Image unavailable: THE INFANTA EULALIA Photograph by Baumann, Munich.THE INFANTA EULALIAPhotograph by Baumann, Munich.
becoming, in talent, energy, and patient determination, rivals of scientists, poets, and all who devote themselves to enterprise in the world of mind.
But, it may be said, such claims are contrary to the idea of the family. Not at all. The family, essentially modified, each member subject to the determinism of thought and ensuring the observance of mutual rights and duties, will only become a more beautiful institution than before, its children born of sincere love and no longer the product of undesirable or questionable unions based upon the interests of the strongest.
Tothis question squarely put: “Why does a man arrogate to himself the right to live as he chooses, and why should a woman submit to a prohibitive moral code?”—men answer that in marriage the virtue of the wife and the legitimacy of her children are absolutely and supremely essential.
This touches one point merely, and only applies to married women. In all that concerns “free” women, by what right are they condemned to abstain from making full use of their independence, as most men do? “Woman’s life, like man’s,” says Miramont, “is a harmonious evolution, by which every phase is developed, and which thus brings into play a succession of forms and aspects of existence. Daughter, mother and grandmother; dreamer, fighter, thinker—woman, like man, passes through many transformations in the course of life, and is always progressive.”
By the same fact of social evolution, thanks to her participation in the battle of life, and also to a rational education, it has long been proved that woman is not an inferior creature, of no use save for the propagation of the species.
We are far removed, happily, from the theories of Schopenhauer, who declared that woman was afflicted with intellectual shortness of sight, that she was childish, futile and narrow, inferior to man in everything concerning rectitude and scrupulous honesty; that she was lacking in sense and reflection, incapable of taking any unbiased view, etc. etc.
If woman’s characteristic feature be that nature has destined her for motherhood, it is none the less true that, just as she has a fine skin and quick sensibilities, her intellect is prompt to seize details, and that she possesses a brain as well furnished as that of man.
Her apparent inferiority comes from the fact that woman is oppressed by the law and ill-treated by the moralist, whence result her native timidity and diffidence. The truth isthat man, desiring to keep the supremacy attributed to him, does not care to see in woman the qualities of courage and independence. He will not admit the immanent struggle between two beings inspired by the same needs and the same desires. Men would like women to remain tied down to household cares, while thinking women who have ceased to resign themselves to this wish their sex to profit by all the rights of men.
The partisans of absolute feminism desire that there should be no difference between men and women, in the name of biological equality which incites them to claim social equality.
Without going so far as this, it is certain that women should now enjoy more independence and be authorised, without losing caste in the eyes of moralists, to prove the strength of their personal faculties.
Unfortunately, as a modern thinker has observed: “Kept apart from magnificent realities ... maintained continually in a state of moral independence worse than physical slavery, only quitting the maternal yoke to fall under that of a husband, trained entirely with a view to marriage, which is to transform at a stroke thechild into the wife, the wife into the mother, educated according to the prejudices of their set at the sacrifice of expansion of their own personality, women do not develop normally, except by finding a kindred soul, according to the ideal formed in their dim consciousness. And as social conventions do not permit them to seek this ideal, which is falsified and made vague, too, by novel-reading, enlightenment usually comes to them too late to destroy the effect of a narrow existence accepted through timidity, ignorance, or chagrin, and moulded by the dictates of society; so they live, for the most part, either like children broken in to their destiny, or like rebels in search of visionary compensations: in any case misunderstood.”
I have nothing better to add. For centuries, man has denied to woman her finest qualities, which arefearlessnessandpresence of mind, and the majority of women have come to be convinced themselves that these qualities are unwomanly and to be reckoned faults.
Now, if tenderness be woman’s most beautiful attribute, it should be recognised that true tenderness is especially found amongst those women who are courageous, strong andendowed with shrewd sense. The acceptance of servitude does not admit of real tenderness, such as influences, for instance, the conception and carrying out of works of art, as incites to noble action, and produces wonderful results in every degree of the social scale.
For years, in many countries, the attention of thinkers has been fixed upon the liberation of woman. Many mistakes have been made. Against one John Stuart Mill a crowd of philosophers like Nietzsche have arisen, but the idea is gaining ground in scientific centres, and, with the help of rational Socialism, the work of woman’s emancipation is being steadily pursued.
Reverting to old times, we find that in many primitive races, the males were chosen by the females for their valour, physical strength, or natural beauty. This selection having led to the progressive development of the male in the majority of races, resulted in an ideal female type also.
But when the woman became the “property” of the man, the slave destined to work for the male, the development of the race stopped short; the salutary effect of the woman’s free choice having ceased.
In a new state of society, when woman, duly trained for her part, shall recover her complete freedom, we shall see the triumph of affinities, and the power of a feminine ideal will ensure for the future a new and vigorous race.
Itis incomprehensible that so many intellectual, sensible men, claiming to be logical, should be hostile to modern feminism. I say “modern” to mark the actual state of conflict, foreternal feminismis contemporaneous with theeternal feminine, as Lucien Muhlfeld says. Following Schopenhauer and Strindberg, who strove to demonstrate the inferiority of woman, our detractors, in making war upon feminism, show themselves to be very inconsistent. As woman, is, in their eyes, an inferior being, they are either fighting what they have no reason to fear, which shows lack of courage on their part; or, by admitting that under present conditions woman plays an important part in everyday life, they recognise in her a certain value, which shows a lack of sincerity.
On the day woman first recognised the fact that she could earn her living by taking up theemployments hitherto reserved for men, she made good her claim to a share of instruction and training by means of which to put an end to her mental inequality.
Unable to escape from the subordinate position in the family thrust upon her by the Civil Code, she determined to free her mind first, and gain recognition of her rights in the domain of intellect. This seemed inadmissible, even in respect of the principles of science.
Now, in times gone by, women worked as much as, and often more than, men, thus gaining recognition of their physical strength. When man was still a barbarian, hunting and fighting for mere subsistence, woman hunted and fought with him; just as his comrade, she carried the slain beast over her shoulder. Later, she spun flax to clothe her family; she was obliged, in her enslaved condition, to turn to common uses her intellect and devotion, and when, later still, the family was placed on a legal footing, she was obliged to give all her faculties to manual labour.
Long centuries passed. Man had no longer to fight for his daily bread. One invention after another had gradually modified the conditions of his life; he had become educated,had attained to different trades and professions, developed his power and authority, while woman remained the same dependent creature, tied to her duties as wife and mother. A time came when woman, too, learnt trades which she made her own. Man took them from her, possessed himself of her needle, of clothes-making, hairdressing, cookery. This is why, in the eighteenth century, women attempted an inroad into letters and the arts. This is why, helped by the Revolution, they sought to claim common rights. To-day, trained at school and college, women know that they can utilise their faculties more nobly than hitherto. They no longer live in an epoch when, men having absorbed everything, they have to resign themselves to being married, whilst hardly more than children, for a livelihood.
Consider how sad was the lot of the woman when, devoid of the means to free herself honestly from slavery, she was compelled to sell herself, by legal marriage or otherwise.
Whatever certain philosophers and anti-feminists may say, the reason why the personality of the woman weakened in the course of ages, was that her physical force had been exhausted, which entailed mental inferiority.
But through the progress of science, innovations of all kinds, economic and social evolution, daily events; throughout the complexities of a new life, woman began to make her influence felt, became conscious of her powers, strengthened by study, system and experience.
Strindberg, the misogynist, when he declared that “woman is incapable of acquiring complete knowledge in any branch of study whatsoever,” said a foolish thing. In proof of the contrary, in the university, in the art schools, in law, women are said to be, if not superior to men, at least their equal.
It must be remembered that it is less than a century since woman, even in the most advanced countries, was first allowed to receive the same training as man. Taking into consideration how far behind her rival in intellect she then was, the results she has obtained give a flat contradiction to those who opposed her equality, which, originally a law of nature, has, under modern social conditions, become a law of existence.
If it be true that it takes several generations to perfect a race from a physical point of view, it is equally true that several generations areneeded for the development of the moral and intellectual qualities. If only through the consciousness of herego, woman is called to take a more important place in the life of nations.
From the dependent that she once was, woman will become the agent required by her times. If she no longer receives from her comrade, as in old Teutonic days, the cuirass, helmet, and sword, that she may fight by his side, she will none the less endeavour to equal him in the field of intellect.
The start which man has gained and still keeps in the realms of Science and Art does not justify him in boasting over the inferiority of woman.
To sum up, woman claims no more than her right to-day when she demands knowledge of all the occupations in which man is employed and reserves for himself; when she desires to exercise her judgment and prove both her skill and taste.
“Whereas in men,” says Louis Dimier, “taste, which is a power of the mind, precedes and commands skill, which is organic aptitude; in women, on the other hand, it seems to be skill which determines and commands taste. One might say literally that with a woman the feelingfor the beautiful is in her fingers. All women, too, some more and some less, but without exception, make use of their powers of action; but a man cannot rely all his life on the possession of his capacity for judgment.”
Yes, woman is, fundamentally, man’s equal. Belittled as she has been till recently by conditions which made her a nonentity, she is now, thanks to the spread of education, the mingling of classes, and social changes, becoming a respected worker and a valued being. Born into a new life, she will no longer be the jealous rival of man, but his useful fellow-worker, as she has always been his generous comrade, sharing his joys and sorrows.
Theeducation which is the progressive adaptation of humanity to the conditions of social life has been, in a general way, so greatly developed by our modern civilisation, that it has, if not created the complete equalisation of the classes, at least brought the aristocracy, the middle classes, and the people together in a common effort towards individual action.
It cannot be denied that a very curious phenomenon exists in the equalisation so far effected, the causes of which are manifold, and amongst which the most noticeable and obvious are the partition of large fortunes, the importance assumed by Labour Syndicalism, and the competition established in all trades and professions.
Scarcely anything remains now of the ancient conditions of nations; the abolition of slavery has transformed the idea of servitude;compulsory education has raised the level of the lower classes, and by this means the first stone of the Socialistic edifice has been laid. But humanity, in attaining to a higher degree of self-consciousness, to a new ideal, has developed a spirit on new lines, and created for itself needs with which the old instincts have nothing to do. Capitalists, manufacturers, merchants, labour leaders, workpeople of all kinds, find themselves arrayed against one another in a new perception of their rights (if not always of their duties), and all, in the light of newly discovered needs, are jostling one another in life in this all-pervading struggle.
The mass of the people, whose one instinct in former times was the bare preservation of life, is on the way to emancipation; the pressure from beneath is mounting like a wave, leaping upward to the social strata where hitherto the monopoly of lucre and jobbery has been jealously held; the workmen’s associations, in their war against capital, want themselves to capitalise; members of the working class, with growing improvement in education, are entering the professional field; the middle classes are struggling for the attainment of public offices, and, by an inevitable reaction, the aristocracy,mulcted of some of its ancestral rights and privileges, is turning its eyes towards manufacture and commerce.
This does not mean that the balance has become even, for I am of Jean Lahor’s opinion: “The plutocrats may be preparing for the masses of the future a still more crushing yoke, with more falsity and more deadening effect—by the suggestions of the Press, which they have completely in their power—than has ever been the case with aristocracies or autocracies, whose authority had its origin at least in the finer human energies, in a noble desire for power.”
It must nevertheless be recognised that, in order that the relations between man and man should no longer be in the hands of those devoid of conscience and feeling, a certain equality, a meeting on common ground for action, has been already established in modern society; if the lower classes have climbed the ladder far enough to attain to that domain which seemed bound to remain in the hands of the higher, the latter, on the other hand, have not hesitated to leave the heights to which class prejudice might have held them, and invade the territory of trade and commerce.
A man of high position will no longer lose caste by becoming the head of a motor factory; a nobleman may take part in commercial enterprise, a prince of the blood sell, in his own name, the products of his vineyards and lands.
It is the same from the point of view of women. As they think more, as they become carried away by the desire to prove their value and the need for individual effort, the middle-class woman is reaching towards higher and higher branches of education. Great ladies, even princesses, do not disdain to draw profit from the industrial arts, from painting and literature.
These new social conditions could not continue but by the spread and improvement of education and the growing sense of justice as understood by Herbert Spencer; that is to say, the responsibility of the individual taken in connection with the need for social co-operation.
Complete equality will never exist; comparative equality must be based on such liberty as, by its exercise, cannot infringe upon the liberties of others.
It must not be forgotten that social harmony is the result of the adjustment of conflictingrights and duties. One has to-day to take into consideration the fact that the humblest artisan is working for the good of society just as is the most famous engineer, the greatest inventor, the noblest writer, or the most celebrated statesman. Therefore, being “morally equal in duty, they are morally equal in rights.”
Education, that leveller of castes, dispenser of good, justice, and harmony, is the outcome of the experience of each utilised for the good of all. It should come from ourselves as well as from others, and pass through the way of reason.
“It is through the combined working of all systems of education and hygiene,” says the author ofPessimisme Heroïque, “it is through the combined energy of all educators and hygienists, that we shall with certainty obtain some day fundamental reforms, and immense progress in the physical, intellectual, and moral life of humanity.”
Opposedto Individualism, Socialism is the idea of social equality in utilising the power, capital, property, labour, etc., of the community. The generalisation of the term means a social compact, a contract between the members of a society.
Born in the eighteenth century, with the theory of good to be shared by the community, Socialism, which should be a united inherent organisation of the social classes, and of the relations of different classes to one another, has become divided into several hostile cliques. Each has its partisans; there is Possibilist Socialism, the Socialism of Marx, Agrarian Socialism, Parliamentary Socialism, English Municipal Socialism, Collectivist Socialism, State Socialism, Christian Socialism, Pulpit Socialism—and more for aught I know.
The very splitting up of the initial ideawhich aimed at the regulation of the needs of society, proves that it is a very difficult thing to create, in its entirety, a new social machine, capable of satisfying everyone.
It is above all a question, in my opinion, of discovering a form of association which shall defend and protect by its collective force the person and property of each of its members, and through which each one, while united to all, is answerable only to himself (apart from obligations agreed upon), and remains free in his actions.
It should guarantee that no one should be rich enough to take anyone into bondage, and that no one should be poor enough to be compelled to sell himself.
Again, no man should be able to say: “I am hungry, I do not know how to get food: I am cold, I have no means of warming myself: I am homeless, I do not know where to rest my head.” No woman must need to make merchandise of herself to escape starvation.
Man being no longer obliged to sell his physical strength or intellect, woman no longer constrained to throw herself into the market, security of life would exist for all, and a sort of equality would be established.
But is not this equality a chimera, and can it exist in practice? Are not abuses inevitable? How can the feelings and duties of everyone be subject to rule, in such a way as to restrict the great as to their wealth and power and the small as to their avarice and covetousness?
Socialism would have to impose a sort of economic equality which would satisfy everyone; so that he who had climbed a few rungs of the social ladder need not envy him who is already at the top. It must, in short, do away with every cause of discontent, envy, and revenge, between the classes who are compelled to have constant dealings with one another. Thus would great social disorder be avoided. But it would be necessary to keep clear of side issues, to take as the base of Socialism the “simplifying of life,” always keeping an intellectual and spiritual ideal as the end in view.
“The characteristic of social organisation,” says Nicati, “is to be the means of information; a faithful medium between the individuals from whom primarily all activity emanates, and with whom it ends: just as the personal intellect intervenes in the emotional domain, between impressions and the impulses to which they give rise.
“The function of this natural organisation conforms to the religious principles regulating its formation and acts.
“Its ultimate object is to maintain harmony between men, as the intellect maintains harmony amongst the emotions, and to unite them in a common desire for equalisation, balance.
“The doctrine of the cultivation of an intellectual and spiritual ideal, then, may be defined as a natural social organisation having for aim the religious pursuit of good, remembering that we understand by ‘religious’ that which is consistent with the natural fabric of social relationship; and by ‘good’ the necessary and natural result of all harmony, balance.”
In reality, however, it appears to me that social equilibrium is no better established now than it was before. The weight which tipped one side of the scale is now on the other. The drawbacks of the lack of stability have not yet disappeared.
Why, for instance, should it be thought advantageous that one class, now in possession, be completely despoiled to profit another class, which would then take its place? Whether the inequality existed as from the heights downwards or from the depths upwards, would notthe results be exactly the same? Is not the supreme power as dangerous in the hands of the many as in the hands of the privileged?
If it be true that man has a natural right to all that he needs, it is none the less true that his “right” should not exceed the limits of the needful.
In spite of all theories, the social organisation of humanity is not in existence yet, and will not exist so long as society fails to comprehend that its aim is to satisfy the needs of each one, in the order in which they become manifest.
Thepart played by the working man in modern society is of extreme importance. This producer of national wealth is the artery which keeps the heart of a country beating.
Jean Lahor says: “The wealth, power, and glory of the country are, in great part, the work of the humblest of her children—of the artisan, the worker, the common soldier, of unknown heroes of whom no one speaks, never will speak; silent whilst in life as they will be when dead.”
Lord Avebury, too, says: “It is an interesting illustration of the Unity of Man, and an encouragement to those of us who have no claims to genius, that though, of course, there have been exceptions, still, on the whole, periods of progress have generally been those when a nation has worked and felt together; the advance has been due not entirely to theefforts of a few great men, but of their countrymen generally; not to a single genius, but to a national effort.”
Then, since the working man is the great factor in national greatness, it is but just that he should be an object of consideration for the thinkers. This is a truth: the education received by the working man is not consistent with the place which he occupies in the State.
I have in mind, for the children of the working class, schools specially adapted to that class, where the child should be taught his rôle in life as a sort of religion; his employer of the future appearing as a kind of protective deity. The child destined to become an artisan should be made to understand, from the most tender age, not to regard himself as a mere tool, but as the most active element in society. He should be inculcated with pride in his condition, not have his temper embittered and be taught to hate the upper classes, which are, from another point of view, a vital element equally with his own class. The working classes—and this is a point which Socialism and Evolutionism have failed to recognise—should form a majority set apart in the nation, not for the purpose of excluding them fromthe common good, but, on the contrary, for their advantage, as being the most active and least fortunate.
In all countries which recognise wherein their strength consists, the working man should be the object of constant care on the part of the administration; he should be recompensed according to his merits, and receive help in his needs. The entire health of a country depends so much on that of the working population, that dwellings built in accordance with the most perfect sanitary conditions, public baths and wash-houses, national parks as in America, and institutes where he could educate himself to a higher mental life, should be guaranteed to the working man.
It is very strange that, in democratic countries, the most urgent reforms are generally delayed, that they put off the amelioration of the wretched conditions prevailing amongst the humblest—yet, by numbers and activity, the strongest—class; amelioration which is first carried out in aristocratic countries, such as England.
When French hospitals, for instance, are compared with those in England, Germany, and Russia, a clear idea is gained of the greatdifference, which does honour to the latter countries.
It is said that the first idea of working men’s dwellings originated in France. I admit it; but they only came into existence there after England and Belgium had set the example.
Where in the great French centres will you find the garden cities of England and Germany? Even in the matter of food, from the point of view of price and quality, the French artisan has reason to envy his English neighbour.
The artisan is too cramped by material conditions and constant labour, too much cut off from men superior in mental training to himself; he needs to be taken out of his sordid environment, allowed to acquire property of his own, to give him a taste for home life.
When legislators and rulers, teachers and employers, have taught the working man to recognise his own character and claim respect for his value to society, a thousand rational reforms will spring into being spontaneously.
It seems to me that in manufacturing centres every house should be a temple of fraternity. I will give an illustration: An artisan marries. His wife and he live in avery small house, which, after the birth of their children becomes too cramped for them, and inadequate from a hygienic point of view. Close by, there is an artisan living in a much larger house, as he has had a large family. The children, having grown up, have left their parents, and for this reason the house has become much too large for them. The couple whose family have gone take the little dwelling, and the houseful of children move into the large one. In this way a kindly interchange is made in response to particular requirements; hence, a share of happiness for everyone, and health for all.
Utopia! someone will say. Why? There is really nothing simpler. But then, unfortunately, the simple is always hostile to reason.
Sincethe disappearance of slavery, domestic service has taken on new forms—variable, oppressive—and now it seems likely to disappear altogether. The terms, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, misunderstood by some, misconstrued by others, have created great disquietude in society. The servant of former days—the wage-earning man or woman—who formed an integrant part of the family, exists no longer, and those succeeding have changed the old ways and manners to the point of rendering them unacceptable—from the time whenattachmentdisappeared before a false conception ofliberty. So that to-day, amongst people of only moderate means, the lack of servants is becoming a serious problem, although changing fashions and the competition in “special lines of work” secures us assistance in much of our daily business.
We occupy ourselves with workmen’s dwellings, have honestly sought to secure better conditions for the poor; why should we not consider the case of those blocks of flats where the closeness of the quarters has become one of the principal hindrances to the “good and loyal service” so much appreciated by our forbears?
Servants in these days consider themselves as employees of a special kind, able to dictate their own terms and exempt from various duties. Their service, continuous and dearly paid, is no longer suitable except in palaces and large private houses.
In these they form a community of their own which is not, each member of it individually, every moment of the day in direct contact with the master and mistress. In such cases as these one scarcely realises the irritating position of servants with regard to their employers, and vice versa.
The question to be considered is that of small establishments and blocks of dwellings in large towns where, for the sake of greater accommodation, the employers’ and the servants’ quarters are close together, perhaps only divided by glass doors and thin partitions. Now, to ensure respect for the master and mistress in their private life,and willing obedience from the servants, distance in point of fact should be in proportion to distance in point of position and education.
“No great man is a hero to his valet,” says the proverb. This proverb is unfortunately true. It describes an evil which has grown to such a degree as to make domestic service in apartments impossible.
In America this question is almost completely settled. In England the example set by the United States is beginning to be followed. The Continent in its turn should evolve some practical expedient for the independence of both employer and employee.
To this end there should be a system of “service by the hour.” This will have to be arranged in view of the fear that we may find ourselves servantless. It does not imply that the service now extant will disappear entirely.
Like all innovations, my suggestion will at first alarm some and bring a smile to others; it will seem paradoxical in spite of its simplicity. However, I will explain my idea.
It is not to be denied that we have become servants to our domestics, for they dictate terms on entering our service, and we are compelled to accept their conditions for fear of finding ourselves boycotted and unable to get them at all. In America—I quote typical cases—people have ceased to have their meals at home on Sunday because thechefor cook spends that day in the country. In England ladies’ maids refuse to wait up for their mistresses’ return from evening parties. (I knew an unmarried lady who was compelled to sleep one night dressed as she was because her maid, having locked herself into her room, declined to get up to unfasten her dress for her!) In Germany the servants make it a condition that they shall spend so many evenings at masked balls; in France a weekly or fortnightly “day off” is one of the least inconveniences created by domestic service.
Is it not the truth that in flats, if one had a woman in in case of need, and a sort of watchman to guard against burglars, nothing more would be needed?
“Service by the hour” would have the advantage of providing regular attendance, and the servants themselves would earn more; they would not be obliged to listen to the voice of command from the same master or mistress all day long; they could choose the kind of service they preferred, just as the employer could choose his employees. There would be more freedomon both sides: the one party would work more conscientiously, the other enjoy greater peace of mind. There would be less friction, more justice, all round. In the absence of close proximity there would be no more irritating surveillance, no fear of gossip, no ill-temper over work ill-done or neglected.
If you have a masseur or masseuse, even a “bath attendant,” a hairdresser, a manicurist, a packer, a “vacuum cleaner,” and a floor polisher, what remains for you to ask of your servants?
If a woman can come and fetch your dresses to be ironed or “freshened,” and a man do the same with your coats, and someone else come and polish your boots, is not that all-important?
Companies for “service by the hour” would have to be established in different districts. According to one’s needs he would telephone to one of these establishments for a bath attendant, for someone to truss poultry, for housework, etc.
And then how delightful it would be to be alone again, no longer spied upon, to be one’s own master—without any servants!
“But the expense!” someone will say. If you calculate what the servants living in your house cost you in one way and another, youwill come to the conclusion that there would be less expense for the employer and certain profit for the servants, whose service by the hour would be better paid.
In some of these modern blocks of dwellings there is but one common kitchen. It would be sufficient to mention the hour for meals and the number to be served to ensure regular attendance.
“Service by the hour” would do away with a thousand annoyances, some merely irritating by their frequency, but others serious, as in England, for instance, where the evidence of servants has so much weight in cases of divorce.
With “service by the hour” there would be no more spying, no more mean revenges, no more dishonourable compromises. As the lower classes have shaken off the yoke of their slavery, why should we still be the victims of a new state of things in matters domestic?
There is no perfect happiness without real independence. Let us aim at independence for everyone.
In doing good in a new way the human end in view has not changed. Let us bear in mind that good for all is only found in individual freedom.
Nowthat the different peoples fraternise over science, commerce, and industry, now that they are jointly liable, in the name of economic relations, now that collective work, free from “national etiquette,” is instrumental in producing material and moral progress for all, international schools ought to be founded in the different civilised countries.
These nurseries of the intellect and will would bring pupils together by one single rational system of training; the pupils would be subject to the same examinations; and there would be effected between the different countries an exchange of individualities, destroying race hatred in the idea of rights common to all and the rightful administration of collective communities.
Armed peace, costly as it is for every nation, is a benefit in these modern times. Eachnation, by preserving the integrity of its own territory, is more at liberty for intercourse with its neighbours, and for the development of the high ideals which are urging the peoples towards economic unity.
In former times, taking France as an example, the various provinces detested one another, and were at variance through all kinds of conflicting interests. They were separated by the barrier of opposite temperaments, dissimilar customs; each of them preferring to remain a stranger to the rest, though they all spoke the same language. But by means of gradual changes, they were at length drawn together, each province grew to feel a certain oneness of thought with the others, until finally the rigid barriers broke down, and to-day the whole race aims at the training in international feeling of every individual, desiring that future generations, free from too local a patriotism, should attain to what I may call geographical fraternity. For this object nothing would be so valuable as the creation of international schools, by which the tide of different ideas may enter, and thus solve the great problem of comparative education.
Let us imagine similar schools in every country. Young men and girls, sent abroad to follow up the course of study they have begun in their own country, would find the completion of their education in the mental intercourse offered by contact with the boys and girls of the foreign school. They would by this means widen the horizon of their ideas, they would become cosmopolitan without effort, reap such advantages from foreign life as would greatly add to the force of their own personality, and return home with an equipment of sound judgment and self-possession. In addition, they would have learnt the foreign languages so necessary to the pursuit of commerce, manufacture, letters, and the arts.
The young man and the girl thus educated in the idea of world-relationship would hold their own in the circles to which they belonged, and would be certain to do their country good service at an age when, in the ordinary course of things, they might dream of going abroad for the sake of seeing the world, without any ability to profit by that exchange of ideas and comparison of manners which the international school would secure to them just at the impressionable age.
When one considers how useless in most cases, and how invariably costly to parents, travelling is in the case of young men destined for professional or even commercial careers, when undertaken after their education is completed, one must acknowledge the advantage which would result from the exchange between the countries of young, amenable pupils, quick to assimilate all the elements needed for complete training.
Of course each student sent abroad would have professors of his own tongue and race to continue the course of study he was pursuing at home. But from the very fact that they were living in a foreign land, they would be able to learn the new language outside the classroom without any trouble, and become initiated in new ways and ideas, acquiring all sorts of useful knowledge, which would help to mature their minds. So would each one, without losing contact with his own land, profit by the constant recurrence of matters for comparison and analysis.
Sainte-Beuve had conceived the project of such a state of things when, on the eve of the Franco-German War in 1870, he said: “War is being prepared between the two greatest peoplesin Europe.... It would be better to found two schools, one in Berlin and one in Paris. The flower of our youth would go and strengthen their minds in the laboratories of Berlin, which are richer than ours; the Prussians would come here and be moulded to our French grace.” The real difficulty between nations is that of mutual understanding. Whether it be a question of medicine, manufacture, commerce, or education, there are many efforts made which, in the first instance, are unknown in neighbouring countries, and thereby progress is hindered. By means of international schools, a solution would be found to problems common to all, for instruction would pass from one to another.
In commercial and industrial matters, especially, dealings between one country and another would be carried out more easily, and on a larger scale.
Through uniformity of customs, and harmony in feeling and ideas, brought into play for the good of all, peace would be assured, while rivalry, on which progress depends, would still exist. Autocracy, democracy, imperialism, all would be merged in the common desire for improved conditions.
On the day when harmonious endeavour shall become the rule between people and people, the wealth of the world will increase tenfold, simply through the working of all intelligence for the good of every nation.
Religionis neither a collection of natural laws nor a philosophic dogma. It is higher in dignity than teachers of to-day represent it, and it will be understood if we consider the meaning of the word “religion” as applied to the life of the individual. In the words of Dr. Nicati,” ... applied to an individual, it denotes the allied operations of the spirit upon which rests his judgments and actions. As applied to society, it is the symbol of the facts which determine the relations between individuals; it embraces in one common termthe principles of social harmony.”
In giving us this definition of religion, Dr. Nicati is not considering any creed in particular, but all religions, each of which, taken separately, is a moral code.
The religious idea, which French governments of to-day set aside as useless, is, on the contrary, of obvious utility, primarily for all those whose brains, ill-supplied with mental nourishment, need both spiritual food and also a curb. What a strong restraining force is the fear of eternal punishment; what an encouragement the desire of endless reward!
In vain have all our orators striven, our materialists shown their contempt; it is none the less true that the wiser spirits—men like Littré, Taine, and Renan—have maintained in spite of all that “the people must have a religion, a religion considered purely as an idea inculcating morality.”
I will not embark upon the study of the evolution of religions, of the Roman Catholic religion in particular, which, from its origin, remains the moral authority of the Latin peoples. I will simply state that, compulsory education notwithstanding, criminality in France has increased in alarming proportion, whereas in England, as the noble thinker Lord Avebury remarked some time ago, “prisons have had to be closed for want of prisoners.”
Let us make no mistake. French criminality is in exact proportion with the lowering of the moral level; the absence of criminalityin England comes of the respect shown by our neighbours for all religious sects, provided they use their influence for the development of the religious principle in children—that is to say, the fear of the punishment which comes of wrongdoing, and the hope of the reward which good merits.
Until the moral sense has become thoroughly developed in everyone, religion—that is to say, a preventive training against the passions—will continue necessary.
“We have schools enough of every description,” says the author ofL’Education de Soi-Mème, “which give us general knowledge and admirable skill in the technique of every branch of human activity; what we need is a school for the making of men.” The Church would have remained such a school if the Romanists had not made of their authority a political weapon.
Nevertheless, religious morality dwells in the depths of the mind, and thus it is, according to Maurice de Fleury, “that modern savants who have lost their faith, and cannot believe in human free will, become reconciled ultimately to the teaching given us by the Church.”
The rational morality which comes of mentaltraining may be sufficient for the strong, relieving them of a thousand illusions and childish fancies. It remains none the less true, however, that, even amongst those who are past masters in the arts, in science, and politics, there are some who, from an ethical point of view, are spiritual weaklings, needing, in place of the Latinintelligere, some creed, hidden or avowed, adapted to their imaginative and imperfectly-controlled brain.
Whatever may be said, the mass of the people has to be considered as an “inferior majority.” Apart from it, a “superior minority” stands out; no longer bound by all the old beliefs, but all the same given to an “inner” religion, which is the ethical intelligence whence springs rational morality.
Let us consider the apostle. The inferiority of his followers is manifest, but as soon as these disciples reach a higher level, through the education of their spirit, they in their turn will become apostles, and moral equality will exist in a group which, in its turn again, will win over other groups.
We must then concede to the people a religion which may take the place of the moral law, one giving them the hope of living again in