LITERARY AUTHORITIES ON WOMEN

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 4871, 24 January 1903, Page 7 (Supplement)

LITERARY AUTHORITIES ON WOMEN

(By Max O’Rell.V France is a nation of psychologists, and her novelists, from 'Balzac to Bourget, have pourtrayed women morn senreh--I'ullv than tho writers of any nation. The French, true successors of _ tho Attic Greeks, are lovers of the beautiful, but their nature is cynical, sceptical; they admire and love women, but dissect their hearts more unmercifully, perhaps, and with loss gallantry than the men of other countries, if we except, however, the writers of antiquity, who seemed to fail to discover in women any good, redeeming features. For that matter, woman all over tho civilised world has been spoken of by philosophers thinkers and writers of all sorts only for a hundred years or so—that is to say, only since her social emancipation. Formerly she' was but a slave, or very littlo more than an object of pleasure: and woman bns never been able to reveal herself in her true light and character tin til freedom and education enabled her to act like a responsible being. Writers of io-dny do not mention the redeeming qualities of women. They rather look for a few redeeming faults that may prevent their being too good, too .perfect altogether. In America I believe that writers would not even admit tbe possibility of such little faults existing, but there is hardly an American man who would not tremble in his boots if ho dared suggest s«ioli a thing of “Her Supreme and Magnificent Highness” Mrs and Miss Jonathan; and on that account the American men writers' opinions on women are not quoted in Europe. They say of them: “Poor fellows, they had to say such things or die. and their opinions have no more value than evidence obtained by threats or undue influence." That's what they say, • you understand, not I, who know better.

The throe greatest Trench writers who have treated of women, love and matrimony are La Bruyere, La Rochefoucauld, a;id Balzac, and tho palm, I think, should be awarded to La 'Rochefoucauld for saying tiiat which would have made him great had he never written another sentence.

“There are happy marriages,” ho said, “but there are none delicious/'’ Tho whole thing in nine words. All the philosophers have worked on this saying, advising men and women what to do in order to find happiness in matrimony, but warning them against too sanguine expectations. “Habit fatally kills love in marriage," said some. “Try to forget that you are married, and only remember that if you livo together it is not because you are bound one to the other for life, but because you love each other,” said others. - In fact, the famous saying of La Rochefoucauld has caused thousands of books to be written with a view to making married life happy. Gustave Droz, in his delightful, inimitable book, “Monsieur. Madame et Bebe," has even attempted to suggest a way to make matrimony delicious by the introduction of diplomacy, poetry, and piquancy. Unfortunately tho exquisite scones that he describes can only be enacted by the select few, that is to say, the rich. For the masses of the people the eternal problem of “How to be happy though married” has yet to be solved.

La Bruyere has said exquisite truths on women and marriage. “A beautiful woman with the qualities of a noble man is the most perfect thing in nature." This, alas, is the "rare bird" of Juvenal. “AVomoa are extremists,” which means that they love and hade better than men.' "In friendship you confide a secret; in love it escapes you," is another very neat and witty saying. . The master of all, however, is Balzac, the greatest analyst, the most marvellous dissector of the human 'heart. “The Physiology of Love," “The Little Miseries of Conjugal Life,” his filty odd novels are so many classics on women, love and matrimony. He is the undisputed, the indisputable authority. Balzac would have no man marry before he had studied women carefully. And I should feel inclined to add, “No man should marry before he has most carefully read the works pf Balzac.” Woman's heart is laid bare by him and becomes almost an open letter to read. Yes, men should pass examinations -and prove themselves well up in Balzac before they should obtain a certificate enabling them to marry. “Have you got your diploma?” a girl should ask a man who showed his intention to make love to her. “No? Well, then, go and get it and I will trust myself in your hands.'.' Good heavens, you do not appear ,on tho hunting field until you know something of riding; you do not drive a young horse until yon know how to hold the reins. Why should you marry before you know something of woman ?

And in order not to be. disappointed, should not women also study men, their ways, their very nature? When will the study of human nature form part of the curriculum in the higher forms of schools and colleges? After all. 'men and women are all intended for matrimony, and bv far the greatest problem to solve in life is how to find happiness in matrimony To be able to read at sight Sophocles. Euripides, Horace, Virgil, and Cicero is nil very well, but something much greater and much more useful would be achieved if nil men and women knew by heart their La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyere, and Balzac.