All this you know and have expressed, but I only wish to add one remark to what I wrote you in my last letter, about my agreeing with N- that the union between woman and man is good when it has for its object their united service of God and man; -not that conjugal physical union adds powers to this service, but that for certain people possessed by the restless inclination to fall in love it removes this unrest, which hinders the surrender of all one's powers to service; and, therefore, though chastity, if complete, is the most advantageous condition for service, yet for certain people, marriage, by quieting them, by removing an obstacle, strengthens their capacity for service. But in this case, -and this is the chief thing I wish to say -it is necessary that men should understand and admit both outside and in marriage that the capacity of being in love, and that mental upheaval which takes place at the time, -is destined not for amusement, not for pleasure, not for artistic creation (many think so), not for the increase of energy in God's service, -as N- thinks; -but only for physical conjugal union with one husband or one wife for the production of children and mutual deliverance from lust. And directing this capacity to the attainment of anything else will only render more difficult, and not facilitate or sweeten, the way of man's life. And therefore I perfectly agree with you that this is a most dangerous snare, in relation to which one cannot be sufficiently careful. "Well," it is said, "why not be in friendly relation with people of the opposite sex, in the same way as with people of the same sex?" There is no reason why we should not, and the more we love the better, but sincere and serious man will immediately remark as N- did that such relations with women are peculiar. If a man does not deceive himself he will always notice that the mutual approach with women is effected more easily than with men in these cases, that the
