notion that man was made for the family, and not the family for man. He
inveighs against George D. Herron and Elbert Hubbard _et al_ because
they permitted themselves to be separated from their wives. Apparently
he thinks the chief end of man is to tote some woman around on a chip,
and the fact that in his callow youth man picked out (or was picked out
by) the wrong woman, cuts no figure in the matter. Man must keep on
toting her even if he has to give up his life work by which he has been
enabled to supply the chip, not to mention the other things the
woman demands.

All of which is the very superficial view of the world at large, and
has no place among new thought, "occult" teachings. It is entirely too
obvious--to the old-fashioned sentimentalist, who is blind to the real
facts in cases of separation.

The sentimentalist gets just two views of the family, and draws his
hasty conclusions therefrom. He sees first a happy family, a charming,
clinging little simpleton of a wife, with half a dozen or so infants
clinging to her skirts and bosom, and her round eyes lifted in adorable
helplessness to the face of that great, strong lord and master, her
husband. In his second view of the family he beholds this strong man
turn his back upon this adoring family and walk deliberately forth to
self-gratification, leaving them to perish from hunger and grief. Fired
with these pretty and entirely fanciful pictures the superficial
observer burns with indignation and calls down anathema upon the head of
the deserter.

The fact is that _no_ man ever deserts a family under such conditions.
There is always a long period of disintegration before any family goes
to pieces--a period of which _both_ man and wife are well aware. When a