492 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



equal, and the earth must fall below the 

 tangent .12144 in order to keep its proper 

 distance. The same is true of the moon : 

 in going from C to A it falls below the tan- 

 gent at C .0538 of an inch, and then is at 

 the same distance from B as it was at C 

 L e., B C and B A are equal. Prof. Schnei- 



der's way of combining these numbers is 

 unique. It is as if the moon had dropped 

 toward the sun first .12084 of an inch, then 

 .05386, while the earth had dropped toward 

 the sun only .12144 of an inch. But Na- 

 ture does not proceed in that way. The 

 .05386 is a part of .12084, as the figure 

 plainly shows. The .05386 is the moon's 

 distance at A below the dotted line drawn 

 from C, and .12084 is the moon's distance 

 at A below the tangent drawn from M. It 

 is easy to see that the latter includes the 

 former. In the interest of science allow me 

 to protest against such theories and such 

 mathematics. 



It is eminently right that we all should 

 be earnest seekers of the truth, and it may 

 not be out of place to suggest that the search 

 should be diligently prosecuted till the truth 



is fotmd, after which there will be ample 

 time for its publication. 



R. W. McFarland, 

 Professor of Mathematics and Civil Engineer- 

 ing, Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical 

 College. 

 Columbus, Ohio, November 24, 1S77. 



We can give no more space to this con- 

 troversy. Ed. 



THE QUESTION OF REST FOE WOMAN. 



To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



Sir : May I be permitted to point out 

 certain passages in the kind and careful 

 review of my essay on the " Question of 

 Rest," just published in your valuable jour- 

 nal, in which it seems to me that the re- 

 viewer has misunderstood the drift of the 

 statements he criticises ? Accepting entirely 

 the general criticism on " the defects due to 

 hasty preparation," I am yet loath that this 

 haste should be made to appear to have had 

 a wider influence than is really the case. 



On page 242 the reviewer observes 

 that the " author traced this result painful 

 menstruation to a want cf occupation ; 

 while we should explain the lack of occu- 

 pation by the incapacity resulting from the 

 periodical pain." I believe the essay is 

 guiltless of such an absurdity in physiolog- 

 ical reasoning as an attempt to trace pain 

 directly to a negative circumstance, which 

 could only have an influence through the 

 medium of various physiological conditions 

 more or less directly associated with it, and 

 hence induced by it. The inference drawn by 

 the reviewer from the statistics is certainly 

 incorrect, for the "unoccupied persons" 

 referred to were so because their fortune 

 rendered paid labor unnecessary, and for 

 this reason it had not been undertaken. 

 The cases where work, once begun, had 

 been forcibly interrupted by an acquired 

 habit of menstrual suffering are contained 

 in the tables of painful cases. 



The reviewer, page 242, second column, 

 says that the essay admits " that, in regard 

 to rest, the above data do not suffice to in- 

 form us of its influence," and goes on to 

 conclude therefore that, " so far as the main 

 theme of the book is concerned, the author 

 leaves the question of rest in just the con- 

 dition in which she found it." The state- 

 ment quoted from the essay loses its real 

 meaning by its abbreviation. It is not as- 

 serted that the data from the tables throw 

 no light on the " question of rest," but only 

 that from them we can have no means of 

 deciding how far those women who acquired 

 the habit of menstrual pain might have 

 escaped it, had they from the beginning 

 "rested" during menstruation, since in no 

 case was rest found to be taken until it had 

 become unavoidable. But the fact that so 



