it is admitted, one may hope, that common things are never commonplace. birth is covered with curtains precisely because it is a staggering and monstrous prodigy. death and first love, though they happen to everybody, can stop one’s heart with the very thought of them. but while this is granted, something further may be claimed. it is not merely true that these universal things are strange; it is moreover true that they are subtle. in the last analysis most common things will be found to be highly complicated. some men of science do indeed get over the difficulty by dealing only with the easy part of it: thus, they will call first love the instinct of sex, and the awe of death the instinct of self-preservation. but this is only getting over the difficulty of describing peacock green by calling it blue. there is blue in it. that there is a strong physical element in both romance and the memento mori makes them if possible more baffling than if they had been wholly intellectual. no man could say exactly how much his sexuality was colored by a clean love of beauty, or by the mere boyish itch for irrevocable adventures, like running away to sea. no man could say how far his animal dread of the end was mixed up with mystical traditions touching morals and religion. it is exactly because these things are animal, but not quite animal, that the dance of all the difficulties begins. the materialists analyze the easy part, deny the hard part and go home to their tea.
it is complete error to suppose that because a thing is vulgar therefore it is not refined; that is, subtle and hard to define. a drawing-room song of my youth which began “in the gloaming, o, my darling,” was vulgar enough as a song; but the connection between human passion and the twilight is none the less an exquisite and even inscrutable thing. or to take another obvious instance: the jokes about a mother-in-law are scarcely delicate, but the problem of a mother-in-law is extremely delicate. a mother-in-law is subtle because she is a thing like the twilight. she is a mystical blend of two inconsistent things—law and a mother. the caricatures misrepresent her; but they arise out of a real human enigma. “comic cuts” deals with the difficulty wrongly, but it would need george meredith at his best to deal with the difficulty rightly. the nearest statement of the problem perhaps is this: it is not that a mother-in-law must be nasty, but that she must be very nice.
but it is best perhaps to take in illustration some daily custom we have all heard despised as vulgar or trite. take, for the sake of argument, the custom of talking about the weather. stevenson calls it “the very nadir and scoff of good conversationalists.” now there are very deep reasons for talking about the weather, reasons that are delicate as well as deep; they lie in layer upon layer of stratified sagacity. first of all it is a gesture of primeval worship. the sky must be invoked; and to begin everything with the weather is a sort of pagan way of beginning everything with prayer. jones and brown talk about the weather: but so do milton and shelley. then it is an expression of that elementary idea in politeness—equality. for the very word politeness is only the greek for citizenship. the word politeness is akin to the word policeman: a charming thought. properly understood, the citizen should be more polite than the gentleman; perhaps the policeman should be the most courtly and elegant of the three. but all good manners must obviously begin with the sharing of something in a simple style. two men should share an umbrella; if they have not got an umbrella, they should at least share the rain, with all its rich potentialities of wit and philosophy. “for he maketh his sun to shine....” this is the second element in the weather; its recognition of human equality in that we all have our hats under the dark blue spangled umbrella of the universe. arising out of this is the third wholesome strain in the custom; i mean that it begins with the body and with our inevitable bodily brotherhood. all true friendliness begins with fire and food and drink and the recognition of rain or frost. those who will not begin at the bodily end of things are already prigs and may soon be christian scientists. each human soul has in a sense to enact for itself the gigantic humility of the incarnation. every man must descend into the flesh to meet mankind.
briefly, in the mere observation “a fine day” there is the whole great human idea of comradeship. now, pure comradeship is another of those broad and yet bewildering things. we all enjoy it; yet when we come to talk about it we almost always talk nonsense, chiefly because we suppose it to be a simpler affair than it is. it is simple to conduct; but it is by no means simple to analyze. comradeship is at the most only one half of human life; the other half is love, a thing so different that one might fancy it had been made for another universe. and i do not mean mere sex love; any kind of concentrated passion, maternal love, or even the fiercer kinds of friendship are in their nature alien to pure comradeship. both sides are essential to life; and both are known in differing degrees to everybody of every age or sex. but very broadly speaking it may still be said that women stand for the dignity of love and men for the dignity of comradeship. i mean that the institution would hardly be expected if the males of the tribe did not mount guard over it. the affections in which women excel have so much more authority and intensity that pure comradeship would be washed away if it were not rallied and guarded in clubs, corps, colleges, banquets and regiments. most of us have heard the voice in which the hostess tells her husband not to sit too long over the cigars. it is the dreadful voice of love, seeking to destroy comradeship.
all true comradeship has in it those three elements which i have remarked in the ordinary exclamation about the weather. first, it has a sort of broad philosophy like the common sky, emphasizing that we are all under the same cosmic conditions. we are all in the same boat, the “winged rock” of mr. herbert trench. secondly, it recognizes this bond as the essential one; for comradeship is simply humanity seen in that one aspect in which men are really equal. the old writers were entirely wise when they talked of the equality of men; but they were also very wise in not mentioning women. women are always authoritarian; they are always above or below; that is why marriage is a sort of poetical see-saw. there are only three things in the world that women do not understand; and they are liberty, equality, and fraternity. but men (a class little understood in the modern world) find these things the breath of their nostrils; and our most learned ladies will not even begin to understand them until they make allowance for this kind of cool camaraderie. lastly, it contains the third quality of the weather, the insistence upon the body and its indispensable satisfaction. no one has even begun to understand comradeship who does not accept with it a certain hearty eagerness in eating, drinking, or smoking, an uproarious materialism which to many women appears only hoggish. you may call the thing an orgy or a sacrament; it is certainly an essential. it is at root a resistance to the superciliousness of the individual. nay, its very swaggering and howling are humble. in the heart of its rowdiness there is a sort of mad modesty; a desire to melt the separate soul into the mass of unpretentious masculinity. it is a clamorous confession of the weakness of all flesh. no man must be superior to the things that are common to men. this sort of equality must be bodily and gross and comic. not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.
the word comradeship just now promises to become as fatuous as the word “affinity.” there are clubs of a socialist sort where all the members, men and women, call each other “comrade.” i have no serious emotions, hostile or otherwise, about this particular habit: at the worst it is conventionality, and at the best flirtation. i am convinced here only to point out a rational principle. if you choose to lump all flowers together, lilies and dahlias and tulips and chrysanthemums and call them all daisies, you will find that you have spoiled the very fine word daisy. if you choose to call every human attachment comradeship, if you include under that name the respect of a youth for a venerable prophetess, the interest of a man in a beautiful woman who baffles him, the pleasure of a philosophical old fogy in a girl who is impudent and innocent, the end of the meanest quarrel or the beginning of the most mountainous love; if you are going to call all these comradeship, you will gain nothing, you will only lose a word. daisies are obvious and universal and open; but they are only one kind of flower. comradeship is obvious and universal and open; but it is only one kind of affection; it has characteristics that would destroy any other kind. anyone who has known true comradeship in a club or in a regiment, knows that it is impersonal. there is a pedantic phrase used in debating clubs which is strictly true to the masculine emotion; they call it “speaking to the question.” women speak to each other; men speak to the subject they are speaking about. many an honest man has sat in a ring of his five best friends under heaven and forgotten who was in the room while he explained some system. this is not peculiar to intellectual men; men are all theoretical, whether they are talking about god or about golf. men are all impersonal; that is to say, republican. no one remembers after a really good talk who has said the good things. every man speaks to a visionary multitude; a mystical cloud, that is called the club.
it is obvious that this cool and careless quality which is essential to the collective affection of males involves disadvantages and dangers. it leads to spitting; it leads to coarse speech; it must lead to these things so long as it is honorable; comradeship must be in some degree ugly. the moment beauty is mentioned in male friendship, the nostrils are stopped with the smell of abominable things. friendship must be physically dirty if it is to be morally clean. it must be in its shirt sleeves. the chaos of habits that always goes with males when left entirely to themselves has only one honorable cure; and that is the strict discipline of a monastery. anyone who has seen our unhappy young idealists in east end settlements losing their collars in the wash and living on tinned salmon will fully understand why it was decided by the wisdom of st. bernard or st. benedict, that if men were to live without women, they must not live without rules. something of the same sort of artificial exactitude, of course, is obtained in an army; and an army also has to be in many ways monastic; only that it has celibacy without chastity. but these things do not apply to normal married men. these have a quite sufficient restraint on their instinctive anarchy in the savage common-sense of the other sex. there is only one very timid sort of man that is not afraid of women.
