But this was not all.  Her disposition, her ideas, her whole life, was changed.  She did not any more think of going about doing good, but of amusing herself.  She read nothing but stories in paper covers.  In place of being sedate and sober-minded, she was frivolous to excess; she spent most of her time with women who liked to “frivol.”  She kept Lent in the most expensive way, so as to make the impression upon everybody that she was better than the extremest kind of Lent.  From liking the sedatest company she passed to liking the gayest society and the most fashionable method of getting rid of her time.  Nothing whatever had happened to her, and she is now an ornament to society.

This story is not an invention; it is a leaf out of life.  If this lady that autumn day had bought a plain bonnet she would have continued on in her humble, sensible way of living.  Clearly it was the hat that made the woman, and not the woman the hat.  She had no preconception of it; it simply happened to her, like any accident—­as if she had fallen and sprained her ankle.  Some people may say that she had in her a concealed propensity for frivolity; but the hat cannot escape the moral responsibility of calling it out if it really existed.  The power of things to change and create character is well attested.  Men live up to or live down to their clothes, which have a great moral influence on manner, and even on conduct.  There was a man run down almost to vagabondage, owing to his increasingly shabby clothing, and he was only saved from becoming a moral and physical wreck by a remnant of good-breeding in him that kept his worn boots well polished.  In time his boots brought up the rest of his apparel and set him on his feet again.  Then there is the well-known example of the honest clerk on a small salary who was ruined by the gift of a repeating watch—­an expensive timepiece that required at least ten thousand a year to sustain it:  he is now in Canada.

Sometimes the influence of Things is good and sometimes it is bad.  We need a philosophy that shall tell us why it is one or the other, and fix the responsibility where it belongs.  It does no good, as people always find out by reflex action, to kick an inanimate thing that has offended, to smash a perverse watch with a hammer, to break a rocking-chair that has a habit of tipping over backward.  If Things are not actually malicious, they seem to have a power of revenging themselves.  We ought to try to understand them better, and to be more aware of what they can do to us.  If the lady who bought the red hat could have known the hidden nature of it, could have had a vision of herself as she was transformed by it, she would as soon have taken a viper into her bosom as have placed the red tempter on her head.  Her whole previous life, her feeling of the moment, show that it was not vanity that changed her, but the inconsiderate association with a Thing that happened to strike her fancy, and which seemed innocent.  But no Thing is really powerless for good or evil.