there are matches which strike _only_ on the box. It distresses me to
write these words. The idea of "onlyness," of restriction, must bring
matrimony to the mind of everyone. If you do not know what I think
about marriage, buy _The Kreutzer Sonata_. It is not customary to have
more than one wife. Consequently, anything which has _one_ in it--as,
for instance, the date of WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR--reminds me of
marriage, and is, therefore, degrading. Why, the very word "match"
suggests marriage: and yet we allow young children to sell whole boxes
of them in the streets. Horrible! Do you think our lower orders would
become discontented, and strike, if they had not seen matches doing it
first? Still more horrible!

Finally, you strike a match that never struck you, that never offended
you in any way. Is that just, or even manly? Yet, in nine cases out of
ten, the law takes no notice of the offence.

"_To get a light, or because others do it._" Are you not convinced now
that, when you use these words, you are not speaking the truth?

III.

I do not think I ever met anybody who was quite as moral, or quite as
original, as I am. You should give a complete set of my works to each
of your children. I might have generalised on the ill-effects of those
vices from a special case--my own case. Had I done so, I could have
got it printed. I can get anything printed that I write. I preferred
to take a newer line, and to show you how vile you are when you use
matches. Everything is vile. But you are wondering, perhaps, how a
great novelist becomes a small faddist. You must wait till next month,
and then read my article on the immorality of parting one's hair with