they recognize social laws; but it is neither necessary nor safe for them to make it their goddess. It is against excess in the matter that we warn them. "Her polished limbs Veiled in a simple robe, their best attire, Thomson. CHAPTER XV. DRESS. CONNECTION WITH TWO PRECEDING CHAPTERS MARY LYON ON THIS SUBJECT DR. HITCHCOCK'S REPRESENTATION OF HER VIEWS HER VIEW LIKE HANNAH MORE'S AND REV. JOHN NEWTON'S OBJECT OF DRESS-EXTRAVAGANCE-THE BANKRUPT A BOSTON LADY'S LACE BILL-COSTLY LEVEES GIVEN BY THIS CLASS-POORER CLASSES IMITATE RICH-A POET'S DESCRIPTION-FEMALES IN ALL AGES AND NATIONS FOND OF DRESSTHE KAREN LADY WITH FIFTEEN NECKLACES THE PATAGONIAN FEMALES-BOY BOUGHT FOR A BUTTON-EXAMPLE OF KINGS AND QUEENS-COURT SUIT WORTH $400,000 - NECKLACE GIVEN TO VICTORIA'S DAUGHTER COST $20,000 QUEEN ELIZABETH'S THREE THOUSAND DRESSES-A FASHIONABLE WOMAN AND HER TWENTY-EIGHT TRUNKS DRESS PROVES A SNARE CONTRAST WITH A LADY AT WASHINGTON FRANCES MCLELLAN -THE SCRIPTURES - REMARKS OF REV. ALBERT BARNES-LINES. THE last two chapters are intimately connected with the subject of Dress; but it deserves a distinct consideration. So much is said of it, and it occupies such a prominent place in the minds of girls, that it ought not to be passed without additional notice. We would not present Mary Lyon for imitation in respect to dress, although her views upon the .subject were substantially correct. It must be granted that some more attention to apparel would have contributed somewhat to her good appearance. Her theory and practice on this subject did not always correspond. And yet her biographer says: "Her mother taught her to be honest, to be kind, to shun everything mean and wicked; but she did not take so much pains to drill her in the most approved mode of standing, sitting, walking, eating, and dressing. These she left to nature, who does not always teach according to conventional rules and forms. Her friends can afford to admit that she did not excel in the graces of the drawing-room. In her early and susceptible years, her attention was not turned to her appearance. The getting a thing done so engrossed her thoughts, that none were left for the manner in which it should be done. Perhaps no training could have educated her to live to be dressed and fed. Clothing and food were means, not ends, in her nomenclature; and it does not seem as though all the principalities beneath the skies could have wrought her into a worshipper of the toilet. She was born to a different destiny. There seemed wanting, what teachers cannot give, a natural bias to that branch of study. Dress could not get between her and the sun. She did not feel above attending to it. On the contrary, she considered it a duty to dress conformably to her station. .... With Hannah More, she held that the perfection of the art is so to dress that no one will recollect, two minutes afterwards, anything that you had on. She sought simplicity, neatness, correspondence. She often told her scholars that dress should answer to the age, employment, health, and position of the wearer, and to the season, weather, and the occasion. It cannot be denied that she sometimes fell short of her theory. Nature would get the better of rules. No gift from a friend or pupil was more acceptable than a pretty cap or collar. In anything pertaining to school she seldom asked counsel till she had made up her own mind, and then what she wanted was approbation; but in matters of the toilet she was grateful for advice. When she stood before the glass, her thoughts were at the world's end, or above it. Her room-mate, in 1834, says she well remembers her standing before the mirror in their room, adjusting her bonnet strings, and saying at the same time, in an impressive manner, Well, I may fail of heaven, but I shall be very much disappointed if I do;' and then slowly and emphatically repeating, 'very much disappointed.' We have as little reason to complain of inattention in our dull scholars, as the dress-makers sometimes had who worked for her. You must find mind as well as fingers,' she would say. 'I 6 expect you to do the contriving as well as bring the patterns."" It appears from this extended quotation that she was not so devoid of taste, in the matter of dress, as many have supposed. Whatever her practice may have been, her views upon the subject were like those of Hannah More. In the main, they were like those of the wife of John Hancock, who said, "She would never forgive a young girl who did not dress to please, nor one who seemed pleased with her dress." That is, she would have girls give such heed to their apparel as to appear neat, tasteful, and elegant, while they should not be excessively fond of this kind of display. This was essentially the view of Rev. John Newton. A lady once asked him what was the best rule for females to observe in dress, and he replied, "Madam, so dress, and so conduct yourself, that persons who have been in your company shall not recollect what you had on." Girls should by no means be indifferent to their apparel. Dress is for the protection and adornment of the body. Neatness, taste, and elegance, should be properly studied in the selection of materials and the choice of style. The female character appears to better advantage by a degree of attention paid to personal appearance. This can be done, too, without imitating the wicked extrav |