CHAPTER XXVII.

DRESS AND ORNAMENT.

Legitimate purposes of dress--as a covering, a regulator of temperature, and a defence. Use of ornaments. Further thoughts on dress. How clothing keeps us warm. Errors in regard to the material, quality, and form of our dress. Tight lacing--its numerous evils.

Improvement of the lungs by education. Objections to the use of personal ornaments.

When we remember that the threefold object of dress is to cover, warm and defend us, and that the kind and quant.i.ty of dress which best does this, is most conducive to our own and the public good, as well as to the glory of G.o.d, we are led, very naturally, to the following reflections:

1. We have no right to use that kind of dress which does not answer well the purpose of a COVERING, ad long as we can lawfully obtain that which would do it better. All fashions, moreover, which tend to remind the beholder that our dress is _designed as a covering_, are nearly as improper as those which do not effectually cover us.

And here let me say, with sufficient plainness, that there are such fashions in existence; and that they ought to be shunned like the plague. Does not the world in which we live, contain sources enough of temptation, and avenues enough to vice, seduction and misery, without increasing their number by our dress? [Footnote: I cannot refrain from saying, in this place, that since I wrote the above paragraph, I have received an excellent letter from a worthy minister of the gospel, on the subject of female dress which, besides greatly confirming the views I have expressed in this chapter, suggests the importance of having a standard dress devised--to be formed on Christian principles, and made fashionable by Christian example. If such a measure is desirable, it is yours, young women, to put it in operation.]

I need to specify but one fashion in the list of those to which I refer. It is the fashion of exposing the neck and a part of the chest.

I could tell young women, that it would be wisdom to remove this dangerous custom, were health entirely out of the question. A word to the wise--to adopt the language of Solomon--is sufficient. May it prove so, in the present instance. Let not the young of the other s.e.x, miseducated as they now are, and the slaves of improper imaginations and feelings, be longer trifled with in this matter.

2. We have no right to use any articles of clothing-when we have it in our power, by lawful means, to prevent it--whose tendency is directly contrary to what has been laid down as the second great object of dress, that of a.s.sISTING TO KEEP OUR BODIES AT A PROPER TEMPERATURE.

It would be idle to pretend that clothing, in itself considered, is a source of warmth to our bodies. It is only so by the relation it bears to our bodies; or, in other words, by the circ.u.mstances in which it is placed. Our own bodies--their internal, living machinery, rather--are the princ.i.p.al sources of our heat. Clothing is useful in keeping us warm, only by retaining, for some time, a portion of the heat of our bodies, which would otherwise escape so rapidly into the ambient cooler air, as to leave us with a sensation of chilliness. It should, therefore, be adapted to the season. That clothing which conducts the heat from the body in the slowest manner, or, in other words, impedes most its progress, is best adapted to severe cold weather; provided, however, it does not keep the heated air in contact with the body so long as to render it impure. And, on the contrary, that clothing which most readily allows the heat to escape from our bodies, is, in hot weather, the best adapted to our health and happiness.

I have said that the internal machinery of out bodies is the great source of our heat. Foremost, perhaps, in this work, are the lungs, the stomach, the brain and nervous system, and the circulatory system, including the heart, arteries, veins and absorbents. Our moving powers--the muscles and tendons--have, indeed, much to do with generating our heat; but it is princ.i.p.ally by the a.s.sistance which they render to the digestive, the nutritive, the respiratory, the circulatory, and the thinking machinery. The fat of our bodies has also something to do in promoting our warmth; but it is only on the same principle as that by which it is done by our clothing; that is to say, it prevents the heat from being conducted off too rapidly.

All these internal organs--and, in fact, all the living machinery of our bodies--have the power to generate heat and diffuse it over the system, in proportion to the freedom and energy of their action; or, to express the same idea in fewer words, in proportion to their health.

But this is not all. They have not only the power of generating heat in proportion to their healthiness, but also of resisting cold. Who does not know that the living system, at ninety-eight degrees of Fahrenheit, will resist a temperature nearly one hundred and fifty degrees lower than this, [Footnote: During the present winter, the mercury in this vicinity has ranged, in one or two instances, as low as 14 or 16 degrees below zero; which is 112 or 114 degrees below the heat of the blood. In some parts of New England it has been 20 or 30 degrees below.] and yet for some time not freeze? Perhaps this is done, however, in the same way in which a more moderate amount of heat is generated. Perhaps the increased muscular and nervous energy, and the increased activity of the other organs, enable them to generate heat as fast, as the increased cold around carries it off.

But the conclusion. I would at present enforce from these physiological premises, is the following:--That whenever our dress, by means of its material, form or quant.i.ty, has a tendency to weaken our internal organs, or any one of them, and thus to prevent the free and energetic performance of their several functions, it is injurious, and its use is wrong, not to say sinful.

This is sometimes done by clothing which irritates and excites the surface of the body too much. Coa.r.s.e flannel is more irritating than any other material in ordinary use, and should therefore never be used when a sufficient amount of bodily heat can be maintained without it; as its use weakens, in the end, the perspiratory, and calorific, and depurating powers of the skin--for the skin has all these powers--and even, in some cases, brings on eruptive and other diseases. Fine flannel is more irritating than cotton; and the latter, more so than linen. Still, there are mult.i.tudes who cannot get along without flannel, at some seasons, either coa.r.s.er or finer.

The evil of which I have spoken is, however, much oftener induced by error in regard to the quant.i.ty of dress, than its quality. As to quant.i.ty, we need no more than is just necessary, along with healthy and vigorous exercise, to keep us from being sensibly cold or chilly.

Any amount beyond this, be its nature what it may, is debilitating, and consequently more or less injurious.

But the form of our dress often does injury; as well as its material and quant.i.ty. With some cla.s.ses of our community, this is a greater evil than either of the former; though with others, it is not.

All forms of dress which impede any kind of motion, especially those which impede circulatory motion, are greatly injurious. It is, I suppose, pretty well known, that all parts of the skin are full of minute blood vessels, chiefly veins; in addition to which, there are also a great number of veins still larger, immediately under the skin, and connected with it, as may be observed by looking at the hands or limbs of very aged or very lean persons. Now the tendency or course of the blood in all the veins, is towards the heart; and this course is slower or more rapid, according as the skin is more or less active, healthy and free. A rapid course of the blood in these veins, is desirable, because it has become, in the progress of its circulation, greatly impure, and in the same proportion unfit to minister to the purposes of health--and needs to go on to the heart, and through that to the lungs, to be relieved of its load of impurities.

Is it not plain, then, that all compression of the skin by cravats, wristbands, waistbands, belts, garters, or any other form of ligatures, must be wrong! Must it not impede the motion of the venous blood in its return to the heart? Must not even light boots, garters, stockings, &c., do this? Is it not a task sufficiently difficult for the blood to climb from the feet to the heart, directly against the power of gravity, without being impeded, is its course, by compression of any sort--and above all, by ligatures.

But if these ordinary compressions of the surface of our bodies are so injurious, what are we to say of the practice of many females, and of most young women--at least in fashionable life--of compressing the chest?

For in compressing this part of the frame, though we do not impede the action of _so much_ blood in its return to the heart as might be supposed, we do a great deal more injury in many other respects than is usually known. I must advert to the various items of this injury.

First--compressing the chest, by dress or otherwise, prevents free motion of the trunk of the body. We can, indeed, bend the body a little, notwithstanding the compression; but not so freely, and not therefore so healthfully.

Secondly--compression of the chest prevents the lungs and heart--the princ.i.p.al organs wholly contained in its cavity--from expanding, and doing their work in a proper manner. If there were no compression by ligatures or otherwise, of any other part of the system, and if the impure blood came back to the lungs for renovation as fast as it ought, still it would not be properly depurated or renovated, unless the lungs acted in a full, healthy and rigorous manner. But this they cannot do, unless the chest is left free from external compression. Their internal expansion and enlargement is limited by the external, much in the same way as the s.p.a.ce in a bellows is limited or extended according as the bellows itself is expanded or compressed.

If the muscles concerned in moving the chest---near a hundred in number--do not properly act; if the breast-bone, when we inhale air, is not thrown forward, and the ribs thrown outward and upward so as to increase, very greatly, the size of the internal cavity; then the venous blood which is brought into the lungs to be purified and cleansed, cannot--I repeat it--be purified and cleansed as it ought to be; and the whole system must suffer the consequences, in being fed and nourished on impure, and I might say poisonous blood.

This is the case when the lungs are compressed during a single breath: how great, then, is the evil, when the compression continues an hour--during which period we probably breathe ten or twelve hundred times! How much greater still, when it is continued through the waking hours of a day, say fifteen or sixteen--in which period we breathe nearly twenty thousand times--and a young woman of twelve to fifteen years of age, probably more! But think of the evil as extended to a year, or three hundred and sixty-five days! or to a whole life of thirty, fifty or seventy years!

How much poisoned blood must go through the living system in sixty or seventy years, should the injured system last so long! And how many bad feelings, and how much severe pain and suffering, and chronic and acute disease, must almost inevitably be undergone!

Thirdly--this poisoning of the blood, however, is not all. The chest, so constantly compressed, even if the compression is not begun in early infancy, shrinks to a much smaller size than is natural, and in a few years becomes incapable of holding more than half or two thirds as much air as before; so that if the compression is removed, the injury cannot be wholly restored--though if removed any time before thirty-five years of age, _something_ may be done towards restoration. But not only is the cavity diminished permanently in size; the bones and tendons are bent out-of their place, and made to compress either the lungs themselves, or the other contiguous organs, as the heart, the liver and the stomach, and to disturb the proper performance of their respective offices or functions.

Fourthly-tight lacing, as I have already said, compresses the heart as well as the lungs, and impedes the motion of this important organ. The suffering and disease which are thus entailed on transgression, if not quite so great in amount as that which is induced by the abuse of the lungs, is yet very great--and added to the former, greatly diminishes the sum total of human happiness, and increases, in the same proportion, our miseries and our woes.

Fifthly--the stomach is also a sufferer--and the liver; and, indeed, all the other organs. There is suffering, not only from being in actual contact with each other, but also from sympathy and fellow feeling. I have adverted to that law, by which, if one member or organ of the human system suffer, all the others suffer with it. This is very remarkably the case with the lungs, when they suffer. Other organs suffer with them from mere sympathy; and that to a very great extent.

This is especially true of the cerebral and nervous system; and of that portion of the _general_ system which gives to woman her peculiar prerogative, as well as her distinctive character.

Let no young woman forget, moreover, that she lives, not for herself alone, but for others; and that if she injures health and life by improper dress, she does it not for herself alone, but for all those who shelter their abuses under her example, as well as for all those who may hereafter be more immediately influenced by her present conduct. Let her neither forget her responsibility nor her accountability. Would to G.o.d that she could see this matter as it truly is, and as she will be likely to see it in years to come!

Let it be remembered, moreover, that as we can diminish the size of the chest by compressing it, so we can enlarge it, gradually--especially in early life--by extra effort; or by general exercise; but especially such general exercise as I have mentioned in a former chapter--I mean, moderate labor in the garden or in the field, and in house-keeping. Nor is spinning on a high wheel--which requires not only walking to and fro, but also considerable motion of the arms and chest--a very bad exercise. A great deal may also be done by reading aloud in a proper manner, and by conversation; and especially by singing.

I believe that by a proper education of the lungs--instead of the modern custom of _un_educating them--it would be possible, in the course of a few successive ages, greatly to enlarge the cavity containing them. And if this can be done, it will be a means of promoting, in the same degree, the tone and vigor, not only of the lungs themselves, but also of the whole physical frame; and the aggregate gain to our race would be immense. Let us think of the amazing difference between a race which has been deteriorating in body and mind, from generation to generation, and at the same time suffering from disease in a thousand forms, and one which is not only free from primitive disease, but gradually improving, both bodily and mentally, and in a fair way to go on improving for centuries--perhaps thousands of years--to come!

3. We have no right to use that dress as a DEFENCE which does not answer this purpose, so long as we can get that which does; provided it answers neither of the other two purposes already mentioned.

Now, are there not a great number of articles of clothing worn, whose use cannot be justified on these principles? Does not the greater part of human time and labor which is expended on dress, both by the maker and the wearer, go to answer other purposes than these? Is it not expended for mere ornament? And is such an expenditure right?

My own conviction is, that we are bound, as Christians--and as such, I must consider my readers in this favored country--to use that dress, and that alone, which answers the great purposes of dress; and that were the subject viewed in its true and just light, all beyond this should be regarded as sinful. What I suppose these great purposes of dress are, has already been mentioned.

In short, I suppose that our duty is, to dress in such a way, if our circ.u.mstances permit it, as will be best for the purposes of merely clothing, tempering and defending our bodies. That material, that quant.i.ty, and those forms of dress, which we suppose best accomplish this, should be adopted as fast as they are known.

Such a view will, of course, be opposed by the devotees of fashion; but not, I think, by many of those who know they cannot serve two masters--G.o.d and mammon, or G.o.d and the fashions--and that it is their duty to devote themselves, unreservedly, to the worship and service of the former.

I shall also be opposed by another cla.s.s--the devotees of utility, or a species of what I call utilitarianism. They will say that _I_ am a utilitarian, of the rankest sort; that I would destroy all just taste, all industry, all division of labor, all commerce, and all wealth.

But is it so? Is that proved to be a just taste, to which the views here presented seem to be opposed? Where is the proof, and by whom has it been adduced? I am no advocate for a utilitarianism which excludes just taste: but _I believe our tastes to be depraved by the fall, no less than our affections;_ that they are not, as some suppose, _free from sin_--though less sinful, perhaps, than our moral tastes and preferences. I believe that a taste which is not conformed to the nature of things and to the law of G.o.d, is a perverted taste; and that the modern taste in regard to dress and ornament, is, to a great extent, of this description.

And does there remain no room for industry when personal ornaments are excluded? As well might it be said that the exclusion of all drinks but water, would strike a death-blow at industry. Is there nothing left for people to do, because you take away ornament?

Perhaps, indeed, if _all_ personal ornament were to be taken away suddenly, it might give a temporary check to industry, and seem to conflict with the princ.i.p.al of a division of labor. But this cannot happen, except it were by miraculous agency. The utmost that can be rationally expected at present by the most sanguine, would be, that professing Christians should exclude it; nor could they, as a body, be expected to do it at once. One here, and another there, would renounce, as wrong, what he had been accustomed to think right; and this would give society time to adjust itself, and preserve its balance; as it has done in the case of every great and important change of public opinion.

But we are gravely told by several writers on this subject, that as a nation's wealth is derived from a division of labor, it follows, that to deny ourselves all ornament, would be a great injury to the community.

What a strange inference! Is there nothing for people to do, in this world, I again ask, but to make ornaments? Or can it be that they form so important a division of human labor, that to dispense with them in the only way in which it is possible, humanly speaking, to do so--that is, by enlightening public opinion, and appealing to the conscientious--is to take away the wealth of the nation?

I deny, most resolutely, that mere artificial ornaments make any considerable part of a nation's real wealth. That which tends to make us healthier in all the functions of our bodies--which developes and improves all the faculties of our minds--and which developes and cultivates, to the highest possible extent, all the good affections of the soul-is alone worthy of the name of wealth.

I do not deny, that he who makes two stalks of grain grow where only one grew before, is a public benefactor. I do not deny that, for certain purposes in the arts--in architecture, especially--he who polishes a gem, or a block of marble, may also be a public benefactor.

This is a very different thing from preparing and applying ornaments to our persons; and may be, to some extent, useful. But I am still a.s.sured, that those who make a person healthier than before, or improve his intellect, or are a means of awakening in him a love to G.o.d and man, and of promoting its growth where it is already awakened, are benefactors to the world in a degree infinitely higher, and add to its _true_ riches almost infinitely more.

It is health, knowledge and excellence--we again say--which exalt a nation; and these are its true wealth. Fifteen millions of free men, all as healthy as the most perfect specimen which could now be found among us; all as wise as the wisest man in the world; and all as virtuous and excellent as Aristides, or Howard, or Benezet, or John, the beloved apostle, himself--what a national treasure they would be!

what a revenue of true wealth they would afford!