[74] The essential position of the Church on this point (I say essential; for, by close search, one can find texts supporting the opposite thesis, but once more the curious thing is the fact that this search should be made) seems to me defined in these lines: ‘Malebranche inclines, like Bossuet, to look upon social inequalities and injustices as the results of sin, which must be endured as such, and to which exterior conduct must conform.... We must not even attempt to remedy these injustices except by charity, for we should simply disturb the peace of the world, probably without any result. Only, _we should not in our own souls attach any sort of importance to these circumstances and conditions, for the true life is not there_’ (H. Joly, _Malebranche_, p. 262). [75] On the relation between Durckheim’s theses and those of the French traditionalists, see D. Parodi, _La Philosophie contemporaine en France_, p. 148. [76] ‘Germany is the sole judge of her methods.’ (Major von Disfurth, November, 1914.) The philosophy of national moralities seems essentially German. Is it not very remarkable to see Hegel and Zeller desiring at all costs to prove that Plato in his _Republic_ defined a state of good which was only valid for the Greeks, and not for all peoples? (See P. Janet, _Histoire des idées politiques_, tome 1, p. 140.) [77] Barrès wrote in 1898: ‘The professors are still arguing about justice and truth, when every self-respecting man knows that he must limit himself to inquiring if there is justice in the relations between two given men, at a given time, under specified circumstances.’ That is exactly what the Germany of 1914 said in answer to those who brought accusations against her. Not a single moralist in France before Barrès--not even de Maistre or Bonald--would have asserted that ‘every self-respecting man’ can conceive of no justice but one specially arranged for the circumstances. [78] _L’Appel au Soldat._ Compare this with the traditional French teaching, of which Barrès claims to be the heir: ‘Whatever your country may be, you should only believe what you would be disposed to believe if you were in another country.’ (_Logique de Port-Royal_, iii, xx.) It must not be thought that dogma of national truths aims only at moral truth. Recently certain French thinkers waxed indignant that the doctrines of Einstein were accepted by their compatriots without more resistance.