THE DANGERS OF WASHING.
WE have long expected a reaction in regard to the habit of washing, and it would seem that at last this re- action is beginning. We have seen in hundreds of previous instances how the public is got upon what the Americans call "the back-track" in regard to some popular habit. A learned member of the medical profession writes a pamphlet or reads a paper at a Medical Congress on the dangers of the said habit. Next, the Press has leading articles on "the re- markable character of the evidence adduced to support the contention of Dr. So-and-So ; " and next, we bear opinions favouring the medical view, expressed by a large body of lay- men "who have for many years been convinced of the same thing by private observation." Then the world in general goes a header for the new system, and it is only possible to find a defender of the old order in medical circles so advanced that they have gone beyond the so-called new theory, and come out on the other side. It may be re- membered that five years ago, "Odious in woollen, %would a saint provoke," was the accepted dogma of all persons of
refinement. Then arose Dr. Jaeger and proclaimed his system of clothing to a delighted universe. "Man is an animal, therefore man should only wear animal products next his skin," ran the simple and convincing formula which banished cotton, cambric, and linen, and substituted woollen garments of what was termed the " natural " colour, though natural to what it did not appear, since no sheep ever seen of man is of the colour of Dr. Jaeger's double-breasted vests. An Isabella bear is the nearest approximation in Nature, but there are obviously not enough Isabella bears in existence to furnish stuff for all Dr. Jaeger's products. Whether it was the flavour of scholastic philosophy which hung about Dr. Jaeger's reasons for denouncing vegetable fibres that attracted people to the system, or whether it was the intrinsic beauty of Dr. Jaeger's woollen waistcoats, is a doubtful matter; but from whatever reason, the idea "caught on," and cotton fabrics next the skin became an impossibility. After the publi- cation of Dr. Jaeger's pamphlets, there was a jubilant chorus of retired Army surgeons, country rectors, and half-bold, hall-bashful maiden ladies who had "always worn flannel next their skins," or who had "adopted woollen under- garments" ever since they came to years of discretion ; and then the reaction against linen became tuaiversal. A few doctors who believe that the truths of medical science are meant exclusively for patients, may still wear linen drawers and canvas shirts in summer, with nothing under ; but the rest of the world would as soon think of eating oyster- shells. "Wool, all wool, and nothing but wool," is a uni- versal maxim, and woollen now, as once "motley," is "the only wear."
Signs of a similar reaction are, as we have said, apparent in regard to the hitherto distinctive and national habit of washing. For countless years, washing has been our boast, and the poet has sung how,—
" Firm and well-washed, the Anglo-Saxon stood."
Mr. Matthew Arnold, too, has remarked how the youthful Briton only travels to note with scorn that "foreigners don't wash," and how, in fact,— " His frothy cloak of soapsuds thick o'ercast, Safe and unseen the young lEneas passed."
Mr. Matthew Arnold did not venture, be it noted, to breathe a word against the practice of washing, but merely complained that our eyes should be, as it were, blinded with lather. Again, we have read a text into Scripture in defence of washing. "Cleanliness is next to godliness" has, up till now, been regarded as of Scriptural authority, and to note that the words do not actually occur in Holy Writ has always been regarded as pedantic. Persons inclined to insist too much on this point have, indeed, been reminded that neither are "In the midst of life we are in death," nor" God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb," to be found in either the Old or the New Testaments. Yet, in spite of the number of hostages we have given to the wash-hand-stand basin and the hip-bath, we should not be the least surprised if what is called, in the political terminology of the West, "a bolt" should take place among the whilom friends of cleanliness. The campaign on the side of the reactionists has been opened in the usual way. A celebrated doctor has declared that danger lurks in the soap-box. He has discovered, indeed, a new disease, "almost peculiar to women" who are too deeply addicted to washing and powdering. One American lady confessed to washing and powdering thirteen times in twelve hours. A hardened washer may perhaps answer that this proves nothing, and that it was the powdering, not the washing, "what done it." This view of the matter, however, is not borne out by the facts or by the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Ricketts, which seem to point to washing as the source of the evil. Nor does Dr. Ricketts confine his attack to the act of washing one's face. He goes for the cold tub quite as strongly. There is, indeed, something almost insulting in the way in which he treats that time-honoured invention. Dr. Ricketts speaks as if it were already a matter of common knowledge that no one but an idiot, thoughtlessly ready to imperil his life for a whim, ever took a cold bath. "As for the cold bath," says the learned doctor, "its dangers are well known." It is easy to see how far things have gone when a doctor permits himself to use language of this kind. It is the sort of way temperance people speak of rum. "Its dangers are well known" is the way one might expect the hangman to speak of the gallows. To use the phrase of the .cold bath is to seal its fate,—unless, by some means or other, the "bolt" from the bath can be averted.
Though we mast express a personal predilection for soap and water, we are willing to admit that if we all give up washing except when it is absolutely necessary to remove foreign substances, there will be one or two signal advantages. Tor example, there will be a national saving of many millions.- The soap-bill is an important item in many households, and its virtual suppression would probably allow many little extra luxuries. When the reaction has taken a steady hold of us, this no doubt will be worked out in detail by the "Anti- Washing League," or by the "Society for the Maintenance cf Personal Cleanliness without the Use of Ablution." We shall 'be told how the money now annually spent in soap would build -twenty lunatic asylums, a hundred orphanages, five hundred public halls, and give a bath-bun to every other child educated in schools receiving a Government grant. Again, the ceasing of all ceremonial and luxurious ablution would save an enormous amount of time. Persons with beards sometimes calculate that in the time employed in shaving, their bare-chinned friends might learn Spanish, Dutch, or Portuguese, or instruct their offspring in the elements of geometry. In the same way, the time we have hitherto spent "in wooing, in watching, and pursuing" the soap round the washing-basin may be profitably employed "in benefiting our fellow-creatures," in carrying on -our business, or, as far as the morning wash is concerned, in obtaining a few more moments of repose. Then, too, we cannot help thinking that the banishment from the national conscience of the idea that washing is of supreme importance will be exceedingly beneficial. Up till now, the washing motive has too deeply dominated our race. We have come to look upon water as meant primarily to wash in, as an aid to ablution rather than a thing of beauty. A story of a Somersetshire peasant will illustrate what we mean. The individual in question had never seen the sea till he was taken to Weston-super-Mare on a "choir-treat" excursion. Naturally, the Vicar, the curate, and the rest of the tenors, trebles, and basses, as soon as the esplanade was reached, gathered round to see how the first sight of the ocean would strike the natural man. Will it be believed that the words struck from him by the view of "the unfarrowed deep "lying in vast expanse before his eyes were these : "If I'd known what her were like, I'd have brought down a bit of soap and had a good wash "? The iron—or rather, the soap—had entered so deeply into his soul, that he could only conceive the sea as a huge washing-place. Again, the reaction against washing, if it comes, will help to bring us and foreign nations more into sympathy. At present, 4" their scorn of washing and our love of soap "—the shade of the bard of Twickenham, of whom it was said that all his enemies wished him was "a little dentifrice and soap," will pardon our travesty—prevents anything like a real com- munity of feeling. It may be remembered how the French lover sadly refused the attempt of winning the hand of the young English lady of whom he had become enamoured. He dared not marry her, for were they to be united, "she would wash me, and then I should die." When Britain thinks like the rest of Europe on the soap question, such heartrending situa- tions will not be created.
Before we leave the subject of washing, we must note that the habit of washing much and taking many cold baths is not so new as many persons would have us believe. Certain inquirers have declared that the cold bath dates only from about 1830. This, we believe, is a complete mistake. In a tittle work called "A Picture of England," written by a Prussian officer about the year 1780, there is a passage on the -subject which begins, "The English are still very fond of cold baths,"—apparently hopes bad been indulged on the Continent that it was a mere passing fashion. The writer of the "Picture of England" goes on to say that the passion ifor bathing has existed in England ever since Roman times, and that the practice was introduced by Septimus Severna. 'Whether this is the case or not, we do not know ; but the Prussian officer's account of the matter clearly proves that cold-bathing is not an affair of the present century. Possibly, then, the efforts to produce a reaction may prove of no avail. -It is easy to uproot a habit of yesterday, not one of over a thousand year e standing.
Previous page
