A WRITER IN the New York Evening Post (John Tunis) ably discusses some problems of village life, which is synonymous with "country life" in the minds of many people. We would not have it so; real country life is another thing. Every generation changes its way of living, often reverting in a way to the manners and customs of generations beyond their immediate predecessors, and this is marked at the present time. Of course these changes affect everything pertaining to ways of livings and so change whole communities. Village life is so different at various times and places that an assertion fitting one locality will illy apply to another. Few of us have an absolute choice of residence, and must try and modify our surroundings, rather than remove ourselves to more congenial localities. The tendency of our time is towards the cities, and each of us must decide the question from our own position. In a broad way, it is a most serious question whether village life is worth preserving as we find it now.

Can it be changed, or must we change ourselves ? In the modern Utopias of the "Looking Backward" school of authors, who in their way endeavor to forecast the future, we are told that perfect adaptation of the means to the end will result in the greater amelioration of life to workers and dwellers in the country. Each one is to raise what his lands and conditions are adapted to and exchange with his countrymen whose crops and conditions are different. "Once consolidate agricultural interests, and the innumerable small farms are unnecessary. A great farming corporation with capital, economizing the small yet innumerable wastes of little farming efforts, would certainly have a better chance of success, and the condition of the farm hands be much improved".

How is all this known ? Mankind must first be improved and all the rest will be easy. We have not seen the laborers enjoy a happy life on large estates where numbers were employed. The laborer's condition is always a hard one, for it is his hard conditions that make him a laborer. The number of small landowners has always been considered the bulwark of civil, religious and personal liberty among English speaking nations, and trusts, corporations and huge estates the oppressors of mankind. Men will have to change in the future, and then will change their mode of life. It is well to consider what are the evils incident to humanity when making comparisons between city and country. The countryman who visits town at leisure and spends his time in a succession of delights puts too high an estimate upon the easy life of the town, when he contrasts it with his uninteresting and monotonous existence of work, yet he probably has greater variety of occupation than nine-tenths of the men in town who work. The city visitor to the country, with time to enjoy its beauties, and amused and entertained at the littleness of life there, glorifies the country for its beauty and charms.

It is true, on the other hand, that those who most truly love country or town are the persons who have long lived and understood either situation.

It seems understood that village life is declining both in English and America, and this gives rise to the question about its preservation. The main cause of decline seems to be that the better element in the population seeks the cities. Now the best place for alert and cultivated people to go would be where the society was congenial, and this they do, both in country and town. If they seek the wilderness it becomes a town and then a city. They are a gain to the place they go to, and a loss to that they leave, unless they have heavy moral disadvantages to neutralize the good. But people vary as much as conditions. No sweeping assertion will include the race, only a restricted class. It is true there is a greater number of fine people in large places, but we shall not all associate with them if we go there. There is much to enjoy and gain if we can take the advantage of it, in both, not without. To form a just judgement we must perceive things exactly as they are. Good authorities tell us that the Paris of Zola exists in the city on the Seine, yet to others it is truly the center of civilization, refinement and art.

Great minds and great people have in all ages declared their preference for a home in the country and proved it by living there, yet they created the places in, a sense, and their surroundings. When they were gone the place lost their prestige. It is true that the ideas popularly held about the country are often so erroneous as to amount to superstitions; on the other side, some city dwellers are so unable to adapt t h e m s elves to country conditions that their opinions are simply a compound of prejudices. Because a man is troubled with seasickness it does not follow that the ocean is not grand, healthful, beautiful and most enjoyable to thousands of others. Both city and country are healthful or not, according to circumstances. Disease and un-health trouble them both. An invalid dependent upon the society of visitors will prefer the city, otherwise the country i s First choice. City markets are cheaper and more varied as a rule; more things are to be had, but how many of us can get them ? Articles find their way when there is a market for them. Hot-house grapes are to be had the year round in New York, yet we could not always have them if we were next door to the fruit dealer.

We can generally buy fruit and vegetables cheaper in the city than country, and at less cost than we can raise them, but not as good if we know how to do it. If we take time to raise them that could be more profitably spent in other ways, they are a loss to us, but a little garden is the most pleasant and profitable means of using otherwise unemployed time that many of us know, and flowers of our own raising are sweeter to us than those bought of a Broadway florist. I n European countries, where the laborers do not own the land, they are clustered together i n villages and enjoy the society and recreation of each other's company, but their dancing and vil-1 a g e festivities are abhorrent to the religious ideas and prejudices of a large part of our people, and even the wine-d r i n k i n g habits of the in-habitants of grape-growing countries come in for an equal share of condemnation with the intemperance of a New England or Southern village. Isolation and imprisonment are bad, whether enforced by iron bars or force of circumstances; change is beneficial to us all. It does not alter the fact if some people become corrupt and demoralized from their experiences as travelers, that great good results to others.

A home in the country does not imply complete isolation; one in the city may be desolation itself.

Crocosmia aurea imperialis.

People in large places escape gossip and slander if they are unknown, but its circulation becomes a business with some people, and papers are devoted to what in the country is only the amusement of the idle. The spite, bitterness, envy, hatred and malice of small places are most deplorable, and above all, the littleness of life that is shown, but which escapes observation in town. City visitors are often most active in the circulation of evil reports, and their actions are responsible for most of the gossip. "Is village life worth preserving?" opens the large question about the desirability of life in general, and however we may argue it, we must take it as we find it in our day and generation, using our own influence for better or worse. Different stations in life regard it from their own points of view. Servants have settled the question about village life, and their verdict is almost unanimous that it is not worth preserving for them. There is now little selection of servants ; they select their employers in the country places. Those who are compelled to do their own work pertaining to domestic offices, outdoors and in, are inclined to decide with the servants, but this does not alter the existence of the country's charms for those who can enjoy them.

A flower may diffuse its perfume, but if we have no sense of smell or are away from it, can we enjoy its fragrance ?

By all means let those who can afford it travel about and improve their minds and understanding. They will often be glad to get back where they started from. No doubt a depopulation of the country is going on, and the departure of the good and useful is a loss to any place, and that of the idle and corrupt a gain; although the latter being often agreeable and entertaining, are more regretted than others. The old notions of village life are seen to be no longer sound, but is it best to work a radical change, and have mankind gathered in large aggregations, and better facilities for reaching country work provided ? Is it best to try and preserve the village life by a return to a higher standard or abandon it altogether ? What can we do towards either end if we would ? "The country is an obedient slave but an iron master ; and it will be well both for those who fear and those who love it, that it should be early mastered, and then only can it also be adequately enjoyed".

John De Wolf.