Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
and I am much mystified about why so many publicists cannot even see
what it is, but take refuge in charges of anarchism, which firstly are
not true, and secondly have nothing to do with it.
Wings and the Housemaid
Among the numberless fictitious things that I have fortunately never
written, there was a little story about a logical maiden lady engaging
apartments in which she was not allowed to keep a cat or dog, who,
nevertheless, stipulated for permission to keep a bird, and who
eventually walked round to her new lodgings accompanied by an ostrich.
There was a moral to the fable, connected with that exaggeration of
small concessions, in which, for instance, the Germans indulged about
espionage, or the Jews about interest. But this faded fancy returned to
my mind in another fashion when a very humane lady suggested the other
day that every domestic servant, including the butler, I presume, should
be described as “a home-bird.” Unless the lady is mis-reported, which is
likely enough, she wanted servants called home-birds because they keep
the home-fires burning, which, as many will be ready to point out, is
hardly the particular form in which the domesticity of the nest commonly
expresses itself. But I am not at all disposed to deride the lady’s real
meaning, still less her real motives, which referred to a real movement
of social conscience and sentiment, however wrongly expressed. She was
troubled about the implied insolence of calling servants servants and
apparently even of talking about “maids” or “the cook.” Therefore she
evolved the ornithological substitute; about which, of course, it would
be easy to evolve a whole aviary of allegorical parodies. It would be
easy to ask whether a private secretary is to be called a secretary
bird, or, perhaps, the telephone girl a humming-bird. But it will be
enough to say generally of the proposal, in its present verbal form,
that one has only to submit it to any living and human housemaid in
order to find that particular home-bird developing rapidly into a
mockingbird. Nevertheless, as I have said, we should not merely dismiss
any social doubts thus suggested, or any impulse towards a warmer
respect for work generally grossly undervalued. Too many people, of the
more snobbish social strata, have treated their servants as home-birds;
as owls, for instance, who can be up all night, or as vultures, who can
eat the refuse fit for the dustbin. I would not throw cold water on any
indignation on this score; but I note it as typical of the time that the
indignation should fail on the side of intelligence. For it is the mark
of our time, above almost everything else, that it goes by associations
and not by arguments; that is why it has a hundred arts and no
philosophy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account