LITERATURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17912, 17 April 1920, Page 2

LITERATURE.

LOVE, MARRIAGE, AND DIVORCE*

MR CHESTERTON AND SOME OTHERS,

By Constant Rjjadkb.

"This is u pamphlet and not u book," saya iVir G. lv. Uliesterton m his "Uonelusion" to "The Superstition of Divorce," ilo adds- "Tho writer of a luunphlofc not only deals with posting tilings, but generally with things which ho hopes will puss.

In that souse it ia tho object oi u )uuupiilot to bo out of dat© as soon as possible. It can only survive when it does not sucoecd." Whether the blamo rests upon tho shoulders of Mr Chesterton or of hia tho fact remains that this pamphlet lias been mado to look like a book by dint of largo leaded type, hroad margins, thick pujter, and cloth covers, and oven tlion it extends to 150 pages only. Nevertheless ita prk» in London is 5s net, which means that in Dunedin the -book ia sold at 7s per copy. IV case is mado worse by tho author's explanation that "the earlier part of this book camo out in tho form of live articles which appeared in. the New Witness at the crisis of the roceot controversy in the Press on tho subject of divorce. Crudo and sketchy as they confessedly were, they had a certain rude plan of their own which I find it very difficult to recast even in order to expand. I have, therefore, decided to reprint the original _ artioles as thoy stood, save for a fe<w introductory words, and then at tho risk of repetition, to add a few further chapters, explaining more fully any conception that may soem to have been too crudely assumed or dismissed."

Presumably Mr Chesterton wrote the artioles. for teho New Witness—the paper which at present he edits—for the purpose of influencing the readers of that p>apcr to adopt hia views on "'llh© Superstition of Divorce.'' Presumably, also, he has issued the artioles in more permanent form, for the purpose of influencing that larger circle who do not road the Now Witness. In +hat oase —and always absolving him from the sordid design of merely making moneyMr CJhesterton ia in danger of defeating his purpose by allowing the book to be sold at a price out of proportion to its size. On the other hand, there aro probably those who esteem Mr Chesterton's writings so highly that they aro willing to pay any prioo for his books—and for this special reason that Mr Chesterton's opinions and ideas are in exact antithesis to those of Mr George Bernard Shaw. Indeed, the use and value of these two writera in this critical epoch in the world's history is that that they typify the two great forces which, held in leash to some extent before the war, now let loose are contending for supremacy. Strangely enough. with_ both these forces, behind and, underneath the grosser manifestations which too often culminate in cruelty and outrage, are concealed ideals which issue in fanaticism and martyrdom. Thus it comes a-bout that Mr G. K. Chesterton and Mr G. B. Shaw aro agreed in reaching out after certain lofty ideals, but are in absolute antagonism aa to the principles and methods bjr which those ideals may bo attained. With wonderful cleverness Mr Chesterton ccntrcs the philosophy of life which ho is never tired of expounding around tho voxed questions of marriage and divoroo, skilfully expanding the themo so that in its implioaiions it covers the whole field of human activity. It is unfortunate, but nevertheless an undeniable faot, that people who read and enthuse about Mr Chesterton, have "no tune" for Mr Shaw. Conversely, readers who appreciate and delight in Mr Shaw complain that Mr Chesterton's writings are, to them, ,so much dotted nonsense. This is unfortunate, sine© only by placing these two writers side by side, paralleling their positions and analysing their arguments. i 3 it possible to arrive at sane and sound conclusions. Thus tho proper preliminary to a study of Mr Chesterton's "Tho Superstition of Dm>roo" is a re-reading of tho ■ Preface to Mr Shaw's play "Getting Married," written and published 12 years ago.

Brieily put, tho position taken up by Mr Shaw in 1908 was this: "A contract for better for worse is a contract that (should not bo tolerated." "Indissoluble marnap is an academic figment, advocated' only by celibates and by conifortably-marricd paople who imajfino tha-t if other people bxo uncomfortable it must bo their own fault, just as rich people are apt to imagine that if other people Are poor it serves theni nght. Among other suggested remedies Mr Shaw recommends: (1) "Make divorce as easy, as cheap, and as private as marriage, ' and (2) "Grant divorce at the request of . either party, wither tho other consents or not; and admit no other ground than the request, which should bo made without stating any reasons." Mr Shaw argues thai easy divoroe will spell tho diminution of conventional marriages entered upon for reasons other than love and mutual sex attraction, from which 'unions divoroe is the escape, and that consequently the easier divorce is made those who seek refuge in it will become gradually fewer and fewer. He concentrates his argument into the following sentences. 1 :—

Divorce, in fact, is not the destruction of marriago, but the first condition of its maintenance. A thousand indissoluble marriages moan a. thousand marriages and no more. A thousand divorces may mean two thousand marriages, for the coupleij may marry again. Divorce only re-assorts tho couples; a very desirable thing when they are ill-assorted. Also it makes people , very much more willing to marry, especially prudent people and proud people with a high, sense of self-respcct. Further, tho faot that a divorce is possible often prevents its being petitioned for, not oniy because it puts married couples on their good behaviour towards one another, but because as no room feels like a prison if the door is loft open, the removal of the sense of bondage- would at once make marriago much happier than it is now. Also, if tho door were always open, there would be no need to rush through it as there is now when it opens for one moment in a lifetime, and may never open agaia. The difference between Mr Chesterton and Mr Shaw in their views and opinions upon everyday affairs may broadly be defined by the statement that while Mr Shaw begins at the end, Mr Chesterton begins at the beginning, which is equivalent to the allegation that while Mr Chcstsrton deals with causes, Mr Shaw is content to tinker with effects. Beginning at tho beginning, Mr Chesterton declaims against the people who say they want divorce without asking themselves wliether they want marriage. "Even in order to bo divorced, it has generally been found necessary to go through tho preliminary formality of being married. . , , To be divorced is to be in tho literal sense nnmaniedj and there is no sense in a thing being undone when we do not know if it is done," This thought is characteristically pat in tho following fashion:— I shall begin by asking what a man gbtting married supposes he is doing. I shall begin by asking what marriago isi and the mere, question will probably reveal that the act itself, good or bad, .wise or foolish, is of a certain kind; that it is not an inquiry, or an experiment, or an accident; it may probably dawn on us thaJ; it is a promise. It ean bo mora fully defined bj sayinft it is a vow. Many will immediately answer thai it is (i rash vow. I am content for the moment to reply that all vows are rash vows, i am not now defending but defining rows; I am pointing out that this is a discussion about vows—first, of whether thero ought to be vows; and, second, of what vows ought to be. Ought a man to break a promise? Ought a man to_ make a_ promise? These arc philosophic questions-; but the philosophic peouEarity of > divorce and rcmaxriage, as compared with' free love and no marriage, is that a man breaks and maJtes a promise at the same moment, Mr Chesterton justifies the title of his book by saying- that, while free love seems to him a heresy, divorce really does seem to him a superstition. He points out that in "the dreary decades before the war" poople specialised in freedom by endeavouring to escape 4rom all vows, tho favourite forms of freedom beinfr suicide and divorce —the one the end pf life, tho ether tho end of love. "Those I tney in my youth," he writes, "as young pessimists am now aged optimijste. . . Pessimism, which was never popular, is no longer even fashionable.'' This leads up to <i brilliantly amnsi»g passage: If divorce is a disease, it is no longer to be a fashionable disease like appen•o) "Tho Superstition of Divorce." By G. K. Chesterton. Loudon: CSiatto and Windcs. (is n«t). (2) "lftmimis Morganatic Mn^ringo. ,, Bt (Tlvirles Kingston. I/ontlon: Pbuilcy Paul and do. (10s Grl not). f.'l) " 'flic Margaret Book." By Alfred Clark., N.Z., M.O. t/ondon: John Lane, ffs ncQ-.

diciira) it Is to bo ma do an erpiflranie, lite smallpox. As wis Imo alieady seen, papers and public men today make a vast parade of the necessity of setting the pool- man freo to (jet a divorce. Now, why are they so mortally anxious that lie should bo froe to get a divorce, and not Jxi the least itfixious that he should bo lrco to got anything else? WJiy are tho name oeoplo happy—nay, almost hilarious —when ho gets a divoreo who are horrl fled when ho « otß 11 drink'/ What becomes of his money, what bocomcs of his children, where Ik> works, when ho eeaar.s to work ore leas and less under his personal control. Labour exchanges, insurance oards welfare work, and a hundred forms of police inspection anil supervision havo combined for good or evil to l\x him moro and moro ptriotly to a certain place in society. He is less and less allowed to go to look for d, new job; why is ho allowed to go to look for a now wiioV He is more and more compelled to recogniso a Moei&m code about liquor ; why is it mado so easy to esoapo trpm his old Christian code about sex? What is the meaning of this mysterious immunity, this Buccial permit for adultery ; ami wij u running away with his_ neighbour's wl [ o to be (he only exhilaration still left open to him? Why must ho love as ho pleases, when ho may not even live as ho ploasos? - In reality Mr Chesterton sets out t£ eolvo Tho problem stated by Mr V. W. Bain in his inimitable 'The Digit of the Moon,, selected by Mr V. Lucas for tho opening item in "Her Infinite .Variety," when the man said, "What is to be done? for I cannot live either with or without her.' Of Divorce as a remedy Mr (Jbcetortoii says : "bo the unfortunate man, who cannot tolerate .the woman he has chosen from all the womeiji in tbe worlds is not encouraged to return to her and tolerate, her, but encouraged to ohoose another woman, whom he may ill due course retufle to tolerateTouching on the revolt of women against men and marriage, Mr Chesterton declares: "The love of man and woman is not an institution that can be abolished) or a contract thai can be ./. . A man and a woman must remain togpther in one way or another, and must learn to put up with cach other somehow." B<ut the most interesting part of Air Chesterton's argument is that m which he sets himself to tell "The Story of tho Vow," when ho takes pains to prove that in some mystical and traditioaal fashion tho malting and! keeping of vows is bound up with the cause of national and individual liberty-, and that the abrogation of tho vow is the sure and certain road to ■ tho supremacy of force and -ultimate slavery. In this way the sanctity of marriage and the survival of the family are made the tost of civilisation and the pivot upon which the future of Europe will liave to depend. To strengthen his case Mr Chesterton turns to feudalism and shows how that system gradually 3upplantcdi tho ancient servile status-: — I suggest here that one of the forms whioh ttie new spirit tootle waa the importance of the vow. feudalism, for instance, diil'cred Ixom slavery chieliy because feudalism waa a vow. 'Itie vassal puifc his hands in thoee of his lord and vowed to be his man; but there was an accent on tho noun substantive as well as. on the possessive pronoun. By swearing to bo hag man, he proved he was not his- Chattel. Nobody exacts a promiso from a pickaxe; or expects a poker to swear- everlasting friendship with the tongs. Nobody takes the word of a spade; and nobody ever took tho word of a slave. It marks at least a special stage of transition that, the form of freedom was essential to tho fact of service or even of sorvitude. . .

The whole of what we pall chivalry was one great vow. Vows of chivalry varied infinitely from the most solid to the most fantastic; from a vow to .give all the spoils of conquest to tho poor to a vow to refrain from shaving until the first glimpse of Jerusalem. . . . When we oomo to workmen and small tradesmen, we find the same vague, yet vivid, presence of the spirit that can only be called the tow. In this sense there w<is a chivalry of trades as well as a chivalry ot> orders of knighthood; ju6t as there was a heraldry of shop-signa as well as a heraldry- of shields. Only 'it happens that in the enlightenment and liberation of the sixteenth century, tho heraldry, of the rich was preserved, and tho heraldry of the poor destroyed. And there is a sinister symbolism in tho fact that almost the only emblem still hung above a shop is that of the three -balls of Lombardy. Of all tlieso democratic glories, nothing oan now glitter in tho sun, exoept tho sign of the golden usury that has devoured them all.

Mr Chesterton developed this idea, of tho vow of industrialism, expressing itself in tlie crest or shop-sign of heraldry in one of his earlier books "The Napoleon of Notting Hill," a most delightful and entertaining extravaganza. The vow stresses, as a main fact of history, " tliat the personal pledge,, feudal or civic or monastic, was the way in which the world did escape from the system of slavery in the past. For th 6 modern breakdown of mere contract leaves it still doubtful if there be any other way of escaping it in the future." Mr Chesterton insists that the cry for greater facilities for divorce simply means that "the modern experiment of mere contract has broktai down," and he makes a shrewd hit when he _ writes: "If my association of divorce with slavery seems only a far-fetched and theoretical paradox, I should have no difficulty in replacing it by a ooncrete and familiar picture. Lot them merely remember tho time when they read ' Uncle Tom's Cabin' and ask_ themselves whether tho oldest and simplest of tho charges against slavery has not always been the breaking up of the family." The evolution of divorce, as Mr Chesterton sees it, is thus outimedf:—

The civilisation of vows was broken up when Henry the Eighth broko his own vow of marriage. , Or ra.ther r it was broken up by a new cynicism in the ruling powers of Europe, of which that was tho almost occidental expression in England. Tlio monasteries, that had been built by vows, were destroyed. The guilds, that had been regiments of volunteers, were dispersed. Tho sacramental nature of marriago was denied; and many of the greatest intellects of movement, like Milton, already indulged in a very modern idealisation of divorco. The progress of this sort of emancipation advanced stop by step with tho progress of that aristoor&tio ascendancy whioh has made the history of modern England; with all its sympathy with personal liberty, and its utter lack of sympathy with popular life, marriago not only became • less of a sacrament, but less of a sanctity. It threatened to become not only a contract, but a contract that could not bo kept. For this one question has retained a strong eymbolio supremacy amid oil the gimilar questions, winch seem to perpetuate the coincidence of the origin. It began with divorce for a king; and it is now ending ift divorces for a whole kingdom. Mr Chesterton calls for " fidelity to file ancient flag of the family and a readiness to (jght for its unique type of freedom." Ho insists throughout that modern ideas of emancipation, tho head and front of which is the agitation for easier divorce, ana actually only so many Hoods to slaverv. Ho hints at a timo when " instead of the old social distinction betwoen those who are married and those who are unmarried, there will bo a distinction between those who ore married and those who are really married." By way of comment be adds; "Araarohy cannot last, but anarchic communities cannot last either. Mere lawlessness cannot live,, but it can destroy life. Tho nations of the earth always return to ranity and solidarity; but tho nations which return to it first are the nations whioh survive."' A sentence or two from Mr Chesterton's ''Conclusion " may serve to summarise his main argument:— Some day, perhaps, I rnay try to mate someitbing about tho spiritual or psychological quarrel befcweep faith and fads. Here I will only say, in conclusion, that I believe the universal fallacy here is a fallacy of being tmiveraiL ... If a man had a hundred vires there' would bo still more promon £ha» ho could over know. He' would- be an insane Sulian jealous of tho whole human race, and ' even of the dead and tho unborn. I believe that behind the art and philosophy of our time there is a considerable dement pf this bottomless ambition and this nnnataral hunger. ... I asked, in the last chaptcr, what' those most wildly engaged in the mere danco of

divorce, as fantastic as the danoo of death, really oxpected for themselves or for their children. And in tho deepest 6ense I think this is the answer: that they expect the impossible—that is, the universal. They are not- crying for the mocai, which is a definite and, therefore, a defensible desire. They aa?e crying for the world; and when they had it they would want another one. In the last resort they would like to try every situation, not in fancy, but in faot; but they cannot refuse any, and therefore cannot resolve on any. In bo £w as this is

modern mood, it is a theory so deadly as to bo already dead. What is vitally needed everywhere, in art* as much as in ethics, _in poetry as much as in politics, is ohoioc—a creative power in the will as well as in the mind. Without_that Belflimitation of somebody nobody living will ever see the light.

i Mr Charles Kinfjston's book on "Famous Morganatic 'Marriages" forms a fitting pendant to Mr Chesterton's "The Superstition of Divorce." A marriage is deemed "morganatic" when cu, mam or woman of Royal blood seeks alliance with a partner of inferior social status. Hence morganatio marriages are ordinarily love matches, and as such they are examples of the "choice" which, according to the Chestertonian gospel, "are bo "vitally needed" everywhere. The rule is—or used to be—for Royal marriages to be ■"arranged," whilst "morganatic'' marriages were the outcome of individual choioe. But, as Mr points out, while''a morganatic marriage ia generally regarded as a love match,' an examination of the records does not prove them to be more successful than the less romantic alliances entered into for reasons of State. " Thosre could," he writes, "have been no more captivating story than that of the events whioh brought about the union between H.R.H. Princess Elisabeth of Austria and Otto yon Windischgraetz, and yet the marriage has been a complete failure." _ The caao of the transformation of Princess Patricia of Connaught into Lady Patricia Ramsay furnishes a case of a Royal love match giving every widenoo of being a complete success. How the times have changed is illustrated in the chapter describing "the last British morgajiatio marriage, when in the year 1840 the Duke of Cambridge, then heir to the throne of Great Britain, married a pretty actress named Louisa Fairbrother, with whom he had fallen in love." This was before the birth of the Princess Royal, and Queen Victoria, who had been but two years on the throne, was furious at the duke's Lnfatuation, and went so far as to forbid the match. But the duke defied the young Queen, and Louisa Fairbrother became Mrs Fitzgeorge. This is only ono of the twenty famous morganatic marriages described by Mr Kingston; the others including the romance of King Leopold of Belgium and Caroline Lacroix, daughter of a Frenoh railway porter: of Queen O.iristitin, Regent of Spainl and Ferdinand Muntz, private soldier, son of a _ tobacconist and brother of a laundry maid; of the Grand Doko Michael of Russia, brother of the exCzar, and Nathalie Woulfcrt; of Prince Alemn<Ber of Battenburg and l Adela Lois enger, the cafe singer; and of Francis Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, and Sophy Chotek, the victims of the Sejavero tragedy which started the groat war. - Mr Kingston's book will, be read and enjoyed by all who like the romance of real life for its inherent interest and ita attractive style. In addition, it may toe cited with effect, either by Mr Chesterton or by Mr Sklw, as evidonoe in the case for and against Love, Marriage, and Divoroe.

Some few months back Mr Alfred Clark, who served with tho N.Z.M.C., and ia now in residence at Gisboroe, published a book in which lie told the story, partly in, pra» nnd partly in verse, of "My Erratao PaL the story covering' life in New 'Zealand, servico. at tho front £tt GaUjpoli and ui France, and experiences in the Homeland. Among tho divinities introdooedi into that first boofc iff ono rejoicing in tbo namo ol Marwiret, who is represented as 'false as tho devil, but fair." Mr Clark now attempts in "Tho Margaret Boole ' to rehabilitate tho character of the fair one, and in so doinir he follows the samo plan of alternating verso and proeo and prose wfin verse. The baokgronnda of tho new story are such cb a eonvaloscanoo in the Homeland: would eupply after a season of vroondß and sickness, when, delirmm sowwtinwss supervenes, bofc wboro always iihero hojora the presence of Maroasct, wotehim caxlnff, inoossantly tending, From baing Ms*®®*®*' "mate," Peter becomes her husband, and before tho book cbaij W* Po W, appears on tho scene, Tho delightful in its nniw shnpliwty, ra™"® B a stramff proof of the s ? UlK^ric fi I ,?j CSwefcrartoo's theory i fhe ' snpewtttton at dlvwroo" iwver ones thrswo ttie shadow of a oloud awoes its .paffea, Mr ohw, «f oorwese, would want to write a sequel juanfvintr his ideas on tie sabteo*, tSwmgeiy enough ,* Mr Cleric lies airtierpated anl urder the title "Ano&er Margaret. - the story of poor Foggy %sn> {\° a chapter Ttrhkdi aJwfws the o©*cr stoo of the piefee. Mcwejwer, Mr Oark emkra the strongest woof of tho permanence marriage into whi^i at |ii"we jsraehes quifco a lushi level, as-iris-neSß the &U»wi»g--.— rpffiS Beak not the KghtingalG, fcof hbTxst be Always the Vision's voice «f mystery, A song of yearning and of ecstafj?. • Soft as tho datknoss out of •winch it Haas, Sweet as the eadnc® that tfie lover knows, pa tho frstfftanee of We mm-blown Tat fer* belong to Hipftt smavotto pay, To tilings eft&eal, not to common To the eternal youth thai OTllMsy. Lot her bo secret, nev«r seen but hPard, A disombotJicd song w2tew± » woni, • Xjovc itsolf ehould piove a smafl i bcocm biid.