we hear much of the human error which accepts what is sham and what is real. but it is worth while to remember that with unfamiliar things we often mistake what is real for what is sham. it is true that a very young man may think the wig of an actress is her hair. but it is equally true that a child yet younger may call the hair of a negro his wig. just because the woolly savage is remote and barbaric he seems to be unnaturally neat and tidy. everyone must have noticed the same thing in the fixed and almost offensive color of all unfamiliar things, tropic birds and tropic blossoms. tropic birds look like staring toys out of a toy-shop. tropic flowers simply look like artificial flowers, like things cut out of wax. this is a deep matter, and, i think, not unconnected with divinity; but anyhow it is the truth that when we see things for the first time we feel instantly that they are fictive creations; we feel the finger of god. it is only when we are thoroughly used to them and our five wits are wearied, that we see them as wild and objectless; like the shapeless tree-tops or the shifting cloud. it is the design in nature that strikes us first; the sense of the crosses and confusions in that design only comes afterwards through experience and an almost eerie monotony. if a man saw the stars abruptly by accident he would think them as festive and as artificial as a firework. we talk of the folly of painting the lily; but if we saw the lily without warning we should think that it was painted. we talk of the devil not being so black as he is painted; but that very phrase is a testimony to the kinship between what is called vivid and what is called artificial. if the modern sage had only one glimpse of grass and sky, he would say that grass was not as green as it was painted; that sky was not as blue as it was painted. if one could see the whole universe suddenly, it would look like a bright-colored toy, just as the south american hornbill looks like a bright-colored toy. and so they are—both of them, i mean.
but it was not with this aspect of the startling air of artifice about all strange objects that i meant to deal. i mean merely, as a guide to history, that we should not be surprised if things wrought in fashions remote from ours seem artificial; we should convince ourselves that nine times out of ten these things are nakedly and almost indecently honest. you will hear men talk of the frosted classicism of corneille or of the powdered pomposities of the eighteenth century, but all these phrases are very superficial. there never was an artificial epoch. there never was an age of reason. men were always men and women women: and their two generous appetites always were the expression of passion and the telling of truth. we can see something stiff and quaint in their mode of expression, just as our descendants will see something stiff and quaint in our coarsest slum sketch or our most naked pathological play. but men have never talked about anything but important things; and the next force in femininity which we have to consider can be considered best perhaps in some dusty old volume of verses by a person of quality.
the eighteenth century is spoken of as the period of artificiality, in externals at least; but, indeed, there may be two words about that. in modern speech one uses artificiality as meaning indefinitely a sort of deceit; and the eighteenth century was far too artificial to deceive. it cultivated that completest art that does not conceal the art. its fashions and costumes positively revealed nature by allowing artifice; as in that obvious instance of a barbering that frosted every head with the same silver. it would be fantastic to call this a quaint humility that concealed youth; but, at least, it was not one with the evil pride that conceals old age. under the eighteenth century fashion people did not so much all pretend to be young, as all agree to be old. the same applies to the most odd and unnatural of their fashions; they were freakish, but they were not false. a lady may or may not be as red as she is painted, but plainly she was not so black as she was patched.
but i only introduce the reader into this atmosphere of the older and franker fictions that he may be induced to have patience for a moment with a certain element which is very common in the decoration and literature of that age and of the two centuries preceding it. it is necessary to mention it in such a connection because it is exactly one of those things that look as superficial as powder, and are really as rooted as hair.
in all the old flowery and pastoral love-songs, those of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries especially, you will find a perpetual reproach against woman in the matter of her coldness; ceaseless and stale similes that compare her eyes to northern stars, her heart to ice, or her bosom to snow. now most of us have always supposed these old and iterant phrases to be a mere pattern of dead words, a thing like a cold wall-paper. yet i think those old cavalier poets who wrote about the coldness of chloe had hold of a psychological truth missed in nearly all the realistic novels of today. our psychological romancers perpetually represent wives as striking terror into their husbands by rolling on the floor, gnashing their teeth, throwing about the furniture or poisoning the coffee; all this upon some strange fixed theory that women are what they call emotional. but in truth the old and frigid form is much nearer to the vital fact. most men if they spoke with any sincerity would agree that the most terrible quality in women, whether in friendship, courtship or marriage, was not so much being emotional as being unemotional.
there is an awful armor of ice which may be the legitimate protection of a more delicate organism; but whatever be the psychological explanation there can surely be no question of the fact. the instinctive cry of the female in anger is noli me tangere. i take this as the most obvious and at the same time the least hackneyed instance of a fundamental quality in the female tradition, which has tended in our time to be almost immeasurably misunderstood, both by the cant of moralists and the cant of immoralists. the proper name for the thing is modesty; but as we live in an age of prejudice and must not call things by their right names, we will yield to a more modern nomenclature and call it dignity. whatever else it is, it is the thing which a thousand poets and a million lovers have called the coldness of chloe. it is akin to the classical, and is at least the opposite of the grotesque. and since we are talking here chiefly in types and symbols, perhaps as good an embodiment as any of the idea may be found in the mere fact of a woman wearing a skirt. it is highly typical of the rabid plagiarism which now passes everywhere for emancipation, that a little while ago it was common for an “advanced” woman to claim the right to wear trousers; a right about as grotesque as the right to wear a false nose. whether female liberty is much advanced by the act of wearing a skirt on each leg i do not know; perhaps turkish women might offer some information on the point. but if the western woman walks about (as it were) trailing the curtains of the harem with her, it is quite certain that the woven mansion is meant for a perambulating palace, not for a perambulating prison. it is quite certain that the skirt means female dignity, not female submission; it can be proved by the simplest of all tests. no ruler would deliberately dress up in the recognized fetters of a slave; no judge would appear covered with broad arrows. but when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity the whole world is under petticoat government; for even men wear petticoats when they wish to govern.
