MOURNING APPAREL.

This article was read at the Social Lyceum, of which Society some account will be given in the next number.

Is it right or expedient to wear mourning apparel?

"It is a custom" would once have been a sufficient answer to this question. But the age of safe precedents has gone by. We now demand reasons for those practices and peculiarities which custom has entailed on our observance. Among us republicans, nothing is esteemed sacred merely because it is hereditary; and it is well that the empire of fashion should be subjected to scrutiny, when that of kings is passing away like a shadow.

Customs have a powerful influence on the manners, and consequently on the morals and character of nations. We ought therefore to feel satisfied that the tendencies of a fashion, to which our whole population is subjected, are rather good than evil; otherwise we must fear that the injurious result on the character and condition of twelve millions of people will be, in the aggregate, a tremendous evil. In this view, the subject under consideration becomes important, and in treating it I shall, I trust, be excused, though the length of these remarks should exceed what is usually thought expedient in our discussions.

The wearing of mourning apparel is of very ancient origin; but it makes no part of my design to consider the various fashions and colors by which different nations have given outward expression of their mourning for the dead. Such a disquisition would teach us nothing to the purpose. We wish to learn whether the wearing of mourning apparel is right and expedient now ;-right for civilized Christians. The sources from which we must derive our evidence, either for or against the proposition, must be sought in the effects of the custom on our own minds and characters, and its conformity to reason and revelation. To the Bible then let us first turn. In Genesis we find allusions to the "widow's garments"-ard throughout the history of God's chosen people there are repeated expressions which show that mourning apparel was worn by them. The laws of the Jews were given by Jehovah. He forbade them, in mournings for the dead, to disfigure themselves by

cuttings of the flesh, a custom then practised, probably by all heathen nations, and still found to prevail among many barbarous tribes; but he did not forbid mourning garments. The New Testament, treating as it does of morals, as they exhibited their effects on the character rather than the manners, which give the tone to morals, has nothing particular respecting mourning apparel; yet St. Paul has many remarks on the decorations and behaviour of women, and would undoubtedly have reprobated the custom had it deserved censure. There is then nothing in the Bible condemning the practice of wearing mourning apparel, but many allusions which are clearly and decidedly in its favor. This truth I wish to have remembered, because I am intending to advocate the affirmative of the question, which I certainly would not do, however much my feelings were interested in preserving the custom, did I not believe it in consonance with the spirit of "holy writ," as well as in unison with those emotions of grief for the dead which our Creator mercifully infused into every human bosom. Yes, in mercy; for the purifying influences of sorrow under these bereavements is not only one of the most efficacious means of preparing us for our own departure, but its operations on the mind, character and conduct are, in this life, exceedingly salutary. And were a demon about to devise a way by which he might corrupt and harden the children of men, and render them selfish and stupid as the brutes that perish, I can think of nothing he would so earnestly desire as the power to annihilate the emotions, reflections and resolutions, which the death of friends is calculated to awaken. It is from such mournful memories of the soul that our purest thoughts flow, and hence are derived the motives for our noblest actions. Whatever custom, therefore, tends to cherish these hallowed feelings of tender melancholy, these remembrances which, though sorrowful, are yet the harbingers of hope, should be encouraged, unless forbidden by Christian principles. I think no Christian will care to assert that true piety should deaden the natural sympathies, or render us stoically indifferent to the death of near and dear relatives.

But say some,-"no outward expression of grief is necessary-true mourners do not need it." This is false philosophy; as any one, who at all understands the operations of the human mind, must know. We are not abstract, spiritual beings. We do need the assistance of sensible images to express our emotions, to excite and especially to sustain them. No strong emo

tion can be cherished in the heart without influencing the outward behavior. What do these reasoners mean? Shall we go forth in the funeral procession with gay faces as well as gay apparel, and keep all the sorrow in our hearts? They do not mean this. It is the black garb, only, they would prohibit. Have they considered the inevitable results to which this would lead? Those who have lost friends cannot, for any great length of time, live secluded, and indulge their sorrows at home. Neither would it be well they should. Our duties to the living are to be performed; but the memory of the dead should likewise be cherished. The mourning habit is a sacred shield against that intrusive curiosity, and, justice also obliges me to say, in many cases solicitous friendship, which would otherwise be urging their inquiries, why the countenance was sad; thus compelling the mourner to drag forth the secret and sacred mysteries of grief-no longer sacred when thus exposed-or to bury them beneath an assumed carelessness of manner, which would soon undoubtedly become the predominant feeling of the mind, and thus weaken or destroy the impressions which death, when it comes near, should always make on every mortal. Let us draw a picture, and if the custom of mourning apparel should be abolished, it will not long be a picture of fancy. The brother of Miss B. has been dead only "three little weeks" -but there are duties which make it indispensable she should go abroad. Mourning apparel is prohibited. She goes forth in the same dress she would have worn had her dear brother been the companion of her walk. She meets a friend just arrived in the city, and who consequently knows not her loss. His salutation is cordial and gay; but it is repelled by a sad and chilling expression of countenance in Miss B. She is shocked at his levity; for it is a fixed principle of the human mind to demand sympathy under the bereavements of death. He cannot offer sympathy; for aught he knows, she is offended with him; and, stung by her coldness or indifference, he passes on. Their feelings are mutually wounded; and their reflections are of unkindness, or neglect, or anger. Reverse the picture. Let the mournful apparel of Miss B. show that she has reason for her sadness. The friends meet. The tale of sorrow is told-is felt. His trembling voice, as he inquires for her health, has expressed his sympathy. Perhaps not a word of condolence is spoken-few words should be said-it is the manner of sympathy which makes all its worth; and that man

ner of pity has soothed her heart. And her evident grief has awakened a train of reflections in the mind of the young man respecting the sorrows of life and the certainty of death, which reasoning or exhortations might never have accomplished.

But the mourning suit of Miss B. cost a few dollars which would not otherwise, at that particular time, have been expended. How long will Christians reckon everything by the worth of money? When shall we learn that the true riches of the soul cannot be purchased with gold? that earthly wealth receives all its value from the means it places in our power of improving our hearts in virtue and our minds in knowledge? Are there not wounded feelings which money cannot heal? and purifying, exalting influences which money cannot purchase? Who would coin the heart for drachmas? Let such a lady expose her sorrowful feelings, when mourning for the dead, to be wounded by the carelessness of those who only withhold their sympathy because they know not her loss, and save her money to purchase a gay dress for a party, or, at least, a comfortable suit in which she may sit down and enjoy herself snugly at home.

"When my poor Henry died," said a mother, "he was my eldest, a youth of eighteen, and had assisted me to support his sick father, and little brothers and sisters, and when he died we could not bear but bury him decently, though we all, except the baby, went without our dinners for several days, to save money to pay the funeral expenses!" Now was not that expression of their feelings more amiable, more likely to operate in a beneficial manner on their hearts and characters, than though they had said, in actions if not in words-" let us eat and drink," for what profit is there in mourning for the dead? I have made these illustrations to show that if the mourning apparel is attended with expense, it is money wisely expended. But I deny that it is more expensive to wear mourning for one year than to dress decently during that space of time in any other apparel. The full dress mourning of a lady does not at first cost more than she would expend for any other suit; for it must be taken into consideration that she wears no laces, or expensive ornaments, and then she is not obliged to have a different display of trimmings, gloves, shoes, &c., every time she goes abroad, as she would do were she to dress in colors, and wear all the finishings of her attire "to match," as is now, (and rightly too, because in accordance with refined taste,) thought indispensable.

To the middling classes, for whose pecuniary sorrows so much sympathy has been expressed, the custom of wearing mourning apparel is recommended as well by its economy as decency. Let what I have said respecting the time of wearing the apparel, and the exemption from the caprice of change which influences all other colors of dress be considered, and add to this the resources which the economical find of preparing their own inky suits; the coloring of old and faded finery, which is thus rendered decent for mourning, and we shall see that the cry of "expense," needless "expense," is a vain sound; that the industrious, the prudent, and even those who live by expedients, may enjoy the privilege, and it is to them a privilege, for though sometimes homely in manners, they have kind hearts, of expressing by outward token that they loved those they lost.

To the very poor the abolition of the custom of wearing mourning apparel would be a heavy affliction. While it is held sacred, they will not be wholly neglected in their bereavements. The rich will furnish the mourning suit-they can spare one of their own, after it is thrown by, without grudging.

It seems indeed as if the mourning apparel should be hallowed to charity. And never let it be said, that to the very poor such clothing is an "imaginary want." It is to them not only a memento of sorrow, proving they have human feelings, but a covering from the public exposure of that utter destitution which would otherwise show them to be objects of charity it is true, but also objects of loathing. We might think their physical necessities, like those of the brutes, should be pitied: but who would think the wretched mother, whose only clothing was rags, could mourn that her child was laid where the weary are at rest? and who would offer sympathy to her bleeding heart? This sympathy between the rich and the poor, when both are sorrowing for the same loss, and both expressing it by the same outward fashion, is a powerful lesson to the feelings of both. It teaches the rich man not only that his own death will bring him to the level of his poor neighbor, but that there is a participation in their worldly fortune. And the poor are kept from murmuring at their hard lot, when they see that those who were clothed in purple and fine linen have put on the sackcloth, and sat down in the dust beside them as mourners under the sorrows of humanity.