Produced by Turgut Dincer, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
THE THREAD OF LIFE
[Illustration: Infanta Eulalia of Spain; signature]
THE
THREAD OF LIFE
BY
H.R.H. THE INFANTA
EULALIA OF SPAIN
WITH A REMBRANDT PHOTOGRAVURE FRONTISPIECE,
FOUR FULL-PAGE PLATES, AND A NOTE ON THE
AUTHOR AND HER BOOK
CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.
London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne
1912
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PREFACE
Some preface, however short, is needed to this book, the mirror of some
of my ideas, and, first of all, I wish to put my readers on their guard
against a false interpretation of the motives by which I have been
actuated.
In publishing these opinions of mine, it has not been my wish to
accomplish a literary work. I have not aimed at any display of learning,
and I make no pretence of forcing on anyone my different points of view.
As a spectator in close enough contact with present social problems to
understand all the points under discussion, yet at the same time
sufficiently removed from them to analyse them coolly and judge them
without prejudice, I bring forward my evidence unshackled by
conventions. It has seemed to me that such fair, exact evidence might
interest those who seek to glean, amongst all classes of society, the
thousand dissimilar and contradictory elements whence proceed the
lessons needed both for the present and the future.
Those who care to glance through the short chapters of this book will
soon see that they have been written with the sincere conviction with
which I always express my ideas and opinions, or perform any work
independently undertaken.
I only ask my readers to excuse any faults of style, which I have tried
to make up for by straightforwardness of tone.
EULALIA
Infanta of Spain
CONTENTS
PAGE
GENERAL CAUSES OF HAPPINESS 3
THE EDUCATION OF THE WILL 11
HONESTY 19
FRIENDSHIP 25
DIVORCE 33
THE FAMILY 45
THE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF WOMAN 53
THE WAR AGAINST FEMINISM 61
THE EQUALISING OF CLASSES BY EDUCATION 69
SOCIALISM 77
THE WORKING CLASSES 85
DOMESTIC SERVICE 93
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS 101
THE NECESSITY OF RELIGION AND ITS INFLUENCE OVER THE PEOPLE 109
THE PRESS 117
MORALITY 125
PUBLIC OPINION 133
PREJUDICES 139
JUDGMENT 145
THE FEAR OF RIDICULE 151
MORAL COURAGE 159
TRADITIONS 167
CRITICISM 175
THE DANGER OF EXCESSIVE ANALYSIS 181
THE LAW OF COMPENSATION 187
THE AUTHOR AND HER BOOK 195
GENERAL CAUSES OF HAPPINESS
THE THREAD OF LIFE
General Causes of Happiness
The most imperative motive of all human actions is the desire to be
happy. But it is difficult to attain happiness if the search for it is
made the constant aim of one’s life, although the primordial craving for
it is an instinct in our nature.
The art of living is one in which we are but ill instructed by
philosophers, scientists and metaphysicians; the first, because they
leave the meaning of life as it is to show us some end in view; the
second, because they are but rationalist theorists; and the last,
because they claim to be able to lift the veil from the Beyond. The
truth is that life is worth living, and that in order to live happily
one must know how to draw from life a relative amount of happiness.
Simply by realising the charm of the pleasures--small though they
be--which every instant of the day offers us, one may create for oneself
a source of happiness, for this realisation gives what is usually called
the _joie de vivre_ (the joy of living), the principle in all happy
nature.
Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, man does not see clearly the
road leading to happiness because he is seeking it in the immediate and
complete satisfaction of his desires, in material or intellectual
delights whose worth he exaggerates; in superfluity, in possession, in
all that he takes for happiness, but which is in reality mere enjoyment
allied to fears, dangers, and regrets.
It is necessary, first of all, to simplify the causes of happiness. To
illustrate my doctrine, I ask everyone to imagine the idyll in its true
form, that is to say, as being the perfect presentment of the sentiment
of love. Simplicity, whether in personal tastes, in the affections, or
in daily actions, is the great secret of happiness.
With our nature, however justifiable it may be to acquaint ourselves
with partial and transitory satisfactions, we cannot build up happiness
on so fragile a foundation. Fortune is unstable; notoriety, whatever its
cause, fades with time; glory is a vain word; health declines, and all
is ruin and sorrow everywhere, save where complete satisfaction has been
built up by continually aspiring towards the True, the Beautiful, and
the Good.
Again, that aspiring must be the result of cultivating, in all
simplicity, our mental “_=I=_.” Happiness lies in the depths of ourselves;
it is by the right development of our personality that we may bring it
into manifestation, make of it the enfolding comfort of our days.
Is it not true, that in love, if you live in the spirit, you possess
more happiness than if you live in the senses? It is the same with
material existence; simplified, reduced to the normal exercise of our
faculties, it brings us a greater share of happiness than does excess.
All the vices of our nature furnish but a momentary satisfaction, and
that not unmixed with bitterness.
But how shall we attain to the development of our mental personality?
First of all by the training of our Self, then by the selection of
affinities. In this way each one, conscious of his own true desires, may
bring around him those whose tastes and feelings are in harmony with his
own. So may he avoid the painful and regrettable shocks and collisions
which lead fatally to strife, from which combative and provocative
natures cannot emerge without wounds, weariness, or disgust.
If you are obliged to live in a country different from your own, or amid
surroundings where the mental atmosphere does not harmonise with yours,
face the situation coolly; learn to be by turns the wise teacher and the
willing disciple: in this way you will become understood, appreciated,
and you will preserve intact your inner happiness.
You must learn to pass through moral and intellectual atmospheres as you
pass through those of the physical world. Just as you put on the costume
suitable to the season, so must your spirit assume the costume adapted
to its surroundings. Many people fear life, they are in despair over the
least ill-success; they tack about, dreading to enter the haven, and
their mistakes vex and disconcert them. Remember that there is no
circumstance which should cast you down or prevent your enjoying life,
because, I repeat, happiness is inward content, a supporting spirit
which one may attain in spite of the worst vicissitudes or unavoidable
catastrophes. Since inward happiness proceeds from a habit of character
produced by the training of oneself, the cultivation of simplicity, and
adapting oneself to the uncongenial, it is necessary to submit to these
things if one would steer his barque skilfully and taste all that
constitutes the supreme enjoyment of life.
He who has followed these precepts will be able, when his days begin to
decline, to look back calmly on the past. As he has drawn from every
circumstance in his life the greatest possible good, as he will possess
the certainty of having injured no one, he will see with infinite
tranquillity the gates of Death opening before him; more especially if
he has also cultivated a love of Nature, for the pleasure it gives by
its restfulness and its eternal loveliness.
THE EDUCATION OF THE WILL
The will is the faculty of freely determining to do certain actions. But
in order that the will may always be the result of ideas noble in aim,
it is necessary to give it some training, through the investigation of
conflicting causes and motives.
As Ribot says: “The _I will_ declares a situation, but does not
constitute one.” To constitute a situation requires the formation of
character, which is nothing more than will power. And this may be
obtained by a progressive training, the secret cultivation of one’s
personality.
The human being should impress upon all his actions a unity of aim, and
show forth his character in what he does.
The education of the will, then, is indispensable in life, if only for
the avoidance of useless effort and to give us clearness of moral
sight. This training brings us to the mastery of ourselves, to steady
persistence in action, and uniformity of conduct. Thus considered, the
will assumes paramount importance in the life of the individual, and
forms one of the most powerful forces in the world--free and willing
action under the control of sound judgment.
If you educate your will, _desiring that which is good, beautiful and
just_, you will never undertake mental work at a time when inauspicious
circumstances make it liable to failure; nothing which you undertake
will remain unachieved; you will follow no aim whose fulfilment does not
seem to you certain.
The immortal Guyau says: “He whose action is not in accordance with his
thought, thinks incompletely.” Now, in order to think completely, an
idea must be solidly based upon knowledge. And knowledge is the result
of the education of the will.
Let us make no mistake, such training gives us force which is
invaluable. A man, having considered the action he is about to perform,
perceived what will be its results, grasped its utility, and shaped it
to the end in view, may safely obey his will, provided his moral sense
is satisfied. He thus assumes, in full understanding, the responsibility
of his actions.
The effect of this idea of responsibility is that the individual will
becomes answerable to itself only. From the moment the education of the
will is completed, personal determination is almost instantaneous. The
result is the avoidance of loss of time--we no longer exhaust ourselves
in hesitation, questionings, indecision. Besides, as we are able to
bring into play, through mental use, the forces which are ours, the
sense of freedom grows stronger, and with it the sense of possessing the
power to attain the end in view.
The education of the will is of such utility that, without it, the
intellect is powerless to influence action. That is the reason why, in
these days, so many intellectual people are the victims of hesitation
and doubt, incapable of reasoned and logical action.
A trained will brings great stability into a man’s life, first because
it enables him to do everything at the right time, then because it
prevents conflicting feelings, by strengthening the reasoning powers;
and, through systematised thought, saves him from those emotional
storms which are as injurious to health as to free play of the will.
Let us no longer forget that all truly profitable actions and strong
characters are the work of the will.
Timidity, to specify amongst qualities detrimental to the intellect,
only comes from a lack of will-training, being a form of
over-emotionalism without control. He who is ignorant of the laws which
govern feeling, will be unable to act according to the dictates of
reason.
I must make it clear that, in speaking of the education of the will, I
do not mean moral restraint. The individual should feel himself at
liberty, bound only by an ideal of goodness which repudiates all thought
of authority; neither claiming nor suffering it.
This ideal, inseparable from our conception of what is useful both to
ourselves and others, always takes form through the education of our
will; giving consistency to the expression of feeling, and justifying us
in our actions.
To envelop oneself in an idea, so that nothing has power to distract--to
withdraw, concentrate upon it, burn for its realisation, obey its
laws--such are the principal features of will-training, by means of
which our actions and feelings, far from losing in strength, acquire
greater force.
Violence and precipitation are foes to all wisely planned action. What
one loses in intensity by calm reflection, one gains in quality as the
result of this law.
If you train your will wisely, you will double the worth of existence;
you will leave undone what is useless, you will realise to the full the
purpose of your soul.
And, as all your actions will be performed with the approval of your own
spirit, you will know the joy of well-doing.
HONESTY
Honesty, the quality corresponding to honour, may be said to be
relative, according to the customs of different countries. For mankind
generally, honesty consists in not exceeding the limits of licensed
dishonesty. Thus in commerce, which is, at bottom, a cheating game,
integrity is not, as Dr. Dubois says, the same everywhere. “There are
communities, little cultivated in other respects, where it is observed
scrupulously; there are others in which, in spite of scientific,
artistic and literary development, this moral perception seems to be
atrophied. A people whose business honesty is proverbial may have a very
elastic conscience in regard to morality between the sexes.”
In the professions, or in social positions which place the individual
above the mass of people, a man’s honesty consists in adapting his
conscience to the circumstances of the moment.
In questions of commercial or industrial enterprise, intellectual
ventures, public or private morals, general or particular interests,
masculine honesty is an adjustable matter which springs from the desire
for free action, without infringing upon the law.
Woman’s honesty is quite a different matter. It consists simply in
safeguarding the “honour of the home,” in keeping away all “intruders”
upon the sacred ground of marriage, and in averting any fracas tending
to diminish the authority of the man, the husband, the owner, and free
the feminine soul from its ancestral slavery.
This is why men and women cannot be in perfect accord, so long as
honesty, taken in the widest sense, is not the same for both. Based upon
respect for what is fair, just and good, honesty has essentially no sex.
Whether strict or comparative, it does not imply a different moral law
for individuals of different natures.
This primordial question has always been treated too lightly, though it
has been the source of continual misunderstanding, especially in
matrimonial questions.
How many examples one could give of want of scruple violating the idea
of honesty and responsibility!
How many sins, grave in themselves, are committed by men in power,
knowing themselves safe from the arm of the law; how many actions,
unpunishable, yet which are an outrage upon the liberty of others, a
breach of respect for human nature, and an injury to society!
How many men sacrifice, for the sake of ambition, their country’s vital
interests, and incur no censure save that of powerless public opinion!
The orator who, in a moment of national excitement, throws his visionary
dreams and interested lies broadcast into the press; the leader who, in
full consciousness of his abominable work, deceives the people; the
perjured politician who denies his convictions to attain promotion,
should all have their honour called in question. To such as these, as to
others, woman owes respect and obedience, without the option of
comparing her own honour, based on imperative duty, with that of these
empty talkers and tub-orators.
It is true that, on the other hand, a woman may, without censure, give
out that her dearest friend’s husband is making love to her--that she
may thus, by a word, destroy a home’s peace--without any pangs of
conscience, and without the man attacked being able to call her to
account.
In the relations between men and women some solution should be found by
which both may be placed on equal ground as regards morality and
responsibility. In this way loss of esteem between them would be
avoided, and the value of each enhanced.
But, to obtain such a result, tolerance and the principle of harmony
must first be taught; men must become less selfish, and women learn that
their life is not only a work of love but a work of reason. Social
rights must be equalised in the light of conscience and moral
responsibility. In fact, thorough sincerity must bring about loyalty
both in business and private affairs, creating a moral atmosphere in
which forgery, fraud, plagiarism, the lie that corrupts the soul of a
people, all the monstrous growths of our modern society, can no longer
exist. Then honesty, from being comparative, will become supreme,
incumbent equally upon man and woman, bound no longer only by social,
but by moral ties.
FRIENDSHIP
Friendship, taken in its strict sense, that is to say as affection
exempt from the attraction of the senses, plays an immense part in the
lives of men and women.
Friendship, as between men, is based on moral equality. The tie uniting
two minds and two hearts creates the same rights and the same duties for
each of the friends, no matter how different their degree of fortune and
rank in the world. Where friendship is, there is reciprocity. This is
what made La Boétie, Montaigne’s great friend, say: “Friendship is a
sacred name, it is a holy thing.... There can be no friendship where
there is cruelty, disloyalty, or injustice.... The wicked are not
friends, but accomplices.”
I must quote here an admirable passage from Emerson, whose judgment is
sound concerning what is high, great and forceful in the dual character
of Friendship: “The sufficient reply to the sceptic, who doubts the
power of the furniture of man, is in that possibility of joyful
intercourse with persons, which makes the faith and practice of all
reasonable men. I know of nothing life has to offer so satisfying as the
profound good understanding which can subsist, after much exchange of
good offices, between two virtuous men, each of whom is sure of himself,
sure of his friend. It is a happiness which postpones all other
gratifications, and makes politics, and commerce, and churches, cheap.
For, when men shall meet as they ought, each a benefactor, a shower of
stars, clothed with thoughts, with deeds, with accomplishments, it
should be a festival of Nature which all things announce. Of such
friendship, love in the sexes is the first symbol, as all other things
are symbols of love. These relations to the best men--which, at one
time, we reckoned the romances of youth--become, in the progress of
character, the most solid enjoyment.”
Friendship between women is somewhat different from that between men,
just because it excludes the feeling of equality. It is very rare, in
spite of the best education, that a woman will forget her rank and
fortune with a friend who becomes her protégée. It is no less rare when
a woman in a humble position does not resent any outward inequality.
The result is that friendship between women is not a continual
delightful exchange of feeling and opinion, but rests more on interest.
One of the most beautiful forms of friendship, as some think, is that
between man and woman. Between persons of the highest education and
refined tastes, such friendship not only plays a great part in life, but
becomes a necessity, for it increases the intellectual power of both
parties. It is very like disinterested love, and is governed by secret
influences which give it its value. Certain people have the gift of
drawing out our confidences; there are others the very sight of whom
makes our heart rejoice. Our spiritual force, our eloquence, often come
into play simply through the presence of such a beloved friend.
There is a peculiar feeling of confidence between the sexes; friendship
between a man and a woman has something in it graver, deeper than any
other. Even in family relationships, what I call “home friendship”
depends entirely on this kind of mutual dependence. Cases are rare of
sons turning against their mother, or of sisters who fail their
brothers.
Friendship is said to be blind; I believe, on the contrary, that it is
clear-sighted as to the duties entailed upon it, and needs no vow to
make it binding.
If, for a man, a friend of his own sex is a second self, for a woman a
man-friend is at once a confidant, a counsellor and a protector. He
represents authority with reverence, incalculable devotion; he becomes
the symbol of that Good which signifies refuge from suffering,
forgiveness when one has erred.
For a man, a woman friend is everything; yet his feeling for her is the
purest in the world, the affection which asks nothing in return.
Yet too great intimacy may kill friendship, which--to quote Emerson
again--follows the laws of divine necessity; unless the things of daily
life have become of common interest between the friends. But even then
the friendship should be in some sort kept in a shrine apart lest it
fall into the commonplace.
Yes, truly, the human heart desires a friend. It seeks him everywhere,
even from childhood, and when it has found him, it is proud of him as of
a victory through which it has won happiness, strength, the incentive to
become better. We carry our friend’s eyes in our own; in his absence,
they mirror his care for us. His coming strikes a note of triumph in
our brain, his presence lightens every moment and makes our happiness.
Montaigne did violence to a beautiful gift of the spirit in denying the
existence of friendship between men and women; and Nietzsche declares
too lightly, and without taking into account the moral worth of the
individual, that for the maintenance of friendship between a man and
woman a little physical aversion is necessary.
Certainly, Don Juan and Ninon de Lenclos could not have been friends;
but it is equally certain that a beautiful woman may win the purest
friendship of a charming man, for friendship between man and woman
springs from a train of circumstances which lead them into soul
fellowship, the sharing of similar tastes, and an affection entirely of
the spirit. The constant interchange of high thought, the brotherly and
sisterly tone of the relationship, safeguard the friends against
becoming lovers.
The nature of each contributes greatly, in these heart unions, to the
friendship’s being compatible with prudence and consideration for the
feelings of others. It is obvious that a friendship begun between two
people of unbalanced mind is almost always fatal, but two dissimilar
natures, if morally equal, steady one another by a friendship which
becomes for them a safety-valve.
For instance, a man with a calm temperament, but not a cold heart, will
be the best of friends for an impulsive woman, and render her the
greatest services that life can give.
Let us look at this loving friendship, so much discussed, so often
described and cried down.
I said that friendship between man and woman was a form of disinterested
love; it is a love based on mental sympathy, on respect for moral
qualities, on admiration for certain actions or certain thoughts
expressive of a character. In this kind of friendship, affection, which
springs from the heart, governs love, which springs from the senses.
This form of friendship is not to be despised, dangerous though it may
seem in the eyes of severe moralists or of hypocrites. Take such a case.
If either of the friends needs advice on some matter he or she has
deeply at heart, such advice will not be well considered, unbiased, and
to the point, unless free from all jealousy--coming from the heart and
not from the nerves.
Then, and then only, can this friendship be a precious resource, a deep,
protective affection claiming not possession as its reward.
DIVORCE
Marriage, considered by society as a necessary mode of union, is a
contract governed by law.
In the eyes of Roman Catholics, marriage being a sacrament, which
renders it indissoluble, divorce does not exist. According to this
principle we must accept as a sacrament an earthly tie which touches
more nearly on material than on spiritual questions. But it seems
strange that the Church of Rome should teach men, by the voice of her
servants, that human perfection consists in the acceptance of _all the
sacraments_, and then forbid marriage--which would be, from a practical
point of view, the most useful to them--to her representatives. In so
doing, the Church creates an illogical exception to her imperious rule.
“From the psychological point of view,” says Dr. Toulouse, “marriage is
the union, first through passion, then through sympathy, of two beings;
from the social point of view, it represents a mutual effort towards
reproduction.
“The union of feeling between two beings has not been too highly exalted
by the poets. It manifests in the highest degree that selection which
purifies the instinct of sex.
“This selection is in itself a proof of the free will which works--with
restraining effect--on the tyranny of passion. Again, the woman, in
giving herself to one only, demonstrates in the most striking manner
that she belongs to, and can dispose of, herself.
“Sex freedom, then, which is a condition of evolution, is manifested
most clearly in a marriage entered upon willingly by both parties. But
the corollary to this is, that divorce should also be possible simply at
the wish of both.”
Let us study divorce from the point of view of its utility. Divorce
offers an advantage in preventing marriage from being regarded as an
endless chain, a crushing yoke, or a prison deliberately chosen as a
livelihood. It means, in fact, that people need not be tightly bound
together who cannot bear so to live; it would put an end to what is
sometimes extreme mental suffering, abolish dangers which sometimes
lead to murder; in a word, it means escape from “the sentimental and
emotional results of the indissolubility of marriage.”
The termination of miserable “marriages of convenience” would ensure for
many a new life, the production of healthier children under normal
conditions; from the social point of view, it would increase the value
of the man and the woman.
How many live together for long years who are strangers to each other in
body and soul! How many slaves of marriage there are, whose union is
unnatural, childless, and made hideous by mutual hatred!
Why should one see, in the name of a religious principle,
these infernos--whose tortures are as varied as they are
crushing--perpetuated? Why should not reason, individual rights, be
allowed to correct ill-chance, false calculations, and disappointed
hopes?
Why should a woman, who no longer finds in her husband the moral support
she needs, submit to the horrors of a long agony without defence, of
perpetual strife in which she is miserably vanquished; on the other
hand, why should the man who does not find in his wife the
companion--or even the slave--he desired, see the way to happiness
closed to him for ever?
Marriage is based on a contract. Every contract can be rectified,
modified, or broken. In a compact, there must be mutual agreement; from
the moment when the agreement ceases to be respected by either of the
parties, it is naturally dissolved.
Before the establishment of divorce the husband and wife who lived on
bad terms had to endure suffering worse than death, for nothing, I
repeat, is to be compared with the torment of being tied, body and soul,
in hatred, contempt, or even merely in indifference.
In former days, the independent-minded, those who feared not public
opinion, or thought little of social conventions, went each their way,
to live in a different dwelling--as happens still in certain countries
(in Spain, for instance, where divorce does not exist; where legal
separation is not even recognised); but though they might live apart,
the marriage contract held none the less, and the question of fortune
remained a grave problem for solution. It is the same to-day when,
through worldly expediency, or weakness, an ill-assorted couple share a
miserable life or seek solace in separation. The woman, married under
the Napoleonic Code, cannot dispose of her dowry, and the man, on his
side, cannot sell without his wife’s signature. The _société d’acquêts_
(common property of married people) is a constant menace in a situation
of this kind; one comes to think that it is of no use for a couple to
economise for the sake of their heirs, for, when one of the two parties
dies, the common property goes to the other. Another case, also serious,
may occur. If either husband or wife incurs debts, these, under the law,
become common to both, and it comes about that the one who has not run
into debt finds him or herself compelled to meet the liabilities of the
other!
What manifold complications, what openings for dissension, what
accumulated vexations! Widowhood, widowerhood, seems the only
deliverance from a desperate situation.
But there is something worse still. In a household completely at
variance, weary with strife, the children have to look on at scenes
which wound their belief in the love between husband and wife. In such a
case they suffer through the absence of divorce, both from the moral
standpoint and because they are deprived of property which should fall
to them, since through the _société d’acquêts_--that stern claimant--the
children’s capital cannot be increased.
If we pass from this array of facts to another, which concerns this
unnatural life of two people, the evil is no less great.
From the time when life together has become impossible, the husband more
or less openly substitutes illicit union for marriage, and most
frequently takes to live with him the woman he has chosen as his new
companion. Because the marriage contract remains unbroken, this is an
insult to the wife, for his house is still her home by law.
Although in a case of separation, the wife almost always acts with
greater circumspection and caution, she will find it difficult to
prevent the echo of any attention she may accept from reaching the ears
of her husband, or his knowledge that she gives willingly to another
what she has yielded with such aversion to himself.
Divorce prevents this gratuitous insult to marriage. The advantages it
offers exceed by far the disadvantages cited by the defenders of an
institution which to-day has grown weak because it has remained
unchanged in the midst of social evolution.
The enemies of divorce assert that it is the destroyer of the family.
That is not so, for there are no more families to destroy. Frankly,
honestly, where is the family of old, since the law of the majority has
freed the child, since compulsory education has lessened the moral
authority of parents, without perceptibly improving the mass of the
people; since in the vast field of higher education boys and girls,
through school life, become strangers to the authors of their being and
are mainly indebted to the State for their training?
If hypocrisy were not at the bottom of the whole matter, it would be
quickly seen that nothing remains of the family as a sacred institution.
Authority on the one side, submission on the other, are the exception;
the sacrifices, too, which parents made in the past, to the point of
forgetting their own well-being, have to-day no longer any reason for
existing.
Yes, divorce is useful, necessary, moral. But it may, it should, become
more so, and undergo modification. Divorce by mutual consent must become
the remedy for evils which dishonour the human soul; victims of unhappy
marriages should be able to dissolve their union without the most
intimate details of two lives--poisoned by misunderstanding,
incompatibility of temper, excess, cruelty, and insult--being made a
prey to public curiosity, the malice of barristers, and the opinions of
judges. Those liberated from their matrimonial prison, and ripened by
experience, must be allowed to marry the beloved one who has loved,
consoled, and helped them through the battle of their days.
Nine times out of ten, these new marriages would be happy, because the
husband and wife would have had time to appreciate each other’s
qualities, because they would have obeyed the law of love, escaped
convention and not been guided, generally speaking, by interest, that
chief and pernicious element in conflict between the sexes.
Divorce, as at present established, does not afford enough solutions for
the melancholy problems resulting from marriage. It is inadmissible,
inhuman, even immoral, that one who has suffered patiently twenty years
“for the children’s sake” should be condemned, because he or she has
left the torture-chamber, to pass the remainder of life without the
right to create a new home and consecrate by marriage the affection and
devotion which have healed the old wounds, given back joy in living, and
created for him or her obligations at once moral and social.
The day when divorce shall become a law of justice, and no longer--as it
sometimes is now--a tacit agreement covering wrongdoing; the day when
divorce shall exist by the will of him or her who gives valid reasons
for it, and also by mutual consent; the day, finally, when lover and
beloved, under normal conditions, may marry, then true and rightful
solutions will have been brought to impossible situations, and a noble
work done for the individual and society at large.
THE FAMILY
The conditions of the modern family, in the northern countries
particularly, have in reality become almost artificial; and it seems
probable that, in the near future, the family will be completely
disintegrated.
In France, especially amongst the _bourgeoisie_, the family appears to
me likely to remain for a long time what it has been heretofore, because
it constitutes an association the members of which, closely grouped,
protect their common interests, whether commercial or industrial.
This family, representing a society in the possession of property, will
exist as long as its members, in virtue of their fellowship, preserve
intact their old social conditions, each of them continuing to have an
interest in the success of their common enterprise.
In Spain, where the Moorish government has left so many traces of its
primitive organisation, the family still continues in a state of
slavery, a state wherein the woman glories.
But the question here is not of these two particular cases, where the
maintaining of the family group serves the interests of the man, the
head, the master; for the family differs according to different centres,
countries, customs, and castes.
To come to more general statements, we must first go back to the
fountain-head, and consider the family in its evolution through the
course of civilisation.
The family, as it first appears in the history of humanity, was a
patriarchal association formed of the father, mother and children. There
was no binding marriage, but repeated unions. The conditions were such
that the women were for all men indiscriminately, and the children knew
no father in particular. This state of things in many cases continued so
long that the Christian Church was obliged, at its birth, to wink at
this communism. Herodotus tells us that the children of the Lycians bore
the name of their mother; Varro assures us that it was the same in
Athens, and that the woman, being the producer of wealth, was the only
one to inherit.
When polygamy began, the woman was reduced to a state of seclusion and
often of slavery. Her part consisted principally in bringing children
into the world, and her care of them was more through instinct than
love.
As for the man, he sought nothing, as regarded the woman, but his own
gratification, and concerned himself not at all about fatherhood.
Later on, through the growth of civilisation, monogamy decided the
limits of the family and formed class groups; but gradually, these
groups becoming mixed and losing their old characteristic of
brotherhood, the conditions of the family became much modified.
The causes of this slow process of breaking up accumulated, according to
the particular centre and to social degrees. In one place
primogenitureship began to take to itself privileges; in another the
paternal power lessened the mother’s authority over her daughters;
everywhere there was a tendency towards emancipation, and, finally, in
our own day, at the two poles of society, family conditions have become
almost artificial.
The home peace is troubled, and even where there is no rupture between
the husband and wife, there is mental friction between parents and
children, between brothers and sisters, through the clash of opinion,
mutual intolerance, and the collision of personal interests; it is
rarely that harmony prevails in the household.
It must be said that the reasons for marriage are not the same as they
were in the old days, when the bond was indissoluble, based on the
instinct of ownership, on the government of a community. Besides, the
marriage for love, the only one worthy of respect, has destroyed the
original idea of the association, and, unable to guarantee its own
continuance, calls for an adjustment of responsibilities by means of the
law, so that the man shall no longer be the brutal master, and the
woman--though she be more moral, more virtuous, and more temperate than
he--humiliated and degraded. It has been said that it is enough for a
woman to be beautiful and to be a mother. That is altogether absurd
nonsense. The woman has a right to the complete development of her
faculties, a right to bring into play all the resources of her being.
Noble women have proved that, quite apart from maternity, they are fit
to walk in the immortal footsteps of heroes, artists and thinkers, and
every day we see women
[Illustration: THE INFANTA EULALIA
_Photograph by Baumann, Munich._]
becoming, in talent, energy, and patient determination, rivals of
scientists, poets, and all who devote themselves to enterprise in the
world of mind.
But, it may be said, such claims are contrary to the idea of the family.
Not at all. The family, essentially modified, each member subject to the
determinism of thought and ensuring the observance of mutual rights and
duties, will only become a more beautiful institution than before, its
children born of sincere love and no longer the product of undesirable
or questionable unions based upon the interests of the strongest.
THE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF WOMAN
To this question squarely put: “Why does a man arrogate to himself the
right to live as he chooses, and why should a woman submit to a
prohibitive moral code?”--men answer that in marriage the virtue of the
wife and the legitimacy of her children are absolutely and supremely
essential.
This touches one point merely, and only applies to married women. In all
that concerns “free” women, by what right are they condemned to abstain
from making full use of their independence, as most men do? “Woman’s
life, like man’s,” says Miramont, “is a harmonious evolution, by which
every phase is developed, and which thus brings into play a succession
of forms and aspects of existence. Daughter, mother and grandmother;
dreamer, fighter, thinker--woman, like man, passes through many
transformations in the course of life, and is always progressive.”
By the same fact of social evolution, thanks to her participation in the
battle of life, and also to a rational education, it has long been
proved that woman is not an inferior creature, of no use save for the
propagation of the species.
We are far removed, happily, from the theories of Schopenhauer, who
declared that woman was afflicted with intellectual shortness of sight,
that she was childish, futile and narrow, inferior to man in everything
concerning rectitude and scrupulous honesty; that she was lacking in
sense and reflection, incapable of taking any unbiased view, etc. etc.
If woman’s characteristic feature be that nature has destined her for
motherhood, it is none the less true that, just as she has a fine skin
and quick sensibilities, her intellect is prompt to seize details, and
that she possesses a brain as well furnished as that of man.
Her apparent inferiority comes from the fact that woman is oppressed by
the law and ill-treated by the moralist, whence result her native
timidity and diffidence. The truth is that man, desiring to keep the
supremacy attributed to him, does not care to see in woman the qualities
of courage and independence. He will not admit the immanent struggle
between two beings inspired by the same needs and the same desires. Men
would like women to remain tied down to household cares, while thinking
women who have ceased to resign themselves to this wish their sex to
profit by all the rights of men.
The partisans of absolute feminism desire that there should be no
difference between men and women, in the name of biological equality
which incites them to claim social equality.
Without going so far as this, it is certain that women should now enjoy
more independence and be authorised, without losing caste in the eyes of
moralists, to prove the strength of their personal faculties.
Unfortunately, as a modern thinker has observed: “Kept apart from
magnificent realities ... maintained continually in a state of moral
independence worse than physical slavery, only quitting the maternal
yoke to fall under that of a husband, trained entirely with a view to
marriage, which is to transform at a stroke the child into the wife,
the wife into the mother, educated according to the prejudices of their
set at the sacrifice of expansion of their own personality, women do not
develop normally, except by finding a kindred soul, according to the
ideal formed in their dim consciousness. And as social conventions do
not permit them to seek this ideal, which is falsified and made vague,
too, by novel-reading, enlightenment usually comes to them too late to
destroy the effect of a narrow existence accepted through timidity,
ignorance, or chagrin, and moulded by the dictates of society; so they
live, for the most part, either like children broken in to their
destiny, or like rebels in search of visionary compensations: in any
case misunderstood.”
I have nothing better to add. For centuries, man has denied to woman her
finest qualities, which are _fearlessness_ and _presence of mind_, and
the majority of women have come to be convinced themselves that these
qualities are unwomanly and to be reckoned faults.
Now, if tenderness be woman’s most beautiful attribute, it should be
recognised that true tenderness is especially found amongst those women
who are courageous, strong and endowed with shrewd sense. The
acceptance of servitude does not admit of real tenderness, such as
influences, for instance, the conception and carrying out of works of
art, as incites to noble action, and produces wonderful results in every
degree of the social scale.
For years, in many countries, the attention of thinkers has been fixed
upon the liberation of woman. Many mistakes have been made. Against one
John Stuart Mill a crowd of philosophers like Nietzsche have arisen, but
the idea is gaining ground in scientific centres, and, with the help of
rational Socialism, the work of woman’s emancipation is being steadily
pursued.
Reverting to old times, we find that in many primitive races, the males
were chosen by the females for their valour, physical strength, or
natural beauty. This selection having led to the progressive development
of the male in the majority of races, resulted in an ideal female type
also.
But when the woman became the “property” of the man, the slave destined
to work for the male, the development of the race stopped short; the
salutary effect of the woman’s free choice having ceased.
In a new state of society, when woman, duly trained for her part, shall
recover her complete freedom, we shall see the triumph of affinities,
and the power of a feminine ideal will ensure for the future a new and
vigorous race.
THE WAR AGAINST FEMINISM
It is incomprehensible that so many intellectual, sensible men, claiming
to be logical, should be hostile to modern feminism. I say “modern” to
mark the actual state of conflict, for _eternal feminism_ is
contemporaneous with the _eternal feminine_, as Lucien Muhlfeld says.
Following Schopenhauer and Strindberg, who strove to demonstrate the
inferiority of woman, our detractors, in making war upon feminism, show
themselves to be very inconsistent. As woman, is, in their eyes, an
inferior being, they are either fighting what they have no reason to
fear, which shows lack of courage on their part; or, by admitting that
under present conditions woman plays an important part in everyday life,
they recognise in her a certain value, which shows a lack of sincerity.
On the day woman first recognised the fact that she could earn her
living by taking up the employments hitherto reserved for men, she made
good her claim to a share of instruction and training by means of which
to put an end to her mental inequality.
Unable to escape from the subordinate position in the family thrust upon
her by the Civil Code, she determined to free her mind first, and gain
recognition of her rights in the domain of intellect. This seemed
inadmissible, even in respect of the principles of science.
Now, in times gone by, women worked as much as, and often more than,
men, thus gaining recognition of their physical strength. When man was
still a barbarian, hunting and fighting for mere subsistence, woman
hunted and fought with him; just as his comrade, she carried the slain
beast over her shoulder. Later, she spun flax to clothe her family; she
was obliged, in her enslaved condition, to turn to common uses her
intellect and devotion, and when, later still, the family was placed on
a legal footing, she was obliged to give all her faculties to manual
labour.
Long centuries passed. Man had no longer to fight for his daily bread.
One invention after another had gradually modified the conditions of his
life; he had become educated, had attained to different trades and
professions, developed his power and authority, while woman remained the
same dependent creature, tied to her duties as wife and mother. A time
came when woman, too, learnt trades which she made her own. Man took
them from her, possessed himself of her needle, of clothes-making,
hairdressing, cookery. This is why, in the eighteenth century, women
attempted an inroad into letters and the arts. This is why, helped by
the Revolution, they sought to claim common rights. To-day, trained at
school and college, women know that they can utilise their faculties
more nobly than hitherto. They no longer live in an epoch when, men
having absorbed everything, they have to resign themselves to being
married, whilst hardly more than children, for a livelihood.
Consider how sad was the lot of the woman when, devoid of the means to
free herself honestly from slavery, she was compelled to sell herself,
by legal marriage or otherwise.
Whatever certain philosophers and anti-feminists may say, the reason why
the personality of the woman weakened in the course of ages, was that
her physical force had been exhausted, which entailed mental
inferiority.
But through the progress of science, innovations of all kinds, economic
and social evolution, daily events; throughout the complexities of a new
life, woman began to make her influence felt, became conscious of her
powers, strengthened by study, system and experience.
Strindberg, the misogynist, when he declared that “woman is incapable of
acquiring complete knowledge in any branch of study whatsoever,” said a
foolish thing. In proof of the contrary, in the university, in the art
schools, in law, women are said to be, if not superior to men, at least
their equal.
It must be remembered that it is less than a century since woman, even
in the most advanced countries, was first allowed to receive the same
training as man. Taking into consideration how far behind her rival in
intellect she then was, the results she has obtained give a flat
contradiction to those who opposed her equality, which, originally a law
of nature, has, under modern social conditions, become a law of
existence.