The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-03-18
CLEANLINESS.
SOME INTERESTING DEFELOP- MENJS

SOME INTERESTING DEfELoP.
 Of the Sentiment Among Civilized
 Peoples.
 Cleanliness is one of the moral duties as to which, in this country at all
 events, the' upper classes of society are most nearly unanimous; and recogni-
 ton of it is rapidly spreading itself through other classes also. Public
 baths are becoming every year more popular; the humblest of suburban vil-
 las invariably now has it's bathroom, and the city clerk to-day regards as ne cessaries means of cleaning his body from head to foot which Lord Chester field or even Louis XIV would have re- garded as meaningless opportunities.
 This movement in favor of cleanliness is not confined to England. No man of middle age, who has known the conti
 nent since his childhood can fail to per- ceive it's influence in every European country. Every continental hotel and chateau bears witness to it, and it's progress is equally evident in the houses of continental monarchs, as those are aware who have been familiar with the Winter Palace at St. Petersburg. It is, however in England that the move- ment has had its origin. In England we ourselves can most easily trace it's course; and in England it has reached it's fullest-sone will say it's most exag- rof fnG-. law al 1n11y nr,t h1,y ETr,rr1 r1scI, house which is three generations old, the furniture of which has not been completely modernized will present us with visible records of the condition of things from which the movement in question has now carried us so far In any such house. whatever else may be antique the entire system or sanitation at all events will be quite new. Tradi- tions will survive of the days when a morning tub was an innovation, and the footpans, with their large jugs which still glimmer under the washing stands, will remind us of the period, chronologically not remote, when it was thought sufficient to clean the hu
 man extremities, and ablution of the entire person was regarded as super flhous rite, or was in practice a rare one
 What, then, is the meaning of this movement which has in so short time so greatly changed our entire habits and sentiments with regard to one of the most intimate and familiar forms of conduct? There is partial answer to the question, which is at once obvi ous and simple. The movement has been caused, or at least accelerated. by the development of medical and sanita- ny science, and it has on scientific grounds been largely justified by it's re- suits. All kinds of diseases whose ori- gin was formerly misunderstood have been traced to contaminated air or de- ficient personal cleanliness, and though modern science protecting us against the dangers thus arising sometimes re- troduces them in a new and more insd- ious form they are on the whole being 1 greatly and increasingly minimized. { But this utilitarian explanation of the ! phenomenon is a partial explanation only. It throws no light on that senti I mental attachment to cleanliness which is distinct from it's approval and prac tice based on utilitarian grounds.
 The sentiment of cleanliness has ex- isted at all times though in some ages and in some races it has been strongly | developed, while in others it is to be l traced only in almost imperceptibe ru- diments It existed in England in days when the necessary tub was unknown, | and when the germ had not yet been dreamed of. It has been developed I since those days, but 1t has certainly | not been created. It no doubt has al- | ways-as it was among the Jews-been consciously or unconsciously associated l with some general sanitary experience, | but it has constantly exhibited a natu- ral tendency to become faStidiouS, fam l ciful and passionate to a degree which , is not explica ble by any utilitarian wis., | dom, whether consciously acquired or unconscously inherited. The Jewish rabbis, for example, would never in this connection have deduced from the Mo- saic law their grotesquely interesting interpretations of it, if they had not been prompted and guided by some cu- rious human instinct, with whose origin the law had nothing to do. One rabbin- ical party, as a recent writer has re- minded us, maintained that a cup must be washed before it was filled with wine because otherwise the cup and the wine would be rendered unclean by the precipitation of the fingers which would remain clinging to the cup. An other party maintained that this view was erroneous, and endeavored to de- monstrate that the real danger to be obviated was the contamination of the l fingers by the cup. They accordingly 1 taught that the proper time for wash 1 ing the hands was not before filling of !; the cup, but after it. One school taught that after the hands were wiped the towel should be placed on the table, and { not on cushion, lest the precipitation of the hands should contaminate the ( cushion, and the cushion. Tn turn, con- | taminate whatever touched it. Another school taught that equally terrible con- sequences might arise from using the table as a rest for the dirty towel be- ! cause the impure towel might be made yet more impure by the table which would thus infect the precipitation