{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_25215/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_25215","id":"gutenberg_25215","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25215","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Conduct of life","Family","Marriage"],"text":"Produced by Suzanne Shell, Barbara Tozier and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nTHREE THINGS\n\nBY\n\nELINOR GLYN\n\n\n\nPUBLISHERS\nHEARST'S INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY CO.\nNEW YORK\n\n\n\nCopyright, 1915, by\nHEARST'S INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY CO., INC.\n\n_All rights reserved, including the translation into foreign\nlanguages, including the Scandinavian_\n\nTHE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS\nRAHWAY, N. J.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER\n\n      INTRODUCTION\n    I THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH\n   II THE GOSPEL OF COMMON SENSE\n  III MARRIAGE\n   IV AFTER MARRIAGE\n    V SHOULD DIVORCE BE MADE EASIER?\n   VI THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD\n  VII THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD. SECOND PAPER\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nI have called this little collection of articles which I have written\n\"THREE THINGS\" because to me there seem to be just three essentials to\nstrive after in life. Truth--Common Sense and Happiness. To be able to\nsee the first enables us to employ the second, and so realise the\nthird. And in these papers I have tried to suggest some points which\nmay be of use to others who, like myself, are endeavouring to reason\nout ideas to a good end.\n\nHow often one sees people who could be very happy, and who yet with\nincredible blindness and stupidity are running their heads against\nstone walls (or feather beds!) and destroying all chance of peace for\nthemselves, their mates, and their households!\n\nEverything is very simple when it is analysed down to what nature\nmeant in the affair--and by doing this one gets a broader perspective.\n\nFor instance, nature meant one thing in the connection of man and\nwoman--and civilisation has grafted quite another meaning into it, and\nthe two things are often at war in the State called marriage! In the\nchapters devoted to this subject I have tried to exploit some points\nwhich are not generally faced, in the hope that if understood they\nmight help towards Happiness.\n\nThe thing which more than half of humanity seems to forget is _the end\nthey have in view_! They desire something really ardently, and yet\nappear incapable of keeping their minds from straying into side\nissues, which must logically militate against, and probably prevent,\ntheir desire's accomplishment. This is very strange! A woman for\ninstance profoundly desires to retain a man's love when she sees it is\nwaning--but her wounded vanity causes her to use methods of reproach\nand recrimination towards him, calculated certainly to defeat her end,\nand accelerate his revolt.\n\nI feel that in publishing this little collection in America I must ask\nindulgence for the parts which seem to touch upon exclusively English\naspects of the subjects under discussion--because the main ideas apply\nto humanity in general and not to any particular country. The paper on\nDivorce is of course written from an English point of view, but its\nsuggestions may be of some use to those who are interested in the\nquestion of divorce in the abstract, and are on the alert as to the\nresults of its facilities in America. I do not presume to offer an\nopinion as to its action there; and in this paper am not making the\nslightest criticism of the American divorce laws--only stating what\nseems to me should rule all such questions in any country,\nnamely,--Common sense and consideration for the welfare of the\ncommunity.\n\nAbove all things I am an incorrigible optimist! and I truly believe\nthat the world is advancing in every way and that we are already in\nthe dawn of a new era of the understanding, and the exploitation for\nour benefit of the great forces of nature. But we of the majority of\nnon-scientists, were until so lately sound asleep to any speculative\nideas, and just drowsed on without thinking at all, that it behooves\nus now that we are awake in the new century to try to see straight and\nanalyse good and evil.\n\nIn my papers on the Responsibility of Motherhood I may be quite out of\ntouch with American ideas--but I will chance that in the hope that\nsome parts of them may be of service, taken broadly.\n\n                                                  ELINOR GLYN.\n    PARIS, 1914.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE OLD ORDER CHANGETH\n\n\nThe Old order changeth, giving place to New; and it would be well to\nrealise this everlasting fact before we decide that the world is\nwaxing evil, and the times are waxing late. And who can say that out\nof the seething of the present some noble and glorious ideals of life\nfor men and women may not spring?\n\nSurely it is unwise to read in the writing upon the wall, as so many\ndo, only a pessimistic presage of inevitable death. If there is\nwriting for students of evolution to read, then it should be taken as\na warning indication which direction to avoid and which to take.\nUnrest is a sign, not of decay, but of life. Stagnation alone gives\nwarning of death.\n\nAnd there are a number of facts to be faced before we can give an\nopinion either way.\n\nThe first of these is, that all civilised nations are endeavouring to\nstamp out ignorance and disease, and that an enormous advance in this\ndirection can be observed in the last fifty years. And, taking a\ngeneral view of the civilised peoples, a far greater number of their\nunits now lead less dreadful and degraded lives.\n\nAnd surely these indications of mankind's advancement are as plain as\nare some other signs of decline.\n\nThe stirring up of the masses by insufficient education is bound to\nproduce unrest, and until the different elements have assorted\nthemselves into their new places in the scheme of things, how can\nthere be tranquillity? All is out of balance, and has disturbed the\nmachinery of the country's life, for the time being. But if the aim\nhas been for enlightenment, the eventual outcome must be good.\n\nAll scum in a boiling pot rises to the top, and makes itself seen,\nconcealing the pure liquid beneath, until it is skimmed off. And so we\nhave political demagogues shouting the untenable fallacy that all men\nare equal, together with other flamboyant nonsense; and hooligan\nsuffragists smashing windows. But all these are only the scum upon the\noutside of a great upward movement in mankind, and are not to be taken\nas the incontestable proof of the vicious condition of the whole mass.\n\nThe spirit that is abroad, though one of great unrest, is not one of\ndecadence, but of progress. But it would be folly not to admit that\nthere are aspects of it which presage disaster unless directed, just\nas the pot will boil over if not watched.\n\nIt may be interesting to scrutinise, with unemotional common sense,\nsome of the causes of the present state of things, and perhaps from\nthis investigation come to some conclusions as to their remedy or\nencouragement.\n\nNature, whether human, animal, or vegetable, will not be hurried, or\nshe produces the abnormal. Until about a hundred years ago everything\nseemed to be moving on with a very slow and gradual evolution. Some\nthings changed a little, others it would seem, not at all. And then,\nafter the first quarter of the nineteenth century, Science and\nInvention appeared to join hands, and, with small beginnings,\ngradually assuming mammoth proportions, to revolutionise the very\nuniverse. The result has been to make life easy to a class which\nformerly had to work hard for the bare necessities of existence. With\nthis came education. The lowest of the people were taught to read and\nwrite, and the most ill-chosen and elementary book-knowledge was flung\nupon unploughed soil, unprepared for its reception. Nature was\nhurried, and began to produce, not fair flowers at once, but the\nabnormal and diseased. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.\n\nThe education these crude minds received was not of the sort to show\nthem their ignorance, and implant in them a noble desire for more\nteaching, so as to achieve a gradual advancement, but was just\nsufficient to stir up discontent with what was, and produce countless\nsquare pegs, clamouring to get into round holes for which they were\nunfitted.\n\nMechanical inventions did away with numbers of home duties, and even\nthe meagre education the masses then received was enough to cause them\nto throw grave doubts upon the accepted religion of the country. The\ntimid souls were released from the fear of hell, as a powerful factor\nfor the determining of their actions. The bold felt they would have\nthe support and sympathy of numbers of their fellows in breaking up\nold beliefs, and the intelligent of both kinds refused to swallow many\nof the dogmas any longer.\n\nThus the bridle which, through the Christian ages, had guided mankind,\nbecame as a mere thread. And all these loosened steeds ran wild and\nare still running wild, until enlightenment shall come to them, and\nthey will perceive that each individual is responsible to God for\nhimself.\n\nThe cry that the churches are emptying is perhaps true; and if it is a\nfact, then of what use to lament it? It would be more logical to\nsearch for the cause. If people do not come of their own accord, there\nis no law to oblige them to do so. Consequently, if the churches wish\nfor their return, it is their business to provide fare which will\ninduce them to take this course.\n\nEducation has encouraged men and women to think for themselves, and\nthe religiously minded, who would willingly remain under some\nguidance, have begun to perceive how very wide apart Christ's\nbeautiful teaching is from the interpretation of it which they often\nreceive in church; while the others, who had never any religious\naspirations at all, are glad that the weight of public opinion and\ncustom no longer forces them into irksome attendance. To fill churches\nwith worshippers drawn there largely through hope of Heaven or fear of\nHell, or because it was considered respectable and custom bound them\nto conform to its mandates, surely could not have been very acceptable\nto God. And the percentage who went truly to pour forth their love and\nworship, are still pouring it forth, because it came, and comes, from\ntheir hearts whether they attend church or no.\n\nThe modern spirit is full of what Edmond Holmes calls the desire to\nask the teacher or person in authority for his credentials. And if\nthese are not entirely satisfactory, the influence he can hope to\nwield will be nil.\n\nTo deplore anything that may happen to a country, or to ourselves, is\nwaste of time. We should search for the reason of it, and if it proves\nto be because there is some ineradicable cause, intelligence should\nthen be used to better the condition which results. Worship of\nsomething glorious and beyond ourselves will always swell the human\nheart, and if the accepted forms of the religion of a country can no\nlonger produce this emotion, it is not because the human heart is\nchanging, but because there is something in those forms which no\nlonger fulfils its mission.\n\nThe cry of the fear of the net of Rome is futile also. People drift to\nwhere they belong, and Rome seems to offer to take all spiritual\nresponsibility from the shoulders of her children. It gives them an\nemotional satisfaction which brings comfort to all, and amongst these\nany of hysterical nature probably become far happier and better\ncitizens under her wing than they would otherwise have been. No nets\nwill catch the expanding soul which is rising out of its paltry self\ninto ideals nearer to God.\n\nDuring the earlier days when religion held sway in England over at\nleast nine-tenths of female lives, superfluous women were content as a\nrule to lead grey, uneventful existences, making no more mark on their\ntime than if they had been flocks of sheep. But with the breakdown of\nthis force, and greater freedom of ideas, they have brought themselves\ninto prominence--the scum as a shrieking sisterhood, and the pure\nelements unobtrusively, as leaders of countless noble works.\n\nMeanwhile, in every class of the community the desire \"to move\" is\nfelt. Travelling, formerly the luxury of the rich, now is indulged in\nby an ever-increasing company. The aspect of family life is changed,\nand amusement is within the reach of all.\n\nIt is not reasonable to suppose with this total alteration in the view\nof existence, that many things that we held beautiful and sacred\nshould not have gone by the board--things such as filial respect,\ngentle manners, chivalry, obedience. We are undoubtedly in an\nunpleasant state of incompletion as a nation to-day, but by no means\nin one of decadence. And if only the two great dangers do not swamp\nus--a mawkish and hysterical humanitarianism, and the heedless pursuit\nof pleasure as the only end--the upward tendency of progress is bound\nto go on. Inventions, aided by science in all its ramifications, have\nmade life pleasant, and all these benefits have come too quickly for\nthe recipients to be prepared to receive them with calm. Their\nequilibrium is disturbed, and they are led into exaggerations, and so\nthe ugly side of the spirit of the Great Unrest is born. But,\nunderneath, the English people are a sane, healthy stock in mind and\nbody, and when education has opened their minds and broadened their\nunderstanding, they will surely allow their birthright of common sense\namong the nations to have sway again. Instead of standing aside and\nlamenting that times are evil and that the nation is going down hill,\nit behoves all thinking people to gather their forces together and\nseriously apply themselves to consider how they can better this\ncondition of things. In their daily life they can do so by setting up\na high standard of sanity and right behaviour, by the encouragement of\nfine aims and high ends, by the firm avoidance of hypocrisy and\nhysterical altruism, and by intelligent explanation to those under\ntheir care of the reason why individual responsibility is necessary\nfor the welfare of the community at large.\n\nAnd a most important lesson for every one to learn is the law of cause\nand effect. The great rush of modern life is apt to produce an\ninconsequence of action. Anything good or bad is indulged in without\ntime for thought as to its result. But the law of the boomerang is\nimmutable, and its action goes on for ever--_what we send out we\nreceive again, sooner or later, for good or ill_.\n\nThe first principle of that great and wonderful wave of \"New Thought\"\nwhich is sweeping over America, and is beginning to find some\nunderstanding in this country, is that the responsibility of each\nindividual's well-being rests with himself, and that his environment\nis the result of what his consciousness has been able to attract to\nhimself.\n\nAnd, as no one limits us but ourselves, as soon as a man's\nconsciousness begins strongly to create in his own mind new and better\nconditions, he will inevitably draw them to himself in fact. From God\nthere can emanate nothing but Good. It is the individual's own action\nwhich brings his punishment, or reward. If this fundamental principle\ncould be investigated by responsible scientists, unhampered by\ntheological influences, and with no prejudice as to the idea's being\nregarded as a mere _culte_, its exactness could perhaps be\nmathematically proved beyond a cavilling doubt. Possibly then the\ndoctrine might be allowed to be taught in the public schools, to the\neverlasting benefit of the growing race.\n\nTo say the least of it, it would inculcate an immense self-respect.\n\nThere should not be, and I believe there is not, any law which can\nprevent the lowest in the land from rising to the highest place--_if\nhe is fitted for it_. It is the ceaseless cry of the unfit unit for\nsome situation above his capabilities, which is a distressing feature\nof modern life. But, even in this, the spirit shown in the desire to\nrise is good; while if he had the will to fit himself for what he\naspires to, it would be splendid and great. And these are the men and\nwomen who succeed, no matter what avocations they may be engaged in.\nThe others, the shouters, only hamper the wheels of progress and fall\neventually as the dust in the ruts.\n\nFormerly there was a hard line drawn between \"gentlemen\" and common\nmen. And there were all sorts of things that, however bad he might be,\na \"gentleman\" did not do; or if he did commit these actions, his\npunishment was swift. He was obliged to face the ordeal of a duel, or\nhe received the cut direct from his own class.\n\nThese ideas of behaviour, accompanied by the responsibility for the\nwelfare of numbers of tenants upon his property--responsibility very\noften nobly sustained--produced in the old English aristocrat a very\nfine specimen indeed. And from him downwards in all the social\nclasses, a high tone of honour was maintained. But now the democratic\nidea is sweeping away these classes and these standards. The State is\ntaking the power for good from the individual, and the machine is\ncrushing the man; so it behooves all serious thinkers more than ever\nto use their logical common sense to supply the place once occupied by\nthe old ideals. Nothing is so arrogant as ignorance--and loud shouting\never concealed an empty pate.\n\nPart of the crude spirit of the Great Unrest of to-day manifests\nitself by the effort of those beneath to demonstrate _in words_ that\nthey are the equals of those above them. And, pitiful and ridiculous\nas this is, the spirit arose in good. It is because those underneath\n_desire_ to be the equals of those above them, that they use the only\nmeans their limited understandings provide them with, to try to obtain\ntheir ends. You never hear of numbers of people shouting that they are\nthe equals of the tramp in the street!\n\nSo it shows that even in this, the Great Unrest is an uplifting force.\nAnd when reason and education have directed its current, surely we may\nhope that we shall arise again as a nation, like a giant refreshed\nwith wine.\n\nThe study of the atavism of races, the study of heredity, the study of\nthe influence of the welfare of the mother upon her unborn child, are\nall useful and expanding studies for ordinary thinking minds, and are\nquite within the scope of the average intelligence. But the modern\nhatred of all restraint--another failing born in the good of desire\nfor freedom--makes it difficult to preach any course of action which\nwould involve curtailment of time or pleasure.\n\nYou often hear people say about some misfortune, \"Just as I expected,\nsuch and such happened,\" and they do not stop to realise that their\nexpectancy helped the thing which they feared, to materialise. No one\ncan deny the force of imagination. Its existence has been abundantly\nproved. For instance, there was a case which was in the newspapers\nsome time ago, of the guard on a Russian train who believed he was\nlocked into the cold-storage van, and wrote a letter describing how he\nwas being frozen to death. And he was actually found dead in the\nmorning, although the temperature of the car had never gone below\nfreezing point!\n\nPeople will readily credit this, but will ridicule the idea that their\nown imaginations are daily helping or hindering their own and others'\nlives.\n\nMarconi demonstrated that messages can be transmitted by wireless\ntelegraphy, and his discovery became a thing of commercial value. So\nit was believed in as nothing marvellous, but merely as a new\ndeparture of science. Yet the numberless proofs of other currents\nbeyond our actual sight which manifest themselves each day in every\nlife, and influence it, are unconsidered quantities, if not actually\ndenied.\n\nBut there they are; and though, as the demonstration of an exact\nscience, they are laughed to scorn, their force is unconsciously\nadmitted in a hundred cant phrases, such as, \"He was under an evil\ninfluence,\"--\"She makes you feel better because she is so cheerful,\"\netc., etc.--Both these things here alluded to as forces are\nintangible, and yet are real proofs of the power of imagination.\n\nThis shows how tremendously important it is never to allow our\nimagination to run into prognostications of evil, either in\npredictions for our country, for ourselves, or for our friends. Each\nunit should try to help the great force for good by sending forth\nstrong positive thoughts for its upliftment.\n\nThink, for a moment, under what a terrible shadow the soul of\nChristian man has lain for these many hundred years! Ever since the\ndoctrine of original sin was forced upon his belief, his soul has come\ninto the world handicapped by millions of thought-currents expecting\nit to do evil, unless continuously controlled and curtailed and\npunished into a semblance of good! It cannot be wondered at, then,\nthat sometimes these forces become too strong for it, and it does fall\ninto sin. But what an insult to God, the source of all love and beauty\nand holiness, to suppose He would permit a tarnished atom of Himself\nto reach the exquisite world He has created!\n\nAll who wish for enlightenment upon this subject, and as to how they\nshould view their children and their race, should read Edmond Holmes's\nmasterly work upon elementary education, \"What Is, and What Might Be.\"\n\nWe cannot stop the force which our own action, in giving education to\nthe lowest people, has put in motion, and which has produced, from\ntheir status upward, the \"Great Unrest.\" We can hardly even hope to\ncontrol it; but we can and must do all in our power to guide and\ndirect it into channels for the good and glory of our dear country,\nmaking it, as the fire Prometheus stole from heaven, an incentive to\nnoble actions and great ends.\n\nCould not the people with large influence, who are interested in this\nmatter, band together and discuss some scheme for the sending out of\nlecturers all over England who would explain, with common sense\nentirely stripped of all politics or religion, to the rising\ngeneration, the vast importance of individual responsibility--the duty\nof all citizens--the glory of helping the great force aright?\nExplanations, in a practical and simple form, would do more than a\nthousand laws, or all the thunders from the pulpit or the platform. If\nthe children in every school could be made to feel they are all little\nmen and women, full of God's gift of a soul, able and willing to help\nthe raising of their country, they would soon graft a new spirit into\ntheir homes. They would respond as readily as do the hundreds of brave\nmen who volunteer for active service, and probable death, to reinforce\na fire-brigade, or a life-boat's crew. Children are so wise when their\nfine instincts are appealed to.\n\nIf only this fundamental principle could be understood--that each\nindividual has in this life, or some former one, attracted to himself\nthe exact environment that he is now in--and that it lies only with\nhimself whether he remains in it, or lifts himself out of it, there\nwould be no more class hatred, no more railing against hard luck and\ninjustice, but a steady increase of betterment all over the world.\n\nThe unfortunate thing is, that nearly all writers and talkers and\nlecturers, who are enthusiasts, and therefore really believe in what\nthey are preaching, have so little common sense.\n\nThey carry away their readers or audiences for the moment upon the\ncurrent of their own divine enthusiasm, but when their utterances come\nto be measured by the cold light of fact, the logical conclusions are\nso faulty, that the whole, which contained many thoughts of great and\nbeautiful worth, is dismissed as the ravings of a dreamer, and ceases\nto have any effect.\n\nThe main attribute of any religion, of any ethical teaching, of any\nprinciple--to be of use to men and women at the present stage of their\ndevelopment--_must_ be incontestable common sense. Ridiculous\nsentimentality should be ruthlessly crushed, and investigation of the\nmeaning of Nature should be strenuously encouraged. And with clear\neyes we should try to see the truth. Let those born fighters who like\nfighting for fighting's sake, and who now wage war against windmills,\nbeing armed with prejudice and false conceptions of man's place in\nrelation to God, turn their belligerent powers to the demolition of\nthe double-headed Hydra, Hypocrisy and Deceit.\n\nIt is the duty of every true man and woman at this hour of their\ncountry's day to begin to THINK, to weigh for himself or herself the\nmeanings of the signs of the times, to use their critical faculties,\nto face facts honestly, unhampered by prudery, convention, or the\ndoctrines of the Church. And then they will see for themselves that\nthe Great Unrest is a force, the direction of which, for good or ill,\nlies in their own hands. And according to the way they fulfil the\nresponsibility entailed upon them in this matter, they or their\nchildren will reap the reward, or pay the price. The Great Unrest in\nits seething is still molten metal, which can be poured into what\nmould we will.\n\nTo call this Great Unrest a sign of decadence and a presage of\ndestruction, would be as fallacious as to say that electricity is an\nentirely mischievous force. Both are mischievous when undirected, and\nboth are glorious when used for good.\n\nThe test of the expansion of man's soul is the extent of its outlook.\nThe puny spirit sees an hour or two ahead; the more advanced probably\nconceives plans to benefit himself and his loved ones day by day. The\ndeveloped soul desires the good of his country. But the soul that is\ninfinite and emancipated sees into eternity and demands of God the\nregeneration of humanity.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE GOSPEL OF COMMON SENSE\n\n\nOf all the attributes which we of the twentieth century should most\nstrenuously encourage, that of common sense ranks first, in the face\nof the hysteria which threatens to weaken, if it does not swamp, all\nthe wonderful new spirit of progress which is abroad.\n\nCommon sense applied to everything alone can restore our equilibrium\nas a nation, because as the years of this new century go on hysteria\nseems to increase. Nothing in the way of a public event can happen,\nfrom the just condemnation of a criminal for some atrocious crime, to\nthe sinking of an ocean mammoth ship, but a large section of the\npublic makes an outcry inspired by altruism or so-called\nhumanitarianism, both developing into hysteria.\n\nLet us look at the reason of this carefully, and we shall see that\nthis state of things is the direct result of an irresponsible\nemployment of the gigantic power of thought. Some few excitable brains\nstart an idea, the circulation of which is made possible by the modern\nfacilities for expression in the press. And because the majority of\nreaders do not think for themselves, they are drawn into the current\nof unrest which has thus been suggested to their imagination, each\nindividual augmenting its strength until it grows into a torrent of\nfolly.\n\nThis proves the tremendous importance it is to a nation that each of\nits units should realise his own responsibility in regard to this\nmatter. The moment that such a thing could be accomplished--that is,\nthat the understanding of the power of thought could be brought home\nto people--there are millions of sound, honest folk who would\ndeliberately try to use their possession of it for the good of\nthemselves and the race, and who would bring up their children to do\nlikewise.\n\nThe wave of complete materialism which passed over Europe during what\nwe call the Victorian period discouraged any personal investigation of\nforces beyond what could actually be proved by the senses. Numberless\nexamples of natural phenomena were laughed to scorn as the illusions\nof the ignorant. People read their Bibles, wherein there are countless\ninstances shown of the power of thought, and never dreamed of applying\nthe teaching to themselves. How such a materialistic age ever accepted\nChrist's miracles is a matter for wonderment, although now, looked at\nfrom the point of view of those who have investigated the currents of\nnature, the miracles are merely a proof of Jesus' divine understanding\nof these currents and forces in their greatest measure. We modern\npeople are only as yet at the experimental stage, and hedged in by\ntimidity and custom, but there is no reason why we should not advance\nif we desire to do so.\n\nThink how the power of thought showed itself about the _Titanic_\ndisaster! There is no need now to go over its hysterical effects upon\nus on land, how in our misery and anxiety we praised and blamed from\nexcitable imagination, before any actual facts could be known to\njustify either course. But let us instead try to imagine what in its\nglorious form it did upon that great ship on the night of her\noverwhelming.\n\nEverything seems to have been calm and in fair order. Why? Because it\nhas been now proved that the majority of those on board did not\n_think_ the ship could sink. Only a limited number of men _knew_ that\nshe not only could, but _would_, and these glorious and splendid souls\ndid their duty to the last, with the awful knowledge of certain death\nin their hearts. Their names should be written in letters of\ngold--heroes, indeed! But, meanwhile, the power of thought had kept\nall calm, and had permitted the saving of the women and children\nwithout panic.\n\nThink for a moment what would have happened if the passengers of all\nclasses had been aware, from the first moment of the collision, that\nall were bound to go down who could not find places in the boats. The\npower of thought would then have created a mad panic of fear which no\nofficers' pistols could have kept in check, and which might have\nproduced a rush upon the lifeboats which would have swamped them all.\nBut as it was, the power of thought in the few individuals who\nrealised the general peril, was used by them in a godlike suppression\nof their own emotion, which produced an answering vibration of calm in\nthe majority under their care.\n\nI do not want to refer to the awful story except in so far as it is a\nconcrete illustration of what I wish to write about--the power of\nthought examined with common sense in its relation to the happiness of\neach individual, and the responsibility of its employment by each\nindividual for the benefit of the community--not from the desire to\nuse this opportunity to circulate propaganda for any of the new\nethical teachings, but simply from a common-sense point of view to see\nwhat good we can get out of a belief that is, I suppose, common to\nthem all.\n\nNow let us consider what most of us do actually know about this power\nof thought. We all are aware that no picture can be painted, no\nmachinery invented, before a clear vision of it has been realised in\nthe creator's brain. Not a single conscious action can be put into\nmotion and force without its having first occurred to the imagination.\nThe painter's hand and brush would be of no avail undirected by his\nbrain or mind, which has first mentally visualised what it wishes to\ncreate in fact. Draw the analogy from this, and you will see that what\nyou think about must have an enormous bearing upon your life. If\nthought, when inspired by desire, is strong enough to cause the hand\nto reproduce the vision of the imagination of the artist, this is an\nincontestable proof that thought is a very strong force indeed. You\nwill agree with this if you--each individual who is reading these\nwords--begin to examine yourself with truth.\n\nAdmitted, then, that you perceive the force of thought. Now consider\nwhat miserable thinking is likely to bring you. It, according to the\nanalogy above, can only eventually attract for you _in fact_ the\nmiserable conditions that you have dwelt upon in imagination. If, on\nthe contrary, you think constantly of fine and prosperous things, you\nmust by this reasoning, be connecting yourself with the currents which\ncan bring them in their material form.\n\nTherefore, every time you say \"I am ill,\" or think \"I am ill,\" are you\nnot helping the illness to materialise? because the power of thought,\nwhich you cannot deny as the initial cause of every action, has then\nbeen turned to aid the condition of ill health.\n\nSupposing for some cause you really are ill, why then help this evil\nstate to augment by your thoughts? Rather impede its progress as far\nas you can by creating good-thought conditions.\n\nYou may reply, \"But I am constantly doing this, and yet nothing good\ncomes.\" Pause and use your common sense by remembering that for\ntwenty--thirty--forty years perhaps, when you did not analyse matters,\nyou were laying up for yourself numberless stumbling-blocks by wrong\nthinking, which according to the law we are discussing must be\nsurmounted before you can start on a clear road. And the reason why\nyou do not immediately receive the result of your good thoughts is\nthat you are still under the action of your bad ones. But if you\nrecognise this law of the power of thought, you need not incur for\nyourself any further debts to pay.\n\nAnd to recognise it as a law you have only to use your common sense to\nsee that it is not conceivable that thoughts can have no effect\noutside your own brain. They cannot be wasted and go into nothingness,\nthey _must_ strike some answering vibration somewhere, and it is\nsurely rational to suppose they will strike the kindred vibration\nrather than some totally different one, as the Marconi messages strike\nthe pole in tune to them. At least, it is worth while trying to\nbelieve this, because if you can it will make you happier.\n\nAlas! I am not a scientist who can dogmatically prove every fraction\nof my beliefs. I only want to awaken my readers to think for\nthemselves upon this interesting subject, for the facts are there for\nus all to investigate, unaided by scientists, if we will.\n\nSo without any more argument, shall we take it for granted that you\nare with me thus far, and have seen my point? Yes. Then let us examine\nwhat our thoughts do for us.\n\nFor example, let us suppose a man has a disease which is believed to\nbe incurable. His thoughts tell him so constantly, and the thoughts of\nhis friends, often expressed in words, convince him still further of\nhis misfortune. He is certain nothing he can do will make it better,\nand any remedy that is applied will only meet with failure. He has\nmade his mental picture of an incurable disease; and so he is helping\nthe material result to accomplish itself. But, as hope springs eternal\nin the human breast, he still goes from doctor to doctor for fresh\nadvice, while unconsciously nullifying the benefit he might receive\nfrom doing so by his attitude of mind in holding the belief that\nnothing can cure him. We must all of us know of cases like this, and\nhave seen the gradual increase in the person's illness.\n\nNow supposing that the starting-point is the same; the disease\ncertainly is there, but the man is determined not to aid and augment\nthis state of things, so whenever the thought presents itself that he\nhas an incurable disease he persistently banishes it and replaces it\nwith one that he will grow well. He will be aiding that condition; he\nwill be making himself the pole in tune to receive the answering\nvibrations of his mental picture. He will know that he must be drawing\nto himself every chance that science has up till this time of the\nworld's day been able to invent or discover for the betterment of such\na disease as his. He will know that he is giving nature a free hand,\nand as far as he is able, he is opening every door to the probability\nthat he may grow well. Now, if we admit the power of thought, we must\nadmit it has power to go both these ways. Is it not worth while trying\nto think good things for ourselves, then, instead of evil ones?\n\nIt does not seem possible, as I understand some assert, that by mere\nthinking and believing we can cure even a broken arm. Because,\nalthough the principle may be right in its eventuality, no one on\nearth can be quite advanced enough yet to draw these forces to himself\nsufficiently strongly to demonstrate it as Christ did. But we are at\nthe stage when, by our thoughts, we can certainly aid physical means\nof betterment. Thus when we or our friends are ill, it lies in our own\nhands whether we will aid or retard our or their recovery.\n\nLong years ago, before any of these psychic waves were discussed or\ngiven the least credence, I remember a very celebrated American doctor\ntelling me, as a curious fact, that he often got his patients over the\ncrisis of typhoid fever by telling them cheerfully beforehand that the\ndangerous moment was passed, and they were not to worry over the\nseemingly worse physical sensations they were perhaps about to\nexperience--these were only the reaction. In that way, he said, he\nremoved the amount of fear from the mind of the patient which\notherwise might have been enough to cause the extra exertion to the\nheart which would have proved fatal at the critical moment. The power\nof thought, you see, and nothing else, then saved them.\n\nTo continue this line of reasoning in mental, not physical, things.\nSupposing you feel angry and resentful towards some one, and you send\nout thoughts of hate and ill-will. The pole in tune to such feelings\nin that person will answer and return them to you, and a condition of\nevil will be created. But supposing that, when perhaps the justly\nangry and resentful thoughts present themselves, you replace them\ninstantly with kind and loving ones. You will have disconnected\nyourself with the evil thoughts of the other person, they can no\nlonger reach you, and if he has any good in him you will have\nconnected yourself with that good, and so peace can be established.\n\nAll this is common sense, which is the only attitude of mind with\nwhich to approach any new suggestion that we may get benefit from it,\nand not through our arrogant ignorance dismiss it as nonsense, until\nwe have proved it to be such. A hundred years ago the telephone would\nhave been considered either as magic or the vapourings of a madman if\nan individual had tried to explain it. We say that \"France is\ndeveloping a new spirit,\" we say \"A wave of discontent seems to be\npassing over such and such a community,\" we are thus unconsciously\nadmitting the power of forces beyond the perceptible. Why cannot we\ninstantly grasp, then, what the power of our everyday thought is doing\nfor us, and how careful we should be in its direction to avoid\naugmenting the current of foolish and harmful ones--because unity is\nstrength. There are many grains of good to be got out of all new\nethical teachings, if only they can be sifted by common sense. The\nunfortunate part is, that very often it is only the faddists who\nexpound them, and they go off at a tangent. One reads several pages of\nilluminating matter, and then, perhaps, one comes upon a chapter\ndevoted to proving that mankind must train itself to live upon nuts or\nuncooked vegetables! Or that the only way to learn concentration is\nfor the pupil to school himself mentally to stare for so many minutes\nat an imaginary spot in the solar plexus!\n\nCommon sense revolts, although many may not be sufficiently trained to\nmake the deduction that if God, the omnipotent, original,\nall-dominating dynamo, gave the flesh of bird, beast and fish, and the\nfruits and vegetables of the earth for mankind to feed upon, it is a\nlittle ridiculous for one sect to eliminate as food all but the\nspecial part of these aliments of which it approves. Thus, common\nsense being affronted, all the rest of the teaching is likely to fall\nupon stony ground and only be received by the faddists in tune to this\nparticular argument. No theory for the betterment of mankind will\nsucceed now with the mass of people or make any lasting mark upon time\nunless its basic principle can stand practical dissection.\n\nSo that upon this subject of the power of thought, all that any one at\nthe present stage can do, no matter what his own personal beliefs may\nbe, is to try and awaken people to think about it themselves and make\ntheir own investigations; to open a window for any soul to look\nthrough and see what he can get from it for himself. Because, as yet,\nthe scientists and psychologists have not been sufficiently interested\nin the idea to endeavour to prove and demonstrate it as an exact\nscience beyond all controversy. When this has been done, the\nintelligent will credit it because they are convinced, and the\nignorant because they follow the others without reason.\n\nAll I hope to do by writing this article is to point out that the\npower of thought is a vital factor in our lives, and can really affect\nevery hour of them for good or ill.\n\nThousands of people who read the new ethical or religious books which\nare abroad, and even exploit their propaganda--thousands who attend\nthe various meetings and services and lectures of the different\nsocieties, be they \"New Thought\" or any of the others on more or less\nthe same lines--never dream of applying the teachings to a single\nordinary thing, and still go on with their tempers and melancholy and\nflurry and fuss, just as they did before they ever heard of the idea\nthat they can control and eliminate these things. An enormous majority\nof the public are frightened at the very name of a new religion or\nethical teaching, and think it wrong even to investigate what it\nteaches. But the broad-minded are unafraid of any knowledge, and can\ngain good by knowing about all developments of human thought, provided\nthey approach each point with common sense and without hysteria,\ndismissing the idea of what we are accustomed to call the\nsupernatural, and realising that everything has a perfectly natural\nexplanation when it can be understood, and it is only our ignorance\nwhich makes us shy at it.\n\nAnd so I would appeal to those who credit this power of thought to\nemploy it responsibly, and to realise that they are all God's atoms in\nthe great scheme of things, and must use their personal force as a\ncontribution to the vast thought-waves which can advance, or which,\nwhen ill directed, can sweep away a nation.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nMARRIAGE\n\n\nIt is an interesting subject--and one which has touched, or will\nprobably touch, most of our lives, therefore it may not be\nunprofitable to study it a little, and what it means and what it\nshould mean; because, in the present upheaval of all our old beliefs,\nmarriage, as a sensible institution, is being attacked upon many\nsides.\n\nIt is extremely easy to pull down a house, but it requires skill and\nspecial training to rebuild it again; and before dragging the roof off\nand demolishing the walls, it would be wiser to have made a distinct\nplan and provided the materials ready for the reconstruction of a new\nhabitation, that the rain and the wind may not overcome us when we\nhave no shelter for our heads. But this is what the attackers of\nmarriage have failed to do as yet. Here are three facts which we can\nbegin by looking at.\n\n_Firstly._ Some kind of union between man and woman, consolidated by\nthe law, is necessary for the continuation of a race in vigour and\nmoral upliftment.\n\n_Secondly._ It is admitted by great philosophers and deep thinkers\nthat the welfare of the community is of more importance than the\nfluctuating desires of the individual.\n\n_Thirdly._ A fine ideal, however impossible of attainment, is a force\nfor good to be held up before the eyes of the mass of the people, who,\nhowever much actual education has advanced, are still too unendowed\nwith personal brain to have any judgment themselves--their capacities\nonly allowing them to see the effects of things upon their immediate\nsurroundings without perceiving the causes, and therefore leaving them\nincapable of judging what could be good for the country, the race, or\nhumanity in general.\n\nAfter all these centuries, legal marriage still holds, because no one\nhas been able to suggest any other union which could take its place\nwithout bringing chaos. And it seems more than likely that no one will\never be sufficiently inspired so to do! Thus let us now consider the\npresent legal marriage as still being a stable fact, and see how we\ncan make the best of it. In it there are two things which both man and\nwoman forget--or refuse to face--and which are perhaps the chief\ncauses of most unhappiness. Man forgets that his kind _words_ of love\nand sympathy matter far more to the actual happiness of the woman than\nany of his _deeds_: because words fill and satisfy her imagination,\nwhich is active whenever she is alone; and kind deeds, with few or\nindifferent words, make very little impression upon it. Woman\nforgets--or will not face--the fact that man is by nature a polygamous\nanimal. There is no use in arguing about this and saying he ought not\nto be, and that it is a horrible idea. It is a physiological fact, and\nto dispute it is to criticise the Almighty's scheme for ensuring a\ncontinued population. That man should have polygamous instincts is\nessential for this scheme to work against any odds.\n\nWhatever we choose to say in contradiction to this resolves itself\ninto empty words, the fact of nature remaining. It would be just as\nsensible to try to argue that, because we do not like to drink sea\nwater, it has no business to be salt! and to decide that it is _not_\nsalt! and that we will not recognise that _it is_ salt! The ocean\nwould just laugh at us, and remain briny! And no doubt Nature laughs\nat silly woman too, when she tries to judge man without understanding\nthe elementary principle of creation.\n\nThis being grasped clearly, it must be seen that monogamous marriage\nis _an ideal state_, not a _natural state_, and it must be admitted to\nbe such, and lived up to as an ideal, not undertaken with the notion\nthat fidelity in man is _natural_, and infidelity an _unnatural_\nthing. It is the other way about because of the fundamental instincts\nof man, which continuously and subconsciously suggest to him the\nnecessity for self-preservation, and in its larger sense\nself-preservation means species-preservation.\n\nWoman, on the other hand, although unconsciously inspired by this same\nfundamental instinct of species-preservation, is not naturally\npolygamous, or rather polyandrous, because such a state would militate\nagainst this end by eventually destroying pure offspring. She only\nbecomes so under certain conditions. Fidelity, then, is, so to speak,\na natural state for woman, and she has not to fight against any\nfundamental instinct of her sex in order to preserve it--she has only\nto resist perverted desire, which is an exotic growth, the outcome of\ncivilisation. Thus fidelity is much harder for man, who, to succeed in\nbeing faithful, is obliged to dominate a natural instinct, which is a\nfar more difficult thing to do than to fight against an exotic desire;\nbecause all natural things are governed by inexorable and eternal\nlaws, and are not at the mercy of circumstance. Thus the natural\ninstinct of man is at work all the time in continuous activity--and\nthe exotic desire of woman is intermittent, and the result of\ncircumstance.\n\nOf course, all this has been said before by every serious thinker, and\nI am only reiterating these facts because the general readers may have\nforgotten them, and I must bring them to their recollection to make\nthe rest of our discussion upon marriage clear.\n\nThese nature instincts being admitted, we can get on to a survey of\nlegal marriage. At first, it must have been an affair of expediency.\nThe woman was probably expected to be faithful, and brute force took\ncare that she was so, or that she immediately paid the price of\npossible contamination of offspring by being killed. She was expected\nto be faithful for a natural reason, not for a spiritual or\nsentimental one; the reason being, as already inferred, to ensure the\npurity of the offspring. Man had no need to be faithful to one woman\nto secure this end, and never, in consequence, dreamed of being so.\n\nAll through Pagan times infidelity in man was rampant and recognised,\nand not looked upon as sin. And when woman became civilised enough to\nhave exotic desires, she lost her natural instinct, that of\npreservation of pure offspring, and became liable to vagrant fancies\nand often a vicious creature.\n\nThen the Church arrived and turned marriage into a sacrament;\npresumably with the noble intention of trying to elevate man and\novercome his carnal nature. Man outwardly conformed, and, with his\nwhole soul's desire to be true and to uplift himself, each individual\nwho really believed no doubt did war with his instincts, and numbers\nprobably succeeded in conquering them. While woman, always a creature\nof more delicate nervous susceptibilities, flung herself with furore\nunder the influences of spiritual things, and in the truly devout\ncases overcame her grafted desires and returned to natural instincts.\nBut in beings of both sexes who were unconvinced by religion,\ninfidelity continued to flourish, as it does even to this day. A man\nwho truly believes that he is sinning in being unfaithful, and who\nunderstands that outside opinion is nothing in the soiling of his own\nsoul, but that the matter is between himself and God, will always be\nfaithful _in body_ to a woman he has wedded, whether he cares for her\nor not. But a man who has not this conviction, and who does not live\nin this intimate relation to God, has no reason to hold him from\nindulging his natural instinct, except the fear of being found out,\nand when his sagacity has suggested safeguards against this, his\ninstinct will certainly give itself expression. It is all a question\nof personal belief. There are numbers of good and honest characters\nwho do not feel convinced that entire fidelity in man to one woman was\nintended by the Creator, and who therefore feel no degradation in the\nlatitude they allow themselves. It is not for us to argue which are\nright and which are wrong, but to stick to the subject of marriage and\nhow it can perhaps be made happier in these present days, when all\nother conditions of life are changing, by a better comprehension of\nfundamental instincts and laws of nature.\n\nWoman has developed so far that generally she thinks she is (and\nsometimes she really is!) a reasonable and balanced creature, with\nstrong individuality--and personal tastes and likes and dislikes. She\nis now ill-fitted to keep them all in subservience to man, unless he\nis her intellectual master. She may have wedded only because the\nemotion of sex (not understood as such, and called by a number of\nother names such as \"love,\" \"devotion,\" \"attraction\") forced her at\none of its powerful moments to take a physical mate--totally unsuited\nto her moral calibre. But she has knelt at the altar and sworn vows\nbefore God--and perhaps has fulfilled woman's original mission in the\nworld, and become the mother of children--so what is to be done to\nrectify her mistake and its unhappy consequences?\n\nShe must look the whole circumstances of it in the face and ask\nherself whether she herself threw dust in her own eyes as regards the\ncharacter of her husband, whether he deceived her in this, or whether\nthey just drifted together, each to blame as much as the other,\nthrough the attraction of sex and the cruelty of ignorance. She may\nregret it a thousandfold--but she has done the thing of her own free\nwill, no one forced her to wed the man; she may have done so\nunwillingly in some cases--and for ulterior motives, but at all events\nshe was consenting and not dragged to church resisting, and so if she\nis sensible she will use the whole of her intelligence to make the\nbest of it. She will look to the end of her every action and her every\nthought. Will brooding over her \"rights,\" and the wrongs he has\ninflicted, mend them? Will it do anything but give her vanity--the\nsatisfaction of self-pity? Certainly not.\n\nIf she has really evolved enough to wish to impose her opinions and\nindividuality upon her household or the community, she will have\nrealised that the welfare of the home for which she is responsible,\nand the community to which she belongs, are, or ought to be, of far\nmore consequence to her than her own personal emotions. Therefore she\nmust ask herself whether she has any right to upset the happiness of\nthe one, and the conception of good of the other, by indulging in\npersonal quarrels and bickerings, or open scandal with her mate. A\nreally noble and unselfish woman would never consider her personal\nemotion before her duty to God and to her neighbour. It is because the\noutlook of woman is as a rule so pitifully narrow and self-centred\nthat she often makes a useless and unhappy wife, and shipwrecks her\nown and others' futures.\n\nMan has gone on with his brute force, and his physical and mental\nattraction, and his tastes and beliefs and aspirations very much the\nsame for thousands of years. Numbers of them were brutes then, and\nnumbers are brutes still and will remain so. It is only woman who has\nso incredibly changed, and after staying immeasurably behind in\nimportance and in intellectuality for countless centuries, now seeks\nto equal if not outstep man in all things. It would be well for man to\nwake up to the fact that he is now wedding a woman with every sense\nand nerve and conception of life far in advance of what his mother\nbelieved herself to be capable of--and so his methods towards her in\nreturn must not be as his father's were. If man wishes to have the\ngood, domestic, obedient wife his father--perhaps one should go\nfarther back and say grandfather!--expected--and got--he must either\nchoose a timid weakling who becomes just his echo, or he must learn to\ntreat the modern woman as a comrade, a being who mentally can\nunderstand and follow his aspirations and even assist him in his\ndesires, a creature to respect and consult, and whom he cannot rule\njust because he is a man and she is a woman--but can only do so, and\nbring her to obedience, when he has shown her his intellectual\nsuperiority and his wisdom.\n\nWoman is as willing to be ruled as ever she was--she always adores a\nmaster; but she has grown too intelligent to bow her head just because\na man is a _man_--he must be _the man_. Man is naturally fighting for\nhis old omnipotence, which he possessed regardless of his personal\nendowment, simply because he was a male creature--and the foolish\nsection of woman is fighting man, with bombs and tricks and frantic\nwords, instead of _convincing_ him by her wisdom and attainments, by\nher demonstrations of knowledge of life and its duties and\nresponsibilities, that she has grown at last indeed fitted to be\ntreated as an equal and a comrade, not as a plaything and a slave.\n\nWho does not respect a woman who fulfils all her obligations with\ngrace and charm, whose house is well ordered, whose friends are well\nentertained by her fine mind, and whose children are well brought up\nand full of understanding? She is indeed more precious than rubies and\nfar more full of influence for the good of her community than she who\nshouts of rights and wrongs and votes and such-like. The first woman\ncould control a hundred votes, and help a government, but the second\ncan only clog the wheels of the sex's advancement.\n\nNow we get back to marriage!\n\nAnd the first and foremost thing to be understood is that it is a\nfrightful responsibility to undertake, and that all those who enter\ninto this bond lightly and for frivolous motives, or from just\ndrifting, will be made by fate to pay the price.\n\nThink of it! Two people stand up and swear before God to continue to\nlove one another until death do them part. They solemnly stand there\nand make vows about an emotion over which they have no more control\nthan they have over the keeping of the wind in the south. They have\nonly control, if they have strong wills, over its demonstration. And\nthen in nine cases out of ten neither thinks for a moment afterwards,\nof his or her responsibility _of trying to make possible_ the\nobservance of these vows, by keeping alight the flame of love in the\nother's heart. A man utterly disillusions a woman and then blames her,\nnot himself, for her ceasing to care for him, and being eventually\nattracted by some one else! A woman disgusts or bores a man, and then\nbewails her sad lot, and calls the man a brute for being indifferent,\nand a shameful creature for looking elsewhere for consolation! In all\nmarriages there is no one to blame or praise for unhappiness or\nhappiness but the two individuals themselves. It is his fault--or\nmisfortune--if she no longer cares, and likewise hers in the parallel\ncase--and it is owing to the weakness of either if outside\ncircumstances have been able to interfere. Thus to ensure happiness\nthere must be a tremendous sense of personal responsibility, and there\nshould be understanding of life and understanding of nature instincts\nand understanding of sex instincts; and a ruthless tearing away of the\nfalse values which a Victorian age grafted upon religion, narrowing\nthe mind of woman as to man's needs--and narrowing man's conception of\nwoman's mental capacity.\n\nNo woman must ever forget in her relation to man that \"he who pays the\npiper calls the tune,\" and in this I am not only speaking literally of\nshekels of gold and silver, but of the power incorporated in certain\npersonalities; and man, if he chose to exert it, has always _force\nmajeure_ at his command in the last extremity, although in these days\nof Herculean young women he may lose even this in time!\n\nBefore undertaking to play that most difficult part of wife, every\ngirl ought to ask herself, Does she really care for the man enough to\nmake her use her intelligence to understand him, and to try to keep\nhim loving her? Or if she does not personally care enough for him to\ntrouble about this--will the situation of her husband in the world\nsatisfy her, and make the bondage, unleavened by love, of the care of\nhouse, servants, and possible children, worth while?\n\nBefore undertaking the situation she ought to look at every aspect of\nthe case, and question herself searchingly upon her own aims and ends,\nand if the actual facts will or will not fit in with them. Having made\nup her mind that for one reason or another it is for her happiness to\ntake a certain man for her mate, she ought then sedulously to\ncultivate all the aspects of the condition which can conduce to peace\nand to the attainment and enjoyment of that end. She must not forget\nthat the man has paid her the highest honour a man can pay a woman. He\nhas selected her to be his life's companion. He proposes in nine cases\nout of ten, to provide her with a home and a position in life, and to\ntake upon himself the responsibility of her maintenance (when the\nwoman has money of her own this question is different naturally). But\nin all cases the man in asking her to marry him has shown that\nsomething in her--or in her possessions--makes her appear worth the\ngiving up of his liberty. So she owes him just as much as the thing he\ntook her for. If for her money, and she knows it is for that, and she\nhas been sufficiently humble to accept him on those terms--she owes\nhim money. If for love--she owes him at least the outside observances\nof love. If he has pretended love and it is for some other motive, his\nNemesis will fall upon himself in the disillusion and contempt he will\ninspire. But in all cases the woman, through want of intelligence or\npure misfortune, has crossed the Rubicon with him; she has allowed him\nto teach her the meaning of dual life--she has put it into his power\nwith her to create future lives. She cannot, for any price or any\nprayers, recross that fatal stream. So for all reasons of common\nsense--and above all, sense of responsibility to the community--she\nhad better make the best of her bargain.\n\nLikewise, man should pause and think, Is it merely because I cannot\nobtain this woman upon any other terms that I am offering her\nmarriage? Have I respect for her? Do I think she will bring happiness\ninto my house as well as pleasure to my body? Is she suited to my\nbrain capacity when I am not exalted by physical emotion? Am I going\nto curb my selfishness and behave decently towards her?\n\nIf he cannot answer these questions satisfactorily he may know that he\nis undertaking a hundred-to-one chance of peace and happiness. But if\nthe physical desire is stronger than all these considerations, then he\nmust _know and realise_ that whatever happens _he must never blame the\nwoman_. He has succumbed to the most material and alas! the most\nhideously strong force in nature--not because the woman tempted him,\nas it has been the fashion for man to say since the days of Adam--but\nbecause there is something in himself which is so weak that it cannot\nlisten to the promptings of the spirit when the body calls.\n\nIn each and every case it is a man's duty to be kind and courteous to\na woman who is his wife. He has made her so by his free vows before\nGod (because no one can be forced to the altar against his absolute\nwill in these days), or he has made her so by vows and business\nagreement, according to the laws of his country, before the Registrar.\nIn either case he has made her his legal wife and the possible mother\nof his children--units unborn who can affect the welfare of his\ncountry. He has, then, his great duties towards her. If she was a\ngirl, he has taken from her that which nothing on earth can restore;\nhe has made her into another being. He has been instrumental in making\nher--this other human soul--accept responsibilities, and he is bound\nas an honourable man to school himself so as to be able to help the\nmutual happiness and peace of their dual existence. And if he wishes\nto be obeyed, loved, and respected, he has to look to himself that he\ninspires obedience, love, and respect in his mate. She will not\nexperience these feelings to order; and fear alone, or some other and\nlower motive, would make her simulate them. Man must not forget that\nnothing simulated can last. Truth alone remains at the end of the\nyear.\n\nNo marriage can be certain of continuing happy which has been entered\ninto in the spirit of taking a lottery ticket. But most marriages\ncould be fairly happy if both man and woman looked the thing squarely\nin the face and made up their minds that they would run together in\nharness as two well-trained carriage horses, both knowing of the pole,\nboth pulling at the collar and not over-straining the traces, both\ntaking pride in their high stepping and their unity of movement. How\nmuch more dignified than to make a pitiful exhibition of\nincompatibility like two wild creatures kicking and plunging, and\nfinally upsetting the vehicle they had agreed to draw?\n\nI would like to discuss now the problem of whether or not marriage\ncould be made happy no matter how it starts, by using common sense,\nbut the deep interest of the whole subject has made my pen already\ncover too much space and I must refrain in this chapter.\n\nOnly, men and women who read this, do not pass it by, but stop and\n_think_ before you plunge, through the giving and the taking of a\nwedding ring, into happiness or misery.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nAFTER MARRIAGE\n\n\nConsidering the instability of all our tastes and desires and the\nalmost total want of personal discipline which prevails in the present\nday, it is really remarkable that the legal marriage goes on even as\nwell as it does!--but that the state could be much happier is patent\nto any understanding, and it may be interesting to look at one or two\naspects of it, and see from whence comes the discord. A woman enters\ninto matrimony for various reasons, but, in the majority of cases in\nEngland and America at least, it is because she is, or fancies she is,\nin love with the man at the time. He, therefore, if this is so, starts\nwith an enormous power over her, which, if he chooses to keep it, will\nenable him to turn their future life in any way he will, because the\ngreatest desire even of the most strong-minded and domineering woman\nwhen in love is to please the man. A woman only becomes indifferent as\nto whether or no she is doing this when she no longer cares.\nTherefore, it is the man's business to keep her in this state if he\nwants his home to be happy. The first thing for him to realise is that\nshe cannot remain in love with him by her own will, any more than she\ncan cease to love him by her own will--these states are produced in\nher by something in himself. And if he discontinues using the arts and\nattractions which awakened her love, he cannot expect it to continue\nits demonstration, any more than a kettle will go on boiling if the\nheat beneath is removed from it. This argument, of course, applies to\nboth sexes. Unfortunately, in a great many cases of marriage, the\nsimple attraction of sex has been the unconscious motive which has\ncaused the man to enter the bond, and naturally, when he has gained\nhis wishes he ceases to endeavour consciously to attract the woman.\nAnd then one of two things happens; either she grows to love him more\nfor a time, because of that contrariness in human beings which always\nputs abnormal value upon the thing which is slipping out of reach--or\nshe herself becomes indifferent; and then it is a mere chance if they\nboth, or either of them, possess character and a sense of duty as to\nhow the marriage goes along. We will take the case of a union when\nboth parties are in love when they start, and really desire that their\nmarriage should remain happy. Each ought to decide that he or she will\ndo his or her uttermost to continue to put forth those charms which\nenchanted the mate before the ceremony. No one would expect the bloom\nto remain upon grapes if he carelessly rubbed it off, but both man and\nwoman are extraordinarily surprised and disgusted when they find their\npartners are no longer in love with them, and at once blame them for\nfickleness, instead of examining themselves to see what caused this\nceasing to care--what they did--or omitted to do--which made\nthemselves no longer able to call forth love from their mates. And\nuntil it can be grasped that all emotion of love is produced by\nsomething consciously or unconsciously possessed by the other\nperson--and that it is not in the power of the individual to order\nhimself to feel it, or not to feel it, but that only the demonstration\nof the state is in his power--unions will go on with mutual\nrecriminations and the hitting of the heads against a stone wall.\n\nSome natures are naturally fickle and unstable--and no matter how good\nand sweet the partner may be, they break away. These cases are\nmisfortunes, but in analysing the facts the actual responsibility\ncannot be laid at the doors of such people, since they could not _by\nwill_ have kept the sensation of love for their partners, any more\nthan by will they could have ceased to care for them. They could only\n_by will_ have been able to control the expression of their feelings.\nI seem to be reiterating this point to the verge of tiresomeness, but it\nis so vitally important to understand, because its non-comprehension\nproduces such injustice. If John _by his will_ were able to make\nhimself remain in love with Mary, and failed to do so, then she might\nhave a right to blame him because he had sworn that he would at the\naltar. But as he cannot command his actual emotion, she can only blame\nhim for infidelity of the body, since of that, at least, it is\npossible he could be master. But, alas! Mary very seldom realises\nthis, and reproaches John for ceasing _to feel loving_ towards her!\nwhich is as sensible on her part as to reproach him for the skies\npouring rain. John, on his side, in like case does the same thing,\nbecause he also has not understood the truth. A valuable point for\nboth to keep in remembrance is that the attraction of sex is the basis\nof all \"being in love.\" However ennobled the emotion may become\nafterwards, it always starts with that. (This fact is explained and\nelaborated in the conversation between the Russian and the Clergyman\nin my story, \"The Point of View.\") If common sense is used in thinking\nabout this matter, it will be seen that if this was not the foundation\nof \"being in love\" the emotion would be calm, and like that of brother\nand sister. So, admitting that this is the foundation, it can be\nunderstood how important a part it plays in the happiness of two\npeople bound together by law for life, and how important it is to the\nwoman to endeavor to continue to make herself lovable in the eyes of\nthe man--and _vice versa_--_it is of supreme importance to whichever\nof them cares the most_. When the thing starts equally, the man nearly\nalways cools the soonest, because of his fundamental instincts, and\nthe force of satiation. He then probably goes on liking his\nwife--perhaps he admires and respects her intellect, but the thrill\nwhich used to come when her hand even touched his hand is no longer\nthere, and he only feels emotion towards her _when he is in the mood,\nwhich would make him feel it towards any woman_ who happened to be\nthere at the moment. And just in the measure that he was passionate\ntowards his wife, so he will be the easy or difficult prey of a new\nemotion. And if this aspect of the case distresses the woman, she must\nlook to her guns--so to speak--and use the whole of her intelligence\nto regain her hold over his affection. She will not improve matters by\nlamenting or reproaching the man. If it does not distress her, then\nshe can congratulate herself that a time of peace has come!\n\nA woman must face the fact that man is a totally different creature\nfrom herself, governed by other instincts, which can be best explained\nby realising them in animals in their boldest nature aspect, _i.e._ a\nmale dog at times will tear down any barrier that is within his\npersonal strength to enable him to get to his mate, and a female dog\nwill fight through unheard-of obstacles to reach her puppies. Here is\na plain illustration of the different ruling original instincts in\nanimals, and human beings are only the highest form of animal, given\nby God a more developed soul and a choice of action, but still\ninfluenced by fundamental nature instincts, which, beneath all the\ntraining of civilisation, unconsciously still direct their actions and\naffect their point of view. Civilisation, on its good side, teaches\nman to overcome his bodily desires and to keep them in check, but not\nto eliminate them, to do which would militate against the Creator's\nscheme of things. Civilisation on its evil side has frequently\nperverted woman's natural instinct, so that in numbers of cases the\nwonderful devotion of the animal to her young has become numb in her,\nor dead. If only all women would bravely face these facts of nature\ninstincts in themselves and in men, they would approach marriage with\nmuch broader-minded views, and would have a much greater chance of\nhappiness, because they would realise that they must be lenient to man\nin the matter of his fidelity to them; and if man realised these\ninstincts, he would enter marriage knowing he must make a fight with\nnature to keep the vows he has sworn, and so he would be on his guard\nagainst the first inclination to stray, instead of an easy prey to it.\nFor, as it is, there is a recognised unwritten law among most men that\nhonour must always be kept with \"the other woman,\" but that it is not\nnecessary with a wife. A man's honour towards a woman is only certain\nof holding with his inclinations--that is: A married to B will be\nunfaithful to her with C--which is technically dishonour. He will not\nconsider that, but will tell any lie to protect C and stick to her,\nbecause his sense of honour has gone with his inclination. He feels he\nmust \"never give away C to B,\" although he experiences no qualm in\nhaving already tacitly \"given away\" B to C, by his very part of taking\nC for his mistress. B is also a woman, but only his wife! He has not\nbeen the least aware of it, but his sense of honour has followed his\ninclination, in a way it would never do over a business arrangement\nwith another man. To give a parallel case in a business arrangement: A\nmakes a bargain with B that he will deal with him alone; he then finds\nhe likes the goods of C better than those of B--but no honest\ntradesman would think of breaking his contract even secretly with B\nand dealing with C, for, if he did, he would know himself that he was\ndishonest, and that all his fellows who knew he had done this thing\nwould despise and ostracise him. But a man when deceiving his wife not\nonly generally feels no shame himself, but knows his male friends will\nprobably not think the worse of him for it. There is not the slightest\nuse in arguing about these facts, any more than, as I said in my first\npaper upon marriage, there is in arguing about fundamental instincts,\nand it would be well for women to realise this elastic, unwritten law\nof honour in men towards them, and so not expect, at the present state\nof man's evolution, that they will receive anything different. They\nmust never forget that this adjustable sense of honour springs from\nthe same fundamental male instinct we spoke of--and therefore cannot\nbe turned round by women and applied to their own cases, because the\nsame instincts do not come into force with them. Woman must always\nremember that _man is conquering primitive nature in being faithful to\nher at all_, and therefore she ought, if she desires that he shall be\nso, to look to her own every point of attraction to make it possible\n(if not easy!) for him to fulfil her desire. I must reiterate again\nthat it is wiser to remember that it is civilisation alone\n(civilisation embracing development of moral sense, and religious\nsense, and the force of custom) which keeps him from straying whenever\nhe feels inclined, and that all she can do to prevent it is to\nredouble her own attractions, and to help the women of the future by\ninstilling into her own sons' minds the idea that, as marriage is _an\nideal and not a natural state_, the man who enters into it must be\nprepared to school himself to live up to an ideal, and control his\nvagrant emotions. To teach the boys a new and higher sense of honour\nis the only possible way to alter matters, as a grown man is seldom\nchanged. In marriage, both partners must understand that they are\nundertaking to do a most difficult thing in vowing to live together\nand love for ever! Whichever cares the most will have to use\n_intelligence_ to keep the other--and if it is the woman who is\nunfortunate enough to occupy this position, she generally absolutely\nsacrifices herself to gratify the man's smallest wish, and so makes\nherself cheap. She should use her wits and keep a firm hand over\nherself so as not to let herself become in his eyes of no importance.\n\nSelfishness is another basic instinct of man, caused because he was\noriginally and unquestionably Lord of Creation, and only in the\ncountries where men are in the majority are the greater number of them\nunselfish even now to woman. In England, where women are in the\nmajority, selfishness in every male child is fostered from his cradle.\nSo women must not indiscriminately condemn every man as being selfish,\nas though it was his personal fault; they must look to the cause, and\ncondemn that if they want to, or, better still, try to eradicate it in\nthe future by influencing their own sons to desire to be chivalrous\nand unselfish to the woman of the next generation. In this way they\nwould help to raise the standard of honour and responsibility in\nhumanity in general.\n\nThe most selfish man is not often selfish to the woman whom he is in\nlove with. While she excites these emotions, however he shows his\ncloven hoof to the rest of the household, he will not show it to her.\nAnd even when he ceases to be in love, if his wife has filled him with\nrespect and admiration for her, he will hardly dare to exhibit his bad\nqualities. You will see a man with the most odious character showing\nonly the nicest ways to some particular person, when he wishes to\nstand well with that person. Therefore, to deal successfully with a\nselfish man, it ought to be obvious to a woman that the only effectual\nmethod to employ is to seek to create in his mind _the desire to\nplease her_. If only men could understand that to be kind and\ncourteous to their wives in the home would give them much greater\nliberty abroad, they would greatly add to the happiness of most\nmarriages. It is her daily life which matters to a woman, because, as\na rule, her brain is not developed enough to be looking ahead to the\ngreat questions of the day; and to have joy in her home is her earthly\nparadise.\n\nNearly all love marriages begin with too much emotion and too little\nself-control, and so become shipwrecked upon the rocks of satiety and\nindifference. Young people undertake the most risky experiment in the\nworld as lightly and unpreparedly as they would go on a summer\nholiday!\n\nIt must be understood that all these arguments are used from the\nstandpoint of supposing the married pair start with love. When they do\nnot, but are entering into a marriage simply from expediency, their\nminds are generally calm, they have no illusions, and are therefore\nfree to use that judgment which they would employ over any business\naffair of their lives, and often, therefore, they get along very well.\nBut these cannot be considered as ideal marriages, or likely to\nproduce highly endowed children. And in England, at least, such unions\nare the exception and not the rule.\n\nBroadly speaking, to make any marriage happy each partner ought\ndeliberately to use every atom of his or her intelligence to think out\nthe best method to live in sympathy with the mate, and should not\nsimply be set upon expressing his or her own personality, regardless\nof the other. Chain any two animals together and watch the result!\nNothing will teach what marriage means more effectually. It is only\nwhen the two poor beasts are of one mind that their chains do not\ngall. But human beings are above animals in this, that they have wills\nand talents and aspirations, and can judge of good and evil, so that\ntheir happiness or misery is practically in their own hands, and to\nquote an immortal remark of a French writer--\"If as much thought were\nput into the making a success of marriage as is put into the mixing of\na salad, there would be no unhappy unions!\"\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nSHOULD DIVORCE BE MADE EASIER?\n\n\nHowever much some of us may feel that divorce can never touch our\npersonal lives, at least the question of it in regard to the nation\nmust always be interesting; and now, with the Majority and Minority\nreport of the Royal Commission still ringing in every one's ears, it\nseems a moment to suggest some points of view upon the matter. To\nthose people entirely influenced by religion as it is expounded from\nthe laws laid down by the Church, there can be nothing to say,\nbecause, in the first place, their belief in the infallibility of\nthese laws and the influence of their pastors ought certainly to keep\nthem from sinning at all; and if sinned against, ought to enable them\nto bear the pain without murmur. But there are a vast number of our\ncountrymen and women who do not consider the dogmas of religion and\nare not entirely imbued with respect for the laws of the Church, while\nnevertheless being good and honest citizens. It depends upon each\nperson's point of view.\n\nIn this paper, as in my former ones upon Marriage, I want only to take\nthe subject from the standpoint of common sense, while with reverence\nI admit that if the moral conscience could be awakened by any\nreligious convictions whatever, so that it would keep each individual\nfrom sinning, that would be the true solution of the problem. But,\nwhile seeking to enforce its laws in opposition to the laws of the\nState, the teaching of the Church seems somehow not to have been able\nto retain much hold over the general conscience which, ever since the\nfirst secular law came into being, has availed itself of the relief so\nafforded to free itself from galling shackles. The point, then, to\nlook at sensibly is not whether divorce is right or wrong in itself,\nbut what sort of effect the making of it easier or less easy would\nhave upon the nation. There does not seem to be the slightest use in\napplying any arguments to the subject which do not take into\nconsideration the immeasurable upheaval in ideas, manner of living,\nrelaxation of personal discipline, and loss of religious control which\nhave taken place since the last reform was made. The luxury of\nexistence, the rapid movement from place to place permitted by\nmotor-cars, the emancipation of women, the general supposed necessity\nof indulging in amusements, have so altered all the notions of life,\nand so excited and encouraged interest in sex relationships, that the\nold idea of stability and loyalty in marriage is shaken to its\nfoundations. The temptations for people to err are now a thousand-fold\ngreater than they were fifty years ago, and very few young people are\nbrought up with ideas of stern self-control at all. This being the\ncase, it would seem that the only rational standpoint to view the\nquestion of divorce reform or divorce restriction from is the one\nwhich gives the vastest outlook over each side's eventuality,\nrealising present conditions and tendencies to be as they are, and not\nas they were, or ought to be. The forces which produced these\nconditions are not on the decline, but, if anything, on the increase,\nand must therefore be reckoned with and not ignored. What are they\nlikely to bring in the future? Still greater intolerance of all\nrestraint, still more desire for change? And if this is so, will it\nhave been wiser to have made the law harder or more lenient? That is\nthe question we shall soon, as a people, have to try to decide.\n\nIn setting out to look calmly at the subject of divorce, no good can\nbe arrived at by studying isolated cases, inasmuch as surely there can\nbe no divided opinion upon the fact of the cruelty of some of them,\nand the certainty of their betterment by divorce. The one and only aim\nto keep in view is what will be best for the whole people, and no\nother aspect should ever influence the true citizen in making up his\nmind upon so vital a question. Thus surely we ought each one of us to\nask himself or herself to look ahead, and try to imagine what would be\nthe result to our nation of relaxing the severity of the present\ndivorce law--or of increasing it. Of the effects of its present\nadministration we can judge, so it ought to be no impossible task to\nwork from that backwards or forwards.\n\nBut to look at any subject dispassionately, without the prejudice of\nreligion or personal feeling, is one of the hardest things to\naccomplish. These two forces always make people take views as\nunchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, regardless of\ntotally altered conditions and requirements of mankind. I hold a brief\nfor neither side, and in this paper I only want to suggest some points\nof view so as to help, perhaps, some others to look at the matter with\njustice, as I have tried to look at it myself. It would seem to me\nthat divorce as a means of ridding oneself of one partner merely to be\nhappier with another must surely always be wrong, because it must\nentail the degradation of conscious personal motive, in the knowledge\nthat one had taken advantage of a law to gain an end, and to help one\nto break a vow solely for one's own gratification. The enormous\nresponsibility of so taking fate into their own hands would frighten\nmost people, if they gave themselves time to think--but they do not.\nNine-tenths of them have no compunction in breaking vows, because they\ndo not realise that by making them they have connected themselves with\ncurrents and assumed responsibilities the consequences of which to\nthemselves they cannot possibly eventually avoid, no matter how they\nmay try temporarily to evade them.\n\nIt would seem to me that divorce for the rich and educated should be\nmade as difficult as possible, and the pleas investigated mercilessly,\nto discover if any advantage has been taken of legal quibbles for\nulterior ends; but that the judge should grant decrees instantly when\nhabitual drunkenness, madness, or anything which degrades and lowers a\nhousehold or community is proved against the defendant. It would seem\nto me that divorces for the poor should be facilitated in every way,\nif this difference to those of the rich could possibly be\naccomplished, so that the hideous cruelty and encouragement of vice\n(cases of which are so admirably set forth in the pamphlets issued by\nthe Divorce Law Reform Union) could be summarily dealt with, and\nrelief and peace conferred upon the innocent party. Because the lives\nof the poor are too filled with work to be as easily influenced by\npersonal emotion as the lives of the rich, and the lower level of\ntheir education and standard of manners admits of such far greater\nunkindness and brutality in their actions than in a higher class; and\nthus they are the more entitled by justice to relief and protection\nthan the highly endowed and developed section of society who can\nbetter take care of themselves. It seems to me to be a crying\ninjustice that the law of divorce can only be administered by paying\nexorbitant fees for it; and that if the separation of two human beings\nwho are admittedly bound together by law can be accomplished by law\nand that the breaking of the marriage vow is a sin against the law,\nthen the poorest in the land have an absolute right that this law\nshould be put into execution for them without special payment, just as\nthey have now a right to the Law's working for them to catch offenders\nwho steal their goods, or who break business contracts with them. It\nwould seem that this is a frightful case of there being one law for\nthe rich and one for the poor, and that it is a blot upon the boasted\nequity and fairness of English justice. How glorious it would be if\nall lawyers could be remunerated equally by the State! It would do\naway with a thriving industry perhaps, but it might be a great aid to\nreal justice being arrived at, and not as things now are, when whoever\ncan pay the cleverest pleader has the best chance of winning the case.\nBut to get back to the views of divorce!\n\nIt would seem to me that the vital and essential question all persons\nwishing for divorce ought to ask themselves is, \"What is my motive in\ndesiring this freedom?\" They should search their very souls for the\ntruth. If it is because the position has not only become intolerable\nto themselves, but is a menace to their children or society, then they\nshould know that they are acting rightly in trying their utmost to be\nfree; but if the real reason is that they may legally indulge in a new\npassion, then they may be certain that if they take advantage of a law\ndesigned for the benefit of a race, and use it to their own baser\nends, they are invoking most dangerous forces to militate against\ntheir own eventual unhappiness. No one who is in a position where his\nor her good or bad example will be followed has any right to indulge\nin any personal feelings to the influencing in a harmful way of his or\nher public actions. This is the true meaning of that finest of all old\nsayings, \"_Noblesse oblige_.\" To me it would seem to be a frightful\nsin for a man or woman for personal motives to degrade an order or a\ncommunity.\n\nSo this is the standpoint I would suggest every one looking at divorce\nfrom: \"Will the thing bring good or harm?--not to me who am only a\nunit, but to that wider circle of my family and my country?\" And if\ncommon sense assures him or her that no good can come of it, then the\ntrue citizen should not hesitate to bear the pain of refraining.\n\nIt would seem to me to be wrong to allow any personal feeling at all\nto influence one to divorce, no matter what the cruelty of the\ncircumstances or the justice of the grievance one had, _if by so doing\nthe children of the marriage were injured in any way, or that the\nprestige of an order or the honour of a family were lowered by one's\naction_; but that were the husband or wife a shame and degradation to\nthe children or the family, the individual would be entirely justified\nin divorcing, and would be helping the good of the State by preventing\nthe guilty and debased partner from committing further harm. Common\nsense is always the truest wisdom, but it has often unhappily had to\nbe cloaked and hampered either by spiritual superstition, prejudice,\nor ignorance. So that when a flagrant case which corrupts a whole\nneighbourhood cries aloud to common sense to remove it by divorce,\nthere are found hundreds of good and worthy people to oppose this on\nthe ground that the Church does not sanction such proceeding! If the\nState religion administered by the Church cannot inculcate higher\nprinciples in its members, so as to prevent them from sinning, it\nwould obviously seem to be more fair to allow the statesmen and\nsociologists to have a free hand in their attempt to better the\nmorality of England than for the Church to use the vast influence it\nstill possesses to the stultifying of these plans. The homely proverb\nof the proof of the pudding being in the eating seems to be plainly\nshown here. The religious teaching has failed to influence the people\nto refrain from sin and to discountenance divorce, proving that its\nmethod of imparting knowledge and obtaining influence over the modern\nmind is no longer effectual, and common sense would suggest changing\nthe method to ensure the desired end. There is a story told of a\nFrench regiment in the early days of conscription. A certain size of\nboots had been decided upon for recruits, and this decision had worked\nvery well when the young men were drawn from the town, where the feet\nwere comparatively small, but when countryside youths became the\nmajority, the boots they were given were an agony to them, and\nconstant complaints were the result, with, however, no redress.\nOmnipotent head-quarters had decided the size! And that was the end of\nit! And it was not until nearly the whole regiment was in hospital\nwith sore feet that it entered the brain of the officials that it\nmight be wiser for France to regulate the size of the boots of the\nregiment to the feet of the wearers. Why, then, cannot the Church\ndevote all its brain and force to evolving some new form of teaching\nwhich will, so to speak, \"fit the feet of the wearers\"? Then all\nquestions of divorce could be settled by noble and exalted feeling and\ndesire to do right and elevate the nation. But meanwhile, with the\ngrowth and encouragement of individualism, every little unit is giving\nforth his personal view (as I am doing in this paper!), perhaps many\nof them without the slightest faculty for looking ahead, or knowledge\nof how to make deductions from past events, or other countries'\nexperiences; and the Church is preaching one thing, and the State\nanother, the Majority report taking a certain view, and the Minority a\ndifferent one--and we are all at sea, and the supreme issue of it all\nseems to be fogged.\n\nAn enormous section of the public, and almost all women it would seem,\nare of opinion that divorce should be granted for the same reason to\nwomen as it is now to men. But surely those who hold this view cannot\nunderstand that fundamental difference in the instincts of the sexes\nwhich I tried to show as forcibly as I could in my former articles\nupon Marriage. Infidelity in man cannot be nearly such a degradation\nto his own soul as infidelity in woman must be to hers, because he is\nfollowing natural impulses and she is following grafted ones. A woman\nmust feel degraded in her body and soul when she gives herself to _two\nmen_ at the same time, a husband and a lover; but a man, when he\nstrays, if it has any moral effect upon him at all, probably merely\nfeels some twinges on account of breaking his word, and the fear of\nbeing found out. The actual infidelity cannot degrade him as much as\nit generally degrades a woman, and may be only the yielding to strong\ntemptation at a given moment, and have no bearing upon the kind home\ntreatment he accords his wife and children, or the tenor of his\ndomestic life. The eventuality of what this law would bring should be\nlooked at squarely. And it is rather a pitiful picture to think of the\nentire happiness of a home being upset because a wife, without\njudgment or the faculty of making deductions, discovering a single\ninstance of illicit behaviour in her husband, sees fit to, and is\nenabled by law, to divorce him. It may be argued that the fear of this\nwould make him mend his ways; but did fear ever curb strong natural\ninstincts for long?--instincts as strong as hunger, or thirst, or\ndesire to sleep? Fear could only curb such for a time, and then\nintelligence would suggest some new and cunning method of deceit, so\nas to obtain the desired end. The only possible way to ensure fidelity\nin a man is by influencing him to _wish_ to remain faithful, either by\nfond love for the woman or deep religious conviction or moral opinion\nthat not to do so would degrade his soul. The accomplishment of this\nend would seem to be either in the hands of the woman or in the\nteaching of the Church--and cannot be brought about by law. Law can\nonly punish offenders; it cannot force them to keep from sin. When a\nman is unfaithful habitually, it amounts to cruelty, and even with the\npresent law the woman can obtain relief on that ground.\n\nIn looking at a single case of infidelity in a woman, a man would be\nwise to question himself to see if he has not been in some measure\nresponsible for it--by his own unkindness or indifference, and in not\nrealising her nature; and if his conscience tells him he is to blame,\nthen he ought never to be hard upon the woman. He ought also very\nseriously to consider the circumstances, and whether or no his\nchildren or his family will be hurt by the scandal of public\nseverance, as they should be more important to him than his personal\nfeelings. Tolerance and common sense should always hold wounded vanity\nand prejudice in check. How often one sees happy and united old\ncouples who in the meridian of their lives have each looked elsewhere,\nbut have had the good taste and judgment to make no public protest\nabout the matter, and thus have given each other time to regain\ncommand of vagrant fancies and return to the fold of convention!\n\nWith so many different individual views upon the right and wrong of\ndivorce, it is impossible for either side--the divorce reform or the\ndivorce restriction supporters--to state a wholly convincing case\nagainst the other. The only possible way to view the general question\nis, as I said before, to keep the mind fixed upon the main issue,\n_that of what may possibly be best for the nation_, having regard to\nthe ever-augmenting forces of luxury and liberty and democracy and\nwant of discipline which are holding rule.\n\nLack of space prevents me from trying to touch upon the numerous other\nmoot points in divorce, so I will only plead that, when each person\nhas come to a definite and common-sense conclusion, unclouded by\nsentiment or prejudice, he or she may not hesitate to proclaim his or\nher conviction aloud, so that the law of the land may be reorganised\nto the needs of present-day humanity and help it to rise to the\nhighest fulfilment.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nTHE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD\n\n\nAs far as the necessities for it go in the animal world, nearly all\nanimals have a very strong sense of the responsibility of\nmotherhood--unless they have become over-civilised, or live under\nunnatural circumstances. A striking example of the consequences of the\nlatter state of being is shown by \"Barbara,\" that thrillingly\nattractive Polar bear in the Zoo, whose twelfth and thirteenth infants\nwere only the other day condemned to follow their brothers and sisters\nto an early grave through their parents'--and especially their\nmother's--gross stupidity about their bringing-up and welfare. And we\nwho are human animals, given by God conscious souls, ought to realise\nthe fact that civilisation and pampered environment have enormously\nblunted our natural instincts in this respect, just as they have\nBarbara's, and so we should try to restore the loss by consciously\ncultivating our understanding of the subject and deliberately\nrealising the tremendous responsibilities we incur by bringing\nchildren into the world. When we think about the matter quietly, the\nmagnitude of it is almost overwhelming, and yet there are hundreds and\nthousands of women who never give it a serious thought! They have some\nvague idea that to have children is the inevitable result of\nmatrimony, and that if they pay others to feed and clothe the little\ncreatures, and give them some instruction in the way that they should\ngo, their own part of the affair is finished. That, until a child is\ngrown to an age to judge for itself, the parents will be held\nresponsible for their stewardship of its body and soul at the great\ntribunal of God does not strike them, and it is only perhaps when the\nboomerang of their neglect has returned to them and blasted them with\ncalamity that they become conscious of their past negligence.\n\nIn this article I do not propose to touch upon the father's side of\nthe question, important as it is, but shall confine myself to the\nmother's, because this has always been one of my deep preoccupations\nto think out the meaning of it all, and how best to fulfil the trust.\nObviously the sole aim of true motherhood is the moral and physical\nwelfare of the child, and to accomplish this end we should understand\nthat it is quite impossible to lay down any set rule, or go by any\nrecognised and unchangeable method. For in one age certain precepts\nare taught which are obsolete in the next, because science and the\nimprovement of mechanical aids to well-being advance with such giant\nstrides. But if we keep _the end_ in view it is simple enough to see\nthat common sense and discrimination, unclouded by custom or sentiment\nor superstition, can accomplish miracles. The circumstances of the\nparticular case must always govern the method to be used in order to\nobtain the same given end, no matter what the station in life of the\nparents. Thus every mother, from the humblest to the highest, ought to\nthink out how she can best procure her child moral and physical\nwelfare _according to her means_.\n\nIn the lives of the very poor the only thing to be done for the\nbetterment of the understanding of the responsibility of motherhood\nseems to be to teach the simplest rules of hygiene which animals know\nby instinct, and after that for the State to take care of the children\nas much as possible. For this very strange fact is in operation,\nnamely, that while Nature leaves an insatiable desire to create life,\nshe allows civilisation to rob human beings of instinctive knowledge\nof how to preserve it in its earliest stages, and that the human\nmother is of all creation the only one entirely at the mercy of\nimparted knowledge as regards the proper treatment of her offspring.\n\nInto the conception of the duties of motherhood among the very poor we\ncannot go in this short paper--the subject is too vast--so we must\nconfine ourselves to discussing those of a higher class where, having\nthe means to do well, the responsibilities are far greater. I want, if\nI can, to open a window, as it were, upon the outlook of the general\nresponsibility of motherhood and let each class apply what it gathers\nof the meaning, if it wishes, to its own circumstances.\n\nIt is the aim and end of a thing which is of sole importance; in this\ncase the aim and end being the happiness and welfare of the child. And\nthat is the point which I want to harp upon, the necessity of keeping\nthe goal in view and of not wandering off into side issues. It was for\nthe sake of the end, namely, obtaining happiness, that I tried to show\nin my articles upon marriage how common sense might secure this\ndesired state. And it was to _the end_ of what might be best for\nEngland that I pleaded for the necessity of using fair judgment over\nthe question of facilitating or restricting divorce. And it is now to\n_the end_ of helping the coming race to be fine and true that I want\nto talk about the responsibility of motherhood.\n\nLet us take the subject from the very beginning.\n\n\nPRE-NATAL INFLUENCES\n\nThe thought for the child should commence with the first knowledge of\nits coming birth. A tremendous control of self, and emotions, and\nfoolish habits, and a stern command of nerves should be the\nprospective mother's constant effort, as science has proved that all\npre-natal influences have such powerful effect upon the child; and,\nsurely, if any woman stopped to think of the colossal responsibility\nshe has undertaken in having become the vehicle to bring a soul from\nGod to earth, she would at least try to employ as much intelligence in\nthe fulfilment of her obligation as she puts into succeeding in any of\nthe worldly pursuits in life. Think of the hours some women spend in\npainful discipline by going through exercises to keep their figures\nyoung and their faces beautiful--the massage! the cures! and the\n\"rests\" they take to this end--but who let their waiting time for\nmotherhood be passed in a sort of relaxation of all control--getting\ninto tempers, indulging in nerves, over-smoking, or tiring themselves\nout with excitement without one thought for the coming little one,\nexcept as an inevitable necessity or a shocking nuisance. During this\nperiod the wise woman ought to study such matters as heredity. She\nought to view the characteristics of her own and her husband's\nfamilies, and then firmly determine to counteract the objectionable\nfeatures in them by making her own mind dwell upon only good and fine\nattributes for her child. She ought to try to keep herself in perfect\nhealth by using common sense, and, above all, she should _determine_\nto fight and conquer the nervous emotions which more or less beset all\nwomen at such time. She ought to encourage happy and loving relations\nwith her husband, and try in every way to be in herself good and\ngentle and brave. It is the most important moment in the whole of a\nwoman's life for self-discipline, because of the prodigious results of\nall her moods and actions upon the child, and yet, as I said before,\nit is one of the commonest sights to see a woman who at other times is\na very good sort of creature, simply letting herself go and becoming\nan insupportable bore to her husband and the whole house, with her\nperverseness and her nerves and her fads.\n\nIf they could analyse causes, what bitter reproaches many poor little\ndiseased, neurotic children might truly throw at their irresponsible\nmothers for endowing them with these evils before birth.\n\n\nTHE CASE OF TWO WOMEN\n\nWhen the child is born--again it is only its welfare which should be\nthought of by the mother, and not what custom or family opinion would\nenforce. To me it seems that no mother ought to undertake any of the\nso-called duties of a mother that she is incapable of performing to\nthe advantage of the child, who would be better cared for by employing\nhighly trained service. She should only force herself to do her best\nin uncongenial tasks if circumstances make it impossible for her to\nobtain a better nurse or teacher for her infant than she herself could\nbe. She must constantly keep _the end_ in view, so as to stamp out\nprejudice and out-of-date methods; especially she should guard against\nmaking the child suffer for her own fads and experiments. I believe I\nshall better illustrate what I mean by \"keeping the end in view\" if I\ngive a few concrete examples, instead of trying to explain in the\nabstract.\n\nHere is one example.\n\nThere were two women of my acquaintance, one of whom had an exquisitely\nobedient, perfectly brought-up little girl of five who was her\nconstant thought, and a baby of two months. This mother could afford\nan excellent nurse, and left all the physical care of the infant to\nher, concentrating her intelligence upon wise general supervision, and\nupon the training of the little girl whose dawning character was her\nstudy. The other mother had two very ill-behaved, disobedient children\nof five and seven, and a baby of three months. She spent her time\nwashing and dressing the infant, fussing over it and caressing it from\nmorning to night, and interfering with the paid nurse, who well knew\nher duties. She was also quite indifferent to her appearance, and\nwearied her husband to death with her over-domesticity. But she felt\nherself to be a perfect and affectionate wife and mother, and strongly\ncensured the other woman when she admitted that she had never washed\nor dressed her baby, and was even rather nervous when she held it in\ncase she should hurt its tender neck and head. But the proof that the\nfirst woman was a true and good guardian of God's gift to her was in\nthe finely trained little girl, and the proof of the second woman's\nundevelopment from the animal stage was in her concentrated and, in\nthe circumstances, unnecessary preoccupation with the infant, to the\nentire neglect of the character training of the elder children. Had\nthey both been so poor that actual physical care of the infants\ndevolved solely upon each mother, the first would have used all her\nintelligence to discover the sensible and common-sense way to carry\nout her duties, and the second would have continued using any obsolete\nmethod she had been accustomed to, while she lavished silly fuss and\nattention upon the baby.\n\n\nFORE-THOUGHT FOR BEAUTY\n\nThe first woman had _the end_ in view; the second did not look ahead\nat all, but simply indulged her own selfishly animal instincts,\nwithout a thought of what would be best for her child.\n\nThe apparently \"good\" mothers might be divided into two classes--the\nanimal mothers and the spiritual mothers. The animal mothers are\nbetter than indifferent, and therefore abnormal, mothers, but are far\nbelow spiritual mothers, for they, the animal mothers, are only\nobeying natural instincts which have happily survived in them, but\nobeying them only as animals do, without reason or conscience. And the\nspiritual mother uses her common sense and tries to secure the\ncontinual welfare of her child, looking ahead for all eventualities,\nfrom matters of health to personal appearance, as well as character\ntraining and soul elevation.\n\nNumbers of women think that if they follow out the same lines of\nbringing-up for their children as are the recognised ones employed by\ntheir class they have fully done their duty, and that if the children\ndo not profit by the stereotyped lessons of religion and behaviour\nthat have been imparted to them by proper teachers it is the fault of\nthe children, and a misfortune which they, the mothers, must bear with\nmore or less resignation.\n\nBut indeed this is not so.\n\nLet us take a spiritual mother's duties in rotation, beginning with\nthe most material. After bringing into the world the healthiest infant\nher common sense has been able to secure, she should guard against any\nphysical disability accruing to it that she can prevent. In all\nmatters of health she should either make a great study of the subject\nherself, or employ trained aid to its accomplishment; but beyond this\nthere are other things which, if she neglects them, the boy or girl\ncould reproach her for afterwards and with reason. One is the\nfore-thought for beauty. How many boys' whole personal appearances are\nruined by standing-out ears! How many little girls' complexions are\nirretrievably spoilt by unsuitable soap having been used which has\nburnt red veins into their tender cheeks. These two small examples are\nentirely the fault of the mother and do not lie at the door of\nuncorrected habits in the children themselves. No boy's ears need\nstick out; there are caps and every sort of contrivance yearly being\nimproved upon to obviate this disfigurement. No girl need have\nanything but a beautiful skin if her mother uses intelligence and\nsupervises the early treatment of it. Because if she has _the end_ in\nview, the mother will know that her little boy or girl will probably\ngrow up and desire affection and happiness, and that beauty is a means\nnot to be discounted to obtain these good things, and, for the\nsecuring of them, is relatively as important as having a well-endowed\nmind.\n\n\nTHE SPIRITUAL MOTHER\n\nWhen the first dawning characteristics begin to show, the spiritual\nmother's study of heredity will begin to stand her in good stead, for\nshe must never forget that every expressed thought and action of a\nsmall child shows the indication of some undeveloped instinct, and\nshould be watched by a sensible mother, so that she may decide which\none to encourage and which one to curb, and, if possible, eradicate.\nShould there be some strong inherited tendency which is not good, then\nher most careful care and influence will be needed. There is not the\nslightest use in making rules and then leaving their enforcement to\nservants and governesses--the true mother should see that her child\nthoroughly understands what it is being asked to do, and why it is\nbeing asked to do it. She should appeal to its intelligence from\nearliest days, and make it comprehend it is for its own benefit. For\nchildren cannot when very young be influenced by high moral\nconsiderations which come with maturer years, but only by personal\ngain or fear--and if ruled by fear they invariably become deceitful.\nIt is a spiritual mother's business to show interest in all her\nchild's tastes and occupations, and to supervise and direct them into\nthe best channels, and if she has several children she should watch\neach one's idiosyncrasies and not imagine that the same method will do\nfor them all. What good gardener would treat a rose-tree in the same\nfashion which he does a tulip bulb? The spiritual mother should think\nout for herself, guided by what she sees are their personal needs, the\nbest method of instructing her children in true morality--that is,\nhonour and truth, and freedom from all hypocrisy and deceit. She\nshould not be influenced by any set-down rules of religion or dogma,\nor by any precepts she may have been taught herself in her youth, if\nthey no longer convey conviction because of the change in time,\notherwise she will be following custom and losing sight of _the end_.\nShe should make her children understand that the soiling of their own\nsouls by committing mean actions is the greatest sin, and that what\nother people think or do not think of them is of no consequence, but\nthe only vital things are what God thinks and they think of\nthemselves. Hundreds of children's afterlives are shipwrecked because\nthey were only taught all the dry dogmas and seemings of religion, and\nthe real meaning was never explained to them. I know a rigorously\nstrict clergyman's family where the children are taught and conform to\nall the observances of their father's church, and yet a falser, more\npaltry set of young creatures could not be found--they have never had\nit explained to them that it is impossible to hoodwink God. For a\nperfect example of the religious spirit _not to_ employ towards\nchildren, all mothers ought to read the immortal scene between Trilby\nbefore she dies and Mrs. Bagot--when the narrow woman expresses her\npuny views and Trilby puts forth her broad and true ones. It is so\nincredibly stupid to use obsolete methods which can never obtain the\ndesired end just because the dominion of custom is still strong upon\nus, and we have not been intelligent enough to grasp and benefit by\nthe spirit of the age. For all mothers must realise that they can\nnever dominate the spirit of the age, and must either make vain fights\nwith it, and be conquered to their loss, or must make terms with it\nand use it in its brightest and best aspect. The spirit of this age is\na totally different one to the spirit of their own childhood's age. It\nis shorn of reverence and unquestioning obedience to elders, and is an\nindependent creature who will only obey through conviction of good or\npersonal benefit. Children are unerring and pitiless judges of those\nplaced over them, and how can a mother, just because she is a mother,\nexpect respect and reverence in her children if she earns their\ncontempt by her conduct and selfishness?\n\nIt is the spiritual mother's duty to instil chivalry towards the other\nsex into her little sons from earliest years, by making them polite to\nherself and to their sisters. She should, before they go to school and\nwhen they return for the holidays, endeavour to influence them into\nliking cleanliness and care of their persons, especially when with\nladies. She should try to make these little men so happy and\ncontented, so certain of sympathy and understanding that home spells\nheaven for them and remains the dearest memory of their lives, and for\nher little girls, over whom she has a far vaster influence, she should\npolish their minds, explain all the true and pure principles of\nlife--teach them the value of self-control and self-respect, and watch\nfor and encourage all their graces, so that when they arrive at the\nages of seventeen and eighteen they may be fitted in all points to\nshine in whatever world they belong to, and take their places among\nthe best of their class. Space forbids me to go on longer, although\nthe subject seems only just to have been begun, so large is its sphere\nof action, but I must give one last concrete example of two women's\nmethods, to enforce my meaning of the importance of _the end_.\n\nBoth sent their girls to the same school, where every accomplishment\nwas taught and the highest tone prevailed that the masters could\ninculcate. The first mother showed deep interest in the holidays, in\nall her child's lessons, directed and encouraged her, opening her\nunderstanding and broadening her point of view, while she attended to\nevery physical grace. She explained how her child should apply the\nknowledge she acquired during term, so that it should grow\ninteresting, and as far as it lay in her power she endeavoured that\nher daughter should be fitted with every charm and attraction which\ncould procure for her later on a larger selection from which to choose\nher partner in life. The other mother let her girl run wild during the\nholidays, and allowed her to feel that all she learned was just an\nirksome duty to be forgotten the moment school was over. Her\nappearance, her gentle manners, her refinement, her point of view,\nwere all left to take their own chance, from the mistaken idea that it\nwould encourage vanity and egotism in the girl to discuss these things\nwith her--and that she, the mother, had done all that was required of\nher in simply providing a good education! This second mother had\ncompletely lost sight of the end, you see, and was unconsciously only\nthinking of herself and not of her child at all.\n\nAnd this--to think of the welfare of the child and allow no other\npoint to obscure this--is the whole meaning of the responsibility of\nmotherhood.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nTHE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD. SECOND PAPER\n\n\nWhat I always wish to impress upon the readers who are kind enough to\nbe interested in the articles which I write is to keep the end aimed\nat in view. So in this second paper upon the responsibility of\nmotherhood, I must begin by reiterating this necessity.\n\nNo mother has a right to drift and trust to chance for the welfare of\nher children, and however they develop, for good or ill, she must in\ngreater or lesser degree be held responsible.\n\nThe period when animals cease all interest in and care for their\noffspring only commences when these latter can safely be left to look\nafter themselves; and so it should be with human beings. But, judging\nthe ages relatively of animals and mankind, numbers of human mothers\nentirely neglect their progeny long before they have come even to the\nfledgling stage! How often in society one sees women of forty-five and\nyounger with daughters of fifteen to twenty, about whose real\ncharacters and souls they know nothing! They have always been too busy\nwith their own personal interest to give the time and sympathy\nrequired for a real mother's understanding of her children. Servants\nand governesses have been the directors through the most critical\nperiod of the girls' lives, and it is merely a piece of luck if they\nhave imbibed no ill from them.\n\nThere are numbers of worthy and innocent women married to men whose\ncharacters have certain forcible and unpleasant traits, which are more\nthan likely to be reproduced in their children, but from the limited\neducation these good creatures have received, and the absence of all\nhabit of personal analysation of cause and effect, they never realise\nthat it is their bounden duty to be on the lookout for the first signs\nof the hereditary traits appearing, and the necessity for using\nspecial care and influence to counteract them.\n\nA woman (unless too vain) knows very well her own failings and her own\ngood qualities, and can, if she is wise, suppress or encourage them\nwhen they show in her children; but she cannot trace the\ncharacteristics of remote ancestors, or even be certain of what her\nhusband has on his side endowed their joint offspring with, so her\nduty is to be on the watch from the very commencement, and to use her\nintelligence as she already uses it in every ordinary affair in life.\n\nPeople of even the most mediocre understanding are quite sensible\nenough to select the right implements to carry on any work that they\nhave undertaken. A woman about to sew a fine piece of muslin does not\ndash haphazard into her work-basket and pick out any needle which\ncomes first, and any thread, coarse or fine, which is handy. She would\nknow very well that her work would be a sorry affair if she did so,\nand that, on the contrary, she must choose the exact fineness of both\nthread and needle to sew this particular bit of stuff satisfactorily,\nthe ones she may have employed an hour before upon firm cloth being of\nno use for muslin.\n\nShe is keeping _the end_ in view.\n\n\nLOOKING AHEAD\n\nBut countless numbers of mothers never understand that any different\nmethod is necessary with different children; they just go on in the\nold way they have been taught when young themselves, if they trouble\nat all about the matter.\n\nEvery woman who has a child ought to ask herself these questions: Who\nis responsible for this child being in the world? Am I and my husband\nresponsible, or is the child responsible itself? The answers are\nridiculously obvious, and, when realised, the remembrance of them\nshould entail grave obligations upon the parents.\n\nThe mother should look ahead and try to determine whether or no what\nseems to be showing as the result of the ideas of up-bringing in the\npast fifteen years is good or bad.\n\nThe main features of that system being the relaxation of all\ndiscipline and the cessation of the inculcation of self-control,\nbecause the standards suddenly became different. Formerly, to perform\nDuty (spelt with a big D!) was the only essential matter in life, and\nto obtain happiness was merely a thing by the way. In the past fifteen\nyears the essential goal sought after has been happiness, and duty has\nbeen merely the thing by the way. But a very large number of the\nmothers of England have not perhaps begun to develop sufficient scope\nof brain to enable them to judge what will eventually bring happiness;\nthey can only see the immediate moment, and to indulge their\nchildren's every desire seems to be the simplest way. But they forget\nthat during this short and impressionable stage of life all strength\nand will-power and self-control ought to be enforced and encouraged,\nto enable the loved children to withstand hardships and to attract\nhappiness in the long after years. A mother should ask herself if it\nis worth while, in securing a joyous and irresponsible childhood and\nadolescence, to leave her children at the end of them unarmed and at\nthe mercy of every adverse blast. The great dangers which seem to be\nresulting from the system of upbringing in the last fifteen years are\nthat at seventeen or eighteen most young people are satiated with\npleasure and blase with life, while they have no definite aim or end\nof achievement in view, and absolutely no sense of duty or\nresponsibility to the community.\n\n\nTHE FIRST OBLIGATION\n\nIt would seem to me that a mother's first obligation is to enforce\ndiscipline, and to teach self-control from the earliest infancy with\nthe fondest loving care, and to transmit that sense of responsibility\nfor noble citizenship into her children which should have been her own\nguiding star.\n\nBut, again, to do so she must not employ obsolete methods without\ntaking into account the spirit of the age which has aroused a sense of\npersonal liberty in the youngest child, and makes it refuse to accept\nrules and regulations on trust. It must be convinced that they are for\nits good, or it will only bow to them by fear, learn to deceive, and\nremain rebellious and determined at the first opportunity to throw off\nthe yoke and go its own way. I will give a concrete case of what I\nmean upon this point, to show how even a good woman can misunderstand\nthe real meaning of the responsibility of motherhood, and by her\nmethod of upbringing can allow misfortune to fall upon her young\nfamily.\n\nHere is a lady of the highest rank, who comes of a steady and worthy\nstock, and who has been brought up herself strictly and well. She\nmarries a man of great position, but with rather wild blood in his\nveins. She has no modern ideas of only desiring a small family; she\nwishes to and intends to do her duty to her state, and is by no means\nset upon personal amusement.\n\nAs the years go on she becomes the mother of four boys and two girls.\nShe engages the best nurses for them, and, later on, the best\ngovernesses and tutors. The children are taught their catechism on\nSundays and are drilled as those of their class into having good\noutward manners and behaviour. They are given orders without\nexplanations, which they are expected to obey unquestioningly, and\nthey are duly punished when they are disobedient. They see their\nparents at stated hours each day, and are seemingly a well-regulated\nand satisfactory young brood.\n\nThe good woman and great lady's time is naturally much occupied with\nsocial duties, and duties to her husband's tenants, and to various\ncharities and good works in which she is interested. She fulfils all\nthese admirably, and is generally held in affection and respect. All\nthe children have been treated exactly the same by her, although she\nknows that her husband has a dishonourable, gambling, scapegrace\nbrother who has had to be sent to Australia, and that her husband\nhimself has had tastes, the reverse of orthodox where his emotions\nwere concerned, though happily he has not jeopardised the family\nfortunes as his brother would have done had he been head. All the\nchildren have been so well brought up and instructed in the tenets of\nthe Church that she feels quite placid and sure that she has done all\nthat could be expected of her, and is horribly surprised and\ndistressed when disasters presently occur. She looks upon them as the\nwill of God and fate, but feels in no way to blame personally.\n\n\nA HATRED OF PREACHING\n\nIt had never struck her intelligence that boys with such heredity in\nthem should have been specially influenced and directed from earliest\nyouth towards ideas of the finest honour and proudest responsibility\nin keeping unblemished their ancient name; that all the stupidities\nand follies of gambling should have been pointed out to them; that the\ncertain temptations which are bound to beset the path of those in\ntheir position should have been fully explained to them--all this done\nin a simple, common-sense fashion which would convince their\nunderstanding. She had never thought that it would be wise to make\nthem clearly comprehend why they should try to resist bad habits and\nyouthful lusts of the flesh--not so much from the point of view that\nsuch things are sins, as because science and experience have shown\nthat the indulgence in them spoils health and brain and pleasure in\nmanhood. Boys are creatures full of common sense, and their education\nin public schools broadens and helps their understanding of logical\nsequences, if only things are explained to them without mystery and\ntoo much spiritual emphasis being put upon them. They so hate being\npreached at! No young, growing person in normal animal health and\nspirits can be guided and coerced to resist the desires of the body\n_solely_ by religious and moral teaching; he must have some definite\nreward and gain upon this earth held out to him as well; there must be\nsome tangible reason for abstinence to convince his imagination and\nstrengthen his will. And the gain he is offered if he resists certain\ntemptations is that he will grow strong and powerful, and the better\nable, when his judgment is ripe enough to discriminate properly, to\nenjoy real pleasures later on. When the adolescent spiritual self\nbegins to rule him, then the moral point can be more forcibly pressed\nhome; but it is quite futile while he is at the growing animal stage.\n\nOur good and highly placed mother of whom we are speaking has never\nthought of any of these laws of cause and effect, as applied to her\nown nearest and dearest, although she is accustomed to think out\nschemes for the betterment and development of her Girls' Friendly\nsocieties, or for furthering her husband's political interests in the\ncountry.\n\n\nINHERITED CHARACTER\n\nShe sees good little well-behaved daughters coming down in \"the\nchildren's hour\" and receives favourable reports from the governesses,\nand has no idea, or even any speculation about what strange and new\nthoughts and emotions may be commencing to germinate in their brains.\nMildred has perhaps inherited her father's _volage_ nature where the\nother sex are concerned, and early shows tendencies which ought to be\nsympathetically checked and directed. Catherine has got a strong touch\nof Uncle Billy's unscrupulousness, and is often deceitful and\nscheming, with a wonderful aptitude for the nursery dominoes and other\ngames of chance. But both, taught by Fraulein or Mademoiselle--and\nthat good old Nurse Timson!--only show their mother their sweetest\nside when in her company, and are meek, well-behaved little mice,\ninfluenced to be thus not from any moral conviction--because if that\nwere so they would be good at all times as well--but swayed by the\ncertain knowledge of personal physical gain if they make a good\nimpression upon mother, and certain punishment and unpleasantness from\nthe governesses if they do not. All goes along smoothly until the\nrising sap of nature begins to dominate their lives; then some outward\nand visible sign of their inherited tendencies begins to show, the\nforce causing its expression being stronger for the time than any\nother thing.\n\nOne of the boys gambles, and goes to the Jews for money. The eldest\nson and heir, who has never had the wiles of women revealed and\nexplained to him, or the temptations which are bound to be thrust upon\nhim because of his great position in the world pointed out to him,\nsuccumbs to the fascinations and falls into the snares of a cunning\nchorus girl. Our good mother and great lady has steadily avoided even\nadmitting that there can be sex questions in life, and has rigorously\nbanished all possible discussion of them as not being a subject which\nshould be talked of in any nice family. She has never given any\nespecial teaching to arouse pride in his old name in her eldest son,\nor impressed the great responsibility there is in the worthy\nguardianship of the fine position God has endowed him with. He has\njust been allowed to drift with the rest, and, unwarned and unarmed,\nhas fallen in the first fight with his physical emotions.\n\n\nINSTINCTS UNCHECKED\n\nA third son is apparently the darling of the gods; he is full of\ncharm. But, fearing that the gambling propensities of his second\nbrother should come out in him also, his parents keep him with special\nstrictness and very short of money. The same absence of all\nexplanations of the meaning of things has been his portion as well as\nthat of his brothers and sisters. He has never been enlightened as to\nthe possible workings of heredity, and shown how that as the vice of\ngambling is in the blood it will require special will-power to\novercome it. None of these things has been pointed out to him, and so,\nbeing restive at restraint and worried for money, he soon slips into\neasy ways, and often allows women to help him in his difficulties.\nUncle Billy's instincts and his own father's have combined in him.\nBoth could have been checked and diverted into sane channels with\nloving foresight and knowledge and sympathy.\n\nThe fourth son goes early into the Navy, and the discipline and the\ninheritance of his mother's more level qualities turn him into a\nsplendid fellow; but this is mere chance, and cannot be counted as\naccruing from his mother's care.\n\nHere is a case where every outward circumstance seemed to be\npropitious, and where both parents were good and respected members of\ntheir class and race. But neither had the intelligence to realise an\nend, or consciously to keep it in view; they were solely ruled by\ntradition and what seemed to them--especially the mother--to be the\nproper and well-established religious methods for the bringing up of\ntheir children. So the remorseless laws of cause and effect rolled on\ntheir Juggernaut car and crushed the victims.\n\nNow, if this mother had had the end--that of her children's happiness\nand welfare--really in view, she would have questioned herself as to\nthe best methods of obtaining that end, and would not have been\ncontent just to go on with the narrow ideas which had held sway in her\nown day, and which had perhaps then succeeded very well, because, as I\nsaid before, they were aided by the two forces now stultified--namely,\na tremendous discipline and a spirit of the age which brought no\nsuggestion of a struggle for personal liberty to young minds. Had she\nthought out all these things, she would have understood the\nresponsibilities of motherhood in their real sense, and not only in\nthe sense which the outward appearance judges good. She would have\npoured love and sympathy on each one of her children separately and\nindividually, since she was the half-cause of their coming to earth.\nShe would have studied each one's character, and with determined\nconcentration have inculcated the necessary pride in fine actions in\nthem, knowing what their pitfalls would be likely to be. She would\nhave taught the simple religion of respect for the loan God has made\nin giving their bodies a soul, and she would have watched for possible\nsigns of ill, and would finally have guided each one through the\ndangerous age on to the time when every man and woman must answer for\nhimself and herself.\n\nHeredity is sometimes stronger than even the wisest bringing up; but\nwho can say how many families might not have been saved and kept\ntogether by a prudent and understanding mother's love?\n\nThere is a story, which exactly illustrates the point of the\nimportance of keeping _the end_ in view, told of the Iron Duke in the\nPeninsular War. I cannot remember the exact details, and they are of\nno consequence. The point is this: There was a certain tremendously\nobstinate Spanish general whom the Duke (then Sir Arthur Wellesley)\nfound very difficult to lead. The moment had arrived when it was\nabsolutely necessary for success that this general should move his\ntroops to a certain position. He was a man filled with his own\nimportance, and he refused huffily to do so unless the English chief\nwent down upon his knees to him!\n\nThe Iron Duke is reported to have replied to this message in some such\nwords as these: \"Good Lord! the winning of the day is the essential\nthing, not the resisting of the man's vanity! I'll go down upon my\nknees with pleasure if that will make him move his troops!\" He did,\nand the Spanish general conceded the request and the day was won.\n\nThe great commander and astute Englishman had _the end_ in view, you\nsee, whereas the lesser brain of the Spaniard would have sacrificed\nthe battle for a personal whim, having lost sight, in his vanity, of\nthe importance of the main issue.\n\nHow many parents do this day after day and year after year, clinging\nto obsolete methods, trying to rule by worn-out precepts, all\nbecause--when you come to analyse it--their own sense of importance\nreally matters to them more than their children's welfare, and no one\nhas opened their eyes to see themselves and their actions in the true\nlight.\n\nAlthough the case which I have just given of the seemingly good mother\nwas drawn from the highest class, and so at first sight might not be\nsaid to apply to lesser grades, yet I want to show that this is not\nso, but that the same principle applies to the most modest little\nfamily.\n\nEvery mother should study how best she can develop and elevate the\nsouls which by her own part-action she has brought into being, and\nmake that aim her first thought--for surely the satisfaction of the\nfeeling that one has succeeded in training one's own children to high\nideals and the attainment of happiness would be greater in old age\nthan any gratification from the acquirement of social supremacy or\nrealised personal ambitions.\n\nI would implore every mother, of any class, ruthlessly to reject all\nthe rules which she has been taught for the guidance of her family,\n_unless she has proved with common sense that they can be profitably\napplied to each particular case_. I would ask her to keep to no\ntransmitted axiom, _unless it comes up to the requirements of the\never-changing and ever-advancing day_. There is only one unchangeable\nand immutable command which we should follow, and this is that we\nshould not soil our souls, or render them up to God degraded and\nsmirched when we go hence upon that journey from whence no man\nreturneth.\n\nIn summing up both my articles upon the responsibility of motherhood,\nI find that in this second one I have made two statements which might\nread as contradictions. Firstly, I spoke of young people requiring\npersonal gain to be held out to them as a reason for committing, or\nrefraining from committing, certain actions; and then, a paragraph or\ntwo afterwards, I gave the illustration of the little girls' good\nbehaviour to their mother as being only caused by the fact that it was\nmore to their advantage so to behave. What I meant to show was that\nwhile boys are young and full of the rising impulses of nature they\nvery rarely can have acquired sufficient spiritual belief to make them\nrefrain from indulging in certain pleasures--or what seem pleasures to\nthem--merely because they have been told these pleasures are wrong.\nFor instance, on the subject of smoking. What boy will stop smoking by\nbeing told it is wrong and that he is sinning by his disobedience? But\nthere are many intelligent ones who will not indulge in it if it is\nexplained to them that smoking will stop their growth and make them\nless likely to succeed in the cricket eleven, or, later, in the\ncollege eight. At that period the mind cannot look into unseen worlds,\nand is mainly occupied with realities from day to day, and therefore\nis more likely to be influenced by a simple explanation of what\nphysical harm or what good in the immediate future will be the result\nof actions.\n\nThe little girls' behaviour to their mother is really an example of\nthis same rule, only the principle for their action was not good,\nbeing merely temporary and strictly limited gain, and not that they\nshould, as in the case of the boys, grow into fine, strong and healthy\npeople, more able to enjoy life in the future.\n\nThere is another statement which I have constantly made which possibly\nmight be twisted or misunderstood, and that is the one of the\nimportance of the end. There are people who would turn it into the\nJesuitical motto of \"The end justifies the means.\" That is not what I\nwished to convey at all, but that if an end is good--and the main\nobject, admittedly, is to obtain it--then there is no use in using\nmethods which once might have accomplished this, but which no longer\nare practical because of the changed conditions, and if continued in\nwill only lose all possibility of success.\n\nHow many fathers and mothers in past days have driven their offspring\nto disgrace and even death by adhering to harsh, Puritanical systems,\nout of date even at that time! And how many more to-day let them slip\ninto the same abysses by their too indulgent rule!\n\nAs I have said, over and over again, the proof of any pudding is in\nthe eating of it; so let every mother _examine her methods with her\nchildren by this standard: Are the children developing in moral and\nphysical welfare by those which she is using, or are they\nretrogressing?_ Is she employing tact to guide their young fierce\nspirits, or is she trying to crush them by old-fashioned rules?\n\nQuestions such as these ought to be honestly asked by each mother of\nherself, and if the answer proves that retrogression is in progress,\nthen she should not be so incredibly stupid as to continue in her old\nlines, but should examine herself and see how she can find the right\nnew ones for her particular cases. La Rochefoucauld was wise when he\nsaid that vanity was at the root of most human mistakes. If a woman is\nnot willing to undertake the true responsibility of motherhood, then\nshe had far better be that sad thing which is a growing quantity in\nmodern civilisation, namely, a childless wife devoted to dogs.\nHundreds of selfish, neurotic females show the utmost unselfish\ndevotion to wretched little pet animals, when the slightest\nself-denial asked of them for little human atoms is more than they can\naccord. What does this mean? Is it a writing upon the wall?","title":"Three Things","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":24215}