do both. "It is simpler to eat caviare on se than to eat grape-nuts on principle," he n one of his intervals of pure lucidity. I I like to make a Chestertonian transposiand pronounce that it is better (I do not npler) to eat caviare on principle than to ape-nuts on impulse. The fact is that the n fad of simplicity for its own sake has I to be merely ridiculous; it has become rous. May not some of us lift our voices t it? of itself. My 1 vegetarians ar the simplifying organizes as f leave it to any cated to the po both sects are d human vagarie caviare immora to eat it, or be not much matt make against t My own plea the fact that it into every one' The only really Imagine, for ex that has to be s preparation. In eat caviare save find it too nasty. being dogmatize Simplicity is left free, instin hardest comman ave no right, I suppose, to ally, in my o eat cavia n principle pure luc onian trans etter (I don it has be lift our v to ally, i arians. B a vegetari F he is a affirmativ confuse forgive t For my go the le ce itself h "me ing a olets and er, is not t vegetarians are banded together to fight the simplifying of life. Socialism, of cou organizes as furiously as Capital itself; an leave it to any one if a nut-cutlet is not com cated to the point of mendacity. But ostens both sects are on the side of Procrustes aga human vagaries. Both would surely consi caviare immoral; either because no one ou to eat it, or because every one cannot. It d not much matter, I fancy, which point make against the dried roe of the sturg My own plea for caviare rests precisely the fact that it is not, and cannot be, th into every one's mouth. It is not simple, The only really "simple" food-stuff is mar Imagine, for example, calling anything sim that has to be shot out of a cannon by way preparation. In point of fact, very few pe eat caviare save on impulse, otherwise, t find it too nasty. But it is an impulse worthy being dogmatized; of becoming a principle Simplicity is an acquired taste. Mank left free, instinctively complicates life. hardest command to follow has always b ly that there shall be no specialization. lausfrau who is living the simple life after all, sweep, scour, wash, and mend. ust also cook; from that, even Battle cannot save her. She may dream sternly rgaret Fuller, who read Plato while she apples; but in her secret heart she knows ther Plato or the apples suffered. And what point of view is it simpler to have a f-all-work than to indulge one's self in lackeys? Not, obviously, for the misand it is surely simpler to be an adequate footman than to be an adequate bonnefaire. We should really simplify life by more servants rather than fewer; luxury instead of less. The smoothest ery is the most complicated; and which wants to sink the Mauretania and go o Robert Fulton's steamboat? One would hat the decision would be made naturally e by one's income. But it is the triumph new paradox that this is not so. Thouof people seem to be infected with the hat by doing more themselves they [60] that by refusi make every on Let us be galla must eat, but le And all tin What is the u open to the pe same time that museums would happier? Why s in the world, if milk? Above all, the centuries, all consummations, either in art or this instant a frie democracy in her charming as mon them; but if her poor, her boots have seen her wa lace, and out at h Le c specializ he simple. t, even Br cart she k ania and ted with make every one more content with porrid Let us be gallant about the porridge that must eat, but let us never forget that there better things to eat than porridge. And all time past, was it all for this? Times unforgotten, and treasures of things? What is the use of throwing great museu open to the people, if you tell them at same time that to possess the contents of museums would not make a private pers happier? Why should there be cordons bl in the world, if we ought to live on bread a milk? Above all, why have we praised, throu the centuries, all the slow processes, the ta consummations, of perfection, if raw mater either in art or life, is really best? I recall this instant a friend of mine who expresses democracy in her footwear. Her frocks are charming as money can induce Paquin to m them; but if her frocks are an insult to poor, her boots are an insult to the rich have seen her walk to a garden-party, in r lace, and out at heel. She fancied, I think, t [61] norant young women that it is more I to be a bullied, insulted, underpaid I with a rhinestone sunburst, than a 1, highly-respected parlor-maid in a Accordingly, they conscientiously deemselves of the parlor-maid, and spend es in trying to get a vote for the shoplo not understand their distinctions in or their definition of degradation. The naid at least can choose the mistress, : shop-girl cannot choose the floor experience. Pa become a con found desirable. Are we reall duped by the n living and high nation? Even i teaches us nothi pressed by the home from Lake himself secretly afforded. As if, i plain living did was done, if at al little employment Shakespeare long own front doors our own bibelots, dish when the co lantly. But let us civilized to do th have them skilful disguise makes th the world, no dou 1, myself, essentially an undomestic and I dislike the parlor-maid's tasks point of feeling excessive irritation at occasionally, in this mad world, to n them. But, seriously speaking, apart he temperamental quirk, I would don thes and follow officially her career, than that parlor-maids in uniforms pass wholly from the world. It is as if eople said, "Since those who are parlorthemselves cannot very well employ maids, then let no one have a parlor[ 62 ] |