THREE THINGS

BY

ELINOR GLYN

PUBLISHERSHEARST'S INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY CO. NEW YORK

Copyright, 1915, byHEARST'S INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY CO. , INC. 

_All rights reserved, including the translation into foreignlanguages, including the Scandinavian_

THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESSRAHWAY, N. J. 

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

 INTRODUCTION I THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH II THE GOSPEL OF COMMON SENSE III MARRIAGE IV AFTER MARRIAGE V SHOULD DIVORCE BE MADE EASIER? VI THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD VII THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD. SECOND PAPER

INTRODUCTION

I have called this little collection of articles which I have written"THREE THINGS" because to me there seem to be just three essentials tostrive after in life. Truth--Common Sense and Happiness. To be able tosee the first enables us to employ the second, and so realise thethird. And in these papers I have tried to suggest some points whichmay be of use to others who, like myself, are endeavouring to reasonout ideas to a good end. 

How often one sees people who could be very happy, and who yet withincredible blindness and stupidity are running their heads againststone walls (or feather beds!) and destroying all chance of peace forthemselves, their mates, and their households!

Everything is very simple when it is analysed down to what naturemeant in the affair--and by doing this one gets a broader perspective. 

For instance, nature meant one thing in the connection of man andwoman--and civilisation has grafted quite another meaning into it, andthe two things are often at war in the State called marriage! In thechapters devoted to this subject I have tried to exploit some pointswhich are not generally faced, in the hope that if understood theymight help towards Happiness. 

The thing which more than half of humanity seems to forget is _the endthey have in view_! They desire something really ardently, and yetappear incapable of keeping their minds from straying into sideissues, which must logically militate against, and probably prevent, their desire's accomplishment. This is very strange! A woman forinstance profoundly desires to retain a man's love when she sees it iswaning--but her wounded vanity causes her to use methods of reproachand recrimination towards him, calculated certainly to defeat her end, and accelerate his revolt. 

I feel that in publishing this little collection in America I must askindulgence for the parts which seem to touch upon exclusively Englishaspects of the subjects under discussion--because the main ideas applyto humanity in general and not to any particular country. The paper onDivorce is of course written from an English point of view, but itssuggestions may be of some use to those who are interested in thequestion of divorce in the abstract, and are on the alert as to theresults of its facilities in America. I do not presume to offer anopinion as to its action there; and in this paper am not making theslightest criticism of the American divorce laws--only stating whatseems to me should rule all such questions in any country, namely, --Common sense and consideration for the welfare of thecommunity. 

Above all things I am an incorrigible optimist! and I truly believethat the world is advancing in every way and that we are already inthe dawn of a new era of the understanding, and the exploitation forour benefit of the great forces of nature. But we of the majority ofnon-scientists, were until so lately sound asleep to any speculativeideas, and just drowsed on without thinking at all, that it behoovesus now that we are awake in the new century to try to see straight andanalyse good and evil. 

In my papers on the Responsibility of Motherhood I may be quite out oftouch with American ideas--but I will chance that in the hope thatsome parts of them may be of service, taken broadly. 

 ELINOR GLYN. PARIS, 1914. 

I

THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH

The Old order changeth, giving place to New; and it would be well torealise this everlasting fact before we decide that the world iswaxing evil, and the times are waxing late. And who can say that outof the seething of the present some noble and glorious ideals of lifefor men and women may not spring?

Surely it is unwise to read in the writing upon the wall, as so manydo, only a pessimistic presage of inevitable death. If there iswriting for students of evolution to read, then it should be taken asa warning indication which direction to avoid and which to take. Unrest is a sign, not of decay, but of life. Stagnation alone giveswarning of death. 

And there are a number of facts to be faced before we can give anopinion either way. 

The first of these is, that all civilised nations are endeavouring tostamp out ignorance and disease, and that an enormous advance in thisdirection can be observed in the last fifty years. And, taking ageneral view of the civilised peoples, a far greater number of theirunits now lead less dreadful and degraded lives. 

And surely these indications of mankind's advancement are as plain asare some other signs of decline. 

The stirring up of the masses by insufficient education is bound toproduce unrest, and until the different elements have assortedthemselves into their new places in the scheme of things, how canthere be tranquillity? All is out of balance, and has disturbed themachinery of the country's life, for the time being. But if the aimhas been for enlightenment, the eventual outcome must be good. 

All scum in a boiling pot rises to the top, and makes itself seen, concealing the pure liquid beneath, until it is skimmed off. And so wehave political demagogues shouting the untenable fallacy that all menare equal, together with other flamboyant nonsense; and hooligansuffragists smashing windows. But all these are only the scum upon theoutside of a great upward movement in mankind, and are not to be takenas the incontestable proof of the vicious condition of the whole mass. 

The spirit that is abroad, though one of great unrest, is not one ofdecadence, but of progress. But it would be folly not to admit thatthere are aspects of it which presage disaster unless directed, justas the pot will boil over if not watched. 

It may be interesting to scrutinise, with unemotional common sense, some of the causes of the present state of things, and perhaps fromthis investigation come to some conclusions as to their remedy orencouragement. 

Nature, whether human, animal, or vegetable, will not be hurried, orshe produces the abnormal. Until about a hundred years ago everythingseemed to be moving on with a very slow and gradual evolution. Somethings changed a little, others it would seem, not at all. And then, after the first quarter of the nineteenth century, Science andInvention appeared to join hands, and, with small beginnings, gradually assuming mammoth proportions, to revolutionise the veryuniverse. The result has been to make life easy to a class whichformerly had to work hard for the bare necessities of existence. Withthis came education. The lowest of the people were taught to read andwrite, and the most ill-chosen and elementary book-knowledge was flungupon unploughed soil, unprepared for its reception. Nature washurried, and began to produce, not fair flowers at once, but theabnormal and diseased. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

The education these crude minds received was not of the sort to showthem their ignorance, and implant in them a noble desire for moreteaching, so as to achieve a gradual advancement, but was justsufficient to stir up discontent with what was, and produce countlesssquare pegs, clamouring to get into round holes for which they wereunfitted. 

Mechanical inventions did away with numbers of home duties, and eventhe meagre education the masses then received was enough to cause themto throw grave doubts upon the accepted religion of the country. Thetimid souls were released from the fear of hell, as a powerful factorfor the determining of their actions. The bold felt they would havethe support and sympathy of numbers of their fellows in breaking upold beliefs, and the intelligent of both kinds refused to swallow manyof the dogmas any longer. 

Thus the bridle which, through the Christian ages, had guided mankind, became as a mere thread. And all these loosened steeds ran wild andare still running wild, until enlightenment shall come to them, andthey will perceive that each individual is responsible to God forhimself. 

The cry that the churches are emptying is perhaps true; and if it is afact, then of what use to lament it? It would be more logical tosearch for the cause. If people do not come of their own accord, thereis no law to oblige them to do so. Consequently, if the churches wishfor their return, it is their business to provide fare which willinduce them to take this course. 

Education has encouraged men and women to think for themselves, andthe religiously minded, who would willingly remain under someguidance, have begun to perceive how very wide apart Christ'sbeautiful teaching is from the interpretation of it which they oftenreceive in church; while the others, who had never any religiousaspirations at all, are glad that the weight of public opinion andcustom no longer forces them into irksome attendance. To fill churcheswith worshippers drawn there largely through hope of Heaven or fear ofHell, or because it was considered respectable and custom bound themto conform to its mandates, surely could not have been very acceptableto God. And the percentage who went truly to pour forth their love andworship, are still pouring it forth, because it came, and comes, fromtheir hearts whether they attend church or no. 

The modern spirit is full of what Edmond Holmes calls the desire toask the teacher or person in authority for his credentials. And ifthese are not entirely satisfactory, the influence he can hope towield will be nil. 

To deplore anything that may happen to a country, or to ourselves, iswaste of time. We should search for the reason of it, and if it provesto be because there is some ineradicable cause, intelligence shouldthen be used to better the condition which results. Worship ofsomething glorious and beyond ourselves will always swell the humanheart, and if the accepted forms of the religion of a country can nolonger produce this emotion, it is not because the human heart ischanging, but because there is something in those forms which nolonger fulfils its mission. 

The cry of the fear of the net of Rome is futile also. People drift towhere they belong, and Rome seems to offer to take all spiritualresponsibility from the shoulders of her children. It gives them anemotional satisfaction which brings comfort to all, and amongst theseany of hysterical nature probably become far happier and bettercitizens under her wing than they would otherwise have been. No netswill catch the expanding soul which is rising out of its paltry selfinto ideals nearer to God. 

During the earlier days when religion held sway in England over atleast nine-tenths of female lives, superfluous women were content as arule to lead grey, uneventful existences, making no more mark on theirtime than if they had been flocks of sheep. But with the breakdown ofthis force, and greater freedom of ideas, they have brought themselvesinto prominence--the scum as a shrieking sisterhood, and the pureelements unobtrusively, as leaders of countless noble works. 

Meanwhile, in every class of the community the desire "to move" isfelt. Travelling, formerly the luxury of the rich, now is indulged inby an ever-increasing company. The aspect of family life is changed, and amusement is within the reach of all. 

It is not reasonable to suppose with this total alteration in the viewof existence, that many things that we held beautiful and sacredshould not have gone by the board--things such as filial respect, gentle manners, chivalry, obedience. We are undoubtedly in anunpleasant state of incompletion as a nation to-day, but by no meansin one of decadence. And if only the two great dangers do not swampus--a mawkish and hysterical humanitarianism, and the heedless pursuitof pleasure as the only end--the upward tendency of progress is boundto go on. Inventions, aided by science in all its ramifications, havemade life pleasant, and all these benefits have come too quickly forthe recipients to be prepared to receive them with calm. Theirequilibrium is disturbed, and they are led into exaggerations, and sothe ugly side of the spirit of the Great Unrest is born. But, underneath, the English people are a sane, healthy stock in mind andbody, and when education has opened their minds and broadened theirunderstanding, they will surely allow their birthright of common senseamong the nations to have sway again. Instead of standing aside andlamenting that times are evil and that the nation is going down hill, it behoves all thinking people to gather their forces together andseriously apply themselves to consider how they can better thiscondition of things. In their daily life they can do so by setting upa high standard of sanity and right behaviour, by the encouragement offine aims and high ends, by the firm avoidance of hypocrisy andhysterical altruism, and by intelligent explanation to those undertheir care of the reason why individual responsibility is necessaryfor the welfare of the community at large. 

And a most important lesson for every one to learn is the law of causeand effect. The great rush of modern life is apt to produce aninconsequence of action. Anything good or bad is indulged in withouttime for thought as to its result. But the law of the boomerang isimmutable, and its action goes on for ever--_what we send out wereceive again, sooner or later, for good or ill_. 

The first principle of that great and wonderful wave of "New Thought"which is sweeping over America, and is beginning to find someunderstanding in this country, is that the responsibility of eachindividual's well-being rests with himself, and that his environmentis the result of what his consciousness has been able to attract tohimself. 

And, as no one limits us but ourselves, as soon as a man'sconsciousness begins strongly to create in his own mind new and betterconditions, he will inevitably draw them to himself in fact. From Godthere can emanate nothing but Good. It is the individual's own actionwhich brings his punishment, or reward. If this fundamental principlecould be investigated by responsible scientists, unhampered bytheological influences, and with no prejudice as to the idea's beingregarded as a mere _culte_, its exactness could perhaps bemathematically proved beyond a cavilling doubt. Possibly then thedoctrine might be allowed to be taught in the public schools, to theeverlasting benefit of the growing race. 

To say the least of it, it would inculcate an immense self-respect. 

There should not be, and I believe there is not, any law which canprevent the lowest in the land from rising to the highest place--_ifhe is fitted for it_. It is the ceaseless cry of the unfit unit forsome situation above his capabilities, which is a distressing featureof modern life. But, even in this, the spirit shown in the desire torise is good; while if he had the will to fit himself for what heaspires to, it would be splendid and great. And these are the men andwomen who succeed, no matter what avocations they may be engaged in. The others, the shouters, only hamper the wheels of progress and falleventually as the dust in the ruts. 

Formerly there was a hard line drawn between "gentlemen" and commonmen. And there were all sorts of things that, however bad he might be, a "gentleman" did not do; or if he did commit these actions, hispunishment was swift. He was obliged to face the ordeal of a duel, orhe received the cut direct from his own class. 

These ideas of behaviour, accompanied by the responsibility for thewelfare of numbers of tenants upon his property--responsibility veryoften nobly sustained--produced in the old English aristocrat a veryfine specimen indeed. And from him downwards in all the socialclasses, a high tone of honour was maintained. But now the democraticidea is sweeping away these classes and these standards. The State istaking the power for good from the individual, and the machine iscrushing the man; so it behooves all serious thinkers more than everto use their logical common sense to supply the place once occupied bythe old ideals. Nothing is so arrogant as ignorance--and loud shoutingever concealed an empty pate. 

Part of the crude spirit of the Great Unrest of to-day manifestsitself by the effort of those beneath to demonstrate _in words_ thatthey are the equals of those above them. And, pitiful and ridiculousas this is, the spirit arose in good. It is because those underneath_desire_ to be the equals of those above them, that they use the onlymeans their limited understandings provide them with, to try to obtaintheir ends. You never hear of numbers of people shouting that they arethe equals of the tramp in the street!

So it shows that even in this, the Great Unrest is an uplifting force. And when reason and education have directed its current, surely we mayhope that we shall arise again as a nation, like a giant refreshedwith wine. 

The study of the atavism of races, the study of heredity, the study ofthe influence of the welfare of the mother upon her unborn child, areall useful and expanding studies for ordinary thinking minds, and arequite within the scope of the average intelligence. But the modernhatred of all restraint--another failing born in the good of desirefor freedom--makes it difficult to preach any course of action whichwould involve curtailment of time or pleasure. 

You often hear people say about some misfortune, "Just as I expected, such and such happened, " and they do not stop to realise that theirexpectancy helped the thing which they feared, to materialise. No onecan deny the force of imagination. Its existence has been abundantlyproved. For instance, there was a case which was in the newspaperssome time ago, of the guard on a Russian train who believed he waslocked into the cold-storage van, and wrote a letter describing how hewas being frozen to death. And he was actually found dead in themorning, although the temperature of the car had never gone belowfreezing point!

People will readily credit this, but will ridicule the idea that theirown imaginations are daily helping or hindering their own and others'lives. 

Marconi demonstrated that messages can be transmitted by wirelesstelegraphy, and his discovery became a thing of commercial value. Soit was believed in as nothing marvellous, but merely as a newdeparture of science. Yet the numberless proofs of other currentsbeyond our actual sight which manifest themselves each day in everylife, and influence it, are unconsidered quantities, if not actuallydenied. 

But there they are; and though, as the demonstration of an exactscience, they are laughed to scorn, their force is unconsciouslyadmitted in a hundred cant phrases, such as, "He was under an evilinfluence, "--"She makes you feel better because she is so cheerful, "etc. , etc. --Both these things here alluded to as forces areintangible, and yet are real proofs of the power of imagination. 

This shows how tremendously important it is never to allow ourimagination to run into prognostications of evil, either inpredictions for our country, for ourselves, or for our friends. Eachunit should try to help the great force for good by sending forthstrong positive thoughts for its upliftment. 

Think, for a moment, under what a terrible shadow the soul ofChristian man has lain for these many hundred years! Ever since thedoctrine of original sin was forced upon his belief, his soul has comeinto the world handicapped by millions of thought-currents expectingit to do evil, unless continuously controlled and curtailed andpunished into a semblance of good! It cannot be wondered at, then, that sometimes these forces become too strong for it, and it does fallinto sin. But what an insult to God, the source of all love and beautyand holiness, to suppose He would permit a tarnished atom of Himselfto reach the exquisite world He has created!

All who wish for enlightenment upon this subject, and as to how theyshould view their children and their race, should read Edmond Holmes'smasterly work upon elementary education, "What Is, and What Might Be. "

We cannot stop the force which our own action, in giving education tothe lowest people, has put in motion, and which has produced, fromtheir status upward, the "Great Unrest. " We can hardly even hope tocontrol it; but we can and must do all in our power to guide anddirect it into channels for the good and glory of our dear country, making it, as the fire Prometheus stole from heaven, an incentive tonoble actions and great ends. 

Could not the people with large influence, who are interested in thismatter, band together and discuss some scheme for the sending out oflecturers all over England who would explain, with common senseentirely stripped of all politics or religion, to the risinggeneration, the vast importance of individual responsibility--the dutyof all citizens--the glory of helping the great force aright?Explanations, in a practical and simple form, would do more than athousand laws, or all the thunders from the pulpit or the platform. Ifthe children in every school could be made to feel they are all littlemen and women, full of God's gift of a soul, able and willing to helpthe raising of their country, they would soon graft a new spirit intotheir homes. They would respond as readily as do the hundreds of bravemen who volunteer for active service, and probable death, to reinforcea fire-brigade, or a life-boat's crew. Children are so wise when theirfine instincts are appealed to. 

If only this fundamental principle could be understood--that eachindividual has in this life, or some former one, attracted to himselfthe exact environment that he is now in--and that it lies only withhimself whether he remains in it, or lifts himself out of it, therewould be no more class hatred, no more railing against hard luck andinjustice, but a steady increase of betterment all over the world. 

The unfortunate thing is, that nearly all writers and talkers andlecturers, who are enthusiasts, and therefore really believe in whatthey are preaching, have so little common sense. 

They carry away their readers or audiences for the moment upon thecurrent of their own divine enthusiasm, but when their utterances cometo be measured by the cold light of fact, the logical conclusions areso faulty, that the whole, which contained many thoughts of great andbeautiful worth, is dismissed as the ravings of a dreamer, and ceasesto have any effect. 

The main attribute of any religion, of any ethical teaching, of anyprinciple--to be of use to men and women at the present stage of theirdevelopment--_must_ be incontestable common sense. Ridiculoussentimentality should be ruthlessly crushed, and investigation of themeaning of Nature should be strenuously encouraged. And with cleareyes we should try to see the truth. Let those born fighters who likefighting for fighting's sake, and who now wage war against windmills, being armed with prejudice and false conceptions of man's place inrelation to God, turn their belligerent powers to the demolition ofthe double-headed Hydra, Hypocrisy and Deceit. 

It is the duty of every true man and woman at this hour of theircountry's day to begin to THINK, to weigh for himself or herself themeanings of the signs of the times, to use their critical faculties, to face facts honestly, unhampered by prudery, convention, or thedoctrines of the Church. And then they will see for themselves thatthe Great Unrest is a force, the direction of which, for good or ill, lies in their own hands. And according to the way they fulfil theresponsibility entailed upon them in this matter, they or theirchildren will reap the reward, or pay the price. The Great Unrest inits seething is still molten metal, which can be poured into whatmould we will. 

To call this Great Unrest a sign of decadence and a presage ofdestruction, would be as fallacious as to say that electricity is anentirely mischievous force. Both are mischievous when undirected, andboth are glorious when used for good. 

The test of the expansion of man's soul is the extent of its outlook. The puny spirit sees an hour or two ahead; the more advanced probablyconceives plans to benefit himself and his loved ones day by day. Thedeveloped soul desires the good of his country. But the soul that isinfinite and emancipated sees into eternity and demands of God theregeneration of humanity. 

II

THE GOSPEL OF COMMON SENSE

Of all the attributes which we of the twentieth century should moststrenuously encourage, that of common sense ranks first, in the faceof the hysteria which threatens to weaken, if it does not swamp, allthe wonderful new spirit of progress which is abroad. 

Common sense applied to everything alone can restore our equilibriumas a nation, because as the years of this new century go on hysteriaseems to increase. Nothing in the way of a public event can happen, from the just condemnation of a criminal for some atrocious crime, tothe sinking of an ocean mammoth ship, but a large section of thepublic makes an outcry inspired by altruism or so-calledhumanitarianism, both developing into hysteria. 

Let us look at the reason of this carefully, and we shall see thatthis state of things is the direct result of an irresponsibleemployment of the gigantic power of thought. Some few excitable brainsstart an idea, the circulation of which is made possible by the modernfacilities for expression in the press. And because the majority ofreaders do not think for themselves, they are drawn into the currentof unrest which has thus been suggested to their imagination, eachindividual augmenting its strength until it grows into a torrent offolly. 

This proves the tremendous importance it is to a nation that each ofits units should realise his own responsibility in regard to thismatter. The moment that such a thing could be accomplished--that is, that the understanding of the power of thought could be brought hometo people--there are millions of sound, honest folk who woulddeliberately try to use their possession of it for the good ofthemselves and the race, and who would bring up their children to dolikewise. 

The wave of complete materialism which passed over Europe during whatwe call the Victorian period discouraged any personal investigation offorces beyond what could actually be proved by the senses. Numberlessexamples of natural phenomena were laughed to scorn as the illusionsof the ignorant. People read their Bibles, wherein there are countlessinstances shown of the power of thought, and never dreamed of applyingthe teaching to themselves. How such a materialistic age ever acceptedChrist's miracles is a matter for wonderment, although now, looked atfrom the point of view of those who have investigated the currents ofnature, the miracles are merely a proof of Jesus' divine understandingof these currents and forces in their greatest measure. We modernpeople are only as yet at the experimental stage, and hedged in bytimidity and custom, but there is no reason why we should not advanceif we desire to do so. 

Think how the power of thought showed itself about the _Titanic_disaster! There is no need now to go over its hysterical effects uponus on land, how in our misery and anxiety we praised and blamed fromexcitable imagination, before any actual facts could be known tojustify either course. But let us instead try to imagine what in itsglorious form it did upon that great ship on the night of heroverwhelming. 

Everything seems to have been calm and in fair order. Why? Because ithas been now proved that the majority of those on board did not_think_ the ship could sink. Only a limited number of men _knew_ thatshe not only could, but _would_, and these glorious and splendid soulsdid their duty to the last, with the awful knowledge of certain deathin their hearts. Their names should be written in letters ofgold--heroes, indeed! But, meanwhile, the power of thought had keptall calm, and had permitted the saving of the women and childrenwithout panic. 

Think for a moment what would have happened if the passengers of allclasses had been aware, from the first moment of the collision, thatall were bound to go down who could not find places in the boats. Thepower of thought would then have created a mad panic of fear which noofficers' pistols could have kept in check, and which might haveproduced a rush upon the lifeboats which would have swamped them all. But as it was, the power of thought in the few individuals whorealised the general peril, was used by them in a godlike suppressionof their own emotion, which produced an answering vibration of calm inthe majority under their care. 

I do not want to refer to the awful story except in so far as it is aconcrete illustration of what I wish to write about--the power ofthought examined with common sense in its relation to the happiness ofeach individual, and the responsibility of its employment by eachindividual for the benefit of the community--not from the desire touse this opportunity to circulate propaganda for any of the newethical teachings, but simply from a common-sense point of view to seewhat good we can get out of a belief that is, I suppose, common tothem all. 

Now let us consider what most of us do actually know about this powerof thought. We all are aware that no picture can be painted, nomachinery invented, before a clear vision of it has been realised inthe creator's brain. Not a single conscious action can be put intomotion and force without its having first occurred to the imagination. The painter's hand and brush would be of no avail undirected by hisbrain or mind, which has first mentally visualised what it wishes tocreate in fact. Draw the analogy from this, and you will see that whatyou think about must have an enormous bearing upon your life. Ifthought, when inspired by desire, is strong enough to cause the handto reproduce the vision of the imagination of the artist, this is anincontestable proof that thought is a very strong force indeed. Youwill agree with this if you--each individual who is reading thesewords--begin to examine yourself with truth. 

Admitted, then, that you perceive the force of thought. Now considerwhat miserable thinking is likely to bring you. It, according to theanalogy above, can only eventually attract for you _in fact_ themiserable conditions that you have dwelt upon in imagination. If, onthe contrary, you think constantly of fine and prosperous things, youmust by this reasoning, be connecting yourself with the currents whichcan bring them in their material form. 

Therefore, every time you say "I am ill, " or think "I am ill, " are younot helping the illness to materialise? because the power of thought, which you cannot deny as the initial cause of every action, has thenbeen turned to aid the condition of ill health. 

Supposing for some cause you really are ill, why then help this evilstate to augment by your thoughts? Rather impede its progress as faras you can by creating good-thought conditions. 

You may reply, "But I am constantly doing this, and yet nothing goodcomes. " Pause and use your common sense by remembering that fortwenty--thirty--forty years perhaps, when you did not analyse matters, you were laying up for yourself numberless stumbling-blocks by wrongthinking, which according to the law we are discussing must besurmounted before you can start on a clear road. And the reason whyyou do not immediately receive the result of your good thoughts isthat you are still under the action of your bad ones. But if yourecognise this law of the power of thought, you need not incur foryourself any further debts to pay. 

And to recognise it as a law you have only to use your common sense tosee that it is not conceivable that thoughts can have no effectoutside your own brain. They cannot be wasted and go into nothingness, they _must_ strike some answering vibration somewhere, and it issurely rational to suppose they will strike the kindred vibrationrather than some totally different one, as the Marconi messages strikethe pole in tune to them. At least, it is worth while trying tobelieve this, because if you can it will make you happier. 

Alas! I am not a scientist who can dogmatically prove every fractionof my beliefs. I only want to awaken my readers to think forthemselves upon this interesting subject, for the facts are there forus all to investigate, unaided by scientists, if we will. 

So without any more argument, shall we take it for granted that youare with me thus far, and have seen my point? Yes. Then let us examinewhat our thoughts do for us. 

For example, let us suppose a man has a disease which is believed tobe incurable. His thoughts tell him so constantly, and the thoughts ofhis friends, often expressed in words, convince him still further ofhis misfortune. He is certain nothing he can do will make it better, and any remedy that is applied will only meet with failure. He hasmade his mental picture of an incurable disease; and so he is helpingthe material result to accomplish itself. But, as hope springs eternalin the human breast, he still goes from doctor to doctor for freshadvice, while unconsciously nullifying the benefit he might receivefrom doing so by his attitude of mind in holding the belief thatnothing can cure him. We must all of us know of cases like this, andhave seen the gradual increase in the person's illness. 

Now supposing that the starting-point is the same; the diseasecertainly is there, but the man is determined not to aid and augmentthis state of things, so whenever the thought presents itself that hehas an incurable disease he persistently banishes it and replaces itwith one that he will grow well. He will be aiding that condition; hewill be making himself the pole in tune to receive the answeringvibrations of his mental picture. He will know that he must be drawingto himself every chance that science has up till this time of theworld's day been able to invent or discover for the betterment of sucha disease as his. He will know that he is giving nature a free hand, and as far as he is able, he is opening every door to the probabilitythat he may grow well. Now, if we admit the power of thought, we mustadmit it has power to go both these ways. Is it not worth while tryingto think good things for ourselves, then, instead of evil ones?

It does not seem possible, as I understand some assert, that by merethinking and believing we can cure even a broken arm. Because, although the principle may be right in its eventuality, no one onearth can be quite advanced enough yet to draw these forces to himselfsufficiently strongly to demonstrate it as Christ did. But we are atthe stage when, by our thoughts, we can certainly aid physical meansof betterment. Thus when we or our friends are ill, it lies in our ownhands whether we will aid or retard our or their recovery. 

Long years ago, before any of these psychic waves were discussed orgiven the least credence, I remember a very celebrated American doctortelling me, as a curious fact, that he often got his patients over thecrisis of typhoid fever by telling them cheerfully beforehand that thedangerous moment was passed, and they were not to worry over theseemingly worse physical sensations they were perhaps about toexperience--these were only the reaction. In that way, he said, heremoved the amount of fear from the mind of the patient whichotherwise might have been enough to cause the extra exertion to theheart which would have proved fatal at the critical moment. The powerof thought, you see, and nothing else, then saved them. 

To continue this line of reasoning in mental, not physical, things. Supposing you feel angry and resentful towards some one, and you sendout thoughts of hate and ill-will. The pole in tune to such feelingsin that person will answer and return them to you, and a condition ofevil will be created. But supposing that, when perhaps the justlyangry and resentful thoughts present themselves, you replace theminstantly with kind and loving ones. You will have disconnectedyourself with the evil thoughts of the other person, they can nolonger reach you, and if he has any good in him you will haveconnected yourself with that good, and so peace can be established. 

All this is common sense, which is the only attitude of mind withwhich to approach any new suggestion that we may get benefit from it, and not through our arrogant ignorance dismiss it as nonsense, untilwe have proved it to be such. A hundred years ago the telephone wouldhave been considered either as magic or the vapourings of a madman ifan individual had tried to explain it. We say that "France isdeveloping a new spirit, " we say "A wave of discontent seems to bepassing over such and such a community, " we are thus unconsciouslyadmitting the power of forces beyond the perceptible. Why cannot weinstantly grasp, then, what the power of our everyday thought is doingfor us, and how careful we should be in its direction to avoidaugmenting the current of foolish and harmful ones--because unity isstrength. There are many grains of good to be got out of all newethical teachings, if only they can be sifted by common sense. Theunfortunate part is, that very often it is only the faddists whoexpound them, and they go off at a tangent. One reads several pages ofilluminating matter, and then, perhaps, one comes upon a chapterdevoted to proving that mankind must train itself to live upon nuts oruncooked vegetables! Or that the only way to learn concentration isfor the pupil to school himself mentally to stare for so many minutesat an imaginary spot in the solar plexus!

Common sense revolts, although many may not be sufficiently trained tomake the deduction that if God, the omnipotent, original, all-dominating dynamo, gave the flesh of bird, beast and fish, and thefruits and vegetables of the earth for mankind to feed upon, it is alittle ridiculous for one sect to eliminate as food all but thespecial part of these aliments of which it approves. Thus, commonsense being affronted, all the rest of the teaching is likely to fallupon stony ground and only be received by the faddists in tune to thisparticular argument. No theory for the betterment of mankind willsucceed now with the mass of people or make any lasting mark upon timeunless its basic principle can stand practical dissection. 

So that upon this subject of the power of thought, all that any one atthe present stage can do, no matter what his own personal beliefs maybe, is to try and awaken people to think about it themselves and maketheir own investigations; to open a window for any soul to lookthrough and see what he can get from it for himself. Because, as yet, the scientists and psychologists have not been sufficiently interestedin the idea to endeavour to prove and demonstrate it as an exactscience beyond all controversy. When this has been done, theintelligent will credit it because they are convinced, and theignorant because they follow the others without reason. 

All I hope to do by writing this article is to point out that thepower of thought is a vital factor in our lives, and can really affectevery hour of them for good or ill. 

Thousands of people who read the new ethical or religious books whichare abroad, and even exploit their propaganda--thousands who attendthe various meetings and services and lectures of the differentsocieties, be they "New Thought" or any of the others on more or lessthe same lines--never dream of applying the teachings to a singleordinary thing, and still go on with their tempers and melancholy andflurry and fuss, just as they did before they ever heard of the ideathat they can control and eliminate these things. An enormous majorityof the public are frightened at the very name of a new religion orethical teaching, and think it wrong even to investigate what itteaches. But the broad-minded are unafraid of any knowledge, and cangain good by knowing about all developments of human thought, providedthey approach each point with common sense and without hysteria, dismissing the idea of what we are accustomed to call thesupernatural, and realising that everything has a perfectly naturalexplanation when it can be understood, and it is only our ignorancewhich makes us shy at it. 

And so I would appeal to those who credit this power of thought toemploy it responsibly, and to realise that they are all God's atoms inthe great scheme of things, and must use their personal force as acontribution to the vast thought-waves which can advance, or which, when ill directed, can sweep away a nation. 

III

MARRIAGE

It is an interesting subject--and one which has touched, or willprobably touch, most of our lives, therefore it may not beunprofitable to study it a little, and what it means and what itshould mean; because, in the present upheaval of all our old beliefs, marriage, as a sensible institution, is being attacked upon manysides. 

It is extremely easy to pull down a house, but it requires skill andspecial training to rebuild it again; and before dragging the roof offand demolishing the walls, it would be wiser to have made a distinctplan and provided the materials ready for the reconstruction of a newhabitation, that the rain and the wind may not overcome us when wehave no shelter for our heads. But this is what the attackers ofmarriage have failed to do as yet. Here are three facts which we canbegin by looking at. 

_Firstly. _ Some kind of union between man and woman, consolidated bythe law, is necessary for the continuation of a race in vigour andmoral upliftment. 

_Secondly. _ It is admitted by great philosophers and deep thinkersthat the welfare of the community is of more importance than thefluctuating desires of the individual. 

_Thirdly. _ A fine ideal, however impossible of attainment, is a forcefor good to be held up before the eyes of the mass of the people, who, however much actual education has advanced, are still too unendowedwith personal brain to have any judgment themselves--their capacitiesonly allowing them to see the effects of things upon their immediatesurroundings without perceiving the causes, and therefore leaving themincapable of judging what could be good for the country, the race, orhumanity in general. 

After all these centuries, legal marriage still holds, because no onehas been able to suggest any other union which could take its placewithout bringing chaos. And it seems more than likely that no one willever be sufficiently inspired so to do! Thus let us now consider thepresent legal marriage as still being a stable fact, and see how wecan make the best of it. In it there are two things which both man andwoman forget--or refuse to face--and which are perhaps the chiefcauses of most unhappiness. Man forgets that his kind _words_ of loveand sympathy matter far more to the actual happiness of the woman thanany of his _deeds_: because words fill and satisfy her imagination, which is active whenever she is alone; and kind deeds, with few orindifferent words, make very little impression upon it. Womanforgets--or will not face--the fact that man is by nature a polygamousanimal. There is no use in arguing about this and saying he ought notto be, and that it is a horrible idea. It is a physiological fact, andto dispute it is to criticise the Almighty's scheme for ensuring acontinued population. That man should have polygamous instincts isessential for this scheme to work against any odds. 

Whatever we choose to say in contradiction to this resolves itselfinto empty words, the fact of nature remaining. It would be just assensible to try to argue that, because we do not like to drink seawater, it has no business to be salt! and to decide that it is _not_salt! and that we will not recognise that _it is_ salt! The oceanwould just laugh at us, and remain briny! And no doubt Nature laughsat silly woman too, when she tries to judge man without understandingthe elementary principle of creation. 

This being grasped clearly, it must be seen that monogamous marriageis _an ideal state_, not a _natural state_, and it must be admitted tobe such, and lived up to as an ideal, not undertaken with the notionthat fidelity in man is _natural_, and infidelity an _unnatural_thing. It is the other way about because of the fundamental instinctsof man, which continuously and subconsciously suggest to him thenecessity for self-preservation, and in its larger senseself-preservation means species-preservation. 

Woman, on the other hand, although unconsciously inspired by this samefundamental instinct of species-preservation, is not naturallypolygamous, or rather polyandrous, because such a state would militateagainst this end by eventually destroying pure offspring. She onlybecomes so under certain conditions. Fidelity, then, is, so to speak, a natural state for woman, and she has not to fight against anyfundamental instinct of her sex in order to preserve it--she has onlyto resist perverted desire, which is an exotic growth, the outcome ofcivilisation. Thus fidelity is much harder for man, who, to succeed inbeing faithful, is obliged to dominate a natural instinct, which is afar more difficult thing to do than to fight against an exotic desire;because all natural things are governed by inexorable and eternallaws, and are not at the mercy of circumstance. Thus the naturalinstinct of man is at work all the time in continuous activity--andthe exotic desire of woman is intermittent, and the result ofcircumstance. 

Of course, all this has been said before by every serious thinker, andI am only reiterating these facts because the general readers may haveforgotten them, and I must bring them to their recollection to makethe rest of our discussion upon marriage clear. 

These nature instincts being admitted, we can get on to a survey oflegal marriage. At first, it must have been an affair of expediency. The woman was probably expected to be faithful, and brute force tookcare that she was so, or that she immediately paid the price ofpossible contamination of offspring by being killed. She was expectedto be faithful for a natural reason, not for a spiritual orsentimental one; the reason being, as already inferred, to ensure thepurity of the offspring. Man had no need to be faithful to one womanto secure this end, and never, in consequence, dreamed of being so. 

All through Pagan times infidelity in man was rampant and recognised, and not looked upon as sin. And when woman became civilised enough tohave exotic desires, she lost her natural instinct, that ofpreservation of pure offspring, and became liable to vagrant fanciesand often a vicious creature. 

Then the Church arrived and turned marriage into a sacrament;presumably with the noble intention of trying to elevate man andovercome his carnal nature. Man outwardly conformed, and, with hiswhole soul's desire to be true and to uplift himself, each individualwho really believed no doubt did war with his instincts, and numbersprobably succeeded in conquering them. While woman, always a creatureof more delicate nervous susceptibilities, flung herself with furoreunder the influences of spiritual things, and in the truly devoutcases overcame her grafted desires and returned to natural instincts. But in beings of both sexes who were unconvinced by religion, infidelity continued to flourish, as it does even to this day. A manwho truly believes that he is sinning in being unfaithful, and whounderstands that outside opinion is nothing in the soiling of his ownsoul, but that the matter is between himself and God, will always befaithful _in body_ to a woman he has wedded, whether he cares for heror not. But a man who has not this conviction, and who does not livein this intimate relation to God, has no reason to hold him fromindulging his natural instinct, except the fear of being found out, and when his sagacity has suggested safeguards against this, hisinstinct will certainly give itself expression. It is all a questionof personal belief. There are numbers of good and honest characterswho do not feel convinced that entire fidelity in man to one woman wasintended by the Creator, and who therefore feel no degradation in thelatitude they allow themselves. It is not for us to argue which areright and which are wrong, but to stick to the subject of marriage andhow it can perhaps be made happier in these present days, when allother conditions of life are changing, by a better comprehension offundamental instincts and laws of nature. 

Woman has developed so far that generally she thinks she is (andsometimes she really is!) a reasonable and balanced creature, withstrong individuality--and personal tastes and likes and dislikes. Sheis now ill-fitted to keep them all in subservience to man, unless heis her intellectual master. She may have wedded only because theemotion of sex (not understood as such, and called by a number ofother names such as "love, " "devotion, " "attraction") forced her atone of its powerful moments to take a physical mate--totally unsuitedto her moral calibre. But she has knelt at the altar and sworn vowsbefore God--and perhaps has fulfilled woman's original mission in theworld, and become the mother of children--so what is to be done torectify her mistake and its unhappy consequences?

She must look the whole circumstances of it in the face and askherself whether she herself threw dust in her own eyes as regards thecharacter of her husband, whether he deceived her in this, or whetherthey just drifted together, each to blame as much as the other, through the attraction of sex and the cruelty of ignorance. She mayregret it a thousandfold--but she has done the thing of her own freewill, no one forced her to wed the man; she may have done sounwillingly in some cases--and for ulterior motives, but at all eventsshe was consenting and not dragged to church resisting, and so if sheis sensible she will use the whole of her intelligence to make thebest of it. She will look to the end of her every action and her everythought. Will brooding over her "rights, " and the wrongs he hasinflicted, mend them? Will it do anything but give her vanity--thesatisfaction of self-pity? Certainly not. 

If she has really evolved enough to wish to impose her opinions andindividuality upon her household or the community, she will haverealised that the welfare of the home for which she is responsible, and the community to which she belongs, are, or ought to be, of farmore consequence to her than her own personal emotions. Therefore shemust ask herself whether she has any right to upset the happiness ofthe one, and the conception of good of the other, by indulging inpersonal quarrels and bickerings, or open scandal with her mate. Areally noble and unselfish woman would never consider her personalemotion before her duty to God and to her neighbour. It is because theoutlook of woman is as a rule so pitifully narrow and self-centredthat she often makes a useless and unhappy wife, and shipwrecks herown and others' futures. 

Man has gone on with his brute force, and his physical and mentalattraction, and his tastes and beliefs and aspirations very much thesame for thousands of years. Numbers of them were brutes then, andnumbers are brutes still and will remain so. It is only woman who hasso incredibly changed, and after staying immeasurably behind inimportance and in intellectuality for countless centuries, now seeksto equal if not outstep man in all things. It would be well for man towake up to the fact that he is now wedding a woman with every senseand nerve and conception of life far in advance of what his motherbelieved herself to be capable of--and so his methods towards her inreturn must not be as his father's were. If man wishes to have thegood, domestic, obedient wife his father--perhaps one should gofarther back and say grandfather!--expected--and got--he must eitherchoose a timid weakling who becomes just his echo, or he must learn totreat the modern woman as a comrade, a being who mentally canunderstand and follow his aspirations and even assist him in hisdesires, a creature to respect and consult, and whom he cannot rulejust because he is a man and she is a woman--but can only do so, andbring her to obedience, when he has shown her his intellectualsuperiority and his wisdom. 

Woman is as willing to be ruled as ever she was--she always adores amaster; but she has grown too intelligent to bow her head just becausea man is a _man_--he must be _the man_. Man is naturally fighting forhis old omnipotence, which he possessed regardless of his personalendowment, simply because he was a male creature--and the foolishsection of woman is fighting man, with bombs and tricks and franticwords, instead of _convincing_ him by her wisdom and attainments, byher demonstrations of knowledge of life and its duties andresponsibilities, that she has grown at last indeed fitted to betreated as an equal and a comrade, not as a plaything and a slave. 

Who does not respect a woman who fulfils all her obligations withgrace and charm, whose house is well ordered, whose friends are wellentertained by her fine mind, and whose children are well brought upand full of understanding? She is indeed more precious than rubies andfar more full of influence for the good of her community than she whoshouts of rights and wrongs and votes and such-like. The first womancould control a hundred votes, and help a government, but the secondcan only clog the wheels of the sex's advancement. 

Now we get back to marriage!

And the first and foremost thing to be understood is that it is afrightful responsibility to undertake, and that all those who enterinto this bond lightly and for frivolous motives, or from justdrifting, will be made by fate to pay the price. 

Think of it! Two people stand up and swear before God to continue tolove one another until death do them part. They solemnly stand thereand make vows about an emotion over which they have no more controlthan they have over the keeping of the wind in the south. They haveonly control, if they have strong wills, over its demonstration. Andthen in nine cases out of ten neither thinks for a moment afterwards, of his or her responsibility _of trying to make possible_ theobservance of these vows, by keeping alight the flame of love in theother's heart. A man utterly disillusions a woman and then blames her, not himself, for her ceasing to care for him, and being eventuallyattracted by some one else! A woman disgusts or bores a man, and thenbewails her sad lot, and calls the man a brute for being indifferent, and a shameful creature for looking elsewhere for consolation! In allmarriages there is no one to blame or praise for unhappiness orhappiness but the two individuals themselves. It is his fault--ormisfortune--if she no longer cares, and likewise hers in the parallelcase--and it is owing to the weakness of either if outsidecircumstances have been able to interfere. Thus to ensure happinessthere must be a tremendous sense of personal responsibility, and thereshould be understanding of life and understanding of nature instinctsand understanding of sex instincts; and a ruthless tearing away of thefalse values which a Victorian age grafted upon religion, narrowingthe mind of woman as to man's needs--and narrowing man's conception ofwoman's mental capacity. 

No woman must ever forget in her relation to man that "he who pays thepiper calls the tune, " and in this I am not only speaking literally ofshekels of gold and silver, but of the power incorporated in certainpersonalities; and man, if he chose to exert it, has always _forcemajeure_ at his command in the last extremity, although in these daysof Herculean young women he may lose even this in time!

Before undertaking to play that most difficult part of wife, everygirl ought to ask herself, Does she really care for the man enough tomake her use her intelligence to understand him, and to try to keephim loving her? Or if she does not personally care enough for him totrouble about this--will the situation of her husband in the worldsatisfy her, and make the bondage, unleavened by love, of the care ofhouse, servants, and possible children, worth while?

Before undertaking the situation she ought to look at every aspect ofthe case, and question herself searchingly upon her own aims and ends, and if the actual facts will or will not fit in with them. Having madeup her mind that for one reason or another it is for her happiness totake a certain man for her mate, she ought then sedulously tocultivate all the aspects of the condition which can conduce to peaceand to the attainment and enjoyment of that end. She must not forgetthat the man has paid her the highest honour a man can pay a woman. Hehas selected her to be his life's companion. He proposes in nine casesout of ten, to provide her with a home and a position in life, and totake upon himself the responsibility of her maintenance (when thewoman has money of her own this question is different naturally). Butin all cases the man in asking her to marry him has shown thatsomething in her--or in her possessions--makes her appear worth thegiving up of his liberty. So she owes him just as much as the thing hetook her for. If for her money, and she knows it is for that, and shehas been sufficiently humble to accept him on those terms--she oweshim money. If for love--she owes him at least the outside observancesof love. If he has pretended love and it is for some other motive, hisNemesis will fall upon himself in the disillusion and contempt he willinspire. But in all cases the woman, through want of intelligence orpure misfortune, has crossed the Rubicon with him; she has allowed himto teach her the meaning of dual life--she has put it into his powerwith her to create future lives. She cannot, for any price or anyprayers, recross that fatal stream. So for all reasons of commonsense--and above all, sense of responsibility to the community--shehad better make the best of her bargain. 

Likewise, man should pause and think, Is it merely because I cannotobtain this woman upon any other terms that I am offering hermarriage? Have I respect for her? Do I think she will bring happinessinto my house as well as pleasure to my body? Is she suited to mybrain capacity when I am not exalted by physical emotion? Am I goingto curb my selfishness and behave decently towards her?

If he cannot answer these questions satisfactorily he may know that heis undertaking a hundred-to-one chance of peace and happiness. But ifthe physical desire is stronger than all these considerations, then hemust _know and realise_ that whatever happens _he must never blame thewoman_. He has succumbed to the most material and alas! the mosthideously strong force in nature--not because the woman tempted him, as it has been the fashion for man to say since the days of Adam--butbecause there is something in himself which is so weak that it cannotlisten to the promptings of the spirit when the body calls. 

In each and every case it is a man's duty to be kind and courteous toa woman who is his wife. He has made her so by his free vows beforeGod (because no one can be forced to the altar against his absolutewill in these days), or he has made her so by vows and businessagreement, according to the laws of his country, before the Registrar. In either case he has made her his legal wife and the possible motherof his children--units unborn who can affect the welfare of hiscountry. He has, then, his great duties towards her. If she was agirl, he has taken from her that which nothing on earth can restore;he has made her into another being. He has been instrumental in makingher--this other human soul--accept responsibilities, and he is boundas an honourable man to school himself so as to be able to help themutual happiness and peace of their dual existence. And if he wishesto be obeyed, loved, and respected, he has to look to himself that heinspires obedience, love, and respect in his mate. She will notexperience these feelings to order; and fear alone, or some other andlower motive, would make her simulate them. Man must not forget thatnothing simulated can last. Truth alone remains at the end of theyear. 

No marriage can be certain of continuing happy which has been enteredinto in the spirit of taking a lottery ticket. But most marriagescould be fairly happy if both man and woman looked the thing squarelyin the face and made up their minds that they would run together inharness as two well-trained carriage horses, both knowing of the pole, both pulling at the collar and not over-straining the traces, bothtaking pride in their high stepping and their unity of movement. Howmuch more dignified than to make a pitiful exhibition ofincompatibility like two wild creatures kicking and plunging, andfinally upsetting the vehicle they had agreed to draw?

I would like to discuss now the problem of whether or not marriagecould be made happy no matter how it starts, by using common sense, but the deep interest of the whole subject has made my pen alreadycover too much space and I must refrain in this chapter. 

Only, men and women who read this, do not pass it by, but stop and_think_ before you plunge, through the giving and the taking of awedding ring, into happiness or misery. 

IV

AFTER MARRIAGE

Considering the instability of all our tastes and desires and thealmost total want of personal discipline which prevails in the presentday, it is really remarkable that the legal marriage goes on even aswell as it does!--but that the state could be much happier is patentto any understanding, and it may be interesting to look at one or twoaspects of it, and see from whence comes the discord. A woman entersinto matrimony for various reasons, but, in the majority of cases inEngland and America at least, it is because she is, or fancies she is, in love with the man at the time. He, therefore, if this is so, startswith an enormous power over her, which, if he chooses to keep it, willenable him to turn their future life in any way he will, because thegreatest desire even of the most strong-minded and domineering womanwhen in love is to please the man. A woman only becomes indifferent asto whether or no she is doing this when she no longer cares. Therefore, it is the man's business to keep her in this state if hewants his home to be happy. The first thing for him to realise is thatshe cannot remain in love with him by her own will, any more than shecan cease to love him by her own will--these states are produced inher by something in himself. And if he discontinues using the arts andattractions which awakened her love, he cannot expect it to continueits demonstration, any more than a kettle will go on boiling if theheat beneath is removed from it. This argument, of course, applies toboth sexes. Unfortunately, in a great many cases of marriage, thesimple attraction of sex has been the unconscious motive which hascaused the man to enter the bond, and naturally, when he has gainedhis wishes he ceases to endeavour consciously to attract the woman. And then one of two things happens; either she grows to love him morefor a time, because of that contrariness in human beings which alwaysputs abnormal value upon the thing which is slipping out of reach--orshe herself becomes indifferent; and then it is a mere chance if theyboth, or either of them, possess character and a sense of duty as tohow the marriage goes along. We will take the case of a union whenboth parties are in love when they start, and really desire that theirmarriage should remain happy. Each ought to decide that he or she willdo his or her uttermost to continue to put forth those charms whichenchanted the mate before the ceremony. No one would expect the bloomto remain upon grapes if he carelessly rubbed it off, but both man andwoman are extraordinarily surprised and disgusted when they find theirpartners are no longer in love with them, and at once blame them forfickleness, instead of examining themselves to see what caused thisceasing to care--what they did--or omitted to do--which madethemselves no longer able to call forth love from their mates. Anduntil it can be grasped that all emotion of love is produced bysomething consciously or unconsciously possessed by the otherperson--and that it is not in the power of the individual to orderhimself to feel it, or not to feel it, but that only the demonstrationof the state is in his power--unions will go on with mutualrecriminations and the hitting of the heads against a stone wall. 

Some natures are naturally fickle and unstable--and no matter how goodand sweet the partner may be, they break away. These cases aremisfortunes, but in analysing the facts the actual responsibilitycannot be laid at the doors of such people, since they could not _bywill_ have kept the sensation of love for their partners, any morethan by will they could have ceased to care for them. They could only_by will_ have been able to control the expression of their feelings. I seem to be reiterating this point to the verge of tiresomeness, but itis so vitally important to understand, because its non-comprehensionproduces such injustice. If John _by his will_ were able to makehimself remain in love with Mary, and failed to do so, then she mighthave a right to blame him because he had sworn that he would at thealtar. But as he cannot command his actual emotion, she can only blamehim for infidelity of the body, since of that, at least, it ispossible he could be master. But, alas! Mary very seldom realisesthis, and reproaches John for ceasing _to feel loving_ towards her!which is as sensible on her part as to reproach him for the skiespouring rain. John, on his side, in like case does the same thing, because he also has not understood the truth. A valuable point forboth to keep in remembrance is that the attraction of sex is the basisof all "being in love. " However ennobled the emotion may becomeafterwards, it always starts with that. (This fact is explained andelaborated in the conversation between the Russian and the Clergymanin my story, "The Point of View. ") If common sense is used in thinkingabout this matter, it will be seen that if this was not the foundationof "being in love" the emotion would be calm, and like that of brotherand sister. So, admitting that this is the foundation, it can beunderstood how important a part it plays in the happiness of twopeople bound together by law for life, and how important it is to thewoman to endeavor to continue to make herself lovable in the eyes ofthe man--and _vice versa_--_it is of supreme importance to whicheverof them cares the most_. When the thing starts equally, the man nearlyalways cools the soonest, because of his fundamental instincts, andthe force of satiation. He then probably goes on liking hiswife--perhaps he admires and respects her intellect, but the thrillwhich used to come when her hand even touched his hand is no longerthere, and he only feels emotion towards her _when he is in the mood, which would make him feel it towards any woman_ who happened to bethere at the moment. And just in the measure that he was passionatetowards his wife, so he will be the easy or difficult prey of a newemotion. And if this aspect of the case distresses the woman, she mustlook to her guns--so to speak--and use the whole of her intelligenceto regain her hold over his affection. She will not improve matters bylamenting or reproaching the man. If it does not distress her, thenshe can congratulate herself that a time of peace has come!

A woman must face the fact that man is a totally different creaturefrom herself, governed by other instincts, which can be best explainedby realising them in animals in their boldest nature aspect, _i. E. _ amale dog at times will tear down any barrier that is within hispersonal strength to enable him to get to his mate, and a female dogwill fight through unheard-of obstacles to reach her puppies. Here isa plain illustration of the different ruling original instincts inanimals, and human beings are only the highest form of animal, givenby God a more developed soul and a choice of action, but stillinfluenced by fundamental nature instincts, which, beneath all thetraining of civilisation, unconsciously still direct their actions andaffect their point of view. Civilisation, on its good side, teachesman to overcome his bodily desires and to keep them in check, but notto eliminate them, to do which would militate against the Creator'sscheme of things. Civilisation on its evil side has frequentlyperverted woman's natural instinct, so that in numbers of cases thewonderful devotion of the animal to her young has become numb in her, or dead. If only all women would bravely face these facts of natureinstincts in themselves and in men, they would approach marriage withmuch broader-minded views, and would have a much greater chance ofhappiness, because they would realise that they must be lenient to manin the matter of his fidelity to them; and if man realised theseinstincts, he would enter marriage knowing he must make a fight withnature to keep the vows he has sworn, and so he would be on his guardagainst the first inclination to stray, instead of an easy prey to it. For, as it is, there is a recognised unwritten law among most men thathonour must always be kept with "the other woman, " but that it is notnecessary with a wife. A man's honour towards a woman is only certainof holding with his inclinations--that is: A married to B will beunfaithful to her with C--which is technically dishonour. He will notconsider that, but will tell any lie to protect C and stick to her, because his sense of honour has gone with his inclination. He feels hemust "never give away C to B, " although he experiences no qualm inhaving already tacitly "given away" B to C, by his very part of takingC for his mistress. B is also a woman, but only his wife! He has notbeen the least aware of it, but his sense of honour has followed hisinclination, in a way it would never do over a business arrangementwith another man. To give a parallel case in a business arrangement: Amakes a bargain with B that he will deal with him alone; he then findshe likes the goods of C better than those of B--but no honesttradesman would think of breaking his contract even secretly with Band dealing with C, for, if he did, he would know himself that he wasdishonest, and that all his fellows who knew he had done this thingwould despise and ostracise him. But a man when deceiving his wife notonly generally feels no shame himself, but knows his male friends willprobably not think the worse of him for it. There is not the slightestuse in arguing about these facts, any more than, as I said in my firstpaper upon marriage, there is in arguing about fundamental instincts, and it would be well for women to realise this elastic, unwritten lawof honour in men towards them, and so not expect, at the present stateof man's evolution, that they will receive anything different. Theymust never forget that this adjustable sense of honour springs fromthe same fundamental male instinct we spoke of--and therefore cannotbe turned round by women and applied to their own cases, because thesame instincts do not come into force with them. Woman must alwaysremember that _man is conquering primitive nature in being faithful toher at all_, and therefore she ought, if she desires that he shall beso, to look to her own every point of attraction to make it possible(if not easy!) for him to fulfil her desire. I must reiterate againthat it is wiser to remember that it is civilisation alone(civilisation embracing development of moral sense, and religioussense, and the force of custom) which keeps him from straying wheneverhe feels inclined, and that all she can do to prevent it is toredouble her own attractions, and to help the women of the future byinstilling into her own sons' minds the idea that, as marriage is _anideal and not a natural state_, the man who enters into it must beprepared to school himself to live up to an ideal, and control hisvagrant emotions. To teach the boys a new and higher sense of honouris the only possible way to alter matters, as a grown man is seldomchanged. In marriage, both partners must understand that they areundertaking to do a most difficult thing in vowing to live togetherand love for ever! Whichever cares the most will have to use_intelligence_ to keep the other--and if it is the woman who isunfortunate enough to occupy this position, she generally absolutelysacrifices herself to gratify the man's smallest wish, and so makesherself cheap. She should use her wits and keep a firm hand overherself so as not to let herself become in his eyes of no importance. 

Selfishness is another basic instinct of man, caused because he wasoriginally and unquestionably Lord of Creation, and only in thecountries where men are in the majority are the greater number of themunselfish even now to woman. In England, where women are in themajority, selfishness in every male child is fostered from his cradle. So women must not indiscriminately condemn every man as being selfish, as though it was his personal fault; they must look to the cause, andcondemn that if they want to, or, better still, try to eradicate it inthe future by influencing their own sons to desire to be chivalrousand unselfish to the woman of the next generation. In this way theywould help to raise the standard of honour and responsibility inhumanity in general. 

The most selfish man is not often selfish to the woman whom he is inlove with. While she excites these emotions, however he shows hiscloven hoof to the rest of the household, he will not show it to her. And even when he ceases to be in love, if his wife has filled him withrespect and admiration for her, he will hardly dare to exhibit his badqualities. You will see a man with the most odious character showingonly the nicest ways to some particular person, when he wishes tostand well with that person. Therefore, to deal successfully with aselfish man, it ought to be obvious to a woman that the only effectualmethod to employ is to seek to create in his mind _the desire toplease her_. If only men could understand that to be kind andcourteous to their wives in the home would give them much greaterliberty abroad, they would greatly add to the happiness of mostmarriages. It is her daily life which matters to a woman, because, asa rule, her brain is not developed enough to be looking ahead to thegreat questions of the day; and to have joy in her home is her earthlyparadise. 

Nearly all love marriages begin with too much emotion and too littleself-control, and so become shipwrecked upon the rocks of satiety andindifference. Young people undertake the most risky experiment in theworld as lightly and unpreparedly as they would go on a summerholiday!

It must be understood that all these arguments are used from thestandpoint of supposing the married pair start with love. When they donot, but are entering into a marriage simply from expediency, theirminds are generally calm, they have no illusions, and are thereforefree to use that judgment which they would employ over any businessaffair of their lives, and often, therefore, they get along very well. But these cannot be considered as ideal marriages, or likely toproduce highly endowed children. And in England, at least, such unionsare the exception and not the rule. 

Broadly speaking, to make any marriage happy each partner oughtdeliberately to use every atom of his or her intelligence to think outthe best method to live in sympathy with the mate, and should notsimply be set upon expressing his or her own personality, regardlessof the other. Chain any two animals together and watch the result!Nothing will teach what marriage means more effectually. It is onlywhen the two poor beasts are of one mind that their chains do notgall. But human beings are above animals in this, that they have willsand talents and aspirations, and can judge of good and evil, so thattheir happiness or misery is practically in their own hands, and toquote an immortal remark of a French writer--"If as much thought wereput into the making a success of marriage as is put into the mixing ofa salad, there would be no unhappy unions!"

V

SHOULD DIVORCE BE MADE EASIER?

However much some of us may feel that divorce can never touch ourpersonal lives, at least the question of it in regard to the nationmust always be interesting; and now, with the Majority and Minorityreport of the Royal Commission still ringing in every one's ears, itseems a moment to suggest some points of view upon the matter. Tothose people entirely influenced by religion as it is expounded fromthe laws laid down by the Church, there can be nothing to say, because, in the first place, their belief in the infallibility ofthese laws and the influence of their pastors ought certainly to keepthem from sinning at all; and if sinned against, ought to enable themto bear the pain without murmur. But there are a vast number of ourcountrymen and women who do not consider the dogmas of religion andare not entirely imbued with respect for the laws of the Church, whilenevertheless being good and honest citizens. It depends upon eachperson's point of view. 

In this paper, as in my former ones upon Marriage, I want only to takethe subject from the standpoint of common sense, while with reverenceI admit that if the moral conscience could be awakened by anyreligious convictions whatever, so that it would keep each individualfrom sinning, that would be the true solution of the problem. But, while seeking to enforce its laws in opposition to the laws of theState, the teaching of the Church seems somehow not to have been ableto retain much hold over the general conscience which, ever since thefirst secular law came into being, has availed itself of the relief soafforded to free itself from galling shackles. The point, then, tolook at sensibly is not whether divorce is right or wrong in itself, but what sort of effect the making of it easier or less easy wouldhave upon the nation. There does not seem to be the slightest use inapplying any arguments to the subject which do not take intoconsideration the immeasurable upheaval in ideas, manner of living, relaxation of personal discipline, and loss of religious control whichhave taken place since the last reform was made. The luxury ofexistence, the rapid movement from place to place permitted bymotor-cars, the emancipation of women, the general supposed necessityof indulging in amusements, have so altered all the notions of life, and so excited and encouraged interest in sex relationships, that theold idea of stability and loyalty in marriage is shaken to itsfoundations. The temptations for people to err are now a thousand-foldgreater than they were fifty years ago, and very few young people arebrought up with ideas of stern self-control at all. This being thecase, it would seem that the only rational standpoint to view thequestion of divorce reform or divorce restriction from is the onewhich gives the vastest outlook over each side's eventuality, realising present conditions and tendencies to be as they are, and notas they were, or ought to be. The forces which produced theseconditions are not on the decline, but, if anything, on the increase, and must therefore be reckoned with and not ignored. What are theylikely to bring in the future? Still greater intolerance of allrestraint, still more desire for change? And if this is so, will ithave been wiser to have made the law harder or more lenient? That isthe question we shall soon, as a people, have to try to decide. 

In setting out to look calmly at the subject of divorce, no good canbe arrived at by studying isolated cases, inasmuch as surely there canbe no divided opinion upon the fact of the cruelty of some of them, and the certainty of their betterment by divorce. The one and only aimto keep in view is what will be best for the whole people, and noother aspect should ever influence the true citizen in making up hismind upon so vital a question. Thus surely we ought each one of us toask himself or herself to look ahead, and try to imagine what would bethe result to our nation of relaxing the severity of the presentdivorce law--or of increasing it. Of the effects of its presentadministration we can judge, so it ought to be no impossible task towork from that backwards or forwards. 

But to look at any subject dispassionately, without the prejudice ofreligion or personal feeling, is one of the hardest things toaccomplish. These two forces always make people take views asunchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, regardless oftotally altered conditions and requirements of mankind. I hold a brieffor neither side, and in this paper I only want to suggest some pointsof view so as to help, perhaps, some others to look at the matter withjustice, as I have tried to look at it myself. It would seem to methat divorce as a means of ridding oneself of one partner merely to behappier with another must surely always be wrong, because it mustentail the degradation of conscious personal motive, in the knowledgethat one had taken advantage of a law to gain an end, and to help oneto break a vow solely for one's own gratification. The enormousresponsibility of so taking fate into their own hands would frightenmost people, if they gave themselves time to think--but they do not. Nine-tenths of them have no compunction in breaking vows, because theydo not realise that by making them they have connected themselves withcurrents and assumed responsibilities the consequences of which tothemselves they cannot possibly eventually avoid, no matter how theymay try temporarily to evade them. 

It would seem to me that divorce for the rich and educated should bemade as difficult as possible, and the pleas investigated mercilessly, to discover if any advantage has been taken of legal quibbles forulterior ends; but that the judge should grant decrees instantly whenhabitual drunkenness, madness, or anything which degrades and lowers ahousehold or community is proved against the defendant. It would seemto me that divorces for the poor should be facilitated in every way, if this difference to those of the rich could possibly beaccomplished, so that the hideous cruelty and encouragement of vice(cases of which are so admirably set forth in the pamphlets issued bythe Divorce Law Reform Union) could be summarily dealt with, andrelief and peace conferred upon the innocent party. Because the livesof the poor are too filled with work to be as easily influenced bypersonal emotion as the lives of the rich, and the lower level oftheir education and standard of manners admits of such far greaterunkindness and brutality in their actions than in a higher class; andthus they are the more entitled by justice to relief and protectionthan the highly endowed and developed section of society who canbetter take care of themselves. It seems to me to be a cryinginjustice that the law of divorce can only be administered by payingexorbitant fees for it; and that if the separation of two human beingswho are admittedly bound together by law can be accomplished by lawand that the breaking of the marriage vow is a sin against the law, then the poorest in the land have an absolute right that this lawshould be put into execution for them without special payment, just asthey have now a right to the Law's working for them to catch offenderswho steal their goods, or who break business contracts with them. Itwould seem that this is a frightful case of there being one law forthe rich and one for the poor, and that it is a blot upon the boastedequity and fairness of English justice. How glorious it would be ifall lawyers could be remunerated equally by the State! It would doaway with a thriving industry perhaps, but it might be a great aid toreal justice being arrived at, and not as things now are, when whoevercan pay the cleverest pleader has the best chance of winning the case. But to get back to the views of divorce!

It would seem to me that the vital and essential question all personswishing for divorce ought to ask themselves is, "What is my motive indesiring this freedom?" They should search their very souls for thetruth. If it is because the position has not only become intolerableto themselves, but is a menace to their children or society, then theyshould know that they are acting rightly in trying their utmost to befree; but if the real reason is that they may legally indulge in a newpassion, then they may be certain that if they take advantage of a lawdesigned for the benefit of a race, and use it to their own baserends, they are invoking most dangerous forces to militate againsttheir own eventual unhappiness. No one who is in a position where hisor her good or bad example will be followed has any right to indulgein any personal feelings to the influencing in a harmful way of his orher public actions. This is the true meaning of that finest of all oldsayings, "_Noblesse oblige_. " To me it would seem to be a frightfulsin for a man or woman for personal motives to degrade an order or acommunity. 

So this is the standpoint I would suggest every one looking at divorcefrom: "Will the thing bring good or harm?--not to me who am only aunit, but to that wider circle of my family and my country?" And ifcommon sense assures him or her that no good can come of it, then thetrue citizen should not hesitate to bear the pain of refraining. 

It would seem to me to be wrong to allow any personal feeling at allto influence one to divorce, no matter what the cruelty of thecircumstances or the justice of the grievance one had, _if by so doingthe children of the marriage were injured in any way, or that theprestige of an order or the honour of a family were lowered by one'saction_; but that were the husband or wife a shame and degradation tothe children or the family, the individual would be entirely justifiedin divorcing, and would be helping the good of the State by preventingthe guilty and debased partner from committing further harm. Commonsense is always the truest wisdom, but it has often unhappily had tobe cloaked and hampered either by spiritual superstition, prejudice, or ignorance. So that when a flagrant case which corrupts a wholeneighbourhood cries aloud to common sense to remove it by divorce, there are found hundreds of good and worthy people to oppose this onthe ground that the Church does not sanction such proceeding! If theState religion administered by the Church cannot inculcate higherprinciples in its members, so as to prevent them from sinning, itwould obviously seem to be more fair to allow the statesmen andsociologists to have a free hand in their attempt to better themorality of England than for the Church to use the vast influence itstill possesses to the stultifying of these plans. The homely proverbof the proof of the pudding being in the eating seems to be plainlyshown here. The religious teaching has failed to influence the peopleto refrain from sin and to discountenance divorce, proving that itsmethod of imparting knowledge and obtaining influence over the modernmind is no longer effectual, and common sense would suggest changingthe method to ensure the desired end. There is a story told of aFrench regiment in the early days of conscription. A certain size ofboots had been decided upon for recruits, and this decision had workedvery well when the young men were drawn from the town, where the feetwere comparatively small, but when countryside youths became themajority, the boots they were given were an agony to them, andconstant complaints were the result, with, however, no redress. Omnipotent head-quarters had decided the size! And that was the end ofit! And it was not until nearly the whole regiment was in hospitalwith sore feet that it entered the brain of the officials that itmight be wiser for France to regulate the size of the boots of theregiment to the feet of the wearers. Why, then, cannot the Churchdevote all its brain and force to evolving some new form of teachingwhich will, so to speak, "fit the feet of the wearers"? Then allquestions of divorce could be settled by noble and exalted feeling anddesire to do right and elevate the nation. But meanwhile, with thegrowth and encouragement of individualism, every little unit is givingforth his personal view (as I am doing in this paper!), perhaps manyof them without the slightest faculty for looking ahead, or knowledgeof how to make deductions from past events, or other countries'experiences; and the Church is preaching one thing, and the Stateanother, the Majority report taking a certain view, and the Minority adifferent one--and we are all at sea, and the supreme issue of it allseems to be fogged. 

An enormous section of the public, and almost all women it would seem, are of opinion that divorce should be granted for the same reason towomen as it is now to men. But surely those who hold this view cannotunderstand that fundamental difference in the instincts of the sexeswhich I tried to show as forcibly as I could in my former articlesupon Marriage. Infidelity in man cannot be nearly such a degradationto his own soul as infidelity in woman must be to hers, because he isfollowing natural impulses and she is following grafted ones. A womanmust feel degraded in her body and soul when she gives herself to _twomen_ at the same time, a husband and a lover; but a man, when hestrays, if it has any moral effect upon him at all, probably merelyfeels some twinges on account of breaking his word, and the fear ofbeing found out. The actual infidelity cannot degrade him as much asit generally degrades a woman, and may be only the yielding to strongtemptation at a given moment, and have no bearing upon the kind hometreatment he accords his wife and children, or the tenor of hisdomestic life. The eventuality of what this law would bring should belooked at squarely. And it is rather a pitiful picture to think of theentire happiness of a home being upset because a wife, withoutjudgment or the faculty of making deductions, discovering a singleinstance of illicit behaviour in her husband, sees fit to, and isenabled by law, to divorce him. It may be argued that the fear of thiswould make him mend his ways; but did fear ever curb strong naturalinstincts for long?--instincts as strong as hunger, or thirst, ordesire to sleep? Fear could only curb such for a time, and thenintelligence would suggest some new and cunning method of deceit, soas to obtain the desired end. The only possible way to ensure fidelityin a man is by influencing him to _wish_ to remain faithful, either byfond love for the woman or deep religious conviction or moral opinionthat not to do so would degrade his soul. The accomplishment of thisend would seem to be either in the hands of the woman or in theteaching of the Church--and cannot be brought about by law. Law canonly punish offenders; it cannot force them to keep from sin. When aman is unfaithful habitually, it amounts to cruelty, and even with thepresent law the woman can obtain relief on that ground. 

In looking at a single case of infidelity in a woman, a man would bewise to question himself to see if he has not been in some measureresponsible for it--by his own unkindness or indifference, and in notrealising her nature; and if his conscience tells him he is to blame, then he ought never to be hard upon the woman. He ought also veryseriously to consider the circumstances, and whether or no hischildren or his family will be hurt by the scandal of publicseverance, as they should be more important to him than his personalfeelings. Tolerance and common sense should always hold wounded vanityand prejudice in check. How often one sees happy and united oldcouples who in the meridian of their lives have each looked elsewhere, but have had the good taste and judgment to make no public protestabout the matter, and thus have given each other time to regaincommand of vagrant fancies and return to the fold of convention!

With so many different individual views upon the right and wrong ofdivorce, it is impossible for either side--the divorce reform or thedivorce restriction supporters--to state a wholly convincing caseagainst the other. The only possible way to view the general questionis, as I said before, to keep the mind fixed upon the main issue, _that of what may possibly be best for the nation_, having regard tothe ever-augmenting forces of luxury and liberty and democracy andwant of discipline which are holding rule. 

Lack of space prevents me from trying to touch upon the numerous othermoot points in divorce, so I will only plead that, when each personhas come to a definite and common-sense conclusion, unclouded bysentiment or prejudice, he or she may not hesitate to proclaim his orher conviction aloud, so that the law of the land may be reorganisedto the needs of present-day humanity and help it to rise to thehighest fulfilment. 

VI

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD

As far as the necessities for it go in the animal world, nearly allanimals have a very strong sense of the responsibility ofmotherhood--unless they have become over-civilised, or live underunnatural circumstances. A striking example of the consequences of thelatter state of being is shown by "Barbara, " that thrillinglyattractive Polar bear in the Zoo, whose twelfth and thirteenth infantswere only the other day condemned to follow their brothers and sistersto an early grave through their parents'--and especially theirmother's--gross stupidity about their bringing-up and welfare. And wewho are human animals, given by God conscious souls, ought to realisethe fact that civilisation and pampered environment have enormouslyblunted our natural instincts in this respect, just as they haveBarbara's, and so we should try to restore the loss by consciouslycultivating our understanding of the subject and deliberatelyrealising the tremendous responsibilities we incur by bringingchildren into the world. When we think about the matter quietly, themagnitude of it is almost overwhelming, and yet there are hundreds andthousands of women who never give it a serious thought! They have somevague idea that to have children is the inevitable result ofmatrimony, and that if they pay others to feed and clothe the littlecreatures, and give them some instruction in the way that they shouldgo, their own part of the affair is finished. That, until a child isgrown to an age to judge for itself, the parents will be heldresponsible for their stewardship of its body and soul at the greattribunal of God does not strike them, and it is only perhaps when theboomerang of their neglect has returned to them and blasted them withcalamity that they become conscious of their past negligence. 

In this article I do not propose to touch upon the father's side ofthe question, important as it is, but shall confine myself to themother's, because this has always been one of my deep preoccupationsto think out the meaning of it all, and how best to fulfil the trust. Obviously the sole aim of true motherhood is the moral and physicalwelfare of the child, and to accomplish this end we should understandthat it is quite impossible to lay down any set rule, or go by anyrecognised and unchangeable method. For in one age certain preceptsare taught which are obsolete in the next, because science and theimprovement of mechanical aids to well-being advance with such giantstrides. But if we keep _the end_ in view it is simple enough to seethat common sense and discrimination, unclouded by custom or sentimentor superstition, can accomplish miracles. The circumstances of theparticular case must always govern the method to be used in order toobtain the same given end, no matter what the station in life of theparents. Thus every mother, from the humblest to the highest, ought tothink out how she can best procure her child moral and physicalwelfare _according to her means_. 

In the lives of the very poor the only thing to be done for thebetterment of the understanding of the responsibility of motherhoodseems to be to teach the simplest rules of hygiene which animals knowby instinct, and after that for the State to take care of the childrenas much as possible. For this very strange fact is in operation, namely, that while Nature leaves an insatiable desire to create life, she allows civilisation to rob human beings of instinctive knowledgeof how to preserve it in its earliest stages, and that the humanmother is of all creation the only one entirely at the mercy ofimparted knowledge as regards the proper treatment of her offspring. 

Into the conception of the duties of motherhood among the very poor wecannot go in this short paper--the subject is too vast--so we mustconfine ourselves to discussing those of a higher class where, havingthe means to do well, the responsibilities are far greater. I want, ifI can, to open a window, as it were, upon the outlook of the generalresponsibility of motherhood and let each class apply what it gathersof the meaning, if it wishes, to its own circumstances. 

It is the aim and end of a thing which is of sole importance; in thiscase the aim and end being the happiness and welfare of the child. Andthat is the point which I want to harp upon, the necessity of keepingthe goal in view and of not wandering off into side issues. It was forthe sake of the end, namely, obtaining happiness, that I tried to showin my articles upon marriage how common sense might secure thisdesired state. And it was to _the end_ of what might be best forEngland that I pleaded for the necessity of using fair judgment overthe question of facilitating or restricting divorce. And it is now to_the end_ of helping the coming race to be fine and true that I wantto talk about the responsibility of motherhood. 

Let us take the subject from the very beginning. 

PRE-NATAL INFLUENCES

The thought for the child should commence with the first knowledge ofits coming birth. A tremendous control of self, and emotions, andfoolish habits, and a stern command of nerves should be theprospective mother's constant effort, as science has proved that allpre-natal influences have such powerful effect upon the child; and, surely, if any woman stopped to think of the colossal responsibilityshe has undertaken in having become the vehicle to bring a soul fromGod to earth, she would at least try to employ as much intelligence inthe fulfilment of her obligation as she puts into succeeding in any ofthe worldly pursuits in life. Think of the hours some women spend inpainful discipline by going through exercises to keep their figuresyoung and their faces beautiful--the massage! the cures! and the"rests" they take to this end--but who let their waiting time formotherhood be passed in a sort of relaxation of all control--gettinginto tempers, indulging in nerves, over-smoking, or tiring themselvesout with excitement without one thought for the coming little one, except as an inevitable necessity or a shocking nuisance. During thisperiod the wise woman ought to study such matters as heredity. Sheought to view the characteristics of her own and her husband'sfamilies, and then firmly determine to counteract the objectionablefeatures in them by making her own mind dwell upon only good and fineattributes for her child. She ought to try to keep herself in perfecthealth by using common sense, and, above all, she should _determine_to fight and conquer the nervous emotions which more or less beset allwomen at such time. She ought to encourage happy and loving relationswith her husband, and try in every way to be in herself good andgentle and brave. It is the most important moment in the whole of awoman's life for self-discipline, because of the prodigious results ofall her moods and actions upon the child, and yet, as I said before, it is one of the commonest sights to see a woman who at other times isa very good sort of creature, simply letting herself go and becomingan insupportable bore to her husband and the whole house, with herperverseness and her nerves and her fads. 

If they could analyse causes, what bitter reproaches many poor littlediseased, neurotic children might truly throw at their irresponsiblemothers for endowing them with these evils before birth. 

THE CASE OF TWO WOMEN

When the child is born--again it is only its welfare which should bethought of by the mother, and not what custom or family opinion wouldenforce. To me it seems that no mother ought to undertake any of theso-called duties of a mother that she is incapable of performing tothe advantage of the child, who would be better cared for by employinghighly trained service. She should only force herself to do her bestin uncongenial tasks if circumstances make it impossible for her toobtain a better nurse or teacher for her infant than she herself couldbe. She must constantly keep _the end_ in view, so as to stamp outprejudice and out-of-date methods; especially she should guard againstmaking the child suffer for her own fads and experiments. I believe Ishall better illustrate what I mean by "keeping the end in view" if Igive a few concrete examples, instead of trying to explain in theabstract. 

Here is one example. 

There were two women of my acquaintance, one of whom had an exquisitelyobedient, perfectly brought-up little girl of five who was herconstant thought, and a baby of two months. This mother could affordan excellent nurse, and left all the physical care of the infant toher, concentrating her intelligence upon wise general supervision, andupon the training of the little girl whose dawning character was herstudy. The other mother had two very ill-behaved, disobedient childrenof five and seven, and a baby of three months. She spent her timewashing and dressing the infant, fussing over it and caressing it frommorning to night, and interfering with the paid nurse, who well knewher duties. She was also quite indifferent to her appearance, andwearied her husband to death with her over-domesticity. But she feltherself to be a perfect and affectionate wife and mother, and stronglycensured the other woman when she admitted that she had never washedor dressed her baby, and was even rather nervous when she held it incase she should hurt its tender neck and head. But the proof that thefirst woman was a true and good guardian of God's gift to her was inthe finely trained little girl, and the proof of the second woman'sundevelopment from the animal stage was in her concentrated and, inthe circumstances, unnecessary preoccupation with the infant, to theentire neglect of the character training of the elder children. Hadthey both been so poor that actual physical care of the infantsdevolved solely upon each mother, the first would have used all herintelligence to discover the sensible and common-sense way to carryout her duties, and the second would have continued using any obsoletemethod she had been accustomed to, while she lavished silly fuss andattention upon the baby. 

FORE-THOUGHT FOR BEAUTY

The first woman had _the end_ in view; the second did not look aheadat all, but simply indulged her own selfishly animal instincts, without a thought of what would be best for her child. 

The apparently "good" mothers might be divided into two classes--theanimal mothers and the spiritual mothers. The animal mothers arebetter than indifferent, and therefore abnormal, mothers, but are farbelow spiritual mothers, for they, the animal mothers, are onlyobeying natural instincts which have happily survived in them, butobeying them only as animals do, without reason or conscience. And thespiritual mother uses her common sense and tries to secure thecontinual welfare of her child, looking ahead for all eventualities, from matters of health to personal appearance, as well as charactertraining and soul elevation. 

Numbers of women think that if they follow out the same lines ofbringing-up for their children as are the recognised ones employed bytheir class they have fully done their duty, and that if the childrendo not profit by the stereotyped lessons of religion and behaviourthat have been imparted to them by proper teachers it is the fault ofthe children, and a misfortune which they, the mothers, must bear withmore or less resignation. 

But indeed this is not so. 

Let us take a spiritual mother's duties in rotation, beginning withthe most material. After bringing into the world the healthiest infanther common sense has been able to secure, she should guard against anyphysical disability accruing to it that she can prevent. In allmatters of health she should either make a great study of the subjectherself, or employ trained aid to its accomplishment; but beyond thisthere are other things which, if she neglects them, the boy or girlcould reproach her for afterwards and with reason. One is thefore-thought for beauty. How many boys' whole personal appearances areruined by standing-out ears! How many little girls' complexions areirretrievably spoilt by unsuitable soap having been used which hasburnt red veins into their tender cheeks. These two small examples areentirely the fault of the mother and do not lie at the door ofuncorrected habits in the children themselves. No boy's ears needstick out; there are caps and every sort of contrivance yearly beingimproved upon to obviate this disfigurement. No girl need haveanything but a beautiful skin if her mother uses intelligence andsupervises the early treatment of it. Because if she has _the end_ inview, the mother will know that her little boy or girl will probablygrow up and desire affection and happiness, and that beauty is a meansnot to be discounted to obtain these good things, and, for thesecuring of them, is relatively as important as having a well-endowedmind. 

THE SPIRITUAL MOTHER

When the first dawning characteristics begin to show, the spiritualmother's study of heredity will begin to stand her in good stead, forshe must never forget that every expressed thought and action of asmall child shows the indication of some undeveloped instinct, andshould be watched by a sensible mother, so that she may decide whichone to encourage and which one to curb, and, if possible, eradicate. Should there be some strong inherited tendency which is not good, thenher most careful care and influence will be needed. There is not theslightest use in making rules and then leaving their enforcement toservants and governesses--the true mother should see that her childthoroughly understands what it is being asked to do, and why it isbeing asked to do it. She should appeal to its intelligence fromearliest days, and make it comprehend it is for its own benefit. Forchildren cannot when very young be influenced by high moralconsiderations which come with maturer years, but only by personalgain or fear--and if ruled by fear they invariably become deceitful. It is a spiritual mother's business to show interest in all herchild's tastes and occupations, and to supervise and direct them intothe best channels, and if she has several children she should watcheach one's idiosyncrasies and not imagine that the same method will dofor them all. What good gardener would treat a rose-tree in the samefashion which he does a tulip bulb? The spiritual mother should thinkout for herself, guided by what she sees are their personal needs, thebest method of instructing her children in true morality--that is, honour and truth, and freedom from all hypocrisy and deceit. Sheshould not be influenced by any set-down rules of religion or dogma, or by any precepts she may have been taught herself in her youth, ifthey no longer convey conviction because of the change in time, otherwise she will be following custom and losing sight of _the end_. She should make her children understand that the soiling of their ownsouls by committing mean actions is the greatest sin, and that whatother people think or do not think of them is of no consequence, butthe only vital things are what God thinks and they think ofthemselves. Hundreds of children's afterlives are shipwrecked becausethey were only taught all the dry dogmas and seemings of religion, andthe real meaning was never explained to them. I know a rigorouslystrict clergyman's family where the children are taught and conform toall the observances of their father's church, and yet a falser, morepaltry set of young creatures could not be found--they have never hadit explained to them that it is impossible to hoodwink God. For aperfect example of the religious spirit _not to_ employ towardschildren, all mothers ought to read the immortal scene between Trilbybefore she dies and Mrs. Bagot--when the narrow woman expresses herpuny views and Trilby puts forth her broad and true ones. It is soincredibly stupid to use obsolete methods which can never obtain thedesired end just because the dominion of custom is still strong uponus, and we have not been intelligent enough to grasp and benefit bythe spirit of the age. For all mothers must realise that they cannever dominate the spirit of the age, and must either make vain fightswith it, and be conquered to their loss, or must make terms with itand use it in its brightest and best aspect. The spirit of this age isa totally different one to the spirit of their own childhood's age. Itis shorn of reverence and unquestioning obedience to elders, and is anindependent creature who will only obey through conviction of good orpersonal benefit. Children are unerring and pitiless judges of thoseplaced over them, and how can a mother, just because she is a mother, expect respect and reverence in her children if she earns theircontempt by her conduct and selfishness?

It is the spiritual mother's duty to instil chivalry towards the othersex into her little sons from earliest years, by making them polite toherself and to their sisters. She should, before they go to school andwhen they return for the holidays, endeavour to influence them intoliking cleanliness and care of their persons, especially when withladies. She should try to make these little men so happy andcontented, so certain of sympathy and understanding that home spellsheaven for them and remains the dearest memory of their lives, and forher little girls, over whom she has a far vaster influence, she shouldpolish their minds, explain all the true and pure principles oflife--teach them the value of self-control and self-respect, and watchfor and encourage all their graces, so that when they arrive at theages of seventeen and eighteen they may be fitted in all points toshine in whatever world they belong to, and take their places amongthe best of their class. Space forbids me to go on longer, althoughthe subject seems only just to have been begun, so large is its sphereof action, but I must give one last concrete example of two women'smethods, to enforce my meaning of the importance of _the end_. 

Both sent their girls to the same school, where every accomplishmentwas taught and the highest tone prevailed that the masters couldinculcate. The first mother showed deep interest in the holidays, inall her child's lessons, directed and encouraged her, opening herunderstanding and broadening her point of view, while she attended toevery physical grace. She explained how her child should apply theknowledge she acquired during term, so that it should growinteresting, and as far as it lay in her power she endeavoured thather daughter should be fitted with every charm and attraction whichcould procure for her later on a larger selection from which to chooseher partner in life. The other mother let her girl run wild during theholidays, and allowed her to feel that all she learned was just anirksome duty to be forgotten the moment school was over. Herappearance, her gentle manners, her refinement, her point of view, were all left to take their own chance, from the mistaken idea that itwould encourage vanity and egotism in the girl to discuss these thingswith her--and that she, the mother, had done all that was required ofher in simply providing a good education! This second mother hadcompletely lost sight of the end, you see, and was unconsciously onlythinking of herself and not of her child at all. 

And this--to think of the welfare of the child and allow no otherpoint to obscure this--is the whole meaning of the responsibility ofmotherhood. 

VII

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERHOOD. SECOND PAPER

What I always wish to impress upon the readers who are kind enough tobe interested in the articles which I write is to keep the end aimedat in view. So in this second paper upon the responsibility ofmotherhood, I must begin by reiterating this necessity. 

No mother has a right to drift and trust to chance for the welfare ofher children, and however they develop, for good or ill, she must ingreater or lesser degree be held responsible. 

The period when animals cease all interest in and care for theiroffspring only commences when these latter can safely be left to lookafter themselves; and so it should be with human beings. But, judgingthe ages relatively of animals and mankind, numbers of human mothersentirely neglect their progeny long before they have come even to thefledgling stage! How often in society one sees women of forty-five andyounger with daughters of fifteen to twenty, about whose realcharacters and souls they know nothing! They have always been too busywith their own personal interest to give the time and sympathyrequired for a real mother's understanding of her children. Servantsand governesses have been the directors through the most criticalperiod of the girls' lives, and it is merely a piece of luck if theyhave imbibed no ill from them. 

There are numbers of worthy and innocent women married to men whosecharacters have certain forcible and unpleasant traits, which are morethan likely to be reproduced in their children, but from the limitededucation these good creatures have received, and the absence of allhabit of personal analysation of cause and effect, they never realisethat it is their bounden duty to be on the lookout for the first signsof the hereditary traits appearing, and the necessity for usingspecial care and influence to counteract them. 

A woman (unless too vain) knows very well her own failings and her owngood qualities, and can, if she is wise, suppress or encourage themwhen they show in her children; but she cannot trace thecharacteristics of remote ancestors, or even be certain of what herhusband has on his side endowed their joint offspring with, so herduty is to be on the watch from the very commencement, and to use herintelligence as she already uses it in every ordinary affair in life. 

People of even the most mediocre understanding are quite sensibleenough to select the right implements to carry on any work that theyhave undertaken. A woman about to sew a fine piece of muslin does notdash haphazard into her work-basket and pick out any needle whichcomes first, and any thread, coarse or fine, which is handy. She wouldknow very well that her work would be a sorry affair if she did so, and that, on the contrary, she must choose the exact fineness of boththread and needle to sew this particular bit of stuff satisfactorily, the ones she may have employed an hour before upon firm cloth being ofno use for muslin. 

She is keeping _the end_ in view. 

LOOKING AHEAD

But countless numbers of mothers never understand that any differentmethod is necessary with different children; they just go on in theold way they have been taught when young themselves, if they troubleat all about the matter. 

Every woman who has a child ought to ask herself these questions: Whois responsible for this child being in the world? Am I and my husbandresponsible, or is the child responsible itself? The answers areridiculously obvious, and, when realised, the remembrance of themshould entail grave obligations upon the parents. 

The mother should look ahead and try to determine whether or no whatseems to be showing as the result of the ideas of up-bringing in thepast fifteen years is good or bad. 

The main features of that system being the relaxation of alldiscipline and the cessation of the inculcation of self-control, because the standards suddenly became different. Formerly, to performDuty (spelt with a big D!) was the only essential matter in life, andto obtain happiness was merely a thing by the way. In the past fifteenyears the essential goal sought after has been happiness, and duty hasbeen merely the thing by the way. But a very large number of themothers of England have not perhaps begun to develop sufficient scopeof brain to enable them to judge what will eventually bring happiness;they can only see the immediate moment, and to indulge theirchildren's every desire seems to be the simplest way. But they forgetthat during this short and impressionable stage of life all strengthand will-power and self-control ought to be enforced and encouraged, to enable the loved children to withstand hardships and to attracthappiness in the long after years. A mother should ask herself if itis worth while, in securing a joyous and irresponsible childhood andadolescence, to leave her children at the end of them unarmed and atthe mercy of every adverse blast. The great dangers which seem to beresulting from the system of upbringing in the last fifteen years arethat at seventeen or eighteen most young people are satiated withpleasure and blasé with life, while they have no definite aim or endof achievement in view, and absolutely no sense of duty orresponsibility to the community. 

THE FIRST OBLIGATION

It would seem to me that a mother's first obligation is to enforcediscipline, and to teach self-control from the earliest infancy withthe fondest loving care, and to transmit that sense of responsibilityfor noble citizenship into her children which should have been her ownguiding star. 

But, again, to do so she must not employ obsolete methods withouttaking into account the spirit of the age which has aroused a sense ofpersonal liberty in the youngest child, and makes it refuse to acceptrules and regulations on trust. It must be convinced that they are forits good, or it will only bow to them by fear, learn to deceive, andremain rebellious and determined at the first opportunity to throw offthe yoke and go its own way. I will give a concrete case of what Imean upon this point, to show how even a good woman can misunderstandthe real meaning of the responsibility of motherhood, and by hermethod of upbringing can allow misfortune to fall upon her youngfamily. 

Here is a lady of the highest rank, who comes of a steady and worthystock, and who has been brought up herself strictly and well. Shemarries a man of great position, but with rather wild blood in hisveins. She has no modern ideas of only desiring a small family; shewishes to and intends to do her duty to her state, and is by no meansset upon personal amusement. 

As the years go on she becomes the mother of four boys and two girls. She engages the best nurses for them, and, later on, the bestgovernesses and tutors. The children are taught their catechism onSundays and are drilled as those of their class into having goodoutward manners and behaviour. They are given orders withoutexplanations, which they are expected to obey unquestioningly, andthey are duly punished when they are disobedient. They see theirparents at stated hours each day, and are seemingly a well-regulatedand satisfactory young brood. 

The good woman and great lady's time is naturally much occupied withsocial duties, and duties to her husband's tenants, and to variouscharities and good works in which she is interested. She fulfils allthese admirably, and is generally held in affection and respect. Allthe children have been treated exactly the same by her, although sheknows that her husband has a dishonourable, gambling, scapegracebrother who has had to be sent to Australia, and that her husbandhimself has had tastes, the reverse of orthodox where his emotionswere concerned, though happily he has not jeopardised the familyfortunes as his brother would have done had he been head. All thechildren have been so well brought up and instructed in the tenets ofthe Church that she feels quite placid and sure that she has done allthat could be expected of her, and is horribly surprised anddistressed when disasters presently occur. She looks upon them as thewill of God and fate, but feels in no way to blame personally. 

A HATRED OF PREACHING

It had never struck her intelligence that boys with such heredity inthem should have been specially influenced and directed from earliestyouth towards ideas of the finest honour and proudest responsibilityin keeping unblemished their ancient name; that all the stupiditiesand follies of gambling should have been pointed out to them; that thecertain temptations which are bound to beset the path of those intheir position should have been fully explained to them--all this donein a simple, common-sense fashion which would convince theirunderstanding. She had never thought that it would be wise to makethem clearly comprehend why they should try to resist bad habits andyouthful lusts of the flesh--not so much from the point of view thatsuch things are sins, as because science and experience have shownthat the indulgence in them spoils health and brain and pleasure inmanhood. Boys are creatures full of common sense, and their educationin public schools broadens and helps their understanding of logicalsequences, if only things are explained to them without mystery andtoo much spiritual emphasis being put upon them. They so hate beingpreached at! No young, growing person in normal animal health andspirits can be guided and coerced to resist the desires of the body_solely_ by religious and moral teaching; he must have some definitereward and gain upon this earth held out to him as well; there must besome tangible reason for abstinence to convince his imagination andstrengthen his will. And the gain he is offered if he resists certaintemptations is that he will grow strong and powerful, and the betterable, when his judgment is ripe enough to discriminate properly, toenjoy real pleasures later on. When the adolescent spiritual selfbegins to rule him, then the moral point can be more forcibly pressedhome; but it is quite futile while he is at the growing animal stage. 

Our good and highly placed mother of whom we are speaking has neverthought of any of these laws of cause and effect, as applied to herown nearest and dearest, although she is accustomed to think outschemes for the betterment and development of her Girls' Friendlysocieties, or for furthering her husband's political interests in thecountry. 

INHERITED CHARACTER

She sees good little well-behaved daughters coming down in "thechildren's hour" and receives favourable reports from the governesses, and has no idea, or even any speculation about what strange and newthoughts and emotions may be commencing to germinate in their brains. Mildred has perhaps inherited her father's _volage_ nature where theother sex are concerned, and early shows tendencies which ought to besympathetically checked and directed. Catherine has got a strong touchof Uncle Billy's unscrupulousness, and is often deceitful andscheming, with a wonderful aptitude for the nursery dominoes and othergames of chance. But both, taught by Fräulein or Mademoiselle--andthat good old Nurse Timson!--only show their mother their sweetestside when in her company, and are meek, well-behaved little mice, influenced to be thus not from any moral conviction--because if thatwere so they would be good at all times as well--but swayed by thecertain knowledge of personal physical gain if they make a goodimpression upon mother, and certain punishment and unpleasantness fromthe governesses if they do not. All goes along smoothly until therising sap of nature begins to dominate their lives; then some outwardand visible sign of their inherited tendencies begins to show, theforce causing its expression being stronger for the time than anyother thing. 

One of the boys gambles, and goes to the Jews for money. The eldestson and heir, who has never had the wiles of women revealed andexplained to him, or the temptations which are bound to be thrust uponhim because of his great position in the world pointed out to him, succumbs to the fascinations and falls into the snares of a cunningchorus girl. Our good mother and great lady has steadily avoided evenadmitting that there can be sex questions in life, and has rigorouslybanished all possible discussion of them as not being a subject whichshould be talked of in any nice family. She has never given anyespecial teaching to arouse pride in his old name in her eldest son, or impressed the great responsibility there is in the worthyguardianship of the fine position God has endowed him with. He hasjust been allowed to drift with the rest, and, unwarned and unarmed, has fallen in the first fight with his physical emotions. 

INSTINCTS UNCHECKED

A third son is apparently the darling of the gods; he is full ofcharm. But, fearing that the gambling propensities of his secondbrother should come out in him also, his parents keep him with specialstrictness and very short of money. The same absence of allexplanations of the meaning of things has been his portion as well asthat of his brothers and sisters. He has never been enlightened as tothe possible workings of heredity, and shown how that as the vice ofgambling is in the blood it will require special will-power toovercome it. None of these things has been pointed out to him, and so, being restive at restraint and worried for money, he soon slips intoeasy ways, and often allows women to help him in his difficulties. Uncle Billy's instincts and his own father's have combined in him. Both could have been checked and diverted into sane channels withloving foresight and knowledge and sympathy. 

The fourth son goes early into the Navy, and the discipline and theinheritance of his mother's more level qualities turn him into asplendid fellow; but this is mere chance, and cannot be counted asaccruing from his mother's care. 

Here is a case where every outward circumstance seemed to bepropitious, and where both parents were good and respected members oftheir class and race. But neither had the intelligence to realise anend, or consciously to keep it in view; they were solely ruled bytradition and what seemed to them--especially the mother--to be theproper and well-established religious methods for the bringing up oftheir children. So the remorseless laws of cause and effect rolled ontheir Juggernaut car and crushed the victims. 

Now, if this mother had had the end--that of her children's happinessand welfare--really in view, she would have questioned herself as tothe best methods of obtaining that end, and would not have beencontent just to go on with the narrow ideas which had held sway in herown day, and which had perhaps then succeeded very well, because, as Isaid before, they were aided by the two forces now stultified--namely, a tremendous discipline and a spirit of the age which brought nosuggestion of a struggle for personal liberty to young minds. Had shethought out all these things, she would have understood theresponsibilities of motherhood in their real sense, and not only inthe sense which the outward appearance judges good. She would havepoured love and sympathy on each one of her children separately andindividually, since she was the half-cause of their coming to earth. She would have studied each one's character, and with determinedconcentration have inculcated the necessary pride in fine actions inthem, knowing what their pitfalls would be likely to be. She wouldhave taught the simple religion of respect for the loan God has madein giving their bodies a soul, and she would have watched for possiblesigns of ill, and would finally have guided each one through thedangerous age on to the time when every man and woman must answer forhimself and herself. 

Heredity is sometimes stronger than even the wisest bringing up; butwho can say how many families might not have been saved and kepttogether by a prudent and understanding mother's love?

There is a story, which exactly illustrates the point of theimportance of keeping _the end_ in view, told of the Iron Duke in thePeninsular War. I cannot remember the exact details, and they are ofno consequence. The point is this: There was a certain tremendouslyobstinate Spanish general whom the Duke (then Sir Arthur Wellesley)found very difficult to lead. The moment had arrived when it wasabsolutely necessary for success that this general should move histroops to a certain position. He was a man filled with his ownimportance, and he refused huffily to do so unless the English chiefwent down upon his knees to him!

The Iron Duke is reported to have replied to this message in some suchwords as these: "Good Lord! the winning of the day is the essentialthing, not the resisting of the man's vanity! I'll go down upon myknees with pleasure if that will make him move his troops!" He did, and the Spanish general conceded the request and the day was won. 

The great commander and astute Englishman had _the end_ in view, yousee, whereas the lesser brain of the Spaniard would have sacrificedthe battle for a personal whim, having lost sight, in his vanity, ofthe importance of the main issue. 

How many parents do this day after day and year after year, clingingto obsolete methods, trying to rule by worn-out precepts, allbecause--when you come to analyse it--their own sense of importancereally matters to them more than their children's welfare, and no onehas opened their eyes to see themselves and their actions in the truelight. 

Although the case which I have just given of the seemingly good motherwas drawn from the highest class, and so at first sight might not besaid to apply to lesser grades, yet I want to show that this is notso, but that the same principle applies to the most modest littlefamily. 

Every mother should study how best she can develop and elevate thesouls which by her own part-action she has brought into being, andmake that aim her first thought--for surely the satisfaction of thefeeling that one has succeeded in training one's own children to highideals and the attainment of happiness would be greater in old agethan any gratification from the acquirement of social supremacy orrealised personal ambitions. 

I would implore every mother, of any class, ruthlessly to reject allthe rules which she has been taught for the guidance of her family, _unless she has proved with common sense that they can be profitablyapplied to each particular case_. I would ask her to keep to notransmitted axiom, _unless it comes up to the requirements of theever-changing and ever-advancing day_. There is only one unchangeableand immutable command which we should follow, and this is that weshould not soil our souls, or render them up to God degraded andsmirched when we go hence upon that journey from whence no manreturneth. 

In summing up both my articles upon the responsibility of motherhood, I find that in this second one I have made two statements which mightread as contradictions. Firstly, I spoke of young people requiringpersonal gain to be held out to them as a reason for committing, orrefraining from committing, certain actions; and then, a paragraph ortwo afterwards, I gave the illustration of the little girls' goodbehaviour to their mother as being only caused by the fact that it wasmore to their advantage so to behave. What I meant to show was thatwhile boys are young and full of the rising impulses of nature theyvery rarely can have acquired sufficient spiritual belief to make themrefrain from indulging in certain pleasures--or what seem pleasures tothem--merely because they have been told these pleasures are wrong. For instance, on the subject of smoking. What boy will stop smoking bybeing told it is wrong and that he is sinning by his disobedience? Butthere are many intelligent ones who will not indulge in it if it isexplained to them that smoking will stop their growth and make themless likely to succeed in the cricket eleven, or, later, in thecollege eight. At that period the mind cannot look into unseen worlds, and is mainly occupied with realities from day to day, and thereforeis more likely to be influenced by a simple explanation of whatphysical harm or what good in the immediate future will be the resultof actions. 

The little girls' behaviour to their mother is really an example ofthis same rule, only the principle for their action was not good, being merely temporary and strictly limited gain, and not that theyshould, as in the case of the boys, grow into fine, strong and healthypeople, more able to enjoy life in the future. 

There is another statement which I have constantly made which possiblymight be twisted or misunderstood, and that is the one of theimportance of the end. There are people who would turn it into theJesuitical motto of "The end justifies the means. " That is not what Iwished to convey at all, but that if an end is good--and the mainobject, admittedly, is to obtain it--then there is no use in usingmethods which once might have accomplished this, but which no longerare practical because of the changed conditions, and if continued inwill only lose all possibility of success. 

How many fathers and mothers in past days have driven their offspringto disgrace and even death by adhering to harsh, Puritanical systems, out of date even at that time! And how many more to-day let them slipinto the same abysses by their too indulgent rule!

As I have said, over and over again, the proof of any pudding is inthe eating of it; so let every mother _examine her methods with herchildren by this standard: Are the children developing in moral andphysical welfare by those which she is using, or are theyretrogressing?_ Is she employing tact to guide their young fiercespirits, or is she trying to crush them by old-fashioned rules?

Questions such as these ought to be honestly asked by each mother ofherself, and if the answer proves that retrogression is in progress, then she should not be so incredibly stupid as to continue in her oldlines, but should examine herself and see how she can find the rightnew ones for her particular cases. La Rochefoucauld was wise when hesaid that vanity was at the root of most human mistakes. If a woman isnot willing to undertake the true responsibility of motherhood, thenshe had far better be that sad thing which is a growing quantity inmodern civilisation, namely, a childless wife devoted to dogs. Hundreds of selfish, neurotic females show the utmost unselfishdevotion to wretched little pet animals, when the slightestself-denial asked of them for little human atoms is more than they canaccord. What does this mean? Is it a writing upon the wall?