e fools and mad women than there
ever were!' 'Do you call it folly,' says Oisille, 'to love honestly
in youth and then to turn all love to God?' ... 'And yet I have the
opinion,' says Parlemente, 'that no man will ever love God perfectly
who has not perfectly loved some creature in this world.' 'What do you
by loving perfectly?' asks Saffredant; 'do you call perfect lovers
who are bashful and adore ladies from a distance, without daring
to express their wishes?' 'I call those perfect lovers,' replies
Parlemente, 'who seek some perfection in what they love--whether
goodness, beauty or kindness--and whose hearts are so lofty and honest
that they would rather die than perform those base deeds which honor
and conscience forbid; for the soul which was created only to return
to its Sovereign Good cannot, while it is in the body, do otherwise
than desire to win thither; but because the senses, by which it can
have tidings of that which it seeks, are dull and carnal on account
of the sin of our first parents, they can show it only those visible
things which most nearly approach perfection; and the soul runs after
them, believing that in visible grace and moral virtues it may find
the Sovereign Grace, Beauty and Virtue. But without finding whom it
loves, it passes on like the child who, according to his littleness,
loves apples, pears, dolls and other little things--the most beautiful
that his eye can see--and thinks it riches to heap little stones
together; but, on growing larger he loves living things, and,
therefore, amasses the goods necessary for human life; but he knows,
by the greatest experiences, that neither perfection nor felicity is
attained by possessions only, and he desires true felicity and the
Maker and Source thereof.'"

In her writings, much apparent indelicacy and grossness are
encountered; but it must be remembered for whom she was writing, the
condition of morality and the taste of the public at that time, and
that she aimed faithfully to depict the society that lay before her
eyes. It is argued by some critics that these indecencies could not
have emanated from a pure, chaste woman; that Marguerite must have
experienced the sins she depicted; but such reasoning is not sound.
The expressions used by her were current in her time; there
was greater freedom of manners, and coarseness and drastic
language--examples of which are found so frequently in the writings of
Luther--were very common.

Marguerite was