The doctor to whom he had better send, He fancied again At each doctor's door The ghosts of his patients less or more, Had attended his treatment, more or less. Of threatening ghosts Vengeance-vowing, storming, swearing, The doctor smiled and the doctor smirked, To have seen that man get out of that house -Longman's Magazine. DRESS versus CLOTHES. THE lively controversy that has been carried on in the pages of the National Observer on the subject of man's dress, does not yet seem to have been brought to a definite conclusion, even though the writer of the original article, "Ashamed "Ashamed to Dress," has been at the pains to explain the meaning of his jeremiad, and to remove the not unintelligible misconceptions that had arisen in the minds of his correspondents. In truth, the original article was not a little obscure-perhaps the result of its being the outcome of two original thinkers, for the writer in question only confesses to being responsible for half of it but with the help of that gentleman's subsequent letter, we have succeeded in arriving at some understanding of his position, and may at once frankly acknowledge that we altogether fail to synpathize with it. Briefly summed up, his complaint amounts to this: that men today rather clothe themselves than dress themselves; that they do the former without any regard to the beauty of the result, their one object being to combine the maximum of comfort with the smallest amount of painstaking care; and that, from sheer idleness and misplaced misanthropy, they have degraded their ancestral dress into dowdiness and a derision." And he winds up with the following appeal: "Give we our souls a brief holiday; attire we our bodies more befitting ly; spend we more sensitiveness over a possession that abides with us but a little. while so shall life become gayer, our dull world more radiant, and the jest of our days be turned a little merrier. The plea shows no little ingenuity on the part of the pleader. of the pleader. As a rule, the advocates of fine feathers appeal to the personal vanity, the self-love, the individual selfishness of their audience and here we are adjured to forget ourselves; to think less of our own careless ease, and more of the delight of our neighbors' eyes; to be less selfishly occupied in adorning the more personal and permanent property, our soul, and spare a little time for the propitiation of that more fleeting possession, the body, which stands in the sight of all the world; and, in short, to think of our inward selves a little less and of the pleasure of the outward world a little more. The argument is judiciously addressed to our better feelings and philanthropy; but, for all that, it is entirely unconvincing. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that a change in the direction that the writer indicates would be for the happiness of the greater number: our own eyes have been accustomed to find satisfaction, and even content, in the dulness of male drapery, and we believe the eyes of others to be constituted like our own; and as to propitiating our body at the expense of our soul, we fear the attempt will be useless on our part until we arrive at a more definite degree of dual consciousness, until we can persuade our body to take separate and in- periences in stowing away his manifold possessions, and how painfully that difficulty would be increased by tightness of clothing. As to the dull monotony of our black evening-wear, that also saves our pockets in another sense. It may be true that we stalk like melancholy and spectral visions to the dinner-table," but most of us would be still more melancholy if we had to provide ourselves with several new suits of colored finery in the course of the year. 66 66 And in what colors should we array ourselves? Should a man dress in red or green according to his political convictions, or show himself in blue or rose-color according to the state of his feelings? Motley's the only wear,' said melancholy Jaques, and so it would be for men who cared to exchange the solid qualities of black cloth for the varied hues of frail silk. It is no crime to love bright colors. One of the most lovable, and also one of the most foolish of men, Oliver Goldsmith, frankly confessed that he did not wish to go into the Church beBut what do these gentlemen propose to cause he was fond of colored clothes. He substitute for the comfortable and sober presented himself to be examined for orgarb to which they object? They wish to dination in a pair of scarlet breeches; and return to the costume of our ancestors, in when better days dawned upon him, he order that they may once more display a immediately blossomed into the glories of manly leg. Man, according to the Na- blue silk and plum-colored velvet. But tional Observer, is a two-legged animal, we should remember also that, Goldsmith's whose chief claim to beauty lies in the tailor, the patient Mr. Filby, was never possession of those two legs. Over the fully paid, and that the greater part of loveliness of the nether limbs the two writ- his financial troubles, that so embittered his ers lose themselves in a most poetical rhap- life, was due to his indulgence of that sody, and implore their readers to veil no harmless vanity. Its inexpensive simpliclonger those shapely extremities by the use ity and its durability are not the least of bag-like pipings, but to encase them merits of our present costume. How once more in the tightness of silk and many bodies are clothed by one suit of satin, and so give back to the world the sturdy cloth? Long after we have displeasing sight of well-moulded forms. It carded that outer husk, it is carried by would be useless to remind these lovers of others through the world, passing from breeches and stockings that it is not every back to back until it adorns the farmer's one that possesses a shapely leg, or that stick and protects his corn from the thievyearns to display it; but at least we might ing crows. beg them to consider the difference in point of comfort that exists between a garment that has to be drawn on like a glove, and a garment into which one may lightly leap. Moreover, we fail to see why our arms should be any less worthy of attention and admiration than our legs, or why the owner of a splendid biceps should be denied an opportunity accorded to the owner of brawny calves. Let them consider, too, the usefulness and variety of a man's pockets, the difficulty that he even now ex "The Sanhedrim of stainless ghosts, as Teufelsdröckh calls an oldclothes shop, would be ill-stocked with silk coats and satin breeches: assuredly they would be of little use to our poorer brethren. But the mention of Herr Teufelsdröckh reminds one of the account of the genesis of clothes given by one who went more deeply into their philosophy than any other thinker. "Clothes too, which began in foolishest love of ornament, what have they not become !" To ornament, there succeeded bodily comfort, warmth, us.'' and sense of security; and then, and not till then, did the idea of shame enter into and abide with us, bringing all manner of civilization in its train. "Clothes gave us individuality, distinctions, social polity; Clothes have made men of us;" but, continues the philosopher, "they are threatening to make Clothes-screens of No, we have no wish to be converted into Clothes-screens; let our clothes meet the requirements of shame, of comfort, and of warmth; let them convey the idea of distinction where it is necessary, and the soldier flame in scarlet, the Judge wear his ermine, and the Bishop rejoice in his apron; but do not let us revert to the age of "foolishest ornament," and think of them merely as decorations. In a certain sense, we are "ashamed to dress, and we are not in the least ashamed to confess it. We have advanced beyond the primitive meaning of clothes, and would think shame to ourselves for wishing to return to it. Even if we were minded to make the attempt, we are far more likely to make ourselves objects of derision than of admiration, to add to the gayety of the world in a way that was least flattering to our self-respect, and to turn the jest of our days merrier at our own expense. After all, what is there to complain of in our present dress? The muchabused tall hat would be every whit as pic turesque as a feathered cap, were it not for the difference of associations connected with it; and, as it is, is a much more serviceable defence for the head. It is only when they try to be ornamental, and break out into coachman's buttons and strange flaps, that our coats are hideous; as long as they are cut loosely for our comfort, they are quite good-looking enough. It is true that neither the frockcoat nor the dress coat looks very well upon a gentleman who is shaped balloonwise; but it would be the fortune of the too rotund to look grotesque even in a toga. Let those who will, rejoice in breeches and stockings; we will not give up our trousers. No amount of cruel coercion shall induce us to part with those treasured garments, emblems of liberty and freedom. And who shall say that one form of dress is more beautiful or more ugly than another? English people may admire the harmonious colors and flowing draperies of Japan; but the Japanese are smitten with the charms of the black coat and tall hat, and make haste to adopt them. As it is, Englishmen enjoy the reputation of being the best-dressed men in Europe; if they changed their costume, they would probably become the most ridiculous: they are not like Orientals, and have no eye for harmonious color.-Spectator. FURTHER NEWLY DISCOVERED PAPERS BY DE QUINCEY. I. ON MIRACLES. WHAT else is the laying of such a stress on miracles but the case of a wicked and adulterous generation asking a sign?" But what are these miracles for? To prove a legislation from God. But, first, this could not be proved, even if miracleworking were the test of Divine mission, by doing miracles until we knew whether the power were genuine; i.e., not, like the magicians of Pharaoh or the witch of Endor, from below. Secondly, you are a poor, pitiful creature, that think the power to do miracles, or power of any kind that can exhibit itself in an act, the note of a god-like commission. Better is one ray of truth (not seen previously by man), of moral truth, e.g., forgiveness of enemies, than all the powers which could create the world. "but "Oh yes!" says the objector; Christ was holy as a man.' This we know first; then we judge by His power that He must have been from God. But if it were doubtful whether His power were from God then, until this doubt is otherwise, is independently removed, you cannot decide if He was holy by a test of holiness absolutely irrelevant. With other holiness-apparent holiness-a simulation might be combined. never tell that a man is holy; and for the plain reason that God only can read the heart. You can "Let Him come down from the cross, and we," etc. Yes; they fancied so. But see what would really have followed. They would have been stunned and confounded for the moment, but not at all converted in heart. Their hatred to Christ was not built on their unbelief, but their unbelief in Christ was built on their hatred; and this hatred would not have been mitigated by another (however astounding) miracle. This I wrote (Monday morning, June 7th, 1847) in reference to my saying on the general question of miracles: Why these dubious miracles? -such as curing blinduess that may have been cured by a process?—since the unity given to the act of healing is probably (nore probably than otherwise) but the figurative unity of the tendency to mythus; or else it is that unity misapprehended and mistranslated by the reporters. Such, again, as the miracles of the loaves-so liable to be utterly gossip, so incapable of being watched or examined among a crowd of 7000 people. Besides, were these people mad? The very fact which is said to have drawn Christ's pity, viz., their situation in the desert, surely could not have escaped their own attention on going thither. Think of 7000 people rushing to a sort of destruction; for if less than that the mere inconvenience was not worthy of Divine attention. Now, said I, why not give us (if miracles are required) one that nobody could doubtremoving a mountain, e.g.? Yes; but here the other party begin to see the evil of miracles. Oh, this would have coerced people into believing! Rest you safe as to that. It would have been no believing in any proper sense: it would, at the utmost-and supposing no vital demur to popular miracle-have led people into that belief which Christ Himself describes (and regrets) as calling Him Lord! Lord! The pretended belief would have left them just where they were as to any real belief in Christ. Previously, however, or over and above all this, there would be the demur (let the miracle have been what it might) of, By what power, by whose agency or help? For if Christ does a miracle, probably He may do it by alliance with some Z standing behind, out of sight. Or if by His own skill, how or whence derived, or of what nature? This obstinately recurrent question remains.. There is not the meanest court in Christendom or Islam that would not say, if called on to adjudicate the rights of an estate on such evidence as the mere facts of the Gospel "O good God, how can we do this? Which of us knows who this Matthew was-whether he ever lived, or, if so, whether he ever wrote a line of : all this? or, if he did, how situated as to motives, as to means of information, as to judgment and discrimination ? Who knows anything of the contrivances or the various personal interests in which the whole narrative originated, or when? All is dark and dusty. Nothing in such a case can be proved but what shines by its own light. Nay, God Himself could not attest a miracle, but (listen to this !)—but by the internal revelation or visiting of the Spirit-to evade which, to dispense with which, a miracle is ever resorted to. Besides the objection to miracles that they are not capable of attestation, Hume's objection is not that they are false, but that they are incommunicable. Two different duties arise for the man who witnesses a miracle and for him who receives it traditionally. The duty of the first is to confide in his own experience, which may, besides, have been repeated; of the second, to confide in his understanding, which says: Less marvel that the reporter should have erred than that nature should have been violated." 66 How clearly do these people betray their own hypocrisy about the divinity of Christianity, and at the same time the meanness of their own natures, who think the Messiah, or God's Messenger, must first prove His own commission by an act of power; whereas (1) a new revelation of moral forces could not be invented by all generations, and (2) an act of power much more probably argues an alliance with the devil. I should gloomily suspect a man who came forward as a magician. Suppose the Gospels written thirty years after the events, and by ignorant, superstitious men who have adopted the fables that old women had surrounded Christ with-how does this supposition_vitiate the report of Christ's parables? But, on the other hand, they could no more have invented the parables than a man alleging a diamond-mine could invent a diamond as attestation. The parables prove themselves. II.-WHY THE PAGANS COULD NOT INVEST THEIR GODS WITH ANY IOTA OF GRANDEUR. It is not for us so idle a purpose as that of showing the Pagan backsliding-that is too evident-but for a far subtler purpose, and one which no man has touched, viz., the incapacity of creating grandeur for the Pagans, even with carte blanche in their |