Part 29 (1/2)

”Perhaps I don't properly estimate our position in the fabric, but I can't get away from the feeling that everything in social life leads up to this--to us,--the ridiculous canopy. If so, then the universe means--_nothing_; it's blowing great forms and shapes as a swamp blows bubbles; a little while ago it was megatheriums and plesiosauriums--if that's the name for them--and now it is country-houses and motor-cars and coronation festivals. And in the end--it is all nonsense, Stephen.

It is utter nonsense.

”If it isn't nonsense, tell me what it is. For me at any rate it's nonsense, and for every intelligent woman about me--for I talk to some of them, we indulge in seditious whisperings and wit--and there isn't one who seems to have been able to get to anything solider than I have done. Each of us has had her little fling at maternity--about as much as a washerwoman does in her odd time every two or three years--and that is our uttermost reality. All the rest,--tr.i.m.m.i.n.gs! We go about the world, Stephen, dressing and meeting each other with immense ceremony, we have our seasonal movements in relation to the ritual of politics and sport, we travel south for the Budget and north for the grouse, we play games to amuse the men who keep us--not a woman would play a game for its own sake--we dabble with social reform and politics, for which few of us care a rap except as an occupation, we 'discover' artists or musicians or lecturers (as though we cared), we try to believe in lovers or, still harder, try to believe in old or new religions, and most of us--I don't--do our best to give the gratifications and exercise the fascinations that are expected of us....

”Something has to be done for women, Stephen. We are the heart of life, birth and begetting, the home where the future grows, and your schemes ignore us and slide about over the superficialities of things. We are spoiling the whole process of progress, we are turning all the achievements of mankind to nothingness. Men invent, create, do miracles with the world, and we translate it all into shopping, into a glitter of dresses and households, into an immense parade of pride and excitement.

We excite men, we stir them to get us and keep us. Men turn from their ideas of brotherhood to elaborate our separate cages....

”I am Justin's wife; not a thing in my heavens or my earth that is not subordinated to that.

”Something has to be done for women, Stephen, something--urgently--and nothing is done until that is done, some release from their intolerable subjection to s.e.x, so that for us everything else in life, respect, freedom, social standing, is entirely secondary to that. But what has to be done? We women do not know. Our efforts to know are among the most desolating of spectacles. I read the papers of those suffrage women; the effect is more like agitated geese upon a common than anything human has a right to be.... That's why I turn to you. Years ago I felt, and now I know, there is about you a simplicity of mind, a foolishness of faith, that is stronger and greater than the cleverness of any woman alive. You are one of those strange men who take high and sweeping views--as larks soar. It isn't that you yourself are high and sweeping.... No, but still I turn to you. In the old days I used to turn to you and shake your mind and make you think about things you seemed too sluggish to think about without my clamor. Once do you remember at Martens I shook you by the ears.... And when I made you think, you thought, as I could never do.

Think now--about women.

”Stephen, there are moments when it seems to me that this futility of women, this futility of men's effort _through_ women, is a fated futility in the very nature of things. We may be saddled with it as we are with all the animal infirmities we have, with appendixes and suchlike things inside of us, and the pa.s.sions and rages of apes and a tail--I believe we have a tail curled away somewhere, haven't we?

Perhaps mankind is so const.i.tuted that badly as they get along now they couldn't get along at all if they let women go free and have their own way with life. Perhaps you can't have _two_ s.e.xes loose together. You must shut up one. I've a horrible suspicion that all these anti-suffrage men like Lord Cromer and Sir Ray Lankester must know a lot about life that I do not know. And that other man Sir Something-or-other Wright, who said plainly that men cannot work side by side with women because they get excited.... And yet, you know, women have had glimpses of a freedom that was not mischievous. I could have been happy as a Lady Abbess--I must have s.p.a.ce and dignity, Stephen--and those women had things in their hands as no women have things in their hands to-day.

They came to the House of Lords. But they lost all that. Was there some sort of natural selection?...

”Stephen, you were made to answer my mind, and if you cannot do it n.o.body can. What is your outlook for women? Are we to go back to seclusion or will it be possible to minimize s.e.x? If you are going to minimize s.e.x how are you going to do it? Suppression? There is plenty of suppression now. Increase or diminish the pains and penalties? My nephew, Philip's boy, Philip Christian, was explaining to me the other day that if you boil water in an open bowl it just boils away, and that if you boil it in a corked bottle it bangs everything to pieces, and you have, he says, 'to look out.' But I feel that's a bad image.

Boiling-water isn't frantically jealous, and men and women are. But still suppose, suppose you trained people not to make such an awful fuss about things. _Now_ you train them to make as much fuss as possible....

”Oh bother it all, Stephen! Where's your mind in these matters? Why haven't you tackled these things? Why do you leave it to _me_ to dig these questions into you--like opening a reluctant oyster? Aren't they patent? You up and answer them, Stephen--or this correspondence will become abusive....”

-- 5

It was true that I did ignore or minimize s.e.xual questions as much as I could. I was forced now to think why I did this. That carried me back to those old days of pa.s.sion, memories I had never stirred for many years.

And I wrote to Mary that there was indeed no reason but a reasonable fear, that in fact I had dismissed them because they had been beyond my patience and self-control, because I could not think very much about them without an egotistical reversion to the bitterness of my own case.

And in avoiding them I was only doing what the great bulk of men in business and men in affairs find themselves obliged to do. They train themselves not to think of the rights and wrongs of s.e.xual life, not to tolerate liberties even in their private imaginations. They know it is like carrying a torch into a powder magazine. They feel they cannot trust their own minds beyond the experience, tested usages, and conventions of the ages, because they know how many of those who have ventured further have been blinded by mists and clouds of rhetoric, lost in inexplicable puzzles and wrecked disastrously. There in those half explored and altogether unsettled hinterlands, lurk desires that sting like adders and hatreds cruel as h.e.l.l....

And then I went on--I do not clearly remember now the exact line of argument I adopted--to urge upon her that our insoluble puzzles were not necessarily insoluble puzzles for the world at large, that no one soldier fights anything but a partial battle, and that it wasn't an absolute condemnation of me to declare that I went on living and working for social construction with the cardinal riddles of social order, so far as they affected her, unsolved. Wasn't I at any rate preparing apparatus for that huge effort at solution that mankind must ultimately make? Wasn't this dredging out and deepening of the channels of thought about the best that we could hope to do at the present time, seeing that to launch a keel of speculation prematurely was only to strand oneself among hopeless reefs and confusions? Better prepare for a voyage to-morrow than sail to destruction to-day.

Whatever I put in that forgotten part of my letter was put less strikingly than my first admissions, and anyhow it was upon these that Mary pounced to the disregard of any other point. ”There you are,” she wrote, with something like elation, ”there is a tiger in the garden and you won't talk or think about it for fear of growing excited. That is my grievance against so much historical and political and social discussion; its hopeless futility because of its hopeless omissions. You plan the world's future, taking the women and children for granted, with Egotistical s.e.x, as you call it, a prowling monster upsetting everything you do....”

But I will not give you that particular letter in its order, nor its successors. Altogether she wrote me twenty-two letters, and I one or two more than that number to her, and--a thing almost inevitable in a discussion by correspondence--there is a lot of overlapping and recapitulation. Those letters spread over a s.p.a.ce of nearly two and a half years. Again and again she insists upon the monstrous exaggeration of the importance of s.e.x in human life and of the need of some reduction of its importance, and she makes the boldest experimental suggestions for the achievement of that end. But she comes slowly to recognize that there is a justification for an indirect attack, that s.e.x and the position of women do not const.i.tute the primary problem in that bristling system of riddles that lies like a hostile army across the path of mankind. And she realized too that through art, through science and literature and the whole enquiring and creative side of man's nature, lies the path by which those positions are to be outflanked, and those eternal-looking impossibles and inconceivables overcome. Here is a fragment--saturated with the essence of her thought. Three-quarters of her earlier letters are variations on this theme....

”What you call 'social order,' Stephen, all the arrangements seem to me to be _built_ on subjection to s.e.x even more than they are built (as you say) on labor subjection. And this is an age of release, you say it is an age of release for the workers and they know it. And so do the women.

Just as much. 'Wild hopes' indeed! The workers' hopes are nothing to the women's! It is not only the workers who are saying let us go free, manage things differently so that we may have our lives relieved from this intolerable burthen of constant toil, but the women also are saying let us go free. They are demanding release just as much from their intolerable endless specialization as females. The tramp on the roads who won't work, the swindler and the exploiter who contrive not to work, the strikers who throw down their tools, no longer for twopences and sixpences as you say but because their way of living is no longer tolerable to them, and we women, who don't bear children or work or help; we are all in one movement together. We are part of the General Strike. I have been a striker all my life. We are doing nothing--by the hundred thousand. Your old social machine is working without us and in spite of us, it carries us along with it and we are sand in the bearings. I'm not a wheel, Stephen, I'm grit. What you say about the reactionaries and suppressionists who would stifle the complaints of labor and crush out its struggles to be free, is exactly true about the reactionaries and suppressionists who would stifle the discussion of the woman's position and crush out her hopes of emanc.i.p.ation....”

And here is a page of the peculiar doubt that was as characteristic of her as the quick changes of her eyes. It gives just that pessimistic touch that tempered her valiant adventurousness, that gave a color at last to the tragedy of her death....

”Have you ever thought, Stephen, that perhaps these (repressionist) people are righter than you are--that if the worker gets free he _won't_ work and that if the woman gets free she won't furl her s.e.x and stop disturbing things? Suppose she _is_ wicked as a s.e.x, suppose she _will_ trade on her power of exciting imaginative men. A lot of these new women run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, beguile some poor innocent of a man to ruin them and then call in fathers, brother, husbands, friends, chivalry, all the rest of it, and make the best of both sides of a s.e.x. Suppose we go on behaving like that. After we've got all our emanc.i.p.ations. Suppose that the liberation of common people simply means loafing, no discipline, nothing being done, an end to labor and the beginning of nothing to replace it, and that the liberation of women simply means the elaboration of mischief. Suppose that it is so.

Suppose you are just tumbling the contents of the grate into the middle of the room. Then all this emanc.i.p.ation _is_ a decay, even as conservative-minded people say,--it's none the less a decay because we want it,--and the only thing to stop it is to stop it, and to have more discipline and more suppression and say to women and the common people: 'Back to the Sterner Virtues; Back to Servitude!' I wish I hadn't these reactionary streaks in my thoughts, but I have and there you are....”

And then towards the second year her letters began to break away from her preoccupation with her position as a woman and to take up new aspects of life, more general aspects of life altogether. It had an effect not of her having exhausted the subject but as if, despairing of a direct solution, she turned deliberately to the relief of other considerations. She ceased to question her own life, and taking that for granted, wrote more largely of less tangible things. She remembered that she had said that life, if it was no more than its present appearances, was ”utter nonsense.” She went back to that. ”One says things like that,” she wrote ”and not for a moment does one believe it. I grumble at my life, I seem to be always weakly and fruitlessly fighting my life, and I love it. I would not be willingly dead--for anything. I'd rather be an old match-woman selling matches on a freezing night in the streets than be dead. Nothing nonsensical ever held me so tightly or kept me so interested. I suppose really I am full of that very same formless faith on which you rely. But with me it's not only shapeless but intangible.... I nibble at religion. I am immensely attracted. I stand in the doorway. Only when they come out to persuade me to come in I am like a shy child and I go away. The temples beguile me and the music, but not the men. I feel I want to join _it_ and they say 'join _us_.'

They are--like vergers. Such small things! Such dreadful little _arguing_ men! They don't let you come in, they want you to say they are right. All the really religious people seem to be outside nowadays and all the pretending, cheating, atheistical, vain and limited people within....