Page images
PDF

Lord Cromer, made a valiant attempt to reform the Azhar and to modernize the exegesis of the Koran. He knew French, and even translated Herbert Spencer. He has left lay disciples behind him, but it can hardly be said that he founded a school of theological thought. He was, there is little doubt, in his own inner convictions an agnostic. Bigots and free-thinkers alike dismissed his liberal opinions by pointing out that he did not observe the fast of Ramadan.

Hitherto the Moslem "modernists" in Egypt and India have worked in isolation. it has been reserved for a Russian layman, Ismail Bey Gasprinsky, to take the first steps towards creating a world-wide organization. He has been for many years the editor of a successful newspaper, the "Terjumau," published in the Turkish language in Russia, which had a large circulation even in Turkey until the Sultan stopped its importation. A Liberal in politics as well as in religion, his influence helps to explain why it is that the Moslems of Russia have thrown in their lot with the Constitutional Democrats. He has done much in Russia for the education of his co-religionists, including even the women and the priestly caste. Convinced that the Pan-islamism of Constantinople is a reactionary movement as dangerous for religion as it is for liberty, he turned rather to Egypt than to Turkey for support. His aim is to organize a Pan-Islamism which shall be tolerant and progressive, and the method which he has chosen is the summoning of a congress, which is to assemble in Cairo during the coming autumn. Cairo presents two advantages. Free speech is possible, and the city, so long the residence of the Caliphs and the seat of the Azhar, still ranks as one of the sacred places of Islam. Ismail Bey Gasprinsky is a man of something more than middle age, simple, modest, yet

dignified in his demeanor, quiet and unimpressive when he talks on general topics, but capable of an almost dangerous fire when he approaches his master-idea—a man, clearly, who lives wholly for his reforms, and serves, with a gentle and hardly conscious courage, his self-less and disinterested idealism. His own point of view on such questions as the position of women is Russian rather than Oriental. He was full of praise for some Moslem country-women of his own who have boldly pursued their medical studies in the Russian universities; but he was human enough to laugh at the droll cunning of some Moslem deputies in the Second Duma, who supported woman's suffrage because they realized that their well-drilled wives will simply duplicate their husbands' votes. In religious matters I have never met a man of wider tolerance. He is even prepared to invite the Persian Babis to his Congress.

The point of departure of the new movement is rather social and economic than dogmatic. ismail Bey Gasprinsky starts from the fact that the Mohamedan world is plainly receding and decaying before the advance of Western civilization. The Congress will be invited to diagnose the causes of this long decay and prescribe the remedies. If it answers his wishes, it will, I fancy, proclaim a series of principles which would serve as a basis, not indeed for a religious "reformation" in the Protestant sense of the word, but certainly for a social renovation. Science, it will doubtless argue, is not hostile to religion, and therefore a good Mohamedan, even when he is a theologian, need not fear a Western education. The Koran, it may venture to suggest, is a historical document addressed primarily to the Arabs of the seventh century, and a distinction must be made between its teaching about the unity of God, which is fundamental and eternal, and its legislation, which is no longer applicable to modern conditions. lncidentally a doctrine of complete tolerance can be founded on such a method of exegesis. Another subject which may perhaps be raised is the propriety of using Arabic, the Latin of lslam, as the language of prayer in countries where Arabic is not the vernacular. Possibly the Congress may suggest restrictions on the freedom of divorce which Islam at present allows. lt will doubtless advocate the education of women, but it is not likely at its first meetings to approach a subject so contentious as their seclusion. For my part, l doubt whether Mahomet has really much more influence in locking the doors of the harem than has St. Paul in delaying woman's suffrage. it is the middle and upper classes alone which mainThe Fortnightly Review.

tain this custom in Egypt, and they on the whole are agnostic. The Mohamedan home rests indeed on a crude sexegoism. For every five marriages in Egypt there are four divorces. lt is not so much religion as a primitive sense of property in women which is the real obstacle to change. But progress there is. A very able Egyptian judge, the late Kassim Bey Amin, wrote a brilliant book on the emancipation of women. The demand for education is growing, and the age of marriage rising among the educated class. On such straight lines of common sense the Congress is likely to work, and its decisions, while they may lag behind the real views of its exceptionally enlightened leaders, will doubtless represent an immense advance on the conventional standpoint of lslam.

H. N. Brail&ford.

THE APPLlCATlON OF SCIENTlFIC METHODS TO HOUSEKEEPlNG.

l had once the pleasure of escorting a man trained in engineering science into the kitchen of a large country house. He was to give advice on the possibility of fitting up a knife-cleaning machine in connection with the engine that pumped up water from the well. That project proved impracticable, but it interested me to watch how my friend observed and condemned the equipments of the kitchen. He looked at the washing-up sink with a critical air, saying, "Capital arrangement for smearing all plates with a thin culture of microbes." He pointed out how inconveniently the kitchen range was situated in reference to the window; he watched the cook peeling potatoes, and remarked, "Manufacturers would be ruined if they gave such unskilled work to their highly-paid men"; and as he departed he declared that though a

staunch believer in the rights of women to social and political equality with men, the thought sometimes crossed his mind that they could not he equal in practical power of administration, for otherwise they would long ago have adopted in house-management more modern and scientific methods.

There has been much discussion lately concerning the industries of this country, but in the discussion housekeeping is never mentioned. Yet housekeeping, in the widest sense—the provision of domestic comfort within the home—is the largest single industry known. lt employs almost the entire time of nearly all married women, and, in addition, a whole army of domestic servants. Now it is not hard to show that in many important matters domestic management is one of our most backward industries. ln the first place. with few exceptions, there is little improvement in appliances. True, there are gas-stoves and new methods of lighting; bath-rooms are more common than they used to be; there are smaller useful devices, such as mechanical carpet-sweepers and egg-whisks. Still, if we imagine a woman of two centuries ago brought to life again and conducted into a modern kitchen, it is clear that she would find most of the appliances and methods tolerably familiar; while if she were taken to a railway station or into a cotton factory, she would find the progress made absolutely marvelous. The new ways, alike in method and in result, would appear to her all but miraculous. in house-management there have been improvements doubtless, but still the systems of cooking and cleaning, of providing warmth and ventilation, are not greatly changed from the methods of earlier generations.

In the second place, there is little division of labor; in the working-class household there is none at all. The wife is expected to be cook, housemaid, nurse—and caterer and laundress in addition. If a capable woman, she performs many of these duties creditably, but at the cost of immense labor. Few people lead lives of as wearing and incessant toil as working-men's wives. if they have small children, they practically never have a holiday at all. Those who are not fitted to be housekeepers cannot grapple with their task, live in a perpetual muddle, and perhaps in the end take to drink. Among the servant-keeping class, circumstances are very little better. What sort of person is the maid-of-allwork or plain cook in a middle-class family? Not infrequently she is a raw country girl, and if older, she is often only the more ignorant and opinionated. Rule of thumb, muddle, and absence of dainty cleanliness are conspicuous in the kitchen. Cooking could

be, and indeed sometimes is, an applied art closely allied to chemistry; but the ordinary exponents of it are absolutely untrained save by haphazard experience. One reason for this is that in all households, save those of the very wealthy, there is no proper gradation of work; the same maid washes dishes and cooks, the same scrubs floors and dusts and carries out more elaborate cleaning. But it is wasteful in the extreme to employ trained workers for unskilled work.

Moreover, there is an absence of skilled supervision and direction. This should be provided, according to our current conceptions, by the wife and mistress. But what preparation has the ordinary bride received for the work of running a household? She may have helped her mother a little; perhaps she has attended a course or two of cooking lessons. But in the work of organization she is inevitably unskilled, and her keenest interest is in what one may call the artistic or ornamental side. in relation to food, for instance, she never asks herself what is the healthiest and least costly mode of living; she wants to cook dainty and highly-seasoned dishes for her husband. Does she devote her attention to providing her kitchen with the newest and most efficient tools? Not at all. A newly-wedded wife never takes a pride in her well-fitted-up scullery; she shows you instead her drawing-room or, at best, her linenchest. She knows little of what should be her special division of the household work, catering and accountkeeping. True, in time she learns by experience. But few women even in years of haphazard housekeeping attain to the businesslike habits which they could learn in a few months of training in an office! Do we not all know women who have no definite time for making household arrangements, and who day after day. when the cook appears with the information that the butcher's man is at the door, are struck afresh with dismay at the necessity of ordering dinner at five minutes' notice? ln short, the modern household is unprovided with proper machinery, is worked by inadequately-trained labor, insufficiently graded, and has no proper supervison or organization. These defects are not without relation to one another—for instance, partly because servants are untrained. The ordinary domestic cannot be trusted with a washing-machine or electric iron. Her carelessness and inefficiency ruin any but the simplest tools. And there is a further difficulty in the servant-keeping establishment. lnsistence on class-distinctions is an irk and a hindrance everywhere today, but the difficulty is nowhere more keenly felt than in the close quarters of the household. The middle-class family is perpetually worried by the presence in its midst of strangers with different habits and different ideals of conduct; these strangers are in possession of kitchen and scullery. The position is made even harder by the fact that these strangers are in possession, so to speak, of the household machinery, of the kitchen and scullery; in consequence, even those who wish to serve themselves are forced to ring the bell and allow themselves to be waited on, if they need merely a glass of water or desire to have a speck of mud brushed off a pair of shoes. That on the servants' side the relationship is distasteful is well understood. in spite of good wages and pleasant quarters, it is more and more difficult to obtain proper service, and the need is greatest where it is least well supplied. The widow lady with a grown-up family finds that her two servants stay with her for many years and serve her well; the young doctor's or engineer's wife with a handful of small children is worn and harassed by the search for a reliable nurse

housemaid or cook-general. The attitude of mutual irritation that is common in the household is well shown by the use of the pronoun "she." The mistress in the drawing-room, the maid in the kitchen, when constantly speaking of the other simply as "she," indicate how soreness is bred by this overclose relation.

Now all this irritation and inefficiency is due to the fact that the organization of the household has remained behind that of the rest of society. The household is still in the feudal age; and the reason for this is that we confuse the organization of housekeeping with family life. The home is the domestic factory, and each woman by her status of wife or daughter or sister is expected to cook and clean, or at least to organize cooking and cleaning. Hence each family must have its plant and service separately from every other family, and because every woman is expected to cook and clean, women rarely learn how to cook or clean efficiently. Consider what an absurd system this is. lf we were to walk down an ordinary street of houses, and investigate what is going on within each, we should find the same operations laboriously performed by hand by solitary women in each house. Each family has its own kitchen, its own backyard, its own system of providing hot water. ln each a separate woman with toil pares potatoes by hand for dinner, in each she washes and dries dishes in an antiquated and insanitary manner. Each house has its own narrow staircase up and down which coals, luggage, often enough hot and cold water, must be carried by hand. The system is palpably old-fashioned and absurd, and the obvious remedy is the extension to household affairs of the methods of the large industry. The individual home must cease to be the unit of domestic work; there must be central kitchens and laundries; houses must be lighted, ventilated, supplied with hot water and perhaps warmed, from plants serving whole districts at a time; cleaning operations must be carried on by properly-trained workers making use of effective machinery.

The remedy is obvious, and yet it will be received with cries of horror. "What! Break up the privacy of the home! Force us all to live in public! Deprive the wife and mother of her supreme privilege of creating a warm and congenial home atmosphere!" We know these cries of protest, and may as well admit at once that there is much justification for them. There is a need of privacy and of a place wherein to rest and be quiet; a method of housekeeping that would supply us with material comfort to the highest possible degree would not compensate for the irk of a life lived perpetually in public. A quiet dwelling-place for each family, wherein the individuality of husband and wife can freely express itself is a prime necessity of life. But is it beyond the power of the human intellect to think out a system that shall satisfy both demands, the demand for greater efficiency in mechanical arrangements and service, and for proper privacy for each family? To some extent these two needs are already met in certain somewhat expensive systems of flats; but flats are unhealthy in many ways, and are not suitable for the up-bringing of children. Indeed, in many flats children and dogs are forbidden, and even in the experiment in co-operative housing shortly to be carried out at Letchworth, there is a suggestion that tenants with families should not be received. But the people on whom the housekeeping problem presses most hardly are the women who are just on the verge of the servant-keeping class— women whose husbands' incomes range from £150 to £400 a year—and who are the mothers of small children. They

do not wish to live in flats in town, and certainly should not do so; they shou'd occupy cottages in the country where the children can play in the garden and grow strong in the fresh air. Therefore, what is needed is a garden suburb, or village. it should be carefully planned from the beginning, and should consist of separate or perhaps semi-detached cottages with private gardens behind and facing on to a central park or green. From a central power-house, each house should be heated and ventilated, provided with electric light and power, and a constant supply of hot water. This is not a wild suggestion; the writer has seen it already in operation in Bryn Mawr College, U.S.A., where five halls of residence, accommodating about 400 students, are heated, lighted and furnished with hot water, as suggested, from one central plant. Near the entrance of the proposed village, there should be a club-house in connection with the central kitchens. Here should be restaurant, reading-rooms, possibly a small concert hall, and a suite of rooms that could be hired at reasonable terms for entertainments, meetings of societies, etc. Here, too, should be the general office or administrative buildings. Part of the central green should be laid out for games, and a special portion should be provided for the riotous play of children. So much for the communal arrangements. Each cottage should be complete in itself, and so planned that the rooms at side and back and the garden behind should be as free as possible from observation by neighbors. It should be fitted with a small pantry, where afternoon tea and simple lunches and breakfasts could be prepared. In it electricity could probably be used. If the community, as suggested, manufactures its own electricity, it would be found profitable to supply electric power during the day at a very cheap rate. The pantry could contain an

« PreviousContinue »