Heretics

G. K. Chesterton
**The Project Gutenberg Etext of Heretics, by G. K. Chesterton** #4 in our series by G. K. Chesterton Copyright l !s re ch nging ll o"er the !orl#, be sure to chec$ the copyright l !s for your country before posting these files% Ple se t $e loo$ t the i&port nt infor& tion in this he #er.

'e encour ge you to $eep this file on your o!n #is$, $eeping n electronic p th open for the next re #ers. (o not re&o"e this. **'elco&e To The 'orl# of )ree Pl in * nill Electronic Texts** **Etexts +e # ble ,y ,oth Hu& ns n# ,y Co&puters, -ince ./0.** *These Etexts Prep re# ,y Hun#re#s of *olunteers n# (on tions* 1nfor& tion on cont cting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, n# further infor& tion is inclu#e# belo!. 'e nee# your #on tions.

Heretics by G. K. Chesterton 2 rch, .//3 4Etext #4056

**The Project Gutenberg Etext of Heretics, by G. K. Chesterton** *****This file shoul# be n &e# heret...txt or heret...7ip****** Correcte# E(1T189- of our etexts get ne! 9:2,E+, heret.;.txt.

*E+-189- b se# on sep r te sources get ne! <ETTE+, heret.. .txt.

This etext ! s cre te# by 2i$e Piff =2Piff>P?.-HE).?C.:K@ n# proofe# by 2 rtin ' r# =2 rtin.' r#>#urh &. c.u$@. 1f you fin# n error in this e#ition, ple se cont ct 2 rtin ' r#

'e re no! trying to rele se ll our boo$s one &onth in #" nce of the offici l rele se # tes, for ti&e for better e#iting. Ple se noteA neither this list nor its contents re fin l till &i#night of the l st # y of the &onth of ny such nnounce&ent. The offici l rele se # te of ll Project Gutenberg Etexts is t 2i#night, Centr l Ti&e, of the l st # y of the st te# &onth. ? preli&in ry "ersion & y often be poste# for suggestion, co&&ent n# e#iting by those !ho !ish to #o so. To be sure you h "e n up to # te first e#ition 4xxxxx.5x.xxx6 ple se chec$ file si7es in the first !ee$ of the next &onth. -ince our ftp progr & h s bug in it th t scr &bles the # te 4trie# to fix n# f ile#6 loo$ t the file si7e !ill h "e to #o, but !e !ill try to see ne! copy h s t le st one byte &ore or less. 1nfor& tion bout Project Gutenberg =one p ge@ 'e pro#uce bout t!o &illion #oll rs for e ch hour !e !or$. The fifty hours is one conser" ti"e esti& te for ho! long it !e t $e to get ny etext selecte#, entere#, proofre #, e#ite#, copyright se rche# n# n ly7e#, the copyright letters !ritten, etc. This projecte# u#ience is one hun#re# &illion re #ers. 1f our " lue per text is no&in lly esti& te# t one #oll r then !e pro#uce B4 &illion #oll rs per hour this ye r s !e rele se so&e eight text files per &onthA thus upping our pro#ucti"ity fro& B; &illion.

The Go l of Project Gutenberg is to Gi"e ?! y 8ne Trillion Etext )iles by the (ece&ber C., ;55.. 4.5,555 x .55,555,555DTrillion6 This is ten thous n# titles e ch to one hun#re# &illion re #ers, !hich is .5E of the expecte# nu&ber of co&puter users by the en# of the ye r ;55.. 'e nee# your #on tions &ore th n e"er% ?ll #on tions shoul# be & #e to FProject GutenbergG1,CF, n# re t x #e#uctible to the extent llo! ble by l ! =F1,CF is 1llinois ,ene#ictine College@. =-ubscriptions to our p per ne!sletter go to 1,C, too@ )or these n# other & tters, ple se & il toA Project Gutenberg P. 8. ,ox ;0H; Ch &p ign, 1< 3.H;I 'hen ll other e& il f ils try our 2ich el -. H rt, Executi"e (irectorA h rt>"&#.cso.uiuc.e#u =internet@ h rt>uiuc"&# =bitnet@ 'e !oul# prefer to sen# you this infor& tion by e& il =1nternet, ,itnet, Co&puser"e, ?TT2?1< or 2C1& il@. ****** 1f you h "e n )TP progr & =or e&ul tor@, ple se )TP #irectly to the Project Gutenberg rchi"esA 42 c users, #o 98T point n# clic$. . .type6 ftp ui rchi"e.cso.uiuc.e#u loginA nony&ous

p ss!or#A your>login

c# etextGetext/5 through Getext/3 or c# etextG rticles 4get suggest gut for &ore infor& tion6 #ir 4to see files6 get or &get 4to get files. . .set bin for 7ip files6 GET 19(EJK55.G:T for n# GET 9E' G:T for gener l infor& tion n# 2GET G:T* for ne!sletters. **1nfor& tion prep re# by the Project Gutenberg leg l #"isor** =Three P ges@ ***-T?+T**THE -2?<< P+19T%**)8+ P:,<1C (82?19 ETEJT-**-T?+T*** 'hy is this F-& ll Print%F st te&ent hereK Lou $no!A l !yers. They tell us you &ight sue us if there is so&ething !rong !ith your copy of this etext, e"en if you got it for free fro& so&eone other th n us, n# e"en if !h tMs !rong is not our f ult. -o, &ong other things, this F-& ll Print%F st te&ent #iscl i&s &ost of our li bility to you. 1t lso tells you ho! you c n #istribute copies of this etext if you ! nt to. *,E)8+E%* L8: :-E 8+ +E?( TH1- ETEJT ,y using or re #ing ny p rt of this P+8NECT G:TE9,E+GOt& etext, you in#ic te th t you un#erst n#, gree to n# ccept this F-& ll Print%F st te&ent. 1f you #o not, you c n recei"e refun# of the &oney =if ny@ you p i# for this etext by sen#ing rePuest !ithin C5 # ys of recei"ing it to the person physic l list of boo$s

you got it fro&. 1f you recei"e# this etext on

&e#iu& =such s

#is$@, you &ust return it !ith your rePuest.

?,8:T P+8NECT G:TE9,E+GOT2 ETEJTThis P+8NECT G:TE9,E+GOt& etext, li$e &ost P+8NECT G:TE9,E+GO t& etexts, is Fpublic #o& inF !or$ #istribute# by Professor

2ich el -. H rt through the Project Gutenberg ?ssoci tion t 1llinois ,ene#ictine College =the FProjectF@. ?&ong other things, this &e ns th t no one o!ns :nite# -t tes copyright

on or for this !or$, so the Project = n# you%@ c n copy n# #istribute it in the :nite# -t tes !ithout per&ission n# !ithout p ying copyright roy lties. -peci l rules, set forth belo!, pply if you !ish to copy n# #istribute this etext un#er the ProjectMs FP+8NECT G:TE9,E+GF tr #e& r$.

To cre te these etexts, the Project expen#s consi#er ble efforts to i#entify, tr nscribe n# proofre # public #o& in !or$s. (espite these efforts, the ProjectMs etexts n# ny &e#iu& they & y be on & y cont in F(efectsF. ?&ong other things, (efects & y t $e the for& of inco&plete, in ccur te or corrupt # t , tr nscription errors, intellectu l property infringe&ent, #is$ or other etext &e#iu&, copyright or other #efecti"e or # & ge#

co&puter "irus, or co&puter

co#es th t # & ge or c nnot be re # by your ePuip&ent.

<121TE( '?++?9TLQ (1-C<?12E+ 8) (?2?GE,ut for the F+ight of +epl ce&ent or +efun#F #escribe# belo!, 4.6 the Project = n# ny other p rty you & y recei"e this etext fro& s P+8NECT G:TE9,E+GOt& etext@ #iscl i&s ll

li bility to you for # & ges, costs n# expenses, inclu#ing

leg l fees, n# 4;6 L8: H?*E 98 +E2E(1E- )8+ 9EG<1GE9CE 8+ :9(E+ -T+1CT <1?,1<1TL, 8+ )8+ ,+E?CH 8) '?++?9TL 8+ C89T+?CT, 19C<:(19G ,:T 98T <121TE( T8 19(1+ECT, C89-ER:E9T1?<, P:91T1*E 8+ 19C1(E9T?< (?2?GE-, E*E9 1) L8: G1*E 98T1CE 8) THE P8--1,1<1TL 8) -:CH (?2?GE-.

1f you #isco"er

(efect in this etext !ithin /5 # ys of refun# of the &oney =if ny@

recei"ing it, you c n recei"e

you p i# for it by sen#ing n expl n tory note !ithin th t ti&e to the person you recei"e# it fro&. 1f you recei"e# it on physic l &e#iu&, you &ust return it !ith your note, n# repl ce&ent

such person & y choose to ltern ti"ely gi"e you

copy. 1f you recei"e# it electronic lly, such person & y choose to ltern ti"ely gi"e you recei"e it electronic lly. secon# opportunity to

TH1- ETEJT 1- 8THE+'1-E P+8*1(E( T8 L8: F?-O1-F. 98 8THE+ '?++?9T1E- 8) ?9L K19(, EJP+E-- 8+ 12P<1E(, ?+E 2?(E T8 L8: ?T8 THE ETEJT 8+ ?9L 2E(1:2 1T 2?L ,E 89, 19C<:(19G ,:T 98T <121TE( T8 '?++?9T1E- 8) 2E+CH?9T?,1<1TL 8+ )1T9E-- )8+ ? P?+T1C:<?+ P:+P8-E.

-o&e st tes #o not llo! #iscl i&ers of i&plie# ! rr nties or the exclusion or li&it tion of consePuenti l # & ges, so the bo"e #iscl i&ers n# exclusions & y not pply to you, n# you & y h "e other leg l rights.

19(E291TL Lou !ill in#e&nify n# hol# the Project, its #irectors,

officers, &e&bers n# gents h r&less fro& ll li bility, cost n# expense, inclu#ing leg l fees, th t rise #irectly or in#irectly fro& ny of the follo!ing th t you #o or c useA 4.6 #istribution of this etext, 4;6 lter tion, &o#ific tion, or ##ition to the etext, or 4C6 ny (efect.

(1-T+1,:T189 :9(E+ FP+8NECT G:TE9,E+GOt&F Lou & y #istribute copies of this etext electronic lly, or by #is$, boo$ or ny other &e#iu& if you either #elete this F-& ll Print%F n# ll other references to Project Gutenberg, orA

4.6 8nly gi"e ex ct copies of it. ?&ong other things, this rePuires th t you #o not re&o"e, lter or &o#ify the etext or this Fs& ll print%F st te&ent. Lou & y ho!e"er, if you !ish, #istribute this etext in & chine re # ble bin ry, co&presse#, & r$Oup, or propriet ry for&, inclu#ing ny for& resulting fro& con"ersion by !or# proO cessing or hypertext soft! re, but only so long s *E1THE+*A

4*6 The etext, !hen #ispl ye#, is cle rly re # ble, n# #oes *not* cont in ch r cters other th n those inten#e# by the uthor of the !or$, lthough til#e =S@, steris$ =*@ n# un#erline =T@ ch r cters & y be use# to con"ey punctu tion inten#e# by the uthor, n# ##ition l ch r cters & y be use# to in#ic te hypertext lin$sQ 8+

4*6 The etext & y be re #ily con"erte# by the re #er t no expense into pl in ?-C11, E,C(1C or ePui" lent for& by the progr & th t #ispl ys the etext = s is the c se, for inst nce, !ith &ost !or# processors@Q 8+

4*6 Lou pro"i#e, or gree to lso pro"i#e on rePuest t no ##ition l cost, fee or expense, copy of the

etext in its origin l pl in ?-C11 for& =or in E,C(1C or other ePui" lent propriet ry for&@.

4;6 Honor the etext refun# n# repl ce&ent pro"isions of this F-& ll Print%F st te&ent.

4C6 P y

tr #e& r$ license fee to the Project of ;5E of the

net profits you #eri"e c lcul te# using the &etho# you lre #y use to c lcul te your pplic ble t xes. 1f you #onMt #eri"e profits, no roy lty is #ue. +oy lties re p y ble to FProject Gutenberg ?ssoci tion G 1llinois ,ene#ictine CollegeF !ithin the 35 # ys follo!ing e ch # te you prep re =or !ere leg lly rePuire# to prep re@ your nnu l =or ePui" lent perio#ic@ t x return.

'H?T 1) L8: *'?9T* T8 -E9( 289EL E*E9 1) L8: (89MT H?*E T8K The Project gr tefully ccepts contributions in &oney, ti&e, sc nning & chines, 8C+ soft! re, public #o& in etexts, roy lty free copyright licenses, n# e"ery other sort of contribution you c n thin$ of. 2oney shoul# be p i# to FProject Gutenberg ?ssoci tion G 1llinois ,ene#ictine CollegeF.

*E9(*THE -2?<< P+19T% )8+ P:,<1C (82?19 ETEJT-**er.54.;/./C*E9(*

HE+ET1C-

by

Gilbert K. Chesterton

FTo 2y ) therF

-ource

Heretics ! s copyrighte# in ./5I by the Nohn < ne Co&p ny. This electronic text is #eri"e# fro& the t!elth =././@ e#ition publishe# by the Nohn < ne Co&p ny of 9e! Lor$ City n# printe# by the Pli&pton Press of 9or!oo#, 2 ss chusetts. The text c refully follo!s th t of the publishe# e#ition =inclu#ing ,ritish spelling@.

The ?uthor

Gilbert Keith Chesterton ! s born in <on#on, Engl n# on the ;/th

of 2 y, .H04. Though he consi#ere# hi&self he ! s ctu lly

&ere Frollic$ing journ list,F

prolific n# gifte# !riter in "irtu lly e"ery re

of liter ture. ? & n of strong opinions n# enor&ously t lente# t #efen#ing the&, his exuber nt person lity ne"ertheless llo!e# hi& to & int in ! r& frien#ships !ith peopleOOsuch s George ,ern r# -h ! n# H. G. 'ellsOO!ith !ho& he "ehe&ently #is gree#.

Chesterton h # no #ifficulty st n#ing up for !h t he belie"e#. He ! s one of the fe! journ lists to oppose the ,oer ' r. His ./;; FEugenics n# 8ther E"ilsF tt c$e# !h t ! s t th t ti&e the &ost progressi"e of ll i#e s, the i#e th t the hu& n r ce coul# n# shoul# bree# superior "ersion of itself.

1n the 9 7i experience, history #e&onstr te# the !is#o& of his once Fre ction ryF "ie!s.

His poetry runs the g &ut fro& the co&ic ./5H F8n +unning ?fter 8neMs H tF to # r$ n# serious b ll #s. (uring the # r$ # ys of ./45, !hen ,rit in stoo# "irtu lly lone g inst the r&e# &ight of 9 7i Ger& ny, these lines fro& his ./.. , ll # of the 'hite Horse !ere often Puote#A

1 tell you n ught for your co&fort, Le , n ught for your #esire, - "e th t the s$y gro!s # r$er yet ?n# the se rises higher.

Though not !ritten for

schol rly u#ience, his biogr phies of

uthors n# historic l figures li$e Ch rles (ic$ens n# -t. )r ncis of ?ssisi often cont in brilli nt insights into their subjects.

His ) ther ,ro!n &ystery stories, !ritten bet!een ./.. n# ./C3, re still being re # n# # pte# for tele"ision.

His politics fitte# !ith his #eep #istrust of concentr te# !e lth n# po!er of ny sort. ?long !ith his frien# Hil ire ,elloc n# in boo$s li$e the ./.5 F'h tMs 'rong !ith the 'orl#F he #"oc te# c lle# F(istributionis&F th t ! s best su&&e# up by his expression th t e"ery & n ought to be llo!e# to o!n Fthree cres n# Though not $no! s politic l thin$er, his politic l influence co!.F "ie!

h s circle# the !orl#. -o&e see in hi& the f ther of the Fs& ll is be utifulF &o"e&ent n# ne!sp per rticle by hi& is cre#ite# FgenuineF n tion lis& for 1n#i

!ith pro"o$ing G n#hi to see$

r ther th n one th t i&it te# the ,ritish.

Heretics belongs to yet nother re of liter ture t !hich Chesterton excelle#. ? funOlo"ing n# greg rious & n, he ! s ne"ertheless trouble# in his #olescence by thoughts of suici#e. 1n Christi nity he foun# the ns!ers to the #ile&& s n# p r #oxes he s ! in life. 8ther boo$s in th t s &e series inclu#e his ./5H 8rtho#oxy =!ritten in response to tt c$s on this boo$@ n# his ./;I The E"erl sting 2 n. 8rtho#oxy is lso " il ble s electronic text.

Chesterton #ie# on the .4th of Nune, ./C3 in ,e consfiel#, ,uc$ingh &shire, Engl n#. (uring his life he publishe# 3/ boo$s n# t le st nother ten b se# on his !ritings h "e been publishe# fter his #e th. 2 ny of those boo$s re still in print. 1gn tius Press is syste& tic lly publishing his collecte# !ritings.

T ble of Contents

.. 1ntro#uctory +e& r$s on the 1&port nce of 8tho#oxy ;. 8n the 9eg ti"e -pirit C. 8n 2r. +u#y r# Kipling n# 2 $ing the 'orl# -& ll 4. 2r. ,ern r# -h ! I. 2r. H. G. 'ells n# the Gi nts 3. Christ& s n# the Esthetes 0. 8& r n# the - cre# *ine H. The 2il#ness of the Lello! Press /. The 2oo#s of 2r. George 2oore .5. 8n - n# ls n# -i&plicity ... -cience n# the - " ges .;. P g nis& n# 2r. <o!es (ic$inson .C. Celts n# Celtophiles .4. 8n Cert in 2o#ern 'riters n# the 1nstitution of the ) &ily .I. 8n -& rt 9o"elists n# the -& rt -et .3. 8n 2r. 2cC be n# .0. 8n the 'it of 'histler .H. The ) ll cy of the Loung 9 tion ./. -lu& 9o"elists n# the -lu&s ;5. Conclu#ing +e& r$s on the 1&port nce of 8rtho#oxy (i"ine )ri"olity

1. 1ntro#uctory +e& r$s on the 1&port nce of 8rtho#oxy

9othing &ore str ngely in#ic tes n enor&ous n# silent e"il of &o#ern society th n the extr or#in ry use !hich is & #e

no! # ys of the !or# Fortho#ox.F 1n for&er # ys the heretic ! s prou# of not being heretic. 1t ! s the $ing#o&s of

the !orl# n# the police n# the ju#ges !ho !ere heretics. He ! s ortho#ox. He h # no pri#e in h "ing rebelle# g inst the&Q they h # rebelle# g inst hi&. The r&ies !ith their cruel security, the $ings !ith their col# f ces, the #ecorous processes of -t te, the re son ble processes of l !OO ll these li$e sheep h # gone str y. The & n ! s prou# of being ortho#ox, ! s prou# of being right. 1f he stoo# lone in he ! s ho!ling !il#erness he ! s &ore th n & nQ

church. He ! s the centre of the uni"erseQ it ! s

roun# hi& th t the st rs s!ung. ?ll the tortures torn out of forgotten hells coul# not & $e hi& #&it th t he ! s heretic l. ,ut !ith fe! &o#ern phr ses h "e & #e hi& bo st of it. He s ys, conscious l ugh, F1 suppose 1 & "ery heretic l,F n# loo$s

roun# for ppl use. The !or# FheresyF not only &e ns no longer being !rongQ it pr ctic lly &e ns being cle rOhe #e# n# cour geous. The !or# Fortho#oxyF not only no longer &e ns being rightQ it pr ctic lly &e ns being !rong. ?ll this c n &e n one thing, n# one thing only. 1t &e ns th t people c re less for !hether they re philosophic lly right. )or ob"iously & n ought

to confess hi&self cr 7y before he confesses hi&self heretic l. The ,ohe&i n, !ith The #yn &iter, l ying t le st he is ortho#ox. re# tie, ought to piPue hi&self on his ortho#oxy. bo&b, ought to feel th t, !h te"er else he is,

1t is foolish, gener lly spe $ing, for

philosopher to set fire

to nother philosopher in -&ithfiel# 2 r$et bec use they #o not gree in their theory of the uni"erse. Th t ! s #one "ery frePuently in the l st #ec #ence of the 2i##le ?ges, n# it f ile# ltogether

in its object. ,ut there is one thing th t is infinitely &ore bsur# n# unpr ctic l th n burning & n for his philosophy.

This is the h bit of s ying th t his philosophy #oes not & tter, n# this is #one uni"ers lly in the t!entieth century, in the #ec #ence of the gre t re"olution ry perio#. Gener l theories re e"ery!here conte&ne#Q the #octrine of the +ights of 2 n is #is&isse# !ith the #octrine of the ) ll of 2 n. ?theis& itself is too theologic l for us toO# y. +e"olution itself is too &uch of syste&Q liberty itself is too &uch of restr int.

'e !ill h "e no gener li7 tions. 2r. ,ern r# -h ! h s put the "ie! in perfect epigr &A FThe gol#en rule is th t there is no gol#en rule.F

'e re &ore n# &ore to #iscuss #et ils in rt, politics, liter ture. ? & nMs opinion on tr &c rs & ttersQ his opinion on ,otticelli & ttersQ his opinion on ll things #oes not & tter. He & y turn o"er n# explore &illion objects, but he &ust not fin# th t str nge object, religion, n# be lost.

the uni"erseQ for if he #oes he !ill h "e E"erything & ttersOOexcept e"erything.

Ex &ples re sc rcely nee#e# of this tot l le"ity on the subject of cos&ic philosophy. Ex &ples re sc rcely nee#e# to sho! th t, !h te"er else !e thin$ of s ffecting pr ctic l ff irs, !e #o not thin$ it & tters !hether C rtesi n or Hegeli n, & n is pessi&ist or n opti&ist, spiritu list.

& teri list or

<et &e, ho!e"er, t $e !e & y e sily he r

r n#o& inst nce. ?t ny innocent te Ot ble

& n s y, F<ife is not !orth li"ing.F fine # yQ

'e reg r# it s !e reg r# the st te&ent th t it is

nobo#y thin$s th t it c n possibly h "e ny serious effect on the & n or on the !orl#. ?n# yet if th t utter nce !ere re lly belie"e#, the !orl# !oul# st n# on its he #. 2ur#erers !oul# be gi"en

&e# ls for s "ing &en fro& lifeQ fire&en !oul# be #enounce# for $eeping &en fro& #e thQ poisons !oul# be use# s &e#icinesQ #octors !oul# be c lle# in !hen people !ere !ellQ the +oy l Hu& ne -ociety !oul# be roote# out li$e hor#e of ss ssins.

Let !e ne"er specul te s to !hether the con"ers tion l pessi&ist !ill strengthen or #isorg ni7e societyQ for !e re con"ince# th t theories #o not & tter.

This ! s cert inly not the i#e of those !ho intro#uce# our free#o&. 'hen the ol# <iber ls re&o"e# the g gs fro& ll the heresies, their i#e ! s th t religious n# philosophic l #isco"eries &ight thus be & #e. Their "ie! ! s th t cos&ic truth ! s so i&port nt th t e"ery one ought to be r in#epen#ent testi&ony. The &o#ern i#e is th t cos&ic truth is so uni&port nt th t it c nnot & tter !h t ny one s ys. The for&er free# inPuiry s &en loose inPuiry s &en fling b c$ into the se noble houn#Q the l tter frees fish unfit for e ting.

9e"er h s there been so little #iscussion bout the n ture of &en s no!, !hen, for the first ti&e, ny one c n #iscuss it. The ol# restriction &e nt th t only the ortho#ox !ere llo!e# to #iscuss religion. 2o#ern liberty &e ns th t nobo#y is llo!e# to #iscuss it. Goo# t ste, the l st n# "ilest of hu& n superstitions, h s succee#e# in silencing us !here ll the rest h "e f ile#. -ixty ye rs go it ! s b # t ste to be n "o!e# theist. Then c &e the ,r #l ughites, the l st religious &en, the l st &en !ho c re# bout Go#Q but they coul# not lter it. 1t is still b # t ste to be n "o!e# theist. ,ut their gony h s chie"e# just thisOO th t no! it is ePu lly b # t ste to be n "o!e# Christi n. E& ncip tion h s only loc$e# the s int in the s &e to!er of silence s the heresi rch. Then !e t l$ bout <or# ?nglesey n# the !e ther,

n# c ll it the co&plete liberty of ll the cree#s.

,ut there re so&e people, ne"erthelessOO n# 1 & one of the&OO !ho thin$ th t the &ost pr ctic l n# i&port nt thing bout is still his "ie! of the uni"erse. 'e thin$ th t for consi#ering l n#l #y & n

lo#ger, it is i&port nt to $no! his inco&e, but still gener l

&ore i&port nt to $no! his philosophy. 'e thin$ th t for

bout to fight n ene&y, it is i&port nt to $no! the ene&yMs nu&bers, but still &ore i&port nt to $no! the ene&yMs philosophy. 'e thin$ the Puestion is not !hether the theory of the cos&os ffects & tters, but !hether in the long run, nything else ffects the&. 1n the fifteenth century &en crossOex &ine# n# tor&ente# & n

bec use he pre che# so&e i&&or l ttitu#eQ in the nineteenth century !e fete# n# fl ttere# 8sc r 'il#e bec use he pre che# such n ttitu#e, n# then bro$e his he rt in pen l ser"itu#e bec use he c rrie# it out. 1t & y be Puestion !hich of the t!o &etho#s ! s the &ore cruelQ

there c n be no $in# of Puestion !hich ! s the &ore lu#icrous. The ge of the 1nPuisition h s not t le st the #isgr ce of h "ing pro#uce# society !hich & #e n i#ol of the "ery s &e & n for pre ching con"ict for pr ctising.

the "ery s &e things !hich it & #e hi&

9o!, in our ti&e, philosophy or religion, our theory, th t is, bout ulti& te things, h s been #ri"en out, &ore or less si&ult neously, fro& t!o fiel#s !hich it use# to occupy. Gener l i#e ls use# to #o&in te liter ture. They h "e been #ri"en out by the cry of F rt for rtMs s $e.F Gener l i#e ls use# to #o&in te politics. They h "e been #ri"en out by the cry of Fefficiency,F !hich & y roughly be tr nsl te# s Fpolitics for politicsM s $e.F Persistently for the l st t!enty ye rs the i#e ls of or#er or liberty

h "e #!in#le# in our boo$sQ the &bitions of !it n# eloPuence h "e #!in#le# in our p rli &ents. <iter ture h s purposely beco&e less politic lQ politics h "e purposely beco&e less liter ry. Gener l theories of the rel tion of things h "e thus been extru#e# fro& bothQ n# !e re in position to s$, F'h t h "e !e g ine#

or lost by this extrusionK 1s liter ture better, is politics better, for h "ing #isc r#e# the &or list n# the philosopherKF

'hen e"erything bout

people is for the ti&e gro!ing !e $

n# ineffecti"e, it begins to t l$ bout efficiency. -o it is th t !hen & nMs bo#y is !rec$ he begins, for the first ti&e, to t l$ bout he lth.

*igorous org nis&s t l$ not bout their processes, but bout their i&s. There c nnot be ny better proof of the physic l efficiency of th n th t he t l$s cheerfully of & n

journey to the en# of the !orl#.

?n# there c nnot be ny better proof of the pr ctic l efficiency of n tion th n th t it t l$s const ntly of journey to the en#

of the !orl#,

journey to the Nu#g&ent ( y n# the 9e! Nerus le&. co rse & teri l he lth

There c n be no stronger sign of

th n the ten#ency to run fter high n# !il# i#e lsQ it is in the first exuber nce of inf ncy th t !e cry for the &oon. 9one of the strong &en in the strong ges !oul# h "e un#erstoo# !h t you &e nt by !or$ing for efficiency. Hil#ebr n# !oul# h "e s i# th t he ! s !or$ing not for efficiency, but for the C tholic Church. ( nton !oul# h "e s i# th t he ! s !or$ing not for efficiency, but for liberty, ePu lity, n# fr ternity. E"en if the i#e l of such &en !ere si&ply the i#e l of $ic$ing & n #o!nst irs,

they thought of the en# li$e &en, not of the process li$e p r lytics. They #i# not s y, FEfficiently ele" ting &y right leg, using, you !ill notice, the &uscles of the thigh n# c lf, !hich re

in excellent or#er, 1OOF Their feeling ! s Puite #ifferent. They !ere so fille# !ith the be utiful "ision of the & n lying fl t t the foot of the st irc se th t in th t ecst sy the rest follo!e# in fl sh. 1n pr ctice, the h bit of gener li7ing

n# i#e li7ing #i# not by ny &e ns &e n !orl#ly !e $ness. The ti&e of big theories ! s the ti&e of big results. 1n the er of senti&ent n# fine !or#s, t the en# of the eighteenth century, &en !ere re lly robust n# effecti"e. The senti&ent lists conPuere# 9 poleon. The cynics coul# not c tch (e 'et. ? hun#re# ye rs go our ff irs for goo# or e"il !ere !iel#e# triu&ph ntly by rhetorici ns. 9o! our ff irs re hopelessly &u##le# by strong, silent &en. ?n# just s this repu#i tion of big !or#s n# big "isions h s brought forth forth r ce of s& ll &en in politics, so it h s brought

r ce of s& ll &en in the rts. 8ur &o#ern politici ns cl i&

the coloss l license of C es r n# the -uper& n, cl i& th t they re too pr ctic l to be pure n# too p triotic to be &or lQ but the upshot of it ll is th t &e#iocrity is Ch ncellor of the ExchePuer.

8ur ne! rtistic philosophers c ll for the s &e &or l license, for free#o& to !rec$ he "en n# e rth !ith their energyQ &e#iocrity is Poet < ure te.

but the upshot of it ll is th t

1 #o not s y th t there re no stronger &en th n theseQ but !ill ny one s y th t there re ny &en stronger th n those &en of ol# !ho !ere #o&in te# by their philosophy n# steepe# in their religionK 'hether bon# ge be better th n free#o& & y be #iscusse#. ,ut th t their bon# ge c &e to &ore th n our free#o& it !ill be #ifficult for ny one to #eny.

The theory of the un&or lity of rt h s est blishe# itself fir&ly in the strictly rtistic cl sses. They re free to pro#uce

nything they li$e. They re free to !rite

FP r #ise <ostF

in !hich - t n sh ll conPuer Go#. They re free to !rite F(i"ine Co&e#yF in !hich he "en sh ll be un#er the floor of hell. ?n# !h t h "e they #oneK H "e they pro#uce# in their uni"ers lity nything gr n#er or &ore be utiful th n the things uttere# by the fierce Ghibbeline C tholic, by the rigi# Purit n school& sterK 'e $no! th t they h "e pro#uce# only fe! roun#els.

2ilton #oes not &erely be t the& t his piety, he be ts the& t their o!n irre"erence. 1n ll their little boo$s of "erse you !ill not fin# finer #efi nce of Go# th n - t nMs. 9or !ill you

fin# the gr n#eur of p g nis& felt s th t fiery Christi n felt it !ho #escribe# ) r n t lifting his he # s in #is# in of hell. ?n# the re son is "ery ob"ious. ,l sphe&y is n rtistic effect, bec use bl sphe&y #epen#s upon philosophic l con"iction.

,l sphe&y #epen#s upon belief n# is f #ing !ith it. 1f ny one #oubts this, let hi& sit #o!n seriously n# try to thin$ bl sphe&ous thoughts bout Thor. 1 thin$ his f &ily !ill fin# hi& t the en# of the # y in st te of so&e exh ustion.

9either in the !orl# of politics nor th t of liter ture, then, h s the rejection of gener l theories pro"e# success.

1t & y be th t there h "e been & ny &oonstruc$ n# &isle #ing i#e ls th t h "e fro& ti&e to ti&e perplexe# & n$in#. ,ut ssure#ly there h s been no i#e l in pr ctice so &oonstruc$ n# &isle #ing s the i#e l of pr ctic lity. 9othing h s lost so & ny opportunities s the opportunis& of <or# +osebery. He is, in#ee#, sy&bol of this epochOOthe & n !ho is theoretic lly st n#ing

pr ctic l & n,

n# pr ctic lly &ore unpr ctic l th n ny theorist. 9othing in this uni"erse is so un!ise s th t $in# of !orship of !orl#ly !is#o&.

? & n !ho is perpetu lly thin$ing of !hether this r ce or th t r ce is strong, of !hether this c use or th t c use is pro&ising, is the & n !ho !ill ne"er belie"e in nything long enough to & $e it succee#. The opportunist politici n is li$e & n !ho shoul# b n#on billi r#s

bec use he ! s be ten t billi r#s, n# b n#on golf bec use he ! s be ten t golf. There is nothing !hich is so !e $ for !or$ing purposes s this enor&ous i&port nce tt che# to i&&e#i te "ictory. There is nothing th t f ils li$e success.

?n# h "ing #isco"ere# th t opportunis& #oes f il, 1 h "e been in#uce# to loo$ t it &ore l rgely, n# in consePuence to see th t it &ust f il. 1 percei"e th t it is f r &ore pr ctic l to begin t the beginning n# #iscuss theories. 1 see th t the &en !ho $ille# e ch other bout the ortho#oxy of the Ho&oousion !ere f r &ore sensible th n the people !ho re Pu rrelling bout the E#uc tion ?ct. )or the Christi n #og& tists !ere trying to est blish reign of holiness,

n# trying to get #efine#, first of ll, !h t ! s re lly holy. ,ut our &o#ern e#uc tionists re trying to bring bout religious

liberty !ithout tte&pting to settle !h t is religion or !h t is liberty. 1f the ol# priests force# st te&ent on & n$in#,

t le st they pre"iously too$ so&e trouble to & $e it luci#. 1t h s been left for the &o#ern &obs of ?nglic ns n# 9onconfor&ists to persecute for #octrine !ithout e"en st ting it.

)or these re sons, n# for & ny &ore, 1 for one h "e co&e to belie"e in going b c$ to fun# &ent ls. -uch is the gener l i#e of this boo$. 1 !ish to #e l !ith &y &ost #istinguishe# conte&por ries, not person lly or in &erely liter ry & nner,

but in rel tion to the re l bo#y of #octrine !hich they te ch.

1 & not concerne# !ith 2r. +u#y r# Kipling s or

"i"i# rtist HereticOO

"igorous person lityQ 1 & concerne# !ith hi& s

th t is to s y,

& n !hose "ie! of things h s the h r#ihoo#

to #iffer fro& &ine. 1 & not concerne# !ith 2r. ,ern r# -h ! s one of the &ost brilli nt n# one of the &ost honest &en li"eQ 1 & concerne# !ith hi& s HereticOOth t is to s y, & n !hose

philosophy is Puite soli#, Puite coherent, n# Puite !rong. 1 re"ert to the #octrin l &etho#s of the thirteenth century, inspire# by the gener l hope of getting so&ething #one.

-uppose th t let us s y

gre t co&&otion rises in the street bout so&ething,

l &pOpost, !hich & ny influenti l persons #esire to

pull #o!n. ? greyOcl # &on$, !ho is the spirit of the 2i##le ?ges, is ppro che# upon the & tter, n# begins to s y, in the ri# & nner of the -chool&en, F<et us first of ll consi#er, &y brethren, the " lue of <ight. 1f <ight be in itself goo#OOF ?t this point he is so&e!h t excus bly $noc$e# #o!n. ?ll the people & $e rush

for the l &pOpost, the l &pOpost is #o!n in ten &inutes, n# they go bout congr tul ting e ch other on their un&e#i e" l pr ctic lity. ,ut s things go on they #o not !or$ out so e sily. -o&e people h "e pulle# the l &pOpost #o!n bec use they ! nte# the electric lightQ so&e bec use they ! nte# ol# ironQ so&e bec use they ! nte# # r$ness, bec use their #ee#s !ere e"il. -o&e thought it not enough of l &pOpost, so&e too &uchQ so&e cte# bec use they ! nte# to s& sh &unicip l & chineryQ so&e bec use they ! nte# to s& sh so&ething. ?n# there is ! r in the night, no & n $no!ing !ho& he stri$es. -o, gr #u lly n# ine"it bly, toO# y, toO&orro!, or the next # y, there co&es b c$ the con"iction th t the &on$ ! s right fter ll, n# th t ll #epen#s on !h t is the philosophy of <ight.

8nly !h t !e &ight h "e #iscusse# un#er the g sOl &p, !e no! &ust #iscuss in the # r$.

11. 8n the neg ti"e spirit

2uch h s been s i#, n# s i# truly, of the &on$ish &orbi#ity, of the hysteri !hich s often gone !ith the "isions of her&its or nuns. ,ut let us ne"er forget th t this "ision ry religion is, in one sense, necess rily &ore !holeso&e th n our &o#ern n# re son ble &or lity. 1t is &ore !holeso&e for this re son, th t it c n conte&pl te the i#e of success or triu&ph in the hopeless fight to! r#s the ethic l i#e l, in !h t -te"enson c lle#, !ith his usu l st rtling felicity, Fthe lost fight of "irtue.F ? &o#ern &or lity, on the other h n#, c n only point !ith bsolute con"iction to the horrors th t follo! bre ches of l !Q its only cert inty is cert inty of ill.

1t c n only point to i&perfection. 1t h s no perfection to point to. ,ut the &on$ &e#it ting upon Christ or ,u##h h s in his &in# n i& ge of perfect he lth, thing of cle r colours n# cle n ir.

He & y conte&pl te this i#e l !holeness n# h ppiness f r &ore th n he oughtQ he & y conte&pl te it to the neglect of exclusion of essenti l TH19Ghe & y conte&pl te it until he h s beco&e #re &er or #ri"ellerQ

but still it is !holeness n# h ppiness th t he is conte&pl ting. He & y e"en go & #Q but he is going & # for the lo"e of s nity. ,ut the &o#ern stu#ent of ethics, e"en if he re& ins s ne, re& ins s ne fro& n ins ne #re # of ins nity.

The nchorite rolling on the stones in is in

fren7y of sub&ission sober & n

he lthier person fun# &ent lly th n & ny

sil$ h t !ho is ! l$ing #o!n Che psi#e. )or & ny !ithering $no!le#ge of e"il.

such re goo# only through

1 & not t this &o&ent cl i&ing for the #e"otee nything &ore th n this pri& ry #" nt ge, th t though he & y be & $ing hi&self person lly !e $ n# &iser ble, he is still fixing his thoughts l rgely on gig ntic strength n# h ppiness, on strength th t h s no li&its, n# h ppiness th t h s no en#.

(oubtless there re other objections !hich c n be urge# !ithout unre son g inst the influence of go#s n# "isions in &or lity, !hether in the cell or street. ,ut this #" nt ge the &ystic &or lity &ust l! ys h "eOOit is l! ys jollier. ? young & n & y $eep hi&self fro& "ice by continu lly thin$ing of #ise se. He & y $eep hi&self fro& it lso by continu lly thin$ing of the *irgin 2 ry. There & y be Puestion bout !hich &etho# is the &ore re son ble, or e"en bout !hich is the &ore efficient. ,ut surely there c n be no Puestion bout !hich is the &ore !holeso&e.

1 re&e&ber

p &phlet by th t ble n# sincere secul rist, phr se sh rply sy&boli7ing n#

2r. G. '. )oote, !hich cont ine#

#i"i#ing these t!o &etho#s. The p &phlet ! s c lle# ,EE+ ?9( ,1,<E, those t!o "ery noble things, ll the nobler for conjunction !hich

2r. )oote, in his stern ol# Purit n ! y, see&e# to thin$ s r#onic, but !hich 1 confess to thin$ing ppropri te n# ch r&ing. 1 h "e not the !or$ by &e, but 1 re&e&ber th t 2r. )oote #is&isse# "ery conte&ptuously ny tte&pts to #e l !ith the proble& of strong #rin$ by religious offices or intercessions, n# s i# th t picture of #run$ r#Ms li"er !oul# be &ore effic cious

in the & tter of te&per nce th n ny pr yer or pr ise. 1n th t picturesPue expression, it see&s to &e, is perfectly e&bo#ie# the incur ble &orbi#ity of &o#ern ethics. 1n th t te&ple the lights re lo!, the cro!#s $neel, the sole&n nthe&s re uplifte#. ,ut th t upon the lt r to !hich ll &en $neel is no longer the perfect flesh, the bo#y n# subst nce of the perfect & nQ it is still flesh, but it is #ise se#. 1t is the #run$ r#Ms li"er of the 9e! Test &ent th t is & rre# for us, !hich !hich !e t $e in re&e&br nce of hi&.

9o!, it is this gre t g p in &o#ern ethics, the bsence of "i"i# pictures of purity n# spiritu l triu&ph, !hich lies t the b c$ of the re l objection felt by so & ny s ne &en to the re listic liter ture of the nineteenth century. 1f ny or#in ry & n e"er s i# th t he ! s horrifie# by the subjects #iscusse# in 1bsen or 2 up ss nt, or by the pl in l ngu ge in !hich they re spo$en of, th t or#in ry & n ! s lying. The "er ge con"ers tion of "er ge &en throughout the !hole of &o#ern ci"ili7 tion in e"ery cl ss or tr #e is such s Uol !oul# ne"er #re & of printing. 9or is the h bit of !riting thus of these things ne! h bit.

8n the contr ry, it is the *ictori n pru#ery n# silence !hich is ne! still, though it is lre #y #ying. The tr #ition of c lling sp #e sp #e st rts "ery e rly in our liter ture n# co&es

#o!n "ery l te. ,ut the truth is th t the or#in ry honest & n, !h te"er " gue ccount he & y h "e gi"en of his feelings, ! s not either #isguste# or e"en nnoye# t the c n#our of the &o#erns. 'h t #isguste# hi&, n# "ery justly, ! s not the presence of cle r re lis&, but the bsence of cle r i#e lis&.

-trong n# genuine religious senti&ent h s ne"er h # ny objection

to re lis&Q on the contr ry, religion ! s the re listic thing, the brut l thing, the thing th t c lle# n &es. This is the gre t #ifference bet!een so&e recent #e"elop&ents of 9onconfor&ity n# the gre t Purit nis& of the se"enteenth century. 1t ! s the !hole point of the Purit ns th t they c re# nothing for #ecency. 2o#ern 9onconfor&ist ne!sp pers #istinguish the&sel"es by suppressing precisely those nouns n# #jecti"es !hich the foun#ers of 9onconfor&ity #istinguishe# the&sel"es by flinging t $ings n# Pueens. ,ut if it ! s chief cl i& of religion th t it spo$e pl inly bout e"il,

it ! s the chief cl i& of ll th t it spo$e pl inly bout goo#. The thing !hich is resente#, n#, s 1 thin$, rightly resente#, in th t gre t &o#ern liter ture of !hich 1bsen is typic l, is th t !hile the eye th t c n percei"e !h t re the !rong things incre ses in n unc nny n# #e"ouring cl rity, the eye !hich sees !h t things re right is gro!ing &istier n# &istier e"ery &o&ent, till it goes l&ost blin# !ith #oubt. 1f !e co&p re, let us s y, the &or lity of the (1*19E C82E(L !ith the &or lity of 1bsenMs GH8-T-, !e sh ll see ll th t &o#ern ethics h "e re lly #one. 9o one, 1 i& gine, !ill ccuse the uthor of the 19)E+98 of n E rly *ictori n pru#ishness or Po#sn pi n opti&is&.

,ut ( nte #escribes three &or l instru&entsOOHe "en, Purg tory, n# Hell, the "ision of perfection, the "ision of i&pro"e&ent, n# the "ision of f ilure. 1bsen h s only oneOOHell. 1t is often s i#, n# !ith perfect truth, th t no one coul# re # pl y li$e GH8-T- n# re& in in#ifferent to the necessity of n ethic l selfOco&& n#. Th t is Puite true, n# the s &e is to be s i# of the &ost &onstrous n# & teri l #escriptions of the etern l fire. 1t is Puite cert in the re lists li$e Uol #o in one sense pro&ote &or lityOOthey pro&ote it in the sense in !hich the h ng& n

pro&otes it, in the sense in !hich the #e"il pro&otes it. ,ut they only ffect th t s& ll &inority !hich !ill ccept ny "irtue of cour ge. 2ost he lthy people #is&iss these &or l # ngers s they #is&iss the possibility of bo&bs or &icrobes. 2o#ern re lists re in#ee# Terrorists, li$e the #yn &itersQ n# they f il just s &uch in their effort to cre te thrill.

,oth re lists n# #yn &iters re !ellO&e ning people eng ge# in the t s$, so ob"iously ulti& tely hopeless, of using science to pro&ote &or lity.

1 #o not !ish the re #er to confuse &e for

&o&ent !ith those " gue pessi&ist.

persons !ho i& gine th t 1bsen is !h t they c ll

There re plenty of !holeso&e people in 1bsen, plenty of goo# people, plenty of h ppy people, plenty of ex &ples of &en cting !isely n# things en#ing !ell. Th t is not &y &e ning. 2y &e ning is th t 1bsen h s throughout, n# #oes not #isguise, cert in " gueness n# ch nging ttitu#e s !ell s #oubting

ttitu#e to! r#s !h t is re lly !is#o& n# "irtue in this lifeOO " gueness !hich contr sts "ery re& r$ bly !ith the #ecisi"eness !ith !hich he pounces on so&ething !hich he percei"es to be of e"il, so&e con"ention, so&e #eception, so&e ignor nce. 'e $no! th t the hero of GH8-T- is & #, n# !e $no! !hy he is & #. 'e #o lso $no! th t (r. -toc$& n is s neQ but !e #o not $no! !hy he is s ne. 1bsen #oes not profess to $no! ho! "irtue n# h ppiness re brought bout, in the sense th t he professes to $no! ho! our &o#ern sexu l tr ge#ies re brought bout. ) lsehoo# !or$s ruin in THE P1<<?+- 8) -8C1ETL, but truth !or$s ePu l ruin in THE '1<( (:CK. There re no c r#in l "irtues of 1bsenis&. There is no i#e l & n of 1bsen. ?ll this is not only #&itte#, root

but " unte# in the &ost " lu ble n# thoughtful of ll the eulogies upon 1bsen, 2r. ,ern r# -h !Ms R:19TE--E9CE 8) 1,-E91-2. 2r. -h ! su&s up 1bsenMs te ching in the phr se, FThe gol#en rule is th t there is no gol#en rule.F 1n his eyes this bsence of n en#uring n# positi"e i#e l, this bsence of per& nent $ey to "irtue, is the one gre t 1bsen &erit.

1 & not #iscussing no! !ith ny fullness !hether this is so or not. ?ll 1 "enture to point out, !ith n incre se# fir&ness, is th t this o&ission, goo# or b #, #oes le "e us f ce to f ce !ith the proble& of hu& n consciousness fille# !ith "ery

#efinite i& ges of e"il, n# !ith no #efinite i& ge of goo#. To us light &ust be hencefor! r# the # r$ thingOOthe thing of !hich !e c nnot spe $. To us, s to 2iltonMs #e"ils in P n#e&oniu&, it is # r$ness th t is "isible. The hu& n r ce, ccor#ing to religion, fell once, n# in f lling g ine# $no!le#ge of goo# n# of e"il. 9o! !e h "e f llen re& ins to us. secon# ti&e, n# only the $no!le#ge of e"il

? gre t silent coll pse, n enor&ous unspo$en #is ppoint&ent, h s in our ti&e f llen on our 9orthern ci"ili7 tion. ?ll pre"ious ges h "e s!e te# n# been crucifie# in n tte&pt to re li7e !h t is re lly the right life, !h t ! s re lly the goo# & n. ? #efinite p rt of the &o#ern !orl# h s co&e beyon# Puestion to the conclusion th t there is no ns!er to these Puestions, th t the &ost th t !e c n #o is to set up fe! noticeObo r#s

t pl ces of ob"ious # nger, to ! rn &en, for inst nce, g inst #rin$ing the&sel"es to #e th, or ignoring the &ere existence of their neighbours. 1bsen is the first to return fro& the b ffle# hunt to bring us the ti#ings of gre t f ilure.

E"ery one of the popul r &o#ern phr ses n# i#e ls is #o#ge in or#er to shir$ the proble& of !h t is goo#. 'e re fon# of t l$ing bout FlibertyFQ th t, s !e t l$ of it, is #o#ge to "oi# #iscussing !h t is goo#. 'e re fon# of t l$ing #o#ge to "oi# #iscussing !h t is goo#. #o#ge

bout FprogressFQ th t is

'e re fon# of t l$ing bout Fe#uc tionFQ th t is

to "oi# #iscussing !h t is goo#. The &o#ern & n s ys, F<et us le "e ll these rbitr ry st n# r#s n# e&br ce liberty.F This is, logic lly ren#ere#, F<et us not #eci#e !h t is goo#, but let it be consi#ere# goo# not to #eci#e it.F He s ys, F?! y !ith your ol# &or l for&ul eQ 1 & for progress.F This, logic lly st te#, &e ns, F<et us not settle !h t is goo#Q but let us settle !hether !e re getting &ore of it.F He s ys, F9either in religion nor &or lity, &y frien#, lie the hopes of the r ce, but in e#uc tion.F This, cle rly expresse#, &e ns, F'e c nnot #eci#e !h t is goo#, but let us gi"e it to our chil#ren.F

2r. H.G. 'ells, th t excee#ingly cle rOsighte# & n, h s pointe# out in recent !or$ th t this h s h ppene# in connection !ith econo&ic Puestions. The ol# econo&ists, he s ys, & #e gener li7 tions, n# they !ere =in 2r. 'ellsMs "ie!@ &ostly !rong. ,ut the ne! econo&ists, he s ys, see& to h "e lost the po!er of & $ing ny gener li7 tions t ll. ?n# they co"er this inc p city !ith reg r#e# s FexpertsF, gener l cl i& to be, in specific c ses, h ir#resser or & n of science.F

cl i& Fproper enough in

f shion ble physici n, but in#ecent in

philosopher or

,ut in spite of the refreshing r tion lity !ith !hich 2r. 'ells h s in#ic te# this, it &ust lso be s i# th t he hi&self h s f llen

into the s &e enor&ous &o#ern error. 1n the opening p ges of th t excellent boo$ 2?9K19( 19 THE 2?K19G, he #is&isses the i#e ls of rt, religion, bstr ct &or lity, n# the rest, n# s ys th t he is going to consi#er &en in their chief function, the function of p renthoo#. He is going to #iscuss life s Ftissue of births.F He is not going

to s$ !h t !ill pro#uce s tisf ctory s ints or s tisf ctory heroes, but !h t !ill pro#uce s tisf ctory f thers n# &others. The !hole is set for! r# so sensibly th t it is fe! &o&ents t le st before the re #er

re lises th t it is nother ex &ple of unconscious shir$ing. 'h t is the goo# of begetting & n until !e h "e settle# !h t is the goo# of being & nK

Lou re &erely h n#ing on to hi& 1t is s if

proble& you # re not settle yourself. h &&erKF n# ns!ere#,

& n !ere s$e#, F'h t is the use of

FTo & $e h &&ersFQ n# !hen s$e#, F?n# of those h &&ers, !h t is the useKF ns!ere#, FTo & $e h &&ers g inF. Nust s such & n !oul#

be perpetu lly putting off the Puestion of the ulti& te use of c rpentry, so 2r. 'ells n# ll the rest of us re by these phr ses successfully putting off the Puestion of the ulti& te " lue of the hu& n life.

The c se of the gener l t l$ of FprogressF is, in#ee#, n extre&e one. ?s enunci te# to# y, FprogressF is si&ply co&p r ti"e of !hich !e h "e not settle# the superl ti"e. 'e &eet e"ery i#e l of religion, p triotis&, be uty, or brute ple sure !ith the ltern ti"e i#e l of progressOOth t is to s y, !e &eet e"ery propos l of getting so&ething th t !e $no! bout, !ith n ltern ti"e propos l of getting gre t #e l &ore of nobo#y &ost

$no!s !h t. Progress, properly un#erstoo#, h s, in#ee#, #ignifie# n# legiti& te &e ning. ,ut s use# in opposition to precise &or l i#e ls, it is lu#icrous. -o f r fro& it being the truth th t the i#e l of progress is to be set g inst th t

of ethic l or religious fin lity, the re"erse is the truth. 9obo#y h s ny business to use the !or# FprogressF unless he h s #efinite cree# n# c stOiron co#e of &or ls.

9obo#y c n be progressi"e !ithout being #octrin lQ 1 &ight l&ost s y th t nobo#y c n be progressi"e !ithout being inf llible OO t ny r te, !ithout belie"ing in so&e inf llibility. )or progress by its "ery n &e in#ic tes #irectionQ

n# the &o&ent !e re in the le st #oubtful bout the #irection, !e beco&e in the s &e #egree #oubtful bout the progress. 9e"er perh ps since the beginning of the !orl# h s there been n ge th t h # less right to use the !or# FprogressF th n !e. 1n the C tholic t!elfth century, in the philosophic eighteenth century, the #irection & y h "e been goo# or b # one,

&en & y h "e #iffere# &ore or less bout ho! f r they !ent, n# in !h t #irection, but bout the #irection they #i# in the & in gree, n# consePuently they h # the genuine sens tion of progress. ,ut it is precisely bout the #irection th t !e #is gree. 'hether the future excellence lies in &ore l ! or less l !, in &ore liberty or less libertyQ !hether property !ill be fin lly concentr te# or fin lly cut upQ !hether sexu l p ssion !ill re ch its s nest in n l&ost "irgin intellectu lis& or in full

ni& l free#o&Q !hether !e shoul# lo"e e"erybo#y !ith Tolstoy, or sp re nobo#y !ith 9iet7scheQOOthese re the things bout !hich !e re ctu lly fighting &ost. 1t is not &erely true th t the ge !hich h s settle# le st !h t is progress is this Fprogressi"eF ge. 1t is, &oreo"er, true th t the people !ho h "e settle# le st !h t is progress re the &ost Fprogressi"eF people in it. The or#in ry & ss, the &en !ho h "e ne"er trouble# bout progress, &ight be truste# perh ps to progress. The p rticul r in#i"i#u ls

!ho t l$ bout progress !oul# cert inly fly to the four !in#s of he "en !hen the pistolOshot st rte# the r ce. 1 #o not, therefore, s y th t the !or# FprogressF is un&e ningQ 1 s y it is un&e ning !ithout the pre"ious #efinition of &or l #octrine,

n# th t it c n only be pplie# to groups of persons !ho hol# th t #octrine in co&&on. Progress is not n illegiti& te !or#, but it is logic lly e"i#ent th t it is illegiti& te for us. 1t is s cre# !or#, !or# !hich coul# only rightly be use#

by rigi# belie"ers n# in the ges of f ith.

111. 8n 2r. +u#y r# Kipling n# 2 $ing the 'orl# -& ll

There is no such thing on e rth s n uninteresting subjectQ the only thing th t c n exist is n unintereste# person. 9othing is &ore $eenly rePuire# th n #efence of bores.

'hen ,yron #i"i#e# hu& nity into the bores n# bore#, he o&itte# to notice th t the higher Pu lities exist entirely in the bores, the lo!er Pu lities in the bore#, &ong !ho& he counte# hi&self. The bore, by his st rry enthusi s&, his sole&n h ppiness, & y, in so&e sense, h "e pro"e# hi&self poetic l. The bore# h s cert inly pro"e# hi&self pros ic.

'e &ight, no #oubt, fin# it

nuis nce to count ll the bl #es of gr ss

or ll the le "es of the treesQ but this !oul# not be bec use of our bol#ness or g iety, but bec use of our l c$ of bol#ness n# g iety. The bore !oul# go on! r#, bol# n# g y, n# fin# the bl #es of

gr ss s splen#i# s the s!or#s of n r&y. The bore is stronger n# &ore joyous th n !e reQ he is #e&igo#OOn y, he is go#.

)or it is the go#s !ho #o not tire of the iter tion of thingsQ to the& the nightf ll is l! ys ne!, n# the l st rose s re# s the first.

The sense th t e"erything is poetic l is it is not

thing soli# n# bsoluteQ

&ere & tter of phr seology or persu sion. 1t is not

&erely true, it is scert in ble. 2en & y be ch llenge# to #eny itQ &en & y be ch llenge# to &ention nything th t is not 1 re&e&ber !ith long ti&e go & tter of poetry.

sensible subOe#itor co&ing up to &e

boo$ in his h n#, c lle# F2r. -&ith,F or FThe -&ith ) &ily,F

or so&e such thing. He s i#, F'ell, you !onMt get ny of your # &ne# &ysticis& out of this,F or !or#s to th t effect. 1 & h ppy to s y th t 1 un#ecei"e# hi&Q but the "ictory ! s too ob"ious n# e sy. 1n &ost c ses the n &e is unpoetic l, lthough the f ct is poetic l. 1n the c se of -&ith, the n &e is so poetic l th t it &ust be n r#uous n# heroic & tter for the & n to li"e up to it. The n &e of -&ith is the n &e of the one tr #e th t e"en $ings respecte#, it coul# cl i& h lf the glory of th t r& "iru&Pue !hich ll epics ccl i&e#. The spirit of the s&ithy is so close to the spirit of song th t it h s &ixe# in is h r&onious bl c$s&ith. &illion poe&s, n# e"ery bl c$s&ith

E"en the "ill ge chil#ren feel th t in so&e #i& ! y the s&ith is poetic, s the grocer n# the cobbler re not poetic, !hen they fe st on the # ncing sp r$s n# #e fening blo!s in the c "ern of th t cre ti"e "iolence. The brute repose of 9 ture, the p ssion te cunning of & n, the strongest of e rthly &et ls,

the !ier#est of e rthly ele&ents, the unconPuer ble iron sub#ue# by its only conPueror, the !heel n# the ploughsh re, the s!or# n# the ste &Oh &&er, the rr ying of r&ies n# the !hole legen# of r&s, ll these things re !ritten, briefly in#ee#, but Puite legibly, on the "isitingOc r# of 2r. -&ith. Let our no"elists c ll their hero F?yl&er * lence,F !hich &e ns nothing, or F*ernon + y&on#,F !hich &e ns nothing, !hen it is in their po!er to gi"e hi& this s cre# n &e of -&ithOOthis n &e & #e of iron n# fl &e. 1t !oul# be "ery n tur l if of the he #, cert in h uteur, cert in c rri ge

cert in curl of the lip, #istinguishe# e"ery

one !hose n &e is -&ith. Perh ps it #oesQ 1 trust so. 'hoe"er else re p r"enus, the -&iths re not p r"enus. )ro& the # r$est # !n of history this cl n h s gone forth to b ttleQ its trophies re on e"ery h n#Q its n &e is e"ery!hereQ it is ol#er th n the n tions, n# its sign is the H &&er of Thor. ,ut s 1 lso re& r$e#, it is not Puite the usu l c se. 1t is co&&on enough th t co&&on things shoul# be poetic lQ it is not so co&&on th t co&&on n &es shoul# be poetic l. 1n &ost c ses it is the n &e th t is the obst cle. ? gre t & ny people t l$ s if this cl i& of ours, th t ll things re poetic l, !ere &ere liter ry ingenuity, pl y on !or#s.

Precisely the contr ry is true. 1t is the i#e th t so&e things re not poetic l !hich is liter ry, !hich is &ere pro#uct of !or#s.

The !or# Fsign lOboxF is unpoetic l. ,ut the thing sign lObox is not unpoetic lQ it is pl ce !here &en, in n gony of "igil nce,

light bloo#Ore# n# se Ogreen fires to $eep other &en fro& #e th. Th t is the pl in, genuine #escription of !h t it isQ the prose only co&es in !ith !h t it is c lle#. The !or# Fpill rOboxF is unpoetic l. ,ut the thing pill rObox is not unpoetic lQ it is the pl ce

to !hich frien#s n# lo"ers co&&it their &ess ges, conscious th t !hen they h "e #one so they re s cre#, n# not to be touche#, not only by others, but e"en =religious touch%@ by the&sel"es. Th t re# turret is one of the l st of the te&ples. Posting letter n#

getting & rrie# re &ong the fe! things left th t re entirely ro& nticQ for to be entirely ro& ntic 'e thin$ 'e thin$ in thing &ust be irre"oc ble.

pill rObox pros ic, bec use there is no rhy&e to it. pill rObox unpoetic l, bec use !e h "e ne"er seen it

poe&. ,ut the bol# f ct is entirely on the si#e of poetry. sign lOboxQ it is pill rOboxQ it is house of life n# #e th. s nctu ry of

? sign lObox is only c lle# ? pill rObox is only c lle#

hu& n !or#s. 1f you thin$ the n &e of F-&ithF pros ic, it is not bec use you re pr ctic l n# sensibleQ it is bec use you re too &uch ffecte# !ith liter ry refine&ents. The n &e shouts poetry t you. 1f you thin$ of it other!ise, it is bec use you re steepe# n# so##en !ith "erb l re&iniscences, bec use you re&e&ber e"erything in Punch or Co&ic Cuts bout 2r. -&ith being #run$ or 2r. -&ith being henpec$e#. ?ll these things !ere gi"en to you poetic l. 1t is only by long n# el bor te process of liter ry effort

th t you h "e & #e the& pros ic.

9o!, the first n# f irest thing to s y bout +u#y r# Kipling is th t he h s borne brilli nt p rt in thus reco"ering the lost

pro"inces of poetry. He h s not been frightene# by th t brut l & teri listic ir !hich clings only to !or#sQ he h s pierce# through to the ro& ntic, i& gin ti"e & tter of the things the&sel"es. He h s percei"e# the signific nce n# philosophy of ste & n# of sl ng. -te & & y be, if you li$e, -l ng & y be, if you li$e, #irty byOpro#uct of science. #irty byOpro#uct of l ngu ge.

,ut t le st he h s been &ong the fe! !ho s ! the #i"ine p rent ge of these things, n# $ne! th t !here there is s&o$e there is fireOOth t is, th t !here"er there is the foulest of things, there lso is the purest. ?bo"e ll, he h s h # so&ething to s y, n# th t l! ys &e ns th t )or the &o&ent !e h "e #efinite "ie! of things to utter,

& n is fe rless n# f ces e"erything. "ie! of the uni"erse, !e possess it.

9o!, the &ess ge of +u#y r# Kipling, th t upon !hich he h s re lly concentr te#, is the only thing !orth !orrying bout in hi& or in ny other & n. He h s often !ritten b # poetry, li$e 'or#s!orth. He h s often s i# silly things, li$e Pl to. He h s often gi"en ! y to &ere politic l hysteri , li$e Gl #stone. ,ut no one c n re son bly #oubt th t he &e ns ste #ily n# sincerely to s y so&ething, n# the only serious Puestion is, 'h t is th t !hich he h s trie# to s yK Perh ps the best ! y of st ting this f irly !ill be to begin !ith th t ele&ent !hich h s been &ost insiste# by hi&self n# by his opponentsOO1 &e n his interest in &ilit ris&. ,ut !hen !e re see$ing for the re l &erits of & n it is un!ise

to go to his ene&ies, n# &uch &ore foolish to go to hi&self.

9o!, 2r. Kipling is cert inly !rong in his !orship of &ilit ris&, but his opponents re, gener lly spe $ing, Puite s !rong s he. The e"il of &ilit ris& is not th t it sho!s cert in &en to be fierce n# h ughty n# excessi"ely ! rli$e. The e"il of &ilit ris& is th t it sho!s &ost &en to be t &e n# ti&i# n# excessi"ely pe ce ble. The profession l sol#ier g ins &ore n# &ore po!er s the gener l cour ge of co&&unity #eclines. Thus the Pretori n gu r# bec &e

&ore n# &ore i&port nt in +o&e s +o&e bec &e &ore n# &ore luxurious n# feeble. The &ilit ry & n g ins the ci"il po!er

in proportion s the ci"ili n loses the &ilit ry "irtues. ?n# s it ! s in ncient +o&e so it is in conte&por ry Europe. There ne"er ! s There ne"er ! s ti&e !hen n tions !ere &ore &ilit rist. ti&e !hen &en !ere less br "e. ?ll ges n# ll epics

h "e sung of r&s n# the & nQ but !e h "e effecte# si&ult neously the #eterior tion of the & n n# the f nt stic perfection of the r&s. 2ilit ris& #e&onstr te# the #ec #ence of +o&e, n# it #e&onstr tes the #ec #ence of Prussi .

?n# unconsciously 2r. Kipling h s pro"e# this, n# pro"e# it #&ir bly. )or in so f r s his !or$ is e rnestly un#erstoo# the &ilit ry tr #e #oes not by ny &e ns e&erge s the &ost i&port nt or ttr cti"e. He h s not !ritten so !ell bout sol#iers s he h s bout r il! y &en or bri#ge buil#ers, or e"en journ lists. The f ct is th t !h t ttr cts 2r. Kipling to &ilit ris& is not the i#e of cour ge, but the i#e of #iscipline. There ! s f r &ore cour ge to the sPu re &ile in the 2i##le ?ges, !hen no $ing h # st n#ing r&y, but e"ery & n h # bo! or s!or#.

,ut the f scin tion of the st n#ing r&y upon 2r. Kipling is not cour ge, !hich sc rcely interests hi&, but #iscipline, !hich is, !hen ll is s i# n# #one, his pri& ry the&e. The &o#ern r&y is not &ir cle of cour geQ it h s not enough opportunities,

o!ing to the co! r#ice of e"erybo#y else. ,ut it is re lly &ir cle of org ni7 tion, n# th t is the truly Kiplingite i#e l. KiplingMs subject is not th t " lour !hich properly belongs to ! r, but th t inter#epen#ence n# efficiency !hich belongs Puite s &uch to engineers, or s ilors, or &ules, or r il! y engines. ?n# thus it is th t !hen he !rites of engineers, or s ilors, or &ules, or ste &Oengines, he !rites t his best. The re l poetry,

the Ftrue ro& nceF !hich 2r. Kipling h s t ught, is the ro& nce of the #i"ision of l bour n# the #iscipline of ll the tr #es. He sings the rts of pe ce &uch &ore ccur tely th n the rts of ! r. ?n# his & in contention is "it l n# " lu ble. E"ery thing is &ilit ry in the sense th t e"erything #epen#s upon obe#ience. There is no perfectly epicure n cornerQ there is no perfectly irresponsible pl ce. E"ery!here &en h "e & #e the ! y for us !ith s!e t n# sub&ission. 'e & y fling oursel"es into h &&oc$ in fit of #i"ine c relessness. fit of jo$e.

,ut !e re gl # th t the netO& $er #i# not & $e the h &&oc$ in #i"ine c relessness. 'e & y ju&p upon

chil#Ms roc$ingOhorse for

,ut !e re gl # th t the c rpenter #i# not le "e the legs of it unglue# for jo$e. -o f r fro& h "ing &erely pre che# th t sol#ier

cle ning his si#eO r& is to be #ore# bec use he is &ilit ry, Kipling t his best n# cle rest h s pre che# th t the b $er b $ing lo "es n# the t ilor cutting co ts is s &ilit ry s nybo#y.

,eing #e"ote# to this &ultitu#inous "ision of #uty, 2r. Kipling is n tur lly cos&opolit n. He h ppens to fin# his ex &ples

in the ,ritish E&pire, but l&ost ny other e&pire !oul# #o s !ell, or, in#ee#, ny other highly ci"ili7e# country. Th t !hich he #&ires in the ,ritish r&y he !oul# fin# e"en &ore pp rent in the Ger& n r&yQ th t !hich he #esires in the ,ritish police he !oul# fin# flourishing, in the )rench police. The i#e l of #iscipline is not the !hole of life, but it is spre # o"er the !hole of the !orl#. ?n# the !orship of it ten#s to confir& in 2r. Kipling cert in note of !orl#ly !is#o&, of the experience

of the ! n#erer, !hich is one of the genuine ch r&s of his best !or$.

The gre t g p in his &in# is !h t & y be roughly c lle# the l c$

of p triotis&OOth t is to s y, he l c$s ltogether the f culty of tt ching hi&self to ny c use or co&&unity fin lly n# tr gic llyQ for ll fin lity &ust be tr gic. He #&ires Engl n#, but he #oes not lo"e herQ for !e #&ire things !ith re sons, but lo"e the& !ithout re sons. He #&ires Engl n# bec use she is strong, not bec use she is English. There is no h rshness in s ying this, for, to #o hi& justice, he "o!s it !ith his usu l picturesPue c n#our. 1n he s ys th tOO "ery interesting poe&,

F1f Engl n# ! s !h t Engl n# see&sF

OOth t is, !e $ n# inefficientQ if Engl n# !ere not !h t = s he belie"es@ she isOOth t is, po!erful n# pr ctic lOO

FHo! Puic$ !eM# chuc$ Mer% ,ut she inMt%F

He #&its, th t is, th t his #e"otion is the result of

criticis&,

n# this is Puite enough to put it in nother c tegory ltogether fro& the p triotis& of the ,oers, !ho& he houn#e# #o!n in -outh ?fric . 1n spe $ing of the re lly p triotic peoples, such s the 1rish, he h s so&e #ifficulty in $eeping shrill irrit tion out of his l ngu ge.

The fr &e of &in# !hich he re lly #escribes !ith be uty n# nobility is the fr &e of &in# of the cos&opolit n & n !ho h s seen &en n# cities.

F)or to #&ire n# for to see, )or to beMol# this !orl# so !i#e.F

He is

perfect & ster of th t light &el ncholy !ith !hich

& n

loo$s b c$ on h "ing been the citi7en of & ny co&&unities, of th t light &el ncholy !ith !hich & n loo$s b c$ on h "ing been

the lo"er of & ny !o&en. He is the phil n#erer of the n tions. ,ut & n & y h "e le rnt &uch bout !o&en in flirt tions, & n & y h "e $no!n s & ny

n# still be ignor nt of first lo"eQ

l n#s s :lysses, n# still be ignor nt of p triotis&.

2r. +u#y r# Kipling h s s$e# in

celebr te# epigr & !h t they c n f r #eeper n# sh rper

$no! of Engl n# !ho $no! Engl n# only. 1t is

Puestion to s$, F'h t c n they $no! of Engl n# !ho $no! only the !orl#KF for the !orl# #oes not inclu#e Engl n# ny &ore th n it inclu#es the Church. The &o&ent !e c re for nything #eeply, the !orl#OO th t is, ll the other &iscell neous interestsOObeco&es our ene&y. Christi ns sho!e# it !hen they t l$e# of $eeping oneMs self Funspotte# fro& the !orl#QF but lo"ers t l$ of it just s &uch !hen they t l$ of the F!orl# !ell lost.F ?strono&ic lly spe $ing, 1 un#erst n# th t Engl n# is situ te# on the !orl#Q si&il rly, 1 suppose th t the Church ! s p rt of the !orl#, n# e"en the lo"ers cert in truthOO

inh bit nts of th t orb. ,ut they ll felt

the truth th t the &o&ent you lo"e nything the !orl# beco&es your foe. Thus 2r. Kipling #oes cert inly $no! the !orl#Q he is & n of the !orl#,

!ith ll the n rro!ness th t belongs to those i&prisone# in th t pl net. He $no!s Engl n# s n intelligent English gentle& n $no!s *enice. He h s been to Engl n# gre t & ny ti&esQ he h s stoppe# there

for long "isits. ,ut he #oes not belong to it, or to ny pl ceQ n# the proof of it is this, th t he thin$s of Engl n# s The &o&ent !e re roote# in 'e li"e li$e pl ce.

pl ce, the pl ce " nishes.

tree !ith the !hole strength of the uni"erse.

The globeOtrotter li"es in

s& ller !orl# th n the pe s nt. pl ce, to be

He is l! ys bre thing, n ir of loc lity. <on#on is co&p re# to Chic goQ Chic go is ,ut Ti&buctoo is not

pl ce, to be co&p re# to Ti&buctoo.

pl ce, since there, t le st, li"e &en

!ho reg r# it s the uni"erse, n# bre the, not n ir of loc lity, but the !in#s of the !orl#. The & n in the s loon ste &er h s seen ll the r ces of &en, n# he is thin$ing of the things th t #i"i#e &enOO#iet, #ress, #ecoru&, rings in the nose s in ?fric , or in the e rs s in Europe, blue p int &ong the ncients, or re# p int &ong the &o#ern ,ritons. The & n in the c bb ge fiel# h s seen nothing t llQ but he is thin$ing of the things th t unite &enOO hunger n# b bies, n# the be uty of !o&en, n# the pro&ise or &en ce of the s$y. 2r. Kipling, !ith ll his &erits, is the globeOtrotterQ he h s not the p tience to beco&e p rt of nything. -o gre t n# genuine & n is not to be ccuse# of &erely

cynic l cos&opolit nis&Q still, his cos&opolit nis& is his !e $ness. Th t !e $ness is splen#i#ly expresse# in one of his finest poe&s, FThe -estin of the Tr &p +oy l,F in !hich & n #ecl res th t he c n

en#ure nything in the ! y of hunger or horror, but not per& nent presence in one pl ce. 1n this there is cert inly # nger. The &ore #e # n# #ry n# #usty thing is the &ore it tr "els boutQ

#ust is li$e this n# the thistleO#o!n n# the High Co&&issioner in -outh ?fric . )ertile things re so&e!h t he "ier, li$e the he "y fruit trees on the pregn nt &u# of the 9ile. 1n the he te# i#leness of youth !e !ere ll r ther incline# to Pu rrel !ith the i&plic tion of th t pro"erb !hich s ys th t rolling stone g thers no &oss. 'e !ere

incline# to s$, F'ho ! nts to g ther &oss, except silly ol# l #iesKF ,ut for ll th t !e begin to percei"e th t the pro"erb is right. The rolling stone rolls echoing fro& roc$ to roc$Q but the rolling

stone is #e #. The &oss is silent bec use the &oss is li"e.

The truth is th t explor tion n# enl rge&ent & $e the !orl# s& ller. The telegr ph n# the ste &bo t & $e the !orl# s& ller. The telescope & $es the !orl# s& llerQ it is only the &icroscope th t & $es it l rger. ,efore long the !orl# !ill be clo"en !ith ! r bet!een the telescopists n# the &icroscopists. s& ll !orl#Q the secon#

The first stu#y l rge things n# li"e in stu#y s& ll things n# li"e in !ithout #oubt to !hi77 in s !hirl of s n# or Chin

l rge !orl#. 1t is inspiriting

&otorOc r roun# the e rth, to feel ?r bi s fl sh of riceOfiel#s. ,ut ?r bi fl sh of riceOfiel#s. They

is not

!hirl of s n# n# Chin is not

re ncient ci"ili7 tions !ith str nge "irtues burie# li$e tre sures. 1f !e !ish to un#erst n# the& it &ust not be s tourists or inPuirers, it &ust be !ith the loy lty of chil#ren n# the gre t p tience of poets. To conPuer these pl ces is to lose the&. The & n st n#ing in his o!n $itchenOg r#en, !ith f iryl n# opening t the g te, is the & n !ith l rge i#e s. His &in# cre tes #ist nceQ the &otorOc r stupi#ly #estroys it. 2o#erns thin$ of the e rth s s so&ething one c n e sily get roun#, the spirit of globe, school&istress.

This is sho!n in the o## &ist $e perpetu lly & #e bout Cecil +ho#es. His ene&ies s y th t he & y h "e h # l rge i#e s, but he ! s His frien#s s y th t he & y h "e been b # & n.

b # & n, but he cert inly & n essenti lly b #, & n

h # l rge i#e s. The truth is th t he ! s not he ! s

& n of &uch geni lity n# & ny goo# intentions, but

!ith singul rly s& ll "ie!s. There is nothing l rge bout p inting the & p re#Q it is n innocent g &e for chil#ren. 1t is just s e sy to thin$ in continents s to thin$ in cobbleOstones. The #ifficulty co&es in !hen !e see$ to $no! the subst nce of either of the&.

+ho#esM prophecies bout the ,oer resist nce re n #&ir ble co&&ent on ho! the Fl rge i#e sF prosper !hen it is not of thin$ing in continents but of un#erst n#ing Puestion

fe! t!oOlegge# &en.

?n# un#er ll this " st illusion of the cos&opolit n pl net, !ith its e&pires n# its +euterMs gency, the re l life of & n goes on concerne# !ith this tree or th t te&ple, !ith this h r"est or th t #rin$ingOsong, tot lly unco&prehen#e#, tot lly untouche#. ?n# it ! tches fro& its splen#i# p rochi lis&, possibly !ith s&ile

of &use&ent, &otorOc r ci"ili7 tion going its triu&ph nt ! y, outstripping ti&e, consu&ing sp ce, seeing ll n# seeing nothing, ro ring on t l st to the c pture of the sol r syste&, only to fin# the sun coc$ney n# the st rs suburb n.

1*. 2r. ,ern r# -h !

1n the gl # ol# # ys, before the rise of &o#ern &orbi#ities, !hen geni l ol# 1bsen fille# the !orl# !ith !holeso&e joy, n# the $in#ly t les of the forgotten E&ile Uol $ept our firesi#es &erry n# pure, it use# to be thought #is #" nt ge to be &isun#erstoo#. #is #" nt ge.

1t & y be #oubte# !hether it is l! ys or e"en gener lly

The & n !ho is &isun#erstoo# h s l! ys this #" nt ge o"er his ene&ies, th t they #o not $no! his !e $ point or his pl n of c &p ign. They go out g inst bir# !ith nets n# g inst fish !ith rro!s.

There re se"er l &o#ern ex &ples of this situ tion. 2r. Ch &berl in, for inst nce, is "ery goo# one. He const ntly elu#es or " nPuishes

his opponents bec use his re l po!ers n# #eficiencies re Puite

#ifferent to those !ith !hich he is cre#ite#, both by frien#s n# foes. His frien#s #epict hi& s #epict hi& s strenuous & n of ctionQ his opponents f ct, he is neither

co rse & n of businessQ !hen, s

one nor the other, but n #&ir ble ro& ntic or tor n# ro& ntic ctor. He h s one po!er !hich is the soul of &elo#r & OOthe po!er of preten#ing, e"en !hen b c$e# by huge & jority, th t he h s his b c$ to the ! ll.

)or ll &obs re so f r chi" lrous th t their heroes &ust & $e so&e sho! of &isfortuneOOth t sort of hypocrisy is the ho& ge th t strength p ys to !e $ness. He t l$s foolishly n# yet "ery finely bout his o!n city th t h s ne"er #eserte# hi&. He !e rs fl &ing n# f nt stic flo!er, li$e #ec #ent &inor poet.

?s for his bluffness n# toughness n# ppe ls to co&&on sense, ll th t is, of course, si&ply the first tric$ of rhetoric. He fronts his u#iences !ith the "ener ble ffect tion of 2 r$ ?ntonyOO

F1 & no or tor, s ,rutus isQ ,ut s you $no! &e ll, pl in blunt & n.F

1t is the !hole #ifference bet!een the i& of the or tor n# the i& of ny other rtist, such s the poet or the sculptor. The i& of the sculptor is to con"ince us th t he is sculptorQ

the i& of the or tor, is to con"ince us th t he is not n or tor. 8nce let 2r. Ch &berl in be &ist $en for g &e is !on. He h s only to co&pose pr ctic l & n, n# his

the&e on e&pire, n# people

!ill s y th t these pl in &en s y gre t things on gre t occ sions. He h s only to #rift in the l rge loose notions co&&on to ll rtists of the secon# r n$, n# people !ill s y th t business &en h "e the biggest i#e ls fter ll. ?ll his sche&es h "e en#e# in s&o$eQ he h s touche# nothing th t he #i# not confuse.

?bout his figure there is

Celtic p thosQ li$e the G els in 2 tthe!

?rnol#Ms Puot tion, Fhe !ent forth to b ttle, but he l! ys fell.F He is &ount in of propos ls, &ount in of f iluresQ but still

&ount in. ?n#

&ount in is l! ys ro& ntic.

There is nother & n in the &o#ern !orl# !ho &ight be c lle# the ntithesis of 2r. Ch &berl in in e"ery point, !ho is lso st n#ing &onu&ent of the #" nt ge of being &isun#erstoo#. 2r. ,ern r# -h ! is l! ys represente# by those !ho #is gree !ith hi&, n#, 1 fe r, lso =if such exist@ by those !ho gree !ith hi&, s c pering hu&orist, # 77ling crob t, Puic$Och nge rtist.

1t is s i# th t he c nnot be t $en seriously, th t he !ill #efen# nything or tt c$ nything, th t he !ill #o nything to st rtle n# &use. ?ll this is not only untrue, but it is, gl ringly, the opposite of the truthQ it is s !il# s to s y th t (ic$ens h # not the boisterous & sculinity of N ne ?usten. The !hole force n# triu&ph of 2r. ,ern r# -h ! lie in the f ct th t he is thoroughly consistent & n.

-o f r fro& his po!er consisting in ju&ping through hoops or st n#ing on his he #, his po!er consists in hol#ing his o!n fortress night n# # y. He puts the -h ! test r pi#ly n# rigorously to e"erything th t h ppens in he "en or e rth. His st n# r# ne"er " ries. The thing !hich !e $O&in#e# re"olutionists n# !e $O&in#e# Conser" ti"es re lly h te = n# fe r@ in hi&, is ex ctly this, th t his sc les, such s they re, re hel# e"en, n# th t his l !, such s it is, is justly enforce#. Lou & y tt c$ his principles, s 1 #oQ but 1 #o not $no! of ny inst nce in !hich you c n tt c$ their pplic tion. 1f he #isli$es l !lessness, he #isli$es the l !lessness of -oci lists s &uch s th t of 1n#i"i#u lists. 1f he #isli$es the fe"er of p triotis&, he #isli$es it in ,oers n# 1rish&en s !ell s in English&en.

1f he #isli$es the "o!s n# bon#s of & rri ge, he #isli$es still &ore the fiercer bon#s n# !il#er "o!s th t re & #e by l !less lo"e. 1f he l ughs t the uthority of priests, he l ughs lou#er t the po&posity of &en of science. 1f he con#e&ns the irresponsibility of f ith, he con#e&ns !ith s ne consistency the ePu l irresponsibility of rt.

He h s ple se# ll the bohe&i ns by s ying th t !o&en re ePu l to &enQ but he h s infuri te# the& by suggesting th t &en re ePu l to !o&en. He is l&ost &ech nic lly justQ he h s so&ething of the terrible Pu lity of & chine. The & n !ho is re lly !il# n# !hirling,

the & n !ho is re lly f nt stic n# inc lcul ble, is not 2r. -h !, but the "er ge C binet 2inister. 1t is -ir 2ich el Hic$sO,e ch !ho ju&ps through hoops. 1t is -ir Henry )o!ler !ho st n#s on his he #. The soli# n# respect ble st tes& n of th t type #oes re lly le p fro& position to positionQ he is re lly re #y to #efen# nything or nothingQ he is re lly not to be t $en seriously. 1 $no! perfectly !ell !h t 2r. ,ern r# -h ! !ill be s ying thirty ye rs henceQ he !ill be s ying !h t he h s l! ys s i#. 1f thirty ye rs hence 1 &eet 2r. -h !, !ith re"erent being

sil"er be r# s!eeping the e rth, n# s y to hi&, "erb l tt c$ upon l #y,F

F8ne c n ne"er, of course, & $e

the p tri rch !ill lift his ge# h n# n# fell &e to the e rth. 'e $no!, 1 s y, !h t 2r. -h ! !ill be, s ying thirty ye rs hence. ,ut is there ny one so # r$ly re # in st rs n# or cles th t he !ill # re to pre#ict !h t 2r. ?sPuith !ill be s ying thirty ye rs henceK

The truth is, th t it is Puite n error to suppose th t bsence of #efinite con"ictions gi"es the &in# free#o& n# gility. ? & n !ho belie"es so&ething is re #y n# !itty, bec use he h s ll his !e pons bout hi&. he c n pply his test in n inst nt.

The & n eng ge# in conflict !ith f ncy he h s ten f cesQ si&il rly

& n li$e 2r. ,ern r# -h ! & y & n eng ge# g inst brilli nt

#uellist & y f ncy th t the s!or# of his foe h s turne# to ten s!or#s in his h n#. ,ut this is not re lly bec use the & n is pl ying !ith ten s!or#s, it is bec use he is i&ing "ery str ight !ith one. 2oreo"er, & n !ith #efinite belief l! ys ppe rs bi7 rre,

bec use he #oes not ch nge !ith the !orl#Q he h s cli&be# into fixe# st r, n# the e rth !hi77es belo! hi& li$e 7oetrope.

2illions of &il# bl c$Oco te# &en c ll the&sel"es s ne n# sensible &erely bec use they l! ys c tch the f shion ble ins nity, bec use they re hurrie# into & #ness fter & #ness by the & elstro& of the !orl#.

People ccuse 2r. -h ! n# & ny &uch sillier persons of Fpro"ing th t bl c$ is !hite.F ,ut they ne"er s$ !hether the current colourOl ngu ge is l! ys correct. 8r#in ry sensible phr seology so&eti&es c lls bl c$ !hite, it cert inly c lls yello! !hite n# green !hite n# re##ishObro!n !hite. 'e c ll !ine F!hite !ineF !hich is s yello! s ,lueOco t boyMs legs.

'e c ll gr pes F!hite gr pesF !hich re & nifestly p le green. 'e gi"e to the Europe n, !hose co&plexion is the horrible title of sort of pin$ #r b,

F!hite & nFOO picture &ore bloo#Ocur#ling

th n ny spectre in Poe.

9o!, it is un#oubte#ly true th t if for

& n s$e#

! iter in

rest ur nt

bottle of yello! !ine n# so&e greenishOyello! gr pes, the ! iter Go"ern&ent offici l,

!oul# thin$ hi& & #. 1t is un#oubte#ly true th t if

reporting on the Europe ns in ,ur& h, s i#, FThere re only t!o thous n# pin$ish &en hereF he !oul# be ccuse# of cr c$ing jo$es, n# $ic$e# out of his post. ,ut it is ePu lly ob"ious th t both

&en !oul# h "e co&e to grief through telling the strict truth. Th t too truthful & n in the rest ur ntQ th t too truthful & n in ,ur& h, is 2r. ,ern r# -h !. He ppe rs eccentric n# grotesPue bec use he !ill not ccept the gener l belief th t !hite is yello!. He h s b se# ll his brilli ncy n# soli#ity upon the h c$neye#, but yet forgotten, f ct th t truth is str nger th n fiction. Truth, of course, &ust of necessity be str nger th n fiction, for !e h "e & #e fiction to suit oursel"es.

-o &uch then

re son ble ppreci tion !ill fin# in 2r. -h !

to be br cing n# excellent. He cl i&s to see things s they reQ n# so&e things, t ny r te, he #oes see s they re, !hich the !hole of our ci"ili7 tion #oes not see t ll. ,ut in 2r. -h !Ms re lis& there is so&ething l c$ing, n# th t thing !hich is l c$ing is serious.

2r. -h !Ms ol# n# recogni7e# philosophy ! s th t po!erfully presente# in FThe Ruintessence of 1bsenis&.F 1t ! s, in brief, th t conser" ti"e i#e ls !ere b #, not bec use They !ere conser" ti"e, but bec use they !ere i#e ls. E"ery i#e l pre"ente# &en fro& ju#ging justly the p rticul r c seQ e"ery &or l gener li7 tion oppresse# the in#i"i#u lQ the gol#en rule ! s there ! s no gol#en rule. ?n# the objection to this is si&ply th t it preten#s to free &en, but re lly restr ins the& fro& #oing the only thing th t &en ! nt to #o. 'h t is the goo# of telling co&&unity th t it h s e"ery liberty

except the liberty to & $e l !sK The liberty to & $e l !s is !h t constitutes =or free people. ?n# !h t is the goo# of telling & n

philosopher@ th t he h s e"ery liberty except the liberty to & n.

& $e gener li7 tions. 2 $ing gener li7 tions is !h t & $es hi&

1n short, !hen 2r. -h ! forbi#s &en to h "e strict &or l i#e ls, he is cting li$e one !ho shoul# forbi# the& to h "e chil#ren. The s ying th t Fthe gol#en rule is th t there is no gol#en rule,F c n, in#ee#, be si&ply ns!ere# by being turne# roun#. Th t there is no gol#en rule is itself it is &uch !orse th n gol#en rule, or r ther

gol#en rule. 1t is n iron ruleQ & n.

fetter on the first &o"e&ent of

,ut the sens tion connecte# !ith 2r. -h ! in recent ye rs h s been his su##en #e"elop&ent of the religion of the -uper& n. He !ho h # to ll ppe r nce &oc$e# t the f iths in the forgotten p st #isco"ere# ne! go# in the uni& gin ble future. He !ho h # l i#

ll the bl &e on i#e ls set up the &ost i&possible of ll i#e ls, the i#e l of ne! cre ture. ,ut the truth, ne"ertheless, is th t ny

one !ho $no!s 2r. -h !Ms &in# #ePu tely, n# #&ires it properly, &ust h "e guesse# ll this long go.

)or the truth is th t 2r. -h ! h s ne"er seen things s they re lly re. 1f he h # he !oul# h "e f llen on his $nees before the&. He h s l! ys h # secret i#e l th t h s !ithere# ll the things

of this !orl#. He h s ll the ti&e been silently co&p ring hu& nity !ith so&ething th t ! s not hu& n, !ith &onster fro& 2 rs,

!ith the 'ise 2 n of the -toics, !ith the Econo&ic 2 n of the ) bi ns, !ith Nulius C es r, !ith -iegfrie#, !ith the -uper& n. 9o!, to h "e this inner n# &erciless st n# r# & y be or "ery goo# thing,

"ery b # one, it & y be excellent or unfortun te, but it

is not seeing things s they re. it is not seeing things s they re to thin$ first of e"ery & n ,ri reus !ith hun#re# h n#s, n# then c ll

cripple for only h "ing t!o. 1t is not seeing things

s they re to st rt !ith

"ision of ?rgus !ith his hun#re# eyes,

n# then jeer t e"ery & n !ith t!o eyes s if he h # only one. ?n# it is not seeing things s they re to i& gine #e&igo#

of infinite &ent l cl rity, !ho & y or & y not ppe r in the l tter # ys of the e rth, n# then to see ll &en s i#iots. ?n# this is !h t 2r. -h ! h s l! ys in so&e #egree #one. 'hen !e re lly see &en s they re, !e #o not criticise, but !orshipQ n# "ery rightly. )or &onster !ith &ysterious eyes n# &ir culous thu&bs, Pueer ten#erness for this

!ith str nge #re &s in his s$ull, n# pl ce or th t b by, is truly

!on#erful n# unner"ing & tter.

1t is only the Puite rbitr ry n# priggish h bit of co&p rison !ith so&ething else !hich & $es it possible to be t our e se in front of hi&. ? senti&ent of superiority $eeps us cool n# pr ctic lQ the &ere f cts !oul# & $e, our $nees $noc$ un#er s !ith religious fe r. 1t is the f ct th t e"ery inst nt of conscious life is n uni& gin ble pro#igy. 1t is the f ct th t e"ery f ce in the street h s the incre#ible unexpecte#ness of f iryOt le. The thing !hich pre"ents & n

fro& re li7ing this is not ny cle rOsighte#ness or experience, it is si&ply h bit of pe# ntic n# f sti#ious co&p risons

bet!een one thing n# nother. 2r. -h !, on the pr ctic l si#e perh ps the &ost hu& ne & n li"e, is in this sense inhu& ne. He h s e"en been infecte# to so&e extent !ith the pri& ry intellectu l !e $ness of his ne! & ster, 9iet7sche, the str nge notion th t the gre ter n# stronger & n ! s the &ore he !oul# & n is the &ore peri!in$le.

#espise other things. The gre ter n# stronger he !oul# be incline# to prostr te hi&self before Th t 2r. -h ! $eeps lifte# he # n#

conte&ptuous f ce before

the coloss l p nor & of e&pires n# ci"ili7 tions, this #oes not in itself con"ince one th t he sees things s they re.

1 shoul# be &ost effecti"ely con"ince# th t he #i# if 1 foun# hi& st ring !ith religious stonish&ent t his o!n feet. F'h t re those t!o be utiful n# in#ustrious beings,F 1 c n i& gine hi& &ur&uring to hi&self, F!ho& 1 see e"ery!here, ser"ing &e 1 $no! not !hyK 'h t f iry go#&other b #e the& co&e trotting out of elfl n# !hen 1 ! s bornK 'h t go# of the bor#erl n#, !h t b rb ric go# of legs, &ust 1 propiti te !ith fire n# !ine, lest they run ! y !ith &eKF

The truth is, th t ll genuine ppreci tion rests on

cert in

&ystery of hu&ility n# l&ost of # r$ness. The & n !ho s i#, F,lesse# is he th t expecteth nothing, for he sh ll not be #is ppointe#,F put the eulogy Puite in #ePu tely n# e"en f lsely. The truth F,lesse# is he th t expecteth nothing, for he sh ll be gloriously surprise#.F The & n !ho expects nothing sees re##er roses th n co&&on &en c n see, n# greener gr ss, n# &ore st rtling sun. ,lesse# is he th t

expecteth nothing, for he sh ll possess the cities n# the &ount insQ blesse# is the &ee$, for he sh ll inherit the e rth. :ntil !e re li7e th t things &ight not be !e c nnot re li7e th t things re. :ntil !e see the b c$groun# of # r$ness !e c nnot #&ire the light s single n# cre te# thing. ?s soon s !e h "e seen th t # r$ness,

ll light is lightening, su##en, blin#ing, n# #i"ine. :ntil !e picture nonentity !e un#err te the "ictory of Go#, n# c n re li7e none of the trophies of His ncient ! r. 1t is one of the &illion !il# jests of truth th t !e $no! nothing until !e $no! nothing,

9o! this is, 1 s y #eliber tely, the only #efect in the gre tness of 2r. -h !, the only ns!er to his cl i& to be gre t & n,

th t he is not e sily ple se#. He is n l&ost solit ry exception to

the gener l n# essenti l & xi&, th t little things ple se gre t &in#s. ?n# fro& this bsence of th t &ost upro rious of ll things, hu&ility, co&es inci#ent lly the peculi r insistence on the -uper& n. ?fter bel bouring gre t & ny people for gre t & ny ye rs for

being unprogressi"e, 2r. -h ! h s #isco"ere#, !ith ch r cteristic sense, th t it is "ery #oubtful !hether ny existing hu& n being !ith t!o legs c n be progressi"e t ll. H "ing co&e to #oubt !hether hu& nity c n be co&bine# !ith progress, &ost people, e sily ple se#, !oul# h "e electe# to b n#on progress n# re& in !ith hu& nity. 2r. -h !, not being e sily ple se#, #eci#es to thro! o"er hu& nity !ith ll its li&it tions n# go in for progress for its o!n s $e. 1f & n, s !e $no! hi&, is inc p ble of the philosophy of progress, 2r. -h ! s$s, not for of & n. 1t is r ther s if foo# for so&e ye rs on ne! $in# of philosophy, but for nurse h # trie# r ther bitter ne! $in#

b by, n# on #isco"ering th t it ! s ne! foo#,

not suit ble, shoul# not thro! ! y the foo# n# s$ for but thro! the b by out of !in#o!, n# s$ for ne! b by.

2r. -h ! c nnot un#erst n# th t the thing !hich is " lu ble n# lo" ble in our eyes is & nOOthe ol# beerO#rin$ing, cree#O& $ing, fighting, f iling, sensu l, respect ble & n. ?n# the things th t h "e been foun#e# on this cre ture i&&ort lly re& inQ the things th t h "e been foun#e# on the f ncy of the -uper& n h "e #ie# !ith the #ying ci"ili7 tions !hich lone h "e gi"en the& birth. 'hen Christ t sy&bolic &o&ent ! s est blishing His gre t society,

He chose for its co&erOstone neither the brilli nt P ul nor the &ystic Nohn, but shuffler, snob co! r#OOin !or#, & n.

?n# upon this roc$ He h s built His Church, n# the g tes of Hell h "e not pre" ile# g inst it. ?ll the e&pires n# the $ing#o&s h "e f ile#, bec use of this inherent n# continu l !e $ness,

th t they !ere foun#e# by strong &en n# upon strong &en. ,ut this one thing, the historic Christi n Church, ! s foun#e# on !e $ & n, n# for th t re son it is in#estructible.

)or no ch in is stronger th n its !e $est lin$.

*. 2r. H. G. 'ells n# the Gi nts

'e ought to see f r enough into

hypocrite to see e"en his sincerity.

'e ought to be intereste# in th t # r$est n# &ost re l p rt of & n in !hich #!ell not the "ices th t he #oes not #ispl y,

but the "irtues th t he c nnot. ?n# the &ore !e ppro ch the proble&s of hu& n history !ith this $een n# piercing ch rity, the s& ller n# s& ller sp ce !e sh ll llo! to pure hypocrisy of ny $in#. The hypocrites sh ll not #ecei"e us into thin$ing the& s intsQ but neither sh ll they #ecei"e us into thin$ing the& hypocrites. ?n# n incre sing nu&ber of c ses !ill cro!# into our fiel# of inPuiry, c ses in !hich there is re lly no Puestion of hypocrisy t ll, c ses in !hich people !ere so ingenuous th t they see&e# bsur#, n# so bsur# th t they see&e# #isingenuous.

There is one stri$ing inst nce of n unf ir ch rge of hypocrisy. 1t is l! ys urge# g inst the religious in the p st, s inconsistency n# #uplicity, th t they co&bine# cr !ling hu&ility !ith point of

profession of l&ost

$een struggle for e rthly success n# consi#er ble piece of hu&bug, th t & n

triu&ph in tt ining it. 1t is felt s

shoul# be "ery punctilious in c lling hi&self

&iser ble sinner,

n# lso "ery punctilious in c lling hi&self King of )r nce. ,ut the truth is th t there is no &ore conscious inconsistency bet!een the hu&ility of Christi n n# the r p city of Christi n th n there lo"er.

is bet!een the hu&ility of

lo"er n# the r p city of

The truth is th t there re no things for !hich &en !ill & $e such hercule n efforts s the things of !hich they $no! they re un!orthy. There ne"er ! s & n in lo"e !ho #i# not #ecl re th t, if he str ine#

e"ery ner"e to bre $ing, he ! s going to h "e his #esire. ?n# there ne"er ! s & n in lo"e !ho #i# not #ecl re lso th t he ought

not to h "e it. The !hole secret of the pr ctic l success of Christen#o& lies in the Christi n hu&ility, ho!e"er i&perfectly fulfille#. )or !ith the re&o" l of ll Puestion of &erit or p y&ent, the soul is su##enly rele se# for incre#ible "oy ges. 1f !e s$ s ne & n

ho! &uch he &erits, his &in# shrin$s instincti"ely n# inst nt neously. 1t is #oubtful !hether he &erits six feet of e rth. ,ut if you s$ hi& !h t he c n conPuerOOhe c n conPuer the st rs. Thus co&es the thing c lle# +o& nce, purely Christi n pro#uct.

? & n c nnot #eser"e #"enturesQ he c nnot e rn #r gons n# hippogriffs. The &e#i e" l Europe !hich sserte# hu&ility g ine# +o& nceQ the ci"ili7 tion !hich g ine# +o& nce h s g ine# the h bit ble globe. Ho! #ifferent the P g n n# -toic l feeling ! s fro& this h s been #&ir bly expresse# in the gre t -toic s yOO f &ous Puot tion. ?##ison & $es

FMTis not in &ort ls to co&& n# successQ ,ut !eMll #o &ore, -e&pronius, !eMll #eser"e it.F

,ut the spirit of +o& nce n# Christen#o&, the spirit !hich is in e"ery lo"er, the spirit !hich h s bestri##en the e rth !ith Europe n

#"enture, is Puite opposite. MTis not in &ort ls to #eser"e success. ,ut !eMll #o &ore, -e&proniusQ !eMll obt in it.

?n# this g y hu&ility, this hol#ing of oursel"es lightly n# yet re #y for n infinity of un&erite# triu&phs, this secret is so si&ple th t e"ery one h s suppose# th t it &ust be so&ething Puite sinister n# &ysterious. Hu&ility is so pr ctic l "irtue th t &en thin$ it &ust be "ice.

Hu&ility is so successful th t it is &ist $en for pri#e. 1t is &ist $en for it ll the &ore e sily bec use it gener lly goes !ith cert in si&ple lo"e of splen#our !hich &ounts to " nity.

Hu&ility !ill l! ys, by preference, go cl # in sc rlet n# gol#Q pri#e is th t !hich refuses to let gol# n# sc rlet i&press it or ple se it too &uch. 1n !or#, the f ilure of this "irtue ctu lly lies

in its successQ it is too successful s n in"est&ent to be belie"e# in s "irtue. Hu&ility is not &erely too goo# for this !orl#Q

it is too pr ctic l for this !orl#Q 1 h # l&ost s i# it is too !orl#ly for this !orl#.

The inst nce &ost Puote# in our # y is the thing c lle# the hu&ility of the & n of scienceQ n# cert inly it is s th t goo# inst nce s !ell

&o#ern one. 2en fin# it extre&ely #ifficult to belie"e & n !ho is ob"iously uprooting &ount ins n# #i"i#ing se s,

te ring #o!n te&ples n# stretching out h n#s to the st rs, is re lly Puiet ol# gentle& n !ho only s$s to be llo!e# to

in#ulge his h r&less ol# hobby n# follo! his h r&less ol# nose. 'hen & n splits gr in of s n# n# the uni"erse is turne# upsi#e #o!n

in consePuence, it is #ifficult to re li7e th t to the & n !ho #i# it, the splitting of the gr in is the gre t ff ir, n# the c psi7ing of the cos&os Puite s& ll one. 1t is h r# to enter into the feelings

of

& n !ho reg r#s

ne! he "en n#

ne! e rth in the light of

byOpro#uct. ,ut un#oubte#ly it ! s to this l&ost eerie innocence of the intellect th t the gre t &en of the gre t scientific perio#, !hich no! ppe rs to be closing, o!e# their enor&ous po!er n# triu&ph. 1f they h # brought the he "ens #o!n li$e house of c r#s

their ple ! s not e"en th t they h # #one it on principleQ their Puite un ns!er ble ple ! s th t they h # #one it by cci#ent. 'hene"er there ! s in the& the le st touch of pri#e in !h t they h # #one, there ! s goo# groun# for tt c$ing the&Q

but so long s they !ere !holly hu&ble, they !ere !holly "ictorious. There !ere possible ns!ers to HuxleyQ there ! s no ns!er possible to ( r!in. He ! s con"incing bec use of his unconsciousnessQ one &ight l&ost s y bec use of his #ulness. This chil#li$e n# pros ic &in# is beginning to ! ne in the !orl# of science. 2en of science re beginning to see the&sel"es, s the fine phr se is, in the p rtQ they re beginning to be prou# of their hu&ility. They re beginning to be esthetic, li$e the rest of the !orl#, beginning to spell truth !ith c pit l T, beginning to t l$

of the cree#s they i& gine the&sel"es to h "e #estroye#, of the #isco"eries th t their forbe rs & #e. <i$e the &o#ern English, they re beginning to be soft bout their o!n h r#ness. They re beco&ing conscious of their o!n strengthOOth t is, they re gro!ing !e $er. ,ut one purely &o#ern & n h s e&erge# in the strictly &o#ern #ec #es !ho #oes c rry into our !orl# the cle r person l si&plicity of the ol# !orl# of science. 8ne & n of genius !e h "e !ho is n rtist, but !ho ! s & n of science, n# !ho see&s

to be & r$e# bo"e ll things !ith this gre t scientific hu&ility. 1 &e n 2r. H. G. 'ells. ?n# in his c se, s in the others bo"e spo$en of, there &ust be gre t preli&in ry #ifficulty in con"incing

the or#in ry person th t such

"irtue is pre#ic ble of such

& n.

2r. 'ells beg n his liter ry !or$ !ith "iolent "isionsOO"isions of the l st p ngs of this pl netQ c n it be th t & n !ho begins

!ith "iolent "isions is hu&bleK He !ent on to !il#er n# !il#er stories bout c r"ing be sts into &en n# shooting ngels li$e bir#s. 1s the & n !ho shoots ngels n# c r"es be sts into &en hu&bleK -ince then he h s #one so&ething bol#er th n either of these bl sphe&iesQ he h s prophesie# the politic l future of ll &enQ prophesie# it !ith ggressi"e uthority n# ringing #ecision of #et il.

1s the prophet of the future of ll &en hu&ble K 1t !ill in#ee# be #ifficult, in the present con#ition of current thought bout such things s pri#e n# hu&ility, to ns!er the Puery of ho! c n be hu&ble !ho #oes such big things n# such bol# things. )or the only ns!er is the ns!er !hich 1 g "e t the beginning of this ess y. 1t is the hu&ble & n !ho #oes the big things. 1t is the hu&ble & n !ho #oes the bol# things. 1t is the hu&ble & n !ho h s the sens tion l sights "ouchs fe# to hi&, n# this for three ob"ious re sonsA first, th t he str ins his eyes &ore th n ny other &en to see the&Q secon#, th t he is &ore o"er!hel&e# n# uplifte# !ith the& !hen they co&eQ thir#, th t he recor#s the& &ore ex ctly n# sincerely n# !ith less #ulter tion fro& his &ore co&&onpl ce n# &ore conceite# e"ery# y self. ?#"entures re to those to !ho& they re &ost unexpecte#OOth t is, &ost ro& ntic. ?#"entures re to the shyA in this sense #"entures re to the un #"enturous. & n

9o!, this rresting, &ent l hu&ility in 2r. H. G. 'ells & y be, li$e gre t & ny other things th t re "it l n# "i"i#, #ifficult to

illustr te by ex &ples, but if 1 !ere s$e# for n ex &ple of it,

1 shoul# h "e no #ifficulty bout !hich ex &ple to begin !ith. The &ost interesting thing bout 2r. H. G. 'ells is th t he is the only one of his & ny brilli nt conte&por ries !ho h s not stoppe# gro!ing. 8ne c n lie ! $e t night n# he r hi& gro!. 8f this gro!th the &ost e"i#ent & nifest tion is in#ee# ch nge of opinionsQ but it is no &ere ch nge of opinions. 1t is not perpetu l le ping fro& one position to nother li$e Puite continuous #" nce long gr #u l

th t of 2r. George 2oore. 1t is Puite soli# ro # in proof th t it is not

Puite #efin ble #irection. ,ut the chief piece of fic$leness n# " nity is the f ct

th t it h s been upon the !hole in #" nce fro& &ore st rtling opinions to &ore hu&#ru& opinions. 1t h s been e"en in so&e sense n #" nce fro& uncon"ention l opinions to con"ention l opinions. This f ct fixes 2r. 'ellsMs honesty n# pro"es hi& to be no poseur. 2r. 'ells once hel# th t the upper cl sses n# the lo!er cl sses !oul# be so &uch #ifferenti te# in the future th t one cl ss !oul# e t the other. Cert inly no p r #oxic l ch rl t n !ho h # once foun# rgu&ents for so st rtling "ie! !oul# e"er h "e #eserte# it

except for so&ething yet &ore st rtling. 2r. 'ells h s #eserte# it in f "our of the bl &eless belief th t both cl sses !ill be ulti& tely subor#in te# or ssi&il te# to sort of scientific &i##le cl ss,

cl ss of engineers. He h s b n#one# the sens tion l theory !ith the s &e honour ble gr "ity n# si&plicity !ith !hich he #opte# it. Then he thought it ! s trueQ no! he thin$s it is not true. He h s co&e to the &ost #re #ful conclusion liter ry & n c n

co&e to, the conclusion th t the or#in ry "ie! is the right one. 1t is only the l st n# !il#est $in# of cour ge th t c n st n# on to!er before ten thous n# people n# tell the& th t t!ice

t!o is four.

2r. H. G. 'ells exists t present in

g y n# exhil r ting progress

of conser" ti"is&. He is fin#ing out &ore n# &ore th t con"entions, though silent, re li"e. ?s goo# n ex &ple s ny of this hu&ility n# s nity of his & y be foun# in his ch nge of "ie! on the subject of science n# & rri ge. He once hel#, 1 belie"e, the opinion !hich so&e singul r sociologists still hol#, th t hu& n cre tures coul# successfully be p ire# n# bre# fter the & nner of #ogs or horses. He no longer hol#s th t "ie!. 9ot only #oes he no longer hol# th t "ie!, but he h s !ritten bout it in F2 n$in# in the 2 $ingF !ith such s& shing sense n# hu&our, th t 1 fin# it #ifficult to belie"e th t nybo#y else c n hol# it either. 1t is true th t his chief objection to the propos l is th t it is physic lly i&possible, !hich see&s to &e "ery slight objection,

n# l&ost negligible co&p re# !ith the others. The one objection to scientific & rri ge !hich is !orthy of fin l ttention is si&ply th t such thing coul# only be i&pose# on unthin$ ble sl "es

n# co! r#s. 1 #o not $no! !hether the scientific & rri geO&ongers re right = s they s y@ or !rong = s 2r. 'ells s ys@ in s ying th t &e#ic l super"ision !oul# pro#uce strong n# he lthy &en. 1 & only cert in th t if it #i#, the first ct of the strong n# he lthy &en !oul# be to s& sh the &e#ic l super"ision.

The &ist $e of ll th t &e#ic l t l$ lies in the "ery f ct th t it connects the i#e of he lth !ith the i#e of c re. 'h t h s he lth to #o !ith c reK He lth h s to #o !ith c relessness. 1n speci l n# bnor& l c ses it is necess ry to h "e c re. 'hen !e re peculi rly unhe lthy it & y be necess ry to be c reful in or#er to be he lthy. ,ut e"en then !e re only trying to be he lthy in or#er to be c reless.

1f !e re #octors !e re spe $ing to exception lly sic$ &en, n# they ought to be tol# to be c reful. ,ut !hen !e re sociologists !e re ##ressing the nor& l & n, !e re ##ressing hu& nity. ?n# hu& nity ought to be tol# to be rec$lessness itself. )or ll the fun# &ent l functions of he lthy & n ought e&ph tic lly

to be perfor&e# !ith ple sure n# for ple sureQ they e&ph tic lly ought not to be perfor&e# !ith prec ution or for prec ution. ? & n ought to e t bec use he h s n# e&ph tic lly not bec use he h s goo# ppetite to s tisfy, bo#y to sust in. ? & n ought

to t $e exercise not bec use he is too f t, but bec use he lo"es foils or horses or high &ount ins, n# lo"es the& for their o!n s $e. ?n# & n ought to & rry bec use he h s f llen in lo"e,

n# e&ph tic lly not bec use the !orl# rePuires to be popul te#. The foo# !ill re lly reno" te his tissues s long s he is not thin$ing bout his tissues. The exercise !ill re lly get hi& into tr ining so long s he is thin$ing bout so&ething else. ?n# the & rri ge !ill re lly st n# so&e ch nce of pro#ucing generousObloo#e# gener tion

if it h # its origin in its o!n n tur l n# generous excite&ent. 1t is the first l ! of he lth th t our necessities shoul# not be ccepte# s necessitiesQ they shoul# be ccepte# s luxuries. <et us, then, be c reful bout the s& ll things, such s or scr tch

slight illness, or nything th t c n be & n ge# !ith c re.

,ut in the n &e of ll s nity, let us be c reless bout the i&port nt things, such s & rri ge, or the fount in of our "ery life !ill f il.

2r. 'ells, ho!e"er, is not Puite cle r enough of the n rro!er scientific outloo$ to see th t there re so&e things !hich ctu lly ought not to be scientific. He is still slightly ffecte# !ith

the gre t scientific f ll cyQ 1 &e n the h bit of beginning not !ith the hu& n soul, !hich is the first thing & n le rns bout,

but !ith so&e such thing s protopl s&, !hich is bout the l st. The one #efect in his splen#i# &ent l ePuip&ent is th t he #oes not sufficiently llo! for the stuff or & teri l of &en. 1n his ne! :topi he s ys, for inst nce, th t the :topi !ill be chief point of

#isbelief in origin l sin. 1f he h # begun

!ith the hu& n soulOOth t is, if he h # begun on hi&selfOOhe !oul# h "e foun# origin l sin l&ost the first thing to be belie"e# in. He !oul# h "e foun#, to put the & tter shortly, th t per& nent self,

possibility of selfishness rises fro& the &ere f ct of h "ing n# not fro& ny cci#ents of e#uc tion or illOtre t&ent. ?n# the !e $ness of ll :topi s is this, th t they t $e the gre test #ifficulty of & n n# ssu&e it to be o"erco&e, n# then gi"e n el bor te ccount of the o"erco&ing of the s& ller ones. They first ssu&e th t no & n !ill ! nt &ore th n his sh re, n# then re "ery ingenious in expl ining !hether his sh re

!ill be #eli"ere# by &otorOc r or b lloon. ?n# n e"en stronger ex &ple of 2r. 'ellsMs in#ifference to the hu& n psychology c n be foun# in his cos&opolit nis&, the bolition in his :topi of ll p triotic boun# ries. He s ys in his innocent ! y th t :topi &ust be !orl#Ost te, or else people &ight & $e ! r on it. goo# & ny of us, if it !ere

1t #oes not see& to occur to hi& th t, for

!orl#Ost te !e shoul# still & $e ! r on it to the en# of the !orl#. )or if !e #&it th t there &ust be " rieties in rt or opinion !h t sense is there in thin$ing there !ill not be " rieties in go"ern&entK The f ct is "ery si&ple. :nless you re going #eliber tely to pre"ent thing being goo#, you c nnot pre"ent it being !orth fighting for. 1t is i&possible to pre"ent possible conflict of ci"ili7 tions,

bec use it is i&possible to pre"ent

possible conflict bet!een i#e ls.

1f there !ere no longer our &o#ern strife bet!een n tions, there !oul# only be strife bet!een :topi s. )or the highest thing #oes not ten#

to union onlyQ the highest thing, ten#s lso to #ifferenti tion. Lou c n often get &en to fight for the unionQ but you c n ne"er pre"ent the& fro& fighting lso for the #ifferenti tion. This " riety in the highest thing is the &e ning of the fierce p triotis&, the fierce n tion lis& of the gre t Europe n ci"ili7 tion. 1t is lso, inci#ent lly, the &e ning of the #octrine of the Trinity.

,ut 1 thin$ the & in &ist $e of 2r. 'ellsMs philosophy is #eeper one, one th t he expresses in

so&e!h t

"ery entert ining & nner

in the intro#uctory p rt of the ne! :topi . His philosophy in so&e sense &ounts to #eni l of the possibility of philosophy itself.

?t le st, he & int ins th t there re no secure n# reli ble i#e s upon !hich !e c n rest !ith fin l &ent l s tisf ction.

1t !ill be both cle rer, ho!e"er, n# &ore &using to Puote 2r. 'ells hi&self.

He s ys, F9othing en#ures, nothing is precise n# cert in =except the &in# of but pe# nt@. . . . ,eing in#ee#%OOthere is no being,

uni"ers l beco&ing of in#i"i#u lities, n# Pl to turne# his b c$

on truth !hen he turne# to! r#s his &useu& of specific i#e ls.F 2r. 'ells s ys, g in, FThere is no bi#ing thing in !h t !e $no!. 'e ch nge fro& !e $er to stronger lights, n# e ch &ore po!erful light pierces our hitherto op Pue foun# tions n# re"e ls fresh n# #ifferent op cities belo!.F 9o!, !hen 2r. 'ells s ys things li$e this, 1 spe $ !ith ll respect !hen 1 s y th t he #oes not obser"e n e"i#ent &ent l #istinction.

1t c nnot be true th t there is nothing bi#ing in !h t !e $no!. )or if th t !ere so !e shoul# not $no! it ll n# shoul# not c ll it $no!le#ge. 8ur &ent l st te & y be "ery #ifferent fro& th t of so&ebo#y else so&e thous n#s of ye rs b c$Q but it c nnot be entirely #ifferent, or else !e shoul# not be conscious of #ifference.

2r. 'ells &ust surely re li7e the first n# si&plest of the p r #oxes th t sit by the springs of truth. He &ust surely see th t the f ct of t!o things being #ifferent i&plies th t they re si&il r. The h re n# the tortoise & y #iffer in the Pu lity of s!iftness, but they &ust gree in the Pu lity of &otion. The s!iftest h re c nnot be s!ifter th n n isosceles tri ngle or the i#e of pin$ness. 'hen !e s y the h re &o"es f ster, !e s y th t the tortoise &o"es. ?n# !hen !e s y of thing th t it &o"es, !e s y, !ithout nee#

of other !or#s, th t there re things th t #o not &o"e. ?n# e"en in the ct of s ying th t things ch nge, !e s y th t there is so&ething unch nge ble.

,ut cert inly the best ex &ple of 2r. 'ellsMs f ll cy c n be foun# in the ex &ple !hich he hi&self chooses. 1t is Puite true th t !e see #i& light !hich, co&p re# !ith # r$er thing,

is light, but !hich, co&p re# !ith

stronger light, is # r$ness.

,ut the Pu lity of light re& ins the s &e thing, or else !e shoul# not c ll it stronger light or recogni7e it s such.

1f the ch r cter of light !ere not fixe# in the &in#, !e shoul# be Puite s li$ely to c ll #enser sh #o! stronger light, or "ice

"ers 1f the ch r cter of light bec &e e"en for n inst nt unfixe#, if it bec &e e"en by h irMsObre #th #oubtful, if, for ex &ple,

there crept into our i#e of light so&e " gue i#e of blueness, then in th t fl sh !e h "e beco&e #oubtful !hether the ne! light

h s &ore light or less. 1n brief, the progress & y be s " rying s clou#, but the #irection &ust be s rigi# s )rench ro #.

9orth n# -outh re rel ti"e in the sense th t 1 & 9orth of ,ourne&outh n# -outh of -pit7bergen. ,ut if there be ny #oubt of the position of the 9orth Pole, there is in ePu l #egree #oubt of !hether 1

& -outh of -pit7bergen t ll. The bsolute i#e of light & y be pr ctic lly un tt in ble. 'e & y not be ble to procure pure light. 'e & y not be ble to get to the 9orth Pole. ,ut bec use the 9orth Pole is un tt in ble, it #oes not follo! th t it is in#efin ble. ?n# it is only bec use the 9orth Pole is not in#efin ble th t !e c n & $e s tisf ctory & p of ,righton n# 'orthing.

1n other !or#s, Pl to turne# his f ce to truth but his b c$ on 2r. H. G. 'ells, !hen he turne# to his &useu& of specifie# i#e ls. 1t is precisely here th t Pl to sho!s his sense. 1t is not true th t e"erything ch ngesQ the things th t ch nge re ll the & nifest n# & teri l things. There is so&ething th t #oes not ch ngeQ n# th t is precisely the bstr ct Pu lity, the in"isible i#e . 2r. 'ells s ys truly enough, th t thing !hich !e h "e seen in one

connection s # r$ !e & y see in nother connection s light. ,ut the thing co&&on to both inci#ents is the &ere i#e of lightOO !hich !e h "e not seen t ll. 2r. 'ells &ight gro! t ller n# t ller for unen#ing eons till his he # ! s higher th n the loneliest st r. 1 c n i& gine his !riting goo# no"el bout it. 1n th t c se

he !oul# see the trees first s t ll things n# then s short thingsQ he !oul# see the clou#s first s high n# then s lo!. ,ut there !oul# re& in !ith hi& through the ges in th t st rry loneliness the i#e of t llnessQ he !oul# h "e in the !ful sp ces for co&p nion n# co&fort the #efinite conception th t he ! s gro!ing

t ller n# not =for inst nce@ gro!ing f tter.

?n# no! it co&es to &y &in# th t 2r. H. G. 'ells ctu lly h s !ritten "ery #elightful ro& nce bout &en gro!ing s t ll s treesQ n# th t here, g in, he see&s to &e to h "e been "icti& of this

" gue rel ti"is&. FThe )oo# of the Go#sF is, li$e 2r. ,ern r# -h !Ms pl y, in essence stu#y of the -uper& n i#e . ?n# it lies, h lfOp nto&i&ic llegory,

1 thin$, e"en through the "eil of

open to the s &e intellectu l tt c$. 'e c nnot be expecte# to h "e ny reg r# for gre t cre ture if he #oes not in ny & nner confor&

to our st n# r#s. )or unless he p sses our st n# r# of gre tness !e c nnot e"en c ll hi& gre t. 9iets7che su&&e# up ll th t is interesting in the -uper& n i#e !hen he s i#, F2 n is thing

!hich h s to be surp sse#.F ,ut the "ery !or# Fsurp ssF i&plies the existence of st n# r# co&&on to us n# the thing surp ssing us.

1f the -uper& n is &ore & nly th n &en re, of course they !ill ulti& tely #eify hi&, e"en if they h ppen to $ill hi& first. ,ut if he is si&ply &ore super& nly, they & y be Puite in#ifferent to hi& s they !oul# be to nother see&ingly i&less &onstrosity. He &ust sub&it to our test e"en in or#er to o"er !e us. 2ere force or si7e e"en is & $e &en thin$ st n# r#Q but th t lone !ill ne"er

& n their superior. Gi nts, s in the !ise ol#

f iryOt les, re "er&in. -uper&en, if not goo# &en, re "er&in.

FThe )oo# of the Go#sF is the t le of FN c$ the Gi ntOKillerF tol# fro& the point of "ie! of the gi nt. This h s not, 1 thin$, been #one before in liter tureQ but 1 h "e little #oubt th t the psychologic l subst nce of it existe# in f ct. 1 h "e little #oubt th t the gi nt !ho& N c$ $ille# #i# reg r# hi&self s the -uper& n.

1t is li$ely enough th t he consi#ere# N c$ !ho !ishe# to frustr te

n rro! n# p rochi l person

gre t for! r# &o"e&ent of the lifeOforce.

1f = s not unfrePuently ! s the c se@ he h ppene# to h "e t!o he #s, he !oul# point out the ele&ent ry & xi& !hich #ecl res the& to be better th n one. He !oul# enl rge on the subtle &o#ernity of such n ePuip&ent, en bling gi nt to loo$ t subject

fro& t!o points of "ie!, or to correct hi&self !ith pro&ptitu#e. ,ut N c$ ! s the ch &pion of the en#uring hu& n st n# r#s, of the principle of one & n one he # n# one & n one conscience, of the single he # n# the single he rt n# the single eye. N c$ ! s Puite uni&presse# by the Puestion of !hether the gi nt ! s p rticul rly gig ntic gi nt. ?ll he !ishe# to $no! ! s !hether he ! s goo# gi ntOOth t is, gi nt !ho ! s ny goo# to us.

'h t !ere the gi ntMs religious "ie!sQ !h t his "ie!s on politics n# the #uties of the citi7enK ' s he fon# of chil#renOO or fon# of the& only in # r$ n# sinister sense K To use fine

phr se for e&otion l s nity, ! s his he rt in the right pl ceK N c$ h # so&eti&es to cut hi& up !ith s!or# in or#er to fin# out.

The ol# n# correct story of N c$ the Gi ntOKiller is si&ply the !hole story of & nQ if it !ere un#erstoo# !e shoul# nee# no ,ibles or histories. ,ut the &o#ern !orl# in p rticul r #oes not see& to un#erst n# it t ll. The &o#ern !orl#, li$e 2r. 'ells is on the si#e of the gi ntsQ the s fest pl ce, n# therefore the &e nest n# the &ost pros ic. The &o#ern !orl#, !hen it pr ises its little C es rs, t l$s of being strong n# br "eA but it #oes not see& to see the etern l p r #ox in"ol"e# in the conjunction of these i#e s. The strong c nnot be br "e. 8nly the !e $ c n be br "eQ n# yet g in, in pr ctice, only those !ho c n be br "e c n be truste#, in ti&e of #oubt, to be strong. The only ! y in !hich gi nt coul#

re lly $eep hi&self in tr ining g inst the ine"it ble N c$ !oul# be by continu lly fighting other gi nts ten ti&es s big s hi&self. Th t is by ce sing to be gi nt n# beco&ing N c$.

Thus th t sy&p thy !ith the s& ll or the #efe te# s such, !ith !hich !e <iber ls n# 9 tion lists h "e been often repro che#, is not useless senti&ent lis& t ll, s 2r. 'ells n# his

frien#s f ncy. 1t is the first l ! of pr ctic l cour ge. To be in the !e $est c &p is to be in the strongest school. 9or c n 1 i& gine nything th t !oul# #o hu& nity &ore goo# th n the #"ent of r ce of -uper&en, for the& to fight li$e #r gons.

1f the -uper& n is better th n !e, of course !e nee# not fight hi&Q but in th t c se, !hy not c ll hi& the - intK ,ut if he is &erely stronger =!hether physic lly, &ent lly, or &or lly stronger, 1 #o not c re f rthing@, then he ought to h "e to rec$on !ith us

t le st for ll the strength !e h "e. 1t !e re !e $er th n he, th t is no re son !hy !e shoul# be !e $er th n oursel"es. 1f !e re not t ll enough to touch the gi ntMs $nees, th t is no re son !hy !e shoul# beco&e shorter by f lling on our o!n. ,ut th t is t botto& the &e ning of ll &o#ern heroO!orship n# celebr tion of the -trong 2 n, the C es r the -uper& n. Th t he & y be so&ething &ore th n & n, !e &ust be so&ething less.

(oubtless there is n ol#er n# better heroO!orship th n this. ,ut the ol# hero ! s being !ho, li$e ?chilles, ! s &ore hu& n

th n hu& nity itself. 9iet7scheMs -uper& n is col# n# frien#less. ?chilles is so foolishly fon# of his frien# th t he sl ughters r&ies in the gony of his bere "e&ent. 2r. -h !Ms s # C es r s ys in his #esol te pri#e, FHe !ho h s ne"er hope# c n ne"er #esp ir.F The 2 nOGo# of ol# ns!ers fro& his !ful hill, F' s e"er sorro!

li$e unto &y sorro!KF ? gre t & n is not less th n other &enQ he is

& n so strong th t he feels

& n so strong th t he feels &ore.

?n# !hen 9iets7che s ys, F? ne! co&& n#&ent 1 gi"e to you, Vbe h r#,MF he is re lly s ying, F? ne! co&& n#&ent 1 gi"e to you, Vbe #e #.MF -ensibility is the #efinition of life.

1 recur for

l st !or# to N c$ the Gi ntOKiller. 1 h "e #!elt

on this & tter of 2r. 'ells n# the gi nts, not bec use it is speci lly pro&inent in his &in#Q 1 $no! th t the -uper& n #oes not bul$ so l rge in his cos&os s in th t of 2r. ,ern r# -h !. 1 h "e #!elt on it for the opposite re sonQ bec use this heresy of i&&or l heroO!orship h s t $en, 1 thin$, slighter hol# of hi&,

n# & y perh ps still be pre"ente# fro& per"erting one of the best thin$ers of the # y. 1n the course of FThe 9e! :topi F 2r. 'ells & $es &ore th n one #&iring llusion to 2r. '. E. Henley. Th t cle"er n# unh ppy & n li"e# in #&ir tion of " gue "iolence,

n# ! s l! ys going b c$ to ru#e ol# t les n# ru#e ol# b ll #s, to strong n# pri&iti"e liter tures, to fin# the pr ise of strength n# the justific tion of tyr nny. ,ut he coul# not fin# it. 1t is not there. The pri&iti"e liter ture is sho!n in the t le of N c$ the Gi ntOKiller. The strong ol# liter ture is ll in pr ise of the !e $. The ru#e ol# t les re s ten#er to &inorities s ny &o#ern politic l i#e list. The ru#e ol# b ll #s re s senti&ent lly concerne# for the un#erO#og s the ?borigines Protection -ociety. 'hen &en !ere tough n# r !, !hen they li"e# &i# h r# $noc$s n# h r# l !s, !hen they $ne! !h t fighting re lly ! s, they h # only t!o $in#s of songs. The first ! s conPuere# the strong, the secon# for once in rejoicing th t the !e $ h # l &ent tion th t the strong h #,

! y, conPuere# the !e $. )or this #efi nce of

the st tu Puo, this const nt effort to lter the existing b l nce, this pre& ture ch llenge to the po!erful, is the !hole n ture n# in&ost secret of the psychologic l #"enture !hich is c lle# & n. 1t is his strength to #is# in strength. The forlorn hope is not only re l hope, it is the only re l hope of & n$in#.

1n the co rsest b ll #s of the green!oo# &en re #&ire# &ost !hen they #efy, not only the $ing, but !h t is &ore to the point, the hero. The &o&ent +obin Hoo# beco&es sort of -uper& n, th t &o&ent poor tin$er

the chi" lrous chronicler sho!s us +obin thr she# by

!ho& he thought to thrust si#e. ?n# the chi" lrous chronicler & $es +obin Hoo# recei"e the thr shing in This & gn ni&ity is not it is not glo! of #&ir tion.

pro#uct of &o#ern hu& nit ri nis&Q

pro#uct of nything to #o !ith pe ce.

This & gn ni&ity is &erely one of the lost rts of ! r. The Henleyites c ll for stur#y n# fighting Engl n#, n# they go

b c$ to the fierce ol# stories of the stur#y n# fighting English. ?n# the thing th t they fin# !ritten cross th t fierce ol# liter ture e"ery!here, is Fthe policy of 2 jub .F

*1. Christ& s n# the ?esthetes

The !orl# is roun#, so roun# th t the schools of opti&is& n# pessi&is& h "e been rguing fro& the beginning !hether it is the right ! y up. The #ifficulty #oes not rise so &uch fro& the &ere f ct th t goo# n# e"il re &ingle# in roughly ePu l proportionsQ it rises chiefly fro& the f ct th t &en l! ys #iffer bout !h t p rts re goo# n# !h t e"il.

Hence the #ifficulty !hich besets Fun#eno&in tion l religions.F They profess to inclu#e !h t is be utiful in ll cree#s, but they ppe r to & ny to h "e collecte# ll th t is #ull in the&. ?ll the colours &ixe# together in purity ought to & $e 2ixe# together on ny hu& n p intObox, they & $e thing "ery li$e & ny ne! religions. -uch perfect !hite. thing li$e &u#, n#

blen# is often so&ething &uch

!orse th n ny one cree# t $en sep r tely, e"en the cree# of the Thugs. The error rises fro& the #ifficulty of #etecting !h t is re lly the goo# p rt n# !h t is re lly the b # p rt of ny gi"en religion. ?n# this p thos f lls r ther he "ily on those persons !ho h "e the &isfortune to thin$ of so&e religion or other, th t the p rts co&&only counte# goo# re b #, n# the p rts co&&only counte# b # re goo#.

1t is tr gic to #&ire n# honestly #&ire it in

hu& n group, but to #&ire

photogr phic neg ti"e. 1t is #ifficult to congr tul te ll

their !hites on being bl c$ n# ll their bl c$s on their !hiteness. This !ill often h ppen to us in connection !ith hu& n religions. T $e t!o institutions !hich be r !itness to the religious energy of the nineteenth century. T $e the - l" tion ?r&y n# the philosophy of ?uguste Co&te.

The usu l "er#ict of e#uc te# people on the - l" tion ?r&y is expresse# in so&e such !or#s s theseA F1 h "e no #oubt they #o gre t #e l of goo#, but they #o it in "ulg r n# prof ne styleQ

their i&s re excellent, but their &etho#s re !rong.F To &e, unfortun tely, the precise re"erse of this ppe rs to be the truth. 1 #o not $no! !hether the i&s of the - l" tion ?r&y re excellent, but 1 & Puite sure their &etho#s re #&ir ble.

Their &etho#s re the &etho#s of ll intense n# he rty religionsQ they re popul r li$e ll religion, &ilit ry li$e ll religion, public n# sens tion l li$e ll religion. They re not re"erent ny &ore th n +o& n C tholics re re"erent, for re"erence in the s # n# #elic te &e ning of the ter& re"erence is thing only possible to infi#els.

Th t be utiful t!ilight you !ill fin# in Euripi#es, in +en n, in 2 tthe! ?rnol#Q but in &en !ho belie"e you !ill not fin# itOO you !ill fin# only l ughter n# ! r. ? & n c nnot p y th t $in# of re"erence to truth soli# s & rbleQ they c n only be re"erent to! r#s be utiful lie. ?n# the - l" tion ?r&y, though their "oice &e n en"iron&ent n# n ugly sh pe, re re lly

h s bro$en out in

the ol# "oice of gl # n# ngry f ith, hot s the riots of (ionysus, !il# s the g rgoyles of C tholicis&, not to be &ist $en for philosophy.

Professor Huxley, in one of his cle"er phr ses, c lle# the - l" tion ?r&y Fcoryb ntic Christi nity.F Huxley ! s the l st n# noblest of those -toics !ho h "e ne"er un#erstoo# the Cross. 1f he h # un#erstoo# Christi nity he !oul# h "e $no!n th t there ne"er h s been, n# ne"er c n be, ny Christi nity th t is not coryb ntic.

?n# there is this #ifference bet!een the & tter of i&s n# the & tter of &etho#s, th t to ju#ge of the i&s of thing li$e

the - l" tion ?r&y is "ery #ifficult, to ju#ge of their ritu l n# t&osphere "ery e sy. 9o one, perh ps, but sociologist

c n see !hether Gener l ,oothMs housing sche&e is right. ,ut ny he lthy person c n see th t b nging br ss cy&b ls together &ust be right. ? p ge of st tistics, pl n of &o#el #!ellings,

nything !hich is r tion l, is l! ys #ifficult for the l y &in#. ,ut the thing !hich is irr tion l ny one c n un#erst n#. Th t is !hy religion c &e so e rly into the !orl# n# spre # so f r,

!hile science c &e so l te into the !orl# n# h s not spre # t ll. History un ni&ously ttests the f ct th t it is only &ysticis& !hich st n#s the s& llest ch nce of being un#erst n#e# of the people. Co&&on sense h s to be $ept s n esoteric secret in the # r$ te&ple of culture. ?n# so !hile the phil nthropy of the - l" tionists n# its genuineness & y be re son ble & tter for the #iscussion of the #octors,

there c n be no #oubt bout the genuineness of their br ss b n#s, for br ss b n# is purely spiritu l, n# see$s only to Puic$en

the intern l life. The object of phil nthropy is to #o goo#Q the object of religion is to be goo#, if only for &i# cr sh of br ss. &o&ent,

?n# the s &e ntithesis exists bout nother &o#ern religionOO1 &e n the religion of Co&te, gener lly $no!n s Positi"is&, or the !orship of hu& nity. -uch &en s 2r. )re#eric H rrison, th t brilli nt n# chi" lrous philosopher, !ho still, by his &ere person lity, spe $s for the cree#, !oul# tell us th t he offers us the philosophy of Co&te, but not ll Co&teMs f nt stic propos ls for pontiffs n# cere&oni ls, the ne! c len# r, the ne! holi# ys n# s intsM # ys. He #oes not &e n th t !e shoul# #ress oursel"es up s priests of hu& nity or let off fire!or$s bec use it is 2iltonMs birth# y. To the soli# English Co&tist ll this ppe rs, he confesses, to be little bsur#. To &e it ppe rs the only sensible p rt of Co&tis&. ?s philosophy it is uns tisf ctory. 1t is e"i#ently i&possible to

!orship hu& nity, just s it is i&possible to !orship the - "ile ClubQ both re excellent institutions to !hich !e & y h ppen to belong. ,ut !e percei"e cle rly th t the - "ile Club #i# not & $e the st rs n# #oes not fill the uni"erse. ?n# it is surely unre son ble to tt c$ the #octrine of the Trinity s piece of be!il#ering &ysticis&,

n# then to s$ &en to !orship

being !ho is ninety &illion persons

in one Go#, neither confoun#ing the persons nor #i"i#ing the subst nce.

,ut if the !is#o& of Co&te ! s insufficient, the folly of Co&te ! s !is#o&. 1n n ge of #usty &o#ernity, !hen be uty ! s thought of s so&ething b rb ric n# ugliness s so&ething sensible, he lone s ! th t &en &ust l! ys h "e the s cre#ness of &u&&ery. He s ! th t !hile the brutes h "e ll the useful things, the things th t re truly hu& n re the useless ones. He s ! the f lsehoo# of th t l&ost uni"ers l notion of toO# y, the notion th t rites n# for&s re so&ething rtifici l, ##ition l, n# corrupt. +itu l is re lly &uch ol#er th n thoughtQ it is &uch si&pler n# &uch !il#er th n thought. ? feeling touching the n ture of things #oes not only & $e &en feel th t there re cert in proper things to s yQ it & $es the& feel th t there re cert in proper things to #o. The &ore gree ble of these consist of # ncing, buil#ing te&ples, n# shouting "ery lou#Q the less gree ble, of !e ring green c rn tions n# burning other philosophers li"e. ,ut e"ery!here the religious # nce c &e before the religious hy&n, n# & n ! s ritu list before he coul# spe $. 1f Co&tis& h # spre #

the !orl# !oul# h "e been con"erte#, not by the Co&tist philosophy, but by the Co&tist c len# r. ,y #iscour ging !h t they concei"e to be the !e $ness of their & ster, the English Positi"ists h "e bro$en the strength of their religion. ? & n !ho h s f ith &ust be prep re# not only to be 1t is bsur# to s y th t & rtyr, but to be fool.

& n is re #y to toil n# #ie for his con"ictions !re th roun# his he # for the&.

!hen he is not e"en re #y to !e r 1 &yself, to t $e

corpus "ile, & "ery cert in th t 1 !oul# not

re # the !or$s of Co&te through for ny consi#er tion !h te"er.

,ut 1 c n e sily i& gine &yself !ith the gre test enthusi s& lighting bonfire on ( r!in ( y.

Th t splen#i# effort f ile#, n# nothing in the style of it h s succee#e#. There h s been no r tion list festi" l, no r tion list ecst sy. 2en re still in bl c$ for the #e th of Go#. 'hen Christi nity ! s he "ily bo&b r#e# in the l st century upon no point ! s it &ore persistently n# brilli ntly tt c$e# th n upon th t of its llege# en&ity to hu& n joy. -helley n# -!inburne n# ll their r&ies h "e p sse# g in n# g in o"er the groun#, but they h "e not ltere# it. They h "e not set up single ne! trophy or ensign for the !orl#Ms &erri&ent to r lly to. They h "e not gi"en n &e or ne! occ sion of g iety.

2r. -!inburne #oes not h ng up his stoc$ing on the e"e of the birth# y of *ictor Hugo. 2r. 'illi & ?rcher #oes not sing c rols #escripti"e of the inf ncy of 1bsen outsi#e peopleMs #oors in the sno!. 1n the roun# of our r tion l n# &ournful ye r one festi" l re& ins out of ll those ncient g ieties th t once co"ere# the !hole e rth. Christ& s re& ins to re&in# us of those ges, !hether P g n or Christi n, !hen the & ny cte# poetry inste # of the fe! !riting it. 1n ll the !inter in our !oo#s there is no tree in glo! but the holly.

The str nge truth bout the & tter is tol# in the "ery !or# Fholi# y.F ? b n$ holi# y &e ns presu& bly ? h lfOholi# y &e ns, 1 suppose, # y !hich b n$ers reg r# s holy. # y on !hich schoolboy is only thing

p rti lly holy. 1t is h r# to see t first sight !hy so hu& n s leisure n# l r$iness shoul# l! ys h "e

religious origin.

+ tion lly there ppe rs no re son !hy !e shoul# not sing n# gi"e e ch other presents in honour of nythingOOthe birth of 2ich el ?ngelo or the opening of Euston -t tion. ,ut it #oes not !or$.

?s

f ct, &en only beco&e gree#ily n# gloriously & teri l bout

so&ething spiritu listic. T $e ! y the 9icene Cree# n# si&il r things, n# you #o so&e str nge !rong to the sellers of s us ges. T $e ! y the str nge be uty of the s ints, n# !h t h s re& ine# to us is the f r str nger ugliness of ' n#s!orth. T $e ! y the supern tur l, n# !h t re& ins is the unn tur l.

?n# no! 1 h "e to touch upon

"ery s # & tter. There re in the &o#ern

!orl# n #&ir ble cl ss of persons !ho re lly & $e protest on beh lf of th t ntiPu pulchritu#o of !hich ?ugustine spo$e, !ho #o long for the ol# fe sts n# for& lities of the chil#hoo# of the !orl#. 'illi & 2orris n# his follo!ers sho!e# ho! &uch brighter !ere the # r$ ges th n the ge of 2 nchester. 2r. '. ,. Le ts fr &es his steps in prehistoric # nces, but no & n $no!s n# joins his "oice to forgotten choruses th t no one but he c n he r. 2r. George 2oore collects e"ery fr g&ent of 1rish p g nis& th t the forgetfulness of the C tholic Church h s left or possibly her !is#o& preser"e#. There re innu&er ble persons !ith eyeOgl sses n# green g r&ents !ho pr y for the return of the & ypole or the 8ly&pi n g &es. ,ut there is bout these people h unting n# l r&ing so&ething

!hich suggests th t it is just possible th t they #o not $eep Christ& s. 1t is p inful to reg r# hu& n n ture in such light,

but it see&s so&eho! possible th t 2r. George 2oore #oes not ! "e his spoon n# shout !hen the pu##ing is set light. 1t is e"en possible th t 2r. '. ,. Le ts ne"er pulls cr c$ers. 1f so, !here is the sense of ll their #re &s of festi"e tr #itionsK Here is soli# n# ncient festi"e tr #ition still plying

ro ring tr #e in the streets, n# they thin$ it "ulg r. if this is so, let the& be "ery cert in of this, th t they re

the $in# of people !ho in the ti&e of the & ypole !oul# h "e thought the & ypole "ulg rQ !ho in the ti&e of the C nterbury pilgri& ge !oul# h "e thought the C nterbury pilgri& ge "ulg rQ !ho in the ti&e of the 8ly&pi n g &es !oul# h "e thought the 8ly&pi n g &es "ulg r. 9or c n there be ny re son ble #oubt th t they !ere "ulg r. <et no & n #ecei"e hi&selfQ if by "ulg rity !e &e n co rseness of speech, ro!#iness of beh "iour, gossip, horsepl y, n# so&e he "y #rin$ing, "ulg rity there l! ys ! s !here"er there ! s joy, !here"er there ! s f ith in the go#s. 'here"er you h "e belief you !ill h "e hil rity, !here"er you h "e hil rity you !ill h "e so&e # ngers. ?n# s cree# n# &ythology pro#uce this gross n# "igorous life, so in its turn this gross n# "igorous life !ill l! ys pro#uce cree# n# &ythology. 1f !e e"er get the English b c$ on to the English l n# they !ill beco&e g in religious people, if ll goes !ell, superstitious people.

The bsence fro& &o#ern life of both the higher n# lo!er for&s of f ith is l rgely #ue to #i"orce fro& n ture n# the trees n# clou#s.

1f !e h "e no &ore turnip ghosts it is chiefly fro& the l c$ of turnips.

*11. 8& r n# the - cre# *ine

? ne! &or lity h s burst upon us !ith so&e "iolence in connection !ith the proble& of strong #rin$Q n# enthusi sts in the & tter r nge fro& the & n !ho is "iolently thro!n out t .;.C5, to the l #y !ho s& shes ?&eric n b rs !ith n xe. 1n these #iscussions it is l&ost l! ys felt th t one "ery !ise n# &o#er te position is to s y th t !ine or such stuff shoul# only be #run$ s &e#icine.

'ith this 1 shoul# "enture to #is gree !ith

peculi r ferocity.

The one genuinely # ngerous n# i&&or l ! y of #rin$ing !ine is to #rin$ it s &e#icine. ?n# for this re son, 1f & n #rin$s !ine in or#er

to obt in ple sure, he is trying to obt in so&ething exception l, so&ething he #oes not expect e"ery hour of the # y, so&ething !hich, unless he is little ins ne, he !ill not try to get e"ery hour & n #rin$s !ine in or#er to obt in he lth,

of the # y. ,ut if

he is trying to get so&ething n tur lQ so&ething, th t is, th t he ought not to be !ithoutQ so&ething th t he & y fin# it #ifficult to reconcile hi&self to being !ithout. The & n & y not be se#uce# !ho h s seen the ecst sy of being ecst ticQ it is &ore # 77ling to c tch 1f there !ere gli&pse of the ecst sy of being or#in ry. strong & n,

& gic oint&ent, n# !e too$ it to

n# s i#, FThis !ill en ble you to ju&p off the 2onu&ent,F #oubtless he !oul# ju&p off the 2onu&ent, but he !oul# not ju&p off the 2onu&ent ll # y long to the #elight of the City. ,ut if !e too$ it to he !oul# be un#er blin# & n, s ying, FThis !ill en ble you to see,F he "ier te&pt tion. 1t !oul# be h r# for hi& noble

not to rub it on his eyes !hene"er he he r# the hoof of

horse or the bir#s singing t # ybre $. 1t is e sy to #eny oneMs self festi"ityQ it is #ifficult to #eny oneMs self nor& lity. Hence co&es the f ct !hich e"ery #octor $no!s, th t it is often perilous to gi"e lcohol to the sic$ e"en !hen they nee# it. 1 nee# h r#ly s y th t 1 #o not &e n th t 1 thin$ the gi"ing of lcohol to the sic$ for sti&ulus is necess rily unjustifi ble. ,ut 1 #o &e n th t gi"ing it to the he lthy for fun is the proper use of it, n# gre t #e l &ore consistent !ith he lth.

The soun# rule in the & tter !oul# ppe r to be li$e & ny other

soun# rulesOO p r #ox. (rin$ bec use you re h ppy, but ne"er bec use you re &iser ble. 9e"er #rin$ !hen you re !retche# !ithout it, or you !ill be li$e the greyOf ce# ginO#rin$er in the slu&Q but #rin$ !hen you !oul# be h ppy !ithout it, n# you !ill be li$e the l ughing pe s nt of 1t ly. 9e"er #rin$ bec use you nee# it, for this is r tion l #rin$ing, n# the ! y to #e th n# hell. ,ut #rin$ bec use you #o not nee# it, for this is irr tion l #rin$ing, n# the ncient he lth of the !orl#.

)or &ore th n thirty ye rs the sh #o! n# glory of E stern figure h s l in upon our English liter ture.

gre t

)it7ger l#Ms tr nsl tion of 8& r Kh yy & concentr te# into n i&&ort l poign ncy ll the # r$ n# #rifting he#onis& of our ti&e. 8f the liter ry splen#our of th t !or$ it !oul# be &erely b n l to spe $Q in fe! other of the boo$s of &en h s there been nything so co&bining the g y pugn city of n epigr & !ith the " gue s #ness of song.

,ut of its philosophic l, ethic l, n# religious influence !hich h s been l&ost s gre t s its brilli ncy, 1 shoul# li$e to s y n# th t !or#, 1 confess, one of unco&pro&ising hostility. There re gre t & ny things !hich &ight be s i# g inst !or#,

the spirit of the +ub iy t, n# g inst its pro#igious influence. ,ut one & tter of in#ict&ent to!ers o&inously bo"e the restOO genuine #isgr ce to it, genuine c l &ity to us. This is the terrible

blo! th t this gre t poe& h s struc$ g inst soci bility n# the joy of life. -o&e one c lle# 8& r Fthe s #, gl # ol# Persi n.F - # he isQ gl # he is not, in ny sense of the !or# !h te"er. He h s been !orse foe to gl #ness th n the Purit ns.

? pensi"e n# gr ceful 8rient l lies un#er the roseOtree

!ith his !ineOpot n# his scroll of poe&s. 1t & y see& str nge th t ny oneMs thoughts shoul#, t the &o&ent of reg r#ing hi&, fly b c$ to the # r$ be#si#e !here the #octor #oles out br n#y. 1t & y see& str nger still th t they shoul# go b c$ to the grey ! strel sh $ing !ith gin in Houn#s#itch. ,ut gre t philosophic l unity lin$s the three in n e"il bon#.

8& r Kh yy &Ms !ineObibbing is b #, not bec use it is !ineObibbing. 1t is b #, n# "ery b #, bec use it is &e#ic l !ineObibbing. 1t is the #rin$ing of & n !ho #rin$s bec use he is not h ppy.

His is the !ine th t shuts out the uni"erse, not the !ine th t re"e ls it. 1t is not poetic l #rin$ing, !hich is joyous n# instincti"eQ it is r tion l #rin$ing, !hich is s pros ic s n in"est&ent, s uns "oury s #ose of c &o&ile. 'hole he "ens bo"e it,

fro& the point of "ie! of senti&ent, though not of style, rises the splen#our of so&e ol# English #rin$ingOsongOO

FThen p ss the bo!l, &y co&r #es ll, ?n# let the 7i#er "lo!.F

)or this song ! s c ught up by h ppy &en to express the !orth of truly !orthy things, of brotherhoo# n# g rrulity, n# the brief n# $in#ly leisure of the poor. 8f course, the gre t p rt of the &ore stoli# repro ches #irecte# g inst the 8& rite &or lity re s f lse n# b byish s such repro ches usu lly re. 8ne critic, !hose !or$ 1 h "e re #, h # the incre#ible foolishness to c ll 8& r n theist n# & teri list. 1t is l&ost i&possible for n 8rient l

to be eitherQ the E st un#erst n#s &et physics too !ell for th t. 8f course, the re l objection !hich philosophic l Christi n

!oul# bring g inst the religion of 8& r, is not th t he gi"es

no pl ce to Go#, it is th t he gi"es too &uch pl ce to Go#. His is th t terrible theis& !hich c n i& gine nothing else but #eity, n# !hich #enies ltogether the outlines of hu& n person lity n# hu& n !ill.

FThe b ll no Puestion & $es of ?yes or 9oes, ,ut Here or There s stri$es the Pl yer goesQ ?n# He th t tosse# you #o!n into the fiel#, He $no!s bout it llOOhe $no!sOOhe $no!s.F

? Christi n thin$er such s ?ugustine or ( nte !oul# object to this bec use it ignores freeO!ill, !hich is the " lour n# #ignity of the soul. The Pu rrel of the highest Christi nity !ith this scepticis& is not in the le st th t the scepticis& #enies the existence of Go#Q it is th t it #enies the existence of & n.

1n this cult of the pessi&istic ple sureOsee$er the +ub iy t st n#s first in our ti&eQ but it #oes not st n# lone. 2 ny of the &ost brilli nt intellects of our ti&e h "e urge# us to the s &e selfOconscious sn tching t r re #elight.

' lter P ter s i# th t !e !ere ll un#er sentence of #e th, n# the only course ! s to enjoy exPuisite &o&ents si&ply for those &o&entsM s $e. The s &e lesson ! s t ught by the "ery po!erful n# "ery #esol te philosophy of 8sc r 'il#e. 1t is the c rpe #ie& religionQ but the c rpe #ie& religion is not the religion of h ppy people, but of "ery unh ppy people. Gre t joy #oes, not g ther the rosebu#s !hile it & yQ its eyes re fixe# on the i&&ort l rose !hich ( nte s !. Gre t joy h s in it the sense of i&&ort lityQ the "ery splen#our

of youth is the sense th t it h s ll sp ce to stretch its legs in. 1n ll gre t co&ic liter ture, in FTristr & -h n#yF or FPic$!ic$F, there is this sense of sp ce n# incorruptibilityQ !e feel the ch r cters re #e thless people in n en#less t le.

1t is true enough, of course, th t

pungent h ppiness co&es chiefly

in cert in p ssing &o&entsQ but it is not true th t !e shoul# thin$ of the& s p ssing, or enjoy the& si&ply Ffor those &o&entsM s $e.F To #o this is to r tion li7e the h ppiness, n# therefore to #estroy it. H ppiness is -uppose &ystery li$e religion, n# shoul# ne"er be r tion li7e#. re lly splen#i# &o&ent of ple sure. bit of en &el, 1 &e n

& n experiences

1 #o not &e n so&ething connecte# !ith so&ething !ith

"iolent h ppiness in itOO n l&ost p inful h ppiness. &o&ent of ecst sy in first lo"e,

? & n & y h "e, for inst nce, or

&o&ent of "ictory in b ttle. The lo"er enjoys the &o&ent,

but precisely not for the &o&entMs s $e. He enjoys it for the !o& nMs s $e, or his o!n s $e. The ! rrior enjoys the &o&ent, but not for the s $e of the &o&entQ he enjoys it for the s $e of the fl g. The c use !hich the fl g st n#s for & y be foolish n# fleetingQ the lo"e & y be c lfOlo"e, n# l st !ee$. ,ut the p triot thin$s

of the fl g s etern lQ the lo"er thin$s of his lo"e s so&ething th t c nnot en#. These &o&ents re fille# !ith eternityQ these &o&ents re joyful bec use they #o not see& &o&ent ry. 8nce loo$ t the& s &o&ents fter P terMs & nner, n# they beco&e s col# s P ter n# his style. 2 n c nnot lo"e &ort l things. He c n only lo"e i&&ort l things for n inst nt.

P terMs &ist $e is re"e le# in his &ost f &ous phr se. He s$s us to burn !ith h r#, ge&Oli$e fl &e. )l &es re ne"er

h r# n# ne"er ge&Oli$eOOthey c nnot be h n#le# or rr nge#. -o hu& n e&otions re ne"er h r# n# ne"er ge&Oli$eQ they re l! ys # ngerous, li$e fl &es, to touch or e"en to ex &ine. There is only one ! y in !hich our p ssions c n beco&e h r# n# ge&Oli$e, n# th t is by beco&ing s col# s ge&s. 9o blo! then h s e"er been struc$ t the n tur l lo"es n# l ughter of &en so sterili7ing s this c rpe #ie& of the esthetes. )or ny $in# of ple sure cert in shyness, tot lly #ifferent spirit is rePuire#Q cert in

cert in in#eter&in te hope,

boyish expect tion. Purity n# si&plicity re essenti l to p ssionsOO yes e"en to e"il p ssions. E"en "ice #e& n#s sort of "irginity.

8& rMs =or )it7ger l#Ms@ effect upon the other !orl# !e & y let go, his h n# upon this !orl# h s been he "y n# p r ly7ing. The Purit ns, s 1 h "e s i#, re f r jollier th n he. The ne! scetics !ho follo! Thore u or Tolstoy re &uch li"elier co&p nyQ for, though the surren#er of strong #rin$ n# such luxuries & y stri$e us s n i#le neg tion, it & y le "e & n !ith innu&er ble

n tur l ple sures, n#, bo"e ll, !ith & nMs n tur l po!er of h ppiness. Thore u coul# enjoy the sunrise !ithout cup of coffee. 1f Tolstoy

c nnot #&ire & rri ge, t le st he is he lthy enough to #&ire &u#. 9 ture c n be enjoye# !ithout e"en the &ost n tur l luxuries. ? goo# bush nee#s no !ine. ,ut neither n ture nor !ine nor nything else c n be enjoye# if !e h "e the !rong ttitu#e to! r#s h ppiness, n# 8& r =or )it7ger l#@ #i# h "e the !rong ttitu#e to! r#s h ppiness. He n# those he h s influence# #o not see th t if !e re to be truly g y, !e &ust belie"e th t there is so&e etern l g iety in the n ture of things. 'e c nnot enjoy thoroughly e"en p sO#eOPu tre t subscription # nce

unless !e belie"e th t the st rs re # ncing to the s &e tune. 9o one c n

be re lly hil rious but the serious & n. F'ine,F s ys the -cripture, F& $eth gl # the he rt of & n,F but only of the & n !ho h s The thing c lle# high spirits is possible only to the spiritu l. :lti& tely :lti& tely & n c nnot rejoice in nything except the n ture of things. & n c n enjoy nothing except religion. 8nce in the !orl#Ms he rt.

history &en #i# belie"e th t the st rs !ere # ncing to the tune of their te&ples, n# they # nce# s &en h "e ne"er # nce# since. 'ith this ol# p g n eu# e&onis& the s ge of the +ub iy t h s Puite s little to #o s he h s !ith ny Christi n " riety. He is no &ore , cch n l th n he is s int. (ionysus n# his church

! s groun#e# on

serious joieO#eO"i"re li$e th t of ' lt 'hit& n. &e#icine, but s cr &ent. s cr &ent.

(ionysus & #e !ine, not

Nesus Christ lso & #e !ine, not ,ut 8& r & $es it, not

&e#icine, but

s cr &ent, but

&e#icine. He fe sts

bec use life is not joyfulQ he re"els bec use he is not gl #. F(rin$,F he s ys, Ffor you $no! not !hence you co&e nor !hy. (rin$, for you $no! not !hen you go nor !here. (rin$, bec use the st rs re cruel n# the !orl# s i#le s hu&&ingOtop. (rin$,

bec use there is nothing !orth trusting, nothing !orth fighting for. (rin$, bec use ll things re l pse# in b se ePu lity n# n

e"il pe ce.F -o he st n#s offering us the cup in his h n#. ?n# t the high lt r of Christi nity st n#s nother figure, in !hose h n# lso is the cup of the "ine. F(rin$F he s ys Ffor the !hole !orl# is s re# s this !ine, !ith the cri&son of the lo"e n# !r th of Go#. (rin$, for the tru&pets re blo!ing for b ttle n# this is the stirrupOcup. (rin$, for this &y bloo# of the ne! test &ent th t is she# for you. (rin$, for 1 $no! of !hence you co&e n# !hy. (rin$, for 1 $no! of !hen you go n# !here.F

*111. The 2il#ness of the Lello! Press

There is

gre t #e l of protest & #e fro& one Pu rter or nother

no! # ys g inst the influence of th t ne! journ lis& !hich is ssoci te# !ith the n &es of -ir ?lfre# H r&s!orth n# 2r. Pe rson. ,ut l&ost e"erybo#y !ho tt c$s it tt c$s on the groun# th t it is "ery sens tion l, "ery "iolent n# "ulg r n# st rtling. 1 & spe $ing in no ffecte# contr riety, but in the si&plicity of genuine person l i&pression, !hen 1 s y th t this journ lis&

offen#s s being not sens tion l or "iolent enough. The re l "ice is not th t it is st rtling, but th t it is Puite insupport bly t &e. The !hole object is to $eep c refully long cert in le"el of the

expecte# n# the co&&onpl ceQ it & y be lo!, but it &ust t $e c re lso to be fl t. 9e"er by ny ch nce in it is there ny of th t re l plebei n pungency !hich c n be he r# fro& the or#in ry c b& n in the or#in ry street. 'e h "e he r# of cert in st n# r# of #ecoru&

!hich #e& n#s th t things shoul# be funny !ithout being "ulg r, but the st n# r# of this #ecoru& #e& n#s th t if things re "ulg r they sh ll be "ulg r !ithout being funny. This journ lis& #oes not &erely f il to ex gger te lifeOOit positi"ely un#err tes itQ n# it h s to #o so bec use it is inten#e# for the f int n# l ngui# recre tion of &en !ho& the fierceness of &o#ern life h s f tigue#. This press is not the yello! press t llQ it is the #r b press. -ir ?lfre# H r&s!orth &ust not ##ress to the tire# cler$ ny obser" tion &ore !itty th n the tire# cler$ &ight be ble to ##ress to -ir ?lfre# H r&s!orth. 1t &ust not expose nybo#y

= nybo#y !ho is po!erful, th t is@, it &ust not offen# nybo#y, it &ust not e"en ple se nybo#y, too &uch. ? gener l " gue i#e th t in spite of ll this, our yello! press is sens tion l, rises fro& such extern l cci#ents s l rge type or luri# he #lines. 1t is Puite true th t these e#itors print e"erything they possibly c n in l rge c pit l letters. ,ut they #o this, not bec use it is st rtling, but bec use it is soothing. To people !holly !e ry or p rtly #run$ in #i&ly lighte# tr in, it is si&plific tion n#

co&fort to h "e things presente# in this " st n# ob"ious & nner. The e#itors use this gig ntic lph bet in #e ling !ith their re #ers, for ex ctly the s &e re son th t p rents n# go"ernesses use si&il r gig ntic lph bet in te ching chil#ren to spell. The nursery uthorities #o not use n ? s big s horseshoe

in or#er to & $e the chil# ju&pQ on the contr ry, they use it to put the chil# t his e se, to & $e things s&oother n# &ore e"i#ent. 8f the s &e ch r cter is the #i& n# Puiet # &e school !hich -ir ?lfre# H r&s!orth n# 2r. Pe rson $eep. ?ll their senti&ents re spellingOboo$ senti&entsOOth t is to s y, they re senti&ents !ith !hich the pupil is lre #y respectfully f &ili r. ?ll their !il#est posters re le "es torn fro& copyOboo$.

8f re l sens tion l journ lis&, s it exists in )r nce, in 1rel n#, n# in ?&eric , !e h "e no tr ce in this country. 'hen journ list in 1rel n# !ishes to cre te thrill, le #ing

he cre tes

thrill !orth t l$ing bout. He #enounces

1rish &e&ber for corruption, or he ch rges the !hole police syste& !ith !ic$e# n# #efinite conspir cy. 'hen frisson there is )rench journ list

#esires

frissonQ he #isco"ers, let us s y,

th t the Presi#ent of the +epublic h s &ur#ere# three !i"es.

8ur yello! journ lists in"ent Puite s unscrupulously s thisQ their &or l con#ition is, s reg r#s c reful "er city, bout the s &e. ,ut it is their &ent l c libre !hich h ppens to be such th t they c n only in"ent c l& n# e"en re ssuring things. The fictitious "ersion of the & ss cre of the en"oys of Pe$in ! s &en# cious, but it ! s not interesting, except to those !ho h # pri" te re sons for terror or sorro!. 1t ! s not connecte# !ith ny bol# n# suggesti"e "ie! of the Chinese situ tion. 1t re"e le# only except " gue i#e th t nothing coul# be i&pressi"e

gre t #e l of bloo#. +e l sens tion lis&, of !hich 1

h ppen to be "ery fon#, & y be either &or l or i&&or l. ,ut e"en !hen it is &ost i&&or l, it rePuires &or l cour ge. )or it is one of the &ost # ngerous things on e rth genuinely to surprise nybo#y. 1f you & $e ny sentient cre ture ju&p, you ren#er it by no &e ns i&prob ble th t it !ill ju&p on you. ,ut the le #ers of this &o"e&ent h "e no &or l cour ge or i&&or l cour geQ their !hole &etho# consists in s ying, !ith l rge n# el bor te e&ph sis, the things !hich e"erybo#y else s ys c su lly, n# !ithout re&e&bering !h t they h "e s i#. 'hen they br ce the&sel"es up to tt c$ nything, they ne"er re ch the point of tt c$ing nything !hich is l rge n# re l, n# !oul# resoun# !ith the shoc$. They #o not tt c$ the r&y s &en #o in )r nce, or the ju#ges s &en #o in 1rel n#, or the #e&ocr cy itself s &en #i# in Engl n# hun#re# ye rs go.

They tt c$ so&ething li$e the ' r 8fficeOOso&ething, th t is, !hich e"erybo#y tt c$s n# nobo#y bothers to #efen#, so&ething !hich is n ol# jo$e in fourthOr te co&ic p pers. just s & n sho!s he h s !e $ "oice by str ining it

to shout, so they sho! the hopelessly unsens tion l n ture of their &in#s !hen they re lly try to be sens tion l.

'ith the !hole !orl# full of big n# #ubious institutions, !ith the !hole !ic$e#ness of ci"ili7 tion st ring the& in the f ce, their i#e of being bol# n# bright is to tt c$ the ' r 8ffice. They &ight s !ell st rt c &p ign g inst the !e ther, or for&

secret society in or#er to & $e jo$es bout &othersOinOl !. 9or is it only fro& the point of "ie! of p rticul r & teurs of the sens tion l such s &yself, th t it is per&issible to s y, in the !or#s of Co!perMs ?lex n#er -el$ir$, th t Ftheir t &eness is shoc$ing to &e.F The !hole &o#ern !orl# is pining for genuinely sens tion l journ lis&.

This h s been #isco"ere# by th t "ery ble n# honest journ list, 2r. ,l tchfor#, !ho st rte# his c &p ign g inst Christi nity, ! rne# on ll si#es, 1 belie"e, th t it !oul# ruin his p per, but !ho continue# fro& n honour ble sense of intellectu l responsibility. He #isco"ere#, ho!e"er, th t !hile he h # un#oubte#ly shoc$e# his re #ers, he h # lso gre tly #" nce# his ne!sp per. 1t ! s boughtOOfirst, by ll the people !ho gree# !ith hi& n# ! nte# to re # itQ n# secon#ly, by ll the people !ho #is gree# !ith hi&, n# ! nte# to !rite hi& letters. Those letters !ere "olu&inous =1 helpe#, 1 & gl # to s y, to s!ell their "olu&e@, n# they !ere gener lly inserte# !ith generous fulness. Thus ! s cci#ent lly #isco"ere#

=li$e the ste &Oengine@ the gre t journ listic & xi&OOth t if n e#itor c n only & $e people ngry enough, they !ill !rite h lf his ne!sp per for hi& for nothing.

-o&e hol# th t such p pers s these re sc rcely the proper objects of so serious be & int ine# fro& consi#er tionQ but th t c n sc rcely politic l or ethic l point of "ie!.

1n this proble& of the &il#ness n# t &eness of the H r&s!orth &in# there is &irrore# the outlines of &uch l rger proble& !hich is

$in to it.

The H r&s!orthi n journ list begins !ith

!orship of success

n# "iolence, n# en#s in sheer ti&i#ity n# &e#iocrity. ,ut he is not lone in this, nor #oes he co&e by this f te &erely bec use he h ppens person lly to be stupi#. E"ery & n, ho!e"er br "e, !ho begins by !orshipping "iolence, &ust en# in &ere ti&i#ity. E"ery & n, ho!e"er !ise, !ho begins by !orshipping success, &ust en# in &ere &e#iocrity. This str nge n# p r #oxic l f te is in"ol"e#, not in the in#i"i#u l, but in the philosophy, in the point of "ie!. 1t is not the folly of the & n !hich brings bout this necess ry f llQ it is his !is#o&. The !orship of success is the only one out of ll possible !orships of !hich this is true, th t its follo!ers re fore#oo&e# to beco&e sl "es n# co! r#s. ? & n & y be hero for the s $e of 2rs. G llupMs ciphers or for

the s $e of hu& n s crifice, but not for the s $e of success. )or ob"iously & n & y choose to f il bec use he lo"es

2rs. G llup or hu& n s crificeQ but he c nnot choose to f il bec use he lo"es success. 'hen the test of triu&ph is &enMs test of e"erything, they ne"er en#ure long enough to triu&ph t ll. ?s long s & tters re re lly hopeful, hope is &ere fl ttery

or pl titu#eQ it is only !hen e"erything is hopeless th t hope begins to be strength t ll. <i$e ll the Christi n "irtues,

it is s unre son ble s it is in#ispens ble.

1t ! s through this f t l p r #ox in the n ture of things th t ll these &o#ern #"enturers co&e t l st to sort of te#iu& n# cPuiescence.

They #esire# strengthQ n# to the& to #esire strength ! s to #&ire strengthQ to #&ire strength ! s si&ply to #&ire the st tu Puo.

They thought th t he !ho !ishe# to be strong ought to respect the strong. They #i# not re li7e the ob"ious "erity th t he !ho !ishes to be strong &ust #espise the strong. They sought to be e"erything, to h "e the !hole force of the cos&os behin# the&, to h "e n energy th t !oul# #ri"e the st rs. ,ut they #i# not re li7e the t!o gre t f ctsOOfirst, th t in the tte&pt to be e"erything the first n# &ost #ifficult step is to be so&ethingQ secon#, th t the &o&ent & n is so&ething, he is essenti lly #efying e"erything. The lo!er ni& ls, s y the &en of science, fought their ! y up !ith blin# selfishness. 1f this be so, the only re l &or l of it

is th t our unselfishness, if it is to triu&ph, &ust be ePu lly blin#. The & &&oth #i# not put his he # on one si#e n# !on#er !hether & &&oths !ere little out of # te. 2 &&oths !ere t le st

s &uch up to # te s th t in#i"i#u l & &&oth coul# & $e the&. The gre t el$ #i# not s y, FClo"en hoofs re "ery &uch !orn no!.F He polishe# his o!n !e pons for his o!n use. ,ut in the re soning ni& l there h s risen &ore horrible # nger, th t he & y f il

through percei"ing his o!n f ilure. 'hen &o#ern sociologists t l$ of the necessity of cco&&o# ting oneMs self to the tren# of the ti&e, they forget th t the tren# of the ti&e t its best consists entirely of people !ho !ill not cco&&o# te the&sel"es to nything. ?t its !orst it consists of & ny &illions of frightene# cre tures ll cco&&o# ting the&sel"es to tren# th t is not there.

?n# th t is beco&ing &ore n# &ore the situ tion of &o#ern Engl n#. E"ery & n spe $s of public opinion, n# &e ns by public opinion, public opinion &inus his opinion. E"ery & n & $es his contribution neg ti"e un#er the erroneous i&pression th t the next & nMs contribution is positi"e. E"ery & n surren#ers his f ncy to gener l tone !hich is itself surren#er.

?n# o"er ll the he rtless n# f tuous unity spre #s this ne! n# !e riso&e n# pl titu#inous press, inc p ble of in"ention, inc p ble of u# city, c p ble only of conte&ptible bec use it is not e"en ser"ility ll the &ore ser"ility to the strong.

,ut ll !ho begin !ith force n# conPuest !ill en# in this.

The chief ch r cteristic of the F9e! journ lis&F is si&ply th t it is b # journ lis&. 1t is beyon# ll co&p rison the &ost sh peless, c reless, n# colourless !or$ #one in our # y.

1 re # yester# y

sentence !hich shoul# be !ritten in letters of gol#

n# # & ntQ it is the "ery &otto of the ne! philosophy of E&pire. 1 foun# it = s the re #er h s lre #y e gerly guesse#@ in Pe rsonMs 2 g 7ine, !hile 1 ! s co&&uning =soul to soul@ !ith 2r. C. ?rthur Pe rson, !hose first n# suppresse# n &e 1 & fr i# is Chilperic. 1t occurre# in n rticle on the ?&eric n Presi#enti l Election. This is the sentence, n# e"ery one shoul# re # it c refully, n# roll it on the tongue, till ll the honey be t ste#.

F? little soun# co&&on sense often goes further !ith n u#ience of ?&eric n !or$ingO&en th n &uch highOflo!n rgu&ent. ? spe $er !ho, s he brought for! r# his points, h &&ere# n ils into bo r#,

!on hun#re#s of "otes for his si#e t the l st Presi#enti l Election.F

1 #o not !ish to soil this perfect thing !ith co&&entQ the !or#s of 2ercury re h rsh fter the songs of ?pollo. ,ut just thin$ for &o&ent of the &in#, the str nge inscrut ble &in#,

of the & n !ho !rote th t, of the e#itor !ho ppro"e# it, of the people !ho re prob bly i&presse# by it, of the incre#ible

?&eric n !or$ingO& n, of !ho&, for ll 1 $no!, it & y be true. Thin$ !h t their notion of Fco&&on senseF &ust be% 1t is #elightful to re li7e th t you n# 1 re no! ble to !in thous n#s of "otes shoul# !e e"er be eng ge# in Presi#enti l Election, by #oing so&ething

of this $in#. )or 1 suppose the n ils n# the bo r# re not essenti l to the exhibition of Fco&&on senseQF there & y be " ri tions. 'e & y re #OO

F? little co&&on sense i&presses ?&eric n !or$ingO&en &ore th n highOflo!n rgu&ent. ? spe $er !ho, s he & #e his points, pulle# buttons off his ! istco t, !on thous n#s of "otes for his si#e.F 8r, F-oun# co&&on sense tells better in ?&eric th n highOflo!n rgu&ent. Thus -en tor ,u#ge, !ho thre! his f lse teeth in the ir e"ery ti&e he & #e n epigr &, !on the soli# ppro" l of ?&eric n !or$ingO&en.F 8r g in, FThe soun# co&&on sense of gentle& n fro& E rls!oo#,

!ho stuc$ str !s in his h ir #uring the progress of his speech, ssure# the "ictory of 2r. +oose"elt.F

There re & ny other ele&ents in this rticle on !hich 1 shoul# lo"e to linger. ,ut the & tter !hich 1 !ish to point out is th t in th t sentence is perfectly re"e le# the !hole truth of !h t our Ch &berl inites, hustlers, bustlers, E&pireObuil#ers, n# strong, silent &en, re lly &e n by Fco&&onsense.F They &e n $noc$ing, !ith #e fening noise n# #r & tic effect, &e ningless bits of iron into useless bit of !oo#. ? & n goes on to n ?&eric n &ounteb n$ fool !ith bo r# n#

pl tfor& n# beh "es li$e

h &&erQ !ell, 1 #o not bl &e hi&Q 1 &ight e"en #&ire hi&. He & y be # shing n# Puite #ecent str tegist. He & y be fine

ro& ntic ctor, li$e ,ur$e flinging the # gger on the floor.

He & y e"en =for ll 1 $no!@ be

subli&e &ystic, profoun#ly i&presse#

!ith the ncient &e ning of the #i"ine tr #e of the C rpenter, n# offering to the people p r ble in the for& of cere&ony.

?ll 1 !ish to in#ic te is the byss of &ent l confusion in !hich such !il# ritu lis& c n be c lle# Fsoun# co&&on sense.F ?n# it is in th t byss of &ent l confusion, n# in th t lone, th t the ne! 1&peri lis& li"es n# &o"es n# h s its being. The !hole glory n# gre tness of 2r. Ch &berl in consists in thisA th t if & n hits the right n il on the he # nobo#y c res !here he hits

it to or !h t it #oes. They c re bout the noise of the h &&er, not bout the silent #rip of the n il. ,efore n# throughout the ?fric n ! r, 2r. Ch &berl in ! s l! ys $noc$ing in n ils, !ith ringing #ecisi"eness. ,ut !hen !e s$, F,ut !h t h "e these n ils hel# togetherK 'here is your c rpentryK 'here re your contente# 8utl n#ersK 'here is your free -outh ?fric K 'here is your ,ritish prestigeK 'h t h "e your n ils #oneKF then !h t ns!er is thereK 'e &ust go b c$ =!ith n ffection te sigh@ to our Pe rson for the ns!er to the Puestion of !h t the n ils h "e #oneA FThe spe $er !ho h &&ere# n ils into bo r# !on thous n#s of "otes.F

9o! the !hole of this p ss ge is #&ir bly ch r cteristic of the ne! journ lis& !hich 2r. Pe rson represents, the ne! journ lis& !hich h s just purch se# the -t n# r#. To t $e one inst nce out of hun#re#s, the inco&p r ble & n !ith the bo r# n# n ils is #escribe# in the Pe rsonMs rticle s c lling out = s he s&ote the sy&bolic n il@, F<ie nu&ber one. 9 ile# to the 2 st% 9 ile# to the 2 st%F 1n the !hole office there ! s pp rently no co&positor or officeOboy to point out th t !e spe $ of lies being n ile# to the counter, n# not to the & st. 9obo#y in the office $ne! th t Pe rsonMs 2 g 7ine ! s f lling

into

st le 1rish bull, !hich &ust be s ol# s -t. P tric$.

This is the re l n# essenti l tr ge#y of the s le of the -t n# r#. 1t is not &erely th t journ lis& is "ictorious o"er liter ture. 1t is th t b # journ lis& is "ictorious o"er goo# journ lis&.

1t is not th t one rticle !hich !e consi#er costly n# be utiful is being ouste# by nother $in# of rticle !hich !e consi#er co&&on or uncle n. 1t is th t of the s &e rticle !orse Pu lity is preferre# to better.

1f you li$e popul r journ lis& = s 1 #o@, you !ill $no! th t Pe rsonMs 2 g 7ine is poor n# !e $ popul r journ lis&. Lou !ill $no! it s cert inly s you $no! b # butter. Lou !ill $no! s cert inly th t it is poor popul r journ lis& s you $no! th t the -tr n#, in the gre t # ys of -herloc$ Hol&es, ! s goo# popul r journ lis&. 2r. Pe rson h s been &onu&ent of this enor&ous b n lity.

?bout e"erything he s ys n# #oes there is so&ething infinitely !e $O&in#e#. He cl &ours for ho&e tr #es n# e&ploys foreign ones to print his p per. 'hen this gl ring f ct is pointe# out, he #oes not s y th t the thing ! s n o"ersight, li$e He cuts it off !ith scissors, li$e is inf ntile. ?n# li$e s ne & n.

chil# of three. His "ery cunning

chil# of three, he #oes not cut it Puite off. profoun#

1n ll hu& n recor#s 1 #oubt if there is such n ex &ple of

si&plicity in #eception. This is the sort of intelligence !hich no! sits in the se t of the s ne n# honour ble ol# Tory journ lis&. 1f it !ere re lly the triu&ph of the tropic l exuber nce of the L n$ee press, it !oul# be "ulg r, but still tropic l. ,ut it is not. 'e re #eli"ere# o"er to the br &ble, n# fro& the &e nest of the shrubs co&es the fire upon the ce# rs of <eb non.

The only Puestion no! is ho! &uch longer the fiction !ill en#ure

th t journ lists of this or#er represent public opinion. 1t & y be #oubte# !hether ny honest n# serious T riff +efor&er !oul# for &o&ent & int in th t there ! s ny & jority

for T riff +efor& in the country co&p r ble to the lu#icrous prepon#er nce !hich &oney h s gi"en it &ong the gre t # ilies. The only inference is th t for purposes of re l public opinion the press is no! &ere plutocr tic olig rchy. (oubtless the

public buys the ! res of these &en, for one re son or nother. ,ut there is no &ore re son to suppose th t the public #&ires their politics th n th t the public #&ires the #elic te philosophy of 2r. Crosse or the # r$er n# sterner cree# of 2r. ,l c$!ell. 1f these &en re &erely tr #es&en, there is nothing to s y except th t there re plenty li$e the& in the , tterse P r$ +o #, n# & ny &uch better. ,ut if they & $e ny sort of tte&pt to be politici ns, !e c n only point out to the& th t they re not s yet e"en goo# journ lists.

1J. The 2oo#s of 2r. George 2oore

2r. George 2oore beg n his liter ry c reer by !riting his person l confessionsQ nor is there ny h r& in this if he h # not continue# the& for the re& in#er of his life. He is of genuinely forcible &in# n# of gre t co&& n# o"er & n $in#

of rhetoric l n# fugiti"e con"iction !hich excites n# ple ses. He is in perpetu l st te of te&por ry honesty. He h s #&ire#

ll the &ost #&ir ble &o#ern eccentrics until they coul# st n#

it no longer. E"erything he !rites, it is to be fully #&itte#, h s genuine &ent l po!er. His ccount of his re son for

le "ing the +o& n C tholic Church is possibly the &ost #&ir ble tribute to th t co&&union !hich h s been !ritten of l te ye rs. )or the f ct of the & tter is, th t the !e $ness !hich h s ren#ere# b rren the & ny brilli ncies of 2r. 2oore is ctu lly th t !e $ness !hich the +o& n C tholic Church is t its best in co&b ting. 2r. 2oore h tes C tholicis& bec use it bre $s up the house of loo$ingOgl sses in !hich he li"es. 2r. 2oore #oes not #isli$e so &uch being s$e# to belie"e in the spiritu l existence of &ir cles or s cr &ents, but he #oes fun# &ent lly #isli$e being s$e# to belie"e in the ctu l existence of other people. <i$e his & ster P ter n# ll the esthetes, his re l Pu rrel !ith life is th t it is not #re & th t c n be &oul#e# by the #re &er.

1t is not the #og& of the re lity of the other !orl# th t troubles hi&, but the #og& of the re lity of this !orl#.

The truth is th t the tr #ition of Christi nity =!hich is still the only coherent ethic of Europe@ rests on t!o or three p r #oxes or &ysteries !hich c n e sily be i&pugne# in rgu&ent n# s e sily justifie# in life. 8ne of the&, for inst nce, is the p r #ox of hope or f ithOO th t the &ore hopeless is the situ tion the &ore hopeful &ust be the & n. -te"enson un#erstoo# this, n# consePuently 2r. 2oore c nnot un#erst n# -te"enson. ?nother is the p r #ox of ch rity or chi" lry th t the !e $er thing is the &ore it shoul# be respecte#, thing is the &ore it shoul# ppe l

th t the &ore in#efensible to us for

cert in $in# of #efence. Th c$er y un#erstoo# this,

n# therefore 2r. 2oore #oes not un#erst n# Th c$er y. 9o!, one of these "ery pr ctic l n# !or$ing &ysteries in the Christi n tr #ition,

n# one !hich the +o& n C tholic Church, s 1 s y, h s #one her best !or$ in singling out, is the conception of the sinfulness of pri#e. Pri#e is !e $ness in the ch r cterQ it #ries up l ughter,

it #ries up !on#er, it #ries up chi" lry n# energy. The Christi n tr #ition un#erst n#s thisQ therefore 2r. 2oore #oes not un#erst n# the Christi n tr #ition.

)or the truth is &uch str nger e"en th n it ppe rs in the for& l #octrine of the sin of pri#e. 1t is not only true th t hu&ility is &uch !iser n# &ore "igorous thing th n pri#e. &uch !iser n# &ore "igorous thing $in# of co&r #eshipQ

1t is lso true th t " nity is

th n pri#e. * nity is soci lOOit is l&ost

pri#e is solit ry n# unci"ili7e#. * nity is cti"eQ it #esires the ppl use of infinite &ultitu#esQ pri#e is p ssi"e, #esiring only the ppl use of one person, !hich it lre #y h s. * nity is hu&orous, n# c n enjoy the jo$e e"en of itselfQ pri#e is #ull, n# c nnot e"en s&ile. ?n# the !hole of this #ifference is the #ifference bet!een -te"enson n# 2r. George 2oore, !ho, s he infor&s us, h s Fbrushe# -te"enson si#e.F 1 #o not $no! !here he h s been brushe# to, but !here"er it is 1 f ncy he is h "ing goo# ti&e, bec use he h # the !is#o& to be " in, n# not prou#. -te"enson h # !in#y " nityQ 2r. 2oore h s #usty egois&.

Hence -te"enson coul# &use hi&self s !ell s us !ith his " nityQ !hile the richest effects of 2r. 2ooreMs bsur#ity re hi##en fro& his eyes.

1f !e co&p re this sole&n folly !ith the h ppy folly !ith !hich -te"enson bel u#s his o!n boo$s n# ber tes his o!n critics, !e sh ll not fin# it #ifficult to guess !hy it is th t -te"enson

t le st foun#

fin l philosophy of so&e sort to li"e by, ne! one.

!hile 2r. 2oore is l! ys ! l$ing the !orl# loo$ing for

-te"enson h # foun# th t the secret of life lies in l ughter n# hu&ility. -elf is the gorgon. * nity sees it in the &irror of other &en n# li"es. Pri#e stu#ies it for itself n# is turne# to stone.

1t is necess ry to #!ell on this #efect in 2r. 2oore, bec use it is re lly the !e $ness of !or$ !hich is not !ithout its strength. 2r. 2ooreMs egois& is not &erely &or l !e $ness, it is

"ery const nt n# influenti l esthetic !e $ness s !ell. 'e shoul# re lly be &uch &ore intereste# in 2r. 2oore if he !ere not Puite so intereste# in hi&self. 'e feel s if !e !ere being sho!n through g llery of re lly fine pictures, into e ch of !hich,

by so&e useless n# #iscor# nt con"ention, the rtist h # represente# the s &e figure in the s &e ttitu#e. FThe Gr n# C n l !ith "ie! of 2r. 2oore,F FEffect of 2r. 2oore through #ist nt

-cotch 2ist,F

F2r. 2oore by )irelight,F F+uins of 2r. 2oore by 2oonlight,F n# so on, see&s to be the en#less series. He !oul# no #oubt reply th t in such boo$ s this he inten#e# to re"e l hi&self. boo$ s this he #oes not succee#.

,ut the ns!er is th t in such

8ne of the thous n# objections to the sin of pri#e lies precisely in this, th t selfOconsciousness of necessity #estroys selfOre"el tion. ? & n !ho thin$s !ill try to be & nyOsi#e#, tte&pt gre t #e l bout hi&self the tric l excellence t

ll points, !ill try to be n encyclop e#i of culture, n# his o!n re l person lity !ill be lost in th t f lse uni"ers lis&. Thin$ing bout hi&self !ill le # to trying to be the uni"erseQ trying to be the uni"erse !ill le # to ce sing to be nything. 1f, on the other h n#, & n is sensible enough to thin$ only bout

the uni"erseQ he !ill thin$ bout it in his o!n in#i"i#u l ! y. He !ill $eep "irgin the secret of Go#Q he !ill see the gr ss s no other & n c n see it, n# loo$ t sun th t no & n h s e"er $no!n.

This f ct is "ery pr ctic lly brought out in 2r. 2ooreMs FConfessions.F 1n re #ing the& !e #o not feel the presence of cle nOcut

person lity li$e th t of Th c$er y n# 2 tthe! ?rnol#. 'e only re # nu&ber of Puite cle"er n# l rgely conflicting opinions

!hich &ight be uttere# by ny cle"er person, but !hich !e re c lle# upon to #&ire specific lly, bec use they re uttere# by 2r. 2oore. He is the only thre # th t connects C tholicis& n# Protest ntis&, re lis& n# &ysticis&OOhe or r ther his n &e. He is profoun#ly bsorbe# e"en in "ie!s he no longer hol#s, n# he expects us to be. ?n# he intru#es the c pit l F1F e"en !here it nee# not be intru#e#OO e"en !here it !e $ens the force of 'here nother & n !oul# s y, F1t is pl in st te&ent. fine # y,F 2r. 2oore s ys,

F-een through &y te&per &ent, the # y ppe re# fine.F 'here nother & n !oul# s y F2ilton h s ob"iously 2r. 2oore !oul# s y, F?s fine style,F

stylist 2ilton h # l! ys i&presse# &e.F

The 9e&esis of this selfOcentre# spirit is th t of being tot lly ineffectu l. 2r. 2oore h s st rte# & ny interesting crus #es, but he h s b n#one# the& before his #isciples coul# begin. E"en !hen he is on the si#e of the truth he is s fic$le s the chil#ren of f lsehoo#. E"en !hen he h s foun# re lity he c nnot fin# rest. 8ne 1rish Pu lity he h s !hich no 1rish& n ! s e"er !ithoutOOpugn cityQ n# th t is cert inly gre t "irtue, especi lly in the present ge.

,ut he h s not the ten city of con"iction !hich goes !ith the fighting spirit in & n li$e ,ern r# -h !. His !e $ness of introspection

n# selfishness in ll their glory c nnot pre"ent hi& fightingQ but they !ill l! ys pre"ent hi& !inning.

J. 8n - n# ls n# -i&plicity

The gre t &isfortune of the &o#ern English is not t ll th t they re &ore bo stful th n other people =they re not@Q it is th t they re bo stful bout those p rticul r things !hich nobo#y c n bo st of !ithout losing the&. ? )rench& n c n be prou# of being bol# n# logic l, n# still re& in bol# n# logic l. ? Ger& n c n be prou# of being reflecti"e n# or#erly, n# still re& in reflecti"e n# or#erly. ,ut n English& n c nnot be prou# of being si&ple n# #irect, n# still re& in si&ple n# #irect. 1n the & tter of these str nge "irtues, to $no! the& is to $ill the&. ? & n & y be conscious of being heroic or conscious of being #i"ine, but he c nnot =in spite of ll the ?ngloO- xon poets@ be conscious of being unconscious.

9o!, 1 #o not thin$ th t it c n be honestly #enie# th t so&e portion of this i&possibility tt ches to cl ss "ery #ifferent in their

o!n opinion, t le st, to the school of ?ngloO- xonis&. 1 &e n th t school of the si&ple life, co&&only ssoci te# !ith Tolstoy. 1f perpetu l t l$ bout oneMs o!n robustness le #s to being perpetu l t l$ing

less robust, it is e"en &ore true th t

bout oneMs o!n si&plicity le #s to being less si&ple. 8ne gre t co&pl int, 1 thin$, &ust st n# g inst the &o#ern uphol#ers of the si&ple lifeOOthe si&ple life in ll its " rie# for&s, fro& "eget ri nis& to the honour ble consistency of the (ou$hobors.

This co&pl int g inst the& st n#s, th t they !oul# & $e us si&ple in the uni&port nt things, but co&plex in the i&port nt things. They !oul# & $e us si&ple in the things th t #o not & tterOO th t is, in #iet, in costu&e, in etiPuette, in econo&ic syste&. ,ut they !oul# & $e us co&plex in the things th t #o & tterOOin philosophy, in loy lty, in spiritu l ccept nce, n# spiritu l rejection. 1t #oes not so "ery &uch & tter !hether or & n e ts grille# to& to pl in

pl in to& toQ it #oes "ery &uch & tter !hether he e ts

to& to !ith

grille# &in#. The only $in# of si&plicity !orth preser"ing

is the si&plicity of the he rt, the si&plicity !hich ccepts n# enjoys. There & y be re son ble #oubt s to !h t syste& preser"es thisQ syste& of si&plicity #estroys it.

there c n surely be no #oubt th t

There is &ore si&plicity in the & n !ho e ts c "i r on i&pulse th n in the & n !ho e ts gr peOnuts on principle. The chief error of these people is to be foun# in the "ery phr se to !hich they re &ost tt che#OOFpl in li"ing n# high thin$ing.F These people #o not st n# in nee# of, !ill not be i&pro"e# by, pl in li"ing n# high thin$ing. They st n# in nee# of the contr ry. They !oul# be i&pro"e# by high li"ing n# pl in thin$ing. ? little high li"ing =1 s y, h "ing full sense of responsibility,

little high li"ing@ !oul# te ch the& the force n# &e ning of the hu& n festi"ities, of the b nPuet th t h s gone on fro& the beginning of the !orl#. 1t !oul# te ch the& the historic f ct th t the rtifici l is, if nything, ol#er th n the n tur l. 1t !oul# te ch the& th t the lo"ingOcup is s ol# s ny hunger. 1t !oul# te ch the& th t ritu lis& is ol#er th n ny religion. ?n# little pl in thin$ing !oul# te ch the& ho! h rsh n# f nciful

re the & ss of their o!n ethics, ho! "ery ci"ili7e# n# "ery co&plic te# &ust be the br in of the Tolstoy n !ho re lly belie"es

it to be e"il to lo"e oneMs country n# !ic$e# to stri$e

blo!.

? & n ppro ches, !e ring s n# ls n# si&ple r i&ent,

r !

to& to hel# fir&ly in his right h n#, n# s ys, FThe ffections of f &ily n# country li$e re hin#r nces to the fuller #e"elop&ent of hu& n lo"eQF but the pl in thin$er !ill only ns!er hi&, !ith !on#er not untinge# !ith #&ir tion, F'h t gre t #e l

of trouble you &ust h "e t $en in or#er to feel li$e th t.F High li"ing !ill reject the to& to. Pl in thin$ing !ill ePu lly #ecisi"ely reject the i#e of the in" ri ble sinfulness of ! r. High li"ing !ill con"ince us th t nothing is &ore & teri listic th n to #espise ple sure s purely & teri l. ?n# pl in thin$ing

!ill con"ince us th t nothing is &ore & teri listic th n to reser"e our horror chiefly for & teri l !oun#s.

The only si&plicity th t & tters is the si&plicity of the he rt. 1f th t be gone, it c n be brought b c$ by no turnips or cellul r clothingQ but only by te rs n# terror n# the fires th t re not Puenche#. 1f th t re& in, it & tters "ery little if fe! E rly *ictori n co&plex entree into co&plex

r&ch irs re& in long !ith it. <et us put si&ple ol# gentle& nQ let us not put

si&ple entree into

ol# gentle& n. -o long s hu& n society !ill le "e &y spiritu l insi#e lone, 1 !ill llo! it, !ith co&p r ti"e sub&ission, to !or$

its !il# !ill !ith &y physic l interior. 1 !ill sub&it to cig rs. 1 !ill &ee$ly e&br ce to bottle of ,urgun#y. 1 !ill hu&ble &yself

h nso& c b. 1f only by this &e ns 1 & y preser"e to &yself

the "irginity of the spirit, !hich enjoys !ith stonish&ent n# fe r. 1 #o not s y th t these re the only &etho#s of preser"ing it. 1 incline to the belief th t there re others. ,ut 1 !ill h "e

nothing to #o !ith si&plicity !hich l c$s the fe r, the stonish&ent, n# the joy li$e. 1 !ill h "e nothing to #o !ith the #e"ilish "ision of chil# !ho is too si&ple to li$e toys.

The chil# is, in#ee#, in these, n# & ny other & tters, the best gui#e. ?n# in nothing is the chil# so righteously chil#li$e, in nothing #oes he exhibit &ore ccur tely the soun#er or#er of si&plicity, th n in the f ct th t he sees e"erything !ith si&ple ple sure,

e"en the co&plex things. The f lse type of n tur lness h rps l! ys on the #istinction bet!een the n tur l n# the rtifici l. The higher $in# of n tur lness ignores th t #istinction. To the chil# the tree n# the l &pOpost re s n tur l n# s rtifici l s e ch otherQ or r ther, neither of the& re n tur l but both supern tur l. )or both re splen#i# n# unexpl ine#. The flo!er !ith !hich Go# cro!ns the one, n# the fl &e !ith !hich - & the l &plighter cro!ns the other, re ePu lly of the gol# of f iryOt les. 1n the &i##le of the !il#est fiel#s the &ost rustic chil# is, ten to one, pl ying t ste &Oengines. ?n# the only spiritu l or philosophic l objection to ste &Oengines is not th t &en p y for the& or !or$ t the&, or & $e the& "ery ugly, or e"en th t &en re $ille# by the&Q but &erely th t &en #o not pl y t the&. The e"il is th t the chil#ish poetry of cloc$!or$ #oes not re& in. The !rong is not th t engines re too &uch #&ire#, but th t they re not #&ire# enough. The sin is not th t engines re &ech nic l, but th t &en re &ech nic l.

1n this & tter, then, s in ll the other & tters tre te# in this boo$, our & in conclusion is th t it is fun# &ent l point of "ie!,

philosophy or religion !hich is nee#e#, n# not ny ch nge in h bit

or soci l routine. The things !e nee# &ost for i&&e#i te pr ctic l purposes re ll bstr ctions. 'e nee# right "ie! of the hu& n lot,

right "ie! of the hu& n societyQ n# if !e !ere li"ing e gerly n# ngrily in the enthusi s& of those things, !e shoul#, ipso f cto, be li"ing si&ply in the genuine n# spiritu l sense. (esire n# # nger & $e e"ery one si&ple. ?n# to those !ho t l$ to us !ith interfering eloPuence bout N eger n# the pores of the s$in, n# bout Pl s&on n# the co ts of the sto& ch, t the& sh ll only be hurle# the !or#s th t re hurle# t fops n# gluttons, FT $e no thought !h t ye sh ll e t or !h t ye sh ll #rin$, or !here!ith l ye sh ll be clothe#. )or fter ll these things #o the Gentiles see$. ,ut see$ first the $ing#o& of Go# n# His righteousness, n# ll these things sh ll be ##e# unto you.F Those & 7ing !or#s re not only extr or#in rily goo#, pr ctic l politicsQ they re lso superl ti"ely goo# hygiene. The one supre&e ! y of & $ing ll those processes go right, the processes of he lth, n# strength, n# gr ce, n# be uty, the one n# only ! y of & $ing cert in of their ccur cy, is to thin$ bout so&ething else. 1f & n is bent on cli&bing into the se"enth he "en, he & y be

Puite e sy bout the pores of his s$in. 1f he h rnesses his ! ggon to st r, the process !ill h "e &ost s tisf ctory effect upon

the co ts of his sto& ch. )or the thing c lle# Ft $ing thought,F the thing for !hich the best &o#ern !or# is Fr tion li7ing,F is in its n ture, in pplic ble to ll pl in n# urgent things. 2en t $e thought n# pon#er r tion listic lly, touching re&ote thingsOO things th t only theoretic lly & tter, such s the tr nsit of *enus. ,ut only t their peril c n &en r tion li7e bout so pr ctic l & tter s he lth.

J1 -cience n# the - " ges

? per& nent #is #" nt ge of the stu#y of fol$Olore n# $in#re# subjects is th t the & n of science c n h r#ly be in the n ture of things "ery frePuently & n of the !orl#. He is stu#ent

of n tureQ he is sc rcely e"er

stu#ent of hu& n n ture.

?n# e"en !here this #ifficulty is o"erco&e, n# he is in so&e sense stu#ent of hu& n n ture, this is only "ery f int beginning

of the p inful progress to! r#s being hu& n. )or the stu#y of pri&iti"e r ce n# religion st n#s p rt in one i&port nt respect fro& ll, or ne rly ll, the or#in ry scientific stu#ies. ? & n c n un#erst n# strono&y only by being n strono&erQ he c n un#erst n# ento&ology only by being n ento&ologist =or, perh ps, n insect@Q but he c n un#erst n# &erely by being gre t #e l of nthropology

& n. He is hi&self the ni& l !hich he stu#ies.

Hence rises the f ct !hich stri$es the eye e"ery!here in the recor#s of ethnology n# fol$OloreOOthe f ct th t the s &e frigi# n# #et che# spirit !hich le #s to success in the stu#y of strono&y or bot ny le #s to #is ster in the stu#y of &ythology or hu& n origins. 1t is necess ry to ce se to be to & n in or#er to #o justice & n in or#er

&icrobeQ it is not necess ry to ce se to be

to #o justice to &en. Th t s &e suppression of sy&p thies, th t s &e ! "ing ! y of intuitions or guessO!or$ !hich & $e pretern tur lly cle"er in #e ling !ith the sto& ch of spi#er, & n

!ill & $e hi& pretern tur lly stupi# in #e ling !ith the he rt of & n. He is & $ing hi&self inhu& n in or#er to un#erst n# hu& nity.

?n ignor nce of the other !orl# is bo ste# by & ny &en of scienceQ but in this & tter their #efect rises, not fro& ignor nce of the other !orl#, but fro& ignor nce of this !orl#. )or the secrets bout !hich nthropologists concern the&sel"es c n be best le rnt, not fro& boo$s or "oy ges, but fro& the or#in ry co&&erce of & n !ith & n. The secret of !hy so&e s " ge tribe !orships &on$eys or the &oon is not to be foun# e"en by tr "elling &ong those s " ges n# t $ing #o!n their ns!ers in noteOboo$, lthough the cle"erest & n

& y pursue this course. The ns!er to the ri##le is in Engl n#Q it is in <on#onQ n y, it is in his o!n he rt. 'hen & nh s

#isco"ere# !hy &en in ,on# -treet !e r bl c$ h ts he !ill t the s &e &o&ent h "e #isco"ere# !hy &en in Ti&buctoo !e r re# fe thers. The &ystery in the he rt of so&e s " ge ! rO# nce shoul# not be stu#ie# in boo$s of scientific tr "elQ it shoul# be stu#ie# t subscription b ll. 1f & n #esires to fin# out the origins of religions,

let hi& not go to the - n#!ich 1sl n#sQ let hi& go to church. 1f & n !ishes to $no! the origin of hu& n society, to $no!

!h t society, philosophic lly spe $ing, re lly is, let hi& not go into the ,ritish 2useu&Q let hi& go into society.

This tot l &isun#erst n#ing of the re l n ture of cere&oni l gi"es rise to the &ost !$! r# n# #ehu& ni7e# "ersions of the con#uct of &en in ru#e l n#s or ges. The & n of science, not re li7ing th t cere&oni l is essenti lly re son, h s to fin# thing !hich is #one !ithout

re son for e"ery sort of cere&oni l, n#, "ery bsur# oneOO

s &ight be suppose#, the re son is gener lly

bsur# bec use it origin tes not in the si&ple &in# of the b rb ri n, but in the sophistic te# &in# of the professor. The te &e# & n !ill s y, for inst nce, FThe n ti"es of 2u&boju&bo < n# belie"e

th t the #e # & n c n e t n# !ill rePuire foo# upon his journey to the other !orl#. This is tteste# by the f ct th t they pl ce foo# in the gr "e, n# th t ny f &ily not co&plying !ith this rite is the object of the nger of the priests n# the tribe.F To ny one cPu inte# !ith hu& nity this ! y of t l$ing is topsyOtur"y. 1t is li$e s ying, FThe English in the t!entieth century belie"e# th t #e # & n coul# s&ell. This is tteste# by the f ct th t they

l! ys co"ere# his gr "e !ith lilies, "iolets, or other flo!ers. -o&e priestly n# trib l terrors !ere e"i#ently tt che# to the neglect of this ction, s !e h "e recor#s of se"er l ol# l #ies !ho !ere "ery &uch #isturbe# in &in# bec use their !re ths h # not rri"e# in ti&e for the funer l.F 1t & y be of course th t s " ges put foo# !ith #e # & n bec use they thin$ th t #e # & n c n e t, #e # & n c n fight.

or !e pons !ith

#e # & n bec use they thin$ th t

,ut person lly 1 #o not belie"e th t they thin$ nything of the $in#. 1 belie"e they put foo# or !e pons on the #e # for the s &e re son th t !e put flo!ers, bec use it is n excee#ingly n tur l n# ob"ious thing to #o. 'e #o not un#erst n#, it is true, the e&otion !hich & $es us thin$ it ob"ious n# n tur lQ but th t is bec use, li$e ll the i&port nt e&otions of hu& n existence it is essenti lly irr tion l. 'e #o not un#erst n# the s " ge for the s &e re son th t the s " ge #oes not un#erst n# hi&self. ?n# the s " ge #oes not un#erst n# hi&self for the s &e re son th t !e #o not un#erst n# oursel"es either.

The ob"ious truth is th t the &o&ent ny & tter h s p sse# through the hu& n &in# it is fin lly n# for e"er spoilt for ll purposes of science. 1t h s beco&e thing incur bly &ysterious

n# infiniteQ this &ort l h s put on i&&ort lity. E"en !h t !e

c ll our & teri l #esires re spiritu l, bec use they re hu& n. -cience c n n lyse por$Ochop, n# s y ho! &uch of it is

phosphorus n# ho! &uch is proteinQ but science c nnot n lyse ny & nMs !ish for por$Ochop, n# s y ho! &uch of it is hunger, h unting lo"e

ho! &uch custo&, ho! &uch ner"ous f ncy, ho! &uch

of the be utiful. The & nMs #esire for the por$Ochop re& ins liter lly s &ystic l n# ethere l s his #esire for he "en. ?ll tte&pts, therefore, t t science of history, science of ny hu& n things, science

science of fol$Olore,

of sociology, re by their n ture not &erely hopeless, but cr 7y. Lou c n no &ore be cert in in econo&ic history th t for &oney ! s &erely h giology th t & nMs #esire

#esire for &oney th n you c n be cert in in #esire for Go#.

s intMs #esire for Go# ! s &erely

?n# this $in# of " gueness in the pri& ry pheno&en of the stu#y is n bsolutely fin l blo! to nything in the n ture of 2en c n construct science !ith "ery fe! instru&ents, science.

or !ith "ery pl in instru&entsQ but no one on e rth coul# construct science !ith unreli ble instru&ents. ? & n &ight h n#ful of pebbles,

!or$ out the !hole of & the& tics !ith but not !ith

h n#ful of cl y !hich ! s l! ys f lling p rt

into ne! fr g&ents, n# f lling together into ne! co&bin tions. ? & n &ight &e sure he "en n# e rth !ith gro!ing ree#. ree#, but not !ith

?s one of the enor&ous follies of fol$Olore, let us t $e the c se of the tr ns&igr tion of stories, n# the llege# unity of their source. -tory fter story the scientific &ythologists h "e cut out of its pl ce in history, n# pinne# si#e by si#e !ith si&il r stories in their &useu& of f bles. The process is in#ustrious, it is f scin ting,

n# the !hole of it rests on one of the pl inest f ll cies in the !orl#. Th t story h s been tol# ll o"er the pl ce t so&e ti&e or other,

not only #oes not pro"e th t it ne"er re lly h ppene#Q it #oes not e"en f intly in#ic te or & $e slightly &ore prob ble th t it ne"er h ppene#. Th t c ught l rge nu&ber of fisher&en h "e f lsely sserte# th t they h "e pi$e t!o feet long, #oes not in the le st ffect the Puestion

of !hether ny one e"er re lly #i# so. Th t nu&berless journ lists nnounce )r ncoOGer& n ! r &erely for &oney is no e"i#ence one ! y ! r e"er occurre#.

or the other upon the # r$ Puestion of !hether such (oubtless in

fe! hun#re# ye rs the innu&er ble )r ncoOGer& n

! rs th t #i# not h ppen !ill h "e cle re# the scientific &in# of ny belief in the legen# ry ! r of M05 !hich #i#. ,ut th t !ill be bec use if fol$Olore stu#ents re& in t ll, their n ture !in be unch nge#Q n# their ser"ices to fol$Olore !ill be still s they re t present, gre ter th n they $no!. )or in truth these &en #o so&ething f r &ore go#li$e th n stu#ying legen#sQ they cre te the&.

There re t!o $in#s of stories !hich the scientists s y c nnot be true, bec use e"erybo#y tells the&. The first cl ss consists of the stories !hich re tol# e"ery!here, bec use they re so&e!h t o## or cle"erQ there is nothing in the !orl# to pre"ent their h "ing h ppene# to so&ebo#y s n #"enture ny &ore th n there is nything to pre"ent their h "ing occurre#, s they cert inly #i# occur, to so&ebo#y s n i#e . ,ut they re not li$ely to h "e h ppene# to & ny people. The secon# cl ss of their F&ythsF consist of the stories th t re tol# e"ery!here for the si&ple re son th t they h ppen e"ery!here. 8f the first cl ss, for inst nce, !e &ight t $e such n ex &ple s the story of 'illi & Tell, no! gener lly r n$e# &ong legen#s upon

the sole groun# th t it is foun# in the t les of other peoples. 9o!, it is ob"ious th t this ! s tol# e"ery!here bec use !hether true or fictitious it is !h t is c lle# F goo# storyQF it is o##, exciting, n# it h s cli& x. ,ut to suggest th t

so&e such eccentric inci#ent c n ne"er h "e h ppene# in the !hole history of rchery, or th t it #i# not h ppen to ny p rticul r person of !ho& it is tol#, is st r$ i&pu#ence. The i#e of shooting t & r$ tt che# to so&e " lu ble or belo"e# person is n i#e

#oubtless th t &ight e sily h "e occurre# to ny in"enti"e poet. ,ut it is lso n i#e th t &ight e sily occur to ny bo stful rcher. 1t &ight be one of the f nt stic c prices of so&e storyOteller. 1t &ight ePu lly !ell be one of the f nt stic c prices of so&e tyr nt. 1t &ight occur first in re l life n# fter! r#s occur in legen#s. 8r it &ight just s !ell occur first in legen#s n# fter! r#s occur in re l life. 1f no pple h s e"er been shot off boyMs he #

fro& the beginning of the !orl#, it & y be #one to&orro! &orning, n# by so&ebo#y !ho h s ne"er he r# of 'illi & Tell.

This type of t le, in#ee#, & y be pretty f irly p r llele# !ith the or#in ry nec#ote ter&in ting in -uch rep rtee or n 1rish bull.

retort s the f &ous Fje ne "ois p s l necessiteF !e h "e

ll seen ttribute# to T lleyr n#, to *olt ire, to Henri Ru tre, to n nony&ous ju#ge, n# so on. ,ut this " riety #oes not in ny ! y & $e it &ore li$ely th t the thing ! s ne"er s i# t ll. 1t is highly li$ely th t it ! s re lly s i# by so&ebo#y un$no!n. 1t is highly li$ely th t it ! s re lly s i# by T lleyr n#. 1n ny c se, it is not ny &ore #ifficult to belie"e th t the &ot &ight h "e occurre# to & n in con"ers tion th n to & n !riting &e&oirs.

1t &ight h "e occurre# to ny of the &en 1 h "e &entione#.

,ut there is this point of #istinction bout it, th t it is not li$ely to h "e occurre# to ll of the&. ?n# this is !here the first cl ss of soOc lle# &yth #iffers fro& the secon# to !hich 1 h "e pre"iously referre#. )or there is secon# cl ss

of inci#ent foun# to be co&&on to the stories of fi"e or six heroes, s y to -igur#, to Hercules, to +uste&, to the Ci#, n# so on. ?n# the peculi rity of this &yth is th t not only is it highly re son ble to i& gine th t it re lly h ppene# to one hero, but it is highly re son ble to i& gine th t it re lly h ppene# to ll of the&. -uch story, for inst nce, is th t of gre t & n h "ing his !o& n.

strength s! ye# or th! rte# by the &ysterious !e $ness of The nec#ot l story, the story of 'illi & Tell, is s 1

h "e s i#, popul r, bec use it is peculi r. ,ut this $in# of story, the story of - &son n# (elil h of ?rthur n# Guine"ere, is ob"iously popul r bec use it is not peculi r. 1t is popul r s goo#, Puiet fiction is popul r, bec use it tells the truth bout people. 1f the ruin of - &son by h "e !o& n, n# the ruin of Hercules by !o& n,

co&&on legen# ry origin, it is gr tifying to $no! th t !e c n f ble, the ruin of 9elson by !o& n n# the ruin

lso expl in, s of P rnell by

!o& n. ?n#, in#ee#, 1 h "e no #oubt !h te"er th t,

so&e centuries hence, the stu#ents of fol$Olore !ill refuse ltogether to belie"e th t Eli7 beth , rrett elope# !ith +obert ,ro!ning, n# !ill pro"e their point up to the hilt by the, unPuestion ble f ct th t the !hole fiction of the perio# ! s full of such elope&ents fro& en# to en#.

Possibly the &ost p thetic of ll the #elusions of the &o#ern stu#ents of pri&iti"e belief is the notion they h "e bout the thing they c ll nthropo&orphis&. They belie"e th t pri&iti"e &en

ttribute# pheno&en to

go# in hu& n for& in or#er to expl in the&,

bec use his &in# in its sullen li&it tion coul# not re ch ny further th n his o!n clo!nish existence. The thun#er ! s c lle# the "oice of & n, the lightning the eyes of & n, bec use by this

expl n tion they !ere & #e &ore re son ble n# co&fort ble. The fin l cure for ll this $in# of philosophy is to ! l$ #o!n l ne t night. ?ny one !ho #oes so !ill #isco"er "ery Puic$ly th t &en picture# so&ething se&iOhu& n t the b c$ of ll things, not bec use such thought ! s n tur l, but bec use it ! s supern tur lQ

not bec use it & #e things &ore co&prehensible, but bec use it & #e the& )or hun#re# ti&es &ore inco&prehensible n# &ysterious. l ne t night c n see the conspicuous f ct

& n ! l$ing #o!n

th t s long s n ture $eeps to her o!n course, she h s no po!er !ith us t ll. ?s long s &onster !ith ,ut so long s tree is tree, it is topOhe "y

hun#re# r&s, tree is

thous n# tongues, n# only one leg.

tree, it #oes not frighten us t ll.

1t begins to be so&ething lien, to be so&ething str nge, only !hen it loo$s li$e oursel"es. 'hen tree re lly loo$s li$e & n our $nees & n !e

$noc$ un#er us. ?n# !hen the !hole uni"erse loo$s li$e f ll on our f ces.

J11 P g nis& n# 2r. <o!es (ic$inson

8f the 9e! P g nis& =or neoOP g nis&@, s it ! s pre che# fl &boy ntly by 2r. -!inburne or #elic tely by ' lter P ter, there is no necessity to t $e ny "ery gr "e ccount,

except s

thing !hich left behin# it inco&p r ble exercises

in the English l ngu ge. The 9e! P g nis& is no longer ne!, n# it ne"er t ny ti&e bore the s& llest rese&bl nce to P g nis&. The i#e s bout the ncient ci"ili7 tion !hich it h s left loose in the public &in# re cert inly extr or#in ry enough. The ter& Fp g nF is continu lly use# in fiction n# light liter ture s &e ning & n !ithout ny religion, !here s p g n ! s gener lly

& n !ith bout h lf

#o7en. The p g ns, ccor#ing to this notion,

!ere continu lly cro!ning the&sel"es !ith flo!ers n# # ncing bout in n irresponsible st te, !here s, if there !ere t!o things th t the best p g n ci"ili7 tion #i# honestly belie"e in, they !ere r ther too rigi# #ignity n# &uch too rigi# responsibility.

P g ns re #epicte# s bo"e ll things inebri te n# l !less, !here s they !ere bo"e ll things re son ble n# respect ble. They re pr ise# s #isobe#ient !hen they h # only one gre t "irtueOO ci"ic obe#ience. They re en"ie# n# #&ire# s sh &elessly h ppy !hen they h # only one gre t sinOO#esp ir.

2r. <o!es (ic$inson, the &ost pregn nt n# pro"oc ti"e of recent !riters on this n# si&il r subjects, is f r too soli# & n to

h "e f llen into this ol# error of the &ere n rchy of P g nis&. 1n or#er to & $e h y of th t Hellenic enthusi s& !hich h s s its i#e l &ere ppetite n# egotis&, it is not necess ry to $no! &uch philosophy, but &erely to $no! 2r. <o!es (ic$inson $no!s n# lso little Gree$.

gre t #e l of philosophy,

gre t #e l of Gree$, n# his error, if error he h s,

is not th t of the cru#e he#onist. ,ut the contr st !hich he offers bet!een Christi nity n# P g nis& in the & tter of &or l i#e lsOO contr st !hich he st tes "ery bly in p per c lle# FHo! long

h lt yeKF !hich ppe re# in the 1n#epen#ent +e"ie!OO#oes, 1 thin$, cont in n error of #eeper $in#. ?ccor#ing to hi&, the i#e l &ere fren7y of lust n# liberty

of P g nis& ! s not, in#ee#,

n# c price, but ! s n i#e l of full n# s tisfie# hu& nity. ?ccor#ing to hi&, the i#e l of Christi nity ! s the i#e l of sceticis&. 'hen 1 s y th t 1 thin$ this i#e !holly !rong s & tter of

philosophy n# history, 1 & not t l$ing for the &o&ent bout ny i#e l Christi nity of &y o!n, or e"en of ny pri&iti"e Christi nity un#efile# by fter e"ents. 1 & not, li$e so & ny &o#ern Christi n i#e lists, b sing &y c se upon cert in things !hich Christ s i#. 9either & 1, li$e so & ny other Christi n i#e lists, b sing &y c se upon cert in things th t Christ forgot to s y. 1 t $e historic Christi nity !ith ll its sins upon its he #Q 1 t $e it, s 1 !oul# t $e N cobinis&, or 2or&onis&, or ny other &ixe# or unple sing hu& n pro#uct, n# 1 s y th t the &e ning of its ction ! s not to be foun# in sceticis&. 1 s y th t its point of #ep rture fro& P g nis& ! s not sceticis&. 1 s y th t its point of #ifference !ith the &o#ern !orl# ! s not sceticis&. 1 s y th t -t. -i&eon -tylites h # not his & in inspir tion in sceticis&. 1 s y th t the & in Christi n i&pulse c nnot be #escribe# s sceticis&, e"en in the scetics.

<et &e set bout & $ing the & tter cle r. There is one bro # f ct bout the rel tions of Christi nity n# P g nis& !hich is so si&ple th t & ny !ill s&ile t it, but !hich is so i&port nt th t ll &o#erns forget it. The pri& ry f ct bout Christi nity n# P g nis& is th t one c &e fter the other. 2r. <o!es (ic$inson spe $s of the& s if they !ere p r llel i#e lsOOe"en spe $s s if P g nis& !ere the ne!er of the t!o, n# the &ore fitte# for ne! ge.

He suggests th t the P g n i#e l !ill be the ulti& te goo# of & nQ but if th t is so, !e &ust t le st s$ !ith &ore curiosity th n he llo!s for, !hy it ! s th t & n ctu lly foun# his ulti& te goo# on e rth un#er the st rs, n# thre! it ! y g in. 1t is this extr or#in ry enig& to !hich 1 propose to tte&pt n ns!er.

There is only one thing in the &o#ern !orl# th t h s been f ce to f ce !ith P g nis&Q there is only one thing in the &o#ern !orl# !hich in th t sense $no!s nything bout P g nis&A n# th t is Christi nity. Th t f ct is re lly the !e $ point in the !hole of th t he#onistic neoOP g nis& of !hich 1 h "e spo$en. ?ll th t genuinely re& ins of the ncient hy&ns or the ncient # nces of Europe, ll th t h s honestly co&e to us fro& the festi" ls of Phoebus or P n, is to be foun# in the festi" ls of the Christi n Church. 1f ny one ! nts to hol# the en# of ch in !hich re lly goes b c$ festoon

to the he then &ysteries, he h # better t $e hol# of of flo!ers t E ster or

string of s us ges t Christ& s.

E"erything else in the &o#ern !orl# is of Christi n origin, e"en e"erything th t see&s &ost ntiOChristi n. The )rench +e"olution is of Christi n origin. The ne!sp per is of Christi n origin. The n rchists re of Christi n origin. Physic l science is of Christi n origin. The tt c$ on Christi nity is of Christi n origin. There is one thing, n# one thing only, in existence t the present # y !hich c n in ny sense ccur tely be s i# to be of p g n origin, n# th t is Christi nity.

The re l #ifference bet!een P g nis& n# Christi nity is perfectly su&&e# up in the #ifference bet!een the p g n, or n tur l, "irtues, n# those three "irtues of Christi nity !hich the Church of +o&e

c lls "irtues of gr ce. The p g n, or r tion l, "irtues re such things s justice n# te&per nce, n# Christi nity h s #opte# the&. The three &ystic l "irtues !hich Christi nity h s not #opte#, but in"ente#, re f ith, hope, n# ch rity. 9o! &uch e sy n# foolish Christi n rhetoric coul# e sily be poure# out upon those three !or#s, but 1 #esire to confine &yself to the t!o f cts !hich re e"i#ent bout the&. The first e"i#ent f ct =in & r$e# contr st to the #elusion of the # ncing p g n@OOthe first e"i#ent f ct, 1 s y, is th t the p g n "irtues, such s justice n# te&per nce, re the s # "irtues, n# th t the &ystic l "irtues of f ith, hope, n# ch rity re the g y n# exuber nt "irtues. ?n# the secon# e"i#ent f ct, !hich is e"en &ore e"i#ent, is the f ct th t the p g n "irtues re the re son ble "irtues, n# th t the Christi n "irtues of f ith, hope, n# ch rity re in their essence s unre son ble s they c n be.

?s the !or# Funre son bleF is open to &isun#erst n#ing, the & tter & y be &ore ccur tely put by s ying th t e ch one of these Christi n or &ystic l "irtues in"ol"es p r #ox in its o!n n ture, n# th t this

is not true of ny of the typic lly p g n or r tion list "irtues. Nustice consists in fin#ing out cert in thing #ue to cert in & n

n# gi"ing it to hi&. Te&per nce consists in fin#ing out the proper li&it of p rticul r in#ulgence n# #hering to th t. ,ut ch rity

&e ns p r#oning !h t is unp r#on ble, or it is no "irtue t ll. Hope &e ns hoping !hen things re hopeless, or it is no "irtue t ll. ?n# f ith &e ns belie"ing the incre#ible, or it is no "irtue t ll.

1t is so&e!h t &using, in#ee#, to notice the #ifference bet!een the f te of these three p r #oxes in the f shion of the &o#ern &in#.

Ch rity is

f shion ble "irtue in our ti&eQ it is lit up by the f shion ble "irtue toO# yQ

gig ntic firelight of (ic$ens. Hope is

our ttention h s been rreste# for it by the su##en n# sil"er tru&pet of -te"enson. ,ut f ith is unf shion ble, n# it is custo& ry on e"ery si#e to c st g inst it the f ct th t it is p r #ox.

E"erybo#y &oc$ingly repe ts the f &ous chil#ish #efinition th t f ith is Fthe po!er of belie"ing th t !hich !e $no! to be untrue.F Let it is not one to& &ore p r #oxic l th n hope or ch rity. Ch rity is the po!er of #efen#ing th t !hich !e $no! to be in#efensible. Hope is the po!er of being cheerful in circu&st nces !hich !e $no! to be #esper te. 1t is true th t there is st te of hope !hich belongs

to bright prospects n# the &orningQ but th t is not the "irtue of hope. The "irtue of hope exists only in e rthPu $e n#, eclipse. 1t is true th t there is thing cru#ely c lle# ch rity, !hich &e ns

ch rity to the #eser"ing poorQ but ch rity to the #eser"ing is not ch rity t ll, but justice. 1t is the un#eser"ing !ho rePuire it, n# the i#e l either #oes not exist t ll, or exists !holly for the&. )or pr ctic l purposes it is t the hopeless &o&ent th t !e rePuire the hopeful & n, n# the "irtue either #oes not exist t ll, or begins to exist t th t &o&ent. Ex ctly t the inst nt !hen hope ce ses to be re son ble it begins to be useful. 9o! the ol# p g n !orl# !ent perfectly str ightfor! r# until it #isco"ere# th t going str ightfor! r# is n enor&ous &ist $e. 1t ! s nobly n# be utifully re son ble, n# #isco"ere# in its #e thOp ng this l sting n# " lu ble truth, herit ge for the ges,

th t re son bleness !ill not #o. The p g n ge ! s truly n E#en or gol#en ge, in this essenti l sense, th t it is not to be reco"ere#. ?n# it is not to be reco"ere# in this sense g in th t, !hile !e re cert inly jollier th n the p g ns, n# &uch

&ore right th n the p g ns, there is not one of us !ho c n, by the ut&ost stretch of energy, be so sensible s the p g ns. Th t n $e# innocence of the intellect c nnot be reco"ere# by ny & n fter Christi nityQ n# for this excellent re son, th t e"ery & n fter Christi nity $no!s it to be &isle #ing. <et &e t $e n ex &ple, the first th t occurs to the &in#, of this i&possible pl inness in the p g n point of "ie!. The gre test tribute to Christi nity in the &o#ern !orl# is TennysonMs F:lysses.F The poet re #s into the story of :lysses the conception of n incur ble #esire to ! n#er. ,ut the re l :lysses #oes not #esire to ! n#er t ll. He #esires to get ho&e. He #ispl ys his heroic n# unconPuer ble Pu lities in resisting the &isfortunes !hich b ul$ hi&Q but th t is ll. There is no lo"e of #"enture for its o!n s $eQ th t is Christi n pro#uct. There is no lo"e of Penelope for her o!n s $eQ th t is Christi n pro#uct. E"erything in th t ol# !orl# !oul# goo# & nQ

ppe r to h "e been cle n n# ob"ious. ? goo# & n ! s b #& n! s for ch rity is

b # & n. )or this re son they h # no ch rityQ

re"erent gnosticis& to! r#s the co&plexity of the soul.

)or this re son they h # no such thing s the rt of fiction, the no"elQ for the no"el is )or the& cre tion of the &ystic l i#e of ch rity.

ple s nt l n#sc pe ! s ple s nt, n# n unple s nt

l n#sc pe unple s nt. Hence they h # no i#e of ro& nceQ for ro& nce consists in thin$ing it is thing &ore #elightful bec use it is # ngerousQ !or#, !e c nnot reconstruct

Christi n i#e . 1n

or e"en i& gine the be utiful n# stonishing p g n !orl#. 1t ! s !orl# in !hich co&&on sense ! s re lly co&&on.

2y gener l &e ning touching the three "irtues of !hich 1 h "e spo$en !ill no!, 1 hope, be sufficiently cle r.

They re ll three p r #oxic l, they re ll three pr ctic l, n# they re ll three p r #oxic l bec use they re pr ctic l. it is the stress of ulti& te nee#, n# terrible $no!le#ge of things

s they re, !hich le# &en to set up these ri##les, n# to #ie for the&. 'h te"er & y be the &e ning of the contr #iction, it is the f ct th t the only $in# of hope th t is of ny use in is b ttle

hope th t #enies rith&etic. 'h te"er & y be the &e ning

of the contr #iction, it is the f ct th t the only $in# of ch rity !hich ny !e $ spirit ! nts, or !hich ny generous spirit feels, is the ch rity !hich forgi"es the sins th t re li$e sc rlet. 'h te"er & y be the &e ning of f ith, it &ust l! ys &e n cert inty

bout so&ething !e c nnot pro"e. Thus, for inst nce, !e belie"e by f ith in the existence of other people.

,ut there is nother Christi n "irtue,

"irtue f r &ore ob"iously

n# historic lly connecte# !ith Christi nity, !hich !ill illustr te e"en better the connection bet!een p r #ox n# pr ctic l necessity. This "irtue c nnot be Puestione# in its c p city s cert inly 2r. <o!es (ic$inson !ill not Puestion it. 1t h s been the bo st of hun#re#s of the ch &pions of Christi nity. 1t h s been the t unt of hun#re#s of the opponents of Christi nity. 1t is, in essence, the b sis of 2r. <o!es (ic$insonMs !hole #istinction bet!een Christi nity n# P g nis&. 1 &e n, of course, the "irtue of hu&ility. 1 #&it, of course, &ost re #ily, th t gre t #e l historic l sy&bolQ

of f lse E stern hu&ility =th t is, of strictly scetic hu&ility@ &ixe# itself !ith the & in stre & of Europe n Christi nity. 'e &ust not forget th t !hen !e spe $ of Christi nity !e re spe $ing of !hole continent for bout thous n# ye rs. ,ut of this "irtue

e"en &ore th n of the other three, 1 !oul# & int in the gener l

proposition #opte# bo"e. Ci"ili7 tion #isco"ere# Christi n hu&ility for the s &e urgent re son th t it #isco"ere# f ith n# ch rityOO th t is, bec use Christi n ci"ili7 tion h # to #isco"er it or #ie.

The gre t psychologic l #isco"ery of P g nis&, !hich turne# it into Christi nity, c n be expresse# !ith so&e ccur cy in one phr se. The p g n set out, !ith #&ir ble sense, to enjoy hi&self. ,y the en# of his ci"ili7 tion he h # #isco"ere# th t & n

c nnot enjoy hi&self n# continue to enjoy nything else. 2r. <o!es (ic$inson h s pointe# out in !or#s too excellent to nee# ny further eluci# tion, the bsur# sh llo!ness of those !ho i& gine th t the p g n enjoye# hi&self only in & teri listic sense.

8f course, he enjoye# hi&self, not only intellectu lly e"en, he enjoye# hi&self &or lly, he enjoye# hi&self spiritu lly. ,ut it ! s hi&self th t he ! s enjoyingQ on the f ce of it, "ery n tur l thing to #o. 9o!, the psychologic l #isco"ery is &erely this, th t !here s it h # been suppose# th t the fullest possible enjoy&ent is to be foun# by exten#ing our ego to infinity, the truth is th t the fullest possible enjoy&ent is to be foun# by re#ucing our ego to 7ero.

Hu&ility is the thing !hich is for e"er rene!ing the e rth n# the st rs. 1t is hu&ility, n# not #uty, !hich preser"es the st rs fro& !rong, fro& the unp r#on ble !rong of c su l resign tionQ it is through hu&ility th t the &ost ncient he "ens for us re fresh n# strong. The curse th t c &e before history h s l i# on us ll ten#ency

to be !e ry of !on#ers. 1f !e s ! the sun for the first ti&e it !oul# be the &ost fe rful n# be utiful of &eteors. 9o! th t !e see it for the hun#re#th ti&e !e c ll it, in the hi#eous

n# bl sphe&ous phr se of 'or#s!orth, Fthe light of co&&on # y.F 'e re incline# to incre se our cl i&s. 'e re incline# to #e& n# six suns, to #e& n# blue sun, to #e& n# green sun.

Hu&ility is perpetu lly putting us b c$ in the pri& l # r$ness. There ll light is lightning, st rtling n# inst nt neous. :ntil !e un#erst n# th t origin l # r$, in !hich !e h "e neither sight nor expect tion, !e c n gi"e no he rty n# chil#li$e pr ise to the splen#i# sens tion lis& of things. The ter&s Fpessi&is&F n# Fopti&is&,F li$e &ost &o#ern ter&s, re un&e ning. ,ut if they c n be use# in ny " gue sense s &e ning so&ething, !e & y s y th t in this gre t f ct pessi&is& is the "ery b sis of opti&is&. The & n !ho #estroys hi&self cre tes the uni"erse. To the hu&ble & n, n# to the hu&ble & n lone, the sun is re lly to the hu&ble & n, n# to the hu&ble & n lone, the se is re lly 'hen he loo$s t ll the f ces in the street, he #oes not only re li7e th t &en re li"e, he re li7es !ith th t they re not #e #. #r & tic ple sure sunQ se .

1 h "e not spo$en of nother spect of the #isco"ery of hu&ility s psychologic l necessity, bec use it is &ore co&&only insiste# on,

n# is in itself &ore ob"ious. ,ut it is ePu lly cle r th t hu&ility is per& nent necessity s con#ition of effort n# selfOex &in tion. n tion

1t is one of the #e #ly f ll cies of Ningo politics th t is stronger for #espising other n tions. ?s

& tter of f ct,

the strongest n tions re those, li$e Prussi or N p n, !hich beg n fro& "ery &e n beginnings, but h "e not been too prou# to sit t the feet of the foreigner n# le rn e"erything fro& hi&. ?l&ost e"ery ob"ious n# #irect "ictory h s been the "ictory of the pl gi rist. This is, in#ee#, only "ery p ltry byOpro#uct of hu&ility,

but it is

pro#uct of hu&ility, n#, therefore, it is successful.

Prussi h # no Christi n hu&ility in its intern l rr nge&entsQ hence its intern l rr nge&ents !ere &iser ble. ,ut it h # enough Christi n hu&ility sl "ishly to copy )r nce =e"en #o!n to )re#eric$ the Gre tMs poetry@, n# th t !hich it h # the hu&ility to copy it h # ulti& tely the honour to conPuer. The c se of the N p nese is e"en &ore ob"iousQ their only Christi n n# their only be utiful Pu lity is th t they h "e hu&ble# the&sel"es to be ex lte#. ?ll this spect of hu&ility, ho!e"er, s connecte# !ith the & tter of effort n# stri"ing for st n# r# set bo"e us, 1 #is&iss s h "ing

been sufficiently pointe# out by l&ost ll i#e listic !riters.

1t & y be !orth !hile, ho!e"er, to point out the interesting #isp rity in the & tter of hu&ility bet!een the &o#ern notion of the strong & n n# the ctu l recor#s of strong &en. C rlyle objecte# to the st te&ent th t no & n coul# be hero to his " let.

E"ery sy&p thy c n be exten#e# to! r#s hi& in the & tter if he &erely or & inly &e nt th t the phr se ! s HeroO!orship is cert inly #isp r ge&ent of heroO!orship.

generous n# hu& n i&pulseQ the hero & y

be f ulty, but the !orship c n h r#ly be. 1t & y be th t no & n !oul# be hero to his " let. ,ut ny & n !oul# be " let to his hero.

,ut in truth both the pro"erb itself n# C rlyleMs stricture upon it ignore the &ost essenti l & tter t issue. The ulti& te psychologic l truth is not th t no & n is hero to his " let.

The ulti& te psychologic l truth, the foun# tion of Christi nity, is th t no & n is ! s hero to hi&self. Cro&!ell, ccor#ing to C rlyle, !e $ one.

strong & n. ?ccor#ing to Cro&!ell, he ! s

The !e $ point in the !hole of C rlyleMs c se for

ristocr cy lies, in#ee#, in his &ost celebr te# phr se. C rlyle s i# th t &en !ere &ostly fools. Christi nity, !ith surer n# &ore re"erent re lis&, s ys th t they re ll fools. This #octrine is so&eti&es c lle# the #octrine of origin l sin. 1t & y lso be #escribe# s the #octrine of the ePu lity of &en. ,ut the essenti l point of it is &erely this, th t !h te"er pri& ry n# f rOre ching &or l # ngers ffect ny & n, ffect ll &en. ?ll &en c n be cri&in ls, if te&pte#Q ll &en c n be heroes, if inspire#. ?n# this #octrine #oes ! y ltogether !ith C rlyleMs p thetic belief =or ny one elseMs p thetic belief@ in Fthe !ise fe!.F There re no !ise fe!. E"ery ristocr cy th t h s e"er existe# h s beh "e#, in ll essenti l points, ex ctly li$e E"ery olig rchy is &erely s& ll &ob.

$not of &en in the streetOOth t is to s y,

it is "ery jolly, but not inf llible. ?n# no olig rchies in the !orl#Ms history h "e e"er co&e off so b #ly in pr ctic l ff irs s the "ery prou# olig rchiesOOthe olig rchy of Pol n#, the olig rchy of *enice. ?n# the r&ies th t h "e &ost s!iftly n# su##enly bro$en their ene&ies in pieces h "e been the religious r&iesOOthe 2osle& ?r&ies, for inst nce, or the Purit n ?r&ies. ?n# religious r&y & y,

by its n ture, be #efine# s n r&y in !hich e"ery & n is t ught not to ex lt but to b se hi&self. 2 ny &o#ern English&en t l$ of the&sel"es s the stur#y #escen# nts of their stur#y Purit n f thers. ?s f ct, they !oul# run ! y fro& co!. 1f you s$e# one

of their Purit n f thers, if you s$e# ,uny n, for inst nce, !hether he ! s stur#y, he !oul# h "e ns!ere#, !ith te rs, th t he ! s s !e $ s ! ter. ?n# bec use of this he !oul# h "e borne tortures. ?n# this "irtue of hu&ility, !hile being pr ctic l enough to !in b ttles, !ill l! ys be p r #oxic l enough to pu77le pe# nts. 1t is t one !ith the "irtue of ch rity in this respect.

E"ery generous person !ill #&it th t the one $in# of sin !hich ch rity shoul# co"er is the sin !hich is inexcus ble. ?n# e"ery generous person !ill ePu lly gree th t the one $in# of pri#e !hich is !holly # &n ble is the pri#e of the & n !ho h s so&ething to be prou# of. The pri#e !hich, proportion lly spe $ing, #oes not hurt the ch r cter, is the pri#e in things !hich reflect no cre#it on the person t ll. Thus it #oes & n no h r& to be prou# of his country,

n# co&p r ti"ely little h r& to be prou# of his re&ote ncestors. 1t #oes hi& &ore h r& to be prou# of h "ing & #e &oney, bec use in th t he h s little &ore re son for pri#e.

1t #oes hi& &ore h r& still to be prou# of !h t is nobler th n &oneyOOintellect. ?n# it #oes hi& &ost h r& of ll to " lue hi&self for the &ost " lu ble thing on e rthOOgoo#ness. The & n !ho is prou# of !h t is re lly cre#it ble to hi& is the Ph risee, the & n !ho& Christ Hi&self coul# not forbe r to stri$e.

2y objection to 2r. <o!es (ic$inson n# the re ssertors of the p g n i#e l is, then, this. 1 ccuse the& of ignoring #efinite hu& n #isco"eries in the &or l !orl#, #isco"eries s #efinite, though not s & teri l, s the #isco"ery of the circul tion of the bloo#. 'e c nnot go b c$ to n i#e l of re son n# s nity. )or & n$in# h s #isco"ere# th t re son #oes not le # to s nity. 'e c nnot go b c$ to n i#e l of pri#e n# enjoy&ent. )or & n$in# h s #isco"ere# th t pri#e #oes not le # to enjoy&ent. 1 #o not $no! by !h t extr or#in ry &ent l cci#ent &o#ern !riters so const ntly connect the i#e of progress !ith the i#e of in#epen#ent thin$ing. Progress is ob"iously the ntithesis of in#epen#ent thin$ing. )or un#er in#epen#ent or in#i"i#u listic thin$ing, e"ery & n st rts t the beginning, n# goes, in ll prob bility, just s f r s his

f ther before hi&. ,ut if there re lly be nything of the n ture of progress, it &ust &e n, bo"e ll things, the c reful stu#y n# ssu&ption of the !hole of the p st. 1 ccuse 2r. <o!es (ic$inson n# his school of re ction in the only re l sense. 1f he li$es, let hi& ignore these gre t historic &ysteriesOO the &ystery of ch rity, the &ystery of chi" lry, the &ystery of f ith. 1f he li$es, let hi& ignore the plough or the printingOpress. ,ut if !e #o re"i"e n# pursue the p g n i#e l of si&ple n#

r tion l selfOco&pletion !e sh ll en#OO!here P g nis& en#e#. 1 #o not &e n th t !e sh ll en# in #estruction. 1 &e n th t !e sh ll en# in Christi nity.

J111. Celts n# Celtophiles

-cience in the &o#ern !orl# h s & ny usesQ its chief use, ho!e"er, is to pro"i#e long !or#s to co"er the errors of the rich. The !or# F$lepto& ni F is 1t is on "ulg r ex &ple of !h t 1 &e n. !e lthy punish&ent

p r !ith th t str nge theory, l! ys #" nce# !hen

or pro&inent person is in the #oc$, th t exposure is &ore of

for the rich th n for the poor. 8f course, the "ery re"erse is the truth. Exposure is &ore of The richer The richer punish&ent for the poor th n for the rich. tr &p.

& n is the e sier it is for hi& to be

& n is the e sier it is for hi& to be popul r n# gener lly & n is the &ore

respecte# in the C nnib l 1sl n#s. ,ut the poorer

li$ely it is th t he !ill h "e to use his p st life !hene"er he ! nts to get be# for the night. Honour is luxury for ristocr ts,

but it is

necessity for h llOporters. This is

secon# ry & tter,

but it is n ex &ple of the gener l proposition 1 offerOO the proposition th t n enor&ous &ount of &o#ern ingenuity is expen#e# on fin#ing #efences for the in#efensible con#uct of the po!erful. ?s 1 h "e s i# bo"e, these #efences gener lly exhibit the&sel"es &ost e&ph tic lly in the for& of ppe ls to physic l science. ?n# of ll the for&s in !hich science, or pseu#oOscience, h s co&e to the rescue of the rich n# stupi#, there is none so singul r s the singul r in"ention of the theory of r ces.

'hen

!e lthy n tion li$e the English #isco"ers the perfectly p tent lu#icrous &ess of the go"ern&ent of &o&ent in constern tion, poorer

f ct th t it is & $ing

n tion li$e the 1rish, it p uses for

n# then begins to t l$ bout Celts n# Teutons. ?s f r s 1 c n un#erst n# the theory, the 1rish re Celts n# the English re Teutons. 8f course, the 1rish re not Celts ny &ore th n the English re Teutons. 1 h "e not follo!e# the ethnologic l #iscussion !ith &uch energy, but the l st scientific conclusion !hich 1 re # incline# on the !hole to the su&& ry th t the English !ere & inly Celtic n# the 1rish & inly Teutonic. ,ut no & n li"e, !ith e"en the gli&&ering of scientific sense, !oul# e"er #re & of pplying the ter&s FCelticF or FTeutonicF to either of the& in ny positi"e or useful sense. re l

Th t sort of thing &ust be left to people !ho t l$ bout the ?ngloO- xon r ce, n# exten# the expression to ?&eric . Ho! &uch of the bloo# of the ?ngles n# - xons =!hoe"er they !ere@ there re& ins in our &ixe# ,ritish, +o& n, Ger& n, ( ne, 9or& n, n# Pic r# stoc$ is & tter only interesting to !il# ntiPu ries.

?n# ho! &uch of th t #ilute# bloo# c n possibly re& in in th t

ro ring !hirlpool of ?&eric into !hich

c t r ct of -!e#es,

Ne!s, Ger& ns, 1rish&en, n# 1t li ns is perpetu lly pouring, is & tter only interesting to lun tics. 1t !oul# h "e been !iser

for the English go"erning cl ss to h "e c lle# upon so&e other go#. ?ll other go#s, ho!e"er !e $ n# ! rring, t le st bo st of being const nt. ,ut science bo sts of being in bo sts of being unst ble s ! ter. flux for e"erQ

?n# Engl n# n# the English go"erning cl ss ne"er #i# c ll on this bsur# #eity of r ce until it see&e#, for n inst nt, th t they h # no other go# to c ll on. ?ll the &ost genuine English&en in history !oul# h "e y !ne# or l ughe# in your f ce if you h # begun to t l$ bout ?ngloO- xons. 1f you h # tte&pte# to substitute the i#e l of r ce for the i#e l of n tion lity, 1 re lly #o not li$e to thin$ !h t they !oul# h "e s i#. 1 cert inly shoul# not li$e to h "e been the officer of 9elson !ho su##enly #isco"ere# his )rench bloo# on the e"e of Tr f lg r. 1 shoul# not li$e to h "e been the 9orfol$ or -uffol$ gentle& n !ho h # to expoun# to ?#&ir l ,l $e by !h t #e&onstr ble ties of gene logy he ! s irre"oc bly boun# to the (utch. The truth of the !hole & tter is "ery si&ple. 9 tion lity exists, n# h s nothing in the !orl# to #o !ith r ce. 9 tion lity is thing li$e church or secret societyQ it is spiritu l pro#uct.

pro#uct of the hu& n soul n# !illQ it is

?n# there re &en in the &o#ern !orl# !ho !oul# thin$ nything n# #o nything r ther th n #&it th t nything coul# be spiritu l pro#uct.

? n tion, ho!e"er, s it confronts the &o#ern !orl#, is

purely

spiritu l pro#uct. -o&eti&es it h s been born in in#epen#ence, li$e -cotl n#. -o&eti&es it h s been born in #epen#ence,

in subjug tion, li$e 1rel n#. -o&eti&es it is

l rge thing

cohering out of & ny s& ller things, li$e 1t ly. -o&eti&es it is s& ll thing bre $ing ! y fro& l rger things, li$e Pol n#.

,ut in e ch n# e"ery c se its Pu lity is purely spiritu l, or, if you !ill, purely psychologic l. 1t is beco&e &o&ent !hen fi"e &en

sixth & n. E"ery one $no!s it !ho h s e"er foun#e# &o&ent !hen fi"e pl ces beco&e one pl ce.

club. 1t is

E"ery one &ust $no! it !ho h s e"er h # to repel n in" sion. 2r. Ti&othy He ly, the &ost serious intellect in the present House of Co&&ons, su&&e# up n tion lity to perfection !hen he si&ply c lle# it so&ething for !hich people !ill #ie, ?s he excellently s i# in reply to <or# Hugh Cecil, F9o one, not e"en the noble lor#, !oul# #ie for the &eri#i n of Green!ich.F ?n# th t is the gre t tribute to its purely psychologic l ch r cter. 1t is i#le to s$ !hy Green!ich shoul# not cohere in this spiritu l & nner !hile ?thens or -p rt #i#. 1t is li$e s$ing !hy f lls in lo"e !ith one !o& n n# not !ith nother. & n

9o!, of this gre t spiritu l coherence, in#epen#ent of extern l circu&st nces, or of r ce, or of ny ob"ious physic l thing, 1rel n# is the &ost re& r$ ble ex &ple. +o&e conPuere# n tions, but 1rel n# h s conPuere# r ces. The 9or& n h s gone there n# beco&e 1rish, the -cotch& n h s gone there n# beco&e 1rish, the -p ni r# h s gone there n# beco&e 1rish, e"en the bitter sol#ier of Cro&!ell h s gone there n# beco&e 1rish. 1rel n#, !hich #i# not exist e"en politic lly, h s been stronger th n ll the r ces th t existe# scientific lly. The purest Ger& nic bloo#, the purest 9or& n bloo#, the purest bloo# of the p ssion te -cotch p triot, h s not been so ttr cti"e s n tion !ithout fl g. 1rel n#, unrecogni7e# n# oppresse#,

h s e sily bsorbe# r ces, s such trifles re e sily bsorbe#. -he h s e sily #ispose# of physic l science, s such superstitions re e sily #ispose# of. 9 tion lity in its !e $ness h s been stronger th n ethnology in its strength. )i"e triu&ph nt r ces h "e been bsorbe#, h "e been #efe te# by #efe te# n tion lity.

This being the true n# str nge glory of 1rel n#, it is i&possible to he r !ithout i&p tience of the tte&pt so const ntly & #e &ong her &o#ern sy&p thi7ers to t l$ bout Celts n# Celticis&. 'ho !ere the CeltsK 1 #efy nybo#y to s y. 'ho re the 1rishK 1 #efy ny one to be in#ifferent, or to preten# not to $no!. 2r. '. ,. Le ts, the gre t 1rish genius !ho h s ppe re# in our ti&e, sho!s his o!n #&ir ble penetr tion in #isc r#ing ltogether the rgu&ent fro& Celtic r ce. ,ut he #oes not !holly esc pe, n# his follo!ers

h r#ly e"er esc pe, the gener l objection to the Celtic rgu&ent. The ten#ency of th t rgu&ent is to represent the 1rish or the Celts s str nge n# sep r te r ce, s tribe of eccentrics in

the &o#ern !orl# i&&erse# in #i& legen#s n# fruitless #re &s. 1ts ten#ency is to exhibit the 1rish s o##, bec use they see the f iries. 1ts tren# is to & $e the 1rish see& !eir# n# !il# bec use they sing ol# songs n# join in str nge # nces. ,ut this is Puite n errorQ in#ee#, it is the opposite of the truth. 1t is the English !ho re o## bec use they #o not see the f iries. 1t is the inh bit nts of Kensington !ho re !eir# n# !il# bec use they #o not sing ol# songs n# join in str nge # nces. 1n ll this the 1rish re not in the le st str nge n# sep r te, re not in the le st Celtic, s the !or# is co&&only n# popul rly use#. 1n ll this the 1rish re si&ply n or#in ry sensible n tion, li"ing the life of ny other or#in ry n# sensible n tion

!hich h s not been either so##en !ith s&o$e or oppresse# by &oneyOlen#ers, or other!ise corrupte# !ith !e lth n# science. There is nothing Celtic bout h "ing legen#s. 1t is &erely hu& n. The Ger& ns, !ho re =1 suppose@ Teutonic, h "e hun#re#s of legen#s, !here"er it h ppens th t the Ger& ns re hu& n. There is nothing Celtic bout lo"ing poetryQ the English lo"e# poetry &ore, perh ps, th n ny other people before they c &e un#er the sh #o! of the chi&neyOpot n# the sh #o! of the chi&neyOpot h t. 1t is not 1rel n# !hich is & # n# &ysticQ it is 2 nchester !hich is & # n# &ystic, !hich is incre#ible, !hich is !il# exception &ong hu& n things.

1rel n# h s no nee# to pl y the silly g &e of the science of r cesQ 1rel n# h s no nee# to preten# to be tribe of "ision ries p rt. n tion, it is

1n the & tter of "isions, 1rel n# is &ore th n &o#el n tion.

J1* 8n Cert in 2o#ern 'riters n# the 1nstitution of the ) &ily

The f &ily & y f irly be consi#ere#, one !oul# thin$, n ulti& te hu& n institution. E"ery one !oul# #&it th t it h s been the & in cell n# centr l unit of l&ost ll societies hitherto, except, in#ee#, such societies s th t of < ce# e&on, !hich !ent in for Fefficiency,F n# h s, therefore, perishe#, n# left not tr ce behin#. Christi nity, e"en enor&ous s ! s its re"olution, #i# not lter this ncient n# s " ge s nctityQ it &erely re"erse# it. 1t #i# not #eny the trinity of f ther, &other, n# chil#. 1t &erely re # it b c$! r#s, & $ing it run chil#, &other, f ther.

This it c lle#, not the f &ily, but the Holy ) &ily, for & ny things re & #e holy by being turne# upsi#e #o!n. ,ut so&e s ges of our o!n #ec #ence h "e & #e serious tt c$

on the f &ily. They h "e i&pugne# it, s 1 thin$ !ronglyQ n# its #efen#ers h "e #efen#e# it, n# #efen#e# it !rongly. The co&&on #efence of the f &ily is th t, &i# the stress n# fic$leness of life, it is pe ceful, ple s nt, n# t one. ,ut there is nother #efence of the f &ily !hich is possible, n# to &e e"i#entQ this #efence is th t the f &ily is not pe ceful n# not ple s nt n# not t one.

1t is not f shion ble to s y &uch no! # ys of the #" nt ges of the s& ll co&&unity. 'e re tol# th t !e &ust go in for l rge e&pires n# l rge i#e s. There is one #" nt ge, ho!e"er, in the s& ll st te, the city, or the "ill ge, !hich only the !ilfully blin# c n o"erloo$. The & n !ho li"es in s& ll co&&unity li"es in &uch l rger !orl#.

He $no!s &uch &ore of the fierce " rieties n# unco&pro&ising #i"ergences of &en. The re son is ob"ious. 1n our co&p nions. 1n l rge co&&unity !e c n choose

s& ll co&&unity our co&p nions re chosen for us.

Thus in ll extensi"e n# highly ci"ili7e# societies groups co&e into existence foun#e# upon !h t is c lle# sy&p thy, n# shut out the re l !orl# &ore sh rply th n the g tes of &on stery.

There is nothing re lly n rro! bout the cl nQ the thing !hich is re lly n rro! is the cliPue. The &en of the cl n li"e together bec use they ll !e r the s &e t rt n or re ll #escen#e# fro& the s &e s cre# co!Q but in their souls, by the #i"ine luc$ of things, there !ill l! ys be &ore colours th n in ny t rt n. ,ut the &en of the cliPue li"e together bec use they h "e the s &e $in# of soul, n# their n rro!ness is n rro!ness of spiritu l

coherence n# content&ent, li$e th t !hich exists in hell. ? big society exists in or#er to for& cliPues. ? big society is society for the pro&otion of n rro!ness. 1t is & chinery

for the purpose of gu r#ing the solit ry n# sensiti"e in#i"i#u l fro& ll experience of the bitter n# br cing hu& n co&pro&ises. 1t is, in the &ost liter l sense of the !or#s, the pre"ention of Christi n $no!le#ge. society for

'e c n see this ch nge, for inst nce, in the &o#ern tr nsfor& tion of the thing c lle# club. 'hen <on#on ! s s& ller, n# the p rts

of <on#on &ore selfOcont ine# n# p rochi l, the club ! s !h t it still is in "ill ges, the opposite of !h t it is no! in gre t cities. Then the club ! s " lue# s 9o! the club is " lue# s pl ce !here & n coul# be soci ble.

pl ce !here

& n c n be unsoci ble.

The &ore the enl rge&ent n# el bor tion of our ci"ili7 tion goes on the &ore the club ce ses to be pl ce !here & n c n h "e pl ce !here Puiet chop. & n co&fort ble & n

noisy rgu&ent, n# beco&es &ore n# &ore c n h "e !h t is so&e!h t f nt stic lly c lle# 1ts i& is to & $e

& n co&fort ble, n# to & $e

is to & $e hi& the opposite of soci ble. -oci bility, li$e ll goo# things, is full of #isco&forts, # ngers, n# renunci tions. The club ten#s to pro#uce the &ost #egr #e# of ll co&bin tionsOO the luxurious nchorite, the & n !ho co&bines the selfOin#ulgence of <ucullus !ith the ins ne loneliness of -t. -i&eon -tylites.

1f !e !ere toO&orro! &orning sno!e# up in the street in !hich !e li"e, !e shoul# step su##enly into &uch l rger n# &uch !il#er !orl#

th n !e h "e e"er $no!n. ?n# it is the !hole effort of the typic lly &o#ern person to esc pe fro& the street in !hich he li"es.

)irst he in"ents &o#ern hygiene n# goes to 2 rg te. Then he in"ents &o#ern culture n# goes to )lorence. Then he in"ents &o#ern i&peri lis& n# goes to Ti&buctoo. He goes to the f nt stic bor#ers of the e rth. He preten#s to shoot tigers. He l&ost ri#es on c &el. ?n# in ll this he is still essenti lly

fleeing fro& the street in !hich he ! s bornQ n# of this flight he is l! ys re #y !ith his o!n expl n tion. He s ys he is fleeing fro& his street bec use it is #ullQ he is lying. He is re lly fleeing fro& his street bec use it is gre t #e l too exciting.

1t is exciting bec use it is ex ctingQ it is ex cting bec use it is li"e. He c n "isit *enice bec use to hi& the *eneti ns re only *eneti nsQ the people in his o!n street re &en. He c n st re t the Chinese bec use for hi& the Chinese re p ssi"e thing to be st re# tQ

if he st res t the ol# l #y in the next g r#en, she beco&es cti"e. He is force# to flee, in short, fro& the too sti&ul ting society of his ePu lsOOof free &en, per"erse, person l, #eliber tely #ifferent fro& hi&self. The street in ,rixton is too glo!ing n# o"erpo!ering. He h s to soothe n# Puiet hi&self &ong tigers n# "ultures, c &els n# croco#iles. These cre tures re in#ee# "ery #ifferent fro& hi&self. ,ut they #o not put their sh pe or colour or custo& into #ecisi"e intellectu l co&petition !ith his o!n.

They #o not see$ to #estroy his principles n# ssert their o!nQ the str nger &onsters of the suburb n street #o see$ to #o this. The c &el #oes not contort his fe tures into bec use 2r. +obinson h s not got t 9o. I #oes exhibit fine sneer

hu&pQ the culture# gentle& n # #o.

sneer bec use +obinson h s not got

The "ulture !ill not ro r !ith l ughter bec use

& n #oes not flyQ & n #oes

but the & jor t 9o. / !ill ro r !ith l ughter bec use

not s&o$e. The co&pl int !e co&&only h "e to & $e of our neighbours

is th t they !ill not, s !e express it, &in# their o!n business. 'e #o not re lly &e n th t they !ill not &in# their o!n business. 1f our neighbours #i# not &in# their o!n business they !oul# be s$e# bruptly for their rent, n# !oul# r pi#ly ce se to be our neighbours. 'h t !e re lly &e n !hen !e s y th t they c nnot &in# their o!n business is so&ething &uch #eeper. 'e #o not #isli$e the& bec use they h "e so little force n# fire th t they c nnot be intereste# in the&sel"es. 'e #isli$e the& bec use they h "e so &uch force n# fire th t they c n be intereste# in us s !ell. 'h t !e #re # bout our neighbours, in short, is not the n rro!ness of their hori7on, but their superb ten#ency to bro #en it. ?n# ll "ersions to or#in ry hu& nity h "e this gener l ch r cter. They re not "ersions to its feebleness = s is preten#e#@, but to its energy. The &is nthropes preten# th t they #espise hu& nity for its !e $ness. ?s & tter of f ct, they h te it for its strength.

8f course, this shrin$ing fro& the brut l "i" city n# brut l " riety of co&&on &en is perfectly re son ble n# excus ble

thing s long s it #oes not preten# to ny point of superiority. 1t is !hen it c lls itself ristocr cy or estheticis& or superiority

to the bourgeoisie th t its inherent !e $ness h s in justice to be pointe# out. ) sti#iousness is the &ost p r#on ble of "icesQ but it is the &ost unp r#on ble of "irtues. 9iet7sche, !ho represents &ost pro&inently this pretentious cl i& of the f sti#ious, h s #escription so&e!hereOO "ery po!erful #escription in the

purely liter ry senseOOof the #isgust n# #is# in !hich consu&e hi& t the sight of the co&&on people !ith their co&&on f ces, their co&&on "oices, n# their co&&on &in#s. ?s 1 h "e s i#, this ttitu#e is l&ost be utiful if !e & y reg r# it s p thetic.

9iet7scheMs ristocr cy h s bout it ll the s cre#ness th t belongs to the !e $. 'hen he & $es us feel th t he c nnot en#ure the innu&er ble f ces, the incess nt "oices, the o"erpo!ering o&nipresence !hich belongs to the &ob, he !ill h "e the sy&p thy of nybo#y !ho h s e"er been sic$ on ste &er or tire# in cro!#e# o&nibus. & n.

E"ery & n h s h te# & n$in# !hen he ! s less th n E"ery & n h s h # hu& nity in his eyes li$e hu& nity in his nostrils li$e

blin#ing fog,

suffoc ting s&ell. ,ut !hen 9iet7sche

h s the incre#ible l c$ of hu&our n# l c$ of i& gin tion to s$ us to belie"e th t his ristocr cy is n ristocr cy of strong &uscles or n ristocr cy of strong !ills, it is necess ry to point out the truth. 1t is n ristocr cy of !e $ ner"es.

'e & $e our frien#sQ !e & $e our ene&iesQ but Go# & $es our nextO#oor neighbour. Hence he co&es to us cl # in ll the c reless terrors of n tureQ he is s str nge s the st rs, s rec$less n# in#ifferent s the r in. He is 2 n, the &ost terrible of the be sts. Th t is !hy the ol# religions n# the ol# scriptur l l ngu ge sho!e# so sh rp !is#o& !hen they spo$e, not of oneMs #uty to! r#s hu& nity,

but oneMs #uty to! r#s oneMs neighbour. The #uty to! r#s hu& nity & y often t $e the for& of so&e choice !hich is person l or e"en ple sur ble. Th t #uty & y be hobbyQ it & y e"en be #issip tion.

'e & y !or$ in the E st En# bec use !e re peculi rly fitte# to !or$ in the E st En#, or bec use !e thin$ !e reQ !e & y fight for the c use of intern tion l pe ce bec use !e re "ery fon# of fighting. The &ost &onstrous & rtyr#o&, the &ost repulsi"e experience, & y be the result of choice or $in# of t ste. 'e & y be so & #e s to be

p rticul rly fon# of lun tics or speci lly intereste# in leprosy. 'e & y lo"e negroes bec use they re bl c$ or Ger& n -oci lists bec use

they re pe# ntic. ,ut !e h "e to lo"e our neighbour bec use he is thereOO &uch &ore l r&ing re son for &uch &ore serious oper tion.

He is the s &ple of hu& nity !hich is ctu lly gi"en us. Precisely bec use he & y be nybo#y he is e"erybo#y. He is sy&bol bec use he is n cci#ent.

(oubtless &en flee fro& s& ll en"iron&ents into l n#s th t re "ery #e #ly. ,ut this is n tur l enoughQ for they re not fleeing fro& #e th. They re fleeing fro& life. ?n# this principle pplies to ring !ithin ring of the soci l syste& of hu& nity. 1t is perfectly re son ble th t &en shoul# see$ for so&e p rticul r " riety of the hu& n type, so long s they re see$ing for th t " riety of the hu& n type, n# not for &ere hu& n " riety. 1t is Puite proper th t ,ritish #iplo& tist shoul# see$ the society

of N p nese gener ls, if !h t he ! nts is N p nese gener ls. ,ut if !h t he ! nts is people #ifferent fro& hi&self, he h # &uch better stop t ho&e n# #iscuss religion !ith the house& i#. 1t is Puite re son ble th t the "ill ge genius shoul# co&e up to conPuer <on#on if !h t he ! nts is to conPuer <on#on. ,ut if he ! nts to conPuer so&ething fun# &ent lly n# sy&bolic lly hostile n# lso "ery strong, he h # &uch better re& in !here he is n# h "e ro! !ith the rector.

The & n in the suburb n street is Puite right if he goes to + &sg te for the s $e of + &sg teOO #ifficult thing to i& gine. ,ut if, s he expresses it, he goes to + &sg te Ffor then he !oul# h "e ch nge,F

&uch &ore ro& ntic n# e"en &elo#r & tic

ch nge if he ju&pe# o"er the ! ll into his neighbours g r#en. The consePuences !oul# be br cing in of + &sg te hygiene. sense f r beyon# the possibilities

9o!, ex ctly s this principle pplies to the e&pire, to the n tion !ithin the e&pire, to the city !ithin the n tion, to the street !ithin the city, so it pplies to the ho&e !ithin the street. The institution of the f &ily is to be co&&en#e# for precisely the s &e re sons th t the institution of the n tion, or the institution of the city, re in this & tter to be co&&en#e#. 1t is goo# thing for & n to li"e in f &ily for the s &e re son city.

th t it is 1t is is

goo# thing for

& n to be besiege# in

goo# thing for

& n to li"e in

f &ily in the s &e sense th t it & n to be sno!e# up in thing fro& outsi#e, street.

be utiful n# #elightful thing for

They ll force hi& to re li7e th t life is not but

thing fro& insi#e. ?bo"e ll, they ll insist upon the f ct truly sti&ul ting n# f scin ting life,

th t life, if it be is

thing !hich, of its n ture, exists in spite of oursel"es. &ore or less open & nner,

The &o#ern !riters !ho h "e suggeste#, in th t the f &ily is

b # institution, h "e gener lly confine#

the&sel"es to suggesting, !ith &uch sh rpness, bitterness, or p thos, th t perh ps the f &ily is not l! ys "ery congeni l. 8f course the f &ily is goo# institution bec use it is uncongeni l.

1t is !holeso&e precisely bec use it cont ins so & ny #i"ergencies n# " rieties. 1t is, s the senti&ent lists s y, li$e little $ing#o&, n#, li$e &ost other little $ing#o&s, st te of so&ething rese&bling n rchy.

is gener lly in

1t is ex ctly bec use our brother George is not intereste# in our religious #ifficulties, but is intereste# in the Troc #ero +est ur nt, th t the f &ily h s so&e of the br cing Pu lities of the co&&on!e lth. 1t is precisely bec use our uncle Henry #oes not ppro"e of the the tric l &bitions of our sister - r h th t the f &ily is li$e hu& nity. The &en n# !o&en !ho, for goo# re sons n# b #, re"olt g inst the f &ily,

re, for goo# re sons n# b #, si&ply re"olting g inst & n$in#. ?unt Eli7 beth is unre son ble, li$e & n$in#. P p is excit ble, li$e & n$in# 8ur youngest brother is &ischie"ous, li$e & n$in#. Gr n#p p is stupi#, li$e the !orl#Q he is ol#, li$e the !orl#.

Those !ho !ish, rightly or !rongly, to step out of ll this, #o #efinitely !ish to step into n rro!er !orl#. They re

#is& ye# n# terrifie# by the l rgeness n# " riety of the f &ily. - r h !ishes to fin# !orl# !holly consisting of pri" te the tric lsQ cos&os. 1 #o not s y,

George !ishes to thin$ the Troc #ero for

&o&ent, th t the flight to this n rro!er life & y not be

the right thing for the in#i"i#u l, ny &ore th n 1 s y the s &e thing bout flight into &on stery. ,ut 1 #o s y th t nything

is b # n# rtifici l !hich ten#s to & $e these people succu&b to the str nge #elusion th t they re stepping into !orl#

!hich is ctu lly l rger n# &ore " rie# th n their o!n. The best ! y th t & n coul# test his re #iness to encounter the co&&on chi&ney into ny house

" riety of & n$in# !oul# be to cli&b #o!n

t r n#o&, n# get on s !ell s possible !ith the people insi#e. ?n# th t is essenti lly !h t e ch one of us #i# on the # y th t he ! s born.

This is, in#ee#, the subli&e n# speci l ro& nce of the f &ily. 1t is ro& ntic bec use it is tossOup. 1t is ro& ntic bec use it is e"erything

th t its ene&ies c ll it. 1t is ro& ntic bec use it is rbitr ry. 1t is ro& ntic bec use it is there. -o long s you h "e groups of &en chosen r tion lly, you h "e so&e speci l or sect ri n t&osphere. 1t is !hen you h "e groups of &en chosen irr tion lly th t you h "e &en. The ele&ent of #"enture begins to existQ for n #"enture is,

by its n ture, not

thing th t co&es to us. 1t is

thing th t chooses us,

thing th t !e choose. ) lling in lo"e h s been often

reg r#e# s the supre&e #"enture, the supre&e ro& ntic cci#ent. 1n so &uch s there is in it so&ething outsi#e oursel"es, so&ething of sort of &erry f t lis&, this is "ery true.

<o"e #oes t $e us n# tr nsfigure n# torture us. 1t #oes bre $ our he rts !ith n unbe r ble be uty, li$e the unbe r ble be uty of &usic. ,ut in so f r s !e h "e cert inly so&ething to #o !ith the & tterQ in so f r s !e re in so&e sense prep re# to f ll in lo"e n# in so&e sense ju&p into itQ in so f r s !e #o to so&e extent choose n# to so&e extent e"en ju#geOOin ll this f lling in lo"e is not truly ro& ntic, is not truly #"enturous t ll. 1n this #egree the supre&e #"enture is not f lling in lo"e. The supre&e #"enture is being born. There !e #o ! l$ su##enly into splen#i# n# st rtling tr p.

There !e #o see so&ething of !hich !e h "e not #re &e# before. 8ur f ther n# &other #o lie in ! it for us n# le p out on us, li$e brig n#s fro& bush. 8ur uncle is surprise. 8ur unt is,

in the be utiful co&&on expression,

bolt fro& the blue.

'hen !e step into the f &ily, by the ct of being born, !e #o step into !orl# !hich is inc lcul ble, into !orl# !hich h s

its o!n str nge l !s, into into

!orl# !hich coul# #o !ithout us,

!orl# th t !e h "e not & #e. 1n other !or#s, !hen !e step f iryOt le.

into the f &ily !e step into

This colour s of

f nt stic n rr ti"e ought to cling

to the f &ily n# to our rel tions !ith it throughout life. +o& nce is the #eepest thing in lifeQ ro& nce is #eeper e"en th n re lity. )or e"en if re lity coul# be pro"e# to be &isle #ing, it still coul# not be pro"e# to be uni&port nt or uni&pressi"e.

E"en if the f cts re f lse, they re still "ery str nge. ?n# this str ngeness of life, this unexpecte# n# e"en per"erse ele&ent of things s they f ll out, re& ins incur bly interesting. The circu&st nces !e c n regul te & y beco&e t &e or pessi&isticQ but the Fcircu&st nces o"er !hich !e h "e no controlF re& in go#Oli$e to those !ho, li$e 2r. 2ic !ber, c n c ll on the& n# rene! their strength. People !on#er !hy the no"el is the &ost popul r for& of liter tureQ people !on#er !hy it is re # &ore th n boo$s of science or boo$s of &et physics. The re son is "ery si&pleQ it is &erely th t the no"el is &ore true th n they re. <ife & y so&eti&es legiti& tely ppe r s <ife & y so&eti&es ppe r, n# !ith s boo$ of science.

&uch gre ter legiti& cy, no"el. 8ur existence be utiful l &ent.

boo$ of &et physics. ,ut life is l! ys

& y ce se to be

songQ it & y ce se e"en to be

8ur existence & y not be n intelligible justice, or e"en recogni7 ble !rong. ,ut our existence is still story. 1n the fiery

lph bet of e"ery sunset is !ritten, Fto be continue# in our next.F 1f !e h "e sufficient intellect, !e c n finish philosophic l

n# ex ct #e#uction, n# be cert in th t !e re finishing it right. 'ith the #ePu te br inOpo!er !e coul# finish ny scientific #isco"ery, n# be cert in th t !e !ere finishing it right. ,ut not !ith the &ost gig ntic intellect coul# !e finish the si&plest or silliest story, n# be cert in th t !e !ere finishing it right. Th t is bec use story h s behin# it, not &erely intellect !hich

is p rtly &ech nic l, but !ill, !hich is in its essence #i"ine. The n rr ti"e !riter c n sen# his hero to the g llo!s if he li$es in the l st ch pter but one. He c n #o it by the s &e #i"ine c price !hereby he, the uthor, c n go to the g llo!s hi&self, n# to hell fter! r#s if he chooses. ?n# the s &e ci"ili7 tion,

the chi" lric Europe n ci"ili7 tion !hich sserte# free!ill in the thirteenth century, pro#uce# the thing c lle# FfictionF in the eighteenth. 'hen Tho& s ?Puin s sserte# the spiritu l liberty of & n, he cre te# ll the b # no"els in the circul ting libr ries.

,ut in or#er th t life shoul# be it is necess ry th t

story or ro& nce to us,

gre t p rt of it, t ny r te, shoul# be

settle# for us !ithout our per&ission. 1f !e !ish life to be syste&, this & y be nuis nceQ but if !e !ish it to be #r & , #r &

it is n essenti l. 1t & y often h ppen, no #oubt, th t

& y be !ritten by so&ebo#y else !hich !e li$e "ery little. ,ut !e shoul# li$e it still less if the uthor c &e before the curt in e"ery hour or so, n# force# on us the !hole trouble of in"enting the next ct. ? & n h s control o"er & ny things in his lifeQ he h s control o"er enough things to be the hero of no"el.

,ut if he h # control o"er e"erything, there !oul# be so &uch hero th t there !oul# be no no"el. ?n# the re son !hy the li"es of the rich re t botto& so t &e n# une"entful is si&ply th t they c n choose the e"ents. They re #ull bec use they re o&nipotent. They f il to feel #"entures bec use they c n & $e the #"entures. The thing !hich $eeps life ro& ntic n# full of fiery possibilities is the existence of these gre t pl in li&it tions !hich force ll of us to &eet the things !e #o not li$e or #o not expect. 1t is " in for the supercilious &o#erns to t l$ of being in uncongeni l surroun#ings. To be in ro& nce is to be in uncongeni l surroun#ings.

To be born into this e rth is to be born into uncongeni l surroun#ings, hence to be born into ro& nce. 8f ll these gre t li&it tions

n# fr &e!or$s !hich f shion n# cre te the poetry n# " riety of life, the f &ily is the &ost #efinite n# i&port nt.

Hence it is &isun#erstoo# by the &o#erns, !ho i& gine th t ro& nce !oul# exist &ost perfectly in They thin$ th t if co&plete st te of !h t they c ll liberty. gesture it !oul# be st rtling

& n & $es

n# ro& ntic & tter th t the sun shoul# f ll fro& the s$y. ,ut the st rtling n# ro& ntic thing bout the sun is th t it #oes not f ll fro& the s$y. They re see$ing un#er e"ery sh pe n# for& !orl# !here there re no li&it tionsOOth t is, re no outlinesQ th t is, !orl# !here there

!orl# !here there re no sh pes.

There is nothing b ser th n th t infinity. They s y they !ish to be, s strong s the uni"erse, but they re lly !ish the !hole uni"erse s !e $ s the&sel"es.

J* 8n -& rt 9o"elists n# the -& rt -et

1n one sense, t ny r te, it is &ore " lu ble to re # b # liter ture th n goo# liter ture. Goo# liter ture & y tell us the &in# of one & nQ but b # liter ture & y tell us the &in# of & ny &en. ? goo# no"el tells us the truth bout its heroQ but b # no"el

tells us the truth bout its uthor. 1t #oes &uch &ore th n th t, it tells us the truth bout its re #ersQ n#, o##ly enough, it tells us this ll the &ore the &ore cynic l n# i&&or l be the &oti"e of its & nuf cture. The &ore #ishonest is s boo$ the &ore honest it is s public #ocu&ent. boo$

? sincere no"el exhibits the si&plicity of one p rticul r & nQ n insincere no"el exhibits the si&plicity of & n$in#. The pe# ntic #ecisions n# #efin ble re #just&ents of & n

& y be foun# in scrolls n# st tute boo$s n# scripturesQ but &enMs b sic ssu&ptions n# e"erl sting energies re to be foun# in penny #re #fuls n# h lfpenny no"elettes. Thus & n,

li$e & ny &en of re l culture in our # y, &ight le rn fro& goo# liter ture nothing except the po!er to ppreci te goo# liter ture. ,ut fro& b # liter ture he &ight le rn to go"ern e&pires n# loo$ o"er the & p of & n$in#.

There is one r ther interesting ex &ple of this st te of things in !hich the !e $er liter ture is re lly the stronger n# the stronger the !e $er. 1t is the c se of !h t & y be c lle#, for the s $e of n pproxi& te #escription, the liter ture of ristocr cyQ or, if you prefer the #escription, the liter ture of snobbishness. 9o! if ny one !ishes to fin# re lly effecti"e n# co&prehensible

n# per& nent c se for ristocr cy !ell n# sincerely st te#, let hi& re #, not the &o#ern philosophic l conser" ti"es, not e"en 9iet7sche, let hi& re # the ,o! ,ells 9o"elettes. 8f the c se of 9iet7sche 1 & confesse#ly &ore #oubtful. 9iet7sche n# the ,o! ,ells 9o"elettes h "e both ob"iously the s &e fun# &ent l ch r cterQ they both !orship the t ll & n !ith curling &oust ches n# hercule n bo#ily po!er, n# they both !orship hi& in & nner !hich is so&e!h t fe&inine n# hysteric l.

E"en here, ho!e"er, the 9o"elette e sily & int ins its philosophic l superiority, bec use it #oes ttribute to the strong & n those "irtues !hich #o co&&only belong to hi&, such "irtues s l 7iness n# $in#liness n# n# r ther rec$less bene"olence,

gre t #isli$e of hurting the !e $. 9iet7sche, on the other h n#,

ttributes to the strong & n th t scorn g inst !e $ness !hich only exists &ong in" li#s. 1t is not, ho!e"er, of the secon# ry

&erits of the gre t Ger& n philosopher, but of the pri& ry &erits of the ,o! ,ells 9o"elettes, th t it is &y present ff ir to spe $. The picture of ristocr cy in the popul r senti&ent l no"elette see&s to &e "ery s tisf ctory s per& nent politic l n# philosophic l gui#e. b ronet

1t & y be in ccur te bout #et ils such s the title by !hich is ##resse# or the !i#th of con"eniently le p, but it is not i#e &ount in ch s& !hich

b ronet c n

b # #escription of the gener l

n# intention of ristocr cy s they exist in hu& n ff irs.

The essenti l #re & of ristocr cy is & gnificence n# " lourQ n# if the ) &ily Her l# -upple&ent so&eti&es #istorts or ex gger tes these things, t le st, it #oes not f ll short in the&. 1t ne"er errs by & $ing the &ount in ch s& too n rro! or the title of the b ronet insufficiently i&pressi"e. ,ut bo"e this s ne reli ble ol# liter ture of snobbishness there h s risen in our ti&e nother $in# of liter ture of snobbishness !hich, !ith its &uch higher pretensions, see&s to &e !orthy of "ery &uch less respect. 1nci#ent lly =if th t & tters@, it is &uch better liter ture. ,ut it is i&&e sur bly !orse philosophy, i&&e sur bly !orse ethics n# politics, i&&e sur bly !orse "it l ren#ering of ristocr cy n# hu& nity s they re lly re. )ro& such boo$s s those of !hich 1 !ish no! to spe $ !e c n #isco"er !h t cle"er & n c n #o !ith the i#e of ristocr cy.

,ut fro& the ) &ily Her l# -upple&ent liter ture !e c n le rn !h t the i#e of ristocr cy c n #o !ith & n !ho is not cle"er.

?n# !hen !e $no! th t !e $no! English history.

This ne! ristocr tic fiction &ust h "e c ught the ttention of e"erybo#y !ho h s re # the best fiction for the l st fifteen ye rs. 1t is th t genuine or llege# liter ture of the -& rt -et !hich

represents th t set s #istinguishe#, not only by s& rt #resses, but by s& rt s yings. To the b # b ronet, to the goo# b ronet, to the ro& ntic n# &isun#erstoo# b ronet !ho is suppose# to be b # b ronet, but is goo# b ronet, this school h s ##e# conception

un#re &e# of in the for&er ye rsOOthe conception of n &using b ronet. The ristocr t is not &erely to be t ller th n &ort l &en n# stronger n# h n#so&er, he is lso to be &ore !itty. He is the long & n !ith the short epigr &. 2 ny e&inent, n# #eser"e#ly e&inent, &o#ern no"elists &ust ccept so&e responsibility for h "ing supporte# this !orst for& of snobbishnessOO n intellectu l snobbishness. The t lente# uthor of F(o#oF is responsible for h "ing in so&e sense cre te# the f shion s f shion.

2r. Hichens, in the FGreen C rn tion,F re ffir&e# the str nge i#e th t young noble&en t l$ !ellQ though his c se h # so&e " gue biogr phic l foun# tion, n# in consePuence n excuse. 2rs. Cr igie is consi#er bly guilty in the & tter, lthough, or r ther bec use, she h s co&bine# the ristocr tic note !ith note of so&e &or l & nMs soul, gentle& n. & n of &uch

n# e"en religious sincerity. 'hen you re s "ing e"en in no"el, it is in#ecent to &ention th t he is

9or c n bl &e in this & tter be ltogether re&o"e# fro& gre ter bility, n#

& n !ho h s pro"e# his possession of the highest

of hu& n instinct, the ro& ntic instinctOO1 &e n 2r. ?nthony Hope. 1n g lloping, i&possible &elo#r & li$e FThe Prisoner of Uen# ,F

the bloo# of $ings f nne# n excellent f nt stic thre # or the&e. ,ut the bloo# of $ings is not thing th t c n be t $en seriously.

?n# !hen, for ex &ple, 2r. Hope #e"otes so &uch serious n# sy&p thetic stu#y to the & n c lle# Tristr & of ,lent, boyhoo# thought of nothing but & n !ho throughout burning

silly ol# est te, !e feel e"en in

2r. Hope the hint of this excessi"e concern bout the olig rchic i#e .

1t is h r# for ny or#in ry person to feel so &uch interest in young & n !hose !hole i& is to o!n the house of ,lent t the ti&e !hen e"ery other young & n is o!ning the st rs.

2r. Hope, ho!e"er, is

"ery &il# c se, n# in hi& there is not fine ele&ent of irony

only n ele&ent of ro& nce, but lso

!hich ! rns us g inst t $ing ll this eleg nce too seriously. ?bo"e ll, he sho!s his sense in not & $ing his noble&en so incre#ibly ePuippe# !ith i&pro&ptu rep rtee. This h bit of insisting on the !it of the !e lthier cl sses is the l st n# &ost ser"ile of ll the ser"ilities. 1t is, s 1 h "e s i#, i&&e sur bly &ore conte&ptible th n the snobbishness of the no"elette !hich #escribes the noble& n s s&iling li$e n ?pollo or ri#ing & # eleph nt.

These & y be ex gger tions of be uty n# cour ge, but be uty n# cour ge re the unconscious i#e ls of ristocr ts, e"en of stupi# ristocr ts.

The noble& n of the no"elette & y not be s$etche# !ith ny "ery close or conscientious ttention to the # ily h bits of noble&en. ,ut he is so&ething &ore i&port nt th n re lityQ he is pr ctic l i#e l.

The gentle& n of fiction & y not copy the gentle& n of re l lifeQ but the gentle& n of re l life is copying the gentle& n of fiction. He & y not be p rticul rly goo#Oloo$ing, but he !oul# r ther be goo#Oloo$ing th n nything elseQ he & y not h "e ri##en on but he ri#es pony s f r s possible !ith n ir s if he h #. & # eleph nt,

?n#, upon the !hole, the upper cl ss not only especi lly #esire these Pu lities of be uty n# cour ge, but in so&e #egree, t ny r te, especi lly possess the&. Thus there is nothing re lly &e n or sycoph ntic bout the popul r liter ture !hich & $es ll its & rPuises se"en feet high. 1t is snobbish, but it is not ser"ile.

1ts ex gger tion is b se# on n exuber nt n# honest #&ir tionQ its honest #&ir tion is b se# upon so&ething !hich is in so&e #egree, t ny r te, re lly there. The English lo!er cl sses #o not fe r the English upper cl sses in the le stQ nobo#y coul#. They si&ply n# freely n# senti&ent lly !orship the&. The strength of the ristocr cy is not in the ristocr cy t llQ it is in the slu&s. 1t is not in the House of <or#sQ it is not in the Ci"il -er"iceQ it is not in the Go"ern&ent officesQ it is not e"en in the huge n# #isproportion te &onopoly of the English l n#. 1t is in cert in spirit. 1t is in the f ct th t !hen n ""y

!ishes to pr ise

& n, it co&es re #ily to his tongue to s y gentle& n. )ro& #e&ocr tic point "iscount.

th t he h s beh "e# li$e

of "ie! he &ight s !ell s y th t he h # beh "e# li$e

The olig rchic ch r cter of the &o#ern English co&&on!e lth #oes not rest, li$e & ny olig rchies, on the cruelty of the rich to the poor. 1t #oes not e"en rest on the $in#ness of the rich to the poor. 1t rests on the perenni l n# unf iling $in#ness of the poor to the rich.

The snobbishness of b # liter ture, then, is not ser"ileQ but the snobbishness of goo# liter ture is ser"ile. The ol#Of shione# h lfpenny ro& nce !here the #uchesses sp r$le# !ith #i &on#s ! s not ser"ileQ but the ne! ro& nce !here they sp r$le !ith epigr &s is ser"ile. )or in thus ttributing speci l n# st rtling #egree of intellect

n# con"ers tion l or contro"ersi l po!er to the upper cl sses, !e re ttributing so&ething !hich is not especi lly their "irtue or e"en especi lly their i&. 'e re, in the !or#s of (isr eli =!ho, being genius n# not gentle& n, h s perh ps pri& rily

to ns!er for the intro#uction of this &etho# of fl ttering

the gentry@, !e re perfor&ing the essenti l function of fl ttery !hich is fl ttering the people for the Pu lities they h "e not got. Pr ise & y be gig ntic n# ins ne !ithout h "ing ny Pu lity of fl ttery so long s it is pr ise of so&ething th t is notice bly in existence. ? & n & y s y th t the st rs, or th t be only in gir ffeMs he # stri$es

!h le fills the Ger& n 8ce n, n# still f "ourite ni& l.

r ther excite# st te bout

,ut !hen he begins to congr tul te the gir ffe on his fe thers, n# the !h le on the eleg nce of his legs, !e fin# oursel"es confronte# !ith th t soci l ele&ent !hich !e c ll fl ttery. The &i##le n# lo!er or#ers of <on#on c n sincerely, though not perh ps s fely, #&ire the he lth n# gr ce of the English ristocr cy. ?n# this for the "ery si&ple re son th t the ristocr ts re, upon the !hole, &ore he lthy n# gr ceful th n the poor. ,ut they c nnot honestly #&ire the !it of the ristocr ts. ?n# this for the si&ple re son th t the ristocr ts re not &ore !itty th n the poor, but "ery gre t #e l less so. ? & n #oes not he r,

s in the s& rt no"els, these ge&s of "erb l felicity #roppe# bet!een #iplo& tists t #inner. 'here he re lly #oes he r the& is bet!een t!o o&nibus con#uctors in bloc$ in Holborn. The !itty peer !hose

i&pro&ptus fill the boo$s of 2rs. Cr igie or 2iss )o!ler, !oul#, s & tter of f ct, be torn to shre#s in the rt of con"ers tion

by the first bootObl c$ he h # the &isfortune to f ll foul of. The poor re &erely senti&ent l, n# "ery excus bly senti&ent l, if they pr ise the gentle& n for h "ing re #y h n# n# re #y &oney.

,ut they re strictly sl "es n# sycoph nts if they pr ise hi& for h "ing re #y tongue. )or th t they h "e f r &ore the&sel"es.

The ele&ent of olig rchic l senti&ent in these no"els,

ho!e"er, h s, 1 thin$, nother n# subtler spect, n spect &ore #ifficult to un#erst n# n# &ore !orth un#erst n#ing. The &o#ern gentle& n, p rticul rly the &o#ern English gentle& n, h s beco&e so centr l n# i&port nt in these boo$s, n# through the& in the !hole of our current liter ture n# our current &o#e of thought, th t cert in Pu lities of his, !hether origin l or recent, essenti l or cci#ent l, h "e ltere# the Pu lity of our English co&e#y. 1n p rticul r, th t stoic l i#e l, bsur#ly suppose# to be the English i#e l, h s stiffene# n# chille# us. 1t is not the English i#e lQ but it is to so&e extent the ristocr tic i#e lQ or it & y be only the i#e l of ristocr cy in its utu&n or #ec y. The gentle& n is -toic bec use he is sort of s " ge,

bec use he is fille# !ith

gre t ele&ent l fe r th t so&e str nger thir#Ocl ss c rri ge is pl ce of !il# her&its. co&&unity,

!ill spe $ to hi&. Th t is !hy !hile firstOcl ss c rri ge is

,ut this & tter, !hich is #ifficult, 1 & y be per&itte# to ppro ch in &ore circuitous ! y.

The h unting ele&ent of ineffectu lness !hich runs through so &uch of the !itty n# epigr && tic fiction f shion ble #uring the l st eight or ten ye rs, !hich runs through such !or$s of re l though

" rying ingenuity s F(o#o,F or FConcerning 1s bel C rn by,F or e"en F-o&e E&otions n# 2or l,F & y be expresse# in " rious ! ys,

but to &ost of us 1 thin$ it !ill ulti& tely &ount to the s &e thing. This ne! fri"olity is in #ePu te bec use there is in it no strong sense of n unuttere# joy. The &en n# !o&en !ho exch nge the rep rtees & y not only be h ting e ch other, but h ting e"en the&sel"es. ?ny one of the& &ight be b n$rupt th t # y, or sentence# to be shot the next. They re jo$ing, not bec use they re &erry, but bec use

they re notQ out of the e&ptiness of the he rt the &outh spe $eth. E"en !hen they t l$ pure nonsense it is c reful nonsenseOO nonsense

of !hich they re econo&ic l, or, to use the perfect expression of 2r. '. -. Gilbert in FP tience,F it is such Fprecious nonsense.F E"en !hen they beco&e lightOhe #e# they #o not beco&e lightOhe rte#. ?ll those !ho h "e re # nything of the r tion lis& of the &o#erns $no! th t their +e son is s # thing. ,ut e"en their unre son is s #.

The c uses of this inc p city re lso not "ery #ifficult to in#ic te. The chief of ll, of course, is th t &iser ble fe r of being senti&ent l, !hich is the &e nest of ll the &o#ern terrorsOO&e ner e"en th n the terror !hich pro#uces hygiene. E"ery!here the robust n# upro rious hu&our h s co&e fro& the &en !ho !ere c p ble not &erely of senti&ent lis&, but "ery silly senti&ent lis&. There h s been

no hu&our so robust or upro rious s th t of the senti&ent list -teele or the senti&ent list -terne or the senti&ent list (ic$ens. These cre tures !ho !ept li$e !o&en !ere the cre tures !ho l ughe# li$e &en. 1t is true th t the hu&our of 2ic !ber is goo# liter ture n# th t the p thos of little 9ell is b #. ,ut the $in# of & n !ho h # the cour ge to !rite so b #ly in the one c se is the $in# of & n !ho !oul# h "e the cour ge to !rite so !ell in the other. The s &e unconsciousness, the s &e "iolent innocence, the s &e gig ntesPue sc le of ction !hich brought the 9 poleon of Co&e#y his Nen brought hi& lso his 2osco!. ?n# herein is especi lly sho!n the frigi# n# feeble li&it tions of our &o#ern !its. They & $e "iolent efforts, they & $e heroic n# l&ost p thetic efforts, but they c nnot re lly !rite b #ly. There re &o&ents !hen !e l&ost thin$ th t they re chie"ing the effect, but our hope shri"els to nothing the &o&ent !e co&p re their little f ilures

!ith the enor&ous i&becilities of ,yron or -h $espe re.

)or

he rty l ugh it is necess ry to h "e touche# the he rt.

1 #o not $no! !hy touching the he rt shoul# l! ys be connecte# only !ith the i#e of touching it to co&p ssion or sense of #istress.

The he rt c n be touche# to joy n# triu&phQ the he rt c n be touche# to &use&ent. ,ut ll our co&e#i ns re tr gic co&e#i ns. These l ter f shion ble !riters re so pessi&istic in bone n# & rro! th t they ne"er see& ble to i& gine the he rt h "ing ny concern !ith &irth. 'hen they spe $ of the he rt, they l! ys &e n the p ngs n# #is ppoint&ents of the e&otion l life. 'hen they s y th t & nMs he rt is in the right pl ce,

they &e n, pp rently, th t it is in his boots. 8ur ethic l societies un#erst n# fello!ship, but they #o not un#erst n# goo# fello!ship. -i&il rly, our !its un#erst n# t l$, but not !h t (r. Nohnson c lle# goo# t l$. 1n or#er to h "e, li$e (r. Nohnson, goo# t l$, goo# & nOO

it is e&ph tic lly necess ry to be, li$e (r. Nohnson,

to h "e frien#ship n# honour n# n bys& l ten#erness. ?bo"e ll, it is necess ry to be openly n# in#ecently hu& ne, to confess !ith fulness ll the pri& ry pities n# fe rs of ?# &. Nohnson ! s cle rOhe #e# hu&orous & n, n# therefore he #i# not br "e & n,

&in# t l$ing seriously bout religion. Nohnson ! s

one of the br "est th t e"er ! l$e#, n# therefore he #i# not &in# "o!ing to ny one his consu&ing fe r of #e th.

The i#e th t there is so&ething English in the repression of oneMs feelings is one of those i#e s !hich no English& n e"er he r# of until Engl n# beg n to be go"erne# exclusi"ely by -cotch&en, ?&eric ns, n# Ne!s. ?t the best, the i#e is gener li7 tion fro& the (u$e

of 'ellingtonOO!ho ! s n 1rish& n. ?t the !orst, it is

p rt

of th t silly Teutonis& !hich $no!s s little bout Engl n# s it #oes bout nthropology, but !hich is l! ys t l$ing bout *i$ings. ?s & tter of f ct, the *i$ings #i# not repress their feelings in

the le st. They crie# li$e b bies n# $isse# e ch other li$e girlsQ in short, they cte# in th t respect li$e ?chilles n# ll strong heroes the chil#ren of the go#s. ?n# though the English n tion lity h s prob bly not &uch &ore to #o !ith the *i$ings th n the )rench n tion lity or the 1rish n tion lity, the English h "e cert inly been the chil#ren of the *i$ings in the & tter of te rs n# $isses. 1t is not &erely true th t ll the &ost typic lly English &en of letters, li$e -h $espe re n# (ic$ens, +ich r#son n# Th c$er y, !ere senti&ent lists. 1t is lso true th t ll the &ost typic lly English &en of ction !ere senti&ent lists, if possible, &ore senti&ent l. 1n the gre t Eli7 beth n ge, !hen the English n tion ! s fin lly h &&ere# out, in the gre t eighteenth century !hen the ,ritish E&pire ! s being built up e"ery!here, !here in ll these ti&es, !here ! s this sy&bolic stoic l English& n !ho #resses in #r b n# bl c$ n# represses his feelingsK 'ere ll the Eli7 beth n p ll #ins n# pir tes li$e th tK 'ere ny of the& li$e th tK ' s Gren"ille conce ling his e&otions !hen he bro$e !ineOgl sses to pieces !ith his teeth n# bit the& till the bloo# poure# #o!nK ' s Essex restr ining his excite&ent !hen he thre! his h t into the se K (i# + leigh thin$ it sensible to ns!er the -p nish guns only, s -te"enson s ys, !ith flourish of insulting tru&petsK the tric l re& r$ in

(i# -y#ney e"er &iss n opportunity of & $ing

the !hole course of his life n# #e thK 'ere e"en the Purit ns -toicsK The English Purit ns represse# goo# #e l, but e"en they !ere gre t &ir cle

too English to repress their feelings. 1t ! s by

of genius ssure#ly th t C rlyle contri"e# to #&ire si&ult neously t!o things so irreconcil bly oppose# s silence n# 8li"er Cro&!ell. Cro&!ell ! s the "ery re"erse of strong, silent & n.

Cro&!ell ! s l! ys t l$ing, !hen he ! s not crying. 9obo#y, 1 suppose, !ill ccuse the uthor of FGr ce ?boun#ingF of being sh &e# of his feelings. 2ilton, in#ee#, it &ight be possible to represent s n# -toicQ in so&e sense he ! s -toic, just s he ! s prig

polyg &ist n# se"er l other unple s nt n# he then things.

,ut !hen !e h "e p sse# th t gre t n# #esol te n &e, !hich & y re lly be counte# n exception, !e fin# the tr #ition of English e&otion lis& i&&e#i tely resu&e# n# unbro$enly continuous. 'h te"er & y h "e been the &or l be uty of the p ssions of Etheri#ge n# (orset, -e#ley n# ,uc$ingh &, they c nnot be ccuse# of the f ult of f sti#iously conce ling the&. Ch rles the -econ# ! s "ery popul r !ith the English bec use, li$e ll the jolly English $ings, he #ispl ye# his p ssions. 'illi & the (utch& n ! s "ery unpopul r !ith the English bec use, not being n English& n, he #i# hi#e his e&otions. He ! s, in f ct, precisely the i#e l English& n of our &o#ern theoryQ n# precisely for th t re son ll the re l English&en lo the# hi& li$e leprosy. 'ith the rise of the gre t Engl n# of the eighteenth century, !e fin# this open n# e&otion l tone still & int ine# in letters n# politics, in rts n# in r&s. Perh ps the only Pu lity !hich ! s possesse# in co&&on by the gre t )iel#ing, n# the gre t +ich r#son ! s th t neither of the& hi# their feelings. -!ift, in#ee#, ! s h r# n# logic l, bec use -!ift ! s 1rish. ?n# !hen !e p ss to the sol#iers n# the rulers, the p triots n# the e&pireObuil#ers of the eighteenth century, !e fin#, s 1 h "e s i#, th t they !ere, 1f possible, &ore ro& ntic th n the ro& ncers,

&ore poetic l th n the poets. Ch th &, !ho sho!e# the !orl# ll his strength, sho!e# the House of Co&&ons ll his !e $ness. 'olfe ! l$e#. bout the roo& !ith #r !n s!or# c lling hi&self

C es r n# H nnib l, n# !ent to #e th !ith poetry in his &outh. Cli"e ! s & n of the s &e type s Cro&!ell or ,uny n, or, for the strong, sensible & n n# &el ncholy in hi&.

& tter of th t, NohnsonOOth t is, he ! s !ith $in# of running spring of hysteri

<i$e Nohnson, he ! s ll the &ore he lthy bec use he ! s &orbi#. The t les of ll the #&ir ls n# #"enturers of th t Engl n# re full of br gg #ocio, of senti&ent lity, of splen#i# ffect tion. ,ut it is sc rcely necess ry to &ultiply ex &ples of the essenti lly ro& ntic English& n !hen one ex &ple to!ers bo"e the& ll. 2r. +u#y r# Kipling h s s i# co&pl cently of the English, F'e #o not f ll on the nec$ n# $iss !hen !e co&e together.F 1t is true th t this ncient n# uni"ers l custo& h s " nishe# !ith the &o#ern !e $ening of Engl n#. -y#ney !oul# h "e thought nothing of $issing -penser. ,ut 1 !illingly conce#e th t 2r. ,ro#eric$ !oul# not be li$ely to $iss 2r. ?rnol#O)oster, if th t be ny proof of the incre se# & nliness n# &ilit ry gre tness of Engl n#. ,ut the English& n !ho #oes not sho! his feelings h s not ltogether gi"en up the po!er of seeing so&ething English in the gre t se Ohero of the 9 poleonic ! r. Lou c nnot bre $ the legen# of 9elson. ?n# cross the sunset of th t glory is !ritten in fl &ing letters for e"er the gre t English senti&ent, FKiss &e, H r#y.F

This i#e l of selfOrepression, then, is, !h te"er else it is, not English. 1t is, perh ps, so&e!h t 8rient l, it is slightly Prussi n, but in the & in it #oes not co&e, 1 thin$, fro& ny r ci l or n tion l source. 1t is, s 1 h "e s i#, in so&e sense ristocr ticQ it co&es

not fro&

people, but fro&

cl ss. E"en ristocr cy, 1 thin$,

! s not Puite so stoic l in the # ys !hen it ! s re lly strong. ,ut !hether this une&otion l i#e l be the genuine tr #ition of the gentle& n, or only one of the in"entions of the &o#ern gentle& n =!ho & y be c lle# the #ec ye# gentle& n@, it cert inly h s so&ething to #o !ith the une&otion l Pu lity in these society no"els. )ro& representing ristocr ts s people !ho suppresse# their feelings, it h s been n e sy step to representing ristocr ts s people !ho h # no feelings to suppress. Thus the &o#ern olig rchist h s & #e "irtue for

the olig rchy of the h r#ness s !ell s the brightness of the #i &on#. <i$e sonneteer ##ressing his l #y in the se"enteenth century, eulogiu&, n# the !or#

he see&s to use the !or# Fcol#F l&ost s Fhe rtlessF s

$in# of co&pli&ent. 8f course, in people so incur bly

$in#Ohe rte# n# b byish s re the English gentry, it !oul# be i&possible to cre te nything th t c n be c lle# positi"e crueltyQ so in these boo$s they exhibit sort of neg ti"e cruelty.

They c nnot be cruel in cts, but they c n be so in !or#s. ?ll this &e ns one thing, n# one thing only. 1t &e ns th t the li"ing n# in"igor ting i#e l of Engl n# &ust be loo$e# for in the & ssesQ it &ust be loo$e# for !here (ic$ens foun# itOO(ic$ens &ong !hose glories it ! s to be to be hu&orist, to be senti&ent list, to be n opti&ist,

poor & n, to be n English& n, but the gre test of !hose glories

! s th t he s ! ll & n$in# in its & 7ing n# tropic l luxuri nce, n# #i# not e"en notice the ristocr cyQ (ic$ens, the gre test of !hose glories ! s th t he coul# not #escribe gentle& n.

J*1 8n 2r. 2cC be n#

(i"ine )ri"olity

? critic once re&onstr te# !ith &e s ying, !ith n ir of in#ign nt re son bleness, F1f you &ust & $e jo$es, t le st you nee# not & $e the& on such serious subjects.F 1 replie# !ith n tur l

si&plicity n# !on#er, F?bout !h t other subjects c n one & $e jo$es except serious subjectsKF 1t is Puite useless to t l$ bout prof ne jesting. ?ll jesting is in its n ture prof ne, in the sense th t it &ust be the su##en re li7 tion th t so&ething !hich thin$s itself sole&n is not so "ery sole&n fter ll. 1f jo$e is not jo$e bout religion or &or ls, it is jo$e bout

policeO& gistr tes or scientific professors or un#ergr #u tes #resse# up s Rueen *ictori . ?n# people jo$e bout the policeO& gistr te &ore th n they jo$e bout the Pope, not bec use the policeO& gistr te is &ore fri"olous subject, but, on the contr ry, bec use the &ore serious subject th n the Pope.

policeO& gistr te is

The ,ishop of +o&e h s no juris#iction in this re l& of Engl n#Q !here s the policeO& gistr te & y bring his sole&nity to be r Puite su##enly upon us. 2en & $e jo$es bout ol# scientific professors, e"en &ore th n they & $e the& bout bishopsOOnot bec use science is lighter th n religion, but bec use science is l! ys by its n ture &ore sole&n n# ustere th n religion. 1t is not 1Q it is not e"en p rticul r cl ss of journ lists or jesters

!ho & $e jo$es bout the & tters !hich re of &ost !ful i&portQ it is the !hole hu& n r ce. 1f there is one thing &ore th n nother !hich ny one !ill #&it !ho h s the s& llest $no!le#ge of the !orl#, it is th t &en re l! ys spe $ing gr "ely n# e rnestly n# !ith the ut&ost possible c re bout the things th t re not i&port nt, but l! ys t l$ing fri"olously bout the things th t re.

2en t l$ for hours !ith the f ces of

college of c r#in ls bout

things li$e golf, or tob cco, or ! istco ts, or p rty politics. ,ut ll the &ost gr "e n# #re #ful things in the !orl# re the ol#est jo$es in the !orl#OObeing & rrie#Q being h nge#.

8ne gentle& n, ho!e"er, 2r. 2cC be, h s in this & tter & #e to &e so&ething th t l&ost &ounts to n# s he h ppens to be "irtue 1 h "e person l ppe lQ

& n for !hose sincerity n# intellectu l

high respect, 1 #o not feel incline# to let it

p ss !ithout so&e tte&pt to s tisfy &y critic in the & tter. 2r. 2cC be #e"otes consi#er ble p rt of the l st ess y in

the collection c lle# FChristi nity n# + tion lis& on Tri lF to n objection, not to &y thesis, but to &y &etho#, n# "ery

frien#ly n# #ignifie# ppe l to &e to lter it. 1 & &uch incline# to #efen# &yself in this & tter out of &ere respect for 2r. 2cC be, n# still &ore so out of &ere respect for the truth !hich is, 1 thin$, in # nger by his error, not only in this Puestion, but in others. 1n or#er th t there & y be no injustice #one in the & tter, 1 !ill Puote 2r. 2cC be hi&self. F,ut before 1 follo! 2r. Chesterton in so&e #et il 1 !oul# & $e gener l obser" tion on his &etho#.

He is s serious s 1 & in his ulti& te purpose, n# 1 respect hi& for th t. He $no!s, s 1 #o, th t hu& nity st n#s t sole&n

p rting of the ! ys. To! r#s so&e un$no!n go l it presses through the ges, i&pelle# by n o"er& stering #esire of h ppiness. ToO# y it hesit tes, lighthe rte#ly enough, but e"ery serious thin$er $no!s ho! &o&entous the #ecision & y be. 1t is, pp rently, #eserting the p th of religion n# entering upon the p th of secul ris&. 'ill it lose itself in Pu g&ires of sensu lity #o!n this ne! p th, n# p nt n# toil through ye rs of ci"ic n# in#ustri l n rchy,

only to le rn it h # lost the ro #, n# &ust return to religionK 8r !ill it fin# th t t l st it is le "ing the &ists n# the Pu g&ires behin# itQ th t it is scen#ing the slope of the hill so long #i&ly #iscerne# he #, n# & $ing str ight for the longOsought :topi K This is the #r & of our ti&e, n# e"ery & n n# e"ery !o& n shoul# un#erst n# it.

F2r. Chesterton un#erst n#s it. )urther, he gi"es us cre#it for un#erst n#ing it. He h s nothing of th t p ltry &e nness or str nge #ensity of so & ny of his colle gues, !ho put us #o!n s i&less iconocl sts or &or l n rchists. He #&its th t !e re ! ging th n$less ! r for !h t !e

t $e to be Truth n# Progress. He is #oing the s &e. ,ut !hy, in the n &e of ll th t is re son ble, shoul# !e, !hen !e re gree# on the &o&entousness of the issue either ! y, forth!ith #esert serious &etho#s of con#ucting the contro"ersyK 'hy, !hen the "it l nee# of our ti&e is to in#uce &en n# !o&en to collect their thoughts occ sion lly, n# be &en n# !o&enOOn y, to re&e&ber th t they re re lly go#s th t hol# the #estinies of hu& nity on their $neesOO!hy shoul# !e thin$ th t this $ lei#oscopic pl y of phr ses is inopportuneK The b llets of the ?lh &br , n# the fire!or$s of the Cryst l P l ce, n# 2r. ChestertonMs ( ily 9e!s rticles, h "e their pl ce in life. ,ut ho! serious soci l stu#ent c n thin$ of curing the

thoughtlessness of our gener tion by str ine# p r #oxesQ of gi"ing people s ne gr sp of soci l proble&s by liter ry sleightOofOh n#Q rec$less sho!er of

of settling i&port nt Puestions by

roc$etO&et phors n# in ccur te Vf cts,M n# the substitution of i& gin tion for ju#g&ent, 1 c nnot see.F

1 Puote this p ss ge !ith

p rticul r ple sure, bec use 2r. 2cC be

cert inly c nnot put too strongly the #egree to !hich 1 gi"e hi& n# his school cre#it for their co&plete sincerity n# responsibility of philosophic l ttitu#e. 1 & Puite cert in th t they &e n e"ery !or# they s y. 1 lso &e n e"ery !or# 1 s y. ,ut !hy is it th t 2r. 2cC be h s so&e sort of &ysterious hesit tion bout #&itting th t 1 &e n e"ery !or# 1 s yQ !hy is it th t he is not Puite s cert in of &y &ent l responsibility s 1 & of his &ent l responsibilityK 1f !e tte&pt to ns!er the Puestion #irectly n# !ell, !e sh ll, 1 thin$, h "e co&e to the root of the & tter by the shortest cut.

2r. 2cC be thin$s th t 1 & not serious but only funny, bec use 2r. 2cC be thin$s th t funny is the opposite of serious. )unny is the opposite of not funny, n# of nothing else. The Puestion of !hether & n expresses hi&self in grotesPue

or l ugh ble phr seology, or in is not

st tely n# restr ine# phr seology, Puestion & n chooses

Puestion of &oti"e or of &or l st te, it is

of instincti"e l ngu ge n# selfOexpression. 'hether to tell the truth in long sentences or short jo$es is

proble&

n logous to !hether he chooses to tell the truth in )rench or Ger& n. 'hether & n pre ches his gospel grotesPuely or gr "ely is &erely

li$e the Puestion of !hether he pre ches it in prose or "erse. The Puestion of !hether -!ift ! s funny in his irony is Puite nother sort of Puestion to the Puestion of !hether -!ift ! s serious in his pessi&is&. -urely e"en 2r. 2cC be !oul# not & int in th t the &ore funny FGulli"erF is in its &etho# the less it c n be sincere in its object. The truth is, s 1 h "e s i#, th t in this sense the t!o Pu lities of fun n# seriousness h "e nothing !h te"er to #o !ith e ch other,

they re no &ore co&p r ble th n bl c$ n# tri ngul r. 2r. ,ern r# -h ! is funny n# sincere. 2r. George +obey is funny n# not sincere. 2r. 2cC be is sincere n# not funny. The "er ge C binet 2inister is not sincere n# not funny.

1n short, 2r. 2cC be is un#er the influence of

pri& ry f ll cy

!hich 1 h "e foun# "ery co&&on & &en of the cleric l type. 9u&bers of clergy&en h "e fro& ti&e to ti&e repro che# &e for & $ing jo$es bout religionQ n# they h "e l&ost l! ys in"o$e# the uthority of th t "ery sensible co&& n#&ent !hich s ys, FThou sh lt not t $e the n &e of the <or# thy Go# in " in.F 8f course, 1 pointe# out th t 1 ! s not in ny concei" ble sense t $ing the n &e in " in. To t $e thing n# & $e jo$e out of it

is not to t $e it in " in. 1t is, on the contr ry, to t $e it n# use it for n unco&&only goo# object. To use &e ns to use it !ithout use. ,ut thing in " in

jo$e & y be excee#ingly usefulQ

it & y cont in the !hole e rthly sense, not to &ention the !hole he "enly sense, of situ tion. ?n# those !ho fin# in the ,ible

the co&& n#&ent c n fin# in the ,ible ny nu&ber of the jo$es. 1n the s &e boo$ in !hich Go#Ms n &e is fence# fro& being t $en in " in, Go# hi&self o"er!hel&s Nob !ith torrent of terrible le"ities.

The s &e boo$ !hich s ys th t Go#Ms n &e &ust not be t $en " inly, t l$s e sily n# c relessly bout Go# l ughing n# Go# !in$ing. E"i#ently it is not here th t !e h "e to loo$ for genuine ex &ples of !h t is &e nt by " in use of the n &e. ?n# it is

not "ery #ifficult to see !here !e h "e re lly to loo$ for it. The people = s 1 t ctfully pointe# out to the&@ !ho re lly t $e the n &e of the <or# in " in re the clergy&en the&sel"es. The thing !hich is fun# &ent lly n# re lly fri"olous is not c reless jo$e.

The thing !hich is fun# &ent lly n# re lly fri"olous is c reless sole&nity. 1f 2r. 2cC be re lly !ishes to $no! !h t sort of gu r ntee of re lity n# soli#ity is ffor#e# by the &ere ct of !h t is c lle# t l$ing seriously, let hi& spen# h ppy -un# y

in going the roun# of the pulpits. 8r, better still, let hi& #rop in t the House of Co&&ons or the House of <or#s. E"en 2r. 2cC be !oul# #&it th t these &en re sole&nOO&ore sole&n th n 1 &. ?n# e"en 2r. 2cC be, 1 thin$, !oul# #&it th t these &en re fri"olousOO &ore fri"olous th n 1 &. 'hy shoul# 2r. 2cC be be so eloPuent bout the # nger rising fro& f nt stic n# p r #oxic l !ritersK 'hy shoul# he be so r#ent in #esiring gr "e n# "erbose !ritersK There re not so "ery & ny f nt stic n# p r #oxic l !riters. ,ut there re gig ntic nu&ber of gr "e n# "erbose !ritersQ

n# it is by the efforts of the gr "e n# "erbose !riters th t e"erything th t 2r. 2cC be #etests = n# e"erything th t 1 #etest, for th t & tter@ is $ept in existence n# energy. Ho! c n it h "e co&e bout th t & n s intelligent s 2r. 2cC be

c n thin$ th t p r #ox n# jesting stop the ! yK 1t is sole&nity th t is stopping the ! y in e"ery #ep rt&ent of &o#ern effort. 1t is his o!n f "ourite Fserious &etho#sQF it is his o!n f "ourite F&o&entousnessQF it is his o!n f "ourite Fju#g&entF !hich stops the ! y e"ery!here. E"ery & n !ho h s e"er he #e# to #eput tion letter

&inister $no!s this. E"ery & n !ho h s e"er !ritten

to the Ti&es $no!s it. E"ery rich & n !ho !ishes to stop the &ouths of the poor t l$s bout F&o&entousness.F E"ery C binet &inister !ho h s not got n ns!er su##enly #e"elops Fju#g&ent.F

E"ery s!e ter !ho uses "ile &etho#s reco&&en#s Fserious &etho#s.F 1 s i# &o&ent go th t sincerity h # nothing to #o !ith sole&nity,

but 1 confess th t 1 & not so cert in th t 1 ! s right.

1n the &o#ern !orl#, t ny r te, 1 & not so sure th t 1 ! s right. 1n the &o#ern !orl# sole&nity is the #irect ene&y of sincerity. 1n the &o#ern !orl# sincerity is l&ost l! ys on one si#e, n# sole&nity l&ost l! ys on the other. The only ns!er possible to the fierce n# gl # tt c$ of sincerity is the &iser ble ns!er of sole&nity. <et 2r. 2cC be, or ny one else !ho is &uch concerne# th t !e shoul# be gr "e in or#er to be sincere, si&ply i& gine the scene in so&e go"ern&ent office in !hich 2r. ,ern r# -h ! shoul# he # -oci list #eput tion

to 2r. ?usten Ch &berl in. 8n !hich si#e !oul# be the sole&nityK ?n# on !hich the sincerityK

1 &, in#ee#, #elighte# to #isco"er th t 2r. 2cC be rec$ons 2r. -h ! long !ith &e in his syste& of con#e&n tion of fri"olity. He s i# once, 1 belie"e, th t he l! ys ! nte# 2r. -h ! to l bel his p r gr phs serious or co&ic. 1 #o not $no! !hich p r gr phs of 2r. -h ! re p r gr phs to be l belle# seriousQ but surely there c n be no #oubt th t this p r gr ph of 2r. 2cC beMs is one to be l belle# co&ic. He lso s ys, in the rticle 1 & no! #iscussing, th t 2r. -h ! h s the reput tion of #eliber tely s ying e"erything !hich his he rers #o not expect hi& to s y. 1 nee# not l bour the inconclusi"eness n# !e $ness of this, bec use it h s lre #y been #e lt !ith in &y re& r$s on 2r. ,ern r# -h !. -uffice it to s y here th t the only serious re son !hich 1 c n i& gine in#ucing ny one person to listen to ny other is, th t the first person loo$s to the secon# person !ith n r#ent f ith n# fixe# ttention,

expecting hi& to s y !h t he #oes not expect hi& to s y. 1t & y be p r #ox, but th t is bec use p r #oxes re true.

1t & y not be r tion l, but th t is bec use r tion lis& is !rong. ,ut cle rly it is Puite true th t !hene"er !e go to he r prophet or

te cher !e & y or & y not expect !it, !e & y or & y not expect eloPuence, but !e #o expect !h t !e #o not expect. 'e & y not expect the true, !e & y not e"en expect the !ise, but !e #o expect the unexpecte#. 1f !e #o not expect the unexpecte#, !hy #o !e go there t llK 1f !e expect the expecte#, !hy #o !e not sit t ho&e n# expect it by oursel"esK 1f 2r. 2cC be &e ns &erely this bout 2r. -h !, th t he l! ys h s so&e unexpecte# pplic tion of his #octrine to gi"e to those !ho listen to hi&, !h t he s ys is Puite true, n# to s y it is only to s y th t 2r. -h ! is n origin l & n. ,ut if he &e ns th t 2r. -h ! h s e"er professe# or pre che# ny #octrine but one, n# th t his o!n, then !h t he s ys is not true. 1t is not &y business to #efen# 2r. -h !Q s h s been seen lre #y, 1 #is gree !ith hi& ltogether. ,ut 1 #o not &in#, on his beh lf offering in this & tter fl t #efi nce to ll his or#in ry opponents,

such s 2r. 2cC be. 1 #efy 2r. 2cC be, or nybo#y else, to &ention one single inst nce in !hich 2r. -h ! h s, for the s $e of !it or no"elty, t $en up ny position !hich ! s not #irectly #e#ucible fro& the bo#y of his #octrine s else!here expresse#. 1 h "e been, 1 & h ppy to s y, toler bly close stu#ent of 2r. -h !Ms utter nces,

n# 1 rePuest 2r. 2cC be, if he !ill not belie"e th t 1 &e n nything else, to belie"e th t 1 &e n this ch llenge.

?ll this, ho!e"er, is

p renthesis. The thing !ith !hich 1 & here

i&&e#i tely concerne# is 2r. 2cC beMs ppe l to &e not to be so fri"olous. <et &e return to the ctu l text of th t ppe l. There re, of course, gre t & ny things th t 1 &ight s y bout it in #et il.

,ut 1 & y st rt !ith s ying th t 2r. 2cC be is in error in supposing th t the # nger !hich 1 nticip te fro& the #is ppe r nce of religion is the incre se of sensu lity. 8n the contr ry,

1 shoul# be incline# to nticip te bec use 1 nticip te

#ecre se in sensu lity,

#ecre se in life. 1 #o not thin$ th t un#er

&o#ern 'estern & teri lis& !e shoul# h "e n rchy. 1 #oubt !hether !e shoul# h "e enough in#i"i#u l " lour n# spirit e"en to h "e liberty. 1t is Puite n ol#Of shione# f ll cy to suppose th t our objection to scepticis& is th t it re&o"es the #iscipline fro& life. 8ur objection to scepticis& is th t it re&o"es the &oti"e po!er. 2 teri lis& is not thing !hich #estroys &ere restr int.

2 teri lis& itself is the gre t restr int. The 2cC be school #"oc tes politic l liberty, but it #enies spiritu l liberty.

Th t is, it bolishes the l !s !hich coul# be bro$en, n# substitutes l !s th t c nnot. ?n# th t is the re l sl "ery.

The truth is th t the scientific ci"ili7 tion in !hich 2r. 2cC be belie"es h s one r ther p rticul r #efectQ it is perpetu lly ten#ing to #estroy th t #e&ocr cy or po!er of the or#in ry & n in !hich 2r. 2cC be lso belie"es. -cience &e ns speci lis&, n# speci lis& &e ns olig rchy. 1f you once est blish the h bit of trusting p rticul r &en to pro#uce p rticul r results in physics or strono&y, you le "e the #oor open for the ePu lly n tur l #e& n# th t you shoul# trust p rticul r &en to #o p rticul r things in go"ern&ent n# the coercing of &en. 1f, you feel it to be re son ble th t one beetle shoul# be the only stu#y of one & n, n# th t one & n the only stu#ent of th t one beetle, it is surely "ery h r&less

consePuence to go on to s y th t politics shoul# be the only stu#y of one & n, n# th t one & n the only stu#ent of politics. ?s 1 h "e pointe# out else!here in this boo$, the expert is &ore ristocr tic th n the ristocr t, bec use the ristocr t is only the & n !ho li"es !ell, !hile the expert is the & n !ho $no!s better.

,ut if !e loo$ t the progress of our scientific ci"ili7 tion !e see gr #u l incre se e"ery!here of the speci list o"er the popul r function. 8nce &en s ng together roun# t ble in chorusQ no! one & n

sings lone, for the bsur# re son th t he c n sing better. 1f scientific ci"ili7 tion goes on =!hich is &ost i&prob ble@ only one & n !ill l ugh, bec use he c n l ugh better th n the rest.

1 #o not $no! th t 1 c n express this &ore shortly th n by t $ing s text the single sentence of 2r. 2cC be, !hich runs s follo!sA n# the fire!or$s of the Cryst l P l ce

FThe b llets of the ?lh &br

n# 2r. ChestertonMs ( ily 9e!s rticles h "e their pl ces in life.F 1 !ish th t &y rticles h # s noble pl ce s either of the other spirit of lo"e,

t!o things &entione#. ,ut let us s$ oursel"es =in

s 2r. Ch #b n# !oul# s y@, !h t re the b llets of the ?lh &br K The b llets of the ?lh &br re institutions in !hich p rticul r

selecte# ro! of persons in pin$ go through n oper tion $no!n s # ncing. 9o!, in ll co&&on!e lths #o&in te# by religionOO

in the Christi n co&&on!e lths of the 2i##le ?ges n# in & ny ru#e societiesOOthis h bit of # ncing ! s n# ! s not necess rily confine# to ? person coul# # nce !ithout being !ithout being speci listQ co&&on h bit !ith e"erybo#y,

profession l cl ss. # ncerQ person coul# # nce

person coul# # nce !ithout being pin$.

?n#, in proportion s 2r. 2cC beMs scientific ci"ili7 tion #" ncesOO th t is, in proportion s religious ci"ili7 tion =or re l ci"ili7 tion@ #ec ysOOthe &ore n# &ore F!ell tr ine#,F the &ore n# &ore pin$, beco&e the people !ho #o # nce, n# the &ore n# &ore nu&erous beco&e the people !ho #onMt. 2r. 2cC be & y recogni7e n ex &ple of !h t 1 &e n in the gr #u l #iscre#iting in society of the ncient Europe n ! lt7 or # nce !ith p rtners, n# the substitution of th t horrible

n# #egr #ing orient l interlu#e !hich is $no!n s s$irtO# ncing. Th t is the !hole essence of #ec #ence, the eff ce&ent of fi"e people !ho #o thing for fun by one person !ho #oes it for &oney.

9o! it follo!s, therefore, th t !hen 2r. 2cC be s ys th t the b llets of the ?lh &br n# &y rticles Fh "e their pl ce in life,F

it ought to be pointe# out to hi& th t he is #oing his best to cre te !orl# in !hich # ncing, properly spe $ing, !ill h "e !orl#

no pl ce in life t ll. He is, in#ee#, trying to cre te in !hich there !ill be no life for # ncing to h "e

pl ce in. thing

The "ery f ct th t 2r. 2cC be thin$s of # ncing s

belonging to so&e hire# !o&en t the ?lh &br is n illustr tion of the s &e principle by !hich he is ble to thin$ of religion s thing belonging to so&e hire# &en in !hite nec$ties.

,oth these things re things !hich shoul# not be #one for us, but by us. 1f 2r. 2cC be !ere re lly religious he !oul# be h ppy. 1f he !ere re lly h ppy he !oul# # nce.

,riefly, !e & y put the & tter in this ! y. The & in point of &o#ern life is not th t the ?lh &br b llet h s its pl ce in life. The & in point, the & in enor&ous tr ge#y of &o#ern life, is th t 2r. 2cC be h s not his pl ce in the ?lh &br b llet. The joy of ch nging n# gr ceful posture, the joy of suiting the s!ing of &usic to the s!ing of li&bs, the joy of !hirling #r pery, the joy of st n#ing on one leg,OO ll these shoul# belong by rights to 2r. 2cC be n# to &eQ in short, to the or#in ry he lthy citi7en. Prob bly !e shoul# not consent to go through these e"olutions. ,ut th t is bec use !e re &iser ble &o#erns n# r tion lists. 'e #o not &erely lo"e oursel"es &ore th n !e lo"e #utyQ !e ctu lly lo"e oursel"es &ore th n !e lo"e joy.

'hen, therefore, 2r. 2cC be s ys th t he gi"es the ?lh &br # nces = n# &y rticles@ their pl ce in life, 1 thin$ !e re justifie# in pointing out th t by the "ery n ture of the c se of his philosophy n# of his f "ourite ci"ili7 tion he gi"es the& "ery in #ePu te pl ce.

)or =if 1 & y pursue the too fl ttering p r llel@ 2r. 2cC be thin$s of the ?lh &br n# of &y rticles s t!o "ery o## n# bsur# things,

!hich so&e speci l people #o =prob bly for &oney@ in or#er to &use hi&. ,ut if he h # e"er felt hi&self the ncient, subli&e, ele&ent l, hu& n instinct to # nce, he !oul# h "e #isco"ere# th t # ncing is not fri"olous thing t ll, but "ery serious thing.

He !oul# h "e #isco"ere# th t it is the one gr "e n# ch ste n# #ecent &etho# of expressing cert in cl ss of e&otions.

?n# si&il rly, if he h # e"er h #, s 2r. -h ! n# 1 h "e h #, the i&pulse to !h t he c lls p r #ox, he !oul# h "e #isco"ere# th t p r #ox g in is not fri"olous thing, but "ery serious thing. cert in #efi nt

He !oul# h "e foun# th t p r #ox si&ply &e ns

joy !hich belongs to belief. 1 shoul# reg r# ny ci"ili7 tion !hich ! s !ithout uni"ers l h bit of upro rious # ncing s being, #efecti"e ci"ili7 tion.

fro& the full hu& n point of "ie!,

?n# 1 shoul# reg r# ny &in# !hich h # not got the h bit in one for& or nother of upro rious thin$ing s being, fro& the full hu& n point of "ie!, 1t is " in for 2r. 2cC be to s y th t He shoul# be p rt of #efecti"e &in#. b llet is p rt of hi&. & n.

b llet, or else he is only p rt of

1t is in " in for hi& to s y th t he is Fnot Pu rrelling !ith the i&port tion of hu&our into the contro"ersy.F He ought hi&self to be i&porting hu&our into e"ery contro"ersyQ for unless & n is in p rt hu&orist, he is only in p rt & n.

To su& up the !hole & tter "ery si&ply, if 2r. 2cC be s$s &e !hy 1 i&port fri"olity into bec use fri"olity is #iscussion of the n ture of & n, 1 ns!er, p rt of the n ture of & n. 1f he s$s &e !hy philosophic l proble&,

1 intro#uce !h t he c lls p r #oxes into

1 ns!er, bec use ll philosophic l proble&s ten# to beco&e p r #oxic l. 1f he objects to &y tre ting of life riotously, 1 reply th t life is riot. ?n# 1 s y th t the :ni"erse s 1 see it, t ny r te,

is "ery &uch &ore li$e the fire!or$s t the Cryst l P l ce th n it is li$e his o!n philosophy. ?bout the !hole cos&os there is n# secret festi"ityOOli$e prep r tions for Guy ) !$esM # y. Eternity is the e"e of so&ething. 1 ne"er loo$ up t the st rs !ithout feeling th t they re the fires of fixe# in their e"erl sting f ll. schoolboyMs roc$et, tense

J*11 8n the 'it of 'histler

Th t c p ble n# ingenious !riter, 2r. ?rthur -y&ons, h s inclu#e# in boo$ of ess ys recently publishe#, 1 belie"e,

n pologi for F<on#on 9ights,F in !hich he s ys th t &or lity shoul# be !holly subor#in te# to rt in criticis&, n# he uses the so&e!h t singul r rgu&ent th t rt or the !orship of be uty is the s &e in ll ges, !hile &or lity #iffers in e"ery perio# n# in e"ery respect. He ppe rs to #efy his critics or his re #ers to &ention ny per& nent fe ture or Pu lity in ethics. This is surely "ery curious ex &ple of th t extr " g nt bi s

g inst &or lity !hich & $es so & ny ultr O&o#ern esthetes s &orbi#

n# f n tic l s ny E stern her&it. :nPuestion bly it is

"ery

co&&on phr se of &o#ern intellectu lis& to s y th t the &or lity of one ge c n be entirely #ifferent to the &or lity of nother. ?n# li$e gre t & ny other phr ses of &o#ern intellectu lis&,

it &e ns liter lly nothing t ll. 1f the t!o &or lities re entirely #ifferent, !hy #o you c ll the& both &or litiesK 1t is s if & n s i#, FC &els in " rious pl ces re tot lly #i"erseQ

so&e h "e six legs, so&e h "e none, so&e h "e sc les, so&e h "e fe thers, so&e h "e horns, so&e h "e !ings, so&e re green, so&e re tri ngul r. There is no point !hich they h "e in co&&on.F The or#in ry & n of sense !oul# reply, FThen !h t & $es you c ll the& ll c &elsK 'h t #o you &e n by 8f course, there is s there is c &elK Ho! #o you $no! c &el !hen you see oneKF

per& nent subst nce of &or lity, s &uch

per& nent subst nce of rtQ to s y th t is only to s y

th t &or lity is &or lity, n# th t rt is rt. ?n i#e l rt critic !oul#, no #oubt, see the en#uring be uty un#er e"ery schoolQ ePu lly n i#e l &or list !oul# see the en#uring ethic un#er e"ery co#e. ,ut pr ctic lly so&e of the best English&en th t e"er li"e# coul# see nothing but filth n# i#ol try in the st rry piety of the ,r h&in. ?n# it is ePu lly true th t pr ctic lly the gre test group of rtists th t the !orl# h s e"er seen, the gi nts of the +en iss nce, coul# see nothing but b rb ris& in the ethere l energy of Gothic.

This bi s g inst &or lity &ong the &o#ern esthetes is nothing "ery &uch p r #e#. ?n# yet it is not re lly it is bi s g inst &or lityQ

bi s g inst other peopleMs &or lity. 1t is gener lly "ery #efinite &or l preference for cert in sort

foun#e# on

of life, p g n, pl usible, hu& ne. The &o#ern esthete, !ishing us to belie"e th t he " lues be uty &ore th n con#uct, re #s 2 ll r&e,

n# #rin$s bsinthe in

t "ern. ,ut this is not only his f "ourite

$in# of be utyQ it is lso his f "ourite $in# of con#uct. 1f he re lly !ishe# us to belie"e th t he c re# for be uty only, he ought to go to nothing but 'esley n school tre ts, n# p int the sunlight in the h ir of the 'esley n b bies. He ought to re # nothing but "ery eloPuent theologic l ser&ons by ol#Of shione# Presbyteri n #i"ines. Here the l c$ of ll possible &or l sy&p thy !oul# pro"e th t his interest ! s purely "erb l or pictori l, s it isQ in ll the boo$s he re #s n# !rites he clings to the s$irts of his o!n &or lity n# his o!n i&&or lity. The ch &pion of lM rt pour lM rt is l! ys #enouncing +us$in for his &or li7ing. 1f he !ere re lly ch &pion of lM rt pour lM rt, he !oul# be l! ys

insisting on +us$in for his style.

The #octrine of the #istinction bet!een rt n# &or lity o!es gre t p rt of its success to rt n# &or lity being hopelessly &ixe# up in the persons n# perfor& nces of its gre test exponents. 8f this luc$y contr #iction the "ery inc rn tion ! s 'histler. 9o & n e"er pre che# the i&person lity of rt so !ellQ no & n e"er pre che# the i&person lity of rt so person lly. )or hi& pictures h # nothing to #o !ith the proble&s of ch r cterQ but for ll his fiercest #&irers his ch r cter ! s, s & tter of f ct f r &ore interesting th n his pictures.

He glorie# in st n#ing s n rtist p rt fro& right n# !rong. ,ut he succee#e# by t l$ing fro& &orning till night bout his rights n# bout his !rongs. His t lents !ere & ny, his "irtues, it &ust be confesse#, not & ny, beyon# th t $in#ness to trie# frien#s, on !hich & ny of his biogr phers insist, but !hich surely is Pu lity of ll s ne &en, of pir tes n# pic$poc$etsQ beyon# this,

his outst n#ing "irtues li&it the&sel"es chiefly to t!o #&ir ble onesOO cour ge n# n bstr ct lo"e of goo# !or$. Let 1 f ncy he !on t l st &ore by those t!o "irtues th n by ll his t lents. ? & n &ust be so&ething of &or list if he is to pre ch, e"en if he is

to pre ch un&or lity. Professor ' lter + leigh, in his F1n 2e&ori &A N &es 2c9eill 'histler,F insists, truly enough, on the strong stre $ of n eccentric honesty in & tters strictly pictori l, !hich r n through his co&plex n# slightly confuse# ch r cter. FHe !oul# #estroy ny of his !or$s r ther th n le "e or inexpressi"e touch !ithin the li&its of the fr &e. He !oul# begin g in hun#re# ti&es o"er r ther th n tte&pt c reless

by p tching to & $e his !or$ see& better th n it ! s.F

9o one !ill bl &e Professor + leigh, !ho h # to re #

sort of funer l

or tion o"er 'histler t the opening of the 2e&ori l Exhibition, if, fin#ing hi&self in th t position, he confine# hi&self &ostly to the &erits n# the stronger Pu lities of his subject. 'e shoul# n tur lly go to so&e other type of co&position for proper consi#er tion of the !e $nesses of 'histler.

,ut these &ust ne"er be o&itte# fro& our "ie! of hi&. 1n#ee#, the truth is th t it ! s not so &uch Puestion of the !e $nesses

of 'histler s of the intrinsic n# pri& ry !e $ness of 'histler. He ! s one of those people !ho li"e up to their e&otion l inco&es, !ho re l! ys t ut n# tingling !ith " nity. Hence he h # no strength to sp reQ hence he h # no $in#ness, no geni lityQ for geni lity is l&ost #efin ble s strength to sp re. He h # no go#Oli$e c relessnessQ he ne"er forgot hi&selfQ his !hole life ! s, to use his o!n expression, n rr nge&ent. He !ent in for Fthe rt of li"ingFOO &iser ble tric$.

1n

!or#, he ! s

gre t rtistQ but e&ph tic lly not

gre t & n.

1n this connection 1 &ust #iffer strongly !ith Professor + leigh upon !h t is, fro& superfici l liter ry point of "ie!, one of his &ost

effecti"e points. He co&p res 'histlerMs l ughter to the l ughter of nother & n !ho ! s gre t & n s !ell s gre t rtist.

FHis ttitu#e to the public ! s ex ctly the ttitu#e t $en up by +obert ,ro!ning, !ho suffere# s long perio# of neglect n# &ist $e,

in those lines of VThe +ing n# the ,oo$MOO

FV'ell, ,ritish Public, ye !ho li$e &e not, =Go# lo"e you%@ n# !ill h "e your proper l ugh ?t the # r$ PuestionQ l ugh it% 1M# l ugh first.M

F2r. 'histler,F ##s Professor + leigh, F l! ys l ughe# first.F The truth is, 1 belie"e, th t 'histler ne"er l ughe# t ll. There ! s no l ughter in his n tureQ bec use there ! s no thoughtlessness n# selfO b n#on&ent, no hu&ility. 1 c nnot un#erst n# nybo#y re #ing FThe Gentle ?rt of 2 $ing Ene&iesF n# thin$ing th t there is ny l ughter in the !it. His !it is torture to hi&.

He t!ists hi&self into r besPues of "erb l felicityQ he is full of fierce c refulnessQ he is inspire# !ith the co&plete seriousness

of sincere & lice. He hurts hi&self to hurt his opponent. ,ro!ning #i# l ugh, bec use ,ro!ning #i# not c reQ ,ro!ning #i# not c re, bec use ,ro!ning ! s gre t & n. ?n# !hen ,ro!ning

s i# in br c$ets to the si&ple, sensible people !ho #i# not li$e his boo$s, FGo# lo"e you%F he ! s not sneering in the le st. He ! s l ughingOOth t is to s y, he &e nt ex ctly !h t he s i#.

There re three #istinct cl sses of gre t s tirists !ho re lso gre t &enOO

th t is to s y, three cl sses of &en !ho c n l ugh t so&ething !ithout losing their souls. The s tirist of the first type is the & n !ho, first of ll enjoys hi&self, n# then enjoys his ene&ies. 1n this sense he lo"es his ene&y, n# by $in# of ex gger tion of

Christi nity he lo"es his ene&y the &ore the &ore he beco&es n ene&y. He h s sort of o"er!hel&ing n# ggressi"e h ppiness in his bene#iction.

ssertion of ngerQ his curse is s hu& n s

8f this type of s tire the gre t ex &ple is + bel is. This is the first typic l ex &ple of s tire, the s tire !hich is "oluble, !hich is "iolent, !hich is in#ecent, but !hich is not & licious. The s tire of 'histler ! s not this. He ! s ne"er in ny of his contro"ersies si&ply h ppyQ the proof of it is th t he ne"er t l$e# bsolute nonsense. There is secon# type of &in# !hich pro#uces s tire

!ith the Pu lity of gre tness. Th t is e&bo#ie# in the s tirist !hose p ssions re rele se# n# let go by so&e intoler ble sense of !rong. He is & ##ene# by the sense of &en being & ##ene#Q his tongue beco&es n unruly &e&ber, n# testifies g inst ll & n$in#. -uch & n ! s -!ift, in !ho& the s e" in#ign tio ! s bitterness to hi&self. -uch bitterness s tirist

to others, bec use it ! s

'histler ! s not. He #i# not l ugh bec use he ! s h ppy, li$e + bel is. ,ut neither #i# he l ugh bec use he ! s unh ppy, li$e -!ift.

The thir# type of gre t s tire is th t in !hich he s tirist is en ble# to rise superior to his "icti& in the only serious sense !hich superiority c n be r, in th t of pitying the sinner n# respecting the & n e"en !hile he s tirises both. -uch n chie"e&ent c n be foun# in thing li$e PopeMs F?tticusF poe& in !hich the s tirist

feels th t he is s tirising the !e $nesses !hich belong speci lly to liter ry genius. ConsePuently he t $es ple sure in pointing

out his ene&yMs strength before he points out his !e $ness. Th t is, perh ps, the highest n# &ost honour ble for& of s tire. Th t is not the s tire of 'histler. He is not full of gre t sorro!

for the !rong #one to hu& n n tureQ for hi& the !rong is ltogether #one to hi&self.

He ! s not

gre t person lity, bec use he thought so &uch

bout hi&self. ?n# the c se is stronger e"en th n th t. He ! s so&eti&es not e"en gre t rtist, bec use he thought "it l $no!le#ge of the hu& n

so &uch bout rt. ?ny & n !ith

psychology ought to h "e the &ost profoun# suspicion of nybo#y !ho cl i&s to be n rtist, n# t l$s ?rt is gre t #e l bout rt.

right n# hu& n thing, li$e ! l$ing or s ying oneMs pr yersQ & n

but the &o&ent it begins to be t l$e# bout "ery sole&nly, & y be f irly cert in th t the thing h s co&e into n# $in# of #ifficulty.

congestion

The rtistic te&per &ent is 1t is

#ise se th t fflicts & teurs.

#ise se !hich rises fro& &en not h "ing sufficient po!er of

expression to utter n# get ri# of the ele&ent of rt in their being. 1t is he lthful to e"ery s ne & n to utter the rt !ithin hi&Q it is essenti l to e"ery s ne & n to get ri# of the rt !ithin hi& t ll costs. ?rtists of l rge n# !holeso&e "it lity get ri#

of their rt e sily, s they bre the e sily, or perspire e sily. ,ut in rtists of less force, the thing beco&es n# pro#uces pressure,

#efinite p in, !hich is c lle# the rtistic te&per &ent.

Thus, "ery gre t rtists re ble to be or#in ry &enOO &en li$e -h $espe re or ,ro!ning. There re & ny re l tr ge#ies of the rtistic te&per &ent, tr ge#ies of " nity or "iolence or fe r.

,ut the gre t tr ge#y of the rtistic te&per &ent is th t it c nnot pro#uce ny rt.

'histler coul# pro#uce rtQ n# in so f r he ! s

gre t & n. & n !ith

,ut he coul# not forget rtQ n# in so f r he ! s only

the rtistic te&per &ent. There c n be no stronger & nifest tion of the & n !ho is re lly gre t rtist th n the f ct th t he c n

#is&iss the subject of rtQ th t he c n, upon #ue occ sion, !ish rt t the botto& of the se . -i&il rly, !e shoul# l! ys be &uch &ore incline# to trust solicitor !ho #i# not t l$ bout

con"ey ncing o"er the nuts n# !ine. 'h t !e re lly #esire of ny & n con#ucting ny business is th t the full force of n or#in ry & n shoul# be put into th t p rticul r stu#y. 'e #o not #esire th t the full force of th t stu#y shoul# be put into n or#in ry & n. 'e #o not in the le st !ish th t our p rticul r l !Osuit shoul# pour its energy into our b rristerMs g &es !ith his chil#ren, or ri#es on his bicycle, or &e#it tions on the &orning st r. ,ut !e #o, s & tter of f ct, #esire th t his g &es !ith his chil#ren,

n# his ri#es on his bicycle, n# his &e#it tions on the &orning st r shoul# pour so&ething of their energy into our l !Osuit. 'e #o #esire th t if he h s g ine# ny especi l lung #e"elop&ent fro& the bicycle, or ny bright n# ple sing &et phors fro& the &orning st r, th t the shoul# be pl ce# t our #ispos l in th t p rticul r forensic contro"ersy. 1n !or#, !e re "ery gl # th t he is n or#in ry & n, since th t

& y help hi& to be n exception l l !yer.

'histler ne"er ce se# to be n rtist. ?s 2r. 2 x ,eerboh& pointe# out in one of his extr or#in rily sensible n# sincere critiPues, 'histler re lly reg r#e# 'histler s his gre test !or$ of rt.

The !hite loc$, the single eyegl ss, the re& r$ ble h tOO these !ere &uch #e rer to hi& th n ny nocturnes or rr nge&ents th t he e"er thre! off. He coul# thro! off the nocturnesQ for so&e &ysterious re son he coul# not thro! off the h t. He ne"er thre! off fro& hi&self th t #isproportion te ccu&ul tion of estheticis& !hich is the bur#en of the & teur.

1t nee# h r#ly be s i# th t this is the re l expl n tion of the thing !hich h s pu77le# so & ny #ilett nte critics, the proble& of the extre&e or#in riness of the beh "iour of so & ny gre t geniuses in history. Their beh "iour ! s so or#in ry th t it ! s not recor#e#Q hence it ! s so or#in ry th t it see&e# &ysterious. Hence people s y th t , con !rote -h $espe re. The &o#ern rtistic te&per &ent c nnot un#erst n# ho! & n !ho coul# !rite such lyrics s -h $espe re !rote,

coul# be s $een s -h $espe re ! s on business tr ns ctions in little to!n in ' r!ic$shire. The expl n tion is si&ple enoughQ it is th t -h $espe re h # re l lyric l i&pulse, !rote re l lyric,

n# so got ri# of the i&pulse n# !ent bout his business. ,eing n rtist #i# not pre"ent hi& fro& being n or#in ry & n, ny &ore th n being sleeper t night or being #iner t #inner

pre"ente# hi& fro& being n or#in ry & n.

?ll "ery gre t te chers n# le #ers h "e h # this h bit of ssu&ing their point of "ie! to be one !hich ! s hu& n n# c su l, one !hich !oul# re #ily ppe l to e"ery p ssing & n. 1f & n is genuinely superior to his fello!s the first thing

th t he belie"es in is the ePu lity of & n. 'e c n see this, for inst nce, in th t str nge n# innocent r tion lity !ith !hich Christ ##resse# ny &otley cro!# th t h ppene# to st n# bout Hi&.

F'h t & n of you h "ing

hun#re# sheep, n# losing one, !oul# not le "e

the ninety n# nine in the !il#erness, n# go fter th t !hich ! s lostKF 8r, g in, F'h t & n of you if his son s$ for bre # !ill he gi"e hi& stone, or if he s$ for fish !ill he gi"e hi& serpentKF

This pl inness, this l&ost pros ic c & r #erie, is the note of ll "ery gre t &in#s.

To "ery gre t &in#s the things on !hich &en gree re so i&&e sur bly &ore i&port nt th n the things on !hich they #iffer, th t the l tter, for ll pr ctic l purposes, #is ppe r. They h "e too &uch in the& of n ncient l ughter e"en to en#ure to #iscuss the #ifference bet!een the h ts of t!o &en !ho !ere both born of !o& n,

or bet!een the subtly " rie# cultures of t!o &en !ho h "e both to #ie. The firstOr te gre t & n is ePu l !ith other &en, li$e -h $espe re. The secon#Or te gre t & n is on his $nees to other &en, li$e 'hit& n. The thir#Or te gre t & n is superior to other &en, li$e 'histler.

J*111 The ) ll cy of the Loung 9 tion

To s y th t

& n is n i#e list is &erely to s y th t he is

& nQ but, ne"ertheless, it &ight be possible to effect so&e " li# #istinction bet!een one $in# of i#e list n# nother. 8ne possible #istinction, for inst nce, coul# be effecte# by s ying th t hu& nity is #i"i#e# into conscious i#e lists n# unconscious i#e lists. 1n si&il r ! y, hu& nity is #i"i#e# into conscious ritu lists n#.

unconscious ritu lists. The curious thing is, in th t ex &ple s

in others, th t it is the conscious ritu lis& !hich is co&p r ti"ely si&ple, the unconscious ritu l !hich is re lly he "y n# co&plic te#. The ritu l !hich is co&p r ti"ely ru#e n# str ightfor! r# is the ritu l !hich people c ll Fritu listic.F 1t consists of pl in things li$e bre # n# !ine n# fire, n# &en f lling on their f ces. ,ut the ritu l !hich is re lly co&plex, n# & ny coloure#, n# el bor te, n# nee#lessly for& l, is the ritu l !hich people en ct !ithout $no!ing it. 1t consists not of pl in things li$e !ine n# fire, but of re lly peculi r, n# loc l, n# exception l, n# ingenious thingsOO things li$e #oorO& ts, n# #oorO$noc$ers, n# electric bells, n# sil$ h ts, n# !hite ties, n# shiny c r#s, n# confetti. The truth is th t the &o#ern & n sc rcely e"er gets b c$ to "ery ol# n# si&ple things except !hen he is perfor&ing so&e religious &u&&ery. The &o#ern & n c n h r#ly get ! y fro& ritu l except by entering ritu listic church. 1n the c se of these ol# n# &ystic l for& lities !e c n t le st s y th t the ritu l is not &ere ritu lQ th t the sy&bols e&ploye# re in &ost c ses sy&bols !hich belong to pri& ry hu& n poetry. The &ost ferocious opponent of the Christi n cere&oni ls &ust #&it th t if C tholicis& h # not institute# the bre # n# !ine, so&ebo#y else !oul# &ost prob bly h "e #one so. ?ny one !ith poetic l instinct !ill #&it th t to the or#in ry

hu& n instinct bre # sy&boli7es so&ething !hich c nnot "ery e sily be sy&boli7e# other!iseQ th t !ine, to the or#in ry hu& n instinct, sy&boli7es so&ething !hich c nnot "ery e sily be sy&boli7e# other!ise. ,ut !hite ties in the e"ening re ritu l, n# nothing else but ritu l. 9o one !oul# preten# th t !hite ties in the e"ening re pri& ry n# poetic l. 9obo#y !oul# & int in th t the or#in ry hu& n instinct !oul# in ny ge or country ten# to sy&boli7e the i#e of e"ening by !hite nec$tie. + ther, the or#in ry hu& n instinct !oul#,

1 i& gine, ten# to sy&boli7e e"ening by cr " ts !ith so&e of the colours of the sunset, not !hite nec$ties, but t !ny or cri&son nec$tiesOO nec$ties of purple or oli"e, or so&e # r$ene# gol#. 2r. N. ?. Kensit, for ex &ple, is un#er the i&pression th t he is not ritu list.

,ut the # ily life of 2r. N. ?. Kensit, li$e th t of ny or#in ry &o#ern & n, is, s & tter of f ct, one continu l n# co&presse#

c t logue of &ystic l &u&&ery n# flu&&ery. To t $e one inst nce out of n ine"it ble hun#re#A 1 i& gine th t 2r. Kensit t $es off his h t to l #yQ n# !h t c n be &ore sole&n n# bsur#,

consi#ere# in the bstr ct, th n, sy&boli7ing the existence of the other sex by t $ing off portion of your clothing n# ! "ing it in the irK n tur l n# pri&iti"e sy&bol, li$e fire or foo#. l #yQ

This, 1 repe t, is not

? & n &ight just s !ell h "e to t $e off his ! istco t to n# if

& n, by the soci l ritu l of his ci"ili7 tion, h # to t $e off l #y, e"ery chi" lrous n# sensible & n !oul# t $e l #y. 1n short, 2r. Kensit, n# those !ho gree

his ! istco t to

off his ! istco t to

!ith hi&, & y thin$, n# Puite sincerely thin$, th t &en gi"e too &uch incense n# cere&oni l to their #or tion of the other !orl#. ,ut nobo#y thin$s th t he c n gi"e too &uch incense n# cere&oni l to the #or tion of this !orl#. ?ll &en, then, re ritu lists, but re either conscious or unconscious ritu lists. The conscious ritu lists re gener lly s tisfie# !ith fe! "ery si&ple n# ele&ent ry signsQ

the unconscious ritu lists re not s tisfie# !ith nything short of the !hole of hu& n life, being l&ost ins nely ritu listic. The first is c lle# ritu list bec use he in"ents n# re&e&bers

one riteQ the other is c lle# n ntiOritu list bec use he obeys n# forgets thous n#. ?n# so&e!h t si&il r #istinction

to this !hich 1 h "e #r !n !ith so&e un "oi# ble length, bet!een the conscious ritu list n# the unconscious ritu list,

exists bet!een the conscious i#e list n# the unconscious i#e list. 1t is i#le to in"eigh g inst cynics n# & teri listsOOthere re no cynics, there re no & teri lists. E"ery & n is i#e listicQ only it so often h ppens th t he h s the !rong i#e l. E"ery & n is incur bly senti&ent lQ but, unfortun tely, it is so often f lse senti&ent. 'hen !e t l$, for inst nce, of so&e unscrupulous co&&erci l figure, n# s y th t he !oul# #o nything for &oney, !e use Puite n in ccur te expression, n# !e sl n#er hi& "ery &uch. He !oul# not #o nything for &oney. He !oul# #o so&e things for &oneyQ he !oul# sell his soul for &oney, for inst nceQ n#, s 2ir be u hu&orously s i#, he !oul# be Puite !ise Fto t $e &oney for &uc$.F He !oul# oppress hu& nity for &oneyQ but then it h ppens th t hu& nity n# the soul re not things th t he belie"es inQ they re not his i#e ls. ,ut he h s his o!n #i& n# #elic te i#e lsQ n# he !oul# not "iol te these for &oney. He !oul# not #rin$ out of the soupOtureen, for &oney. He !oul# not !e r his co tOt ils in front, for &oney. He !oul# not spre # report th t he h # softening of the br in, for &oney.

1n the ctu l pr ctice of life !e fin#, in the & tter of i#e ls, ex ctly !h t !e h "e lre #y foun# in the & tter of ritu l. 'e fin# th t !hile there is perfectly genuine # nger of f n ticis&

fro& the &en !ho h "e un!orl#ly i#e ls, the per& nent n# urgent # nger of f n ticis& is fro& the &en !ho h "e !orl#ly i#e ls.

People !ho s y th t n i#e l is

# ngerous thing, th t it

#elu#es n# intoxic tes, re perfectly right. ,ut the i#e l !hich intoxic tes &ost is the le st i#e listic $in# of i#e l. The i#e l !hich intoxic tes le st is the "ery i#e l i#e lQ th t sobers us su##enly, s ll heights n# precipices n# gre t #ist nces #o. Gr nte# th t it is gre t e"il to &ist $e clou# for c peQ

still, the clou#, !hich c n be &ost e sily &ist $en for

c pe,

is the clou# th t is ne rest the e rth. -i&il rly, !e & y gr nt th t it & y be # ngerous to &ist $e n i#e l for so&ething pr ctic l. ,ut !e sh ll still point out th t, in this respect, the &ost # ngerous i#e l of ll is the i#e l !hich loo$s 1t is #ifficult to tt in little pr ctic l.

high i#e lQ consePuently, it is l&ost

i&possible to persu #e oursel"es th t !e h "e tt ine# it. ,ut it is e sy to tt in lo! i#e lQ consePuently, it is e sier

still to persu #e oursel"es th t !e h "e tt ine# it !hen !e h "e #one nothing of the $in#. To t $e 1t &ight be c lle# r n#o& ex &ple.

high &bition to !ish to be n rch ngelQ

the & n !ho entert ine# such n i#e l !oul# "ery possibly exhibit sceticis&, or e"en fren7y, but not, 1 thin$, #elusion. He !oul# not thin$ he ! s n rch ngel, n# go bout fl pping his h n#s un#er the i&pression th t they !ere !ings. ,ut suppose th t to be s ne & n h # lo! i#e lQ suppose he !ishe#

gentle& n. ?ny one !ho $no!s the !orl# $no!s th t in nine gentle& nQ

!ee$s he !oul# h "e persu #e# hi&self th t he ! s

n# this being & nifestly not the c se, the result !ill be "ery re l n# pr ctic l #isloc tions n# c l &ities in soci l life. 1t is not the !il# i#e ls !hich !rec$ the pr ctic l !orl#Q it is the t &e i#e ls.

The & tter & y, perh ps, be illustr te# by

p r llel fro& our

&o#ern politics. 'hen &en tell us th t the ol# <iber l politici ns of the type of Gl #stone c re# only for i#e ls, of course, they re t l$ing nonsenseOOthey c re# for gre t & ny other things,

inclu#ing "otes. ?n# !hen &en tell us th t &o#ern politici ns of the type of 2r. Ch &berl in or, in nother ! y, <or# +osebery,

c re only for "otes or for & teri l interest, then g in they re t l$ing nonsenseOOthese &en c re for i#e ls li$e ll other &en. ,ut the re l #istinction !hich & y be #r !n is this, th t to the ol#er politici n the i#e l ! s n i#e l, n# nothing else. To the ne! politici n his #re & is not only goo# #re &, it is goo# thing re lity.

The ol# politici n !oul# h "e s i#, F1t !oul# be if there !ere

+epublic n )e#er tion #o&in ting the !orl#.F goo# thing

,ut the &o#ern politici n #oes not s y, F1t !oul# be if there !ere He s ys, F1t is

,ritish 1&peri lis& #o&in ting the !orl#.F goo# thing th t there is ,ritish 1&peri lis&

#o&in ting the !orl#QF !here s cle rly there is nothing of the $in#. The ol# <iber l !oul# s y FThere ought to be goo# 1rish go"ern&ent

in 1rel n#.F ,ut the or#in ry &o#ern :nionist #oes not s y, FThere ought to be FThere is goo# English go"ern&ent in 1rel n#.F He s ys,

goo# English go"ern&ent in 1rel n#QF !hich is bsur#. & n beco&es

1n short, the &o#ern politici ns see& to thin$ th t

pr ctic l &erely by & $ing ssertions entirely bout pr ctic l things. ?pp rently, #elusion #oes not & tter s long s it is

& teri listic #elusion. 1nstincti"ely &ost of us feel th t, s pr ctic l & tter, e"en the contr ry is true. 1 cert inly gentle& n !ho thought gr sshopper.

!oul# &uch r ther sh re &y p rt&ents !ith he ! s Go# th n !ith

gentle& n !ho thought he ! s

To be continu lly h unte# by pr ctic l i& ges n# pr ctic l proble&s, to be const ntly thin$ing of things s ctu l, s urgent, s in process of co&pletionOOthese things #o not pro"e & n to be pr ctic lQ lun tic.

these things, in#ee#, re &ong the &ost or#in ry signs of

Th t our &o#ern st tes&en re & teri listic is nothing g inst their being lso &orbi#. -eeing ngels in "ision & y & $e & n

supern tur list to excess. ,ut &erely seeing sn $es in #eliriu&

tre&ens #oes not & $e hi&

n tur list.

?n# !hen !e co&e ctu lly to ex &ine the & in stoc$ notions of our &o#ern pr ctic l politici ns, !e fin# th t those & in stoc$ notions re & inly #elusions. ? gre t & ny inst nces &ight be gi"en of the f ct. 'e &ight t $e, for ex &ple, the c se of th t str nge cl ss of notions !hich un#erlie the !or# Funion,F n# ll the eulogies he pe# upon it. 8f course, union is no &ore is n# goo# thing in itself th n sep r tion p rty in f "our of union p rty

goo# thing in itself. To h "e

p rty in f "our of sep r tion is s bsur# s to h "e

in f "our of going upst irs n#

p rty in f "our of going #o!nst irs.

The Puestion is not !hether !e go up or #o!n st irs, but !here !e re going to, n# !h t !e re going, forK :nion is strengthQ union is lso !e $ness. 1t is to c rtQ but it is not goo# thing to h rness t!o horses

goo# thing to try n# turn t!o h nso& c bs

into one fourO!heeler. Turning ten n tions into one e&pire & y h ppen to be s fe sible s turning ten shillings into one h lfOso"ereign. ?lso it & y h ppen to be s preposterous s turning ten terriers into one & stiff . The Puestion in ll c ses is not Puestion of

union or bsence of union, but of i#entity or bsence of i#entity. 8!ing to cert in historic l n# &or l c uses, t!o n tions & y be so unite# s upon the !hole to help e ch other. Thus Engl n# n# -cotl n# p ss their ti&e in p ying e ch other co&pli&entsQ but their energies n# t&ospheres run #istinct n# p r llel, n# consePuently #o not cl sh. -cotl n# continues to be e#uc te# n# C l"inisticQ Engl n# continues to be une#uc te# n# h ppy. ,ut o!ing to cert in other 2or l n# cert in other politic l c uses, t!o n tions & y be so unite# s only to h &per e ch otherQ their lines #o cl sh n# #o not run p r llel. Thus, for inst nce,

Engl n# n# 1rel n# re so unite# th t the 1rish c n so&eti&es rule Engl n#, but c n ne"er rule 1rel n#. The e#uc tion l syste&s, inclu#ing the l st E#uc tion ?ct, re here, s in the c se of -cotl n#, "ery goo# test of the & tter. strict C tholicis&Q " gue Protest ntis&.

The o"er!hel&ing & jority of 1rish&en belie"e in the o"er!hel&ing & jority of English&en belie"e in

The 1rish p rty in the P rli &ent of :nion is just l rge enough to pre"ent the English e#uc tion being in#efinitely Protest nt, n# just s& ll enough to pre"ent the 1rish e#uc tion being #efinitely C tholic. Here !e h "e st te of things !hich no & n in his senses !oul#

e"er #re & of !ishing to continue if he h # not been be!itche# by the senti&ent lis& of the &ere !or# Funion.F

This ex &ple of union, ho!e"er, is not the ex &ple !hich 1 propose to t $e of the ingr ine# futility n# #eception un#erlying ll the ssu&ptions of the &o#ern pr ctic l politici n. 1 !ish to spe $ especi lly of nother n# &uch &ore gener l #elusion. 1t per" #es the &in#s n# speeches of ll the pr ctic l &en of ll p rtiesQ n# it is chil#ish blun#er built upon single f lse &et phor.

1 refer to the uni"ers l &o#ern t l$ bout young n tions n# ne! n tionsQ bout ?&eric being young, bout 9e! Ue l n# being ne!. The !hole thing is 1t is tric$ of !or#s. ?&eric is not young, 9e! Ue l n# is not ne!. "ery #iscuss ble Puestion !hether they re not both &uch

ol#er th n Engl n# or 1rel n#.

8f course !e & y use the &et phor of youth bout ?&eric or the colonies, if !e use it strictly s i&plying only recent origin.

,ut if !e use it = s !e #o use it@ s i&plying "igour, or "i" city, or cru#ity, or inexperience, or hope, or long life before the&

or ny of the ro& ntic ttributes of youth, then it is surely s cle r s # ylight th t !e re #upe# by st le figure of speech.

'e c n e sily see the & tter cle rly by pplying it to ny other institution p r llel to the institution of n in#epen#ent n tion lity. 1f club c lle# FThe 2il$ n# -o# <e gueF =let us s y@

! s set up yester# y, s 1 h "e no #oubt it ! s, then, of course, FThe 2il$ n# -o# <e gueF is young club in the sense th t it

! s set up yester# y, but in no other sense. 1t & y consist entirely of &oribun# ol# gentle&en. 1t & y be &oribun# itself. 'e & y c ll it young club, in the light of the f ct th t it ! s "ery ol# club in the light

foun#e# yester# y. 'e & y lso c ll it

of the f ct th t it !ill &ost prob bly go b n$rupt toO&orro!. ?ll this ppe rs "ery ob"ious !hen !e put it in this for&. ?ny one !ho #opte# the youngOco&&unity #elusion !ith reg r# to b n$ or butcherMs shop !oul# be sent to n sylu&. n# the colonies

,ut the !hole &o#ern politic l notion th t ?&eric

&ust be "ery "igorous bec use they re "ery ne!, rests upon no better foun# tion. Th t ?&eric ! s foun#e# long fter Engl n# #oes not & $e it e"en in the f intest #egree &ore prob ble th t ?&eric !ill not perish long ti&e before Engl n#.

Th t Engl n# existe# before her colonies #oes not & $e it ny the less li$ely th t she !ill exist fter her colonies. ?n# !hen !e loo$ t the ctu l history of the !orl#, !e fin# th t gre t Europe n n tions l&ost in" ri bly h "e sur"i"e# the "it lity of their colonies. 'hen !e loo$ t the ctu l history of the !orl#, !e fin#, th t if there is thing th t is born ol# n# #ies young, it is colony.

The Gree$ colonies !ent to pieces long before the Gree$ ci"ili7 tion. The -p nish colonies h "e gone to pieces long before the n tion of -p inOO nor #oes there see& to be ny re son to #oubt the possibility or e"en

the prob bility of the conclusion th t the coloni l ci"ili7 tion, !hich o!es its origin to Engl n#, !ill be &uch briefer n# &uch less "igorous th n the ci"ili7 tion of Engl n# itself. The English n tion !ill still be going the ! y of ll Europe n n tions !hen the ?ngloO- xon r ce h s gone the ! y of ll f #s. 9o!, of course, the interesting Puestion is, h "e !e, in the c se of ?&eric ny re l e"i#ence of n# the colonies,

&or l n# intellectu l youth s oppose# &erely chronologic l youthK

to the in#isput ble tri"i lity of

Consciously or unconsciously, !e $no! th t !e h "e no such e"i#ence, n# consciously or unconsciously, therefore, !e procee# to & $e it up. 8f this pure n# pl ci# in"ention, c n be foun# in goo# ex &ple, for inst nce,

recent poe& of 2r. +u#y r# KiplingMs. -pe $ing of

the English people n# the -outh ?fric n ' r 2r. Kipling s ys th t F!e f !ne# on the younger n tions for the &en th t coul# shoot n# ri#e.F -o&e people consi#ere# this sentence insulting. ?ll th t 1 & concerne# !ith t present is the e"i#ent f ct th t it is not true. The colonies pro"i#e# "ery useful "olunteer troops, but they #i# not pro"i#e the best troops, nor chie"e the &ost successful exploits. The best !or$ in the ! r on the English si#e ! s #one, s &ight h "e been expecte#, by the best English regi&ents. The &en !ho coul# shoot n# ri#e !ere not the enthusi stic corn &erch nts fro& 2elbourne, ny &ore th n they !ere the enthusi stic cler$s fro& Che psi#e. The &en !ho coul# shoot n# ri#e !ere the &en !ho h # been t ught to shoot n# ri#e in the #iscipline of the st n#ing r&y of gre t Europe n po!er. 8f course,

the coloni ls re s br "e n# thletic s ny other "er ge !hite &en. 8f course, they cPuitte# the&sel"es !ith re son ble cre#it. ?ll 1 h "e here to in#ic te is th t, for the purposes of this theory of the ne! n tion, it is necess ry to & int in th t the coloni l

forces !ere &ore useful or &ore heroic th n the gunners t Colenso or the )ighting )ifth. ?n# of this contention there is not, n# ne"er h s been, one stic$ or str ! of e"i#ence.

? si&il r tte&pt is & #e, n# !ith e"en less success, to represent the liter ture of the colonies s so&ething fresh n# "igorous n# i&port nt. The i&peri list & g 7ines re const ntly springing upon us so&e genius fro& Rueensl n# or C n # , through !ho& !e re expecte# to s&ell the o#ours of the bush or the pr irie. ?s & tter of f ct,

ny one !ho is e"en slightly intereste# in liter ture s such = n# 1, for one, confess th t 1 & only slightly intereste# in liter ture s such@, !ill freely #&it th t the stories of these geniuses s&ell of nothing but printerMs in$, n# th t not of firstOr te Pu lity. ,y gre t effort of 1&peri l i& gin tion the generous force n# no"elty.

English people re #s into these !or$s

,ut the force n# the no"elty re not in the ne! !ritersQ the force n# the no"elty re in the ncient he rt of the English. ?nybo#y !ho stu#ies the& i&p rti lly !ill $no! th t the firstOr te !riters of the colonies re not e"en p rticul rly no"el in their note n# t&osphere, re not only not pro#ucing ne! $in#

of goo# liter ture, but re not e"en in ny p rticul r sense pro#ucing ne! $in# of b # liter ture. The firstOr te !riters

of the ne! countries re re lly l&ost ex ctly li$e the secon#Or te !riters of the ol# countries. 8f course they #o feel the &ystery of the !il#erness, the &ystery of the bush, for ll si&ple n# honest &en feel this in 2elbourne, or 2 rg te, or -outh -t. P ncr s. ,ut !hen they !rite &ost sincerely n# &ost successfully, it is not !ith b c$groun# of the &ystery of the bush, but !ith b c$groun#,

expresse# or ssu&e#, of our o!n ro& ntic coc$ney ci"ili7 tion.

'h t re lly &o"es their souls !ith of the !il#erness, but the 2ystery of

$in#ly terror is not the &ystery H nso& C b.

8f course there re so&e exceptions to this gener li7 tion. The one re lly rresting exception is 8li"e -chreiner, n# she is Puite s cert inly n exception th t pro"es the rule. 8li"e -chreiner is fierce, brilli nt, n# re listic no"elistQ

but she is ll this precisely bec use she is not English t ll. Her trib l $inship is !ith the country of Teniers n# 2 th t is, !ith rten 2 rtensOO

country of re lists. Her liter ry $inship is !ith

the pessi&istic fiction of the continentQ !ith the no"elists !hose "ery pity is cruel. 8li"e -chreiner is the one English coloni l !ho is not con"ention l, for the si&ple re son th t -outh ?fric is the one English colony !hich is not English, n# prob bly ne"er !ill be. ?n#, of course, there re in#i"i#u l exceptions in &inor ! y.

1 re&e&ber in p rticul r so&e ?ustr li n t les by 2r. 2c1l! in !hich !ere re lly ble n# effecti"e, n# !hich, for th t re son, 1 suppose, re not presente# to the public !ith bl sts of ,ut &y gener l contention if put before ny one !ith tru&pet.

lo"e

of letters, !ill not be #ispute# if it is un#erstoo#. 1t is not the truth th t the coloni l ci"ili7 tion s or sho!s ny signs of gi"ing us, n# reno" te our o!n. 1t & y be !hole is gi"ing us,

liter ture !hich !ill st rtle "ery goo# thing for us to h "e

n ffection te illusion in the & tterQ th t is Puite nother ff ir. The colonies & y h "e gi"en Engl n# th t they h "e not gi"en the !orl# ne! e&otionQ 1 only s y

ne! boo$.

Touching these English colonies, 1 #o not !ish to be &isun#erstoo#. 1 #o not s y of the& or of ?&eric th t they h "e not future,

or th t they !ill not be gre t n tions. 1 &erely #eny the !hole est blishe# &o#ern expression bout the&. 1 #eny th t they re F#estine#F to future. 1 #eny th t they re F#estine#F to be gre t n tions.

1 #eny =of course@ th t ny hu& n thing is #estine# to be nything. ?ll the bsur# physic l &et phors, such s youth n# ge, li"ing n# #ying, re, !hen pplie# to n tions, but pseu#oOscientific tte&pts to conce l fro& &en the !ful liberty of their lonely souls.

1n the c se of ?&eric , in#ee#,

! rning to this effect is inst nt

n# essenti l. ?&eric , of course, li$e e"ery other hu& n thing, c n in spiritu l sense li"e or #ie s &uch s it chooses. ,ut t the present &o&ent the & tter !hich ?&eric h s "ery seriously to consi#er is not ho! ne r it is to its birth n# beginning, but ho! ne r it & y be to its en#. 1t is only "erb l Puestion

!hether the ?&eric n ci"ili7 tion is youngQ it & y beco&e "ery pr ctic l n# urgent Puestion !hether it is #ying. 'hen once !e h "e c st si#e, s !e ine"it bly h "e fter &o&entMs thought, the f nciful physic l &et phor in"ol"e# in the !or# Fyouth,F !h t serious e"i#ence h "e !e th t ?&eric is force n# not it h s st le oneK 1t h s fresh

gre t & ny people, li$e Chin Q

gre t #e l of &oney, li$e #efe te# C rth ge or #ying *enice.

1t is full of bustle n# excit bility, li$e ?thens fter its ruin, n# ll the Gree$ cities in their #ecline. 1t is fon# of ne! thingsQ but the ol# re l! ys fon# of ne! things. Loung &en re # chronicles, but ol# &en re # ne!sp pers. 1t #&ires strength n# goo# loo$sQ it #&ires big n# b rb ric be uty in its !o&en, for inst nceQ

but so #i# +o&e !hen the Goth ! s t the g tes. ?ll these re things Puite co&p tible !ith fun# &ent l te#iu& n# #ec y. There re three & in sh pes or sy&bols in !hich n tion c n sho!

itself essenti lly gl # n# gre tOOby the heroic in go"ern&ent, by the heroic in r&s, n# by the heroic in rt. ,eyon# go"ern&ent, !hich is, s it !ere, the "ery sh pe n# bo#y of n tion,

the &ost signific nt thing bout ny citi7en is his rtistic ttitu#e to! r#s holi# y n# his &or l ttitu#e to! r#s fightOO

th t is, his ! y of ccepting life n# his ! y of ccepting #e th.

-ubjecte# to these etern l tests, ?&eric #oes not ppe r by ny &e ns s p rticul rly fresh or untouche#. -he ppe rs !ith ll the !e $ness n# !e riness of &o#ern Engl n# or of ny other 'estern po!er. 1n her politics she h s bro$en up ex ctly s Engl n# h s bro$en up, into be!il#ering opportunis& n# insincerity. 1n the & tter of ! r

n# the n tion l ttitu#e to! r#s ! r, her rese&bl nce to Engl n# is e"en &ore & nifest n# &el ncholy. 1t & y be s i# !ith rough ccur cy th t there re three st ges in the life of )irst, it is strong people.

s& ll po!er, n# fights s& ll po!ers. Then it is gre t po!er,

gre t po!er, n# fights gre t po!ers. Then it is

n# fights s& ll po!ers, but preten#s th t they re gre t po!ers, in or#er to re$in#le the shes of its ncient e&otion n# " nity. ?fter th t, the next step is to beco&e s& ll po!er itself.

Engl n# exhibite# this sy&pto& of #ec #ence "ery b #ly in the ! r !ith the Tr ns" lQ but ?&eric exhibite# it !orse in the ! r !ith -p in.

There ! s exhibite# &ore sh rply n# bsur#ly th n ny!here else the ironic contr st bet!een the "ery c reless choice of strong line n# the "ery c reful choice of !e $ ene&y.

?&eric

##e# to ll her other l te +o& n or ,y7 ntine ele&ents

the ele&ent of the C r c ll n triu&ph, the triu&ph o"er nobo#y.

,ut !hen !e co&e to the l st test of n tion lity, the test of rt

n# letters, the c se is l&ost terrible. The English colonies h "e pro#uce# no gre t rtistsQ n# th t f ct & y pro"e th t they re still full of silent possibilities n# reser"e force. ,ut ?&eric h s pro#uce# gre t rtists. ?n# th t f ct &ost cert inly pro"es th t she is full of fine futility n# the en# of ll things.

'h te"er the ?&eric n &en of genius re, they re not young go#s & $ing young !orl#. 1s the rt of 'histler br "e, b rb ric rt,

h ppy n# he #longK (oes 2r. Henry N &es infect us !ith the spirit of schoolboyK 9oQ the colonies h "e not spo$en, n# they re s fe.

Their silence & y be the silence of the unborn. ,ut out of ?&eric h s co&e of s!eet n# st rtling cry, s un&ist $ ble s the cry

#ying & n.

J1J -lu& 9o"elists n# the -lu&s

8## i#e s re entert ine# in our ti&e bout the re l n ture of the #octrine of hu& n fr ternity. The re l #octrine is so&ething !hich !e #o not, !ith ll our &o#ern hu& nit ri nis&, "ery cle rly un#erst n#, &uch less "ery closely pr ctise. There is nothing, for inst nce, p rticul rly un#e&ocr tic bout $ic$ing your butler #o!nst irs. 1t & y be !rong, but it is not unfr tern l. 1n the blo! or $ic$ & y be consi#ere# s cert in sense,

confession of ePu lityA

you re &eeting your butler bo#y to bo#yQ you re l&ost ccor#ing hi& the pri"ilege of the #uel. There is nothing, un#e&ocr tic, though there & y be so&ething unre son ble, in expecting fro& the butler, n# being fille# !ith gre t #e l

$in# of fren7y of surprise

!hen he f lls short of the #i"ine st ture. The thing !hich is re lly un#e&ocr tic n# unfr tern l is not to expect the butler to be &ore or less #i"ine. The thing !hich is re lly un#e&ocr tic n# unfr tern l is to s y, s so & ny &o#ern hu& nit ri ns s y, F8f course one &ust & $e llo! nces for those on lo!er pl ne.F

?ll things consi#ere# in#ee#, it & y be s i#, !ithout un#ue ex gger tion, th t the re lly un#e&ocr tic n# unfr tern l thing is the co&&on pr ctice of not $ic$ing the butler #o!nst irs.

1t is only bec use such

" st section of the &o#ern !orl# is

out of sy&p thy !ith the serious #e&ocr tic senti&ent th t this st te&ent !ill see& to & ny to be l c$ing in seriousness. (e&ocr cy is not phil nthropyQ it is not e"en ltruis& or soci l refor&. (e&ocr cy is not foun#e# on pity for the co&&on & nQ #e&ocr cy is foun#e# on re"erence for the co&&on & n, or, if you !ill, e"en on fe r of hi&. 1t #oes not ch &pion & n bec use & n is so &iser ble, but bec use & n is so subli&e. 1t #oes not object so &uch to the or#in ry & n being sl "e s to his not being $ing,

for its #re & is l! ys the #re & of the first +o& n republic, n tion of $ings.

9ext to

genuine republic, the &ost #e&ocr tic thing here#it ry #espotis&. 1 &e n #espotis&

in the !orl# is

in !hich there is bsolutely no tr ce !h te"er of ny nonsense bout intellect or speci l fitness for the post. + tion l #espotis&OOth t is, selecti"e #espotis&OOis l! ys curse to & n$in#, bec use !ith th t you h "e the or#in ry & n &isun#erstoo# n# &isgo"erne# by so&e prig !ho h s no brotherly respect for hi& t ll. ,ut irr tion l #espotis&

is l! ys #e&ocr tic, bec use it is the or#in ry & n enthrone#. The !orst for& of sl "ery is th t !hich is c lle# C es ris&, or the choice of so&e bol# or brilli nt & n s #espot bec use he is suit ble. )or th t &e ns th t &en choose represent ti"e,

not bec use he represents the&, but bec use he #oes not. 2en trust n or#in ry & n li$e George 111 or 'illi & 1*. bec use they re the&sel"es or#in ry &en n# un#erst n# hi&. 2en trust n or#in ry & n bec use they trust the&sel"es. ,ut &en trust gre t & n bec use they #o not trust the&sel"es.

?n# hence the !orship of gre t &en l! ys ppe rs in ti&es of !e $ness n# co! r#iceQ !e ne"er he r of gre t &en until the ti&e !hen ll other &en re s& ll.

Here#it ry #espotis& is, then, in essence n# senti&ent #e&ocr tic bec use it chooses fro& & n$in# t r n#o&. 1f it #oes not #ecl re th t e"ery & n & y rule, it #ecl res the next &ost #e&ocr tic thingQ it #ecl res th t ny & n & y rule. Here#it ry ristocr cy is f r !orse n# &ore # ngerous thing,

bec use the nu&bers n# &ultiplicity of n ristocr cy & $e it so&eti&es possible for it to figure s n ristocr cy of intellect. -o&e of its &e&bers !ill presu& bly h "e br ins, n# thus they, t ny r te, !ill be n intellectu l ristocr cy !ithin the soci l one. They !ill rule the ristocr cy by "irtue of their intellect, n# they !ill rule the country by "irtue of their ristocr cy. Thus #ouble f lsity !ill be set up, n# &illions of the i& ges

of Go#, !ho, fortun tely for their !i"es n# f &ilies, re neither gentle&en nor cle"er &en, !ill be represente# by & n li$e 2r. , lfour

or 2r. 'yn#h &, bec use he is too gentle& nly to be c lle# &erely cle"er, n# just too cle"er to be c lle# &erely gentle& n.

,ut e"en n here#it ry ristocr cy & y exhibit, by

sort of cci#ent,

fro& ti&e to ti&e so&e of the b sic lly #e&ocr tic Pu lity !hich belongs to here#it ry #espotis&. 1t is &using to thin$ ho! &uch

conser" ti"e ingenuity h s been ! ste# in the #efence of the House of <or#s by &en !ho !ere #esper tely en#e "ouring to pro"e th t the House of <or#s consiste# of cle"er &en. There is one re lly goo# #efence of the House of <or#s, though #&irers of the peer ge re str ngely coy bout using itQ n# th t is, th t the House of <or#s, in its full n# proper strength, consists of stupi# &en. 1t re lly !oul# be pl usible #efence of th t other!ise in#efensible

bo#y to point out th t the cle"er &en in the Co&&ons, !ho o!e# their po!er to cle"erness, ought in the l st resort to be chec$e# by the "er ge & n in the <or#s, !ho o!e# their po!er to cci#ent. 8f course, there !oul# be & ny ns!ers to such contention,

s, for inst nce, th t the House of <or#s is l rgely no longer House of <or#s, but House of tr #es&en n# fin nciers,

or th t the bul$ of the co&&onpl ce nobility #o not "ote, n# so le "e the ch &ber to the prigs n# the speci lists n# the & # ol# gentle&en !ith hobbies. ,ut on so&e occ sions the House of <or#s, e"en un#er ll these #is #" nt ges, is in so&e sense represent ti"e. 'hen ll the peers floc$e# together to "ote g inst 2r. Gl #stoneMs secon# Ho&e +ule ,ill, for inst nce, those !ho s i# th t the peers represente# the English people, !ere perfectly right. ?ll those #e r ol# &en !ho h ppene# to be born peers !ere t th t &o&ent, n# upon th t Puestion, the precise counterp rt of ll the #e r ol# &en !ho h ppene# to be born p upers or &i##leOcl ss gentle&en. Th t &ob of peers #i# re lly represent the English peopleOOth t is to s y, it ! s honest, ignor nt, " guely excite#, l&ost un ni&ous, n# ob"iously !rong. 8f course, r tion l #e&ocr cy is better s n

expression of the public !ill th n the h ph 7 r# here#it ry &etho#. 'hile !e re bout h "ing ny $in# of #e&ocr cy, let it be r tion l #e&ocr cy. ,ut if !e re to h "e ny $in# of olig rchy, let it be irr tion l olig rchy. Then t le st !e sh ll be rule# by &en.

,ut the thing !hich is re lly rePuire# for the proper !or$ing of #e&ocr cy is not &erely the #e&ocr tic syste&, or e"en the #e&ocr tic philosophy, but the #e&ocr tic e&otion. The #e&ocr tic e&otion, li$e &ost ele&ent ry n# in#ispens ble things, is thing #ifficult to #escribe t ny ti&e.

,ut it is peculi rly #ifficult to #escribe it in our enlightene# ge, for the si&ple re son th t it is peculi rly #ifficult to fin# it. 1t is cert in instincti"e ttitu#e !hich feels the things

in !hich ll &en gree to be unspe $ bly i&port nt, n# ll the things in !hich they #iffer =such s &ere br ins@ to be l&ost unspe $ bly uni&port nt. The ne rest ppro ch to it in our or#in ry life !oul# be the pro&ptitu#e !ith !hich !e shoul# consi#er &ere hu& nity in ny circu&st nce of shoc$ or #e th. 'e shoul# s y, fter so&e!h t #isturbing #isco"ery, FThere is #e #

& n un#er the sof .F 'e shoul# not be li$ely to s y, FThere is #e # & n of consi#er ble person l refine&ent un#er the sof .F 'e shoul# s y, F? !o& n h s f llen into the ! ter.F 'e shoul# not s y, F? highly e#uc te# !o& n h s f llen into the ! ter.F 9obo#y !oul# s y, FThere re the re& ins of cle r thin$er in your b c$ g r#en.F & n

9obo#y !oul# s y, F:nless you hurry up n# stop hi&, !ith

"ery fine e r for &usic !ill h "e ju&pe# off th t cliff.F

,ut this e&otion, !hich ll of us h "e in connection !ith such things s birth n# #e th, is to so&e people n ti"e n# const nt t ll or#in ry ti&es n# in ll or#in ry pl ces. 1t ! s n ti"e to -t. )r ncis of ?ssisi. 1t ! s n ti"e to ' lt 'hit& n.

1n this str nge n# splen#i# #egree it c nnot be expecte#, perh ps, to per" #e !hole co&&on!e lth or !hole ci"ili7 tionQ

but one co&&on!e lth & y h "e it &uch &ore th n nother co&&on!e lth, one ci"ili7 tion &uch &ore th n nother ci"ili7 tion. 9o co&&unity, perh ps, e"er h # it so &uch s the e rly )r ncisc ns. 9o co&&unity, perh ps, e"er h # it so little s ours.

E"erything in our ge h s, !hen c refully ex &ine#, this fun# &ent lly un#e&ocr tic Pu lity. 1n religion n# &or ls !e shoul# #&it, in the bstr ct, th t the sins of the e#uc te# cl sses !ere s gre t s, or perh ps gre ter th n, the sins of the poor n# ignor nt. ,ut in pr ctice the gre t #ifference bet!een the &e#i e" l ethics n# ours is th t ours concentr te ttention on the sins !hich re the sins of the ignor nt, n# pr ctic lly #eny th t the sins !hich re the sins of the e#uc te# re sins t ll. 'e re l! ys t l$ing bout the sin of inte&per te #rin$ing, bec use it is Puite ob"ious th t the poor h "e it &ore th n the rich. ,ut !e re l! ys #enying th t there is ny such thing s the sin of pri#e, bec use it !oul# be Puite ob"ious th t the rich h "e it &ore th n the poor. 'e re l! ys re #y to & $e !ho goes into cott ges to gi"e ,ut the &e#ie" l i#e of s int or prophet of the e#uc te# & n little $in#ly #"ice to the une#uc te#.

s int or prophet ! s so&ething Puite #ifferent.

The &e#i e" l s int or prophet ! s n une#uc te# & n !ho ! l$e# into gr n# houses to gi"e little $in#ly #"ice to the e#uc te#.

The ol# tyr nts h # enough insolence to #espoil the poor, but they h # not enough insolence to pre ch to the&. 1t ! s the gentle& n !ho oppresse# the slu&sQ but it ! s the slu&s th t #&onishe# the gentle& n. ?n# just s !e re un#e&ocr tic in f ith n# &or ls, so !e re, by the "ery n ture of our ttitu#e

in such & tters, un#e&ocr tic in the tone of our pr ctic l politics. 1t is sufficient proof th t !e re not n essenti lly #e&ocr tic

st te th t !e re l! ys !on#ering !h t !e sh ll #o !ith the poor. 1f !e !ere #e&ocr ts, !e shoul# be !on#ering !h t the poor !ill #o !ith us. 'ith us the go"erning cl ss is l! ys s ying to itself, F'h t l !s sh ll !e & $eKF 1n purely #e&ocr tic st te it !oul# be l! ys s ying,

F'h t l !s c n !e obeyKF ? purely #e&ocr tic st te perh ps there h s ne"er been. ,ut e"en the feu# l ges !ere in pr ctice thus f r #e&ocr tic, th t e"ery feu# l potent te $ne! th t ny l !s !hich he & #e !oul# in ll prob bility return upon hi&self. His fe thers &ight be cut off for bre $ing su&ptu ry l !.

His he # &ight be cut off for high tre son. ,ut the &o#ern l !s re l&ost l! ys l !s & #e to ffect the go"erne# cl ss, but not the go"erning. 'e h "e publicOhouse licensing l !s, but not su&ptu ry l !s. Th t is to s y, !e h "e l !s g inst the festi"ity n# hospit lity of the poor, but no l !s g inst the festi"ity n# hospit lity of the rich. 'e h "e l !s g inst bl sphe&yOOth t is, g inst n# offensi"e spe $ing in !hich nobo#y but $in# of co rse

rough n# obscure & n

!oul# be li$ely to in#ulge. ,ut !e h "e no l !s g inst heresyOO th t is, g inst the intellectu l poisoning of the !hole people, in !hich only prosperous n# pro&inent & n !oul# be li$ely to

be successful. The e"il of ristocr cy is not th t it necess rily le #s to the infliction of b # things or the suffering of s # onesQ the e"il of ristocr cy is th t it pl ces e"erything in the h n#s of cl ss of people !ho c n l! ys inflict !h t they c n ne"er suffer.

'hether !h t they inflict is, in their intention, goo# or b #, they beco&e ePu lly fri"olous. The c se g inst the go"erning cl ss of &o#ern Engl n# is not in the le st th t it is selfishQ if you li$e, you & y c ll the English olig rchs too f nt stic lly unselfish.

The c se g inst the& si&ply is th t !hen they legisl te for ll &en, they l! ys o&it the&sel"es.

'e re un#e&ocr tic, then, in our religion, s is pro"e# by our efforts to Fr iseF the poor. 'e re un#e&ocr tic in our go"ern&ent, s is pro"e# by our innocent tte&pt to go"ern the& !ell. ,ut bo"e ll !e re un#e&ocr tic in our liter ture, s is pro"e# by the torrent of no"els bout the poor n# serious stu#ies of the poor !hich pour fro& our publishers e"ery &onth. ?n# the &ore F&o#ernF the boo$ is the &ore cert in it is to be #e"oi# of #e&ocr tic senti&ent.

? poor & n is

& n !ho h s not got &uch &oney. This & y see& gre t

si&ple n# unnecess ry #escription, but in the f ce of

& ss of &o#ern f ct n# fiction, it see&s "ery necess ry in#ee#Q &ost of our re lists n# sociologists t l$ bout poor & n s if

he !ere n octopus or n llig tor. There is no &ore nee# to stu#y the psychology of po"erty th n to stu#y the psychology of b # te&per, or the psychology of " nity, or the psychology of ni& l spirits. ? & n ought to $no! so&ething of the e&otions of n insulte# & n, not by being insulte#, but si&ply by being so&ething of the e&otions of by being & n. ?n# he ought to $no!

poor & n, not by being poor, but si&ply

& n. Therefore, in ny !riter !ho is #escribing po"erty,

&y first objection to hi& !ill be th t he h s stu#ie# his subject. ? #e&ocr t !oul# h "e i& gine# it.

? gre t & ny h r# things h "e been s i# bout religious slu&&ing n# politic l or soci l slu&&ing, but surely the &ost #espic ble of ll is rtistic slu&&ing. The religious te cher is t le st

suppose# to be intereste# in the coster&onger bec use he is the politici n is in so&e #i& n# per"erte# sense intereste# in the coster&onger bec use he is

& nQ

citi7enQ it is only the !retche#

!riter !ho is intereste# in the coster&onger &erely bec use he is coster&onger. 9e"ertheless, so long s he is &erely see$ing i&pressions, or in other !or#s copy, his tr #e, though #ull, is honest. ,ut !hen he en#e "ours to represent th t he is #escribing the spiritu l core of coster&onger, his #i& "ices n# his

#elic te "irtues, then !e &ust object th t his cl i& is preposterousQ !e &ust re&in# hi& th t he is journ list n# nothing else.

He h s f r less psychologic l uthority e"en th n the foolish &ission ry. )or he is in the liter l n# #eri" ti"e sense journ list,

!hile the &ission ry is n etern list. The &ission ry t le st preten#s to h "e "ersion of the & nMs lot for ll ti&eQ "ersion of it fro& # y to # y.

the journ list only preten#s to h "e

The &ission ry co&es to tell the poor & n th t he is in the s &e con#ition !ith ll &en. The journ list co&es to tell other people ho! #ifferent the poor & n is fro& e"erybo#y else.

1f the &o#ern no"els bout the slu&s, such s no"els of 2r. ?rthur 2orrison, or the excee#ingly ble no"els of 2r. -o&erset 2 ugh &, re inten#e# to be sens tion l, 1 c n only s y th t th t is n# re son ble object, n# th t they tt in it. ? sens tion, shoc$ to the i& gin tion, li$e the cont ct !ith col# ! ter, is l! ys goo# n# exhil r ting thingQ n#, un#oubte#ly, &en !ill noble

l! ys see$ this sens tion = &ong other for&s@ in the for& of the stu#y of the str nge ntics of re&ote or lien peoples. 1n the t!elfth century &en obt ine# this sens tion by re #ing bout #ogOhe #e# &en in ?fric . 1n the t!entieth century they obt ine# it by re #ing bout pigOhe #e#

,oers in ?fric . The &en of the t!entieth century !ere cert inly, it &ust be #&itte#, so&e!h t the &ore cre#ulous of the t!o. )or it is not recor#e# of the &en in the t!elfth century th t they org ni7e# s nguin ry crus #e solely for the purpose of ltering

the singul r for& tion of the he #s of the ?fric ns. ,ut it & y be, n# it & y e"en legiti& tely be, th t since ll these &onsters h "e f #e# fro& the popul r &ythology, it is necess ry to h "e in our fiction the i& ge of the horrible n# h iry E stOen#er, &erely to $eep li"e in us fe rful n# chil#li$e !on#er t extern l peculi rities. gre t #e l &ore co&&on sense th n it

,ut the 2i##le ?ges =!ith

!oul# no! be f shion ble to #&it@ reg r#e# n tur l history t botto& r ther s $in# of jo$eQ they reg r#e# the soul s "ery i&port nt. n tur l history of #ogOhe #e# &en, psychology of #ogOhe #e# &en. #ogOhe #e# & n, to sh re

Hence, !hile they h #

they #i# not profess to h "e

They #i# not profess to &irror the &in# of

his ten#erest secrets, or &ount !ith his &ost celesti l &usings. They #i# not !rite no"els bout the se&iOc nine cre ture, ttributing to hi& ll the ol#est &orbi#ities n# ll the ne!est f #s. 1t is per&issible to present &en s &onsters if !e !ish to & $e the re #er ju&pQ n# to & $e nybo#y ju&p is l! ys Christi n ct.

,ut it is not per&issible to present &en s reg r#ing the&sel"es s &onsters, or s & $ing the&sel"es ju&p. To su&& ri7e, our slu& fiction is Puite #efensible s esthetic fictionQ it is not #efensible s spiritu l f ct.

8ne enor&ous obst cle st n#s in the ! y of its ctu lity. The &en !ho !rite it, n# the &en !ho re # it, re &en of the &i##le cl sses or the upper cl ssesQ t le st, of those !ho re loosely ter&e# the e#uc te# cl sses. Hence, the f ct th t it is the life s the refine#

& n sees it pro"es th t it c nnot be the life s the unrefine# & n li"es it. +ich &en !rite stories bout poor &en, n# #escribe the& s spe $ing !ith co rse, or he "y, or hus$y enunci tion.

,ut if poor &en !rote no"els bout you or &e they !oul# #escribe us s spe $ing !ith so&e bsur# shrill n# ffecte# "oice, such s !e only he r fro& #uchess in threeO ct f rce. The slu& no"elist g ins

his !hole effect by the f ct th t so&e #et il is str nge to the re #erQ but th t #et il by the n ture of the c se c nnot be str nge in itself. 1t c nnot be str nge to the soul !hich he is professing to stu#y. The slu& no"elist g ins his effects by #escribing the s &e grey &ist s #r ping the #ingy f ctory n# the #ingy t "ern. ,ut to the & n he is suppose# to be stu#ying there &ust be ex ctly the s &e #ifference bet!een the f ctory n# the t "ern th t there is to & n bet!een l te night t the office n# &i##leOcl ss

supper t P g niMs. The

slu& no"elist is content !ith pointing out th t to the eye of his p rticul r cl ss pic$ xe loo$s #irty n# pe!ter pot loo$s #irty.

,ut the & n he is suppose# to be stu#ying sees the #ifference bet!een the& ex ctly s cler$ sees the #ifference bet!een le#ger n# n

e#ition #e luxe. The chi roscuro of the life is ine"it bly lostQ for to us the high lights n# the sh #o!s re ,ut the high lights n# the sh #o!s re not light grey. light grey in th t life

ny &ore th n in ny other. The $in# of & n !ho coul# re lly express the ple sures of the poor !oul# be lso the $in# of & n !ho coul# sh re the&. 1n short, these boo$s re not of the psychology of po"erty. They re recor#

recor# of the psychology

of !e lth n# culture !hen brought in cont ct !ith po"erty. They re not #escription of the st te of the slu&s. They re only

"ery # r$ n# #re #ful #escription of the st te of the slu&&ers. 8ne &ight gi"e innu&er ble ex &ples of the essenti lly

unsy&p thetic n# unpopul r Pu lity of these re listic !riters. ,ut perh ps the si&plest n# &ost ob"ious ex &ple !ith !hich !e coul# conclu#e is the &ere f ct th t these !riters re re listic. The poor h "e & ny other "ices, but, t le st, they re ne"er re listic. The poor re &elo#r & tic n# ro& ntic in gr inQ the poor ll belie"e in high &or l pl titu#es n# copyOboo$ & xi&sQ prob bly this is the ulti& te &e ning of the gre t s ying, F,lesse# re the poor.F ,lesse# re the poor, for they re l! ys & $ing life, or trying to & $e life li$e n ?#elphi pl y. -o&e innocent e#uc tion lists n# phil nthropists =for e"en phil nthropists c n be innocent@ h "e expresse# gr "e stonish&ent th t the & sses prefer shilling

shoc$ers to scientific tre tises n# &elo#r & s to proble& pl ys. The re son is "ery si&ple. The re listic story is cert inly &ore rtistic th n the &elo#r & tic story. 1f !h t you #esire is #eft h n#ling, #elic te proportions, the re listic story h s unit of rtistic t&osphere,

full #" nt ge o"er the &elo#r & .

1n e"erything th t is light n# bright n# orn &ent l the re listic story h s full #" nt ge o"er the &elo#r & . ,ut, t le st,

the &elo#r & h s one in#isput ble #" nt ge o"er the re listic story. The &elo#r & is &uch &ore li$e life. 1t is &uch &ore li$e & n, n# especi lly the poor & n. 1t is "ery b n l n# "ery in rtistic !hen poor !o& n t the ?#elphi s ys, F(o you thin$ 1 !ill sell &y o!n chil#KF ,ut poor !o&en in the , tterse High +o # #o s y, F(o you thin$ 1 !ill sell &y o!n chil#KF They s y it on e"ery " il ble occ sionQ you c n he r sort of &ur&ur or b bble of it ll the ! y #o!n

the street. 1t is "ery st le n# !e $ #r & tic rt =if th t is ll@ !hen the !or$& n confronts his & ster n# s ys, F1M& ,ut !or$& n #oes s y F1M& & n.F

& nF t!o or three ti&es e"ery # y.

1n f ct, it is te#ious, possibly, to he r poor &en being

&elo#r & tic behin# the footlightsQ but th t is bec use one c n l! ys he r the& being &elo#r & tic in the street outsi#e. 1n short, &elo#r & , if it is #ull, is #ull bec use it is too ccur te. -o&e!h t the s &e proble& exists in the c se of stories bout schoolboys. 2r. KiplingMs F-t l$y n# Co.F is &uch &ore &using =if you re t l$ing bout &use&ent@ th n the l te (e n ) rr rMs FEricQ or, <ittle by <ittle.F ,ut FEricF is i&&e sur bly &ore li$e re l schoolOlife. )or re l schoolOlife, re l boyhoo#, is full of the things of !hich Eric is fullOOpriggishness, cru#e piety, silly sin,

!e $ but continu l tte&pt t the heroic, in ?n# if !e !ish to l y

!or#, &elo#r & .

fir& b sis for ny efforts to help the poor,

!e &ust not beco&e re listic n# see the& fro& the outsi#e. 'e &ust beco&e &elo#r & tic, n# see the& fro& the insi#e. The no"elist &ust not t $e out his noteboo$ n# s y, F1 & n expert.F 9oQ he &ust i&it te the !or$& n in the ?#elphi pl y. He &ust sl p hi&self on the chest n# s y, F1 & & n.F

JJ. Conclu#ing +e& r$s on the 1&port nce of 8rtho#oxy

'hether the hu& n &in# c n #" nce or not, is

Puestion too

little #iscusse#, for nothing c n be &ore # ngerous th n to foun# our soci l philosophy on ny theory !hich is #eb t ble but h s not been #eb te#. ,ut if !e ssu&e, for the s $e of rgu&ent, th t there h s been in the p st, or !ill be in the future, such thing s gro!th or i&pro"e&ent of the hu& n &in# itself, "ery sh rp objection to be r ise# g inst

there still re& ins

the &o#ern "ersion of th t i&pro"e&ent. The "ice of the &o#ern notion of &ent l progress is th t it is l! ys so&ething concerne# !ith the bre $ing of bon#s, the eff cing of boun# ries, the c sting ! y of #og& s. ,ut if there be such thing s &ent l gro!th,

it &ust &e n the gro!th into &ore n# &ore #efinite con"ictions, into &ore n# &ore #og& s. The hu& n br in is & chine for co&ing

to conclusionsQ if it c nnot co&e to conclusions it is rusty. 'hen !e he r of & n too cle"er to belie"e, !e re he ring of contr #iction in ter&s.

so&ething h "ing l&ost the ch r cter of 1t is li$e he ring of c rpetQ or

n il th t ! s too goo# to hol# #o!n #oor shut.

bolt th t ! s too strong to $eep

2 n c n h r#ly be #efine#, fter the f shion of C rlyle, s n ni& l !ho & $es toolsQ nts n# be "ers n# & ny other ni& ls & $e tools, in the sense th t they & $e n pp r tus. 2 n c n be #efine# s n ni& l th t & $es #og& s. ?s he piles #octrine on #octrine n# conclusion on conclusion in the for& tion of so&e tre&en#ous sche&e of philosophy n# religion, he is, in the only legiti& te sense of !hich the expression is c p ble, beco&ing &ore n# &ore hu& n. 'hen he #rops one #octrine fter nother in !hen he #eclines to tie hi&self to refine# scepticis&,

syste&, !hen he s ys th t he h s

outgro!n #efinitions, !hen he s ys th t he #isbelie"es in fin lity, !hen, in his o!n i& gin tion, he sits s Go#, hol#ing no for& of cree# but conte&pl ting ll, then he is by th t "ery process sin$ing slo!ly b c$! r#s into the " gueness of the " gr nt ni& ls n# the unconsciousness of the gr ss. Trees h "e no #og& s. Turnips re singul rly bro #O&in#e#.

1f then, 1 repe t, there is to be &ent l #" nce, it &ust be &ent l #" nce in the construction of #efinite philosophy of life. ?n# th t

philosophy of life &ust be right n# the other philosophies !rong. 9o! of ll, or ne rly ll, the ble &o#ern !riters !ho& 1 h "e briefly stu#ie# in this boo$, this is especi lly n# ple singly true, th t they #o e ch of the& h "e constructi"e n# ffir& ti"e "ie!,

n# th t they #o t $e it seriously n# s$ us to t $e it seriously. There is nothing &erely sceptic lly progressi"e bout 2r. +u#y r# Kipling. There is nothing in the le st bro # &in#e# bout 2r. ,ern r# -h !. The p g nis& of 2r. <o!es (ic$inson is &ore gr "e th n ny Christi nity. E"en the opportunis& of 2r. H. G. 'ells is &ore #og& tic th n the i#e lis& of nybo#y else. -o&ebo#y co&pl ine#, 1 thin$, to 2 tthe! ?rnol# th t he ! s getting s #og& tic s C rlyle. He replie#, FTh t & y be trueQ but you o"erloo$ n ob"ious #ifference. 1 & #og& tic n# right, n# C rlyle is #og& tic n# !rong.F The strong hu&our of the re& r$ ought not to #isguise fro& us its e"erl sting seriousness n# co&&on senseQ no & n ought to !rite t ll, or e"en to spe $ t ll, unless he thin$s th t he is in truth n# the other & n in error. 1n si&il r style, 1 hol# th t 1 & #og& tic n# right, !hile 2r. -h ! is #og& tic n# !rong. ,ut &y & in point, t present, is to notice th t the chief &ong these !riters 1 h "e #iscusse# #o &ost s nely n# cour geously offer the&sel"es s #og& tists, s foun#ers of syste&. 1t & y be true th t the thing in 2r. -h !

&ost interesting to &e, is the f ct th t 2r. -h ! is !rong. ,ut it is ePu lly true th t the thing in 2r. -h ! &ost interesting to hi&self, is the f ct th t 2r. -h ! is right. 2r. -h ! & y h "e none !ith hi& but hi&selfQ but it is not for hi&self he c res. 1t is for the " st n# uni"ers l church, of !hich he is the only &e&ber.

The t!o typic l &en of genius !ho& 1 h "e &entione# here, n# !ith !hose n &es 1 h "e begun this boo$, re "ery sy&bolic, if only bec use they

h "e sho!n th t the fiercest #og& tists c n & $e the best rtists. 1n the fin #e siecle t&osphere e"ery one ! s crying out th t liter ture shoul# be free fro& ll c uses n# ll ethic l cree#s. ?rt ! s to pro#uce only exPuisite !or$& nship, n# it ! s especi lly the note of those # ys to #e& n# brilli nt pl ys n# brilli nt short stories. ?n# !hen they got the&, they got the& fro& The best short stories !ere !ritten by The best pl ys !ere !ritten by couple of &or lists.

& n trying to pre ch 1&peri lis&.

& n trying to pre ch -oci lis&.

?ll the rt of ll the rtists loo$e# tiny n# te#ious besi#e the rt !hich ! s bypro#uct of prop g n# .

The re son, in#ee#, is "ery si&ple. ? & n c nnot be !ise enough to be gre t rtist !ithout being !ise enough to !ish to be philosopher.

? & n c nnot h "e the energy to pro#uce goo# rt !ithout h "ing the energy to !ish to p ss beyon# it. ? s& ll rtist is content !ith rtQ gre t rtist is content !ith nothing except e"erything.

-o !e fin# th t !hen re l forces, goo# or b #, li$e Kipling n# G. ,. -., enter our ren , they bring !ith the& not only st rtling n# rresting rt, but "ery st rtling n# rresting #og& s. ?n# they c re e"en &ore, n# #esire us to c re e"en &ore, bout their st rtling n# rresting #og& s th n bout their st rtling n# rresting rt. 2r. -h ! is goo# #r & tist, but !h t he #esires &ore th n goo# politici n. 2r. +u#y r# Kipling

nything else to be is

is by #i"ine c price n# n tur l genius n uncon"ention l poetQ but !h t he #esires &ore th n nything else to be is con"ention l poet.

He #esires to be the poet of his people, bone of their bone, n# flesh of their flesh, un#erst n#ing their origins, celebr ting their #estiny. He #esires to be Poet < ure te, &ost sensible n# honour ble n#

publicOspirite# #esire. H "ing been gi"en by the go#s origin lityOO

th t is, #is gree&ent !ith othersOOhe #esires #i"inely to gree !ith the&. ,ut the &ost stri$ing inst nce of ll, &ore stri$ing, 1 thin$, e"en th n either of these, is the inst nce of 2r. H. G. 'ells. He beg n in sort of ins ne inf ncy of pure rt. He beg n by & $ing ne! e rth, !ith the s &e irresponsible instinct ne! nec$tie or buttonOhole. He beg n by trifling

ne! he "en n# by !hich &en buy

!ith the st rs n# syste&s in or#er to & $e ephe&er l nec#otesQ he $ille# the uni"erse for jo$e. He h s since beco&e &ore n#

&ore serious, n# h s beco&e, s &en ine"it bly #o !hen they beco&e &ore n# &ore serious, &ore n# &ore p rochi l. He ! s fri"olous bout the t!ilight of the go#sQ but he is serious bout the <on#on o&nibus. He ! s c reless in FThe Ti&e 2 chine,F for th t #e lt only !ith the #estiny of ll thingsQ but be is c reful, n# e"en c utious, in F2 n$in# in the 2 $ing,F for th t #e ls !ith the # y fter toO&orro!. He beg n !ith the en# of the !orl#, n# th t ! s e sy. 9o! he h s gone on to the beginning of the !orl#, n# th t is #ifficult. ,ut the & in result of ll this is the s &e s in the other c ses. The &en !ho h "e re lly been the bol# rtists, the re listic rtists, the unco&pro&ising rtists, re the &en !ho h "e turne# out, fter ll, to be !riting F!ith purpose.F -uppose th t ny cool n# cynic l

rtOcritic, ny rtOcritic fully i&presse# !ith the con"iction th t rtists !ere gre test !hen they !ere &ost purely rtistic, suppose th t & n !ho professe# bly hu& ne estheticis&,

s #i# 2r. 2 x ,eerboh&, or

cruel estheticis&, s #i#

2r. '. E. Henley, h # c st his eye o"er the !hole fiction l liter ture !hich ! s recent in the ye r .H/I, n# h # been s$e# to select the three &ost "igorous n# pro&ising n# origin l rtists n# rtistic !or$s, he !oul#, 1 thin$, &ost cert inly h "e s i# th t for fine rtistic u# city, for re l rtistic #elic cy,

or for

!hiff of true no"elty in rt, the things th t stoo# first 2r. +u#y r# KiplingQ F?r&s n# the 2 n,F & n c lle# 'ells.

!ere F-ol#iers Three,F by by

2r. ,ern r# -h !Q n# FThe Ti&e 2 chine,F by

?n# ll these &en h "e sho!n the&sel"es ingr ine#ly #i# ctic. Lou & y express the & tter if you !ill by s ying th t if !e ! nt #octrines !e go to the gre t rtists. ,ut it is cle r fro& the psychology of the & tter th t this is not the true st te&entQ the true st te&ent is th t !hen !e ! nt ny rt toler bly bris$ n# bol# !e h "e to go to the #octrin ires.

1n conclu#ing this boo$, therefore, 1 !oul# s$, first n# fore&ost, th t &en such s these of !ho& 1 h "e spo$en shoul# not be insulte# by being t $en for rtists. 9o & n h s ny right !h te"er &erely to enjoy the !or$ of 2r. ,ern r# -h !Q he &ight s !ell enjoy the in" sion of his country by the )rench. 2r. -h ! !rites either to con"ince or to enr ge us. 9o & n h s ny business to be Kiplingite !ithout being 1f 1f politici n, n# n 1&peri list politici n.

& n is first !ith us, it shoul# be bec use of !h t is first !ith hi&. & n con"inces us t ll, it shoul# be by his con"ictions. poe& of KiplingMs fro& politic l p ssion, !e re h ting it

1f !e h te

for the s &e re son th t the poet lo"e# itQ if !e #isli$e hi& bec use of his opinions, !e re #isli$ing hi& for the best of ll possible re sons. 1f & n co&es into Hy#e P r$ to pre ch it is per&issible to hoot hi&Q perfor&ing be r.

but it is #iscourteous to ppl u# hi& s ?n# n rtist is only

perfor&ing be r co&p re# !ith the &e nest

& n !ho f ncies he h s nything to s y.

There is, in#ee#, one cl ss of &o#ern !riters n# thin$ers !ho c nnot ltogether be o"erloo$e# in this Puestion, though there is no sp ce

here for

lengthy ccount of the&, !hich, in#ee#, to confess

the truth, !oul# consist chiefly of buse. 1 &e n those !ho get o"er ll these bysses n# reconcile ll these ! rs by t l$ing bout F spects of truth,F by s ying th t the rt of Kipling represents one spect of the truth, n# the rt of 'illi & ' tson notherQ the rt of 2r. ,ern r# -h ! one spect of the truth, n# the rt of 2r. Cunningh & Gr h &e notherQ the rt of 2r. H. G. 'ells one spect, n# the rt of 2r. Co"entry P t&ore =s y@ nother. 1 !ill only s y here th t this see&s to &e n e" sion !hich h s not e"en b # the sense to #isguise itself ingeniously in !or#s. 1f !e t l$ of cert in thing being n spect of truth,

it is e"i#ent th t !e cl i& to $no! !h t is truthQ just s, if !e t l$ of the hin# leg of #og, !e cl i& to $no! !h t is #og.

:nfortun tely, the philosopher !ho t l$s bout spects of truth gener lly lso s$s, F'h t is truthKF )rePuently e"en he #enies the existence of truth, or s ys it is inconcei" ble by the hu& n intelligence. Ho!, then, c n he recogni7e its spectsK 1 shoul# not li$e to be n rtist !ho brought n rchitectur l s$etch to buil#er, s ying, FThis is the south spect of -e O*ie! Cott ge.

-e O*ie! Cott ge, of course, #oes not exist.F 1 shoul# not e"en li$e "ery &uch to h "e to expl in, un#er such circu&st nces, th t -e O*ie! Cott ge &ight exist, but ! s unthin$ ble by the hu& n &in#. 9or shoul# 1 li$e ny better to be the bungling n# bsur# &et physici n !ho professe# to be ble to see e"ery!here the spects of th t is not there. 8f course, it is perfectly ob"ious th t there re truths in Kipling, th t there re truths in -h ! or 'ells. ,ut the #egree to !hich !e c n percei"e the& #epen#s strictly upon ho! f r !e h "e #efinite conception insi#e us of !h t is truth. truth

1t is lu#icrous to suppose th t the &ore sceptic l !e re the &ore !e

see goo# in e"erything. 1t is cle r th t the &ore !e re cert in !h t goo# is, the &ore !e sh ll see goo# in e"erything.

1 ple #, then, th t !e shoul# gree or #is gree !ith these &en. 1 ple # th t !e shoul# gree !ith the& t le st in h "ing n bstr ct belief. ,ut 1 $no! th t there re current in the &o#ern !orl# & ny " gue objections to h "ing n bstr ct belief, n# 1 feel th t !e sh ll not get ny further until !e h "e #e lt !ith so&e of the&. The first objection is e sily st te#.

? co&&on hesit tion in our # y touching the use of extre&e con"ictions is sort of notion th t extre&e con"ictions speci lly upon cos&ic & tters,

h "e been responsible in the p st for the thing !hich is c lle# bigotry. ,ut "ery s& ll &ount of #irect experience !ill #issip te this "ie!.

1n re l life the people !ho re &ost bigote# re the people !ho h "e no con"ictions t ll. The econo&ists of the 2 nchester school !ho #is gree !ith -oci lis& t $e -oci lis& seriously. 1t is the young & n in ,on# -treet, !ho #oes not $no! !h t soci lis& &e ns &uch less !hether he grees !ith it, !ho is Puite cert in th t these soci list fello!s re & $ing fuss bout nothing.

The & n !ho un#erst n#s the C l"inist philosophy enough to gree !ith it &ust un#erst n# the C tholic philosophy in or#er to #is gree !ith it. 1t is the " gue &o#ern !ho is not t ll cert in !h t is right !ho is &ost cert in th t ( nte ! s !rong. The serious opponent of the < tin Church in history, e"en in the ct of sho!ing th t it pro#uce# gre t inf &ies, &ust $no! th t it pro#uce# gre t s ints. 1t is the h r#Ohe #e# stoc$bro$er, !ho $no!s no history n# belie"es no religion, !ho is, ne"ertheless, perfectly con"ince# th t ll these priests re $n "es. The - l" tionist t the 2 rble

?rch & y be bigote#, but he is not too bigote# to ye rn fro& co&&on hu& n $inship fter the # n#y on church p r #e. ,ut the # n#y on church p r #e is so bigote# th t he #oes not in the le st ye rn fter the - l" tionist t the 2 rble ?rch. ,igotry & y be roughly #efine# s the nger of &en !ho h "e no opinions. 1t is the resist nce offere# to #efinite i#e s by th t " gue bul$ of people !hose i#e s re in#efinite to excess. ,igotry & y be c lle# the pp lling fren7y of the in#ifferent. This fren7y of the in#ifferent is in truth terrible thingQ

it h s & #e ll &onstrous n# !i#ely per" #ing persecutions. 1n this #egree it ! s not the people !ho c re# !ho e"er persecute#Q the people !ho c re# !ere not sufficiently nu&erous. 1t ! s the people !ho #i# not c re !ho fille# the !orl# !ith fire n# oppression. 1t ! s the h n#s of the in#ifferent th t lit the f ggotsQ it ! s the h n#s of the in#ifferent th t turne# the r c$. There h "e co&e so&e persecutions out of the p in of p ssion te cert intyQ

but these pro#uce#, not bigotry, but f n ticis&OO "ery #ifferent n# so&e!h t #&ir ble thing. ,igotry in the & in h s l! ys

been the per" #ing o&nipotence of those !ho #o not c re crushing out those !ho c re in # r$ness n# bloo#.

There re people, ho!e"er, !ho #ig so&e!h t #eeper th n this into the possible e"ils of #og& . 1t is felt by & ny th t strong philosophic l con"iction, !hile it #oes not = s they percei"e@ pro#uce th t sluggish n# fun# &ent lly fri"olous con#ition !hich !e c ll bigotry, #oes pro#uce cert in concentr tion, ex gger tion,

n# &or l i&p tience, !hich !e & y gree to c ll f n ticis&. They s y, in brief, th t i#e s re # ngerous things. 1n politics, for ex &ple, it is co&&only urge# g inst & n li$e

2r. , lfour, or g inst

& n li$e 2r. Nohn 2orley, th t

!e lth

of i#e s is # ngerous. The true #octrine on this point, g in, is surely not "ery #ifficult to st te. 1#e s re # ngerous, but the & n to !ho& they re le st # ngerous is the & n of i#e s. He is cPu inte# !ith i#e s, n# &o"es &ong the& li$e lionOt &er.

1#e s re # ngerous, but the & n to !ho& they re &ost # ngerous is the & n of no i#e s. The & n of no i#e s !ill fin# the first i#e fly to his he # li$e !ine to the he # of 1t is teetot ller.

co&&on error, 1 thin$, &ong the + #ic l i#e lists of &y o!n

p rty n# perio# to suggest th t fin nciers n# business &en re # nger to the e&pire bec use they re so sor#i# or so & teri listic. The truth is th t fin nciers n# business &en re # nger to

the e&pire bec use they c n be senti&ent l bout ny senti&ent, n# i#e listic bout ny i#e l, ny i#e l th t they fin# lying bout. just s to t $e boy !ho h s not $no!n &uch of !o&en is pt too e sily !o& n for the !o& n, so these pr ctic l &en, un ccusto&e# thing is pro"e#

to c uses, re l! ys incline# to thin$ th t if

to be n i#e l it is pro"e# to be the i#e l. 2 ny, for ex &ple, "o!e#ly follo!e# Cecil +ho#es bec use he h # "ision. noseQ

They &ight s !ell h "e follo!e# hi& bec use he h #

& n !ithout so&e $in# of #re & of perfection is Puite s &uch of &onstrosity s noseless & n. People s y of such figure,

in l&ost fe"erish !hispers, FHe $no!s his o!n &in#,F !hich is ex ctly li$e s ying in ePu lly fe"erish !hispers, FHe blo!s his o!n nose.F Hu& n n ture si&ply c nnot subsist !ithout hope n# i&

of so&e $in#Q s the s nity of the 8l# Test &ent truly s i#, !here there is no "ision the people perisheth. ,ut it is precisely bec use n i#e l is necess ry to & n th t the & n !ithout i#e ls is in per& nent # nger of f n ticis&. There is nothing !hich is

so li$ely to le "e

& n open to the su##en n# irresistible inro #

of n unb l nce# "ision s the culti" tion of business h bits. ?ll of us $no! ngul r business &en !ho thin$ th t the e rth is fl t, or th t 2r. Kruger ! s t the he # of gre t &ilit ry #espotis&,

or th t &en re gr &ini"orous, or th t , con !rote -h $espe re. +eligious n# philosophic l beliefs re, in#ee#, s # ngerous s fire, n# nothing c n t $e fro& the& th t be uty of # nger. ,ut there is only one ! y of re lly gu r#ing oursel"es g inst the excessi"e # nger of the&, n# th t is to be steepe# in philosophy n# so $e# in religion.

,riefly, then, !e #is&iss the t!o opposite # ngers of bigotry n# f n ticis&, bigotry !hich is !hich is too gre t " gueness n# f n ticis&

too gre t concentr tion. 'e s y th t the cure for the

bigot is beliefQ !e s y th t the cure for the i#e list is i#e s. To $no! the best theories of existence n# to choose the best fro& the& =th t is, to the best of our o!n strong con"iction@ ppe rs to us the proper ! y to be neither bigot nor f n tic, but so&ething &ore fir& th n & n !ith bigot n# &ore terrible th n f n tic,

#efinite opinion. ,ut th t #efinite opinion &ust

in this "ie! begin !ith the b sic & tters of hu& n thought, n# these &ust not be #is&isse# s irrele" nt, s religion, for inst nce, is too often in our # ys #is&isse# s irrele" nt. E"en if !e thin$ religion insoluble, !e c nnot thin$ it irrele" nt. E"en if !e oursel"es h "e no "ie! of the ulti& te "erities, !e &ust feel th t !here"er such "ie! exists in & n it &ust

be &ore i&port nt th n nything else in hi&. The inst nt th t the thing ce ses to be the un$no! ble, it beco&es the in#ispens ble. There c n be no #oubt, 1 thin$, th t the i#e #oes exist in our

ti&e th t there is so&ething n rro! or irrele" nt or e"en &e n bout tt c$ing & nMs religion, or rguing fro& it in & tters

of politics or ethics. There c n be Puite s little #oubt th t such n ccus tion of n rro!ness is itself l&ost grotesPuely n rro!. To t $e n ex &ple fro& co&p r ti"ely current e"entsA !e ll $no! th t it ! s not unco&&on for & n to be consi#ere# sc recro!

of bigotry n# obscur ntis& bec use he #istruste# the N p nese, or l &ente# the rise of the N p nese, on the groun# th t the N p nese !ere P g ns. 9obo#y !oul# thin$ th t there ! s nything ntiPu te# or f n tic l bout #istrusting people bec use of so&e #ifference

bet!een the& n# us in pr ctice or politic l & chinery. 9obo#y !oul# thin$ it bigote# to s y of people, F1 #istrust their

influence bec use they re Protectionists.F 9o one !oul# thin$ it n rro! to s y, F1 l &ent their rise bec use they re -oci lists, or 2 nchester 1n#i"i#u lists, or strong belie"ers in &ilit ris& n# conscription.F ? #ifference of opinion bout the n ture of P rli &ents & tters "ery &uchQ but #ifference of opinion bout

the n ture of sin #oes not & tter t ll. ? #ifference of opinion bout the object of t x tion & tters "ery &uchQ but #ifference

of opinion bout the object of hu& n existence #oes not & tter t ll. 'e h "e right to #istrust & n !ho is in #ifferent $in# & n !ho is in

of &unicip lityQ but !e h "e no right to &istrust

#ifferent $in# of cos&os. This sort of enlighten&ent is surely bout the &ost unenlightene# th t it is possible to i& gine. To recur to the phr se !hich 1 e&ploye# e rlier, this is t nt &ount to s ying th t e"erything is i&port nt !ith the exception of e"erything. +eligion is ex ctly the thing !hich c nnot be left outOO bec use it inclu#es e"erything. The &ost bsentO&in#e# person c nnot !ell p c$ his Gl #stoneOb g n# le "e out the b g.

'e h "e

gener l "ie! of existence, !hether !e li$e it or notQ

it lters or, to spe $ &ore ccur tely, it cre tes n# in"ol"es e"erything !e s y or #o, !hether !e li$e it or not. 1f !e reg r# the Cos&os s #re &, !e reg r# the )isc l Ruestion s #re &.

1f !e reg r# the Cos&os s

jo$e, !e reg r# -t. P ulMs C the#r l s

jo$e. 1f e"erything is b #, then !e &ust belie"e =if it be possible@ th t beer is b #Q if e"erything be goo#, !e re force# to the r ther f nt stic conclusion th t scientific phil nthropy is goo#. E"ery & n in the street &ust hol# &et physic l syste&, n# hol# it fir&ly.

The possibility is th t he & y h "e hel# it so fir&ly n# so long s to h "e forgotten ll bout its existence.

This l tter situ tion is cert inly possibleQ in f ct, it is the situ tion of the !hole &o#ern !orl#. The &o#ern !orl# is fille# !ith &en !ho hol# #og& s so strongly th t they #o not e"en $no! th t they re #og& s. 1t & y be s i# e"en th t the &o#ern !orl#, s corpor te bo#y,

hol#s cert in #og& s so strongly th t it #oes not $no! th t they re #og& s. 1t & y be thought F#og& tic,F for inst nce, in so&e circles ccounte# progressi"e, to ssu&e the perfection or i&pro"e&ent of & n in nother !orl#. ,ut it is not thought F#og& ticF to ssu&e the perfection or i&pro"e&ent of & n in this !orl#Q though th t i#e of progress is Puite s unpro"e# s the i#e of i&&ort lity, n# fro& r tion listic point of "ie! Puite s i&prob ble. #og& &e ns

Progress h ppens to be one of our #og& s, n#

thing !hich is not thought #og& tic. 8r, g in, !e see nothing F#og& ticF in the inspiring, but cert inly &ost st rtling, theory of physic l science, th t !e shoul# collect f cts for the s $e of f cts, e"en though they see& s useless s stic$s n# str !s. This is gre t n# suggesti"e i#e , n# its utility & y,

if you !ill, be pro"ing itself, but its utility is, in the bstr ct, Puite s #isput ble s the utility of th t c lling on or cles or consulting shrines !hich is lso s i# to pro"e itself. Thus, bec use !e re not in ci"ili7 tion !hich belie"es strongly

in or cles or s cre# pl ces, !e see the full fren7y of those !ho $ille# the&sel"es to fin# the sepulchre of Christ. ,ut being in ci"ili7 tion !hich #oes belie"e in this #og& of f ct for f ctsM s $e, !e #o not see the full fren7y of those !ho $ill the&sel"es to fin# the 9orth Pole. 1 & not spe $ing of ten ble ulti& te utility

!hich is true both of the Crus #es n# the pol r explor tions. 1 &e n &erely th t !e #o see the superfici l n# esthetic singul rity, the st rtling Pu lity, bout the i#e of &en crossing continent !ith r&ies to conPuer the pl ce !here & n #ie#.

,ut !e #o not see the esthetic singul rity n# st rtling Pu lity of &en #ying in gonies to fin# pl ce !here no & n c n li"eOO

pl ce only interesting bec use it is suppose# to be the &eetingOpl ce of so&e lines th t #o not exist.

<et us, then, go upon

long journey n# enter on

#re #ful se rch.

<et us, t le st, #ig n# see$ till !e h "e #isco"ere# our o!n opinions. The #og& s !e re lly hol# re f r &ore f nt stic, n#, perh ps, f r &ore be utiful th n !e thin$. 1n the course of these ess ys 1 fe r th t 1 h "e spo$en fro& ti&e to ti&e of r tion lists n# r tion lis&, n# th t in #isp r ging sense. ,eing full of th t $in#liness boo$,

!hich shoul# co&e t the en# of e"erything, e"en of

1 pologi7e to the r tion lists e"en for c lling the& r tion lists. There re no r tion lists. 'e ll belie"e f iryOt les, n# li"e in the&. -o&e, !ith su&ptuous liter ry turn, belie"e in the existence of the l #y &ore rustic, el"ish instinct,

clothe# !ith the sun. -o&e, !ith

li$e 2r. 2cC be, belie"e &erely in the i&possible sun itself. -o&e hol# the un#e&onstr ble #og& of the existence of Go#Q so&e the ePu lly un#e&onstr ble #og& of the existence of the & n next #oor.

Truths turn into #og& s the inst nt th t they re #ispute#. Thus e"ery & n !ho utters #oubt #efines religion. ?n# the scepticis&

of our ti&e #oes not re lly #estroy the beliefs, r ther it cre tes the&Q gi"es the& their li&its n# their pl in n# #efi nt sh pe. 'e !ho re <iber ls once hel# <iber lis& lightly s 9o! it h s been #ispute#, n# !e hol# it fiercely s truis&. f ith.

'e !ho belie"e in p triotis& once thought p triotis& to be re son ble, n# thought little &ore bout it. 9o! !e $no! it to be unre son ble, n# $no! it to be right. 'e !ho re Christi ns ne"er $ne! the gre t philosophic co&&on sense !hich inheres in th t &ystery until the ntiOChristi n !riters pointe# it out to us. The gre t & rch of &ent l #estruction !ill go on. E"erything !ill be #enie#. E"erything !ill beco&e cree#. 1t is re son ble position religious #og& #re &Q

to #eny the stones in the streetQ it !ill be to ssert the&. 1t is it !ill be

r tion l thesis th t !e re ll in

&ystic l s nity to s y th t !e re ll ! $e.

)ires !ill be $in#le# to testify th t t!o n# t!o & $e four. -!or#s !ill be #r !n to pro"e th t le "es re green in su&&er. 'e sh ll be left #efen#ing, not only the incre#ible "irtues n# s nities of hu& n life, but so&ething &ore incre#ible still, this huge i&possible uni"erse !hich st res us in the f ce. 'e sh ll fight for "isible pro#igies s if they !ere in"isible. 'e sh ll loo$ on the i&possible gr ss n# the s$ies !ith str nge cour ge.

'e sh ll be of those !ho h "e seen n# yet h "e belie"e#.

THE E9(

En# of this Project Gutenberg Etext of Heretics, by G. K. Chesterton