A Plea for a Word

— There is a word that is fast slipping out of use among the educated classes ; it is not heard at all in some quarters, having been banished as “ bad form,” to be avoided as the pious avoid oaths, or as the refined avoid slang and vulgarisms. And yet that which is really signified by this word is perhaps the most lovely and desirable thing in the world ; the thing which society, whether in its broad or narrow sense, can least afford to do without ; the thing which, at its best, represents the perfected ideal of civilization, embracing all that birth, individual endowment, and the highest mental and moral culture can give. This word is “lady,” a word our forefathers and foremothers were not ashamed to use. Indeed, they would have been ashamed not to use it, nor could those of two or more generations back have been very easily made to comprehend the state of that society in which it should be a tabooed word. Yet such it is to-day, and to give utterance to it is to proclaim one’s self a social Ephraimite.

Now, we are told on good authority that nomina sunt consequentia rerum. Would it be wholly illogical to reverse this saying, and maintain that, to an extent, things are the consequences of names ? Philologists relate instances of the vanishing of words among certain tribes of the earth, which vanishing has been invariably accompanied by a gradual disappearance of the ideas expressed by these words. Thus, it would appear that there is a most curious and intimate correspondence between vocables and the thoughts of man, insomuch that the latter, which are the essence of all realities, may almost be said to have or not have their being according to the (acknowledged) existence or non-existence of the former, which are nothing but breath, agitated air, or, in their more permanent form, mere arbitrary symbols. Is not this recognized as a fact in common parlance ? To say that a certain word “ does not exist in So-and-so’s vocabulary ” is equivalent to saying that So-and-So is ignorant of, or does not choose to admit, the idea or the thing which that particular word represents. If such ignoring, intentional or otherwise, on the part of an individual can imply so much, what shall we infer from the deliberate and concerted rejection by a whole class — and a class calling itself the highest — of a word which formerly could boast of the best usage ? What, indeed, but that this word has, for serious reasons, fallen into disrepute. And with this inference, may there not be a justifiable fear lest the lovely idea should dissolve and perish along with its graceful and fitting vehicle ?

That the vehicle in question has not yet wholly vanished off the earth is evident enough ; therefore, in accordance with our theory, it is safe, without further evidence, to assume that the idea is still in a more or less flourishing condition. There certainly are things called “ ladies. ” Do they not wear hosiery, and woven undergarments, and cloaks, and boots ? Is not provision made for them at railroad stations, where rooms are set apart in which no smoking is allowed ? Do wo not hear of them as serving in various industrial capacities, ranging from the counter to the kitchen ? Yes, and these, we are told, are the serious reasons, alluded to above, why the taboo has been placed upon a word otherwise inoffensive.

It is amusing to recall the admirable circumlocutory efforts made in my presence by a society woman to save herself from the necessity of uttering this hated word. The piteous gasp with which she at last let it fall from her lips suggested how the Bad Sister in the nursery tale must have appeared when about to open her mouth, knowing that a toad would instantly issue therefrom. There was, as it happened, no other term exactly to express the speaker’s meaning ; the point under discussion being one, not of sex, for which plain and unadorned “ woman ” would have served, nor of birth merely, to be sufficiently designated by “ gentlewoman,” but rather of that mysterious combination of character, temperament, education, and experience into one beautiful whole, which sex, nor birth, nor position, nor any single advantage, outward or inward, can assure, and for which, “ up to date,” no word has been found so expressive as “ lady.” Moreover, the speaker herself was notably one of that sort which Dante delicately describes as “ those who are gentle, and are not women merely.” Yet would she not, except under protest, employ the sole distinctive name of such gentle women.

And this, forsooth, because the name has been misapplied ! Frankly I ask it, is this a good reason ? Frankly, I do not think that it is. Does it derogate in the least from one’s ladyhood that those who have no claim whatever to such estate choose to adopt the title? If it pleases them, can it harm you, my lady ? I have heard a specious argument to the effect that it is better the word, as distinguishing a class, should go the way of all titles iu this democratic land. But, unfortunately for such an argument, this name has been dropped solely by those who still insist upon retaining a certain show of aristocracy. They have apparently dropped it, not to facilitate the leveling process, but rather to keep up distinctions ; if the masses were to see fit to relinquish it, I should look to see it reinstated in glory among the classes, on the same principle that governs the fluctuations of the crease in the legs of trousers.

There is no doubt that it has been an illused word, — ill used by those, too, who should best know its real signification. I do not wince, I only smile, when a girl behind a counter directs me to “ that other saleslady,” or when Mary Cook tells me there is a “lady in the kitchen ” to see me. But when an educated woman says, speaking of her husband, perhaps, “ Gentlemen like their coffee hotter than ladies,” or, “Gentlemen are more easily put out than ladies,” then I do not smile, but wince.

Let us not ignore the word ; let us all try to use it discriminatingly, and help others to do so. It is only those who truly deserve the name of “ lady ” who can teach its proper use. “ Gentlewoman ” does not quite take its place, for, as already intimated, that term most obviously expresses birth. Yet we all know gentlewomen in this sense who are in no other sense ladies, just as we know ladies who are not gentlewomen. The custom of employing the word “lady” for “ woman,” where a mere matter of sex is implied, is very old-fashioned indeed, and should long ago have fallen into desuetude.

I do not seriously fear the utter disappearance of the thing this noble word stands for. Surely there will always be true ladies, whether they call themselves so or not. But in a decade when the name is being intentionally hustled out into the cold by the very set of women which we should most expect to find cherishing every least thing belonging to the idea of lady, and when the members of another fast-growing set are, it may be unintentionally, so conducting themselves as to make men apprehensive lest the idea itself should be losing credit among the feminine half of creation, it seems well to sound a note of warning in regard to it, to urge a plea for its retention and for maintaining it in good repute.