THE MONTHLY ANTHOLOGY, FOR JANUARY, 1804. IN the following thoughts, an old friend is with pleasure recognized, whose odd combination of gravity and vivacity is calculated to make one half of the world rail at his hiftory, and the other half censure his levity. In this effay, he has united the "utile cum dulei;” and if some object to the humour, and others, to the severity of his remarks, all must unite in attributing them to the beft feelings of the human heart. THE EDITOR. FOR THE MONTHLY ANTHOLOGY. THOUGHTS ON DRESS. PERHAPS no fubject has occupied more attention, than dress. It is an end, which we propofe in almost all our labours. Dress has ftimulated ingenuity to the greatest variety of inventions. The vanity of the world keeps the world in motion. Drefs fpreads the fail, and opens the furrow. Drefs is the pride of the infant in the lap, and of the over-grown child of thirty. Dress is the darling toy of the fair, and the chief accomplishment of the foldier. It calls into exercise the taste of mankind. Take away drefs, and polished circles would have no fubjects for criticifm. The beauties of the age would fink into lifeless indifference. The bufy would be reduced to idlenefs, and fools would return to infignificance. Spring-fhips and Fall-ships would fail without the prayer, which is now breathed from a thoufand gentle lips, for their fuccefs. The amufement of shopping, that relief of tediousness, would be fufpended, and the heavy hours would wear away without one enlivening incident. In writing on drefs, it is neceffary to proceed with caution. The manufacturer, the merchant, the ftatefman, all are interefted in this weighty fubject. Drefs influences the cabinet of policy, as well as the toilet of beauty. The profperity of nations is connected with a paffion for drefs. England could not fight her battles without her broadcloths, nor France chain her enemies without her laces. It is a ground of confolation to the politician, that the spleen rail of moralifts cannot affect the state of fociety. They may and fneer; but the vain heart will still beat high for ornament; the fair will still seek to become more fair; and they who want understanding will strive to compenfate the deficiency by out: ward fhow. Man ever has been, and ever will be a fuperficial being, contented with his trappings, and pleased with himself on account of the labours of the filk-worm. It is however to be hoped, that there are fome, whofe obfervations on man have extended beyond the difcovery of this effential property," that he is capable of wearing clothes." It is to be hoped, there are fome, who can conceive that the human head may be improved for a higher end, than to serve as a fubftratum for a hat or a bonnet. I do not wish to fhock the age by venting abfurdities. I do not wish to fubvert that foundation of all human knowledge, experience. I grant, that when a part has for time immemorial been applied to a particular use, we may conclude with great probability, that it was defigned. for that very end. But without wifhing to deny the right application of the human head, by the fashionable world, I would fuggeft the poffibility, that it may have been defigned to answer fome other purpose than that of ornament. To those who know this purpose by experience, my obfervations may be interesting. Is it not strange, that man can be vain of his attire? Does he wear fine clothes? Let him give the credit to the weaver and the tailor. Is man a moral, intelligent being; and fhall he fwell with no higher ambition than the peacock? Surely the fluttering fop, who places all excellence in the cut and quality of his coat, if he ever poffeffed, must have wholly loft the dignity of human nature. It is a mark of a little mind to feek diftinction by drefs. That man, who leaves no higher character, than this, behind him, that he wore fine clothes, is more contemptible than filth and raggedness could make him. That man, whofe conversation does not make us forget his drefs, is unfit for human fociety. The It is the mind, which constitutes the dignity of man. powers of the mind are vast and enlarging. It is capable of clear conceptions and elevated fentiments. It can propose high ends and comprehend mighty schemes. To fee this lofty mind dwindling to the dimenfions of a wardrobe, deliberating with anxious folemnity on the colour of a waistcoat, the relations of a cape, or the fitness of a fhoe; this is humbling indeed;—I blush for the name of man.-The mind derives its complexion from the fubjects of attention and meditation. The narrow fouls of coxcombs are therefore incapable of any thing excel, lent or glorious. To fhine with their butterfly robes in the eyes of the fair is all their ambition. To find admittance by tender affiduities to hearts as narrow as their own is all their care, Were they capable of thought I would advife them to think, that the richest robe cannot cover poverty of mind, nor fplendid apparel hide a groveling foul. This paffion for drefs has been called a trifling weakness, What! Is it nothing to caft away reason, to degrade the foul? Is it nothing to facrifice moral powers and feelings, to blast the hope and promise of our nature? If man is endowed with mind and a capacity of perceiving excellence, then this love of dress is worse than fuicide, and bears fad testimony to the de, bafement of his heart. What improvement might we anticipate, if the time, which is now wafted in contriving and preparing articles of drefs, were applied to the cultivation of the heart and the understanding? Ye vain, would you indeed be adorned? Seek the ornaments of truth, of purity, of benevolence. Thefe will clothe you in unfading glory. These will be in fashion through eternity. Do you defire to acquire and feel importance, when you mingle with the world? Believe me, there is a consciousness of honeft undefigning goodness, that infpires a confidence, and an ease, which the gaudinefs of foppery can never attain. I do not wish to exclude all ornament from dress. It is a du ty we owe society, to prefent a decent and agreeable appearance. Every power of pleasing is a talent, which increases our influence, and the good will improve with care this mean of usefulness. But ornament should be sparingly used. Where there is beauty, we more frequently conceal, than heighten it by the decorations of art. Where there is deformity, we only make it more disgusting by attempting to convert it into beau ty. Utility is the bafis of ornament. A Corinthian pillar reared to support a shed would excite difguft. Nothing should be introduced into drefs for the mere fake of ornament. This is the taste of favages. The ends of dress are comfort and decency. When these are facrificed to ornament, we prove the corruption of our taste, Drefs, like the countenance, is an expreffion of the foul. Simplicity of drefs befpeaks fimplicity of character. Chaste ornament marks the delicacy and purity of the mind. The prefent age has improved in many refpects on the cuf toms of our fathers. We have fhaken off many of the shackles of fashion. But while we affert the liberty of drefs, let us be ware, left we become advocates of licentioufnefs. Have we not reason to lament, that while we have dropped the stiffness and precision of our ancestors, we have thrown off much of their decency? It is time to mourn, when men are called to blush for women, who forget to blush for themselves. We pretend that we have escaped the infection of French principles; but we are deceived. We have imported the worst of French corruptions, the want of female delicacy. The fair and the innocent have borrowed from the lewd the arts of feduction, They have expofed the chafté bofom to the gaze of wantonness, and have spread snares in the steps of unwary youth. We naturally look to the female sex as the guardians of purity. We look to women, to chaften our minds, to polish our roughnefs, to mould us into delicacy. They have an intereft in fupporting the awful majesty of virtue, in repreffing the licentioufnefs of thought, as well as of action. They are by nature weak and defenceless. They are ftrong only in their modest charms and chafte deportment. They have a common caufe to maintain; and on purity of manners all their influence is founded. I repeat it, women have no fhield but unfullied purity. If they wish to maintain their ground, they must take the whole armour of fpotless innocence and undefigning modefty. 1 A woman, who seeks to influence the paffions,. is loft to the delicacy of her nature. She has ftripped herself of the rights and glory of her fex. What then must we Tay of fome, whom we daily observe, whose dress is studiously defigned to display the female form? Why do they tear off the veil of virgin modefty? Why folicit our gaze? I will not charge them with the bare defign of kindling a lawless flame. They will fhudder at the fuggeftion. But I warn them of the neceffary confequence of the prevailing modes of drefs. I folemnly call upon them, not to render focial intercourfe contaminating. I admonish them not to trust to the purity of men. I affure them, that on the female fex the hopes of the virtuous, and the beauty and dignity of society depend. It has been afferted by fome philofophers, that the fentiments of delicacy are factitious, that nature needs no disguise, that we have only to bring up our children without raiment, and they will never blush at nakedness. All this may be true; but to us, who have associated purity of character with the decencies of drefs, fuch reasoning is unavailing. It would be dangerous for women to make the experiment. There is a charm thrown round a modeft female. Let her not diffolve it. There is a sentiment of tender respect, with which we view her. It is a fentiment too refined and delicate for the analyzing power of philofophy. But on this subtle sentiment the happiness of the fex is fufpended. CATO. For the MONTHLY ANTHOLOGY, On the Abfurdity of fome Popular Opinions in Harvard College. MR. PER-SE, THE fentiments of your late correspondent over the fignature of Philo-mathefis, appeared to me both applicable and juft. Many judicious friends of our University have long la mented, that there should be popular among the ftudents opinions on genius fo contracted, and fo opposed to the true spirit of philofophy. I well recollect, that the fame abfurd notions prevailed, when I was a member of that refpectable feminary. If a perfon could fcribble his exercises with great rapidity, though with ev |