The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-07-20
CONCERNING ONES HOME
To CO AWAY FROM 1T OFTEN DOES
o MEAN LESS LOVE O IN.
The Modern Tendency Is TO Desire
Change. and People Have Found
How They Can Get IL.


number Of people who have a positive hor-
ror OF home. This curious revulsiOn Of feel
ing IS taken by many persons as a sign OF
social deterioration. For our own part, we
find il difficult TO take it quite seriously
or 20 see in it anything more than a pass
ing wEim. Nobody nowadays likes mo-
notOny. Change is what people desire, not,
PERHAPS, any great change. but lots OF
change, not necessarily for the better, but
for it's own sake. Now, there is a great
sameness about ones own four walls, be
they never so handsome. We all feel at
times an overpowering desire 10 look at
something else. We cannot change the pat
terms or the pictures on them every day,
and neither they nor the home furniture
ever seem 10 alter IN expression. Again,
there is a terrible sameness about ones own
cook. Experience enables US TO fOretell the
taste OF everything at home, from the soup
TO the savory If we are rich, and from the
mutton 10 the cheese if we are poor; where
as. II we dine at a restaurant everything
down TO the salt is different. and the res
taurant is refurnished daily with new
faces. Then. again. the music and stir go
ing on around one avoid the necessity for
much conversation; and conversation in the
home circle is sometimes difficult and some
times dull. 1t does not do always just to
say what one thinks. it is such bad prac-
tice for dining out; and. this being the
case. II is not easy sometimes 10 think
what to say. Nowadays we get. socially
speaking. tired Of our friends, and even of
our acquaintance. We want them TO pass
continually before us like a street pro-
cession. Instead of that. they rather re-
semble a stage crowd and keep coming on
again. There is a limit 10 those we know,
a limit even to those we should like or
should be likely TO know even by sight. and
at a restaurant this latter limit is disre-
garded. The barrier Of good manners which
fOrbids that those who are acquainted with
one another should speak is sufficient TO
protect our station or our dignity. but II Is
not a very high fence, and II Is one which
IL Is amusing to look over. How many
lunches and teas and dinners are eaten
every year in public places, and how does
that number compare with those eaten IN
public twenty years ago. Now IS the hey-
dey Of great hotels and restaurants. and OF
humble refreshmcnt rooms and teashOps,
Certainly the mOnOtOny OF meals may be
easily mitigated in London. but what ABOUT
the cOuntry2 In the country there are no
restaurants. Unless We are very rich ana
our friends are very rich, unless, indeed,
we belong entirely to the leisured classes,
we cannot have a continual succession of
visitors. because they are at work during
the week. and cannot come to us except
from Saturday TO Monday.
1IA-A-N1L LI<DCEANO
-Four or five years ago we used to hear a
great deal about mothers and daughters
and how IT was that they did not get on.
Just nov that popular quarrel seems to
have been made up. We do not know if all
the disanected daughters have left home.
but anyhow the threatened revolution in
the family seems TO have fzzled out. Per
haps there may be still some malcOntents
left in out-of-the-way places. II so. II
might be advisable to try on a small scale
a system of ttinerant daughters We re
member TO have been told quite lately OF
an only daughter who left a delicate mother
because she could not stand living at home
any longer. The lady promptly procured a
niece 10 live with her who was also in dan
ger of being worn out by her family. All
three persons became very happy. They
recovered nerve power as il is called, in
a wonderful degree: in plain language, they
managed to shift the friction, and suffered
no longer from the chatting effects OF Gus
tom. Parents and children do strike one at
times as wonderfully ill-assorted. The "old
block and the chips do not always re-
semble one another. metaphorically speak
ing. Perhaps with a little management
things might be better arranged. SuppOs-
ing. for instance. the philanthrOpic daughter
of q fashionable mother were TO take her
curates and her poor people with her and
establish herself with the philanthrOpic
mother Of a frivolous daughter. and vice
versa. The change might prove beneficial
10 both families. 1t might, but we do not
know. Some shades OF the same color har-
monte worse than any contrasts. Two
sorts OF frfvOlity do not always mingle cas-
fly, and different shades of philanthropy
are apt TO swear" horribly. Still, there is
no knowing what people will Put up with
when once they are abroad. The home
hater is generally pretty hardy and ready
10 bear up against very various privatiOns.
Living in ladies' flats on a small allowance.
getting up in the morning to cook your own
breakfast and trim your own lamps, does
not strike the outside observer as a pleas
ant change from "A luxurious home, but il
appears to be acceptable to those who are
sufficiently tired of what they are accus-
toned to-
SOCIAL LIFE NEEDED.
But joking apart. is this new form of
homesickness a serious malady or one likely
TO affect the general health of the commu-
nifty? We do not believe so for a moment.
Household affection does not depend on a
desire TO eat in ones own dining room. and
grOwnup children do not like their parents
any the less because the recrudescence of
energy observable in all classes during
the last twenty years has made them show
a restless desire 10 lead their own lives.
1T Is this new energy which is. as we be-
lieve, at the bottom of the increased ap-
pearanCe of frivOlity, and of this lessening
OF the love of home about which we hear
so much in the present day. Worldly peo-
PIE are more actively worldly than ever
they were. Just as useful people are more
actively useful. We used 10 hear OF women
who lay on a sofa and read novels all day.
Now such women do something perhaps
quite as useless. but at least less lazy. An
increased love of society, an enormous wi
dening OF the area of what is called society
have no doubt augmented the amount of
time which the average man and woman
spend outside their own homes. but a love
OF social life is. on the whole, we believe.
beneficial With the widening of social
limits has come a strengthening OF the
power of social minoTities. There are more
pleasure-loving people than ever there were
IN the social world. but Il is the numbers
no, the proportions, which have altered.
OF course. the love OF society may become.
IN many cases II does become. synonymous
with "a love OF friVOlty. but there is no rea-
son why IL should. Frivclity is a dry-rot
destroying every strong feeling. but il is by
no means the monopoly of those persons
whom "a social training enables 10 feel al
home everywhere.
The character of Rosamund Vincv was
Iiddled with frivolity before she had left
the seClusiOn OF a middle-class country
family. Take the class Of people who live
entirely at home. who may be said TO have
no social life beyond that of the public
anections2 We should say 10 was very
bad. The relation between husband and
wife In the lower classes is VIGOROUSLY un-
ideal. They certainly love their children
while they are young, but with a love
which by no means always lasts. We
should be greatly surprised II the most
fashionable lady OF our acquaintance were
10 tell MS that she did not know her son :
address. and. that. though both lived in
London. she had made no effort for the
last year or two 10 ascertain mis- welfare
Yet slsch Indifference is common enough IN
families who. by the misfortune Of their