Sermon on the Good Shepherd by St. Vincent Ferrer (translated into English)

 

John 10:12-16 Douay translation

12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: 13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

 

Jn 10:14  “I am the good shepherd.” Our sermon shall be from the holy gospel of this Sunday. And we shall have many good teachings for the illumination of the mind and reformation of life. But first let the Blessed Virgin be saluted.

The proposed word for a theme and the basis of our sermon is the world of our Lord Jesus Christ speaking of himself saying: “I am the good shepherd,” (Jn 10:14). The goodness of this Blessed shepherd toward his sheep, namely of the Christian faithful, is shown in today’s holy Gospel in four ways:

First reason, because he buys the sheep dearly [pretiose],

Second, because he keeps them carefully,

Third, because he feeds them abundantly, and

Fourth, because he guards them safely.

BUYS DEARLY - I say first that Christ as the good shepherd buys his sheep at a great price [pretiose], namely by the price of his blood. He does not get them by stealth or stealing, or by deception, but he buys them for a just price and then some. About this he speaks in the beginning of the gospel, “I am the good shepherd,” (Jn 10:14). Reason, because “The good shepherd gives his life,” that is his bodily life, “for his sheep,” (v. 11). Reason: why he gives such a precious price, is the incomparable value of a soul, because no bodily creature is comparable in value to the soul. Hence, on the scale of divine justice, which is just and fair, if on one side is placed all bodily creatures, namely gold and silver, pearls and elements, sun, moon and all the stars, and on the other side one rational soul, the rational soul would weigh more in value than all the creatures. Authority: “For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?” (Mt 16:26), as if he says, not enough. He profits little who loses his soul. If therefore for the redemption of one soul the whole world does not suffice, how much more for all souls? Therefore there was no price sufficient but the blood of Christ, of infinite value, because of its union with divinity. Hence if on the scale of divine justice one side would be all souls, and on the other the least drop of the blood of Christ, the blood of Christ would weigh more in value than all the souls, because of its union with the divinity, nor would any other price able to be paid be sufficient. About this Scripture says, “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled,” (1 Pet 1:18-19). Note, “tradition of your fathers,” that is of selling. Tell of how our father Adam sold himself and all of mankind for the price of one apple, although he was not bound of which he was to the species, and he himself had been made captive to the devil, his wife and consequently all his children, Authority: “For by whom a man is overcome,” for example as in a duel, “of the same also he is the slave,” (2 Pet 2:19). Thus Adam and Eve consenting to sin handed themselves over to the devil. If therefore the slaves beget children, the children are also slaves.

But Christ comes, the best merchant from heaven to earth, knowing the value of souls, and he gives not an apple, nor gold, etc., but only his precious blood of inestimable value, which redeems us. Therefore he says, “You have been redeemed,” (Cf 1 Pet 1:18). Note “redeemed” [redempti], that is re-purchased [iterum empti]. Thus it is a conclusion of theology that the least drop of the blood of Christ was a price sufficient and more so [superabundans] for redeeming a thousand worlds by virtue of its divinity and infinite charity.

Now think how many drops of blood Christ shed for us. First, while yet a baby in his circumcision. In the first drop he redeemed us. Again in the second, etc. Second, on the night of his passion how many drops of blood did he shed. In Luke 22:44, “And his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.” Each drop would have been a sufficient price. Third, when he was led off to the house of Pilate, etc. Fourth, when he was crowned with thorns, his whole head flowed blood. Fifth, when he was crucified in hands and feet, how many drops of blood were falling on the head of the Virgin Mary. Also how many tears, how many drops of sweat, how many labors when he would go preaching. Thus he does not say you have been bought, but you have been redeemed, that is bought many times over. Therefore the Apostle [Paul]: “In whom we have redemption” he does not say purchase [emptionem], “through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace, which hath superabounded in us,” (Eph 1:7-8). See the first reason why Christ is the Good Shepherd, because he buys his sheep at great price [pretiose].

Morally. [Moral sense]. Here one can ponder if the soul is of such great value, and Christ has paid such a price, how everyone ought to value his own soul. How is that man worthy of great reprehension who for some mundane usefulness, or for gaining some earthly good gives his soul to the devil by sinning mortally, because then the soul is sold to the devil for a cheap price of pride or avarice, and so for the other sins. Then the soul already purchased by Christ, you give away for such a vile price.

A story is told about the exceedingly rich merchant who in a transaction puts up all his money, and buys one precious pearl, and gives it to his wife, who places it in her purse, and a certain woman comes by carrying lettuce, and she gives it for some lettuce. Wouldn’t you judge her to be stupid, or to have become so? Likewise you would be in this or in such a stupidity. This merchant is Christ who came down from heaven to the marketplace and the everyday of this world, and bought a most precious pearl, namely the soul, for which he gave all his blood, and gave it to me and to you. The old woman passing by with the lettuce is temptation, saying: “O what a delight, etc.” And when you consent to her, then you hand over the pearl to her, that is your soul. When temptation tempts you to vainglory, pride and so of the other sins, then you sell your soul. Or when for a little bribe you swear falsely. Others give [it away] for a little pleasure, like the lustful. Others for a meal or a jug of wine, like gluttons breaking the fast. Others for a little sleep, like the lazy [pigri] when they skip Mass, etc. So scripture says Deut 4: “Keep yourself therefore, and your soul carefully,” (v. 9), namely, lest you return to the servitude to the devil. When the merchant returns, i.e. Christ in death, today or tomorrow, what would he say to you? See, therefore, how sins must be avoided. The holy doctor Pope Leo says in his sermon on the Passion of the Lord, “Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, etc.

KEEPS CAREFULLY - Second, I say, Christ, the Good Shepherd, keeps his sheep carefully. You already see how every lord who has sheep on earth where there are wolves, keeps them well. So Christ does for the Christians lest they be devoured by the wolves of hell. About this he himself speaks in the second part of the gospel. “But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd,” etc. until, “and mine know me,” (Jn 10:12-14), where he states the difference between a true shepherd and the hireling.

12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: 13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.

Note how a lord who has sheep in the desert, has two custodians for the sheep, namely the shepherd and a dog against the raiding wolf. So Christ for the custody of his sheep provides two custodians, namely of pastoral ministers. The shepherds are the holy angels. Whence it is a teaching of sacred theology that everyone from the beginning of his birth has an angel commissioned for his protection. About this see Thomas [Aquinas] I, q. 113. Practically speaking. When a woman is about to give birth, Christ in heaven calls an Angel by name, because he have them all names, saying, “I commit to you my son or daughter, keep them,” etc. The infant as it is born is first received by the angel into the hands of the angel, that is in its keeping and care, and next to the midwife, however much she is present. From which it follows that a woman never gives birth without a midwife. Jerome says, about these words, “Their,” i.e. of men, “angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven,” (Mt 18:10). Here the Gloss of Jerome says: “How great is the dignity of souls, that each from the moment of their birth would have a good angel assigned to its care.” Note, “each.” No owner provides a shepherd for each of his sheep, but he commits 100 or 200 to one shepherd. But Christ loves souls so much that he gives to each their shepherd or keeper. See how he cares for his sheep. Think here, etc. If a king would have sheep like David had them in old times, and the other kings, and would say to his soldiers and barons I commit to you these sheep of the desert, that you keep them, how indignant would he be, nor would he have any patience, and the holy angels of whom the least is greater than this Pope, King, or Emperor, would regard it as an honor for them, that God wished to commit creatures to them whom he made to his image and likeness, and redeemed by his blood and they would thank God. Nor would any angel desert the creature committed to him up until death, whom then, if he be perfect, he would lead to paradise, or to purgatory, or turn him over to the hands of the devils, if he be wicked and impenitent. Of this David, “For he hath given his angels charge over you; to keep you in all your ways,” (Ps 90:11). Note, universally “in all,” and through the sea and through land, etc.

Morally. You have hear the teaching, when you have some temptation, or occasion of sin, you should think repentance of the angel. No thief would steal when another person is watching, nor a lustful person commit a sin of lust. Think how the angel sees you always, etc. Again, Bernard, “In every corner, and every direction [diversorio] give reverence to the angel, and do not do in his presence what you would not do if I were present.

Second, Christ for keeping his sheep, provides dogs who hunt down the wolves of hell. The dogs are all who have the office of preaching. Demons are more afraid of and are are more terrified by the clamor and barking of preaching, than wolves are of the barking of dogs. It is a greater dignity to be such a minister and watchdog – because it is the apostolic office on behalf of the flock of Christ – than to be a patriarch or prophet. Authority: Job in the person of Christ crucified, said, “But now the younger in time scorn me, whose fathers I would not have set with the dogs of my flock,” (Job 30:1). Note, “But now,” namely in the midst of the passion, “the younger in time scorn me,” namely the Jews who were then were, “whose fathers,” the patriarchs and prophets, “I would not have set with the dogs of my flock,” namely with the apostles, because the apostles were of greater dignity, and the apostolic men, than the patriarchs and the prophets. Note therefore how great is the office of preaching, and with how much vigilance is it to be exercised by manly barking [viriliter latrando]. So David, in Ps 67:23-24, “The Lord said: I will turn them from Basan, I will turn them into the depth of the sea: That your foot may be dipped in the blood of your enemies; the tongue of your dogs be red with the same.”   Note, “The Lord said: I will turn them,” namely, sinners, “from Basan,” i.e. from confusion. “I will turn them into the depth of the sea,” i.e. by bitter contrition. And how does this happen? David replies, “That your foot,” the body, “may be dipped in the blood,” of the passion, “and the tongue of your dogs,” of the preachers preaching of the passion of Christ, “of your enemies,” supply the sheep are freed by him, namely by Christ, and not by virtue of the preaching.

Morally. Nowadays the dogs provided by Christ to keep the sheep, make peace with the wolves of hell. Therefore the sheep are kept badly. Note here the parable of Aesop on the dogs and the wolves wishing to wage war. One old wolf who had seen and heard much said, I ask that before the battle you permit me to speak with the dogs. He said to the dogs, It will be a great evil for you to fight with us, because either you shall be conquered and [not] so good for you, or you will be victorious and if we die you shall lose your livelihood. With us dead they will no longer need you. Hearing this, the dogs changed their minds and made peace. The significance of this parable is good. The wolves are the demons; the dogs, the preachers, who ought to fight but make peace. For now the preachers are not barking against the demons for the sake of keeping the flock, but as clergy are seen thus: they either have mistresses [familiarites], wealth, etc., and they preach the teachings of the poets and not of Christ. Thus it is already true what Isaiah said: “All you beasts of the field come to devour, all you beasts of the forest. His watchmen are all blind, they are all ignorant: dumb dogs not able to bark, seeing vain things, sleeping and loving dreams. And meet impudent dogs, they never had enough: the shepherds themselves knew no understanding: all have turned aside into their own way, every one after his own gain, from the first even to the last,” (Isa 56:9-11).   Thus the wolves, that is the demons, devour so many sheep.

If it is said, “It is a wonder that some sheep would perish, because they have a guardian angel,” etc., I reply that God through the angels guards the sheep, but does not force free will. Christ commands, the angels however give counsel, and persuade but do not force; Christ as Lord and principal shepherd commands humility, and the angel induces you to the same, but you are so wicked and stuborn in your wickedness etc, that you do not wish to believe Christ commanding, nor the angel counseling, but you wish to act in a proud way and with pomp etc. The same of other virtues and their opposite vices. Behold why the sheep of Christ are lost, because they prefer not to remain under the care or rule of the shepherd. So David: “I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost,” (Ps 118:176).

FED ABUNDANTLY - I say third, that the goodness of Christ the shepherd is shown in this that he feeds his sheep generously, namely in the sacrament of the altar. It is great when a lord permits his sheep to graze in his garden; greater still when at his table and of his own bread. Christ does more for his sheep, whom he permits to eat in his house, namely the church, and at his table, the altar, where he provides not bread, but his body as food, and his blood as drink, not one piece but his whole body. About this the gospel says, “As the Father knows me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep,” (Jn 10:15). Here Gregory comments that he says this about the sacrament of the altar. Christ did what he admonishes, he shows what he commands. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, that he changes his body and blood into our sacrament, and he feeds the sheep which he has redeemed with the food of his flesh. About this pasture the prophecy of Ezekiel 34, Thus says the Lord, “I will feed [my sheep] in the mountains of Israel … I will feed them in the most fruitful pastures, and their pastures shall be in the high mountains of Israel,” (Ez 34:13,14), namely in the three highest substances which are in the consecrated host. Hence the higher mountain or creature of the corporal world, and better is the body of Jesus Christ which is in the host. Christ said to the apostles at the last supper “Take and eat. This is my body,” (Mat 26:24). The second highest mountain better and more excellent than all spiritual creatures is the soul of Christ, which is also there in the consecrated host through natural concomitance. The third highest mountain, because better and more excellent of all liquid substances is the blood of Christ, which is there through natural concomitance. Therefore it is not given to you in the chalice. Also over all bodily and spiritual and liquid creatures is the divinity, which is entirely in the consecrated host. Behold what a haul [qualis bolus]. See why he said? “I will feed my sheep,” etc., (Ez 34:15).

Morally. If therefore you wish to be with the angels in the pastures of paradise, receive communion each year at Easter, prepared well for you, otherwise you will not be received in paradise. A great reason is that he who does not wish to receive Christ in his house will not be received by Christ in paradise. “Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,” (Jn 6:54). But he who receives communion, is received by Christ saying, “It is right, because you have received me, that I receive you into my house.” “Well done, good and faithful servant,” (Mt 25:21). Note that just as Christ should be received sacramentally each year, so he ought to be received spiritually on each Sunday at Mass. The priest receives him sacramentally, and the whole people ought to receive him spiritually. Thus the priest says in receiving communion, “Refreshed by the heavenly food and drink,” etc.

Observing four conditions you should receive Christ at mass spiritually. On Sunday, you first should not drink, 1 Cor 11: “When you come together to eat, wait for one another,” namely you should not drink when, etc. Second that you should have been to confession, because when man has invited, always he should have hands washed. David, “We are his people and the sheep of his pasture. Go into his gates, “with praise [in confessione],” (Ps 99:3-4). He doesn’t say it in the epistle or in the gospel. Third, you should not talk in church. “For thus says the Lord God the Holy One of Israel: If you return and be quiet, you shall be saved: in silence and in hope shall your strength be.” (Isa 30:15). Note “if you return,” namely from your labors and temporal businesses. Fourth, you shouldn’t leave until the blessing is given, according to that of Deut. 32, “Give magnificence to our God. The works of God are perfect.”

GATHERS SECURELY - Fourth, I say that Christ like a good shepherd keeps his sheep safe. Just as a shepherd gathers his sheep into a secure place, etc, so does Christ. About this the fourth part of the gospel: “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold,” (Jn 10:16), to the end. Thus good people I see that you who have sheep in pastures on the mountain, when night comes, you put them in some sheepfold, lest the wolves eat them. So Jesus does with us. When evening comes – the day of our death, Jesus gathers souls into paradise, if they have lived well, lest the wolf, that is the devil devour them. And Christ speaks to the angels saying, “Other sheep I have,” men and women, and it is necessary to lead them to me, namely through innocence, or through obedience, or through penitence. The sheepfold, or place of these sheep where in the night of death they might rest most securely is the empyreal heaven, namely the society of the angels, and they make up “one fold and one shepherd,” (v. 16).

Friday's Sung Word: "Sem Tostão!" by Noel Rosa and Arthur Costa (in Portuguese)

De que maneira eu vou me arranjar
Pro senhorio não me despejar?
Pois eu hoje saí do plantão
 sem tostão!

Já perguntei na prefeitura quanto tenho que pagar:
Quero ter uma licença pra viver sem almoçar.
Veio um  funcionário e gritou  bem indisposto
Que pra ser assim, tão magro
Tenho que pagar imposto!
(mas vejam só!)

E quando eu passo pela praça, quase como o chafariz
Quando a minha fome aperta, dou dentadas no nariz
Ensinei meu cachorrinho a passar sem ver comida:
Quando estava acostumado, ele disse adeus à vida!
Cuá, cuá, cuá!!!

 

You can listen "Sem Tostão!" sung by Arthur Costa here.

Thursday's Serial: "Threads of Grey and Gold” by Myrtle Reed (in English) - VII

 

THE FIN-DE-SIÈCLE WOMAN

The world has fought step by step the elevation of woman from inferiority to equality, but at last she is being recognised as a potent factor in our civilisation.

The most marked change which has been made in woman’s position during the last half century or more has been effected by higher education, and since the universities have thrown open their doors to her, she has been allowed, in many cases, to take the same courses that her brother does.

Still, the way has not been entirely smooth for educated and literary women, for the public press has too often frowned upon their efforts to obtain anything like equal recognition for equal ability. The literary woman has, for years, been the target of criticism, and if we are to believe her critics, she has been entirely shunned by the gentlemen of her acquaintance; but the fact that so many of them are wives and mothers, and, moreover, good wives and mothers, proves conclusively that these statements are not trustworthy.

It is true that some prefer the society of women who know just enough to appreciate their compliments—women who deprecate their “strong-minded” sisters, and are ready to agree implicitly with every statement that the lords of creation may make; but this readiness is due to sheer inability to produce a thought of their own.

It is true that some men are afraid of educated women, but a man who is afraid of a woman because she knows something is not the kind of a man she wants to marry. He is not the kind of a man she would choose for either husband or friend; she wants an intellectual companion, and the chances are that she will find him, or rather that he will find her. A woman need not be unwomanly in order to write books that will help the world.

She may be a good housekeeper, even if she does write for the magazines, and the husbands of literary women are not, as some folks would have us believe, neglected and forlorn-looking beings. On the contrary, they carry brave hearts and cheerful faces with them always, since their strength is reinforced by the quiet happiness of their own firesides.

The fin-de-siècle woman is literary in one sense, if not in another, for if she may not wield her pen, she can keep in touch with the leading thinkers of the day, and she will prove as pleasant a companion during the long winter evenings as the woman whose husband chose her for beauty and taste in dress.

The literary woman is not slipshod in her apparel, and she may, if she chooses, be a society and club woman as well. Surely there is nothing in literary culture which shall prevent neatness and propriety in dress as well as in conduct.

The devoted admirer of Browning is not liable to quote him in a promiscuous company and though a lady may be familiar with Shakespeare, it does not follow that she will discuss Hamlet in social gatherings.

If she reads Greek as readily as she does her mother tongue, you may rest assured she will not mention Homer in ordinary conversation, for a cultivated woman readily recognises the fitness of things, and accords a due deference to the tastes of others. She has her club and her friends, as do the gentlemen of her acquaintance, but her children are not neglected from the fact that she sometimes thinks of other things. She is a helpmeet to her husband, and not a plaything, or a slave. If duty calls her to the kitchen, she goes cheerfully, and, moreover, the cook will not dread to see her coming; or if that important person be absent, the table will be supplied with just as good bread, and just as delicate pastry, as if the lady of the house did not understand the chemicals of their composition.

If trouble comes, she bears it bravely, for the cultured woman has a philosophy which is equal to any emergency, and she does the best she can on all occasions.

If her husband leaves her penniless, she will, if possible, clothe her children with her pen, but if her literary wares are a drug on the market, she will turn bravely to other fields, and find her daily bread made sweet by thankfulness. She does not hesitate to hold out her hands to help a fellow-creature, either man or woman, for she is in all things womanly—a wife to her husband and a mother to her children in the truest sense of the words.

Her knowledge of the classics does not interfere with the making of dainty draperies for her home, and though she may be appointed to read a paper before her club on some scholarly theme, she will listen just as patiently to tales of trouble from childish lips, and will tie up little cut fingers just as sympathetically as her neighbour who folds her arms and who broadly hints that “wimmen’s spear is to hum!”

Whether the literary woman be robed in silk and sealskin, or whether she rejoices in the possession of only one best gown, she may, nevertheless, be contented and happy.

Whether she lives in a modest cottage, or in a fashionable home, she may be the same sweet woman, with cheerful face and pleasant voice—with a broad human sympathy which makes her whole life glad.

Be she princess, or Cinderella, she may be still her husband’s confidant and cherished friend, to whom he may confide his business troubles and perplexities, certain always of her tender consolation and ready sympathy. She may be quick and versatile, doing well whatever she does at all, for her creed declares that “whatever is honest is honourable.”

She glories in her womanhood and has no sympathy with anything which tends to degrade it.

All hail to the woman of the twentieth century; let fin de siècle stand for all that is best and noblest in womanhood: for liberty, equality, and fraternity; for right, truth, and justice.

All hail the widespread movement for the higher education of woman, for in intellectual development is the future of posterity, in study is happiness, through the open door of the college is the key of a truer womanhood, a broader humanity, and a brighter hope. In education along the lines of the broadest and wisest culture is to be found the emancipation of the race.

 

 

THE MOON MAIDEN

There’s a wondrous land of misty gold

Beyond the sunset’s bars.

There’s a silver boat on a sea of blue,

And the tips of its waves are stars.

 

And idly rocking to and fro,

Her cloud robes floating by,

There’s a maiden fair, with sunny hair,

The queen of the dreamy sky.

 

 

HER SON’S WIFE

The venerable mother-in-law joke appears in the comic papers with astonishing regularity. For a time, perhaps, it may seem to be lost in the mists of oblivion, but even while one is rejoicing at its absence it returns to claim its original position at the head of the procession.

There are two sides to everything, even to an old joke, and the artist always pictures the man’s dismay when his wife’s mother comes for a visit. Nobody ever sees a drawing of a woman’s mother-in-law, and yet, the bitterness and sadness lie mainly there—between the mother and the woman his son has chosen for his wife.

It is a pleasure to believe that the average man is a gentleman, and his inborn respect for his own mother, if nothing else, will usually compel an outward show of politeness to every woman, even though she may be a constant source of irritation. Grey hair has its own claims upon a young man’s deference, and, in the business world, he is obliged to learn to hold his tongue, hide his temper, and “assume a virtue though he has it not.”

The mother’s welcome from her daughter’s husband depends much upon herself. Her long years of marriage have been in vain if they have not taught her to watch a man’s moods and tenses; when to speak and when to be silent, and how to avoid useless discussion of subjects on which there is a pronounced difference of opinion. Leaving out the personal equation, the older and more experienced woman is better fitted to get along peaceably with a man than the young girl who has her wisdom yet to acquire.

Moreover, it is to the daughter’s interest to cement a friendship between her mother and her husband, and so she stands as a shield between the two she holds dearest, to exercise whatever tact she may possess toward an harmonious end.

 

“A son’s a son till he gets him a wife,

But a daughter’s a daughter all the days of her life.”

 

Thus the old saying runs, and there is a measure of truth in it, more’s the pity. Marriage and a home of her own interfere but little with a daughter’s devotion to her mother, even though the daily companionship be materially lessened. The feeling is there and remains unchanged, unless it grows stronger through the new interests on both sides.

If a man has won his wife in spite of her mother’s opposition, he can well afford to be gracious and forget the ancient grudge. It is his part, too, to prove to the mother how far she was mistaken, by making the girl who trusted him the happiest wife in the world. The woman who sees her daughter happy will have little against her son-in-law, except that primitive, tribal instinct which survives in most of us, and jealously guards those of our own blood from the aggression of another family or individual.

One may as well admit that a good husband is a very scarce article, and that the mother’s anxiety for her daughter is well-founded. No man can escape the sensation of being forever on trial in the eyes of his wife’s mother, and woe to him if he makes a mistake or falters in his duty! Things which a woman would gladly condone in her husband are unpardonable sins in the man who has married her daughter, and taken her from a mother’s loving care.

A good husband and a good man are not necessarily the same thing. Many a scapegrace has been dearly loved by his wife, and many a highly respected man has been secretly despised by his wife and children. When the prison doors open to discharge the sinners who have served long sentences, the wives of those who have been good husbands are waiting for them with open arms. The others have long since taken advantage of the divorce laws.

Since women know women so well, perhaps it is only natural for a mother to feel that no girl who is good enough for her son ever has been born. All the small deceits, the little schemes and frailties, are as an open book in the eyes of other women.

“If you were a man,” said one girl to another, “and knew women as well as you do now, whom would you marry?”

The other girl thought for a moment, and then answered unhesitatingly: “I’d stay single.”

Women are always suspicious of each other, and the one who can deceive another woman is entitled to her laurels for cleverness. With the keen insight and quick intuition of the woman on either side of him, when these women are violently opposed to each other, no man need look for peace.

In spite of their discernment, women are sadly deficient in analysis when it comes to a question of self. Neither wife nor mother can clearly see her relation to the man they both love. Blinded by passionate devotion and eager for power, both women lose sight of the truth, and torment themselves and each other with unfounded jealousy and distrust.

In no sense are wife and mother rivals, nor can they ever be so. Neither could take the place of the other for a single instant, and the wife foolishly guards the point where there is no danger, for, of all the women in the world, his mother and sisters are the only ones who could never by any possibility usurp her place.

A woman need only ask herself if she would like to be the mother of her husband—to exchange the love which she now has for filial affection—for a temporary clearness of her troubled skies. The mother need only ask herself if she would surrender her position for the privilege of being her son’s wife, if she seeks for light on her dark path.

Yet, in spite of this, the two are often open and acknowledged rivals. A woman recently wrote to the “etiquette department” of a daily paper to know whether she or her son’s fiancée should make the first call. In answering the question, the head of the department, who, by the way, has something of a reputation for good sense, wrote as follows: “It is your place to make the first call, and you have my sympathy in your difficult task. You must be brave, for you are going to look into the eyes of a woman whom your son loves better than he does you!” “Better than he does you!” That is where all the trouble lies, for each wishes to be first in a relation where no comparison is possible.

When an American yacht first won the cup, Queen Victoria was watching the race. When she was told that the America was in the lead, she asked what boat was second. “Your Majesty,” replied the naval officer sadly, “there is no second!”

So, between wife and mother there is no second place, and it is possible for each to own the whole of the loved one’s heart, without infringing or even touching upon the rights of the other.

Few of the passengers on a lake steamer, during a trip in northern waters a few years since, will ever forget a certain striking group. Mother and son, and the son’s fiancée, were off for a week’s vacation. The mother was tall and stately, with snow-white hair and a hard face deeply seamed with wrinkles, and with the fire of southern countries burning in her faded blue eyes. The son was merely a nice boy, with a pleasant face, and the girl, though not pretty, had a fresh look about her which was very attractive.

She wore an engagement ring, so he must have cared for her, but otherwise no one would have suspected it. From beginning to end, his attention was centred upon his mother. He carried his mother’s wraps, but the girl carried her own. He talked to the mother, and the girl could speak or not, just as she chose. Never for an instant were the two alone together. They sat on the deck until late at night, with the mother between them. When they changed, the son took his own chair and his mother’s, while the girl dragged hers behind them. At the end of their table in the cabin, the mother sat between them at the head. Once, purely by accident, the girl slipped into the nearest chair, which happened to be the mother’s, and the deadly silence could be felt even two tables away. The girl turned pale, then the son said: “You’ll take the head of the table, won’t you, mother?”

The steely tone of her voice could be heard by every one as she said, “No!”

The girl ate little, and soon excused herself to go to her stateroom, but the next day things were as before, and the foolish old mother had her place next to her son.

Discussion was rife among the passengers, till an irreverent youth ended it by saying: “Mamma’s got the rocks; that’s the why of it!”

Perhaps it was, but one wonders why a man should slight his promised wife so publicly, even to please a mother with “rocks!”

To the mother who adores her son, every girl who smiles at him has matrimonial designs. When he falls in love, it is because he has been entrapped—she seldom considers him as being the aggressive one of the two. The mother of the girl feels the same way, and, in the lower circles, there is occasionally an illuminating time when the two mothers meet.

Each is made aware how the other’s offspring has given the entrapped one no peace, and how the affair has been the scandal of two separate neighbourhoods, more eligible partners having been lost by both sides.

In the Declaration of Independence there is no classification of the rights of the married, but the clause regarding “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” has been held pointedly to refer to the matrimonial state. If the mother would accord to her daughter-in-law the same rights she claimed at the outset of her own married life, the relation would be perceptibly smoother in many instances.

When a woman marries, she has a right to expect the love of her husband, material support, a home of her own, even though it be only two tiny rooms, and absolute freedom from outside interference. It is her life, and she must live it in her own way, and a girl of spirit will live it in her own way, without taking heed of the consequences, if she is pushed too far.

On the other hand, the mother who bore him still has proprietary rights. She may reasonably claim a share of his society, a part of his earnings, if she needs financial assistance, and his interest in all that nearly concerns her. If she expects to be at the head of his house, with the wife as a sort of a boarder, she need not be surprised if there is trouble.

Marriage brings to a girl certain freedom, but it gives her no superiority to her husband’s family. A chain is as strong as its weakest link, and the members of a family do not rise above the general level. Every one of them is as good as the man she has married, and she is not above any of them, unless her own personality commands a higher position.

She treasonably violates the confidence placed in her if she makes a discreditable use of any information coming to her through her association with her husband’s family. There are skeletons in every closet, and she may not tell even her own mother of what she has seen in the other house. A single word breathed against her husband’s family to an outsider stamps her as a traitor, who deserves a traitor’s punishment.

The girl who tells her most intimate friend that the mother of her fiancé “is an old cat,” by that act has lowered herself far below the level of any self-respecting cat. Even if outward and visible disgrace comes to the family of her husband, she is unworthy if she does not hold her head high and let the world see her loyalty.

Marriage gives her no right to criticise any member of her husband’s family; their faults are out of her reach except by the force of tactful example. Her concern is with herself and him, not his family, and a wise girl, at the beginning of her married life, will draw a sharp line between her affairs and those of others, and will stay on her own side of the line.

When a man falls in love with a thoughtless butterfly, his womenfolk may be pardoned if they stand aghast a moment before they regain their self-command. In a way it is like a guest who is given the freedom of the house, and who, when her visit is over, tells her friends that the parlour carpet was turned, and the stairs left undusted.

Another household is intimately opened to the woman whom the son has married, and the members of it can make no defence. She can betray them if she chooses; there is nothing to shield them except her love for her husband, and too often that is insufficient.

A girl seldom stops to think what she owes to her husband’s mother. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, the man she loves was born. Since then there has been no time, sleeping or waking, when he has not been in the thoughts of the mother who has sought to do her best by him. She gave her life wholly to the demands of her child, without a moment’s hesitation.

She has sacrificed herself in countless ways, all through those years, in order that he might have his education, his pleasures, and his strong body. With every day he has grown nearer and dearer to her; every day his loss would have been that much harder to bear.

In quiet talks in the twilight, she teaches him to be gentle and considerate, to be courteous to every woman because a woman gave him life; to be brave, noble, and tender; to be strong and fine; to choose honour with a crust, rather than shame with plenty.

Then comes the pretty butterfly, with whom her son is in love. Is it strange that the heart of the mother tightens with sudden pain?

With never a thought, the girl takes it all as her due. She would write a gracious note of thanks to the friend who sent her a pretty handkerchief, but for the woman who is the means of satisfying her heart’s desire she has not even toleration. All the sweetness and beauty of his adoring love are a gift to her, unwilling too often, perhaps, but a gift nevertheless, from his mother.

Long years of life have taught the mother what it may mean and what, alas, it does too often mean. Memories only are her portion; she need expect nothing now. He may not come to see his mother for an old familiar talk, because his wife either comes with him, or expects him to be at home. He has no time for his mother’s interests or his mother’s friends; there is scant welcome in his home for her, because between them has come an alien presence which never yields or softens.

Strangely, and without any definite idea of the change, he comes to see his mother as she is. Once, she was the most beautiful woman in the world, and her roughened hands were lovely because they had toiled for him. Once, her counsel was wise, her judgment good, and the gift of feeling which her motherhood brought her was seen as generous sympathy.

Now, by comparison with a bright, well-dressed wife, he sees what an “old frump” his mother is. She is shabby and old-fashioned, clinging to obsolete forms of speech, hysterical and emotional. When the mists of love have cleared from her boy’s eyes, she may just as well give up, because there is no return, save in that other mist which comes too late, when mother is at rest.

The wife who tries to keep alive her husband’s love for his family, not only in his heart, but in outward observance as well, serves her own interests even better than theirs. The love of the many comes with the love of the one, and just as truly as he loves his sweetheart better because of his mother and sisters, he may love them better because of her.

The poor heart-hungry mother, who stands by with brimming eyes, fearful that the joy of her life may be taken from her, will be content with but little if she may but keep it for her own. It is only a little while at the longest, for the end of the journey is soon, but sunset and afterglow would have some of the rapture of dawn, if her son’s wife opened the door of her young heart and said with true sincerity and wells of tenderness: “Mother—Come!”

 

 

A LULLABY

Sleep, baby, sleep,

The twilight breezes blow,

The flower bells are ringing,

The birds are twittering low,

Sleep, baby, sleep.

 

Sleep, baby, sleep,

The whippoorwill is calling,

The stars are twinkling faintly,

The dew is softly falling,

Sleep, baby, sleep.

 

Sleep, baby, sleep,

Upon your pillow lying,

The rushes whisper to the stream,

The summer day is dying,

Sleep, baby, sleep.

 

 

THE DRESSING-SACK HABIT

Someone has said that a dressing-sack is only a Mother Hubbard with a college education. Accepting this statement as a great truth, one is inclined to wonder whether education has improved the Mother Hubbard, since another clever person has characterised a college as “a place where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed!”

The bond of relationship between the two is not at first apparent, yet there are subtle ties of kinship between the two. If we take a Hubbard and cut it off at the hips, we have only a dressing-sack with a yoke. The dressing-sack, however, cannot be walked on, even when the wearer is stooping, and in this respect it has the advantage of the other; it is also supposed to fit in the back, but it never does.

Doubtless in the wise economy of the universe, where every weed has its function, even this garment has its place—else it would not be.

Possibly one may take a nap, or arrange one’s crown of glory to better advantage in a “boudoir négligée,” or an invalid may be thus tempted to think of breakfast. Indeed, the habit is apt to begin during illness, when a friend presents the ailing lady with a dainty affair of silk and lace which inclines the suffering soul to frivolities. Presently she sits up, takes notice, and plans more garments of the sort, so that after she fully recovers all the world may see these becoming things!

The worst of the habit is that all the world does see. Fancy runs riot with one pattern, a sewing-machine, and all the remnants a single purse can compass. The lady with a kindly feeling for colour browses along the bargain counter and speedily acquires a rainbow for her own. Each morning she assumes a different phase, and, at the end of the week, one’s recollection of her is lost in a kaleidoscopic whirl.

Red, now—is anything prettier than red? And how the men admire it! Does not the dark lady build wisely who dons a red dressing-sack on a cold morning, that her husband may carry a bright bit of colour to the office in his fond memories of home?

A book with a red cover, a red cushion, crimson draperies, and scarlet ribbons, are all notoriously pleasing to monsieur—why not a red dressing-sack?

If questioned, monsieur does not know why, yet gradually his passion for red will wane, then fail. Later in the game, he will be affronted by the colour, even as the gentleman cow in the pasture. It is not the colour, dear madame, but the shiftless garment, which has wrought this change.

There are few who dare to assume pink, for one must have a complexion of peaches and cream, delicately powdered at that, before the rosy hues are becoming. Yet, the sallow lady, with streaks of grey in her hair, crow’s feet around her eyes, and little time tracks registered all over her face, will put on a pink dressing-sack when she gets ready for breakfast. She would scream with horror at the thought of a pink and white organdie gown, made over rosy taffeta, but the kimono is another story.

Green dressing-sacks are not often seen, but more’s the pity, for in the grand array of colour nothing should be lacking, and the wearers of these garments never seem to stop to think whether or not they are becoming. What could be more cheerful on a cloudy morning than a flannel négligée of the blessed shade of green consecrated to the observance of the seventeenth of March?

It looks as well as many things which are commonly welded into dressing-sacks; then why this invidious distinction?

When we approach blue in our dressing-sack rainbow, speech becomes pitifully weak. Ancient maidens and matrons, with olive skins, proudly assume a turquoise négligée. Blue flannel, with cascades of white lace—could anything be more attractive? It has only one rival—the garment of lavender eiderdown flannel, the button-holes stitched with black yarn, which the elderly widow too often puts on when the tide of her grief has turned.

The combination of black with any shade of purple is well fitted to produce grief, even as the cutting of an onion will bring tears. Could the dear departed see his relict in the morning, with lavender eiderdown environment, he would appreciate his mercies as never before.

The speaking shades of yellow and orange are much affected by German ladies for dressing-sacks, and also for the knitted tippets which our Teutonic friends wear, in and out of the house, from October to July. Canary yellow is delicate and becoming to most, but it is German taste to wear orange.

At first, perhaps, with a sense of the fitness of things, the négligée is worn only in one’s own room. She says: “It’s so comfortable!” There are degrees in comfort, varying from the easy, perfect fit of one’s own skin to a party gown which dazzles envious observers, and why is the adjective reserved for the educated but abbreviated Mother Hubbard?

“The apparel oft proclaims the man,” and even more is woman dependent upon her clothes for physical, moral, and intellectual support. An uncorseted body will soon make its influence felt upon the mind. The steel-and-whalebone spine which properly reinforces all feminine vertebra is literally the backbone of a woman’s self-respect.

Would the iceman or the janitor hesitate to “talk back” to the uncorseted lady in a pink dressing-sack?—Hardly!

But confront the erring man with a quiet, dignified woman in a crisp shirt-waist and a clean collar—verily he will think twice before he ventures an excuse for his failings.

The iceman and the grocery boy see more dressing-sacks than most others, for they are privileged to approach the back doors of residences, and to hold conversations with the lady of the house, after the departure of him whose duty and pleasure it is to pay for the remnants. And in the lower strata they are known by their clothes.

“Fifty pounds for the red dressing-sack,” says the iceman to his helper, “and a hundred for the blue. Step lively now!”

And how should madame know that her order for a steak, a peck of potatoes, and two lemons, is registered in the grocery boy’s book under the laconic title, “Pink”?

After breakfast, when she sits down to read the paper and make her plans for the day, the insidious dressing-sack gets in its deadly work.

“I won’t dress,” she thinks, “until I get ready to go out.” After luncheon, she is too tired to go out, and too nearly dead to dress.

Friends come in, perhaps, and say: “Oh, how comfortable you look! Isn’t that a dear kimono?” Madame plumes herself with conscious pride, for indeed it is a dear kimono, and already she sees herself with a reputation for “exquisite négligée.”

The clock strikes six, and presently the lord of the manor comes home to be fed. “I’m dreadfully sorry, dear, you should find me looking so,” says the lady of his heart, “but I just haven’t felt well enough to dress. You don’t mind, do you?”

The dear, good, subdued soul says he is far from minding, and dinner is like breakfast as far as dressing-sacks go.

Perhaps, in the far depths of his nature, the man wonders why it was that, in the halcyon days of courtship, he never beheld his beloved in the midst of a gunny—no, a dressing-sack. Of course, then, she didn’t have to keep house, and didn’t have so many cares to tire her. Poor little thing! Perhaps she isn’t well!

Isn’t she? Let another woman telephone that she has tickets for the matinée, and behold the transformation! Within certain limits and barring severe headaches, a woman is always well enough to do what she wants to do—and no more.

As the habit creeps upon its victim, she loses sight of the fact that there are other clothes. If she has a golf cape, she may venture to go to the letter-box or even to market in her favourite garment. After a while, when the habit is firmly fixed, a woman will wear a dressing-sack all the time—that is, some women will, except on rare and festive occasions. Sometimes in self-defence, she will say that her husband loves soft, fluffy feminine things, and can’t bear to see her in a tailor-made outfit. This is why she wears the “soft fluffy things,” which, with her, always mean dressing-sacks, all the time he is away from home, as well as when he is there.

It is a mooted question whether shiftlessness causes dressing-sacks, or dressing-sacks cause shiftlessness, but there is no doubt about the loving association of the two. The woman who has nothing to do, and not even a shadow of a purpose in life, will enshrine her helpless back in a dressing-sack. She can’t wear corsets, because, forsooth, they “hurt” her. She can’t sit at the piano, because it’s hard on her back. She can’t walk, because she “isn’t strong enough.” She can’t sew, because it makes a pain between her shoulders, and indeed why should she sew when she has plenty of dressing-sacks?

This type of woman always boards, if she can, or has plenty of servants at her command, and, in either case, her mind is free to dwell upon her troubles.

First, there is her own weak physical condition. Just wait until she tells you about the last pain she had. She doesn’t feel like dressing for dinner, but she will try to wash her face, if you will excuse her! When she returns, she has plucked up enough energy to change her dressing-sack!

The only cure for the habit is a violent measure which few indeed are brave enough to adopt. Make a bonfire of the offensive garments, dear lady; then stay away from the remnant counters, and after a while you will become immune.

Nothing is done in a négligée of this sort which cannot be done equally well in a shirt-waist, crisp and clean, with a collar and belt.

There is a popular delusion to the effect that household tasks require slipshod garments and unkempt hair, but let the frowsy ones contemplate the trained nurse in her spotless uniform, with her snowy cap and apron and her shining hair. Let the doubtful ones go to a cooking school, and see a neat young woman, in a blue gingham gown and a white apron, prepare an eight-course dinner and emerge spotless from the ordeal. We get from life, in most cases, exactly what we put into it. The world is a mirror which gives us smiles or frowns, as we ourselves may choose. The woman who faces the world in a shirt-waist will get shirt-waist appreciation, while for the dressing-sack there is only a slipshod reward.

 

 

IN THE MEADOW

The flowers bow their dainty heads,

And see in the shining stream

A vision of sky and silver clouds,

As bright as a fairy’s dream.

 

The great trees nod their sleepy boughs,

The song birds come and go,

And all day long, to the waving ferns

The south wind whispers low.

 

All day among the blossoms sweet,

The laughing sunbeams play,

And down the stream, in rose-leaf boats

The fairies sail away.

Good Reading: open letter from Harold Cepero about his expulsion from the Camagüey University by the Cuban government (in Spanish)

 

Con todo el respeto y la sinceridad que ustedes merecen, creo que los argumentos sobran para nuestra defensa. Al parecer el motivo de este acto, o no sé cómo lo llaman, es nuestra mala actitud respecto a la política que hoy rige en nuestra patria. El otro, nuestra aprobación del Proyecto Varela.

Empezaré diciendo que dicho proyecto es un proyecto de ley firmado por más de once mil cubanos (electores) y recoge las necesidades fundamentales de nuestro pueblo. No sé por qué pretenden (ustedes que ahora tienen una situación privilegiada con respecto a nosotros y a los que piensan como nosotros) reprimir algo que no es motivo, ni tiene como origen el odio de las personas, sino la apertura, el respeto mutuo, el diálogo.

Ustedes desde su condición: estudiantes, profesores, PCC, UJC, etcétera, están violando la ley de la República. Están intentando pisotear nuestra dignidad, que merece, igual que la de ustedes, un reconocimiento y un estatus legal para desarrollarse a plenitud. Por eso me parece totalmente injusto lo que pretenden hacer. Esto es un atentado contra las leyes internacionales, la Constitución y más, contra nuestras personas.

El Proyecto Varela es totalmente legal y reconocido públicamente por Fidel Castro. Además, si lo apoyamos es porque lo creemos justo y me gustaría que ustedes lo consideraran. Las cosas que pedimos no excluyen a nadie, simplemente queremos un espacio (el que nos pertenece) en la vida social de Cuba.

Expulsarnos no es la solución ni para ustedes ni para nosotros, sería mejor preguntarse por qué hay jóvenes que llenan esta inquietud y se preocupan por el bienestar de la patria. Sería bueno que ustedes explicaran a los estudiantes y al pueblo qué es el Proyecto Varela, qué pide, y así dieran a todos el derecho de opinar y escoger.

Hoy nos echan de esta universidad por eso. Mañana puede ser a uno de ustedes por el solo hecho de ser diferente, por permitirse pensar.

Ustedes están queriendo perpetuar algo que no se sabe siquiera si es justo, y de este modo están negando el progreso de una sociedad que tiene ganas de algo nuevo, de algo que realmente garantice un lugar digno a cada cubano. Están presionando a personas o impidiendo que éstas expresen su verdadero sentir, están cultivando el miedo en la nación.

Con el pretexto de defender la libertad están atacándola. Martí lo diría así: “El puñal que se clava en nombre de la libertad se clava en el pecho de la libertad”. Deben pensar si en el fondo de su actitud hay un verdadero respeto a la libertad, porque decir libertad, ser libre, es no arrebatar a otros la libertad. Por eso les pido que antes de expulsarnos se pregunten hasta cuándo pueden mantener en luto y silencio la realidad de Cuba, y les recuerdo que el daño que nos puedan hacer es daño que se hacen ustedes. Y más: es una amenaza directa a cada cubano.

Los que roban a otros sus derechos se roban a sí mismos. Los que quitan y aplastan la libertad son los verdaderos esclavos.