shoes, but that you formulated the 'jump' quite as the husband might
have done. That is, if _she_ would repent and change her course, she
would soon find that _he_ was all right, and--inferentially--all the
trouble was of her making. Not one word on the other side! You even
quote your own experience _against_ her. My dear, _did_ you really find
that your 'trouble' was of your own making, and _did_ you really change
ANYTHING except your own amount of distress during the process of
disintegration? Marriage is the only contract which society does not
promptly admit to be broken when either party refuses to fulfill his
obligations--as agreed to. And in view of the custom of ages, and the
instinct in woman formed by such custom (when instinct makes the
establishing of Individuality the _very_ hardest thing in life for a
generous woman), I think that your implication against the woman, trying
with all the light she's _got_ to keep her side of that very one-sided
contract is simply--cruel! I wish I could get at that girl and tell her
that her _only_ chance for happiness is through the paradox 'Whoso
_will_ not lose his life _cannot_ find it.' Whoso will not 'let go' of
the love which his five per cent judgment claims as his only _righteous_
chance, cannot inherit that which the ninety-five per cent would attract
if the five per cent were 'offered up' to the spirit. This is the first
time I have ever disagreed with your point of view." Jane.

That article, "So Near and Yet So Far," has brought forth volumes of
comment, most of it highly favorable, and nearly all of it from women
themselves. But among the writers were three critics, and among the
critics one of the brightest women I know, whose letter appears above.

And she says that article is to her disingenuous. Of course it is, for
she has not yet arrived at the point of _giving up her own way_. She is
still a Pharisee of the Pharisees--on the surface. She is proud; she