{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_57768/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_57768","id":"gutenberg_57768","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57768","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Social problems","Social sciences"],"text":"Produced by Turgut Dincer, Chuck Greif and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                          THE THREAD OF LIFE\n\n          [Illustration: Infanta Eulalia of Spain; signature]\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                            THREAD OF LIFE\n\n                                  BY\n\n                          H.R.H. THE INFANTA\n                           EULALIA OF SPAIN\n\n              WITH A REMBRANDT PHOTOGRAVURE FRONTISPIECE,\n               FOUR FULL-PAGE PLATES, AND A NOTE ON THE\n                          AUTHOR AND HER BOOK\n\n                       CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.\n                London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne\n                                 1912\n\n\n\n\n                          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nSome preface, however short, is needed to this book, the mirror of some\nof my ideas, and, first of all, I wish to put my readers on their guard\nagainst a false interpretation of the motives by which I have been\nactuated.\n\nIn publishing these opinions of mine, it has not been my wish to\naccomplish a literary work. I have not aimed at any display of learning,\nand I make no pretence of forcing on anyone my different points of view.\n\nAs a spectator in close enough contact with present social problems to\nunderstand all the points under discussion, yet at the same time\nsufficiently removed from them to analyse them coolly and judge them\nwithout prejudice, I bring forward my evidence unshackled by\nconventions. It has seemed to me that such fair, exact evidence might\ninterest those who seek to glean, amongst all classes of society, the\nthousand dissimilar and contradictory elements whence proceed the\nlessons needed both for the present and the future.\n\nThose who care to glance through the short chapters of this book will\nsoon see that they have been written with the sincere conviction with\nwhich I always express my ideas and opinions, or perform any work\nindependently undertaken.\n\nI only ask my readers to excuse any faults of style, which I have tried\nto make up for by straightforwardness of tone.\n\n                                                  EULALIA\n\n                                                      Infanta of Spain\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\nGENERAL CAUSES OF HAPPINESS                                            3\n\nTHE EDUCATION OF THE WILL                                             11\n\nHONESTY                                                               19\n\nFRIENDSHIP                                                            25\n\nDIVORCE                                                               33\n\nTHE FAMILY                                                            45\n\nTHE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF WOMAN                                    53\n\nTHE WAR AGAINST FEMINISM                                              61\n\nTHE EQUALISING OF CLASSES BY EDUCATION                                69\n\nSOCIALISM                                                             77\n\nTHE WORKING CLASSES                                                   85\n\nDOMESTIC SERVICE                                                      93\n\nINTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS                                                101\n\nTHE NECESSITY OF RELIGION AND ITS INFLUENCE OVER THE PEOPLE          109\n\nTHE PRESS                                                            117\n\nMORALITY                                                             125\n\nPUBLIC OPINION                                                       133\n\nPREJUDICES                                                           139\n\nJUDGMENT                                                             145\n\nTHE FEAR OF RIDICULE                                                 151\n\nMORAL COURAGE                                                        159\n\nTRADITIONS                                                           167\n\nCRITICISM                                                            175\n\nTHE DANGER OF EXCESSIVE ANALYSIS                                     181\n\nTHE LAW OF COMPENSATION                                              187\n\nTHE AUTHOR AND HER BOOK                                              195\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL CAUSES OF HAPPINESS\n\n\n\n\nTHE THREAD OF LIFE\n\n\n\n\nGeneral Causes of Happiness\n\n\nThe most imperative motive of all human actions is the desire to be\nhappy. But it is difficult to attain happiness if the search for it is\nmade the constant aim of one\u2019s life, although the primordial craving for\nit is an instinct in our nature.\n\nThe art of living is one in which we are but ill instructed by\nphilosophers, scientists and metaphysicians; the first, because they\nleave the meaning of life as it is to show us some end in view; the\nsecond, because they are but rationalist theorists; and the last,\nbecause they claim to be able to lift the veil from the Beyond. The\ntruth is that life is worth living, and that in order to live happily\none must know how to draw from life a relative amount of happiness.\n\nSimply by realising the charm of the pleasures--small though they\nbe--which every instant of the day offers us, one may create for oneself\na source of happiness, for this realisation gives what is usually called\nthe _joie de vivre_ (the joy of living), the principle in all happy\nnature.\n\nUnfortunately, in the majority of cases, man does not see clearly the\nroad leading to happiness because he is seeking it in the immediate and\ncomplete satisfaction of his desires, in material or intellectual\ndelights whose worth he exaggerates; in superfluity, in possession, in\nall that he takes for happiness, but which is in reality mere enjoyment\nallied to fears, dangers, and regrets.\n\nIt is necessary, first of all, to simplify the causes of happiness. To\nillustrate my doctrine, I ask everyone to imagine the idyll in its true\nform, that is to say, as being the perfect presentment of the sentiment\nof love. Simplicity, whether in personal tastes, in the affections, or\nin daily actions, is the great secret of happiness.\n\nWith our nature, however justifiable it may be to acquaint ourselves\nwith partial and transitory satisfactions, we cannot build up happiness\non so fragile a foundation. Fortune is unstable; notoriety, whatever its\ncause, fades with time; glory is a vain word; health declines, and all\nis ruin and sorrow everywhere, save where complete satisfaction has been\nbuilt up by continually aspiring towards the True, the Beautiful, and\nthe Good.\n\nAgain, that aspiring must be the result of cultivating, in all\nsimplicity, our mental \u201c_=I=_.\u201d Happiness lies in the depths of ourselves;\nit is by the right development of our personality that we may bring it\ninto manifestation, make of it the enfolding comfort of our days.\n\nIs it not true, that in love, if you live in the spirit, you possess\nmore happiness than if you live in the senses? It is the same with\nmaterial existence; simplified, reduced to the normal exercise of our\nfaculties, it brings us a greater share of happiness than does excess.\nAll the vices of our nature furnish but a momentary satisfaction, and\nthat not unmixed with bitterness.\n\nBut how shall we attain to the development of our mental personality?\nFirst of all by the training of our Self, then by the selection of\naffinities. In this way each one, conscious of his own true desires, may\nbring around him those whose tastes and feelings are in harmony with his\nown. So may he avoid the painful and regrettable shocks and collisions\nwhich lead fatally to strife, from which combative and provocative\nnatures cannot emerge without wounds, weariness, or disgust.\n\nIf you are obliged to live in a country different from your own, or amid\nsurroundings where the mental atmosphere does not harmonise with yours,\nface the situation coolly; learn to be by turns the wise teacher and the\nwilling disciple: in this way you will become understood, appreciated,\nand you will preserve intact your inner happiness.\n\nYou must learn to pass through moral and intellectual atmospheres as you\npass through those of the physical world. Just as you put on the costume\nsuitable to the season, so must your spirit assume the costume adapted\nto its surroundings. Many people fear life, they are in despair over the\nleast ill-success; they tack about, dreading to enter the haven, and\ntheir mistakes vex and disconcert them. Remember that there is no\ncircumstance which should cast you down or prevent your enjoying life,\nbecause, I repeat, happiness is inward content, a supporting spirit\nwhich one may attain in spite of the worst vicissitudes or unavoidable\ncatastrophes. Since inward happiness proceeds from a habit of character\nproduced by the training of oneself, the cultivation of simplicity, and\nadapting oneself to the uncongenial, it is necessary to submit to these\nthings if one would steer his barque skilfully and taste all that\nconstitutes the supreme enjoyment of life.\n\nHe who has followed these precepts will be able, when his days begin to\ndecline, to look back calmly on the past. As he has drawn from every\ncircumstance in his life the greatest possible good, as he will possess\nthe certainty of having injured no one, he will see with infinite\ntranquillity the gates of Death opening before him; more especially if\nhe has also cultivated a love of Nature, for the pleasure it gives by\nits restfulness and its eternal loveliness.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EDUCATION OF THE WILL\n\n\nThe will is the faculty of freely determining to do certain actions. But\nin order that the will may always be the result of ideas noble in aim,\nit is necessary to give it some training, through the investigation of\nconflicting causes and motives.\n\nAs Ribot says: \u201cThe _I will_ declares a situation, but does not\nconstitute one.\u201d To constitute a situation requires the formation of\ncharacter, which is nothing more than will power. And this may be\nobtained by a progressive training, the secret cultivation of one\u2019s\npersonality.\n\nThe human being should impress upon all his actions a unity of aim, and\nshow forth his character in what he does.\n\nThe education of the will, then, is indispensable in life, if only for\nthe avoidance of useless effort and to give us clearness of moral\nsight. This training brings us to the mastery of ourselves, to steady\npersistence in action, and uniformity of conduct. Thus considered, the\nwill assumes paramount importance in the life of the individual, and\nforms one of the most powerful forces in the world--free and willing\naction under the control of sound judgment.\n\nIf you educate your will, _desiring that which is good, beautiful and\njust_, you will never undertake mental work at a time when inauspicious\ncircumstances make it liable to failure; nothing which you undertake\nwill remain unachieved; you will follow no aim whose fulfilment does not\nseem to you certain.\n\nThe immortal Guyau says: \u201cHe whose action is not in accordance with his\nthought, thinks incompletely.\u201d Now, in order to think completely, an\nidea must be solidly based upon knowledge. And knowledge is the result\nof the education of the will.\n\nLet us make no mistake, such training gives us force which is\ninvaluable. A man, having considered the action he is about to perform,\nperceived what will be its results, grasped its utility, and shaped it\nto the end in view, may safely obey his will, provided his moral sense\nis satisfied. He thus assumes, in full understanding, the responsibility\nof his actions.\n\nThe effect of this idea of responsibility is that the individual will\nbecomes answerable to itself only. From the moment the education of the\nwill is completed, personal determination is almost instantaneous. The\nresult is the avoidance of loss of time--we no longer exhaust ourselves\nin hesitation, questionings, indecision. Besides, as we are able to\nbring into play, through mental use, the forces which are ours, the\nsense of freedom grows stronger, and with it the sense of possessing the\npower to attain the end in view.\n\nThe education of the will is of such utility that, without it, the\nintellect is powerless to influence action. That is the reason why, in\nthese days, so many intellectual people are the victims of hesitation\nand doubt, incapable of reasoned and logical action.\n\nA trained will brings great stability into a man\u2019s life, first because\nit enables him to do everything at the right time, then because it\nprevents conflicting feelings, by strengthening the reasoning powers;\nand, through systematised thought, saves him from those emotional\nstorms which are as injurious to health as to free play of the will.\n\nLet us no longer forget that all truly profitable actions and strong\ncharacters are the work of the will.\n\nTimidity, to specify amongst qualities detrimental to the intellect,\nonly comes from a lack of will-training, being a form of\nover-emotionalism without control. He who is ignorant of the laws which\ngovern feeling, will be unable to act according to the dictates of\nreason.\n\nI must make it clear that, in speaking of the education of the will, I\ndo not mean moral restraint. The individual should feel himself at\nliberty, bound only by an ideal of goodness which repudiates all thought\nof authority; neither claiming nor suffering it.\n\nThis ideal, inseparable from our conception of what is useful both to\nourselves and others, always takes form through the education of our\nwill; giving consistency to the expression of feeling, and justifying us\nin our actions.\n\nTo envelop oneself in an idea, so that nothing has power to distract--to\nwithdraw, concentrate upon it, burn for its realisation, obey its\nlaws--such are the principal features of will-training, by means of\nwhich our actions and feelings, far from losing in strength, acquire\ngreater force.\n\nViolence and precipitation are foes to all wisely planned action. What\none loses in intensity by calm reflection, one gains in quality as the\nresult of this law.\n\nIf you train your will wisely, you will double the worth of existence;\nyou will leave undone what is useless, you will realise to the full the\npurpose of your soul.\n\nAnd, as all your actions will be performed with the approval of your own\nspirit, you will know the joy of well-doing.\n\n\n\n\nHONESTY\n\n\nHonesty, the quality corresponding to honour, may be said to be\nrelative, according to the customs of different countries. For mankind\ngenerally, honesty consists in not exceeding the limits of licensed\ndishonesty. Thus in commerce, which is, at bottom, a cheating game,\nintegrity is not, as Dr. Dubois says, the same everywhere. \u201cThere are\ncommunities, little cultivated in other respects, where it is observed\nscrupulously; there are others in which, in spite of scientific,\nartistic and literary development, this moral perception seems to be\natrophied. A people whose business honesty is proverbial may have a very\nelastic conscience in regard to morality between the sexes.\u201d\n\nIn the professions, or in social positions which place the individual\nabove the mass of people, a man\u2019s honesty consists in adapting his\nconscience to the circumstances of the moment.\n\nIn questions of commercial or industrial enterprise, intellectual\nventures, public or private morals, general or particular interests,\nmasculine honesty is an adjustable matter which springs from the desire\nfor free action, without infringing upon the law.\n\nWoman\u2019s honesty is quite a different matter. It consists simply in\nsafeguarding the \u201chonour of the home,\u201d in keeping away all \u201cintruders\u201d\nupon the sacred ground of marriage, and in averting any fracas tending\nto diminish the authority of the man, the husband, the owner, and free\nthe feminine soul from its ancestral slavery.\n\nThis is why men and women cannot be in perfect accord, so long as\nhonesty, taken in the widest sense, is not the same for both. Based upon\nrespect for what is fair, just and good, honesty has essentially no sex.\nWhether strict or comparative, it does not imply a different moral law\nfor individuals of different natures.\n\nThis primordial question has always been treated too lightly, though it\nhas been the source of continual misunderstanding, especially in\nmatrimonial questions.\n\nHow many examples one could give of want of scruple violating the idea\nof honesty and responsibility!\n\nHow many sins, grave in themselves, are committed by men in power,\nknowing themselves safe from the arm of the law; how many actions,\nunpunishable, yet which are an outrage upon the liberty of others, a\nbreach of respect for human nature, and an injury to society!\n\nHow many men sacrifice, for the sake of ambition, their country\u2019s vital\ninterests, and incur no censure save that of powerless public opinion!\n\nThe orator who, in a moment of national excitement, throws his visionary\ndreams and interested lies broadcast into the press; the leader who, in\nfull consciousness of his abominable work, deceives the people; the\nperjured politician who denies his convictions to attain promotion,\nshould all have their honour called in question. To such as these, as to\nothers, woman owes respect and obedience, without the option of\ncomparing her own honour, based on imperative duty, with that of these\nempty talkers and tub-orators.\n\nIt is true that, on the other hand, a woman may, without censure, give\nout that her dearest friend\u2019s husband is making love to her--that she\nmay thus, by a word, destroy a home\u2019s peace--without any pangs of\nconscience, and without the man attacked being able to call her to\naccount.\n\nIn the relations between men and women some solution should be found by\nwhich both may be placed on equal ground as regards morality and\nresponsibility. In this way loss of esteem between them would be\navoided, and the value of each enhanced.\n\nBut, to obtain such a result, tolerance and the principle of harmony\nmust first be taught; men must become less selfish, and women learn that\ntheir life is not only a work of love but a work of reason. Social\nrights must be equalised in the light of conscience and moral\nresponsibility. In fact, thorough sincerity must bring about loyalty\nboth in business and private affairs, creating a moral atmosphere in\nwhich forgery, fraud, plagiarism, the lie that corrupts the soul of a\npeople, all the monstrous growths of our modern society, can no longer\nexist. Then honesty, from being comparative, will become supreme,\nincumbent equally upon man and woman, bound no longer only by social,\nbut by moral ties.\n\n\n\n\nFRIENDSHIP\n\n\nFriendship, taken in its strict sense, that is to say as affection\nexempt from the attraction of the senses, plays an immense part in the\nlives of men and women.\n\nFriendship, as between men, is based on moral equality. The tie uniting\ntwo minds and two hearts creates the same rights and the same duties for\neach of the friends, no matter how different their degree of fortune and\nrank in the world. Where friendship is, there is reciprocity. This is\nwhat made La Bo\u00e9tie, Montaigne\u2019s great friend, say: \u201cFriendship is a\nsacred name, it is a holy thing.... There can be no friendship where\nthere is cruelty, disloyalty, or injustice.... The wicked are not\nfriends, but accomplices.\u201d\n\nI must quote here an admirable passage from Emerson, whose judgment is\nsound concerning what is high, great and forceful in the dual character\nof Friendship: \u201cThe sufficient reply to the sceptic, who doubts the\npower of the furniture of man, is in that possibility of joyful\nintercourse with persons, which makes the faith and practice of all\nreasonable men. I know of nothing life has to offer so satisfying as the\nprofound good understanding which can subsist, after much exchange of\ngood offices, between two virtuous men, each of whom is sure of himself,\nsure of his friend. It is a happiness which postpones all other\ngratifications, and makes politics, and commerce, and churches, cheap.\nFor, when men shall meet as they ought, each a benefactor, a shower of\nstars, clothed with thoughts, with deeds, with accomplishments, it\nshould be a festival of Nature which all things announce. Of such\nfriendship, love in the sexes is the first symbol, as all other things\nare symbols of love. These relations to the best men--which, at one\ntime, we reckoned the romances of youth--become, in the progress of\ncharacter, the most solid enjoyment.\u201d\n\nFriendship between women is somewhat different from that between men,\njust because it excludes the feeling of equality. It is very rare, in\nspite of the best education, that a woman will forget her rank and\nfortune with a friend who becomes her prot\u00e9g\u00e9e. It is no less rare when\na woman in a humble position does not resent any outward inequality.\nThe result is that friendship between women is not a continual\ndelightful exchange of feeling and opinion, but rests more on interest.\n\nOne of the most beautiful forms of friendship, as some think, is that\nbetween man and woman. Between persons of the highest education and\nrefined tastes, such friendship not only plays a great part in life, but\nbecomes a necessity, for it increases the intellectual power of both\nparties. It is very like disinterested love, and is governed by secret\ninfluences which give it its value. Certain people have the gift of\ndrawing out our confidences; there are others the very sight of whom\nmakes our heart rejoice. Our spiritual force, our eloquence, often come\ninto play simply through the presence of such a beloved friend.\n\nThere is a peculiar feeling of confidence between the sexes; friendship\nbetween a man and a woman has something in it graver, deeper than any\nother. Even in family relationships, what I call \u201chome friendship\u201d\ndepends entirely on this kind of mutual dependence. Cases are rare of\nsons turning against their mother, or of sisters who fail their\nbrothers.\n\nFriendship is said to be blind; I believe, on the contrary, that it is\nclear-sighted as to the duties entailed upon it, and needs no vow to\nmake it binding.\n\nIf, for a man, a friend of his own sex is a second self, for a woman a\nman-friend is at once a confidant, a counsellor and a protector. He\nrepresents authority with reverence, incalculable devotion; he becomes\nthe symbol of that Good which signifies refuge from suffering,\nforgiveness when one has erred.\n\nFor a man, a woman friend is everything; yet his feeling for her is the\npurest in the world, the affection which asks nothing in return.\n\nYet too great intimacy may kill friendship, which--to quote Emerson\nagain--follows the laws of divine necessity; unless the things of daily\nlife have become of common interest between the friends. But even then\nthe friendship should be in some sort kept in a shrine apart lest it\nfall into the commonplace.\n\nYes, truly, the human heart desires a friend. It seeks him everywhere,\neven from childhood, and when it has found him, it is proud of him as of\na victory through which it has won happiness, strength, the incentive to\nbecome better. We carry our friend\u2019s eyes in our own; in his absence,\nthey mirror his care for us. His coming strikes a note of triumph in\nour brain, his presence lightens every moment and makes our happiness.\nMontaigne did violence to a beautiful gift of the spirit in denying the\nexistence of friendship between men and women; and Nietzsche declares\ntoo lightly, and without taking into account the moral worth of the\nindividual, that for the maintenance of friendship between a man and\nwoman a little physical aversion is necessary.\n\nCertainly, Don Juan and Ninon de Lenclos could not have been friends;\nbut it is equally certain that a beautiful woman may win the purest\nfriendship of a charming man, for friendship between man and woman\nsprings from a train of circumstances which lead them into soul\nfellowship, the sharing of similar tastes, and an affection entirely of\nthe spirit. The constant interchange of high thought, the brotherly and\nsisterly tone of the relationship, safeguard the friends against\nbecoming lovers.\n\nThe nature of each contributes greatly, in these heart unions, to the\nfriendship\u2019s being compatible with prudence and consideration for the\nfeelings of others. It is obvious that a friendship begun between two\npeople of unbalanced mind is almost always fatal, but two dissimilar\nnatures, if morally equal, steady one another by a friendship which\nbecomes for them a safety-valve.\n\nFor instance, a man with a calm temperament, but not a cold heart, will\nbe the best of friends for an impulsive woman, and render her the\ngreatest services that life can give.\n\nLet us look at this loving friendship, so much discussed, so often\ndescribed and cried down.\n\nI said that friendship between man and woman was a form of disinterested\nlove; it is a love based on mental sympathy, on respect for moral\nqualities, on admiration for certain actions or certain thoughts\nexpressive of a character. In this kind of friendship, affection, which\nsprings from the heart, governs love, which springs from the senses.\n\nThis form of friendship is not to be despised, dangerous though it may\nseem in the eyes of severe moralists or of hypocrites. Take such a case.\nIf either of the friends needs advice on some matter he or she has\ndeeply at heart, such advice will not be well considered, unbiased, and\nto the point, unless free from all jealousy--coming from the heart and\nnot from the nerves.\n\nThen, and then only, can this friendship be a precious resource, a deep,\nprotective affection claiming not possession as its reward.\n\n\n\n\nDIVORCE\n\n\nMarriage, considered by society as a necessary mode of union, is a\ncontract governed by law.\n\nIn the eyes of Roman Catholics, marriage being a sacrament, which\nrenders it indissoluble, divorce does not exist. According to this\nprinciple we must accept as a sacrament an earthly tie which touches\nmore nearly on material than on spiritual questions. But it seems\nstrange that the Church of Rome should teach men, by the voice of her\nservants, that human perfection consists in the acceptance of _all the\nsacraments_, and then forbid marriage--which would be, from a practical\npoint of view, the most useful to them--to her representatives. In so\ndoing, the Church creates an illogical exception to her imperious rule.\n\n\u201cFrom the psychological point of view,\u201d says Dr. Toulouse, \u201cmarriage is\nthe union, first through passion, then through sympathy, of two beings;\nfrom the social point of view, it represents a mutual effort towards\nreproduction.\n\n\u201cThe union of feeling between two beings has not been too highly exalted\nby the poets. It manifests in the highest degree that selection which\npurifies the instinct of sex.\n\n\u201cThis selection is in itself a proof of the free will which works--with\nrestraining effect--on the tyranny of passion. Again, the woman, in\ngiving herself to one only, demonstrates in the most striking manner\nthat she belongs to, and can dispose of, herself.\n\n\u201cSex freedom, then, which is a condition of evolution, is manifested\nmost clearly in a marriage entered upon willingly by both parties. But\nthe corollary to this is, that divorce should also be possible simply at\nthe wish of both.\u201d\n\nLet us study divorce from the point of view of its utility. Divorce\noffers an advantage in preventing marriage from being regarded as an\nendless chain, a crushing yoke, or a prison deliberately chosen as a\nlivelihood. It means, in fact, that people need not be tightly bound\ntogether who cannot bear so to live; it would put an end to what is\nsometimes extreme mental suffering, abolish dangers which sometimes\nlead to murder; in a word, it means escape from \u201cthe sentimental and\nemotional results of the indissolubility of marriage.\u201d\n\nThe termination of miserable \u201cmarriages of convenience\u201d would ensure for\nmany a new life, the production of healthier children under normal\nconditions; from the social point of view, it would increase the value\nof the man and the woman.\n\nHow many live together for long years who are strangers to each other in\nbody and soul! How many slaves of marriage there are, whose union is\nunnatural, childless, and made hideous by mutual hatred!\n\nWhy should one see, in the name of a religious principle,\nthese infernos--whose tortures are as varied as they are\ncrushing--perpetuated? Why should not reason, individual rights, be\nallowed to correct ill-chance, false calculations, and disappointed\nhopes?\n\nWhy should a woman, who no longer finds in her husband the moral support\nshe needs, submit to the horrors of a long agony without defence, of\nperpetual strife in which she is miserably vanquished; on the other\nhand, why should the man who does not find in his wife the\ncompanion--or even the slave--he desired, see the way to happiness\nclosed to him for ever?\n\nMarriage is based on a contract. Every contract can be rectified,\nmodified, or broken. In a compact, there must be mutual agreement; from\nthe moment when the agreement ceases to be respected by either of the\nparties, it is naturally dissolved.\n\nBefore the establishment of divorce the husband and wife who lived on\nbad terms had to endure suffering worse than death, for nothing, I\nrepeat, is to be compared with the torment of being tied, body and soul,\nin hatred, contempt, or even merely in indifference.\n\nIn former days, the independent-minded, those who feared not public\nopinion, or thought little of social conventions, went each their way,\nto live in a different dwelling--as happens still in certain countries\n(in Spain, for instance, where divorce does not exist; where legal\nseparation is not even recognised); but though they might live apart,\nthe marriage contract held none the less, and the question of fortune\nremained a grave problem for solution. It is the same to-day when,\nthrough worldly expediency, or weakness, an ill-assorted couple share a\nmiserable life or seek solace in separation. The woman, married under\nthe Napoleonic Code, cannot dispose of her dowry, and the man, on his\nside, cannot sell without his wife\u2019s signature. The _soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019acqu\u00eats_\n(common property of married people) is a constant menace in a situation\nof this kind; one comes to think that it is of no use for a couple to\neconomise for the sake of their heirs, for, when one of the two parties\ndies, the common property goes to the other. Another case, also serious,\nmay occur. If either husband or wife incurs debts, these, under the law,\nbecome common to both, and it comes about that the one who has not run\ninto debt finds him or herself compelled to meet the liabilities of the\nother!\n\nWhat manifold complications, what openings for dissension, what\naccumulated vexations! Widowhood, widowerhood, seems the only\ndeliverance from a desperate situation.\n\nBut there is something worse still. In a household completely at\nvariance, weary with strife, the children have to look on at scenes\nwhich wound their belief in the love between husband and wife. In such a\ncase they suffer through the absence of divorce, both from the moral\nstandpoint and because they are deprived of property which should fall\nto them, since through the _soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019acqu\u00eats_--that stern claimant--the\nchildren\u2019s capital cannot be increased.\n\nIf we pass from this array of facts to another, which concerns this\nunnatural life of two people, the evil is no less great.\n\nFrom the time when life together has become impossible, the husband more\nor less openly substitutes illicit union for marriage, and most\nfrequently takes to live with him the woman he has chosen as his new\ncompanion. Because the marriage contract remains unbroken, this is an\ninsult to the wife, for his house is still her home by law.\n\nAlthough in a case of separation, the wife almost always acts with\ngreater circumspection and caution, she will find it difficult to\nprevent the echo of any attention she may accept from reaching the ears\nof her husband, or his knowledge that she gives willingly to another\nwhat she has yielded with such aversion to himself.\n\nDivorce prevents this gratuitous insult to marriage. The advantages it\noffers exceed by far the disadvantages cited by the defenders of an\ninstitution which to-day has grown weak because it has remained\nunchanged in the midst of social evolution.\n\nThe enemies of divorce assert that it is the destroyer of the family.\nThat is not so, for there are no more families to destroy. Frankly,\nhonestly, where is the family of old, since the law of the majority has\nfreed the child, since compulsory education has lessened the moral\nauthority of parents, without perceptibly improving the mass of the\npeople; since in the vast field of higher education boys and girls,\nthrough school life, become strangers to the authors of their being and\nare mainly indebted to the State for their training?\n\nIf hypocrisy were not at the bottom of the whole matter, it would be\nquickly seen that nothing remains of the family as a sacred institution.\n\nAuthority on the one side, submission on the other, are the exception;\nthe sacrifices, too, which parents made in the past, to the point of\nforgetting their own well-being, have to-day no longer any reason for\nexisting.\n\nYes, divorce is useful, necessary, moral. But it may, it should, become\nmore so, and undergo modification. Divorce by mutual consent must become\nthe remedy for evils which dishonour the human soul; victims of unhappy\nmarriages should be able to dissolve their union without the most\nintimate details of two lives--poisoned by misunderstanding,\nincompatibility of temper, excess, cruelty, and insult--being made a\nprey to public curiosity, the malice of barristers, and the opinions of\njudges. Those liberated from their matrimonial prison, and ripened by\nexperience, must be allowed to marry the beloved one who has loved,\nconsoled, and helped them through the battle of their days.\n\nNine times out of ten, these new marriages would be happy, because the\nhusband and wife would have had time to appreciate each other\u2019s\nqualities, because they would have obeyed the law of love, escaped\nconvention and not been guided, generally speaking, by interest, that\nchief and pernicious element in conflict between the sexes.\n\nDivorce, as at present established, does not afford enough solutions for\nthe melancholy problems resulting from marriage. It is inadmissible,\ninhuman, even immoral, that one who has suffered patiently twenty years\n\u201cfor the children\u2019s sake\u201d should be condemned, because he or she has\nleft the torture-chamber, to pass the remainder of life without the\nright to create a new home and consecrate by marriage the affection and\ndevotion which have healed the old wounds, given back joy in living, and\ncreated for him or her obligations at once moral and social.\n\nThe day when divorce shall become a law of justice, and no longer--as it\nsometimes is now--a tacit agreement covering wrongdoing; the day when\ndivorce shall exist by the will of him or her who gives valid reasons\nfor it, and also by mutual consent; the day, finally, when lover and\nbeloved, under normal conditions, may marry, then true and rightful\nsolutions will have been brought to impossible situations, and a noble\nwork done for the individual and society at large.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FAMILY\n\n\nThe conditions of the modern family, in the northern countries\nparticularly, have in reality become almost artificial; and it seems\nprobable that, in the near future, the family will be completely\ndisintegrated.\n\nIn France, especially amongst the _bourgeoisie_, the family appears to\nme likely to remain for a long time what it has been heretofore, because\nit constitutes an association the members of which, closely grouped,\nprotect their common interests, whether commercial or industrial.\n\nThis family, representing a society in the possession of property, will\nexist as long as its members, in virtue of their fellowship, preserve\nintact their old social conditions, each of them continuing to have an\ninterest in the success of their common enterprise.\n\nIn Spain, where the Moorish government has left so many traces of its\nprimitive organisation, the family still continues in a state of\nslavery, a state wherein the woman glories.\n\nBut the question here is not of these two particular cases, where the\nmaintaining of the family group serves the interests of the man, the\nhead, the master; for the family differs according to different centres,\ncountries, customs, and castes.\n\nTo come to more general statements, we must first go back to the\nfountain-head, and consider the family in its evolution through the\ncourse of civilisation.\n\nThe family, as it first appears in the history of humanity, was a\npatriarchal association formed of the father, mother and children. There\nwas no binding marriage, but repeated unions. The conditions were such\nthat the women were for all men indiscriminately, and the children knew\nno father in particular. This state of things in many cases continued so\nlong that the Christian Church was obliged, at its birth, to wink at\nthis communism. Herodotus tells us that the children of the Lycians bore\nthe name of their mother; Varro assures us that it was the same in\nAthens, and that the woman, being the producer of wealth, was the only\none to inherit.\n\nWhen polygamy began, the woman was reduced to a state of seclusion and\noften of slavery. Her part consisted principally in bringing children\ninto the world, and her care of them was more through instinct than\nlove.\n\nAs for the man, he sought nothing, as regarded the woman, but his own\ngratification, and concerned himself not at all about fatherhood.\n\nLater on, through the growth of civilisation, monogamy decided the\nlimits of the family and formed class groups; but gradually, these\ngroups becoming mixed and losing their old characteristic of\nbrotherhood, the conditions of the family became much modified.\n\nThe causes of this slow process of breaking up accumulated, according to\nthe particular centre and to social degrees. In one place\nprimogenitureship began to take to itself privileges; in another the\npaternal power lessened the mother\u2019s authority over her daughters;\neverywhere there was a tendency towards emancipation, and, finally, in\nour own day, at the two poles of society, family conditions have become\nalmost artificial.\n\nThe home peace is troubled, and even where there is no rupture between\nthe husband and wife, there is mental friction between parents and\nchildren, between brothers and sisters, through the clash of opinion,\nmutual intolerance, and the collision of personal interests; it is\nrarely that harmony prevails in the household.\n\nIt must be said that the reasons for marriage are not the same as they\nwere in the old days, when the bond was indissoluble, based on the\ninstinct of ownership, on the government of a community. Besides, the\nmarriage for love, the only one worthy of respect, has destroyed the\noriginal idea of the association, and, unable to guarantee its own\ncontinuance, calls for an adjustment of responsibilities by means of the\nlaw, so that the man shall no longer be the brutal master, and the\nwoman--though she be more moral, more virtuous, and more temperate than\nhe--humiliated and degraded. It has been said that it is enough for a\nwoman to be beautiful and to be a mother. That is altogether absurd\nnonsense. The woman has a right to the complete development of her\nfaculties, a right to bring into play all the resources of her being.\nNoble women have proved that, quite apart from maternity, they are fit\nto walk in the immortal footsteps of heroes, artists and thinkers, and\nevery day we see women\n\n[Illustration: THE INFANTA EULALIA\n\n_Photograph by Baumann, Munich._]\n\nbecoming, in talent, energy, and patient determination, rivals of\nscientists, poets, and all who devote themselves to enterprise in the\nworld of mind.\n\nBut, it may be said, such claims are contrary to the idea of the family.\nNot at all. The family, essentially modified, each member subject to the\ndeterminism of thought and ensuring the observance of mutual rights and\nduties, will only become a more beautiful institution than before, its\nchildren born of sincere love and no longer the product of undesirable\nor questionable unions based upon the interests of the strongest.\n\n\n\n\nTHE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF WOMAN\n\n\nTo this question squarely put: \u201cWhy does a man arrogate to himself the\nright to live as he chooses, and why should a woman submit to a\nprohibitive moral code?\u201d--men answer that in marriage the virtue of the\nwife and the legitimacy of her children are absolutely and supremely\nessential.\n\nThis touches one point merely, and only applies to married women. In all\nthat concerns \u201cfree\u201d women, by what right are they condemned to abstain\nfrom making full use of their independence, as most men do? \u201cWoman\u2019s\nlife, like man\u2019s,\u201d says Miramont, \u201cis a harmonious evolution, by which\nevery phase is developed, and which thus brings into play a succession\nof forms and aspects of existence. Daughter, mother and grandmother;\ndreamer, fighter, thinker--woman, like man, passes through many\ntransformations in the course of life, and is always progressive.\u201d\n\nBy the same fact of social evolution, thanks to her participation in the\nbattle of life, and also to a rational education, it has long been\nproved that woman is not an inferior creature, of no use save for the\npropagation of the species.\n\nWe are far removed, happily, from the theories of Schopenhauer, who\ndeclared that woman was afflicted with intellectual shortness of sight,\nthat she was childish, futile and narrow, inferior to man in everything\nconcerning rectitude and scrupulous honesty; that she was lacking in\nsense and reflection, incapable of taking any unbiased view, etc. etc.\n\nIf woman\u2019s characteristic feature be that nature has destined her for\nmotherhood, it is none the less true that, just as she has a fine skin\nand quick sensibilities, her intellect is prompt to seize details, and\nthat she possesses a brain as well furnished as that of man.\n\nHer apparent inferiority comes from the fact that woman is oppressed by\nthe law and ill-treated by the moralist, whence result her native\ntimidity and diffidence. The truth is that man, desiring to keep the\nsupremacy attributed to him, does not care to see in woman the qualities\nof courage and independence. He will not admit the immanent struggle\nbetween two beings inspired by the same needs and the same desires. Men\nwould like women to remain tied down to household cares, while thinking\nwomen who have ceased to resign themselves to this wish their sex to\nprofit by all the rights of men.\n\nThe partisans of absolute feminism desire that there should be no\ndifference between men and women, in the name of biological equality\nwhich incites them to claim social equality.\n\nWithout going so far as this, it is certain that women should now enjoy\nmore independence and be authorised, without losing caste in the eyes of\nmoralists, to prove the strength of their personal faculties.\n\nUnfortunately, as a modern thinker has observed: \u201cKept apart from\nmagnificent realities ... maintained continually in a state of moral\nindependence worse than physical slavery, only quitting the maternal\nyoke to fall under that of a husband, trained entirely with a view to\nmarriage, which is to transform at a stroke the child into the wife,\nthe wife into the mother, educated according to the prejudices of their\nset at the sacrifice of expansion of their own personality, women do not\ndevelop normally, except by finding a kindred soul, according to the\nideal formed in their dim consciousness. And as social conventions do\nnot permit them to seek this ideal, which is falsified and made vague,\ntoo, by novel-reading, enlightenment usually comes to them too late to\ndestroy the effect of a narrow existence accepted through timidity,\nignorance, or chagrin, and moulded by the dictates of society; so they\nlive, for the most part, either like children broken in to their\ndestiny, or like rebels in search of visionary compensations: in any\ncase misunderstood.\u201d\n\nI have nothing better to add. For centuries, man has denied to woman her\nfinest qualities, which are _fearlessness_ and _presence of mind_, and\nthe majority of women have come to be convinced themselves that these\nqualities are unwomanly and to be reckoned faults.\n\nNow, if tenderness be woman\u2019s most beautiful attribute, it should be\nrecognised that true tenderness is especially found amongst those women\nwho are courageous, strong and endowed with shrewd sense. The\nacceptance of servitude does not admit of real tenderness, such as\ninfluences, for instance, the conception and carrying out of works of\nart, as incites to noble action, and produces wonderful results in every\ndegree of the social scale.\n\nFor years, in many countries, the attention of thinkers has been fixed\nupon the liberation of woman. Many mistakes have been made. Against one\nJohn Stuart Mill a crowd of philosophers like Nietzsche have arisen, but\nthe idea is gaining ground in scientific centres, and, with the help of\nrational Socialism, the work of woman\u2019s emancipation is being steadily\npursued.\n\nReverting to old times, we find that in many primitive races, the males\nwere chosen by the females for their valour, physical strength, or\nnatural beauty. This selection having led to the progressive development\nof the male in the majority of races, resulted in an ideal female type\nalso.\n\nBut when the woman became the \u201cproperty\u201d of the man, the slave destined\nto work for the male, the development of the race stopped short; the\nsalutary effect of the woman\u2019s free choice having ceased.\n\nIn a new state of society, when woman, duly trained for her part, shall\nrecover her complete freedom, we shall see the triumph of affinities,\nand the power of a feminine ideal will ensure for the future a new and\nvigorous race.\n\n\n\n\nTHE WAR AGAINST FEMINISM\n\n\nIt is incomprehensible that so many intellectual, sensible men, claiming\nto be logical, should be hostile to modern feminism. I say \u201cmodern\u201d to\nmark the actual state of conflict, for _eternal feminism_ is\ncontemporaneous with the _eternal feminine_, as Lucien Muhlfeld says.\nFollowing Schopenhauer and Strindberg, who strove to demonstrate the\ninferiority of woman, our detractors, in making war upon feminism, show\nthemselves to be very inconsistent. As woman, is, in their eyes, an\ninferior being, they are either fighting what they have no reason to\nfear, which shows lack of courage on their part; or, by admitting that\nunder present conditions woman plays an important part in everyday life,\nthey recognise in her a certain value, which shows a lack of sincerity.\n\nOn the day woman first recognised the fact that she could earn her\nliving by taking up the employments hitherto reserved for men, she made\ngood her claim to a share of instruction and training by means of which\nto put an end to her mental inequality.\n\nUnable to escape from the subordinate position in the family thrust upon\nher by the Civil Code, she determined to free her mind first, and gain\nrecognition of her rights in the domain of intellect. This seemed\ninadmissible, even in respect of the principles of science.\n\nNow, in times gone by, women worked as much as, and often more than,\nmen, thus gaining recognition of their physical strength. When man was\nstill a barbarian, hunting and fighting for mere subsistence, woman\nhunted and fought with him; just as his comrade, she carried the slain\nbeast over her shoulder. Later, she spun flax to clothe her family; she\nwas obliged, in her enslaved condition, to turn to common uses her\nintellect and devotion, and when, later still, the family was placed on\na legal footing, she was obliged to give all her faculties to manual\nlabour.\n\nLong centuries passed. Man had no longer to fight for his daily bread.\nOne invention after another had gradually modified the conditions of his\nlife; he had become educated, had attained to different trades and\nprofessions, developed his power and authority, while woman remained the\nsame dependent creature, tied to her duties as wife and mother. A time\ncame when woman, too, learnt trades which she made her own. Man took\nthem from her, possessed himself of her needle, of clothes-making,\nhairdressing, cookery. This is why, in the eighteenth century, women\nattempted an inroad into letters and the arts. This is why, helped by\nthe Revolution, they sought to claim common rights. To-day, trained at\nschool and college, women know that they can utilise their faculties\nmore nobly than hitherto. They no longer live in an epoch when, men\nhaving absorbed everything, they have to resign themselves to being\nmarried, whilst hardly more than children, for a livelihood.\n\nConsider how sad was the lot of the woman when, devoid of the means to\nfree herself honestly from slavery, she was compelled to sell herself,\nby legal marriage or otherwise.\n\nWhatever certain philosophers and anti-feminists may say, the reason why\nthe personality of the woman weakened in the course of ages, was that\nher physical force had been exhausted, which entailed mental\ninferiority.\n\nBut through the progress of science, innovations of all kinds, economic\nand social evolution, daily events; throughout the complexities of a new\nlife, woman began to make her influence felt, became conscious of her\npowers, strengthened by study, system and experience.\n\nStrindberg, the misogynist, when he declared that \u201cwoman is incapable of\nacquiring complete knowledge in any branch of study whatsoever,\u201d said a\nfoolish thing. In proof of the contrary, in the university, in the art\nschools, in law, women are said to be, if not superior to men, at least\ntheir equal.\n\nIt must be remembered that it is less than a century since woman, even\nin the most advanced countries, was first allowed to receive the same\ntraining as man. Taking into consideration how far behind her rival in\nintellect she then was, the results she has obtained give a flat\ncontradiction to those who opposed her equality, which, originally a law\nof nature, has, under modern social conditions, become a law of\nexistence.\n\nIf it be true that it takes several generations to perfect a race from a\nphysical point of view, it is equally true that several generations are\nneeded for the development of the moral and intellectual qualities. If\nonly through the consciousness of her _ego_, woman is called to take a\nmore important place in the life of nations.\n\nFrom the dependent that she once was, woman will become the agent\nrequired by her times. If she no longer receives from her comrade, as in\nold Teutonic days, the cuirass, helmet, and sword, that she may fight by\nhis side, she will none the less endeavour to equal him in the field of\nintellect.\n\nThe start which man has gained and still keeps in the realms of Science\nand Art does not justify him in boasting over the inferiority of woman.\n\nTo sum up, woman claims no more than her right to-day when she demands\nknowledge of all the occupations in which man is employed and reserves\nfor himself; when she desires to exercise her judgment and prove both\nher skill and taste.\n\n\u201cWhereas in men,\u201d says Louis Dimier, \u201ctaste, which is a power of the\nmind, precedes and commands skill, which is organic aptitude; in women,\non the other hand, it seems to be skill which determines and commands\ntaste. One might say literally that with a woman the feeling for the\nbeautiful is in her fingers. All women, too, some more and some less,\nbut without exception, make use of their powers of action; but a man\ncannot rely all his life on the possession of his capacity for\njudgment.\u201d\n\nYes, woman is, fundamentally, man\u2019s equal. Belittled as she has been\ntill recently by conditions which made her a nonentity, she is now,\nthanks to the spread of education, the mingling of classes, and social\nchanges, becoming a respected worker and a valued being. Born into a new\nlife, she will no longer be the jealous rival of man, but his useful\nfellow-worker, as she has always been his generous comrade, sharing his\njoys and sorrows.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EQUALISING OF CLASSES BY EDUCATION\n\n\nThe education which is the progressive adaptation of humanity to the\nconditions of social life has been, in a general way, so greatly\ndeveloped by our modern civilisation, that it has, if not created the\ncomplete equalisation of the classes, at least brought the aristocracy,\nthe middle classes, and the people together in a common effort towards\nindividual action.\n\nIt cannot be denied that a very curious phenomenon exists in the\nequalisation so far effected, the causes of which are manifold, and\namongst which the most noticeable and obvious are the partition of large\nfortunes, the importance assumed by Labour Syndicalism, and the\ncompetition established in all trades and professions.\n\nScarcely anything remains now of the ancient conditions of nations; the\nabolition of slavery has transformed the idea of servitude; compulsory\neducation has raised the level of the lower classes, and by this means\nthe first stone of the Socialistic edifice has been laid. But humanity,\nin attaining to a higher degree of self-consciousness, to a new ideal,\nhas developed a spirit on new lines, and created for itself needs with\nwhich the old instincts have nothing to do. Capitalists, manufacturers,\nmerchants, labour leaders, workpeople of all kinds, find themselves\narrayed against one another in a new perception of their rights (if not\nalways of their duties), and all, in the light of newly discovered\nneeds, are jostling one another in life in this all-pervading struggle.\n\nThe mass of the people, whose one instinct in former times was the bare\npreservation of life, is on the way to emancipation; the pressure from\nbeneath is mounting like a wave, leaping upward to the social strata\nwhere hitherto the monopoly of lucre and jobbery has been jealously\nheld; the workmen\u2019s associations, in their war against capital, want\nthemselves to capitalise; members of the working class, with growing\nimprovement in education, are entering the professional field; the\nmiddle classes are struggling for the attainment of public offices, and,\nby an inevitable reaction, the aristocracy, mulcted of some of its\nancestral rights and privileges, is turning its eyes towards manufacture\nand commerce.\n\nThis does not mean that the balance has become even, for I am of Jean\nLahor\u2019s opinion: \u201cThe plutocrats may be preparing for the masses of the\nfuture a still more crushing yoke, with more falsity and more deadening\neffect--by the suggestions of the Press, which they have completely in\ntheir power--than has ever been the case with aristocracies or\nautocracies, whose authority had its origin at least in the finer human\nenergies, in a noble desire for power.\u201d\n\nIt must nevertheless be recognised that, in order that the relations\nbetween man and man should no longer be in the hands of those devoid of\nconscience and feeling, a certain equality, a meeting on common ground\nfor action, has been already established in modern society; if the lower\nclasses have climbed the ladder far enough to attain to that domain\nwhich seemed bound to remain in the hands of the higher, the latter, on\nthe other hand, have not hesitated to leave the heights to which class\nprejudice might have held them, and invade the territory of trade and\ncommerce.\n\nA man of high position will no longer lose caste by becoming the head of\na motor factory; a nobleman may take part in commercial enterprise, a\nprince of the blood sell, in his own name, the products of his vineyards\nand lands.\n\nIt is the same from the point of view of women. As they think more, as\nthey become carried away by the desire to prove their value and the need\nfor individual effort, the middle-class woman is reaching towards higher\nand higher branches of education. Great ladies, even princesses, do not\ndisdain to draw profit from the industrial arts, from painting and\nliterature.\n\nThese new social conditions could not continue but by the spread and\nimprovement of education and the growing sense of justice as understood\nby Herbert Spencer; that is to say, the responsibility of the individual\ntaken in connection with the need for social co-operation.\n\nComplete equality will never exist; comparative equality must be based\non such liberty as, by its exercise, cannot infringe upon the liberties\nof others.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that social harmony is the result of the\nadjustment of conflicting rights and duties. One has to-day to take\ninto consideration the fact that the humblest artisan is working for the\ngood of society just as is the most famous engineer, the greatest\ninventor, the noblest writer, or the most celebrated statesman.\nTherefore, being \u201cmorally equal in duty, they are morally equal in\nrights.\u201d\n\nEducation, that leveller of castes, dispenser of good, justice, and\nharmony, is the outcome of the experience of each utilised for the good\nof all. It should come from ourselves as well as from others, and pass\nthrough the way of reason.\n\n\u201cIt is through the combined working of all systems of education and\nhygiene,\u201d says the author of _Pessimisme Hero\u00efque_, \u201cit is through the\ncombined energy of all educators and hygienists, that we shall with\ncertainty obtain some day fundamental reforms, and immense progress in\nthe physical, intellectual, and moral life of humanity.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSOCIALISM\n\n\nOpposed to Individualism, Socialism is the idea of social equality in\nutilising the power, capital, property, labour, etc., of the community.\nThe generalisation of the term means a social compact, a contract\nbetween the members of a society.\n\nBorn in the eighteenth century, with the theory of good to be shared by\nthe community, Socialism, which should be a united inherent organisation\nof the social classes, and of the relations of different classes to one\nanother, has become divided into several hostile cliques. Each has its\npartisans; there is Possibilist Socialism, the Socialism of Marx,\nAgrarian Socialism, Parliamentary Socialism, English Municipal\nSocialism, Collectivist Socialism, State Socialism, Christian Socialism,\nPulpit Socialism--and more for aught I know.\n\nThe very splitting up of the initial idea which aimed at the regulation\nof the needs of society, proves that it is a very difficult thing to\ncreate, in its entirety, a new social machine, capable of satisfying\neveryone.\n\nIt is above all a question, in my opinion, of discovering a form of\nassociation which shall defend and protect by its collective force the\nperson and property of each of its members, and through which each one,\nwhile united to all, is answerable only to himself (apart from\nobligations agreed upon), and remains free in his actions.\n\nIt should guarantee that no one should be rich enough to take anyone\ninto bondage, and that no one should be poor enough to be compelled to\nsell himself.\n\nAgain, no man should be able to say: \u201cI am hungry, I do not know how to\nget food: I am cold, I have no means of warming myself: I am homeless, I\ndo not know where to rest my head.\u201d No woman must need to make\nmerchandise of herself to escape starvation.\n\nMan being no longer obliged to sell his physical strength or intellect,\nwoman no longer constrained to throw herself into the market, security\nof life would exist for all, and a sort of equality would be\nestablished.\n\nBut is not this equality a chimera, and can it exist in practice? Are\nnot abuses inevitable? How can the feelings and duties of everyone be\nsubject to rule, in such a way as to restrict the great as to their\nwealth and power and the small as to their avarice and covetousness?\n\nSocialism would have to impose a sort of economic equality which would\nsatisfy everyone; so that he who had climbed a few rungs of the social\nladder need not envy him who is already at the top. It must, in short,\ndo away with every cause of discontent, envy, and revenge, between the\nclasses who are compelled to have constant dealings with one another.\nThus would great social disorder be avoided. But it would be necessary\nto keep clear of side issues, to take as the base of Socialism the\n\u201csimplifying of life,\u201d always keeping an intellectual and spiritual\nideal as the end in view.\n\n\u201cThe characteristic of social organisation,\u201d says Nicati, \u201cis to be the\nmeans of information; a faithful medium between the individuals from\nwhom primarily all activity emanates, and with whom it ends: just as the\npersonal intellect intervenes in the emotional domain, between\nimpressions and the impulses to which they give rise.\n\n\u201cThe function of this natural organisation conforms to the religious\nprinciples regulating its formation and acts.\n\n\u201cIts ultimate object is to maintain harmony between men, as the\nintellect maintains harmony amongst the emotions, and to unite them in a\ncommon desire for equalisation, balance.\n\n\u201cThe doctrine of the cultivation of an intellectual and spiritual ideal,\nthen, may be defined as a natural social organisation having for aim the\nreligious pursuit of good, remembering that we understand by \u2018religious\u2019\nthat which is consistent with the natural fabric of social relationship;\nand by \u2018good\u2019 the necessary and natural result of all harmony, balance.\u201d\n\nIn reality, however, it appears to me that social equilibrium is no\nbetter established now than it was before. The weight which tipped one\nside of the scale is now on the other. The drawbacks of the lack of\nstability have not yet disappeared.\n\nWhy, for instance, should it be thought advantageous that one class, now\nin possession, be completely despoiled to profit another class, which\nwould then take its place? Whether the inequality existed as from the\nheights downwards or from the depths upwards, would not the results be\nexactly the same? Is not the supreme power as dangerous in the hands of\nthe many as in the hands of the privileged?\n\nIf it be true that man has a natural right to all that he needs, it is\nnone the less true that his \u201cright\u201d should not exceed the limits of the\nneedful.\n\nIn spite of all theories, the social organisation of humanity is not in\nexistence yet, and will not exist so long as society fails to comprehend\nthat its aim is to satisfy the needs of each one, in the order in which\nthey become manifest.\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKING CLASSES\n\n\nThe part played by the working man in modern society is of extreme\nimportance. This producer of national wealth is the artery which keeps\nthe heart of a country beating.\n\nJean Lahor says: \u201cThe wealth, power, and glory of the country are, in\ngreat part, the work of the humblest of her children--of the artisan,\nthe worker, the common soldier, of unknown heroes of whom no one speaks,\nnever will speak; silent whilst in life as they will be when dead.\u201d\n\nLord Avebury, too, says: \u201cIt is an interesting illustration of the Unity\nof Man, and an encouragement to those of us who have no claims to\ngenius, that though, of course, there have been exceptions, still, on\nthe whole, periods of progress have generally been those when a nation\nhas worked and felt together; the advance has been due not entirely to\nthe efforts of a few great men, but of their countrymen generally; not\nto a single genius, but to a national effort.\u201d\n\nThen, since the working man is the great factor in national greatness,\nit is but just that he should be an object of consideration for the\nthinkers. This is a truth: the education received by the working man is\nnot consistent with the place which he occupies in the State.\n\nI have in mind, for the children of the working class, schools specially\nadapted to that class, where the child should be taught his r\u00f4le in life\nas a sort of religion; his employer of the future appearing as a kind of\nprotective deity. The child destined to become an artisan should be made\nto understand, from the most tender age, not to regard himself as a mere\ntool, but as the most active element in society. He should be inculcated\nwith pride in his condition, not have his temper embittered and be\ntaught to hate the upper classes, which are, from another point of view,\na vital element equally with his own class. The working classes--and\nthis is a point which Socialism and Evolutionism have failed to\nrecognise--should form a majority set apart in the nation, not for the\npurpose of excluding them from the common good, but, on the contrary,\nfor their advantage, as being the most active and least fortunate.\n\nIn all countries which recognise wherein their strength consists, the\nworking man should be the object of constant care on the part of the\nadministration; he should be recompensed according to his merits, and\nreceive help in his needs. The entire health of a country depends so\nmuch on that of the working population, that dwellings built in\naccordance with the most perfect sanitary conditions, public baths and\nwash-houses, national parks as in America, and institutes where he could\neducate himself to a higher mental life, should be guaranteed to the\nworking man.\n\nIt is very strange that, in democratic countries, the most urgent\nreforms are generally delayed, that they put off the amelioration of the\nwretched conditions prevailing amongst the humblest--yet, by numbers and\nactivity, the strongest--class; amelioration which is first carried out\nin aristocratic countries, such as England.\n\nWhen French hospitals, for instance, are compared with those in England,\nGermany, and Russia, a clear idea is gained of the great difference,\nwhich does honour to the latter countries.\n\nIt is said that the first idea of working men\u2019s dwellings originated in\nFrance. I admit it; but they only came into existence there after\nEngland and Belgium had set the example.\n\nWhere in the great French centres will you find the garden cities of\nEngland and Germany? Even in the matter of food, from the point of view\nof price and quality, the French artisan has reason to envy his English\nneighbour.\n\nThe artisan is too cramped by material conditions and constant labour,\ntoo much cut off from men superior in mental training to himself; he\nneeds to be taken out of his sordid environment, allowed to acquire\nproperty of his own, to give him a taste for home life.\n\nWhen legislators and rulers, teachers and employers, have taught the\nworking man to recognise his own character and claim respect for his\nvalue to society, a thousand rational reforms will spring into being\nspontaneously.\n\nIt seems to me that in manufacturing centres every house should be a\ntemple of fraternity. I will give an illustration: An artisan marries.\nHis wife and he live in a very small house, which, after the birth of\ntheir children becomes too cramped for them, and inadequate from a\nhygienic point of view. Close by, there is an artisan living in a much\nlarger house, as he has had a large family. The children, having grown\nup, have left their parents, and for this reason the house has become\nmuch too large for them. The couple whose family have gone take the\nlittle dwelling, and the houseful of children move into the large one.\nIn this way a kindly interchange is made in response to particular\nrequirements; hence, a share of happiness for everyone, and health for\nall.\n\nUtopia! someone will say. Why? There is really nothing simpler. But\nthen, unfortunately, the simple is always hostile to reason.\n\n\n\n\nDOMESTIC SERVICE\n\n\nSince the disappearance of slavery, domestic service has taken on new\nforms--variable, oppressive--and now it seems likely to disappear\naltogether. The terms, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, misunderstood by\nsome, misconstrued by others, have created great disquietude in society.\nThe servant of former days--the wage-earning man or woman--who formed an\nintegrant part of the family, exists no longer, and those succeeding\nhave changed the old ways and manners to the point of rendering them\nunacceptable--from the time when _attachment_ disappeared before a false\nconception of _liberty_. So that to-day, amongst people of only moderate\nmeans, the lack of servants is becoming a serious problem, although\nchanging fashions and the competition in \u201cspecial lines of work\u201d secures\nus assistance in much of our daily business.\n\nWe occupy ourselves with workmen\u2019s dwellings, have honestly sought to\nsecure better conditions for the poor; why should we not consider the\ncase of those blocks of flats where the closeness of the quarters has\nbecome one of the principal hindrances to the \u201cgood and loyal service\u201d\nso much appreciated by our forbears?\n\nServants in these days consider themselves as employees of a special\nkind, able to dictate their own terms and exempt from various duties.\nTheir service, continuous and dearly paid, is no longer suitable except\nin palaces and large private houses.\n\nIn these they form a community of their own which is not, each member of\nit individually, every moment of the day in direct contact with the\nmaster and mistress. In such cases as these one scarcely realises the\nirritating position of servants with regard to their employers, and vice\nversa.\n\nThe question to be considered is that of small establishments and blocks\nof dwellings in large towns where, for the sake of greater\naccommodation, the employers\u2019 and the servants\u2019 quarters are close\ntogether, perhaps only divided by glass doors and thin partitions. Now,\nto ensure respect for the master and mistress in their private life,\nand willing obedience from the servants, distance in point of fact\nshould be in proportion to distance in point of position and education.\n\n\u201cNo great man is a hero to his valet,\u201d says the proverb. This proverb is\nunfortunately true. It describes an evil which has grown to such a\ndegree as to make domestic service in apartments impossible.\n\nIn America this question is almost completely settled. In England the\nexample set by the United States is beginning to be followed. The\nContinent in its turn should evolve some practical expedient for the\nindependence of both employer and employee.\n\nTo this end there should be a system of \u201cservice by the hour.\u201d This will\nhave to be arranged in view of the fear that we may find ourselves\nservantless. It does not imply that the service now extant will\ndisappear entirely.\n\nLike all innovations, my suggestion will at first alarm some and bring a\nsmile to others; it will seem paradoxical in spite of its simplicity.\nHowever, I will explain my idea.\n\nIt is not to be denied that we have become servants to our domestics,\nfor they dictate terms on entering our service, and we are compelled to\naccept their conditions for fear of finding ourselves boycotted and\nunable to get them at all. In America--I quote typical cases--people\nhave ceased to have their meals at home on Sunday because the _chef_ or\ncook spends that day in the country. In England ladies\u2019 maids refuse to\nwait up for their mistresses\u2019 return from evening parties. (I knew an\nunmarried lady who was compelled to sleep one night dressed as she was\nbecause her maid, having locked herself into her room, declined to get\nup to unfasten her dress for her!) In Germany the servants make it a\ncondition that they shall spend so many evenings at masked balls; in\nFrance a weekly or fortnightly \u201cday off\u201d is one of the least\ninconveniences created by domestic service.\n\nIs it not the truth that in flats, if one had a woman in in case of\nneed, and a sort of watchman to guard against burglars, nothing more\nwould be needed?\n\n\u201cService by the hour\u201d would have the advantage of providing regular\nattendance, and the servants themselves would earn more; they would not\nbe obliged to listen to the voice of command from the same master or\nmistress all day long; they could choose the kind of service they\npreferred, just as the employer could choose his employees. There would\nbe more freedom on both sides: the one party would work more\nconscientiously, the other enjoy greater peace of mind. There would be\nless friction, more justice, all round. In the absence of close\nproximity there would be no more irritating surveillance, no fear of\ngossip, no ill-temper over work ill-done or neglected.\n\nIf you have a masseur or masseuse, even a \u201cbath attendant,\u201d a\nhairdresser, a manicurist, a packer, a \u201cvacuum cleaner,\u201d and a floor\npolisher, what remains for you to ask of your servants?\n\nIf a woman can come and fetch your dresses to be ironed or \u201cfreshened,\u201d\nand a man do the same with your coats, and someone else come and polish\nyour boots, is not that all-important?\n\nCompanies for \u201cservice by the hour\u201d would have to be established in\ndifferent districts. According to one\u2019s needs he would telephone to one\nof these establishments for a bath attendant, for someone to truss\npoultry, for housework, etc.\n\nAnd then how delightful it would be to be alone again, no longer spied\nupon, to be one\u2019s own master--without any servants!\n\n\u201cBut the expense!\u201d someone will say. If you calculate what the servants\nliving in your house cost you in one way and another, you will come to\nthe conclusion that there would be less expense for the employer and\ncertain profit for the servants, whose service by the hour would be\nbetter paid.\n\nIn some of these modern blocks of dwellings there is but one common\nkitchen. It would be sufficient to mention the hour for meals and the\nnumber to be served to ensure regular attendance.\n\n\u201cService by the hour\u201d would do away with a thousand annoyances, some\nmerely irritating by their frequency, but others serious, as in England,\nfor instance, where the evidence of servants has so much weight in cases\nof divorce.\n\nWith \u201cservice by the hour\u201d there would be no more spying, no more mean\nrevenges, no more dishonourable compromises. As the lower classes have\nshaken off the yoke of their slavery, why should we still be the victims\nof a new state of things in matters domestic?\n\nThere is no perfect happiness without real independence. Let us aim at\nindependence for everyone.\n\nIn doing good in a new way the human end in view has not changed. Let us\nbear in mind that good for all is only found in individual freedom.\n\n\n\n\nINTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS\n\n\nNow that the different peoples fraternise over science, commerce, and\nindustry, now that they are jointly liable, in the name of economic\nrelations, now that collective work, free from \u201cnational etiquette,\u201d is\ninstrumental in producing material and moral progress for all,\ninternational schools ought to be founded in the different civilised\ncountries.\n\nThese nurseries of the intellect and will would bring pupils together by\none single rational system of training; the pupils would be subject to\nthe same examinations; and there would be effected between the different\ncountries an exchange of individualities, destroying race hatred in the\nidea of rights common to all and the rightful administration of\ncollective communities.\n\nArmed peace, costly as it is for every nation, is a benefit in these\nmodern times. Each nation, by preserving the integrity of its own\nterritory, is more at liberty for intercourse with its neighbours, and\nfor the development of the high ideals which are urging the peoples\ntowards economic unity.\n\nIn former times, taking France as an example, the various provinces\ndetested one another, and were at variance through all kinds of\nconflicting interests. They were separated by the barrier of opposite\ntemperaments, dissimilar customs; each of them preferring to remain a\nstranger to the rest, though they all spoke the same language. But by\nmeans of gradual changes, they were at length drawn together, each\nprovince grew to feel a certain oneness of thought with the others,\nuntil finally the rigid barriers broke down, and to-day the whole race\naims at the training in international feeling of every individual,\ndesiring that future generations, free from too local a patriotism,\nshould attain to what I may call geographical fraternity. For this\nobject nothing would be so valuable as the creation of international\nschools, by which the tide of different ideas may enter, and thus solve\nthe great problem of comparative education.\n\nLet us imagine similar schools in every country. Young men and girls,\nsent abroad to follow up the course of study they have begun in their\nown country, would find the completion of their education in the mental\nintercourse offered by contact with the boys and girls of the foreign\nschool. They would by this means widen the horizon of their ideas, they\nwould become cosmopolitan without effort, reap such advantages from\nforeign life as would greatly add to the force of their own personality,\nand return home with an equipment of sound judgment and self-possession.\nIn addition, they would have learnt the foreign languages so necessary\nto the pursuit of commerce, manufacture, letters, and the arts.\n\nThe young man and the girl thus educated in the idea of\nworld-relationship would hold their own in the circles to which they\nbelonged, and would be certain to do their country good service at an\nage when, in the ordinary course of things, they might dream of going\nabroad for the sake of seeing the world, without any ability to profit\nby that exchange of ideas and comparison of manners which the\ninternational school would secure to them just at the impressionable\nage.\n\nWhen one considers how useless in most cases, and how invariably costly\nto parents, travelling is in the case of young men destined for\nprofessional or even commercial careers, when undertaken after their\neducation is completed, one must acknowledge the advantage which would\nresult from the exchange between the countries of young, amenable\npupils, quick to assimilate all the elements needed for complete\ntraining.\n\nOf course each student sent abroad would have professors of his own\ntongue and race to continue the course of study he was pursuing at home.\nBut from the very fact that they were living in a foreign land, they\nwould be able to learn the new language outside the classroom without\nany trouble, and become initiated in new ways and ideas, acquiring all\nsorts of useful knowledge, which would help to mature their minds. So\nwould each one, without losing contact with his own land, profit by the\nconstant recurrence of matters for comparison and analysis.\n\nSainte-Beuve had conceived the project of such a state of things when,\non the eve of the Franco-German War in 1870, he said: \u201cWar is being\nprepared between the two greatest peoples in Europe.... It would be\nbetter to found two schools, one in Berlin and one in Paris. The flower\nof our youth would go and strengthen their minds in the laboratories of\nBerlin, which are richer than ours; the Prussians would come here and be\nmoulded to our French grace.\u201d The real difficulty between nations is\nthat of mutual understanding. Whether it be a question of medicine,\nmanufacture, commerce, or education, there are many efforts made which,\nin the first instance, are unknown in neighbouring countries, and\nthereby progress is hindered. By means of international schools, a\nsolution would be found to problems common to all, for instruction would\npass from one to another.\n\nIn commercial and industrial matters, especially, dealings between one\ncountry and another would be carried out more easily, and on a larger\nscale.\n\nThrough uniformity of customs, and harmony in feeling and ideas, brought\ninto play for the good of all, peace would be assured, while rivalry, on\nwhich progress depends, would still exist. Autocracy, democracy,\nimperialism, all would be merged in the common desire for improved\nconditions.\n\nOn the day when harmonious endeavour shall become the rule between\npeople and people, the wealth of the world will increase tenfold, simply\nthrough the working of all intelligence for the good of every nation.\n\n\n\n\nTHE NECESSITY OF RELIGION, AND ITS INFLUENCE OVER THE PEOPLE\n\n\nReligion is neither a collection of natural laws nor a philosophic\ndogma. It is higher in dignity than teachers of to-day represent it, and\nit will be understood if we consider the meaning of the word \u201creligion\u201d\nas applied to the life of the individual. In the words of Dr. Nicati,\u201d\n... applied to an individual, it denotes the allied operations of the\nspirit upon which rests his judgments and actions. As applied to\nsociety, it is the symbol of the facts which determine the relations\nbetween individuals; it embraces in one common term _the principles of\nsocial harmony_.\u201d\n\nIn giving us this definition of religion, Dr. Nicati is not considering\nany creed in particular, but all religions, each of which, taken\nseparately, is a moral code.\n\nThe religious idea, which French governments of to-day set aside as\nuseless, is, on the contrary, of obvious utility, primarily for all\nthose whose brains, ill-supplied with mental nourishment, need both\nspiritual food and also a curb. What a strong restraining force is the\nfear of eternal punishment; what an encouragement the desire of endless\nreward!\n\nIn vain have all our orators striven, our materialists shown their\ncontempt; it is none the less true that the wiser spirits--men like\nLittr\u00e9, Taine, and Renan--have maintained in spite of all that \u201cthe\npeople must have a religion, a religion considered purely as an idea\ninculcating morality.\u201d\n\nI will not embark upon the study of the evolution of religions, of the\nRoman Catholic religion in particular, which, from its origin, remains\nthe moral authority of the Latin peoples. I will simply state that,\ncompulsory education notwithstanding, criminality in France has\nincreased in alarming proportion, whereas in England, as the noble\nthinker Lord Avebury remarked some time ago, \u201cprisons have had to be\nclosed for want of prisoners.\u201d\n\nLet us make no mistake. French criminality is in exact proportion with\nthe lowering of the moral level; the absence of criminality in England\ncomes of the respect shown by our neighbours for all religious sects,\nprovided they use their influence for the development of the religious\nprinciple in children--that is to say, the fear of the punishment which\ncomes of wrongdoing, and the hope of the reward which good merits.\n\nUntil the moral sense has become thoroughly developed in everyone,\nreligion--that is to say, a preventive training against the\npassions--will continue necessary.\n\n\u201cWe have schools enough of every description,\u201d says the author of\n_L\u2019Education de Soi-M\u00e8me_, \u201cwhich give us general knowledge and\nadmirable skill in the technique of every branch of human activity; what\nwe need is a school for the making of men.\u201d The Church would have\nremained such a school if the Romanists had not made of their authority\na political weapon.\n\nNevertheless, religious morality dwells in the depths of the mind, and\nthus it is, according to Maurice de Fleury, \u201cthat modern savants who\nhave lost their faith, and cannot believe in human free will, become\nreconciled ultimately to the teaching given us by the Church.\u201d\n\nThe rational morality which comes of mental training may be sufficient\nfor the strong, relieving them of a thousand illusions and childish\nfancies. It remains none the less true, however, that, even amongst\nthose who are past masters in the arts, in science, and politics, there\nare some who, from an ethical point of view, are spiritual weaklings,\nneeding, in place of the Latin _intelligere_, some creed, hidden or\navowed, adapted to their imaginative and imperfectly-controlled brain.\n\nWhatever may be said, the mass of the people has to be considered as an\n\u201cinferior majority.\u201d Apart from it, a \u201csuperior minority\u201d stands out; no\nlonger bound by all the old beliefs, but all the same given to an\n\u201cinner\u201d religion, which is the ethical intelligence whence springs\nrational morality.\n\nLet us consider the apostle. The inferiority of his followers is\nmanifest, but as soon as these disciples reach a higher level, through\nthe education of their spirit, they in their turn will become apostles,\nand moral equality will exist in a group which, in its turn again, will\nwin over other groups.\n\nWe must then concede to the people a religion which may take the place\nof the moral law, one giving them the hope of living again in\n\n[Illustration: THE INFANTA EULALIA AND HER TWO SONS\n\n_Photograph by Boissonnas & Taponier, Paris._]\n\na better life, affording comfort in affliction, and restraining their\ncravings. Religious beliefs are but the poetic materialisation of moral\ntruths. By maturing the popular mind, by improved education, the time\nwill come--in some far-distant future--when man will need no other dogma\nthan that natural one which is faith in _himself_, without which he does\nnot (consciously) exist.\n\nOn the day when religion shall no longer serve to govern morals, it will\nbe useless. For many it is already a dead letter. That matters nothing\nin the case of those whose morality, I repeat, is based on reason; but\nhow regrettable when it is a question of persons of inferior\nintelligence who, without fixed rules, are unable to attain the\nperception of good and evil!\n\nAmongst certain peoples, a religion was founded by philosophers as long\nago as 500 years before Christ. Did not Confucius correct the habits of\nhis country, reform justice, and bring in prosperity, through moral\ntraining? Chief authority of a new sect, governed by the idea of\nrectitude in the life, he organised a state of things which continues\nyet.\n\nThis may happen later on in our Western countries; but until we have\nreplaced the ancient creeds by a moral Ideal impressed upon all minds,\nit will be necessary to keep up the religious sentiment amongst the\npeople, who have remained hitherto an unconscious force.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PRESS\n\n\n\u201cThe newspaper,\u201d says Eug\u00e8ne Tavernier, \u201cis the expression of society.\u201d\nThat is a rudimentary truth which has strangely lost its meaning since\nthe Press, whose social r\u00f4le was that of an educator, gave itself up to\nsectarianism, and, in consequence, was no longer able to exercise, for\nthe most part, a really moral influence.\n\nFrom the fact that the Press sells itself shamelessly to its supporters,\nit often happens that it attacks the weak and blindly defends the\nstrong, thus making capital out of ostracism and injustice.\n\nPresent-day morals have destroyed the original character of the\nnewspaper. In the hands of men more concerned with their personal\ninterests than the good of their country or the pursuit of truth, the\nPress has sacrificed everything to profit, for money is its object.\nNewspapers are bazaars where everything is sold, calumny included. And\nthe turmoil of life has made of the journalist a purveyor of sensational\nnews, of paradoxes which falsify the popular judgment, and information\nas misleading as it is swiftly obtained. The result is that in our\ndemocratic times, when everyone claims the right to give expression to\nhis ideas, we see most journalists writing to order and playing the\nsorry part of impersonal machines.\n\nSince writers worthy of the name found themselves obliged to bow to the\nwill of these dealers in spoilt paper, many of them have refused to\nwrite for the daily papers.\n\nNow, as journalistic over-production increases continually, and as the\nsuccess of many enterprises (based on the exploitation of credulity, the\nfear of scandal, and excessive advertisement) is almost always in\ninverse ratio to integrity, hosts of ignorant men,--\u201cmen of all\nwork\u201d--shelter themselves behind the newspaper and make a livelihood out\nof their trash. The day after the Commune, Louis Veuillot said of the\nPress: \u201cI have been associated with it all my life, and I do not like\nit. I may say that I hate it; but it belongs to the considerable class\nof necessary evils. Newspapers have become such a danger that it is\nnecessary to create many. You cannot contend against the Press, except\nthrough its multitude. Add flood to flood, and let them drown one\nanother, forming no more than a swamp, or, if you will, a sea. The swamp\nhas its lagoons, the sea its moments of slumber. We will see whether it\nis possible to build some Venice within it....\u201d\n\nThe daring controversialist and uncompromising fighter did not foresee\nthat the Press, far from neutralising itself through its numbers, would,\nlater on, create a State within a State, developed to such an extent,\nand so imbued with disintegrating principles, that it would become as\ndangerous to social groups as to individuals.\n\nI shall be told that, since its very modest beginnings, in the time of\nLouis XIV., the Press was as formidable under the Revolution as later,\nand that all governments suffered through it. But I reply that in former\ntimes the journalist, in spite of many excesses, held his calling\nsacred, and that his exercise of it found an excuse in his talent and\nsincerity. It was a time when men of strong opinions fought beneath the\nsame flag; in our own day we often see men pass from one side to the\nother and defend by turns diametrically opposite views.\n\nIn the critic\u2019s domain, for instance, it was esteemed an honour to show\noneself possessed of a sense of the beautiful. Men like Th\u00e9ophile\nGautier, Sainte-Beuve, Paul de Saint-Victor, spared not their personal\npreferences to pay homage to talent, no matter whence it came.\n\nArt was the first object with spirits like these. To-day, mere talkers,\nwith some dubious interest at their back, are willing to boom any\nmediocrity who makes it worth their while. Everything is done with an\neye to expediency. The independent artist is regarded as an enemy\nbecause he will not condescend to pay the paper\u2019s price for praise and\npuffery. It is the same in politics; and whosoever, in commerce or\nindustry, fails to sacrifice to the omnipotent god of advertisement,\nfinds himself checkmated by rivals pushed forward at a great expenditure\nof bank-notes.\n\nIt comes about then that, in a free state, a privileged class, generally\nrecruited from amongst the quasi-intellectual of the \u201cflash-in-the-pan\u201d\ntype, is able to place itself above the law because, in many cases,\nslander is--or so it appears--a means of instructing or amusing the\npublic.\n\nNot long ago, when the Press was censored, people cried out at the abuse\nof power; but when it was given freedom to express even destructive\nopinions, it hastened to turn this freedom into licence. And, in fact,\nto-day the evil has become so great, through the falsity and baseness of\nthe subject-matter, that the least well-informed reader, seldom though\nhe may look at a paper, knows beforehand the stuff that will be served\nup to him, whether as regards politics, art, science, or the small\nchange of public scandals.\n\nThe intrusion of advertisement, too, is such that the man whose article\nis published is often the one who pays. In this way, the Lie, in a\nthousand different forms, is retailed every hour of the day to the poor\ndeluded reading public.\n\nIn order that the Press may fill the r\u00f4le of educator of the people,\nleader of the masses, it must adhere to a political, social, and moral\nideal, frankly sincere, and with a personal sense of the beautiful.\n\nThe opinions of honest, enlightened minds, freed from the snare of\ntime-serving, would be offered to society, instead of such as corrupt\nindividual aspirations or bring a ferment of confusion into the\ndifferent social spheres.\n\nBut, to make that possible, every newspaper should be, first of all, an\nenterprise possessing considerable capital, supplied by independent\nshareholders, uncompromising, honourable men, whose fortune would be an\nelement making for success.\n\nEstablished on a solid and lasting foundation, the Press, in spite of\ndifferences of opinion, would become an admirable organ of instruction,\nsuch as would waken the intellect, but not satisfy morbid curiosity.\n\nFor the spread of thought, selection of the best information from all\nsources must be considered, not extortion and satisfaction of depraved\ntaste.\n\nWhen the Press becomes genuine, writers of merit of all kinds will bring\nto it the tribute of their observation, ideas, and workmanship. When\nthat day comes, the newspaper will be entirely free with regard to\npolitical and social groups and private individuals alike, since it will\nbe a common enterprise of good men--men well informed, worthy of their\noffice, and fit for the accomplishment of sound, honest, and\npraiseworthy work.\n\n\n\n\nMORALITY\n\n\nMorality is a metaphysical quality by the help of which our practical\nactions are justified, and which in most cases constitutes restraint.\nMorality is a science, say some; morality is an art, say others; for\nmany idealists it remains a _revanche_ of reason, and M. Rodrigues sees\nin it the will which binds itself and which we bind. \u201cIndividual\nliberty,\u201d he says, \u201cif it exists, only plays a part on the second plane;\nin practice it signifies little when humanity in its entirety is\nconsidered. Bound to an organism, and still more to society, the\npsychological or moral consciousness, when it draws inspiration from\nwithin itself, finds there in effect what its _milieu_ has placed there.\nIt expresses a system of representations, to the forming of which it has\nin itself contributed but a small part.... Morality, too, has undergone\nan evolution parallel in all points to that of science.\u201d\n\nYes, truly, morality, like everything which touches on conduct, social\nlaws, rites, traditions, ancestral prejudices, the need of freedom, the\nright of the individual, undergoes continual evolution according to the\nconditions of a community. We are to-day far from the morality which,\naccording to Kant, is legislation on the part of the reasonable being,\nenjoining upon all persons the same duties.\n\nAccording to the morality of Epictetus, resting on the idea of liberty,\n\u201cman may free himself of all dependence with regard to other men and to\nNature, and raise himself to absolute freedom, distinguishing between\nthe things which rest on him and those which do not, and despising the\nlatter as immaterial\u201d; according to the ethics of Epicurus, pleasure is\nthe sovereign good of man, and all our efforts should tend towards its\nattainment, provided that pleasure consist as much of the satisfaction\nof the heart and mind as of the senses, but modern morality has become\nsectarian, and differs according to class.\n\nThe principle of _bourgeois_ morality is to preserve the unity of the\ncommunity without any consideration for the liberty of the individual;\nthe _bourgeois_ family being a sort of commercial association, it\nconfines its morality to the idea of a duty which is, above all, the\nprotection of the interests of the community. It is a morality which is\nquite beside the point, and which has no intrinsic value.\n\nThe principle of aristocratic morality is to preserve for the glory of\nits escutcheon all the splendour it deems requisite. It does not trouble\nitself as to the means by which that escutcheon gains in radiance,\nbecause it has made a virtue of its pride. The superadded adornments\ntrouble it with no pangs of conscience, because for it duty consists in\nthe integrity of appearances. This morality is not, in the main, more\nfalse in conception than that of the _bourgeois_; it is the guardian of\nappanage as the other is the guardian of selfish interests.\n\nThe morality of Courts consists in preserving tradition intact, and it\ndoes not hesitate to sacrifice individuals to the Cause which is one,\nunchangeable, and imperative. It is thus a morality extraordinary,\nhaving authority above right and outside duty.\n\nBut whatsoever constitutes the quality deemed essential, whether it be\nthe commercial and industrial stability of the _bourgeois_, the true or\nfalse splendour of the nobleman\u2019s escutcheon, or the more or less\nartificial halo of the Court, it is none the less true that class\nmorality is daily obliged to yield to circumstances and bend to\nconditions.\n\nBeing one of the manifestations of human action, morality is necessarily\nsubject to the law of living according to such and such an epoch. It has\nto adapt itself to change. For this reason personal interest,\nselfishness, pride of birth, and the idea of being above humanity must\nall, in spite of their rules, conform to new conceptions of altruism and\nidealism, for there is no moral finality.\n\nTo speak truly, every individual bears the moral sense within himself,\nbut he has to remember that the sanction of moral judgment is one of the\nmost important factors of civilisation and progress, and cannot be\ndissociated to-day from the scientific element.\n\nNothing leads men more astray than to let them believe that certain\npersons or certain things injurious to society are desirable.\n\nThe personal interest of the merchant is not adapted to the artisan\u2019s\nlife conditions; an escutcheon is not a thing to be coveted by the\nworker; and the right called \u201cDivine\u201d diminishes in no degree the right\nof a people. On the contrary, class morality is hostile to the new\nmoral ideas answering to new social needs; this is the reason why its\nvalue has depreciated, because humanity is making a constant effort\ntowards an ideal which it creates and changes according to the\ndifficulties of the way, and because the straight road leads to\nrighteousness.\n\n\n\n\nPUBLIC OPINION\n\n\n\u201cIt is easy, in the world, to live after the world\u2019s opinion,\u201d says\nEmerson; \u201cit is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great\nman is he who, in the midst of a crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the\nindependence of solitude.\u201d\n\nIn this logical rounding of his thought, the master has given us a rule\nof conduct based on self-confidence, the result of vigorous\nmind-training and the exchange of opinion.\n\nEvery slave to public opinion lives irresponsibly, because he fails to\npossess his own soul, is incapable of inward control, and unable to\narrive at an independent view.\n\nTo be checked by public opinion means the abandonment of mental effort,\nthe surrender of the \u201c_I_\u201d; it means resigning oneself to become mere\nreflection, a nonentity.\n\nNot to everyone is it given to be able to brave public opinion; only a\nfew have the force to throw off social conventions.\n\nOne of the conditions permitting of contempt of public opinion is to\nhave no need of anyone, both from the point of view of material\nexistence and of moral status. I am not speaking of those on whom\nfortune has smiled from their birth, but of the great majority who,\nlacking firmness of character and matured personality, obey blindly as\ncircumstances dictate.\n\nWhat is public opinion if not a collection of incongruous judgments\nturned to general use, rules followed from force of custom, hypocritical\nvirtues, lies in disguise? And why should not I hold to my own private\nview, in spite of current opinion, if, in the consciousness of pure\nintention, wisdom in action, I show forth in my conduct the precepts\nguiding my life?\n\nIs public opinion responsible for my mistakes? Am I less good, less\njust, less loyal because unshackled by imitation, lack of originality,\nand affectation? Why, then, should I deprive myself of honest happiness\nfor fear opinion should turn against me?\n\nWhy should I bow to circumstances which I have not created? Why, once\nmore, should I not be myself?\n\nThe desire for general approbation is a sign of weakness, a defect of\nthe mind and conscience. It is allowing someone else to know your duty\nbetter than yourself and force upon you preconceived notions, neutral,\nlimited ideas of action and thought.\n\nWoe betide those who fall under such influence. They resign themselves\nto an existence of mental wretchedness, painfully dragging out their\ndays in hesitation and spiritual cowardice, never able to realise that\npublic opinion has no moral worth, but, though varying according to\ncountry, conditions, and training, is nevertheless intolerant, mean, and\narbitrary everywhere.\n\nThe careless judgments given by public opinion always assume too much,\nand are not the result of harmony between conduct and principle on the\npart of those who form them. We should show ourselves fearlessly for\nwhat we are, speak our own language with sincerity, express our thought\ndirectly to-day, to-morrow, the day after to-morrow. Even if we\ncontradict ourselves on certain points, that is but a proof of our\nreadiness to be better, more just. To be true to oneself is the great\nsecret of personality, and prevents all fear of our neighbour.\n\nA matured, steadfast spirit, a sound brain given to meditation, a\nconscience sharpened by training, constitute a character which can\nafford to despise public opinion, and command an entrance for itself to\nall the paths of life.\n\nThis state of individualism does not imply systematic opposition to the\ncustoms of the day. It is not hostile to society, but it enables one to\nshake off the yoke of public opinion, and assert with sweetness his\npersonality.\n\n\n\n\nPREJUDICES\n\n\nPrejudices, or preconceived opinions adopted at random, subsist\nindefinitely. Like creeds, they are a malady of weak minds which\nunquestioningly accept relative moral laws, formulas which the reason\ncannot admit, and errors which live and propagate faster than truths.\n\nThose are persons without judgment or discernment who profess to do as\nall the world does, because they have not the force to form an\nindependent opinion, undergo the discipline of thought, examine their\nown actions, and confess the absurdity of their own weaknesses.\n\nIt is not to be denied that minds trained by mental gymnastics have\nlittle to say to prejudices. Their judgment being independent, they\nrequire perfect freedom of action, and they cannot permit a host of\ntrifling considerations to hinder them in their way of living and\nthinking.\n\nPrejudices--a form of mental aberration--are a standard by which the\nleast intelligent claim to estimate the capacities of others. And those\nprejudices which proceed from stupid customs, absurd fears, silly\nsuperstitions, have led to the most annoying assertions.\n\nIt is a matter of general belief, for instance, that the number 13 is\nunlucky, that the song of a black bird is a sign of death, that three\nlights bring misfortune; and the belief is not less general that persons\nof high birth are inevitably lacking in great intelligence. It has been\ndecided once for all that they are unfit for intellectual work, and\ncapable only of being pleasant company, as superficial as useless. If\nthese persons take up any intellectual pursuit, be it the publishing of\nbooks, or devoting themselves to art, they are misjudged, there is an\noutcry at the unreality, the gross impossibility; for it has been\ndecided that high birth should be a patent of incapacity.\n\nPrejudice thus destroys beforehand the proof of intelligence and\ntarnishes reputation. At the same time, in the form of conventional,\ngenerally-received opinions, it overawes timid spirits.\n\nIt is in frivolous society that prejudices are most ineradicable. They\ncreep into conversation, obtrude themselves in all their bareness and\nugliness into the midst of chatter and compliments.\n\nEven if some strong personality appears, and disposes of some prejudice,\nit shoots up again directly the disturber is gone. Born of folly and\nfear, prejudices are parasitic plants whose roots are in the brain, and\nwhich are transmitted, like an heirloom of ignorance, from one century\nto another.\n\nPrejudices, so numerous in these days, fall foul of everything: art,\nscience, law, the liberty of the individual, conscience, truth.\n\nIs it not regarded as a fact, in certain circles, that the Jew is\nincapable of fine intelligence? Now, for the last twenty-five years\ndramatic art has given the lie flatly to such an assertion. Has not the\nman of science, in spite of every proof of his capacity, been attacked\nby prejudiced people who see in him an insulter of the Divinity?\n\nIs not the education of the people regarded in many cases as a danger to\nsociety? Is not the creation of new laws, designed for ensuring the\nrights of all, considered monstrous? Now that human consciousness has\ndeveloped, now that the will is being trained to righteousness, now that\npersonal responsibility has entered our life conditions, and moral\neducation has become rational, it is really strange to see people who\nclaim intelligence, and who pass for well informed, accept the absurd\nprejudices in vogue.\n\nWomen, it must be said, are for the most part hostile to progress.\nThrough heredity, through habit, they take up prejudices with a fervour\nthat deludes their superficial minds. Two pernicious elements, jealousy\nand envy, conduce to this. Prejudiced men are no less dangerous, for,\nbeing incapable of thinking for themselves, and not willing to think\nthrough others, they are unable to correct their own errors.\n\nMy conclusion is that all slaves of prejudice should be compelled to\nlive together, separated from the living and thinking world, until the\nday comes when, being no longer satisfied with themselves, they will\nbegin to be endurable to others.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n\n\nJudgment is the faculty of discrimination in ideas, of establishing a\nconnection between the state of our conscience and reality. But as\nconscience varies according to the nature of social situations, it does\nnot seem possible to apply a fixed rule to judgment, though it always\nrequires affirmation. Whatever be the degree of judgment one possesses,\none cannot exercise it in the case of others without first applying the\nprecept, \u201cKnow thyself\u201d--an ancient utterance which has lost a little in\nvalue since it has been handed down, without sincerity, from generation\nto generation. This precept is, nevertheless, held in honour by the\nfiner spirits, for it is obvious that the appeal to our conscience\nshould be placed above all others. Without this, as Nicati says, \u201cthe\nman who forgets to examine himself, and whose personality is effaced\nthereby, counts for less than the inert matter whose very resistance\nconstitutes personality.\u201d\n\nHe who lives according to his conscience, and after his own moral laws,\nmay be satisfied. When he comes to judge himself, he knows that his life\nhas been passed in the observance of his own personal principles.\n\nWe must, then, seek in ourselves a standard of judgment, remembering the\nbeautiful words of Thomas \u00e0 Kempis: \u201cTurn thine eyes unto thyself, and\nbeware thou judge not the deeds of other men. In judging of others, a\nman laboureth in vain, often erreth, and easily sinneth; but in judging\nand discussing of himself, he always laboureth fruitfully.\u201d\n\nNevertheless, in self-judgment, it is right to apply severely to\nourselves the rules of reason and virtue so far as our own nature\npermits. It is to be noted that witty people, or those with a good\nmemory, are not the most capable of clear and profound judgment.\nAssimilation is prejudicial to reflection; memory is not thought.\n\nWhen our own ideas are clear to us, we shall not judge others without\ndue study of their reasons for what they do, the motives by which they\nhave been governed, the circumstances which may have influenced their\nestimate of good and evil. Thus our attitude will be more kindly, and\nwe shall avoid all the evils springing from injustice and false\njudgment.\n\nOur own conscience is not always in the ascendant. We often yield to\nweakness, and it is only just that our knowledge of the limitations of\nthe human will should move us to indulgence towards our fellow-men.\n\nSuch indulgence consists in recognising our own weaknesses, and in not\ncondemning others for what we consider their errors.\n\nThe first condition for judging clearly and soundly is the constant\nattention to our mental life, acknowledging to ourselves our own changes\nof mood, ceaselessly fighting the enemy within us.\n\nFrom the altruistic point of view, we should picture to ourselves the\nperson to be judged in the circumstances which have prompted his\naction--difficult though it be to perceive the differences between\ncharacters and shades of feeling--according to the numberless cases in\nwhich such action takes place. This is the reason why historians, in the\nact of composition, so often pass false judgments on the past. In their\ndesire to make the characters live again, to call up vanished scenes,\nthey become partisans, loving or hating those whom they have never\nknown. Purely in deference to their own opinion, they fail in tolerance\nand indulgence. They do not estimate the worth of men of past days\naccording to the moral tone of the epoch in which they lived; they judge\nof a society as a whole in the light of isolated documents, so that the\nmen of vanished ages cut but a poor figure in their eyes to-day.\n\nNow, the truth is that men are no greater now than in the other ages of\nthe world. Removed from our own time by twenty-two centuries, the heroes\nof Plutarch remain as noble as our heroes of to-day; and in the domain\nof science, religion, and philosophy we have but changed names without\nchanging at all in judgment and logic, without modifying the conditions\nof happiness or the outward signs of courage, and without developing the\nhuman \u201c_I_.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nTHE FEAR OF RIDICULE\n\n\nThe fear of ridicule is a terrible and powerful weapon in the eyes of\nmany people. Cleverly handled by those who are slaves to custom and\nfashion, this fear of ridicule often prevents our obeying our true\nfeelings, and leads us to act against our own interests.\n\nMany persons whose social position is uncertain, or whose moral force is\nbut little developed, have their days embittered by the thought of \u201cwhat\npeople will say.\u201d\n\nIf these persons could only comprehend that nothing which is _simple_\nand _sincere_ can be ridiculous, if vanity and amour-propre would permit\nthem to understand that criticism is inevitable, that it increases\nself-confidence in well-balanced people, and in many cases helps us\ntowards the end we wish to attain, they would not only cease to fear the\nobservation of others, but no longer wish to suppress the personality of\na neighbour.\n\nThey would say with Emerson: \u201cThat which I ought to do concerns my\npersonality, and not what people think I ought to do.\u201d\n\nThey would remember these words of La Bruy\u00e8re\u2019s: \u201c\u2018We must do as others\ndo\u2019 is a suspicious maxim, signifying nearly always \u2018We must do wrong\u2019\nas soon as it extends beyond the purely outward things which result in\nnothing, and which depend upon custom, fashion, and manners.\u201d\n\nA modern thinker, under the veil of anonymity, remarks wittily: \u201cIf one\nwishes to be in good society, even with those who are not of it, need\none give up being oneself? Good society, pushed to this excess, is only\nfolly and trickery. What on earth have you done with your amour-propre\non these occasions? Dare to say what you think, if you _do_ think.\u201d I\nadd to this: Dare to do what seems to you good, useful, and sensible;\nflee preconceived opinions, do not let yourself be influenced by the\nideas of others, keep your independence in the face of new suggestions,\nconvince yourself of your own value, call your perceptions into play,\nsuppress your self-love--in a word, get rid of the fear of ridicule,\nwhich, carried to excess by people, has spoilt fine careers, ruined the\nnoblest hopes; destroyed for one his dawning happiness, for another\npossible fortune. Why this mean respect for _what is done_, and absurd\nfear of _what is not done_? Why this foolish imitation, this holding\nback of your real self? Why don\u2019t you eat and drink what you like? Why\nspoil your behaviour in public by hypocrisy? Where is the sense of this\nperpetual dressing up of things which ties you down to convention not in\nkeeping with the real impulses of your heart and mind?\n\nThere is so much fear of ridicule in the world that one may see a man\nmiss an interview which might be morally or materially useful to him\nbecause he is afraid to appear unfashionably dressed, because he has not\nthe latest hat, or the shoes which snobbism has decreed the correct\nthing.\n\nWomen, in whom the fear of ridicule is so strong, so intimately linked\nwith the taste of the moment, will willingly risk their health rather\nthan go down in the estimation of others.\n\nIf, for example, fashion decrees thin summer clothing, a woman will\nbrave bronchitis and the after-effects to wear it; and she acts in a\nsimilar spirit with regard to winter fashions, because it is not the\nright thing to think with one\u2019s own mind, feel with one\u2019s own heart, or\nlive according to one\u2019s own means, nerves, or senses!\n\nThis passive life by rule is a curious thing, and Montaigne was\nright--for folly belongs to all periods--in thus speaking of it for his\nown epoch: \u201cIn some sort all the opinions we have are taken on\nauthority, or on credit, ... Everyone is richer than he thinks, but we\ngo about borrowing and seeking; it suits us better to make use of others\nthan of ourselves.... We neither essay nor know our own faculties; we\ninvest in those of others, and let our own lie idle....\u201d\n\nYes, truly, the fear of ridicule is one of the worst shortcomings of\neducation, for it destroys character, leads all our impulses towards\nfolly, and often incites to irreparable wrong.\n\nHow many marriages which might have been happy are prevented because of\ndifference in fortune, age, or birth! The fear of ridicule brings a\ndisintegrating element even into the quest after happiness, which is a\nlaw of Nature.\n\nIt is the same with the fear of ridicule as with morality; everyone\nshould base his individual action on some good to be gained, get rid of\nall constraint--in a word, be himself without depending on custom and\noutward circumstances; preserving the balance between his conscience,\ntrained by experience and reason, and his personal faculties.\n\n\n\n\nMORAL COURAGE\n\n\nMoral courage is that energy of character which leads us to confess and\nuphold what we think and believe. This quality, one of the rarest in\nman, is nevertheless indispensable to whomsoever uses his faculties in\nany public capacity, whether he be a statesman, a soldier, an artist, or\na writer; that is to say, everyone who has to take responsibility,\nmaking nothing of opinion or criticism.\n\nI have often heard it said that moral courage corresponds to physical\ndevelopment. That is true, provided that the physical development be\nattended by good health. We often see men insignificant in appearance\ngifted with moral courage which athletes lack. It is because, in spite\nof their physical slightness, these men possess health so robust as to\nsave them from mental weakness and give them perfect balance.\n\nBut there is something besides. Although there is still much to learn\nabout character, it is certain that we can cultivate the moral courage\nwhich springs from instinct and temperament by the choice of our own\nideas and actions.\n\nNever has the need of character-forming made itself felt so much as in\nour days. Character is becoming rare because intellects are in disorder.\nDilettantism kills reason, \u00e6stheticism strays without direction through\nthe mind, ready-made opinions take the place of thought, and the caprice\nof the moment serves for moral or material interests and weakens the\nwill.\n\nThe sign of the individual, the dominant feature of his personality, is\ncharacter, and character gives birth to moral courage. Dr. Ferrand says:\n\u201cCharacter assumes considerable importance in the life of the individual\nand in the life of all the natural or social groups which individuals\nform amongst themselves; it is, accordingly to Smiles, one of the\ngreatest motive powers in the world. By the unity of direction which he\nimpresses upon all his actions, the man of character is not only master\nof himself, though that is much, but he bears naturally upon the\nactivity of others, and\n\n[Illustration: THE INFANTA EULALIA AND HER TWO SONS\n\n_Photograph by Boissonnas & Taponier, Paris._]\n\ndraws them after him, as a mighty ship draws into its track all the\ncraft it encounters in its course.\u201d\n\nThere is yet another consideration. By the side of the intellectual\nelement, by which we estimate our thoughts and actions, there is\nfeeling; that is, the sensibility which modifies the judgment and\nenlightens the deep thought determining our responsibility. He who obeys\nfeeling, when the latter is not subject to the control of thought,\ncommits many errors of judgment and lets himself be guided by moods\nwhich may lead him into injustice and breach of trust. Let us not forget\nthat justice is truth applied to the things of life. Now, it is\nprecisely the absence of this idea of justice in the modern\nconsciousness which brings us daily face to face with a sort of failure\nin moral courage, both as regards attack and defence.\n\nPolitics during the last few years have furnished us with sad examples\nof this weakness; letters and the arts have also given us instances, and\nthey are very regrettable from every point of view.\n\nLiterary and musical criticism is to be noted particularly for many\nlapses; science itself is not exempt from dealings which reason\ndisapproves, and it is not even to lack of education that this\nshortcoming is due. And we find this lack of moral courage in\ncommunities which have blindly turned liberty to a revolting slavery.\n\nConsider parliaments, study castes, look closely at groups of\nindividuals served by opinion, and you will see that real characters\nworthy to inspire the good, the beautiful, and the true are overwhelmed\nin the host occupied in ruining the popular conscience.\n\nIndividual moral courage is what makes the greatness of a people. This\nform of courage tends to disappear more and more, because everyone is\nlosing the idea of his own responsibility, and, inspired by selfishness,\ntroubles himself not at all to make justice and virtue respected.\n\nHow few men we see use their authority to repair an error, punish a lie\nor any villainy whatsoever! Weakness, hesitation, doubt, lack of\ninitiative, indifference, have taken the place of moral courage, and\nthat through the lack of character-training. As Emerson says: \u201cNo change\nof circumstances can repair a fault of character.... What have I gained\n... if I quake at opinion, the public opinion, as we call it; or at the\nthreat of assault, or contumely, or bad neighbours, or poverty, or\nmutilation, or at the rumour of revolution, or of murder? If I quake,\nwhat matters it what I quake at?\u201d\n\nEach of us, then, should in his own sphere of action become conscious of\nwhat is right, and not hesitate to struggle, even to the detriment of\nhis private interests, against all false judgment attacking honour,\nevery opinion concealing baseness, every action which is an insult to\nreason and to the liberty of the individual.\n\n\n\n\nTRADITIONS\n\n\nTradition is a link of the present with the past, the transmitting of\nlegendary memories from century to century--memories based on real\nfacts, exaggerated or deformed by the popular mind in quest of the\nideal.\n\nTraditions of pagan or religious essence are multiform. In most cases\nthey denote blind reverence, unconscious veneration for creeds turned\ninto customs; they are a sign of the passivity of the human mind, whose\nchief weakness is superstition.\n\nWhether as regards action or thought, tradition appeals to the special\norganisation of certain temperaments of a primitive order, or which are\npurely dogmatic.\n\nThe desire to maintain tradition implies uncontrolled deference to\ncustom together with the need for moral or sectarian order, and for this\nreason it is detrimental to the gradual change of thought on which\nprogress depends.\n\nIn all ages of the world, since the period when oral narration was\nhanded down from generation to generation, traditions have been accepted\nas truths. Now, that which was truth at the exact moment when a certain\nthing occurred is no longer truth after a long lapse of time, because of\nchanges with regard to the original fact and the false interpretations\nput upon it by the crowd.\n\nLocke says with much truth: \u201cA man worthy of belief bringing testimony\nof a thing known to him affords a good proof; but if another man equally\nworthy of credence testifies on the report of that man, his witness is\nweaker; while that of a third who attests a hearsay is still less to be\nconsidered; so that in truths that come by tradition each degree of\nremoteness from the original source weakens the force of the proof; and\nin proportion as a tradition passes successively through more hands, it\nhas ever less force and evidence.\u201d\n\nThis is the reason that traditions, from whatsoever source they come,\nconstitute false propositions all the more dangerous because to many\nthey appear incontestable. After Christianity was established, tradition\nhad all the value of an idealism capable of inspiring individual\naction; under different aspects it induced respect for great moral\nacts, linked up more closely familiar ties (the festival of\nChristmas--No\u00ebl or Yule--is a case in point), it cemented friendships,\ngave value to the idea of good rewarded and evil punished, created an\natmosphere of justice and fear, inward joy and hope.\n\nBut with time, as the sense of personality developed and social friction\nbecame more frequent, it came about that traditions were divided into\ndifferent camps, some being simply a consolation for the afflicted,\nothers becoming authoritative in the hands of priests and judges.\nCenturies passed, changing names and beliefs, modifying desires and\ninterests; then tradition weakened and altered in character and\nsignificance.\n\nEven in our own day, however, many ancient traditions are rigorously\nobserved both in town and country. Still, as the social movement has\nbecome more accentuated, more conscious, they have so weakened that they\nare more like a list of festival days in the calendar than anything\nelse. In spite of castes which, by holding together, still maintained\ntradition, the evolution of the masses gradually brought about, through\nforce of circumstances, the destruction of such as was useless. This is\ngood because, I repeat, tradition is hostile to progress in that it\nmakes error in the guise of custom predominate over science and\naltruistic duty.\n\nThe weakening of pagan or religious traditions is very noticeable\nto-day. For instance, the observance of the anniversaries of the dead is\nfalling into desuetude. One scarcely sees, except in the Latin countries\nwhere civilisation is backward, the relatives in deep black coming at a\nfixed date to mourn their dead from midnight to midnight. This\ntraditional custom, besides, has lost so much of its ancient solemnity\nthat the mourners do not hesitate to dance and feast directly the time\nof forced grief is over. This anomaly is frequent in Spain nowadays. As\nsoon as the \u201caccessories\u201d of the tradition disappear, the tradition\nitself will vanish in its turn.\n\nGo through the villages and you will note the disappearance of numbers\nof customs to which the inhabitants were slaves not long ago. Where,\nto-day, are the processions in the open fields, the patronal festivals,\nthe inquiries at fountains, all the traces of ancient beliefs? Where, as\nin Rome in times past, is the lachrymatory, in which, on days of\nfunerals, everyone collected his tears?\n\nMan, as he grows conscious of his forces, his rights, throws off a\nthousand obligations created for the most part by fear, that slayer of\nthe will.\n\nSo it is that lovers of tradition, still struggling to maintain\nobscurantism amongst the simple and poor, and authoritative creeds\namongst the other classes, are attempting a work as difficult as it is\ninauspicious. Their task will soon be unavailing, for the masses are the\ntrue supporters or destroyers of tradition, and the masses will no\nlonger keep up worthless traditions the object of which is to oppose\ntheir enlightenment and their interests.\n\n\n\n\nCRITICISM\n\n\nCriticism, taken in its general sense, is the free exercise of judgment.\nWhether it be a question of literary, artistic, or intellectual\nanalysis--that is to say, the observation of the beautiful--or of\nphilosophy, history, or philology, experimental or exact sciences,\ncriticism is necessary, as it shows the value of a conception and\nrealisation. Now this criticism is a source of dread in many circles,\nfettering the actions of many, and paralysing their wills. As against\nthis evil, which is too frequent nowadays, some reaction is needed; for\nit is not more unwise to seek criticism as a means of advertisement than\nto make a bugbear of it or shun it for fear of wounded pride.\n\nI say that the expression of an opinion contrary to our own should not,\nlogically speaking, slacken our efforts, suppress our inclinations, or\nlead us to hypocritical actions.\n\nIt helps us greatly against the fear of others\u2019 criticism to force\nourselves to become our own critics--a very difficult matter, but\nexceedingly profitable.\n\nBy this kind of exercise of the conscience we arrive more easily at an\nunderstanding of the criticism we receive from without, and learn to\ndespise the envy and jealousy by which it may be actuated. So, too, we\nmay benefit by the lessons derived from an honest analysis of our own\nqualities and defects.\n\nCriticism, if sincere, only expresses what it perceives clearly. For it,\npersonal evidence becomes a guarantee.\n\nBut, it will be said, criticism is often the expression of severity.\nWould you have it the expression of culpable indulgence? When severe, it\nis an element tending towards self-control; too indulgent, it can only\nfoster vanity. The mission of criticism is not to determine our actions;\nits duty is to judge them to its own satisfaction.\n\nFor instance, it is obvious that, in the case of writers, painters, and\nmusicians, the critic has only to consider the question of taste. If he\nattempts to destroy what is estimable, he dishonours himself, and so\nbecomes useless; if he accords praise, he can only express it according\nto his personal judgment.\n\nWithin ourselves, the critic of our reasoned or impulsive actions is a\nspectator looking through the windows of our soul, seeing our motives as\nit were from between the curtains, and for this reason unable to judge\nclearly. This critic, as we know by sad experience, is not worth\nlistening to.\n\nWe shall be safe, however, when we are conscious of the fineness of our\nachievements, the purity of our intentions, the dignity of our actions,\nor the mere joy of our feelings, in permitting criticism to do its work\nand pursuing our way.\n\nThis does not imply that it always answers to treat judicious criticism\nwith contempt.\n\nJust as in politics, opposition is necessary for the best public\nadministration of the party in power, so in private life criticism is an\nelement in that emulation which aids us to attain the end we have in\nview.\n\n\n\n\nTHE DANGER OF EXCESSIVE ANALYSIS\n\n\nIf there exist but few people who have any taste for synthesis, there\nare many whose passion for analysis is pushed to the most exaggerated\nlimits.\n\nCertainly, a continual examination of conscience is necessary if we\nwould escape both useless scruples and irrational desires; certainly, it\nis good to look squarely in the face the near or remote consequences of\nour actions; certainly, too, we ought to investigate in all sincerity\nthe secret motives which cause our acts, so that we may correct our\nerrors, taste the delight of well-doing, profit by the lessons of the\npast, and, in short, satisfy the needs of ethical culture.\n\nBy criticising ourselves, looking inward, training ourselves in abstract\nideas, and submitting to the laws of mental attainment, we gain the\nmoral instinct which everyone should possess.\n\nIf, on the other hand, pushed by the desire to be strictly honest, we\nanalyse our actions too minutely, we shall disturb the balance of our\njudgment; while, if we thus investigate the doings of others, we shall\nbegin to depreciate great or noble actions until, by our false\ninterpretation of them, we lose the power to perceive them at all.\n\nIf, taking separately each idea comprised in an abstract general notion,\neach small fact composing some important action, we study such parts\nanalytically, we falsify their quality and quantity just as we falsify\nforms observed through a magnifying glass. Trifling defects appear\nenlarged and developed, and injure the beauty of the whole--the harmony\nof a great idea, or the carrying out of an enterprise. I do not deny\nthat, to become morally great, we must imagine great things; I know well\nthat an action is only of value in proportion to the virtue of the end\nin view; I am not ignorant of the fact that it is useful to look inward;\nbut I do say that too severe analysis applied to all our actions, or\nthose of others, as much in the case of trifles as in serious matters,\nmakes one unjust to his neighbour and himself, and always tends to\nimpair the workings of the intellect.\n\nBy scrutinising all the motives by which action has been determined, you\nrob that action either of its beauty or its goodness, and you will\nsuffer doubly--both with regard to yourself and others.\n\nFor instance, you say to yourself: \u201cWas I right in doing such a kind\naction?\u201d And if, in the process of deduction (whether you consider the\nservice useless because rendered to one not perfectly worthy of it, or\ndoubt beforehand of the gratitude due to you), you come to regret the\naltruistic impulse on which you acted, you will at once destroy all the\npleasure you felt, and you will do wrong to the person you have\nbefriended by a coldness of feeling he has not deserved. Examples might\nbe cited indefinitely. By this excessive analysis you can transform an\nact of self-sacrifice into an act of narrow egotism, an excuse into a\nmeanness, a certainty into an hypothesis, or a sincere affection into a\nselfish pretence. This, as regards others; in regard to oneself, the\nresult will be great hesitation, confusion of ideas, disturbance of\nthought, continual uneasiness and dissatisfaction.\n\nI have only spoken of the misuse of analysis, for its normal use in the\nmental life is useful, especially when the whole of the facts of the\ncase in point are taken into consideration, as they should never fail to\nbe.\n\nPaulhan says: \u201cThough analysis is to some extent necessary to all mental\naction, it assumes supreme importance in certain operations of the\nspirit. They are those which we see govern analytical minds lacking the\npower of synthesis. Observation, the habit of noticing details, rests\nmainly on analysis, and the same is true of the faculty of comprehending\nthe thoughts of others. Memory, too, especially the organised memory\nwhich implies the discrimination between impressions and ideas, is also\nfounded on analysis; the same with criticism, the detailed and reasoned\nappreciation of a work of art, science, or philosophy. Certain qualities\nof the mind and even the character, again, imply the faculty of analysis\nin a high degree; for instance, finesse, delicacy, the spirit of\nscepticism and the love of detail.\u201d\n\nGranting all this, I say that excessive analysis is a danger. To be\nuseful, it must have the qualities of precision, delicacy, and depth,\nand not those of vagueness, violence, and exaggeration.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LAW OF COMPENSATION\n\n\nWhen Aza\u00efs, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, published his\n_Compensations dans les Destin\u00e9es Humaines_, he stated, in principle,\nthis proposition: \u201cThe lot of man, considered in its entirety, is the\nwork of the whole of Nature, and all men are equal by their lot.\u201d\n\nLa Rochefoucauld, long before him, said: \u201cWhatsoever difference may\nappear between fortunes, there is, nevertheless, a certain balancing of\ngood and evil which makes them equal.\u201d\n\nOne sees that compensation is a principle of optimism. Whatever may be\nadvanced by the many makers of systems, this law is manifest amongst all\npeoples as in all individuals, including those who, whilst ceaselessly\nregretting their ill-fortune, yet taste, relatively, a little of the\nsweetness of compensation if only in their own prudence and courage.\n\nThe law of compensation is certainly the most consoling that we can\ndesire, and to it all human morality is allied.\n\nIt is surprising to read these words from the pen of Droz: \u201cThe absurd\nsystem of compensation, would have, as its result, apathy, contempt for\nthe troubles of others, and the most odious selfishness.\u201d The conviction\nthat sorrow has joy on the reverse side, that suffering makes health\nprized, that regret is doubled by memory, is no hindrance, that I am\naware of, to sharing in the griefs and joys of others.\n\nAltruism, besides, which so many teachers practise so ill, is nothing\nbut the perfection of egoism, paradoxical though this may seem to some.\n\nNietzsche says: \u201cAn altruistic morality, a morality in which selfishness\ndies, is in every case a bad sign. It is so in the case both of\nindividuals and peoples. We lose the best of our instincts when we begin\nto fail in egoism. The instinctive selection of that which is\ndetrimental to us, the allowing ourselves to be deluded by\n\u2018disinterested\u2019 motives, is almost the doctrine of _decadence_.\u201d\n\nWithout going so far as this master of aphorisms, I say that egoism\ncannot be opposed to altruism, and that the law of compensation does\nnot create reprehensible egoism--that which consists in thinking of\noneself only.\n\nEgoism is useful; it is legitimate when it is an action only concerning\nourselves and not prejudicial to others. Of this very egoism comes the\nmoral philosophy of compensation, for the quest of happiness is\nfundamentally the utmost possible mitigation of evil. Let us hear\nEmerson: \u201cThe same dualism underlies the nature and condition of man.\nEvery excess causes a defect; every defect an excess. Every sweet hath\nits sour; every evil its good. Every faculty which is a receiver of\npleasure has an equal penalty put on its abuse. It is to answer for its\nmoderation with its life. For every grain of wit there is a grain of\nfolly. For everything you have missed you have gained something else;\nand for everything you gain you lose something.\u201d\n\nIt is quite certain that the ambitious man who has gained power and who\nrules a nation has greater responsibilities than the humble artisan. If\nhe break his promises, if his ideas be not realised, he falls, betrayed,\ndespised, abandoned, while the worker goes on with his task with the\nsatisfaction of duty done. In what concerns the real blessings of man\nall are alike, taking into consideration class and accompanying\ncircumstances. Wealth cannot prevent death from entering the dwelling;\npoverty knows the joys of the deepest affection. When a great tyrant\narises, the strength of the people to resist increases tenfold;\npunishment lies close to reward. All conditions are in the human soul.\nTo come under the law of compensation is not to be able to escape one\u2019s\ndestiny. The acceptance of evil is the assurance of better things\nthrough moral effort. The sensualist suffers through his sensations, the\nsage rejoices in his wisdom. And everywhere is the soul untiring in the\nquest of what is good, right, and just. It must have life, though it\nfind life amid the worst misery and the lowest of decay.\n\nFor this reason the doctrine of Nemesis is eternal. Every action entails\nreaction, every sorrow and every joy has its degree in the social scale.\nThe man born rich will suffer more through the misery created by ruin\nthan the poor man whose pockets are always empty. One has nothing to\nenvy the other.\n\n\u201cNo man had ever a point of pride that was not injurious to him,\u201d says\nBurke. Fear is the punishment of the unjust. The law of compensation is\nnot that of indifference, for, without the moral sense no excuse is\nfound for error, and there is no satisfaction for a fault grown to a\nhabit.\n\nThe belief that a grief will be compensated for by a joy will bring no\ncomfort to the spirit, unless the soul assert itself.\n\nWe must in every circumstance assert our \u201c_I_,\u201d keep our conscience on\nthe alert, and look to the nature of our own soul to find compensation\nfor inequality of condition. Let the rich man receive the rich; if I am\npoor, I will take the poor to my heart.\n\nThe love of those above me in fortune and power cannot prevent my love\nfrom being what it is; my little sorrows and joys will be neither\nheavier nor less sweet than the griefs of the rich and their triumphs.\n\nRegarded so, the law of compensation is the finest element in the\nformation of character.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR AND HER BOOK\n\n\nThe foregoing pages must inevitably arouse in the reader\u2019s mind a\ncuriosity to know more of the author. It is rarely that a princess of\nRoyal blood sets down in writing, and publishes for all the world to\nread, her personal views of the established institutions of civilisation\nand the inherent virtues and vices of mankind, and when those views\nprove to be the very antithesis of what might be expected from one born\nand bred in the restricted atmosphere of a European Court, curiosity is\nstill further whetted. The broad socialism--using the word in its widest\nsense--which characterises the Infanta Eulalia\u2019s views of life would\nhave been a surprising product of any Royal House; emanating as it does\nfrom the Royal House of Spain it is no less than amazing, as King\nAlfonso\u2019s action in regard to this book (which we deal with later)\nfurther shows.\n\nA knowledge of the Infanta\u2019s life will enable the discerning reader to\ndetect the influences which have laid open her mind to liberal and\ndemocratic ideas, fostered her remarkable independence of thought, and\ngiven her the moral courage to express her well considered opinions. She\nwas little more than a baby when the revolution which dethroned her\nmother, Isabella II., sent them both in exile to France. It was in\nSeptember, 1868, that Queen Isabella, who had been living in a fool\u2019s\nparadise at Lequetio, on the Biscay coast, enjoying sea-bathing, at last\nrealised that Spain would no longer tolerate her rule, for Admiral\nTopete, in command of the squadron in Cadiz Bay, hoisted the flag of\nrevolt. All Spain was waiting for this spark, which kindled a fire not\neasily to be extinguished. The Battle of Alceola followed, when Serrano,\nrepresenting the Revolution, defeated Pavia, who defended the tottering\nregime, and the road to Madrid was open. Isabella heard of Alceola five\ndays after the fight, i.e. on the 29th September, 1868. Soon after, the\nnews reached her of the unanimous rising of Madrid, the deposition of\nthe Bourbon dynasty, and the formation of a provisional Government. She\nrealised then that there was nothing left for her to do but to cross the\nfrontier into France. The abdication of her throne in favour of her son\nAlfonso took place some years later. In France she first resided at the\nCastle of Pau, then in Paris, in the Pavillon de Rohan, an annexe of the\nTuileries fronting on the Rue de Rivoli. During the winter of 1868-1869\nshe bought a house in the Avenue du Roi de Rome (now the Avenue Kl\u00e9ber),\nnamed it the Palace of Castile, and dwelt there till her death.\n\nAt that time, the authoress of \u201cThe Thread of Life,\u201d the Infanta\nMarie-Eulalie-Fran\u00e7oise d\u2019Assise-Marguerite-Roberte-Isabelle-Fran\u00e7oise\nde Paule-Christine-Marie de la Piedad, to mention a few of the many\nnames bestowed on her, was three and a half years old, having been born\nin Madrid on the 12th of February, 1864. Two and a half years later, the\nlittle girl\u2019s education was entrusted to the Ladies of the Sacred Heart,\nwhose famed institution in Paris stood in the Rue de Varenne. There she\nremained until she was thirteen and a half. During her stay at the\nConvent of the Sacred Heart, no distinction was made between her and the\nother pupils, the nuns governing the institution being no flatterers of\nRoyalty, accustomed as they had been, for years to educate the daughters\nof the highest families. To them, the Infanta Eulalia was an ordinary\nboarder.\n\nWhile she was still at school, her brother, Alfonso XII., begged his\nmother, the ex-Queen, to let Eulalia return to Spain, for the young girl\nwas his favourite sister. So to Spain the little princess went, and\nalthough, to one of her nature and upbringing, Court life must have been\nstiff and unpleasant, she remained in Spain until after her brother\u2019s\ndeath in 1885.\n\nHer homes in Spain were the Escorial and La Granja, and she lived the\nusual life of a Spanish princess. Of that life nothing need be recorded\nhere. The history of the Infanta Eulalia may be said to begin, for the\nreaders of her book, with her marriage on March 6th, 1886, to Prince\nAntoine-Louis-Philippe-Marie, Infante of Spain, Duc de Galliera. After\nher marriage, the Infanta Eulalia again took up her residence in Paris.\nShe has since spent most of her life in France and in England. In the\nlatter country she frequently visited her sister-in-law, the Comtesse de\nParis, and many English friends during the London season, being on one\noccasion the guest of Lord and Lady Clifford of Chudleigh at Ugbrooke.\n\nThe year 1893 is a memorable one in the life of the Infanta Eulalia, for\nit was then that she visited, in company with her husband, Cuba and the\nUnited Stales. In Cuba, one of the remnants of the old Spanish\nEmpire--and that, too, soon to be torn away--they were received and\nentertained with much pomp and ceremony, in accordance with the\nrequirements of Spanish etiquette. In America, most democratic of\ncountries, they mingled freely with the people, and the contact\ndoubtless stirred in the Infanta\u2019s mind those liberal ideas concerning\nmen and things which have brought her into such worthy prominence.\n\nWhile in Cuba the royal visitors were entertained with a bull-fight, six\nbulls having been imported for the occasion from Spain, and a garden\nparty was given in their honour by Captain-General Rodriguez Arrico at\nhis summer residence, Los Molinos, the party being attended by all the\nchief officials and the \u00e9lite of Havana society. The Royal guests also\nvisited the Asylum Beneficencia Domicilirria, were present at a\nperformance at the Albizu Theatre, attended a great military review, and\na ball at the Casino Espa\u00f1ol. On May 15th they sailed for New York on\nthe _Reina Maria Cristina_, having been serenaded the night before by\nthe firemen and volunteers of Havana.\n\nPrevious to the departure of the Infante and Infanta from Cuba, the\npeople of Washington, New York, and Chicago, who had been preparing for\nthe visit, were thrown into a state of anxiety by a rumour that the\nInfanta might not, after all, visit the United States owing to\nill-health. Representatives of the newspapers, who called upon the\nSpanish Minister, Se\u00f1or Murugua, were told that the Royal lady dreaded\nthe burden of the social functions arranged for her entertainment in the\ncities she was expected to visit; she had read of the \u201clionising\u201d of the\nDuke of Veragua, the lineal descendant of Christopher Columbus, and a\nnoted breeder of bulls for the arena, who had preceded her, and she\nshrank from the fatigue that would accompany the round of pleasure\nprepared for one of her rank. The Spanish Court considered that, as the\nInfanta had been invited by Act of Congress to be the guest of the\nnation, as representative of the Queen-Regent of Spain, she ought to be\nreceived with the honours due to her exalted position. But, when it was\nlearned that the President of the United States refused to return her\nproposed call, great was Spanish indignation, and it was at one time\nfeared that she would return direct to Spain from Havana. However, the\nperson most concerned disregarded the diplomatic hubbub and left for the\nStates, as already stated.\n\nThe _Reina Maria Cristina_ arrived in New York late in the night of the\n18th of May.\n\nIn the morning, the U.S. dispatch-boat _Dolphin_, bearing the\nrepresentative of the President of the United States, was seen to be\nlying at anchor just outside Sandy Hook, on the New Jersey coast. It\nwould seem that the _Dolphin_ expected the _Reina Maria Cristina_ to\nmove into the bay, while the latter awaited the former outside the bar.\nEtiquette had again crept in. Finally, an understanding was reached\nthrough the mediation of the Spanish consul, for it was explained that\nit was impossible for the Infanta to enter a foreign port in any ship\nbut a Spanish man-of-war, whereupon the _Dolphin_ saluted the Infanta\nwith twenty-one guns, and then followed in the wake of the cutter sent\nfor her by the Spanish frigate _Isabel_, on board of which she was\nreceived with Royal honours. While on the cruiser, a delegation from the\nSpanish colony in New York came to welcome her, and to pay her its\nrespects. The ceremony was of the briefest and most formal kind, the\nvisitors being introduced by her chamberlain, the Duc de Tamames.\nShortly afterwards, she landed at Jersey City, and entrained thence for\nWashington.\n\nThe Infanta arrived at the capital at eight o\u2019clock the same evening,\nbeing met at the station by Secretary Gresham, representing the\nPresident of the United States, and by Assistant Secretaries Quincy and\nAdee, who, after welcoming the nation\u2019s guest, conveyed her in the\nPresident\u2019s state carriage to the Arlington Hotel. Next day, she called\non the President at the White House, and two hours later her call was\nreturned by Mrs. Cleveland and the wives of the members of the Cabinet.\n\nDuring her brief and enjoyable stay in Washington, the Infanta devoted\nmost of her time to sight-seeing, and visited the home of George\nWashington at Mount Vernon, on the opposite side of the Potomac. The\nPresident and Mrs. Cleveland gave a dinner in honour of Her Royal\nHighness, and Sir Julian Pauncefote\u2019s ball at the British Embassy to\ncelebrate Queen Victoria\u2019s birthday was honoured by the Infanta\u2019s\npresence. During her sojourn in the capital, she attended St. Matthew\u2019s\nChurch. She naturally was besieged by callers from the Embassies and\nLegations, as well as by people prominent in social circles of the\ncapital.\n\nOn May 25th she left Washington _en route_ for New York, and at Jersey\nCity was greeted by committees of the citizens of New York and of the\nSpanish residents, the principal officers of the Spanish warships in\nport, and the Spanish consul. On reaching New York she was welcomed by\nthe Mayor (the Hon. Thomas F. Gilroy), and afterwards escorted to the\nSavoy Hotel. In reply to the address delivered by Mayor Gilroy the\nInfanta said:\n\n\u201cI am delighted with the graciousness of the pleasant reception you have\ntendered me. In fact, my welcome has been so hearty and spontaneous that\nI am confused, and hardly know what to say.\u201d\n\nHer round of pleasure was to begin on the very evening of her arrival.\nWhile dining, she was greeted with the strains of Spain\u2019s \u201cRoyal March\u201d\nfrom a band stationed on the Piazza, while a group of New York\nSpaniards cheered vociferously, and clamoured for her appearance. She\ngraciously showed herself on the balcony. When, just as she was\nreturning to the dining-room, she was asked at what hour she desired to\ngo to the theatre, her answer, as recorded by an American journalist,\nwas:\n\n\u201cFrom nine to ten, to show myself to the people who have been so kind to\nme; but I should so like to be back at ten o\u2019clock, for I am very tired,\nand I would like to come home and go to sleep.\u201d\n\nOn the following day she was entertained at a ball given in her honour\nin the Concert Hall of Madison Square Garden. It was there that she made\nan impression that served her well throughout her stay in the United\nStates, her tact and simplicity of manner placing everyone at ease.\nThere had been bitter heart-burnings as to who would be spoken to by the\nInfanta, and much intriguing had taken place, in order to secure an\n_entr\u00e9e_ to the charmed Royal circle. These jealousies were dispelled by\nthe Infanta herself, who chatted affably with all, making no invidious\ndistinctions.\n\n\u201cWe felt we were _all_ hostesses,\u201d was the comment of a prominent New\nYork lady.\n\nThe Infanta had a busy time in New York. She cruised up the Hudson as\nfar as Yonkers, was taken over Governor\u2019s Island in New York Harbour,\nand the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, attended the review on\nDecoration Day, and laid a wreath on General Grant\u2019s sarcophagus at\nRiverside. A little incident, which reveals the sympathetic,\nwarm-hearted impulsiveness of the Infanta, occurred when she visited the\nNormal School, where she was gracefully welcomed by 1,900 girls. In a\ncharacteristic outburst of womanly feeling, she exclaimed:\n\n\u201cI can only say that I wish I were sitting on the benches with you,\ngirls.\u201d\n\nOn June 5th she left for Chicago, and Chicago was determined not to be\nbehind New York and Washington in the enthusiasm of its reception. It\nhad been announced that only the \u201cbest society\u201d would be invited to meet\nthe Infanta, and much bad feeling was created when a member of this\nselect coterie, on being asked by a local journalist whether the City\nFathers would be invited, unguardedly replied:\n\n\u201cThe City Council could hardly claim to represent our best society.\u201d\n\nIn the end, however, everybody who was or who pretended to be entitled\nto hobnob with Royalty was invited.\n\nAt the Union Depot she was met by Mayor Carter Harrison--so soon to be\nfoully murdered. She speedily became as popular in Chicago as in New\nYork and Washington, and when she visited the Exhibition she was at once\nnamed \u201cQueen of the Fair.\u201d Her desire for privacy was courteously\nrespected, and on several occasions she was permitted to leave the hotel\nand to go out for a walk unnoticed. The Duke of Veragua, who was about\nto leave Chicago, called on her, and a reception was given in her honour\nat the Mayor\u2019s private residence, but on the whole she was left to\nherself much more than she had been in New York. With visits to the\nNiagara Falls, Boston, and some of the watering-places on the Atlantic\nseaboard, this princess of old Spain concluded her stay in the western\nrepublic. She left New York on board the _Touraine_ for Havre, _en\nroute_ for Madrid, carrying with her all the varied impressions which\nthe modern institutions and industrial and social forwardness of the\nUnited States had made upon her receptive mind. The following letter to\nSe\u00f1or Arturo Cuyas, of the Circulo Colon-Cervantes, New York, written in\nEnglish the day before her departure, is evidence of the feelings the\ncountry aroused in her:--\n\n                                             NEW YORK, 23 JUNE, 1893.\n\n     DEAR MR. CUYAS,\n\n     Your inquiry about the impressions the United States have produced\n     on my mind have met my expectations (_sic_). They are most\n     favourable and, judging from the present, will be lasting, as so\n     many pleasant remembrances will be attached to them.\n\n     It would require more than Longfellow\u2019s thorough knowledge of\n     English, Depew\u2019s imagination, and Mary Anderson\u2019s sentimentality to\n     express all the feelings which I entertain for this country.\n\n     The official world, the Press, the people and society at large have\n     been most kind to me.\n\n     Let me close with a French saying, \u201cLa distance n\u2019est pas l\u2019oubli.\u201d\n\n\n                                    Au revoir!\n\n                                        INFANTA EULALIA\n\n\n\nThe domestic affairs of the Infanta and her husband about twelve years\nago received that undesirable publicity which the \u201cfierce light which\nbeats upon a throne\u201d gives even to those who are only related to its\noccupant. The result was a rumour that the Royal couple were divorced.\nThis was wholly untrue. The fact was that, by mutual consent and without\nany intervention on the part of the Courts of Justice, a separation was\narranged. By this arrangement, the Infanta continues not only to receive\nthe \u00a36,000 annually voted by the Cortes, but also the allowances under\nher marriage settlement. Her town residence is in Madrid, and she has a\ncottage at Navas de Pinares, in the Province of Avila, high up in the\nSierra de Malagon, a continuation of the Sierra de Guadarrama. The name\nComtesse d\u2019Avila, under which the French edition of this book was\npublished, is taken from the province in which her country residence is\nsituated.\n\nThe Infanta has two sons, both of whom were educated, first at Beaumont\nCollege, the Jesuit institution near Windsor known as the \u201cCatholic\nEton,\u201d and later at the Spanish Military Academy at Toledo. The eldest\nis Prince Alphonse-Marie-Fran\u00e7ois Diego, born in Madrid in 1886. He\nholds a commission in the infantry regiment of San Fernando. Three years\nago he married Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, daughter of\nthe\n\n[Illustration: THE INFANTA EULALIA AT WORK ON \u201cTHE THREAD OF LIFE\u201d]\n\nlate Duke, better known in this country as the Duke of Edinburgh. The\nPrince Alfonso served in the recent Melilla campaign, and as late as\nDecember of 1911 was received by King Alfonso, who conversed with him\nabout the situation in that Spanish colony on the Moroccan coast. About\nthe same time the King also received the Infanta\u2019s second son, Infante\nLouis-Ferdinand-Marie-Zacarias, who was born at Madrid in 1888.\n\nIt will be noticed that the elder brother does not bear the title of\nInfante of Spain. He was deprived of it on his marriage to a Protestant\nprincess. It has been reported--it cannot be said with what amount of\ntruth--that his mother declared that \u201cher cup of bitterness was full\u201d\nafter the treatment meted out to her son after serving in the Moroccan\ncampaign, for she asserted that a promise had been made that his title\nshould be restored to him if he served efficiently in Morocco.\n\nThe chequered career of the Infanta from her earliest childhood--a\ncareer almost without precedent in the annals of Royal houses--has given\nher the wide purviews, the all-embracing, generous sympathy with human\njoys, woes and strivings, which can be the attributes only of one who,\nby nature broad-minded, has had the opportunity and the discernment to\nform her own opinions on the great problems of life. The Royal infant,\nhurried from a country in revolution; the little Paris schoolgirl in the\ncare of the nuns of the Convent of the Sacred Heart; the young princess\nreceiving her rightful homage at her brother\u2019s Court; her visit to the\nUnited States, with all that it taught her; the failure of her married\nlife; her unassuming later years in France, and her frequent visits to\nher English friends--all these varied experiences contributed to the\nmaking of a character some interesting details of which were given by a\nParis correspondent to the _Daily Telegraph_ on the occasion of the King\nof Spain\u2019s sensational action regarding \u201cThe Thread of Life.\u201d He wrote\nas follows:--\n\n\u201cThe Infanta Eulalia, of whom I have often heard a good deal through the\nCuban and Spanish colonies here, is herself one of the most remarkable\nexamples of the simple life. And many unjust and untrue things have been\nsaid of her on that very account. The princess, on the contrary, while\nbeing most simple and unaffected in her ways, is a generous, highly\nintellectual and resolute personality. She read to me the chapter on the\ncultivation of the will and one\u2019s own personal individuality, and\ninterrupted to tell me:\n\n\u201c\u2018I shall conquer. I believe that the most necessary thing in life is to\nhave a personal, properly developed will of one\u2019s own. I have always\nbeen resolute myself. I have all my life done my own will when I thought\nit was proper. I reflected well beforehand, and then no one could stop\nme; and I always conquered, and I shall conquer again.\u2019\n\n\u201cThis last was said with a certain amount of defiance. \u2018Anyway,\u2019 she\nsaid, \u2018I am quite prepared for anything they may now do. I know that\nthere has always been an antipathy between me and the Court life. I hate\nCourt life, anyway, because it is so absurd in many of its stiff\nformalities. It puts a barrier between you and persons of the\nintellectual world.\n\n\u201c\u2018You may mix with only a certain set of people, who may be the most\nopposed to you, whom you feel to be unintellectual, and who are\nincapable of attracting your sympathy. I hate the barrier that would\nprevent you from free association with men of merit and of\nunderstanding just because they are not in Court circles. At Court they\nhave also known for long that I did not care for them. I love my own\nsimple life. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than my little home here\nin the Boulevard Lannes, facing the beautiful Bois de Boulogne. When I\nfeel like it, I take a ride on my bicycle in the _all\u00e9es_ of the Bois. I\nfrequently take a ride round the lakes all by myself, and come back with\na healthy feeling of pleasure after my exercise. I like simple meals and\nno great fuss about my table. I like to converse with persons of\nintellect or artistic taste. I love my children and my grandchildren.\u2019\u201d\n\nProbably no one was more surprised than the Infanta herself that her\nbook--which she described to the above-mentioned interviewer as\nrepresenting \u201cmerely my own experience in life\u201d--should so disturb the\nCourt of Madrid. On the 2nd December, 1911, she received in Paris a\ntelegram from her nephew, King Alfonso, couched in the following terms:\n\n     \u201cI am astonished to learn from the newspapers that you are\n     publishing a book as the Countess of Avila, and from other\n     information I suppose this will cause a great sensation. I order\n     you to suspend publication till I have seen the book and till you\n     have received my permission to publish it.\u201d\n\nThe following telegram in reply was sent by the Infanta:\n\n     \u201cI am much surprised that the book should be judged before the\n     contents are known. That is a thing which only happens in Spain.\n     Having never liked Court life, from which I have always kept aloof,\n     I take this opportunity to say good-bye to it, for after this\n     proceeding, worthy of the Inquisition, I consider myself free to\n     act in my private life as I think proper.\u201d\n\nThe text of these telegrams was communicated by the princess to the\nParis _Temps_, and, judging from what she said at an interview which she\ngranted to a representative of that journal, there can be no doubt that\nthe bitterness created by the unjust treatment which she declared her\nsoldier son had been subjected to was largely responsible for the\ndefinite renunciation of the Court of Madrid to which the telegram gives\nexpression.\n\nThe rupture thus created between the King and the Infanta was officially\nadmitted on the 5th of December in the Council of Ministers at Madrid.\nThroughout early December it formed the paramount topic of conversation\nin the Spanish capital. The peremptory tone of the Infanta\u2019s reply to\nthe King\u2019s telegram evoked varied opinions. It was felt by some that her\nattitude had been unnecessarily defiant, but others regarded it as\njustifiable resentment of an act of unwarranted interference. The\nSpanish newspapers were also divided in opinion, but, judging by the\nnumber of telegrams and letters of approval and congratulation which\narrived at the Infanta\u2019s Paris residence, there must have been a very\nlarge body of people in her native country who were aroused to\nenthusiasm by her action.\n\nOn the 5th December the Infanta telegraphed as follows to Se\u00f1or\nCanalejas, the Spanish Premier:--\n\n     \u201cI am awaiting punishment, and I beg you to let me know what it is\n     as soon as possible, since I am about to start on a journey.\u201d\n\nTo this telegram Se\u00f1or Canalejas sent the following reply:--\n\n     \u201cI have the honour to acknowledge your telegram, and I am to inform\n     you that the Cabinet has so far confined itself to regretting the\n     attitude which you have adopted, as it regards the representations\n     of the head of the Spanish Royal Family as absolutely\n     warranted.--CANALEJAS.\u201d\n\nAt that time the Government were engaged in discussing the question\nwhether the princess could constitutionally be deprived of her rank of\nan Infanta of Spain. The payment of her Civil List income was assessed\nat 250,000 pesetas (about \u00a39,200). The princess, however, estimated her\nown income at about \u00a36,000, and this estimate was practically confirmed\non the 6th December by a semi-official _communiqu\u00e9_, which asserted that\nthe amount in her Civil List was 150,000 pesetas, i.e. about \u00a35,500. On\nthe solution of the constitutional question of the integrity or\notherwise of her rank, the question of the deprivation of her income\nwas known to depend.\n\nThe attitude of the King at this time was a fixed determination to act\nstrictly in accordance with the Constitution, though it was understood\nthat in any case the Infanta\u2019s personal relations with the Spanish Court\nwould henceforth be regarded as at an end. The princess stated her\nintention of making a present of her Spanish estates to her eldest son,\nand of henceforth living _incognito_.\n\nThrough the medium of the Paris correspondent of the _Imparcial_, the\nInfanta addressed a letter to that journal declaring her unaltered\naffection for Spain, the King, and the Queen-Mother. She said that she\nwould be disposed to ask for pardon, were it not that by so doing she\nmight appear to be anxious about her Civil List. By the 7th December, it\nappeared improbable that any severe measures would be taken against the\nInfanta, and the excitement caused in Madrid by the extraordinary\nincident began to subside.\n\nWhat was the cause of the attempt by the Spanish Court to stop the\npublication of \u201cThe Thread of Life\u201d? The Infanta herself believed that\n\u201cthe reason they took so much offence was that they imagined it was\ngoing to be a book on some other subject--a book that would make a\nscandal. This was the most remote possible thing from my mind. I had no\nidea that anyone would trouble about my book. It was for that reason\nthat I had only a small number of copies printed, to be handed round to\nmy friends.\u201d\n\nThe book was written in French because the Infanta assumed that it would\nnot arouse very much interest in Spain.\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d she said to a correspondent of the _\u00c9poca_, \u201cthat the general\nmode of thought in Spain is not particularly in harmony with the ideas\nwhich my book reveals.\u201d\n\nThe incident, however, has served the useful purpose of drawing the\nattention of the world to a volume of thoughtful essays by one of the\nmost remarkable personages to be found in the Royal families of\nEurope--essays which are the more interesting because they are the\nreasoned conclusions of one who, born and bred in the purple, has\nemancipated herself from the circumscribed past by contact and sympathy\nwith the wider world of common things.\n\nPRINTED BY\nCASSELL AND COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE,\nLONDON, E.C.","title":"The thread of life","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":26886}