"Then," said Maud, "you had better give up all thoughts of Miles!"
"But how do English mothers like it?"
"They accept it as part of the universe, like vegetable marrow and
cold rooms! But there is something more that I do not suppose you
can understand. Englishwomen do not crave the society of their
children as American women do, because they have the companionship of
their husbands to a degree unknown at home."
"You must be crazy! There is more true companionship between
husbands and wives in America than anywhere else in the world."
"Don't get excited," said Maud. "It is not the Fourth of July! I
was not speaking of quality but of quantity. The management of the
household is not left to women, as it is at home. The husband and
wife consult about a thousand things that American husbands know
nothing about. If the husband is in politics, as Thomas is, the wife
visits the constituency and makes speeches as well as the man. At
any dinner you will notice that the women talk politics as
intelligently as the men do. Such intellectual companionship would
be impossible if the woman were tied down to the nursery. How many
really intelligent men does one meet at a dinner-party in Boston or
New York? They will not accept such invitations, because the women
are not their intellectual companions. They are beautifully gowned
and lovely to look at, but they expect to be admired every minute!
Then take the institution of 'the week-end.' If people are not
stopping here, Thomas and I are off to some other house. I have a
quiet mind because Miles is here. No, a 'Nanny' is as necessary in
an English house as is an N.C.O. in the army, for the rules of the
house are equally strict."
Some of those rules strike us as queer. For instance, even when only
the family is present, dinner is a formal affair. Instead of
gathering in the hall as before lunch, we assemble in the
drawing-room, and when the hour strikes, the butler appears and
announces: "Dinner is served, Sir Thomas!" I confess when I first
heard that, my eyebrows went up a trifle. Maud saw it and laughed.
"Yes," she said, "I felt that way at first, and told Thomas that if
the butler thought he could ignore me, he was mistaken!"
"I think, my dear, what you said was that 'he had another guess
coming,'" said Thomas, with a smile.
"I 'guess' I did," laughed Maud. "At any rate, now that I understand
the reason, I submit, I hope, gracefully."
"You could not do anything otherwise," he replied.
"Well," I exclaimed, "when the billing and cooing are over, I too
should like to know the reason."
"Every country has its customs," said Sir Thomas, I thought a bit
stolidly. "America has hers and England hers. The difference is
that the English can give a reason for theirs, whereas I doubt if
Americans always can."
I saw he was trying to get a "rise" out of me and so answered: "Such
as?"
"Well, for instance, if a man goes to church in America, he takes the
aisle seat, and if a lady enters he steps out and allows her to pass,
instead of moving up as an Englishman would do. Is there any reason
for that?"
"Certainly," I answered. "That is a survival of the custom of the
early days when the men went to church carrying their flintlocks,
which they might be called upon to use against the Indians at any
minute, and could not wait for the women and children to clear the
way."
"That strikes me as an interesting explanation of the origin of a
custom rather than as a reason for its continuance. Indeed, I would
suggest that it is a custom that might be discontinued with
advantage, for it seems to have been carried from the church to the
trams, and is, I suppose, accountable for the existence of what I
have seen in the American papers called 'the end-seat hog.'"
We all laughed at this, but I said it looked to me like a red herring.
But he said: "No, the English custom of having the host rather than
the hostess notified of the serving of dinner is not merely a
survival from the days when women counted for little, but has a
practical value to-day. Inasmuch as the host is expected to 'take
in' the lady of leading rank, it is of consequence that he, and not
the hostess, who comes last, should be informed when the procession
should start."
I must say that seems a reasonable explanation. And when I think of
the confusion that is apt to follow at home when we try to be
formal--as, for instance, when the host is talking to the prettiest
girl in the room up to the last minute, and his wife has to inform
him that dinner is ready, because his charmer has been so engrossing
that he has not heard the butler, and he hastens to escort the "lady"
of a congressman, I am inclined to think we had better follow the
English way or else revert to the primitive custom of "choosing
partners"!
You will think I have been reading the _Countess_, or one of the
other papers which teach the middle classes to ape the aristocracy,
and are probably muttering: "What earthly difference does it make to
us what are the customs of a society which is soon to pass away?"
But you are wrong. This particular thing is of no value, as you and
I both know. The point is, we Americans are continually saying that
the English do not understand us. Do we understand them? If we
would take the trouble to learn the reason for some of our
differences, would it not do more for the peace of the world than all
those stupid banquets, with their talk about "our common blood," when
every one knows that at least a third of those present have not a
drop of English blood in their veins, and some of them, as Roosevelt
is reported to have said, "thank God for it"?
John is calling to know if I intend to type all night, and you will
long ago have wished that I would stop! Well, you will not be
troubled by me soon again, for to-morrow we start on our trip, and
John will want to tell you about it himself.