The Making of Americans, Being a History of a Family's Progress (43 page)

     As I was saying when Mary Maxworthing first had Mabel Linker live with her she had for her almost an idolising feeling. As I was saying men and women, women and women, men and men do so much repeating, it is almost startling as more and more one comes to know it of them. The repeating is not only of the general kind of combining as to their being men and women, as to their being big and little, alike or contrasting, independent dependent and dependent independent, it is likeness of the type of character combining with another and these two are very individual in their being and their relation and sometimes they have in them a kind of being that makes every one who knows them think there can never have been any one like one or the other of them, surely never any two like the pair of them and then one goes on in one's living and then there is repeating of the pair and then another repeating of them and then another repeating of them and always one has about each pair of them the strong feeling of their having each one of them strongly individual being and sometimes it makes of everything a strange world for living and sometimes it makes to one's feeling the world a pleasant and familiar place for living. Strangeness has no place then in living, to one's feeling, it is a familiar thing, living, and to some, such a feeling is the pleasantest kind of feeling they can have in their living.
     Mary Maxworthing then is very clear now in her being. She is very clear now to every one. There are many millions always living with her kind of being. There are in every country in every kind of living, they exist with every kind of training. Sometime there will be a history of five of them, sometime there will be a history of all of them. Now this is a history of one of them.
     Mary Maxworthing was what every one who knew her, whether they liked her or did not like her, thought her. She had not any recklessness or wildness in her. She had very little weakness in her. She had independent dependent nature in her but she had very little fighting in her, what seemed like fighting was mostly impatient being in her, she had very little attacking in her. She had a certain gayety in her, she had not good nature really in her, she had no heartlessness in her, she had enough sensitive being to make a pleasant sympathetic sweetness in her, that with the little gayety in her gave to her the charm she had in her. The very little attacking, the gayety in her, the impatient being in her, the certain practical feeling for fashion and for being a success, that was in her, gave to her her desire for freedom and a little distinction in the future. She had no sordidness in her, she had not much memory in her. More and more she will be clearer, in the history of her relation to Mabel Linker, in her relation to the man who later married her, in the way she came to the undertaking again of the business of dress-making.
     As I was saying, during the trouble she had in her Mabel Linker took care of her. Later they had serious trouble with each other. Finally later when Mabel had a husband to urge her and Mary Maxworthing had a little money left to her they began again to be together, they more or less stuck together though they never really got along together. They had a reasonable success together. This is now a history of Mabel Linker and the nature in her.
     Mabel Linker had a different nature. She had her own being in her. Every one has their own being in them. Every one has their own repeating in them. Every one is of a kind of men and women. Every kind of men and women is a kind of a kind of them. All the kinds of them are kinds of the two kinds of them. Sometime there will be a history of all of them.
     There are then the two kinds of them, independent dependent and dependent independent. Mary Maxworthing was of the independent dependent, Mabel Linker was of the same kind of them but as one might say of extreme one end of that kind of them, while Mary Maxworthing was of toward the other end of them. This difference made an attraction between them, their being of the same kind of them made it that in the end they did not succeed in continuing friendly living. It is very interesting to know the range in one kind of men and women. This is now a little about one kind of them with Mary Maxworthing and Mabel Linker both of them of that one kind of them but at the two ends of that kind of them.
     Men have in them and women have in them, some of them, independent dependent nature in them. Many millions of men and many millions of women are always being made of this kind, always about half of everybody living is of this kind of men and women. This is now a description of one part of them which makes one kind of this kind of men and women. This is a description of that part of them, that kind of them as women; later there will be a description of them as men. Always it is easier to know it in them, the details of a kind of them, in women, later this will be clearer in them. Now this is a history of the kind of them who have of them Mabel Linker and Mary Maxworthing.
     As I was saying the two of them had difficulties, later in their living, had difficulty in remaining friends, in beginning again with dress-making. As I was saying they had both in them the same kind of being, that is to say one was one extreme kind of such being, the other was almost the other extreme kind of such being and now there is a description of them in the kind of being there is in them, later there is a history of their living as it came out of them, always there is a description of their character as in repeating it comes out of each one of them. So then.
     There are as I was saying the two kinds of being in women and in men, independent dependent, dependent independent. The first of these have attacking as their natural way of fighting, resisting in such of them is sometimes impatient or dull or scared or stubborn or pig-headed stupid or vacant being, is sometimes a continuing of attacking; resisting to the dependent independent is the natural way of fighting. Those then who have in them independent dependent being as the bottom of them have attacking in them as their natural way of fighting. Many of them have very little fighting in their living. This was true of both of these two who had independent dependent nature in them, Mabel Linker and Mary Maxworthing.
     Those who have independent dependent nature in them may have practical and sordid nature in them but mostly they have not much earthy simple natural sense in them. This will be clearer as more of them come to be seen in the history there will be of such of them. As I was saying Mabel Linker and Mary Maxworthing had both of them independent dependent nature in them.
     Mabel Linker had not an instrument nature in her, the sensitiveness in her made a kind of real creation in her, made her live her own living, do her own loving. To many there may be a confusion between the sensitive instrument nature that lives so strongly the lives of others that they seem to be their own creation and one like Mabel Linker. To any one that knows them well, sooner or later this comes to be clearer.
     As I was saying then the instrument nature is one having sensitive being or power of idealising or power for seizing without knowing it other people's suggestion. If the seizing is their own volition that makes another being, that is not living other people's lives in living. So then there is a kind of men and women who have in them independent dependent nature in them and this is now to be a description of many variations in them and Mary Maxworthing and Mabel Linker, both of them, are of this part of the general independent dependent kind of men and women.
     Sooner or later there will be histories of many men and women with independent dependent nature in them. As I was saying there is to be Martha Hersland and Julia Dehning, there is to be a sister of one governess, and one governess with such a nature. Now there are Mary Maxworthing and Mabel Linker.
     Perhaps, always it will become clearer, the independent dependent nature and later every one will see it in each one who have in them some form of such nature. Later dependent independent nature will be clearer and every one who sees any one will know it sooner or later in that one their kind of nature and the kind of the kind of nature they have in them and that in repeating comes out of them. Now then to begin again with independent dependent being, now to begin with Mabel Linker and Mary Maxworthing.
     To begin again then with the instrument nature, with attacking being, with sensitive being, with weakness or vacant being, with little, with much bottom being, with little or much attacking in living, with unified or with separated natures inside each one, as in living it comes out of each one.
     There are then many men and many women, more or less half of all that ever were or are or will be living, who have independent dependent nature in them. I will tell about it now in women because it comes easier to tell about it in them; more and more, then, I will tell about it in men. It is the same in men as in women but it separates a little clearer in women and so it will make a kind of diagram for a beginning. As I was saying I like to tell in the beginning, I like better to tell it about women the nature in them because it is clearer and I know it better, a little not very much better. One can see it in her sooner, a little, not very much sooner, but on the whole it is clearer, things are more separate generally in her, perhaps it is a little clearer in her, perhaps I know it a little better in her.
     As I was saying then, every one has in them their own way of being and this comes out of them in the repeating that is always in every one, in some it does not come to be very clear in them until their middle living, in some not until their later living, but sometime in every one the nature in them comes to be clear to any one who looks well at them, sometimes in their younger living, sometimes in their middle living, sometimes in their later living. As I was saying every one has in them their own way of eating, their own way of drinking, their own way of sleeping, their own way of resting, of loving, of talking, or keeping still, of waking, their own way of working, of having stupid being in them and coming out of them, their own way of having nasty feeling in them and coming out of them, in short then, every one has in them their own being and in repeating it is all through their living always coming out of them.
     As I was saying more or less half of all who ever were or are or will be living have independent dependent nature in them, that is to say attacking is their natural way of fighting, resisting is stubbornness and in many of them the stupid being in them, many of them have as a bottom to them sensitive or weak or stupid being, some have attacking that is fighting as almost the whole of them. As I was saying this is all clearer in the women, as they have less in them a unification of these things in them, they have simpler reaction in them. Everybody knows this now in women and now this is a history of all of them.
     As I was saying then there are a kind of men and women who have in them independent dependent being and some of these have instrument nature, others are of the kind of Mary Maxworthing, others of the kind of Mabel Linker. There are many kinds of them who have independent dependent nature in them and there are many kinds connected with these kinds of them and their history will come later; Martha Hersland and Julia Dehning and Mr. Hersland and many others who came to know the Hersland children in some part of their living were connected then were of such a kind of nature. It is clear then, independent dependent being is being when the natural way of fighting is attacking, dependent independent being is when the natural way of fighting is resisting. There are some who have independent dependent nature in them and have no attacking, no fighting being in them, Mabel Linker was such a one; there are some who have in them very little fighting in their living but all fighting in them is attacking and this is true of Mary Maxworthing.
     There are then some who have in them sensitive being to the point of creating even to the point of fighting, there are some who have this in them; there are some who have in them sensitive being and this makes them live other people's lives in living, these may have fighting from attacking being in them, these may have fighting in them from the sensitive being in them that makes them live other people's lives all through their living. Later there will be written the history of such a one. These have instrument nature in them, they need other people's lives for life enhancing. Later there will be more history of such of them. There are some who have instrument nature in them without the sensitive bottom to them, with stupid or vacant or weak or vague bottom to them and an idealising sense in them and a stupid stubborn way of resisting to everything except the one thing they have made their living and this is always in such of them some one else's thinking, feeling or being. There are many millions always of such of them, sometime perhaps in Julia this will be interesting. So then there are many ways of having instrument nature in one. The dependent independents have it also in them, some of them, but with them, such of them as have it in them, it shows in different fashion from the independent dependent kind of them, such ones have earthy being, they have fear in them, that makes their way of being in them; later in the living of Mrs. Hersland and Madeleine Wyman and Alfred Hersland and young David Hersland dependent independent being will come to be clearer.
     Now then there is only independent dependent being we are considering. Later there will be more written of instrument being of this kind of them. Neither Mary Maxworthing nor Mabel Linker had this nature in them. So then to go on with them.
     As I was saying Mary Maxworthing had gayety in living. She had very little fighting in her living but fighting in her was as attacking. She had very little fear in her. She had very little bottom to her, she had a little sensitive bottom to her enough to give a pleasant sweetness to her. She had a little weakness in her enough to make her a little yielding to attacking. She had very little stupid bottom in her, most of the stupid being in her was of the impatient being always in her. This was the disagreeable part in her, the little attacking in her was not enough in her to be an unpleasant being in her, injured and angry feeling in her was part of such attacking living as she had in her but these were not much in her. They were sometimes in her; they were in her when she had the baby, that such bad luck should come to her. They were in her about Mabel Linker, when to her thinking Mabel was ungrateful toward her. This is now a history of Mabel Linker, and of her and Mary Maxworthing living together and their having trouble with one another and of Mabel's loving and then their beginning again dress-making together.