Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE GREAT UNDERCLOTHING QUESTION.

M

R. BECK'S article in the November NEW REVIEW is tantalising. The chief impression, after studying it, is bewilderment; to use his own picturesque expression, his readers are left "between the de'il and the deep sea." He ends by recommending them to choose for themselves, venturing only a prediction that ultimately vegetable fibres will take precedence of animal fibres, and for three good reasons: Economy, lower prices; Efficiency, no shrinking; and Health. Now, the greatest of these is Health, and I therefore proceed to discuss that point first, although the two others shall by no means be neglected. It would have been valuable if Mr. Beck had attached to the factor of health a little explanation, as he did to economy (lower prices) and to efficiency (no shrinking). One searches his whole article in vain for instruction on this point. True, he quotes the statement of Pastor Kneipp that "wool is an enemy to mankind"; but Mr. Beck does not endorse this, and he can hardly base the above-mentioned prediction on the authority of an unscientific country priest.

On the other hand, Mr. Beck quotes Count Rumford as a man who made "shrewd experiments"; and he further quotes, without dissent, a writer who declared "not long ago that the whole amount which the science of the current century has directly added to the work of Rumford is so small as to be almost contemptible." It may therefore be assumed that Mr. Beck considers Count Rumford to be no mean authority, and at least equal to Pastor Kneipp. Well, Mr. Beck states that in Count Rumford's time "the wearing of what would now be considered underclothing appears to have been unusual, so far as may be judged by the surprise expressed by Rumford that so few people then wore flannel next the skin. Linen was the ordinary wear, and must, in the absence of flannel beneath, have furnished body-garments in general." Count Rumford seems, therefore, to have considered that underclothing must be woollen; and when Mr. Beck, on the same page (535), states that "the use of underclothing bids fair to become

general," he cannot, without laying himself open to a charge of inconsistency and loose writing, be supposed to refer to any but woollen underclothing. Yet Mr. Beck, without one word to explain why he considers that the chief authority which he quotes is wrong, winds up his article by preferring vegetable fibres to woollen, on the score of health!

Later (page 539), Mr. Beck gives the following description of Dr. Jaeger's views:-" Avoid vegetable fibres in any shape or form for clothing and bedding, is the reiterated admonition of Dr. Jaeger. He argues that, while wool and hair have been devised by nature as covering materials for animals, vegetable fibre (linen and cotton) is unhealthy material with which to surround the body, for two main reasons-it is a rapid heat-conductor, and it retains the mal-odorous portion of the emanations from the skin. Animal wool is a slow heatconductor, and the animals on whom it grew could not have survived if it had retained mal-odorous emanations." Here are reasons plainly stated, which, if unsound, Mr. Beck would have done a public service by controverting. But what has he to say? Nothing. He neither assents nor dissents, but at once proceeds to pity the inexpert purchaser "amid this confusion of fabrics and hubbub of voices."

In short, Mr. Beck has written a plausible article, but he has not really grappled with his subject, nor has he left the world any wiser as to the underclothing which it should wear, or why it should prefer vegetable or animal fibres for the purpose. Nor is the cause of the mountain having been delivered of a mouse far to seek. The subject is essentially a physiological one, requiring to be treated from a physiological point of view; and that Mr. Beck failed to recognise this is shown by his seriously quoting statistics upon the relative conduction of heat by different clothing materials placed-upon the human body? No; wound round the bulb of an inanimate thermometer! The problem to be solved is, of course, not the effect upon a thermometer, but upon the living skin, blood-vessels, and tissues of the warm-blooded human body. Mr. Beck's conclusion from the statistics is that “material is nothing; make is everything." But in whatever way wool, linen, or cotton fibres be made up, the nature of the fibres is not changed. However closely the porous stockinet web popularised by Dr. Jaeger be imitated in cotton or linen fabrics, the latter will retain their chilling influence on the skin and their tendency to take up malodorous vapours.

The question whether animal or vegetable fibre is more suitablefor covering the body can only be answered by considering the physiological effect of such fibres upon the body and its functions. One of the most important of these functions is that performed by the skin in perspiring, or throwing off from the body, through its pores, by the medium of a watery vapour, refuse matters which if retained in the body would be highly injurious. This function is as vitally important, and its proper performance, at all times, is as conducive to health, as the normal discharge by the kidneys and other excretory organs of their functions. Now, if the skin receives a chill its functional activity is greatly interfered with, or altogether ceases. The blood is driven away from the surface blood-vessels to the internal organs, where congestion and inflammation may be set up. In short, a chilled skin cannot sweat, cannot even exhale-or only to a quite inadequate degree-and the injurious refuse matter which should have been thrown off is retained in the body.

Now we see the importance of covering the skin, not with vegetable fibre, which will rapidly conduct the heat from it, but with animal fibre, which on the human body is a slow heat-conductor. The former covering involves the risk of cooling too quickly, of losing not only the superfluous heat (due to violent exercise or other cause), but also the degree of heat which is necessary to enable the skin to perform its exhaling function properly. Again, one of the things not generally considered is that evil odours have an injurious effect upon the skin's action, tending to drive away the blood from the surface vessels. An impure atmosphere is not only unwholesome when inhaled by the lungs, but also when the body is surrounded by its own emanations. Dead vegetable fibre (such as linen and cotton) is koprophagous-i.e., it greedily takes up the mal-odorous emanations of the body, although it cannot, as the living plant would do, assimilate them. This the merest tyro in experiment can test by noting the odour of cotton waistcoat linings and trouser pockets after a few weeks' (or a few days') wear, and comparing with the odour of woollen materials under similar conditions. Another sense that of touch-will show the superiority of animal fibre as clothing material. Put the hand on wool and you will feel attracted; put it on linen or cotton and you will feel repelled.

The hygroscopical difference between wool and linen or cotton is. important. Vegetable fibre readily takes up moisture like a sponge,

while the horny nature of wool offers much greater resistance to saturation with wet.

If we remember that all these advantageous attributes of animal fibre (slow heat-conductivity, non-absorption of evil odours, nonsaturation with wet) were necessary to the survival of the animal on which the wool or hair grew, while the conditions of plant life differ so widely from those of animal life, we shall recognise how much more suitable must be animal than vegetable fibre as clothing material for the human animal.

By the way, Mr. Beck's remark that the "natural" colour was never yet seen upon a living sheep, shows that he has misunderstood. the meaning which is attached to that term, viz., that the colouring matter is not produced by artificial means. Genuine "natural" wool is made of a blend of natural white and natural brown wools.

To return to the subject of chill through the rapid heat-conductivity of vegetable fibre clothing: the instinct which leads cricketers and other athletes to dress in woollens, for the purpose of violent exercise, is strong evidence of the general recognition that such covering is suitable for a perspiring skin and for the development of utmost energy and vigour. Imagine W. G. Grace going in on a hot. July day to make a "century," clad in cotton or linen! How the clammy things would stick to him and chill him! How miserably uncomfortable he would feel; and how shorn of its fair proportions would be that "century"! I need not further insist on the advantages of woollens for athletes; but in this respect there is no difference-at most, one of degree-between the athlete and the professional man or merchant. He, too, has a skin which constantly perspires, if not sensibly, then insensibly, in the shape of uncondensed vapour. Whether sitting at his desk or rushing to catch a train, the nonathlete equally needs so to cover his skin that it may best perform its all-important function. Its equable temperature should be maintained -not cooling off too rapidly under the chilling influence of vegetable fibre-and the atmosphere surrounding the skin should be kept pure by allowing the mal-odorous emanations to pass freely away through porous clothing made of animal fibre, which has no affinity. for mal-odorous vapours.

Here a few words of digression from the "Great Underclothing Question" may be allowed in the reader's interest. The secret of healthy clothing is porous wool throughout. Consider the folly.

of destroying the hygienic value of an expensive woollen waistcoat by lining it and backing it with cheap cotton material! All that the tailor considers is, that these parts of the clothing are not meant to be seen, so any cheap material will do. But the cotton lining to a woollen waistcoat is a reservoir of the body's emanations which it has prevented from escaping, and has absorbed, and it quickly becomes soiled and mal-odorous. Many a colic and stomach-trouble have been caused by the cotton trouser-waistband, which, when saturated with perspiration, acts injuriously on the abdomen in the same way as damp cotton or linen sheets do on those who are so unfortunate as to sleep in them. All wool, porous wool, and as few layers of it as practicable, to allow the freest vent to the skin's exhaled vapour-that is the safe system, and it is no fad, but simple, plain

common sense.

Before quitting the subject of health in connection with the body's covering, the night-wear and bed-clothing should be mentioned. The important exhaling function of the skin, of course, continues uninterruptedly through the hours of rest, when the brain no longer acts as the body's sentinel, and the sleeper is peculiarly exposed to unwholesome influences, if such there be. Cotton and linen are at least as objectionable at night as during the day, and the ordinary bedding—even of well-to-do people—is a storehouse of the body's emanations. The comfort and the invigorating sleep to be gained by sleeping with an open window, in woollen night-clothing, and between woollen coverings, with no cotton counterpane or quilt, are unimagined by those who have not tried it. As a correspondent wrote to the Times, in one of the many controversies on the subject, some while ago: 'At night I used to warm my bed; now my bed warms me." On the other hand, in the hottest days of summer, a light, porous woollen covering is much cooler, more comfortable, and far safer, than a linen sheet.

We now pass to Mr. Beck's other factors-economy and efficiency. It is difficult to weigh money in the balance against health, and as economy, in the matter under discussion, is so closely allied with efficiency, they may well be considered together. It is mainly, as Mr. Beck indicates, a question of "shrinking," for the first cost of a few articles of underwear is relatively great or little according to the time which the garments will last. Here is no place to praise any particular make or brand, but this much may be said, based upon wide

« AnteriorContinuar »