Showing fragments matching your search for: <strong>""</strong>

No matching fragments found in this document.

The ways open to her for finance, for action, were completely doorless. The
avenue stretched out to the horizon.

    She fought bravely but she just didn't take action.

    She was an actress for the theatre alone.

    And she died of it. And she let Bolivar die because of it.

    Never once did Manuela look about and say, "See here, things  musn't  go
this wrong. My lover holds half a continent and even I hold the  loyalty  of
battalions. Yet that woman threw a fish!"

    Never did Manuela tell Bolivar's doctor, a rumoured  lover,  "Tell  that
man he will not live without my becoming a constant part of  his  entourage,
and tell him until he believes it or  we'll  have  a  new  physician  around
here."

    The world was open. Where Theodosius, the wife of Emperor  Justinian  II
of Constantinople, a mere circus girl and a whore,  ruled  harder  than  her
husband but for her husband behind his back-and made him marry her as  well,
Manuela never had any bushel basket of gold brought in to give  Bolivar  for
his unpaid troops with a "Just found it, dear" to his "Where on Earth . .  .
.?" after the  Royalist  captives  had  been  carefully  ransomed  for  gaol
escapes by her enterprising own entourage and  officer  friends.  She  never
handed over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to  Negro  troops
and then said, "Which oververbal family is next?"

    She even held a colonel's rank but only used it because she  wore  man's
clothing afternoons. It was a brutal, violent, ruthless land, not a game  of
musical chairs.

    And so Manuela, penniless,  improvident,  died  badly  and  in  poverty,
exiled by enemies and deserted by her friends.

    But why not deserted by her friends? They had all been  poverty-stricken
to a point quite incapable of helping her even  though  they  wanted  to-for
she once had the power to make them solvent. And didn't use  it.  They  were
in poverty before they won but they did eventually control the  land.  After
that why make it a bad habit?




                              ________________







    And so we see two pathetic, truly dear, but tinsel figures,  both  on  a
stage, both far removed from the reality of it all.

    And one can say, "But if they had not been  such  idealists  they  never
would have fought so hard and freed  half  a  continent,"  or  "If  she  had
stooped to such intrigue or he had been known for violent political  actions
they would never have had the strength and never would have been loved."

    All very idealistic itself. They died "in the ditch" unloved, hated  and
despised, two decent brave people, almost too good for this world.

    A true hero, a true heroine. But on a stage and not in life. Impractical
and improvident and with no faintest gift either one to use the  power  they
could assemble.

    This story of Bolivar and Manuela is a tragedy of the most piteous kind.

    They fought a hidden enemy,  the  Church;  they  were  killed  by  their
friends.

    But don't overlook how impractical it is not to give your friends  power
enough when you have it to give. You can always give some of it  to  another
if the first one collapses through inability. And one can always be  brought
down like a hare at a hunt who seeks to use the delegated power to kill you-
if you have the other friends.
    Life is not a stage for posturing and "Look at me!" "Look at me."  "Look
at me." If one is to lead a life of command or a life near  to  command  one
must handle it as life. Life bleeds. It suffers. It hungers. And it  has  to
have the right to shoot its enemies until such time as comes a golden age.