fellowship of the whole life, of all human and divine interests; and then that only monogamy corresponds to this ideal.
All this is afterwards summed up by him as “the perfect moral equivalence of the two partners in marriage;” and it is rather a disappointment when we find him, nevertheless, declaring that this equivalence “does not annul the necessity that a single will must decide in relation to the externalities of the conduct of life.”
What he afterwards says under this head seems a little indistinct, and might be variously interpreted; but this general proposition, heard so often from the lips of mediocre men, seems a little unworthy of the strength and fearlessness of Lotzc.
It is my experience that the men who talk in this way, and who dwell on the companion conviction that “a woman is never so well off as when she finds a strong man to rule her,” do not belong in general to the strongest class of men. A man of really large and broad force likes to find some companion quality in the partner of his life, as Shakespeare
's Brutus found it in Portia:
O ye gods,
Render me worthy of this nolle wife!
It is rather the man failing to impress his own individuality on the world outside who insists on making the most of it by his own fireside, and at least