THE

THE FUTURE OF MADAGASCAR.

HE text of the treaty between Madagascar and France has been published. In name the Queen remains the head of the Hovas; in reality she has not the slightest authority. The Temps, Paris, thinks the treaty is very creditable to the sagacity of its framers. According to the latest reports, the Hovas are perfectly satisfied with French rule, and unlikely to rise again in rebellion. France will represent Madagascar in all foreign relations. The army of the Hovas is to be disbanded and reorganized under French officers. The Queen promises to be guided by the French Resident in all her actions. The article which most concerns the outside world is the one in which France declares that her Government "does not assume any responsibility on account of engagements, debts, or concessions which the Government of Her Majesty, the Queen of Madagascar, may have agreed to before the signing of the present treaty." This may involve the French Government in complications with countries whose citizens have acquired rights in Madagascar. The United States is among those countries.

The French make no secret of their pleasure at having prevented England from executing any designs she may have had upon Madagascar. Deputy Mahy, in a long letter to the Figaro, says:

"We do not fear British competition in Madagascar. We need that country as an outlet for our own overproduction. Neither do we care to have Mr. Rhodes's pioneers there, who are ready and waiting to colonize the territories we have pacified. We want neither English nor German nor Italian colonists in the island. If necessary, we can colonize the island with such of our people who are dangerous but yet reformable."

The Chronicle, Newcastle, thinks that "if the natives of all countries but France are to be excluded from Madagascar, the welfare of the island will sorely need praying for."-Translated for THE LITERary Digest.

FOREIGN POPULATIONS OF EUROPEAN

M.

CAPITALS.

strongly from foreign competition, and two thirds of the bankers and commission agents are foreigners.-Translated and Condensed for THE LITERARY DIGEST.

TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWER IN ITALY.

VER

ERY shortly after the September festivities in commemoration of the capitulation of Rome, the Italian Government received a strong reminder of the fact that Papacy is not yet dead. King Charles of Portugal, nephew of King Humbert of Italy, intended to pay his royal uncle a visit. In view of the Pope's renewed opposition to the Italian occupation of Rome, King Charles wished to meet his uncle in another city. But the Italian Government will not allow this. "At Rome or nowhere," says the official Popolo Romano, and Crispi had addressed a sarcastic note to the Portuguese Ambassador, in which he expresses a hope that King Charles will soon regain his independence of action. The Independance Belge, Brussels, knowing well from experience nearer home what a struggle with Rome means, says: "It is impossible to deny that the abandonment of the visit which the King of Portugal intended to pay to the King of Italy is a serious check to Italian politics. King Charles is a devout Catholic, and Leo XIII. 's letter to Cardinal Rampolla has proved to the King that he can not visit his uncle without infringing his duty to the church. The Italian Government is to be commended for its firmness in declaring that King Charles must meet his royal uncle at Rome. But Crispi has not rendered the monarchy a service by his attitude during the September festivities. The Pope deeply resents the anti-religious character of these festivities. It is quite possible that Italy has entered upon a new period of religious strife. The Pope, during late years, condemned the Catholics to inaction by ordering them to abstain from voting. If he now enters into politics, the Government will be much em. barrassed. The Pope is, as much as the King, master of Italy's destinies. If he gives the word, a hundred Catholic members will be elected in the Opposition, and the position of the Government will be rendered very precarious."

The Frankfurter Zeitung, Frankfurt, says:

"Italy did quite right in assuming a firm attitude in the face of such an insult. Crispi has informed the Lisbon Cabinet that Italy needs no representative of a state which is under Papal supervision. The Portuguese Government feared to break with the Pope. Now it has broken with Italy, and the sequel will show which is the lesser evil. There are plenty of Liberals and Republicans in Portugal who will have a say in the matter."

The Tarde, Lisbon, endeavors to excuse the action of King Charles. "The matter is entirely a family affair," says that paper, "and has nothing to do with politics." The Italian Government evidently regards the incident as the signal for a Kulturkampf. The Tribuna, Rome, says:

"The struggle can not be deferred any longer. The Vatican has sought it. Without touching the Guarantee Laws,* the Government can stop the political clergy from influencing the people. France has done, and Austria is doing it, yet neither of these countries is an enemy of the church. The first question to be settled will be the question of divorce laws. the state has made the church overbearing."

The moderation of

The Agenzia Italiana says that the Government intends to propose a law by which the position of the country clergy will be strengthened against episcopal authority. A revision of the guarantee law is also planned.—Translated for THE LITERARY

DIGEST.

THE strict manner in which the laws regarding personal insult are handled in Germany is illustrated not only by the numerous arrests of editors guilty of disrespect to princes, and the cases where men of high standing are fined and imprisoned for insulting laborers, but also by the supervision exercised over men of the legal profession. Thus the state attorney of Bochum, in Westphalia, was fined 50 marks for making insulting remarks to a witness. He has also to bear the costs of the case.

* See THE LITERARY DIGEST, vol, xi., p. 711.

MISCELLANEOUS.

CLASS SYMPATHIES AND EXCLUSIVENESS.

THE

HE instinctive character and social value of class sympathy and class exclusiveness, and the worthlessness of the endeavor to make men equal and society homogeneous, have suggested to Mrs. E. Lynn Linton thoughts for an essay, which apClass pears in The National Review (London, November). exclusiveness, says she, is one of the Black Beasts of the roaring democrat, whose hostility to the rank above him, if carefully dissected, would be found to consist of the bones of envy clothed with the flesh of desire; and to break down the dividing barriers, and let the whole world roam at will through the secluded gardens and holy places now fenced off from the crowd, seems to those envious Peris in fustian a righteous effort and a good deed well done. We quote from this semi-humorous discourse a representative part:

As

"Most social reformers ignore the established facts of human nature, as we have it, in favor of some idealistic scheme which would work magnificently if we were all cherubim and seraphim, but which, under existing conditions, and remembering that we are but poor frail mortals, with those apple-pips still clinging to our teeth, are as impossible as the air-woven garments of the self-deluded king. This doctrine of universal social equality is one of them, and class sympathies, which, by their naturę, include class antipathies and class exclusiveness, are of the very fundamentals of human nature. Like goes to like; and the intrusive alien has a hard time of it at the hands of those whose countersign he has forged and whose camp he has invaded. food consists of more than the elemental bread and meat, so -human life is made up of more than the simple virtues and vices. In a complex civilization like ours, tastes and shibboleths play an important part, even as entrées and sweets come into the ordering of our dinner; and the honesty, integrity, and magnanimity of a man are not sufficient, by themselves, to warrant his social inclusion among those who have added taste and culture to the roll-call. He may be the best fellow in the world when you get below the crust and into the core; but that crust is terribly hard to digest! He eats with his knife and drinks with his mouth full; he would lose his right hand rather than set it to a base or foul action, but the cleanliness of his heart does not relieve his nails of their perpetual mourning, and it would take more than ordinary soap and water to wash those Esau-like fists clear of their ingrained grubbiness. His knowledge extends to one or two points only, and his talk wanders about these, expressed in the purest Doric. Of cultivated taste or educated intellect he has not the very faintest line; all the same, he is as true a man, and as honest and good a fellow as ever lived, and no man could possess more of the elemental virtues of humanity than have fallen to his share. Which does not make him a fit companion for my lord or my lady, a proper classmate for young master, or a possible husband for the young lady. Class sympathy excludes him here and attracts him there. To the young lady he is no more than a fine, big, trustworthy, two-legged dog, while to Joan gathering berries in the next garden his is the last expression of manly delightfulness. Young master would as soon think of consulting his horse as of taking him into his confidence; but to his own mates he is a pattern to go by, and the leader of life and opinion."

Good or bad, says Mrs. Linton, this class sympathy, with its concomitant exclusiveness, is one of the inherent qualities of human nature, and the leveling idea wars against the very foundations of that human nature in its social expression. To quote again briefly :

"

"I am inclined to believe that the Germans, amid all the rudeness of a pastoral and militant life, possessed elements of a higher civilization than the fastidious and over-refined Romans. The chief evidence of this superiority is, I think, to be found in their attitude toward women. There is to me something very noble in the comradeship of husband and wife which appears to have existed among these rude and hardy warriors-a comradeship half resembling that of boy and girl before the consciousness of sex has markedly differentiated them. Not even from the tribal council were women excluded. Tacitus expressly states that they were attentively listened to, and that their advice was never left unheeded. I was once inclined to suspect a bit of courteous exaggeration in this, induced by the writer's desire to emphasize the contrast between the weight of personality and serious worth of the barbarian women and the flimsy frivolity of his own countrywomen. But a deeper study of Germanic paganism convinced me that the suspicion was unfounded. Paganism in the North did, undoubtedly, tend to evolve sturdier types of womanhood than Christianity has done; and it accorded a recognition to female intelligence which Christianity has been far slower in according. Largely, to be sure, the rude conditions incident to pastoral life, interrupted by frequent wars and migrations, were responsible for the sagacity, the readiness of resource, and the splendid courage which the daughters of Germany seem to have exhibited, a thousand years ago, in a far higher degree than they do to-day. For all that, I can not but think that the Oriental view of womanhood, implied in the Bible, has had an enormous influence in forcibly checking the normal development. The Catholic Church not only adopted, but immensely exaggerated the disabilities under which the sex had labored in Semitic lands; and the result was that the free-born, sagacious, and nobly selfdependent daughter of the Teutonic forests was dwarfed, subdued, and spiritually crippled until she became the commonplace, insignificant, obedient Hausfrau of to-day."

While, continues Professor Boyesen, it would be an exaggeration to maintain that Christianity is alone responsible for the degeneration of womanhood, it is beyond dispute that it has been the strongest of a number of cooperating factors in bringing about this result. Combating the notion that the position of women was virtually that of slaves during pagan times, he goes on to say:

"It will, perhaps, surprise many to learn that the legislation regarding marriage and divorce was in Iceland and Norway far more mindful of the wife's interest than it has ever been during the Christian era. The old Icelandic law stipulated, for instance,

that if a man were divorced from his wife (even tho she were the offending party) he had to return her dowry intact. Divorce was legally obtainable if both parties desired it, and the law did not, as in Christian times, insist upon publicly humiliating and disgracing every man and woman who in youthful folly had committed themselves to a choice which made every breath a blight upon the face of life, and the hours a burden to be dragged through the weary length of day. Love was not held to be woman's only concern. Marital affection was rarely of the wildly romantic sort, but a mutual hearty good-will, esteem, and devotion, often amounting to tenderness, bred by habit and a community of interests. There are in the Sagas a few sublime instances of romantic attachments; as in the touchingly beautiful tale of 'Gunlaug Serpent-Tongue and Helga the Fair.' But they are relatively exceptional. What strikes one above all in the women of the Norse Sagas is their admirable practical efficiency and their passionate absorption in the quarrels, rivalries, ambitions, and feuds of their husbands, sons, and brothers. Generally speaking, love was not all of life to them, but an episode, tho a highly important one. But it did not engross and possess them to the exclusion of all other interests. Primarily they were human beings; secondarily, women."

During their age of chivalry women lost individuality, independence, and strength, says Professor Boyesen, and their sex came to take precedence of their humanity, "which is the most disastrous thing that can happen to any creature, male or female." Unfortunately, European and American women of to-day, according to him, have by no means fully emancipated themselves from the feudal idea. Love is still held to be the dominant concern in a woman's life, and the demand for real independence is met with ridicule and cheap cynicism.

IT

DECREASE IN THE PROLETARIAT.

is regarded almost as an axiom in current sociological discussions that the proletariat of our day is increasing rapidly and the number of poor people comparatively becoming constantly larger. This is one of the pet arguments of the Social Democrats on the Continent and one which on the face of matters seems plausible and correct. A Saxon correspondent of the Berlin Post, in a recent communication to that metropolitan journal, disputes this assumption, at least as far as Saxony, the greatest industrial country in Germany and the seat of the densest average of inhabitants, is concerned, and does so on the basis of official statistics. The data in this regard can be secured with all the greater ease and are all the better for computation, because in this kingdom even the smallest possessions, also that which is free of taxation, are entered upon the lists, so that the economic condition of the land can be learned with almost absolute certainty. These statistics show that the number of people whose yearly income does not exceed 800 marks (1 mark = 24 cents) has been steadily decreasing year by year proportionally when compared with the increase of population.

The correspondent in question writes that the number of inhabitants in Saxony in the last ten years has increased almost 18 per cent. On the other hand, the number of those who have an income of less than 800 marks per annum has, from 1884 to 1893, increased only 7 per cent., while the next higher class, with an income up to 1,600 marks, has during this period increased fully 80 per cent., and the better middle class, with incomes from 1,600 to 9,600 marks, has increased almost 50 per cent.

These data are taken from the "Statistical Year-Book of the Kingdom of Saxony," published annually by the Statistical Bureau in Dresden. According to this same source the population of Saxony, from 1880 to 1890, grew from 2,972, 805 to 3, 502,684; while the number of poor with less than 800 marks, from 1884 to 1894. increased only from 908, 507 to 975,257, or some 64,000 persons. At the same time the other two classes increased 212,710, namely, from 304,591 to 517,301.

These data, continues the Post, agree but poorly with the hue and cry of the "avalanche-like" increase of the proletariat. They rather indicate that the number of very poor in industrial centers at least, of which Saxony is certainly a fair representative sample, is comparatively on the decrease, and begins to constitute a decreasing contingent in our population.

ΤΗ

DO AMERICANS NEED TO SPEAK FRENCH? HERE are two reasons why Americans do not need to speak the French language, says Prof. Alfred Hennequin, of the New England College of Languages, Boston, in Education (November): First, because French is of no practical use to Americans; and secondly, because a mere colloquial knowledge of a tongue is too superficial an attainment to demand much consideration. The Professor continues:

"Putting aside as ridiculous the affected attempts at French conversation in certain social circles, I ask, where and when shall a student of the language-yea, where and when shall one to the language born--derive any profit, in this country, from the use of the French tongue?

"Traveling from one end of this country to the other, how many French-speaking people will an American be apt to meet? Admitting, if only for the sake of argument, that an American will occasionally meet another American who has been made to believe he speaks the language tolerably well, what will be the extent and nature of their French conversation? I venture to say that few thoughts will be interchanged; that there will be little or no fluency of speech, and but small profit or pleasure to either of them in their use of the French idiom."

Professor Hennequin gives an amusing supposed case of an American attempting the colloquial use of the French language in Canada, and then says:

"Let us suppose the same American crossing the ocean. He 'will, while in France, make a laudable effort to vent his French. If he err in the form of an idiom, if he use the wrong tense or mode, if he stumble up against an irregular verb he has not quite mastered in his six weeks' or two years' course, he need have no fear of being ridiculed. The French are so polite, and so very fond of Americans-and of their money! The same trouble experienced by him in this country will confront him in Paris, and he will rejoice thereafter whenever his eye notices the welcome sign English spoken here.' Besides, do not hotel-keepers, garçons, clerks, and guides speak very acceptable English? Before leaving France for Italy or Germany he will conclude that if the English language will serve his purposes in France, it ought to satisfy everybody everywhere. The English tourists have come to that conclusion years ago.

"I may seem to be joking. Far from it. Previous to my coming, and since I came to this country, I have never met an American, one who had acquired his colloquial knowledge of French in America, who could speak the language with any degree of ease and fluency, at least not until he had resided in France some considerable time. What must we conclude? That Americans need not attempt to learn to speak French away from France."

CORRESPONDENTS' CORNER.

"Monitor Did Not Sink "Merrimac."

In an article descriptive of John Ericsson's memorial monument at Filipstad, Sweden, we inadvertently stated (see LITERARY DIGEST of November 9, page 58) that the ironclad Monitor, which was built for the United States Government by Ericsson, sunk the Confederate Merrimac in Hampton Roads, March 9, 1862. The Monitor successfully opposed the

Merrimac at that place and date, but did not sink her. Among several letters which we have received correcting our error of statement is the following:

Editor of THE LITERARY DIGEST:

I see an error in your issue of this date. You say John Ericsson will be remembered as the builder of the Monitor, "which sunk the Confederate Merrimac, in Hampton Roads, March 9, 1862.'

The Monitor did not sink the Merrimac. I saw the Virginia (the Merrimac) come up to the Norfolk Navy-Yard, Sunday noon, March 9, 1862, after the first recorded fight of ironclads. The Merrimac was destroyed by the Confederates in Norfolk harbor, near Craney Island. I heard the explosion at 4:45 A.M., May 11, 1862.

The last man to leave the Merrimac (by order of Commander Tatnall) was Captain White. He had just procured a new Confederate uniform. Uniforms were very costly then. Just as he was about to light the fuse and leave the ship, he thought of his new uniform, and hastily changed his old for the new. He did not think of several (five I think) thousand dollars in his old pockets, till the ship blew up. Kindly excuse this bit of unwritten history, which the name Merrimac suggested. Very respectfully, N. B. WEBSTER.

VINELAND, N. J., Nov. 9, 1895