Or take the case of Maud Muller herself, and her judge. We learn that the judge--
Wedded a wife of richest dower, Who lived for fashion, as he for power.
Maud, on the other hand,--
Wedded a man unlearned and poor, And many children played round her door.
Probably in both cases this was for the best. Only the wildest sentimentalist could in seriousness urge that Maud would have made a good wife for the judge. Being a man who "lived for power," the probable unpresentableness of Maud in a town house would have been a constant thorn in his flesh. She could not appear barefooted at his receptions, and the feet that have gone bare through an agricultural girlhood do not readily adapt themselves to the size of shoe which urban fashion dictates. Moreover, the vague yearnings of a young girl for an alliance with a handsome stranger above her station, do not fit her to speak the speech and think the thoughts and meet the social demands of that station. No, Maud would have been a constant thorn in the judge"s side. Summer sunshine, the smell of hay, a drink of cold water, a pretty, barefoot girl--the mood is compounded. An uneducated farmer"s daughter for a wife--the reality is accomplished.
And as for Maud, who will say for certain that she would not eventually have eloped with the coachman because he praised her pies instead of criticising her grammar?
So to each of them--barefoot girl and bald-headed judge (he probably was bald-headed, though the poem omits to say so) did what was best, and the school children for several generations have been taught to waste unnecessary sympathy over their fate, have been inculcated with a false view of the whole matter. Both of them found far more happiness in dreaming of what might have been than ever they could have found in the realization; for each of them this dream brought undoubted sadness, but the sadness which is really pleasure, the sadness, that is, which comes over all of us when "we realize that though we have missed certain ideals in our lives we are still able to recall those ideals, we are still not like all the dead, forgetful clods around us, our wives and husbands and neighbors and friends. We live with these people as one of them, of course, but we might have been so much better than they! Such reflections as these are a great comfort. They bring a sadness which makes us mournfully happy. They reconcile us with the scheme of things. They are the outcroppings of that secret vanity which the best and the worst of us nourish, and of which is born our self-respect, our happiness, our heroism."
Once upon a time, long, long ago, there was a town called Abdera. The good people of the town were so much upset at seeing a performance of the _Andromeda_ of Euripides that they caught a sort of tragic fever.
This began with bleeding and perspiration and was followed in about a week"s time, according to the course of the disease, by an uncontrollable desire to recite. The effect upon Abdera was surprising. The people walked about in the streets day and night reciting pages of Euripides until the epidemic was cured by a return of the cold weather. Well, Tolstoy would have us believe that the European and English-speaking world to-day is about in this condition regarding Shakespeare, and that there is little hope of a cold spell.
A second-rate fellow, this Bard of Avon, according to Tolstoy, whom by a gigantic process of hypnotic suggestion we have been taught to think great, till we go about quoting him as the law and the prophet, while he fills some hundred and seventeen pages of Bartlett.
There is undoubtedly something in this view of the matter. Without holding a brief either for the alleged immortal William or the author of _What Is Art?_, it may safely be hazarded that at least fifty per cent of the "familiar quotations" we children laboriously copied into ruled blank books in our school days and have ever since regarded as nuggets of truth and gems of poetry are neither true nor, beyond the fact of rhyme, poetic. Something as a wave of suggestion pa.s.sed over Europe and sent thousands of little ones down to their deaths in the Children"s Crusades, thousands of youngsters in our schools to-day are hypnotized into a lasting belief in the poetic value of numberless couplets of second-rate verse, and never come to know real poetry at all. Having been forced to swallow rhymed plat.i.tudes in the belief that they are poetry, a permanent and perfectly natural repulsion for the very name of poetry is too often the children"s only acquisition.
In fact, it is a pretty question if the decline of poetic appreciation cannot be directly traced to the rise of the memory-gem book.
How well I remember my own sense of weariness and repulsion when I was compelled at the tender age of ten to copy out the whole of _The Psalm of Life_, unconsciously committing it to memory as I did so.
Life is real, life is earnest, And the grave is not its goal; Dust thou art, to dust returnest, Was not spoken of the soul.--
My infant lips muttered the meaningless words while my poor little brain and imagination tried to find some joy, some picture, some tangible delight, some inspiration in the mournful, oppressive poem.
If I had then been a.s.signed intelligible verses to copy, an Elizabethan lyric, a song that sang because it had to, a bit of imagery, my childish fancy would have been fired, and I should not have had to wait till I was eighteen years old before I read a single poem voluntarily. And I should not have detested _The Psalm of Life_ all the rest of my days--at least I don"t think I should. Longfellow when I was a child was a particularly prolific mine of memory gems, running as high as three thousand quotations to the ton. I never had a teacher who didn"t know her Longfellow with an intimacy almost as great as her ignorance of Keats, Sh.e.l.ley, Herrick, Lovelace, Suckling, Herbert, Campion, Coleridge, Burns and the rest of the kings who lived before Agamemnon. Longfellow was a lovely soul, and, within his limits, a very true poet. But I was fed on his plat.i.tudes. I was daily informed that--
The heights by great men reached and kept Were not attained by sudden flight.--
Just as if I cared, at ten, whether they were or not. I was told in tripping measures of the village chestnut tree, to the total exclusion of the linden and ilex; and as for the land where the citrons bloom, and golden oranges are in the gloom, and the long silences of laurel rise--"Kennst du das Land?" Not I! The spreading chestnut tree alone cast its oppressive shadow across my childish fancy.
Another memory gem that I remember with a lasting grudge was--
Kind hearts are more than coronets, And simple faith than Norman blood.
This I knew was false, and to be forced glibly to chatter the words before the cla.s.s shamed and angered me. Had not a maiden aunt of mine, after many trips to the library of the New England Genealogical Society, traced back our line to William the Conqueror? Was there another boy or girl in the school who had descended from William the Conqueror? No, sir! Several of them had kind hearts, and doubtless simple faith--whatever that was--but side of my Norman blood this counted for nothing. It is a vastly superior thing to have Norman blood, and as for coronets--well, it may be that the new age will wipe them literally out in a surge of Democracy--some of us hope so--but to the romantic heart of childhood they are a symbol not of caste and oppression but of dignity and beauty and the heroic. Certainly they are not to be eliminated by throwing at the child"s head such adult plat.i.tudes in rhyme as these, and telling him it is poetry. Alas! he believes you, and that is why he hates the very word poetry all the rest of his days.
My memory-gem book lies before me as I write, saved I know not how out of the wreck of boyhood. I have searched it in vain for a single quotation of lyric song, a single sc.r.a.p of verse that paints the world in rosy colors and lets moral plat.i.tudes go hang, a single strain of "Celtic magic." Instead, I learn that as a boy I was taught that--
We are living, we are dwelling In a grand and awful time.
I find that at eleven years of age--
I held it truth with him who sings To one clear harp of divers tones, That men may rise on stepping-stones Of their dead selves to higher things.
Indeed, I must have been a very remarkable child, how remarkable I had not hitherto suspected! Evidently, too, I displayed an early tendency to melancholia, for I find I was admonished in the following words, with their incontestable statement of fact:
Be still, sad heart, and cease repining, Behind the clouds is the sun still shining.
Whether my sadness was caused by too much reflection on the fact that life is real, life is earnest, and the grave is not its goal, or on the fact that Bill Carter"s air-gun cost more than mine, I cannot now recall. Either cause would have been sufficient. At any rate I apparently braced up and smiled once more, for the next page is blank.
That means I went fishing!
Poor kiddies! Shall we grown-ups never learn that their minds don"t work as ours do, and what may be poetry for some of us is cod-liver oil for them? Why must we be forever nagging them at home with "Don"t do this" and "Don"t do that," and forever preaching at them in school with ponderous prose plat.i.tudes cut up into lengths? How much wiser than we they are, who know that life is free and pleasant and full of melody and beautiful things, and dreams more real than reality, and reality born of the dream! Yet we try our best to convince them that they are wrong. We see to it that Longfellow lies about them in their infancy.
But perhaps all this is changed since my day, and the nightmare this battered memory-gem book recalls to my mind is no longer a load on the children of the present. I profoundly hope so. Can it be that the present revival of poetry is due to the pa.s.sing of the memory-gem book? At least, no teacher would have the courage to set her cla.s.s the task of copying Amy Lowell or _The Spoon River Anthology_!
[Ill.u.s.tration]
_The Bad Manners of Polite People_
All my life I have suffered from politeness--not my own, but the politeness of other people. So far as I know, n.o.body has ever accused me of being polite. I suspect that I must be, however, for hitherto I have borne the politeness of other people without a protest. But I must protest now, if only to vindicate my lack of politeness; in other words, to prove my good manners.
For what I object to in polite people is their bad manners. It is this I have suffered from, as, I suspect, have many thousands of my fellows, to whom life is real and earnest, and gabble not its goal. As a rule, the politer the person the worse are his (or more often, perhaps, her) manners. The limit is reached when the amateur is sunk entirely in the professional, and that curious product of "Society" is developed, the professional hostess. I cannot better ill.u.s.trate my theme than with a description of the professional hostess.
I call her professional because all the joy of entertaining for its own sake has gone out of her work. She does not invite people to her parties because she is glad to see them, because she is interested in them, or wishes to give them pleasure. She invites them because to entertain them is a part of her day"s work--whether her work be to get into a certain social stronghold, to keep that stronghold against a.s.sault, or merely to kill time, her arch-enemy. And, in performing this task of hers, she has developed a technique of politeness which is to the amateur"s technique what the professional golf-player"s style is to the form of the mere b.u.mblepuppy. Her politeness is astonishingly brilliant, flexible, resourceful. It is aspired to by the lowly and aped on the stage. And yet her manners are the worst in the world.
Let us suppose her about to give a dinner. She is trimmed down to the fashionable slenderness (perhaps), and brilliant with jewels. Cannel coal snaps pleasantly in the drawing-room grate, and the lights are gratefully shaded. A guest or two arrive, whom she greets with affable handshake. The man moves over to the fire, warming his back; his wife talks to the hostess rapidly, in the way women have when they seem to think it better to say anything than not to speak at all. But the hostess is quite at her ease. Her politeness is triumphant. Presently she turns to the man, who is, perhaps, an author.
"Your new book," she begins, as if she had been waiting all day to ask that question, "--what is it going to be about? I"m tremendously eager to know."
Already the genial fire has warmed the noted author after his chilling ride in a street car to this mansion of luxury. The kindly question positively expands him. He launches eagerly into his answer.
"You see," he begins, "the great modern question is--"
But suddenly he is aware that he has no listener. His hostess has gone toward the door with outstretched hand, and his own wife is gazing at the gowns of the women entering. The author turns and prods the grate with his toe. Perhaps, if he is new at being "entertained," he fancies that his hostess will presently return to hear his answer. He holds it in readiness. Poor man!
The newcomers are brought into the circle. When introductions are necessary, they are made with studied informality. And then the author hears the hostess say to a big, energetic woman, who is among the arrivals, "Oh, dear Miss Jones, I have heard so much about your perfectly splendid work down there among the horrid poor! I did _so_ want to hear you talk about it at the Colonial Club, this afternoon, but I simply _couldn"t_ get there. Won"t you tell me just a bit of what you said?"
The tone of entreaty betrays the utmost interest. The big, energetic woman smiles, and begins, "Well," she says, "I was just trying to get the members interested in our new health-tenement for consumptives.
You see, we need--"
Then she, too, becomes aware that her audience has departed toward the door. She turns about to see if anybody else was listening, but n.o.body was. The other women are engaged in inspecting the newcomers. The men are looking uncomfortable, or chatting with one another. Only the author"s sympathetic gaze meets hers.
The guests have all gathered by now, but dinner is not yet announced.
The hostess moves easily among them, stopping by each with a winning smile, to ask some carefully chosen personal question. Each as politely replies, only to find himself talking to the empty air.
There is soon a confused babble of voices, a whir of windy words--and no one hears.
The author watches her, still curious to know whether she will remember that she has not yet heard his answer. But she has quite forgotten. She moves, the incarnate spirit of politeness, about the room, rousing trains of eager ideas in her guests, and as speedily leaving them to run down a side-track into a b.u.mper.
She has no real interest in any of them, probably she has no real understanding of them. She thinks her manners are above reproach, that she is treating her guests in the most exemplary fashion. In reality, nothing could be worse than her manners, and she is treating her guests most shabbily. By being polite, she ends by being rude. For nothing is so rude in this world as to ask a man a question about some subject close to his heart when you have no intention of listening to his answer, nor any interest in it. The hostess thinks to feed his vanity; she ends by wounding it. She thinks to make her guests comfortable; she ends by making them uncomfortable.
The best manners I have ever seen were possessed by the most impolite man I have ever known. As a result, n.o.body that he ever invited to his house felt uncomfortable there. He was interested in all kinds and conditions of people, all kinds and conditions of activities. If he asked you a question, it was because he wanted to hear your answer. He paid you the compliment of a.s.suming that it was worth listening to, and other people waited till you were through. At his table you weren"t supposed to confine your talk to the sweet young thing on your left, who was more interested in the gay young blade on _her_ left, nor to the sedate, elderly female person on your right, who was more interested in the bishop on _her_ right. Talk was largely for the whole table; and if you hadn"t some definite contribution to make, you were usually glad to keep still.