also all down the arm (not unaptly likened to series of balloons) and are
also, in most instances, by some unusual "bustling," equally absurd. I
wonder what would be said by Mr. Addison, were he to witness the present
fashions. He would certainly think that all the care he took to keep the
fair sex in order was in vain; and though enormous head dresses were not
in vogue in his time, he seems to have anticipated that they would be, by
his recommending the perusal of his 98th paper of the "Spectator" to his
female readers by way of prevention, but which, alas! has not been studied
with the attention it merits. Probably the transcription of one passage
will not be misapplied here:--

He says, "I would desire the fair sex to consider how impossible it is for
them to add any thing that can be ornamental to what is already the
masterpiece of nature. The head has the most beautiful appearance, as well
as the highest station, in a human figure. Nature has laid out all her art
in beautifying the face; she has touched it with vermilion, planted in it
a double row of ivory, made it the seat of smiles and blushes, lighted it
up and enlivened it with the brightness of the eyes, hung it on each side
with curious organs of sense, given it airs and graces that cannot be
described, and surrounded it with such a flowing shade of hair as sets all
its beauties in the most agreeable light. In short she seems to have
designed the head as the cupola to the most glorious of her works; and
when we load it with such a pile of supernumerary ornaments, we destroy
the symmetry of the human figure, and foolishly contrive to call off the
eye from great and real beauties to childish gew-gaws, ribbons, and
bone-lace."

Womankind, Mr. Editor, I do not believe, are naturally vain; but as they
were made for us and for our comfort, it is natural that they should
endeavour to gain our esteem; but they carry their endeavours too far; by