The Great Invention

A Discovery by Which Marriage Is Supplanted by an Entirely New and Far Cleverer Plan

FERENC MOLNÁR

FIRST: You arc of the opinion, then, that the institution of marriage . . .

SECOND: Should he abolished.

FIRST: And what would you put in its place?

SECOND: Liberty! Boundless, beautiful freedom! Both men and women should be free to do what they like. They should love whom they choose—as long as it pleases them.

FIRST: And how do you plan to put your theory into practice?

SECOND: Very simply. Let us take an example. A man loves a woman. The woman loves him. They decide, therefore, that henceforth they will live together.

FIRST: What do you mean by "they will live together"?

SECOND: When a man and a woman love each other their most fervent wish is to spend a great deal of time in each other's company. Therefore, they both move into the same apartment and love each other. They proudly announce that they have chosen each other, and let the whole world know that they are now together.

FIRST: HOW will they let the world know of it? Will they tell it to everyone they meet?

SECOND: NO. They simply put an item in the paper.

FIRST: Very well. So I might announce in the newspapers that I am living with Miss X. Y. even though she does not want to live with me.

SECOND: This may easily be remedied. Both will have to announce that they want to live with each other.

FIRST: TO whom? To the editor of the paper? SECOND: NO.

FIRST: Then how?

SECOND: They will tell the fact to a person who will not forget it and who, in case some one asks him: "With whom is Miss X. Y. living now?" will be aide to say that she lives with—let's say—Mr. Brown. . .

FIRST: And will this person be able to remember all the men and women who come to him day after day?

SECOND: NO. He will take a big book and write into it all the names and dates.

FIRST: Yours is a very clever and practical invention, I admit.

SECOND: Of course, it is. We must keep some order; after all, we are civilized. Well, then, the young couple live together, they love each other and help each other in their work.

FIRST: And what will happen if a man who is in love with the young woman in question asks her to live with him?

SECOND: The young woman will simply answer: "1 don't wTant to live with you because I am living with Mr. Brown."

FIRST: It will be rather tiresome for her to say ten or twenty times a day that she is not free. And it is bound to happen, especially if she is pretty. Couldn't she possibly wear a sign by which she may be immediately recognized as "taken"?

SECOND: Your suggestion is not bad. It's rather practical. Well, she might have a title. .She might be addressed differently from those women who do not live with men.

FIRST: This is clever, indeed! A daring novelty!

SECOND: I'd go even further. As long as she continues to live with a man, his name should always be used when she is addressed.

FIRST: HOW? DO you suggest that she

should be addressed thus: "Good morning, partner-woman-living-with Mr. Brown"?

SECOND: NO. That's too long. But I have an idea! It might be shortened. We might say: "Good morning, Mr. Brown's lady." Or: "Good morning, Madame Brown."

FIRST: Magnificent! What a practical and simple idea, and yet how open and honest! So you suggest that the woman should wear the name of the man she lives with.

SECOND: Yes.

FIRST: Superb! Well, and what will happen if, for instance, the man grows tired of her and wants to live with another woman?

SECOND: He will leave her and go to live with the other woman.

FIRST: But suppose Madame Brown is against the change?

SECOND: It might make the change a little difficult. Brown will have to prove that he has good reasons for leaving the first woman. After all. we are civilized. We cannot allow a hysterical man—or a hysterical woman, for that matter—to live with a different mate every day. We must have order.

FIRST: Therefore?

SECOND: If Mr. Brown wants to leave his mate, he will have to go to the man who has put them down in the big book and ask him to strike their names from the book.

FIRST: But suppose Mr. Brown's mate also goes to that man and asks him not to strike their names from the book, because she still loves Mr. Brown and wants to live with him?

SECOND: The solution of the problem is easy: an impartial third person will have to decide.

FIRST: And who shall he be?

SECOND: Both will have to agree on a wise and honest person.

FIRST: And if they cannot agree?

SECOND: Well . . . Then . . . perhaps . . , the State should appoint that certain third person whose duty it will be to decide whether they should continue to live together or not?

FIRST: Superb! I am amazed at how quickly you can answer my objections. Even the most difficult questions you explain without the slightest hesitation. But the State will have to appoint hundreds every day to decide in such questions! It will be very complicated.

OECONI): I have an idea regarding that,too. O The State should appoint a few persons whose only duty will lie to decide such matters. All men and women desirous of separation will have to go to these persons. This arrangement will have the added advantage that these persons, in the course of years, will acquire great experience in these questions and the older they grow the wiser they will be when making decisions.

FIRST: Marvelous! You abound in daring, new reforms. I wonder what you'd invent in order to decide who shall own the little house that they have bought together—in case they separate.

SECOND: The State's appointed referee will decide these matters, too.

FIRST: Congratulations! But here is a difficult question. If they have a child and they separate—who shall have the child?

SECOND: The State.

FIRST: But suppose the mother does not want to give her child to the State? Can anyone force her to do so? Where's your cherished Freedom then?

SECOND: Your objection is interesting but it is not difficult to solve. One needs only brains to do it. The same official who decides the other matters shall decide this, too.

FIRST: It is astounding how quickly you are able to reply!

SECOND: Thanks for the compliment! But I've not told all this merely to show you my brilliant brain at work, but to prove to you how out-of-date the present system of marriage is, and how easy it would be to invent a more practical, cleverer, and entirely new device. All we need is courage.

FIRST: And do you think your theory will be put in practice?

SECOND: I hardly think so. Remember, my friend: Mankind is eternally afraid of reforms, of new ideas. But one thought consoles me: in the slow process of evolution. Mankind will one day reach that solution of the problem which I have just explained to you.