My correspondent also says that the habit of dining out in restaurants, etc., is growing. So, I believe, is the habit of committing suicide. I do not desire to connect the two facts together. It seems fairly clear that a man could not dine at a restaurant because he had just committed suicide; and it would be extreme, perhaps, to suggest that he commits suicide because he has just dined at a restaurant. But the two cases, when put side by side, are enough to indicate the falsity and poltroonery5 of this eternal modern argument from what is in fashion. The question for brave men is not whether a certain thing is increasing; the question is whether we are increasing it. I dine very often in restaurants because the nature of my trade makes it convenient: but if I thought that by dining in restaurants I was working for the creation of communal meals, I would never enter a restaurant again; I would carry bread and cheese in my pocket or eat chocolate out of automatic machines. For the personal element in some things is sacred. I heard Mr. Will Crooks6 put it perfectly7 the other day: "The most sacred thing is to be able to shut your own door."
My correspondent says, "Would not our women be spared the drudgery8 of cooking and all its attendant worries, leaving them free for higher culture?" The first thing that occurs to me to say about this is very simple, and is, I imagine, a part of all our experience. If my correspondent can find any way of preventing women from worrying, he will indeed be a remarkable10 man. I think the matter is a much deeper one. First of all, my correspondent overlooks a distinction which is elementary in our human nature. Theoretically, I suppose, every one would like to be freed from worries. But nobody in the world would always like to be freed from worrying occupations. I should very much like (as far as my feelings at the moment go) to be free from the consuming nuisance of writing this article. But it does not follow that I should like to be free from the consuming nuisance of being a journalist. Because we are worried about a thing, it does not follow that we are not interested in it. The truth is the other way. If we are not interested, why on earth should we be worried? Women are worried about housekeeping, but those that are most interested are the most worried. Women are still more worried about their husbands and their children. And I suppose if we strangled the children and poleaxed the husbands it would leave women free for higher culture. That is, it would leave them free to begin to worry about that. For women would worry about higher culture as much as they worry about everything else.
I believe this way of talking about women and their higher culture is almost entirely11 a growth of the classes which (unlike the journalistic class to which I belong) have always a reasonable amount of money. One odd thing I specially12 notice. Those who write like this seem entirely to forget the existence of the working and wage-earning classes. They say eternally, like my correspondent, that the ordinary woman is always a drudge9. And what, in the name of the Nine Gods, is the ordinary man? These people seem to think that the ordinary man is a Cabinet Minister. They are always talking about man going forth13 to wield14 power, to carve his own way, to stamp his individuality on the world, to command and to be obeyed. This may be true of a certain class. Dukes, perhaps, are not drudges15; but, then, neither are Duchesses. The Ladies and Gentlemen of the Smart Set are quite free for the higher culture, which consists chiefly of motoring and Bridge. But the ordinary man who typifies and constitutes the millions that make up our civilisation16 is no more free for the higher culture than his wife is.
Indeed, he is not so free. Of the two sexes the woman is in the more powerful position. For the average woman is at the head of something with which she can do as she likes; the average man has to obey orders and do nothing else. He has to put one dull brick on another dull brick, and do nothing else; he has to add one dull figure to another dull figure, and do nothing else. The woman's world is a small one, perhaps, but she can alter it. The woman can tell the tradesman with whom she deals some realistic things about himself. The clerk who does this to the manager generally gets the sack, or shall we say (to avoid the vulgarism), finds himself free for higher culture. Above all, as I said in my previous article, the woman does work which is in some small degree creative and individual. She can put the flowers or the furniture in fancy arrangements of her own. I fear the bricklayer cannot put the bricks in fancy arrangements of his own, without disaster to himself and others. If the woman is only putting a patch into a carpet, she can choose the thing with regard to colour. I fear it would not do for the office boy dispatching a parcel to choose his stamps with a view to colour; to prefer the tender mauve of the sixpenny to the crude scarlet17 of the penny stamp. A woman cooking may not always cook artistically18; still she can cook artistically. She can introduce a personal and imperceptible alteration19 into the composition of a soup. The clerk is not encouraged to introduce a personal and imperceptible alteration into the figures in a ledger20.
The trouble is that the real question I raised is not discussed. It is argued as a problem in pennies, not as a problem in people. It is not the proposals of these reformers that I feel to be false so much as their temper and their arguments. I am not nearly so certain that communal kitchens are wrong as I am that the defenders21 of communal kitchens are wrong. Of course, for one thing, there is a vast difference between the communal kitchens of which I spoke22 and the communal meal (monstrum horrendum, informe) which the darker and wilder mind of my correspondent diabolically23 calls up. But in both the trouble is that their defenders will not defend them humanly as human institutions. They will not interest themselves in the staring psychological fact that there are some things that a man or a woman, as the case may be, wishes to do for himself or herself. He or she must do it inventively, creatively, artistically, individually—in a word, badly. Choosing your wife (say) is one of these things. Is choosing your husband's dinner one of these things? That is the whole question: it is never asked.
And then the higher culture. I know that culture. I would not set any man free for it if I could help it. The effect of it on the rich men who are free for it is so horrible that it is worse than any of the other amusements of the millionaire—worse than gambling24, worse even than philanthropy. It means thinking the smallest poet in Belgium greater than the greatest poet of England. It means losing every democratic sympathy. It means being unable to talk to a navvy about sport, or about beer, or about the Bible, or about the Derby, or about patriotism25, or about anything whatever that he, the navvy, wants to talk about. It means taking literature seriously, a very amateurish26 thing to do. It means pardoning indecency only when it is gloomy indecency. Its disciples27 will call a spade a spade; but only when it is a grave-digger's spade. The higher culture is sad, cheap, impudent28, unkind, without honesty and without ease. In short, it is "high." That abominable29 word (also applied30 to game) admirably describes it.
No; if you were setting women free for something else, I might be more melted. If you can assure me, privately31 and gravely, that you are setting women free to dance on the mountains like mænads, or to worship some monstrous32 goddess, I will make a note of your request. If you are quite sure that the ladies in Brixton, the moment they give up cooking, will beat great gongs and blow horns to Mumbo-Jumbo, then I will agree that the occupation is at least human and is more or less entertaining. Women have been set free to be Bacchantes; they have been set free to be Virgin33 Martyrs34; they have been set free to be Witches. Do not ask them now to sink so low as the higher culture.
I have my own little notions of the possible emancipation35 of women; but I suppose I should not be taken very seriously if I propounded36 them. I should favour anything that would increase the present enormous authority of women and their creative action in their own homes. The average woman, as I have said, is a despot; the average man is a serf. I am for any scheme that any one can suggest that will make the average woman more of a despot. So far from wishing her to get her cooked meals from outside, I should like her to cook more wildly and at her own will than she does. So far from getting always the same meals from the same place, let her invent, if she likes, a new dish every day of her life. Let woman be more of a maker37, not less. We are right to talk about "Woman;" only blackguards talk about women. Yet all men talk about men, and that is the whole difference. Men represent the deliberative and democratic element in life. Woman represents the despotic.
点击收听单词发音
1 allusions | |
暗指,间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 communal | |
adj.公有的,公共的,公社的,公社制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 lucidly | |
adv.清透地,透明地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 poltroonery | |
n.怯懦,胆小 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 crooks | |
n.骗子( crook的名词复数 );罪犯;弯曲部分;(牧羊人或主教用的)弯拐杖v.弯成钩形( crook的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 drudgery | |
n.苦工,重活,单调乏味的工作 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 drudge | |
n.劳碌的人;v.做苦工,操劳 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 specially | |
adv.特定地;特殊地;明确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 wield | |
vt.行使,运用,支配;挥,使用(武器等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 drudges | |
n.做苦工的人,劳碌的人( drudge的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 scarlet | |
n.深红色,绯红色,红衣;adj.绯红色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 artistically | |
adv.艺术性地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 alteration | |
n.变更,改变;蚀变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 ledger | |
n.总帐,分类帐;帐簿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 defenders | |
n.防御者( defender的名词复数 );守卫者;保护者;辩护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 diabolically | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 gambling | |
n.赌博;投机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 patriotism | |
n.爱国精神,爱国心,爱国主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 amateurish | |
n.业余爱好的,不熟练的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 disciples | |
n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 );门徒;耶稣的信徒;(尤指)耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 impudent | |
adj.鲁莽的,卑鄙的,厚颜无耻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 abominable | |
adj.可厌的,令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 privately | |
adv.以私人的身份,悄悄地,私下地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 monstrous | |
adj.巨大的;恐怖的;可耻的,丢脸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 virgin | |
n.处女,未婚女子;adj.未经使用的;未经开发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 martyrs | |
n.martyr的复数形式;烈士( martyr的名词复数 );殉道者;殉教者;乞怜者(向人诉苦以博取同情) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 propounded | |
v.提出(问题、计划等)供考虑[讨论],提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 maker | |
n.制造者,制造商 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |