Ernest And Falk.

FALK . Pardon me , but you perceive my readiness to tell you something more about them . ERNEST . YOU are jesting . Well ! civil life as

well as all governments , are nothing but means towards the attainment of human happiness . What then ?

FALK . Nothing but means ! and means of human invention ; although I will not deny that nature has so ordered everything , that man must naturally and speedily find his Avay to the

discovery . ERNEST . This has probably induced some to consider society as the aim of nature . As everything , both in our passions and necessities , led to

that end , it Avas consequently the ultimate goal to which nature was making its way . So it Avas inferred j as if nature did not also create the means

with an intention ! as if nature rather considered the happiness of an abstract idea , —such as are government , fatherland , and the like , —than the happiness of each veritable individual .

FALK . Very good . You are coming forth along the road to meet me ; for , tell me , if the methods of governing are means , and means the

invention of man , should they alone be exempt from the fate of human means ? ERNEST . What do you mean by the fate of human means ?

FALK . That tendency which is indissolubl y bound up with the means employed by humanity , that whicli distinguishes it from divine and infallible means .

ERNEST . What is that ? FALK . Their inherent fallibility . That often they do not only fail to produce the proposed

effect , but even have an effect diametrically opposed . ERNEST . If an example occur to you , oblige me b y quoting it .

FALK . Navigation and ships are the means of reaching remote countries , and are the causes that many persons never arrive at their proposed destination .

ERNEST . Those , in fact , who are shipwrecked and drowned . Now I think I understand you . But it is very well known how it happens that so many individuals gain no increase of happiness

through the State . Modes of governing are many ; one therefore Avould be better than another ; many are extremely faulty , evidentl y at variance with the end proposed to be attained ,

and the best form of government has , perhaps , yet to be invented . FALK . Leave that out of the question . Say that the best form that is capable of being

conceived has been alread y found ; say that all mankind have adopted this best form of government ; do you not think that even then circumstances of the most evil tendency for the safety of human

happiness would arise from this best form of government—circumstances of whiclrman in his normal condition never dreamt ? ERNEST . I think that if such circumstances

were to arise out ofthe best governmental system , it would no longer be the perfect form . FALK . And a better form would be possible ' Well , then , I accept this better form as the best ,

and repeat my question ? ERNEST . You seem to me to be simpl y quibbling from the commencement upon the assumption that every human application of means to an

Ernest And Falk.

end—under which means you classify government—could not be otherwise than fallible . FALK . Not simply . ERNEST . And you would find it difficult to instance one of these noxious things .

FALK . Having their origin in the conditions of the lest government . Oh ! Scores ! ERNEST . One , at any rate .

FALK . We will agree that the best form of government is invented ; we agree that all mankind is living under this government j Avould all mankind , as a natural consequence , be one

nation ? ERNEST . Hardly . So immense a state could not be governed . It Avould naturall y split into

several smaller states , each ruled b y the same laws . FALK . That is to say—we should have

Germans and French , Dutch and Spanish , Russians j and Swedes , or Avhatever they might be called ? I ERNEST . HOW certainly ? FALK . Well , then , there is your first instance .

For is it not true that every state has it own interests ? and every member of the state his interest in the state ?

ERNEST . HOW , otherwise . FALK . These diverse interests would frequently come into collision , just as it is now , and two members of each state would be just as unable

to meet each other without an undercurrent of repulsion , just as now [ is the case between the Germans and the French , the French and the

English . * ERNEST . Very probably ! FALK . That is to say—when a German meets a Frenchman , a Frenchman an Englishman , it is

not the meeting of two men , but that of two particular sort of men , aware of their diverse inward tendency , Avhich render them cold , shy , and suspicious of each other , even before they

individually have had the least intercommunication ? ERNEST . That is very unfortunately true . FALK . It is , therefore also true that the means which unite men together , likeAvise operate as

the means ot disuniting them , although by the union they strove to increase their happiness . ¦ ERNEST . If you understand it so . FALK . One step in advance . Many of the smaller states would have a different climate ,

therefore quite different Avants and enjoyments , therefore different manners and customs , therefore different theories of morality , therefore different religions . Is it not so ?

ERNEST . That is a tremendous stride ! FALK . Then therefore , would still be J CAVS , and Christians , and Turks , and so on ? ERNEST . I dare not reply , no ? i

FALK . If they Avere that , they would , by no matter what designation they might be known , behave to each other as do Jews and Christians , Christians and Turks , and be hardened against

each other . And they Avould not , in this case again , act towards each other as mere men , but as certain kind of men possessing individually a belief in their own spiritual advantages ; and

assuming rights upon this creed , Avhich the normal man Avould never think of .

Ernest And Falk.

ERNEST . This is very sad , but probably true . FALK . Only probably ? ERNEST . Why , when I accepted the idea that they would all live under one form of

government , I certainl y included under it that all Avould be of one form of religion . Indeed , I do not understand how it is possible for uniformity of religious creed not to accompany uniformity of

governmental institutions . FALK . Nor I . And I only adopted the idea to prevent your finding your way out of the argument by its aid . One is certainly as

impossible as the other . One state , several states ; several states , several forms of government ; several forms of goverment , several forms of religion . ERNEST . Yes , yes . So it would seem .

FALK . And so it is . And behold in it the second misery which the aggregation of society ¦—quite against its own designs , brings upon itself . It is impossible to unite men without

disuniting them ; to disunite them without forming great gulfs between them , and indurating

these , and building high party Avails . ERNEST . And how terrible these abysses ! how loftv these Avails !

TALK . And let me add the third evil . iVot only does society commence with dividing mankind into nations and religions . This division

into a few separate parts , of Avhich each is in itself a whole , would still be better than no whole at all . No ! Society continues to divide men in

each of these parts into infinitude . ERNEST . In what manner ? FALK . Or are you of opinion that a state canbe imagined without classes and grades ? Be it

good or bad , nearer or more remote from perfection , it is impossible that all the members of It can stand in the same relation to each other . If they all have a share in the legislature , they

cannot have an equal share , that is to say , a direct share . There AVOUW , therefore , be patrician and plebeian classes . If all the goods of the state were equally divided among them , this equal

division could not be retained for two generations . One person Avould understand how to employ his part better than another . Another person

Avould be obliged to divide his carelessly stewarded property among several descendants . Thus would arise richer and poorer classes . ERNEST . Of course .

FALK . And now consider how many evils do not arise from this inequality of class . ERNEST . Ah ! if I could but say nay . But

indeed , why should I desire it ? It is too true . Men can only be . united by continual division ! only made to harmonise b y this infinite separaion ! So it is , and can never be otherwise !

FALK . And that is just Avhat I have been

saying . ERNEST . And what do you mean by it , ' Do you desire to disgust me Avith social existencesto make me Avish that man had never come upon

the thought of combining into states ? FALK . DO you mistake me so much ! If society had Avithin itself only that single advantage

that real good by which in its pale alone human understanding can be cultivated , I Avould bless it , were it ever so bad .

ERNEST . Who would sit over the fire , says the proverb , must swallow the smoke . FALK . Certainly . But although smoke is the