The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1888-03-17
EXTRAvAGANT DRESS.
A Philosophical Consideration of an I'M
pOrtant Question.

a EnuOSOpnical consideration oil an I'M
portant Question.
A love of the beautiful and orna-
mental need not degenerate into a
craving for merely costly luxury. Here
we have to investigate the meaning of
luxury in dress. Every one will admit
that a Brussels lace flounce which has
cost fifty thousand hours of labor and
the eyesight of more than one worker
is luxury, yet in one whirl of waltz
the queen of the ballroom has sacri-
feed this costly article. And what adj
vantage does she gainP But what is
luxury in one age. in another is cheap
and necessary article of wear. The
days are passed when Prince received
shirt as fitting gift from a Princess;
when cotton there was none, and linen
was so dear it was held to be an ex-
travagance to wear night-dress.
Thanks to discoveries and inventions,
port, wooden, linen and cotton fabrics
are within reach of every one, at prices
adapted to the slenderest means. Never
has 1t been possible to clothe ones self
SO warmly and cheaply as in the present
day. We can not revert to those days
when each class had its special and dis
tinctive dress; we can not accept NJ. de
Lavaleye's counsels of perfection and
clothe ourselves in the garb of the re-
ligious orders. We must regulate, not
repress the love of ornament; we must
reject the freaks and follies of fashion
and appeal to those whose taste and
position enable them to adopt higher
standard, and urge them to set the ex-
ample of simplicity and frugality, of
sense and solvency. 1t is is singu-
lar to contrast the glowing SPLEEN
dor and prodigality of the dress
OF one sex III this nineteenth
century with the sobriety of the dress
ofthe other sex. which has shrunk within
our own recollection into grim uni
formity of black kerseymere. The laws
of nature are reversed, if it be true, as
Mr.. Darwin teaches, that the male bird
owes the hues Of his plumage and the
beauty of his form to his desire to please
the hens and obtain the honor of nat
ural selection. In modern society it is
the hens who carry the gay feathers.
Shall we say with the same motives,
and with equal success? There was q
time when the dress of men was alike
wasteful, extravagant and inexpedient;
when they wore costly stuffs, rich en-
broidery. lace, jewels; when at the
Court of France the Duke of Bucking g
ham shook off diamonds, and the maids
of honor went on their knees to pick
them up and appropriate them; when
the folds of cravat and the embrod-
cry of Il waistcoat were subjects of
earnest attention to the masculine
mind. Those days are over, mems
dress is simple, suitable, inexpensive.
Is it too much to hope that reason may
assert her authority in the case of
women's dress, as she has done for
men, and that while slovenliness is I'M
known, and the highest standard of
neatncss is attained, there may be
neither waste nor extravaganza, but
that all-pervading sense of propriety of
which DR.. johnson was the advocate?
Learn" said he, THAT there is pro-
priety or improperly in every thing
how slight soever, and get at the gem
eral principles of dress and behavior. "
When Mrs. Thrale asked his opinion of
the dress of q child: "Well, sir. how
did you like little missP hope she was
fine enough?" at was the tinery of q
beggar, said he; "she looked like a
native of Bow Lane dressed up to be
carried to Bartholomew Fair" Views
which the philosopher and the econo-
mist advocate may well gain hearing.
though only now urged by one who has
no other claim to an audience than the
desire to help in woman's work.
Christian G. j. Reeve, IN Longman's
Magazioe.