not only arranged the atoms at the circumference, but the atoms at the core. Does the household obey an idea? Do you see the man—his form, genius and aspiration, in his economy? Is that translucent, thorough-lighted? There should be nothing confounding and conventional in economy, but the genius and love of the man so conspicuously seen in all his estate that the eye that knew him should see his character in his property, in his grounds, in his ornaments, in every expense. A man's money should not follow the direction of his neighbor's money, but should represent to him the things he would willingliest do with it. I am not one thing and my expenditure another. My expenditure is me. That our expenditure and our character are twain, is the vice of society. We ask the price of many things in shops and stalls, but some things each man buys without hesitation, if it were only letters at the post-office, conveyance in carriages and boats, tools for his work, books that are written to his condition, etc. Let him never buy anything else than what he wants; never subscribe at others' instance; never give unwillingly. Thus a scholar is a literary foundation. All his expense is for Aristotle, Fabricius, Erasmus, and Petrarch. Do not ask him to help with his savings young drapers or grocers to stock their shops, or eager to lobby in legislatures, or join a company to build a factory or a fishing craft. These things are also to be done, but not by such as he. How could such a book as Plato's Dialogues have come down, but for the sacred savings of scholars and their fantastic appropriation of them? In like manner another man is a mechanical genius, an inventor of looms, a builder of ships a shipbuilding foundation, and could achieve nothing, if he should dissipate himself on books or on horses. An other is a farmer - an agricultural foundation; another is a chemist, and the same rule holds for all. We must not make believe with our money, but spend heartily, and buy up and not down. I am afraid that, so considered, our domestic life will not bear looking into. I fear that our houses will not be found to have unity, and to express the best thought. The household, the calling, the friendship of the citizen, are not homogeneous. His house ought to show us his honest opinion of what his wellbeing consists in when he rests among his kindred, and forgets all affectation, all compliance, and even all exertion of will. He brings home thither whatever commodities and ornament have for years allured his pursuits, and this character must be seen in them. But what idea predominates in our houses? Thrift first, then Convenience and Pleasure. Take off all the roofs from street to street, and we shall seldom find the temple of any higher god than Prudence. The progress of domestic living has been in cleanliness, in ventilation, in health, in decorum, in countless means and arts of comfort, in the concentration of all utilities of every clime in each house. They are arranged for low benefits. The houses of the rich are confectioners' shops where we get sweetmeats and wine; the houses of the poor are imitations of these to the extent of their ability. With these ends housekeeping is not beautiful; it cheers and raises neither the husband, the wife, nor child; neither the host, nor the guest; it oppresses women. A house kept to the end of prudence is laborious without joy; a house kept to the end of display is impossible to all but to a few women, and their success is dearly bought. If we look at this matter curiously, it becomes dangerous. We need all the force of an idea to lift this load; for the very wealth and multiplication of con venience embarrass us, especially in northern climates. The shortest enumeration of our wants in this rugged climate appals us by the multitude of things not easy to be done. Good housekeeping is impossible. Order is too precious a thing to dwell with men and women. See how, in families where there is both substance and taste, at what expense any favorite punctuality is maintained. If the children, for example, are considered, dressed, dieted, attended, kept in proper company, schooled, and at home fostered by parents then does the hospitality of the house suffer. Friends are less carefully bestowed, the daily table less catered. If the hours of meals are punctual, the apartments are slovenly. If the linens and hangings are clean and fine and the furniture good, the yard, the garden, the fences are neglected. If all are well attended, then must the master and mistress be studious of particulars at the cost of their own accomplishments and growth, or persons are treated as things. The difficulties to be overcome must be freely admitted; they are many and great. Nor are they to be disposed of by any criticism or amendment of particulars taken one at a time, but only by the arrangement of the household to a higher end than those to which our dwellings are usually built and furnished. And is there any calamity more grave, or that more deserves the best good will to remove it than this? to go from chamber to chamber and see no beauty; to find in the housemates no aim; to hear an endless chatter and blast; to be compelled to criticise; to hear only to dissent and to be disgusted; to find no invitation to what is good in us, and no receptacle for what is wise. This is a great price to pay for sweet bread and warm lodging -being defrauded of affinity, of repose, of heavenly culture, and the inmost presence of beauty. It is a sufficient accusation of our ways of living, and certainly ought to open our ear to every good minded reformer, that our idea of domestic well-being now needs wealth to execute it. Give me means, says the wife, and your house shall not annoy your taste nor waste your time. On hearing this we understand how these Means have come to be so omnipotent on earth. And indeed the love of wealth seems to grow chiefly out of the love of the Beautiful. The desire for gold is not for gold. It is not the love of much wheat and wool and household stuff. It is the means of freedom and benefit. We scorn shifts. We desire the elegancy of munificence. We desire at least to put no stint or limit on our parents, relatives, guests, or dependents. We desire to play the benefactor and the prince with our townsmen, with the stranger at the gate, with the bard, or the beauty, with the man or woman of worth, who alights at our door. How can we do this, if the wants of each day imprison us in lucrative labors, and constrain us to a continued vigilance lest we be betrayed into expense? 66 Give us wealth, and the home shall exist. But this is a very poor solution of the problem, and therefore no solution. Give us wealth." You ask too much. Few have wealth; but all must have a home. Men are not born rich; and in getting wealth, the man is generally sacrificed, and often is sacrificed without acquiring wealth at last. Besides, that cannot be the right answer; there are objections to wealth. Wealth is a shift. The wise man angles with himself only, and with no meaner bait. Our whole use of wealth needs revision and reform. Generosity does not consist in giving money or money's worth. These socalled goods are only the shadow of good. To give money to a sufferer is only a come-off. It is only a postponement of the real payment, a bribe paid for silence a credit system in which a paper promise to pay answers for the time instead of liquidation. We owe to man higher succors than food and fire. We Owe man man. If he is sick, is unable, is meanspirited and odious, it is because there is so much of his nature which is unlawfully withholden from him. He should be visited in this his prison with rebuke to the evil demons, with manly encouragement, with no mean-spirited offer of condolence because you have not money, or mean offer of money as the utmost benefit, but by your heroism, by your purity, by your faith. You are to bring with you that spirit which is understanding -health and self-help. To offer him money in lieu of these, is to do him the same wrong as when the bridegroom offers his betrothed virgin a sum of money to release him from his engagement. The great depend on their heart, not their purse. Genius and Virtue, like diamonds, are best plain set -- set in lead, set in poverty. The greatest man in history was the poorest. How was it with the Captains and sages of Greece and Rome with Socrates, with Epaminondas? Aristides was made general receiver of Greece to collect the tribute which state was to furnish against the barbarian. "Poor," says Plutarch, "when he set about it, poorer when he had finished it." How was it with Emilius and Cato? What kind of house was kept by Paul and John? by Milton and Marvell? by Samuel Johnson, and John Paul Richter? I think it plain at first sight that this voice of communities and ages- Give us wealth, and the good household shall exist is vicious, and leaves the whole difficulty untouched. It is better, certainly in this form: "Give us labor, and the household begins." I see not how serious labor, the labor of all and every day, is to be avoided; and many things betoken a revolution of opinion and practice 66 |