♦ KNOWLEDGE 



[Oct. 2, 1885. 



nothing serious, 

 protection of Loi\i 

 The fashion of cl 

 I attempted to trt_-;; 



tlic 



sliwuUl find 



e a 1 flic 



v. r, ;i few general principles bearing 

 on this part of the subj, et that may be briefly stated. 

 One of these is that clothing should never have the 

 character of bandages, should never interfere -with the 

 free and natural movement of the body. When I was a 

 young man no male person was admissible in " good 

 society" without a "cravat" or "stock." I painfully 

 remember my own struggles against this despicable, con- 

 ventional tyranny, and the abominatiims with buckles 

 behind, which.in spite of my revoluti II r, ; ■'. ■■!;-, 

 I was sometimes compelled to wear. 

 off, liberated my imprisoned neck, :i 



and tui-neddown the ear-cutting'and -i I : ■ ■ jin 



collar, I was sneered at as a conceited pujipy, mimicking 

 Lord Byron. Now I can dispense with any necktie what- 

 ever, have done so for more than twenty years past, and am 

 no longer insulted. I name this as one of the evidences 

 of rational progress and the dethronement of the fashion- 

 fiend as regards our sex. Thirty years ago we were all 

 obliged to strap down our trousers under our boots, 

 and to wear those abominations called "Wellingtons." 

 Then it was absolutely necessary for a young man 

 to mutilate his face daily with a surgical instrument 

 called a razor. If he did not his moral character was 

 assailed, and all the ordinary avenues for earning a 

 respectable livelihood were closed against him. A City 

 clerk would have been subject to instant dismissal if he 

 wore a moustache ; a curate with a beard would have 

 beea admonished by the bishop, and rising in the Church 

 was- impossible to such a disreputable person. A bearded 

 barrister cotild not have obtained a brief. Only one 

 Bri'ti=i^ e~r«(-i'" -ney dared to elect a bearded representa- 

 tive. 1 'i • e, Birmingham. Muntz's beard was a 

 frr 1 !■•_ 1 of the subsequent political career of 



Would tii;i.t 1 could speak in like t: n - . ■ ' . .iici- 



pation of woman ! Her stays to-day, i;ig 



of steel and whalebone, are like our ,-■ j i,l, 



but they are far more mischievous, li: i _ : nne 



this subject and that of the moral [iliili .S"| hy i .' f. male 

 fashions until my next and concluding paper. 



THE BIRTH OF WORLDS.* 



rew stp.r in Andromeda has been popularly 



e 1 I - 1 1'ebably a new world. This, whatever 



'i ssuradly is uot. Id like manner the 



u Crown was popularly regarded 



...1 in Mn,nce)a 



■ria i 



spltul ui-\ 1 1 



exception'il i ^ngt 



period If the 



tien Cotus verc s i 



sU tht star-, m the he-wens when 

 splendour So would Eta Argus, an 



• From the Ttmti 



«uh IIlt^hl 



I bablj of vtry long 

 iful in thpc^nstelh 



so-called new star in the Xea-thern Crown. Indeed, if we 

 regard the nebula in Andromeda as lying further away 

 than the faintest star visible to the naked eye, then, were 

 we brijughf sn mucli nearer that its distance was only that 

 of a 111- '-eei jiinel. -1 ;■, 1 1 1 e «o!'a sfcZZa (probably but a 



s^ // ' I I out recently in its midst 



W"ie M I ly visible instead of needing 



Xi.iiler ilii >;;:i-, n^.v iiuy other new variable, or 

 temjier.try .star ever observed, can be said to have thrown 

 the l a-t lijlit en the birth of worlds. Certainly, if 

 the 1 elml.T liy;. thesis cf Lnplace represents the real 

 way i ■ \',l,i-li ,- l.r sysfeiii- e"i- f"'-,ned, no new star has 

 thrown lielit iiii-n iliat pi-^e, ->. ,r pessibly can ; for the 

 proe, -- iiiiij' .1 l.y I.a]il:' ■ ijivolved no catastrophes. 

 1' \' ;- ,1 * '1'. ■!! .- I :■ - ■■ -ler leaving nebulous 

 1 1 (iff as commonly 



I ; its as they shrank 



I • lit, and the various 



fi-:e- I .1, for they were all 



trie Laplace imagined 



U" I iii'tter such as the 



su'l'l' - /■ ' t we call a new star 



necessarily implies. 



It might be well, however, if the interest excited by 

 the new star, though it may throw no new light on 

 Laplace's hypothesis should direct some degree of atten- 

 tion to the very remarkable defects which any astronomer 

 who knows ought of physics, or any physicist who knows 

 much of astronomy, cannot fail to recognise in that 

 r.^markable S].eeu'a'i !!. .\- ■ t 1 l,y the effective way 

 in which sonn f a'nt ■ ystem, for which the 



theory of er-e-it, li nut appear to be 



explained by Ln] 1 - ' -. many astronomers 



overlook the startliii. I. ■ '' upt 



at the outset. On tl are 



iliiiily ; they know 

 t s appear to require 

 ell are also required 

 be quite impossible) 



knowledge ef "'" 

 seen at once ■ 

 only that at' 



(but which n I'iiys 

 they know little. 



Let us consider how the theory of Laplace was 



sugiresietl and what the theevy icinired, premising that 



do, that n 



tha 



e,l , 



but 



if physical 

 ■ liave, but such as many 

 niired, would have shown 

 1 rn could not be what he 

 : i. mingly) to be at the very 

 ,nt s I, i rings on the scale of the 



Si nil no more remain unbroken under 



the 1 iluyiie subjected than a model of 



the Ai 1 1 1 1 jjiiftct m all other respects, but on 

 such a bcile as to span 100 miles, could bear its own 

 weight In thift cts°, where not a theory, but a magni- 

 ficent calcul vtion of his, wis in question, science has not 

 hesitated to set L^jjlace's conclusions aside, because of the 

 f.lsity of his assumptions, adopting, instead, the results 



