as i have said, i propose to take only one central instance; i will take the institution called the private house or home; the shell and organ of the family. we will consider cosmic and political tendencies simply as they strike that ancient and unique roof. very few words will suffice for all i have to say about the family itself. i leave alone the speculations about its animal origin and the details of its social reconstruction; i am concerned only with its palpable omnipresence. it is a necessity far mankind; it is (if you like to put it so) a trap for mankind. only by the hypocritical ignoring of a huge fact can any one contrive to talk of “free love”; as if love were an episode like lighting a cigarette, or whistling a tune. suppose whenever a man lit a cigarette, a towering genie arose from the rings of smoke and followed him everywhere as a huge slave. suppose whenever a man whistled a tune he “drew an angel down” and had to walk about forever with a seraph on a string. these catastrophic images are but faint parallels to the earthquake consequences that nature has attached to sex; and it is perfectly plain at the beginning that a man cannot be a free lover; he is either a traitor or a tied man. the second element that creates the family is that its consequences, though colossal, are gradual; the cigarette produces a baby giant, the song only an infant seraph. thence arises the necessity for some prolonged system of co-operation; and thence arises the family in its full educational sense.
it may be said that this institution of the home is the one anarchist institution. that is to say, it is older than law, and stands outside the state. by its nature it is refreshed or corrupted by indefinable forces of custom or kinship. this is not to be understood as meaning that the state has no authority over families; that state authority is invoked and ought to be invoked in many abnormal cases. but in most normal cases of family joys and sorrows, the state has no mode of entry. it is not so much that the law should not interfere, as that the law cannot. just as there are fields too far off for law, so there are fields too near; as a man may see the north pole before he sees his own backbone. small and near matters escape control at least as much as vast and remote ones; and the real pains and pleasures of the family form a strong instance of this. if a baby cries for the moon, the policeman cannot procure the moon—but neither can he stop the baby. creatures so close to each other as husband and wife, or a mother and children, have powers of making each other happy or miserable with which no public coercion can deal. if a marriage could be dissolved every morning it would not give back his night’s rest to a man kept awake by a curtain lecture; and what is the good of giving a man a lot of power where he only wants a little peace? the child must depend on the most imperfect mother; the mother may be devoted to the most unworthy children; in such relations legal revenges are vain. even in the abnormal cases where the law may operate, this difficulty is constantly found; as many a bewildered magistrate knows. he has to save children from starvation by taking away their breadwinner. and he often has to break a wife’s heart because her husband has already broken her head. the state has no tool delicate enough to deracinate the rooted habits and tangled affections of the family; the two sexes, whether happy or unhappy, are glued together too tightly for us to get the blade of a legal penknife in between them. the man and the woman are one flesh—yes, even when they are not one spirit. man is a quadruped. upon this ancient and anarchic intimacy, types of government have little or no effect; it is happy or unhappy, by its own sexual wholesomeness and genial habit, under the republic of switzerland or the despotism of siam. even a republic in siam would not have done much towards freeing the siamese twins.
the problem is not in marriage, but in sex; and would be felt under the freest concubinage. nevertheless, the overwhelming mass of mankind has not believed in freedom in this matter, but rather in a more or less lasting tie. tribes and civilizations differ about the occasions on which we may loosen the bond, but they all agree that there is a bond to be loosened, not a mere universal detachment. for the purposes of this book i am not concerned to discuss that mystical view of marriage in which i myself believe: the great european tradition which has made marriage a sacrament. it is enough to say here that heathen and christian alike have regarded marriage as a tie; a thing not normally to be sundered. briefly, this human belief in a sexual bond rests on a principle of which the modern mind has made a very inadequate study. it is, perhaps, most nearly paralleled by the principle of the second wind in walking.
the principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. the joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. all human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.
in everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. it is then that the institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. the essential element is not so much duration as security. two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage in both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. if we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. it would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. the two must hold each other to do justice to each other. if americans can be divorced for “incompatibility of temper” i cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. i have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. the whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. for a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.
