Part 20 (1/2)

He turned to the host: ”I suppose that if divorce is an evil, and we wish to extirpate it, we must strike at its root, at marriage?”

The host laughed. ”I prefer not to take the floor. I'm sure we all want to hear what you have to say in support of your mammoth idea.”

”Oh yes, indeed,” the women chorused, but rather tremulously, as not knowing what might be coming.

”Which do you mean? That all truth is paradoxical, or that marriage is the mother of divorce?”

”Whichever you like.”

”The last proposition is self-evident,” the stop-gap said, supplying himself with a small bunch of the grapes which n.o.body ever takes at dinner; the hostess was going to have coffee for the women in the drawing-room, and to leave the men to theirs with their tobacco at the table. ”And you must allow that if divorce is a good thing or a bad thing, it equally partakes of the nature of its parent. Or else there's nothing in heredity.”

”Oh, come!” one of the husbands said.

”Very well!” the stop-gap submitted. ”I yield the word to you.” But as the other went no further, he continued. ”The case is so clear that it needs no argument. Up to this time, in dealing with the evil of divorce, if it is an evil, we have simply been suppressing the symptoms; and your Swiss method--”

”Oh, it isn't _mine_,” the man said who had stated it.

”--Is only a part of the general practice. It is another attempt to make divorce difficult, when it is marriage that ought to be made difficult.”

”Some,” the daring bachelor said, ”think it ought to be made impossible.” The girl across the table began to laugh hysterically, but caught herself up and tried to look as if she had not laughed at all.

”I don't go as far as that,” the stop-gap resumed, ”but as an inveterate enemy of divorce--”

An ”Oh!” varying from surprise to derision chorused up; but he did not mind it; he went on as if uninterrupted.

”I should put every possible obstacle, and at every step, in the way of marriage. The att.i.tude of society toward marriage is now simply preposterous, absolutely grotesque. Society? The whole human framework in all its manifestations, social, literary, religious, artistic, and civic, is perpetually guilty of the greatest mischief in the matter.

Nothing is done to r.e.t.a.r.d or prevent marriage; everything to accelerate and promote it. Marriage is universally treated as a virtue which of itself consecrates the lives of the mostly vulgar and entirely selfish young creatures who enter into it. The blind and witless pa.s.sion in which it oftenest originates, at least with us, is flattered out of all semblance to its sister emotions, and revered as if it were a celestial inspiration, a spiritual impulse. But is it? I defy any one here to say that it is.”

As if they were afraid of worse things if they spoke, the company remained silent. But this did not save them.

”You all know it isn't. You all know that it is the caprice of chance encounter, the result of propinquity, the invention of poets and novelists, the superst.i.tion of the victims, the unscrupulous make-believe of the witnesses. As an impulse it quickly wears itself out in marriage, and makes way for divorce. In this country nine-tenths of the marriages are love-matches. The old motives which delay and prevent marriage in other countries, aristocratic countries, like questions of rank and descent, even of money, do not exist. Yet this is the land of unhappy unions beyond all other lands, the very home of divorce. The conditions of marriage are ideally favorable according to the opinions of its friends, who are all more or less active in bottling husbands and wives up in its felicity and preventing their escape through divorce.”

Still the others were silent, and again the stop-gap triumphed on.

”Now, I am an enemy of divorce, too; but I would have it begin before marriage.”

”Rather paradoxical again?” the bachelor alone had the hardihood to suggest.

”Not at all. I am quite literal. I would have it begin with the engagement. I would have the betrothed--the mistress and the lover--come before the magistrate or the minister, and declare their motives in wis.h.i.+ng to marry, and then I would have him reason with them, and represent that they were acting emotionally in obedience to a pa.s.sion which must soon spend itself, or a fancy which they would quickly find illusory. If they agreed with him, well and good; if not, he should dismiss them to their homes, for say three months, to think it over. Then he should summon them again, and again reason with them, and dismiss them as before, if they continued obstinate. After three months more, he should call them before him and reason with them for the last time. If they persisted in spite of everything, he should marry them, and let them take the consequences.”

The stop-gap leaned back in his chair defiantly, and fixed the host with an eye of challenge. Upon the whole the host seemed not so much frightened. He said: ”I don't see anything so original in all that.

It's merely a travesty of the Swiss law of divorce.”

”And you see nothing novel, nothing that makes for the higher civilization in the application of that law to marriage? You all approve of that law because you believe it prevents nine-tenths of the divorces; but if you had a law that would similarly prevent nine-tenths of the marriages, you would need no divorce law at all.”

”Oh, I don't know that,” the hardy bachelor said. ”What about the one-tenth of the marriages which it didn't prevent? Would you have the parties hopelessly shut up to them? Would you forbid _them_ all hope of escape? Would you have no divorce for any cause whatever?”

”Yes,” the husband on the right of the hostess asked (but his wife on the right of the host looked as if she wished he had not mixed in), ”wouldn't more unhappiness result from that one marriage than from all the marriages as we have them now?”