adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety," which means that no manner of dress shall be used which suggests ideas of indelicacy. The modest woman seeks rather to escape than to attract observation, and would assume no form of apparel with the design of notoriety. No woman need ever complain that she is made the subject of remarks that are suggested by her own imprudence in this particular. There are some styles that the morality of good society can never justify. If it' be considered impolite, as it is, for a gentleman to enter ladies' society, or to sit at table with his coat off, even on a very warm day, it may, for similar reasons, be a question whether a lady may appear in a gentleman's presence with no covering upon her neck and shoulders and no sleeves at all. Whatever may be thought of appearing at home in such undress, no lady who has given the subject the consideration it merits, will permit herself or her daughter to be seen in public in such a condition.

Appropriateness of dress.-The next question that arises concerning a form of dress is, "Is it suitable?" As there are different styles of personal appearance, it is evident that all will not appear equally well in the same costume. One is tall, another is short; one thin, another robust; one straight, another droops; one is fair, another dark; one is young, another is middle-aged; and still another is old. It is plain, then, that the dress should be adapted to these natural conditions, in order to make each individual appear to the best advantage. And yet no person of good taste and modesty desires to appear singular by not conforming somewhat to the customary style. "To adopt the prevailing

How shall women adorn themselves? Why should immodest women not complain? Why is it impolite for a gentleman to enter a lady's presence or sit at table in shirt sleeves? Why should ladies do the same? What shall be thought of a woman who appears without covering her neck and arms in public? What is the next question about dress? Why is the same kind of dress not suitable for all? What should the style of dress be adapted to?

M. M.-16

fashion, but not to carry it to excess (provided it can be done without injury to health and morals), seems the most suitable course of conduct."

Dr. Johnson, in praising a lady for being very well dressed, remarked: "I am sure she was well-dressed, for I can not remember what she had on." The doctor's idea was that the appropriateness of her dress prevented the diverting of his attention from herself, which was certainly a high compliment to her good taste.

The fashions.-The principle which should actuate American youth is to dress neatly and appropriately; always having reference to health, comfort, and modesty; to age, form, and complexion; to time, place, and circumstances. Our boys and girls should glory in that health, strength, and activity which will fit them for a life of comfortable usefulness. Nothing ought to tempt them to impair their efficiency as men and women, for the mere gratification of a perverted taste. When fashion demands that they shall injure their own beautiful hair by any process; that they shall restrict the fullest capacity of their lungs; that they shall contract the natural growth of their shoulders; that they shall give an unnatural curvature to the spine, or inclose their feet, Chinese fashion, in improper shoes, they should dare to assert their common sense by refusing to obey the tyrannical decree. All honor to the boy and girl who have the independence and moral courage to follow the dictates of wisdom, rather than of folly, in conforming to unreasonable and oftentimes injurious fashions.

How far shall sensible people follow the fashion? What was Dr. Johnson's remark? Why was Dr. Johnson's remark a compliment to the lady? What principle should always govern American youth in regard to dress? What should they do when injurious fashions are in vogue? How may the hair be injured? The lungs? The shoulders? The feet? Whether is it better to have corns with small shoes, or larger shoes with sound feet?

CHAPTER XXXIII.

DRESS. (Continued.)

Home dress. Some persons take special care to appear well dressed everywhere but at home. This is a great mistake. The home should be a pleasant place, and its attractions should not be marred by a want of politeness in manners or by slovenliness in dress. Our garments should be always suited to our work, but when our employments do not require it, we should lay aside the homely or rough clothing, and assume that which carries with it more pleasing impressions. Respect for our own influence, among the members of our own family, requires neatness and tidiness at home as well as abroad. When the young ladies of a household appear habitually in presence of father and brothers in dirty and unbecoming attire, with unbrushed hair, unhooked dress, or unlaced shoes, they need not complain of the coarse manners and uncivil address of the male members of the family. To be polite only in presence of visitors is a poor compliment to those whom we should respect and gratify at home.

Street dress.-The dress for street wear should always be suited to the condition of the weather. The Queen of England very sensibly introduced the "balmoral skirts” and heavy walking boots, for ladies' use when out of doors.

What is the subject of Chapter XXXIII? Why do some persons appear badly dressed at home? Is it a duty to appear neat and clean at home? Why? To what should the dress be adapted? Why? When work does not require the rough clothing, what should we wear? Why? Why should persons be neat and tidy? What effect does carelessness of dress have upon the home? What should be the street dress?

Such fashions are worthy of imitation, as they combine both beauty and comfort. The street dress should never be of such peculiar material as to attract attention by the gaudiness of its colors, the extravagance of its trimmings, or the oddity of its style. No truly modest woman can consent to become the gazing stock of a crowd of vulgar idlers.

There is a class of men and women who dress on purpose to attract attention, who walk the streets to be seen; but these are not members of that good society whose claims we advocate. The moral law places an estimate upon the value of such, when it declares, "As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman without discretion.” We admire a finely dressed lady, but she who is attired without discretion and modesty has but little claim to our respect.

As an illustration of extravagance and absurdity, we would call attention to the recent fashion of "the train." Following this ridiculous custom, women appeared in the dirty, muddy streets, dragging sometimes a yard or more of fine material upon the ground, to the intense disgust of all neat and sensible people. Such "style" should receive no countenance from the common-sense ladies of America. Whatever apology may be made for the train in a large parlor, as a question cf taste, no one will defend its use in a dirty, crowded street.

Church dress.-A decent respect for the house of God and His worship, requires us to appear there in suitable apparel. It is said to be a distinguishing characteristic of American women to dress extravagantly, in high colors, with laces and jewels, for church. In this respect, they contrast very unfavorably with the ladies of Europe. That

What three things should be avoided in a street dress? What kind of people attempt to attract notice on the street? What is said of the woman without discretion? What is said of the train? What excuse is given for such a costume? Is it a modest dress on the street? Why? In what kind of dress should persons appear in church? Why should the dress not be gay for church? Why is expensive and stylish church dress immoral?

it is not in good taste thus to appear, decked out in all the requirements of extreme fashion, seems hardly to admit of a question. When persons attend church to worship, they should appear in such plain, modest, simple clothing as will neither disturb their own thoughts by anxiously taking care of it, nor excite the envy and jealousy of those who may be diverted from the solemnities of the place by gazing at them.

School dress. As has already been said, the dress should always be adapted to the necessities of our occupation, whether of worship, business, or pleasure. As the school rooms are frequently dusty from pulverized chalk, etc., the clothing, whether of the boys or girls, should be of materials that can be easily cleaned, and that do not readily show the dirt. It should be plain, simple, and unostentatious. According to the principles of the moral law, it is wrong to dress in such a manner as to excite the envy, the jealousy, or the covetousness of any who really can not afford to clothe themselves expensively, and yet are mortified to appear meanly clad in contrast with their more richly appareled schoolmates. Many a poor pupil is tortured with his apparent poverty, and by the excess of a false pride is driven from school because he can not compete with those who have more wealth at command.

It would be difficult to suggest any uniform method of dress that could be made practicable for the boys; but it would be very easy for the young ladies in any school to agree upon some general principles by which this difficulty could be overcome. An inexpensive material might be selected that is of a subdued color, is easily cleaned, and yet is genteel and pretty. This might be set off with a plain linen collar and cuffs; the former fastened by a small plain

What passions does it excite? Is it right to excite such feelings in the minds of the poor? What should be the school dress? What should be the character of the school dress? Is it wrong to excite envy? Why? Why are some people so sensitive? What is said of a uniform school dress?