 Section 6 of the Theory of the Leisure Class. If the pecuniary situation of the master permits it, the development of a special class of personal or body servants is also furthered by the very grave importance which comes to attach to this personal service. The master's person, being the embodiment of worth and honor, is of the most serious consequence. Both for his reputable standing in the community and for his self-respect, it is a matter of moment that he should have, at his call, efficient specialized servants, whose attendance upon his person is not diverted from this, their chief office, by any by-occupation. These specialized servants are useful more for show than for service actually performed. And so far as they are not capped for exhibition simply, they afford gratification to their master chiefly in allowing scope to his propensity for dominance. It is true, the care of the continually increasing household apparatus may require added labor. But since the apparatus is commonly increased in order to serve as a means of good repute rather than as a means of comfort, this qualification is not of great weight. All these lines of utility are better served by a large number of more highly specialized servants. Their results, therefore, are constantly increasing differentiation and multiplication of domestic and body servants, along with a concomitant progressive exemption of such servants from productive labor. By virtue of their serving as evidence of ability to pay, the office of such domestics regularly tends to include continually fewer duties, and their service tends in the end to become nominal only. This is especially true of those servants who are in most immediate and obvious attendance upon their master, so that the utility of these comes to consist, in great part, in their conspicuous exemption from productive labor, and in the evidence which this exemption affords of their master's wealth and power. After some considerable advance has been made in the practice of employing a special corpse of servants for the performance of a conspicuous leisure in this manner, men begin to be preferred above women for services that bring them obtrusively into view. Men, especially lusty personable fellows such as footmen and other menials should be, are obviously more powerful and more expensive than women. They are better fitted for this work as showing a larger waste of time and of human energy. Hence, it comes about that in the economy of the leisure class, the busy housewife of the early patriarchal days, with her revenue of hard-working handmaidens, presently gives place to the lady and the lackey. In all grades and walks of life, and at any stage of the economic development, the leisure of the lady and of the lackey differs from the leisure of the gentleman in his own right, in that it is an occupation of an ostensibly laborious kind. It takes the form, in large measure, of a painstaking attention to the service of the master or to the maintenance and elaboration of the household paraphernalia, so that it is leisure only in the sense that little or no productive work is performed by this class, not in the sense that all appearance of labour is avoided by them. The duties performed by the lady or by the household or domestic servants are frequently arduous enough, and they are also frequently directed to ends which are considered extremely necessary to the comfort of the entire household. So far as these services conduce to the physical efficiency or comfort of the master or the rest of the household, they are to be accounted productive work. Only the residue of employment left after the deduction of these effective work is to be classed as a performance of leisure. But much of the services classed as household cares in modern, everyday life, and many of the utilities required for a comfortable existence by civilized men are of a ceremonial character. They are, therefore, properly to be classed as a performance of leisure in the sense in which the term is here used. They may be nonetheless imperatively necessary from the point of view of decent existence. They may be nonetheless requisite for personal comfort even, although they may be chiefly or wholly of a ceremonial character. But insofar as they partake of this character, they are imperative and requisite because we have been taught to require them under pain of ceremonial uncleanness or unworthiness. They feel discomfort in their absence. But not because their absence results directly in physical discomfort, nor would a taste not trained to discriminate between the conventionally good and the conventionally bad take offense at their omission. Insofar as this is true, the labor spent in these services is to be classed as leisure. And when performed by others than the economically free and self-directed head of the establishment, they are to be classed as vicarious leisure. The vicarious leisure performed by housewives and menials under the head of household cares may frequently develop into drudgery, especially where the competition for reputability is close and strenuous. This is frequently the case in modern life. Where this happens, the domestic service which comprises the duties of this servant class might aptly be designed as wasted effort rather than as vicarious leisure. The latter term has the advantage of indicating the line of derivation of these domestic offices, as well as of neatly suggesting the substantial economic ground of their utility. For these occupations are chiefly useful as a method of imputing pecuniary reputability to the master or to the household, on the ground that a given amount of time and effort is conspicuously wasted in that behalf. In this way then, there arises a subsidiary or derivative leisure class, whose office is the performance of a vicarious leisure for the behoof of the reputability of the primary or legitimate leisure class. This vicarious leisure class is distinguished from the leisure class proper by a characteristic feature of its habitual mode of life. The leisure of the master class is, at least ostensibly, an indulgence of a proclivity for the avoidance of labor, and is presumed to enhance the master's own well-being and fullness of life. But the leisure of the servant class, exempt from productive labor, is in some sort a performance exacted from them, and is not normally or primarily directed to their own comfort. The leisure of the servant is not his own leisure. So far as he is a servant in the full sense, and not at the same time a member of a lower order of the leisure class proper, his leisure normally passes under the guise of specialized service directed to the furtherance of his master's fullness of life. Evidence of this relation of subservience is obviously present in the servant's carriage and manner of life. The like is often true of the wife throughout the protracted economic stage during which she is still primarily a servant, that is to say, so long as the household with a male head remains in force. In order to satisfy the requirements of the leisure class scheme of life, the servant should show not only an attitude of subservience, but also the effect of special training and practice in subservience. The servant or wife should not only perform certain offices and show a servile disposition, but it is quite as imperative that they should show an acquired facility in the tactics of subservience, a trained conformity to the canons of effectual and conspicuous subservience. Even today, it is this aptitude and acquired skill in the formal manifestation of the servile relation that constitutes the chief element of utility in our highly paid servants, as well as one of the chief ornaments of the well-bred housewife. The first requisite of a good servant is that he should conspicuously know his place. It is not enough that he knows how to effect certain desired mechanical results. He must, above all, know how to effect these results in due form. Domestic service might be said to be a spiritual rather than a mechanical function. Gradually there grows up an elaborate system of good form, specifically regulating the manner in which this vicarious leisure of the servant class is to be performed. Any departure from these canons of form is to be depreciated, not so much because it evinces a shortcoming in mechanical efficiency or even that it shows an absence of the servile attitude and temperament, but because, in the last analysis, it shows the absence of special training. Special training in personal service costs time and effort, and where it is obviously present in a high degree, it argues that the servant who possesses it neither is nor has been habitually engaged in any productive occupation. It is prima facie evidence of a vicarious leisure extending far back in the past, so that trained service has utility, not only as gratifying the master's instinctive liking for good and skillful workmanship and his propensity for conspicuous dominance over those whose lives are subservient to his own, but it has utility also as putting in evidence a much larger consumption of human service than would be shown by the mere present conspicuous leisure performed by an untrained person. It is a serious grievance if a gentleman's butler or footman performs his duties about his master's stable or carriage in such unformed style as to suggest that his habitual occupation may be plowing or sheep herding. Such bungling work would imply inability on the master's part to procure the service of specially trained servants, that is to say, it would imply inability to pay for the consumption of time, effort, and instruction required to fit a trained servant for special service under the exacting code of forms. If the performance of the servant argues lack of means on the part of his master, it defeats its chief substantial end, for the chief use of servants is the evidence they afford of the master's ability to pay. What has just been said might be taken to imply that the offense of an untrained servant lies in a direct suggestion of inexpensiveness or of usefulness. Such of course is not the case. The connection is much less immediate. What happens here is what happens generally. Whatever approves itself to us on any ground at the outset presently comes to appeal to us as a gratifying thing in itself. It comes to rest in our habits of thought as substantially right. But in order that any specific canon of deportment shall maintain itself in favor, it must continue to have the support of, or at least not be incompatible with, the habit or aptitude which constitutes the norm of its development. The need of vicarious leisure or conspicuous consumption of service is a dominant incentive to the keeping of servants. So long as this remains true, it may be set down without much discussion that any such departure from accepted usage as would suggest an abridged apprenticeship in service would presently be found unsufferable. The requirement of an expensive vicarious leisure acts indirectly, selectively, by guiding the formation of our taste, of our sense of what is right in these matters, and so wids out uncomfortable departures by withholding approval of them. As the standard of wealth recognized by common consent advances, the possession and exploitation of servants as a means of showing superfluity undergoes a refinement. The possession and maintenance of slaves, employing the production of goods, argues wealth and prowess, but the maintenance of servants who produce nothing argues till higher wealth and position. Under this principle there arises a class of servants, the more numerous the better, whose sole office is factuously to wait upon the person of their owner, and so to put in evidence his ability unproductively to consume a large amount of service. There supervenes a division of labor among the servants or dependents, whose life is spent in maintaining the honor of the gentleman of leisure. So that, while one group produces goods for him, another group, usually headed by the wife or chief, consumes for him in conspicuous leisure, thereby putting in evidence his ability to sustain large pecuniary damage without impairing his superior opulence. This somewhat idealized and diagrammatic outline of the development and nature of domestic service comes nearest being true for that cultural stage which has here been named the quasi-peaceful stage of industry. At this stage, personal service first rises to the position of an economic institution, and it is at this stage that it occupies the largest place in the community's scheme of life. In the cultural sequence, the quasi-peaceful stage follows the predatory stage proper, the true being successive phases of barbarian life. Its characteristic feature is a formal observance of peace and order, at the same time that life at this stage still has too much of coercion and class antagonism to be called peaceable in the full sense of the word. For many purposes, and from another point of view than the economic one, it might as well be named the stage of status. The method of human relation during this stage and the spiritual attitude of men at this level of culture is well summed up under the term. But as a descriptive term to characterize the prevailing methods of industry, as well as to indicate the trend of industrial development at this point in economic evolution, the term quasi-peaceful seems preferable. So far as concerns the communities of the western culture, this phase of economic development probably lies in the past, except for a numerically small, though very conspicuous, fraction of the community in whom the habits of thought peculiar to the barbarian culture have suffered but are relatively slight as integration. Personal service is still an element of great economic importance, especially as regards to distribution and consumption of goods. But its relative importance, even in this direction, is no doubt less than it once was. The best development of this vicarious leisure lies in the past, rather than in the present, and its best expression in the present is to be found in the scheme of life of the upper leisure class. To this class, the modern culture owes much in the way of the conservation of traditions, usages and habits of thought, which belong on a more archaic cultural plane, so far as regards their widest acceptance and their most effective development. In the modern industrial communities, the mechanical contrivances available for the comfort and convenience of everyday life are highly developed. So much so that body servants, or indeed domestic servants of any kind, would now scarcely be employed by anybody except on the ground of a cannon of reputability carried over by tradition from earlier usage. The only exception would be servants employed to attend on the persons of the infirm and the feeble-minded. But such servants properly come under the head of trained nurses, rather than under that of domestic servants, and they are, therefore, an apparent, rather than a real exception to the rule. The proximate reason for keeping domestic servants, for instance, in the moderately well-to-do household of today, is ostensibly that the members of the household are unable, without discomfort, to compass the work required by such a modern establishment. And the reason for their being unable to accomplish it is, one, that they have too many social duties, and two, that the work to be done is too severe and that there is too much of it. These two reasons may be restated as follows. One, under the mandatory Code of Decency, the time and effort of the members of such a household are required to be ostensibly all spent in a performance of conspicuous leisure in the way of calls, drives, clubs, sewing circles, sports, charity organizations, and other like social functions. Those persons whose time and energy are employed in these matters privately avow that all these observances, as well as the incidental attention to dress and other conspicuous consumption, are very irksome, but altogether unavoidable. Two, under the requirement of conspicuous consumption of goods, the apparatus of living has grown so elaborate and cumbersome in the way of dwellings, furniture, brick-a-brack, wardrobe, and meals that the consumers of these things cannot make way with them in the required manner without help. Personal contact with the hired persons whose aid is called in to fulfill the routine of decency is commonly distasteful to the occupants of the house, but their presence is endured and paid for in order to delegate to them a share in this onerous consumption of household goods. The presence of domestic servants and of the special class of body servants in an eminent degree is a concession of physical comfort to the moral need of pecuniary decency. The largest manifestation of vicarious leisure in modern life is made up of what are called domestic duties. These duties are fast becoming a species of services performed, not so much for the individual behoof of the head of the household, as for the reputability of the household taken as a corporate unit, a group of which the housewife is a member on a footing of ostensible equality. As fast as the household for which they are performed, the parts from its archaic basis of ownership marriage, these household duties, of course, tend to fall out of the category of vicarious leisure in the original sense, except so far as they are performed by hired servants. That is to say, since vicarious leisure is possible only on a basis of status or of hired service, the disappearance of the relation of status from human intercourse at any point carries with it the disappearance of vicarious leisure so far as regards that much of life. But it is to be added in qualification of this qualification that so long as the household subsists, even with a divided head, this class of non-productive labor performed for the sake of the household reputability must still be classed as vicarious leisure, although in a slightly altered sense. It is now leisure performed for the quasi-personal corporate household, instead of, as formerly, for the proprietary head of the household. End of chapter three. Section seven of the theory of the leisure class. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sara Kultz. The Theory of the Leisure Class by Toshtain Weblen. Chapter four, Conspicuous Consumption. In what has been said of the evolution of the vicarious leisure class and its differentiation from the general body of the working classes, reference has been made to a further division of labor back between the different servant classes. One portion of the servant class, chiefly those persons whose occupation is vicarious leisure, come to undertake a new subsidiary range of duties, the vicarious consumption of goods. The most obvious form in which this consumption occurs is seen in the wearing of liveries and the occupation of spacious servant's quarters. Another scarcely less obtrusive or less effective form of vicarious consumption and a much more widely prevalent one is the consumption of food, clothing, dwelling and furniture by the lady and the rest of the domestic establishment. But already at a point in economic evolution far ant-dating the emergence of the lady, specialized consumption of goods as an evidence of pecuniary strength had begun to work out in a more or less elaborate system. The beginning of a differentiation in consumption even ant-dates the appearance of anything that can fairly be called pecuniary strength. It is traceable back to the initial face of predatory culture and there is even a suggestion that an incipient differentiation in this respect lies back of the beginnings of the predatory life. This most primitive differentiation in the consumption of goods is like the later differentiation with which we are also intimately familiar in that it is largely of a ceremonial character. But unlike the latter, it does not rest on a difference in accumulated wealth. The utility of consumption as an evidence of wealth is to be classed as a derivative growth. It is an adaption to a new end by a selective process of a distinction previously existing and well established in men's habits of thought. In the earlier phases of the predatory culture, the only economic differentiation is a broad distinction between an honourable superior class made up of the able-bodied men on the one side and a base inferior class of laboring women on the other. According to the ideal scheme of life in force at the time, it is the office of the men to consume what the women produce. Such consumption as falls through the women is merely incidental to their work. It is a means to their continued labour and not a consumption directed to their own comfort and fullness of life. And productive consumption of goods is honourable primarily as a mark of prowess and a perquisite of human dignity. Secondarily, it becomes substantially honourable to itself, especially the consumption of the more desirable things. The consumption of choice articles of food and frequently also of rare articles of adornment becomes taboo to the women and children. And if there is a base, servile class of men, the taboo holds also for them. With a further advance in culture, this taboo may change into simple custom of a more or less rigorous character, but whatever be the theoretical basis of the distinction which is maintained, whether it be a taboo or a larger conventionality, the features of the conventional scheme of consumption do not change easily. When the quasi-peaceable stage of industries reached with its fundamental institution of chattel slavery, the general principle more or less rigorously applied is that the base, industrious class should consume only what may be necessary to their subsistence. In the nature of things, luxuries and the comforts of life belong to the leisure class. Under the taboo, certain victuals and more particularly, certain beverages are strictly reserved for the use of the superior class. The ceremonial differentiation of the dietary is best seen in the use of intoxicating beverages and narcotics. If these articles of consumption are costly, they are felt to be noble and honorific. Therefore, the base classes, primarily the women, practice and enforce continents with respect to these stimulants, accepting countries where they are obtainable at a very low cost. From archaic times down through all the length of the patriarchal regime, it has been the office of the women to prepare and administer these luxuries and it has been the perquisite of the men of gentle birth and breeding to consume them. Drunkiness and the other pathological consequences of the free use of stimulants therefore tend in their turn to become honorific as being a mark at the secondary move of the superior status of those who are able to afford the indulgence. Infirmities induced by overindulgence are among some peoples freely recognized as manly attributes. It has even happened that the name for certain diseased conditions of the body arising from such an origin has passed into everyday speech as a synonym for noble or gentle. It is only at a relatively early stage of culture that the symptoms of expensive vice are conventionally accepted as marks of a superior status and so tend to become virtuous and command the deference of the community. But the reputability that attaches to certain expensive vices long retains so much of its force as to appreciably lessen the disapprobation visited upon the men of the wealthy or noble class for any excessive indulgence. The same invidious distinction adds force to the current disapproval of any indulgence of this kind on the part of women, minors and inferiors. This invidious traditional distinction has not lost its force even among the more advanced people of today. Where the example set by the leisure class retains its imperative force in the regulation of the conventionalities, it is observable that the women still in great measure practice the same traditional continents with regard to stimulants. This characterization of the greater continents in the use of stimulants practiced by the women of the reputable classes may seem an excessive refinement of logic at the expense of common sense. But facts within easy reach of anyone who cares to know them go to say that the great abstinence of women is in some part due to an imperative conventionality. And this conventionality is, in a general way, strongest where the patriarchal tradition, the tradition that the woman is a chattel has retained its hold in greatest vigor. In a sense which has been greatly qualified in scope and rigor, but which has by no means lost its meaning even yet, this tradition says that the woman, being a chattel, should consume only what is necessary to her sustenance, except so far as her further consumption contributes to the comfort or the good repute of her master. The consumption of luxuries, in the true sense, is a consumption directed to the comfort of the consumer himself and is therefore a mark of the master. Any such consumption by others can take place only on a basis of sufferance. In communities where the popular habits of thought have been profoundly shaped by the patriarchal tradition, we may accordingly look for survivals of the taboo on luxuries, at least to the extent of a conventional deprecation of their use by the unfree and dependent class. This is more particularly true as regards certain luxuries, the use of which by the dependent class would detract sensibly from the comfort or pleasure of their masters, or which are held to be of doubtful legitimacy on other grounds. In the apprehension of the great conservative middle class of Western civilization, the use of these various stimulances is obnoxious to at least one, if not both, of these objections, and it is a fact too significant to be passed over, that it is precisely among these middle classes of the Germanic culture with their strong surviving sense of the patriarchal properties that the women are to the greatest extent subject to a qualified taboo on narcotics and alcoholic beverages. With many qualifications, with more qualifications as the patriarchal tradition has gradually weakened, the general rule is felt to be right and binding that women should consume only for the benefit of their masters. The objection of course presents itself that expenditure on women's dress and household paraphernalia is an obvious exception to this rule, but it will appear in the sequel that this exception is much more obvious than substantial. During the earlier stages of economic development, consumption of goods without stint, especially consumption of the better grades of goods, ideally all consumption in excess of the subsistence minimum, pertains normally to the leisure class. This restriction tends to disappear at least formally after the later peaceable stage has been reached with private ownership of goods and an industrial system based on wage labour or on the petty household economy. But during the earlier quasi-peaceable stage and so many of the traditions through which the institution of a leisure class has affected the economic life of later times were taking form and consistency, this principle has had the force of a conventional law. It has served as the norm to which consumption has tended to conform and any appreciable departure from it is to be regarded as an aberrant form, sure to be eliminated sooner or later in the further course of development. The quasi-peaceable gentleman of leisure then not only consumes of the staff of life beyond the minimum required for subsistence and physical efficiency, but his consumption also undergoes a specialization as regards the quality of the goods consumed. He consumes freely and of the best in food, drinks, narcotics, shelter, services, ornaments, apparel, weapons and accoutrements, amusements, amulets and idols or divinities. In the process of gradual amelioration which takes place in the articles of his consumption, the motive principle and proximate aim of innovation is no doubt the higher efficiency of the improved and more elaborate products for personal comfort and well-being. But that does not remain the sole purpose of their consumption. The canon of reputability is at hand and seizes upon such innovations as are, according to its standard, fit to survive. Since the consumption of these more excellent goods is an evidence of wealth, it becomes honorific. And conversely, the failure to consume in due quantity and quality becomes a mark of inferiority and demerit. This growth of punctilious discrimination as to qualitative excellence in eating, drinking, et cetera presently affects not only the manner of life but also the training and intellectual activity of the gentleman of leisure. He is no longer simply the successful, aggressive male, the man of strength, resource and intrepidity. In order to avoid stratification, he must also cultivate his tastes for it now becomes incumbent on him to discriminate with some nicety between the noble and the ignoble in consumable goods. He becomes a connoisseur in creditable violence of various degrees of merit, in manly beverages and trinkets, in seemingly apparel and architecture, in weapons, games, dances and the narcotics. This cultivation of aesthetic faculty requires time and application and the demands made upon the gentleman in this direction therefore tend to change his life of leisure into a more or less arduous application to the business of learning how to live a life of ostensible leisure in a becoming way. Closely related to the requirement that the gentleman must consume freely and of the right kind of goods, there is the requirement that he must know how to consume them in a seemingly manner. His life of leisure must be conducted in due form. Hence arise good manners in the way pointed out in an earlier chapter. Hybrid manners and ways of living are items of conformity to the norm of conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption. Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure. As wealth accumulates on his hands, his own ornated effort will not avail to sufficiently put his opulence in evidence by this method. The aid of friends and competitors is therefore brought in by resorting to the giving of valuable presents and expensive feasts and entertainments. Presence and feasts had probably another origin than that of naive ostentation, but they required their utility for this purpose very early and they have retained that character to the present so that their utility in this respect has now long been the substantial ground on which these usages rest. Costly entertainments such as the potlatch or the ball are peculiarly adapted to serve this end. The competitor with whom the entertainer wishes to institute a comparison is, by this method, made to serve as a means to the end. He consumes vicariously for his host at the same time that he is witness to the consumption of that excess of good things which his host is unable to dispose of single-handed and he is also made to witness his host's facility in etiquette. In the giving of costly entertainments, other motives of more genial kind are of course also present. The custom of festive gatherings probably originated in motives of conviviality and religion. These motives are also present in the later development but they do not continue to be the sole motives. The latter-day leisure-class festivities and entertainments may continue in some slight degree to serve the religious need and in a higher degree the needs of recreation and conviviality but they also serve an invidious purpose and they serve it nonetheless effectually for having a tolerable, non-invidious ground in these more avowable motives. But the economic effect of these social amenities is not therefore lessened either in the vicarious consumption of goods or in the exhibition of difficult and costly achievements in etiquette. As wealth accumulates, the leisure-class develops further in function and structure and there arises a differentiation within the class. There is a more or less elaborate system of rank and grades. This differentiation is furthered by the inheritance of wealth and the consequent inheritance of gentility. With the inheritance of gentility goes the inheritance of obligatory leisure and gentility of sufficient potency to entail a life of leisure may be inherited without the complement of wealth required to maintain a dignified leisure. Gentle blood may be transmitted without goods enough to afford reputably free consumption at one's ease. Hence results a class of impecunious gentlemen of leisure incidentally referred to already. These half-cased gentlemen of leisure fall into a system of hierarchical gradations. Those who stand near the higher and the highest grades of the wealthy leisure class in point of birth or in point of wealth or both outrank the remote-born and the pecuniarily weaker. These lower grades, especially the impecunious or marginal gentlemen of leisure, affiliate themselves by system of dependence or felt to the great ones. By so doing they gain an increment of repute or of the means with which to lead a life of leisure from their patron. They become his courtiers or retainers, servants, and being fed and countenanced by their patron, they are indices of his rank and vicarious consumer of his superfluous wealth. Many of these affiliated gentlemen of leisure are at the same time lesser men of substance in their own right so that some of them are scarcely at all others only partially to be rated as vicarious consumers. So many of them, however, as make up the retainer and hangers on of the patron may be classed as vicarious consumer without qualification. Many of these again and also many of the other aristocracy of less degree have in turn attached to their persons a more or less comprehensive group of vicarious consumer in the persons of their wives and children, their servants, retainers, et cetera. Throughout this graduated scheme of vicarious leisure and vicarious consumption, the rule holds that these offices must be performed in some such manner or under some such circumstance or insignia as shall point plainly to the master whom this leisure or consumption pertains and to whom therefore the resulting increment of good repute of right in yours. The consumption and leisure executed by these persons for the master or patron represents an investment on his part with a view to an increase of good fame. As regards feasts and largesses, this is obvious enough and the imputation of repute to the host or patron here takes place immediately on the ground of common notoriety. Where leisure and consumption is performed vicariously by henchmen and retainers, imputation of the resulting repute to the patron is affected by their residing near his person so that it may be plain to all men from what source they draw. As the group whose good esteem is to be secured in this way grows larger, more patent means are required to indicate the imputation of merit for the leisure performed and to this end uniforms, badges and liveries come into vogue. The wearing of uniforms or liveries implies a considerable degree of dependence and may even be said to be a mark of servitude, real or ostensible. The wearers of uniforms and liveries may be roughly divided into two classes, the free and the servile or the noble and the ignoble. The services performed by them are likewise divisible into noble and ignoble. Of course, the distinction is not observed with strict consistency in practice. The less debasing of the base services and the less honorific of the noble functions are not infrequently merged in the same person. But the general distinction is not on that account to be overlooked. What may add some perplexity is the fact that this fundamental distinction between noble and ignoble, which rests on the nature of the ostensible service performed, is traversed by a secondary distinction into honorific and humiliating, resting on the rank of the person for whom the service is performed or whose livery is worn. So, those offices which are by right the proper employment of the leisure class are noble, such as government fighting, hunting, the care of alms and accoutrements, and the like. In short, those which may be classed as ostensibly predatory employment. On the other hand, those employment which properly fall to the industrious class are ignoble, such as handicraft or other productive labor, menial services, and the like. But a base service performed for a person of very high degree may become a very honorific office, as for instance, the office of a maid of honor or of a lady in waiting to the queen or the king's master of the horse or his keeper of the hounds. The two offices last named suggest the principle of some general bearing. Whenever, as in these cases, the menial service in question has to do directly with the primary leisure employments of fighting and hunting, it easily acquires a reflected honorific character. In this way, great honor may come to attach to an employment which in its own nature belongs to the base assault. In the later development of peaceable industry, the usage of employing an idle core of uniformed men-at-arms gradually lapses. Vicarious consumption by dependence bearing the insignia of their patron or master narrows down to a core of livery menials. In a heightened degree, therefore, the livery comes to be a badge of servitude or rather civility. Something of honorific character always attached to the livery of the armed retainer, but this honorific character disappears when the livery becomes the exclusive badge of the menial. The livery becomes obnoxious to nearly all who are required to wear it. We are yet so little removed from a state of effective slavery as still to be fully sensitive to the sting of any imputation of civility. This antipathy asserts itself even in the case of the liveries or uniforms which some corporations prescribe as the distinctive dress of their employees. In this country, the aversion even goes the length of discrediting. In a mild and uncertain way, those government employments, military and civil, which require the wearing of a livery or uniform. End of first part of chapter four. Section eight of the theory of the leisure class. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sara Kuhls. The theory of the leisure class by Toshtan Veeblen. Second part of chapter four, Conspicuous Consumption. With the disappearance of servitude, the number of vicarious consumers attached to any one gentleman tense on the whole to decrease. The like is of course true and perhaps in still higher degree of the number of dependents who perform vicarious leisure for him. In a general way, though not wholly nor consistently, these two groups coincide. The dependent who was first delegated for these duties was the wife or the chief wife and as would be expected in the later development of the institution when the number of persons by whom these duties are customarily performed gradually narrows, the wife remains the last. In the higher grades of society, a large volume of both these kinds of services still required and here the wife is of course still assisted in the work by a more or less numerous core of menials. But as we descend the social scale, the point is presently reached where the duties of vicarious leisure and consumption devolve upon the wife alone. In the communities of the Western culture, this point is at present found among the lower middle class. And here occurs a curious inversion. It is a fact of common observance that in this lower middle class there is no pretense of leisure on the part of the head of the household. Through force of circumstances, it has fallen into disuse. But the middle class wife still carries on the business of vicarious leisure for the good name of the household and its master. In descending the social scale in any modern industrial community, the primary fact, the conspicuous leisure of the master of the household disappears at a relatively high point. The head of the middle class household has been reduced by economic circumstances to turn his hand to gaining a livelihood by occupations which often partake largely of the character of industry, as in the case of the ordinary businessman of today. But the derivative fact, the vicarious leisure and consumption rendered by the wife and the auxiliary vicarious performance of leisure by menials remains in vogue as a conventionality which the demands of reputability will not suffer to be slighted. It is by no means an uncommon spectacle to find a man applying himself to work with the utmost acidity in order that his wife may in due form render for him that degree of vicarious leisure which the common sense of the time demands. The leisure rendered by the wife in such cases of course not a simple manifestation of idleness or indolence. It almost invariably occurs disguised under some form of work or household duties or social amenities which prove an analysis to serve little or no ulterior end beyond showing that she does not occupy herself with anything that is gainful or that is of substantial use. As has already been noticed and the head of manners, the greater part of the customary round of domestic cares to which the middle-class housewife gives her time and effort is of this character. Not that the results of her attention to household matters of a decorative and mandatory character are not pleasing to the sense of men trained in middle-class proprieties. But the taste to which these effects of household adornment and tidiness appeal is a taste which has been formed under the selective guidance of a canon of propriety that demands just these evidences of wasted effort. The effects are pleasing to us chiefly because we have been taught to find them pleasing. There goes into these domestic duties much solicitude for a proper combination of form and color and for other ends that are to be classed as aesthetic in the proper sense of the term. And it is not denied that effects having some substantial aesthetic value are sometimes attained. Pretty much all that is here insisted on is that as regards these amenities of life, the housewife's efforts are under the guidance of traditions that have been shaped by the law of conspicuously wasteful expenditure of time and substance. If beauty or comfort is achieved and it is a more or less fortuitous circumstance if they are, they must be achieved by means and methods that commend themselves through the great economic law of wasted effort. The more reputable, presentable portion of middle-class household paraphernalia are on the one hand items of conspicuous consumption and on the other hand apparatus for putting in evidence the vicarious leisure rendered by the housewife. The requirement of vicarious consumption at the hands of the wife continues in force even at a lower point in the pecuniary scale than the requirement of vicarious leisure. At a point below which little, if any, pretends of wasted effort in ceremonial cleanliness and the like is observable and where there is assuredly no conscious attempt at ostensible leisure, decency still requires the wife to consume some goods conspicuously for the reputability of the household and its head. So that as the latter day outcome of this evolution of an archaic institution, the wife who was at the outset the dredge and chettle of the man, both in fact and in theory, the producer of goods for him to consume has become the ceremonial consumer of goods which he produces. But she still quite unmistakably remains his chettle in theory for the habitual rendering of vicarious leisure and consumption is the abiding mark of the unfree servant. This vicarious consumption practiced by the household of the middle and lower classes cannot be counted as a direct expression of the leisure class scheme of life, since the household of this pecuniary grade does not belong within the leisure class. It is rather that the leisure class scheme of life here comes to an expression at the secondary move. The leisure class stands at the head of the social structure in point of reputability and its manner of life and its standards of worth therefore afford the norm of reputability for the community. The observance of these standards in some degree of approximation becomes incumbent upon all classes lower in the scale. In modern civilized communities, the lines of demarcation between social classes have grown vague and transient. And wherever this happens, the normal reputability imposed by the upper class extends its coercive influence with but slight hindrance down through the social structure to the lowest strata. The result is that the members of each stratum accept as their ideal of decency the scheme of life in vogue in the next higher stratum and bend their energies to live up to that ideal. On pain of forfeiting their good name and their self-respect in case of failure at least in appearance. The basis on which good repute in any highly organized industrial community ultimately rests is pecuniary strength. And the means of showing pecuniary strength and so of gaining or retaining a good name are leisure and a conspicuous consumption of goods. Accordingly, both of these methods are in vogue as far down the scale as it remains possible. And in the lower strata in which the two methods are employed, both offices are in great part delegated to the wife and children of the household. Lowest still, where any degree of leisure even ostensible has become impracticable for the wife, the conspicuous consumption of goods remains and is carried on by the wife and children. The man of the household also can do something in this direction and indeed he commonly does, but with a still lower descent into the levels of indigence along the margin of the slums, the man and presently also the children virtually cease to consume valuable goods for appearances and the woman remains virtually the sole exponent of the household's pecuniary decency. No class of society, not even the most objectively poor forgoes all customary conspicuous consumption. The last items of this category of consumption are not given up except under stress of the direst necessity. Very much of squalor and discomfort will be endured before the last trinket or the last pretense of pecuniary decencies put away. There is no class and no country that has yielded so abjectly before the pressure of physical want as to deny themselves all gratification of this higher or spiritual need. From the foregoing survey of the growth of conspicuous leisure and consumption it appears that the utility of both alike for the purposes of reputability lies in the element of waste that is common to both. In the one case it is a waste of time and effort, in the other it is a waste of goods. Both are methods of demonstrating the possession of wealth and the two are conventionally accepted as equivalents. The choice between them is a question of advertising expediency simply, except so far as it may be affected by other standards of propriety, springing from a different source. On grounds of expediency the preference may be given to the one or the other at different stages of the economic development. The question is, which of the two methods will most effectively reach the persons whose convictions it is desired to affect? Usage has answered this question in different ways under different circumstances. So long as the community or social group is small enough and compact enough to be effectually reached by common notoriety alone that is to say, so long as the human environment to which the individual is required to adapt himself in respect of reputability is comprised within his sphere of personal acquaintance and neighborhood gossip, so long the one method is about as effective as the other. Each will therefore serve about equally well during the earlier stages of social growth but when the differentiation has gone farther and it becomes necessary to reach a wider human environment consumption begins to hold over leisure as an ordinary means of decency. This is especially true during the later peaceable economic stage. The means of communication and the mobility of the population now expose the individual to the observation of many persons who have no other means of judging of his reputability than the display of goods and perhaps of breeding which he is able to make while he is under their direct observation. The modern organization of industry works in the same direction also by another line. The exigencies of the modern industrial system frequently place individuals and households in juxtaposition between whom there is little contact in any other sense than that of juxtaposition. Once neighbors, mechanically speaking, often are socially not once neighbors or even acquaintances and still their transient good opinion has a high degree of utility. The only practicable means of impressing one's pecuniary ability on these unsympathetic observers of one's everyday life is an unremitting demonstration of ability to pay. In the modern community there is also a more frequent attendance at large gatherings of people to whom one's everyday life is unknown in such places as churches, theaters, ballrooms, hotels, parks, shops and the like. In order to impress these transient observers and to retain one's self complacency under their observation, the signature of one's pecuniary strength should be written in characters which he who runs may read. It is evident therefore that the present trend of the development is in the direction of heightening the utility of conspicuous consumption as compared with leisure. It is also noticeable that the serviceability of consumption as a means of repute as well as the insistence on it as an element of decency is at its best in those portions of the community where the human contact of the individual is widest and the mobility of the population is greatest. Conspicuous consumption claims a relatively large portion of the income of the urban than of the rural population and the claim is also more imperative. The result is that in order to keep up a decent appearance the former habitually live hand to mouth to a greater extent than the latter. So it comes for instance that the American farmer and his wife and daughters are notoriously less modish in their dress as well as less urbane in their manors than the city artisan's family with an equal income. It is not that the city population is by nature much more eager for the peculiar complacency that comes of a conspicuous consumption nor has the rural population less regard for pecuniary decency. But the provocation to this line of evidence as well as its transient effectiveness is more decided in the city. This method is therefore more readily resorted to and in the struggle to outdo one another the city population push their normal standard of conspicuous consumption to a higher point with the result that a relatively greater expenditure in this direction is required to indicate a given degree of pecuniary decency in the city. The requirement of conformity to this higher conventional standard becomes mandatory. The standard of decency is higher class for class and this requirement of decent appearance must be lived up to on pain of losing case. Consumption becomes a larger element in the standard of living in the city than in the country. Among the country population, its place is to some extent taken by savings and home comforts known through the medium of neighborhood gossip sufficiently to serve the like general purpose of pecuniary repute. These home comforts and the leisure indulged in where the indulgences found are of course also in great part to be classed as items of conspicuous consumption and much the same is to be said of the savings. The small amount of the savings led by by the artisan class is no doubt due in some measure to the fact that in the case of the artisan the savings are less effective means of advertisement relative to the environment in which he's placed than are the savings of the people living on farms and in the small villages. Among the latter, everybody's affairs especially everybody's pecuniary status are known to everybody else considered by itself simply taken in the first degree this added provocation to which the artisan and the urban laboring classes are exposed may not very seriously decrease the amount of savings but in its cumulative action through raising the standard of decent expenditure its deterrent effect on the tendency to save cannot but be very great. A felicitous illustration of the manners in which this canon of reputability works out its results is seen in the practice of drum drinking, treating and smoking in public places which is customary among the laborers and handicraftsmen of the towns and among the lower middle class of the urban population generally. Gentlemen printers may be named as a class among whom this form of conspicuous consumption has a great vogue and among whom it carries with it certain well-marked consequences that are often deprecated. The peculiar habits of the class in this respect are commonly set down to some kind of an ill-defined moral deficiency with which this class is credited or to a morally deleterious influence which their occupation is supposed to exert in some unassertionable way upon the men employed in it. The state of the case for the men who work in the composition and press rooms of the common run of printing houses may be summed up as follows. Skill acquired in any printing house or any city is easily turned to account in almost any other house or city that is to say the inertia due to special training is slight. Also this occupation requires more than the average of intelligence and general information and the men employed in it are therefore ordinarily more ready than many others to take advantage of any slight variation in the demand for their labor from one place to another. The inertia due to the home feeling is consequently also slight. At the same time the wages in the trade are high enough to make movement from place to place relatively easy. The result is a great mobility of the labor employed in printing perhaps greater than in any other equally well-defined and considerable body of workmen. These men are constantly thrown in contact with new groups of acquaintances with whom the relations established are transient or ephemeral but whose good opinion is valued nonetheless for the time being. The human proclivity to ostentation reinforced by sentiments of good fellowship leads them to spend freely in those directions which will best serve these needs. Here as elsewhere prescription seizes upon the customer as soon as it gains a vogue and incorporates it in the accredited standard of decency. The next step is to make this standard of decency the point of departure for a new move in advance in the same direction for there is no merit in simple, spiritless conformity to a standard of dissipation that is lived up to as a matter of course by everyone in the trade. End of second part of chapter four. Recording by Sarah Kuhls, Oslo, Norway. Section nine of the theory of the leisure class. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sarah Kuhls. The theory of the leisure class by Toshta and the Eblen. Third part of chapter four, conspicuous consumption. The greater prevalence of dissipation among printers than among the average of workmen is accordingly attributable at least in some measure to the greater ease of movement and the more transient character of acquaintance and human contact in this trade. But the substantial ground of this high requirement in dissipation is in the last analysis no other than that same propensity for a manifestation of dominance and pecuniary decency which makes the French peasant proprietor parsimonious and frugal and induces the American millionaire to found colleges, hospitals and museums. If the canon of conspicuous consumption were not offset to a considerable extent by other features of human nature alien to it any saving should logically be impossible for a population situated as the artisan and labouring classes of the cities are at present however high their wages or their income might be. But there are other standards of repute and other more or less imperative canons of conduct besides wealth and its manifestation and some of these come in to accentuate or to qualify the broad fundamental canon of conspicuous waste. Under the simple test of effectiveness for advertising we should expect to find leisure and the conspicuous consumption of goods dividing the field of pecuniary emulation pretty evenly between them at the outset. Leisure might then be expected gradually to yield ground and tend to obsolescence as the economic development goes forward and the community increases in size while the conspicuous consumption of goods should gradually gain in importance both absolutely and relatively until it had absorbed all the available product leaving nothing over beyond a bare livelihood. But the actual course of development has been somewhat different from this ideal scheme. Leisure held the first place at the start and came to hold a rank very much above wasteful consumption of goods both as a direct exponent of wealth and as an element in the standard of decency during the course-ipeasable culture. From that point onward consumption has gained ground until at present it unquestionably holds the primacy though it is still far from absorbing the entire margin of production above the subsistence minimum. The early ascendancy of leisure as a means of reputability is traceable to the archaic distinction between noble and ignoble employments. Leisure is honourable and becomes imperative partly because it shows exemption from ignoble labour. The archaic differentiation into noble and ignoble classes is based on an invidious distinction between employments as onrific or debasing and this traditional distinction grows into an imperative canon of decency during the early course-ipeasable stage. Its ascendancy is furthered by the fact that leisure is still fully as effective and evidence of wealth as consumption. Indeed, so effective is it in the relatively small and stable human environment to which the individual is exposed at that cultural stage that with the aid of the archaic tradition which deprecates all productive labour it gives rise to a large impecunious leisure class and it even tends to limit the production of the community's industry to the subsistence minimum. This extreme inhibition of industries avoided because slave labour, working under compulsion more vigorous than that of reputability, is forced to turn out a product in excess of the subsistence minimum of the working class. The subsequent relative decline in the use of conspicuous leisure as a basis of repute is due partly to an increasing relative effectiveness of consumption as an evidence of wealth but in part it is traceable to another force, alien and in some degree antagonistic to the usage of conspicuous waste. This alien factor is the instinct of workmanship. Other circumstances permitting that instinct disposes men to look with favour upon productive efficiency and on whatever is of human use. It disposes them to deprecate waste of substance or effort. The instinct of workmanship is present in all men and asserts itself even under very adverse circumstances so that however wasteful a given expenditure may be in reality it must at least have some colourable excuse in the way of an ostensible purpose. The manner in which under special circumstances the instinct eventuates in a taste for exploit and an invidious discrimination between noble and ignoble classes has been indicated in an earlier chapter. Insofar as it comes into conflict with the law of conspicuous waste the instinct of workmanship expresses itself not so much in insistence on substantial usefulness as in an abiding sense of the odiousness and aesthetic impossibility of what is obviously futile. Being of the nature of an instinctive affection its guidance touches chiefly and immediately the obvious and apparent violations of its requirements. It is only less promptly and with less constraining force that it reaches such substantial violations of its requirements as are appreciated only upon reflection. So long as all labour continues to be performed exclusively or usually by slaves the baseness of all productive effort is too constantly and deterrently present in the mind of men to allow the instinct of workmanship seriously to take effect in the direction of industrial usefulness. But when the quasi-peaceable stage with slavery and status passes into the peaceable stage of industry with wage labour and cash payment the instinct comes more effectively into play. It then begins aggressively to shape men's views of what is meritorious and asserts itself at least as an auxiliary canon of self complacency. All extraneous considerations apart those persons, adults, arbiter vanishing minority today who harbor no inclination to the accomplishment of some end or who are not impelled of their own motion to shape some object or fact or relation for human use. The propensity may in large measure be overborn by the more immediately constraining incentive to a reputable leisure and an avoidance of indecorous usefulness and it may therefore work itself out and make believe only. As for instance in social duties and in quasi-artistic or quasi-scholarly accomplishments in the care and decoration of the house in suing circle activity or dress reform in proficiency at dress cards, yachting golf and various sports. But the fact that it may under stress of circumstances eventuate in inanities no more disproves the presence of the instinct than the reality of the brooding instinct is disproved by inducing a hen to sit on a nest full of china eggs. This latter day uneasy reaching out for some form of purposeful activity that shall at the same time not be in decorously productive of either individual or collective gain marks a difference of attitude between the modern leisure class and that of the quasi-peaceable stage. At the earlier stage as was said above, the all dominating institution of slavery and status acted resistlessly to discountenance exertion directed to other than naively predatory ends. It was still possible to find some habitual employment for the inclination to action in the way of forcible aggression or repression directed against hostile groups or against the subject classes within the group and this sued to relieve the pressure and draw off the energy of the leisure class without resort to actually useful or even ostensibly useful employment. The practice of hunting also sued the same purpose in some degree. When the community developed into a peaceful industrial organization and when full occupation of the land had reduced the opportunities for the hunt to an inconsiderable residue, the pressure of energy seeking purposeful employment was left to find an outlet in some other direction. The ignominy which attaches to useful effort also entered upon a less acute phase with the disappearance of compulsory labor and the instinct of workmanship then came to assert itself with more persistence and consistency. The line of least resistance has changed in some measure and the energy which formally found a vent in predatory activity now in part takes the direction of some ostensibly useful end. Ostensibly purposeless leisure has come to be deprecated especially among that large portion of the leisure class whose plebeian origin acts to set them at variance with the tradition of the Othium cum dignitata. But that canon of reputability which discountenances all employment that is of the nature of productive effort is still at hand and will permit nothing beyond the most transient vogue to any employment that is substantially useful or productive. The consequences that a change has been wrought in the conspicuous leisure practised by the leisure class not so much in substance as in form. A reconciliation between the two conflicting requirements is affected by a resort to make believe. Many an intricate polite observances and social duties of a ceremonial nature are developed. Many organisations are founded with some specious object of amelioration embodied in their official style and title. There is much coming and going and a deal of talk to the end that the talkers may not have occasion to reflect on what is the effectual economic value of their traffic. And along with the make believe of purposeful employment and woven inextricably into its texture there is commonly, if not invariably a more or less appreciable element of purposeful effort directed to some serious end. In the narrow sphere of vicarious leisure a similar change has gone forward. Instead of simply passing her time in visible idleness as in the best days of the patriarchal regime the housewife of the advanced peaceable stage applies herself assiduously to household cares. The salient features of this development of domestic service have already been indicated. Throughout the entire evolution of conspicuous expenditure whether of goods or of services or human life runs the obvious implication that in order to effectually mend the consumer's good fame it must be an expenditure of superfluities. In order to be reputable it must be wasteful. No merit would accrue from the consumption of the bare necessaries of life except by comparison with the abjectly poor who fall short even of the subsistence minimum and no standard of expenditure could result from such a comparison except the most prosaic and unattractive level of decency. A standard of life would still be possible which should admit of invidious comparison in other respects than that of opulence as for instance a comparison in various directions in the manifestation of moral, physical, intellectual or aesthetic force. Comparison in all these directions is in vogue today and the comparison made in these respects is commonly so inextricably bound up with a pecuniary comparison as to be scarcely distinguishable from the latter. This is especially true as regards the current rating of expressions of intellectual and aesthetic force of proficiency so that we frequently interpret as aesthetic or intellectual a difference which in substance is pecuniary only. The use of the term waste is in one respect an unfortunate one as used in the speech of everyday life the word carries an undertone of deprecation. It is here used for want of a better term that it will adequately describe the same range of motives and of phenomena and it is not to be taken in an odious sense as implying any legitimate expenditure of human products or of human life. In the view of economic theory the expenditure in question is no more and no less legitimate than any other expenditure. It is here called waste because this expenditure does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole not because it is waste or misdirection of effort or expenditure as viewed from the standpoint of the individual consumer who chooses it. If he chooses it that disposes of the question of its relative utility to him as compared with other forms of consumption that would not be deprecated on account of their wastefulness. Whatever forms of expenditure the consumer chooses or whatever end he seeks in making his choice has utility to him by virtue of his preference. As seen from the point of view of the individual consumer the question of wastefulness does not arise within the scope of economic theory proper. The use of the word waste as a technical term therefore implies no deprecation of the motives or of the ends sought by the consumer under this canon of conspicuous waste. But it is on other grounds worth noting that the term waste in the language of everyday life implies deprecation of what is characterized as wasteful. This common sense implication is itself an outcropping of the instinct of workmanship. The popular reprobation of waste goes to say that in order to be at peace with himself the common man must be able to see in any and all human effort and human enjoyment an enhancement of life and well-being on the whole. In order to meet with unqualified approval any economic fact must approve itself under the test of impersonal usefulness usefulness as seen from the point of view of the generically human. Relative or competitive advantage of one individual in comparison with another does not satisfy the economic conscience and therefore competitive expenditure has not the approval of this conscience. In strict accuracy nothing should be included under the head of conspicuous waste but such expenditure as is incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison. But in order to bring any given item or element under this head it is not necessary that it should be recognized as waste in this sense by the person incurring the expenditure. It frequently happens that an element of the standard of living which set out with being primarily wasteful ends with becoming in the apprehension of the consumer and necessary of life and it may in this way become as indispensable as any other item of the consumer's habitual expenditure as items which sometimes fall under this head and are therefore available as illustrations of the manner in which this principle applies may be cited carpets and tapestries, silver table service, waiter's services, silk hats, starched linen, many articles of jewellery and of dress. The indispensability of these things after the habit and the convention have been formed however has little to say in the classification of expenditures as waste or not waste in the technical meaning of the word. The test to which all expenditure must be brought in an attempt to decide that point is the question whether it serves directly to enhance human life on the whole, whether it furthers the life process taking in personally. For this is the basis of award of the instinct of workmanship and that instinct is the court of final appeal in any question of economic truth or adequacy. It is a question as to the award rendered by a dispassionate common sense. The question is therefore not whether under the existing circumstances of individual habit and social custom a given expenditure conduces to the particular consumer's gratification or peace of mind. But whether aside from acquired tastes and from the canons of usage and conventional decency its result is a net gain in comfort or in the fullness of life. Customary expenditure must be clasped under the head of waste insofar as the custom on which it rests is traceable to the habit of making an invidious pecuniary comparison insofar as it is conceived that it could not have become customary and prescriptive without the backing of this principle of pecuniary reputability or relative economic success. It is obviously not necessary that a given object of expenditure should be exclusively wasteful in order to come in under the category of conspicuous waste. An article may be useful and wasteful both and its utility to the consumer may be made up of use and waste in the most varying proportions. Consumable goods and even productive goods generally show the two elements in combination as constituents of their utility although in a general way the element of waste tends to predominate in articles of consumption while the contrary is true of articles designed for productive use. Even in articles which appear at first glance to serve for pure ostentation only it is always possible to detect the presence of some at least ostensible useful purpose and on the other hand even in special machinery and tools contrived for some particular industrial process as well as in the rudest appliances of human industry the traces of conspicuous waste or at least of the habit of ostentation usually become evident on a close scrutiny. It would be hazardous to assert that a useful purpose is ever absent from the utility of any article or of any service however obviously its prime purpose and chief element is conspicuous waste and it would be only less hazardous to assert of any primarily useful product that the element of waste is in no way concerned in its value immediately or remotely. End of Chapter 4 Recording by Syracuse Oslo, Norway Section 10 of the Theory of the Leisure Class This is a Librevox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit Librevox.org Recording by Morgan Scorpion The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorsten Veblen Chapter 5 The Pecuniary Standard of Living For the great body of the people in any modern community the proximate ground of expenditure in excess of what is required for physical comfort is not a conscious effort to excel in the expansiveness of their visible consumption so much as it is a desire to live up to the conventional standard of decency in the amount and grade of goods consumed. This desire is not guided by a rigidly invariable standard which must be lived up to and beyond which there is no incentive to go. The standard is flexible and especially it is indefinitely extensible if only time is allowed for habituation to any increase in pecuniary ability and for acquiring facility in the new and larger scale of expenditure that follows such an increase. It is much more difficult to receive from a scale of expenditure once adopted than it is to extend the accustomed scale in response to an accession of wealth. Many items of customary expenditure prove on analysis to be almost purely wasteful and they are therefore honorific only but after they have once been incorporated into the scale of decent consumption and so have become an integral part of one's scheme of life it is quite as hard to give up these as it is to give up many items that conduce directly to one's physical comfort or even that may be necessary to life and health. That is to say the conspicuously wasteful honorific expenditure that confers spiritual well-being may become more indispensable than much of that expenditure which ministers to the lower wants of physical well-being or sustenance only. It is notoriously just as difficult to receive from a high standard of living as it is to lower a standard which is already relatively low although in the former case the difficulty is a moral one while in the latter it may involve the material deduction from the physical comforts of life. But while retrogression is difficult a fresh advance in conspicuous expenditure is relatively easy indeed it takes place almost as a matter of course. In the rare cases where it occurs a failure to increase one's visible consumption when the means for an increase are at hand is felt in popular apprehension to call for explanation and unworthy motives of miserliness are imputed to those who fall short in this respect. A prompt response to the stimulus on the other hand is accepted as the normal effect. This suggests that the standard of expenditure which commonly guides our efforts is not the average ordinary expenditure already achieved it is an ideal of consumption that lies just beyond our reach or to reach which requires some strain. The motive is emulation the stimulus of an invidious comparison which prompts us to outdo those with whom we are in the habit of classing ourselves. Substantially the same proposition is expressed in the commonplace remark that each class envies and emulates the class above it in the social scale while it rarely compares itself with those below or with those who are considerably in advance. That is to say in other words our standard of decency in expenditure as in other ends of emulation is set by the usage of those next above us in reputability until in this way especially in any community where class distinctions are somewhat vague all canons of reputability and decency and all standards of consumption are traced back by insensible gradations to the usages and habits of thought of the highest social and pecuniary class the wealthy leisure class. It is for this class to determine in general outline what scheme of life the community shall accept as decent or honorific and it is their office by precept and example to set forth this scheme of social salvation in its highest ideal form but the higher leisure class can exercise this quasi-sacred adult office only under certain material limitations. The class cannot at discretion affect a sudden revolution or reversal of the popular habits of thought with respect to any of these ceremonial requirements. It takes time for any change to permeate the mass and change the habitual attitude of the people and especially it takes time to change the habits of those classes that are socially more remote from the radiant body. The process is slower where the mobility of the population is less or where the intervals between the several classes are wider and more abrupt but if time be allowed the scope of the discretion of the leisure class as regards question of form and detail in the community's scheme of life is large while as regards the substantial principles of reputability the changes which it can affect lie within a narrow margin of tolerance. Its example and precept carries the force of prescription for all classes below it but in working out the precepts which are handed down as governing the form and method of reputability in shaping the usages and the spiritual attitude of the lower classes this authoritative prescription constantly works under the selective guidance of the canon of conspicuous waste tempered in varying degree by the instinct of workmanship to those norms is to be added another broad principle of human nature the predatory animus which in point of generality and of psychological content lies between the two just named. The effect of the latter in shaping the accepted scheme of life is yet to be discussed. The canon of reputability then must adapt itself to the economic circumstances the traditions and the degree of spiritual maturity of the particular class whose scheme of life it is to regulate. It is especially to be noted that however high its authority and whoever to to the fundamental requirements of reputability it may have been at its inception a specific formal observance can under no circumstances maintain itself in force if with the lapse of time or on its transmission to a lower pecuniary class it is found to run counter to the ultimate ground of decency among civilized peoples namely serviceability for the purpose of an invidious comparison in pecuniary success. It is evident that these canons of expenditure have much to say in determining the standard of living for any community and for any class. It is no less evident that the standard of living which prevails at any time or at any given social altitude will in its turn have much to say as to the forms which honorific expenditure will take and as to the degree to which this higher need will dominate a people's consumption. In this respect the control exerted by the accepted standard of living is chiefly of a negative character. It acts almost solely to prevent recession from a scale of conspicuous expenditure that has once become habitual. A standard of living is of the nature of habit. It is an habitual scale and method of responding to given stimuli. The difficulty in the way of preceding from an accustomed standard is the difficulty of breaking a habit that has once been formed. The relative facility with which an advance in the standard is made means that the life process is a process of unfolding activity and that it will readily unfold in a new direction whenever and wherever the resistance to self-expression decreases. But when the habit of expression along such a given line of low resistance has once been formed the discharge will seek the accustomed outlet even after a change has taken place in the environment whereby the external resistance has appreciably risen. That heightened facility of expression in a given direction which is called habit may offset a considerable increase in the resistance offered by external circumstances to the unfolding of life in the given direction. As between the various habits or habitual modes and directions of expression which go to make up an individual standard of living there is an appreciable difference in point of persistence under counteracting circumstances and in point of the degree of imperativeness with which the discharge seeks a given direction. That is to say in the language of current economic theory while men are reluctant to retrench their expenditures in any direction they are more reluctant to retrench in some directions than in others so that while any accustomed consumption is reluctantly given up there are certain lines of consumption which are given up with relatively extreme reluctance. The articles or forms of consumption to which the consumer clings with the greatest tenacity are commonly the so-called necessaries of life or the subsistence minimum. The subsistence minimum is of course not a rigidly determined allowance of goods definite and invariable in kind and quantity but for the purpose in hand it may be taken to comprise a certain more or less definite aggregate of consumption required for the maintenance of life. This minimum it may be assumed is ordinarily given up last in case of a progressive retrenchment of expenditure. That is to say in a general way the most ancient and ingrained of the habits which govern the individual's life. Those habits that touch his existence as an organism are the most persistent and imperative. Beyond these come the higher ones later formed habits of the individual or the race in a somewhat irregular and by no means unvariable gradation. Some of these higher ones as for instance the habitual use of certain stimulants or the need of salvation in the eschatological sense or of good repute may in some cases take precedence of the lower or more elementary ones. In general the longer the habituation the more unbroken the habit and the more nearly it coincides with previous habitual forms of the life process the more persistently will the given habit assert itself. The habit will be stronger if the particular traits of human nature which its action involves or the particular aptitudes that find exercise in it are traits or aptitudes that are already largely and profoundly concerned in the life process or that are intimately bound up with the life history of the particular racial stock. The varying degrees of ease with which different habits are formed by different persons as well as the varying degrees of reluctance with which different habits are given up goes to say that the formation of specific habits is not a matter of length of habituation simply. Inherited aptitudes and traits of temperament count for quite as much as length of habituation in deciding what range of habits will come to dominate any individual scheme of life and the prevalent type of transmitted aptitudes or in other words the type of temperament belonging to the dominant ethnic element in any community will go far to decide what will be the scope and form of expression of the community's habitual life process. How greatly the transmitted idiosyncrasies of aptitude may count in the way of a rapid and definitive formation of habit in individuals is illustrated by the extreme facility with which an all-dominating habit of alcoholism is sometimes formed or in the similar facility and the similarly inevitable formation of a habit of devout observances in the case of persons gifted with a special aptitude in that direction. Much of the same meaning attaches to that peculiar facility of habituation to a specific human environment that is called romantic love. Men differ in respect of transmitted aptitudes or in respect of the relative facility with which they unfold their life activity in particular directions and the habits which coincide with or proceed upon a relatively strong specific aptitude or a relatively great specific facility of expression become of great consequence to the man's well-being. The part played by this element of aptitude in determining the relative tenacity of the several habits which constitute the standard of living goes to explain the extreme reluctance with which men give up any habitual expenditure in the way of conspicuous consumption. The aptitudes or propensities to which a habit of this kind is to be referred as its ground are those aptitudes whose exercise is comprised in emulation and the propensity for emulation, for invidious comparison, is of ancient growth and is a pervading trait of human nature. It is easily called into vigorous activity in any new form and it asserts itself with greater insistence under any form under which it has once found habitual expression. When the individual has once formed the habit of seeking expression in a given line of honorific expenditure, when a given set of stimuli have come to be habitually responded to in activity of a given kind and the direction under the guidance of these alert and deep reaching propensities of emulation, it is with extreme reluctance that such an habitual expenditure is given up. And on the other hand, whenever an accession of pecuniary strength puts the individual in a position to unfold his life process in larger scope and with additional reach, the ancient propensities of the race will assert themselves in determining the direction which the new unfolding of life is to take. And those propensities, which are already actively in the field under some related form of expression, which are aided by the pointed suggestions afforded by a current accredited scheme of life and for the exercise of which the material means and opportunities are readily available, these will especially have much to say in shaping the form and direction in which the new accession to the individual's aggregate force will assert itself. That is to say, in concrete terms, in any community where conspicuous consumption is an element of the scheme of life, an increase in an individual's ability to pay is likely to take the form of an expenditure for some accredited line of conspicuous consumption. With the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, the propensity for emulation is probably the strongest and most alert and persistent of the economic motives proper. In an industrial community this propensity for emulation expresses itself in pecuniary emulation, and this, so far as regards the western civilized communities of the present, is virtually equivalent to say that it expresses itself in some form of conspicuous waste. The need of conspicuous waste, therefore, stands ready to absorb any increase in the community's industrial efficiency or output of goods after the most elementary physical wants have been provided for. Where this result does not follow, under modern conditions, the reason for the discrepancy is commonly to be sought in a rate of increase in the individual's wealth too rapid for the habit of expenditure to keep abreast of it, or it may be that the individual in question defers the conspicuous consumption of the increment to a later date, ordinarily with the view to heightening the spectacular effect of the aggregate expenditure contemplated. As increased industrial efficiency makes it possible to procure the means of livelihood with less labour, the energies of the industrious members of the community are bent to encompassing of a higher result in conspicuous expenditure rather than slackened to a more comfortable pace. The strain is not lightened as industrial efficiency increases and makes a lighter strain possible, but the increment of output is turned to use to meet this want, which is indefinitely expansible, after the manner commonly imputed in economic theory to hire or spiritual wants. It is owing chiefly to the presence of this element in the standard of living that J.S. Mill was able to say that, hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being. The accepted standard of expenditure in the community or in the class to which a person belongs largely determines what his standard of living will be. It does this directly by commending itself to his common sense as light and good, through his habitually contemplating it and estimulating the scheme of life in which it belongs. But it does so also indirectly through popular insistence on conformity to the accepted scale of expenditure as a matter of propriety under pain of disesteem and ostracism. To accept and practice the standard of living, which is in vogue, is both agreeable and expedient, commonly to the point of being indispensable to personal comfort and to success in life. The standard of living of any class, so far as concerns the element of conspicuous waste, is commonly as high as the earning capacity of the class will permit with a constant tendency to go higher. The effect upon the serious activities of men is therefore to direct them with great singleness of purpose to the largest possible acquisition of wealth, and to discontent work that brings no pecuniary gain. At the same time the effect on consumption is to concentrate it upon the lines, which are most patents to the observers whose good opinion is sought, while the inclinations and aptitudes whose exercise does not involve an honorific expenditure of time or substance tends to fall into abeyance through disuse. Through this discrimination in favor of visible consumption it has come about that the domestic life of most classes is relatively shabby, as compared with the eclout of that overt portion of their life that is carried on before the eyes of observers. As a secondary consequence of the same discrimination, people habitually screen their private life from observation. So far as concerns that portion of their consumption that may without blame be carried on in secret, they withdraw from all contact with their neighbors, hence the exclusiveness of people as regards their domestic life in most of the industrially developed communities, and hence, by remote a derivation, the habit of privacy and reserve that is so large a feature in the code of proprieties of the better class in all communities. The low birth rate of the classes upon whom the requirements of reputable expenditure fall with great urgency is likewise traceable to the exigencies of a standard of living based on conspicuous waste. The conspicuous consumption and the consequent increased expense required in the reputable maintenance of a child is very considerable and acts as a powerful deterrent. It is probably the most effectual of all the Malthusian prudential checks. The effect of this factor on the standard of living, both in the way of retrenchment in the obscure elements of consumption that go to physical comfort and maintenance, and also in the porcity or absence of children, is perhaps seen at its best among the classes given to scholarly pursuits. Because of a presumed superiority and scarcity of the gifts and attainments that characterise their life, these classes are by convention subsumed under a higher social grade than their pecuniary grade should warrant. The scale of decent expenditure in their case is pitched correspondingly high, and it consequently leaves an exceptionally narrow margin disposable for the other ends of life. By force of circumstances, their habitual sense of what is good and right in these matters, as well as the expectations of the community in the way of pecuniary decency among the learned, are excessively high, as measured by the prevalent degree of opulence and earning capacity of the class, relatively to the non-scholarly classes whose social equals they nominally are. In any modern community where there is no priestly monopoly of these occupations, the people of scholarly pursuits are unavoidably thrown into contact with classes that are pecuniarily their superiors. The high standard of pecuniary decency in force among these superior classes is transfused among the scholarly classes with but little mitigation of its rigor, and as a consequence there is no class of the community that spends a larger proportion of its substance in conspicuous waste than these. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Morgan Scorpion. The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorsten Weblin. Chapter 6. Pecuniary Cannons of Taste. The caution has already been repeated more than once. That while the regulating norm of consumption is in large part the requirement of conspicuous waste, it must not be understood that the motive on which the consumer acts in any given case is this principle in its bold, unsophisticated form. Ordinarily his motive is a wish to conform to established usage, to avoid unfavourable notice and comment, to live up to these accepted cannons of decency in the kind, amount and grade of goods consumed, as well as in the decorous employment of his time and effort. In the common one of cases, this sense of prescriptive usage is present in the motives of the consumer and exerts a direct constraining force, especially as regards consumption carried on under the eyes of observers. But a considerable element of prescriptive expensiveness is observable, also in consumption, that does not in any appreciable degree become known to outsiders. As, for instance, articles of underclothing, some articles of food, kitchen utensils and other household apparatus designed for service than for evidence. In all such useful articles a close scrutiny will discover certain features which add to the cost and enhance the commercial value of the goods in question, but do not proportionately increase the serviceability of these articles for the material purposes which alone they ostensibly are designed to serve. Under the selective surveillance of the law of conspicuous waste, there grows up a code of accredited canons of consumption, the effect of which is to hold the consumer up to a standard of expensiveness and wastefulness in his consumption of goods and in his employment of time and effort. The growth of prescriptive usage has an immediate effect upon economic life, but it also has an indirect and remote effect upon conduct in other respects as well. Habits of thought with respect to the expression of life in any given direction unavoidably affect the habitual view of what is good and right in life in other directions also. In the organic complex of habits of thought which make up the substance of an individual's conscious life, the economic interest does not lie isolated and distinct from all other interests. Something for instance has already been said of its relation to the canons of reputability. The principle of conspicuous waste guides the formation of habits of thought as to what is honest and reputable in life and in commodities. In so doing, this principle will traverse other norms of conduct which do not primarily have to do with the code of pecuniary honor, but which have, directly or incidentally, an economic significance of some magnitude. So the canon of honorific waste may immediately or remotely influence the sense of duty, the sense of beauty, the sense of utility, the sense of devotional or ritualistic fitness, and the scientific sense of truth. It is scarcely necessary to go into discussion here of the particular points at which, or the particular manner in which, the canon of honorific expenditure habitually traverses the canons of moral conduct. The matter is one which has received large attention and illustration at the hands of those whose opposite it is to watch and admonish with respect to any departures from the accepted code of morals. In modern communities, where the dominant economic and legal feature of the community's life is the institution of private property, one of the salient features of the code of morals is the sacredness of property. There needs no instance or illustration to gain assent to the proposition that the habit of holding private property in violet is traversed by the other habit of seeking wealth for the sake of the good repute to be gained to its conspicuous consumption. Most offences against property, especially offences of an appreciable magnitude, come under this head. It is also a matter of common notoriety in Bywood that in offences, which result in a large accession of property to the offender, he does not ordinarily incur the extreme penalty or the extreme obliquy with which his offences would be visited on the ground of the naive moral code alone. The thief or swindler who has gained great wealth by his delinquency has a better chance than the small thief of escaping the rigorous penalty of the law and some good repute accrues to him from his increased wealth and from his spending the irregularly acquired possessions in a seemingly manner. A well-bred expenditure of his booty especially appeals with great effect to persons of a cultivated sense of the proprieties, and goes far to mitigate the sense of moral turpitude with which his dereliction is viewed by them. It may be noted also, and it is more immediately to the point, that we are all inclined to condone an offence against property in the case of a man whose motive is the worthy one of providing the means of a decent manner of life for his wife and children. If it is added that the wife has been nurtured in the lap of luxury, that it is accepted as an additional, extenuating circumstance. That is to say, we are prone to condone such an offence where its aim is the honorific one of enabling the offender's wife to perform for him such an amount of vicarious consumption of time and substance as is demanded by the standard of pecuniary decency. In such a case the habit of approving the accustomed degree of conspicuous waste traverses the habit of deprecating violations of ownership to the extent even of sometimes leaving the award of praise or blame uncertain. This is peculiarly true whether dereliction involves an appreciable predatory or piratical element. This topic needs scarcely be pursued further here, but the remark may not be out of place that all that considerable body of morals that clusters about the concept of an inviolable ownership is itself a psychological precipitate of the traditional meritoriousness of wealth, and it should be added that this wealth which is held sacred is valued primarily for the sake of the good repute to be got through its conspicuous consumption. The bearing of pecuniary decency upon the scientific spirit or the quest of knowledge will be taken up in some detail in a separate chapter. Also as regards the sense of devout or ritual merit and adequacy in this connection little need be said in this place. That topic will also come up incidentally in a later chapter. Still this use of honorific expenditure has much to say in shaping popular tastes as to what is right and meritorious in sacred matters, and the bearing of the principle of conspicuous waste upon some of the commonplace devout observances and conceits may therefore be pointed out. Obviously the canon of conspicuous waste is accountable for a great portion of what may be called devout consumption, as, e.g., the consumption of sacred edifices, vestiments, and other goods of the same class. Even in those modern cults to whose divinities is imputed of predilection for temples not built with hands, the sacred buildings and the other properties of the cult are constructed and decorated with some view to a reputable degree of wasteful expenditure. And it needs but little either of observational introspection and either will serve the term to assure us that the expensive splendor of the House of Worship has an appreciable uplifting and mellowing effect upon the worshipper's frame of mind. It will serve to enforce the same fact if we reflect upon the sense of abject shamefulness with which any evidence of indigence or squalor about the sacred place affects all beholders. The accessory of any devout observance should be pecuniary above reproach. The requirement is imperative whatever latitude may be allowed with regard to these accessories in point of aesthetic or other serviceability. It may also be in place to notice that in all communities, especially in neighborhoods where the standard of pecuniary decency for dwellings is not high, the local sanctuary is more ornate, more conspicuously wasteful in its architecture and decoration, than the dwelling houses of the congregation. This is true of nearly all denominations and cults, whether Christian or Pagan, but it is true in a peculiar degree of the older and mature cults. At the same time the sanctuary commonly contributes little if anything to the physical comfort of the members. Indeed the sacred structure not only serves the physical well-being of the members to but a slight extent as compared with their humbler dwelling houses, but it is felt by all men that a right and enlightened sense of the true, the beautiful and the good, demands that in all expenditure on the sanctuary anything that might serve the comfort of the worshippers should be conspicuously absent. If any element of comfort is admitted in the fittings of the sanctuary, it should be at least scrupulously screened and masked under an ostensible austerity. In the most reputable latter-day houses of worship, where no expense is spared, the principle of austerity is carried to the length of making the fittings of the place a means of mortifying the flesh, especially in appearance. There are few persons of delicate tastes in the matter of devout consumption to whom this austerely wasteful discomfort does not appeal as intrinsically right and good. Devout consumption is of the nature of vicarious consumption. The canon of devout austerity is based on the pecuniary reputability of conspicuously wasteful consumption, backed by the principle that vicarious consumption should conspicuously not conduce to the comfort of the vicarious consumer. The sanctuary and its fittings have something of this austerity in all the cults in which the saint or divinity to whom the sanctuary pertains is not conceived to be present, and make personal use of the property for the gratification of luxurious tastes imputed to him. The character of the sacred paraphernalia is somewhat different in this respect. In those cults where the habit of life imputed to the divinity more nearly approached those of an earthly patriarchal potentate, where he is conceived to make use of these consumable goods in person. In the latter case the sanctuary and its fittings take on more of the fashion given to goods destined for the conspicuous consumption of a temple, master or owner. On the other hand, where the sacred apparatus is simply employed in the divinity's service, that is to say, where it is consumed vicariously on his account by his servants. There the sacred properties take the character suited to goods that are destined for vicarious consumption only. In the latter case the sanctuary and the sacred apparatus are so contrived as not to enhance the comfort or fullness of life of the vicarious consumer, or at any rate not convey the impression that the end of their consumption is the consumer's comfort. For the end of vicarious consumption is to enhance not the fullness of life of the consumer, but the pecuniary repute of the master for whose behoof the consumption takes place. Therefore priestly vestments are notoriously expensive, ornate, and inconvenient. And in the cults where the priestly servitor of the divinity is not conceived to serve him in the capacity of consort, they are of an austere, comfortless fashion. And such it is felt that they should be. It is not only in establishing a devout standard of decent-expensiveness that the principle of waste invades the domain of the cannons of ritual service-ability. It touches the ways as well as the means, and draws on vicarious leisure as well as on vicarious consumption. Priestly demeanour at its best is aloof, leisurely, perfunctory, and uncontaminated with suggestions of sensuous pleasure. This holds true in different degrees, of course, for the different cults and denominations, but in the priestly life of all the anthropomorphic cults that marks of a vicarious consumption of time are visible. The same pervading canon of vicarious leisure is also visibly present in the exterior details of devout observances, and need only be pointed out in order to become obvious to all beholders. All ritual has a notable tendency to reduce itself to a rehearsal of formulas. This development of formula is most noticeable in the mature cults, which have at the same time a more austere, ornate, and severe priestly life and garb. But it is perceptible also in the forms and methods of worship of the newer and fresher sects, whose tastes in respect of priests, vestments, and sanctuaries are less exacting. The rehearsal of the service-the term service carries a suggestion significant for the point in question-grows more perfunctory as the cult gains in age and consistency, and this perfunctoriness of the rehearsal is very pleasing to the correct devout taste, and with a good reason. For the fact of its being perfunctory goes to say pointily that the master for whom it is performed is exalted above the vulgar need of actually proficulous service on the part of his servants. They are unprofitable servants, and there is an honorific implication for their master in their remaining unprofitable. It is needless to point out the close analogy at this point between the priestly office and the office of the footman. It is pleasing to our sense of what is fitting in these matters, in either case, to recognize in the obvious perfunctoriness of the service that it is a pro-former execution only. There should be no show of agility or of dexterous manipulation in the execution of the priestly office, such as might suggest a capacity for turning off the work. In all this, there is of course an obvious implication as to the temperament, tastes, propensities and habits of life imputed to the divinity by worshipers who live under the tradition of these pecuniary canons of refutability. Through its pervading men's habits of thought, the principles of conspicuous waste has colored the worshippers notions of the divinity and of the relation in which the human subject stands to him. It is of course in the more naive cults that this suffusion of pecuniary beauty is most patent, but it is visible throughout. All peoples, at whatever stage of culture or degree of enlightenment, are feigned to eke out a sensibly scant degree of authentic formation regarding the personality and habitual surroundings of their divinities. In so calling in the aid of fancy to enrich and fill in their picture of the divinity's presence and manner of life they habitually impute to him, such traits as go to make up their ideal of a worthy man. And in seeking communion with the divinity the ways and means of approach are assimilated as nearly as may be to the divine ideal that is in men's minds at the time. It is felt that the divine presence is entered with the best grace, and with the best effect, according to certain accepted methods, and with the accompaniment of certain material circumstances which in popular apprehension are peculiarly consonant with the divine nature. This popularly accepted ideal of the bearing and paraphernalia adequate to such occasions of communion is, of course, to a good extent shaped by the popular apprehension of what is intrinsically worthy and beautiful in human courage and surroundings on all occasions of dignified intercourse. It would on this account be misleading to attempt an analysis of devout demeanour by referring all evidence of the presence of a pecuniary standard of reputability back directly and broadly to the underlying norm of pecuniary emulation. So it would also be misleading to ascribe to the divinity as popularly conceived a jealous regard for his pecuniary standing and the habit of avoiding and condemning squalid situations and surroundings simply because they are undergrade in the pecuniary respect. And still, after all allowance has been made, it appears that the cannons of pecuniary reputability do directly or indirectly materially affect our notions of the attributes of divinity as well as our notions of what are the fit and adequate manner and circumstances of divine communion. It is felt that the divinity must be of a peculiarly serene and leisurely habit of life. And whenever his local habitation is pictured in poetic imagery, for edification or in appeal to the devout fancy, the devout word painter, as a matter of course, brings out before his auditor's imagination a throne with the profusion of the insignia of opulence and power and surrounded by a great number of servitors. In the common run of such presentations of the celestial abodes, the office of this call of servants is a vicarious leisure, their time and efforts being in a great measure taken up with an industrially unproductive rehearsal of the meritorious characteristics and exploits of the divinity. While the background of the presentation is filled with the shimmer of the precious metals and of the more expensive varieties of precious stones, it is only in the crosser expressions of devout fancy that this intrusion of pecuniary cannons into the devout ideals reaches such an extreme. An extreme case occurs in the devout imagery of the negro population of the south. Their word painters are unable to descend to anything cheaper than gold, so that in this case the insistence on pecuniary beauty gives a startling effect in yellow, such as would be unbearable to a soberer taste. Still, there is probably no cult in which ideals of pecuniary merit have not been called in to supplement the ideals of ceremonial adequacy that guide men's conception of what is right in the matter of sacred apparatus.