I.

“Isn’t the eternal-womanly everywhere? What has happened to you?”

I asked.

“I wish you would come to my house and see. Every rug has been up for a

month, and we have been living on bare floors. Everything that could be

tied up has been tied up, everything that could be sewed up has been

sewed up. Everything that could be moth-balled and put away in chests

has been moth-balled and put away. Everything that could be taken down

has been taken down. Bags with draw-strings at their necks have been

pulled over the chandeliers and tied. The pictures have been hidden in

cheese-cloth, and the mirrors veiled in gauze so that I cannot see my own

miserable face anywhere.”

“Come! That’s something.”

“Yes, it’s something. But I have been thinking this matter over very

seriously, and I believe it is going from bad to worse. I have heard

praises of the thorough housekeeping of our grandmothers, but the

housekeeping of their granddaughters is a thousand times more intense.”

“Do you really believe that?” I asked. “And if you do, what of it?”

“Simply this, that if we don’t put a stop to it, at the gait it’s going,

it will put a stop to the eternal-womanly.”

“I suppose we should hate that.”

“Yes, it would be bad. It would be very bad; and I have been turning the

matter over in my mind, and studying out a remedy.”

“The highest type of philosopher turns a thing over in his mind and lets

some one else study out a remedy.”

“Yes, I know. I feel that I may be wrong in my processes, but I am sure

that I am right in my results. The reason why our grandmothers could be

such good housekeepers without danger of putting a stop to the eternal-

womanly was that they had so few things to look after in their houses.

Life was indefinitely simpler with them. But the modern improvements,

as we call them, have multiplied the cares of housekeeping without

subtracting its burdens, as they were expected to do. Every novel

convenience and comfort, every article of beauty and luxury, every means

of refinement and enjoyment in our houses, has been so much added to the

burdens of housekeeping, and the granddaughters have inherited from the

grandmothers an undiminished conscience against rust and the moth, which

will not suffer them to forget the least duty they owe to the naughtiest

of their superfluities.”

“Yes, I see what you mean,” I said. This is what one usually says when

one does not quite know what another is driving at; but in this case I

really did know, or thought I did. “That survival of the conscience is a

very curious thing, especially in our eternal-womanly. I suppose that

the North American conscience was evolved from the rudimental European

conscience during the first centuries of struggle here, and was more or

less religious and economical in its origin. But with the advance of

wealth and the decay of faith among us, the conscience seems to be simply

conscientious, or, if it is otherwise, it is social. The eternal-womanly

continues along the old lines of housekeeping from an atavistic impulse,

and no one woman can stop because all the other women are going on. It

is something in the air, or something in the blood. Perhaps it is

something in both.”

“Yes,” said my friend, quite as I had said already, “I see what you mean.

But I think it is in the air more than in the blood. I was in Paris,

about this time last year, perhaps because I was the only thing in my

house that had not been swathed in cheese-cloth, or tied up in a bag with

drawstrings, or rolled up with moth-balls and put away in chests. At any

rate, I was there. One day I left my wife in New York carefully tagging

three worn-out feather dusters, and putting them into a pillow-case, and

tagging it, and putting the pillow-case into a camphorated self-sealing

paper sack, and tagging it; and another day I was in Paris, dining at the

house of a lady whom I asked how she managed with the things in her house

when she went into the country for the summer. ‘Leave them just as they

are,’ she said. ‘But what about the dust and the moths, and the rust and

the tarnish?’ She said, ‘Why, the things would have to be all gone over

when I came back in the autumn, anyway, and why should I give myself

double trouble?’ I asked her if she didn’t even roll anything up and put

it away in closets, and she said: ‘Oh, you mean that old American horror

of getting ready to go away. I used to go through all that at home, too,

but I shouldn’t dream of it here. In the first place, there are no

closets in the house, and I couldn’t put anything away if I wanted to.

And really nothing happens. I scatter some Persian powder along the

edges of things, and under the lower shelves, and in the dim corners, and

I pull down the shades. When I come back in the fall I have the powder

swept out, and the shades pulled up, and begin living again. Suppose a

little dust has got in, and the moths have nibbled a little here and

there? The whole damage would not amount to half the cost of putting

everything away and taking everything out, not to speak of the weeks of

discomfort, and the wear and tear of spirit. No, thank goodness--I left

American housekeeping in America.’ I asked her: ‘But if you went back?’

and she gave a sigh, and said:

“‘I suppose I should go back to that, along with all the rest. Everybody

does it there.’ So you see,” my friend concluded, “it’s in the air,

rather than the blood.”

“Then your famous specific is that our eternal-womanly should go and live

in Paris?”

“Oh, dear, not” said my friend. “Nothing so drastic as all that. Merely

the extinction of household property.”

“I see what you mean,” I said. “But--what do you mean?”

“Simply that hired houses, such as most of us live in, shall all be

furnished houses, and that the landlord shall own every stick in them,

and every appliance down to the last spoon and ultimate towel. There

must be no compromise, by which the tenant agrees to provide his own

linen and silver; that would neutralize the effect I intend by the

expropriation of the personal proprietor, if that says what I mean. It

must be in the lease, with severe penalties against the tenant in case of

violation, that the landlord into furnish everything in perfect order

when the tenant comes in, and is to put everything in perfect order when

the tenant goes out, and the tenant is not to touch anything, to clean

it, or dust it, or roll it up in moth-balls and put it away in chests.

All is to be so sacredly and inalienably the property of the landlord

that it shall constitute a kind of trespass if the tenant attempts to

close the house for the summer or to open it for the winter in the usual

way that houses are now closed and opened. Otherwise my scheme would be

measurably vitiated.”

“I see what you mean,” I murmured. “Well?”

“Some years ago,” my friend went on, “when we came home from Europe, we

left our furniture in storage for a time, while we rather drifted about,

and did not settle anywhere in particular. During that interval my wife

opened and closed five furnished houses in two years.”

“And she has lived to tell the tale?”

“She has lived to tell it a great many times. She can hardly be kept

from telling it yet. But it is my belief that, although she brought to

the work all the anguish of a quickened conscience, under the influence

of the American conditions she had returned to, she suffered far less in

her encounters with either of those furnished houses than she now does

with our own furniture when she shuts up our house in the summer, and

opens it for the winter. But if there had been a clause in the lease, as

there should have been, forbidding her to put those houses in order when

she left them, life would have been simply a rapture. Why, in Europe

custom almost supplies the place of statute in such cases, and you come

and go so lightly in and out of furnished houses that you do not mind

taking them for a month, or a few weeks. We are very far behind in this

matter, but I have no doubt that if we once came to do it on any extended

scale we should do it, as we do everything else we attempt, more

perfectly than any other people in the world. You see what I mean?”

“I am not sure that I do. But go on.”

“I would invert the whole Henry George principle, and I would tax

personal property of the household kind so heavily that it would

necessarily pass out of private hands; I would make its tenure so costly

that it would be impossible to any but the very rich, who are also the

very wicked, and ought to suffer.”

“Oh, come, now!”

“I refer you to your Testament. In the end, all household property would

pass into the hands of the state.”

“Aren’t you getting worse and worse?”

“Oh, I’m not supposing there won’t be a long interval when household

property will be in the hands of powerful monopolies, and many

millionaires will be made by letting it out to middle-class tenants like

you and me, along with the houses we hire of them. I have no doubt that

there will be a Standard Household-Effect Company, which will extend its

relations to Europe, and get the household effects of the whole world

into its grasp. It will be a fearful oppression, and we shall probably

groan under it for generations, but it will liberate us from our personal

ownership of them, and from the far more crushing weight of the

mothball. We shall suffer, but--”

“I see what you mean,” I hastened to interrupt at this point, “but these

suggestive remarks of yours are getting beyond--Do you think you could

defer the rest of your incompleted sentence for a week?”

“Well, for not more than a week,” said my friend, with an air of

discomfort in his arrest.

Literature and Life (Complete) · 第 57 / 228 题