diff options
Diffstat (limited to '1017-h/1017-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 1017-h/1017-h.htm | 2001 |
1 files changed, 2001 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1017-h/1017-h.htm b/1017-h/1017-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..161b57c --- /dev/null +++ b/1017-h/1017-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2001 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>The Soul of Man, by Oscar Wilde</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} + div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Soul of Man, by Oscar Wilde + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: The Soul of Man + + +Author: Oscar Wilde + + + +Release Date: September 26, 2014 [eBook #1017] +[This file was first posted on August 10, 1997] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SOUL OF MAN*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1909 Arthur L. Humphreys edition by David +Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/coverb.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Book cover" +title= +"Book cover" + src="images/covers.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<h2>THE<br /> +SOUL OF MAN</h2> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span +class="GutSmall">LONDON</span><br /> +ARTHUR L. HUMPREYS<br /> +1900</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Second Impression</i></p> +<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 1</span>THE SOUL +OF MAN</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> chief advantage that would +result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the +fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity +of living for others which, in the present condition of things, +presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely +anyone at all escapes.</p> +<p>Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of +science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical +spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been +able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the +clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of +the wall,’ as Plato puts it, <a name="page2"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 2</span>and so to realise the perfection of +what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the +incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, +however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their +lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism—are forced, +indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded +by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous +starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly +moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more +quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some +time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much +more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have +sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though +misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very +sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils +that they see. But their remedies do not <a +name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 3</span>cure the +disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are +part of the disease.</p> +<p>They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by +keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced +school, by amusing the poor.</p> +<p>But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the +difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct +society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. +And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out +of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who +were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the +system being realised by those who suffered from it, and +understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state +of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people +who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of +men who have really studied the problem <a name="page4"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 4</span>and know the life—educated men +who live in the East End—coming forward and imploring the +community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, +benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that +such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly +right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.</p> +<p>There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use +private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that +result from the institution of private property. It is both +immoral and unfair.</p> +<p>Under Socialism all this will, of course, be altered. +There will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and +bringing up unhealthy, hunger-pinched children in the midst of +impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings. The +security of society will not depend, as it does now, on the state +of the weather. If a frost comes we shall not have a +hundred <a name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +5</span>thousand men out of work, tramping about the streets in a +state of disgusting misery, or whining to their neighbours for +alms, or crowding round the doors of loathsome shelters to try +and secure a hunch of bread and a night’s unclean +lodging. Each member of the society will share in the +general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost +comes no one will practically be anything the worse.</p> +<p>Upon the other hand, Socialism itself will be of value simply +because it will lead to Individualism.</p> +<p>Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by +converting private property into public wealth, and substituting +co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper +condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the +material well-being of each member of the community. It +will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper <a +name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +6</span>environment. But for the full development of Life +to its highest mode of perfection, something more is +needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the +Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with +economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a +word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of +man will be worse than the first. At present, in +consequence of the existence of private property, a great many +people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of +Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work +for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity +that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. +These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the +men of culture—in a word, the real men, the men who have +realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial <a +name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +7</span>realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great +many people who, having no private property of their own, and +being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to +do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite +uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the +peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These +are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or +charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in +pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force +Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only +the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in +himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the +infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, +crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is +far more obedient.</p> +<p>Of course, it might be said that the <a name="page8"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 8</span>Individualism generated under +conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule, +of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not +culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these +statements would be quite true. The possession of private +property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of +course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the +institution. In fact, property is really a nuisance. +Some years ago people went about the country saying that property +has duties. They said it so often and so tediously that, at +last, the Church has begun to say it. One hears it now from +every pulpit. It is perfectly true. Property not +merely has duties, but has so many duties that its possession to +any large extent is a bore. It involves endless claims upon +one, endless attention to business, endless bother. If +property had simply pleasures, we could stand <a +name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 9</span>it; but its +duties make it unbearable. In the interest of the rich we +must get rid of it. The virtues of the poor may be readily +admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told +that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, +no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. +They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and +rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity +they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial +restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some +impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to +tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be +grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s +table? They should be seated at the board, and are +beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who +would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low +mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, <a +name="page10"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 10</span>in the eyes +of anyone who has read history, is man’s original +virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been +made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes +the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend +thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is +like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town +or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely +immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live +like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like +that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is +considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for +begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take +than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, +discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and +has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. +As for the virtuous <a name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +11</span>poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot +possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the +enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They +must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand +a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of +its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those +conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual +life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose +life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly +acquiesce in their continuance.</p> +<p>However, the explanation is not really difficult to +find. It is simply this. Misery and poverty are so +absolutely degrading, and exercise such a paralysing effect over +the nature of men, that no class is ever really conscious of its +own suffering. They have to be told of it by other people, +and they often entirely disbelieve them. <a +name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 12</span>What is said +by great employers of labour against agitators is unquestionably +true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, +who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, +and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the +reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without +them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards +civilisation. Slavery was put down in America, not in +consequence of any action on the part of the slaves, or even any +express desire on their part that they should be free. It +was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of +certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere, who were not slaves +themselves, nor owners of slaves, nor had anything to do with the +question really. It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who +set the torch alight, who began the whole thing. And it is +curious to <a name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +13</span>note that from the slaves themselves they received, not +merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and +when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, +found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to +starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of +things. To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole +of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed +for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the +Vendée voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause +of feudalism.</p> +<p>It is clear, then, that no Authoritarian Socialism will +do. For while under the present system a very large number +of people can lead lives of a certain amount of freedom and +expression and happiness, under an industrial-barrack system, or +a system of economic tyranny, nobody would be able to have any +such freedom <a name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +14</span>at all. It is to be regretted that a portion of +our community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to +solve the problem by enslaving the entire community is +childish. Every man must be left quite free to choose his +own work. No form of compulsion must be exercised over +him. If there is, his work will not be good for him, will +not be good in itself, and will not be good for others. And +by work I simply mean activity of any kind.</p> +<p>I hardly think that any Socialist, nowadays, would seriously +propose that an inspector should call every morning at each house +to see that each citizen rose up and did manual labour for eight +hours. Humanity has got beyond that stage, and reserves +such a form of life for the people whom, in a very arbitrary +manner, it chooses to call criminals. But I confess that +many of the socialistic views that I have come across <a +name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 15</span>seem to me to +be tainted with ideas of authority, if not of actual +compulsion. Of course, authority and compulsion are out of +the question. All association must be quite +voluntary. It is only in voluntary associations that man is +fine.</p> +<p>But it may be asked how Individualism, which is now more or +less dependent on the existence of private property for its +development, will benefit by the abolition of such private +property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, +under existing conditions, a few men who have had private means +of their own, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, +Baudelaire, and others, have been able to realise their +personality more or less completely. Not one of these men +ever did a single day’s work for hire. They were +relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. +The question is whether it would be for the good of Individualism +<a name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 16</span>that such +an advantage should be taken away. Let us suppose that it +is taken away. What happens then to Individualism? +How will it benefit?</p> +<p>It will benefit in this way. Under the new conditions +Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more +intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great +imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have +mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and +potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of +private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured +it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led +Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth +its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was +to have, and did not know that the important thing is to +be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, +but in what man is. <a name="page17"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 17</span>Private property has crushed true +Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. +It has debarred one part of the community from being individual +by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the +community from being individual by putting them on the wrong +road, and encumbering them. Indeed, so completely has +man’s personality been absorbed by his possessions that the +English law has always treated offences against a man’s +property with far more severity than offences against his person, +and property is still the test of complete citizenship. The +industry necessary for the making money is also very +demoralising. In a community like ours, where property +confers immense distinction, social position, honour, respect, +titles, and other pleasant things of the kind, man, being +naturally ambitious, makes it his aim to accumulate this +property, and goes on wearily and tediously <a +name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>accumulating +it long after he has got far more than he wants, or can use, or +enjoy, or perhaps even know of. Man will kill himself by +overwork in order to secure property, and really, considering the +enormous advantages that property brings, one is hardly +surprised. One’s regret is that society should be +constructed on such a basis that man has been forced into a +groove in which he cannot freely develop what is wonderful, and +fascinating, and delightful in him—in which, in fact, he +misses the true pleasure and joy of living. He is also, +under existing conditions, very insecure. An enormously +wealthy merchant may be—often is—at every moment of +his life at the mercy of things that are not under his +control. If the wind blows an extra point or so, or the +weather suddenly changes, or some trivial thing happens, his ship +may go down, his speculations may go wrong, and he finds himself +a poor <a name="page19"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +19</span>man, with his social position quite gone. Now, +nothing should be able to harm a man except himself. +Nothing should be able to rob a man at all. What a man +really has, is what is in him. What is outside of him +should be a matter of no importance.</p> +<p>With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have +true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste +his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for +things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in +the world. Most people exist, that is all.</p> +<p>It is a question whether we have ever seen the full expression +of a personality, except on the imaginative plane of art. +In action, we never have. Cæsar, says Mommsen, was +the complete and perfect man. But how tragically insecure +was Cæsar! Wherever there is a man who exercises +authority, there is a man who resists authority. +Cæsar was very perfect, <a name="page20"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 20</span>but his perfection travelled by too +dangerous a road. Marcus Aurelius was the perfect man, says +Renan. Yes; the great emperor was a perfect man. But +how intolerable were the endless claims upon him! He +staggered under the burden of the empire. He was conscious +how inadequate one man was to bear the weight of that Titan and +too vast orb. What I mean by a perfect man is one who +develops under perfect conditions; one who is not wounded, or +worried or maimed, or in danger. Most personalities have +been obliged to be rebels. Half their strength has been +wasted in friction. Byron’s personality, for +instance, was terribly wasted in its battle with the stupidity, +and hypocrisy, and Philistinism of the English. Such +battles do not always intensify strength: they often exaggerate +weakness. Byron was never able to give us what he might +have given us. Shelley escaped better. Like Byron, he +got out of <a name="page21"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +21</span>England as soon as possible. But he was not so +well known. If the English had had any idea of what a great +poet he really was, they would have fallen on him with tooth and +nail, and made his life as unbearable to him as they possibly +could. But he was not a remarkable figure in society, and +consequently he escaped, to a certain degree. Still, even +in Shelley the note of rebellion is sometimes too strong. +The note of the perfect personality is not rebellion, but +peace.</p> +<p>It will be a marvellous thing—the true personality of +man—when we see it. It will grow naturally and +simply, flowerlike, or as a tree grows. It will not be at +discord. It will never argue or dispute. It will not +prove things. It will know everything. And yet it +will not busy itself about knowledge. It will have +wisdom. Its value will not be measured by material +things. It will have nothing. And yet it will have +everything, and whatever <a name="page22"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 22</span>one takes from it, it will still +have, so rich will it be. It will not be always meddling +with others, or asking them to be like itself. It will love +them because they will be different. And yet while it will +not meddle with others, it will help all, as a beautiful thing +helps us, by being what it is. The personality of man will +be very wonderful. It will be as wonderful as the +personality of a child.</p> +<p>In its development it will be assisted by Christianity, if men +desire that; but if men do not desire that, it will develop none +the less surely. For it will not worry itself about the +past, nor care whether things happened or did not happen. +Nor will it admit any laws but its own laws; nor any authority +but its own authority. Yet it will love those who sought to +intensify it, and speak often of them. And of these Christ +was one.</p> +<p><a name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +23</span>‘Know thyself’ was written over the portal +of the antique world. Over the portal of the new world, +‘Be thyself’ shall be written. And the message +of Christ to man was simply ‘Be thyself.’ That +is the secret of Christ.</p> +<p>When Jesus talks about the poor he simply means personalities, +just as when he talks about the rich he simply means people who +have not developed their personalities. Jesus moved in a +community that allowed the accumulation of private property just +as ours does, and the gospel that he preached was not that in +such a community it is an advantage for a man to live on scanty, +unwholesome food, to wear ragged, unwholesome clothes, to sleep +in horrid, unwholesome dwellings, and a disadvantage for a man to +live under healthy, pleasant, and decent conditions. Such a +view would have been wrong there and then, and would, of course, +be still <a name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +24</span>more wrong now and in England; for as man moves +northward the material necessities of life become of more vital +importance, and our society is infinitely more complex, and +displays far greater extremes of luxury and pauperism than any +society of the antique world. What Jesus meant, was +this. He said to man, ‘You have a wonderful +personality. Develop it. Be yourself. +Don’t imagine that your perfection lies in accumulating or +possessing external things. Your affection is inside of +you. If only you could realise that, you would not want to +be rich. Ordinary riches can be stolen from a man. +Real riches cannot. In the treasury-house of your soul, +there are infinitely precious things, that may not be taken from +you. And so, try to so shape your life that external things +will not harm you. And try also to get rid of personal +property. It involves sordid preoccupation, endless +industry, continual wrong. Personal <a +name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 25</span>property +hinders Individualism at every step.’ It is to be +noted that Jesus never says that impoverished people are +necessarily good, or wealthy people necessarily bad. That +would not have been true. Wealthy people are, as a class, +better than impoverished people, more moral, more intellectual, +more well-behaved. There is only one class in the community +that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the +poor. The poor can think of nothing else. That is the +misery of being poor. What Jesus does say is that man +reaches his perfection, not through what he has, not even through +what he does, but entirely through what he is. And so the +wealthy young man who comes to Jesus is represented as a +thoroughly good citizen, who has broken none of the laws of his +state, none of the commandments of his religion. He is +quite respectable, in the ordinary sense of that extraordinary +word. Jesus says <a name="page26"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 26</span>to him, ‘You should give up +private property. It hinders you from realising your +perfection. It is a drag upon you. It is a +burden. Your personality does not need it. It is +within you, and not outside of you, that you will find what you +really are, and what you really want.’ To his own +friends he says the same thing. He tells them to be +themselves, and not to be always worrying about other +things. What do other things matter? Man is complete +in himself. When they go into the world, the world will +disagree with them. That is inevitable. The world +hates Individualism. But that is not to trouble them. +They are to be calm and self-centred. If a man takes their +cloak, they are to give him their coat, just to show that +material things are of no importance. If people abuse them, +they are not to answer back. What does it signify? +The things people say of a man do not alter a man. He is +what he is. <a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +27</span>Public opinion is of no value whatsoever. Even if +people employ actual violence, they are not to be violent in +turn. That would be to fall to the same low level. +After all, even in prison, a man can be quite free. His +soul can be free. His personality can be untroubled. +He can be at peace. And, above all things, they are not to +interfere with other people or judge them in any way. +Personality is a very mysterious thing. A man cannot always +be estimated by what he does. He may keep the law, and yet +be worthless. He may break the law, and yet be fine. +He may be bad, without ever doing anything bad. He may +commit a sin against society, and yet realise through that sin +his true perfection.</p> +<p>There was a woman who was taken in adultery. We are not +told the history of her love, but that love must have been very +great; for Jesus said that her sins were forgiven her, <a +name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 28</span>not because +she repented, but because her love was so intense and +wonderful. Later on, a short time before his death, as he +sat at a feast, the woman came in and poured costly perfumes on +his hair. His friends tried to interfere with her, and said +that it was an extravagance, and that the money that the perfume +cost should have been expended on charitable relief of people in +want, or something of that kind. Jesus did not accept that +view. He pointed out that the material needs of Man were +great and very permanent, but that the spiritual needs of Man +were greater still, and that in one divine moment, and by +selecting its own mode of expression, a personality might make +itself perfect. The world worships the woman, even now, as +a saint.</p> +<p>Yes; there are suggestive things in Individualism. +Socialism annihilates family life, for instance. With the +<a name="page29"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 29</span>abolition +of private property, marriage in its present form must +disappear. This is part of the programme. +Individualism accepts this and makes it fine. It converts +the abolition of legal restraint into a form of freedom that will +help the full development of personality, and make the love of +man and woman more wonderful, more beautiful, and more +ennobling. Jesus knew this. He rejected the claims of +family life, although they existed in his day and community in a +very marked form. ‘Who is my mother? Who are my +brothers?’ he said, when he was told that they wished to +speak to him. When one of his followers asked leave to go +and bury his father, ‘Let the dead bury the dead,’ +was his terrible answer. He would allow no claim whatsoever +to be made on personality.</p> +<p>And so he who would lead a Christlike life is he who is +perfectly and absolutely himself. He may be a <a +name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 30</span>great poet, +or a great man of science; or a young student at a University, or +one who watches sheep upon a moor; or a maker of dramas, like +Shakespeare, or a thinker about God, like Spinoza; or a child who +plays in a garden, or a fisherman who throws his net into the +sea. It does not matter what he is, as long as he realises +the perfection of the soul that is within him. All +imitation in morals and in life is wrong. Through the +streets of Jerusalem at the present day crawls one who is mad and +carries a wooden cross on his shoulders. He is a symbol of +the lives that are marred by imitation. Father Damien was +Christlike when he went out to live with the lepers, because in +such service he realised fully what was best in him. But he +was not more Christlike than Wagner when he realised his soul in +music; or than Shelley, when he realised his soul in song. +There is no one type for man. <a name="page31"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 31</span>There are as many perfections as +there are imperfect men. And while to the claims of charity +a man may yield and yet be free, to the claims of conformity no +man may yield and remain free at all.</p> +<p>Individualism, then, is what through Socialism we are to +attain to. As a natural result the State must give up all +idea of government. It must give it up because, as a wise +man once said many centuries before Christ, there is such a thing +as leaving mankind alone; there is no such thing as governing +mankind. All modes of government are failures. +Despotism is unjust to everybody, including the despot, who was +probably made for better things. Oligarchies are unjust to +the many, and ochlocracies are unjust to the few. High +hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply +the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. +It has been found out. I must say <a +name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 32</span>that it was +high time, for all authority is quite degrading. It +degrades those who exercise it, and degrades those over whom it +is exercised. When it is violently, grossly, and cruelly +used, it produces a good effect, by creating, or at any rate +bringing out, the spirit of revolt and Individualism that is to +kill it. When it is used with a certain amount of kindness, +and accompanied by prizes and rewards, it is dreadfully +demoralising. People, in that case, are less conscious of +the horrible pressure that is being put on them, and so go +through their lives in a sort of coarse comfort, like petted +animals, without ever realising that they are probably thinking +other people’s thoughts, living by other people’s +standards, wearing practically what one may call other +people’s second-hand clothes, and never being themselves +for a single moment. ‘He who would be free,’ +says a fine thinker, ‘must not conform.’ And +authority, <a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +33</span>by bribing people to conform, produces a very gross kind +of over-fed barbarism amongst us.</p> +<p>With authority, punishment will pass away. This will be +a great gain—a gain, in fact, of incalculable value. +As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for +school-boys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each +time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the +wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have +inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalised by the +habitual employment of punishment, than it is by the occurrence +of crime. It obviously follows that the more punishment is +inflicted the more crime is produced, and most modern legislation +has clearly recognised this, and has made it its task to diminish +punishment as far as it thinks it can. Wherever it has +really diminished it, the results have always been extremely <a +name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 34</span>good. +The less punishment, the less crime. When there is no +punishment at all, crime will either cease to exist, or, if it +occurs, will be treated by physicians as a very distressing form +of dementia, to be cured by care and kindness. For what are +called criminals nowadays are not criminals at all. +Starvation, and not sin, is the parent of modern crime. +That indeed is the reason why our criminals are, as a class, so +absolutely uninteresting from any psychological point of +view. They are not marvellous Macbeths and terrible +Vautrins. They are merely what ordinary, respectable, +commonplace people would be if they had not got enough to +eat. When private property is abolished there will be no +necessity for crime, no demand for it; it will cease to +exist. Of course, all crimes are not crimes against +property, though such are the crimes that the English law, +valuing what a man has more than what a <a +name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 35</span>man is, +punishes with the harshest and most horrible severity, if we +except the crime of murder, and regard death as worse than penal +servitude, a point on which our criminals, I believe, +disagree. But though a crime may not be against property, +it may spring from the misery and rage and depression produced by +our wrong system of property-holding, and so, when that system is +abolished, will disappear. When each member of the +community has sufficient for his wants, and is not interfered +with by his neighbour, it will not be an object of any interest +to him to interfere with anyone else. Jealousy, which is an +extraordinary source of crime in modern life, is an emotion +closely bound up with our conceptions of property, and under +Socialism and Individualism will die out. It is remarkable +that in communistic tribes jealousy is entirely unknown.</p> +<p>Now as the State is not to govern, <a name="page36"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 36</span>it may be asked what the State is to +do. The State is to be a voluntary association that will +organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of +necessary commodities. The State is to make what is +useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful. +And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying +that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked +nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is +nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and +most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and +morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find +pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless +activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a +slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is +blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with +mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to <a +name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 37</span>me to be +impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. +Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All +work of that kind should be done by a machine.</p> +<p>And I have no doubt that it will be so. Up to the +present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of +machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon +as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to +starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our +property system and our system of competition. One man owns +a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five +hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, +having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. +The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and +has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, +which is of much more importance, a great <a +name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 38</span>deal more +than he really wants. Were that machine the property of +all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense +advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all +monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful +things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by +machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do +all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean +the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that +is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes +against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve +man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of +machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is +asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying +cultivated leisure—which, and not labour, is the aim of +man—or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful <a +name="page39"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 39</span>things, or +simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, +machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant +work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. +The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves +to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and +contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is +wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, +on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world +depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon +to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and +worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful +leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for +their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be +great storages of force for every city, and for every house if +required, and this force man will convert into heat, <a +name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 40</span>light, or +motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A +map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even +glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity +is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks +out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is +the realisation of Utopias.</p> +<p>Now, I have said that the community by means of organisation +of machinery will supply the useful things, and that the +beautiful things will be made by the individual. This is +not merely necessary, but it is the only possible way by which we +can get either the one or the other. An individual who has +to make things for the use of others, and with reference to their +wants and their wishes, does not work with interest, and +consequently cannot put into his work what is best in him. +Upon the other hand, whenever a community or a <a +name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 41</span>powerful +section of a community, or a government of any kind, attempts to +dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art either entirely +vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates into a low and +ignoble form of craft. A work of art is the unique result +of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact +that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with +the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the +moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and +tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and +becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest +tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an +artist. Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that +the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the +only real mode of Individualism that the world has known. +Crime, which, under certain conditions, may seem <a +name="page42"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 42</span>to have +created Individualism, must take cognisance of other people and +interfere with them. It belongs to the sphere of +action. But alone, without any reference to his neighbours, +without any interference, the artist can fashion a beautiful +thing; and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure, he +is not an artist at all.</p> +<p>And it is to be noted that it is the fact that Art is this +intense form of Individualism that makes the public try to +exercise over it in an authority that is as immoral as it is +ridiculous, and as corrupting as it is contemptible. It is +not quite their fault. The public has always, and in every +age, been badly brought up. They are continually asking Art +to be popular, to please their want of taste, to flatter their +absurd vanity, to tell them what they have been told before, to +show them what they ought to be tired of seeing, to amuse them +when they feel heavy after eating too much, and to distract <a +name="page43"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 43</span>their +thoughts when they are wearied of their own stupidity. Now +Art should never try to be popular. The public should try +to make itself artistic. There is a very wide +difference. If a man of science were told that the results +of his experiments, and the conclusions that he arrived at, +should be of such a character that they would not upset the +received popular notions on the subject, or disturb popular +prejudice, or hurt the sensibilities of people who knew nothing +about science; if a philosopher were told that he had a perfect +right to speculate in the highest spheres of thought, provided +that he arrived at the same conclusions as were held by those who +had never thought in any sphere at all—well, nowadays the +man of science and the philosopher would be considerably +amused. Yet it is really a very few years since both +philosophy and science were subjected to brutal popular control, +to authority in fact—<a name="page44"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 44</span>the authority of either the general +ignorance of the community, or the terror and greed for power of +an ecclesiastical or governmental class. Of course, we have +to a very great extent got rid of any attempt on the part of the +community, or the Church, or the Government, to interfere with +the individualism of speculative thought, but the attempt to +interfere with the individualism of imaginative art still +lingers. In fact, it does more than linger; it is +aggressive, offensive, and brutalising.</p> +<p>In England, the arts that have escaped best are the <a +name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 45</span>arts in which +the public take no interest. Poetry is an instance of what +I mean. We have been able to have fine poetry in England +because the public do not read it, and consequently do not +influence it. The public like to insult poets because they +are individual, but once they have insulted them, they leave them +alone. In the case of the novel and the drama, arts in +which the public do take an interest, the result of the exercise +of popular authority has been absolutely ridiculous. No +country produces such badly-written fiction, such tedious, common +work in the novel form, such silly, vulgar plays as +England. It must necessarily be so. The popular +standard is of such a character that no artist can get to +it. It is at once too easy and too difficult to be a +popular novelist. It is too easy, because the requirements +of the public as far as plot, style, psychology, treatment of +life, and treatment of literature are concerned are within the +reach of the very meanest capacity and the most uncultivated +mind. It is too difficult, because to meet such +requirements the artist would have to do violence to his +temperament, would have to write not for the artistic joy of +writing, but for the amusement of half-educated people, and so +would have to suppress his individualism, <a +name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 46</span>forget his +culture, annihilate his style, and surrender everything that is +valuable in him. In the case of the drama, things are a +little better: the theatre-going public like the obvious, it is +true, but they do not like the tedious; and burlesque and +farcical comedy, the two most popular forms, are distinct forms +of art. Delightful work may be produced under burlesque and +farcical conditions, and in work of this kind the artist in +England is allowed very great freedom. It is when one comes +to the higher forms of the drama that the result of popular +control is seen. The one thing that the public dislike is +novelty. Any attempt to extend the subject-matter of art is +extremely distasteful to the public; and yet the vitality and +progress of art depend in a large measure on the continual +extension of subject-matter. The public dislike novelty +because they are afraid of it. It represents to them a mode +of Individualism, an assertion <a name="page47"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 47</span>on the part of the artist that he +selects his own subject, and treats it as he chooses. The +public are quite right in their attitude. Art is +Individualism, and Individualism is a disturbing and +disintegrating force. Therein lies its immense value. +For what it seeks to disturb is monotony of type, slavery of +custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level +of a machine. In Art, the public accept what has been, +because they cannot alter it, not because they appreciate +it. They swallow their classics whole, and never taste +them. They endure them as the inevitable, and as they +cannot mar them, they mouth about them. Strangely enough, +or not strangely, according to one’s own views, this +acceptance of the classics does a great deal of harm. The +uncritical admiration of the Bible and Shakespeare in England is +an instance of what I mean. With regard to the Bible, +considerations of ecclesiastical <a name="page48"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 48</span>authority enter into the matter, so +that I need not dwell upon the point.</p> +<p>But in the case of Shakespeare it is quite obvious that the +public really see neither the beauties nor the defects of his +plays. If they saw the beauties, they would not object to +the development of the drama; and if they saw the defects, they +would not object to the development of the drama either. +The fact is, the public make use of the classics of a country as +a means of checking the progress of Art. They degrade the +classics into authorities. They use them as bludgeons for +preventing the free expression of Beauty in new forms. They +are always asking a writer why he does not write like somebody +else, or a painter why he does not paint like somebody else, +quite oblivious of the fact that if either of them did anything +of the kind he would cease to be an artist. A fresh mode of +Beauty is absolutely distasteful to them, and whenever it appears +<a name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 49</span>they get +so angry, and bewildered that they always use two stupid +expressions—one is that the work of art is grossly +unintelligible; the other, that the work of art is grossly +immoral. What they mean by these words seems to me to be +this. When they say a work is grossly unintelligible, they +mean that the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is +new; when they describe a work as grossly immoral, they mean that +the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is true. +The former expression has reference to style; the latter to +subject-matter. But they probably use the words very +vaguely, as an ordinary mob will use ready-made +paving-stones. There is not a single real poet or +prose-writer of this century, for instance, on whom the British +public have not solemnly conferred diplomas of immorality, and +these diplomas practically take the place, with us, of what in +France, is the formal recognition of an Academy <a +name="page50"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 50</span>of Letters, +and fortunately make the establishment of such an institution +quite unnecessary in England. Of course, the public are +very reckless in their use of the word. That they should +have called Wordsworth an immoral poet, was only to be +expected. Wordsworth was a poet. But that they should +have called Charles Kingsley an immoral novelist is +extraordinary. Kingsley’s prose was not of a very +fine quality. Still, there is the word, and they use it as +best they can. An artist is, of course, not disturbed by +it. The true artist is a man who believes absolutely in +himself, because he is absolutely himself. But I can fancy +that if an artist produced a work of art in England that +immediately on its appearance was recognised by the public, +through their medium, which is the public press, as a work that +was quite intelligible and highly moral, he would begin to +seriously question whether in its creation <a +name="page51"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 51</span>he had really +been himself at all, and consequently whether the work was not +quite unworthy of him, and either of a thoroughly second-rate +order, or of no artistic value whatsoever.</p> +<p>Perhaps, however, I have wronged the public in limiting them +to such words as ‘immoral,’ +‘unintelligible,’ ‘exotic,’ and +‘unhealthy.’ There is one other word that they +use. That word is ‘morbid.’ They do not +use it often. The meaning of the word is so simple that +they are afraid of using it. Still, they use it sometimes, +and, now and then, one comes across it in popular +newspapers. It is, of course, a ridiculous word to apply to +a work of art. For what is morbidity but a mood of emotion +or a mode of thought that one cannot express? The public +are all morbid, because the public can never find expression for +anything. The artist is never morbid. He expresses +everything. He stands outside his subject, and through its +<a name="page52"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 52</span>medium +produces incomparable and artistic effects. To call an +artist morbid because he deals with morbidity as his +subject-matter is as silly as if one called Shakespeare mad +because he wrote ‘King Lear.’</p> +<p>On the whole, an artist in England gains something by being +attacked. His individuality is intensified. He +becomes more completely himself. Of course, the attacks are +very gross, very impertinent, and very contemptible. But +then no artist expects grace from the vulgar mind, or style from +the suburban intellect. Vulgarity and stupidity are two +very vivid facts in modern life. One regrets them, +naturally. But there they are. They are subjects for +study, like everything else. And it is only fair to state, +with regard to modern journalists, that they always apologise to +one in private for what they have written against one in +public.</p> +<p>Within the last few years two other <a name="page53"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 53</span>adjectives, it may be mentioned, have +been added to the very limited vocabulary of art-abuse that is at +the disposal of the public. One is the word +‘unhealthy,’ the other is the word +‘exotic.’ The latter merely expresses the rage +of the momentary mushroom against the immortal, entrancing, and +exquisitely lovely orchid. It is a tribute, but a tribute +of no importance. The word ‘unhealthy,’ +however, admits of analysis. It is a rather interesting +word. In fact, it is so interesting that the people who use +it do not know what it means.</p> +<p>What does it mean? What is a healthy, or an unhealthy +work of art? All terms that one applies to a work of art, +provided that one applies them rationally, have reference to +either its style or its subject, or to both together. From +the point of view of style, a healthy work of art is one whose +style recognises the beauty of the material it employs, be that +material one of words <a name="page54"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 54</span>or of bronze, of colour or of ivory, +and uses that beauty as a factor in producing the æsthetic +effect. From the point of view of subject, a healthy work +of art is one the choice of whose subject is conditioned by the +temperament of the artist, and comes directly out of it. In +fine, a healthy work of art is one that has both perfection and +personality. Of course, form and substance cannot be +separated in a work of art; they are always one. But for +purposes of analysis, and setting the wholeness of æsthetic +impression aside for a moment, we can intellectually so separate +them. An unhealthy work of art, on the other hand, is a +work whose style is obvious, old-fashioned, and common, and whose +subject is deliberately chosen, not because the artist has any +pleasure in it, but because he thinks that the public will pay +him for it. In fact, the popular novel that the public +calls healthy is always a thoroughly unhealthy production; <a +name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 55</span>and what the +public call an unhealthy novel is always a beautiful and healthy +work of art.</p> +<p>I need hardly say that I am not, for a single moment, +complaining that the public and the public press misuse these +words. I do not see how, with their lack of comprehension +of what Art is, they could possibly use them in the proper +sense. I am merely pointing out the misuse; and as for the +origin of the misuse and the meaning that lies behind it all, the +explanation is very simple. It comes from the barbarous +conception of authority. It comes from the natural +inability of a community corrupted by authority to understand or +appreciate Individualism. In a word, it comes from that +monstrous and ignorant thing that is called Public Opinion, +which, bad and well-meaning as it is when it tries to control +action, is infamous and of evil meaning when it tries to control +Thought or Art.</p> +<p><a name="page56"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 56</span>Indeed, +there is much more to be said in favour of the physical force of +the public than there is in favour of the public’s +opinion. The former may be fine. The latter must be +foolish. It is often said that force is no argument. +That, however, entirely depends on what one wants to prove. +Many of the most important problems of the last few centuries, +such as the continuance of personal government in England, or of +feudalism in France, have been solved entirely by means of +physical force. The very violence of a revolution may make +the public grand and splendid for a moment. It was a fatal +day when the public discovered that the pen is mightier than the +paving-stone, and can be made as offensive as the brickbat. +They at once sought for the journalist, found him, developed him, +and made him their industrious and well-paid servant. It is +greatly to be regretted, for both their sakes. <a +name="page57"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 57</span>Behind the +barricade there may be much that is noble and heroic. But +what is there behind the leading-article but prejudice, +stupidity, cant, and twaddle? And when these four are +joined together they make a terrible force, and constitute the +new authority.</p> +<p>In old days men had the rack. Now they have the +press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it +is very bad, and wrong, and demoralising. +Somebody—was it Burke?—called journalism the fourth +estate. That was true at the time, no doubt. But at +the present moment it really is the only estate. It has +eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, +the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons +has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by +Journalism. In America the President reigns for four years, +and Journalism governs for ever and ever. Fortunately <a +name="page58"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 58</span>in America +Journalism has carried its authority to the grossest and most +brutal extreme. As a natural consequence it has begun to +create a spirit of revolt. People are amused by it, or +disgusted by it, according to their temperaments. But it is +no longer the real force it was. It is not seriously +treated. In England, Journalism, not, except in a few +well-known instances, having been carried to such excesses of +brutality, is still a great factor, a really remarkable +power. The tyranny that it proposes to exercise over +people’s private lives seems to me to be quite +extraordinary. The fact is, that the public have an +insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth +knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having +tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands. In centuries +before ours the public nailed the ears of journalists to the +pump. That was quite hideous. In this century +journalists have nailed their <a name="page59"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 59</span>own ears to the keyhole. That +is much worse. And what aggravates the mischief is that the +journalists who are most to blame are not the amusing journalists +who write for what are called Society papers. The harm is +done by the serious, thoughtful, earnest journalists, who +solemnly, as they are doing at present, will drag before the eyes +of the public some incident in the private life of a great +statesman, of a man who is a leader of political thought as he is +a creator of political force, and invite the public to discuss +the incident, to exercise authority in the matter, to give their +views, and not merely to give their views, but to carry them into +action, to dictate to the man upon all other points, to dictate +to his party, to dictate to his country; in fact, to make +themselves ridiculous, offensive, and harmful. The private +lives of men and women should not be told to the public. +The public have nothing to <a name="page60"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 60</span>do with them at all. In France +they manage these things better. There they do not allow +the details of the trials that take place in the divorce courts +to be published for the amusement or criticism of the +public. All that the public are allowed to know is that the +divorce has taken place and was granted on petition of one or +other or both of the married parties concerned. In France, +in fact, they limit the journalist, and allow the artist almost +perfect freedom. Here we allow absolute freedom to the +journalist, and entirely limit the artist. English public +opinion, that is to say, tries to constrain and impede and warp +the man who makes things that are beautiful in effect, and +compels the journalist to retail things that are ugly, or +disgusting, or revolting in fact, so that we have the most +serious journalists in the world, and the most indecent +newspapers. It is no exaggeration to talk of +compulsion. There <a name="page61"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 61</span>are possibly some journalists who +take a real pleasure in publishing horrible things, or who, being +poor, look to scandals as forming a sort of permanent basis for +an income. But there are other journalists, I feel certain, +men of education and cultivation, who really dislike publishing +these things, who know that it is wrong to do so, and only do it +because the unhealthy conditions under which their occupation is +carried on oblige them to supply the public with what the public +wants, and to compete with other journalists in making that +supply as full and satisfying to the gross popular appetite as +possible. It is a very degrading position for any body of +educated men to be placed in, and I have no doubt that most of +them feel it acutely.</p> +<p>However, let us leave what is really a very sordid side of the +subject, and return to the question of popular control in the +matter of Art, by which <a name="page62"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 62</span>I mean Public Opinion dictating to +the artist the form which he is to use, the mode in which he is +to use it, and the materials with which he is to work. I +have pointed out that the arts which have escaped best in England +are the arts in which the public have not been interested. +They are, however, interested in the drama, and as a certain +advance has been made in the drama within the last ten or fifteen +years, it is important to point out that this advance is entirely +due to a few individual artists refusing to accept the popular +want of taste as their standard, and refusing to regard Art as a +mere matter of demand and supply. With his marvellous and +vivid personality, with a style that has really a true +colour-element in it, with his extraordinary power, not over mere +mimicry but over imaginative and intellectual creation, Mr +Irving, had his sole object been to give the public what they +wanted, could have produced <a name="page63"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 63</span>the commonest plays in the commonest +manner, and made as much success and money as a man could +possibly desire. But his object was not that. His +object was to realise his own perfection as an artist, under +certain conditions, and in certain forms of Art. At first +he appealed to the few: now he has educated the many. He +has created in the public both taste and temperament. The +public appreciate his artistic success immensely. I often +wonder, however, whether the public understand that that success +is entirely due to the fact that he did not accept their +standard, but realised his own. With their standard the +Lyceum would have been a sort of second-rate booth, as some of +the popular theatres in London are at present. Whether they +understand it or not the fact however remains, that taste and +temperament have, to a certain extent been created in the public, +and that <a name="page64"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +64</span>the public is capable of developing these +qualities. The problem then is, why do not the public +become more civilised? They have the capacity. What +stops them?</p> +<p>The thing that stops them, it must be said again, is their +desire to exercise authority over the artist and over works of +art. To certain theatres, such as the Lyceum and the +Haymarket, the public seem to come in a proper mood. In +both of these theatres there have been individual artists, who +have succeeded in creating in their audiences—and every +theatre in London has its own audience—the temperament to +which Art appeals. And what is that temperament? It +is the temperament of receptivity. That is all.</p> +<p>If a man approaches a work of art with any desire to exercise +authority over it and the artist, he approaches it in such a +spirit that he cannot receive any artistic impression from it at +all. The work of art is to dominate <a +name="page65"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 65</span>the +spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of +art. The spectator is to be receptive. He is to be +the violin on which the master is to play. And the more +completely he can suppress his own silly views, his own foolish +prejudices, his own absurd ideas of what Art should be, or should +not be, the more likely he is to understand and appreciate the +work of art in question. This is, of course, quite obvious +in the case of the vulgar theatre-going public of English men and +women. But it is equally true of what are called educated +people. For an educated person’s ideas of Art are +drawn naturally from what Art has been, whereas the new work of +art is beautiful by being what Art has never been; and to measure +it by the standard of the past is to measure it by a standard on +the rejection of which its real perfection depends. A +temperament capable of receiving, through an imaginative medium, +and under imaginative <a name="page66"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 66</span>conditions, new and beautiful +impressions, is the only temperament that can appreciate a work +of art. And true as this is in the case of the appreciation +of sculpture and painting, it is still more true of the +appreciation of such arts as the drama. For a picture and a +statue are not at war with Time. They take no count of its +succession. In one moment their unity may be +apprehended. In the case of literature it is +different. Time must be traversed before the unity of +effect is realised. And so, in the drama, there may occur +in the first act of the play something whose real artistic value +may not be evident to the spectator till the third or fourth act +is reached. Is the silly fellow to get angry and call out, +and disturb the play, and annoy the artists? No. The +honest man is to sit quietly, and know the delightful emotions of +wonder, curiosity, and suspense. He is not to go to the +play to lose a vulgar <a name="page67"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 67</span>temper. He is to go to the play +to realise an artistic temperament. He is to go to the play +to gain an artistic temperament. He is not the arbiter of +the work of art. He is one who is admitted to contemplate +the work of art, and, if the work be fine, to forget in its +contemplation and the egotism that mars him—the egotism of +his ignorance, or the egotism of his information. This +point about the drama is hardly, I think, sufficiently +recognised. I can quite understand that were +‘Macbeth’ produced for the first time before a modern +London audience, many of the people present would strongly and +vigorously object to the introduction of the witches in the first +act, with their grotesque phrases and their ridiculous +words. But when the play is over one realises that the +laughter of the witches in ‘Macbeth’ is as terrible +as the laughter of madness in ‘Lear,’ more terrible +than the laughter of Iago in the tragedy of the <a +name="page68"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 68</span>Moor. +No spectator of art needs a more perfect mood of receptivity than +the spectator of a play. The moment he seeks to exercise +authority he becomes the avowed enemy of Art and of +himself. Art does not mind. It is he who suffers.</p> +<p>With the novel it is the same thing. Popular authority +and the recognition of popular authority are fatal. +Thackeray’s ‘Esmond’ is a beautiful work of art +because he wrote it to please himself. In his other novels, +in ‘Pendennis,’ in ‘Philip,’ in +‘Vanity Fair’ even, at times, he is too conscious of +the public, and spoils his work by appealing directly to the +sympathies of the public, or by directly mocking at them. A +true artist takes no notice whatever of the public. The +public are to him non-existent. He has no poppied or +honeyed cakes through which to give the monster sleep or +sustenance. He leaves that to the popular novelist. +One incomparable novelist we have <a name="page69"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 69</span>now in England, Mr George +Meredith. There are better artists in France, but France +has no one whose view of life is so large, so varied, so +imaginatively true. There are tellers of stories in Russia +who have a more vivid sense of what pain in fiction may be. +But to him belongs philosophy in fiction. His people not +merely live, but they live in thought. One can see them +from myriad points of view. They are suggestive. +There is soul in them and around them. They are +interpretative and symbolic. And he who made them, those +wonderful quickly-moving figures, made them for his own pleasure, +and has never asked the public what they wanted, has never cared +to know what they wanted, has never allowed the public to dictate +to him or influence him in any way but has gone on intensifying +his own personality, and producing his own individual work. +At first none came to him. That did not matter. Then +the few came to <a name="page70"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +70</span>him. That did not change him. The many have +come now. He is still the same. He is an incomparable +novelist.</p> +<p>With the decorative arts it is not different. The public +clung with really pathetic tenacity to what I believe were the +direct traditions of the Great Exhibition of international +vulgarity, traditions that were so appalling that the houses in +which people lived were only fit for blind people to live +in. Beautiful things began to be made, beautiful colours +came from the dyer’s hand, beautiful patterns from the +artist’s brain, and the use of beautiful things and their +value and importance were set forth. The public were really +very indignant. They lost their temper. They said +silly things. No one minded. No one was a whit the +worse. No one accepted the authority of public +opinion. And now it is almost impossible to enter any +modern house without seeing some recognition of good taste, some +recognition of the value of lovely surroundings, <a +name="page71"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 71</span>some sign of +appreciation of beauty. In fact, people’s houses are, +as a rule, quite charming nowadays. People have been to a +very great extent civilised. It is only fair to state, +however, that the extraordinary success of the revolution in +house-decoration and furniture and the like has not really been +due to the majority of the public developing a very fine taste in +such matters. It has been chiefly due to the fact that the +craftsmen of things so appreciated the pleasure of making what +was beautiful, and woke to such a vivid consciousness of the +hideousness and vulgarity of what the public had previously +wanted, that they simply starved the public out. It would +be quite impossible at the present moment to furnish a room as +rooms were furnished a few years ago, without going for +everything to an auction of second-hand furniture from some +third-rate lodging-house. The things are no longer +made. However they <a name="page72"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 72</span>may object to it, people must +nowadays have something charming in their surroundings. +Fortunately for them, their assumption of authority in these +art-matters came to entire grief.</p> +<p>It is evident, then, that all authority in such things is +bad. People sometimes inquire what form of government is +most suitable for an artist to live under. To this question +there is only one answer. The form of government that is +most suitable to the artist is no government at all. +Authority over him and his art is ridiculous. It has been +stated that under despotisms artists have produced lovely +work. This is not quite so. Artists have visited +despots, not as subjects to be tyrannised over, but as wandering +wonder-makers, as fascinating vagrant personalities, to be +entertained and charmed and suffered to be at peace, and allowed +to create. There is this to be said in favour of the +despot, that he, being an individual, <a name="page73"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 73</span>may have culture, while the mob, +being a monster, has none. One who is an Emperor and King +may stoop down to pick up a brush for a painter, but when the +democracy stoops down it is merely to throw mud. And yet +the democracy have not so far to stoop as the emperor. In +fact, when they want to throw mud they have not to stoop at +all. But there is no necessity to separate the monarch from +the mob; all authority is equally bad.</p> +<p>There are three kinds of despots. There is the despot +who tyrannises over the body. There is the despot who +tyrannises over the soul. There is the despot who +tyrannises over the soul and body alike. The first is +called the Prince. The second is called the Pope. The +third is called the People. The Prince may be +cultivated. Many Princes have been. Yet in the Prince +there is danger. One thinks of Dante at the bitter feast <a +name="page74"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 74</span>in Verona, of +Tasso in Ferrara’s madman’s cell. It is better +for the artist not to live with Princes. The Pope may be +cultivated. Many Popes have been; the bad Popes have +been. The bad Popes loved Beauty, almost as passionately, +nay, with as much passion as the good Popes hated Thought. +To the wickedness of the Papacy humanity owes much. The +goodness of the Papacy owes a terrible debt to humanity. +Yet, though the Vatican has kept the rhetoric of its thunders, +and lost the rod of its lightning, it is better for the artist +not to live with Popes. It was a Pope who said of Cellini +to a conclave of Cardinals that common laws and common authority +were not made for men such as he; but it was a Pope who thrust +Cellini into prison, and kept him there till he sickened with +rage, and created unreal visions for himself, and saw the gilded +sun enter his room, and grew so enamoured of <a +name="page75"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 75</span>it that he +sought to escape, and crept out from tower to tower, and falling +through dizzy air at dawn, maimed himself, and was by a +vine-dresser covered with vine leaves, and carried in a cart to +one who, loving beautiful things, had care of him. There is +danger in Popes. And as for the People, what of them and +their authority? Perhaps of them and their authority one +has spoken enough. Their authority is a thing blind, deaf, +hideous, grotesque, tragic, amusing, serious, and obscene. +It is impossible for the artist to live with the People. +All despots bribe. The people bribe and brutalise. +Who told them to exercise authority? They were made to +live, to listen, and to love. Someone has done them a great +wrong. They have marred themselves by imitation of their +inferiors. They have taken the sceptre of the Prince. +How should they use it? They have taken the triple tiara of +the Pope. How should <a name="page76"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 76</span>they carry its burden? They are +as a clown whose heart is broken. They are as a priest +whose soul is not yet born. Let all who love Beauty pity +them. Though they themselves love not Beauty, yet let them +pity themselves. Who taught them the trick of tyranny?</p> +<p>There are many other things that one might point out. +One might point out how the Renaissance was great, because it +sought to solve no social problem, and busied itself not about +such things, but suffered the individual to develop freely, +beautifully, and naturally, and so had great and individual +artists, and great and individual men. One might point out +how Louis XIV., by creating the modern state, destroyed the +individualism of the artist, and made things monstrous in their +monotony of repetition, and contemptible in their conformity to +rule, and destroyed throughout all France all those fine freedoms +of expression <a name="page77"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +77</span>that had made tradition new in beauty, and new modes one +with antique form. But the past is of no importance. +The present is of no importance. It is with the future that +we have to deal. For the past is what man should not have +been. The present is what man ought not to be. The +future is what artists are.</p> +<p>It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth +here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature. +This is perfectly true. It is unpractical, and it goes +against human nature. This is why it is worth carrying out, +and that is why one proposes it. For what is a practical +scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is +already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under +existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing +conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept +these conditions is wrong and foolish. The conditions will +be <a name="page78"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 78</span>done +away with, and human nature will change. The only thing +that one really knows about human nature is that it +changes. Change is the one quality we can predicate of +it. The systems that fail are those that rely on the +permanency of human nature, and not on its growth and +development. The error of Louis XIV. was that he thought +human nature would always be the same. The result of his +error was the French Revolution. It was an admirable +result. All the results of the mistakes of governments are +quite admirable.</p> +<p>It is to be noted also that Individualism does not come to man +with any sickly cant about duty, which merely means doing what +other people want because they want it; or any hideous cant about +self-sacrifice, which is merely a survival of savage +mutilation. In fact, it does not come to man with any +claims upon him at all. It comes naturally <a +name="page79"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 79</span>and +inevitably out of man. It is the point to which all +development tends. It is the differentiation to which all +organisms grow. It is the perfection that is inherent in +every mode of life, and towards which every mode of life +quickens. And so Individualism exercises no compulsion over +man. On the contrary, it says to man that he should suffer +no compulsion to be exercised over him. It does not try to +force people to be good. It knows that people are good when +they are let alone. Man will develop Individualism out of +himself. Man is now so developing Individualism. To +ask whether Individualism is practical is like asking whether +Evolution is practical. Evolution is the law of life, and +there is no evolution except towards Individualism. Where +this tendency is not expressed, it is a case of +artificially-arrested growth, or of disease, or of death.</p> +<p>Individualism will also be unselfish <a +name="page80"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 80</span>and +unaffected. It has been pointed out that one of the results +of the extraordinary tyranny of authority is that words are +absolutely distorted from their proper and simple meaning, and +are used to express the obverse of their right +signification. What is true about Art is true about +Life. A man is called affected, nowadays, if he dresses as +he likes to dress. But in doing that he is acting in a +perfectly natural manner. Affectation, in such matters, +consists in dressing according to the views of one’s +neighbour, whose views, as they are the views of the majority, +will probably be extremely stupid. Or a man is called +selfish if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable +for the full realisation of his own personality; if, in fact, the +primary aim of his life is self-development. But this is +the way in which everyone should live. Selfishness is not +living as one wishes to live, it is <a name="page81"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 81</span>asking others to live as one wishes +to live. And unselfishness is letting other people’s +lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always +aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. +Unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful +thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not +selfish to think for oneself. A man who does not think for +himself does not think at all. It is grossly selfish to +require of ones neighbour that he should think in the same way, +and hold the same opinions. Why should he? If he can +think, he will probably think differently. If he cannot +think, it is monstrous to require thought of any kind from +him. A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red +rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the +other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses. Under +Individualism people will be quite natural and absolutely +unselfish, <a name="page82"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +82</span>and will know the meanings of the words, and realise +them in their free, beautiful lives. Nor will men be +egotistic as they are now. For the egotist is he who makes +claims upon others, and the Individualist will not desire to do +that. It will not give him pleasure. When man has +realised Individualism, he will also realise sympathy and +exercise it freely and spontaneously. Up to the present man +has hardly cultivated sympathy at all. He has merely +sympathy with pain, and sympathy with pain is not the highest +form of sympathy. All sympathy is fine, but sympathy with +suffering is the least fine mode. It is tainted with +egotism. It is apt to become morbid. There is in it a +certain element of terror for our own safety. We become +afraid that we ourselves might be as the leper or as the blind, +and that no man would have care of us. It is curiously +limiting, too. One should sympathise with <a +name="page83"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 83</span>the entirety +of life, not with life’s sores and maladies merely, but +with life’s joy and beauty and energy and health and +freedom. The wider sympathy is, of course, the more +difficult. It requires more unselfishness. Anybody +can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a +very fine nature—it requires, in fact, the nature of a true +Individualist—to sympathise with a friend’s +success.</p> +<p>In the modern stress of competition and struggle for place, +such sympathy is naturally rare, and is also very much stifled by +the immoral ideal of uniformity of type and conformity to rule +which is so prevalent everywhere, and is perhaps most obnoxious +in England.</p> +<p>Sympathy with pain there will, of course, always be. It +is one of the first instincts of man. The animals which are +individual, the higher animals, that is to say, share it with +us. But it must be remembered that <a +name="page84"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 84</span>while +sympathy with joy intensifies the sum of joy in the world, +sympathy with pain does not really diminish the amount of +pain. It may make man better able to endure evil, but the +evil remains. Sympathy with consumption does not cure +consumption; that is what Science does. And when Socialism +has solved the problem of poverty, and Science solved the problem +of disease, the area of the sentimentalists will be lessened, and +the sympathy of man will be large, healthy, and +spontaneous. Man will have joy in the contemplation of the +joyous life of others.</p> +<p>For it is through joy that the Individualism of the future +will develop itself. Christ made no attempt to reconstruct +society, and consequently the Individualism that he preached to +man could be realised only through pain or in solitude. The +ideals that we owe to Christ are the ideals of the man who +abandons society entirely, or of the man <a +name="page85"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 85</span>who resists +society absolutely. But man is naturally social. Even +the Thebaid became peopled at last. And though the cenobite +realises his personality, it is often an impoverished personality +that he so realises. Upon the other hand, the terrible +truth that pain is a mode through which man may realise himself +exercises a wonderful fascination over the world. Shallow +speakers and shallow thinkers in pulpits and on platforms often +talk about the world’s worship of pleasure, and whine +against it. But it is rarely in the world’s history +that its ideal has been one of joy and beauty. The worship +of pain has far more often dominated the world. +Mediævalism, with its saints and martyrs, its love of +self-torture, its wild passion for wounding itself, its gashing +with knives, and its whipping with rods—Mediævalism +is real Christianity, and the mediæval Christ is the real +Christ. When the Renaissance dawned upon the world, and +brought <a name="page86"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +86</span>with it the new ideals of the beauty of life and the joy +of living, men could not understand Christ. Even Art shows +us that. The painters of the Renaissance drew Christ as a +little boy playing with another boy in a palace or a garden, or +lying back in his mother’s arms, smiling at her, or at a +flower, or at a bright bird; or as a noble, stately figure moving +nobly through the world; or as a wonderful figure rising in a +sort of ecstasy from death to life. Even when they drew him +crucified they drew him as a beautiful God on whom evil men had +inflicted suffering. But he did not preoccupy them +much. What delighted them was to paint the men and women +whom they admired, and to show the loveliness of this lovely +earth. They painted many religious pictures—in fact, +they painted far too many, and the monotony of type and motive is +wearisome, and was bad for art. It was the result of the +authority of the public in art-matters, and is to be +deplored. But <a name="page87"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +87</span>their soul was not in the subject. Raphael was a +great artist when he painted his portrait of the Pope. When +he painted his Madonnas and infant Christs, he is not a great +artist at all. Christ had no message for the Renaissance, +which was wonderful because it brought an ideal at variance with +his, and to find the presentation of the real Christ we must go +to mediæval art. There he is one maimed and marred; +one who is not comely to look on, because Beauty is a joy; one +who is not in fair raiment, because that may be a joy also: he is +a beggar who has a marvellous soul; he is a leper whose soul is +divine; he needs neither property nor health; he is a God +realising his perfection through pain.</p> +<p>The evolution of man is slow. The injustice of men is +great. It was necessary that pain should be put forward as +a mode of self-realisation. Even now, in some places in the +world, the message of Christ is necessary. No one who lived +<a name="page88"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 88</span>in modern +Russia could possibly realise his perfection except by +pain. A few Russian artists have realised themselves in +Art; in a fiction that is mediæval in character, because +its dominant note is the realisation of men through +suffering. But for those who are not artists, and to whom +there is no mode of life but the actual life of fact, pain is the +only door to perfection. A Russian who lives happily under +the present system of government in Russia must either believe +that man has no soul, or that, if he has, it is not worth +developing. A Nihilist who rejects all authority, because +he knows authority to be evil, and welcomes all pain, because +through that he realises his personality, is a real +Christian. To him the Christian ideal is a true thing.</p> +<p>And yet, Christ did not revolt against authority. He +accepted the imperial authority of the Roman Empire and paid +tribute. He endured the ecclesiastical authority of the +Jewish <a name="page89"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +89</span>Church, and would not repel its violence by any violence +of his own. He had, as I said before, no scheme for the +reconstruction of society. But the modern world has +schemes. It proposes to do away with poverty and the +suffering that it entails. It desires to get rid of pain, +and the suffering that pain entails. It trusts to Socialism +and to Science as its methods. What it aims at is an +Individualism expressing itself through joy. This +Individualism will be larger, fuller, lovelier than any +Individualism has ever been. Pain is not the ultimate mode +of perfection. It is merely provisional and a +protest. It has reference to wrong, unhealthy, unjust +surroundings. When the wrong, and the disease, and the +injustice are removed, it will have no further place. It +will have done its work. It was a great work, but it is +almost over. Its sphere lessens every day.</p> +<p>Nor will man miss it. For what man <a +name="page90"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 90</span>has sought +for is, indeed, neither pain nor pleasure, but simply Life. +Man has sought to live intensely, fully, perfectly. When he +can do so without exercising restraint on others, or suffering it +ever, and his activities are all pleasurable to him, he will be +saner, healthier, more civilised, more himself. Pleasure is +Nature’s test, her sign of approval. When man is +happy, he is in harmony with himself and his environment. +The new Individualism, for whose service Socialism, whether it +wills it or not, is working, will be perfect harmony. It +will be what the Greeks sought for, but could not, except in +Thought, realise completely, because they had slaves, and fed +them; it will be what the Renaissance sought for, but could not +realise completely except in Art, because they had slaves, and +starved them. It will be complete, and through it each man +will attain to his perfection. The new Individualism is the +new Hellenism.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><a name="page91"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 91</span><i>Reprinted from the</i> +‘<i>Fortnightly Review</i>,’<br /> +<i>by permission of Messrs Chapman and Hall</i>.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SOUL OF MAN***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 1017-h.htm or 1017-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/1/1017 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> |