June 29, lb83.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



393 



mms: 



" Let Knowledge grow from more to more." — Alfred Tenntson. 



Only a small proportion of Letters receiied can possihly be in- 

 serted. Correnpondents must not be offetided, there/ore, should their 

 letters not appear. 



All Kditorial commvnicnfions should be addressed to the Editos of 

 Knowledge; all Biisines- cr>mmui\ications to the Publishers, at the 

 Office, 7-1, Great Qiieen-.^treet, W.C. If this is kot attended to, 



DELAYS ARISE FOR WHICH THE EDITOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. 



All Uemittances, Cheque.-, and Post Office Orders should be made 

 payable to Messrs. Wym.O" & Sons. 



The Editor is not respcnfille for the opinions of correspondents. 



No COMMUNICATIONS ARE ANSWERED BY POST, EVEN THOUGH STAMPED 

 AND DIRECTED ENVELOPE BE ENCLOSED. 



FLIGHT (IF VERTICAL MISSILES. 



[853] — I am always irratcful when you pive me a chance to 

 exercise my small wits on a problem, and I offer a solntion of 

 the one with the above title [S27, p. 315]. I do this with some 

 donbt, occasioned by your exclamation point appended to the 

 answer of 71 ft., where yon seem to imply that this is more out 

 of the way than 025 feet is. According to my calculation, it is 

 .ibont half as largo again as it should be. 



The initial velocity being 1,000 feet per second, I suppose the 



1000 6000 

 ball would ascend upward, for ^^^ = ^^^ seconds, and that the 



32.V 



total rise would be I 



1000 y 



16^V = 



193 



3000000 



193 



feet. The average 



the same time the ball 



elevation during flight I make to be two-thirds of the total height, 



2000000 

 or — jnS — feet. Now, in the time of rise and fall, the earth 



3000' 

 moves east .^ During 



moves east with the velocity of a point on the earth's 

 surface. Hence, as compared with the starting-point, the ball 

 moves west a distance equal to the difference between an arc of 



measured at the surface, and the same arc measured at 



193 



a height of " ^^^ — feet, which is equal to the length of the 



same arc m a 



193 

 circle of - 



2 000000 

 193~ 

 or about 40S-t feet. 



feet radius. This I reduce to 



18 X 193- 

 difference of longitude measured at the height of 



This would, however, be the 

 2000000 



193 



^ feet. 



At the surface it would Ijc a little less, say 4C'82. 



I shall wait with some curiosity for other solutions of this pro- 

 blem, as I should like to see whether I am right, or where I havo 

 gone wrong. Algernon Bray. 



[Mr. Bray's solntion is quite correct. I will give next week a 

 solution of the general problem, which I had written before his 

 letter reached me. With regard to my exclamation point, it was 

 appended under the idea that a rise and fall of 1,000 ft. were men- 

 tioned in the problem, instead of a velocity of 1,000 ft. per second, 

 as I should have seen if I had read the letter over again. — R. P.] 



RATIONAL DRESS. 



[I hasten to publish Mrs. King's letter, because I appear to have 

 done her injustice. I think, however, I probably used the word 

 " fashion " in a different sense from that in which she employs it — 

 a less extreme sense. I heard only a Ismail part of the lecture, 

 having an engagement which took me elsewhere. — R. P.] 



[854] — As you have seen and heard me lecture, I am surprised 

 at the view you take of my advocacy of dress reform. 



My 5th requirement of a perfect dress is that it should " not 

 dep:^ too conspicuously from the ordinary dress of the time." I 

 declared this to be a maxim for all timb, as involving the principle 



of evolution ; and that by the neglect of this principle we put our- 

 selves too much out of harmony with our surroundings. 1 attri- 

 buted the failure of Bloomerism to its having so departed. I 

 quoted the following passage from Emerson's Essays : — " Many a 

 good experiment, born of good sense, and destined to succeed, fails, 

 only because it is offensively sudden. 1 suppose the Parisian 

 milliner, who dresses the world from her imperious boudoir, >vill 

 know how to reconcile the Bloomer costume to the eye of mankind 

 by interiiosing the just gradations." " This," I continued, " is our 

 mission, to bridge over this disUinco ' by interposing the just gra- 

 dations,' not to Bloomerism itself, but to what was really desired 

 in Bloomerism — a free, convenient, and comfortable dress, with the 

 one indispensable condition added, which they seem to have left out 

 — namely, beauty." 



True, I attributed the slow progress we had made during the last 

 two years to " the mistaken policy of concealment which had been 

 adopted," because it is a fact which nono can gainsay that apparent 

 failure leads to failure, and apparent success leads to success, as 

 ovcrj- politician knows when he cries up the "immense success " of 

 his iiarty, and proclaims the " utter failm-e " of his opponents. But 

 I hastened to guard against misapprehension by adding: " Let me 

 guard against misapprehension. 1 do not insist upon it that every 

 woman who joins this Association should immediately put herself 

 into trousers, and show about three or four inches of them, as I do. 

 The ' just gradations' must be observed in mind, as woU as in act. All 

 I ask is that they should study certain principles, and endeai-our to 

 carry these out as far as their position, circumstances, and feelings 

 will allmu." This I consider the very keynote of my method of 

 dress reform, and I would rather have this carried out both by 

 men and women than see every woman in England wearing 

 trousers. 



Your advice to ladies to follow fashion in a sensible manner is 

 the very worst that could be given to those who have dress-reform 

 at heart. The sensible women who thus conform to fashion are its 

 very mainstay and support, for it is they who " reconcile the eye of 

 mankind" to all that in dress is born of nonsense and unreason ; 

 because ladies of good tasto and refinement follow fashion a little, 

 young fools follow it yet a little more, old fools more still, and bad 

 fools in any way and every way they can, so as to attract attention 

 to their persons. If fashion were left to the last 'two classes, it 

 would become so notoriously ridiculous and odious that it would 

 speedily ensure its own ruin. 



I have had to thank you for the very first favourable press 

 criticism on dress-reform which we received, and am, therefore, 

 more sorry that you appear to have misunderstood me, for I do not 

 attribute to you "the mistaken policy of concealment." 



My fifth requirement is really the knotty point of dress-reform, 

 and should you consider it worth having, I should be glad to con- 

 tribute a short aiticle upon it for your journal. E. M. King. 



[I should be very much obliged to Mrs. King if she would do so. — 

 R. P.] 



[855] — I should feel deeply indebted could you make it con- 

 venient to spare me the space of a few lines in which to reply to 

 the arguments (?) of " A Woman," and to refute the calumnies she 

 has oast on our dress. 



It generally happens that people make egregious mistakes when 

 presuming to instruct others iu subjects of which they are ignorant — 

 or, at best, can have but studied theoretically ; and, as I shall 

 endeavour to show, " A Woman " proves no exception to the rule. 

 In her letter to the Times (reprinted in No. 83 of Knowledge), 

 she treats of the matter from a threefold point of view — viz., as to 

 health, convenience, and grace. This seems to be a very convenient 

 method, and I propose answering her arguments in the order in 

 which they are given. 



Very properly, as I think, she avoids going into the first question 

 in all its details, and contents herself with the remark that there 

 has of late been a great increase amongst young men of liver and 

 kidney disease. This may or may not be a fact — in any case, I am 

 not preiiared to dispute it ; but she continues : " This is owing, I 

 believe, to the fashion which has prevailed, of small cut-away coats, 

 leaving loins and stomach nnwrapt, soi'C by the light and often thin 

 trousers." Now if " A Woman" were half as well acquainted with 

 the articles of a gentleman's attire as she pretends to bo, she would 

 know that it is usual for them to wear drawers of some woven 

 material than which it would be difficult to find anything warmer. 

 " The absurdity of the open coat and waistcoat "is not so patent to me 

 as, perhaps, it ought to be ; indeed, I believe that the more sedulous 

 a person is in wrapping himself up, the more likely and apt he is 

 to catch cold. Despite the cutting remarks about a white and stiff 

 shirt (which by-the-by, personally, I find a great inducement to 

 holding oneself up) I am a great admirer of the same ; but I will 

 not presume to defend the use of the " dog-collars " with which our 



