diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 18:38:39 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 18:38:39 -0800 |
| commit | 0403bc6efb5233c5b2e47dc6d49e3d8724a84c68 (patch) | |
| tree | b675e5351894008927c7d782b2b697d9145e8511 | |
| parent | 9b36c7397a555ee62f59b0951b8b857eb61924f6 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66101-0.txt | 6506 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66101-0.zip | bin | 142667 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66101-h.zip | bin | 295011 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66101-h/66101-h.htm | 6706 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66101-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 97685 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66101-h/images/title.jpg | bin | 49648 -> 0 bytes |
9 files changed, 17 insertions, 13212 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fa2e37b --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #66101 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66101) diff --git a/old/66101-0.txt b/old/66101-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index dd838fb..0000000 --- a/old/66101-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6506 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, Ploughshare and Pruning-Hook, by Laurence -Housman - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: Ploughshare and Pruning-Hook - Ten Lectures on Social Subjects - - -Author: Laurence Housman - - - -Release Date: August 21, 2021 [eBook #66101] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PLOUGHSHARE AND PRUNING-HOOK*** - - -E-text prepared by Tim Lindell, Martin Pettit, and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made -available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/ploughsharepruni00hous - - - - - -PLOUGHSHARE AND PRUNING-HOOK - -Ten Lectures on Social Subjects - -by - -LAURENCE HOUSMAN - - - - - - -The Swarthmore Press Ltd. -(formerly trading as Headley Bros. Publishers Ltd.) -72 Oxford Street, London, W1 - -First Printed September, 1919 - - - - -PREFACE - - -These papers, originally given as lectures, make no pretence to the -solution of the social or political problems with which they are -concerned. They indicate rather a certain standpoint or attitude of -mind from which these and like questions may be viewed, one which may -find acceptance with only a few of my readers. Even those who are -friendly may consider it too idealistic; those who are adverse will -employ other and harder terms. - -With regard to that standpoint, while not wishing to avert criticism, -I would like to secure understanding; and if a few words of general -application can make that more possible it may be well to offer them -here. - -Whether these lectures were primarily intended for the pulpit or -the platform it would be hard to say. Most of them have been given -in both places: and their drawback to some who heard them in the -former was (I have been told) their occasional tendency to make the -congregation laugh. That in itself is no special recommendation; it -takes so much less to make a congregation laugh than an audience. -Between the pulpit and the platform there is bound to be a difference; -even the fact that the preacher is normally immune from interjection -or debate tends to give to his statements a complacency which is not -always intellectually justified. And I remember well that two of these -lectures, after having been accepted in a church with only momentary -breaches of decorum, aroused elsewhere a storm of criticism and rebuke -which taught me, if I did not know it before, that a preacher occupies -a very privileged position, and can turn a church, if he chooses, into -a place of licence which elsewhere will not be accorded him. - -But there is one point of difference between the pulpit and the -platform, between the exposition of religion and politics, which I -have never been able to understand. After all, in both cases, you -are dealing with and making your appeal to human nature; you may -be inciting it to virtue, you may be exposing its imperfections -and its faults. Why is it, then, that in the religious appeal -“conversion”--change of heart--stands for almost everything, whilst on -the political platform it is hardly reckoned with? It is so much easier -and safer to tell a congregation that they are “miserable sinners,” and -even to get them (perhaps conventionally) to say it of themselves, than -to tell it, or to extract a like confession from a political audience. -In a church we allow ourselves to be taken to task for “hardness of -heart and contempt of God’s word and commandments”; at a political -meeting it is only our opponents whom we so take to task, while of -ourselves and our party we have nothing but praise. It is on these -lines that a general election is run--revivalist meetings are held -throughout the country to denounce, not our own sins, but the sins of -others. Is it any wonder that it does not produce honest results? - -Having said this, I have given the main standpoint of the papers -that follow. I do not believe that we can get home to our political -and social problems without self-accusation going quite as deep as -anything we say of ourselves in church or chapel--or without making -the application very direct and personal. There is no institution -in our midst, religious or secular, which does not stand quite as -much in need of conversion, change of heart, as do the individuals -for whose benefit or disciplinary treatment it is run. Our schools, -prisons, law courts, State institutions, ministries, diplomacies--all -those things on which we most pride ourselves--are just as liable, -perhaps more liable, to hardness of heart and contempt of God’s word -and commandments as we ourselves, for they are all part of us. It -is, indeed, one of our social devices to get rid of our consciences -by making them institutional. There is a certain class of mind which -thinks that if it has established legality it has established a right -over conscience--that if it has established order it has established -virtue. It has very often established quite the contrary--not virtue -but a State-regulation of vice; for if we can turn the hardness of our -hearts into a State-regulation, there we have vice enthroned; and -the callousness of the individual is enlarged and becomes a national -callousness, all the more difficult to get rid of, because it has -become identified with law and authority. - -A very good (or bad) example of this was provided by the conduct of -the Bishops in the House of Lords a few years ago, when, to provide -the Government with a short cut out of its difficulties in dealing -with political prisoners (mainly caused by its refusal to treat them -as political prisoners) they allowed the rules of the House to be -suspended for the passing through all its stages in twenty-four hours -of the “Cat and Mouse Act.” Before long its operations horrified -them, and they signed (or some of them did) letters and memorials of -protest to the Government, asking for those operations to be stopped. -But not one of them would make a motion in the House of Lords for -the suspension or repeal of that Act for which, in so special a way, -they had made themselves responsible. By allowing it to become law -they had passed on the responsibility to others; and being thus quit -of it, the last thing probably that occurred to any of them was that -they themselves needed “a change of heart” in order to recover moral -integrity, or even political honesty. - -And so, in these pages, law and authority are just as much questioned -as any other of our social features, on the direct assumption that -like produces like, and that a form of society which establishes, -encourages, or condones as “necessary” such defilements of human -nature as militarism, prostitution, sweated labour, slum-dwellings, -vengeful and unreformative punishment--having its heart so hardened as -to tolerate these--is not likely in its institutions and government -departments to have escaped from a reproduction of that attitude of -mind which makes them possible or regards them as a defensible solution -of the social problem. - -The war has revealed much to us. It has shown how much society is -willing to afford for things which it considers worth while; and has -thus shown by implication those things which formerly society did not -think worth while--because its heart was not in them. It has had the -heart to spend colossal sums, to conscript millions of young lives to -death in defence of its organisation upon the lines of power against -a rival organisation willing to pay a similar price. It had not the -heart, in the days of peace and prosperity, to spend one-hundredth part -of that sum in organising even those institutions which it entirely -controlled, on the lines of love. - -In our own midst, behind our sea-defences, we were still competitive, -jealous, grudging, parsimonious, wasteful, slow to mercy and of great -anger; and the prevailing characteristic of our civil contentions was -that no side would ever admit itself to be in the wrong, or consent -to think that a change of its own heart was necessary. And as the -very crown and apex to that mountain of self-deception, stood the -ministerial bench in Parliament. When blunders had been perpetrated and -became too obvious for concealment, we might occasionally be told that -to make mistakes was human, and that government did not claim immunity -from the operation of that law; but ministers would dodge, and shuffle, -and lie--suppress, or even falsify information to which only they had -access, rather than admit that they had “done wrong,” or open their -eyes to the fact that what they mainly needed was a change of heart. - -And as with ministers as a whole, so as a whole with people. Those -elements of our national and international relations which were leading -steadily on to the great conflagration wherein we were all presently -to be involved, were those in which (our pride being implicated) we -stubbornly denied that any change of heart was necessary. The State -would not admit that its exaltation of the Will to Power over the Will -to Love was morally wrong; it would not admit that the alternative -came within the scope of practical politics; such teaching it left -to the advocacy of the Churches; and how half-hearted that advocacy -had become under pressure of the surrounding atmosphere of national -self-sufficiency was revealed when the war came upon us. Christianity -became almost mute; the one form of prayer, special to the occasion, -which the Church could not or would not use was that which alone is -truly Christian--prayer in identical terms both for ourselves and our -enemies. To pray that spiritual strength and moral virtue might be -given equally to us and them was beyond us--though in the granting of -it war would have ceased. We were not content to pray merely that right -should prevail--right, that most difficult of all outcomes to secure -when once, even for a just cause, nations embark on war--we insisted on -praying that we should prevail: and so (praying for things materially -established) not that we should prevail by a clean adherence to the -principles of democracy, but by the instrumentality of a corrupt and -secret diplomacy. And so before long--knowingly or unknowingly--we were -praying for the success of the secret treaties, for the successful -repudiation of the very principles for which we had set out to -fight, for the suppression of Ireland’s right to self-determination, -for the downfall of the Russian Revolution, which was insisting so -inconveniently on a belated return to first principles, and for other -doubtful advantages not at all synonymous with the coming of Christ’s -Kingdom. And we were praying for these things--just as really, though -we did not mention them by name--because our hearts were not set -on praying for the well-being of all nations and all governments -alike. Had we been capable of so praying, it would have meant that a -real change of heart had come to us, and that we were offering that -changed heart to all the world alike for the establishment of the new -International. - -But to such change of heart we could not attain--could not even -consent; for it would have implied that there was something morally -wrong in our national institutions, in our government and our whole -social structure, which we would not admit. We would not admit that the -chemic elements of our own national life had conduced to war in common -with the chemic elements of the nation whose flagrant violation of -treaties had given us the immediate materials for a good conscience. We -fattened our hearts for war on the immediate material thus provided us, -ignoring those other materials which lay behind, and which we and all -other nations shared alike--though not necessarily in equal degrees. - -And here we have the essential and fundamental difference between the -genuine profession of Christianity and the profession of Cæsarism. -For the follower of Christ to confess that he has done wrong, that he -needs a change of heart, redounds to his honour--he goes down to his -house justified. But when a nation has given itself to Cæsar, its main -idea of “honour” is to refuse to admit it has done wrong, or to accept -punishment; it may be beaten, crushed, but you cannot extract from it -a confession of moral wrong-doing; a sense of sin is the negation not -only of the German State system, but of all. A “proud nation” will not -own that it has been in the wrong, least of all when it embarks on war; -if it did it would go down to its house in dust. - -Now that being, as I see it, the moral product of Cæsarism, in all its -degrees and kinds--whether autocratic or democratic Cæsarism--of the -setting up of the Will to Power over the Will to Love--it follows that -the change of heart which I predicate in these pages for the solution -of our social and international problems, is almost a Tolstoian -negation of the principle upon which the modern state system stands. As -such, it will be very unwelcome to many of my readers; but I hope that, -as here set down, I have made my standpoint plain. The ploughshare and -the pruning-hook are not mine to wield; I only point in the direction -where I think they are to be found. - -L. H. - - - - -CONTENTS - - PAGE -Great Possessions 1 - -Crime and Punishment 26 - -Christianity a Danger to the State 48 - -The Salt of the Earth 63 - -The Rights of Majorities 85 - -Discreditable Conduct 109 - -What is Womanly? 135 - -Use and Ornament 157 - -Art and Citizenship 189 - -Conscious and Unconscious Immortality 218 - - - - -GREAT POSSESSIONS - -(1913) - - -“You never know yourself,” says Thomas Traherne, “till you know more -than your own body. The Image of God was not seated in the features of -your face but in the lineaments of your soul. In the knowledge of your -powers, inclinations, and principles, the knowledge of yourself chiefly -consisteth.... The world is but a little centre in comparison of you -... like a gentleman’s house to one that is travelling, it is a long -time before you come unto it--you pass it in an instant--and you leave -it for ever. The omnipresence and eternity of God are your fellows and -companions. Your understanding comprehends the world like the dust of a -balance, measures Heaven with a span, and esteems a thousand years but -as one day.” - -To this statement of man’s comprehensive powers, a further one might -legitimately be added: You shall never know delight, till you delight -in more than your own body. - -Man’s body being the crucible wherein such vast things come to be -tested, “Eternal Delights are,” says Traherne, in a further passage, -“its only fit enjoyment.” - -His doctrine is remarkable in this, that while he tends to see in -everything a spiritual significance, and almost refuses to find beauty -in externals alone, he insists, nevertheless, that man was sent into -the world to enjoy himself, to stretch out for new acquisitions with -all his faculties, and take to himself great possessions. He regards -even the base and material form of conquest, expressed in endless -covetousness and fierce desire for possession, rather as a lower -type of what man should do and be, than of what he should not. Man’s -faculties were given him so that he might be divinely unsatisfied, ever -seeking more, ever assimilating more--regarding this earth not as a -vale of misery or a source of temptation, but as a very Paradise and -the true gate by which Heaven is to be attained and entered. “It is, -indeed,” he writes, “the beautiful frontispiece of Eternity, the Temple -of God, and the Palace of His Children.” - -In this respect Traherne’s teaching is remarkably like the teaching of -William Blake, who regarded the mere outwardness of things as nothing -in comparison with their real inwardness, and yet was insistent that -here and now the spirit of delight and energy and enjoyment was the -true and undefiled way of life. - -But this revolt against the monastic asceticism of the middle ages -stands far removed from any implication of sensual indulgence. - -“My mind to me a kingdom is,” wrote one of our poets. “The kingdom of -Heaven is within you” gives in more scriptural phrase precisely the -same truth; and for its application to the conduct of life we have -this further scripture: “Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth -where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves break through and -steal, but lay up for yourselves treasure in Heaven where neither moth -nor rust doth corrupt and where thieves do not break through and steal.” - -And if it be a true boast that man’s mind is his real and legitimate -kingdom, then he must make that kingdom his Heaven, and within that -kingdom his treasure must be stored. It is there, by the power of -his mind more than by the power of his hands, that he must gather -and hold together his great possessions. We are accustomed to speak -in one single connection (with book-knowledge, namely, and with the -use of words)--of “learning things by heart.” It is only “by heart” -that we can ever really learn anything; only when our heart is in it -do we know and value a thing so as to understand it. The man whose -heart is not in his work is not a complete craftsman; he has not yet -learned the “mystery” of his trade. When men’s hearts were in their -work they called their trades “mysteries,” and did, as a consequence, -more excellently than we do now, when we make rather for the price of a -thing than for the joy of it. - -Until we have joy in our labour, all labour is a form of waste--for it -wastes the bodies and souls which are put to it, and is destructive -of the most wonderful and valuable commodity which this planet has yet -produced--human nature. Labour without joy causes it to deteriorate; -and if a man is put to work wherein it is impossible to find joy, then -it were better for the wealth of the nation, as well as for the wealth -of his own individual soul, that he should be free from it. - -And if that is impossible then let us not boast ourselves about our -“national wealth” or our great possessions. Nations whose wealth -and industries are built up out of the hard and grinding mechanical -labour of millions are not capable in any true sense of holding -great possessions, for at their very root is an enormous mass of -poverty--impoverished blood, impoverished brain, and impoverished -spirit. - -If you would examine into the wealth of this or any other nation, look -not first at its temples or its arts, but into the bodies and minds -and characters--and the faculty for joy--of its men and women. And -if these, in the majority of cases, are below par, then the nation’s -wealth is below par also; its great possessions are overshadowed by the -greater dispossession which stands imposed upon the lives of its people. - -The word possession itself has, in our use of it, a double -significance. When we speak of a man “having a possession,” we may mean -two things--either that he possesses, or else that he is possessed. A -man with a possession of jealousy, or hatred, lust or covetousness, -has no real possession or control of those things, but is himself -possessed or controlled by them, and so is rendered not stronger but -weaker--subject to a master other than himself. - -Yet the man who is thus possessed is not conscious of any diminution -of his individuality, any reduction of personal power or prowess: he -does not discern from it any closing in of that round horizon to which -first his spirit was heir. For that by which he is possessed fills him -with such a pressure of emotion--its dynamic forces within him are so -strong, that he may actually imagine his personality to be thereby not -diminished but enlarged, and may (by reason of the violence with which -this distemper discharges itself on others) be cheated into the belief -that thus he secures for himself a broader base, raising his life to a -higher level of consciousness, instead of what actually is the truth, -turning it to consumption and waste--not opening his senses to new joys -but shutting them in; sharpening them indeed like teeth, but closing -them together with springs made not for expansion but for contraction, -so that they act like a trap destructive of the very life they would -control. And as with individual men, so with nations. - -“Would you know a man,” said the Greek oracle, “give him power.” But -that, though sure as a test of others, is no sure means for enabling a -man to know himself. Power all down the ages has been the arch-deceiver -of mankind. Power which has set itself on great possessions has -brought disinheritance to the human race. We do not know what humanity -might be--how fair, how lovely, and of what good report--that great -beatific vision is still hidden from our eyes--mainly because we -have interpreted power in terms of possession; and, forcing others -to go without, in order that we ourselves may possess, we stand -to-day immeasurably poorer and weaker than we should have been had we -interpreted our power and our possessions differently. - -For centuries of time (so long, indeed, as history records anything) -the leading nations of the world have gone out to conquer other nations -and to possess them. And how have they done so?--mainly by depriving -them of their liberty, by reducing their power of initiative, by -undermining and warping their racial characteristics. How much has -not that impoverished the history of the world and the real wealth of -nations? For people living in subservience or subjection, accepting and -not rebelling against it, breed less nobly as a consequence--they fail, -then, to produce great minds or to express themselves greatly in the -arts. Their life-potency is diminished; and we, holding them upon those -terms, are owners of a property which we squander by our very mode of -possessing it. - -Quite as much of the art, the literature and the philosophy of the -greatest periods of civilisation has been wiped out and destroyed -beyond recovery by these possessive struggles of the past as has -been hazardously preserved and passed down to us through interludes -of peace; nor have we any cause to think that in the future we shall -be any wiser while our views as to possession show so little change. -And that loss in beautiful production is but the symbol, the outward -and visible sign of a loss immensely more great in flesh and blood -and spirit, which has gone on--not only while wars were waged, but -when (war being ended) dominance over the conquered was imposed as a -condition of peace. Every nation that has made itself materially great -on these terms, has done so on a _débris_ of perished loveliness which -does not reach its full amount in the hour of the victors’ triumph; but -goes on accumulating till that also which caused it is brought to the -dust. - -It is many years, for instance, since we conquered India; and in so -far as our dominion has saved it from other conquests and wars of -native State against State, and creed against creed, our rule may -have been beneficial--though I do not think that we ought to take our -own word for it, or indeed anyone’s word except that of the native -communities themselves and a native press, free and unfettered for -the giving or the withholding of its testimonial. But one thing we -assuredly have done: we have gone on steadily destroying the native -arts and “mysteries,” and substituting for them our own baser code of -commercialism and capitalised industry. And in so far as we have done -this we have not possessed ourselves, but have dispossessed ourselves -of the real beauties and values of Indian civilization; and, for the -sake of trade-profit to our merchants and manufacturers, we hold in our -hand a poorer India in consequence, and are the poorer possessors of it. - -All that poverty--poverty of invention, poverty of craft--is the -product of a false ideal of possession, false to human nature, because -quite obviously a cause of deterioration to those visible proofs of -man’s well-being--the joyous labour of his hand and brain. - -Set against the witness of all that misguidance of the past that -wise and lovely saying of Christ, so unlikely in its first seeming: -“Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.” At first -it sounds so improbable--so contrary to all we know of man’s long -struggle for existence up to date. And yet, (however much we must -still qualify the possession of the meek upon earth) still more must -we qualify the possession of the overbearing and the proud, when we -realise what true possession should be. A modern writer has described -war as “the great illusion,” and has set himself to show that all -those advantages at which the State aims when it turns to military -operations, become as dust in the balance if compared to the real -cost in treasure which war entails even for those who are nominally -the victors. And war is only one form or aspect of that great strife -for possession which has afflicted every race in its progress from -the cradle to the grave--merely a larger and more apparent version of -the conflict between folly and wisdom which goes on in every human -breast. Possession is the great illusion through which man physically -or intellectually strong seeks to secure power, and succeeds only in -securing weakness--not only for himself but for others. - -For you cannot test strength truthfully without relation to its -surroundings. A tower built upon foundations that shift and give way -under its weight is not strong, however formidably it has been reared, -or however closely its windows are grated and barred. Its very bulk -and weight may help to bring about its fall. Similarly any strength of -despotism or government which is reared up and depends for its stay -upon the weakness of others is a mere apparition of power. Here to-day, -it is gone to-morrow when those upon whose subjection it rested have -discovered a strength of their own--or, because of their weakness, have -failed in its support. - -True possession can only be had in relation and in proportion to the -self-possession of others; the man who reduces the self-possession of -others never adds to his own; and where self-possession is absent, no -real or strength-giving possession remains possible. - -“What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his -own soul,” is one of those profound messages of wisdom which have -been obscured by the theological gloss laid upon them. Instead of the -immediate and practical condemnation of here and now, the hypothetical -condemnation to loss in a future life has been substituted, and our -spiritual preceptors have not concentrated upon making clear to us how, -here and now, possession of the whole world (in any material sense) -does actually tend to destroy soul. - -The possessive outlook, in its very inception, sets a limit to the -springs of spiritual growth or action, and to that “perfect freedom” -the basis of which is service. But if “service is perfect freedom,” -then “domination is perfect bondage,” as much for those who impose as -for those who suffer it. For the man who domineers over his fellows -receives in his own soul the reflex or complementary part of that evil -effect which he has on others. There is no act done by man to man which -is not sacramental in its operation for good or ill; in all his deeds -to his neighbours he both gives and receives, either for his own help -or hindrance. Whosoever gives a blow receives one; and that blow may -be the heavier that is not returned in kind. He who does unkindness to -others is unkind to his own soul; he who diminishes the self-possession -of others diminishes his own. - -Yet possession--in the sense of realising each one for himself the -wealth and enjoyment which life has to offer--is so deep an instinct, -is so knit up with the adventurous and progressive spirit out of which -the higher human consciousness is built--that it is useless to turn -on man and say to him: “Possess nothing--rid yourself of all joys, of -all the delights of the senses and the understanding--so only shall -you attain to the heavenly stature.” That doctrine has been preached -in the past; and the squeals of Manichean hermits in the wilderness, -and of monastic contortionists, denying to their senses the very -ground upon which they stood, has been its echoing chorus all down -the ages. Never were souls more horribly possessed than these fliers -from possession; never were men more defeated in their warfare with -the thing they spurned. Like a tin tied to a dog’s tail the more they -ran from it, the more the flesh afflicted them reminding them of its -neglected claims. The loveliest and wisest of these mediæval sinners -against the life which God had given them was brought by his own -gospel of peace to a death-bed repentance which others did not attain -to. “Brother ass, I have been too hard upon thee,” said St. Francis, -turning with compunction at last to his much-wronged body, the one -thing to which, in mistaken piety, he had denied either consideration -or love. The single greed which ate up and destroyed the life of that -lovely saint was a greed for mortification; and he died very literally -of blood-poisoning, brought about by his own suicidal act, because -he willed too possessively to share the passion and sufferings of -Christ--the death instead of the life. - -That blood-poisoning of the mediæval saint’s was a reaction, violent -and unkind, against the wrongful version of possession which, in their -day as in our own, was destroying the peaceful possibilities of human -society. - -Yet without a certain quality of possessiveness the human mind cannot -grow. Wordsworth pictures for us very beautifully that natural -possessive element in its age of innocence. - - - Behold the Child among his new-born blisses, - A six year darling of a pigmy size! - See, where ’mid work of his own hand he lies, - Fretted by sallies of his mother’s kisses, - With light upon him from his father’s eyes! - See, at his feet, some little plan or chart, - Some fragment from his dream of human life, - Shaped by himself with newly-learnèd art; - A wedding or a festival, - A mourning or a funeral; - And this hath now his heart, - And unto this he frames his song. - - -With these mental possessions he is opening his mind to the coming -conquests of life: as much to be conquered by its beauty as to conquer -it. But what he gains from his appreciation of earth’s loveliness -brings loss to none; in this extension of his mental horizon there is -no shutting of others from a like view; this aspect of the dominion -upon which he is now entering is communal, something illimitable, which -all may share. Of possession acquired upon those terms we need never -be afraid. And it is a very real possession, far more real, as I shall -hope presently to show, than any mere power to thwart, hinder, or -control the freedom of others, which is the form of possession at which -too often man aims. - -Let us start, in order to realise this, with certain other experiments -of childhood. Which child more truly “possesses” the life of linnet -or hedge-sparrow, making it in some measure his own: the child who -stays quiet and disciplines himself to watch the bird at the building -of its nest, the hatching of its eggs and the feeding of its young; -or the child who puts an end to all that beauty and complexity of -motion by bringing down his bird with a stone? If he comes to tell -others of his experience, what alternatively is there for him to -tell? In the one case only his own act of destruction, a thing done -and brought to a dead end; in the other he has a dozen new things to -tell of--discoveries made in a process of life which he has watched -with delight and knows still to be going on. From which of these -two experiments does he draw the larger consciousness? Which of the -two most peoples his world for him? Step by step as he advances he -will find how much, by interfering with the lives of others, he can -destroy, but how little he can build up; he can take hold of the -daddy-legs leg by leg and find that they all come off, and wonder -perhaps at the zest with which that eager little martyr fulfils the -words of Scripture, “If thy foot offend thee cut it off and cast it -from thee.” But constant repetition of the experiment, though it may -give him an evil sense of power, will give him no variety, no real -advance in knowledge concerning the life, or the use and beauty of -flies’ legs. He will not treasure--to benefit by them--the legs that -he has pulled off, nor will his brain have stored anything but an -added sense of and liking for his own power to destroy. And so will -it be with everything on which he experiments destructively. His -knowledge and understanding of their nature will remain at a minimum. -Progressing on these lines, he will for ever be making things cease to -be themselves without making them really his own. But if he reverse -that process of experiment by encouraging things to be themselves, -how varied and multitudinous will grow his consciousness of life, -his appreciation of its finer shades, its delicacy, its grace, its -adaptability, its vigour and its freedom. If his interest is in birds, -how much more he will know of them, and find in them how much more of -alertness and beauty, if he hang food for them outside his window, -rather than cages for them within; if he will recognise that the beauty -of a bird lies too largely in its wings, for caging to be anything but -a contradiction of its true existence. If his interest is in animals, -how far more he will learn of their resources and character, if he aims -not at cowing them and causing them to flee from him in fear, but at -encouraging them in all genuine and characteristic development. That -does not mean teaching them to “perform” in painful and artificial -ways--exploits which are always built up on processes of cruelty, and -do not in the least reveal animal nature as it really is but only -impose upon it a mask of concealment--anthropomorphic, full of conceit -and self-flattery--the same fond thing which he did when he began -making God also in his own image to worship it. - -There, indeed, in man’s shaping of God to be like himself, revengeful, -deceitful, pompous, inconsiderate, unmerciful, one-sided and masculine; -in making Him, too, a performer of tricks, so that in those attributes -he might see himself reflected and stand enlarged in his own -eyes--surely there more than in any other department of life has man by -his foolish possessiveness brought to the human race poverty instead of -wealth, a curse instead of a blessing. - -That is but one example of how this narrow possessiveness with which -man set out to conquer heaven and earth wears thin and poor under the -test of time, and leaves him in the end no standing monuments but just -a heap of rubble on which to gaze--only that, or perhaps less--perhaps -only desert sand. - -That failure of material ambitions stands immortalised for us in -Shelley’s “Ozymandias”: - - - I met a traveller from an antique land, - Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone - Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, - Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown - And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command - Tell that its sculptor well those passions read - Which yet survive--stamped on these lifeless things-- - The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed. - And on the pedestal these words appear:-- - ‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; - Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’ - Nothing beside remains. Round the decay - Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, - The lone and level sands stretch far away!” - - -That is a moral which we shall do well to remember. All great -possessions materially founded come at last to that, and the heart that -clings to them must go down after them to the grave. - -It is the same when we base our delight of human relationship in an -insistence upon possession: it serves only to accentuate the place of -death in the world and to give it size. The man, or woman, whose idea -of love lies in the claim to possess and to control others, dies many -deaths before he reaches his final end, and walks daily with his foot -in the grave. These tragedies of possession, so impoverishing to the -spirit, are all round us; the world is humanly more full of them than -of anything else: Husbands who adore their wives, but cannot let them -call their souls their own; parents, possessive of their children, -imposing upon them their will up to the legal limit and beyond; homes -devouring the independence of womanhood, cramping, constraining, -robbing of initiative and force, and doing all these things under cover -of the claims of love, of natural affection, of piety! What is all this -really but possession masquerading under another name? I remember once -reading a remarkable story by Mr. John Gray, called _Niggard Truth_, -of a woman who took masterful possession of a weak husband and “ran” -him as an expression, not of his own personality, but of hers. And when -at last she had very literally run him to earth, she buried him in a -garment of red flannel so that, as she expressed it, she might “see -him better” in the grave. And there, at the end of a strenuous life, -she sat amid her domestic possessions, her glass shades, her family -plate, and her mahogany, with her mental eye fixed upon a corpse, and -her heart filled with a _Magnificat_ of self-applause. She was the -“Ozymandias” of the domestic hearth; and there are thousands of them in -this country to-day. “Look on their works, ye mighty, and despair!” - -I have taken for example the domestic relations, because there we get -in small, but simple and concise, that demoralising claim to possession -which goes forth with missionary zeal to devastate the world; and -because here, in the home, the true social service that is owing is, in -theory at least, recognised and admitted. - -The duty--surely the obvious duty--of parents to their children -is to assist them, to the full extent of their means, toward -self-development. We have no right to bring children into the world -to warp and stunt their growth, to make them merely reflections of -ourselves, or to keep them back from independence when they come to -man’s or woman’s estate. What the parent needs, perhaps, most to learn -is to relax constantly and in ever-increasing degree that hold which -was necessary during the early years of childhood, but which, even -then, we take too much for granted and employ far too habitually. -Parents often claim too great a possession of their own children; -they make cages for their characters, and mould them away from their -natural bent to what suits their own family pride, their own taste, -or their own sense of importance, sometimes conscientiously believing -this to be the parental prerogative. But if parents are to use safely -their power to impose moral training they must build up first in their -children a sense of self-reliance, of initiative, of freedom, and then -trust to it. They have no right to rely for their reward on caged -characters, or, by any dictation or control, to exact recompense for -the services which (with whatever devotion) they have rendered. The -same holds good through all human relations, parental, marital, social, -racial: it is ignoble to claim loyalty or devotion from those whom you -have not first made free. Gratitude--even filial gratitude--has no -moral value save if it comes from a free agent. If it comes from one -trained to be not free it partakes of servility. And it is better for -parents to forgo gratitude than to exact its imitation or substitute, -by the imposition of any restrictive conditions or claims after the -years of tutelage are over. It may well be that gratitude has far too -small a place in the human heart; but I am quite sure that the claim -for gratitude has too large a one, and that this in excess brings the -very reverse of a remedy when the other is lacking. And what is true -in relation to parents and their children is true also in every other -human relationship where the claim to possess intrudes to the hindrance -of self-realization and self-development. The possessor, in claiming -restrictive possession of others, loses possession of himself. - -That is what made slavery as an institution so doubly impoverishing -to the human race. It impoverished the mind of the slave, but it -impoverished quite as much the mind of the slave-owner. - -Wherever man has tried to possess others he has lost possession of -himself. That is the price inevitably paid by any class or section -of the community which seeks to dominate the lives and restrict the -liberty of its fellows. Tyranny does not strengthen but weakens the -moral nature of those who exercise it, and he who owns slaves cannot -himself be free. Domination is as destructive to human worth and more -destructive to moral integrity than subjection. If “possession is nine -points of the law” on the material plane, the tenth point--spiritual in -its working--is anarchy to the soul. - -From time immemorial man has claimed it as his natural right to possess -woman. And it is in consequence in relation to woman, and in matters -of sex, that he has most obviously lost self-possession. And just as -he has claimed that to possess woman is the natural prerogative of the -male, so you will hear him maintain that lack of self-possession in -regard to woman is natural also--and a certain degree of licence the -male prerogative. The two things go together--claim to possess others -and you lose possession of yourself: Give to all with whom you come in -contact their full right of self-possession and self-development, and -you, from that social discipline and service, will in your own body and -mind become self-possessed. For that is true possession which, while -it brings you a sense of enlargement and joy, takes nothing from the -freedom and the joy of others. - -Of that kind of possession you may be prodigal, but of that which -takes anything from others, or demands any condition of service from -others, have a care! And look well what the conditions may be. Ask -yourself constantly what is this or that demand for service or labour -doing to other souls? What conditions does it lay upon them? You may -boast that you have simplified your life--rid yourself, for instance, -of domestic service by getting rid of cook and housemaid. You have -not. The bread, the meat, even the ground flour that comes into your -house is all provided by a domestic service which takes place outside -your door and which you do not see. And you are as morally concerned -for the conditions of that labour as if you yourself supervised it. -You need it and use it as much; it is only done for you at a further -remove--out of sight and out of mind--so that it is much easier (but -not more justifiable), to be callous as to the conditions of those who -render it. And if upon those material lines of comfort and luxury you -extend your demands, you are also extending your claim over the lives -of others--and your responsibility for those lives, if they go lacking -where you go fed. - -Surely, for the whole of that part of your life you are under a strict -obligation to render service in return--equal to that which you claim. -And if you, by your service, cannot insure to others an equality of -possession in things material (and make as good and wholesome a use of -them as they could make), those material possessions should be a weight -upon your conscience, till you have got matters more fairly adjusted. -Take it as your standard of life to consume no more than you, by your -own labour, in your own lifetime, could produce. What right has any -man to more than that, except through the bounty and kindness of his -fellows? But if he insists on more, and takes more, does he really -possess it? Only in an ever diminishing degree in proportion to his -excess, because as he exceeds he is ever diminishing his true faculty -for reception. - -Here is a simple illustration of that truth, a gross example which I -read in a newspaper the other day: In America a prize is annually given -to the man who can eat the largest number of pies at a sitting--each -of the pies, a compound of jam and pastry, weighing on an average -half a pound. The prize-winner became the external possessor of -twenty-seven. But internally he could hardly be said to possess them at -all--they possessed him, and made him, one would imagine, a thoroughly -ineffective citizen for at least the two or three following days. That -man would have been far more really the possessor of three or four pies -(seeing that he could have properly digested them) than it was possible -for him to be of the twenty-seven. In this excess he merely injured -himself without any gain, except the monetary bribe which induced -him to make a beast of himself. And how many men are there not, who -(receiving the monetary bribe of our present unequal and inequitable -system of reward for industry or for idleness) proceed to make beasts -of themselves--more elaborately, but just as truly and completely as -this pie-eater; and by making beasts of themselves are by so much the -less men of soul and understanding--not more, but less the possessors -of their human birthright. - -If we store up treasure materially (treasure of a kind which, if one -has more of it, another must needs have less)--if we gather about us, -in excess, creature comforts for the over-indulgence of our bodily -appetites, we are gathering that which is liable to moth and rust and -theft--liable to be a cause of envy and covetousness in others; and -when we have gathered to ourselves this excess of perishable delight -and have applied it, the result, more likely than not, is a cloying of -those very appetites to which we seek to minister--and, eventually, -deterioration and enfeeblement of the body itself. - -And as with individuals so with nations; there is no greatness of -possession in holding that which involves the deprivation of others, -the diminution of their freedom, their happiness, their power of -self-development. That is not true kingdom. It is the manufacture -of slaves. But if we lay up treasure in the kingdom of the mind, in -the development of our sense of beauty, our faculty for joy, we have -something here on earth which neither moth nor rust can corrupt, nor -thieves steal. Our possessions then are things that can arouse no base -covetousness, we need not hold them under lock and key, or make laws -for their protection, for none can deprive us of them. And while you -so hold them on such free and noble conditions, you do not fail to -dispense something of their beauty and worth to those with whom you -associate. - -These possessions, with which you have enriched your lives, make no man -poorer, rob no fellow creature of his right, conflict not with the law -of charity to all. - -Seeking possession upon those lines, you shall find that noble -things do tend to make possible a form of possession in which all -alike may share; that architecture, music, literature and painting -do offer themselves to the service of a far nobler and more communal -interpretation of wealth than that which would keep it for separate -and individual enjoyment. A thousand may look upon the beauty of one -picture, and detract nothing, in the enjoyment of each, from the -enjoyment of all; nor has virtue or value gone out of it because so -many have looked on it; and so it is (or so it may be) with all beauty -whether we find it in nature or in art. - -If I were asked to name the man who in the last hundred years had -the greatest possessions, I think I would name Wordsworth. Read his -poetry with this thought in your mind, of how day by day he gathered -possessions of an imperishable kind, which needed no guardianship -beyond the purity of his mind, and excited in others no envy. Nay, how -much of those wonderful possessions was he not able to give to others? -Some of his loveliest lines of poetry are a record of possession -rightly attained. I give here only one of his poems--one of his -simplest in inspiration--to show what I mean: - - - I wandered lonely as a cloud - That floats on high o’er vales and hills, - When all at once I saw a crowd-- - A host of golden daffodils; - Beside the lake, beneath the trees, - Fluttering and dancing in the breeze. - - Continuous as the stars that shine - And twinkle on the Milky Way, - They stretched in never-ending line - Along the margin of a bay. - I gazed--and gazed--but little thought - What wealth the show to me had brought: - - For oft when on my couch I lie - In vacant or in pensive mood, - They flash upon that inward eye - Which is the bliss of solitude; - And then my heart with pleasure fills, - And dances with the daffodils. - - -“Only daffodils” you say? But he made them for himself and others an -eternal possession of beauty and delight. - -Those who have great possessions on these terms need never turn -sorrowfully away when the command comes: “Sell all thou hast and give -to the poor.” For these are the inexhaustible treasures of the soul, -and are in their nature communal; and happy is the man or nation that -finds them. - - - - -CRIME AND PUNISHMENT - -(1918) - - -The two words Crime and Punishment have come to us in a conjunction -which it is very difficult to separate. Our fathers have told us, and -our teachers and theologians have strenuously insisted that the one -necessarily entails the other. - -The whole of our social order is based upon the idea that if a man -commits crime--an offence, that is to say, against the written law of -the community--he must be punished for it. If he were not, social order -would go to pieces. - -But our social order does not lay equal stress upon the idea that if -a man lives virtuously he must be rewarded. If a man lives virtuously -his reward is in Heaven--that is to say, he takes his chance. His -virtue may assist or may hinder his worldly advancement; but we have -not yet committed ourselves to the conviction that social order will -necessarily go to pieces if virtue is not rewarded. It will only go to -pieces if crime is not punished. Society can reconcile itself to the -one omission; but it cannot reconcile itself to the other. - -This inequality of interest in retribution and reward is based perhaps -upon the calculation that while you look after the crimes, the virtues -will look after themselves; and that the virtues will not--for lack -of Birthday Honours--rebel against the society in which they find -themselves. - -And really, there is something in it. Virtue is already self-governing; -vice is not. The virtuous and humane part of a man--his will to unite -and co-operate with others for social development and service--inclines -him to accept and make the best of the conditions of life, to take the -rough with the smooth, the hindrances with the aids, the good with the -evil: not, indeed, passively, or without some effort to get rid of bad -smells, bad tastes, bad laws, bad governments--but with a definite -consciousness that in operating against these he is operating not for -his own single benefit, but for the benefit of the community. And that -being so, he can be left, unrecompensed and unrewarded, to face a very -considerable amount of discomfort, adversity, and even injustice, -without becoming either a rebel or a criminal. Although if governed -unintelligently enough, or wickedly enough, he may be turned into both. - -But with the criminal it is not so. His social sense is more -rudimentary; and when he finds himself up against adverse and perhaps -unjust conditions, he seeks a solution satisfactory to himself alone. -And I suppose the main idea of the use of punishment (apart from the -vengeful pleasure it gives to those who inflict it) is that it takes -the satisfaction out of him again, making him feel that, in a highly -organised community, the individual solution has uncomfortable -results. And Society’s calculation, in thus punishing him, is (or has -been hitherto) that it is a less troublesome and expensive way of -making him cease to be a nuisance, than educating him, or employing -him, or reforming the social conditions which have produced him. - -So long as we believe that Society is right in that calculation, so -long, I suppose, shall we continue to advocate punishment; but when -we come to believe that Society is wrong, we shall begin to advocate -education, employment, social reform, and, above all, human sympathy -and understanding as a substitute; with the idea that they may -gradually do away with the necessity for punishment. - -But pending that consummation so devoutly to be wished, most of us will -probably continue to believe that punishment is just and right; and -will find it very difficult to think of Society, and of ourselves--as -all equally criminal along with the individual whom our social contempt -and neglect have de-socialised and made a fit recipient for punitive -treatment. - -The temptation to think that punishment is just and right has been -with us from time immemorial; it is probably arboreal, certainly -neolithic; and therefore, to our atavistic instincts, it is supremely -sacred. We have got it firmly into our heads that punishment is a -superior ordering of consequences. And as the law of cause and effect -which we see operating in nature is the basis of our moral sense, we -have fallen to the confused notion that punishment is the same. But -as a matter of fact the two are entirely different. The law of cause -and effect stands for natural consequences; the law of punishment -substitutes artificial consequences; and we fly to punishment largely -as an escape from the results of our age-long indifference to natural -consequences. Having produced the criminal we set to work to destroy -his self-respect, as a short cut to the preservation of our own. - -That may sound a puzzling statement; but the more we accentuate the -difference between the criminal and ourselves--the more, superficially, -are we able to get rid of our sense of brotherhood and responsibility. -And so, when bishops go on to the platform to advocate the flogging -of men who live on the earnings of prostitutes, it helps them to -forget that they also are living on the earnings of prostitutes, and -are by their support of a capitalist system involving sweated labour -and degraded housing conditions--neatly and efficaciously driving -the prostitute into the hands of the male “bully”--whom they then -flog for extracting his profit from a damaged article which, in the -public market of supply and demand, they have already wrung dry. The -very monstrousness of the proposed penalty helps us to forget that -we are all links in the same chain of circumstances. In the “bully” -the degrading brutality of the system finally emerges and becomes -patent; just as in war the degrading brutality of our peace system -finally emerges. Then we point to it with horror and cry that we are -peace-lovers! So we are; we have loved peace at a price which we would -not exceed--we ran it on sweated conditions; and we pay for it in war. -For there exist, in every nation, sources of wealth, sufficient--if -equitably distributed and constructively applied for the good of -all--to allay that economic unrest which is the main incentive by -which modern nations are led into war. But in every country alike -there are interests which refuse to pay that price, and which will, if -threatened, precipitate their country into war rather than be held at -a ransom which would merely readjust wealth more equitably to the true -sources of its production. - -War has come to us--not as a punishment divinely imposed--(a splendid -old lady of ninety told me the other day that the war was God’s -visitation upon us for our divorces and for having given votes to -women)--war has come upon us, not as a punishment for these offences -against Taboo, but as a natural consequence of our social peace -conditions. And at present, in the mentality of nations, punishment -(not of the system, but of the criminal act which has finally emerged -from it to horrify us) is the only remedy. - -And so punishment still appears to us as the very bed of justice--the -foundation stone of morality. If you do not insist on it, social order -will go to pieces. And as we have attempted scarcely any criminal -reform without punishment--and none till the day before yesterday--the -contention is accepted as true for lack of witnesses against it. - -The standpoint toward human nature of our generally accepted “moral -code” is that of a devout believer in corporal punishment--of that -kind of parent who says: “I have to flog my boy because he is so -untruthful.” And the idea that the untruthfulness is the product of the -corporal punishment never enters the parental mind. - -But this vengeful exercise of parental authority is only a secondary -symptom of belief in a vengeful order of Creation--of a God whose -method it was to vindicate the moral law, not by bringing home to -ill-doers through natural consequences the defects of certain courses -of conduct, but by expressing His moral indignation in exemplary -punishments of an arbitrary kind--generally of a miraculous character. - -When man first conceived of God, he conceived of Him as a sort of Dr. -Busby--one in whose mind the Rod was the beginning and end of wisdom; -and the Rod of Heaven operated by intervention, over and above the -operations of Nature--the law of cause and effect. Natural consequences -did not sufficiently vindicate divine justice. A belief in miraculous -and vengeful intervention and a belief in “exemplary” legal punishment -go together; and will, I believe, die together. - -A great deal of Old Testament teaching is merely an elaborate extension -of _Punch’s_ picture of the British workman holding a brick’s end over -an unfortunate batrachian, and saying, “I’ll l’arn ye to be a toad!” -And all he succeeds in doing is producing a dead toad instead of a live -one; the species itself remaining entirely unaltered. - -That is a parable of the doings of our theologians, since theology was -invented for the Fall of Man. And if humans came to the conclusion that -that was the mind of God, it is no wonder that they imitated Him, and -do so to this day. - -We must believe in punishment as the proper reward of crime--we must -even believe in unreformative punishment as the proper reward of crime, -if we believe in a Hell to which lost souls are relegated against their -will, and there kept with no hope whatever of cure or betterment from -the process. And that is what the whole of Christendom believed about -Hell when Christians really did believe in it. - -Unreformative punishment upon earth was a necessary consequence of that -belief; and, therefore, belief in punishment for the sake of punishment -became universal. - -And over against it--quite unregarded--stood the new gospel of -humanity--“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to -them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you and -persecute you.” And then the reason, the key to it all:--“That ye may -be children of your Father which is in Heaven, for He maketh His sun to -rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on -the unjust. Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as your Father which is in -Heaven is perfect.” - -The Sermon on the Mount, which threw over the doctrine of punishment -on earth, threw over with equal emphasis the doctrine of punishment in -Heaven--of any arbitrary or miraculous intervention for the betterment -(to moral ends) of the law of natural consequences. - -“Be ye the children of Creation!” is the real human solution--not by -harking back (as opponents would pretend) to the savagery of a lower -species, but by accepting the spiritualising impulse of evolutionary -forces--which have brought us to this great development from the -mentality of the lower animal world--the knowledge that we are all part -of one whole. - -And it is on that recognition of an underlying unity (from which we -are inseparable) that the great natural revolution of our ideas about -crime and punishment must be brought about. If we cling to the violent -and the arbitrary, and the separative solution (of which miraculous -retribution is the corollary) we are in the Dark Ages still. - -It must have been the experience of many whose work has taken them -not only into slums but into prisons and police-courts, that the -oppressive sense of Evil triumphant, strong and proud of itself, has -weighed more heavily upon them in the prison and in the police-court -than in the slum; for the slum only represents the neglect of Society, -but the administration of our penal code represents its stereotyped -preoccupation (with sympathy and understanding almost entirely -eliminated) on a problem which nothing but sympathy and understanding -will ever solve. There Society is in its trenches fighting against the -human nature which it first violates and then fears. - -We, law-makers and law-abiders, are in league with--and are dependent -for our material prosperity and protection upon--a system which is very -nearly as bad as the crimes we denounce. And until we have made our -system very much more beautiful, very much better, and more convincing -to the criminal and the revolutionarist--it is only by fear and a -punitive code that we can keep it going. - -It is not possible to maintain such adjuncts to our social system -as profiteering, exploitation, class privilege, wage-slavery, -race-subjection, international jealousy, without a penal code and its -logical outcome, war. If we want to get rid of the one we must have -a whole mind to get rid of the others too. Do not let us pretend to -separate them, for we cannot. Not only does the attempt produce weak -practical results--it produces also a false mind. - -The attempt to separate one thing from another, one human being from -another, is at the root of our belief in punishment. Punishment helps -to separate, helps to make us feel separate; it does not unite. -An English judge declared quite recently that the main object of -punishment was not to reform the criminal but to protect society. And -so long as that is true, the criminal is just as conscious as we are -that the discipline laid on him is the expression of a divided standard -of morality, knowing perfectly well that we in like circumstances -should not think such punishment good for ourselves or our children. - -For is it not true that wherever a local or group interest comes to -be established, there the members of that group cease to believe that -punishment from any outside power or authority is good for them? - -Take the family--those of you who believe in punishment--those who -profess to be law-abiding; one of its members commits a theft. Is he -handed over to the police to be dealt with according to law? Not at -all. On the contrary, everything is done to enable him to escape the -punishment. We don’t believe in legal punishment when it comes to -our own circle. And we only believe in legal punishment for others, -because, loving and understanding them less, we are unwilling to take -as much trouble about them. - -And that same vicious principle of belief in punishment only for -others mounts up and up through every communal interest that has -established itself in our midst on a unity of feeling closer than that -which obtains generally. Every class-interest, every trade-interest, -every party-interest that stands combined for its own benefit does -all it can to evade the punishment of its members by the larger and -more impersonal authority of the State. Scandals are hushed up in the -police; scandals are hushed up in the Army; scandals are hushed up in -the Cabinet; everything possible is done to prevent our penal code -from acting equally on the vested interests in which we specially are -concerned. - -And yet we say that we believe in punishment! - -But if we do honestly believe in punishment, ought we not then to -insist not merely that the administration of our law-courts should -be impartial and judicial, but that the source and promotion of our -State-prosecutions should be impartial also? Probably most unreflecting -people think that they are. But again and again the Government, when -it chooses or refuses to put the law into motion and prosecute, though -nominally the accuser, is really the accused, using its powers for the -saving of its own skin, to keep the case out of court--sometimes even -in spite of the protests of the magistracy itself. Again and again the -judicial scales have been fraudulently weighted--not in court but out -of it by the interests of party government. - -Let us take a rather notorious instance where this was done. - -Within quite recent times, two men have conspired--the one to raise an -army of rebellion if Home Rule were imposed on Ulster; the other to -raise an army of rebellion if conscription were imposed on Ireland. -The crime in each case was precisely the same; but the punishment was -different. The one--the more recent--was sent to prison for it without -trial. The other, equally without trial, was elevated to Cabinet rank. - -Now, each of these men, in conspiring to break the law, did probably -what he conscientiously thought to be right under the circumstances. -That we can believe. But it is very difficult to believe that the -Government (when, with the connivance of Parliament, it punished the -same offence so differently) thought that it was doing right--the equal -and the just thing in each case. It was only doing the convenient -thing to cover its own blunders. And the question is, therefore, -whether--morally--the Government was not the real criminal. - -But if we ask whether it is going to be punished for it, the answer -is--probably not. - -It is not my point to urge that the Government should be punished, but -only to show how--as administered to-day--punishment is an arbitrary -and artificial device, partially applied or not, according to the -prosecutor’s political convenience. - -The consequence--the logical consequence of this corrupt inequality -of State-prosecution, is that a Government which does such things is -misliked and distrusted by men of honest character--and so weakens its -hold on the more judicious minds of the community--and eventually, one -may hope, its power over the country’s policy. - -One might point further to another instance. The Society of Friends, -by its official committee, recently published, without submitting it -to the Censor, a pamphlet called _A Challenge to Militarism_. For -that corporate act of a committee of twenty--all equally guilty--the -Government (to avoid too great a scandal) selected two members for -prosecution, and got them sent to prison for six and for three months. - -About a fortnight later another challenge to militarism, a pamphlet -entitled _A League of Nations_, was published, without being submitted -to the Censor, by Lord Grey of Falloden; and he has not been sent to -prison for it. - -Now if we believed in punishment, we should want the Government -punished for these acts of corrupt favouritism in State-prosecution. -But if we believe in natural consequences--those which I have already -indicated--we shall confidently anticipate that in the end (the real -end) divine justice will be done; and that these ephemeral misdoings -will eventually help the spirit of man to a better and larger -understanding of the follies which are committed when men substitute -the Will to Power for the Will to Love. - -And if we can--as we are going to--if we can leave injustice when done -in conspicuous high places to the natural and logical consequences, -without applying the penal code, why cannot we trust natural -consequences a very great deal more, where smaller and more humble -misdemeanours are concerned, and give to those natural consequences a -greater unity of effect by irradiating them with the true spirit of -man--love, joy, gentleness, peace, against which there is no law? - -One of the reasons why we dare not be humane and curative instead of -punitive to our criminals lies in the fact that the standard of life -in which we have allowed honest and hard-working millions to subsist -outside our prisons, has been so inhuman and degraded that if we made -our prisons really humane, really curative, they would be a reward -instead of a punishment. - -We dare not offer so beautiful a temptation. - -And so it is separation again--the separation of class from class, -of rich from poor, which makes impossible the standardising of our -prisons from living tombs into genuine reformatories and sanatoria. -If we had not separated ourselves in our national life from a sense -of responsibility for the poverty and misery around us, we should not -be driven into so separate a treatment of our criminals. We cannot -afford to humanise our prisons, while we will not afford to humanise -our slums. Again and again, when you appeal for real prison reform, the -obstructive argument arises: “Why should we take so much trouble for -the criminal, when hundreds of thousands of the honest struggling poor -are so much worse off?” - -But we have to take trouble anyhow; and the more unintelligently we -take trouble the greater is likely to be the cost of our criminals per -head to the State. In New York State, America, where Mr. Mott Osborne -has been trying to establish the principle of self-government among -the prisoners of Sing-Sing, there was actually a danger that (under an -extension of the system) the prisons might become self-supporting. And -at once trade interests did everything they could to get it condemned; -the contractors were afraid of losing their State contracts. - -That is just one little glimpse of what we are up against where vested -interests are concerned--interests so strongly represented in the -legislatures even of “free nations.” But we are up against something -much bigger than that. We are up against a moral reluctance of the -whole community to pronounce the word “Brother.” For if the State is -going to show a really understanding mind toward the criminal, it has -got to show it just as much to the whole social problem of poverty and -disease. And that is going to cost the State more money than it is -prepared to spend on anything--except on War. - -Crime is sometimes a very shameful thing. But is not the record of the -way powerful States have dealt with crime in the past more uniformly -shameful even than crime itself? Has not that record stood out as a -ghastly blind spot in the conscience of Christian Society? - -People of conservative mind are so extraordinarily ready to make -excuses for organised Society which they will not make for the -individual. “That was a cruel age,” they will say, when you recall the -judicial horrors perpetrated against human nature three hundred, two -hundred, one hundred years ago; it was tradition, it was custom. But -there were nations, professing Christianity--a doctrine having exactly -the same basis then as now--the same creed, the same gospel, the same -divine life of compassion and mercy exemplary of what Heaven required -in the conduct of man to man; and there were rulers and administrators -with minds and power of reason just as capable as our own--giants -of intellect some of them--who, with all their profession of -Christianity--interpreting it to the supposed needs of the State--have -left to us this ghastly record of a penal code worse than the crimes -it was set to remedy. That penal code--the obsequious servant of -State-authority--stood hundreds of years behind the average individual -conscience of the community. And yet in moral authority we exalt it -above the individual! In age after age the conscience, the living -conscience of this country went to prison and to execution to bring -it just a little more up-to-date. Revolting juries refused to convict -because of its savageries; and still it moved slowly and reluctantly, -cruel in its fear of the human nature it did not understand. - -Less than a century and a half ago a girl of fourteen was sentenced -in this country to be burned alive for counterfeit coining; only -eighty-five years ago a boy of nine was sentenced to death for breaking -a pane of glass and stealing two pence. The sentences were not carried -out, but they were pronounced. I suppose it was still considered -“exemplary” to remind the criminal classes of what powers the law had -over them. - -Now let us imagine that some individual caught a boy indulging in petty -theft; and to punish him--in hot blood perhaps--took him and hung him -up by the neck till he was dead. Should we not be inclined to say that -so rabid a wild beast must be exterminated from the face of the earth, -lest he should have descendants like himself? - -Yet that is what our own Courts of Justice--the authorised instrument -of the people of England--were doing in cold blood to young boys in -the time of Charles Lamb. They had not the excuse of national danger, -or war; yet we don’t think that our ancestors ought to have been -abolished off the face of the earth for doing it, or for allowing it. -We manage to forgive them, because after all they were--our ancestors. -When it comes to a State-act, the individual shares the responsibility -with so many that he is able to shift it from his conscience. - -But in that process what had the State done to itself? In so dealing -with the criminal--it had become a criminal, making of itself a moral -monstrosity--all the more foul because in the perpetration of such acts -it declared that it was doing no wrong! - -How, one may ask, was it possible for such penalties as these, and -others even more savage than these, to become embedded in the penal -code of a civilised and a Christian State? - -Mainly for two reasons I believe: first the fact (referred to before) -that the doctrine of unreformative punishment, as expressive of the -Justice of God, was part of its religion; and secondly, that the State -based itself then, as now, on the Will to Power, and not on the Will -to Love. And seeking its safety in terms of power it perpetrated these -atrocities. From those two premises the results were only natural. - -Are we going to salve our consciences to-day by mere degrees of -comparison, by saying: “We are not so bad as that now”? Perhaps we are -not so bad; but the basis on which we continue to act has not altered. -The Will to Power (for which the State still stands) must always lag -behind the Will to Love in its understanding of human nature. And -while it lags behind the penal code of the State will always be a drag -upon the social conscience. - -Now so far we have been considering this doctrine of punishment in -relation to the criminal section of society--force and punitive -treatment being necessary, we say, for the discipline and control of -the waste products of our civilisation. But in the whole body politic -what does it all come to? What type of mind is finally evolved by the -State which so deals with its human material? What is the final moral -aspect of the State itself? - -Examine that question from the international point of view. Why is -every State armed? Because every State, when all is said and done, is -a potential criminal whom other States cannot trust. And though these -States look down upon their criminals, they are proud of themselves. - -We are grouped to-day, many States together, in armed alliance for what -(when we took up arms) we believed to be a great and a just cause; and -while we are so grouped we speak well of our Allies. But the groupings -of to-day are not the groupings of yesterday; and the international -spectacle which we have presented age after age has been simply this: -that no nation could trust any other nation to behave morally, justly, -humanely, and for the good of the whole, where single self-interest was -concerned. - -So like to its own criminals did each nation remain, that all the -others had ever to keep their instruments of punishment ready to hand -in case of need. - -Is not that an extraordinary commentary on the law of punishment; that -not merely does it fail to do away with the criminal within its own -jurisdiction, but reproduces his likeness in all the high places of -the world--giving him his justification by showing him that, where -community of interest ends, States are no other and no better than he? - -We all agree that war is a very horrible thing. But at one point it has -a moral value which is not shared so obviously by other penal codes; a -value which people are coming more and more to recognise to-day, and -which will--more than anything else perhaps--help to put an end to war. - -For when you seek to punish wrong by going to war, then you yourself -have to share the punishment. Innocent and guilty alike must agonise -and suffer and die. To inflict that punishment you must choose out your -bravest and your best, and send them to share equally with those you -would punish the sentence of suffering and death. - -All punishment, inflicted by penal codes, really comes back to -the community; but only in war do we see it shared: actively and -voluntarily by some, passively and unavoidably by others. And perhaps -it is that more than anything else which will eventually persuade -civilised man that war is intolerable--that he cannot punish without -sharing the punishment. - -It may sound fantastic to suggest that a like condition should be -definitely attached to our civil and penal system, in order to bring -home to us that all punishment is shared, that what we manufacture in -our prisons becomes a staple commodity. - -But I can think of no device that would so quickly and effectively get -rid of that separation of interest which punishment seems to establish. -Imagine that for every prisoner sentenced, a lot fell on someone -else, calling upon him or her to go and share in that demonstration -of society’s failure to produce only good citizens. Imagine the Prime -Minister, about to make an important statement in the House of Commons, -called suddenly by lot to share the incarceration of a defender of the -liberty of the press or of a robber of hen-roosts! Should we have to -wait a month--a week--to have our prisons transformed into places where -human nature was no longer thrown to waste, with its energies cut off -from sane employment and development? Would it not bring home to us--as -perhaps nothing else would--the mill-stone weight on the life of the -nation of all punishment that is not purely reformative and curative? -Would it not very soon put an end to punishment in the old sense -altogether? - -You may look upon this suggestion as a fantastic parable; but -spiritually it is what we shall have to do. - -“There is only one sin,” said the unknown writer of one of the -most beautiful and famous books of devotion produced during the -middle-ages--the Theologia Germanica. “The only sin is separation.” - -We shall never get rid of the criminal till we cease to separate -ourselves from him, till we make his interest our interest, till we -share, willingly and consciously, the responsibility of the society -which has produced him. - - - - -CHRISTIANITY A DANGER TO THE STATE - -(1916) - - -The State, which accepts the proposition that force is a remedy, has -logical ground for employing force to secure its ends, until worsted by -the forces opposed to it, or by some other power. - -Such a State, naturally and logically, claims the assistance of its -subjects in pursuing a course for which, in time of peace, and with -their apparent consent, it has made great preparation, entailing a vast -expenditure of the nation’s wealth and energy. - -This claim of the State for the personal service of its citizens is -always latent even in peace-time; but in peace-time the great majority -of the services it requires are rendered upon a voluntary basis, and -generally in exchange for a monetary equivalent. - -Only, therefore, when the State is pressed by necessity to make an -extreme assertion of its claims for personal service does it find -itself actively opposed by citizens who have never in their own lives -and consciences accepted the proposition that force is a remedy for -evil. - -It is true that many of these objectors have paid taxes without -resistance for the upkeep of Army and Navy. If they have done so -conscientiously and not merely negligently, it has probably been -upon the lines of “rendering to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s,” -and from a recognition that all the devices of barter and exchange -(including a coin-currency) are a material convenience devised by -the State, which may legitimately be given to or withdrawn from the -control of the individual without affecting his personal integrity. -Men so minded may say quite plausibly: “My worldly goods you can take -or leave; my pockets you may fill or empty; but my body is the temple -of the Holy Ghost, and if I am called upon to give personal service -for the infliction of legal penalties, for the suppression of civil -commotion, or for the prosecution of war, then I am asked for service -in a form which I can only render if my conscience approves.” - -Faced by this contention, the State has often thought wise to admit, or -to make allowance for, a claim which nevertheless it will not recognise -by law. People who object to jury-service for the enforcement of a -penal code which is against their conscience, are frequently excused -without fine or penalty. The same allowance would probably be made to -excuse any one opposed to capital punishment from assuming the office -of hangman. Yet capital punishment only exists because a majority in -the State believes it to be essential to public safety; and if there -were a dearth of hands ready to undertake the task, it would then -become a test of good citizenship for all to offer themselves; and the -conscientious objector, whose argument was tolerated and respectfully -listened to the day before, would suddenly become a disreputable object -to all law-abiding men, unless the State were weak enough, or wise -enough, to provide him with the right of exemption. If it did so he -would immediately cease to be disreputable in the eyes of the law, his -right to a conscience being granted. - -That concession has frequently been made in the past to people -who, calling themselves Christians, have held tenets subversive of -State-authority. When religious conformity was considered necessary -to the spiritual security of the State, Nonconformists resisted, till -the State made allowance for them. When the taking of an oath was -considered necessary for the security of truth in the witness-box, -Quakers resisted, till the State made allowance for them. When the -coercion of Ulster was considered necessary for the well-being of -Ireland, men who had taken the oath of military obedience threatened -a conscientious strike, and the State made allowance for them. -Incidentally they became the heroes of that party which is to-day most -strenuous in its detestation of those later conscientious objectors who -refuse to take the oath of military obedience; but nobody was sent to -prison for uttering propaganda in their praise! - -Now the reason why the State could tolerate them was not a moral -reason; it was simply upon the calculation that, while still pursuing -its policy of physical force, it could afford to do without them. It -could allow non-conformity based upon Christian teaching, or upon -conscientious scruples, to streak the current of its policy, without -thereby suffering any deflection of its course. - -But it is quite different when the State, driven by its belief in the -rightness and the remedial value of physical force, comes to commit -the whole of its resources to the prosecution of war. The existence -of the conscientious objector then becomes a more inconvenient factor -in the situation; it may even, from the State’s point of view, become -a dangerous one. Then those insidious Christian idiosyncrasies, which -have so often been allowed to withstand authority, must have all -possible ground cut from under them, lest it should afford standing -to a new social ideal. We have it on the authority of the public -prosecutor himself that, if all men became conscientious objectors, -war would no longer be possible; and from such a catastrophe the State -must, of course, be saved by all possible means. - -It is at this point, therefore, that the latent claim (which in -peace-time is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance) -becomes insistent and active. The State must have--if it can get -it--the personal service of all its able-bodied citizens. And thus, -practically for the first time, the rival claims of law and conscience -upon a man’s allegiance come to be fought out in public on a large -scale; and if the Nation is engaged in a popular war, or in one where -the vast majority believes that it has righteousness upon its side, -then there will inevitably be much prejudice in the public mind against -the conscientious objector; whereas there might be much sympathy for -him (though not really on the principle for which he contended) if he -were refusing to fight in a war which happened to be unpopular, or -which a great number of people regarded as unjust. - -But if we want to get to the true basis of the principle against which -the conscientious objector is contending (a principle which cannot -logically be separated from any form of government built up on force) -we must not colour our view with the rightness or wrongness (in our -own estimation) of the war in which we are engaged, since we obscure -thereby that quality of allegiance which is claimed by the State. - -The State’s claim--latent in peace-time and liable to emerge whenever -war or crisis shall arise--is not that its citizens should fight for -it when the cause is just and right, but that they should fight for it -in any case, if it orders them. That claim, made by every State with -more or less urgency, we are now invited to view with horror operating -at its full efficiency throughout a Prussianised Germany. Thus exalted -and perfected, it has become, we are told, a danger to the world; -in such a State the moral conscience of the individual has become -atrophied by subordination, and he is not free to choose between right -and wrong. But war only brings home to us the logic of a situation -which in peace-time we have burked; and now, in order to combat the -evil, in its fullest manifestation, men in this country are asked to -give their souls into similar keeping--to accept, that is to say, the -over-riding of individual conscience by the law of State-necessity. -It is a claim which any State, founded on force, is bound eventually -to make; it is a claim which anyone who believes force to be evil is -bound to repudiate. The follower of the one school draws his ethics -from the established rules of the body politic to which he belongs; -the follower of the other draws them, it may be, from the personal -example and teaching of One whom the body politic of his day regarded -as a criminal, and put to death; of One whose followers, it may be said -further, were persecuted in the early centuries of the Christian era, -not because of their opinions, but because, in practice, they were a -danger to the State. The Roman mind was very logical; and only when -Christianity had become absorbed in the State system and had accepted -the view that physical force and persecution were good social remedies, -only then did Christianity cease to be an apparent danger and a fit -subject for persecution. - -But the primitive Christian standpoint is always liable to emerge; and -when it does, then we get the opposing principles of two incompatible -schools. And we must keep these principles in mind--the principle -of conduct based upon a personal example rejecting force, and the -principle of conduct based upon a social edifice relying upon force -for its well-being and advancement; otherwise we confuse the issue, -and weaken our appreciation of the moral position which each side -assumes. It is surely quite evident that the State, while based upon -force, cannot (except as an indulgence) countenance the claim of any -individual to make the morality of its action the test for personal -allegiance and service. And so this State-claim must be unequivocably -defined, otherwise we do not really know where we are. - -Now many fervent supporters of the doctrine that State-necessity must -stand supreme above individual conscience, confuse matters by importing -the moral equation, and by arguing for the compelling principle from -particular instances where moral considerations seem to favour it: “Our -Cause is just; therefore, etc.,” is the line on which they contend. But -the State’s claim stands independent of the justice of its cause; and -“My Country right or wrong!” is the real motto which the objector to -conscientious liberty is called to fight under. - -All that the State-backers say as to the obligation for Englishmen to -fight Germany to-day, applies equally to the obligation for Germans -to fight England. So while we continue to assert that a man must fight -here with us for the cause of liberty, honour, righteousness--in a -word, for God--we assert equally that in another country he must -subject his conscience to the claims of the State, and fight for -oppression, dishonour, unrighteousness--in a word, for the Devil (and -that in spite of the baptismal vows which oblige him to “fight manfully -under Christ’s banner,” not merely against sin, as he individually is -concerned, but sin spiritually combined in its symbolic representative, -and defended by the temporalities of the world). From which we must -argue that, if Christ were here on earth to-day, born of German -parents, he would be called upon to fight in the ranks of Germany; that -if he were born of English parents he would be called to fight for -England; while, if again, born of Jewish parents, he might be accorded -the alternative privilege of fighting for England which was not his -country, or of being deported to Russia to fight for the persecutors of -his race. - -The conscientious objector, on the other hand, feels bound to take -the moral equation of all such particular instances as a guide to -his diagnosis of the evils of war; and he comes thus to regard the -expedient of war as altogether so bad a remedy for evil that he dares -to doubt whether Christ would be seen bearing arms on either side; -and he is probably strengthened in that conviction by the fact that -modern conditions of war tend more and more to involve the weak, -the innocent, and the helpless in the ruin and suffering wrought by -industrial and financial exhaustion, invasion and blockade, and that -“arms of precision” are so unprecise and blind in action that they -are quite as likely, when directed against towns, to destroy the -non-fighters as the fighters. And the conscientious objector finds a -difficulty in seeing Christ serving a gun for the artillery of either -side (however righteous the cause) which may have for immediate result -the disembowelling of a mother while in the pains of child-birth, or -the dismembering of young children. - -He holds further (and it is a tenable argument addressed to any Power -which maintains despotic sway over an alien race, declaring such sway -to be acceptable to the people concerned, while treating as “seditious” -any reluctance to regard it as acceptable), he holds that, if the worst -comes to the worst, submission to force, or mere passive resistance -thereto, is more lifesaving, both morally and physically, than the -setting of force against force even for the defence of “liberty.” He -holds, probably, that Finland, in her policy of passive resistance to -Tsarist domination, has better conditions and prospects to-day than -Serbia; that the present fate of India, as the result of submission to -a stronger Power is preferable to the present fate of Belgium; even -though the Government forced upon it be more alien to the genius of -its races than is the German to the Flemish. He may believe that in -the long run India is more likely to escape from being Britainised by -bowing to the subjugating Power, than Britain is likely to escape from -being Prussianised by a hurried adoption of a similar system to that -which she has set out to destroy. He may even think (for there is no -limit to the contrariety of his views) that if England wins handsomely -in this war by adopting the Prussian system of militarism, she is more -likely to retain it than if she gets beaten. In a word he thinks war -the most hazardous of all remedies for the evils it sets out to cure. - -The State, on the other side, sees the very gravest danger to that -edifice of worldly power which is summed up in the word “imperial,” if -once it allows the individual conscience to pick and choose the moral -terms of its allegiance. And the better the argument the conscientious -objector can present from political parallels in other countries, or -from the failures and blunders of past history, the more dangerous -becomes his propaganda and the more rigorously must it be suppressed. - -The State’s claim to our duty to-day is precisely the same, neither -more nor less, than it would be if it required our services for the -prosecution of a second Boer War, a second Opium-trade war against -China, or a second war against the Independence of America. The causes -of the war might be no more reputable than in these cases, but the -State’s claim on our allegiance would remain the same. “It is not for -you,” the State says, in effect, “to judge whether I am right or wrong, -if I come to claim your services for war.” - -Now nobody, I presume, is so convinced of the perennial purity of his -country’s motives, or that its foreign policy has in the past been -so safe-guarded by democratic control, as to claim that it has never -waged foolish or unjust wars. Most reasonable people will admit that -the State is, in matters of morals, a fallible authority. The claim -is, therefore, that of a fallible authority for the unquestioning -obedience of its citizens in a course of action which may involve the -ruin, torture, and death of an innocent people, or the subjugation of -a liberty-loving race. That claim by a State which stands based on the -doctrine that Might is a surer remedy and defence than Right, is a -perfectly logical one. I have not a word to say against it. - -But when that claim is made for the State by followers of Christianity -on Christian grounds, then I am anxious to relieve the State of the -entanglement they would thrust upon it. I am sure that a State which -bases its authority on Might is weakened and not strengthened by any -attempt to sanction its claim as being compatible with the Christianity -taught by Christ. The less Christianity a State pretends to when it -goes to war, the more is it likely to conduct its war effectively, -and to find no mental hindrance in its way as it advances to its true -end--the destruction of its enemies. - -Because our counsels were mixed with a certain modicum of Christianity, -we had a reluctance early in the war to use asphyxiating gas, exploding -bullets, and certain other improved devices for adding to the frightful -effectiveness of war. We still hesitate to smear phosphorus on our -shells so as to make wounds incurable, or to starve our prisoners -because we hear that our fellow countrymen are being starved in -Germany. In some instances with the help of the _Daily Mail_ the -doctrine of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has carried -the day for us; but it is not a Christian doctrine, and elsewhere -Christianity, or its shadow, still holds us by the leg. The _Morning -Post_, seeing the national danger we were in from these divided -counsels, rightly demanded a Government that would “stick at nothing,” -but has only partially succeeded in securing what it wants. - -Now the conscientious objectors have been trying to do us the service, -which we have ignored, of pointing out from the very beginning that -war is not and cannot be Christian, and so showing us that when a -nation goes to war Christianity is the real danger. The bigger the -bulk of genuine and practical Christianity in any country, the more -impossible is it for that country to adopt effective methods of war. -The reluctance which we feel to shell out phosphorus, or to starve -civilians, will in the genuinely Christian State make itself felt at a -much earlier stage of warlike practice, long before those particular -devices have been applied or even thought of; and it will arise (to -the discrediting of all power which places Might above Right) from -the assertion that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is not -Christian doctrine, and is, in result, no remedy for the evil it sets -itself to avenge. - -This is the real parting of the ways; it is fundamental. Christianity, -based upon the personal example and teaching of Christ, is too -individualist to be in accordance with Society as at present -constituted. Institutional Christianity, on the other hand, has -obviously transferred its allegiance in certain matters of moral -guidance from Christ to Cæsar; and claims that those matters have -been left for Cæsar to decide. I heard it argued, for instance, -quite recently, by a Roman Catholic, that as Christendom in all ages -had tolerated war, all question of conscientious objection thereto -by a Catholic falls to the ground. The answer of the Christian -individualist, I conceive, would be, that Christendom also tolerated -torture for the extraction of truth, and slavery for the extraction -of labour; and that, nevertheless, the conscientious objection -of resistant minorities succeeded, in spite of the supineness of -Christendom, in placing those monstrosities outside the pale of -civilized convention. No doubt while those devices flourished -under the countenance of Mother Church, Christians opposed to their -abolition would have cried then, as they cry now about war, “How are -you to do without them? How can you extract truth from an unwilling -witness, or labour from a subjugated race, except by compulsion and -force?” The answer to that apparently insoluble problem now stands -written in history--a history which has not eliminated untruth from -the witness-box, or indolence from the labour market; yet torture and -slavery alike have ceased to be practical politics, except where the -State still answers with regard to war as it used to answer with regard -to these: “I cannot do without.” There, in their last real stronghold, -unaffected by Christian ethics, slavery and torture still stand. - -But we have to remember that the State’s claim, if we accept it as a -binding principle, comes much closer home to us than it would do if -it arose only in time of war. Military service, once we are in it, -involves us in such things as the firing at Peterloo on defenceless -citizens, in the murder under superior orders of Sheehy Skeffington; -in the shooting, if we are ordered to shoot them, of conscientious -objectors--men who are themselves sworn not to take life. Military -service, loyally rendered in Tsarist Russia, involved the riding down, -the sabring to death, and the drowning of those meek crowds who stood -before the Winter Palace in January, 1905, asking for their “Little -Father” to come and speak to them words of comfort. - -These are things unfortunately which Christians cannot do with a -good conscience, but which the State for its safety may say that it -requires. Let those of us who agree with the State’s claim to our -personal service, irrespective of conscience, do our utmost to separate -it from the weakening effects which true and genuine Christianity is -bound to have on it. - - - - -THE SALT OF THE EARTH - -(1918) - - -It is a curious commentary upon the confusion of tongues which has -descended upon us in our efforts to build towers reaching to Heaven, -that you would have been misled had I given this address its true -title. Had I called it “the Value of Purity” most of you would have -imagined that I was going to speak of what is usually called--with such -strange one-sidedness--the “social evil”; just as we call the liquor -traffic “the Trade.” You would have thought, probably, that I was -going to speak about Regulation 40 D, or some other aspect of the sex -problem with which the word “purity” has become conventionally allied. -It would, indeed, be one-sided in the other direction, to exclude -such considerations from the scope of so embracing a theme; but my -intention is rather to disencumber the word “purity” from the narrow -and puritanical meaning to which it has become limited; and the “Salt -of the Earth” does bring us nearer by its salutary implication to what -purity should really mean. - -For if purity is not a good sanitary principle of fundamental -application to all ethical problems alike, it is merely a pious fad -which may easily become a pious fraud--a religious tenet pigeon-holed -by crabbed age for the affliction of youth. To departmentalise it in -a particular direction leads to impurity of thought; for we destroy -the balance of life and degrade its standards if we do not use our -moral weights and measures consistently in all relations alike. And -if you allow a particular implication of purity to impose its claim -in a society whose impurity in other directions makes it entirely -impracticable, then you are reducing your social ethics to mere -pretence and mockery; and honest youth will find you out, and will turn -away from your religions and your ethical codes with the contempt which -they deserve. - -Is not that what is actually happening--more apparently to-day, -perhaps, than ever before? Has not that departmental code to which I -refer broken down and become foolish in the eyes of honest men and -women, largely because purity is nowhere established in the surrounding -conditions of our social life? - -What is the true aim of social life and social organisation in regard -to the individual? What claim has it upon his allegiance if it does -not offer the means of self-realisation and self-fulfilment equally to -all? And suppose, instead of doing this in a large majority of cases, -it does the reverse: starves his imagination, reduces his initiative, -cripples his development, makes practically impossible (at the time -when desire awakes and becomes strong) the fulfilment of his nature -instinct for mating; how does the claim stand then? If you can only -offer him marriage conditions which are themselves impure, unequal laws -which are themselves a temptation, houses incompatible with health -or decency, wages insufficient for the healthy support of home, and -wife, and children; if that, broadly speaking, has been the marriage -condition which society offers to wage-earning youth, what right has it -to babble about “purity” in that narrower and more individual relation, -while careless to provide it in its own larger domain? - -If you have employments--such as that of bank-clerk or -shop-assistant--which demand of those engaged a certain gentility of -dress and appearance, but offer only a wage upon which (till a man -is over thirty) domestic establishment at the required standard of -respectability is quite impossible--if that is the social condition -imposed in a great branch of middle-class industry--if you tolerate -that condition and draw bigger profits from your business, and bigger -dividends from your investments upon the strength of it--what right -have you to demand of your victims an abstinence which is in itself -unnatural and penurious, and therefore impure? - -Yet what proportion of sermons, think you, have been preached -during the last hundred years in churches and chapels against that -great social impurity of underpaid labour, and underfed life which -have between them done so far more to create prostitution than any -indwelling depravity in the heart of youth? Thwarted life, and sweated -labour, those have been the makings of the “social evil,” so called; -and they lie at the door of an impure system which has made its money -savings at the cost of a great waste of life. - -That particular instance, which I refer to merely in passing, has to -do with our ordinary application of the word purity. But I want to -show how all social purity really hangs together, and how, unless -you have a great fundamental social principle pure throughout, -corruption will carry infection from one department to the other, -making useless or impracticable any ideal of purity which you try to -set up in one particular direction. If you do--to put it plainly and -colloquially--the doctrine won’t wash; honest minds will find out that -the part is inconsistent with the whole. - -What, then, is the whole social ideal which lies at the root of the -modern State? Is it pure, or is it impure? Is it the true “Salt of the -Earth” which, if equally applied, will benefit all nations and all -peoples alike: those to whom, in President Wilson’s phrase, we wish to -be just, and those to whom we do not wish to be just? Does any modern -State really present within its own borders, and in its treatment of -all classes and interests, an example which, if extended, would make -the world safe for Internationalism--an end which I am inclined to -think is more important than making it safe for Democracy? - -The phrase “Salt of the Earth,” which I have taken to illustrate the -meaning and value of social purity, has come to us from that wonderful -compendium of ethical teaching known to Christians as the “Sermon -on the Mount”; that body of coherent, consistent, and constructive -doctrine from which Christianity--so soon as it had allied itself with -Cæsar and the things of Cæsar--made such haste to depart. And the -whole process of that departure was (from the pure ethical standard of -the Sermon on the Mount) a process of adulteration--of impurity--an -adaptation of a spiritual ideal to a secular practice of mixed motives. -But the process really began earlier. It began in the attempt to -identify the God of the Sermon on the Mount with Jahveh, the tribal God -of Hebrew history. And in that attempted identification (incompatible -ethics having to be reconciled) ethics became confounded. - -The Rabbinical training of St. Paul, the Hebraistic tendencies of the -early Christian Church (whose first device was to proselytize the Jews -on the old nationalistic assumption that they were the Chosen People), -all combined to give an impure vision of God to the followers of the -new faith. The nationalism of Judaism corrupted the internationalism -of the Day of Pentecost; and the primitive Mosaic code uttered from -Sinai, and adapted to the mission of racial conquest there enjoined, -stultified the teaching of Calvary. - -The two were incompatible; yet, somehow or another, the Christian -Church had to evolve an ethic which embraced both. And it did so -through allegiance to the State, and the setting-up of a compromise -between things secular and things spiritual which has existed ever -since. - -You can see for yourselves which of the two is to-day the more -recognised and observed among nations which call themselves Christian. -The old tenets of Judaism--based on the Mosaic law and summed up in the -saying, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”--can be observed -by any one to-day in practical entirety with the full approval of the -State. A strict observance of the Sermon on the Mount, and a practical -belief in the teaching of Calvary land a man in prison or may even -render him liable to be shot. - -Rightly or wrongly he is regarded as a danger or a weakness to the -modern State. Personally, I think that he is rightly regarded so; for I -do not see how the modern State could exist if everyone were a sincere -believer in that great peace-offensive, the Sermon on the Mount, and in -its great practical exposition, the Death on Calvary. The only thing I -am in doubt about is whether the modern State is the better alternative. - -Christianity, sincerely and whole-heartedly practised, might have -strange social results; it might, on the other hand, be unexpectedly -pleasant and workable. But of one thing I feel quite sure; it would -not--as humanity is at present constituted--be practised by any but a -very small minority; and it would have to work entirely without State -aid. But that minority would fulfil, for the purposes of demonstration, -the condition which, I think, is necessary for all great ethical -adventures: it would be pure and unadulterated. It would succeed or -it would fail standing upon its own feet and not upon Cæsar’s, not -relying on mixed motives or compromise, but on a single principle--the -principle of loving your neighbour as yourself, and converting him -from evil ways by a process of peaceful penetration. And being--and -remaining, a decisive minority in the world’s affairs, its part therein -would resemble the part played by salt in the chemical sanitation of -the soil out of which grow the clean or the unclean things of earth -which feed or which poison us. - -And that is the first point which I ask you to consider; the -extraordinary value to society, and to the whole evolution of the human -race of minorities holding extremist opinions--so extreme that they do -not seem at the present day to be practical politics--and yet having a -chemic influence (which would not be otherwise obtainable) for bringing -into being the mind of to-morrow, which has always been, all down the -ages, the work of minorities, and generally of persecuted minorities. - -For the Salt of the Earth is only one single constituent, which enables -a better standard of life to become established where the virtue -of its presence is felt. Salt is not, and cannot be, the general -constituent of life; its essence always remains a minor quantity, and -yet quite definitely it affects the generality of things around it. -But in itself it is an extreme, an uncompromising element; its most -striking characteristic is its saltness. - -It would be foolish, therefore, to blame it for not being sweet, or for -not being acid, or for not being capable of taking the place of beef or -mutton in the dietary of the human race, or for not making the whole -human race in its own image. (The only person I ever heard of who was -turned into an image of salt was Lot’s wife; and as a human being it -made her entirely useless). And yet, as, quite literally, the substance -salt has helped the earth to become habitable, and the human race to -become human, so has that symbolic salt of the earth, helped the human -race to become humane, and to envisage (though not to obey) a new ethic -of conduct based upon an ideal conception of the brotherhood of man. - -It was the extreme expression of a new and higher moral plane to which -evolution is only gradually bringing us. Had it started upon compromise -it would have been useless. Its special value was, and still is, in -its uncompromising enunciation of a principle which we still regard as -impracticable. - -But it had, at least, when it was first uttered, this degree of -practicability--it appealed to men’s minds; and it has gone on -appealing to them ever since. - -Had it been uttered to neolithic man, it would have been merely -unintelligible, with no imaginable relation to the experiences of -life; whereas it has a very obvious relation now. Earth was then -in the toils not of a moral but of a physical problem, demanding -a straightforward physical solution; and the salting of the earth -consisted then very largely in the indomitable courage and obstinacy -with which man--the crude struggling biped--stood up against the larger -and more powerful forms of life which barred the way of his advance -toward civilisation--just as previously, the salting of the earth -(the preparing it for a higher form of life) depended upon the huge -and uncouth antediluvian monsters which devoured and trod down the -overwhelming growths of marsh and jungle. - -And from that first salting of the earth, lasting through so many -ages, it is no wonder that much of the old physical recipe still -survives; and that the history of civilisation has shown us a process -in which ruthless extermination by war was regarded as the best means -of establishing God’s elect upon earth. The doctrine that force is a -remedy, or a security for moral ends, dies a slow death in the minds -of men. Institutional Christianity has, by its traditions and its -precepts, done all it could to keep it alive. We still have read to us -in our churches--for our approving acceptance--a proposition made by -the Children of Israel to a neighbouring tribe, precisely similar to -that made five years ago by Germany to Belgium. And the inference left -on the minds of Christian congregations, generation after generation, -has been that God quite approved of it (and of the ruthless devastation -which followed) as a means for making his chosen people the salt of the -earth. - -It is not without significance that the Christian Church all down -the ages has allowed that sort of teaching to enter the minds of the -common people. It is not without significance that the common people -five years ago rose superior to their Bible-teaching, and regarded its -reproduction in the world of to-day as a moral outrage. - -And yet if the world’s affairs, and its racial problems are to be -solved by physical force, it was a perfectly consistent thing to do; -and the inconsistency lies in our moral revolt against it. - -The truth is, of course, that we are in a period of transition. We are -indignant with people who regard successful force as a justification -for wrong; but we are almost equally indignant with those who will not -regard it as a remedy for wrong. And we are slow to see that while the -school of justification by force remains rampant in the world, there -may be some chemic value for the spiritual development of the human -race in the school which denies the efficacy of remedy by force. Yet -is it not possible that as the past belongs to the one, so the future -may belong to the other? - -When we started upon this war we declared that it was a war to end war; -and it was quite a popular thing to say that if it did not result in -the ending of war, then the cause of the Allies would stand defeated. -But that was only another way of saying that we should suffer defeat -if in the near future the whole world were not converted to the point -of view of the conscientious objector. But that would have been a very -unpopular way of putting it, so it was not said. - -Surely this sort of contradiction in which war lands us is only another -proof that we are in an age of transition. Transition makes consistency -difficult. - -But the inconsistency, which conditions of war bring into prominent -reality, lies embedded in our social system (which is itself a -compromise between two incompatible principles)--the Will to Love and -the Will to Power; and there will always be that inconsistency till -the world has definitely decided whether Love or Power is to form the -basis of our moral order. It has not decided it yet. In our own country -(leaving out all question of foreign relations) we have not decided it -yet. - -It is the condition of impurity resulting from that indecision--and -permeating more or less the whole of our social organisation--which I -ask you now to consider. - -How it came about is really not difficult to explain. When primitive -man began to develop the rudiments of society (the group, or the herd) -he did so mainly for self-preservation. In the struggle for existence -coordinated numbers gave him a better chance; and giving him a better -chance of life, they gave him also a better chance of self-development -and self-enjoyment. But into that early society man brought not only -his social instincts but his predatory instincts as well. And while the -group helped him to prey more effectively on those left outside, it did -not prevent him from preying in a certain measure on those within. The -exceptionally strong man had an exceptional value in his own tribe; and -he exacted an exceptional price for it--in wives, or in slaves captured -in war, or in the division of the spoil. It was the same, as society -developed, with the exceptionally resourceful leader; brain began to -count above muscle; and the men of exceptional ability acquired the -wealth. And you know perfectly well, without my going further into -detail, that out of the price exacted within the community (whose broad -interests were in common) separate and conflicting interests arose; the -interest which secured political control exacted from all the dependent -interests an unfair price for its services; and wherever slavery was an -established part of social development, man did not love his neighbour -as himself, he only loved him as his chattel. - -You may take a big jump through history, from primitive to feudal, from -feudal to modern times; and you will still find the same interests -strong in every state, using their inherited control of wealth, of -organisation, and of law, to extract advantage to themselves from the -weaker, and the less educated members of the community; and always -doing it in the name of the commonwealth--the strength and stability -of the State. Only the other day (in a State as advanced as any -in its democratic faith and its doctrine of equality for all--the -United States of America) the moment there was a temporary breakdown -in the legal safeguards against child-labour--there was a great -organised rush in certain States of conscripted child-labour into -industry--conscripted not by the State but by capital, exploiting the -increased need of the wage-earning classes brought about by the raised -prices of war. - -The men who do that kind of thing (and they are men of great power -and influence in the State) still only love their neighbours as their -chattels, and still take advantage of all forms of law, or absence of -law, to keep established as far as they can the conditions of social -slavery. You may say that a thing like that lies outside the law, or -that it is an abuse which legislation has not yet overtaken and put an -end to; but what is more important and more significant is that it is -an abuse which public opinion in those States where it was done had -not overtaken and put an end to, or not merely put an end to, but made -impossible. It makes it impossible for a black man over there to marry -a white woman; and if it can do the one it can do the other. - -But what are those people doing? They are merely reflecting in their -own personal affairs an ideal which lies engrained in every State which -puts self-interest above the interest of the whole human race. And -that, in our present transitional stage, is the standpoint of every -country to-day. In our heart of hearts we still hold Nationalism more -important than Internationalism. And “my country right or wrong” is -still for some people the last word in morality; rather than admit -their country to be in the wrong they will let morality go. - -In that matter, indeed, the world to-day seems to be divided into -two schools. There is one school which so exalts the idea of the -State as to say that the State can do no wrong: that if morality and -State-interest conflict morality must go under, or rather that morals -only exist to subserve State-interests,--and being a State-product, the -State has the right to limit their application. We are fighting to-day -against a race which is charged with having taken up that attitude; -and the pronouncements of some of its most distinguished writers, as -well as certain methods which it has employed in war, seem to bear -out the charge. But when it comes to war, that particular school of -State-ethics gives itself away by protesting that the other States -which are in hostile alliance against it are behaving very wrongly -indeed--though by its own doctrine (States being above morals) they are -incapable of wrong. It cannot stick to its own thesis. - -But what are we to say if that other school, which admits that the -State can do wrong; but is not going to allow the State to be punished -for doing wrong if that State happens to be its own? It is not -that this school does not believe in punishment; it believes in it -enthusiastically, rapturously, so long as it is directed against the -wrong-doing of some other State. Punishment is good for other States, -when they do wrong; without punishment the justice of God would not -be satisfied. But for their own particular State punishment is bad, -and is no longer to be advocated. And so you may say--looking back in -history--that your country was quite wrong in waging such and such a -war; but patriotism forbids the wish in that case that right should -have prevailed and the justice of God been satisfied. - -Now that school was very vocal in England during the Boer War; and I -daresay during the Opium War with China; and I daresay, also, during -the American War of Independence--very loud that we were in the wrong; -but not at all admitting, for that reason, that it would be good for us -to be beaten. But I think it should be one of our proudest boasts that, -in the long run (not immediately--not perhaps for a generation or two) -the political and moral good sense of this country goes back upon the -teaching of that school. I believe that on the whole we are glad that -we were beaten in the war with America; and that we are glad we were -beaten because we were in the wrong. And, perhaps, some day--not yet, -for our fear of the Yellow Race is still greater than our fear of any -white race you can name--but, perhaps, some day we may be sorry that we -were not beaten to a standstill in our opium war with China. (I see, -incidentally, that to-day we are addressing a sharp remonstrance to -the Chinese Government, because it is now doing that very thing which -we then compelled it to do at the point of the bayonet--permitting, -namely, the opium trade to be revived. That remonstrance only came, -however, after we had sold to China sufficient opium to last its -medical needs for 140 years!) - -Now those acts of our national past, which we now reprobate, were only -bad prominent expressions of the fundamental idea on which the modern -State runs its foreign policies--reflecting outwardly something which -lives strongly engrained in our midst--the Will to Power. It is because -that principle is more firmly established in the world of diplomacy -than either the Will to Serve or the Will to Love, that our policies -have been able to shape themselves. It was not because we wished to -give the Heathen Chinee a good time that we forced our opium upon him; -it was because we wanted to give our opium trade good returns. And -that was merely a faithful reflection of what was going on at home. -It was because we wanted--or because our ruling classes wanted--to -give capital good returns, that the working classes were not allowed -to combine, that child-labour, and sweated industries remained like -institutions in our midst, that legislation in the interests of labour -and of women and children fell hopelessly into arrears. Democracy, -you may say, has done away with all that: well, with some of it. In -proportion to the broadening of its power in the State, Democracy has -looked after its own interests. But so long as the average human mind -is bent upon securing advantage to the detriment of others, or upon -securing for itself privileges not to be shared by others, that mind -will inevitably be reflected in the way we work our State institutions, -and the form we give to our foreign policies. And always, and in every -instance, you will find, if you follow it out, that this inclination -to secure advantage to the detriment of others always lands you in -an ethical contradiction unless your ideal is entirely inhuman and -non-social. It is inconsistent with that community of interest to which -social order pretends. We set up laws for the good of the State; and -we call them equal laws. And if they are good laws, and if we love -our country, we must necessarily love the laws which are for the good -of our country, and embrace them with equal fervour, whether they -touch us or whether they touch our neighbours. But when a member of -our own family commits a theft, or a forgery, we do everything we can -to save him from the operation of that law which we think so good for -others. And if we do; then our affection or respect for the law is -entirely one-sided and impure. And the people who make laws and devise -punishments upon those unequal premises are not at all likely to make -their laws just, or their forms of punishment wise. - -Our whole prison system is bad just because it is not really designed -first and foremost to do the criminal good, and to develop him into a -useful citizen; but only to repress him and make him a discouraging -example to others. - -Our prisons are impure because they are lacking in good-will; we have -regarded power instead of love as the solution of the crime problem; -and we have been contented to apply an impatient, unintelligent, and -soul-destroying remedy to the crimes of others, which we would not wish -to see applied in like case to those of our own family. - -Of course, I know that our prisons have been greatly improved; -because, as I said before, we are in a state of transition, and a new -school of thought, whose basis is Love and Service, is fighting an -old school of thought whose basis is Power, and gradually--only very -gradually--getting the better of it. - -It is the same with Education; the old idea of education was largely -based on dominance and power--the power of the teacher to punish. The -new idea is largely based upon the power of the teacher to interest, -and upon trust in youth’s natural instinct to acquire knowledge. It -is a tremendous change; the old system was impure in its psychology, -and corrupted alike the mind of the teacher and the taught. Nobody in -the old days was so unteachable as a school-master; and yet his whole -profession is really--to learn of youth. And the ethical impurity of -the old system came at the point where there was a lack of goodwill--a -lack of mutual confidence. - -In trade again, how much co-operation has been over-ridden by -competition--manœuvres of one against the other, designed to the -other’s detriment. We have been told that competition is absolutely -necessary to keep us efficient in business; it is precisely the same -school of thought which says that war is necessary to keep us efficient -as a nation. - -But in a family you don’t need competition; where there is goodwill, -co-operation and the give-and-take of new ideas for the common stock -are enough. - -To-day we are beginning to wake up to the possibility of co-operation -taking the place of competition. It is the purer idea; and being the -purer we shall probably in the end find it the more economical. - -And what shall we say about politics? Does anyone pretend that our -politics are pure; or that the system on which we run them is -anything but a vast system of adulteration?--which may perhaps be -thus expressed:--Two great bodies of opinion trying to misunderstand -each other and trying to make the general public share in their -misunderstanding, in order that their own side may attain to power. - -When you start on a discussion, what is the pure reason for that -discussion? To try to arrive at a common understanding--mental -co-operation. But is it for that purpose that we raise our party cries -and run a general election? - -We are being threatened with that great boon in the near future. And -when it takes place a great wave of impurity will rise and will flood -through the land; and men will be strenuously misrepresenting the -words and thoughts and motives of their opponents--and very often men -will be misrepresenting their own motives--because their end is really -power--power over others instead of goodwill to others. And out of that -process we shall draw together the Council of the Nation! - -That process--which we see quite well is an impure process--is forced -upon us because we are in a stage of transition; it is difficult as a -matter of practical politics to suggest a better. - -But ought not that obvious fact to make us very humble about our -present stage of political development--and humble in general about the -position to which we have attained in our moral evolution? Is it not a -little premature to call ourselves a Free Nation? Is any Nation really -free till it has found itself on peace and good-will to all? - -Now I have put before you these sorry spectacles to show that where -the true social ideal of brotherhood and goodwill breaks down, you -arrive at some ethical absurdity of which you have to be ashamed--you -find yourself driven into inconsistency, into impurity. And the only -thing that is consistent and is pure (once you have started with the -social idea) is that we are all one brotherhood--and that harm to one -member of the community is harm to all. And when you have once got a -nation that has really taken that idea to heart and made a practice of -it, such a nation will never rest content till there is a Society of -Nations of like mind extending over all the world. - -I referred just now to the Sermon on the Mount. To most of the world -its teachings sound impracticable. They are the extreme statement -of an ideal; and it is hard in this world to live ideally. But that -statement has about it this merit of commonsense--it is pure, it is -consistent--it is a united whole; and it is based on something of which -we have never yet really allowed ourselves the luxury--a trust in human -nature. A belief that if you set yourself whole-heartedly to do good to -others--to do good even to your enemies--human nature will respond. - -We cannot all love our neighbours as ourself--that individual emotion -is beyond us. But if we can love our country enough to die for it, -we can also love it enough to give to it laws and institutions and -policies that shall prepare the way for the universal brotherhood of -man. - - - - -THE RIGHTS OF MAJORITIES - -(1912) - - -In every age some fetich of government has been set up designed to -delude the governed, and to induce a blind rather than an intellectual -acceptance of authority. - -To set up in government some point over which you must not argue, is -always very convenient to those who govern; and so you will note, -throughout the world’s history, that the manipulators of government -have always tried to impose some incontrovertible proposition as the -basis on which their authority shall rest; and then, having done so, to -get the strings of it into their own hands, and work it to their own -convenience. - -In the present day “majority rule” is the pretended fetich; a majority -whose qualification is almost automatic, whose registration is all -done for it by the party agents, and whose free and independent vote -is brought up to the polling-booth very largely by the bribe of a free -ride in a motor-car. - -Scores of elections, that is to say, are turned by the indifferent -voter, and on this sort of cookery recipe the moral products of -majority rule are served up to us as “a dish fit for a king,” and as -giving moral sanction to government. And whatever indigestion comes -to us as the result of our swallowing it whole we are to sit down -under. If the majority has decided, the matter (we are told) is beyond -argument. - -That is the fetich, the superstition on which, in theory, government -rests to-day. - -In other times there were other fetiches, quite as respectable. “The -King can do no wrong,” was one of them. And we have had staged before -our eyes, in due order, the divine right--or the divine sanction; it is -all the same--of Kings, of Property, of Inheritance, of Slavery, and of -War. - -All these have been maintained as necessities of government--infallible -doctrines, based on Scripture and the will of God. - -Some of them present rather a battered front to-day. The fetich which -has taken their place is the “Right of Majorities.” - -We do not exactly say “Majorities can do no wrong.” But we do incline -to say (often for the sake of a quiet life, and for no better reason) -“Majorities must be allowed to do as they please.” And that means in -effect--those must be allowed to do as they please who can pull the -wires by which majorities are manipulated. - -I need hardly remind you that to-day the wire-pullers are the -statesmen, the leaders of party, who have secured more and more the -control of the party-machine, and with it the control of the education -of the electorate. - -Having secured this control, they let loose upon you the astonishing -doctrine that, if you have numbers, there you have your right cut and -dried; that if you have not numbers your right (politically speaking) -does not exist. - -Now every student of history knows that in the past majorities, -more especially manipulated majorities--or their counterpart _force -majeure_--have done great crimes. - -But we do not to-day maintain that those majorities had a “right” to -sack cities, to violate women, to massacre, to exterminate, and to -bring others into subjection. The most we say is that these happenings -are an extreme, and, under some circumstances, an inevitable expression -of certain bad elements in human nature. Is it not, then, perfectly -absurd to imagine that under internal and domestic conditions all such -bad elements have departed from majorities; and that a consensus of -vice, of self-indulgence, of unfairness, of a desire for domination, -may not spread through very large sections of the community, even -through whole peoples where the opportunity so to indulge is -accorded--especially if it be accorded by law or embodied as a State -doctrine? - -Clearly, therefore, there must be some limitation or check imposed -upon the so-called “rights” of majorities; and some of them may be -limitations which those majorities would not choose for themselves, -but will, all the same, submit to without revolt if they are properly -rubbed home! One of the essential conditions for majority rule (if -it is to carry with it any moral sanction at all) is that it must -be ready to submit to the same conditions which it imposes upon -others; and that it must not set up qualification, or prohibition from -qualification, without any liability of that prohibition falling upon -itself. It must make the liability fairly equal. - -The specious excuse and justification for government by majority, as -put forward by the materialists, is that, latent, within it, lies the -physical force of the nation. (I may say, in passing, that the physical -force of the nation lies latent in every form of government which -secures the assent of the governed; and only ceases to be latent when -some of it gets on to its hind-legs and insists on another form of -government; and to be effective, that “some of it” need not always be a -majority.) - -But it is no use talking of physical force being the basis and the -moral justification of majority rule--it is no use invoking the -physical force argument--unless your majority is also prepared to go -to the trouble of exercising it and paying the price for exercising -it. And the main phenomenon of our present form of government by -majority is that the majority won’t take any trouble at all; that, -taken in the bulk, they care very little, and won’t put themselves -to inconvenience--certainly won’t risk physical discomfort and -pain--unless government has very seriously incommoded them by damaging -or by neglecting their interests. - -If the physical force basis is to be your full sanction of -government--if that is really your argument--then that basis, that -sanction, is possessed equally by king or despot, so long as he has his -organisation at his command. There are his numbers, obeying him just -as, with us, M.P.’s, 700 strong, obey the party-whips, often against -their principles, but from no physical compulsion whatever. - -What the preachers of physical force seem to ignore in arguing about -the basis of government, is the aim of government. What, in the minds -and consciences of those who believe in government, is government -aiming for? Is its aim only to keep order or to be just? Does it seek -to repress humanity to the utmost extent, or to develop it? To wrap its -talents in a napkin, or to make it spiritually a ruler of cities? - -What is humanity out for? To what is it evolving? What has been its -impulse, its motive force in pressing for, and in extracting from -reluctant authorities Representative Government, with its accompanying -symbol--the voice of the majority? - -It has been seeking humane government--in the belief, surely, that -the nearer you get to really humane government the more will unrest -and revolt and crime cease; and, by the consequent reduction of the -police and of the forces of repression now needed, repay the State a -hundred-fold for the liberties it has established. And majority rule -is merely a device to get nearer to humane government, to open up the -mind of man to his own humane possibilities, and to develop his trust -in others by reposing trust in him. The more you spread government as -an organization of the people themselves, the more humane, upon that -working basis, are likely to be its operations--on one condition: that -such organisation of the people, whatever its numbers, submits to the -operation of its own laws and shares equally in the conditions which -it imposes--that, if it provides a qualification for citizenship, it -provides also the means for all to qualify. - -Now this brings us to the relative duties of those who govern and of -those who are governed; and, whereas, fundamentally their duty is the -same, in one important respect it differs. In each case, broadly and -fundamentally, their duty is toward their neighbour--to do to him as -they would he should do unto them. That axiom, rightly carried out, -covers all the law and the prophets, being greater than either; nay, if -it were rightly and universally carried out, the law and the prophets -might safely be shelved. Law merely exists as an expedient, because men -have not yet learned thoroughly to do, or even to wish to do, their -duty toward their neighbour; and as law is an imperfect thing, only -existing because of, and only applicable to, imperfect conditions, the -law and its upholders are not, and never can be, a perfect expression -of that duty which is mutually owed by all. Law is only an expedient -for averting greater evils which might, and probably would, take place -without it in our present very imperfect stage of human development. - -But there is one obvious difference between the governors and the -governed. In the action of the former there is an assertion of -authority--an underlying assumption of a power to improve matters by -regulating them. In the governed there is no such assumption of moral -superiority; the governed are there whether they like it or no; and the -laws which condition their lives are laid upon them by a power beyond -themselves, even when--under a representative system--they have secured -some minute voice in regard to their shaping. - -The governors, therefore, by their assumption of an ability to improve -matters, are in a fiduciary position to the rest of the community--the -_onus probandi_ of their beneficence rests upon them and not upon -the people. It is their duty to pacify the governed; it is not the -duty of the governed to pacify them; and if they fail in the work of -pacification, which is their main _raison d’être_, they, and not the -community, have to meet the charge of functional incompetence. - -Government is a function; being governed is not a function. Humanity -in all stages of civilization or of savagery has fallen subject to -government without being asked to show any certificate of its fitness -to be governed. It is therefore, the governors who have to prove -themselves fit--not the governed; and if a penal code be found, or -declared, necessary to enable the governors to secure peace and -order, then (if your system be just and equal) the penal code should -be applicable in at least equal severity to the governors who impose -it, when instead of producing contentment, it produces unrest and -disorder. Liability to impeachment and condemnation under laws of an -equal stringency would be, I think, a very wholesome corrective to the -legislative action of M.P.’s voting coercive measures which only result -in failure. I fancy that under such conditions there would have been, -for instance, a far smaller majority for the “Cat and Mouse Act,” the -futility of which soon became so ridiculously apparent. Imprisonment -with compulsory starvation, followed by release upon a medical -certificate, and then by a fresh term of imprisonment would have been a -most enlightening form of vacation for certain members of Parliament. -And until we have secured in this country a much more equal adjustment -of the relations between governors and governed, some such corrective -for vindictive legislation is certainly needed. - -It is not a sufficient equivalent, or safeguard to popular liberty, to -be able merely to dismiss from office a Minister of the Crown who has -by his administrative blunders brought citizens to death and property -to destruction, or who has sedulously manufactured criminals out of -a class whose will is to be law-abiding. He, if anybody, deserves -punishment; and Parliaments (backed by whatever majority) which, -through maintaining political inequalities, produce such results, are -under the same condemnation. The _onus probandi_ of their beneficence -rests upon them; and if, commissioned to secure peace and order, they -produce only unrest and disorder, then the proof is against them. - -Listen to these remarkable words by so great a supporter of -constitutional authority as Edmund Burke: - -“Nations,” he says, “are not primarily ruled by laws, still less -by violence. Whatever original energy may be supposed in force or -regulation, the operation of both is, in truth, merely instrumental. -Nations are governed by the same methods and on the same principles by -which an individual without authority is often able to govern those who -are his equals or his superiors--by a knowledge of their temper, and by -a judicious management of it. I mean--when public affairs are steadily -and quietly conducted: not when government is nothing but a continued -scuffle between the magistrate and the multitude, in which sometimes -one and sometimes the other is uppermost, in which they alternately -yield and prevail in a series of contemptible victories and scandalous -submissions. The temper of the people amongst whom he presides ought, -therefore, to be the first study of the statesman. And the knowledge -of this temper it is by no means impossible for him to attain, if he -has not an interest in being ignorant of what it is his duty to learn.” - -And further on he says: - -“In all disputes between them (the governed) and their rulers, the -presumption is at least upon a par in favour of the people. Experience -may perhaps justify me in going further. When popular discontents -have been very prevalent, it may well be affirmed that there has -been something found amiss in the constitution or in the conduct of -government. The people have no interest in disorder. When they do -wrong, it is their error and not their crime. But with the governing -part of the State it is far otherwise. They certainly may act ill by -design as well as by mistake.... And if this presumption in favour of -the subject against the trustees of power be not the more probable, I -am sure it is the more comfortable speculation; because it is more easy -to change an administration than to reform a people.” - -There, then, is a great authority, Edmund Burke, maintaining that -governments are more liable to wilful error than those whom they -govern--and the main value of majority rule is that it tends to bring -the presumption round to the side of government, by making the voice -of government also the voice of the people. I do not think the claims -of majority rule can be put on any higher footing than that--that if -the government is really expressive of a governed majority (and not -merely of a majority to whom the constitution has accorded licence and -privilege above its fellows) then the favourable presumption in any -conflict comes round to the side of government. - -But if government claims its sanction from a majority, then we must -enquire further into the composition and character of that majority; -and yet further whether the mandate of that majority is the output -of its conscience or merely of its self-interest; we must watch its -workings, and see what really brings it to the poll--its moral sense, -its pleasure in motor-cars, or its inclination (based on a national -love of sport) to select and to back the winner. - -At whose bidding to-day, and for what motive, are we really being -governed? Our duty toward government can never be greater than toward -that voice of sanction on which it rests. And short of a voice of -the whole people conscientiously uttered, and so conditioned as to -be really free and equal, I do not see whence an entire sanction -of government is to come--though you may have (under such and such -circumstances) a large increase of presumption in its favour. - -But obviously there are degrees. We in England clearly recognise that. -We have recognised it in our own history; we recognise it in looking -abroad upon other countries. And we rather approve--most of us--of -revolution against a Russian or a German government which has refused -so to aim that the people shall be in some sort their own governors. - -Similarly, in this country, the sanction may be imperfect--we may -have secured the form but not the substance. If so--if the form is -so manipulated as to be virtually of no effect--the moral sanction -is by so much lessened. Universal franchise--on the unattainable -qualification, let us say, of standing on one leg for a fortnight, -would be a mockery deserving of instant revolt. And there is some -mockery in setting up any qualification of which a willing and -painstaking citizen cannot avail himself--or herself. Perhaps there -is also some mockery--some cheapening of citizenship--in setting up a -qualification which requires no willingness and no pains. - -The moral sanction of government, therefore, is ever fluctuant and -variable--conditioned always by the sincere relationship of theory to -practice, of form to fact. No amount of form or theory, however just -in appearance, or legal in fact, will condone unjust government. And -as we would wish to be condemned and punished were we so to impose on -others--so must we act towards any government which seeks to impose -on us by substituting form for substance. If its moral sanction is -imperfect it cannot claim perfect obedience. - -Now if there is not a full and honest wish among those who govern to -do as they would be done by--claiming no advantage or privilege for -themselves, and not attempting to keep in order one section of the -community rather than another by framing laws which penalise this -section rather than that--if there is not this honest wish, there will -all the more be an attempt on the part of the governing section to give -to its government in form that virtue which it lacks in practice,--to -say to objectors: “See how safeguarded on all hands are your interests, -how perfectly you are represented, how obviously you are the masters of -the situation, and we only the servants.” And the nearer the governed -are to an intellectual awakening and apprehension of their true -condition, the more elaborate and plausible will be the pretence that -the real ultimate power rests--not there in the hands of the governors, -but here in the hands of the governed. And best of all--because most -deceptive of all--will be the device which does actually put the means -of reforming or of overthrowing government into the hands of the -governed, while so nullifying the application of those means that the -fair form, so fruitful in seeming, shall be in reality an empty husk. - -Now, if it be true--as from history I have contended--that the moral -sanction of government is variable, and depends on honest conditions -and relations, obviously it is not the mere plausible form which shall -decide whether this or that government be deserving of obedience or -not. That form which is established by law must bring forth fruit to -the satisfaction of the governed--producing, as proof of its claim, -peaceful conditions and general content. If it fail to do this then it -must be suspected, enquired into, and, if need be, disowned. - -But it must breed something more than the acquiescence of a majority. -The contentment, or at least the acquiescence of minorities is one -of the signs of good government. For while it takes little to make -minorities critical, it takes much to make them revolt--if for no other -reason than that the chances are against them. And it is not in human -nature to face so heavy odds except for some grave cause. - -Consider first, then, in any given case, “Are those in the minority -seeking to keep or filch liberty from you, or only to obtain such -liberty as is already yours? Are they seeking to set up equality of -condition or inequality? Are they pressing for privilege or only for -common ground?” - -And if the answer to such questions be that they seek only a like -liberty upon common ground and equality with yourselves--then, I -care not how large the majority against them--you must open or make -available to them that same standing which you claim as your due; and -on whatever basis of public service or private worth you have obtained -your right,--that means, that test, that qualification must be open -also to them, else your majority rule is nothing more than brute force, -a despotism extended from the embodiment of one or of a few to an -embodiment of 10, 15, or 20,000,000. But if you sanction that and make -it your base, then, to be logical, you must sanction also (at least -as a test) the employment of force by a minority to make its position -untenable. And remember, that if among a minority some ten per cent. -are willing to die, as against only some one or two per cent. in a -majority, that minority is likely to win, and all your numbers will be -vain. - -That fact puts no undue or dangerous power into the hands of -minorities. Consent, on a just basis, can be obtained to government -whose acts are little to the liking of individual minds or of -minorities. But if, after long trial of expedient, persuasion, or -coercion, consent cannot be obtained, then the weight of evidence -(based on the unfailing document of human nature) has shifted against -government; and it rests more with the government than with the rebel -to prove that its claims are just. - -When governments establish inequalities affecting the lives and -liberties of any, however few, I see no sanction whatsoever in -majorities. One runaway slave had not to wait upon a majority of -his fellow-slaves in order to establish his right to escape from -slavery--still less upon a majority of the nation which owned him. -If he could find a path along which to escape, that was the highroad -appointed for him by God from of old; and if he died in the attempt his -grave was still a monument to Liberty. Not the will of a million could -destroy the right of that one. And though I admit that a society which -sanctions slavery must treat as a murderer the slave who kills in his -effort to escape,--nevertheless, by posterity, and in a society which -has repudiated slavery, that act will be very differently regarded; -and so long as the man’s aim when he committed that legal offence -was freedom, we, who have repudiated slavery, look upon him not as a -murderer but as a fighter in a just cause. - -We are in a society to-day which tolerates and even sanctions things -which to-morrow will be regarded as slavery is regarded now. While -society thus chooses to establish evil it is driven in self-defence to -treat those who rebel as criminals. But posterity will not so think of -them; and the greater the forces of the majority which stood against -them when they struck--the more will it admire and reverence, and -approve. Surely a startling commentary on the “rights” of majorities: -approval of the minority in an inverse proportion to its size! - -Now, you might have a State almost equally divided into what were, -broadly speaking, opposed interests; under certain circumstances, for -instance, (circumstances which have actually occurred in the past) -manufacturing and agricultural interests might be opposed. If, then, -you accepted majority rule as a blind dogma, those two interests -would have the right alternately to prey upon and to bleed each other, -according to the fortunes of the polls--and they might do it by putting -forward legislative programmes which would bribe the electoral wobblers -first to this side and then to that. Where, on such a device does moral -right come in? Was ever anything so ludicrous as a doctrine? - -As a doctrine of right, majority rule has but doubtful ground to stand -on. As an expedient, for practical use under sound conditions, there -is much to be said for it. But when once you recognise it as a mere -working expedient, then its workings must be watched, proved, and -sometimes corrected and checked--by a minority. - -Majority rule is only tolerable when it has the equal rights of man -and woman firmly fixed as its goal; and it is as tending to the -establishment of that doctrine that majority rule is acceptable (with -some caution and reservations) to our progressive sense of citizenship. - -In the great historic moments of upheaval which have brought it about, -it has consciously or subconsciously been an attempt to get rid of the -bad principle of dominance over others. It expresses the hope, or it -embodies the probability, that a majority will be so broadly made up of -all sorts and conditions--of the whole chemical composition of human -society, that is to say--that in a government prompted and directed -by a majority there will be no dominance of one section over another -section: that they will, in the long run (or, if efficiently checked, -in the short run) correct each other, strike a balance, and prevent the -rigid and continuous existence in the body politic of any subjected -section. - -But if a majority could so sort its materials as to select for rigid -and permanent subjection one section of the community, then the reason -for its existence, and the grounds for its moral sanction would be gone. - -If, then, two-thirds or three-quarters of the community can secure -a greater apparent measure of comfort for themselves by forcing the -remaining one-third, or one-quarter, to wait upon them and minister to -their needs, the actual size of that dominant majority confers upon -it no moral right whatever. There would, indeed, be more semblance of -right, or at least more tenable ground, if a minority could so impose -on a majority; because in that case the power of imposition would -arise not from mere brute force so much as from superior ability; and -a minority which can manipulate to its purpose the bulk material of a -community has shown better ground for the rule of others (not very good -ground, I admit) than the mere weight of numbers can supply. Weight -of numbers as a ground for dominating others gives you no moral or -efficient basis at all. Weight of capacity does give you an efficient -basis, if not a moral one. - -Now, if your two-thirds majority is extracting comfort on unequal and -compulsory terms from the remaining one-third, you surely cannot deny -the right of the remaining one-third so to diminish the comfort thus -compulsorily extracted as to bring it to vanishing point, or to make -it even a minus quantity. And the bigger the majority which is thus -extracting sustenance from the minority, and exploiting it to its own -ends, the more you will admire the minority if it rises in revolt, and -makes the imposed and one-sided bargain unprofitable to the majority. -And should the contention be carried to extremes (as it will be if -both sides are sufficiently resolved) then the majority will have to -exterminate the minority, and (if it wishes to continue government on -the same lines) will have to extract for exploitation a new minority -from its own body--give up one of its own ribs to servitude--and so -become a diminished people in its perpetuation of a bad system. - -Now, these considerations of moral right are irrespective of numbers. -It may be the bounden duty of one man to resist the will of hundreds, -or thousands, or millions. Indeed, every religious system admits, and -history gives clear evidence, that that is so. A man must obey his -conscience; that is his one ultimate guide. That statement expresses -what one may call the atomic theory of human society. It suggests, at -first sight, an impossible splitting to pieces of all systems of law -and order; but it is not so in reality, because--and this is the really -wonderful thing and the spiritual root of the whole matter--conscience -is the most infectious and convincing force in life. In a community -there is really a far greater agreement of conscience than of desire or -of opinion. A conscientious resister may, of course, be mistaken; but -if he is prepared to go on resisting, making sacrifice, and enduring -suffering for his scruples--that process is the least fallible as a -test, and the most converting in its tendency of all the processes of -propaganda that the human mind can conceive; and by recognizing the -moral right of the individual to put himself to that test before the -eyes of his fellow citizens, and so at the same time to test their -consciences in the matter, you are not really encouraging a course -which leads to disunion and anarchy, but a course which, on the whole, -will best bring about a general consensus of opinion. A community -which recognises the moral worth of such tests of its own and of -the individual conscience, will be far less likely to arouse such -demonstrations of revolt than one which altogether ignores and despises -them; for the simple reason that such a community will be better based -in its duty toward its neighbour; it will wish each man to do that -which it would claim the right to do itself in a like case, if faced by -a superior power backed by greater numbers than its own. - -If I know that my conscientious resistance will be respectfully -considered (though not made easy or cheap to me), that my test of other -consciences may be tried and may be adjudged to fail--I shall not be -more inclined to enter into conflict with so considerate a majority, -but less; for it is not open-minded justice but close-minded injustice -which arouses opposition and rebellion. - -But while human nature makes it safe, in the main, that men and women -will not in any appreciable numbers submit themselves voluntarily to -continuous discomfort, deprivation, loss of liberty and ease, except -for a just cause or a high motive worth looking into, considering, and -making allowances for: human nature does not make it safe that those -in authority will not be overbearing and unjust, unless they too are -liable to a like test. - -And here again we come to consider the duty of the law and of -law-makers to individuals. - -The law should be prepared wherever its fallibility stands -proved--where, for instance, it has done hurt and damage to innocency -by its operations--at least to make full reparation. It is not an -honourable position, for that which holds fiduciary together with -compulsory powers, to say to one whom it has falsely imprisoned or -unjustly charged--“You, on the whole, benefit by government, and, -therefore, must yourself bear this hurt of government which has fallen -upon you.” The State or the community which permits such individual -hardship to result from its imposition of a fallible code is not just -in its government or dutiful to its neighbour. And if it so acts, it -undermines in the governed their sense of its moral sanction. The State -cannot so do hurt to its citizens and retain an unimpaired claim on -their allegiance; nor can it with any moral decency claim reparation -from its enemies abroad, if it does not make full reparation for its -own miscarriages of justice at home. - -“One,” it is sometimes argued, “must suffer for the general good.” But -the general good is not so served. In this connection general good only -means “general cheapness.” The State, and not the citizen, must pay the -price of its presumption--or it must look for an altered mind in every -citizen whom it so afflicts from its position of immunity. Nay, it may -be well that its supposed immunity should occasionally be disproved by -a determined and self-sacrificing citizen, entirely for the general -good, and the State forced to pay in extra upkeep for the bad condition -of its laws. - -The careless self-allowance of majorities in wrong done to minorities, -or even to individuals, is not to the general good; and one could -rather wish to a State that its minorities should be alert and -pugnacious, than its majorities self-satisfied and indifferent on the -score of mere numbers. - -Numbers, uncorrected by conscience and uncontrolled by penalties, may -be the cheapest, nastiest and most unscrupulous form of tyranny. The -indifference or acquiescence of hundreds to conditions by which they -themselves are not consciously affected cannot have the same moral -weight as the discontent of one or of a few who are so affected. -That is a consideration which must always qualify the “rights” of -majorities. In such circumstances the sanction of mere numbers is not -sufficient. - -Are minorities, then, always to have their way? By no means. We know -that they cannot. - -Countless minorities in our political controversies have contended, -have failed, and have acquiesced in their failure. Time has tested -them, and has measured the depth of their grievance by the scale of -human nature. - -But other minorities, which have persistently refused to acquiesce have -won. Time has tested them also; and human nature, not numbers, has in -the long run proved their case. - -Medical science tells us that there is in the human eye a blind spot, -by the existence of which alone we are enabled to see. If that blind -spot were absent the eye would be without focus. - -In human nature (however much we hold by the principle of ordered -government) there is a point of revolt which standardises the relations -of the individual to government. It cannot be brought into play by -mere artifice or calculation, except for brief spells; but when -naturally aroused it lasts. - -It is that point of revolt, latent at all times in a freedom-loving -people, but only aroused by unjust conditions--it is the existence of -that point of revolt in human nature which secures good government. - -Minorities, if determined, can make unjust government an economic -extravagance, and can indicate to majorities (with some trouble and -cost to themselves) the limitation of their rights. - -The sleeping partner of good government is the spirit of revolt. - -To-day we have not good government; and that is why the sleeping -partner is awake. - - - - -DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT - -(1915) - - -Discreditable conduct, according to its right derivation, is conduct -provocative of disbelief. It is that kind of conduct which makes -us doubt the professions of its agents, because it is practically -inconsistent with the things that they preach. - -Many things are done in this world which are very reprehensible, -vindictive, cruel, narrow-minded--I might go through a whole catalogue -of the vices; but they are not therefore “discreditable.” A man who -has gone about the world expressing his undying hatred for another -man, and then ends by killing him, has done nothing discreditable from -his own standard. He has not made you believe less in his professions, -but more; for he actually did mean what he said, and has become by his -act a creditable witness to the faith that was in him--the dark gospel -of hatred. But if, while nourishing a personal hatred, he was at the -same time laying it down as the duty of all men to love their enemies, -then we have not to wait for the murder in order to look upon him as -a tainted and a discredited witness. It is not so much the blood upon -his hands as the hatred within his heart which has discredited him as a -preacher to others. - -Or, put the case otherwise; without pretending to such a counsel of -perfection as that he can love his enemies, a man may yet assert that -human life is sacred, and that he has no right to take the life of his -fellow. Having done so he begins to set up exceptions: “Though I may -not do it at my own,” he says, “I may do it at the bidding of others.” -And this not by orders that he is compelled into on pain of death or -torture (when he might plead a natural human infirmity as his excuse -for wrongdoing) but by voluntary enlistment in an army, or by voluntary -acceptance of the post of public hangman, or of a judgeship, or of -service upon a jury in cases involving the death-penalty. - -Now, it may be very commendable to take human life at the bidding of -others; but it is not consistent with the unqualified statement that -“all human life is sacred.” The one proposition--it is not my concern -here to defend or attack either of them--becomes discredited by the -other. The advocate of the judicial extinction of life under the -institution of capital punishment, or of wholesale extinction under the -institution of war--if he wishes to be heard as a credible witness, and -to avoid the imputation of discreditable conduct when he gives a hand -to it--must reshape his statement something after this manner: “Human -life is so important a thing that one man must not take it on his own -responsibility; but Society may.” And then he will have to make up -his mind what he means by Society, and why he thinks Society is more -to be trusted than himself. And if he finds himself in a community -which permits or even inculcates moral evils which he individually -cannot tolerate, then he must puzzle out for himself why he will -trust such a community with the power to kill, when he sees it make -so vile and miserable a misuse of the power to keep alive--or to keep -from life in any form that is worth having--so many millions of his -fellow-creatures. And he will find presently that his assertion that -human life is sacred must--if it is to mean anything--extend from the -comparatively easy and simple problem of the death-penalty to those far -greater problems, which lie all around him, of the cruel life-penalties -tolerated or exacted by Society. - -So before long what he will find himself up against is this--the -necessity of being a creditable or a discreditable witness to the value -of Society itself--of that thing to whose apron-strings he has tied -his conscience. For you cannot assert that it is right for Society to -unmake human life unless you also assert that Society is making human -life in a form that is worth having, in a form, too, that would be -imperilled were its power of judicial murder to be taken from it. - -But the point of departure I have wished to bring you to is this: -man did not begin to doubt his own moral right to kill other men -until there entered into his being an idea of something better able -than himself to judge, to control, and to provide. And so long as he -believed in that idea as protective of a morality superior to his -own, and productive of the fruits of life in better quality, he could -without discredit put into its hands powers which he dared not himself -exercise. - -But when, on the contrary, a man comes to the conclusion that the -products of Society as constituted have in them more of evil than of -good, he may quite creditably, in a strict sense of the word, start an -attack upon Society, or upon great social institutions, and seek to -bring them to dissolution. Such a course of action may be arrogant, or -may have an insufficient basis of fact, but it is not discreditable. -Rather does it prove the man’s faith in his professions. History -gives record of many such characters, and posterity has approved of -deeds which in their own day were regarded as violent, arrogant, and -unjustifiable. - -Martin Luther attacked a far greater social institution of his own day -than was comprised under any single form of government. He attacked -something much bigger than the English or the American Constitution. -In deciding to attack it he was more arrogant (if single unorganised -action against large and organised numbers be the proof of arrogance) -than you or I could be if we attacked any institution to-day that -you like to name, even the institution of war. Now, the result of -that great attack was that it succeeded--not unconditionally, not -universally, but (broadly speaking) racially and territorially. About -one-third of Europe was conquered by it; and about two-thirds remain -to this day--not indeed unaffected, but certainly not conquered by -Lutheranism. If you are to judge of sacred causes by mere numbers, -there are still more nominal Catholics than nominal Protestants in the -world; and, therefore, by numbers, up to date Luther is condemned. - -Luther’s real conquest--the thing that he really did bring about, -and in which numbers are now on his side, would have horrified him. -Luther was the root-cause why there are to-day more nominal Christians -in the world who pick and choose doctrines to suit their own taste, -than Christians who submissively take their doctrines wholesale from -others whether from Luther or from Rome. It is due to Luther, as much -as to anybody, that so many Roman Catholics who have no leanings to -Lutheranism, are only nominal Catholics. Luther, that is to say, has -brought into existence an enormous number of discreditable Christians -who will not openly admit that they are free-thinkers. - -You have clergy of the Church of England, for instance, who read -themselves into their pulpits with the Thirty-nine Articles, and do not -believe half of them. - -The average young man who enters the ministry of the Church of England -has been reasonably mothered by a university education; and when he -takes the plunge it is not total immersion. His mother--his Alma -Mater--still holds him by the heel. It is in consequence, with a sort -of heel of Achilles that he enters upon divinity; and over this he -draws a stocking with a large hole in it just where the wear of the -heel comes hardest. That stocking (containing forty stripes save one) -is the Thirty-nine Articles. It has been loosely knit, it is warranted -to shrink the longer he wears it, and the hole in consequence gets -larger. - -There you have the weakness of the Church of England. Nobody to-day in -his senses is prepared to die for the Thirty-nine Articles. Yet to hold -ministry in the Church he has to swear by them, and thus at the very -beginning of his ministerial career discreditable conduct is imposed on -him. - -It is no wonder that upon that basis the Church of England is permeated -with unbelief in the things that it professes. A Church, a religion, -may be full of credulity, bigotry, superstition--and with all those -things it may yet have a true and a living faith: it may breed martyrs -and inquisitors in equal numbers and with equal facility; but, in order -to do so it must have at its back something definite and distinctive -that its members are prepared to die for. And if it has not that, it is -bound to become before long a discredited institution. - -It is an interesting and a hopeful trait in human nature that it will -only believe obstinately, continuously, and in spite of persecution, in -those things which seem greatly to matter. When they no longer seem -to matter, belief falls away from them. And, broadly speaking, we have -come to see that things do not greatly matter unless they affect life -and conduct. - -“The Kingdom of Heaven” is within you; and if your doctrinal test does -not produce good ethical results, you begin to doubt--not the Kingdom -of Heaven--but the doctrine on which it was made to depend. - -Similarly, if a doctrine obviously lays itself open to grave abuse, -or presents strong temptation to the infirmities of human nature, you -begin to doubt whether it is so heavenly in origin as it pretends to be. - -The doctrine held by some cannibal African tribe that the bride’s -mother shall provide the wedding-breakfast in her own person, is so -clearly a truckling to the prejudice against mothers-in-law--which -exists even in this country--that such a religious tenet immediately -becomes suspect, and we guess that it emanates not from the gods but -from their maker, man. - -Notice, too, how the gradual displacement of miracle has been brought -about. So long as miracles appealed to the human mind as a moral and -not a licentious expedient for the Creator of the universe to indulge -in, they remained acceptable to the human understanding and were easily -believed. Their real dethronement began when it was seen that a belief -in them gave the greatest possible assistance to the cruel, grasping, -and criminal instincts of the human race--that, from the social point -of view, they opened a way for the terrorising of the weak, for fraud, -for covetousness, for murder, for theft--in a word for priest-craft in -all its worst forms. - -The belief in miracle enabled Samuel, with his punitive threats of -divine vengeance, to terrorise first Eli and then Saul, and bring -Israel to such a pass under his priestly government that at no period -of that people’s early history were they more in subjection to their -enemies. - -The belief in miracle enabled Elisha to cajole Elijah into the -wilderness and there murder him, persuading subsequent inquirers that -he had gone up to Heaven in a chariot of fire. Everybody believed him -except the children; and when they mocked him and told him to go and -do likewise, he threatened that bears would come and eat them. And -Scripture, as a warning to us against like conduct, tells us that they -did. - -That is how miracle was played under the old dispensation; and (as -long as it could possibly be maintained) under the new also. Then, as -the bad social results of a belief in miracles became accumulatively -apparent--when carried outside the canon of Scripture into contemporary -life--then it began to dawn upon some people how bad also a belief -in them was for the mind of man in relation to the Deity. It began -to be seen that the institution of a law of nature (in conjunction -with an arbitrary suspension thereof whenever divinely convenient) -was not compatible with what men have now come to regard as “moral -conduct.” It was literally “discreditable”; for it made men disbelieve -the law of their own being. In nine hundred and ninety-nine cases -out of a thousand a man was to be guided by experience, by thought, -reason, and conscience--by a belief in cause and effect. Then--in the -off case--unreason and inexperience were to descend upon him like a -thunderbolt, and either beat him to dust, or lift him, an ingenuously -amazed Ganymede to the seats of bliss. - -Now, we may admit--indeed we must--that there are many mysteries and -secrets of nature which man has not yet fathomed; there may be many of -which as yet he has no suspicion. A sudden exhibition of any of those -powers and mysteries might even to-day seem “miraculous.” When in the -past some fortuitous circumstance brought them about, “miracle” was the -only explanation of them which human understanding was able to offer. - -But now we are coming more and more to believe that if blind men have -suddenly received their sight it has not been by miracle but by law; -if faith has removed mountains literally, or caused the sun and the -moon to stand still, it has done so by reliance on sources which lay -hitherto untapped in the general order of things, and implicit ever -since the creative scheme was established. For if any other explanation -is to be offered, then the work of creation is discredited, and the -meaning and the moral values of those processes which we sum up in the -word “life” become cheapened, because we can no longer regard them as -a law, but only as a sort of police-regulation, arbitrary, capricious, -and provocative of misconduct, in that we are unable to depend -upon them, or to have any guarantee that they will be impartially -administered. - -Miracle discredits the ordered scheme of creation; and quite as much -does it do so if you believe creation to be the work of a personal -Deity. Creation (science shows us more and more) was from its inception -a process of absolutely related causes and effects--a whole system -reared up through millions and millions of years upon a structure -involving infinite millions of lives and deaths--and the whole a -perfect sequence of causal happenings. - -That is “life” as it is presented to man’s reason and understanding; -and if his reason and understanding are not to faint utterly, he must -in his search for a moral principle “find God (as the Psalmist puts -it) in the land of the living,” or not at all. For as he estimates -the moral value of things solely by that empyric sense which has been -evolved in him through a faithful recognition of the inevitable laws of -cause and effect, so must he become demoralised, if he is to be taught -that what he has regarded as inevitable can be capriciously suspended -by a power independent of those laws which life has taught him to -reverence. - -Do not think, for a moment, that I am questioning the power of faith -or the power of prayer. It is a tenable proposition that they are the -most tremendous power in the world; and yet we may hold that they take -effect through the natural law alone, and have come into existence -through the courses of evolution--or, if you like to put it so--in a -faithful following of the Will which, in the act of Creation, made a -compact and kept it. - -But if the compact of Creation was not kept, if that impact of spirit -upon matter (which through such vast eras and through such innumerable -phases of life worked by cause and effect) was ever tampered with so -that cause and effect were suspended, then the whole process becomes -discredited to our moral sense, and its presiding genius is discredited -also. - -Are we to suppose that through the earlier millions of years, when only -the elementary forms of life were present upon this globe, cause and -effect went on unsuspended and unhindered, and that these processes, -having once been started (engendered, let us assume, by the Immanent -Will), held absolute sway over the development of life for millions and -millions of years, until a time came when humanity appeared, and the -idea of religion and a Deity entered the world; and that this process -then became subject to a dethronement? Are we to believe that then -intervention in a new form, and upon a different basis (not of cause -and effect) began to take place? If that is the proposition, then, it -seems to me, we are asked (having accepted the idea of a Creator) to -impute to Him discreditable conduct--to believe that a point came in -these causal processes which He had instituted when He could no longer -“play the game” without arbitrary interference with its rules, and -that the appearance of man upon the globe was the signal for a fatal -weakening to His character. - -I have seen a clergyman cheat at croquet. He was the by-word of the -neighbourhood for that curious little weakness; but I assure you that -the spectacle of that reverend gentleman surreptitiously pushing his -ball into better position with his foot instead of depending upon the -legitimate use of his mallet, was no more ignoble a spectacle than -that which I am asked to contemplate by believers in miracle when they -present to my eyes a Deity who (upon their assertion) does similar -things. - -Test upon this basis of morality the most crucial of all events in -Christian theology. - -The idea of the Incarnation of God in human form as the final -and logical fulfilment of the Creative purpose and process--the -manifestation of the Creator in the created--has had for many great -thinkers a very deep attraction. But if the process which brings Him -into material being--the so-called Virgin-Birth--is not a process -implicit in Nature itself and one that only depends for its realisation -on man’s grasp of the higher law which shall make it natural and normal -to the human race--if the Virgin-Birth is miracle instead of perfectly -conditioned law revealing itself, then, surely, such a device for -bringing about the desired end is “discreditable conduct”--because -it discredits that vast system of evolution through cause and effect -which we call “life.” From such an Incarnation I am repulsed as from -something monstrous and against nature; and the doings and sayings of -a being so brought into the world are discredited by the fact of a -half-parentage not in conformity with creative law. - -Now when one ventures to question the moral integrity of so fundamental -a religious doctrine, and to give definite grounds as to why adverse -judgment should be passed on it, there will not be lacking theologians -ready to turn swiftly and rend one something after this manner: “Who -are you, worm of a man, to question the operations of the Eternal mind, -or dare to sit in judgment on what God your maker thinks good?” - -The answer is “I don’t. It is only your interpretation of those -operations that I question.” But on that head there is this further to -say: “By the Creative process God has given to man a reasoning mind; -and it is only by the use of the reason so given him that man can -worship his Maker.” To give man the gift of reason and then to take -from him the right fully to exercise it, is discreditable conduct. - -That tendency I attribute not to the Deity but to the theologian--more -especially as I read in the Scriptures that where God had a special -revelation to make to a certain prophet who thought a prostrate -attitude the right one to assume under such circumstances, divine -correction came in these words, “Stand upon thy feet, and I will speak -to thee.” Some people seem to think that the right attitude is to stand -upon their heads. - -It is told in some Early Victorian memoirs that a group of Oxford -dons were discussing together the relations of mortal man to his God, -and one postulated that the only possible attitude for man to assume -in such a connection was that of “abject submission and surrender.” -But even in that dark epoch such a doctrine was not allowed to go -unquestioned. “No, no,” protested another, “deference, not abject -submission.” And though it is a quaint example of the Oxford manner, -surely one must agree with it. Reason being man’s birthright, “Stand -upon thy feet and I will speak to thee,” is the necessary corollary. -Even if there be such a thing as divine revelation--the revelation -must be convincing to man’s reason, and not merely an attack upon his -nerves, or an appeal to his physical fears. - -Similarly any form of government or of society which does not allow -reason to stand upon its feet and utter itself unashamed is a -discreditable form of discipline to impose, if reason is to be man’s -guide. - -Now I do not know whether, by characterising the device of a -“miraculous” birth as discreditable to its author, I am not incurring -the penalty of imprisonment in a country which says that it permits -free thought and free speech (at all events in peace-time). A few years -ago a man was sent to prison--I think it was for three months--for -saying similar things: a man who was a professed unbeliever in -Divinity. And quite obviously the discreditable conduct in that case -was not of the man who acted honestly up to his professions, but of -this country which, professing one thing, does another. And the most -discreditable figure in the case was the Home Secretary who, though -entirely disapproving of this legal survival of religious persecution, -and with full power to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy which -has now become his perquisite, refused to move in the matter, and said -he saw no reason for doing so. His discredit was, of course, shared by -the Cabinet, by Parliament and by the Country--which (without protest -except from a few distinguished men of letters and leaders of religious -thought) allowed that savage sentence to stand on grounds so antiquated -and so inconsistent with our present national professions. - -Nationally we are guilty of a good deal of discreditable conduct on -similar lines. We profess one thing, and we do another. - -Our politicians tell us that they rely upon the voice of the people, -yet often they employ the political machine which they control, for -the express purpose of evading it. A few years ago a Liberal statesman -was appointed to Cabinet-rank, and had in consequence to go to his -constituency for re-election. He belonged to the party which makes a -particular boast of its trust in the popular verdict. But in order -to make his election more safe--before his appointment became public -property--he communicated to his party agent his ministerial knowledge -of the coming event so that the date of the bye-election could be -calculated. And the agent proceeded to book up all the public halls -in the constituency over the period indicated. Then, in order that -the scandal might not become too flagrant he generously released a -proportion of his bookings to his Conservative opponent, but refused to -release any at all to his Labour opponent; and on those nicely arranged -conditions he fought his election--and got beaten. - -Now that was surely discreditable conduct, for here was a statesman -who, while ostensibly appealing to the voice of the people was doing -his level best behind the scenes to deny to it a full and a free -opportunity of expression. Yet the whole political world was in so -discreditable a condition that there were actually people who thought -then--and perhaps still think to-day--that that budding politician -was unfairly and hardly treated when he was thereafter pursued from -constituency to constituency by his cheated opponent, and successfully -prevented from re-entering Parliament even to this day. Probably in -other branches of life he was an upright and honourable man, but -politics had affected him, as religion or social ambition has affected -others, and made him a discreditable witness to the faith which he -professed. - -Now when you have great organisations and great institutions thus -discrediting themselves by conniving at the double-dealings of those -whom they would place or keep in authority--you cannot expect the -honestly critical observer to continue to place their judgment above -his own, or to believe (when some difficult moral problem presents -itself) that there is safety for his own soul in relying upon their -solution of it. - -The sanction of the popular verdict in a community which is true to -its professions is very great and should not lightly be set aside. But -the sanction of a community or of an organisation which is false to -its professions is nil. And it is in the face of such conditions (to -which Society and religion always tend to revert so long as their claim -is to hold power on any basis of inequality or privilege) that the -individual conscience is bound to assert itself and become a resistant -irrespective of the weight of numbers against it. And so, in any State -where it can be said with truth that the average ethical standard for -individual conduct is better than the legal standard, the duty of -individual resistance to evil law begins to arise. “Bad laws,” said a -wise magistrate, “have to be broken before they can be mended.” And -to be broken with good effect they must be broken not by the criminal -classes but by the martyrs and the reformers. It is not without -significance that every great moral change in history has been brought -about by lawbreakers and by resistance to authority. - -When the English Nonconformists of two or three centuries ago were -fighting governments and breaking laws, they were doing so in defence -of a determination to hold doctrines often of a ridiculous kind and -productive of a very narrow and bigoted form of religious teaching--a -form which, had it obtained the upper hand and secured a general -allegiance, might have done the State harm and not good. But, however -egregious and even pernicious their doctrine, the justice (and even -the value) of the principle for which they contended was not affected -thereby. The life of the spirit must take its chance in contact with -the life material, and Society must have faith that all true and vital -principles will (given a free field and no favour) hold their own -against whatever opponents. That is the true faith to which Society is -called to-day--but which it certainly does not follow--especially not -in war time. - -We talk a great deal about liberty, democratic principle, and -government by majority; but if those ideals have any real meaning, they -mean that--given free trade in ideas and in propaganda on all ethical -and moral questions--you have got to trust your community to choose -what it thinks good. And to refuse to the general community the means -of deciding for itself by the utmost freedom of discussion, is--in -a State based on these principles--the most discreditable conduct -imaginable. - -But of what worth, you may ask, is this moral sanction of a majority? -I am not myself greatly enamoured of majority rule in the sense of a -majority exercising compulsion on a minority. Compulsion by a majority -I should often think it a duty to resist. But to the testimony of a -majority that refrained from compulsion I should attach the greatest -possible weight. There you would get a public opinion which by its own -self-restraint and scrupulous moderation of conduct would be of the -highest moral value. For Society fearlessly to admit the full and open -advocacy of that which it disapproves is the finest proof I can imagine -of its moral stability, and of its faith in the social principles it -lives by. - -Broadly speaking--with the exception I have already referred to--that -view is now admitted in matters of religion; you may hold and you -may advocate what religious principles you like. But you are not so -free to hold and advocate social and ethical principles. The veto of -Society has shifted, and you are far less likely to incur opprobrium -and ostracism to-day if you advocate polytheism than if you advocate -polygamy or pacifism. And the reason for this, I take to be, that the -religion of modern Society is no longer doctrinal but ethical; and so -our tendency is to inhibit new ethical teaching though we would not for -a moment countenance the inhibition of new doctrinal teaching. - -That is our temptation, and I think that in the coming decade there -will be a great fight about it; we are not so prepared as we ought to -be to allow a free criticism of those social institutions on which our -ideas of moral conduct are based, even when they cover (as at present -constituted) a vast amount of double-dealing. - -Take for instance this Western civilization of ours which bases its -social institutions of marriage, property, and inheritance on the -monogamic principle, but persists in moral judgments and practices -whose only possible justification is to be found in the rather -divergent theory that the male is naturally polygamous and the female -monogamous. - -These two ideals, or social practices, make mutually discrediting -claims the one against the other. I am not concerned to say which I -think is right. But on one side or the other we are blinking facts, and -are behaving as though they had not a determining effect upon conduct -and character which Society ought straightforwardly to recognise. - -The man who maintains that it is impossible for the male to live -happily and contentedly in faithful wedlock with one wife and then -goes and does so, commits himself by such matrimonial felicity to -discreditable conduct--discreditable to his professions, I mean. And it -is, of course, the same if his inconsistency takes him the other way -about. - -There may, however, be an alternative and more honest solution to this -conflict of claims; both may contain a measure of truth. It may be true -that monogamy--or single mating--faithfully practised by man and woman -alike, is ideally by far the best solution of the sex-relations, and -the best for the State to recognise and encourage by all legitimate -means; just as vegetarianism and total abstinence may be the best -solution of our relation to food, or non-resistance of our relation -to government, or abject submission of our relation to theological -teaching. But though these may be ideals to strive for, it does not -follow that human nature is so uniformly constructed upon one model -as to justify us in making them compulsory, or in turning round and -denouncing as moral obliquity either plural mating or the eating of -meat, or the drinking of wine, or rebellion against civil authority, or -free thought in matters of religion. - -If the community deliberately decides that one of these courses gives -the better social results, it is within its power to discourage the -other course, without descending to compulsion; and I am inclined to -think that this may, in the majority of cases, be done by treating the -desires and appetites of resistant minorities as taxable luxuries. If -the State finds, for instance, that alcoholism increases the work of -its magistrates and police, and diminishes the health and comfort of -home-conditions, it may quite reasonably tax beer, wine and spirits, -not merely to produce revenue but to abate a nuisance. But it would be -foolish, were it to go on to say that everybody who incurred such taxes -was guilty of moral obliquity. - -In the same way, if the State wishes to discourage vegetarianism and -temperance, it will tax sugar, currants, raisins, tea, cocoa and -coffee, and will continue to tax them till it has diminished the -consumption; and incidentally it will let meat go free. But it will -not pass moral judgments--having the fear of human nature before its -eyes--on those who conscientiously bear the burden of those taxes -rather than give up what they think good for them. - -I could imagine the State, in its wisdom, seeking to discourage luxury -and the accumulation of wealth into the possession of the few, by -imposing a graduated income tax of far more drastic severity than -that which is now depleting the pockets of our millionaires--but not -therefore saying that all who incurred income tax above a certain scale -were guilty of moral obliquity. - -We have seen a State which required an increase of its population -setting a premium on children so as to encourage parents to produce -them; and I can imagine a State which required a diminution in the -increase of its population setting a tax on children, but not therefore -joining in the cry of the Neo-Malthusians that every married couple -who produced more than four children were guilty of a kind of moral -depravity. And further, I can imagine a State which wished to encourage -pure and unadulterated monogamy putting a graduated tax, practically -prohibitive in price, on any other course of conduct productive of -second or third establishments. But I do not see why the State, as -State, should concern itself further, or why Society should concern -itself more deeply about sexual than it does about commercial and trade -relations, wherein it allows far more grievous defections from the -ideal of human charity to exist. - -Leaving it to the individual is not to say that your views as to -the desirability of such conduct will not influence your social -intercourse, and perhaps even affect your calling list. A great many -things affect our calling lists, without any necessity for us to be -self-righteous and bigoted about the principle on which we make our -own circle select. There are some people who will call upon the wives -of their doctors, but not of their dentists; there are others who will -not call upon the organist who conducts them to the harmonies of Divine -Service on Sunday, but would be very glad to call upon Sir Henry Wood, -who conducts their popular concerts for them during the week. We make -our selection according to our social tastes and aspirations, and -sometimes those social tastes may include a certain amount of moral -judgment. But that moral judgment need not make us interfere; if it -keeps us at a respectful and kindly distance from those whom we cannot -regard with full charity, it keeps us sufficiently out of mischief. - -Take the public hangman, for instance. I, personally, would not have -him upon my calling list. I would like to put a graduated tax upon -him and tax him out of existence. I think he is lending himself to a -base department of State service; but I also think that the State is -tempting him; and I think that, in a symbolical way, all of you who -approve of capital punishment ought to put the public hangman upon -your calling list--or not exclude him because of his profession (which -you regard as useful and necessary), but only because he happens to -be personally unattractive to you. If you exclude him, because of -his profession, while you consider his profession a necessity--you -are guilty, I think, of discreditable conduct, and in order to stand -morally right with yourselves you had better go (I speak symbolically) -and leave cards on him to-morrow. - -What I mean seriously to say is this: there is a great danger to -moral integrity in any acceptance of social conditions which you -would refuse to interpret into social intercourse. If you believe -prostitution to be necessary for the safety of the home--which is the -doctrine of some--you must accept the prostitute as one who fulfils an -honourable function in the State. If you accept capital punishment, -you must accept the hangman. If you accept meat, you must accept the -slaughterman; if you accept sanitation you must accept the scavenger. -If you accept dividends or profit from sweated labour, you must -accept responsibility for sweated conditions, and for the misery, the -ill-health, the immorality and the degradation which spring from them. - -We may be quite sure that far worse things come from these conditions -on which we make our profit than are contained in the majority of those -lives which, because of their irregularities or breaches of convention, -we so swiftly rule off our calling lists. If we are not willing to -forego the dividends produced for us out of our tolerated social -conditions, why forego contact with that human material which they -bring into being? But if you accept contact there, then you will have a -difficulty in finding any human material of greater abasement to deny -to it the advantage of your acquaintance. - -I have purposely put my argument provocatively, and applied it to -thorny and questionable subjects, because I want to reach no halfway -conclusion in this matter, and because the real test of our spiritual -toleration is now shifting from matters religious to matters social, -from questions of doctrine to questions of daily life. To-day we must -be prepared to tolerate a propaganda of social ideas--the products of -which, if they succeeded in obtaining a hold, would in the estimation -of many be as regrettable as were the products of Calvinism or -Puritanism in the past, when they were much more powerful than now. - -Our hatred of these new social ideas may be just as keen as the hatred -of Catholicism for Protestantism or of Protestantism for Catholicism, -in days when religious doctrine seemed to matter everything. More -keen it could not be. The dangers these new ideas present could not -be greater in our eyes than in the eyes of our forefathers were the -dangers of false doctrine three centuries ago. But the principle -which demands that they shall be free to state their case and to make -converts remains always the same. Nevertheless it is unlikely to be -granted without struggle except by an intelligent minority. - -The religious movement of the twentieth century, I say again, is not -doctrinal but social; and its scripture is not the Bible or any written -word, but human nature itself. - -We are on the brink of great discoveries in human nature, and many -of our ethical foundations are about to be gravely disturbed. The -old Manichee dread of the essential evil--the original and engrained -sin--of human nature remains with us still, and there will be a great -temptation, as there always has been, not merely to controvert (which -is permissible) but to persecute and suppress those who preach new -ideas. It is against such discreditable conduct that we have now to be -on our guard. - -At the threshold of this new era to which we have come, with our old -civilisation so broken and shattered about us by our own civilising -hands, the guiding spirit of man’s destiny has its new word to say, -to which we must listen with brave ears. And first and foremost it is -this, “Stand upon thy feet--and I will speak with thee.” - - - - -WHAT IS WOMANLY? - -(1911) - - -The title of my lecture has, I hope, sent a good many of you here--the -women of my audience, I mean--in a very bristling and combative frame -of mind, ready to resent any laying down of the law on my part as to -what is or what is not “womanly.” I hope, that is to say, that you are -not prepared to have the terms of your womanliness dictated to you by a -man--or, for that matter, by a woman either. - -For who can know either the extent or the direction of woman’s social -effectiveness until she has secured full right of way--a right of way -equal to man’s--in all directions of mental and physical activity, or, -to put it in one word, the right to experiment? - -There are, I have no doubt, many things which women might take it into -their heads to do, which one would not think womanly at their first -performance, but which one would think womanly when one saw their -results at long range. No rule of conduct can be set up as an abstract -right or wrong; we must form our ethics on our social results; and in -the world’s moral progress the really effective results have generally -come by shock of attack upon, or of resistance to, some cherished -conventions of the day. - -Take, for example, a thing which has seemed to concern only the male -sex, but which has really concerned women just as intimately--the -history of our male code of honour in relation to the institution of -duelling. There was a time in our history when it would have been very -difficult to regard as manly the refusal to fight a duel. But it is -not difficult to-day to see in such a refusal a very true manliness. -We in this country have got rid of the superstition that honour can in -any way be mended by two men standing up to take snap-shots at each -other; and now that we are free from the superstition ourselves, we can -understand, looking at other countries--Germany, for instance--that it -must often require more courage to refuse to fight than to consent. But -we have arrived at that stage of enlightenment only because in our own -history there have been men courageous enough and manly enough to dare -to be thought unmanly and cowardly. And as with our manhood so with -our womanhood; you cannot judge of what is womanly merely on the lines -of past conventions, produced under circumstances very different from -those of our own days. You must give to women as you give to men the -right to experiment, the right to make their own successes and their -own failures. You cannot with good results lay upon men and women, as -they work side by side in the world (very often under hard competitive -conditions) the incompatible rules which govern respectively a living -language and a dead language. A living language is constantly in -flux, inventing new words for itself, modifying its spelling and its -grammatical construction, splitting its infinitives. In a dead language -the vocabulary is fixed, the spelling is fixed, the construction is -fixed; but the use and the meaning often remain doubtful. And so, if -you attempt to determine the woman’s capabilities merely by her past -record, and to fix the meaning of “womanliness” in any way that forbids -flux and development, then you are making the meaning and the use of -the word very doubtful. - -Now, obviously, if to be “womanly” means merely to “strike an average,” -and be as like the majority of women as possible--womanliness as a -quality is not worth thinking about; it will come of its own accord, -and exists probably a good deal in excess of our social need for it. It -stands on a par with that faculty for submission to the unconscionable -demands of others which makes a sheep sheepish and a hen prolific. -To be what Henry James calls “intensely ordinary” is, from the -evolutionary point of view, to be out of the running. - -We see this directly we start applying the word “manly” to men. -For we do not take that to mean merely average quality--if it did, -over-eating, over-drinking, and that form of speech which I will call -over-emphasis--would all be manly qualities--and the evolution of the -race would, according to that doctrine, lie on the lines of all sorts -of over-indulgence. But when we say “manly,” we mean the pick and -polish of those qualities which enable a man to possess himself and to -develop all his faculties; and if it denotes discipline it also denotes -an insistence on freedom--freedom for development, so that all that is -in him may be brought out for social use. - -Now, the great poverty which modern civilization suffers from, is the -undevelopment or the under-development of the bulk of its citizens. -And the great wastage that we suffer from lies in the misdirection -toward the over-indulgence of our material appetites--of the energies -which should make for our full human development. And you may be quite -sure that where in a community of over-population and poverty such as -ours, the average man, as master, is demanding for himself more of -these things than his share, there the average woman (where she is in -economic subjection) is getting less than her share. Yet there are -many people who (viewing this problem of woman’s subjection where the -savage in man is still uppermost) will tell you that it is “womanly” -to be self-sacrificing and self-denying; they will say that it is the -woman’s nature to be so more than it is the man’s; for, like Milton, in -his definition of the ideal qualities of womanhood, they put the word -“subjection” first and foremost. That condition, which, according to -Scripture, only followed after the curse as its direct product, was, -you will remember, predicated by Milton, quite falsely, as essential -even to the paradisal state; and when in _Paradise Lost_ he laid down -this law of “subjection” as the right condition for unfallen womanhood, -he went on to describe the divinely appointed lines on which it was to -operate. The woman was to subject herself to man-- - - - “with submission, - And sweet, reluctant, amorous delay.” - - -Those, surely, are the qualifications of the courtesan for making -herself desired; and it is no wonder, if he had such an Eve by his side -as was invented for him by Milton, that Adam fell. - -Where true womanliness is to end I do not know; but I am pretty sure -of this--that it must begin in self-possession. It is not womanly -for a woman to deny herself either in comforts or nourishment, or -in her instincts of continence and chastity in order that someone -else--whether it be her children or her husband--may over-indulge. -It _is_ womanly (it is also manly), when there is danger of hurt or -starvation to those for whom you are responsible, to suffer much rather -than that they should suffer; but it is not in the least womanly -or manly to suffer so that they may indulge. The woman who submits -to the starving of herself or of her children by a drunken or a -lazy husband is not in any positive sense womanly--for she is then -proving herself ineffective for her social task. And she would be more -effective, and therefore more womanly, if she could, by any means you -like to name, drive that lazy husband into work, or abstract from that -drunken husband a right share of his wages. And if by making his home -a purgatory to him she succeeded, she would be more womanly in the -valuable sense of the word than if (by submission to injustice) she -failed, and let her children go starved. - -Then, again, a woman may see that the children she and her husband -are producing ought never to have been born. And if that is so, is it -womanly for her to go on bearing children at the dictates of the man, -even though St. Paul says, “Wives, obey your husbands”? Is she any more -womanly, if she knowingly brings diseased offspring into the world, -than he is manly in the fathering of them? - -But now, come out of the home into Society--not into any of those -departments of unsolved problems where humanity is seen at its -worst--pass all those by for the moment--and come to the seat of -administration--into that great regulator of Society, the law-courts -(in the superintendence and constitution of which woman is conspicuous -by her absence). There, as in matters connected with the male code of -honour, any duty of initiative on the part of women may seem, at first -sight, to be far removed. But let us see! In the law-courts you meet -with a doctrine--a sort of unwritten law--that there are certain cases -to which women must not listen. And occasionally “all decent women” are -requested to leave the court, when “decent” men are allowed to stay. -Now, in the face of that request it must be a very painful thing indeed -for a woman to hold her ground--but it may be womanly for her to do -so. It may be that in that case there are women witnesses; and I do -not think our judges sufficiently realise what mental agony it may be -to a woman to give evidence in a court where there are only men. I am -quite sure that in such cases, if the judge orders women generally out -of court, he ought to provide one woman to stand by the woman in the -witness-box. How would any man feel, if he were called before a court -composed only of women, women judges, a woman jury, women reporters, -and saw all men turned out of the court before he began his evidence? -Would he feel sure that it meant justice for him? I think not. - -Now these cases to which women are not to listen almost always -specially concern women; yet here you have men claiming to deal with -them as much as possible behind the woman’s back, and to keep her in -ignorance of the lines on which they arrive at a conclusion. Surely, -then, it would be well for women of expert knowledge and training to -insist that these things shall not be decided without women assessors, -and to be so “womanly” as to incur the charge of brazenness and -immodesty in defending the woman’s interest, which in such matters is -also the interest of the race. - -But it is only very gradually--and in the face of immemorial -discouragement--that this communal or social spirit, when it began to -draw woman outside her own domesticity, has fought down and silenced -the reproach raised against it, of “unwomanliness,” of an intrusion -by woman into affairs which were outside her sphere. The awakening of -the social conscience in women is one of the most pregnant signs of -the time. But see what (in order to make itself effective) it has had -to throw over at each stage of its advance--things to which beautiful -names have been given, things which were assumed all through the -Victorian era to be essential to womanliness, and to be so engrained in -the woman’s nature, that without them womanliness itself must perish. -The ideal of woman’s life was that she should live unobserved except -when displayed to the world on the arm of a proud and possessive -husband, and the height of her fortune was expressed in the phrase -enviously quoted by Mrs. Norton, “Happy the woman who has no history.” -Now that ideal was entirely repressive of those wider activities which -during the last fifty years have marked and made happy, in spite of -struggle, the history of woman’s social development; and every fresh -effort of that social spirit to find itself and to become effective has -always had to face, at the beginning of each new phase in its activity, -the charge of unwomanliness. - -Compare that attack, fundamental in its nature, all-embracing in -its condemnation, with the kind of attack levelled against the -corresponding manifestations of the social or reforming spirit in -man. In a man, new and unfamiliar indications of a stirring-up of the -social conscience may earn such epithets of opprobrium as “rash,” -“hot-headed,” “ill-considered,” “impracticable,” “utopian”--but -we do not label them as “unmanly.” Initiative, fresh adventure of -thought or action in man have always been regarded as the natural -concomitant of his nature. In a woman they have very generally been -regarded as unnatural, unwomanly. The accusation is fundamental: it -does not concern itself with any unsoundness in the doctrines put -forward; but only with the fact that a woman has dared to become their -mouthpiece or their instrument. Go back to any period in the last 200 -years, where a definitely new attempt was made by woman toward civic -thought and action, and you will find that, at the time, the charge -of “unwomanliness” was levelled against her; you find also that in -the succeeding generation that disputed territory has always become -a centre of recognised womanly activity. Take, for instance, the -establishment of higher training for girls; there are towns in this -country where the women, who first embarked on such a design, were -jeered and laughed at, and even mobbed. And the same thing happened in -an even greater degree to the women who sought to recover for their own -sex admission to the medical profession: and while the charge levelled -against them was “unwomanliness,” it was yet through their instincts -of reserve and sex-modesty that their enemies tried to defeat them. -Even when they gained the right of admission to medical colleges there -were lecturers who tried, by the way they expressed themselves in their -lectures, to drive them out again. - -Or take the very salient instance of Florence Nightingale. When she -volunteered to go out and nurse our soldiers in the Crimea, the -opposition to a woman’s invasion of a department where men had shown a -hopeless incompetence at once based itself on the plea that such a task -was “unwomanly.” Though in their own homes from time immemorial, women -had been nursing fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, cousins, servants, -masters, through all the refined and modestly-conducted diseases to -which these lords of creation are domestically subject, directly one -woman proposed to carry her expert knowledge into a public department -and nurse men who were strangers to her, she was told that she was -exposing herself to an experience which was incompatible with womanly -modesty. Well, she was prepared to let her womanly modesty take its -risk in face of the black looks of scandalised officials of Admiralty -or War Office; and she managed to live down pretty completely the -charge of unwomanliness. But the example is a valuable one to remember, -for there you get the claim of convention to keep women from a great -work of organisation and public service, although already, in the home, -their abilities for that special service had been proved. And so, -breaking with that convention of her day Florence Nightingale went to -be the nursing mother of the British Army in the Crimea, and came home, -the one conspicuously successful general of that weary and profitless -campaign, shattered in health by her exertions, but of a reputation so -raised above mistrust and calumny that through her personal prestige -alone was established that organisation of nursing by trained women -which we have in our hospitals to-day. - -Take again the special and peculiar opposition which women had to face -when they began to agitate against certain laws which particularly -affected the lives of women and did cruel wrong to them even in their -home relations. Read the life of Caroline Norton, for instance--a woman -whose husband brought against her a public charge of infidelity, though -privately admitting that she was innocent; and when, after that charge -was proved to be baseless, she separated from her husband, refusing to -live with him any more, then he, in consequence of that refusal cut -her off absolutely from her children, though they were all under seven -years of age. That wrong, which our laws had immemorially sanctioned, -roused her to action, and it was through her efforts, so long ago as -1838, that the law was altered so as to allow a mother of unblemished -character right of access to her own children during the years of early -infancy! - -And that is how the law still stands to-day--a woman’s -contribution--the most that could be done at the time for justice -to women. But there is no statue to Caroline Norton in Parliament -Square--or anywhere else, so far as I know. - -But what I specially want to draw attention to is this--that when -she wrote the pamphlet with which she started her agitation all -her relatives entreated her not to publish it, because it would be -an exposure to the world of her own private affairs. By that time, -however, Caroline Norton had learned her lesson in “womanliness,” and -she no longer said “Happy is the woman who has no history.” Her answer -was: “There is too much fear of publicity among women: with women it -is reckoned a crime to be accused, and such a disgrace that they wish -nothing better than to hide themselves and say no more about it.” -Does not that set forth in all its weakness the conventional womanly -attitude of the period? - -The Bill which, through her efforts, was brought three times before -Parliament, was at first defeated. How? By the votes of the Judges, -to whom the House of Lords left the matter to be decided. And Lord -Brougham, in speaking against that Bill used this line of argument: -There were, he said, several legal hardships which were of necessity -inflicted on women; therefore we should not relieve them from those -which are not necessary--the necessary hardships being the greater; -and it being bad policy to raise in women a false expectation that -the legal hardships relating to their sex were of a removable kind! -Was ever a more perverted and devilish interpretation given to the -Scripture, “To him that hath shall be given, and from her that hath not -shall be taken even that which she hath.” - -Let us remember that we are the direct descendants and inheritors of -the age and of the men who pronounced these unjust judgments, and that -no miracle has happened between then and now to remove the guilt of -the fathers from the third and the fourth generation. Heredity is too -strong a thing for us to have any good ground for believing that our -eyes, even now, are entirely opened. There are many of us who cannot -drink port at all, because our grandfathers drank it by the bottle -every night of their lives. - -We inherit constitutions, personal and political--we also inherit -proverbs, which express so vividly and in so few words, the full-bodied -and highly-crusted wisdom of former generations. Those proverbs -expressed once--else they had not become proverbs--an almost universal -contemporary opinion. Some of them are now beginning to wear thin, have -of recent years been dying the death, and will presently be heard no -more. But their source and incentive are still quite recognisable; and -their dwindled spirit still lives in our midst. - -There was one, for instance, on which genteel families were brought up -in the days of my youth--a rhymed proverb which laid it down that-- - - - A whistling woman and a crowing hen - Are hateful alike to God and men. - - -Now let us look into the bit of real natural history which lies at -the root of that proverb. A crowing hen is a disturbance, but so is a -crowing cock. But the hen is not to crow because she only lays eggs, -and because the bulk of hens manage to lay eggs without crowing. They -make, it is true, a peculiar clutter of their own which is just as -disturbing; but that is a thoroughly feminine noise and a dispensation -of Providence; and they don’t do it at all times of the night, and -without a reason for it, as cocks do. But as a matter of fact it is far -more easy to prevent a cock from crowing than a hen from cluttering; -you have only to put a cock in a pen the roof of which knocks his head -whenever he rears himself up to crow and he will remain as silent as -the grave, though he will continue to do that spasmodic duty by his -offspring which is all that nature requires of him. But no such simple -method will stop the cluttering of a hen when her egg is once well and -truly laid; the social disturbance caused by the pomp of masculine -vain-glory is far less inevitable than the disturbance caused by the -circumstances of maternity. Yet the normal masculine claim to pomp of -sound is more readily allowed in our proverbial philosophy than the -occasional feminine claim. - -And that is where we have gone wrong; it is really maternity which -under wholesome conditions decides the social order of things; and we -have been fighting against it by putting maternity into a compound -and setting up paternity to crow on the top rail. We have not learned -that extraordinary adaptability to sound economic conditions which we -find in many birds and in a few animals. There exists, for instance, -a particular breed of ostriches, which mates and lays its eggs in a -country where the days are very hot and the nights very cold; and as -it takes the female ostrich some 13 or 14 days to lay all her eggs -and some weeks to incubate, she cannot as she does in other countries -deposit them in the sand and leave the sun to hatch them, because -after the sun has started the process, the cold night comes and kills -them. The mother bird finds, therefore, that she cannot both produce -and nurse her eggs; yet directly they are laid somebody must begin -sitting on them. Well, what does she do? She goes about in flocks, -13 or 14 females accompanied by an equal number of the sterner sex. -And on a given day, all the hens lay each an egg in one nest, and one -of the father birds is selected to sit upon them. And so the process -goes on till all the males are sedentarily employed in hatching out -their offspring. And I would ask (applying for the moment our own -terminology to that wonderfully self-adaptive breed of sociologists) -are not those male ostriches engaged in a thoroughly “manly” -occupation? Could they be better engaged than in making the conditions -of maternity as favourable and as unhampered as possible? Yet how -difficult it is to make our own countrymen see that the strength of a -nation lies mainly--nay, entirely--in eugenics, in sinking every other -consideration for that great and central one--the perfecting of the -conditions of maternity. - -But let us come back for a moment to whistling. It is an accomplishment -which, as a rule, men do better than women; it is the only natural -treble left to them after they reach the age of puberty; and they are -curiously proud of it; perhaps, because women, as a rule, have not -the knack of it. Now, the real offence of a woman’s whistling was not -when she did it badly (for that merely flattered the male vanity) but -when she did it well; and no doubt it was because some women managed -to do it well that the proverb I speak of was invented. We should not -have been troubled with such a proverb if crowing hens and whistling -women had been unable to raise their accomplishment above a whisper. -Yet whistling is really quite beautiful, when it is well done; and why -is woman not to create this beauty of sound, if it is in her power -to create it, merely because it finds her in a minority among her -sex? Does it make her less physically fit, less capable of becoming a -mother--less inclined, even, to become a mother? No; it does none of -these things; but it distinguishes her from a convention which has laid -it down that there are certain things which women can’t do; and so, -when the exceptional woman does it, she is--or she was the day before -yesterday--labelled “unwomanly.” - -I do not suggest that whistling is a necessary ingredient for -the motherhood of the new race; but, as a matter of fact, I have -noticed that those women who whistle well have, as a rule, strength -of character, originality, the gift of initiative and a strong -organising capacity; and if these things do go together, then surely -we should welcome an increase of whistling as a truly womanly -accomplishment--something attained--which has not been so generally -attained hitherto. - -Let us pass now to a much more serious instance of those artificial -divisions between masculine and feminine habits of thought and -action which have in the past seemed so absolute, and are, in fact, -so impossible to maintain. For you can have no code or standard of -manhood that is not intimately bound up with a corresponding code or -standard of womanhood. What raises the one, raises the other, what -degrades the one degrades the other; and if there is in existence, -anywhere in our social system, a false code of manliness, there -alongside of it, reacting on it, depending on it, or producing it, is a -false code of womanliness. - -Take, for example, that matter of duelling already referred to, in -relation to the male code of honour, and the manliness which it is -supposed to encourage and develop. You might be inclined to think that -it lies so much outside the woman’s sphere and her power of control, -as to affect very little either her womanliness or her own sense of -honour. But I hope to show by a concrete example how very closely -womanliness and woman’s code of honour are concerned and adversely -affected by that “manly” institution of duelling--how, in fact, it -has tended to deprive women of a sense of honour, by taking it from -their own keeping and not leaving to them the right of free and final -judgment. - -Here is what happened in Germany about seven years ago. A young married -officer undertook to escort home from a dance the fiancée of another -officer; and on the way, having drunk rather more than was good for -him, he tried to kiss her. She resented the liberty, and apparently -made him sufficiently ashamed of himself to come next day and beg her -pardon. Whether she would grant it was surely a matter for herself to -decide; she accepted his apology, and there, one would have thought, -the matter might have ended. But unfortunately, several months later, -word of this very ordinary bit of male misdemeanour reached the ears -of the lady’s betrothed. It at once became “an affair of honour”--his -affair, not the lady’s affair--his to settle in his own way, not hers -to settle in her way. Accordingly he calls out his brother officer, -and, probably without intending it, shoots him dead. The murdered -man, as I have said, was married, and at that very time his wife was -in expectation of having a child. The child was prematurely born to a -poor mother gone crazed with grief. There, then, we get a beautiful -economic product of the male code of honour and its criminal effects on -Society; and if traced to its source we shall see that such a code of -honour is based mainly on man’s claim to possession and proprietorship -in woman--for, had the woman not been one whom he looked upon as his -own property, that officer would have regarded the offence very lightly -indeed. But because she was his betrothed the woman’s honour was not -her own, it was his; she was not to defend it in her own way--though -her own way had proved sufficient for the occasion--he must interfere -and defend it in his. And we get for result, a man killed for a petty -offence--the offence itself a direct product of the way in which -militarism has trained men to look on women--a woman widowed and driven -to the untimely fulfilment of her most important social function in -anguish of mind, and a child born into the world under conditions which -probably handicapped it disastrously for the struggle of life.[1] - -Now, obviously, if women could be taught to regard such invasions -of their right to pardon offence in others as a direct attack upon -their own honour and liberty--a far worse attack than the act of -folly which gave occasion for this tragedy--and if they would teach -these possessive lovers of theirs that any such intrusion on their -womanly prerogative of mercy was in itself an unforgivable sin against -womanhood--then such invasions of the woman’s sphere would quickly come -to an end. They might even put an end to duelling altogether. - -See, on the other hand, how acceptance of such an institution trains -women to give up their own right of judgment, to think even that -honour, at first hand, hardly concerns them. Is it not natural that, as -the outcome of such a system from which we are only gradually emerging, -we should hear it said of these conventionally womanly women that they -have “a very low sense of honour.” - -Low it must naturally be. For that attitude of complaisant passivity -on the part of the woman while two male rivals fight to possess her is -the normal attitude of the female in the lower animal world; but it is -an attitude from which, as the human race evolves into more perfect -self-government, you see the woman gradually drawing away. While it -pleases something in her animal instincts, it offends something in her -human instincts; and while to be fought over is the highest compliment -to the female animal, it is coming to be something like an insult to -the really civilized woman--the woman who has the spirit of citizenship -awake within her. One remembers how Candida, when her two lovers are -debating which of them is to possess her--brings them at once to their -senses by reminding them that it is not in the least necessary that -she should be possessed by either of them; but she does in the end -give herself to the one who needs her most. That may be the truest -womanliness under present conditions; as it may once have been the -truest womanliness for the woman to give herself to the strongest. But -it may be the truest womanliness, at times, for the woman to bring men -to their senses by reminding them that it is not necessary for her to -give herself at all. To be quite sure of attaining to full womanliness, -let her first make sure that she possesses herself. In the past men -have set a barrier to her right of knowledge, her right of action, -her right of independent being; and in the light of that history it -seems probable that she will best discover her full value by insisting -on right of knowledge, on right of way, and on right of economic -independence. So long as convention lays upon women any special and -fundamental claim of control--a claim altogether different in kind -and extent from the claim it lays upon men--so long may it be the -essentially womanly duty of every woman to have quick and alive within -her the spirit of criticism, and latent within her blood the spirit of -revolt. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[1] It may be noted that the war has caused a recrudescence of this -brutal “code of honour” in our own country. But here it has not -troubled to resume the obsolete form of the duel. The “defender of his -wife’s honour” simply commits murder, and the jury acquits. - - - - -USE AND ORNAMENT - -(OR THE ART OF LIVING) - -(1915) - - -I suppose you would all be very much surprised if I said that not use -but ornament was the object of life. - -I refrain from doing so because so definite a statement makes an -assumption of knowledge which it may always be outside man’s power to -possess. The object of life may for ever remain as obscure to us as its -cause. It seems, indeed, likely enough that the one ignorance hinges -necessarily on the other, and that without knowing the cause of life -neither can we know its object. - -The writers of the Scottish Church Catechism, it is true, thought -that they knew why man was created. The social products of their -cocksure theology cause me to doubt it. I would prefer to worship more -ignorantly a more lovable deity than the one which is there presented -to my gaze. - -But though we may never know why we are here, we may know, by taking a -little thought and studying the manifestations of the life around us, -what aspects of it make us glad that we are here. And gladness is as -good a guide as any that I know to the true values of life. - -Examining life from that standpoint I know of nothing that gives me -more delight than the decoration and embellishment with which man has -overlaid all the mere uses of existence--things which without those -embellishments might not delight us at all--or only as a dry crust of -bread delights in his necessity the starving beggar, or ditch-water one -dying of thirst. - -I can scarcely think of a use in life which I enjoy, that I do not -enjoy more because of the embellishment placed about it by man, who -claims to have been made “in God’s image.” Nothing that my senses -respond to with delight stays limited within the utilitarian aspect -on which its moral claims to acceptance are too frequently based--or -remains a benefit merely material in its scope. - -When we breathe happily, when we eat happily, and when we love happily, -we do not think of the utilitarian ends with which those bodily -instincts are related. The utilitarian motive connects, but only -subconsciously, with that sense of well-being and delight which then -fills us; and the conscious life within us is happy without stooping to -reason. - -Underlying our receptivity of these things is, no doubt, the fact that -our bodies have a use for them. But were we to consider the material -uses alone, our enjoyment would be less; and if (by following that -process) we absorbed them in a less joyous spirit, our physical -benefit, so science now tells us, would be less also. - -For some reason or another, which is occasionally hard to define, you -find pleasure in a thing over and above its use; and I want to persuade -you that the finer instinct, the genius of the human race, tends always -in that direction--not to rest content with the mere use of a thing, -but to lay upon it that additional touch of adornment--whether by -well-selected material, or craftsman’s skill, or social amenity, which -shall make it a thing delightful to our senses or to our intelligence. - -Take, for instance, so simple a thing as a wine-glass, or a -water-glass. Materially, it is subject to a very considerable -drawback; it is brittle, and if broken is practically unmendable. -From the point of view of utility, strength, cheapness, cleanliness, -it has no advantage over hardware or china. But in its relation to -beverages beautiful in colour and of a clear transparency, glass has a -delightfulness which greatly enhances the pleasure of its use. There -is a subtle relation between the sparkle of the glass, and the sparkle -produced in the brain by the sight and the taste of good wine (or--let -me add, for the benefit of temperance members of my audience--of good -ginger-ale). I think one could also trace a similar delight to the -relations subsisting between glass in its transparency and a draught of -pure water. - -That relationship set up between two or more senses (in this case -between the senses of sight, taste and touch) brings into being a new -value which I ask you to bear in mind, as I shall have a good deal to -say about it later--the value of association. The more you examine into -the matter, the more you will find that association is a very important -element for evoking man’s faculties of enjoyment; it secures by the -inter-relation of the senses a sort of compound interest for the appeal -over which it presides. And it is association, with this compound -appeal, which again and again decides (over and above all questions -of use) what material is the best, or the most delightful, to be -employed for a given purpose. You choose a material because it makes a -decorative covering to mere utility. That beauty of choice in material -alone is the beginning of ornament. - -When I began, I spoke for a moment as though use and ornament were -opposite or separate principles; but what I shall hope soon to show -is that they are so interlocked and combined that there is no keeping -them apart when once the spirit of man has opened to perceive the true -sacramental service which springs from their union, and the social -discordance that inevitably follows upon their divorce. But as man’s -ordinary definition of the word “use” is sadly material and debased, -and as his approval and sanction of the joys of life have too often -been limited by a similar materialism of thought, one is obliged, for -the time being, to accept the ordinary limiting distinction, so that -the finer and less realised uses of beauty and delight may be shown -more clearly as the true end to which all lesser uses should converge. - -Life itself is a usage of material, the bringing together of atoms into -form; and we know, from what science teaches of evolution, that this -usage has constantly been in the direction of forms of life which, -for certain reasons, we describe as “higher.” Emerging through those -forms have come manifestations or qualities, which quite obviously give -delight to the holders of them; and we are able to gather in watching -them, as they live, move, and have their being, that for them life -seems good. It is no part of their acceptance of what has come that -they are here not to enjoy themselves. - -Thus we see from the upward trend of creation a faculty for enjoyment -steadily emerging, and existing side by side with fears, risks, and -hardships which the struggle for existence entails--probably an even -increased faculty for enjoyment, as those fears and risks become more -consciously part of their lives. And I question whether we should think -that the wild deer had chosen well, could it resign its apprehension -of death at the drinking-place for the sake of becoming a worm--the -wriggling but scarcely conscious prey of the early bird. - -Man (the most conscious prey of death) has also his compensations; -but, wishing to eat his cake and have it, he insists that his increased -self-consciousness is the hall-mark of an immortality which he is -unwilling to concede to others. He sees (or the majority of those see, -who preach personal immortality after death) no moral necessity for -conceding immortality to the worm because the early bird cuts short -its career, or to the wild deer because it enjoys life, shrinks from -death, and endures pain; or to the peewit, because she loves her young; -or to the parrot, because it dies with a vocabulary still inadequate -for expressing that contempt for the human species with which the caged -experience of a life-time has filled its brain. Yet, for these and -similar reasons applied to himself, man thinks that immortality is his -due. - -In doing so, he does but pursue, to a rather injudicious extent, that -instinct for the ornamentation and embellishment of the facts of life -which I spoke of to begin with. For whether it be well-founded or not, -a belief in immortality gives ornament to existence. - -Of course, it may be bad ornament; and I think it becomes bad ornament -the moment he bases it upon the idea that this life is evil and not -good. If he says “Life is so good that I want it to go on for ever and -ever,” and thinks that he can make it better by asserting that it will -go on for ever and ever, that is a playful statement which may have -quite a stimulating effect on his career, and make him a much more -charming and social and imaginative person than he would otherwise be. -But if he wants a future life merely because he regards this life as a -“vale of misery”--and wants that future life to contain evil as well -as good--a Hell as well as a Heaven (in order that he may visualise -retribution meted out on a satisfactory scale upon those whom he cannot -satisfactorily visit with retribution to-day) then, I think, that it -tends to become bad ornament, and is likely to make him less charming, -less social, and less imaginatively inventive for the getting rid of -evil conditions from present existence than he would be if he had not -so over-loaded his brain with doctrinal adornments. - -Still, it is ornament of a kind; and with ornament, good or bad (the -moment he has got for himself leisure or any elbow-room at all in the -struggle for existence) man cannot help embellishing the facts of -life--the things that he really knows. - -Now that instinct for embellishment is of course latent in Nature -itself, or we should not find it in man; and it comes of Nature (the -great super-mathematician) putting two and two together in a way which -does not merely make four. When two and two are put together by Nature, -they come to life in a new shape; and man is (up-to-date) the most -appreciative receptacle of that fact which Nature has yet produced. Man -builds up his whole appreciation of life by association--by studying -a method of putting two and two together which comes to something very -much more than a dead numerical result. - -This, as I have said, is Nature’s way of giving to our investments in -life a compound interest. Man throws into life his whole capital, body, -soul, and spirit; and as a result of that investment Nature steadily -returns to him year by year--not detached portions of his original -outlay, but something new and different. Out of every contact between -man’s energy and Nature’s, something new arises. And yet, though new, -it is not strange; it has features of familiarity; it is partly his, -partly hers; and if his spirit rises above the merely mechanical, it -is endeared to him by and derives its fullest value from association. -All beautiful work, all work which is of real use and benefit to the -community, bears implicitly within it this mark of parentage--of the -way it has been come by, through patience, skill, ingenuity, something -more intimate and subtle than the dead impenetrable surface of a thing -mechanically formed without the accompaniment either of hope or joy. - -This creation of new values by association (which you can trace through -all right processes of labour) is seen even in things which have very -little of human about them. - -The germ of its expression is to be found in that simplest of -arithmetic propositions to which I have just referred: two and two -make--not two twos but four, which is, in fact, a fresh concept; and -the mind that can embrace so much--the idea of four as a number with -an identity of its own has already raised itself above the lowest -level of savagery. In that mind something has begun out of which the -social idea may presently be developed; for the man who has conceived -the number four will presently be identifying his new concept with a -variety of correspondencies under fresh aspects: he will discover that -certain animals have four legs, whereas, until then, his view of them -was rather that of the child who said that a horse had two legs in -front, two legs behind, and two at each side--a statement which shows, -indeed, that the horse has been earnestly considered from as many -points of view as are sometimes necessary to enable a Cabinet Minister -to make up his mind, but, for all that, never as a whole; and in such a -mind, though the identity of the horse may be established from whatever -point of view he presents himself, the thought of the horse, as a being -of harmoniously related parts, having order and species, has not yet -been established. Until a man can count, and sum up the results of -his counting in synthesis, Nature is composed merely of a series of -units--and the mind cannot begin that grouping and defining process -which leads to association and from that to the development of the -social idea. - -You will remember in _Alice through the Looking Glass_, when the two -Queens set to work to test her educational proficiency--you will -remember how the White Queen says (in order to discover whether Alice -can do addition) “What’s one, and one, and one, and one, and one, and -one?” - -“I don’t know,” says Alice, “I lost count.” - -“She can’t do addition,” says the White Queen. - -Well--she “lost count,” and, therefore, that series of ones failed to -have any fresh meaning or association for her. - -In the same way the primitive savage loses count; beyond three, numbers -are too many for him--they become merely a “lot.” But war and the -chase begin to teach him the relative value of numbers; and he finds -out that if one lot goes out to fight a bigger lot, the smaller lot -probably gets beaten; so that, before long, calculation of some sort -becomes necessary for the preservation of existence. He finds out also -(and this is where ornament begins to come in) that a certain amount of -wilful miscalculation has a beauty and a value of its own. So, after -going out to fight ten against ten, and defeating them, he comes back -and says to his wives and the surrounding communities by whom he wishes -to be held in awe--“My lot killed bigger lot--much, much bigger lot.” -And so, when he comes later on to set down his wilful miscalculations -in records of scripture, he provides delightful problems for the Bishop -Colensos of future ages--problems the undoing of which may shake to -the foundations the authority of documents which some mid-Victorian -school of Christianity has hitherto held to be divinely and verbally -inspired--not realising that the normal tendency of human nature is -to be decorative when writing its national history or when giving its -reasons for having plunged into war. - -You begin now, then, to perceive (if you did not before), the -importance of ornamental association, even when confined to matters of -arithmetic; and the moral value to future ages not merely of calculated -truths but of calculated untruths. - -But this merely figurative illustration of the quickness of the human -brain, in its primitive stage, to use mathematics to unmathematical -ends (or science to ends quite unscientific) does not bring us very far -upon the road to that self-realisation, in ornament rather than in use, -which I hope to make manifest by tracing to their most characteristic -forms of expression the higher grades of civilization. - -And I shall hope, by and by, to show that you cannot be social without -also being ornamental; it is the beginning of that connecting link -which shall presently make men realise that life is one, and that all -life is good. - -Take, to begin with, the earliest instruments by which primitive man -began raising himself from the ruck of material conditions; his -weapons--first of the chase, and then of war. No sooner had he proved -their use than he began to ornament them--to make them records, -trophies, and so--objects of beauty. He cannot stop from doing so; -his delight in the skill of his hands breaks out into ornament. It is -the same with the arts of peace, the work of the woman-primitive--she -moulds a pot, or weaves a square of material, and into it--the moment -she has accomplished the rudiments--goes pattern, beauty, something -additional and memorable that is not for use material, but for use -spiritual--pleasure, delight. - -And that quite simple example, from a time when man was living the -life, as we should now regard it, of a harried and hunted beast--with -his emergence from surrounding perils scarcely yet assured to him--goes -on consistently up and up the scale of human evolution; and the more -strongly it gets to be established in social institutions, the more -noble is likely to be the form of civilization which enshrines it. And -the less it shows, the less is that form of civilization likely to be -worthy of preservation, or its products of permanent value to the human -race. - -It is not the millionaire who leaves his mark on the world so that -hereafter men are glad when they name him; it is the “maker” who -has turned uses into delights; not the master of the money-market, -but the Master of Arts. The nearest thing we have on earth to that -immortality which so many look to as the human goal lies in those forms -of ornament--of embellishment over and above mere use--which man’s -genius has left to us in architecture, poetry, music, sculpture, and -painting. Nothing that stops at utility has anything like the same -value, for the revelation of the human spirit, as that which finds its -setting in the Arts--the sculptures of Egypt and Greece, the Gothic -and Romanesque cathedrals of France, England, Germany and Italy, the -paintings of the Renaissance, the masterpieces of Bach and Beethoven, -the poems and writings all down the ages of men comparatively poor in -monetary wealth, but rich beyond the dreams of avarice in their power -to communicate their own souls to things material and to leave them -there, when their own bodies have turned to dust. In the embellishment -they added to life they bestowed on the age in which they lived its -most significant commentary. There you will find, as nowhere else, the -meaning and the interpretation of the whole social order to which these -forms were as flower and fruit. Ancient Greece is not represented to us -to-day by its descendants in the flesh (as an expression of that life -they have ceased to exist) but by those works of art and philosophy -through which men--many now nameless--made permanent the vision of -delight to which, in the brief life of the flesh, they had become -heirs. The self-realisation of that age--all the best of it that we -inherit--comes to us through embodiment in forms transcending material -use. - -Run your mind’s eye through the various peoples and nationalities of -Europe--of the world--and you will find that their characteristic -charm--that which is “racy” of their native soil, marking the -distinction between race and race, lies in the expression they have -given to life over and above use. If we had kept to use, race would -have remained expressionless. Race expresses itself in ornament; and -even among a poor peasant people (and far more among them than among -the crowded and over-worked populations of our great cities where -we pursue merely commercial wealth) comes out in a characteristic -appreciation of the superabundance of material with which, at some -point or another, life has lifted them above penury. In the great -civilizations it extends itself over a rich blend of all these, drawn -from far sources; and the more widely it extends over the material uses -of life, the higher and the more permanent are the products of that -form of civilization likely to be. What does it mean but this?--man is -out to enjoy himself. - -Having said that, need I add that I put a very high interpretation upon -the word “joy”? - -To that end--man’s enjoyment of life--all art is profoundly useful. I -put that forward in opposition to the specious doctrine of Oscar Wilde -that “all art is entirely useless.” But it is usefulness extended in a -new direction; leaving the material uses, by which ordinary values are -measured, it shifts to the spiritual; and by the spiritual I mean that -which animates, vitalizes, socializes. - -To that end it may often be--and is generally the case--that, in the -material sense, art is a useless addition or refinement upon that which -was first planned merely for the service of man’s bodily needs. Yet -where the need is of a worthy and genuine kind, art never ceases to -rejoice at the use that is underlying it. This can be clearly seen in -architecture, where the beauty of design, the proportion, the capacity -of the edifice--though far transcending the physical need which called -it into being--remain nevertheless in subtle relation thereto, and give -to it a new expression--useless indeed to the body--but of this use to -the mind, that it awakens, kindles, enlivens, sensitizes--making it to -be in some sort creative, by perception of and response to the creative -purpose which evoked that form. You cannot enter a cathedral without -becoming aware that its embracing proportions mean something far more -than the mere capacity to hold a crowd; its end and aim are to inspire -in that crowd a certain mental attitude, a spiritual apprehension--to -draw many minds into harmony, and so to make them one--a really -tremendous fact when successfully achieved. - -Now nothing can be so made--to awaken and enlarge the spirit--without -some apparent wastefulness of material or of energy. A cathedral will -absorb more stone, and the labour of more men’s lives, before it is -finished, than a tenement of equal housing capacity which aims only at -providing warmth and a cover from the elements. To provide so much joy -and enlargement to the human spirit, a kind of waste, upon the material -plane, is necessary; and the man without joy or imagination in his -composition is likely to say on beholding it: “Why was all this waste -made?” - -Bear in mind this accusation of waste which can constantly be made, -from a certain standpoint against all forms of joy evolved by the art -of living--possibly against all forms of joy that you can name; for all -joy entails an expenditure of energy, and for those who do not realise -the value of joy such expenditure must necessarily seem wasteful. - -But when a man employs hand or brain worthily, straightway he discovers -(latent within that connection) the instinct of delight, of ornament. -He cannot rejoice in his craftsmanship without wishing to embellish -it--to place upon it the expression of the joy which went with the -making. All that he does to this end is apparently (from the material -point of view) useless; but from the spiritual it is profoundly useful; -and from the spirit (and this I think is important) it tends to re-act -and kindle the craftsman to finer craftsmanship than if he had worked -for utility alone. - -Now if spirit thus acts on matter--achieving its own well-being only -through a certain waste of material, or expenditure of labour upon the -lower plane, yet communicating back to matter influences from that -state of well-being to which it has thus attained--may it not be that -waste of a certain kind (what I would call “selective waste” _versus_ -“haphazard waste”) is the concomitant not only of spiritual but of -material growth also? May it not be that evolution has followed upon a -course of waste deliberately willed and insisted on--and that without -such waste, life--even material life--had not evolved to its present -stage? - -We see a certain wastefulness attaching to many of the most beautiful -biological manifestations in the world. Up to a certain point, the -construction of flower, bird, beast, fish, shows a wonderful economy of -structure, of means to end (it is the same also in the arts). But there -comes a point at which Nature, “letting herself go,” becomes fantastic, -extravagant--may one not say “wilful”?--in the forms she selects for -her final touches of adornment. And is it not nearly always when the -matter in hand is most closely related to the “will to live”--or, in -other words, in relation to the amative instincts--that the “art of -living” breaks out, and that Nature quits all moderation of design and -becomes frankly ornamental and extravagant? Just at the point where to -be creative is the immediate motive, where, in the fulfilment of that -motive, life is found to be a thing of delight, just there, Nature, -being amative, becomes playful, exuberant and ornamental. - -There are some birds which, in this connection, carry upon their -persons adornments so extravagant that one wonders how for so many -generations they have been able to live and move and multiply, bearing -such edifices upon their backs, their heads, their tails--that they -were not a crushing hindrance to the necessary affairs of life. They -certainly cannot have been a help; and yet--they still persist in them! - -Taking, then, these natural embryonic beginnings as our starting point, -I would be inclined to trace out the living value of art and ornament -somewhat upon these lines: Exuberance--the emergence of beauty and -adornment, in addition to the mere functional grace arising out of -fitness for use--has always been going on through the whole process -of creation among animate nature. We see it established in a thousand -forms, not only in bird, beast and reptile, but in the vegetable -world as well. The tendency of all life that has found a fair field -for its development, is to play with its material--to show that it -has something over and above the straight needs imposed on it by the -struggle for existence, which it can spare for self-expression. - -It has been lured on to these manifestations mainly by that “will -to live” which underlies the attractions of sex. That exuberance -is an essential feature of the evolutionary process at the point -where self-realisation by self-reproduction is the game to play. -Under that impulse the selective principle begins to assert itself, -and straightway the outcome is ornament. Self-realisation (by -self-reproduction under all sorts of images and symbols) is the true -basis of ornament and of art: self-realisation! - -The spirit of man, moving through these means, impresses itself -reproductively on the spirits of others with a far better calculation -of effect than can be secured through bodily inheritance. For in -physical parentage there is always the chance of a throw-back to -tainted origins; the sober and moral citizen cannot be sure of sober -and moral children in whom the desire of his soul shall be satisfied. -They may be drawn, by irresistible forces, to take after some giddy and -disreputable old grandfather or grandmother instead of after him; for -in his veins run the parental weaknesses of thousands of generations; -and over the racial strain that passes through him to others he -possesses no control whatever. But the man who has given ornament to -life in any form of art--though he commits it to the risks and chances -of life, the destructive accidents of peace and war--is in danger -of no atavistic trick being played upon the product of his soul; he -is assured of his effect, and so long as it endures it reflects and -represents his personality more faithfully than the descendants of his -blood. - -Now for the satisfaction of that instinct, the perpetuation of name -and identity is not necessary. The artist would not (if told that his -self-realisation was destined to become merged anonymously in the -existence of fresco, or canvas, or mosaic)--he would not therefore lay -down his mallet or his brush, and say that in that case the survival -of these things to a future age was no survival for him. The maker of -beautiful inlay would not lose all wish to do inlay if the knowledge -that he, individually, as the craftsman were destined to oblivion. -Let the future involve him in anonymity as impenetrable as it liked, -he would still go on expressing himself in ornament; self-realisation -would still be the law of his being. - -That is the psychology of the artist mind--of that part of humanity -which produces things that come nearest, of all which earth has to -show, to conditions of immortality, and so presumably are the most -satisfying to man’s wish for continued individual existence. The makers -of beauty do not set any great store on the continuance of their -names--the continuance of their self-realisation is what they care -about. - -But the possessors of these works of beauty do very often make a great -point of having their own names perpetuated, even though the vehicle is -another personality than their own. And so very frequently we have the -names passed down to us of these parasites of immortality--the tyrants -for whom palaces, or arches, or temples were built--but not the names -of the artists who designed them, whose immortality they really are. -And though the official guide may refresh our memory with snippets -of history, and say this, that, or the other about the name to which -the temple remains attached--the really important thing that lives, -survives, and influences us is not the externally applied name, but the -invested beauty which has no name, but is soul incarnate in stone to -the glory of God--the self-realisation of a being who (but for that) -has passed utterly from remembrance. - -That, as I have said before, is the nearest thing to immortality that -we know. And it comes to us, in a shape which, (so to be informed with -immortality) cannot limit itself to the demands of use. When all the -claims of use are satisfied, then the life of personality begins to -show--the fullest and the most permanent form of self-realisation known -to man on earth lies in ornament. - -Of course, when I say “ornament,” I use the word in a very wide sense. -What I have said of sculpture, painting or architecture, applies -equally to poetry, music or philosophy. I would even go further, and -apply it in other directions where no material matrix for it exists. -Every department of mental activity has its ornament--the culminating -expression of that particular direction of the human will. Faith is -the ornament of destiny, Hope the ornament of knowledge, Love the -ornament of sex. Without these ornaments destiny and knowledge and sex -would have no beauty that the soul of man should desire them. Those -additions or glosses were quite unnecessary to existence--up to a -point; for millions of years the world did without them, and Evolution -managed to scramble along without faith, without hope, without love. -But Evolution itself brought them into being; and then for millions of -years they existed in germ, without self-consciousness; but steadily, -as they germinated, they produced beauty and a sense of design in -their environment. Co-ordination, dovetailing (peaceful word!), the -harmonising and gentle effect of one life upon another, as opposed to -the savage and predatory, began to have effect. And in response came -ornament; faith, hope and love showed their rudimentary beginnings even -in the lower animals. - -One of the most perfectly decorative objects that I have ever seen in -the animal world (you will find it in still-life form in our Natural -History Museum) is the device by which a certain small possum has -taught her young to accompany her from branch to branch. Along her back -she seats her litter, then over their heads like the conducting-wire -of a tram-line she extends her tail--and then (each like an electric -connecting rod) up go the little tails, make a loop, adjust themselves -to the maternal guide-rope, and hang on. And there, safe from upset, is -the family-omnibus ready to start! - -Of course, you may say that is use; but it is use in which the -spiritualities, faith, hope and love, begin to appear; and in the -gentleness of its intention it forms a basis for the up-growth -of beauty. Now all the arts are, in the same way, first of all -structural--having for their starting-point a sound and economic use of -the material on which they are based. Music, architecture, poetry, and -the rest were all, to begin with, the result of an instinctive choice -or selection, directed to the elimination of superfluities, accidents, -excrescences--which to the craftsman’s purpose are nothing. - -Nature, in her seed-sowing, has gone to work to propagate by profusion; -her method is to sow a million seeds so as to make sure that some may -live; thus she meets and out-matches the chances that are against her. -The seed of Art sprang up differently; maker-man took hold of the one -selected seed, not of a dozen, or of a thousand dozen promiscuously, -and bent his faculties on making that one seed (his chosen material) -fit to face life and its chances: if a house--walls and roof -calculated to keep out the rain and resist the force of storms: if a -textile--fabric of a staple sufficient to resist the wear and tear to -which it would be subjected: if a putting together of words meant to -outlast the brief occasion of their utterance--then in a form likely -to be impressive, and therefore memorable; so that in an age before -writing was known they might find a safe tabernacle, travelling from -place to place in the minds of men. And similarly with music--a system -of sounds so ruled by structural law as to be capable of transmission -either by instrument, or by voice disciplined and trained to a certain -code of limitations. And being thus made memorable and passed from -mouth to mouth, from one place to another, and from age to age, they -acquired a social significance and importance; till, seeing them thus -lifted above chance, man set himself to give them new forms of beauty -and adornment. - -And the governing motive was, and always has been, first man’s wish to -leave memorable records--beyond the limits of his own generation--of -what life has meant for him; and secondly (and this is the more -intimate phase) the delight of the craftsman in his work, the -exuberance of vital energy (secure of its structural ground-work) -breaking out into play. “See,” it says, “how I dance, and gambol, and -triumph! This superfluity of strength proves me a victor in my struggle -to live.” - -Nothing else does; for if (having survived the struggle) man only lives -miserably--scrapes through as it were--the question in the face of so -poverty-stricken a result, may still be--“Was the struggle worth it?” -And so by his arts and graces, by his adornment of his streets, temples -and theatres, by his huge delight in himself, so soon as the essentials -of mere material existence are secured to him, man has really shown -that life is good in itself, that he can do well enough without the -assurance of personal immortality held out to him by the theologians. -Whether that be or be not his reward hereafter, he will still strive to -express himself; but for that end mere use alone will not satisfy him. - -We have seen, then, how man, in his social surroundings, begins to -secure something over and above the mere necessities of life; and so, -after providing himself with a certain competence of food, clothing -and shelter, has means and energy left for the supply of luxuries, -ornaments, delights--call them what you will. And according to -the direction in which he flings out for the acquisition of these -superfluities--so will his whole manhood develop, or his type of racial -culture be moulded. - -Far back in the beginnings of civilization one of the first forms -taken by this surplus of power and energy over mere necessity was the -acquisition of slaves and wives. Civilization then began to ornament -itself with two modes of body-service--the menial attendance of the -slave upon his master, and the polygamous sexual attendance of the -woman upon her lord. - -To-day we think that both those things were, from a moral point of -view, bad ornament. But you cannot look into the history of any -civilization conducted on those lines without seeing that they -decorated it--and that, out of their acceptance, came colour, -pomp, splendour, means for leisure, for enjoyment--for a very keen -self-realisation of a kind by the few at the expense of the many. And -the masterful few made that form of decorated civilization more sure -for themselves by extending a good deal of the decorative element -to the subservient lives around them. The slaves wore fine liveries -and lorded it over lower slaves, the favourite wives lived in luxury -and laziness, eating sweets and spending their days in the frivolous -mysteries of the toilet. - -At a certain point in the social scale this form of ornamental -existence produced great misery, great hardships, great abasement. But -it was not instituted and maintained for that reason. Those underlying -conditions were a drawback, they were a misuse of human nature employed -as a basis for that ornamental superstructure to build on. And out of -that underlying misuse came the weakness and the eventual decay of that -once flourishing school of ornament. - -But when that school of ornament was threatened by other schools, it -was ready to fight to the death for its ornamental superfluities--for -polygamy, for slavery, for power over others, which had come to mean -for it all that made life worth living! Life was quite capable of -being carried on without those things--was, and is, happily lived by -other races to the accompaniment of another set of ornaments which -those races think more enjoyable. But no race will consent to live -without some sort of ornament of its own choosing; and when its choice -of ornaments, or of social superfluities, over and above the needs -of existence, is seriously threatened from without it declares that -it is fighting not merely for liberty but for existence. Yet we know -quite well that the people of invaded and conquered States continue -in the main to exist--they continue even to wear ornaments; but these -are apt to be imposed ornaments galling to the national pride. And so -to-day, in the midst of a vast belligerency, we have committees and -consultations going on, to see to it lest, at the end of the war, under -German dominance, our women should have their future fashions imposed -on them from Berlin instead of from Paris, a fearful doom for any lady -of taste to contemplate. - -The example may seem frivolous, but it is a parable of the truth; -we call our ornaments our liberties, and if we cannot ourselves die -fighting for them, we make others die for us. - -Let us take up (for illustration of the same point) another stage -of civilization--that of ancient Greece. In Greece the city was the -centre of civilization, and its public buildings became the outward and -visible sign of the people’s pride of life and of their sense of power. -The fact that their private dwellings were very simple, and that they -expended nearly the whole of their artistry upon public works (things -to be shared and delighted in by all the citizens in common) had a -profound influence upon their civilization. That new social ideal of -civic pride found its way irresistibly into ornament. You could not -have had civic pride in anything like the same degree without it. - -But Greek civilization did not fall into decay because of the beauty -and perfection with which it crowned itself in the public eye, but -because of certain underlying evils and misuses in the body politic--in -which again slavery and the subjection of women had their share. Greek -civilization fell because it failed to recognise the dignity of all -human nature; it reserved its sense of dignity for a selected race -and class; it failed to recognise the dignity of all true kinds of -service, and prided itself in military service alone--in that and in -the philosophies and the arts. It built a wonderful temple to its gods, -but failed in a very large degree to take into God the whole body of -humanity over which it had control. And so, Greek civilization broke up -into portions of an unimportant size and perished. - -At a later day--and again with the city as centre to its life of -self-realisation--we get the great period of the Italian Renaissance, -a period in which civic and feudal and ecclesiastical influences -alternately jostled and combined. - -And out of these three prides arose a wonderfully complex -art--tremendously expressive of what life meant for that people. And -you got then (for the first time, I think), grouped under the civic -arm, a new life-consciousness--the consciousness of the guilds, the -workers, and the craftsmen. The dignity of labour began to assert -itself; and when it did, inevitably it broke into ornament on its own -account--not at the bidding of an employer, but for the honour and -glory of the worker himself. And so, from that date on, the homes and -halls and churches of the guilds became some of the noblest monuments -to what life meant for men who had found joy in their labour. - -Now that did not come till the craftsman had won free from slavery -and from forced labour; but when he was a freeman, with room to turn -round, he built up temples to his craft, to make more evident that the -true goal of labour is not use but delight. And only when it fell back -into modern slavery at the hands of commercial capitalism, only then -did labour’s power of spontaneous expression depart from it and become -imitative and debased. - -I could take you further, and show you (among the survivals from our -England of the Middle Ages) the “joy of the harvest” expressed in the -great granaries and tithe-barns which still crown like abbey-churches -the corn-lands of Home. Concerning one of these William Morris said -that it stood second in his estimation among all the Gothic buildings -of Europe! Think of it!--of what that means in the realisation of -life-values by the age which had a mind so to celebrate man’s rest -after the labour of the harvest! In those days England was called -“merry” and foreigners who came to her shores reported as a national -characteristic the happy looks of her people: even their faces showed -adornment! And thus it is that beautiful use always clothes itself in -beauty. - -I have said that all art is useful. To many that may have seemed a -very contentious statement. But how can one separate beauty from use -if one holds that everything which delights us is useful? On that -statement there is only one condition I would impose. The use in -which we delight must not mean the misuse or the infliction of pain -on others. In those periods of civilization to which I have referred -(so magnificent in their powers of self-discovery and self-adornment), -there were always dark and cruel habitations where the “art of living” -was not applied. They were content that the beauty on which they prided -themselves should be built up on the suffering, the oppression, or the -corruption of others. In the lust of their eyes there was a blind spot, -so that they cared little about the conditions imposed by their own -too arrogant claim for happiness on the lives that were spent to serve -them. And out of their blindness came at last the downfall of their -power. - -So it has always been, so it always must be. I believe that beauty, -delight, ornament, are as near to the object of life as anything that -one can name, and that through right uses we attain to these as our -goal. But it is no good claiming to possess delightful things if we do -not see to it that those who make them for us have also the means to -live delightfully. - -If man cannot make all the uses and services of life decent and -wholesome as a starting-point, neither can he make life enjoyable--not, -I mean, with a good conscience. If he would see God through beauty, he -must see Him not here and there only, but in the “land of the living”; -else (as the psalmist said) his spirit must faint utterly. - -Our life is built up--we know not to what ultimate end--on an infinite -number of uses, functions, mechanisms. These uses enable us to live; -they do not necessarily enable us to enjoy. You can quite well imagine -the use of all your senses and organs so conditioned that you could -not enjoy a single one of them, and yet they might still fulfil their -utilitarian purpose of keeping you alive. - -I need not rehearse to you in troublesome detail conditions of life -where everything you see is an eyesore, every touch a cause of -shrinking, every sound a discord, where taste and smell become a revolt -and a loathing. - -Our modern civilization derives many of its present comforts from -conditions such as these under which thousands, nay millions, of -subservient human lives become brutalised. So long as we base our -ideal of wealth on individual aggrandisement, and on monetary and -commercial prosperity, and not (as we should do) upon human nature -itself--making it our chief aim that every life should be set free for -self-realisation in ornament and delight--so long will these things be -inevitable. - -But when we, as men and women, and as nations, realise that human -nature is the most beautiful thing on earth (in its possibilities, I -mean) then surely our chief desire will be to make that our wealth here -and now, and out of it rear up our memorial to the ages that come after. - - - - -ART AND CITIZENSHIP - -(1910) - - -The most hardened advocate of “Art for Art’s sake,” will hardly deny -that Art, for all its “sacred egoism,” is a social force. The main -question is where does your Art-training begin? - -The conditions of the home, the workshop, and of social industries -do more than the schools and the universities to educate a nation; -and more especially, perhaps, to educate it toward a right or a wrong -feeling about Art. - -And if, in these departments, your national education takes a wrong -line, then (however much you build schools over the heads of your -pupils and intercept their feet with scholarships, and block their -natural outlook on life with beautiful objects produced in past ages -and in other countries) your Art-training will partake of the same -condemnation. - -True education, as opposed to merely commercial education, is a -training of mind and body to an appreciation of right values; values, -not prices. The man who has an all-round appreciation of right values -is a well-educated man; and he could not have a better basis either for -the love or the practice of Art than this appreciation of what things -are really worth. - -But, in the present age, which prides itself on its inhuman system -of specialisation as a means to economy, such a man is rather a -rare phenomenon; for it is about as difficult to get out of present -conditions a true appreciation of life values--a true Art-training--as -it is to get a true artist. Where your national conditions shut down -the critical faculties, and make their exercise difficult, there too, -your creative artistic faculties are being shut down and made difficult -also. They are far more interdependent than your average Art-teacher -or Art-student is generally willing to admit. The idea that he has to -concern himself with conditions outside his own particular department -threatens him with extra trouble, and the burden of a conscience -that the doctrine of “Art for Art’s sake,” will not wholly satisfy; -and so he is inclined to shut his eyes, and direct his energies to -the securing of favourable departmental instead of right national -conditions. - -But the man, or woman, who embarks whole-heartedly on Art-training -must in the end find himself involved in a struggle for the recovery -of those true social values which have been lost (or the acquisition -of those which are as yet unrealised) and for the substitution, among -other things, of true for false economics. He cannot afford to live -a life of aloof specialisation, when the conditions out of which he -derives and into which he is throwing his work are of a complementarily -disturbing kind. If, that is to say, the give-and-take conditions -between artistic supply and social demand have become vitiated, if -the conditions of the market, or of society, are unfavourable to the -reception of products of true worth, then the artist must to some -extent be an active party in the struggle for getting things set right. - -That does not mean that, if he has a gift for the designing of -stage-scenery, he should necessarily be involved in a struggle to -secure a good drainage system (though even that should have an interest -for him) but it does mean very much that he should be tremendously -interested in the education of his own and the public mind to the point -of receiving good drama rather than bad, in order that his art may have -worthy material to work upon; and as good drama largely arises from a -lively conscience and the quickening in the community of new ideas, he -will wish his public a keen and open mind on all social questions. - -Similarly a man who designs for textile fabrics should be very much -concerned indeed in getting cleanly conditions and pure air in the -towns and dwelling-houses where his designs have to live and look -beautiful, or grow ugly and rot. And there you get set before you in -small, the opposition between the interests of Art and the supposed -interests of trade. It is--or it is supposed to be--in the interest of -trade that things should wear out or get broken, and be replaced by -other things. It is in the interest of Art that they should not wear -out, that they should last; that everything worthy which is given to -man’s hand to do should have secured to it the greatest possible length -of life. And the reason is that the artist, if he be a true artist, -realises the value of things, the life value; that he is on the side of -creation and not of destruction, of preservation and not of waste. He -has within his nature an instinct that the greatest possible longevity -is the right condition for all manual labour; that when a man sets his -hand to a thing he should have it as his main aim to give good value, -to make it so that it will endure. And in this connection I would like -to substitute for the words “art training” the word “education.” It -is in the interests of education that things should be made to last, -and that only things should be made of any lasting material that -deserve lasting. Nothing should be produced the value of which will -become negligible before it is honestly worn out. And so it is in the -interest of education, as of Art, that we should eliminate as much as -possible the passing and the ephemeral, the demand of mood and fashion, -the thing cheaply chosen, cheaply acquired, and cheaply let go; and -substitute the thing that we shall have a long use for, and should like -to keep permanently--the thing acquired with thought and care, and -thoughtfully and carefully preserved because it has in itself a value. - -But you won’t get any broad exercise of that kind of choice between -evil and good until you get a sense of right values--going far away -from what apparently touches art--in the mind, and the public and -private life of the community. And so, as I started by saying, true Art -is bound up with true education and social conditions. Good citizenship -is one of the conditions for setting national Art upon a proper basis. -A lively sense of your duty to your neighbour cannot fail to have an -effect upon your taste in art. - -Now I want to bring this view of things home to you. So I will ask -everyone here to think for a moment of their own homes, their own -living-rooms, and especially of their parlours or drawing-rooms, which -are by their nature intended to express not so much our domestic -necessities as our domestic sense of the value of beauty, recreation, -and rest. And to begin with, how do you show your sense of duty to -the architect, who has (if you are fortunate) designed for you rooms -of pleasant and restful proportions? How many of the objects in those -rooms help at all to give a unifying and a harmonious effect, or are -in themselves in any way beautiful--things, that is to say, which (if -not of actual use) we love to set our eyes on, and feel what fineness -of skill in handling, what clean human thought in design went to their -production? Have those things been put there quite irrespective of -their price and the display they make of their owner’s “comfortable -circumstances”? Are they subordinated to a really intelligent sense -of what a living-room should be? Or are they merely a crowd, a -litter, things flung into the room pell-mell by a house-mistress -bent on securing for her parlour-maid a silly hour’s dusting every -day of objects--not of virtue--and for herself the recognition by -her neighbours that she has money enough to throw away in making her -living-room a silly imitation of a shop for bric-a-brac. Can you, even -those of you who do not live in streets where you have to safeguard -your privacy--can you look out of the window without being tickled in -the face by lace curtains, blind-tassels, or potted palm-leaves? Can -you sit down to the writing-table without entangling the legs of your -chair in a woolly mat and your feet in the waste-paper basket, or get -at the drawer of the cabinet without moving two or three arm-chairs, -or play the piano without causing the crocks which stand upon it to -jangle? Is the rest and recreation you get in that room anything else -but a sense of self-complacency based upon pride of possession? I ask -you to think what your furnishing of your rooms means, and remember -that to every person who comes into those rooms--and more especially -perhaps to the maids whom you set to dust them--you are helping to give -either an Art-training or an anti-Art-training, a training in true uses -and values, or in misuses and mere waste and wantonness. - -Of course I know that to some extent you are victims. You have dear -friends who will give you presents, and you can’t hurt their feelings -by not putting up another shelf, or erecting another glass-shade, -where neither are wanted, or driving another peg into the wall to hang -a picture where no picture can be properly seen. And probably the -reason you cannot is because you have shown yourself so thoughtless -and haphazard in all your ideas about decoration and house-furnishing -that even in that house, which you falsely assert to be your castle, -you stand defenceless before this invasion of ornamental microbes! -Obviously the house is not yours if others can break in and spoil its -borders with their own false taste. But I can assure you that those -inroads do not happen to people whose rooms show a scrupulous sense of -selection. You inspire then (even in the thoughtless) a certain dread -and respect. Though they regard you as uncanny and call you a crank, -you are beginning their Art-training for them. - -I remember, in this connection, a Quaker acquaintance whose friends -descended upon him at the time of his marriage with certain household -monstrosities which he was expected thereafter to live down to. It was -a cataclysm which he could not avert; but he found a remedy. He became -a passive resister to the Education rate, and year by year he placed -at the disposal of the distraining authorities a selection of his -wedding-presents till his house was purged of them. I have said that -you cannot separate Art-training from general education; and here, at -all events, you find the two happily combined--a war on bad art and on -a bad educational system joined economically in one. - -So much, then, for thoughtless superfluity as an impediment to a -recognition of true values. I want now to come to the importance of -permanence as a condition underlying the aim of all production if -it is to be wholesome in its social results. I have said that an -instinct for permanence is what differentiates artistic from supposed -trade interests. Take architecture. Do you imagine that architects or -builders are likely to design or build in the same style for a system -of short leaseholds as they might for freeholds? And is the building -which is calculated just to “save its face” until the lease expires -likely to be so good either in design or workmanship? - -Read, in that connection, what Coventry Patmore says in his essay on -“Greatness in Architecture”: - -“The house and cottage builder of the sixteenth and seventeenth -centuries was,” he says, “fully aware that the strength of a rafter -lay rather in its depth than its breadth, and that, for a time at -least, a few boards two inches thick and ten inches deep, set edgeways, -would suffice to carry the roof, which nevertheless it pleased him -better to lay upon a succession of beams ten inches square. It is the -reality, and the modest ostentation of the reality, of such superfluous -substantiality that constitutes the whole secret of effect in many an -old house that strikes us as “architectural,” though it may not contain -a single item of architectural ornament; and, in the very few instances -in which modern buildings have been raised in the same fashion, the -beholder at once feels that their generous regard for the far future -is of almost as poetical a character as the aged retrospect of a -similar house of the time of Henry VII. or Elizabeth. A man,” he goes -on, “now hires a bit of ground for eighty or ninety years; and, if he -has something to spare to spend on beauty, he says to himself: ‘I will -build me a house that will last my time, and what money I have to spare -I will spend in decorating it. Why should I waste my means in raising -wall and roof which will last five times as long as I or mine shall -want them?’ The answer is: Because that very ‘waste’ is the truest and -most striking ornament; and though your and your family’s enjoyment of -a house thus magnanimously built may last but a tenth of its natural -age, there lies in that very fact an ‘ornament’ of the most noble and -touching kind, which will be obvious at all seasons to yourself and -every beholder, though the consciousness of its cause may be dormant; -whereas the meanness of the other plan will be only the more apparent -with every penny you spend in making it meretricious.” - -Again, are you likely to get so good an architectural design where you -cannot be fairly sure that the use for which the building is raised -is likely to be permanent? And do our modern trade conditions and -present enormous demand for thoughtless superfluities tend to make that -prospect more probable? If not, then instability of trade, or trade -directed to the satisfaction of frivolous and ephemeral demands is bad -for architecture, and hinders any worthy development in it of national -characteristics. - -But there, mind you, in trade, lies to-day the very life of the nation; -for the life of our teeming millions depends on it. By our industrial -specialisation in the pursuit of wealth vast numbers of us have ceased -to be self-supporting in the necessaries of life. And the question for -artists is, are we basing our national life on conditions that cannot -secure permanence and stability in the things which we produce? Is it -a necessary condition of our industrial development that things should -have a shorter life and we a shorter use for them than in the old days? -To the artist the drawback of machine-made things is not necessarily -in the mechanism of their production (for in some cases your machine -relieves the human hand of a hard and wearing monotony), but there is -a very obvious drawback if it imposes upon the worker merely another -form of hard and wearing monotony, and at the same time shortens the -life of the thing produced. If handicraft does not offer to the worker -worthier conditions for hand and brain, and insure longer life in the -thing produced, it is no good pinning our faith to it. Eliminate it, -and let machinery take its place. You have not, then, in the transfer, -destroyed any right values, and you are not going counter to the -conditions which tend to produce national Art. - -But, as an example of the particular value which does sometimes attach -to hand labour (irrespective of its artistic value), I have here a -small unused sample of chair-cover material of English make, produced -about eighty years ago, at a probable cost--so I am told by experts--of -under £2 the square yard. The chairs it was made to cover are now -in my possession. During the twenty-five years of my own personal -acquaintance with them they have had plenty of hard wear; but even at -the corners that material has not yet begun to wear out; and the colour -has only become softer and more mellow in quality. - -Within the last ten years I endeavoured to get that covering matched in -a modern material, and I paid for the nearest match I could get about -one-fifth of the price I have quoted. That material has already gone -shabby; and where it is most worn and faded the colour, instead of -mellowing, has gone dead and dirty in quality. The older material will -probably outlast my time. - -There, then, are the comparative values of the old and the new -material. You pay the higher price for the old, but in the end it is -more economical. And it has this double advantage (or what would be a -double advantage in a State where industrial conditions were sound), -that it inclines its possessor to adopt a more permanent style of -furnishing, by making age beautiful and change unnecessary; and so it -sets free a great amount of human labour for other purposes; not merely -the labour of the textile workers who have not to provide new covers, -but the labour of the upholsterers, who are not called upon to rip off -a series of old covers and fit on new ones, dragging old nails out and -driving fresh nails in, with the result that the framework of the chair -itself is presently worn out and a new one required in its place. All -that labour is saved. - -That small example is important because it exemplifies those -possibilities of permanence attaching to certain forms of hand-labour -out of which can be developed a school of textile manufacture -indigenous in character--indigenous in that you give it time to become -embedded in its domestic setting, and to make for itself domestic -history. It enables you to develop an appreciation for subtleties -of colour, and to secure tones and harmonies which you cannot get -ready-made in a shop: it gives to a piece of furniture life-value. - -But it is bad for trade! - -Now why is it bad for trade? It is bad for trade because our modern -industrial conditions have brought us to this pass, that it is no -longer our national aim to direct labour and set it free for other -work that really needs to be done. Our national problem is rather to -find work for people, at times even to invent needs, and to create a -fictitious turnover in trade so that we may not have upon our hands an -enormous increase of the unemployed problem. And as hands go begging, -as we have more hands in the country than we can employ on useful and -fit labour (fit, I mean, for such fine implements as these and for the -brains behind them), therefore hands are inevitably put to degrading -uses, and the joy goes out of work; and for the delight (or at least -the intelligent patience) of true craftsmanship is substituted the -soul-destroying bondage of mechanical labour at something which is not -really worth producing. - -You may take that, I think, as a test whether a State is in industrial -health or disease--whether, namely, it tends more in the direction -of setting labour free for other and higher purposes (through the -permanent quality of its products), and so evolving an aristocracy of -labour; or whether (owing to their ephemeral quality) it constantly -tends to invent work of a lower and more trivial kind, and to provide -jobs of an ephemeral character which are not really wanted. - -Now bad and wasteful taste is directly productive, not so much of trade -as of fluctuations in trade, because that sort of taste soon tires -and asks for change; and the consequence is that thousands of workers -(especially women, whose industries used to be home industries before -machinery drew them out of the homes) are in this country constantly -being thrown out of one useless employment into another, and very often -have to pass through a fresh apprenticeship at a starvation wage. -And so, when we create frivolous demands for things that we shall not -want the day after to-morrow, we are not (as we too often think) doing -anything that is really good for trade, but only something much more -horrible, which you will understand without my naming it. - -You see, then, how very closely the artist’s inclination toward -permanence of taste may be connected with morality. And if that -instinct for permanence (with an accompanying adaptation of material -and design to making things last their full time without waste) is not -present in the craftsmanship of our day, then we have not got the true -basis, either in spirit or material, for Art to build upon. - -Now I am going to put before you some quite homely instances, because -I think they will stick best in your memories, in order to show -you that the real struggle of the artist to-day is not so much to -secure appreciation of beauty in line and texture, as honesty of -construction, and real adaptation of form to utility and of production -to lastingness. I have been noticing, with quite simple objects of -domestic use, that the trade-purpose toward them seems almost the -opposite. The trade purpose is to present us with an article which, -apparently sound in construction, will break down at some crucial point -before the rest of it is worn out. A watering can, a carving fork, -a kettle, a dustbin, a coal scuttle, the fixings of a door-handle, -are generally made, I find, on an ignobly artful plan which insures -that they shall break down just at that point where the wear and tear -come hardest, so that an article otherwise complete shall be scrapped -wastefully or go back to the trade to be tinkered. - -But leave things the actual design of which you cannot control, and -come to dress, our own daily wearing apparel. I do not know if the men -of my audience are aware that undergarments wear out much quicker if -they are tight-fitting and worn at a stretch than if they are loose, -but that is so. And, in consequence, a smart shopman has the greatest -reluctance to sell you anything that is, as he conceives it, one size -too large for you. The reason being that the looser fit lasts longer -and is bad for trade--that it makes for endurance instead of for -galloping consumption. - -In the majority of houses whose cold water systems I have inspected -the pipes are nearly always run at the most exposed angle of the -containing walls, so that if there is a frost, the frost may have a -chance of getting at the pipes and bursting them, and so give the trade -a fresh job. Again, every housewife knows that in the ordinary daily -conflicts between tea-sets and domestic service more cups get broken -than saucers. And I suppose every household in London has got some -corner shelf piled with superfluous saucers (useless widowers mourning -the departure of their better halves); but it is very exceptional--only -in one shop that I know--that one is able to replace the cup (in -certain stock patterns) without encumbering oneself with the saucer -which one does not want. The saucers continue to be made in wasteful -superabundance, because waste of that sort is “good for trade.” - -I have been assured by an observant housewife that certain articles do -now and again appear upon the market specially designed to safeguard by -little constructive devices, the main point of wear-and-tear through -which they become useless, and that presently these things disappear -and are unobtainable, presumably because they prove too lasting, and so -are “bad for trade.” And they are allowed to disappear because we, as a -community, have not sufficiently set our hearts and minds against waste -and uselessness. We buy cheaply because we think cheaply, and because -we have lost our sense of honour towards the products of men’s hands, -and toward that wonderful instrument itself which we are content to -put to such base uses, letting the workers themselves see how much we -despise the things they have made. - -I have seen in London a comic music-hall “turn” in which the comedy -largely consisted in a continuous breakage of piles of plates by a -burlesque waiter, who, in the course of his duties, either drops them, -falls against them, sits on them, or kicks them. During the turn I -should say some thirty or forty plates get broken. They were cheap -plates, no doubt; but it seems to me that if there is any fun in this -monotonous repetition of destruction, then the greater the cost and -waste of human labour the more irresistibly comic should the situation -appear; and the management which provided Worcester or Dresden china -for its low-comedy wits to play upon would have logical grounds for -considering that it was thereby supplying its audience with livelier -entertainment more satisfying to its taste.[2] - -Now what I want you to see is that such a production would not be -entertaining to an audience which had not come to regard the labour of -man’s hands with a licentious indifference--which had not developed the -gambler’s contempt for the true relations between labour and value. -And here I want to put before you a proposition which may at first -shock you, but which I hope to prove true. And that is that labour in -itself, apart from its justification in some useful result, is bad and -degrading; the man who is put to work which he knows is to have no -result comes from that work more degraded and crushed in spirit than -the man who merely “loafs” and lives “naturally.” - -Perhaps the readiest example of that is the old treadmill system which -was once employed in our prisons, where the prisoner was set to grind -at a crank artificially adjusted to his physical strength, but having -no useful result; and I believe that the main reason why prisoners -on those machines were not allowed to grind their own bread or put -their strength to any self-supporting industry was because it was “bad -for trade” and brought them into competition with the contractors who -supplied food to his Majesty’s prisons. It was not the monotony half -so much as the consciousness that it was without result which made -that form of labour so degrading and so utterly exhausting to mind and -body. You might think it was the compulsion; but I am not sure that -compulsion to work may not sometimes be very moral and salutary. At any -rate, here is an instance of the same thing presented under voluntary -conditions. A man out of work applied to a farmer for a job; the -farmer had no job for him, and told him so; but as the man persisted -he started him at half a crown a day to move a heap of stones from one -side of the road to the other. And when the man had done that and asked -what next he was to do, he told him to move them back again! But though -that man was out of work, and was on his way to earn the half-crown, -rather than submit his body to the conscious degradation of such -useless labour, he did as the farmer had calculated on his doing, and -threw up the job. - -That same quality of outrage and degradation attends on all labour that -is subject, within the worker’s knowledge, to wanton destruction, or is -obviously of no real use or of “faked” value. And the finer the skill -employed the greater the anguish of mind, or else the hard callousness -of indifference which must result. Call upon men to make useless -things, or things which you mean wantonly to destroy the day after -to-morrow, or to which by the conditions you tolerate you make a fair -length of life impossible--call upon labour to do those things, and you -are either filling its spirit with misery and depression, or you are -making it, in self-defence, callous and hard. - -Industrial conditions which encourage the building of houses that are -only intended to last a lease; which permit the destruction of our -canal system because that means of transit has proved a dangerous -rival to the railway system; which impose a quick change in fashions -on which depend various kinds of ephemeral and parasitic industries; -which encourage a vast production of ephemeral journalism and -magazine illustration which after a single reading is thrown aside -and wasted--all these things, which have become nationalised in our -midst, are a national anti-Art training. We English have, as the -result of these things, no national school of architecture; we have -no national costume (though I myself can remember the time when in -our Midland counties not only the farm labourer, but the small yeoman -farmer himself went to church as well as to labour in the beautiful -smock-frock worn by their forefathers) and we have killed out from our -midst one of the most beautiful national schools of popular art that -ever existed, the school of the illustrators of the ’sixties; and we -have done these things mainly from our increasing haste to get hold of -something new, and our almost equal haste, when we have it, to throw it -away again. - -We have cast our bread upon the waters. The sort of wealth to the -pursuit of which nations have committed themselves needs (it now -appears) an enormous amount of protection. And it cannot have been -without some demoralising effect upon the mind of the community that -we have been driven by our outstanding necessities to build every -year six or seven of those enormous engines of destruction called -“Dreadnoughts,” whose effective lease of life is about 20 years, -something considerably shorter than the lease of life which we allow -for our most jerry-built lodging-houses! And on these short-lived -products of industry (which are to-day the sign and symbol and -safeguard of our world-power), our aristocracy of labour has been -spending its strength, and the nation has now to depend on them for -its safety. The cost of building a “Dreadnought” is about the same -as the cost of building St. Paul’s Cathedral. Imagine to yourself a -nation building every year six or seven St. Paul’s Cathedrals, with the -consciousness that in twenty-five or thirty years they will all again -be levelled to the dust, and you will get from that picture something -of the horror which an artist is bound to feel at the necessity -which thus drives us forward, even in peace-time, to the continuous -destruction, on such a colossal scale, of the labour of men’s hands. -And the more it is revealed to us to-day (by the present catastrophe) -as an absolute political necessity, the more is the disorder of -civilization we have arrived at condemned. - -Well, I must leave now, in that example I have set before you, the -wasteful aspect of modern industry, in order to touch briefly on -another, and an almost equally hateful aspect, which I will call “the -vivisection of modern industry.” I mean its subdivision into so many -separate departments, or rather fragments, that it loses for the mind -of the worker all relation to the thing made--that time-saving device -at the expense of the human hand and brain, which we glorify under the -term “specialisation.” Now, however much you may defend that system on -ground of trade competition, the artist is bound by his principles to -regard it as a national evil; for anything which tends to take away -the worker’s joy and pride in the distinctiveness of his trade and -to undo its human elements is anti-Art training. And so that inhuman -specialisation which (for the sake of trade cheapness) sets down a man -to the performance of one particular mechanical action all his life, -in the making of some one particular part of some article which in its -further stages he is never to handle, or a woman to stamp out the tin -skeleton of a button, with her eyes glued to one spot for ten hours -of the day--all these dehumanising things are anti-Art because they -are destructive of life-values. We have erected them into a system, -and while cutting prices by such means at one end, we are mounting up -costs at the other. We are promoting, maybe, a quicker circulation of -the currency of the realm, but we are impoverishing the currency of -the race. For that hard mechanical efficiency we are paying a price -which is eating up all our real profits; quite apart from its effect -in the increase of lunacy and of the unfit birth-rate and death-rate -among children, it is helping to implant in the whole world of labour -a bitter and a revengeful spirit which we have no right to wonder at -or to blame. And the results affect us not only in our workshops but -in our pastimes, by driving those whose labour is so conditioned into -a more consumptive form of pleasure-seeking and relaxation. You cannot -put people into inhuman conditions for long hours of each day, and -expect them to be normal and humane when you turn them out to their -short hours of leisure. I am pointing to conditions which you know -probably as well as, or better than, I do; but I am pointing to them -for the express purpose of saying that you cannot dissociate them from -your national appreciation of Art. The more you can connect the worker -with the raw material on the one hand and the finished product on the -other, the more surely you are establishing conditions out of which -national Art can grow; and the more you dissociate him from these two -ends of his material the more you make national Art impossible. - -I will give you an instance, quite away from sweated labour conditions, -where you will see at once how wasteful and opposed to Art is this -system of breaking up craftsmanship into departments. It was an -architect who told me that the following system is quite frequently -followed in dealing with the stone out of which we build the outside -walls of our modern churches. It is hewn at the quarries into a rough -surface, thoroughly expressive of the stonemason’s craft, and not in -any way too rough for its purpose. It is then taken and submitted by -machinery to a grinding process which makes it mechanically smooth, and -it is then handed over to other workmen who give back to it a chiselled -surface of an absolutely uniform and mechanical character which -expresses nothing. And with that wanton and wasteful lie we are content -to set up temples to the God of Truth! - -Now if the Church has become so blind to the values of life, and so -lacking in any standard of honour toward the labour of men’s hands, as -to allow itself to be so clothed in falsehood, yet I do still plead -that those who call themselves artists shall protest by all means in -their power against the systematisation of such indignities toward -handicraft. That is the sort of thing against which any national Art -training we have ought to fight. - -How can we fight? Best of all, I believe, by establishing a standard -of honour toward manual labour; and, quite definitely, wherever we -have Art schools, by training all students to hate and despise shams -and to loathe all waste of labour. But, perhaps, the most direct way -would be for the State to set up, in every town, in connection with -its Art schools and its technical schools, a standard of honesty by -practical demonstration, in the staple industry of the locality. I -would not trouble, so long as that industry had a useful purpose, -how much or how little it was connected with Art; but I would give -the youth of that place the chance of an honest apprenticeship under -true human conditions to the trade in which they might be called upon -to spend their lives. I would not have those schools of labour adopt -any amateurishness of method or standard; they should not obstinately -reject the aid of machinery where machinery can relieve monotony, but -they should very carefully consider at what stage the dehumanising -element came in, either by substituting mechanism for skill, or by -separating the worker too much from his work in its completed form. -And from those schools of labour I would allow people to purchase all -the work of these State-apprentices which their master-craftsmen could -pass as being of a standard quality. They would not compete in point -of cheapness with the trade article, for their price would almost -certainly be higher, but they would, I trust, compete in point of -quality and design; and by exhibiting a standard, and making the thing -procurable, they might create a demand which the very trade itself -would at last be forced to recognise. - -This is but a very bald and brief statement of the kind of extension I -mean; but what I want to put to you is this, that wherever a nation has -turned from agriculture to trade, there, if you want national Art you -must invade those trade conditions and set up your standard of honour, -not outside, but in the trades themselves; you must get hold of those -who are going to be your workers and craftsmen and put into them (by -exhibiting to them manual labour under right human conditions) the old -craftsman’s pride which existed in the days of the Guilds, when the -trade unions were not merely organisations to secure good wages, but -to secure good work, and to maintain a standard of honour in labour. -But you must not stop there. To make your training in any true sense -national you must make it characteristic, or rather it must make -itself. It must aim at bringing out racial and local character; and -before it can do so we must recover that love of locality which we have -so largely lost. A mere multiplication of schools and classes where a -departmental system evolved at some city centre is put in force, is not -national: it is only metropolitan, perhaps only departmental. You can -put such a system, in a certain superficial way, into the heads and -hands of your local students, but you cannot put it into the blood. -Unless your Art training enters into and links up the lives of those -you would teach with a larger sense of citizenship, it isn’t national. -They won’t carry it away with them into their daily pursuits, they -won’t make a spontaneous and instinctive application of it; they will -only come to it at class-hours, and, when class-hours are over, quit -again. I have spoken of the necessity of a standard of honour toward -labour, but we need also a standard of honour toward life. It is still, -you see, values--life-values--that I am trying to get at as a basis for -Art. - -Now to some of you I must have seemed, in all conscience, gloomy -and pessimistic in my outlook on present conditions; and therefore, -before I end, I will try to emit a ray of hope. There are certain -social developments going on around us which make me hope that we -may yet emerge from this valley of the shadows through which we are -still stumbling. One is that there has been in the last generation a -very general breakdown of the old artificial class notion of the kind -of work which was compatible with “gentility.” And one meets to-day -people, whose culture has given them every chance to develop that -standard of honour toward life (without which their claim to be gentry -means nothing); you meet with many such people nowadays who have come -back to manual labour in various forms, in farming, in horticulture, -and in craftsmanship--some also, I am glad to say, who have become -shopkeepers--and who are bringing, presumably, their standard of honour -to bear on those trades on which they no longer foolishly look down. -Among these a definite revival of handicraft is taking place, and -where they are doing their work honestly and well they are undoubtedly -inculcating a better taste. It is especially among this class which -has come back to handicraft that one meets with domestic interiors of -a fine and scrupulous simplicity which we may eventually see imitated -(meretriciously, perhaps, but on the whole beneficially) even in -lodging-houses which are at present the dust-hung mausoleums of the -aesthetic movement of thirty years ago. - -Another matter for congratulation--not a movement, but a survival--is -the unspoiled tradition of beauty which still exists in the cottage -gardens of England. There, in our villages, you find a note of beauty -that has scarcely been touched by the evil of our modern conditions. -And I take it as a proof that where, by some happy chance, we have -managed to “let well alone,” there the instinct for beauty and for -fitness is still a natural ingredient of industrial life. That survival -of taste in our cottage gardens is culture in the best sense of the -word; and it is still popular. We do not yet dig our gardens by -machinery; when we do they will die the death. - -And two other bright points of movement, which I look to as having in -them the basis of a true Art training, are the widespread revival, -in so many of our towns and villages, through the efforts of Miss -Mary Neal, Mr. Cecil Sharp and others, of our old folk-songs and -Morris dances, and lastly--perhaps I shall surprise you--the Boy Scout -movement. - -Coming into contact with these two movements, I have found that they -have in them certain elements in common. Instituted with a rare -combination of tact and enthusiasm, they have taken hold of the blood; -they have got home at a certain point in boy and girl nature which has -already made them become native. I find that these two organisations -tend to develop among their members grace and vigour of movement, good -manners, a cheerful spirit, a more alert interest in the things about -them, a feeling of comradeship, and best of all, a certain sense of -honour toward life. And therefore, even in a place technically devoted -to the training of students, I say boldly that I see nowhere better -hope of a sound basis for national Art than in this revival of village -dancing and folk-song and in the Boy Scout movement. - -The assertion may perhaps seem strange and ironic to some of you -that it is not from a study of beautiful objects that the sense of -beauty can be made national, but only in the recovery of an ordered -plan for our social and industrial life, and in the finding of a true -and worthy purpose for all that our hands are put to do. But in that -connection you may remember how Ruskin maintained that great Art has -only flourished in countries which produced in abundance either wine or -corn; in countries, that is to say, where the greatest industries were -those with which we most readily associate that note of joy which has -become proverbial, the joy of the harvest. It is perhaps too much to -dream that we shall ever again see England living upon its own corn; -and the greatest forms of Art may, therefore, remain for ever beyond -our reach. But until a nation does honour to the human hand as the -most perfect and beautiful of all instruments under the sun, by giving -it only honourable and useful tasks--until then I must rather wish -you to be good valuers, keen--indignantly keen--to destroy the false -values which you see about you, than that you should be either good -draughtsmen or good artists. - -You can do honest and good work as designers and illustrators and -architects, as workers in wood and metal and stone; but you are -hampered and bound by the conditions of your day, and you cannot by -your best efforts make Art national till you have established joy in -labour. No great school of Art can ever arise in our midst in such a -form as to carry with it through all the world its national character, -until the nation itself has found that voice (which to-day seems so -conspicuously absent, even when we close our shops to make holiday); I -mean the voice of joy. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[2] _By that reckoning we in Europe are to-day the best comedians the -world has ever seen. Out of peace-conditions nations produce their -wars._ - - - - -CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS IMMORTALITY. - -(1915.) - - -We are frequently told (more especially by those whose profession it is -to preach belief in a revealed religion), that if man be not endowed -with an immortal soul, then the game of life is not worth the candle. -Incidentally we are warned that if the bottom were knocked out of that -belief, morals would go to pieces and humanity would become reprobate. - -Now I can imagine a similar sort of claim put forward in other -departments of life for other pursuits which seem to their advocate to -make life more appetising. - -I can imagine sportsmen saying that without sport men would cease to -be manly, morals and physique would deteriorate and life be no longer -worth living. I can imagine the butcher saying that without meat, and -the licensed victualler that without beer, men were of all things the -most miserable. I have recently seen advertisements which say that -only by supporting the cinema (made beautiful by the feet of Charlie -Chaplin), can we hope to be victorious in the present war. - -The assertion that man cannot do without certain things which, as a -matter of fact, vast numbers of his fellows are constantly doing -without--(and with no very marked set-back as regards health, -efficiency, or general morals)--is a questionable way of forcing home -conviction that these things or beliefs are indispensable. It is quite -possible that beer, meat, the pursuit of game, the personality of -Charlie Chaplin, and a belief in immortality are all alike capable of -giving stimulus to the human soul (especially to those souls which -have come by habit to depend upon them). But it is quite certain that -other human souls have found without them sufficient stimulus to make -life worth living. And though, against that fact, it may be argued -that these unconsciously receive their driving force, their social -and ethical standards, from those whose motive power they reject as -superfluous, and that we, who do not go to see Charlie Chaplin on the -films, are winning this war somewhat circuitously through the powers of -those who do--the argument is hardly a convincing one, since it remains -for ever in the nature of an unproved hypothesis. - -But when the majority of those who believe in personal immortality are -asked for the ground of their belief, it generally resolves itself into -this: they have an intense individual conviction that it is so--so -intense that to hold the contrary becomes “unthinkable.” But that -intense, individual conviction, over things we greatly care about, is -a constant phenomenon of the working of the human mind, and is not -limited to belief in a future state. To a convinced Liberal it is -“unthinkable” that he should ever pass into such a state of mental -annihilation as to become a Conservative. To a convinced Conservative -it is unthinkable that he should fall from the grace which guides -him into the slough of Liberalism. It is the same with Protestant or -Catholic, with Socialist, Universalist, or Sectarian: conviction always -presents an adamantine front to opposing forces and arguments--so long -as it lasts. - -The same phenomenon constantly occurs in the domain of the amative -passion. The lover (if he be really in love), believes that his love -will last for ever--that nothing can possibly change it; and all the -evidence in the world that lovers of a like faith have too often lived -to see the immortal dream put on mortality, will fail to convince him -(while he is in the toils) that his own love is liable to any such -change as theirs. - -The reason is that strongly vitalised forces always carry with them a -sense of permanence. - -The vital spark (focused within us by strong conviction or emotion), -is but an individually apprehended part of a great whole: for this -thread of life passing through us has already stretched itself out -over millions of years, and countless atavisms have touched it to -individual ends which were not ours; the will to live has clung to it -by myriads of adhesions, feelers, tentacles, and not by human hands -alone (though our palms still moisten, and our arms fly upward to -the imaginary branch overhead when danger of falling threatens us, -because the instinct of our arboreal ancestry still prevails in us over -reason). And through those atavisms, the struggle to secure survival -for the family, the clan, the race, has left an impress which may -very naturally convey from the general to the individual a sense of -immortality. - -For of all these constituent forces the majority knew and thought -very little about death, except in their instinctive and spasmodic -efforts to escape from it; and when at last man began to envisage death -consciously and philosophically, straightway, with all these atavisms -behind him, he belittled it with dreams of a future life. - -It was as perfectly natural a thing to do as for the lover to declare -that his love for his mistress was eternal and not merely for a -season, since any lesser statement would fail to convey adequately -the intensity of the force by which he was moved. Moreover, though -in millions of individual cases the statement and the sincere belief -that the love experienced will remain changeless and eternal, are -contradicted by later fact, it is at least true that the passion itself -is an ever-recurring phenomenon of life, and does, by its infinite -recurrence and resurrection in form beyond form through evolving -generations, present to finite minds an aspect of immortality. Just as -the water we drink is an imperishable thing, though after drinking it -we shall thirst again, so is that love, which satisfies the lover’s -soul, a principle of life extending illimitably beyond his own use for -it. And if that be true about love, why should it not be true about -life? - -For surely (put it thus), when across limited vision a thread passes, -of which the eye can see neither the beginning nor the end, and -when upon that thread, for the time being, the limited life hangs -all its hopes, is it not quite natural for that clinging life to -identify itself, through the closeness of its momentary contact, -with the spiritually apprehended whole, and to identify with that -concept of a general continuity its own present degree of individual -consciousness. Moreover, in a world governed by cause and effect, it -can hardly be predicated that the results either of love or hatred, -individually indulged, are not, or may not be illimitable, even though -the individual spirit be not there to preside consciously over their -extended operations. - -When, therefore, so much is true, when so many elements which pass -through our lives have (by association), links and connections which -to finite minds seem infinite, they may well impress us (by reason of -the close identification established between us and them for the time -being) with a sense that our own individual share and apprehension of -them are addressed also to a universal goal. - -“Universal,” for surely mere continuity--a stretching out of length -without corresponding breadth--ought not to be the limit of our -claim. Yet it is significant that, in their demand for personal -immortality, so many thinkers have found sufficient satisfaction in -the idea of an extended survival through time into eternity, without -making a corresponding demand for extension into unity through space. -They are willing, that is to say, to put up for all eternity with -those limitations of personality which they enjoy--the relations of -_meum_ and _tuum_ upon which the possessive life of the senses is -based, but not with those limitations (the prospect of which they do -not enjoy), the termination of those same relationships imposed by -death. It seems rather a one-sided way of doing things--this narrowing -of the claim in a two-dimensional direction (one might almost say -in a one-dimensional), yet it has been very generally done--I shall -presently hope to show why--and most of our Western theology has built -up our future hopes for us entirely on those lines. Personality, -the sort of personality we have learned to enjoy, is based upon -limitations. Abolish limitations in your conception of future life, and -for the majority of those pious minds which now clamour for it as their -due you abolish personality also; it is swallowed up not in death but -in a life from which the individual power to focus and to enjoy has -disappeared. - -It is true that there has now begun, in modern socialistic -Christianity, a yeasting of desire for an all round, or expansive, -as well as a forward, or extensive personality after death; that an -all-embracing and not merely an all-surviving consciousness is more -and more predicated for the full satisfaction of man’s spiritual need. -But that was by no means the form of moral hunger which permeated -primitive or mediæval Christianity, and sufficed, we are to suppose, -to keep poor human nature from that depravity into which it will fall -if belief in personal immortality is surrendered. Oregon, as we know, -looked forward to finding in the nether groans of the damned a full -completion of the orchestral harmonies of Heaven; and in the whole -conception of immortality as it has illumined the path of the Church -from its beginning down to quite modern times, individualism has been -rampant. On that basis, so long as it satisfied his moral conscience, -man did great things with it, making it shine as a great light by the -unflinching witness which he bore to its efficacy through suffering and -through martyrdom. - -It is probably true that an individualistic form to the doctrine was -then, and always will be, necessary to attract those whose lives have -been run from a highly individualised standpoint; and that, for them, -death-bed consolation would hardly be achieved in the presentation of -a doctrine so defined as to threaten annihilation to all the fetish -worship and social values of the past. - -“God would think twice,” said a courtly French Abbé of the seventeenth -century to a King’s mistress who, upon her death-bed, was seized by -spiritual qualms--“God would think twice before damning a lady of your -quality.” And no one who holds by class-distinctions really wishes to -find in the New Jerusalem any abolition of that respect for persons -or prejudices which has, in this world, been the main ground on which -their self-esteem and their estimate of personality have been based. - -To them the most “unthinkable” proposition would be not the contraction -of the future world to narrower and more select limits than those of -the one they know, but a future world conducted on any code of morals -which had not their own entire approval and sanction. - -We are told that the late Queen Victoria looked forward with very -great interest to a future meeting with the Hebrew patriarchs, with -Abraham, Moses, and Elijah, but hoped to be excused from any personal -acquaintance with King David on account of his affair with Bathsheba. -And when we realise how very often the hope of Heaven is really a -species of self-love and self-applause, conditional on Heaven being -what we ourselves want it to be, one is led to wonder whether the real -condition for entry into that state of bliss may not prove to be the -precise opposite, and whether the disciplinary motto upon its portal -may not be those mystic words, hitherto attributed to another place, -“All hope abandon ye who enter here.” That, after all, is only a more -emphatic way of stating what Christ Himself laid down as the path by -which man should attain; that only those namely who were ready to -lose life should find it. And I rather question whether our Christian -individualists have, up till now, been honestly prepared to “lose life” -in the full sense, without condition or reserve, and whether, (if they -have not), they have yet attained the spiritual standpoint necessary to -bring them within the terms of the promise. - -So far I have dealt with the doctrine of immortality as presented to us -from the individualistic basis alone. But, in some form or another, the -doctrine of immortality belongs to many religions and schools (indeed, -one might almost say to all) and has, therefore, most varied and even -contradictory meanings attached to it. In some schools, as we have -seen, it sets great store on the survival of the individual; in others -individuality is held to be of small account--a diminishing rather than -a persistent factor in the ultimate ends of life viewed as a whole. - -I remember in that connection discussing with the late Father George -Tyrrell, in the days before Rome’s excommunication fell on him, the -divergent views as to immortality of Christianity and Buddhism; and -at that time he held that the superiority of the Christian faith -lay in its insistence on the personal immortality, conscious and -self-contained, of every human being. Some years later, a month before -his death, we discussed the matter again; and I asked him then, in what -degree, if at all, his view as to personal immortality had changed. -His answer gave me a curious instance of those scientific analogies by -which Modernism has been seeking to deliver the Roman Church from its -mediæval entanglements. - -“In the main,” he said, “I have only changed in my apprehension of what -‘personality’ really is. Just as one may find in an hysterical subject -five or six pseudo-personalities which reveal themselves in turn, each -one of which is a character quite separately and consistently defined, -but not one of them (however completely in possession for the time) a -real person, so it seems to me must we regard all those limitations -of ‘personality’ which find expression in individual form. There is -only one true personality, and that is Christ; anything less than the -one all-embracing whole is but a simulacrum, concealing rather than -revealing the true substance and form.” - -I cannot pretend to give his actual words, but I believe that I have -accurately stated the sense of them; and you will see, I think, that -they go a long way toward the adaptation of the Christian to the -Buddhistic standpoint. That tendency, I believe, we shall find more -and more at work in the Christian Church as time goes on--not merely -because by such a definition the doctrine will be better able to hold -its own against the inroads of science--but because it gives also a -better response to that socialising genius of the human race which -is coming more and more to demand a perfect unity as the ultimate -expression of good. - -That, then, we shall probably find to be the future tendency of -idealism. There remains, of course, the Rationalistic school of -thought, by which the possibility of individual or personal survival -after death is from first to last either absolutely denied or very -severely discountenanced as an idea based upon wholly insufficient -evidence. - -Nevertheless, in some form or another, immortality, conscious or -unconscious, personal or impersonal, is accepted by all schools alike; -the scientific law of the conservation of energy being one form of it -which human reason would now find it very difficult to deny. - -Let us for one moment apply that law to our own individual lives and -consciousness. - -Has life convinced us that we are all self-contained persons? Through -social contact we have undergone many changes, many damages, and -many repairs. Parts of us have gone to other people, parts of other -people have come, to us. We have shed and have absorbed quite as much -spiritually as materially; and though through our material changes we -retain a certain likeness, so that friends meeting us after a seven -years’ absence recognise us again in bodies no particle of which have -they ever seen before; and though similarly we can recognise our -inner selves across wider intervals of time, have we any reason to -suppose that our identity is more fixed in the spiritual substance -than in the material? For myself, I hope not. May one not prefer the -idea of interchange between life and life, to the notion that one is -to remain for ever fixed and self-possessed--a thing apart? The more -we are compounded of other lives, the more we have contributed to -the lives of others--the more can we recognise our entrance into the -only eternal life that we can demonstrably be sure about, or that can -(so it must seem to many of us), be sensibly desired or deserved. Is -Eternal Bliss, in the individual sense, a more tolerable doctrine than -eternal Hell-fire? Though, indeed, this latter may be but a scientific -statement of fact perverted and made foolish by the theologians. -For life, after all, is but a form of combustion for ever going on, -and outside of it we know nothing. No doubt the atoms of our being, -whether physical or spiritual, will forever form part of it; but I see -no reason why our spirits should not be as diffused, through proper -elemental changes, as our bodies are now being diffused from day to -day; or why I should repine that I personally shall not always be there -to preside over the operation and find it good. Even if, at the far end -of this earth’s history, everything is again to be reabsorbed in the -heat and light out of which it came, I can trust the suns and planets -to fulfil their mission of progress--or the will of God--quite as well -as, or better than, in my own small sphere I can trust Constitutional -Governments or Established Churches. And since these lesser lights, -in their foolish and providential dealings, do not confound my faith, -neither do the stars in their courses fight against it. Rather do they -confirm me in my sense that even the most acute perceptions with which -human life is endowed fail of themselves to justify me in any claim to -a larger lease of life than can naturally belong to them; for I see in -the universe things far greater than any individual man, doing service -and sustaining the life of countless millions, (which without them -could not live at all), without any prospect of so great a reward. - -The eye of the sun itself is blind; and for ever, while it dazzles -us with its light, blind it must remain. Nay, what need has it for -sight at all, if in blindness it be able to fulfil its mission? And -yet implicit within its vast energies, there lies the gift of sight. -For that blind Eye of Heaven taught us to see; our substance came from -it, our eyes were made by it, and without it was not anything made on -earth that was made. And if, by this gift of sight, it has opened to us -so vast a space for our understanding to dwell in--bestowing so huge -a conception of life on this frail vessel of clay--if by so giving -of itself through long aeons of time it has opened to us so much more -than it knows itself, cannot we render back without grudging these -shorter, frailer lives of ours, whose brevity, perhaps, is the very -price required of us for their enjoyment, since without such limits our -far-reaching comprehension of space and its possessions could never -have been gained. Should there be any despair, or any depression in -the thought that from the blind eye of day and from the powers of its -heat was developed the human brain? For if from that apparent Blindness -of our Universe came really the eyes of life by which we perceive all -things, can we not commit our spirits back to its keeping with an -equal trust that what lies ahead will be at least as good as what lies -behind, though we be not there to see it? - -But the law of the conservation of energy does not in the least satisfy -the aspirations of those who are out for personal immortality in the -individual sense. To these it seems a grievance that they should have -been called into being for any end not wholly satisfying to that -Ego which is now laying upon their consciousness the weight of its -possessive limitations. This separative quality of the Ego is to them -the whole principle of existence; without it they cannot see life. -To them, life in any less focused or more diffused form would be no -better than annihilation, an obvious setting-back of the evolutionary -process by which creation has led step by step to that degree of -self-consciousness realised in the human race. - -Do not these objectors forget not merely how considerable a part of -human nature already moves and has its being on the lines of a diffused -and rather decentralised subconsciousness, but also how largely the -genius of the human race has committed to such conditions of separation -from all possible enjoyment by the Ego, some of the rarest gifts and -highest efforts at self-realisation that the world has ever seen? It -is a condition attaching to all the more permanent forms of expression -in the arts, to everything that man designs and makes for the delight -of the generations that come after. It is a condition willingly -accepted by all who rejoice in their power to throw the influence of -their personalities beyond the material uses of their own present -existence. And in that willingness to lose out of themselves for -future generations--to turn aside from mere physical enjoyment--the -life-forces within them, in that willingness artist, poet, and thinker, -have come far nearer to the finding of life than those who live -indulgently for ends finished by their own absorption thereof. - -Now it is the supporters of the individualistic school of thought who -have generally urged that grave moral dangers would befall the human -race were a belief in personal immortality to perish; and it is at -least arguable (by minds that can only see values individually), that -if man is not to be permanently rewarded or punished for his present -and future conduct, he has no reason for conducting himself as a decent -part of the social whole, and that it would be better for him to break -out on entirely individual lines, live a short and merry life, and -throwing all altruistic and ethical considerations to the winds, enjoy -himself as much as he can while the material is to him. - -On paper that consideration may seem to hold strong ground; but when it -is put into practice the facts of life are found to be overwhelmingly -against it. For one thing excess and self-indulgence fail to produce -enjoyment, for another the socialising of life by mutual aid tends -quite obviously to the increase of comfort, safety, and happiness. And -where apparently it does not is mainly at that point where rampant -individualism grasps and warps it to its own ends, making the social -organism subserve not the goodwill of the many but the ill-will of the -few. - -But the ethical argument about the bad effects of non-belief in -personal immortality has been considerably discounted by the growing -sensitiveness of the modern conscience--more especially among those who -are in a serious sense “free-thinkers”--toward the social ills lying -around us. Generally speaking, our sense of duty toward our neighbour -is much more lively than it was in the mid-Victorian era; but our -conviction of personal immortality is probably far less. The two things -do not go together: the diminution of church attendance in the last -fifty years has not worsened the conditions of labour. - -It may, however, be argued that an instinct for immortality is still -subconsciously at work within us, colouring our actions and directing -us on right ethical lines. But if it be a subconscious direction -which thus works in us for righteousness, it may equally be to a -subconscious end. The subconscious impulse may merely be guiding us to -a subconscious realisation which would not at all satisfy the advocates -of conscious immortality after death. What works subconsciously can in -all probability find satisfaction in a subconscious reward. The chemic -processes of the stomach and of the blood, for instance, are largely -subconscious in their operation; and their needs may be subconsciously -appeased without the brain being told anything about it through the -usual intermediaries of taste and mastication. We have a preference for -a conscious performance of the functions of life which we have always -been accustomed to perform consciously; but a very large proportion of -our life-functions work themselves out subconsciously and independently -of our will. Our hearts beat, our blood circulates, our nails grow, -our stomachs digest, our wounds heal, whether we tell them to or no, -and yet we are quite happy about them. We do not consider (because -they operate by a volition of which we are unaware), that therefore we -carry about with us a body of death from which our conscious ego must -needs shrink in disgust--a dead heart, dead stomach, dead blood--that -the unconsciousness which accompanies health is a state nearer to -annihilation, and so less to be desired, than the pains accompanying -functional disturbances. - -When those things happen--functional disturbances--we are conscious -of something more immediately relating to death than to life: it is -because of local mortification that we become so much aware of things -which our immortal part helps us to use unconsciously and without -thought. Virtue itself, when engrained, tends to become instinctive and -subconscious instead of an effort. - -There is quite as much evidence, therefore, in our own bodies that -unconsciousness is the real gate to immortal life, and the condition -toward which all that is best and highest in us is seeking, as of the -contrary teaching that increased self-consciousness is man’s final -goal. In the functional working of our own bodies an enormous amount of -self-consciousness has been eliminated, and we do not for our happiness -or self-realisation wish it restored to us; whole tracts and areas are -immune from it, or only make a spasmodic grab at our consciousness when -things go ill with them. “If you go on doing that,” they say, when -you misuse them, “we will make you know that we are here.” And so you -become conscious of them: but that doesn’t make you happier. Yet in a -sort of way, I suppose, a man would realise himself more completely if -he had sciatica all over him, and could count up his nerves, and tell -all his bones by the aches and pains attaching to them. - -Now it is easy enough for a man to say (I think it was H. M. Stanley, -the explorer, who did say so) that he would rather endure torment for -all eternity than accept a state of annihilation. In thus protesting -he is talking through his hat of something too far beyond human -experience for the mind to realise. Toothache he has probably always -found bearable, because he knew that in course of time it would end. On -the other hand, sound dreamless sleep is probably not less bearable to -him because during that sleep he has not a ghost of a notion that he -will ever wake up again. He is carried, that is to say, every day of -his life while in health, into a state closely resembling annihilation -of consciousness, in which such annihilation has no terrors for him -at all; he accepts it as a comfortable part of existence, and goes to -it with delight when his faculties are tired. Its attractions for him -would naturally be less while all his senses were alert and fresh. - -But the waking man is not the whole man; the subconscious life, -acquiescent to imposed conditions, occupies by far the larger part -of him. He can, therefore, only predicate the inclinations of his -waking hours; in sleep he may revert to a very strong affinity for that -annihilation of self-conscious life against which, in his waking hours, -he protests his dread. - -And now a further word of comfort for those moral teachers who assure -us that if once we let go the idea of personal immortality, with its -accompanying implications of eternal reward or punishment, the conduct -of the human race is bound to degenerate, and that man’s only logical -motto will then be, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we -die.” - -To refute that deduction we have but to remember that sociology is a -thing of ancestry and evolution, and has committed us to a weight of -facts against which precept and theory are powerless. We have only -to look back into Nature to see how persistently (without, one must -suppose, any promise of future reward after death) a contrary instinct -emerges from the establishment of the social bond in nest and herd and -hive. And why--if that emerging instinct leads on, in man’s reasoned -estimation, to foolishness--why do we so specially admire the communal -life of ant and bee, and incline sometimes to wonder whether (behind so -marvellous an order of altruistic energy) there be not concealed more -and not less of spiritual apprehension than in the more individualistic -forms of insect and animal life? And why, on the contrary, has the -wise cuckoo become a sort of byword for the singular economy with which -it has disentangled its life from care or responsibility? - -It is surely very unfair thus to erect the cuckoo into a moral emblem -for reprobation, if it is only doing by instinct, what man would do by -reason and logic were the darkness of his own destiny made clear to him. - -And similarly, it is surely disingenuous on our part to exalt as a -moral emblem the instinct of ant and bee to subordinate the life of the -individual to the general--if we deny to ant and bee the immortality -by which alone such altruism can be recompensed; or if we are to -believe that a clearer knowledge of their future lot would cause them -in logic and reason to declare that life on those terms was not worth -living, and that “to eat, drink, and die to-morrow” were better than to -live longer and labour for a vain repetition of lives like their own -indefinitely multiplied. It is ridiculous to impose the moral emblem -unless you grant also the justifying conditions. - -Because the bee and the ant live unconscious of their impending doom, -are we, therefore, to regard them as a hoodwinked race, set to labour -at the dictates of the Creative capitalist on terms which contain in -them no adequate reward? Suppose, for a moment, that revelation could -descend upon ants’ nest and hive, and tell these workers that beyond -death the future held for them no store--that their immortality -was the immortality not of individual but of race; and suppose that -thereupon they all struck and went forth to die each singly in their -own way--would that moral emblem impress us, do you think, as a thing -worthy of imitation or of praise? - -But why (let us think) is the predication of such an event so -impossible and so grotesque? Is it not because the life, the individual -life of ant or bee is so impregnated with that instinct of communalism -which gives the species its distinctive character, that it is -impossible to sunder them, or to imagine the individual capable (while -in the social _milieu_) of pursuing individual ends alone, after a -following, over millions of years, of life in the communal form. Life, -the thread of life which runs through them, is too much engrained with -communism for separatist principles ever again to prevail. - -And surely it is the same with man. Individualism, separatism, -self-obsessionism, though still present in the phenomena of existence, -are more and more subject to qualifications from which they cannot -escape. And even the most evil form of individualism has to be -parasitic or predatory; it cannot exist alone; even against its -will it becomes conditioned by other lives. And the communal sense -of man, implicit within the innumerable forms of life through which -he has evolved, will continue to lay its hold on the parasitic and -the predatory, and will do so quite effectively on the basis of an -evolutionary past, the tendencies of which were established before ever -theological definitions came to give them impulse and strength. - -Is it not almost ludicrous to suggest that that communal instinct -will cease to play, if the hope of individual reward after death is -withdrawn from the human race? Will man--because he is nobler than -the beast, because at his best he does things more altruistic, more -self-sacrificing, more self-forgetting, more self-transcending than any -of these--do less nobly because he envisages destiny, which (if he see -it as destiny) he will see as the logical outcome of evolutionary law? - -It is possible, it is even probable, that all phases of theological -thought have had their use in giving direction and stimulus to the -human brain; if they have done nothing but stimulate rebellion against -obscurantist authority they have had value of a positive kind. But -we may go even further than this, for “everything possible to be -believed,” says Blake, “is an image of truth.” And under many a -concept, distorted by ignorance or guile, has lain a germ of the true -life which draws man on to communal ends. In time that germ puts off -the husk that seemed once (perhaps in some cases actually was) the -protective armoury through which alone it could survive for the use -of a later day. But though old reasons have been shed, the essential -value has not changed; and often it is less by logic and reason than -by the strong and subtle links of association that we preserve what is -good of past credulities. - -The doctrine of conscious immortality, however much belittled by its -appeal to selfish individualism, has done a work for the human race. -It has held the germ of an ideal for unity which is receiving a more -universal interpretation to-day than the earlier theologians would ever -have allowed, or than man, in his then stage of development, could have -thought it worth while to hand on to his intellectual heirs. Perhaps -only because he conceived it in just such a form have its values been -preserved. - -I am reminded in this connection of the method by which the wild swine -of the New Forest were taught to obey the voice of the horn by means -of which the swine-herd, called them back each night from their free -roaming in the forest. The way he did it was this. Having first formed -his herd, some four or five hundred strong, he penned them in a narrow -space where water and warm shelter were to be found; and there, in the -allotted enclosure, according them no liberty, he fed them daily to the -sound of the horn. Food and music became a sort of celestial harmony to -pig’s brain--when they heard the one, good reason was given them for -expecting the other. - -Presently, in a well-fed condition, they were set free to roam; and -being full and satisfied they did not roam far; and at night the horn -sounded them back to an ample meal, and continued to sound while again -they ate and were satisfied. - -So at last, by association, the horn came to have such a beneficent -meaning that the mere sound of it sufficed to bring them back at -nightfall to their appointed place of rest. They might roam for miles -and miles during the day, but night and the sound of the horn brought -them all back safe to fold. And when that habit had become established, -they did not cease to return even though the swineherd no longer -supplied the food which had first given music its charm to those savage -breasts. - -And, similarly, I doubt not, that, though all hope of material profit -or reward be withdrawn from man’s mind, that call of the horn which -he has heard of old will still bring his spirit to the resting-place -at the appointed time; nor will he wish either to shorten his days or -debase his pleasures because the horn has ceased to provide the meal -which it once taught him to expect. - -Do not let anything I have said be taken as suggesting that the -spiritual forces of man’s nature may not be conserved, transmuted, -re-assimilated, or re-distributed, as surely and with as little waste -as are the material elements of life which pass through disintegration -and decay into new forms. The processes by which such changes are -wrought may be, and may ever remain, a mystery to human sense. There -may be yet in the making a new order or plane of evolution by which -the process will be quickened and perfected. Soul of man may be in -the making, though it may be very far removed from that aspect of -individualism with which the anthropomorphic tendencies of theology -have burdened it. But--whether life thus rises by unknown law to -further ends, or whether it passes out, like the life of leaves, into -the general decay with which autumn each year fertilises the bed of -mother earth--of one thing I would ask you to be confident--that the -bandying of words and theories, and the discussion, tending this way -or that, of man’s destiny after death, are not in any way likely to -alter or to undo those forward-driving forces and communal desires with -which, from an inheritance of so many millions of years, the life of -humanity has become endowed. The will to live will still lift up the -race and carry it forward to new ends, whether man thinks he sees in -death the end of his personal existence, or only a new and a better -beginning. And whether he claims or resigns that prospect of reward he -will never be able to rid himself of the sense which revives after all -failures and crimes, that man is his brother-man--or be able to refrain -at his best from laying down his life, without calculation of personal -benefit to himself, so that others may live. - -The highest manifestations of human genius, the most perfected forms -of self-realisation in art, in literature, and science, have been -given to us--and will continue to be given to us--independent of any -bargain that name and identity shall for ever remain attached thereto -while posterity enjoys the benefit. The artist might foresee that his -name would, in a brief time, become dissociated from his work, and his -memory blotted out from the book of the living; he would produce it all -the same. The reformer might know that his motives would be aspersed, -that his name would become after death a spitting and a reproach; but, -for the sake of the cause he believed in, he would still be willing to -die a dishonoured death and leave a reprobated name, to a world that -had failed to understand. - -That is human nature at its best; and you will not change it or -endanger it through any increased doubt thrown by modern thought or -science on the prospect of conscious immortality after death. For -whether we recognise it or not, a subconscious spirit, not perhaps of -immortality but of unity, permeates us all; and for furtherance and -worship of that which his soul desires, the spirit of man will ever be -ready to work and strive, and to pass unconditionally into dust--if -that indeed be the condition on which he holds his birthright in a life -worth living. - - -W. H. Smith & Son, The Arden Press, Stamford Street, London, S.E.1 - - - - -+-------------------------------------------------+ -|Transcriber’s note: | -| | -|Obvious typographic errors have been corrected. | -| | -+-------------------------------------------------+ - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PLOUGHSHARE AND PRUNING-HOOK*** - - -******* This file should be named 66101-0.txt or 66101-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/6/1/0/66101 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/66101-0.zip b/old/66101-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f5949b3..0000000 --- a/old/66101-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66101-h.zip b/old/66101-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 71914da..0000000 --- a/old/66101-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66101-h/66101-h.htm b/old/66101-h/66101-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index d79dabf..0000000 --- a/old/66101-h/66101-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6706 +0,0 @@ -<!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"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> -<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Ploughshare and Pruning-Hook, by Laurence Housman</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - - p { margin-top: .75em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; - } - - p.bold {text-align: center; font-weight: bold;} - p.bold2 {text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%;} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; - } - h1 span, h2 span { display: block; text-align: center; } - #id1 { font-size: smaller } - - - hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; - } - - hr.smler { - width: 3%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 48.5%; - margin-right: 48.5%; - clear: both; - } - - body{margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - } - - table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 5px; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; text-align: right;} - - .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - text-indent: 0px; - } /* page numbers */ - - .center {text-align: center;} - .smaller {font-size: smaller;} - .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - .mynote { background-color: #DDE; color: black; padding: .5em; margin-left: 20%; - margin-right: 20%; } /* colored box for notes at beginning of file */ - .space-above {margin-top: 3em;} - .right {text-align: right;} - .left {text-align: left;} - - .poem {display: inline-block; text-align: left;} - .poem br {display: none;} - .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} - .poem div {margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - .poem div.i2 {margin-left: 2em;} - .poem div.i10 {margin-left: 10em;} - - - h1.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 190%; - margin-top: 0em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - line-height: 1; } - h2.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 135%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - page-break-before: avoid; - line-height: 1; } - h3.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 110%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - line-height: 1; } - h4.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 100%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - line-height: 1; } - hr.pgx { width: 100%; - margin-top: 3em; - margin-bottom: 0em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - height: 4px; - border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */ - border-style: solid; - border-color: #000000; - clear: both; } - </style> -</head> -<body> -<h1 class="pgx" title="">The Project Gutenberg eBook, Ploughshare and Pruning-Hook, by Laurence -Housman</h1> -<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States -and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no -restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it -under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this -eBook or online at <a -href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you are not -located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this ebook.</p> -<p>Title: Ploughshare and Pruning-Hook</p> -<p> Ten Lectures on Social Subjects</p> -<p>Author: Laurence Housman</p> -<p>Release Date: August 21, 2021 [eBook #66101]</p> -<p>Language: English</p> -<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p> -<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PLOUGHSHARE AND PRUNING-HOOK***</p> -<h4 class="pgx" title="">E-text prepared by Tim Lindell, Martin Pettit,<br /> - and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br /> - (https://www.pgdp.net)<br /> - from page images generously made available by<br /> - Internet Archive<br /> - (https://archive.org)</h4> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10"> - <tr> - <td valign="top"> - Note: - </td> - <td> - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/ploughsharepruni00hous - </td> - </tr> -</table> -<p> </p> -<hr class="pgx" /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p> - -<h1>PLOUGHSHARE <span class="smaller">AND</span> PRUNING-HOOK </h1> - -<hr /> - -<div class="center"><img src="images/title.jpg" alt="title page" /></div> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p> - -<p class="bold2">PLOUGHSHARE</p> - -<p class="bold">AND</p> - -<p class="bold2">PRUNING-HOOK</p> - -<p class="bold space-above"><i>Ten Lectures on Social Subjects</i></p> - -<p class="bold space-above">BY</p> - -<p class="bold2">LAURENCE HOUSMAN</p> - -<p class="bold space-above">THE SWARTHMORE PRESS LTD.<br /> -(formerly trading as Headley Bros. Publishers Ltd.)<br />72 OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W1</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</a></span></p> - -<p class="center">FIRST PRINTED SEPTEMBER, 1919</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p> - -<h2>PREFACE</h2> - -<p>These papers, originally given as lectures, make no pretence to the -solution of the social or political problems with which they are -concerned. They indicate rather a certain standpoint or attitude of -mind from which these and like questions may be viewed, one which may -find acceptance with only a few of my readers. Even those who are -friendly may consider it too idealistic; those who are adverse will -employ other and harder terms.</p> - -<p>With regard to that standpoint, while not wishing to avert criticism, -I would like to secure understanding; and if a few words of general -application can make that more possible it may be well to offer them -here.</p> - -<p>Whether these lectures were primarily intended for the pulpit or -the platform it would be hard to say. Most of them have been given -in both places: and their drawback to some who heard them in the -former was (I have been told) their occasional tendency to make the -congregation laugh. That in itself is no special recommendation; it -takes so much less to make a congregation laugh than an audience. -Between the pulpit and the platform there is bound to be a difference; -even the fact that the preacher is normally immune from interjection -or debate tends to give to his statements a complacency which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span> is not -always intellectually justified. And I remember well that two of these -lectures, after having been accepted in a church with only momentary -breaches of decorum, aroused elsewhere a storm of criticism and rebuke -which taught me, if I did not know it before, that a preacher occupies -a very privileged position, and can turn a church, if he chooses, into -a place of licence which elsewhere will not be accorded him.</p> - -<p>But there is one point of difference between the pulpit and the -platform, between the exposition of religion and politics, which I -have never been able to understand. After all, in both cases, you -are dealing with and making your appeal to human nature; you may -be inciting it to virtue, you may be exposing its imperfections -and its faults. Why is it, then, that in the religious appeal -“conversion”—change of heart—stands for almost everything, whilst on -the political platform it is hardly reckoned with? It is so much easier -and safer to tell a congregation that they are “miserable sinners,” and -even to get them (perhaps conventionally) to say it of themselves, than -to tell it, or to extract a like confession from a political audience. -In a church we allow ourselves to be taken to task for “hardness of -heart and contempt of God’s word and commandments”; at a political -meeting it is only our opponents whom we so take to task, while of -ourselves and our party we have nothing but praise. It is on these -lines that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span> a general election is run—revivalist meetings are held -throughout the country to denounce, not our own sins, but the sins of -others. Is it any wonder that it does not produce honest results?</p> - -<p>Having said this, I have given the main standpoint of the papers -that follow. I do not believe that we can get home to our political -and social problems without self-accusation going quite as deep as -anything we say of ourselves in church or chapel—or without making -the application very direct and personal. There is no institution -in our midst, religious or secular, which does not stand quite as -much in need of conversion, change of heart, as do the individuals -for whose benefit or disciplinary treatment it is run. Our schools, -prisons, law courts, State institutions, ministries, diplomacies—all -those things on which we most pride ourselves—are just as liable, -perhaps more liable, to hardness of heart and contempt of God’s word -and commandments as we ourselves, for they are all part of us. It -is, indeed, one of our social devices to get rid of our consciences -by making them institutional. There is a certain class of mind which -thinks that if it has established legality it has established a right -over conscience—that if it has established order it has established -virtue. It has very often established quite the contrary—not virtue -but a State-regulation of vice; for if we can turn the hardness of our -hearts into a State-regulation, there we have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span> vice enthroned; and -the callousness of the individual is enlarged and becomes a national -callousness, all the more difficult to get rid of, because it has -become identified with law and authority.</p> - -<p>A very good (or bad) example of this was provided by the conduct of -the Bishops in the House of Lords a few years ago, when, to provide -the Government with a short cut out of its difficulties in dealing -with political prisoners (mainly caused by its refusal to treat them -as political prisoners) they allowed the rules of the House to be -suspended for the passing through all its stages in twenty-four hours -of the “Cat and Mouse Act.” Before long its operations horrified -them, and they signed (or some of them did) letters and memorials of -protest to the Government, asking for those operations to be stopped. -But not one of them would make a motion in the House of Lords for -the suspension or repeal of that Act for which, in so special a way, -they had made themselves responsible. By allowing it to become law -they had passed on the responsibility to others; and being thus quit -of it, the last thing probably that occurred to any of them was that -they themselves needed “a change of heart” in order to recover moral -integrity, or even political honesty.</p> - -<p>And so, in these pages, law and authority are just as much questioned -as any other of our social features, on the direct assumption that -like produces like, and that a form of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span> society which establishes, -encourages, or condones as “necessary” such defilements of human -nature as militarism, prostitution, sweated labour, slum-dwellings, -vengeful and unreformative punishment—having its heart so hardened as -to tolerate these—is not likely in its institutions and government -departments to have escaped from a reproduction of that attitude of -mind which makes them possible or regards them as a defensible solution -of the social problem.</p> - -<p>The war has revealed much to us. It has shown how much society is -willing to afford for things which it considers worth while; and has -thus shown by implication those things which formerly society did not -think worth while—because its heart was not in them. It has had the -heart to spend colossal sums, to conscript millions of young lives to -death in defence of its organisation upon the lines of power against -a rival organisation willing to pay a similar price. It had not the -heart, in the days of peace and prosperity, to spend one-hundredth part -of that sum in organising even those institutions which it entirely -controlled, on the lines of love.</p> - -<p>In our own midst, behind our sea-defences, we were still competitive, -jealous, grudging, parsimonious, wasteful, slow to mercy and of great -anger; and the prevailing characteristic of our civil contentions was -that no side would ever admit itself to be in the wrong,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</a></span> or consent -to think that a change of its own heart was necessary. And as the -very crown and apex to that mountain of self-deception, stood the -ministerial bench in Parliament. When blunders had been perpetrated and -became too obvious for concealment, we might occasionally be told that -to make mistakes was human, and that government did not claim immunity -from the operation of that law; but ministers would dodge, and shuffle, -and lie—suppress, or even falsify information to which only they had -access, rather than admit that they had “done wrong,” or open their -eyes to the fact that what they mainly needed was a change of heart.</p> - -<p>And as with ministers as a whole, so as a whole with people. Those -elements of our national and international relations which were leading -steadily on to the great conflagration wherein we were all presently -to be involved, were those in which (our pride being implicated) we -stubbornly denied that any change of heart was necessary. The State -would not admit that its exaltation of the Will to Power over the Will -to Love was morally wrong; it would not admit that the alternative -came within the scope of practical politics; such teaching it left -to the advocacy of the Churches; and how half-hearted that advocacy -had become under pressure of the surrounding atmosphere of national -self-sufficiency was revealed when the war came upon us. Christianity -became almost mute; the one form of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</a></span> prayer, special to the occasion, -which the Church could not or would not use was that which alone is -truly Christian—prayer in identical terms both for ourselves and our -enemies. To pray that spiritual strength and moral virtue might be -given equally to us and them was beyond us—though in the granting of -it war would have ceased. We were not content to pray merely that right -should prevail—right, that most difficult of all outcomes to secure -when once, even for a just cause, nations embark on war—we insisted on -praying that we should prevail: and so (praying for things materially -established) not that we should prevail by a clean adherence to the -principles of democracy, but by the instrumentality of a corrupt and -secret diplomacy. And so before long—knowingly or unknowingly—we were -praying for the success of the secret treaties, for the successful -repudiation of the very principles for which we had set out to -fight, for the suppression of Ireland’s right to self-determination, -for the downfall of the Russian Revolution, which was insisting so -inconveniently on a belated return to first principles, and for other -doubtful advantages not at all synonymous with the coming of Christ’s -Kingdom. And we were praying for these things—just as really, though -we did not mention them by name—because our hearts were not set -on praying for the well-being of all nations and all governments -alike. Had we been capable of so praying,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</a></span> it would have meant that a -real change of heart had come to us, and that we were offering that -changed heart to all the world alike for the establishment of the new -International.</p> - -<p>But to such change of heart we could not attain—could not even -consent; for it would have implied that there was something morally -wrong in our national institutions, in our government and our whole -social structure, which we would not admit. We would not admit that the -chemic elements of our own national life had conduced to war in common -with the chemic elements of the nation whose flagrant violation of -treaties had given us the immediate materials for a good conscience. We -fattened our hearts for war on the immediate material thus provided us, -ignoring those other materials which lay behind, and which we and all -other nations shared alike—though not necessarily in equal degrees.</p> - -<p>And here we have the essential and fundamental difference between the -genuine profession of Christianity and the profession of Cæsarism. -For the follower of Christ to confess that he has done wrong, that he -needs a change of heart, redounds to his honour—he goes down to his -house justified. But when a nation has given itself to Cæsar, its main -idea of “honour” is to refuse to admit it has done wrong, or to accept -punishment; it may be beaten, crushed, but you cannot extract from it -a confession of moral wrong-doing; a sense of sin is the negation not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</a></span> -only of the German State system, but of all. A “proud nation” will not -own that it has been in the wrong, least of all when it embarks on war; -if it did it would go down to its house in dust.</p> - -<p>Now that being, as I see it, the moral product of Cæsarism, in all its -degrees and kinds—whether autocratic or democratic Cæsarism—of the -setting up of the Will to Power over the Will to Love—it follows that -the change of heart which I predicate in these pages for the solution -of our social and international problems, is almost a Tolstoian -negation of the principle upon which the modern state system stands. As -such, it will be very unwelcome to many of my readers; but I hope that, -as here set down, I have made my standpoint plain. The ploughshare and -the pruning-hook are not mine to wield; I only point in the direction -where I think they are to be found.</p> - -<p class="right">L. H.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[Pg xv]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CONTENTS</h2> - -<hr class="smler" /> - -<table summary="CONTENTS"> - <tr> - <td></td> - <td><span class="smaller">PAGE</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Great Possessions</td> - <td><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Crime and Punishment</td> - <td><a href="#Page_26">26</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Christianity a Danger to the State</td> - <td><a href="#Page_48">48</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">The Salt of the Earth</td> - <td><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">The Rights of Majorities</td> - <td><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Discreditable Conduct</td> - <td><a href="#Page_109">109</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">What is Womanly?</td> - <td><a href="#Page_135">135</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Use and Ornament</td> - <td><a href="#Page_157">157</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Art and Citizenship</td> - <td><a href="#Page_189">189</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="left">Conscious and Unconscious Immortality</td> - <td><a href="#Page_218">218</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> - -<h2>GREAT POSSESSIONS</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1913)</p> - -<p>“You never know yourself,” says Thomas Traherne, “till you know more -than your own body. The Image of God was not seated in the features of -your face but in the lineaments of your soul. In the knowledge of your -powers, inclinations, and principles, the knowledge of yourself chiefly -consisteth.... The world is but a little centre in comparison of you -... like a gentleman’s house to one that is travelling, it is a long -time before you come unto it—you pass it in an instant—and you leave -it for ever. The omnipresence and eternity of God are your fellows and -companions. Your understanding comprehends the world like the dust of a -balance, measures Heaven with a span, and esteems a thousand years but -as one day.”</p> - -<p>To this statement of man’s comprehensive powers, a further one might -legitimately be added: You shall never know delight, till you delight -in more than your own body.</p> - -<p>Man’s body being the crucible wherein such vast things come to be -tested, “Eternal Delights are,” says Traherne, in a further passage, -“its only fit enjoyment.”</p> - -<p>His doctrine is remarkable in this, that while he tends to see in -everything a spiritual significance, and almost refuses to find beauty<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> -in externals alone, he insists, nevertheless, that man was sent into -the world to enjoy himself, to stretch out for new acquisitions with -all his faculties, and take to himself great possessions. He regards -even the base and material form of conquest, expressed in endless -covetousness and fierce desire for possession, rather as a lower -type of what man should do and be, than of what he should not. Man’s -faculties were given him so that he might be divinely unsatisfied, ever -seeking more, ever assimilating more—regarding this earth not as a -vale of misery or a source of temptation, but as a very Paradise and -the true gate by which Heaven is to be attained and entered. “It is, -indeed,” he writes, “the beautiful frontispiece of Eternity, the Temple -of God, and the Palace of His Children.”</p> - -<p>In this respect Traherne’s teaching is remarkably like the teaching of -William Blake, who regarded the mere outwardness of things as nothing -in comparison with their real inwardness, and yet was insistent that -here and now the spirit of delight and energy and enjoyment was the -true and undefiled way of life.</p> - -<p>But this revolt against the monastic asceticism of the middle ages -stands far removed from any implication of sensual indulgence.</p> - -<p>“My mind to me a kingdom is,” wrote one of our poets. “The kingdom of -Heaven is within you” gives in more scriptural phrase precisely the -same truth; and for its <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span>application to the conduct of life we have -this further scripture: “Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth -where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves break through and -steal, but lay up for yourselves treasure in Heaven where neither moth -nor rust doth corrupt and where thieves do not break through and steal.”</p> - -<p>And if it be a true boast that man’s mind is his real and legitimate -kingdom, then he must make that kingdom his Heaven, and within that -kingdom his treasure must be stored. It is there, by the power of -his mind more than by the power of his hands, that he must gather -and hold together his great possessions. We are accustomed to speak -in one single connection (with book-knowledge, namely, and with the -use of words)—of “learning things by heart.” It is only “by heart” -that we can ever really learn anything; only when our heart is in it -do we know and value a thing so as to understand it. The man whose -heart is not in his work is not a complete craftsman; he has not yet -learned the “mystery” of his trade. When men’s hearts were in their -work they called their trades “mysteries,” and did, as a consequence, -more excellently than we do now, when we make rather for the price of a -thing than for the joy of it.</p> - -<p>Until we have joy in our labour, all labour is a form of waste—for it -wastes the bodies and souls which are put to it, and is destructive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> -of the most wonderful and valuable commodity which this planet has yet -produced—human nature. Labour without joy causes it to deteriorate; -and if a man is put to work wherein it is impossible to find joy, then -it were better for the wealth of the nation, as well as for the wealth -of his own individual soul, that he should be free from it.</p> - -<p>And if that is impossible then let us not boast ourselves about our -“national wealth” or our great possessions. Nations whose wealth -and industries are built up out of the hard and grinding mechanical -labour of millions are not capable in any true sense of holding -great possessions, for at their very root is an enormous mass of -poverty—impoverished blood, impoverished brain, and impoverished -spirit.</p> - -<p>If you would examine into the wealth of this or any other nation, look -not first at its temples or its arts, but into the bodies and minds -and characters—and the faculty for joy—of its men and women. And -if these, in the majority of cases, are below par, then the nation’s -wealth is below par also; its great possessions are overshadowed by the -greater dispossession which stands imposed upon the lives of its people.</p> - -<p>The word possession itself has, in our use of it, a double -significance. When we speak of a man “having a possession,” we may mean -two things—either that he possesses, or else that he is possessed. A -man with a possession of jealousy, or hatred, lust or covetousness,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> -has no real possession or control of those things, but is himself -possessed or controlled by them, and so is rendered not stronger but -weaker—subject to a master other than himself.</p> - -<p>Yet the man who is thus possessed is not conscious of any diminution -of his individuality, any reduction of personal power or prowess: he -does not discern from it any closing in of that round horizon to which -first his spirit was heir. For that by which he is possessed fills him -with such a pressure of emotion—its dynamic forces within him are so -strong, that he may actually imagine his personality to be thereby not -diminished but enlarged, and may (by reason of the violence with which -this distemper discharges itself on others) be cheated into the belief -that thus he secures for himself a broader base, raising his life to a -higher level of consciousness, instead of what actually is the truth, -turning it to consumption and waste—not opening his senses to new joys -but shutting them in; sharpening them indeed like teeth, but closing -them together with springs made not for expansion but for contraction, -so that they act like a trap destructive of the very life they would -control. And as with individual men, so with nations.</p> - -<p>“Would you know a man,” said the Greek oracle, “give him power.” But -that, though sure as a test of others, is no sure means for enabling a -man to know himself. Power all down the ages has been the arch-deceiver -of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> mankind. Power which has set itself on great possessions has -brought disinheritance to the human race. We do not know what humanity -might be—how fair, how lovely, and of what good report—that great -beatific vision is still hidden from our eyes—mainly because we -have interpreted power in terms of possession; and, forcing others -to go without, in order that we ourselves may possess, we stand -to-day immeasurably poorer and weaker than we should have been had we -interpreted our power and our possessions differently.</p> - -<p>For centuries of time (so long, indeed, as history records anything) -the leading nations of the world have gone out to conquer other nations -and to possess them. And how have they done so?—mainly by depriving -them of their liberty, by reducing their power of initiative, by -undermining and warping their racial characteristics. How much has -not that impoverished the history of the world and the real wealth of -nations? For people living in subservience or subjection, accepting and -not rebelling against it, breed less nobly as a consequence—they fail, -then, to produce great minds or to express themselves greatly in the -arts. Their life-potency is diminished; and we, holding them upon those -terms, are owners of a property which we squander by our very mode of -possessing it.</p> - -<p>Quite as much of the art, the literature and the philosophy of the -greatest periods of civilisation has been wiped out and destroyed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> -beyond recovery by these possessive struggles of the past as has -been hazardously preserved and passed down to us through interludes -of peace; nor have we any cause to think that in the future we shall -be any wiser while our views as to possession show so little change. -And that loss in beautiful production is but the symbol, the outward -and visible sign of a loss immensely more great in flesh and blood -and spirit, which has gone on—not only while wars were waged, but -when (war being ended) dominance over the conquered was imposed as a -condition of peace. Every nation that has made itself materially great -on these terms, has done so on a <i>débris</i> of perished loveliness which -does not reach its full amount in the hour of the victors’ triumph; but -goes on accumulating till that also which caused it is brought to the -dust.</p> - -<p>It is many years, for instance, since we conquered India; and in so -far as our dominion has saved it from other conquests and wars of -native State against State, and creed against creed, our rule may -have been beneficial—though I do not think that we ought to take our -own word for it, or indeed anyone’s word except that of the native -communities themselves and a native press, free and unfettered for -the giving or the withholding of its testimonial. But one thing we -assuredly have done: we have gone on steadily destroying the native -arts and “mysteries,” and substituting for them our own baser code of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> -commercialism and capitalised industry. And in so far as we have done -this we have not possessed ourselves, but have dispossessed ourselves -of the real beauties and values of Indian civilization; and, for the -sake of trade-profit to our merchants and manufacturers, we hold in our -hand a poorer India in consequence, and are the poorer possessors of it.</p> - -<p>All that poverty—poverty of invention, poverty of craft—is the -product of a false ideal of possession, false to human nature, because -quite obviously a cause of deterioration to those visible proofs of -man’s well-being—the joyous labour of his hand and brain.</p> - -<p>Set against the witness of all that misguidance of the past that -wise and lovely saying of Christ, so unlikely in its first seeming: -“Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.” At first -it sounds so improbable—so contrary to all we know of man’s long -struggle for existence up to date. And yet, (however much we must -still qualify the possession of the meek upon earth) still more must -we qualify the possession of the overbearing and the proud, when we -realise what true possession should be. A modern writer has described -war as “the great illusion,” and has set himself to show that all -those advantages at which the State aims when it turns to military -operations, become as dust in the balance if compared to the real -cost in treasure which war entails even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> for those who are nominally -the victors. And war is only one form or aspect of that great strife -for possession which has afflicted every race in its progress from -the cradle to the grave—merely a larger and more apparent version of -the conflict between folly and wisdom which goes on in every human -breast. Possession is the great illusion through which man physically -or intellectually strong seeks to secure power, and succeeds only in -securing weakness—not only for himself but for others.</p> - -<p>For you cannot test strength truthfully without relation to its -surroundings. A tower built upon foundations that shift and give way -under its weight is not strong, however formidably it has been reared, -or however closely its windows are grated and barred. Its very bulk -and weight may help to bring about its fall. Similarly any strength of -despotism or government which is reared up and depends for its stay -upon the weakness of others is a mere apparition of power. Here to-day, -it is gone to-morrow when those upon whose subjection it rested have -discovered a strength of their own—or, because of their weakness, have -failed in its support.</p> - -<p>True possession can only be had in relation and in proportion to the -self-possession of others; the man who reduces the self-possession of -others never adds to his own; and where self-possession is absent, no -real or strength-giving possession remains possible. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p> - -<p>“What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his -own soul,” is one of those profound messages of wisdom which have -been obscured by the theological gloss laid upon them. Instead of the -immediate and practical condemnation of here and now, the hypothetical -condemnation to loss in a future life has been substituted, and our -spiritual preceptors have not concentrated upon making clear to us how, -here and now, possession of the whole world (in any material sense) -does actually tend to destroy soul.</p> - -<p>The possessive outlook, in its very inception, sets a limit to the -springs of spiritual growth or action, and to that “perfect freedom” -the basis of which is service. But if “service is perfect freedom,” -then “domination is perfect bondage,” as much for those who impose as -for those who suffer it. For the man who domineers over his fellows -receives in his own soul the reflex or complementary part of that evil -effect which he has on others. There is no act done by man to man which -is not sacramental in its operation for good or ill; in all his deeds -to his neighbours he both gives and receives, either for his own help -or hindrance. Whosoever gives a blow receives one; and that blow may -be the heavier that is not returned in kind. He who does unkindness to -others is unkind to his own soul; he who diminishes the self-possession -of others diminishes his own. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p> - -<p>Yet possession—in the sense of realising each one for himself the -wealth and enjoyment which life has to offer—is so deep an instinct, -is so knit up with the adventurous and progressive spirit out of which -the higher human consciousness is built—that it is useless to turn -on man and say to him: “Possess nothing—rid yourself of all joys, of -all the delights of the senses and the understanding—so only shall -you attain to the heavenly stature.” That doctrine has been preached -in the past; and the squeals of Manichean hermits in the wilderness, -and of monastic contortionists, denying to their senses the very -ground upon which they stood, has been its echoing chorus all down -the ages. Never were souls more horribly possessed than these fliers -from possession; never were men more defeated in their warfare with -the thing they spurned. Like a tin tied to a dog’s tail the more they -ran from it, the more the flesh afflicted them reminding them of its -neglected claims. The loveliest and wisest of these mediæval sinners -against the life which God had given them was brought by his own -gospel of peace to a death-bed repentance which others did not attain -to. “Brother ass, I have been too hard upon thee,” said St. Francis, -turning with compunction at last to his much-wronged body, the one -thing to which, in mistaken piety, he had denied either consideration -or love. The single greed which ate up and destroyed the life of that -lovely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> saint was a greed for mortification; and he died very literally -of blood-poisoning, brought about by his own suicidal act, because -he willed too possessively to share the passion and sufferings of -Christ—the death instead of the life.</p> - -<p>That blood-poisoning of the mediæval saint’s was a reaction, violent -and unkind, against the wrongful version of possession which, in their -day as in our own, was destroying the peaceful possibilities of human -society.</p> - -<p>Yet without a certain quality of possessiveness the human mind cannot -grow. Wordsworth pictures for us very beautifully that natural -possessive element in its age of innocence.</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div>Behold the Child among his new-born blisses,</div> -<div>A six year darling of a pigmy size!</div> -<div>See, where ’mid work of his own hand he lies,</div> -<div>Fretted by sallies of his mother’s kisses,</div> -<div>With light upon him from his father’s eyes!</div> -<div>See, at his feet, some little plan or chart,</div> -<div>Some fragment from his dream of human life,</div> -<div>Shaped by himself with newly-learnèd art;</div> -<div class="i2">A wedding or a festival,</div> -<div class="i2">A mourning or a funeral;</div> -<div class="i2">And this hath now his heart,</div> -<div class="i2">And unto this he frames his song.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>With these mental possessions he is opening his mind to the coming -conquests of life: as much to be conquered by its beauty as to conquer -it. But what he gains from his appreciation of earth’s loveliness -brings loss to none;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> in this extension of his mental horizon there is -no shutting of others from a like view; this aspect of the dominion -upon which he is now entering is communal, something illimitable, which -all may share. Of possession acquired upon those terms we need never -be afraid. And it is a very real possession, far more real, as I shall -hope presently to show, than any mere power to thwart, hinder, or -control the freedom of others, which is the form of possession at which -too often man aims.</p> - -<p>Let us start, in order to realise this, with certain other experiments -of childhood. Which child more truly “possesses” the life of linnet -or hedge-sparrow, making it in some measure his own: the child who -stays quiet and disciplines himself to watch the bird at the building -of its nest, the hatching of its eggs and the feeding of its young; -or the child who puts an end to all that beauty and complexity of -motion by bringing down his bird with a stone? If he comes to tell -others of his experience, what alternatively is there for him to -tell? In the one case only his own act of destruction, a thing done -and brought to a dead end; in the other he has a dozen new things to -tell of—discoveries made in a process of life which he has watched -with delight and knows still to be going on. From which of these -two experiments does he draw the larger consciousness? Which of the -two most peoples his world for him? Step by step as he advances he -will find how much, by interfering with the lives of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> others, he can -destroy, but how little he can build up; he can take hold of the -daddy-legs leg by leg and find that they all come off, and wonder -perhaps at the zest with which that eager little martyr fulfils the -words of Scripture, “If thy foot offend thee cut it off and cast it -from thee.” But constant repetition of the experiment, though it may -give him an evil sense of power, will give him no variety, no real -advance in knowledge concerning the life, or the use and beauty of -flies’ legs. He will not treasure—to benefit by them—the legs that -he has pulled off, nor will his brain have stored anything but an -added sense of and liking for his own power to destroy. And so will -it be with everything on which he experiments destructively. His -knowledge and understanding of their nature will remain at a minimum. -Progressing on these lines, he will for ever be making things cease to -be themselves without making them really his own. But if he reverse -that process of experiment by encouraging things to be themselves, -how varied and multitudinous will grow his consciousness of life, -his appreciation of its finer shades, its delicacy, its grace, its -adaptability, its vigour and its freedom. If his interest is in birds, -how much more he will know of them, and find in them how much more of -alertness and beauty, if he hang food for them outside his window, -rather than cages for them within; if he will recognise that the beauty -of a bird lies too largely in its wings, for caging to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> anything but -a contradiction of its true existence. If his interest is in animals, -how far more he will learn of their resources and character, if he aims -not at cowing them and causing them to flee from him in fear, but at -encouraging them in all genuine and characteristic development. That -does not mean teaching them to “perform” in painful and artificial -ways—exploits which are always built up on processes of cruelty, and -do not in the least reveal animal nature as it really is but only -impose upon it a mask of concealment—anthropomorphic, full of conceit -and self-flattery—the same fond thing which he did when he began -making God also in his own image to worship it.</p> - -<p>There, indeed, in man’s shaping of God to be like himself, revengeful, -deceitful, pompous, inconsiderate, unmerciful, one-sided and masculine; -in making Him, too, a performer of tricks, so that in those attributes -he might see himself reflected and stand enlarged in his own -eyes—surely there more than in any other department of life has man by -his foolish possessiveness brought to the human race poverty instead of -wealth, a curse instead of a blessing.</p> - -<p>That is but one example of how this narrow possessiveness with which -man set out to conquer heaven and earth wears thin and poor under the -test of time, and leaves him in the end no standing monuments but just -a heap of rubble on which to gaze—only that, or perhaps less—perhaps -only desert sand. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p> - -<p>That failure of material ambitions stands immortalised for us in -Shelley’s “Ozymandias”:</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div>I met a traveller from an antique land,</div> -<div>Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone</div> -<div>Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,</div> -<div>Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown</div> -<div>And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command</div> -<div>Tell that its sculptor well those passions read</div> -<div>Which yet survive—stamped on these lifeless things—</div> -<div>The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.</div> -<div>And on the pedestal these words appear:—</div> -<div>‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;</div> -<div>Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’</div> -<div>Nothing beside remains. Round the decay</div> -<div>Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,</div> -<div>The lone and level sands stretch far away!”</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>That is a moral which we shall do well to remember. All great -possessions materially founded come at last to that, and the heart that -clings to them must go down after them to the grave.</p> - -<p>It is the same when we base our delight of human relationship in an -insistence upon possession: it serves only to accentuate the place of -death in the world and to give it size. The man, or woman, whose idea -of love lies in the claim to possess and to control others, dies many -deaths before he reaches his final end, and walks daily with his foot -in the grave. These tragedies of possession, so impoverishing to the -spirit, are all round us; the world is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> humanly more full of them than -of anything else: Husbands who adore their wives, but cannot let them -call their souls their own; parents, possessive of their children, -imposing upon them their will up to the legal limit and beyond; homes -devouring the independence of womanhood, cramping, constraining, -robbing of initiative and force, and doing all these things under cover -of the claims of love, of natural affection, of piety! What is all this -really but possession masquerading under another name? I remember once -reading a remarkable story by Mr. John Gray, called <i>Niggard Truth</i>, -of a woman who took masterful possession of a weak husband and “ran” -him as an expression, not of his own personality, but of hers. And when -at last she had very literally run him to earth, she buried him in a -garment of red flannel so that, as she expressed it, she might “see -him better” in the grave. And there, at the end of a strenuous life, -she sat amid her domestic possessions, her glass shades, her family -plate, and her mahogany, with her mental eye fixed upon a corpse, and -her heart filled with a <i>Magnificat</i> of self-applause. She was the -“Ozymandias” of the domestic hearth; and there are thousands of them in -this country to-day. “Look on their works, ye mighty, and despair!”</p> - -<p>I have taken for example the domestic relations, because there we get -in small, but simple and concise, that demoralising claim to possession -which goes forth with missionary<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> zeal to devastate the world; and -because here, in the home, the true social service that is owing is, in -theory at least, recognised and admitted.</p> - -<p>The duty—surely the obvious duty—of parents to their children -is to assist them, to the full extent of their means, toward -self-development. We have no right to bring children into the world -to warp and stunt their growth, to make them merely reflections of -ourselves, or to keep them back from independence when they come to -man’s or woman’s estate. What the parent needs, perhaps, most to learn -is to relax constantly and in ever-increasing degree that hold which -was necessary during the early years of childhood, but which, even -then, we take too much for granted and employ far too habitually. -Parents often claim too great a possession of their own children; -they make cages for their characters, and mould them away from their -natural bent to what suits their own family pride, their own taste, -or their own sense of importance, sometimes conscientiously believing -this to be the parental prerogative. But if parents are to use safely -their power to impose moral training they must build up first in their -children a sense of self-reliance, of initiative, of freedom, and then -trust to it. They have no right to rely for their reward on caged -characters, or, by any dictation or control, to exact recompense for -the services which (with whatever devotion) they have rendered. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> -same holds good through all human relations, parental, marital, social, -racial: it is ignoble to claim loyalty or devotion from those whom you -have not first made free. Gratitude—even filial gratitude—has no -moral value save if it comes from a free agent. If it comes from one -trained to be not free it partakes of servility. And it is better for -parents to forgo gratitude than to exact its imitation or substitute, -by the imposition of any restrictive conditions or claims after the -years of tutelage are over. It may well be that gratitude has far too -small a place in the human heart; but I am quite sure that the claim -for gratitude has too large a one, and that this in excess brings the -very reverse of a remedy when the other is lacking. And what is true -in relation to parents and their children is true also in every other -human relationship where the claim to possess intrudes to the hindrance -of self-realization and self-development. The possessor, in claiming -restrictive possession of others, loses possession of himself.</p> - -<p>That is what made slavery as an institution so doubly impoverishing -to the human race. It impoverished the mind of the slave, but it -impoverished quite as much the mind of the slave-owner.</p> - -<p>Wherever man has tried to possess others he has lost possession of -himself. That is the price inevitably paid by any class or section -of the community which seeks to dominate the lives and restrict the -liberty of its fellows.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> Tyranny does not strengthen but weakens the -moral nature of those who exercise it, and he who owns slaves cannot -himself be free. Domination is as destructive to human worth and more -destructive to moral integrity than subjection. If “possession is nine -points of the law” on the material plane, the tenth point—spiritual in -its working—is anarchy to the soul.</p> - -<p>From time immemorial man has claimed it as his natural right to possess -woman. And it is in consequence in relation to woman, and in matters -of sex, that he has most obviously lost self-possession. And just as -he has claimed that to possess woman is the natural prerogative of the -male, so you will hear him maintain that lack of self-possession in -regard to woman is natural also—and a certain degree of licence the -male prerogative. The two things go together—claim to possess others -and you lose possession of yourself: Give to all with whom you come in -contact their full right of self-possession and self-development, and -you, from that social discipline and service, will in your own body and -mind become self-possessed. For that is true possession which, while -it brings you a sense of enlargement and joy, takes nothing from the -freedom and the joy of others.</p> - -<p>Of that kind of possession you may be prodigal, but of that which -takes anything from others, or demands any condition of service from -others, have a care! And look well what the conditions may be. Ask -yourself constantly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> what is this or that demand for service or labour -doing to other souls? What conditions does it lay upon them? You may -boast that you have simplified your life—rid yourself, for instance, -of domestic service by getting rid of cook and housemaid. You have -not. The bread, the meat, even the ground flour that comes into your -house is all provided by a domestic service which takes place outside -your door and which you do not see. And you are as morally concerned -for the conditions of that labour as if you yourself supervised it. -You need it and use it as much; it is only done for you at a further -remove—out of sight and out of mind—so that it is much easier (but -not more justifiable), to be callous as to the conditions of those who -render it. And if upon those material lines of comfort and luxury you -extend your demands, you are also extending your claim over the lives -of others—and your responsibility for those lives, if they go lacking -where you go fed.</p> - -<p>Surely, for the whole of that part of your life you are under a strict -obligation to render service in return—equal to that which you claim. -And if you, by your service, cannot insure to others an equality of -possession in things material (and make as good and wholesome a use of -them as they could make), those material possessions should be a weight -upon your conscience, till you have got matters more fairly adjusted. -Take it as your standard of life to consume no more than you, by your -own<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> labour, in your own lifetime, could produce. What right has any -man to more than that, except through the bounty and kindness of his -fellows? But if he insists on more, and takes more, does he really -possess it? Only in an ever diminishing degree in proportion to his -excess, because as he exceeds he is ever diminishing his true faculty -for reception.</p> - -<p>Here is a simple illustration of that truth, a gross example which I -read in a newspaper the other day: In America a prize is annually given -to the man who can eat the largest number of pies at a sitting—each -of the pies, a compound of jam and pastry, weighing on an average -half a pound. The prize-winner became the external possessor of -twenty-seven. But internally he could hardly be said to possess them at -all—they possessed him, and made him, one would imagine, a thoroughly -ineffective citizen for at least the two or three following days. That -man would have been far more really the possessor of three or four pies -(seeing that he could have properly digested them) than it was possible -for him to be of the twenty-seven. In this excess he merely injured -himself without any gain, except the monetary bribe which induced -him to make a beast of himself. And how many men are there not, who -(receiving the monetary bribe of our present unequal and inequitable -system of reward for industry or for idleness) proceed to make beasts -of themselves—more elaborately, but just as truly and completely as -this pie-eater; and by making beasts<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> of themselves are by so much the -less men of soul and understanding—not more, but less the possessors -of their human birthright.</p> - -<p>If we store up treasure materially (treasure of a kind which, if one -has more of it, another must needs have less)—if we gather about us, -in excess, creature comforts for the over-indulgence of our bodily -appetites, we are gathering that which is liable to moth and rust and -theft—liable to be a cause of envy and covetousness in others; and -when we have gathered to ourselves this excess of perishable delight -and have applied it, the result, more likely than not, is a cloying of -those very appetites to which we seek to minister—and, eventually, -deterioration and enfeeblement of the body itself.</p> - -<p>And as with individuals so with nations; there is no greatness of -possession in holding that which involves the deprivation of others, -the diminution of their freedom, their happiness, their power of -self-development. That is not true kingdom. It is the manufacture -of slaves. But if we lay up treasure in the kingdom of the mind, in -the development of our sense of beauty, our faculty for joy, we have -something here on earth which neither moth nor rust can corrupt, nor -thieves steal. Our possessions then are things that can arouse no base -covetousness, we need not hold them under lock and key, or make laws -for their protection, for none can deprive us of them. And while you -so hold them on such free and noble conditions, you do not fail to -dispense<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> something of their beauty and worth to those with whom you -associate.</p> - -<p>These possessions, with which you have enriched your lives, make no man -poorer, rob no fellow creature of his right, conflict not with the law -of charity to all.</p> - -<p>Seeking possession upon those lines, you shall find that noble -things do tend to make possible a form of possession in which all -alike may share; that architecture, music, literature and painting -do offer themselves to the service of a far nobler and more communal -interpretation of wealth than that which would keep it for separate -and individual enjoyment. A thousand may look upon the beauty of one -picture, and detract nothing, in the enjoyment of each, from the -enjoyment of all; nor has virtue or value gone out of it because so -many have looked on it; and so it is (or so it may be) with all beauty -whether we find it in nature or in art.</p> - -<p>If I were asked to name the man who in the last hundred years had -the greatest possessions, I think I would name Wordsworth. Read his -poetry with this thought in your mind, of how day by day he gathered -possessions of an imperishable kind, which needed no guardianship -beyond the purity of his mind, and excited in others no envy. Nay, how -much of those wonderful possessions was he not able to give to others? -Some of his loveliest lines of poetry are a record of possession -rightly attained. I give here only one of his poems—one <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>of his -simplest in inspiration—to show what I mean:</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div>I wandered lonely as a cloud</div> -<div class="i2">That floats on high o’er vales and hills,</div> -<div>When all at once I saw a crowd—</div> -<div class="i2">A host of golden daffodils;</div> -<div>Beside the lake, beneath the trees,</div> -<div>Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.</div> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<div>Continuous as the stars that shine</div> -<div class="i2">And twinkle on the Milky Way,</div> -<div>They stretched in never-ending line</div> -<div class="i2">Along the margin of a bay.</div> -<div>I gazed—and gazed—but little thought</div> -<div>What wealth the show to me had brought:</div> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<div>For oft when on my couch I lie</div> -<div class="i2">In vacant or in pensive mood,</div> -<div>They flash upon that inward eye</div> -<div class="i2">Which is the bliss of solitude;</div> -<div>And then my heart with pleasure fills,</div> -<div>And dances with the daffodils.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>“Only daffodils” you say? But he made them for himself and others an -eternal possession of beauty and delight.</p> - -<p>Those who have great possessions on these terms need never turn -sorrowfully away when the command comes: “Sell all thou hast and give -to the poor.” For these are the inexhaustible treasures of the soul, -and are in their nature communal; and happy is the man or nation that -finds them.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CRIME AND PUNISHMENT</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1918)</p> - -<p>The two words Crime and Punishment have come to us in a conjunction -which it is very difficult to separate. Our fathers have told us, and -our teachers and theologians have strenuously insisted that the one -necessarily entails the other.</p> - -<p>The whole of our social order is based upon the idea that if a man -commits crime—an offence, that is to say, against the written law of -the community—he must be punished for it. If he were not, social order -would go to pieces.</p> - -<p>But our social order does not lay equal stress upon the idea that if -a man lives virtuously he must be rewarded. If a man lives virtuously -his reward is in Heaven—that is to say, he takes his chance. His -virtue may assist or may hinder his worldly advancement; but we have -not yet committed ourselves to the conviction that social order will -necessarily go to pieces if virtue is not rewarded. It will only go to -pieces if crime is not punished. Society can reconcile itself to the -one omission; but it cannot reconcile itself to the other.</p> - -<p>This inequality of interest in retribution and reward is based perhaps -upon the calculation that while you look after the crimes, the virtues -will look after themselves; and that the virtues will not—for lack -of Birthday<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> Honours—rebel against the society in which they find -themselves.</p> - -<p>And really, there is something in it. Virtue is already self-governing; -vice is not. The virtuous and humane part of a man—his will to unite -and co-operate with others for social development and service—inclines -him to accept and make the best of the conditions of life, to take the -rough with the smooth, the hindrances with the aids, the good with the -evil: not, indeed, passively, or without some effort to get rid of bad -smells, bad tastes, bad laws, bad governments—but with a definite -consciousness that in operating against these he is operating not for -his own single benefit, but for the benefit of the community. And that -being so, he can be left, unrecompensed and unrewarded, to face a very -considerable amount of discomfort, adversity, and even injustice, -without becoming either a rebel or a criminal. Although if governed -unintelligently enough, or wickedly enough, he may be turned into both.</p> - -<p>But with the criminal it is not so. His social sense is more -rudimentary; and when he finds himself up against adverse and perhaps -unjust conditions, he seeks a solution satisfactory to himself alone. -And I suppose the main idea of the use of punishment (apart from the -vengeful pleasure it gives to those who inflict it) is that it takes -the satisfaction out of him again, making him feel that, in a highly -organised community, the individual solution<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> has uncomfortable -results. And Society’s calculation, in thus punishing him, is (or has -been hitherto) that it is a less troublesome and expensive way of -making him cease to be a nuisance, than educating him, or employing -him, or reforming the social conditions which have produced him.</p> - -<p>So long as we believe that Society is right in that calculation, so -long, I suppose, shall we continue to advocate punishment; but when -we come to believe that Society is wrong, we shall begin to advocate -education, employment, social reform, and, above all, human sympathy -and understanding as a substitute; with the idea that they may -gradually do away with the necessity for punishment.</p> - -<p>But pending that consummation so devoutly to be wished, most of us will -probably continue to believe that punishment is just and right; and -will find it very difficult to think of Society, and of ourselves—as -all equally criminal along with the individual whom our social contempt -and neglect have de-socialised and made a fit recipient for punitive -treatment.</p> - -<p>The temptation to think that punishment is just and right has been -with us from time immemorial; it is probably arboreal, certainly -neolithic; and therefore, to our atavistic instincts, it is supremely -sacred. We have got it firmly into our heads that punishment is a -superior ordering of consequences. And as the law of cause and effect -which we see operating in nature is the basis of our moral<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> sense, we -have fallen to the confused notion that punishment is the same. But -as a matter of fact the two are entirely different. The law of cause -and effect stands for natural consequences; the law of punishment -substitutes artificial consequences; and we fly to punishment largely -as an escape from the results of our age-long indifference to natural -consequences. Having produced the criminal we set to work to destroy -his self-respect, as a short cut to the preservation of our own.</p> - -<p>That may sound a puzzling statement; but the more we accentuate the -difference between the criminal and ourselves—the more, superficially, -are we able to get rid of our sense of brotherhood and responsibility. -And so, when bishops go on to the platform to advocate the flogging -of men who live on the earnings of prostitutes, it helps them to -forget that they also are living on the earnings of prostitutes, and -are by their support of a capitalist system involving sweated labour -and degraded housing conditions—neatly and efficaciously driving -the prostitute into the hands of the male “bully”—whom they then -flog for extracting his profit from a damaged article which, in the -public market of supply and demand, they have already wrung dry. The -very monstrousness of the proposed penalty helps us to forget that -we are all links in the same chain of circumstances. In the “bully” -the degrading brutality of the system finally emerges and becomes -patent; just as in war<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> the degrading brutality of our peace system -finally emerges. Then we point to it with horror and cry that we are -peace-lovers! So we are; we have loved peace at a price which we would -not exceed—we ran it on sweated conditions; and we pay for it in war. -For there exist, in every nation, sources of wealth, sufficient—if -equitably distributed and constructively applied for the good of -all—to allay that economic unrest which is the main incentive by -which modern nations are led into war. But in every country alike -there are interests which refuse to pay that price, and which will, if -threatened, precipitate their country into war rather than be held at -a ransom which would merely readjust wealth more equitably to the true -sources of its production.</p> - -<p>War has come to us—not as a punishment divinely imposed—(a splendid -old lady of ninety told me the other day that the war was God’s -visitation upon us for our divorces and for having given votes to -women)—war has come upon us, not as a punishment for these offences -against Taboo, but as a natural consequence of our social peace -conditions. And at present, in the mentality of nations, punishment -(not of the system, but of the criminal act which has finally emerged -from it to horrify us) is the only remedy.</p> - -<p>And so punishment still appears to us as the very bed of justice—the -foundation stone of morality. If you do not insist on it, social<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> order -will go to pieces. And as we have attempted scarcely any criminal -reform without punishment—and none till the day before yesterday—the -contention is accepted as true for lack of witnesses against it.</p> - -<p>The standpoint toward human nature of our generally accepted “moral -code” is that of a devout believer in corporal punishment—of that -kind of parent who says: “I have to flog my boy because he is so -untruthful.” And the idea that the untruthfulness is the product of the -corporal punishment never enters the parental mind.</p> - -<p>But this vengeful exercise of parental authority is only a secondary -symptom of belief in a vengeful order of Creation—of a God whose -method it was to vindicate the moral law, not by bringing home to -ill-doers through natural consequences the defects of certain courses -of conduct, but by expressing His moral indignation in exemplary -punishments of an arbitrary kind—generally of a miraculous character.</p> - -<p>When man first conceived of God, he conceived of Him as a sort of Dr. -Busby—one in whose mind the Rod was the beginning and end of wisdom; -and the Rod of Heaven operated by intervention, over and above the -operations of Nature—the law of cause and effect. Natural consequences -did not sufficiently vindicate divine justice. A belief in miraculous -and vengeful intervention and a belief in “exemplary” legal punishment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> -go together; and will, I believe, die together.</p> - -<p>A great deal of Old Testament teaching is merely an elaborate extension -of <i>Punch’s</i> picture of the British workman holding a brick’s end over -an unfortunate batrachian, and saying, “I’ll l’arn ye to be a toad!” -And all he succeeds in doing is producing a dead toad instead of a live -one; the species itself remaining entirely unaltered.</p> - -<p>That is a parable of the doings of our theologians, since theology was -invented for the Fall of Man. And if humans came to the conclusion that -that was the mind of God, it is no wonder that they imitated Him, and -do so to this day.</p> - -<p>We must believe in punishment as the proper reward of crime—we must -even believe in unreformative punishment as the proper reward of crime, -if we believe in a Hell to which lost souls are relegated against their -will, and there kept with no hope whatever of cure or betterment from -the process. And that is what the whole of Christendom believed about -Hell when Christians really did believe in it.</p> - -<p>Unreformative punishment upon earth was a necessary consequence of that -belief; and, therefore, belief in punishment for the sake of punishment -became universal.</p> - -<p>And over against it—quite unregarded—stood the new gospel of -humanity—“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to -them that hate you, pray for them<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> which despitefully use you and -persecute you.” And then the reason, the key to it all:—“That ye may -be children of your Father which is in Heaven, for He maketh His sun to -rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on -the unjust. Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as your Father which is in -Heaven is perfect.”</p> - -<p>The Sermon on the Mount, which threw over the doctrine of punishment -on earth, threw over with equal emphasis the doctrine of punishment in -Heaven—of any arbitrary or miraculous intervention for the betterment -(to moral ends) of the law of natural consequences.</p> - -<p>“Be ye the children of Creation!” is the real human solution—not by -harking back (as opponents would pretend) to the savagery of a lower -species, but by accepting the spiritualising impulse of evolutionary -forces—which have brought us to this great development from the -mentality of the lower animal world—the knowledge that we are all part -of one whole.</p> - -<p>And it is on that recognition of an underlying unity (from which we -are inseparable) that the great natural revolution of our ideas about -crime and punishment must be brought about. If we cling to the violent -and the arbitrary, and the separative solution (of which miraculous -retribution is the corollary) we are in the Dark Ages still.</p> - -<p>It must have been the experience of many<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> whose work has taken them -not only into slums but into prisons and police-courts, that the -oppressive sense of Evil triumphant, strong and proud of itself, has -weighed more heavily upon them in the prison and in the police-court -than in the slum; for the slum only represents the neglect of Society, -but the administration of our penal code represents its stereotyped -preoccupation (with sympathy and understanding almost entirely -eliminated) on a problem which nothing but sympathy and understanding -will ever solve. There Society is in its trenches fighting against the -human nature which it first violates and then fears.</p> - -<p>We, law-makers and law-abiders, are in league with—and are dependent -for our material prosperity and protection upon—a system which is very -nearly as bad as the crimes we denounce. And until we have made our -system very much more beautiful, very much better, and more convincing -to the criminal and the revolutionarist—it is only by fear and a -punitive code that we can keep it going.</p> - -<p>It is not possible to maintain such adjuncts to our social system -as profiteering, exploitation, class privilege, wage-slavery, -race-subjection, international jealousy, without a penal code and its -logical outcome, war. If we want to get rid of the one we must have -a whole mind to get rid of the others too. Do not let us pretend to -separate them, for we cannot. Not only does the attempt produce<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> weak -practical results—it produces also a false mind.</p> - -<p>The attempt to separate one thing from another, one human being from -another, is at the root of our belief in punishment. Punishment helps -to separate, helps to make us feel separate; it does not unite. -An English judge declared quite recently that the main object of -punishment was not to reform the criminal but to protect society. And -so long as that is true, the criminal is just as conscious as we are -that the discipline laid on him is the expression of a divided standard -of morality, knowing perfectly well that we in like circumstances -should not think such punishment good for ourselves or our children.</p> - -<p>For is it not true that wherever a local or group interest comes to -be established, there the members of that group cease to believe that -punishment from any outside power or authority is good for them?</p> - -<p>Take the family—those of you who believe in punishment—those who -profess to be law-abiding; one of its members commits a theft. Is he -handed over to the police to be dealt with according to law? Not at -all. On the contrary, everything is done to enable him to escape the -punishment. We don’t believe in legal punishment when it comes to -our own circle. And we only believe in legal punishment for others, -because, loving and understanding them less, we are unwilling to take -as much trouble about them. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span></p> - -<p>And that same vicious principle of belief in punishment only for -others mounts up and up through every communal interest that has -established itself in our midst on a unity of feeling closer than that -which obtains generally. Every class-interest, every trade-interest, -every party-interest that stands combined for its own benefit does -all it can to evade the punishment of its members by the larger and -more impersonal authority of the State. Scandals are hushed up in the -police; scandals are hushed up in the Army; scandals are hushed up in -the Cabinet; everything possible is done to prevent our penal code -from acting equally on the vested interests in which we specially are -concerned.</p> - -<p>And yet we say that we believe in punishment!</p> - -<p>But if we do honestly believe in punishment, ought we not then to -insist not merely that the administration of our law-courts should -be impartial and judicial, but that the source and promotion of our -State-prosecutions should be impartial also? Probably most unreflecting -people think that they are. But again and again the Government, when -it chooses or refuses to put the law into motion and prosecute, though -nominally the accuser, is really the accused, using its powers for the -saving of its own skin, to keep the case out of court—sometimes even -in spite of the protests of the magistracy itself. Again and again the -judicial scales have been fraudulently weighted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>—not in court but out -of it by the interests of party government.</p> - -<p>Let us take a rather notorious instance where this was done.</p> - -<p>Within quite recent times, two men have conspired—the one to raise an -army of rebellion if Home Rule were imposed on Ulster; the other to -raise an army of rebellion if conscription were imposed on Ireland. -The crime in each case was precisely the same; but the punishment was -different. The one—the more recent—was sent to prison for it without -trial. The other, equally without trial, was elevated to Cabinet rank.</p> - -<p>Now, each of these men, in conspiring to break the law, did probably -what he conscientiously thought to be right under the circumstances. -That we can believe. But it is very difficult to believe that the -Government (when, with the connivance of Parliament, it punished the -same offence so differently) thought that it was doing right—the equal -and the just thing in each case. It was only doing the convenient -thing to cover its own blunders. And the question is, therefore, -whether—morally—the Government was not the real criminal.</p> - -<p>But if we ask whether it is going to be punished for it, the answer -is—probably not.</p> - -<p>It is not my point to urge that the Government should be punished, but -only to show how—as administered to-day—punishment is an arbitrary -and artificial device, partially<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> applied or not, according to the -prosecutor’s political convenience.</p> - -<p>The consequence—the logical consequence of this corrupt inequality -of State-prosecution, is that a Government which does such things is -misliked and distrusted by men of honest character—and so weakens its -hold on the more judicious minds of the community—and eventually, one -may hope, its power over the country’s policy.</p> - -<p>One might point further to another instance. The Society of Friends, -by its official committee, recently published, without submitting it -to the Censor, a pamphlet called <i>A Challenge to Militarism</i>. For -that corporate act of a committee of twenty—all equally guilty—the -Government (to avoid too great a scandal) selected two members for -prosecution, and got them sent to prison for six and for three months.</p> - -<p>About a fortnight later another challenge to militarism, a pamphlet -entitled <i>A League of Nations</i>, was published, without being submitted -to the Censor, by Lord Grey of Falloden; and he has not been sent to -prison for it.</p> - -<p>Now if we believed in punishment, we should want the Government -punished for these acts of corrupt favouritism in State-prosecution. -But if we believe in natural consequences—those which I have already -indicated—we shall confidently anticipate that in the end (the real -end) divine justice will be done; and that these ephemeral misdoings<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> -will eventually help the spirit of man to a better and larger -understanding of the follies which are committed when men substitute -the Will to Power for the Will to Love.</p> - -<p>And if we can—as we are going to—if we can leave injustice when done -in conspicuous high places to the natural and logical consequences, -without applying the penal code, why cannot we trust natural -consequences a very great deal more, where smaller and more humble -misdemeanours are concerned, and give to those natural consequences a -greater unity of effect by irradiating them with the true spirit of -man—love, joy, gentleness, peace, against which there is no law?</p> - -<p>One of the reasons why we dare not be humane and curative instead of -punitive to our criminals lies in the fact that the standard of life -in which we have allowed honest and hard-working millions to subsist -outside our prisons, has been so inhuman and degraded that if we made -our prisons really humane, really curative, they would be a reward -instead of a punishment.</p> - -<p>We dare not offer so beautiful a temptation.</p> - -<p>And so it is separation again—the separation of class from class, -of rich from poor, which makes impossible the standardising of our -prisons from living tombs into genuine reformatories and sanatoria. -If we had not separated ourselves in our national life from a sense -of responsibility for the poverty and misery around us, we should not -be driven<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> into so separate a treatment of our criminals. We cannot -afford to humanise our prisons, while we will not afford to humanise -our slums. Again and again, when you appeal for real prison reform, the -obstructive argument arises: “Why should we take so much trouble for -the criminal, when hundreds of thousands of the honest struggling poor -are so much worse off?”</p> - -<p>But we have to take trouble anyhow; and the more unintelligently we -take trouble the greater is likely to be the cost of our criminals per -head to the State. In New York State, America, where Mr. Mott Osborne -has been trying to establish the principle of self-government among -the prisoners of Sing-Sing, there was actually a danger that (under an -extension of the system) the prisons might become self-supporting. And -at once trade interests did everything they could to get it condemned; -the contractors were afraid of losing their State contracts.</p> - -<p>That is just one little glimpse of what we are up against where vested -interests are concerned—interests so strongly represented in the -legislatures even of “free nations.” But we are up against something -much bigger than that. We are up against a moral reluctance of the -whole community to pronounce the word “Brother.” For if the State is -going to show a really understanding mind toward the criminal, it has -got to show it just as much to the whole social problem of poverty and -disease.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> And that is going to cost the State more money than it is -prepared to spend on anything—except on War.</p> - -<p>Crime is sometimes a very shameful thing. But is not the record of the -way powerful States have dealt with crime in the past more uniformly -shameful even than crime itself? Has not that record stood out as a -ghastly blind spot in the conscience of Christian Society?</p> - -<p>People of conservative mind are so extraordinarily ready to make -excuses for organised Society which they will not make for the -individual. “That was a cruel age,” they will say, when you recall the -judicial horrors perpetrated against human nature three hundred, two -hundred, one hundred years ago; it was tradition, it was custom. But -there were nations, professing Christianity—a doctrine having exactly -the same basis then as now—the same creed, the same gospel, the same -divine life of compassion and mercy exemplary of what Heaven required -in the conduct of man to man; and there were rulers and administrators -with minds and power of reason just as capable as our own—giants -of intellect some of them—who, with all their profession of -Christianity—interpreting it to the supposed needs of the State—have -left to us this ghastly record of a penal code worse than the crimes -it was set to remedy. That penal code—the obsequious servant of -State-authority—stood hundreds of years behind the average individual -conscience of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> community. And yet in moral authority we exalt it -above the individual! In age after age the conscience, the living -conscience of this country went to prison and to execution to bring -it just a little more up-to-date. Revolting juries refused to convict -because of its savageries; and still it moved slowly and reluctantly, -cruel in its fear of the human nature it did not understand.</p> - -<p>Less than a century and a half ago a girl of fourteen was sentenced -in this country to be burned alive for counterfeit coining; only -eighty-five years ago a boy of nine was sentenced to death for breaking -a pane of glass and stealing two pence. The sentences were not carried -out, but they were pronounced. I suppose it was still considered -“exemplary” to remind the criminal classes of what powers the law had -over them.</p> - -<p>Now let us imagine that some individual caught a boy indulging in petty -theft; and to punish him—in hot blood perhaps—took him and hung him -up by the neck till he was dead. Should we not be inclined to say that -so rabid a wild beast must be exterminated from the face of the earth, -lest he should have descendants like himself?</p> - -<p>Yet that is what our own Courts of Justice—the authorised instrument -of the people of England—were doing in cold blood to young boys in -the time of Charles Lamb. They had not the excuse of national danger, -or war; yet we don’t think that our ancestors ought to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> have been -abolished off the face of the earth for doing it, or for allowing it. -We manage to forgive them, because after all they were—our ancestors. -When it comes to a State-act, the individual shares the responsibility -with so many that he is able to shift it from his conscience.</p> - -<p>But in that process what had the State done to itself? In so dealing -with the criminal—it had become a criminal, making of itself a moral -monstrosity—all the more foul because in the perpetration of such acts -it declared that it was doing no wrong!</p> - -<p>How, one may ask, was it possible for such penalties as these, and -others even more savage than these, to become embedded in the penal -code of a civilised and a Christian State?</p> - -<p>Mainly for two reasons I believe: first the fact (referred to before) -that the doctrine of unreformative punishment, as expressive of the -Justice of God, was part of its religion; and secondly, that the State -based itself then, as now, on the Will to Power, and not on the Will -to Love. And seeking its safety in terms of power it perpetrated these -atrocities. From those two premises the results were only natural.</p> - -<p>Are we going to salve our consciences to-day by mere degrees of -comparison, by saying: “We are not so bad as that now”? Perhaps we are -not so bad; but the basis on which we continue to act has not altered. -The Will to Power (for which the State still stands) must always lag -behind the Will to Love in its <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>understanding of human nature. And -while it lags behind the penal code of the State will always be a drag -upon the social conscience.</p> - -<p>Now so far we have been considering this doctrine of punishment in -relation to the criminal section of society—force and punitive -treatment being necessary, we say, for the discipline and control of -the waste products of our civilisation. But in the whole body politic -what does it all come to? What type of mind is finally evolved by the -State which so deals with its human material? What is the final moral -aspect of the State itself?</p> - -<p>Examine that question from the international point of view. Why is -every State armed? Because every State, when all is said and done, is -a potential criminal whom other States cannot trust. And though these -States look down upon their criminals, they are proud of themselves.</p> - -<p>We are grouped to-day, many States together, in armed alliance for what -(when we took up arms) we believed to be a great and a just cause; and -while we are so grouped we speak well of our Allies. But the groupings -of to-day are not the groupings of yesterday; and the international -spectacle which we have presented age after age has been simply this: -that no nation could trust any other nation to behave morally, justly, -humanely, and for the good of the whole, where single self-interest was -concerned.</p> - -<p>So like to its own criminals did each nation remain, that all the -others had ever to keep their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> instruments of punishment ready to hand -in case of need.</p> - -<p>Is not that an extraordinary commentary on the law of punishment; that -not merely does it fail to do away with the criminal within its own -jurisdiction, but reproduces his likeness in all the high places of -the world—giving him his justification by showing him that, where -community of interest ends, States are no other and no better than he?</p> - -<p>We all agree that war is a very horrible thing. But at one point it has -a moral value which is not shared so obviously by other penal codes; a -value which people are coming more and more to recognise to-day, and -which will—more than anything else perhaps—help to put an end to war.</p> - -<p>For when you seek to punish wrong by going to war, then you yourself -have to share the punishment. Innocent and guilty alike must agonise -and suffer and die. To inflict that punishment you must choose out your -bravest and your best, and send them to share equally with those you -would punish the sentence of suffering and death.</p> - -<p>All punishment, inflicted by penal codes, really comes back to -the community; but only in war do we see it shared: actively and -voluntarily by some, passively and unavoidably by others. And perhaps -it is that more than anything else which will eventually persuade -civilised man that war is intolerable—that he cannot punish without -sharing the punishment. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span></p> - -<p>It may sound fantastic to suggest that a like condition should be -definitely attached to our civil and penal system, in order to bring -home to us that all punishment is shared, that what we manufacture in -our prisons becomes a staple commodity.</p> - -<p>But I can think of no device that would so quickly and effectively get -rid of that separation of interest which punishment seems to establish. -Imagine that for every prisoner sentenced, a lot fell on someone -else, calling upon him or her to go and share in that demonstration -of society’s failure to produce only good citizens. Imagine the Prime -Minister, about to make an important statement in the House of Commons, -called suddenly by lot to share the incarceration of a defender of the -liberty of the press or of a robber of hen-roosts! Should we have to -wait a month—a week—to have our prisons transformed into places where -human nature was no longer thrown to waste, with its energies cut off -from sane employment and development? Would it not bring home to us—as -perhaps nothing else would—the mill-stone weight on the life of the -nation of all punishment that is not purely reformative and curative? -Would it not very soon put an end to punishment in the old sense -altogether?</p> - -<p>You may look upon this suggestion as a fantastic parable; but -spiritually it is what we shall have to do.</p> - -<p>“There is only one sin,” said the unknown writer of one of the -most beautiful and famous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> books of devotion produced during the -middle-ages—the Theologia Germanica. “The only sin is separation.”</p> - -<p>We shall never get rid of the criminal till we cease to separate -ourselves from him, till we make his interest our interest, till we -share, willingly and consciously, the responsibility of the society -which has produced him.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CHRISTIANITY A DANGER TO THE STATE</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1916)</p> - -<p>The State, which accepts the proposition that force is a remedy, has -logical ground for employing force to secure its ends, until worsted by -the forces opposed to it, or by some other power.</p> - -<p>Such a State, naturally and logically, claims the assistance of its -subjects in pursuing a course for which, in time of peace, and with -their apparent consent, it has made great preparation, entailing a vast -expenditure of the nation’s wealth and energy.</p> - -<p>This claim of the State for the personal service of its citizens is -always latent even in peace-time; but in peace-time the great majority -of the services it requires are rendered upon a voluntary basis, and -generally in exchange for a monetary equivalent.</p> - -<p>Only, therefore, when the State is pressed by necessity to make an -extreme assertion of its claims for personal service does it find -itself actively opposed by citizens who have never in their own lives -and consciences accepted the proposition that force is a remedy for -evil.</p> - -<p>It is true that many of these objectors have paid taxes without -resistance for the upkeep of Army and Navy. If they have done so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> -conscientiously and not merely negligently, it has probably been -upon the lines of “rendering to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s,” -and from a recognition that all the devices of barter and exchange -(including a coin-currency) are a material convenience devised by -the State, which may legitimately be given to or withdrawn from the -control of the individual without affecting his personal integrity. -Men so minded may say quite plausibly: “My worldly goods you can take -or leave; my pockets you may fill or empty; but my body is the temple -of the Holy Ghost, and if I am called upon to give personal service -for the infliction of legal penalties, for the suppression of civil -commotion, or for the prosecution of war, then I am asked for service -in a form which I can only render if my conscience approves.”</p> - -<p>Faced by this contention, the State has often thought wise to admit, or -to make allowance for, a claim which nevertheless it will not recognise -by law. People who object to jury-service for the enforcement of a -penal code which is against their conscience, are frequently excused -without fine or penalty. The same allowance would probably be made to -excuse any one opposed to capital punishment from assuming the office -of hangman. Yet capital punishment only exists because a majority in -the State believes it to be essential to public safety; and if there -were a dearth of hands ready to undertake the task, it would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> then -become a test of good citizenship for all to offer themselves; and the -conscientious objector, whose argument was tolerated and respectfully -listened to the day before, would suddenly become a disreputable object -to all law-abiding men, unless the State were weak enough, or wise -enough, to provide him with the right of exemption. If it did so he -would immediately cease to be disreputable in the eyes of the law, his -right to a conscience being granted.</p> - -<p>That concession has frequently been made in the past to people -who, calling themselves Christians, have held tenets subversive of -State-authority. When religious conformity was considered necessary -to the spiritual security of the State, Nonconformists resisted, till -the State made allowance for them. When the taking of an oath was -considered necessary for the security of truth in the witness-box, -Quakers resisted, till the State made allowance for them. When the -coercion of Ulster was considered necessary for the well-being of -Ireland, men who had taken the oath of military obedience threatened -a conscientious strike, and the State made allowance for them. -Incidentally they became the heroes of that party which is to-day most -strenuous in its detestation of those later conscientious objectors who -refuse to take the oath of military obedience; but nobody was sent to -prison for uttering propaganda in their praise!</p> - -<p>Now the reason why the State could tolerate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> them was not a moral -reason; it was simply upon the calculation that, while still pursuing -its policy of physical force, it could afford to do without them. It -could allow non-conformity based upon Christian teaching, or upon -conscientious scruples, to streak the current of its policy, without -thereby suffering any deflection of its course.</p> - -<p>But it is quite different when the State, driven by its belief in the -rightness and the remedial value of physical force, comes to commit -the whole of its resources to the prosecution of war. The existence -of the conscientious objector then becomes a more inconvenient factor -in the situation; it may even, from the State’s point of view, become -a dangerous one. Then those insidious Christian idiosyncrasies, which -have so often been allowed to withstand authority, must have all -possible ground cut from under them, lest it should afford standing -to a new social ideal. We have it on the authority of the public -prosecutor himself that, if all men became conscientious objectors, -war would no longer be possible; and from such a catastrophe the State -must, of course, be saved by all possible means.</p> - -<p>It is at this point, therefore, that the latent claim (which in -peace-time is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance) -becomes insistent and active. The State must have—if it can get -it—the personal service of all its able-bodied citizens. And<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> thus, -practically for the first time, the rival claims of law and conscience -upon a man’s allegiance come to be fought out in public on a large -scale; and if the Nation is engaged in a popular war, or in one where -the vast majority believes that it has righteousness upon its side, -then there will inevitably be much prejudice in the public mind against -the conscientious objector; whereas there might be much sympathy for -him (though not really on the principle for which he contended) if he -were refusing to fight in a war which happened to be unpopular, or -which a great number of people regarded as unjust.</p> - -<p>But if we want to get to the true basis of the principle against which -the conscientious objector is contending (a principle which cannot -logically be separated from any form of government built up on force) -we must not colour our view with the rightness or wrongness (in our -own estimation) of the war in which we are engaged, since we obscure -thereby that quality of allegiance which is claimed by the State.</p> - -<p>The State’s claim—latent in peace-time and liable to emerge whenever -war or crisis shall arise—is not that its citizens should fight for -it when the cause is just and right, but that they should fight for it -in any case, if it orders them. That claim, made by every State with -more or less urgency, we are now invited to view with horror operating -at its full efficiency throughout a Prussianised Germany. Thus exalted -and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> perfected, it has become, we are told, a danger to the world; -in such a State the moral conscience of the individual has become -atrophied by subordination, and he is not free to choose between right -and wrong. But war only brings home to us the logic of a situation -which in peace-time we have burked; and now, in order to combat the -evil, in its fullest manifestation, men in this country are asked to -give their souls into similar keeping—to accept, that is to say, the -over-riding of individual conscience by the law of State-necessity. -It is a claim which any State, founded on force, is bound eventually -to make; it is a claim which anyone who believes force to be evil is -bound to repudiate. The follower of the one school draws his ethics -from the established rules of the body politic to which he belongs; -the follower of the other draws them, it may be, from the personal -example and teaching of One whom the body politic of his day regarded -as a criminal, and put to death; of One whose followers, it may be said -further, were persecuted in the early centuries of the Christian era, -not because of their opinions, but because, in practice, they were a -danger to the State. The Roman mind was very logical; and only when -Christianity had become absorbed in the State system and had accepted -the view that physical force and persecution were good social remedies, -only then did Christianity cease to be an apparent danger and a fit -subject for persecution. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span></p> - -<p>But the primitive Christian standpoint is always liable to emerge; and -when it does, then we get the opposing principles of two incompatible -schools. And we must keep these principles in mind—the principle -of conduct based upon a personal example rejecting force, and the -principle of conduct based upon a social edifice relying upon force -for its well-being and advancement; otherwise we confuse the issue, -and weaken our appreciation of the moral position which each side -assumes. It is surely quite evident that the State, while based upon -force, cannot (except as an indulgence) countenance the claim of any -individual to make the morality of its action the test for personal -allegiance and service. And so this State-claim must be unequivocably -defined, otherwise we do not really know where we are.</p> - -<p>Now many fervent supporters of the doctrine that State-necessity must -stand supreme above individual conscience, confuse matters by importing -the moral equation, and by arguing for the compelling principle from -particular instances where moral considerations seem to favour it: “Our -Cause is just; therefore, etc.,” is the line on which they contend. But -the State’s claim stands independent of the justice of its cause; and -“My Country right or wrong!” is the real motto which the objector to -conscientious liberty is called to fight under.</p> - -<p>All that the State-backers say as to the obligation for Englishmen to -fight Germany<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> to-day, applies equally to the obligation for Germans -to fight England. So while we continue to assert that a man must fight -here with us for the cause of liberty, honour, righteousness—in a -word, for God—we assert equally that in another country he must -subject his conscience to the claims of the State, and fight for -oppression, dishonour, unrighteousness—in a word, for the Devil (and -that in spite of the baptismal vows which oblige him to “fight manfully -under Christ’s banner,” not merely against sin, as he individually is -concerned, but sin spiritually combined in its symbolic representative, -and defended by the temporalities of the world). From which we must -argue that, if Christ were here on earth to-day, born of German -parents, he would be called upon to fight in the ranks of Germany; that -if he were born of English parents he would be called to fight for -England; while, if again, born of Jewish parents, he might be accorded -the alternative privilege of fighting for England which was not his -country, or of being deported to Russia to fight for the persecutors of -his race.</p> - -<p>The conscientious objector, on the other hand, feels bound to take -the moral equation of all such particular instances as a guide to -his diagnosis of the evils of war; and he comes thus to regard the -expedient of war as altogether so bad a remedy for evil that he dares -to doubt whether Christ would be seen bearing arms on either side; -and he is probably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> strengthened in that conviction by the fact that -modern conditions of war tend more and more to involve the weak, -the innocent, and the helpless in the ruin and suffering wrought by -industrial and financial exhaustion, invasion and blockade, and that -“arms of precision” are so unprecise and blind in action that they -are quite as likely, when directed against towns, to destroy the -non-fighters as the fighters. And the conscientious objector finds a -difficulty in seeing Christ serving a gun for the artillery of either -side (however righteous the cause) which may have for immediate result -the disembowelling of a mother while in the pains of child-birth, or -the dismembering of young children.</p> - -<p>He holds further (and it is a tenable argument addressed to any Power -which maintains despotic sway over an alien race, declaring such sway -to be acceptable to the people concerned, while treating as “seditious” -any reluctance to regard it as acceptable), he holds that, if the worst -comes to the worst, submission to force, or mere passive resistance -thereto, is more lifesaving, both morally and physically, than the -setting of force against force even for the defence of “liberty.” He -holds, probably, that Finland, in her policy of passive resistance to -Tsarist domination, has better conditions and prospects to-day than -Serbia; that the present fate of India, as the result of submission to -a stronger Power is preferable to the present fate of Belgium; even -though the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> Government forced upon it be more alien to the genius of -its races than is the German to the Flemish. He may believe that in -the long run India is more likely to escape from being Britainised by -bowing to the subjugating Power, than Britain is likely to escape from -being Prussianised by a hurried adoption of a similar system to that -which she has set out to destroy. He may even think (for there is no -limit to the contrariety of his views) that if England wins handsomely -in this war by adopting the Prussian system of militarism, she is more -likely to retain it than if she gets beaten. In a word he thinks war -the most hazardous of all remedies for the evils it sets out to cure.</p> - -<p>The State, on the other side, sees the very gravest danger to that -edifice of worldly power which is summed up in the word “imperial,” if -once it allows the individual conscience to pick and choose the moral -terms of its allegiance. And the better the argument the conscientious -objector can present from political parallels in other countries, or -from the failures and blunders of past history, the more dangerous -becomes his propaganda and the more rigorously must it be suppressed.</p> - -<p>The State’s claim to our duty to-day is precisely the same, neither -more nor less, than it would be if it required our services for the -prosecution of a second Boer War, a second Opium-trade war against -China, or a second war against the Independence of America.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> The causes -of the war might be no more reputable than in these cases, but the -State’s claim on our allegiance would remain the same. “It is not for -you,” the State says, in effect, “to judge whether I am right or wrong, -if I come to claim your services for war.”</p> - -<p>Now nobody, I presume, is so convinced of the perennial purity of his -country’s motives, or that its foreign policy has in the past been -so safe-guarded by democratic control, as to claim that it has never -waged foolish or unjust wars. Most reasonable people will admit that -the State is, in matters of morals, a fallible authority. The claim -is, therefore, that of a fallible authority for the unquestioning -obedience of its citizens in a course of action which may involve the -ruin, torture, and death of an innocent people, or the subjugation of -a liberty-loving race. That claim by a State which stands based on the -doctrine that Might is a surer remedy and defence than Right, is a -perfectly logical one. I have not a word to say against it.</p> - -<p>But when that claim is made for the State by followers of Christianity -on Christian grounds, then I am anxious to relieve the State of the -entanglement they would thrust upon it. I am sure that a State which -bases its authority on Might is weakened and not strengthened by any -attempt to sanction its claim as being compatible with the Christianity -taught by Christ. The less Christianity a State pretends to when it -goes to war, the more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> is it likely to conduct its war effectively, -and to find no mental hindrance in its way as it advances to its true -end—the destruction of its enemies.</p> - -<p>Because our counsels were mixed with a certain modicum of Christianity, -we had a reluctance early in the war to use asphyxiating gas, exploding -bullets, and certain other improved devices for adding to the frightful -effectiveness of war. We still hesitate to smear phosphorus on our -shells so as to make wounds incurable, or to starve our prisoners -because we hear that our fellow countrymen are being starved in -Germany. In some instances with the help of the <i>Daily Mail</i> the -doctrine of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has carried -the day for us; but it is not a Christian doctrine, and elsewhere -Christianity, or its shadow, still holds us by the leg. The <i>Morning -Post</i>, seeing the national danger we were in from these divided -counsels, rightly demanded a Government that would “stick at nothing,” -but has only partially succeeded in securing what it wants.</p> - -<p>Now the conscientious objectors have been trying to do us the service, -which we have ignored, of pointing out from the very beginning that -war is not and cannot be Christian, and so showing us that when a -nation goes to war Christianity is the real danger. The bigger the -bulk of genuine and practical Christianity in any country, the more -impossible is it for that country to adopt effective methods of war.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> -The reluctance which we feel to shell out phosphorus, or to starve -civilians, will in the genuinely Christian State make itself felt at a -much earlier stage of warlike practice, long before those particular -devices have been applied or even thought of; and it will arise (to -the discrediting of all power which places Might above Right) from -the assertion that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is not -Christian doctrine, and is, in result, no remedy for the evil it sets -itself to avenge.</p> - -<p>This is the real parting of the ways; it is fundamental. Christianity, -based upon the personal example and teaching of Christ, is too -individualist to be in accordance with Society as at present -constituted. Institutional Christianity, on the other hand, has -obviously transferred its allegiance in certain matters of moral -guidance from Christ to Cæsar; and claims that those matters have -been left for Cæsar to decide. I heard it argued, for instance, -quite recently, by a Roman Catholic, that as Christendom in all ages -had tolerated war, all question of conscientious objection thereto -by a Catholic falls to the ground. The answer of the Christian -individualist, I conceive, would be, that Christendom also tolerated -torture for the extraction of truth, and slavery for the extraction -of labour; and that, nevertheless, the conscientious objection -of resistant minorities succeeded, in spite of the supineness of -Christendom, in placing those monstrosities outside the pale of -civilized convention. No<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> doubt while those devices flourished -under the countenance of Mother Church, Christians opposed to their -abolition would have cried then, as they cry now about war, “How are -you to do without them? How can you extract truth from an unwilling -witness, or labour from a subjugated race, except by compulsion and -force?” The answer to that apparently insoluble problem now stands -written in history—a history which has not eliminated untruth from -the witness-box, or indolence from the labour market; yet torture and -slavery alike have ceased to be practical politics, except where the -State still answers with regard to war as it used to answer with regard -to these: “I cannot do without.” There, in their last real stronghold, -unaffected by Christian ethics, slavery and torture still stand.</p> - -<p>But we have to remember that the State’s claim, if we accept it as a -binding principle, comes much closer home to us than it would do if -it arose only in time of war. Military service, once we are in it, -involves us in such things as the firing at Peterloo on defenceless -citizens, in the murder under superior orders of Sheehy Skeffington; -in the shooting, if we are ordered to shoot them, of conscientious -objectors—men who are themselves sworn not to take life. Military -service, loyally rendered in Tsarist Russia, involved the riding down, -the sabring to death, and the drowning of those meek crowds who stood -before the Winter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> Palace in January, 1905, asking for their “Little -Father” to come and speak to them words of comfort.</p> - -<p>These are things unfortunately which Christians cannot do with a -good conscience, but which the State for its safety may say that it -requires. Let those of us who agree with the State’s claim to our -personal service, irrespective of conscience, do our utmost to separate -it from the weakening effects which true and genuine Christianity is -bound to have on it.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span></p> - -<h2>THE SALT OF THE EARTH</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1918)</p> - -<p>It is a curious commentary upon the confusion of tongues which has -descended upon us in our efforts to build towers reaching to Heaven, -that you would have been misled had I given this address its true -title. Had I called it “the Value of Purity” most of you would have -imagined that I was going to speak of what is usually called—with such -strange one-sidedness—the “social evil”; just as we call the liquor -traffic “the Trade.” You would have thought, probably, that I was -going to speak about Regulation 40 D, or some other aspect of the sex -problem with which the word “purity” has become conventionally allied. -It would, indeed, be one-sided in the other direction, to exclude -such considerations from the scope of so embracing a theme; but my -intention is rather to disencumber the word “purity” from the narrow -and puritanical meaning to which it has become limited; and the “Salt -of the Earth” does bring us nearer by its salutary implication to what -purity should really mean.</p> - -<p>For if purity is not a good sanitary principle of fundamental -application to all ethical problems alike, it is merely a pious fad -which may easily become a pious fraud—a religious tenet pigeon-holed -by crabbed age for the affliction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> of youth. To departmentalise it in -a particular direction leads to impurity of thought; for we destroy -the balance of life and degrade its standards if we do not use our -moral weights and measures consistently in all relations alike. And -if you allow a particular implication of purity to impose its claim -in a society whose impurity in other directions makes it entirely -impracticable, then you are reducing your social ethics to mere -pretence and mockery; and honest youth will find you out, and will turn -away from your religions and your ethical codes with the contempt which -they deserve.</p> - -<p>Is not that what is actually happening—more apparently to-day, -perhaps, than ever before? Has not that departmental code to which I -refer broken down and become foolish in the eyes of honest men and -women, largely because purity is nowhere established in the surrounding -conditions of our social life?</p> - -<p>What is the true aim of social life and social organisation in regard -to the individual? What claim has it upon his allegiance if it does -not offer the means of self-realisation and self-fulfilment equally to -all? And suppose, instead of doing this in a large majority of cases, -it does the reverse: starves his imagination, reduces his initiative, -cripples his development, makes practically impossible (at the time -when desire awakes and becomes strong) the fulfilment of his nature -instinct for mating; how does the claim stand then? If you can only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> -offer him marriage conditions which are themselves impure, unequal laws -which are themselves a temptation, houses incompatible with health -or decency, wages insufficient for the healthy support of home, and -wife, and children; if that, broadly speaking, has been the marriage -condition which society offers to wage-earning youth, what right has it -to babble about “purity” in that narrower and more individual relation, -while careless to provide it in its own larger domain?</p> - -<p>If you have employments—such as that of bank-clerk or -shop-assistant—which demand of those engaged a certain gentility of -dress and appearance, but offer only a wage upon which (till a man -is over thirty) domestic establishment at the required standard of -respectability is quite impossible—if that is the social condition -imposed in a great branch of middle-class industry—if you tolerate -that condition and draw bigger profits from your business, and bigger -dividends from your investments upon the strength of it—what right -have you to demand of your victims an abstinence which is in itself -unnatural and penurious, and therefore impure?</p> - -<p>Yet what proportion of sermons, think you, have been preached -during the last hundred years in churches and chapels against that -great social impurity of underpaid labour, and underfed life which -have between them done so far more to create prostitution than any -indwelling depravity in the heart of youth?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> Thwarted life, and sweated -labour, those have been the makings of the “social evil,” so called; -and they lie at the door of an impure system which has made its money -savings at the cost of a great waste of life.</p> - -<p>That particular instance, which I refer to merely in passing, has to -do with our ordinary application of the word purity. But I want to -show how all social purity really hangs together, and how, unless -you have a great fundamental social principle pure throughout, -corruption will carry infection from one department to the other, -making useless or impracticable any ideal of purity which you try to -set up in one particular direction. If you do—to put it plainly and -colloquially—the doctrine won’t wash; honest minds will find out that -the part is inconsistent with the whole.</p> - -<p>What, then, is the whole social ideal which lies at the root of the -modern State? Is it pure, or is it impure? Is it the true “Salt of the -Earth” which, if equally applied, will benefit all nations and all -peoples alike: those to whom, in President Wilson’s phrase, we wish to -be just, and those to whom we do not wish to be just? Does any modern -State really present within its own borders, and in its treatment of -all classes and interests, an example which, if extended, would make -the world safe for Internationalism—an end which I am inclined to -think is more important than making it safe for Democracy? </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p> - -<p>The phrase “Salt of the Earth,” which I have taken to illustrate the -meaning and value of social purity, has come to us from that wonderful -compendium of ethical teaching known to Christians as the “Sermon -on the Mount”; that body of coherent, consistent, and constructive -doctrine from which Christianity—so soon as it had allied itself with -Cæsar and the things of Cæsar—made such haste to depart. And the -whole process of that departure was (from the pure ethical standard of -the Sermon on the Mount) a process of adulteration—of impurity—an -adaptation of a spiritual ideal to a secular practice of mixed motives. -But the process really began earlier. It began in the attempt to -identify the God of the Sermon on the Mount with Jahveh, the tribal God -of Hebrew history. And in that attempted identification (incompatible -ethics having to be reconciled) ethics became confounded.</p> - -<p>The Rabbinical training of St. Paul, the Hebraistic tendencies of the -early Christian Church (whose first device was to proselytize the Jews -on the old nationalistic assumption that they were the Chosen People), -all combined to give an impure vision of God to the followers of the -new faith. The nationalism of Judaism corrupted the internationalism -of the Day of Pentecost; and the primitive Mosaic code uttered from -Sinai, and adapted to the mission of racial conquest there enjoined, -stultified the teaching of Calvary. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p> - -<p>The two were incompatible; yet, somehow or another, the Christian -Church had to evolve an ethic which embraced both. And it did so -through allegiance to the State, and the setting-up of a compromise -between things secular and things spiritual which has existed ever -since.</p> - -<p>You can see for yourselves which of the two is to-day the more -recognised and observed among nations which call themselves Christian. -The old tenets of Judaism—based on the Mosaic law and summed up in the -saying, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”—can be observed -by any one to-day in practical entirety with the full approval of the -State. A strict observance of the Sermon on the Mount, and a practical -belief in the teaching of Calvary land a man in prison or may even -render him liable to be shot.</p> - -<p>Rightly or wrongly he is regarded as a danger or a weakness to the -modern State. Personally, I think that he is rightly regarded so; for I -do not see how the modern State could exist if everyone were a sincere -believer in that great peace-offensive, the Sermon on the Mount, and in -its great practical exposition, the Death on Calvary. The only thing I -am in doubt about is whether the modern State is the better alternative.</p> - -<p>Christianity, sincerely and whole-heartedly practised, might have -strange social results; it might, on the other hand, be unexpectedly -pleasant and workable. But of one thing I feel<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> quite sure; it would -not—as humanity is at present constituted—be practised by any but a -very small minority; and it would have to work entirely without State -aid. But that minority would fulfil, for the purposes of demonstration, -the condition which, I think, is necessary for all great ethical -adventures: it would be pure and unadulterated. It would succeed or -it would fail standing upon its own feet and not upon Cæsar’s, not -relying on mixed motives or compromise, but on a single principle—the -principle of loving your neighbour as yourself, and converting him -from evil ways by a process of peaceful penetration. And being—and -remaining, a decisive minority in the world’s affairs, its part therein -would resemble the part played by salt in the chemical sanitation of -the soil out of which grow the clean or the unclean things of earth -which feed or which poison us.</p> - -<p>And that is the first point which I ask you to consider; the -extraordinary value to society, and to the whole evolution of the human -race of minorities holding extremist opinions—so extreme that they do -not seem at the present day to be practical politics—and yet having a -chemic influence (which would not be otherwise obtainable) for bringing -into being the mind of to-morrow, which has always been, all down the -ages, the work of minorities, and generally of persecuted minorities.</p> - -<p>For the Salt of the Earth is only one single constituent, which enables -a better standard<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> of life to become established where the virtue -of its presence is felt. Salt is not, and cannot be, the general -constituent of life; its essence always remains a minor quantity, and -yet quite definitely it affects the generality of things around it. -But in itself it is an extreme, an uncompromising element; its most -striking characteristic is its saltness.</p> - -<p>It would be foolish, therefore, to blame it for not being sweet, or for -not being acid, or for not being capable of taking the place of beef or -mutton in the dietary of the human race, or for not making the whole -human race in its own image. (The only person I ever heard of who was -turned into an image of salt was Lot’s wife; and as a human being it -made her entirely useless). And yet, as, quite literally, the substance -salt has helped the earth to become habitable, and the human race to -become human, so has that symbolic salt of the earth, helped the human -race to become humane, and to envisage (though not to obey) a new ethic -of conduct based upon an ideal conception of the brotherhood of man.</p> - -<p>It was the extreme expression of a new and higher moral plane to which -evolution is only gradually bringing us. Had it started upon compromise -it would have been useless. Its special value was, and still is, in -its uncompromising enunciation of a principle which we still regard as -impracticable.</p> - -<p>But it had, at least, when it was first uttered, this degree of -practicability—it appealed to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> men’s minds; and it has gone on -appealing to them ever since.</p> - -<p>Had it been uttered to neolithic man, it would have been merely -unintelligible, with no imaginable relation to the experiences of -life; whereas it has a very obvious relation now. Earth was then -in the toils not of a moral but of a physical problem, demanding -a straightforward physical solution; and the salting of the earth -consisted then very largely in the indomitable courage and obstinacy -with which man—the crude struggling biped—stood up against the larger -and more powerful forms of life which barred the way of his advance -toward civilisation—just as previously, the salting of the earth -(the preparing it for a higher form of life) depended upon the huge -and uncouth antediluvian monsters which devoured and trod down the -overwhelming growths of marsh and jungle.</p> - -<p>And from that first salting of the earth, lasting through so many -ages, it is no wonder that much of the old physical recipe still -survives; and that the history of civilisation has shown us a process -in which ruthless extermination by war was regarded as the best means -of establishing God’s elect upon earth. The doctrine that force is a -remedy, or a security for moral ends, dies a slow death in the minds -of men. Institutional Christianity has, by its traditions and its -precepts, done all it could to keep it alive. We still have read to us -in our churches—for our approving <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>acceptance—a proposition made by -the Children of Israel to a neighbouring tribe, precisely similar to -that made five years ago by Germany to Belgium. And the inference left -on the minds of Christian congregations, generation after generation, -has been that God quite approved of it (and of the ruthless devastation -which followed) as a means for making his chosen people the salt of the -earth.</p> - -<p>It is not without significance that the Christian Church all down -the ages has allowed that sort of teaching to enter the minds of the -common people. It is not without significance that the common people -five years ago rose superior to their Bible-teaching, and regarded its -reproduction in the world of to-day as a moral outrage.</p> - -<p>And yet if the world’s affairs, and its racial problems are to be -solved by physical force, it was a perfectly consistent thing to do; -and the inconsistency lies in our moral revolt against it.</p> - -<p>The truth is, of course, that we are in a period of transition. We are -indignant with people who regard successful force as a justification -for wrong; but we are almost equally indignant with those who will not -regard it as a remedy for wrong. And we are slow to see that while the -school of justification by force remains rampant in the world, there -may be some chemic value for the spiritual development of the human -race in the school which denies the efficacy of remedy by force. Yet<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> -is it not possible that as the past belongs to the one, so the future -may belong to the other?</p> - -<p>When we started upon this war we declared that it was a war to end war; -and it was quite a popular thing to say that if it did not result in -the ending of war, then the cause of the Allies would stand defeated. -But that was only another way of saying that we should suffer defeat -if in the near future the whole world were not converted to the point -of view of the conscientious objector. But that would have been a very -unpopular way of putting it, so it was not said.</p> - -<p>Surely this sort of contradiction in which war lands us is only another -proof that we are in an age of transition. Transition makes consistency -difficult.</p> - -<p>But the inconsistency, which conditions of war bring into prominent -reality, lies embedded in our social system (which is itself a -compromise between two incompatible principles)—the Will to Love and -the Will to Power; and there will always be that inconsistency till -the world has definitely decided whether Love or Power is to form the -basis of our moral order. It has not decided it yet. In our own country -(leaving out all question of foreign relations) we have not decided it -yet.</p> - -<p>It is the condition of impurity resulting from that indecision—and -permeating more or less the whole of our social organisation—which I -ask you now to consider. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p> - -<p>How it came about is really not difficult to explain. When primitive -man began to develop the rudiments of society (the group, or the herd) -he did so mainly for self-preservation. In the struggle for existence -coordinated numbers gave him a better chance; and giving him a better -chance of life, they gave him also a better chance of self-development -and self-enjoyment. But into that early society man brought not only -his social instincts but his predatory instincts as well. And while the -group helped him to prey more effectively on those left outside, it did -not prevent him from preying in a certain measure on those within. The -exceptionally strong man had an exceptional value in his own tribe; and -he exacted an exceptional price for it—in wives, or in slaves captured -in war, or in the division of the spoil. It was the same, as society -developed, with the exceptionally resourceful leader; brain began to -count above muscle; and the men of exceptional ability acquired the -wealth. And you know perfectly well, without my going further into -detail, that out of the price exacted within the community (whose broad -interests were in common) separate and conflicting interests arose; the -interest which secured political control exacted from all the dependent -interests an unfair price for its services; and wherever slavery was an -established part of social development, man did not love his neighbour -as himself, he only loved him as his chattel. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p> - -<p>You may take a big jump through history, from primitive to feudal, from -feudal to modern times; and you will still find the same interests -strong in every state, using their inherited control of wealth, of -organisation, and of law, to extract advantage to themselves from the -weaker, and the less educated members of the community; and always -doing it in the name of the commonwealth—the strength and stability -of the State. Only the other day (in a State as advanced as any -in its democratic faith and its doctrine of equality for all—the -United States of America) the moment there was a temporary breakdown -in the legal safeguards against child-labour—there was a great -organised rush in certain States of conscripted child-labour into -industry—conscripted not by the State but by capital, exploiting the -increased need of the wage-earning classes brought about by the raised -prices of war.</p> - -<p>The men who do that kind of thing (and they are men of great power -and influence in the State) still only love their neighbours as their -chattels, and still take advantage of all forms of law, or absence of -law, to keep established as far as they can the conditions of social -slavery. You may say that a thing like that lies outside the law, or -that it is an abuse which legislation has not yet overtaken and put an -end to; but what is more important and more significant is that it is -an abuse which public opinion in those States where it was done had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> -not overtaken and put an end to, or not merely put an end to, but made -impossible. It makes it impossible for a black man over there to marry -a white woman; and if it can do the one it can do the other.</p> - -<p>But what are those people doing? They are merely reflecting in their -own personal affairs an ideal which lies engrained in every State which -puts self-interest above the interest of the whole human race. And -that, in our present transitional stage, is the standpoint of every -country to-day. In our heart of hearts we still hold Nationalism more -important than Internationalism. And “my country right or wrong” is -still for some people the last word in morality; rather than admit -their country to be in the wrong they will let morality go.</p> - -<p>In that matter, indeed, the world to-day seems to be divided into -two schools. There is one school which so exalts the idea of the -State as to say that the State can do no wrong: that if morality and -State-interest conflict morality must go under, or rather that morals -only exist to subserve State-interests,—and being a State-product, the -State has the right to limit their application. We are fighting to-day -against a race which is charged with having taken up that attitude; -and the pronouncements of some of its most distinguished writers, as -well as certain methods which it has employed in war, seem to bear -out the charge. But when it comes to war, that particular school of -State-ethics gives<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> itself away by protesting that the other States -which are in hostile alliance against it are behaving very wrongly -indeed—though by its own doctrine (States being above morals) they are -incapable of wrong. It cannot stick to its own thesis.</p> - -<p>But what are we to say if that other school, which admits that the -State can do wrong; but is not going to allow the State to be punished -for doing wrong if that State happens to be its own? It is not -that this school does not believe in punishment; it believes in it -enthusiastically, rapturously, so long as it is directed against the -wrong-doing of some other State. Punishment is good for other States, -when they do wrong; without punishment the justice of God would not -be satisfied. But for their own particular State punishment is bad, -and is no longer to be advocated. And so you may say—looking back in -history—that your country was quite wrong in waging such and such a -war; but patriotism forbids the wish in that case that right should -have prevailed and the justice of God been satisfied.</p> - -<p>Now that school was very vocal in England during the Boer War; and I -daresay during the Opium War with China; and I daresay, also, during -the American War of Independence—very loud that we were in the wrong; -but not at all admitting, for that reason, that it would be good for us -to be beaten. But I think it should be one of our proudest boasts that, -in the long run (not immediately—not perhaps<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> for a generation or two) -the political and moral good sense of this country goes back upon the -teaching of that school. I believe that on the whole we are glad that -we were beaten in the war with America; and that we are glad we were -beaten because we were in the wrong. And, perhaps, some day—not yet, -for our fear of the Yellow Race is still greater than our fear of any -white race you can name—but, perhaps, some day we may be sorry that we -were not beaten to a standstill in our opium war with China. (I see, -incidentally, that to-day we are addressing a sharp remonstrance to -the Chinese Government, because it is now doing that very thing which -we then compelled it to do at the point of the bayonet—permitting, -namely, the opium trade to be revived. That remonstrance only came, -however, after we had sold to China sufficient opium to last its -medical needs for 140 years!)</p> - -<p>Now those acts of our national past, which we now reprobate, were only -bad prominent expressions of the fundamental idea on which the modern -State runs its foreign policies—reflecting outwardly something which -lives strongly engrained in our midst—the Will to Power. It is because -that principle is more firmly established in the world of diplomacy -than either the Will to Serve or the Will to Love, that our policies -have been able to shape themselves. It was not because we wished to -give the Heathen Chinee a good time that we forced our opium upon him; -it was because<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> we wanted to give our opium trade good returns. And -that was merely a faithful reflection of what was going on at home. -It was because we wanted—or because our ruling classes wanted—to -give capital good returns, that the working classes were not allowed -to combine, that child-labour, and sweated industries remained like -institutions in our midst, that legislation in the interests of labour -and of women and children fell hopelessly into arrears. Democracy, -you may say, has done away with all that: well, with some of it. In -proportion to the broadening of its power in the State, Democracy has -looked after its own interests. But so long as the average human mind -is bent upon securing advantage to the detriment of others, or upon -securing for itself privileges not to be shared by others, that mind -will inevitably be reflected in the way we work our State institutions, -and the form we give to our foreign policies. And always, and in every -instance, you will find, if you follow it out, that this inclination -to secure advantage to the detriment of others always lands you in -an ethical contradiction unless your ideal is entirely inhuman and -non-social. It is inconsistent with that community of interest to which -social order pretends. We set up laws for the good of the State; and -we call them equal laws. And if they are good laws, and if we love -our country, we must necessarily love the laws which are for the good -of our country, and embrace them with equal fervour, whether<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> they -touch us or whether they touch our neighbours. But when a member of -our own family commits a theft, or a forgery, we do everything we can -to save him from the operation of that law which we think so good for -others. And if we do; then our affection or respect for the law is -entirely one-sided and impure. And the people who make laws and devise -punishments upon those unequal premises are not at all likely to make -their laws just, or their forms of punishment wise.</p> - -<p>Our whole prison system is bad just because it is not really designed -first and foremost to do the criminal good, and to develop him into a -useful citizen; but only to repress him and make him a discouraging -example to others.</p> - -<p>Our prisons are impure because they are lacking in good-will; we have -regarded power instead of love as the solution of the crime problem; -and we have been contented to apply an impatient, unintelligent, and -soul-destroying remedy to the crimes of others, which we would not wish -to see applied in like case to those of our own family.</p> - -<p>Of course, I know that our prisons have been greatly improved; -because, as I said before, we are in a state of transition, and a new -school of thought, whose basis is Love and Service, is fighting an -old school of thought whose basis is Power, and gradually—only very -gradually—getting the better of it.</p> - -<p>It is the same with Education; the old idea of education was largely -based on dominance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> and power—the power of the teacher to punish. The -new idea is largely based upon the power of the teacher to interest, -and upon trust in youth’s natural instinct to acquire knowledge. It -is a tremendous change; the old system was impure in its psychology, -and corrupted alike the mind of the teacher and the taught. Nobody in -the old days was so unteachable as a school-master; and yet his whole -profession is really—to learn of youth. And the ethical impurity of -the old system came at the point where there was a lack of goodwill—a -lack of mutual confidence.</p> - -<p>In trade again, how much co-operation has been over-ridden by -competition—manœuvres of one against the other, designed to the -other’s detriment. We have been told that competition is absolutely -necessary to keep us efficient in business; it is precisely the same -school of thought which says that war is necessary to keep us efficient -as a nation.</p> - -<p>But in a family you don’t need competition; where there is goodwill, -co-operation and the give-and-take of new ideas for the common stock -are enough.</p> - -<p>To-day we are beginning to wake up to the possibility of co-operation -taking the place of competition. It is the purer idea; and being the -purer we shall probably in the end find it the more economical.</p> - -<p>And what shall we say about politics? Does anyone pretend that our -politics are pure; or that the system on which we run<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> them is -anything but a vast system of adulteration?—which may perhaps be -thus expressed:—Two great bodies of opinion trying to misunderstand -each other and trying to make the general public share in their -misunderstanding, in order that their own side may attain to power.</p> - -<p>When you start on a discussion, what is the pure reason for that -discussion? To try to arrive at a common understanding—mental -co-operation. But is it for that purpose that we raise our party cries -and run a general election?</p> - -<p>We are being threatened with that great boon in the near future. And -when it takes place a great wave of impurity will rise and will flood -through the land; and men will be strenuously misrepresenting the -words and thoughts and motives of their opponents—and very often men -will be misrepresenting their own motives—because their end is really -power—power over others instead of goodwill to others. And out of that -process we shall draw together the Council of the Nation!</p> - -<p>That process—which we see quite well is an impure process—is forced -upon us because we are in a stage of transition; it is difficult as a -matter of practical politics to suggest a better.</p> - -<p>But ought not that obvious fact to make us very humble about our -present stage of political development—and humble in general about the -position to which we have attained in our moral evolution? Is it not a -little<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> premature to call ourselves a Free Nation? Is any Nation really -free till it has found itself on peace and good-will to all?</p> - -<p>Now I have put before you these sorry spectacles to show that where -the true social ideal of brotherhood and goodwill breaks down, you -arrive at some ethical absurdity of which you have to be ashamed—you -find yourself driven into inconsistency, into impurity. And the only -thing that is consistent and is pure (once you have started with the -social idea) is that we are all one brotherhood—and that harm to one -member of the community is harm to all. And when you have once got a -nation that has really taken that idea to heart and made a practice of -it, such a nation will never rest content till there is a Society of -Nations of like mind extending over all the world.</p> - -<p>I referred just now to the Sermon on the Mount. To most of the world -its teachings sound impracticable. They are the extreme statement -of an ideal; and it is hard in this world to live ideally. But that -statement has about it this merit of commonsense—it is pure, it is -consistent—it is a united whole; and it is based on something of which -we have never yet really allowed ourselves the luxury—a trust in human -nature. A belief that if you set yourself whole-heartedly to do good to -others—to do good even to your enemies—human nature will respond.</p> - -<p>We cannot all love our neighbours as ourself—that individual emotion -is beyond us. But<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> if we can love our country enough to die for it, -we can also love it enough to give to it laws and institutions and -policies that shall prepare the way for the universal brotherhood of man.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p> - -<h2>THE RIGHTS OF MAJORITIES</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1912)</p> - -<p>In every age some fetich of government has been set up designed to -delude the governed, and to induce a blind rather than an intellectual -acceptance of authority.</p> - -<p>To set up in government some point over which you must not argue, is -always very convenient to those who govern; and so you will note, -throughout the world’s history, that the manipulators of government -have always tried to impose some incontrovertible proposition as the -basis on which their authority shall rest; and then, having done so, to -get the strings of it into their own hands, and work it to their own -convenience.</p> - -<p>In the present day “majority rule” is the pretended fetich; a majority -whose qualification is almost automatic, whose registration is all -done for it by the party agents, and whose free and independent vote -is brought up to the polling-booth very largely by the bribe of a free -ride in a motor-car.</p> - -<p>Scores of elections, that is to say, are turned by the indifferent -voter, and on this sort of cookery recipe the moral products of -majority rule are served up to us as “a dish fit for a king,” and as -giving moral sanction to government. And whatever indigestion comes -to us as the result of our swallowing it whole we are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> to sit down -under. If the majority has decided, the matter (we are told) is beyond -argument.</p> - -<p>That is the fetich, the superstition on which, in theory, government -rests to-day.</p> - -<p>In other times there were other fetiches, quite as respectable. “The -King can do no wrong,” was one of them. And we have had staged before -our eyes, in due order, the divine right—or the divine sanction; it is -all the same—of Kings, of Property, of Inheritance, of Slavery, and of -War.</p> - -<p>All these have been maintained as necessities of government—infallible -doctrines, based on Scripture and the will of God.</p> - -<p>Some of them present rather a battered front to-day. The fetich which -has taken their place is the “Right of Majorities.”</p> - -<p>We do not exactly say “Majorities can do no wrong.” But we do incline -to say (often for the sake of a quiet life, and for no better reason) -“Majorities must be allowed to do as they please.” And that means in -effect—those must be allowed to do as they please who can pull the -wires by which majorities are manipulated.</p> - -<p>I need hardly remind you that to-day the wire-pullers are the -statesmen, the leaders of party, who have secured more and more the -control of the party-machine, and with it the control of the education -of the electorate.</p> - -<p>Having secured this control, they let loose upon you the astonishing -doctrine that, if you<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> have numbers, there you have your right cut and -dried; that if you have not numbers your right (politically speaking) -does not exist.</p> - -<p>Now every student of history knows that in the past majorities, -more especially manipulated majorities—or their counterpart <i>force -majeure</i>—have done great crimes.</p> - -<p>But we do not to-day maintain that those majorities had a “right” to -sack cities, to violate women, to massacre, to exterminate, and to -bring others into subjection. The most we say is that these happenings -are an extreme, and, under some circumstances, an inevitable expression -of certain bad elements in human nature. Is it not, then, perfectly -absurd to imagine that under internal and domestic conditions all such -bad elements have departed from majorities; and that a consensus of -vice, of self-indulgence, of unfairness, of a desire for domination, -may not spread through very large sections of the community, even -through whole peoples where the opportunity so to indulge is -accorded—especially if it be accorded by law or embodied as a State -doctrine?</p> - -<p>Clearly, therefore, there must be some limitation or check imposed -upon the so-called “rights” of majorities; and some of them may be -limitations which those majorities would not choose for themselves, -but will, all the same, submit to without revolt if they are properly -rubbed home! One of the essential conditions for majority rule (if -it is to carry with it any moral sanction at all) is that it must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> -be ready to submit to the same conditions which it imposes upon -others; and that it must not set up qualification, or prohibition from -qualification, without any liability of that prohibition falling upon -itself. It must make the liability fairly equal.</p> - -<p>The specious excuse and justification for government by majority, as -put forward by the materialists, is that, latent, within it, lies the -physical force of the nation. (I may say, in passing, that the physical -force of the nation lies latent in every form of government which -secures the assent of the governed; and only ceases to be latent when -some of it gets on to its hind-legs and insists on another form of -government; and to be effective, that “some of it” need not always be a -majority.)</p> - -<p>But it is no use talking of physical force being the basis and the -moral justification of majority rule—it is no use invoking the -physical force argument—unless your majority is also prepared to go -to the trouble of exercising it and paying the price for exercising -it. And the main phenomenon of our present form of government by -majority is that the majority won’t take any trouble at all; that, -taken in the bulk, they care very little, and won’t put themselves -to inconvenience—certainly won’t risk physical discomfort and -pain—unless government has very seriously incommoded them by damaging -or by neglecting their interests.</p> - -<p>If the physical force basis is to be your full<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> sanction of -government—if that is really your argument—then that basis, that -sanction, is possessed equally by king or despot, so long as he has his -organisation at his command. There are his numbers, obeying him just -as, with us, M.P.’s, 700 strong, obey the party-whips, often against -their principles, but from no physical compulsion whatever.</p> - -<p>What the preachers of physical force seem to ignore in arguing about -the basis of government, is the aim of government. What, in the minds -and consciences of those who believe in government, is government -aiming for? Is its aim only to keep order or to be just? Does it seek -to repress humanity to the utmost extent, or to develop it? To wrap its -talents in a napkin, or to make it spiritually a ruler of cities?</p> - -<p>What is humanity out for? To what is it evolving? What has been its -impulse, its motive force in pressing for, and in extracting from -reluctant authorities Representative Government, with its accompanying -symbol—the voice of the majority?</p> - -<p>It has been seeking humane government—in the belief, surely, that -the nearer you get to really humane government the more will unrest -and revolt and crime cease; and, by the consequent reduction of the -police and of the forces of repression now needed, repay the State a -hundred-fold for the liberties it has established. And majority rule -is merely a device to get nearer to humane government,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> to open up the -mind of man to his own humane possibilities, and to develop his trust -in others by reposing trust in him. The more you spread government as -an organization of the people themselves, the more humane, upon that -working basis, are likely to be its operations—on one condition: that -such organisation of the people, whatever its numbers, submits to the -operation of its own laws and shares equally in the conditions which -it imposes—that, if it provides a qualification for citizenship, it -provides also the means for all to qualify.</p> - -<p>Now this brings us to the relative duties of those who govern and of -those who are governed; and, whereas, fundamentally their duty is the -same, in one important respect it differs. In each case, broadly and -fundamentally, their duty is toward their neighbour—to do to him as -they would he should do unto them. That axiom, rightly carried out, -covers all the law and the prophets, being greater than either; nay, if -it were rightly and universally carried out, the law and the prophets -might safely be shelved. Law merely exists as an expedient, because men -have not yet learned thoroughly to do, or even to wish to do, their -duty toward their neighbour; and as law is an imperfect thing, only -existing because of, and only applicable to, imperfect conditions, the -law and its upholders are not, and never can be, a perfect expression -of that duty which is mutually owed by all. Law is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> only an expedient -for averting greater evils which might, and probably would, take place -without it in our present very imperfect stage of human development.</p> - -<p>But there is one obvious difference between the governors and the -governed. In the action of the former there is an assertion of -authority—an underlying assumption of a power to improve matters by -regulating them. In the governed there is no such assumption of moral -superiority; the governed are there whether they like it or no; and the -laws which condition their lives are laid upon them by a power beyond -themselves, even when—under a representative system—they have secured -some minute voice in regard to their shaping.</p> - -<p>The governors, therefore, by their assumption of an ability to improve -matters, are in a fiduciary position to the rest of the community—the -<i>onus probandi</i> of their beneficence rests upon them and not upon -the people. It is their duty to pacify the governed; it is not the -duty of the governed to pacify them; and if they fail in the work of -pacification, which is their main <i>raison d’être</i>, they, and not the -community, have to meet the charge of functional incompetence.</p> - -<p>Government is a function; being governed is not a function. Humanity -in all stages of civilization or of savagery has fallen subject to -government without being asked to show any certificate of its fitness -to be governed. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> therefore, the governors who have to prove -themselves fit—not the governed; and if a penal code be found, or -declared, necessary to enable the governors to secure peace and -order, then (if your system be just and equal) the penal code should -be applicable in at least equal severity to the governors who impose -it, when instead of producing contentment, it produces unrest and -disorder. Liability to impeachment and condemnation under laws of an -equal stringency would be, I think, a very wholesome corrective to the -legislative action of M.P.’s voting coercive measures which only result -in failure. I fancy that under such conditions there would have been, -for instance, a far smaller majority for the “Cat and Mouse Act,” the -futility of which soon became so ridiculously apparent. Imprisonment -with compulsory starvation, followed by release upon a medical -certificate, and then by a fresh term of imprisonment would have been a -most enlightening form of vacation for certain members of Parliament. -And until we have secured in this country a much more equal adjustment -of the relations between governors and governed, some such corrective -for vindictive legislation is certainly needed.</p> - -<p>It is not a sufficient equivalent, or safeguard to popular liberty, to -be able merely to dismiss from office a Minister of the Crown who has -by his administrative blunders brought citizens to death and property -to destruction, or who has sedulously manufactured criminals out of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> -a class whose will is to be law-abiding. He, if anybody, deserves -punishment; and Parliaments (backed by whatever majority) which, -through maintaining political inequalities, produce such results, are -under the same condemnation. The <i>onus probandi</i> of their beneficence -rests upon them; and if, commissioned to secure peace and order, they -produce only unrest and disorder, then the proof is against them.</p> - -<p>Listen to these remarkable words by so great a supporter of -constitutional authority as Edmund Burke:</p> - -<p>“Nations,” he says, “are not primarily ruled by laws, still less -by violence. Whatever original energy may be supposed in force or -regulation, the operation of both is, in truth, merely instrumental. -Nations are governed by the same methods and on the same principles by -which an individual without authority is often able to govern those who -are his equals or his superiors—by a knowledge of their temper, and by -a judicious management of it. I mean—when public affairs are steadily -and quietly conducted: not when government is nothing but a continued -scuffle between the magistrate and the multitude, in which sometimes -one and sometimes the other is uppermost, in which they alternately -yield and prevail in a series of contemptible victories and scandalous -submissions. The temper of the people amongst whom he presides ought, -therefore, to be the first study of the statesman.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> And the knowledge -of this temper it is by no means impossible for him to attain, if he -has not an interest in being ignorant of what it is his duty to learn.”</p> - -<p>And further on he says:</p> - -<p>“In all disputes between them (the governed) and their rulers, the -presumption is at least upon a par in favour of the people. Experience -may perhaps justify me in going further. When popular discontents -have been very prevalent, it may well be affirmed that there has -been something found amiss in the constitution or in the conduct of -government. The people have no interest in disorder. When they do -wrong, it is their error and not their crime. But with the governing -part of the State it is far otherwise. They certainly may act ill by -design as well as by mistake.... And if this presumption in favour of -the subject against the trustees of power be not the more probable, I -am sure it is the more comfortable speculation; because it is more easy -to change an administration than to reform a people.”</p> - -<p>There, then, is a great authority, Edmund Burke, maintaining that -governments are more liable to wilful error than those whom they -govern—and the main value of majority rule is that it tends to bring -the presumption round to the side of government, by making the voice -of government also the voice of the people. I do not think the claims -of majority rule can be put on any higher footing than that—that if<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> -the government is really expressive of a governed majority (and not -merely of a majority to whom the constitution has accorded licence and -privilege above its fellows) then the favourable presumption in any -conflict comes round to the side of government.</p> - -<p>But if government claims its sanction from a majority, then we must -enquire further into the composition and character of that majority; -and yet further whether the mandate of that majority is the output -of its conscience or merely of its self-interest; we must watch its -workings, and see what really brings it to the poll—its moral sense, -its pleasure in motor-cars, or its inclination (based on a national -love of sport) to select and to back the winner.</p> - -<p>At whose bidding to-day, and for what motive, are we really being -governed? Our duty toward government can never be greater than toward -that voice of sanction on which it rests. And short of a voice of -the whole people conscientiously uttered, and so conditioned as to -be really free and equal, I do not see whence an entire sanction -of government is to come—though you may have (under such and such -circumstances) a large increase of presumption in its favour.</p> - -<p>But obviously there are degrees. We in England clearly recognise that. -We have recognised it in our own history; we recognise it in looking -abroad upon other countries. And we rather approve—most of us—of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> -revolution against a Russian or a German government which has refused -so to aim that the people shall be in some sort their own governors.</p> - -<p>Similarly, in this country, the sanction may be imperfect—we may -have secured the form but not the substance. If so—if the form is -so manipulated as to be virtually of no effect—the moral sanction -is by so much lessened. Universal franchise—on the unattainable -qualification, let us say, of standing on one leg for a fortnight, -would be a mockery deserving of instant revolt. And there is some -mockery in setting up any qualification of which a willing and -painstaking citizen cannot avail himself—or herself. Perhaps there -is also some mockery—some cheapening of citizenship—in setting up a -qualification which requires no willingness and no pains.</p> - -<p>The moral sanction of government, therefore, is ever fluctuant and -variable—conditioned always by the sincere relationship of theory to -practice, of form to fact. No amount of form or theory, however just -in appearance, or legal in fact, will condone unjust government. And -as we would wish to be condemned and punished were we so to impose on -others—so must we act towards any government which seeks to impose -on us by substituting form for substance. If its moral sanction is -imperfect it cannot claim perfect obedience.</p> - -<p>Now if there is not a full and honest wish among those who govern to -do as they would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> be done by—claiming no advantage or privilege for -themselves, and not attempting to keep in order one section of the -community rather than another by framing laws which penalise this -section rather than that—if there is not this honest wish, there will -all the more be an attempt on the part of the governing section to give -to its government in form that virtue which it lacks in practice,—to -say to objectors: “See how safeguarded on all hands are your interests, -how perfectly you are represented, how obviously you are the masters of -the situation, and we only the servants.” And the nearer the governed -are to an intellectual awakening and apprehension of their true -condition, the more elaborate and plausible will be the pretence that -the real ultimate power rests—not there in the hands of the governors, -but here in the hands of the governed. And best of all—because most -deceptive of all—will be the device which does actually put the means -of reforming or of overthrowing government into the hands of the -governed, while so nullifying the application of those means that the -fair form, so fruitful in seeming, shall be in reality an empty husk.</p> - -<p>Now, if it be true—as from history I have contended—that the moral -sanction of government is variable, and depends on honest conditions -and relations, obviously it is not the mere plausible form which shall -decide whether this or that government be deserving of obedience or -not. That form which is <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>established by law must bring forth fruit to -the satisfaction of the governed—producing, as proof of its claim, -peaceful conditions and general content. If it fail to do this then it -must be suspected, enquired into, and, if need be, disowned.</p> - -<p>But it must breed something more than the acquiescence of a majority. -The contentment, or at least the acquiescence of minorities is one -of the signs of good government. For while it takes little to make -minorities critical, it takes much to make them revolt—if for no other -reason than that the chances are against them. And it is not in human -nature to face so heavy odds except for some grave cause.</p> - -<p>Consider first, then, in any given case, “Are those in the minority -seeking to keep or filch liberty from you, or only to obtain such -liberty as is already yours? Are they seeking to set up equality of -condition or inequality? Are they pressing for privilege or only for -common ground?”</p> - -<p>And if the answer to such questions be that they seek only a like -liberty upon common ground and equality with yourselves—then, I -care not how large the majority against them—you must open or make -available to them that same standing which you claim as your due; and -on whatever basis of public service or private worth you have obtained -your right,—that means, that test, that qualification must be open -also to them, else your majority rule is nothing more than brute force, -a despotism<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> extended from the embodiment of one or of a few to an -embodiment of 10, 15, or 20,000,000. But if you sanction that and make -it your base, then, to be logical, you must sanction also (at least -as a test) the employment of force by a minority to make its position -untenable. And remember, that if among a minority some ten per cent. -are willing to die, as against only some one or two per cent. in a -majority, that minority is likely to win, and all your numbers will be -vain.</p> - -<p>That fact puts no undue or dangerous power into the hands of -minorities. Consent, on a just basis, can be obtained to government -whose acts are little to the liking of individual minds or of -minorities. But if, after long trial of expedient, persuasion, or -coercion, consent cannot be obtained, then the weight of evidence -(based on the unfailing document of human nature) has shifted against -government; and it rests more with the government than with the rebel -to prove that its claims are just.</p> - -<p>When governments establish inequalities affecting the lives and -liberties of any, however few, I see no sanction whatsoever in -majorities. One runaway slave had not to wait upon a majority of -his fellow-slaves in order to establish his right to escape from -slavery—still less upon a majority of the nation which owned him. -If he could find a path along which to escape, that was the highroad -appointed for him by God from of old; and if he died in the attempt his -grave was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> still a monument to Liberty. Not the will of a million could -destroy the right of that one. And though I admit that a society which -sanctions slavery must treat as a murderer the slave who kills in his -effort to escape,—nevertheless, by posterity, and in a society which -has repudiated slavery, that act will be very differently regarded; -and so long as the man’s aim when he committed that legal offence -was freedom, we, who have repudiated slavery, look upon him not as a -murderer but as a fighter in a just cause.</p> - -<p>We are in a society to-day which tolerates and even sanctions things -which to-morrow will be regarded as slavery is regarded now. While -society thus chooses to establish evil it is driven in self-defence to -treat those who rebel as criminals. But posterity will not so think of -them; and the greater the forces of the majority which stood against -them when they struck—the more will it admire and reverence, and -approve. Surely a startling commentary on the “rights” of majorities: -approval of the minority in an inverse proportion to its size!</p> - -<p>Now, you might have a State almost equally divided into what were, -broadly speaking, opposed interests; under certain circumstances, for -instance, (circumstances which have actually occurred in the past) -manufacturing and agricultural interests might be opposed. If, then, -you accepted majority rule as a blind dogma, those two interests<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> -would have the right alternately to prey upon and to bleed each other, -according to the fortunes of the polls—and they might do it by putting -forward legislative programmes which would bribe the electoral wobblers -first to this side and then to that. Where, on such a device does moral -right come in? Was ever anything so ludicrous as a doctrine?</p> - -<p>As a doctrine of right, majority rule has but doubtful ground to stand -on. As an expedient, for practical use under sound conditions, there -is much to be said for it. But when once you recognise it as a mere -working expedient, then its workings must be watched, proved, and -sometimes corrected and checked—by a minority.</p> - -<p>Majority rule is only tolerable when it has the equal rights of man -and woman firmly fixed as its goal; and it is as tending to the -establishment of that doctrine that majority rule is acceptable (with -some caution and reservations) to our progressive sense of citizenship.</p> - -<p>In the great historic moments of upheaval which have brought it about, -it has consciously or subconsciously been an attempt to get rid of the -bad principle of dominance over others. It expresses the hope, or it -embodies the probability, that a majority will be so broadly made up of -all sorts and conditions—of the whole chemical composition of human -society, that is to say—that in a government prompted and directed -by a majority there will be no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> dominance of one section over another -section: that they will, in the long run (or, if efficiently checked, -in the short run) correct each other, strike a balance, and prevent the -rigid and continuous existence in the body politic of any subjected -section.</p> - -<p>But if a majority could so sort its materials as to select for rigid -and permanent subjection one section of the community, then the reason -for its existence, and the grounds for its moral sanction would be gone.</p> - -<p>If, then, two-thirds or three-quarters of the community can secure -a greater apparent measure of comfort for themselves by forcing the -remaining one-third, or one-quarter, to wait upon them and minister to -their needs, the actual size of that dominant majority confers upon -it no moral right whatever. There would, indeed, be more semblance of -right, or at least more tenable ground, if a minority could so impose -on a majority; because in that case the power of imposition would -arise not from mere brute force so much as from superior ability; and -a minority which can manipulate to its purpose the bulk material of a -community has shown better ground for the rule of others (not very good -ground, I admit) than the mere weight of numbers can supply. Weight -of numbers as a ground for dominating others gives you no moral or -efficient basis at all. Weight of capacity does give you an efficient -basis, if not a moral one. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></p> - -<p>Now, if your two-thirds majority is extracting comfort on unequal and -compulsory terms from the remaining one-third, you surely cannot deny -the right of the remaining one-third so to diminish the comfort thus -compulsorily extracted as to bring it to vanishing point, or to make -it even a minus quantity. And the bigger the majority which is thus -extracting sustenance from the minority, and exploiting it to its own -ends, the more you will admire the minority if it rises in revolt, and -makes the imposed and one-sided bargain unprofitable to the majority. -And should the contention be carried to extremes (as it will be if -both sides are sufficiently resolved) then the majority will have to -exterminate the minority, and (if it wishes to continue government on -the same lines) will have to extract for exploitation a new minority -from its own body—give up one of its own ribs to servitude—and so -become a diminished people in its perpetuation of a bad system.</p> - -<p>Now, these considerations of moral right are irrespective of numbers. -It may be the bounden duty of one man to resist the will of hundreds, -or thousands, or millions. Indeed, every religious system admits, and -history gives clear evidence, that that is so. A man must obey his -conscience; that is his one ultimate guide. That statement expresses -what one may call the atomic theory of human society. It suggests, at -first sight, an impossible splitting to pieces of all systems of law<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> -and order; but it is not so in reality, because—and this is the really -wonderful thing and the spiritual root of the whole matter—conscience -is the most infectious and convincing force in life. In a community -there is really a far greater agreement of conscience than of desire or -of opinion. A conscientious resister may, of course, be mistaken; but -if he is prepared to go on resisting, making sacrifice, and enduring -suffering for his scruples—that process is the least fallible as a -test, and the most converting in its tendency of all the processes of -propaganda that the human mind can conceive; and by recognizing the -moral right of the individual to put himself to that test before the -eyes of his fellow citizens, and so at the same time to test their -consciences in the matter, you are not really encouraging a course -which leads to disunion and anarchy, but a course which, on the whole, -will best bring about a general consensus of opinion. A community -which recognises the moral worth of such tests of its own and of -the individual conscience, will be far less likely to arouse such -demonstrations of revolt than one which altogether ignores and despises -them; for the simple reason that such a community will be better based -in its duty toward its neighbour; it will wish each man to do that -which it would claim the right to do itself in a like case, if faced by -a superior power backed by greater numbers than its own.</p> - -<p>If I know that my conscientious resistance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> will be respectfully -considered (though not made easy or cheap to me), that my test of other -consciences may be tried and may be adjudged to fail—I shall not be -more inclined to enter into conflict with so considerate a majority, -but less; for it is not open-minded justice but close-minded injustice -which arouses opposition and rebellion.</p> - -<p>But while human nature makes it safe, in the main, that men and women -will not in any appreciable numbers submit themselves voluntarily to -continuous discomfort, deprivation, loss of liberty and ease, except -for a just cause or a high motive worth looking into, considering, and -making allowances for: human nature does not make it safe that those -in authority will not be overbearing and unjust, unless they too are -liable to a like test.</p> - -<p>And here again we come to consider the duty of the law and of -law-makers to individuals.</p> - -<p>The law should be prepared wherever its fallibility stands -proved—where, for instance, it has done hurt and damage to innocency -by its operations—at least to make full reparation. It is not an -honourable position, for that which holds fiduciary together with -compulsory powers, to say to one whom it has falsely imprisoned or -unjustly charged—“You, on the whole, benefit by government, and, -therefore, must yourself bear this hurt of government which has fallen -upon you.” The State or the community which permits<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> such individual -hardship to result from its imposition of a fallible code is not just -in its government or dutiful to its neighbour. And if it so acts, it -undermines in the governed their sense of its moral sanction. The State -cannot so do hurt to its citizens and retain an unimpaired claim on -their allegiance; nor can it with any moral decency claim reparation -from its enemies abroad, if it does not make full reparation for its -own miscarriages of justice at home.</p> - -<p>“One,” it is sometimes argued, “must suffer for the general good.” But -the general good is not so served. In this connection general good only -means “general cheapness.” The State, and not the citizen, must pay the -price of its presumption—or it must look for an altered mind in every -citizen whom it so afflicts from its position of immunity. Nay, it may -be well that its supposed immunity should occasionally be disproved by -a determined and self-sacrificing citizen, entirely for the general -good, and the State forced to pay in extra upkeep for the bad condition -of its laws.</p> - -<p>The careless self-allowance of majorities in wrong done to minorities, -or even to individuals, is not to the general good; and one could -rather wish to a State that its minorities should be alert and -pugnacious, than its majorities self-satisfied and indifferent on the -score of mere numbers.</p> - -<p>Numbers, uncorrected by conscience and uncontrolled by penalties, may -be the cheapest,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> nastiest and most unscrupulous form of tyranny. The -indifference or acquiescence of hundreds to conditions by which they -themselves are not consciously affected cannot have the same moral -weight as the discontent of one or of a few who are so affected. -That is a consideration which must always qualify the “rights” of -majorities. In such circumstances the sanction of mere numbers is not -sufficient.</p> - -<p>Are minorities, then, always to have their way? By no means. We know -that they cannot.</p> - -<p>Countless minorities in our political controversies have contended, -have failed, and have acquiesced in their failure. Time has tested -them, and has measured the depth of their grievance by the scale of -human nature.</p> - -<p>But other minorities, which have persistently refused to acquiesce have -won. Time has tested them also; and human nature, not numbers, has in -the long run proved their case.</p> - -<p>Medical science tells us that there is in the human eye a blind spot, -by the existence of which alone we are enabled to see. If that blind -spot were absent the eye would be without focus.</p> - -<p>In human nature (however much we hold by the principle of ordered -government) there is a point of revolt which standardises the relations -of the individual to government. It cannot be brought into play by -mere<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> artifice or calculation, except for brief spells; but when -naturally aroused it lasts.</p> - -<p>It is that point of revolt, latent at all times in a freedom-loving -people, but only aroused by unjust conditions—it is the existence of -that point of revolt in human nature which secures good government.</p> - -<p>Minorities, if determined, can make unjust government an economic -extravagance, and can indicate to majorities (with some trouble and -cost to themselves) the limitation of their rights.</p> - -<p>The sleeping partner of good government is the spirit of revolt.</p> - -<p>To-day we have not good government; and that is why the sleeping -partner is awake.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span></p> - -<h2>DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1915)</p> - -<p>Discreditable conduct, according to its right derivation, is conduct -provocative of disbelief. It is that kind of conduct which makes -us doubt the professions of its agents, because it is practically -inconsistent with the things that they preach.</p> - -<p>Many things are done in this world which are very reprehensible, -vindictive, cruel, narrow-minded—I might go through a whole catalogue -of the vices; but they are not therefore “discreditable.” A man who -has gone about the world expressing his undying hatred for another -man, and then ends by killing him, has done nothing discreditable from -his own standard. He has not made you believe less in his professions, -but more; for he actually did mean what he said, and has become by his -act a creditable witness to the faith that was in him—the dark gospel -of hatred. But if, while nourishing a personal hatred, he was at the -same time laying it down as the duty of all men to love their enemies, -then we have not to wait for the murder in order to look upon him as -a tainted and a discredited witness. It is not so much the blood upon -his hands as the hatred within his heart which has discredited him as a -preacher to others. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p> - -<p>Or, put the case otherwise; without pretending to such a counsel of -perfection as that he can love his enemies, a man may yet assert that -human life is sacred, and that he has no right to take the life of his -fellow. Having done so he begins to set up exceptions: “Though I may -not do it at my own,” he says, “I may do it at the bidding of others.” -And this not by orders that he is compelled into on pain of death or -torture (when he might plead a natural human infirmity as his excuse -for wrongdoing) but by voluntary enlistment in an army, or by voluntary -acceptance of the post of public hangman, or of a judgeship, or of -service upon a jury in cases involving the death-penalty.</p> - -<p>Now, it may be very commendable to take human life at the bidding of -others; but it is not consistent with the unqualified statement that -“all human life is sacred.” The one proposition—it is not my concern -here to defend or attack either of them—becomes discredited by the -other. The advocate of the judicial extinction of life under the -institution of capital punishment, or of wholesale extinction under the -institution of war—if he wishes to be heard as a credible witness, and -to avoid the imputation of discreditable conduct when he gives a hand -to it—must reshape his statement something after this manner: “Human -life is so important a thing that one man must not take it on his own -responsibility; but Society may.” And then he will have to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> make up -his mind what he means by Society, and why he thinks Society is more -to be trusted than himself. And if he finds himself in a community -which permits or even inculcates moral evils which he individually -cannot tolerate, then he must puzzle out for himself why he will -trust such a community with the power to kill, when he sees it make -so vile and miserable a misuse of the power to keep alive—or to keep -from life in any form that is worth having—so many millions of his -fellow-creatures. And he will find presently that his assertion that -human life is sacred must—if it is to mean anything—extend from the -comparatively easy and simple problem of the death-penalty to those far -greater problems, which lie all around him, of the cruel life-penalties -tolerated or exacted by Society.</p> - -<p>So before long what he will find himself up against is this—the -necessity of being a creditable or a discreditable witness to the value -of Society itself—of that thing to whose apron-strings he has tied -his conscience. For you cannot assert that it is right for Society to -unmake human life unless you also assert that Society is making human -life in a form that is worth having, in a form, too, that would be -imperilled were its power of judicial murder to be taken from it.</p> - -<p>But the point of departure I have wished to bring you to is this: -man did not begin to doubt his own moral right to kill other men -until there entered into his being an idea of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> something better able -than himself to judge, to control, and to provide. And so long as he -believed in that idea as protective of a morality superior to his -own, and productive of the fruits of life in better quality, he could -without discredit put into its hands powers which he dared not himself -exercise.</p> - -<p>But when, on the contrary, a man comes to the conclusion that the -products of Society as constituted have in them more of evil than of -good, he may quite creditably, in a strict sense of the word, start an -attack upon Society, or upon great social institutions, and seek to -bring them to dissolution. Such a course of action may be arrogant, or -may have an insufficient basis of fact, but it is not discreditable. -Rather does it prove the man’s faith in his professions. History -gives record of many such characters, and posterity has approved of -deeds which in their own day were regarded as violent, arrogant, and -unjustifiable.</p> - -<p>Martin Luther attacked a far greater social institution of his own day -than was comprised under any single form of government. He attacked -something much bigger than the English or the American Constitution. -In deciding to attack it he was more arrogant (if single unorganised -action against large and organised numbers be the proof of arrogance) -than you or I could be if we attacked any institution to-day that -you like to name, even the institution of war. Now, the result of -that great attack was that it succeeded—not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> unconditionally, not -universally, but (broadly speaking) racially and territorially. About -one-third of Europe was conquered by it; and about two-thirds remain -to this day—not indeed unaffected, but certainly not conquered by -Lutheranism. If you are to judge of sacred causes by mere numbers, -there are still more nominal Catholics than nominal Protestants in the -world; and, therefore, by numbers, up to date Luther is condemned.</p> - -<p>Luther’s real conquest—the thing that he really did bring about, -and in which numbers are now on his side, would have horrified him. -Luther was the root-cause why there are to-day more nominal Christians -in the world who pick and choose doctrines to suit their own taste, -than Christians who submissively take their doctrines wholesale from -others whether from Luther or from Rome. It is due to Luther, as much -as to anybody, that so many Roman Catholics who have no leanings to -Lutheranism, are only nominal Catholics. Luther, that is to say, has -brought into existence an enormous number of discreditable Christians -who will not openly admit that they are free-thinkers.</p> - -<p>You have clergy of the Church of England, for instance, who read -themselves into their pulpits with the Thirty-nine Articles, and do not -believe half of them.</p> - -<p>The average young man who enters the ministry of the Church of England -has been reasonably mothered by a university education; and when he -takes the plunge it is not total<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> immersion. His mother—his Alma -Mater—still holds him by the heel. It is in consequence, with a sort -of heel of Achilles that he enters upon divinity; and over this he -draws a stocking with a large hole in it just where the wear of the -heel comes hardest. That stocking (containing forty stripes save one) -is the Thirty-nine Articles. It has been loosely knit, it is warranted -to shrink the longer he wears it, and the hole in consequence gets -larger.</p> - -<p>There you have the weakness of the Church of England. Nobody to-day in -his senses is prepared to die for the Thirty-nine Articles. Yet to hold -ministry in the Church he has to swear by them, and thus at the very -beginning of his ministerial career discreditable conduct is imposed on -him.</p> - -<p>It is no wonder that upon that basis the Church of England is permeated -with unbelief in the things that it professes. A Church, a religion, -may be full of credulity, bigotry, superstition—and with all those -things it may yet have a true and a living faith: it may breed martyrs -and inquisitors in equal numbers and with equal facility; but, in order -to do so it must have at its back something definite and distinctive -that its members are prepared to die for. And if it has not that, it is -bound to become before long a discredited institution.</p> - -<p>It is an interesting and a hopeful trait in human nature that it will -only believe obstinately, continuously, and in spite of persecution, in -those things which seem greatly to matter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span>. When they no longer seem -to matter, belief falls away from them. And, broadly speaking, we have -come to see that things do not greatly matter unless they affect life -and conduct.</p> - -<p>“The Kingdom of Heaven” is within you; and if your doctrinal test does -not produce good ethical results, you begin to doubt—not the Kingdom -of Heaven—but the doctrine on which it was made to depend.</p> - -<p>Similarly, if a doctrine obviously lays itself open to grave abuse, -or presents strong temptation to the infirmities of human nature, you -begin to doubt whether it is so heavenly in origin as it pretends to be.</p> - -<p>The doctrine held by some cannibal African tribe that the bride’s -mother shall provide the wedding-breakfast in her own person, is so -clearly a truckling to the prejudice against mothers-in-law—which -exists even in this country—that such a religious tenet immediately -becomes suspect, and we guess that it emanates not from the gods but -from their maker, man.</p> - -<p>Notice, too, how the gradual displacement of miracle has been brought -about. So long as miracles appealed to the human mind as a moral and -not a licentious expedient for the Creator of the universe to indulge -in, they remained acceptable to the human understanding and were easily -believed. Their real dethronement began when it was seen that a belief -in them gave the greatest possible assistance to the cruel, grasping, -and criminal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> instincts of the human race—that, from the social point -of view, they opened a way for the terrorising of the weak, for fraud, -for covetousness, for murder, for theft—in a word for priest-craft in -all its worst forms.</p> - -<p>The belief in miracle enabled Samuel, with his punitive threats of -divine vengeance, to terrorise first Eli and then Saul, and bring -Israel to such a pass under his priestly government that at no period -of that people’s early history were they more in subjection to their -enemies.</p> - -<p>The belief in miracle enabled Elisha to cajole Elijah into the -wilderness and there murder him, persuading subsequent inquirers that -he had gone up to Heaven in a chariot of fire. Everybody believed him -except the children; and when they mocked him and told him to go and -do likewise, he threatened that bears would come and eat them. And -Scripture, as a warning to us against like conduct, tells us that they -did.</p> - -<p>That is how miracle was played under the old dispensation; and (as -long as it could possibly be maintained) under the new also. Then, as -the bad social results of a belief in miracles became accumulatively -apparent—when carried outside the canon of Scripture into contemporary -life—then it began to dawn upon some people how bad also a belief -in them was for the mind of man in relation to the Deity. It began -to be seen that the institution of a law of nature (in conjunction -with an arbitrary suspension thereof whenever<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> divinely convenient) -was not compatible with what men have now come to regard as “moral -conduct.” It was literally “discreditable”; for it made men disbelieve -the law of their own being. In nine hundred and ninety-nine cases -out of a thousand a man was to be guided by experience, by thought, -reason, and conscience—by a belief in cause and effect. Then—in the -off case—unreason and inexperience were to descend upon him like a -thunderbolt, and either beat him to dust, or lift him, an ingenuously -amazed Ganymede to the seats of bliss.</p> - -<p>Now, we may admit—indeed we must—that there are many mysteries and -secrets of nature which man has not yet fathomed; there may be many of -which as yet he has no suspicion. A sudden exhibition of any of those -powers and mysteries might even to-day seem “miraculous.” When in the -past some fortuitous circumstance brought them about, “miracle” was the -only explanation of them which human understanding was able to offer.</p> - -<p>But now we are coming more and more to believe that if blind men have -suddenly received their sight it has not been by miracle but by law; -if faith has removed mountains literally, or caused the sun and the -moon to stand still, it has done so by reliance on sources which lay -hitherto untapped in the general order of things, and implicit ever -since the creative scheme was established. For if any other explanation -is to be offered, then the work of creation is discredited, and the -meaning<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> and the moral values of those processes which we sum up in the -word “life” become cheapened, because we can no longer regard them as -a law, but only as a sort of police-regulation, arbitrary, capricious, -and provocative of misconduct, in that we are unable to depend -upon them, or to have any guarantee that they will be impartially -administered.</p> - -<p>Miracle discredits the ordered scheme of creation; and quite as much -does it do so if you believe creation to be the work of a personal -Deity. Creation (science shows us more and more) was from its inception -a process of absolutely related causes and effects—a whole system -reared up through millions and millions of years upon a structure -involving infinite millions of lives and deaths—and the whole a -perfect sequence of causal happenings.</p> - -<p>That is “life” as it is presented to man’s reason and understanding; -and if his reason and understanding are not to faint utterly, he must -in his search for a moral principle “find God (as the Psalmist puts -it) in the land of the living,” or not at all. For as he estimates -the moral value of things solely by that empyric sense which has been -evolved in him through a faithful recognition of the inevitable laws of -cause and effect, so must he become demoralised, if he is to be taught -that what he has regarded as inevitable can be capriciously suspended -by a power independent of those laws which life has taught him to -reverence.</p> - -<p>Do not think, for a moment, that I am<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> questioning the power of faith -or the power of prayer. It is a tenable proposition that they are the -most tremendous power in the world; and yet we may hold that they take -effect through the natural law alone, and have come into existence -through the courses of evolution—or, if you like to put it so—in a -faithful following of the Will which, in the act of Creation, made a -compact and kept it.</p> - -<p>But if the compact of Creation was not kept, if that impact of spirit -upon matter (which through such vast eras and through such innumerable -phases of life worked by cause and effect) was ever tampered with so -that cause and effect were suspended, then the whole process becomes -discredited to our moral sense, and its presiding genius is discredited -also.</p> - -<p>Are we to suppose that through the earlier millions of years, when only -the elementary forms of life were present upon this globe, cause and -effect went on unsuspended and unhindered, and that these processes, -having once been started (engendered, let us assume, by the Immanent -Will), held absolute sway over the development of life for millions and -millions of years, until a time came when humanity appeared, and the -idea of religion and a Deity entered the world; and that this process -then became subject to a dethronement? Are we to believe that then -intervention in a new form, and upon a different basis (not of cause -and effect) began to take place? If that is the proposition, then, it -seems to me, we are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> asked (having accepted the idea of a Creator) to -impute to Him discreditable conduct—to believe that a point came in -these causal processes which He had instituted when He could no longer -“play the game” without arbitrary interference with its rules, and -that the appearance of man upon the globe was the signal for a fatal -weakening to His character.</p> - -<p>I have seen a clergyman cheat at croquet. He was the by-word of the -neighbourhood for that curious little weakness; but I assure you that -the spectacle of that reverend gentleman surreptitiously pushing his -ball into better position with his foot instead of depending upon the -legitimate use of his mallet, was no more ignoble a spectacle than -that which I am asked to contemplate by believers in miracle when they -present to my eyes a Deity who (upon their assertion) does similar -things.</p> - -<p>Test upon this basis of morality the most crucial of all events in -Christian theology.</p> - -<p>The idea of the Incarnation of God in human form as the final -and logical fulfilment of the Creative purpose and process—the -manifestation of the Creator in the created—has had for many great -thinkers a very deep attraction. But if the process which brings Him -into material being—the so-called Virgin-Birth—is not a process -implicit in Nature itself and one that only depends for its realisation -on man’s grasp of the higher law which shall make it natural and normal -to the human race—if the Virgin-Birth is miracle instead of perfectly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> -conditioned law revealing itself, then, surely, such a device for -bringing about the desired end is “discreditable conduct”—because -it discredits that vast system of evolution through cause and effect -which we call “life.” From such an Incarnation I am repulsed as from -something monstrous and against nature; and the doings and sayings of -a being so brought into the world are discredited by the fact of a -half-parentage not in conformity with creative law.</p> - -<p>Now when one ventures to question the moral integrity of so fundamental -a religious doctrine, and to give definite grounds as to why adverse -judgment should be passed on it, there will not be lacking theologians -ready to turn swiftly and rend one something after this manner: “Who -are you, worm of a man, to question the operations of the Eternal mind, -or dare to sit in judgment on what God your maker thinks good?”</p> - -<p>The answer is “I don’t. It is only your interpretation of those -operations that I question.” But on that head there is this further to -say: “By the Creative process God has given to man a reasoning mind; -and it is only by the use of the reason so given him that man can -worship his Maker.” To give man the gift of reason and then to take -from him the right fully to exercise it, is discreditable conduct.</p> - -<p>That tendency I attribute not to the Deity but to the theologian—more -especially as I read in the Scriptures that where God had a special -revelation to make to a certain prophet<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> who thought a prostrate -attitude the right one to assume under such circumstances, divine -correction came in these words, “Stand upon thy feet, and I will speak -to thee.” Some people seem to think that the right attitude is to stand -upon their heads.</p> - -<p>It is told in some Early Victorian memoirs that a group of Oxford -dons were discussing together the relations of mortal man to his God, -and one postulated that the only possible attitude for man to assume -in such a connection was that of “abject submission and surrender.” -But even in that dark epoch such a doctrine was not allowed to go -unquestioned. “No, no,” protested another, “deference, not abject -submission.” And though it is a quaint example of the Oxford manner, -surely one must agree with it. Reason being man’s birthright, “Stand -upon thy feet and I will speak to thee,” is the necessary corollary. -Even if there be such a thing as divine revelation—the revelation -must be convincing to man’s reason, and not merely an attack upon his -nerves, or an appeal to his physical fears.</p> - -<p>Similarly any form of government or of society which does not allow -reason to stand upon its feet and utter itself unashamed is a -discreditable form of discipline to impose, if reason is to be man’s -guide.</p> - -<p>Now I do not know whether, by characterising the device of a -“miraculous” birth as discreditable to its author, I am not incurring -the penalty of imprisonment in a country which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> says that it permits -free thought and free speech (at all events in peace-time). A few years -ago a man was sent to prison—I think it was for three months—for -saying similar things: a man who was a professed unbeliever in -Divinity. And quite obviously the discreditable conduct in that case -was not of the man who acted honestly up to his professions, but of -this country which, professing one thing, does another. And the most -discreditable figure in the case was the Home Secretary who, though -entirely disapproving of this legal survival of religious persecution, -and with full power to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy which -has now become his perquisite, refused to move in the matter, and said -he saw no reason for doing so. His discredit was, of course, shared by -the Cabinet, by Parliament and by the Country—which (without protest -except from a few distinguished men of letters and leaders of religious -thought) allowed that savage sentence to stand on grounds so antiquated -and so inconsistent with our present national professions.</p> - -<p>Nationally we are guilty of a good deal of discreditable conduct on -similar lines. We profess one thing, and we do another.</p> - -<p>Our politicians tell us that they rely upon the voice of the people, -yet often they employ the political machine which they control, for -the express purpose of evading it. A few years ago a Liberal statesman -was appointed to Cabinet-rank, and had in consequence to go to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> his -constituency for re-election. He belonged to the party which makes a -particular boast of its trust in the popular verdict. But in order -to make his election more safe—before his appointment became public -property—he communicated to his party agent his ministerial knowledge -of the coming event so that the date of the bye-election could be -calculated. And the agent proceeded to book up all the public halls -in the constituency over the period indicated. Then, in order that -the scandal might not become too flagrant he generously released a -proportion of his bookings to his Conservative opponent, but refused to -release any at all to his Labour opponent; and on those nicely arranged -conditions he fought his election—and got beaten.</p> - -<p>Now that was surely discreditable conduct, for here was a statesman -who, while ostensibly appealing to the voice of the people was doing -his level best behind the scenes to deny to it a full and a free -opportunity of expression. Yet the whole political world was in so -discreditable a condition that there were actually people who thought -then—and perhaps still think to-day—that that budding politician -was unfairly and hardly treated when he was thereafter pursued from -constituency to constituency by his cheated opponent, and successfully -prevented from re-entering Parliament even to this day. Probably in -other branches of life he was an upright and honourable man, but -politics had affected him, as religion or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> social ambition has affected -others, and made him a discreditable witness to the faith which he -professed.</p> - -<p>Now when you have great organisations and great institutions thus -discrediting themselves by conniving at the double-dealings of those -whom they would place or keep in authority—you cannot expect the -honestly critical observer to continue to place their judgment above -his own, or to believe (when some difficult moral problem presents -itself) that there is safety for his own soul in relying upon their -solution of it.</p> - -<p>The sanction of the popular verdict in a community which is true to -its professions is very great and should not lightly be set aside. But -the sanction of a community or of an organisation which is false to -its professions is nil. And it is in the face of such conditions (to -which Society and religion always tend to revert so long as their claim -is to hold power on any basis of inequality or privilege) that the -individual conscience is bound to assert itself and become a resistant -irrespective of the weight of numbers against it. And so, in any State -where it can be said with truth that the average ethical standard for -individual conduct is better than the legal standard, the duty of -individual resistance to evil law begins to arise. “Bad laws,” said a -wise magistrate, “have to be broken before they can be mended.” And -to be broken with good effect they must be broken not by the criminal -classes but by the martyrs and the reformers. It is not without<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> -significance that every great moral change in history has been brought -about by lawbreakers and by resistance to authority.</p> - -<p>When the English Nonconformists of two or three centuries ago were -fighting governments and breaking laws, they were doing so in defence -of a determination to hold doctrines often of a ridiculous kind and -productive of a very narrow and bigoted form of religious teaching—a -form which, had it obtained the upper hand and secured a general -allegiance, might have done the State harm and not good. But, however -egregious and even pernicious their doctrine, the justice (and even -the value) of the principle for which they contended was not affected -thereby. The life of the spirit must take its chance in contact with -the life material, and Society must have faith that all true and vital -principles will (given a free field and no favour) hold their own -against whatever opponents. That is the true faith to which Society is -called to-day—but which it certainly does not follow—especially not -in war time.</p> - -<p>We talk a great deal about liberty, democratic principle, and -government by majority; but if those ideals have any real meaning, they -mean that—given free trade in ideas and in propaganda on all ethical -and moral questions—you have got to trust your community to choose -what it thinks good. And to refuse to the general community the means -of deciding for itself by the utmost freedom of discussion, is—in -a State based on these principles—the most discreditable conduct -imaginable. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p> - -<p>But of what worth, you may ask, is this moral sanction of a majority? -I am not myself greatly enamoured of majority rule in the sense of a -majority exercising compulsion on a minority. Compulsion by a majority -I should often think it a duty to resist. But to the testimony of a -majority that refrained from compulsion I should attach the greatest -possible weight. There you would get a public opinion which by its own -self-restraint and scrupulous moderation of conduct would be of the -highest moral value. For Society fearlessly to admit the full and open -advocacy of that which it disapproves is the finest proof I can imagine -of its moral stability, and of its faith in the social principles it -lives by.</p> - -<p>Broadly speaking—with the exception I have already referred to—that -view is now admitted in matters of religion; you may hold and you -may advocate what religious principles you like. But you are not so -free to hold and advocate social and ethical principles. The veto of -Society has shifted, and you are far less likely to incur opprobrium -and ostracism to-day if you advocate polytheism than if you advocate -polygamy or pacifism. And the reason for this, I take to be, that the -religion of modern Society is no longer doctrinal but ethical; and so -our tendency is to inhibit new ethical teaching though we would not for -a moment countenance the inhibition of new doctrinal teaching.</p> - -<p>That is our temptation, and I think that in the coming decade there -will be a great fight<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> about it; we are not so prepared as we ought to -be to allow a free criticism of those social institutions on which our -ideas of moral conduct are based, even when they cover (as at present -constituted) a vast amount of double-dealing.</p> - -<p>Take for instance this Western civilization of ours which bases its -social institutions of marriage, property, and inheritance on the -monogamic principle, but persists in moral judgments and practices -whose only possible justification is to be found in the rather -divergent theory that the male is naturally polygamous and the female -monogamous.</p> - -<p>These two ideals, or social practices, make mutually discrediting -claims the one against the other. I am not concerned to say which I -think is right. But on one side or the other we are blinking facts, and -are behaving as though they had not a determining effect upon conduct -and character which Society ought straightforwardly to recognise.</p> - -<p>The man who maintains that it is impossible for the male to live -happily and contentedly in faithful wedlock with one wife and then -goes and does so, commits himself by such matrimonial felicity to -discreditable conduct—discreditable to his professions, I mean. And it -is, of course, the same if his inconsistency takes him the other way -about.</p> - -<p>There may, however, be an alternative and more honest solution to this -conflict of claims; both may contain a measure of truth. It may be true -that monogamy—or single mating—faithfully <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>practised by man and woman -alike, is ideally by far the best solution of the sex-relations, and -the best for the State to recognise and encourage by all legitimate -means; just as vegetarianism and total abstinence may be the best -solution of our relation to food, or non-resistance of our relation -to government, or abject submission of our relation to theological -teaching. But though these may be ideals to strive for, it does not -follow that human nature is so uniformly constructed upon one model -as to justify us in making them compulsory, or in turning round and -denouncing as moral obliquity either plural mating or the eating of -meat, or the drinking of wine, or rebellion against civil authority, or -free thought in matters of religion.</p> - -<p>If the community deliberately decides that one of these courses gives -the better social results, it is within its power to discourage the -other course, without descending to compulsion; and I am inclined to -think that this may, in the majority of cases, be done by treating the -desires and appetites of resistant minorities as taxable luxuries. If -the State finds, for instance, that alcoholism increases the work of -its magistrates and police, and diminishes the health and comfort of -home-conditions, it may quite reasonably tax beer, wine and spirits, -not merely to produce revenue but to abate a nuisance. But it would be -foolish, were it to go on to say that everybody who incurred such taxes -was guilty of moral obliquity. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the same way, if the State wishes to discourage vegetarianism and -temperance, it will tax sugar, currants, raisins, tea, cocoa and -coffee, and will continue to tax them till it has diminished the -consumption; and incidentally it will let meat go free. But it will -not pass moral judgments—having the fear of human nature before its -eyes—on those who conscientiously bear the burden of those taxes -rather than give up what they think good for them.</p> - -<p>I could imagine the State, in its wisdom, seeking to discourage luxury -and the accumulation of wealth into the possession of the few, by -imposing a graduated income tax of far more drastic severity than -that which is now depleting the pockets of our millionaires—but not -therefore saying that all who incurred income tax above a certain scale -were guilty of moral obliquity.</p> - -<p>We have seen a State which required an increase of its population -setting a premium on children so as to encourage parents to produce -them; and I can imagine a State which required a diminution in the -increase of its population setting a tax on children, but not therefore -joining in the cry of the Neo-Malthusians that every married couple -who produced more than four children were guilty of a kind of moral -depravity. And further, I can imagine a State which wished to encourage -pure and unadulterated monogamy putting a graduated tax, practically -prohibitive in price, on any other course of conduct productive of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> -second or third establishments. But I do not see why the State, as -State, should concern itself further, or why Society should concern -itself more deeply about sexual than it does about commercial and trade -relations, wherein it allows far more grievous defections from the -ideal of human charity to exist.</p> - -<p>Leaving it to the individual is not to say that your views as to -the desirability of such conduct will not influence your social -intercourse, and perhaps even affect your calling list. A great many -things affect our calling lists, without any necessity for us to be -self-righteous and bigoted about the principle on which we make our -own circle select. There are some people who will call upon the wives -of their doctors, but not of their dentists; there are others who will -not call upon the organist who conducts them to the harmonies of Divine -Service on Sunday, but would be very glad to call upon Sir Henry Wood, -who conducts their popular concerts for them during the week. We make -our selection according to our social tastes and aspirations, and -sometimes those social tastes may include a certain amount of moral -judgment. But that moral judgment need not make us interfere; if it -keeps us at a respectful and kindly distance from those whom we cannot -regard with full charity, it keeps us sufficiently out of mischief.</p> - -<p>Take the public hangman, for instance. I, personally, would not have -him upon my calling list. I would like to put a graduated tax upon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> -him and tax him out of existence. I think he is lending himself to a -base department of State service; but I also think that the State is -tempting him; and I think that, in a symbolical way, all of you who -approve of capital punishment ought to put the public hangman upon -your calling list—or not exclude him because of his profession (which -you regard as useful and necessary), but only because he happens to -be personally unattractive to you. If you exclude him, because of -his profession, while you consider his profession a necessity—you -are guilty, I think, of discreditable conduct, and in order to stand -morally right with yourselves you had better go (I speak symbolically) -and leave cards on him to-morrow.</p> - -<p>What I mean seriously to say is this: there is a great danger to -moral integrity in any acceptance of social conditions which you -would refuse to interpret into social intercourse. If you believe -prostitution to be necessary for the safety of the home—which is the -doctrine of some—you must accept the prostitute as one who fulfils an -honourable function in the State. If you accept capital punishment, -you must accept the hangman. If you accept meat, you must accept the -slaughterman; if you accept sanitation you must accept the scavenger. -If you accept dividends or profit from sweated labour, you must -accept responsibility for sweated conditions, and for the misery, the -ill-health, the immorality and the degradation which spring from them. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span></p> - -<p>We may be quite sure that far worse things come from these conditions -on which we make our profit than are contained in the majority of those -lives which, because of their irregularities or breaches of convention, -we so swiftly rule off our calling lists. If we are not willing to -forego the dividends produced for us out of our tolerated social -conditions, why forego contact with that human material which they -bring into being? But if you accept contact there, then you will have a -difficulty in finding any human material of greater abasement to deny -to it the advantage of your acquaintance.</p> - -<p>I have purposely put my argument provocatively, and applied it to -thorny and questionable subjects, because I want to reach no halfway -conclusion in this matter, and because the real test of our spiritual -toleration is now shifting from matters religious to matters social, -from questions of doctrine to questions of daily life. To-day we must -be prepared to tolerate a propaganda of social ideas—the products of -which, if they succeeded in obtaining a hold, would in the estimation -of many be as regrettable as were the products of Calvinism or -Puritanism in the past, when they were much more powerful than now.</p> - -<p>Our hatred of these new social ideas may be just as keen as the hatred -of Catholicism for Protestantism or of Protestantism for Catholicism, -in days when religious doctrine seemed to matter everything. More -keen it could not be. The dangers these new ideas<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> present could not -be greater in our eyes than in the eyes of our forefathers were the -dangers of false doctrine three centuries ago. But the principle -which demands that they shall be free to state their case and to make -converts remains always the same. Nevertheless it is unlikely to be -granted without struggle except by an intelligent minority.</p> - -<p>The religious movement of the twentieth century, I say again, is not -doctrinal but social; and its scripture is not the Bible or any written -word, but human nature itself.</p> - -<p>We are on the brink of great discoveries in human nature, and many -of our ethical foundations are about to be gravely disturbed. The -old Manichee dread of the essential evil—the original and engrained -sin—of human nature remains with us still, and there will be a great -temptation, as there always has been, not merely to controvert (which -is permissible) but to persecute and suppress those who preach new -ideas. It is against such discreditable conduct that we have now to be -on our guard.</p> - -<p>At the threshold of this new era to which we have come, with our old -civilisation so broken and shattered about us by our own civilising -hands, the guiding spirit of man’s destiny has its new word to say, -to which we must listen with brave ears. And first and foremost it is -this, “Stand upon thy feet—and I will speak with thee.”</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span></p> - -<h2>WHAT IS WOMANLY?</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1911)</p> - -<p>The title of my lecture has, I hope, sent a good many of you here—the -women of my audience, I mean—in a very bristling and combative frame -of mind, ready to resent any laying down of the law on my part as to -what is or what is not “womanly.” I hope, that is to say, that you are -not prepared to have the terms of your womanliness dictated to you by a -man—or, for that matter, by a woman either.</p> - -<p>For who can know either the extent or the direction of woman’s social -effectiveness until she has secured full right of way—a right of way -equal to man’s—in all directions of mental and physical activity, or, -to put it in one word, the right to experiment?</p> - -<p>There are, I have no doubt, many things which women might take it into -their heads to do, which one would not think womanly at their first -performance, but which one would think womanly when one saw their -results at long range. No rule of conduct can be set up as an abstract -right or wrong; we must form our ethics on our social results; and in -the world’s moral progress the really effective results have generally -come by shock of attack<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> upon, or of resistance to, some cherished -conventions of the day.</p> - -<p>Take, for example, a thing which has seemed to concern only the male -sex, but which has really concerned women just as intimately—the -history of our male code of honour in relation to the institution of -duelling. There was a time in our history when it would have been very -difficult to regard as manly the refusal to fight a duel. But it is -not difficult to-day to see in such a refusal a very true manliness. -We in this country have got rid of the superstition that honour can in -any way be mended by two men standing up to take snap-shots at each -other; and now that we are free from the superstition ourselves, we can -understand, looking at other countries—Germany, for instance—that it -must often require more courage to refuse to fight than to consent. But -we have arrived at that stage of enlightenment only because in our own -history there have been men courageous enough and manly enough to dare -to be thought unmanly and cowardly. And as with our manhood so with -our womanhood; you cannot judge of what is womanly merely on the lines -of past conventions, produced under circumstances very different from -those of our own days. You must give to women as you give to men the -right to experiment, the right to make their own successes and their -own failures. You cannot with good results lay upon men and women, as -they work side by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> side in the world (very often under hard competitive -conditions) the incompatible rules which govern respectively a living -language and a dead language. A living language is constantly in -flux, inventing new words for itself, modifying its spelling and its -grammatical construction, splitting its infinitives. In a dead language -the vocabulary is fixed, the spelling is fixed, the construction is -fixed; but the use and the meaning often remain doubtful. And so, if -you attempt to determine the woman’s capabilities merely by her past -record, and to fix the meaning of “womanliness” in any way that forbids -flux and development, then you are making the meaning and the use of -the word very doubtful.</p> - -<p>Now, obviously, if to be “womanly” means merely to “strike an average,” -and be as like the majority of women as possible—womanliness as a -quality is not worth thinking about; it will come of its own accord, -and exists probably a good deal in excess of our social need for it. It -stands on a par with that faculty for submission to the unconscionable -demands of others which makes a sheep sheepish and a hen prolific. -To be what Henry James calls “intensely ordinary” is, from the -evolutionary point of view, to be out of the running.</p> - -<p>We see this directly we start applying the word “manly” to men. -For we do not take that to mean merely average quality—if it did, -over-eating, over-drinking, and that form of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> speech which I will call -over-emphasis—would all be manly qualities—and the evolution of the -race would, according to that doctrine, lie on the lines of all sorts -of over-indulgence. But when we say “manly,” we mean the pick and -polish of those qualities which enable a man to possess himself and to -develop all his faculties; and if it denotes discipline it also denotes -an insistence on freedom—freedom for development, so that all that is -in him may be brought out for social use.</p> - -<p>Now, the great poverty which modern civilization suffers from, is the -undevelopment or the under-development of the bulk of its citizens. -And the great wastage that we suffer from lies in the misdirection -toward the over-indulgence of our material appetites—of the energies -which should make for our full human development. And you may be quite -sure that where in a community of over-population and poverty such as -ours, the average man, as master, is demanding for himself more of -these things than his share, there the average woman (where she is in -economic subjection) is getting less than her share. Yet there are -many people who (viewing this problem of woman’s subjection where the -savage in man is still uppermost) will tell you that it is “womanly” -to be self-sacrificing and self-denying; they will say that it is the -woman’s nature to be so more than it is the man’s; for, like Milton, in -his definition of the ideal qualities of womanhood, they put the word<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> -“subjection” first and foremost. That condition, which, according to -Scripture, only followed after the curse as its direct product, was, -you will remember, predicated by Milton, quite falsely, as essential -even to the paradisal state; and when in <i>Paradise Lost</i> he laid down -this law of “subjection” as the right condition for unfallen womanhood, -he went on to describe the divinely appointed lines on which it was to -operate. The woman was to subject herself to man—</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div class="i10">“with submission,</div> -<div>And sweet, reluctant, amorous delay.”</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>Those, surely, are the qualifications of the courtesan for making -herself desired; and it is no wonder, if he had such an Eve by his side -as was invented for him by Milton, that Adam fell.</p> - -<p>Where true womanliness is to end I do not know; but I am pretty sure -of this—that it must begin in self-possession. It is not womanly -for a woman to deny herself either in comforts or nourishment, or -in her instincts of continence and chastity in order that someone -else—whether it be her children or her husband—may over-indulge. -It <i>is</i> womanly (it is also manly), when there is danger of hurt or -starvation to those for whom you are responsible, to suffer much rather -than that they should suffer; but it is not in the least womanly -or manly to suffer so that they may indulge. The woman who submits -to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> starving of herself or of her children by a drunken or a -lazy husband is not in any positive sense womanly—for she is then -proving herself ineffective for her social task. And she would be more -effective, and therefore more womanly, if she could, by any means you -like to name, drive that lazy husband into work, or abstract from that -drunken husband a right share of his wages. And if by making his home -a purgatory to him she succeeded, she would be more womanly in the -valuable sense of the word than if (by submission to injustice) she -failed, and let her children go starved.</p> - -<p>Then, again, a woman may see that the children she and her husband -are producing ought never to have been born. And if that is so, is it -womanly for her to go on bearing children at the dictates of the man, -even though St. Paul says, “Wives, obey your husbands”? Is she any more -womanly, if she knowingly brings diseased offspring into the world, -than he is manly in the fathering of them?</p> - -<p>But now, come out of the home into Society—not into any of those -departments of unsolved problems where humanity is seen at its -worst—pass all those by for the moment—and come to the seat of -administration—into that great regulator of Society, the law-courts -(in the superintendence and constitution of which woman is conspicuous -by her absence). There, as in matters connected with the male code of -honour, any duty of initiative on the part of women may seem,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> at first -sight, to be far removed. But let us see! In the law-courts you meet -with a doctrine—a sort of unwritten law—that there are certain cases -to which women must not listen. And occasionally “all decent women” are -requested to leave the court, when “decent” men are allowed to stay. -Now, in the face of that request it must be a very painful thing indeed -for a woman to hold her ground—but it may be womanly for her to do -so. It may be that in that case there are women witnesses; and I do -not think our judges sufficiently realise what mental agony it may be -to a woman to give evidence in a court where there are only men. I am -quite sure that in such cases, if the judge orders women generally out -of court, he ought to provide one woman to stand by the woman in the -witness-box. How would any man feel, if he were called before a court -composed only of women, women judges, a woman jury, women reporters, -and saw all men turned out of the court before he began his evidence? -Would he feel sure that it meant justice for him? I think not.</p> - -<p>Now these cases to which women are not to listen almost always -specially concern women; yet here you have men claiming to deal with -them as much as possible behind the woman’s back, and to keep her in -ignorance of the lines on which they arrive at a conclusion. Surely, -then, it would be well for women of expert knowledge and training to -insist that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> these things shall not be decided without women assessors, -and to be so “womanly” as to incur the charge of brazenness and -immodesty in defending the woman’s interest, which in such matters is -also the interest of the race.</p> - -<p>But it is only very gradually—and in the face of immemorial -discouragement—that this communal or social spirit, when it began to -draw woman outside her own domesticity, has fought down and silenced -the reproach raised against it, of “unwomanliness,” of an intrusion -by woman into affairs which were outside her sphere. The awakening of -the social conscience in women is one of the most pregnant signs of -the time. But see what (in order to make itself effective) it has had -to throw over at each stage of its advance—things to which beautiful -names have been given, things which were assumed all through the -Victorian era to be essential to womanliness, and to be so engrained in -the woman’s nature, that without them womanliness itself must perish. -The ideal of woman’s life was that she should live unobserved except -when displayed to the world on the arm of a proud and possessive -husband, and the height of her fortune was expressed in the phrase -enviously quoted by Mrs. Norton, “Happy the woman who has no history.” -Now that ideal was entirely repressive of those wider activities which -during the last fifty years have marked and made happy, in spite of -struggle, the history of woman’s social <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span>development; and every fresh -effort of that social spirit to find itself and to become effective has -always had to face, at the beginning of each new phase in its activity, -the charge of unwomanliness.</p> - -<p>Compare that attack, fundamental in its nature, all-embracing in -its condemnation, with the kind of attack levelled against the -corresponding manifestations of the social or reforming spirit in -man. In a man, new and unfamiliar indications of a stirring-up of the -social conscience may earn such epithets of opprobrium as “rash,” -“hot-headed,” “ill-considered,” “impracticable,” “utopian”—but -we do not label them as “unmanly.” Initiative, fresh adventure of -thought or action in man have always been regarded as the natural -concomitant of his nature. In a woman they have very generally been -regarded as unnatural, unwomanly. The accusation is fundamental: it -does not concern itself with any unsoundness in the doctrines put -forward; but only with the fact that a woman has dared to become their -mouthpiece or their instrument. Go back to any period in the last 200 -years, where a definitely new attempt was made by woman toward civic -thought and action, and you will find that, at the time, the charge -of “unwomanliness” was levelled against her; you find also that in -the succeeding generation that disputed territory has always become -a centre of recognised womanly activity. Take, for instance, the -establishment of higher training<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> for girls; there are towns in this -country where the women, who first embarked on such a design, were -jeered and laughed at, and even mobbed. And the same thing happened in -an even greater degree to the women who sought to recover for their own -sex admission to the medical profession: and while the charge levelled -against them was “unwomanliness,” it was yet through their instincts -of reserve and sex-modesty that their enemies tried to defeat them. -Even when they gained the right of admission to medical colleges there -were lecturers who tried, by the way they expressed themselves in their -lectures, to drive them out again.</p> - -<p>Or take the very salient instance of Florence Nightingale. When she -volunteered to go out and nurse our soldiers in the Crimea, the -opposition to a woman’s invasion of a department where men had shown a -hopeless incompetence at once based itself on the plea that such a task -was “unwomanly.” Though in their own homes from time immemorial, women -had been nursing fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, cousins, servants, -masters, through all the refined and modestly-conducted diseases to -which these lords of creation are domestically subject, directly one -woman proposed to carry her expert knowledge into a public department -and nurse men who were strangers to her, she was told that she was -exposing herself to an experience which was incompatible with womanly -modesty. Well, she was prepared to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> let her womanly modesty take its -risk in face of the black looks of scandalised officials of Admiralty -or War Office; and she managed to live down pretty completely the -charge of unwomanliness. But the example is a valuable one to remember, -for there you get the claim of convention to keep women from a great -work of organisation and public service, although already, in the home, -their abilities for that special service had been proved. And so, -breaking with that convention of her day Florence Nightingale went to -be the nursing mother of the British Army in the Crimea, and came home, -the one conspicuously successful general of that weary and profitless -campaign, shattered in health by her exertions, but of a reputation so -raised above mistrust and calumny that through her personal prestige -alone was established that organisation of nursing by trained women -which we have in our hospitals to-day.</p> - -<p>Take again the special and peculiar opposition which women had to face -when they began to agitate against certain laws which particularly -affected the lives of women and did cruel wrong to them even in their -home relations. Read the life of Caroline Norton, for instance—a woman -whose husband brought against her a public charge of infidelity, though -privately admitting that she was innocent; and when, after that charge -was proved to be baseless, she separated from her husband, refusing to -live with him any more, then he, in consequence of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> that refusal cut -her off absolutely from her children, though they were all under seven -years of age. That wrong, which our laws had immemorially sanctioned, -roused her to action, and it was through her efforts, so long ago as -1838, that the law was altered so as to allow a mother of unblemished -character right of access to her own children during the years of early -infancy!</p> - -<p>And that is how the law still stands to-day—a woman’s -contribution—the most that could be done at the time for justice -to women. But there is no statue to Caroline Norton in Parliament -Square—or anywhere else, so far as I know.</p> - -<p>But what I specially want to draw attention to is this—that when -she wrote the pamphlet with which she started her agitation all -her relatives entreated her not to publish it, because it would be -an exposure to the world of her own private affairs. By that time, -however, Caroline Norton had learned her lesson in “womanliness,” and -she no longer said “Happy is the woman who has no history.” Her answer -was: “There is too much fear of publicity among women: with women it -is reckoned a crime to be accused, and such a disgrace that they wish -nothing better than to hide themselves and say no more about it.” -Does not that set forth in all its weakness the conventional womanly -attitude of the period?</p> - -<p>The Bill which, through her efforts, was brought three times before -Parliament, was at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> first defeated. How? By the votes of the Judges, -to whom the House of Lords left the matter to be decided. And Lord -Brougham, in speaking against that Bill used this line of argument: -There were, he said, several legal hardships which were of necessity -inflicted on women; therefore we should not relieve them from those -which are not necessary—the necessary hardships being the greater; -and it being bad policy to raise in women a false expectation that -the legal hardships relating to their sex were of a removable kind! -Was ever a more perverted and devilish interpretation given to the -Scripture, “To him that hath shall be given, and from her that hath not -shall be taken even that which she hath.”</p> - -<p>Let us remember that we are the direct descendants and inheritors of -the age and of the men who pronounced these unjust judgments, and that -no miracle has happened between then and now to remove the guilt of -the fathers from the third and the fourth generation. Heredity is too -strong a thing for us to have any good ground for believing that our -eyes, even now, are entirely opened. There are many of us who cannot -drink port at all, because our grandfathers drank it by the bottle -every night of their lives.</p> - -<p>We inherit constitutions, personal and political—we also inherit -proverbs, which express so vividly and in so few words, the full-bodied -and highly-crusted wisdom of former generations. Those proverbs -expressed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> once—else they had not become proverbs—an almost universal -contemporary opinion. Some of them are now beginning to wear thin, have -of recent years been dying the death, and will presently be heard no -more. But their source and incentive are still quite recognisable; and -their dwindled spirit still lives in our midst.</p> - -<p>There was one, for instance, on which genteel families were brought up -in the days of my youth—a rhymed proverb which laid it down that—</p> - -<div class="center"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<div>A whistling woman and a crowing hen</div> -<div>Are hateful alike to God and men.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>Now let us look into the bit of real natural history which lies at -the root of that proverb. A crowing hen is a disturbance, but so is a -crowing cock. But the hen is not to crow because she only lays eggs, -and because the bulk of hens manage to lay eggs without crowing. They -make, it is true, a peculiar clutter of their own which is just as -disturbing; but that is a thoroughly feminine noise and a dispensation -of Providence; and they don’t do it at all times of the night, and -without a reason for it, as cocks do. But as a matter of fact it is far -more easy to prevent a cock from crowing than a hen from cluttering; -you have only to put a cock in a pen the roof of which knocks his head -whenever he rears himself up to crow and he will remain as silent as -the grave, though he will continue to do that spasmodic duty by his -offspring which is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> all that nature requires of him. But no such simple -method will stop the cluttering of a hen when her egg is once well and -truly laid; the social disturbance caused by the pomp of masculine -vain-glory is far less inevitable than the disturbance caused by the -circumstances of maternity. Yet the normal masculine claim to pomp of -sound is more readily allowed in our proverbial philosophy than the -occasional feminine claim.</p> - -<p>And that is where we have gone wrong; it is really maternity which -under wholesome conditions decides the social order of things; and we -have been fighting against it by putting maternity into a compound -and setting up paternity to crow on the top rail. We have not learned -that extraordinary adaptability to sound economic conditions which we -find in many birds and in a few animals. There exists, for instance, -a particular breed of ostriches, which mates and lays its eggs in a -country where the days are very hot and the nights very cold; and as -it takes the female ostrich some 13 or 14 days to lay all her eggs -and some weeks to incubate, she cannot as she does in other countries -deposit them in the sand and leave the sun to hatch them, because -after the sun has started the process, the cold night comes and kills -them. The mother bird finds, therefore, that she cannot both produce -and nurse her eggs; yet directly they are laid somebody must begin -sitting on them. Well, what does she do? She goes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> about in flocks, -13 or 14 females accompanied by an equal number of the sterner sex. -And on a given day, all the hens lay each an egg in one nest, and one -of the father birds is selected to sit upon them. And so the process -goes on till all the males are sedentarily employed in hatching out -their offspring. And I would ask (applying for the moment our own -terminology to that wonderfully self-adaptive breed of sociologists) -are not those male ostriches engaged in a thoroughly “manly” -occupation? Could they be better engaged than in making the conditions -of maternity as favourable and as unhampered as possible? Yet how -difficult it is to make our own countrymen see that the strength of a -nation lies mainly—nay, entirely—in eugenics, in sinking every other -consideration for that great and central one—the perfecting of the -conditions of maternity.</p> - -<p>But let us come back for a moment to whistling. It is an accomplishment -which, as a rule, men do better than women; it is the only natural -treble left to them after they reach the age of puberty; and they are -curiously proud of it; perhaps, because women, as a rule, have not -the knack of it. Now, the real offence of a woman’s whistling was not -when she did it badly (for that merely flattered the male vanity) but -when she did it well; and no doubt it was because some women managed -to do it well that the proverb I speak of was invented. We should not -have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> been troubled with such a proverb if crowing hens and whistling -women had been unable to raise their accomplishment above a whisper. -Yet whistling is really quite beautiful, when it is well done; and why -is woman not to create this beauty of sound, if it is in her power -to create it, merely because it finds her in a minority among her -sex? Does it make her less physically fit, less capable of becoming a -mother—less inclined, even, to become a mother? No; it does none of -these things; but it distinguishes her from a convention which has laid -it down that there are certain things which women can’t do; and so, -when the exceptional woman does it, she is—or she was the day before -yesterday—labelled “unwomanly.”</p> - -<p>I do not suggest that whistling is a necessary ingredient for -the motherhood of the new race; but, as a matter of fact, I have -noticed that those women who whistle well have, as a rule, strength -of character, originality, the gift of initiative and a strong -organising capacity; and if these things do go together, then surely -we should welcome an increase of whistling as a truly womanly -accomplishment—something attained—which has not been so generally -attained hitherto.</p> - -<p>Let us pass now to a much more serious instance of those artificial -divisions between masculine and feminine habits of thought and -action which have in the past seemed so absolute, and are, in fact, -so impossible to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> maintain. For you can have no code or standard of -manhood that is not intimately bound up with a corresponding code or -standard of womanhood. What raises the one, raises the other, what -degrades the one degrades the other; and if there is in existence, -anywhere in our social system, a false code of manliness, there -alongside of it, reacting on it, depending on it, or producing it, is a -false code of womanliness.</p> - -<p>Take, for example, that matter of duelling already referred to, in -relation to the male code of honour, and the manliness which it is -supposed to encourage and develop. You might be inclined to think that -it lies so much outside the woman’s sphere and her power of control, -as to affect very little either her womanliness or her own sense of -honour. But I hope to show by a concrete example how very closely -womanliness and woman’s code of honour are concerned and adversely -affected by that “manly” institution of duelling—how, in fact, it -has tended to deprive women of a sense of honour, by taking it from -their own keeping and not leaving to them the right of free and final -judgment.</p> - -<p>Here is what happened in Germany about seven years ago. A young married -officer undertook to escort home from a dance the fiancée of another -officer; and on the way, having drunk rather more than was good for -him, he tried to kiss her. She resented the liberty, and apparently -made him sufficiently<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> ashamed of himself to come next day and beg her -pardon. Whether she would grant it was surely a matter for herself to -decide; she accepted his apology, and there, one would have thought, -the matter might have ended. But unfortunately, several months later, -word of this very ordinary bit of male misdemeanour reached the ears -of the lady’s betrothed. It at once became “an affair of honour”—his -affair, not the lady’s affair—his to settle in his own way, not hers -to settle in her way. Accordingly he calls out his brother officer, -and, probably without intending it, shoots him dead. The murdered -man, as I have said, was married, and at that very time his wife was -in expectation of having a child. The child was prematurely born to a -poor mother gone crazed with grief. There, then, we get a beautiful -economic product of the male code of honour and its criminal effects on -Society; and if traced to its source we shall see that such a code of -honour is based mainly on man’s claim to possession and proprietorship -in woman—for, had the woman not been one whom he looked upon as his -own property, that officer would have regarded the offence very lightly -indeed. But because she was his betrothed the woman’s honour was not -her own, it was his; she was not to defend it in her own way—though -her own way had proved sufficient for the occasion—he must interfere -and defend it in his. And we get for result, a man killed for a petty -offence—the offence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> itself a direct product of the way in which -militarism has trained men to look on women—a woman widowed and driven -to the untimely fulfilment of her most important social function in -anguish of mind, and a child born into the world under conditions which -probably handicapped it disastrously for the struggle of life.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" >[1]</a></p> - -<p>Now, obviously, if women could be taught to regard such invasions -of their right to pardon offence in others as a direct attack upon -their own honour and liberty—a far worse attack than the act of -folly which gave occasion for this tragedy—and if they would teach -these possessive lovers of theirs that any such intrusion on their -womanly prerogative of mercy was in itself an unforgivable sin against -womanhood—then such invasions of the woman’s sphere would quickly come -to an end. They might even put an end to duelling altogether.</p> - -<p>See, on the other hand, how acceptance of such an institution trains -women to give up their own right of judgment, to think even that -honour, at first hand, hardly concerns them. Is it not natural that, as -the outcome of such a system from which we are only gradually emerging, -we should hear it said<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> of these conventionally womanly women that they -have “a very low sense of honour.”</p> - -<p>Low it must naturally be. For that attitude of complaisant passivity -on the part of the woman while two male rivals fight to possess her is -the normal attitude of the female in the lower animal world; but it is -an attitude from which, as the human race evolves into more perfect -self-government, you see the woman gradually drawing away. While it -pleases something in her animal instincts, it offends something in her -human instincts; and while to be fought over is the highest compliment -to the female animal, it is coming to be something like an insult to -the really civilized woman—the woman who has the spirit of citizenship -awake within her. One remembers how Candida, when her two lovers are -debating which of them is to possess her—brings them at once to their -senses by reminding them that it is not in the least necessary that -she should be possessed by either of them; but she does in the end -give herself to the one who needs her most. That may be the truest -womanliness under present conditions; as it may once have been the -truest womanliness for the woman to give herself to the strongest. But -it may be the truest womanliness, at times, for the woman to bring men -to their senses by reminding them that it is not necessary for her to -give herself at all. To be quite sure of attaining to full womanliness, -let her first make sure that she<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> possesses herself. In the past men -have set a barrier to her right of knowledge, her right of action, -her right of independent being; and in the light of that history it -seems probable that she will best discover her full value by insisting -on right of knowledge, on right of way, and on right of economic -independence. So long as convention lays upon women any special and -fundamental claim of control—a claim altogether different in kind -and extent from the claim it lays upon men—so long may it be the -essentially womanly duty of every woman to have quick and alive within -her the spirit of criticism, and latent within her blood the spirit of -revolt.</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1">[1]</a> It may be noted that the war has caused a recrudescence of -this brutal “code of honour” in our own country. But here it has not -troubled to resume the obsolete form of the duel. The “defender of his -wife’s honour” simply commits murder, and the jury acquits.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span></p> - -<h2>USE AND ORNAMENT</h2> - -<p class="bold">(<span class="smcap">or the Art of Living</span>)</p> - -<p class="bold">(1915)</p> - -<p>I suppose you would all be very much surprised if I said that not use -but ornament was the object of life.</p> - -<p>I refrain from doing so because so definite a statement makes an -assumption of knowledge which it may always be outside man’s power to -possess. The object of life may for ever remain as obscure to us as its -cause. It seems, indeed, likely enough that the one ignorance hinges -necessarily on the other, and that without knowing the cause of life -neither can we know its object.</p> - -<p>The writers of the Scottish Church Catechism, it is true, thought -that they knew why man was created. The social products of their -cocksure theology cause me to doubt it. I would prefer to worship more -ignorantly a more lovable deity than the one which is there presented -to my gaze.</p> - -<p>But though we may never know why we are here, we may know, by taking a -little thought and studying the manifestations of the life around us, -what aspects of it make us glad that we are here. And gladness is as -good a guide as any that I know to the true values of life. </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span></p> - -<p>Examining life from that standpoint I know of nothing that gives me -more delight than the decoration and embellishment with which man has -overlaid all the mere uses of existence—things which without those -embellishments might not delight us at all—or only as a dry crust of -bread delights in his necessity the starving beggar, or ditch-water one -dying of thirst.</p> - -<p>I can scarcely think of a use in life which I enjoy, that I do not -enjoy more because of the embellishment placed about it by man, who -claims to have been made “in God’s image.” Nothing that my senses -respond to with delight stays limited within the utilitarian aspect -on which its moral claims to acceptance are too frequently based—or -remains a benefit merely material in its scope.</p> - -<p>When we breathe happily, when we eat happily, and when we love happily, -we do not think of the utilitarian ends with which those bodily -instincts are related. The utilitarian motive connects, but only -subconsciously, with that sense of well-being and delight which then -fills us; and the conscious life within us is happy without stooping to -reason.</p> - -<p>Underlying our receptivity of these things is, no doubt, the fact that -our bodies have a use for them. But were we to consider the material -uses alone, our enjoyment would be less; and if (by following that -process) we absorbed them in a less joyous spirit, our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> physical -benefit, so science now tells us, would be less also.</p> - -<p>For some reason or another, which is occasionally hard to define, you -find pleasure in a thing over and above its use; and I want to persuade -you that the finer instinct, the genius of the human race, tends always -in that direction—not to rest content with the mere use of a thing, -but to lay upon it that additional touch of adornment—whether by -well-selected material, or craftsman’s skill, or social amenity, which -shall make it a thing delightful to our senses or to our intelligence.</p> - -<p>Take, for instance, so simple a thing as a wine-glass, or a -water-glass. Materially, it is subject to a very considerable -drawback; it is brittle, and if broken is practically unmendable. -From the point of view of utility, strength, cheapness, cleanliness, -it has no advantage over hardware or china. But in its relation to -beverages beautiful in colour and of a clear transparency, glass has a -delightfulness which greatly enhances the pleasure of its use. There -is a subtle relation between the sparkle of the glass, and the sparkle -produced in the brain by the sight and the taste of good wine (or—let -me add, for the benefit of temperance members of my audience—of good -ginger-ale). I think one could also trace a similar delight to the -relations subsisting between glass in its transparency and a draught of -pure water.</p> - -<p>That relationship set up between two or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> more senses (in this case -between the senses of sight, taste and touch) brings into being a new -value which I ask you to bear in mind, as I shall have a good deal to -say about it later—the value of association. The more you examine into -the matter, the more you will find that association is a very important -element for evoking man’s faculties of enjoyment; it secures by the -inter-relation of the senses a sort of compound interest for the appeal -over which it presides. And it is association, with this compound -appeal, which again and again decides (over and above all questions -of use) what material is the best, or the most delightful, to be -employed for a given purpose. You choose a material because it makes a -decorative covering to mere utility. That beauty of choice in material -alone is the beginning of ornament.</p> - -<p>When I began, I spoke for a moment as though use and ornament were -opposite or separate principles; but what I shall hope soon to show -is that they are so interlocked and combined that there is no keeping -them apart when once the spirit of man has opened to perceive the true -sacramental service which springs from their union, and the social -discordance that inevitably follows upon their divorce. But as man’s -ordinary definition of the word “use” is sadly material and debased, -and as his approval and sanction of the joys of life have too often -been limited by a similar materialism of thought, one is obliged, for -the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> time being, to accept the ordinary limiting distinction, so that -the finer and less realised uses of beauty and delight may be shown -more clearly as the true end to which all lesser uses should converge.</p> - -<p>Life itself is a usage of material, the bringing together of atoms into -form; and we know, from what science teaches of evolution, that this -usage has constantly been in the direction of forms of life which, -for certain reasons, we describe as “higher.” Emerging through those -forms have come manifestations or qualities, which quite obviously give -delight to the holders of them; and we are able to gather in watching -them, as they live, move, and have their being, that for them life -seems good. It is no part of their acceptance of what has come that -they are here not to enjoy themselves.</p> - -<p>Thus we see from the upward trend of creation a faculty for enjoyment -steadily emerging, and existing side by side with fears, risks, and -hardships which the struggle for existence entails—probably an even -increased faculty for enjoyment, as those fears and risks become more -consciously part of their lives. And I question whether we should think -that the wild deer had chosen well, could it resign its apprehension -of death at the drinking-place for the sake of becoming a worm—the -wriggling but scarcely conscious prey of the early bird.</p> - -<p>Man (the most conscious prey of death)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> has also his compensations; -but, wishing to eat his cake and have it, he insists that his increased -self-consciousness is the hall-mark of an immortality which he is -unwilling to concede to others. He sees (or the majority of those see, -who preach personal immortality after death) no moral necessity for -conceding immortality to the worm because the early bird cuts short -its career, or to the wild deer because it enjoys life, shrinks from -death, and endures pain; or to the peewit, because she loves her young; -or to the parrot, because it dies with a vocabulary still inadequate -for expressing that contempt for the human species with which the caged -experience of a life-time has filled its brain. Yet, for these and -similar reasons applied to himself, man thinks that immortality is his -due.</p> - -<p>In doing so, he does but pursue, to a rather injudicious extent, that -instinct for the ornamentation and embellishment of the facts of life -which I spoke of to begin with. For whether it be well-founded or not, -a belief in immortality gives ornament to existence.</p> - -<p>Of course, it may be bad ornament; and I think it becomes bad ornament -the moment he bases it upon the idea that this life is evil and not -good. If he says “Life is so good that I want it to go on for ever and -ever,” and thinks that he can make it better by asserting that it will -go on for ever and ever, that is a playful statement which may have -quite a stimulating effect on his career, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> make him a much more -charming and social and imaginative person than he would otherwise be. -But if he wants a future life merely because he regards this life as a -“vale of misery”—and wants that future life to contain evil as well -as good—a Hell as well as a Heaven (in order that he may visualise -retribution meted out on a satisfactory scale upon those whom he cannot -satisfactorily visit with retribution to-day) then, I think, that it -tends to become bad ornament, and is likely to make him less charming, -less social, and less imaginatively inventive for the getting rid of -evil conditions from present existence than he would be if he had not -so over-loaded his brain with doctrinal adornments.</p> - -<p>Still, it is ornament of a kind; and with ornament, good or bad (the -moment he has got for himself leisure or any elbow-room at all in the -struggle for existence) man cannot help embellishing the facts of -life—the things that he really knows.</p> - -<p>Now that instinct for embellishment is of course latent in Nature -itself, or we should not find it in man; and it comes of Nature (the -great super-mathematician) putting two and two together in a way which -does not merely make four. When two and two are put together by Nature, -they come to life in a new shape; and man is (up-to-date) the most -appreciative receptacle of that fact which Nature has yet produced. Man -builds up his whole appreciation of life by association—by <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span>studying -a method of putting two and two together which comes to something very -much more than a dead numerical result.</p> - -<p>This, as I have said, is Nature’s way of giving to our investments in -life a compound interest. Man throws into life his whole capital, body, -soul, and spirit; and as a result of that investment Nature steadily -returns to him year by year—not detached portions of his original -outlay, but something new and different. Out of every contact between -man’s energy and Nature’s, something new arises. And yet, though new, -it is not strange; it has features of familiarity; it is partly his, -partly hers; and if his spirit rises above the merely mechanical, it -is endeared to him by and derives its fullest value from association. -All beautiful work, all work which is of real use and benefit to the -community, bears implicitly within it this mark of parentage—of the -way it has been come by, through patience, skill, ingenuity, something -more intimate and subtle than the dead impenetrable surface of a thing -mechanically formed without the accompaniment either of hope or joy.</p> - -<p>This creation of new values by association (which you can trace through -all right processes of labour) is seen even in things which have very -little of human about them.</p> - -<p>The germ of its expression is to be found in that simplest of -arithmetic propositions to which I have just referred: two and two -make—not two twos but four, which is, in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> fact, a fresh concept; and -the mind that can embrace so much—the idea of four as a number with -an identity of its own has already raised itself above the lowest -level of savagery. In that mind something has begun out of which the -social idea may presently be developed; for the man who has conceived -the number four will presently be identifying his new concept with a -variety of correspondencies under fresh aspects: he will discover that -certain animals have four legs, whereas, until then, his view of them -was rather that of the child who said that a horse had two legs in -front, two legs behind, and two at each side—a statement which shows, -indeed, that the horse has been earnestly considered from as many -points of view as are sometimes necessary to enable a Cabinet Minister -to make up his mind, but, for all that, never as a whole; and in such a -mind, though the identity of the horse may be established from whatever -point of view he presents himself, the thought of the horse, as a being -of harmoniously related parts, having order and species, has not yet -been established. Until a man can count, and sum up the results of -his counting in synthesis, Nature is composed merely of a series of -units—and the mind cannot begin that grouping and defining process -which leads to association and from that to the development of the -social idea.</p> - -<p>You will remember in <i>Alice through the Looking Glass</i>, when the two -Queens set to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> work to test her educational proficiency—you will -remember how the White Queen says (in order to discover whether Alice -can do addition) “What’s one, and one, and one, and one, and one, and -one?”</p> - -<p>“I don’t know,” says Alice, “I lost count.”</p> - -<p>“She can’t do addition,” says the White Queen.</p> - -<p>Well—she “lost count,” and, therefore, that series of ones failed to -have any fresh meaning or association for her.</p> - -<p>In the same way the primitive savage loses count; beyond three, numbers -are too many for him—they become merely a “lot.” But war and the -chase begin to teach him the relative value of numbers; and he finds -out that if one lot goes out to fight a bigger lot, the smaller lot -probably gets beaten; so that, before long, calculation of some sort -becomes necessary for the preservation of existence. He finds out also -(and this is where ornament begins to come in) that a certain amount of -wilful miscalculation has a beauty and a value of its own. So, after -going out to fight ten against ten, and defeating them, he comes back -and says to his wives and the surrounding communities by whom he wishes -to be held in awe—“My lot killed bigger lot—much, much bigger lot.” -And so, when he comes later on to set down his wilful miscalculations -in records of scripture, he provides delightful problems for the Bishop -Colensos of future ages—problems the undoing of which may<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> shake to -the foundations the authority of documents which some mid-Victorian -school of Christianity has hitherto held to be divinely and verbally -inspired—not realising that the normal tendency of human nature is -to be decorative when writing its national history or when giving its -reasons for having plunged into war.</p> - -<p>You begin now, then, to perceive (if you did not before), the -importance of ornamental association, even when confined to matters of -arithmetic; and the moral value to future ages not merely of calculated -truths but of calculated untruths.</p> - -<p>But this merely figurative illustration of the quickness of the human -brain, in its primitive stage, to use mathematics to unmathematical -ends (or science to ends quite unscientific) does not bring us very far -upon the road to that self-realisation, in ornament rather than in use, -which I hope to make manifest by tracing to their most characteristic -forms of expression the higher grades of civilization.</p> - -<p>And I shall hope, by and by, to show that you cannot be social without -also being ornamental; it is the beginning of that connecting link -which shall presently make men realise that life is one, and that all -life is good.</p> - -<p>Take, to begin with, the earliest instruments by which primitive man -began raising himself from the ruck of material conditions; his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> -weapons—first of the chase, and then of war. No sooner had he proved -their use than he began to ornament them—to make them records, -trophies, and so—objects of beauty. He cannot stop from doing so; -his delight in the skill of his hands breaks out into ornament. It is -the same with the arts of peace, the work of the woman-primitive—she -moulds a pot, or weaves a square of material, and into it—the moment -she has accomplished the rudiments—goes pattern, beauty, something -additional and memorable that is not for use material, but for use -spiritual—pleasure, delight.</p> - -<p>And that quite simple example, from a time when man was living the -life, as we should now regard it, of a harried and hunted beast—with -his emergence from surrounding perils scarcely yet assured to him—goes -on consistently up and up the scale of human evolution; and the more -strongly it gets to be established in social institutions, the more -noble is likely to be the form of civilization which enshrines it. And -the less it shows, the less is that form of civilization likely to be -worthy of preservation, or its products of permanent value to the human -race.</p> - -<p>It is not the millionaire who leaves his mark on the world so that -hereafter men are glad when they name him; it is the “maker” who -has turned uses into delights; not the master of the money-market, -but the Master of Arts. The nearest thing we have on earth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> to that -immortality which so many look to as the human goal lies in those forms -of ornament—of embellishment over and above mere use—which man’s -genius has left to us in architecture, poetry, music, sculpture, and -painting. Nothing that stops at utility has anything like the same -value, for the revelation of the human spirit, as that which finds its -setting in the Arts—the sculptures of Egypt and Greece, the Gothic -and Romanesque cathedrals of France, England, Germany and Italy, the -paintings of the Renaissance, the masterpieces of Bach and Beethoven, -the poems and writings all down the ages of men comparatively poor in -monetary wealth, but rich beyond the dreams of avarice in their power -to communicate their own souls to things material and to leave them -there, when their own bodies have turned to dust. In the embellishment -they added to life they bestowed on the age in which they lived its -most significant commentary. There you will find, as nowhere else, the -meaning and the interpretation of the whole social order to which these -forms were as flower and fruit. Ancient Greece is not represented to us -to-day by its descendants in the flesh (as an expression of that life -they have ceased to exist) but by those works of art and philosophy -through which men—many now nameless—made permanent the vision of -delight to which, in the brief life of the flesh, they had become -heirs. The self-realisation of that age—all the best of it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> that we -inherit—comes to us through embodiment in forms transcending material -use.</p> - -<p>Run your mind’s eye through the various peoples and nationalities of -Europe—of the world—and you will find that their characteristic -charm—that which is “racy” of their native soil, marking the -distinction between race and race, lies in the expression they have -given to life over and above use. If we had kept to use, race would -have remained expressionless. Race expresses itself in ornament; and -even among a poor peasant people (and far more among them than among -the crowded and over-worked populations of our great cities where -we pursue merely commercial wealth) comes out in a characteristic -appreciation of the superabundance of material with which, at some -point or another, life has lifted them above penury. In the great -civilizations it extends itself over a rich blend of all these, drawn -from far sources; and the more widely it extends over the material uses -of life, the higher and the more permanent are the products of that -form of civilization likely to be. What does it mean but this?—man is -out to enjoy himself.</p> - -<p>Having said that, need I add that I put a very high interpretation upon -the word “joy”?</p> - -<p>To that end—man’s enjoyment of life—all art is profoundly useful. I -put that forward in opposition to the specious doctrine of Oscar Wilde -that “all art is entirely useless.” But it is usefulness extended in a -new direction;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> leaving the material uses, by which ordinary values are -measured, it shifts to the spiritual; and by the spiritual I mean that -which animates, vitalizes, socializes.</p> - -<p>To that end it may often be—and is generally the case—that, in the -material sense, art is a useless addition or refinement upon that which -was first planned merely for the service of man’s bodily needs. Yet -where the need is of a worthy and genuine kind, art never ceases to -rejoice at the use that is underlying it. This can be clearly seen in -architecture, where the beauty of design, the proportion, the capacity -of the edifice—though far transcending the physical need which called -it into being—remain nevertheless in subtle relation thereto, and give -to it a new expression—useless indeed to the body—but of this use to -the mind, that it awakens, kindles, enlivens, sensitizes—making it to -be in some sort creative, by perception of and response to the creative -purpose which evoked that form. You cannot enter a cathedral without -becoming aware that its embracing proportions mean something far more -than the mere capacity to hold a crowd; its end and aim are to inspire -in that crowd a certain mental attitude, a spiritual apprehension—to -draw many minds into harmony, and so to make them one—a really -tremendous fact when successfully achieved.</p> - -<p>Now nothing can be so made—to awaken and enlarge the spirit—without -some apparent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> wastefulness of material or of energy. A cathedral will -absorb more stone, and the labour of more men’s lives, before it is -finished, than a tenement of equal housing capacity which aims only at -providing warmth and a cover from the elements. To provide so much joy -and enlargement to the human spirit, a kind of waste, upon the material -plane, is necessary; and the man without joy or imagination in his -composition is likely to say on beholding it: “Why was all this waste -made?”</p> - -<p>Bear in mind this accusation of waste which can constantly be made, -from a certain standpoint against all forms of joy evolved by the art -of living—possibly against all forms of joy that you can name; for all -joy entails an expenditure of energy, and for those who do not realise -the value of joy such expenditure must necessarily seem wasteful.</p> - -<p>But when a man employs hand or brain worthily, straightway he discovers -(latent within that connection) the instinct of delight, of ornament. -He cannot rejoice in his craftsmanship without wishing to embellish -it—to place upon it the expression of the joy which went with the -making. All that he does to this end is apparently (from the material -point of view) useless; but from the spiritual it is profoundly useful; -and from the spirit (and this I think is important) it tends to re-act -and kindle the craftsman to finer craftsmanship than if he had worked -for utility alone.</p> - -<p>Now if spirit thus acts on matter—achieving<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> its own well-being only -through a certain waste of material, or expenditure of labour upon the -lower plane, yet communicating back to matter influences from that -state of well-being to which it has thus attained—may it not be that -waste of a certain kind (what I would call “selective waste” <i>versus</i> -“haphazard waste”) is the concomitant not only of spiritual but of -material growth also? May it not be that evolution has followed upon a -course of waste deliberately willed and insisted on—and that without -such waste, life—even material life—had not evolved to its present -stage?</p> - -<p>We see a certain wastefulness attaching to many of the most beautiful -biological manifestations in the world. Up to a certain point, the -construction of flower, bird, beast, fish, shows a wonderful economy of -structure, of means to end (it is the same also in the arts). But there -comes a point at which Nature, “letting herself go,” becomes fantastic, -extravagant—may one not say “wilful”?—in the forms she selects for -her final touches of adornment. And is it not nearly always when the -matter in hand is most closely related to the “will to live”—or, in -other words, in relation to the amative instincts—that the “art of -living” breaks out, and that Nature quits all moderation of design and -becomes frankly ornamental and extravagant? Just at the point where to -be creative is the immediate motive, where, in the fulfilment of that -motive, life is found to be a thing of delight,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span> just there, Nature, -being amative, becomes playful, exuberant and ornamental.</p> - -<p>There are some birds which, in this connection, carry upon their -persons adornments so extravagant that one wonders how for so many -generations they have been able to live and move and multiply, bearing -such edifices upon their backs, their heads, their tails—that they -were not a crushing hindrance to the necessary affairs of life. They -certainly cannot have been a help; and yet—they still persist in them!</p> - -<p>Taking, then, these natural embryonic beginnings as our starting point, -I would be inclined to trace out the living value of art and ornament -somewhat upon these lines: Exuberance—the emergence of beauty and -adornment, in addition to the mere functional grace arising out of -fitness for use—has always been going on through the whole process -of creation among animate nature. We see it established in a thousand -forms, not only in bird, beast and reptile, but in the vegetable -world as well. The tendency of all life that has found a fair field -for its development, is to play with its material—to show that it -has something over and above the straight needs imposed on it by the -struggle for existence, which it can spare for self-expression.</p> - -<p>It has been lured on to these manifestations mainly by that “will -to live” which underlies the attractions of sex. That exuberance -is an essential feature of the evolutionary process<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> at the point -where self-realisation by self-reproduction is the game to play. -Under that impulse the selective principle begins to assert itself, -and straightway the outcome is ornament. Self-realisation (by -self-reproduction under all sorts of images and symbols) is the true -basis of ornament and of art: self-realisation!</p> - -<p>The spirit of man, moving through these means, impresses itself -reproductively on the spirits of others with a far better calculation -of effect than can be secured through bodily inheritance. For in -physical parentage there is always the chance of a throw-back to -tainted origins; the sober and moral citizen cannot be sure of sober -and moral children in whom the desire of his soul shall be satisfied. -They may be drawn, by irresistible forces, to take after some giddy and -disreputable old grandfather or grandmother instead of after him; for -in his veins run the parental weaknesses of thousands of generations; -and over the racial strain that passes through him to others he -possesses no control whatever. But the man who has given ornament to -life in any form of art—though he commits it to the risks and chances -of life, the destructive accidents of peace and war—is in danger -of no atavistic trick being played upon the product of his soul; he -is assured of his effect, and so long as it endures it reflects and -represents his personality more faithfully than the descendants of his -blood.</p> - -<p>Now for the satisfaction of that instinct,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> the perpetuation of name -and identity is not necessary. The artist would not (if told that his -self-realisation was destined to become merged anonymously in the -existence of fresco, or canvas, or mosaic)—he would not therefore lay -down his mallet or his brush, and say that in that case the survival -of these things to a future age was no survival for him. The maker of -beautiful inlay would not lose all wish to do inlay if the knowledge -that he, individually, as the craftsman were destined to oblivion. -Let the future involve him in anonymity as impenetrable as it liked, -he would still go on expressing himself in ornament; self-realisation -would still be the law of his being.</p> - -<p>That is the psychology of the artist mind—of that part of humanity -which produces things that come nearest, of all which earth has to -show, to conditions of immortality, and so presumably are the most -satisfying to man’s wish for continued individual existence. The makers -of beauty do not set any great store on the continuance of their -names—the continuance of their self-realisation is what they care -about.</p> - -<p>But the possessors of these works of beauty do very often make a great -point of having their own names perpetuated, even though the vehicle is -another personality than their own. And so very frequently we have the -names passed down to us of these parasites of immortality—the tyrants -for whom palaces, or arches, or temples were built—but not the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> names -of the artists who designed them, whose immortality they really are. -And though the official guide may refresh our memory with snippets -of history, and say this, that, or the other about the name to which -the temple remains attached—the really important thing that lives, -survives, and influences us is not the externally applied name, but the -invested beauty which has no name, but is soul incarnate in stone to -the glory of God—the self-realisation of a being who (but for that) -has passed utterly from remembrance.</p> - -<p>That, as I have said before, is the nearest thing to immortality that -we know. And it comes to us, in a shape which, (so to be informed with -immortality) cannot limit itself to the demands of use. When all the -claims of use are satisfied, then the life of personality begins to -show—the fullest and the most permanent form of self-realisation known -to man on earth lies in ornament.</p> - -<p>Of course, when I say “ornament,” I use the word in a very wide sense. -What I have said of sculpture, painting or architecture, applies -equally to poetry, music or philosophy. I would even go further, and -apply it in other directions where no material matrix for it exists. -Every department of mental activity has its ornament—the culminating -expression of that particular direction of the human will. Faith is -the ornament of destiny, Hope the ornament of knowledge, Love the -ornament of sex. Without these ornaments destiny and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> knowledge and sex -would have no beauty that the soul of man should desire them. Those -additions or glosses were quite unnecessary to existence—up to a -point; for millions of years the world did without them, and Evolution -managed to scramble along without faith, without hope, without love. -But Evolution itself brought them into being; and then for millions of -years they existed in germ, without self-consciousness; but steadily, -as they germinated, they produced beauty and a sense of design in -their environment. Co-ordination, dovetailing (peaceful word!), the -harmonising and gentle effect of one life upon another, as opposed to -the savage and predatory, began to have effect. And in response came -ornament; faith, hope and love showed their rudimentary beginnings even -in the lower animals.</p> - -<p>One of the most perfectly decorative objects that I have ever seen in -the animal world (you will find it in still-life form in our Natural -History Museum) is the device by which a certain small possum has -taught her young to accompany her from branch to branch. Along her back -she seats her litter, then over their heads like the conducting-wire -of a tram-line she extends her tail—and then (each like an electric -connecting rod) up go the little tails, make a loop, adjust themselves -to the maternal guide-rope, and hang on. And there, safe from upset, is -the family-omnibus ready to start! </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of course, you may say that is use; but it is use in which the -spiritualities, faith, hope and love, begin to appear; and in the -gentleness of its intention it forms a basis for the up-growth -of beauty. Now all the arts are, in the same way, first of all -structural—having for their starting-point a sound and economic use of -the material on which they are based. Music, architecture, poetry, and -the rest were all, to begin with, the result of an instinctive choice -or selection, directed to the elimination of superfluities, accidents, -excrescences—which to the craftsman’s purpose are nothing.</p> - -<p>Nature, in her seed-sowing, has gone to work to propagate by profusion; -her method is to sow a million seeds so as to make sure that some may -live; thus she meets and out-matches the chances that are against her. -The seed of Art sprang up differently; maker-man took hold of the one -selected seed, not of a dozen, or of a thousand dozen promiscuously, -and bent his faculties on making that one seed (his chosen material) -fit to face life and its chances: if a house—walls and roof -calculated to keep out the rain and resist the force of storms: if a -textile—fabric of a staple sufficient to resist the wear and tear to -which it would be subjected: if a putting together of words meant to -outlast the brief occasion of their utterance—then in a form likely -to be impressive, and therefore memorable; so that in an age before -writing was known they might find a safe tabernacle, travelling from -place to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> place in the minds of men. And similarly with music—a system -of sounds so ruled by structural law as to be capable of transmission -either by instrument, or by voice disciplined and trained to a certain -code of limitations. And being thus made memorable and passed from -mouth to mouth, from one place to another, and from age to age, they -acquired a social significance and importance; till, seeing them thus -lifted above chance, man set himself to give them new forms of beauty -and adornment.</p> - -<p>And the governing motive was, and always has been, first man’s wish to -leave memorable records—beyond the limits of his own generation—of -what life has meant for him; and secondly (and this is the more -intimate phase) the delight of the craftsman in his work, the -exuberance of vital energy (secure of its structural ground-work) -breaking out into play. “See,” it says, “how I dance, and gambol, and -triumph! This superfluity of strength proves me a victor in my struggle -to live.”</p> - -<p>Nothing else does; for if (having survived the struggle) man only lives -miserably—scrapes through as it were—the question in the face of so -poverty-stricken a result, may still be—“Was the struggle worth it?” -And so by his arts and graces, by his adornment of his streets, temples -and theatres, by his huge delight in himself, so soon as the essentials -of mere material existence are secured to him, man has really shown -that life is good in itself,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> that he can do well enough without the -assurance of personal immortality held out to him by the theologians. -Whether that be or be not his reward hereafter, he will still strive to -express himself; but for that end mere use alone will not satisfy him.</p> - -<p>We have seen, then, how man, in his social surroundings, begins to -secure something over and above the mere necessities of life; and so, -after providing himself with a certain competence of food, clothing -and shelter, has means and energy left for the supply of luxuries, -ornaments, delights—call them what you will. And according to -the direction in which he flings out for the acquisition of these -superfluities—so will his whole manhood develop, or his type of racial -culture be moulded.</p> - -<p>Far back in the beginnings of civilization one of the first forms -taken by this surplus of power and energy over mere necessity was the -acquisition of slaves and wives. Civilization then began to ornament -itself with two modes of body-service—the menial attendance of the -slave upon his master, and the polygamous sexual attendance of the -woman upon her lord.</p> - -<p>To-day we think that both those things were, from a moral point of -view, bad ornament. But you cannot look into the history of any -civilization conducted on those lines without seeing that they -decorated it—and that, out of their acceptance, came colour, -pomp,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> splendour, means for leisure, for enjoyment—for a very keen -self-realisation of a kind by the few at the expense of the many. And -the masterful few made that form of decorated civilization more sure -for themselves by extending a good deal of the decorative element -to the subservient lives around them. The slaves wore fine liveries -and lorded it over lower slaves, the favourite wives lived in luxury -and laziness, eating sweets and spending their days in the frivolous -mysteries of the toilet.</p> - -<p>At a certain point in the social scale this form of ornamental -existence produced great misery, great hardships, great abasement. But -it was not instituted and maintained for that reason. Those underlying -conditions were a drawback, they were a misuse of human nature employed -as a basis for that ornamental superstructure to build on. And out of -that underlying misuse came the weakness and the eventual decay of that -once flourishing school of ornament.</p> - -<p>But when that school of ornament was threatened by other schools, it -was ready to fight to the death for its ornamental superfluities—for -polygamy, for slavery, for power over others, which had come to mean -for it all that made life worth living! Life was quite capable of -being carried on without those things—was, and is, happily lived by -other races to the accompaniment of another set of ornaments which -those races think more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> enjoyable. But no race will consent to live -without some sort of ornament of its own choosing; and when its choice -of ornaments, or of social superfluities, over and above the needs -of existence, is seriously threatened from without it declares that -it is fighting not merely for liberty but for existence. Yet we know -quite well that the people of invaded and conquered States continue -in the main to exist—they continue even to wear ornaments; but these -are apt to be imposed ornaments galling to the national pride. And so -to-day, in the midst of a vast belligerency, we have committees and -consultations going on, to see to it lest, at the end of the war, under -German dominance, our women should have their future fashions imposed -on them from Berlin instead of from Paris, a fearful doom for any lady -of taste to contemplate.</p> - -<p>The example may seem frivolous, but it is a parable of the truth; -we call our ornaments our liberties, and if we cannot ourselves die -fighting for them, we make others die for us.</p> - -<p>Let us take up (for illustration of the same point) another stage -of civilization—that of ancient Greece. In Greece the city was the -centre of civilization, and its public buildings became the outward and -visible sign of the people’s pride of life and of their sense of power. -The fact that their private dwellings were very simple, and that they -expended nearly the whole of their artistry upon public works (things -to be shared and delighted in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span> by all the citizens in common) had a -profound influence upon their civilization. That new social ideal of -civic pride found its way irresistibly into ornament. You could not -have had civic pride in anything like the same degree without it.</p> - -<p>But Greek civilization did not fall into decay because of the beauty -and perfection with which it crowned itself in the public eye, but -because of certain underlying evils and misuses in the body politic—in -which again slavery and the subjection of women had their share. Greek -civilization fell because it failed to recognise the dignity of all -human nature; it reserved its sense of dignity for a selected race -and class; it failed to recognise the dignity of all true kinds of -service, and prided itself in military service alone—in that and in -the philosophies and the arts. It built a wonderful temple to its gods, -but failed in a very large degree to take into God the whole body of -humanity over which it had control. And so, Greek civilization broke up -into portions of an unimportant size and perished.</p> - -<p>At a later day—and again with the city as centre to its life of -self-realisation—we get the great period of the Italian Renaissance, -a period in which civic and feudal and ecclesiastical influences -alternately jostled and combined.</p> - -<p>And out of these three prides arose a wonderfully complex -art—tremendously expressive of what life meant for that people. And -you got then (for the first time, I think),<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> grouped under the civic -arm, a new life-consciousness—the consciousness of the guilds, the -workers, and the craftsmen. The dignity of labour began to assert -itself; and when it did, inevitably it broke into ornament on its own -account—not at the bidding of an employer, but for the honour and -glory of the worker himself. And so, from that date on, the homes and -halls and churches of the guilds became some of the noblest monuments -to what life meant for men who had found joy in their labour.</p> - -<p>Now that did not come till the craftsman had won free from slavery -and from forced labour; but when he was a freeman, with room to turn -round, he built up temples to his craft, to make more evident that the -true goal of labour is not use but delight. And only when it fell back -into modern slavery at the hands of commercial capitalism, only then -did labour’s power of spontaneous expression depart from it and become -imitative and debased.</p> - -<p>I could take you further, and show you (among the survivals from our -England of the Middle Ages) the “joy of the harvest” expressed in the -great granaries and tithe-barns which still crown like abbey-churches -the corn-lands of Home. Concerning one of these William Morris said -that it stood second in his estimation among all the Gothic buildings -of Europe! Think of it!—of what that means in the realisation of -life-values by the age<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span> which had a mind so to celebrate man’s rest -after the labour of the harvest! In those days England was called -“merry” and foreigners who came to her shores reported as a national -characteristic the happy looks of her people: even their faces showed -adornment! And thus it is that beautiful use always clothes itself in -beauty.</p> - -<p>I have said that all art is useful. To many that may have seemed a -very contentious statement. But how can one separate beauty from use -if one holds that everything which delights us is useful? On that -statement there is only one condition I would impose. The use in -which we delight must not mean the misuse or the infliction of pain -on others. In those periods of civilization to which I have referred -(so magnificent in their powers of self-discovery and self-adornment), -there were always dark and cruel habitations where the “art of living” -was not applied. They were content that the beauty on which they prided -themselves should be built up on the suffering, the oppression, or the -corruption of others. In the lust of their eyes there was a blind spot, -so that they cared little about the conditions imposed by their own -too arrogant claim for happiness on the lives that were spent to serve -them. And out of their blindness came at last the downfall of their -power.</p> - -<p>So it has always been, so it always must be. I believe that beauty, -delight, ornament, are as near to the object of life as anything that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span> -one can name, and that through right uses we attain to these as our -goal. But it is no good claiming to possess delightful things if we do -not see to it that those who make them for us have also the means to -live delightfully.</p> - -<p>If man cannot make all the uses and services of life decent and -wholesome as a starting-point, neither can he make life enjoyable—not, -I mean, with a good conscience. If he would see God through beauty, he -must see Him not here and there only, but in the “land of the living”; -else (as the psalmist said) his spirit must faint utterly.</p> - -<p>Our life is built up—we know not to what ultimate end—on an infinite -number of uses, functions, mechanisms. These uses enable us to live; -they do not necessarily enable us to enjoy. You can quite well imagine -the use of all your senses and organs so conditioned that you could -not enjoy a single one of them, and yet they might still fulfil their -utilitarian purpose of keeping you alive.</p> - -<p>I need not rehearse to you in troublesome detail conditions of life -where everything you see is an eyesore, every touch a cause of -shrinking, every sound a discord, where taste and smell become a revolt -and a loathing.</p> - -<p>Our modern civilization derives many of its present comforts from -conditions such as these under which thousands, nay millions, of -subservient human lives become brutalised. So long as we base our -ideal of wealth on individual aggrandisement, and on monetary and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> -commercial prosperity, and not (as we should do) upon human nature -itself—making it our chief aim that every life should be set free for -self-realisation in ornament and delight—so long will these things be -inevitable.</p> - -<p>But when we, as men and women, and as nations, realise that human -nature is the most beautiful thing on earth (in its possibilities, I -mean) then surely our chief desire will be to make that our wealth here -and now, and out of it rear up our memorial to the ages that come after.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span></p> - -<h2>ART AND CITIZENSHIP</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1910)</p> - -<p>The most hardened advocate of “Art for Art’s sake,” will hardly deny -that Art, for all its “sacred egoism,” is a social force. The main -question is where does your Art-training begin?</p> - -<p>The conditions of the home, the workshop, and of social industries -do more than the schools and the universities to educate a nation; -and more especially, perhaps, to educate it toward a right or a wrong -feeling about Art.</p> - -<p>And if, in these departments, your national education takes a wrong -line, then (however much you build schools over the heads of your -pupils and intercept their feet with scholarships, and block their -natural outlook on life with beautiful objects produced in past ages -and in other countries) your Art-training will partake of the same -condemnation.</p> - -<p>True education, as opposed to merely commercial education, is a -training of mind and body to an appreciation of right values; values, -not prices. The man who has an all-round appreciation of right values -is a well-educated man; and he could not have a better basis either for -the love or the practice of Art than this appreciation of what things -are really worth.</p> - -<p>But, in the present age, which prides itself<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span> on its inhuman system -of specialisation as a means to economy, such a man is rather a -rare phenomenon; for it is about as difficult to get out of present -conditions a true appreciation of life values—a true Art-training—as -it is to get a true artist. Where your national conditions shut down -the critical faculties, and make their exercise difficult, there too, -your creative artistic faculties are being shut down and made difficult -also. They are far more interdependent than your average Art-teacher -or Art-student is generally willing to admit. The idea that he has to -concern himself with conditions outside his own particular department -threatens him with extra trouble, and the burden of a conscience -that the doctrine of “Art for Art’s sake,” will not wholly satisfy; -and so he is inclined to shut his eyes, and direct his energies to -the securing of favourable departmental instead of right national -conditions.</p> - -<p>But the man, or woman, who embarks whole-heartedly on Art-training -must in the end find himself involved in a struggle for the recovery -of those true social values which have been lost (or the acquisition -of those which are as yet unrealised) and for the substitution, among -other things, of true for false economics. He cannot afford to live -a life of aloof specialisation, when the conditions out of which he -derives and into which he is throwing his work are of a complementarily -disturbing kind. If, that is to say, the give-and-take conditions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> -between artistic supply and social demand have become vitiated, if -the conditions of the market, or of society, are unfavourable to the -reception of products of true worth, then the artist must to some -extent be an active party in the struggle for getting things set right.</p> - -<p>That does not mean that, if he has a gift for the designing of -stage-scenery, he should necessarily be involved in a struggle to -secure a good drainage system (though even that should have an interest -for him) but it does mean very much that he should be tremendously -interested in the education of his own and the public mind to the point -of receiving good drama rather than bad, in order that his art may have -worthy material to work upon; and as good drama largely arises from a -lively conscience and the quickening in the community of new ideas, he -will wish his public a keen and open mind on all social questions.</p> - -<p>Similarly a man who designs for textile fabrics should be very much -concerned indeed in getting cleanly conditions and pure air in the -towns and dwelling-houses where his designs have to live and look -beautiful, or grow ugly and rot. And there you get set before you in -small, the opposition between the interests of Art and the supposed -interests of trade. It is—or it is supposed to be—in the interest of -trade that things should wear out or get broken, and be replaced by -other things. It is in the interest of Art that they should not wear -out, that they should last; that <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span>everything worthy which is given to -man’s hand to do should have secured to it the greatest possible length -of life. And the reason is that the artist, if he be a true artist, -realises the value of things, the life value; that he is on the side of -creation and not of destruction, of preservation and not of waste. He -has within his nature an instinct that the greatest possible longevity -is the right condition for all manual labour; that when a man sets his -hand to a thing he should have it as his main aim to give good value, -to make it so that it will endure. And in this connection I would like -to substitute for the words “art training” the word “education.” It -is in the interests of education that things should be made to last, -and that only things should be made of any lasting material that -deserve lasting. Nothing should be produced the value of which will -become negligible before it is honestly worn out. And so it is in the -interest of education, as of Art, that we should eliminate as much as -possible the passing and the ephemeral, the demand of mood and fashion, -the thing cheaply chosen, cheaply acquired, and cheaply let go; and -substitute the thing that we shall have a long use for, and should like -to keep permanently—the thing acquired with thought and care, and -thoughtfully and carefully preserved because it has in itself a value.</p> - -<p>But you won’t get any broad exercise of that kind of choice between -evil and good until you get a sense of right values—going far away<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span> -from what apparently touches art—in the mind, and the public and -private life of the community. And so, as I started by saying, true Art -is bound up with true education and social conditions. Good citizenship -is one of the conditions for setting national Art upon a proper basis. -A lively sense of your duty to your neighbour cannot fail to have an -effect upon your taste in art.</p> - -<p>Now I want to bring this view of things home to you. So I will ask -everyone here to think for a moment of their own homes, their own -living-rooms, and especially of their parlours or drawing-rooms, which -are by their nature intended to express not so much our domestic -necessities as our domestic sense of the value of beauty, recreation, -and rest. And to begin with, how do you show your sense of duty to -the architect, who has (if you are fortunate) designed for you rooms -of pleasant and restful proportions? How many of the objects in those -rooms help at all to give a unifying and a harmonious effect, or are -in themselves in any way beautiful—things, that is to say, which (if -not of actual use) we love to set our eyes on, and feel what fineness -of skill in handling, what clean human thought in design went to their -production? Have those things been put there quite irrespective of -their price and the display they make of their owner’s “comfortable -circumstances”? Are they subordinated to a really intelligent sense -of what a living-room should be? Or are they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> merely a crowd, a -litter, things flung into the room pell-mell by a house-mistress -bent on securing for her parlour-maid a silly hour’s dusting every -day of objects—not of virtue—and for herself the recognition by -her neighbours that she has money enough to throw away in making her -living-room a silly imitation of a shop for bric-a-brac. Can you, even -those of you who do not live in streets where you have to safeguard -your privacy—can you look out of the window without being tickled in -the face by lace curtains, blind-tassels, or potted palm-leaves? Can -you sit down to the writing-table without entangling the legs of your -chair in a woolly mat and your feet in the waste-paper basket, or get -at the drawer of the cabinet without moving two or three arm-chairs, -or play the piano without causing the crocks which stand upon it to -jangle? Is the rest and recreation you get in that room anything else -but a sense of self-complacency based upon pride of possession? I ask -you to think what your furnishing of your rooms means, and remember -that to every person who comes into those rooms—and more especially -perhaps to the maids whom you set to dust them—you are helping to give -either an Art-training or an anti-Art-training, a training in true uses -and values, or in misuses and mere waste and wantonness.</p> - -<p>Of course I know that to some extent you are victims. You have dear -friends who will give you presents, and you can’t hurt their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> feelings -by not putting up another shelf, or erecting another glass-shade, -where neither are wanted, or driving another peg into the wall to hang -a picture where no picture can be properly seen. And probably the -reason you cannot is because you have shown yourself so thoughtless -and haphazard in all your ideas about decoration and house-furnishing -that even in that house, which you falsely assert to be your castle, -you stand defenceless before this invasion of ornamental microbes! -Obviously the house is not yours if others can break in and spoil its -borders with their own false taste. But I can assure you that those -inroads do not happen to people whose rooms show a scrupulous sense of -selection. You inspire then (even in the thoughtless) a certain dread -and respect. Though they regard you as uncanny and call you a crank, -you are beginning their Art-training for them.</p> - -<p>I remember, in this connection, a Quaker acquaintance whose friends -descended upon him at the time of his marriage with certain household -monstrosities which he was expected thereafter to live down to. It was -a cataclysm which he could not avert; but he found a remedy. He became -a passive resister to the Education rate, and year by year he placed -at the disposal of the distraining authorities a selection of his -wedding-presents till his house was purged of them. I have said that -you cannot separate Art-training from general education; and here, at -all events, you find<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> the two happily combined—a war on bad art and on -a bad educational system joined economically in one.</p> - -<p>So much, then, for thoughtless superfluity as an impediment to a -recognition of true values. I want now to come to the importance of -permanence as a condition underlying the aim of all production if -it is to be wholesome in its social results. I have said that an -instinct for permanence is what differentiates artistic from supposed -trade interests. Take architecture. Do you imagine that architects or -builders are likely to design or build in the same style for a system -of short leaseholds as they might for freeholds? And is the building -which is calculated just to “save its face” until the lease expires -likely to be so good either in design or workmanship?</p> - -<p>Read, in that connection, what Coventry Patmore says in his essay on -“Greatness in Architecture”:</p> - -<p>“The house and cottage builder of the sixteenth and seventeenth -centuries was,” he says, “fully aware that the strength of a rafter -lay rather in its depth than its breadth, and that, for a time at -least, a few boards two inches thick and ten inches deep, set edgeways, -would suffice to carry the roof, which nevertheless it pleased him -better to lay upon a succession of beams ten inches square. It is the -reality, and the modest ostentation of the reality, of such superfluous -substantiality that constitutes the whole secret of effect in many<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span> an -old house that strikes us as “architectural,” though it may not contain -a single item of architectural ornament; and, in the very few instances -in which modern buildings have been raised in the same fashion, the -beholder at once feels that their generous regard for the far future -is of almost as poetical a character as the aged retrospect of a -similar house of the time of Henry VII. or Elizabeth. A man,” he goes -on, “now hires a bit of ground for eighty or ninety years; and, if he -has something to spare to spend on beauty, he says to himself: ‘I will -build me a house that will last my time, and what money I have to spare -I will spend in decorating it. Why should I waste my means in raising -wall and roof which will last five times as long as I or mine shall -want them?’ The answer is: Because that very ‘waste’ is the truest and -most striking ornament; and though your and your family’s enjoyment of -a house thus magnanimously built may last but a tenth of its natural -age, there lies in that very fact an ‘ornament’ of the most noble and -touching kind, which will be obvious at all seasons to yourself and -every beholder, though the consciousness of its cause may be dormant; -whereas the meanness of the other plan will be only the more apparent -with every penny you spend in making it meretricious.”</p> - -<p>Again, are you likely to get so good an architectural design where you -cannot be fairly sure that the use for which the building is raised -is likely to be permanent? And do our modern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> trade conditions and -present enormous demand for thoughtless superfluities tend to make that -prospect more probable? If not, then instability of trade, or trade -directed to the satisfaction of frivolous and ephemeral demands is bad -for architecture, and hinders any worthy development in it of national -characteristics.</p> - -<p>But there, mind you, in trade, lies to-day the very life of the nation; -for the life of our teeming millions depends on it. By our industrial -specialisation in the pursuit of wealth vast numbers of us have ceased -to be self-supporting in the necessaries of life. And the question for -artists is, are we basing our national life on conditions that cannot -secure permanence and stability in the things which we produce? Is it -a necessary condition of our industrial development that things should -have a shorter life and we a shorter use for them than in the old days? -To the artist the drawback of machine-made things is not necessarily -in the mechanism of their production (for in some cases your machine -relieves the human hand of a hard and wearing monotony), but there is -a very obvious drawback if it imposes upon the worker merely another -form of hard and wearing monotony, and at the same time shortens the -life of the thing produced. If handicraft does not offer to the worker -worthier conditions for hand and brain, and insure longer life in the -thing produced, it is no good pinning our faith to it. Eliminate it, -and let machinery take its place. You have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> not, then, in the transfer, -destroyed any right values, and you are not going counter to the -conditions which tend to produce national Art.</p> - -<p>But, as an example of the particular value which does sometimes attach -to hand labour (irrespective of its artistic value), I have here a -small unused sample of chair-cover material of English make, produced -about eighty years ago, at a probable cost—so I am told by experts—of -under £2 the square yard. The chairs it was made to cover are now -in my possession. During the twenty-five years of my own personal -acquaintance with them they have had plenty of hard wear; but even at -the corners that material has not yet begun to wear out; and the colour -has only become softer and more mellow in quality.</p> - -<p>Within the last ten years I endeavoured to get that covering matched in -a modern material, and I paid for the nearest match I could get about -one-fifth of the price I have quoted. That material has already gone -shabby; and where it is most worn and faded the colour, instead of -mellowing, has gone dead and dirty in quality. The older material will -probably outlast my time.</p> - -<p>There, then, are the comparative values of the old and the new -material. You pay the higher price for the old, but in the end it is -more economical. And it has this double advantage (or what would be a -double advantage in a State where industrial conditions were sound), -that it inclines its possessor to adopt a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> more permanent style of -furnishing, by making age beautiful and change unnecessary; and so it -sets free a great amount of human labour for other purposes; not merely -the labour of the textile workers who have not to provide new covers, -but the labour of the upholsterers, who are not called upon to rip off -a series of old covers and fit on new ones, dragging old nails out and -driving fresh nails in, with the result that the framework of the chair -itself is presently worn out and a new one required in its place. All -that labour is saved.</p> - -<p>That small example is important because it exemplifies those -possibilities of permanence attaching to certain forms of hand-labour -out of which can be developed a school of textile manufacture -indigenous in character—indigenous in that you give it time to become -embedded in its domestic setting, and to make for itself domestic -history. It enables you to develop an appreciation for subtleties -of colour, and to secure tones and harmonies which you cannot get -ready-made in a shop: it gives to a piece of furniture life-value.</p> - -<p>But it is bad for trade!</p> - -<p>Now why is it bad for trade? It is bad for trade because our modern -industrial conditions have brought us to this pass, that it is no -longer our national aim to direct labour and set it free for other -work that really needs to be done. Our national problem is rather to -find work for people, at times even to invent needs, and to create a -fictitious turnover in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span> trade so that we may not have upon our hands an -enormous increase of the unemployed problem. And as hands go begging, -as we have more hands in the country than we can employ on useful and -fit labour (fit, I mean, for such fine implements as these and for the -brains behind them), therefore hands are inevitably put to degrading -uses, and the joy goes out of work; and for the delight (or at least -the intelligent patience) of true craftsmanship is substituted the -soul-destroying bondage of mechanical labour at something which is not -really worth producing.</p> - -<p>You may take that, I think, as a test whether a State is in industrial -health or disease—whether, namely, it tends more in the direction -of setting labour free for other and higher purposes (through the -permanent quality of its products), and so evolving an aristocracy of -labour; or whether (owing to their ephemeral quality) it constantly -tends to invent work of a lower and more trivial kind, and to provide -jobs of an ephemeral character which are not really wanted.</p> - -<p>Now bad and wasteful taste is directly productive, not so much of trade -as of fluctuations in trade, because that sort of taste soon tires -and asks for change; and the consequence is that thousands of workers -(especially women, whose industries used to be home industries before -machinery drew them out of the homes) are in this country constantly -being thrown out of one useless employment into another, and very often -have to pass through a fresh<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> apprenticeship at a starvation wage. -And so, when we create frivolous demands for things that we shall not -want the day after to-morrow, we are not (as we too often think) doing -anything that is really good for trade, but only something much more -horrible, which you will understand without my naming it.</p> - -<p>You see, then, how very closely the artist’s inclination toward -permanence of taste may be connected with morality. And if that -instinct for permanence (with an accompanying adaptation of material -and design to making things last their full time without waste) is not -present in the craftsmanship of our day, then we have not got the true -basis, either in spirit or material, for Art to build upon.</p> - -<p>Now I am going to put before you some quite homely instances, because -I think they will stick best in your memories, in order to show -you that the real struggle of the artist to-day is not so much to -secure appreciation of beauty in line and texture, as honesty of -construction, and real adaptation of form to utility and of production -to lastingness. I have been noticing, with quite simple objects of -domestic use, that the trade-purpose toward them seems almost the -opposite. The trade purpose is to present us with an article which, -apparently sound in construction, will break down at some crucial point -before the rest of it is worn out. A watering can, a carving fork, -a kettle, a dustbin, a coal scuttle, the fixings of a door-handle, -are generally made, I find, on an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> ignobly artful plan which insures -that they shall break down just at that point where the wear and tear -come hardest, so that an article otherwise complete shall be scrapped -wastefully or go back to the trade to be tinkered.</p> - -<p>But leave things the actual design of which you cannot control, and -come to dress, our own daily wearing apparel. I do not know if the men -of my audience are aware that undergarments wear out much quicker if -they are tight-fitting and worn at a stretch than if they are loose, -but that is so. And, in consequence, a smart shopman has the greatest -reluctance to sell you anything that is, as he conceives it, one size -too large for you. The reason being that the looser fit lasts longer -and is bad for trade—that it makes for endurance instead of for -galloping consumption.</p> - -<p>In the majority of houses whose cold water systems I have inspected -the pipes are nearly always run at the most exposed angle of the -containing walls, so that if there is a frost, the frost may have a -chance of getting at the pipes and bursting them, and so give the trade -a fresh job. Again, every housewife knows that in the ordinary daily -conflicts between tea-sets and domestic service more cups get broken -than saucers. And I suppose every household in London has got some -corner shelf piled with superfluous saucers (useless widowers mourning -the departure of their better halves); but it is very exceptional—only -in one shop that I know—that one is able to replace the cup (in -certain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> stock patterns) without encumbering oneself with the saucer -which one does not want. The saucers continue to be made in wasteful -superabundance, because waste of that sort is “good for trade.”</p> - -<p>I have been assured by an observant housewife that certain articles do -now and again appear upon the market specially designed to safeguard by -little constructive devices, the main point of wear-and-tear through -which they become useless, and that presently these things disappear -and are unobtainable, presumably because they prove too lasting, and so -are “bad for trade.” And they are allowed to disappear because we, as a -community, have not sufficiently set our hearts and minds against waste -and uselessness. We buy cheaply because we think cheaply, and because -we have lost our sense of honour towards the products of men’s hands, -and toward that wonderful instrument itself which we are content to -put to such base uses, letting the workers themselves see how much we -despise the things they have made.</p> - -<p>I have seen in London a comic music-hall “turn” in which the comedy -largely consisted in a continuous breakage of piles of plates by a -burlesque waiter, who, in the course of his duties, either drops them, -falls against them, sits on them, or kicks them. During the turn I -should say some thirty or forty plates get broken. They were cheap -plates, no doubt; but it seems to me that if there is any fun in this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> -monotonous repetition of destruction, then the greater the cost and -waste of human labour the more irresistibly comic should the situation -appear; and the management which provided Worcester or Dresden china -for its low-comedy wits to play upon would have logical grounds for -considering that it was thereby supplying its audience with livelier -entertainment more satisfying to its taste.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" >[2]</a></p> - -<p>Now what I want you to see is that such a production would not be -entertaining to an audience which had not come to regard the labour of -man’s hands with a licentious indifference—which had not developed the -gambler’s contempt for the true relations between labour and value. -And here I want to put before you a proposition which may at first -shock you, but which I hope to prove true. And that is that labour in -itself, apart from its justification in some useful result, is bad and -degrading; the man who is put to work which he knows is to have no -result comes from that work more degraded and crushed in spirit than -the man who merely “loafs” and lives “naturally.”</p> - -<p>Perhaps the readiest example of that is the old treadmill system which -was once employed in our prisons, where the prisoner was set to grind -at a crank artificially adjusted to his physical strength, but having -no useful result; and I believe that the main reason why prisoners<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span> -on those machines were not allowed to grind their own bread or put -their strength to any self-supporting industry was because it was “bad -for trade” and brought them into competition with the contractors who -supplied food to his Majesty’s prisons. It was not the monotony half -so much as the consciousness that it was without result which made -that form of labour so degrading and so utterly exhausting to mind and -body. You might think it was the compulsion; but I am not sure that -compulsion to work may not sometimes be very moral and salutary. At any -rate, here is an instance of the same thing presented under voluntary -conditions. A man out of work applied to a farmer for a job; the -farmer had no job for him, and told him so; but as the man persisted -he started him at half a crown a day to move a heap of stones from one -side of the road to the other. And when the man had done that and asked -what next he was to do, he told him to move them back again! But though -that man was out of work, and was on his way to earn the half-crown, -rather than submit his body to the conscious degradation of such -useless labour, he did as the farmer had calculated on his doing, and -threw up the job.</p> - -<p>That same quality of outrage and degradation attends on all labour that -is subject, within the worker’s knowledge, to wanton destruction, or is -obviously of no real use or of “faked” value. And the finer the skill -employed the greater the anguish of mind, or else the hard<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> callousness -of indifference which must result. Call upon men to make useless -things, or things which you mean wantonly to destroy the day after -to-morrow, or to which by the conditions you tolerate you make a fair -length of life impossible—call upon labour to do those things, and you -are either filling its spirit with misery and depression, or you are -making it, in self-defence, callous and hard.</p> - -<p>Industrial conditions which encourage the building of houses that are -only intended to last a lease; which permit the destruction of our -canal system because that means of transit has proved a dangerous -rival to the railway system; which impose a quick change in fashions -on which depend various kinds of ephemeral and parasitic industries; -which encourage a vast production of ephemeral journalism and -magazine illustration which after a single reading is thrown aside -and wasted—all these things, which have become nationalised in our -midst, are a national anti-Art training. We English have, as the -result of these things, no national school of architecture; we have -no national costume (though I myself can remember the time when in -our Midland counties not only the farm labourer, but the small yeoman -farmer himself went to church as well as to labour in the beautiful -smock-frock worn by their forefathers) and we have killed out from our -midst one of the most beautiful national schools of popular art that -ever existed, the school of the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span>illustrators of the ’sixties; and we -have done these things mainly from our increasing haste to get hold of -something new, and our almost equal haste, when we have it, to throw it -away again.</p> - -<p>We have cast our bread upon the waters. The sort of wealth to the -pursuit of which nations have committed themselves needs (it now -appears) an enormous amount of protection. And it cannot have been -without some demoralising effect upon the mind of the community that -we have been driven by our outstanding necessities to build every -year six or seven of those enormous engines of destruction called -“Dreadnoughts,” whose effective lease of life is about 20 years, -something considerably shorter than the lease of life which we allow -for our most jerry-built lodging-houses! And on these short-lived -products of industry (which are to-day the sign and symbol and -safeguard of our world-power), our aristocracy of labour has been -spending its strength, and the nation has now to depend on them for -its safety. The cost of building a “Dreadnought” is about the same -as the cost of building St. Paul’s Cathedral. Imagine to yourself a -nation building every year six or seven St. Paul’s Cathedrals, with the -consciousness that in twenty-five or thirty years they will all again -be levelled to the dust, and you will get from that picture something -of the horror which an artist is bound to feel at the necessity -which thus drives us forward, even in peace-time, to the continuous -destruction,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span> on such a colossal scale, of the labour of men’s hands. -And the more it is revealed to us to-day (by the present catastrophe) -as an absolute political necessity, the more is the disorder of -civilization we have arrived at condemned.</p> - -<p>Well, I must leave now, in that example I have set before you, the -wasteful aspect of modern industry, in order to touch briefly on -another, and an almost equally hateful aspect, which I will call “the -vivisection of modern industry.” I mean its subdivision into so many -separate departments, or rather fragments, that it loses for the mind -of the worker all relation to the thing made—that time-saving device -at the expense of the human hand and brain, which we glorify under the -term “specialisation.” Now, however much you may defend that system on -ground of trade competition, the artist is bound by his principles to -regard it as a national evil; for anything which tends to take away -the worker’s joy and pride in the distinctiveness of his trade and -to undo its human elements is anti-Art training. And so that inhuman -specialisation which (for the sake of trade cheapness) sets down a man -to the performance of one particular mechanical action all his life, -in the making of some one particular part of some article which in its -further stages he is never to handle, or a woman to stamp out the tin -skeleton of a button, with her eyes glued to one spot for ten hours -of the day—all these dehumanising things are anti-Art<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> because they -are destructive of life-values. We have erected them into a system, -and while cutting prices by such means at one end, we are mounting up -costs at the other. We are promoting, maybe, a quicker circulation of -the currency of the realm, but we are impoverishing the currency of -the race. For that hard mechanical efficiency we are paying a price -which is eating up all our real profits; quite apart from its effect -in the increase of lunacy and of the unfit birth-rate and death-rate -among children, it is helping to implant in the whole world of labour -a bitter and a revengeful spirit which we have no right to wonder at -or to blame. And the results affect us not only in our workshops but -in our pastimes, by driving those whose labour is so conditioned into -a more consumptive form of pleasure-seeking and relaxation. You cannot -put people into inhuman conditions for long hours of each day, and -expect them to be normal and humane when you turn them out to their -short hours of leisure. I am pointing to conditions which you know -probably as well as, or better than, I do; but I am pointing to them -for the express purpose of saying that you cannot dissociate them from -your national appreciation of Art. The more you can connect the worker -with the raw material on the one hand and the finished product on the -other, the more surely you are establishing conditions out of which -national Art can grow; and the more you dissociate him<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> from these two -ends of his material the more you make national Art impossible.</p> - -<p>I will give you an instance, quite away from sweated labour conditions, -where you will see at once how wasteful and opposed to Art is this -system of breaking up craftsmanship into departments. It was an -architect who told me that the following system is quite frequently -followed in dealing with the stone out of which we build the outside -walls of our modern churches. It is hewn at the quarries into a rough -surface, thoroughly expressive of the stonemason’s craft, and not in -any way too rough for its purpose. It is then taken and submitted by -machinery to a grinding process which makes it mechanically smooth, and -it is then handed over to other workmen who give back to it a chiselled -surface of an absolutely uniform and mechanical character which -expresses nothing. And with that wanton and wasteful lie we are content -to set up temples to the God of Truth!</p> - -<p>Now if the Church has become so blind to the values of life, and so -lacking in any standard of honour toward the labour of men’s hands, as -to allow itself to be so clothed in falsehood, yet I do still plead -that those who call themselves artists shall protest by all means in -their power against the systematisation of such indignities toward -handicraft. That is the sort of thing against which any national Art -training we have ought to fight.</p> - -<p>How can we fight? Best of all, I believe,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> by establishing a standard -of honour toward manual labour; and, quite definitely, wherever we -have Art schools, by training all students to hate and despise shams -and to loathe all waste of labour. But, perhaps, the most direct way -would be for the State to set up, in every town, in connection with -its Art schools and its technical schools, a standard of honesty by -practical demonstration, in the staple industry of the locality. I -would not trouble, so long as that industry had a useful purpose, -how much or how little it was connected with Art; but I would give -the youth of that place the chance of an honest apprenticeship under -true human conditions to the trade in which they might be called upon -to spend their lives. I would not have those schools of labour adopt -any amateurishness of method or standard; they should not obstinately -reject the aid of machinery where machinery can relieve monotony, but -they should very carefully consider at what stage the dehumanising -element came in, either by substituting mechanism for skill, or by -separating the worker too much from his work in its completed form. -And from those schools of labour I would allow people to purchase all -the work of these State-apprentices which their master-craftsmen could -pass as being of a standard quality. They would not compete in point -of cheapness with the trade article, for their price would almost -certainly be higher, but they would, I trust, compete<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> in point of -quality and design; and by exhibiting a standard, and making the thing -procurable, they might create a demand which the very trade itself -would at last be forced to recognise.</p> - -<p>This is but a very bald and brief statement of the kind of extension I -mean; but what I want to put to you is this, that wherever a nation has -turned from agriculture to trade, there, if you want national Art you -must invade those trade conditions and set up your standard of honour, -not outside, but in the trades themselves; you must get hold of those -who are going to be your workers and craftsmen and put into them (by -exhibiting to them manual labour under right human conditions) the old -craftsman’s pride which existed in the days of the Guilds, when the -trade unions were not merely organisations to secure good wages, but -to secure good work, and to maintain a standard of honour in labour. -But you must not stop there. To make your training in any true sense -national you must make it characteristic, or rather it must make -itself. It must aim at bringing out racial and local character; and -before it can do so we must recover that love of locality which we have -so largely lost. A mere multiplication of schools and classes where a -departmental system evolved at some city centre is put in force, is not -national: it is only metropolitan, perhaps only departmental. You can -put such a system, in a certain superficial way, into the heads and -hands of your local students, but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> you cannot put it into the blood. -Unless your Art training enters into and links up the lives of those -you would teach with a larger sense of citizenship, it isn’t national. -They won’t carry it away with them into their daily pursuits, they -won’t make a spontaneous and instinctive application of it; they will -only come to it at class-hours, and, when class-hours are over, quit -again. I have spoken of the necessity of a standard of honour toward -labour, but we need also a standard of honour toward life. It is still, -you see, values—life-values—that I am trying to get at as a basis for -Art.</p> - -<p>Now to some of you I must have seemed, in all conscience, gloomy -and pessimistic in my outlook on present conditions; and therefore, -before I end, I will try to emit a ray of hope. There are certain -social developments going on around us which make me hope that we -may yet emerge from this valley of the shadows through which we are -still stumbling. One is that there has been in the last generation a -very general breakdown of the old artificial class notion of the kind -of work which was compatible with “gentility.” And one meets to-day -people, whose culture has given them every chance to develop that -standard of honour toward life (without which their claim to be gentry -means nothing); you meet with many such people nowadays who have come -back to manual labour in various forms, in farming, in horticulture, -and in craftsmanship—some also, I am glad to say,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> who have become -shopkeepers—and who are bringing, presumably, their standard of honour -to bear on those trades on which they no longer foolishly look down. -Among these a definite revival of handicraft is taking place, and -where they are doing their work honestly and well they are undoubtedly -inculcating a better taste. It is especially among this class which -has come back to handicraft that one meets with domestic interiors of -a fine and scrupulous simplicity which we may eventually see imitated -(meretriciously, perhaps, but on the whole beneficially) even in -lodging-houses which are at present the dust-hung mausoleums of the -aesthetic movement of thirty years ago.</p> - -<p>Another matter for congratulation—not a movement, but a survival—is -the unspoiled tradition of beauty which still exists in the cottage -gardens of England. There, in our villages, you find a note of beauty -that has scarcely been touched by the evil of our modern conditions. -And I take it as a proof that where, by some happy chance, we have -managed to “let well alone,” there the instinct for beauty and for -fitness is still a natural ingredient of industrial life. That survival -of taste in our cottage gardens is culture in the best sense of the -word; and it is still popular. We do not yet dig our gardens by -machinery; when we do they will die the death.</p> - -<p>And two other bright points of movement, which I look to as having in -them the basis of a true Art training, are the widespread<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span> revival, -in so many of our towns and villages, through the efforts of Miss -Mary Neal, Mr. Cecil Sharp and others, of our old folk-songs and -Morris dances, and lastly—perhaps I shall surprise you—the Boy Scout -movement.</p> - -<p>Coming into contact with these two movements, I have found that they -have in them certain elements in common. Instituted with a rare -combination of tact and enthusiasm, they have taken hold of the blood; -they have got home at a certain point in boy and girl nature which has -already made them become native. I find that these two organisations -tend to develop among their members grace and vigour of movement, good -manners, a cheerful spirit, a more alert interest in the things about -them, a feeling of comradeship, and best of all, a certain sense of -honour toward life. And therefore, even in a place technically devoted -to the training of students, I say boldly that I see nowhere better -hope of a sound basis for national Art than in this revival of village -dancing and folk-song and in the Boy Scout movement.</p> - -<p>The assertion may perhaps seem strange and ironic to some of you -that it is not from a study of beautiful objects that the sense of -beauty can be made national, but only in the recovery of an ordered -plan for our social and industrial life, and in the finding of a true -and worthy purpose for all that our hands are put to do. But in that -connection you may remember how Ruskin maintained that great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> Art has -only flourished in countries which produced in abundance either wine or -corn; in countries, that is to say, where the greatest industries were -those with which we most readily associate that note of joy which has -become proverbial, the joy of the harvest. It is perhaps too much to -dream that we shall ever again see England living upon its own corn; -and the greatest forms of Art may, therefore, remain for ever beyond -our reach. But until a nation does honour to the human hand as the -most perfect and beautiful of all instruments under the sun, by giving -it only honourable and useful tasks—until then I must rather wish -you to be good valuers, keen—indignantly keen—to destroy the false -values which you see about you, than that you should be either good -draughtsmen or good artists.</p> - -<p>You can do honest and good work as designers and illustrators and -architects, as workers in wood and metal and stone; but you are -hampered and bound by the conditions of your day, and you cannot by -your best efforts make Art national till you have established joy in -labour. No great school of Art can ever arise in our midst in such a -form as to carry with it through all the world its national character, -until the nation itself has found that voice (which to-day seems so -conspicuously absent, even when we close our shops to make holiday); I -mean the voice of joy.</p> - -<h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2">[2]</a> <i>By that reckoning we in Europe are to-day the best -comedians the world has ever seen. Out of peace-conditions nations produce their wars.</i></p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span></p> - -<h2>CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS IMMORTALITY.</h2> - -<p class="bold">(1915.)</p> - -<p>We are frequently told (more especially by those whose profession it is -to preach belief in a revealed religion), that if man be not endowed -with an immortal soul, then the game of life is not worth the candle. -Incidentally we are warned that if the bottom were knocked out of that -belief, morals would go to pieces and humanity would become reprobate.</p> - -<p>Now I can imagine a similar sort of claim put forward in other -departments of life for other pursuits which seem to their advocate to -make life more appetising.</p> - -<p>I can imagine sportsmen saying that without sport men would cease to -be manly, morals and physique would deteriorate and life be no longer -worth living. I can imagine the butcher saying that without meat, and -the licensed victualler that without beer, men were of all things the -most miserable. I have recently seen advertisements which say that -only by supporting the cinema (made beautiful by the feet of Charlie -Chaplin), can we hope to be victorious in the present war.</p> - -<p>The assertion that man cannot do without certain things which, as a -matter of fact, vast numbers of his fellows are constantly doing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> -without—(and with no very marked set-back as regards health, -efficiency, or general morals)—is a questionable way of forcing home -conviction that these things or beliefs are indispensable. It is quite -possible that beer, meat, the pursuit of game, the personality of -Charlie Chaplin, and a belief in immortality are all alike capable of -giving stimulus to the human soul (especially to those souls which -have come by habit to depend upon them). But it is quite certain that -other human souls have found without them sufficient stimulus to make -life worth living. And though, against that fact, it may be argued -that these unconsciously receive their driving force, their social -and ethical standards, from those whose motive power they reject as -superfluous, and that we, who do not go to see Charlie Chaplin on the -films, are winning this war somewhat circuitously through the powers of -those who do—the argument is hardly a convincing one, since it remains -for ever in the nature of an unproved hypothesis.</p> - -<p>But when the majority of those who believe in personal immortality are -asked for the ground of their belief, it generally resolves itself into -this: they have an intense individual conviction that it is so—so -intense that to hold the contrary becomes “unthinkable.” But that -intense, individual conviction, over things we greatly care about, is -a constant phenomenon of the working of the human mind, and is not -limited to belief in a future<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> state. To a convinced Liberal it is -“unthinkable” that he should ever pass into such a state of mental -annihilation as to become a Conservative. To a convinced Conservative -it is unthinkable that he should fall from the grace which guides -him into the slough of Liberalism. It is the same with Protestant or -Catholic, with Socialist, Universalist, or Sectarian: conviction always -presents an adamantine front to opposing forces and arguments—so long -as it lasts.</p> - -<p>The same phenomenon constantly occurs in the domain of the amative -passion. The lover (if he be really in love), believes that his love -will last for ever—that nothing can possibly change it; and all the -evidence in the world that lovers of a like faith have too often lived -to see the immortal dream put on mortality, will fail to convince him -(while he is in the toils) that his own love is liable to any such -change as theirs.</p> - -<p>The reason is that strongly vitalised forces always carry with them a -sense of permanence.</p> - -<p>The vital spark (focused within us by strong conviction or emotion), -is but an individually apprehended part of a great whole: for this -thread of life passing through us has already stretched itself out -over millions of years, and countless atavisms have touched it to -individual ends which were not ours; the will to live has clung to it -by myriads of adhesions, feelers, tentacles, and not by human hands -alone (though our palms still moisten,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> and our arms fly upward to -the imaginary branch overhead when danger of falling threatens us, -because the instinct of our arboreal ancestry still prevails in us over -reason). And through those atavisms, the struggle to secure survival -for the family, the clan, the race, has left an impress which may -very naturally convey from the general to the individual a sense of -immortality.</p> - -<p>For of all these constituent forces the majority knew and thought -very little about death, except in their instinctive and spasmodic -efforts to escape from it; and when at last man began to envisage death -consciously and philosophically, straightway, with all these atavisms -behind him, he belittled it with dreams of a future life.</p> - -<p>It was as perfectly natural a thing to do as for the lover to declare -that his love for his mistress was eternal and not merely for a -season, since any lesser statement would fail to convey adequately -the intensity of the force by which he was moved. Moreover, though -in millions of individual cases the statement and the sincere belief -that the love experienced will remain changeless and eternal, are -contradicted by later fact, it is at least true that the passion itself -is an ever-recurring phenomenon of life, and does, by its infinite -recurrence and resurrection in form beyond form through evolving -generations, present to finite minds an aspect of immortality. Just as -the water we drink is an imperishable thing,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span> though after drinking it -we shall thirst again, so is that love, which satisfies the lover’s -soul, a principle of life extending illimitably beyond his own use for -it. And if that be true about love, why should it not be true about -life?</p> - -<p>For surely (put it thus), when across limited vision a thread passes, -of which the eye can see neither the beginning nor the end, and -when upon that thread, for the time being, the limited life hangs -all its hopes, is it not quite natural for that clinging life to -identify itself, through the closeness of its momentary contact, -with the spiritually apprehended whole, and to identify with that -concept of a general continuity its own present degree of individual -consciousness. Moreover, in a world governed by cause and effect, it -can hardly be predicated that the results either of love or hatred, -individually indulged, are not, or may not be illimitable, even though -the individual spirit be not there to preside consciously over their -extended operations.</p> - -<p>When, therefore, so much is true, when so many elements which pass -through our lives have (by association), links and connections which -to finite minds seem infinite, they may well impress us (by reason of -the close identification established between us and them for the time -being) with a sense that our own individual share and apprehension of -them are addressed also to a universal goal.</p> - -<p>“Universal,” for surely mere continuity—a stretching out of length -without <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span>corresponding breadth—ought not to be the limit of our -claim. Yet it is significant that, in their demand for personal -immortality, so many thinkers have found sufficient satisfaction in -the idea of an extended survival through time into eternity, without -making a corresponding demand for extension into unity through space. -They are willing, that is to say, to put up for all eternity with -those limitations of personality which they enjoy—the relations of -<i>meum</i> and <i>tuum</i> upon which the possessive life of the senses is -based, but not with those limitations (the prospect of which they do -not enjoy), the termination of those same relationships imposed by -death. It seems rather a one-sided way of doing things—this narrowing -of the claim in a two-dimensional direction (one might almost say -in a one-dimensional), yet it has been very generally done—I shall -presently hope to show why—and most of our Western theology has built -up our future hopes for us entirely on those lines. Personality, -the sort of personality we have learned to enjoy, is based upon -limitations. Abolish limitations in your conception of future life, and -for the majority of those pious minds which now clamour for it as their -due you abolish personality also; it is swallowed up not in death but -in a life from which the individual power to focus and to enjoy has -disappeared.</p> - -<p>It is true that there has now begun, in modern socialistic -Christianity, a yeasting of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span> desire for an all round, or expansive, -as well as a forward, or extensive personality after death; that an -all-embracing and not merely an all-surviving consciousness is more -and more predicated for the full satisfaction of man’s spiritual need. -But that was by no means the form of moral hunger which permeated -primitive or mediæval Christianity, and sufficed, we are to suppose, -to keep poor human nature from that depravity into which it will fall -if belief in personal immortality is surrendered. Oregon, as we know, -looked forward to finding in the nether groans of the damned a full -completion of the orchestral harmonies of Heaven; and in the whole -conception of immortality as it has illumined the path of the Church -from its beginning down to quite modern times, individualism has been -rampant. On that basis, so long as it satisfied his moral conscience, -man did great things with it, making it shine as a great light by the -unflinching witness which he bore to its efficacy through suffering and -through martyrdom.</p> - -<p>It is probably true that an individualistic form to the doctrine was -then, and always will be, necessary to attract those whose lives have -been run from a highly individualised standpoint; and that, for them, -death-bed consolation would hardly be achieved in the presentation of -a doctrine so defined as to threaten annihilation to all the fetish -worship and social values of the past.</p> - -<p>“God would think twice,” said a courtly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> French Abbé of the seventeenth -century to a King’s mistress who, upon her death-bed, was seized by -spiritual qualms—“God would think twice before damning a lady of your -quality.” And no one who holds by class-distinctions really wishes to -find in the New Jerusalem any abolition of that respect for persons -or prejudices which has, in this world, been the main ground on which -their self-esteem and their estimate of personality have been based.</p> - -<p>To them the most “unthinkable” proposition would be not the contraction -of the future world to narrower and more select limits than those of -the one they know, but a future world conducted on any code of morals -which had not their own entire approval and sanction.</p> - -<p>We are told that the late Queen Victoria looked forward with very -great interest to a future meeting with the Hebrew patriarchs, with -Abraham, Moses, and Elijah, but hoped to be excused from any personal -acquaintance with King David on account of his affair with Bathsheba. -And when we realise how very often the hope of Heaven is really a -species of self-love and self-applause, conditional on Heaven being -what we ourselves want it to be, one is led to wonder whether the real -condition for entry into that state of bliss may not prove to be the -precise opposite, and whether the disciplinary motto upon its portal -may not be those mystic words, hitherto<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span> attributed to another place, -“All hope abandon ye who enter here.” That, after all, is only a more -emphatic way of stating what Christ Himself laid down as the path by -which man should attain; that only those namely who were ready to -lose life should find it. And I rather question whether our Christian -individualists have, up till now, been honestly prepared to “lose life” -in the full sense, without condition or reserve, and whether, (if they -have not), they have yet attained the spiritual standpoint necessary to -bring them within the terms of the promise.</p> - -<p>So far I have dealt with the doctrine of immortality as presented to us -from the individualistic basis alone. But, in some form or another, the -doctrine of immortality belongs to many religions and schools (indeed, -one might almost say to all) and has, therefore, most varied and even -contradictory meanings attached to it. In some schools, as we have -seen, it sets great store on the survival of the individual; in others -individuality is held to be of small account—a diminishing rather than -a persistent factor in the ultimate ends of life viewed as a whole.</p> - -<p>I remember in that connection discussing with the late Father George -Tyrrell, in the days before Rome’s excommunication fell on him, the -divergent views as to immortality of Christianity and Buddhism; and -at that time he held that the superiority of the Christian faith -lay in its insistence on the personal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> immortality, conscious and -self-contained, of every human being. Some years later, a month before -his death, we discussed the matter again; and I asked him then, in what -degree, if at all, his view as to personal immortality had changed. -His answer gave me a curious instance of those scientific analogies by -which Modernism has been seeking to deliver the Roman Church from its -mediæval entanglements.</p> - -<p>“In the main,” he said, “I have only changed in my apprehension of what -‘personality’ really is. Just as one may find in an hysterical subject -five or six pseudo-personalities which reveal themselves in turn, each -one of which is a character quite separately and consistently defined, -but not one of them (however completely in possession for the time) a -real person, so it seems to me must we regard all those limitations -of ‘personality’ which find expression in individual form. There is -only one true personality, and that is Christ; anything less than the -one all-embracing whole is but a simulacrum, concealing rather than -revealing the true substance and form.”</p> - -<p>I cannot pretend to give his actual words, but I believe that I have -accurately stated the sense of them; and you will see, I think, that -they go a long way toward the adaptation of the Christian to the -Buddhistic standpoint. That tendency, I believe, we shall find more -and more at work in the Christian Church as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> time goes on—not merely -because by such a definition the doctrine will be better able to hold -its own against the inroads of science—but because it gives also a -better response to that socialising genius of the human race which -is coming more and more to demand a perfect unity as the ultimate -expression of good.</p> - -<p>That, then, we shall probably find to be the future tendency of -idealism. There remains, of course, the Rationalistic school of -thought, by which the possibility of individual or personal survival -after death is from first to last either absolutely denied or very -severely discountenanced as an idea based upon wholly insufficient -evidence.</p> - -<p>Nevertheless, in some form or another, immortality, conscious or -unconscious, personal or impersonal, is accepted by all schools alike; -the scientific law of the conservation of energy being one form of it -which human reason would now find it very difficult to deny.</p> - -<p>Let us for one moment apply that law to our own individual lives and -consciousness.</p> - -<p>Has life convinced us that we are all self-contained persons? Through -social contact we have undergone many changes, many damages, and -many repairs. Parts of us have gone to other people, parts of other -people have come, to us. We have shed and have absorbed quite as much -spiritually as materially; and though through our material changes we -retain a certain likeness, so that friends<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> meeting us after a seven -years’ absence recognise us again in bodies no particle of which have -they ever seen before; and though similarly we can recognise our -inner selves across wider intervals of time, have we any reason to -suppose that our identity is more fixed in the spiritual substance -than in the material? For myself, I hope not. May one not prefer the -idea of interchange between life and life, to the notion that one is -to remain for ever fixed and self-possessed—a thing apart? The more -we are compounded of other lives, the more we have contributed to -the lives of others—the more can we recognise our entrance into the -only eternal life that we can demonstrably be sure about, or that can -(so it must seem to many of us), be sensibly desired or deserved. Is -Eternal Bliss, in the individual sense, a more tolerable doctrine than -eternal Hell-fire? Though, indeed, this latter may be but a scientific -statement of fact perverted and made foolish by the theologians. -For life, after all, is but a form of combustion for ever going on, -and outside of it we know nothing. No doubt the atoms of our being, -whether physical or spiritual, will forever form part of it; but I see -no reason why our spirits should not be as diffused, through proper -elemental changes, as our bodies are now being diffused from day to -day; or why I should repine that I personally shall not always be there -to preside over the operation and find it good. Even if, at the far end -of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span> this earth’s history, everything is again to be reabsorbed in the -heat and light out of which it came, I can trust the suns and planets -to fulfil their mission of progress—or the will of God—quite as well -as, or better than, in my own small sphere I can trust Constitutional -Governments or Established Churches. And since these lesser lights, -in their foolish and providential dealings, do not confound my faith, -neither do the stars in their courses fight against it. Rather do they -confirm me in my sense that even the most acute perceptions with which -human life is endowed fail of themselves to justify me in any claim to -a larger lease of life than can naturally belong to them; for I see in -the universe things far greater than any individual man, doing service -and sustaining the life of countless millions, (which without them -could not live at all), without any prospect of so great a reward.</p> - -<p>The eye of the sun itself is blind; and for ever, while it dazzles -us with its light, blind it must remain. Nay, what need has it for -sight at all, if in blindness it be able to fulfil its mission? And -yet implicit within its vast energies, there lies the gift of sight. -For that blind Eye of Heaven taught us to see; our substance came from -it, our eyes were made by it, and without it was not anything made on -earth that was made. And if, by this gift of sight, it has opened to us -so vast a space for our understanding to dwell in—bestowing so huge -a conception of life on this frail vessel of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span> clay—if by so giving -of itself through long aeons of time it has opened to us so much more -than it knows itself, cannot we render back without grudging these -shorter, frailer lives of ours, whose brevity, perhaps, is the very -price required of us for their enjoyment, since without such limits our -far-reaching comprehension of space and its possessions could never -have been gained. Should there be any despair, or any depression in -the thought that from the blind eye of day and from the powers of its -heat was developed the human brain? For if from that apparent Blindness -of our Universe came really the eyes of life by which we perceive all -things, can we not commit our spirits back to its keeping with an -equal trust that what lies ahead will be at least as good as what lies -behind, though we be not there to see it?</p> - -<p>But the law of the conservation of energy does not in the least satisfy -the aspirations of those who are out for personal immortality in the -individual sense. To these it seems a grievance that they should have -been called into being for any end not wholly satisfying to that -Ego which is now laying upon their consciousness the weight of its -possessive limitations. This separative quality of the Ego is to them -the whole principle of existence; without it they cannot see life. -To them, life in any less focused or more diffused form would be no -better than annihilation, an obvious setting-back of the evolutionary<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span> -process by which creation has led step by step to that degree of -self-consciousness realised in the human race.</p> - -<p>Do not these objectors forget not merely how considerable a part of -human nature already moves and has its being on the lines of a diffused -and rather decentralised subconsciousness, but also how largely the -genius of the human race has committed to such conditions of separation -from all possible enjoyment by the Ego, some of the rarest gifts and -highest efforts at self-realisation that the world has ever seen? It -is a condition attaching to all the more permanent forms of expression -in the arts, to everything that man designs and makes for the delight -of the generations that come after. It is a condition willingly -accepted by all who rejoice in their power to throw the influence of -their personalities beyond the material uses of their own present -existence. And in that willingness to lose out of themselves for -future generations—to turn aside from mere physical enjoyment—the -life-forces within them, in that willingness artist, poet, and thinker, -have come far nearer to the finding of life than those who live -indulgently for ends finished by their own absorption thereof.</p> - -<p>Now it is the supporters of the individualistic school of thought who -have generally urged that grave moral dangers would befall the human -race were a belief in personal immortality to perish; and it is at -least<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> arguable (by minds that can only see values individually), that -if man is not to be permanently rewarded or punished for his present -and future conduct, he has no reason for conducting himself as a decent -part of the social whole, and that it would be better for him to break -out on entirely individual lines, live a short and merry life, and -throwing all altruistic and ethical considerations to the winds, enjoy -himself as much as he can while the material is to him.</p> - -<p>On paper that consideration may seem to hold strong ground; but when it -is put into practice the facts of life are found to be overwhelmingly -against it. For one thing excess and self-indulgence fail to produce -enjoyment, for another the socialising of life by mutual aid tends -quite obviously to the increase of comfort, safety, and happiness. And -where apparently it does not is mainly at that point where rampant -individualism grasps and warps it to its own ends, making the social -organism subserve not the goodwill of the many but the ill-will of the -few.</p> - -<p>But the ethical argument about the bad effects of non-belief in -personal immortality has been considerably discounted by the growing -sensitiveness of the modern conscience—more especially among those who -are in a serious sense “free-thinkers”—toward the social ills lying -around us. Generally speaking, our sense of duty toward our neighbour -is much more lively than it was in the mid-Victorian <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span>era; but our -conviction of personal immortality is probably far less. The two things -do not go together: the diminution of church attendance in the last -fifty years has not worsened the conditions of labour.</p> - -<p>It may, however, be argued that an instinct for immortality is still -subconsciously at work within us, colouring our actions and directing -us on right ethical lines. But if it be a subconscious direction -which thus works in us for righteousness, it may equally be to a -subconscious end. The subconscious impulse may merely be guiding us to -a subconscious realisation which would not at all satisfy the advocates -of conscious immortality after death. What works subconsciously can in -all probability find satisfaction in a subconscious reward. The chemic -processes of the stomach and of the blood, for instance, are largely -subconscious in their operation; and their needs may be subconsciously -appeased without the brain being told anything about it through the -usual intermediaries of taste and mastication. We have a preference for -a conscious performance of the functions of life which we have always -been accustomed to perform consciously; but a very large proportion of -our life-functions work themselves out subconsciously and independently -of our will. Our hearts beat, our blood circulates, our nails grow, -our stomachs digest, our wounds heal, whether we tell them to or no, -and yet we are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> quite happy about them. We do not consider (because -they operate by a volition of which we are unaware), that therefore we -carry about with us a body of death from which our conscious ego must -needs shrink in disgust—a dead heart, dead stomach, dead blood—that -the unconsciousness which accompanies health is a state nearer to -annihilation, and so less to be desired, than the pains accompanying -functional disturbances.</p> - -<p>When those things happen—functional disturbances—we are conscious -of something more immediately relating to death than to life: it is -because of local mortification that we become so much aware of things -which our immortal part helps us to use unconsciously and without -thought. Virtue itself, when engrained, tends to become instinctive and -subconscious instead of an effort.</p> - -<p>There is quite as much evidence, therefore, in our own bodies that -unconsciousness is the real gate to immortal life, and the condition -toward which all that is best and highest in us is seeking, as of the -contrary teaching that increased self-consciousness is man’s final -goal. In the functional working of our own bodies an enormous amount of -self-consciousness has been eliminated, and we do not for our happiness -or self-realisation wish it restored to us; whole tracts and areas are -immune from it, or only make a spasmodic grab at our consciousness when -things go ill with them. “If you go on doing that,” they say, when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> -you misuse them, “we will make you know that we are here.” And so you -become conscious of them: but that doesn’t make you happier. Yet in a -sort of way, I suppose, a man would realise himself more completely if -he had sciatica all over him, and could count up his nerves, and tell -all his bones by the aches and pains attaching to them.</p> - -<p>Now it is easy enough for a man to say (I think it was H. M. Stanley, -the explorer, who did say so) that he would rather endure torment for -all eternity than accept a state of annihilation. In thus protesting -he is talking through his hat of something too far beyond human -experience for the mind to realise. Toothache he has probably always -found bearable, because he knew that in course of time it would end. On -the other hand, sound dreamless sleep is probably not less bearable to -him because during that sleep he has not a ghost of a notion that he -will ever wake up again. He is carried, that is to say, every day of -his life while in health, into a state closely resembling annihilation -of consciousness, in which such annihilation has no terrors for him -at all; he accepts it as a comfortable part of existence, and goes to -it with delight when his faculties are tired. Its attractions for him -would naturally be less while all his senses were alert and fresh.</p> - -<p>But the waking man is not the whole man; the subconscious life, -acquiescent to imposed conditions, occupies by far the larger part -of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> him. He can, therefore, only predicate the inclinations of his -waking hours; in sleep he may revert to a very strong affinity for that -annihilation of self-conscious life against which, in his waking hours, -he protests his dread.</p> - -<p>And now a further word of comfort for those moral teachers who assure -us that if once we let go the idea of personal immortality, with its -accompanying implications of eternal reward or punishment, the conduct -of the human race is bound to degenerate, and that man’s only logical -motto will then be, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we -die.”</p> - -<p>To refute that deduction we have but to remember that sociology is a -thing of ancestry and evolution, and has committed us to a weight of -facts against which precept and theory are powerless. We have only -to look back into Nature to see how persistently (without, one must -suppose, any promise of future reward after death) a contrary instinct -emerges from the establishment of the social bond in nest and herd and -hive. And why—if that emerging instinct leads on, in man’s reasoned -estimation, to foolishness—why do we so specially admire the communal -life of ant and bee, and incline sometimes to wonder whether (behind so -marvellous an order of altruistic energy) there be not concealed more -and not less of spiritual apprehension than in the more individualistic -forms of insect and animal life? And why, on the contrary,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> has the -wise cuckoo become a sort of byword for the singular economy with which -it has disentangled its life from care or responsibility?</p> - -<p>It is surely very unfair thus to erect the cuckoo into a moral emblem -for reprobation, if it is only doing by instinct, what man would do by -reason and logic were the darkness of his own destiny made clear to him.</p> - -<p>And similarly, it is surely disingenuous on our part to exalt as a -moral emblem the instinct of ant and bee to subordinate the life of the -individual to the general—if we deny to ant and bee the immortality -by which alone such altruism can be recompensed; or if we are to -believe that a clearer knowledge of their future lot would cause them -in logic and reason to declare that life on those terms was not worth -living, and that “to eat, drink, and die to-morrow” were better than to -live longer and labour for a vain repetition of lives like their own -indefinitely multiplied. It is ridiculous to impose the moral emblem -unless you grant also the justifying conditions.</p> - -<p>Because the bee and the ant live unconscious of their impending doom, -are we, therefore, to regard them as a hoodwinked race, set to labour -at the dictates of the Creative capitalist on terms which contain in -them no adequate reward? Suppose, for a moment, that revelation could -descend upon ants’ nest and hive, and tell these workers that beyond -death the future held for them no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> store—that their immortality -was the immortality not of individual but of race; and suppose that -thereupon they all struck and went forth to die each singly in their -own way—would that moral emblem impress us, do you think, as a thing -worthy of imitation or of praise?</p> - -<p>But why (let us think) is the predication of such an event so -impossible and so grotesque? Is it not because the life, the individual -life of ant or bee is so impregnated with that instinct of communalism -which gives the species its distinctive character, that it is -impossible to sunder them, or to imagine the individual capable (while -in the social <i>milieu</i>) of pursuing individual ends alone, after a -following, over millions of years, of life in the communal form. Life, -the thread of life which runs through them, is too much engrained with -communism for separatist principles ever again to prevail.</p> - -<p>And surely it is the same with man. Individualism, separatism, -self-obsessionism, though still present in the phenomena of existence, -are more and more subject to qualifications from which they cannot -escape. And even the most evil form of individualism has to be -parasitic or predatory; it cannot exist alone; even against its -will it becomes conditioned by other lives. And the communal sense -of man, implicit within the innumerable forms of life through which -he has evolved, will continue to lay its hold on the parasitic and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> -the predatory, and will do so quite effectively on the basis of an -evolutionary past, the tendencies of which were established before ever -theological definitions came to give them impulse and strength.</p> - -<p>Is it not almost ludicrous to suggest that that communal instinct -will cease to play, if the hope of individual reward after death is -withdrawn from the human race? Will man—because he is nobler than -the beast, because at his best he does things more altruistic, more -self-sacrificing, more self-forgetting, more self-transcending than any -of these—do less nobly because he envisages destiny, which (if he see -it as destiny) he will see as the logical outcome of evolutionary law?</p> - -<p>It is possible, it is even probable, that all phases of theological -thought have had their use in giving direction and stimulus to the -human brain; if they have done nothing but stimulate rebellion against -obscurantist authority they have had value of a positive kind. But -we may go even further than this, for “everything possible to be -believed,” says Blake, “is an image of truth.” And under many a -concept, distorted by ignorance or guile, has lain a germ of the true -life which draws man on to communal ends. In time that germ puts off -the husk that seemed once (perhaps in some cases actually was) the -protective armoury through which alone it could survive for the use -of a later day. But though old reasons have been shed, the essential -value<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span> has not changed; and often it is less by logic and reason than -by the strong and subtle links of association that we preserve what is -good of past credulities.</p> - -<p>The doctrine of conscious immortality, however much belittled by its -appeal to selfish individualism, has done a work for the human race. -It has held the germ of an ideal for unity which is receiving a more -universal interpretation to-day than the earlier theologians would ever -have allowed, or than man, in his then stage of development, could have -thought it worth while to hand on to his intellectual heirs. Perhaps -only because he conceived it in just such a form have its values been -preserved.</p> - -<p>I am reminded in this connection of the method by which the wild swine -of the New Forest were taught to obey the voice of the horn by means -of which the swine-herd, called them back each night from their free -roaming in the forest. The way he did it was this. Having first formed -his herd, some four or five hundred strong, he penned them in a narrow -space where water and warm shelter were to be found; and there, in the -allotted enclosure, according them no liberty, he fed them daily to the -sound of the horn. Food and music became a sort of celestial harmony to -pig’s brain—when they heard the one, good reason was given them for -expecting the other.</p> - -<p>Presently, in a well-fed condition, they were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span> set free to roam; and -being full and satisfied they did not roam far; and at night the horn -sounded them back to an ample meal, and continued to sound while again -they ate and were satisfied.</p> - -<p>So at last, by association, the horn came to have such a beneficent -meaning that the mere sound of it sufficed to bring them back at -nightfall to their appointed place of rest. They might roam for miles -and miles during the day, but night and the sound of the horn brought -them all back safe to fold. And when that habit had become established, -they did not cease to return even though the swineherd no longer -supplied the food which had first given music its charm to those savage -breasts.</p> - -<p>And, similarly, I doubt not, that, though all hope of material profit -or reward be withdrawn from man’s mind, that call of the horn which -he has heard of old will still bring his spirit to the resting-place -at the appointed time; nor will he wish either to shorten his days or -debase his pleasures because the horn has ceased to provide the meal -which it once taught him to expect.</p> - -<p>Do not let anything I have said be taken as suggesting that the -spiritual forces of man’s nature may not be conserved, transmuted, -re-assimilated, or re-distributed, as surely and with as little waste -as are the material elements of life which pass through disintegration -and decay into new forms. The processes by which such changes are -wrought<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> may be, and may ever remain, a mystery to human sense. There -may be yet in the making a new order or plane of evolution by which -the process will be quickened and perfected. Soul of man may be in -the making, though it may be very far removed from that aspect of -individualism with which the anthropomorphic tendencies of theology -have burdened it. But—whether life thus rises by unknown law to -further ends, or whether it passes out, like the life of leaves, into -the general decay with which autumn each year fertilises the bed of -mother earth—of one thing I would ask you to be confident—that the -bandying of words and theories, and the discussion, tending this way -or that, of man’s destiny after death, are not in any way likely to -alter or to undo those forward-driving forces and communal desires with -which, from an inheritance of so many millions of years, the life of -humanity has become endowed. The will to live will still lift up the -race and carry it forward to new ends, whether man thinks he sees in -death the end of his personal existence, or only a new and a better -beginning. And whether he claims or resigns that prospect of reward he -will never be able to rid himself of the sense which revives after all -failures and crimes, that man is his brother-man—or be able to refrain -at his best from laying down his life, without calculation of personal -benefit to himself, so that others may live.</p> - -<p>The highest manifestations of human genius,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span> the most perfected forms -of self-realisation in art, in literature, and science, have been -given to us—and will continue to be given to us—independent of any -bargain that name and identity shall for ever remain attached thereto -while posterity enjoys the benefit. The artist might foresee that his -name would, in a brief time, become dissociated from his work, and his -memory blotted out from the book of the living; he would produce it all -the same. The reformer might know that his motives would be aspersed, -that his name would become after death a spitting and a reproach; but, -for the sake of the cause he believed in, he would still be willing to -die a dishonoured death and leave a reprobated name, to a world that -had failed to understand.</p> - -<p>That is human nature at its best; and you will not change it or -endanger it through any increased doubt thrown by modern thought or -science on the prospect of conscious immortality after death. For -whether we recognise it or not, a subconscious spirit, not perhaps of -immortality but of unity, permeates us all; and for furtherance and -worship of that which his soul desires, the spirit of man will ever be -ready to work and strive, and to pass unconditionally into dust—if -that indeed be the condition on which he holds his birthright in a life -worth living.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="center">W. H. Smith & Son, The Arden Press, Stamford Street, London, S.E.1</p> - -<hr /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<div class="mynote"><p class="center">Transcriber’s Note:<br /><br /> -Obvious typographic errors have been corrected.<br /></p></div> - - - -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<hr class="pgx" /> -<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PLOUGHSHARE AND PRUNING-HOOK***</p> -<p>******* This file should be named 66101-h.htm or 66101-h.zip *******</p> -<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> -<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/6/1/0/66101">http://www.gutenberg.org/6/6/1/0/66101</a></p> -<p> -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed.</p> - -<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. -</p> - -<h2 class="pgx" title="">START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<br /> -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2> - -<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license.</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<blockquote><p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United - States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost - no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use - it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with - this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this - ebook.</p></blockquote> - -<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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</p> - -<ul> -<li>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."</li> - -<li>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.</li> - -<li>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.</li> - -<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li> -</ul> - -<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p> - -<p>1.F.</p> - -<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment.</p> - -<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org.</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p> - -<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p> - -<p>For additional contact information:</p> - -<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br /> - Chief Executive and Director<br /> - gbnewby@pglaf.org</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3> - -<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support.</p> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition.</p> - -<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -</body> -</html> - diff --git a/old/66101-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/66101-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 964cb9a..0000000 --- a/old/66101-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66101-h/images/title.jpg b/old/66101-h/images/title.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1bd155e..0000000 --- a/old/66101-h/images/title.jpg +++ /dev/null |
