Dear Sir, - So once again, in the current treble number, you've done me the honour of publishing one of my effusions! How well the drawings are reproduced! But I am afraid I must call attention to two misprints that obscure the sense of the sentences they occur in. In the first column, in the last line above th illustration, the word in inverted commas should be "monopode" with an "o," and, again, in the caption to the illustration below, "horizontally" should be "horizontality."
I greatly appreciated the two delightful snaps of "Dorree" in your issue for June 8, and was pleased to see her use the spring-topped type of crutches that I have always believed to be far and away the most comfortable, safest and smartest-looking for all but the youngest and slimmest monopedes. I was gratified, too at Miss "One-legged Bride-to-Be's" appreciative comments on my first letter. I wish her a brilliant and memorable wedding, to be followed by long and happy married life, as I'm sure she deserves.
Though correspondence and articles on monopedes were the first and remain the primary cause of interest I feel in "London Life," let me take the opportunity of saying that I derive great pleasure from nearly all the correspondence section, most especially such letters as appear on jewellery. (I was hugely pleased with Miss Alvarez' article, "Jewels of the Stars" in the June 8 issue, and its accompanying illustration.)
To most of your important contributors - "Mounted Mannequin," "Mabel Jennings," "Heiress," "Tressamour," "Boxing Blonde," "Modern", etc. - I like to express my appreciative thanks. One subject alone among those frequently dealt with leaves me both literally and metaphorically cold - the rubber clothing craze, an eccentricity that to me seems comfortless and inartistic in the extreme.
Well, it's my intention in future to confine whatever comments and ideas I send you to the subject I have so far identified myself with, but for this once I feel I must depart from my habit and express a protest at the appalling inaccuracies in miss Alvarez' account of Ancient Greek costume in her otherwise delightful article, "Lingerie Parade," in the treble number. Almost every statement she makes is incorrect. (I happen to be lecturer on classical archaeology, and can speak from authority.)
(C.D.B.'S long epistle about the ancient greeks and their clothing habits is not reproduced here)
Well, sir, once again I've rambled on to inordinate length; but, even so, I feel confident that after reading my apology you will forgive me.
Yours truly,
C. D. B.