the poorest, need feel
embarrassed by the contrast.

If several ladies join the hostess in receiving, they wear handsome
reception toilets. Other guests come in ordinary walking dress, but it
should be stylish and well-kept. A "second-best" gown, though neat
enough for informal calls, may not be elegant enough for a tea or for
formal visiting. But if a lady's means are limited, and her
well-preserved old gown is the best that she can command, perfect
neatness and a delicate disposal of _lingerie_ will disguise the
ravages of time, and make the "auld cla'es look a'maist as weel's the
new."

Indeed, effective dressing, ultimately resolved, is a matter of refined
ingenuity. As David, subtly endued with power, with a smooth stone
from the brook vanquished the armor-clad Philistine giant, so the woman
with a genius for the artistic details of dress, even though it be a
last-year's gown, may triumph over another who has blindly clad herself
according to the latest conventional pattern, but without regard to
what is becoming to herself.

Happy the woman whose bank account permits her to give perfect
expression to her taste. Not so happy, but still happy, the woman
whose taste meets the emergency, despite a slender purse. But oh! most
miserable the woman of stolid, unimaginative nature, whose luxurious
wardrobe suggests nothing but the dollar-mark.

Not that I advance the poetical idea of "sweet simplicity" always and
everywhere. Not that the rich gown is in itself objectionable, or the
inexpensive dress intrinsically beautiful. It is not invariably true
that "beauty unadorned is most adorned." It is not true that a "simple
calico" is more charming than a sheeny silk, nor is cotton edging to be
compared with point or duchess lace.

But the really beautiful in dress, as before stated, lies in its
perfect congruity. According to this standard, the calico is sometimes
more effective than the silk, and _vice versa_; and neither is
effective if worn at inappropriate times, or under unsuitable
conditions.

Fashion is _daring_, and every now and then announces some startling
innovation in the way of gay street-dress. But the public sentiment of
refined people is so definitely fixed in favor of quiet dress for
public thoroughfares that these "daring" fashions soon become the sole
property of the ignorant class.

Dress for church, or for business, should be plain in design, and
subdued in color; and for most occasio