Social history; United States -- Social conditions -- 1865-1918
Religion itself stands aghast at this baptism of gold, which can convert
the alien and the heathen, ay, the brigand and the robber, into saints
of social prestige. For money bribes the court and pulpit, and buys the
press; the highest rank, the highest genius, pay homage to it. If the
duke has not money, he will seek in wedlock the most undesirable of
women, if she be also the richest. Royalty bows to the splendid cloak of
vulgarity, and invites it to dine and drive. Happy day, you will say,
for labor, which money symbolizes. Monarchs may well show it respect.
But money does not always symbolize honest and intelligent industry. A
great fortune often represents transactions akin to theft; sometimes the
thing itself, which the world is Spartan enough to approve of, if the
criminal can only escape positive detection. Those, too, who have earned
their money honestly, leave it to children who turn their back upon the
class of which their parents came, and desire to know nothing of the
bread-winning arts which they were constrained to practise.
We have had, within the last ten years, a severe lesson concerning the
instability of wealth in some of its most trusted forms. Yet are we not
compelled by sympathy and antipathy, at the bottom of our hearts, to pay
it an homage which our lips would not avow? Do we not desire wealth for
our children as the condition which shall set our minds at rest
concerning them? When we see mediocrity and vulgarity riding in the
swift carriage, and wearing the jewels and the robes, bright in
everybody's eyes and praised in everybody's mouth, do we not harbor
somewhere a regret that we have not, in some way possible to us, set our
best abilities to work to secure a similar distinction for ourselves?
It should not frighten one to see the court and its underlings venal.
Court and courtiers are a show, and money is the condition by which a
show lives. But I look into the domain of letters, and ask whether that
is still uncorrupted. I do not think that it is. The refined tastes of
literary people lead them to value entertainment at the hands of the
rich. The luxurious rooms, the abundant table, the easy _persiflage_ in
which worldly tact knows enough to flatter recognized talent. Do not
these _illicebræ_ seduce, to-day, even the stern heart of 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