MORALS OF LUXURY. 6jj 



Bossuet treats this point in his " Traite cle la Concupiscence " in 

 language of great force : " The body," he says, " humbles the sub- 

 limity of our thoughts, and attaches us, who ought to breathe of 

 heaven, to the earth. . . . Why," he continues, " do you turn your 

 necessities into vanity ? You need a house as a defense against in- 

 jury from the weather it is a weakness. You need food so that you 

 can repair your forces, which are wasting away at every moment 

 another weakness. You need a bed where you can rest in your weari- 

 ness and give yourself up to a sleep that chains and overwhelms your 

 reason another deplorable weakness. You make of all these witnesses 

 and monuments of your weakness a spectacle for your vanity, and it 

 seems as if you wished to triumph with the display of the infirmities 

 that environ you on every side." Bossuet, it may be, carries the doc- 

 trine of renunciation to asceticism, but is he not right in the main ? 

 Is not every one of our needs a weakness, a subjection, a temptation 

 to sacrifice the good and the just to sensuality ? Dignity of bearing, 

 pride in conduct, fidelity to opinion, often depend on simplicity in 

 life. The fewer wants one has, the freer will he be to do whatever 

 duty commands, and the less will he have in important crises to listen 

 to the suggestions of cupidity. 



The opinion that luxurious expenditure promotes the prosperity of 

 the people is an error of the most pernicious character. Those who 

 indulge in superfluities imagine that they are doing a service to the 

 working people, and governing bodies, sharing in the delusion, some- 

 times grant special appropriations to induce certain functionaries to 

 set the example of costly outlays. The most elementary notions of 

 political economy should show this idea to be false. The progress of 

 industry depends on- the increase of capital, and capital grows with 

 saving. Luxury does not promote the increase of wages, but opposes 

 it. Wages can only rise when capital increases faster than the num- 

 ber of workmen, or, as Cobden says, when two masters are running 

 after one workman. Now, in order that this may take place, each of 

 the competing employers must have accumulated a capital by saving. 

 It is thus saving, not superfluous expenditure, that permits the creation 

 of new fabrics and the employment of more workmen. In very rich 

 countries, indeed, luxury does not prevent the increase of capital, 

 because the incomes are sufiicient there to answer for both purposes. 

 Those who save are found in those countries along with those who 

 spend, and the possessor of a large income may easily indulge some of 

 his fancies and still save considerable sums. The immense surplus 

 revenues of England are employed in the creation of new enterprises 

 at home and abroad ; but, if thrift were more general in that land, its 

 productive capital would be still more largely increased and more 

 widely distributed. 



It is claimed, as a thing that is admitted by every one, that luxury 

 stimulates trade. J. B. Say shows up this doctrine with the story of 



