ctave。　　He　then　disappears　and　kills　himself；　but　he　takes　all　necessary　precautions　to　avert　the　suspicion　of　suicide；　in　order　not　to　sadden　Octave　and　Fernande　in　their　happiness。　　He　had　not　been　able　to　keep　his　wife's　love；　but　he　does　not　wish　to　be　the　jailer　of　the　woman　who　no　longer　loves　him。　　Fernande　has　a　right　to　happiness　and；　as　he　has　not　been　able　to　ensure　that　happiness；　he　must　give　place　to　another　man。　　It　is　a　case　of　suicide　as　a　duty。　　There　are　instances　when　a　husband　should　know　that　it　is　his　duty　to　disappear。　。　。　。　　Jacques　is　〃a　stoic。〃　　George　Sand　has　a　great　admiration　for　such　characters。　　She　gives　us　her　first　sketch　of　one　in　Ralph；　but　Jacques　is　presented　to　us　as　a　sublime　being。
  Personally；　I　look　upon　him　as　a　mere　greenhorn；　or；　as　would　be　said　in　Wagner's　dramas；　a　〃pure　simpleton。〃
  He　did　everything　to　ruin　his　home　life。　　His　young　wife　had　confidence　in　him；　she　was　gay　and　naive。　　He　went　about；　folding　his　arms　in　a　tragic　way。　　He　was　absent…minded　and　gloomy；　and　she　began　to　be　awed　by　him。　　One　day；　when；　in　her　sorrow　for　having　displeased　him；　she　flung　herself　on　her　knees；　sobbing；　instead　of　lifting　her　up　tenderly；　he　broke　away　from　her　caresses；　telling　her　furiously　to　get　up　and　never　to　behave　in　such　a　way　again　in　his　presence。　　After　this　he　puts　his　sister；　the　〃bronze　woman；〃　between　them；　and　he　invites　Octave　to　live　with　them。　　When　he　has　thus　destroyed　his　wife's　affection　for　him；　in　spite　of　the　fact　that　at　one　time　she　wished　for　nothing　better　than　to　love　him；　he　goes　away　and　gives　up　the　whole　thing。　　All　that　is　too　easy。　　One　of　Meilhac's　heroines　says　to　a　man；　who　declares　that　he　is　going　to　drown　himself　for　her　sake；　〃Oh　yes；　that　is　all　very　fine。　　You　would　be　tranquil　at　the　bottom　of　the　water！　　But　what　about　me？　。　。　。〃
  In　this　instance　Jacques　is　tranquil　at　the　bottom　of　his　precipice；　but　Fernande　is　alive　and　not　at　all　tranquil。　　Jacques　never　rises　to　the　very　simple　conception　of　his　duty；　which　was　that；　having　made　a　woman　the　companion　of　his　life's　journey；　he　had　no　right　to　desert　her　on　the　way。
  Rather　than　blame　himself；　though；　Jacques　prefers　incriminating　the　institution　of　marriage。　　The　criticism　of　this　institution　is　very　plain　in　the　novel　we　are　considering。　　In　her　former　novels　George；　Sand　treated　all　this　in　a　more　or　less　vague　way。　　She　now　states　her　theory　clearly。　　Jacques　considers　that　marriage　is　a　barbarous　institution。　　〃I　have　not　changed　my　opinion；〃　he　says；　〃and　I　am　not　reconciled　to　society。　　I　consider　marriage　one　of　the　most　barbarous　institutions　ever　invented。　　I　have　no　doubt　that　it　will　be　abolished　when　the　human　species　makes　progress　in　the　direction　of　justice　and　reason。　　Some　bond　that　will　be　more　human　and　just　as　sacred　will　take　the　place　of　marriage　and　provide　for　the　children　born　of　a　woman　and　a　man；　without　fettering　their　liberty　for　ever。　　Men　are　too　coarse　at　present；　and　women　too　cowardly；　to　ask　for　a　nobler　law　than　the　iron　one　which　governs　them。　　For　individuals　without　conscience　and　without　virtue；　heavy　chains　are　necessary。〃
  We　also　hear　Sylvia's　ideas　and　the　plans　she　proposes　to　her　brother　for　the　time　when　marriage　is　abolished。
  〃We　will　adopt　an　orphan；　imagine　that　it　is　our　child；　and　bring　it　up　in　our　principles。　　We　could　educate　a　child　of　each　sex；　and　then　marry　them　when　the　time　came；　before　God；　with　no　other　temple　than　the　desert　and　no　priest　but　love。　　We　should　have　formed　their　souls　to　respect　truth　and　justice；　so　that；　thanks　to　us；　there　would　be　one　pure　and　happy　couple　on　the　face　of　the　earth。〃
  The　suppression　of　marriage；　then；　was　the　idea；　and；　in　a　future　more　or　less　distant；　free　love！
  It　is　interesting　to　discover　by　what　series　of　deductions　George　Sand　proceeds　and　on　what　principles　she　bases　everything。　　When　once　her　principles　are　admitted；　the　conclusion　she　draws　from　them　is　quite　logical。
  What　is　her　essential　objection　to　marriage？　　The　fact　that　marriage　fetters　the　liberty　of　two　beings。　　〃Society　dictates　to　you　the　formula　of　an　oath。　　You　must　swear　that　you　will　be　faithful　and　obedient　to　me；　that　you　will　never　love　any　one　but　me；　and　that　you　will　obey　me　in　everything。　　One　of　those　oaths　is　absurd　and　the　other　vile。　　You　cannot　be　answerable　for　your　heart；　even　if　I　were　the　greatest　and　most　perfect　of　men。〃　　Now　comes　the　question　of　love　for　another　man。　　Until　then　it　was　considered　that　such　love　was　a　weakness；　and　that　it　might　become　a　fault。　　But；　after　all；　is　not　passion　a　fatal　and　irresistible　thing？
  〃No　human　creature　can　command　love；　and　no　one　is　to　be　blamed　for　feeling　it　or　for　ceasing　to　feel　it。　　What　lowers　a　woman　is　untruth。〃　　A　little　farther　on　we　are　told：　　〃They　are　not　guilty；　for　they　love　each　other。　　There　is　no　crime　where　there　is　sincere　love。〃　　According　to　this　theory；　the　union　of　man　and　woman　depends　on　love　alone。　　When　love　disappears；　the　union　cannot　continue。　　Marriage　is　a　human　institution；　but　passion　is　of　Divine　essence。　　In　case　of　any　dissension；　it　is　always　the　institution　of　marriage　which　is　to　be　blamed。
  The　sole　end　in　view　of　marriage　is　charm；　either　that　of　sentiment　or　that　of　the　senses；　and　its　sole　object　is　the　exchange　of　two　fancies。　　As　the　oath　of　fidelity　is　either　a　stupidity　or　a　degradation；　can　anything　more　opposed　to　common　sense；　and　a　more　absolute　ignorance　of　all　that　is　noble　and　great；　be　imagined　than　the　effort　mankind　is　making；　against　all　the　chances　of　destruction　by　which　he　is　surrounded；　to　affirm；　in　face　of　all　that　changes；　his　will　and　intention　to　continue？　　We　all　remember　the　heart…rending　lamentation　of　Diderot：　　〃The　first　promises　made　between　two　creatures　of　flesh；〃　he　says；　〃were　made　at　the　foot　of　a　rock　crumbling　to　dust。　　They　called　on　Heaven　to　be　a　witness　of　their　constancy；　but　the　skies　in　the　Heaven　above　them　were　never　the　same　for　an　instant。　　Everything　was　changing；　both　within　them　and　around　them；　and　they　believed　that　their　heart　would　know　no　change。　　Oh；　what　children；　what　children　always！〃　　Ah；　not　children；　but　what　men　rather！　　We　know　these　fluctuations　in　our　affections。　　And　it　is　because　we　are　afraid　of　our　own　fragility　that　we　call　to　our　aid　the　protection　of　laws；　to　which　submission　is　no　slavery；　as　it　is　voluntary　submission。　　Nature　does　not　know　these　laws；　but　it　is　by　them　that　we　distinguish　ourselves　from　Nature　and　that　we　rise　above　it。　　The　rock　on　which　we　tread　crumbles　to　dust；　the　sky　above　our　heads　is　never　the　same　an　instant；　but；　in　the　depth　of　our　hearts；　there　is　the　moral　lawand　that　never　changes！
  In　order　to　reply　to　these　paradoxes；　where　shall　we　go　in　search　of　our　arguments？　　We　can　go　to　George　Sand　herself。　　A　few　years　later；　during　her　intercourse　with　Lamennals；　she　wrote　her　famous　_Lettres　a　Marcie_　for　_Le　Monde_。　　She　addresses　herself　to　an　imaginary　correspondent；　to　a　woman　supposed　to　be　suffering　from　that　agitation　and　impatience　which　she　had　experienced　herself。
  〃You　are　sad；〃　says　George　Sand　to　her；　〃you　are　suffering；　and　you　are　bored　to　death。〃　　We　will　now　take　note　of　some　of　the　advice　she　gives　to　this　woman。　　She　no　longer　believes　that　it　belongs　to　human　dignity　to　have　the　liberty　of　changing。　　〃The　one　thing　to　which　man　aspires；　the　thing　which　makes　him　great；　is　permanence　in　the　moral　state。　　All　which　tends　to　give　stability　to　our　desires；　to　strengthen　the　human　will　and　affections；　tends　to　bring　about　the　_reign　of　God_　on　earth；　which　means　love　and　the　practice　of　truth。〃　　She　then　speaks　of　vain　dreams。　　〃Should　we　even　have　time　to　think　about　the　impossible　if　we　did　all　that　is　necessary？　　Should　we　despair　ourselves　if　we　were　to　restore　hope　in　those　people　who　have　nothing　left　them　but　hope？〃　　With　regard　to　feminist　claims；　she　says：　　〃Women　are　crying　out　that　they　are　slaves：　　let　them　wait　until　men　are　free！　。　。　。　　In　the　mean　time　we　must　not　compromise　the　future　by　our　impatience　with　the　present。　。　。　。　　It　is　to　be　feared　that　vain　attempts　of　this　kind　and　unjustifiable　claims　may　do　harm　to　what　is　styled　at　present　the　cause　of　women。　　There　is　no　doubt　that　women　have　certain　rights　and　that　they　are　suffering　injustice。　　They　ought　to　lay　claim　to　a　better　future；　to　a　wise　independence；　to　a　greater　participation　in　knowledge；　and　to　more　respect；　interest　and　esteem　from　men。　　This　future；　though；　is　in　their　own　hands。〃
  This　is　wisdom　itself。　　It　would　be　impossible　to　put　it　more　clearly；　and　to　warn　women　in　a　better　way；　that　the　greatest　danger　for　their　cause　would　be　the　triumph　of　what　is　called　by　an　ironical　termfeminism。
  These　retractions；　though；　have　very　little　effect。　　There　is　a　certain　piquancy　in　showing　up　an　author　who　is　in　contradiction　with　himself；　in　showing　how　he　refutes　his　own　paradoxes。　　But　these　are　striking　paradoxes　which　are　not　readily　forgotten。　　What　I　want　to　show　is　that　in　these　first　novels　by　George　Sand　we　have　about　the　whole　of　the　feminist　programme　of　to…day。　Everything　is　there；　the　right　to　happiness；　the　necessity　of　reforming　marriage；　the　institution；　in　a　more　or　les