Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Full Ebook of Textbook of Paediatric Emergency Medicine Peter Cameron Editor Online PDF All Chapter
Full Ebook of Textbook of Paediatric Emergency Medicine Peter Cameron Editor Online PDF All Chapter
https://ebookmeta.com/product/textbook-of-paediatric-emergency-
medicine-peter-cameron-editor/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/textbook-of-paediatric-emergency-
medicine-4th-edition-peter-cameron/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/legal-aspects-of-eu-energy-
regulation-2nd-edition-peter-d-cameron-peter-cameron-raphael-j-
heffron/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/braunwalds-heart-disease-
part-2-a-textbook-of-cardiovascular-medicine-12th-edition-peter-
libby/
Textbook of Emergency Cardiology 1st Edition Alan S.
Maisel (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/textbook-of-emergency-
cardiology-1st-edition-alan-s-maisel-editor/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/pretest-emergency-medicine-adam-j-
rosh/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/abc-of-prehospital-emergency-
medicine-2nd-edition-tim-nutbeam/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/atlas-of-emergency-medicine-
procedures-2nd-edition-latha-ganti/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-art-of-emergency-medicine-a-
practical-approach-for-emergency-physicians-1st-edition-ali-
alsaheel-mbbs/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Now, it was our hostess’s turn to entertain. We intimated as
much. She responded, first by much talk, much consultation with
Solange, and finally by going to one of the shelves that held the pans
and taking down some paper-covered books.
There was more consultation, whispered this time, and much
turning of pages. Then, after some preliminary coughing and
humming, the music began—the woman’s rich alto blending with the
child’s shrill but sweet notes. And what they sang was “Tantum ergo
Sacramentum.”
Why she should have thought that an appropriate song to offer
this company of rough soldiers from a distant land I do not know.
And why we found it appropriate it is harder still to say. But it did
seem appropriate to all of us—to Sergeant Reilly, to Jim (who used
to drive a truck), to Larry (who sold cigars), to Frank (who tended a
bar on Fourteenth Street). It seemed, for some reason, eminently
fitting. Not one of us then or later expressed any surprise that this
hymn, familiar to most of us since our mothers first led us to the
Parish Church down the pavements of New York or across the Irish
hills, should be sung to us in this strange land and in these strange
circumstances.
Since the gracious Latin of the Church was in order and since
the season was appropriate, one of us suggested “Adeste Fideles”
for the next item on the evening’s program. Madame and Solange
and our ex-seminarian knew all the words and the rest of us came in
strong with “Venite, adoremus Dominum.”
Then, as if to show that piety and mirth may live together, the
ladies obliged with “Au Clair de la Lune” and other simple ballads of
old France. And after taps had sounded in the street outside our
door, and there was yawning, and wrist-watches were being
scanned, the evening’s entertainment ended, by general consent,
with patriotic selections. We sang—as best we could—the Star
Spangled Banner, Solange and her mother humming the air and
applauding at the conclusion. Then we attempted La Marseillaise. Of
course we did not know the words. Solange came to our rescue with
two little pamphlets containing the song, so we looked over each
other’s shoulders and got to work in earnest. Madame sang with us,
and Solange. But during the final stanza Madame did not sing. She
leaned against the great family bedstead and looked at us. She had
taken one of the babies from under the red comforter and held him to
her breast. One of her red and toil-scarred hands half covered his fat
little back. There was a gentle dignity about that plain, hard-working
woman, that soldier’s widow—we all felt it. And some of us saw the
tears in her eyes.
There are mists, faint and beautiful and unchanging, that hang
over the green slopes of some mountains I know. I have seen them
on the Irish hills and I have seen them on the hills of France. I think
that they are made of the tears of good brave women.
Before I went to sleep that night I exchanged a few words with
Sergeant Reilly. We lay side by side on the floor, now piled with
straw. Blankets, shelter-halves, slickers and overcoats insured warm
sleep. Sergeant Reilly’s hard old face was wrapped round with his
muffler. The final cigarette of the day burned lazily in a corner of his
mouth.
“That was a pretty good evening, Sarge,” I said. “We sure were
in luck when we struck this billet.”
He grunted affirmatively, then puffed in silence for a few minutes.
Then he deftly spat the cigarette into a strawless portion of the floor,
where it glowed for a few seconds before it went out.
“You said it,” he remarked. “We were in luck is right. What do you
know about that lady, anyway?”
“Why,” I answered, “I thought she treated us pretty white.”
“Joe,” said Sergeant Reilly, “do you realize how much trouble
that woman took to make this bunch of roughnecks comfortable?
She didn’t make a damn cent on that feed, you know. The kid spent
all the money we give her. And she’s out about six francs for
firewood, too—I wish to God I had the money to pay her. I bet she’ll
go cold for a week now, and hungry, too.
“And that ain’t all,” he continued, after a pause broken only by an
occasional snore from our blissful neighbours. “Look at the way she
cooked them pomme de terres and fixed things up for us and let us
sit down there with her like we was her family. And look at the way
she and the little Sallie there sung for us.
“I tell you, Joe, it makes me think of old times to hear a woman
sing them Church hymns to me that way. It’s forty years since I heard
a hymn sung in a kitchen, and it was my mother, God rest her, that
sang them. I sort of realize what we’re fighting for now, and I never
did before. It’s for women like that and their kids.
“It gave me a turn to see her a-sitting their singing them hymns. I
remembered when I was a boy in Shangolden. I wonder if there’s
many women like that in France now—telling their beads and singing
the old hymns and treating poor traveling men the way she’s just
after treating us. There used to be lots of women like that in the Old
Country. And I think that’s why it was called ‘Holy Ireland.’”
THE GENTLE ART OF CHRISTMAS
GIVING
IF A dentist stuck a bit of holly in his cap and went through the
streets on Christmas morning, his buzzing drill over his shoulder and
his forceps in his hand, stopping at the houses of his friends to give
their jaws free treatment, meanwhile trolling out lusty Yuletide staves
—if he were to do this, I say, it would be said of him, among other
things, that he was celebrating Christmas in a highly original manner.
Undoubtedly there would be many other adjectives applied to his
manner of generosity—adjectives applied, for instance, by the
children whom, around their gayly festooned tree, he surprised with
his gift of expert treatment. But the adjective most generally used
(not perhaps in adulation) would be “original.” And the use of this
adjective would be utterly wrong.
The holly bedecked dentist would not be acting in an original
manner. He would not be following the suggestion of his own
philanthropic heart. He would be acting in accordance with tradition,
a particularly annoying tradition, the evil and absurd superstition that
a gift should be representative of the giver rather than of the
recipient.
Now, I am aware that there is high literary authority for the
dentist’s Christmas morning expedition. The dentist himself would be
the first to disclaim having originated the idea; if you were to
question him he would tell you, as he deftly adjusted his rubber dam
in your mouth, that the credit belonged to the late Ralph Waldo
Emerson.
“Emerson,” the dentist would say as he sharpened the point of
his drill, “said that a gift was meaningless unless it was a genuine
expression of the giver; it would be unfitting, for instance, for a poet
to give his friend a house and lot, and a painter, his friend, a
diamond necklace. The poet should give a poem and the painter
should give a painting. Therefore it naturally follows that a minister
should give a sermon and a school teacher should bestow upon his
expectant pupils an extra page of mathematical problems. This,” the
dentist would say, “is the gift most expressive of my personality.” And
the drill would seek its goal.
Now, there is much to be said in favour of the Emersonian theory
of giving. Certainly it has the advantages of cheapness and
convenience. Many a poet could more easily give his friend a whole
ode or a sequence of sonnets or a bale of vers libre than he could
give a box of cigars, or a cigar. Many a painter could more easily
cover his children’s Christmas tree with his own cubist canvases
than with peppermint canes and toy locomotives and dolls and little
trumpets. A storekeeper or a manufacturer of any sort can more
easily select his gifts from his own stock than he can select them
elsewhere. Should a brewer, for instance, desire to help make Mr.
Bryan’s Christmas happy, it would be a simpler matter for him to put
in that gentleman’s stocking a case of beer than a case of grape
juice.
But cheapness and convenience are not the chief reasons for
this sort of giving. A poet who gives a poem when he should give a
pair of fur gauntlets, a painter who gives a painting when he should
give a doll, does so, it often happens, in spite of the fact that he has
thousands of dollars in the bank and lives within a block of a
department store, which he much enjoys visiting. He gives the gifts
that he does give because of his selfishness and conceit. He gives
his own wares because they advertise his talent.
The poet knows that his friend will not say, to inquiring admirers
of his fur gauntlets, “These were given me by Ezra Dusenbury,
author of ‘Babylonian Bleatings’ and other Lyrics: Smith, Parker &
Co., $1 net.” The painter knows that the infant he has enriched will
not say to her young companions: “‘Bettina’ was given me by the
illustrious Gaspar Slifestein whose incomprehensiblist canvases are
now on exhibition at the Microscopic Mania Gallery, 249 Fifth
Avenue, New York City.” These gentlemen take a violent interest in
their own work, and when they give presents of that work they are
trying to force their friends to share that interest and to extend it to all
the world. They are trying to force their friends to become their press
agents.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule that a giver should not
give his own wares. Any man who deals in wares that are universally
delightful may express himself in his gifts to his heart’s content and
no one will criticise him. So let no brewer or cigar-maker or money-
changer of my acquaintance puzzle his head long in the effort to
discover in the marts of the world something appropriate to my
peculiar tastes. These honest citizens may be as Emersonian in their
giving as they wish.
As I said, there is much to recommend the idea that inspired the
hypothetical dentist on his Yuletide denting; there is much to
recommend the gift-expressing-the-giver theory. It is convenient, it is
cheap, it is satisfying to the giver’s conceit. It is in many respects
excellent. But it does not happen to be suited to Christmas Day. It is
suited to the celebration of Emerson’s birthday, if any one knows the
date of that festival.
You see, unselfishness is supposed to be a characteristic of
Christmas giving. And unselfishness, true unselfishness, was known
to the philosophy of the Transcendentalists as little as it is known to
that of the Nietzscheans. He who gives really in accordance with the
spirit of the feast gives not to express his own personality, to call
attention to his own prowess as a painter or a poet or a candlestick-
maker, but to make his friend happy. If his friend remembers him
when he enjoys the gift, so much the better. But the essential thing is
that he shall enjoy the gift.
James Russell Lowell represented the Founder of the Feast of
Christmas as saying: “Who gives himself in his gift feeds three;
himself, his suffering neighbour and me.” But in Lowell’s mind when
he wrote this was no idea of justifying the poet who thrusts poems
into his friends’ Christmas stocking and tips the elevator man with a
villanelle. He was thinking of sacrificial giving, of giving which
necessitates a sacrifice on the part of the giver rather than on that of
the recipient. And it is no sacrifice for a poet to give his poem or his
book of poems. James Russell Lowell’s distinguished kinswoman,
now living in Boston, knows this. If Miss Amy Lowell really loves you
she will give you for Christmas an automobile or one of her Keats
manuscripts, rather than an autographed copy of “Sword Blades and
Poppy Seeds,” or “Men, Women, and Ghosts.”
Few Bishops resemble Mark Twain. But there once was a
Bishop who resembled Mark Twain in this respect (and in no other)
—he is known to many thousands who do not know his real name.
Mark Twain has thousands of friends who never heard of Samuel
Langhorne Clemens. And hundreds of thousands of children yearly
are gladdened by Santa Claus, yet have no association whatever
with the name of Saint Nicholas of Bari.
Yet the amiable Nicholas (who is the patron of sailors, of
prisoners, and of children) is the benefactor of humanity caricatured
during December in every shop window and on every eleemosynary
corner. His mitre has degenerated into a hat trimmed with doubtful
fur; his embroidered cope has become a red jacket. But (except
when he rings a little bell and begs for alms) he has retained his
extra-episcopal function of giving. Saint Nicholas was a master of the
art of giving; and since we have taken him so seriously as to
transmogrify him into Santa Claus, we should profit by his illustrious
example and model our giving upon his.
How and what did Saint Nicholas give? Well, he gave tactfully
and opportunely and appropriately. There was the nobleman of Lucia
whose three daughters were starving to death. Saint Nicholas gave
them marriage portions, throwing purses of gold in at the window at
night. When he was in Myra he gave to the poor people all the wheat
that was in the ships in the harbour, promising the owners that when
they arrived at the port for which they were bound their ships would
still be full of wheat; and so it came about. To a drowned sailor and
to children who had been killed by a cannibal he gave the gift of life.
And to innocent men accused of treason and imprisoned he gave
freedom.
His first gift, you see, was money, his second life, his third
freedom. And thus he set an example to all the world. Now, it may
not be convenient for us to celebrate Christmas by throwing money
through the windows of apartments wherein repose dowerless young
women. Nor are life and freedom gifts for our bestowal. But it is at
any rate possible for us to imitate Saint Nicholas’s manner of giving;
to give tactfully, opportunely, and appropriately. There was nothing
especially characteristic of his episcopal functions in the gifts that
Saint Nicholas gave. Nor did he worry about whether or not they
reflected his personality. Let us make Santa Claus resemble Saint
Nicholas as closely as we can.
This business of expressing one’s personality by one’s gifts has
been carried to extraordinary lengths of late years. There are people
who actually select for all their friends and relatives things that they
themselves would like. If they consider themselves to be dainty—as
all women do—they give dainty presents, disregarding the fact that
the recipient may suffer acute physical pain at the mere thought of
daintiness.
They wish their beneficiaries to say on Christmas morning, “How
characteristic of Mrs. Slipslop to give me this exquisite Dresden
china chewing-gum holder,” instead of “How generous and
discerning of Mrs. Slipslop to give me this pair of rubber boots or this
jar of tobacco or this hypodermic syringe!” But what every child and
every grown person wants to receive is a gift suited to his tastes and
habits; it is a matter of indifference whether or not it expresses the
personality of the giver. Perhaps it will in his eyes supply the giver
with a new and charming personality.
You have hitherto regarded Mr. Blinker, the notorious efficiency
engineer, with disfavour. You have regarded him as a prosaic
theorist, a curdled mass of statistics. On Christmas morning you find
that he has presented you, not with an illuminated copy of “Rules for
Eliminating Leisure,” or a set of household ledgers or an alarm clock,
but with a cocktail set or a pool table or an angora kitten or some
other inefficient object.
At once your opinion of Mr. Blinker changes for the better. He
assumes a new and radiant personality. Your Sunday school teacher
has always exhibited to you virtues which you respect but do not
enjoy; she has seemed to you lacking in magnetism. If she gives you
for Christmas a Bible or a tale of juvenile virtue, you will write her a
graceful letter of thanks (at your mother’s dictation), but your
affection for the estimable lady will not be materially increased. But if
your Sunday school teacher gives you a bowie knife or a revolver or
a set of the Deadwood Dick novels! then how suddenly will the
nobility of your Sunday school teacher’s nature be revealed to you!
To elevator men, janitors, domestic servants, newspaper
deliverers, and other necessary evils we always give something
appropriate—money. And money does not express the personalities
of most of us. We—that is, the general public, the common people,
the populace, the average man, the great washed and the rest of us
—do our duty in this matter, following religiously the admirable
tradition of the Christmas box. But our retainers—if they will permit
us thus picturesquely to address them—do not. They serve us during
the year, and are duly paid for it, but they do nothing picturesque and
extraordinary at Christmas time to justify our gifts to them.
As a matter of fact, they are not upholding their part of the
tradition. It is not enough for them to bow, and say, “Thank you,”
while they feverishly count the money. They should revel
romantically, as did their predecessors who established the custom
by which they profit. The elevator boys should sing West Indian
carols under our windows—especially if our apartment is in the
twentieth story. The janitor and his family should enact in the
basement a Christmas miracle play.
It is pleasant to think of the janitor attired as a shepherd or as a
Wise Man, with his children as angels or as sheep, to picture the
Yule log on the janitorial hearth, and to hear in fancy, rising up the
dumbwaiter shaft, the strains of “The Carnal and the Crane,” or of
the excellent carol which begins: