“The first part of this passage,” continued Isaacs, “is disputed; I mean the words referring to orphans.  But the latter portion is plain enough.  When the apostle warns those who fear they ’cannot act equitably towards so many,’ I am sure that in his wisdom he meant something more by ‘equitable’ treatment than the mere supplying of bodily wants.  He meant us to so order our households that there should be no jealousies, no heart-burnings, no unnecessary troubling of the peace.  Now woman is a thing of the devil, jealous; and to manage a number of such creatures so that they shall be even passably harmonious among themselves is a fearful task, soul-wearying, heart-hardening, never-ending, leading to no result.”

“Just what I told you; a man is better with no wife at all than with three.  But why do you talk about such matters with me, an unbeliever, a Christian, who, in the words of your prophet, ’shall swallow down nothing but fire into my belly, and shall broil in raging flames’ when I die?  Surely it is contrary to the custom of your co-religionists; and how can you expect an infidel Frank to give you advice?”

“I don’t,” laconically replied my host.

“Besides, with your views of women in general, their vocation, their aims, and their future state, is it at all likely that we should ever arrive at even a fair discussion of marriage and marriage laws?  With us, women have souls, and, what is a great deal more, seem likely to have votes.  They certainly have the respectful and courteous service of a large proportion of the male sex.  You call a woman a thing of the devil; we call her an angel from heaven; and though some eccentric persons like myself refuse to ally themselves for life with any woman, I confess, as far as I am concerned, that it is because I cannot contemplate the constant society of an angel with the degree of appreciation such a privilege justly deserves; and I suspect that most confirmed bachelors, knowingly or unconsciously, think as I do.  The Buddhists are not singular in their theory that permanent happiness should be the object.”

“They say,” said Isaacs, quickly interrupting, “that the aim of the ignorant is pleasure; the pursuit of the wise, happiness.  Pray, under which category would you class marriage?  I suppose it comes under one or the other.”

“I cannot say I see the force of that.  Look at your own case, since you have introduced it.”

“Never mind my own case.  I mean with your ideas of one wife, and heavenly woman, and voting, and domestic joy, and all the rest of it.  Take the ideal creature you rave about—­”

“I never rave about anything.”

“Take the fascinating female you describe, and for the sake of argument imagine yourself very poor or very rich, since you would not enter wedlock in your present circumstances.  Suppose you married your object of ‘courteous service and respectful adoration;’ which should you say you would attain thereby, pleasure or happiness?”