diff options
Diffstat (limited to '1717-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 1717-h/1717-h.htm | 6439 |
1 files changed, 6439 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1717-h/1717-h.htm b/1717-h/1717-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6913917 --- /dev/null +++ b/1717-h/1717-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,6439 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> + +<!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" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + What's Wrong With the World, by G.K. Chesterton + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +Project Gutenberg's What's Wrong With The World, by G.K. Chesterton + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere 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 + + +Title: What's Wrong With The World + +Author: G.K. Chesterton + +Posting Date: December 9, 2008 [EBook #1717] +Last Updated: October 9, 2016 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD *** + + + + +Produced by Georges Allaire, Martin Ward, and David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h1> + WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WORLD + </h1> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + By G.K. Chesterton + </h2> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <blockquote> + <p class="toc"> + <big><b>CONTENTS</b></big> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART1"> <b>PART ONE. THE HOMELESSNESS OF MAN</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> I. THE MEDICAL MISTAKE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0003"> II. WANTED, AN UNPRACTICAL MAN </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0004"> III. THE NEW HYPOCRITE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0005"> IV. THE FEAR OF THE PAST </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0006"> V. THE UNFINISHED TEMPLE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0007"> VI. THE ENEMIES OF PROPERTY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0008"> VII. THE FREE FAMILY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0009"> VIII. THE WILDNESS OF DOMESTICITY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0010"> IX. HISTORY OF HUDGE AND GUDGE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0011"> X. OPPRESSION BY OPTIMISM </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0012"> XI. THE HOMELESSNESS OF JONES </a> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART2"> <b>PART TWO. IMPERIALISM, OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT + MAN</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0014"> I. THE CHARM OF JINGOISM </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0015"> II. WISDOM AND THE WEATHER </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0016"> III. THE COMMON VISION </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0017"> IV. THE INSANE NECESSITY </a> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART3"> <b>PART THREE. FEMINISM, OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT + WOMAN</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0019"> I. THE UNMILITARY SUFFRAGETTE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0020"> II. THE UNIVERSAL STICK </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0021"> III. THE EMANCIPATION OF DOMESTICITY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0022"> IV. THE ROMANCE OF THRIFT </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0023"> V. THE COLDNESS OF CHLOE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0024"> VI. THE PEDANT AND THE SAVAGE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0025"> VII. THE MODERN SURRENDER OF WOMAN </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0026"> VIII. THE BRAND OF THE FLEUR-DE-LIS </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0027"> IX. SINCERITY AND THE GALLOWS </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0028"> X. THE HIGHER ANARCHY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0029"> XI. THE QUEEN AND THE SUFFRAGETTES </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0030"> XII. THE MODERN SLAVE </a> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART4"> <b>PART FOUR. EDUCATION: OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT + THE CHILD</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0032"> I. THE CALVINISM OF TO-DAY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0033"> II. THE TRIBAL TERROR </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0034"> III. THE TRICKS OF ENVIRONMENT </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0035"> IV. THE TRUTH ABOUT EDUCATION </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0036"> V. AN EVIL CRY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0037"> VI. AUTHORITY THE UNAVOIDABLE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0038"> VII. THE HUMILITY OF MRS. GRUNDY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0039"> VIII. THE BROKEN RAINBOW </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0040"> IX. THE NEED FOR NARROWNESS </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0041"> X. THE CASE FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0042"> XI. THE SCHOOL FOR HYPOCRITES </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0043"> XII. THE STALENESS OF THE NEW SCHOOLS </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0044"> XIII. THE OUTLAWED PARENT </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0045"> XIV. FOLLY AND FEMALE EDUCATION </a> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART5"> <b>PART FIVE. THE HOME OF MAN</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0047"> I. THE EMPIRE OF THE INSECT </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0048"> II. THE FALLACY OF THE UMBRELLA STAND </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0049"> III. THE DREADFUL DUTY OF GUDGE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0050"> IV. A LAST INSTANCE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0051"> V. CONCLUSION </a> + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0052"> <b>THREE NOTES</b> </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0053"> I. ON FEMALE SUFFRAGE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0054"> II. ON CLEANLINESS IN EDUCATION </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0055"> III. ON PEASANT PROPRIETORSHIP </a> + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <blockquote> + <p> + <big> <br /> </big><b>DEDICATION</b> <br /> To C. F G. Masterman, M. P. + <br /> My Dear Charles, <br /> I originally called this book “What is + Wrong,” and it would <br /> have satisfied your sardonic temper to note + the number of social <br /> misunderstandings that arose from the use of + the title. Many a mild lady <br /> visitor opened her eyes when I + remarked casually, “I have been doing <br /> ‘What is Wrong’ all this + morning.” And one minister of religion moved <br /> quite sharply in his + chair when I told him (as he understood it) that I <br /> had to run + upstairs and do what was wrong, but should be down again in <br /> a + minute. Exactly of what occult vice they silently accused me I cannot + <br /> conjecture, but I know of what I accuse myself; and that is, of + having <br /> written a very shapeless and inadequate book, and one quite + unworthy <br /> to be dedicated to you. As far as literature goes, this + book is what is <br /> wrong and no mistake. <br /><br /> It may seem a + refinement of insolence to present so wild a composition <br /> to one + who has recorded two or three of the really impressive visions of <br /> + the moving millions of England. You are the only man alive who can <br /> + make the map of England crawl with life; a most creepy and enviable + <br /> accomplishment. Why then should I trouble you with a book which, + even <br /> if it achieves its object (which is monstrously unlikely) can + only be a <br /> thundering gallop of theory? <br /><br /> Well, I do it + partly because I think you politicians are none the worse <br /> for a + few inconvenient ideals; but more because you will recognise the <br /> + many arguments we have had, those arguments which the most wonderful + <br /> ladies in the world can never endure for very long. And, perhaps, + you <br /> will agree with me that the thread of comradeship and + conversation must <br /> be protected because it is so frivolous. It must + be held sacred, it <br /> must not be snapped, because it is not worth + tying together again. It <br /> is exactly because argument is idle that + men (I mean males) must take it <br /> seriously; for when (we feel), + until the crack of doom, shall we have so <br /> delightful a difference + again? But most of all I offer it to you because <br /> there exists not + only comradeship, but a very different thing, called <br /> friendship; + an agreement under all the arguments and a thread which, <br /> please + God, will never break. <br /><br /> Yours always, <br /><br /> G. K. + Chesterton. <br /> + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART1" id="link2H_PART1"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART ONE. THE HOMELESSNESS OF MAN + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. THE MEDICAL MISTAKE + </h2> + <p> + A book of modern social inquiry has a shape that is somewhat sharply + defined. It begins as a rule with an analysis, with statistics, tables of + population, decrease of crime among Congregationalists, growth of hysteria + among policemen, and similar ascertained facts; it ends with a chapter + that is generally called “The Remedy.” It is almost wholly due to this + careful, solid, and scientific method that “The Remedy” is never found. + For this scheme of medical question and answer is a blunder; the first + great blunder of sociology. It is always called stating the disease before + we find the cure. But it is the whole definition and dignity of man that + in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the + disease. + </p> + <p> + The fallacy is one of the fifty fallacies that come from the modern + madness for biological or bodily metaphors. It is convenient to speak of + the Social Organism, just as it is convenient to speak of the British + Lion. But Britain is no more an organism than Britain is a lion. The + moment we begin to give a nation the unity and simplicity of an animal, we + begin to think wildly. Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a + centipede. This has produced, for instance, the gaping absurdity of + perpetually talking about “young nations” and “dying nations,” as if a + nation had a fixed and physical span of life. Thus people will say that + Spain has entered a final senility; they might as well say that Spain is + losing all her teeth. Or people will say that Canada should soon produce a + literature; which is like saying that Canada must soon grow a new + moustache. Nations consist of people; the first generation may be + decrepit, or the ten thousandth may be vigorous. Similar applications of + the fallacy are made by those who see in the increasing size of national + possessions, a simple increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with + God and man. These people, indeed, even fall short in subtlety of the + parallel of a human body. They do not even ask whether an empire is + growing taller in its youth, or only growing fatter in its old age. But of + all the instances of error arising from this physical fancy, the worst is + that we have before us: the habit of exhaustively describing a social + sickness, and then propounding a social drug. + </p> + <p> + Now we do talk first about the disease in cases of bodily breakdown; and + that for an excellent reason. Because, though there may be doubt about the + way in which the body broke down, there is no doubt at all about the shape + in which it should be built up again. No doctor proposes to produce a new + kind of man, with a new arrangement of eyes or limbs. The hospital, by + necessity, may send a man home with one leg less: but it will not (in a + creative rapture) send him home with one leg extra. Medical science is + content with the normal human body, and only seeks to restore it. + </p> + <p> + But social science is by no means always content with the normal human + soul; it has all sorts of fancy souls for sale. Man as a social idealist + will say “I am tired of being a Puritan; I want to be a Pagan,” or “Beyond + this dark probation of Individualism I see the shining paradise of + Collectivism.” Now in bodily ills there is none of this difference about + the ultimate ideal. The patient may or may not want quinine; but he + certainly wants health. No one says “I am tired of this headache; I want + some toothache,” or “The only thing for this Russian influenza is a few + German measles,” or “Through this dark probation of catarrh I see the + shining paradise of rheumatism.” But exactly the whole difficulty in our + public problems is that some men are aiming at cures which other men would + regard as worse maladies; are offering ultimate conditions as states of + health which others would uncompromisingly call states of disease. Mr. + Belloc once said that he would no more part with the idea of property than + with his teeth; yet to Mr. Bernard Shaw property is not a tooth, but a + toothache. Lord Milner has sincerely attempted to introduce German + efficiency; and many of us would as soon welcome German measles. Dr. + Saleeby would honestly like to have Eugenics; but I would rather have + rheumatics. + </p> + <p> + This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern social discussion; + that the quarrel is not merely about the difficulties, but about the aim. + We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each + other’s eyes out. We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing. We + should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would be a + good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood; but some of + us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one. Everyone is + indignant if our army is weak, including the people who would be even more + indignant if it were strong. The social case is exactly the opposite of + the medical case. We do not disagree, like doctors, about the precise + nature of the illness, while agreeing about the nature of health. On the + contrary, we all agree that England is unhealthy, but half of us would not + look at her in what the other half would call blooming health. Public + abuses are so prominent and pestilent that they sweep all generous people + into a sort of fictitious unanimity. We forget that, while we agree about + the abuses of things, we should differ very much about the uses of them. + Mr. Cadbury and I would agree about the bad public house. It would be + precisely in front of the good public-house that our painful personal + fracas would occur. + </p> + <p> + I maintain, therefore, that the common sociological method is quite + useless: that of first dissecting abject poverty or cataloguing + prostitution. We all dislike abject poverty; but it might be another + business if we began to discuss independent and dignified poverty. We all + disapprove of prostitution; but we do not all approve of purity. The only + way to discuss the social evil is to get at once to the social ideal. We + can all see the national madness; but what is national sanity? I have + called this book “What Is Wrong with the World?” and the upshot of the + title can be easily and clearly stated. What is wrong is that we do not + ask what is right. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. WANTED, AN UNPRACTICAL MAN + </h2> + <p> + There is a popular philosophical joke intended to typify the endless and + useless arguments of philosophers; I mean the joke about which came first, + the chicken or the egg? I am not sure that properly understood, it is so + futile an inquiry after all. I am not concerned here to enter on those + deep metaphysical and theological differences of which the chicken and egg + debate is a frivolous, but a very felicitous, type. The evolutionary + materialists are appropriately enough represented in the vision of all + things coming from an egg, a dim and monstrous oval germ that had laid + itself by accident. That other supernatural school of thought (to which I + personally adhere) would be not unworthily typified in the fancy that this + round world of ours is but an egg brooded upon by a sacred unbegotten + bird; the mystic dove of the prophets. But it is to much humbler functions + that I here call the awful power of such a distinction. Whether or no the + living bird is at the beginning of our mental chain, it is absolutely + necessary that it should be at the end of our mental chain. The bird is + the thing to be aimed at—not with a gun, but a life-bestowing wand. + What is essential to our right thinking is this: that the egg and the bird + must not be thought of as equal cosmic occurrences recurring alternatively + forever. They must not become a mere egg and bird pattern, like the egg + and dart pattern. One is a means and the other an end; they are in + different mental worlds. Leaving the complications of the human + breakfast-table out of account, in an elemental sense, the egg only exists + to produce the chicken. But the chicken does not exist only in order to + produce another egg. He may also exist to amuse himself, to praise God, + and even to suggest ideas to a French dramatist. Being a conscious life, + he is, or may be, valuable in himself. Now our modern politics are full of + a noisy forgetfulness; forgetfulness that the production of this happy and + conscious life is after all the aim of all complexities and compromises. + We talk of nothing but useful men and working institutions; that is, we + only think of the chickens as things that will lay more eggs. Instead of + seeking to breed our ideal bird, the eagle of Zeus or the Swan of Avon, or + whatever we happen to want, we talk entirely in terms of the process and + the embryo. The process itself, divorced from its divine object, becomes + doubtful and even morbid; poison enters the embryo of everything; and our + politics are rotten eggs. + </p> + <p> + Idealism is only considering everything in its practical essence. Idealism + only means that we should consider a poker in reference to poking before + we discuss its suitability for wife-beating; that we should ask if an egg + is good enough for practical poultry-rearing before we decide that the egg + is bad enough for practical politics. But I know that this primary pursuit + of the theory (which is but pursuit of the aim) exposes one to the cheap + charge of fiddling while Rome is burning. A school, of which Lord Rosebery + is representative, has endeavored to substitute for the moral or social + ideals which have hitherto been the motive of politics a general coherency + or completeness in the social system which has gained the nick-name of + “efficiency.” I am not very certain of the secret doctrine of this sect in + the matter. But, as far as I can make out, “efficiency” means that we + ought to discover everything about a machine except what it is for. There + has arisen in our time a most singular fancy: the fancy that when things + go very wrong we need a practical man. It would be far truer to say, that + when things go very wrong we need an unpractical man. Certainly, at least, + we need a theorist. A practical man means a man accustomed to mere daily + practice, to the way things commonly work. When things will not work, you + must have the thinker, the man who has some doctrine about why they work + at all. It is wrong to fiddle while Rome is burning; but it is quite right + to study the theory of hydraulics while Rome is burning. + </p> + <p> + It is then necessary to drop one’s daily agnosticism and attempt rerum + cognoscere causas. If your aeroplane has a slight indisposition, a handy + man may mend it. But, if it is seriously ill, it is all the more likely + that some absent-minded old professor with wild white hair will have to be + dragged out of a college or laboratory to analyze the evil. The more + complicated the smash, the whiter-haired and more absent-minded will be + the theorist who is needed to deal with it; and in some extreme cases, no + one but the man (probably insane) who invented your flying-ship could + possibly say what was the matter with it. + </p> + <p> + “Efficiency,” of course, is futile for the same reason that strong men, + will-power and the superman are futile. That is, it is futile because it + only deals with actions after they have been performed. It has no + philosophy for incidents before they happen; therefore it has no power of + choice. An act can only be successful or unsuccessful when it is over; if + it is to begin, it must be, in the abstract, right or wrong. There is no + such thing as backing a winner; for he cannot be a winner when he is + backed. There is no such thing as fighting on the winning side; one fights + to find out which is the winning side. If any operation has occurred, that + operation was efficient. If a man is murdered, the murder was efficient. A + tropical sun is as efficient in making people lazy as a Lancashire foreman + bully in making them energetic. Maeterlinck is as efficient in filling a + man with strange spiritual tremors as Messrs. Crosse and Blackwell are in + filling a man with jam. But it all depends on what you want to be filled + with. Lord Rosebery, being a modern skeptic, probably prefers the + spiritual tremors. I, being an orthodox Christian, prefer the jam. But + both are efficient when they have been effected; and inefficient until + they are effected. A man who thinks much about success must be the + drowsiest sentimentalist; for he must be always looking back. If he only + likes victory he must always come late for the battle. For the man of + action there is nothing but idealism. + </p> + <p> + This definite ideal is a far more urgent and practical matter in our + existing English trouble than any immediate plans or proposals. For the + present chaos is due to a sort of general oblivion of all that men were + originally aiming at. No man demands what he desires; each man demands + what he fancies he can get. Soon people forget what the man really wanted + first; and after a successful and vigorous political life, he forgets it + himself. The whole is an extravagant riot of second bests, a pandemonium + of pis-aller. Now this sort of pliability does not merely prevent any + heroic consistency, it also prevents any really practical compromise. One + can only find the middle distance between two points if the two points + will stand still. We may make an arrangement between two litigants who + cannot both get what they want; but not if they will not even tell us what + they want. The keeper of a restaurant would much prefer that each customer + should give his order smartly, though it were for stewed ibis or boiled + elephant, rather than that each customer should sit holding his head in + his hands, plunged in arithmetical calculations about how much food there + can be on the premises. Most of us have suffered from a certain sort of + ladies who, by their perverse unselfishness, give more trouble than the + selfish; who almost clamor for the unpopular dish and scramble for the + worst seat. Most of us have known parties or expeditions full of this + seething fuss of self-effacement. From much meaner motives than those of + such admirable women, our practical politicians keep things in the same + confusion through the same doubt about their real demands. There is + nothing that so much prevents a settlement as a tangle of small + surrenders. We are bewildered on every side by politicians who are in + favor of secular education, but think it hopeless to work for it; who + desire total prohibition, but are certain they should not demand it; who + regret compulsory education, but resignedly continue it; or who want + peasant proprietorship and therefore vote for something else. It is this + dazed and floundering opportunism that gets in the way of everything. If + our statesmen were visionaries something practical might be done. If we + ask for something in the abstract we might get something in the concrete. + As it is, it is not only impossible to get what one wants, but it is + impossible to get any part of it, because nobody can mark it out plainly + like a map. That clear and even hard quality that there was in the old + bargaining has wholly vanished. We forget that the word “compromise” + contains, among other things, the rigid and ringing word “promise.” + Moderation is not vague; it is as definite as perfection. The middle point + is as fixed as the extreme point. + </p> + <p> + If I am made to walk the plank by a pirate, it is vain for me to offer, as + a common-sense compromise, to walk along the plank for a reasonable + distance. It is exactly about the reasonable distance that the pirate and + I differ. There is an exquisite mathematical split second at which the + plank tips up. My common-sense ends just before that instant; the pirate’s + common-sense begins just beyond it. But the point itself is as hard as any + geometrical diagram; as abstract as any theological dogma. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. THE NEW HYPOCRITE + </h2> + <p> + But this new cloudy political cowardice has rendered useless the old + English compromise. People have begun to be terrified of an improvement + merely because it is complete. They call it utopian and revolutionary that + anyone should really have his own way, or anything be really done, and + done with. Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no + bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is + better than a whole loaf. + </p> + <p> + As an instance to sharpen the argument, I take the one case of our + everlasting education bills. We have actually contrived to invent a new + kind of hypocrite. The old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man + whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they + were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, + while he pretends that they are worldly and practical. The Rev. Brown, the + Wesleyan minister, sturdily declares that he cares nothing for creeds, but + only for education; meanwhile, in truth, the wildest Wesleyanism is + tearing his soul. The Rev. Smith, of the Church of England, explains + gracefully, with the Oxford manner, that the only question for him is the + prosperity and efficiency of the schools; while in truth all the evil + passions of a curate are roaring within him. It is a fight of creeds + masquerading as policies. I think these reverend gentlemen do themselves + wrong; I think they are more pious than they will admit. Theology is not + (as some suppose) expunged as an error. It is merely concealed, like a + sin. Dr. Clifford really wants a theological atmosphere as much as Lord + Halifax; only it is a different one. If Dr. Clifford would ask plainly for + Puritanism and Lord Halifax ask plainly for Catholicism, something might + be done for them. We are all, one hopes, imaginative enough to recognize + the dignity and distinctness of another religion, like Islam or the cult + of Apollo. I am quite ready to respect another man’s faith; but it is too + much to ask that I should respect his doubt, his worldly hesitations and + fictions, his political bargain and make-believe. Most Nonconformists with + an instinct for English history could see something poetic and national + about the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Archbishop of Canterbury. It is + when he does the rational British statesman that they very justifiably get + annoyed. Most Anglicans with an eye for pluck and simplicity could admire + Dr. Clifford as a Baptist minister. It is when he says that he is simply a + citizen that nobody can possibly believe him. + </p> + <p> + But indeed the case is yet more curious than this. The one argument that + used to be urged for our creedless vagueness was that at least it saved us + from fanaticism. But it does not even do that. On the contrary, it creates + and renews fanaticism with a force quite peculiar to itself. This is at + once so strange and so true that I will ask the reader’s attention to it + with a little more precision. + </p> + <p> + Some people do not like the word “dogma.” Fortunately they are free, and + there is an alternative for them. There are two things, and two things + only, for the human mind, a dogma and a prejudice. The Middle Ages were a + rational epoch, an age of doctrine. Our age is, at its best, a poetical + epoch, an age of prejudice. A doctrine is a definite point; a prejudice is + a direction. That an ox may be eaten, while a man should not be eaten, is + a doctrine. That as little as possible of anything should be eaten is a + prejudice; which is also sometimes called an ideal. Now a direction is + always far more fantastic than a plan. I would rather have the most + archaic map of the road to Brighton than a general recommendation to turn + to the left. Straight lines that are not parallel must meet at last; but + curves may recoil forever. A pair of lovers might walk along the frontier + of France and Germany, one on the one side and one on the other, so long + as they were not vaguely told to keep away from each other. And this is a + strictly true parable of the effect of our modern vagueness in losing and + separating men as in a mist. + </p> + <p> + It is not merely true that a creed unites men. Nay, a difference of creed + unites men—so long as it is a clear difference. A boundary unites. + Many a magnanimous Moslem and chivalrous Crusader must have been nearer to + each other, because they were both dogmatists, than any two homeless + agnostics in a pew of Mr. Campbell’s chapel. “I say God is One,” and “I + say God is One but also Three,” that is the beginning of a good + quarrelsome, manly friendship. But our age would turn these creeds into + tendencies. It would tell the Trinitarian to follow multiplicity as such + (because it was his “temperament”), and he would turn up later with three + hundred and thirty-three persons in the Trinity. Meanwhile, it would turn + the Moslem into a Monist: a frightful intellectual fall. It would force + that previously healthy person not only to admit that there was one God, + but to admit that there was nobody else. When each had, for a long enough + period, followed the gleam of his own nose (like the Dong) they would + appear again; the Christian a Polytheist, and the Moslem a Panegoist, both + quite mad, and far more unfit to understand each other than before. + </p> + <p> + It is exactly the same with politics. Our political vagueness divides men, + it does not fuse them. Men will walk along the edge of a chasm in clear + weather, but they will edge miles away from it in a fog. So a Tory can + walk up to the very edge of Socialism, if he knows what is Socialism. But + if he is told that Socialism is a spirit, a sublime atmosphere, a noble, + indefinable tendency, why, then he keeps out of its way; and quite right + too. One can meet an assertion with argument; but healthy bigotry is the + only way in which one can meet a tendency. I am told that the Japanese + method of wrestling consists not of suddenly pressing, but of suddenly + giving way. This is one of my many reasons for disliking the Japanese + civilization. To use surrender as a weapon is the very worst spirit of the + East. But certainly there is no force so hard to fight as the force which + it is easy to conquer; the force that always yields and then returns. Such + is the force of a great impersonal prejudice, such as possesses the modern + world on so many points. Against this there is no weapon at all except a + rigid and steely sanity, a resolution not to listen to fads, and not to be + infected by diseases. + </p> + <p> + In short, the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an + age of prejudices, just as it armoured itself with logic in an age of + logic. But the difference between the two mental methods is marked and + unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are + divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into + each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other’s way. A creed is a + collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private + thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic. So it is with our existing + divisions. They keep out of each other’s way; the Tory paper and the + Radical paper do not answer each other; they ignore each other. Genuine + controversy, fair cut and thrust before a common audience, has become in + our special epoch very rare. For the sincere controversialist is above all + things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he + listens to the enemy’s arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the + enemy’s arrangements. But if you attempt an actual argument with a modern + paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted + between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slanging or + silence. A modern editor must not have that eager ear that goes with the + honest tongue. He may be deaf and silent; and that is called dignity. Or + he may be deaf and noisy; and that is called slashing journalism. In + neither case is there any controversy; for the whole object of modern + party combatants is to charge out of earshot. + </p> + <p> + The only logical cure for all this is the assertion of a human ideal. In + dealing with this, I will try to be as little transcendental as is + consistent with reason; it is enough to say that unless we have some + doctrine of a divine man, all abuses may be excused, since evolution may + turn them into uses. It will be easy for the scientific plutocrat to + maintain that humanity will adapt itself to any conditions which we now + consider evil. The old tyrants invoked the past; the new tyrants will + invoke the future evolution has produced the snail and the owl; evolution + can produce a workman who wants no more space than a snail, and no more + light than an owl. The employer need not mind sending a Kaffir to work + underground; he will soon become an underground animal, like a mole. He + need not mind sending a diver to hold his breath in the deep seas; he will + soon be a deep-sea animal. Men need not trouble to alter conditions, + conditions will so soon alter men. The head can be beaten small enough to + fit the hat. Do not knock the fetters off the slave; knock the slave until + he forgets the fetters. To all this plausible modern argument for + oppression, the only adequate answer is, that there is a permanent human + ideal that must not be either confused or destroyed. The most important + man on earth is the perfect man who is not there. The Christian religion + has specially uttered the ultimate sanity of Man, says Scripture, who + shall judge the incarnate and human truth. Our lives and laws are not + judged by divine superiority, but simply by human perfection. It is man, + says Aristotle, who is the measure. It is the Son of Man, says Scripture, + who shall judge the quick and the dead. + </p> + <p> + Doctrine, therefore, does not cause dissensions; rather a doctrine alone + can cure our dissensions. It is necessary to ask, however, roughly, what + abstract and ideal shape in state or family would fulfil the human hunger; + and this apart from whether we can completely obtain it or not. But when + we come to ask what is the need of normal men, what is the desire of all + nations, what is the ideal house, or road, or rule, or republic, or king, + or priesthood, then we are confronted with a strange and irritating + difficulty peculiar to the present time; and we must call a temporary halt + and examine that obstacle. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0005" id="link2H_4_0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. THE FEAR OF THE PAST + </h2> + <p> + The last few decades have been marked by a special cultivation of the + romance of the future. We seem to have made up our minds to misunderstand + what has happened; and we turn, with a sort of relief, to stating what + will happen—which is (apparently) much easier. The modern man no + longer presents the memoirs of his great grandfather; but is engaged in + writing a detailed and authoritative biography of his great-grandson. + Instead of trembling before the specters of the dead, we shudder abjectly + under the shadow of the babe unborn. This spirit is apparent everywhere, + even to the creation of a form of futurist romance. Sir Walter Scott + stands at the dawn of the nineteenth century for the novel of the past; + Mr. H. G. Wells stands at the dawn of the twentieth century for the novel + of the future. The old story, we know, was supposed to begin: “Late on a + winter’s evening two horsemen might have been seen—.” The new story + has to begin: “Late on a winter’s evening two aviators will be seen—.” + The movement is not without its elements of charm; there is something + spirited, if eccentric, in the sight of so many people fighting over again + the fights that have not yet happened; of people still glowing with the + memory of tomorrow morning. A man in advance of the age is a familiar + phrase enough. An age in advance of the age is really rather odd. + </p> + <p> + But when full allowance has been made for this harmless element of poetry + and pretty human perversity in the thing, I shall not hesitate to maintain + here that this cult of the future is not only a weakness but a cowardice + of the age. It is the peculiar evil of this epoch that even its pugnacity + is fundamentally frightened; and the Jingo is contemptible not because he + is impudent, but because he is timid. The reason why modern armaments do + not inflame the imagination like the arms and emblazonments of the + Crusades is a reason quite apart from optical ugliness or beauty. Some + battleships are as beautiful as the sea; and many Norman nosepieces were + as ugly as Norman noses. The atmospheric ugliness that surrounds our + scientific war is an emanation from that evil panic which is at the heart + of it. The charge of the Crusades was a charge; it was charging towards + God, the wild consolation of the braver. The charge of the modern + armaments is not a charge at all. It is a rout, a retreat, a flight from + the devil, who will catch the hindmost. It is impossible to imagine a + mediaeval knight talking of longer and longer French lances, with + precisely the quivering employed about larger and larger German ships The + man who called the Blue Water School the “Blue Funk School” uttered a + psychological truth which that school itself would scarcely essentially + deny. Even the two-power standard, if it be a necessity, is in a sense a + degrading necessity. Nothing has more alienated many magnanimous minds + from Imperial enterprises than the fact that they are always exhibited as + stealthy or sudden defenses against a world of cold rapacity and fear. The + Boer War, for instance, was colored not so much by the creed that we were + doing something right, as by the creed that Boers and Germans were + probably doing something wrong; driving us (as it was said) to the sea. + Mr. Chamberlain, I think, said that the war was a feather in his cap and + so it was: a white feather. + </p> + <p> + Now this same primary panic that I feel in our rush towards patriotic + armaments I feel also in our rush towards future visions of society. The + modern mind is forced towards the future by a certain sense of fatigue, + not unmixed with terror, with which it regards the past. It is propelled + towards the coming time; it is, in the exact words of the popular phrase, + knocked into the middle of next week. And the goad which drives it on thus + eagerly is not an affectation for futurity Futurity does not exist, + because it is still future. Rather it is a fear of the past; a fear not + merely of the evil in the past, but of the good in the past also. The + brain breaks down under the unbearable virtue of mankind. There have been + so many flaming faiths that we cannot hold; so many harsh heroisms that we + cannot imitate; so many great efforts of monumental building or of + military glory which seem to us at once sublime and pathetic. The future + is a refuge from the fierce competition of our forefathers. The older + generation, not the younger, is knocking at our door. It is agreeable to + escape, as Henley said, into the Street of By-and-Bye, where stands the + Hostelry of Never. It is pleasant to play with children, especially unborn + children. The future is a blank wall on which every man can write his own + name as large as he likes; the past I find already covered with illegible + scribbles, such as Plato, Isaiah, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Napoleon. I + can make the future as narrow as myself; the past is obliged to be as + broad and turbulent as humanity. And the upshot of this modern attitude is + really this: that men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old + ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look + back. + </p> + <p> + Now in history there is no Revolution that is not a Restoration. Among the + many things that leave me doubtful about the modern habit of fixing eyes + on the future, none is stronger than this: that all the men in history who + have really done anything with the future have had their eyes fixed upon + the past. I need not mention the Renaissance, the very word proves my + case. The originality of Michael Angelo and Shakespeare began with the + digging up of old vases and manuscripts. The mildness of poets absolutely + arose out of the mildness of antiquaries. So the great mediaeval revival + was a memory of the Roman Empire. So the Reformation looked back to the + Bible and Bible times. So the modern Catholic movement has looked back to + patristic times. But that modern movement which many would count the most + anarchic of all is in this sense the most conservative of all. Never was + the past more venerated by men than it was by the French Revolutionists. + They invoked the little republics of antiquity with the complete + confidence of one who invokes the gods. The Sans-culottes believed (as + their name might imply) in a return to simplicity. They believed most + piously in a remote past; some might call it a mythical past. For some + strange reason man must always thus plant his fruit trees in a graveyard. + Man can only find life among the dead. Man is a misshapen monster, with + his feet set forward and his face turned back. He can make the future + luxuriant and gigantic, so long as he is thinking about the past. When he + tries to think about the future itself, his mind diminishes to a pin point + with imbecility, which some call Nirvana. To-morrow is the Gorgon; a man + must only see it mirrored in the shining shield of yesterday. If he sees + it directly he is turned to stone. This has been the fate of all those who + have really seen fate and futurity as clear and inevitable. The + Calvinists, with their perfect creed of predestination, were turned to + stone. The modern sociological scientists (with their excruciating + Eugenics) are turned to stone. The only difference is that the Puritans + make dignified, and the Eugenists somewhat amusing, statues. + </p> + <p> + But there is one feature in the past which more than all the rest defies + and depresses the moderns and drives them towards this featureless future. + I mean the presence in the past of huge ideals, unfulfilled and sometimes + abandoned. The sight of these splendid failures is melancholy to a + restless and rather morbid generation; and they maintain a strange silence + about them—sometimes amounting to an unscrupulous silence. They keep + them entirely out of their newspapers and almost entirely out of their + history books. For example, they will often tell you (in their praises of + the coming age) that we are moving on towards a United States of Europe. + But they carefully omit to tell you that we are moving away from a United + States of Europe, that such a thing existed literally in Roman and + essentially in mediaeval times. They never admit that the international + hatreds (which they call barbaric) are really very recent, the mere + breakdown of the ideal of the Holy Roman Empire. Or again, they will tell + you that there is going to be a social revolution, a great rising of the + poor against the rich; but they never rub it in that France made that + magnificent attempt, unaided, and that we and all the world allowed it to + be trampled out and forgotten. I say decisively that nothing is so marked + in modern writing as the prediction of such ideals in the future combined + with the ignoring of them in the past. Anyone can test this for himself. + Read any thirty or forty pages of pamphlets advocating peace in Europe and + see how many of them praise the old Popes or Emperors for keeping the + peace in Europe. Read any armful of essays and poems in praise of social + democracy, and see how many of them praise the old Jacobins who created + democracy and died for it. These colossal ruins are to the modern only + enormous eyesores. He looks back along the valley of the past and sees a + perspective of splendid but unfinished cities. They are unfinished, not + always through enmity or accident, but often through fickleness, mental + fatigue, and the lust for alien philosophies. We have not only left undone + those things that we ought to have done, but we have even left undone + those things that we wanted to do + </p> + <p> + It is very currently suggested that the modern man is the heir of all the + ages, that he has got the good out of these successive human experiments. + I know not what to say in answer to this, except to ask the reader to look + at the modern man, as I have just looked at the modern man—in the + looking-glass. Is it really true that you and I are two starry towers + built up of all the most towering visions of the past? Have we really + fulfilled all the great historic ideals one after the other, from our + naked ancestor who was brave enough to kill a mammoth with a stone knife, + through the Greek citizen and the Christian saint to our own grandfather + or great-grandfather, who may have been sabred by the Manchester Yeomanry + or shot in the ‘48? Are we still strong enough to spear mammoths, but now + tender enough to spare them? Does the cosmos contain any mammoth that we + have either speared or spared? When we decline (in a marked manner) to fly + the red flag and fire across a barricade like our grandfathers, are we + really declining in deference to sociologists—or to soldiers? Have + we indeed outstripped the warrior and passed the ascetical saint? I fear + we only outstrip the warrior in the sense that we should probably run away + from him. And if we have passed the saint, I fear we have passed him + without bowing. + </p> + <p> + This is, first and foremost, what I mean by the narrowness of the new + ideas, the limiting effect of the future. Our modern prophetic idealism is + narrow because it has undergone a persistent process of elimination. We + must ask for new things because we are not allowed to ask for old things. + The whole position is based on this idea that we have got all the good + that can be got out of the ideas of the past. But we have not got all the + good out of them, perhaps at this moment not any of the good out of them. + And the need here is a need of complete freedom for restoration as well as + revolution. + </p> + <p> + We often read nowadays of the valor or audacity with which some rebel + attacks a hoary tyranny or an antiquated superstition. There is not really + any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than + in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he + who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the + first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much + free from the future as from the past. He cares as little for what will be + as for what has been; he cares only for what ought to be. And for my + present purpose I specially insist on this abstract independence. If I am + to discuss what is wrong, one of the first things that are wrong is this: + the deep and silent modern assumption that past things have become + impossible. There is one metaphor of which the moderns are very fond; they + are always saying, “You can’t put the clock back.” The simple and obvious + answer is “You can.” A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be + restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way + society, being a piece of human construction, can be reconstructed upon + any plan that has ever existed. + </p> + <p> + There is another proverb, “As you have made your bed, so you must lie on + it”; which again is simply a lie. If I have made my bed uncomfortable, + please God I will make it again. We could restore the Heptarchy or the + stage coaches if we chose. It might take some time to do, and it might be + very inadvisable to do it; but certainly it is not impossible as bringing + back last Friday is impossible. This is, as I say, the first freedom that + I claim: the freedom to restore. I claim a right to propose as a solution + the old patriarchal system of a Highland clan, if that should seem to + eliminate the largest number of evils. It certainly would eliminate some + evils; for instance, the unnatural sense of obeying cold and harsh + strangers, mere bureaucrats and policemen. I claim the right to propose + the complete independence of the small Greek or Italian towns, a sovereign + city of Brixton or Brompton, if that seems the best way out of our + troubles. It would be a way out of some of our troubles; we could not have + in a small state, for instance, those enormous illusions about men or + measures which are nourished by the great national or international + newspapers. You could not persuade a city state that Mr. Beit was an + Englishman, or Mr. Dillon a desperado, any more than you could persuade a + Hampshire Village that the village drunkard was a teetotaller or the + village idiot a statesman. Nevertheless, I do not as a fact propose that + the Browns and the Smiths should be collected under separate tartans. Nor + do I even propose that Clapham should declare its independence. I merely + declare my independence. I merely claim my choice of all the tools in the + universe; and I shall not admit that any of them are blunted merely + because they have been used. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0006" id="link2H_4_0006"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + V. THE UNFINISHED TEMPLE + </h2> + <p> + The task of modern idealists indeed is made much too easy for them by the + fact that they are always taught that if a thing has been defeated it has + been disproved. Logically, the case is quite clearly the other way. The + lost causes are exactly those which might have saved the world. If a man + says that the Young Pretender would have made England happy, it is hard to + answer him. If anyone says that the Georges made England happy, I hope we + all know what to answer. That which was prevented is always impregnable; + and the only perfect King of England was he who was smothered. Exactly be + cause Jacobitism failed we cannot call it a failure. Precisely because the + Commune collapsed as a rebellion we cannot say that it collapsed as a + system. But such outbursts were brief or incidental. Few people realize + how many of the largest efforts, the facts that will fill history, were + frustrated in their full design and come down to us as gigantic cripples. + I have only space to allude to the two largest facts of modern history: + the Catholic Church and that modern growth rooted in the French + Revolution. + </p> + <p> + When four knights scattered the blood and brains of St. Thomas of + Canterbury, it was not only a sign of anger but of a sort of black + admiration. They wished for his blood, but they wished even more for his + brains. Such a blow will remain forever unintelligible unless we realise + what the brains of St. Thomas were thinking about just before they were + distributed over the floor. They were thinking about the great mediaeval + conception that the church is the judge of the world. Becket objected to a + priest being tried even by the Lord Chief Justice. And his reason was + simple: because the Lord Chief Justice was being tried by the priest. The + judiciary was itself sub judice. The kings were themselves in the dock. + The idea was to create an invisible kingdom, without armies or prisons, + but with complete freedom to condemn publicly all the kingdoms of the + earth. Whether such a supreme church would have cured society we cannot + affirm definitely; because the church never was a supreme church. We only + know that in England at any rate the princes conquered the saints. What + the world wanted we see before us; and some of us call it a failure. But + we cannot call what the church wanted a failure, simply because the church + failed. Tracy struck a little too soon. England had not yet made the great + Protestant discovery that the king can do no wrong. The king was whipped + in the cathedral; a performance which I recommend to those who regret the + unpopularity of church-going. But the discovery was made; and Henry VIII + scattered Becket’s bones as easily as Tracy had scattered his brains. + </p> + <p> + Of course, I mean that Catholicism was not tried; plenty of Catholics were + tried, and found guilty. My point is that the world did not tire of the + church’s ideal, but of its reality. Monasteries were impugned not for the + chastity of monks, but for the unchastity of monks. Christianity was + unpopular not because of the humility, but of the arrogance of Christians. + Certainly, if the church failed it was largely through the churchmen. But + at the same time hostile elements had certainly begun to end it long + before it could have done its work. In the nature of things it needed a + common scheme of life and thought in Europe. Yet the mediaeval system + began to be broken to pieces intellectually, long before it showed the + slightest hint of falling to pieces morally. The huge early heresies, like + the Albigenses, had not the faintest excuse in moral superiority. And it + is actually true that the Reformation began to tear Europe apart before + the Catholic Church had had time to pull it together. The Prussians, for + instance, were not converted to Christianity at all until quite close to + the Reformation. The poor creatures hardly had time to become Catholics + before they were told to become Protestants. This explains a great deal of + their subsequent conduct. But I have only taken this as the first and most + evident case of the general truth: that the great ideals of the past + failed not by being outlived (which must mean over-lived), but by not + being lived enough. Mankind has not passed through the Middle Ages. Rather + mankind has retreated from the Middle Ages in reaction and rout. The + Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found + difficult; and left untried. + </p> + <p> + It is, of course, the same in the case of the French Revolution. A great + part of our present perplexity arises from the fact that the French + Revolution has half succeeded and half failed. In one sense, Valmy was the + decisive battle of the West, and in another Trafalgar. We have, indeed, + destroyed the largest territorial tyrannies, and created a free peasantry + in almost all Christian countries except England; of which we shall say + more anon. But representative government, the one universal relic, is a + very poor fragment of the full republican idea. The theory of the French + Revolution presupposed two things in government, things which it achieved + at the time, but which it has certainly not bequeathed to its imitators in + England, Germany, and America. The first of these was the idea of + honorable poverty; that a statesman must be something of a stoic; the + second was the idea of extreme publicity. Many imaginative English + writers, including Carlyle, seem quite unable to imagine how it was that + men like Robespierre and Marat were ardently admired. The best answer is + that they were admired for being poor—poor when they might have been + rich. + </p> + <p> + No one will pretend that this ideal exists at all in the haute politique + of this country. Our national claim to political incorruptibility is + actually based on exactly the opposite argument; it is based on the theory + that wealthy men in assured positions will have no temptation to financial + trickery. Whether the history of the English aristocracy, from the + spoliation of the monasteries to the annexation of the mines, entirely + supports this theory I am not now inquiring; but certainly it is our + theory, that wealth will be a protection against political corruption. The + English statesman is bribed not to be bribed. He is born with a silver + spoon in his mouth, so that he may never afterwards be found with the + silver spoons in his pocket. So strong is our faith in this protection by + plutocracy, that we are more and more trusting our empire in the hands of + families which inherit wealth without either blood or manners. Some of our + political houses are parvenue by pedigree; they hand on vulgarity like a + coat of-arms. In the case of many a modern statesman to say that he is + born with a silver spoon in his mouth, is at once inadequate and + excessive. He is born with a silver knife in his mouth. But all this only + illustrates the English theory that poverty is perilous for a politician. + </p> + <p> + It will be the same if we compare the conditions that have come about with + the Revolution legend touching publicity. The old democratic doctrine was + that the more light that was let in to all departments of State, the + easier it was for a righteous indignation to move promptly against wrong. + In other words, monarchs were to live in glass houses, that mobs might + throw stones. Again, no admirer of existing English politics (if there is + any admirer of existing English politics) will really pretend that this + ideal of publicity is exhausted, or even attempted. Obviously public life + grows more private every day. The French have, indeed, continued the + tradition of revealing secrets and making scandals; hence they are more + flagrant and palpable than we, not in sin but in the confession of sin. + The first trial of Dreyfus might have happened in England; it is exactly + the second trial that would have been legally impossible. But, indeed, if + we wish to realise how far we fall short of the original republican + outline, the sharpest way to test it is to note how far we fall short even + of the republican element in the older regime. Not only are we less + democratic than Danton and Condorcet, but we are in many ways less + democratic than Choiseul and Marie Antoinette. The richest nobles before + the revolt were needy middle-class people compared with our Rothschilds + and Roseberys. And in the matter of publicity the old French monarchy was + infinitely more democratic than any of the monarchies of today. + Practically anybody who chose could walk into the palace and see the king + playing with his children, or paring his nails. The people possessed the + monarch, as the people possess Primrose Hill; that is, they cannot move + it, but they can sprawl all over it. The old French monarchy was founded + on the excellent principle that a cat may look at a king. But nowadays a + cat may not look at a king; unless it is a very tame cat. Even where the + press is free for criticism it is only used for adulation. The substantial + difference comes to something uncommonly like this: Eighteenth century + tyranny meant that you could say “The K__ of Br__rd is a profligate.” + Twentieth century liberty really means that you are allowed to say “The + King of Brentford is a model family man.” + </p> + <p> + But we have delayed the main argument too long for the parenthetical + purpose of showing that the great democratic dream, like the great + mediaeval dream, has in a strict and practical sense been a dream + unfulfilled. Whatever is the matter with modern England it is not that we + have carried out too literally, or achieved with disappointing + completeness, either the Catholicism of Becket or the equality of Marat. + Now I have taken these two cases merely because they are typical of ten + thousand other cases; the world is full of these unfulfilled ideas, these + uncompleted temples. History does not consist of completed and crumbling + ruins; rather it consists of half-built villas abandoned by a + bankrupt-builder. This world is more like an unfinished suburb than a + deserted cemetery. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VI. THE ENEMIES OF PROPERTY + </h2> + <p> + But it is for this especial reason that such an explanation is necessary + on the very threshold of the definition of ideals. For owing to that + historic fallacy with which I have just dealt, numbers of readers will + expect me, when I propound an ideal, to propound a new ideal. Now I have + no notion at all of propounding a new ideal. There is no new ideal + imaginable by the madness of modern sophists, which will be anything like + so startling as fulfilling any one of the old ones. On the day that any + copybook maxim is carried out there will be something like an earthquake + on the earth. There is only one thing new that can be done under the sun; + and that is to look at the sun. If you attempt it on a blue day in June, + you will know why men do not look straight at their ideals. There is only + one really startling thing to be done with the ideal, and that is to do + it. It is to face the flaming logical fact, and its frightful + consequences. Christ knew that it would be a more stunning thunderbolt to + fulfil the law than to destroy it. It is true of both the cases I have + quoted, and of every case. The pagans had always adored purity: Athena, + Artemis, Vesta. It was when the virgin martyrs began defiantly to practice + purity that they rent them with wild beasts, and rolled them on red-hot + coals. The world had always loved the notion of the poor man uppermost; it + can be proved by every legend from Cinderella to Whittington, by every + poem from the Magnificat to the Marseillaise. The kings went mad against + France not because she idealized this ideal, but because she realized it. + Joseph of Austria and Catherine of Russia quite agreed that the people + should rule; what horrified them was that the people did. The French + Revolution, therefore, is the type of all true revolutions, because its + ideal is as old as the Old Adam, but its fulfilment almost as fresh, as + miraculous, and as new as the New Jerusalem. + </p> + <p> + But in the modern world we are primarily confronted with the extraordinary + spectacle of people turning to new ideals because they have not tried the + old. Men have not got tired of Christianity; they have never found enough + Christianity to get tired of. Men have never wearied of political justice; + they have wearied of waiting for it. + </p> + <p> + Now, for the purpose of this book, I propose to take only one of these old + ideals; but one that is perhaps the oldest. I take the principle of + domesticity: the ideal house; the happy family, the holy family of + history. For the moment it is only necessary to remark that it is like the + church and like the republic, now chiefly assailed by those who have never + known it, or by those who have failed to fulfil it. Numberless modern + women have rebelled against domesticity in theory because they have never + known it in practice. Hosts of the poor are driven to the workhouse + without ever having known the house. Generally speaking, the cultured + class is shrieking to be let out of the decent home, just as the working + class is shouting to be let into it. + </p> + <p> + Now if we take this house or home as a test, we may very generally lay the + simple spiritual foundations of the idea. God is that which can make + something out of nothing. Man (it may truly be said) is that which can + make something out of anything. In other words, while the joy of God be + unlimited creation, the special joy of man is limited creation, the + combination of creation with limits. Man’s pleasure, therefore, is to + possess conditions, but also to be partly possessed by them; to be + half-controlled by the flute he plays or by the field he digs. The + excitement is to get the utmost out of given conditions; the conditions + will stretch, but not indefinitely. A man can write an immortal sonnet on + an old envelope, or hack a hero out of a lump of rock. But hacking a + sonnet out of a rock would be a laborious business, and making a hero out + of an envelope is almost out of the sphere of practical politics. This + fruitful strife with limitations, when it concerns some airy entertainment + of an educated class, goes by the name of Art. But the mass of men have + neither time nor aptitude for the invention of invisible or abstract + beauty. For the mass of men the idea of artistic creation can only be + expressed by an idea unpopular in present discussions—the idea of + property. The average man cannot cut clay into the shape of a man; but he + can cut earth into the shape of a garden; and though he arranges it with + red geraniums and blue potatoes in alternate straight lines, he is still + an artist; because he has chosen. The average man cannot paint the sunset + whose colors be admires; but he can paint his own house with what color he + chooses, and though he paints it pea green with pink spots, he is still an + artist; because that is his choice. Property is merely the art of the + democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape + in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he + is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal + with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small. + </p> + <p> + I am well aware that the word “property” has been defied in our time by + the corruption of the great capitalists. One would think, to hear people + talk, that the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers were on the side of + property. But obviously they are the enemies of property; because they are + enemies of their own limitations. They do not want their own land; but + other people’s. When they remove their neighbor’s landmark, they also + remove their own. A man who loves a little triangular field ought to love + it because it is triangular; anyone who destroys the shape, by giving him + more land, is a thief who has stolen a triangle. A man with the true + poetry of possession wishes to see the wall where his garden meets Smith’s + garden; the hedge where his farm touches Brown’s. He cannot see the shape + of his own land unless he sees the edges of his neighbor’s. It is the + negation of property that the Duke of Sutherland should have all the farms + in one estate; just as it would be the negation of marriage if he had all + our wives in one harem. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0008" id="link2H_4_0008"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VII. THE FREE FAMILY + </h2> + <p> + As I have said, I propose to take only one central instance; I will take + the institution called the private house or home; the shell and organ of + the family. We will consider cosmic and political tendencies simply as + they strike that ancient and unique roof. Very few words will suffice for + all I have to say about the family itself. I leave alone the speculations + about its animal origin and the details of its social reconstruction; I am + concerned only with its palpable omnipresence. It is a necessity far + mankind; it is (if you like to put it so) a trap for mankind. Only by the + hypocritical ignoring of a huge fact can any one contrive to talk of “free + love”; as if love were an episode like lighting a cigarette, or whistling + a tune. Suppose whenever a man lit a cigarette, a towering genie arose + from the rings of smoke and followed him everywhere as a huge slave. + Suppose whenever a man whistled a tune he “drew an angel down” and had to + walk about forever with a seraph on a string. These catastrophic images + are but faint parallels to the earthquake consequences that Nature has + attached to sex; and it is perfectly plain at the beginning that a man + cannot be a free lover; he is either a traitor or a tied man. The second + element that creates the family is that its consequences, though colossal, + are gradual; the cigarette produces a baby giant, the song only an infant + seraph. Thence arises the necessity for some prolonged system of + co-operation; and thence arises the family in its full educational sense. + </p> + <p> + It may be said that this institution of the home is the one anarchist + institution. That is to say, it is older than law, and stands outside the + State. By its nature it is refreshed or corrupted by indefinable forces of + custom or kinship. This is not to be understood as meaning that the State + has no authority over families; that State authority is invoked and ought + to be invoked in many abnormal cases. But in most normal cases of family + joys and sorrows, the State has no mode of entry. It is not so much that + the law should not interfere, as that the law cannot. Just as there are + fields too far off for law, so there are fields too near; as a man may see + the North Pole before he sees his own backbone. Small and near matters + escape control at least as much as vast and remote ones; and the real + pains and pleasures of the family form a strong instance of this. If a + baby cries for the moon, the policeman cannot procure the moon—but + neither can he stop the baby. Creatures so close to each other as husband + and wife, or a mother and children, have powers of making each other happy + or miserable with which no public coercion can deal. If a marriage could + be dissolved every morning it would not give back his night’s rest to a + man kept awake by a curtain lecture; and what is the good of giving a man + a lot of power where he only wants a little peace? The child must depend + on the most imperfect mother; the mother may be devoted to the most + unworthy children; in such relations legal revenges are vain. Even in the + abnormal cases where the law may operate, this difficulty is constantly + found; as many a bewildered magistrate knows. He has to save children from + starvation by taking away their breadwinner. And he often has to break a + wife’s heart because her husband has already broken her head. The State + has no tool delicate enough to deracinate the rooted habits and tangled + affections of the family; the two sexes, whether happy or unhappy, are + glued together too tightly for us to get the blade of a legal penknife in + between them. The man and the woman are one flesh—yes, even when + they are not one spirit. Man is a quadruped. Upon this ancient and + anarchic intimacy, types of government have little or no effect; it is + happy or unhappy, by its own sexual wholesomeness and genial habit, under + the republic of Switzerland or the despotism of Siam. Even a republic in + Siam would not have done much towards freeing the Siamese Twins. + </p> + <p> + The problem is not in marriage, but in sex; and would be felt under the + freest concubinage. Nevertheless, the overwhelming mass of mankind has not + believed in freedom in this matter, but rather in a more or less lasting + tie. Tribes and civilizations differ about the occasions on which we may + loosen the bond, but they all agree that there is a bond to be loosened, + not a mere universal detachment. For the purposes of this book I am not + concerned to discuss that mystical view of marriage in which I myself + believe: the great European tradition which has made marriage a sacrament. + It is enough to say here that heathen and Christian alike have regarded + marriage as a tie; a thing not normally to be sundered. Briefly, this + human belief in a sexual bond rests on a principle of which the modern + mind has made a very inadequate study. It is, perhaps, most nearly + paralleled by the principle of the second wind in walking. + </p> + <p> + The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every + pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so + that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the + first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of + learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the + sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the + honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of + surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential + surrender. + </p> + <p> + In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no + one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the + Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. + Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the + sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is + amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a + fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. + The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must + be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at + a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, + that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force + himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or + what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is + essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free + to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no + one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so + embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to + shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into + the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to + each other. If Americans can be divorced for “incompatibility of temper” I + cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy + marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to + fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes + unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VIII. THE WILDNESS OF DOMESTICITY + </h2> + <p> + In the course of this crude study we shall have to touch on what is called + the problem of poverty, especially the dehumanized poverty of modern + industrialism. But in this primary matter of the ideal the difficulty is + not the problem of poverty, but the problem of wealth. It is the special + psychology of leisure and luxury that falsifies life. Some experience of + modern movements of the sort called “advanced” has led me to the + conviction that they generally repose upon some experience peculiar to the + rich. It is so with that fallacy of free love of which I have already + spoken; the idea of sexuality as a string of episodes. That implies a long + holiday in which to get tired of one woman, and a motor car in which to + wander looking for others; it also implies money for maintenances. An + omnibus conductor has hardly time to love his own wife, let alone other + people’s. And the success with which nuptial estrangements are depicted in + modern “problem plays” is due to the fact that there is only one thing + that a drama cannot depict—that is a hard day’s work. I could give + many other instances of this plutocratic assumption behind progressive + fads. For instance, there is a plutocratic assumption behind the phrase + “Why should woman be economically dependent upon man?” The answer is that + among poor and practical people she isn’t; except in the sense in which he + is dependent upon her. A hunter has to tear his clothes; there must be + somebody to mend them. A fisher has to catch fish; there must be somebody + to cook them. It is surely quite clear that this modern notion that woman + is a mere “pretty clinging parasite,” “a plaything,” etc., arose through + the somber contemplation of some rich banking family, in which the banker, + at least, went to the city and pretended to do something, while the + banker’s wife went to the Park and did not pretend to do anything at all. + A poor man and his wife are a business partnership. If one partner in a + firm of publishers interviews the authors while the other interviews the + clerks, is one of them economically dependent? Was Hodder a pretty + parasite clinging to Stoughton? Was Marshall a mere plaything for + Snelgrove? + </p> + <p> + But of all the modern notions generated by mere wealth the worst is this: + the notion that domesticity is dull and tame. Inside the home (they say) + is dead decorum and routine; outside is adventure and variety. This is + indeed a rich man’s opinion. The rich man knows that his own house moves + on vast and soundless wheels of wealth, is run by regiments of servants, + by a swift and silent ritual. On the other hand, every sort of vagabondage + of romance is open to him in the streets outside. He has plenty of money + and can afford to be a tramp. His wildest adventure will end in a + restaurant, while the yokel’s tamest adventure may end in a police-court. + If he smashes a window he can pay for it; if he smashes a man he can + pension him. He can (like the millionaire in the story) buy an hotel to + get a glass of gin. And because he, the luxurious man, dictates the tone + of nearly all “advanced” and “progressive” thought, we have almost + forgotten what a home really means to the overwhelming millions of + mankind. + </p> + <p> + For the truth is, that to the moderately poor the home is the only place + of liberty. Nay, it is the only place of anarchy. It is the only spot on + the earth where a man can alter arrangements suddenly, make an experiment + or indulge in a whim. Everywhere else he goes he must accept the strict + rules of the shop, inn, club, or museum that he happens to enter. He can + eat his meals on the floor in his own house if he likes. I often do it + myself; it gives a curious, childish, poetic, picnic feeling. There would + be considerable trouble if I tried to do it in an A.B.C. tea-shop. A man + can wear a dressing gown and slippers in his house; while I am sure that + this would not be permitted at the Savoy, though I never actually tested + the point. If you go to a restaurant you must drink some of the wines on + the wine list, all of them if you insist, but certainly some of them. But + if you have a house and garden you can try to make hollyhock tea or + convolvulus wine if you like. For a plain, hard-working man the home is + not the one tame place in the world of adventure. It is the one wild place + in the world of rules and set tasks. The home is the one place where he + can put the carpet on the ceiling or the slates on the floor if he wants + to. When a man spends every night staggering from bar to bar or from + music-hall to music-hall, we say that he is living an irregular life. But + he is not; he is living a highly regular life, under the dull, and often + oppressive, laws of such places. Some times he is not allowed even to sit + down in the bars; and frequently he is not allowed to sing in the + music-halls. Hotels may be defined as places where you are forced to + dress; and theaters may be defined as places where you are forbidden to + smoke. A man can only picnic at home. + </p> + <p> + Now I take, as I have said, this small human omnipotence, this possession + of a definite cell or chamber of liberty, as the working model for the + present inquiry. Whether we can give every English man a free home of his + own or not, at least we should desire it; and he desires it. For the + moment we speak of what he wants, not of what he expects to get. He wants, + for instance, a separate house; he does not want a semi-detached house. He + may be forced in the commercial race to share one wall with another man. + Similarly he might be forced in a three-legged race to share one leg with + another man; but it is not so that he pictures himself in his dreams of + elegance and liberty. Again, he does not desire a flat. He can eat and + sleep and praise God in a flat; he can eat and sleep and praise God in a + railway train. But a railway train is not a house, because it is a house + on wheels. And a flat is not a house, because it is a house on stilts. An + idea of earthy contact and foundation, as well as an idea of separation + and independence, is a part of this instructive human picture. + </p> + <p> + I take, then, this one institution as a test. As every normal man desires + a woman, and children born of a woman, every normal man desires a house of + his own to put them into. He does not merely want a roof above him and a + chair below him; he wants an objective and visible kingdom; a fire at + which he can cook what food he likes, a door he can open to what friends + he chooses. This is the normal appetite of men; I do not say there are not + exceptions. There may be saints above the need and philanthropists below + it. Opalstein, now he is a duke, may have got used to more than this; and + when he was a convict may have got used to less. But the normality of the + thing is enormous. To give nearly everybody ordinary houses would please + nearly everybody; that is what I assert without apology. Now in modern + England (as you eagerly point out) it is very difficult to give nearly + everybody houses. Quite so; I merely set up the desideratum; and ask the + reader to leave it standing there while he turns with me to a + consideration of what really happens in the social wars of our time. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0010" id="link2H_4_0010"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IX. HISTORY OF HUDGE AND GUDGE + </h2> + <p> + There is, let us say, a certain filthy rookery in Hoxton, dripping with + disease and honeycombed with crime and promiscuity. There are, let us say, + two noble and courageous young men, of pure intentions and (if you prefer + it) noble birth; let us call them Hudge and Gudge. Hudge, let us say, is + of a bustling sort; he points out that the people must at all costs be got + out of this den; he subscribes and collects money, but he finds (despite + the large financial interests of the Hudges) that the thing will have to + be done on the cheap if it is to be done on the spot. He therefore, runs + up a row of tall bare tenements like beehives; and soon has all the poor + people bundled into their little brick cells, which are certainly better + than their old quarters, in so far as they are weather proof, well + ventilated and supplied with clean water. But Gudge has a more delicate + nature. He feels a nameless something lacking in the little brick boxes; + he raises numberless objections; he even assails the celebrated Hudge + Report, with the Gudge Minority Report; and by the end of a year or so has + come to telling Hudge heatedly that the people were much happier where + they were before. As the people preserve in both places precisely the same + air of dazed amiability, it is very difficult to find out which is right. + But at least one might safely say that no people ever liked stench or + starvation as such, but only some peculiar pleasures en tangled with them. + Not so feels the sensitive Gudge. Long before the final quarrel (Hudge v. + Gudge and Another), Gudge has succeeded in persuading himself that slums + and stinks are really very nice things; that the habit of sleeping + fourteen in a room is what has made our England great; and that the smell + of open drains is absolutely essential to the rearing of a viking breed. + </p> + <p> + But, meanwhile, has there been no degeneration in Hudge? Alas, I fear + there has. Those maniacally ugly buildings which he originally put up as + unpretentious sheds barely to shelter human life, grow every day more and + more lovely to his deluded eye. Things he would never have dreamed of + defending, except as crude necessities, things like common kitchens or + infamous asbestos stoves, begin to shine quite sacredly before him, merely + because they reflect the wrath of Gudge. He maintains, with the aid of + eager little books by Socialists, that man is really happier in a hive + than in a house. The practical difficulty of keeping total strangers out + of your bedroom he describes as Brotherhood; and the necessity for + climbing twenty-three flights of cold stone stairs, I dare say he calls + Effort. The net result of their philanthropic adventure is this: that one + has come to defending indefensible slums and still more indefensible + slum-landlords, while the other has come to treating as divine the sheds + and pipes which he only meant as desperate. Gudge is now a corrupt and + apoplectic old Tory in the Carlton Club; if you mention poverty to him he + roars at you in a thick, hoarse voice something that is conjectured to be + “Do ‘em good!” Nor is Hudge more happy; for he is a lean vegetarian with a + gray, pointed beard and an unnaturally easy smile, who goes about telling + everybody that at last we shall all sleep in one universal bedroom; and he + lives in a Garden City, like one forgotten of God. + </p> + <p> + Such is the lamentable history of Hudge and Gudge; which I merely + introduce as a type of an endless and exasperating misunderstanding which + is always occurring in modern England. To get men out of a rookery men are + put into a tenement; and at the beginning the healthy human soul loathes + them both. A man’s first desire is to get away as far as possible from the + rookery, even should his mad course lead him to a model dwelling. The + second desire is, naturally, to get away from the model dwelling, even if + it should lead a man back to the rookery. But I am neither a Hudgian nor a + Gudgian; and I think the mistakes of these two famous and fascinating + persons arose from one simple fact. They arose from the fact that neither + Hudge nor Gudge had ever thought for an instant what sort of house a man + might probably like for himself. In short, they did not begin with the + ideal; and, therefore, were not practical politicians. + </p> + <p> + We may now return to the purpose of our awkward parenthesis about the + praise of the future and the failures of the past. A house of his own + being the obvious ideal for every man, we may now ask (taking this need as + typical of all such needs) why he hasn’t got it; and whether it is in any + philosophical sense his own fault. Now, I think that in some philosophical + sense it is his own fault, I think in a yet more philosophical sense it is + the fault of his philosophy. And this is what I have now to attempt to + explain. + </p> + <p> + Burke, a fine rhetorician, who rarely faced realities, said, I think, that + an Englishman’s house is his castle. This is honestly entertaining; for as + it happens the Englishman is almost the only man in Europe whose house is + not his castle. Nearly everywhere else exists the assumption of peasant + proprietorship; that a poor man may be a landlord, though he is only lord + of his own land. Making the landlord and the tenant the same person has + certain trivial advantages, as that the tenant pays no rent, while the + landlord does a little work. But I am not concerned with the defense of + small proprietorship, but merely with the fact that it exists almost + everywhere except in England. It is also true, however, that this estate + of small possession is attacked everywhere today; it has never existed + among ourselves, and it may be destroyed among our neighbors. We have, + therefore, to ask ourselves what it is in human affairs generally, and in + this domestic ideal in particular, that has really ruined the natural + human creation, especially in this country. + </p> + <p> + Man has always lost his way. He has been a tramp ever since Eden; but he + always knew, or thought he knew, what he was looking for. Every man has a + house somewhere in the elaborate cosmos; his house waits for him waist + deep in slow Norfolk rivers or sunning itself upon Sussex downs. Man has + always been looking for that home which is the subject matter of this + book. But in the bleak and blinding hail of skepticism to which he has + been now so long subjected, he has begun for the first time to be chilled, + not merely in his hopes, but in his desires. For the first time in history + he begins really to doubt the object of his wanderings on the earth. He + has always lost his way; but now he has lost his address. + </p> + <p> + Under the pressure of certain upper-class philosophies (or in other words, + under the pressure of Hudge and Gudge) the average man has really become + bewildered about the goal of his efforts; and his efforts, therefore, grow + feebler and feebler. His simple notion of having a home of his own is + derided as bourgeois, as sentimental, or as despicably Christian. Under + various verbal forms he is recommended to go on to the streets—which + is called Individualism; or to the work-house—which is called + Collectivism. We shall consider this process somewhat more carefully in a + moment. But it may be said here that Hudge and Gudge, or the governing + class generally, will never fail for lack of some modern phrase to cover + their ancient predominance. The great lords will refuse the English + peasant his three acres and a cow on advanced grounds, if they cannot + refuse it longer on reactionary grounds. They will deny him the three + acres on grounds of State Ownership. They will forbid him the cow on + grounds of humanitarianism. + </p> + <p> + And this brings us to the ultimate analysis of this singular influence + that has prevented doctrinal demands by the English people. There are, I + believe, some who still deny that England is governed by an oligarchy. It + is quite enough for me to know that a man might have gone to sleep some + thirty years ago over the day’s newspaper and woke up last week over the + later newspaper, and fancied he was reading about the same people. In one + paper he would have found a Lord Robert Cecil, a Mr. Gladstone, a Mr. + Lyttleton, a Churchill, a Chamberlain, a Trevelyan, an Acland. In the + other paper he would find a Lord Robert Cecil, a Mr. Gladstone, a Mr. + Lyttleton, a Churchill, a Chamberlain, a Trevelyan, an Acland. If this is + not being governed by families I cannot imagine what it is. I suppose it + is being governed by extraordinary democratic coincidences. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0011" id="link2H_4_0011"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + X. OPPRESSION BY OPTIMISM + </h2> + <p> + But we are not here concerned with the nature and existence of the + aristocracy, but with the origin of its peculiar power, why is it the last + of the true oligarchies of Europe; and why does there seem no very + immediate prospect of our seeing the end of it? The explanation is simple + though it remains strangely unnoticed. The friends of aristocracy often + praise it for preserving ancient and gracious traditions. The enemies of + aristocracy often blame it for clinging to cruel or antiquated customs. + Both its enemies and its friends are wrong. Generally speaking the + aristocracy does not preserve either good or bad traditions; it does not + preserve anything except game. Who would dream of looking among + aristocrats anywhere for an old custom? One might as well look for an old + costume! The god of the aristocrats is not tradition, but fashion, which + is the opposite of tradition. If you wanted to find an old-world Norwegian + head-dress, would you look for it in the Scandinavian Smart Set? No; the + aristocrats never have customs; at the best they have habits, like the + animals. Only the mob has customs. + </p> + <p> + The real power of the English aristocrats has lain in exactly the opposite + of tradition. The simple key to the power of our upper classes is this: + that they have always kept carefully on the side of what is called + Progress. They have always been up to date, and this comes quite easy to + an aristocracy. For the aristocracy are the supreme instances of that + frame of mind of which we spoke just now. Novelty is to them a luxury + verging on a necessity. They, above all, are so bored with the past and + with the present, that they gape, with a horrible hunger, for the future. + </p> + <p> + But whatever else the great lords forgot they never forgot that it was + their business to stand for the new things, for whatever was being most + talked about among university dons or fussy financiers. Thus they were on + the side of the Reformation against the Church, of the Whigs against the + Stuarts, of the Baconian science against the old philosophy, of the + manufacturing system against the operatives, and (to-day) of the increased + power of the State against the old-fashioned individualists. In short, the + rich are always modern; it is their business. But the immediate effect of + this fact upon the question we are studying is somewhat singular. + </p> + <p> + In each of the separate holes or quandaries in which the ordinary + Englishman has been placed, he has been told that his situation is, for + some particular reason, all for the best. He woke up one fine morning and + discovered that the public things, which for eight hundred years he had + used at once as inns and sanctuaries, had all been suddenly and savagely + abolished, to increase the private wealth of about six or seven men. One + would think he might have been annoyed at that; in many places he was, and + was put down by the soldiery. But it was not merely the army that kept him + quiet. He was kept quiet by the sages as well as the soldiers; the six or + seven men who took away the inns of the poor told him that they were not + doing it for themselves, but for the religion of the future, the great + dawn of Protestantism and truth. So whenever a seventeenth century noble + was caught pulling down a peasant’s fence and stealing his field, the + noble pointed excitedly at the face of Charles I or James II (which at + that moment, perhaps, wore a cross expression) and thus diverted the + simple peasant’s attention. The great Puritan lords created the + Commonwealth, and destroyed the common land. They saved their poorer + countrymen from the disgrace of paying Ship Money, by taking from them the + plow money and spade money which they were doubtless too weak to guard. A + fine old English rhyme has immortalized this easy aristocratic habit— + </p> + <p> + You prosecute the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common, + But leave the larger felon loose Who steals the common from the goose. + </p> + <p> + But here, as in the case of the monasteries, we confront the strange + problem of submission. If they stole the common from the goose, one can + only say that he was a great goose to stand it. The truth is that they + reasoned with the goose; they explained to him that all this was needed to + get the Stuart fox over seas. So in the nineteenth century the great + nobles who became mine-owners and railway directors earnestly assured + everybody that they did not do this from preference, but owing to a newly + discovered Economic Law. So the prosperous politicians of our own + generation introduce bills to prevent poor mothers from going about with + their own babies; or they calmly forbid their tenants to drink beer in + public inns. But this insolence is not (as you would suppose) howled at by + everybody as outrageous feudalism. It is gently rebuked as Socialism. For + an aristocracy is always progressive; it is a form of going the pace. + Their parties grow later and later at night; for they are trying to live + to-morrow. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0012" id="link2H_4_0012"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XI. THE HOMELESSNESS OF JONES + </h2> + <p> + Thus the Future of which we spoke at the beginning has (in England at + least) always been the ally of tyranny. The ordinary Englishman has been + duped out of his old possessions, such as they were, and always in the + name of progress. The destroyers of the abbeys took away his bread and + gave him a stone, assuring him that it was a precious stone, the white + pebble of the Lord’s elect. They took away his maypole and his original + rural life and promised him instead the Golden Age of Peace and Commerce + inaugurated at the Crystal Palace. And now they are taking away the little + that remains of his dignity as a householder and the head of a family, + promising him instead Utopias which are called (appropriately enough) + “Anticipations” or “News from Nowhere.” We come back, in fact, to the main + feature which has already been mentioned. The past is communal: the future + must be individualist. In the past are all the evils of democracy, variety + and violence and doubt, but the future is pure despotism, for the future + is pure caprice. Yesterday, I know I was a human fool, but to-morrow I can + easily be the Superman. + </p> + <p> + The modern Englishman, however, is like a man who should be perpetually + kept out, for one reason after another, from the house in which he had + meant his married life to begin. This man (Jones let us call him) has + always desired the divinely ordinary things; he has married for love, he + has chosen or built a small house that fits like a coat; he is ready to be + a great grandfather and a local god. And just as he is moving in, + something goes wrong. Some tyranny, personal or political, suddenly debars + him from the home; and he has to take his meals in the front garden. A + passing philosopher (who is also, by a mere coincidence, the man who + turned him out) pauses, and leaning elegantly on the railings, explains to + him that he is now living that bold life upon the bounty of nature which + will be the life of the sublime future. He finds life in the front garden + more bold than bountiful, and has to move into mean lodgings in the next + spring. The philosopher (who turned him out), happening to call at these + lodgings, with the probable intention of raising the rent, stops to + explain to him that he is now in the real life of mercantile endeavor; the + economic struggle between him and the landlady is the only thing out of + which, in the sublime future, the wealth of nations can come. He is + defeated in the economic struggle, and goes to the workhouse. The + philosopher who turned him out (happening at that very moment to be + inspecting the workhouse) assures him that he is now at last in that + golden republic which is the goal of mankind; he is in an equal, + scientific, Socialistic commonwealth, owned by the State and ruled by + public officers; in fact, the commonwealth of the sublime future. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, there are signs that the irrational Jones still dreams at + night of this old idea of having an ordinary home. He asked for so little, + and he has been offered so much. He has been offered bribes of worlds and + systems; he has been offered Eden and Utopia and the New Jerusalem, and he + only wanted a house; and that has been refused him. + </p> + <p> + Such an apologue is literally no exaggeration of the facts of English + history. The rich did literally turn the poor out of the old guest house + on to the road, briefly telling them that it was the road of progress. + They did literally force them into factories and the modern wage-slavery, + assuring them all the time that this was the only way to wealth and + civilization. Just as they had dragged the rustic from the convent food + and ale by saying that the streets of heaven were paved with gold, so now + they dragged him from the village food and ale by telling him that the + streets of London were paved with gold. As he entered the gloomy porch of + Puritanism, so he entered the gloomy porch of Industrialism, being told + that each of them was the gate of the future. Hitherto he has only gone + from prison to prison, nay, into darkening prisons, for Calvinism opened + one small window upon heaven. And now he is asked, in the same educated + and authoritative tones, to enter another dark porch, at which he has to + surrender, into unseen hands, his children, his small possessions and all + the habits of his fathers. + </p> + <p> + Whether this last opening be in truth any more inviting than the old + openings of Puritanism and Industrialism can be discussed later. But there + can be little doubt, I think, that if some form of Collectivism is imposed + upon England it will be imposed, as everything else has been, by an + instructed political class upon a people partly apathetic and partly + hypnotized. The aristocracy will be as ready to “administer” Collectivism + as they were to administer Puritanism or Manchesterism; in some ways such + a centralized political power is necessarily attractive to them. It will + not be so hard as some innocent Socialists seem to suppose to induce the + Honorable Tomnoddy to take over the milk supply as well as the stamp + supply—at an increased salary. Mr. Bernard Shaw has remarked that + rich men are better than poor men on parish councils because they are free + from “financial timidity.” Now, the English ruling class is quite free + from financial timidity. The Duke of Sussex will be quite ready to be + Administrator of Sussex at the same screw. Sir William Harcourt, that + typical aristocrat, put it quite correctly. “We” (that is, the + aristocracy) “are all Socialists now.” + </p> + <p> + But this is not the essential note on which I desire to end. My main + contention is that, whether necessary or not, both Industrialism and + Collectivism have been accepted as necessities—not as naked ideals + or desires. Nobody liked the Manchester School; it was endured as the only + way of producing wealth. Nobody likes the Marxian school; it is endured as + the only way of preventing poverty. Nobody’s real heart is in the idea of + preventing a free man from owning his own farm, or an old woman from + cultivating her own garden, any more than anybody’s real heart was in the + heartless battle of the machines. The purpose of this chapter is + sufficiently served in indicating that this proposal also is a pis aller, + a desperate second best—like teetotalism. I do not propose to prove + here that Socialism is a poison; it is enough if I maintain that it is a + medicine and not a wine. + </p> + <p> + The idea of private property universal but private, the idea of families + free but still families, of domesticity democratic but still domestic, of + one man one house—this remains the real vision and magnet of + mankind. The world may accept something more official and general, less + human and intimate. But the world will be like a broken-hearted woman who + makes a humdrum marriage because she may not make a happy one; Socialism + may be the world’s deliverance, but it is not the world’s desire. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART2" id="link2H_PART2"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART TWO. IMPERIALISM, OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT MAN + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0014" id="link2H_4_0014"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. THE CHARM OF JINGOISM + </h2> + <p> + I have cast about widely to find a title for this section; and I confess + that the word “Imperialism” is a clumsy version of my meaning. But no + other word came nearer; “Militarism” would have been even more misleading, + and “The Superman” makes nonsense of any discussion that he enters. + Perhaps, upon the whole, the word “Caesarism” would have been better; but + I desire a popular word; and Imperialism (as the reader will perceive) + does cover for the most part the men and theories that I mean to discuss. + </p> + <p> + This small confusion is increased, however, by the fact that I do also + disbelieve in Imperialism in its popular sense, as a mode or theory of the + patriotic sentiment of this country. But popular Imperialism in England + has very little to do with the sort of Caesarean Imperialism I wish to + sketch. I differ from the Colonial idealism of Rhodes’ and Kipling; but I + do not think, as some of its opponents do, that it is an insolent creation + of English harshness and rapacity. Imperialism, I think, is a fiction + created, not by English hardness, but by English softness; nay, in a + sense, even by English kindness. + </p> + <p> + The reasons for believing in Australia are mostly as sentimental as the + most sentimental reasons for believing in heaven. New South Wales is quite + literally regarded as a place where the wicked cease from troubling and + the weary are at rest; that is, a paradise for uncles who have turned + dishonest and for nephews who are born tired. British Columbia is in + strict sense a fairyland, it is a world where a magic and irrational luck + is supposed to attend the youngest sons. This strange optimism about the + ends of the earth is an English weakness; but to show that it is not a + coldness or a harshness it is quite sufficient to say that no one shared + it more than that gigantic English sentimentalist—the great Charles + Dickens. The end of “David Copperfield” is unreal not merely because it is + an optimistic ending, but because it is an Imperialistic ending. The + decorous British happiness planned out for David Copperfield and Agnes + would be embarrassed by the perpetual presence of the hopeless tragedy of + Emily, or the more hopeless farce of Micawber. Therefore, both Emily and + Micawber are shipped off to a vague colony where changes come over them + with no conceivable cause, except the climate. The tragic woman becomes + contented and the comic man becomes responsible, solely as the result of a + sea voyage and the first sight of a kangaroo. + </p> + <p> + To Imperialism in the light political sense, therefore, my only objection + is that it is an illusion of comfort; that an Empire whose heart is + failing should be specially proud of the extremities, is to me no more + sublime a fact than that an old dandy whose brain is gone should still be + proud of his legs. It consoles men for the evident ugliness and apathy of + England with legends of fair youth and heroic strenuousness in distant + continents and islands. A man can sit amid the squalor of Seven Dials and + feel that life is innocent and godlike in the bush or on the veldt. Just + so a man might sit in the squalor of Seven Dials and feel that life was + innocent and godlike in Brixton and Surbiton. Brixton and Surbiton are + “new”; they are expanding; they are “nearer to nature,” in the sense that + they have eaten up nature mile by mile. The only objection is the + objection of fact. The young men of Brixton are not young giants. The + lovers of Surbiton are not all pagan poets, singing with the sweet energy + of the spring. Nor are the people of the Colonies when you meet them young + giants or pagan poets. They are mostly Cockneys who have lost their last + music of real things by getting out of the sound of Bow Bells. Mr. Rudyard + Kipling, a man of real though decadent genius, threw a theoretic glamour + over them which is already fading. Mr. Kipling is, in a precise and rather + startling sense, the exception that proves the rule. For he has + imagination, of an oriental and cruel kind, but he has it, not because he + grew up in a new country, but precisely because he grew up in the oldest + country upon earth. He is rooted in a past—an Asiatic past. He might + never have written “Kabul River” if he had been born in Melbourne. + </p> + <p> + I say frankly, therefore (lest there should be any air of evasion), that + Imperialism in its common patriotic pretensions appears to me both weak + and perilous. It is the attempt of a European country to create a kind of + sham Europe which it can dominate, instead of the real Europe, which it + can only share. It is a love of living with one’s inferiors. The notion of + restoring the Roman Empire by oneself and for oneself is a dream that has + haunted every Christian nation in a different shape and in almost every + shape as a snare. The Spanish are a consistent and conservative people; + therefore they embodied that attempt at Empire in long and lingering + dynasties. The French are a violent people, and therefore they twice + conquered that Empire by violence of arms. The English are above all a + poetical and optimistic people; and therefore their Empire is something + vague and yet sympathetic, something distant and yet dear. But this dream + of theirs of being powerful in the uttermost places, though a native + weakness, is still a weakness in them; much more of a weakness than gold + was to Spain or glory to Napoleon. If ever we were in collision with our + real brothers and rivals we should leave all this fancy out of account. We + should no more dream of pitting Australian armies against German than of + pitting Tasmanian sculpture against French. I have thus explained, lest + anyone should accuse me of concealing an unpopular attitude, why I do not + believe in Imperialism as commonly understood. I think it not merely an + occasional wrong to other peoples, but a continuous feebleness, a running + sore, in my own. But it is also true that I have dwelt on this Imperialism + that is an amiable delusion partly in order to show how different it is + from the deeper, more sinister and yet more persuasive thing that I have + been forced to call Imperialism for the convenience of this chapter. In + order to get to the root of this evil and quite un-English Imperialism we + must cast back and begin anew with a more general discussion of the first + needs of human intercourse. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0015" id="link2H_4_0015"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. WISDOM AND THE WEATHER + </h2> + <p> + It is admitted, one may hope, that common things are never commonplace. + Birth is covered with curtains precisely because it is a staggering and + monstrous prodigy. Death and first love, though they happen to everybody, + can stop one’s heart with the very thought of them. But while this is + granted, something further may be claimed. It is not merely true that + these universal things are strange; it is moreover true that they are + subtle. In the last analysis most common things will be found to be highly + complicated. Some men of science do indeed get over the difficulty by + dealing only with the easy part of it: thus, they will call first love the + instinct of sex, and the awe of death the instinct of self-preservation. + But this is only getting over the difficulty of describing peacock green + by calling it blue. There is blue in it. That there is a strong physical + element in both romance and the Memento Mori makes them if possible more + baffling than if they had been wholly intellectual. No man could say + exactly how much his sexuality was colored by a clean love of beauty, or + by the mere boyish itch for irrevocable adventures, like running away to + sea. No man could say how far his animal dread of the end was mixed up + with mystical traditions touching morals and religion. It is exactly + because these things are animal, but not quite animal, that the dance of + all the difficulties begins. The materialists analyze the easy part, deny + the hard part and go home to their tea. + </p> + <p> + It is complete error to suppose that because a thing is vulgar therefore + it is not refined; that is, subtle and hard to define. A drawing-room song + of my youth which began “In the gloaming, O, my darling,” was vulgar + enough as a song; but the connection between human passion and the + twilight is none the less an exquisite and even inscrutable thing. Or to + take another obvious instance: the jokes about a mother-in-law are + scarcely delicate, but the problem of a mother-in-law is extremely + delicate. A mother-in-law is subtle because she is a thing like the + twilight. She is a mystical blend of two inconsistent things—law and + a mother. The caricatures misrepresent her; but they arise out of a real + human enigma. “Comic Cuts” deals with the difficulty wrongly, but it would + need George Meredith at his best to deal with the difficulty rightly. The + nearest statement of the problem perhaps is this: it is not that a + mother-in-law must be nasty, but that she must be very nice. + </p> + <p> + But it is best perhaps to take in illustration some daily custom we have + all heard despised as vulgar or trite. Take, for the sake of argument, the + custom of talking about the weather. Stevenson calls it “the very nadir + and scoff of good conversationalists.” Now there are very deep reasons for + talking about the weather, reasons that are delicate as well as deep; they + lie in layer upon layer of stratified sagacity. First of all it is a + gesture of primeval worship. The sky must be invoked; and to begin + everything with the weather is a sort of pagan way of beginning everything + with prayer. Jones and Brown talk about the weather: but so do Milton and + Shelley. Then it is an expression of that elementary idea in politeness—equality. + For the very word politeness is only the Greek for citizenship. The word + politeness is akin to the word policeman: a charming thought. Properly + understood, the citizen should be more polite than the gentleman; perhaps + the policeman should be the most courtly and elegant of the three. But all + good manners must obviously begin with the sharing of something in a + simple style. Two men should share an umbrella; if they have not got an + umbrella, they should at least share the rain, with all its rich + potentialities of wit and philosophy. “For He maketh His sun to shine....” + This is the second element in the weather; its recognition of human + equality in that we all have our hats under the dark blue spangled + umbrella of the universe. Arising out of this is the third wholesome + strain in the custom; I mean that it begins with the body and with our + inevitable bodily brotherhood. All true friendliness begins with fire and + food and drink and the recognition of rain or frost. Those who will not + begin at the bodily end of things are already prigs and may soon be + Christian Scientists. Each human soul has in a sense to enact for itself + the gigantic humility of the Incarnation. Every man must descend into the + flesh to meet mankind. + </p> + <p> + Briefly, in the mere observation “a fine day” there is the whole great + human idea of comradeship. Now, pure comradeship is another of those broad + and yet bewildering things. We all enjoy it; yet when we come to talk + about it we almost always talk nonsense, chiefly because we suppose it to + be a simpler affair than it is. It is simple to conduct; but it is by no + means simple to analyze. Comradeship is at the most only one half of human + life; the other half is Love, a thing so different that one might fancy it + had been made for another universe. And I do not mean mere sex love; any + kind of concentrated passion, maternal love, or even the fiercer kinds of + friendship are in their nature alien to pure comradeship. Both sides are + essential to life; and both are known in differing degrees to everybody of + every age or sex. But very broadly speaking it may still be said that + women stand for the dignity of love and men for the dignity of + comradeship. I mean that the institution would hardly be expected if the + males of the tribe did not mount guard over it. The affections in which + women excel have so much more authority and intensity that pure + comradeship would be washed away if it were not rallied and guarded in + clubs, corps, colleges, banquets and regiments. Most of us have heard the + voice in which the hostess tells her husband not to sit too long over the + cigars. It is the dreadful voice of Love, seeking to destroy Comradeship. + </p> + <p> + All true comradeship has in it those three elements which I have remarked + in the ordinary exclamation about the weather. First, it has a sort of + broad philosophy like the common sky, emphasizing that we are all under + the same cosmic conditions. We are all in the same boat, the “winged rock” + of Mr. Herbert Trench. Secondly, it recognizes this bond as the essential + one; for comradeship is simply humanity seen in that one aspect in which + men are really equal. The old writers were entirely wise when they talked + of the equality of men; but they were also very wise in not mentioning + women. Women are always authoritarian; they are always above or below; + that is why marriage is a sort of poetical see-saw. There are only three + things in the world that women do not understand; and they are Liberty, + Equality, and Fraternity. But men (a class little understood in the modern + world) find these things the breath of their nostrils; and our most + learned ladies will not even begin to understand them until they make + allowance for this kind of cool camaraderie. Lastly, it contains the third + quality of the weather, the insistence upon the body and its indispensable + satisfaction. No one has even begun to understand comradeship who does not + accept with it a certain hearty eagerness in eating, drinking, or smoking, + an uproarious materialism which to many women appears only hoggish. You + may call the thing an orgy or a sacrament; it is certainly an essential. + It is at root a resistance to the superciliousness of the individual. Nay, + its very swaggering and howling are humble. In the heart of its rowdiness + there is a sort of mad modesty; a desire to melt the separate soul into + the mass of unpretentious masculinity. It is a clamorous confession of the + weakness of all flesh. No man must be superior to the things that are + common to men. This sort of equality must be bodily and gross and comic. + Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick. + </p> + <p> + The word comradeship just now promises to become as fatuous as the word + “affinity.” There are clubs of a Socialist sort where all the members, men + and women, call each other “Comrade.” I have no serious emotions, hostile + or otherwise, about this particular habit: at the worst it is + conventionality, and at the best flirtation. I am convinced here only to + point out a rational principle. If you choose to lump all flowers + together, lilies and dahlias and tulips and chrysanthemums and call them + all daisies, you will find that you have spoiled the very fine word daisy. + If you choose to call every human attachment comradeship, if you include + under that name the respect of a youth for a venerable prophetess, the + interest of a man in a beautiful woman who baffles him, the pleasure of a + philosophical old fogy in a girl who is impudent and innocent, the end of + the meanest quarrel or the beginning of the most mountainous love; if you + are going to call all these comradeship, you will gain nothing, you will + only lose a word. Daisies are obvious and universal and open; but they are + only one kind of flower. Comradeship is obvious and universal and open; + but it is only one kind of affection; it has characteristics that would + destroy any other kind. Anyone who has known true comradeship in a club or + in a regiment, knows that it is impersonal. There is a pedantic phrase + used in debating clubs which is strictly true to the masculine emotion; + they call it “speaking to the question.” Women speak to each other; men + speak to the subject they are speaking about. Many an honest man has sat + in a ring of his five best friends under heaven and forgotten who was in + the room while he explained some system. This is not peculiar to + intellectual men; men are all theoretical, whether they are talking about + God or about golf. Men are all impersonal; that is to say, republican. No + one remembers after a really good talk who has said the good things. Every + man speaks to a visionary multitude; a mystical cloud, that is called the + club. + </p> + <p> + It is obvious that this cool and careless quality which is essential to + the collective affection of males involves disadvantages and dangers. It + leads to spitting; it leads to coarse speech; it must lead to these things + so long as it is honorable; comradeship must be in some degree ugly. The + moment beauty is mentioned in male friendship, the nostrils are stopped + with the smell of abominable things. Friendship must be physically dirty + if it is to be morally clean. It must be in its shirt sleeves. The chaos + of habits that always goes with males when left entirely to themselves has + only one honorable cure; and that is the strict discipline of a monastery. + Anyone who has seen our unhappy young idealists in East End Settlements + losing their collars in the wash and living on tinned salmon will fully + understand why it was decided by the wisdom of St. Bernard or St. + Benedict, that if men were to live without women, they must not live + without rules. Something of the same sort of artificial exactitude, of + course, is obtained in an army; and an army also has to be in many ways + monastic; only that it has celibacy without chastity. But these things do + not apply to normal married men. These have a quite sufficient restraint + on their instinctive anarchy in the savage common-sense of the other sex. + There is only one very timid sort of man that is not afraid of women. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0016" id="link2H_4_0016"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. THE COMMON VISION + </h2> + <p> + Now this masculine love of an open and level camaraderie is the life + within all democracies and attempts to govern by debate; without it the + republic would be a dead formula. Even as it is, of course, the spirit of + democracy frequently differs widely from the letter, and a pothouse is + often a better test than a Parliament. Democracy in its human sense is not + arbitrament by the majority; it is not even arbitrament by everybody. It + can be more nearly defined as arbitrament by anybody. I mean that it rests + on that club habit of taking a total stranger for granted, of assuming + certain things to be inevitably common to yourself and him. Only the + things that anybody may be presumed to hold have the full authority of + democracy. Look out of the window and notice the first man who walks by. + The Liberals may have swept England with an over-whelming majority; but + you would not stake a button that the man is a Liberal. The Bible may be + read in all schools and respected in all law courts; but you would not bet + a straw that he believes in the Bible. But you would bet your week’s + wages, let us say, that he believes in wearing clothes. You would bet that + he believes that physical courage is a fine thing, or that parents have + authority over children. Of course, he might be the millionth man who does + not believe these things; if it comes to that, he might be the Bearded + Lady dressed up as a man. But these prodigies are quite a different thing + from any mere calculation of numbers. People who hold these views are not + a minority, but a monstrosity. But of these universal dogmas that have + full democratic authority the only test is this test of anybody. What you + would observe before any newcomer in a tavern—that is the real + English law. The first man you see from the window, he is the King of + England. + </p> + <p> + The decay of taverns, which is but a part of the general decay of + democracy, has undoubtedly weakened this masculine spirit of equality. I + remember that a roomful of Socialists literally laughed when I told them + that there were no two nobler words in all poetry than Public House. They + thought it was a joke. Why they should think it a joke, since they want to + make all houses public houses, I cannot imagine. But if anyone wishes to + see the real rowdy egalitarianism which is necessary (to males, at least) + he can find it as well as anywhere in the great old tavern disputes which + come down to us in such books as Boswell’s Johnson. It is worth while to + mention that one name especially because the modern world in its morbidity + has done it a strange injustice. The demeanor of Johnson, it is said, was + “harsh and despotic.” It was occasionally harsh, but it was never + despotic. Johnson was not in the least a despot; Johnson was a demagogue, + he shouted against a shouting crowd. The very fact that he wrangled with + other people is proof that other people were allowed to wrangle with him. + His very brutality was based on the idea of an equal scrimmage, like that + of football. It is strictly true that he bawled and banged the table + because he was a modest man. He was honestly afraid of being overwhelmed + or even overlooked. Addison had exquisite manners and was the king of his + company; he was polite to everybody; but superior to everybody; therefore + he has been handed down forever in the immortal insult of Pope— + </p> + <p> + “Like Cato, give his little Senate laws And sit attentive to his own + applause.” + </p> + <p> + Johnson, so far from being king of his company, was a sort of Irish Member + in his own Parliament. Addison was a courteous superior and was hated. + Johnson was an insolent equal and therefore was loved by all who knew him, + and handed down in a marvellous book, which is one of the mere miracles of + love. + </p> + <p> + This doctrine of equality is essential to conversation; so much may be + admitted by anyone who knows what conversation is. Once arguing at a table + in a tavern the most famous man on earth would wish to be obscure, so that + his brilliant remarks might blaze like the stars on the background of his + obscurity. To anything worth calling a man nothing can be conceived more + cold or cheerless than to be king of your company. But it may be said that + in masculine sports and games, other than the great game of debate, there + is definite emulation and eclipse. There is indeed emulation, but this is + only an ardent sort of equality. Games are competitive, because that is + the only way of making them exciting. But if anyone doubts that men must + forever return to the ideal of equality, it is only necessary to answer + that there is such a thing as a handicap. If men exulted in mere + superiority, they would seek to see how far such superiority could go; + they would be glad when one strong runner came in miles ahead of all the + rest. But what men like is not the triumph of superiors, but the struggle + of equals; and, therefore, they introduce even into their competitive + sports an artificial equality. It is sad to think how few of those who + arrange our sporting handicaps can be supposed with any probability to + realize that they are abstract and even severe republicans. + </p> + <p> + No; the real objection to equality and self-rule has nothing to do with + any of these free and festive aspects of mankind; all men are democrats + when they are happy. The philosophic opponent of democracy would + substantially sum up his position by saying that it “will not work.” + Before going further, I will register in passing a protest against the + assumption that working is the one test of humanity. Heaven does not work; + it plays. Men are most themselves when they are free; and if I find that + men are snobs in their work but democrats on their holidays, I shall take + the liberty to believe their holidays. But it is this question of work + which really perplexes the question of equality; and it is with that that + we must now deal. Perhaps the truth can be put most pointedly thus: that + democracy has one real enemy, and that is civilization. Those utilitarian + miracles which science has made are anti-democratic, not so much in their + perversion, or even in their practical result, as in their primary shape + and purpose. The Frame-Breaking Rioters were right; not perhaps in + thinking that machines would make fewer men workmen; but certainly in + thinking that machines would make fewer men masters. More wheels do mean + fewer handles; fewer handles do mean fewer hands. The machinery of science + must be individualistic and isolated. A mob can shout round a palace; but + a mob cannot shout down a telephone. The specialist appears and democracy + is half spoiled at a stroke. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0017" id="link2H_4_0017"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. THE INSANE NECESSITY + </h2> + <p> + The common conception among the dregs of Darwinian culture is that men + have slowly worked their way out of inequality into a state of comparative + equality. The truth is, I fancy, almost exactly the opposite. All men have + normally and naturally begun with the idea of equality; they have only + abandoned it late and reluctantly, and always for some material reason of + detail. They have never naturally felt that one class of men was superior + to another; they have always been driven to assume it through certain + practical limitations of space and time. + </p> + <p> + For example, there is one element which must always tend to oligarchy—or + rather to despotism; I mean the element of hurry. If the house has caught + fire a man must ring up the fire engines; a committee cannot ring them up. + If a camp is surprised by night somebody must give the order to fire; + there is no time to vote it. It is solely a question of the physical + limitations of time and space; not at all of any mental limitations in the + mass of men commanded. If all the people in the house were men of destiny + it would still be better that they should not all talk into the telephone + at once; nay, it would be better that the silliest man of all should speak + uninterrupted. If an army actually consisted of nothing but Hanibals and + Napoleons, it would still be better in the case of a surprise that they + should not all give orders together. Nay, it would be better if the + stupidest of them all gave the orders. Thus, we see that merely military + subordination, so far from resting on the inequality of men, actually + rests on the equality of men. Discipline does not involve the Carlylean + notion that somebody is always right when everybody is wrong, and that we + must discover and crown that somebody. On the contrary, discipline means + that in certain frightfully rapid circumstances, one can trust anybody so + long as he is not everybody. The military spirit does not mean (as Carlyle + fancied) obeying the strongest and wisest man. On the contrary, the + military spirit means, if anything, obeying the weakest and stupidest man, + obeying him merely because he is a man, and not a thousand men. Submission + to a weak man is discipline. Submission to a strong man is only servility. + </p> + <p> + Now it can be easily shown that the thing we call aristocracy in Europe is + not in its origin and spirit an aristocracy at all. It is not a system of + spiritual degrees and distinctions like, for example, the caste system of + India, or even like the old Greek distinction between free men and slaves. + It is simply the remains of a military organization, framed partly to + sustain the sinking Roman Empire, partly to break and avenge the awful + onslaught of Islam. The word Duke simply means Colonel, just as the word + Emperor simply means Commander-in-Chief. The whole story is told in the + single title of Counts of the Holy Roman Empire, which merely means + officers in the European army against the contemporary Yellow Peril. Now + in an army nobody ever dreams of supposing that difference of rank + represents a difference of moral reality. Nobody ever says about a + regiment, “Your Major is very humorous and energetic; your Colonel, of + course, must be even more humorous and yet more energetic.” No one ever + says, in reporting a mess-room conversation, “Lieutenant Jones was very + witty, but was naturally inferior to Captain Smith.” The essence of an + army is the idea of official inequality, founded on unofficial equality. + The Colonel is not obeyed because he is the best man, but because he is + the Colonel. Such was probably the spirit of the system of dukes and + counts when it first arose out of the military spirit and military + necessities of Rome. With the decline of those necessities it has + gradually ceased to have meaning as a military organization, and become + honeycombed with unclean plutocracy. Even now it is not a spiritual + aristocracy—it is not so bad as all that. It is simply an army + without an enemy—billeted upon the people. + </p> + <p> + Man, therefore, has a specialist as well as comrade-like aspect; and the + case of militarism is not the only case of such specialist submission. The + tinker and tailor, as well as the soldier and sailor, require a certain + rigidity of rapidity of action: at least, if the tinker is not organized + that is largely why he does not tink on any large scale. The tinker and + tailor often represent the two nomadic races in Europe: the Gipsy and the + Jew; but the Jew alone has influence because he alone accepts some sort of + discipline. Man, we say, has two sides, the specialist side where he must + have subordination, and the social side where he must have equality. There + is a truth in the saying that ten tailors go to make a man; but we must + remember also that ten Poets Laureate or ten Astronomers Royal go to make + a man, too. Ten million tradesmen go to make Man himself; but humanity + consists of tradesmen when they are not talking shop. Now the peculiar + peril of our time, which I call for argument’s sake Imperialism or + Caesarism, is the complete eclipse of comradeship and equality by + specialism and domination. + </p> + <p> + There are only two kinds of social structure conceivable—personal + government and impersonal government. If my anarchic friends will not have + rules—they will have rulers. Preferring personal government, with + its tact and flexibility, is called Royalism. Preferring impersonal + government, with its dogmas and definitions, is called Republicanism. + Objecting broadmindedly both to kings and creeds is called Bosh; at least, + I know no more philosophic word for it. You can be guided by the + shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and + ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or + you are not a nation, but a nasty mess. Now men in their aspect of + equality and debate adore the idea of rules; they develop and complicate + them greatly to excess. A man finds far more regulations and definitions + in his club, where there are rules, than in his home, where there is a + ruler. A deliberate assembly, the House of Commons, for instance, carries + this mummery to the point of a methodical madness. The whole system is + stiff with rigid unreason; like the Royal Court in Lewis Carroll. You + would think the Speaker would speak; therefore he is mostly silent. You + would think a man would take off his hat to stop and put it on to go away; + therefore he takes off his hat to walk out and puts it on to stop in. + Names are forbidden, and a man must call his own father “my right + honorable friend the member for West Birmingham.” These are, perhaps, + fantasies of decay: but fundamentally they answer a masculine appetite. + Men feel that rules, even if irrational, are universal; men feel that law + is equal, even when it is not equitable. There is a wild fairness in the + thing—as there is in tossing up. + </p> + <p> + Again, it is gravely unfortunate that when critics do attack such cases as + the Commons it is always on the points (perhaps the few points) where the + Commons are right. They denounce the House as the Talking-Shop, and + complain that it wastes time in wordy mazes. Now this is just one respect + in which the Commons are actually like the Common People. If they love + leisure and long debate, it is because all men love it; that they really + represent England. There the Parliament does approach to the virile + virtues of the pothouse. + </p> + <p> + The real truth is that adumbrated in the introductory section when we + spoke of the sense of home and property, as now we speak of the sense of + counsel and community. All men do naturally love the idea of leisure, + laughter, loud and equal argument; but there stands a specter in our hall. + We are conscious of the towering modern challenge that is called + specialism or cut-throat competition—Business. Business will have + nothing to do with leisure; business will have no truck with comradeship; + business will pretend to no patience with all the legal fictions and + fantastic handicaps by which comradeship protects its egalitarian ideal. + The modern millionaire, when engaged in the agreeable and typical task of + sacking his own father, will certainly not refer to him as the right + honorable clerk from the Laburnum Road, Brixton. Therefore there has + arisen in modern life a literary fashion devoting itself to the romance of + business, to great demigods of greed and to fairyland of finance. This + popular philosophy is utterly despotic and anti-democratic; this fashion + is the flower of that Caesarism against which I am concerned to protest. + The ideal millionaire is strong in the possession of a brain of steel. The + fact that the real millionaire is rather more often strong in the + possession of a head of wood, does not alter the spirit and trend of the + idolatry. The essential argument is “Specialists must be despots; men must + be specialists. You cannot have equality in a soap factory; so you cannot + have it anywhere. You cannot have comradeship in a wheat corner; so you + cannot have it at all. We must have commercial civilization; therefore we + must destroy democracy.” I know that plutocrats have seldom sufficient + fancy to soar to such examples as soap or wheat. They generally confine + themselves, with fine freshness of mind, to a comparison between the state + and a ship. One anti-democratic writer remarked that he would not like to + sail in a vessel in which the cabin-boy had an equal vote with the + captain. It might easily be urged in answer that many a ship (the + Victoria, for instance) was sunk because an admiral gave an order which a + cabin-boy could see was wrong. But this is a debating reply; the essential + fallacy is both deeper and simpler. The elementary fact is that we were + all born in a state; we were not all born on a ship; like some of our + great British bankers. A ship still remains a specialist experiment, like + a diving-bell or a flying ship: in such peculiar perils the need for + promptitude constitutes the need for autocracy. But we live and die in the + vessel of the state; and if we cannot find freedom camaraderie and the + popular element in the state, we cannot find it at all. And the modern + doctrine of commercial despotism means that we shall not find it at all. + Our specialist trades in their highly civilized state cannot (it says) be + run without the whole brutal business of bossing and sacking, “too old at + forty” and all the rest of the filth. And they must be run, and therefore + we call on Caesar. Nobody but the Superman could descend to do such dirty + work. + </p> + <p> + Now (to reiterate my title) this is what is wrong. This is the huge modern + heresy of altering the human soul to fit its conditions, instead of + altering human conditions to fit the human soul. If soap boiling is really + inconsistent with brotherhood, so much the worst for soap-boiling, not for + brotherhood. If civilization really cannot get on with democracy, so much + the worse for civilization, not for democracy. Certainly, it would be far + better to go back to village communes, if they really are communes. + Certainly, it would be better to do without soap rather than to do without + society. Certainly, we would sacrifice all our wires, wheels, systems, + specialties, physical science and frenzied finance for one half-hour of + happiness such as has often come to us with comrades in a common tavern. I + do not say the sacrifice will be necessary; I only say it will be easy. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART3" id="link2H_PART3"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART THREE. FEMINISM, OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT WOMAN + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0019" id="link2H_4_0019"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. THE UNMILITARY SUFFRAGETTE + </h2> + <p> + It will be better to adopt in this chapter the same process that appeared + a piece of mental justice in the last. My general opinions on the feminine + question are such as many suffragists would warmly approve; and it would + be easy to state them without any open reference to the current + controversy. But just as it seemed more decent to say first that I was not + in favor of Imperialism even in its practical and popular sense, so it + seems more decent to say the same of Female Suffrage, in its practical and + popular sense. In other words, it is only fair to state, however + hurriedly, the superficial objection to the Suffragettes before we go on + to the really subtle questions behind the Suffrage. + </p> + <p> + Well, to get this honest but unpleasant business over, the objection to + the Suffragettes is not that they are Militant Suffragettes. On the + contrary, it is that they are not militant enough. A revolution is a + military thing; it has all the military virtues; one of which is that it + comes to an end. Two parties fight with deadly weapons, but under certain + rules of arbitrary honor; the party that wins becomes the government and + proceeds to govern. The aim of civil war, like the aim of all war, is + peace. Now the Suffragettes cannot raise civil war in this soldierly and + decisive sense; first, because they are women; and, secondly, because they + are very few women. But they can raise something else; which is altogether + another pair of shoes. They do not create revolution; what they do create + is anarchy; and the difference between these is not a question of + violence, but a question of fruitfulness and finality. Revolution of its + nature produces government; anarchy only produces more anarchy. Men may + have what opinions they please about the beheading of King Charles or King + Louis, but they cannot deny that Bradshaw and Cromwell ruled, that Carnot + and Napoleon governed. Someone conquered; something occurred. You can only + knock off the King’s head once. But you can knock off the King’s hat any + number of times. Destruction is finite, obstruction is infinite: so long + as rebellion takes the form of mere disorder (instead of an attempt to + enforce a new order) there is no logical end to it; it can feed on itself + and renew itself forever. If Napoleon had not wanted to be a Consul, but + only wanted to be a nuisance, he could, possibly, have prevented any + government arising successfully out of the Revolution. But such a + proceeding would not have deserved the dignified name of rebellion. + </p> + <p> + It is exactly this unmilitant quality in the Suffragettes that makes their + superficial problem. The problem is that their action has none of the + advantages of ultimate violence; it does not afford a test. War is a + dreadful thing; but it does prove two points sharply and unanswerably—numbers, + and an unnatural valor. One does discover the two urgent matters; how many + rebels there are alive, and how many are ready to be dead. But a tiny + minority, even an interested minority, may maintain mere disorder forever. + There is also, of course, in the case of these women, the further falsity + that is introduced by their sex. It is false to state the matter as a mere + brutal question of strength. If his muscles give a man a vote, then his + horse ought to have two votes and his elephant five votes. The truth is + more subtle than that; it is that bodily outbreak is a man’s instinctive + weapon, like the hoofs to the horse or the tusks to the elephant. All riot + is a threat of war; but the woman is brandishing a weapon she can never + use. There are many weapons that she could and does use. If (for example) + all the women nagged for a vote they would get it in a month. But there + again, one must remember, it would be necessary to get all the women to + nag. And that brings us to the end of the political surface of the matter. + The working objection to the Suffragette philosophy is simply that + overmastering millions of women do not agree with it. I am aware that some + maintain that women ought to have votes whether the majority wants them or + not; but this is surely a strange and childish case of setting up formal + democracy to the destruction of actual democracy. What should the mass of + women decide if they do not decide their general place in the State? These + people practically say that females may vote about everything except about + Female Suffrage. + </p> + <p> + But having again cleared my conscience of my merely political and possibly + unpopular opinion, I will again cast back and try to treat the matter in a + slower and more sympathetic style; attempt to trace the real roots of + woman’s position in the western state, and the causes of our existing + traditions or perhaps prejudices upon the point. And for this purpose it + is again necessary to travel far from the modern topic, the mere + Suffragette of today, and to go back to subjects which, though much more + old, are, I think, considerably more fresh. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0020" id="link2H_4_0020"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. THE UNIVERSAL STICK + </h2> + <p> + Cast your eye round the room in which you sit, and select some three or + four things that have been with man almost since his beginning; which at + least we hear of early in the centuries and often among the tribes. Let me + suppose that you see a knife on the table, a stick in the corner, or a + fire on the hearth. About each of these you will notice one speciality; + that not one of them is special. Each of these ancestral things is a + universal thing; made to supply many different needs; and while tottering + pedants nose about to find the cause and origin of some old custom, the + truth is that it had fifty causes or a hundred origins. The knife is meant + to cut wood, to cut cheese, to cut pencils, to cut throats; for a myriad + ingenious or innocent human objects. The stick is meant partly to hold a + man up, partly to knock a man down; partly to point with like a + finger-post, partly to balance with like a balancing pole, partly to + trifle with like a cigarette, partly to kill with like a club of a giant; + it is a crutch and a cudgel; an elongated finger and an extra leg. The + case is the same, of course, with the fire; about which the strangest + modern views have arisen. A queer fancy seems to be current that a fire + exists to warm people. It exists to warm people, to light their darkness, + to raise their spirits, to toast their muffins, to air their rooms, to + cook their chestnuts, to tell stories to their children, to make checkered + shadows on their walls, to boil their hurried kettles, and to be the red + heart of a man’s house and that hearth for which, as the great heathens + said, a man should die. + </p> + <p> + Now it is the great mark of our modernity that people are always proposing + substitutes for these old things; and these substitutes always answer one + purpose where the old thing answered ten. The modern man will wave a + cigarette instead of a stick; he will cut his pencil with a little + screwing pencil-sharpener instead of a knife; and he will even boldly + offer to be warmed by hot water pipes instead of a fire. I have my doubts + about pencil-sharpeners even for sharpening pencils; and about hot water + pipes even for heat. But when we think of all those other requirements + that these institutions answered, there opens before us the whole horrible + harlequinade of our civilization. We see as in a vision a world where a + man tries to cut his throat with a pencil-sharpener; where a man must + learn single-stick with a cigarette; where a man must try to toast muffins + at electric lamps, and see red and golden castles in the surface of hot + water pipes. + </p> + <p> + The principle of which I speak can be seen everywhere in a comparison + between the ancient and universal things and the modern and specialist + things. The object of a theodolite is to lie level; the object of a stick + is to swing loose at any angle; to whirl like the very wheel of liberty. + The object of a lancet is to lance; when used for slashing, gashing, + ripping, lopping off heads and limbs, it is a disappointing instrument. + The object of an electric light is merely to light (a despicable modesty); + and the object of an asbestos stove... I wonder what is the object of an + asbestos stove? If a man found a coil of rope in a desert he could at + least think of all the things that can be done with a coil of rope; and + some of them might even be practical. He could tow a boat or lasso a + horse. He could play cat’s-cradle, or pick oakum. He could construct a + rope-ladder for an eloping heiress, or cord her boxes for a travelling + maiden aunt. He could learn to tie a bow, or he could hang himself. Far + otherwise with the unfortunate traveller who should find a telephone in + the desert. You can telephone with a telephone; you cannot do anything + else with it. And though this is one of the wildest joys of life, it falls + by one degree from its full delirium when there is nobody to answer you. + The contention is, in brief, that you must pull up a hundred roots, and + not one, before you uproot any of these hoary and simple expedients. It is + only with great difficulty that a modern scientific sociologist can be got + to see that any old method has a leg to stand on. But almost every old + method has four or five legs to stand on. Almost all the old institutions + are quadrupeds; and some of them are centipedes. + </p> + <p> + Consider these cases, old and new, and you will observe the operation of a + general tendency. Everywhere there was one big thing that served six + purposes; everywhere now there are six small things; or, rather (and there + is the trouble), there are just five and a half. Nevertheless, we will not + say that this separation and specialism is entirely useless or + inexcusable. I have often thanked God for the telephone; I may any day + thank God for the lancet; and there is none of these brilliant and narrow + inventions (except, of course, the asbestos stove) which might not be at + some moment necessary and lovely. But I do not think the most austere + upholder of specialism will deny that there is in these old, many-sided + institutions an element of unity and universality which may well be + preserved in its due proportion and place. Spiritually, at least, it will + be admitted that some all-round balance is needed to equalize the + extravagance of experts. It would not be difficult to carry the parable of + the knife and stick into higher regions. Religion, the immortal maiden, + has been a maid-of-all-work as well as a servant of mankind. She provided + men at once with the theoretic laws of an unalterable cosmos and also with + the practical rules of the rapid and thrilling game of morality. She + taught logic to the student and told fairy tales to the children; it was + her business to confront the nameless gods whose fears are on all flesh, + and also to see the streets were spotted with silver and scarlet, that + there was a day for wearing ribbons or an hour for ringing bells. The + large uses of religion have been broken up into lesser specialities, just + as the uses of the hearth have been broken up into hot water pipes and + electric bulbs. The romance of ritual and colored emblem has been taken + over by that narrowest of all trades, modern art (the sort called art for + art’s sake), and men are in modern practice informed that they may use all + symbols so long as they mean nothing by them. The romance of conscience + has been dried up into the science of ethics; which may well be called + decency for decency’s sake, decency unborn of cosmic energies and barren + of artistic flower. The cry to the dim gods, cut off from ethics and + cosmology, has become mere Psychical Research. Everything has been + sundered from everything else, and everything has grown cold. Soon we + shall hear of specialists dividing the tune from the words of a song, on + the ground that they spoil each other; and I did once meet a man who + openly advocated the separation of almonds and raisins. This world is all + one wild divorce court; nevertheless, there are many who still hear in + their souls the thunder of authority of human habit; those whom Man hath + joined let no man sunder. + </p> + <p> + This book must avoid religion, but there must (I say) be many, religious + and irreligious, who will concede that this power of answering many + purposes was a sort of strength which should not wholly die out of our + lives. As a part of personal character, even the moderns will agree that + many-sidedness is a merit and a merit that may easily be overlooked. This + balance and universality has been the vision of many groups of men in many + ages. It was the Liberal Education of Aristotle; the jack-of-all-trades + artistry of Leonardo da Vinci and his friends; the august amateurishness + of the Cavalier Person of Quality like Sir William Temple or the great + Earl of Dorset. It has appeared in literature in our time in the most + erratic and opposite shapes, set to almost inaudible music by Walter Pater + and enunciated through a foghorn by Walt Whitman. But the great mass of + men have always been unable to achieve this literal universality, because + of the nature of their work in the world. Not, let it be noted, because of + the existence of their work. Leonardo da Vinci must have worked pretty + hard; on the other hand, many a government office clerk, village constable + or elusive plumber may do (to all human appearance) no work at all, and + yet show no signs of the Aristotelian universalism. What makes it + difficult for the average man to be a universalist is that the average man + has to be a specialist; he has not only to learn one trade, but to learn + it so well as to uphold him in a more or less ruthless society. This is + generally true of males from the first hunter to the last electrical + engineer; each has not merely to act, but to excel. Nimrod has not only to + be a mighty hunter before the Lord, but also a mighty hunter before the + other hunters. The electrical engineer has to be a very electrical + engineer, or he is outstripped by engineers yet more electrical. Those + very miracles of the human mind on which the modern world prides itself, + and rightly in the main, would be impossible without a certain + concentration which disturbs the pure balance of reason more than does + religious bigotry. No creed can be so limiting as that awful adjuration + that the cobbler must not go beyond his last. So the largest and wildest + shots of our world are but in one direction and with a defined trajectory: + the gunner cannot go beyond his shot, and his shot so often falls short; + the astronomer cannot go beyond his telescope and his telescope goes such + a little way. All these are like men who have stood on the high peak of a + mountain and seen the horizon like a single ring and who then descend down + different paths towards different towns, traveling slow or fast. It is + right; there must be people traveling to different towns; there must be + specialists; but shall no one behold the horizon? Shall all mankind be + specialist surgeons or peculiar plumbers; shall all humanity be + monomaniac? Tradition has decided that only half of humanity shall be + monomaniac. It has decided that in every home there shall be a tradesman + and a Jack-of-all-trades. But it has also decided, among other things, + that the Jack-of-all-trades shall be a Jill-of-all-trades. It has decided, + rightly or wrongly, that this specialism and this universalism shall be + divided between the sexes. Cleverness shall be left for men and wisdom for + women. For cleverness kills wisdom; that is one of the few sad and certain + things. + </p> + <p> + But for women this ideal of comprehensive capacity (or common-sense) must + long ago have been washed away. It must have melted in the frightful + furnaces of ambition and eager technicality. A man must be partly a + one-idead man, because he is a one-weaponed man—and he is flung + naked into the fight. The world’s demand comes to him direct; to his wife + indirectly. In short, he must (as the books on Success say) give “his + best”; and what a small part of a man “his best” is! His second and third + best are often much better. If he is the first violin he must fiddle for + life; he must not remember that he is a fine fourth bagpipe, a fair + fifteenth billiard-cue, a foil, a fountain pen, a hand at whist, a gun, + and an image of God. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0021" id="link2H_4_0021"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. THE EMANCIPATION OF DOMESTICITY + </h2> + <p> + And it should be remarked in passing that this force upon a man to develop + one feature has nothing to do with what is commonly called our competitive + system, but would equally exist under any rationally conceivable kind of + Collectivism. Unless the Socialists are frankly ready for a fall in the + standard of violins, telescopes and electric lights, they must somehow + create a moral demand on the individual that he shall keep up his present + concentration on these things. It was only by men being in some degree + specialist that there ever were any telescopes; they must certainly be in + some degree specialist in order to keep them going. It is not by making a + man a State wage-earner that you can prevent him thinking principally + about the very difficult way he earns his wages. There is only one way to + preserve in the world that high levity and that more leisurely outlook + which fulfils the old vision of universalism. That is, to permit the + existence of a partly protected half of humanity; a half which the + harassing industrial demand troubles indeed, but only troubles indirectly. + In other words, there must be in every center of humanity one human being + upon a larger plan; one who does not “give her best,” but gives her all. + </p> + <p> + Our old analogy of the fire remains the most workable one. The fire need + not blaze like electricity nor boil like boiling water; its point is that + it blazes more than water and warms more than light. The wife is like the + fire, or to put things in their proper proportion, the fire is like the + wife. Like the fire, the woman is expected to cook: not to excel in + cooking, but to cook; to cook better than her husband who is earning the + coke by lecturing on botany or breaking stones. Like the fire, the woman + is expected to tell tales to the children, not original and artistic + tales, but tales—better tales than would probably be told by a + first-class cook. Like the fire, the woman is expected to illuminate and + ventilate, not by the most startling revelations or the wildest winds of + thought, but better than a man can do it after breaking stones or + lecturing. But she cannot be expected to endure anything like this + universal duty if she is also to endure the direct cruelty of competitive + or bureaucratic toil. Woman must be a cook, but not a competitive cook; a + school mistress, but not a competitive schoolmistress; a house-decorator + but not a competitive house-decorator; a dressmaker, but not a competitive + dressmaker. She should have not one trade but twenty hobbies; she, unlike + the man, may develop all her second bests. This is what has been really + aimed at from the first in what is called the seclusion, or even the + oppression, of women. Women were not kept at home in order to keep them + narrow; on the contrary, they were kept at home in order to keep them + broad. The world outside the home was one mass of narrowness, a maze of + cramped paths, a madhouse of monomaniacs. It was only by partly limiting + and protecting the woman that she was enabled to play at five or six + professions and so come almost as near to God as the child when he plays + at a hundred trades. But the woman’s professions, unlike the child’s, were + all truly and almost terribly fruitful; so tragically real that nothing + but her universality and balance prevented them being merely morbid. This + is the substance of the contention I offer about the historic female + position. I do not deny that women have been wronged and even tortured; + but I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by + the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive + clerks at the same time. I do not deny that even under the old tradition + women had a harder time than men; that is why we take off our hats. I do + not deny that all these various female functions were exasperating; but I + say that there was some aim and meaning in keeping them various. I do not + pause even to deny that woman was a servant; but at least she was a + general servant. + </p> + <p> + The shortest way of summarizing the position is to say that woman stands + for the idea of Sanity; that intellectual home to which the mind must + return after every excursion on extravagance. The mind that finds its way + to wild places is the poet’s; but the mind that never finds its way back + is the lunatic’s. There must in every machine be a part that moves and a + part that stands still; there must be in everything that changes a part + that is unchangeable. And many of the phenomena which moderns hastily + condemn are really parts of this position of the woman as the center and + pillar of health. Much of what is called her subservience, and even her + pliability, is merely the subservience and pliability of a universal + remedy; she varies as medicines vary, with the disease. She has to be an + optimist to the morbid husband, a salutary pessimist to the happy-go-lucky + husband. She has to prevent the Quixote from being put upon, and the bully + from putting upon others. The French King wrote— + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + “Toujours femme varie Bien fol qui s’y fie,” + </pre> + <p> + but the truth is that woman always varies, and that is exactly why we + always trust her. To correct every adventure and extravagance with its + antidote in common-sense is not (as the moderns seem to think) to be in + the position of a spy or a slave. It is to be in the position of Aristotle + or (at the lowest) Herbert Spencer, to be a universal morality, a complete + system of thought. The slave flatters; the complete moralist rebukes. It + is, in short, to be a Trimmer in the true sense of that honorable term; + which for some reason or other is always used in a sense exactly opposite + to its own. It seems really to be supposed that a Trimmer means a cowardly + person who always goes over to the stronger side. It really means a highly + chivalrous person who always goes over to the weaker side; like one who + trims a boat by sitting where there are few people seated. Woman is a + trimmer; and it is a generous, dangerous and romantic trade. + </p> + <p> + The final fact which fixes this is a sufficiently plain one. Supposing it + to be conceded that humanity has acted at least not unnaturally in + dividing itself into two halves, respectively typifying the ideals of + special talent and of general sanity (since they are genuinely difficult + to combine completely in one mind), it is not difficult to see why the + line of cleavage has followed the line of sex, or why the female became + the emblem of the universal and the male of the special and superior. Two + gigantic facts of nature fixed it thus: first, that the woman who + frequently fulfilled her functions literally could not be specially + prominent in experiment and adventure; and second, that the same natural + operation surrounded her with very young children, who require to be + taught not so much anything as everything. Babies need not to be taught a + trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman + is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he + asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren’t. It + would be odd if she retained any of the narrowness of a specialist. Now if + anyone says that this duty of general enlightenment (even when freed from + modern rules and hours, and exercised more spontaneously by a more + protected person) is in itself too exacting and oppressive, I can + understand the view. I can only answer that our race has thought it worth + while to cast this burden on women in order to keep common-sense in the + world. But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not + merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. + For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they + mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the + difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only + means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a + man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at + Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is + trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give + it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a + definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be + Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and + books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, + theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, + but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career + to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small + career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad + to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? + No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not + because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; + I will never pity her for its smallness. + </p> + <p> + But though the essential of the woman’s task is universality, this does + not, of course, prevent her from having one or two severe though largely + wholesome prejudices. She has, on the whole, been more conscious than man + that she is only one half of humanity; but she has expressed it (if one + may say so of a lady) by getting her teeth into the two or three things + which she thinks she stands for. I would observe here in parenthesis that + much of the recent official trouble about women has arisen from the fact + that they transfer to things of doubt and reason that sacred stubbornness + only proper to the primary things which a woman was set to guard. One’s + own children, one’s own altar, ought to be a matter of principle—or + if you like, a matter of prejudice. On the other hand, who wrote Junius’s + Letters ought not to be a principle or a prejudice, it ought to be a + matter of free and almost indifferent inquiry. But take an energetic + modern girl secretary to a league to show that George III wrote Junius, + and in three months she will believe it, too, out of mere loyalty to her + employers. Modern women defend their office with all the fierceness of + domesticity. They fight for desk and typewriter as for hearth and home, + and develop a sort of wolfish wifehood on behalf of the invisible head of + the firm. That is why they do office work so well; and that is why they + ought not to do it. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0022" id="link2H_4_0022"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. THE ROMANCE OF THRIFT + </h2> + <p> + The larger part of womankind, however, have had to fight for things + slightly more intoxicating to the eye than the desk or the typewriter; and + it cannot be denied that in defending these, women have developed the + quality called prejudice to a powerful and even menacing degree. But these + prejudices will always be found to fortify the main position of the woman, + that she is to remain a general overseer, an autocrat within small compass + but on all sides. On the one or two points on which she really + misunderstands the man’s position, it is almost entirely in order to + preserve her own. The two points on which woman, actually and of herself, + is most tenacious may be roughly summarized as the ideal of thrift and the + ideal of dignity. + </p> + <p> + Unfortunately for this book it is written by a male, and these two + qualities, if not hateful to a man, are at least hateful in a man. But if + we are to settle the sex question at all fairly, all males must make an + imaginative attempt to enter into the attitude of all good women toward + these two things. The difficulty exists especially, perhaps, in the thing + called thrift; we men have so much encouraged each other in throwing money + right and left, that there has come at last to be a sort of chivalrous and + poetical air about losing sixpence. But on a broader and more candid + consideration the case scarcely stands so. + </p> + <p> + Thrift is the really romantic thing; economy is more romantic than + extravagance. Heaven knows I for one speak disinterestedly in the matter; + for I cannot clearly remember saving a half-penny ever since I was born. + But the thing is true; economy, properly understood, is the more poetic. + Thrift is poetic because it is creative; waste is unpoetic because it is + waste. It is prosaic to throw money away, because it is prosaic to throw + anything away; it is negative; it is a confession of indifference, that + is, it is a confession of failure. The most prosaic thing about the house + is the dustbin, and the one great objection to the new fastidious and + aesthetic homestead is simply that in such a moral menage the dustbin must + be bigger than the house. If a man could undertake to make use of all + things in his dustbin he would be a broader genius than Shakespeare. When + science began to use by-products; when science found that colors could be + made out of coaltar, she made her greatest and perhaps her only claim on + the real respect of the human soul. Now the aim of the good woman is to + use the by-products, or, in other words, to rummage in the dustbin. + </p> + <p> + A man can only fully comprehend it if he thinks of some sudden joke or + expedient got up with such materials as may be found in a private house on + a rainy day. A man’s definite daily work is generally run with such rigid + convenience of modern science that thrift, the picking up of potential + helps here and there, has almost become unmeaning to him. He comes across + it most (as I say) when he is playing some game within four walls; when in + charades, a hearthrug will just do for a fur coat, or a tea-cozy just do + for a cocked hat; when a toy theater needs timber and cardboard, and the + house has just enough firewood and just enough bandboxes. This is the + man’s occasional glimpse and pleasing parody of thrift. But many a good + housekeeper plays the same game every day with ends of cheese and scraps + of silk, not because she is mean, but on the contrary, because she is + magnanimous; because she wishes her creative mercy to be over all her + works, that not one sardine should be destroyed, or cast as rubbish to the + void, when she has made the pile complete. + </p> + <p> + The modern world must somehow be made to understand (in theology and other + things) that a view may be vast, broad, universal, liberal and yet come + into conflict with another view that is vast, broad, universal and liberal + also. There is never a war between two sects, but only between two + universal Catholic Churches. The only possible collision is the collision + of one cosmos with another. So in a smaller way it must be first made + clear that this female economic ideal is a part of that female variety of + outlook and all-round art of life which we have already attributed to the + sex: thrift is not a small or timid or provincial thing; it is part of + that great idea of the woman watching on all sides out of all the windows + of the soul and being answerable for everything. For in the average human + house there is one hole by which money comes in and a hundred by which it + goes out; man has to do with the one hole, woman with the hundred. But + though the very stinginess of a woman is a part of her spiritual breadth, + it is none the less true that it brings her into conflict with the special + kind of spiritual breadth that belongs to the males of the tribe. It + brings her into conflict with that shapeless cataract of Comradeship, of + chaotic feasting and deafening debate, which we noted in the last section. + The very touch of the eternal in the two sexual tastes brings them the + more into antagonism; for one stands for a universal vigilance and the + other for an almost infinite output. Partly through the nature of his + moral weakness, and partly through the nature of his physical strength, + the male is normally prone to expand things into a sort of eternity; he + always thinks of a dinner party as lasting all night; and he always thinks + of a night as lasting forever. When the working women in the poor + districts come to the doors of the public houses and try to get their + husbands home, simple minded “social workers” always imagine that every + husband is a tragic drunkard and every wife a broken-hearted saint. It + never occurs to them that the poor woman is only doing under coarser + conventions exactly what every fashionable hostess does when she tries to + get the men from arguing over the cigars to come and gossip over the + teacups. These women are not exasperated merely at the amount of money + that is wasted in beer; they are exasperated also at the amount of time + that is wasted in talk. It is not merely what goeth into the mouth but + what cometh out the mouth that, in their opinion, defileth a man. They + will raise against an argument (like their sisters of all ranks) the + ridiculous objection that nobody is convinced by it; as if a man wanted to + make a body-slave of anybody with whom he had played single-stick. But the + real female prejudice on this point is not without a basis; the real + feeling is this, that the most masculine pleasures have a quality of the + ephemeral. A duchess may ruin a duke for a diamond necklace; but there is + the necklace. A coster may ruin his wife for a pot of beer; and where is + the beer? The duchess quarrels with another duchess in order to crush her, + to produce a result; the coster does not argue with another coster in + order to convince him, but in order to enjoy at once the sound of his own + voice, the clearness of his own opinions and the sense of masculine + society. There is this element of a fine fruitlessness about the male + enjoyments; wine is poured into a bottomless bucket; thought plunges into + a bottomless abyss. All this has set woman against the Public House—that + is, against the Parliament House. She is there to prevent waste; and the + “pub” and the parliament are the very palaces of waste. In the upper + classes the “pub” is called the club, but that makes no more difference to + the reason than it does to the rhyme. High and low, the woman’s objection + to the Public House is perfectly definite and rational, it is that the + Public House wastes the energies that could be used on the private house. + </p> + <p> + As it is about feminine thrift against masculine waste, so it is about + feminine dignity against masculine rowdiness. The woman has a fixed and + very well-founded idea that if she does not insist on good manners nobody + else will. Babies are not always strong on the point of dignity, and + grown-up men are quite unpresentable. It is true that there are many very + polite men, but none that I ever heard of who were not either fascinating + women or obeying them. But indeed the female ideal of dignity, like the + female ideal of thrift, lies deeper and may easily be misunderstood. It + rests ultimately on a strong idea of spiritual isolation; the same that + makes women religious. They do not like being melted down; they dislike + and avoid the mob. That anonymous quality we have remarked in the club + conversation would be common impertinence in a case of ladies. I remember + an artistic and eager lady asking me in her grand green drawing-room + whether I believed in comradeship between the sexes, and why not. I was + driven back on offering the obvious and sincere answer “Because if I were + to treat you for two minutes like a comrade you would turn me out of the + house.” The only certain rule on this subject is always to deal with woman + and never with women. “Women” is a profligate word; I have used it + repeatedly in this chapter; but it always has a blackguard sound. It + smells of oriental cynicism and hedonism. Every woman is a captive queen. + But every crowd of women is only a harem broken loose. + </p> + <p> + I am not expressing my own views here, but those of nearly all the women I + have known. It is quite unfair to say that a woman hates other women + individually; but I think it would be quite true to say that she detests + them in a confused heap. And this is not because she despises her own sex, + but because she respects it; and respects especially that sanctity and + separation of each item which is represented in manners by the idea of + dignity and in morals by the idea of chastity. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0023" id="link2H_4_0023"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + V. THE COLDNESS OF CHLOE + </h2> + <p> + We hear much of the human error which accepts what is sham and what is + real. But it is worth while to remember that with unfamiliar things we + often mistake what is real for what is sham. It is true that a very young + man may think the wig of an actress is her hair. But it is equally true + that a child yet younger may call the hair of a negro his wig. Just + because the woolly savage is remote and barbaric he seems to be + unnaturally neat and tidy. Everyone must have noticed the same thing in + the fixed and almost offensive color of all unfamiliar things, tropic + birds and tropic blossoms. Tropic birds look like staring toys out of a + toy-shop. Tropic flowers simply look like artificial flowers, like things + cut out of wax. This is a deep matter, and, I think, not unconnected with + divinity; but anyhow it is the truth that when we see things for the first + time we feel instantly that they are fictive creations; we feel the finger + of God. It is only when we are thoroughly used to them and our five wits + are wearied, that we see them as wild and objectless; like the shapeless + tree-tops or the shifting cloud. It is the design in Nature that strikes + us first; the sense of the crosses and confusions in that design only + comes afterwards through experience and an almost eerie monotony. If a man + saw the stars abruptly by accident he would think them as festive and as + artificial as a firework. We talk of the folly of painting the lily; but + if we saw the lily without warning we should think that it was painted. We + talk of the devil not being so black as he is painted; but that very + phrase is a testimony to the kinship between what is called vivid and what + is called artificial. If the modern sage had only one glimpse of grass and + sky, he would say that grass was not as green as it was painted; that sky + was not as blue as it was painted. If one could see the whole universe + suddenly, it would look like a bright-colored toy, just as the South + American hornbill looks like a bright-colored toy. And so they are—both + of them, I mean. + </p> + <p> + But it was not with this aspect of the startling air of artifice about all + strange objects that I meant to deal. I mean merely, as a guide to + history, that we should not be surprised if things wrought in fashions + remote from ours seem artificial; we should convince ourselves that nine + times out of ten these things are nakedly and almost indecently honest. + You will hear men talk of the frosted classicism of Corneille or of the + powdered pomposities of the eighteenth century, but all these phrases are + very superficial. There never was an artificial epoch. There never was an + age of reason. Men were always men and women women: and their two generous + appetites always were the expression of passion and the telling of truth. + We can see something stiff and quaint in their mode of expression, just as + our descendants will see something stiff and quaint in our coarsest slum + sketch or our most naked pathological play. But men have never talked + about anything but important things; and the next force in femininity + which we have to consider can be considered best perhaps in some dusty old + volume of verses by a person of quality. + </p> + <p> + The eighteenth century is spoken of as the period of artificiality, in + externals at least; but, indeed, there may be two words about that. In + modern speech one uses artificiality as meaning indefinitely a sort of + deceit; and the eighteenth century was far too artificial to deceive. It + cultivated that completest art that does not conceal the art. Its fashions + and costumes positively revealed nature by allowing artifice; as in that + obvious instance of a barbering that frosted every head with the same + silver. It would be fantastic to call this a quaint humility that + concealed youth; but, at least, it was not one with the evil pride that + conceals old age. Under the eighteenth century fashion people did not so + much all pretend to be young, as all agree to be old. The same applies to + the most odd and unnatural of their fashions; they were freakish, but they + were not false. A lady may or may not be as red as she is painted, but + plainly she was not so black as she was patched. + </p> + <p> + But I only introduce the reader into this atmosphere of the older and + franker fictions that he may be induced to have patience for a moment with + a certain element which is very common in the decoration and literature of + that age and of the two centuries preceding it. It is necessary to mention + it in such a connection because it is exactly one of those things that + look as superficial as powder, and are really as rooted as hair. + </p> + <p> + In all the old flowery and pastoral love-songs, those of the seventeenth + and eighteenth centuries especially, you will find a perpetual reproach + against woman in the matter of her coldness; ceaseless and stale similes + that compare her eyes to northern stars, her heart to ice, or her bosom to + snow. Now most of us have always supposed these old and iterant phrases to + be a mere pattern of dead words, a thing like a cold wall-paper. Yet I + think those old cavalier poets who wrote about the coldness of Chloe had + hold of a psychological truth missed in nearly all the realistic novels of + today. Our psychological romancers perpetually represent wives as striking + terror into their husbands by rolling on the floor, gnashing their teeth, + throwing about the furniture or poisoning the coffee; all this upon some + strange fixed theory that women are what they call emotional. But in truth + the old and frigid form is much nearer to the vital fact. Most men if they + spoke with any sincerity would agree that the most terrible quality in + women, whether in friendship, courtship or marriage, was not so much being + emotional as being unemotional. + </p> + <p> + There is an awful armor of ice which may be the legitimate protection of a + more delicate organism; but whatever be the psychological explanation + there can surely be no question of the fact. The instinctive cry of the + female in anger is noli me tangere. I take this as the most obvious and at + the same time the least hackneyed instance of a fundamental quality in the + female tradition, which has tended in our time to be almost immeasurably + misunderstood, both by the cant of moralists and the cant of immoralists. + The proper name for the thing is modesty; but as we live in an age of + prejudice and must not call things by their right names, we will yield to + a more modern nomenclature and call it dignity. Whatever else it is, it is + the thing which a thousand poets and a million lovers have called the + coldness of Chloe. It is akin to the classical, and is at least the + opposite of the grotesque. And since we are talking here chiefly in types + and symbols, perhaps as good an embodiment as any of the idea may be found + in the mere fact of a woman wearing a skirt. It is highly typical of the + rabid plagiarism which now passes everywhere for emancipation, that a + little while ago it was common for an “advanced” woman to claim the right + to wear trousers; a right about as grotesque as the right to wear a false + nose. Whether female liberty is much advanced by the act of wearing a + skirt on each leg I do not know; perhaps Turkish women might offer some + information on the point. But if the western woman walks about (as it + were) trailing the curtains of the harem with her, it is quite certain + that the woven mansion is meant for a perambulating palace, not for a + perambulating prison. It is quite certain that the skirt means female + dignity, not female submission; it can be proved by the simplest of all + tests. No ruler would deliberately dress up in the recognized fetters of a + slave; no judge would appear covered with broad arrows. But when men wish + to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, + the long, trailing robes of female dignity The whole world is under + petticoat government; for even men wear petticoats when they wish to + govern. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0024" id="link2H_4_0024"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VI. THE PEDANT AND THE SAVAGE + </h2> + <p> + We say then that the female holds up with two strong arms these two + pillars of civilization; we say also that she could do neither, but for + her position; her curious position of private omnipotence, universality on + a small scale. The first element is thrift; not the destructive thrift of + the miser, but the creative thrift of the peasant; the second element is + dignity, which is but the expression of sacred personality and privacy. + Now I know the question that will be abruptly and automatically asked by + all that know the dull tricks and turns of the modern sexual quarrel. The + advanced person will at once begin to argue about whether these instincts + are inherent and inevitable in woman or whether they are merely prejudices + produced by her history and education. Now I do not propose to discuss + whether woman could now be educated out of her habits touching thrift and + dignity; and that for two excellent reasons. First it is a question which + cannot conceivably ever find any answer: that is why modern people are so + fond of it. From the nature of the case it is obviously impossible to + decide whether any of the peculiarities of civilized man have been + strictly necessary to his civilization. It is not self-evident (for + instance), that even the habit of standing upright was the only path of + human progress. There might have been a quadrupedal civilization, in which + a city gentleman put on four boots to go to the city every morning. Or + there might have been a reptilian civilization, in which he rolled up to + the office on his stomach; it is impossible to say that intelligence might + not have developed in such creatures. All we can say is that man as he is + walks upright; and that woman is something almost more upright than + uprightness. + </p> + <p> + And the second point is this: that upon the whole we rather prefer women + (nay, even men) to walk upright; so we do not waste much of our noble + lives in inventing any other way for them to walk. In short, my second + reason for not speculating upon whether woman might get rid of these + peculiarities, is that I do not want her to get rid of them; nor does she. + I will not exhaust my intelligence by inventing ways in which mankind + might unlearn the violin or forget how to ride horses; and the art of + domesticity seems to me as special and as valuable as all the ancient arts + of our race. Nor do I propose to enter at all into those formless and + floundering speculations about how woman was or is regarded in the + primitive times that we cannot remember, or in the savage countries which + we cannot understand. Even if these people segregated their women for low + or barbaric reasons it would not make our reasons barbaric; and I am + haunted with a tenacious suspicion that these people’s feelings were + really, under other forms, very much the same as ours. Some impatient + trader, some superficial missionary, walks across an island and sees the + squaw digging in the fields while the man is playing a flute; and + immediately says that the man is a mere lord of creation and the woman a + mere serf. He does not remember that he might see the same thing in half + the back gardens in Brixton, merely because women are at once more + conscientious and more impatient, while men are at once more quiescent and + more greedy for pleasure. It may often be in Hawaii simply as it is in + Hoxton. That is, the woman does not work because the man tells her to work + and she obeys. On the contrary, the woman works because she has told the + man to work and he hasn’t obeyed. I do not affirm that this is the whole + truth, but I do affirm that we have too little comprehension of the souls + of savages to know how far it is untrue. It is the same with the relations + of our hasty and surface science, with the problem of sexual dignity and + modesty. Professors find all over the world fragmentary ceremonies in + which the bride affects some sort of reluctance, hides from her husband, + or runs away from him. The professor then pompously proclaims that this is + a survival of Marriage by Capture. I wonder he never says that the veil + thrown over the bride is really a net. I gravely doubt whether women ever + were married by capture I think they pretended to be; as they do still. + </p> + <p> + It is equally obvious that these two necessary sanctities of thrift and + dignity are bound to come into collision with the wordiness, the + wastefulness, and the perpetual pleasure-seeking of masculine + companionship. Wise women allow for the thing; foolish women try to crush + it; but all women try to counteract it, and they do well. In many a home + all round us at this moment, we know that the nursery rhyme is reversed. + The queen is in the counting-house, counting out the money. The king is in + the parlor, eating bread and honey. But it must be strictly understood + that the king has captured the honey in some heroic wars. The quarrel can + be found in moldering Gothic carvings and in crabbed Greek manuscripts. In + every age, in every land, in every tribe and village, has been waged the + great sexual war between the Private House and the Public House. I have + seen a collection of mediaeval English poems, divided into sections such + as “Religious Carols,” “Drinking Songs,” and so on; and the section + headed, “Poems of Domestic Life” consisted entirely (literally, entirely) + of the complaints of husbands who were bullied by their wives. Though the + English was archaic, the words were in many cases precisely the same as + those which I have heard in the streets and public houses of Battersea, + protests on behalf of an extension of time and talk, protests against the + nervous impatience and the devouring utilitarianism of the female. Such, I + say, is the quarrel; it can never be anything but a quarrel; but the aim + of all morals and all society is to keep it a lovers’ quarrel. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0025" id="link2H_4_0025"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VII. THE MODERN SURRENDER OF WOMAN + </h2> + <p> + But in this corner called England, at this end of the century, there has + happened a strange and startling thing. Openly and to all appearance, this + ancestral conflict has silently and abruptly ended; one of the two sexes + has suddenly surrendered to the other. By the beginning of the twentieth + century, within the last few years, the woman has in public surrendered to + the man. She has seriously and officially owned that the man has been + right all along; that the public house (or Parliament) is really more + important than the private house; that politics are not (as woman had + always maintained) an excuse for pots of beer, but are a sacred solemnity + to which new female worshipers may kneel; that the talkative patriots in + the tavern are not only admirable but enviable; that talk is not a waste + of time, and therefore (as a consequence, surely) that taverns are not a + waste of money. All we men had grown used to our wives and mothers, and + grandmothers, and great aunts all pouring a chorus of contempt upon our + hobbies of sport, drink and party politics. And now comes Miss Pankhurst + with tears in her eyes, owning that all the women were wrong and all the + men were right; humbly imploring to be admitted into so much as an outer + court, from which she may catch a glimpse of those masculine merits which + her erring sisters had so thoughtlessly scorned. + </p> + <p> + Now this development naturally perturbs and even paralyzes us. Males, like + females, in the course of that old fight between the public and private + house, had indulged in overstatement and extravagance, feeling that they + must keep up their end of the see-saw. We told our wives that Parliament + had sat late on most essential business; but it never crossed our minds + that our wives would believe it. We said that everyone must have a vote in + the country; similarly our wives said that no one must have a pipe in the + drawing room. In both cases the idea was the same. “It does not matter + much, but if you let those things slide there is chaos.” We said that Lord + Huggins or Mr. Buggins was absolutely necessary to the country. We knew + quite well that nothing is necessary to the country except that the men + should be men and the women women. We knew this; we thought the women knew + it even more clearly; and we thought the women would say it. Suddenly, + without warning, the women have begun to say all the nonsense that we + ourselves hardly believed when we said it. The solemnity of politics; the + necessity of votes; the necessity of Huggins; the necessity of Buggins; + all these flow in a pellucid stream from the lips of all the suffragette + speakers. I suppose in every fight, however old, one has a vague + aspiration to conquer; but we never wanted to conquer women so completely + as this. We only expected that they might leave us a little more margin + for our nonsense; we never expected that they would accept it seriously as + sense. Therefore I am all at sea about the existing situation; I scarcely + know whether to be relieved or enraged by this substitution of the feeble + platform lecture for the forcible curtain-lecture. I am lost without the + trenchant and candid Mrs. Caudle. I really do not know what to do with the + prostrate and penitent Miss Pankhurst. This surrender of the modern woman + has taken us all so much by surprise that it is desirable to pause a + moment, and collect our wits about what she is really saying. + </p> + <p> + As I have already remarked, there is one very simple answer to all this; + these are not the modern women, but about one in two thousand of the + modern women. This fact is important to a democrat; but it is of very + little importance to the typically modern mind. Both the characteristic + modern parties believed in a government by the few; the only difference is + whether it is the Conservative few or Progressive few. It might be put, + somewhat coarsely perhaps, by saying that one believes in any minority + that is rich and the other in any minority that is mad. But in this state + of things the democratic argument obviously falls out for the moment; and + we are bound to take the prominent minority, merely because it is + prominent. Let us eliminate altogether from our minds the thousands of + women who detest this cause, and the millions of women who have hardly + heard of it. Let us concede that the English people itself is not and will + not be for a very long time within the sphere of practical politics. Let + us confine ourselves to saying that these particular women want a vote and + to asking themselves what a vote is. If we ask these ladies ourselves what + a vote is, we shall get a very vague reply. It is the only question, as a + rule, for which they are not prepared. For the truth is that they go + mainly by precedent; by the mere fact that men have votes already. So far + from being a mutinous movement, it is really a very Conservative one; it + is in the narrowest rut of the British Constitution. Let us take a little + wider and freer sweep of thought and ask ourselves what is the ultimate + point and meaning of this odd business called voting. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0026" id="link2H_4_0026"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VIII. THE BRAND OF THE FLEUR-DE-LIS + </h2> + <p> + Seemingly from the dawn of man all nations have had governments; and all + nations have been ashamed of them. Nothing is more openly fallacious than + to fancy that in ruder or simpler ages ruling, judging and punishing + appeared perfectly innocent and dignified. These things were always + regarded as the penalties of the Fall; as part of the humiliation of + mankind, as bad in themselves. That the king can do no wrong was never + anything but a legal fiction; and it is a legal fiction still. The + doctrine of Divine Right was not a piece of idealism, but rather a piece + of realism, a practical way of ruling amid the ruin of humanity; a very + pragmatist piece of faith. The religious basis of government was not so + much that people put their trust in princes, as that they did not put + their trust in any child of man. It was so with all the ugly institutions + which disfigure human history. Torture and slavery were never talked of as + good things; they were always talked of as necessary evils. A pagan spoke + of one man owning ten slaves just as a modern business man speaks of one + merchant sacking ten clerks: “It’s very horrible; but how else can society + be conducted?” A mediaeval scholastic regarded the possibility of a man + being burned to death just as a modern business man regards the + possibility of a man being starved to death: “It is a shocking torture; + but can you organize a painless world?” It is possible that a future + society may find a way of doing without the question by hunger as we have + done without the question by fire. It is equally possible, for the matter + of that, that a future society may reestablish legal torture with the + whole apparatus of rack and fagot. The most modern of countries, America, + has introduced with a vague savor of science, a method which it calls “the + third degree.” This is simply the extortion of secrets by nervous fatigue; + which is surely uncommonly close to their extortion by bodily pain. And + this is legal and scientific in America. Amateur ordinary America, of + course, simply burns people alive in broad daylight, as they did in the + Reformation Wars. But though some punishments are more inhuman than others + there is no such thing as humane punishment. As long as nineteen men claim + the right in any sense or shape to take hold of the twentieth man and make + him even mildly uncomfortable, so long the whole proceeding must be a + humiliating one for all concerned. And the proof of how poignantly men + have always felt this lies in the fact that the headsman and the hangman, + the jailors and the torturers, were always regarded not merely with fear + but with contempt; while all kinds of careless smiters, bankrupt knights + and swashbucklers and outlaws, were regarded with indulgence or even + admiration. To kill a man lawlessly was pardoned. To kill a man lawfully + was unpardonable. The most bare-faced duelist might almost brandish his + weapon. But the executioner was always masked. + </p> + <p> + This is the first essential element in government, coercion; a necessary + but not a noble element. I may remark in passing that when people say that + government rests on force they give an admirable instance of the foggy and + muddled cynicism of modernity. Government does not rest on force. + Government is force; it rests on consent or a conception of justice. A + king or a community holding a certain thing to be abnormal, evil, uses the + general strength to crush it out; the strength is his tool, but the belief + is his only sanction. You might as well say that glass is the real reason + for telescopes. But arising from whatever reason the act of government is + coercive and is burdened with all the coarse and painful qualities of + coercion. And if anyone asks what is the use of insisting on the ugliness + of this task of state violence since all mankind is condemned to employ + it, I have a simple answer to that. It would be useless to insist on it if + all humanity were condemned to it. But it is not irrelevant to insist on + its ugliness so long as half of humanity is kept out of it. + </p> + <p> + All government then is coercive; we happen to have created a government + which is not only coercive; but collective. There are only two kinds of + government, as I have already said, the despotic and the democratic. + Aristocracy is not a government, it is a riot; that most effective kind of + riot, a riot of the rich. The most intelligent apologists of aristocracy, + sophists like Burke and Nietzsche, have never claimed for aristocracy any + virtues but the virtues of a riot, the accidental virtues, courage, + variety and adventure. There is no case anywhere of aristocracy having + established a universal and applicable order, as despots and democracies + have often done; as the last Caesars created the Roman law, as the last + Jacobins created the Code Napoleon. With the first of these elementary + forms of government, that of the king or chieftain, we are not in this + matter of the sexes immediately concerned. We shall return to it later + when we remark how differently mankind has dealt with female claims in the + despotic as against the democratic field. But for the moment the essential + point is that in self-governing countries this coercion of criminals is a + collective coercion. The abnormal person is theoretically thumped by a + million fists and kicked by a million feet. If a man is flogged we all + flogged him; if a man is hanged, we all hanged him. That is the only + possible meaning of democracy, which can give any meaning to the first two + syllables and also to the last two. In this sense each citizen has the + high responsibility of a rioter. Every statute is a declaration of war, to + be backed by arms. Every tribunal is a revolutionary tribunal. In a + republic all punishment is as sacred and solemn as lynching. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0027" id="link2H_4_0027"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IX. SINCERITY AND THE GALLOWS + </h2> + <p> + When, therefore, it is said that the tradition against Female Suffrage + keeps women out of activity, social influence and citizenship, let us a + little more soberly and strictly ask ourselves what it actually does keep + her out of. It does definitely keep her out of the collective act of + coercion; the act of punishment by a mob. The human tradition does say + that, if twenty men hang a man from a tree or lamp-post, they shall be + twenty men and not women. Now I do not think any reasonable Suffragist + will deny that exclusion from this function, to say the least of it, might + be maintained to be a protection as well as a veto. No candid person will + wholly dismiss the proposition that the idea of having a Lord Chancellor + but not a Lady Chancellor may at least be connected with the idea of + having a headsman but not a headswoman, a hangman but not a hangwoman. Nor + will it be adequate to answer (as is so often answered to this contention) + that in modern civilization women would not really be required to capture, + to sentence, or to slay; that all this is done indirectly, that + specialists kill our criminals as they kill our cattle. To urge this is + not to urge the reality of the vote, but to urge its unreality. Democracy + was meant to be a more direct way of ruling, not a more indirect way; and + if we do not feel that we are all jailers, so much the worse for us, and + for the prisoners. If it is really an unwomanly thing to lock up a robber + or a tyrant, it ought to be no softening of the situation that the woman + does not feel as if she were doing the thing that she certainly is doing. + It is bad enough that men can only associate on paper who could once + associate in the street; it is bad enough that men have made a vote very + much of a fiction. It is much worse that a great class should claim the + vote be cause it is a fiction, who would be sickened by it if it were a + fact. If votes for women do not mean mobs for women they do not mean what + they were meant to mean. A woman can make a cross on a paper as well as a + man; a child could do it as well as a woman; and a chimpanzee after a few + lessons could do it as well as a child. But nobody ought to regard it + merely as making a cross on paper; everyone ought to regard it as what it + ultimately is, branding the fleur-de-lis, marking the broad arrow, signing + the death warrant. Both men and women ought to face more fully the things + they do or cause to be done; face them or leave off doing them. + </p> + <p> + On that disastrous day when public executions were abolished, private + executions were renewed and ratified, perhaps forever. Things grossly + unsuited to the moral sentiment of a society cannot be safely done in + broad daylight; but I see no reason why we should not still be roasting + heretics alive, in a private room. It is very likely (to speak in the + manner foolishly called Irish) that if there were public executions there + would be no executions. The old open-air punishments, the pillory and the + gibbet, at least fixed responsibility upon the law; and in actual practice + they gave the mob an opportunity of throwing roses as well as rotten eggs; + of crying “Hosannah” as well as “Crucify.” But I do not like the public + executioner being turned into the private executioner. I think it is a + crooked oriental, sinister sort of business, and smells of the harem and + the divan rather than of the forum and the market place. In modern times + the official has lost all the social honor and dignity of the common + hangman. He is only the bearer of the bowstring. + </p> + <p> + Here, however, I suggest a plea for a brutal publicity only in order to + emphasize the fact that it is this brutal publicity and nothing else from + which women have been excluded. I also say it to emphasize the fact that + the mere modern veiling of the brutality does not make the situation + different, unless we openly say that we are giving the suffrage, not only + because it is power but because it is not, or in other words, that women + are not so much to vote as to play voting. No suffragist, I suppose, will + take up that position; and a few suffragists will wholly deny that this + human necessity of pains and penalties is an ugly, humiliating business, + and that good motives as well as bad may have helped to keep women out of + it. More than once I have remarked in these pages that female limitations + may be the limits of a temple as well as of a prison, the disabilities of + a priest and not of a pariah. I noted it, I think, in the case of the + pontifical feminine dress. In the same way it is not evidently irrational, + if men decided that a woman, like a priest, must not be a shedder of + blood. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0028" id="link2H_4_0028"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + X. THE HIGHER ANARCHY + </h2> + <p> + But there is a further fact; forgotten also because we moderns forget that + there is a female point of view. The woman’s wisdom stands partly, not + only for a wholesome hesitation about punishment, but even for a wholesome + hesitation about absolute rules. There was something feminine and + perversely true in that phrase of Wilde’s, that people should not be + treated as the rule, but all of them as exceptions. Made by a man the + remark was a little effeminate; for Wilde did lack the masculine power of + dogma and of democratic cooperation. But if a woman had said it it would + have been simply true; a woman does treat each person as a peculiar + person. In other words, she stands for Anarchy; a very ancient and + arguable philosophy; not anarchy in the sense of having no customs in + one’s life (which is inconceivable), but anarchy in the sense of having no + rules for one’s mind. To her, almost certainly, are due all those working + traditions that cannot be found in books, especially those of education; + it was she who first gave a child a stuffed stocking for being good or + stood him in the corner for being naughty. This unclassified knowledge is + sometimes called rule of thumb and sometimes motherwit. The last phrase + suggests the whole truth, for none ever called it fatherwit. + </p> + <p> + Now anarchy is only tact when it works badly. Tact is only anarchy when it + works well. And we ought to realize that in one half of the world—the + private house—it does work well. We modern men are perpetually + forgetting that the case for clear rules and crude penalties is not + self-evident, that there is a great deal to be said for the benevolent + lawlessness of the autocrat, especially on a small scale; in short, that + government is only one side of life. The other half is called Society, in + which women are admittedly dominant. And they have always been ready to + maintain that their kingdom is better governed than ours, because (in the + logical and legal sense) it is not governed at all. “Whenever you have a + real difficulty,” they say, “when a boy is bumptious or an aunt is stingy, + when a silly girl will marry somebody, or a wicked man won’t marry + somebody, all your lumbering Roman Law and British Constitution come to a + standstill. A snub from a duchess or a slanging from a fish-wife are much + more likely to put things straight.” So, at least, rang the ancient female + challenge down the ages until the recent female capitulation. So streamed + the red standard of the higher anarchy until Miss Pankhurst hoisted the + white flag. + </p> + <p> + It must be remembered that the modern world has done deep treason to the + eternal intellect by believing in the swing of the pendulum. A man must be + dead before he swings. It has substituted an idea of fatalistic + alternation for the mediaeval freedom of the soul seeking truth. All + modern thinkers are reactionaries; for their thought is always a reaction + from what went before. When you meet a modern man he is always coming from + a place, not going to it. Thus, mankind has in nearly all places and + periods seen that there is a soul and a body as plainly as that there is a + sun and moon. But because a narrow Protestant sect called Materialists + declared for a short time that there was no soul, another narrow + Protestant sect called Christian Science is now maintaining that there is + no body. Now just in the same way the unreasonable neglect of government + by the Manchester School has produced, not a reasonable regard for + government, but an unreasonable neglect of everything else. So that to + hear people talk to-day one would fancy that every important human + function must be organized and avenged by law; that all education must be + state education, and all employment state employment; that everybody and + everything must be brought to the foot of the august and prehistoric + gibbet. But a somewhat more liberal and sympathetic examination of mankind + will convince us that the cross is even older than the gibbet, that + voluntary suffering was before and independent of compulsory; and in short + that in most important matters a man has always been free to ruin himself + if he chose. The huge fundamental function upon which all anthropology + turns, that of sex and childbirth, has never been inside the political + state, but always outside of it. The state concerned itself with the + trivial question of killing people, but wisely left alone the whole + business of getting them born. A Eugenist might indeed plausibly say that + the government is an absent-minded and inconsistent person who occupies + himself with providing for the old age of people who have never been + infants. I will not deal here in any detail with the fact that some + Eugenists have in our time made the maniacal answer that the police ought + to control marriage and birth as they control labor and death. Except for + this inhuman handful (with whom I regret to say I shall have to deal with + later) all the Eugenists I know divide themselves into two sections: + ingenious people who once meant this, and rather bewildered people who + swear they never meant it—nor anything else. But if it be conceded + (by a breezier estimate of men) that they do mostly desire marriage to + remain free from government, it does not follow that they desire it to + remain free from everything. If man does not control the marriage market + by law, is it controlled at all? Surely the answer is broadly that man + does not control the marriage market by law, but the woman does control it + by sympathy and prejudice. There was until lately a law forbidding a man + to marry his deceased wife’s sister; yet the thing happened constantly. + There was no law forbidding a man to marry his deceased wife’s + scullery-maid; yet it did not happen nearly so often. It did not happen + because the marriage market is managed in the spirit and by the authority + of women; and women are generally conservative where classes are + concerned. It is the same with that system of exclusiveness by which + ladies have so often contrived (as by a process of elimination) to prevent + marriages that they did not want and even sometimes procure those they + did. There is no need of the broad arrow and the fleur-de lis, the + turnkey’s chains or the hangman’s halter. You need not strangle a man if + you can silence him. The branded shoulder is less effective and final than + the cold shoulder; and you need not trouble to lock a man in when you can + lock him out. + </p> + <p> + The same, of course, is true of the colossal architecture which we call + infant education: an architecture reared wholly by women. Nothing can ever + overcome that one enormous sex superiority, that even the male child is + born closer to his mother than to his father. No one, staring at that + frightful female privilege, can quite believe in the equality of the + sexes. Here and there we read of a girl brought up like a tom-boy; but + every boy is brought up like a tame girl. The flesh and spirit of + femininity surround him from the first like the four walls of a house; and + even the vaguest or most brutal man has been womanized by being born. Man + that is born of a woman has short days and full of misery; but nobody can + picture the obscenity and bestial tragedy that would belong to such a + monster as man that was born of a man. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0029" id="link2H_4_0029"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XI. THE QUEEN AND THE SUFFRAGETTES + </h2> + <p> + But, indeed, with this educational matter I must of necessity embroil + myself later. The fourth section of discussion is supposed to be about the + child, but I think it will be mostly about the mother. In this place I + have systematically insisted on the large part of life that is governed, + not by man with his vote, but by woman with her voice, or more often, with + her horrible silence. Only one thing remains to be added. In a sprawling + and explanatory style has been traced out the idea that government is + ultimately coercion, that coercion must mean cold definitions as well as + cruel consequences, and that therefore there is something to be said for + the old human habit of keeping one-half of humanity out of so harsh and + dirty a business. But the case is stronger still. + </p> + <p> + Voting is not only coercion, but collective coercion. I think Queen + Victoria would have been yet more popular and satisfying if she had never + signed a death warrant. I think Queen Elizabeth would have stood out as + more solid and splendid in history if she had not earned (among those who + happen to know her history) the nickname of Bloody Bess. I think, in + short, that the great historic woman is more herself when she is + persuasive rather than coercive. But I feel all mankind behind me when I + say that if a woman has this power it should be despotic power—not + democratic power. There is a much stronger historic argument for giving + Miss Pankhurst a throne than for giving her a vote. She might have a + crown, or at least a coronet, like so many of her supporters; for these + old powers are purely personal and therefore female. Miss Pankhurst as a + despot might be as virtuous as Queen Victoria, and she certainly would + find it difficult to be as wicked as Queen Bess, but the point is that, + good or bad, she would be irresponsible—she would not be governed by + a rule and by a ruler. There are only two ways of governing: by a rule and + by a ruler. And it is seriously true to say of a woman, in education and + domesticity, that the freedom of the autocrat appears to be necessary to + her. She is never responsible until she is irresponsible. In case this + sounds like an idle contradiction, I confidently appeal to the cold facts + of history. Almost every despotic or oligarchic state has admitted women + to its privileges. Scarcely one democratic state has ever admitted them to + its rights The reason is very simple: that something female is endangered + much more by the violence of the crowd. In short, one Pankhurst is an + exception, but a thousand Pankhursts are a nightmare, a Bacchic orgie, a + Witches Sabbath. For in all legends men have thought of women as sublime + separately but horrible in a herd. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0030" id="link2H_4_0030"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XII. THE MODERN SLAVE + </h2> + <p> + Now I have only taken the test case of Female Suffrage because it is + topical and concrete; it is not of great moment for me as a political + proposal. I can quite imagine anyone substantially agreeing with my view + of woman as universalist and autocrat in a limited area; and still + thinking that she would be none the worse for a ballot paper. The real + question is whether this old ideal of woman as the great amateur is + admitted or not. There are many modern things which threaten it much more + than suffragism; notably the increase of self-supporting women, even in + the most severe or the most squalid employments. If there be something + against nature in the idea of a horde of wild women governing, there is + something truly intolerable in the idea of a herd of tame women being + governed. And there are elements in human psychology that make this + situation particularly poignant or ignominous. The ugly exactitudes of + business, the bells and clocks the fixed hours and rigid departments, were + all meant for the male: who, as a rule, can only do one thing and can only + with the greatest difficulty be induced to do that. If clerks do not try + to shirk their work, our whole great commercial system breaks down. It is + breaking down, under the inroad of women who are adopting the + unprecedented and impossible course of taking the system seriously and + doing it well. Their very efficiency is the definition of their slavery. + It is generally a very bad sign when one is trusted very much by one’s + employers. And if the evasive clerks have a look of being blackguards, the + earnest ladies are often something very like blacklegs. But the more + immediate point is that the modern working woman bears a double burden, + for she endures both the grinding officialism of the new office and the + distracting scrupulosity of the old home. Few men understand what + conscientiousness is. They understand duty, which generally means one + duty; but conscientiousness is the duty of the universalist. It is limited + by no work days or holidays; it is a lawless, limitless, devouring + decorum. If women are to be subjected to the dull rule of commerce, we + must find some way of emancipating them from the wild rule of conscience. + But I rather fancy you will find it easier to leave the conscience and + knock off the commerce. As it is, the modern clerk or secretary exhausts + herself to put one thing straight in the ledger and then goes home to put + everything straight in the house. + </p> + <p> + This condition (described by some as emancipated) is at least the reverse + of my ideal. I would give woman, not more rights, but more privileges. + Instead of sending her to seek such freedom as notoriously prevails in + banks and factories, I would design specially a house in which she can be + free. And with that we come to the last point of all; the point at which + we can perceive the needs of women, like the rights of men, stopped and + falsified by something which it is the object of this book to expose. + </p> + <p> + The Feminist (which means, I think, one who dislikes the chief feminine + characteristics) has heard my loose monologue, bursting all the time with + one pent-up protest. At this point he will break out and say, “But what + are we to do? There is modern commerce and its clerks; there is the modern + family with its unmarried daughters; specialism is expected everywhere; + female thrift and conscientiousness are demanded and supplied. What does + it matter whether we should in the abstract prefer the old human and + housekeeping woman; we might prefer the Garden of Eden. But since women + have trades they ought to have trades unions. Since women work in + factories, they ought to vote on factory-acts. If they are unmarried they + must be commercial; if they are commercial they must be political. We must + have new rules for a new world—even if it be not a better one.” I + said to a Feminist once: “The question is not whether women are good + enough for votes: it is whether votes are good enough for women.” He only + answered: “Ah, you go and say that to the women chain-makers on Cradley + Heath.” + </p> + <p> + Now this is the attitude which I attack. It is the huge heresy of + Precedent. It is the view that because we have got into a mess we must + grow messier to suit it; that because we have taken a wrong turn some time + ago we must go forward and not backwards; that because we have lost our + way we must lose our map also; and because we have missed our ideal, we + must forget it. “There are numbers of excellent people who do not think + votes unfeminine; and there may be enthusiasts for our beautiful modern + industry who do not think factories unfeminine.” But if these things are + unfeminine it is no answer to say that they fit into each other. I am not + satisfied with the statement that my daughter must have unwomanly powers + because she has unwomanly wrongs. Industrial soot and political printer’s + ink are two blacks which do not make a white. Most of the Feminists would + probably agree with me that womanhood is under shameful tyranny in the + shops and mills. But I want to destroy the tyranny. They want to destroy + womanhood. That is the only difference. + </p> + <p> + Whether we can recover the clear vision of woman as a tower with many + windows, the fixed eternal feminine from which her sons, the specialists, + go forth; whether we can preserve the tradition of a central thing which + is even more human than democracy and even more practical than politics; + whether, in word, it is possible to re-establish the family, freed from + the filthy cynicism and cruelty of the commercial epoch, I shall discuss + in the last section of this book. But meanwhile do not talk to me about + the poor chain-makers on Cradley Heath. I know all about them and what + they are doing. They are engaged in a very wide-spread and flourishing + industry of the present age. They are making chains. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART4" id="link2H_PART4"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART FOUR. EDUCATION: OR THE MISTAKE ABOUT THE CHILD + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0032" id="link2H_4_0032"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. THE CALVINISM OF TO-DAY + </h2> + <p> + When I wrote a little volume on my friend Mr. Bernard Shaw, it is needless + to say that he reviewed it. I naturally felt tempted to answer and to + criticise the book from the same disinterested and impartial standpoint + from which Mr. Shaw had criticised the subject of it. I was not withheld + by any feeling that the joke was getting a little obvious; for an obvious + joke is only a successful joke; it is only the unsuccessful clowns who + comfort themselves with being subtle. The real reason why I did not answer + Mr. Shaw’s amusing attack was this: that one simple phrase in it + surrendered to me all that I have ever wanted, or could want from him to + all eternity. I told Mr. Shaw (in substance) that he was a charming and + clever fellow, but a common Calvinist. He admitted that this was true, and + there (so far as I am concerned) is an end of the matter. He said that, of + course, Calvin was quite right in holding that “if once a man is born it + is too late to damn or save him.” That is the fundamental and subterranean + secret; that is the last lie in hell. + </p> + <p> + The difference between Puritanism and Catholicism is not about whether + some priestly word or gesture is significant and sacred. It is about + whether any word or gesture is significant and sacred. To the Catholic + every other daily act is dramatic dedication to the service of good or of + evil. To the Calvinist no act can have that sort of solemnity, because the + person doing it has been dedicated from eternity, and is merely filling up + his time until the crack of doom. The difference is something subtler than + plum-puddings or private theatricals; the difference is that to a + Christian of my kind this short earthly life is intensely thrilling and + precious; to a Calvinist like Mr. Shaw it is confessedly automatic and + uninteresting. To me these threescore years and ten are the battle. To the + Fabian Calvinist (by his own confession) they are only a long procession + of the victors in laurels and the vanquished in chains. To me earthly life + is the drama; to him it is the epilogue. Shavians think about the embryo; + Spiritualists about the ghost; Christians about the man. It is as well to + have these things clear. + </p> + <p> + Now all our sociology and eugenics and the rest of it are not so much + materialist as confusedly Calvinist, they are chiefly occupied in + educating the child before he exists. The whole movement is full of a + singular depression about what one can do with the populace, combined with + a strange disembodied gayety about what may be done with posterity. These + essential Calvinists have, indeed, abolished some of the more liberal and + universal parts of Calvinism, such as the belief in an intellectual design + or an everlasting happiness. But though Mr. Shaw and his friends admit it + is a superstition that a man is judged after death, they stick to their + central doctrine, that he is judged before he is born. + </p> + <p> + In consequence of this atmosphere of Calvinism in the cultured world of + to-day, it is apparently necessary to begin all arguments on education + with some mention of obstetrics and the unknown world of the prenatal. All + I shall have to say, however, on heredity will be very brief, because I + shall confine myself to what is known about it, and that is very nearly + nothing. It is by no means self-evident, but it is a current modern dogma, + that nothing actually enters the body at birth except a life derived and + compounded from the parents. There is at least quite as much to be said + for the Christian theory that an element comes from God, or the Buddhist + theory that such an element comes from previous existences. But this is + not a religious work, and I must submit to those very narrow intellectual + limits which the absence of theology always imposes. Leaving the soul on + one side, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the human character + in the first case comes wholly from parents; and then let us curtly state + our knowledge rather than our ignorance. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0033" id="link2H_4_0033"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. THE TRIBAL TERROR + </h2> + <p> + Popular science, like that of Mr. Blatchford, is in this matter as mild as + old wives’ tales. Mr. Blatchford, with colossal simplicity, explained to + millions of clerks and workingmen that the mother is like a bottle of blue + beads and the father is like a bottle of yellow beads; and so the child is + like a bottle of mixed blue beads and yellow. He might just as well have + said that if the father has two legs and the mother has two legs, the + child will have four legs. Obviously it is not a question of simple + addition or simple division of a number of hard detached “qualities,” like + beads. It is an organic crisis and transformation of the most mysterious + sort; so that even if the result is unavoidable, it will still be + unexpected. It is not like blue beads mixed with yellow beads; it is like + blue mixed with yellow; the result of which is green, a totally novel and + unique experience, a new emotion. A man might live in a complete cosmos of + blue and yellow, like the “Edinburgh Review”; a man might never have seen + anything but a golden cornfield and a sapphire sky; and still he might + never have had so wild a fancy as green. If you paid a sovereign for a + bluebell; if you spilled the mustard on the blue-books; if you married a + canary to a blue baboon; there is nothing in any of these wild weddings + that contains even a hint of green. Green is not a mental combination, + like addition; it is a physical result like birth. So, apart from the fact + that nobody ever really understands parents or children either, yet even + if we could understand the parents, we could not make any conjecture about + the children. Each time the force works in a different way; each time the + constituent colors combine into a different spectacle. A girl may actually + inherit her ugliness from her mother’s good looks. A boy may actually get + his weakness from his father’s strength. Even if we admit it is really a + fate, for us it must remain a fairy tale. Considered in regard to its + causes, the Calvinists and materialists may be right or wrong; we leave + them their dreary debate. But considered in regard to its results there is + no doubt about it. The thing is always a new color; a strange star. Every + birth is as lonely as a miracle. Every child is as uninvited as a + monstrosity. + </p> + <p> + On all such subjects there is no science, but only a sort of ardent + ignorance; and nobody has ever been able to offer any theories of moral + heredity which justified themselves in the only scientific sense; that is + that one could calculate on them beforehand. There are six cases, say, of + a grandson having the same twitch of mouth or vice of character as his + grandfather; or perhaps there are sixteen cases, or perhaps sixty. But + there are not two cases, there is not one case, there are no cases at all, + of anybody betting half a crown that the grandfather will have a grandson + with the twitch or the vice. In short, we deal with heredity as we deal + with omens, affinities and the fulfillment of dreams. The things do + happen, and when they happen we record them; but not even a lunatic ever + reckons on them. Indeed, heredity, like dreams and omens, is a barbaric + notion; that is, not necessarily an untrue, but a dim, groping and + unsystematized notion. A civilized man feels himself a little more free + from his family. Before Christianity these tales of tribal doom occupied + the savage north; and since the Reformation and the revolt against + Christianity (which is the religion of a civilized freedom) savagery is + slowly creeping back in the form of realistic novels and problem plays. + The curse of Rougon-Macquart is as heathen and superstitious as the curse + of Ravenswood; only not so well written. But in this twilight barbaric + sense the feeling of a racial fate is not irrational, and may be allowed + like a hundred other half emotions that make life whole. The only + essential of tragedy is that one should take it lightly. But even when the + barbarian deluge rose to its highest in the madder novels of Zola (such as + that called “The Human Beast”, a gross libel on beasts as well as + humanity), even then the application of the hereditary idea to practice is + avowedly timid and fumbling. The students of heredity are savages in this + vital sense; that they stare back at marvels, but they dare not stare + forward to schemes. In practice no one is mad enough to legislate or + educate upon dogmas of physical inheritance; and even the language of the + thing is rarely used except for special modern purposes, such as the + endowment of research or the oppression of the poor. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0034" id="link2H_4_0034"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. THE TRICKS OF ENVIRONMENT + </h2> + <p> + After all the modern clatter of Calvinism, therefore, it is only with the + born child that anybody dares to deal; and the question is not eugenics + but education. Or again, to adopt that rather tiresome terminology of + popular science, it is not a question of heredity but of environment. I + will not needlessly complicate this question by urging at length that + environment also is open to some of the objections and hesitations which + paralyze the employment of heredity. I will merely suggest in passing that + even about the effect of environment modern people talk much too + cheerfully and cheaply. The idea that surroundings will mold a man is + always mixed up with the totally different idea that they will mold him in + one particular way. To take the broadest case, landscape no doubt affects + the soul; but how it affects it is quite another matter. To be born among + pine-trees might mean loving pine-trees. It might mean loathing + pine-trees. It might quite seriously mean never having seen a pine-tree. + Or it might mean any mixture of these or any degree of any of them. So + that the scientific method here lacks a little in precision. I am not + speaking without the book; on the contrary, I am speaking with the blue + book, with the guide-book and the atlas. It may be that the Highlanders + are poetical because they inhabit mountains; but are the Swiss prosaic + because they inhabit mountains? It may be the Swiss have fought for + freedom because they had hills; did the Dutch fight for freedom because + they hadn’t? Personally I should think it quite likely. Environment might + work negatively as well as positively. The Swiss may be sensible, not in + spite of their wild skyline, but be cause of their wild skyline. The + Flemings may be fantastic artists, not in spite of their dull skyline, but + because of it. + </p> + <p> + I only pause on this parenthesis to show that, even in matters admittedly + within its range, popular science goes a great deal too fast, and drops + enormous links of logic. Nevertheless, it remains the working reality that + what we have to deal with in the case of children is, for all practical + purposes, environment; or, to use the older word, education. When all such + deductions are made, education is at least a form of will-worship; not of + cowardly fact-worship; it deals with a department that we can control; it + does not merely darken us with the barbarian pessimism of Zola and the + heredity-hunt. We shall certainly make fools of ourselves; that is what is + meant by philosophy. But we shall not merely make beasts of ourselves; + which is the nearest popular definition for merely following the laws of + Nature and cowering under the vengeance of the flesh. Education contains + much moonshine; but not of the sort that makes mere mooncalves and idiots + the slaves of a silver magnet, the one eye of the world. In this decent + arena there are fads, but not frenzies. Doubtless we shall often find a + mare’s nest; but it will not always be the nightmare’s. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0035" id="link2H_4_0035"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. THE TRUTH ABOUT EDUCATION + </h2> + <p> + When a man is asked to write down what he really thinks on education, a + certain gravity grips and stiffens his soul, which might be mistaken by + the superficial for disgust. If it be really true that men sickened of + sacred words and wearied of theology, if this largely unreasoning + irritation against “dogma” did arise out of some ridiculous excess of such + things among priests in the past, then I fancy we must be laying up a fine + crop of cant for our descendants to grow tired of. Probably the word + “education” will some day seem honestly as old and objectless as the word + “justification” now seems in a Puritan folio. Gibbon thought it + frightfully funny that people should have fought about the difference + between the “Homoousion” and the “Homoiousion.” The time will come when + somebody will laugh louder to think that men thundered against Sectarian + Education and also against Secular Education; that men of prominence and + position actually denounced the schools for teaching a creed and also for + not teaching a faith. The two Greek words in Gibbon look rather alike; but + they really mean quite different things. Faith and creed do not look + alike, but they mean exactly the same thing. Creed happens to be the Latin + for faith. + </p> + <p> + Now having read numberless newspaper articles on education, and even + written a good many of them, and having heard deafening and indeterminate + discussion going on all around me almost ever since I was born, about + whether religion was part of education, about whether hygiene was an + essential of education, about whether militarism was inconsistent with + true education, I naturally pondered much on this recurring substantive, + and I am ashamed to say that it was comparatively late in life that I saw + the main fact about it. + </p> + <p> + Of course, the main fact about education is that there is no such thing. + It does not exist, as theology or soldiering exist. Theology is a word + like geology, soldiering is a word like soldering; these sciences may be + healthy or no as hobbies; but they deal with stone and kettles, with + definite things. But education is not a word like geology or kettles. + Education is a word like “transmission” or “inheritance”; it is not an + object, but a method. It must mean the conveying of certain facts, views + or qualities, to the last baby born. They might be the most trivial facts + or the most preposterous views or the most offensive qualities; but if + they are handed on from one generation to another they are education. + Education is not a thing like theology, it is not an inferior or superior + thing; it is not a thing in the same category of terms. Theology and + education are to each other like a love-letter to the General Post Office. + Mr. Fagin was quite as educational as Dr. Strong; in practice probably + more educational. It is giving something—perhaps poison. Education + is tradition, and tradition (as its name implies) can be treason. + </p> + <p> + This first truth is frankly banal; but it is so perpetually ignored in our + political prosing that it must be made plain. A little boy in a little + house, son of a little tradesman, is taught to eat his breakfast, to take + his medicine, to love his country, to say his prayers, and to wear his + Sunday clothes. Obviously Fagin, if he found such a boy, would teach him + to drink gin, to lie, to betray his country, to blaspheme and to wear + false whiskers. But so also Mr. Salt the vegetarian would abolish the + boy’s breakfast; Mrs. Eddy would throw away his medicine; Count Tolstoi + would rebuke him for loving his country; Mr. Blatchford would stop his + prayers, and Mr. Edward Carpenter would theoretically denounce Sunday + clothes, and perhaps all clothes. I do not defend any of these advanced + views, not even Fagin’s. But I do ask what, between the lot of them, has + become of the abstract entity called education. It is not (as commonly + supposed) that the tradesman teaches education plus Christianity; Mr. + Salt, education plus vegetarianism; Fagin, education plus crime. The truth + is, that there is nothing in common at all between these teachers, except + that they teach. In short, the only thing they share is the one thing they + profess to dislike: the general idea of authority. It is quaint that + people talk of separating dogma from education. Dogma is actually the only + thing that cannot be separated from education. It is education. A teacher + who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0036" id="link2H_4_0036"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + V. AN EVIL CRY + </h2> + <p> + The fashionable fallacy is that by education we can give people something + that we have not got. To hear people talk one would think it was some sort + of magic chemistry, by which, out of a laborious hotchpotch of hygienic + meals, baths, breathing exercises, fresh air and freehand drawing, we can + produce something splendid by accident; we can create what we cannot + conceive. These pages have, of course, no other general purpose than to + point out that we cannot create anything good until we have conceived it. + It is odd that these people, who in the matter of heredity are so sullenly + attached to law, in the matter of environment seem almost to believe in + miracle. They insist that nothing but what was in the bodies of the + parents can go to make the bodies of the children. But they seem somehow + to think that things can get into the heads of the children which were not + in the heads of the parents, or, indeed, anywhere else. + </p> + <p> + There has arisen in this connection a foolish and wicked cry typical of + the confusion. I mean the cry, “Save the children.” It is, of course, part + of that modern morbidity that insists on treating the State (which is the + home of man) as a sort of desperate expedient in time of panic. This + terrified opportunism is also the origin of the Socialist and other + schemes. Just as they would collect and share all the food as men do in a + famine, so they would divide the children from their fathers, as men do in + a shipwreck. That a human community might conceivably not be in a + condition of famine or shipwreck never seems to cross their minds. This + cry of “Save the children” has in it the hateful implication that it is + impossible to save the fathers; in other words, that many millions of + grown-up, sane, responsible and self-supporting Europeans are to be + treated as dirt or debris and swept away out of the discussion; called + dipsomaniacs because they drink in public houses instead of private + houses; called unemployables because nobody knows how to get them work; + called dullards if they still adhere to conventions, and called loafers if + they still love liberty. Now I am concerned, first and last, to maintain + that unless you can save the fathers, you cannot save the children; that + at present we cannot save others, for we cannot save ourselves. We cannot + teach citizenship if we are not citizens; we cannot free others if we have + forgotten the appetite of freedom. Education is only truth in a state of + transmission; and how can we pass on truth if it has never come into our + hand? Thus we find that education is of all the cases the clearest for our + general purpose. It is vain to save children; for they cannot remain + children. By hypothesis we are teaching them to be men; and how can it be + so simple to teach an ideal manhood to others if it is so vain and + hopeless to find one for ourselves? + </p> + <p> + I know that certain crazy pedants have attempted to counter this + difficulty by maintaining that education is not instruction at all, does + not teach by authority at all. They present the process as coming, not + from the outside, from the teacher, but entirely from inside the boy. + Education, they say, is the Latin for leading out or drawing out the + dormant faculties of each person. Somewhere far down in the dim boyish + soul is a primordial yearning to learn Greek accents or to wear clean + collars; and the schoolmaster only gently and tenderly liberates this + imprisoned purpose. Sealed up in the newborn babe are the intrinsic + secrets of how to eat asparagus and what was the date of Bannockburn. The + educator only draws out the child’s own unapparent love of long division; + only leads out the child’s slightly veiled preference for milk pudding to + tarts. I am not sure that I believe in the derivation; I have heard the + disgraceful suggestion that “educator,” if applied to a Roman + schoolmaster, did not mean leading our young functions into freedom; but + only meant taking out little boys for a walk. But I am much more certain + that I do not agree with the doctrine; I think it would be about as sane + to say that the baby’s milk comes from the baby as to say that the baby’s + educational merits do. There is, indeed, in each living creature a + collection of forces and functions; but education means producing these in + particular shapes and training them to particular purposes, or it means + nothing at all. Speaking is the most practical instance of the whole + situation. You may indeed “draw out” squeals and grunts from the child by + simply poking him and pulling him about, a pleasant but cruel pastime to + which many psychologists are addicted. But you will wait and watch very + patiently indeed before you draw the English language out of him. That you + have got to put into him; and there is an end of the matter. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0037" id="link2H_4_0037"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VI. AUTHORITY THE UNAVOIDABLE + </h2> + <p> + But the important point here is only that you cannot anyhow get rid of + authority in education; it is not so much (as poor Conservatives say) that + parental authority ought to be preserved, as that it cannot be destroyed. + Mr. Bernard Shaw once said that he hated the idea of forming a child’s + mind. In that case Mr. Bernard Shaw had better hang himself; for he hates + something inseparable from human life. I only mentioned educere and the + drawing out of the faculties in order to point out that even this mental + trick does not avoid the inevitable idea of parental or scholastic + authority. The educator drawing out is just as arbitrary and coercive as + the instructor pouring in; for he draws out what he chooses. He decides + what in the child shall be developed and what shall not be developed. He + does not (I suppose) draw out the neglected faculty of forgery. He does + not (so far at least) lead out, with timid steps, a shy talent for + torture. The only result of all this pompous and precise distinction + between the educator and the instructor is that the instructor pokes where + he likes and the educator pulls where he likes. Exactly the same + intellectual violence is done to the creature who is poked and pulled. Now + we must all accept the responsibility of this intellectual violence. + Education is violent; because it is creative. It is creative because it is + human. It is as reckless as playing on the fiddle; as dogmatic as drawing + a picture; as brutal as building a house. In short, it is what all human + action is; it is an interference with life and growth. After that it is a + trifling and even a jocular question whether we say of this tremendous + tormentor, the artist Man, that he puts things into us like an apothecary, + or draws things out of us, like a dentist. + </p> + <p> + The point is that Man does what he likes. He claims the right to take his + mother Nature under his control; he claims the right to make his child the + Superman, in his image. Once flinch from this creative authority of man, + and the whole courageous raid which we call civilization wavers and falls + to pieces. Now most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that + we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to + endure responsibilities. And Mr. Shaw and such people are especially + shrinking from that awful and ancestral responsibility to which our + fathers committed us when they took the wild step of becoming men. I mean + the responsibility of affirming the truth of our human tradition and + handing it on with a voice of authority, an unshaken voice. That is the + one eternal education; to be sure enough that something is true that you + dare to tell it to a child. From this high audacious duty the moderns are + fleeing on every side; and the only excuse for them is, (of course,) that + their modern philosophies are so half-baked and hypothetical that they + cannot convince themselves enough to convince even a newborn babe. This, + of course, is connected with the decay of democracy; and is somewhat of a + separate subject. Suffice it to say here that when I say that we should + instruct our children, I mean that we should do it, not that Mr. Sully or + Professor Earl Barnes should do it. The trouble in too many of our modern + schools is that the State, being controlled so specially by the few, + allows cranks and experiments to go straight to the schoolroom when they + have never passed through the Parliament, the public house, the private + house, the church, or the marketplace. Obviously, it ought to be the + oldest things that are taught to the youngest people; the assured and + experienced truths that are put first to the baby. But in a school to-day + the baby has to submit to a system that is younger than himself. The + flopping infant of four actually has more experience, and has weathered + the world longer, than the dogma to which he is made to submit. Many a + school boasts of having the last ideas in education, when it has not even + the first idea; for the first idea is that even innocence, divine as it + is, may learn something from experience. But this, as I say, is all due to + the mere fact that we are managed by a little oligarchy; my system + presupposes that men who govern themselves will govern their children. + To-day we all use Popular Education as meaning education of the people. I + wish I could use it as meaning education by the people. + </p> + <p> + The urgent point at present is that these expansive educators do not avoid + the violence of authority an inch more than the old school masters. Nay, + it might be maintained that they avoid it less. The old village + schoolmaster beat a boy for not learning grammar and sent him out into the + playground to play anything he liked; or at nothing, if he liked that + better. The modern scientific schoolmaster pursues him into the playground + and makes him play at cricket, because exercise is so good for the health. + The modern Dr. Busby is a doctor of medicine as well as a doctor of + divinity. He may say that the good of exercise is self-evident; but he + must say it, and say it with authority. It cannot really be self-evident + or it never could have been compulsory. But this is in modern practice a + very mild case. In modern practice the free educationists forbid far more + things than the old-fashioned educationists. A person with a taste for + paradox (if any such shameless creature could exist) might with some + plausibility maintain concerning all our expansion since the failure of + Luther’s frank paganism and its replacement by Calvin’s Puritanism, that + all this expansion has not been an expansion, but the closing in of a + prison, so that less and less beautiful and humane things have been + permitted. The Puritans destroyed images; the Rationalists forbade fairy + tales. Count Tostoi practically issued one of his papal encyclicals + against music; and I have heard of modern educationists who forbid + children to play with tin soldiers. I remember a meek little madman who + came up to me at some Socialist soiree or other, and asked me to use my + influence (have I any influence?) against adventure stories for boys. It + seems they breed an appetite for blood. But never mind that; one must keep + one’s temper in this madhouse. I need only insist here that these things, + even if a just deprivation, are a deprivation. I do not deny that the old + vetoes and punishments were often idiotic and cruel; though they are much + more so in a country like England (where in practice only a rich man + decrees the punishment and only a poor man receives it) than in countries + with a clearer popular tradition—such as Russia. In Russia flogging + is often inflicted by peasants on a peasant. In modern England flogging + can only in practice be inflicted by a gentleman on a very poor man. Thus + only a few days ago as I write a small boy (a son of the poor, of course) + was sentenced to flogging and imprisonment for five years for having + picked up a small piece of coal which the experts value at 5d. I am + entirely on the side of such liberals and humanitarians as have protested + against this almost bestial ignorance about boys. But I do think it a + little unfair that these humanitarians, who excuse boys for being robbers, + should denounce them for playing at robbers. I do think that those who + understand a guttersnipe playing with a piece of coal might, by a sudden + spurt of imagination, understand him playing with a tin soldier. To sum it + up in one sentence: I think my meek little madman might have understood + that there is many a boy who would rather be flogged, and unjustly + flogged, than have his adventure story taken away. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0038" id="link2H_4_0038"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VII. THE HUMILITY OF MRS. GRUNDY + </h2> + <p> + In short, the new education is as harsh as the old, whether or no it is as + high. The freest fad, as much as the strictest formula, is stiff with + authority. It is because the humane father thinks soldiers wrong that they + are forbidden; there is no pretense, there can be no pretense, that the + boy would think so. The average boy’s impression certainly would be simply + this: “If your father is a Methodist you must not play with soldiers on + Sunday. If your father is a Socialist you must not play with them even on + week days.” All educationists are utterly dogmatic and authoritarian. You + cannot have free education; for if you left a child free you would not + educate him at all. Is there, then, no distinction or difference between + the most hide-bound conventionalists and the most brilliant and bizarre + innovators? Is there no difference between the heaviest heavy father and + the most reckless and speculative maiden aunt? Yes; there is. The + difference is that the heavy father, in his heavy way, is a democrat. He + does not urge a thing merely because to his fancy it should be done; but, + because (in his own admirable republican formula) “Everybody does it.” The + conventional authority does claim some popular mandate; the unconventional + authority does not. The Puritan who forbids soldiers on Sunday is at least + expressing Puritan opinion; not merely his own opinion. He is not a + despot; he is a democracy, a tyrannical democracy, a dingy and local + democracy perhaps; but one that could do and has done the two ultimate + virile things—fight and appeal to God. But the veto of the new + educationist is like the veto of the House of Lords; it does not pretend + to be representative. These innovators are always talking about the + blushing modesty of Mrs. Grundy. I do not know whether Mrs. Grundy is more + modest than they are; but I am sure she is more humble. + </p> + <p> + But there is a further complication. The more anarchic modern may again + attempt to escape the dilemma by saying that education should only be an + enlargement of the mind, an opening of all the organs of receptivity. + Light (he says) should be brought into darkness; blinded and thwarted + existences in all our ugly corners should merely be permitted to perceive + and expand; in short, enlightenment should be shed over darkest London. + Now here is just the trouble; that, in so far as this is involved, there + is no darkest London. London is not dark at all; not even at night. We + have said that if education is a solid substance, then there is none of + it. We may now say that if education is an abstract expansion there is no + lack of it. There is far too much of it. In fact, there is nothing else. + </p> + <p> + There are no uneducated people. Everybody in England is educated; only + most people are educated wrong. The state schools were not the first + schools, but among the last schools to be established; and London had been + educating Londoners long before the London School Board. The error is a + highly practical one. It is persistently assumed that unless a child is + civilized by the established schools, he must remain a barbarian. I wish + he did. Every child in London becomes a highly civilized person. But here + are so many different civilizations, most of them born tired. Anyone will + tell you that the trouble with the poor is not so much that the old are + still foolish, but rather that the young are already wise. Without going + to school at all, the gutter-boy would be educated. Without going to + school at all, he would be over-educated. The real object of our schools + should be not so much to suggest complexity as solely to restore + simplicity. You will hear venerable idealists declare we must make war on + the ignorance of the poor; but, indeed, we have rather to make war on + their knowledge. Real educationists have to resist a kind of roaring + cataract of culture. The truant is being taught all day. If the children + do not look at the large letters in the spelling-book, they need only walk + outside and look at the large letters on the poster. If they do not care + for the colored maps provided by the school, they can gape at the colored + maps provided by the Daily Mail. If they tire of electricity, they can + take to electric trams. If they are unmoved by music, they can take to + drink. If they will not work so as to get a prize from their school, they + may work to get a prize from Prizy Bits. If they cannot learn enough about + law and citizenship to please the teacher, they learn enough about them to + avoid the policeman. If they will not learn history forwards from the + right end in the history books, they will learn it backwards from the + wrong end in the party newspapers. And this is the tragedy of the whole + affair: that the London poor, a particularly quick-witted and civilized + class, learn everything tail foremost, learn even what is right in the way + of what is wrong. They do not see the first principles of law in a law + book; they only see its last results in the police news. They do not see + the truths of politics in a general survey. They only see the lies of + politics, at a General Election. + </p> + <p> + But whatever be the pathos of the London poor, it has nothing to do with + being uneducated. So far from being without guidance, they are guided + constantly, earnestly, excitedly; only guided wrong. The poor are not at + all neglected, they are merely oppressed; nay, rather they are persecuted. + There are no people in London who are not appealed to by the rich; the + appeals of the rich shriek from every hoarding and shout from every + hustings. For it should always be remembered that the queer, abrupt + ugliness of our streets and costumes are not the creation of democracy, + but of aristocracy. The House of Lords objected to the Embankment being + disfigured by trams. But most of the rich men who disfigure the + street-walls with their wares are actually in the House of Lords. The + peers make the country seats beautiful by making the town streets hideous. + This, however, is parenthetical. The point is, that the poor in London are + not left alone, but rather deafened and bewildered with raucous and + despotic advice. They are not like sheep without a shepherd. They are more + like one sheep whom twenty-seven shepherds are shouting at. All the + newspapers, all the new advertisements, all the new medicines and new + theologies, all the glare and blare of the gas and brass of modern times—it + is against these that the national school must bear up if it can. I will + not question that our elementary education is better than barbaric + ignorance. But there is no barbaric ignorance. I do not doubt that our + schools would be good for uninstructed boys. But there are no uninstructed + boys. A modern London school ought not merely to be clearer, kindlier, + more clever and more rapid than ignorance and darkness. It must also be + clearer than a picture postcard, cleverer than a Limerick competition, + quicker than the tram, and kindlier than the tavern. The school, in fact, + has the responsibility of universal rivalry. We need not deny that + everywhere there is a light that must conquer darkness. But here we demand + a light that can conquer light. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0039" id="link2H_4_0039"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VIII. THE BROKEN RAINBOW + </h2> + <p> + I will take one case that will serve both as symbol and example: the case + of color. We hear the realists (those sentimental fellows) talking about + the gray streets and the gray lives of the poor. But whatever the poor + streets are they are not gray; but motley, striped, spotted, piebald and + patched like a quilt. Hoxton is not aesthetic enough to be monochrome; and + there is nothing of the Celtic twilight about it. As a matter of fact, a + London gutter-boy walks unscathed among furnaces of color. Watch him walk + along a line of hoardings, and you will see him now against glowing green, + like a traveler in a tropic forest; now black like a bird against the + burning blue of the Midi; now passant across a field gules, like the + golden leopards of England. He ought to understand the irrational rapture + of that cry of Mr. Stephen Phillips about “that bluer blue, that greener + green.” There is no blue much bluer than Reckitt’s Blue and no blacking + blacker than Day and Martin’s; no more emphatic yellow than that of + Colman’s Mustard. If, despite this chaos of color, like a shattered + rainbow, the spirit of the small boy is not exactly intoxicated with art + and culture, the cause certainly does not lie in universal grayness or the + mere starving of his senses. It lies in the fact that the colors are + presented in the wrong connection, on the wrong scale, and, above all, + from the wrong motive. It is not colors he lacks, but a philosophy of + colors. In short, there is nothing wrong with Reckitt’s Blue except that + it is not Reckitt’s. Blue does not belong to Reckitt, but to the sky; + black does not belong to Day and Martin, but to the abyss. Even the finest + posters are only very little things on a very large scale. There is + something specially irritant in this way about the iteration of + advertisements of mustard: a condiment, a small luxury; a thing in its + nature not to be taken in quantity. There is a special irony in these + starving streets to see such a great deal of mustard to such very little + meat. Yellow is a bright pigment; mustard is a pungent pleasure. But to + look at these seas of yellow is to be like a man who should swallow + gallons of mustard. He would either die, or lose the taste of mustard + altogether. + </p> + <p> + Now suppose we compare these gigantic trivialities on the hoardings with + those tiny and tremendous pictures in which the mediaevals recorded their + dreams; little pictures where the blue sky is hardly longer than a single + sapphire, and the fires of judgment only a pigmy patch of gold. The + difference here is not merely that poster art is in its nature more hasty + than illumination art; it is not even merely that the ancient artist was + serving the Lord while the modern artist is serving the lords. It is that + the old artist contrived to convey an impression that colors really were + significant and precious things, like jewels and talismanic stones. The + color was often arbitrary; but it was always authoritative. If a bird was + blue, if a tree was golden, if a fish was silver, if a cloud was scarlet, + the artist managed to convey that these colors were important and almost + painfully intense; all the red red-hot and all the gold tried in the fire. + Now that is the spirit touching color which the schools must recover and + protect if they are really to give the children any imaginative appetite + or pleasure in the thing. It is not so much an indulgence in color; it is + rather, if anything, a sort of fiery thrift. It fenced in a green field in + heraldry as straitly as a green field in peasant proprietorship. It would + not fling away gold leaf any more than gold coin; it would not heedlessly + pour out purple or crimson, any more than it would spill good wine or shed + blameless blood. That is the hard task before educationists in this + special matter; they have to teach people to relish colors like liquors. + They have the heavy business of turning drunkards into wine tasters. If + even the twentieth century succeeds in doing these things, it will almost + catch up with the twelfth. + </p> + <p> + The principle covers, however, the whole of modern life. Morris and the + merely aesthetic mediaevalists always indicated that a crowd in the time + of Chaucer would have been brightly clad and glittering, compared with a + crowd in the time of Queen Victoria. I am not so sure that the real + distinction is here. There would be brown frocks of friars in the first + scene as well as brown bowlers of clerks in the second. There would be + purple plumes of factory girls in the second scene as well as purple + lenten vestments in the first. There would be white waistcoats against + white ermine; gold watch chains against gold lions. The real difference is + this: that the brown earth-color of the monk’s coat was instinctively + chosen to express labor and humility, whereas the brown color of the + clerk’s hat was not chosen to express anything. The monk did mean to say + that he robed himself in dust. I am sure the clerk does not mean to say + that he crowns himself with clay. He is not putting dust on his head, as + the only diadem of man. Purple, at once rich and somber, does suggest a + triumph temporarily eclipsed by a tragedy. But the factory girl does not + intend her hat to express a triumph temporarily eclipsed by a tragedy; far + from it. White ermine was meant to express moral purity; white waistcoats + were not. Gold lions do suggest a flaming magnanimity; gold watch chains + do not. The point is not that we have lost the material hues, but that we + have lost the trick of turning them to the best advantage. We are not like + children who have lost their paint box and are left alone with a gray + lead-pencil. We are like children who have mixed all the colors in the + paint-box together and lost the paper of instructions. Even then (I do not + deny) one has some fun. + </p> + <p> + Now this abundance of colors and loss of a color scheme is a pretty + perfect parable of all that is wrong with our modern ideals and especially + with our modern education. It is the same with ethical education, economic + education, every sort of education. The growing London child will find no + lack of highly controversial teachers who will teach him that geography + means painting the map red; that economics means taxing the foreigner, + that patriotism means the peculiarly un-English habit of flying a flag on + Empire Day. In mentioning these examples specially I do not mean to imply + that there are no similar crudities and popular fallacies upon the other + political side. I mention them because they constitute a very special and + arresting feature of the situation. I mean this, that there were always + Radical revolutionists; but now there are Tory revolutionists also. The + modern Conservative no longer conserves. He is avowedly an innovator. Thus + all the current defenses of the House of Lords which describe it as a + bulwark against the mob, are intellectually done for; the bottom has + fallen out of them; because on five or six of the most turbulent topics of + the day, the House of Lords is a mob itself; and exceedingly likely to + behave like one. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0040" id="link2H_4_0040"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IX. THE NEED FOR NARROWNESS + </h2> + <p> + Through all this chaos, then we come back once more to our main + conclusion. The true task of culture to-day is not a task of expansion, + but very decidedly of selection—and rejection. The educationist must + find a creed and teach it. Even if it be not a theological creed, it must + still be as fastidious and as firm as theology. In short, it must be + orthodox. The teacher may think it antiquated to have to decide precisely + between the faith of Calvin and of Laud, the faith of Aquinas and of + Swedenborg; but he still has to choose between the faith of Kipling and of + Shaw, between the world of Blatchford and of General Booth. Call it, if + you will, a narrow question whether your child shall be brought up by the + vicar or the minister or the popish priest. You have still to face that + larger, more liberal, more highly civilized question, of whether he shall + be brought up by Harmsworth or by Pearson, by Mr. Eustace Miles with his + Simple Life or Mr. Peter Keary with his Strenuous Life; whether he shall + most eagerly read Miss Annie S. Swan or Mr. Bart Kennedy; in short, + whether he shall end up in the mere violence of the S. D. F., or in the + mere vulgarity of the Primrose League. They say that nowadays the creeds + are crumbling; I doubt it, but at least the sects are increasing; and + education must now be sectarian education, merely for practical purposes. + Out of all this throng of theories it must somehow select a theory; out of + all these thundering voices it must manage to hear a voice; out of all + this awful and aching battle of blinding lights, without one shadow to + give shape to them, it must manage somehow to trace and to track a star. + </p> + <p> + I have spoken so far of popular education, which began too vague and vast + and which therefore has accomplished little. But as it happens there is in + England something to compare it with. There is an institution, or class of + institutions, which began with the same popular object, which has since + followed a much narrower object, but which had the great advantage that it + did follow some object, unlike our modern elementary schools. + </p> + <p> + In all these problems I should urge the solution which is positive, or, as + silly people say, “optimistic.” I should set my face, that is, against + most of the solutions that are solely negative and abolitionist. Most + educators of the poor seem to think that they have to teach the poor man + not to drink. I should be quite content if they teach him to drink; for it + is mere ignorance about how to drink and when to drink that is accountable + for most of his tragedies. I do not propose (like some of my revolutionary + friends) that we should abolish the public schools. I propose the much + more lurid and desperate experiment that we should make them public. I do + not wish to make Parliament stop working, but rather to make it work; not + to shut up churches, but rather to open them; not to put out the lamp of + learning or destroy the hedge of property, but only to make some rude + effort to make universities fairly universal and property decently proper. + </p> + <p> + In many cases, let it be remembered, such action is not merely going back + to the old ideal, but is even going back to the old reality. It would be a + great step forward for the gin shop to go back to the inn. It is + incontrovertibly true that to mediaevalize the public schools would be to + democratize the public schools. Parliament did once really mean (as its + name seems to imply) a place where people were allowed to talk. It is only + lately that the general increase of efficiency, that is, of the Speaker, + has made it mostly a place where people are prevented from talking. The + poor do not go to the modern church, but they went to the ancient church + all right; and if the common man in the past had a grave respect for + property, it may conceivably have been because he sometimes had some of + his own. I therefore can claim that I have no vulgar itch of innovation in + anything I say about any of these institutions. Certainly I have none in + that particular one which I am now obliged to pick out of the list; a type + of institution to which I have genuine and personal reasons for being + friendly and grateful: I mean the great Tudor foundations, the public + schools of England. They have been praised for a great many things, + mostly, I am sorry to say, praised by themselves and their children. And + yet for some reason no one has ever praised them the one really convincing + reason. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0041" id="link2H_4_0041"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + X. THE CASE FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS + </h2> + <p> + The word success can of course be used in two senses. It may be used with + reference to a thing serving its immediate and peculiar purpose, as of a + wheel going around; or it can be used with reference to a thing adding to + the general welfare, as of a wheel being a useful discovery. It is one + thing to say that Smith’s flying machine is a failure, and quite another + to say that Smith has failed to make a flying machine. Now this is very + broadly the difference between the old English public schools and the new + democratic schools. Perhaps the old public schools are (as I personally + think they are) ultimately weakening the country rather than strengthening + it, and are therefore, in that ultimate sense, inefficient. But there is + such a thing as being efficiently inefficient. You can make your flying + ship so that it flies, even if you also make it so that it kills you. Now + the public school system may not work satisfactorily, but it works; the + public schools may not achieve what we want, but they achieve what they + want. The popular elementary schools do not in that sense achieve anything + at all. It is very difficult to point to any guttersnipe in the street and + say that he embodies the ideal for which popular education has been + working, in the sense that the fresh-faced, foolish boy in “Etons” does + embody the ideal for which the headmasters of Harrow and Winchester have + been working. The aristocratic educationists have the positive purpose of + turning out gentlemen, and they do turn out gentlemen, even when they + expel them. The popular educationists would say that they had the far + nobler idea of turning out citizens. I concede that it is a much nobler + idea, but where are the citizens? I know that the boy in “Etons” is stiff + with a rather silly and sentimental stoicism, called being a man of the + world. I do not fancy that the errand-boy is rigid with that republican + stoicism that is called being a citizen. The schoolboy will really say + with fresh and innocent hauteur, “I am an English gentleman.” I cannot so + easily picture the errand-boy drawing up his head to the stars and + answering, “Romanus civis sum.” Let it be granted that our elementary + teachers are teaching the very broadest code of morals, while our great + headmasters are teaching only the narrowest code of manners. Let it be + granted that both these things are being taught. But only one of them is + being learned. + </p> + <p> + It is always said that great reformers or masters of events can manage to + bring about some specific and practical reforms, but that they never + fulfill their visions or satisfy their souls. I believe there is a real + sense in which this apparent platitude is quite untrue. By a strange + inversion the political idealist often does not get what he asks for, but + does get what he wants. The silent pressure of his ideal lasts much longer + and reshapes the world much more than the actualities by which he + attempted to suggest it. What perishes is the letter, which he thought so + practical. What endures is the spirit, which he felt to be unattainable + and even unutterable. It is exactly his schemes that are not fulfilled; it + is exactly his vision that is fulfilled. Thus the ten or twelve paper + constitutions of the French Revolution, which seemed so business-like to + the framers of them, seem to us to have flown away on the wind as the + wildest fancies. What has not flown away, what is a fixed fact in Europe, + is the ideal and vision. The Republic, the idea of a land full of mere + citizens all with some minimum of manners and minimum of wealth, the + vision of the eighteenth century, the reality of the twentieth. So I think + it will generally be with the creator of social things, desirable or + undesirable. All his schemes will fail, all his tools break in his hands. + His compromises will collapse, his concessions will be useless. He must + brace himself to bear his fate; he shall have nothing but his heart’s + desire. + </p> + <p> + Now if one may compare very small things with very great, one may say that + the English aristocratic schools can claim something of the same sort of + success and solid splendor as the French democratic politics. At least + they can claim the same sort of superiority over the distracted and + fumbling attempts of modern England to establish democratic education. + Such success as has attended the public schoolboy throughout the Empire, a + success exaggerated indeed by himself, but still positive and a fact of a + certain indisputable shape and size, has been due to the central and + supreme circumstance that the managers of our public schools did know what + sort of boy they liked. They wanted something and they got something; + instead of going to work in the broad-minded manner and wanting everything + and getting nothing. + </p> + <p> + The only thing in question is the quality of the thing they got. There is + something highly maddening in the circumstance that when modern people + attack an institution that really does demand reform, they always attack + it for the wrong reasons. Thus many opponents of our public schools, + imagining themselves to be very democratic, have exhausted themselves in + an unmeaning attack upon the study of Greek. I can understand how Greek + may be regarded as useless, especially by those thirsting to throw + themselves into the cut throat commerce which is the negation of + citizenship; but I do not understand how it can be considered + undemocratic. I quite understand why Mr. Carnegie has a hatred of Greek. + It is obscurely founded on the firm and sound impression that in any + self-governing Greek city he would have been killed. But I cannot + comprehend why any chance democrat, say Mr. Quelch, or Mr. Will Crooks, I + or Mr. John M. Robertson, should be opposed to people learning the Greek + alphabet, which was the alphabet of liberty. Why should Radicals dislike + Greek? In that language is written all the earliest and, Heaven knows, the + most heroic history of the Radical party. Why should Greek disgust a + democrat, when the very word democrat is Greek? + </p> + <p> + A similar mistake, though a less serious one, is merely attacking the + athletics of public schools as something promoting animalism and + brutality. Now brutality, in the only immoral sense, is not a vice of the + English public schools. There is much moral bullying, owing to the general + lack of moral courage in the public-school atmosphere. These schools do, + upon the whole, encourage physical courage; but they do not merely + discourage moral courage, they forbid it. The ultimate result of the thing + is seen in the egregious English officer who cannot even endure to wear a + bright uniform except when it is blurred and hidden in the smoke of + battle. This, like all the affectations of our present plutocracy, is an + entirely modern thing. It was unknown to the old aristocrats. The Black + Prince would certainly have asked that any knight who had the courage to + lift his crest among his enemies, should also have the courage to lift it + among his friends. As regards moral courage, then it is not so much that + the public schools support it feebly, as that they suppress it firmly. But + physical courage they do, on the whole, support; and physical courage is a + magnificent fundamental. The one great, wise Englishman of the eighteenth + century said truly that if a man lost that virtue he could never be sure + of keeping any other. Now it is one of the mean and morbid modern lies + that physical courage is connected with cruelty. The Tolstoian and + Kiplingite are nowhere more at one than in maintaining this. They have, I + believe, some small sectarian quarrel with each other, the one saying that + courage must be abandoned because it is connected with cruelty, and the + other maintaining that cruelty is charming because it is a part of + courage. But it is all, thank God, a lie. An energy and boldness of body + may make a man stupid or reckless or dull or drunk or hungry, but it does + not make him spiteful. And we may admit heartily (without joining in that + perpetual praise which public-school men are always pouring upon + themselves) that this does operate to the removal of mere evil cruelty in + the public schools. English public school life is extremely like English + public life, for which it is the preparatory school. It is like it + specially in this, that things are either very open, common and + conventional, or else are very secret indeed. Now there is cruelty in + public schools, just as there is kleptomania and secret drinking and vices + without a name. But these things do not flourish in the full daylight and + common consciousness of the school, and no more does cruelty. A tiny trio + of sullen-looking boys gather in corners and seem to have some ugly + business always; it may be indecent literature, it may be the beginning of + drink, it may occasionally be cruelty to little boys. But on this stage + the bully is not a braggart. The proverb says that bullies are always + cowardly, but these bullies are more than cowardly; they are shy. + </p> + <p> + As a third instance of the wrong form of revolt against the public + schools, I may mention the habit of using the word aristocracy with a + double implication. To put the plain truth as briefly as possible, if + aristocracy means rule by a rich ring, England has aristocracy and the + English public schools support it. If it means rule by ancient families or + flawless blood, England has not got aristocracy, and the public schools + systematically destroy it. In these circles real aristocracy, like real + democracy, has become bad form. A modern fashionable host dare not praise + his ancestry; it would so often be an insult to half the other oligarchs + at table, who have no ancestry. We have said he has not the moral courage + to wear his uniform; still less has he the moral courage to wear his + coat-of-arms. The whole thing now is only a vague hotch-potch of nice and + nasty gentlemen. The nice gentleman never refers to anyone else’s father, + the nasty gentleman never refers to his own. That is the only difference, + the rest is the public-school manner. But Eton and Harrow have to be + aristocratic because they consist so largely of parvenues. The public + school is not a sort of refuge for aristocrats, like an asylum, a place + where they go in and never come out. It is a factory for aristocrats; they + come out without ever having perceptibly gone in. The poor little private + schools, in their old-world, sentimental, feudal style, used to stick up a + notice, “For the Sons of Gentlemen only.” If the public schools stuck up a + notice it ought to be inscribed, “For the Fathers of Gentlemen only.” In + two generations they can do the trick. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0042" id="link2H_4_0042"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XI. THE SCHOOL FOR HYPOCRITES + </h2> + <p> + These are the false accusations; the accusation of classicism, the + accusation of cruelty, and the accusation of an exclusiveness based on + perfection of pedigree. English public-school boys are not pedants, they + are not torturers; and they are not, in the vast majority of cases, people + fiercely proud of their ancestry, or even people with any ancestry to be + proud of. They are taught to be courteous, to be good tempered, to be + brave in a bodily sense, to be clean in a bodily sense; they are generally + kind to animals, generally civil to servants, and to anyone in any sense + their equal, the jolliest companions on earth. Is there then anything + wrong in the public-school ideal? I think we all feel there is something + very wrong in it, but a blinding network of newspaper phraseology obscures + and entangles us; so that it is hard to trace to its beginning, beyond all + words and phrases, the faults in this great English achievement. + </p> + <p> + Surely, when all is said, the ultimate objection to the English public + school is its utterly blatant and indecent disregard of the duty of + telling the truth. I know there does still linger among maiden ladies in + remote country houses a notion that English schoolboys are taught to tell + the truth, but it cannot be maintained seriously for a moment. Very + occasionally, very vaguely, English schoolboys are told not to tell lies, + which is a totally different thing. I may silently support all the obscene + fictions and forgeries in the universe, without once telling a lie. I may + wear another man’s coat, steal another man’s wit, apostatize to another + man’s creed, or poison another man’s coffee, all without ever telling a + lie. But no English school-boy is ever taught to tell the truth, for the + very simple reason that he is never taught to desire the truth. From the + very first he is taught to be totally careless about whether a fact is a + fact; he is taught to care only whether the fact can be used on his “side” + when he is engaged in “playing the game.” He takes sides in his Union + debating society to settle whether Charles I ought to have been killed, + with the same solemn and pompous frivolity with which he takes sides in + the cricket field to decide whether Rugby or Westminster shall win. He is + never allowed to admit the abstract notion of the truth, that the match is + a matter of what may happen, but that Charles I is a matter of what did + happen—or did not. He is Liberal or Tory at the general election + exactly as he is Oxford or Cambridge at the boat race. He knows that sport + deals with the unknown; he has not even a notion that politics should deal + with the known. If anyone really doubts this self-evident proposition, + that the public schools definitely discourage the love of truth, there is + one fact which I should think would settle him. England is the country of + the Party System, and it has always been chiefly run by public-school men. + Is there anyone out of Hanwell who will maintain that the Party System, + whatever its conveniences or inconveniences, could have been created by + people particularly fond of truth? + </p> + <p> + The very English happiness on this point is itself a hypocrisy. When a man + really tells the truth, the first truth he tells is that he himself is a + liar. David said in his haste, that is, in his honesty, that all men are + liars. It was afterwards, in some leisurely official explanation, that he + said the Kings of Israel at least told the truth. When Lord Curzon was + Viceroy he delivered a moral lecture to the Indians on their reputed + indifference to veracity, to actuality and intellectual honor. A great + many people indignantly discussed whether orientals deserved to receive + this rebuke; whether Indians were indeed in a position to receive such + severe admonition. No one seemed to ask, as I should venture to ask, + whether Lord Curzon was in a position to give it. He is an ordinary party + politician; a party politician means a politician who might have belonged + to either party. Being such a person, he must again and again, at every + twist and turn of party strategy, either have deceived others or grossly + deceived himself. I do not know the East; nor do I like what I know. I am + quite ready to believe that when Lord Curzon went out he found a very + false atmosphere. I only say it must have been something startlingly and + chokingly false if it was falser than that English atmosphere from which + he came. The English Parliament actually cares for everything except + veracity. The public-school man is kind, courageous, polite, clean, + companionable; but, in the most awful sense of the words, the truth is not + in him. + </p> + <p> + This weakness of untruthfulness in the English public schools, in the + English political system, and to some extent in the English character, is + a weakness which necessarily produces a curious crop of superstitions, of + lying legends, of evident delusions clung to through low spiritual + self-indulgence. There are so many of these public-school superstitions + that I have here only space for one of them, which may be called the + superstition of soap. It appears to have been shared by the ablutionary + Pharisees, who resembled the English public-school aristocrats in so many + respects: in their care about club rules and traditions, in their + offensive optimism at the expense of other people, and above all in their + unimaginative plodding patriotism in the worst interests of their country. + Now the old human common sense about washing is that it is a great + pleasure. Water (applied externally) is a splendid thing, like wine. + Sybarites bathe in wine, and Nonconformists drink water; but we are not + concerned with these frantic exceptions. Washing being a pleasure, it + stands to reason that rich people can afford it more than poor people, and + as long as this was recognized all was well; and it was very right that + rich people should offer baths to poor people, as they might offer any + other agreeable thing—a drink or a donkey ride. But one dreadful + day, somewhere about the middle of the nineteenth century, somebody + discovered (somebody pretty well off) the two great modern truths, that + washing is a virtue in the rich and therefore a duty in the poor. For a + duty is a virtue that one can’t do. And a virtue is generally a duty that + one can do quite easily; like the bodily cleanliness of the upper classes. + But in the public-school tradition of public life, soap has become + creditable simply because it is pleasant. Baths are represented as a part + of the decay of the Roman Empire; but the same baths are represented as + part of the energy and rejuvenation of the British Empire. There are + distinguished public school men, bishops, dons, headmasters, and high + politicians, who, in the course of the eulogies which from time to time + they pass upon themselves, have actually identified physical cleanliness + with moral purity. They say (if I remember rightly) that a public-school + man is clean inside and out. As if everyone did not know that while saints + can afford to be dirty, seducers have to be clean. As if everyone did not + know that the harlot must be clean, because it is her business to + captivate, while the good wife may be dirty, because it is her business to + clean. As if we did not all know that whenever God’s thunder cracks above + us, it is very likely indeed to find the simplest man in a muck cart and + the most complex blackguard in a bath. + </p> + <p> + There are other instances, of course, of this oily trick of turning the + pleasures of a gentleman into the virtues of an Anglo-Saxon. Sport, like + soap, is an admirable thing, but, like soap, it is an agreeable thing. And + it does not sum up all mortal merits to be a sportsman playing the game in + a world where it is so often necessary to be a workman doing the work. By + all means let a gentleman congratulate himself that he has not lost his + natural love of pleasure, as against the blase, and unchildlike. But when + one has the childlike joy it is best to have also the childlike + unconsciousness; and I do not think we should have special affection for + the little boy who ever lastingly explained that it was his duty to play + Hide and Seek and one of his family virtues to be prominent in Puss in the + Corner. + </p> + <p> + Another such irritating hypocrisy is the oligarchic attitude towards + mendicity as against organized charity. Here again, as in the case of + cleanliness and of athletics, the attitude would be perfectly human and + intelligible if it were not maintained as a merit. Just as the obvious + thing about soap is that it is a convenience, so the obvious thing about + beggars is that they are an inconvenience. The rich would deserve very + little blame if they simply said that they never dealt directly with + beggars, because in modern urban civilization it is impossible to deal + directly with beggars; or if not impossible, at least very difficult. But + these people do not refuse money to beggars on the ground that such + charity is difficult. They refuse it on the grossly hypocritical ground + that such charity is easy. They say, with the most grotesque gravity, + “Anyone can put his hand in his pocket and give a poor man a penny; but + we, philanthropists, go home and brood and travail over the poor man’s + troubles until we have discovered exactly what jail, reformatory, + workhouse, or lunatic asylum it will really be best for him to go to.” + This is all sheer lying. They do not brood about the man when they get + home, and if they did it would not alter the original fact that their + motive for discouraging beggars is the perfectly rational one that beggars + are a bother. A man may easily be forgiven for not doing this or that + incidental act of charity, especially when the question is as genuinely + difficult as is the case of mendicity. But there is something quite + pestilently Pecksniffian about shrinking from a hard task on the plea that + it is not hard enough. If any man will really try talking to the ten + beggars who come to his door he will soon find out whether it is really so + much easier than the labor of writing a check for a hospital. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0043" id="link2H_4_0043"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XII. THE STALENESS OF THE NEW SCHOOLS + </h2> + <p> + For this deep and disabling reason therefore, its cynical and abandoned + indifference to the truth, the English public school does not provide us + with the ideal that we require. We can only ask its modern critics to + remember that right or wrong the thing can be done; the factory is + working, the wheels are going around, the gentlemen are being produced, + with their soap, cricket and organized charity all complete. And in this, + as we have said before, the public school really has an advantage over all + the other educational schemes of our time. You can pick out a + public-school man in any of the many companies into which they stray, from + a Chinese opium den to a German Jewish dinner-party. But I doubt if you + could tell which little match girl had been brought up by undenominational + religion and which by secular education. The great English aristocracy + which has ruled us since the Reformation is really, in this sense, a model + to the moderns. It did have an ideal, and therefore it has produced a + reality. + </p> + <p> + We may repeat here that these pages propose mainly to show one thing: that + progress ought to be based on principle, while our modern progress is + mostly based on precedent. We go, not by what may be affirmed in theory, + but by what has been already admitted in practice. That is why the + Jacobites are the last Tories in history with whom a high-spirited person + can have much sympathy. They wanted a specific thing; they were ready to + go forward for it, and so they were also ready to go back for it. But + modern Tories have only the dullness of defending situations that they had + not the excitement of creating. Revolutionists make a reform, + Conservatives only conserve the reform. They never reform the reform, + which is often very much wanted. Just as the rivalry of armaments is only + a sort of sulky plagiarism, so the rivalry of parties is only a sort of + sulky inheritance. Men have votes, so women must soon have votes; poor + children are taught by force, so they must soon be fed by force; the + police shut public houses by twelve o’clock, so soon they must shut them + by eleven o’clock; children stop at school till they are fourteen, so soon + they will stop till they are forty. No gleam of reason, no momentary + return to first principles, no abstract asking of any obvious question, + can interrupt this mad and monotonous gallop of mere progress by + precedent. It is a good way to prevent real revolution. By this logic of + events, the Radical gets as much into a rut as the Conservative. We meet + one hoary old lunatic who says his grandfather told him to stand by one + stile. We meet another hoary old lunatic who says his grandfather told him + only to walk along one lane. + </p> + <p> + I say we may repeat here this primary part of the argument, because we + have just now come to the place where it is most startlingly and strongly + shown. The final proof that our elementary schools have no definite ideal + of their own is the fact that they so openly imitate the ideals of the + public schools. In the elementary schools we have all the ethical + prejudices and exaggerations of Eton and Harrow carefully copied for + people to whom they do not even roughly apply. We have the same wildly + disproportionate doctrine of the effect of physical cleanliness on moral + character. Educators and educational politicians declare, amid warm + cheers, that cleanliness is far more important than all the squabbles + about moral and religious training. It would really seem that so long as a + little boy washes his hands it does not matter whether he is washing off + his mother’s jam or his brother’s gore. We have the same grossly insincere + pretense that sport always encourages a sense of honor, when we know that + it often ruins it. Above all, we have the same great upperclass assumption + that things are done best by large institutions handling large sums of + money and ordering everybody about; and that trivial and impulsive charity + is in some way contemptible. As Mr. Blatchford says, “The world does not + want piety, but soap—and Socialism.” Piety is one of the popular + virtues, whereas soap and Socialism are two hobbies of the upper middle + class. + </p> + <p> + These “healthy" ideals, as they are called, which our politicians and + schoolmasters have borrowed from the aristocratic schools and applied to + the democratic, are by no means particularly appropriate to an + impoverished democracy. A vague admiration for organized government and a + vague distrust of individual aid cannot be made to fit in at all into the + lives of people among whom kindness means lending a saucepan and honor + means keeping out of the workhouse. It resolves itself either into + discouraging that system of prompt and patchwork generosity which is a + daily glory of the poor, or else into hazy advice to people who have no + money not to give it recklessly away. Nor is the exaggerated glory of + athletics, defensible enough in dealing with the rich who, if they did not + romp and race, would eat and drink unwholesomely, by any means so much to + the point when applied to people, most of whom will take a great deal of + exercise anyhow, with spade or hammer, pickax or saw. And for the third + case, of washing, it is obvious that the same sort of rhetoric about + corporeal daintiness which is proper to an ornamental class cannot, merely + as it stands, be applicable to a dustman. A gentleman is expected to be + substantially spotless all the time. But it is no more discreditable for a + scavenger to be dirty than for a deep-sea diver to be wet. A sweep is no + more disgraced when he is covered with soot than Michael Angelo when he is + covered with clay, or Bayard when he is covered with blood. Nor have these + extenders of the public-school tradition done or suggested anything by way + of a substitute for the present snobbish system which makes cleanliness + almost impossible to the poor; I mean the general ritual of linen and the + wearing of the cast-off clothes of the rich. One man moves into another + man’s clothes as he moves into another man’s house. No wonder that our + educationists are not horrified at a man picking up the aristocrat’s + second-hand trousers, when they themselves have only taken up the + aristocrat’s second-hand ideas. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0044" id="link2H_4_0044"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XIII. THE OUTLAWED PARENT + </h2> + <p> + There is one thing at least of which there is never so much as a whisper + inside the popular schools; and that is the opinion of the people. The + only persons who seem to have nothing to do with the education of the + children are the parents. Yet the English poor have very definite + traditions in many ways. They are hidden under embarrassment and irony; + and those psychologists who have disentangled them talk of them as very + strange, barbaric and secretive things. But, as a matter of fact, the + traditions of the poor are mostly simply the traditions of humanity, a + thing which many of us have not seen for some time. For instance, + workingmen have a tradition that if one is talking about a vile thing it + is better to talk of it in coarse language; one is the less likely to be + seduced into excusing it. But mankind had this tradition also, until the + Puritans and their children, the Ibsenites, started the opposite idea, + that it does not matter what you say so long as you say it with long words + and a long face. Or again, the educated classes have tabooed most jesting + about personal appearance; but in doing this they taboo not only the humor + of the slums, but more than half the healthy literature of the world; they + put polite nose-bags on the noses of Punch and Bardolph, Stiggins and + Cyrano de Bergerac. Again, the educated classes have adopted a hideous and + heathen custom of considering death as too dreadful to talk about, and + letting it remain a secret for each person, like some private + malformation. The poor, on the contrary, make a great gossip and display + about bereavement; and they are right. They have hold of a truth of + psychology which is at the back of all the funeral customs of the children + of men. The way to lessen sorrow is to make a lot of it. The way to endure + a painful crisis is to insist very much that it is a crisis; to permit + people who must feel sad at least to feel important. In this the poor are + simply the priests of the universal civilization; and in their stuffy + feasts and solemn chattering there is the smell of the baked meats of + Hamlet and the dust and echo of the funeral games of Patroclus. + </p> + <p> + The things philanthropists barely excuse (or do not excuse) in the life of + the laboring classes are simply the things we have to excuse in all the + greatest monuments of man. It may be that the laborer is as gross as + Shakespeare or as garrulous as Homer; that if he is religious he talks + nearly as much about hell as Dante; that if he is worldly he talks nearly + as much about drink as Dickens. Nor is the poor man without historic + support if he thinks less of that ceremonial washing which Christ + dismissed, and rather more of that ceremonial drinking which Christ + specially sanctified. The only difference between the poor man of to-day + and the saints and heroes of history is that which in all classes + separates the common man who can feel things from the great man who can + express them. What he feels is merely the heritage of man. Now nobody + expects of course that the cabmen and coal-heavers can be complete + instructors of their children any more than the squires and colonels and + tea merchants are complete instructors of their children. There must be an + educational specialist in loco parentis. But the master at Harrow is in + loco parentis; the master in Hoxton is rather contra parentem. The vague + politics of the squire, the vaguer virtues of the colonel, the soul and + spiritual yearnings of a tea merchant, are, in veritable practice, + conveyed to the children of these people at the English public schools. + But I wish here to ask a very plain and emphatic question. Can anyone + alive even pretend to point out any way in which these special virtues and + traditions of the poor are reproduced in the education of the poor? I do + not wish the coster’s irony to appeal as coarsely in the school as it does + in the tap room; but does it appear at all? Is the child taught to + sympathize at all with his father’s admirable cheerfulness and slang? I do + not expect the pathetic, eager pietas of the mother, with her funeral + clothes and funeral baked meats, to be exactly imitated in the educational + system; but has it any influence at all on the educational system? Does + any elementary schoolmaster accord it even an instant’s consideration or + respect? I do not expect the schoolmaster to hate hospitals and C.O.S. + centers so much as the schoolboy’s father; but does he hate them at all? + Does he sympathize in the least with the poor man’s point of honor against + official institutions? Is it not quite certain that the ordinary + elementary schoolmaster will think it not merely natural but simply + conscientious to eradicate all these rugged legends of a laborious people, + and on principle to preach soap and Socialism against beer and liberty? In + the lower classes the school master does not work for the parent, but + against the parent. Modern education means handing down the customs of the + minority, and rooting out the customs of the majority. Instead of their + Christlike charity, their Shakespearean laughter and their high Homeric + reverence for the dead, the poor have imposed on them mere pedantic copies + of the prejudices of the remote rich. They must think a bathroom a + necessity because to the lucky it is a luxury; they must swing Swedish + clubs because their masters are afraid of English cudgels; and they must + get over their prejudice against being fed by the parish, because + aristocrats feel no shame about being fed by the nation. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0045" id="link2H_4_0045"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XIV. FOLLY AND FEMALE EDUCATION + </h2> + <p> + It is the same in the case of girls. I am often solemnly asked what I + think of the new ideas about female education. But there are no new ideas + about female education. There is not, there never has been, even the + vestige of a new idea. All the educational reformers did was to ask what + was being done to boys and then go and do it to girls; just as they asked + what was being taught to young squires and then taught it to young chimney + sweeps. What they call new ideas are very old ideas in the wrong place. + Boys play football, why shouldn’t girls play football; boys have school + colors, why shouldn’t girls have school-colors; boys go in hundreds to + day-schools, why shouldn’t girls go in hundreds to day-schools; boys go to + Oxford, why shouldn’t girls go to Oxford—in short, boys grow + mustaches, why shouldn’t girls grow mustaches—that is about their + notion of a new idea. There is no brain-work in the thing at all; no root + query of what sex is, of whether it alters this or that, and why, anymore + than there is any imaginative grip of the humor and heart of the populace + in the popular education. There is nothing but plodding, elaborate, + elephantine imitation. And just as in the case of elementary teaching, the + cases are of a cold and reckless inappropriateness. Even a savage could + see that bodily things, at least, which are good for a man are very likely + to be bad for a woman. Yet there is no boy’s game, however brutal, which + these mild lunatics have not promoted among girls. To take a stronger + case, they give girls very heavy home-work; never reflecting that all + girls have home-work already in their homes. It is all a part of the same + silly subjugation; there must be a hard stick-up collar round the neck of + a woman, because it is already a nuisance round the neck of a man. Though + a Saxon serf, if he wore that collar of cardboard, would ask for his + collar of brass. + </p> + <p> + It will then be answered, not without a sneer, “And what would you prefer? + Would you go back to the elegant early Victorian female, with ringlets and + smelling-bottle, doing a little in water colors, dabbling a little in + Italian, playing a little on the harp, writing in vulgar albums and + painting on senseless screens? Do you prefer that?” To which I answer, + “Emphatically, yes.” I solidly prefer it to the new female education, for + this reason, that I can see in it an intellectual design, while there is + none in the other. I am by no means sure that even in point of practical + fact that elegant female would not have been more than a match for most of + the inelegant females. I fancy Jane Austen was stronger, sharper and + shrewder than Charlotte Bronte; I am quite certain she was stronger, + sharper and shrewder than George Eliot. She could do one thing neither of + them could do: she could coolly and sensibly describe a man. I am not sure + that the old great lady who could only smatter Italian was not more + vigorous than the new great lady who can only stammer American; nor am I + certain that the bygone duchesses who were scarcely successful when they + painted Melrose Abbey, were so much more weak-minded than the modern + duchesses who paint only their own faces, and are bad at that. But that is + not the point. What was the theory, what was the idea, in their old, weak + water-colors and their shaky Italian? The idea was the same which in a + ruder rank expressed itself in home-made wines and hereditary recipes; and + which still, in a thousand unexpected ways, can be found clinging to the + women of the poor. It was the idea I urged in the second part of this + book: that the world must keep one great amateur, lest we all become + artists and perish. Somebody must renounce all specialist conquests, that + she may conquer all the conquerors. That she may be a queen of life, she + must not be a private soldier in it. I do not think the elegant female + with her bad Italian was a perfect product, any more than I think the slum + woman talking gin and funerals is a perfect product; alas! there are few + perfect products. But they come from a comprehensible idea; and the new + woman comes from nothing and nowhere. It is right to have an ideal, it is + right to have the right ideal, and these two have the right ideal. The + slum mother with her funerals is the degenerate daughter of Antigone, the + obstinate priestess of the household gods. The lady talking bad Italian + was the decayed tenth cousin of Portia, the great and golden Italian lady, + the Renascence amateur of life, who could be a barrister because she could + be anything. Sunken and neglected in the sea of modern monotony and + imitation, the types hold tightly to their original truths. Antigone, + ugly, dirty and often drunken, will still bury her father. The elegant + female, vapid and fading away to nothing, still feels faintly the + fundamental difference between herself and her husband: that he must be + Something in the City, that she may be everything in the country. + </p> + <p> + There was a time when you and I and all of us were all very close to God; + so that even now the color of a pebble (or a paint), the smell of a flower + (or a firework), comes to our hearts with a kind of authority and + certainty; as if they were fragments of a muddled message, or features of + a forgotten face. To pour that fiery simplicity upon the whole of life is + the only real aim of education; and closest to the child comes the woman—she + understands. To say what she understands is beyond me; save only this, + that it is not a solemnity. Rather it is a towering levity, an uproarious + amateurishness of the universe, such as we felt when we were little, and + would as soon sing as garden, as soon paint as run. To smatter the tongues + of men and angels, to dabble in the dreadful sciences, to juggle with + pillars and pyramids and toss up the planets like balls, this is that + inner audacity and indifference which the human soul, like a conjurer + catching oranges, must keep up forever. This is that insanely frivolous + thing we call sanity. And the elegant female, drooping her ringlets over + her water-colors, knew it and acted on it. She was juggling with frantic + and flaming suns. She was maintaining the bold equilibrium of + inferiorities which is the most mysterious of superiorities and perhaps + the most unattainable. She was maintaining the prime truth of woman, the + universal mother: that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART5" id="link2H_PART5"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART FIVE. THE HOME OF MAN + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0047" id="link2H_4_0047"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. THE EMPIRE OF THE INSECT + </h2> + <p> + A cultivated Conservative friend of mine once exhibited great distress + because in a gay moment I once called Edmund Burke an atheist. I need + scarcely say that the remark lacked something of biographical precision; + it was meant to. Burke was certainly not an atheist in his conscious + cosmic theory, though he had not a special and flaming faith in God, like + Robespierre. Nevertheless, the remark had reference to a truth which it is + here relevant to repeat. I mean that in the quarrel over the French + Revolution, Burke did stand for the atheistic attitude and mode of + argument, as Robespierre stood for the theistic. The Revolution appealed + to the idea of an abstract and eternal justice, beyond all local custom or + convenience. If there are commands of God, then there must be rights of + man. Here Burke made his brilliant diversion; he did not attack the + Robespierre doctrine with the old mediaeval doctrine of jus divinum + (which, like the Robespierre doctrine, was theistic), he attacked it with + the modern argument of scientific relativity; in short, the argument of + evolution. He suggested that humanity was everywhere molded by or fitted + to its environment and institutions; in fact, that each people practically + got, not only the tyrant it deserved, but the tyrant it ought to have. “I + know nothing of the rights of men,” he said, “but I know something of the + rights of Englishmen.” There you have the essential atheist. His argument + is that we have got some protection by natural accident and growth; and + why should we profess to think beyond it, for all the world as if we were + the images of God! We are born under a House of Lords, as birds under a + house of leaves; we live under a monarchy as niggers live under a tropic + sun; it is not their fault if they are slaves, and it is not ours if we + are snobs. Thus, long before Darwin struck his great blow at democracy, + the essential of the Darwinian argument had been already urged against the + French Revolution. Man, said Burke in effect, must adapt himself to + everything, like an animal; he must not try to alter everything, like an + angel. The last weak cry of the pious, pretty, half-artificial optimism + and deism of the eighteenth century came in the voice of Sterne, saying, + “God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb.” And Burke, the iron + evolutionist, essentially answered, “No; God tempers the shorn lamb to the + wind.” It is the lamb that has to adapt himself. That is, he either dies + or becomes a particular kind of lamb who likes standing in a draught. + </p> + <p> + The subconscious popular instinct against Darwinism was not a mere offense + at the grotesque notion of visiting one’s grandfather in a cage in the + Regent’s Park. Men go in for drink, practical jokes and many other + grotesque things; they do not much mind making beasts of themselves, and + would not much mind having beasts made of their forefathers. The real + instinct was much deeper and much more valuable. It was this: that when + once one begins to think of man as a shifting and alterable thing, it is + always easy for the strong and crafty to twist him into new shapes for all + kinds of unnatural purposes. The popular instinct sees in such + developments the possibility of backs bowed and hunch-backed for their + burden, or limbs twisted for their task. It has a very well-grounded guess + that whatever is done swiftly and systematically will mostly be done by a + successful class and almost solely in their interests. It has therefore a + vision of inhuman hybrids and half-human experiments much in the style of + Mr. Wells’s “Island of Dr. Moreau.” The rich man may come to breeding a + tribe of dwarfs to be his jockeys, and a tribe of giants to be his + hall-porters. Grooms might be born bow-legged and tailors born + cross-legged; perfumers might have long, large noses and a crouching + attitude, like hounds of scent; and professional wine-tasters might have + the horrible expression of one tasting wine stamped upon their faces as + infants. Whatever wild image one employs it cannot keep pace with the + panic of the human fancy, when once it supposes that the fixed type called + man could be changed. If some millionaire wanted arms, some porter must + grow ten arms like an octopus; if he wants legs, some messenger-boy must + go with a hundred trotting legs like a centipede. In the distorted mirror + of hypothesis, that is, of the unknown, men can dimly see such monstrous + and evil shapes; men run all to eye, or all to fingers, with nothing left + but one nostril or one ear. That is the nightmare with which the mere + notion of adaptation threatens us. That is the nightmare that is not so + very far from the reality. + </p> + <p> + It will be said that not the wildest evolutionist really asks that we + should become in any way unhuman or copy any other animal. Pardon me, that + is exactly what not merely the wildest evolutionists urge, but some of the + tamest evolutionists too. There has risen high in recent history an + important cultus which bids fair to be the religion of the future—which + means the religion of those few weak-minded people who live in the future. + It is typical of our time that it has to look for its god through a + microscope; and our time has marked a definite adoration of the insect. + Like most things we call new, of course, it is not at all new as an idea; + it is only new as an idolatry. Virgil takes bees seriously but I doubt if + he would have kept bees as carefully as he wrote about them. The wise king + told the sluggard to watch the ant, a charming occupation—for a + sluggard. But in our own time has appeared a very different tone, and more + than one great man, as well as numberless intelligent men, have in our + time seriously suggested that we should study the insect because we are + his inferiors. The old moralists merely took the virtues of man and + distributed them quite decoratively and arbitrarily among the animals. The + ant was an almost heraldic symbol of industry, as the lion was of courage, + or, for the matter of that, the pelican of charity. But if the mediaevals + had been convinced that a lion was not courageous, they would have dropped + the lion and kept the courage; if the pelican is not charitable, they + would say, so much the worse for the pelican. The old moralists, I say, + permitted the ant to enforce and typify man’s morality; they never allowed + the ant to upset it. They used the ant for industry as the lark for + punctuality; they looked up at the flapping birds and down at the crawling + insects for a homely lesson. But we have lived to see a sect that does not + look down at the insects, but looks up at the insects, that asks us + essentially to bow down and worship beetles, like ancient Egyptians. + </p> + <p> + Maurice Maeterlinck is a man of unmistakable genius, and genius always + carries a magnifying glass. In the terrible crystal of his lens we have + seen the bees not as a little yellow swarm, but rather in golden armies + and hierarchies of warriors and queens. Imagination perpetually peers and + creeps further down the avenues and vistas in the tubes of science, and + one fancies every frantic reversal of proportions; the earwig striding + across the echoing plain like an elephant, or the grasshopper coming + roaring above our roofs like a vast aeroplane, as he leaps from + Hertfordshire to Surrey. One seems to enter in a dream a temple of + enormous entomology, whose architecture is based on something wilder than + arms or backbones; in which the ribbed columns have the half-crawling look + of dim and monstrous caterpillars; or the dome is a starry spider hung + horribly in the void. There is one of the modern works of engineering that + gives one something of this nameless fear of the exaggerations of an + underworld; and that is the curious curved architecture of the under + ground railway, commonly called the Twopenny Tube. Those squat archways, + without any upright line or pillar, look as if they had been tunneled by + huge worms who have never learned to lift their heads. It is the very + underground palace of the Serpent, the spirit of changing shape and color, + that is the enemy of man. + </p> + <p> + But it is not merely by such strange aesthetic suggestions that writers + like Maeterlinck have influenced us in the matter; there is also an + ethical side to the business. The upshot of M. Maeterlinck’s book on bees + is an admiration, one might also say an envy, of their collective + spirituality; of the fact that they live only for something which he calls + the Soul of the Hive. And this admiration for the communal morality of + insects is expressed in many other modern writers in various quarters and + shapes; in Mr. Benjamin Kidd’s theory of living only for the evolutionary + future of our race, and in the great interest of some Socialists in ants, + which they generally prefer to bees, I suppose, because they are not so + brightly colored. Not least among the hundred evidences of this vague + insectolatry are the floods of flattery poured by modern people on that + energetic nation of the Far East of which it has been said that + “Patriotism is its only religion”; or, in other words, that it lives only + for the Soul of the Hive. When at long intervals of the centuries + Christendom grows weak, morbid or skeptical, and mysterious Asia begins to + move against us her dim populations and to pour them westward like a dark + movement of matter, in such cases it has been very common to compare the + invasion to a plague of lice or incessant armies of locusts. The Eastern + armies were indeed like insects; in their blind, busy destructiveness, in + their black nihilism of personal outlook, in their hateful indifference to + individual life and love, in their base belief in mere numbers, in their + pessimistic courage and their atheistic patriotism, the riders and raiders + of the East are indeed like all the creeping things of the earth. But + never before, I think, have Christians called a Turk a locust and meant it + as a compliment. Now for the first time we worship as well as fear; and + trace with adoration that enormous form advancing vast and vague out of + Asia, faintly discernible amid the mystic clouds of winged creatures hung + over the wasted lands, thronging the skies like thunder and discoloring + the skies like rain; Beelzebub, the Lord of Flies. + </p> + <p> + In resisting this horrible theory of the Soul of the Hive, we of + Christendom stand not for ourselves, but for all humanity; for the + essential and distinctive human idea that one good and happy man is an end + in himself, that a soul is worth saving. Nay, for those who like such + biological fancies it might well be said that we stand as chiefs and + champions of a whole section of nature, princes of the house whose + cognizance is the backbone, standing for the milk of the individual mother + and the courage of the wandering cub, representing the pathetic chivalry + of the dog, the humor and perversity of cats, the affection of the + tranquil horse, the loneliness of the lion. It is more to the point, + however, to urge that this mere glorification of society as it is in the + social insects is a transformation and a dissolution in one of the + outlines which have been specially the symbols of man. In the cloud and + confusion of the flies and bees is growing fainter and fainter, as is + finally disappearing, the idea of the human family. The hive has become + larger than the house, the bees are destroying their captors; what the + locust hath left, the caterpillar hath eaten; and the little house and + garden of our friend Jones is in a bad way. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0048" id="link2H_4_0048"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. THE FALLACY OF THE UMBRELLA STAND + </h2> + <p> + When Lord Morley said that the House of Lords must be either mended or + ended, he used a phrase which has caused some confusion; because it might + seem to suggest that mending and ending are somewhat similar things. I + wish specially to insist on the fact that mending and ending are opposite + things. You mend a thing because you like it; you end a thing because you + don’t. To mend is to strengthen. I, for instance, disbelieve in oligarchy; + so I would no more mend the House of Lords than I would mend a thumbscrew. + On the other hand, I do believe in the family; therefore I would mend the + family as I would mend a chair; and I will never deny for a moment that + the modern family is a chair that wants mending. But here comes in the + essential point about the mass of modern advanced sociologists. Here are + two institutions that have always been fundamental with mankind, the + family and the state. Anarchists, I believe, disbelieve in both. It is + quite unfair to say that Socialists believe in the state, but do not + believe in the family; thousands of Socialists believe more in the family + than any Tory. But it is true to say that while anarchists would end both, + Socialists are specially engaged in mending (that is, strengthening and + renewing) the state; and they are not specially engaged in strengthening + and renewing the family. They are not doing anything to define the + functions of father, mother, and child, as such; they are not tightening + the machine up again; they are not blackening in again the fading lines of + the old drawing. With the state they are doing this; they are sharpening + its machinery, they are blackening in its black dogmatic lines, they are + making mere government in every way stronger and in some ways harsher than + before. While they leave the home in ruins, they restore the hive, + especially the stings. Indeed, some schemes of labor and Poor Law reform + recently advanced by distinguished Socialists, amount to little more than + putting the largest number of people in the despotic power of Mr. Bumble. + Apparently, progress means being moved on—by the police. + </p> + <p> + The point it is my purpose to urge might perhaps be suggested thus: that + Socialists and most social reformers of their color are vividly conscious + of the line between the kind of things that belong to the state and the + kind of things that belong to mere chaos or uncoercible nature; they may + force children to go to school before the sun rises, but they will not try + to force the sun to rise; they will not, like Canute, banish the sea, but + only the sea-bathers. But inside the outline of the state their lines are + confused, and entities melt into each other. They have no firm instinctive + sense of one thing being in its nature private and another public, of one + thing being necessarily bond and another free. That is why piece by piece, + and quite silently, personal liberty is being stolen from Englishmen, as + personal land has been silently stolen ever since the sixteenth century. + </p> + <p> + I can only put it sufficiently curtly in a careless simile. A Socialist + means a man who thinks a walking-stick like an umbrella because they both + go into the umbrella-stand. Yet they are as different as a battle-ax and a + bootjack. The essential idea of an umbrella is breadth and protection. The + essential idea of a stick is slenderness and, partly, attack. The stick is + the sword, the umbrella is the shield, but it is a shield against another + and more nameless enemy—the hostile but anonymous universe. More + properly, therefore, the umbrella is the roof; it is a kind of collapsible + house. But the vital difference goes far deeper than this; it branches off + into two kingdoms of man’s mind, with a chasm between. For the point is + this: that the umbrella is a shield against an enemy so actual as to be a + mere nuisance; whereas the stick is a sword against enemies so entirely + imaginary as to be a pure pleasure. The stick is not merely a sword, but a + court sword; it is a thing of purely ceremonial swagger. One cannot + express the emotion in any way except by saying that a man feels more like + a man with a stick in his hand, just as he feels more like a man with a + sword at his side. But nobody ever had any swelling sentiments about an + umbrella; it is a convenience, like a door scraper. An umbrella is a + necessary evil. A walking-stick is a quite unnecessary good. This, I + fancy, is the real explanation of the perpetual losing of umbrellas; one + does not hear of people losing walking sticks. For a walking-stick is a + pleasure, a piece of real personal property; it is missed even when it is + not needed. When my right hand forgets its stick may it forget its + cunning. But anybody may forget an umbrella, as anybody might forget a + shed that he has stood up in out of the rain. Anybody can forget a + necessary thing. + </p> + <p> + If I might pursue the figure of speech, I might briefly say that the whole + Collectivist error consists in saying that because two men can share an + umbrella, therefore two men can share a walking-stick. Umbrellas might + possibly be replaced by some kind of common awnings covering certain + streets from particular showers. But there is nothing but nonsense in the + notion of swinging a communal stick; it is as if one spoke of twirling a + communal mustache. It will be said that this is a frank fantasia and that + no sociologists suggest such follies. Pardon me if they do. I will give a + precise parallel to the case of confusion of sticks and umbrellas, a + parallel from a perpetually reiterated suggestion of reform. At least + sixty Socialists out of a hundred, when they have spoken of common + laundries, will go on at once to speak of common kitchens. This is just as + mechanical and unintelligent as the fanciful case I have quoted. Sticks + and umbrellas are both stiff rods that go into holes in a stand in the + hall. Kitchens and washhouses are both large rooms full of heat and damp + and steam. But the soul and function of the two things are utterly + opposite. There is only one way of washing a shirt; that is, there is only + one right way. There is no taste and fancy in tattered shirts. Nobody + says, “Tompkins likes five holes in his shirt, but I must say, give me the + good old four holes.” Nobody says, “This washerwoman rips up the left leg + of my pyjamas; now if there is one thing I insist on it is the right leg + ripped up.” The ideal washing is simply to send a thing back washed. But + it is by no means true that the ideal cooking is simply to send a thing + back cooked. Cooking is an art; it has in it personality, and even + perversity, for the definition of an art is that which must be personal + and may be perverse. I know a man, not otherwise dainty, who cannot touch + common sausages unless they are almost burned to a coal. He wants his + sausages fried to rags, yet he does not insist on his shirts being boiled + to rags. I do not say that such points of culinary delicacy are of high + importance. I do not say that the communal ideal must give way to them. + What I say is that the communal ideal is not conscious of their existence, + and therefore goes wrong from the very start, mixing a wholly public thing + with a highly individual one. Perhaps we ought to accept communal kitchens + in the social crisis, just as we should accept communal cat’s-meat in a + siege. But the cultured Socialist, quite at his ease, by no means in a + siege, talks about communal kitchens as if they were the same kind of + thing as communal laundries. This shows at the start that he + misunderstands human nature. It is as different as three men singing the + same chorus from three men playing three tunes on the same piano. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0049" id="link2H_4_0049"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. THE DREADFUL DUTY OF GUDGE + </h2> + <p> + In the quarrel earlier alluded to between the energetic Progressive and + the obstinate Conservative (or, to talk a tenderer language, between Hudge + and Gudge), the state of cross-purposes is at the present moment acute. + The Tory says he wants to preserve family life in Cindertown; the + Socialist very reasonably points out to him that in Cindertown at present + there isn’t any family life to preserve. But Hudge, the Socialist, in his + turn, is highly vague and mysterious about whether he would preserve the + family life if there were any; or whether he will try to restore it where + it has disappeared. It is all very confusing. The Tory sometimes talks as + if he wanted to tighten the domestic bonds that do not exist; the + Socialist as if he wanted to loosen the bonds that do not bind anybody. + The question we all want to ask of both of them is the original ideal + question, “Do you want to keep the family at all?” If Hudge, the + Socialist, does want the family he must be prepared for the natural + restraints, distinctions and divisions of labor in the family. He must + brace himself up to bear the idea of the woman having a preference for the + private house and a man for the public house. He must manage to endure + somehow the idea of a woman being womanly, which does not mean soft and + yielding, but handy, thrifty, rather hard, and very humorous. He must + confront without a quiver the notion of a child who shall be childish, + that is, full of energy, but without an idea of independence; + fundamentally as eager for authority as for information and butter-scotch. + If a man, a woman and a child live together any more in free and sovereign + households, these ancient relations will recur; and Hudge must put up with + it. He can only avoid it by destroying the family, driving both sexes into + sexless hives and hordes, and bringing up all children as the children of + the state—like Oliver Twist. But if these stern words must be + addressed to Hudge, neither shall Gudge escape a somewhat severe + admonition. For the plain truth to be told pretty sharply to the Tory is + this, that if he wants the family to remain, if he wants to be strong + enough to resist the rending forces of our essentially savage commerce, he + must make some very big sacrifices and try to equalize property. The + overwhelming mass of the English people at this particular instant are + simply too poor to be domestic. They are as domestic as they can manage; + they are much more domestic than the governing class; but they cannot get + what good there was originally meant to be in this institution, simply + because they have not got enough money. The man ought to stand for a + certain magnanimity, quite lawfully expressed in throwing money away: but + if under given circumstances he can only do it by throwing the week’s food + away, then he is not magnanimous, but mean. The woman ought to stand for a + certain wisdom which is well expressed in valuing things rightly and + guarding money sensibly; but how is she to guard money if there is no + money to guard? The child ought to look on his mother as a fountain of + natural fun and poetry; but how can he unless the fountain, like other + fountains, is allowed to play? What chance have any of these ancient arts + and functions in a house so hideously topsy-turvy; a house where the woman + is out working and the man isn’t; and the child is forced by law to think + his schoolmaster’s requirements more important than his mother’s? No, + Gudge and his friends in the House of Lords and the Carlton Club must make + up their minds on this matter, and that very quickly. If they are content + to have England turned into a beehive and an ant-hill, decorated here and + there with a few faded butterflies playing at an old game called + domesticity in the intervals of the divorce court, then let them have + their empire of insects; they will find plenty of Socialists who will give + it to them. But if they want a domestic England, they must “shell out,” as + the phrase goes, to a vastly greater extent than any Radical politician + has yet dared to suggest; they must endure burdens much heavier than the + Budget and strokes much deadlier than the death duties; for the thing to + be done is nothing more nor less than the distribution of the great + fortunes and the great estates. We can now only avoid Socialism by a + change as vast as Socialism. If we are to save property, we must + distribute property, almost as sternly and sweepingly as did the French + Revolution. If we are to preserve the family we must revolutionize the + nation. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0050" id="link2H_4_0050"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. A LAST INSTANCE + </h2> + <p> + And now, as this book is drawing to a close, I will whisper in the + reader’s ear a horrible suspicion that has sometimes haunted me: the + suspicion that Hudge and Gudge are secretly in partnership. That the + quarrel they keep up in public is very much of a put-up job, and that the + way in which they perpetually play into each other’s hands is not an + everlasting coincidence. Gudge, the plutocrat, wants an anarchic + industrialism; Hudge, the idealist, provides him with lyric praises of + anarchy. Gudge wants women-workers because they are cheaper; Hudge calls + the woman’s work “freedom to live her own life.” Gudge wants steady and + obedient workmen, Hudge preaches teetotalism—to workmen, not to + Gudge—Gudge wants a tame and timid population who will never take + arms against tyranny; Hudge proves from Tolstoi that nobody must take arms + against anything. Gudge is naturally a healthy and well-washed gentleman; + Hudge earnestly preaches the perfection of Gudge’s washing to people who + can’t practice it. Above all, Gudge rules by a coarse and cruel system of + sacking and sweating and bi-sexual toil which is totally inconsistent with + the free family and which is bound to destroy it; therefore Hudge, + stretching out his arms to the universe with a prophetic smile, tells us + that the family is something that we shall soon gloriously outgrow. + </p> + <p> + I do not know whether the partnership of Hudge and Gudge is conscious or + unconscious. I only know that between them they still keep the common man + homeless. I only know I still meet Jones walking the streets in the gray + twilight, looking sadly at the poles and barriers and low red goblin + lanterns which still guard the house which is none the less his because he + has never been in it. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0051" id="link2H_4_0051"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + V. CONCLUSION + </h2> + <p> + Here, it may be said, my book ends just where it ought to begin. I have + said that the strong centers of modern English property must swiftly or + slowly be broken up, if even the idea of property is to remain among + Englishmen. There are two ways in which it could be done, a cold + administration by quite detached officials, which is called Collectivism, + or a personal distribution, so as to produce what is called Peasant + Proprietorship. I think the latter solution the finer and more fully + human, because it makes each man as somebody blamed somebody for saying of + the Pope, a sort of small god. A man on his own turf tastes eternity or, + in other words, will give ten minutes more work than is required. But I + believe I am justified in shutting the door on this vista of argument, + instead of opening it. For this book is not designed to prove the case for + Peasant Proprietorship, but to prove the case against modern sages who + turn reform to a routine. The whole of this book has been a rambling and + elaborate urging of one purely ethical fact. And if by any chance it + should happen that there are still some who do not quite see what that + point is, I will end with one plain parable, which is none the worse for + being also a fact. + </p> + <p> + A little while ago certain doctors and other persons permitted by modern + law to dictate to their shabbier fellow-citizens, sent out an order that + all little girls should have their hair cut short. I mean, of course, all + little girls whose parents were poor. Many very unhealthy habits are + common among rich little girls, but it will be long before any doctors + interfere forcibly with them. Now, the case for this particular + interference was this, that the poor are pressed down from above into such + stinking and suffocating underworlds of squalor, that poor people must not + be allowed to have hair, because in their case it must mean lice in the + hair. Therefore, the doctors propose to abolish the hair. It never seems + to have occurred to them to abolish the lice. Yet it could be done. As is + common in most modern discussions the unmentionable thing is the pivot of + the whole discussion. It is obvious to any Christian man (that is, to any + man with a free soul) that any coercion applied to a cabman’s daughter + ought, if possible, to be applied to a Cabinet Minister’s daughter. I will + not ask why the doctors do not, as a matter of fact apply their rule to a + Cabinet Minister’s daughter. I will not ask, because I know. They do not + because they dare not. But what is the excuse they would urge, what is the + plausible argument they would use, for thus cutting and clipping poor + children and not rich? Their argument would be that the disease is more + likely to be in the hair of poor people than of rich. And why? Because the + poor children are forced (against all the instincts of the highly domestic + working classes) to crowd together in close rooms under a wildly + inefficient system of public instruction; and because in one out of the + forty children there may be offense. And why? Because the poor man is so + ground down by the great rents of the great ground landlords that his wife + often has to work as well as he. Therefore she has no time to look after + the children, therefore one in forty of them is dirty. Because the + workingman has these two persons on top of him, the landlord sitting + (literally) on his stomach, and the schoolmaster sitting (literally) on + his head, the workingman must allow his little girl’s hair, first to be + neglected from poverty, next to be poisoned by promiscuity, and, lastly, + to be abolished by hygiene. He, perhaps, was proud of his little girl’s + hair. But he does not count. + </p> + <p> + Upon this simple principle (or rather precedent) the sociological doctor + drives gayly ahead. When a crapulous tyranny crushes men down into the + dirt, so that their very hair is dirty, the scientific course is clear. It + would be long and laborious to cut off the heads of the tyrants; it is + easier to cut off the hair of the slaves. In the same way, if it should + ever happen that poor children, screaming with toothache, disturbed any + schoolmaster or artistic gentleman, it would be easy to pull out all the + teeth of the poor; if their nails were disgustingly dirty, their nails + could be plucked out; if their noses were indecently blown, their noses + could be cut off. The appearance of our humbler fellow-citizen could be + quite strikingly simplified before we had done with him. But all this is + not a bit wilder than the brute fact that a doctor can walk into the house + of a free man, whose daughter’s hair may be as clean as spring flowers, + and order him to cut it off. It never seems to strike these people that + the lesson of lice in the slums is the wrongness of slums, not the + wrongness of hair. Hair is, to say the least of it, a rooted thing. Its + enemy (like the other insects and oriental armies of whom we have spoken) + sweep upon us but seldom. In truth, it is only by eternal institutions + like hair that we can test passing institutions like empires. If a house + is so built as to knock a man’s head off when he enters it, it is built + wrong. + </p> + <p> + The mob can never rebel unless it is conservative, at least enough to have + conserved some reasons for rebelling. It is the most awful thought in all + our anarchy, that most of the ancient blows struck for freedom would not + be struck at all to-day, because of the obscuration of the clean, popular + customs from which they came. The insult that brought down the hammer of + Wat Tyler might now be called a medical examination. That which Virginius + loathed and avenged as foul slavery might now be praised as free love. The + cruel taunt of Foulon, “Let them eat grass,” might now be represented as + the dying cry of an idealistic vegetarian. Those great scissors of science + that would snip off the curls of the poor little school children are + ceaselessly snapping closer and closer to cut off all the corners and + fringes of the arts and honors of the poor. Soon they will be twisting + necks to suit clean collars, and hacking feet to fit new boots. It never + seems to strike them that the body is more than raiment; that the Sabbath + was made for man; that all institutions shall be judged and damned by + whether they have fitted the normal flesh and spirit. It is the test of + political sanity to keep your head. It is the test of artistic sanity to + keep your hair on. + </p> + <p> + Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all + these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over + again, and begin at the other end. I begin with a little girl’s hair. That + I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a + good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those + adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. + If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords + and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must + go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire + to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she + should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not + have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she + should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free + mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not + be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; + because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a + revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just + watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and + altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict’s; no, all the + kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She + is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway + and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs + of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0052" id="link2H_4_0052"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + THREE NOTES + </h2> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0053" id="link2H_4_0053"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. ON FEMALE SUFFRAGE + </h2> + <p> + Not wishing to overload this long essay with too many parentheses, apart + from its thesis of progress and precedent, I append here three notes on + points of detail that may possibly be misunderstood. + </p> + <p> + The first refers to the female controversy. It may seem to many that I + dismiss too curtly the contention that all women should have votes, even + if most women do not desire them. It is constantly said in this connection + that males have received the vote (the agricultural laborers for instance) + when only a minority of them were in favor of it. Mr. Galsworthy, one of + the few fine fighting intellects of our time, has talked this language in + the “Nation.” Now, broadly, I have only to answer here, as everywhere in + this book, that history is not a toboggan slide, but a road to be + reconsidered and even retraced. If we really forced General Elections upon + free laborers who definitely disliked General Elections, then it was a + thoroughly undemocratic thing to do; if we are democrats we ought to undo + it. We want the will of the people, not the votes of the people; and to + give a man a vote against his will is to make voting more valuable than + the democracy it declares. + </p> + <p> + But this analogy is false, for a plain and particular reason. Many + voteless women regard a vote as unwomanly. Nobody says that most voteless + men regarded a vote as unmanly. Nobody says that any voteless men regarded + it as unmanly. Not in the stillest hamlet or the most stagnant fen could + you find a yokel or a tramp who thought he lost his sexual dignity by + being part of a political mob. If he did not care about a vote it was + solely because he did not know about a vote; he did not understand the + word any better than Bimetallism. His opposition, if it existed, was + merely negative. His indifference to a vote was really indifference. + </p> + <p> + But the female sentiment against the franchise, whatever its size, is + positive. It is not negative; it is by no means indifferent. Such women as + are opposed to the change regard it (rightly or wrongly) as unfeminine. + That is, as insulting certain affirmative traditions to which they are + attached. You may think such a view prejudiced; but I violently deny that + any democrat has a right to override such prejudices, if they are popular + and positive. Thus he would not have a right to make millions of Moslems + vote with a cross if they had a prejudice in favor of voting with a + crescent. Unless this is admitted, democracy is a farce we need scarcely + keep up. If it is admitted, the Suffragists have not merely to awaken an + indifferent, but to convert a hostile majority. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0054" id="link2H_4_0054"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. ON CLEANLINESS IN EDUCATION + </h2> + <p> + On re-reading my protest, which I honestly think much needed, against our + heathen idolatry of mere ablution, I see that it may possibly be misread. + I hasten to say that I think washing a most important thing to be taught + both to rich and poor. I do not attack the positive but the relative + position of soap. Let it be insisted on even as much as now; but let other + things be insisted on much more. I am even ready to admit that cleanliness + is next to godliness; but the moderns will not even admit godliness to be + next to cleanliness. In their talk about Thomas Becket and such saints and + heroes they make soap more important than soul; they reject godliness + whenever it is not cleanliness. If we resent this about remote saints and + heroes, we should resent it more about the many saints and heroes of the + slums, whose unclean hands cleanse the world. Dirt is evil chiefly as + evidence of sloth; but the fact remains that the classes that wash most + are those that work least. Concerning these, the practical course is + simple; soap should be urged on them and advertised as what it is—a + luxury. With regard to the poor also the practical course is not hard to + harmonize with our thesis. If we want to give poor people soap we must set + out deliberately to give them luxuries. If we will not make them rich + enough to be clean, then emphatically we must do what we did with the + saints. We must reverence them for being dirty. + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0055" id="link2H_4_0055"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. ON PEASANT PROPRIETORSHIP + </h2> + <p> + I have not dealt with any details touching distributed ownership, or its + possibility in England, for the reason stated in the text. This book deals + with what is wrong, wrong in our root of argument and effort. This wrong + is, I say, that we will go forward because we dare not go back. Thus the + Socialist says that property is already concentrated into Trusts and + Stores: the only hope is to concentrate it further in the State. I say the + only hope is to unconcentrate it; that is, to repent and return; the only + step forward is the step backward. + </p> + <p> + But in connection with this distribution I have laid myself open to + another potential mistake. In speaking of a sweeping redistribution, I + speak of decision in the aim, not necessarily of abruptness in the means. + It is not at all too late to restore an approximately rational state of + English possessions without any mere confiscation. A policy of buying out + landlordism, steadily adopted in England as it has already been adopted in + Ireland (notably in Mr. Wyndham’s wise and fruitful Act), would in a very + short time release the lower end of the see-saw and make the whole plank + swing more level. The objection to this course is not at all that it would + not do, only that it will not be done. If we leave things as they are, + there will almost certainly be a crash of confiscation. If we hesitate, we + shall soon have to hurry. But if we start doing it quickly we have still + time to do it slowly. + </p> + <p> + This point, however, is not essential to my book. All I have to urge + between these two boards is that I dislike the big Whiteley shop, and that + I dislike Socialism because it will (according to Socialists) be so like + that shop. It is its fulfilment, not its reversal. I do not object to + Socialism because it will revolutionize our commerce, but because it will + leave it so horribly the same. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg’s What’s Wrong With The World, by G.K. Chesterton + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WORLD *** + +***** This file should be named 1717-h.htm or 1717-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/1/1717/ + +Produced by Georges Allaire, Martin Ward, and David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions 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 with public domain eBooks. 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 +http://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 in the public domain 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 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 + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (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 Michael +Hart, 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 +public domain works 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 F3. 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 MERCHANTIBILITY 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, is 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 web page at http://www.pglaf.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. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. 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 located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., 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 +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +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 http://pglaf.org + +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: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty 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 Public Domain 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: + + http://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> |