless
a single row of pearls about the throat,
no lace but simple Valenciennes, should
be worn by any girl younger than twen-
ty-One. A dress perfectly fresh, light
in color (where the complexion permits) g.
beautifully cut, and almost entirely un-
trimmed, can not be improved upon for
young girl. 1t is the sweet rounded
forms, the dewy bloom of the cheek, the
clear young eyes, the soft tender lips.
that we want to see. Where silks are
worn, they should not be of heavy quail
ity, but soft. Our young girls wear
dresses like dowagers 1t is a futile
waste nf money. no beauty is attained.
We would Ike to call attention to the
fact that the style of dress influences the
manners, the carriage, of the woman.
The masculine style of dress has this
objection. 1t is a little difficult to say
what we could substitute for the Ulster
that We have all adopted. 1t is surely a
very convenient garment for our ST. eetS,
and for rain and mud and snow; but
there is difference in the cut of ulSters,
and they should be as little like very
bad overcoat as possible. When a
young girl has side pockets, she is apt
to put her hands in them, and where
she adds a Derby hat, how often the
swagger followsi
The Derby hat appears to me to have
no excuse. 1t is unbecoming even to a
man, and absolutely hide0us upon 4
woman. 1t is surprising to see them
adopted by well-bred ladies. They
have had great countenance, TO be sure.
but we think that if we should hand
over all the younger generation to an
exclusive costume of the Derby hat. the
Ulster and the Jersey. and the short
skirt, it would not take more than one
generation to make us lose all grace of
manner.
The short skirt deserves to be COM
mended for the street, but in the house
1t has neither beauty nor elegance.
Even to shorten a long skirt in front for
the better display of pretty foot is a
great mistake. 1t is neither becoming
to the foot nor the figure. 1t gives an
look of display, which is un-
refined; and surely the dress that leaves
something to the imagination is more
coquettish and more dignifed.
The scarf for a married woman is a
fashion that should never die. To wear
it well is proof of grace, and it i'm
parts an elegance, especially to tall |
woman, that is very desirable. In the
old portraits of Sir Joshua REYNOLDS |
and GainsbOrough, by Stewart and |
Copely, the scarf has been very ele-
gantly used-the long, straight scarf
drawn tightly across the small of the |
back, passed over the elbows, and drop |
ping down in front as low as the knee.
Or lower. Nowadays one sees them /
occasionally worn by ladies who have
relatives In the east, who send them
'carfs of Grape or camers-hair; and |
the French approach the
scarf in the style of their light outer
wraps for spring and autumn. l think
hat it would only require half a dozen
aides, whose rputatIOn for good dress
$ high, to persistently adopt the scarf.
or others to acknowledge its grace and
ELEGANCE.
The wearing of jewels is not often
veil understood. One does not see
many handsome Jewels worn in Ameri-