him to become a realist. He was painfully double, both male and

female and his sexual doubleness gave him an objective perspective

on the' undeclared war between the sexes, the vast impasse between

two opposed systems. At the same time his duplicity .was a source of

real uncertainty and wavering, and it often made him hypocritcal,

two-faced, or compromising. It is fitting that he chose the odd word

complicity as the base of his ethics in the late 1880s.