The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1882-01-25
DespOtism Of Fashion.

An eminent English writer says that
Americans enjoy less real liberty, outside
If political rights, than the people Of
any country in Europe. He says we
accept our fashions in everything from
Europe in a blind and slavish acquics-
cencc in marked contrast with our ieal.
ousy of political interference and des-
potism. Even in politics, he says, the
sNme disposition is apparent, for third,
or independent party, is impossible. In
Germany and France there are many
parties, but in great, free America there
is only room for two. Independence in
thinking is rare, and more rarely takes
shape in action. The aesthetic craze has
not developed any American standard Of
taste. From somewhere comes period.
cally decree ill fashions, against which
no American woman dare TO rebel.
However ill-suited to climate or com.
plexion, the style is memorable. The
contest is simply as to precedence in
acquiesccnce. No one dares to revolt.
Thus upon the American people are
forced fashions in dress for men, women
and children, house furnishings, and
even house architecture, often most pre-.
posterous and barbarous. The cart.
wheel style of bonnets occurs rs one
Of the denominations in dress, a
fragrant violation of good taste rs well
as Of the rights of others in public
assemblages.
But somebody must originate these
never ending novelties. Some brain
has been tortured somewhere to invent
something startling Tho wonder is that
the decree is accepted 80 uncomplisn.
ingly. However preposterous or absurd,
there is no remedy. 1t is this meek
subservience Of Americans to the behests
Of fashion which makes the birth and
growth of any real standard OF taste i'm,
possible. The spirit OF discomfort and
rebellion must precede every successful
revolution. As in China, the inherited
spirit of obedience stands squarely IN
the way of every effort at progress
There was n people once who had, in
dress and architecture, standard which
has passed unquestloned. II did not
huctuate at the bidding OF millincrs OF
clothiers. II had foundation below
the question of dollars and cents. Nothing
more plainly evidences our singular
backwardness in some Of the higher at
tributes of civilization than the fact that
We must dress at the dictation of some
imperious and invisible ty,ant whose
exact location, tenure of Office, OF extent
of power no one knows. There are ma
tons yet which have u national costume.
Any one who has ever attended fair At
Buda-Pesth has seen men and women
from provinces dressed in most grotesquo
outre fashion, but Just as their ancestors
have dressed for ages. The effect il
striking, novel and sometimes beautiful
Ii is question whether their never.
changing fashion is more inimical to the
growth of correct taste than orr ever
changing styles. About as much liberty
and discretion is allowed in one as the
other. They accept their grandparents
clothes because they were TIE fashion
and WE often do the same thing because
they will be. The authority is equally
shadowy and doubtful in both cases.
woman on the Danube has no more no
ton of making dress TO suit her in
dividual taste and complexion, shape Oh
stature, differing from her set, than on,
here. The goddess there is as fixed ant
changeiess as Brahma. Here, like the
Romans, we naturalize all the gods, nc
matter how inconsistent, only stipulatinq
that any new ones shall come in like
terms. --.lndiandDOliS Journal.