When AzaÏs, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, published his Compensations dans les DestinÉes Humaines, he stated, in principle, this proposition: “The lot of man, considered in its entirety, is the work of the whole of Nature, and all men are equal by their lot.”

La Rochefoucauld, long before him, said: “Whatsoever difference may appear between fortunes, there is, nevertheless, a certain balancing of good and evil which makes them equal.”

One sees that compensation is a principle of optimism. Whatever may be advanced by the many makers of systems, this law is manifest amongst all peoples as in all individuals, including those who, whilst ceaselessly regretting their ill-fortune, yet taste, relatively, a little of the sweetness of compensation if only in their own prudence and courage.

The law of compensation is certainly the most consoling that we can desire, and to it all human morality is allied.

It is surprising to read these words from the pen of Droz: “The absurd system of compensation, would have, as its result, apathy, contempt for the troubles of others, and the most odious selfishness.” The conviction that sorrow has joy on the reverse side, that suffering makes health prized, that regret is doubled by memory, is no hindrance, that I am aware of, to sharing in the griefs and joys of others.

Altruism, besides, which so many teachers practise so ill, is nothing but the perfection of egoism, paradoxical though this may seem to some.

Nietzsche says: “An altruistic morality, a morality in which selfishness dies, is in every case a bad sign. It is so in the case both of individuals and peoples. We lose the best of our instincts when we begin to fail in egoism. The instinctive selection of that which is detrimental to us, the allowing ourselves to be deluded by ‘disinterested’ motives, is almost the doctrine of decadence.”

Without going so far as this master of aphorisms, I say that egoism cannot be opposed to altruism, and that the law of compensation does not create reprehensible egoism—that which consists in thinking of oneself only.

Egoism is useful; it is legitimate when it is an action only concerning ourselves and not prejudicial to others. Of this very egoism comes the moral philosophy of compensation, for the quest of happiness is fundamentally the utmost possible mitigation of evil. Let us hear Emerson: “The same dualism underlies the nature and condition of man. Every excess causes a defect; every defect an excess. Every sweet hath its sour; every evil its good. Every faculty which is a receiver of pleasure has an equal penalty put on its abuse. It is to answer for its moderation with its life. For every grain of wit there is a grain of folly. For everything you have missed you have gained something else; and for everything you gain you lose something.”

It is quite certain that the ambitious man who has gained power and who rules a nation has greater responsibilities than the humble artisan. If he break his promises, if his ideas be not realised, he falls, betrayed, despised, abandoned, while the worker goes on with his task with the satisfaction of duty done. In what concerns the real blessings of man all are alike, taking into consideration class and accompanying circumstances. Wealth cannot prevent death from entering the dwelling; poverty knows the joys of the deepest affection. When a great tyrant arises, the strength of the people to resist increases tenfold; punishment lies close to reward. All conditions are in the human soul. To come under the law of compensation is not to be able to escape one’s destiny. The acceptance of evil is the assurance of better things through moral effort. The sensualist suffers through his sensations, the sage rejoices in his wisdom. And everywhere is the soul untiring in the quest of what is good, right, and just. It must have life, though it find life amid the worst misery and the lowest of decay.

For this reason the doctrine of Nemesis is eternal. Every action entails reaction, every sorrow and every joy has its degree in the social scale. The man born rich will suffer more through the misery created by ruin than the poor man whose pockets are always empty. One has nothing to envy the other.

“No man had ever a point of pride that was not injurious to him,” says Burke. Fear is the punishment of the unjust. The law of compensation is not that of indifference, for, without the moral sense no excuse is found for error, and there is no satisfaction for a fault grown to a habit.

The belief that a grief will be compensated for by a joy will bring no comfort to the spirit, unless the soul assert itself.

We must in every circumstance assert our “I,” keep our conscience on the alert, and look to the nature of our own soul to find compensation for inequality of condition. Let the rich man receive the rich; if I am poor, I will take the poor to my heart.

The love of those above me in fortune and power cannot prevent my love from being what it is; my little sorrows and joys will be neither heavier nor less sweet than the griefs of the rich and their triumphs.

Regarded so, the law of compensation is the finest element in the formation of character.