صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

thrills of anguish penetrate our inmost souls as we hear the clods of earth falling on the lid of the casket containing the remains of one whom we so much loved now snatched from our embraces for time? How we could wish ourselves entombed beside that loved motionless form, calm and beautiful even in death. We instinctively shudder at the contemplation of such scenes ; yet such a bitter ordeal we may be called upon to undergo. But in this let us not be cast down, knowing that "The Lord loveth whom He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth." Sorrows may be bitter to us for the time; yet we may be sure they are sent to us for some wise purpose. Our hearts will be transplanted to, and centered in, that world of bright spirits whither our loved ones are gone before.

I trust none of us belong to that sect called stoics, who are, or affect to be, alike insensible to pain or passion. The man of sorrows, our only hope in sorrow, wept at the grave of his friend; but we must not indulge in sorrow to excess. We have a sure hope, for the bars of death are burst, the heavenly way is opened, the templevail is rent, the expiatory offering accepted. The dead are but asleep. We shall meet them in yonder better land where the farewell word will never more be spoken. Probably some of our loved ones gone before are even now standing on the battlements of heaven waiving an invitation to us to follow. How the hope of meeting those loved ones cheers us in the midst of our deepest anguish. We would wish every unkind word unsaid when they are taken from us, can we not be more tender to those around us "while they are with us," before the opportunity of asking their pardon for any offences is taken away from us.

Let us then look at sorrows as the exponents of unalloyed pleasures for us in the future. Sorrows are like the great rivers which do not bring their floods of waters to the seas, till many rills have been swallowed up into brooks, and brooks in streams, and streams in tributary rivers, each of these affluents having lost its individual name and existence in that which at last, at once represents, and is continent of them all. Let us then endeavor to comfort the sorrowing, taking those sublime words of the poet as our consolation, "The path of sorrow and that path alone,

Leads to that land where sorrows are unknown."
HENRY MCCOLLUM,

Nov. 14, '74.

[blocks in formation]

274

BY EDITOR.

Unintimately acquainted with the manners and customs of ages preceding it, a nation is often led into the belief that it is peculiarly itself, that is, it owes little or nothing to those living before, separated from it, perhaps, by both land and water, continents, seas. This error is confined to no one department of industry or art, to no single quality of mind, it is universal. But one branch of this common belief will be dwelt upon, and that is-Fashions— beginning with those of a few hundred years ago and noticing their relation to those of the present day. What is true generally of this idea of originality, mentioned above, is true individually of fashion, with this exception, that in other things the good is claimed pre-eminently as original, while in our subject special care is taken to credit all follies and faults, dismissing the meritorious without a sign of approbation.

So at the present time we hear follies decried as never before existing, as the invention of to-day, while the truth of the matter is, that our fashionable follies have a straight descent, directly trace able back to our ancestors, who were as grotesque, capricious and fickle in fashion as we, and with a lack of taste which puts them as far behind us as the finite is less than the infinite. Their oddity excelled our folly. As imitators, they were no better than we. The man aped the gentleman. In studying the history of fashions, it becomes evident that many originated in the attempt to conceal some deformity of body, hence the immense ruffles, cushions, &c., of past times. Others had their origin in the imitation of some bodily defect. For instance, some reigning beauty would be disfigured by a deformed hip, and straightway ladies who had handsome hips would load one with a pad. And all this in those times when every body "dressed sensibly." Those friends of humanity, patches, had their origin in the reign of Edward VI. They were used by a foreign lady to conceal a wen on her neck. Since then they have become more extensive in their application, having worked their way down to us. Doubtless many think that the enormously large shoes,-long-toed-are peculiarly modern. Inquire into the matter, and it is found out that Henry Plantagenet, Duke of Anjou, invented shoes two feet long, with points, (worse

In Eng

and worse) to conceal an excrescence on one of his feet. What an excrescence it must have been. In the reign of Henry IV, shoes were worn of such a length that the fashionable wearer could not walk till the toes were fastened to his knees with chains. land, in the fourteenth century, these chains were made of gold and silver, and the tops of the shoes themselves were carved in the manner of a church window. No! we can't claim the invention of long-toed shoes. Low necks in ladies' dresses are not modern. The fair Isabella of Bavaria has this sin of fashion to answer for. Have any of our readers ever heard of a color called "l' Isabeau." The term had its origin from the fact that Isabella, daughter of Philip II, and wife of Archduke Albert, vowed not to change her linen until Ostend was taken. Unfortunately for the lady, the siege lasted three years. The supposed color of the lady's linen, at the end of that time, was termed l'Isabeau, a sort of "whitish,' yellow-dingy." Fortunately for Fortunately for posterity no corresponding cologne was invented. In 1586 the ladies used to carry mirrors fixed to their waists. This fashion, as most others, originated with the Court. Jean des Caures, a French moralist of that time, speaks of the custom as follows: "Alas! in what an age do we live; to see such depravity as we see, that induces them to bring into church these scandalous mirrors hanging to their waists. It is true, at present none but ladies of the Court venture to wear them, but long it will not be before every citizen's daughter, and every female servant will have them." Extremes of fashion three centuries ago were more frequent and flagrant than any prevailing mode of these later times.

Short and tight breeches were so much used and abused in France, that Charles V was compelled to issue edicts forbidding them to be worn.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the opposite extreme was the raging fashion. The gentlemen and beaux of her day had their breeches made wide-very wide-then stuffed with rags, feathers, and other light material. What a sight they must have presented with their upholstered legs. But the ladies could not remain behind in fashion. They accordingly invented large hoopskirts. lady and gentleman dressed in these fashions, standing side by side, could not join hands. Wolpole has the following: "A pale Roman nose, a head of hair loaded with crowns, and powered with

A

diamonds, a vast ruff, a vaster farthingale, and a bushel of pearls, are the features by which every body knows at once the pictures of Queen Elizabeth." I have mentioned above the shoes invented by the Duke of Anjou. These were pointed. Just preceeding Queeh Elizabeth's reign, square toes were the rage. Some idea of the quantity of leather in a pair of these shoes may be had from the fact that an edict was proclaimed to the effect that no person should wear shoes above six inches square at the toes. It is folly to deny that extravagance in dress is far too common at the present day, but how does it compare with that of the fourteenth century. The dress of that period was sumptuous beyond belief. Richard II had a coat worth 30,000 merks; a merk being equivalent to $3.22. Sir John Arundel had no less than fifty-two (new) suits of cloth of gold tissue. Elizabeth, Queen of Phillip II of Spain, never wore a dress twice. Elizabeth, Queen of England, had only three thousand different habits in her wardrobe when she died. The middle of the sixteenth century was the spring time of cosmetics. Men used them as well as women, and like them bathed in wine and milk. The Earl of Shrewsbury, who had charge of Mary, Queen of Scots, previous to her execution, complained of the expense for wine for the Queen's bath, and asked for a greater allowance. Faded beauties used wine for their bath, to draw out the wrinkles ; smooth skinned maidens bathed in milk to keep their skin soft and smooth.

Then came a period when the ladies covered their faces with black patches, cut to resemble owls, suns, rings, moons, crowns and crosses. Where is modern folly compared with such as this?

In the reign of Edward II ladies wore cocked shoes, prisnets, pantoffles, or slippers, which raised them two inches or more from the ground. Yet we all have heard it affirmed more than once that high heels on shoes never were known until a few years since. · Coming nearer our own time, (about 1790), we find the folly of dress not in the least diminished. Women's dress, like that of men was utterly devoid of taste. Ladies of this period wore large whalebone petticoats, which made them appear as if standing in an inverted tub. In this the nineteenth century, our own age, we are all acquainted with the styles of dress. Are they as foolish and devoid of taste as those that have preceded them?

« السابقةمتابعة »