I
One of the best ways of finding out why a race is what it is, is to pick
out the words that preponderate in its speech and its literature, and
then try to define the special meaning it gives them.
The French people are one of the most ascetic and the most laborious in
Europe; yet the four words that preponderate in French speech and
literature are: Glory, love, voluptuousness, and pleasure. Before the
Puritan reflex causes the reader to fling aside the page polluted by
this statement, it will be worth his while to translate these four words
into _la gloire_, _l'amour_, _la volupté_, _le plaisir_, and then (if he
knows French and the French well enough) consider what they mean in the
language of Corneille and Pascal. For it must be understood that they
have no equivalents in the English consciousness, and that, if it were
sought to explain the fundamental difference between the exiles of the
_Mayflower_ and the conquerors of Valmy and Jéna, it would probably best
be illustrated by the totally different significance of "love and glory"
and "amour et gloire."
To begin with "la gloire": we must resign ourselves to the fact that we
do not _really know_ what the French mean when they say it--what, for
instance, Montesquieu had in mind when he wrote of Sparta: "The only
object of the Lacedæmonians was liberty, the only advantage it gave them
was glory." At best, if we are intelligent and sympathetic enough to
have entered a little way into the French psychology, we know that they
mean something infinitely larger, deeper and subtler than we mean by
"glory." The proof is that the Anglo-Saxon is taught _not_ to do great
deeds for "glory," while the French, unsurpassed in great deeds, have
always avowedly done them for "la gloire."
It is obvious that the sense of duty has a large part in the French
conception of glory: perhaps one might risk defining it as duty with a
_panache_. But that only brings one to another untranslatable word. To
put a _panache_--a plume, an ornament--on a prosaic deed is an act so
eminently French that one seeks in vain for its English equivalent; it
would verge on the grotesque to define "la gloire" as duty wearing an
aigrette! The whole conception of "la gloire" is linked with the
profoundly French conviction that the lily _should_ be gilded; that,
however lofty and beautiful a man's act or his purpose, it gains by
being performed with what the French (in a word which for them has no
implication of effeminacy) call "elegance." Indeed, the higher, the more
beautiful, the gesture or the act, the more it seems to them to call for
adornment, the more it gains by being given relief. And thus, by the
very appositeness of the word _relief_, one is led to perceive that "la
gloire" as an incentive to high action is essentially the conception of
a people in whom the plastic sense has always prevailed. The idea of
"dying in beauty" certainly originated with the Latin race, though a
Scandinavian playwright was left, incongruously enough, to find a phrase
for it.
The case is the same with "love" and "amour"; but here the difference is
more visible, and the meaning of "amour" easier to arrive at. Again, as
with "gloire," the content is greater than that of our "love." "Amour,"
to the French, means the undivided total of the complex sensations and
emotions that a man and a woman may inspire in each other; whereas
"love," since the days of the Elizabethans, has never, to Anglo-Saxons,
been more than two halves of a word--one half all purity and poetry, the
other all pruriency and prose. And gradually the latter half has been
discarded, as too unworthy of association with the loftier meanings of
the word, and "love" remains--at least in the press and in the
household--a relation as innocuous, and as undisturbing to social
conventions and business routine, as the tamest ties of consanguinity.
Is it not possible that the determination to keep these two halves apart
has diminished the one and degraded the other, to the loss of human
nature in the round? The Anglo-Saxon answer is, of course, that love is
not license; but what meaning is left to "love" in a society where it is
supposed to determine marriage, and yet to ignore the transiency of
sexual attraction? At best, it seems to designate a boy-and-girl fancy
not much more mature than a taste for dolls or marbles. In the light of
that definition, has not license kept the better part?
It may be argued that human nature is everywhere fundamentally the same,
and that, though one race lies about its deepest impulses, while another
speaks the truth about them, the result in conduct is not very
different. Is either of these affirmations exact? If human nature, at
bottom, is everywhere the same, such deep layers of different habits,
prejudices, and beliefs have been formed above its foundation that it is
rather misleading to test resemblances by what one digs up at the roots.
Secondary motives of conduct are widely divergent in different
countries, and they are the motives that control civilised societies
except when some catastrophe throws them back to the state of naked man.
To understand the difference between the Latin and the Anglo-Saxon idea
of love one must first of all understand the difference between the
Latin and Anglo-Saxon conceptions of marriage. In a society where
marriage is supposed to be determined solely by reciprocal inclination,
and to bind the contracting parties not only to a social but to a
physical lifelong loyalty, love, which never has accepted, and never
will accept, such bonds, immediately becomes a pariah and a sinner. This
is the Anglo-Saxon point of view. How many critics of the French
conception of love have taken the trouble to consider first their idea
of marriage?
Marriage, in France, is regarded as founded for the family and not for
the husband and wife. It is designed not to make two people individually
happy for a longer or shorter time, but to secure their permanent
well-being as associates in the foundation of a home and the procreation
of a family. Such an arrangement must needs be based on what is most
permanent in human states of feeling, and least dependent on the
accidents of beauty, youth, and novelty. Community of tradition, of
education, and, above all, of the parental feeling, are judged to be the
sentiments most likely to form a lasting tie between the average man and
woman; and the French marriage is built on parenthood, not on passion.
An illustration of the radical contradiction between such a view of
marriage and that of the English races is found in the following
extract from a notice of a play lately produced (with success) in
London:
"After two months of marriage a young girl discovers that her husband
married her because he wanted a son. _That is enough. She will have no
more to do with him._ So he goes off to fulfil a mining engagement in
Peru, and she hides herself in the country...."
It would be impossible to exaggerate the bewilderment and disgust with
which any wife or husband in France, whether young or middle-aged, would
read the cryptic sentences I have italicised. "What," they would ask,
"did the girl suppose he had married her for? And what did she _want_ to
be married for? And what is marriage for, if not for that?"
The French bride is no longer taken from a convent at sixteen to be
flung into the arms of an unknown bridegroom. As emancipation has
progressed, the young girl has been allowed a voice in choosing her
husband; but what is the result? That in ninety-nine cases out of a
hundred her choice is governed by the same considerations. The notion
of marriage as a kind of superior business association, based on
community of class, of political and religious opinion, and on a fair
exchange of advantages (where one, for instance, brings money and the
other position), is so ingrained in the French social organisation that
the modern girl accepts it intelligently, just as her puppet grandmother
bowed to it passively.
From this important act of life the notion of love is tacitly excluded;
not because love is thought unimportant, but on account of its very
importance, and of the fact that it is not conceivably to be fitted into
any stable association between man and woman. It is because the French
have refused to cut love in two that they have not attempted to
subordinate it to the organisation of the family. They have left it out
because there was no room for it, and also because it moves to a
different rhythm, and keeps different seasons. It is because they refuse
to regard it either as merely an exchange of ethereal vows or as a
sensual gratification; because, on the contrary, they believe, with
Coleridge, that
"All thoughts, all passions, all delights,
Whatever stirs this mortal frame,
All are but ministers of Love,
And feed his sacred flame,"
that they frankly recognise its right to its own place in life.
What, then, is the place they give to the disturbing element? They treat
it--the answer might be--as the poetry of life. For the French, simply
because they are the most realistic people in the world, are also the
most romantic. They have judged that the family and the state cannot be
built up on poetry, but they have not felt that for that reason poetry
was to be banished from their republic. They have decided that love is
too grave a matter for boys and girls, and not grave enough to form the
basis of marriage; but in the relations between grown people, apart from
their permanent ties (and in the deepest consciousness of the French,
marriage still remains indissoluble), they allow it, frankly and amply,
the part it furtively and shabbily, but no less ubiquitously, plays in
Puritan societies.
It is not intended here to weigh the relative advantages of this view of
life and the other; what has been sought is to state fairly the reasons
why marriage, being taken more seriously and less vaguely by the French,
there remains an allotted place for love in their more precisely ordered
social economy. Nevertheless, it is fairly obvious that, except in a
world where the claims of the body social are very perfectly balanced
against those of the body individual, to give such a place to passion is
to risk being submerged by it. A society which puts love beyond the law,
and then pays it such heavy toll, subjects itself to the most terrible
of Camorras.