Analysis with an Introduction to Proof 5th

Edition Lay Solutions Manual pdf download

https://testbankfan.com/product/analysis-with-an-introduction-to-
proof-5th-edition-lay-solutions-manual/
We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com
to discover even more!

Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis 5th

Edition Peck Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-statistics-and-
data-analysis-5th-edition-peck-solutions-manual/

An Introduction To Abstract Algebra With Notes To The

Future Teacher 1st Edition Nicodemi Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/an-introduction-to-abstract-
algebra-with-notes-to-the-future-teacher-1st-edition-nicodemi-
solutions-manual/

Systems Analysis and Design An Object Oriented Approach

with UML 5th Edition Dennis Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/systems-analysis-and-design-an-
object-oriented-approach-with-uml-5th-edition-dennis-solutions-
manual/

Racial and Ethnic Groups 14th Edition Schaefer Test

Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/racial-and-ethnic-groups-14th-
edition-schaefer-test-bank/
Journey of Adulthood 8th Edition Bjorklund Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/journey-of-adulthood-8th-edition-
bjorklund-test-bank/

Company Accounting 11th Edition Leo Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/company-accounting-11th-edition-
leo-test-bank/

Molecular Cell Biology 8th Edition Lodish Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/molecular-cell-biology-8th-
edition-lodish-solutions-manual/

Fundamental Accounting Principles 23rd Edition Wild

Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/fundamental-accounting-
principles-23rd-edition-wild-test-bank/

General Organic Biological Chemistry 2nd Edition Smith

Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/general-organic-biological-
chemistry-2nd-edition-smith-test-bank/
Organic Chemistry 9th Edition Wade Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/organic-chemistry-9th-edition-
wade-test-bank/
 Section 6.1 x The Derivative 64

This work is protected by United States copyright laws and is provided solely for
the use of instructors in teaching their courses and assessing student learning.
Dissemination or sale of any part of this work (including on the World Wide Web)
will destroy the integrity of the work and is not permitted. The work and materials
from it should never be made available to students except by instructors using
the accompanying text in their classes. All recipients of this work are expected to
abide by these restrictions and to honor the intended pedagogical purposes and
the needs of other instructors who rely on these materials.

Analysis
with an Introduction to Proof
5th Edition

by Steven R. Lay
[email protected]

Chapter 6 – Differentiation
Solutions to Exercises

The following notations are used throughout this document:

 = the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, …}
 = the set of rational numbers

= the set of real numbers
 = “for every”
 = “there exists”
† = “such that”

Section 6.1 – The Derivative

1. (a) False: The limit must be finite.

(b) False: Practice 6.1.5, or consider f (x) = | x | at x = 0.
(c) True: Theorem 6.1.6.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.1 x The Derivative 65
2. (a) True: Theorem 6.1.7(a).
(b) True: Theorem 6.1.7(b).
(c) False: g must be differentiable at f (c).

f ( x)  f (1) x2  1
3. (a) Yes. lim lim lim x  1 2 and
x o1 x 1 x o1 x  1 x o1

f ( x)  f (1) (2 x  1)  1 2( x  1) f ( x)  f (1)
lim lim lim 2 , so f c(1) lim 2.
x o1 x 1 x o1 x 1 x o1 x 1 x o1 x 1
(b) No. lim f ( x) 1 and lim f ( x) 2 , so f is not continuous at x = 1, and therefore not differentiable at
x o1 x o1

x = 1. Also, note that the left-hand limit for the derivative is equal to – f while the right-hand limit is 3.
f ( x)  f (1) x2  1 f ( x)  f (1) (3 x  2)  1
(c) No. lim lim lim x  1 2 and lim lim
x o1 x 1 x o1 x  1 x o1 x o1 x 1 x o1 x 1
3( x  1) f ( x)  f (1)
lim 3 . Since these one-sided limits are not equal, lim does not exist.
x o1 x  1 x o1 x 1
4. This is routine.

5. (a) Hint in book: Note that x  c ( x1/ 3  c1/ 3 )( x 2 / 3  c1/ 3 x1/ 3  c 2 / 3 ) .

6. (a) f c (x) = 2x sin (1/x)  cos (1/x), for x z 0.

x 2 sin (1/ x)  0
(b) lim x o 0 lim x o 0 x sin (1/ x ) 0, so f c(0) = 0.
x0
(c) f c is not continuous at x = 0 since lim x o 0 f c (x) = lim x o 0 [2x sin (1/x)  cos (1/x)] does not exist.
g ( x )  g (0) x2  0 g ( x)  g (0) x 2 sin (1 / x)  0
(d) We have lim lim lim x 0 and lim lim
x o 0 x0 x o 0 x  0 x o 0 x o 0 x0 x o 0 x0
lim x sin (1 / x) 0 , so gc(0) exists and is equal to 0.
x o 0

7. (a) f c (x) = 1 if x ! 1 and f c (x) = 1 if x  1.

(b) Answer in book: f c(x) = 2x if x  1 or x ! 1, and f c(x) = 2x if 1  x  1.
(c) f c (x) = 1 x 1/ 2 if x ! 0 and f c (x) =  12 | x | 1/ 2 if x  0.
2
(d) Answer in book: f c(x) = 2| x | for all real x.

2 cos (1/x 2 )
8. (a) f c( x) 2 x sin (1/x 2 )  for x z 0 and f c (0) = 0.
x
2 cos (1/x 2 )
(b) 2x sin (1/x2) is bounded by 2 on [1, 1], but is not bounded on [1, 1]. Indeed, let
x
2 2 cos (1 / an2 ) 2
an . Then cos (1/an2 ) 1 for all n, an o 0, and 2(2n  1)S o f
(2n  1)S an 2
(2n  1)S
as n o f .

9. (a) Hint in book: Since f (x) is defined differently for positive and negative x, you have to use Definition 6.1.1.
f ( x)  f (0) f ( x) x2
Solution: For x z 0, we have 0 d | x | o 0 as x o 0. Thus
x0 x x
f ( x)  f (0)
lim x o 0 exists and is equal to zero.
x0

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.1 x The Derivative 66
(b) f c (x) = 2x for x ! 0 and f c (x) = 0 for x d 0.
(c) Answer in book: f c is continuous on  but not differentiable at x = 0.

10. This is routine.

11. (a) If p z 0, consider a sequence (an) of rationals converging to p and a sequence (bn) of irrationals converging to p.
Then lim an p 2 z 0 lim bn. Thus limx o p f (x) does not exist and f is not continuous at p. For p = 0 we have
| f (x)  f (0) | = | f (x) | d x2 o 0 as x o 0, so f is continuous at 0.
f ( x)  f (0) f ( x) x2
(b) 0 d | x | o 0, so f c(0) exists and is equal to 0.
x0 x x

12. If p(x) is divisible by (x  a)2, then p(x) = (x  a)2 q(x) for some polynomial q(x). Then by the product rule, pc(x) =
(x  a)2 q c(x) + 2(x  a) q(x) = (x  a)[(x  a) qc(x) + 2 q(x)]. Thus x  a divides pc(x).

13. Answer in book: ( fgh)c = ( f g) hc + ( f h)g c + (gh) f c.

14. h q (g q f ) is differentiable at c by two applications of the chain rule. We have [h q (g q f )]c (c) =
hc(g q f (c))(g q f ) c (c) = [hc (g( f (c)))][ hc ( f (c))][ f c (c)].

15. This is routine.

16. By the chain rule we have for any x  I, (g q f )c(x) = gc( f (x)) f c(x). Since g c and f are both differentiable, so is
g c q f . Thus by the product rule, (g q f )c is differentiable and we obtain
(g q f )cc(x) = [ g c ( f (x)) ˜ f c(x)]c
= g c ( f (x)) ˜ f cc (x) + f c(x) ˜ [g cq f (x)]c
= g c ( f (x)) ˜ f cc (x) + g cc ( f (x)) ˜ [ f c (x)]2
17. (a) Each point x z c in I can be written as x = c + h, where h z 0. Since x o c iff h o 0, we have
f (x )  f (c) f (c h )  f (c)
limx l c  limh l 0 .
x c h
So if one limit exists, so does the other, and they have the same value.

f (x )  f (c)
(b) Suppose limx l c  k . Then
x c
f (c h )  f (c  h ) f (c h )  f (c) f (c  h )  f (c) ¯°
limh l 0  limh l 0 ¡
2h ¡ 2h 2h °
¢ ±
1 f (c h )  f (c) 1 f (c  h )  f (c)
 limh l 0 limh l 0
2 h 2 h
 21 k 21 k  k .
(c) Follows from part (a), since the sequence (1/n) converges to 0.
(d) For converse to (b), let f be any even function that is not differentiable at 0, such as f (x) = | x |.
­°0 if x  {0,1, 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ,!}
For converse to (c), define f ( x) ®
°̄1 otherwise.
Then limn o f n[ f (0 +1/n)  f (0) = limn o f n[0 0] = 0, but f is not differentiable at 0. (It is not even
continuous at 0.)

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.1 x The Derivative 67
18. (a) Suppose f is a differentiable even function. Then for all x  ,
f (t )  f ( x) f (t )  f ( x)
f c( x) limt o  x limt o x
t  ( x) tx
ª f (t )  f ( x) º ª f (t )  f ( x) º
limt o  x «  » lim t o x «  »
¬ t  x ¼ ¬ t  x ¼
 f c( x).
(b) Similar to part (a).

19. (a) Hint in book: Note that f (x) = f (x) · f (0) for all x. What does this say about the function f ?
Solution: Since f (x) = f (x) · f (0) for all x, either f is identically 0 or f (0) = 1. The conclusion holds if f is
f (c  h )  f (c )
identically zero. If f (0) = 1 and c  , then by Exercise 17(a), f c(c) lim
ho0 h
f (c ) ˜ f ( h )  f (c ) f ( h)  1 f (h)  f (0)
lim f (c) lim f (c) lim f (c) ˜ f c(0).
ho0 h ho0 h ho0 h0
(b) From part (a) we see that f could be identically 0. Other possibilities are f identically equal to 1,
f (x) = ex, f (x) = e2x, or f (x) = ekx, for any k  . Note that this last case includes f identically equal to one
when k = 0.

Section 6.2 – The Mean Value Theorem

1. (a) False: The interval must be closed as well as bounded. For example, f (x) = 1/x on (0, 1).
(b) False: f must be differentiable on (a, b). For example, consider f (x) = | x | on [1, 1].
(c) False: Let f (x) = x 3 on (1, 1). Then f c(0) = 0, but f (0) is not a max or min of f on (0, 1).

2. (a) True: Corollary 6.2.7.

(b) False: f is continuous, but not necessarily f c. See Exercise 6.1.6.
(c) True: Take the contrapositive of the inverse function theorem, or apply the mean value theorem.

3. Answers in book: (a) Strictly increasing on [2, 3] and strictly decreasing on [0, 2].
(b) Maximum is f (0) = 5 and minimum is f (2) = 1.

4. (a) Strictly increasing on [1, 2] and strictly decreasing on [0, 1].

(b) Maximum is f (2) = 3 and minimum is f (1) = 0.

5. (a) ex  e0 = ecx ! x for c ! 0.

(b) ln x  ln 1 = 1c ( x  1), where c  (1, x). Note that 1x  1c  1.

(c) 53  49 1 1 (53  49), where 49  c  53, and 7  c  53  8.

2 c
1
(d) 1  x  1 12 ( x  0) , c ! 0.
1 c

(e) 1  x  1  24 1 1 ( x  24)  1 ( x  24) since c ! 24.

2 1 c 10
(f ) sin x  sin 0 = (cos c)(x  0) d x. (g) cos x  cos y = (sin c)(x  y).
1
(h) tan x  tan 0 ( x  0), where 0  c  S/2.
cos 2 c
1
( i ) arctan x  arctan1 ( x  1), where c  (1, x).
1  c2
( j ) sin ax  sin bx = (cos c)(ax  bx)

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.2 x The Mean Value Theorem 68
6. f (x) = x on [0, 1] satisfies (i) and (ii). f (x) = | x | on [–1, 1] satisfies (i) and (iii). f (x) = x for 0 < x d 1 and f (0) = 1
satisfies (ii) and (iii). In each case, there is no point c in the relevant interval for which f c (c) = 0.

7. Hint in book: Apply the mean value theorem to f on the interval [x, x + h].
Answer: Applying the mean value theorem to f on the interval [x, x + h], we obtain
f ( x  h)  f ( x ) f ( x  h)  f ( x )
f c(c) , where c  (x, x + h).
( x  h)  x h
Now let D = (c – x)/h. Since x < c < x + h, we have 0 < c – x < h and 0  c  x  1. Thus D  (0, 1).
h
Since c = x + D h, we have f (x + h) – f (x) = h f c (x + Dh), as required.

8. (a) Suppose f c(x) t 0  x  (a, b). If x1  x2 in (a, b), then by the mean value theorem  c  (x1, x2) †
f (x2)  f (x1) = f c(c)(x2  x1). Since f c(c) t 0 and x2  x1 ! 0, we have f (x2) t f (x1). Thus f is increasing on
(a, b).
Conversely,  c  I, if x ! c or if x  c we have [ f (x)  f (c)]/(x  c) t 0. Hence by Exercise 5.1.14,
f ( x )  f (c )
f c(c) lim x o c t 0.
xc
(b) The proof is similar to the solution to part (a).

9. (a) f (x) = x 3 is strictly increasing on , but f c(0) = 0.

(b) f (x) = x 3 is strictly decreasing on , but f c(0) = 0.

x f c( x)  f ( x)
10. By Exercise 6 it suffices to show that g c(x) t 0 for all x  (0, 1). Now g c( x) t 0 iff x f c(x) t f (x).
x2
Apply the mean value theorem to f on [0, x]. Then  c  (0, x) † f (x)  f (0) = f c(c)(x  0). That is, f (x) = f c(c) x.
Since f c is increasing, f c(c) d f c(x). Thus f (x) d x f c(x), as desired.

11. Hint in book: Use Exercise 8.

Answer: From Exercise 8 we know that f is increasing on [a, b]. If f were not strictly increasing there would exist
points x1  x2 in [a, b] † f (x1) = f (x2). Since f is increasing, we must have f (x) = f (x1)  x  [x1, x2]. That is, f is
constant on [x1, x2]. But then f c(x) = 0  x  [x1, x2], a contradiction.

12. By the mean value theorem on [0, x] we have f (x)  f (0) = f c(c)(x 0) for some c  [0, x]. That is, f (x) = x f c(c).
Since 1 d f c(c) d 2, the result follows.

13. Hint in book: (a) and (b) Use the mean value theorem. For (c), use parts (a) and (b) and the intermediate value
theorem.

14. (a) Let g (x) = x2 sin (1/x) for x z 0 and g (0) = 0. In Exercise 6.1.6 we saw that g c(0) = 0. Now
f (x) = x + 2 g(x), so f c(0) = 1  (2)(0) = 1.
(b) For x z 0 we have f c(x) = 1 + 4x sin (1/x)  2 cos (1/x). It is easy to see that every neighborhood of 0 will
contain an interval on which f c(x) < 0. On this interval, f will be strictly decreasing.
(c) f c(x) is not positive throughout an interval containing 0.

15. (a) Given H ! 0, let G = H/(m + 1). Suppose x, y  (a, b), x  y, and | x  y |  G . Then the mean value theorem
applied to f on [x, y] implies that  c  (x, y) † f (x)  f ( y) = f c(c)(x  y). Thus
§ H ·
f ( x)  f ( y ) d m x  y  m ¨ ¸  H.
© m 1¹
Note: We used m + 1 in the denominator to be certain that we were not dividing by zero.
(b) Let f (x) = x for x  (0, 1). Then f is uniformly continuous on (0, 1) since it can be extended to a
continuous function on [0, 1]. But f c(x) = 1/ 2 x is not bounded on (0,1).

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.2 x The Mean Value Theorem 69
16. (a) f (1) = 2 and f (1/2) = 1, but f ([1, 1/2]) = [0,1] ‰ {2}. Thus there is no point between 1 and 1/2 that
maps to 3/2. Thus f does not satisfy the intermediate value property. Hence by Theorem 6.2.9, f cannot be a
derivative.
°­2 x  1 if x  0 °­2 x if x  0
(b) Let g x) ® 2 and h( x) ® 2 .
°̄ x if x t 0 °̄ x  3 if x t 0

17. Hint in book: Use the mean value theorem with the function g – f .
Answer: Let h = g  f. Then h (0) = 0 and hc(x) t 0,  x t 0. Now h (x)  h (0) = hc(c)(x  0) for some c  [0, x].
Thus h (x) t 0. That is, f (x) d g (x).

18. We have g (a) = g (b) = 0, so Rolle’s theorem implies that gc(c) = 0 for some c  (a, b). That is,
kx kx kx
e f c(c)  k e f (c) = 0. But then since e z 0, we have f c(c) = k f (c).

19. (a) Let limx o c f c(x) = r and suppose f c(c) z r. Let H 2


1 f c(c)  r . Choose G ! 0 † | f c(x)  r | < H

whenever 0  | x  c |  G . Let y  (c, c + G ). By the intermediate value theorem, f c(x) assumes all values
between f c(c) and f c( y) for x  (c, y). This contradicts the fact that all f c(x) for x  (c, y) are within H of r.
(b) In Exercise 6.1.6, limx o 0 f c(0) does not exist.

1 1 1 1 1
20. ( f )c( y ) .
f c( x) 2
sec x 1  tan x 2
1 y2

m
21. f (x) = (x1/n) = h q g (x), where g (x) = x1/n and h(x) = xm. Thus
1 1 1 m  1 1 1
f c( x) hc( g ( x)) g c( x) m( x n ) m  1 ( 1n x n ) m
n
xn n xn

m 1
m
n xn r x r  1.
1 1
22. Since f q f (c) = i(c), where i is the identity, we have by the chain rule ( f )c ( f (c)) ˜ f c(c) = 1, so
1
( f 1 )c( f (c)) .
f c(c)

1/D
§ H · H
23. (a) Given H ! 0, if x, y  I with | x  y |  ¨ ¸ , then | f (x)  f ( y) | d M | x  y |D  M H , so f is uniformly
©M ¹ M
continuous on I.
(b) Suppose D ! 1. Let E = D  1 so that D = E + 1 with E ! 0. Then given c  I,
E f ( x )  f (c ) E
| f (x)  f (c) | d M x  c x  c and so d M x  c ,  x  I. Thus
xc
f ( x )  f (c )
f c(c) lim x o c 0,  c  I. Since the derivative exists and is zero on I, f is constant on I.
xc
(c) Hint in book: Consider f (x) = | x |.
Answer: Let f (x) = | x | for x  (1, 1). Then | f (x)  f (y) | = || x |  | y || d | x  y | by Exercise 3.2.6. But f is not
differentiable at x = 0.
g ( x)  g ( y )
(d) Suppose | gc | d M on I. Then by the mean value theorem,  x  y in I  c  (x, y) † f c(c).
x y
Thus | g (x)  g ( y) | d M | x  y |.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.3 x L‘Hospital’s Rule 70
Section 6.3 – L’Hospital’s Rule

1. (a) True: See the comment before Theorem 6.3.1.

(b) False: g c(x) must be nonzero in a deleted neighborhood of c.

2. (a) True: See the comment before Theorem 6.3.8.

(b) False: Let f (x) =  x.

3. Answers in book: (a) 1; (b) 0; (c) 1/6; (d) 0; (e) 1; (f ) e2; (g) e; (h) 0; (i) 1; ( j) 0
sin x cos x sin x cos x
Justification: (a) lim lim 1 (b) lim lim lim 2 x cos x 0
1 2
1
xo0 x L ' H x o 0 1 x o 0 
x L ' H x o 0 
x x o 0
2

sin x  x cos x  1  sin x  cos x 1

(c) lim 3
lim 2
lim lim 
xo0 x L'H x o 0 3x L'H x o 0 6x L'H x o 0 6 6
cos(S x / 2)  12 S sin(S x / 2) ln x 1x
(d) lim lim 0 (e) lim lim 1
x o1 x 1 L'H x o1 1 x o 1 x 1 L'H x o1 1

2
ln (1  2 x) 1  2x
(f) Let y (1  2 x)1 x . Then lim ln y lim lim 2 , so y o e2.
x o 0 x o 0 x L'H x o 0 1
ln (1  1x ) (1  1x ) 1 ( x 2 )
(g) Let y (1  1x ) x . Then lim ln y lim x ln (1  1x ) lim lim
xof xof xof 1
x
L'H xof  x 2
1
lim 1 , so y o e.
xof 1  1x
§1 1 · § sin x  x · cos x  1  sin x 0
(h) lim ¨  ¸ lim ¨ ¸ lim lim 0
xo0 x
© sin x ¹ xo0
© x sin x ¹ L'H xo0 sin x  x cos x L'H xo0 2 cos x  x sin x 2
1 § 1 ·
ln 1  1 x ¨ ¸
§ 1· 1  1 x © x2 ¹ 1
(i) lim x ln ¨1  ¸ lim lim lim 1
xo f
© x¹ x of 1x L'H x of 1 x 2 x of 11 x
xn nx n 1 n(n  1) x n  2 n!
( j) lim lim lim " lim 0
xo f ex L'H x of e x L'H x of ex L'H L'H xo f ex

4. (a) 1/3; (b) 0; (c) 0; (d) 1; (e) 0; (f) 1/3; (g) 1; (h) 1; (i) 0; ( j) er.
2
tan x  x sec 2 x  1 tan 2 x 1 § sin x · 1 1
(a) lim lim lim lim ¨ ¸ by Exercise 3(a).
xo0 x3 L'H xo0 3x 2 x o 0 3x 2 xo03
© x ¹ cos x 3
2

sin x  x cos x  1 0 x2 2x 2
(b) lim lim 0 (c) lim x lim lim 0
xo0 ex 1 L'H xo0 ex 1 xof e L ' H x o f ex L ' H x o f ex

cos x
ln sin x sin x § x ·
(d) lim lim 1
lim ¨ ¸ cos x 1 by Exercise 3(a).
x o 0 ln x L ' H x o 0
x © sin x ¹
x o 0

(ln x) 2 2
x ln x 2 ln x 2 x ln x 1x 1
(e) lim lim lim lim 0 (f) lim lim
xof x L'H xof 1 xof x L'H xof1 x o1 x  x2
2 L ' H x o 1 2x  1 3
2
ln (1  2 x) 1 2 x 0
(g) Let y (1  2 x)1 x . Then lim ln y lim lim 0 , so y o e 0 = 1.
xof xof x L'H xof 1 1
2x
(h) Let y x . Then lim ln y lim 2 x ln x 0 by Example 6.3.10. Thus y o e 0 = 1.
x o 0 x o 0

ln x 1x sin 2 x § sin x ·§ sin x ·

(i) lim lim lim lim ¨ ¸¨ ¸ 1˜ 0 0 by Exercise 3(a).
x o 0  csc x x o 0   csc x cot x x o 0  x cos x
L'H
© x ¹© cos x ¹
xo 0

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.3 x L‘Hospital’s Rule 71

x x ln 1  rx
( j) Let y 1  rx . Then lim ln y lim ª ln 1  rx º lim ª¬ x ln 1  rx º¼ lim
x of x of ¬ ¼ x of x of 1x
§ r ·§ 1 ·
¨ 2 ¸¨ ¸
© x ¹©1 r x ¹ r
lim lim r , so y o er.
L'H x of 1 x 2 x of 1 r x

4x 1
5. The first equality is correct, but lim x o1 is not indeterminate.
6x  5

6. Suppose limx o f f (x) = L and let H ! 0. Then  M ! 0 † | f (x)  L |  H whenever x ! M. But then 0  y  1/M,
where x = 1/y. Thus | g ( y)  L |  H whenever 0  y  1/M, and limx o 0 g (x) = L. The converse is similar.

7. Hint in book: Adapt the proof of Theorem 5.1.8.

8. Suppose L1 and L2 are both finite limits of f as x o f. Then given H ! 0  K ! a † | f (x)  L1|  H/2 and | f (x)  L2|
 H/2 whenever x > K. But then | L1  L2| d | L1  f (x) | + | f (x)  L2|  H/2 + H/2 = H. Since this holds true for all
H ! 0, we must have L1 = L2. Clearly if L1 = f, then L2 = f.

9. Hint in book: Use the sequential criterion in Exercise 7.

The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 5.1.13.

10. Given H ! 0,  M † x ! M implies that f (x) ! | k |/H. Then for x > M, | k/f (x) |  H , so limx o f k/f (x) = 0.

11. (a) Let f (x) = x and g (x) = x2.

(b) Let f (x) = x and g (x) = | x |.
(c) Let f (x) = x sin 1x and g (x) = x.

12. [g (b)  g (a)]/[ f (b)  f (a)] is the slope of the chord between ( f (a), g (a)) and ( f (b), g (b)). From the chain rule
dy dy dx
we obtain y , so that g c(c) y f c(c) is the slope of the curve at the point where t = c.
dx dt dt

13. (a) Answer in book: limx o c f (x) = f iff for every M   there exists a G ! 0 such that f (x) ! M whenever x  D
and 0  | x – c |  G.
(b) Suppose limx o c f (x) z f. Then  M   †  G ! 0,  x  D with 0  | x  c |  G † f (x) d M. In particular,
 n    sn  D with 0  | sn  c |  G † f (sn) d M. Then sn o c, but lim f (sn) z f. The converse is
straightforward.
f c( x)
(c) Given M  ,  G ! 0 † ! M whenever x  U and 0  | x  c |  G . For each such x we apply the
g c( x)
f ( x) f c(cx )
Cauchy mean value theorem to obtain cx between c and x such that = > M. Thus
g ( x) g c(cx )
f ( x)
limx o c = f.
g ( x)
(d) Adapt the proof of Theorem 6.3.8.

14. Let f (x) = h(x) – h(c) and g(x) = x – c for all x in [a, b]. Then f and g are continuous on [a, b] and differentiable
on (a, b), and f (c) = g(c) = 0. Furthermore, f c(x) = hc(x) and g c(x) = 1 for all x in (a, b). We have

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.3 x L‘Hospital’s Rule 72
h ( x )  h (c ) f ( x)
hc(c) lim lim . By l’Hospital’s theorem (6.3.2), it follows that
xoc xc xoc g ( x)
f ( x) f c( x) hc( x)
lim lim lim lim hc( x). So hc(c) lim x o c hc( x ) and hc is continuous at c.
xoc g ( x) xoc g c( x) xoc 1 xoc

15. We have | f (x)| f (x) = exp [ f (x) ln | f (x)|]. From Exercise 13(d) we have,
 ln f ( x)  f c( x) f ( x) f ( x)
lim [ f ( x)] ª
¬ ln f ( x) º¼ lim lim lim f ( x) 0, so lim f ( x) 1.
xoc x o c 1 f ( x) x o c  f c( x ) [ f ( x )]2 xoc xoc

16. The correspondence with Definition 5.1.1 is essentially contained in Theorem 5.1.14. The result for the cases
where c = f is straightforward, as is c  , L = f.

17. (a) Use the same definition as in Exercise 16.

(b) Let c  . Then limx o c f (x) =  f iff  M    G ! 0 † f (x)  M whenever x  dom f and
0  | x  c |  G . Likewise, limx o  f f (x) = c iff  H ! 0  M   † | f (x)  c|  H whenever
x  dom f and x  M.
(c) limx o c f (x) =  f iff  sequence (xn) in dom f with xn o c and xn z c  n, lim f (xn) =  f. Also,
limx o  f f (x) = c iff  sequence (xn) in dom f with xn o  f, lim f (xn) = c. The proofs are similar to the proof
of Theorem 5.1.8 and the solution to Exercise 13(b).
(d) The theorems and proofs are analogous to the + f case.

Section 6.4 – Taylor’s Theorem

1. (a) True: The first two terms of Taylor’s theorem correspond to the mean value theorem.
(b) False: They are only equal at x = x 0.

2. (a) True: See the comment before Example 6.4.3.

(b) True: Example 6.4.3.

3. Answers in book: (a) 1.5  3  2.0 ; (c) 1.18  1.4  1.184 .

Additional answer: (b) 1.375 < 2 < 1.4375 .

x 2 x3 x 4 x5 x 6 ec x 7 e 2 27
4. p6 ( x) 1 x      . We have R6 ( x) d | 0.1876 .
2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 7!

5. Answers in book: (a) p6(x) = x – x3/6 + x5/120; (b) within 1/5040.

6. Let f (x) = ln (1  x). Then R 3(x) d 0 and R 4(x) t 0. This implies that p4(x) d f (x) d p3(x).

7. Answer in book: cos 1 | 0.54167 with error less than 0.0014.

8. 8.8 | 2.9664815 with error less than 0.0000021 .

9. Hints in book: (a) Use l’Hospital’s rule and Exercise 6.1.17(b); (b) Consider f (x) = x | x |.

10. This is straightforward.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Section 6.4 x Taylor’s Theorem 73
11. Hint in book: Taylor’s theorem implies that for x  I we have f (x) = f (x) + f (n)(c)(x  x0)n/n! for some point c
between x0 and x. Since f (n)(x0) z 0 and f (n) is continuous, there exists a neighborhood U of x0 such that f (n)(x) and
f (n)(x0) have the same sign for all x  U. Now consider cases.

12. (a) This is straightforward.

(b) f (n) (x) may not be defined for x z x0, and even if it does exist, it doesn’t have to be continuous.

13. (a) f c(x) = ex ! 0 for all x, so Theorem 6.2.8 implies that f is strictly increasing for all x  .
c c
(b) By Taylor’s theorem, R n (1) = e /(n + 1)!. Since 0 d c d 1, 0  1 = e0 d e d e  3. The inequalities in part (b)
follow.
n !a § n! n! · 3 n !a § n! n! ·
(c) We get 0   ¨ n!  n!   "  ¸  . Since n ! b, is an integer. But ¨ n !  n !   "  ¸
b © 2 n! ¹ n  1 b © 2 n! ¹
is also an integer. The difference of these two integers is an integer between 0 and 3/(n + 1). Since n ! 3,
3/(n + 1)  3/4. Thus we have obtained an integer between 0 and 3/4.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
one night to a service at a church attached to a monastery.[15] The weather
was hot and the old woman tired. She fell sound asleep in a dark corner and
woke at midnight to find the church empty and the doors locked.
Recognising at once that she had no choice but to stay where she was
until morning, she was looking about for the most comfortable bench on
which to pass the night, when she saw a light in the sacristy communicating
with the monastery and heard steps approaching. Fearing lest the fathers
should accuse her of being there with intent to rob the church, she crawled
under a bench and lay trembling. From this position she saw a number of
monks and priests file into the nave, form up in ranks, and go through
various military exercises under the command of one of the number, who
looked and spoke like an officer. The drill continued for some time, and
after it was over the unwilling witness had to stay where she was until the
doors were opened for early Mass, when she made her escape, ran home as
fast as her poor old legs would carry her, and related what she had seen to
her husband and neighbours. This was told me by a lad who sold fruit to the
husband, who declared that he had heard it from the old woman herself.
At the time I paid no attention to the story, knowing how the dramatic
instinct of the Spaniard lends itself to exaggeration in repeating anything
that appeals to the imagination, and thinking that the whole thing might
have been a dream. But later on I found reason to think there might be some
basis of fact in what was related by my young fruit-seller. When the Pais
article appeared I was told, in the course of a conversation about it, that a
priest in a neighbouring town had said in the hearing of my interlocutor—of
course unaware that he was listening—that his party were all armed and
prepared to shoot “on sight” every one whom they knew to be inimical to
them, directly the opportunity offered. And thenceforward for some weeks
constant reports of the arming of friars and their lay allies—the “Young
Catholics,” “Luises,” and other such associations—were published by the
one party and denied by the other with equal frequency.
In this connection the following passages from an article in the Correo
Español are rather significant.
“In Barcelona ten Carlists sufficed to prevent the burning of a church,
and put the mob to flight, so that they left in the hands of our friends the
weapons they were carrying in pursuit of their vandalic designs” [an
incident already referred to]. “And there are 100,000 brave men such as
these in Spain.... We are prepared for all! all!! all!!!” (in crescendo capitals).
“The fight, which inevitably had to come sooner or later, has now begun
between Catholics and sectarians, between civilisation and barbarism, and
we must not stop till we have destroyed them.”
It all reads like transpontine melodrama, and as such I at first regarded it.
But when day after day announcements appeared that new Carlist clubs
were being opened in one small town after another, when Señor Llorens
returned from his second sojourn with the troops, loaded with plans,
sketches, reports, and what not, relating to the campaign and the general
condition of the Army there, and openly announced that he had obtained
them for Don Jaime, and when, although the people were shouting songs of
defiance to the Carlists and their “King,” the militant “Catholic Association
of Social Defence” announced that it had increased its working class
membership from 31,000 to 200,000, one began to wonder whether the
Carlist “army” might be something more than comic opera.[16]
The stories related of secret arming and drilling in the churches at night
are obviously not capable of verification by a layman and a foreigner,[17]
but that the Jesuits in Barcelona were armed before the revolt began, and
used their arms with skill, seems certain. A near relative of one of these
warlike men of religion told me that they had twice driven back the mob by
firing from their balconies, so it seems fair to assume that when the
newspapers talked of the shooting down of the crowd by the Jesuits they
had some ground for their statement. Civilians in Barcelona found in the
possession of arms were arrested, even though they had not used them, but
it does not appear that the Jesuits incurred any penalty for using their
weapons on the mob.
One mysterious feature in the events of that week has never been cleared
up, and possibly never will be.
On the first two days of the rioting there was fighting about the
barricades which had been raised in many of the central streets, but the
scarcity of firearms among the rioters was noticeable, a large number of
them being without arms of any kind. Mainly, no doubt, in consequence of
this, the struggle was practically over by the third day, after which there was
no more street fighting, the troops occupied the city, and the attack on the
Religious Orders, which might so easily have spread all over Spain, was at
an end.
 Yet, notwithstanding that the fighting was over, shooting from the roofs
of the houses went on for two days more. No one ever saw those who fired:
the shots came from invisible persons concealed behind the parapets and
other sheltered positions. And, what was the more remarkable, whether the
shooting was in working class districts, or, as was frequently the case, from
houses in those quarters of the city where rich men live, the noise of the
report and the bullets which were found were always the same. The “man
on the roof” invariably used a Browning pistol, a weapon not easily
procured by a poor artisan. Thirty, forty, fifty such shots would be fired in
succession, the troops would hurry up to the roof from which the bullets
came, find no one there, and see nothing suspicious, yet hear the rattle of
the shots again as they returned to their duty in the street below. A civilian
who ran up the stairs from the ground floor in one of the “haunted” houses
told me that although several shots were fired as he ran, no one was to be
seen above, except a young priest professedly on the same errand as his
own.
It was said that among the many people arrested there was at least one
priest. But nothing more was heard of him, and whether he was released as
innocent, or allowed to disappear, was not revealed to the public.
No one has yet explained who organised the expensively-armed
sharpshooters who displayed such remarkable skill in firing from an
elevation without being caught in the act. The people believe that they were
members of the clerical party whose object was to exasperate the troops
against the rioters who were supposed to be firing at them, and thus to bring
about a fight in which the whole town should be involved. Meanwhile Don
Jaime was to convert the mêlée into an organised revolution against the
established order of things, which should spread from Barcelona all over
Cataluña, and from Cataluña throughout Spain. This, for what it is worth, is
the popular explanation of one of the most mysterious features in the
“anarchist” rising of July, 1909.
But the people go farther still. They attribute not only the incidents of
July, but the whole of the political unrest in Cataluña to the underground
activities of the Carlists and their allies the Ultramontanes. It is firmly
believed by the unlettered peasantry, who read or listened to the accounts of
the beginnings and endings of the “Red Week,” that the emissaries of the
Pretender planned and carried out every incident that led up to the general
strike with which the rioting began.
 The protest against the calling out of the reservists—the greatest error of
the many committed by the Government at that time—was said to have
been engineered by the Carlists. It was not spontaneous and found no real
echo in the feeling of the nation.
The next step was to proclaim a general strike, but even then there was
so little idea among the working classes that anything like violence was
intended, that women and children strolled out to the meeting-place as for
an outing, with the men who were unconsciously being led into action
which was to brand them as revolutionaries and assassins.
To this day no one has been able to say how or why the rioting began.
The only thing clear is that the great majority of the strikers expected and
intended to proceed peaceably to formulate their demands, although no one
knows exactly what these were to be, for no formal report of the strikers’
complaints, or even of the factories they worked in, has ever been
published.
The Civil Governor, Señor Osorio, objected to the calling out of the
troops, and fell into permanent disgrace with Maura and his Cabinet for
saying that but for the undue harshness employed by the military
authorities, the rising would never have attained serious proportions. He
was dismissed from his post—perhaps inevitably, since he had not foreseen
events. It is worth noting that the week before the riots the Government had
expressed themselves as perfectly satisfied with the tranquil condition of
Barcelona under Señor Osorio, and had withdrawn most of the troops in
garrison in the province.
Meanwhile the Ultramontane Press never wearied of repeating blood-
curdling tales of the awful scenes of carnage, rapine, and sacrilege, brought
about by the teaching given in the lay schools, a hundred of which, they
said, Maura had been compelled to close in order to put an end to a system
of education which produced such horrors: and since the Opposition
newspapers were not allowed to publish a line without the sanction of Señor
La Cierva, the Minister of the Interior, the nation, had it read the
Ultramontane papers, would have supped its fill of uncontradicted libels
upon the working people of Cataluña. But the nation does not read the
Ultramontane papers. The Press of that party, indeed, admits the
exiguousness of its circulation by pathetic appeals to the faithful to furnish
money for the propaganda which in Ultramontane opinion constitutes the
only hope of arresting the crimes born of the instruction given in the lay
schools, and fostered by the seditious labours of the Liberal. But although
the people closed their ears to the fulminations of the Church papers, the
hand of the Church lay heavy on all Spain in 1909, for the continual reports
of bombs and arrests, and the whispered tales of the secret drilling and
arming of “good Catholics,” kept everybody on the rack, fearing they knew
not what. The slow progress of the campaign in Melilla, the constant arrival
of shiploads of sick and wounded, and the impossibility of obtaining
trustworthy news of what was really going on, filled the cup of anxiety, and
every one was in low spirits, for every family had friends or relatives in the
war.
Meanwhile Don Jaime, in his castle of Frohsdorf, was occupied in
editing a verbose document which he published later on, addressed “to
those loyal to me.” The gist of this was that as long as Spain was engaged in
war he would make no move, but that when the flag waved victorious he
would remember that he had to fulfil unavoidable duties imposed by his
birth. “And,” said he, “social order, shaken by the revolution, is tottering to
its foundations. And this not so much from the attack of anarchical crowds
as from the cowardice of the powers who make compact with them,
delivering themselves as hostages in order to save their life and property. In
the violent struggle which is approaching between civilisation and
barbarism I yield to no one the first place in the vanguard in the fight for
society and the country.”
Curiously enough, an incident in which the nation at large took very
little interest nearly proved the last straw. This was the execution of Ferrer.
Everything had been done beforehand to excite the public over the affair.
Columns upon columns of matter prejudging the case had filled the
Ultramontane Press for weeks, while the Sociedad Editorial and the
republican Pais were accused of complicity with the prisoner because they
pointed out that the publication of incriminating documents alleged to have
been found in his house, before the Court had pronounced them genuine,
was contrary to all the principles of justice. In Republican and Socialist
circles this action on the part of the Government—for copies of the
documents in question were sent to the Press by persons in Government
employ—produced the indignation that might be expected—indignation
that probably was counted upon to bring about an outbreak of violence. But
the mass of the people, thanks to their lack of education, knew and cared
very little about Ferrer and his alleged offences against society.
While all Europe was excited about the fate of the founder of the lay
schools, the Spanish people, believed abroad to be seething with anarchy
and sedition, were peaceably if dispiritedly pursuing their usual avocations,
only interested in Ferrer, if they took any interest in him at all, as another
victim of the tyranny of the Church, whose “tool,” as they call Maura, had
brought Spain so low.
This was because the Sociedad Editorial, and especially the Liberal,
laboured as indefatigably to keep the temper of the people within bounds as
their opponents on the Ultramontane press laboured to produce irritation. At
one period in the protracted controversy I wondered whether the editors or
staff of the Sociedad Editorial could actually be unaware of the lies spread
broadcast concerning the political party for which they stand, so temperate
in quality and so limited in quantity were their comments on the foreign
campaign against the honour of the Spanish nation. But I soon came to
understand that it was not ignorance of what was going on, although the
Censorship used all its wits to keep foreign newspapers out of the Liberal-
Monarchist newspaper offices. It was the deliberate policy of the wise and
far-sighted Liberal-Monarchist party to keep their working-class readers in
the dark about the Ferrer incident, because they knew that if the mass of the
people became aware of the attack upon their honour, a civil war between
the Ultramontanes and the people would have broken out within a week.
It seems impossible to doubt that the desire of those who pull the strings
that work the Ultramontane party leaders was to provoke such a war. The
declaration of the Correo Catalan that a hundred thousand good Catholics
were ready to follow the example of the Jesuits who fired on the crowd in
Barcelona and to “go all lengths” against the forces of “anarchy” bears no
other interpretation. The Liberal-Monarchists, who know that in any such
war the people would stand as one man for the King and the Constitution
against the Ultramontanes with the hated Pretender at their head, might
have been excused had they dallied with the idea of sweeping out the
Religious Orders by force, and thus settling once for all the eternal quarrel
between the State and the Church of Rome. But no such course of action
would have been admitted as possible by Moret, who is, and will remain
while he lives, the spiritual if not the ostensible leader of his party. Well
aware that he was offending the more advanced and impetuous among his
followers, and that he was being accused of lukewarmness in defending the
Liberal party from attacks both at home and abroad, Moret firmly pursued
his lifelong policy of conciliation instead of provocation, and it was thanks
to his firmness alone, during the last three months of Maura’s rule, that
Spain was not once more thrust into the horrors of internecine strife.
The week before Maura’s Government fell the Radical and Republican
party in Madrid demanded permission to hold a meeting on the following
Sunday, to protest against what they considered the illegality of a trial in
which witnesses for the defence were not summoned. The organising
committee frankly stated that whether Maura gave leave or not, the
demonstration would equally take place.
What might have happened had the Ultramontane Government still been
in office on the day of the demonstration, no one can pretend to say. But in
the meantime the climax came and the Maura Government fell, amid
general rejoicings. The demonstrations took place, not only in Madrid but in
all the large towns, and were in every case conducted with the most perfect
order. Their original object seemed to be lost sight of in the satisfaction at
the change of Government. The speakers said very little about Ferrer,
because Ferrer was of so little interest to the people; in the majority of cases
the demonstrators limited themselves to a protest against Maura’s policy
and a demand that he should never hold office again.
The Religious Orders were, or professed to be, in a state of panic terror
when the demonstrations were announced. They declared that they expected
violence, incendiarism, and robbery; treasures of gold and silver work,
images, paintings, &c., were removed to private houses for
 A DEMONSTRATION OF REJOICING AT THE FALL OF THE
ULTRAMONTANE MINISTRY, NOVEMBER, 1909.
[To face page 174.

safe keeping; and the general exhibition of alarm on the part of friars, nuns,
and parish priests made them a laughing-stock to the working classes for
the month during which the demonstrations continued. The Civil Guard
were sent, at the request of the ecclesiastical authorities, to assist the friars
in their projected self-defence and to instil courage into the trembling nuns,
and the garrisons were everywhere kept in barracks in readiness for attacks
which nobody dreamed of making. A Civil Guard told me, with a twinkle in
his eye, that he and his companion had sat up all night in the portal of a
convent, knowing all the time that they might just as well have been in their
beds for all the danger the convent was in. No doubt many nuns seriously
believed their houses to be in peril, although the Jesuits must have been
perfectly aware of the truth, and it is not easy to find words in which to
characterise the folly, to say no worse, of a policy which tries to forward its
ends by permitting women cut off and completely ignorant of the world to
spend hours of misery anticipating dangers which their leaders must know
to be imaginary.
It cannot, however, be denied that the deep-seated and chronic hostility
of the people to the Religious Orders became manifest all over Spain, as
reports of panic-stricken friars spread from mouth to mouth, converting
their traditional dread of the Church into a feeling of contempt. The
working-class Spaniards fear the underground action of the Church because
they know it may mean starvation for their wives and children. But it was
something new for them to see the “long skirts” fleeing from Cataluña in
fear of their lives, and the spectacle led to open exhibitions of scorn, which
are a new feature in the history of the Church in Spain.
There were not wanting either journalists or private persons to hint that
the alarm shown by the Religious Orders at the demonstrations against
Señor Maura was fictitious, and a renewal of the Catalonian riots would
have suited their plans. It was said that the slightest hostile action on the
part of the working classes would have been made the signal for a Carlist
rising, and that numbers of priests and monks, as well as civilians of that
party, were armed in readiness for such a contingency.
This was why the organisers of the demonstration so urgently appealed
to their followers not to be provoked into recrimination by “persons
subsidised by the other party, who would place themselves among the
demonstrators with the intention of causing disturbances.” They thought it
necessary to warn the public that what might seem the merest act of
personal aggression on the part of an ordinary loafer might really be the
initiation of an organised plan to raise a serious revolt. And they prayed
their friends to bear in mind that persons committing such acts of
aggression might be the secret agents of the Jesuits, and therefore on no
account to be induced to retaliate. These appeals were issued in leaflets
which were distributed by the thousand in all the towns where
demonstrations were to be held, and no doubt contributed largely to the
self-restraint and good conduct of the crowd everywhere.
If the organisers were justified in believing that the Jesuits wanted to
create disturbances, the angry and exceedingly untruthful comments on
these leaflets in the Ultramontane Press might be accounted for. They were
described as deliberate incentives to the usual list of crimes—incendiarism,
sacrilege, &c.—and “good Catholics” were ordered to destroy any that fell
into their hands without reading the infamies uttered by the “anarchist
canaille.” Naturally the description given by the Clericalists of their
opponents’ circular only excited the curiosity of the “good Catholics.” The
“good” working man read the paper with the added interest given by its
prohibition, and finding nothing criminal in it, went with the rest to the
meeting to hear what it was all about. It is quite likely that the Church’s
anathema of the essentially constitutional leaflets issued in most of the
industrial cities on the first two Sundays of November, 1909, resulted in
making new converts to Liberalism among the small minority of working
men who till then were still following the dictates of the priests.
BARCELONA AND THE LAY SCHOOLS
 CHAPTER IX

BARCELONA AND THE LAY SCHOOLS

I have already referred to the popular belief that the riots in Barcelona in
July, 1909, were deliberately instigated by the Jesuits and the Carlists acting
in concert, the object of the Churchmen being primarily to provide an
excuse for closing the lay schools established by Ferrer, the hope of the
Pretender and his party being that the disturbances would spread and
assume the proportions of a revolution, “on the waves” of which he hoped
to ride to the throne.
As the course of events in Barcelona which culminated in the “Red
Week” has not unnaturally perplexed foreign observers, it may be worth
while, in the absence of any proof as to who was at the bottom of the
trouble, to suggest a hypothesis which at any rate has the merit of giving a
plausible explanation of the incidents.
Throughout the three years that Señor Maura was at the head of affairs,
Barcelona had been in a state of continual unrest and anxiety. Bomb
outrages were reported every two or three weeks with monotonous
regularity, but strange to say, the explosions seldom or never took place in
public buildings or in places where people congregate. Now and then some
inoffensive passerby was killed or wounded, and once in a way an
insignificant house would be damaged more or less seriously. But the total
injuries inflicted by this long series of bombs were so few that the object of
their authors must have been to terrorise rather than to kill. When the King
and Queen went to Barcelona in the autumn of 1908, the inevitable bomb
was let off—or was reported to have been let off—on the sea shore, where
no one could possibly have been hurt by it.
Here, by way of parenthesis, I should like to call attention to the courage
and devotion to duty shown by both the King and the Queen on this
occasion. It was considered advisable by the Ultramontane Government that
the young wife and mother should accompany her husband to the city
which has been made to bear such an evil reputation as the home of anarchy
and sedition. The nation watched the proceedings with admiration. “What
courage the Queen had, to face the chance of another bomb being exploded
in her presence so soon after that tragedy in Madrid!” said those who
appreciated the human fear which they knew must be concealed under the
smiles demanded by the exigencies of her position. Not a word of this was
permitted to appear in the Press, of course. It was only the common talk of
the common people. But one little paragraph slipped, through some
mismanagement, into a popular paper, which revealed the Queen’s
realisation of the danger she might be running. It was to the effect that “the
alteration of their Majesties’ itinerary, by which they would spend two days
in Madrid instead of travelling direct to Cataluña from Vienna, was dictated
by the Queen’s wish to embrace her children before going to Barcelona.”
The next day the paragraph was corrected by a careful explanation that the
Queen had wished to see the royal children because they were suffering
from childish ailments. But the people were not deceived by the second
notice. They said that Doña Victoria’s conduct was worthy of a Queen of
Spain.
I do not believe that the people of Barcelona would hurt a hair of Queen
Victoria’s head, nor that they would have raised a hand against King
Alfonso had he appeared there during the riots of 1909: what advantage his
secret enemies might have taken of his presence during the disturbances is
another matter. And my personal belief is that the people of Barcelona were
not responsible for any of the bomb outrages which have made their city a
byword in Europe.
Two things go to show that the industrial classes in Barcelona had
nothing to do with the bombs. The first is that they are too clever to commit
stupid crimes by which their class could not possibly benefit. The second is
that during the “Red Week,” when Barcelona was given over to mob law,
the mob, said to be responsible for the bomb outrages, did not explode a
single bomb. It is not likely that if letting off bombs were the favourite
occupation of the criminal classes of Barcelona, they would have lost the
opportunities afforded them during the first three days of the riots. Yet when
the rising was quelled and the whole province was under martial law, the
bombs began again, and twenty-three were reported to have been exploded
between August 15th and October 20th.
The stringent censorship exercised then and for three months afterwards
prevented Europe from hearing of either this remarkable feature of the riots
or their real object. But every one in Spain knew perfectly well that the riots
were directed solely against the Religious Orders, whereas the bomb
outrages never affected a building belonging to the Church or a person
attached to the Clericalist party so long as Maura held office.
Is there any previous instance in history of a mob, said to be composed
of the lowest and most degraded of the community, firing monasteries,
convents, and churches, while they left public buildings, banks, and rich
men’s dwellings untouched? Is there any other revolt on record in which
troops of people containing the dregs of the criminal classes protected and
brought food to orphanages supported by the objects of their attack? And
can we find a parallel, in the circumstances, to the organisation which had
the markets opened for two hours every morning and kept its forces under
such complete discipline that during those two hours persons of either sex
could walk all over the town secure from molestation?
These things I have heard from people of unimpeachable veracity who
were in Barcelona at the time; not only Catalans and Spaniards, but also
foreigners unconnected with any political party. I do not attempt to deny
that some half-hundred or so of buildings belonging to the Church and the
Religious Orders were damaged or destroyed, nor that many evil deeds
were done by the criminal hangers-on of the movement; nor do I at all
desire to minimise the crime of destroying property to gratify feelings of
personal revenge. But I do say that the mob, as a mob, behaved with
extraordinary self-restraint, and proved by their conduct that they had no
complicity with the miscreants who for so long terrorised the unoffending
inhabitants of Barcelona by exploding bombs, without apparent intent to
injure.
No one disputes that every suspect in the province was imprisoned or
fled from the country when the iron hand of military law closed on the
insurgents. Nevertheless the bomb outrages began again after the “Red
Week” came to an end, and only ceased with the fall of Maura and his
Cabinet of repression.
I have related in the previous chapter the continued shooting from the
roofs of the town, after the riots were quelled, by persons who were never
seen, and the stories that were told of the secret arming of the Religious
Orders. When we remember that the hope of the Ultramontanes lies in a
Carlist restoration, which is only possible through a revolution, and that a
revolution cannot be brought about except by fomenting unrest and
discontent in the country, and when further we recall that the bomb
explosions ceased with the fall of Maura’s Ministry, when the officials of a
Government not in sympathy with the aspirations of the Religious Orders
might have instituted inconvenient inquiries had the bombs continued, it
may at any rate be conjectured, in the absence of any evidence as to who
instigated this long series of comparatively harmless outrages, that their
authors were the only party who expected to benefit by a subversion of the
social order such as might have ensued had the patience of the people given
way under this long series of provocations. This theory of the bombs, I may
add, is that held by the working classes.
From the moment that Moret took office in October, 1909, Barcelona
began to resume her normal aspect, although the constitutional rights were
not restored until the new Civil Governor and the new Captain-General had
taken possession of their respective offices and reported that the whole
province was quiet.
From that date a strict watch was kept upon newspaper reports of
explosions, and the Heraldo got into trouble for publishing a paragraph
saying that what proved to have been merely a slight explosion of gas was a
bomb. The authorities at once explained to the Press that the explosion was
purely accidental, and that no one in Barcelona had for a moment believed
it to be otherwise, yet the report that it was a bomb had reached the Heraldo
office in a form circumstantial enough to deceive an experienced editor.
It is not surprising, therefore, that doubts are now expressed whether a
good many of the alleged bombs may not have been as fictitious as this last.
The persons who let them off, or were supposed to have let them off, in
order to maintain unrest in Barcelona, could certainly have provided means
to deceive the Press, as in the attempt upon the Heraldo, frustrated by the
prompt action of the Civil Governor.
Two or three bombs, if they can be given so imposing a name, were
exploded in Zaragoza in December, 1909, under the conditions which had
become so familiar to Barcelona under the Maura regime. They were made
of bits of old iron, mixed with some mild form of explosive and placed in a
meat tin, the whole being wrapped in a black cotton material, said to be of
the same make as that found on remains of bombs at Barcelona. The tin
cans on these occasions were placed in or near the porch of a convent
church, and no harm was done beyond some slight damage to the plaster on
the walls. The progressive Press, freed from censorship, expressed the
conviction that this affair was the work of the monks, desirous of raising
disturbances in Zaragoza because they were now powerless to do so in
Barcelona, with the result that the public remained entirely indifferent to the
incident. One cannot but hope, therefore, that that may have been the
expiring effort of the bomb-throwers, whatever their real purpose was and
whoever their employers may have been.
I should like, before closing this branch of my subject, to point out once
more the wide differences that exist between the methods, objects, and
results of the Barcelona and Zaragoza bomb outrages and those of similar
attempts elsewhere on the Continent. The murderous anarchist makes a
direct attack on the personage whose death he believes to be necessary to
the furtherance of his political creed, and when he lets off a bomb he takes
care that it shall do as much damage as possible, regardless of risk to
himself. Abhorrent though the creed of the militant anarchist is, he has at
least the courage of his convictions, since he so frequently pays the penalty
of his act with his life. The wretch who tried to murder the King and Queen
of Spain on their wedding-day was the tool of some one working on the
usual anarchist lines, and his crime bore no resemblance in detail to the
work of the mysterious party interested in terrorising, without injuring, the
inhabitants of Barcelona.
A volume of school statistics published in November, 1909, to which
further reference is made in another chapter, shows that there are in Spain
91 protestant and 107 lay schools, 43 of which are in Barcelona. On the
other hand, there are 5,000 private Catholic schools, in addition to some
25,000 Government schools, in which the rudiments of the Catholic religion
are supposed to be taught. These few Protestant and lay schools are the
subject of furious and unceasing abuse from the Clericalist party and Press,
who make every effort to traduce and vilify them. It would not be edifying,
nor is it necessary, to cull specimens of their flowers of invective: the
language in which the odium theologicum is habitually expressed is
tolerably well known. The schools in Barcelona, many of which were
established by Ferrer, who devoted his fortune to the work of education, are
the special subject of clerical hostility, and there is no doubt that they cost
him his life. As far as can be learnt about these schools the teaching given
in them contains absolutely nothing of the socialistic or anarchistic or other
doctrines subversive of society of which their enemies so freely accuse
them. They are more or less hostile to the form of religion taught by the
Church in Spain, which is the chief reason for the venom with which they
are attacked; but setting this on one side, there is, I am credibly informed,
nothing either in the text-books used or the teaching given to which
objection need be taken.
Nevertheless the Clericalist campaign against these schools is carried on
without intermission, and at the end of February, 1910, about the time that
Moret fell, unusual efforts were made against them. Thus in Valencia
several thousands of priests and friars, ladies of the aristocracy, and
members of the militant religious associations filled the great open-air
theatre of Jai-Alai: a telegram giving the Papal benediction to the objects of
the meeting was read, and cheers for the Pretender were raised at intervals
during the afternoon. The reactionary papers asserted that twenty thousand
people were present on this occasion, and although this was doubtless an
exaggeration, no one attempted to deny that a very large number attended.
The number of public bodies and associations said to have sent letters
and telegrams of adherence to the objects of the meeting would be alarming
to any one unacquainted with the arithmetical methods employed on these
occasions in Spain. The grand total was given at 280,000, “composed of
100 newspapers, 83 town councils, 135 mayors, 429 clubs, 1,714
congregations, and 272 parishes.” But no names of these parishes and
congregations were given, and verification of the figures is impossible. It
was also said that “9,000” ladies who had been present at the meeting
subsequently left their cards on the Civil Governor.
Admission to the meeting was by ticket, and there were not wanting
working men who declared that whole villages had been coerced into
attending by the action of their priests and their caciques, but I give this for
what it is worth. It is, however, safe to say that the great majority of those
present were priests and friars, and members of the upper classes. Only one
speech by a working man was mentioned in the long report published in the
Correo Español, although the Clericalist papers always give prominence to
the smallest indication of sympathy with their cause on the part of the
people.
The really serious feature in the affair was the Papal benediction of the
speakers and the audience. There is nothing in the Constitution to forbid the
existence of the lay schools, to protest against which the meeting was held.
Thus the Pope, by his benediction, set the seal of his approval upon an
effort to subvert, in this respect, the Constitution of the country. But,
further, the introduction by the speakers of the name of the Pretender and
the reception given to references to him turned the whole affair into a
frankly seditious gathering. The Pope’s support of the meeting was the more
significant because his official reception of Don Jaime at the Vatican had
been reported by the Spanish and foreign Press a few days before.
The Valencia meeting was followed by others in many of the large
towns, and about this time Count Romanones, in his capacity of Minister of
Education, closed a lay school[18] on the pretext that it was insanitary, but
this only irritated the Liberals without conciliating the Church party, and
Romanones hastily declared that the school would be re-opened as soon as
certain structural alterations had been made.
On February 27th a Clericalist meeting was held at Bilbao, at which,
notwithstanding the efforts of the police and Civil Guards, serious
disturbances occurred. The circulars inviting people to the meeting were so
inflammatory in tone that the Civil Governor found it necessary to suppress
some of them. The following extracts from one of these will give an idea of
the kind of language employed.
“In the name of religion outraged, and society menaced with total ruin ...
and in the name of our own personal independence, closely bound up with
the faith in our souls, let us go to the Catholic meeting to protest against the
ignorance of those who desire to separate us from all other civilised nations,
tearing faith and Christian morality from the souls of the young, together
with all decency, all virtue, and every quality necessary to human dignity....
We unite our voices with those of all Catholics, speaking through the
mouths of the most eminent men of science, to condemn this monstrous
birth engendered by error and lies.”
The Liberal element in Bilbao is strong, and naturally great indignation
was created among the working classes by these insults to their politics and
religion. Down to that date there had been no lay school in the city, but now
it was announced that one would be opened immediately.
The noteworthy feature of this meeting was a denunciation of the
Conservatives by a Carlist speaker, who included them with the Liberals in
his fulmination against the “cowardly incendiaries of Barcelona,” urging the
Catholics “to have done with patient endurance and enter upon the period of
action.” The result of this was that the Conservatives of Bilbao refrained
from sending any representative of their party to the banquet given after the
meeting to the orators who had spoken at it, thus definitely dissociating
themselves from the policy of the Clericalists in their city.
I have made special mention of two of these demonstrations against the
lay schools, one because of its magnitude and importance, the other because
of its results. To chronicle more of them would be tedious and unnecessary.
The campaign against these schools is unceasing: the defence is by no
means equal in vigour to the attack, and is limited to articles now and then
in the Pais and an occasional meeting in their support. Whether this
apparent indifference is due to weakness on the part of those who uphold
the lay schools, or to a feeling of strength which can afford to despise the
fulminations of opponents, I am unable to say. It is a quarrel, as the satirist
says,

“Ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum.”

THE ARMY, PAST AND PRESENT

A CONSCRIPT.
[To face page 199.
 CHAPTER X

THE ARMY, PAST AND PRESENT

It is allowed that great abuses were committed by those in power during the
long war in Cuba, which ended with the struggle in the United States and
the final expulsion of Spain from the last of her American colonies, and it is
common knowledge that the munitions, provisions, and all the supplies of
the Army fell lamentably short of what was required. It may be imagined,
therefore, that the survivors of these long years of warfare brought back
stories of experiences little calculated to inspire their friends with
confidence in the governing classes, who were responsible for such
shortcomings. Fully to appreciate the difference between the sentiment of
the Army to-day and what it was so late as 1901, when the defeated troops
from the lost colonies came home with their tale of suffering, it is necessary
to show what convictions have had to be changed and what prejudices
overcome by Don Alfonso before he could win the place which he now
holds in the affections of his soldiers.
I will only deal with the rank and file, whose loyalty is even of more
importance to the nation than that of the officers. My own impression is
that, after making all due allowance for differences in politics and
traditions, the great majority of the Spanish officers to-day are staunch
supporters of the Monarchy and the Constitution they have sworn to
uphold. But beyond putting on record my private opinion, formed on the
utterances of officers of all arms, I do not propose to deal with this side of
the question.
It was natural that reminiscences of the Cuban and American Wars
should be continually brought forward during the operations in Morocco,
and that the popular expectation of the treatment the troops would there
receive should be based on what took place in Cuba; and it was inevitable
that the unlettered mass of the community, agitated as they were in the early
days of the war by rumours of wholesale massacre and tales of thousands of
dead and wounded, should have imagined that their friends and relatives
were once more being sacrificed without mercy on the altar of political
corruption. Not long ago I heard the following conversation among a party
of working people who were entertaining a soldier at a tavern on the eve of
his departure for Melilla.
“Poor fellow!” said a stout elderly matron, with a tear in her eye. “So
young and so good-looking, to be killed by the Moors!”
“Don’t distress yourself, Señora,” said the lad, a slim, active young
fellow. “I’m going to make mincemeat of at least eight before they kill me,
and I shall be in no greater danger there than up at the mines of ——, where
I was knocked to pieces by a landslide. Three months I’ve been in hospital,
and it’s just like my luck to be called out to Melilla the moment I get out.
I’m not afraid. If they kill me it can’t hurt more than that landslide did.”
“He’ll sing a different song when he gets out there,” remarked an elderly
man gloomily. “I know how the soldiers are treated—not enough to eat, and
that bad, no clothes, no beds, and no cartridges to put into their rifles when
they go into action. I saw it with my own eyes in Cuba.”
I ventured to suggest that Melilla was nearer to the resources of Spain
than Cuba, and that the general condition of military affairs had
considerably improved of late years.
“Don’t you believe it!” said the old soldier. “The Government sold Cuba
to put money into their own pockets, and they will do the same in Morocco.
Do you know what happened to us one day in the Cuban War? We found
ourselves attacked by the enemy, and we had nothing, nothing to fight with.
There were no officers; the chiefs were in a safe place, spending the money
they had robbed us of (for we got no pay), and the inferiors were hiding
from the Cubanos wherever they could, behind us, to be out of the fighting.
I assure you this is true. When the Cubanos came upon us we tried to load
the guns, but many of the balls did not fit, and we had no wadding.[19] We
tore up our white drawers and our shirts to make wadding, but what was the
good? It was hopeless for us to fight. And seeing the enemy upon us and we
helpless to defend ourselves, we went mad with rage and despair and turned
on each other, not knowing what we were doing. It was all the fault of the
Jesuits at home, who stole the money which the nation gave for the Army.
And it will be the same thing now with this Maura and his Jesuits, you will
see!”
“It is all quite true,” said another old man. “My son has often told me the
same. He said they tied their officers to the gun-carriages in
 A FORT ON MOUNT GURUGÚ.
The War in Melilla.

his company more than once to prevent them from running away. They
said: ‘If we, the common soldiers, are to be killed like flies, at least you, the
officers, shall take your share.’ ”
With such traditions firmly embedded in the popular belief, it would not
have been surprising had a real spirit of mutiny been shown on the calling
out the reservists in July, 1909. But this was not the case.
In an interview given to a representative of Le Journal of Paris, in
November, 1909, by General Primo de Rivera, who was Minister of War
previous to the disasters of July, that officer threw some light on Señor
Maura’s conduct of military affairs, and explained why he had no
alternative but to retire from office, to be abused by the Clericalists in
power as “unpatriotic” for so doing. Here is a brief résumé of his statement:
“From the moment I took office, foreseeing what was brewing at
Melilla, I began to fortify our positions in the Riff. Expecting that General
Marina would need reinforcements, I brought the regiments of the
Cazadores del Campo de Gibraltar up to their full strength, and put the
Orozco Division, in all three arms of the service, on a war footing. In order
to secure rapidity of transport, I contracted with the Transatlantica
Company to make the voyage in twenty-four hours, on only four hours’
notice. When General Linares replaced me in the Ministry, he thought fit to
improvise all that was required, and this caused complete disorganisation in
the Army. He refused to call out the divisions which I had held in readiness,
and by drawing the troops from Cataluña not only gave rise to the
melancholy events of the “Red Week,” but rendered it necessary to
incorporate many reservists who had married and set up homes in the belief
that they were free from service, thus bringing misery on thousands of
previously contented families. And after all this mismanagement it was
necessary in the end to send the Orozco Division which I had prepared so
long before.”
At the time one heard on all sides the question: “Why does the
Government call out the reservists while the Orozco Division stands idle at
home?” to which there has never been any reply but that of the people, who
said: “The Government wants the war to go on because it suits the Jesuits,
who are making a fortune out of it.”
But notwithstanding the acute distress throughout the country, the
reports of an organised and widespread protest against the calling out of the
reserves, which flooded the foreign Press at the time, were entirely
unjustified and incorrect. Parents in Madrid wrote, full of anxiety, to their
children in provincial towns, saying: “What is all this we hear about
disturbances in your city? What is happening? What have the reservists
been doing?” While the children were writing with equal urgency to ask
what was amiss in the capital, that “such bad things” were being said of the
soldiers in Madrid. I know these reports were spread, for I was asked to
read aloud more than one such letter by working people who could not read
for themselves.
It was not long before the people discovered that they had been deceived
and vilified by some persons unknown, who were making it their business
to represent Spain as in the throes of a revolution, and it was then that they
became convinced that the rising in Cataluña, represented by the
Government as springing from a protest against the calling out of the
reserves, was in fact a Carlist plot, gone wrong so far as the Carlists were
concerned.
As one travelled about the country in 1909 it seemed as if every village
had sent one or more of its sons to Melilla. Yet, although their families
made sure that they were going straight to destruction, few endeavours were
made to evade the call to arms.
I heard one man, an artisan, say with a shrug of his shoulders that he was
going because he might as well be shot in action as shot for a deserter at
home, and I saw another fling himself flat on the platform when the train
came in, howling that “he was afraid of being killed and didn’t want to go
to the war.” The first was a professed republican; the second, as the
bystanders promptly informed me, was “drunk, as usual.”
Very likely there were other cases of the same kind, but they were
certainly exceptional. I made it my business to travel as much as I could at
that time, on purpose to observe the people, for, knowing the Spanish
peasant, I did not believe the tales current in the foreign Press of his
cowardly and mutinous conduct, and I wished to see for myself how he
behaved. I saw no such disgraceful exhibitions as were described by
English and French journalists.
The conversations that I overheard were very naïve: not at all the talk of
a rebellious people, notwithstanding the tales of suffering in Cuba and in
the Carlist wars which balked so large in the popular imagination.
“My son! my son!” wailed one woman. “They will kill thee! I shall
never see thee again!”
“Hush, mother!” answered the young man. “Rest assured that if they do
kill me I shall have killed plenty of them first.”
“Why will they not let us women go too!” cried another mother. “We
could kill all the Moras [female Moors] and then they would bring no more
little Moors into the world to be the ruin of Spain.”
It was curious to observe how the eternal race-hatred came out at the
very name of Moor—the tradition of the long contest between Christian and
Moslem. The Moors of Morocco cannot be held to have inflicted any
serious injury on the nation for many centuries past, yet such is the force of
ancient tradition among the peasantry that the very name of Moro calls forth
the cry, “They are the ruin of Spain,” and if you ask for an explanation you
will be told that “The Moors are always pressing upon us and trying to take
our country from us.”
One pathetic yet humorous incident was related by the Infanta Doña Paz
(aunt to Don Alfonso) in a letter which she wrote to the Press about this
time, exhorting her fellow-countrywomen to have patience and be of good