CHAPTER XIX.
"CAN A MAID FORGET HER ORNAMENTS?"
Presently Edith and her mother went into the house to study out theletters, and the doctor being so delightfully absorbed with the stocksand bonds that it would have been unkind not to leave him alone, itstruck me that the occasion was favorable for the execution of a privateproject for which opportunity had hitherto been lacking.
From the moment of receiving my credit card I had contemplated aparticular purchase which I desired to make on the first opportunity.This was a betrothal ring for Edith. Gifts in general, it was evident,had lost their value in this age when everybody had everything he wanted,but this was one which, for sentiment's sake, I was sure would still seemas desirable to a woman as ever.
Taking advantage, therefore, of the unusual absorption of my hosts inspecial interests, I made my way to the great store Edith had taken me toon a former occasion, the only one I had thus far entered. Not seeing theclass of goods which I desired indicated by any of the placards over thealcoves, I presently asked one of the young women attendants to direct meto the jewelry department.
"I beg your pardon," she said, raising her eyebrows a little, "what did Iunderstand you to ask for?"
"The jewelry department," I repeated. "I want to look at some rings."
"Rings," she repeated, regarding me with a rather blank expression. "MayI ask what kind of rings, for what sort of use?"
"Finger rings," I repeated, feeling that the young woman could not be sointelligent as she looked.
At the word she glanced at my left hand, on one of the fingers of which Iwore a seal ring after a fashion of my day. Her countenance took on anexpression at once of intelligence and the keenest interest.
"I beg your pardon a thousand times!" she exclaimed. "I ought to haveunderstood before. You are Julian West?"
I was beginning to be a little nettled with so much mystery about sosimple a matter.
"I certainly am Julian West," I said; "but pardon me if I do not see therelevancy of that fact to the question I asked you."
"Oh, you must really excuse me," she said, "but it is most relevant.Nobody in America but just yourself would ask for finger rings. You seethey have not been used for so long a period that we have quite ceased tokeep them in stock; but if you would like one made to order you have onlyto leave a description of what you want and it will be at oncemanufactured."
I thanked her, but concluded that I would not prosecute the undertakingany further until I had looked over the ground a little more thoroughly.
I said nothing about my adventure at home, not caring to be laughed atmore than was necessary; but when after dinner I found the doctor alonein his favorite outdoor study on the housetop, I cautiously sounded himon the subject.
Remarking, as if quite in a casual way, that I had not noticed so much asa finger ring worn by any one, I asked him whether the wearing of jewelryhad been disused, and, if so, what was the explanation of the abandonmentof the custom?
The doctor said that it certainly was a fact that the wearing of jewelryhad been virtually an obsolete custom for a couple of generations if notmore. "As for the reasons for the fact," he continued, "they really gorather deeply into the direct and indirect consequences of our presenteconomic system. Speaking broadly, I suppose the main and sufficientreason why gold and silver and precious stones have ceased to be prizedas ornaments is that they entirely lost their commercial value when thenation organized wealth distribution on the basis of the indefeasibleeconomic equality of all citizens. As you know, a ton of gold or a bushelof diamonds would not secure a loaf of bread at the public stores,nothing availing there except or in addition to the citizen's credit,which depends solely on his citizenship, and is always equal to that ofevery other citizen. Consequently nothing is worth anything to anybodynowadays save for the use or pleasure he can personally derive from it.The main reason why gems and the precious metals were formerly used asornaments seems to have been the great convertible value belonging tothem, which made them symbols of wealth and importance, and consequentlya favorite means of social ostentation. The fact that they have entirelylost this quality would account, I think, largely for their disuse asornaments, even if ostentation itself had not been deprived of its motiveby the law of equality."
"Undoubtedly," I said; "yet there were those who thought them prettyquite apart from their value."
"Well, possibly," replied the doctor. "Yes, I suppose savage raceshonestly thought so, but, being honest, they did not distinguish betweenprecious stones and glass beads so long as both were equally shiny. As tothe pretension of civilized persons to admire gems or gold for theirintrinsic beauty apart from their value, I suspect that was a more orless unconscious sham. Suppose, by any sudden abundance, diamonds of thefirst water had gone down to the value of bottle glass, how much longerdo you think they would have been worn by anybody in your day?"
I was constrained to admit that undoubtedly they would have disappearedfrom view promptly and permanently.
"I imagine," said the doctor, "that good taste, which we understand evenin your day rather frowned on the use of such ornaments, came to the aidof the economic influence in promoting their disuse when once the neworder of things had been established. The loss by the gems and preciousmetals of the glamour that belonged to them as forms of concentratedwealth left the taste free to judge of the real aesthetic value ofornamental effects obtained by hanging bits of shining stones and platesand chains and rings of metal about the face and neck and fingers, andthe view seems to have been soon generally acquiesced in that suchcombinations were barbaric and not really beautiful at all."
"But what has become of all the diamonds and rubies and emeralds, andgold and silver jewels?" I exclaimed.
"The metals, of course--silver and gold--kept their uses, mechanical andartistic. They are always beautiful in their proper places, and are asmuch used for decorative purposes as ever, but those purposes arearchitectural, not personal, as formerly. Because we do not follow theancient practice of using paints on our faces and bodies, we use them notthe less in what we consider their proper places, and it is just so withgold and silver. As for the precious stones, some of them have found usein mechanical applications, and there are, of course, collections of themin museums here and there. Probably there never were more than a fewhundred bushels of precious stones in existence, and it is easy toaccount for the disappearance and speedy loss of so small a quantity ofsuch minute objects after they had ceased to be prized."
"The reasons you give for the passing of jewelry," I said, "certainlyaccount for the fact, and yet you can scarcely imagine what a surprise Ifind in it. The degradation of the diamond to the rank of the glass bead,save for its mechanical uses, expresses and typifies as no other one factto me the completeness of the revolution which at the present time hassubordinated things to humanity. It would not be so difficult, of course,to understand that men might readily have dispensed with jewel-wearing,which indeed was never considered in the best of taste as a masculinepractice except in barbarous countries, but it would have staggered theprophet Jeremiah to have his query 'Can a maid forget her ornaments?'answered in the affirmative."
The doctor laughed.
"Jeremiah was a very wise man," he said, "and if his attention had beendrawn to the subject of economic equality and its effect upon therelation of the sexes, I am sure he would have foreseen as one of itslogical results the growth of a sentiment of quite as much philosophyconcerning personal ornamentation on the part of women as men have everdisplayed. He would not have been surprised to learn that one effect ofthat equality as between men and women had been to revolutionize women'sattitude on the whole question of dress so completely that the mostbilious of misogynists--if indeed any were left--would no longer be ableto accuse them of being more absorbed in that interest than are men."
"Doctor, doctor, do not ask me to believe that the desire to make herselfattractive has ceased to move woman!"
"Excuse me, I did not mean to
say anything of the sort," replied thedoctor. "I spoke of the disproportionate development of that desire whichtends to defeat its own end by over-ornament and excess of artifice. Ifwe may judge from the records of your time, this was quite generally theresult of the excessive devotion to dress on the part of your women; wasit not so?"
"Undoubtedly. Overdressing, overexertion to be attractive, was thegreatest drawback to the real attractiveness of women in my day."
"And how was it with the men?"
"That could not be said of any men worth calling men. There were, ofcourse, the dandies, but most men paid too little attention to theirappearance rather than too much."
"That is to say, one sex paid too much attention to dress and the othertoo little?"
"That was it."
"Very well; the effect of economic equality of the sexes and theconsequent independence of women at all times as to maintenance upon menis that women give much less thought to dress than in your day and menconsiderably more. No one would indeed think of suggesting that eithersex is nowadays more absorbed in setting off its personal attractionsthan the other. Individuals differ as to their interest in this matter,but the difference is not along the line of sex."
"But why do you attribute this miracle," I exclaimed, "for miracle itseems, to the effect of economic equality on the relation of men andwomen?"
"Because from the moment that equality became established between them itceased to be a whit more the interest of women to make themselvesattractive and desirable to men than for men to produce the sameimpression upon women."
"Meaning thereby that previous to the establishment of economic equalitybetween men and women it was decidedly more the interest of the women tomake themselves personally attractive than of the men."
"Assuredly," said the doctor. "Tell me to what motive did men in your dayascribe the excessive devotion of the other sex to matters of dress ascompared with men's comparative neglect of the subject?"
"Well, I don't think we did much clear thinking on the subject. In fact,anything which had any sexual suggestion about it was scarcely evertreated in any other than a sentimental or jesting tone."
"That is indeed," said the doctor, "a striking trait of your age, thoughexplainable enough in view of the utter hypocrisy underlying the entirerelation of the sexes, the pretended chivalric deference to women on theone hand, coupled with their practical suppression on the other, but youmust have had some theory to account for women's excessive devotion topersonal adornment."
"The theory, I think, was that handed down from the ancients--namely,that women were naturally vainer than men. But they did not like to hearthat said: so the polite way of accounting for the obvious fact that theycared so much more for dress than did men was that they were moresensitive to beauty, more unselfishly desirous of pleasing, and otheragreeable phrases."
"And did it not occur to you that the real reason why woman gave so muchthought to devices for enhancing her beauty was simply that, owing to hereconomic dependence on man's favor, a woman's face was her fortune, andthat the reason men were so careless for the most part as to theirpersonal appearance was that their fortune in no way depended on theirbeauty; and that even when it came to commending themselves to the favorof the other sex their economic position told more potently in theirfavor than any question of personal advantages? Surely this obviousconsideration fully explained woman's greater devotion to personaladornment, without assuming any difference whatever in the naturalendowment of the sexes as to vanity."
"And consequently," I put in, "when women ceased any more to depend fortheir economic welfare upon men's favor, it ceased to be their main aimin life to make themselves attractive to men's eyes?"
"Precisely so, to their unspeakable gain in comfort, dignity, and freedomof mind for more important interests."
"But to the diminution, I suspect, of the picturesqueness of the socialpanorama?"
"Not at all, but most decidedly to its notable advantage. So far as wecan judge, what claim the women of your period had to be regarded asattractive was achieved distinctly in spite of their efforts to makethemselves so. Let us recall that we are talking about that excessiveconcern of women for the enhancement of their charms which led to a madrace after effect that for the most part defeated the end sought. Takeaway the economic motive which made women's attractiveness to men a meansof getting on in life, and there remained Nature's impulse to attract theadmiration of the other sex, a motive quite strong enough for beauty'send, and the more effective for not being too strong."
"It is easy enough to see," I said, "why the economic independence ofwomen should have had the effect of moderating to a reasonable measuretheir interest in personal adornment; but why should it have operated inthe opposite direction upon men, in making them more attentive to dressand personal appearance than before?"
"For the simple reason that their economic superiority to women havingdisappeared, they must henceforth depend wholly upon personalattractiveness if they would either win the favor of women or retain itwhen won."
Equality Page 19