{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13132/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13132","id":"gutenberg_13132","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13132","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Home rule -- Ireland","Irish question","Liberty"],"text":"PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM\n\nby\n\nTERENCE MACSWINEY\nLate Lord Mayor of Cork\n\n1921\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: TERENCE MACSWINEY\n(Late Lord Mayor of Cork)]\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\nTO\n\nTHE SOLDIERS OF FREEDOM\n\nIN EVERY LAND\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIt was my intention to publish these articles in book form as soon as\npossible. I had them typed for the purpose. I had no time for revision\nsave to insert in the typed copy words or lines omitted from the\noriginal printed matter. I also made an occasional verbal alteration in\nthe original. One article, however, that on \"Intellectual Freedom,\"\nthough written in the series in the place in which it now stands, was\nnot printed with them. It is now published for the first time.\n\n\nRELIGION\n\n\nI wish to make a note on the article under this heading to avoid a\npossible misconception amongst people outside Ireland. In Ireland there\nis no religious dissension, but there is religious insincerity. English\npoliticians, to serve the end of dividing Ireland, have worked on the\nreligious feelings of the North, suggesting the danger of Catholic\nascendancy. There is not now, and there never was, any such danger, but\nour enemies, by raising the cry, sowed discord in the North, with the\naim of destroying Irish unity. It should be borne in mind that when the\nRepublican Standard was first raised in the field in Ireland, in the\nRising of 1798, Catholics and Protestants in the North were united in\nthe cause. Belfast was the first home of Republicanism in Ireland. This\nis the truth of the matter. The present-day cleavage is an unnatural\nthing created by Ireland's enemies to hold her in subjection and will\ndisappear entirely with political Freedom.\n\nIt has had, however, in our day, one unhappy effect, only for a time\nfortunately, and this is disappearing. I refer to the rise of\nHibernianism. The English ruling faction having, for their own political\ndesigns, corrupted the Orangemen with power and flattery, enabled them\nto establish an ascendancy not only over Ulster, but indirectly by their\nvote over the South. This becoming intolerable, some sincere but\nmisguided Catholics in the North joined the organisation known as THE\nANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS. This was, in effect, a sort of Catholic\nFreemasonry to counter the Orange Freemasonry, but like Orangeism, it\nwas a political and not a religious weapon.\n\nFurther, as a political weapon, it extended all through Ireland during\nthe last years of the Irish Parliamentary Movement. In Cork, for\nexample, it completely controlled the city life for some years, but the\nrapid rise of the Republican Movement brought about the equally rapid\nfall of Hibernianism. At the present moment it has as little influence\nin the public life of Cork as Sir Edward Carson himself. The great bulk\nof its one-time members have joined the Republican Movement. This\ndemonstrates clearly that anything in the nature of a sectarian movement\nis essentially repugnant to the Irish people. As I have pointed out, the\nHibernian Order, when created, became at once a political weapon, but\nIreland has discarded that, and other such weapons, for those with which\nshe is carving out the destinies of the Republic. For a time, however,\nHibernianism created an unnatural atmosphere of sectarian rivalry in\nIreland. That has now happily passed away. At the time, however, of the\nwriting of the article on Religion it was at its height, and this fact\ncoloured the writing of the article. On re-reading it and considering\nthe publication of the present work I was inclined to suppress it, but\ndecided that it ought to be included because it bears directly on the\nevil of materialism in religious bodies, which is a matter of grave\nconcern to every religious community in the world.\n\nT. MacS.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER\n\nI.     THE BASIS OF FREEDOM\n\nII.    SEPARATION\n\nIII.   MORAL FORCE\n\nIV.    BROTHERS AND ENEMIES\n\nV.     THE SECRET OF STRENGTH\n\nVI.    PRINCIPLE IN ACTION\n\nVII.   LOYALTY\n\nVIII.  WOMANHOOD\n\nIX.    THE FRONTIER\n\nX.     LITERATURE AND FREEDOM--THE\n       PROPAGANDIST PLAYWRIGHT\n\nXI.    LITERATURE AND FREEDOM--ART FOR\n       ART'S SAKE\n\nXII.   RELIGION\n\nXIII.  INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM\n\nXIV.   MILITARISM\n\nXV.    THE EMPIRE\n\nXVI.   RESISTANCE IN ARMS--FOREWORD\n\nXVII.  RESISTANCE IN ARMS--THE TRUE\n       MEANING OF LAW\n\nXVIII. RESISTANCE IN ARMS--OBJECTIONS\n\nXIX.   THE BEARNA BAOGHAIL--CONCLUSION\n\n\n\n\n+PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM+\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE BASIS OF FREEDOM\n\n\nI\n\n\nWhy should we fight for freedom? Is it not strange, that it has become\nnecessary to ask and answer this question? We have fought our fight for\ncenturies, and contending parties still continue the struggle, but the\nreal significance of the struggle and its true motive force are hardly\nat all understood, and there is a curious but logical result. Men\ntechnically on the same side are separated by differences wide and deep,\nboth of ideal and plan of action; while, conversely, men technically\nopposed have perhaps more in common than we realise in a sense deeper\nthan we understand.\n\n\nII\n\n\nThis is the question I would discuss. I find in practice everywhere in\nIreland--it is worse out of Ireland--the doctrine, \"The end justifies\nthe means.\"\n\nOne party will denounce another for the use of discreditable tactics,\nbut it will have no hesitation in using such itself if it can thereby\nsnatch a discreditable victory. So, clear speaking is needed: a fight\nthat is not clean-handed will make victory more disgraceful than any\ndefeat. I make the point here because we stand for separation from the\nBritish Empire, and because I have heard it argued that we ought, if we\ncould, make a foreign alliance to crush English power here, even if our\nforeign allies were engaged in crushing freedom elsewhere. When such a\nquestion can be proposed it should be answered, though the time is not\nripe to test it. If Ireland were to win freedom by helping directly or\nindirectly to crush another people she would earn the execration she has\nherself poured out on tyranny for ages. I have come to see it is\npossible for Ireland to win her independence by base methods. It is\nimperative, therefore, that we should declare ourselves and know where\nwe stand. And I stand by this principle: no physical victory can\ncompensate for spiritual surrender. Whatever side denies that is not my\nside.\n\nWhat, then, is the true basis to our claim to freedom? There are two\npoints of view. The first we have when fresh from school, still in our\nteens, ready to tilt against everyone and everything, delighting in\nsaying smart things--and able sometimes to say them--talking much and\nboldly of freedom, but satisfied if the thing sounds bravely. There is\nthe later point of view. We are no longer boys; we have come to review\nthe situation, and take a definite stand in life. We have had years of\nexperience, keen struggles, not a little bitterness, and we are\nsteadied. We feel a heart-beat for deeper things. It is no longer\nsufficient that they sound bravely; they must ring true. The schoolboy's\ndream is more of a Roman triumph--tramping armies, shouting multitudes,\nwaving banners--all good enough in their way. But the dream of men is\nfor something beyond all this show. If it were not, it could hardly\nclaim a sacrifice.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nA spiritual necessity makes the true significance of our claim to\nfreedom: the material aspect is only a secondary consideration. A man\nfacing life is gifted with certain powers of soul and body. It is of\nvital importance to himself and the community that he be given a full\nopportunity to develop his powers, and to fill his place worthily. In a\nfree state he is in the natural environment for full self-development.\nIn an enslaved state it is the reverse. When one country holds another\nin subjection that other suffers materially and morally. It suffers\nmaterially, being a prey for plunder. It suffers morally because of the\ncorrupt influences the bigger nation sets at work to maintain its\nascendancy. Because of this moral corruption national subjection should\nbe resisted, as a state fostering vice; and as in the case of vice, when\nwe understand it we have no option but to fight. With it we can make no\nterms. It is the duty of the rightful power to develop the best in its\nsubjects: it is the practice of the usurping power to develop the\nbasest. Our history affords many examples. When our rulers visit Ireland\nthey bestow favours and titles on the supporters of their regime--but it\nis always seen that the greatest favours and highest titles are not for\nthe honest adherent of their power--but for him who has betrayed the\nnational cause that he entered public life to support. Observe the men\nwho might be respected are passed over for him who ought to be despised.\nIn the corrupt politician there was surely a better nature. A free state\nwould have encouraged and developed it. The usurping state titled him\nfor the use of his baser instincts. Such allurement must mean\ndemoralisation. We are none of us angels, and under the best of\ncircumstances find it hard to do worthy things; when all the temptation\nis to do unworthy things we are demoralised. Most of us, happily, will\nnot give ourselves over to the evil influence, but we lose faith in the\nideal. We are apathetic. We have powers and let them lie fallow. Our\nminds should be restless for noble and beautiful things; they are\nhopeless in a land everywhere confined and wasted. In the destruction\nof spirit entailed lies the deeper significance of our claim to\nfreedom.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nIt is a spiritual appeal, then, that primarily moves us. We are urged to\naction by a beautiful ideal. The motive force must be likewise true and\nbeautiful. It is love of country that inspires us; not hate of the enemy\nand desire for full satisfaction for the past. Pause awhile. We are all\nirritated now and then by some mawkish interpretation of our motive\nforce that makes it seem a weakly thing, invoked to help us in evading\ndifficulties instead of conquering them. Love in any genuine form is\nstrong, vital and warm-blooded. Let it not be confused with any flabby\nsubstitute. Take a parallel case. Should we, because of the mawkishness\nof a \"Princess Novelette,\" deride the beautiful dream that keeps ages\nwondering and joyous, that is occasionally caught up in the words of\ngenius, as when Shelley sings: \"I arise from dreams of thee\"? When\nfoolish people make a sacred thing seem silly, let us at least be sane.\nThe man who cries out for the sacred thing but voices a universal need.\nTo exist, the healthy mind must have beautiful things--the rapture of a\nsong, the music of running water, the glory of the sunset and its\ndreams, and the deeper dreams of the dawn. It is nothing but love of\ncountry that rouses us to make our land full-blooded and beautiful where\nnow she is pallid and wasted. This, too, has its deeper significance.\n\n\nV\n\n\nIf we want full revenge for the past the best way to get it is to remain\nas we are. As we are, Ireland is a menace to England. We need not debate\nthis--she herself admits it by her continued efforts to pacify us in her\nown stupid way. Would she not ignore us if it were quite safe so to do?\nOn the other hand, if we succeed in our efforts to separate from her,\nthe benefit to England will be second only to our own. This might strike\nus strangely, but 'tis true, not the less true because the English\npeople could hardly understand or appreciate it now. The military\ndefence of Ireland is almost farcical. A free Ireland could make it a\nreality--could make it strong against invasion. This would secure\nEngland from attack on our side. No one is, I take it, so foolish as to\nsuppose, being free, we would enter quarrels not our own. We should\nremain neutral. Our common sense would so dictate, our sense of right\nwould so demand. The freedom of a nation carries with it the\nresponsibility that it be no menace to the freedom of another nation.\nThe freedom of all makes for the security of all. If there are tyrannies\non earth one nation cannot set things right, but it is still bound so to\norder its own affairs as to be consistent with universal freedom and\nfriendship. And, again, strange as it may seem, separation from England\nwill alone make for final friendship with England. For no one is so\nfoolish as to wish to be for ever at war with England. It is\nunthinkable. Now the most beautiful motive for freedom is vindicated.\nOur liberty stands to benefit the enemy instead of injuring him. If we\nwant to injure him, we should remain as we are--a menace to him. The\nopportunity will come, but it would hardly make us happy. This but makes\nclear a need of the human race. Freedom rightly considered is not a\nmere setting-up of a number of independent units. It makes for harmony\namong nations and good fellowship on earth.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nI have written carefully that no one may escape the conclusion. It is\nclear and exacting, but in the issue it is beautiful. We fight for\nfreedom--not for the vanity of the world, not to have a fine conceit of\nourselves, not to be as bad--or if we prefer to put it so, as big as our\nneighbours. The inspiration is drawn from a deeper element of our being.\nWe stifle for self-development individually and as a nation. If we don't\ngo forward we must go down. It is a matter of life and death; it is out\nsoul's salvation. If the whole nation stand for it, we are happy; we\nshall be grandly victorious. If only a few are faithful found they must\nbe the more steadfast for being but a few. They stand for an individual\nright that is inalienable. A majority has no right to annul it, and no\npower to destroy it. Tyrannies may persecute, slay, or banish those who\ndefend it; the thing is indestructible. It does not need legions to\nprotect it nor genius to proclaim it, though the poets have always\nglorified it, and the legions will ultimately acknowledge it. One man\nalone may vindicate it, and because that one man has never failed it has\nnever died. Not, indeed, that Ireland has ever been reduced to a single\nloyal son. She never will be. We have not survived the centuries to be\nconquered now. But the profound significance of the struggle, of its\ndeep spiritual appeal, of the imperative need for a motive force as\nlofty and beautiful, of the consciousness that worthy winning of freedom\nis a labour for human brotherhood; the significance of it all is seen in\nthe obligation it imposes on everyone to be true, the majority\nnotwithstanding. He is called to a grave charge who is called to resist\nthe majority. But he will resist, knowing his victory will lead them to\na dearer dream than they had ever known. He will fight for that ideal in\nobscurity, little heeded--in the open, misunderstood; in humble places,\nstill undaunted; in high places, seizing every vantage point, never\ncrushed, never silent, never despairing, cheering a few comrades with\nhope for the morrow. And should these few sink in the struggle the\ngreatness of the ideal is proven in the last hour; as they fall their\ncountry awakens to their dream, and he who inspired and sustained them\nis justified; justified against the whole race, he who once stood alone\nagainst them. In the hour he falls he is the saviour of his race.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nSEPARATION.\n\n\nI\n\n\nWhen we plead for separation from the British Empire as the only basis\non which our country can have full development, and on which we can have\nfinal peace with England, we find in opponents a variety of attitudes,\nbut one attitude invariably absent--a readiness to discuss the question\nfairly and refute it, if this can be done. One man will take it\nsuperficially and heatedly, assuming it to be, according to his party, a\ncensure on Mr. Redmond or Mr. O'Brien. Another will take it\nsuperficially, but, as he thinks, philosophically, and will dismiss it\nwith a smile. With the followers of Mr. Redmond or Mr. O'Brien we can\nhardly argue at present, but we should not lose heart on their account,\nfor these men move _en masse_. One day the consciousness of the country\nwill be electrified with a great deed or a great sacrifice and the\nmultitude will break from lethargy or prejudice and march with a shout\nfor freedom in a true, a brave, and a beautiful sense. We must work and\nprepare for that hour. Then there is our philosophical friend. I expect\nhim to hear my arguments. When I am done, he may not agree with me on\nall points; he may not agree with me on any point; but if he come with\nme, I promise him one thing: this question can no longer be dismissed\nwith a smile.\n\n\nII\n\n\nOur friend's attitude is explained in part by our never having attempted\nto show that a separatist policy is great and wise. We have held it as a\nright, have fought for it, have made sacrifices for it, and vowed to\nhave it at any cost; but we have not found for it a definite place in a\nphilosophy of life. Superficial though he be, our friend has indicated a\nneed: we must take the question philosophically--but in the great and\ntrue sense. It is a truism of philosophy and science that the world is a\nharmonious whole, and that with the increase of knowledge, laws can be\ndiscovered to explain the order and the unity of the universe.\nAccordingly, if we are to justify our own position as separatists, we\nmust show that it will harmonise, unify and develop our national life,\nthat it will restore us to a place among the nations, enable us to\nfulfil a national destiny, a destiny which, through all our struggles,\nwe ever believe is great, and waiting for us. That must be accepted if\nwe are to get at the truth of the matter. A great doctrine that\ndominates our lives, that lays down a rigid course of action, that\ninvolves self-denial, hard struggles, endurance for years, and possibly\ndeath before the goal is reached--any such doctrine must be capable of\nhaving its truth demonstrated by the discovery of principles that govern\nand justify it. Otherwise we cannot yield it our allegiance. Let us to\nthe examination, then; we shall find it soul-stirring and inspiring. We\nmust be prepared, however, to abandon many deeply-rooted prejudices; if\nwe are unwilling, we must abandon the truth. But we will find courage\nin moving forward, and will triumph in the end, by keeping in mind at\nall times that the end of freedom is to realise the salvation and\nhappiness of all peoples, to make the world, and not any selfish corner\nof it, a more beautiful dwelling-place for men.\n\nTreated in this light, the question becomes for all earnest men great\nand arresting. Our friend, who may have smiled, will discuss it readily\nnow. Yet he may not be convinced; he may point his finger over the\nwasted land and contrast its weakness with its opponents' strength, and\nconclude: \"Your philosophy is beautiful, but only a dream.\" He is at\nleast impressed; that is a point gained; and we may induce him to come\nfurther and further till he adopts the great principle we defend.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nHis difficulty now is the common error that a man's work for his country\nshould be based on the assumption that it should bear full effect in his\nown time. This is most certainly false; for a man's life is counted by\nyears, a nation's by centuries, and as work for the nation should be\ndirected to bringing her to full maturity in the coming time, a man must\nbe prepared to labour for an end that may be realised only in another\ngeneration. Consider how he disposes his plans for his individual life.\nHis boyhood and youth are directed that his manhood and prime may be the\ngolden age of life, full-blooded and strong-minded, with clear vision\nand great purpose and high hope, all justified by some definite\nachievement. A man's prime is great as his earlier years have been well\ndirected and concentrated. In the early years the ground is prepared and\nthe seed sown for the splendid period of full development. So it is with\nthe nation: we must prepare the ground and sow the seed for the rich\nripeness of maturity; and bearing in mind that the maturity of the\nnation will come, not in one generation but after many generations, we\nmust be prepared to work in the knowledge that we prepare for a future\nthat only other generations will enjoy. It does not mean that we shall\nwork in loneliness, cheered by no vision of the Promised Land; we may\neven reach the Promised Land in our time, though we cannot explore all\nits great wonders: that will be the delight of ages. But some will never\nsurvive to celebrate the great victory that will establish our\nindependence; yet they shall not go without reward; for to them will\ncome a vision of soul of the future triumph, an exaltation of soul in\nthe consciousness of labouring for that future, an exultation of soul in\nthe knowledge that once its purpose is grasped, no tyranny can destroy\nit, that the destiny of our country is assured, and her dominion will\nendure for ever. Let any argument be raised against one such pioneer--he\nknows this in his heart, and it makes him indomitable, and it is he who\nis proven to be wise in the end. He judges the past clearly, and through\nthe crust of things he discerns the truth in his own time, and puts his\nwork in true relation to the great experience of life, and he is\njustified; for ultimately his work opens out, matures, and bears fruit a\nhundredfold. It may not be in a day, but when his hand falls dead, his\nglory becomes quickly manifest. He has lived a beautiful life, and has\nleft a beautiful field; he has sacrificed the hour to give service for\nall time; he has entered the company of the great, and with them he\nwill be remembered for ever. He is the practical man in the true sense.\nBut there is the other self-styled practical man, who thinks all this\nproceeding foolish, and cries out for the expedient of the hour. Has he\never realised the promise of his proposals? No, he is the most\ninefficient person who has ever walked the earth. But for a saving\nconsideration let him go contemplate the wasted efforts of the\nopportunist in every generation, and the broken projects scattered\nthrough the desert-places of history.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nStill one will look out on the grim things of the hour, and hypnotised\nby the hour will cry: \"See the strength of the British Empire, see our\nwasted state; your hope is vain.\" Let him consider this clear truth:\npeoples endure; empires perish. Where are now the empires of antiquity?\nAnd the empires of to-day have the seed of dissolution in them. But the\npeoples that saw the old empires rise and hold sway are represented now\nin their posterity; the tyrannies they knew are dead and done with. The\npeoples endured; the empires perished; and the nations of the earth of\nthis day will survive in posterity when the empires that now contend for\nmastery are gathered into the dust, with all dead, bad things. We shall\nendure; and the measure of our faith will be the measure of our\nachievement and of the greatness of our future place.\n\n\nV\n\n\nIs it not the dream of earnest men of all parties to have an end to our\nlong war, a peace final and honourable, wherein the soul of the country\ncan rest, revive and express itself; wherein poetry, music and art will\npour out in uninterrupted joy, the joy of deliverance, flashing in\nsplendour and superabundant in volume, evidence of long suppression?\nThis is the dream of us all. But who can hope for this final peace while\nany part of our independence is denied? For, while we are connected in\nany shape with the British Empire the connection implies some\ndependence; this cannot be gainsaid; and who is so foolish as to expect\nthat there will be no collision with the British Parliament, while\nthere is this connection implying dependence on the British Empire? If\nsuch a one exists he goes against all experience and all history. On\neither side of the connection will be two interests--the English\ninterest and the Irish interest, and they will be always at variance.\nConsider how parties within a single state are at variance,\nConservatives and Radicals, in any country in Europe. The proposals of\none are always insidious, dangerous or reactionary, as the case may be,\nin the eyes of the other; and in no case will the parties agree; they\nwill at times even charge each other with treachery; there is never\npeace. It is the rule of party war. Who, then, can hope for peace where\ninto the strife is imported a race difference, where the division is not\nof party but of people? That is in truth the vain hope. And be it borne\nin mind the race difference is not due to our predominating Gaelic\nstock, but to the separate countries and to distinct households in the\nhuman race. If we were all of English extraction the difference would\nstill exist. There is the historic case of the American States; it is\neasy to understand. When a man's children come of age, they set up\nestablishments for themselves, and live independently; they are always\nbound by affection to the parent-home; but if the father try to\ninterfere in the house of a son, and govern it in any detail, there will\nbe strife. It is hardly necessary to labour the point. If all the people\nin this country were of English extraction and England were to claim on\nthat account that there should be a connection with her, and that it\nshould dominate the people here, there would be strife; and it could\nhave but one end--separation. We would, of whatever extraction, have\nlived in natural neighbourliness with England, but she chose to trap and\nharass us, and it will take long generations of goodwill to wipe out\nsome memories. Again, and yet again, let there be no confusion of\nthought as to this final peace; it will never come while there is any\nformal link of dependence. The spirit of our manhood will always flame\nup to resent and resist that link. Separation and equality may restore\nties of friendship; nothing else can: for individual development and\ngeneral goodwill is the lesson of human life. We can be good neighbours,\nbut most dangerous enemies, and in the coming time our hereditary foe\ncannot afford to have us on her flank. The present is promising; the\nfuture is developing for us: we shall reach the goal. Let us see to it\nthat we shall be found worthy.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nThat we be found worthy; let this be borne in mind. For it is true that\nhere only is our great danger. If with our freedom to win, our country\nto open up, our future to develop, we learn no lesson from the mistakes\nof nations and live no better life than the great Powers, we shall have\nmissed a golden opportunity, and shall be one of the failures of\nhistory. So far, on superficial judgment, we have been accounted a\nfailure; though the simple maintenance of our fight for centuries has\nbeen in itself a splendid triumph. But then only would we have failed in\nthe great sense, when we had got our field and wasted it, as the nations\naround us waste theirs to-day. We led Europe once; let us lead again\nwith a beautiful realisation of freedom; and let us beware of the\ndelusion that is abroad, that we seek nothing more than to be free of\nrestraint, as England, France and Germany are to-day; let us beware of\nthe delusion that if we can scramble through anyhow to freedom we can\nthen begin to live worthily, but that in the interval we cannot be too\nparticular. That is the grim shadow that darkens our path, that falls\nbetween us and a beautiful human life, and may drive us to that\ntiger-like existence that makes havoc through the world to-day. Let us\nbeware. I do not say we must settle now all disputes, such as capital,\nlabour, and others, but that everyone should realise a duty to be\nhigh-minded and honourable in action; to regard his fellow not as a man\nto be circumvented, but as a brother to be sympathised with and\nuplifted. Neither kingdom, republic, nor commune can regenerate us; it\nis in the beautiful mind and a great ideal we shall find the charter of\nour freedom; and this is the philosophy that it is most essential to\npreach. We must not ignore it now, for how we work to-day will decide\nhow we shall live to-morrow; and if we are not scrupulous in our\nstruggle, we shall not be pure in our future state, I know there are\nmany who are not indifferent to high-minded action, but who live in\ndread of an exacting code of life, fearing it will harass our movements\nand make success impossible. Let us correct this mistake with the\nreflection that the time is shaping for us. The power of our country is\nstrengthening; the grip of the enemy is slackening; every extension of\nlocal government is a step nearer to independent government; the people\nare not satisfied with an instalment; their capacity for further power\nis developed, and they are equipped with weapons to win it. Even in our\ntime have we made great advance. Let one fact alone make this evident.\nLess than twenty years ago the Irish language was despised; to-day the\nmovement to restore it is strong enough to have it made compulsory in\nthe National University. Can anyone doubt from this sign of the times\nalone that the hour points to freedom, and we are on the road to\nvictory? That we shall win our freedom I have no doubt; that we shall\nuse it well I am not so certain, for see how sadly misused it is abroad\nthrough the world to-day. That should be our final consideration, and we\nshould make this a resolution--our future history shall be more glorious\nthan that of any contemporary state. We shall look for prosperity, no\ndoubt, but let our enthusiasm be for beautiful living; we shall build up\nour strength, yet not for conquest, but as a pledge of brotherhood and a\ndefence for the weaker ones of the earth; we shall take pride in our\ninstitutions, not only as guaranteeing the stability of the state, but\nas securing the happiness of the citizens, and we shall lead Europe\nagain as we led it of old. We shall rouse the world from a wicked dream\nof material greed, of tyrannical power, of corrupt and callous politics\nto the wonder of a regenerated spirit, a new and beautiful dream; and we\nshall establish our state in a true freedom that will endure for ever.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nMORAL FORCE\n\n\nI\n\n\nOne of the great difficulties in discussing any question of importance\nin Ireland is that words have been twisted from their original and true\nsignificance, and if we are to have any effective discussion, we must\nfirst make clear the meaning of our terms. Love of country is quoted to\ntolerate every insidious error of weakness, but if it has any meaning it\nshould make men strong-souled and resolute in every crisis. Men working\nfor the extension of Local Government toast \"Ireland a Nation,\" and\nextol Home Rule as independence; but while there is any restraint on us\nby a neighbouring Power, acknowledged superior, there is dependence to\nthat extent. Straightway, those who fight for independence shift their\nground and plead for absolute independence, but there is no such thing\nas qualified independence; and when we abandon the simple name to men of\nhalf-measures, we prejudice our cause and confuse the issue. Then there\nis the irreconcilable--how is he regarded in the common cry? Always an\nimpossible, wild, foolish person, and we frequently resent the name and\ntry to explain his reasonableness instead of exulting in his strength,\nfor the true irreconcilable is the simple lover of the truth. Among men\nfighting for freedom some start up in their plea for liberty, pointing\nto the prosperity of England, France, and Germany, and when we debate\nthe means by which they won their power, we find our friends draw no\ndistinction between true freedom and licentious living; but it would be\nbetter to be crushed under the wheels of great Powers than to prosper by\ntheir example. And so, through every discussion we must make clear the\nmeaning of our terms. There is one I would treat particularly now. Of\nall the terms glibly flung about in every debate not one has been so\nconfused as Moral Force.\n\n\nII\n\n\nSince the time of O'Connell the cry Moral Force has been used\npersistently to cover up the weakness of every politician who was afraid\nor unwilling to fight for the whole rights of his country, and confusion\nhas been the consequence. I am not going here to raise old debates over\nO'Connell's memory, who, when all is said, was a great man and a\npatriot. Let those of us who read with burning eyes of the shameless\nfiasco of Clontarf recall for full judgment the O'Connell of earlier\nyears, when his unwearied heart was fighting the uphill fight of the\npioneer. But a great need now is to challenge his later influence, which\nis overshadowing us to our undoing. For we find men of this time who\nlack moral courage fighting in the name of moral force, while those who\nare pre-eminent as men of moral fibre are dismissed with a\nsmile--physical-force men. To make clear the confusion we need only to\ndistinguish moral force from moral weakness. There is the distinction.\nCall it what we will, moral courage, moral strength, moral force; we all\nrecognise that great virtue of mind and heart that keeps a man\nunconquerable above every power of brute strength. I call it moral\nforce, which is a good name, and I make the definition: a man of moral\nforce is he who, seeing a thing to be right and essential and claiming\nhis allegiance, stands for it as for the truth, unheeding any\nconsequence. It is not that he is a wild person, utterly reckless of all\nmad possibilities, filled with a madder hope, and indifferent to any\nhavoc that may ensue. No, but it is a first principle of his, that a\ntrue thing is a good thing, and from a good thing rightly pursued can\nfollow no bad consequence. And he faces every possible development with\nconscience at rest--it may be with trepidation for his own courage in\nsome great ordeal, but for the nobility of the cause and the beauty of\nthe result that must ensue, always with serene faith. And soon the\ntrepidation for himself passes, for a great cause always makes great\nmen, and many who set out in hesitation die heroes. This it is that\nexplains the strange and wonderful buoyancy of men, standing for great\nideals, so little understood of others of weaker mould. The soldier of\nfreedom knows he is forward in the battle of Truth, he knows his\nvictory will make for a world beautiful, that if he must inflict or\nendure pain, it is for the regeneration of those who suffer, the\nemancipation of those in chains, the exaltation of those who die, and\nthe security and happiness of generations yet unborn. For the strength\nthat will support a man through every phase of this struggle a strong\nand courageous mind is the primary need--in a word, Moral Force. A man\nwho will be brave only if tramping with a legion will fail in courage if\ncalled to stand in the breach alone. And it must be clear to all that\ntill Ireland can again summon her banded armies there will be abundant\nneed for men who will stand the single test. 'Tis the bravest test, the\nnoblest test, and 'tis the test that offers the surest and greatest\nvictory. For one armed man cannot resist a multitude, nor one army\nconquer countless legions; but not all the armies of all the Empires of\nearth can crush the spirit of one true man. And that one man will\nprevail.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nBut so much have we felt the need of resisting every slavish tendency\nthat found refuge under the name of Moral Force, that those of us who\nwould vindicate our manhood cried wildly out again for the physical\ntest; and we cried it long and repeatedly the more we smarted under the\nmeanness of retrograde times. But the time is again inspiring, and the\nair must now be cleared. We have set up for the final test of the man of\nunconquerable spirit that test which is the first and last argument of\ntyranny--recourse to brute strength. We have surrounded with fictitious\nglory the carnage of the battlefields; we have shouted of wading through\nour enemies' blood, as if bloody fields were beautiful; we have been\ncontemptuous of peace, as if every war were exhilarating; but, \"War is\nhell,\" said a famous general in the field. This, of course, is\nexaggeration, but there is a grim element of truth in the warning that\nmust be kept in mind at all times. If one among us still would resent\nbeing asked to forego what he thinks a rightful need of vengeance, let\nhim look into himself. Let him consider his feelings on the death of\nsome notorious traitor or criminal; not satisfaction, but awe, is the\nuppermost feeling in his heart. Death sobers us all. But away from death\nthis may be unconvincing; and one may still shout of the glory of\nfloating the ship of freedom in the blood of the enemy. I give him\npause. He may still correct his philosophy in view of the horror of a\nstreet accident or the brutality of a prize-fight.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nBut war must be faced and blood must be shed, not gleefully, but as a\nterrible necessity, because there are moral horrors worse than any\nphysical horror, because freedom is indispensable for a soul erect, and\nfreedom must be had at any cost of suffering; the soul is greater than\nthe body. This is the justification of war. If hesitating to undertake\nit means the overthrow of liberty possessed, or the lying passive in\nslavery already accomplished, then it is the duty of every man to fight\nif he is standing, or revolt if he is down. And he must make no peace\ntill freedom is assured, for the moral plague that eats up a people\nwhose independence is lost is more calamitous than any physical rending\nof limb from limb. The body is a passing phase; the spirit is immortal;\nand the degradation of that immortal part of man is the great tragedy of\nlife. Consider all the mean things and debasing tendencies that wither\nup a people in a state of slavery. There are the bribes of those in\npower to maintain their ascendancy, the barter of every principle by\ntime-servers; the corruption of public life and the apathy of private\nlife; the hard struggle of those of high ideals, the conflict with all\nignoble practices, the wearing down of patience, and in the end the\nquiet abandoning of the flag once bravely flourished; then the increased\nnumbers of the apathetic and the general gloom, depression, and\ndespair--everywhere a land decaying. Viciousness, meanness, cowardice,\nintolerance, every bad thing arises like a weed in the night and blights\nthe land where freedom is dead; and the aspect of that land and the soul\nof that people become spectacles of disgust, revolting and terrible,\nterrible for the high things degraded and the great destinies\nimperilled. It would be less terrible if an earthquake split the land in\ntwo, and sank it into the ocean. To avert the moral plague of slavery\nmen fly to arms, notwithstanding the physical consequence, and those who\nset more count by the physical consequences cannot by that avert them,\nfor the moral disease is followed by physical wreck--if delayed still\ninevitable. So, physical force is justified, not _per se_, but as an\nexpression of moral force; where it is unsupported by the higher\nprinciple it is evil incarnate. The true antithesis is not between moral\nforce and physical force, but between moral force and moral weakness.\nThat is the fundamental distinction being ignored on all sides. When the\ntime demands and the occasion offers, it is imperative to have recourse\nto arms, but in that terrible crisis we must preserve our balance. If we\nleap forward for our enemies' blood, glorifying brute force, we set up\nthe standard of the tyrant and heap up infamy for ourselves; on the\nother hand, if we hesitate to take the stern action demanded, we fail in\nstrength of soul, and let slip the dogs of war to every extreme of\nweakness and wildness, to create depravity and horror that will\nultimately destroy us. A true soldier of freedom will not hesitate to\nstrike vigorously and strike home, knowing that on his resolution will\ndepend the restoration and defence of liberty. But he will always\nremember that restraint is the great attribute that separates man from\nbeast, that retaliation is the vicious resource of the tyrant and the\nslave; that magnanimity is the splendour of manhood; and he will\nremember that he strikes not at his enemy's life, but at his misdeed,\nthat in destroying the misdeed, he makes not only for his own freedom,\nbut even for his enemy's regeneration. This may be for most of us\nperhaps too great a dream. But for him who reads into the heart of the\nquestion and for the true shaping of his course it will stand; he will\nnever forget, even in the thickest fight, that the enemy of to-day and\nyesterday may be the genuine comrade of to-morrow.\n\n\nV\n\n\nIf it is imperative that we should fix unalterably our guiding\nprinciples before we are plunged unprepared into the fight, it is even\nmore urgent we should clear the mind to the truth now, for we have\nfallen into the dangerous habit of deferring important questions on the\nplea that the time is not ripe. In a word, we lack moral strength; and\nso, that virtue that is to safeguard us in time of war is the great\nvirtue that will redeem us in time of servility. It need not be further\nlaboured that in a state enslaved every mean thing flourishes. The\nadmission of it makes clear that in such a state it is more important\nthat every evil be resisted. In a normal condition of liberty many\ntemporary evils may arise; yet they are not dangerous--in the glow of a\npeople's freedom they waste and die as disease dies in the sunlight. But\nwhere independence is suppressed and a people degenerate, a little evil\nis in an atmosphere to grow, and it grows and expands; and evils\nmultiply and destroy. That is why men of high spirit working to\nregenerate a fallen people must be more insistent to watch every little\ndefect and weak tendency that in a braver time would leave the soul\nunruffled. That is why every difficulty, once it becomes evident, is\nripe for settlement. To evade the issue is to invite disaster.\nResolution alone will save us in our many dangers. But a plea for policy\nwill be raised to evade a particular and urgent question: \"People won't\nunite on it\"; that's one cry. \"Ignorant people will be led astray\";\nthat's another cry. There is always some excuse ready for evasion. The\ndifficulty is, that every party likes some part of the truth; no party\nlikes it all; but we must have it all, every line of it. We want no\npopular editions and no philosophic selections--the truth, the whole\ntruth, and nothing but the truth. This must be the rule for everything\nconcerning which a man has a public duty and ought to have a public\nopinion. There is a dangerous tendency gaining ground of slurring over\nvital things because the settlement of them involves great difficulty,\nand may involve great danger; but whatever the issue is we must face it.\nIt is a step forward to bring men together on points of agreement, but\nmen come thus together not without a certain amount of suspicion. In a\nfight for freedom that latent suspicion would become a mastering fear to\nseize and destroy us. We must allay it now. We must lead men to discuss\npoints of difference with respect, forbearance, and courage, to find a\nconsistent way of life for all that will inspire confidence in all. At\npresent we inspire confidence in no one; it would be fatal to hide the\nfact. This is a necessary step to bringing matters to a head. We cannot\nhope to succeed all at once, but we must keep the great aim in view.\nThere will be objections on all sides; from the _blas\u00e9_ man of the\nworld, concerned only for his comfort, the mean man of business\nconcerned only for his profits, the man of policy always looking for a\nmiddle way, a certain type of religious pessimist who always spies\ndanger in every proposal, and many others. We need not consider the\ncomfort of the first nor the selfishness of the second; but the third\nand fourth require a word. The man of policy offers me his judgment\ninstead of a clear consideration of the truth. 'Tis he who says: \"You\nand I can discuss certain things privately. We are educated; we\nunderstand. Ignorant people can't understand, and you only make mischief\nin supposing it. It's not wise.\" To him I reply: \"You are afraid to\nspeak the whole truth; I am afraid to hide it. You are filled with the\ndanger to ignorant people of having out everything; I am filled with the\ndanger to _you_ of suppressing anything. I do not propose to you that\nyou can with the whole truth make ignorant people profound, but I say\nyou must have the whole truth out for your own salvation.\" Here is the\ndanger: we see life within certain limitations, and cannot see the\npossibly infinite significance of something we would put by. It is of\ngrave importance that we see it rightly, and in the difficulties of the\ncase our only safe course is to take the evidence life offers without\nprejudice and without fear, and write it down. When the matter is grave,\nlet it be taken with all the mature deliberation and care its gravity\ndemands, but once the evidence is clearly seen, let us for our salvation\nwrite it down. For any man to set his petty judgment above the need for\nsetting down the truth is madness; and I refuse to do it. There is our\nreligious pessimist to consider. To him I say I take religion more\nseriously. I take it not to evade the problems of life, but to solve\nthem. When I tell him to have no fear, this is not my indifference to\nthe issue, but a tribute to the faith that is in me. Let us be careful\nto do the right thing; then fear is inconsistent with faith. Nor can I\nunderstand the other attitude. Two thousand years after the preaching of\nthe Sermon on the Mount we are to go about whispering to one another\nwhat is wise.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nTo conclude: Now, and in every phase of the coming struggle, the strong\nmind is a greater need than the strong hand. We must be passionate, but\nthe mind must guide and govern our passion. In the aberrations of the\nweak mind decrying resistance, let us not lose our balance and defy\nbrute strength. At a later stage we must consider the ethics of\nresistance to the Civil Power; the significance of what is written now\nwill be more apparent then. Let the cultivation of a brave, high spirit\nbe our great task; it will make of each man's soul an unassailable\nfortress. Armies may fail, but it resists for ever. The body it informs\nmay be crushed; the spirit in passing breathes on other souls, and other\nhearts are fired to action, and the fight goes on to victory. To the man\nwhose mind is true and resolute ultimate victory is assured. No\nsophistry can sap his resistance; no weakness can tempt him to savage\nreprisals. He will neither abandon his heritage nor poison his nature.\nAnd in every crisis he is steadfast, in every issue justified. Rejoice,\nthen good comrades; our souls are still our own. Through the coldness\nand depression of the time there has lightened a flash of the old fire;\nthe old enthusiasm, warm and passionate, is again stirring us; we are\nforward to uphold our country's right, to fight for her liberty, and to\njustify our own generation. We shall conquer. Let the enemy count his\ndreadnoughts and number off his legions--where are now the legions of\nRome and Carthage? And the Spirit of Freedom they challenged is alive\nand animating the young nations to-day. Hold we our heads high, then,\nand we shall bear our flag bravely through every fight. Persistent,\nconsistent, straightforward and fearless, so shall we discipline the\nsoul to great deeds, and make it indomitable. In the indomitable soul\nlies the assurance of our ultimate victory.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nBROTHERS AND ENEMIES\n\n\nI\n\n\nOur enemies are brothers from whom we are estranged. Here is the\nfundamental truth that explains and justifies our hope of\nre-establishing a real patriotism among all parties in Ireland, and a\nfinal peace with our ancient enemy of England. It is the view of\nprejudice that makes of the various sections of our people hopelessly\nhostile divisions, and raises up a barrier of hate between Ireland and\nEngland that can never be surmounted. If Ireland is to be regenerated,\nwe must have internal unity; if the world is to be regenerated, we must\nhave world-wide unity--not of government, but of brotherhood. To this\ngreat end every individual, every nation has a duty; and that the end\nmay not be missed we must continually turn for the correction of our\nphilosophy to reflecting on the common origin of the human race, on the\nbeauty of the world that is the heritage of all, our common hopes and\nfears, and in the greatest sense the mutual interests of the peoples of\nthe earth. If, unheeding this, any people make their part of the earth\nugly with acts of tyranny and baseness, they threaten the security of\nall; if unconscious of it, a people always high-spirited are plunged\ninto war with a neighbour, now a foe, and yet fight, as their nature\ncompels them, bravely and magnanimously, they but drive their enemy back\nto the field of a purer life, and, perhaps, to the realisation of a more\nbeautiful existence, a dream to which his stagnant soul steeped in\nugliness could never rise.\n\n\nII\n\n\nOn the road to freedom every alliance will be sternly tried. Internal\nfriendship will not be made in a day, nor external friendship for many a\nday, and there will be how many temptations to hold it all a delusion\nand scatter the few still standing loyally to the flag. We must\nunderstand, then, the bond that holds us together on the line of march,\nand in the teeth of every opposition. Nothing but a genuine bond of\nbrotherhood can so unite men, but we hardly seem to realise its truth.\nWhen a deep and ardent patriotism requires men of different creeds to\ncome together frankly and in a spirit of comradeship, and when the most\nearnest of all the creeds do so, others who are colder and less earnest\nregard this union as a somewhat suspicious alliance; and, if they join\nin, do so reluctantly. Others come not at all; these think our friends\nlabour in a delusion, that it needs but an occasion to start an old fear\nand drive them apart, to attack one another with ancient bitterness\nfired with fresh venom. We must combat that idea. Let us consider the\nattitude to one another of three units of the band, who represent the\nbest of the company and should be typical of the whole; one who is a\nCatholic, one who is a Protestant, and one who may happen to be neither.\nThe complete philosophy of any one of the three may not be accepted by\nthe other two; the horizon of his hopes may be more or less distant, but\nthat complete philosophy stretches beyond the limit of the sphere,\nwithin which they are drawn together to mutual understanding and\ncomradeship, moved by a common hope, a brave purpose and a beautiful\ndream. The significance of their work may be deeper for one than for\nanother, the origin of the dream and its ultimate aim may be points not\nheld in common; but the beautiful tangible thing that they all now fight\nfor, the purer public and private life, the more honourable dealings\nbetween men, the higher ideals for the community and the nation, the\ngrander forbearance, courage and freedom, in all these they are at one.\nThe instinctive recognition of an attack on the ideal is alive and\nvigilant in all three. The sympathy that binds them is ardent, deep and\nenduring. Observe them come together. Note the warm hand grasp, the\ndrawn face of one, a hard-worker; of another, the eye anxious for a\nbrother hard pressed; of the third, the eye glistening for the ideal\ntriumphant; of all the intimate confidence, the mutual encouragement and\nself-sacrifice, never a note of despair, but always the exultation of\nthe Great Fight, and the promise of a great victory. This is a finer\ncompany than a mere casual alliance; yet it makes the uninspired pause,\nwondering and questioning. These men are earnest men of different\ncreeds; still they are as intimately bound to one another as if they\nknelt at the one altar. In the narrow view the creeds should be at one\nanother's throats; here they are marching shoulder to shoulder. How is\nthis? And the one whose creed is the most exacting could, perhaps, give\nthe best reply. He would reply that within the sphere in which they work\ntogether the true thing that unites them can be done only the one right\nway; that instinctively seizing this right way they come together; that\nthis is the line of advance to wider and deeper things that are his\ninspiration and his life; that if a comrade is roused to action by the\nnearer task, and labours bravely and rightly for it, he is on the road\nto widening vistas in his dream that now he may not see. That is what he\nwould say whose vision of life is the widest. All objectors he may not\nsatisfy. That what is life to him may leave his comrade cold is a\ndifficulty; but against the difficulty stand the depth and reality of\ntheir comradeship, proven by mutual sacrifice, endurance, and faith, and\nhe never doubts that their bond union will sometime prove to have a\nwise and beautiful meaning in the Annals of God.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nBut the men of different creeds who stand firmly and loyally together\nare a minority. We are faced with the great difficulty of uniting as a\nwhole North and South; and we are faced with the grim fact that many\nwhom we desire to unite are angrily repudiating a like desire, that many\nare sarcastically noting this, that many are coldly refusing to believe;\nwhile through it all the most bitter are emphasising enmity and\nglorifying it. All these unbelievers keep insisting North and South are\nnatural enemies and must so remain. The situation is further embittered\nby acts of enmity being practised by both sides to the extreme\nprovocation of the faithful few. Their forbearance will be sorely tried,\nand this is the final test of men. By those who cling to prejudice and\nabandon self-restraint, extol enmity, and always proceed to the further\nstep--the plea to wipe the enemy out: the counter plea for forbearance\nis always scorned as the enervating gospel of weakness and despair.\nThough we like to call ourselves Christian, we have no desire for--nay\neven make a jest of--that outstanding Christian virtue; yet men not held\nby Christian dogma have joyously surrendered to the sublimity of that\ndivine idea. Hear Shelley speak: \"What nation has the example of the\ndesolation of Attica by Mardonius and Xerxes, or the extinction of the\nPersian Empire by Alexander of Macedon restrained from outrage? Was not\nthe pretext for this latter system of spoliation derived immediately\nfrom the former? Had revenge in this instance any other effect than to\nincrease, instead of diminishing, the mass of malice and evil already\nexisting in the world? The emptiness and folly of retaliation are\napparent from every example which can be brought forward.\" Shelley\nwrites much further on retaliation, which he denounces as \"futile\nsuperstition.\" Simple violence repels every high and generous thinker.\nHear one other, Mazzini: \"What we have to do is not to establish a new\norder of things by violence. An order of things so established is always\ntyrannical even when it is better than the old.\" Let us bear this in\nmind when there is an act of aggression on either side of the Boyne.\nThere will not be wanting on the other side a cry for retaliation and\n\"a lesson.\" We shall receive every provocation to give up and\nacknowledge ancient bitterness, but then is the time to stand firm, then\nwe shall need to practise the divine forbearance that is the secret of\nstrength.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nBut with only a minority standing to the flag we cry out for some hope\nof final success. Men will not fight without result for ever; they ask\nfor some sign of progress, some gleam of the light of victory. Happily,\nsearching the skies, our eyes can have their reward. We shall, no doubt,\nsee, outstanding, dark evidence of old animosity; we shall hear fierce\nwar-cries and see raging crowds, but the crowds are less numerous, and\nthe wrath has lost its sting. Men who raged twenty years ago rage now,\nbut their fury is less real; and young men growing up around them, quite\nindifferent to the ideal, are also indifferent to the counter cries:\nthey are passive, unimpressed by either side. Rightly approached, they\nmay understand and feel the glow of a fine enthusiasm; they are numbered\nby prejudice, they will become warm, active and daring under an\ninspiring appeal. Remember, and have done with despair. Think how you\nand I found our path step by step of the way: political life was full of\nconventions that suited our fathers' time, but have faded in the light\nof our day. We found these conventions unreal and put them by. This was\nno reflection on our fathers; what they fought for truly is our\nheritage, and we pay them a tribute in offering it in turn our loyalty\ninspired by their devotion. But their errors we must rectify; what they\nleft undone we must take up and fulfil. That is the task of every\ngeneration, to take up the uncompleted work of the former one, and hand\non to their successors an achievement and a heritage. Youth recognises\nthis instinctively, and every generation will take a step in advance of\nits predecessor, putting by its prejudices and developing its truth.\nEvery individual may know this from his own experience, and from it he\nknows that those who are now voicing old bitter cries are ageing, and\nwill soon pass and leave no successors. Not that prejudice will die for\never. Each new day will have its own, but that which is now dividing and\nhampering us will pass. Let the memory of its bitterness be an\nincentive to checking new animosities and keeping the future safe; but\nin the present let us grasp and keep in our mind that the barrier that\nsundered our nation must crumble, if only we have faith and persist,\nundeterred by old bitter cries, for they are dying cries, undepressed by\nmillions apathetic, for it is the great recurring sign of the ideal,\nthat one hour its light will flash through quivering multitudes, and\nmillions will have vision and rouse to regenerate the land.\n\n\nV\n\n\nHappily, it is nothing new to plead for brotherhood among Irishmen now;\nunhappily, it is not so generally admitted, nor even recognised, that\nthe same reason that exists for restoring friendly relations among\nIrishmen, exists for the re-establishing of friendship with any\noutsider--England or another--with whom now or in the future we may be\nat war. Friendliness between neighbours is one of the natural things of\nlife. In the case of individuals how beautifully it shows between two\ndwellers in the same street or townland. They rejoice together in\nprosperity; give mutual aid in adversity; in the ordinary daily round\nwork together in a spirit of comradeship; at all times they find a bond\nof unity in their mutual interests. Consider, then, the sundering of\ntheir friendship by some act of evil on either side. The old friendship\nis turned to hate. Now the proximity that gave intimate pleasure to\ntheir comradeship gives as keen an edge to their enmity; they meet one\nanother, cross one another, harass one another at every point. The\nbitterness that is such a poison to life must be revolting to their best\ninstincts; deep in their hearts must be a yearning for the casting out\nof hate and the return of old comradeship. Still the estranged brothers\nare at daggers drawn. Sometimes the evil done is so great and the\nbitterness so keen that the old spirit can apparently never be restored;\nbut while there is any hope whatever the true heart will keep it alive\ndeep down, for it must be cherished and kept in mind if the whole beauty\nof life is to be renewed and preserved for ever. It is so with nations\nas with individuals. Once this is recognised we must be on guard against\na new error, which is an old error in new form, the taking of means for\nend. The end of general peace is to give all nations freedom in\nessentials, to realise the deeper purpose, possibilities, fulness and\nbeauty of life; it is not to have a peace at any price, peace with a\ncertain surrender, the meaner peace that is akin to slavery. No, its\nmessage is to guard one nation from excess that has plunged another into\nevil, to leave the way open to a final peace, not base but honourable;\nit is to preserve the divine balance of the soul. It may be further\nurged that we are engaged in a great fight; that to try to rouse in men\nthe more generous instincts will but weaken their hands by removing a\ncertain driving bitterness that gives strength to their fight. Whatever\nit removes it will not be their strength. In a war admittedly between\nbrothers, a civil war, where different conceptions of duty force men\nasunder, father is up against son, and brother against brother; yet they\nare not weakened in their contest by ties of blood and the deeper-lying\nharmony of things that in happier times prevail to the exclusion of\nbitterness and hate. When, therefore, you teach a man his enemy is in a\ndeep sense his brother, you do not draw him from the fight, but you give\nhim a new conception of the goal to win and with a great dream inspire\nhim to persevere and reach the goal.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nIf, then, beyond individual and national freedom there is this great\ndream still to be striven for, let us not decry it as something too\nsublime for earth. It must be our guiding star to lead us rightly as far\nas we may go. We can travel rightly that part of the road we now tread\non only by shaping it true to the great end that ought to inspire us\nall. We shall have many temptations to swerve aside, but the power of\nmind that keeps our position clear and firm will react against every\ndestroying influence. In the first stage of the fight for internal\nunity, when blind bigotry is furiously insisting that we but plan an\ninsidious scheme for the oppression of a minority, our firmness will\nsave us till our conception of the end grow on that minority and\nconvince all of our earnestness. Then the dream will inspire them, the\nflag will claim them, and the first stage in the fight will be won. When\ninternal unity is accomplished, we are within reach of freedom. Yes, but\ncries an objector, \"Why plead for friendship with England, who will have\npeace only on condition of her supremacy?\" And an answer is needed. If\nit takes two to make a fight, it also most certainly takes two to make a\npeace, unless one accepts the position of serf and surrenders. But this\nwe do not fear; we can compel our freedom and we are confident of\nvictory. There is still the step to friendship. Many will be baffled by\nthe difficulty, that while we must keep alive our generous instincts, we\nmust be stern and resolute in the fight; while we desire peace we must\nprosecute war; while we long for comradeship we must be breaking up\ndangerous alliances: literary, political, trades and social unions\nformed with England while she is asserting her supremacy must be broken\nup till they can be reformed on a basis of independence, equality and\nuniversal freedom. While we are prosecuting these vigorous measures it\nmay not seem the way to final friendship; but we must persist;\nindependence is first indispensable. Here again, however, while\ninsisting among our own ranks on our conception of the end, it will grow\non the mind of the enemy. They may put it by at first as a delusion or a\nsnare, but one intimate moment will come when it will light up for them,\nand a new era is begun. In such a moment is evil abandoned, hate buried\nand friendship reborn. There is one honest fear that our independence\nwould threaten their security: it will yet be replaced by the conviction\nthat there is a surer safeguard in our freedom than in our suppression;\nthe light will break through the clouds of suspicion and a star of stars\nwill glorify the earth. For this end our enemy must have an ideal as\nhigh as our own; if thus an objector, he is right. But if in the gross\nmaterialism and greed of empire that is now the ruling passion with the\nenemy there is apparently little hope of a transformation that will make\nthem spiritual, high-minded and generous, we must not abandon our ideal:\nwhile the meanness and tyranny of contemporary England stand forward\nagainst our argument and leave our reasoning cold, we can find a more\nsubtle appeal in spirit, such an appeal as comes to us in a play of\nShakespeare's, a song of Shelley's, or a picture of Turner's. From the\nheart of the enemy Genius cries, bearing witness to our common humanity,\nand the yearning for such high comradeship is alive, and the dream\nsurvives to light us on the forward path. We must travel that path\nrightly. We can so travel whatever the enemy's mind. More difficult it\nwill be, but it can be done. That is the great significance and\njustification of Nationalism: it is the unanswerable argument to\ncosmopolitanism. If the greatness and beauty of life that ought to be\nthe dream of all nations is denied by all but one, that one may keep\nalive the dream within her own frontier till its fascination will arrest\nand inspire the world. If this ultimate dream is still floating far off,\nin its pursuit there is for us achievement on achievement, and each\nbrave thing done is in itself a beauty and a joy for ever. For the good\nfighter there is always fine recompense; a clear mind, warm blood, quick\nimagination, grasp of life and joy in action, and at the end of day\nalways an eminence won. Yes, and from the height of that eminence will\ncome ringing down to the last doubter a last word: we may reach the\nmountaintops in aspiring to the stars.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE SECRET OF STRENGTH\n\n\nI\n\n\nTo win our freedom we must be strong. But what is the secret of\nstrength? It is fundamental to the whole question to understand this\nrightly, and, once grasped, make it the mainstay of individual\nexistence, which is the foundation of national life. So much has the\nbodily power of over-riding minorities been made the criterion of\nabsolute power, that to make clear the truth requires patience, insight,\nand a little mental study. But the end is a great end. It is to\nreconnoitre the most important battlefield, to discover the dispositions\nof the enemy, to measure our own resources and forge our strength link\nby link till we put on the armour of invincibility.\n\n\nII\n\n\nWe have to grasp a distinction, knowledge of which is essential to\ndiscerning true strength. It can be clearly seen in the contrast between\ntwo certain fighting forces; first, a well-organised army, capably led,\nmarching forward full of hope and buoyancy; second, a remnant of that\narmy after disaster, a mere handful, not swept like their comrades in\npanic, but with souls set to fight a forlorn hope. Let us study the two:\nin the contrast we shall learn the secret. The courage of the\nwell-organised army is not of so fine a quality as that nerving the few\nto fight to the last gasp. Consider first the army. What is its value as\na force? Its discipline, its consolidation, the absolute obedience of\nits units to its officers, with the resulting unity of the whole; added\nto this is the sense of security in numbers, buoyancy of marching in a\ncompact body, confidence in capable chiefs--all these factors go to the\nmaking of the courage and strength of the army. It is because their\ncombination makes for the reliability of the force that discipline is\nso much valued and enforced, even to the point of death. Let us keep\nthis in our mind, that their strength lies in their numbers,\nconcentration, unity, reliance on one another and on their chiefs. A\nsudden disaster overtakes that army--the death of a great general, the\nmiscarriage of some plan, a surprise attack, any of the chances of war,\nand the strength of the army is pierced, the discipline shaken, the\nsense of security gone. There is an instinctive movement to retreat; the\nhabit of discipline keeps it orderly at first; the fear grows; all\nprecaution and restraint are thrown aside--the retreat is a rout, the\narmy a rabble, the end debacle. External discipline in giving them its\nstrength left them without individual resource; internal discipline was\nignored. When their combined strength was gone there was individual\nhelplessness and panic. Consider, now, a remnant of that army, the\nmembers of which have the courage of the finer quality, individually\nresolute and set on resistance, clearly seeing at once all the possible\nconsequences of their action, yet with that higher quality of soul\naccepting them without hesitation, pledging all human hopes for one\nlast great hope of snatching victory from defeat, or, if not to save a\nlost battle, to check an advancing host, rally flying forces, and redeem\na campaign. This is the heroic quality. In a crisis, the mind possessed\nof it does not wait for instructions or to reason a conclusion. It sees\ndefinite things, and swift as thought decides. There are flying legions,\na flag down, a conquering army, and flight or death--to all eyes these\nare apparent; but to a brave company between that flight and death there\nis a gleam of hope, of victory, and for that forlorn hope flight is put\nby with the acceptance of death in the alternative if they fail. That is\nthe quality to redeem us. Because it is witnessed so often in our\nhistory we are going to win; not for our prowess in more fortunate war\non an even field or with the flowing tide, not for many victories in\nmany lands, but for the sacred places in this our brave land that are\nmemorable for fights that registered the land unconquerable. Why a last\nstand and a sacrifice are more inspiring than a great victory is one of\nthe hidden things; but the truth stands: for thinking of them our\nspirits re-kindle, our courage re-awakens, and we stiffen our backs for\nanother battle.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nWe have, then, to develop individual patience, courage, and resolution.\nOnce this is borne in mind our work begins. In places there is a\ndangerous idea that sometime in the future we may be called on to strike\na blow for freedom, but in the meantime there is little to do but watch\nand wait. This is a fatal error; we have to forge our strength in the\ninterval. There is a further mistake that our national work is something\napart, that social, business, religious and other concerns have no\nrelation to it, and consequently we set apart a few hours of our leisure\nfor national work, and go about our day as if no nation existed. But the\nmiddle of the day has a natural connection with the beginning of the day\nand the end of the day, and in whatever sphere a man finds himself, his\nacts must be in relation to and consistent with every other sphere. He\nwill be the best patriot and the best soldier who is the best friend and\nthe best citizen. One cannot be an honest man in one sphere and a\nrascal in another; and since a citizen to fulfil his duty to his country\nmust be honourable and zealous, he must develop the underlying virtues\nin private life. He must strengthen the individual character, and to do\nthis he must deal with many things seemingly remote and inconsequential\nfrom a national point of view. Everything that crosses a man's path in\nhis day's round of little or great moment requires of him an attitude\ntowards it, and the conscious or unconscious shaping of his attitude is\ndetermining how he will proceed in other spheres not now in view.\nSuppose the case of a man in business or social life. He has to work\nwith others in a day's routine or fill up with them hours of leisure\nthey enjoy together. Consider to what accompaniment the work is often\ndone and with what manner of conversation the leisure is often filled.\nIn a day's routine, where men work together, harmonious relations are\nnecessary; yet what bickerings, contentions, animosities fill many a day\nover points never worth a thought. You will see two men squabble like\ncats for the veriest trifle, and then go through days like children,\nwithout a word. You will see something similar in social life among men\nand women equally--petty jealousies, personalities, slanderings, mean\nlittle stories of no great consequence in themselves, except in the\nconverse sense of showing how small and contemptible everything and\neveryone concerned is. A keen eye notes with some depression the absence\nfrom both spheres of a fine manliness, a generous conception of things,\na large outlook, that prevents a squabble with a smile, and because of a\nconsciousness of the need for determination in a great fight for a\nprinciple, holds in true contempt the trivialities of an hour. For in\nall the mean little bickerings of life there is involved not a\nprinciple, but a petty pride. One has to note these things and decide a\nline of action. In the abstract the right course seems quite natural and\neasy, but in fact it is not so. A man finds another act towards him with\nunconscious impudence or arrogance, and at once flies into a rage; there\nis a fierce wrangle, and at the end he finds no purpose served, for\nnothing was at stake. He has lost his temper for nothing. In his heat he\nmay tell you \"he wouldn't let so-and-so do so-and-so,\" but on the same\nprinciple he should hold a street-argument with every fish-wife who\nmight call him a name. He may tell you \"he will make so-and-so respect\nhim,\" but he offends his own self-respect if he cannot consider some\nthings beneath him. One must have a sense of proportion and not elevate\nevery little act of impudence into a challenge of life to be fought over\nas for life and death. It may be corrected with a little humour or a\nlittle disdain, but always with sympathy for the narrow mind whose view\nof life cannot reach beyond these petty things. Yet, to repeat, it is\nnot easy. An irritable temper will be on fire before reason can check\nit; the process of correction will prove uncomfortable--the reasons will\nbe there, but the feelings in revolt. Still, little by little, it is\nbrought under, and in the end the nasty little irritability is killed\njust like a troublesome nerve; and, by and by, what once provoked a\nfierce rage becomes a subject for humorous reflection. Let no one fear\nwe kill the nerve for the great Battle of Life; this we but strengthen\nand make constant. Every act of personal discipline is contributing to a\nsubconscious reservoir whence our nobler energies are supplied for\never. And so, little things lead to great; and in an office wrangle or a\nsocial squabble there is need for developing those very qualities of\njudgment, courage, and patience which equip a man for the trials of the\nbattlefield or the ruling of the state.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nWe have considered the individual in business and social life. Let us\nnow follow him into a political assembly. We find the same conditions\nprevail. Again, men fight bitterly but most frequently for nothing worth\na fight; and again those rightly judging the situation must resolve not\nto be tempted into a wrangle even if their restraint be called by\nanother name. What in a political assembly is often the first thing to\nnote? We begin by the assumption, \"this is a practical body of men,\" the\nwords invariably used to cover the putting by of some great principle\nthat we ought all endorse and uphold. But, first, by one of the many\nspecious reasons now approved, we put the principle by, and before long\nwe are at one another's throats about things involving no principle. It\nis not necessary to particularise. Note any meeting for the same general\nconditions: a chairman, indecisive, explaining rules of order which he\nlacks the grit to apply; members ignoring the chair and talking at one\nanother; others calling to order or talking out of time or away from the\npoint; one unconsciously showing the futility of the whole business by\nasking occasionally what is before the chair, or what the purpose of the\nmeeting. This picture is familiar to us all, and curiously we seem to\ntake it always as the particular freak of a particular time or locality;\nbut it is nothing of the kind. It is the natural and logical result of\nputting by principle and trying to live away from it. Yet, that is what\nwe are doing every day. It means we lack collectively the courage to\npursue a thing to its logical conclusion and fight for the truth\nrealised. If we are to be otherwise as a body, it will only be by\npersonal discipline training for the wider and greater field. We must\nget a proper conception of the great cause we stand for, its magnitude\nand majesty, and that to be worthy of its service we must have a\nstandard above reproach, have an end of petty proposals and underhand\ndoings, be of brave front, resolute heart, and honourable intent. We\nmust all understand this each in his own mind and shape his actions,\neach to be found faithful in the test. In fine, if in private life there\nis need for developing the great virtues requisite for public service,\neven more is it necessary in public life to develop the courage,\npatience and wisdom of the soldier and the statesman.\n\n\nV\n\n\nA concrete case will give a clearer grasp of the issue than any abstract\nreasoning. Our history, recent and remote, affords many examples of the\nabandoning by our public men of a principle, to defend which they\nentered public life; and our action on such an occasion is invariably\nthe same--to regard the delinquent as simply a traitor, to load him with\ninvective and scorn and brand him for ever. We never see it is not\ninnate wickedness in the man, but a weakness against which he has been\nuntrained and undisciplined, and which leaves him helpless in the first\ncrisis. Ireland has recently been incensed by the action of some of her\nmayors and lord mayors in connection with the English Coronation\nfestival; the feeling has been acute in the metropolis. Certain things\nare obvious, but how many see what is below the surface? Let me suggest\na case and a series of circumstances; the more pointed the case, the\nmore interesting. I will suppose a particular mayor is an old Fenian:\nlet us see how for him a web is finely woven, and in the end how\nsecurely he is netted. First a mayor is a magistrate, and must take the\njudicial oath, but the old Fenian has taken an oath of allegiance to\nIreland--clash number one. It is not simply a question of yes or no;\nthere are attendant circumstances. Around a public man in place\ncirculates a swarm of interested people, needy friends, meddling\npoliticians, \"supporters\" generally. The chief magistrate will have\ninfluence on the bench which they all wish to invoke now and then, and\nthey all wish to see him there. They don't approve of any principle that\nstands in the way. They group themselves together as his \"supporters,\"\nand claiming to have put him into public life, they act as if they had\nacquired a lease of his soul. Not what he knows to be right, but what\nthey believe to be useful, must be done; and before the first day is\ndone the first fight must be made. However, the old Fenian has enough of\nthe spirit of old times to come safe through the first round. But the\nsecond is close on his heels: Dublin Castle has been attentive. The\nmayor, as chief magistrate, has privileges on which the Castle now\nsilently closes. There are private and veiled remonstrances by secret\nofficials: \"The mayor is acting illegally; he must not do so-and-so;\nsuch is the function of a magistrate; he has not taken the oath,\" etc.\nAll this renewing the fight of the first day, for the Castle, too, wants\nthe mayor on the bench to brand him as its own and alienate him from the\nold flag. It puts on the pressure by suppressing his privileges,\nweakening his influence, and disappointing his \"supporters.\" All this is\nsilently done. Still, the mayor holds fast, but he has not counted on\nthis, and is beginning to be baffled and worried. Meanwhile a sort of\nguerilla attack is being maintained: invitations arrive to garden\nparties at Windsor, lesser functions nearer home, free passages to all\nthe gay festivals, free admissions everywhere, the route indicated, and\na gracious request for the presence of the mayor and mayoress. Genuine\nbusiness engagements now save the situation, and the invitations are put\nby, but our chief citizen is now bewildered. These social missiles are\nflying in all directions, always gracious and flattering, never\nchallenging and rude--who can withstand them? Still he is bewildered,\nbut not yet caught. A new assault is made: the great Health Crusade\nBattery is called up. Here we must all unite, God's English and the wild\nIrish, the Fenian and the Castleman, the labourer and the lord. Surely,\nwe are all against the microbes. There is a great demonstration, their\nExcellencies attend--and the mayor presides. Under the banner of the\nmicrobe he is caught. It is a great occasion, which their Excellencies\ngrace and improve. His Excellency is affable with the mayor; her\nExcellency is confidential and gracious with the mayoress--we might have\nbeen schoolchildren in the same townland we are so cordial. Everything\nproceeds amid plaudits, and winds up in acclamation. Their Excellencies\ndepart. Great is the no-politics era--you can so quietly spike the guns\nof many an old politician--and keep him safe. The social amenities do\nthis. Their Excellencies have gone, but they do not forget. There is a\nwarm word of thanks for recent hospitality. Perhaps the mayor has a\ndaughter about to be married, or a son has died; it is remembered, and\nthe cordial congratulation or gracious sympathy comes duly under the\ngreat seal. What surly man would resent sympathy? And so, the strength\nof the old warrior is sapped; the web is woven finely; in its secret net\nthe Castle has its man. You who have exercised yourselves in Dublin\nrecently over mayoral doings, note all this--not to the making light of\nany man's surrender, but to the true judging of the event, its deeper\nsignificance and danger. Whoever fails must be called to account. When a\nman takes a position of trust, influence, and honour, and, whatever the\ndifficulty, abandons a principle he should hold sacred, he must be held\nresponsible. A battle is an ordeal, and we must be stern with friend and\nfoe. But there is something more sinister than the weakness of the man:\nremember the net.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nThe concrete case makes clear the principle in question. The man whom we\nhave seen go down would have been safe if he had to fight no battle but\none he could face with all his true friends, and in the open light of\nday. Having to fight a secret battle was never even considered: threats\ndirect or vague or subtle, blandishments, cajolery, graciousness,\npatronage, flattery, plausible generalities, attacks indirect and\ninsidious--all coming without pause, secret, silent, tireless. He who is\nto be proof against this, and above threat or flattery, must have been\ndisciplined with the discipline of a life that trains him for every\nemergency. You cannot take up such a character like a garment to suit\nthe occasion: it must be developed in private and public by all those\ndaily acts that declare a man's attitude, register his convictions, and\nform his mind. It gives its own reward at once, even in the day where\nnothing is apparently at stake; where men scramble furiously over the\npetty things of life; for he who sees these things at their proper value\nis unruffled. His composure in all the fury has its own value. But the\nmind that held him so, by the very act of dismissing something petty,\ngets a clearer conception of the great things of life; by intuition is\nat once awake to a hovering and fatal menace to individual or national\nexistence, unseen of the common eye; and in that hour proves, to the\nconfusion of the enemy, clear, vigorous and swift. Let us, then, for\nthis great end note what is the secret of strength. Not alone to be\nready to stand in with a host and march bravely to battle--the\ndiscipline that provides for this is great and valuable and must be\nalways observed and practised. This gives, however, only the common\ncourage of the crowd, and can only be trusted on an even field where the\nchances of war are equal. But when there is a struggle to restore\nfreedom, where from the nature of the case the chances are uneven and\nthe soldiers of liberty are at every disadvantage, then must we seek to\nadjust the balance by a finer courage and a more enduring strength. The\nmustering of legions will not suffice. The general reviewing this fine\narray who would rightly estimate the power he may command, must silently\nexamine the units, to judge of this brave host how large a company can\nbe formed to fight a forlorn hope. If this spirit is in reserve, he is\narmed against every emergency. If the chances are equal, he will have a\nsplendid victory; if by any of the turns of war his legions are shaken\nand disaster threatened, there is always a certain rallying-ground where\nthe host can re-form and the field be re-won, and the flag that has seen\nso many vicissitudes be set at last high and proudly in the light of\nFreedom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nPRINCIPLE IN ACTION\n\n\nI\n\n\nOur philosophy is valueless unless we bring it into life. With\nsufficient ingenuity we might frame theory after theory, and if they\ncould not be put to the test of a work-a-day existence we but add\nanother to the many dead theories that litter the History of Philosophy.\nOur principles are not to argue about, or write about, or hold meetings\nabout, but primarily to give us a rule of life. To ignore this is to\nwaste time and energy. To observe and follow it is to take from the\nclouds something that appeals to us, work it into life, by it interpret\nthe problems to hand, make our choice between opposing standards, and\nmaintain our fidelity to the true one against every opposition and\nthrough every fitful though terrible depression; so shall we startle\npeople with its reality, and make for it a disciple or an opponent, but\nalways at once convince the generation that there is a serious work in\nhand.\n\n\nII\n\n\nIf our philosophy is to be worked into life the first thing naturally is\nto review the situation. If we are to judge rightly, we must understand\nthe present, draw from the past its lesson, and shape our plans for the\nfuture true to the principles that govern and inform every generation.\nLet us survey the past, taking a sufficiently wide view between two\npoints--say '98 and our own time--and we see certain definite\nconditions. Great luminous years--'98, '03, '48, '67, rise up, witness\nto a great principle, readiness for sacrifice, unshaken belief in truth,\nvalour and freedom, and a flag that will ultimately prevail. In these\nyears the people had vision, the blood quickened, a living flame swept\nthe land, scorching up hypocrisy, deceit, meanness, and lighting all\nbrave hearts to high hope and achievement--for, the whimperers\nnotwithstanding, it was always achievement to challenge the enemy and\nstagger his power, though yet his expulsion is delayed. Between the\nglorious years of the living flame there intervened pallid times of\ndepression, where every disease of soul and body crept into the open.\nTrue hearts lived, scattered here and there, believing still but\ndisorganised and bewildered--the leaders were stricken down and in their\nplace, obscuring the beauty of life, the grandeur of the past, and our\nfuture destiny, came time-servers, flatterers, hypocrites, open\ntraffickers in honour and public decency, fastening their mean authority\non the land. These are the two great resting-places in our historic\nsurvey: the generation of the living flame and the generation of\ndespair; and it is for us to decide--for the decision rests with\nus--whether we shall in our time merely mark time or write another\nluminous chapter in the splendid history of our race.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nLet us consider these two generations apart, to understand their\ndistinctive features more clearly for our own guidance. Take first the\nyears of vision and the general effort to replant the old flag on our\nwalls. With the first enthusiasts breathing the living flame abroad,\nthe kindling hope, the widening fires, the deepening dream, there grows\na consciousness of the greatness of the goal, of the general duty, of\nthe individual responsibility for higher character, steadier work, and\npurer motive; and gradually meanness, trickeries, and treacheries are\nweeded out of the individual and national consciousness: there is a\nrealisation of a time come to restore the nation's independence, and\nwith passion and enthusiasm are fused a fine resolve and nerve. All the\nexcited doings of the feverish or pallid years are put by as unworthy or\nfutile. The great idea inspires a great fight; and that fight is made,\nand, notwithstanding any reverse, must be recorded great. Whatever\nconcourse of circumstances mar the dream and delay the victory, those\nbrave years are as a torch in witness to the ideal, in justification of\nits soldiers and in promise of final success.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nLet us examine now the deadening years that intervene between the great\nfights for freedom. We have known something of these times ourselves,\nhave touched on them already, and need not further draw out the\ndemoralising things that corrupt and dishearten us. But what we urgently\nrequire to study is the kind of effort--more often the absence of\neffort--made in such years by those who keep their belief in freedom and\nfeel at times impelled in some way or other to action. They have\nfollowed a lost battle, and in the aftermath of defeat they are numbed\ninto despair. They refuse to surrender to the forces of the hour, but\nthey lack the fine faith and enthusiasm of the braver years that\nchallenged these forces at every point and stood or fell by the issue.\nThey lie apathetic till, moved by some particular meanness or treachery,\nthey are roused to spasmodic anger, rush to act in some spasmodic\nway--generally futile, and then relapse into helplessness again. They\nlack the vision that inspires every moment, discerns a sure way, and\nheightens the spirit to battle without ceasing, which is characteristic\nof the great years. They tacitly accept that theirs is a useless\ngeneration, that the enemy is in the ascendant, that they cannot unseat\nhim, and their action, where any is made, is but to show their attitude,\nnever to convince opponents that the battle is again beginning, that\nthis is a bid for freedom, that history will be called on to record\ntheir fight and pay tribute to their times. Their action has never this\ngreat significance. When stung to fitful madness by the boastful\nvotaries of power, their occasional frantic efforts are more as relief\nto their feelings than destructive to the tyranny in being. Let us\nrealise this to the full; and seeing the futility in other years of\nevery pathetic makeshift to annoy or circumvent the enemy, put by\nfutilities and do a great work to justify our time.\n\n\nV\n\n\nWe have, then, to consider and decide our immediate attitude to life,\nwhere we stand. There are errors to remove. The first is the assumption\nthat we are only required to acknowledge the flag in places, offer it\nallegiance at certain meetings at certain times that form but a small\npart of our existence; while we allow ourselves to be dispensed from\nfidelity to our principles when in other places, where other standards\nare either explicitly or tacitly recognised. That we must carry our flag\neverywhere; that there must be no dispensation: these are the cardinal\npoints of our philosophy. Life is a great battlefield, and any hour in\nthe day a man's flag may be challenged and he must stand and justify it.\nAn idea you hold as true is not to be professed only where it is\nproclaimed; it will whisper and you must be its prophet in strange\nplaces; it is insistent of all things--you must glory in it or deny it;\nthere is no escaping it, and there is no middle way; wherever your path\nlies it will cross you and you must choose.\n\nBeware lest on any plea you put it by. You cannot elect to do nothing;\nthe concourse of circumstances would take you to some side; to do\nnothing is still to take a side. Priest, poet, professor, public man,\nprofessional man, business man, tradesman--everyone will be called to\nanswer; in every walk of life the true idea will find the false in\nconflict and the battle must be fought out there--the battle is lost\nwhen we satisfy ourselves with an academic debate in our spare moments.\nThis is a debating club age, and a plea for an ideal is often wasted,\ntaken as a mere point in an argument; but to walk among men fighting\npassionately for it as a thing believed in, is to make it real, to\ninfluence men never reached in other ways; it is to arrest attention,\narouse interest and quicken the masses to advance. And wherever the\nappeal for the flag is calling us the snare of the enemy is in wait. Our\nhistory so bristles with instances that a particular concrete case need\nnot be cited. We know that priests will get more patronage if they\ndiscourage the national idea; that professors will get more emoluments\nand honours if they can ban it; that public men will receive places and\ntitles if they betray it; that the professional man will be promised\nmore aggrandisement, the business man more commerce, and the tradesman\nmore traffic of his kind--if only he put by the flag. Most treacherous\nand insidious the temptation will come to the man, young and able,\neverywhere. It will say, \"You have ability; come into the light--only\nput that by; it keeps you obscure. And what purpose does it serve now?\nBe practical; come.\" And you may weaken and yield and enter the light\nfor the general applause, but the old idea will rankle deep down till\nsmothered out, and you will stand in the splendour--a failure,\nmiserable, hopeless, not apparent, indeed, but for all that, final. You\nmay stand your ground, refuse the bribe, uphold the flag, and be rated\na fool and a failure, but they who rate you so will not understand that\nyou have won a battle greater than all the triumphs of empires; you will\nkeep alive in your soul true light and enduring beauty; you will hear\nthe music eternally in the heart of the high enthusiast and have vision\nof ultimate victory that has sustained all the world over the efforts of\ncenturies, that uplifts the individual, consolidates the nation, and\nleads a wandering race from the desert into the Promised Land.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nIf we are to justify ourselves in our time we must have done with\ndispensations. Many honest men are astray on this point and think\nattitudes justifiable that are at the root of all our failures. What is\nthe weakness? It is so simple to explain and so easy to understand that\none must wonder how we have been ignoring it quietly and generally so\nlong. A man, as we have seen, acknowledges his flag in certain places;\nin other places it is challenged and he pulls it down. He is dispensed.\nHe believes in his heart, may even write an anonymous letter to the\npaper, will salute the flag again elsewhere, but he will not carry his\nflag through every fight and through every day. When a particular crisis\narises, which involves our public boards, public men, and business men\nin action, that requires a decision for or against the nation, he will\nfind it in his place in life not wise to be prominent on his own side,\nand he is silently absent from his meetings--he gives a subscription but\nexcuses himself from attendance. He satisfies himself with private\nprofessions of faith and whispered encouragement to those who fill the\ngap--words that won't be heard at a distance--and, worst of all, he\nthinks, because some stake in life may be jeopardised by bolder action,\nhe is justified. The answer is, simply he is not justified. Nor should\nanyone who is prepared to take the risk himself take it on himself to\nabsolve others--nor, least of all, openly preach a milder doctrine to\nlead others who are timid to the farther goal, believed in at heart.\nEncourage them by all means to practise their principles as far as they\ngo; never restrict yours, or you will find yourself saying things you\ncan't altogether approve; and if you tell a man to do things you can't\naltogether approve, and keep on telling him, it wears into you, and a\nthing you once held in abhorrence you come to think of with\nindifference. You change insensibly. Old friends rage at you, and\nbecause of it you rage at them--not knowing how you have changed. You\ndare not let what you believe lie in abeyance or say things inconsistent\nwith it, else to-morrow you'll be puzzled to say what you believe. You\nwill hardly say two things to fit each other. Let us have no half\npolicies. Our policy must be full, clear, consistent, to satisfy the\nrestless, inquiring minds; when we win all such over, the merely passive\npeople will follow. It should be clear that no man can dispense himself\nor his fellow from a grave duty; but for all that we have been liberal\nwith our dispensations, and it has left us in confusion and failure. On\nthe understanding that we will be heroes to-morrow, we evade being men\nto-day. We think of some hazy hour in the future when we may get a call\nto great things; we realise not that the call is now, that the fight is\nafoot, that we must take the flag from its hidden resting-place and\ncarry it boldly into life. So near a struggle may touch us with dread;\nbut to dread provoking a fight is to endure without resistance all the\nconsequences of a lost battle--a battle that might have been won. And\nif we are to be fit for the heroic to-morrow we must arise and be men\nto-day.\n\n\nVII\n\n\nAt times we find ourselves on neutral ground. The exigencies of the\nstruggle involve this; and unfortunately we have in our midst sincere\nmen who do not believe in restoring Ireland to her original\nindependence. Perhaps, from a tendency to lose our balance at times, it\nis well to have near by these men whose obvious sincerity may serve as a\ncorrecting influence. We have to make them one with us; in the meantime\nwe meet them on neutral ground for some common purpose. Yet, we must\ntake our flag everywhere? Yes, that is fundamental. What then of the\nplaces where men of diverging views meet; do we abjure the flag? By no\nmeans. The understanding here is not to force our views on others, but\nwe must keep our principles clear in mind that no hostile view be forced\non us. We must see to it that neutrality be observed. One of the\npitfalls to be aware of is, that something which on our principles we\nshould not recognise, is assumed as recognised by others because to\nattack it would be to violate neutrality. But if it may not be resisted,\nit may not be recognised; this is neutrality; it is to stand on equal\nterms. And since grave matters divide us--not directly concerned in our\nnational struggle for freedom--let the dangerous idea be banished, that\nin entering on common ground we decry all opposing beliefs. For men who\nhold beliefs as vital it would not be creditable to either side to put\nthem easily by. No, we do not ask them to forget themselves, but to\nrespect one another--an entirely greater and more honourable principle.\nOn neutral ground a man is not called on to abjure his flag; rather he\nand his flag are in sanctuary.\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nWhen we find the national idea touches life at every point, we begin to\nrealise how frequent the call is to defend it without warning. It is not\nthat men directly raise the idea purposely to reject it, but that their\nhabit of life, to which they expect all to conform, is unconsciously\nassuming that our ruling principle can have no place now or in the\nfuture. Their assumption that the _status quo_ cannot be changed will\nbe the cause of most collision at first; and we must be quietly ready\nwith the counter-assumption, stand for the old idea and justify it. We\nmust realise, too, that the number of people who have definite, strong,\nwell-developed views against ours are comparatively small. This small\nnumber embraces the English Government that commands forces, obeying it\nwithout reason, and influencing the general mass of people whose general\nattitude is indecision--adrift with the ruling force. It is this general\nmass of men we must permeate with the true idea, and give them more\ndecision, more courage, more pride of race, and bring them to prove\nworthy of the race. They will begin to have confidence in the Cause when\nthey begin to see it vindicated amongst them day by day; and that\nvindication must be our duty. That duty will not be to seek; it will\noffer itself and we shall have our test. How? Consider when men come\ntogether for any purpose where different views prevail and general\nthings of no great moment form the subject of debate--suddenly,\nunconsciously or tentatively, one will raise some idea that may divide\nthe company--say, acknowledging the English Crown in Ireland, putting\nby the claim for freedom, in the foolish hope of some material gain.\nThere is much nonsense talked and confusion abroad on this head, and it\nis quite possible a man, believing in Ireland's full claim, will find\nhimself in a large company who ought to stand for Ireland, yet who have\nlost a clear conception of her rights. But he will find that they have\nno clear conception the other way, either; they are confused and\ngenerally pliable; and so, when the challenging idea is introduced, if\nhe is quick and clear with the vital points, he can tear the surface off\nthe many nostrums of the hour and prove them mean, worthless, and\ndegrading; and, doing so, he will be forming the minds about him. He\nmust be ready; that is the great need. Understand how a conversation is\noften turned by a chance word, and how governed by one man who has\npassionate, well-defined views, while others are cold and undecided. Be\nthat one man. You do not know where the circumstances of life will take\nyou; your flag may be directly challenged to your face, and you must\nreveal yourself. These are things to avoid. Be firm, rather than\naggressive; but be always quietly prepared for the aggressive man; that\nis to inspire confidence in the timid. Avoid vituperation as a disease,\nbut have your facts clear and ready for friend or foe. Whenever, and\nwherever least expected, a false idea comes wandering forth, put in at\nonce a luminous word or two to clear the air, hearten friends and keep\nthem steady. If you find yourself alone in the midst of opponents, who\nassume you are with them and expect your co-operation, you put them\nright with a word. This will arrest them; they will understand where you\nstand, and that you are ready; and they will generally yield you\nrespect. But whether it involve a fight or not, thus do you declare your\nattitude. We may conveniently call it--putting up the flag.\n\n\nIX\n\n\nIt is well to consider something of the opposition that confronts a man\nwho tries to fill his life with a brave purpose. He will be told it is\nan illusion; he is a dreamer, a crank, or a fool. And it may serve a\npurpose to see if our critics are blinded by no illusion, to contrast\nour folly with their wisdom. Here is one pushing by who will not be a\nfool, as he thinks--he's for the emigrant-ship. Ask yourself if the\npeople who go out from the remote places of Ireland, quiet-spoken and\nruddy-faced, and return after a few years loud-voiced and pallid, have\nfound things exactly as their hope. They protest, yes; but their voice\nand colour belie them. Take the other man who does not emigrate but who\nhas his fling at home, who \"knocks around\" and tells you to do likewise\nand be no fool--mark him for your guidance. You will find his leisure is\nboisterous, but never gay. Catch him between whiles off his guard and\nyou will find the deadening lassitude of his life. This votary of\npleasure has a burden to carry in whatever walk of life, high or low. On\nthe higher plane he may have a more fastidious club or two, a more\nepicurean sense of enjoyment, more leisure and more luxury; but the type\nwherever found is the same. Life is an utter burden to him; in his soul\nis no interest, no inspiration, no energy, and no hope. Let him be no\nobject of envy. Here a friend pats you on the shoulder: \"Quite right; be\nneither an emigrant nor a waster; but be practical; have no illusions;\ndeal with possibilities--who can say what is in the future? We must\nface these facts.\" Our confident friend lacks a sense of humour. He\nwould put your plan by for its bearing on the future, but he proposes\none himself that the future must justify. He tells you circumstances\nwill not be in your favour: he assumes them in his own. But we only\nclaim that our principles will rule the future as they have ruled the\npast; for the circumstances no man can speak. He calls you a dreamer for\nyour principles, but he can't show, now nor in history, that his\nexemplars were ever justified. We are all dreamers, then; but some have\nugly dreams, while the dreams of others are beautiful worlds,\nstar-lighted and full of music.\n\n\nX\n\n\nLet the newborn enthusiast, just come eagerly to the flag, be warned of\nhours of depression that seize even the most earnest, the boldest and\nthe strongest. Our work is the work of men, subject to such vicissitudes\nas hover around all human enterprise; and every man enrolled must face\nhard struggles and dark hours. Then the depression rushes down like a\nhorrible, cold, dark mist that obscures every beautiful thing and every\nray of hope. It may come from many causes: perhaps, a body not too\nrobust, worn down by a tireless mind; perhaps, the memory of long years\nof effort, seemingly swallowed in oblivion and futility; perhaps contact\nwith men on your own side whose presence there is a puzzle, who have no\ncharacter and no conception of the grandeur of the Cause, and whose\nmean, petty, underhand jealousies numb you--you who think anyone\nclaiming so fine a flag as ours should be naturally brave,\nstraightforward and generous; perhaps the seemingly overwhelming\nstrength of the enemy, and the listlessness of thousands who would hail\nfreedom with rapture, but who now stand aloof in despair--and along with\nall this and intensifying it, the voice of our self-complacent practical\nfriend, who has but sarcasm for a high impulse, and for an immutable\nprinciple the latest expedient of the hour. Through such an experience\nmust the soldier of freedom live. But as surely as such an hour comes,\nthere comes also a star to break the darkened sky; let those who feel\nthe battle-weariness at times remember. When in places there may be but\none or two to fight, it may seem of no avail; still let them be true\nand their numbers will be multiplied: love of truth is infectious. When\nprogress is arrested, don't brood on what is, but on what was once\nachieved, what has since survived, and what we may yet achieve. If some\nhave grown lax and temporise a little, with more firmness on your part\nmingle a little sympathy for them. It is harder to live a consistent\nlife than die a brave death. Most men of generous instincts would rouse\nall their courage to a supreme moment and die for the Cause; but to rise\nto that supreme moment frequently and without warning is the burden of\nlife for the Cause; and it is because of its exhausting strain and\nexacting demands that so many men have failed. We must get men to\nrealise that to live is as daring as to die. But confusion has been made\nin our time by the glib phrase: \"You are not asked now to die for\nIreland, but to live for her,\" without insisting that the life shall aim\nat the ideal, the brave and the true. To slip apologetically through\nexistence is not life. If such a mean philosophy went abroad, we would\nsoon find the land a place of shivering creatures, without the capacity\nto live or the courage to die--calamity, surely. All these circumstances\nmake for the hour of depression; and it may well be in such an hour,\namid apathy and treachery, cold friends and active enemies, with\nworn-down frame and baffled mind, you, pleading for the Old Cause, may\nfeel your voice is indeed a voice crying in the wilderness; and it may\nserve till the blood warms again and the imagination recover its glow,\nto think how a Voice, that cried in the wilderness thousands of years\nago, is potent and inspiring now, where the voice of the \"practical\" man\nsends no whisper across the waste of years.\n\n\nXI\n\n\nWhat, then, to conclude, must be our decision? To take our philosophy\ninto life. When we do that generally, in a deep and significant sense\nour War of Independence will have begun. Let there be no deferring a\nduty to a more convenient future. It is as possible that an opening for\nfreedom may be thrust on us, as that we shall be required to organise a\nformal war with the usual movements of armies; in our assumptions for\nthe second, let us not be guilty of the fatal error of overlooking the\nfirst. As in other spheres, so in politics we have our conventions; and\nhow little they may be proven has been lately seen, when England went\nthrough a war of debate,[Footnote: Debate over House of Lords.] largely\nunreal, over her constitution and her liberties, even while foreign wars\nand complications were still being debated; and in the middle of it all,\nsuddenly, from a local labour dispute, putting by all thought of the\nconstitution, feeling as comparatively insignificant the fear of\ninvasion, all England stood shuddering on the verge of frantic civil\nwar;[Footnote: The Railway strike.] and all Ireland, when the moment of\npossible freedom was given, when England might have been hardly able to\nsave herself, much less to hold us--Ireland, thinking and working in old\ngrooves, lay helpless. Let us draw the moral. We cannot tell what\nunsuspected development may spring on us from the future, but we can\nalways be prepared by understanding that the vital hour is the hour at\nhand. Let the brave choice now be made, and let the life around be\ngoverned by it; let every man stand to his colours and strike his flag\nto none; then shall we recover ground in all directions, and our time\nshall be recorded, not with the deadening but with the luminous years.\nIn all the vicissitudes of the fight, let us not be distracted by the\nmeanness of the mere time-server nor the treachery of the enemy, but be\ncollected and cool; and remembering the many who are not with us from\nhonest motives or unsuspected fears, live to show our belief beautiful\nand true and, in the eternal sense, practical. Then shall those who are\nworth convincing be held, and our difference may reduce itself to what\nis possible; then will they come to realise that he who maintains a\ngreat faith unshaken will make more things possible than the opportunist\nof the hour; then will they understand how much more is possible than\nthey had ever dared to dream: they will have a vision of the goal; and\nwith that vision will be born a steady enthusiasm, a clear purpose, and\na resolute soul. The regeneration of the land will be no longer a\ndistant dream but a shaping reality; the living flame will sweep through\nall hearts again; and Ireland will enter her last battle for freedom to\nemerge and reassume her place among the nations of the earth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nLOYALTY\n\n\nI\n\n\nTo be loyal to his cause is the finest tribute that can be paid to any\nman. And since loyalty to the Irish cause has been the great virtue of\nIrishmen through all history, it is time to have some clear thinking as\nto who are the Irish rebels and who the true men. When a stupid\nGovernment, grasping our reverence for fidelity, tried to ban our heroes\nby calling them felons, it was natural we should rejoin by writing \"The\nFelons of our Land\" and heap ridicule on their purpose. But once this\nend was achieved we should have reverted to the normal attitude and\nwritten up as the true Irish Loyalists, Brian the Great, and Shane the\nProud, the valiant Owen Roe and the peerless Tone, Mitchel and\nDavis--irreconcilables all. When men revolt against an established evil\nit is their loyalty to the outraged truth we honour. We do not extol a\nrebel who rebels for rebellion's sake. Let us be clear on this point, or\nwhen we shall have re-established our freedom after centuries of effort\nit shall be open to every knave and traitor to challenge our\nindependence and plot to readmit the enemy. Loyalty is the fine\nattribute of the fine nature; the word has been misused and maligned in\nIreland: let us restore it to its rightful honour by remembering it to\nbe the virtue of our heroes of all time. In considering it from this\nview-point we shall find occasion to touch on delicate positions that\nhave often baffled and worried us--the asserting of our rights while\nusing the machinery of the Government that denies them, the burning\nquestion of consistency, our attitude towards the political adventurer\non one hand, and towards the honest man of half-measures on the other.\nLoyalty involves all this. And it shows that the man who revolts to win\nfreedom is the same as he who dies to defend it. He does not change his\nface and nature with the changing times. He is loyal always and most\nwonderfully lovable, because in the darkest times, when banned as wild,\nwicked and rebelly, he is loyal still as from the beginning, and will be\nto the end. Yes, Tone is the true Irish Loyalist, and every aider and\nabettor of the enemy a rebel to Ireland and the Irish race.\n\n\nII\n\n\nWhen you insist on examining the question in the light of first\nprinciples your opportunist opponent at once feels the weakness of his\nposition and always turns the point on your consistency. It is well,\nthen, in advance to understand the relative value and importance of\nargument as argument in the statement of any case. A body of principles\nis primarily of value, not as affording a case that can be argued with\ningenuity, but as enshrining one great principle that shines through and\ninforms the rest, that illumines the mind of the individual, that warms,\nclarifies and invigorates--that, so to speak, puts the mind in focus,\ngets the facts of existence into perspective, and gives the individual\neverything in its right place and true proportion. It brings a man to\nthe point where he does not dispute but believes. He has been wandering\nabout cold and irresolute, tasting all philosophies, or none, and\ndrinking deep despair. He does not understand the want in his soul while\nhe has been looking for some panacea for its cure till the great light\nstreams on him, and instead of receiving something he finds himself.\nThat is it. There is a power of vision latent in us, clouded by error;\nthe true philosophy dissipates the cloud and leaves the vision clear,\nwonderful and inspiring. He who acquired that vision is impervious to\nargument--it is not that he despises argument; on the contrary, he\nalways uses it to its full strength. But he has had awakened within him\nsomething which the mere logician can never deduce, and that mysterious\nsomething is the explanation of his transformed life. He was a doubter,\na falterer, a failure; he has become a believer, a fighter, a conqueror.\nYou miss his significance completely when you take him for a theorist.\nThe theorist propounds a view to which he must convert the world; the\nphilosopher has a rule of life to immediately put into practice. His\nspirit flashes with a swiftness that can be encircled by no theory. It\nis his glory to have over and above a new penetrating argument in the\nmind--a new and wonderful vitality in the blood. The unbeliever, near\nby, still muddled by his cold theories, will argue and debate till his\nintellect is in a tangle. He fails to see that a man of intellectual\nagility might frame a theory and argue it out ably, and then suddenly\nturn over and with equal dexterity argue the other side. Do we not have\nset debates with speakers appointed on each side? That is dialectic--a\ntrick of the mind. But philosophy is the wine of the spirit. The\ncapacity then to argue the point is not the justification of a\nphilosophy. That justification must be found in the virtue of the\nphilosophy that gives its believer vision and grasp of life as a whole,\nthat warms and quickens his heart and makes him in spirit buoyant,\nbeautiful, wise and daring.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nLet us come now to that burning question of consistency. \"Very well, you\nwon't acknowledge the English Crown. Why then use English coins and\nstamps? You don't recognise the Parliament at Westminster. Why then\nrecognise the County Councils created by Bill at Westminster? Why avail\nof all the Local Government machinery?\"--and so forth. The argument is a\nfamiliar one, and the answer is simple. Though no guns are thundering\nnow, Ireland is virtually in a state of war. We are fighting to recover\nindependence. The enemy has had to relax somewhat in the exigencies of\nthe struggle and to concede all these positions of local government and\nenterprise now in question. We take these posts as places conceded in\nthe fight and avail of them to strengthen, develop and uplift the\ncountry and prepare her to carry the last post. Surely this is adequate.\nOn a field of battle it is always to the credit of a general to capture\nan enemy's post and use it for the final victory. It is a sign of the\nbattle's progress, and tells the distant watchers on the hills how the\nfight is faring and who is going to win. There would be consternation\naway from the field only if word should come that the soldiers had gone\ninto the tents of the enemy, acknowledging him and accepting his flag.\nThat is the point to question. There can be no defence for the occupying\nof any post conceded by the enemy. It may be held for or against\nIreland; any man accepting it and surrendering his flag to hold it\nstands condemned thereby. That is clear. Yet it may be objected that\nsuch a clear choice is not put to most of those undertaking the local\ngovernment of Ireland, that few are conscious of such an issue and few\ngoverned by it. It is true. But for all that the machinery of local\ngovernment is clearly under popular control, and as clearly worked for\nan immediate good, preparing for a greater end. Men unaware of it are\nunconsciously working for the general development of the country and\nrecovering her old power and influence. Those conscious of the deeper\nissue enter every position to further that development and make the end\nobvious when the alien Government--finding those powers conceded to sap\nfurther resistance are on the contrary used to conquer wider\nfields--endeavours to force the popular government back to the purposes\nof an old and failing tyranny. That is the nature of the struggle now.\nAt periods the enemy tries to stem the movement, and then the fight\nbecomes general and keen around a certain position. In our time there\nwere the Land Leagues, the Land War, fights for Home Rule,\nUniversities, Irish; and these fights ended in Land Acts, Local\nGovernment Acts, University Acts, and the conceding of pride of place to\nthe native language in university life. Every position gained is a step\nforward; it is accepted as such, and so is justified. For anyone who\ngrasps the serious purpose of recovering Ireland's independence all\nalong the line, the suggestion that we should abandon all machinery of\nlocal government and enterprise--because they are \"Government\npositions\"--to men definitely attached to the alien garrison is so\nfoolish as not to be even entertained. When our attitude is questioned\nlet it be made clear. That is the final answer to the man who challenges\nour consistency: we are carrying the trenches of the enemy.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nEven while dismissing a false idea of consistency we have to make clear\nanother view still remote from the general mind. If we are to have an\neffective army of freedom we must enrol only men who have a clear\nconception of the goal, a readiness to yield full allegiance, and a\ndetermination to fight always so as to reflect honour on the flag. The\nimportance of this will be felt only when we come to deal with concrete\ncases. While human nature is what it is we will have always on the\noutskirts of every movement a certain type of political adventurer who\nis ready to transfer his allegiance from one party to another according\nas he thinks the time serves. He has no principle but to be always with\nthe ascendant party, and to succeed in that aim he is ready to court and\nbetray every party in turn. As a result, he is a character well known to\nall. The honest man who has been following the wrong path, and after\nearnest inquiry comes to the flag, we readily distinguish. But it is\nfatal to any enterprise where the adventurer is enlisted and where his\ninfluence is allowed to dominate. It may seem strange that such men are\ngiven entry to great movements: the explanation is found in the desire\nof pioneers to make converts at once and convince the unconverted by the\nconfidence of growing numbers. We ignore the danger to our growing\nstrength when the adventurer comes along, loud in protest of his\nsupport--he is always affable and plausible, and is received as a \"man\nof experience\"; and in our anxiety for further strength we are apt to\nadmit him without reserve. But we must make sure of our man. We must\nkeep in mind that an alliance with the adventurer is more dangerous than\nhis opposition; and we must remember the general public, typified by the\nman in the street whom we wish to convince, is quietly studying us,\nattracted perhaps by our principles and coming nearer to examine. If he\nknows nothing else, he knows the unprincipled man, and when he sees such\nin our ranks and councils he will not wait to argue or ask questions; he\nwill go away and remain away. The extent to which men are ruled by the\nold adage, \"Show me your company and I'll tell you what you are,\" is\nmore widespread than we think. Moreover, consistency in a fine sense is\ninvolved in our decision. We fight for freedom, not for the hope of\nmaterial profit or comfort, but because every fine instinct of manhood\ndemands that man be free, and life beautiful and brave, and surely in\nsuch a splendid battle to have as allies mean, crafty profit-seekers\nwould be amazing. Let us be loyal in the deep sense, and let us not be\nafraid of being few at first. An earnest band is more effective than a\ndiscreditable multitude. That band will increase in numbers and strength\ntill it becomes the nucleus of an army that will be invincible.\n\n\nV\n\n\nThe fine sense of consistency that keeps us clear of the adventurer\ndecides also our attitude to the well-meaning man of half-measures. He\nsays separation from England is not possible now and suggests some\nalternative, if not Home Rule, Grattan's Parliament, or leaving it an\nopen question. In the general view this seems sensible, and we are\ntempted to make an alliance based on such a ground; and the alliance is\nmade. What ensues? Men come together who believe in complete freedom,\nothers who believe in partial freedom that may lead to complete freedom,\nand others who are satisfied with partial freedom as an end. Before long\nthe alliance ends in a deadlock. The man of the most far-reaching view\nknows that every immediate action taken must be consistent with the\nwider view and the farther goal, if that goal is to be attained; and he\nfinds that his ultimate principle is frequently involved in some action\nproposed for the moment. When such a moment comes he must be loyal to\nhis flag and to a principle that if not generally acknowledged is an\nabiding rule with him; but his allies refuse to be bound by a principle\nthat is an unwritten law for him because the law is not written down for\nthem. This is the root of the trouble. The friends, thinking to work\ntogether for some common purpose, find the unsettled issue intrudes, and\na debate ensues that leads to angry words, recriminations, bad feeling\nand disruption. The alliance based on half measures has not fulfilled\nits own purpose, but it has sown suspicion between the honest men whom\nit brought together; that is no good result from the practical proposal.\nThere is an inference: men who are conscious of a clear complete demand\nshould form their own plans, equally full of care and resolution, and go\nahead on their own account. But we hear a plaintive cry abroad: \"Oh,\nanother split; that's Irishmen all over--can never unite,\" etc. We will\nnot turn aside for the plaintive people; but let it be understood there\ncan be an independent co-operation, where of use, with those honest men\nwho will not go the whole way. That independent co-operation can serve\nthe full purpose of the binding alliance that has proved fatal. Above\nall, let there be no charge of bad faith against the earnest man who\nchooses other ways than ours; it is altogether indefensible because we\ndisagree with him to call his motives in question. Often he is as\nearnest as we are; often has given longer and greater service, and only\nqualifies his own attitude in anxiety to meet others. To this we cannot\nassent, but to charge him with bad faith is flagrantly unjust and always\ncalamitous. In getting rid of the deadlock we have too often fallen to\nfuriously fighting with one another. Let us bear this in mind, and\nconcern ourselves more with the common enemy; but let not the hands of\nthe men in the vanguard be tied by alien King, Constitution, or\nParliament. All the conditions grow more definite and seem, perhaps, too\nexacting; remember the greatness of the enterprise. Suppose in the\nbuilding of a mighty edifice the architect at any point were careless or\nslurred over a difficulty, trusting to luck to bring it right, how the\nwhole building would go awry, and what a mighty collapse would follow.\nLet us stick to our colours and have no fear. When all these principles\nhave been combined into one consistent whole, a light will flash over\nthe land and the old spirit will be reborn; the mean will be purged of\ntheir meanness, the timid heartened with a fine courage, and the\nfearless will be justified: the land will be awake, militant, and\nmarching to victory.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nThis is, surely, the fine view of loyalty. Let us write it on our\nbanners and proclaim it to the world. It is consistent, _honourable_,\nfearless and immutable. What is said here to-day with enthusiasm,\nexactness and care, will stand without emendation or enlargement, if in\na temporary reverse we are called to stand in the dock to-morrow; or if,\nfinely purged in the battle of freedom, we come through our last fight\nwith splendid triumph, our loyalty is there still, shining like a great\nsun, the same beautiful, unchanging thing that has lighted us through\nevery struggle--perhaps now to guide us in framing a constitution and\ngiving to a world, distracted by kings, presidents and theorists, a new\npolity for nations. A waverer, half-caught between the light, half\nfearful with an old fear, pleads: \"This is too much--we are men, not\nangels.\" Precisely, we are not angels; and because of our human\nweakness, our erring minds, our sudden passions, the most confident of\nus may at any moment find himself in the mud. What, then, will uplift\nhim if he has been a waverer in principle as well as in fact? He is\nhelpless, disgraced and undone. Let him know in time we do not set up\nfine principles in a fine conceit that we can easily live up to them,\nbut in the full consciousness that we cannot possibly live away from\nthem. That is the bed-rock truth. When the man of finer faith by any\nslip comes to the earth, he has to uplift him a staff that never fails,\nand to guide him a principle that strengthens him for another fight, to\ngo forth, in a sense Alexander never dreamed of, to conquer new worlds.\n'Tis the faith that is in him, and the flag he serves, that make a man\nworthy; and the meanest may be with the highest if he be true and give\ngood service. Let us put by then the broken reed and the craft of little\nminds, and give us for our saving hope the banner of the angels and the\nloyalty of gods and men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nWOMANHOOD\n\n\n\"And another said: I have married a wife and therefore\n                   I cannot come.\"\n\nYes, and we have been satisfied always to blame the wife, without\nnoticing the man who is fond of his comfort first of all, who slips\nquietly away to enjoy a quiet smoke and a quiet glass in some quiet\nnook--always securing his escape by the readiest excuse. We are coming\nnow to consider the aspect of the question that touches our sincere\nmanhood; but let no one think we overlook that mean type of man who\nevades every call to duty on the comfortable plea: \"I have married a\nwife.\"\n\n\nI\n\n\nWhen the mere man approaches the woman to study her, we can imagine the\nfair ones getting together and nudging one another in keen amusement as\nto what this seer is going to say. It is often sufficiently amusing when\nthe clumsy male approaches her with self-satisfied air, thinking he has\nthe secret of her mysterious being. I have no intention here of entering\na rival search for the secret. But we can, perhaps, startle the gay ones\nfrom merriment to gravity by stating the simple fact that every man\nstands in some relationship to woman, either as son, brother, or\nhusband; and if it be admitted that there is to be a fight to-morrow,\nthen there are some things to be settled to-day. How is the woman\ntraining for to-morrow? How, then, will the man stand by that very\nbinding relationship? Will clinging arms hold him back or proud ones\nwave him on? Will he have, in place of a comrade in the fight, a burden;\nor will the battle that has too often separated them but give them\ncloser bonds of union and more intimate knowledge of the wonderful thing\nthat is Life?\n\n\nII\n\n\nI wish to concentrate on one heroic example of Irish Womanhood that\nshould serve as a model to this generation; and I do not mean to dwell\non much that would require detailed examination. But some points should\nbe indicated. For example, the awakening consciousness of our womanhood\nis troubling itself rightly over the woman's place in the community, is\nconcentrating on the type delineated in \"The Doll's House,\" and is\nagitating for a more honourable and dignified place. We applaud the\npioneers thus fighting for their honour and dignity: but let them not\nmake the mistake of assuming the men are wholly responsible for \"The\nDoll's House,\" and the women would come out if they could. We have\nnoticed the man who prefers his ease to any troubling duty: he has his\nmate in the woman who prefers to be wooed with trinkets, chocolates, and\nthe theatre to a more beautiful way of life, that would give her a\nnobler place but more strenuous conditions. Again, the man is not always\nthe lord of the house. He is as often, if not more frequently, its\nslave. Then there are the conventions of life. In place of a fine sense\nof courtesy prevailing between man and woman, which would recognise with\nthe woman's finer sensibility a fine self-reliance, and with the man's\ngreater strength a fine gentleness, we have a false code of manners, by\nwhich the woman is to be taken about, petted and treated generally as\nthe useless being she often is; while the man becomes an effeminate\ncreature that but cumbers the earth. Fine courtesy and fine comradeship\ngo together. But we have allowed a standard to gain recognition that is\na danger alike to the dignity of our womanhood and the virility of our\nmanhood. It is for us who are men to labour for a finer spirit in our\nmanhood: we cannot throw the blame for any weakness over on external\nconditions. The woman is in the same position. She must understand that\ngreater than the need of the suffrage is the more urgent need of making\nher fellow-woman spirited and self-reliant, ready rather to anticipate a\ndanger than to evade it. When she is thus trained, not all the men of\nall the nations can deny her recognition and equality.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nFor the battle of to-morrow then there is a preliminary fight to-day.\nThe woman must come to this point, too. In life there is frequently so\nmuch meanness, a man is often called to acknowledge some degrading\nstandard or fight for the very recognition of manhood, and the woman\nmust stand in with him or help to pull him down. Let her understand this\nand her duty is present and urgent. The man so often wavers on the verge\nof the right path, the woman often decides him. If she is nobler than\nhe, as is frequently the case, she can lift him to her level; if she is\nmeaner, as she often is, she as surely drags him down. When they are\nboth equal in spirit and nobility of nature, how the world is filled\nwith a glory that should assure us, if nothing else could, of the truth\nof the Almighty God and a beautiful Eternity to explain the origin and\ndestiny of their wonderful existence. They are indispensable to each\nother: if they stand apart, neither can realise in its fulness the\nbeauty and glory of life. Let the man and woman see this, and let them\nknow in the day that is at hand, how the challenge may come from some\npetty authority of the time that rules not by its integrity but by its\nfavourites. We are cursed with such authority, and many a one drives\nabout in luxury because he is obsequious to it: he prefers to be a\nparasite and to live in splendour than be a man and live in straits. He\nhas what Bernard Shaw so aptly calls \"the soul of a servant.\" If we are\nto prepare for a braver future, let us fight this evil thing; if we are\nto put by national servitude, let us begin by driving out individual\nobsequiousness. This is our training ground for to-morrow. Let the woman\nrealise this, and at least as many women as men will prefer privation\nwith self-respect to comfort with contempt. Let us, then, in the name of\nour common nature, ask those who have her training in hand, to teach the\nwoman to despise the man of menial soul and to loathe the luxury that is\nhis price.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nI wish to come to the heroic type of Irish Womanhood. When we need to\nhearten ourselves or others for a great enterprise, we instinctively\nturn to the examples of heroes and heroines who, in similar difficulties\nto ours, have entered the fight bravely, and issued heroically, leaving\nus a splendid heritage of fidelity and achievement. It is little to our\ncredit that our heroes are so little known. It is less to our credit\nthat our heroines are hardly known at all; and when we praise or sing\nof one our selection is not always the happiest. How often in the\nconcert-hall or drawing-room do we get emotional when someone sings in\ntremulous tones, \"She is far from the Land.\" There is a feeling for\npoetry in our lives, a feeling that patriotism will not have it, a\nmelting pity for the love that went to wreck, a sympathy for ourselves\nand everybody and everything--a relaxing of all the nerves in a wave of\nsentiment. This emotion is of the enervating order. There is no sweep of\nstrong fire through the blood, no tightening grip on life, no set\nresolve to stand to the flag and see the battle through. It is well,\nthen, a generation that has heard from a thousand platforms, in\nplaintive notes, of Sarah Curran and her love should turn to the braver\nand more beautiful model of her who was the wife of Tone.\n\n\nV\n\n\nWhen we think of the qualities that are distinctive of the woman, we\nhave in mind a finer gentleness, sensibility, sympathy and tenderness;\nand when we have these qualities intensified in any woman, and with\nthem combined the endurance, courage and daring that are taken as the\nmanly virtues, we have a woman of the heroic type. Of such a type was\nthe wife of Tone. We can speak her praise without fear, for she was put\nto the test in every way, and in every way found marvellously true. For\nher devotion to, and encouragement of, her great husband in his great\nwork, she would have won our high praise, even if, when he was stricken\ndown and she was bereft of his wonderful love and buoyant spirits, she\nhad proved forgetful of his work and the glory of his name. But she was\nbereft, and she was then found most marvellously true. Her devotion to\nTone, while he was living and fighting, might be explained by the\nwoman's passionate attachment to the man she loved. It is the woman's\ntenderness that is most evident in these early years, but there is\nshining evidence of the fortitude that showed her true nobility in the\ndarker after-years. It was no ordinary love that bound them, and reading\nthe record of their lives this stands out clear and beautiful. Tone,\nwhom we know as patient organiser, tenacious fighter, far-seeing\nthinker, indomitable spirit--a born leader of men--writes to his wife\nwith the passionate simplicity of an enraptured child: \"I doat upon you\nand the babes.\" And his letters end thus: \"Kiss the babies for me ten\nthousand times. God Almighty for ever bless you, my dearest life and\nsoul.\" (This from the \"French Atheist.\" I hope his traducers are\nheartily ashamed of themselves.) Nor is it strange. When, in the\nbeginning of his enterprise, he is in America, preparing to go to France\non his great mission, he is troubled by the thought of his defenceless\nones. In the crisis how does his wife act? Does she wind clinging arms\naround him, telling him with tears, of their children and his early\nvows, and beseeching him to think of his love and forget his country?\nNo; let the diary speak: \"My wife especially, whose courage and whose\nzeal for my honour and interests were not in the least abated by all her\npast sufferings, supplicated me to let no consideration of her or our\nchildren stand for a moment in the way of my engagements to our friends\nand my duty to my country, adding that she would answer for our family\nduring my absence, and that the same Providence which had so often, as\nit were, miraculously preserved us, would, she was confident, not desert\nus now.\" It is the unmistakable accent of the woman. She is quivering as\nshe sends him forth, but the spirit in her eyes would put a trembling\nman to shame--a spirit that her peerless husband matched but no man\ncould surpass. Her fortitude was to be more terribly tried in the\nterrible after-time, when the Cause went down in disaster and Tone had\nto answer with his life. No tribute could be so eloquent as the letter\nhe wrote to her when the last moment had come and his doom was\npronounced: \"Adieu, dearest love, I find it impossible to finish this\nletter. Give my love to Mary; and, above all, remember you are now the\nonly parent of our dearest children, and that the best proof you can\ngive of your affection for me will be to preserve yourself for their\neducation. God Almighty bless you all.\" That letter is like Stephens'\nspeech from the dock, eloquent for what is left unsaid. There is no\nwailing for her, least of all for himself, not that their devoted souls\nwere not on the rack: \"As no words can express what I feel for you and\nour children, I shall not attempt it; complaint of any kind would be\nbeneath your courage and mine\"--but their souls, that were destined to\nsuffer, came sublimely through the ordeal. When Tone left his children\nas a trust to his wife, he knew from the intimacy of their union what we\nlearn from the after-event, how that trust might be placed and how\nfaithfully it would be fulfilled. What a tribute from man to wife! How\nthat trust was fulfilled is in evidence in every step of the following\nyears. Remembering Tone's son who survived to write the memoirs was a\nchild at his father's death, his simple tribute written in manhood is\neloquent in the extreme: \"I was brought up by my surviving parent in all\nthe principles and in all the feelings of my father\"--of itself it would\nsuffice. But we can follow the years between and find moving evidence of\nthe fulfilment of the trust. We see her devotion to her children and her\nproud care to preserve their independence and her own. She puts by\npatronage, having a higher title as the widow of a General of France;\nand she wins the respect of the great ones of France under the Republic\nand the Empire. Lucien Buonaparte, a year after Tone's death, pleaded\nbefore the Council of Five Hundred, in warm and eloquent praise: \"If\nthe services of Tone were not sufficient of themselves to rouse your\nfeelings, I might mention the independent spirit and firmness of that\nnoble woman who, on the tomb of her husband and her brother, mingles\nwith her sighs aspirations for the deliverance of Ireland. I would\nattempt to give you an expression of that Irish spirit which is blended\nin her countenance with the expression of her grief. Such were those\nwomen of Sparta, who, on the return of their countrymen from the battle,\nwhen with anxious looks they ran over the ranks and missed amongst them\ntheir sons, their husbands, and their brothers, exclaimed, 'He died for\nhis country; he died for the Republic.'\" When the Republic fell, and in\nthe upheaval her rights were ignored, she went to the Emperor Napoleon\nin person and, recalling the services of Tone, sought naturalization for\nher son to secure his career in the army; and to the wonder of all near\nby, the Emperor heard her with marked respect and immediately granted\nher request. She sought only this for her surviving son. She had seen\ntwo children die--there was moving pathos in the daughter's death--and\nnow she was standing by the last. Never was child guarded more\nfaithfully or sent more proudly on his path in life. One should read the\nmemoirs to understand, and pause frequently to consider: how she\npromised her husband bravely in the beginning that she would answer for\ntheir children, and how, in what she afterwards styled the hyperbole of\ngrief, she was called to fulfil to the letter, and was found faithful,\nwith an unexampled strength and devotion; how she saw two children\nstruck down by a fatal disease, and how she drew the surviving son back\nto health by her watchful care to send him on his college and military\ncareer with loving pride; how, when a Minister of France, irritated at\nher putting by his patronage, roughly told her he could not \"take the\nEmperor by the collar to place Mr. Tone\"--she went to the Emperor in\nperson, with dignity but without fear, and won his respect; how the\nsuggestion of the mean-minded that her demand was a pecuniary one, drew\nfrom her the proud boast that in all her misfortunes she had never\nlearned to hold out her hand; how through all her misfortunes we watch\nher with wonderful dignity, delicacy, courage, and devotion quick to\nsee what her trust demanded and never failing to answer the call, till\nher task is done, and we see her on the morning when her son sets out on\nthe path she had prepared, the same quivering woman, who had sent her\nhusband with words of comfort to his duty, now, after all the years of\ntrial, sending her son as proudly on his path. It is their first\nparting. Let her own words speak: \"Hitherto I had not allowed myself\neven to feel that my William was my own and my only child; I considered\nonly that Tone's son was confided to me; but in that moment Nature\nresumed her rights. I sat in a field: the road was long and white before\nme and no object on it but my child.... I could not think; but all I had\never suffered seemed before and around me at that moment, and I wished\nso intensely to close my eyes for ever, that I wondered it did not\nhappen. The transitions of the mind are very extraordinary. As I sat in\nthat state, unable to think of the necessity of returning home, a little\nlark rushed up from the grass beside me; it whirled over my head and\nhovered in the air singing such a beautiful, cheering, and, as it\nsounded to me, approving note, that it roused me. I felt in my heart as\nif Tone had sent it to me. I returned to my solitary home.\" It is a\npicture to move us, to think of the devoted woman there in the sunshine,\nbent down in the grass, utterly alone, till the lark, sweeping\nheavenward in song, seems to give a message of gentle comfort from her\nhusband's watching spirit. Our emotion now is of no enervating order. We\nare proud of our land and her people; our nerves are firm and set; our\nhearts cry out for action; we are not weeping, but burning for the\nCause. How little we know of this heroic woman. We are in some ways\nfamiliar with Tone, his high character, his genial open nature, his\ndaring, his patience, his farsightedness, his judgment--in spirit\ntireless and indomitable: a man peerless among his fellows. But he had\nyet one compeer; there was one nature that matched his to depth and\nheight of its greatness--that nature was a woman's, and the woman was\nWolfe Tone's wife.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nIt is well this heroic example of our womanhood should be before not\nonly our womanhood but our manhood. It should show us all that\npatriotism does not destroy the finer feelings, but rather calls them\nforth and gives them wider play. We have been too used to thinking that\nthe qualities of love and tenderness are no virtues for a soldier, that\nthey will sap his resolution and destroy his work; but our movements\nfail always when they fail to be human. Until we mature and the poetry\nin life is wakening, we are ready to act by a theory; but when Nature\nasserts herself the hard theorist fails to hold us. Let us remember and\nbe human. We have been saying in effect, if not in so many words: \"For\nIreland's sake, don't fall in love\"--we might as well say: \"For\nIreland's sake, don't let your blood circulate.\" It is impossible--even\nif it were possible it would be hateful. The man and woman have a great\nand beautiful destiny to fulfil together: to substitute for it an\nunnatural way of life that can claim neither the seclusion of the\ncloister nor the dominion of the world is neither beautiful nor great.\nWe have cause for gratitude in the example before us. The woman can\nlearn from it how she may equal the bravest man; and the man should\nlearn to let his wife and children suffer rather than make of them\nwilling slaves and cowards. For there are some earnest men who are\nready to suffer themselves but cannot endure the suffering of those they\nlove, and a mistaken family tenderness binds and drags them down. No\none, surely, can hold it better to carefully put away every duty that\nmay entail hardship on wife and child, for then the wife is, instead of\na comrade, a burden, and the child becomes a degenerate creature,\ncreeping between heaven and earth, afraid to hold his head erect, and\nunable to fulfil his duty to God or man. Let no man be afraid that those\nhe loves may be tried in the fire; but let him, to the best of his\nstrength, show them how to stand the ordeal, and then trust to the\ngreatness of the Truth and the virtue of a loyal nature to bring each\none forth in triumph, and he and they may have in the issue undreamed of\nrecompense. For the battle that tries them will discover finer chords\nnot yet touched in their intercourse; finer sympathies,\nsusceptibilities, gentleness and strength; a deeper insight into life\nand a wider outlook on the world, making in fine a wonderful blend of\nwisdom, tenderness and courage that gives them to realise that life,\nwith all its faults, struggles, and pain is still and for ever great and\nbeautiful.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE FRONTIER\n\n\nI\n\n\nOur frontier is twofold, the language and the sea. For the majesty of\nour encircling waters we have no need to raise a plea, but to give God\nthanks for setting so certain a seal on our individual existence and\ngiving us in the spreading horizon of the ocean some symbol of our\nillimitable destiny. For the language there is something still to be\nsaid; there are some ideas gaining currency that should be\nchallenged--the cold denial of some that the unqualified name Irish be\ngiven to the literature of Irishman that is passionate with Irish\nenthusiasm and loyalty to Ireland, yet from the exigencies of the time\nhad to be written in English; the view not only assumed but asserted by\nsome of the Gael that the Gall may be recognised only if he take second\nplace; the aloofness of many of the Gall, not troubling to understand\ntheir rights and duties; the ignoring on both sides of the fine\nsignificance of the name Irishman, of a spirit of patriotism and a\ndeep-lying basis of authority and justice that will give stability to\nthe state and secure its future against any upheaval that from the\nunrest of the time would seem to threaten the world.\n\n\nII\n\n\nConsider first the literature of Irishmen in English. From the attitude\ncommonly taken on the question of literary values, it is clear that the\nprimary significance of expression in writing is often lost. What is\nsaid, and the purpose for which it is said, take precedence of the\nmedium through which it is said. But from our national awakening to the\nsignificance of the medium so long ignored we have grown so excited that\nwe frequently forget the greater significance of the thing. The\nutterance of the man is of first importance, and, where his utterance\nhas weight, the vital need is to secure it through some medium, the\nmedium becoming important when one more than another is found to have a\nwider and more intimate appeal; and then we do well to become insistent\nfor a particular medium when it is in anxiety for full delivery of the\nwriter's thought and a wide knowledge of its truth. But we are losing\nsight of this natural order of things. It is well, then, the unconvinced\nGall should hear why he should accept the Irish language; not simply to\ndefer to the Gael, but to quicken the mind and defend the territory of\nwhat is now the common country of the Gael and Gall. Davis caught up the\ngreat significance of the language when he said: \"Tis a surer barrier,\nand more important frontier, than fortress or river.\" The language is at\nonce our frontier and our first fortress, and behind it all Irishmen\nshould stand, not because a particular branch of our people evolved it,\nbut because it is the common heritage of all. One who has a knowledge of\nIrish can easily get evidence of its quickening power on the Irish mind.\nTravel in an Irish-speaking district and hail one of its old people in\nEnglish, and you get in response a dull \"Good-day, Sir.\" Salute him in\nIrish and you touch a secret spring. The dull eyes light up, the face\nis all animation, the body alert, and for a dull \"good-day,\" you get\nwarm benedictions, lively sallies, and after you, as you pass on your\nroad, a flood of rich and racy Irish comes pouring down the wind. That\nis the secret power of the language. It makes the old men proud of their\nyouth and gives to the young quickened faculties, an awakened\nimagination and a world to conquer. This is no exaggeration. It is not\nalways obvious, because we do not touch the secret spring nor wander\nnear the magic. But the truth is there to find for him who cares to\nsearch. You discover behind the dullness of a provincial town a bright\ncentre of interest, and when you study the circle you know that here is\nsome wonderful thing: priests, doctors, lawyers, teachers, tradesmen,\nclerks--all drawn together, young and old, both sexes, all enthusiasts.\nSometimes a priest is teaching a smith, sometimes the smith is teaching\nthe priest: for a moment at least we have unconsciously levelled\nbarriers and there is jubilation in the natural life re-born. Out of\nthat quickened life and consciousness rises a vivid imagination with a\nrush of thought and a power of expression that gives the nation a new\nliterature. That is the justification of the language. It awakens and\ndraws to expression minds that would otherwise be blank. It is not that\nthe revelation of Davis is of less value than we think, but that through\nthe medium of Irish other revelations will be won that would otherwise\nbe lost. Again, in subtle ways we cannot wholly understand, it gives the\nIrish mind a defence against every other mind, taking in comradeship\nwhatever good the others have to offer, while retaining its own power\nand place. The Irish mind can do itself justice only in Irish. But still\nsome ardent and faithful spirits broke through every difficulty of time\nand circumstance and found expression in English, and we have the\ntreasures of Davis, Mitchel, and Mangan; yet, the majority remained\ncold, and now, to quicken the mass, we turn to the old language. But\nthis is not to decry what was won in other fields. In the widening\nfuture that beckons to us, we shall, if anything, give greater praise to\nthese good fighters and enthusiasts, who in darker years, even with the\nlanguage of the enemy, resisted his march and held the gap for Ireland.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nOn this ground the Gael and Gall stand on footing of equality. That is\nthe point many on both sides miss and we need to emphasise it. Some\nIrishmen not of Gaelic stock speak of Irish as foreign to them, and\nwould maintain English in the principal place now and in the future. We\ndo well then to make clear to such a one that he is asked to adopt the\nlanguage for Ireland's sake as a nation and for his own sake as a\ncitizen. If he wishes to serve her he must stand for the language; if he\nprefers English civilisation he should go back to England. There only\ncan he develop on English lines. An Irishman in Ireland with an English\nmind is a queer contradiction, who can serve neither Ireland nor England\nin any good sense, and both Ireland and England disown him. So the\nIrishman of other than Gaelic ancestors should stand in with us, not\naccepting something disagreeable as inevitable, but claiming a right by\nbirth and citizenship, joining the fine army of the nation for a brave\nadventurous future, full of fine possibility and guaranteed by a fine\ncomradeship--owning a land not of flattery and favouritism, but of\nfreedom and manhood. This saving ideal has been often obscured by our\nsundering class names. This is why we would substitute as common for all\nthe fine name of Irishman.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nBut in asking all parties to accept the common name of Irishman, we find\na fear rather suggested than declared--that men may be asked in this\nname to put by something they hold as a great principle of Life; that\nCatholic, Protestant and Dissenter will all be asked to find agreement\nin a fourth alternative, in which they will not submit to one another\nbut will all equally belie themselves. There is such a hidden fear, and\nwe should have it out and dispose of it. The best men of all parties\nwill have no truck with this and they are right. But on what ground,\nthen, shall we find agreement, the recognition of which Irish\nCitizenship implies? On this, that the man of whatever sincere\nprinciples, religious or civic, counts among his great duties his duty\nas citizen; and he defends his creed because he believes it to be a safe\nguide to the fulfilling of all duties, this including. When, therefore,\nwe ask him to stand in as Irish Citizen, it is not that he is to abandon\nin one iota his sincere principles, but that he is to give us proof of\nhis sincerity. He tells us his creed requires him to be a good citizen:\nwe give him a fine field in which he can be to us a fine example.\n\n\nV\n\n\nIn further consideration of this we should put by the thought of finding\na mere working agreement. There is a deep-lying basis of authority and\njustice to seek, which it should be our highest aim to discover. Modern\ngovernments concede justice to those who can compel justice--even the\ndemocracy requires that you be strong enough to formulate a claim and\nsustain it; but this is the way of tyranny. A perfect government should\nseek, while careful to develop its stronger forces and keep them in\nperfect balance, to consider also the claims of those less powerful but\nnot less true. A government that over-rides the weak because it is safe,\nis a tyranny, and tyranny is in seed in the democratic governments of\nour time. We must consider this well, for it is pressing and grave; and\nwe must get men to come together as citizens to defend the rights as\nwell of the unit which is unsupported as of the party that commands\ngreat power. So shall we give steadiness and fervour to our growing\nstrength by balancing it with truth and justice: so shall we found a\ngovernment that excesses cannot undermine nor tyranny destroy.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nWe have to consider, in conclusion, the unrest in the world, the war of\nparties and classes, and the need of judging the tendencies of the time\nto set our steps aright. With the wars and rumours of wars that threaten\nthe great nations from without and the wild upheavals that threaten them\nwithin, it would be foolish to hide from ourselves the drift of events.\nWe must decide our attitude; and if it is too much to hope that we may\nkeep clear of the upheavals, we should aim at strengthening ourselves\nagainst the coming crash. We cannot set the world right, but we can go a\nlong way to setting things in our own land right, by making through a\ncommon patriotism a united people. What if we are held up occasionally\nby the cold cries shot at every high aim--\"dreamer--Utopia\"; cry this\nin return: no vision of the dreamer can be more wild than the frantic\nmake-shifts of the Great Powers to vie in armaments with one another or\nrepress internal revolts. Consider England in the late strike that\nparalysed her. It was only suspended by a step that merely deferred the\nstruggle; the strife is again threatening. All the powers are so\nthreatened and their efforts to defer the hour are equally feverish and\nfruitless; for the hour is pressing and may flash on the world when 'tis\nleast prepared. Let who will deride us, but let us prepare. We may not\nguide our steps with the certainty of prophets, nor hope by our\nbeautiful schemes to make a perfect state; but we can only come near to\nperfection in the light of a perfect ideal, and however far below it we\nmay remain, we can at least, under its inspiration, reach an existence\nrational and human: our justification for a brave effort lies in that\nthe governments of this time are neither one nor the other. He who\nthinks Ireland's struggle to express her own mind, to give utterance to\nher own tongue, to stand behind her own frontier, is but a sentiment\nwill be surprised to find it leads him to this point. Herein is the\njustification and the strength of the movement. Men are deriding things\naround them, of the significance of which they have not the remotest\nidea. Ireland is calling her children to a common banner, to the defence\nof her frontier, to the building up of a national life, harmonious and\nbeautiful--a conception of citizenship, from which a right is conceded,\nnot because it can be compelled, but because it is just: to the\nfoundation of a state that will by its defence of the least powerful\nprove all powerful, that will be strong because true, beautiful because\nfree, full of the music of her olden speech and caught by the magic of\nher encircling sea.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nLITERATURE AND FREEDOM--THE PROPAGANDIST PLAYWRIGHT\n\n\nI\n\n\nA nation's literature is an index to its mind. If the nation has its\nfreedom to win, from its literature may we learn if it is passionately\nin earnest in the fight, or if it is half-hearted, or if it cares not at\nall. Whatever state prevails, passionate men can pour their passion\nthrough literature to the nation's soul and make it burn and move and\nfight. For this reason it is of transcendent importance to the Cause.\nLiterature is the Shrine of Freedom, its fortress, its banner, its\ncharter. In its great temple patriots worship; from it soldiers go\nforth, wave its challenge, and fight, and conquering, write the charter\nof their country. Its great power is contested by none; rather, all\nrecognise it, and many and violent are the disputes as to its right use\nand purpose. I propose to consider two of the disputants--the\npropagandist playwright and the art-for-art's-sake artist, since they\nraise issues that are our concern. It is curious that two so violently\nopposed should be so nearly alike in error: they are both afraid of\nlife. The propagandist is all for one side; the artist afraid of every\nside. The one lacks imagination; the other lacks heart; they are both\nwide of the truth. The service of the truth requires them to pursue one\ncourse; in their dispute they swerve from that course, one to right, one\nto left. Because they leave the path on opposite sides, they do not see\nhow much alike is their error; but that they do both leave the path is\nmy point, and it is well we should consider it. It would be difficult to\ndeal with both sides at once; so I will consider the propagandist first.\nWhat I have to charge against him is that his work is insincere, that he\nis afraid to do justice to the other side, that he makes ridicule of our\nexemplars, that he helps to keep the _poseur_ in being; and to conclude,\nthat only by a saving sense of humour can we find our way back to the\ntruth.\n\n\nII\n\n\nWhen we judge literature we do so by reference to the eternal truth, not\nby what the writer considers the present phase of truth; and if\nliterature so tested is found guilty of suppression, evasion or\nmisinterpretation, we call the work insincere, though the author may\nhave written in perfect good faith. That is a necessary distinction to\nkeep in mind. If you call a man's work insincere, the superficial critic\nwill take it as calling the man himself insincere; but the two are\ndistinct, and it needs to be emphasised, for sincere men are making\nthese propagandist plays, of which the manifest and glaring untruth is\nworking mischief to the national mind. A type of such a play is familiar\nenough in these days when we like to ridicule the West Briton. We are\nserved up puppets representing the shoneen with a lisp set over against\nthe patriot who says all the proper things suitable to the occasion.\nNow, such a play serves no good purpose, but it has a certain bad\neffect. It does not give a true interpretation of life; it enlightens no\none; but it flatters the prejudices of people who profess things for\nwhich they have no zeal. That is the root of the mischief. Many of us\nwill readily profess a principle for which we will not as readily\nsuffer, but when the pinch comes and we are asked to do service for the\nflag, we cover our unwillingness by calling the man on the other side\nnames. Where such a spirit prevails there can be no national awakening.\nIf we put a play before the people, it must be with a hope of arresting\nattention, striking their imagination, giving them a grip of reality,\nand filling them with a joy in life. Now, the propagandist play does\nnone of these things; it has neither joy nor reality; its characters are\npuppets and ridiculous; they are essentially caricatures. This is\nsupposed to convert the unbeliever; but the intelligent unbeliever\ncoming to it is either bored or irritated by its extravagant absurdity,\nand if he admits our sincerity, it is only at the expense of our\nintelligence.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nA propagandist play for a political end is even more mischievous--at\nleast lovers of freedom have more cause for protest. It makes our heroes\nridiculous. No man of imagination can stand these impossible persons of\nthe play who \"walk on\" eternally talking of Ireland. Our heroes were\nmen; these are _poseurs_. Get to understand Davis, Tone, or any of our\ngreat ones, and you will find them human, gay, and lovable. \"Were you\never in love, Davis?\" asked one of his wondering admirers, and prompt\nand natural came the reply: \"I'm never out of it.\" We swear by Tone for\nhis manly virtues; we love him because we say to ourselves: \"What a fine\nfellow for a holiday.\" A friend of Mitchel's travelling with him once\nthrough a storm, was astonished to find him suddenly burst out into a\nfine recitation, which he delivered with fine effect. He was joyous in\nspirit. For their buoyancy we love them all, and because of it we\nemulate them. We are influenced, not by the man who always wants to\npreach a sermon at us, but by the one with whom we go for a holiday. Our\nhistory-makers were great, joyous men, of fine spirit, fine imagination,\nfine sensibility, and fine humour. They loved life; they loved their\nfellow man; they loved all the beautiful, brave things of earth. When\nyou know them you can picture them scaling high mountains and singing\nfrom the summits, or boating on fine rivers in the sunlight, or walking\nabout in the dawn, to the music of Creation, evolving the philosophy of\nrevolutions and building beautiful worlds. You get no hint of this from\nthe absurd propagandist play, yet this is what the heart of man craves.\nWhen he does not get it, he cannot explain what he wants; but he knows\nwhat he does not want, and he goes away and keeps his distance. The play\nhas missed fire, and the playwright and his hero are ridiculous. Let us\nunderstand one thing: if we want to make men dutiful we must make them\njoyous.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nIt is because we must talk of grave things that we must preserve our\ngaiety; otherwise we could not preserve our balance. By some freak of\nnature, the average man strikes attitudes as readily as the average boy\nwhistles. We know how the _poseur_ works mischief to every cause, and we\ncan see the _poseur_ on every side. In politics, he has made the\nplatform contemptible, which is a danger to the nation, needing the\nright use of platform; in literature--well, we all know bourgeois, but\nwho has done justice to the artist who gets on a platform to talk about\nthe bourgeois?--in religion, the _poseur_ is more likely to make\nagnostics than all the Rationalist Press; and the agnostic _poseur_ in\nturn is very funny. Now all these are an affliction, a collection of\nabsurdities of which we must cure the nation. If we cannot cure the\nnation of absurdity we cannot set her free. Let it be our rule to\ncombine gaiety with gravity and we will acquire a saving sense of\nproportion. Only the solemn man is dull; the serious man has a natural\nfund of gaiety: we need only be natural to bring back joy to serious\nendeavour. Then we shall begin to move. Let us remember a revolution\nwill surely fail when its leaders have no sense of humour.\n\n\nV\n\n\nBut our humour will not be a saving humour unless it is of high order. A\ngreat humorist is as rare as a great poet or a great philosopher. Though\nours may not be great we must keep it in the line of greatness.\nRemember, great humour must be made out of ourselves rather than out of\nothers. The fine humorist is delightfully courteous; the commonplace\nwit, invariably insulting. We must keep two things in mind, that in\nlaughter at our own folly is the beginning of wisdom; and the keenest\nwit is pure fun, never coarse fun. We start a laugh at others by getting\nan infallible laugh at ourselves. The commonplace wit arranges incidents\nto make someone he dislikes ridiculous; his attitude is the attitude of\nthe superior person. He is nearly always--often unintentionally--offensive;\nhe repels the public sometimes in irritation, sometimes in amusement, for\nthey often see point in his joke, but see a greater joke in him, and they\nare often laughing, not at his joke, but at himself. Let us for our\nsalvation avoid the attitude of the superior person. Don't make sport\nof others--make it of yourself. Ridicule of your neighbour must be\nlargely speculation; of the comedy in yourself there can be no doubt.\nWhen you get the essential humour out of yourself, you get the infallible\ntouch, and you arrest and attract everyone. You are not the superior\nperson. In effect, you slap your neighbour on the back and say, \"We're\nall in the same boat; let us enjoy the joke\"; and you find he will come\nto you with glistening eye. He may feel a little foolish at first--you\nare poking his ribs; but you cannot help it--having given him the way to\npoke your own. By your merry honesty he knows you for a safe comrade,\nand he comes with relief and confidence--we like to talk about\nourselves. He will be equally frank with yourself; you will tell one\nanother secrets; you will reach the heart of man. That is what we need.\nWe must get the heart-beat into literature. Then will it quiver and\ndance and weep and sing. Then we are in the line of greatness.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nIt is because we need the truth that we object to the propagandist\nplaywright. Only in a rare case does he avoid being partial; and when he\nis impartial he is cold and unconvincing. He gives us argument instead\nof emotion; but emotion is the language of the heart. He does not touch\nthe heart; he tries to touch the mind: he is a pamphleteer and out of\nplace. He fails, and his failure has damaged his cause, for it leaves us\nto feel that the cause is as cold as his play; but when the Cause is a\ngreat one it is always vital, warm and passionate. It is for the sake of\nthe Cause we ask that a play be made by a sincere man-of-letters, who\nwill give us not propagandist literature nor art-for-art's-sake, but\nthe throbbing heart of man. The great dramatist will have the great\nqualities needed, sensibility, sympathy, insight, imagination, and\ncourage. The special pleader and the _poseur_ lack all these things, and\nthey make themselves and their work foolish. Let us stand for the truth,\nnot pruning it for the occasion. The man who is afraid to face life is\nnot competent to lead anyone, to speak for anyone, or to interpret\nanything: he inspires no confidence. The one to rouse us must be\npassionate, and his passion will win us heart and soul. When from some\nterribly intense moment, he turns with a merry laugh, only the fool will\ntake him as laughing at his cause; the general instinct will see him\ndetecting an attitude, tripping it up, and making us all merry and\nnatural again. In that moment we shall spring up astonished,\nenthusiastic, exultant--here is one inspired; we shall enter a\npassionate brotherhood, no cold disputes now--the smouldering fire along\nthe land shall quicken to a blaze, history shall be again in the making.\nWe shall be caught in the living flame.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nLITERATURE AND FREEDOM--ART FOR ART'S SAKE\n\n\nI\n\n\nArt for art's sake has come to have a meaning which must be challenged,\nbut yet it can be used in a sense that is both high and sacred. If a\ngifted writer take literature as a great vocation and determine to use\nhis talents faithfully and well, without reference to fee or reward; if\nprosperity cannot seduce him to the misuse of his genius, then we give\nhim our high praise. Let it still not be forgotten that the labourer is\nworthy of his hire. But if the hire is not forthcoming, and he knowing\nit, yet says in his heart, \"The work must still be done\"; and if he does\nit loyally and bravely, despite the present coldness of the world,\ndoing the good work for the love of the work and all beautiful things;\nand if with this meaning he take \"art for art's sake\" as his battle-cry,\nthen we repeat it is used in a sense both high and sacred.\n\n\nII\n\n\nBut there are artists abroad whose chief glory seems to be to deny that\nthey have convictions--that is, convictions about the passionate things\nof life that rouse and move their generation. Now that they should not\nbe special pleaders is an obvious duty, but unless they have a\npassionate feeling for the vital things that move men, heart and soul,\nthey cannot interpret the heart and soul of passionate men, and their\nwork must be for ever cold. When literature is not passionate it does\nnot touch the spirit to lift and spread its wings and soar to finer air.\nThat is the great want about all the clever books now being turned\nout--they often give us excitement; they never give us ecstasy. Then\nthere is an obvious feeling of something lacking which men try to make\nup with art; and they produce work faultless in form and fastidious in\nphrase, but still it lacks the touch of fire that would lift it from\ncommon things to greatness.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nIf we are to apply art to great work we must distinguish art from\nartifice. We find the two well contrasted in Synge's \"Riders to the Sea\"\nand his \"Playboy.\" The first was written straight from the heart. We\nfeel Synge must have followed those people carrying the dead body, and\ntouched to the quick by the _caoine_, passed the touch on to us, for in\nthe lyric swell of the close we get the true emotion. Here alone is he\nin the line of greatness. This gripped his heart and he wrote out of\nhimself. But in the other work of his it was otherwise. He has put his\nmethod on record: he listened through a chink in the floor, and wrote\naround other people. It is characteristic of the art of our time. Let it\nbe called art if the critics will, but it is not life.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nNo, it is not life. But there is so much talk just now of getting \"down\nto fundamentals,\" of the poetry of the tramp \"walking the world,\" and\nthe rest of it, that it would be well if we _did get_ down to\nfundamentals; and this is one thing fundamental--the tramp is a deserter\nfrom life. He evades the troubled field where great causes are fought;\nhe shuns the battle because of the wounds and the sacrifice; he has no\nheart for high conflict and victory. Let him under the cover of darkness\nbut secure his share of the spoils and the world may go to wreck. Yes,\nhe is the meanest of things--a deserter. On the field of battle he would\nbe shot. If we let him desert the field of life, go his way and walk the\nworld, let us not at least hail him as a hero.\n\nThe Repertory Theatre is the nursery of this particular art-cult, and\n'twould relieve some of us to talk freely about it. The Repertory\nTheatre has already become fashionable, and is quite rapidly become a\nnuisance. Men are making songs and plays and lectures for art's sake,\nfor the praise of a coterie or to shock the bourgeois--above all shock\nthe bourgeois. A certain type of artist delights in shocking the\nbourgeois--a riot over a play gives him great satisfaction. In passing,\none must note with exasperation, perhaps with some misgiving, how men\nraise a riot over something not worth a thought, and will not fight for\nthings for which they ought to die. But he likes the bourgeois to think\nhim a terrible person; in his own esteem he is on an eminence, and he\nproceeds to send out more shock-the-bourgeois literature; and 'tis\nmostly very sorry stuff. Sometimes he tries to be emotional and is but\npainfully artificial; sometimes he tries to be merry and gives us\nflippancy for fun. And we feel a terrible need for getting back to a\nstandard, worthy and true. Great work can be made only for the love of\nwork; not for money, not for art's sake, not for intellectual appeal nor\nflippant ridicule, but for the pure love of things, good, true and\nbeautiful. With the best of intentions we may fail; and this should be\nlaid down as a safe guiding principle; a dramatist should be moved by\nhis own tragedy; the novelist should be interested in his own story; the\npoet should make his song for the love of the song and his comedy for\nthe fun of the thing.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nWe naturally think of the Abbey Theatre when we speak of these things,\nand as the Abbey work has certainly suffered from overpraise we may\ncorrect it by comparison with Shakespeare. Before the Abbey we were so\nused to triviality that when clever and artistic work appeared we at\nonce hailed it great. We _did_ get one or two great things, a fact to\nnote with hearty pleasure and pride. But the rest was merely clever; and\nnow that we are getting nothing great we must insist, and keep on\ninsisting, that 'tis merely clever. But let us remember that value of\nthe word great. Let it be kept for such names as Shakespeare and\nMoli\u00e8re; and lesser men may be called brilliant, talented or\nable--anything you will but great. Consider the scenes from the supreme\nplays of Shakespeare and compare with them the innumerable plays now\ncoming forth and note a vital difference. These give us excitement,\nwhere Shakespeare gave us vision. We may be reminded of Shakespeare's\nduels and brawls and battles and blood; his generation revelled in\nexcitement. Yes, they craved it, and he gave it to them, but shot\nthrough with wonder, subtlety, ecstasy; and his splendid creations, like\nmighty worlds, keep us wondering for ever. We must get back that supreme\nnote of blended music and wonder, that makes the spirit beautiful and\ntempts it to soar, till it rise over common things and mere commotion,\nspreading its wings for the finer air where reason faints and falls to\nearth.\n\n\nVII\n\n\nA dramatist cannot make a great play out of little people. His chief\ncharacters at least must be great of heart and soul--the great hearts\nthat fight great causes. When such are caught, in the inevitable\nstruggle of affections and duties and the general clash of life their\npassionate spirits send up all the elements that make great literature.\nThe writer who cannot enter into their battles and espouse their cause\ncannot give utterance to their hearts; and we don't want what he thinks\nabout them; we want what they think about themselves. He who is in\npassionate sympathy with them feels their emotion and writing from the\nheart does great things. The artist who is in mortal dread of being\nthought a politician or suspected of motives cannot feel, and will as\nsurely fail, as the one who sits down to play the r\u00f4le of politician\ndisguised as play-right. That is what the artist has got to see; and he\nhas got to see that while the Irish Revolution for centuries has\nattracted the greatest hearts and brains of Ireland, for him carefully\nto avoid it is to avoid the line of greatness. For a propagandist to sit\ndown to give it utterance would be as if a handy-man were to set out to\nbuild a cathedral. The Revolution does not need to be argued; it\njustifies itself--all we need is to give it utterance--give it utterance\nonce greatly. Then the writer may proceed to give utterance to every\ngood thing under the sun. But our artists are making, and will continue\nto make, only second-class literature, for they are afraid of the\nRevolution, and it is all over our best of life; they are afraid of that\nlife. But to enter the arena of greatness they must give it a voice.\nThat is the vocation of the poet.\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nYes, and the poet will be unlike you, gentlemen of the fastidious\nphrase. He will not be careless of form, but the passion that is in him\nwill make simple words burn and live; never will he in the mode of the\ntime go wide of the truth to make a picturesque phrase; his mind rapt on\nthe thing will fix on the true word; his heart warm with the battle will\nfashion more beautiful forms than you, O detached and dainty artist; his\nsoul full of music and adventure will scale those heights it is your\nfate to dream of but not your fortune to possess. Yet, you, too, might\npossess them would you but step with him into the press of adventurous\nlegions, and make articulate the dream of men, and make splendid their\ntriumph. He is the prophet of to-morrow, though you deny him to-day. He\nis not like to you, supercilious and aloof--he would have you for a\npassionate brother, would raise your spirit in ecstasy, flood your mind\nwith thought, and touch your lips with fire. Because of his\nsensitiveness he knows every mood and every heart and gives a voice and\na song to all. You might know him for a good comrade, where freedom is\nto win or to hold, over in the van or the breach; able to deal good\nblows and take them in the fine manner, a fine fighter; not with\ndarkened brow crying, \"an eye for an eye\"--for who _could_ give him\nblow for blow or match his deed with a deed?--but one of open front and\nopen hand who will count it happiness to have made for a victory he may\nnot live to enjoy, as ready to die in its splendour as he had been to\nlive through the darkness before the dawn; remembering with soldier\ntenderness the comrades of old battles, forgetting the malice of old\nenemies; a high example of the magnanimous spirit, happily not yet\nunknown on earth; with fine generosity and noble fire, full of that\ngreat love the common cry can never make other than humanising and\nbeautiful, not without a gleam of humour more than half divine, he will\npass, leaving to the foe that hated him heartily equally with the friend\nthat loved him well, the wonder of his thought and the rapture of his\nmelody.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nRELIGION\n\n\nI\n\n\nIt ought to be laid down as a first principle that grave questions which\nhave divided us in the past, and divide us still with much bitterness,\nshould not be thrust aside and kept out of view in the hope of harmony.\nWhere the attitude is such, the hope is vain. They should be approached\nwith courage in the hope of creating mutual respect and an honourable\nsolution for all. Religion is such a question. To the majority of men\nthis touches their most intimate life. Because of their jealous regard\nfor that intimate part of themselves they are prepared for bitter\nhostilities with anyone who will assail it; and because of the\nunmeasured bitterness of assaults on all sides we have come to count it\na virtue to bring together in societies labelled non-sectarian, men who\nhave been violently opposed on this issue. It will be readily allowed\nthat to bring men together anyhow, even suspiciously, is somewhat of an\nadvance, when we keep in mind how angrily they have quarrelled. But 'tis\nnot to our credit that in any assembly a particular name hardly dare be\nmentioned; and it must be realised that, whatever purpose it may serve\nin lesser undertakings, in the great fight for freedom no such attitude\nwill suffice. No grave question can be settled by ignoring it. Since it\nis our duty to make the War of Independence a reality and a success, we\nmust invoke a contest that will as surely rouse every latent passion and\ngive every latent suspicion an occasion and a field. That is the danger\nahead. We must anticipate that danger, meet and destroy it. Perhaps at\nthis suggestion most of us will at once get restive. Some may say with\nirritation: Why raise this matter? Others on the other side may prepare\nforthwith to dig up the hatchet. Is not the attitude on both sides\nevidence of the danger? Does anyone suppose we can start a fight for\nfreedom without making that danger a grimmer reality? Who can claim it a\nwise policy merely for the moment to dodge it? For that is what we do.\nLet us have courage and face it. At what I have to say let no man take\noffence or fright--it commits no one to anything. It is written to try\nand make opponents understand and respect one another, not to set them\nat one another, least of all to make them \"liberal,\" that is, lax and\ncontemptible, ready to explain everything away. We want primarily the\nman who is prepared to fight his ground, but who is big enough in heart\nand mind to respect opponents who will also fight theirs. In the\nintegrity and courage of both sides is the guarantee of the independence\nof both. That should be our guiding thought. But as on this question\nmost people abandon all tolerance, it is quite possible what may be\nwritten will satisfy none; still, it may serve the purpose of making a\nneed apparent. To repeat, we must face the question. But whoever elects\nto start it, should approach the issue with sympathy and forbearance.\nThese are as necessary as courage and resolution; yet, since many often\nsacrifice firmness to sympathy, others will take the opposite line of\nriding roughshod over everyone, a harshness that confirms the weakling\nin his weakness. To note all this is but to note the difficulty; and if\nwhat is now written fails in its appeal, it need only be said to walk\nunerringly here would require the insight of a prophet and the balance\nof an angel.\n\n\nII\n\n\nWhat everyone should take as a fair demand is that all men should be\nsincere in their professions, and that we should justify ourselves by\nthe consistency of our own lives rather than by the wickedness of our\nneighbours: which is nothing new. It is our trouble that we must\nemphasise obvious duties. To approach the question frankly with no\nmatter what good faith will lead to much heart-burning, perhaps, to no\nlittle bitterness; but if we realise that all sides are about equally to\nblame, we may induce an earnestness that may lead to better things. It\nis in that hope I write. Catholics and Protestants, instead of saying to\none another the things with which we are familiar, should look to their\nown houses; and if in this age of fashionable agnosticism, they should\nconclude that the general enemy is the atheist, socialist, and the\nsyndicalist, they should still be reminded to look to their own houses;\nand if the agnostic take this to justify himself, he should be reminded\nhe has never done anything to justify himself. It may seem a curious way\nfor inducing harmony to set out to prove everyone in the wrong; but the\npoint is clear, not to attack what men believe but to ask them to\njustify their words by their deeds. The request is not unreasonable and\nit may be asked in a tone that will show the sincerity of him who makes\nit and waken a kindred feeling in all earnest men. The world will be a\nbetter place to live in, and we shall be all better friends when every\nman makes a genuine resolve to give us all the example of a better life.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nA development that would require a treatise in itself I will but touch\non, to suggest to all interested a matter of general and grave\nconcern--the growing materialism of religious bodies. On all sides\nself-constituted defenders of the faith are troubling themselves, not\nwith the faith but with the numbers of their adherents who have jobs,\nequal sharers in emoluments, and so forth. A Protestant of standing\nwrites a book and proves his religion is one of efficiency; a Catholic\nof equal standing quickly rejoins with another book to prove his\nreligion is also efficient; each blind to the fact that the resulting\ncampaign is disgraceful to both. When religion ceases to represent to us\nsomething spiritual, and purely spiritual, we begin to drift away from\nit. \"Where thy treasure is, there thy heart is also.\" \"No man can serve\nGod and Mammon.\" The modern rejoinder is familiar: \"We must live.\" This,\nour generation is not likely to forget. The grave concern is that\nwell-meaning men are accustoming themselves to this cry to sacrifice all\nhigher considerations for the \"equal division of emoluments.\" Let us as\ncitizens and a community see that every man has the right and the means\nto live; but when self-interested bodies start a rivalry in the name of\ntheir particular creeds, we know it ends in a squalid greed and fight\nfor place, in a pursuit of luxury, the logical outcome of which must be\nto make the world ugly, sordid and brutal. It would be a mistake to\noverlook that high-minded men are allowing themselves to be committed\nby plausible reasons to this growing evil. It is misguided enthusiasm.\nThere is a divine authority that warns us all: \"Be zealous for the\nbetter gifts.\"\n\n\nIV\n\n\nI wish to examine the attitude of the average Christian to the Agnostic.\n\"The world is falling away from religion,\" he will cry when depressed,\nwithout thinking how much he himself may be a contributing cause. Let\nhim study it in this light. What is his attitude? When he comes to speak\nof the tendency of the age he will indulge in vague generalities about\natheism, socialism, irreligion, and the rest; always the cause is\noutside of him, and against him; he is not part of it. I ask him to pass\nby the atheist awhile and take what may be of more concern. There is a\ntype of Catholic and Protestant who has as little genuine religion in\nhim as any infidel, who does not deny the letter of the law, but who\ndoes not observe its spirit, whose only use for the letter is to\ncriticise and harass adversaries. Observe the high use he has for\nliberty--drinking, card-playing, gambling, luxury; he has no place in\nhis life for any worthy deeds, nay, only scorn for such. Still he passes\nfor orthodox. If he is a Catholic, he secures that by putting in an\nappearance at Mass on Sundays. His mind is not there; he arrives late\nand goes early. His Protestant fellow in his private judgment finds more\nscope: \"Let the women go listen to the parson.\" This is the sort of\nsaying gives him such a conceit of himself. We have the type on both\nsides, so all can see it. Now it is not in the way of the Pharisee we\ncome to note them, but to note that, strange as it may appear, either or\nboth together will come to applaud the denouncing of the atheist. We\ngather such into our religious societies, and flatter them that they are\nadherents of religion and the bulwark of the faith, and they forthwith\nanathematise the atheist with great gusto. The one so anathematised is\noften as worthless as themselves with a conceit to despise priest and\nparson alike. But it sometimes happens he is a fine character who has no\nreligion as most of us understand it, but who has yet a fine spiritual\nfervour, ready to fight and make sacrifices for a national or social\nprinciple that he believes will make for better things, a man of\nintegrity and worth whom the best of men may be glad to hold as a\nfriend. Yet we find in the condition to which we have drifted such a one\nmay be pilloried by wasters, gamblers, rioters, a crew that are the\ncurse of every community. We lash the atheist and the age but give\nlittle heed to the insincerity and cant of those we do not refuse to\ncall our own. What an example for the man anathematised. He sees the\nvice and meanness of those we allow to pass for orthodox, and when he\nsees also the complacency of the better part, he is unconvinced. We\npraise the sweetness of the healing waters of Christ-like charity, but\ndespite our gospel he never gets it, never. We give him execration,\ninjustice; if we let him go with a word, it is never a gentle word, but\na bitter epithet; and we wonder he is estranged, when he sees our\namazing composure in an amazing welter of hypocrisy and deceit. There\nis, of course, the better side, the many thousands of Catholics and\nProtestants who sincerely aim at better things. But what has to be\nadmitted is that most sincerely religious people adopt to the man of no\nestablished religion the same attitude as does the hypocrite: they join\nin the general cry. They should look to their own houses; they should\npurge the temple of the money-lender and the knave; they should see that\ntheir field gives good harvest; they should remember that not to the\natheist only but to the orthodox was it written: \"Every tree therefore\nthat doth not yield good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the\nfire.\"\n\n\nV\n\n\nThere is a word to be said to the man for whom was invented the curious\nname agnostic. I'm concerned only with him who is sincere and\nhigh-minded. Let us pass the flippant critics of things they do not\nunderstand. But all sincere men are comrades in a deep and fine sense.\nWhat the honest unbeliever has to keep in mind is that the darker side\nis but one side. If he stands studying a crowd of the orthodox and finds\ntherein the drunkard, the gambler, the sensualist; and if he says bitter\nthings of the value of religion and gets in return the clerical fiat of\none who is more a politician than a priest; and if he rejoins\ncontemptuously, \"This is fit for women and children,\" let him be\nreminded that he can also study the other side if he care. If he has the\ninstinct of a fighter he must know every army has in its trail the\ncamp-follower and the vulture, but when the battle is set and the danger\nis imminent, only the true soldier stands his ground. Because some who\nare of poor spirit are in high place, let him not forget the old spirit\nstill exists. Not only the women but the best intellects of men still\nkeep the old traditions. Newman and Pascal, Dante and Milton, Erigena\nand Aquinas, are all dead, but in our time even they have had followers\nnot too far off. In the same spirit Gilbert Chesterton found wonder at a\nwooden post, and Francis Thompson, in his divine wandering, troubled the\ngold gateways of the stars. Let our friend before he frames his final\njudgment pause here. He may well be baffled by many anomalies of the\ntime, his eye may rest on the meaner horde, his ear be filled with the\narrogance of some unworthy successor of Paul; and if he says: \"Why\npermit these things?\" he may be told there are some alive in this\ngeneration who will question all such things, and who, however hard it\ngo with them, have no fear for the final victory.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nPerhaps the conventional Christian and conventional non-Christian may\nrest a moment to consider the reality. Between the bitter believer and\nthe exasperated unbeliever, Christianity is being turned from a practice\nto a polemic, and if we are to recall the old spirit we must recall the\nold earnestness and simplicity of the early Martyrs. We do not hear that\nthey called Nero an atheist, but we do hear that they went singing to\nthe arena. By their example we may recover the spirit of song, and have\ndone with invective. If we find music and joyousness in the old\nconception, it is not in the fashion of the time to explain it away in\nsome \"new theology,\" for he to whom it is not a fashion, but a vital\nthing, keeps his anchor by tradition. To him it is the shining light\naway in the mists of antiquity; it is the strong sun over the living\nworld; it is the pillar of fire over the widening seas and worlds of the\nunknown; it is the expanse of infinity. When he is lost in its mystery\nhe adverts to the wonder about him, for all that is wonderful is touched\nwith it, and all that is lovely is its expression. It is in the breath\nof the wind, pure and bracing from the mountain top. It is in the song\nof the lark holding his musical revel in the sunlight. It is in the\necstasy of a Spring morning. It is in the glory of all beautiful things.\nWhen it has entered and purified his spirit, his heart goes out to the\npersecuted in all ages and countries. None will he reject. \"I am not\ncome to call the just but sinners.\" He remembers those words, and his\ngreat charity encompasses not only the persecuted orthodox, but the\npersecuted heretics and infidels.\n\n\nVII\n\n\nI will not say if such an endeavour as I suggest can have an immediate\nsuccess. But I think it will be a step forward if we get sincere men on\none side to understand the sincerity of the other side; and if in\nmatters of religion and speculation, where there is so much difficulty\nand there is likely to be so much conflict of opinion, there should be\nno constraint, but rather the finest charity and forbearance; then the\northodox would be concerned with practising their faith rather than in\nharassing the infidel, and the infidel would receive a more useful\nlesson than the ill-considered tirades he despises. He may remain still\nunconvinced, but he will give over his contempt. This question of\nreligion is one on which men will differ, and differing, ultimately they\nwill fight if we find no better way. We must remember while freedom is\nto win we are facing a national struggle, and if we are threatened\nwithin by a civil war of creeds it may undo us. That is why we must face\nthe question. That is why I think utter frankness in these grave matters\nis of grave urgency. If we approach them in the right spirit we need\nhave no fear--for at heart the most of men are susceptible to high\nappeals. What we need is courage and intensity; it is gabbling about\nsurface things makes the bitterness. If in truth we safeguard the right\nof every man as we are bound to do we shall win the confidence of all,\nand we may hope for a braver and better future, wherein some light of\nthe primal Beauty may wander again over earth as in the beginning it\ndawned on chaos when the Spirit of God first moved over the waters.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nINTELLECTUAL FREEDOM\n\n\nI\n\n\nIt will probably cause surprise if I say there is, possibly, more\nintellectual freedom in Ireland than elsewhere in Europe. But I do not\nmean by intellectual freedom conventional Free-thought, which is,\nperhaps, as far as any superstition from true freedom of the mind. The\npoint may not be admitted but its consideration will clear the air, and\nhelp to dispose of some objections hindering that spiritual freedom,\nfundamental to all liberty.\n\n\nII\n\n\nI have no intention here of in any way criticising the doctrine of\nFree-thought, but one so named cannot be ignored when we consider\nIntellectual Freedom. This, then, has to be borne in mind when speaking\nof Free-thought, that while it allows you latitude of opinion in many\nthings, it will not allow you freedom in all things, in, for example,\nRevealed Religion. I only mention this to show that on both sides of\nsuch burning questions you have disputants dogmatic. A dogmatic \"yes\"\nmeets an equally dogmatic \"no.\" The dogmas differ and it is not part of\nour business here to discuss them: but to come to a clear conception of\nthe matter in hand, it must be kept in mind, that if you,\nnotwithstanding, freely of your own accord, accept belief in certain\ndoctrines, the freethinkers will for that deny you freedom. And the\nfreethinkers are right in that they are dogmatic. (But this they\nthemselves appear to overlook.) Freedom is absolutely dogmatic. It is\nfundamentally false that freedom implies no attachment to any belief, no\nbeing bound by any law, \"As free as the wind,\" as the saying goes, for\nthe wind is not free. Simple indeterminism is not liberty.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nWe must, then, find the true conception of Intellectual Freedom. It is\nthe freedom of the individual to follow his star and reach his goal.\nThat star binds him down to certain lines and his freedom is in exact\nproportion to his fidelity to the lines. The seeming paradox may be\npuzzling: a concrete example will make it clear. Suppose a man,\nshipwrecked, finds himself at sea in an open boat, without his bearings\nor a rudder. He is at the mercy of the wind and wave, without freedom,\nhelpless. But give him his bearings and a helm, and at once he recovers\nhis course; he finds his position and can strike the path to freedom. He\nis at perfect liberty to scuttle his boat, drive it on the rocks or do\nany other irrational thing; but if he would have freedom, he must follow\nhis star.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nThis leads us to track a certain error that has confused modern debate.\nA man in assumed impartiality tells you he will stand away from his own\nviewpoint and consider a case from yours. Now, if he does honestly hold\nby his own view and thinks he can put it by and judge from his\nopponent's, he is deceiving both himself and his opponent. He can do so\n_apparently,_ but, whatever assumption is made, he is governed\nsubconsciously by his own firm conviction. His belief is around him like\nan atmosphere; it goes with him wherever he goes; he can only stand free\nof it by altogether abandoning it. If his case is such that he can come\nabsolutely to the other side to view it uninfluenced by his own, then he\nhas abandoned his own. He is like a man in a boat who has thrown over\nrudder and bearings: he may be moved by any current: he is adrift. If he\nis to recover the old ground, he must win it as something he never had.\nBut if instead of this he does at heart hold by his own view, he should\ngive over the deception that he is uninfluenced by it in framing\njudgment. It is psychologically impossible. Let the man understand it as\na duty to himself to be just to others, and to substitute this principle\nfor his spurious impartiality. This is the frank and straightforward\ncourse. While he is under his own star, he is moving in its light: he\nhas, if unconsciously, his hand on the helm: he judges all currents\nscrupulously and exactly, but always from his own place at the wheel and\nwith his own eyes. To abandon one or the other is to betray his trust,\nor in good faith and ignorance to cast it off till it is gone, perhaps,\ntoo far to recover.\n\n\nV\n\n\nIf we so understand intellectual freedom, in what does its denial\nconsist? In this: around every set of principles guiding men, there\ngrows up a corresponding set of prejudices that with the majority in\npractice often supersede the principles; and these prejudices with the\nmarch of time assume such proportions, gather such power, both by the\nnumbers of their adherents and the authority of many supporting them,\nthat for a man of spirit, knowing them to be evil and urgent of\nresistance, there is needed a vigour and freedom of mind that but few\nunderstand and even fewer appreciate or encourage. The prejudices that\ngrow around a man's principles are like weeds and poison in his garden:\nthey blight his flowers, trees and fruit; and he must go forth with fire\nand sword and strong unsparing hand to root out the evil things. He\nwill find with his courage and strength are needed passion and patience\nand dogged persistence. For men defend a prejudice with bitter venom\naltogether unlike the fire that quickens the fighter for freedom; and\nthe destroyer of the evil may find himself assailed by an astonishing\ncombination--charged with bad faith or treachery or vanity or sheer\nperversity, in proportion as those who dislike his principles deny his\ngood faith; or those who profess them, because of his vigour and candour\ndenounce him for an enemy within the fold. But for all that he should\nstand fast. If he has the courage so to do, he gives a fine example of\nintellectual freedom.\n\n\nVI\n\n\nIt will serve us to consider some prejudices, free-thinking and\nreligious. First the free-thinker. He has a prejudice very hard to kill.\nIf I believe in the beginning what Bernard Shaw has found out thus late\nin the day, that priests are not as bad as they are painted, the\nfree-thinker would deny me intellectual freedom. The fact of my right to\nthink the matter out and come to that conclusion would count for\nnothing. On the other hand, if I were known to have professed a certain\nfaith and to have abandoned it, he would acclaim that as casting off\nmental slavery. This is hopelessly confusing. If a man has ceased to\nhold a certain belief he deserves no credit for courage in saying so\nopenly. If he thinks what he once believed, or is supposed to have\nbelieved, has no vitality, surely he can have no reason for being afraid\nof it, and to speak of dangerous consequences from it to him, can be\n_for him_ at least only a bogey. His simple denial is, then, no mark of\ncourage. Courage is a positive thing. Yet he may well have that courage.\nSuppose him in taking his stand to have taken up some social faith that\nfor him has promise of better things. He will find his new creed\nsurrounded by its own swarm of prejudices, and if he refuse to worship\nevery fetish of the free-thinker, declaring that this stands to him for\na certain definite, beautiful thing, and fighting for it, he will find\nhimself denied and scouted by his new friends. He may find himself often\nin company with some supposed enemies. He will surely need in his\nsincere attitude to life a freedom of mind that is not a name merely but\na positive virtue that demands of him more than denunciation of\nobscurantism, the recognition of a personal duty and the justification\nof personal works.\n\n\nVII\n\n\nThe religious prejudice will be no less hard to kill. Indiscriminate\ndenunciation of unbelievers as wicked men serves no good purpose and\nleads nowhere. There are wicked men on all sides. Our standard must be\none that will distinguish the sincere men on all sides; and our loyalty\nto our particular creeds must be shown in our lives and labours, not in\nthe reviling of the infidel. We are justified in casting out the\nhypocrite from every camp, and when we come to this task we can be sure\nonly of the hypocrites in our own; and we should lay it as an injunction\non all bodies to purge themselves. The burden will be laid on all--not\none surely of which men can complain--that they shall prove their\nprinciples in action and lay their prejudices by. Christians might well\nfind exemplars in the early martyrs, those who for their principles went\nso readily to the lions. One may anticipate the complacent rejoinder:\n\"This is not so exacting an age; men are not asked to die for religion\nnow\"--and one may in turn reply, that, perhaps our age may not be\nwithout occasion for such high service, but that we may be unwilling to\ngo to the lions. Our time has its own trial--by no means unexacting let\nme tell you--but we quietly slip it by: it is much easier to revile the\ninfidel. This as a test of loyalty should be pinned: we shall shut up\nthereby the hypocrite. And the earnest man, more conscious of his own\nburden, will be more sympathetic, generous and just, and will come to be\nmore logical and to see what Newman well remarked, that one who asks\nquestions shows he has no belief and in asking may be but on the road to\none. If to ask a question is to express a doubt, it is no less, perhaps,\nto seek a way out of it. \"What better can he do than inquire, if he is\nin doubt?\" asks Newman. \"Not to inquire is in his case to be satisfied\nwith disbelief.\" We should, acting in this light, instead of denouncing\nthe questioner, answer his question freely and frankly, encourage him to\nask others and put him one or two by the way. Men meeting in this manner\nmay still remain on opposite sides, but there will be formed between\nthem a bond of sympathy that mutual sincerity can never fail to\nestablish. This is freedom, and a fine beautiful thing, surely worth a\nfine effort. What we have grown accustomed to, the bitterness, the\nrecriminations, the persecutions and retaliations, are all the evil\nweeds of prejudice, growing around our principles and choking them. They\nare so far a denial of principle, a proof of mental slavery. Our freedom\nwill attest to faith: \"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is\nLiberty.\"\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nThis, in conclusion, is the root of the matter: to claim freedom and to\nallow it in like measure; rather than to deny, to urge men to follow\ntheir beliefs: only thus can they find salvation. To constrain a man to\nprofess what we profess is worse than delusion: should he give lip\nservice to what he does not hold at heart, 'twere for him deceitful and\nfor us dangerous. Where his star calls, let him walk sincerely. If his\ncreed is insufficient or inconsistent, in his struggle he shall test it,\nand in his sincerity he must make up the insufficiency or remove the\ninconsistency. This is the only course for honourable men and no man\nshould object. To repeat, it puts an equal burden on all--the onus of\njustifying the faith that is in them. Life is a divine adventure and he\nwhose faith is finest, firmest and clearest will go farthest. God does\nnot hold his honours for the timid: the man who buried his talent,\nfearing to lose it, was cast into exterior darkness. He who will step\nforward fearlessly will be justified. \"All things are possible to him\nwho believeth.\" Many on both sides may be surprised to find suddenly\nproposed as a test to both sides the readiness to adventure bravely on\nthe Sea of Life. The free-thinker may be astonished to hear, not that he\ngoes too far, but does not go far enough. He may gasp at the test, but\nit is in effect the test and the only true one. The man who does not\nbelieve he is to be blotted out when his body ceases to breathe, who\nholds all history for his heritage and the wide present for his\nbattle-ground, believes also the future is no repellent void but a\nwidening and alluring world. If in his travel he is scrupulous in\ndetail, it is in the spirit of the mariner who will neither court a\nship-wreck nor be denied his adventure. He cannot deny to others the\nright to hesitate and halt by the way, but his spirit asks no less than\nthe eternal and the infinite. Yes, but many good religious people are\nnot used to seeing the issue in this light, and those who make a trade\nof fanning old bitterness will still ply their bitter trade, crying that\nanarchists, atheists, heretics, infidels, all outcasts and wicked men,\nare all rampant for our destruction. It may be disputed, but, admitting\nit, one may ask: Is there no place among Christian people for those\ndistinctive virtues on which we base the superiority of our religion?\nWhen the need is greatest, should the practice be less urgent? It is not\nevident that the free-thinker is obliged by any of his principles to\ngive better example. It is evident the Christian is so obliged. Why is\nhe found wanting? If human weakness were pleaded, one could understand.\nIt is against the making a virtue of it lies the protest. How many noble\nthings there are in our philosophies, and how little practised. No\nviolent convulsions should be needed to make us free, if men were but\nconsistent: we should find ourselves wakening from a wicked dream in a\nbloodless and beautiful revolution. We are in the desert truly and a\nlong way from the Promised Land. But we must get to the higher ground\nand consider our position; and if one by one we are stripped of the\nprejudices that too long have usurped the place of faith, and we find\nourselves, to our dismay, perhaps lacking that faith that we have so\nlong shouted but so little testified, and tremble on the verge of panic,\nthere is one last line that gives in four words with divine simplicity\nand completeness a final answer to all timidity and objections: \"Fear\nnot; only believe.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nMILITARISM\n\n\nI\n\n\nTo defend or recover freedom men must be always ready for the appeal to\narms. Here is a principle that has been vindicated through all history\nand needs vindication now. But in our time the question of rightful war\nhas been crossed by the evil of militarism, and in our assertion of the\nprinciple, that in the last resort freemen must have recourse to the\nsword, we find ourselves crossed by the anti-militarist campaign. We\nmust dispose of this confusing element before we can come to the ethics\nof war. Of the evil of militarism there can be no question, but a\ncareful study of some anti-militaristic literature discloses very\ndifferent motives for the campaign. I propose to lay some of the\nmotives bare and let the reader judge whether there may not be an\ninsidious plot on foot to make a deal between the big nations to crush\nthe little ones. For this purpose I will consider two books on the\nquestion, one by Mr. Norman Angell, \"The Great Illusion,\" and one by M.\nJacques Novikow, \"War and Its Alleged Benefits.\" In the work of Mr.\nAngell the reader will find the suggestion of the deal, while in the\nwork of M. Novikow is given a clear and honest statement of the\nanti-militarist position, with which we can all heartily agree. Those of\nus who would assert our freedom should understand the right\nanti-militarist position, because in its exponents we shall find allies\nat many points. But with Mr. Angell's book it is otherwise. These points\nemerge: the basis of morality is self-interest; the Great Powers have\nnothing to gain by destroying one another, they should agree to police\nand exploit the territory of the \"backward races\"; if the statesmen take\na different view from the financiers, the financiers can bring pressure\nto bear on the statesmen by their international organisation; the\ncapitalist has no country. Well, our comment is, the patriot has a\ncountry, and when he wakens to the new danger, he may spoil the\ncapitalist dream, and this book of Mr. Angell's may in a sense other\nthan that the author intended be appropriately named \"The Great\nIllusion.\"\n\n\nII\n\n\nThe limits of this essay do not admit of detailed examination of the\nbook named. What I propose to do is make characteristic extracts\nsufficiently full to let the reader form judgment. As we are only\nconcerned for the present with the danger I mention, I take particular\nnotice of Mr. Angell's book, and I refer the reader for further study to\nthe original. But the charge of taking an accidental line from its\ncontext cannot be made here, as the extracts are numerous, the tendency\nof all alike, and more of the same nature can be found. I divide the\nextracts into three groups, which I name:\n\n\n  1. The Ethics of the Case.\n\n  2. The Power of Money.\n\n  3. The Deal.\n\n\nWhere italics are used they are mine.\n\n  1. THE ETHICS OF THE CASE.--\"The real basis of Social Morality is\n  self-interest.\" (\"The Great Illusion,\" 3rd Ed., p. 66.) \"Have we not\n  abundant evidence, indeed, that the passion of patriotism, as divorced\n  from material interest, is being modified by the pressure of material\n  interest?\" (p. 167.) \"Piracy was magnificent, doubtless, but it was\n  not business.\" (Speaking of the old Vikings, p. 245.) \"The pacifist\n  propaganda has failed largely because it has not put (and proven) the\n  plea of interest as distinct from the moral plea.\" (p. 321.)\n\n  2. THE POWER OF MONEY.--\"The complexity of modern finance makes New\n  York dependent on London, London upon Paris, Paris upon Berlin, to a\n  greater degree than has ever yet been the case in history.\" (p. 47.)\n\n  \"It would be a miracle if already at this point the whole influence of\n  British Finance were not thrown against the action of the British\n  Government.\" (On the assumed British capture of Hamburg, p. 53).\n\n  \"The most absolute despots cannot command money.\" (p. 226.)\n\n  \"With reference to capital, it may almost be said that it is organised\n  so naturally internationally that _formal organisation is not\n  necessary_.\" (p. 269.)\n\n  3. THE DEAL.--\"France has benefited by the conquest of Algeria,\n  England by that of India, because in each case the arms were employed\n  not, properly speaking, for conquest at all, but _for police\n  purposes_.\" (p. 115.)\n\n  \"While even the wildest Pan-German has never cast his eyes in the\n  direction of Canada, he has cast them, and does cast them, in the\n  direction of Asia Minor.... _Germany may need to police Asia Minor_.\"\n  (pp. 117, 118.)\n\n  \"_It is much more to our interest to have an orderly and organised\n  Asia Minor under German tutelage than to have an unorganised and\n  disorderly one which should be independent_.\" (p. 120.)\n\n  \"Sir Harry Johnston, in the 'Nineteenth Century' for December, 1910,\n  comes a great deal nearer to touching the real kernel of the\n  problem.... He adds that the best informed Germans used this language\n  to him: '_You know that we ought to make common cause in our dealings\n  with backward races of the world_!'\"\n\n\nThe quotations speak for themselves. Note the policing of the \"backward\nraces.\" The Colonies are not in favour. Mr. Angell writes: \"What in the\nname of common sense is the advantage of conquering them if the only\npolicy is to let them do as they like?\" (p. 92.) South Africa occasions\nbitter reflections: \"The present Government of the Transvaal is in the\nhands of the Boer Party.\" (p. 95.) And he warns Germany, that, supposing\nshe wishes to conquer South Africa, \"she would learn that the policy\nthat Great Britain has adopted was not adopted by philanthropy, but in\nthe hard school of bitter experience.\" (p. 104.) We believe him, and we\nmay have to teach a lesson or two in the same school. It may be noted in\npassing Mr. Angell gives Ireland the honour of a reference. In reply to\na critic of the _Morning Post_, who wrote thus: \"It is the sublime\nquality of human nature that every great nation has produced citizens\nready to sacrifice themselves rather than submit to external force\nattempting to dictate to them a conception other than their own of what\nis right.\" (p. 254.) Mr. Angell replied: \"One is, of course, surprised\nto see the foregoing in the _Morning Post_; the concluding phrase would\njustify the present agitation in India, or in Egypt, or in Ireland\nagainst British, rule.\" (p. 254.) Comment is needless. The reading and\nre-reading of this book forces the conclusion as to its sinister\ndesign. Once that design is exposed its danger recedes. There is one at\nleast of the \"backward races\" that may not be sufficiently alive to\nself-interest, but may for all that upset the capitalist table and\nscatter the deal by what Ruskin described in another context as \"the\ninconvenience of the reappearance of a soul.\"\n\n\nIII\n\n\nWe must not fail to distinguish the worth of the best type of\nanti-militarist and to value the truth of his statement. It is curious\nto find Mr. Angell writing an introduction to M. Novikow's book, for M.\nNovikow's position is, in our point of view, quite different. He does\nnot draw the fine distinction of policing the \"backward races.\" Rather,\nhe defends the Bengalis. Suppose their rights had never been violated,\nhe says: \"They would have held their heads higher; they would have been\nproud and dignified, and perhaps might have taken for their motto, _Dieu\net mon droit_.\" (\"War and Its Alleged Benefits,\" p. 12.) He can be\nironical and he can be warm. Later, he writes; \"The French (and all\nother people) should vindicate their rights with their last drop of\nblood; so what I write does not refer to those who defend their rights,\nbut to those who violate the rights of others.\" (Note p. 70.) He does\nnot put by the moral plea, but says: \"Political servitude develops the\ngreatest defects in the subjugated peoples.\" (p. 79.) And he pays his\ntribute to those who die for a noble cause: \"My warmest sympathy goes\nout to those noble victims who preferred death to disgrace.\" (p. 82.)\nThis is the true attitude and one to admire; and any writer worthy of\nesteem who writes for peace never fails to take the same stand. Emerson,\nin his essay on \"War,\" makes a fine appeal for peace, but he writes: \"If\npeace is sought to be defended or preserved for the safety of the\nluxurious or the timid, it is a sham and the peace will be base. War is\nbetter, and the peace will be broken.\" And elsewhere on \"Politics,\" he\nwrites: \"A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest can\neasily confound the arithmetic of the statists and achieve extravagant\nactions out of all proportions to their means.\" Yes, and by our\nunanimity for freedom we mean to prove it true.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nTHE EMPIRE\n\n\nI\n\n\nWith the immediate promise of Home Rule many strange apologists for the\nEmpire have stepped into the sun. Perhaps it is well--we may find\nourselves soon more directly than heretofore struggling with the Empire.\nSo far the fight has been confused. Imperialists fighting for Home Rule\nobscured the fact that they were _not_ fighting the Empire. Now Home\nRule is likely to come, and it will serve at least the good purpose of\nclearing the air and setting the issue definitely between the nation and\nthe Empire. We shall have our say for the nation, but as even now many\nthings, false and hypocritical, are being urged on behalf of the\nEmpire, it will serve us to examine the Imperial creed and show its\ntyranny, cruelty, hypocrisy, and expose the danger of giving it any\npretext whatever for aggression. For the Empire, as we know it and deal\nwith it, is a bad thing in itself, and we must not only get free of it\nand not be again trapped by it, but must rather give hope and\nencouragement to every nation fighting the same fight all the world\nover.\n\n\nII\n\n\nOne candid writer, Machiavelli, has put the Imperial creed into a book,\nthe examination of which will--for those willing to see--clear the air\nof illusion. Now, we are conscious that defenders of the Empire profess\nto be shocked by the wickedness of Machiavelli's utterance--we shall\nhear Macaulay later--but this shocked attitude won't delude us. Let\nthose who have not read Machiavelli's book, \"The Prince,\" consider\ncarefully the extracts given below and see exactly how they fit the\nEnglish occupation of Ireland, and understand thoroughly that the Empire\nis a thing, bad in itself, utterly wicked, to be resisted everywhere,\nfought without ceasing, renounced with fervour and without\nqualification, as we have been taught from the cradle to renounce the\nDevil with all his works and pomps. Consider first the invasion.\nMachiavelli speaks:--\"The common method in such cases is this. As soon\nas a foreign potentate enters into a province those who are weaker or\ndisobliged join themselves with him out of emulation and animosity to\nthose who are above them, insomuch that in respect to those inferior\nlords no pains are to be omitted that may gain them; and when gained,\nthey will readily and unanimously fall into one mass with the State that\nis conquered. Only the conqueror is to take special care that they grow\nnot too strong, nor be entrusted with too much authority, and then he\ncan easily with his own forces and their assistance keep down the\ngreatness of his neighbours, and make himself absolute arbiter in that\nprovince.\" Here is the old maxim, \"Divide and conquer.\" To gain an entry\nsome pretence is advisable. Machiavelli speaks with approval of a\ncertain potentate who always made religion a pretence. Having entered a\nvigorous policy must be pursued. We read--\"He who usurps the government\nof any State is to execute and put in practice all the cruelties which\nhe thinks material at once.\" Cromwell rises before us.\n\n\"A prince,\" says Machiavelli, \"is not to regard the scandal of being\ncruel if thereby he keeps his subjects in their allegiance.\" \"For,\" he\nis cautioned, \"whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it\ncommits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself; because\nwhenever the citizens are disposed to revolt they betake themselves, of\ncourse, to that blessed name of Liberty, and the laws of their\nancestors, which no length of time nor kind usage whatever will be able\nto eradicate.\" An alternative to utter destruction is flattery and\nindulgence. \"Men are either to be flattered and indulged or utterly\ndestroyed.\" We think of the titles and the bribes. Again, \"A town that\nhas been anciently free cannot more easily be kept in subjection than by\nemploying its own citizens.\" We think of the place-hunter, the King's\nvisit, the \"loyal\" address. To make the conquest secure we read: \"When a\nprince conquers a new State and annexes it as a member to his old, then\nit is necessary your subjects be disarmed, all but such as appeared for\nyou in the conquest, and they are to be mollified by degrees and\nbrought into such a condition of laziness and effeminacy that in time\nyour whole strength may devolve upon your own natural militia.\" We think\nof the Arms Acts and our weakened people. But while one-half is disarmed\nand the other half bribed, with neither need the conqueror keep faith.\nWe read: \"A prince who is wise and prudent cannot, or ought not, to keep\nhis parole, when the keeping of it is to his prejudice and the causes\nfor which he promised removed.\" This is made very clear to prevent any\nmistake. \"It is of great consequence to disguise your inclination and\nplay the hypocrite well.\" We think of the Broken Treaty and countless\nother breaches of faith. It is, of course, well to seem honourable, but\nMachiavelli cautions: \"It is honourable to seem mild, and merciful, and\ncourteous, and religious, and sincere, and indeed to be so, provided\nyour mind be so rectified and prepared, that you can act quite contrary\nupon occasion.\" Should anyone hesitate at all this let him hear: \"He is\nnot to concern himself if run under the infamy of those vices, without\nwhich his dominion was not to be preserved.\" Thus far the philosophy of\nMachiavelli. The Imperialist out to \"civilise the barbarians\" is, of\ncourse, shocked by such wickedness; but we are beginning to open our\neyes to the wickedness and hypocrisy of both. To us this book reads as\nif a shrewd observer of the English Occupation in Ireland had noted the\nattending features and based these principles thereon. We have reason to\nbe grateful to Machiavelli for his exposition. His advice to the prince,\nin effect, lays bare the marauders of his age and helps us to expose the\nEmpire in our own.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThere is a lesson to be learnt from the fact that this book of\nMachiavelli's, written four centuries ago in Italy, is so apt here\nto-day. We must take this exposition as the creed of Empire and have no\ntruck with the Empire. It may be argued that the old arts will be no\nlonger practised on us. Let the new supporters of the Empire know that\nby the new alliance they should practise these arts on other people,\nwhich would be infamy. We are not going to hold other people down; we\nare going to encourage them to stand up. If it means a further fight we\nhave plenty of stimulus still. Our oppression has been doubly bitter\nfor having been mean. The tyranny of a strong mind makes us rage, but\nthe tyranny of a mean one is altogether insufferable. The cruelty of a\nCromwell can be forgotten more easily than the cant of a Macaulay. When\nwe read certain lines we go into a blaze, and that fire will burn till\nit has burnt every opposition out. In his essay on Milton, Macaulay\nhaving written much bombast on the English Revolution, introduces this\ncharacteristic sentiment: \"One part of the Empire there was, so\nunhappily circumstanced, that at that time its misery was necessary to\nour happiness and its slavery to our freedom.\" For insolence this would\nbe hard to beat. Let it be noted well. It is the philosophy of the\n\"Predominant Partner.\" If he had thanked God for having our throats to\ncut, and cut them with loud gratitude like Cromwell, a later generation\nwould be incensed. But this other attitude is the gall in the cup.\nMacaulay is, of course, shocked by Machiavelli's \"Prince.\" In his essay\non Machiavelli we read: \"It is indeed scarcely possible for any person\nnot well acquainted with the history and literature of Italy to read\nwithout horror and amazement the celebrated treatise which has brought\nso much obloquy on the name of Machiavelli. Such a display of\nwickedness, naked, yet not ashamed, such cool, judicious, scientific\natrocity, seemed rather to belong to a fiend than to the most depraved\nof men.\" But, later, in the same essay, is a valuable sidelight. He\nwrites of Machiavelli as a man \"whose only fault was that, having\nadopted some of the maxims then generally received, he arranged them\nmost luminously and expressed them more forcibly than any other writer.\"\nHere we have the truth, of course not so intended, but evident:\nMachiavelli's crime is not for the sentiments he entertained but for\nwriting them down luminously and forcibly--in other words, for giving\nthe show away.\n\nThink of Macaulay's \"horror and amazement,\" and read this further in the\nsame essay: \"Every man who has seen the world knows that nothing is so\nuseless as a general maxim. If it be very moral and very true it may\nserve for a copy to a charity boy.\" So the very moral and the very true\nare not for the statesman but for the charity-boy. This perhaps may be\ndefended as irony; hardly, but even so, in such irony the character\nappears as plainly as in volumes of solemn rant. To us it stands out\nclearly as the characteristic attitude of the English Government. The\nEnglish people are used to it, practise it, and will put up with it; but\nthe Irish people never were, are not now, and never will be used to it;\nand we won't put up with it. We get calm as old atrocities recede into\nhistory, but to repeat the old cant, above all to try and sustain such\nnow, sets all the old fire blazing--blazing with a fierceness that will\nend only with the British connection.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nNot many of us in Ireland will be deceived by Macaulay, but there is\ndanger in an occasional note of writers, such as Bernard Shaw and Stuart\nMill. Our instinct often saves us by natural repugnance from the\nhypocrite, when we may be confused by some sentiment of a sincere man,\nnot foreseeing its tendency. When an aggressive power looks for an\nopening for aggression it first looks for a pretext, and our danger lies\nin men's readiness to give it the pretext. Such a sentiment as this from\nMill--on \"Liberty\"--gives the required opening: \"Despotism is a\nlegitimate mode of government in dealing with Barbarians, provided the\nend be their improvement\"; or this from Shaw's preface to the Home Rule\nedition of \"John Bull's Other Island\": \"I am prepared to Steam-roll\nTibet if Tibet persist in refusing me my international rights.\" Now, it\nis within our right to enforce a principle within our own territory, but\nto force it on other people, called for the occasion \"barbarians,\" is\nquite another thing. Shaw may get wrathful, and genuinely so, over the\nDenshawai horror, and expose it nakedly and vividly as he did in his\nfirst edition of \"John Bull's Other Island,\" Preface for Politicians;\nbut the aggressors are undisturbed as long as he gives them pretexts\nwith his \"steam-roll Tibet\" phrase. And when he says further that he is\nprepared to co-operate with France, Italy, Russia, Germany and England\nin Morocco, Tripoli, Siberia and Africa to civilise these places, not\nonly are his denunciations of Denshawai horrors of no avail--except to\ndraw tears after the event--but he cannot co-operate in the civilising\nprocess without practising the cruelty; and perhaps in their privacy the\nempire-makers may smile when Shaw writes of Empire with evident\nearnestness as \"a name that every man who has ever felt the sacredness\nof his own native soil to him, and thus learnt to regard that feeling in\nother men as something holy and inviolable, spits out of his mouth with\nenormous contempt.\" When, further, in his \"Representative Government\"\nMill tells the English people--a thing about which Shaw has no\nillusions--that they are \"the power which of all in existence best\nunderstands liberty, and, whatever may have been its errors in the past,\nhas attained to more of conscience and moral principle in its dealing\nwith foreigners than any other great nation seems either to conceive as\npossible or recognise as desirable\"--they not only go forward to\ncivilise the barbarians by Denshawai horrors, but they do so unctuously\nin the true Macaulayan style. We feel a natural wrath at all this, not\nunmingled with amusement and amazement. In studying the question we read\nmuch that rouses anger and contempt, but one must laugh out heartily in\ncoming to this gem of Mill's, uttered with all Mill's solemnity:\n\"Place-hunting is a form of ambition to which the English, considered\nnationally, are almost strangers.\" When the sincerest expression of the\nEnglish mind can produce this we need to have our wits about us; and\nwhen, as just now, so much nonsense, and dangerous nonsense, is being\npoured abroad about the Empire, we need to pause, carefully consider all\nthese things, and be on our guard.\n\n\nV\n\n\nIn conclusion, we may add our own word to the talk of the hour--the\npoliticians on Home Rule. It should raise a smile to hear so often the\nprophecy that Ireland will be loyal to the Empire when she gets Home\nRule. We are surprised that any Irishman could be so foolish, though, no\ndoubt, many Englishmen are so simple as to believe it. History and\nexperience alike deny it. Possibly the Home Rule chiefs realise their\nactive service is now limited to a decade or two, and assume Home Rule\nmay be the limit for that time, and speak only for that time; but at the\nend of that time our generation will be vigorous and combative, and if\nwe cannot come into our own before then, we shall be ready then. We need\nsay for the moment no more than this--the limit of the old generation\nis not the limit of ours. If anyone doubt the further step to take let\nhim consider our history, recent and remote. The old effort to subdue or\nexterminate us having failed, the new effort to conciliate us began.\nMinor concessions led to the bigger question of the land. One Land Act\nled to another till the people came by their own. Home Rule, first to be\nkilled by resolute government, was next to be killed by kindness, and\nLocal Government came. Local Government made Home Rule inevitable; and\nnow Home Rule is at hand and we come to the last step. Anyone who reads\nthe history of Ireland, who understands anything of progress, who can\ndraw any lesson from experience, must realise that the advent of Home\nRule marks the beginning of the end.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nRESISTANCE IN ARMS--FOREWORD\n\n\nI\n\n\nThe discussion of freedom leads inevitably to the discussion of an\nappeal to arms. If proving the truth and justice of a people's claim\nwere sufficient there would be little tyranny in the world, but a\ntyrannical power is deaf to the appeal of truth--it cannot be moved by\nargument, and must be met by force. The discussion of the ethics of\nrevolt is, then, inevitable.\n\n\nII\n\n\nThe ubiquitous pseudo-practical man, petulant and critical, will at once\narise: \"What is the use of discussing arms in Ireland? If anyone wanted\nto fight it would be impossible, and no one wants to fight. What\nprevents ye going out to begin?\" Such peevish criticism is anything but\npractical, and one may ignore it; but it suggests the many who would\nearnestly wish to settle our long war with a swift, conclusive fight,\nyet who feel it no longer practical. Keeping to the practical issue, we\nmust bear in mind a few things. Though Ireland has often fought at odds,\nand could do so again, it is not just now a question of Ireland poorly\nequipped standing up to England invincible. England will never again\nhave such an easy battle. The point now to emphasise is this--by\nremaining passive and letting ourselves drift we drift into the conflict\nthat involves England. We must fight for her or get clear of her. There\ncan be no neutrality while bound to her; so a military policy is an\neminently practical question. Moreover, it is an urgent one: to stand in\nwith England in any danger that threatens her will be at least as\ndangerous as a bold bid to break away from her. One thing above all,\nconditions have changed in a startling manner; England is threatened\nwithin as without; there are labour complications of all kinds of which\nno one can foresee the end, while as a result of another complication\nwe find the Prime Minister of England going about as carefully protected\nas the Czar of Russia.[Footnote: The militant suffragette agitation.]\nThe unrest of the times is apt to be even bewildering. England is not\nalone in her troubles--all the great Powers are likewise; and it is at\nleast as likely for any one of them to be paralysed by an internal war\nas to be prepared to wage an external one. This stands put clearly--we\ncannot go away from the turmoil and sit down undisturbed; we must stand\nin and fight for our own hand or the hand of someone else. Let us\nprepare and stand for our own. However it be, no one can deny that in\nall the present upheavals it is at least practical to discuss the ethics\nof revolt.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nWe can count on a minority who will see wisdom in such a discussion; it\nmust be our aim to make the discussion effective. We must be patient as\nwell as resolute. We are apt to get impatient and by hasty denunciation\ndrive off many who are wavering and may be won. These are held back,\nperhaps, by some scruple or nervousness, and by a fine breath of the\ntruth and a natural discipline may yet be made our truest soldiers.\nEmerson, in his address at the dedication of the Soldiers' Monument,\nConcord, made touching reference in some such in the American Civil War.\nHe told of one youth he knew who feared he was a coward, and yet\naccustomed himself to danger, by forcing himself to go and meet it. \"He\nenlisted in New York,\" says Emerson, \"went out to the field, and died\nearly.\" And his comment for us should be eloquent. \"It is from this\ntemperament of sensibility that great heroes have been formed.\" The\npains we are at to make men physically fit we must take likewise to make\nthem mentally fit. We are minutely careful in physical training, drill\nregulations and the rest, which is right, for thus we turn a mob into an\narmy and helplessness into strength. Let us be minutely careful, too,\nwith the untried minds--timid, anxious, sensitive in matters of\nconscience; like him Emerson spoke of, they may be found yet in the\nforemost fighting line, but we must have patience in pleading with them.\nHere above all must we keep our balance, must we come down with sympathy\nto every particular. It is surely evident that it is essential to give\nthe care we lavish on the body with equal fulness to the mind.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nAt the heart of the question we will be met by the religious objection\nto revolt. Here all scruples, timidity, wavering, will concentrate; and\nhere is our chief difficulty to face. The right to war is invariably\nallowed to independent states. The right to rebel, even with just cause,\nis not by any means invariably allowed to subject nations. It has been\nand is denied to us in Ireland. We must answer objectors line by line,\nleading them, where it serves, step by step to our conclusions; but this\nis not to make freedom a mere matter of logic--it is something more.\nWhen it comes to war we shall frequently give, not our promises, but our\nconclusions. This much must be allowed, however, that, as far as logic\nwill carry, our position must be perfectly sound; yet, be it borne in\nmind, our cause reaches above mere reasoning--mere logic does not\nenshrine the mysterious touch of fire that is our life. So, when we\nargue with opponents we undertake to give them as good as or better than\nthey can give, but we stake our cause on the something that is more. On\nthis ground I argue not in general on the right of war, but in\nparticular on the right of revolt; not how it may touch other people\nelsewhere ignoring how it touches us here in Ireland. A large treatise\ncould be written on the general question, but to avoid seeming academic\nI will confine myself as far as possible to the side that is our\nconcern. For obvious reasons I propose to speak as to how it affects\nCatholics, and let them and others know what some Catholic writers of\nauthority have said on the matter. One thing has to be carefully made\nclear. It is seen in the following quotation from an eminent Catholic\nauthority writing in Ireland in the middle of the last century, Dr.\nMurray, of Maynooth: \"The Church has issued no definition whatever on\nthe question--has left it open. Many theologians have written on it; the\ngreat majority, however (so far as I have been able to examine them),\npass it over in silence.\" (_Essays chiefly Theological_, vol. 4). This\nhas to be kept in mind. Theologians have written, some on one side and\nsome on the other, but the Church has left it open. I need not labour\nthe point why it is useful to quote Catholic authorities in particular,\nsince in Ireland an army representative of the people would be largely\nCatholic, and much former difficulty arose from Catholics in Ireland\nmeeting with opposition from some Catholic authorities. It may be seen\nthe position is delicate as well as difficult, and in writing a\npreliminary note one point should be emphasised. We must not evade a\ndifficulty because it is delicate and dangerous, and we must not\ntemporise. In a physical contest on the field of battle it is allowable\nto use tactics and strategy, to retreat as well as advance, to have\nrecourse to a ruse as well as open attack; but _in matters of principle\nthere can be no tactics, there is one straightforward course to follow,\nand that course must be found and followed without swerving to the end_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nRESISTANCE IN ARMS--THE TRUE MEANING OF LAW\n\n\nI\n\n\nWhen we stand up to question false authority we should first make our\nfooting firm by showing we understand true authority and uphold it. Let\nus be clear then as to the meaning of the word law. It may be defined;\nan ordinance of reason, the aim of which is the public good and\npromulgated by the ruling power. Let us cite a few authorities. \"A human\nlaw bears the character of law so far as it is in conformity with right\nreason; and in that point of view it is manifestly derived from the\nEternal Law.\" (_Aquinas Ethicus,_ Vol. 1, p. 276.) Writing of laws that\nare unjust either in respect to end, author or form, St. Thomas says:\n\"Such proceedings are rather acts of violence than laws; because St.\nAugustine says: 'A law that is not just goes for no law at all.'\"\n(_Aquinas Ethicus_, Vol. 1, p. 292.) \"The fundamental idea of all law,\"\nwrites Balmez, \"is that it be in accordance with reason, that it be an\nemanation from reason, an application of reason to society\" (_European\nCivilisation_, Chap. 53). In the same chapter Balmez quotes St. Thomas\nwith approval: \"The kingdom is not made for the king, but the king for\nthe kingdom\"; and he goes on to the natural inference: \"That all\ngovernments have been established for the good of society, and that this\nalone should be the compass to guide those who are in command, whatever\nbe the form of government.\" It is likewise the view of Mill, in\n_Representative Government_, that the well-being of the governed is the\nsole object of government. It was the view of Plato before the Christian\nera: his ideal city should be established, \"that the whole City might be\nin the happiest condition.\" (_The Republic_, Book 4.) Calderwood writes:\n\"Political Government can be legitimately constructed only on condition\nof the acknowledgment of natural obligations and rights as inviolable.\"\n(_Handbook of Modern Philosophy, Applied Ethics_, Sec. 4.) Here all\nschools and all times are in agreement. Till these conditions are\nfulfilled for us we are at war. When an independent and genuine Irish\nGovernment is established we shall yield it a full and hearty\nallegiance: the law shall then be in repute. We do not stand now to deny\nthe idea of authority, but to say that the wrong people are in\nauthority, the wrong flag is over us.\n\n\nII\n\n\n\"We must overthrow the arguments that might be employed against us by\nthe advocates of blind submission to any power that happens to be\nestablished,\" writes Balmez, on resistance to _De Facto_ Governments.\n(_European Civilisation_, Chap. 55.) We could not be more explicit than\nthe famous Spanish theologian. To such arguments let the following stand\nout from his long and emphatic reply:--\"Illegitimate authority is no\nauthority at all; the idea of power involves the idea of right, without\nwhich it is mere physical power, that is force.\" He writes further: \"The\nconqueror, who, by mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not\nthereby acquire a right to its possession; the government, which by\ngross iniquities has despoiled entire classes of citizens, exacted undue\ncontributions, abolished legitimate rights, cannot justify its acts by\nthe simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute these\niniquities.\" There is much that is equally clear and definite. What\nextravagant things can be said on the other side by people in high\nplaces we know too well. Balmez in the same book and chapter gives an\nexcellent example and an excellent reply: \"Don Felix Amat, Archbishop of\nPalmyra, in the posthumous work entitled _Idea of the Church Militant_,\nmakes use of these words: 'Jesus Christ, by His plain and expressive\nanswer, _Render to C\u00e6sar the things that are C\u00e6sar's_, has sufficiently\nestablished that the mere fact of a government's existence is sufficient\nfor enforcing the obedience of subjects to it....' His work was\nforbidden at Rome,\" is Balmez' expressive comment, and he continues,\n\"and whatever may have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may\nrest assured that, in the case of a book advocating such doctrines,\nevery man who is jealous of his rights might acquiesce in the decree of\nthe Sacred Congregation.\" So much for _De Facto_ Government. It is\nusurpation; by being consummated it does not become legitimate. When its\ndecrees are not resisted, it does not mean we accept them in\nprinciple--nor can we even pretend to accept them--but that the hour to\nresist has not yet come. It is the strategy of war.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nWe stand on the ground that the English Government in Ireland is founded\nin usurpation and as such deny its authority. But if it be argued,\nassuming it as Ireland's case, that a usurped authority, gradually\nacquiesced in by the people, ultimately becomes the same as legitimate,\nthe reply is still clear. For ourselves we meet the assumption with a\nsimple denial, appealing to Irish History for evidence that we never\nacquiesced in the English Usurpation. But to those who are not satisfied\nwith this simple denial, we can point out that even an authority,\noriginally founded legitimately, may be resisted when abusing its power\nto the ruin of the Commonwealth. We still stand on the ground that the\nEnglish government is founded in usurpation, but we can dispose of all\nobjections by proving the extremer case. This is the case Dr. Murray,\nalready quoted, discusses. \"The question,\" he writes, \"is about\nresistance to an established and legitimate government which abuses its\npower.\" (_Essays, Chiefly Theological_, Vol. 4.) He continues: \"The\ncommon opinion of a large number of our theologians, then, is that it is\nlawful to resist by force, and if necessary to depose, the sovereign\nruler or rulers, in the extreme--the very extreme--case wherein the\nfollowing conditions are found united:\n\n\n  \"1. The tyranny must be excessive--intolerable.\n\n  \"2. The tyranny must be manifest, manifest to men of good sense and\n  right feeling.\n\n  \"3. The evils inflicted by the tyrant must be greater than those which\n  would ensue from resisting and deposing him.\n\n  \"4. There must be no other available way of getting rid of the tyranny\n  except by recurring to the extreme course.\n\n  \"5. There must be a moral certainty of success.\n\n  \"6. The revolution must be one conducted or approved by the community\n  at large ... the refusal of a small party in the State to join with\n  the overwhelming mass of their countrymen would not render the\n  resistance of the latter unlawful.\" (_Essays, Chiefly Theological_;\n  see also Rickaby, _Moral Philosophy_, Chap. 8, Sec. 7.)\n\nSome of these conditions are drawn out at much length by Dr. Murray. I\ngive what is outstanding. How easily they could fit Irish conditions\nmust strike anyone. I think it might fairly be said that our leaders\ngenerally would, if asked to lay down conditions for a rising, have\nframed some more stringent than these. It might be said, in truth, of\nsome of them that they seem to wait for more than a moral certainty of\nsuccess, an absolute certainty, that can never be looked for in war.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nWhen a government through its own iniquity ceases to exist, we must, to\nestablish a new government on a true and just basis, go back to the\norigin of Civil Authority. No one argues now for the Divine Right of\nKings, but in studying the old controversy we get light on the subject\nof government that is of all time. To the conception that kings held\ntheir power immediately from God, \"Suarez boldly opposed the thesis of\nthe initial sovereignty of the people; from whose consent, therefore,\nall civil authority immediately sprang. So also, in opposition to\nMelanchthon's theory of governmental omnipotence, Suarez _a fortiori_\nadmitted the right of the people to depose those princes who would have\nshown themselves unworthy of the trust reposed in them.\" (De Wulf,\n_History of Medieval Philosophy,_ Third Edition, p. 495.) Suarez'\nrefutation of the Anglican theory, described by Hallam as clear, brief,\nand dispassionate, has won general admiration. Hallam quotes him to the\ndiscredit of the English divines: \"For this power, by its very nature,\nbelongs to no one man but to a multitude of men. This is a certain\nconclusion, being common to all our authorities, as we find by St.\nThomas, by the Civil laws, and by the great canonists and casuists; all\nof whom agree that the prince has that power of law-giving which the\npeople have given him. And the reason is evident, since all men are\nborn equal, and consequently no one has a political jurisdiction over\nanother, nor any dominion; nor can we give any reason from the nature of\nthe thing why one man should govern another rather than the contrary.\"\n(Hallam--_Literature of Europe_, Vol. 3, Chap. 4.) Dr. Murray, in the\nessay already quoted, speaks of Sir James Mackintosh as the ablest\nProtestant writer who refuted the Anglican theory, which Mackintosh\nspeaks of as \"The extravagance of thus representing obedience as the\nonly duty without an exception.\" Dr. Murray concludes his own essay on\n_Resistance to the Supreme Civil Power_ by a long passage from\nMackintosh, the weight and wisdom of which he praises. The greater part\nof the passage is devoted to the difficulties even of success and\nemphasising the terrible evils of failure. In what has already been\nwritten here I have been at pains rather to lay bare all possible evils\nthan to hide them. But when revolt has become necessary and inevitable,\nthen the conclusion of the passage Dr. Murray quotes should be endorsed\nby all: \"An insurrection rendered necessary by oppression, and warranted\nby a reasonable probability of a happy termination, is an act of public\nvirtue, always environed with so much peril as to merit admiration.\"\nYes, and given the happy termination, the right and responsibility of\nestablishing a new government rest with the body of the people.\n\n\nV\n\n\nWe come, then, to this conclusion, that government is just only when\nrightfully established and for the public good; that usurpation not only\nmay but ought to be resisted; that an authority originally legitimate\nonce it becomes habitually tyrannical may be resisted and deposed; and\nthat when from abuse or tyranny a particular government ceases to exist,\nwe have to re-establish a true one. It is sometimes carelessly said,\n\"Liberty comes from anarchy,\" but this is a very dangerous doctrine. It\nwould be nearer truth to say from anarchy inevitably comes tyranny. Men\nreceive a despot to quell a mob. But when a people, determined and\ndisciplined, resolve to have neither despotism nor anarchy but freedom,\nthen they act in the light of the Natural Law. It is well put in the\ndoctrine of St. Thomas, as given by Turner in his _History of\nPhilosophy_ (Chap. 38): \"The redress to which the subjects of a tyrant\nhave a just right must be sought, not by an individual, but by an\nauthority temporarily constituted by the people and acting according to\nlaw.\" Yes, and when wild and foolish people talk hysterically of our\ndefiance of all authority, let us calmly show we best understand the\nbasis of Authority--which is Truth, and most highly reverence its\npresiding spirit--which is Liberty.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nRESISTANCE IN ARMS--OBJECTIONS\n\n\nI\n\n\nHaving stated the case for resistance, it will serve us to consider some\nobjections. Many inquiring minds may be made happy by a clear view of\nthe doctrine, till some clever opponent holds them up with remarks on\nprudence, possibly sensible, or remarks on revolutionists, most probably\nwild, with, perhaps, the authority of a great name, or unfailing refuge\nin the concrete. It is curious that while often noticed how men, trying\nto evade a concrete issue, take refuge in the abstract, it is not\nnoticed that men, trying to avoid acknowledging the truth of some\nprinciple, take refuge in the concrete. A living and pressing\ndifficulty, though transient, looms larger than any historical fact or\ncoming danger. Seeing this, we may restore confidence to a baffled mind,\nby helping it to distinguish the contingent from the permanent. Thus, by\ndisposing of objections, we make our ground secure.\n\n\nII\n\n\nTo the name of prudence the most imprudent people frequently appeal.\nThose whose one effort is to evade difficulties, who to cover their\nweakness plead patience, would be well advised to consider how men\npassionately in earnest, enraged by these evasions, pour their scorn on\npatience as a thing to shun. The plea does not succeed; it only for the\nmoment damages the prestige of a great name. Patience is not a virtue of\nthe weak but of the strong. An objector says: \"Of course, all this is\nright in the abstract, but consider the frightful abuses in practice,\"\nand some apt replies spring to mind. Dr. Murray, writing on \"Mental\nReservation,\" in his _Essays, chiefly Theological_, speaks thus: \"But it\nis no objection to any principle of morals to say that unscrupulous men\nwill abuse it, or that, if publicly preached to such and such an\naudience or in such and such circumstances, it will lead to mischief.\"\nThis is admirable, to which the objector can only give some helpless\nrepetitions. With Balmez, we reply: \"But in recommending prudence to the\npeople let us not disguise it under false doctrines--let us beware of\ncalming the exasperation of misfortune by circulating errors subversive\nof all governments, of all society.\" (_European Civilisation_, Chap.\n55.) Of men who shrink from investigating such questions, Balmez wrote:\n\"I may be permitted to observe that their prudence is quite thrown away,\nthat their foresight and precaution are of no avail. Whether they\ninvestigate these questions or not, they _are_ investigated, agitated\nand decided, in a manner that we must deplore.\" (Ibid. Chap. 54.) Take\nwith this Turner on France under the old _r\u00e9gime_ and the many and\nserious grievances of the people: \"The Church, whose duty it was to\ninculcate justice and forbearance, was identified, in the minds of the\npeople, with the Monarchy which they feared and detested.\" (_History of\nPhilosophy_, Chap. 59.) The moral is that when injustice and evil are\nrampant, let us have no palliation, no weakness disguising itself as a\nvirtue. What we cannot at once resist, we can always repudiate. To\nignore these things is the worst form of imprudence--an imprudence which\nwe, for our part at least, take the occasion here heartily to disclaim.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThere is so much ill-considered use of the word revolutionist, we should\nbear in mind it is a strictly relative term. If the freedom of a people\nis overthrown by treachery and violence, and oppression practised on\ntheir once thriving land, that is a revolution, and a bad revolution.\nIf, with tyranny enthroned and a land wasting under oppression, the\npeople rise and by their native courage, resource and patience\nre-establish in their original independence a just government, that is a\nrevolution, and a good revolution. The revolutionist is to be judged by\nhis motives, methods and ends; and, when found true, his insurrection,\nin the words of Mackintosh, is \"an act of public virtue.\" It is the\nrestoration of, Truth to its place of honour among men.\n\n\nIV\n\n\nBalmez mentions Bossuet as apparently one who denies the right here\nmaintained; and we may with profit read some things Bossuet has said in\nanother context, yet which touches closely what is our concern. Writing\nof _Les Empires_, thus Bossuet: \"Les r\u00e9volutions des empires sont\nr\u00e9gl\u00e9es par la providence, et servent \u00e0 humilier les princes.\" This is\nhardly calculated to deter us from a bid for freedom; and if we go on to\nread what he has written further under this heading, we get testimony to\nthe hardihood and love of freedom and country that distinguished early\nGreece and Rome in language of eloquence that might inflame any people\nto liberty. Of undegenerate Greece, free and invincible: \"Mais ce que la\nGrece avait de plus grand \u00e9tait une politique ferme et pr\u00e9voyante, qui\nsavait abandonner, hasarder et d\u00e9fendre, ce qu'il fallait; et, ce qui\nest plus grand encore, un courage que l'amour de la libert\u00e9 et celui de\nla patrie rendaient invincible.\" Of undegenerate Rome, her liberty: \"La\nlibert\u00e9 leur \u00e9tait donc un tr\u00e9sor qu'ils pr\u00e9feroient \u00e0 toutes les\nrichesses de l'univers.\" Again: \"La maxime fondamentale de la\nr\u00e9publique \u00e9tait de regarder la libert\u00e9 comme une chose ins\u00e9parable du\nnom Roman.\" And her constancy: \"Voila de fruit glorieux de la patience\nRomaine. Des peuples qui s'enhardissaient et se fortifiaient par leurs\nmalheurs avaient bien raison de croire qu'on sauvait tout pourvu qu'on\nne perdit pas l'esperance.\" And again: \"Parmi eux, dans les \u00e9tats les\nplus tristes, jamais les faibles conseils n'ont \u00e9t\u00e9 seulement \u00e9cout\u00e9s.\"\nThe reading of such a fine tribute to the glory of ancient liberties is\nnot likely to diminish our desire for freedom; rather, to add to the\nnatural stimulus found in our own splendid traditions, the further\nstimulus of this thought that must whisper to us: \"Persevere and\nconquer, and to-morrow our finest opponent will be our finest panegyrist\nwhen the battle has been fought and won.\"\n\n\nV\n\n\nIn conclusion, in the concrete this simple fact will suffice: we have\nestablished immutable principles; the concrete circumstances are\ncontingent and vary. It is admirably put in the following passage: \"The\nhistorical and sociological sciences, so carefully cultivated in modern\ntimes, have proved to evidence that social conditions _vary_ with the\nepoch and the country, that they are the resultant of quite a number of\nfluctuating influences, and that, accordingly, the science of Natural\nRight should not merely establish _immutable_ principles bearing on the\nmoral end of man, but should likewise deal with the _contingent_\ncircumstances accompanying the application of those principles.\" (De\nWulf, _Scholasticism, Old and New_, Part 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 33.) Yes, and\nif we apply principles to-morrow, it is not with the conditions of\nto-day we must deal, but \"with the contingent circumstances accompanying\nthe application of those principles.\" Let that be emphasised. The\nconditions of twenty years ago are vastly changed to-day; and how\naltered the conditions of to-morrow can be, how astonishing can be the\nchange in the short span of twenty years, let this fact prove. Ireland\nin '48 was prostrate after a successful starvation and an unsuccessful\nrising--to all appearances this time hopelessly crushed; yet within\ntwenty years another rising was planned that shook English government in\nIreland to its foundations. Let us bear in mind this further from De\nWulf: \"Sociology, understood in the wider and larger sense, is\ntransforming the methods of the science of Natural Right.\" In view of\nthat transformation he is wise who looks to to-morrow. What De Wulf\nconcludes we may well endorse, when he asks us to take facts as they are\nbrought to light and study \"each question on its merits, in the light of\nthese facts and not merely in its present setting but as presented in\nthe pages of history.\" It can be fairly said of those who have always\nstood for the separation of Ireland from the British Empire, that they\nalone have always appealed to historical evidence, have always regarded\nthe conditions of the moment as transient, have always discussed\npossible future contingencies. The men who temporised were always\nhypnotised by the conditions of the hour. But in the life-story of a\nnation stretching over thousands of years, the British occupation is a\ncontingent circumstance, and the immutable principle is the Liberty of\nthe Irish People.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nTHE BEARNA BAOGHAIL--CONCLUSION\n\n\nI\n\n\nBut when principles have been proved and objections answered, there are\nstill some last words to say for some who stand apart--the men who held\nthe breach. For, they do stand apart, not in error but in constancy; not\nin doubt of the truth but its incarnation; not average men of the\nmultitude for whom human laws are made, who must have moral certainty of\nsuccess, who must have the immediate allegiance of the people. For it is\nthe distinguishing glory of our prophets and our soldiers of the forlorn\nhope, that the defeats of common men were for them but incentives to\nfurther battle; and when they held out against the prejudices of their\ntime, they were not standing in some new conceit, but most often by\nprophetic insight fighting for a forgotten truth of yesterday, catching\nin their souls to light them forward, the hidden glory of to-morrow.\nThey knew to be theirs by anticipation the general allegiance without\nwhich lesser men cannot proceed. They knew they stood for the Truth,\nagainst which nothing can prevail, and if they had to endure struggle,\nsuffering and pain, they had the finer knowledge born of these things, a\nknowledge to which the best of men ever win--that if it is a good thing\nto live, it is a good thing also to die. Not that they despised life or\nlightly threw it away; for none better than they knew its grandeur, none\nmore than they gloried in its beauty, none were so happily full as they\nof its music; but they knew, too, the value of this deep truth, with the\nfinal loss of which Earth must perish: the man who is afraid to die is\nnot fit to live. And the knowledge for them stamped out Earth's oldest\nfear, winning for life its highest ecstasy. Yes, and when one or more of\nthem had to stand in the darkest generation and endure all penalties to\nthe extreme penalty, they knew for all that they had had the best of\nlife and did not count it a terrible thing if called by a little to\nanticipate death. They had still the finest appreciation of the finer\nattributes of comradeship and love; but it is part of the mystery of\ntheir happiness and success, that they were ready to go on to the end,\nnot looking for the suffrage of the living nor the monuments of the\ndead. Yes, and when finally the re-awakened people by their better\ninstincts, their discipline, patriotism and fervour, will have massed\ninto armies, and marched to freedom, they will know in the greatest hour\nof triumph that the success of their conquering arms was made possible\nby those who held the breach.\n\n\nII\n\n\nWhen, happily, we can fall back on the eloquence of the world's greatest\norator, we turn with gratitude to the greatest tribute ever spoken to\nthe memory of those men to whom the world owes most. Demosthenes, in the\nfinest height of his finest oration, vindicates the men of every age and\nnation who fight the forlorn hope. He was arraigned by his rival,\n\u00c6schines, for having counselled the Athenians to pursue a course that\nended in defeat, and he replies thus: \"If, then, the results had been\nforeknown to all--not even then should the Commonwealth have abandoned\nher design, if she had any regard for glory, or ancestry, or futurity.\nAs it is, she appears to have failed in her enterprise, a thing to which\nall mankind are liable, if the Deity so wills it.\" And he asks the\nAthenians: \"Why, had we resigned without a struggle that which our\nancestors encountered every danger to win, who would not have spit upon\nyou?\" And he asks them further to consider strangers, visiting their\nCity, sunk in such degradation, \"especially when in former times our\ncountry had never preferred an ignominious security to the battle for\nhonour.\" And he rises from the thought to this proud boast: \"None could\nat any period of time persuade the Commonwealth to attach herself in\nsecure subjection to the powerful and unjust; through every age has she\npersevered in a perilous struggle for precedency and honour and glory.\"\nAnd he tells them, appealing to the memory of Themistocles, how they\nhonoured most their ancestors who acted in such a spirit: \"Yes; the\nAthenians of that day looked not for an orator or a general, who might\nhelp them to a pleasant servitude: they scorned to live if it could not\nbe with freedom.\" And he pays them, his listeners, a tribute: \"What I\ndeclare is, that such principles are your own; I show that before my\ntime such was the spirit of the Commonwealth.\" From one eloquent height\nto another he proceeds, till, challenging \u00c6schines for arraigning him,\nthus counselling the people, he rises to this great level: \"But, never,\nnever can you have done wrong, O Athenians, in undertaking the battle\nfor the freedom and safety of all: I swear it by your forefathers--those\nthat met the peril at Marathon, those that took the field at Plat\u00e6a,\nthose in the sea-fight at Salamis, and those at Artimesium, and many\nother brave men who repose in the public monuments, all of whom alike,\nas being worthy of the same honour, the country buried, \u00c6schines, not\nonly the successful and victorious.\" We did not need this fine eloquence\nto assure us of the greatness of our O'Neills and our Tones, our\nO'Donnells and our Mitchels, but it so quickens the spirit and warms the\nblood to read it, it so touches--by the admiration won from ancient and\nmodern times--an enduring principle of the human heart--the capacity to\nappreciate a great deed and rise over every physical defeat--that we\nknow in the persistence of the spirit we shall come to a veritable\ntriumph. Yes; and in such light we turn to read what Ruskin called the\ngreatest inscription ever written, that which Herodotus tells us was\nraised over the Spartans, who fell at Thermopyl\u00e6, and which Mitchel's\nbiographer quotes as most fitting to epitomise Mitchel's life:\n\"Stranger, tell thou the Lacedemonians that we are lying here, having\nobeyed their words.\" And the biographer of Mitchel is right in holding\nthat he who reads into the significance of these brave lines, reads a\nmessage not of defeat but of victory.\n\n\nIII\n\n\nYes; and in paying a fitting tribute to those great men who are our\nexemplars, it would be fitting also, in conclusion, to remember\nourselves as the inheritors of a great tradition; and it would well\nbecome us not only to show the splendour of the banner that is handed on\nto us, but to show that this banner _we_, too, are worthy to bear. For,\nhow often it shall be victorious and how high it shall be planted, will\ndepend on the conception we have of its supreme greatness, the\nknowledge that it can be fought for in all times and places, the\nconviction that we may, when least we expect, be challenged to deny it;\nand that by our bearing we may bring it new credit and glory or drag it\nlow in repute. We do well, I say, to remember these things. For in our\ntime it has grown the fashion to praise the men of former times but to\ndeny their ideal of Independence; and we who live in that ideal, and in\nit breathe the old spirit, and preach it and fight for it and prophesy\nfor it an ultimate and complete victory--we are young men, foolish and\nunpractical. And what should be our reply? A reply in keeping with the\nflag, its history and its destiny. Let them, who deride or pity us, see\nwe despise or pity their standards, and let them know by our works--lest\nby our election they misunderstand--that we are not without ability in a\nfreer time to contest with them the highest places--avoiding the boast,\nnot for an affected sense of modesty but for a saving sense of humour.\nFor in all the vanities of this time that make Life and Literature choke\nwith absurdities, pretensions and humbug, let us have no new folly. Let\nus with the old high confidence blend the old high courtesy of the\nGaedheal. Let us grow big with our cause. Shall we honour the flag we\nbear by a mean, apologetic front? No! Wherever it is down, lift it;\nwherever it is challenged, wave it; wherever it is high, salute it;\nwherever it is victorious, glorify and exult in it. At all times and\nforever be for it proud, passionate, persistent, jubilant, defiant;\nstirring hidden memories, kindling old fires, wakening the finer\ninstincts of men, till all are one in the old spirit, the spirit that\nwill not admit defeat, that has been voiced by thousands, that is\nnoblest in Emmet's one line, setting the time for his epitaph: \"_When_\nmy country\"--not _if_--but \"_when_ my country takes her place among the\nnations of the earth.\" It is no hypothesis; it is a certainty. There\nhave been in every generation, and are in our own, men dull of\napprehension and cold of heart, who could not believe this, but we\nbelieve it, we live in it: _we know it_. Yes, we know it, as Emmet knew\nit, and as it shall be seen to-morrow; and when the historian of\nto-morrow, seeing it accomplished, will write its history, he will not\nnote the end with surprise. Rather will he marvel at the soul in\nconstancy, rivalling the best traditions of undegenerate Greece and\nRome, holding through disasters, persecutions, suffering, and not less\nthrough the seductions of milder but meaner times, seeing through all\nshining clearly the goal: he will record it all, and, still marvelling,\ncome to the issue that dauntless spirit has reached, proud and happy;\nbut he will write of that issue--_Liberty; Inevitable_: in two words to\nepitomise the history of a people that is without a parallel in the\nAnnals of the World.","title":"Principles of Freedom","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":47508}