Feb 



1883.J 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



S7 



such suVijects as we are upon. I have scarcely ever had 

 an hour's talk with a medical fellow-traveller without 

 ascertaining what his experience had taught. And I assert 

 with the utmost confidence (knowing that mere chance 

 cannot have brought me in contact only with (me set, if 

 opinions were fairly divided) that the overwhelming weight 

 of experience, and consequently of opinion, is against tight 

 lacing. 



(.")). Has "An Observer" nerer heard of remedies which 

 are worse than the disease ? Does not a drunkard feel 

 the better after a drink ; and is he not in the long run the 

 worsefor it? The drunkard's "morning nip" and the tight- 

 lacer's " morning nip " are pretty much on a par, I take it. 

 It sounds even worse logic than what "An Observer" thinks 

 so bad, to say — for example — " a man sleeps the better for a 

 narcotic, and therefore he sleeps the worse for it " ; but it 

 happens to be a fact, and therefore the logic must really 

 be sound, whatever it maj' seem to be. Such cases are 

 common and well known. One may even infer that, as a 

 general rule, if a man feels the better for any artificial 

 support, stimulant, soothing treatment, or the like, he 

 will probably be the worse in the long-run for its syste- 

 matic use. 



(6). I agree with everything Dr. Dio Lewis has said 

 about the tight-lacing of American ladies. On what point 

 "An Observer" supposes I contradict Dr. Lewis, I fail to 

 see. Dr. Lewis remarks that some American ladies na^/ 

 nineteen inches waist measurement is immense, and I note 

 that American ladies do not think so ; it is tolerably clear 

 that Dr. Lewis knows that very well. He suggests it very 

 neatly. I will undertake to say not one of his American 

 readers (and he was writing for Americans) misunderstood 

 him, as " An Observer " seems to have done. [I may 

 correct here an erratum in the letter of "G. C. S." At 

 line 13, for " 19 " read " 14." (The fault was not wholly 

 with the printers, as the " 4 " looked very like a 9.) Of 

 course, a natural feminine waist may be 19 inches, while a 

 14-inch waist would be monstrous (in the true sense of the 

 word.)] 



(7). " An Observer " should not be surprised if " G. 0. S.," 

 like hundreds of ladies who have written to us on the 

 subject, is not over well-pleased to see a causa so stoutly 

 advocated, which, were it successfully pleaded, would con- 

 demn her sex to the continuance and even increase of 

 miseries from which a way of escape seems opening. 



(Note.) — Referring to my remarks, p. 51, 1 note that on 

 reference to my diary I find my weight in the autumn of 

 1875 was 14 St. 7 lb., not 14 st. 31k— the 31b. belonged 

 to the American way of recording weight, making mine 

 203 lb. at that time — or, minus clothing (summer), about 

 194 lb.: reduced 39 lb., or by one-fifth part, in the spring of 

 1876. In reply to many queries, the height of American 

 lady mentioned on p. 51, is about 5 ft. 4 in. When I spoke 

 of dresses not fitting well after corst-t removed, I meant 

 that they were then too loose, and did not set perfectly 

 round waist. It may interest manj- ladies to learn that 

 the lastnamed effect is entirely cured by the arrangement 

 advocated by the Rational Dress Society, a still more 

 marked increase of comfort following after that change 

 than after the mere disuse of corSet. I learn on excellent 

 authority that the new mode is much more comfortable, 

 much lighter, much warmer, than the old ; yet it is to all 

 appearances the same, (unless a lady should choose other- 

 wise), a point on which I think the Rational Dress Society 

 should dwell more than they do ; for many suppose th(! 

 new dress to be something outre and remarkable. It may 

 comfort " An Observer " to know that a lady may derive 

 all the benefits of lightness and warmth which the new 

 dress gives, and yet, should she so please, may squeeze 



herself, to her heart's content and her liver's discomfort, 

 in the tightest possible corsets. 



Richard A. Proctor 



P.S. — Feb. 5. " Dr. Lewis's closing words," in capitals, aretmly 

 awful — to those who prefer observations to observation. Those 

 who prefer the latter mast have known, as I have, numbers of 

 women with numbers of healthy children, and yet njunifestly 

 guilty of tight lacing, and no worse for it in any way. I men- 

 tioned the Kmpress of Austria befurc — a tall woman with still a 

 very small waist, formerly IP in., and grandchildren, and a great 

 rider still. A near relation of mine used to say her >vaist was 

 18 in. when she married, and she had eleven children, most of whom 

 have already lived to more than sixty, in unusually good health ; so 

 had she till she died at nearly eighty. One of the most apparently 

 tightlaced girls I ever knew has a pood many children, I believe. 

 and I never heard of either her or them being in bad health. I 

 could easily mention others — indeed, such is the perversity of men, 

 that I am afraid small-waisted girls get, not loss, but more married 

 than others. Dr. Lewis has evidently one national quality in per- 

 fection, of " going the whole hog." — As Ohsebvkk. 



[Feb. 6. — To all which, the reply is that small waists and tight- 

 lacing are very different things. 1 can cite four instances within 

 my own circle where " An Observer " would have suggested " mani- 

 festly tight-lacing," but where there was no lacing at all — simply 

 small natural waists, which always have been and always will be 

 admired. One lady, wliose waist was lOJin. before marriage, 

 mother of twelve children (including twins) ; another, whose waist 

 was 19 in., mother of four children ; two others, natural waists 

 IS in. and IG in., one married, and the other most certainly not one 

 who should be advised (either in capitals or small type) not to 

 marry. — E. P.J 



CORPULENCE.* 



( Continued from p. 73. ) 



MANY of the persons who complain of their tlesh could 

 relieve themselves of part of it by two simple ex- 

 pedients, viz., eating less and taking more exercise. This, 

 however, requires too great a sacrifice on their part ; they 

 are like the people who want to get rich or learned without 

 e.xercising the amount of self-denial necessary to accomplish 

 the desired end. 



In early Greece, gymnastic exercises had for their express 

 object the prevention of corpulence. A huge padding of 

 fat not only shocked the highly-developed .-esthetic sensi- 

 bility of this richly gifted people, but was most justly re- 

 garded by them as a hindrance to corporeal robustness. 



It is well known that work-horses are seldom fat, and 

 persons of active habits avoid e.xcess of flesh. But not 

 only does a quiet life favour corpulence, but corpulence 

 favours quiet, for the fat man finds it impossible to take 

 much exercise. 



Before considering the diet most favourable to the cure 

 of corpulence, we must ask whence comes human fat. The 

 views of physiological chemists have undergone much 

 change since the days of Liebig, who considered the carbo- 

 hydrates (sugar and starch) to be the fat producers. The 

 more recent physiological \ iew regards the greater portion 

 of the fat store as probably a product of the decomposition 

 of the albumen in the food, but some of the fat eaten is 

 deposited in the tissues directly. The magnitude of this 

 store is primarily determined by the amount of food taken, 

 because the store of fat at any time laid up in the animal 

 body is derived from the nutriment assimilated by the 

 organism. It does not follow from our first statement that 

 if a man lived entirely on albumen lie would get fat, be- 

 cause a large portion of the albumen would be consumed 

 in supporting life, and only the residue unconsumed could 

 be laid up as reserve. But if farinaceous food and sugar 



• From the Scientific American. 



