This scheme, however, otherwise practical enough, involved a fallacy in
its most important point. A marriage so contracted, with a woman of
Sophie's character, could by no possibility turn out a happy or even
endurable union. She would not be likely long to survive it; if she did,
it would be to suffer a life more painful than any death; for no one
depended more than Sophie upon integrity and nobility in those she
loved; and the break in her family relations would be another source of
agony to her, and of consequent remorse and misery to her husband. No:
to bind her life to his, unless he could also compel her respect and
admiration, would be a good deal worse than useless.
He must, then--and there was yet time--resign his fortune, and accept
Sophie and a clear conscience, poverty and a country parish. But persons
who have wealth absolutely in their power, to take or to leave, sec
clearly how much poetical extravagance, hypocrisy, and cant exist in the
arguments of those who advocate the beauties and advantages of being
poor. Deliberately and voluntarily to forego the opportunities, the
influence, the ease, the refinement, which money alone can command--let
not the sacrifice be underrated! Few, perhaps, have had the choice
fairly offered them: of those, how many have chosen poverty? In
Bressant's case, the fact that the money was not legally his, was,
abstractly, enough to settle the matter; but in real life, where every
one is expected to do battle for his claims, it would only be an
argument for holding on the harder.
Pages:
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314