Jan. 12, 1883.] 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



23 



Nor must one last scrap of contemporary evidence in the 

 oft^quoted letter of Anien-am-apt be left unnoticed. After 

 describing Pa-Rameses as "the beautiful outpost," he goes 

 oil to say that it is "the exercise-ground of tlie cavalry ; 

 the parade-ground of the archers ; the landing-place of the 

 foreign au.xiliaries." It is, of course, conceivable that the 

 auxiliaries might have been brought hither in transport 

 vessels by way of the Xile ; but the obvious and straight- 

 for«ard meaning of the phrase would seem to point to a 

 direct water communication with foreign seas. 



How far the Pharaonic engineers had to cut their way 

 before they reached the Red Sea is a question upon which 

 the highest modem authorities differ as widely as the Greek 

 •ind Latin writers differ about the original maker of the 

 lanal it.«;elf. According to some, the northern limit of the 

 Oulf of Suez, at the time of the Oppression and the Exodus, 

 was very nearly where it is now. According to others, it 

 reached as far as the head of the Bitter Lakes, which 

 then formed part of the gulf. Sir. R. Stuart Poole — an 

 essentially cautious and exact writer — goes so far as to say 

 that it may even have included Lake Balliih* ; in which 

 case, the ancient canal would have been completed as soon 

 as it reached the shores of what is now Lake Timsah. To 

 weigh and compare these diverse views would carry us far 

 beyond the limits of the present inquiry ; and the con- 

 clusion to be arrived at — if a conclusion could be arrived 

 at upon a point respecting which geologists, engineers, his- 

 torians, and archwologists disagree — would not in any case 

 affect the issue of our argument. Be the distance longer 

 or shorter from what is now Lake Timsah to what was 

 then the head of the Gulf of Suez, we may take it for 

 granted that the builder of the Hall of Columns at Karnak, 

 or the excavator of the Great Rock-cut Temple at Aboo- 

 Simbel, would have ploughed a water-way through it for 

 his galleys, if he were so minded. 



(To (;«■ ccmcUided in our next.) 



STAYS AND STATUES. 



IWAS expecting the promised completion of your 

 statue gallery, or I should have sent you before some 

 observations on Dr. Lewis's interesting letter on American 

 oorsetology, in which the facts are much more valuable than 

 the opinions. He, and Englishmen who write like him, are 

 evidently quite ignorant of the real distinction between 

 judicious and injudicious corset-wearing and construction ; 

 and so, indeed, are many stay-makers and wearers, as one 

 can see in the shop-windows .ind the streets. It is true 

 that weak stays or narrow belts which press the stomach 

 downwards are injurious, and they may possibly cause 

 rupture as well as indigestion and other ailments. But 

 doctors who do know the distinction have long ago recom- 

 mended properly-made stays, for the \ery reason that they 

 often prevent or cure all those ailments. I have read fre- 

 <iuently during the last fifteen years that they ought to be 

 made long enough and worn tight enough to press upwards 

 and not downwards, and that even short stays or belts will 

 do so if a perfectly stiff busk is worn under them, as sundry 

 proficients in tight lacing, both male and female, have 

 testified. That may be seen now to be aimed at in most of 

 the corsets that are advertised in the pictorial papers and 

 with medical recommendations. The opinion of a doctor 

 who does not know this is worth as little as of any writer 

 who thinks he knows better than the wearers whether they 

 are weaker or stronger for their stays. 



* See Chap, xviii., p. 120, of K. S. Poole's " Cities of Egrypt," 

 .1 work as delightfnl in style as it is instractive and interesting in 

 matter.— [A. B. E.] 



Now for his facts. I can only say they seem to me 

 more likely to induce our tight-lacers to order smaller 

 stays, than to subscribe halfa-erown to the anti-corset 

 society which has raised this discussion. For he tells them 

 that, among American young ladies, a waist of 19 in. is 

 considered " immense " — which is probably only feminine 

 for " rather large " ; but here it is considered rather small, 

 and 16 in. very small. And further, that reduction of 

 10 in. is quite common in America, against 7 in. or 8 in. 

 here : which, as American ladies are certainly not larger 

 than ours naturally, must mean that waists of only 14 in. 

 and less are not uncommon there, while they are very rare 

 indeed here. This doctor's letter only makes me more in- 

 credulous than ever of any bad effects from such tight- 

 lacing as is practised here now, except when it is in- 

 judiciously perforjned. And as for "a third of women's 

 diseases coming from it," how do the doctors who write in 

 that loose way account for women living on the average 

 some years longer than men 1 I have not a word to say 

 against his statements of the good eliects of certain exer- 

 cises ; but it is useless to ignore the fact that they never 

 are or will be practised beyond an early age, if at all ; and 

 that such exercise as is taken is often not sufficient alone 

 to preserve a good figure and carriage. Some persons who 

 take plenty are nevertheless clumsy in their gait, which is 

 often cured by judicious corset-wearing and neck-straps, 

 which are said to be easier and better than shoulder- 

 straps. 



Of your statues, come and coming, I have only to say 

 that few persons require statues to convince them that 

 corsetted waists are smaller and rounder than natural ones, 

 which is all that they can prove on this question. And as 

 the opinion of all civilised nations, since there were any, 

 has always been, and probalily always will be, that slerder 

 waists look the best and are essential to a good figure, uiey 

 are quite certain to be cultivated artificially. If some 

 American artist chooses to invest them with imaginary 

 drapery, we outgrew that folly 100 years ago, which came 

 in with one or two fashionable painters in the time of 

 Charles II. 1 have a picture of an ancestress in a cor "^ume 

 of that kind, which no woman upon earth ever wore or 

 could wear and move about in. That is merely falsifying 

 history. 



I really do not know what to say consistently with 

 courtesy of your obviously hasty and dashing notes of 

 Dec. 22 upon my letter then. I had better only notice two 

 specimens of what you apparently meant to pass for logic 

 and "science, plainly worded and exactly described." 

 " Waists in such a condition that contraction /o (of ?) 7 in. 

 or 8 in. is found essential to comfort, may be very fairly 

 compared to the disabled feet of the Chinese ladies." 

 First of all, nobody had said that such contraction was 

 " essential to comfort," but many persons had said they 

 found it comfortable ; and among them, let me remind you, 

 was the Army surgeon who had reached that conclusion 

 very soon, and found himself the better for generally 

 wearing stays of 23 in., though " unusually wide across the 

 shoulders.' If you had reflected for two minutes, you 

 must liave seen that comparing that to the notoriously 

 painful and destructive maiming of Chinese feet is 

 ridiculous. 



Again, "The consensus of a multitude of people that 

 they find themselves better in stays shows that [stays] do 

 weaken the stomach." I have only shortened your sentence 

 a little, leaving it substantially unaltered. And when it 

 is seen thus naked, who does not perceive its absurdity at 

 once? 



I am willing to make due allowance for the well-known 

 necessities of editorial infallibility and smartness in dealing 



