This is a modern-English version of Popular Books on Natural Science: For Practical Use in Every Household, for Readers of All Classes, originally written by Bernstein, Aaron David. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

 

E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Anna Hall,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive/American Libraries
(http://www.archive.org/details/americana)

 

Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/American Libraries. See http://www.archive.org/details/popularbooksonna00bernrich

 

Transcriber's note:

There is an error in the calculation on page 16. The calculation is left unedited.

Inconsistent hyphenation is left as in the original.

Transcriber's note:

There is a mistake in the calculation on page 16. The calculation remains unchanged.

Inconsistent hyphenation is kept as in the original.

 


 

 

 

POPULAR BOOKS

ON

Natural Science.

FOR PRACTICAL USE IN EVERY HOUSEHOLD,

FOR READERS OF ALL CLASSES.

By A. BERNSTEIN.


CONTENTS:

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH—VELOCITY—NUTRITION—LIGHT AND DISTANCE—THE WONDERS OF ASTRONOMY—METEOROLOGY—THE FOOD PROPER FOR MAN.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH—SPEED—NUTRITION—LIGHT AND DISTANCE—THE MARVELS OF ASTRONOMY—WEATHER SCIENCE—THE RIGHT FOOD FOR HUMANS.


New York:
CHR. SCHMIDT, PUBLISHER, 39 CENTRE STREET.

New York:
CHR. SCHMIDT, PUBLISHER, 39 CENTER STREET.


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by

Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by

CHR. SCHMIDT,

CHR. SCHMIDT,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District of New York.

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District of New York.


BERNSTEIN'S

POPULAR TREATISE

ON

NATURAL SCIENCE.


"In primis, hominis est propria VERI inquisitio atque investigatio. Itaque cum sumus negotiis necessariis, curisque vacui, tum avemus aliquid videre, audire, ac dicere, cognitionemque rerum, aut occultarum aut admirabilium, ad benè beatéque vivendum necessariam ducimus;—ex quo intelligitur, quod VERUM, simplex, sincerumqe sit, id esse naturæ hominis aptissimum. Huic veri videndi cupiditati adjuncta est appetitio quædam principatûs, ut nemini parere animus benè a naturâ, informatus velit, nisi præcipienti, aut docenti, aut utilitatis causâ justè et legitimè imperanti: ex quo animi magnitudo existit, et humanarum rerum contemtio."

"First of all, it's human nature to seek and explore the truth. So when we are free from necessary tasks and responsibilities, we long to see, hear, and speak about things, whether they are hidden or amazing, that we consider essential for living well and happily. This shows that the truth—simple and pure—is what suits human nature best. Alongside this desire to see the truth is a certain craving for leadership, as no well-informed mind wants to submit to anyone except those who guide, teach, or justifiably and legitimately command out of a sense of usefulness, which results in the greatness of the spirit and a disdain for worldly matters."

Cicero, de Officiis, Lib. 1. § 13.

Cicero, On Responsibilities, Book 1. § 13.

Before all other things, man is distinguished by his pursuit and investigation of TRUTH. And hence, when free from needful business and cares, we delight to see, to hear, and to communicate, and consider a knowledge of many admirable and abstruse things necessary to the good conduct and happiness of our lives: whence it is clear that whatsoever is TRUE, simple, and direct, the same is most congenial to our nature as men. Closely allied with this earnest longing to see and know the truth, is a kind of dignified and princely sentiment which forbids a mind, naturally well constituted, to submit its faculties to any but those who announce it in precept or in doctrine, or to yield obedience to any orders but such as are at once just, lawful, and founded on utility. From this source spring greatness [Pg vii][Pg vi]of mind and contempt of worldly advantages and troubles.

Before anything else, humans are defined by their quest for and exploration of TRUTH. So, when we're free from necessary duties and worries, we enjoy seeing, hearing, and sharing, and we believe that understanding many amazing and complex ideas is essential for living well and happily. It’s clear that whatever is TRUE, simple, and straightforward is most in tune with our nature as humans. Closely tied to this sincere desire to seek and understand the truth is a noble and dignified feeling that prevents a well-balanced mind from submitting its abilities to anyone but those who teach it through principles or beliefs, or from following any commands that aren't just, lawful, and practical. From this arises greatness of mind and a disregard for worldly gains and troubles.

CONTENTS.

PART I.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH.

PART II.

VELOCITY.

SPEED.

PART III.

NUTRITION.

Nutrition.

PART IV.

LIGHT AND DISTANCE.

Light and distance.

PART V.

THE WONDERS OF ASTRONOMY.

THE AMAZING WORLD OF ASTRONOMY.

PART VI.

METEOROLOGY.

Weather Science.

PART VII.

OUR ARTICLES OF FOOD.

OUR FOOD ARTICLES.


PART I.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH.[Pg 3][Pg 2]


CHAPTER I.

HOW MANY POUNDS THE WHOLE EARTH WEIGHS.

HOW MANY POUNDS DOES THE WHOLE EARTH WEIGH?

Natural philosophers have considered and investigated subjects that often appear to the unscientific man beyond the reach of human intelligence. Among these subjects may be reckoned the question, "How many pounds does the whole earth weigh?"

Natural philosophers have thought about and examined topics that often seem beyond the grasp of an unscientific person. One of these topics is the question, "How many pounds does the entire Earth weigh?"

One would, indeed, believe that this is easy to answer. A person might assign almost any weight, and be perfectly certain that nobody would run after a scale, in order to examine, whether or not an ounce were wanting. Yet this question is by no means a joke, and the answer to it is by no means a guess; on the contrary, both are real scientific results. The question in itself is as important a one, as the answer, which we are able to give, is a correct one.

One would actually think this is an easy question to answer. A person could give almost any weight and be completely sure that no one would rush to find a scale to check if an ounce is missing. However, this question is not a joke, and the answer isn't just a guess; on the contrary, both are genuine scientific findings. The question itself is just as significant as the correct answer we can provide.

Knowing the size of our globe, one would think that there was no difficulty in determining its weight. To do this, it would be necessary only to make a little ball of earth that can be accurately weighed; then we could easily calculate how many times the earth is larger than this little ball; and by so doing, we might tell, at one's finger-ends, that—if we suppose the little earth-ball to weigh a hundred-weight—the whole globe, being so many times larger, must weigh so many hundred-weights.

Knowing the size of our planet, you’d think it would be easy to determine its weight. To do this, we would just need to create a small ball of earth that can be accurately weighed; then we could easily figure out how many times larger the earth is compared to this little ball. By doing that, we could quickly say that—if we assume the small earth ball weighs a hundred pounds—the whole planet, being so many times larger, must weigh that many hundred pounds.

Such a proceeding, however, would be very likely to mislead us. For all depends on the substance the little ball is made of. If made of loose earth, it will weigh little; if stones are taken with it, it will weigh more; while, if metals[Pg 4] were put in, it would, according to the kind of metal you take, weigh still more.

Such a process, however, would probably mislead us. Everything depends on what the little ball is made of. If it's made of loose dirt, it'll weigh little; if it includes stones, it'll weigh more; and if it contains metals[Pg 4], depending on the type of metal you use, it could weigh even more.

If, then, we wish to determine the weight of our globe by the weight of that little ball, it is first necessary to know of what our globe consists; whether it contains stones, metals, or things entirely unknown; whether empty cavities, or whether, indeed, the whole earth is nothing but a hollow sphere, on the surface of which we live, and in whose inside there is possibly another world that might be reached by boring through the thick shell.

If we want to figure out the weight of our planet using the weight of that small ball, we first need to understand what our planet is made of; whether it consists of rocks, metals, or entirely unknown materials; whether there are empty spaces, or if the whole Earth is just a hollow sphere, with us living on the surface and possibly another world inside that we could reach by drilling through the thick shell.

With the exercise of a little thought, it will readily be seen that the question, "How much does our earth weigh?" in reality directs us to the investigation of the character of the earth's contents; this, however, is a question of a scientific nature.

With a bit of thought, it’s easy to see that the question, "How much does our earth weigh?" actually leads us to look into what the earth is made of; however, this is a scientific question.

The problem was solved not very long ago. The result obtained was, that the earth weighs 6,069,094,272 billions of tons; that, as a general thing, it consists of a mass a little less heavy than iron; that towards the surface it contains lighter materials; that towards the centre they increase in density; and that, finally, the earth, though containing many cavities near the surface, is itself not a hollow globe.

The problem was solved not too long ago. The result showed that the Earth weighs 6,069,094,272 billion tons; that, generally speaking, it is made up of a mass that is a bit lighter than iron; that it contains lighter materials near the surface; that these materials become denser toward the center; and that, ultimately, the Earth, while having many cavities near the surface, is not a hollow globe.

The way and manner in which they were able to investigate this scientifically, we will attempt now to set forth as plainly and briefly as it can possibly be done.[Pg 5]

The method they used to investigate this scientifically, we will now try to explain as clearly and concisely as possible.[Pg 5]


CHAPTER II.

THE ATTEMPT TO WEIGH THE EARTH.

THE ATTEMPT TO WEIGH THE EARTH.

It is our task to explain, by what means men have succeeded in weighing the earth, and thus become acquainted with the weight of its ingredients.

It’s our job to explain how people have managed to weigh the earth and, in doing so, learned the weight of its components.

The means is simpler than might be thought at the moment. The execution, however, is more difficult than one would at first suppose.

The method is easier than it might seem right now. However, the implementation is tougher than you might initially think.

Ever since the great discovery of the immortal Newton, it has been known that all celestial bodies attract one another, and that this attraction is the greater, the greater the attracting body is. Not only such celestial bodies as the sun, the earth, the moon, the planets, and the fixed stars, but all bodies have this power of attraction; and it increases in direct proportion to the increase of the mass of the body. In order to make this clear, let us illustrate it by an example. A pound of iron attracts a small body near by; two pounds of iron attract it precisely twice as much; in other words, the greater the weight of an object, the greater the power of attraction it exercises on the objects near by. Hence, if we know the attractive power of a body, we also know its weight. Nay, we would be able to do without scales of any kind in the world, if we were only able to measure accurately the attractive power of every object. This, however, is not possible; for the earth is so large a mass, and has consequently so great an attractive power, that it draws down to itself all objects which we may wish other bodies to attract. If, therefore, we wish to place a small ball in the neighborhood[Pg 6] of ever so large an iron-ball, for the purpose of having the little one attracted by the large one, this little ball will, as soon as we let it go, fall to the earth, because the attractive power of the earth is many, very many times greater than that of the largest iron-ball; so much greater is it, that the attraction of the iron-ball is not even perceptible.

Ever since the amazing discovery by the immortal Newton, it's been understood that all celestial bodies attract each other, and the attraction is stronger when the attracting body is bigger. This applies not just to celestial bodies like the sun, earth, moon, planets, and fixed stars, but to all bodies; their attraction increases directly with their mass. To clarify this, let's use an example. A pound of iron attracts a small nearby object; two pounds of iron attract it exactly twice as much. In other words, the heavier an object is, the stronger its attraction is on nearby objects. So, if we know the attraction of a body, we also know its weight. In fact, we could do away with scales entirely if we could measure the attractive power of every object accurately. However, this isn't feasible because the Earth is such a massive body, with a corresponding attractive power that pulls all objects towards it. Therefore, if we try to place a small ball next to a large iron ball to have the little one attracted by the large one, as soon as we release it, the small ball will fall to the Earth because the Earth's attraction is many times greater than that of the largest iron ball; it's so much stronger that the iron ball's attraction is basically unnoticeable.

Physical science, however, has taught us to measure the earth's attractive power very accurately, and this by a very simple instrument, viz., a pendulum, such as is used in a clock standing against the wall. If a pendulum in a state of rest—in which it is nearest to the earth—is disturbed, it hastens back to this resting-point with a certain velocity. But because it is started and cannot stop without the application of force, it recedes from the earth on the other side. The earth's attraction in the meanwhile draws it back, making it go the same way over again. Thus it moves to and fro with a velocity which would increase, if the earth's mass were to increase; and decrease, if the earth's mass were to decrease. Since the velocity of a pendulum may be measured very accurately by counting the number of vibrations it makes in a day, we are able also to calculate accurately the attractive power of the earth.

Physical science has taught us how to measure the Earth's gravitational pull very accurately using a simple tool, specifically a pendulum like the one in a wall clock. When a pendulum at rest—where it’s closest to the Earth—is disturbed, it swings back to this resting point with a certain speed. However, since it’s set in motion and cannot stop on its own, it swings out in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, the Earth's gravity pulls it back, causing it to repeat the motion. This means it oscillates back and forth with a speed that would increase if the Earth’s mass increases, and decrease if the Earth’s mass decreases. Since we can measure the speed of a pendulum accurately by counting how many times it swings in a day, we can also accurately calculate the Earth’s gravitational force.

A few moments' consideration will make it clear to everybody, that the precise weight of the earth can be known so soon as an apparatus is contrived, by means of which a pendulum may be attracted by a certain known mass, and thus be made to move to and fro. Let us suppose this mass to be a ball of a hundred pounds, and placed near a pendulum. Then as many times as this ball weighs less than the earth, so many times more slowly will a pendulum be moved by the ball.

A moment's thought will show everyone that we can know the exact weight of the earth once we create a device that can make a pendulum attracted to a specific known mass, allowing it to swing back and forth. Let’s say this mass is a hundred-pound ball, placed near a pendulum. Then, for every time this ball weighs less than the earth, the pendulum will move that many times more slowly when influenced by the ball.

It was in this way that the experiment was made and the desired result obtained. But it was not a very easy[Pg 7] undertaking, and we wish, therefore, to give our thinking readers in the next chapter a more minute description of this interesting experiment, with which we shall for the present conclude the subject.[Pg 8]

It was through this method that the experiment was carried out and the desired outcome achieved. However, it wasn't a straightforward task, so we want to provide our thoughtful readers in the next chapter a detailed description of this fascinating experiment, with which we will currently wrap up the topic.


CHAPTER III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT TO WEIGH THE EARTH.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT TO WEIGH THE EARTH.

Cavendish, an English physicist, made the first successful attempt to determine the attractive power of large bodies. His first care was, to render the attraction of the earth an inefficient element in his experiment. He did it in the following way:

Cavendish, an English physicist, made the first successful attempt to measure the attractive force of large bodies. His first priority was to minimize the Earth's attraction as a factor in his experiment. He accomplished this in the following way:

On the point of an upright needle he laid horizontally a fine steel bar, which could turn to the right and left like the magnetic needle in a compass-box. Then he fastened a small metallic ball on each end of the steel bar. The balls were of the same weight, for this reason the steel bar was attracted by the earth with the same force at both ends; it therefore remained horizontal like the beam of a balance, when the same weight is lying in each of the scales. By this the attractive force of the earth was not suspended, it is true; but it was balanced by the equality of the weights. Thus the earth's attractive power was rendered ineffective for the disturbance of his apparatus.

On the tip of an upright needle, he placed a fine steel bar horizontally, which could rotate to the right and left like the magnetic needle in a compass. Then, he attached a small metal ball to each end of the steel bar. The balls were of equal weight, which meant the steel bar was pulled by the earth with the same force at both ends; therefore, it stayed horizontal like the beam of a scale when equal weights are on each side. While the earth's gravitational pull wasn't suspended, it was balanced out by the equal weights. This way, the earth's gravitational force didn't interfere with his apparatus.

Next he placed two large and very heavy metallic balls at the ends of the steel bar, not, however, touching them. The attractive force of the large balls began now to tell; it so attracted the small ones that they were drawn quite near to the large balls. When, then, the observer, by a gentle push, removed the small balls from their resting-place, the large ones were seen to draw them back again. But as the latter could not stop if once started, they crossed their resting-point, and began to vibrate near the[Pg 9] large balls in the same manner as a pendulum does, when acted upon by the attractive force of the earth. Of course this force was exceedingly small, compared with that of the earth; and for that reason the vibrations of this pendulum were by far slower than those of a common one. This could not be otherwise; and from the slowness of a vibration, or from the small number of vibrations in a day, Cavendish computed the real weight of the earth.

Next, he placed two large, heavy metal balls at the ends of the steel bar, without actually touching them. The attractive force of the large balls began to take effect; they attracted the smaller ones, pulling them closer. When the observer gently pushed the small balls away from their resting place, the large ones pulled them back again. However, since the large balls couldn't stop once they started moving, they crossed their resting point and began to swing back and forth near the[Pg 9] large balls, much like a pendulum does when affected by the earth's gravitational pull. Of course, this force was very small compared to that of the earth, which is why the vibrations of this setup were much slower than those of a regular pendulum. This was inevitable, and from the slowness of the vibrations, or from the low number of vibrations in a day, Cavendish calculated the actual weight of the earth.

Such an experiment, however, is always connected with extraordinary difficulties. The least expansion of the bar, or the unequal expansion or contraction of the balls, caused by a change of temperature, would vitiate the result; besides, the experiment must be made in a room surrounded on all sides by masses equal in weight. Moreover, the observer must not be stationed in the immediate neighborhood, lest this might exercise attractive force, and by that a disturbance. Finally, the air around must not be set in motion, lest it might derange the pendulum; and lastly, it is necessary not only to determine the size and weight of the balls, but also to obtain a form spherical to the utmost perfection; and also to take care that the centre of gravity of the balls be at the same time the centre of magnitude.

Such an experiment, however, always comes with significant challenges. Even the slightest expansion of the bar, or uneven expansion or contraction of the balls due to temperature changes, could skew the results. Additionally, the experiment has to be conducted in a room with equal weights surrounding it on all sides. The observer also cannot be too close by, as their presence could create an attractive force and cause a disturbance. Finally, the air around must remain still to avoid disrupting the pendulum, and it’s essential not only to measure the size and weight of the balls accurately but also to ensure they are as perfectly spherical as possible, while also making sure that the center of gravity aligns with the center of size.

In order to remove all these difficulties, unusual precautions and extraordinary expenses were necessary. Reich, a naturalist in Freiberg, took infinite pains for the removal of these obstacles. To his observations and computations we owe the result he transmitted to us, viz.: that the mass total of the earth is nearly five and a half times heavier than a ball of water of the same size; or, in scientific language: The mean density of the earth is nearly five and a half times that of water. Thence results the real weight of the earth as being nearly fourteen quintillions of pounds. From this, again, it follows that the matter of the earth grows denser the nearer the centre; consequently it cannot be a hollow sphere.[Pg 10]

To overcome all these challenges, unusual precautions and significant expenses were required. Reich, a naturalist in Freiberg, worked tirelessly to eliminate these barriers. Thanks to his observations and calculations, we learned that the total mass of the Earth is nearly five and a half times heavier than a ball of water of the same size; or, in scientific terms: The average density of the Earth is about five and a half times that of water. This leads to the actual weight of the Earth being nearly fourteen quintillion pounds. Furthermore, this implies that the matter of the Earth becomes denser as you approach the center; therefore, it cannot be a hollow sphere.[Pg 10]

If we consider, that from the earth's surface to its centre there is a distance of 3,956 miles, and that, with all our excavations, no one has yet penetrated even five miles, we have reason to be proud of investigations which, at least in part, disclose to man the unexplorable depths of the earth.[Pg 11]

If we think about the fact that the distance from the earth's surface to its center is 3,956 miles, and that even with all our digging, no one has gone more than five miles down, we have good reason to take pride in the research that, at least in some way, reveals to us the uncharted depths of the earth.[Pg 11]


PART II.

VELOCITY.[Pg 13][Pg 12]


CHAPTER I.

VELOCITIES OF THE FORCES OF NATURE.

VELOCITIES OF THE FORCES OF NATURE.

In former times, when a man would speak of the rapidity with which light traverses space, most of his hearers thought it to be a scientific exaggeration or a myth. At present, however, when daily opportunity is afforded to admire, for example, the velocity of the electric current in the electro-magnetic telegraph, every one is well convinced of the fact, that there are forces in nature which traverse space with almost inconceivable velocity.

In the past, when someone talked about how fast light moves through space, most people thought it was an exaggeration or a myth. Nowadays, however, with daily opportunities to appreciate, for example, the speed of electrical currents in telegraphs, everyone is well aware that there are natural forces that travel through space at almost unimaginable speeds.

A wire a mile in length, if electrified at one end, becomes in the very instant electrified also at the other end. This and similar things every one may observe for himself; then, even the greatest sceptic among you will clearly see, that the change—or "electric force"—which an electrified wire undergoes at one end, is conveyed the length of a mile in a twinkle, verily as if a mile were but an inch.

A wire that's a mile long, when electrified at one end, becomes electrified at the other end instantly. Anyone can observe this for themselves; even the biggest skeptic among you will clearly see that the change—or "electric force"—that happens at one end of the wire travels the whole mile in the blink of an eye, as if a mile were just an inch.

But we learn more yet from this observation. The velocity with which the electric force travels is so great, that if a telegraph-wire, extending from New York to St. Louis and back again, is electrified at one end, the electric current will manifest itself at the other end in the same moment. From this it follows, that the electric force travels with such speed as to make a thousand miles in a space of time scarcely perceptible. Or, in other words, it travels a thousand miles in the same imperceptible fraction of a moment that it does a single mile.

But we learn even more from this observation. The speed at which electric force travels is so fast that if a telegraph wire stretching from New York to St. Louis and back is electrified at one end, the electric current will show up at the other end instantly. This means that the electric force travels so quickly that it can cover a thousand miles in a time frame that's barely noticeable. In other words, it travels a thousand miles in the same barely noticeable fraction of a moment that it takes to travel a single mile.

And experience has taught us even more yet. However[Pg 14] great the distance connected by a telegraphic wire may be, the result has always been, that the time which electricity needs to run that distance, is imperceptibly small; so that it may well be said, its passage occupies an indivisible moment of time.

And experience has taught us even more. However[Pg 14] great the distance connected by a telegraphic wire may be, the result has always been that the time it takes for electricity to travel that distance is incredibly small; so it can truly be said that its passage occurs in an instant.

One might even be led to believe that this is really no "running through"—in other words, that this transmission of effect from one end of the wire to the other end does not require any time at all, but that it happens, as if by enchantment, in one and the same instant. This, however, is not the case.

One might even think that this is really no "running through"—in other words, that this transmission of effect from one end of the wire to the other happens instantly, almost as if by magic. However, that's not true.

Ingenious experiments have been tried, to measure the velocity of the elective force. It is now undoubtedly proved, that it actually does require time for it to be transmitted from one place to another; that this certain amount of time is imperceptible to us for this reason, viz., that all distances which have ever been connected by telegraph, are yet too small, to make the time it takes for the current to go from one end to the other, perceptible to us.

Ingenious experiments have been conducted to measure the speed of the electric force. It is now clearly proven that it actually takes time for it to be transmitted from one place to another; this amount of time is undetectable to us because all distances that have ever been connected by telegraph are still too short to make the time it takes for the current to travel from one end to the other noticeable to us.

Indeed, if our earth were surrounded by a wire, it would still be too short for common observation, because the electric force would run even through this space—twenty-five thousand miles very nearly—in the tenth part of a second.

Indeed, if our Earth were wrapped in a wire, it would still be too short for regular observation because the electric force would travel through that distance—almost twenty-five thousand miles—in just a tenth of a second.

Ingenious experiments have shown that the electric current moves two hundred and fifty thousand miles in a second. But how could this have been ascertained? And are we certain that the result is trustworthy?

Ingenious experiments have shown that electric current travels two hundred and fifty thousand miles per second. But how was this determined? And can we be sure that the result is reliable?

The measurements have been made with great exactitude. To those who are not afraid of a little thinking, we will try to represent the way in which this measurement was taken; although a perfect representation of it is very difficult to give in a few words.[Pg 15]

The measurements were taken with great precision. For those who don’t mind doing a bit of thinking, we’ll attempt to explain how this measurement was obtained, even though it's quite challenging to convey it perfectly in just a few words.[Pg 15]


CHAPTER II.

HOW CAN THE VELOCITY OF THE ELECTRIC CURRENT BE ASCERTAINED.

HOW CAN THE SPEED OF THE ELECTRIC CURRENT BE DETERMINED.

In order to illustrate, how the velocity of the electric current can actually be measured, we must first introduce the following:

In order to show how the speed of electric current can actually be measured, we need to first introduce the following:

Whenever a wire is to be magnetized by an electric machine, at the moment it touches the machine, a bright spark is seen at the end of the wire. The same spark is seen also at the other end of the wire, if touching another apparatus. Let us call the first spark the "entrance-spark," the other the "exit-spark." If a wire, many miles in extent, is put up, and led back to where the beginning of the wire is, both sparks may be seen by the same observer.

Whenever a wire is magnetized by an electric machine, a bright spark appears at the end of the wire when it touches the machine. The same spark is also visible at the other end of the wire if it connects to another device. Let’s call the first spark the "entrance spark" and the other the "exit spark." If a wire that’s several miles long is set up and connected back to where it started, both sparks can be seen by the same person.

Now it is evident, that the exit-spark appears after the entrance-spark just as much later, as the time it took the electric current to run from one end of the wire to the other end. But in spite of all efforts made, to see whether the exit-spark actually appears later, the human eye has not been able to detect the difference. The cause of this is partly owing to the long duration of the impression upon the retina, which leads us to the belief, that we see objects much longer than we really do; partly, the immense rapidity with which the exit-spark follows the entrance-spark. From these two causes, we are tempted to believe both sparks to appear at the same moment.

Now it’s clear that the exit spark appears after the entrance spark, just as much later as it takes for the electric current to travel from one end of the wire to the other. But despite all the attempts to see if the exit spark actually shows up later, the human eye hasn’t been able to notice any difference. This is partly due to the long-lasting impression on the retina, which makes us think we see things for longer than we actually do; and partly because of the incredible speed at which the exit spark follows the entrance spark. Because of these two factors, we tend to believe both sparks appear at the same time.

By an ingenious and excellent means, however, this defect in our eye has been greatly diminished. It is well[Pg 16] worth the trouble to read a description of the experiment attentively. The truly remarkable way in which it was tried, will please all who read it.

By a clever and effective method, this flaw in our vision has been significantly reduced. It's definitely worth the effort to read the description of the experiment carefully. The impressive way it was conducted will delight everyone who reads it.

In order to measure the velocity of the electric current, the ends of a very long wire are placed one above the other. If, now, one makes the observation with the naked eye, both sparks will be found to stand in a vertical line, one above the other, as the points of a colon, thus (:).

In order to measure the speed of the electric current, the ends of a very long wire are positioned one above the other. If you observe this with the naked eye, both sparks will appear to be aligned vertically, one above the other, like the points of a colon, thus (:).

But he who wishes to measure the velocity of the electrical current does not look upon the sparks with the naked eye, but into a small mirror, which, by a clock-work, is made to revolve upon an upright axis with exceedingly great rapidity. Thus he can see both sparks in the mirror. If the apparatus be a good one, it will be observed that the sparks, as seen by the aid of the mirror, do not stand in a vertical line above one another, but obliquely, thus (.·).

But someone who wants to measure the speed of the electrical current doesn't just look at the sparks with their eyes; instead, they use a small mirror that spins on a vertical axis really fast thanks to a clock mechanism. This way, they can see both sparks in the mirror. If the equipment is good, it will be noticeable that the sparks, as viewed in the mirror, don't line up directly on top of each other, but are angled, like this (.·).

Whence does this come?

Where does this come from?

The reason of it is, that after the appearance of the entrance-spark it takes a short time, before the exit-spark appears. During this short time the mirror moves, though but little, and in it the exit-spark is seen as if it had moved aside from the entrance-spark.

The reason for this is that after the entrance spark appears, it takes a little while before the exit spark shows up. During this brief period, the mirror shifts slightly, and in it, the exit spark looks like it has moved away from the entrance spark.

Hence, it is through the movement of the mirror that the time, which is necessary for electricity to go through the circuit of the wire, is ascertained. A little reflection will readily convince the reader, that the time may be precisely calculated, provided three things be known, viz.: the length of the wire, the velocity of rotation of the mirror, and the angular distance of the two sparks as seen in the mirror. Thus: Suppose the wire to be 1,000 miles long; and suppose the mirror is made to revolve 100,000 times in a second. Now, if the electrical current traversed these 1,000 miles of wire during one revolution of the mirror, then it follows, that the current must move 1,000 miles in the 1/100 part of a second; or, 100,000 miles in a second.[1][Pg 17]

Therefore, it is through the movement of the mirror that the time needed for electricity to travel through the wire is determined. A bit of thought will easily show that the time can be accurately calculated if three things are known: the length of the wire, the speed at which the mirror spins, and the angular distance between the two sparks as seen in the mirror. For example, suppose the wire is 1,000 miles long and the mirror rotates 100,000 times per second. If the electrical current travels these 1,000 miles of wire during one rotation of the mirror, then it follows that the current must cover 1,000 miles in 1/100 of a second, or 100,000 miles in one second.[1][Pg 17]

It is found, however, that the mirror does not revolve an entire circle, or 360 degrees, while the current is passing over 1,000 miles of wire, but we find that the mirror turns through 144 degrees very nearly; therefore the electric current must travel more than 100,000 miles a second. How much more? Just as many times 100,000 miles, as 144 degrees are contained in 360 degrees (the entire circle), viz., two and a half times. Hence, the current travels 250,000 miles in a second.[Pg 19][Pg 18]

It’s observed, however, that the mirror doesn’t complete a full turn, or 360 degrees, while the current is flowing through over 1,000 miles of wire. Instead, we see that the mirror rotates almost 144 degrees; therefore, the electric current must be moving at over 100,000 miles per second. How much more is that? It’s as many times 100,000 miles as 144 degrees fit into 360 degrees (a full circle), which is about two and a half times. So, the current travels 250,000 miles in a second.[Pg 19][Pg 18]


PART III.

NUTRITION.[Pg 21][Pg 20]


CHAPTER I.

NOTHING BUT MILK.

ONLY MILK.

Conceive a man, gifted with the keenest intellect, but not knowing from experience, that sucklings grow and become men, and imagine what he would say, if you were to tell him this:

Conceive a man who has the sharpest mind, but doesn’t know from experience that babies grow up to be adults, and picture what he would say if you told him this:

"Know, that the little being you see here, is a suckling, that is, a developing human being, who by and by will become thicker and taller. The bones of his body will become firmer and longer. The muscles that animate these bones will likewise increase in size. The same will happen with regard to his eyes, ears, nose, mouth; to his head, body, and feet; every component part of his small body will be developed further and further, until the child will become a perfect man."

"Know that the little being you see here is a baby, a developing human who will eventually grow thicker and taller. His bones will become stronger and longer. The muscles that move these bones will also increase in size. The same will happen with his eyes, ears, nose, mouth, head, body, and feet; every part of his small body will continue to develop until the child becomes a fully grown man."

There is no doubt, that he who does not know all this from experience, will shake his head at it.

There’s no doubt that someone who hasn’t gone through this themselves will just shake their head at it.

But if you were to tell him: "This development and growth have their source in the baby's sucking at the mother's breast a white juice called milk, and out of this milk all the constituent parts of the child are manufactured within himself,"—certainly your hearer would laugh in your face, and perhaps call you a credulous fool.

But if you were to tell him, "This development and growth come from the baby sucking at the mother's breast a white liquid called milk, and from this milk all the building blocks of the child are made within them,"—your listener would definitely laugh in your face and might even call you a gullible fool.

"What!" he would exclaim, "do you mean to say that milk contains flesh? Or can you make bones out of milk, or hair? Can you make nails and teeth out of milk? Do you wish to persuade me, that milk may be changed into eyes? that from milk may be manufactured feet, hands,[Pg 22] cheeks, eyelids, and the various other parts of the human body?"

"What!" he would exclaim, "are you really saying that milk has flesh in it? Or can you turn milk into bones or hair? Can you create nails and teeth from milk? Do you really want to convince me that milk can become eyes? That we can make feet, hands, cheeks, eyelids, and all the other parts of the human body from milk?"

And if, in answer to this, you were to reply: "Yes, it is so. Within this little creature is a factory, that not only makes all you have mentioned, but much more. In this establishment, bones, hair, teeth, nails, flesh, blood, veins, nerves, skin, juices, and water are manufactured; all this is made from milk, and during the first months of the child's life from nothing but milk,"—then your hearer, though he may have the understanding of the most judicious of men, would be dumbfounded, and would beseech you to tell him more about this factory.

And if, in response to this, you were to say: "Yes, that's true. Inside this small being is a factory that not only produces everything you mentioned but much more. In this place, bones, hair, teeth, nails, flesh, blood, veins, nerves, skin, juices, and water are all created; all of this comes from milk, and for the first few months of the baby's life, it's made entirely from milk,"—then your listener, even if he has the wisdom of the most knowledgeable people, would be stunned and would beg you to explain more about this factory.

You may be certain, he would like to know, how many boilers, cylinders, valves, wires, ladles, oars, pumps, hooks, pins, spokes, and knobs there may be in this factory; more especially would he wish to know, whether the engine of this wonderful establishment be made of steel, wood, cast-iron, silver or gold, or of diamonds.

You can be sure he would want to know how many boilers, cylinders, valves, wires, ladles, oars, pumps, hooks, pins, spokes, and knobs are in this factory. He especially wants to know if the engine of this amazing facility is made of steel, wood, cast iron, silver, gold, or even diamonds.

Now, if you were to tell him, "It contains nothing of the kind. Of all the factories you have seen in your life, there is none that bears any resemblance to this one. And I will tell you furthermore, that it is not even a complete factory, but it is continually developing; it becomes larger and heavier like the child's body itself; moreover, the factory does not consist of iron or steel, nor of gold or diamonds, but it reproduces itself at every moment; it does so merely from the milk that the child drinks,"—then, to be sure, your hearer would begin to doubt his own senses; he would exclaim: "What is the intellect of the intelligent, the judgment of the judicious, what is the wisdom of the wise, when compared to a little of the mother's milk?"

Now, if you were to tell him, "It doesn’t contain anything like that. Of all the factories you’ve seen in your life, none resemble this one. And I’ll tell you more, it’s not even a complete factory; it’s constantly developing; it grows larger and heavier just like the child’s body. Plus, the factory isn’t made of iron or steel, or gold or diamonds, but it reproduces itself at every moment, simply from the milk the child drinks,"—then, surely, your listener would start to question his own senses; he would exclaim: "What is the intellect of the intelligent, the judgment of the judicious, what is the wisdom of the wise, compared to just a little bit of the mother’s milk?"

And yet, you are well aware, my friendly reader, that mother's milk is, after all, nothing but milk; and that milk, again, is nothing but a means of nutrition; and nutrition,[Pg 23] in its turn, is nothing but a part of the action of the human body.

And yet, you know, my friendly reader, that mother’s milk is just milk; and milk, again, is simply a source of nutrition; and nutrition, [Pg 23] in its turn, is just a function of the human body.

May I hope that you will favor me with your attention, while, in a few articles, I speak to you about the nutrition of the human body?[Pg 24]

May I hope that you will give me your attention while I discuss the nutrition of the human body in a few articles?[Pg 24]


CHAPTER II.

MAN THE TRANSFORMED FOOD.

MAN THE TRANSFORMED FOOD.

Before speaking of the process of nutrition in the human body, we must first obtain a correct idea of what is meant by nutrition.

Before discussing how nutrition works in the human body, we first need to have a clear understanding of what nutrition really means.

Why are we obliged to eat?

Why do we have to eat?

Of course we know that hunger forces us to do so. But every one is aware also, that above all we must ask, whence hunger arises; that we must first get better acquainted with hunger itself, in order to understand nutrition.

Of course, we know that hunger compels us to act. But everyone also realizes that we must first question where hunger comes from; that we need to understand hunger itself better in order to grasp nutrition.

To explain this, however, it is necessary to turn our attention to another thing, no less a miracle than nutrition itself, viz., what in scientific language is called "Exchange of Matter." To all of you it is a well-known fact, that nothing in the human body remains even for a moment in the same state; but that in every part of the body a continued exchange takes place. Air is breathed in and exhaled again; but the air exhaled is different from the air inhaled. By this process an exchange of matter has taken place; new matter has entered the body and waste matter has been thrown out.

To explain this, we need to focus on another phenomenon that is just as amazing as nutrition itself, which in scientific terms is called "Exchange of Matter." It's a well-known fact that nothing in the human body stays the same, even for a second; there is a constant exchange happening in every part of the body. Air is inhaled and then exhaled; however, the air that we exhale is different from the air we breathe in. Through this process, an exchange of matter occurs; new matter enters the body while waste matter is expelled.

This exchange of matter—we shall speak more about it at another opportunity—is a principal necessity for the body and its functions; it consists in the main of an incessant change, by which our body is forced to cast out matter that formed parts of it, and is therefore obliged, in order to compensate for the loss, to take in new matter. Hence there is no exaggeration in the expression, "Man is[Pg 25] continually renewing himself;" we indeed lose and receive particles of our body at every moment. People have gone so far as to calculate that it takes seven years for the renewal of the whole body of man, and that after this space, there is not even an atom left of the man as he was seven years before.

This exchange of matter—we'll discuss it more at another time—is essential for the body and its functions; it mainly involves a constant change, where our body continually expels matter that used to be part of it and therefore must take in new matter to make up for the loss. So it’s not an exaggeration to say, "Man is continually renewing himself;" we actually lose and gain particles of our body at every moment. Some people have even calculated that it takes seven years for the entire human body to renew itself, and after that time, not a single atom remains from the person they were seven years earlier.

The regular exchange of matter, as we have seen, supposes the body to be a barter-place, where people take in at the same ratio they pay out. Since, however, man often pays out involuntarily and suffers so many losses—by the mere process of breathing he ejects matter which he must replace afterwards—this exchange of matter is the cause of the body's possessing the feeling of want. The body has paid out and receives nothing in return; this feeling of want is what we call "Hunger." It forces us to absorb as much as we have paid out.

The regular exchange of matter, as we've seen, assumes that the body acts like a marketplace, where people take in the same amount they put out. However, since people often give out things without meaning to and deal with many losses—just by breathing, they lose matter that needs to be replaced—this exchange is what creates the feeling of wanting in the body. The body has given out and received nothing back; this feeling of wanting is what we call "Hunger." It compels us to take in as much as we've lost.

Nutrition, consequently, is the continual replacing of continual losses. It is the wonderful transformation of food into the materials composing the human body.

Nutrition, therefore, is the ongoing replacement of constant losses. It is the amazing process of turning food into the building blocks of the human body.

When looking at our fellow-men, however, we must not think, that they are merely beings that have eaten food; but rather that they themselves, viz., their skin, hair, bones, brain, flesh, blood, nails, and teeth, are nothing but their own food, consumed and transformed.[Pg 26]

When we look at our fellow human beings, we shouldn’t just see them as creatures who have eaten food; instead, we should understand that their skin, hair, bones, brain, flesh, blood, nails, and teeth are actually just the food they have consumed and transformed.[Pg 26]


CHAPTER III.

WHAT STRANGE FOOD WE EAT.

What weird food we eat.

Man, according to what has preceded, is nothing but transformed food.

Man, based on what has been said before, is nothing but changed food.

This idea may frighten us; it may be terrible to our hearts; but let us frankly confess, it is a true one! Man consists only of such substances as he has consumed; he is, in fact, nothing but the food he has eaten; he is food in the shape of a living being.

This idea might scare us; it might be tough for our hearts to accept; but let’s be honest, it’s true! A person is made up only of what they have consumed; they are basically just the food they've eaten; they are food in the form of a living being.

A child is said to live on his mother's milk; but what else does this mean than: "It is mother's milk, that has become alive by having been changed into head, body, hands, feet, etc., etc."

A child is said to thrive on his mother's milk; but what else does this mean than: "It's mother's milk that has come to life by being transformed into head, body, hands, feet, and so on."

Indeed, it may sound strange, yet it is quite correct: This mother's milk in the shape of a human being consumes again new mother's milk, and, by respiration, by evaporation and secretion of matter, casts out the used-up milk.

Indeed, it may sound strange, yet it is quite accurate: this mother's milk in the form of a human being consumes more new mother's milk, and, through breathing, evaporation, and the secretion of matter, expels the used-up milk.

This being so, it will now appear evident to every one, that by a profound chemical knowledge of our daily food, we may readily learn to know the chemical components of man, and vice versâ; knowing the substances of which man is made, it is easy for us to determine, what kind of food he must take, in order to continually renew his body.

This being so, it will now be clear to everyone that with a deep understanding of the chemistry behind our daily food, we can easily learn about the chemical components that make up humans, and vice versâ; by knowing the substances that make up the human body, it becomes straightforward to figure out what types of food one needs to consume to constantly refresh one's body.

Since the mother's milk is the simplest and most natural food for the child, let us consider it according to its importance. We shall then have a stepping-stone towards the knowledge of the food of adults and its effects. The mother's milk contains all the elements, with which the[Pg 27] human body can renew itself; should there be but one of those elements wanting in it, the child would inevitably perish.

Since breast milk is the easiest and most natural food for a baby, let's look at its significance. This will lead us to understand adult nutrition and its impacts. Breast milk contains all the nutrients that the[Pg 27] human body needs to regenerate; if even one of those nutrients were missing, the baby would certainly not survive.

If, for example, milk did not contain calcareous earth, the consequence would be, that the bones of the child would, soon after its birth, neither grow nor increase in number, but they would fast diminish, and the child would die in consequence of this. The attempt was once made to feed animals on articles without calcareous parts, when, strange to behold, they all grew fat, but very weak in their bones, and finally broke down.

If, for example, milk didn’t have calcium, the result would be that the bones of the baby wouldn’t grow or increase in number shortly after birth; instead, they would start to shrink, and the baby would end up dying as a result. There was once an attempt to feed animals with food that had no calcium, and surprisingly, they all became fat but very weak in their bones, and eventually collapsed.

If milk contained no phosphorus, not only would the bones and teeth suffer from the want of it, but even the completion of the child's brain could not properly take place, and the child could not replace the quantity of brain which it emits and loses every moment by breathing.

If milk didn't have any phosphorus, not only would bones and teeth be affected, but the child's brain wouldn't develop properly, and the child wouldn't be able to replace the brain matter that is lost constantly through breathing.

If there were no iron in the mother's milk, the child would die from the green-sickness, a malady which, by the way, is dangerous also for grown people, and which is cured by medicines containing plenty of iron.

If there were no iron in the mother's milk, the child would die from green-sickness, a disease that, by the way, is also dangerous for adults, and it can be treated with medications that have a lot of iron.

If there were no sulphur in it, the child's bile could not develop; the bile, as every one knows, has an important function in the human body.

If there was no sulfur in it, the child's bile couldn't develop; bile, as everyone knows, plays an important role in the human body.

These are but accessory elements of the mother's milk, elements which usually are not looked upon as articles of food; for who is aware that he must eat, and actually does eat daily, phosphorus, iron, calcareous earth, and sulphur? And not only these; there are a great many other articles, such as magnesia, chlorine, and fluor, that we eat without being aware of it; moreover, our proper food consists also of three gases: nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen; and of a solid substance called "carbon," which is no less and no more than pure coal.

These are just additional components of the mother's milk, elements that are typically not considered food; after all, who realizes that they need to consume, and actually does consume daily, phosphorus, iron, calcium, and sulfur? And it doesn't stop there; there are many other substances, like magnesium, chlorine, and fluorine, that we ingest without even knowing it. Additionally, our proper diet also includes three gases: nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen; along with a solid substance known as "carbon," which is simply pure coal.

All these, my friendly readers, are contained in milk—all these are the elements which in truth constitute the[Pg 28] human body. Perhaps some persons believe that there is nothing easier than to procure proper food. It would only be necessary to take a certain quantity of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen; a little bit of potassium, natron, calcium, and magnesia; to mix a small piece of iron, sulphur, phosphorus, chlorine, and fluor, and take this mixture by the spoon at regular intervals, in order to give the body the necessary aliments. This, however, would be a mistake, for which the perpetrator would pay with his life.

All of this, my dear readers, is found in milk—these are the elements that truly make up the[Pg 28] human body. Some people might think that it’s easy to get the right food. They might believe that all you need to do is gather a certain amount of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen; add a little potassium, sodium, calcium, and magnesium; mix in a small amount of iron, sulfur, phosphorus, chlorine, and fluor; and take this mixture by the spoonful at regular intervals to provide the body with the necessary nutrients. However, this would be a mistake, and the person who tries it would pay for it with their life.

Although it is true that these substances form the proper and most important constituents of our daily food; yet, in order to enjoy the desired result, we must not partake of them in their primary forms; they can actually feed our body only when they are combined together in a peculiar, wondrous manner.

Although it’s true that these substances are the main and most important parts of our daily food, we can’t just consume them in their basic forms to get the desired effect; they can only nourish our bodies when they are mixed together in a unique and amazing way.

In the next chapter it may be seen how nature first must combine these substances before they are presented to us as proper food; and it will also be seen, that we receive them sometimes in altogether different forms and combinations; for example, in the mother's milk, when we eat the above-named elements in the forms of caseine (cheese), butyrine (butter), sugar of milk, salt, and water.

In the next chapter, we will see how nature first combines these substances before they are presented to us as actual food; and we will also see that we sometimes receive them in completely different forms and combinations. For example, in breast milk, we consume the aforementioned elements in the forms of casein (cheese), butyrin (butter), lactose (milk sugar), salt, and water.

These latter names have a more savory sound, have they not?[Pg 29]

These latter names sound more appealing, don't they?[Pg 29]


CHAPTER IV.

HOW NATURE PREPARES OUR FOOD.

HOW NATURE GROWS OUR FOOD.

In the preceding article it was stated, that the food of the child which lives on mother's milk, consists in its primary elements of peculiar substances. These are principally oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen; three gases to which may be added a large quantity of carbon, or, what is the same, coal. Besides this wondrous mixture of air and coal, the mother's milk contains still other elements, but in a smaller proportion. In every-day life many of them are unfamiliar; for example, natron, calcium, magnesia, chlorine, and fluor; the others, however, are known to every one; viz., iron, sulphur, and phosphorus. All these strange ingredients nature has carefully transformed into milk. For in their primary state, and even in various chemical combinations that may be produced artificially, they would be little adapted for the purpose. It is therefore essentially necessary that nature herself should make them ready for us. This she does by letting them pass first into the vegetable state, and changing them afterwards into new forms.

In the previous article, it was mentioned that a child who relies on mother's milk gets its essential nutrients from unique substances. These mainly include oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen—three gases, along with a significant amount of carbon, or coal. In addition to this remarkable mix of air and coal, mother’s milk also contains other elements but in smaller amounts. Many of these are not commonly known in everyday life, such as sodium, calcium, magnesium, chlorine, and fluorine; however, others like iron, sulfur, and phosphorus are familiar to everyone. All these unusual ingredients have been carefully transformed by nature into milk. In their raw form, or even in various chemical combinations that can be made artificially, they wouldn't be very suitable for this purpose. Therefore, it’s crucial that nature prepares them for us. She does this by first allowing them to enter the plant kingdom and then transforming them into new forms.

The plant feeds on primary chemical elements; or, to state it more correctly, the plant is nothing but transformed primary elements! Not before the transformation of these elements into plants are the elements adapted for food for animals and men.

The plant relies on basic chemical elements; or, to put it another way, the plant is simply transformed primary elements! It's only after these elements are transformed into plants that they become suitable for food for animals and humans.

Moreover, all that man eats must first have been in the vegetable state. Now, it is true that man also eats the flesh, fat, and eggs of animals; but whence have the animals[Pg 30] meat and eggs? Only from the plants they consume.

Moreover, everything a person eats must first come from plants. It's true that people also eat the flesh, fat, and eggs of animals; however, where do those animals[Pg 30] get their meat and eggs? Only from the plants they eat.

There is a remarkable succession of transformations in nature. The primary elements nourish the plant; the plant nourishes the animal; and both, plant and animal, form the nourishment of man.

There is an amazing series of changes in nature. The basic elements feed the plant; the plant feeds the animal; and both, the plant and the animal, provide nourishment for humans.

Even the mother's milk, the simplest and most natural food of the child, owes its existence only to the fact that the mother has eaten vegetable and animal matter. This food, prepared for the mother by nature, has been changed into the body of the same; and partly, also, it has become the milk destined to nourish the child.

Even a mother's milk, the most basic and natural food for a baby, exists solely because the mother has consumed plant and animal substances. This food, provided for the mother by nature, has been transformed into her body; and, in part, it has become the milk intended to nourish the child.

Hence it is evident that mother's milk consists of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and a small portion of other chemical primary elements. But these substances when appearing in the shape of milk, are combined in such a manner as to form ready-made food; as such they constitute, as stated above, caseine, butyrine, sugar of milk, salt, and water.

Hence, it's clear that mother's milk is made up of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and a small amount of other essential chemical elements. However, when these substances are in the form of milk, they are combined in a way that creates ready-made food; as mentioned above, they make up casein, butterfat, milk sugar, salt, and water.

The next questions are: "What do these elements of food perform when in the child's body? What becomes of these substances after they have been eaten by the child? How are they changed during the time of their stay in the body? And in what condition do they leave the child's body, and how do they force him to desire food again?"

The next questions are: "What do these elements of food do in the child's body? What happens to these substances after the child has eaten them? How are they altered while they're in the body? And in what condition do they leave the child's body, and how do they make him want food again?"

These questions properly belong to the chapter on "Nutrition," where they will be answered in their turn. Afterwards, we must be permitted to turn our attention to a further question, viz., "What articles of food are the most advantageous to man from the time he is weaned or the time, he takes from among vegetable and animal matter the same substances for food, that are contained in the mother's milk?"

These questions should be addressed in the chapter on "Nutrition," where they will be answered in due course. After that, we need to shift our focus to another question: "What foods are the most beneficial for humans from the time they are weaned or when they start consuming the same nutrients found in mother's milk from plant and animal sources?"

In order to arrive at the answers to all these questions, we were obliged to first prepare the ground a little. This[Pg 31] was a gain on our part, for now we shall attain the end in a shorter time than would have been possible otherwise. We trust that we may give our reader a correct idea of the subject, if he will but come to our aid with his most earnest attention and reflection; these are needed here the more, as we have to treat a difficult subject in a very short space.[Pg 32]

To answer all these questions, we first needed to lay some groundwork. This[Pg 31] was a benefit for us because it means we can reach our goal faster than we could have otherwise. We hope to give our reader a clear understanding of the topic, as long as he provides his full attention and consideration; both are essential here since we have to cover a complex issue in a limited amount of space.[Pg 32]


CHAPTER V.

WHAT BECOMES OF THE MOTHER'S MILK AFTER IT HAS ENTERED THE BODY OF THE CHILD?

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MOTHER'S MILK AFTER IT ENTERS THE CHILD'S BODY?

When the child has freed itself from the body of its mother, it consists of blood, flesh, and bones, which heretofore were formed and nourished by the blood of the mother.

When the child has separated from its mother, it is made up of blood, flesh, and bones, which until now were formed and sustained by the mother's blood.

As soon, however, as the child is born, it ceases to be nourished in this manner. It ceases, also, to secrete through its mother, substances which are useless to it. The child now begins to breathe for itself, and by its breath secretes carbon in the form of carbonic acid. Its skin begins to perspire, and secretes chiefly hydrogen and oxygen in the shape of water or vapor; by the urine, finally, it secretes nitrogen. These substances—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen—before their secretion, constituted vital parts of the child's body; now, however, they are wasted, and for this reason must be thrown off.

As soon as the baby is born, it stops being nourished in this way. It also stops secreting substances through its mother that aren't useful to it. The baby starts to breathe on its own, and with its breath, it releases carbon as carbon dioxide. Its skin begins to sweat, primarily releasing hydrogen and oxygen as water or vapor; finally, through urine, it releases nitrogen. These substances—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen—were vital components of the baby's body before being released; now, however, they are considered waste and need to be expelled.

It is evident that the child wants compensation for this loss. This is given by the mother's milk; for it contains chiefly these same substances.

It’s clear that the child wants something in return for this loss. This is provided by the mother's milk, as it mainly contains these same substances.

But how is this effected?

But how is this done?

The milk passes from the child's mouth through the gullet into the stomach. While yet in the mouth, the milk is mixed with a certain liquid called saliva. This saliva possesses the quality of preparing the milk for the necessary change which will take place, when it reaches the child's stomach. The principal work, however, is carried on in the stomach itself. Its sides secrete a liquid called "gastric[Pg 33] juice," whose business it is, to transform into a pulp milk, and also solid food, provided the latter be well masticated and moistened.

The milk goes from the child's mouth down the throat into the stomach. While still in the mouth, the milk mixes with a liquid called saliva. This saliva helps prepare the milk for the changes that will occur when it reaches the child's stomach. The main work, however, happens in the stomach itself. Its walls produce a liquid called "gastric[Pg 33] juice," which transforms the milk and also solid food into a pulp, as long as the solid food is chewed well and moistened.

Science has taught us to prepare gastric juice artificially. The process of digestion, that is, the transformation of solid food—the crust of bread, meat, etc.—into a pulp, may nowadays be observed in a glass filled with warm, artificial, gastric juice.

Science has shown us how to create artificial gastric juice. The process of digestion, which is the conversion of solid food—like bread, meat, and so on—into a pulp, can now be observed in a glass filled with warm, artificial gastric juice.

After the digestion is completed, the lower opening of the stomach, which leads into the duodenum, and which, during the process of digestion, was closed by a muscle, opens itself. The pulp, now called "chyme," flows into the continuation of the stomach—the "alimentary canal" or "duodenum." This is but a long bag with many folds and windings.

After digestion is finished, the lower part of the stomach, which connects to the duodenum and was closed off by a muscle during digestion, opens up. The mixture, now referred to as "chyme," moves into the next part of the stomach—the "alimentary canal" or "duodenum." This is just a long tube with many twists and turns.

The chyme is here mixed again with a liquid called "intestinal juice;" it has the quality of continuing digestion until the chyme separates into two parts; one of them, a milky fluid called "chyle," contains the substance which feeds the body. The other is the solid parts not adapted to nutrition; they are thrown out by the lower opening of the "rectum."

The chyme is now mixed again with a liquid known as "intestinal juice;" it continues the digestion process until the chyme divides into two parts. One part, a milky fluid called "chyle," contains the nutrients that nourish the body. The other part consists of solid material that isn’t suitable for nutrition; it is expelled through the lower opening of the "rectum."

But how is this nutritive part, the chyle, conveyed into the various parts of the body?

But how is this nutritious part, the chyle, transported to the different parts of the body?

The intestinal canal is filled with extremely small vessels called "lacteal absorbents." These vessels absorb the chyle. This absorption, on account of the great length of the intestinal canal—in adults it is nearly thirty feet long—is, in a healthy body, accomplished very thoroughly. The real nutriment for the body is now contained in the lacteal absorbents, an infinite number of small tubes.

The intestinal canal is filled with tiny vessels called "lacteal absorbents." These vessels take in the chyle. Due to the significant length of the intestinal canal—in adults, it's almost thirty feet long—this absorption is, in a healthy body, done very thoroughly. The actual nutrients for the body are now found in the lacteal absorbents, which are an endless number of small tubes.

All these small vessels, however, converge towards the lower part of the spinal column, and uniting, form a vessel which ascends into the chest; here it empties into a large blood-vessel, the blood of which is on its way to the heart.[Pg 34] Thrown out of the heart in another direction, the blood is pushed through the whole body.

All these small vessels, however, come together at the lower part of the spinal column and merge to form a vessel that rises into the chest; here it drains into a large blood vessel that carries blood toward the heart.[Pg 34] Once it leaves the heart in another direction, the blood is pumped throughout the entire body.

Thus the food, after having been transformed into a juice very similar to the blood, joins the blood after a circuitous journey, and is finally mixed with, or, more properly, changed into, blood.[Pg 35]

Thus, the food, after being transformed into a liquid very similar to blood, joins the blood after a winding journey and is ultimately mixed with, or more accurately, changed into, blood.[Pg 35]


CHAPTER VI.

HOW THE BLOOD BECOMES THE VITAL PART OF THE BODY.

HOW THE BLOOD BECOMES THE VITAL PART OF THE BODY.

One would be well justified in calling the blood "man's body in a liquid state." For the blood is destined to become the living solid body of man.

One could definitely say that blood is "the body's liquid form." Blood is meant to become the living solid body of a person.

People were astonished, when Liebig, the great naturalist, called blood the "liquid flesh;" we are correct even in going further and calling the blood "man's body in a liquid state." From blood are prepared not only muscles and flesh, but also bones, brain, fat, teeth, eyes, veins, cartilages, nerves, tendons, and even hair.

People were amazed when Liebig, the great naturalist, referred to blood as "liquid flesh;" we are also right to go even further and call blood "the body's liquid form." From blood, not only muscles and flesh are created, but also bones, brain, fat, teeth, eyes, veins, cartilage, nerves, tendons, and even hair.

It is utterly wrong for anybody to suppose, that the constituents of all these parts are dissolved in the blood, say as sugar is dissolved in water. By no means. Water is something quite different from the sugar dissolved in it; while the blood is itself the material from which all the solid parts of the body are formed.

It is completely incorrect for anyone to think that the components of all these parts are dissolved in the blood, like sugar is dissolved in water. Not at all. Water is totally different from the sugar that is dissolved in it; meanwhile, blood is the very material from which all the solid parts of the body are made.

The blood is received into the heart, and the heart, like a pump, forces it into the lungs. There it absorbs in a remarkable manner the oxygen of the air which comes into the lungs by breathing. This blood, saturated now with oxygen, is then recalled to another part of the heart by an expansive movement of that organ.

The blood enters the heart, and the heart, like a pump, pushes it into the lungs. There, it absorbs oxygen from the air we breathe in. This blood, now rich in oxygen, is then drawn back into another part of the heart through the organ's expansive movement.

This part of the heart contracts again and impels the oxygenated blood into the whole body by means of arteries, which branch out more and more, and become smaller and smaller, until at last they are no longer visible to the naked eye. In this manner the blood penetrates all parts[Pg 36] of the body, and returns to the heart by means of similar thread-like veins, which gradually join and form larger veins. Having reached the heart, it is again forced into the lungs, and absorbs there more oxygen, returns to the heart, and is again circulated through the whole system.

This part of the heart contracts again and pushes oxygen-rich blood throughout the entire body via arteries, which keep branching out and getting smaller until they become invisible to the naked eye. In this way, the blood reaches all parts[Pg 36] of the body and returns to the heart through similar thin veins, which gradually come together to form larger veins. Once it reaches the heart, it's pumped back into the lungs to take in more oxygen, then returns to the heart and is circulated through the whole system again.

During this double circulation of the blood from the heart to the lungs and back, and then from the heart to all parts of the body and back again—during all this, the change of particles, so remarkable in itself, is constantly going on: the exchange by which the useless and wasted matter are secreted and new substances distributed. This fact is wonderful, and its cause not yet fully explained by science; but so much is certain, that the blood when being conveyed to all parts of the human body, deposits whatever at the time may be needed there for the renewal of that part.

During the process of blood circulating from the heart to the lungs and back, and then from the heart to every part of the body and back again—during this whole time, there is a remarkable change happening at the particle level: the exchange that removes waste and distributes new substances. This fact is amazing, and science hasn't fully explained its cause yet; however, one thing is certain: when blood is delivered to all parts of the human body, it deposits what is needed for the renewal of that area.

Thus the blood that has been formed in the child from the mother's milk, contains phosphorus, oxygen, and calcium. These substances, during the circulation of the blood, are deposited in the bones, and form "phosphate of lime," the principal element in the bone. In the same manner fluor and calcium are given to the teeth. The muscles, or flesh, also receive their ingredients from the blood; so do the nerves, veins, membranes, brain, and nails; also the inner organs, such as the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, intestines, and stomach.

Thus, the blood formed in the child from the mother's milk contains phosphorus, oxygen, and calcium. These substances are deposited in the bones during blood circulation, creating "calcium phosphate," the main component of bone. Similarly, fluoride and calcium are supplied to the teeth. The muscles, or flesh, also get their nutrients from the blood, as do the nerves, veins, membranes, brain, and nails; along with the internal organs, such as the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, intestines, and stomach.

They all, however, in return give to the blood their waste particles, which it carries to that part of the human body where they may be secreted.

They all, however, give their waste particles to the blood, which carries them to the part of the human body where they can be removed.

If any member of the body is so bound, that the blood cannot circulate, it must decay; for the life of the body consists in its constant change and transformation, in the continual exchange of fresh substances for waste ones. But this vital exchange is only kept up by the constant circulation of the blood, which, while it decreases by being[Pg 37] transformed into vital parts of the body, is always formed anew by our daily food.

If any part of the body is so restricted that blood can't circulate, it will start to decay; because the life of the body depends on its constant change and transformation, on the ongoing exchange of fresh materials for waste ones. But this vital exchange is only maintained by the continuous circulation of blood, which, while it diminishes as it turns into essential parts of the body, is always replenished by the food we eat daily.

Food is therefore very justly called "Means of Existence," and the blood may rightly be called the "Juice of Life."[Pg 38]

Food is rightly called the "Means of Existence," and blood can accurately be referred to as the "Juice of Life."[Pg 38]


CHAPTER VII.

CIRCULATION OF MATTER.

CIRCULATION OF MATTER.

Thus we have seen that the human body is vital blood, transformed and solidified. Now, blood is food transformed; food consists of primary elements prepared and changed by nature; hence, man himself is primary matter transformed and vivified.

Thus we have seen that the human body is essential blood, transformed and solidified. Now, blood is food that has been transformed; food is made up of basic elements that are prepared and changed by nature; therefore, man himself is basic matter that has been transformed and energized.

But the human race being thousands and thousands of years old, and there being upon the earth besides man the whole of the animal kingdom, developing, preserving, and nourishing itself bodily like man; the question arises: Whence do they all come, these primary elements that are obliged forever to undergo transformation before they can become animated vital matter? Do these primary elements not incessantly decrease during the long process of their being changed into plants and consumed by man and animal, in order to form human and animal bodies afterwards?

But humanity has been around for thousands of years, and alongside us are all the animals, growing, maintaining, and nourishing themselves just like we do. So, the question comes up: Where do all these primary elements come from that must constantly change before they can become living matter? Don’t these primary elements continuously lessen over the long process of becoming plants and being consumed by humans and animals to later form human and animal bodies?

The answer to this interesting question has been given already. The human body is not framed or created anew at every moment by food; but it is at every moment, that small particles of the human body die. These particles are returned to mother earth from which they sprang, thus going back to the primary elements.

The answer to this interesting question has already been provided. The human body is not rebuilt or created anew at each moment by food; instead, at every moment, small particles of the human body die. These particles return to mother earth, where they came from, thus going back to the basic elements.

It is not only those who are dead, that render to the earth what belongs to her, that return to nature what she gave them; but in a far greater degree it is the living, that pay their debt to nature.

It’s not just the dead who give back to the earth what belongs to her, returning to nature what she provided them; it’s the living who, to a much greater extent, repay their debt to nature.

Man's body is not his own; nature has lent it to him but for[Pg 39] a short term of service; then nature wrests her loan back from him. Thus must man, spite all his pride, accept her never-ceasing offer; daily he must borrow and daily he must repay in part, until the moment comes when he borrows for the last time, the moment he expires; and dying he leaves it to those around his bedside, to pay his last debt to earth.

Man's body isn't truly his own; nature has loaned it to him for[Pg 39] a brief period of time; then nature takes back what she gave him. So, despite all his pride, man has to accept her constant offer; each day he borrows and each day he repays a little bit, until the moment arrives when he borrows for the last time, the moment he dies; and as he dies, he leaves it to those around him to settle his final debt to the earth.

Is it not wonderful? His own blood is the messenger that daily carries new loans to him, and, in the shape of transformed food, of transformed elements of nature, equips his body. But his own blood is at the same time also his cashier, who, having rendered him service, takes the loan away, by secreting from the body elements that are thus returned to nature.

Isn't it amazing? His own blood is the messenger that brings him new supplies every day, and, in the form of processed food and transformed elements of nature, nourishes his body. But his own blood also acts as his cashier, who, after providing him this service, takes back the resources by secreting elements from the body that are then returned to nature.

With every revolution of the blood the body is supplied with transformed food, which is immediately changed into vital parts of the body; with every return of the blood waste matter is carried off and deposited, where it may be thrown out.

With each circulation of the blood, the body receives processed nutrients, which are quickly converted into essential parts of the body; with each return of the blood, waste materials are removed and stored, ready to be eliminated.

The blood carries waste matter to the kidneys that they may send out of the body, in the shape of urine, waste nitrogen, mixed with a part of the phosphate of lime, that served to form bones and teeth, but is now useless. The blood, besides, secretes perspiration through the skin. This is a liquid containing water, hence oxygen and hydrogen; but is moreover mixed with various other waste substances of the body, as for example, carbonic acid, nitrogen and fat. Chiefly, however, the blood is employed in carrying waste carbon to the lungs, so that they may, by the process of respiration, exhale carbonic acid, a gas which would prove of deadly effect if remaining in the lungs too long, or if inhaled.

The blood transports waste to the kidneys so they can eliminate it from the body as urine, which contains waste nitrogen mixed with some phosphate of lime that originally helped form bones and teeth but is now useless. Additionally, the blood also secretes sweat through the skin. This liquid is made up of water, which contains oxygen and hydrogen, but also includes various other waste substances from the body, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and fat. However, the primary role of the blood is to carry waste carbon to the lungs, enabling them to exhale carbon dioxide during respiration, a gas that would be lethal if it remained in the lungs for too long or was inhaled.

The quantity of man's secretion per day is by no means small. It amounts to the fourteenth part of his own weight: nay, more—the weight of his perspiration alone,[Pg 40] secreted partly by evaporation in the shape of gas, partly as a liquid in drops, amounts during twenty-four hours to nearly two pounds.

The amount of fluid a person secretes each day is quite significant. It equals one fourteenth of their body weight; in fact, the weight of their sweat alone,[Pg 40] released partly as vapor and partly as liquid droplets, totals almost two pounds over a twenty-four hour period.

Secreted substances have lost all the qualities of transformed and vital matter. They return to the primary elements and serve as food principally to plants, which before had offered those very same substances as food to man.

Secreted substances have lost all the qualities of transformed and vital matter. They return to the primary elements and mainly serve as food for plants, which before had provided those same substances as food for humans.

It is in this manner that the great circulation of matter in nature takes place. From the lifeless primary elements to the plant; from the plant, in the shape of food, to animal and man; from these, as waste substances, back again to the primary elements, there to begin anew a circulation, by means of which inanimate elements are reanimated, and vital elements made lifeless again; that is, life changed again into death.

It’s through this process that the vast circulation of matter in nature happens. From the lifeless basic elements to plants; from plants, in the form of food, to animals and humans; and from these, as waste products, back to the basic elements, starting the cycle over again. This cycle reanimates inanimate elements and makes living elements lifeless again; in other words, it transforms life back into death.

And it is in this circulation that our "Nutrition," or, more precisely, the "Change of Matter in Man," consists, an important link in the life-preserving chain of nature.[Pg 41]

And it's in this cycle that our "Nutrition," or more specifically, the "Change of Matter in Humans," takes place, an essential part of nature's life-sustaining chain.[Pg 41]


CHAPTER VIII.

FOOD.

Food.

From what has been said, it must appear evident that only such dishes make good food as contain the same constituents as the blood.

From what has been said, it must seem clear that only those dishes that contain the same components as the blood make good food.

To have these constituents, food must contain salt, fat, and sugar; all these ingredients must, of course, be in a certain proportion.

To have these components, food must include salt, fat, and sugar; all these ingredients need to be in the right proportions, of course.

That water is essential for the support and renewal of the body is clear to every one. The flesh we eat, contains nearly eighty per cent. of water, and yet a man must die, if he were to eat nothing but meat and to have no water, for the reason that the eighty per cent. of water he takes in would by no means be sufficient to form all the liquids necessary for the human body.

That water is crucial for keeping the body functioning and rejuvenating is obvious to everyone. The meat we eat contains almost eighty percent water, yet a person would die if they only ate meat and had no water, because the eighty percent of water they get wouldn’t be enough to create all the fluids the human body needs.

The albumen that we eat, forms in the blood chiefly the substances composing the muscular part of the flesh. But it is an error to suppose, that therefore it is absolutely necessary to eat eggs—the white of an egg is nearly pure albumen—because the caseine (cheese) contains precisely the same ingredients as the albumen; for we have seen before, and our readers are doubtless aware of it, that the mother's milk contains caseine, while it is entirely free of albumen. Hence, he who eats plenty of caseine, as do shepherds in Switzerland, for example, scarcely needs any meat. But besides caseine there is another element, viz., the vegetable albumen called gluten, which contains albuminous matter; so do all glutinous plants. Peas,[Pg 42] beans, and lentils in particular form food productive of flesh.

The albumen we consume mainly contributes to the substances that make up muscle tissue in the body. However, it's a misconception to think that eating eggs is absolutely essential—egg white is almost pure albumen—since casein (found in cheese) has the same components as albumen. As we've discussed before, and our readers likely know, a mother's milk contains casein but no albumen. Therefore, someone who eats a lot of casein, like shepherds do in Switzerland, doesn't really need much meat. In addition to casein, there's also plant-based albumen known as gluten, which contains protein; this is true for all gluten-containing plants. Peas,[Pg 42] beans, and lentils, in particular, provide food that helps build muscle.

The salts that must be given to the blood, do not only consist in the common kitchen-salt. By the expression "Salts" are meant various combinations of substances which are usually not considered articles of food, for example, the combinations of phosphorus, iron, etc., but are not visible to the eye. They help to form bones, teeth, nails, cartilages, and hair.

The salts needed for the blood aren't just regular table salt. The term "salts" refers to various combinations of substances that are typically not seen as food, like combinations of phosphorus, iron, and others that are not visible to the naked eye. They are essential for forming bones, teeth, nails, cartilage, and hair.

The fat which we take, appears to many people to be a very important part of our food, and they believe that by eating much fat, one may become fat. But this is not correct. Ferocious animals that live only on meat and fat, do not get fat; while herbivorous animals fatten excessively, if provided with good mast, consisting of course but of plants. Yet fat is, for all this, by no means superfluous to our body. Man needs it, because it is the fat which chiefly supports his respiration. But the fat that is needed for the body, is formed by man himself; so that but little of it need be eaten, and that little only for the purpose of helping to form new fat from sugar.

The fat we consume seems to many people to be a crucial part of our diet, and they believe that eating a lot of fat will make you gain weight. But that's not true. Predatory animals that only eat meat and fat don’t become overweight; meanwhile, herbivorous animals can gain a lot of weight if they have access to good plant-based food. Still, fat is far from unnecessary for our bodies. Humans need it because it primarily supports our breathing. However, the fat our bodies actually need is produced by our own bodies, so we only need to eat a small amount, and that small amount is just to help convert sugar into new fat.

It is therefore best to consider fat and sugar as food belonging together; for the fat is formed in the body from sugar, and the small quantity of fat which we take daily is only to promote the transformation of sugar into fat.

It’s best to think of fat and sugar as foods that go together; because fat is created in the body from sugar, and the small amount of fat we consume each day is just to help convert sugar into fat.

But let no one believe that one must needs actually eat sugar; no, every food that contains starch supplies the place of sugar very well, as starch is changed, when in the body, first to sugar and then to fat. The potato contains starch and serves its purpose well; it is necessary, however, to put butter with it in order that the starch and sugar formed from the potato in the stomach, may be easily converted into fat.

But don't believe that you actually have to eat sugar; no, every food that has starch can effectively replace sugar, since starch is converted into sugar and then fat in the body. Potatoes have starch and do the job well; however, it's important to add butter so that the starch and sugar created from the potato in the stomach can be easily turned into fat.

An excellent article of food is bread, for it contains nearly all the elements of nutrition. It contains vegetable[Pg 43] albumen, and therefore is converted into flesh. It has nearly all the salts that are essential to the body; moreover, it contains starch from which fat is produced. Therefore, by the mere addition of a little butter in order to make the formation of fat easier, and by drinking water besides, the human body is able to exist. On the other hand, the potato, if taken alone, is an insufficient means of nutrition. Neither would meat or albumen, if taken alone, be able to preserve life.

An excellent food item is bread, as it includes almost all the nutrients we need. It has plant-based protein, which can be turned into muscle. It also contains almost all the minerals that are essential for the body, plus it has starch, which the body can use to create fat. So, by simply adding a bit of butter to help produce fat and drinking water as well, a person can survive. On the other hand, potatoes alone don't provide enough nutrition. Similarly, neither meat nor protein alone can sustain life.

Various experiments have been tried with animals, and a great deal of information about the best means of feeding the body has been collected. In order to investigate the effect of the nutritive qualities of food, inquiries have been made especially at military establishments, such as barracks, etc.[Pg 44]

Various experiments have been conducted with animals, and a lot of information about the best ways to nourish the body has been gathered. To explore the impact of food's nutritional qualities, studies have been particularly focused on military facilities, like barracks, etc.[Pg 44]


CHAPTER IX.

ABOUT NOURISHMENT.

ABOUT NUTRITION.

In obedience to the demands of modern science, numerous experiments about nutrition have been made, in regard to digestion as well as to the effects of hunger and of various elements of food.

In response to the requirements of modern science, many experiments have been conducted on nutrition, focusing on digestion, the effects of hunger, and the various components of food.

As to digestion, the most excellent observations were made on men afflicted with a fistula in the abdomen, that is, a wound penetrating to the stomach. By means of this wound, it was ascertained very minutely how long it took to digest food, and what kind of transformation it underwent. From this and other experiments it appeared, that the time for digestion, though varying greatly with the various articles of food, lasts from one and one-half to five and one-half hours. Those most quickly digested are: soft sweet apples, beaten eggs, and cooked brain. To digest boiled milk, raw eggs, soft sour apples, roasted beef, liver, two hours were required. Cooked spinal marrow, raw cabbage, fresh milk, roasted beef, oysters, soft-boiled eggs, and raw ham, took nearly three hours. Wheat bread, old cheese, potatoes were digested in nearly three and one-half hours; pork, boiled cabbage, lamb's fat, not before five hours.

As for digestion, the most insightful observations were made on individuals with an abdominal fistula, which is a wound that goes into the stomach. This wound allowed for precise measurement of how long it took to digest food and what transformations occurred. From this and other experiments, it was found that digestion time can vary significantly based on the type of food, lasting anywhere from one and a half to five and a half hours. The foods that were digested the fastest included soft sweet apples, beaten eggs, and cooked brain. It took about two hours to digest boiled milk, raw eggs, soft sour apples, and roasted beef. Cooked spinal marrow, raw cabbage, fresh milk, roasted beef, oysters, and soft-boiled eggs took nearly three hours. Wheat bread, old cheese, and potatoes were digested in about three and a half hours, while pork, boiled cabbage, and lamb's fat took five hours or more.

The experiments about the effects produced by hunger were tried only on animals. The results were that during the state of starvation three-fourths of the blood disappeared; the fat was almost entirely consumed; the flesh disappeared one-half; even the skin diminished one-third, and the bones lost about one-sixth of their weight. The least[Pg 45] decrease was found to be in the nerves, a striking proof that nerves possess a great power of self-preservation, provided there be but a minimum of matter to feed them. From numerous experiments the conclusion was drawn, that an adult weighing about one hundred and thirty pounds must die if he were to lose, say fifty pounds, by starvation.

The experiments on the effects of hunger were conducted only on animals. The results showed that during starvation, three-fourths of the blood disappeared; the fat was almost completely used up; the flesh reduced by about half; even the skin shrank by one-third, and the bones lost around one-sixth of their weight. The smallest decrease was found in the nerves, which is a clear indication that nerves have a strong ability to survive, as long as there is just a minimal amount of matter to sustain them. From numerous experiments, it was concluded that an adult weighing about one hundred and thirty pounds would likely die if he were to lose, say, fifty pounds due to starvation.

With regard to the effects of the various articles of food, experiments applied to dogs have shown that they can live on bones for a long time; but that they die if fed on sugar only, and when examined after death, no trace of any fat is to be found.

With regard to the effects of different types of food, experiments conducted on dogs have shown that they can survive on bones for a long time; however, they die if they eat only sugar, and when examined after death, no trace of fat is found.

Animals fed on substances that contained no phosphorus and lime became fat; but they died for want of the proper nourishment for their bones. Animals died also when nourished only with pure albumen or pure caseine. The most remarkable fact in this connection is, that they perished in the same length of time in which they would have died, if they had taken no food whatever.

Animals that were fed substances without phosphorus and lime gained weight, but they died from lack of proper nutrients for their bones. Animals also died when only given pure albumen or pure casein. What's striking here is that they died in the same amount of time they would have if they had consumed no food at all.

Experiments tried on man have shown that it is injurious to eat uniform food. A constant change in our food is extremely nourishing and healthy. This is an experience made in prisons and barracks; changes of food are made there every day during the week, so that each day they have a different dinner. Once, a physician in England wished to try the effects of uniform food on himself. He took nothing but bread and water for forty-five days; in consequence of this he decreased eight pounds. Then he ate for four weeks but bread and sugar, then bread and oil three weeks; but finally he succumbed under his experiments, and died, after having experimented thus for eight months.

Experiments conducted on humans have shown that eating the same food is harmful. Regularly changing our diet is very nourishing and beneficial for health. This has been observed in prisons and military barracks, where meals vary daily throughout the week, providing a different dinner each day. Once, a doctor in England wanted to test the effects of eating only the same food on himself. He survived on just bread and water for forty-five days and lost eight pounds as a result. After that, he ate only bread and sugar for four weeks, then bread and oil for three weeks, but ultimately he couldn't continue his experiments and died after experimenting for eight months.

We must not, therefore, call it daintiness when we feel an appetite for more variety of food, or if we soon get tired of uniform meals: a constant change in this respect[Pg 46] is necessary. Experiments have shown that rabbits continue their health, if alternately they receive one day potatoes, the next day barley; but if they receive exclusively potatoes or barley, they soon die.

We shouldn’t call it being picky when we want a wider variety of food or if we quickly get bored with the same meals; a regular change in this area[Pg 46] is essential. Experiments have shown that rabbits stay healthy if they get potatoes one day and barley the next; but if they only eat potatoes or barley, they quickly die.

In conclusion, we will mention a few articles of food and their qualities. Among grains, wheat is known to be the most nutritive, and wheat bread and meat taken together is always good, wholesome food. Rice produces fat, but if taken by itself, it is not worth much, since it is nourishing only if eaten with butter, or fat, and a little meat. Potato is a cheap, and yet an expensive food; for it contains very little nutriment. In order to be of benefit it must be eaten in great quantity; besides, it is necessary to season it with salt, butter, or fat, as otherwise it would be totally useless. A good diet is peas, beans, and lentils; but their hulls are indigestible, and must be removed.

In conclusion, let’s highlight a few food items and their qualities. Among grains, wheat is recognized as the most nutritious, and having wheat bread with meat is always a good, wholesome option. Rice can lead to weight gain, but on its own, it doesn’t provide much nutrition unless eaten with butter, fat, or some meat. Potatoes are inexpensive, yet they can be costly in terms of their nutritional value; they contain very little nourishment and need to be consumed in large amounts to be beneficial. Additionally, they should be seasoned with salt, butter, or fat, or else they won’t be useful at all. A healthy diet includes peas, beans, and lentils; however, their husks are hard to digest and must be removed.

In general, beverages are not counted among articles of food; and kitchen-salt is commonly believed to be but a matter of taste; but this is a great mistake. Coffee and tea, too, are nourishing in their way; good beer is equal to half a dinner, and as to salt, a frequent relish of the same is an excellent means of nutrition.

In general, drinks aren't considered part of food, and most people think kitchen salt is just a matter of preference; but that's a big misconception. Coffee and tea are nutritious in their own way; good beer can be as filling as half a meal, and having salt regularly is actually a great way to get nutrients.

Cheap coffee, cheap beer, and cheap salt are therefore a great benefit to the people.[Pg 47]

Cheap coffee, cheap beer, and cheap salt are therefore a great benefit to the people.[Pg 47]


PART IV.

LIGHT AND DISTANCE.[Pg 49][Pg 48]


CHAPTER I.

SOMETHING ABOUT ILLUMINATION.

SOMETHING ABOUT LIGHTING.

From time to time we hear of plans to illuminate whole cities by a great light from a single point. The credulity of the newspaper public about affairs belonging to Physics is so great, that we are not surprised if such plans are spoken of as practicable; though, indeed, one needs but cast a glance of reflection on them, to be at once convinced of their impracticability.

From time to time, we hear about ideas to light up entire cities with a huge light from a single source. The trust that the newspaper audience has in matters of Physics is so high that it's no surprise when these ideas are discussed as if they could actually work; however, if you take a moment to think about them, you'll quickly see how impractical they really are.

The impracticability does not consist so much in this, that no such intense light can be made artificially, as in the circumstance that the illuminating power of light decreases enormously as we recede from it.

The impracticability doesn't really come from the fact that we can't create such intense light artificially, but rather from the fact that the brightness of light drops significantly as we move further away from it.

In order to explain this to our readers, let us suppose that on some high point in New York city, say Trinity-church steeple, an intensely brilliant light be placed, as bright as can be produced by gases or electricity. We shall see, presently, how the remoter streets in New York would be illuminated.

In order to explain this to our readers, let’s imagine that on a high point in New York City, like the Trinity Church steeple, an extremely bright light is installed, as bright as can be created by gases or electricity. We’ll see shortly how the distant streets in New York would be lit up.

For the sake of clearness, let us imagine for a moment, that at a square's distance from Trinity church there is a street, intersecting Broadway at right angles. We will call it "A" street. At a square's distance from "A" street let us imagine another street running parallel to it, which we will call "B" street; and again, at a square's distance, a street parallel to "B" street, called "C" street; thus let us imagine seven streets in all—from "A" to "G"—running parallel, each at a square's distance from the other, and intersecting Broadway at right angles. Besides this, let us[Pg 50] suppose there is a street called "X" street, running parallel with Broadway and at a square's distance from it; then we shall have seven squares, which are to be illuminated by one great light.

For clarity, let's picture for a moment that a block away from Trinity Church, there's a street that crosses Broadway at a right angle. We'll call it "A" Street. A block away from "A" Street, let's imagine another street running parallel to it, which we’ll name "B" Street; and again, a block away, a street parallel to "B" Street, called "C" Street. So, let's visualize seven streets in total—from "A" to "G"—running parallel, each a block apart, and intersecting Broadway at right angles. Additionally, let’s assume there’s a street called "X" Street, running parallel to Broadway and a block away; this will give us seven blocks to be illuminated by one big light.

It is well known that light decreases in intensity the further we recede from it; but this intensity decreases in a peculiar proportion. In order to understand this proportion we must pause a moment, for it is something not easily comprehended. We hope, however, to present it in such a shape, that the attentive reader will find no difficulty in grasping a great law of nature, which, moreover, is of the greatest moment for a multitude of cases.

It’s well known that light gets dimmer the further we move away from it; but this dimming happens in a specific way. To understand this, we need to take a moment, since it’s not easy to wrap our heads around. However, we hope to explain it clearly enough that an attentive reader will easily grasp an important natural law, which is incredibly significant in many situations.

Physics teach us, by calculation and experiments, the following:

Physics teaches us, through calculations and experiments, the following:

If a light illuminates a certain space, its intensity at twice the distance is not twice as feeble, but two times two, equal four times, as feeble. At three times the distance it does not shine three times as feeble, but three times three, that is nine times. In scientific language this is expressed thus: "The intensity of light decreases in the ratio of the square of the distance from its source."

If a light brightens a certain area, its intensity at twice the distance is not half as strong, but actually four times weaker. At three times the distance, it doesn’t become three times weaker, but instead nine times weaker. In scientific terms, this is phrased like this: "The intensity of light decreases in relation to the square of the distance from its source."

Let us now try to apply this to our example.

Let’s now try to apply this to our example.

We will take it for granted that the great light on Trinity steeple shines so bright, that one is just able to read these pages at a square's distance, viz., on "A" street.

We will assume that the bright light on Trinity steeple shines so brightly that you can read these pages from a square away, specifically on "A" street.

On "B" street it will be much darker than on "A" street; it will be precisely four times darker, because "B" street is twice the distance from Trinity church, and 2 × 2 = 4. Hence, if we wish to read this on "B" street, our letters must cover four times the space they do now.

On "B" street, it will be much darker than on "A" street; it will be exactly four times darker because "B" street is twice as far from Trinity church, and 2 × 2 = 4. So, if we want to read this on "B" street, our letters need to take up four times the space they do now.

"C" street is three times as far from the light as "A" street; hence it will be nine times darker there, for 3 × 3 = 9. This page in order to be readable there, would then have to cover nine times the space it occupies now.

"C" street is three times farther from the light than "A" street, so it will be nine times darker there because 3 × 3 = 9. This page would need to take up nine times the space it does now to be readable in that darkness.

The next street, being four times as remote from the[Pg 51] light as "A" street, our letters, according to the rule given above, would have to cover sixteen times the present space, for it is sixteen times darker there than on "A" street.

The next street, being four times farther from the[Pg 51] light than "A" street, would require our letters to cover sixteen times the current space, according to the rule mentioned earlier, because it’s sixteen times darker there than it is on "A" street.

"E" street, which lies at five times the distance from the light, will be twenty-five times darker, for 5 × 5 = 25. "F" street, which is six times the distance, we shall find thirty-six times darker; and, lastly, "G" street, seven times the distance from the light, will be forty-nine times darker than "A" street, because 7 × 7 = 49. The letters of a piece of writing, in order to be legible there, must cover forty-nine times the surface that our letters cover now.

"E" street, which is five times farther from the light, will be twenty-five times darker, since 5 × 5 = 25. "F" street, six times the distance, will be thirty-six times darker; and finally, "G" street, seven times the distance from the light, will be forty-nine times darker than "A" street, because 7 × 7 = 49. The letters of a text in order to be readable there must cover forty-nine times the area that our letters cover now.

But the reader will exclaim: "This evil can be remedied. We need but place forty-nine lights on Trinity steeple; there will then be sufficient light on "G" street for any newspaper to be read." Our friend will easily perceive, however, that it is more judicious to distribute forty-nine lights in different places on Broadway, than to put them all on one spot.

But the reader will say, "This problem can be fixed. We just need to put forty-nine lights on Trinity steeple; then there will be enough light on 'G' street for anyone to read a newspaper." However, our friend will quickly realize that it’s smarter to spread forty-nine lights across different locations on Broadway rather than concentrate them all in one place.

This is sufficient to convince any one that we may be able to illuminate large public places with one light, but not the streets of a city, and still less whole cities.[Pg 52]

This is enough to show everyone that we can light up big public areas with one light, but not the streets of a city, and definitely not entire cities.[Pg 52]


CHAPTER II.

ILLUMINATION OF THE PLANETS BY THE SUN.

ILLUMINATION OF THE PLANETS BY THE SUN.

It was demonstrated above, that it is impossible to illuminate large distances by a single light. Yet we must acknowledge that nature herself does this, and that the sun is the only light which shines throughout the solar system; for the light which is seen in the planets is but light received and reflected from the sun.

It was shown above that it's impossible to light up large distances with just one light source. However, we have to admit that nature does this on its own, and the sun is the only light that shines across the solar system; the light we see on the planets is just light received and reflected from the sun.

This is sufficient reason for us to believe, that there are not on every planet creatures as we see them on our earth; but that, on the contrary, each celestial body may be inhabited by creatures organized according to the distance of the planet from the sun; that is, adapted to the degree of light produced there by the sun.

This is a good reason for us to believe that not every planet has creatures like those we see on Earth; instead, each celestial body might be home to beings that have evolved according to their distance from the sun, meaning they are suited to the amount of light that the sun provides there.

For the natural sciences teach us, that solar light is subject to the same laws as our artificial light: it decreases as the distance increases. The planets more remote from the sun are illuminated less than those nearer to it. The ratio in which this light decreases, is precisely the same as that of the terrestrial light illustrated above, viz., according to the square of the distance. In other words, when the distance is double, the intensity of the light is one-fourth as great; when three times, one-ninth as great; when four times more remote, one-sixteenth as strong, etc.; in short, at every distance as much weaker as the distance multiplied by itself.

For the natural sciences teach us that sunlight behaves under the same rules as artificial light: it dims as the distance increases. The planets farther from the sun receive less light than those that are closer. The way this light diminishes is exactly the same as with the terrestrial light described earlier, specifically according to the square of the distance. In simpler terms, if the distance is doubled, the light's intensity is one-fourth as strong; if it’s tripled, it’s one-ninth as strong; if it’s quadrupled, it’s one-sixteenth as strong, and so on; in short, at every distance, it is weaker in proportion to the distance squared.

Presently we shall see that the planets are illuminated in inverse proportion to their distance from the sun. From this alone we come to the conclusion, that on every planet[Pg 53] the living beings must necessarily be differently constituted.

Right now, we can see that the planets are lit up in relation to how far they are from the sun. From this alone, we can conclude that on every planet[Pg 53], living beings must be made up differently.

The name of the planet nearest to the sun is Mercury. It is about two and a half times nearer to the sun than our earth, therefore it receives nearly seven times as much light. We can scarcely conceive such an intensity of light and all the consequences resulting from it. If instead of one sun we should happen to have three, there is no doubt that we should go blind; but seven suns, that is, seven times the light of our brightest days, we could not endure, even if our eyes were closed; the more so, as our eyelids, even when firmly closed, do not protect us from the sun's light entirely. This is a proof of our assertion, that the living beings on the planet Mercury must be differently organized from us.

The planet closest to the sun is Mercury. It's about two and a half times closer to the sun than Earth, so it gets nearly seven times more light. It's hard to imagine such intense light and all the effects that come with it. If we had three suns instead of one, we would definitely go blind; but with seven suns, or seven times the brightness of our sunniest days, we couldn't handle it, even with our eyes closed. Our eyelids, even when tightly shut, don’t fully block the sun's light. This supports our claim that living beings on Mercury must be organized differently from us.

Venus, the third planet, is one and a third times nearer to the sun than we are. The light on that planet, therefore, is nearly twice as bright as on ours. But inasmuch as even this would be unbearable for us, the creatures on this planet must likewise be different from us.

Venus, the third planet, is one and a third times closer to the sun than we are. The light on that planet is almost twice as bright as on ours. However, since even this would be too intense for us, the creatures on that planet must also be different from us.

The third planet is the earth we inhabit. The intensity of the sunlight in bright summer days is well known to us from experience, although no one has as yet been successful in measuring its degree as precisely as has been done with heat by the thermometer. It is true that in modern times a certain Mr. Schell, in Berlin, proposed to measure light accurately, in a way that elicited the approbation of naturalists, especially of Alexander von Humboldt. However, the experiments proposed have not yet been properly carried out, though they are very useful to photographists. Therefore we do not know, up to the present time, whether there is any difference in the light of two cloudless summer days; just as little are we able to determine how much the moon's light is weaker than the sun's.

The third planet is the Earth we live on. We all know how intense sunlight can be on bright summer days, but no one has yet been able to measure it as precisely as we do with heat using a thermometer. Recently, a man named Mr. Schell in Berlin suggested a method to accurately measure light, which was well-received by scientists, particularly Alexander von Humboldt. However, the proposed experiments haven't been properly conducted yet, although they could be very helpful for photographers. So far, we don't know if there's any difference in the light of two clear summer days; similarly, we can't determine how much weaker the moon's light is compared to the sun's.

The fourth planet's name is Mars; its distance from the[Pg 54] sun is one and a half times our distance from the sun. There the sun's light is about half as strong as with us. Now, although we often may have days which are half as bright as others, it is yet very doubtful whether we could live on Mars; for light does not act upon our eyes only, but on our whole body and its health. It is likely that the very want of light there would prove fatal to us.

The fourth planet is called Mars; it's one and a half times farther from the[Pg 54] sun than we are. The sunlight there is about half as strong as it is here. While we sometimes have days that are only half as bright as others, it's still very uncertain whether we could survive on Mars because light affects not just our eyes but our entire body and its health. The lack of light there could likely be deadly for us.

The twenty-four newly discovered planets have days that are nearly six times darker than ours. The daylight on these planets is probably as it was with us during the great eclipse of the sun in July, 1851. This light was very interesting for a few minutes, but if it were to continue it would certainly make us melancholy.

The twenty-four newly discovered planets have days that are almost six times darker than ours. The daylight on these planets is likely similar to what we experienced during the great solar eclipse in July 1851. This light was fascinating for a few minutes, but if it lasted longer, it would definitely make us feel depressed.

Far worse yet fare the remoter planets. On the planet Jupiter it is as much as thirty times darker than with us. On Saturn, eighty times. On Uranus, even three hundred times; and upon the last of the planets, Neptune, discovered in 1845, light is nine hundred times more feeble than upon our globe.

Far worse are the distant planets. On Jupiter, it's about thirty times darker than here. On Saturn, it's eighty times darker. On Uranus, it's even three hundred times darker; and on the farthest planet, Neptune, discovered in 1845, light is nine hundred times weaker than on our planet.

Although it is true that all of the remoter planets have many moons or satellites, yet it must not be forgotten that the moons themselves are but very feebly illuminated; that their light benefits during the night only, and even then only lovers and night revellers.[Pg 55]

Although it's true that all the distant planets have many moons or satellites, we shouldn't forget that the moons themselves are only very faintly lit; their light is beneficial at night only, and even then, only for lovers and night revelers.[Pg 55]


PART V.

THE WONDERS OF ASTRONOMY.


CHAPTER I.

A WONDERFUL DISCOVERY.

A fantastic discovery.

Many people are greatly surprised, that when a new planet is discovered—and within late years this has been frequently the case—astronomers should be able to determine a few days afterwards its distance from the sun, together with the number of years necessary for its orbit. "How is it possible," they ask, "to survey a new guest after such a short acquaintance so accurately, as to foretell his path, nay, even the time of his course?"

Many people are really surprised that when a new planet is discovered—and this has happened often in recent years—astronomers can determine its distance from the sun just a few days later, along with the number of years it takes to orbit. "How can it be," they ask, "that we can understand a new guest so well after such a short time to accurately predict its path, and even the duration of its journey?"

Nevertheless it is true that this can be done, and certainly no stage-coach nor locomotive can announce the hour and minute of its arrival with as much accuracy as the astronomer can foretell the arrival of a celestial body, though he may have observed it but a short time.

Nevertheless, it’s true that this can be done, and definitely no stagecoach or train can announce the exact hour and minute of its arrival as accurately as an astronomer can predict the arrival of a celestial body, even if he has only observed it for a short time.

More yet is done sometimes. In 1846, a naturalist in Paris, Leverrier by name, found out, without looking in the sky, without making observations with the telescope, simply by dint of calculation, that there must exist a planet at a distance from us of 2,862 millions of miles; that this planet takes 60,238 days and 11 hours to move round the sun; that it is 24 1/2 heavier than our earth, and that it must be found at a given time at a given place in the sky; provided, of course, the quality of the telescope be such as to enable it to be seen.

More was accomplished at times. In 1846, a naturalist in Paris named Leverrier discovered, without looking at the sky or using a telescope, simply through calculation, that there must be a planet located 2,862 million miles away from us; that this planet takes 60,238 days and 11 hours to orbit the sun; that it is 24.5 times heavier than our Earth, and that it should be found at a specific time and place in the sky, assuming the telescope's quality is sufficient to see it.

Leverrier communicated all this to the Academy of Sciences in Paris. The Academy did not by any means say, "The man is insane; how can he know what is going on 2,862 millions of miles from us; he does not even know[Pg 58] what kind of weather we shall have to-morrow!" Neither did they say, "This man wishes to sport with us, for he maintains things that no one can prove to be false!" Nor, "The man is a swindler, for he very likely has seen the planet accidentally, and pretends now that he discovered it by his learning." No, nothing of the kind; on the contrary, his communication was received with the proper regard for its importance; Leverrier was well known as a great naturalist.

Leverrier shared all this with the Academy of Sciences in Paris. The Academy didn’t say, “This guy is crazy; how can he know what’s happening 2,862 million miles away? He doesn’t even know[Pg 58] what the weather will be like tomorrow!” They also didn’t say, “This guy is just messing with us, because he claims things that no one can prove are false!” Nor did they say, “This guy is a fraud, because he probably just spotted the planet by chance and is now pretending he discovered it through his knowledge.” No, nothing like that; on the contrary, his message was taken seriously and acknowledged for its significance; Leverrier was well-respected as a great naturalist.

Having thus learned how he made the discovery, the members of the Academy felt convinced that there were good reasons to believe his assertions to be true.

Having learned how he made the discovery, the members of the Academy felt confident that there were good reasons to believe his claims were true.

Complete success crowned his efforts.

Complete success crowned his efforts.

He made the announcement to the Academy in January, 1846; on the 31st of August he sent in further reports about the planet, which he had not seen as yet. The surprise and astonishment on the part of scientific men can scarcely be imagined, while on the part of the uneducated there were but smiles and incredulity.

He announced it to the Academy in January 1846; on August 31st, he submitted additional reports about the planet, which he had not yet observed. The surprise and amazement from scientists were hard to fathom, while the uneducated responded mostly with smiles and disbelief.

On the 23d of September, Mr. Galle—now Director of the Breslau Observatory, at that time Assistant in that of Berlin, a gentleman who had distinguished himself before by successful observations and discoveries, received a letter from Leverrier, requesting him to watch for the new planet at a place designated in the heavens. Though other cities at that time possessed better telescopes than Berlin, this city was chosen because of its favorable situation for observations.

On September 23rd, Mr. Galle—now the Director of the Breslau Observatory, who at that time was an Assistant at the Berlin Observatory, a man who had already made a name for himself through successful observations and discoveries—received a letter from Leverrier, asking him to look for the new planet at a specific location in the sky. Even though other cities had better telescopes than Berlin at the time, this city was chosen because of its advantageous position for observations.

That same evening Galle directed his telescope to that spot in the sky indicated by Leverrier, and, at an exceedingly small distance from it, actually discovered the planet.

That same evening, Galle pointed his telescope to the location in the sky identified by Leverrier, and found the planet just a tiny distance away from it.

This discovery of Leverrier is very justly called the greatest triumph that ever crowned a scientific inquiry. Indeed, nothing of the kind had ever transpired before; our century may well be proud of it. But, my friendly reader,[Pg 59] he who lives in this age without having any idea whatever of the way in which such discoveries are made—he does not deserve to be called a contemporary of this age.

This discovery by Leverrier is rightly regarded as the greatest achievement in scientific research. In fact, nothing like it has happened before; our century can be proud of it. But, my dear reader,[Pg 59] anyone living in this time without any understanding of how such discoveries happen—doesn't deserve to be called a contemporary of our age.

We will not try to make an astronomer out of you; we merely wish to explain to you the miracle of this discovery.[Pg 60]

We’re not going to turn you into an astronomer; we just want to explain the miracle of this discovery.[Pg 60]


CHAPTER II.

MAIN SUPPORT OF LEVERRIER'S DISCOVERY.

MAIN SUPPORT OF LEVERRIER'S DISCOVERY.

When Leverrier was working at his great discovery he did not strike out a new path in science; he was supported by a great law of nature, the base of all astronomical knowledge. It is the law of gravitation, discovered by Sir Isaac Newton.

When Leverrier was working on his major discovery, he didn’t create a new path in science; he was backed by a fundamental law of nature, the foundation of all astronomical knowledge. It’s the law of gravitation, discovered by Sir Isaac Newton.

Those of our readers who have fully understood what we said before (page 50) about light, will now easily comprehend, what we are going to say about the force of gravity.

Those of our readers who have fully grasped what we mentioned earlier (page 50) about light will now easily understand what we are going to discuss regarding the force of gravity.

Every heavenly body is endowed with the power of attraction; that is, it attracts every other body in the same manner that a magnet attracts iron. If the celestial bodies, or, to speak only of one class, if all the planets were at rest, that is, without motion, they would, on account of the great attractive power of the sun, rapidly approach it, and finally unite with it and form one body.

Every celestial body has the ability to attract other bodies, just like a magnet attracts iron. If the celestial bodies—specifically, all the planets—were completely still and not moving, they would quickly drift toward the sun because of its strong gravitational pull, eventually merging with it to become one single entity.

That this does not take place, may be ascribed solely to the fact that all planets have their own motion. This motion, combined with the attractive force of the sun, causes them to move in circles around it.

That this doesn't happen can be attributed solely to the fact that all planets have their own motion. This motion, along with the sun's gravitational pull, causes them to orbit around it.

This may be illustrated by the following: Suppose a strong magnet to lie in the centre of a table. Now, suppose some one to place an iron ball on the table; then will this ball run straightway towards the magnet. But if some one were to roll the ball so that it should pass the magnet, it would at first run in a straight line, but the magnet attracting it at every moment of time, the ball would be compelled to[Pg 61] deviate from its straight course and would begin to circulate round the magnet.

This can be illustrated like this: Imagine a strong magnet sitting in the middle of a table. Now, if someone places an iron ball on the table, that ball will immediately roll toward the magnet. But if someone rolls the ball so that it goes past the magnet, it will initially move in a straight line. However, the magnet will attract it continuously, causing the ball to deviate from its straight path and start to circle around the magnet.

We see that this circular motion round the magnet springs from two forces: first, from the hand that starts the ball in a straight line; and secondly, from the attraction of the magnet, which at every moment draws the ball towards itself.

We see that this circular motion around the magnet comes from two forces: first, from the hand that sets the ball in a straight line; and second, from the magnet's attraction, which continually pulls the ball toward itself.

Newton, the greatest natural philosopher of all times, who lived in England two hundred years ago, proved, that all the orbits round the sun, as described by the planets, are caused by two such forces; by the motion of the planets peculiar to themselves, which, if not interfered with, would make them fly through space in a straight line; and by the attractive force of the sun, which is continually disturbing that straight course, thus forcing the planets to move in circles around him.

Newton, the greatest natural philosopher of all time, who lived in England two hundred years ago, proved that all the orbits around the sun, as described by the planets, are caused by two forces: the planets’ own motion, which, if not interrupted, would make them fly through space in a straight line, and the sun’s gravitational pull, which constantly alters that straight path, forcing the planets to move in circles around it.

But Newton has discovered more than this. He succeeded in proving that, knowing the time of a planet's revolution around the sun, we can determine precisely with what force the attractive power of the sun affects it. For if the sun's attractive power is strong, the planet will revolve very quickly; if weak, it will move slowly.

But Newton discovered more than this. He proved that, by knowing the time it takes for a planet to orbit the sun, we can precisely determine how strongly the sun's gravitational pull affects it. If the sun's gravitational pull is strong, the planet will move quickly; if it's weak, it will move slowly.

Were the sun, for example, all of a sudden to lose a portion of his attractive force, the consequence would be that the earth must revolve around him more slowly. Our year, which now has three hundred and sixty-five days, would then have a much greater number of days.

Were the sun, for example, to suddenly lose some of its gravitational pull, the result would be that the earth would revolve around it more slowly. Our year, which currently has three hundred and sixty-five days, would then have many more days.

Newton has also shown—and this is for us the main thing—that the attractive force of the sun is strong in his close proximity, but that it diminishes as the distance from him increases. In other words, the remoter planets are attracted by the sun with less force than those nearer to him. The attractive force decreases with the distance in the same proportion as light, which, we saw a little while ago, decreases in intensity as the square of the distance increases.[Pg 62] This means, that a planet at a distance from the sun twice as great as that of the earth, is attracted with only one-fourth the force; one that is three times the distance, with one-ninth of the force, etc.

Newton has also demonstrated—and this is our main point—that the sun's gravitational pull is strong when you're close to it, but it weakens as you move farther away. In other words, the outer planets are attracted to the sun with less force than those that are closer. The gravitational force diminishes with distance in the same way that light does, which we just discussed decreases in intensity as the square of the distance increases.[Pg 62] This means that a planet that is twice as far from the sun as the earth feels only a quarter of the gravitational pull; one that is three times the distance feels only one-ninth of the pull, and so on.

This great law pervades all nature. It is the basis of the science of astronomy, and was the main support of Leverrier's discovery.[Pg 63]

This fundamental law is present throughout nature. It forms the foundation of astronomy and was crucial to Leverrier's discovery.[Pg 63]


CHAPTER III.

THE GREAT DISCOVERY.

The Big Discovery.

Perhaps the question presents itself to the thinking reader: If it be true that the heavenly bodies attract each other, why do not the planets attract one another in such a manner that they will run round and about each other?

Perhaps the question comes to mind for the thoughtful reader: If it's true that celestial bodies attract each other, why don't the planets draw each other in a way that makes them revolve around one another?

Newton himself proposed this question; he also found the answer. The attractive power of a celestial body depends upon its larger or smaller mass. In our solar system the sun's mass is so much larger than that of any of the planets, that the balance of attractive power is largely in his favor; hence the revolving of the planets around him. If the sun were to disappear suddenly the effect of the attractive influence of the planets upon one another would be tremendous. There can be no doubt that they would all begin to revolve around Jupiter, because that planet has the largest mass. To give some examples in figures,—the sun's mass is 355,499 heavier, while Jupiter's is but 339 times heavier than that of the earth. It is evident that, the sun's mass being more than a thousand times larger than Jupiter's, so long as the sun exists the earth will never revolve around Jupiter.

Newton himself raised this question and also found the answer. The gravitational pull of a celestial body depends on its mass. In our solar system, the sun's mass is so much greater than that of any of the planets that the balance of gravitational force is heavily in its favor, which is why the planets revolve around it. If the sun were to suddenly disappear, the gravitational effects of the planets on each other would be enormous. There's no doubt that they would all start to orbit Jupiter, since that planet has the largest mass. To put it in numbers, the sun's mass is 355,499 times heavier than the Earth, while Jupiter's mass is only 339 times heavier than that of the Earth. It's clear that since the sun's mass is more than a thousand times greater than Jupiter's, as long as the sun exists, the Earth will never revolve around Jupiter.

Yet Jupiter is not without influence upon the earth; and though it is not able to draw it out of its course round the sun, yet it attracts the earth to some extent. Observations and computations have shown us, that the earth's orbit around the sun, owing to the attraction of Jupiter, is somewhat changed, or, as it is called, "disturbed."

Yet Jupiter does have an influence on Earth; and while it can't pull it off its path around the sun, it does attract Earth to some degree. Observations and calculations have shown us that Earth's orbit around the sun, due to Jupiter's attraction, is somewhat altered, or, as it's referred to, "disturbed."

As with Jupiter and the earth, so with all the other[Pg 64] planets; their mutual attraction disturb their orbits round the sun. In reality, every planet revolves in an orbit which, without this "disturbance," would be a different one. The computation of these disturbances constitutes a great difficulty in astronomy, and requires the keenest and most energetic studies ever made in science.

As with Jupiter and Earth, the same goes for all the other[Pg 64] planets; their gravitational pull affects their orbits around the sun. In reality, each planet moves in an orbit that would be different if not for this "disturbance." Calculating these disturbances presents a significant challenge in astronomy and demands some of the most intense and dedicated research ever conducted in science.

Perhaps some of our readers may ask here, whether in course of time these disturbances will become so great as to throw our whole solar system into confusion? Well, the same question was proposed by a great mathematician named Laplace, who lived towards the end of the last century. But he himself answered the question in an immortal work, "The Mechanics of the Heavens." He furnished the proof, that all disturbances last but a certain time; and that the solar system is constructed so that the very attractions by which the disturbances are caused, produce at the end of certain periods a regulation or rectification; so that in the end there is always complete order.

Perhaps some of our readers might wonder if, over time, these disturbances will become so significant that they'll throw our entire solar system into chaos. Well, a prominent mathematician named Laplace, who lived toward the end of the last century, asked the same question. He addressed it in his timeless work, "The Mechanics of the Heavens." He provided proof that all disturbances are temporary; the solar system is designed so that the very forces causing the disturbances ultimately lead to a regulation or adjustment after certain periods, ensuring that order is restored in the end.

After what has been said, it is evident that if one of the planets were invisible, its presence would still be known to our naturalists, on account of the disturbances it would cause in the orbits of the other planets; unless, perhaps, its mass be so insignificant as to render its power of attraction imperceptible.

After everything that’s been said, it’s clear that if one of the planets were invisible, our scientists would still know it’s there because of the disturbances it would create in the orbits of the other planets; unless, of course, its mass is so small that its gravitational pull goes unnoticed.

And now we may proceed to explain the subject of this chapter.

And now we can go ahead and explain the topic of this chapter.

Up to the year 1846, when Leverrier made his great discovery, it was believed that Uranus was the most distant planet revolving around the sun. Uranus itself was discovered by Sir John Herschel in England in the year 1781. As this planet takes eighty-four years to go round the sun, its complete revolution had not yet been observed in 1846; in spite of this, however, the course of Uranus was calculated and known very precisely, because the attractive[Pg 65] force of the sun was known; and all the disturbances that might influence the planet were taken into account.

Up until 1846, when Leverrier made his significant discovery, it was thought that Uranus was the farthest planet orbiting the sun. Uranus itself was discovered by Sir John Herschel in England in 1781. Since it takes eighty-four years for this planet to complete its orbit around the sun, its full revolution hadn't been observed by 1846. Nevertheless, the trajectory of Uranus was calculated and known quite accurately, because the sun's gravitational pull was understood, and all the factors that could affect the planet were considered.

But notwithstanding all nicety of calculations, the real course of Uranus would not at all agree with the one computed. At that time already, long before Leverrier's discovery, the idea arose that beyond Uranus, in a region where the human eye could, in spite of all telescopes, discover nothing, there must probably exist a planet which changed the course of Uranus. Bessel, a great astronomer, who unfortunately for science died too soon, was already on the point of finding out by computation the unknown disturber. But he died, shortly before Leverrier's discovery. As early even as 1840, Maedler, in the city of Dorpat, in Russia, wrote a fine article on this as yet unseen disturber.

But despite all the precise calculations, the actual path of Uranus didn't match the predicted one at all. Even back then, long before Leverrier's discovery, the idea emerged that there must be a planet beyond Uranus, in a region where the human eye couldn't detect anything, even with all the telescopes. This planet was likely affecting Uranus's orbit. Bessel, a brilliant astronomer who unfortunately passed away too soon for science, was on the verge of using calculations to identify this unknown influence. However, he died just before Leverrier made his discovery. As early as 1840, Maedler in the city of Dorpat, Russia, wrote an excellent article about this yet-to-be-seen disruptor.

Leverrier, however, began the task and finished it. He computed with an acuteness that was admired by all men of science. He investigated whereabout in the heavens that intruder must be situated, so as to be able to trouble Uranus to such an extent; how fast this disturber itself must move in its orbit, and how large must be its mass.

Leverrier, however, took on the task and completed it. He calculated with a sharpness that was admired by all scientists. He explored where in the sky that intruder had to be located in order to disturb Uranus to such a degree; how fast this disruptor needed to move in its orbit, and how massive it had to be.

We live to see the triumph of Leverrier's being able to discover with his mental eye, by means of computation only, a planet at a distance of millions of miles from him.

We get to witness Leverrier's success in discovering a planet millions of miles away using only his mind and calculations.

Therefore let us say: Honor science! Honor the men that cultivate it! And all honor to the human intellect which sees farther than the human eye![Pg 67][Pg 66]

Therefore, let's say: Respect science! Respect the people who advance it! And all respect to the human intellect that perceives beyond what the human eye can see![Pg 67][Pg 66]


PART VI.

METEOROLOGY[Pg 69][Pg 68]


CHAPTER I.

SOMETHING ABOUT THE WEATHER.

Weather update.

We presume that in a state of unusual bad weather there are many persons, who find occasion to reflect on the nature of weather in general.

We assume that during exceptionally bad weather, there are many people who take the time to think about the nature of weather in general.

A few years ago, we had "green Christmas and white Easter," and spring was of course far behind when Pentecost arrived. We had still cold and rainy days, while the nights were frosty; and, if one might judge from appearances, it seemed that nature had made a mistake, and had not known of our being then in the month of June, which, with us, is usually a delightful month.

A few years ago, we had a "green Christmas and a white Easter," and spring was obviously long gone by the time Pentecost came around. We had cold, rainy days, and the nights were frosty; it seemed like nature had messed up and didn’t realize we were already in June, which is typically a lovely month for us.

The sun alone was right. He rose on the 9th of June of that year precisely at 4 o'clock 30 minutes, as was prescribed to him by the calendar; and set at 7 o'clock 30 minutes, precisely according to orders. At that time the sun was hastening towards summer, he lengthened the days and shortened the nights; but he alone is not capable of governing the weather, and our friends the astronomers, although they are able to calculate the sun's course with more precision than the engineer can the locomotive's, are themselves greatly embarrassed when asked, "What kind of weather shall we have the day after to-morrow?"

The sun was the only thing that was consistent. It rose on June 9th of that year exactly at 4:30 AM, just like the calendar said it would, and set at 7:30 PM, right on cue. At that time, the sun was gearing up for summer, extending the days and making the nights shorter. However, the sun can't control the weather, and our fellow astronomers, while they can calculate the sun's path more accurately than an engineer can track a train, still find themselves stumped when asked, "What will the weather be like the day after tomorrow?"

It is unpardonable that some of our almanacs, especially those for the farmer, contain prophecies about the weather. We cannot be too indignant against the foolish superstition which this abuse tends to foster. And what is worse, really shameful, is, that those who print such things do not believe in them themselves, but consider them a necessity[Pg 70] sanctioned by age and custom, and offer it as such to the credulity of the public.

It’s unacceptable that some of our almanacs, especially those for farmers, have forecasts about the weather. We can’t be too upset with the ridiculous superstition that this misuse encourages. What’s even worse, and truly embarrassing, is that those who publish such things don’t even believe in them—they see it as a tradition backed by history and custom, and present it that way to the gullibility of the public.[Pg 70]

The subject of this article on the knowledge of weather, is a science, a great branch of the natural sciences; but it is a branch just developing, and therefore has, up to the present time, not yet brought forth any fruit.

The topic of this article about understanding the weather is a science, a major field within the natural sciences; however, it is a field that is still emerging and has, so far, not yet yielded any results.

It is very likely that at some future day we shall be able to indicate in advance the weather of any given place. But for the present this is impossible; and if from time to time men arise and announce that they can calculate and determine in advance the state of the weather in any given place—pretending to consult the planets, etc.—we take it for granted that they are as unreliable as the weather-prophets of the almanacs.

It’s highly probable that in the future we’ll be able to predict the weather for any location ahead of time. But right now, that’s not possible; and when people occasionally claim they can predict the weather for a specific place—pretending to consult the planets and so on—we assume they're just as unreliable as the weather forecasters found in almanacs.

We said above that the weather might possibly be determined a few days ahead; science is at present almost far enough advanced for it. But there are needed for that purpose grand institutions, which must first be called into life.

We mentioned earlier that the weather could potentially be predicted a few days in advance; science is currently nearly advanced enough for that. However, large institutions are needed to make this possible, and they must first be established.

If for the proper observation of the weather, stations were erected throughout the extent of our country, at a distance of about seventy miles from each other, and if these stations were connected by a telegraph-wire, managed by a scientific reliable observer; then we might, in the middle portion of our country, be able to determine in advance the state of the weather, though for a short time only.

If we set up weather stations across the country, about seventy miles apart, and connected them with telegraph wires monitored by a reliable scientist, we could potentially predict the weather in the central part of the country, but only for a short period.

For the changeableness of the weather depends on the nature and motion of the air, and on the amount of moisture, and the direction of the winds. It is mostly occasioned by currents of air which pass over the earth, producing, wherever they meet, here cold, there heat—here rain, there hail or snow.

The weather changes based on the type and movement of the air, the level of moisture, and the wind direction. It's mainly caused by air currents that move across the earth, creating various conditions—sometimes cold, sometimes hot—sometimes bringing rain, and other times hail or snow.

Along a part of the coast of the United States electric telegraphs have been established. Vessels receive, at a[Pg 71] considerable distance, the news of a storm approaching, together with its velocity and direction. The electric telegraph being quicker than the wind, the vessels receive the news in time to take their directions. Before the storm reaches them, they have been enabled to take precautionary measures for its reception.

Along a section of the US coast, electric telegraphs have been set up. Ships receive news about an approaching storm, including its speed and direction, from a considerable distance. Since the electric telegraph is faster than the wind, the vessels get the information in time to adjust their course. Before the storm hits them, they can take necessary precautions to prepare.

This is a great step forward in our new science. But not before the time when such stations shall be established everywhere throughout the land, will meteorology manifest its real importance. For it has, like every other science, firmly established rules, which can easily be calculated and verified; while, on the other hand, allowances must be made for changeable conditions which tend to disturb the rules.

This is a significant advancement in our new science. However, meteorology won't truly show its importance until such stations are set up all over the country. Like every other science, it has well-established rules that can be easily calculated and verified. On the other hand, we also need to account for the unpredictable conditions that can disrupt those rules.

We will now endeavor to introduce to our readers these established rules, and explain the changeable conditions to which we refer.[Pg 72]

We will now try to introduce our readers to these established rules and explain the changing conditions we are referring to.[Pg 72]


CHAPTER II.

OF THE WEATHER IN SUMMER AND WINTER.

OF THE WEATHER IN SUMMER AND WINTER.

As we have stated above, there exist fixed rules about the weather; these rules are simple and easy to compute. But our computations are often disturbed by a great many circumstances beyond our reach, so much that we are governed more by exceptions than rules.

As we mentioned earlier, there are established rules about the weather; these rules are straightforward and easy to calculate. However, our calculations are frequently disrupted by numerous factors outside of our control, to the point that we are influenced more by exceptions than by rules.

These latter are based on the position of our earth with regard to the sun. They are, therefore, easy to determine, for astronomy is a science resting on firm pillars; and although nothing in the universe is so far from us as the stars, yet there is nothing in the world so certain as our knowledge of the courses of the constellations and their distances. Many of our readers may be surprised, perhaps, to hear that we know more accurately the distance from the earth to the sun than the distance from New York to Cincinnati. Indeed, astronomical knowledge is the most reliable in the world. No merchant is able to measure a piece of cloth without being mistaken, to say the least, as much as 1/300 part; while the uncertainty with respect to distances of bodies in the solar system amounts to a great deal less than 1/300 part.

These are based on the position of our Earth in relation to the sun. They are therefore easy to determine, as astronomy is a science built on solid foundations; and although nothing in the universe is as far from us as the stars, our understanding of the paths of the constellations and their distances is incredibly certain. Many of our readers might be surprised to learn that we know the distance from the Earth to the sun more accurately than the distance from New York to Cincinnati. In fact, astronomical knowledge is the most reliable in the world. No merchant can measure a piece of cloth without being off by at least 1/300 of a part; meanwhile, the uncertainty in measuring distances between bodies in the solar system is much less than 1/300 of a part.

Our earth turns on its axis once in every twenty-four hours, and goes also round the sun once a year. But the earth's axis is inclined towards the earth's orbit—orbit is the circle which a celestial body describes in its revolution around another—in such a manner as to cause the earth, in its orbit round the sun, to be illuminated for six months on one side, and for six months on the other side of the[Pg 73] earth. Hence it happens, that at the north pole there is continual day during six months in the year, after which follows uninterrupted winter for the next six months; in the same way the day on the south pole lasts six months, and the night following the same length of time. In the middle between both poles, however, in the regions around the equator, the day has throughout the year twelve hours; the night, of course, the same; while in the countries between the equator and the poles, the length of day and night is, through the whole year, constantly varying.

Our earth spins on its axis once every twenty-four hours and orbits the sun once a year. However, the earth's axis is tilted in relation to its orbit—the path that a celestial body takes as it moves around another—causing it to be lit up for six months on one side and for the other six months on the opposite side of the[Pg 73]earth. This is why, at the North Pole, there's continuous daylight for six months of the year, followed by six months of constant winter; similarly, at the South Pole, day lasts for six months, and night lasts just as long. In the areas around the equator, though, day and night are consistently twelve hours each throughout the year, while in the regions between the equator and the poles, the length of day and night changes throughout the year.

We, in the United States, inhabit the northern hemisphere; when, therefore, the time comes that the north pole has day for six months, we in North America, being situated about half-way between the equator and north pole, enjoy long days and short nights. The inhabitants of those countries, however, situated on the southern hemisphere, have at that time short days and long nights. But when the time comes that there is six months' night on the north pole and six months' day on the south pole, then will the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere have long days, and we long nights.

We, in the United States, live in the northern hemisphere; so when the time comes for the North Pole to have six months of daylight, we in North America, located about halfway between the equator and the North Pole, enjoy long days and short nights. In contrast, the people in countries in the southern hemisphere have short days and long nights during that time. However, when it's six months of night at the North Pole and six months of daylight at the South Pole, the people in the southern hemisphere will have long days, while we will experience long nights.

Intimately connected with the length of day and night are our seasons, especially summer and winter; for together with the sun's light heat is also called forth. During our long days, therefore, it is very warm with us, for the sun's rays heat the soil. During our short days we experience cold, because the warming light of the sun does not reach our earth directly. For this reason the northern hemisphere enjoys summer while the southern has winter; and vice versâ, when we have mid-winter, people in the other hemisphere are in the midst of summer. When we are snowed up at Christmas, and seek joy and elevation by the cheerful fireside in the brightly-lighted room, we may, perhaps, think of our friends and relatives who have emigrated to Australia, and the question may occur to us, how things[Pg 74] may be with them this cold weather, and how they are enjoying the holidays?

Intimately connected with the length of day and night are our seasons, especially summer and winter; because along with the sun's light, heat is also generated. During our long days, it's very warm for us, as the sun's rays heat the ground. During our short days, we feel cold because the sun's warm light doesn't reach our earth directly. This is why the northern hemisphere enjoys summer while the southern hemisphere experiences winter; and vice versa, when we are in mid-winter, people in the other hemisphere are in the middle of summer. When we're snowed in at Christmas and seek joy and warmth by the cheerful fireside in the brightly lit room, we might think of our friends and relatives who have moved to Australia, and wonder how they're coping with this cold weather and how they're enjoying the holidays?

Now, would not the uninformed be surprised, if a letter were to arrive from Australia, written at Christmas, telling how the writer enjoyed Christmas in his vine-arbor, where he had sought shelter from the terrible heat of the day, and that he had but late at night gone to his room, and he could scarcely sleep then on account of the heat, and the longing for his former home in the United States, where he could always enjoy cool weather at Christmas.

Now, wouldn't the uninformed be surprised if a letter arrived from Australia, written at Christmas, explaining how the writer enjoyed Christmas in his grapevines, where he had sought refuge from the intense heat of the day, and that he had only recently gone to his room at night, struggling to sleep due to the warmth and his longing for his former home in the United States, where he could always enjoy cool weather at Christmas?

The uninformed will now learn that Australia lies in the southern hemisphere, while we are in the northern, and that there they live in midst of summer, while we are buried in snow. Nor will he now be surprised when he reads, that it snowed in Australia in the month of August, and that his friend or relative there reposed by the fireside, and read the letter from home by the light of the lamp, at the same hour that we here were taking an afternoon walk in the summer shade.

The uninformed will now learn that Australia is in the southern hemisphere, while we are in the northern, and that over there it’s summer while we are buried in snow. Nor will he be surprised to read that it snowed in Australia in August, and that his friend or relative there was relaxing by the fireside, reading the letter from home by the light of the lamp, at the same time that we were taking an afternoon walk in the summer shade.

The heat of summer, however, does not altogether depend upon the length of the day; nor does the cold of winter upon its shortness; but principally on this, that during summer-time the sun at noon stands directly over head; that therefore his vertical rays are enabled to pierce the soil with intense heat; while in winter-time the sun at noon stands nearer to the horizon; his rays fall on the earth obliquely, therefore heating the soil with but feeble power.

The heat of summer, however, doesn't solely rely on the length of the day; nor does the cold of winter depend on its shortness. It's mainly because, during summer, the sun is directly overhead at noon, allowing its vertical rays to intensely heat the ground. In winter, the sun is closer to the horizon at noon, and its rays hit the earth at an angle, which heats the soil only slightly.

We shall presently see that this position of the sun exercises great influence upon the weather.[Pg 75]

We will soon see that the position of the sun has a big impact on the weather.[Pg 75]


CHAPTER III.

THE CURRENTS OF AIR AND THE WEATHER.

THE CURRENTS OF AIR AND THE WEATHER.

In order to fully understand the conditions of the atmosphere, one must carefully notice the following:

In order to fully understand the state of the atmosphere, you need to pay close attention to the following:

Though the sun produces summer and winter, and although his beams call forth heat, and the absence of heat causes intense cold on the surface of the globe, yet the sun alone does not make what we call "Weather."

Though the sun creates summer and winter, and even though its rays generate heat, and the lack of heat leads to intense cold on the surface of the Earth, the sun alone doesn’t account for what we refer to as "Weather."

If the sun's influence alone were prevalent, there would be no change at all during our seasons; once cold or warm, it would invariably continue to be so, according to the time of the year. The sun, however, produces certain movements in the air; currents of air or winds pour from cold countries into warm ones, and vice versâ from warm ones into cold ones. It is this that makes our sky be cloudy or clear; that produces rain and sunshine, snow and hail, refreshing coolness in summer and warmth sometimes in midwinter, as also chilly nights in summer and thaw in winter. In other words, it is more properly the motion of the air, the wind, that produces what we call weather; that is, that changeableness from heat to cold, from dryness to moisture, all of which may be comprised in one name, weather.

If the sun's influence were the only factor, there wouldn't be any change in our seasons. Once it got cold or warm, it would stay that way for the entire season. However, the sun causes certain movements in the air; winds blow from cold regions to warm ones, and vice versa. This is what makes our sky either cloudy or clear, what brings rain and sunshine, snow and hail, refreshing coolness in the summer and sometimes warmth in the middle of winter, as well as chilly nights in summer and thawing in winter. In other words, it's really the movement of the air, the wind, that creates what we call weather; that is, the shift from heat to cold, from dryness to moisture—all of which we refer to collectively as weather.

But whence does the wind arise? It is caused by the influence of the sun's heat upon the air.

But where does the wind come from? It is caused by the sun's heat affecting the air.

The whole earth is enveloped with a misty cover called "air." This air has the peculiar quality of expanding when it becomes heated. If you put a bladder that is filled with air and tied up, into the pipe of a heated stove,[Pg 76] the air inside will expand so much as to burst the bladder with a loud report. The warm expanded air is lighter than the cold air, and always ascends in the atmosphere.

The entire earth is surrounded by a misty layer known as "air." This air has the unique ability to expand when it gets heated. If you place a sealed, air-filled bladder into the pipe of a hot stove,[Pg 76] the air inside will expand enough to make the bladder burst with a loud sound. The warm, expanded air is lighter than cold air and always rises in the atmosphere.

Lofty rooms are therefore difficult to heat because the warm air ascends towards the ceiling. In every room it is much cooler near the floor than near the top of the room. This accounts for the singular fact that in winter our feet, though warmly clad in stockings and shoes or boots, feel cold more often than our hands, which are entirely uncovered. If you ascend a ladder in a tolerably cold room, you are surprised at finding it much warmer above than below in the room. The flies take advantage of this in autumn, when they are seen to promenade on the ceiling, because there it is warm as in summer, while near the floor it is cold; owing to the circumstance that warm air, being lighter than cold, ascends.

Lofty rooms are therefore hard to heat because the warm air rises to the ceiling. In every room, it's much cooler near the floor than at the top. This explains why, in winter, our feet, even when covered with socks and shoes or boots, often feel colder than our hands, which are completely uncovered. If you climb a ladder in a reasonably cold room, you might be surprised to find it much warmer up high than down low. Flies take advantage of this in autumn, as they can often be seen walking on the ceiling, where it feels warm like summer, while the floor remains cold. This happens because warm air is lighter than cold air, so it rises.

Precisely the same takes place on the earth. In the hot zone near the equator the sun heats the air continually; hence the air there ascends. But from both the northern and southern hemispheres, cold air is constantly pouring towards the equator in order to fill the vacuum thus produced. This cold air is now heated also and rises, while other cold air rushes in after. By this continued motion of the air towards the equator, however, a vacuum is created also at both poles of the earth; and the heated air of the equator, after having ascended, flows towards these two vacuums. Thus arise the currents in the air; currents which continue the whole year, and cause the cold air to move from the poles to the equator along the surface of the earth; while higher in the atmosphere the heated air flows from the equator back to the poles.

The exact same thing happens on Earth. In the hot zone near the equator, the sun constantly heats the air, causing it to rise. Meanwhile, cold air from both the northern and southern hemispheres is constantly flowing toward the equator to fill the vacuum created. This cold air also gets heated and rises, while more cold air rushes in to take its place. This ongoing movement of air toward the equator creates a vacuum at both poles of the Earth; the heated air from the equator, after rising, flows toward these two vacuums. This is how air currents are formed—currents that persist year-round, causing cold air to move from the poles to the equator along the surface of the Earth, while higher up in the atmosphere, heated air flows back from the equator to the poles.

Therefore the air is said to circulate below from the poles to the equator, but above to go back from the equator to the poles.

Therefore, the air is said to flow below from the poles to the equator, but above it returns from the equator to the poles.

He who is in the habit of noticing phenomena of[Pg 77] nature, may often have observed something of the kind when opening the window of a room filled with smoke. The smoke escapes above, while below it seems to come back into the room again.

He who tends to notice phenomena of[Pg 77] nature might have often seen something similar when opening a window in a smoky room. The smoke rises out, while below it appears to flow back into the room.

But this is an illusion which has its origin in the fact, that above the warm air of the room goes out of the window, and, of course, takes the smoke with it; below at the window, however, cold air pours in from without, driving the smoke that is below back into the room. The attentive observer may also see how the two currents of air above and below move in contrary directions; while in the middle part they repel each other, and form a kind of eddy which may be clearly perceived by the motion of the smoke.

But this is an illusion that comes from the warm air in the room escaping out the window, and, of course, it carries the smoke with it. However, cold air rushes in from outside at the window, pushing the smoke below back into the room. A careful observer can also see how the two air currents above and below are moving in opposite directions; while they push against each other in the middle, they create a kind of swirl that is clearly visible in the motion of the smoke.

What takes place on our earth is nothing different from this, and we shall presently see the great influence this has upon our weather.[Pg 78]

What happens on our planet is just like this, and we will soon see the significant impact this has on our weather.[Pg 78]


CHAPTER IV.

THE FIRM RULES OF METEOROLOGY.

THE FIRM RULES OF WEATHER.

The air which is continually rising in the hot zones and circulating towards the poles and back again to the equator, is the prime source of the wind. This latter modifies the temperature of the atmosphere; for the cold air from the poles of the earth, in coming to the equator, cools the torrid zone; again, the hot air going from there to the poles heats the colder regions. This accounts for the fact that very often it is not so cold in cold countries as it really would be, were it not for this circulation of the air; and that in hot countries we never find the degree of heat that there would be if the air were continually at rest.

The air that constantly rises in the warm areas and circulates toward the poles and back to the equator is the main source of wind. This wind alters the atmosphere's temperature; the cold air from the poles cools the tropics when it moves toward the equator, while the hot air moving from the tropics to the poles warms the colder regions. This explains why it’s often not as cold in cold places as it would be without this air circulation, and why hot areas never reach the extreme heat they would if the air were completely still.

According to what has been said, however, but two different winds would exist on the earth, and these two moving in fixed directions; one sweeping over the earth from the poles to the equator, with us called "North wind," and one from the equator to the icy regions, with us the "South wind."

According to what has been said, however, there would be only two different winds on earth, and these would move in fixed directions; one blowing over the earth from the poles to the equator, which we call the "North wind," and one blowing from the equator to the icy regions, known as the "South wind."

But we must add here something which considerably modifies this, viz., the revolution of the globe. The earth, it is well known, revolves round its axis from west to east once in twenty-four hours; the atmosphere performs this revolution also.

But we need to add something here that significantly changes this, namely, the rotation of the planet. The Earth, as we know, spins on its axis from west to east once every twenty-four hours; the atmosphere rotates along with it too.

But since that part of the atmosphere nearest to the equator must move with greater velocity than the part nearer the poles, it may with a little thinking be easily understood, that the air which goes on the surface of the earth from the poles to the equator, passes over ground which[Pg 79] moves faster east than the air itself; while, on the contrary, the air coming from the hot zone starts in an eastern direction with the velocity it had on the equator; but, as it is moving on, it passes over that part of the earth which rotates with less velocity.

But since the part of the atmosphere closest to the equator must move faster than the part nearer the poles, it's easy to understand that the air traveling along the earth's surface from the poles to the equator passes over ground that[Pg 79] moves eastward faster than the air itself. Conversely, the air coming from the hot zone starts moving eastward at the speed it had at the equator; however, as it continues, it passes over that part of the earth which rotates more slowly.

This gives rise to what are called the trade-winds, so very important to navigation. In our hemisphere the trade-winds come in the lower strata of the air from the northeast; while in the upper strata they move towards northeast, they come from the southwest. On the other hemisphere the trade-winds in the lower strata of the air move in a northwesterly direction; in the upper they move in a southeasterly direction.

This leads to what we call the trade winds, which are really important for navigation. In our hemisphere, the trade winds blow from the northeast in the lower levels of the atmosphere, while in the upper levels, they move toward the northeast but come from the southwest. In the other hemisphere, the trade winds in the lower levels of the air blow in a northwesterly direction, and in the upper levels, they move in a southeasterly direction.

From this arise our rules respecting the weather.

From this come our rules about the weather.

The idea that many persons have that wind and weather are two things entirely different, is wrong. Weather is nothing else but a condition of the atmosphere. A cold winter, cold spring, cold summer, and cold autumn, do not mean, as some believe, that the earth, or that part of it on which they live, is colder than usual; for if we dig a hole in the ground, it will be found that neither cold nor warm weather has any influence upon the temperature below the surface of the earth. At the small depth of thirty inches below the surface, no difference can be found between the heat of the day and the cold of the night. In a well sixty feet deep no difference is perceivable between the hottest summer and the coldest winter-day, for below the surface of the earth the differences of temperature do not exist. What we call Weather is but a state of the atmosphere, and depends solely upon the wind.

The common belief that wind and weather are completely different things is incorrect. Weather is simply a condition of the atmosphere. A cold winter, cold spring, cold summer, and cold autumn do not mean, as some think, that the earth or the area they live in is colder than usual; because if we dig a hole in the ground, we’ll find that neither cold nor warm weather affects the temperature below the earth's surface. Just thirty inches beneath the surface, there’s no difference between the heat of the day and the cold of the night. In a well that's sixty feet deep, there’s no noticeable difference between the hottest summer day and the coldest winter day, as below the surface of the earth, temperature differences don’t exist. What we refer to as weather is merely a state of the atmosphere and is entirely dependent on the wind.

It has been stated already that there are fixed rules of weather, or, which is the same thing, that there are laws governing the motion of the winds; but we have added also, that there are a great many causes which disturb[Pg 80] these rules, and therefore make any calculations in advance a sheer impossibility.

It has already been said that there are fixed weather rules, or, in other words, laws that control how the winds move; however, we have also pointed out that many factors disrupt[Pg 80] these rules, making any predictions impossible.

We have seen that these rules are called forth, 1st, by the course of the sun; 2d, by the circulation of the air from the poles to the equator and back again; and 3d, by the revolution of the earth, causing the trade-winds.

We have seen that these rules come into play, 1st, because of the sun's path; 2nd, due to the circulation of air from the poles to the equator and back; and 3rd, because of the earth's rotation, which creates the trade winds.

All these various items have been calculated correctly; and, owing to this, we have now a firm basis in meteorology. But in the next article, we shall see what obstacles are put in the way of this new science by other things; and the allowances to be made for these disturbances cannot be easily computed.[Pg 81]

All these different factors have been accurately measured, and because of this, we now have a solid foundation in meteorology. However, in the next article, we will explore the challenges this new science faces from other influences, and the adjustments needed for these disruptions can’t be easily calculated.[Pg 81]


CHAPTER V.

AIR AND WATER IN THEIR RELATIONS TO WEATHER.

AIR AND WATER IN THEIR RELATIONS TO WEATHER.

Let us now examine the causes which disturb the regular currents of air, and which render the otherwise computable winds incomputable, thus producing the great irregularities of the weather.

Let’s now look at the reasons that disrupt the normal flow of air, making the otherwise predictable winds unpredictable, and causing the significant irregularities in the weather.

The main cause lies in this, that neither the air nor the earth is everywhere in the same condition.

The main cause is that neither the air nor the earth is in the same condition everywhere.

Every housewife that but once in her life hung up clothes to dry, knows full well that air absorbs moisture when passing over, or through, wet objects. If she wishes to dry her clothes very quickly, she will hang them up where there is much wind. And she is perfectly right in maintaining that the wind dries clothes better than the quiet sunshine.

Every housewife who has ever hung up clothes to dry knows that air picks up moisture as it flows over or through wet items. If she wants to dry her clothes quickly, she will hang them in a windy spot. And she's absolutely right in believing that wind dries clothes better than still sunshine.

Whence does this come?

Where does this come from?

From this: dry air, when coming in contact with wet objects, absorbs the moisture, and by this dries the object somewhat. If there be no wind, the moistened air will remain around the wet object, and the drying goes on very slowly. But so soon as a little wind arises, the moist air is moved away, new dry air constantly takes its place, and coming into contact with the wet article, effects in a very short time the desired result.

When dry air comes into contact with wet objects, it absorbs moisture and dries the object to some extent. If there’s no wind, the humid air will linger around the wet object, and the drying process will be very slow. However, as soon as a light breeze picks up, the moist air gets pushed away, and fresh dry air continuously moves in. This new dry air contacts the wet item and quickly achieves the desired drying effect.

Hence, it is not heat alone that causes the clothes to dry; for in winter-time, though it is so cold that the clothes on the line freeze to stiffness, they dry nevertheless, if it be very windy. It is the wind which dries them by allowing fresh air to pass through them continually. For the[Pg 82] same reason our housewives open doors and windows after a room has been scoured, so that by a thorough draft of air, the floor may dry quickly; a large fire in the stove or fireplace could not effect it so readily.

So, it’s not just heat that makes clothes dry; even in winter, when it’s so cold that the clothes on the line freeze solid, they still dry if it’s windy. It’s the wind that dries them by constantly letting fresh air circulate through them. For the[Pg 82]same reason, our housewives open doors and windows after cleaning a room, so that a good draft of air helps the floor dry quickly; a large fire in the stove or fireplace wouldn’t do it as effectively.

From all this we may learn that the air absorbs particles of water. It will now be evident to every one, why water in a tumbler, standing uncovered at the open window for a few days, constantly decreases, until it finally disappears entirely and the tumbler is dry. Where has the water gone? The air drank it off, little by little, until at last the tumbler was emptied.

From all of this, we can see that air absorbs water particles. It's clear to everyone now why water in a glass, left uncovered by an open window for a few days, slowly decreases until it completely evaporates and the glass is dry. Where did the water go? The air soaked it up, bit by bit, until the glass was empty.

"But," you will exclaim, "what does the air do with all the water it drinks? The air goes over the whole ocean; over lakes, rivers, brooks, and springs; over woods and fields, and everywhere it takes in particles of water. What becomes of them?"

"But," you will say, "what happens to all the water the air takes in? The air moves over the entire ocean; over lakes, rivers, streams, and springs; over forests and fields, and everywhere it collects water particles. What happens to them?"

After being absorbed, the particles of water unite and form clouds; then they fall down in the form of fog, rain, snow, or hail.

After being absorbed, the water particles come together and form clouds; then they fall as fog, rain, snow, or hail.

Many persons, even highly educated ones, have false ideas about these phenomena of the atmosphere.

Many people, even those who are well-educated, have misconceptions about these atmospheric phenomena.

Some think a cloud is a kind of bag that contains the rain which is let fall by the cloud. This is entirely false. The clouds are nothing but fogs in the upper regions of the atmosphere; fog itself is nothing but a cloud immediately over ground.

Some people believe that a cloud is like a bag that holds the rain released by the cloud. This is completely incorrect. Clouds are simply fog in the higher parts of the atmosphere; fog is just a cloud that is right above the ground.

It is easy to obtain a correct idea of the formation of fog and rain; one need but observe for one's self.

It's easy to understand how fog and rain form; you just have to observe for yourself.

He who has ever blown upon his hands in winter-time in order to warm them, will have observed that his hands become moist from his breath. If a window-pane is breathed upon, it is covered by a thin coat of water. What is the cause of this? It arises from the fact that the air we exhale contains water-particles from our blood. We do not see them when it is warm, because they are airy themselves;[Pg 83] everybody knows that they become visible so soon as the air turns cool; or that they appear like fog when one is in a cold room in winter; that they form drops when you breathe upon cold objects; that they freeze and become snow; nay, that in severe cold weather, after a long walk outdoors, they even cling to one's moustache like icicles.

Anyone who has ever blown on their hands in winter to warm them will notice that their hands become damp from their breath. If you breathe on a window, it gets covered by a thin layer of moisture. What causes this? It’s because the air we exhale contains water particles from our blood. We can’t see them when it’s warm, since they’re in gas form; everyone knows they become visible when the air cools down. They appear like fog when you’re in a chilly room during winter, form droplets when you breathe on cold surfaces, freeze into snow, and in very cold weather, after a long walk outside, they even stick to your mustache like icicles.[Pg 83]

This may illustrate, that these particles of water are invisible in the warm air, but that when the air is colder they appear as fog; when still colder, as drops of rain; and in very cold weather they turn to snow, while in severe cold they freeze and form ice.[Pg 84]

This shows that these water particles can't be seen in warm air, but when the air cools down, they show up as fog; when it gets even cooler, they become raindrops; and in very cold weather, they turn into snow, while in extreme cold, they freeze and turn into ice.[Pg 84]


CHAPTER VI.

FOG, CLOUDS, RAIN, AND SNOW.

Fog, clouds, rain, and snow.

The air imbibes particles of water from all parts of the earth; and thus charged with water it is the same and operates the same as our breath.

The air absorbs water particles from every corner of the earth; and so, filled with water, it functions the same way as our breath.

So soon as a stratum of air that contains water-particles, meets with a colder stratum, these airy particles of water immediately flow together to form fog. But fog, as has been said, is nothing but a cloud. He who has travelled in mountainous countries, has often noticed this. From the valley it often appears that the top of a high mountain is wrapped in clouds; and his curiosity may be excited to ascend the mountain in order to examine these clouds. But when he arrives there, he sees nothing whatever either before or behind him but fog, which most assuredly he has often seen before without so much trouble. The ignorant person who believes that a cloud is something else than fog, and who fancies that the clouds which he saw from below have disappeared during his ascent, leaving but a mist behind, will be no little amazed when he has arrived at the foot of the mountain again, to see the cloud above as before, and to perceive that he actually walked among the clouds.

As soon as a layer of air that contains water particles encounters a colder layer, those water particles come together to form fog. But fog, as mentioned, is just another type of cloud. Someone who has traveled in mountainous regions has likely noticed this. From the valley, it often seems like the peak of a tall mountain is shrouded in clouds, sparking curiosity to climb up and check out those clouds. But when they get there, all they see, in front and behind them, is fog—something they've definitely seen before without that much effort. The uninformed person who thinks a cloud is different from fog and imagines that the clouds they saw from below have vanished during their climb, leaving only mist, will be quite surprised when they return to the mountain's base to find the cloud overhead just as it was before, realizing that they actually walked among the clouds.

Hence it is understood now, that the particles of water in the air form fog, or, which is the same, clouds, so soon as they come into a colder stratum. But the cloud is not rain as yet; the change into rain will depend upon circumstances that may be easily guessed. If a warmer and dryer stratum passes over the one containing the newly[Pg 85] formed clouds, then this warmer stratum will absorb the water-particles of the other. The moist air fares like the wet clothes we spoke of; the warm dry air absorbs its particles of water. But if a colder stratum of air approaches the stratum containing clouds, then the water-particles of the latter are condensed; the cloud becomes small drops of water; these drops are too heavy to be supported in the air, and they fall down as rain.

So, it's now understood that the particles of water in the air create fog, or clouds, as soon as they enter a colder layer. But those clouds aren't rain yet; whether they turn into rain depends on a few predictable factors. If a warmer and dryer layer moves over the one with the newly formed clouds, that warmer layer will absorb the water particles. The moist air acts like the wet clothes we mentioned; the warm dry air picks up its water particles. However, if a colder layer of air comes near the layer containing the clouds, then the water particles in those clouds condense; the cloud turns into small drops of water. These drops become too heavy to stay in the air, and they fall as rain.

During its descent, the drop of rain is steadily increased by the water-particles of the air through which it passes. Thus it happens, that rain often arrives at the earth in the form of large drops of water, while when yet in the air and beginning to fall, it consisted of tiny drops. It is well known that the rain-drops on the roof are smaller than those that fall on the street. The difference is so great, that on the roof of the royal castle in Berlin, Prussia, there falls four and a half inches less rain during the year than on the square before the building.

During its descent, a rain drop picks up water particles from the air it moves through. As a result, rain often reaches the ground as large drops, while it starts out as tiny droplets in the sky. It’s well known that the raindrops falling on a roof are smaller than those that land on the street. The difference is so significant that the roof of the royal castle in Berlin, Prussia, receives four and a half inches less rain in a year than the square in front of the building.

Our readers may now imagine, without difficulty, how in a similar way, snow is formed. If a stratum of air saturated with moisture meets a very cold one, the fog begins to freeze, and becomes specks of snow. They, too, increase while falling, and on arriving upon the earth they are large flakes.

Our readers can easily picture how snow forms in a similar way. When a layer of moist air encounters a very cold layer, the fog starts to freeze and turns into tiny snowflakes. As they fall, they grow larger, and by the time they reach the ground, they appear as big flakes.

On the occasion of a lecture about the formation of snow in the atmosphere, Professor Dove once told an anecdote, which is as interesting as it is instructive. A musician in St. Petersburg gave a concert in a large hall, where the fashionable world had assembled in great numbers. It was an icy cold night, such as is almost unknown with us; but in the overcrowded hall there was such excessive heat as only Russians can endure. Soon, however, it became too intense even for them. The hall was densely crowded; the throng was alarming; several ladies fainted. An effort was made to open a window, but without success—the[Pg 86] window was frozen fast. A gallant officer devised means; he broke the window in. And what happened? It commenced to snow in the concert room! How did this come? The vapor exhaled by the multitude of persons in the hall had collected above, where the air was hottest. The sudden entrance of the icy air through the broken window changed the particles of water into snow. Thus it was this time not heaven, but the upper space of an unventilated concert-hall, that sent down snow.

On the occasion of a lecture about how snow forms in the atmosphere, Professor Dove once shared an anecdote that is both interesting and informative. A musician in St. Petersburg held a concert in a large hall filled with a fashionable crowd. It was an icy cold night, almost unheard of in our area; however, the crowded hall was uncomfortably hot, a level of heat only Russians can tolerate. Eventually, though, it became too stifling even for them. The hall was packed; the crowd was overwhelming; several ladies fainted. An attempt was made to open a window, but it was stuck—the[Pg 86] window was frozen shut. A brave officer found a solution; he broke the window in. And what happened? It started to snow in the concert hall! How did this occur? The moisture exhaled by the many people in the hall had accumulated above, where the air was warmest. The sudden rush of icy air through the broken window turned the water vapor into snow. So, this time it wasn't from the heavens, but from the trapped air in an unventilated concert hall that snow fell.

In a similar way hail is formed in the atmosphere; this we shall consider at more length hereafter. At present we must turn our attention to the influence of these phenomena upon cold and heat; for it is a known fact, that rain and evaporation are not only engendered by cold and heat, but, vice versâ, that rain and evaporation, in their turn, engender cold and heat in the air.[Pg 87]

In a similar way, hail forms in the atmosphere; we'll go into more detail about that later. Right now, we need to focus on how these phenomena affect cold and heat. It's a known fact that rain and evaporation are not only caused by cold and heat, but, vice versa, that rain and evaporation also create cold and heat in the air.[Pg 87]


CHAPTER VII.

HOW HEAT IN THE AIR BECOMES LATENT, AND HOW IT GETS FREE AGAIN.

HOW HEAT IN THE AIR BECOMES LATENT, AND HOW IT GETS FREE AGAIN.

In the preceding chapter it was shown how warm air produces evaporation, and how cold air causes rain and snow. In this chapter we desire to demonstrate how the reverse may take place, viz., the engendering of cold and heat by evaporation and rain.

In the previous chapter, we explained how warm air leads to evaporation and how cold air results in rain and snow. In this chapter, we want to show how the opposite can happen, specifically, how evaporation and rain can create cold and heat.

Although what we wish to prove in the following is firmly established, yet it is not easy to make it understood. For this reason many educated men, who have read much about "free and latent heat," have mistaken ideas about it.

Although what we want to prove in the following is well-established, it’s not easy to make it clear. Because of this, many educated people who have read a lot about "free and latent heat" have misconceptions about it.

In order that what we shall explain may be in the reach of every one, we must again choose our examples from life itself, and request our readers to come to our aid with their thoughts.

To make sure our explanation is accessible to everyone, we need to choose our examples from real life and ask our readers to help us with their thoughts.

Every one knows how water is boiled. It is placed over the fire, the heat of which communicates itself to the water and heats it more and more. Now, where does the heat of the fire go? It is taken up by the water; thus to speak, the water absorbs the heat. This explains why a cooking-stove on which a dinner is cooked, does not get near as warm as it would, if the same quantity of fuel had been used without any cooking on the stove. For a portion of the heat being absorbed by the meat, it cannot heat the stove; hence the stove fails to receive the amount of heat that is used in cooking the meat.

Everyone knows how water boils. It’s placed on the stove, and the heat from the fire warms the water more and more. So, where does the heat from the fire go? It’s absorbed by the water; in other words, the water takes in the heat. This explains why a cooking stove that’s being used to prepare a meal doesn’t get nearly as hot as it would if the same amount of fuel were burned without any cooking. Because some of the heat is absorbed by the food, there’s less heat available to warm the stove; as a result, the stove doesn’t get as much heat during the cooking process.

What will be the effect of taking boiling water from the[Pg 88] stove and placing it in the room somewhere? Where will the heat of the water go then?

What will happen if you take boiling water off the[Pg 88] stove and put it somewhere in the room? Where will the heat from the water go?

We all know that in this case the water cools down by degrees. The water gives out its heat. Now, it is evident that while on the fire, the water had absorbed heat; and that it gave out that heat on being put in a colder place.

We all know that in this situation, the water cools down gradually. The water releases its heat. Now, it's clear that while it was on the fire, the water had absorbed heat; and that it released that heat when placed in a colder environment.

But what will become of the water if it is allowed to continue to absorb heat? What becomes of a pot of water, if, on beginning to boil, it is not taken off the fire? Does such water continue to absorb heat?

But what will happen to the water if it keeps absorbing heat? What happens to a pot of water if it isn't removed from the heat once it starts to boil? Does that water keep absorbing heat?

Observation shows that this is not the case. Put a thermometer into boiling water; it will immediately rise to 212 degrees; let it remain there ever so long, it will not rise a degree higher. But during that time there was a brisk fire; it is evident, therefore, that heat was continually passing into the water. Where, then, is this heat? It has not remained in the water, or else the thermometer would have continued to rise. It must be, then, that it has passed away with the burning hot steam which has been constantly rising and floating about in the room. Moreover, it is well known that water, when allowed to continue to boil, decreases in quantity. Our housewives call this "boiling down." In truth, however, the water boils up; for, if you notice carefully, a part of the water, while boiling, is changed into steam, which may be seen rising from the pot and ascending in the air. The question naturally arises now, where is the heat that the boiling water has been continually absorbing? It has not remained in the water, or the thermometer would have continued to rise. The answer is now evident: the heat has risen with the steam, and with it floats about in the air; or, in other words, the heat has been absorbed by the steam; or, which is the same, the heat has become latent in the steam. Therefore we are correct in saying, it takes heat to change[Pg 89] water into steam. We know now where the heat has gone; it has become latent in the steam.

Observation shows that this isn’t the case. Put a thermometer in boiling water; it will immediately rise to 212 degrees, and even if you leave it there for a long time, it won’t increase any higher. During that time, there was a strong fire, so it’s clear that heat was constantly entering the water. So, where is this heat? It hasn’t stayed in the water, or else the thermometer would have kept rising. It must have escaped with the hot steam that has been rising and floating around the room. Moreover, we know that water, when it continues to boil, decreases in quantity. Our housewives call this "boiling down." In reality, though, the water boils up; because, if you look closely, part of the water changes into steam while boiling, which you can see rising from the pot and going into the air. This raises the question of where the heat that the boiling water keeps absorbing has gone. It hasn't stayed in the water, or else the thermometer would have continued to rise. The answer is clear: the heat has risen with the steam and is floating around in the air; in other words, the heat has been absorbed by the steam; or, the heat has become latent in the steam. So, it’s correct to say, it takes heat to change[Pg 89] water into steam. Now we know where the heat has gone; it has become latent in the steam.

The next question might be: Can this latent heat become free again? Certainly it can; and many a good housewife has convinced herself of it very often, though perhaps she did not philosophize about it. When touching unawares the spout of the tea-kettle with her hand she felt as though her hand was wet, and scalded besides. Whence did this come? The hand was wetted by the steam, which, on coming in contact with the hand, changed to water again, but in the same moment, also, the steam gave up its heat to the hand by scalding it. Steam, therefore, when changing into water, gives its latent heat up again; or, the latent heat becomes free.

The next question might be: Can this latent heat be released again? Absolutely, it can; and many a good housewife has figured this out for herself, even if she didn't think about it deeply. When she accidentally touches the spout of the kettle with her hand, she feels like her hand is wet and burned at the same time. Where does this come from? The steam wets her hand, and when it hits her skin, it turns back into water, but at the same time, the steam transfers its heat to her hand, causing a burn. So, steam, when it turns into water, releases its latent heat; in other words, the latent heat becomes available.

This phenomenon, which may be witnessed in every kitchen, happens in nature on a larger scale; by what powerful effects it is accompanied, we propose to show in the next chapter.[Pg 90]

This phenomenon, which can be seen in every kitchen, occurs in nature on a larger scale; we'll demonstrate the powerful effects it comes with in the next chapter.[Pg 90]


CHAPTER VIII.

LATENT HEAT PRODUCES COLD; FREE HEAT, WARMTH.

LATENT HEAT CREATES COLD; FREE HEAT, WARMTH.

He who considers how water when heated is transformed into steam, and how this steam has absorbed the whole portion of heat that was necessary to form it, will easily understand, that places where vapor is formed must become cooler. Just as the fire used for cooking purposes cannot heat the stove, so that portion of the sun's heat which changes the water on the surface of the earth into vapor, cannot heat the earth. Hence it follows, that wherever water evaporates, the air turns cool, because the heat, instead of being imparted to the air, is used in forming vapor; this vapor, then, contains the same portion of heat that was necessary to form it; or, scientifically speaking, vapor makes heat latent.

Those who think about how water turns into steam when heated, and how this steam has taken on all the heat needed to create it, will easily see that places where vapor is formed must get cooler. Just like the fire used for cooking can’t heat the stove, the part of the sun's heat that changes the water on the earth’s surface into vapor can’t heat the earth. Therefore, wherever water evaporates, the air cools down because the heat isn’t transferred to the air; instead, it’s used to create vapor. This vapor then holds onto the same amount of heat that was needed to form it; in scientific terms, vapor makes heat latent.

When in summer it is oppressively hot, and a heavy shower comes, it is often more oppressive during the rain than before; but after the rain the weather is, as we call it, cooled off.

When summer is unbearably hot and a heavy shower hits, it often feels more stifling during the rain than it did before; but after the rain, we say the weather has cooled off.

What is the cause of this? After the rain the surface of the earth is wet, and the moisture begins to evaporate. In other words, the rain-water changes again into vapor. To do this, heat is necessary, and is withdrawn from the air and from the surface of the earth; by this means air and earth become cool.

What causes this? After it rains, the ground gets wet, and the moisture starts to evaporate. In other words, the rainwater turns back into vapor. To make this happen, heat is needed, and it is taken from the air and the surface of the ground; this cools down the air and the ground.

It is very agreeable during the summer-time to have the streets of cities sprinkled with water, and it is also very[Pg 91] healthy, because the evaporation of the sprinkled water renders heat latent, and thus cools off the air.

It’s really nice during the summer to have the streets of cities sprayed with water, and it’s also very[Pg 91]healthy because the evaporation of the sprayed water makes heat less intense and cools down the air.

The reverse, however, may also take place. As the housewife's hand is scalded when the steam changes on her hand into water, that is, as the steam by turning into water again gives up the heat it possessed, just so acts nature. When vapor in the air turns into rain, it gives up that portion of heat which it had held latent, and hence it is, that before a rain or snow-storm the weather turns warmer.

The opposite can also happen. Just like a housewife burns her hand when steam condenses into water, releasing the heat it had, nature works similarly. When vapor in the air turns into rain, it releases the heat that was stored in it. That's why the weather gets warmer before a rain or snowstorm.

When in winter it suddenly turns a little warm, that is, when the cold suddenly diminishes, we know that it is going to snow. The only reason why it has become warm is this, that in the air above, vapor has changed into snow, thus giving up its heat, the benefit of which we feel. Thus in summer-time, when the sun becomes fiercest, people say "The sun draws water, it will rain." The truth is, that the vapors in the air change into water, and thus give up their heat; people now think the sun has become hotter.

When winter suddenly gets a bit warmer, which means the cold suddenly eases up, we know it's going to snow. The reason it feels warmer is that vapor in the air has turned into snow, releasing heat that we can feel. Similarly, in summer, when the sun is at its hottest, people say, "The sun is pulling up water; it’s going to rain." The reality is that the vapors in the air are turning into water, which releases heat, leading people to think the sun is hotter.

Another consequence of this phenomenon is the fact, that in countries where there is much water, the air in summer is much cooler, because a great deal of water evaporates there, by which means heat is absorbed or made latent. In winter the air in such countries is warmer, because much vapor is changed into water; thus heat becomes free.

Another result of this phenomenon is that in countries with a lot of water, the air in summer is much cooler because a lot of water evaporates, which absorbs or retains heat. In winter, the air in those countries is warmer because a lot of vapor turns back into water, releasing heat.

It is evident that all this has a great influence upon the weather—an influence that may be calculated even in advance.

It’s clear that all of this has a significant impact on the weather—an impact that can even be predicted ahead of time.

To state an example: The positions of Berlin and London are such, that the summer-heat and the winter-cold ought to be equal in both places. But because England is an island in the ocean, that is, surrounded by large masses of water, the evaporation of water is in London much greater; hence the summer there is cooler. For the[Pg 92] same reason rain and fog are much more frequent there, and the winter, consequently, is less severe.

To give an example: The locations of Berlin and London are such that the summer heat and winter cold should be similar in both cities. However, because England is an island in the ocean, meaning it's surrounded by large bodies of water, the evaporation of water in London is much higher; this makes the summer cooler there. For the[Pg 92] same reason, rain and fog occur much more often, so the winter is less harsh.

In the course of this work we shall see how similar conditions have very great influence upon whole countries, and therefore often cause, contrary to the rule, cold summers and warm winters.[Pg 93]

In this work, we will see how similar conditions can greatly affect entire countries, often leading to cold summers and warm winters, contrary to the usual patterns.[Pg 93]


CHAPTER IX.

RULES ABOUT THE WEATHER, AND DISTURBANCES OF THE SAME.

RULES ABOUT THE WEATHER AND ITS DISTURBANCES.

If we cast a glance upon the phenomena of our atmosphere, we find that they are indeed computable, and that the weather in general may be foretold, even for large countries, with some degree of certainty. Nay, there are countries where the weather is not variable at all, but changes at regular periods and according to fixed rules.

If we take a look at the phenomena in our atmosphere, we find that they can indeed be calculated, and that the weather can generally be predicted, even for large countries, with some level of accuracy. In fact, there are countries where the weather is not variable at all, but changes at regular intervals and according to specific rules.

In countries near the equator, where the sun's heat is very strong, heat, calm, and dryness prevail during the summer-time. This state of the atmosphere continues uninterruptedly until winter; nor can there be any frost there in winter, because even then the sun's rays fall with but little obliquity upon the surface of the earth. But inasmuch as the sun no longer heats the earth to the same degree, the air ceases to retain the same amount of heat, and as a great deal of cold air is constantly passing in from the poles, the vapor spoken of above is, at that season of the year, changed back into water. Thus, winter there is merely a long, uninterrupted rainy season.

In countries close to the equator, where the sun's heat is intense, the summer is characterized by heat, stillness, and dryness. This weather pattern continues without interruption until winter; there can’t be any frost during winter because even then, the sun's rays hit the earth at a low angle. However, since the sun doesn't heat the earth as strongly, the air doesn't hold as much heat, and a lot of cold air comes in from the poles, causing the previously mentioned vapor to turn back into water during that time of year. So, winter there is just a long, continuous rainy season.

We see that for the warmer countries the rules of temperature are pretty constant and sure; there one is not surprised by irregularities of weather such as occur with us. Summer brings heat, calm, and dryness; winter, east winds, thunder-storms, and continual rain. The rain once ceasing, the sun reappears in a few days, and everything begins to bloom again.

We see that in warmer countries, the temperature patterns are pretty stable and reliable; people aren't caught off guard by unexpected weather like we are. Summer brings heat, stillness, and dryness; winter brings east winds, thunderstorms, and constant rain. Once the rain stops, the sun comes back in a few days, and everything starts to bloom again.

This holds good only for the countries near the equator.[Pg 94] The further you go towards the poles, the more varied become summer and winter, the length of day and night, heat and cold, and consequently, also, the condition of the atmosphere and of the weather proper.

This is true only for countries close to the equator.[Pg 94] The farther you travel toward the poles, the more diverse summer and winter become, as well as the lengths of day and night, heat and cold, and therefore, the state of the atmosphere and the weather itself.

A glance upon the map will convince any one, that it is with us that the weather is most changeable. The reasons for this may now be more closely examined. Our country lies nearly half way between the pole and the equator. From our pole we constantly receive a cold wind, the north wind. And above, in the atmosphere, a warm wind, the south wind, goes continually from the equator to the pole. Through the rotation of the earth around its axis from west to east, the north wind becomes an easterly, that is, a northeast wind; and the south wind in the upper atmosphere becomes a westerly, or southwest wind. The former, coming from cold countries, carries no vapor with it; hence, during northeast wind we have clear sky, or sunshine, but without heat. If this wind occurs in winter, it brings us dry frost; in daytime the sun shines splendidly, at night the stars sparkle brilliantly; yet our breath freezes on our lips. The same wind when prevailing in the first days of spring, causes us, in spite of the glaring sun, to feel considerably cold in the shade.

A look at the map will show anyone that our weather is the most unpredictable. The reasons for this can now be examined more closely. Our country is located almost halfway between the North Pole and the Equator. From the North Pole, we constantly receive a cold wind, the north wind. Meanwhile, a warm wind, the south wind, continuously moves from the Equator to the North Pole in the atmosphere. Due to the Earth's rotation from west to east, the north wind becomes an easterly, specifically a northeast wind; and the south wind in the upper atmosphere turns into a westerly, or southwest wind. The northeast wind, which originates from cold regions, brings little moisture with it; therefore, during a northeast wind, we experience clear skies or sunshine, but without warmth. If this wind occurs in winter, it delivers dry frost; during the day, the sun shines brilliantly, and at night the stars sparkle beautifully; yet our breath freezes on our lips. The same wind prevailing in the early days of spring makes us feel quite cold in the shade, despite the bright sun.

And it is but natural that it should be so.

And it's only natural that it should be this way.

The wind comes from the north; there ice and snow are just melting, and the sun's heat being employed for this "melting business," the air cannot receive much of it.

The wind comes from the north; there, ice and snow are just melting, and the sun's heat is used for this "melting business," so the air can't absorb much of it.

This kind of weather would be regular with us; but, as we know already, the heated upper air flows from the equator to the north pole; now we live in the very region where this upper air, in its descent towards the poles, at times touches the surface of the earth, thus causing warm currents of air, which occasionally are followed by cold ones.

This kind of weather would be normal for us; but, as we already know, the hot upper air moves from the equator to the north pole; and we live in the exact area where this upper air, as it descends toward the poles, sometimes reaches the ground, creating warm air currents that are occasionally followed by cold ones.

Near the equator the cold current of air moves below[Pg 95] and the warm one above; while in our regions, both currents meet near the surface of the earth, struggle with each other, seek to repel one another, rush and roll in all directions over the land, and bring us such varieties of weather as will exasperate all weather prophets, and greatly increase the difficulty of scientific solutions in meteorology.

Near the equator, cold air moves below[Pg 95] and warm air rises above it; whereas in our areas, both currents collide near the ground, fight against each other, try to push one another away, swirl and roll in all directions across the land, bringing us such a mix of weather that it frustrates all weather forecasters and makes scientific explanations in meteorology even harder.

In the next chapter we shall endeavor to prove that this state of affairs, together with the situation of our country, are the main causes of the changeableness of our weather.[Pg 96]

In the next chapter, we will try to show that this situation, along with the condition of our country, are the main reasons for the unpredictability of our weather.[Pg 96]


CHAPTER X.

THE CHANGEABLENESS OF THE WEATHER WITH REGARD TO OUR GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION.

THE UNPREDICTABILITY OF THE WEATHER BASED ON OUR LOCATION.

We have endeavored to explain why our weather is so uncertain and incomputable. As we have seen, it has its origin in this, that in our regions the warmer equatorial currents of air no longer move above the colder ones, but that they descend here, and pursue their northern course alongside and opposing the colder currents. This often gives rise to a struggle between cold and warm currents. In summer we witness such combats very frequently. The sky is at first bright; the sun sends down his most powerful rays; in the shade we are refreshed by a strong draught, which keeps the sky clear, and free from clouds. Suddenly there comes a calm. Even in the shade the heat now becomes intolerable. The trees stand immovable; no leaflet stirs. The complete calm becomes unendurable, and causes anxiety. "Always a calm before a storm," say the people, and hasten to seek shelter in their houses—and well! for it is not long before a counter wind commences to blow. The weathercock turns round, the dust in the streets is whirled up in eddies, and here and there rises in clouds to the house-tops. Suddenly clouds are seen to form themselves; the trees shake their crowns; the leaves rustle, and before one is aware of it, we have storm, thunder, and violent rain, which cool off the earth.

We’ve tried to explain why our weather is so unpredictable and hard to forecast. As we've observed, this is because in our areas, the warmer equatorial air currents no longer flow above the colder ones, but instead dive down and move northward alongside and against the colder currents. This often leads to a clash between cold and warm currents. During summer, we frequently see these battles. The sky starts off clear; the sun shines down with its strongest rays; in the shade, a refreshing breeze keeps the sky clear and free of clouds. Suddenly, there’s a lull. Even in the shade, the heat becomes unbearable. The trees stand still; not a leaf moves. The complete stillness becomes unbearable and creates a sense of unease. "It's always calm before a storm," people say as they rush to find shelter in their homes—and rightly so! It’s not long before a contrary wind begins to blow. The weather vane spins around, dust in the streets swirls into eddies, and here and there it rises in clouds to the rooftops. Suddenly, clouds begin to form; the trees shake their tops; the leaves rustle, and before you know it, we have a storm, thunder, and heavy rain that cool the earth.

Whence came this weather; more especially, whence came the calm preceding it, and the whirlwind following?

Where did this weather come from; particularly, where did the calm before it and the whirlwind after it come from?

There were two opposite currents of air, which for a time[Pg 97] avoided each other, but at length met over our heads. Each current at first pressed on the other with equal force, so that they mutually were brought to a stand-still; this we called a calm. But such an equilibrium does not last long, for one current must in the end overcome the other; they whirl through one another, raise the dust in high columns, seize the trees and give them a thorough shaking. The cold current changes the vapor of the warm current into clouds, then into rain. The pouring down rain immediately sets free the heat. At this stage electrical phenomena are witnessed, such as lightnings, claps of thunder, and concussions of the air. And this continues until one current of air has carried the victory over the other; not till then does the weather become quiet again.

There were two opposing air currents that initially stayed separate but eventually met above us. At first, each current pressed against the other with equal force, causing both to come to a halt; we referred to this as a calm. However, this balance doesn't last long, as one current will eventually overpower the other. They swirl together, kicking up dust in tall columns, grabbing hold of trees and shaking them violently. The cold current transforms the vapor from the warm current into clouds and then into rain. The heavy rainfall releases the heat. At this point, electrical activity occurs, including flashes of lightning, rumbles of thunder, and bursts of air. This continues until one air current wins out over the other; only then does the weather settle down again.

Besides these opposing currents of air, which come from the north and south, there are other causes disturbing our weather, viz., the geographical position of our country in regard to the east and west.

Besides these opposing air currents from the north and south, there are other factors affecting our weather, namely, the geographical location of our country in relation to the east and west.

A glance on the map reminds us that our continent borders, on the east and west, on that immense waste of water, the ocean. We know now that the air above the water is always saturated with vapors, while the air over the land is comparatively dry. And moist air contains heat, dry air does not; both, however, are continually tending towards equilibrium and wish to exchange temperatures from each other. As our dry air is surrounded on both sides by moist air, it is evident that we must more or less partake of both heat and cold; but it moreover accounts for the happy circumstance that we have much rain; hence our soil is well watered, and this is a blessing to any country.[Pg 98]

A look at the map shows us that our continent is bordered on the east and west by the vast ocean. We now understand that the air over the ocean is always filled with moisture, while the air over land is relatively dry. Moist air holds heat, whereas dry air does not; however, both are constantly trying to reach balance and exchange temperatures. Since our dry air is surrounded by moist air on both sides, it's clear that we are influenced by both heat and cold; this also explains why we experience a lot of rainfall. As a result, our soil is well-watered, which is a great advantage for any country.[Pg 98]


CHAPTER XI.

ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY AND POSSIBILITY OF DETERMINING THE WEATHER.

ABOUT THE CHALLENGE AND POTENTIAL OF PREDICTING THE WEATHER.

Having now explained the rules referring to the conditions of our weather, and proved that owing to the geographical position of our country, to determine the weather in advance, is difficult, we wish to examine this difficulty a little more closely in pointing out the wrong direction which has hitherto been pursued in the science of meteorology.

Having now explained the rules related to our weather conditions, and shown that because of our country’s geographical location, predicting the weather in advance is challenging, we want to take a closer look at this difficulty by highlighting the incorrect approach that has been taken in the science of meteorology until now.

The main difficulty in predicting the weather for any given place consists in this, that a change in the atmosphere need not originate in the place where it occurs. Thus, to-morrow's weather in New York is not a consequence of the condition of the air as it exists there to-day; for the air is continually moving, and, owing to many disturbances, is carried over city and country. We have no sure means of ascertaining whence the wind will come to us to-morrow. All we know is, that from all sides currents of air are moving simultaneously; from the north pole a cold current, from the equator a warm one, from the ocean one saturated with moisture. All these winds are in continual commotion, and have the characteristics of the neighborhood from which they come. If from the state of the weather in New York to-day it were desired to predict the weather there for to morrow, one ought to be able to overlook a space of about a thousand miles around; in other words, it must first be ascertained what is the state of the atmosphere within about a thousand miles of the city. Besides,[Pg 99] there should be known the direction of all the winds within this wide space, and their speed, and whether they contain much moisture or little. Not without this information could a calculation be made about the velocity with which a change of the weather would take place in New York; what results the meeting of two or more currents of air might call forth; and what kind of weather this might produce there.

The main challenge in predicting the weather for any location is that a change in the atmosphere doesn’t have to start where it happens. So, tomorrow's weather in New York isn't just a result of the air conditions there today; the air is constantly moving, influenced by various disturbances, sweeping across both city and countryside. We have no reliable way to determine where the wind will come from tomorrow. All we know is that air currents are simultaneously moving in from all directions: a cold current from the North Pole, a warm one from the equator, and a moisture-laden one from the ocean. These winds are always in motion and carry the traits of the regions they originate from. If we wanted to predict the weather in New York tomorrow based on today’s weather, we would need to consider a space of about a thousand miles around the city. In other words, we must first understand the atmospheric conditions within approximately a thousand miles of New York. Additionally, it’s essential to know the direction and speed of all the winds within that wide area, and whether they carry a lot of moisture or not. Without this information, it would be impossible to calculate how quickly a weather change might occur in New York, what effects the interaction of different air currents could have, and what type of weather they might generate there.

Weather, therefore, for the present state of meteorology, is but a subject of investigation into the existing condition of existing phenomena, and not a subject of prediction of coming phenomena. It is true, there are general rules by which a proximate success in predicting may be obtained. If winter begins mild, or, better, if southwest winds and rain prevail till the middle of January, it is very likely that this will be counterbalanced by a northeast wind in the latter part of the winter. The saying, therefore, is correct, "green Christmas and white Easter;" but this rule is by no means infallible, the counteraction may be accelerated by violent storms, or greatly retarded by mild currents of air.

Weather, then, in terms of today's meteorology, is mainly about examining the current state of things rather than predicting what will happen next. It's true that there are some general guidelines that can help make reasonably accurate predictions. For example, if winter starts off mild, or if we have southwest winds and rain until mid-January, it's quite likely that this will be followed by a northeast wind later in the winter. So the saying "green Christmas and white Easter" holds some truth; however, this isn't a guaranteed rule, as strong storms can speed up changes or warm air currents might slow them down significantly.

Not before the time that meteorological stations are established throughout the land, and connected by electric telegraphs—a project which to us may seem immense, but to our children will appear very simple and natural—not before that time will a city like New York, for example, receive timely information about the conditions of the currents of air at all the stations. At each of these places the force of the current, its warmth, moisture, and weight will be accurately ascertained by instruments. Then, and then only, we may calculate what currents will meet and where, and what effects the meeting will have. If this be done on Saturday, the Sunday papers will be enabled to state precisely whether the church-goers must provide themselves with umbrellas or parasols.[Pg 100]

Not until meteorological stations are set up all over the country and linked by electric telegraphs—a project that may seem huge to us but will seem simple and normal to our children—will a city like New York, for example, receive timely updates about air conditions at all the stations. At each of these locations, instruments will accurately measure the strength of the wind, its temperature, humidity, and pressure. Only then can we predict where air currents will meet and what effects that will have. If this is done on Saturday, the Sunday papers will be able to inform churchgoers exactly whether they need to bring umbrellas or parasols.[Pg 100]

But not for Sunday alone will this be of importance. It will be long after their establishment, that such weather-stations, connected by telegraphs, will prove their real efficiency and blessing; and our descendants, perhaps, will wonder how we could live without an institution, which to them will appear as simple and natural as do to us gaslights and railroads, which by our forefathers would have been rejected as idle dreams or works of witchcraft.[Pg 101]

But this won’t only matter on Sundays. Even long after they’re set up, these weather stations connected by telegraphs will show their true usefulness and benefits. Our future generations might even wonder how we managed without something that will seem as ordinary and natural to them as gaslights and railroads do to us, which our ancestors would have dismissed as pointless dreams or acts of witchcraft.[Pg 101]


CHAPTER XII.

THE FALSE WEATHER-PROPHETS.

THE FAKE WEATHER-PROPHETS.

We wish to speak here a few words about the false methods, that have hitherto been applied to the investigation and foretelling of the weather.

We want to say a few things about the incorrect methods that have been used so far to study and predict the weather.

The weather prophecies of the almanac are a disgrace to our advanced age. Those who still print them deserve that their productions should nowhere find sale. We are not of those who expect everything of the magistrates and their orders; but an example should be set to prevent the publishers from dishing up to the people such absurdities.

The weather predictions in the almanac are a shame for our modern era. Those who continue to publish them deserve for their work to be unsold. We don’t expect everything from the authorities and their regulations; however, a standard should be established to stop publishers from serving the public such nonsense.

Some of these wily prophets pretend to read their predictions in the course of the planets. For this purpose, they have divided the planets into two classes, according to their positions in regard to the earth and sun: 1st, those that produce cold, and 2d, those that produce heat. By this means they pretend to prophesy how many degrees of heat or cold there will be every day at sunrise or sunset.

Some of these clever prophets claim to predict events by studying the movements of the planets. To do this, they categorize the planets into two groups based on their positions relative to the Earth and the sun: first, those that create cold, and second, those that create heat. With this approach, they assert they can forecast the temperature—how many degrees of heat or cold there will be each day at sunrise or sunset.

When critically analyzed, these prophecies prove to be theoretically and practically nothing but charlatanry.

When you take a close look at these prophecies, they turn out to be nothing more than deceit, both in theory and practice.

It is beyond all doubt that the position of the planets is, to state an example, for Boston the same as for the city of Washington; if there are any heat or cold-producing planets, they would have the same effect at Boston that they would at Washington. But this is not the case. Boston has often cold weather when in Washington it is very warm, and vice versâ. Besides such a heating or cooling[Pg 102] influence of planets would be perceivable on every spot of the earth alike which again is not warranted by facts. On the contrary it often happens that when cold winds are passing over one part of the country, warm winds are passing over another. It is almost certain that cold winters in Europe always accompany warm winters in America; and again, that cold winters in America usually accompany warm ones in Europe. On a closer examination of the facts in the case, we must conclude that, on the whole, weather-prophets take things very easy. Noting the mean heat of each day, and trusting to their good luck, they prophesy one or two degrees above or below. Now, there is no great risk in doing this, and as a matter of course such prophecies are realized one out of two. But at times, almanacs announce an extraordinary increase of cold or heat for a given day, although the situation of the planets does not change suddenly in one day. Then, their predictions very seldom prove to be correct.

It's clear that the positions of the planets have the same influence for Boston as they do for Washington, D.C. For instance, if there are planets that produce heat or cold, they would affect Boston the same way they affect Washington. However, this isn’t true. Boston often experiences cold weather while Washington is warm, and vice versa. Moreover, if planets had a heating or cooling effect, it would be noticeable everywhere on Earth, which is not supported by facts. In reality, it frequently happens that when cold winds are moving through one area of the country, warm winds are present in another. It’s almost certain that cold winters in Europe are usually accompanied by warm winters in America, and likewise, cold winters in America typically coincide with warm ones in Europe. A closer look at the facts leads us to conclude that, overall, weather forecasters are pretty laid-back. They note the average temperature of each day and, relying on luck, predict it will be one or two degrees higher or lower. There's not much risk in this approach, so these predictions turn out to be correct about half the time. However, sometimes almanacs forecast an unusual drop or rise in temperature for a specific day, despite the fact that the positions of the planets don’t shift dramatically overnight. In those cases, their predictions rarely turn out to be accurate.

In such cases the almanac-makers know how to manage affairs. The country being very large, they send for information to those places where observations on the weather are made. It is almost certain that somewhere in the land their prophesy has come true. Very likely the cold may have increased extraordinarily in the course of a day at New York, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, or St. Louis, etc., afterwards the weather-prophets compare their predictions with the results of observation in the various cities, and publish whatever of them are found to have been true.[Pg 103]

In these situations, the people who create almanacs know how to handle things. Since the country is so vast, they gather information from the locations where weather observations are made. It's almost guaranteed that somewhere in the country, their predictions have turned out to be accurate. It's quite possible that the temperature dropped significantly within a day in places like New York, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, or St. Louis, and then the weather forecasters compare their predictions with the actual observations from different cities and publish whatever they've found to be true.[Pg 103]


CHAPTER XIII.

HAS THE MOON INFLUENCE UPON THE WEATHER?

HAS THE MOON INFLUENCE ON THE WEATHER?

The idea that the moon exercises an influence upon the state of the weather is very general, not only with the people, but also among the better educated. What induces them to entertain it, is not real observation of nature, but a belief which is not without a semblance of truth. If, they say, the moon has enough influence upon our waters to produce tides, it must exercise a still greater influence upon the sea of air surrounding us, and hence it must be of the greatest importance to our weather.

The belief that the moon affects the weather is quite common, not just among the general public but also among the more educated. What leads them to think this is not genuine observation of nature, but rather a belief that seems somewhat plausible. They argue that if the moon can influence our waters enough to create tides, it must have an even greater effect on the air around us, and therefore it must be very important to our weather.

This is, however, an illusion. A long time ago it was proved by Laplace, that tides are caused by the great weight of a liquid. If the ocean were filled with mercury instead of water, the tides would reach a formidable height. Tides, then, do exist in the atmosphere, but in comparison much less than in the water, because the air is so much lighter. It happens that we do not live on the surface of the atmosphere, but in the lowest strata of this airy sea; and in these strata, where the weather manifests itself, the effect of the tides in the upper air is so insignificant, that nothing of it has yet been discovered in spite of most diligent barometer observations.

This is, however, an illusion. A long time ago, Laplace proved that tides are caused by the immense weight of a liquid. If the ocean were filled with mercury instead of water, the tides would reach incredible heights. Tides do exist in the atmosphere, but they are much smaller compared to those in water because the air is much lighter. We don’t live on the surface of the atmosphere; we exist in the lower layers of this airy sea. In these layers, where the weather occurs, the effects of tides in the upper atmosphere are so minor that they have yet to be detected, despite extensive barometer observations.

Learned men have had such a respect for this popular belief, that thorough observations and investigations have been made in order to settle the question.

Learned individuals have held such a high regard for this popular belief that extensive observations and investigations have been conducted to resolve the issue.

Those investigations were of three kinds:

Those investigations were of three types:

1st. What influence with regard to heat and cold has the nearness or remoteness of the moon upon our weather?[Pg 104] 2d. What influence has the same upon rain or dryness in the atmosphere? 3d. Has the change of the moon any bearing upon the variability of our weather?

1st. How does the closeness or distance of the moon affect our weather in terms of heat and cold?[Pg 104] 2nd. What effect does it have on rain or dryness in the atmosphere? 3rd. Does the moon's phase have any impact on the unpredictability of our weather?

For the reply to these questions, some naturalists have made use of the minutest observations for a period of nearly forty years; during which time the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air have been measured daily.

For the answers to these questions, some naturalists have used detailed observations for almost forty years, during which the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the air have been recorded daily.

These observations have been scrupulously examined; the conclusion arrived at is, that the moon is not quite without influence upon the state of our atmosphere; but this influence is so very small, that it is not brought to bear at all on meteorology.

These observations have been thoroughly examined; the conclusion reached is that the moon does have some impact on our atmosphere; however, this influence is so minimal that it doesn’t significantly affect meteorology.

When the moon is nearest to the earth, it is certainly a little colder than when she is farther off; but the decrease of heat amounts in the average scarcely to one-fifth of a degree, and this is a quantity entirely imperceptible in our weather. As to rain, it is a little less frequent in the time of the moon's greatest distance from the earth; but this difference, too, is imperceptibly small. In one thousand rain-storms there are four hundred and eighty-eight during the moon's greatest distance, five hundred and twelve during her nearest. As to the pressure of the air, it is during the moon's greater distance somewhat greater than when she is nearer, but this difference is still less than the preceding ones, so much so that a common barometer does not even indicate it.

When the moon is closest to the earth, it’s definitely a bit cooler than when it’s farther away; however, the drop in temperature is only about one-fifth of a degree on average, which is hardly noticeable in our weather. As for rain, it’s slightly less common when the moon is at its greatest distance from the earth, but this difference is also too small to notice. Out of a thousand rainstorms, there are four hundred eighty-eight during the moon's greatest distance and five hundred twelve when it's closest. Regarding air pressure, it’s somewhat higher when the moon is farther away than when it’s closer, but this difference is still smaller than the previous ones, so much so that a regular barometer doesn’t even detect it.

The most thorough investigations have been made about the influence of the waxing and waning moon upon the weather, because it was on this subject that the greatest illusion prevailed. The result here is likewise, that scarcely any difference exists, and that it is a mere superstition for people to maintain, that when the moon changes, the weather changes also. The change in the moon, moreover, does not take place all of a sudden, but with great regularity from day to day, from minute to minute; while[Pg 105] the weather, especially with us, changes often very abruptly.

The most thorough investigations have been conducted on the impact of the waxing and waning moon on the weather because this topic has been the source of widespread belief. The outcome, however, shows that there is hardly any difference, and it's just a superstition for people to think that when the moon changes, the weather changes too. Additionally, the moon's phases don't happen suddenly; they change consistently from day to day, even minute to minute, while[Pg 105] the weather, especially in our region, often shifts quite suddenly.

It is therefore certain, that in meteorology one has only to observe the earth and her position with regard to the sun, together with the currents of air and the position of land and water. Other phenomena of the atmosphere may be entirely omitted.[Pg 107][Pg 106]

It’s clear that in meteorology, all you need to do is observe the Earth and its position relative to the sun, along with the air currents and the arrangement of land and water. Other atmospheric phenomena can be completely ignored.[Pg 107][Pg 106]


PART VII.

OUR ARTICLES OF FOOD.[Pg 109][Pg 108]


CHAPTER I.

THE RAPID RENEWAL OF THE BLOOD IS AN ADVANTAGE.

THE QUICK RENEWAL OF THE BLOOD IS A BENEFIT.

Our articles of food are also called articles of life, and very properly so; for that which lives in us is, indeed, nothing but food transformed into ourselves.

Our food items are also known as articles of life, and that's completely accurate; because what sustains us is essentially just food changed into our own being.

According to this, it is very easy to determine what a man must eat in order to live; what kind of food can best maintain his health; what constantly renews his working-power; what compensates for the loss he experiences by emission of breath, perspiration, and excretions.

According to this, it's pretty straightforward to figure out what a person should eat to stay alive; what type of food is best for keeping them healthy; what continuously restores their energy; and what makes up for the loss they experience through breathing, sweating, and waste.

This easy task many have proposed to themselves. They believe they have solved the problem, if they can but prove that all parts of the human body are fed by the blood; and, the constituents of the blood being well known, they believe they have done enough, if they designate that food as the most proper for man which contains the constituent parts of the blood, or which, by digestion, may be changed into blood.

This simple task has been suggested by many. They think they’ve figured out the issue if they can just show that all parts of the human body get nutrition from the blood; and since the components of blood are well understood, they believe they’ve done enough if they identify that food as the best for humans which contains the essential parts of blood, or which can be transformed into blood through digestion.

As a general thing this is true; yet it is not sufficient to give the necessary information about the principal articles of our food.

As a general rule, this is true; however, it does not provide enough information about the main items in our diet.

The poor Irishman, who lives almost exclusively on potatoes, has as much blood in his body as the Englishman, whose workmen threaten him with a strike, if they do not earn enough to have a piece of meat and a good glass of beer for breakfast. The Irishman's blood contains quite the same elements that the Englishman's does, and yet their food is very different; and the Irishman is as justly called "poor," as the Englishman is said to be "well fed."[Pg 110]

The poor Irishman, who mostly eats potatoes, has just as much blood in his body as the Englishman, whose workers threaten him with a strike if they don't earn enough to have a piece of meat and a good glass of beer for breakfast. The Irishman's blood has the same components as the Englishman's, yet their diets are very different; and the Irishman is just as rightly called "poor" as the Englishman is called "well-fed."[Pg 110]

It is evident that the blood alone does not account for this, nor can it do so. There must be other additional items; and these we shall try to learn before we speak of the different articles of food and their worth.

It’s clear that blood alone doesn’t explain this, nor can it. There must be other factors involved; and we will try to understand these before discussing the various food items and their value.

The first principle which we must set up before all others, runs thus: Nutrition does not depend on the blood, but rather on its quick renewal.

The first principle we need to establish above all else is this: Nutrition doesn't rely on the blood, but rather on its rapid renewal.

The blood resembles the capital which a man possesses. No one can live on his capital without consuming it; he must live on the interest of the capital; he must live by constantly turning the capital over. And so must it be with the blood. The comparison seems so perfect, that we can illustrate our idea best by an example.

The blood is like the capital that a person has. No one can survive on their capital without using it; they have to rely on the interest from that capital; they have to constantly reinvest the capital. The same goes for blood. The analogy is so fitting that we can best illustrate our point with an example.

Imagine two merchants, each of whom has but a hundred dollars. Both merchants are therefore equally rich in capital. But there is the following difference between them: the one goes to the country twice a week and buys cattle and brings it to market, where he sells it again. By doing this he realizes every time five dollars on his capital. The other establishes a notion-store, buys himself a hundred dollars' worth of goods, which he sells in a month, and thereby gains twenty-five dollars. Now, which of these two fares the better? The notion-dealer, who with his hundred dollars has earned twenty-five dollars, or the cattle-dealer, who gained but five? Most assuredly the cattle-dealer. For while the other has twenty-five dollars to live on, the cattle-dealer has eight times five, or forty dollars. Whence does this come? In a month the notion-dealer turns over his capital but once, while the cattle-dealer turns his eight times.

Imagine two merchants, each with a hundred dollars. So, both have the same amount of capital. However, there's a key difference between them: one goes to the countryside twice a week, buys cattle, and sells it at the market, making five dollars each time on his capital. The other sets up a general store, buys a hundred dollars' worth of goods, and sells them in a month, making twenty-five dollars. Now, who is better off? The store owner, who has earned twenty-five dollars, or the cattle dealer, who only made five? Definitely the cattle dealer. While the store owner has twenty-five dollars to live on, the cattle dealer has eight times five, which is forty dollars. Why is that? The store owner only turns over his capital once a month, while the cattle dealer does it eight times.

The same holds good with the Irishman and the Englishman. Both have the same quantity of blood; it is their capital, and the same for both. But the renewal is not the same. The Englishman works vigorously and eats vigorously. When he works, he spends his capital, his blood;[Pg 111] by every blow of the hammer particles of his body are wasted; the activity of his body is great and his appetite is great. He invests his capital again and again in rapid succession, and he takes it in just as rapidly and fares well with it. The poor, unhappy Irishman, however, spends his blood but very slowly; he does not work; he eats potatoes, which, taken alone, are bad food; thus, he invests his capital very slowly and takes it in again very slowly; and though the capital is in both cases the same, its slow renewal is the cause of the Irishman's being miserable, dull, and lazy, while the Englishman is sound in body and soul.

The same is true for the Irishman and the Englishman. Both have the same amount of vitality; it’s their resource, and it’s the same for both. But the way they renew it is different. The Englishman works hard and eats well. When he works, he uses up his vitality; with every swing of the hammer, he expends energy; the intensity of his physical activity is high and so is his appetite. He invests his energy repeatedly and quickly, and he replenishes it just as fast and does well with it. The poor, unfortunate Irishman, on the other hand, uses up his energy very slowly; he doesn’t work; he eats potatoes, which, on their own, aren’t great sustenance; therefore, he invests his energy very slowly and refills it just as slowly; and even though their vitality is the same, this slow renewal makes the Irishman miserable, apathetic, and lazy, while the Englishman is healthy in body and mind.

Therefore the blood alone is not all, but its rapid consumption and renewal is the most important object.[Pg 112]

Therefore, the blood alone isn’t everything, but its quick consumption and renewal is the most important thing.[Pg 112]


CHAPTER II.

DIGESTION.

Digestion.

In the preceding article we said that the rapid conversion and waste of the blood is the main point in nutrition. In the examination of food, only such articles ought to be pronounced good and healthy, as are capable of rapidly replacing the blood lost by work and vital activity. It follows from this, that our chemists do not do enough, when they examine the food and determine its worth merely according to its contents; articles of food must be studied also in reference to the rapidity and ease with which they may be converted into blood.

In the previous article, we mentioned that the fast conversion and loss of blood are key factors in nutrition. When evaluating food, only those items should be considered good and healthy that can quickly replace the blood lost through work and vital activities. This means that our chemists don't go far enough when they assess food solely based on its content; food should also be examined in terms of how quickly and easily it can be converted into blood.

An article that contains little of what the blood needs, but which converts that little rapidly and easily into blood, is much preferable to food which contains many of the constituent parts of the blood, but turns into blood very slowly and with difficulty.

An article that has minimal nutritional value for the blood but can quickly and easily convert into blood is much better than food that has many of the blood's essential components but takes a long time and effort to transform into blood.

An example will illustrate this better:

An example will make this clearer:

It has been proved chemically, that the husks of grain, the pure bran, contain a remarkably large quantity of vegetable albumen and fat; in this particular, bran is richer than even flour, and a distinguished chemist, Millon, in Paris, in 1849, created quite a sensation by his earnest admonition to use bran no longer only to feed cattle, but to use it mixed with flour, as food for man. He calculated minutely and proved irrefutably, that such food must be considered a great advantage, a real blessing.

It has been chemically proven that grain husks and pure bran contain a surprisingly high amount of vegetable protein and fat; in this regard, bran is even richer than flour. A well-known chemist, Millon, in Paris in 1849, caused quite a stir with his strong recommendation to no longer use bran solely for feeding cattle, but to mix it with flour as human food. He meticulously calculated and irrefutably demonstrated that this type of food should be seen as a significant advantage, a true blessing.

Although his investigations and computations were correct, it has since been shown that his proposition is false. In his capacity of a chemist he was right; but the stomach[Pg 113] has not as much time and patience as a studious chemist. Notwithstanding bran contains much that the blood can use, yet it is of no avail so long as our digestive apparatus is not organized to perform the change of the bran into blood rapidly and easily. If bran leaves our body undigested, which happens even to the strongest, then it is certainly more judicious to give it to cattle; they can digest it well, grow fat and strong upon it, and give us meat, fat, and milk in return.

Although his investigations and calculations were correct, it has since been proven that his claim is false. In his role as a chemist, he was accurate; however, the stomach doesn’t have the same time and patience as a dedicated chemist. Even though bran has a lot that the blood can use, it’s useless as long as our digestive system isn’t set up to convert the bran into blood quickly and easily. If bran leaves our body undigested, which can happen even to the healthiest individuals, then it makes more sense to feed it to cattle; they can digest it well, gain weight and strength from it, and provide us with meat, fat, and milk in return.

There is another truth we must constantly keep in view; it is this: Of two like articles of food, the better and more advantageous one to us is that which is digested, or better, converted into blood, the more easily and quickly.

There’s another truth we need to always remember: between two similar types of food, the one that is better and more beneficial for us is the one that is digested, or more accurately, turned into blood, more easily and quickly.

And there is a third truth, which must not be omitted. Let no one for a moment believe, that a great variety of food is something unimportant and indifferent; on the contrary, investigations have shown that uniform food is hurtful, while a constant change is very beneficial to nutrition and health.

And there’s a third truth that shouldn’t be overlooked. No one should think for a second that having a diverse diet is unimportant; in fact, research has shown that eating the same food all the time is harmful, while regularly changing up what you eat is really good for nutrition and health.

Nor must we neglect, by way of conclusion, to mention a very important item, viz.: that taste comes in for a large share, and that a judicious assortment and seasoning of the food is an essential part of good nutrition. The husband provides for his wife, it is true; but, on the other hand, the good housewife who prepares healthy, tasteful meals, does in truth perform a great service, and contributes more to the working power of her husband, than most of men are aware.

Nor should we overlook, to wrap things up, an important point: taste plays a significant role, and a careful selection and seasoning of food is crucial for good nutrition. It's true that the husband provides for his wife; however, the good housewife who prepares healthy and delicious meals truly does a great service and contributes more to her husband’s productivity than most men realize.

After these few preliminaries, we will speak now of the articles themselves; in doing so, we shall keep within the limits of practical life, though we run the risk of transgressing here and there into the domain of our good housewives, and of meddling with what, according to their idea, is not our business.[Pg 114]

After these few introductions, we will now talk about the articles themselves; while doing this, we will stick to the practical aspects of life, even though we might occasionally cross into the territory of our good housewives and interfere with what they consider outside our area of concern.[Pg 114]


CHAPTER III.

COFFEE.

Coffee.

We come now to consider the various articles of food in detail. We shall take for guide neither the luxurious life of the rich, who, on account of his disordered stomach, constantly tickles his palate with dainties; nor the miserable life of the poor, who, on account of his empty stomach, is bound to find everything palatable. We wish rather to take into consideration the food of that class of people in which the husband works hard to support his family; and where the wife is a good housewife, and cares for the health and strength of her husband and children. In other words, we wish to consider the kind of food called household fare, and speak of the meals as taken every day.

We are now going to look at different types of food in detail. We won't focus on the extravagant lifestyle of the wealthy, who, due to their upset stomachs, constantly indulge their taste buds with fancy dishes; nor on the unfortunate life of the poor, who, because their stomachs are empty, find everything acceptable. Instead, we want to consider the food of the working-class families where the husband puts in a hard day's work to support his family, and the wife is a diligent homemaker, looking after the health and well-being of her husband and children. In other words, we aim to discuss what is commonly called household fare, and talk about the meals that are eaten every day.

It is customary with most to take coffee in the morning.

It’s common for most people to have coffee in the morning.

Now, what are the qualities of coffee? Is coffee an article of food? Or is it a beverage merely to quench the thirst? Is it a means of warming? Or is it a spice? Medicine? Or perhaps poison?

Now, what are the qualities of coffee? Is coffee food? Or is it just a drink to quench thirst? Is it a way to warm up? Or is it a spice? Medicine? Or maybe poison?

It is strange that science has not yet reached the truth about these questions.

It’s odd that science hasn't figured out the truth about these questions yet.

Coffee has been chemically analyzed, and has been found to contain a peculiar element, caffeine, which has an abundance of nitrogen. It is remarkable also that tea has been found to contain an element called theine, which has the same quantity of nitrogen.

Coffee has been chemically analyzed and found to contain a unique element, caffeine, which is rich in nitrogen. It’s also interesting that tea contains an element called theine, which has the same amount of nitrogen.

As in some countries tea replaces coffee—this is especially the case in Russia, Holland, England, and America—the great and ingenious naturalist Liebig has come[Pg 115] to the conclusion that it is nitrogen which constitutes the chief value of tea and coffee as articles of food; and as our blood needs nitrogen, in order to be able to form our muscles and flesh, coffee, according to Liebig, must be counted among the articles of food.

As in some countries tea has taken the place of coffee—this is especially true in Russia, the Netherlands, England, and America—the great and clever naturalist Liebig has concluded that nitrogen is what gives tea and coffee their main value as food; and since our blood needs nitrogen to build our muscles and flesh, coffee, according to Liebig, should be considered a food item.

In later times this view has been attacked. Although it is true that nitrogen is very abundant in coffee, and that we need nitrogen to form muscles, yet it can never be the nitrogen which incites us to the enjoyment of coffee. It is the berry of the coffee that contains the nitrogen; a part of it escapes during the process of roasting; a great part is thrown away with the coffee-grounds, so that the quantity of nitrogen actually left in the infusion is exceedingly small. Besides, if we enjoy in coffee only the nitrogen, we pay very high for it.

In more recent times, this perspective has been challenged. While it's true that nitrogen is plentiful in coffee, and we require nitrogen to build muscles, it’s not the nitrogen that makes us enjoy coffee. It's the coffee bean that holds the nitrogen; some of it is lost during roasting, and a significant portion gets discarded with the coffee grounds, leaving very little nitrogen in the brewed coffee. Plus, if we’re only enjoying coffee for the nitrogen, we’re paying a high price for it.

In the United States, annually about two hundred and fifty millions of pounds of coffee are used; the cost is estimated at twenty-five millions of dollars. Since the coffee itself is not consumed, but only the infusion, it follows that about 100,000 pounds of nitrogen are consumed at a cost of 250 millions of dollars, which is a terrible waste, considering that for this money seven times as much nitrogen could be taken, if, instead of coffee, meat were used, which contains also a large quantity of nitrogen.

In the United States, around two hundred fifty million pounds of coffee are used each year, with an estimated cost of twenty-five million dollars. Since what’s actually consumed is the brewed coffee and not the coffee itself, it means that about 100,000 pounds of nitrogen are used, costing 250 million dollars. This is a huge waste, especially when you consider that for this amount of money, seven times that much nitrogen could be obtained if meat, which also has a lot of nitrogen, were used instead of coffee.

The natural sciences, therefore, show among their scholars professed enemies of coffee. They are, from a medical as well as economical point of view, decidedly opposed to its use. Some have even gone so far as to declare it poisonous; a naturalist by name of Zobel proved that it contains Prussic acid, one of the deadliest poisons. Fortunately we know that this Prussic acid is rendered ineffectual by the ammoniac which coffee contains, and which is used as an antidote against Prussic acid.

The natural sciences, therefore, reveal that some of their scholars are outspoken opponents of coffee. From both a medical and economic standpoint, they are strongly against its consumption. Some have even claimed that it is poisonous; a naturalist named Zobel proved that it contains Prussic acid, one of the most lethal poisons. Fortunately, we know that this Prussic acid is neutralized by the ammonia found in coffee, which acts as an antidote to Prussic acid.

Be this as it may, we have reason to esteem coffee very[Pg 116] highly. A beverage which has become such a necessity to every nation, is of great importance; and the instinct with which millions and millions of our fellow-men are drawn to its enjoyment, is the best proof that the use of coffee is not hurtful, but advantageous to man; notwithstanding the fact that in some diseases it is forbidden, and that science has not yet succeeded in showing us the real advantage of coffee as a means of food.[Pg 117]

That said, we have plenty of reasons to appreciate coffee very[Pg 116] highly. A drink that has become essential to every country holds significant value; the instinct that draws millions and millions of people to enjoy it is the strongest indication that using coffee is not harmful, but rather beneficial to humanity. This is true despite the fact that it is restricted in some illnesses and that science hasn't yet managed to demonstrate the true advantages of coffee as a food source.[Pg 117]


CHAPTER IV.

COFFEE AS A MEDICINE.

Coffee as medicine.

In recent times coffee has been considered, not as an article of food, but partly as a spice and partly as a kind of medicine. Spice it is, inasmuch as it causes, like many other spices, the stomach to secrete an increased quantity of gastric juice. Digestion only takes place when the sides of the stomach secrete a liquid having the quality of digesting food. Owing to this, well-to-do people take after dinner a cup of coffee in order to promote digestion. It is because at night the power of digesting is very much enfeebled—hence the bad sleep after one has eaten something difficult to digest—and because the stomach is relaxed and inactive, that a cup of coffee in the morning refreshes and stimulates the coats of the stomach, and causes there renewed vigor and activity. It is a common observation, that more appetite is felt after coffee than before it. So much for the importance of coffee as a spice. Very justly we ascribe to coffee also a medicinal influence; we consider it a medicine for our mental activity, and for the activity of the nerves.

Recently, coffee has been viewed not just as food but partly as a spice and partly as a type of medicine. It acts as a spice because, like many other spices, it prompts the stomach to produce more gastric juice. Digestion occurs only when the stomach secretes a liquid that can break down food. Because of this, well-off people often enjoy a cup of coffee after dinner to aid digestion. At night, the digestive system is much weaker, which is why people often have trouble sleeping after eating something heavy. In the morning, a cup of coffee helps perk up and stimulate the stomach, bringing back its energy and activity. It's a common observation that people feel hungrier after having coffee than before. This highlights the significance of coffee as a spice. Additionally, we accurately attribute a medicinal effect to coffee; we see it as a booster for our mental energy and nerve activity.

It is well known that at night coffee dispels fatigue, and that by the use of strong coffee sleep may be banished for a long time. And more; those that are busy mentally, often feel a fresh, invigorating impulse after the enjoyment of coffee; when fatigued with work, they make it a means to recruit their strength. For a similar reason, coffee can animate conversation. When we meet elderly ladies in society, and notice them sitting quietly and talking but in[Pg 118] monosyllables, we need not be surprised; they have had no coffee yet! But when, after a little, conversation flows with full force like a rapid stream of water, we may from this safely recognize the mighty influence of coffee; it has loosened not only the tongues, but more—the looks, the hands, nay, the whole body and the whole soul.

It’s well known that coffee fights off tiredness at night, and that strong coffee can keep you awake for a long time. Also, people who are engaged in mental work often feel a refreshing boost after having coffee; when they’re worn out, they use it to regain their energy. For the same reason, coffee can spice up conversations. When we see older ladies in social settings sitting quietly and speaking in short answers, we shouldn’t be surprised; they haven’t had any coffee yet! But once a little time passes and conversation flows like a swift river, we can clearly see the powerful effect of coffee; it has loosened not just their tongues, but also their expressions, their hands, their whole bodies, and their entire spirits.

Although the mind has rested during the night, we feel in the morning rather sleepy than otherwise, and hence it is, that we are every morning desirous of stimulating our nervous system with a cup of coffee, preparing, as it were, our mind for the day's work. A modern naturalist, as genial as he is learned, Moleschott, ascribes the lately increased consumption of coffee to the greater degree of mental activity, which life in former times did not require to such a high extent as our present age.

Although the mind has rested during the night, we feel sleepier in the morning than not, and that’s why we crave a cup of coffee each morning to wake up our nervous system and get our minds ready for the day’s work. A modern naturalist, who is both friendly and knowledgeable, Moleschott, attributes the recent rise in coffee consumption to the higher levels of mental activity required today, which wasn’t as necessary in the past.

We have now sufficiently explained the need of coffee-drinking, and we must confess that all we have said here does not in the least affect our conviction that, according to Liebig, coffee is also nutritive. And no one can help believing this who has seen how old people can subsist on but very little food, provided they can have plenty of coffee. The objection raised, that it would be better for these persons to take the nitrogen contained in coffee in the form of meat, is correct; but, on the other hand, we must stop to ask, whether meat would be good for the stomach at all such times as a cup of coffee is! This would certainly not be the case early in the morning; and if in the coffee we enjoy a beverage which gives us nutriment, strengthens the stomach and at the same time stimulates our mind, we have good reasons to reverence the instinct of man which raised coffee to an essential means of subsistence, and discovered its beneficial influence long before this was done by science.[Pg 119]

We have now adequately explained why drinking coffee is important, and we have to admit that all we’ve discussed here doesn’t change our belief that, according to Liebig, coffee is also nutritious. Anyone who has seen elderly people thrive on very little food as long as they have plenty of coffee can’t help but believe this. The argument that it would be better for these individuals to get the nitrogen found in coffee through meat is valid; however, we must consider whether meat would be good for their stomachs at the times when a cup of coffee is! This definitely wouldn’t be the case early in the morning. If we enjoy coffee as a drink that provides us with nourishment, strengthens our stomach, and stimulates our minds, we have solid reasons to appreciate humanity's instinct that made coffee a vital source of sustenance and recognized its beneficial effects long before science did.[Pg 119]


CHAPTER V.

USEFULNESS AND HURTFULNESS OF COFFEE.

Benefits and drawbacks of coffee.

Since coffee possesses the quality of stimulating the nervous system, it is a matter of course that in many cases its effect is rather injurious. Phlegmatic people, especially, need coffee, and they are fond of drinking it; for a similar reason it is a favorite beverage in the Orient, where its consumption is immense. But to persons of an excitable temperament the enjoyment of coffee is hurtful; they ought only to take it very weak. With lively children it does not agree at all, and it is very wrong to force them to drink it, as is often done; while elderly people, who are in need of a stimulant for the decreasing activity of their nerves, are right in taking as much of it as they choose.

Since coffee stimulates the nervous system, it’s natural that it can be harmful in many cases. Phlegmatic people especially need coffee and enjoy drinking it; for this reason, it's a popular beverage in the East, where it is widely consumed. However, for those with an excitable temperament, coffee can be harmful; they should only drink it very weak. It doesn’t agree with lively children at all, and it's very wrong to force them to drink it, as is often the case. On the other hand, older adults who need a stimulant for their declining nerve activity are right to consume as much as they want.

In households of limited means it is often customary to use succory with coffee. We do not pretend to pronounce this, if taken in moderate quantity, hurtful; but we do say, that it is a poor substitute for coffee, and that there is nothing in it to recommend its use. A far better mixture is milk and sugar, and there is good reason for it; both milk and sugar are articles of food. Milk contains the same ingredients as blood, and sugar is changed in the body into fat, which is indispensable to us, especially to the process of breathing. Having taken no food through the night, the loss our blood has suffered during sleep by perspiration, and the fat which has been lost by respiration, must be compensated for in the morning. For this, milk and sugar in coffee are excellent. It is good for children to have a taste for sweetened milk, or milk-coffee,[Pg 120] in the morning. We must not find fault with them if they like it. Nature very wisely gave them a liking for sugar; they need it, because their pulse must be quicker, their respiration stronger, in order to facilitate the assimilation of food in their bodies, and also to promote growth. Not that adults need no sugar; but the sugar necessary for them is formed from the starch contained in their food. For this purpose the digestive apparatus must be strongly developed; with children this is not the case; therefore they are given sugar, instead of the starch to make it from. Many diseases, particularly rickets—prevailing mostly among the children of the poor—are the consequence of feeding the child with bread and potatoes; these contain starch it is true, but the digestive apparatus of children being yet too weak to change them into fat, the result is that the flesh falls away, and the bones grow soft and crooked.

In homes with limited resources, it's common to mix chicory with coffee. We don’t claim that it’s harmful when consumed in moderation, but we do say it's a poor replacement for coffee and there’s really no reason to recommend it. A much better option is milk and sugar, and there’s good reasoning behind that; both milk and sugar are nutritious. Milk has the same components as blood, and sugar gets converted into fat in the body, which is essential for us, especially for breathing. After not eating overnight, we need to replenish lost blood from sweating during sleep and the fat lost from breathing, which should be done in the morning. For this reason, having milk and sugar in coffee is excellent. It's beneficial for children to develop a taste for sweetened milk or milk-coffee in the morning. We shouldn’t criticize them if they enjoy it. Nature wisely gave them a taste for sugar; it’s necessary because their heart rate needs to be faster and their breathing stronger to help them digest food and support growth. It’s not that adults don’t need sugar, but they derive it from the starch in their food. To do this, their digestive systems need to be well developed, which isn’t the case for children; therefore, they get sugar instead of having to convert starch into sugar. Many illnesses, especially rickets—which mostly affects the children of the poor—are a result of feeding them bread and potatoes. While these do contain starch, children's digestive systems are often too weak to convert it into fat, leading to muscle loss and soft, crooked bones.

But he who, to promote digestion, takes coffee immediately after dinner, does best not to use sugar or milk; for both, so far from helping digestion, are an additional burden to the full stomach, and disturb its labor more than the coffee can facilitate it.

But if you drink coffee right after dinner to help with digestion, it’s better not to add sugar or milk; both of these can weigh down your stomach instead of aiding digestion, making things harder than the coffee can help.

It is very good to take wheat bread for breakfast. Wheat has nearly twice the quantity of sugar and starch that rye contains, and it is besides easier to digest. And as it is our principal duty in the morning to replace as quickly as possible what we have lost during the night, it is a matter of importance to give the stomach such food as is both nutritive and quickly digested.[Pg 121]

It's great to have whole wheat bread for breakfast. Wheat has almost double the amount of sugar and starch compared to rye, and it's also easier to digest. Since our main job in the morning is to replenish what we've lost overnight, it's important to provide our stomach with food that is both nutritious and quick to digest.[Pg 121]


CHAPTER VI.

BREAKFAST.

Breakfast.

Workmen, even those who must perform hard labor, are sufficiently strengthened by coffee and wheat bread in the morning to begin their work. But to be able to continue it, a more substantial breakfast is necessary, since coffee and bread alone would only replace what was lost during the night. On the continent of Europe it is therefore the custom to take coffee, or milk, and bread very early, and, at about nine or ten o'clock a more substantial meal, a kind of lunch.

Workmen, even those who have to do tough jobs, get enough energy from coffee and wheat bread in the morning to start their tasks. However, to keep going, they need a more filling breakfast because coffee and bread alone would only make up for what was lost overnight. In Europe, it's common to have coffee or milk along with bread early in the morning, and then a more substantial meal—a sort of lunch—around nine or ten o'clock.

Breakfast is with but few the principal meal of the day; for those, however, who rise early it is the one taken with the best appetite. This fact ought to induce all to give attention to this meal; especially those who early in the morning have worked hard already, and those who, mindful of the old saying,

Breakfast is the main meal of the day for only a few people; however, for those who wake up early, it’s the one eaten with the greatest appetite. This should encourage everyone to pay attention to this meal, especially those who have already worked hard in the morning, and those who, remembering the old saying,

"Go to bed early and get up early
"Makes a person healthy, wealthy, and wise,"

intend not to idle away the precious morning hours.

intend not to waste the precious morning hours.

To him who is in the habit of laboring, and who loves to labor, an early breakfast has a peculiar charm; and, what is yet more important to him, it tastes well. It is customary with us to eat much bread. Bread has as its principal constituents, starch and sugar, and if it has been well baked, a part of the starch is already saccharine, that is, it is nearly transformed into sugar, thus greatly facilitating the process of digestion. French naturalists have lately written excellent treatises about the change which[Pg 122] fresh bread undergoes when it becomes old. They prove that bread is most nutritive, and easiest to digest, when about a day old.

For someone who regularly works and enjoys it, an early breakfast has a special appeal; and, even more importantly, it tastes great. We usually eat a lot of bread. Bread mainly consists of starch and sugar, and if it’s been baked well, part of the starch has already turned into sugar, making digestion much easier. Recent studies by French naturalists have produced excellent analyses about the changes that[Pg 122] fresh bread goes through as it gets older. They demonstrate that bread is most nutritious and easiest to digest when it's about a day old.

Bread is changed in our bodies partly into fat, as all food is which contains starch. But this formation of fat is greatly facilitated, if we take a little ready-made fat with it. For this purpose we eat butter with our bread. Hence we see that some people are wrong when they believe butter to be a mere luxury; on the contrary, butter is a very important article of food, more especially so to children.

Bread is partially converted into fat in our bodies, just like any food containing starch. However, this fat formation is much easier if we consume a bit of ready-made fat alongside it. That's why we eat butter with our bread. Thus, we can see that some people are mistaken when they think butter is just a luxury; rather, butter is a crucial food item, especially for children.

The reason of this is, that the fat performs a conspicuous part in the human body; it serves to keep up the process of respiration. The oxygen which is inhaled, decomposes the fat in our body and from it forms water and carbonic acid. The water evaporates through perspiration; the carbonic acid is exhaled again. Now, if there is fat in us, this perspiration and exhalation will diminish it; but this very act of using up the fat preserves our flesh from being consumed in the process of producing carbonic acid and perspiration, which, if there were no fat, would greatly weaken us. Fat, thus to speak, is the spare-money, while flesh is the capital in the body. Fat itself does not make us strong, while flesh does. But where there is no fat, the processes of perspiration and respiration attack our flesh, which, unless abundantly reinforced, begins to disappear rapidly, while our strength begins to decrease more and more.

The reason for this is that fat plays a significant role in the human body; it helps maintain the process of breathing. The oxygen we inhale breaks down the fat in our body, creating water and carbon dioxide. The water leaves the body through sweat, while the carbon dioxide is exhaled. If we have fat, sweating and breathing will reduce it, but using up the fat protects our muscle from being depleted during the production of carbon dioxide and sweat, which would weaken us if there were no fat. Fat can be thought of as our savings, while muscle is the main resource in the body. Fat itself doesn’t make us strong, but muscle does. However, without any fat, the processes of sweating and breathing would start to break down our muscle, which, if not sufficiently supported, would quickly disappear, leading to a gradual loss of strength.

Thence it comes that lean persons eat much, while we often are astonished to see how little food is taken by fat people. The lean one has no fat to meet the drain produced by perspiration and respiration; he breathes and perspires accordingly at the expense of his flesh, and, therefore, is obliged to continually take in a fresh supply of food. The fat person, meanwhile, does not live on his capital,[Pg 123] the flesh and the blood, but on his supply of fat; as it were, he pays expenses from his spare-money, and for this reason loses very little in strength.

So, it turns out that thin people eat a lot, while we often marvel at how little food fat people consume. The thin person doesn’t have any fat to cover the energy lost through sweating and breathing; they burn through their body weight, which means they need to continually eat more food. On the other hand, the fat person doesn’t rely on their muscle and blood for energy but draws from their fat reserves; in a way, they’re using their savings to pay for their energy needs, which is why they don’t lose much strength.[Pg 123]

From what has preceded, it follows that he who breathes much and perspires much when at work, must eat much fat-producing food, and besides add a little ready-made fat; while he who breathes and perspires little, needs but little of that kind of food. This accounts for the circumstance that in winter, when the air is denser, and therefore one inhales more oxygen and thus uses more fat for exhalation, we must eat more fat food; while in summer every one takes less of it. We know that in cold countries food is taken which, on account of its containing great quantities of fat, would in hot climates produce sickness.

From what has been discussed, it follows that someone who breathes heavily and sweats a lot while working needs to eat a lot of fatty foods and also add some ready-made fat; while someone who breathes and sweats less needs very little of that type of food. This explains why in winter, when the air is thicker, we inhale more oxygen and therefore use more fat when exhaling, requiring us to eat more fatty foods; while in summer, everyone tends to eat less of it. We know that in colder regions, people consume food that contains a lot of fat, which would make people sick in hotter climates.

A hearty worker perspires much at his labor, and, in consequence of his increased activity, breathes more than the quiet and sedentary; he must therefore eat with his breakfast some fat—bacon, etc.—because this enables him to prevent his flesh and blood from decreasing. His body will be strong and powerful, and he will at all times be able to earn with his arm more than his stomach costs him.

A hardworking person sweats a lot at their job, and because they’re more active, they breathe more than someone who is calm and sitting. They need to eat some fat—like bacon—at breakfast to help keep their energy up. This keeps their body strong and capable, allowing them to always earn more with their effort than what they need to eat.

But let no one believe, therefore, that fat alone is a means of food, and, above all, beware of the mistake that ready-made fat is healthier to eat than fat-producing articles. Fine experiments have been made about the feeding of animals with fat. The results have shown that fat taken alone is injurious, and goes off again without having been of any use to the body; while, on the other hand, fat-producing food greatly assists the fattening of animals.

But no one should think that fat by itself is a good source of nutrition, and, most importantly, don't make the mistake of believing that processed fat is healthier to consume than foods that produce fat. Extensive experiments have been done on feeding animals fat. The results have shown that consuming fat alone is harmful and passes through the body without benefiting it; meanwhile, foods that promote fat formation significantly help in fattening animals.

He who has seen how geese are fattened, will have a correct idea about the process of the formation of fat in the human body. A handful of dough is forced into the mouth and gullet of the goose; during the time of her fattening she is shut up in so close a space that she can neither rise[Pg 124] nor walk about. The poor creature is thus deprived of evaporation by perspiration; the process of breathing is rendered very difficult; and, because she breathes and perspires little, her fat does not change into carbonic acid and water, but collects in the body in an unusual manner, until finally the creature is relieved from her pains by being killed. We see that her fat is nothing else than the transformed starch of the dough, which remained in the body without being used. If we should try, however, to feed a goose on pure fat only, she would not fatten at all, but fall sick. Pure fat must only be taken together with fat-producing food. The cause of this is, that only a part of the intestines secretes a juice which can dissolve fat; while the gastric juice in the stomach does not dissolve the fat at all, but allows it to float on the surface, as fat does in water.

Whoever has seen how geese are fattened will have a clear idea about how fat forms in the human body. A handful of dough is forced into the mouth and throat of the goose; during her fattening, she is kept in such a confined space that she cannot rise or move around. The poor creature is thus prevented from sweating; her breathing becomes very difficult; and because she breathes and sweats little, her fat doesn’t transform into carbon dioxide and water, but collects in her body in an unusual way, until ultimately she is put out of her misery by being killed. We see that her fat is nothing but the transformed starch from the dough, which remained in her body unused. However, if we tried to feed a goose pure fat alone, she wouldn’t gain weight at all, but would fall ill. Pure fat must only be taken alongside foods that produce fat. The reason for this is that only a part of the intestines secretes a juice that can dissolve fat, while the gastric juice in the stomach does not dissolve fat at all but allows it to float on the surface, just like fat does in water.

Our readers will now find it natural that a workman who perspires and breathes much, should by all means take but little bacon for breakfast; and this he must eat only on those days when he has much work before him; and then he must not eat it without bread.[Pg 125]

Our readers will now find it normal that a worker who sweats and breathes heavily should definitely eat very little bacon for breakfast; and he should only have it on days when he has a lot of work to do; and even then, he shouldn't eat it without bread.[Pg 125]


CHAPTER VII.

LIQUOR.

Alcohol.

Is it advisable to take a "drink" before breakfast?

Is it a good idea to have a drink before breakfast?

This is a question of the greatest importance, and requires a very clear and impartial answer; for which our space is almost too limited.

This is a question of great importance and needs a very clear and unbiased answer, but our space is nearly too limited.

Liquor is no article of food; if for a moment it were considered as such, we should find that it is even less nutritious than water with sugar in it. What makes liquor a necessary article, especially so to the working-classes, is a certain quality it possesses, a quality just as dangerous as it is good.

Liquor isn’t a type of food; if we briefly regarded it as such, we’d see that it’s actually less nutritious than water mixed with sugar. What makes liquor something people feel they need, particularly in the working class, is a certain quality it has—a quality that can be just as harmful as it is beneficial.

Liquor is a favorite beverage because of the alcohol it contains; this is nothing else than sugar which has undergone fermentation. Alcohol may be made from all those plants from which starch can be obtained; for, by the proper process, starch may be changed into gluten, gluten into sugar, and sugar into alcohol. Alcohol therefore conveys more nutriment to the human body than sugar itself, while it has qualities that the sugar does not possess, and which make it an article as popular as it is dangerous. If taken in small quantities, alcohol affects the body like medicine; in large portions, like poison. We are therefore not surprised if partly we cannot do without it, and if, on the other hand, we hear it condemned every day. What makes its enjoyment so very dangerous is, that although it is no article of food, it offers to the hungry a kind of substitute for food, and, what is worse, a substitute which is often the cheapest, and of most rapid effect in regard to[Pg 126] quieting one's appetite. It is owing to this that its enjoyment may produce the most fatal and pernicious evils that ever were inflicted upon unhappy man.

Liquor is a popular drink because of the alcohol it contains, which is essentially sugar that has been fermented. Alcohol can be produced from any plant that contains starch; through the right process, starch can be converted into gluten, gluten into sugar, and sugar into alcohol. Alcohol therefore provides more nourishment to the human body than sugar does, and it possesses qualities that sugar lacks, which makes it both appealing and dangerous. In small amounts, alcohol can have medicinal effects on the body; in larger quantities, it acts like poison. It’s no wonder that we feel we can't live without it, even as we hear it condemned daily. What makes its consumption so risky is that, despite not being a food item, it offers the hungry a sort of food substitute, and even worse, it's often the cheapest option that has a quick effect on satisfying one's appetite. This is why its consumption can lead to some of the most harmful and devastating consequences that have ever been experienced by unfortunate individuals.

Let us now learn the medicinal qualities of liquor, so that we may see that it is natural for it to be a favorite; and by exhibiting the dangers of its enjoyment, we shall succeed best in showing that people are justified in condemning its intemperate use; but it will also be seen that, in spite of the evident hurtfulness, its entire banishment would be a foolishness not resulting in good.

Let’s now explore the healing properties of alcohol, so we can understand why it’s so popular. By highlighting the risks of excessive drinking, we can better argue that people are right to criticize its reckless use. However, it will also be clear that, despite its clear drawbacks, completely eliminating it would be an unwise decision that wouldn’t lead to any benefits.

Liquor, if taken in a very small dose, possesses the quality of increasing the quantity of gastric juices. It excites the sides of the stomach, and by this promotes the secretion of the juice by which food is dissolved. It often occurs, that if but a minute quantity of fat has been taken, it envelops the food in the stomach; and as the gastric juice dissolves fat only with great difficulty, this food often remains undigested in the stomach, and nutrition then is carried on but defectively. Digestion, therefore, may be greatly improved, if the stomach is so affected as to secrete a greater quantity of gastric juice; this is often done by means of spice—for example, by putting a little pepper upon bacon or ham. The pepper itself does not help dissolve food, but excites the salivary glands and the stomach, thus increasing the gastric juice which performs digestion.

Liquor, when consumed in a very small amount, has the ability to boost the production of gastric juices. It stimulates the walls of the stomach, which promotes the secretion of the juice that dissolves food. Often, when a tiny bit of fat is consumed, it coats the food in the stomach; since gastric juice dissolves fat only with difficulty, this food can remain undigested in the stomach, hindering proper nutrition. Therefore, digestion can be significantly improved if the stomach is stimulated to produce more gastric juice; this can often be achieved using spices—for instance, by adding a little pepper to bacon or ham. The pepper itself doesn't aid in breaking down food, but it activates the salivary glands and the stomach, resulting in increased gastric juice to facilitate digestion.

If fat has been eaten, the same effect may be produced by a little liquor. Indeed, it is even preferable to spice, inasmuch as it contains ether, which alone is able to dissolve fat.

If fat has been consumed, a little liquor can have the same effect. In fact, it's even better than spice because it contains ether, which can dissolve fat on its own.

Thus we have seen that liquor is a kind of medicine. And although every one must strive to do without medicine, still he must not condemn it; he should scorn rather the wantonness which throws itself on the mercy of medicine. It is right to oppose the enjoyment of much fat; but if once too much of it has been taken, there is no reason[Pg 127] why we should remonstrate against the medical application of a small quantity of liquor. To those who believe that they see in alcohol the evil spirit himself, it may some time or other happen, that even they eat a little too much fat, and then seek relief by taking some patent or other medicine, dropped on sugar. Most medicines used in such cases, however, are nothing but mixtures of sulphuric ether and alcohol; and if alcohol is the evil spirit, he is certainly not changed into an angel by putting him on sugar.

So, we’ve seen that alcohol can be seen as a type of medicine. While everyone should aim to get by without medicine, that doesn’t mean they should judge it harshly; instead, they should look down on the recklessness that relies too heavily on medicine. It’s reasonable to discourage overindulgence in fatty foods, but if someone does indulge, there’s no good reason to argue against using a small amount of alcohol for medicinal purposes. For those who view alcohol as pure evil, it may happen that they overeat fatty foods at some point and then look for relief by taking some over-the-counter medicine, often mixed with sugar. However, most of the medications used in these situations are simply blends of sulfuric ether and alcohol; and if alcohol is indeed the evil force, it certainly isn’t transformed into something good just by adding sugar.

But liquor has yet another effect of great importance.

But alcohol has yet another effect that is really important.

The alcohol it contains is immediately conveyed to the blood; through this it affects the brain and the nerves, exciting them to increased activity. By also affecting the nerves of the heart, it accelerates the circulation of the blood; this produces throughout the body a more rapid vital activity.

The alcohol it contains is quickly absorbed into the blood; through this, it impacts the brain and the nerves, stimulating them to be more active. By also influencing the nerves of the heart, it speeds up blood circulation; this leads to a faster overall vital activity in the body.

"Wine," the Bible says, "maketh glad the heart of man."

"Wine," the Bible says, "brings joy to the heart of a person."

And wine itself is nothing else but an alcohol-combination. The animating element in wine is the same as the one in liquor. But it makes man's heart glad; which means as much as, it increases our vital activity; it rouses; it strengthens the weary and him who is exhausted bodily or mentally; it excites the body as well as the mind to move vigorous action. Taken in very small quantity, liquor has the same effect. It is therefore not only good for digestion, but also a prompt remedy for exhaustion. The reanimation, however, produced by the use of stimulants, is by no means a real gain; for he who feels tired and weary is best restored by nature herself. Artificial stimulation is followed by a greater reaction, by which all is lost again that has been gained by artificial animation. Yet many cases occur in human life when there is no time for the natural restoration of strength lost; thus, when it is preferable to complete one's task without delay, without rest[Pg 128] until it is finished. In such cases the desire for artificial stimulants is easily explained; then we ought not to condemn a moderate use of them, because that use is necessary.

And wine is simply an alcoholic mixture. The energizing element in wine is the same as in liquor. However, it makes people happy, meaning it boosts our energy levels; it energizes us; it revives the tired and those who are physically or mentally exhausted; it stimulates both the body and mind to take vigorous action. When consumed in very small amounts, liquor has the same effect. It's not only good for digestion, but also a quick fix for fatigue. However, the boost from stimulants isn't a true benefit; someone who feels tired and worn out is best rejuvenated by nature itself. Artificial stimulation can lead to a bigger crash afterward, losing all the gains made through that temporary boost. Still, there are many situations in life where there's no time for natural recovery of lost strength; in these instances, it’s often better to finish tasks without delays or breaks until they are done. In such cases, the need for artificial stimulants is understandable; we shouldn't criticize their moderate use, as it can be necessary.

The wanderer on his travels, the soldier in camp or battle, have often neither time nor opportunity to refresh themselves with a meal, or to recruit strength by a good rest. With them it is important to complete their journey or task, and to rest afterwards. A common workman may, at times, be in the same situation. In such cases a little brandy is of great service. It increases vital activity and courage; in many countries the army is for this reason permitted to use liquor, although, of course, sparingly.

The traveler on his journey, the soldier in camp or battle, often lacks the time or opportunity to eat a meal or to regain strength with a good rest. For them, it's crucial to finish their journey or task first and rest afterwards. A regular worker might also find himself in the same situation at times. In such cases, a little brandy is extremely helpful. It boosts energy and courage; in many countries, soldiers are allowed to drink alcohol for this reason, though, of course, in moderation.

Having now spoken of the medicinal use of liquor, we wish to examine more closely its dangers, and to explain the reason why its enjoyment is to many so great a temptation as often to become a passion.

Having talked about the medicinal use of alcohol, we want to take a closer look at its dangers and explain why its enjoyment is such a strong temptation for many that it often turns into an obsession.

A slight quantity of liquor taken at breakfast, makes one feel increased vital activity. The pulse beats quicker, the mind is stirred up, digestion easier, and before the food has been transformed into blood, we feel animated to vigorous bodily activity and motion. The enjoyment of spirit fills the long pause between the meal itself and its change into blood. He who feels exhausted and eats, has yet but satisfied the demands of the stomach, without therewith replenishing his blood. It takes a long time, often from five to six hours, before the blood is directly benefited. It is owing to this, that after dinner we do not feel lively, but inactive, disposed to rest. Now, he who after dinner cannot rest, but must continue to work, is anxious to stimulate himself by a dram of liquor, because this will act more quickly than the food he has taken. The spirits he took fill the long pause which exists between his meal and its complete transformation into blood.

A small amount of alcohol consumed at breakfast boosts your energy levels. Your heart rate increases, your mind becomes more alert, digestion improves, and before the food is fully converted into blood, you feel energized and ready for physical activity. The enjoyment from the drink fills the wait between the meal and its transformation into blood. Someone who feels tired and eats has only met their stomach's needs without replenishing their blood. It often takes a long time, usually about five to six hours, for the blood to benefit directly. Because of this, we tend to feel sluggish and want to rest after lunch. However, if someone can’t rest after lunch and needs to keep working, they might want to stimulate themselves with a shot of liquor, as it kicks in faster than the food they consumed. The alcohol helps bridge the gap between their meal and the full transformation into blood.

Is it any longer surprising, that it is the workmen who[Pg 129] mostly are subject to the use of spirits? No, we are not surprised; we feel sorry that they are not taught better; that instead of imparting to the people a knowledge of things useful to the preservation of health, we constantly remind them of the "devil and hell;" and that in place of teaching them, by the study of nature, how to avoid errors and dangers, we merely try to frighten them with future punishments.

Is it still surprising that it's mostly workers who use alcohol? No, it doesn’t surprise us; we feel sorry that they aren't taught better. Instead of giving people knowledge that would help them stay healthy, we keep reminding them about "the devil and hell." Instead of teaching them through the study of nature how to avoid mistakes and dangers, we just try to scare them with threats of future punishments.

The danger of spirits consists in this, that their good qualities, their advantageous effects, manifest themselves immediately, while their evils appear later. Liquor is not unlike a man whose virtues are laid open to every one; whose vices, however, are hidden, and who therefore is seductive and dangerous. If we wish to warn our fellow-men against such a one, we must not do it by denying or concealing his virtues; on the contrary, we must openly tell all his good qualities; the warning in which we lay bare his vices, will then be more, all the more readily heeded.

The danger of spirits is that their good qualities and positive effects show up right away, while their harmful effects become apparent later. Alcohol is a lot like a person whose strengths are visible to everyone; their weaknesses, however, are hidden, making them appealing and risky. If we want to warn others about someone like that, we shouldn't do it by denying or hiding their virtues; instead, we should clearly acknowledge all their good traits. The warning that exposes their flaws will then be more likely to be taken seriously.

True, liquor is a medicine; but, like every other medical remedy, it becomes poisonous in the body of him who puts himself continually in such a condition as to be obliged to use it.

True, alcohol is a medicine; but, like any other medical treatment, it becomes harmful in the body of someone who constantly puts themselves in a position where they feel they have to use it.

He who wishes to preserve his health, must not try to help nature by artificial means; he will only become weak. To illustrate this by an example: it is a well-known fact, that milk contains all the constituent parts of the blood; but if we were to feed a man merely on milk, those organs given him by nature to digest solid food, would weaken to such a degree that he would fall mortally ill. Man is healthy only when he permits nature the free and unlimited exercise of her functions; if he helps nature too much he may kill himself. It is similar with the use of liquor. The person who only now and then corrects nature, that is, when she actually needs it, is perfectly right. But he[Pg 130] is very wrong and harms himself greatly, who wishes to assist nature when she needs no help. Unfortunately, the latter is very often the case, and the prime source of evil. The ignorant, having once had the experience that brandy promotes digestion, thinks it is good for him to continue to help his stomach; but he is greatly mistaken. By accustoming his stomach to secrete gastric juice only after the partaking of brandy, he weakens it; the natural digestion becomes defective through this; and the enjoyment of spirits, at first a medical remedy, rapidly becomes an indispensable necessity, with all its evil consequences.[Pg 131]

Those who want to stay healthy shouldn't try to support nature with artificial methods; it will only make them weak. For example, we know that milk has all the components of blood, but if we only fed someone milk, the organs designed for digesting solid food would weaken so much that they'd become seriously ill. A person is healthy only when they allow nature to function freely and fully; trying to help nature too much could even be harmful. The same goes for drinking alcohol. Someone who occasionally assists nature when it actually needs help is doing the right thing. However, it's a mistake and can be very harmful to try to assist nature when it doesn't need it. Sadly, this happens quite often and is a primary source of problems. The uninformed person who discovers that brandy aids digestion mistakenly thinks it's beneficial to keep helping their stomach. But that's a big error. By training their stomach to produce digestive juices only after drinking brandy, they're weakening it; natural digestion suffers as a result, and what starts as a medicinal remedy for enjoying spirits quickly becomes a necessary habit, bringing all sorts of negative consequences.[Pg 130][Pg 131]


CHAPTER VIII.

INJURIOUSNESS OF DRINKING LIQUOR.

Harmfulness of alcohol consumption.

He who accustoms his stomach to secrete gastric juice only after a stimulus effected by spirits, destroys his digestive power. Unhappy man! He is no longer able to digest food, unless he stimulate his stomach with liquor. The already weak stomach is, by this habit, weakened more and more. Soon a small quantity will no longer suffice; a larger portion must effect what formerly was done by the smaller; this goes further and further, until finally the drinker becomes—a drunkard.

He who trains his stomach to produce gastric juice only after being stimulated by alcohol wrecks his ability to digest. Poor guy! He can't digest food anymore unless he drinks. This habit weakens his already weak stomach even more. Soon, a small amount won’t be enough; he’ll need to drink more to achieve what was once done with less. This keeps escalating until the drinker becomes—an alcoholic.

It is well to look at the terrible consequences of such a condition more closely, to obtain a clear idea of it; and to examine all the circumstances which unfortunately produce it, mostly among the poorer and working classes.

It’s important to look closely at the terrible consequences of such a situation to get a clear understanding of it, and to examine all the circumstances that unfortunately lead to it, mostly among the poorer and working classes.

The condition of an intoxicated person is to be distinguished from that of a regular drunkard. The former has taken alcohol; it goes into the blood, arrives in the brain, and excites the nerves to increased action. The nerves of the heart are also affected by it, and cause violent beating of the heart and pulse. The blood courses through the veins and rushes to the brain. This produces illusions of the senses, and confusion of sensations; sparks before the eyes; buzzing in the ears; dizziness, which makes the walk unsteady; redness of the skin and eyes; increased perspiration; greater activity in the lungs; a shorter and more rapid breathing; excitement of the mind to anger, and dimness of the faculties of judgment, causing the inebriate to believe that he possesses superior strength. If he begins[Pg 132] to move about, these manifestations, and especially the dizziness, increase; the slightest obstacle in the road causes him to stumble or fall; he cannot raise himself to his feet, nor can he sit up; but, lying on the ground, he is unconscious of everything around him; overcome with complete exhaustion—the effect of the reaction—he at last falls asleep; but his sleep does not rest him, although, if sufficiently long, it will restore the unfortunate to consciousness. He now suffers from that peculiar fatigue and lassitude which usually follow intoxication.

The state of an intoxicated person is different from that of a regular drunkard. The former has consumed alcohol; it enters the bloodstream, reaches the brain, and stimulates the nerves to work harder. The nerves of the heart are also impacted, causing the heart and pulse to beat violently. Blood flows through the veins and rushes to the brain. This creates sensory illusions and confusion; flashes before the eyes, ringing in the ears, dizziness that makes walking unsteady, reddening of the skin and eyes, increased sweating, heightened lung activity, and faster, shallower breathing. The mind becomes excited and irritable, leading the intoxicated person to think they have greater strength. When they start to move around, these symptoms, especially dizziness, worsen; the smallest obstacles cause them to stumble or fall; they cannot get back on their feet or sit up; instead, lying on the ground, they become oblivious to everything around them. Overwhelmed by exhaustion—the result of this reaction—they eventually fall asleep; however, their sleep doesn't rejuvenate them, although a long enough rest might bring them back to consciousness. They are now left with a unique fatigue and weakness that typically follows intoxication.

To this abject state every one is brought who in the enjoyment of spirits loses self-control. It is an unworthy, disgraceful and disgusting condition; but even the best of men may once fall into it; all the more so, if he is no habitual drinker. Strictly speaking, this subject belongs to another chapter; it belongs to that of intemperance, dissoluteness or bad society. If such a calamity has befallen an otherwise good man, let him amend his bodily ache by a cold bath; and his moral ache by an earnest vow not to do the like again.

To this miserable state, everyone is led when they lose control while enjoying drinks. It’s an unworthy, shameful, and revolting situation; but even the best people can find themselves in it, especially if they’re not regular drinkers. Strictly speaking, this topic is better suited for another chapter; it relates to intemperance, recklessness, or bad company. If such a misfortune happens to a decent person, let them relieve their physical discomfort with a cold bath and their moral discomfort with a sincere promise not to repeat the mistake.

Far more serious, however, is the lot of the real drunkard. This belongs to the chapter on nutrition, for it is true, we are sorry to say, that drunkards are produced mostly through want of proper nutriment; and it is always the case that constant intemperance is accompanied by that sickly condition in which the stomach is unable to digest solid food.

Far more serious, however, is the situation of the true alcoholic. This relates to the chapter on nutrition, because it's unfortunately true that alcoholics are mostly created by a lack of proper nutrition; and it's always the case that continual excessive drinking is accompanied by that unhealthy state in which the stomach cannot digest solid food.

In a word, he who has accustomed his stomach to perform digestion only after the use of stimulants, has laid the foundation for drunkenness. With wealthy people, we know it to be frequently the case, that they take something "strong" in order to promote digestion; but the danger is here less great. For if the rich be convinced of his wrong, even at a late period, he can yet proceed in his reform energetically. He can afford to take liquid, easily[Pg 133] digestible food instead of solid. He will eat little meat; but that little very savory and prepared in a manner to be easily digested. He will choose but light vegetables. He will flavor his breakfast with caviare and lemon; and at dinner he will relish rich stewed fruit, by means of which appetite and digestion are increased. Should he not feel strengthened immediately after dinner, he has sufficient time to wait till his food is transformed into blood. He takes a nap after dinner, and a pleasant walk in the open air, to get an appetite for his well-selected supper.

In short, someone who has trained their stomach to only digest food after using stimulants has set the stage for alcoholism. Among wealthy individuals, it often happens that they consume something "strong" to help with digestion; however, the risk is less severe in their case. If the rich come to realize they’ve been in the wrong, even later in life, they can still make effective changes. They can switch to liquid, easily digestible foods instead of heavy solids. They’ll eat very little meat, but when they do, it will be tasty and prepared for easy digestion. They’ll choose light vegetables and spice up their breakfast with caviar and lemon, while at dinner, they’ll enjoy rich stewed fruits that enhance appetite and digestion. If they don’t feel energized right after dinner, they have plenty of time to wait for their food to be turned into blood. They take a nap after dinner and enjoy a nice walk outside to build an appetite for their carefully chosen supper.

Now, all these are excellent means to restore the wealthy man's appetite and digestive powers, even if he has gone so far in drinking as to weaken his stomach. It is not virtue and temperance that causes the less number of drunkards among the rich, but the ready compensation they can afford, to cure themselves. And it not unfrequently occurs, that when the rich man loses his fortune, or, in other words, when he becomes poor, he becomes a drunkard. People generally excuse this, saying, "it is from despair;" but the truth is, that now he can no longer afford the costly compensation which previously preserved him from such a fate.

Now, all these are great ways to restore a wealthy person's appetite and digestive abilities, even if they've drunk enough to weaken their stomach. It's not virtue and temperance that lead to fewer drunkards among the rich, but the quick compensation they can afford to heal themselves. And it often happens that when a rich person loses their fortune, or in other words, becomes poor, they become a drunkard. People usually excuse this by saying, "it's from despair;" but the truth is, they can no longer afford the expensive remedies that kept them from that fate before.

But what will the poor do in such a case more especially the workman?[Pg 134]

But what will the poor do in such a situation, especially the workers?[Pg 134]


CHAPTER IX.

THE POOR AND THE LIQUOR.

The Poor and the Alcohol.

The poor workman who has accustomed his stomach to perform digestion only through the excitement of a previous stimulant, cannot, even if he knows the miserable condition he is in, abandon this bad habit without almost superhuman efforts.

The struggling worker who has trained his stomach to digest food only after a previous stimulant can’t, even if he realizes how unfortunate his situation is, break this bad habit without nearly superhuman effort.

Working makes him hungry; but his stomach not being able to digest solid food, eating becomes disagreeable to him. His relaxing strength, however, demands support. His vital activity is suppressed; he must have a fresh supply of strength to be able to work and earn his living. To accomplish this, he knows no other means than liquor again! For, unfortunately, experience has taught him that spirits not only stimulate him for the moment and increase his vital activity, but that they can also be to him a kind of substitute for food.

Working makes him hungry, but since his stomach can't handle solid food, eating becomes unpleasant for him. However, he still needs some energy. His vitality is fading; he needs a fresh boost of strength to be able to work and make a living. To achieve this, he thinks there's no other option than alcohol again! Unfortunately, he's learned that booze not only gives him a temporary boost and increases his energy, but it can also serve as a sort of substitute for food.

It was not until quite recently that science told us how and in what manner the use of spirits may actually promote the working power of the starving. It is of the utmost importance to obtain a correct idea of this.

It wasn't until very recently that science explained how and in what ways the use of alcohol can actually enhance the productivity of hungry people. Understanding this correctly is extremely important.

Work promotes evaporation and respiration. Evaporation, however, that is perspiration proper, is nothing but a part of the food we have taken, and which is thus secreted from the body. Precisely the same holds good with the breath we exhale; it consists of carbonic acid, which is likewise formed from the food we have taken. A man in state of rest does not perspire and breathe so much as the man at work; therefore he needs less food. If, on the other[Pg 135] hand, a person works without taking food, the perspiration and carbonic acid of the breath are formed from the muscles of his body; for which reason he must greatly decrease, both in strength and volume. We must bear in mind, however, that it is one of the qualities of spirits to be decomposed in the body very easily into water and carbonic acid; the water is then secreted in the form of perspiration; the carbonic acid, by exhalation. Thus, if a man works without food, he becomes reduced immediately, because perspiration and breath are supplied from the flesh of his body; while if he drinks liquor, perspiration and breath are formed from the liquor itself, instead of his body, which thus, partly at least, remains intact.

Work leads to evaporation and breathing. Evaporation, specifically perspiration, is just part of the food we've consumed that the body releases. The same goes for the breath we exhale; it contains carbon dioxide, which is also produced from the food we've eaten. A person at rest sweats and breathes less than someone who is working, so they require less food. On the other hand, if a person works without eating, the sweat and carbon dioxide in their breath come from their body’s muscles, causing them to significantly lose strength and mass. It’s important to remember that spirits decompose easily in the body into water and carbon dioxide; the water is released through sweat, while the carbon dioxide is exhaled. Therefore, if a person works without food, they quickly lose weight because their sweat and breath come from their own body, but if they drink alcohol, the sweat and breath come from the alcohol itself, allowing their body to remain somewhat intact.

This is the solution of the great problem, viz., "How can drunkards live a long time on nothing but spirits, and, moreover, how can they work?" We know it now; liquor furnishes them the material for perspiration and breath; and their body is not nearly so much taxed as would be the case, if they were to take no spirits at all. Since, then, the drunkard cannot eat, and even if he could, would not be nourished, because food passes through him undigested, he must needs continue taking spirits even if he works but little. Spirits help him at his work, and save his body from being consumed.

This is the solution to the big question: "How can heavy drinkers live a long time on nothing but alcohol, and, on top of that, how can they manage to work?" We know now; alcohol provides the materials for sweating and breathing, and their bodies aren't taxed nearly as much as they would be if they didn't consume any alcohol at all. Since the drunkard can't eat, and even if he could, it wouldn't nourish him because food just goes through him undigested, he has to keep drinking spirits even if he works very little. Alcohol helps him get through his work and keeps his body from wearing out.

That spirits are no articles of food, has been known long; but it was not known until recently, why spirits can be a substitute for food, or, more correctly, a kind of saving of food.

That spirits are not food has been known for a long time; however, it wasn't until recently that we understood why spirits can serve as a substitute for food, or more accurately, as a kind of saving of food.

Unfortunately, liquor is as deplorable as a substitute as it is fatal as a means of saving. It is only calculated to entirely destroy the doomed man that uses it.

Unfortunately, alcohol is just as terrible as a replacement as it is deadly as a way to cope. It is only destined to completely ruin the unfortunate person who uses it.

Now, is it not more judicious to understand the reason why the drunkard cannot abstain from spirits, than to endeavor to reform him merely by "prayer" and stories about the "devil in the alcohol?" And is it not of the highest importance[Pg 136] to all, that the friends of humanity should take care that the workman has good and healthy food, and that he be always able to earn enough, so as not to be obliged to replace bad food by liquor?

Now, isn't it wiser to understand why a drunkard can't stop drinking rather than just trying to reform him with "prayers" and tales about the "devil in alcohol?" And isn't it extremely important[Pg 136] for everyone that those who care about humanity ensure that workers have access to good, nutritious food and can always earn enough so they don't have to substitute poor food with alcohol?

The workman who has nothing but potatoes to eat, is bound to become a drunkard. This food is insufficient to afford him a proper quantity of carbonic acid for the purpose of breathing; he therefore must draw for this from his body, and, since he must needs work for his living, he takes to spirits to save his body from being consumed. Many an "Apostle of Temperance" would, in a similar situation, act no better. For this reason let us all provide healthy food for the working class; intemperance will then greatly diminish.

A worker who only has potatoes to eat is likely to become an alcoholic. This diet doesn’t provide him with enough carbon dioxide for breathing, so he ends up using what his body has stored. Since he has to work hard to survive, he turns to alcohol to prevent his body from breaking down. Many "Apostles of Temperance" would behave the same way in his situation. For this reason, let’s make sure the working class has access to healthy food; that way, excessive drinking will decrease significantly.

Owing to the importance of the subject we have spent much time over "Breakfast," and the chapter on "Spirits" connected with the same; but we could not help it; nay, we must ask our readers' pardon for continuing the subject. We propose to touch upon the sad consequences of intemperance, and desire to give the wives of the workmen a hint, by which they may succeed in checking the vice of their husbands and the misfortune of their families.[Pg 137]

Due to the importance of the topic, we've spent a lot of time on "Breakfast" and the chapter on "Spirits" related to it; we couldn't avoid it. In fact, we ask our readers to forgive us for continuing this discussion. We plan to address the unfortunate effects of drunkenness and hope to give the wives of workers a suggestion that might help them curb their husbands' vice and protect their families from its negative impact.[Pg 137]


CHAPTER X.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTEMPERANCE AND ITS PREVENTION.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF IMPULSIVITY AND HOW TO PREVENT IT.

The digestion of the drunkard, as we have seen, is greatly impaired; the process of nutrition entirely changed. There is a change in the tissues of the interior of the body. The inner organs are encumbered by fat; even under the very skin, layers of fat are formed. It is this that gives the drunkard that bloated appearance, which is very characteristic, and an evidence of the fact that the evil has reached a high stage. The stomach and the heart, the latter now much enlarged, are in an unnatural manner enveloped by fat. The action of the heart, at times immoderately increased, at times fearfully lessened, causes the blood to rush impetuously even to the finest blood-vessels of the skin, and to widen them considerably. Hence the reddened face of the drunkard. The chest being overburdened with fat, the lungs are unable to expand properly, and cannot therefore feed the blood with a sufficient quantity of oxygen, which would make the blood red; therefore we notice that the drunkard's blood is of a bluish color; his nose is blue, his lips, and often his whole face, have a bluish hue. His mind is always clouded, the activity of his nerves partly increased, partly weakened; his hands begin to tremble, and become unsteady; soon his very feet refuse to serve. His breath is in the beginning saturated with alcohol, so that it can be smelled; in a little while perspiration, nay the whole body, is imbued with alcohol, and cases have been known in which the body, on coming[Pg 138] in contact with fire, began to burn, as a wick dipped in alcohol, inflicting a terrible death upon the unfortunate victim. Many die from apoplexy or paralysis of the brain, in most cases preceded by delirium tremens. When it is considered that all this has its beginning only in this, that the unhappy man has accustomed himself to promote digestion by means of spirits—when this is well considered, no one will find it strange that we wish to discourage from the use of liquor everybody, especially, however, those among the laboring classes who work with fire. He who takes proper care of himself will always know how much of spirits he can take and when he must use it; then, and only then, the enjoyment of the article in question cannot be considered a crime.

The drunkard's digestion, as we've seen, is significantly impaired; the nutrition process is completely altered. The tissues inside the body change. The internal organs are weighed down by fat; even beneath the skin, layers of fat build up. This is what gives the drunkard that swollen appearance, which is very distinctive and shows that their condition has worsened. The stomach and the heart, the latter now much larger, are unnaturally covered in fat. The heart's action, sometimes excessively fast, other times dangerously slow, causes blood to surge forcefully even into the smallest blood vessels in the skin, making them widen significantly. This explains the drunkard's reddened face. With the chest overloaded with fat, the lungs cannot expand properly, which means they can't supply the blood with enough oxygen to keep it red; as a result, we see the drunkard's blood is bluish; their nose, lips, and often their entire face have a bluish tint. Their mind is constantly clouded, with their nerve activity fluctuating between heightened and weakened; their hands begin to tremble and become shaky; soon their feet refuse to cooperate. At first, their breath is saturated with alcohol, so it can be smelled; soon enough, their sweat, even their entire body, is infused with alcohol, and there have been cases where the body, when exposed to fire, ignited like a wick dipped in alcohol, leading to a horrific death for the unfortunate victim. Many die from a stroke or brain paralysis, often preceded by delirium tremens. When one considers that all of this begins simply because the unfortunate individual has gotten used to using alcohol to aid digestion—once this is properly understood, it’s no surprise that we want to discourage liquor use among everyone, especially those in labor-intensive jobs that involve fire. Those who take care of themselves will always know how much alcohol they can consume and when they need to use it; then, and only then, can enjoying this substance be seen as acceptable.

It is difficult to present to our readers a general rule for temperance, yet we may here state a principle, the earnest observance of which we heartily recommend.

It’s hard to give our readers a straightforward rule for self-control, but we can share a principle that we genuinely encourage everyone to follow.

There are many people who say: "I can stand a little liquor very well." They mean by this that a little liquor does not intoxicate them. But this is a dangerous standard to take. Not the possibility of intoxication, but the welfare of one's stomach should be consulted. As long as breakfast can be digested without the use of spirits there is no danger, even if after having eaten fat, bacon, etc., a desire for liquor should be felt; but when a person must needs take spirits after his breakfast in order to be able to digest it, then the danger becomes imminent, and it is high time to consult a physician about this seemingly insignificant circumstance; it is best to tell him frankly the object of the visit, viz., the desire to avoid the cheap remedy, the liquor. If the physician be the right man he will gladly spend advice and help.

Many people say, "I can handle a little alcohol just fine." They mean that a small amount doesn't get them drunk. But this is a risky mindset. It's not about the chance of intoxication, but the health of one’s stomach that should matter. As long as you can digest breakfast without needing alcohol, there’s no risk, even if you feel like having a drink after eating rich foods like bacon. However, when someone feels they need to drink alcohol after breakfast just to digest it, that's a serious problem, and it’s time to see a doctor about this seemingly minor issue; be honest about the reason for your visit, which is to avoid relying on alcohol. If the doctor is good, they will be more than willing to provide advice and assistance.

In such cases, however, the housewife can do even more than the doctor.

In these situations, though, the homemaker can do even more than the doctor.

The attentive housewife will notice the bad condition[Pg 139] of her husband's stomach, and if she is judicious and wishes to be the benefactress of her household, she can, by a small sacrifice, easily prevent great misfortune. Above all, she must bear in mind that only a well-fed husband can support her and her children. It is a shame that we often see a housewife treat her husband in this respect worse than a horse. The owner of a horse knows that his horse cannot render him good service unless he feeds the animal well; why should woman not comprehend that man, her husband and provider, must be properly cared for? Let every good wife bear in mind, that if her husband takes to drinking, it is mostly owing to her own bad and careless management of her kitchen; let her hasten to remedy the evil. Although it may cost her a sacrifice, yet she owes it to herself and her family to provide her husband with a cup of broth, well seasoned with salt and pepper, when his stomach is weakened. At times she may surprise him with a favorite dish for breakfast, which he will eat with a relish. And let her be especially careful not to cause him grief or anger at his return home, but let her rather prepare for him a good savory dinner, for which he then will save all his appetite.

The attentive housewife will notice the poor condition[Pg 139] of her husband's stomach, and if she is wise and wants to be a blessing to her family, she can easily prevent a big problem with just a small effort. Above all, she must remember that only a well-fed husband can support her and their children. It’s unfortunate that we often see housewives treating their husbands worse than they would a horse. A horse owner knows that his horse can’t do a good job unless he feeds it well; why can’t a woman understand that her husband, who provides for the family, needs to be taken care of? Every good wife should remember that if her husband starts drinking, it’s mostly due to her poor and careless management of the kitchen; she should rush to fix this issue. Even if it requires some effort, she owes it to herself and her family to prepare her husband a bowl of broth, well-seasoned with salt and pepper, when he’s feeling unwell. Occasionally, she might surprise him with a favorite breakfast dish that he will enjoy. And she should be especially careful not to cause him any stress or anger when he returns home; rather, she should prepare him a hearty and tasty dinner so he’ll come home ready to eat.

Such and similar insignificant acts of womanly kindness preserve often husband, wife, and children from disgrace; while the dutiful wife earns the esteem and gratitude of her family and of her country. This is a merit which in course of time will be duly rewarded.[Pg 140]

Such small acts of kindness from women often save husbands, wives, and children from shame; meanwhile, the devoted wife gains the respect and appreciation of her family and her country. This is a quality that will eventually be appropriately rewarded.[Pg 140]


CHAPTER XI.

DINNER.

Dinner.

We wish to speak now of dinner, the principal meal of the day. Here, too, we shall take for standard neither the unhappy poor, who must eat what little he can obtain; nor the opulent rich, who finds a pleasure in eating what others cannot obtain. We shall take for base the plain household of the citizen, who takes healthy meals in order to strengthen him for renewed activity.

We now want to talk about dinner, the main meal of the day. Here, we won't focus on the struggling poor, who have to eat whatever little they can find, nor will we consider the wealthy, who enjoy eating things that others can’t afford. Instead, we'll focus on the typical home of the average citizen, who eats healthy meals to recharge for more activities.

What may have been the reason for putting the principal meal in the middle of the day?

What could be the reason for having the main meal in the middle of the day?

It was done for the reason that eating, too, is a labor; a labor which requires rest. Now bodily fatigue and appetite constantly keep pace with each other; they manifest themselves in the body in intervals of three or four hours. Since, then, we must rest at noon from the fatigue of the morning's labor, it is best for us to use this time of rest for our dinner; all the more so as the labor of eating ought not to be performed during manual labor. And because just at the middle of the day we rest from our labor and prepare ourselves for the afternoon work, it is natural that we should eat our principal meal at that time.

It was done because eating is also a form of work; a work that needs breaks. Physical exhaustion and hunger go hand in hand; they show up in the body in cycles of three or four hours. So, since we need to take a break at noon from the tiredness of the morning's work, it's best to use this time to have our lunch; especially since eating shouldn’t be done while we’re doing physical labor. And since we take a break in the middle of the day to rest and gear up for the afternoon work, it makes sense to have our main meal then.

But this meal needs to be prepared carefully. The housewife is chained to the kitchen, because this meal is distinguished from others principally in this, that it is usually taken warm.

But this meal needs to be prepared with care. The homemaker is stuck in the kitchen because this meal stands out from others mainly because it’s typically served warm.

The question arises in the first place, Why must food be cooked? Is it not more natural to take the food as nature gives it to us? Why does man eat nothing raw[Pg 141] except fruit? Why does he take such pains to grind, bake, boil, fry, etc., while the animal can live without all this? Again, whence does it come, that man is so very dainty in regard to eating and drinking, and that he uses an infinite variety of articles of food, as does no other creature in the world? Are there not animals that live on meat only, and others that live only on plants? Why, then, does man need mixed food, that is, partly meat and partly vegetable food?

The question comes up: Why do we need to cook food? Isn’t it more natural to eat food as it is from nature? Why does humans eat almost nothing raw except for fruit? Why do we go to such lengths to grind, bake, boil, fry, and so on, when animals can survive without all that? Also, where does it come from that humans are so picky about what they eat and drink, using a huge variety of food items that no other creature in the world does? Aren't there animals that eat only meat and others that eat only plants? So why does man require a mix of food, which is both meat and plant-based?

To all these questions there is but one answer.

To all these questions, there's only one answer.

Nature herself has pointed this out to man; and experience, the natural instructor of mankind, has taught man how he can do best what nature wishes him to do.

Nature itself has shown this to humans, and experience, the natural teacher of mankind, has taught us how to best align our actions with what nature wants from us.

The human stomach is so constituted that it can digest but very little of raw food. Just as the nutritive part of the pea is enclosed by a hull, so in every organic food the nutritive element proper is contained in a hull, called cell. The nutritive element of the potato, for example—the starch—is enclosed in millions of small cells, which are indigestible for our stomach. By means of good magnifying glasses, these cells, invisible to the naked eye, may be plainly seen. If the potato were eaten raw, these cells, together with the nutritive element in them, would leave the body unchanged. But if the potato is boiled, fried, or baked, the cells, by their expansion from the heat, burst, and thus allow the starch to be free. Now, while animals have been given a digestive apparatus strong enough to dissolve the hardest cells—pigeons, for example, swallow and are able to digest raw pease—man has been endowed with intelligence which enables him to prepare his food artificially.

The human stomach is designed to digest only a small amount of raw food. Just like the nutritious part of a pea is surrounded by a hull, every organic food has its nutritious element enclosed in a hull called a cell. For instance, the nutritious part of a potato—the starch—is trapped in millions of tiny cells that our stomachs cannot digest. With good magnifying glasses, these cells, which are invisible to the naked eye, can be clearly seen. If you eat a potato raw, those cells and the nutrients inside them would pass through your body unchanged. However, when a potato is boiled, fried, or baked, the heat causes the cells to expand and burst, releasing the starch. While animals have digestive systems strong enough to break down tough cells—like how pigeons can swallow and digest raw peas—humans possess the intelligence to prepare their food in a way that makes it easier to digest.

Cooking, therefore, is as natural to man as the act of chewing; for chewing, the crushing of food with the teeth, on the part of animals that live on plants, is nothing but the tearing asunder of cells. Animals that have no teeth,[Pg 142] birds for example, possess immensely strong powers of digestion. It would be as unnatural for the ox, who has good teeth to crush peas with, to swallow them entire as the pigeon does, as it were unnatural for man to take pease raw while he has the means of cooking them.

Cooking is just as natural to humans as chewing is; for chewing, the process of breaking down food with our teeth, is simply the tearing apart of cells in the case of herbivorous animals. Animals without teeth, like birds, have incredibly strong digestive systems. It would be just as unnatural for an ox, which has good teeth to crush peas, to swallow them whole like a pigeon, as it would be for a human to eat peas raw when they have the ability to cook them.[Pg 142]

We often call art what really is nature in man; for his mental gifts are natural to him; women, therefore, when they perform the art of cooking, practise a natural art.[Pg 143]

We often refer to art as what is actually nature in humans; because his mental abilities are innate. Thus, when women engage in the art of cooking, they are practicing a natural talent.[Pg 143]


CHAPTER XII.

NECESSITY FOR VARIETY IN FOOD.

NEED FOR FOOD VARIETY.

Let no one believe that it is from mere daintiness that man is fastidious in regard to food, and that he lives on a great variety of victuals.

Let no one think that a person is picky about food just because they're fussy; it's not just about enjoying a wide range of dishes.

The human body is the transformed food which he has eaten. It is quite correct that man can live on bread and water a long time; but man's nature is so varied, his qualities are of such numerous kinds; his character, his impulses and passions, his wishes and desires, his thoughts and labors, are so infinitely varified and so much exposed to change, that man's body, the bearer of all these elements, must also be formed from material of the most diversified kind.

The human body is the changed food that a person has consumed. It’s true that a person can survive on just bread and water for a long time; however, human nature is so varied, and our qualities are so numerous; our character, impulses, passions, wishes, desires, thoughts, and efforts are so infinitely diverse and subject to change that the human body, which carries all these elements, must also be made up of the most varied materials.

It is a common observation that animals which take uniform food are very much poorer in mind than those animals that feed upon richer and more various kinds of food. Nay, it has even been proved that the character, the whole nature of an animal may be completely changed by its food. Very properly, therefore, does the genial naturalist, Moleschott, begin his excellent treatise, "Our Articles of Food," with the following words: "Food has made the wild-cat our house-cat;" thus showing that food may completely change the character of an animal, and more, it may even change the animal's body. And if civilized man is a being of a higher order, more spiritual and more intellectual than the savage, we can ascribe it to no other cause than the impulse his food gives him, not to sink down to the savage,[Pg 144] but, by varying his food as much as possible, to bestow upon his body many superior qualities.

It's commonly observed that animals with a uniform diet are much less intelligent than those that eat a richer and more varied diet. In fact, it's been proven that an animal's character and overall nature can be completely altered by what it eats. That's why the great naturalist Moleschott wisely starts his outstanding work, "Our Articles of Food," with the line: "Food has made the wild-cat our house-cat;" highlighting that food can fundamentally change an animal's character and even its body. If civilized humans are more advanced, spiritual, and intellectual than savages, we can attribute this to the motivation provided by their food, encouraging them not to revert to a savage state, but to enhance their bodies with a diverse diet that grants them superior qualities.[Pg 144]

Nature herself has undeniably impressed upon man, that she wishes him to take nourishment of different kinds.

Nature has clearly shown us that she wants us to nourish ourselves with a variety of foods.

Those animals that live upon plants, and such as feed solely on meat, are entirely different from each other in regard to their bodies. The teeth of the former, the herbivorous, are broad and flat on the top, like our molar teeth. They serve to crush vegetable fibres and to chew the cells which contain the nutritive element; while the other class, the carnivorous, have but pointed teeth, like our eye-teeth, to tear their food asunder. The stomach of the herbivorous is also different; it comprises several divisions which have various functions. For blood is not so readily obtained from vegetable as from animal food, which itself contains ready-made blood. Herbivorous animals are for the greater part ruminators, that is, their food passes from the first division of the stomach back into the mouth, where it is masticated a second time; this is called "ruminating." With the carnivorous this is not the case. Finally, the intestines of the herbivorous are long, because there the final change of the food into blood takes place; a process requiring more time with vegetable food than with animal. For the same reason the intestines of the carnivorous are short, the blood to be formed being already present there.

The animals that eat plants and those that only eat meat are completely different in terms of their bodies. The teeth of herbivores are broad and flat on top, similar to our molars. They are designed to crush plant fibers and chew the cells that contain nutrients. In contrast, carnivores have pointed teeth, like our canine teeth, which are used to tear their food apart. The stomachs of herbivores are also different; they have several sections that serve various purposes. Blood is harder to obtain from plant-based food compared to animal food, which already contains blood. Most herbivores are ruminants, meaning their food moves from the first section of the stomach back to the mouth for a second round of chewing, known as "ruminating." This doesn’t happen with carnivores. Lastly, the intestines of herbivores are long because that’s where the final transformation of food into blood occurs, a process that takes more time with plant food than with animal food. Similarly, the intestines of carnivores are short because the blood is already present in their food.

Considering the fact that man has sharp teeth in front, at both sides pointed teeth, and in the rear of them molars; that his stomach is adapted to the digestion of both vegetable and animal food, and that his intestine is so constituted as to be able to digest and change into blood both kinds, we can no longer entertain any doubt that nature herself bids him to change his food constantly, and to take in such as is of the most varied kind. If, in addition to that, we recollect that exclusive animal food renders an animal wild, quick, and sly, while vegetable food makes it[Pg 145] tame, enduring, and slow in mind, it will not be denied that food exercises great influence upon the nature of a being, and it will now be readily understood that it would be a sin, if man were to be forced to take uniform nourishment.

Given that humans have sharp front teeth, pointed teeth on the sides, and molars in the back; that our stomachs are designed to digest both plant and animal food, and that our intestines can break down and convert both types into blood, we can no longer doubt that nature encourages us to change our diets regularly and to consume a wide variety of foods. Furthermore, if we remember that a diet of only animal food makes an animal wild, quick, and cunning, while a diet of plant food makes it tame, resilient, and slower in thought, it’s clear that food greatly impacts the nature of a being. It’s easy to see now that it would be wrong for humans to be forced to eat a monotonous diet.

The example of the cat is very instructive; it teaches us that change of food has transformed her into another being, mentally as well as bodily. The wild-cat has short intestines and is an animal of prey; the tame cat has long intestines, and betrays her old character only now and then by cunning and slyness. We also learn from this, that variety of food produces variety of bodily and mental qualities; and lastly, it may be inferred that nature, having fitted man for this variety and given him such diversity of mental capacities, wishes also that his food be well selected and of the greatest variety.

The example of the cat is very enlightening; it shows us that a change in diet has turned her into a different creature, both mentally and physically. The wildcat has short intestines and is a predator; the domestic cat has long intestines and only occasionally reveals her former nature through cleverness and sneakiness. We also learn from this that a variety of food leads to different physical and mental traits; and ultimately, it can be inferred that nature, having equipped humans for this variety and provided them with diverse mental abilities, also desires that their food be carefully chosen and highly varied.

These short remarks enable us to pass to the principal dishes themselves; first to those constituting the principal meal of the day, the dinner, for which very justly the greatest variety of food is chosen.[Pg 146]

These brief comments allow us to move on to the main dishes; first, to those that make up the day's main meal, dinner, for which the widest variety of food is rightly selected.[Pg 146]


CHAPTER XIII.

BROTH.

Bros.

Soup, meat, and vegetables are the principal dishes of a plain household dinner.

Soup, meat, and vegetables are the main dishes of a simple family dinner.

When examining this more closely, we find the selection so judicious that we may well admire the tact of woman, who discovered it long before science did.

When we look at this more closely, we see that the choice is so thoughtful that we can truly appreciate the sensitivity of women, who figured it out long before science did.

The good tact of woman does even more yet; it selects the dishes in such a manner that they mutually compensate for their wants, that is, that each offers to the body what is wanting in the others.

The good sense of a woman goes even further; it chooses the dishes in such a way that they balance each other's deficiencies, meaning that each dish provides the body with what the others lack.

The principal dishes composing a meal are divided into fat-producing and flesh-producing ones. All farinaceous diet provides the body with fat; all albumen substances, with flesh. To support the body, however, it is also necessary to give it salt, from which bones, hair, nails and teeth may be formed.

The main dishes that make up a meal are categorized into those that produce fat and those that produce flesh. All starchy foods provide the body with fat; all protein sources provide it with flesh. To nourish the body, it's also essential to provide salt, which helps form bones, hair, nails, and teeth.

Our domestic wives, indeed, look to all that. Long before scientific men had investigated the necessity for nutriment of the kind, all-providing woman had arranged culinary matters so as to be able to satisfy all the demands of nature. But not only the proper selection of articles of food,—the way and manner also in which they are cooked and served, are of prime importance to a proper nutrition; and we maintain that household fare may justly be regarded as a guide for scientific investigations.

Our stay-at-home wives definitely pay attention to all of that. Long before scientists studied the need for specific nutrients, the all-providing woman organized meals to meet all of nature's demands. But it’s not just about choosing the right foods—the methods of cooking and serving them are also crucial for proper nutrition. We argue that home-cooked meals can rightly be seen as a model for scientific research.

A judicious housewife will first of all place meat on the fire, to have good soup and well-cooked meat. She will prefer beef to any other kind, because it contains but little[Pg 147] fat and much albumen and animal fibre; for this reason it makes better broth, and still preserves strength enough to be a healthy, strength-giving dish.

A savvy homemaker will first put meat on the stove to prepare good soup and well-cooked meat. She'll choose beef over any other type, as it has little[Pg 147] fat and plenty of albumen and animal fiber; for this reason, it makes better broth while still retaining enough strength to be a healthy, nourishing dish.

Besides, meat, by cooking, becomes more nutritive, inasmuch as its digestibility is greatly facilitated. One of the most important tasks of the cook consists in promoting one's digestion; in other words, in saving the stomach labor. Flesh in its raw state keeps its nutritive elements shut up in cells which are gluey. By boiling it, the gelatine becomes soft and mixes with the water; hence it comes that broth is glutinous, and, if allowed to cool, becomes thick and like jelly. This substance is in part very nourishing; it is often obtained from bones and cartilages, and then sold under the name of "bouillon-tables," which, when boiled in water, make a tolerably good soup. Thus we see that the first object of all cooking is the dissolving of the cellular tissues. Not before this is done do we obtain the real nutritive element of the flesh, which then is taken up by the stomach all the easier, inasmuch as it has thus been well prepared to be easily changed into blood.

Besides, cooking meat makes it more nutritious because it becomes easier to digest. One of the main jobs of a cook is to help with digestion, which means making the stomach's job easier. Raw meat keeps its nutrients locked in sticky cells. When you boil it, the gelatin softens and mixes with the water, which is why broth is thick and, if it cools, turns jelly-like. This substance is quite nourishing and is often made from bones and cartilage, sold as "bouillon cubes," which, when boiled in water, create a decent soup. So, the primary goal of cooking is to break down the cellular tissues. Only after this happens do we get the true nutrients from the meat, which the stomach can then absorb more easily, as it has been properly prepared to be converted into blood.

But before the meat reaches the boiling-point, albumen is separated from its surface and mixes with the water; it is this which gives broth its real strength and nutritive power. Afterwards, when the water boils, this albumen condenses; the broth becomes white, as if containing the white of eggs; from the inside of the meat flows continually more and more albumen into the broth, and makes it stronger and stronger. During this time, moreover, the fat parts of the meat melt, and its salts are also dissolved in the broth; hence a great deal of the most nutritive parts of the meat goes over into the broth; and although much of the strength of the meat has been withdrawn, still there is much of it left yet, and the meat has now become easier to masticate and easier to be digested. We need not add that a sufficient quantity of salt is thrown into the soup,[Pg 148] which quickly dissolves in the water; but in the same degree that the meat excretes a part of its ingredients and gives them to the water, in the same measure does the meat absorb salt. By this it becomes not only more tasteful and digestible, but also more nutritive. It was not until recently that the importance of salt as a nutritive was recognized; this cannot be otherwise, for the tissues of the human body, as well as its blood and cartilages, need salt for their formation and support. Who does not know that every farmer gives his cattle salt from time to time, so as to improve their strength and general health?

But before the meat hits boiling point, albumen separates from its surface and mixes with the water; this is what gives broth its real strength and nutritional power. Then, when the water boils, this albumen solidifies; the broth turns white, almost as if it contains egg whites; and more and more albumen continuously flows from the inside of the meat into the broth, making it stronger and stronger. At the same time, the fat in the meat melts, and its salts dissolve in the broth; this means a significant portion of the most nutritious parts of the meat ends up in the broth. Although much of the meat's strength has been extracted, there's still quite a bit left, and the meat has now become easier to chew and digest. We should also mention that a good amount of salt is added to the soup,[Pg 148] which quickly dissolves in the water; but as the meat releases some of its components into the water, it also absorbs salt. This makes the meat not only tastier and easier to digest but also more nutritious. It wasn't until recently that the importance of salt as a nutrient was acknowledged; and it’s no surprise, since the tissues of the human body, as well as its blood and cartilage, require salt for their formation and maintenance. Who doesn't know that every farmer gives their cattle salt from time to time to improve their strength and overall health?

Our readers will readily understand now, that the weaker the broth the stronger must be the meat, and vice versâ. It often occurs that we care less to have good broth than good beef. In such cases we must not put the meat into cold water, but into boiling water. So soon as the meat is thrown into boiling water, the albumen on the outside coagulates, surrounding the whole piece as it were with a hard crust, which does not permit the nutritive parts of the inside to escape. The same effect is produced by the roasting of the meat in an oven, although here it is not covered by water. It is more judicious, however, and more important for the household, to make good broth, and to let dinner commence with it.

Our readers will easily understand now that the weaker the broth, the stronger the meat needs to be, and vice versa. Often, we care more about having good beef than good broth. In these cases, we shouldn't put the meat into cold water but rather into boiling water. As soon as the meat hits the boiling water, the albumen on the outside coagulates, forming a hard crust that keeps the nutritious parts inside from leaking out. The same effect happens when roasting the meat in an oven, even though it's not submerged in water. However, it's wiser and more important for the household to make good broth and start dinner with it.

For he who has been at work all the forenoon, needs such food at first as will not cause his stomach too much labor; and soup is that food. Let every good housewife bear this in mind.[Pg 149]

For someone who has been working all morning, they need food that isn’t too hard to digest at first; soup is that food. Every good homemaker should remember this.[Pg 149]


CHAPTER XIV.

WHAT IS BEST TO BE PUT INTO SOUP?

WHAT IS BEST TO PUT IN SOUP?

The answer to this question will be "Something farinaceous," and, indeed, no better answer could be given.

The answer to this question will be "Something starchy," and honestly, no better answer could be given.

Broth contains gluten and albumen, both of which are changed in the body into flesh. Not only the animal part of our body, but chiefly the active, working part of it requires nutriment that can be transformed partly into fat. Breath and perspiration, so unavoidable in labor, are supported by means of fat in our body. This explains why fat people perspire more than others; why fat people get out of breath sooner than lean persons; why the other sex, who are more apt to become fat than men, perspire more; and why children, because they run about much, and hence need more breath and perspiration, usually prefer bread to meat.

Broth contains gluten and albumin, both of which are transformed in the body into flesh. Not only does our body require nutrients for its animal part, but especially for the active, working parts. These nutrients can partially turn into fat. Breathing and sweating, which are unavoidable during physical activity, are supported by the fat in our bodies. This explains why overweight individuals tend to sweat more than others, why they get out of breath sooner than those who are lean, why women, who are more likely to gain weight than men, sweat more, and why children, who are constantly active and need more breath and sweat, usually prefer bread over meat.

As has been said, broth, which contains only such ingredients as are intended to produce muscle-fibres, may well be mixed with something farinaceous, which should be thrown in and boiled with the soup, in order to promote the formation of fat in the body. It matters little what may be chosen for the purpose—flour, groats, barley, rice, or potato, or any other article; provided always it contains starch; for this becomes saccharine even when boiling; it changes in the body into acid of milk, and lastly into fat. Perhaps it is advisable to use that which contains most starch. Rice, for example, has much of it; probably this accounts for the fact that lively children are very fond of it. A hundred pounds of rice include eighty-five of starch; while a hundred pounds of wheat contain but about seventy-four[Pg 150] pounds. A judicious housekeeper will know very well that a less quantity is taken of rice than of flour. The various kinds of farina and barley possess but about one-half the starch of rice; and potatoes are so poor in that, that five pounds of potatoes yield no more starch than one pound of rice. All this is a matter of great importance to our housewives.

As mentioned, broth, which includes only those ingredients meant to build muscle fibers, can be combined with some kind of grain, which should be added and cooked with the soup to help create fat in the body. It doesn’t really matter which one you choose—flour, groats, barley, rice, potatoes, or anything else— as long as it has starch; because starch turns sweet even while boiling, and then in the body, it transforms into lactic acid, and finally into fat. It might be best to use something that has a lot of starch. For instance, rice has a high starch content, which probably explains why energetic kids really like it. One hundred pounds of rice contains eighty-five pounds of starch; whereas one hundred pounds of wheat has only about seventy-four[Pg 150] pounds. A smart housekeeper knows that you use less rice than flour. Different types of farina and barley have roughly half the starch content of rice, and potatoes are so low in starch that five pounds of potatoes yield no more starch than one pound of rice. All of this is very important information for our homemakers.

The usefulness of soup-material lies, however, not always in its great nutritive capacity, but very often in the facility with which it may be cooked. Thus we cannot boil rice in the broth itself; it must, to loosen its cells properly, be boiled first in water; this takes a little over half an hour, and requires of course a place on the fire, and hence more fuel. The cell of the farina or pearl-barley, on the other hand, was crushed already by the grinding; therefore it needs but little attention, and may be boiled in the broth itself without any loss of time. When making scientific observations on food, such circumstances must not be overlooked; for time and fuel cost money, and may, in the eyes of practical housewives, raise the price of the article too much; while to a scientific man the same article may appear very cheap.

The usefulness of soup ingredients isn’t always about how nutritious they are, but often about how easy they are to cook. For example, we can’t boil rice directly in the broth; it needs to be boiled in water first to break down properly, which takes a bit over half an hour and, of course, needs a spot on the stove, meaning more fuel consumption. On the other hand, the grains like farina or pearl barley are already crushed during milling, so they require little attention and can be cooked directly in the broth without wasting any time. When doing scientific studies on food, these factors shouldn’t be ignored because time and fuel cost money, which might seem too expensive to practical homemakers, while to a scientist, the same ingredients could seem quite affordable.

There are other viands which, though not very nutritive, are yet very popular and in common use. As an example of this class, we may give the potato.

There are other foods that, although not very nutritious, are still quite popular and commonly used. One example of this category is the potato.

That the latter is poor in starch, was stated above. Its extensive use is surprising, when we consider, that, according to calculation, the little nutriment obtained from the potato is paid more highly for than that of flour. And yet there is good reason for the extensive use of the article. Its preparation, in the first place, is an easy one, especially when the potato is boiled whole, without being peeled. This is a great convenience for the housewife, who, besides the time devoted to the house, needs time for work from the proceeds of which she may support herself. She values,[Pg 151] therefore, any dish which can be prepared with little expense of time and money; more than any other article may the potato be said to possess this quality. From it a meal can be prepared in half an hour, and the cook need not watch it constantly; potatoes do not boil over. Besides all this, there is another advantage, and it is this which makes it a favorite even with the rich; already, when boiling, its starch is transformed into sugar, giving the potato a more pleasant flavor than any other cheap dish can be said to have. How easily the potato starch is converted into sugar may be noticed best in half-frozen potatoes, because there the cells containing the starch burst during the process of freezing.[Pg 152]

That the latter is low in starch has already been mentioned. Its widespread use is surprising when we consider that, according to calculations, the small amount of nutrition provided by the potato is valued more highly than that of flour. Yet, there are good reasons for its widespread use. First, it's easy to prepare, especially when the potato is boiled whole without being peeled. This is a significant convenience for housewives who, in addition to managing the household, need time to engage in work that allows them to support themselves. They appreciate any dish that can be made with minimal time and expense; and the potato definitely has this quality. A meal can be prepared in half an hour, and the cook doesn't need to tend to it constantly; potatoes won’t boil over. On top of this, there's another advantage that makes it a favorite even among the wealthy: while boiling, its starch turns into sugar, giving the potato a more enjoyable flavor than any other inexpensive dish. The ease with which potato starch is converted into sugar is most noticeable in half-frozen potatoes, as the cells containing the starch burst during the freezing process.


CHAPTER XV.

LEGUMINOUS VEGETABLES.

Pulses.

The greens which we put in soup cannot be considered nutriment, but rather a kind of spice, and perhaps also as a means of giving us the benefit of some medicinal qualities which they in part contain. We will dwell no longer on this subject, but proceed to the most nutritive articles of food we use, viz., the leguminous vegetables.

The greens we put in soup can't really be seen as nourishment; they're more like a spice and maybe also a way to give us some of their medicinal benefits. Let's not spend more time on this topic and move on to the most nutritious foods we eat, namely, legumes.

Pease, beans, and lentils are so extremely rich in fat and muscle-forming elements, that in this regard they excel bread and are almost on a level with meat. No wonder, therefore, that they are very favorite articles if well cooked, when we consider the fact that they are so very cheap. Where people are too poor to buy meat every day, legumes must not be found wanting. They play a great part in barracks and prisons; and in order to keep pace with the immense progress gastronomical science has made, one of the above-named articles ought to be used in those establishments on all days on which there is no meat.

Peas, beans, and lentils are really high in fat and protein, which makes them better than bread and nearly as good as meat. It's no surprise that they're popular if cooked well, especially since they're so affordable. In places where people can't afford to buy meat every day, legumes are essential. They play a significant role in army barracks and prisons; and to keep up with the great advancements in culinary science, one of these foods should be served in those establishments on days when meat isn't available.

The element common to all three is called legumine. It is richer in starch than bread and contains nearly three times more of it than the potato. Partly legumes contain also ready-made sugar; this may be tasted in green pease. Besides this, their flesh-forming parts are in greater quantity than those of other plants, while their quantity of water is less, and it is therefore not advisable to take them dry. New pease and beans have, moreover, the advantage of being eatable together with their hulls and pods, as these, when yet green, contain likewise sugar and starch.[Pg 153]

The common element among all three is called legumine. It has more starch than bread and nearly three times more than potatoes. Additionally, legumes also contain readily available sugar, which can be tasted in green peas. Moreover, their protein content is higher than that of other plants, while their water content is lower, so it's not recommended to consume them when they're dried. Fresh peas and beans also have the benefit of being edible along with their pods, as these, when they're still green, also contain sugar and starch.[Pg 153]

But we must recommend, above all, not to eat the hulls of dried legumes. This may be avoided if, when boiled, the cook crushes them and strains them through a coarse sieve, by which process the hulls are left. If this is not done, we run the danger of disturbing the functions of the body, inasmuch as these dry hulls are dissolved neither by the saliva of the mouth nor the gastric juice of the stomach.

But we must advise, above all, not to eat the hulls of dried legumes. This can be avoided if, when boiled, the cook crushes them and strains them through a coarse sieve, which will leave the hulls behind. If this isn't done, we risk disrupting the body's functions since these dry hulls aren't broken down by either saliva in the mouth or gastric juice in the stomach.

Most every one that once in his life had culinary labor to perform, is acquainted with the fact that the cooking of legumes is often accompanied by a peculiar circumstance. Pease sometimes may boil by the hour without getting soft; it happens even that young pease, soft by nature, become harder and harder by boiling; while, at other times, the same pease have become soft and burst open after but half an hour's cooking. The reason of this lies not in the pease, but in the water they are boiled in. Our housewives undoubtedly know, from the experience of their wash-days, that there is hard water and soft. Soap, when put in hard water, breaks into small pieces, while it dissolves in soft water completely and forms a slimy liquid. Science has solved this mystery: spring-water contains lime, which combines chemically with the fat in soap and forms with it an insoluble element; while rain-water contains little or no lime, and therefore dissolves soap. The same is the case in regard to the legumine. The lime in spring-water, which settles on the bottom of vessels as sediment, combines with some constituent parts of the pea and forms a very hard, indigestible body; rain-water, however, dissolves legumine completely.

Most people who have cooked at least once in their life know that cooking legumes often comes with a unique issue. Peas can boil for hours without getting soft; sometimes even young peas, which are naturally soft, become harder the longer they boil; while at other times, the same peas can get soft and burst after just half an hour of cooking. The problem isn’t with the peas themselves, but with the water they're boiled in. Our home cooks surely know from their laundry days that there is hard water and soft water. Soap, when used in hard water, breaks into small pieces, while it dissolves completely in soft water, creating a slimy liquid. Science has explained this puzzle: spring water contains lime, which chemically combines with the fat in soap, creating an insoluble substance; whereas rainwater has little to no lime, allowing soap to dissolve easily. The same thing happens with legumes. The lime in spring water, which settles at the bottom of pots as sediment, combines with some parts of the pea and forms a very hard, indigestible substance; however, rainwater completely dissolves the legumin.

It must now appear evident to all, that much fuel and nutritive element is gained by cooking pease, beans, and lentils in soft water. To comfort those who, on the plea of uncleanliness, are opposed to rain or cistern water, we desire to state that rain-water when poured through linen or[Pg 154] cotton cloth is not in the least impure; especially if it be allowed to stand quietly for a few hours and then have the scum removed from its surface.

It should now be clear to everyone that cooking peas, beans, and lentils in soft water provides a lot of nutrients. To reassure those who are against using rainwater or cistern water due to cleanliness concerns, we want to point out that rainwater, when filtered through linen or cotton cloth, is completely clean, especially if it is allowed to sit still for a few hours and then the surface scum is removed.

Pease, beans, and lentils produce in the healthy body blood, flesh, milk, and fat. By their being strained through a coarse sieve they lose such disagreeable qualities as, for example, the bloating they produce in the body, which makes them very unpopular with many.

Peas, beans, and lentils provide the healthy body with blood, flesh, milk, and fat. When they are strained through a coarse sieve, they lose unpleasant qualities, such as the bloating they can cause, which makes them quite unpopular with many people.

Another great advantage in leguminous vegetables lies in this, that they contain phosphorus, a principle needed for the formation and preservation of the bones and brain; therefore we may justly maintain that legumine is good for the body and mind both.[Pg 155]

Another great benefit of legumes is that they have phosphorus, which is essential for building and maintaining healthy bones and brain function. So, we can confidently say that legumes are good for both the body and the mind.[Pg 155]


CHAPTER XVI.

MEAT AND VEGETABLES.

Meat and veggies.

It is an old German habit to consider meat and vegetables as belonging together.

It’s an old German tradition to think of meat and vegetables as a pair.

In the common kinds of vegetables there is very little nutriment. Nearly nine-tenths of the weight of cabbages and other varieties consist of water. There is therefore but little left for nutriment proper, as, for example, vegetable albumen, gluten, vegetable fat, starch, and sugar. It is only such vegetables as turnips, etc., that contain much sugar, for which reason they are well adapted for children and convalescents. In fine, if nutriment alone were considered, the enjoyment of our common vegetables would be nothing but a luxury.

In common vegetables, there is very little nutrition. Almost 90% of the weight of cabbages and other types is water. This leaves very little for actual nutrients, like vegetable protein, gluten, vegetable fat, starch, and sugar. Only certain vegetables, like turnips, have a lot of sugar, which makes them great for kids and people recovering from illness. Overall, if we only look at nutrition, enjoying our typical vegetables would just be a luxury.

In truth, however, they possess elements which make them very beneficial to man, if he takes them together with meat. They contain organic acids—like fruit, which for this reason is so universally liked—and have the quality of preserving in a state of dissolution the soluble albumen of the meat. Thus they save much labor to the digestive organs, and accelerate the transition of meat into chyle. Hence the well-known fact, that after dinner, though we can eat nothing more, yet we like to taste some good raw fruit, or cooked fruit of any kind. Vegetables are taken for a similar purpose, and are therefore very healthy when eaten with meat.

In reality, though, they have qualities that make them very good for people, especially when eaten with meat. They contain organic acids, similar to fruit, which is why it’s so widely enjoyed, and they help keep the soluble proteins in meat broken down. This reduces the workload on our digestive system and speeds up how quickly meat is converted into chyle. That’s why it’s well-known that after a meal, even when we can’t eat anymore, we still enjoy a bit of fresh fruit or any kind of cooked fruit. Vegetables are consumed for similar reasons and are therefore very healthy when eaten alongside meat.

But why is it that our housewives often serve vegetables before they do meat, and fruit after the meat?

But why is it that our housewives often serve vegetables before meat, and fruit after the meat?

Very likely they themselves do not know why, as is the[Pg 156] case so often; yet they act here, as in many other things, with wise instinct. Fruit contains organic acid, which, in a ready-made condition, is very beneficial to us; it needs only to be taken up by the stomach. We do well, therefore, if we take fruit after the meat, and allow digestion to go on with it. From vegetables, however, this acid is only produced in the stomach, and during the process of digestion. If taken before meat, the acid may promote the digestion of the meat; while if it is taken after the meat, the acid comes much too late to be of any benefit. This explains the fact, that vegetables in which this acid has been produced by fermentation—as is the case, for example, with sour-crout—are usually taken together with meat.

Very likely they themselves don’t know why, as is the[Pg 156] case so often; yet they act here, as in many other things, with wise instinct. Fruit contains organic acid, which, in its ready-made form, is very beneficial to us; it just needs to be absorbed by the stomach. Therefore, it's a good idea to eat fruit after meat and let digestion occur with it. On the other hand, this acid is only produced in the stomach from vegetables during digestion. If taken before meat, the acid may help digest the meat; however, if taken after the meat, the acid arrives too late to be useful. This explains why vegetables that have produced this acid through fermentation—like sauerkraut—are usually eaten with meat.

Another great advantage of vegetables is, that they are rich in mineral salts necessary for the health of the body. There are ingredients in the various kinds of vegetables, of which it may scarcely be believed that they can be eaten, for they belong to the metals and metal combinations; as, for example, chlorine, iron, potassium, and natron; these play an important part in the body. It is, therefore, not surprising to us that a judicious physician will more often prescribe a good vegetable than medicine; and one ought to be thankful to him if he sends people more to the market than to the drug-store. There are, indeed, many diseases successfully cured by such organical remedies, which only nature knows how to prepare. To mention but one remedy, spinage, so highly beneficial to children and young girls of very pale appearance. Their green-sickness takes origin from a want of iron in the blood. Though every physician is able to prescribe medicine which contains iron, yet the effect of such artificial inorganic remedies is often very doubtful; while spinage itself contains iron, and therefore offers a better organic remedy, and food.

Another great advantage of vegetables is that they are rich in mineral salts essential for the body’s health. Various types of vegetables contain ingredients that may seem unbelievable to eat because they are related to metals and metal compounds, such as chlorine, iron, potassium, and natron; these are important for the body. It’s not surprising that a wise doctor will often recommend good vegetables over medicine; we should be grateful if they send people to the market more than to the pharmacy. In fact, many diseases are effectively treated with these natural remedies that only nature knows how to provide. To highlight just one remedy, spinach is extremely beneficial for children and young girls who appear very pale. Their anemia is caused by a lack of iron in the blood. While any doctor can prescribe medicine containing iron, the effectiveness of such artificial inorganic remedies is often questionable; on the other hand, spinach itself contains iron, making it a better organic remedy and food.

Meat and vegetables are sufficient for the body. There[Pg 157] is not need of much meat. From six to eight ounces a day constitutes the quantity sufficient for a man. Meat and vegetables compensate each other's wants; the former is poor in water, the latter rich; vegetables are wanting in albumen, which is found abundantly in meat. This happy circumstance is favorable to the formation of that mixture of elements essential to the preservation of the body.

Meat and vegetables are enough for the body. There[Pg 157] is no need for a lot of meat. Six to eight ounces a day is a sufficient amount for a man. Meat and vegetables complement each other's needs; meat has low water content, while vegetables are high in water. Vegetables lack albumen, which is plentiful in meat. This fortunate combination is beneficial for creating the mix of elements essential for keeping the body healthy.

Household fare, according to what we have seen, is precisely what it ought to be, and does not, as some people are inclined to think, result solely from the whims of the housewives. Thus is proved again what we have said above, viz., that the natural instinct and tact of woman have, by long years of practice, been guided by a better and more practical course than science itself.

Household meals, based on what we've observed, are exactly as they should be and don't, as some might think, come only from the whims of the housewives. This further confirms what we've stated earlier, that the natural instincts and skills of women, through many years of experience, have been steered along a better and more practical path than science itself.

There are some other important articles of food, but we must keep them for "Supper;" and our readers will no doubt be very glad if we conclude this chapter, and treat in the next one the question,

There are some other important food items, but we need to save them for "Supper;" and our readers will likely be very happy if we wrap up this chapter and address the question in the next one,

"Is it good to take a little nap after dinner?"[Pg 158]

"Is it good to take a short nap after dinner?"[Pg 158]


CHAPTER XVII.

THE NAP AFTER DINNER.

Post-dinner nap.

An old adage says, "After dinner thou shalt either rest or walk a thousand steps." Habit, however, has modified this very much; for people nowadays neither rest nor walk; but, if they can, they lie down and slumber. Now, it is true that sleep does not belong to the articles of food. We might despatch the question of the nap after dinner here at once; yet, if it has any influence upon the digestion of food, it is of enough importance to merit a few words.

An old saying goes, "After dinner you should either relax or walk a thousand steps." However, habits have changed a lot; nowadays, people neither relax nor walk. Instead, if they can, they lie down and sleep. Now, it's true that napping isn't part of what we eat. We could settle the issue of post-dinner naps right away, but if it affects digestion in any way, it's important enough to take a moment to discuss.

It was mentioned before, that eating and digestion are a labor. To many it may be the most pleasant labor, to others even the only labor of their lives; but be this as it may, it is certainly a labor for all and every one; and it is important that during the process quiet should be enjoyed. He who thinks he gains by not taking enough time for eating, or he who takes his dinner while working or moving about, loses actually more than he even thinks of winning. The activity without disturbs seriously the activity within. The perspiration on the surface of the body withdraws moisture from the inside of the body to such an extent as to diminish even the saliva in the mouth, so necessary to digestion. Have not all of you had the experience, that when fatigued you feel dryness in the mouth; that you feel as if a piece of dry bread would not pass down, but remain in your throat? And as with the saliva, it is with the other digestive fluids; if there is any want of them, the food we have taken lies in the stomach like stone.[Pg 159]

It was mentioned before that eating and digestion are a form of work. For some, it might be the most enjoyable task, while for others, it could be the only work they engage in throughout their lives. Regardless, it is definitely a job for everyone, and it's crucial to have quiet during this process. People who think they benefit from not taking enough time to eat, or who try to have their dinner while working or on the move, end up losing more than they realize they might gain. Activity on the outside disrupts the activity inside. The sweat on the skin pulls moisture from within the body to such an extent that it even reduces saliva in the mouth, which is essential for digestion. Haven't all of you felt that when you're tired, your mouth gets dry; that it feels like a piece of dry bread won't go down but gets stuck in your throat? Just like with saliva, the same goes for other digestive fluids; if they're lacking, the food we consume sits in the stomach like a rock.[Pg 159]

It is therefore desirable to take a short rest before dinner, not to perform any kind of labor whatever during the same, and, above all, not to exercise the body immediately after dinner. Eating is an inward work, and should not be accompanied by any labor without. As an additional proof of what we said above, it may be stated that, as probably many of our readers know already, even in the hottest summer, perspiration diminishes after dinner. This will convince all, that when the digestive apparatus is at work, the outer organs ought to be at rest. Once more, then: before and after dinner we need rest, and it is this rest which renders us indisposed to labor and makes us feel sleepy.

It’s important to take a short break before dinner, avoid doing any kind of work during that time, and especially not to exercise right after eating. Eating is an internal process and shouldn’t be paired with any external work. To emphasize this point, as many of our readers probably already know, even in the hottest summer, sweating decreases after dinner. This shows that when the digestive system is busy, the outer body should be at rest. So, once again: we need rest before and after dinner, and it’s this rest that makes us feel less inclined to work and makes us sleepy.

On the other hand, we must take but a short slumber. Those who have accustomed themselves to sleep after dinner, feel that half an hour's slumber is all that is needed, and that they even feel weary if they have slept longer.

On the other hand, we should only take a quick nap. People who are used to napping after dinner find that just half an hour is enough, and they even feel tired if they sleep for longer.

The reason of this is, the process of digestion is properly carried on chemically by the food, being dissolved through the gastric juice. This digestion, however, is greatly promoted by the motions of the stomach, which tosses the food about from one side to the other, mixing it entirely, and finally making a large ball of it, whose various ingredients are, as it were, fused together. This process needs rest on our part; during it sleep is sweet and agreeable. But for the further digestion of food, energy is needed, which we have not during that sleep; therefore its want makes our prolonged sleep uneasy, or renders our digestion imperfect. This latter may be felt by every one who goes to bed with a full stomach. His sleep during the first hour is undisturbed and pleasant, because it is favorable to the first stage of digestion. But after that, sleep is very uneasy; weariness and complaints about bad digestion follow, and the imprudent person rises next morning[Pg 160] with headache, coated tongue, and indigestion in the stomach.

The reason for this is that digestion happens chemically through the food, which gets broken down by gastric juice. However, this process is greatly enhanced by the stomach's movements, which mix the food by tossing it from side to side, ultimately forming a large ball where the different ingredients are combined. This process requires rest on our part; during it, sleep is pleasant and restful. But for further digestion of the food, we need energy, which we don’t have while sleeping; therefore, the lack of energy makes our extended sleep uncomfortable or disrupts our digestion. Anyone who goes to bed with a full stomach can feel this. Their sleep in the first hour is undisturbed and pleasant, as it supports the initial stage of digestion. But after that, sleep becomes restless; tiredness and complaints about poor digestion follow, and the careless person wakes up the next morning[Pg 160] with a headache, a coated tongue, and an upset stomach.

From what has preceded we may conclude, that a short nap after dinner is conducive to good health; while if taken too long, it will produce the contrary effect. Dizziness in the head and fetid taste in the mouth are sure signs of one's having overslept one's self, and he who has been so imprudent must animate his system—not by liquor, but with a glass of fresh water; or he must, if he feels very heavy, wash with very cold water. For this is the moment when digestion needs activity more than anything else; the above symptoms are the indications, and man should consider them as the summons of nature, who calls to him, "Thou hast eaten and reposed; go, then, to thy labor; this is the time!"

From what we've seen, we can conclude that a short nap after dinner is good for your health; however, if it drags on too long, it can have the opposite effect. Dizziness and a bad taste in your mouth are clear signs that you've overslept, and anyone who makes that mistake should refresh themselves—not with alcohol, but with a glass of fresh water; or, if they feel really sluggish, they should wash up with very cold water. This is the time when digestion needs to be active more than anything else; those symptoms are signals, and a person should view them as nature's way of saying, "You've eaten and relaxed; now, get back to work; this is the time!"

Let every one obey her call, and there will be less sickness.[Pg 161]

Let everyone respond to her call, and there will be less illness.[Pg 161]


CHAPTER XVIII.

WATER AND BEER.

Water and beer.

During the forenoon a general desire for food is felt, while in the afternoon thirst is more common, in which case the best and most natural beverage should always be water.

During the morning, everyone usually feels hungry, while in the afternoon, thirst is more common. In that case, the best and most natural drink is always water.

Properly speaking, water is no article of food, if by that term we understand only animal and vegetable matter. Water is no organic, but a mere chemical agent. But if man were to consume no water he would perish. Therefore water is essentially necessary to man, although it does not satisfy his appetite; for it serves to liquify our food in the body, and our blood must contain a greater quantity of water than is furnished us by food, although this itself contains much water.

Properly speaking, water isn't classified as food if we only consider animal and plant matter. Water isn't organic; it's just a chemical substance. However, if humans didn’t consume water, they would die. So, water is absolutely essential for humans, even though it doesn't satisfy hunger. It helps to break down our food in the body, and our blood needs to have more water than what we get from food, even though food itself has a lot of water in it.

Without water there can be neither digestion nor nutrition, nor formation of blood, nor secretion. Furthermore, it is remarkable that the most active of the human organs, the brain and muscles, contain the most water; we are therefore obliged, although we are aware of its containing no nutritious elements, to call it a nutritive; all the more, since it is well known that we can be longer without food than without water.

Without water, there can’t be digestion, nutrition, blood formation, or secretion. It’s also interesting that the most active human organs, like the brain and muscles, have the highest water content. Because of this, we’re forced to consider it a nutrient, even though we know it doesn’t have any nutritional elements. This is especially true since we know we can go longer without food than we can without water.

This element plays a great part in the body; it is used in three ways. In the first place, the ingredients of water, hydrogen and oxygen, combine with the food, and effect its digestion. The starch which we eat in farinaceous and vegetable food cannot without water be converted into sugar. And the latter being transformed into fat, we[Pg 162] should have no fat if we took no water, though it may seem strange that water should make us fat.

This element is really important for the body; it serves three key functions. First, the components of water, hydrogen and oxygen, work with food to aid in digestion. The starch we consume from starchy and vegetable foods cannot be turned into sugar without water. Once that sugar is changed into fat, we[Pg 162] wouldn’t build up fat if we didn’t take in any water, even though it might seem odd that water can contribute to weight gain.

And there is the second task, viz., the preservation of all the fluids necessary to our body. This, also, is performed by water; and as they are excreted their loss is compensated for by water. We lose it constantly by breathing, perspiring, and urinating; therefore we must continually take it anew. Those who perspire and breathe much, as, for example, workmen or foot-travellers, must take it in greater quantities.

And there’s the second task, which is to keep all the fluids our body needs. This is also done by water; as we lose fluids, we replace them with water. We constantly lose it through breathing, sweating, and urinating; so we have to keep replenishing it. People who sweat a lot and breathe heavily, like workers or travelers, need to drink more.

The third reason of its importance lies in this, that it gives us much of the salts and other ingredients that are dissolved in it, and which the human body needs for its support. Those are wrong, therefore, who prefer cistern or distilled water to spring-water; the former being, as it were artificially, free from all metallic and mineral parts which are so beneficial to our health; while spring-water contains them in abundance, and ought, therefore, to be taken in preference even to the purest rain-water.

The third reason it's important is that it provides many of the salts and other nutrients dissolved in it, which the human body needs to function properly. Therefore, those who prefer cistern or distilled water over spring water are mistaken; the former is artificially stripped of metallic and mineral elements, which are actually beneficial to our health. In contrast, spring water is rich in these elements and should be chosen over even the purest rainwater.

But one of the most excellent qualities of water is, that one can scarcely ever drink too much of it. If but for a moment in the stomach, it is absorbed there and goes immediately into the blood. From this arises its rapid cooling quality; which, however, may become very dangerous when one is heated. There is but one case in which water is not readily absorbed by the stomach; when it contains salts that make it heavier than blood, for example, Glauber's salt and bitter-salt. It passes then into the intestinal canal, and produces here—partly as liquid, partly by its salts exciting the nerves of the intestines—that medicinal effect for which it is famous. Many water-cures, especially those applied in cases of abdominal diseases, are of similar effects.

But one of the best things about water is that you can almost never drink too much of it. Even if it only sits in your stomach for a moment, it gets absorbed right away into the bloodstream. This is why it cools you down quickly; however, it can be quite dangerous when you're overheated. There’s only one situation in which water isn’t easily absorbed by the stomach: when it has salts that make it denser than blood, like Glauber's salt and Epsom salt. In that case, it moves into the intestines, where it creates a medicinal effect—both as a liquid and through its salts stimulating the nerves of the intestines. Many water therapies, especially those used for abdominal issues, have similar effects.

Common water, however, which is immediately transmitted to the blood, effects by this accelerated secretion of[Pg 163] perspiration, respiration and urine; this constitutes the beneficial effects of water-cures, where a glass of water often produces better results than a bottle of medicine.

Common water, however, which is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, promotes the accelerated secretion of[Pg 163]perspiration, breathing, and urine. This makes up the positive effects of water treatments, where a glass of water can often yield better results than a bottle of medicine.

If we can control our thirst until several hours after dinner have passed, a glass of beer will be a welcome beverage to us. Beer contains nutriment; it includes more or less albumen, sugar, gluten, hops, and alcohol. Owing to the variety in its fermentation and manufacture, we have many kinds of beer, such as, for example, porter, ale, and, above all others, the lager-beer.

If we can hold off our thirst for several hours after dinner, a glass of beer will be a nice treat. Beer has nutrients; it contains varying amounts of protein, sugar, gluten, hops, and alcohol. Due to the different fermentation and brewing processes, there are many types of beer, such as porter, ale, and especially lager.

Good beer—that is, beer well brewed and containing all the ingredients this beverage generally does contain—is, very justly, often given to nurses and mothers, because it assimilates easily and very rapidly. It is a kind of soup; one may take it when a person is too heated or fatigued to eat a regular meal. There is a kind of beer that contains more hops, and is therefore very bitter; it is very good for the stomach. The Bavarian beer, when genuine, contains more alcohol than the other, which gives it the advantages of liquor without its disadvantages. It therefore does not satisfy one's appetite, but, on the contrary, tends to increase it; thus it is more adapted to be taken at breakfast and supper. Another kind of beer, called white-beer, contains more sugar and oxygen; it may, for this reason, supply the place of sugar, and Seltzer-water, and is recommended to all those who need Seidlitz powders.

Good beer—that is, beer that’s well brewed and has all the ingredients it usually does— is often rightly given to nurses and mothers because it’s easy to digest and absorbs quickly. It’s like a soup; you can drink it when someone is too hot or tired to have a full meal. There's a type of beer that uses more hops and is therefore quite bitter; it’s good for the stomach. Genuine Bavarian beer has more alcohol than others, which gives it the perks of liquor without the downsides. So it doesn’t curb your appetite; instead, it tends to increase it, making it more suitable for breakfast and dinner. Another type, called white beer, has more sugar and oxygen; for this reason, it can replace sugar and Seltzer water and is recommended for anyone who needs Seidlitz powders.

In another part of this work we shall perhaps speak more about the usefulness of beer. To-day we must pray our readers to be satisfied with what we have said about it; we shall now speak about supper.[Pg 164]

In another section of this work, we may discuss the benefits of beer in more detail. For now, we kindly ask our readers to be content with what we've mentioned about it; we will now move on to discuss supper.[Pg 164]


CHAPTER XIX.

SUPPER.

Dinner.

No time of the day is more pleasant than the evening hours after the day's work is over; there is a solemn calm and quiet in them which charms both soul and body.

No part of the day is more enjoyable than the evening after the work is done; there’s a peaceful stillness during that time that captivates both the mind and body.

This time of ease and rest must not be disturbed on our part by overburdening the stomach. We eat only for the purpose of compensating for the loss experienced through our work; we should not eat more than is necessary to supply the strength lost; in other words, to give us sufficient strength to continue our labor. And as the day's work is finished, there being not much work before us, we need not take much food.

This time of relaxation and rest shouldn't be disrupted by overloading our stomachs. We eat solely to make up for the energy we've used during our work; we shouldn't eat more than what we need to regain our strength. In other words, we should consume just enough to keep us going for our tasks. And since the day's work is done, with not much left to do, we don't need to eat a lot.

When glancing at a sleeping person and noticing his long breathing and increased perspiration, one may be led to the belief that he loses much oxygen and water during his sleep; that therefore we must provide ourselves abundantly with food before retiring to bed. This is, however, a mistake. The breath of a sleeping person is long and deep, but very slow; and his perspiring does not cause any great loss of water, but comes rather from this, that one's body during the night is more protected by covers and closed windows, etc., from draft which dries our evaporation, and therefore prevents perspiration in day-time. During sleep we need even less of bodily strength than through the day; for this reason we feel no hunger in the night, and, in spite of the long fasting, no fatigue in the morning.

When you look at someone sleeping and see their deep breathing and increased sweating, you might think they're losing a lot of oxygen and water while they sleep, which means we need to eat a lot before going to bed. However, that's a misconception. A sleeping person's breath is long and deep but very slow, and the sweating doesn't lead to significant water loss; it's actually because our bodies are more protected from drafts by covers and closed windows at night, which slows down evaporation and reduces sweating during the day. While we sleep, we need even less physical energy than we do during the day, which is why we don't feel hungry at night, and despite the long fasting period, we don’t feel tired in the morning.

From this we conclude that supper should not be a meal[Pg 165] for the night, but merely for the last hours of the day. It should be no meal prænumerando, but postnumerando!

From this, we conclude that dinner should not be a meal[Pg 165] for the night, but just for the final hours of the day. It should be no meal in advance, but after the fact!

It is therefore best to choose but light dishes, which, if we wish to rest well, must be easily digested, and eaten at least two or three hours before bed-time.

It’s best to stick to light meals that are easy to digest if we want to sleep well, and these should be eaten at least two or three hours before bedtime.

For healthy people a warm supper is unnecessary; our dinner is taken warm for the purpose only of keeping the gluten and fat of the food liquid; as this kind of food, however, is not proper for supper, we need not take it at all in the evening. If we do, it is but an additional burden to the housewife, who surely has enough trouble and labor in the kitchen during the day. He who is not satisfied with a piece of bread and butter and a glass of beer, may eat a piece of cheese besides; but it must be no other kind than sour cheese—the Germans call it Schmierkaese—common cheese being too heavy for night because of its containing fat. This sour cheese, whether soft or hardened, is easily digested; it even excites the stomach like spice, especially if you eat it with caraway seeds, and thus promotes the secretion of gastric juice. The other kind of cheese is, for no other reason than that, often eaten after dinner; for, though taken by itself scarcely digestible, if eaten in very small quantity, it increases by its action upon the stomach, the quantity of gastric juice there, and, therefore, promotes digestion in general.

For healthy people, a warm dinner isn't necessary; we eat dinner warm just to keep the gluten and fat in the food liquid. However, since this type of food isn't suitable for dinner, we don't really need to eat it at all in the evening. If we do, it just adds more work for the housewife, who already has enough trouble and labor in the kitchen during the day. If someone isn’t satisfied with just a piece of bread and butter and a glass of beer, they can have a piece of cheese as well; but it should only be sour cheese—the Germans call it Schmierkaese—since regular cheese is too heavy at night because of its fat content. This sour cheese, whether soft or hard, is easy to digest; it even stimulates the stomach like a spice, especially if you eat it with caraway seeds, promoting the secretion of gastric juice. The other type of cheese is often eaten after dinner for this reason; even though it's not very digestible by itself, eating a very small amount can stimulate the stomach, thus increasing the amount of gastric juice there and promoting overall digestion.

Should we, however, for one reason or the other, insist upon having a more substantial supper, then let us take soft-boiled eggs. The nutritive quality of eggs is equivalent to that of meat. They unite all good sides of the meat; nay, we may say here, that the most nourishing part in meat is nothing but egg-white, or, as we call it, "albumen."

Should we, for whatever reason, decide to have a more substantial dinner, let's go for soft-boiled eggs. The nutritional value of eggs is comparable to that of meat. They combine all the benefits of meat; in fact, we can say that the most nutritious part of meat is actually just egg white, or what we refer to as "albumen."

We recommend soft-boiled eggs, because hard ones are difficult to digest. They are best prepared by boiling, if the water is allowed to boil first and the eggs put in afterwards.[Pg 166] The reason of this is, that the boiling water hardens the outer part of the egg very rapidly, forming a thick crust, which prevents the heat of the boiling water from penetrating farther.

We suggest soft-boiled eggs because hard-boiled ones can be hard to digest. They are best prepared by boiling the water first and then adding the eggs.[Pg 166] The reason for this is that the boiling water quickly hardens the outer part of the egg, creating a thick layer that keeps the heat from getting inside.

It is a custom of our country to take tea in the evening. Tea is no article of food, but it possesses the qualities of coffee; it warms the blood, increases the activity of the heart, and produces a certain freshness of the mind, which is a good remedy against ennui and sleepiness in a company or party.

It’s a tradition in our country to have tea in the evening. Tea isn't a food, but it has qualities similar to coffee; it warms your blood, boosts your heart rate, and brings a refreshing clarity to your mind, which is a great way to fight boredom and drowsiness in a social gathering.

And since we are speaking of ennui and sleepiness, we think it advisable to close our present subject, "The Articles of Food for the People," and we part from our readers with the full conviction that they will enjoy their real "articles of food" much better than they have relished these scientific conversations about them.

And since we're talking about boredom and sleepiness, we think it's a good idea to wrap up our current topic, "The Articles of Food for the People," and we leave our readers with the strong belief that they will enjoy their actual "food" much more than they have enjoyed these scientific discussions about it.

 

 



Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!