But I must return to the Generalizations, Psychologizings, Deductions.  When M. Bourget is exploiting these arts, it is then that he is peculiarly and particularly himself.  His ways are wholly original when he encounters a trait or a custom which is new to him.  Another person would merely examine the find, verify it, estimate its value, and let it go; but that is not sufficient for M. Bourget:  he always wants to know why that thing exists, he wants to know how it came to happen; and he will not let go of it until he has found out.  And in every instance he will find that reason where no one but himself would have thought of looking for it.  He does not seem to care for a reason that is not picturesquely located; one might almost say picturesquely and impossibly located.

He found out that in America men do not try to hunt down young married women.  At once, as usual, he wanted to know why.  Any one could have told him.  He could have divined it by the lights thrown by the novels of the country.  But no, he preferred to find out for himself.  He has a trustfulness as regards men and facts which is fine and unusual; he is not particular about the source of a fact, he is not particular about the character and standing of the fact itself; but when it comes to pounding out the reason for the existence of the fact, he will trust no one but himself.

In the present instance here was his fact:  American young married women are not pursued by the corruptor; and here was the question:  What is it that protects her?

It seems quite unlikely that that problem could have offered difficulties to any but a trained philosopher.  Nearly any person would have said to M. Bourget:  “Oh, that is very simple.  It is very seldom in America that a marriage is made on a commercial basis; our marriages, from the beginning, have been made for love; and where love is there is no room for the corruptor.”

Now, it is interesting to see the formidable way in which M. Bourget went at that poor, humble little thing.  He moved upon it in column—­three columns—­and with artillery.

“Two reasons of a very different kind explain”—­that fact.

And now that I have got so far, I am almost afraid to say what his two reasons are, lest I be charged with inventing them.  But I will not retreat now; I will condense them and print them, giving my word that I am honest and not trying to deceive any one.

1.  Young married women are protected from the approaches of the seducer in New England and vicinity by the diluted remains of a prudence created by a Puritan law of two hundred years ago, which for a while punished adultery with death.

2.  And young married women of the other forty or fifty States are protected by laws which afford extraordinary facilities for divorce.

If I have not lost my mind I have accurately conveyed those two Vesuvian irruptions of philosophy.  But the reader can consult Chapter IV. of ‘Outre-Mer’, and decide for himself.  Let us examine this paralyzing Deduction or Explanation by the light of a few sane facts.