right here i propose to interpolate my second dissertation on the servant question and i can safely promise, i am sure, that it will not be the last. one night, not long before, in dining with a certain baron n. and barfleur at the ritz in new york this matter of the american servant came up in a conversational way. baron n. was a young exquisite of berlin and other european capitals. he was one of barfleur’s idle fancies. because we were talking about america in general i asked them both what, to them, was the most offensive or objectionable thing about america. one said, expectorating; the other said, the impoliteness of servants. on the ship going over, at fishguard, in the train from fishguard to london, at london and later in barfleur’s country house i saw what the difference was. of course i had heard these differences discussed before ad lib. for years, but hearing is not believing. seeing and experiencing is.
on shipboard i noticed for the first time in my life that there was an aloofness about the service rendered by the servants which was entirely different from that which we know in america. they did not look at one so brutally and critically as does the american menial; their eyes did not seem to say, “i am your equal or better,” and their motions did not indicate that they were doing anything unwillingly. in america—and i am a good american—i have always had the feeling that the american hotel or house servant or store clerk—particularly33 store clerk—male or female—was doing me a great favor if he did anything at all for me. as for train-men and passenger-boat assistants, i have never been able to look upon them as servants at all. mostly they have looked on me as an interloper, and as some one who should be put off the train, instead of assisted in going anywhere. american conductors are czars; american brakemen and train hands are grand dukes, at least; a porter is little less than a highwayman; and a hotel clerk—god forbid that we should mention him in the same breath with any of the foregoing!
however, as i was going on to say, when i went aboard the english ship in question i felt this burden of serfdom to the american servant lifted. these people, strange to relate, did not seem anxious to fight with me. they were actually civil. they did not stare me out of countenance; they did not order me gruffly about. and, really, i am not a princely soul looking for obsequious service. i am, i fancy, a very humble-minded person when traveling or living, anxious to go briskly forward, not to be disturbed too much and allowed to live in quiet and seclusion.
the american servant is not built for that. one must have great social or physical force to command him. at times he needs literally to be cowed by threats of physical violence. you are paying him? of course you are. you help do that when you pay your hotel bill or buy your ticket, or make a purchase, but he does not know that. the officials of the companies for whom he works do not appear to know. if they did, i don’t know that they would be able to do anything about it. you can not make a whole people over by issuing a book of rules. americans are free men; they don’t want to be servants; they have despised the idea for years. i think the early americans who lived in america after the revolution—the34 anti-tory element—thought that after the war and having won their nationality there was to be an end of servants. i think they associated labor of this kind with slavery, and they thought when england had been defeated all these other things, such as menial service, had been defeated also. alas, superiority and inferiority have not yet been done away with—wholly. there are the strong and the weak; the passionate and passionless; the hungry and the well-fed. there are those who still think that life is something which can be put into a mold and adjusted to a theory, but i am not one of them. i cannot view life or human nature save as an expression of contraries—in fact, i think that is what life is. i know there can be no sense of heat without cold; no fullness without emptiness; no force without resistance; no anything, in short, without its contrary. consequently, i cannot see how there can be great men without little ones; wealth without poverty; social movement without willing social assistance. no high without a low, is my idea, and i would have the low be intelligent, efficient, useful, well paid, well looked after. and i would have the high be sane, kindly, considerate, useful, of good report and good-will to all men.
years of abuse and discomfort have made me rather antagonistic to servants, but i felt no reasonable grounds for antagonism here. they were behaving properly. they weren’t staring at me. i didn’t catch them making audible remarks behind my back. they were not descanting unfavorably upon any of my fellow passengers. things were actually going smoothly and nicely and they seemed rather courteous about it all.
yes, and it was so in the dining-saloon, in the bath, on deck, everywhere, with “yes, sirs,” and “thank you, sirs,” and two fingers raised to cap visors occasionally for good measure. were they acting? was this a35 fiercely suppressed class i was looking upon here? i could scarcely believe it. they looked too comfortable. i saw them associating with each other a great deal. i heard scraps of their conversation. it was all peaceful and genial and individual enough. they were, apparently, leading unrestricted private lives. however, i reserved judgment until i should get to england, but at fishguard it was quite the same and more also. these railway guards and porters and conductors were not our railway conductors, brakemen and porters, by a long shot. they were different in their attitude, texture and general outlook on life. physically i should say that american railway employees are superior to the european brand. they are, on the whole, better fed, or at least better set up. they seem bigger to me, as i recall them; harder, stronger. the english railway employee seems smaller and more refined physically—less vigorous.
but as to manners: heaven save the mark! these people are civil. they are nice. they are willing. “have you a porter, sir? yes, sir! thank you, sir! this way, sir! no trouble about that, sir! in a moment, sir! certainly, sir! very well, sir!” i heard these things on all sides and they were like balm to a fevered brain. life didn’t seem so strenuous with these people about. they were actually trying to help me along. i was led; i was shown; i was explained to. i got under way without the least distress and i began actually to feel as though i was being coddled. why, i thought, these people are going to spoil me. i’m going to like them. and i had rather decided that i wouldn’t like the english. why, i don’t know; for i never read a great english novel that i didn’t more or less like all of the characters in it. hardy’s lovely country people have warmed the cockles of my heart; george moore’s english characters have appealed to me. and here was36 barfleur. but the way the train employees bundled me into my seat and got my bags in after or before me, and said, “we shall be starting now in a few minutes, sir,” and called quietly and pleadingly—not yelling, mind you—“take your seats, please,” delighted me.
i didn’t like the looks of the cars. i can prove in a moment by any traveler that our trains are infinitely more luxurious. i can see where there isn’t heat enough, and where one lavatory for men and women on any train, let alone a first-class one, is an abomination, and so on and so forth; but still, and notwithstanding, i say the english railway service is better. why? because it’s more human; it’s more considerate. you aren’t driven and urged to step lively and called at in loud, harsh voices and made to feel that you are being tolerated aboard something that was never made for you at all, but for the employees of the company. in england the trains are run for the people, not the people for the trains. and now that i have that one distinct difference between england and america properly emphasized i feel much better.
