The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-03-18

|
 thought of drinking out of an un
 washed wine glass, or eating with al
 unwashed fork, which has been uset by another person; or at the mark of 2
 footman's thumb on the rim of a silver
 plate
 Tis feeling manifests itself in varie.
 ty of other ways, too numerous to men ton, too familiar to require mentioning
 but in all such cases its nature is sssen-
 tially the same, and there is an essen
 tial sameness also in the nature of the
 things exciting it. The origin of the
 feeling is dislike of physical contact
 with others. Some people excite this
 feeling in us more keeny; some excite it
 less keenly. Everybody must number
 among his acquaintanees some individ-
 uals with whom he feels it is a pollu-
 tion even to shake hands, though he
 may possibly entertain no other form
 of dislike to them. Most of us, on the
 other hand, have friends whom We
 might, in case of necessity forgive for
 handing us a lump of sugar in their ffn-
 gers; while strong affection again be-
 tween those persons who are parties to
 it suspends within certain limits the
 operation of the feeling altogether or
 even inverts it's character. But when
 all allowance has been made for excep-
 tions such as these, the fact remains
 that the instinct and the very idea of cleanliness point to and are in great
 measure the expression of a rooted an- tipathy in the brain and nerves of the
 individual to the physical personality of the rest of his own species. The
 sense of cleanliness is, as we have said
 a composite one; but this curious an-
 tipathy forms one of It's strongest ele-
 ments. From it this sense derives those special characteristics, in virtue of
 which violation excites not only disap-
 probation, but disgust. From a wine
 glass whose rim had a slight smear of | tar on it, we drink, under pressure of circumstances, with resignation if not with pleasure; but from a wine glass l whose rim was smeared by the lips of our fellow creatures we should, unless dying of thirst shrink as from a strong emetic. If a man were in the habit of dropping little portions of sand on the plates from which he expected his guests to eat, his guests would call him slovenly, and brush away the sand with their napkins. But if instead of drop ping sand on the plates it was his habit to breathe upon them, his guests would regard him as monster, and consider the plates as poisoned.
 What can be the origin of this strong ly marked-this almost passionate feel ing? The detestation of dirt as a pro test against conditions that are un- healthy is ineligible. It is, intellig- ble also as pretext against what is unsightly, undignif1ed, inconsistent with order and beauty. The elevation of per sonal cleanliness to the rank of moral beauty has been explained, with some plausibility, as an expression of the modern reaction against the unreason- able asceticism which was once regard ed as virtue, and which prompted the medieval saint to look on dirt as a condition of sanctity. But we are not aware that any explanation has been attempted of the instinct that prompts men to identify the most repusive forms of dirt with any trace left on ex- ternal objects by the physical contact of other human beings. Pessimists may say that this inveterate and wide ly extended instinct disproves the real ity of that brotherly love and synpa- thy which forms, according to the apos- ties of the modern religion of humani- ty, natural bond of union between all members of the human race, and is des- tined to express itself ultimately in some democratic millennium Pessi- mists may say that this instinct proves that, though mutual benevolence among men is doubtless a sentiment which has some effect on human affairs, the sen- timent of mutual antipathy is not only more universal, but is, on the whole in comparably more genuine and intense.
 For the origin of the instinct in ques- ton we do not pretend to account; but ge can at all events suggest plausible answer to the pessimist If a man re- sents, as a clean man certainly would do, being asked to drink out of glass which has just been used by another, or to eat with fork which has just been in another's mouth, or to use a handkerchief borrowed from another who has bad cold his resentment need not prove that his antipathy to the per- sonality of the other implies any antip- athy of an anti-social kind; for if a man should discern that his companion | was less particular than himself-if the | latter should show himself willing to | eat with the unwashed fork which mo- 1 ment ago had been in the mouth of the | feeling of antipathy would | on that account be rendered infinitely more acute than if the companion were to grow green with nausea at the thought of touching the forks handle, which had been in contact with the oth- CTS hand. A mutual antipathy, there- fore, can hardly divide men, if each de- spises the other in proportion as he finds it absent in him. and thinks him 2 decent man in proportion as he finds It present. This reflection, it is ire, is no answer to the position we have sug- gested, but if it is not an answer to us m our curiosity it may at least be a to us in our doubts.--Sat- lrday Review. LARGE ESTATES INVENTORIED.