Put it to the test on the average person and see where it leads to.

My contention is that the average person, throwing over his or her accustomed meat diet, requires some definite guidance as to the quant.i.ty of proteid, such as Dr Haig's wide experience and much patient research have proved needful, or at least advisable, for the continuance of a healthy and vigorous life; and I will say that it does not help this average person in the least to put before him the misty statement that "the quant.i.ty depends on the development that is in progress, and is only discoverable by the natural guides of appet.i.te and taste, ruled by reason and love of others." All very n.o.ble and very well in another place, but hardly meeting the case of the ordinary person who is seeking a healthy diet. Nor can you "make the body a more harmonious instrument for the true life of man" by habitually underfeeding it. I thought that was a mediaeval notion that had been knocked on the head long ago.

Is there any man, lay or scientific, Mr Voysey notwithstanding, who can claim to have as wide an experience of diet in its relation to health and disease as "M.D.," to say nothing of the trained mind and long years of patient thought that have been exerted in dealing with the facts of this wide experience. For myself, I have come to see that, if "M.D." does not hold in his grasp the absolute truth in the matter of diet, he is nearer to it, and is a safer guide, than all your low proteid advisers, lay or otherwise, where they come much below "M.D.'s" standard.

So, using Mr Voysey's phrases, I would urge laymen like myself to shun that weak-kneed manikin, the low proteid diet, and unite with me in a long strong pull to get him and others like him out of the rut in which that sorry weakling holds him.

HY. BARTHOLOMEW.

II

The Editors were quite right in saying that the article under this heading in the July issue would arouse discussion. My wife and I, having discussed "M.D." and many others with the t.i.tle, feel constrained to put forth a warning against blind faith in anything which the faculty have to say on dietetics.

There are of course brilliant exceptions, such as Dr Rabagliati, Dr Knaggs, Dr Haig, the late Dr Keith and others, who give chapter and verse for every statement made; but when we consider the excellent work of laymen such as Albert Broadbent, Joseph Wallace, Horace Fletcher, Alice Braithwaite, Eustace Miles, Hereward Carrington, Edgar J. Saxon, Bernarr MacFadden, Arnold Eiloart, ordinary folks like ourselves may be excused if we venture to give our experience as against that of "qualified" men.

With your permission, then, we reply to "M.D.'s" five suggestions in the order he gives them:--

1. Food qualities are _not_ of extreme importance.

2. Quant.i.ty tables may have been "settled" by physiologists to their own satisfaction many years ago; but very good reasons have since been given for altering, or even ignoring, them.

3. The particular number of grains of proteid to be consumed per day is not of serious moment.

4. That departure from the quant.i.ty specified has not led to disaster is proved by the fact that the human race still persists, in spite of the very varying eating customs found in different nations. The great majority being poor or ignorant, or both, know neither "tables" nor the need for them.

5. There can be no reply to such a general statement as: "The nature of this disaster may appear to be very various, and its real cause is thus frequently overlooked."

In such matters an ounce of personal experience is worth a pound of cut-and-dried theory. We--my wife and I--have been reared in an atmosphere suspicious of doctors, both sets of grandparents having relied rather on herbs, water treatment, goodness of heart and faith in G.o.d; and their children have had too many evidences of medical ignorance to accept any dogmas. We are anti-vaccinators, nearly vegetarian, and, to come to the point, we have four children who will persist in thriving on a basis of always too little rather than too much of food. The respective ages are girl 13, boy 10, girl 6, boy 2.

All have been brought up on these lines: never pressed to eat, but continually asked to chew thoroughly. Foods "rich in proteid" put sparingly before them. Milk has been well watered; and eggs, bacon and other tempting and rich foods only on rare occasions given to them.

We would ask readers who can to make the following experiment: Let your children have a good drink to start the day, and then run and play; don't offer food till asked for. You will almost to a certainty find, if you start this plan immediately after weaning, that day by day and year after year it is twelve to one o'clock before they inquire for "something to eat." We have done this for twelve years, with children of entirely different temperament and of both s.e.xes.

They go to school, poor things! breakfastless. During these twelve years light breakfast for father has been on the table--he goes without lunch--and not once in fifty do they ask to join him. Nor, if invited, will they after three or four years of age.

The have never had a fever which lasted more than a day or two, and they are all above average height and weight.

They get fruit in season just as asked for, and as much to drink as they like, _but not at meal-times_.

Our experience is over a period of twelve years, and we have come to the conclusion that the infectious diseases so prevalent and death-dealing amongst children of all cla.s.ses, rich or poor, are, in the main, the result of over-feeding. We find it wise to keep highly nutritious foods (like eggs, cheese, meat, etc.) away from children--that is, for regular consumption; a little occasionally may do no harm.

You will have it borne in on our minds year by year, as your children grow up under such a plan, that Dr Rabagliati, Hereward Carrington and others are quite right. We do not get our strength, nor heat, from food. Let the force of animal life (zoo-dynamic, I believe Dr Rabagliati calls it) have free play, and your children can't help growing up well and strong.

In to-day's _London Daily Chronicle_ I see a special article by Dr Saleeby, under this heading: WORLD'S DOCTORS VERSUS DISEASE. 5000 MEDICAL MEN MEET TO-DAY. THE TRIUMPHS OF THREE DECADES. We know how much this wonderful faculty knew thirty years ago about, _e.g._, fresh air for consumptives. There is not a word said in this article (which is a sort of programme of the weighty matters for discussion) on the relation of food to the body. That question probably 4950 of them believe was settled by the eminent physiologists who compiled those "food-tables" years ago--and in so doing went far to pave the way for the modern frightful increase of cancer, Bright's disease, etc., as well as for "scientific" horrors like anti-toxin, tuberculin--not to mention compulsory eugenics!

J. METHUEN.

HEALTH THROUGH READING.

Do many people consider reading from the point of view of health of mind and body--of refreshment in times of struggle--of recuperation after knock-down blows of sorrow, disappointment or misfortune?

Let us begin by saying that some of the greatest books are not to be read by everybody at all seasons. When one's heart or ankles are weak, one does not start to climb mountains, or one may end as a corpse or a cripple. So with one's soul under shock or stress. Personally, I can imagine nothing more cruel than the action of two women, one a story-teller of great repute among the "goody," who, to a specially stricken and lonely young widow, tendered as "bed-side books," Victor Hugo's _Les Miserables_ and Browning's poignant _The Ring and the Book_. If they had wished to make her realise to the bitterest depths the awfulness of the world wherein she was left alone, and the blackest depravity of the human nature around her, they could not have done differently. _Les Miserables_ she read till she reached the dreadful scene where a vicious cad hurls s...o...b..a.l.l.s at the helpless Fantine. Then the strong instinct of self-preservation made her put the book aside--not to touch it again for nearly thirty years. With _The Ring and the Book_ her mind was too wrung and too weary to wrestle--all it could receive was a picture of wronged innocence, and especially of the rampant forces of evil with which she was left to contend. With the same want of tact and judgment, if with unconscious cruelty, the gloomy, fateful _Bride of Lammermoor_ was selected out of all Scott's novels for the reading of a very homesick youth, solitary in a strange country!

Yet we must always remember that, as in affairs of the body so of the spirit, "what is one man's meat may be another man's poison." Some of the wisest and most successful nurses or doctors will occasionally permit an invalid to indulge in a longed-for diet which would certainly never be prescribed. They know that idiosyncrasy follows no exactly known rule. So we could tell of one who, amid the dry agnosticism of the later half of last century, had felt her faith, not indeed extinguished, but obscured and darkened. From the perusal of certain writers she had shrunk, perhaps with cowardice. They were put on such a pinnacle that she feared she would find no arguments fit to oppose to theirs. Weakly, she locked the skeleton cupboard. Then she was attacked by a malady which, while leaving her mind free and strong, she knew might be very speedily fatal. Straightway she said to her husband: "In two or three days I shall probably 'know'--or cease from all knowing. There will not be long to wait. Therefore bring me three books," which she named, works of authors of extreme agnostic views. Rather reluctantly he complied with her wish. She went steadily through the joyless pages, turned the last with the significant remark: "If this is all they can say, well!--" The skeleton cupboard, once opened, was speedily swept out. She quickly recovered, but never forgot her experience. Yet it must be remembered that this was the patient's own prescription, and was permitted by one who thoroughly understood her temperament. Therefore, though one would never wish to overrule a strong personal desire, that is quite different from offering counsel and furtherance--or proving experiments upon oneself.

A celebrated woman writer of the middle of last century was of opinion that young people of both s.e.xes should not indulge in reading "minor poetry." "Let them keep to the great poets, made of granite," was her graphic phrase. A woman of singularly self-controlled nature has confessed that the only time in her whole life that she experienced an unwholesome moral and emotional disturbance, after reading a book, was when, at about twenty-two years of age, she read Emily Bronte's _Wuthering Heights_. She dared not finish it: and when, some time later, a copy was presented to her, she caused it to be exchanged for another book, not wishing it even to be in the house with her. Years afterwards, she read it again, quite unmoved. It may be added that her first reading was made in the course of a systematic study of English literature, which had already led her through the works of Chaucer and Fielding. She has herself asked: "Is it possible that the strong and unpleasant effect was produced because the book was the production of another young woman, perhaps of somewhat 'sympathetic' temperament?"

Taken as a whole, probably most fiction and all highly emotional work of any sort should be indulged in sparingly by those in the danger-zone of life, or by any under special mental or moral stress.

History, philosophy (with sustained chains of reasoning) and biographies (best, autobiographies) of active and strenuous lives, should be resorted to by those temporarily doomed to spells of suspense and involuntary inaction. Invalids should be encouraged to read Plutarch's _Lives_ rather than the _Memorials_ of other sufferers, however saintly!

It may be broadly stated that, during the tragic episodes which seem to occur in all lives, the most wholesome reading is to be found in the books of the great World-Religions--the Bible, and the teachings of Buddha, Confucius and Mahomet. The Bible is of course a library in itself, and many of its books are suited to very widely different circ.u.mstances and temperaments. The Psalms, the Gospels, the Epistle of St James, and parts of those great poems known as the "prophetical books" and the more personal and less doctrinal portions of Paul's epistles are perhaps of widest application. From the words of Buddha, Confucius and Mahomet there are many admirable selections--and one remembers a wonderful compilation of more than thirty years ago, called _The Sacred Anthology_, and wonders if it be out of print. It does not follow that these works should not be studied at other times than "tragic episodes." If this were more often the case, perhaps there would be fewer "tragic episodes"!

Next to these come such wonderful books of spiritual experience as A Kempis's _Imitation of Christ_, the _Pilgrim's Progress_, the _Devout Life_ of Francis of Sales and others which will occur to the memory.

Allusion to the _Pilgrim's Progress_ brings us to the remark that no books are more truly wholesome than some that can be enjoyed by those of all ages, and of very varied types of "culture": in which the children can delight, and which refresh the aged and weary. Like Nature herself, they have hedgerows where the little ones can gather flowers, little witting of the farther horizons of earth and sky lifted up for the eyes of the elders. Let the children read the _Pilgrim's Progress_ simply as "a story," its eternal verities will sink into their souls to reappear when they too are in _Vanity Fair_ or in bitter conflict with _Apollyon_.

For the same reason, the Book of Proverbs should be commended to youthful study. Under wise supervision--or rather, in mutual study--it becomes at once a series of vivid pictures of primitive Eastern life--for all allusions should be explained, where possible, pictorially--while at the same time the memory will be insensibly stored with shrewd common sense and knowledge of the world, to be turned to, and drawn upon, as needed.

And then, while the children revel in the fun and the fancy of Hans Andersen's _Fairy Tales_, let the sorrowful or sore or wounded heart turn to them for solace, soothing or healing. Hans Andersen enjoys a very special "popularity" and yet some, who have learned to love and value him, doubt whether justice has yet been done to his work.

Because it is matchless for the young, it may be easily forgotten that it can be so, only by some quality which makes it matchless for all others. Perhaps some of his most popular stories are not his most wonderful, but have simply caught the popular fancy, because of some artist's ill.u.s.tration, or some personal application to the writer's own history, as in the case of his _Ugly Duckling_. How many--or rather, how few!--can readily recall the pathos and wit of his _Portuguese Duck_ or the deep philosophy of his _Girl Who Trod on a Loaf_?

It is told of Hans Andersen, a gentle soul in a homely exterior, which attracted the snubs and neglect which "patient merit of the unworthy takes," on some such occasion was once heard to murmur: "And yet I am the greatest man now in the world!" It was very naive of him to say so, even in a whisper, probably wrung from him only in self-defence, but perhaps he might have thought it, in solemn silence--and--not been so very wrong! It may have been part of the very transparency of his inspired genius that he could not keep the secret to himself!

There is at least one reader who declares that she finds the seeds of all vital philosophy--ancient or modern--in his stories. How much he derived from those who went before him, it is not for us to say, but this disciple, herself a devoted student and admirer of the world's latest teacher, Leo Tolstoy, yet puts Hans Andersen above him, as having attained in practically all his work what Tolstoy attained only occasionally--_i.e._ Tolstoy's own ideal of what Art should be and do.

In such a paper as this little can be done beyond indicating on the broadest lines the kind of reading which tends to preserve or to restore mental health. Away with your "problem" novels and "realistic"

poems stated in the filthy material of moral gutters! Hans Andersen will take some birds, some flowers, some toys, and will state the same problems, and get the same eternal solutions, without making the inquirer run any risk of meanwhile catching moral malaria. Isaiah will help us to build "castles" for the human race and for our own future, but he will take care that we shall remember that righteousness and unceasing vigilance and unflagging repair must go into the laying of foundations and the upholding of walls. David, even in his "cursing psalms," will exemplify for you the power of hate and vengeance in your own heart, and as he holds it up before you, you will see how small a thing it is, how mean, how ludicrous!

As a man eats and drinks, so is his body: if he is a gross feeder, his body will be gross and sensual; if his food lacks nourishment, he will pine and fade. So it is with our minds and our morals. With whatever original "spiritual body" we may start, it needs spiritual sustenance, spiritual discipline, spiritual sufficiency and spiritual abstinence.

Too often we ill-use it, as bodies are ill-used, goading its weakness with fiery excitement, or gorging its greed with sickly sentiment, or emasculating it by empty frivolity.

All who desire spiritual health must find out what books best promote it in themselves: and sometimes they are found, like wholesome herbs, in very lowly places. One good rule is never to recommend what we have not seen proved in ourselves, or on others.

ISABELLA FYVIE MAYO.

THE SWAN-SONG OF SEPTEMBER.

This fine sonnet is from _Lyric Leaves_, poems by S. Gertrude Ford. 2s. 6d. net (postage 2d.). (C.W. Daniel, Ltd., 3 Tudor Street, London, E.C.)

Sing out thy swan-song with full throat, September, From a full heart, with golden notes and clear!

No rose will wreathe thee; yet the harebell's here, And still thy crown of heath the hills remember.