Nor am I to be daunted by the fact that you have been so good a lover

as to make your wife happy. You may not be considered a perfect lover

even if you have compassed that very laudable end. In fact, the very

ones I mean are the apparently successful lovers with happy or

contented wives.

No shadow of a doubt as to your success as lovers has ever crossed

your dear old satisfied minds. To you I am alluding--to the very ones

who never gave the subject a thought before. Wake up, now, and listen.

Your wives have thought about it enough, even if you have not.

Remember then that I am only trying to tell you, not _why_ men fail as

lovers, but _how_ they fail--in how much you fail.

Leave out all flirting, all precarious engagements, all unhappy

Carriages, and presuppose a sweet, lovable woman, contentedly married

to a real man--a man who truly loves, even if he has not completely

mastered the gentle art of love-making. No skeleton in the closet; no

wishing the marriage undone; with no eternal fitnesses of things to

make the gods envious; no great joys of having met each other's

star-soul; with plenty of little every-day rubs, either in the shape

of hateful little economies in the choice of opera-seats and cab-hire,

or petty illnesses and nerves. Just a nice, ordinary, pleasant

marriage, with only love to keep the machinery from squeaking, and no

moral obligation on the man's part to see that the supply of love does

not run short. A great many men can stand a squeak constantly. But

women have nerves, and will go to any trouble to remove one which

their husbands never hear.

You have worked early and late to buy your wife even more luxuries

than you really could afford. But you love her so much that it was

your greatest pleasure to heap good things upon her. And very nice of

you it is. You are a dear, good man to do it, and I honor you for it.

Her physical needs are abundantly supplied. Indeed, you are so good a

lover that you remember your courting-days enough to send her flowers

on her birthdays and Easter. So her sentimental needs, represented by

flowers, are supplied.

There remain but two needs more. Those of her mind and heart.

It is too delicate a subject to discuss whether you are clever enough

for her. Very likely you are. If not, she ought to have attended to

that before she married you, because that is one of the few things

that you really can know something about during an engagement--if you

are not too much in love to have any sense left at all. Therefore

again I take for granted that you and she are congenial. If she is

devotedly fond of music, you do not hate it so that you cannot

occasionally go with her in the evening to the opera, with abundant

props in the shape of tickets for the matinée, to which you generously

bid her to "take one of the girls." If she loves books, you like to

hear her talk about them, because she does it so well, and because she

knows the ins and outs of your mind so thoroughly that in ten minutes

she can give you the plot, and half an hour's reading aloud of

striking passages will give you so excellent an idea of the style that

you can talk about it to-morrow more intelligently than some bachelors

who have really read it by themselves most conscientiously. That is

because you are clever; because your wife is more clever. You have a

brain, and your wife photographs her personality and her subject upon

it, because she understands you and has studied you, and has a pride

that you shall appear to advantage among her friends and not

degenerate into a mere business machine, as too many men do. I suppose

it never occurred to you to try to do a similar thing for her. You

could, if you wanted to. But it is a good deal of trouble, and you are

generally tired. But what do you suppose would happen if you should

exhibit the same eagerness that she does to keep the flame of love

alive, so that your marriage should not sink to the dead commonplace

level of all the other marriages you know? Suppose, even after you

have caught the car, that you occasionally got off and ran beside it a

while, just for healthful exercise, and to keep yourself from growing

ordinary?

Suppose _you_ occasionally hunted out a new book, and marked it, and

brought it home to read to her, not because you think she wouldn't

have got it without you, but just to show her that you are trying to

pull evenly, and that you wanted to do something extra charming for

her _in her line_, and to prove that you have a conscience about

keeping this precious, evanescent, but carelessly treated love at a

point where it is still a joy. It is a sad thing to get so used to a

beautiful exception like love that you never think of it as

marvellous.

A man never seems to be able to understand that, in order to obtain

the supremest pleasure from an act of thoughtfulness to his wife, he

must be wholly unselfish and give it to her, in her line, and the way

she wants it--and the way he knows she wants it, if he would only stop

to think. I know a man who hates to go out in the evening, but who

occasionally, in order to do something particularly sweet and

unselfish to please his wife, takes her to the theatre. She loves fine

plays, tragedy, high-grade comedy. But he takes her to the minstrels,

because that is the only thing he can stand, and for two weeks

afterwards he keeps saying to her, "Didn't I take you to the theatre

the other night, honey? Don't I sometimes sacrifice myself for your

pleasure?" And she goes and kisses him and says yes, and tries not to

think that his selfishness more than outweighs his unselfishness.

Women have more conscience about deceiving themselves into staying in

love than men have.

But even yet, suppose you are not that kind of a man, we have not got

to the point of the subject yet. Our way lies through the head to the

heart. And the man who is scrupulously careful about acts has yet to.

watch at once the greatest joy, the greatest grief, the supremest

healing of even deliberate wounds--words. It is a question with me

whether a woman ever knows all the joys of love-making who has one of

those dumb, silent husbands, who doubtless adores her, but is unable

to express it only in deeds. It requires an act of the will to

remember that his getting down-town at seven o'clock every morning is

all done for you, when he has not been able to tell you in words that

he loves you. It is hard to keep thinking that he looked at you last

night as if he thought you were pretty, when he did not say so. It is

hard to receive a telegram, when you are looking for a letter, saying,

"Have not had time to write. Shall be home Sunday. Will bring you

something nice." It is harder still to get a letter telling about the

weather 'and how busy he is, when the same amount of space, saying

that he got to thinking about you yesterday when he saw a girl on the

street who looked like you, only she didn't carry herself so well as

you do, and that he was a lucky man to have got you when so many other

men wanted you, and he loved you, good-bye--would have fairly made

your heart turn over with joy and made you kiss the hurried lines and

thrust the letter in your belt, where you could crackle it now and

then just to make sure it was there.

Nearly all nice men make good lovers in deeds. Many fail in the

handling of words. Few, indeed, combine the two and make perfect

lovers.

But the last test of all, and, to my mind, the greatest, is in the use

of words as a balm. Few people, be they men or women, be they lovers,

married, or only friends, can help occasionally hurting each other's

feelings. Accidents are continually happening even when people are

good-tempered. And for quick or evil-tempered ones there is but one

remedy--the handsome, honest apology. The most perfect lover is the

one who best understands how and when to apologize.

I have heard men say, to prove their independence, their proud spirit,

their unbending self-respect, "I never apologize." They say it in such

conscious pride, and so honestly expect me to admire them, and I am so

amiable, that I never dare remonstrate. I simply keep out of their

way. But I feel like saying: "Poor, pitiful soul! Poor, meagre nature!

Not to know the gladness of restoring a smile to a face from which you

have driven it. Only to know the coldness of a misnamed pride; never

to know the close, warm joy of humility."

Many people know nothing about a real apology. A lukewarm apology is

more insulting than the insult. A handsome apology is the handsomest

thing in the world--and the manliest and the womanliest. An apology,

like chivalry, is sexless. Perhaps because it is a natural virtue of

women, it sits manlier upon men than upon women.

... "It becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown."

Even as chivalry, being a natural attribute of men, becomes beautiful

beyond words to express when found in women.

I have often heard men say they never apologize. Sometimes I have

heard women. Pitiful, indeed, it becomes then. A woman without

religion is no more repulsive to me than one who "never apologizes."

How I pity the people who love those men and women who "never

apologize." A delicate apology brings into play all the virtues

necessary to a perfect humanity. The proudest are generally those who

can bend the lowest. It is not pride; it is a stupid vanity and an

abnormal self-love which prevent a man or woman from apologizing. An

apology requires a native humility of which only great souls are

capable. It requires generosity to be willing to humble yourself. It

takes faith in humanity to think that your apology will be accepted.

You must have a sense of justice to believe that you owe it. It

requires sincerity to make it sound honest, and tact to do it at the

right time. It requires patience to stick to it until the wound has

ceased to bleed, and the best, highest, truest type of love to make

you want to do it.

There is only one thing meaner than a person who never apologizes, and

that is a person who will not accept one.

It requires a finer type of generosity to receive generously than to

give generously. And a nature is more divine which can forgive

honestly and quickly than one which can only apologize and is not

capable of a swift forgiveness. But it is a wise dispensation of

Providence that the two are twin virtues, and are generally to be met

with in the same broad and beautiful nature.

Used against a high soul, there is no surer method of humiliation than

an apology. In one skilled at reading human nature, an apology becomes

a weapon. When you are not the one who should apologize first, when

you are less to blame than he, be you the one to apologize first, and

see how quickly his noble nature will abase itself, and rush to meet

you, and how sure and glorious and complete the reconciliation will

be!

I never can blame people who refuse to accept an apology in the shape

of flowers when the wound has been given in words. The whole of Europe

would not compensate some women for a hurt, when the hurt had been

distinctly worded and the apology came in the shape of a dumb,

voiceless present.

From the standpoint of observation and inexperience, I would say that

the supremest lack of men as lovers is the inability to say, "I am

sorry, dear; forgive me." And to keep on saying it until the hurt is

entirely gone. You gave her the deep wound. Be manly enough to stay by

it until it has healed. Men will go to any trouble, any expense, any

personal inconvenience, to heal it without the simple use of those

simple words. A man thinks if a woman begins to smile at him again

after a hurt, for which he has not yet apologized, has commenced to

grow dull, that the worst is over, and that, if he keeps away from the

dangerous subject, he has done his duty. Besides, hasn't he given her

a piano to pay for it? But that same man would call another man a

brute who insisted upon healing up a finger with the splinter still in

it, so that an accidental pressure would always cause pain.

If you do not believe this, what do you suppose the result would be if

you should apologize to your wife for something you said last year. If

you think she has forgotten, because she never speaks of it, just try

it once.

I honestly believe that the simple phrase, "I am sorry, dear; forgive

me," has done more to hold brothers in the home, to endear sisters to

each other, to comfort mothers and fathers, to tie friends together,

to placate lovers; that more marriages have taken place because of

them, and more have held together on account of them; that more love

of all kinds has been engendered by them than by any other words in

the English language.

GIRLS AND OTHER GIRLS

"Thou art so very sweet and fair,

With such a heaven in thine eyes,

It almost seems an over-care

To ask thee to be good or wise.

"As if a little bird were blamed

Because its song unthinking flows;

As if a rose should be ashamed

Of being nothing but a rose."

* * * * *

* * * * *

"It is so hard for Shrewdness to admit

Folly means no harm when she calls black white."

People who criticise the grammar of those young girls who say "I don't

think," should have a care. For it is more true than incorrect. Most

girls don't think.

But there are two kinds of girls--girls under twenty-five and others.

Of course, although you may not know it, age has no more to do with

that statement than it had to do with the one when I hinted that man

reached the ripe state of perfection at the mystic age of thirty-five.

These are but approximate figures, and are only for use in general

practice. They have no bearing on specific cases, when it is always

best to call in a specialist.

I know many girls who are still seeing and hearing unintelligently,

and have not begun to assimilate knowledge, even at twenty-five. I

know others of twenty, who have assimilated so well that they will

never be under twenty-five. But it is a literal fact, and this

statement I am willing to live up to, that the majority of girls must

have lived through their first youth before a thinking person can take

any comfort with them.

I am sure Samuel Johnson had this in mind when he said: "'Tis a

terrible thing that we cannot wish young ladies well without wishing

them to become old women." Or possibly the exclamation was wrung from

him after an attempt to talk to one of them. Many brave men, who would

stop a runaway horse, or who would dare to look for burglars under the

bed, quail utterly before the prospect of talking to a young girl who

frankly says, "I don't think."

How can those girls, who give evidence of no more thought than is

evinced by their namby-pamby chatter, call their existence living?

They mistake pertness for wit; audacity for cleverness; disrespect to

old age for independence; and general bad manners for individuality.

Has nobody ever trained these girls to think? What kind of schools do

they attend? Who has spoiled them by flattery, until they are little

peacocks to whom a mirror is an irresistible temptation?

Why do unthinking parents supply them with money, and never ask how

they spend it? How does it come that if you want to find great numbers

of them together you go to Huyler's instead of to Brentano's? What

kind of women will these girls make, to whom a wrinkle in their waist

is of more moment than their soul's salvation?

I often wonder what kind of mothers these girls have. Surely there can

be no family conversation where they live. Surely they never hear the

great questions of the day discussed at the dinner-table. From the

number of hours they spend upon the street, I often am tempted to say,

what the poor, tired woman, who stood for miles in the street-car,

said to her fellow-passengers, "Have none of yez _homes_?"

Poor, empty-pated little creatures! Poor lovely little clothes-racks,

who occasionally organize a concert for newsboys whose lives are

busier and more useful than their own! A Street Waifs' Benefit for

Street Waifs!

If the crude young person who stands with such eager feet where the

brook and river meet that she has wetted her pretty shoon in her haste

to be in the society of men could only have the wit to sing:

"O wad some power the giftie gie us,

To see oursels as others see us,"

she might discover strange points of resemblance between herself and a

very young baby.

In the earliest days of earthly existence a baby is in a jelly-fish

state, from which no one can say what he will emerge. His brain is a

sponge. He receives everything and gives nothing. He is pretty to look

at, and seems made for nothing but love. He coos and gurgles, he

seldom does anything more intelligent than to smile, and he prefers

men to women.

The greatest fault that thinking men find with this sort of girl is,

that she becomes sillier every day that she lives. I have heard women

complain of the degeneracy of the boys who seek their daughters in

marriage; but when I look at the many girls of this type I am tempted

to say, "Well, madam, who but a degenerate would care to marry your

daughter?"

Men claim that it is difficult to maintain their ideals in regard to

women, in the face of such selfishness, crudeness, bad manners, and

jealousies as exist between young girls of this sort. Of course, they

who have become belles by reason of their lovely faces never know that

the thinking class of young men criticise them adversely, and they

would not care if they did. There are still many men who do admire and

who will fall in love with them, and the others are not missed.

We must not blame them too severely for rejoicing in their loveliness.

It might be a hard struggle for the rest of us not to do the same if

we had their beauty.

Men often wonder why girls' friendships are so hollow. They wonder why

we are so ungenerous to each other. "So hateful," _we_ call it.

Hateful is not a man's word. It is a woman's; and trust a woman to

know exactly what it means.

Well, the truth of it is that men are at the bottom of a great deal of

it. Girls seldom quarrel with each other except over some man, and,

while they intend to be loyal to each other, they cannot seem to

manage it if there is a man in the case.

Most girls have two natures. One she shows to men; the other to other

girls. What we know of one is the way she droops and is so openly

bored by other girls that it is quite a blow to our vanity to be

obliged to be with her. We recognize the other at the approach of a

man, even if we cannot see him, by the changes in the girl's face. She

straightens herself, puts a hand on each side of her waist, and pushes

her belt down lower, moistens her lips, a sparkle comes into her eyes,

she touches her back hair, and runs a finger under the edge of her

veil. Then she smiles--such a smile as the other girls have not been

able to win from her in three hours.

These girls are very clever sometimes--even these little, soft,

kitteny girls, who do not know anything about books, who never read,

who never study, and are popularly called empty-headed even by the

very men who make love to them. These girls are keen beyond words to

express in their intuitive knowledge of human nature and the

differentiation between man nature and woman nature. They are capable

of using the outward and apparent motives of humanity for an effect,

and secretly of plying the subtlest and most occult.

It is difficult to designate their exact methods, and dangerous to

exploit them, for you immediately lay yourself open to the suspicion

of being capable of the same double-dealing yourself, or of its being

beneath your dignity to accuse any one of such duplicity; and yet

there are the causes and there are the results. You can shut your eyes

to them if you wish.

It is just here where a girl of this kind is so uncanny. Of course,

for those of us who wish to take a lofty view of love and lovers, who

wish to think each woman sought out by a man for her beauty and

virtues and married for love, it is very repugnant to have to face the

fact that there are hundreds of sweet, nice girls, of good family and

good training, who regard the securing for themselves of another

girl's lover a perfectly legitimate operation.

Not infrequently one hears it said that So-and-So is one of the most

attractive girls in town, because she can cut any girl out that she

tries to. You may say that a man so easily won is no great loss, or

that such things may occur in other circles of society but not in

yours. Possibly they do not. One does not deny the honor of honorable

men and women in any walk in life. But in polite society, fashionable

society, these things occur. Oftener in New York than in Boston, and

oftener in London and Paris than in New York. Indeed, we may sneer, as

we often do, at the primitive customs of the lowly, and at their

absurd phrase of "keeping company." It makes a delightful jest. But

beneath it is a greater regard for the rights of a man or woman in

love than one is apt to find higher in the social scale.

With them, to select one another "to keep company," is like an offer

of marriage. To "keep steady company" is the formal announcement of an

engagement, which is a potential marriage. It is the first step

towards matrimony, and is almost as sacred and final.

With their more fortunate and envied sisters in the smart set, an

engagement is the loosest kind of a bond, and neither man nor woman is

safe from the wooing of other men and women until the marriage vows

have been pronounced, and, if your society is very fashionable, not

even then.

So that this society of which I speak would undeniably be called

"good."

Now, of course, all women desire to be loved. She is a very queer

woman who would deny that proposition if asked by the right person,

and I hope he would have sense enough not to believe her if she did. I

do not object to a girl making herself attractive to men in a modest

and maidenly way. On the contrary, I heartily approve of it. But I

would have her select a man who belonged to no other girl, and to know

that nothing but misery can result from the taking of a lover away

from her friend.

It is the fashion for women to deny that this is done. I never could

see why. But possibly they deny it because they are afraid, if they

discuss it, that people will think some girl has lured a lover or two

away from _them_.

People who have witnessed the outward results of this phenomenon also

deny the true cause, on the ground that the robber girl was not clever

enough to have done it. That she simply was more to the man's taste

than the first girl, and so it was all the fault of the man.

Of course, I cannot deny the fickleness of man. But I do say that the

girl hardly lives, no matter how pretty she is, who has not the wit to

get another girl's lover if she wants him. It makes no difference how

young she is, she never makes the mistake of disparaging the first

girl. No woman of the world is less liable to such an error than a

girl who deliberately intends to get another girl's lover.

She begins by gaining her confidence. Very likely she manages to stay

all night with her. (That is the time when you tell everything you

know, just because it is dark, and then spend the rest of your life

wishing you hadn't.)

Then, when she has the points of the compass, so to speak, she says

she will help her dear friend, and the dear friend, not being clever

(or she wouldn't have confided), thinks she is the loveliest girl in

the world, and, after promising to send her lover to call in order to

be "helped," she calmly goes to sleep, just as if she has not seen the

beginning of the end.

From a Girl's Point of View · 第 3 / 7 段