{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44094/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44094","id":"gutenberg_44094","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44094","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Civilization","Crime","Evolution","Science"],"text":"+-------------------------------------------------+\n|Transcriber's note:                              |\n|                                                 |\n|Obvious typographic errors have been corrected.  |\n|                                                 |\n+-------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\nCIVILISATION: ITS CAUSE AND CURE\n\n_AND OTHER ESSAYS_\n\n(NEWLY-ENLARGED AND COMPLETE EDITION)\n\nBY\nEDWARD CARPENTER\n\nAUTHOR OF \"TOWARDS DEMOCRACY,\"\n\"MY DAYS AND DREAMS,\" ETC.\n\n[Illustration: logo]\n\nLONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.\nRUSKIN HOUSE, 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C.1\n\n\nFirst Edition, _June 1889_; Second Edition, _December 1890_;\nThird Edition, _November 1893_; Fourth Edition, _July 1895_;\nFifth Edition, _September 1897_; Sixth Edition, _October 1900_;\nSeventh Edition, _July 1902_; Eighth Edition, _March 1903_;\nNinth Edition, _January 1906_; Tenth Edition, _January 1908_;\nEleventh Edition, _October 1910_; Twelfth Edition, _Dec. 1912_;\nThirteenth Edition, _Aug. 1914_; Fourteenth Edition, _June 1916_;\nFifteenth Edition, _Sept. 1917_; Complete Edition, _Jan. 1921_\n\n(_All rights reserved_)\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO COMPLETE EDITION\n\n(1920)\n\n\nIn looking over this volume, first published in 1889, with a view to a\nfinal Edition, I am glad to note that after all there is not much in it\nrequiring alteration. Considering that the original issue took place\nmore than 30 years ago, I had thought that the great changes in\nscientific and philosophic thought which have taken place during that\nperiod would probably have rendered \"out of date\" a good deal of the\nbook.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the first paper--that on Civilisation--was given as\na lecture before the Fabian Society, in 1888; and I shall not easily\nforget the furious attacks which were made upon it on that occasion. The\nbook--published as a whole in 1889--came in for a very similar reception\nfrom the press-critics. They slated it to the top of their bent--except\nin those not unfrequent cases when they ignored it as almost beneath\nnotice. The whole trend of the thought of the time was against its\nconclusions; and it is perhaps worth while to recall these facts in\norder to measure how far we have travelled in these 30 years. For to-day\n(I think we may say) these conclusions are generally admitted as\ncorrect; and the views which seemed so hazarded and precarious at the\nearlier date are now fairly accepted and established.\n\nThe word Civilisation has undoubtedly during this period suffered an\nominous change of color. It is no longer an easy term denoting all that\nis ideal and delightful in social life, but on the contrary, carries\nwith it a sense of doubt and of criticism, as of something that is by no\nmeans accepted yet, but is rather on its trial--if not actually\ncondemned!\n\nI am sorry to note, however, that the suggestion made more than once in\nthe course of my book--namely that the term (Civilisation) should\nproperly be given an _historical_ instead of ideal value, as applicable\nto a certain period only in the history of each people, has not yet been\ngenerally taken up. Yet a paper by some more competent person than\nmyself on the definite marks and signs of the civilisation-period in\nHistory--their first appearance in the course of human progress and\nevolution, and their probable disappearance again at a later\nstage--would be greatly interesting and instructive.\n\nMy little essay on this subject was written at the time of its\ncomposition with a good deal of imaginative _\u00e9lan_; and is of course\nopen to criticism on that side, as being mainly enthusiastic in\ncharacter and only slenderly supported by exact _data_, proofs,\nhistorical illustrations, analogies, and so forth. But to largely alter\nor amend the essay without seriously crippling it would be impossible;\nand though the form may be hurried or inadequate, yet as far as the\nactual contents and conclusions are concerned I still adhere to them\nabsolutely, and believe that time will show them to be fully justified.\n\nWith regard to my views on Modern Science the last quarter of a century\nhas curiously corroborated them. For while on the one hand--as\nexpected--the progress in actual discovery and application of observed\nfacts has been enormous, the _theories_ on the other hand about all\nthese things have receded more and more into the background, and have\npassed almost out of sight. While knowing, for instance, infinitely more\nabout electrical actions and adaptations than we did, we seem to be if\nanything further off than ever from any valid theory of what Electricity\n_is_. The same with regard to Heat and Light, to Astronomical,\nBiological and Geological \"laws,\" and so forth. On such matters Modern\nScience is on the verge of confessing itself bankrupt, but not wishing\nto do that, it keeps a discreet silence.\n\nThe Atom, which I ventured (to the disgust of my scientific friends) to\nmake fun of 30 years ago, has now exploded of itself as thoroughly as a\nGerman \"coal-box\"; and the fixed Chemical Elements of older days have of\nlate dissolved into protean vapours and emanations, ions and electrons,\nimpossible to follow through their endless transformations. As to the\nnumerous \"Laws of Nature\" which in the nineteenth century we were just\nabout to establish for all eternity, it is only with the greatest\ndifficulty that any of these can now be discovered--most of them having\ngot secreted away into the darkness of ancient text-books: where they\nlead forlorn and sightless existences, like the fish in the caves of\nKentucky.\n\nHere again--in my chapters on Science--though some expressions remain\nwhich are now out of date, I have thought it best to leave them as\noriginally written: the meanings and general conclusions being still\nvalid and as they were. It will be seen that the general drift of these\nchapters is to point the moral that the true field of science is to be\nfound in Life, and that the best way to _know_ things is to _experience_\ntheir meaning and to identify oneself with them through Action. From a\nstudy on these principles will ultimately emerge a Science truly humane\nand creative, masterful, and capable of building a true home for\nmen--instead of the feverish, spectral and self-deluding thing which has\nusurped the name up to now.\n\nSomething the same will happen with the conception of Morality. The\nabstract codes on this subject, which have wrought so much havoc by\ntheir fatal intrusion on the field of human Life, are rapidly fading\naway. These ghosts, like the ghosts of Nature's \"Laws,\" are receiving\ntheir _quietus_. And the general outline which was suggested in \"The\nDefence of Criminals\" has now been traced more positively in the chapter\non \"The New Morality\" inserted at the end of the present volume.\nMorality has at last to become truly human, and the real expression of\nour organic need. Man has to be liberated from the cramps and\nsuppressions and fixations which have hitherto paralysed him in the\nmoral field. He has to emerge from the swathing bands of his pupal stage\ninto the free air of heaven, and to become in the highest sense\nself-determining and creative.\n\nThus three things, (1) the realisation of a new order of Society, in\nclosest touch with Nature, and in which the diseases of class-domination\nand Parasitism will have finally ceased; (2) the realisation of a\nScience which will no longer be a mere thing of the brain, but a part of\nActual Life; and (3) the realisation of a Morality which will signalise\nand express the vital and organic unity of man with his fellows--these\nthree things will become the heralds of a new era of humanity--an era\nwhich will possibly prefer _not_ to call itself by the name of\nCivilisation.\n\nIn order to corroborate and confirm the first paper in the book an\nAppendix has now been added containing notes and _data_ on the life and\ncustoms of many \"uncivilised\" peoples; for much of which Appendix I am\nindebted to the assistance of my widely-read and resourceful friend, E.\nBertram Lloyd.\n\nE. C.\n\n_December, 1920._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                      PAGE\nPREFACE TO COMPLETE EDITION                              7\n\nCIVILISATION: ITS CAUSE AND CURE                        15\n\nMODERN SCIENCE: A CRITICISM                             79\n\nTHE SCIENCE OF THE FUTURE: A FORECAST                  120\n\nDEFENCE OF CRIMINALS: A CRITICISM OF MORALITY          143\n\nEXFOLIATION: LAMARCK _versus_ DARWIN                   181\n\nCUSTOM                                                 206\n\nA RATIONAL AND HUMANE SCIENCE                          219\n\nTHE NEW MORALITY                                       243\n\nAPPENDIX--BEING NOTES ON SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS\nAND CUSTOMS OF PRE-CIVILISED PEOPLES                   265\n\n\n\n\nCIVILISATION:\n\nITS CAUSE AND CURE\n\nThe friendly and flowing savage, who is he? Is he waiting for\ncivilisation, or is he past it, and mastering it?--WHITMAN.\n\n\nWe find ourselves to-day in the midst of a somewhat peculiar state of\nsociety, which we call Civilisation, but which even to the most\noptimistic among us does not seem altogether desirable. Some of us,\nindeed, are inclined to think that it is a kind of disease which the\nvarious races of man have to pass through--as children pass through\nmeasles or whooping cough; but if it is a disease, there is this serious\nconsideration to be made, that while History tells us of many nations\nthat have been attacked by it, of many that have succumbed to it, and of\nsome that are still in the throes of it, we know of no single case in\nwhich a nation has fairly recovered from and passed through it to a more\nnormal and healthy condition. In other words the development of human\nsociety has never yet (that we know of) passed beyond a certain\ndefinite and apparently final stage in the process we call\nCivilisation; at that stage it has always succumbed or been arrested.\n\nOf course it may at first sound extravagant to use the word disease in\nconnection with Civilisation at all, but a little thought should show\nthat the association is not ill-grounded. To take the matter on its\nphysical side first, I find that in Mullhall's Dictionary of Statistics\n(1884) the number of accredited doctors and surgeons in the United\nKingdom is put at over 23,000. If the extent of the national sickness is\nsuch that we require 23,000 medical men to attend to us, it must surely\nbe rather serious! And _they_ do not cure us. Wherever we look to-day,\nin mansion or in slum, we see the features and hear the complaints of\nill-health; the difficulty is really to find a healthy person. The state\nof the modern civilised man in this respect--our coughs, colds,\nmufflers, dread of a waft of chill air, &c.--is anything but creditable,\nand it seems to be the fact that, notwithstanding all our libraries of\nmedical science, our knowledges, arts, and appliances of life, we are\nactually less capable of taking care of ourselves than the animals are.\nIndeed, talking of animals, we are--as Shelley I think points out--fast\ndepraving the _domestic_ breeds. The cow, the horse, the sheep, and even\nthe confiding pussy-cat, are becoming ever more and more subject to\ndisease, and are liable to ills which in their wilder state they knew\nnot of. And finally the savage races of the earth do not escape the\nbaneful influence. Wherever Civilisation touches them, they die like\nflies from the small-pox, drink, and worse evils it brings along with\nit, and often its mere contact is sufficient to destroy whole races.\n\nBut the word Disease is applicable to our social as well as to our\nphysical condition. For as in the body disease arises from the loss of\nthe physical unity which constitutes Health, and so takes the form of\nwarfare or discord between the various parts, or of the abnormal\ndevelopment of individual organs, or the consumption of the system by\npredatory germs and growths; so in our modern life we find the unity\ngone which constitutes true society, and in its place warfare of classes\nand individuals, abnormal development of some to the detriment of\nothers, and consumption of the organism by masses of social parasites.\nIf the word disease is applicable anywhere, I should say it is--both in\nits direct and its derived sense--to the civilised societies of to-day.\n\nAgain, mentally, is not our condition most unsatisfactory? I am not\nalluding to the number and importance of the lunatic asylums which cover\nour land, nor to the fact that maladies of the brain and nervous system\nare now so common; but to the strange sense of mental unrest which marks\nour populations, and which amply justifies Ruskin's cutting epigram:\nthat our two objects in life are, \"Whatever we have--to get more; and\nwherever we are--to go somewhere else.\" This sense of unrest, of\ndisease, penetrates down even into the deepest regions of man's\nbeing--into his moral nature--disclosing itself there, as it has done\nin all nations notably at the time of their full civilisation, as the\nsense of Sin.[1] All down the Christian centuries we find this strange\nsense of inward strife and discord developed, in marked contrast to the\nnaive insouciance of the pagan and primitive world; and, what is\nstrangest, we even find people glorying in this consciousness--which,\nwhile it may be the harbinger of better things to come, is and can be in\nitself only the evidence of loss of unity, and therefore of ill-health,\nin the very centre of human life.\n\nOf course we are aware with regard to Civilisation that the word is\nsometimes used in a kind of ideal sense, as to indicate a state of\nfuture culture towards which we are tending--the implied assumption\nbeing that a sufficiently long course of top hats and telephones will in\nthe end bring us to this ideal condition; while any little drawbacks in\nthe process, such as we have just pointed out, are explained as being\nmerely accidental and temporary. Men sometimes speak of civilising and\nennobling influences as if the two terms were interchangeable, and of\ncourse if they like to use the word Civilisation in this sense they have\na right to; but whether the actual tendencies of modern life taken in\nthe mass _are_ ennobling (except in a quite indirect way hereafter to be\ndwelt upon) is, to say the least, a doubtful question. Any one who\nwould get an idea of the glorious being that is as a matter of fact\nbeing turned out by the present process should read Mr. Kay Robinson's\narticle in the _Nineteenth Century_ for May, 1883, in which he\nprophesies (quite solemnly and in the name of science) that the human\nbeing of the future will be a toothless, bald, toeless creature with\nflaccid muscles and limbs almost incapable of locomotion!\n\nPerhaps it is safer on the whole not to use the word Civilisation in\nsuch ideal sense, but to limit its use (as is done to-day by all writers\non primitive society) to a definite historical stage through which the\nvarious nations pass, and in which we actually find ourselves at the\npresent time. Though there is of course a difficulty in marking the\ncommencement of any period of historical evolution very definitely, yet\nall students of this subject agree that the growth of property and the\nideas and institutions flowing from it did at a certain point bring\nabout such a change in the structure of human society that the new stage\nmight fairly be distinguished from the earlier stages of Savagery and\nBarbarism by a separate term. The growth of Wealth, it is shown, and\nwith it the conception of Private Property, brought on certain very\ndefinite new forms of social life; it destroyed the ancient system of\nsociety based upon the _gens_, that is, a society of equals founded upon\nblood-relationship, and introduced a society of classes founded upon\ndifferences of material possession; it destroyed the ancient system of\nmother-right and inheritance through the female line, and turned the\nwoman into the property of the man; it brought with it private ownership\nof land, and so created a class of landless aliens, and a whole system\nof rent, mortgage, interest, etc.; it introduced slavery, serfdom and\nwage-labour, which are only various forms of the dominance of one class\nover another; and to rivet these authorities it created the State and\nthe policeman. Every race that we know, that has become what we call\ncivilised, has passed through these changes; and though the details may\nvary and have varied a little, the main order of change has been\npractically the same in all cases. We are justified therefore in calling\nCivilisation a historical stage, whose commencement dates roughly from\nthe division of society into classes founded on property and the\nadoption of class-government. Lewis Morgan in his _Ancient Society_ adds\nthe invention of writing and the consequent adoption of written History\nand written Law; Engels in his _Ursprung der Familie, des\nPrivateigenthums und des Staats_ points out the importance of the\nappearance of the Merchant, even in his most primitive form, as a mark\nof the civilisation-period; while the French writers of the last century\nmade a good point in inventing the term _nations polic\u00e9es_\n(policemanised nations) as a substitute for civilised nations; for\nperhaps there is no better or more universal mark of the period we are\nconsidering, and of its social degradation, than the appearance of the\ncrawling phenomenon in question. [Imagine the rage of any decent North\nAmerican Indians if they had been told they required _policemen_ to keep\nthem in order!]\n\nIf we take this historical definition of Civilisation, we shall see that\nour English Civilisation began hardly more than a thousand years ago,\nand even so the remains of the more primitive society lasted long after\nthat. In the case of Rome--if we reckon from the later times of the\nearly kings down to the fall of Rome--we have again about a thousand\nyears. The Jewish civilisation from David and Solomon downwards\nlasted--with breaks--somewhat over a thousand years; the Greek\ncivilisation less; the series of Egyptian civilisations which we can now\ndistinguish lasted altogether very much longer; but the important points\nto see are, first, that the process has been quite similar in character\nin these various (and numerous other) cases,[2] quite as similar in fact\nas the course of the same disease in various persons; and secondly that\nin no case, as said before, has any nation come _through_ and passed\nbeyond this stage; but that in most cases it has succumbed soon after\nthe main symptoms had been developed.\n\nBut it will be said, It may be true that Civilisation regarded as a\nstage of human history presents some features of disease; but is there\nany reason for supposing that disease in some form or other was any less\npresent in the previous stage--that of Barbarism? To which I reply, I\nthink there is good reason. Without committing ourselves to the\nunlikely theory that the \"noble savage\" was an ideal human being\nphysically or in any other respect, and while certain that in many\npoints he was decidedly inferior to the civilised man, I think we must\nallow him the superiority in some directions; and one of these was his\ncomparative freedom from disease. Lewis Morgan, who grew up among the\nIroquois Indians, and who probably knew the North American natives as\nwell as any white man has ever done, says (in his _Ancient Society_, p.\n45), \"Barbarism ends with the production of grand Barbarians.\" And\nthough there are no native races on the earth to-day who are actually in\nthe latest and most advanced stage of Barbarism;[3] yet, if we take the\nmost advanced tribes that we know of--such as the said Iroquois Indians\nof twenty or thirty years ago, some of the Kaffir tribes round Lake\nNyassa in Africa, now (and possibly for a few years more) comparatively\nuntouched by civilisation, or the tribes along the river Uaupes, thirty\nor forty years back, of Wallace's _Travels on the Amazon_--all tribes in\nwhat Morgan would call the _middle_ stage of Barbarism--we undoubtedly\nin each case discover a fine and (which is our point here) _healthy_\npeople. Captain Cook in his first Voyage says of the natives of\nOtaheite, \"We saw no critical disease during our stay upon the island,\nand but few instances of sickness, which were accidental fits of the\ncolic;\" and, later on, of the New Zealanders, \"They enjoy perfect and\nuninterrupted health. In all our visits to their towns, where young and\nold, men and women, crowded about us ... we never saw a single person\nwho appeared to have any bodily complaint, nor among the numbers we have\nseen naked did we once perceive the slightest eruption upon the skin, or\nany marks that an eruption had left behind.\" These are pretty strong\nwords. Of course diseases exist among such peoples, even where they have\nnever been in contact with civilisation, but I think we may say that\namong the higher types of savages they are rarer, and nothing like so\nvarious and so prevalent as they are in our modern life; while the power\nof recovery from _wounds_ (which are of course the most frequent form of\ndisablement) is generally admitted to be something astonishing. Speaking\nof the Kaffirs, J. G. Wood says, \"Their state of health enables them to\nsurvive injuries which would be almost instantly fatal to any civilised\nEuropean.\" Mr. Frank Oates in his Diary[4] mentions the case of a man\nwho was condemned to death by the king. He was hacked down with axes,\nand left for dead. \"What must have been intended for the _coup de gr\u00e2ce_\nwas a cut in the back of the head, which had chipped a large piece out\nof the skull, and must have been meant to cut the spinal cord where it\njoins the brain. It had, however, been made a little higher than this,\nbut had left such a wound as I should have thought that no one could\nhave survived ... when I held the lanthorn to investigate the wound I\nstarted back in amazement to see a hole at the base of the skull,\nperhaps two inches long and an inch and a half wide, and I will not\nventure to say how deep, but the depth too must have been an affair of\ninches. Of course this hole penetrated into the substance of the brain,\nand probably for some distance. I dare say a mouse could have sat in\nit.\" Yet the man was not so much disconcerted. Like Old King Cole, \"He\nasked for a pipe and a drink of brandy,\" and ultimately made a perfect\nrecovery! Of course it might be said that such a story only proves the\nlowness of organisation of the brains of savages; but to the Kaffirs at\nany rate this would not apply; they are a quick-witted race, with large\nbrains, and exceedingly acute in argument, as Colenso found to his cost.\nAnother point which indicates superabundant health is the amazing animal\nspirits of these native races! The shouting, singing, dancing kept up\nnights long among the Kaffirs are exhausting merely to witness, while\nthe graver North American Indian exhibits a corresponding power of life\nin his eagerness for battle or his stoic resistance of pain.[5]\n\nSimilarly when we come to consider the social life of the wilder\nraces--however rudimentary and undeveloped it may be--the almost\nuniversal testimony of students and travelers is that within its limits\nit is more harmonious and compact than that of the civilised nations.\nThe members of the tribe are not organically at warfare with each other;\nsociety is not divided into classes which prey upon each other; nor is\nit consumed by parasites. There is more true social unity, less of\ndisease. Though the customs of each tribe are rigid, absurd, and often\nfrightfully cruel,[6] and though all outsiders are liable to be regarded\nas enemies, yet _within those limits_ the members live peacefully\ntogether--their pursuits, their work, are undertaken in common, thieving\nand violence are rare, social feeling and community of interest are\nstrong. \"In their own bands Indians are perfectly honest. In all my\nintercourse with them I have heard of not over half-a-dozen cases of\nsuch theft. But this wonderfully exceptional honesty extends no further\nthan to the members of his immediate band. To all outside of it, the\nIndian is not only one of the most arrant thieves in the world, but this\nquality or faculty is held in the highest estimation.\" (Dodge, p. 64.)\nIf a man set out on a journey (this among the Kaffirs) \"he need not\ntrouble himself about provisions, for he is sure to fall in with some\nhut, or perhaps a village, and is equally sure of obtaining both food\nand shelter.\"[7] \"I have lived,\" says A. R. Wallace in his _Malay\nArchipelago_ vol. ii. p. 460, \"with communities in South America and the\nEast, who have no laws or law courts, but the public opinion of the\nvillage ... yet each man scrupulously respects the rights of his\nfellows, and any infraction of those rights rarely takes place. In such\na community all are nearly equal. There are none of those wide\ndistinctions of education and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master and\nservant, which are the product of our civilisation.\" Indeed this\n_community_ of life in the early societies, this absence of division\ninto classes, and of the contrast between rich and poor, is now admitted\non all sides as a marked feature of difference between the conditions of\nthe primitive and of civilised man.[8]\n\nLastly, with regard to the mental condition of the Barbarian, probably\nno one will be found to dispute the contention that he is more\neasy-minded and that his consciousness of Sin is less developed than in\nhis civilised brother. Our unrest is the penalty we pay for our wider\nlife. The missionary retires routed from the savage in whom he can awake\nno sense of his supreme wickedness. An American lady had a servant, a\nnegro-woman, who on one occasion asked leave of absence for the next\nmorning, saying she wished to attend the Holy Communion? \"I have no\nobjection,\" said the mistress, \"to grant you leave; but do you think you\n_ought_ to attend Communion? You know you have never said you were sorry\nabout that goose you stole last week.\" \"Lor' missus,\" replied the\nwoman, \"do ye think I'd let an old goose stand betwixt me and my Blessed\nLord and Master?\" But joking apart, and however necessary for man's\nultimate evolution may be the temporary development of this\nconsciousness of Sin, we cannot help seeing that the condition of the\nmind in which it is absent is the most distinctively _healthy_; nor can\nit be concealed that some of the greatest works of Art have been\nproduced by people like the earlier Greeks, in whom it was absent; and\ncould not possibly have been produced where it was strongly developed.\n\nThough, as already said, the latest stage of Barbarism, _i.e._, that\njust preceding Civilisation, is unrepresented on the earth to-day, yet\nwe have in the Homeric and other dawn-literature of the various nations\nindirect records of this stage; and these records assure us of a\ncondition of man very similar to, though somewhat more developed than,\nthe condition of the existing races I have mentioned above. Besides\nthis, we have in the numerous traditions of the Golden Age,[9] legends\nof the Fall, etc., a curious fact which suggests to us that a great\nnumber of races in advancing towards Civilisation were conscious at some\npoint or other of having lost a primitive condition of ease and\ncontentment, and that they embodied this consciousness, with poetical\nadornment and licence, in imaginative legends of the earlier Paradise.\nSome people indeed, seeing the universality of these stories, and the\nremarkable fragments of wisdom embedded in them and other extremely\nancient myths and writings, have supposed that there really was a\ngeneral pre-historic Eden-garden or Atlantis; but the necessities of the\ncase hardly seem to compel this supposition. That each human soul,\nhowever, bears within itself some kind of reminiscence of a more\nharmonious and perfect state of being, which it has at some time\nexperienced, seems to me a conclusion difficult to avoid; and this by\nitself might give rise to manifold traditions and myths.\n\n\nII\n\nHowever all this may be, the question immediately before us--having\nestablished the more healthy, though more limited, condition of the\npre-civilisation peoples--is, why this lapse or fall? What is the\nmeaning of this manifold and intensified manifestation of\nDisease--physical, social, intellectual, and moral? What is its place\nand part in the great whole of human evolution?\n\nAnd this involves us in a digression, which must occupy a few pages, on\nthe nature of Health.\n\nWhen we come to analyse the conception of Disease, physical or mental,\nin society or in the individual, it evidently means, as already hinted\nonce or twice, _loss of unity_. Health, therefore, should mean unity,\nand it is curious that the history of the word entirely corroborates\nthis idea. As is well known, the words health, whole, holy, are from\nthe same stock; and they indicate to us the fact that far back in the\npast those who created this group of words had a conception of the\nmeaning of Health very different from ours, and which they embodied\nunconsciously in the word itself and its strange relatives.\n\nThese are, for instance, and among others: heal, hallow, hale, holy,\nwhole, wholesome; German heilig, Heiland (the Saviour); Latin salus (as\nin salutation, salvation); Greek kalos; also compare hail! a salutation,\nand, less certainly connected, the root _hal_, to breathe, as in inhale,\nexhale--French haleine--Italian and French alma and \u00e2me (the soul);\ncompare the Latin spiritus, spirit or breath, and Sanskrit \u00e2tman, breath\nor soul.\n\nWholeness, holiness ... \"if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be\nfull of light.\" ... \"thy faith hath made thee _whole_.\"\n\nThe idea seems to be a positive one--a condition of the body in which it\nis an entirety, a unity--a central force maintaining that condition; and\ndisease being the break-up--or break-down--of that entirety into\nmultiplicity.\n\nThe peculiarity about our modern conception of Health is that it seems\nto be a purely negative one. So impressed are we by the myriad presence\nof Disease--so numerous its dangers, so sudden and unforetellable its\nattacks--that we have come to look upon health as the mere absence of\nthe same. As a solitary spy picks his way through a hostile camp at\nnight, sees the enemy sitting round his fires, and trembles at the\ncrackling of a twig beneath his feet--so the traveller through this\nworld, comforter in one hand and physic-bottle in the other, must pick\nhis way, fearful lest at any time he disturb the sleeping legions of\ndeath--thrice blessed if by any means, steering now to the right and now\nto the left, and thinking only of his personal safety, he pass by\nwithout discovery to the other side.\n\nHealth with us is a negative thing. It is a neutralisation of opposing\ndangers. It is to be neither rheumatic nor gouty, consumptive nor\nbilious, to be untroubled by head-ache, back-ache, heart-ache, or any of\nthe \"thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.\" These are the\nrealities. Health is the mere negation of them.\n\nThe modern notion, and which has evidently in a very subtle way\npenetrated the whole thought of to-day, is that the essential fact of\nlife is the existence of innumerable external forces, which, by a very\ndelicate balance and difficult to maintain, concur to produce Man--who\nin consequence may at any moment be destroyed again by the\nnon-concurrence of those forces. The older notion apparently is that the\nessential fact of life _is_ Man himself; and that the external forces,\nso-called, are in some way subsidiary to this fact--that they may aid\nhis expression or manifestation, or that they may hinder it, but that\nthey can neither create nor annihilate the Man. Probably both ways of\nlooking at the subject are important; there is a man that can be\ndestroyed, and there is a man that cannot be destroyed. The old words,\nsoul and body, indicate this contrast; but like all words they are\nsubject to the defect that they are an attempt to draw a line where no\nline can ultimately be drawn; they mark a contrast where, in fact, there\nis only continuity--for between the little mortal man who dwells here\nand now, and the divine and universal Man who also forms a part of our\nconsciousness, is there not a perfect gradation of being, and where (if\nanywhere) is there a gulf fixed? Together they form a unit, and each is\nnecessary to the other: the first cannot do without the second, and the\nsecond cannot get along at all without the first. To use the words of\nAngelus Silesius (quoted by Schopenhauer), \"Ich weiss dass ohne mich\nGott nicht ein Nu kann leben.\"\n\nAccording then to the elder conception, and perhaps according to an\nelder experience, man, to be really healthy, must be a unit, an\nentirety--his more external and momentary self standing in some kind of\nfilial relation to his more universal and incorruptible part--so that\nnot only the remotest and outermost regions of the body, and all the\nassimilative, secretive, and other processes belonging thereto, but even\nthe thoughts and passions of the mind itself, stand in direct and clear\nrelationship to it, the final and absolute transparency of the mortal\ncreature. And thus this divinity in each creature, being that which\nconstitutes it and causes it to cohere together, was conceived of as\nthat creature's saviour, healer--healer of wounds of body and wounds of\nheart--the Man within the man, whom it was not only possible to know,\nbut whom to know and be united with was the alone salvation. This, I\ntake it, was the law of health--and of holiness--as accepted at some\nelder time of human history, and by us seen as thro' a glass darkly.\n\nAnd the condition of disease, and of sin, under the same view, was the\nreverse of this. Enfeeblement, obscuration, duplicity--the central\nradiation blocked; lesser and insubordinate centres establishing and\nasserting themselves as against it; division, discord, possession by\ndevils.\n\nThus in the body, the establishment of an insubordinate centre--a boil,\na tumor, the introduction and spread of a germ with innumerable progeny\nthroughout the system, the enlargement out of all reason of an existing\norgan--means disease. In the mind, disease begins when any passion\nasserts itself as an independent centre of thought and action. The\ncondition of health in the mind is loyalty to the divine Man within\nit.[10] But if loyalty to money become an independent centre of life, or\ngreed of knowledge, or of fame, or of drink; jealousy, lust, the love of\napprobation; or mere following after any so-called virtue for\nitself--purity, humility, consistency, or what not--these may grow to\nseriously endanger the other. They are, or should be, subordinates; and\nthough over a long period their insubordination may be a necessary\ncondition of human progress, yet during all such time they are at war\nwith each other and with the central Will; the man is torn and\ntormented, and is not happy.\n\nAnd when I speak thus separately of the mind and body, it must be\nremembered, as already said, that there is no strict line between them;\nbut probably every affection or passion of the mind has its correlative\nin the condition of the body--though this latter may or may not be\neasily observable. Gluttony _is_ a fever of the digestive apparatus.\nWhat is a taint in the mind is also a taint in the body. The stomach has\nstarted the original idea of becoming itself the centre of the human\nsystem. The sexual organs may start a similar idea. Here are distinct\nthreats, menaces made against the central authority--against the Man\nhimself. For the man must rule or disappear; it is impossible to imagine\na man presided over by a Stomach--a walking Stomach, using hands, feet,\nand all other members merely to carry it from place to place, and serve\nits assimilative mania. We call such a one an Hog. [And thus in the\ntheory of Evolution we see the place of the hog, and all other animals,\nas fore-runners or off-shoots of special faculties in Man, and why the\ntrue man, and rightly, has authority over all animals, and can alone\ngive them their place in creation.]\n\nSo of the Brain, or any other organ; for the Man is no organ, resides in\nno organ, but is the central life ruling and radiating among all\norgans, and assigning them their arts to play.\n\nDisease then, in body or mind, is from this point of view the break-up\nof its unity, its entirety, into multiplicity. It is the abeyance of a\ncentral power, and the growth of insubordinate centres--life in each\ncreature being conceived of as a continual exercise of energy or\nconquest, by which external or antagonistic forces (and organisms) are\nbrought into subjection and compelled into the service of the creature,\nor are thrown off as harmful to it. Thus, by way of illustration, we\nfind that plants or animals, when in good health, have a remarkable\npower of throwing off the attacks of any parasites which incline to\ninfest them; while those that are weakly are very soon eaten up by the\nsame. A rose-tree, for instance, brought indoors, will soon fall a prey\nto the aphis--though when hardened out of doors the pest makes next to\nno impression on it. In dry seasons when the young turnip plants in the\nfields are weakly from want of water the entire crop is sometimes\ndestroyed by the turnip fly, which then multiplies enormously; but if a\nshower or two of rain come before much damage is done the plant will\nthen grow vigorously, its tissues become more robust and resist the\nattacks of the fly, which in its turn dies. Late investigations seem to\nshow that one of the functions of the white corpuscles in the blood is\nto devour disease-germs and bacteria present in the circulation--thus\nabsorbing these organisms into subjection to the central life of the\nbody--and that with this object they congregate in numbers toward any\npart of the body which is wounded or diseased. Or to take an example\nfrom society, it is clear enough that if our social life were really\nvivid and healthy, such parasitic products as the idle shareholder and\nthe policeman above-mentioned would simply be impossible. The material\non which they prey would not exist, and they would either perish or be\ntransmuted into useful forms. It seems obvious in fact that life in any\norganism can only be maintained by some such processes as these--by\nwhich parasitic or infesting organisms are either thrown off or absorbed\ninto subjection. To define the nature of the power which thus works\ntowards and creates the distinctive unity of each organism may be\ndifficult, is probably at present impossible, but that some such power\nexists we can hardly refuse to admit. Probably it is more a subject of\nthe growth of our consciousness, than an object of external scientific\ninvestigation.\n\nIn this view, Death is simply the loosening and termination of the\naction of this power--over certain regions of the organism; a process by\nwhich, when these superficial parts become hardened and osseous, as in\nold age, or irreparably damaged, as in cases of accident, the inward\nbeing sloughs them off, and passes into other spheres. In the case of\nman there may be noble and there may be ignoble death, as there may be\nnoble and ignoble life. The inward self, unable to maintain authority\nover the forces committed to its charge, declining from its high\nprerogative, swarmed over by parasites, and fallen partially into the\nclutch of obscene foes, may at last with shame and torment be driven\nforth from the temple in which it ought to have been supreme. Or, having\nfulfilled a holy and wholesome time, having radiated divine life and\nlove through all the channels of body and mind, and as a perfect workman\nuses his tools, so having with perfect mastery and nonchalance used all\nthe materials committed to it, it may quietly and peacefully lay these\ndown, and unchanged (absolutely unchanged to all but material eyes) pass\non to other spheres appointed.\n\nAnd now a few words on the medical aspect of the subject. If we accept\nany theory (even remotely similar to that just indicated) to the effect\nthat Health is a positive thing, and not a mere negation of disease, it\nbecomes pretty clear that no mere investigation of the latter will\nenable us to find out what the former is, or bring us nearer to it. You\nmight as well try to create the ebb and flow of the tides by an\norganised system of mops.\n\nTurn your back upon the Sun and go forth into the wildernesses of space\ntill you come to those limits where the rays of light, faint with\ndistance, fall dim upon the confines of eternal darkness--and phantoms\nand shadows in the half-light are the product of the wavering conflict\nbetwixt day and night--investigate these shadows, describe them,\nclassify them, record the changes which take place in them, erect in\nvast libraries these records into a monument of human industry and\nresearch; so shall you be at the end as near to a knowledge and\nunderstanding of the sun itself--which all this time you have left\nbehind you, and on which you have turned your back--as the investigators\nof disease are to a knowledge and understanding of what health is. The\nsolar rays illumine the outer world and give to it its unity and\nentirety; so in the inner world of each individual possibly is there\nanother Sun, which illumines and gives unity to the man, and whose\nwarmth and light would permeate his system. Wait upon the shining forth\nof this inward sun, give free access and welcome to its rays of love,\nand free passage for them into the common world around you, and it may\nbe you will get to know more about health than all the books of medicine\ncontain, or can tell you.\n\nOr to take the former simile: it is the central force of the Moon which\nacting on the great ocean makes all its waters one, and causes them to\nrise and fall in timely consent. But take your moon away; hey! now the\ntide is flowing too far down this estuary! Station your thousands with\nmops, but it breaks through in channel and runlet! Block it here, but it\noverflows in a neighboring bay! Appoint an army of swabs there, but to\nwhat end? The infinitest care along the fringe of this great sea can\nnever do, with all imaginable dirt and confusion, what the central power\ndoes easily, and with unerring grace and providence.\n\nAnd so of the great (the vast and wonderful) ocean which ebbs and flows\nwithin a man--take away the central guide--and not 20,000 doctors, each\nwith 20,000 books to consult and 20,000 phials of different contents to\nadminister, could meet the myriad cases of disease which would ensue, or\nbolster up into \"wholeness\" the being from whom the single radiant unity\nhad departed.\n\nProbably there has never been an age, nor any country (except\nYankee-land?) in which disease has been so generally prevalent as in\nEngland to-day; and certainly there has never (with the same exception)\nbeen an age or country in which doctors have so swarmed, or in which\nmedical science has been so powerful, in apparatus, in learning, in\nauthority, and in actual organisation and number of adherents. How\nreconcile this contradiction--if indeed a contradiction it be?\n\nBut the fact is that medical science does not contradict disease--any\nmore than laws abolish crime. Medical science--and doubtless for very\ngood reasons--makes a fetish of disease, and dances around it. It is (as\na rule) only seen where disease is; it writes enormous tomes on disease;\nit induces disease in animals (and even men) for the purpose of studying\nit; it knows, to a marvelous extent, the symptoms of disease, its\nnature, its causes, its goings out and its comings in; its eyes are\nperpetually fixed on disease, till disease (for it) becomes the main\nfact of the world and the main object of its worship. Even what is so\ngracefully called Hygiene does not get beyond this negative attitude.\nAnd the world still waits for its Healer, who shall tell us--diseased\nand suffering as we are--_what_ health is, where it is to be found,\nwhence it flows; and who having touched this wonderful power within\nhimself shall not rest till he has proclaimed and imparted it to men.\n\nNo, medical science does not, in the main, contradict disease. The same\ncause (infidelity and decay of the central life in men) which creates\ndisease and makes men liable to it, creates students and a science of\nthe subject. The Moon[11] having gone from over the waters, the good\npeople rush forth with their mops; and the untimely inundations, and the\nmops and the mess and the pother, are all due to the same cause.\n\nAs to the lodgment of disease, it is clear that this would take place\neasily in a disorganised system--just as a seditious adventurer would\neasily effect a landing, and would find insubordinate materials ready at\nhand for his use, in a land where the central government was weak. And\nas to the treatment of a disease so introduced there are obviously two\nmethods: one is to reinforce the central power till it is sufficiently\nstrong of itself to eject the insubordinate elements and restore order;\nthe other is to attack the malady from outside and if possible destroy\nit--(as by doses and decoctions)--independently of the inner vitality,\nand leaving that as it was before. The first method would seem the best,\nmost durable and effective; but it is difficult and slow. It consists in\nthe adoption of a healthy life, bodily and mental, and will be spoken\nof later on. The second may be characterised as the medical method, and\nis valuable, or rather I should be inclined to say, _will_ be valuable,\nwhen it has found its place, which is to be subsidiary to the first. It\nis too often, however, regarded as superior in importance, and in this\nway, though easy of application, has come perhaps to be productive of\nmore harm than good. The disease may be broken down for the time being,\nbut, the roots of it not being destroyed, it soon springs up again in\nthe same or a new form, and the patient is as badly off as ever.\n\nThe great positive force of Health, and the power which it has to\n_expel_ disease from its neighborhood is a thing realised, I believe, by\nfew persons. But it _has_ been realised on earth, and will be realised\nagain when the more squalid elements of our present-day civilisation\nhave passed away.\n\n\nIII\n\nThe result then of our digression is to show that Health--in body or\nmind--means unity, integration as opposed to disintegration. In the\nanimals we find this physical unity existing to a remarkable degree. An\nalmost unerring instinct and selective power rules their actions and\norganisation. Thus a cat before it has fallen (say before it has become\na very wheezy fireside pussy!) is in a sense perfect. The wonderful\nconsent of its limbs as it runs or leaps, the adaptation of its\nmuscles, the exactness and inevitableness of its instincts, physical and\naffectional; its senses of sight and smell, its cleanliness, nicety as\nto food, motherly tact, the expression of its whole body when enraged,\nor when watching for prey--all these things are so to speak absolute and\ninstantaneous--and fill one with admiration. The creature is \"whole\" or\nin one piece: there is no mentionable conflict or division within\nit.[12]\n\nSimilarly with the other animals, and even with the early man himself.\nAnd so it would appear returning to our subject--that, if we accept the\ndoctrine of Evolution, there is a progression of animated beings--which,\nthough not perfect, possess in the main the attribute of Health--from\nthe lowest forms up to a healthy and instinctive though certainly\nlimited man. During all this stage the central law is in the ascendant,\nand the physical frame of each creature is the fairly clean vehicle of\nits expression--varying of course in complexity and degree according to\nthe point of unfoldment which has been reached. And when thus in the\nlong process of development the inner Man (which has lain hidden or\ndormant within the animal) at last appears, and the creature\nconsequently takes on the outer frame and faculties of the human being,\nwhich are only as they are because of the inner man which they\nrepresent; when it has passed through stage after stage of animal life,\nthrowing out tentative types and likenesses of what is to come, and\ngoing through innumerable preliminary exercises in special forms and\nfaculties, till at last it begins to be able to wear the full majesty of\nmanhood itself--_then_ it would seem that that long process of\ndevelopment is drawing to a close, and that the goal of creation must be\nwithin measurable distance.\n\nBut then, at that very moment, and when the goal is, so to speak, in\nsight, occurs this failure of \"wholeness\" of which we have spoken, this\npartial break-up of the unity of human nature--and man, instead of going\nforward any longer in the same line as before, to all appearance\n_falls_.\n\nWhat is the meaning of this loss of unity? What is the cause and purpose\nof this fall and centuries-long exile from the earlier Paradise?\n\nThere can be but one answer. It is self-knowledge--(which involves in a\nsense the abandonment of self). Man has to become conscious of his\ndestiny--to lay hold of and realise his own freedom and blessedness--to\ntransfer his consciousness from the outer and mortal part of him to the\ninner and undying.\n\nThe cat cannot do this. Though perfect in its degree, its interior\nunfoldment is yet incomplete. The human soul within it has not yet come\nforward and declared itself; some sheathing leaves have yet to open\nbefore the divine flower-bud can be clearly seen. And when at last\n(speaking as a fool) the cat becomes a man--when the human soul within\nthe creature has climbed itself forward and found expression,\ntransforming the outer frame in the process into that of\nhumanity--(which is the meaning I suppose of the evolution theory)--then\nthe creature, though perfect and radiant in the form of Man, still lacks\none thing. It lacks the knowledge of itself; it lacks its own identity,\nand the realisation of the manhood to which as a fact it has attained.\n\nIn the animals consciousness has never returned upon itself. It radiates\neasily outwards; and the creature obeys without let or hesitation, and\nwith little if any _self_-consciousness, the law of its being. And when\nman first appears on the earth, and even up to the threshold of what we\ncall civilisation, there is much to show that he should in this respect\nstill be classed with the animals. Though vastly superior to them in\nattainments, physical and mental, in power over nature, capacity of\nprogress, and adaptability, he still in these earlier stages was like an\nanimal in the unconscious instinctive nature of his action; and on the\nother hand, though his moral and intellectual structures were far less\ncomplete than those of the modern man--as was a necessary result of the\nabsence of self-knowledge--he actually lived more in harmony with\nhimself and with nature,[13] than does his descendant; his impulses,\nboth physical and social, were clearer and more unhesitating; and his\nunconsciousness of inner discord and sin a great contrast to our modern\ncondition of everlasting strife and perplexity.\n\nIf then to this stage belongs some degree of human perfection and\nfelicity, yet there remains a much vaster height to be scaled. The human\nsoul which has wandered darkling for so many thousands of years, from\nits tiny spark-like germ in some low form of life to its full splendor\nand dignity in man, has yet to come to the _knowledge_ of its wonderful\nheritage, has yet to become finally individualised and free, to know\nitself immortal, to resume and interpret all its past lives, and to\nenter in triumph into the kingdom which it has won.\n\nIt has in fact to face the frightful struggle of self-consciousness, or\nthe disentanglement of the true self from the fleeting and perishable\nself. The animals and man, unfallen, are healthy and free from care, but\nunaware of what they are; to attain self-knowledge man must fall; he\nmust become less than his true self; he must endure imperfection;\ndivision and strife must enter his nature. To realise the perfect Life,\nto know what, how wonderful it is--to understand that all blessedness\nand freedom consists in its possession--he must for the moment suffer\ndivorce from it; the unity, the repose of his nature must be broken up,\ncrime, disease and unrest must enter in, and by contrast he must attain\nto knowledge.\n\nCurious that at the very dawn of the Greek and with it the European\ncivilisation we have the mystic words \"Know Thyself\" inscribed on the\ntemple of the Delphic Apollo; and that first among the legends of the\nSemitic race stands that of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of the\nKnowledge of good and evil! To the animal there is no such knowledge, to\nthe early man there was no such knowledge, and to the perfected man of\nthe future there will be no such knowledge. It is a temporary\nperversion, indicating the disunion of the present-day man--the disunion\nof the outer self from the inner--the horrible dual\nself-consciousness--which is the means ultimately of a more perfect and\nconscious union than could ever have been realised without it--the death\nthat is swallowed up in victory. \"For the first man is of the earth,\nearthy; but the second man is the Lord from heaven.\"\n\nIn order then, at this point in his Evolution, to advance any farther,\nMan must first fall; in order to know, he must lose. In order to realise\nwhat Health is, how splendid and glorious a possession, he must go\nthrough all the long negative experience of Disease; in order to know\nthe perfect social life, to understand what power and happiness to\nmankind are involved in their true relation to each other, he must learn\nthe misery and suffering which come from mere individualism and greed;\nand in order to find his true Manhood, to discover what a wonderful\npower it is, he must first lose it--he must become a prey and a slave to\nhis own passions and desires--whirled away like Phaethon by the horses\nwhich he cannot control.\n\nThis moment of divorce, then, this parenthesis in human progress, covers\nthe ground of all History; and the whole of Civilisation, and all crime\nand disease, are only the materials of its immense purpose--themselves\ndestined to pass away as they arose, but to leave their fruits eternal.\n\nAccordingly we find that it has been the work of Civilisation--founded\nas we have seen on Property--in every way to disintegrate and corrupt\nman--literally to corrupt--to _break up_ the unity of his nature. It\nbegins with the abandonment of the primitive life and the growth of the\nsense of shame (as in the myth of Adam and Eve). From this follows the\ndisownment of the sacredness of sex. Sexual acts cease to be a part of\nreligious worship; love and desire--the inner and the outer\nlove--hitherto undifferentiated, now become two separate things. (This\nno doubt a necessary stage in order for the development of the\n_consciousness of love_, but in itself only painful and abnormal.) It\nculminates and comes to an end, as to-day, in a complete divorce between\nthe spiritual reality and the bodily fulfilment--in a vast system of\ncommercial love, bought and sold, in the brothel and in the palace. It\nbegins with the forsaking of the hardy nature-life, and it ends with a\nsociety broken down and prostrate, hardly recognisable as human, amid\nevery form of luxury, poverty and disease. He who had been the free\nchild of Nature denies his sonship; he disowns the very breasts that\nsuckled him. He deliberately turns his back upon the light of the sun,\nand hides himself away in boxes with breathing holes (which he calls\nhouses), living ever more and more in darkness and asphyxia, and only\ncoming forth perhaps once a day to blink at the bright god, or to run\nback again at the first breath of the free wind for fear of catching\ncold! He muffles himself in the cast-off furs of the beasts, every\ncentury swathing himself in more and more layers, more and more\nfearfully and wonderfully fashioned, till he ceases to be recognisable\nas the Man that was once the crown of the animals, and presents a more\nludicrous spectacle than the monkey that sits on his own barrel organ.\nHe ceases to a great extent to use his muscles, his feet become\npartially degenerate, his teeth wholly, his digestion so enervated that\nhe has to cook his food and make pulps of all his victuals, and his\nwhole system so obviously on the decline that at last in the end of\ntime a Kay Robinson arises and prophesies as aforesaid, that he will\nbefore long become wholly toothless, bald and toeless.\n\nAnd so with this denial of Nature comes every form of disease; first\ndelicatesse, daintiness, luxury; then unbalance, enervation, huge\nsusceptibility to pain. With the shutting of himself away from the\nall-healing Power, man inevitably weakens his whole manhood; the central\nbond is loosened, and he falls a prey to his own organs. He who before\nwas unaware of the existence of these latter, now becomes only too\nconscious of them (and this--is it not the very object of the process?);\nthe stomach, the liver and the spleen start out into painful\ndistinctness before him, the heart loses its equable beat, the lungs\ntheir continuity with the universal air, and the brain becomes hot and\nfevered; each organ in turn asserts itself abnormally and becomes a seat\nof disorder, every corner and cranny of the body becomes the scene and\nsymbol of disease, and Man gazes aghast at his own kingdom--whose extent\nhe had never suspected before--now all ablaze in wild revolt against\nhim. And then--all going with this period of his development--sweep vast\nepidemic trains over the face of the earth, plagues and fevers and\nlunacies and world-wide festering sores, followed by armies, ever\ngrowing, of doctors--they too with their retinues of books and bottles,\nvaccinations and vivisections, and grinning death's-heads in the rear--a\nmad crew, knowing not what they do, yet all unconsciously, doubtless,\nfulfilling the great age-long destiny of humanity.\n\n\nIn all this the influence of Property is apparent enough. It is evident\nthat the growth of property through the increase of man's powers of\nproduction reacts on the man in three ways: to draw him away namely, (1)\nfrom Nature, (2) from his true Self, (3) from his Fellows. In the first\nplace it draws him away from Nature. That is, that as man's power over\nmaterials increases he creates for himself a sphere and an environment\nof his own, in some sense apart and different from the great elemental\nworld of the winds and the waves, the woods and the mountains, in which\nhe has hitherto lived. He creates what we call the artificial life, of\nhouses and cities, and, shutting himself up in these, shuts Nature out.\nAs a growing boy at a certain point, and partly in order to assert his\nindependence, wrests himself away from the tender care of his mother,\nand even displays--just for the time being--a spirit of opposition to\nher, so the growing Man finding out his own powers uses them--for the\ntime--even to do despite to Nature, and to create himself a world in\nwhich she shall have no part. In the second place the growth of property\ndraws man away from his true Self. This is clear enough. As his power\nover materials and his possessions increases, man finds the means of\ngratifying his senses at will. Instead of being guided any longer by\nthat continent and \"whole\" instinct which characterises the animals,\nhis chief motive is now to use his powers to gratify this or that sense\nor desire. These become abnormally magnified, and the man soon places\nhis main good in their satisfaction; and abandons his true Self for his\norgans, the whole for the parts. Property draws the man outwards,\nstimulating the external part of his being, and for a time mastering\nhim, overpowers the central Will, and brings about his disintegration\nand corruption. Lastly, Property by thus stimulating the external and\nselfish nature in Man, draws him away from his Fellows. In the anxiety\nto possess things for himself, in order to gratify his own bumps, he is\nnecessarily brought into conflict with his neighbor and comes to regard\nhim as an enemy. For the true Self of man consists in his organic\nrelation with the whole body of his fellows; and when the man abandons\nhis true Self he abandons also his true relation to his fellows. The\nmass-Man must rule in each unit-man, else the unit-man will drop off and\ndie. But when the outer man tries to separate himself from the inner,\nthe unit-man from the mass-Man, then the reign of individuality\nbegins--a false and impossible individuality of course, but the only\nmeans of coming to the consciousness of the true individuality. With the\nadvent of a Civilisation then founded on Property the unity of the old\ntribal society is broken up. The ties of blood relationship which were\nthe foundation of the gentile system and the guarantees of the old\nfraternity and equality become dissolved in favor of powers and\nauthorities founded on mere possession. The growth of Wealth\ndisintegrates the ancient Society; the temptations of power, of\npossession, etc., which accompany it, wrench the individual from his\nmoorings; personal greed rules; \"each man for himself\" becomes the\nuniversal motto; the hand of every man is raised against his brother,\nand at last society itself becomes an organisation by which the rich\nfatten upon the vitals of the poor, the strong upon the murder of the\nweak. [It is interesting in this connection to find that Lewis Morgan\nmakes the invention of a written alphabet and the growth of the\nconception of private property the main characteristics of the\ncivilisation-period as distinguished from the periods of savagery and\nbarbarism which preceded it; for the invention of writing marks perhaps\nbetter than anything else could do the period when Man becomes\n_self-conscious_--when he records his own doings and thoughts, and so\ncommences History proper; and the growth of private property marks the\nperiod when he begins to sunder himself from his fellows, when therefore\nthe conception of sin (or separation) first enters in, and with it all\nthe long period of moral perplexity, and the denial of that community of\nlife between himself and his fellows which is really of the essence of\nman's being.]\n\nAnd then arises the institution of Government.\n\nHitherto this had not existed except in a quite rudimentary form. The\nearly communities troubled themselves little about individual ownership,\nand what government they had was for the most part essentially\ndemocratic--as being merely a choice of leaders among blood-relations\nand social equals. But when the delusion that man can exist for himself\nalone--his outer and, as it were, accidental self apart from the great\ninner and cosmical self by which he is one with his fellows--when this\ndelusion takes possession of him, it is not long before it finds\nexpression in some system of private property. The old community of life\nand enjoyment passes away, and each man tries to grab the utmost he can,\nand to retire into his own lair for its consumption. Private\naccumulations arise; the natural flow of the bounties of life is dammed\nback, and artificial barriers of Law have to be constructed in order to\npreserve the unequal levels. Outrage and Fraud follow in the wake of the\ndesire of possession; force has to be used by the possessors in order to\nmaintain the law-barriers against the non-possessors; classes are\nformed; and finally the formal Government arises, mainly as the\nexpression of such force; and preserves itself, as best it can, until\nsuch time as the inequalities which it upholds become too glaring, and\nthe pent social waters gathering head burst through once more and regain\ntheir natural levels.\n\nThus Morgan in his \"Ancient Society\" points out over and over again that\nthe civilised state rests upon territorial and property marks and\nqualifications, and not upon a personal basis as did the ancient _gens_,\nor the tribe; and that the civilised government correspondingly takes on\nquite a different character and function from the simple organisation\nof the gens. He says (p. 124), \"Monarchy is incompatible with\ngentilism.\" Also with regard to the relation of Property to Civilisation\nand Government he makes the following pregnant remarks (p. 505): \"It is\nimpossible to over-estimate the influence of property in the\ncivilisation of mankind. It was the power that brought the Aryan and\nSemitic nations out of barbarism into civilisation. The growth of the\nidea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness and ended in\nbecoming its master passion. Governments and Laws are instituted with\nprimary reference to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It\nintroduced human slavery as an instrument in its production; and after\nthe experience of several thousand years it caused the abolition of\nslavery upon the discovery that a freeman was a better property-making\nmachine.\" And in another passage on the same subject, \"The dissolution\nof society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which\nproperty is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements\nof self-destruction. Democracy is the next higher plane. It will be a\nrevival in a higher form of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the\nancient gentes.\"\n\nThe institution of Government is in fact the evidence in social life\nthat man has lost his inner and central control, and therefore must\nresort to an outward one. Losing touch with the inward Man--who is his\ntrue guide--he declines upon an external law, which must always be\nfalse. If each man remained in organic adhesion to the general body of\nhis fellows, no serious dis-harmony could occur; but it is when this\nvital unity of the body politic becomes weak that it has to be preserved\nby artificial means, and thus it is that with the decay of the primitive\nand instinctive social life there springs up a form of government which\nis no longer the democratic expression of the life of the whole people;\nbut a kind of outside authority and compulsion thrust upon them by a\nruling class or caste.\n\nPerhaps the sincerest, and often though not always the earliest, form of\nGovernment is Monarchy. The sentiment of human unity having been already\npartly but not quite lost, the people choose--in order to hold society\ntogether--a man to rule over them who has this sentiment in a high\ndegree. He represents the true Man and therefore the people. This is\noften a time of extensive warfare and the formation of nations. And it\nis interesting in this connection to note that the quite early \"Kings\"\nor leaders of each nation just prior to the civilisation period were\ngenerally associated with the highest religious functions, as in the\ncase of the Roman _rex_, the Greek _basileus_, the early Egyptian Kings,\nMoses among the Israelites, and Druid leaders of the Britons, and so on.\n\nLater, and as the central authority gets more and more shadowy in each\nman, and the external attraction of Property greater, so it does in\nSociety. The temporal and spiritual powers part company. The king--who\nat first represented the Divine Spirit or soul of society, recedes into\nthe background, and his nobles of high degree (who may be compared to\nthe nobler, more generous, qualities of the mind) begin to take his\nplace. This is the Aristocracy and the Feudal Age--the Timocracy of\nPlato; and is marked by the appearance of large private tenures of land,\nand the growth of slavery and serfdom--the slavery thus outwardly\nappearing in society being the symbol of the inward enslavement of the\nman.\n\nThen comes the Commercial Age--the Oligarchy or Plutocracy of Plato.\nHonour quite gives place to material wealth; the rulers rule not by\npersonal or hereditary, but by property qualifications. Parliaments and\nConstitutions and general Palaver are the order of the day.\nWage-slavery, usury, mortgages, and other abominations, indicate the\nadvance of the mortal process. In the individual man gain is the end of\nexistence; industry and scientific cunning are his topmost virtues.\n\nLast of all the break-up is complete. The individual loses all memory\nand tradition of his heavenly guide and counterpart; his nobler passions\nfail for want of a leader to whom to dedicate themselves; his industry\nand his intellect serve but to minister to his little swarming desires.\nThis is the era of anarchy--the democracy of Carlyle; the rule of the\nrabble, and mob-law; caucuses and cackle, competition and universal\ngreed, breaking out in cancerous tyrannies and plutocracies--a mere\nchaos and confusion of society. For just as we saw in the human body,\nwhen the inner and positive force of Health has departed from it, that\nit falls a prey to parasites which overspread and devour it; so, when\nthe central inspiration departs out of social life, does it writhe with\nthe mere maggots of individual greed, and at length fall under the\ndominion of the most monstrous egotist who has been bred from its\ncorruption.\n\nThus we have briefly sketched the progress of the symptoms of the\n\"disease,\" which, as said before, runs much (though not quite) the same\ncourse in the various nations which it attacks. And if this last stage\nwere really the end of all, and the true Democracy, there were indeed\nlittle left to hope for. No words of Carlyle could blast that black\nenough. But this is no true Democracy. Here in this \"each for himself\"\nis no rule of the Demos in every man, nor anything resembling it. Here\nis no solidarity such as existed in the ancient tribes and prim\u00e6val\nsociety, but only disintegration and a dust-heap. The true Democracy has\nyet to come. Here in this present stage is only the final denial of all\noutward and class government, in preparation for the restoration of the\ninner and true authority. Here in this stage the task of civilisation\ncomes to an end; the purport and object of all these centuries is\nfulfilled; the bitter experience that mankind had to pass through is\ncompleted; and out of this Death and all the torture and unrest which\naccompanies it, comes at last the Resurrection. Man has sounded the\ndepths of alienation from his own divine spirit, he has drunk the dregs\nof the cup of suffering, he has literally descended into Hell;\nhenceforth he turns, both in the individual and in society, and mounts\ndeliberately and consciously back again towards the unity which he has\nlost.[14]\n\nAnd the false democracy parts aside for the disclosure of the true\nDemocracy which has been formed beneath it--which is not an external\ngovernment at all, but an inward rule--the rule of the mass-Man in each\nunit-man. For no outward government can be anything but a make-shift--a\ntemporary hard chrysalis-sheath to hold the grub together while the new\nlife is forming inside--a device of the civilisation-period. Farther\nthan this it cannot go, since no true life can rely upon an external\nsupport, and, when the true life of society comes, all its forms will be\nfluid and spontaneous and voluntary.\n\n\nIV\n\nAnd now, by way of a glimpse into the future--after this long digression\nwhat is the route that man will take?\n\nThis is a subject that I hardly dare tackle. \"The morning wind ever\nblows,\" says Thoreau, \"the poem of creation is uninterrupted--but few\nare the ears that hear it.\" And how can we, gulfed as we are in this\npresent whirlpool, conceive rightly the glory which awaits us? No limits\nthat our present knowledge puts need alarm us; the impossibilities will\nyield very easily when the time comes; and the anatomical difficulty as\nto how and where the wings are to grow will vanish when they are felt\nsprouting!\n\nIt can hardly be doubted that the tendency will be--indeed is already\nshowing itself--towards a return to nature and community of human life.\nThis is the way back to the lost Eden, or rather forward to the new\nEden, of which the old was only a figure. Man has to undo the wrappings\nand the mummydom of centuries, by which he has shut himself from the\nlight of the sun and lain in seeming death, preparing silently his\nglorious resurrection--for all the world like the funny old chrysalis\nthat he is. He has to emerge from houses and all his other hiding\nplaces wherein so long ago ashamed (as at the voice of God in the\ngarden) he concealed himself--and Nature must once more become his home,\nas it is the home of the animals and the angels.\n\nAs it is written in the old magical formula: \"Man clothes himself to\ndescend, unclothes himself to ascend.\" Over his spiritual or wind-like\nbody he puts on a material or earthy body; over his earth-body he puts\non the skins of animals and other garments; then he hides this body in a\nhouse behind curtains and stone walls--which become to it as secondary\nskins and prolongations of itself. So that between the man and his true\nlife there grows a dense and impenetrable hedge; and, what with the\ncares and anxieties connected with his earth-body and all its skins, he\nsoon loses the knowledge that he is a Man at all; his true self slumbers\nin a deep and agelong swoon.\n\nBut the instinct of all who desire to deliver the divine _imago_ within\nthem, is, in something more than the literal sense, towards unclothing.\nAnd the process of evolution or exfoliation itself is nothing but a\ncontinual unclothing of Nature, by which the perfect human Form which is\nat the root of it comes nearer and nearer to its manifestation.\n\nThus, in order to restore the Health which he has lost, man has in the\nfuture to tend in this direction. Life indoors and in houses has to\nbecome a fraction only, instead of the principal part of existence as it\nis now. Garments similarly have to be simplified. How far this process\nmay go it is not necessary now to enquire. It is sufficiently obvious\nthat our domestic life and clothing may be at once greatly reduced in\ncomplexity, and with the greatest advantage--made subsidiary instead of\nbeing erected into the fetishes which they are. And everyone may feel\nassured that each gain in this direction is a gain in true life--whether\nit be the head that goes uncovered to the air of heaven, or the feet\nthat press bare the magnetic earth, or the elementary raiment that\nallows through its meshes the light itself to reach the vital organs.\nThe life of the open air, familiarity with the winds and waves, clean\nand pure food, the companionship of the animals--the very wrestling with\nthe great Mother for his food--all these things will tend to restore\nthat relationship which man has so long disowned; and the consequent\ninstreaming of energy into his system will carry him to perfections of\nhealth and radiance of being at present unsuspected.\n\nOf course, it will be said that many of these things are difficult to\nrealise in our country, that an indoor life, with all its concomitants,\nis forced upon us by the climate. But if this is to some small--though\nvery small--extent true, it forms no reason why we should not still take\nadvantage of every opportunity to push in the direction indicated. It\nmust be remembered, too, that our climate is greatly of our own\ncreation. If the atmosphere of many of our great towns and of the lands\nfor miles in their neighbourhood is devitalised and deadly--so that in\ncold weather it grants to the poor mortal no compensating power of\nresistance, but compels him at peril of his life to swathe himself in\ngreatcoats and mufflers--the blame is none but ours. It is we who have\ncovered the lands with a pall of smoke, and are walking to our own\nfunerals under it.\n\nThat this climate, however, at its best may not be suited to the highest\ndevelopments of human life is quite possible. Because Britain has been\nthe scene of some of the greatest episodes of Civilisation, it does not\nfollow that she will keep the lead in the period that is to follow; and\nthe Higher Communities of the future will perhaps take their rise in\nwarmer lands, where life is richer and fuller, more spontaneous and more\ngenerous, than it can be here.\n\nAnother point in this connection is the food question. For the\nrestoration of the central vigour when lost or degenerate, a diet\nconsisting mainly of fruits and grains is most adapted. Animal food\noften gives for the time being a lot of nervous energy--and may be\nuseful for special purposes; but the energy is of a spasmodic feverish\nkind; the food has a tendency to inflame the subsidiary centres, and so\nto diminish the central control. Those who live mainly on animal food\nare specially liable to disease--and not only physically; for their\nminds also fall more easily a prey to desires and sorrows. In times\ntherefore of grief or mental trouble of any kind, as well as in times of\nbodily sickness, immediate recourse should be had to the more elementary\ndiet. The body under this diet endures work with less fatigue, is less\nsusceptible to pain, and to cold; and heals its wounds with\nextraordinary celerity; all of which facts point in the same direction.\nIt may be noted, too, that foods of the seed kind--by which I mean all\nmanner of fruits, nuts, tubers, grains, eggs, etc. (and I may include\nmilk in its various forms of butter, cheese, curds, and so forth), not\nonly contain by their nature the elements of life in their most\ncondensed forms, but have the additional advantage that they can be\nappropriated without injury to any living creature--for even the cabbage\nmay inaudibly scream when torn up by the roots and boiled, but the\nstrawberry plant _asks_ us to take of its fruit, and paints it red\nexpressly that we may see and devour it! Both of which considerations\nmust convince us that this kind of food is most fitted to develop the\nkernel of man's life.\n\nWhich all means cleanness. The unity of our nature being restored, the\ninstinct of bodily cleanness, _both_ within and without, which is such a\nmarked characteristic of the animals, will again characterise\nmankind--only now instead of a blind instinct it will be a conscious,\njoyous one; dirt being only disorder and obstruction. And thus the whole\nhuman being, mind and body, becoming clean and radiant from its inmost\ncentre to its farthest circumference--\"transfigured\"--the distinction\nbetween the words spiritual and material disappears. In the words of\nWhitman, \"objects gross and the unseen soul are one.\"\n\nBut this return to Nature, and identification in some sort with the\ngreat cosmos, does not involve a denial or depreciation of human life\nand interests. It is not uncommonly supposed that there is some kind of\nantagonism between Man and Nature, and that to recommend a life closer\nto the latter means mere asceticism and eremitism; and unfortunately\nthis antagonism does exist to-day, though it certainly will not exist\nfor ever. To-day it is unfortunately perfectly true that Man is the only\nanimal who, instead of adorning and beautifying, makes Nature hideous by\nhis presence. The fox and the squirrel may make their homes in the wood\nand add to its beauty in so doing; but when Alderman Smith plants his\nvilla there, the gods pack up their trunks and depart; they can bear it\nno longer. The Bushmen can hide themselves and become indistinguishable\non a slope of bare rock; they twine their naked little yellow bodies\ntogether, and look like a heap of dead sticks; but when the chimney-pot\nhat and frock-coat appear, the birds fly screaming from the trees. This\nwas the great glory of the Greeks that they accepted and perfected\nNature; as the Parthenon sprang out of the limestone terraces of the\nAcropolis, carrying the natural lines of the rock by gradations scarce\nperceptible into the finished and human beauty of frieze and pediment,\nand as, above, it was open for the blue air of heaven to descend into it\nfor a habitation; so throughout in all their best work and life did they\nstand in this close relation to the earth and the sky and to all\ninstinctive and elemental things, admitting no gulf between themselves\nand them, but only perfecting their expressiveness and beauty. And some\nday we shall again understand this which, in the very sunrise of true\nArt, the Greeks so well understood. Possibly some day we shall again\nbuild our houses or dwelling places so simple and elemental in character\nthat they will fit in the nooks of the hills or along the banks of the\nstreams or by the edges of the woods without disturbing the harmony of\nthe landscape or the songs of the birds. Then the great temples,\nbeautiful on every height, or by the shores of the rivers and the lakes,\nwill be the storehouses of all precious and lovely things. There men,\nwomen and children will come to share in the great and wonderful common\nlife, the gardens around will be sacred to the unharmed and welcome\nanimals; there all store and all facilities of books and music and art\nfor every one, there a meeting place for social life and intercourse,\nthere dances and games and feasts. Every village, every little\nsettlement, will have such hall or halls. No need for private\naccumulations. Gladly will each man, and more gladly still each woman,\ntake his or her treasures, except what are immediately or necessarily in\nuse, to the common centre, where their value will be increased a hundred\nand a thousand fold by the greater number of those who can enjoy them,\nand where far more perfectly and with far less toil they can be tended\nthan if scattered abroad in private hands. At one stroke half the labour\nand all the anxiety of domestic caretaking will be annihilated. The\nprivate dwelling places, no longer costly and labyrinthine in proportion\nto the value and number of the treasures they contain, will need no\nlonger to have doors and windows jealously closed against fellow men or\nmother nature. The sun and air will have access to them, the indwellers\nwill have unfettered egress. Neither man nor woman will be tied in\nslavery to the lodge which they inhabit; and in becoming once more a\npart of nature, the human habitation will at length cease to be what it\nis now for at least half the human race--a prison.\n\nMen often ask about the new Architecture--what, and of what sort, it is\ngoing to be. But to such a question there can be no answer till a new\nunderstanding of life has entered into people's minds, and then the\nanswer will be clear enough. For as the Greek Temples and the Gothic\nCathedrals were built by people who themselves lived but frugally as we\nshould think, and were ready to dedicate their best work and chief\ntreasure to the gods and the common life; and as to-day when we must\nneeds have for ourselves spacious and luxurious villas, we seem to be\nunable to design a decent church or public building; so it will not be\ntill we once more find our main interest and life in the life of the\ncommunity and the gods that a new spirit will inspire our architecture.\nThen when our Temples and Common Halls are not designed to glorify an\nindividual architect or patron, but are built for the use of free men\nand women, to front the sky and the sea and the sun, to spring out of\nthe earth, companionable with the trees and the rocks, not alien in\nspirit from the sunlit globe itself or the depth of the starry\nnight--then I say their form and structure will quickly determine\nthemselves, and men will have no difficulty in making them beautiful.\nAnd similarly with the homes or dwelling places of the people. Various\nas these may be for the various wants of men, whether for a single\nindividual or for a family, or for groups of individuals or families,\nwhether to the last degree simple, or whether more or less ornate and\ncomplex, still the new conception, the new needs of life, will\nnecessarily dominate them and give them form by a law unfolding from\nwithin.\n\nIn such new human life then--its fields, its farms, its workshops, its\ncities--always the work of man perfecting and beautifying the lands,\naiding the efforts of the sun and soil, giving voice to the desire of\nthe mute earth--in such new communal life near to nature, so far from\nany asceticism or inhospitality, we are fain to see far more humanity\nand sociability than ever before: an infinite helpfulness and sympathy,\nas between the children of a common mother. Mutual help and combination\nwill then have become spontaneous and instinctive: each man contributing\nto the service of his neighbor as inevitably and naturally as the right\nhand goes to help the left in the human body--and for precisely the same\nreason. Every man--think of it!--will do the work which he _likes_,\nwhich he desires to do, which is obviously before him to do, and which\nhe knows will be useful, without thought of wages or reward; and the\nreward will come to him as inevitably and naturally as in the human body\nthe blood flows to the member which is exerting itself. All the endless\nburden of the adjustments of labour and wages, of the war of duty and\ndistaste, of want and weariness, will be thrown aside--all the huge\nwaste of work done against the grain will be avoided; out of the endless\nvariety of human nature will spring a perfectly natural and infinite\nvariety of occupations, all mutually contributive; Society at last will\nbe free and the human being after long ages will have attained to\ndeliverance.\n\nThis is the Communism which Civilisation has always _hated_, as it hated\nChrist. Yet it is inevitable; for the cosmical man, the instinctive\nelemental man accepting and crowning nature, necessarily fulfils the\nuniversal law of nature. As to External Government and Law, they will\ndisappear; for they are only the travesties and transitory substitutes\nof Inward Government and Order. Society in its final state is neither a\nMonarchy, nor an Aristocracy nor a Democracy, nor an Anarchy, and yet in\nanother sense it is all of these. It is an Anarchy because there is no\noutward rule, but only an inward and invisible spirit of life; it is a\nDemocracy because it is the rule of the Mass-man, or Demos, in each unit\nman; it is an Aristocracy because there are degrees and ranks of such\ninward power in all men; and it is a Monarchy because all these ranks\nand powers merge in a perfect unity and central control at last. And so\nit appears that the outer forms of government which belong to the\nCivilisation-period are only the expression in separate external symbols\nof the facts of the true inner life of society.\n\nAnd just as thus the various external forms of government during the\nCivilisation-period find their justification and interpretation in the\nensuing period, so will it be with the mechanical and other products of\nthe present time; they will be taken up, and find their proper place and\nuse in the time to come. They will not be refused; but they will have to\nbe brought into subjection. Our locomotives, machinery, telegraphic and\npostal systems; our houses, furniture, clothes, books, our fearful and\nwonderful cookery, strong drinks, teas, tobaccos; our medical and\nsurgical appliances; high-faluting sciences and philosophies, and all\nother engines hitherto of human bewilderment, have simply to be reduced\nto abject subjection to the real man. All these appliances, and a\nthousand others such as we hardly dream of, will come in to perfect his\npower and increase his freedom; but they will not be the objects of a\nmere fetish-worship as now. Man will use them, instead of their using\nhim. His real life will lie in a region far beyond them. But in thus for\na moment denying and \"mastering\" the products of Civilisation, will he\nfor the first time discover their true value, and reap from them an\nenjoyment unknown before.\n\nThe same with the moral powers. As said before, the knowledge of good\nand evil at a certain point passes away, or becomes absorbed into a\nhigher knowledge. The perception of Sin goes with a certain weakness in\nthe man. As long as there is conflict and division within him, so long\ndoes he seem to perceive conflicting and opposing principles in the\nworld without. As long as the objects of the outer world excite emotions\nin him which pass beyond his control, so long do those objects stand as\nthe signals of evil--of disorder and sin. Not that the objects are bad\nin themselves, or even the emotions which they excite, but that all\nthrough this period these things serve to the man as indications of\n_his_ weakness. But when the central power is restored in man and all\nthings are reduced to his service, it is impossible for him to see\nbadness in anything. The bodily is no longer antagonistic to the\nspiritual love, but is absorbed into it. All his passions take their\nplaces perfectly naturally, and become, when the occasions arise, the\nvehicles of his expression. Vices under existing conditions are vices\nsimply because of the inordinate and disturbing influence they exercise,\nbut will cease again to be vices when the man regains his proper\ncommand. Thus Socrates having a clean soul in a clean body could drink\nhis boon companions under the table and then go out himself to take the\nmorning air--what was a blemish and defect in them being simply an added\npower of enjoyment to himself!\n\nThe point of difference throughout (being the transference of the centre\nof gravity of life and consciousness from the partial to the universal\nman) is symbolised by the gradual resumption of more universal\nconditions. That is to say that during the civilisation-period, the body\nbeing systematically wrapped in clothes, the _head_ alone represents\nman--the little finnikin, intellectual, _self-conscious_ man in\ncontra-distinction to the cosmical man represented by the entirety of\nthe bodily organs. The body has to be delivered from its swathings in\norder that the cosmical consciousness may once more reside in the human\nbreast. We have to become \"all face\" again--as the savage said of\nhimself.[15]\n\nWhere the cosmic self is, there is no more self-consciousness. The body\nand what is ordinarily called the self are felt to be only parts of the\ntrue self, and the ordinary distinctions of inner and outer, egotism and\naltruism, etc., lose a good deal of their value. Thought no longer\nreturns upon the local self as the chief object of regard, but\nconsciousness is continually radiant from it, filling the body and\noverflowing upon external Nature. Thus the Sun in the physical world is\nthe allegory of the true self. The worshiper must adore the Sun, he must\nsaturate himself with sunlight, and take the physical Sun into himself.\nThose who live by fire and candle-light are filled with phantoms; their\nthoughts are Will-o'-th'-wisp-like images of themselves, and they are\ntormented by a horrible self-consciousness.\n\nAnd when the Civilisation-period has passed away, the old\nNature-religion--perhaps greatly grown--will come back. This immense\nstream of religious life which, beginning far beyond the horizon of\nearliest history, has been deflected into various metaphysical and other\nchannels--of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and the like--during the\nhistorical period, will once more gather itself together to float on its\nbosom all the arks and sacred vessels of human progress. Man will once\nmore _feel_ his unity with his fellows, he will feel his unity with the\nanimals, with the mountains and the streams, with the earth itself and\nthe slow lapse of the constellations, not as an abstract dogma of\nScience or Theology, but as a living and ever-present fact. Ages back\nthis has been understood better than now. Our Christian ceremonial is\nsaturated with sexual and astronomical symbols; and long before\nChristianity existed, the sexual and astronomical were the main forms of\nreligion. That is to say, men instinctively felt and worshiped the great\nlife coming to them through Sex, the great life coming to them from the\ndeeps of Heaven. They deified both. They placed their gods--their own\nhuman forms--in sex, they placed them in the sky. And not only so, but\nwherever they felt this kindred human life--in the animals, in the ibis,\nthe bull, the lamb, the snake, the crocodile; in the trees and flowers,\nthe oak, the ash, the laurel, the hyacinth; in the streams and\nwater-falls, on the mountain-sides or in the depths of the sea--they\nplaced them. The whole universe was full of a life which, though not\nalways friendly, was _human_ and kindred to their own, _felt_ by them,\nnot reasoned about, but simply perceived. To the early man the notion of\nhis having a separate individuality could only with difficulty occur;\nhence he troubled himself not with the suicidal questionings concerning\nthe whence and whither which now vex the modern mind.[16] For what\ncauses these questions to be asked is simply the wretched feeling of\nisolation, actual or prospective, which man necessarily has when he\ncontemplates himself as a separate atom in this immense universe--the\ngulf which lies below seemingly ready to swallow him, and the anxiety to\nfind some mode of escape. But when he feels once more that he, that _he_\nhimself, is absolutely indivisibly and indestructibly a part of this\ngreat whole--why then there is no gulf into which he can possibly fall;\nwhen he is sensible of the fact, why then the _how_ of its realisation,\nthough losing none of its interest, becomes a matter for whose solution\nhe can wait and work in faith and contentment of mind. The Sun or Sol,\nvisible image of his very Soul, closest and most vital to him of all\nmortal things, occupying the illimitable heaven, feeding all with its\nlife; the Moon, emblem and nurse of his own reflective thought, the\nconscious Man, measurer of Time, mirror of the Sun; the planetary\npassions wandering to and fro, yet within bounds; the starry destinies;\nthe changes of the earth, and the seasons; the upward growth and\nunfoldment of all organic life; the emergence of the perfect Man,\ntowards whose birth all creation groans and travails--all these things\nwill return to become realities, and to be the frame or setting of his\nsupra-mundane life. The meaning of the old religions will come back to\nhim. On the high tops once more gathering he will celebrate with naked\ndances the glory of the human form and the great processions of the\nstars, or greet the bright horn of the young moon which now after a\nhundred centuries comes back laden with such wondrous associations--all\nthe yearnings and the dreams and the wonderment of the generations of\nmankind--the worship of Astarte and of Diana, of Isis or the Virgin\nMary; once more in sacred groves will he reunite the passion and the\ndelight of human love with his deepest feelings of the sanctity and\nbeauty of Nature; or in the open, standing uncovered to the Sun, will\nadore the emblem of the everlasting splendour which shines within. The\nsame sense of vital perfection and exaltation which can be traced in the\nearly and pre-civilisation peoples--only a thousand times intensified,\ndefined, illustrated and purified--will return to irradiate the redeemed\nand delivered Man.\n\n\nIn suggesting thus the part which Civilisation has played in history, I\nam aware that the word itself is difficult to define--is at best only\none of those phantom-generalisations which the mind is forced to employ;\nalso that the account I have given of it is sadly imperfect, leaning\nperhaps too much to the merely negative and destructive aspect of this\nthousand-year long lapse of human evolution. I would also remind the\nreader that though it is perfectly true that under the dissolving\ninfluence of civilisation empire after empire has gone under and\ndisappeared, and the current of human progress time after time has only\nbeen restored again by a fresh influx of savagery, yet its corruptive\ntendency has never had a quite unlimited fling; but that all down the\nages of its dominance over the earth we can trace the tradition of a\nhealing and redeeming power at work in the human breast and an\nanticipation of the second advent of the son of man. Certain\ninstitutions, too, such as Art and the Family (though it seems not\nunlikely that both of these will greatly change when the special\nconditions of their present existence have disappeared), have served to\nkeep the sacred flame alive; the latter preserving in island-miniatures,\nas it were, the ancient communal humanity when the seas of individualism\nand greed covered the general face of the earth; the former keeping up,\nso to speak, a navel-cord of contact with Nature, and a means of\nutterance of primal emotions else unsatisfiable in the world around.\n\nAnd if it seem extravagant to suppose that Society will ever emerge from\nthe chaotic condition of strife and perplexity in which we find it all\ndown the lapse of historical time, or to hope that the\ncivilisation-process which has terminated fatally so invariably in the\npast will ever eventuate in the establishment of a higher and more\nperfect health-condition, we may for our consolation remember that\nto-day there are features in the problem which have never been present\nbefore. In the first place, to-day Civilisation is no longer isolated,\nas in the ancient world, in surrounding floods of savagery and\nbarbarism, but it practically covers the globe, and the outlying\nsavagery is so feeble as not possibly to be a menace to it. This may at\nfirst appear a drawback, for (it will be said) if Civilisation be not\nrenovated by the influx of external Savagery its own inherent flaws will\ndestroy society all the sooner. And there would be some truth in this if\nit were not for the following consideration, namely, that while for the\nfirst time in History Civilisation is now practically continuous over\nthe globe, now also for the first time can we descry forming in\ncontinuous line _within its very structure_ the forces which are\ndestined to destroy it and to bring about the new order. While hitherto\nisolated communisms, as suggested, have existed here and there and from\ntime to time, now for the first time in History both the masses and the\nthinkers of all the advanced nations of the world are consciously\nfeeling their way towards the establishment of a socialistic and\ncommunal life on a vast scale. The present competitive society is more\nand more rapidly becoming a mere dead formula and husk within which the\noutlines of the new and _human_ society are already discernible.\nSimultaneously, and as if to match this growth, a move towards Nature\nand Savagery is for the first time taking place from within, instead of\nbeing forced upon society from without. The nature movement begun years\nago in literature and art is now, among the more advanced sections of\nthe civilised world, rapidly realising itself in actual life, going so\nfar even as a denial, among some, of machinery and the complex products\nof Civilisation, and developing among others into a gospel of salvation\nby sandals and sunbaths! It is in these two movements--towards a complex\nhuman Communism and towards individual freedom and Savagery--in some\nsort balancing and correcting each other, and both visibly growing up\nwithin, though utterly foreign to--our present-day Civilisation, that we\nhave fair grounds, I think, for looking forward to its cure.\n\n\nNOTES\n\n     (See p. 26) The following remarks by Mr. H. B. Cotterill on the\n     natives around Lake Nyassa, among whom he lived at a time, 1876-8,\n     when the region was almost unvisited, may be of interest. \"In\n     regard of merely 'animal' development and well-being, that is in\n     the delicate perfection of bodily faculties (perceptive), the\n     African savage is as a rule incomparably superior to us. One feels\n     like a child, utterly dependent on them, when travelling or hunting\n     with them. It is true that many may be found (especially amongst\n     the weaker tribes that have been slave-hunted or driven into barren\n     corners) who are half-starved and wizened, but as a rule they are\n     splendid animals. In _character_ there is a great want of that\n     strength which in the educated civilised man is secured by the\n     roots striking out into the Past and Future--and in spite of their\n     immense perceptive superiority they feel and acknowledge the\n     superior force of character in the white man. They are the very\n     converse of the Stoic self-sufficient sage--like children in their\n     'admiration' and worship of the Unknown. Hence their absolute want\n     of _Conceit_, though they possess self-command and dignity. They\n     are, to those they love and respect, faithful and devoted--their\n     faithfulness and truthfulness are dictated by no 'categorical\n     imperative,' but by personal affection. Towards an enemy they can\n     be, without any conscientious scruples, treacherous and inhumanly\n     cruel. I should say that there is scarcely any possible idea that\n     is so foreign to the savage African mind as that of general\n     philanthropy or enemy-love.\"\n\n     \"In _endurance_ the African savage beats us hollow (except trained\n     athletes). On one occasion my men rowed my boat with 10 foot oars\n     against the wind in a choppy sea for _25 hours at one go_, across\n     Kuwirwe Bay, about 60 miles. They never once stopped or left their\n     seats--just handed round a handful of rice now and then. I was at\n     the helm all the time--and had enough of it!... They carry 80 lbs.\n     on their heads for 10 hours through swamps and jungles. Four of my\n     men carried a sick man weighing 14 stones in a hammock for 200\n     miles, right across the dreaded Malikata Swamp. But for _sudden_\n     emergencies, squalls, etc., they are nowhere.\"\n\n\n     (See p. 27) \"So lovely a scene made easily credible the suggestion,\n     otherwise highly probable, that the Golden Age was no mere fancy of\n     the poets, but a reminiscence of the facts of social life in its\n     primitive organisation of village and house-communities.\" (J. S.\n     Stuart-Glennie's _Europe and Asia_, ch. i. Servia.)\n\n\n     (See p. 72) \"It was only on the up-break of the primitive\n     socialisms that the passionate desire of, and therefore belief in,\n     individual Immortality arose. With an intense feeling, not of an\n     independent individual life, but of a dependent common life, there\n     is no passionate desire of, though there may be more or less of\n     belief in, a continuance after death of individual existence.\"\n     (_Ibid_, p. 161.)\n\n\n     Following is an extract from a letter from my friend Havelock\n     Ellis, which he kindly allows me to reprint. The passage is\n     interesting as indicating _one_ cause, at any rate, of the failure\n     of the modern civilisations. \"Your remark that you are\n     re-publishing _Civilisation: its Cause and Cure_ has led me to read\n     it once again, and I see how well adapted it is for reissue just\n     now when there is so widespread a discontent with 'civilisation.' I\n     do not see any reason for changing the essay, though, no doubt,\n     much might be added to supplement it. What has, however, struck me\n     is that you leave out of account the _reason_ for the greater\n     health, vigour, and high spirit of savages (when such conditions\n     exist), and that is _the more stringent natural_ selection among\n     savages owing to the greater hardness of their life. You doubtless\n     know ch. xvii of Westermarck's _Moral Ideas_, where he shows how\n     widespread among savages (when they have got past the first crude\n     primitive stage), and in the ancient civilisations, was the\n     practice of infanticide applied to inferior babies and the habit of\n     allowing sick persons to die. That was evidently the secret of the\n     natural superiority of the savage and of the men of the old\n     civilisation, for the Greeks and Romans were very stringent in this\n     matter. The flabbiness of the civilised and the prevalence of\n     doctors and hygienists, which you make fun of, is due to the modern\n     tenderness for human life which is afraid to kill off even the most\n     worthless specimens and so lowers the whole level of 'civilised'\n     humanity. Introduce a New Hardness in this matter and we should\n     return to the high level of savagery, while the doctors would\n     disappear as if by magic. I don't myself believe we _can_ introduce\n     this hardness; and that is why I attach so much importance to\n     _intelligent_ eugenics, working through birth-control, as the only\n     _now possible_ way of getting towards that high natural level you\n     aim at.\"--HAVELOCK ELLIS (1920).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] It is interesting to note that the \"sense of Sin\" seems now (1920)\nto have nearly passed away. And this fact probably indicates a\nconsiderable impending change in our Social Order.\n\n[2] For proof I must refer the reader to Engels, or to his own studies\nof history.\n\n[3] Say like the Homeric Greeks, or the Spartans of the Lycurgus period.\n\n[4] _Matabele Land and the Victoria Falls_, p. 209.\n\n[5] A similar physical health and power of life are also developed among\nEuropeans who have lived for long periods in more native conditions. It\nis not to our _race_, which is probably superior to any in capacity, but\nto the state in which we live that we must ascribe our defect in this\nparticular matter.\n\n[6] See Col. Dodge's _Our Wild Indians_.\n\n[7] Wood's _Natural History of Man_.\n\n[8] See Appendix.\n\n[9] See Note at end of this chapter.\n\n[10] No words or theory even of morality can express or formulate\nthis--no enthronement of _any_ virtue can take its place; for all virtue\nenthroned before our humanity becomes vice, and worse than vice.\n\n[11] It is curious that this word seems to have the same root as the\nword Man, the original idea apparently being Order, or Measure.\n\n[12] And with regard to disease, though it is not maintained that among\nthe animals there is anything like immunity from it--since diseases of a\nmore or less parasitic character are common in all tribes of plants and\nanimals--still they seem to be rarer, and the organic instinct of health\ngreater, than in the civilised man.\n\n[13] As to the unity of these wild races with Nature, that is a matter\nseemingly beyond dispute; their keenness of sense, sensitiveness to\natmospheric changes, knowledge of properties of plants and habits of\nanimals, etc., have been the subject of frequent remark; but beyond\nthis, their strong _feeling_ of union with the universal spirit,\nprobably only dimly self conscious, but expressing itself very markedly\nand clearly in their customs, is most strange and pregnant of meaning.\nThe dances of the Andaman Islanders on the sands at night, the wild\nfestival of the new moon among the Fans and other African tribes, the\nprocessions through the forests, the chants and dull thudding of drums,\nthe torture-dances of the young Red Indian bravos in the burning heat of\nthe sun; the Dionysiac festivals among the early Greeks; and indeed the\nsacrificial nature-rites and carnivals and extraordinary powers of\nsecond-sight found among all primitive peoples; all these things\nindicate clearly a faculty which, though it had hardly become\nself-conscious enough to be what we call religion, was yet in truth the\nfoundation element of religion, and the germ of some human powers which\nwait yet to be developed.\n\n[14] There is another point worth noting as characteristic of the\ncivilisation-period. This is the abnormal development of the abstract\nintellect in comparison with the physical senses on the one hand, and\nthe moral sense on the other. Such a result might be expected, seeing\nthat abstraction from reality is naturally the great engine of that\nfalse individuality or apartness, which it is the object of Civilisation\nto produce. As it is, during this period man builds himself an\nintellectual world apart from the great actual universe around him; the\n\"ghosts of things\" are studied in books; the student lives indoors, he\ncannot face the open air--his theories \"may prove very well in\nlecture-rooms, yet not prove at all under the spacious clouds, and along\nthe landscape and flowing currents\"; children are \"educated\" afar from\nactual life; huge phantom-temples of philosophy and science are reared\nupon the most slender foundations; and in these he lives defended from\nactual fact. For as a drop of water, when it comes in contact with\nred-hot iron, wraps itself in a cloud of vapor and is saved from\ndestruction, so the little mind of man, lest it should touch the burning\ntruth of Nature and God and be consumed, evolves at each point of\ncontact a veil of insubstantial thought which allows it for a time to\nexist apart, and becomes the nurse of its self-consciousness.\n\n[15] See Alonso di Ovalle's _Account of the Kingdom of Chile_ in\nChurchill's _Collection of Voyages and Travels_, 1724.\n\n[16] See Notes at end of this chapter.\n\n\n\n\nMODERN SCIENCE: A CRITICISM\n\n[Greek: panti log\u00f4 logos isos antikeitai.]\n\n\nIt is one of the difficulties which meet anyone who suggests that modern\nscience is not wholly satisfactory, that it is immediately assumed that\nthe writer is covertly defending what Ingersoll calls the \"rib-story,\"\nor that he wishes to restore belief in the literal inspiration of the\nBible. But, religious controversy apart, and while admitting that\nScience has done a great work in cleaning away the kitchen-middens of\nsuperstition and opening the path to clearer and saner views of the\nworld, it is possible--and there is already a growing feeling that\nway--that her positive contributions to our comprehension of the order\nof the universe have in late times been disappointing, and that even her\nmethods are only of limited applicability. After a glorious burst of\nperhaps fifty years, amid great acclamations and good hopes that the\ncrafty old universe was going to be caught in her careful net, Science,\nit must be confessed, now finds herself in almost every direction in\nthe most hopeless quandaries; and, whether the rib-story be true or not,\nhas at any rate provided no very satisfactory substitute for it. And the\nreason of this failure is very obvious. It goes with a certain defect in\nthe human mind, which, as we have pointed out (note, p. 57), necessarily\nbelongs to the Civilisation-period--the tendency, namely, to separate\nthe logical and intellectual part of man from the emotional and\ninstinctive, and to give it a _locus standi_ of its own. Science has\nfailed, because she has attempted to carry out the investigation of\nnature from the intellectual side alone--neglecting the other\nconstituents necessarily involved in the problem. She has failed,\nbecause she has attempted an impossible task; for the discovery of a\npermanently valid and purely _intellectual_ representation of the\nuniverse is simply impossible. Such a thing does not exist.\n\nThe various theories and views of nature which we hold are merely the\nfugitive envelopes of the successive stages of human growth--each set of\ntheories and views belonging organically to the moral and emotional\nstage which has been reached, and being in some sort the expression of\nit; so that the attempt at any given time to set up an explanation of\nphenomena which shall be valid in itself and without reference to the\nmental condition of those who set it up, necessarily ends in failure;\nand the present state of confusion and contradiction in which modern\nScience finds itself is merely the result of such attempt.\n\nOf course this limitation of the validity of Science has been\nrecognised by most of those who have thought about the matter;[17] but\nit is so commonly overlooked, and latterly the notion has so far gained\nground that the \"laws\" of science are immutable facts and eternal\nstatements of verity, that it may be worth while to treat the subject a\nlittle more in detail.\n\nThe method of Science is the method of all mundane knowledge; it is that\nof limitation or actual ignorance. Placed in face of the great\nuncontained unity of Nature we can only deal with it in thought by\nselecting certain details and isolating those (either wilfully or\nunconsciously) from the rest. That is right enough. But in doing so--in\nisolating such and such details--we practically beg the question we are\nin search of; and, moreover, in supposing such isolation we suppose what\nis false, and therefore vitiate our conclusion. From these two radical\ndefects of all intellectual inquiry we cannot escape. The views of\nScience are like the views of a mountain; each is only possible as long\nas you limit yourself to a certain standpoint. Move your position, and\nthe view is changed.[18]\n\nPerhaps the word \"species\" will illustrate our meaning as well as any\nword; and, in a sense, the word is typical of the method of Science. I\nsee a dog for the first time. It is a fox-hound. Then I see a second\nfox-hound, and a third and a fourth. Presently I form from these few\ninstances a general conception of \"dog.\" But after a time I see a\ngrey-hound and a terrier and a mastiff, and my old conception is\ndestroyed. A new one has to be formed, and then a new one and a new one.\nNow I overlook the whole race of civilised dogs and am satisfied with my\nwisdom; but presently I come upon some wild dogs, and study the habits\nof the wolf and the fox. Geology turns me up some links, and my\nconception of dog melts away like a lump of ice into surrounding water.\nMy species exists no more. As long as I knew a few of the facts I could\ntalk very wise about them; or if I limited myself arbitrarily, as we\nwill say, to a study only of animals in England at the present day, I\ncould classify them; but widen the bounds of my knowledge, the area of\nobservation, and all my work has to be done over again. My species is\nnot a valid fact of Nature, but a fiction arising out of my own\nignorance or arbitrary isolation of the objects observed.\n\nOr to take an instance from Astronomy. We are accustomed to say that the\npath of the moon is an ellipse. But this is a very loose statement. On\nenquiry we find that, owing to perturbations said to be produced by the\nsun, the path deviates considerably from an ellipse. In fact in strict\ncalculations it is taken as being a certain ellipse only for an\ninstant--the next instant it is supposed to be a portion of another\nellipse. We might then call the path an irregular curve somewhat\nresembling an ellipse. This is a new view. But on further enquiry it\nappears that, while the moon is going round the earth, the earth itself\nis speeding on through space about the sun--in consequence of which the\nactual path of the moon does not in the least resemble an ellipse!\nFinally the sun itself is in motion with regard to the fixed stars, and\n_they_ are in movement too. What then is the path of the moon? No one\nknows; we have not the faintest idea--the word itself ceases to have any\nassignable meaning. It is true that if we agree to ignore the\nperturbations produced by the sun--as in fact we _do_ ignore\nperturbations produced by the planets and other bodies--and if we agree\nto ignore the motion of the earth, and the flight of the solar system\nthrough space, and even the movement of any centre round which that may\nbe speeding, we may then _say_ that the moon moves in an ellipse. But\nthis has obviously nothing to do with actual facts. The moon _does_ not\nmove in an ellipse--not even \"relatively to the earth\"--and probably\nnever has done and never will do so. It may be a convenient view or\nfiction to say that it would do so under such and such\ncircumstances--but it is still only a fiction. To attempt to isolate a\nsmall portion of the phenomena from the rest in a universe of which the\n_unity_ is one of Science's most cherished convictions, is obviously\nself-stultifying and useless.\n\nBut you say it can be proved by mathematics that the ellipse would be\nthe path under these conditions; to which I reply that the mathematical\nproof, though no doubt cogent to the human mind (as at present\nconstituted in most people), is open to the same objection that it does\nnot deal with actual facts. It deals with a mental supposition, _i.e._,\nthat there are only two bodies acting on each other--a case which never\nhas occurred and never can occur--and then, assuming the law of\ngravitation (which is just the thing which has to be proved), it arrives\nat a mental formula, the ellipse. But to argue from this process that\nthe ellipse is really a thing in Nature, and that the heavenly bodies do\nmove or even tend to move in ellipses, is obviously a most unwarrantable\nleap in the dark. Finally you argue that the leap is warranted because,\nby assuming that the moon and planets move in ellipses, you can actually\nforetell things that happen, as for instance the occurrences of\neclipses; and in reply to that I can only say that Tycho Brah\u00e9 foretold\neclipses almost as well by assuming that the heavenly bodies moved in\nepicycles, and that modern astronomers do apply the epicycle theory in\ntheir mathematical formul\u00e6. The epicycles were an assumption made for a\ncertain purpose, and the ellipses are an assumption made for the same\npurpose. In some respects the ellipse is a more convenient fiction than\nthe epicycle, but it is no less a fiction.\n\nIn other words--with regard to this \"path of the moon\" (as with regard\nto any other phenomenon of Nature)--our knowledge of it must be either\nabsolute or relative. But we cannot know the absolute path; and as to\nthe relative, why all we can say is that it does not exist (any more\nthan species exists)--we cannot break up Nature so; it is not a thing in\nNature, but in our own minds--it is a view and a fiction.[19]\n\nAgain, let us take an example from Physics--Boyle's law of the\ncompressibility of gases. This law states that, the temperature\nremaining constant, the volume of a given quantity of gas is inversely\nproportional to its pressure. It is a law which has been made a good\ndeal of, and at one time was thought to be true, _i.e._, it was thought\nto be a statement of fact. A more extended and careful observation,\nhowever, shows that it is only true under so many limitations, that,\nlike the ellipse in Astronomy, it must be regarded as a convenient\nfiction and nothing more. It appears that air follows the supposed law\npretty well, but not by any means exactly except within very narrow\nlimits of pressure; other gases, such as carbonic acid and hydrogen,\ndeviate from it very considerably--some more than others, and some in\none direction and some in the opposite. It was found, among other\nthings, that the nearer a gas was to its liquefying point, the greater\nwas the deviation from the supposed law, and the conclusion was jumped\nat that the law was true for _perfect_ gases only. This idea of a\nperfect gas of course involved the assumption that gases, as they get\nfarther and farther removed from their liquifying point, reach at last a\nfixed and stable condition, when no further change in their qualities\ntakes place--at any rate for a very long time--and Boyle's law was\nsupposed to apply to this condition. Since then, however, it has been\ndiscovered that there is an ultra-gaseous state of matter, and on all\nsides it is becoming abundantly clear that the change in the condition\nof matter from the liquid state to the ultra-gaseous state is perfectly\ncontinuous--through all modifications of liquidity and condensation and\nevery degree of perfection and imperfection of gasiness to the utmost\nrarity of the fourth state. At what point, then, does Boyle's law really\napply? Obviously it applies _exactly_ at only one point in this long\nascending scale--at one metaphysical point--and at every other point it\nis incorrect. But no gas in Nature remains or can be maintained just at\none point in the scale of its innumerable changes. Consequently, all we\ncan say is that out of the innumerable different states that gases are\ncapable of, and the innumerable different laws of compressibility which\nthey therefore follow, we could theoretically find one state to which\nwould correspond the law of compressibility called Boyle's law; and\nthat, _if_ we could preserve a gas in that state (which we can't),\nBoyle's law really _would_ be true just for that case. In other words,\nthe law is metaphysical. It has no real existence. It is a convenient\nview or fiction, arising in the first place out of ignorance, and only\ntenable as long as further observation is limited or wilfully ignored.\n\nThis then is the Method of Science. It consists in forming a law or\nstatement by only looking at a small portion of the facts; then, when\nthe other facts come in, the law or statement gradually fades away\nagain. Conrad Gessner and other early zoologists began by classifying\nanimals according to the number of their horns! Political Economy begins\nby classifying social action under a law of Supply and Demand. When\npeople believed that the earth was flat, they generalised the facts\nconnected with the fall of heavy bodies into a conception of \"up and\ndown.\" These were two opposite directions in space. Heavy bodies took\nthe \"downward\"; it was their nature. But in time, and as fresh facts\ncame in, it became impossible to group animals any longer by their\nhorns; \"up and down\" ceased to have a meaning when it was known that the\nearth was round. Then fresh laws and statements had to be formed. In the\nlast-mentioned case--it being conceived that the earth was the centre of\nthe universe--the new law supposed was that all heavy bodies tended to\nthe centre of the earth as such. This was all right and satisfactory for\na while; but presently it appeared that the earth was _not_ the centre\nof the universe, and that some heavy bodies--such as the satellites of\nJupiter--did not in fact tend to the centre of the earth at all. Another\nlump of ignorance (which had enabled the old generalisation to exist)\nwas removed, and a new generalisation, that of universal gravitation,\nwas after a time formed. But it is probable that this law is only\nconceived of as true through our ignorance; nay it is certain that\nbelief in its truth presents the gravest difficulties.\n\nIn fact here we come upon an important point. It is sometimes said that,\ngranting the above arguments and the partiality and defectiveness of the\nlaws of Science, still they are approximations to the truth, and as each\nfresh fact is introduced the consequent modification of the old law\nbrings us _nearer and nearer_ to a limit of rigorous exactness which we\nshall reach at last if we only have patience enough. But is this so?\nWhat kind of rigorous statement shall we reach when we have got _all_\nthe facts in? Remembering that Nature is _one_, and that if we try to\nget a rigorous statement for one set of phenomena (as say the lunar\ntheory) by isolating them from the rest, we are thereby condemning\nourselves beforehand to a false conclusion, is it not evident that our\nlimit is at all times infinitely far off? If one knew all the facts\nrelating to a given inquiry except two or three, one might reasonably\nsuppose that one was near a limit of exactness in one's knowledge; but\nseeing that in our investigation of Nature we only know two or three, so\nto speak, out of a million, it is obvious that at any moment the fresh\nlaw arising from increased experience may completely upset our former\ncalculations. There is a difference between approximating to a wall and\napproximating to the North Star. In the one case you are tending to a\nspeedy conclusion of your labours, in the other case you are only _going\nin a certain direction_. The theories of Science generally belong under\nthe second head. They mark the direction which the human mind is taking\nat the moment in question, but they mark no limits. At each point the\n_appearance_ of a limit is introduced--which becomes, like a mirage in\nthe desert, an object of keen pursuit; but the limit is not really\nthere--it is only an effect of the standpoint, and disappears again\nafter a time as the observer moves. In the case of gravitation there is\nfor the moment an appearance of finality in the law of the inverse\nsquare of the distance, but this arises probably from the fact that the\nlaw is derived from a limited area of observation only, namely the\nmovements (at great distances from each other) of some of the heavenly\nbodies.[20] The Cavendish and Schehallien experiments do not show more\nthan that the law at ordinary distances on the earth's surface does not\nvary _very_ much from the above; while the so-called molecular forces\ncompel us (unless we make the very artificial assumption that a variety\nof attractions and repulsions co-exist in matter alongside of, and yet\ntotally distinct from, the attraction of gravitation) to suppose very\n_great_ modifications of the law for small distances. In fact, as we saw\nof Boyle's law before--the Newtonian law is probably metaphysical--true\nunder certain limited conditions--and the appearance of finality has\nbeen given to it by the fact that our observations have been made under\nsuch or similar conditions. When we extend our observation into quite\nother regions of space, the law of the inverse square ceases to appear\nas even an approximation to the truth--as, for instance, the law of the\ninverse _fifth_ power has been thought to be nearer the mark for small\nmolecular distances.\n\nAnd indeed the state of the great theories of Science in the present\nday--the confusion in which the Atomic theory of physics finds itself,\nthe dismal insufficiency of the Darwin theory of the survival of the\nfittest; the collapse in late times of one of the fundamental theories\nof Astronomy, namely that of the stability of the lunar and planetary\norbits; the cataclysms and convulsions which Geology seems just now to\nbe undergoing; the appalling and indeed insurmountable difficulties\nwhich attach to the Undulatory theory of Light; the final wreck and\nabandonment of the Value-theory, the foundation-theory of Political\nEconomy--all these things do not seem to point to very near limits of\nrigorous exactness! An impregnable theory, or one nearing the limit of\nimpregnability, is in fact as great an absurdity as an impregnable\narmour-plate. Certainly, given the cannon-balls, you can generally find\nan armour-plate which will be proof against them; but given the\narmour-plate, you can always find cannon-balls which will smash it up.\n\nThe method of Science, as being a method of artificial limitation or\nactual ignorance, is curiously illustrated by a consideration of its\nvarious branches. I have taken some examples from Astronomy, which is\nconsidered the most exact of the physical sciences. Now does it not seem\ncurious that _Astronomy_--the study of the heavenly bodies, which are\nthe most distant from us of all bodies, and most difficult to\nobserve--should yet be the most perfect of the sciences? Yet the reason\nis obvious. Astronomy is the most perfect science _because we know least\nabout it_--because our ignorance of the actual phenomena is most\nprofound. Situated in fact as we are, on a speck in space, with our\nobservations limited to periods of time which, compared with the\nstupendous flights of the stars, are merely momentary and evanescent, we\nare in somewhat the position of a mole surveying a railway track and the\nflight of locomotives. And as a man seeing a very small arc of a very\nvast circle easily mistakes it for a straight line, so we are easily\nsatisfied with cheap deductions and solutions in Astronomy which a more\nextensive experience would cause us to reject. The man may have a long\nway to go along his \"straight line\" before he discovers that it is a\ncurve; he may have much farther to go along his curve before he\ndiscovers that it is not a circle; and much farther still to go before\nhe finds out whether it is an ellipse or a spiral or a parabola, or none\nof these; yet _what_ curve it is will make an enormous difference in his\nultimate destination. So with the astronomer; and yet Astronomy is\nallowed to pass as an exact science![21]\n\nWell then, as in Astronomy we get an \"exact science,\" because the facts\nand phenomena are on such a tremendous scale that we only see a minute\nportion of them--just a few details so to speak--and our ignorance\ntherefore allows us to dogmatise; so at the other end of the scale in\nChemistry and Physics we get quasi-exact sciences, because the facts and\nphenomena are on such a _minute_ scale that we overlook _all the\ndetails_ and see only certain general effects here and there. When a\nsolution of cupric sulphate is treated with ammonia, a mass of\nflocculent green precipitate is formed. No one has the faintest notion\nof all the various movements and combinations of the molecules of these\ntwo fluids which accompany the appearance of the precipitate. They are\nno doubt very complex. But among all the changes that are taking place,\none change has the advantage of being visible to the eye, and the\nchemist singles that out as the main phenomenon. So chemistry at large\nconsists in a few, very few, facts taken at random as it were (or\nbecause they happen to be of such a nature as to be observable) out of\nthe enormous mass of facts really concerned: and because of their\nfewness the chemist is able to arrange them, as he thinks, in some\norder, that is, to generalise about them. But it is certain as can be\nthat he only has to extend the number of his facts, or his powers of\nobservation, to get all his generalisations upset. The same may be said\nof magnetism, light, heat, and the other physical sciences; but it is\nnot necessary to prove in detail what is sufficiently obvious.\n\nBut now, roughly speaking, there is a third region of human\nobservation--a region which does not, like Astronomy (and Geology), lie\nso far beyond and above us that we only see a very small portion of it;\nnor, like Chemistry and Physics, so far below us and under such minute\nconditions of space and time that we can only catch its general effects;\nbut which lies more on a level with man himself--the so-called organic\nworld--the study of man, as an individual and in society, his history,\nhis development, the study of the animals, the plants even, and the laws\nof life--the sciences of Biology, Sociology, History, Psychology, and\nthe rest. Now this region is obviously that which man knows most of. I\ndon't say that he generalises most about it, but he knows the facts\nbest. For one observation that he makes of the habits and behaviour of\nthe stars, or of chemical solutions--for one observation in the remote\nregions of Astronomy or Chemistry--he makes thousands and millions of\nthe habits and behaviour of his fellowmen, and hundreds and thousands of\nthose of the animals and plants. Is it not curious then that in this\nregion he is least sure, least dogmatic, most doubtful whether there be\na law or no? Or, rather, is it not quite in accord with our contention,\nnamely that Science, like an uninformed boy, is most definite and\ndogmatic just where actual knowledge is least.\n\nIt will however be replied that the phenomena of living beings are far\nmore complex than the phenomena of Astronomy or Physics--and that is\nthe reason why exact science makes so little way with them. Though man\nknows many million times more about the habits of his fellow-men than\nabout the habits of the stars, yet the former subject is so many million\ntimes more complicated than the latter that all his additional knowledge\ndoes not avail him. This is the plea. Yet it does not hold water. It is\nan entire assumption to say that the phenomena of Astronomy are less\ncomplicated than the phenomena of vitality. A moment's thought will show\nthat the phenomena of Astronomy are in reality infinitely complex. Take\nthe movement of the moon: even with our present acquaintance with that\nsubject we know that it has some relation to the position and mass of\nthe earth, including its ocean tides; also to the position and mass of\nthe sun; also to the position and mass of every one of the planets; also\nof the comets, numerous and unknown as they are; also the meteoric\nrings; and finally of all the stars! The problem, as everyone knows, is\nabsolutely insoluble even for the shortest period; but when the element\nof Time enters in, and we consider that to do anything like justice to\nthe problem in an astronomical sense we should have to solve it for at\nleast a million years--during which interval the earth, sun, and other\nbodies concerned would themselves have been changing their relative\npositions, it becomes obvious that the whole question is infinitely\ncomplex--and yet this is only a small fragment of Astronomy. To debate,\ntherefore, whether the infinite complexity of the movements of the\nstars is greater or less than the infinite complexity of the phenomena\nof life, is like debating the precedence of the three persons of the\nTrinity, or whether the Holy Ghost was begotten or proceeding: we are\ntalking about things which we do not understand.\n\nNature is one; she is not, we may guess, less profound and wonderful in\none department than another; but from the fact that we live under\ncertain conditions and limitations we see most deeply into that portion\nwhich is, as it were, on the same level with us. In humanity we look her\nin the face; there our glance pierces, and we see that she is profound\nand wonderful beyond all imagination; what we learn there is the most\nvaluable that we can learn. In the regions where Science rejoices to\ndisport itself we see only the skirts of her garments, so to speak, and\nthough we measure them never so precisely, we still see them and nothing\nmore.\n\nThere is another point, however, of which much is often made as a plea\nfor the substantial accuracy of the scientific laws and generalisations,\nnamely that they enable us to _predict_ events. But this need not detain\nus long. J. S. Mill in his \"Logic\" has pointed out--and a little thought\nmakes it obvious--that the success of a prediction does not prove the\ntruth of the theory on which it is founded. It only proves the theory\nwas good enough for that prediction.\n\nThere was a time when the sun was a god going forth in his chariot every\nmorning, and there was a time when the earth was the centre of the\nuniverse, and the sun a ball of fire revolving round it. In those times\nmen could predict with certainty that the sun would rise next morning,\nand could even name the hour of its appearance; but we do not therefore\nthink that their theories were true. When Adams and Leverrier foretold\nthe appearance of Neptune in a certain part of the sky, they made a\nbrief prediction to an unknown planet from the observed relations of the\nmovements of the known planets; that does not show, however, that the\ngrand generalisation of these movements, called the \"law of\ngravitation,\" is correct. It merely shows that it did well enough for\nthis very brief step--brief indeed compared with the real problems of\nAstronomy, for which latter it is probably quite inadequate.\n\nTycho Brah\u00e9, excellent astronomer as he was, kept as we saw to the\nepicycle theory. He imagined that the moon's path round the earth was a\nfixed combination of cycle and epicycle. Kepler introduced the\nconception of the ellipse. Later on the motion of the perigee and other\ndeviations compelled the abandonment of the ellipse and the supposition\nof an endless curve, similar to an ellipse at any one point, and\nmaintaining a fixed mean distance from the earth, but never returning on\nitself or making a definite closed figure of any kind. Finally the\nresearches of Mr. George Darwin have destroyed the conception of the\nfixed mean distance, and introduced that of a continually enlarging\nspiral. Certainly no four theories could well be more distinct from\neach other than these; yet if an eclipse had to be calculated for next\nyear it would scarcely matter which theory was used. The truth is that\nthe actual problem is so vast that a prediction of a few years in\nadvance only touches the fringe of it so to speak; yet if the fulfilment\nof the prediction were taken as a proof of the theory in each of these\ndifferent cases, it would lead in the end to the most hopelessly\ncontradictory results.\n\nThe success of a prediction therefore only shows that the theory on\nwhich it is founded has had practical value so far as a working\nhypothesis. As working hypotheses, and as long as they are kept down to\nbrief steps _which can be verified_, the scientific theories are very\nvaluable--indeed we could not do without them; but when they are treated\nas objective facts--when, for instance, the \"law of\ngravitation\"--derived as it is from a brief study of the heavenly\nbodies--has a universal truth ascribed to it, and is made to apply to\nphenomena extending over millions of years, and to warrant unverifiable\nprophecies about the planetary orbits, or statements about the age of\nthe earth and the duration of the solar system--all one can say is that\nthose who argue so are flying off at a tangent from actual facts. For as\nthe tangent represents the direction of a curve over a small arc, so\nthese theories represent the bearing of facts well enough over a small\nregion of observation; but as following the tangent we soon lose the\ncurve, so following these theories for any distance beyond the region\nof actual observation we speedily part company with facts.[22]\n\n\nTo proceed with a few more words about the general method of Science.\nScience passes from phenomena to laws, from individual details which can\nbe seen and felt to large generalisations of an intangible and\nphantom-like character. That is to say, that for convenience of thought\nwe classify objects. How is this classification effected? It is effected\nthrough the perception of identity amid difference. Among a lot of\nobjects I perceive certain attributes in common; this group of common\nattributes serves, so to speak, as a band to tie these objects together\nwith--into a bundle convenient for thought. I give a name to the band,\nand that serves to denote any unit of the bundle by. Thus perceiving\ncommon attributes among a lot of dogs--as in an example already given--I\ngive the name foxhound to this group of attributes, and thenceforth use\nthe name foxhound to connect these objects by in my mind; again\nperceiving other common attributes among other similar objects, I\ninvent the word greyhound to denote these latter by. The concept\nfoxhound differs from the objects which it denotes, in this respect that\nthese latter are (as we say) _real_ dogs with thousands and thousands of\nattributes each: one of them has a broken tooth, another is nearly all\nwhite, another answers to the name \"Sally,\" and so on; while the concept\nis only an imaginary form in my mind, with only a few attributes and no\nindividual peculiarities--a kind of tiny G.C.M. arising from the\ncontemplation of a long row of big figures.\n\nNow having created these concepts \"foxhound,\" \"greyhound,\" and a lot of\nother similar ones, I find that they in their turn have a few attributes\nin common and thus give rise to a new concept \"dog.\" Of course this\n\"dog\" is more of an abstraction than ever, the concept of a concept. In\nfact the peculiarity of this whole process is that, as sometimes stated,\nthe broader the generalisation becomes the less is its depth; or in\nother words and obviously, that as the number of objects compared\nincreases, the number of attributes common to them all decreases.\nUltimately as we saw at the beginning, when a sufficient number of\nobjects are taken in, the concept (\"dog\" or whatever it may be) fades\naway and ceases to have any meaning. This therefore is the dilemma of\nScience and indeed of all human knowledge, that in carrying out the\nprocess which is peculiar to it, it necessarily leaves the dry ground of\nreality for the watery region of abstractions, which abstractions\nbecome ever more tenuous and ungraspable the farther it goes, and\nultimately fade into mere ghosts. Nevertheless the process is a quite\nnecessary one, for only by it can the mind deal with things.\n\nTo dwell for a moment over this last point: it is clear that every\nobject has relation to every other object in the world--exists in fact\nonly in virtue of such relation to other objects; it has therefore an\ninfinite number of attributes. The mind consequently is powerless to\ndeal with such object--it cannot by any possibility think it. In order\nto deal with it, the mind is forced to single out a _few_ of its\nattributes (the _method of ignorance_ or abstraction already alluded\nto)--that is a few of its relations to other objects, and to think them\nfirst. The others it will think afterwards--all in good time. In thus\nstripping or abstracting the great mass of its attributes from our\nobject, and leaving only a few, which it combines into a concept, the\nmind practically abandons the real article and takes up with a shadow;\nbut in return for this it gets something which it can handle, which is\nlight to carry about, and which, like paper-money, _for the time and\nunder certain conditions_ does really represent value. The only danger\nis lest it--the mind--carried away by the extensive applicability of the\npartial concept which it has thus formed, should credit it with an\nactual value--should project it on the background of the external world\nand ascribe to it that reality which belongs only to objects\nthemselves, _i.e._, to things embodying an _infinite_ range of\nattributes.\n\nThe peculiar method of Science is now clear to us, and can be abundantly\nillustrated from modern results. Our experience consists in sensations,\nwe feel the weight of heavy bodies, we see them fall when let go, we\nhave sensations of heat and cold, light and darkness, and so forth. But\nthese sensations are more or less local and variable from man to man,\nand we naturally seek to find some common measure of them, by which we\ncan talk about and describe them _exactly_, and independently of the\npeculiarities of individual observers. Thus we seek to find some common\nphenomenon which underlies (as we say) the sensations of heat and cold,\nor of light and darkness, or something which explains (_i.e._, is always\npresent in) the case of falling bodies--and to do this we adopt the\nmethod of generalisation above described, _i.e._, we observe a great\nnumber of individual cases and then see what qualities or attributes\nthey have in common. So far good. But it is just here that the fallacy\nof the ordinary scientific procedure comes in; for, forgetting that\nthese common qualities are mere abstractions from the real phenomena we\ncredit _them_ with a real existence, and regard the actual phenomena as\nsecondary results, \"effects\" or what-not of these \"causes.\" This in\nplain language is putting the cart before the horse--or rather the\nshadow before the man. Thus finding that a vast number of variously\nshaped and coloured bodies tend to fall towards the earth, we erect\nthis common attribute of falling into an independent existence which we\ncall \"attraction\" or \"gravitation\"--and ultimately posit a universal\ngravitation _acting_ on all bodies in Nature!--or finding that a number\nof different substances, such as water, air, wood, etc., convey to us\nthe sensation we call sound, and that in all these cases the common\nelement is vibration, we detach the attribute vibration, credit it with\na separate existence, and speak of it as the cause of sound. But though\nwe may thus _think_ of the shadow as separate from the man, the shadow\ncannot _be_ separate from the man; and though we may try to think of the\nfalling or the vibration as separate from the wood or the stone, such\nfalling and vibration cannot exist apart from these and other such\nmaterials, and the effort to speak of it as so existing ends in mere\nnonsense. More strange still is the fatuity, when, as in the case of the\nundulatory Theory of light or the Atomic theory of physics, the concepts\nthus erected into actualities are composed of purely imaginary\nattributes--of which no one has had any experience--an undulatory ether\nin the one case, a hard and perfectly elastic atom in the other. The\ntotal result is of course--just what we see--Science landing itself in\npure absurdities in every direction. Beginning by detaching the\nattribute of falling from the bodies that fall--beginning that is by an\nabstraction, which of course is also a falsity--it generalises and\ngeneralises this abstraction till at last it reaches a perfectly\ngeneralised absurdity and thing without any meaning--the law of\ngravitation.[23] The statement that \"every particle in the universe\nattracts every other particle with a force proportional to the mass of\nthe attracting particle and inversely proportional to the square of the\ndistance between the two\" is devoid of meaning--the human mind can give\nno definite meanings to the words \"mass,\" \"attract,\" and \"force,\" which\ndo not overlap and stultify each other. The law in every way baffles\nintelligence. Newton, who invented it, declared that no philosophic mind\nwould suppose that bodies could thus act on one another \"without the\nmediation of anything else by and through which their action might be\nconveyed;\" scientific men to-day are fain to see that a material\nmediation of this kind would only make the law still more remote from\nour comprehension than it already is, while, on the other hand, an\nimmaterial mediation or a fourth-dimensional mediation, such as some\npropose, would simply remove the problem out of the regions of\nscientific analysis.[24] Again, the form of the law is declared to be\nthe inverse square of the distance; but this is the law by the nature of\nspace itself of any perfect radiation, and if true of gravitation\ninvolves the conclusion that that radiation of force (whatever its\nnature may be) takes place without loss or dissipation of any kind. This\nwould make gravitation absolutely unique among phenomena. More than\nthis, its propagation is supposed to be _instantaneous_ over the most\nenormous distances of space, and to take place always unhindered and\nunretarded, whatever be the number or the nature of the bodies between!\nWhat can be more clear than that the law is simply metaphysical--a\nprojection into a monstrous universality and abstraction, of partially\nunderstood phenomena in a particular region of observation--a\nBrocken-shadow on the background of Nature of the observer's own\nmomentary attitude of thought?\n\nAgain, the undulatory theory of Light. Studying the phenomena of a vast\nnumber of coloured and bright bodies, Science finds that it can think\nabout these phenomena--can generalise and tie them into bundles best by\n_assuming_ that the bodies are all in a state of vibration; a vibration\nso minute that (unlike the vibrations connected with Sound) it cannot be\ndirectly perceived. So far good. There is no harm in the assumption of\nvibration, as long as it is understood to be a mere assumption for a\ntemporary convenience of thought. But now Science goes farther than\nthis, and not only supposes a common attribute to all visible bodies,\nbut credits this common attribute with a real existence independent of\nthe visible bodies in which it was supposed to inhere--and makes this\nthe _cause_ of their visibility! Obviously now a common and universal\nmedium is required for this common and universal assumed vibration (just\nas Newton required a medium for his universal \"falling\")--and so, hey\npresto! we have the Undulatory Ether. And having got it we find that to\nfulfil our requirements it must have a pressure of 17 million million\npounds on the square inch, and yet be so rare and tenuous as not to\nhinder the lightest breath of air; that while it is thus rare enough to\nsurpass all our powers of direct scrutiny, its vibrations must yet be\ncapable of agitating and breaking up the solidest bodies; that it must\npass freely through some dense and close structures like glass, and yet\nbe excluded by some light and porous, like cork, and so on and on! In\nfact we find that it is unthinkable. Against this adamantine, impalpable\nEther, as against this instantaneous, untranslatable gravitation,\nScience bangs its devoted head in vain. Having created these absurdities\nby the method of \"personification of abstractions\"[25] or the\n\"reification of concepts,\"[26] it seriously and in all good faith tries\nto understand them; having dressed up its own Mumbo Jumbo (which it once\njeered at religion for doing) it piously shuts its eyes and endeavours\nto believe in it.\n\nThe Atomic Theory affords a good example of the \"method of ignorance.\"\nWhen we try to think about material objects generally--to generalise\nabout them--that is, to find some attribute or attributes common to\nthem, we are at first puzzled. They present such an immense variety. But\nafter a time, by dint of stripping off or abstracting all such\nattributes or qualities as we think we perceive in one body and not in\nanother--as for example, redness, blueness, warmth, saltness, life,\nintelligence, or what not--we find an attribute left, namely resistance\nto touch, which is common to _all_ material bodies. This quality in the\nbody we call \"mass,\" and since it is only known by motion, mass and\nmotion become correlative attributes which we find useful to class\nbodies by, not because they represent the various bodies particularly\nwell, but because they are found in all bodies; just as you might class\npeople by their boots--not because boots are a very valuable method of\nclassification, but simply because every one wears boots of one kind or\nanother. So far there is no great harm done. But now having by the\nmethod of ignorance _thought away_ all the qualities of bodies, except\nthe two correlatives of mass and motion, we set about to _explain_ the\nphenomena of Nature generally by these two \"thinks\" that are left. We\ncredit these \"thinks\" (mass and motion) with an independent existence\nand proceed to derive the rest of phenomena from them. The proceeding of\ncourse is absurd, and ends by exposing its own absurdity. Thinking of\nmass and motion as existing in the various bodies _apart_ from colour,\nsmell, and so forth--which of course is not the case--we combine the two\nattributes into one concept, the atom, which we thus assume to exist in\nall bodies. The atom has neither colour, smell, warmth, taste, life or\nintelligence; it has only mass and motion; for it came by the method of\ndivesting our thought of everything _but_ mass and motion. It is a\nprojection of a \"think\" upon the background of nature. And it is an\nabsurdity. No such thing exists in all the wide universe as mass and\nmotion divested from colour, smell, warmth, life and intelligence. The\natom is unthinkable. It is perfectly hard and it is perfectly\nelastic--which is the same as saying that it bends and it doesn't bend\nat the same time; it has form, and it hasn't form; it has affinities and\nyet is perfectly indifferent. To justify to men the ways of their Mumbo\nJumbo has sorely exercised the votaries of the Atom. One philosopher\nsays that it is mere matter, passive, exercising no force but\nresistance; another says that it is a centre of force, without matter; a\nthird suggests that it is not itself matter, but only a vortex in other\nmatter! All agree that it is not an object of sense, and there remains\nno conclusion but that it is nonsense![27]\n\nAnd so on in all directions. Human thought flying off at its tangents\nfrom Nature lands itself in infinite nothings afar off, poor ghostly\nskeletons and abstractions from Nature--which indeed is all right, for\nhuman thought as yet can only see ghosts and not realities; but let\nthere be no mistake, let these ghosts not be mistaken for realities--for\nthey are not even compatible with each other. The Atom that suits the\nphysicist does not suit the chemist. The Ether that does for the vehicle\nof Light will not do for the vehicle of universal Gravitation.\n\n\nIt would be hardly worth while entering into these criticisms, were it\nnot evident that Science in modern times, either tacitly or explicitly,\nhas been seeking, as I said at the beginning, to enounce facts\nindependent of Man, the observer. Seeing that the ordinary statements of\ndaily life are obviously inexact and relative to the observer--charged\nwith human sensation in fact--Science has naturally tried to produce\nsomething which should be exact and independent of human sensation; but\nhere it has of course condemned itself beforehand to failure; for no\nstatement of isolated phenomena or groups of phenomena _can_ be exact\nexcept by the method of ignorance aforesaid, and no statement obviously\ncan be really independent of human sensation. When a man says _It is\ncold_, his statement, it must be confessed, is deplorably human and\nvague. _It_--what is that? _Is_--do you mean _is_? or do you mean\n_feels_, _appears_? _Cold_--in what sense? Cold to yourself, or to\nother people, or to polar bears, or by the thermometer? And so on.\nScience therefore steps in with an air of authority and sets him right.\nIt says _the temperature is_ 30\u00b0 _Fahrenheit_, as if to settle the\nmatter. But does this really settle the matter? _Temperature_--who knows\nwhat that is? What is the scientific definition of it? I find\n(Clerk-Maxwell's Theory of Heat, p. 2.) \"the temperature of a body is a\nquantity which indicates how hot or how cold the body is.\" This sounds\nvery much like saying, \"the colour of a body is a quantity which\nindicates how blue, red, or yellow the body is.\" It does not bring us\nmuch farther on our way. But in the next paragraph Maxwell shows the\nobject of his definition (which of course is only preliminary) by\nsaying, \"By the use, therefore, of the word temperature, we fix in our\nminds the conviction that it is possible not only to feel, but to\n_measure_, how hot a body is.\" That is to say he clearly maintains that\nit is possible to find an absolute standard of hotness or coldness--or\nrather of the unknown thing called temperature--outside of ourselves and\nindependent of human sensation. When the man said he was cold he was\nprobably just describing his own sensations, but here Science indicates\nthat it is in search of something which has an independent existence of\nits own, and which therefore when found we can measure exactly and once\nfor all. What then is that thing? _What_ is temperature? say, what is\nit?\n\nWe cudgel our brains in vain. Perhaps the remainder of the sentence\nwill help us. \"The temperature is 30\u00b0 Fahrenheit.\" \"The unknown thing is\nthirty degrees.\" What then is a degree? That is the next question. When\nthe Theory of Heat went out from sensation and left it behind, one of\nits first landing places was in the expansion of liquids--as in\nthermometer tubes. Here for some time was thought to be a satisfactory\nregister of \"temperature.\" But before long it became apparent that the\ndegree--Fahrenheit, R\u00e9aumur, or what-not--was an entirely arbitrary\nthing, also that it was not the _same_[28] thing at one end of the scale\nas the other, and finally that the scale itself had no starting point!\nThis was awkward, so a move was made to the air thermometer, and there\nwas some talk about an absolute zero and absolute temperatures; it was\nthought that the Unknown thing showed itself most clearly and simply in\nthe expansion of air and other gases, and that the \"degree\" might fairly\nbe measured in terms of this expansion. But in a little time this kind\nof thermometer--chiefly because no gas turned out to be \"theoretically\nperfect\"--broke down, absolute zero and all, and another step had to be\nmade--namely, to the dynamical theory. It was announced that the Unknown\nthing might be measured in terms of mechanical energy, and Joule at\nManchester proclaimed that the work done by any quantity of water\nfalling there a distance of 772 feet is capable of raising that water\none degree Fahrenheit.[29] Here seemed something definite. To measure\ntemperature by mass and velocity, to measure a degree by the flight of a\nstone, or the heat in the human body by the fall of a factory\nchimney--if rather roundabout and elusive of the main question--seemed\nat any rate promising of exact results! Unfortunately the difficulty was\nto pass from the theory to its application. The complicated nature of\nthe problem, the \"imperfection\" of the gases and other bodies under\nconsideration, the latent and specific heats to be allowed for, the\nelusive nature of heat in experiment, and the variable value of the\ndegree itself--all render the conclusions on this subject most\nprecarious; and the general equations connecting the Fahrenheit or other\ntemperatures with a thermo-dynamic scale--while they become so unwieldy\nas to be practically useless--are themselves after all only approximate.\n\nFinally, to give a last form to the mechanical theory of heat, the\nconception of flying atoms or molecules was introduced, and a number of\nneat generalisations were deduced from dynamical considerations. Of\ncourse it was inevitable, having once started with a mechanical theory,\nthat one should arrive at the Atom some time or other--and (from what\nhas already been said) it was also inevitable that the result should be\nunsatisfactory. It is sufficient to say that the molecular theory of\nheat is _not_ in accordance with facts. Such things as the law of\nCharles and the law of Boyle, which according to it should be strictly\naccurate and of general application, are known to be true only over a\nmost limited range. This failure of the theory may be said to arise\npartly from its being pursued by the statistical method; but if, on the\nother hand, we were to try and follow out the individual movement of\neach molecule we should be landed in a problem far exceeding in\ncomplexity the wildest flights of Astronomy, and should have exchanged\nfor the original difficulty about \"temperature\" a difficulty far\ngreater.\n\nThe result of all this has been that notwithstanding the talk about\nenergy and atoms, Science has sadly to confess that it can still give no\nvalid meaning to the word temperature: the unknown thing is still\nunknown, the independent existence round the corner still escapes us. By\nthe very effort to arrive at something independent of human sensation,\nScience has, in a roundabout way, arrived at an absurdity. When the man\nsaid he was cold, his statement--deplorably vague as it certainly\nwas--had some meaning; he was describing his feelings, or possibly he\nhad seen some snow or some ice on the road; but when, in the endeavour\nto leave out the human and to say something absolute, Science declared\nthat the temperature was thirty degrees, it committed itself to a remark\nwhich possibly was exact in form, but to which it has never given and\nnever can give any definite meaning.[30]\n\nSimilarly with other generalities of Science: the \"law\" of the\nConservation of Energy, the \"law\" of the Survival of the Fittest--the\nmore you think about them the less possible is it to give any really\nintelligible sense to them. The very word Fittest really begs the\nquestion which is under consideration, and the whole Conservation law is\nmerely an attenuation of the already much attenuated \"law\" of\nGravitation. The Chemical Elements themselves are nothing but the\nprojection on the external world of concepts consisting of three or four\nattributes each: they are not more real, but very much less real than\nthe individual objects which they are supposed to account for; and their\n\"elementary\" character is merely fictional. It probably is in fact as\nabsurd to speak of pure carbon or pure gold, as of a pure monkey or a\npure dog. There are no such things, except as they may be arrived at by\narbitrary definition and the method of ignorance.\n\nIn the search for exactness, then, Science has been continually led on\nto discard the human and personal elements in phenomena, in the hope of\nfinding some residuum as it were behind them which should not be\npersonal and human but absolute and invariable. And the tendency has\nbeen (hitherto) in all the sciences to get rid of such terms as blue,\nred, light, heavy, hot, cold, concord, discord, health, vitality, right,\nwrong, etc., and to rely on any less human elements discoverable in each\ncase; as for instance in Sound, to deal less and less with the judgments\nand sensations of the ear, and to rely more and more on measurements of\nlengths of strings, numbers of vibrations, etc. Each science has been\n(as far as possible) reduced to its lowest terms. Ethics has been made a\nquestion of utility and inherited experience. Political Economy has been\nexhausted of all conceptions of justice between man and man, of charity,\naffection, and the instinct of solidarity; and has been founded on its\nlowest discoverable factor, namely self-interest. Biology has been\ndenuded of the force of personality in plants, animals, and men; the\n\"self\" here has been set aside, and the attempt made to reduce the\nscience to a question of chemical and cellular affinities, protoplasm,\nand the laws of osmose. Chemical affinities, again, and all the\nwonderful phenomena of Physics are emptied down into a flight of atoms;\nand the flight of atoms (and of astronomic orbs as well) is reduced to\nthe laws of dynamics--which the student sitting in his chamber may write\ndown on a piece of paper. Thus the idea, formulated by Comte, of a great\nscale of sciences arising from the simplest to the most complex, has\ntacitly underlain modern scientific work. It--Science--has sought to\n\"explain\" each stage by reference to a lower stage--\"blueness\" by\nvibrations, and vibrations by flying atoms--the human always by the\nsub-human. Going out from humanity dissatisfied, it has wandered through\nthe animal and vegetable kingdoms, through the regions of Chemistry and\nPhysics, into that of Mechanics. \"Here at last, in Mechanics, is\nsomething outside humanity, something exact in itself, something\nsubstantial,\" it has said. \"Let us build again on this as on a\nfoundation, and in time we shall find out what humanity is.\" This I say\nhas been the dream of Modern Science; yet the fallacy of it is obvious.\nWe have not got outside the human, but only to the outermost verge of\nit. Mass and motion, which in this process are taken to be real entities\nand the first progenitors of all phenomena, are simply the last\nabstractions of sensible experience, and our emptiest concepts. The\n_material_ explanation of the universe is simply an attempt to account\nfor phenomena by those attributes which appear to us to be common to\nthem all--which is, as said before, like accounting for men by their\nboots:--it may be possible to get an exact formula this way, but its\ncontents have little or no meaning.\n\nThe whole process of Science and the Comtian classification of its\nbranches--regarded thus as an attempt to explain Man by Mechanics--is a\nhuge vicious circle. It professes to start with something simple, exact,\nand invariable, and from this point to mount step by step till it comes\nto Man himself; but indeed it starts with Man. It plants itself on\nsensations low down (mass, motion, etc.), and endeavours by means of\nthem to explain sensations high up, which reminds one of nothing so much\nas that process vulgarly described as \"climbing up a ladder to comb your\nhair.\" In truth Science has never left the great world, or cosmos, of\nMan, nor ever really found a _locus standi_ without it; but during the\nlast two or three centuries it has gone in this _direction_, outwards,\ncontinually. Leaving the central basis and facts of humanity as too vast\nand unmanageable, and also as apparently variable from man to man and\ntherefore affording no certain consent to work upon, it has wandered\ngradually outwards, seeking something of more definite and universal\napplication Discarding thus one by one the interior phases of\nsensation--as the sense of personal relationship, the sense of justice,\nduty, fitness in things or what-not (as too uncertain, or perhaps\ndeveloped to an unequal degree in different persons, embryonic in one\nand matured in another), drifting past the more specialised bodily\nsenses, of colour, sound, taste, smell, etc., as for similar reasons\nunavailable--Science at last in the primitive consciousness of muscular\ncontraction and its abstraction \"mass\" or \"matter\" comes to a pause.\nHere in this last sense, common probably to man and the lowest animals,\nit finds its widest, most universal ground--its farthest limit from the\nCentre. It has reached the outermost shell, as it were, of the great\nMan-cosmos.\n\nEven this shell is partially human; it is not entirely osseous, and so\nfar not entirely exact and invariable; but Science can go no\nfarther--and there, for the present, it may remain!\n\nSome day perhaps, when all this showy vesture of scientific theory\n(which has this peculiarity that only the learned can see it) has been\nquasi-completed, and Humanity is expected to walk solemnly forth in its\nnew garment for all the world to admire--as in Anderssen's story of the\nEmperor's New Clothes--some little child standing on a door-step will\ncry out: \"But he has got nothing on at all,\" and amid some confusion it\nwill be seen that the child is right.\n\n\nNOTE\n\n     \"I fear I have very imperfectly succeeded in expressing my strong\n     conviction that, before a rigorous logical scrutiny, the Reign of\n     Law will prove to be an unverified hypothesis, the Uniformity of\n     Nature an ambiguous expression, the certainty of our scientific\n     inferences to a great extent a delusion.\" (Stanley Jevons,\n     _Principles of Science_, p. ix.)\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[17] See note, p. 119.\n\n[18] Since the above was written there has certainly been a great\nchange, and the dogmatic confidence in the verity of the scientific\n\"laws\" has now (1920) almost disappeared.\n\n[19] Such fictions, however, are (I need not say) quite necessary as our\nonly means of thinking out, however imperfectly, the problems before us\n(1920).\n\n[20] It is not generally realised how feeble a force gravitation is. It\nis calculated (Encycl. Brit., Art. Gravitation) that two masses, each\nweighing 415,000 tons, and placed a mile apart, would exert on each\nother an attractive force of only one pound. If one, therefore, was as\nfar from the other as the moon is from the earth, their attraction would\nonly amount to 1/57,600,000,000th of a pound. This is a small force to\ngovern the movement of a body weighing 415,000 tons! and it is easy to\nsee that a slight variation in the law of the force might for a long\nperiod pass undetected, though in the course of hundreds of centuries it\nmight become of the greatest importance.\n\n[21] As another instance of the same thing, let me quote a passage from\nMaxwell's _Theory of Heat_, p. 31; the italics are mine: \"In our\ndescription of the physical properties of bodies as related to heat we\nhave begun with solid bodies, as those which we can _most easily\nhandle_, and have gone on to liquids, which we can keep in open vessels,\nand have now come to gases, which will escape from open vessels, and\nwhich are generally _invisible_. This is the order which is most natural\nin our first study of these different states. But as soon as we have\nbeen made familiar with the most prominent features of these different\nconditions of matter the most _scientific_ course of study is in the\n_reverse_ order, beginning with gases, on account of the greater\nsimplicity of their laws, then advancing to liquids, the more complex\nlaws of which are much more imperfectly known, and concluding with the\nlittle that has been hitherto discovered about the constitution of solid\nbodies.\" That is to say that Science finds it easier to work among\ngases--which are invisible and which we can know little about--than\namong solids, which we are familiar with and which we can easily handle!\nThis seems a strange conclusion, but it will be found to represent a\ncommon procedure of Science--the truth probably being that the laws of\ngases are not one whit _simpler_ than the laws of liquids and solids,\nbut that on account of our knowing so much less about gases it is easier\nfor us to _feign_ laws in their case than in the case of solids, and\nless easy for our errors to be detected.\n\n[22] All our thoughts, theories, \"laws,\" etc., may perhaps be said to\n_touch_ Nature--as the tangent touches the curve--at a point. They give\na direction--and are true--at that point. But make the slightest move,\nand they all have to be reconstructed. The tangents are infinite in\nnumber, but the curve is one. This may not only illustrate the relation\nof Nature to Science, but also of Art to the materials it uses. The poet\nradiates thoughts: but he sets no store by them. He knows his thoughts\nare not true in themselves, but they _touch_ the Truth. His lines are\nthe envelope of the curve which is his poem.\n\n[23] See the report of the joint meeting of the Royal Society and the\nRoyal Astronomical Society, November 6, 1919, when Einstein's theory was\ndiscussed.\n\n[24] It is obvious that the Einstein theory, in which Time enters as a\nkind of fourth dimension in relation to Space, removes us at once out of\nthe whole field of ordinary scientific reasoning and lands us, so to\nspeak, in a new world. The nature of Space (or of the universal medium,\nwhatever it is) in any region--its possible fundamental accelerations\nthere, its \"curvature\" or non-Euclidean character, and so forth--is\nsupposed, according to this theory, to vary with the amount of matter\nin, or density of, that region; and the movements of bodies are\nconsequently supposed to take on the characters (accelerations, etc.,)\nwhich we ascribe to the action of Gravitation. Gravitation in fact in\nany region is the manifestation in Time of the attributes of the\nuniversal Medium in that region--which latter again is dependent on the\ndegree of Matter present. Thus, Matter, Time, and Space are _one\nphenomenon_.\n\nThe whole Einstein theory, in fact, is a device to present these three\nProtean and variable elements of all material existence (Matter, Time\nand Space) as so far involved and interlaced in each other that they\nform always an absolute and complete unity. As such the theory is no\ndoubt suggestive, and along the line of future speculation: but it\nawaits corroboration. If corroborated it will point the way to a new\nconception of the Universe.\n\n[25] J. S. Mill.\n\n[26] See Stallo's excellent _Concepts of Modern Physics_.\n\n[27] See, for instance, the last new thing in this style--the Helmholtz\nmolecule as improved upon by Sir William Thomson; it is described as\nfollows: \"A heavy mass connected by massless springs with a massless\nenclosing shell; or there may be several shells enclosing each other\nconnected by springs with a dense mass in the centre (far more dense\nthan the ether).\" It is not, of course, seriously maintained that this\nnonsensical creation exists--but that if it did exist it would account\nfor certain unexplained phenomena in the dispersion of light, etc.\n\nLater still (1920) we have the following delightful verdict on the\nStructure of the Atom, given by Sir Ernest Rutherford--and which I\ncommend to all lovers of clear thinking:--\n\n\"The Bakerian Lecture was delivered yesterday before the Royal Society\nby Sir Ernest Rutherford, whose subject was 'The Nuclear Construction of\nthe Atom.' He said that during recent years much attention had been paid\nto the nature and structure of atoms. The atomic theory of matter had\nbeen definitely proved. The mass of the individual atoms, and the number\nin any given weight of matter, were now known with considerable\naccuracy. Not only was matter known to be made up of atoms, but\nelectricity was also atomic in nature, and there was a definite unit of\nelectrical charge which could not further be subdivided. The negative\nelectron, which was a constituent of all atoms of matter, was probably\nnothing more than an isolated unit of negative electricity, and its\nsmall mass was electrical in origin. It had long been considered\nprobable that the atom is an electrical structure, consisting of\npositive and negative particles, held in equilibrium by electric or\nmagnetic forces. In recent years evidence had accumulated that an atom\nconsists of a positively charged nucleus surrounded at a distance by a\ndistribution of electrons to make it electrically neutral.\" (From _The\nMorning Post_ of June 4, 1920.)\n\n[28] The very fact alone that the degrees on a thermometer are _equal_\nspace divisions shows that they must bear a _varying_ relation to the\ntotal volume of liquid as that expands from one end of the tube to the\nother.\n\n[29] A statement obviously applying--from what has been already said--at\nonly one point in the scale.\n\n[30] I am not, of course, here arguing against the use of thermometers\nor other instruments for practical purposes. This is certainly the\nlegitimate field of Science. But (as in the case of _prediction_ before\nmentioned) the exactness of results obtained is a very different matter\nfrom the truth of the generalities which are supposed to underlie these\nresults. In using a thermometer you need not even mention the word\n\"temperature.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE SCIENCE OF THE FUTURE: A FORECAST\n\nOnce let that [the human ideal] slip out of the thought, and science is\nof no more use than the invocations in the Egyptian papiri.--RICHARD\nJEFFERIES.\n\n\nIt would appear then, from the preceding paper, that in some sense a\nmistake has been made in the method of modern scientific work; not that\nthe vast amount of labour expended in it has been altogether wasted, for\nin return for this there is a mass of practical results and detailed\nobservations to show; but that in attempting to solve the problem of\nscience by the intellect alone, a radical mistake has been made which\n_could_ only land us in absurdity, and that this mistake has for the\ntime being also vitiated the results that have been attained. For--in\nreference to this last point--the divorce of the intellectual from the\nemotional has caused a great portion of our scientific observations to\nbecome merely pedantic and trifling; while it has turned the practical\nresults--as industrial and military machinery, etc.--into engines of\nevil as often as into engines of good.\n\nScience in searching for a permanently valid and purely intellectual\nrepresentation of the universe has, as already said, been searching for\na thing which does not exist. The very facts of Nature, as we call them,\nare at least half feeling. If we try to clean the feeling out of a fact\nand to produce a statement which shall be devoid of the human or sense\nelement, it simply amounts to cleaning the meaning out; and though our\nresulting statement may be exact it is nugatory and of no value. We\nmight as well try to take the clay out of a brick. It must never be\nforgotten that the logical processes--important as they are--cannot\nstand by themselves, have no standing ground of their own. They\npresuppose assumptions and are the expression of things that are\nunreasoning, perhaps illogical. The strictest logic is a mere hooking\ntogether of links in a chain, and the last link is of no use--you can\nput no stress on it--unless the first is secured somewhere. The strength\nof the intellectual chain is no greater than that of the staple from\nwhich it hangs--and that is a human feeling The strength of Euclid is no\ngreater than that of the axioms--and _they_ are feelings; they are\nunreasoning statements of which all that we can say is, \"I _feel_ like\nthat.\" In fact all the propositions of Geometry are nothing but the\nanalysis and elaborate expression, so to speak, of these primary\nconvictions--and the Geometry-structure stands and falls with them.\nThere is no such thing as intellectual truth--that is, I mean, a truth\nwhich can be stated as existing apart from feeling. If, for instance, a\nproposition in Geometry can be really shown to be based on the axioms,\nit is true, not intellectually or absolutely, but as an expression of my\nprimary Geometrical sense; and if my giving a few pence to a crossing\nsweeper is based not on a mere impression of duty, or an anxiety to\nappear charitable, or wish to escape his importunity, but on genuine\nregard for the man, then it is true, not in any absolute signification,\nbut just as an expression of what it professes to represent--namely my\nprimary sense of humanity. Indeed the truest truth is that which is the\nexpression of the deepest feeling, and if there is an absolute truth it\ncan only be known and expressed by him who has the absolute feeling or\nBeing within himself.\n\nThis being so--and the nature of the intellectual processes being, like\nthe links in a chain, transitional--it becomes obvious that the\nintellectual results may figure as a _means_ but never as an end in\nthemselves. To hang any weight of reliance on them in the latter sense\nis like the Chinese Trick--described by Marco Polo--of throwing a rope's\nend up in the air and then climbing up the rope. Hence it appears that\nour scientific theories are perfectly legitimate, as long as they are\nformed as a means towards _practical_ applications. In that sense they\nare transitional; they are formed, not as substantial truths, but merely\nas links in a chain towards some definite practical result. For this\npurpose we may form whatever theories are convenient: if we are\ncalculating the strength of bridges, we may adopt what generalisations\nwe like concerning mechanical structure, as long as they give us actual\nand practical results; if we are predicting eclipses, we may make use of\nany theory that will do. The theory does not matter, as long as it hauls\nthe practical result after it, just as it does not matter whether your\ncable is of iron or hemp or silk, as long as you can get your ship into\ndock with it. In this sense our Modern Science is, I conceive,\nadmirable. For practical results and brief predictions it affords a\nquantity of useful generalisations--shorthand notes and conventional\nsymbols and pocket summaries of phenomena--which bear about the same\nrelation to the actual world that a map does to the country it is\nsupposed to represent. It cannot be said to have any resemblance to the\nreal thing--but, when you understand the principle on which it is\nformed, it is exceedingly useful for finding your way about. As long as\nScience therefore keeps the practical end in view, and starting from\nsense seeks to return to sense again, its intermediate theorising is\nperfectly legitimate; but the moment it credits its theory with a\npositive and authoritative existence, as an actual representation of\nfacts--and endeavours to pass by means of it into unverifiable and\nabstract regions, as of invisible germs or atoms, or far distances of\nspace, or the remote past or future--it is simply throwing its rope's\nend into the sky and trying to climb up! That \"the wish is father to the\nthought\" is in its wide sense profoundly true. In the individual,\nfeeling precedes thinking--as the body precedes the clothes. In history,\nthe Rousseau precedes the Voltaire. There is, I believe, a physiological\nparallel; for behind the brain and determining its action stands the\ngreat sympathetic nerve--the organ of the emotions. In fact here the\nbrain appears as distinctly transitional. It stands between the nerves\nof sense on the one hand and the great sympathetic on the other.\n\nChange the feeling in an individual, and his whole method of thinking\nwill be revolutionised; change the axiom or primary sensation in a\nscience, and the whole structure will have to be re-created. The current\nPolitical Economy is founded on the axiom of individual greed; but let a\nnew axiomatic emotion spring up (as of justice or fair play instead of\nunlimited grab), and the base of the science will be altered, and will\nnecessitate a new construction.\n\nSo when people argue (on politics, morality, art, etc.) it will\ngenerally be found that they differ at the _base_; they go out, perhaps\nquite unconsciously, from different axioms and hence they _cannot_\nagree. Occasionally of course a strict examination will show that, while\nagreeing at the base, one of them has made a false step in deduction; in\nthat case his thought does _not_ represent his primary feeling, and when\nthis is pointed out he is forced to alter it. But more often it is found\nthat the difference lies deep down at a point beyond the reach of\nreason; and they disagree to the end. In this case neither is right and\nneither is wrong. They simply feel differently; they are different\npersons.\n\nThe Thought then is the expression, the outgrowth, the covering of\nunderlying Feeling. And in the great life of Man as a whole, as in the\nlesser life of the individual, his continual new birth and inward growth\ncauses his thought-systems also continually to change and be replaced by\nnew ones. Like the bud-sheaths and husks in a growing plant or tree they\ngive form for a time to the life within; then they fall off and are\nreplaced. The husk prepares the bud underneath, which is to throw it\noff. The thought prepares and protects the feeling underneath, which\ngrowing will inevitably reject it; and when a thought has been formed it\nis already _false_, _i.e._, ready to fall.\n\nWe are now, then, in a position to come back to the question of a\ngenuine Science, truly so-called.\n\nAs there is no invariable and absolute datum on the fringe of\nHumanity--no definable flying atom on which we can found our\nreasonings--and as Modern Science, considered as an actual\nrepresentation of the universe, falls miserably to pieces in\nconsequence--is it possible that we have made a mistake in the\n_direction_ in which we have sought for our datum; and may it be that we\nshould look for that in the very Centre of Humanity instead of in its\nremotest circumference? In that direction evidently, if we could\npenetrate, we should expect to find, not a shadowy intellectual\ngeneralisation, but the very opposite of that--an intense immutable\n_feeling_ or state, an axiomatic condition of Being. Is it possible that\nhere, blazing like a sun (if we could only see it--and the sun is its\nallegory in the physical world), there exists within us absolutely such\na thing--the one _fact_ in the universe, of which all else are shadows,\n_to_ which everything has relation, and round which, itself\nunanalysable, all thought circles and all phenomena stand as indirect\nmodes of expression?\n\nIs it possible? That is the question--the question which each one of us\nhas to solve. At any rate, let us throw this out as a suggestion. Let us\nsuggest that as we have got nothing satisfactory by cleaning the\nsense-element out of phenomena, we should take the opposite course and\nput as much sense into them as we can!\n\n\"Facts\" are, at least, half feelings. Let us acknowledge this and not\nempty the feeling out of them, but deepen and enlarge that which we\nalready have in them. Who knows whether we have ever _seen_ the blue\nsky? Who knows whether we have ever seen each other? Is it not a\ncommonplace to say that one man sees in the common objects of Nature\nwhat another is wholly unconscious of? \"The primrose on the river's brim\na yellow primrose is to him--and nothing more.\" To what extent may the\nfacts of Nature thus be deepened and made more substantial to us--and\nwhither will this process lead us?\n\nDo we not want to feel _more_, not less, in the presence of\nphenomena--to enter into a living relation with the blue sky, and the\nincense-laden air, and the plants and the animals--nay, even with\npoisonous and hurtful things to have a keener _sense_ of their\nhurtfulness? Is it not a strange kind of science, that which wakes the\nmind to pursue the shadows of things, but dulls the senses to the\nreality of them--which causes a man to try to bottle the pure atmosphere\nof heaven and then to shut himself in a gas-reeking, ill-ventilated\nlaboratory while he analyses it; or allows him to vivisect a dog,\nunconscious that he is blaspheming the pure and holy relation between\nman and the animals in doing so? Surely the man of Science (in its\nhigher sense, that is) should be lynx-eyed as an Indian, keen-scented as\na hound--with all senses and feelings trained by constant use and a pure\nand healthy life in close contact with Nature, and with a heart beating\nin sympathy with every creature. Such a man would have at command, so to\nspeak, the keyboard of the universe; but the mechanical, unhealthy,\nindoor-living student--is he not really _ignorant of the\nfacts_?--Certainly, since he has not felt them, he is.\n\nThe process of the true Science consists first in the naming and\ndefining of phenomena (_i.e._, the facts of human consciousness), and\nsecondly, in the discovery of the true relation of these phenomena to\neach other; and since the definitions of phenomena and their relations\nkeep varying with the standpoint of the observer, the process evidently\ninvolves all experience, and ultimately the discovery of that last fact\nof experience to which and through which all the other facts are\nrelated. It is therefore an age-long process, and has to do with the\nemotional and moral part of man as well as with the logical and\nintellectual. It is, in fact, the discovery of the nature of Man\nhimself, and of the true order of his being.\n\nModern Science--though seeking for a unity in Nature--fails to find it,\nbecause, from the nature of the case, any large body of knowledge in\nwhich all people will agree is limited to certain small regions of human\nexperience--regions in which very likely no unity is discoverable. It\ntakes the emerald, and breaks it up; treats of its colour and\nlight-refracting qualities on the one hand; of its crystalline structure\nand hardness on the other; of its weight and density; and of its\nchemical properties; all separately, and producing long strings of\ngeneralisation from each aspect of the subject. But how all these\nqualities are conjoined together, what their relation is which\n_constitutes_ the emerald--yea, even the smallest bit of emerald\ndust--it (wisely) does not attempt to say. It takes the man and dissects\nhim; treats of his blood, his nerves, his bones, his brain; of his\nsenses of sight, of touch, of hearing; but of that which binds these\ntogether into a unity, of their true relation to each other in the man,\nit is silent.\n\nYet the man knows of himself that he _is_ a unity; he knows that all\nparts of his body have relation to _him_, and to each other; he knows\nthat his senses of sight and hearing and touch and taste and smell are\nconjoined in the focus of his individual life, in his \"I am;\" he knows\nthat all his faculties and powers, however much they may belong to\ndifferent planes, spiritual or material, or may come under the\ninquisition of different Sciences, have an order of their own among each\nother--that there _is_ an ultimate Science of them--even though he be\nnot yet wholly versed in it. And he knows, moreover, that in a grain of\ndust, or in an emerald, or in an orange, or in any object of Nature, the\ndifferent attributes of the object--which the Sciences thus treat of\nseparately--are only the reflexion of his different senses; so that the\nproblem of the conjunction of different attributes in a body comes back\nto the same problem of the union of various senses and powers in\nhimself--each individual object being only a case, externalised as it\nwere, and made a matter of consciousness, of the general relation to\neach other of his own sensations and feelings. Knowing all his--I\nsay--he sees that the understanding of Nature in general and of the laws\nor relations which he thinks he perceives among external things must\nalways depend on the relations and laws which he tacitly assumes, or\nwhich he is directly conscious of, as existing between the various parts\nof his own being; and that the ultimate truth which Science--the divine\nScience--is really in search of is a moral or psychologic Truth--an\nunderstanding of what man is, and the discovery of the true relation to\neach other of all his faculties--involving all experience, and an\nexercise of every faculty physical, intellectual, emotional and\nspiritual, instead of one set of faculties only.\n\nNot till we know the law of ourselves, in fact, shall we know the law of\nthe emerald and the orange, or of Nature generally; and the law of\nourselves is not learnt, except subordinately, by intellectual\ninvestigation; it is mainly learnt by life. The relation of gravity to\nvitality is learnt not so much by outer experiment in a laboratory as by\nlong experience within ourselves from the day when as infants we cannot\nlift ourselves above the floor, through the years of the proud strength\nof manhood scaling the loftiest mountains, to the hour when our\ndisengaged spirits finally overcome and pass beyond the attraction of\nthe earth; and just as the sense of weight--which first appears as a\nquite external sensation--is thus at last found to stand in most\npregnant relation with our deepest selves, so of the other senses which\nfeed the individual life--the senses of light, of warmth, of taste, of\nsound, of smell. Taste, which begins as it were on the tip of the\ntongue, becomes ultimately, if normally developed, a sense which\nidentifies itself with the health and well-being of the whole body; the\npleasure of taste becomes vastly more than a mere surface pleasure, and\nits discrimination of food more than a mere regard for the nutrition of\nthe ordinary corporeal functions. The sense of Light, which begins in\nthe material eye, grows and deepens inwardly till the consciousness of\nit pervades the whole body and mind with a kind of inward illumination\nor divine Reason, showing the places of all things and enfolding the\nsense of beauty in itself. The sense of Warmth in the same manner is\nrelated to and leads up to Love; and Sound, in the voices of our friends\nor the divine chords of music, has passed away from being an external\nphenomenon and has established itself as the language of our most tender\nand intimate emotions.\n\nAll the senses thus, as they develop and deepen, are found to unite in\nthe very focus of individual life. Slowly, and through long experience,\ntheir relation to each other, _their very meaning_ unfolds, or will\nunfold; and as this process takes place the man knows himself _one_, a\nunity, of which the various faculties are the different manifestations.\nThen further through his less localised feelings or more glorified\nsenses the individual finds his relation to other individuals. Through\nhis loves and hatreds, through his senses of attraction, repulsion,\ncohesion, solidarity, order, justice, charity, right, wrong and the\nrest--these feelings, each like the others deepening back more and more\nas time goes on--he gradually discovers his true and abiding\nrelationship to other individuals, and to the divine society of which\nthey all form a part--and so at last, if we may venture to say so, his\nrelationship to the absolute and universal. At present, since our most\nimportant relation to each other is conceived of as one of rivalry and\nCompetition, we of course think of the objects of Nature as being\nchiefly engaged in a Struggle for Existence with each other; but when we\nbecome aware of all our senses and feelings, and of ourselves as\nindividuals, as having relation to the Absolute and universal,\nproceeding from it, as the branches and twigs of a tree from the\ntrunk--then we shall become aware of a Divine or absolute science in\nNature; we shall at last understand that all objects have a permanent\nand indissoluble relation to each other, and shall see their true\nmeaning--though not till then.\n\nIs it possible then that Science, having hitherto--and we shall see in\ntime that this process has been really most valuable and important--gone\noutwards from the centre towards the very fringe of Humanity--emptying\nfacts as far as possible as it went of all feeling, and reducing itself\nat last to the most shadowy generalisations on the very verge of sense\nand nonsense--is it possible, I say, that it will now return, and\n_first_ filling up facts with feeling as far as practicable (that is, by\ndirect and the most living contact with Nature in every form, learning\nto enter into direct personal sense-relationship with every phenomenon\nand phase), will so gradually ascend to the great central fact and\nfeeling, and then at last and for the first time become fully conscious\nof a vast organisation--absolutely perfect and intimately knit from its\ncentre to its utmost circumference--(the true cosmos of Man--the\nconceptions of man and god combined)--existing inchoate or embryonic in\nevery individual man, animal, plant, or other creature--the object of\nall life, experience, suffering, and toil--the ground of all sensation,\nand the hidden, yet proper, theme of all thought and study?\n\nFor this is it possible that Science will, speaking broadly, have to\nleave the laboratory and become one with Life; or that the great\ncurrents of human life will have to be turned on into these often Augean\nstables of intellectual pruriency?--the investigation of Nature no\nlonger a matter of the intellect alone, but of patient listening and the\nquiet eye, and of love and faith, and of all deep human experience,\nbearing not superciliously its weight towards the interpretation of the\nleast phenomenon--every \"fact\" thus deepened to its utmost--all\nexperience (rather than experiment) courted, and filial walking with\nNature, rather than tearing of veils aside--the life of the open air,\nand on the land and the waters, the companionship of the animals and the\ntrees and the stars, the knowledge of their habits at first hand and\nthrough individual relationship to them, the recognition of their voices\nand languages, and listening well what they themselves have to say; the\nkeenest education of the senses towards the physical powers and\nelements, and the acceptance of _all_ human experience, without\nexception--till Science become a reality.\n\nIs it possible that in some sense, instead of reducing each branch of\nScience to its lowest terms, we shall have to read it in the light of\nits _highest_ factors, and \"take it up\" into the Science above--that we\nshall have to take up the mechanical sciences into the physical, the\nphysical into the vital, the vital into the social and ethical, and so\nforth, before we can understand them? Is it possible that the phenomena\nof Chemistry only find their due place and importance in their relation\nto living beings and processes; that the phenomena of vitality and the\nlaws of Biology and Zoology--Evolution included--can only be \"explained\"\nby their dependence on self-hood--both in plants and animals; that\nPolitical Economy and the Social Sciences (which deal with men as\nindividual selves) must, to be understood aright, be studied in the\nlight of those great ethical principles and enthusiasms, which to a\ncertain extent override the individual self; and that, finally, Ethics\nor the study of moral problems is only comprehensible when the student\nhas become aware of a region beyond Ethics, into which questions of\nmorality and immorality, of right and wrong, do not and cannot enter?\n\nOf this reversal of the ordinary scientific method Ruskin has given a\ngreat and signal instance in his treatment of Political Economy; it\nremains, perhaps, for others to follow his example in the other branches\nof Science.[31]\n\nWith regard to the absolute datum question we have seen that Science\nhas two alternatives before it--either to be merely intellectual and to\nseek for its start-point in some quite external (and imaginary) thing\nlike the Atom, or to be divine and to seek for its absolute in the\ninnermost recesses of humanity. We have two similar alternatives in the\ndoctrine of Evolution, which looks either to one end of the scale or the\nother for its interpretation--either to the amoeba or to the man--to\nsomething it knows next to nothing of, or to that which it knows most\nof. Goethe, when gazing at a fan-palm at Padua, conceived the idea of\nleaf-metamorphosis, which he afterwards enunciated in the now accepted\ndoctrine that all parts of a plant--seed-vessel, pistil, stamens,\npetals, sepals, stalk, etc.--may be regarded as modifications of a leaf\nor leaves. In this view the distinctions between the parts are effaced,\nand we have only one part instead of many--but the question is \"what is\nthat part?\" It is of course arbitrary to call it a leaf, for since it is\ncontinually varying it is at one time a leaf, and at another a stalk,\nand then a petal or a sepal, and so forth. What then is it? For the\nmoment we are baffled.\n\nSo with the doctrine of Evolution as applied to the whole organic\nkingdom up to man. Like the doctrine of leaf-metamorphosis it\nobliterates distinctions. Geoffroy St. Hilaire proposed to show the\nFrench Academy that a Cephalopod could be assimilated to a Vertebrate by\nsupposing the latter bent backwards and walking on its hands and feet.\nThere is a continuous variation from the mollusc to the man--all the\nlines of distinction run and waver--classes and species cease to\nexist--and Science, instead of many, sees only _one_ thing. What then is\nthat one thing? Is it a mollusc, or is it a man, or what is it? Are we\nto say that man may be looked upon as a variation of a mollusc or an\namoeba, or that the amoeba may be looked on as a variation of man? Here\nare two directions of thought; which shall we choose? But the plain\ntruth is, the Intellect can give no satisfactory answer. Whichever, or\nwhatever, it chooses, the choice is quite arbitrary--just as much so as\nthe choice of the \"leaf\" in the other case. There is no answer to be\ngiven. And thus it is that _the appearance of the doctrine of Evolution\nis the signal of the destruction of Science_ (in the ordinary\nacceptation of the word). For Evolution is the successive obliteration\nof the arbitrary distinctions and landmarks which by their existence\n_constitute_ Science, and as soon as Evolution covers the whole ground\nof Nature inorganic and organic (as before long it will do)--the whole\nof Nature runs and wavers before the eye of Science, the latter\nrecognises that its distinctions _are_ arbitrary, and turns upon and\ndestroys itself. This has happened before, I believe--ages back in the\nhistory of the human race--and probably will happen again.\n\nThe only conceivable answer to the question, \"What is that which is now\na mollusc and now a man and now an inorganic atom?\"[32] is given by man\nhimself--and his answer is, I fear, not \"scientific.\" It is \"I Am.\" \"I\nam that which varies.\" And the force of his answer depends on what he\nmeans by the word \"I.\" And so also the only conceivable answer to the\nabsolute datum question is to be found in the meaning of the word\n\"I\"--in the deepening back of consciousness itself. Man is the measure\nof all things. If we are to use Science as a minister to the most\nexternal part of man--to provide him with cheap boots and shoes,\netc.--then we do right to seek our absolute datum in his external part,\nand to take his _foot_ as our first measure. We found a science on feet\nand pounds, and it serves its purpose well enough. But if we want to\nfind a garment for his inner being--or, rather, one that shall fit the\n_whole_ man--to wear which will be a delight to him and, as it were, a\nvery interpretation of himself--it seems obvious that we must not take\nour measure from outside, but from his very most central principle. The\nwhole question is, whether there _is_ any absolute datum in this\ndirection or not. There have been men through all ages of history (and\nfrom before) who have declared that there is. They have perhaps been\nconscious of it in themselves. On the other hand there have been men\nwho, starting from their feet, declared that consciousness itself was a\nmere incident of the human machine--as the whistle of the engine--and\nthus the matter stands. On the whole, at the present day, the _feet_\nhave it, and (notwithstanding their variety in size and boot-induced\nconformation) are generally accepted as the best absolute datum\navailable.\n\nUnder the foot _r\u00e9gime_ the universe is generally conceived of as a\nmedley of objects and forces, more or less orderly and distinct from\nman, in the midst of which man is placed--the purpose and tendency of\nhis life being \"adaptation to his environment.\" To understand this we\nmay imagine Mrs. Brown in the middle of Oxford Street. 'Buses and cabs\nare running in different directions, carts and drays are rattling on all\nsides of her. This is her environment, and she has to adapt herself to\nit. She has to learn the laws of the vehicles and their movements, to\nstand on this side or on that, to run here and stop there, conceivably\nto jump into one at a favourable moment, to make use of the law of its\nmovement, and so get carried to her destination as comfortably as may\nbe. A long course of this sort of thing \"adapts\" Mrs. Brown\nconsiderably, and she becomes more active, both in mind and body, than\nbefore. That is all very well. But Mrs. Brown has a _destination_.\n(Indeed how would she ever have got into the middle of Oxford Street at\nall, if she had not had one? and if she did get there with no\ndestination at all, but merely to skip about, would there be any Mrs.\nBrown left in a short time?) The question is, \"What is the destination\nof Man?\"\n\nAbout this last question unfortunately we hear little. The theory is (I\nhope I am not doing it injustice) that by studying your environment\nsufficiently you will find out--that is, that by investigating\nAstronomy, Biology, Physics, Ethics, etc., you will discover the destiny\nof man. But this seems to me the same as saying that by studying the\nlaws of cabs and 'buses sufficiently you will find out where you are\ngoing to. These are ways and means. Study them by all means, that is\nright enough; but do not think _they_ will tell you where to go. You\nhave to use them, not they you.\n\nIn order therefore for the environment to act, there must be a\ndestination. This I suppose is expressed in the biological dictum,\n\"organism is made by function as well as environment.\" What then is the\nfunction of Man? And here we come back again to the meaning of the word\n\"I.\"\n\nNothwithstanding then the prevalence of the foot r\u00e9gime, and that the\nheathen so furiously rage together in their belief in it, let us suggest\nthat there is in man a divine consciousness as well as a\nfoot-consciousness. For, as we saw that the sense of taste may pass from\nbeing a mere local thing on the tip of the tongue to pervading and\nbecoming synonymous with the health of the whole body; or as the blue of\nthe sky may be to one person a mere superficial impression of colour,\nand to another the inspiration of a poem or picture, and to a third--as\nto the \"god-intoxicated\" Arab of the desert--a living presence like the\nancient Dyaus or Zeus; so may not the whole of human consciousness\ngradually lift itself from a mere local and temporary consciousness to a\ndivine and universal? There is in every man a local consciousness\nconnected with his quite external body; that we know. Are there not also\nin every man the makings of a universal consciousness? That there are in\nus phases of consciousness which transcend the limit of the bodily\nsenses, is a matter of daily experience; that we perceive and know\nthings which are not conveyed to us by our bodily eyes or heard by our\nbodily ears, is certain; that there rise in us waves of consciousness\nfrom those around us, from the people, the race, to which we belong, is\nalso certain; may there not then be in us the makings of a perception\nand knowledge which shall not be relative to this body which is here and\nnow, but which shall be good for all time and everywhere? Does there not\nexist, in truth, as we have already hinted--an inner Illumination--of\nwhich what we call light in the outer world is the partial expression\nand manifestation--by which we can ultimately see things, _as they are_,\nbeholding all creation, the animals, the angels, the plants, the figures\nof our friends and all the ranks and races of human kind, in their true\nbeing and order--not by any local act of perception but by a cosmical\nintuition and presence, identifying ourselves with what we see? Does\nthere not exist a perfected sense of Hearing--as of the morning-stars\nsinging together--an understanding of the words that are spoken all\nthrough the universe, the hidden meaning of all things, the word which\nis creation itself--a profound and far pervading sense, of which our\nordinary sense of sound is only the first novitiate and initiation? Do\nwe not become aware of an inner sense of Health and of Holiness--the\ntranslation and final outcome of the external sense of taste--which has\npower to determine for us absolutely and without any ado, without\nargument and without denial, what is good and appropriate to be done or\nsuffered in every case that can arise?\n\nAnd so on; it is not necessary to say more. If there are such powers in\nman, then there is indeed an exact science possible. Short of it there\nis only a temporary and phantom science. \"Whatever is known to us by\n(direct) consciousness,\" says Stuart Mill in his System of Logic, \"is\nknown to us beyond possibility of question;\" what is known by our local\nand temporary consciousness is known _for the moment_ beyond possibility\nof question; what is known by our permanent and universal consciousness\nis permanently known beyond possibility of question.[33]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[31] Thus the study of Geometry would be primarily an education of the\neye, and the mind's eye, to the perception of geometrical forms and\nfacts, the judgment of angles, etc.--and secondarily only a process of\ndeductive reasoning--a body of empirical knowledge strengthened and tied\ntogether by bands of logic; the study of Natural History would be\nprimarily an affectionate intimacy with the habits of animals and\nplants, and classification would be treated as a secondary matter and as\na help to the former; Physiology would be studied in the first place by\nthe method of Health--the pure body--becoming gradually transparent with\nall its organs to the eye of the mind--and dissection would be used to\ncorroborate and correct the results thus attained; and so on.\n\n[32] Compare the Sphinx-riddle: What is that which goes on four legs,\netc.\n\n[33] See for continuation of this subject the chapter on \"A Rational and\nHumane Science,\" p. 219 _infra_.\n\n\n\n\nDEFENCE OF CRIMINALS:\n\nA CRITICISM OF MORALITY\n\nThe State is the actually existing realised moral life. For it is the\nunity of the universal essential Will with that of the individual, and\nthis is \"Morality.\"--HEGEL.\n\n\nA criminal is literally a person accused--accused, and in the modern\nsense of the word convicted, of being harmful to Society. But is he\nthere in the dock, the patch-coated brawler or burglar, really harmful\nto Society? is he more harmful than the mild old gentleman in the wig\nwho pronounces sentence upon him? That is the question. Certainly he has\ninfringed the law: and the law is in a sense the consolidated public\nopinion of Society: but if no one were to break the law, public opinion\nwould ossify, and Society would die. As a matter of fact Society keeps\nchanging its opinion. How then are we to know when it is right and when\nit is wrong? The Outcast of one age is the Hero of another. In\nexecration they nailed Roger Bacon's manuscripts out in the sun and\nrain, to rot crucified upon planks--his bones lie in an unknown and\nunhonoured grave--yet to-day he is regarded as a pioneer of human\nthought. The hated Christian holding his ill-famed love-feasts in the\ndarkness of the catacombs has climbed up to the throne of S. Peter and\nthe world. The Jew moneylender whom Front-de-Boeuf could torture with\nimpunity is become a Rothschild--guest of princes and instigator of\ncommercial wars; and Shylock is now a highly respectable Railway\nBondholder. And the Accepted of one age is the Criminal of the next. All\nthe glories of Alexander do not condone in our eyes for his cruelty in\ncrucifying the brave defenders of Tyre by thousands along the sea-shore;\nand if Solomon with his thousand wives and concubines were to appear in\nLondon to-morrow, even our most frivolous circles would be shocked, and\nBrigham Young by contrast seem a domestic model. The judge pronounces\nsentence on the prisoner now, but Society in its turn and in the lapse\nof years pronounces sentence on the judge. It holds in its hand a new\ncanon, a new code of morals, and consigns its former representative and\nthe law which he administered to a limbo of contempt.\n\nIt seems as if Society, as it progresses from point to point, forms\nideals--just as the individual does. At any moment each person,\nconsciously or unconsciously, has an ideal in his mind toward which he\nis working (hence the importance of literature). Similarly Society has\nan ideal in its mind. These ideals are tangents or vanishing points of\nthe direction in which Society is moving at the time. It does not reach\nits ideal, but it goes in that direction--then, after a time, the\ndirection of its movement changes, and it has a new ideal.\n\nWhen the ideal of Society is material gain or possession, as it is\nlargely to-day, the object of its special condemnation is the thief--not\nthe rich thief, for he is already in possession and therefore\nrespectable, but the poor thief. There is nothing to show that the poor\nthief is really more immoral or unsocial than the respectable\nmoney-grubber; but it is very clear that the money-grubber has been\nfloating with the great current of Society, while the poor man has been\nswimming against it, and so has been worsted. Or when, as to-day,\nSociety rests on private property in land, its counter-ideal is the\npoacher. If you go in the company of the county squire-archy and listen\nto the after-dinner talk you will soon think the poacher a combination\nof all human and diabolic vices; yet I have known a good many poachers,\nand either have been very lucky in my specimens or singularly prejudiced\nin their favour, for I have generally found them very good fellows--but\nwith just this one blemish that they invariably regard a landlord as an\nemissary of the evil one! The poacher is as much in the right, probably,\nas the landlord, but he is not right for the time. He is asserting a\nright (and an instinct) belonging to a past time--when for hunting\npurposes all land was held in common--or to a time in the future when\nsuch or similar rights shall be restored. C\u00e6sar says of the Suevi that\nthey tilled the ground in common and had no private lands, and there is\nabundant evidence that all early human communities, before they entered\non the stage of modern civilisation, were communistic in character. Some\nof the Pacific Islanders to-day are in the same condition. In those\ntimes private property was theft. Obviously the man who attempted to\nretain for himself land or goods, or who fenced off a portion of the\ncommon ground and--like the modern landlord--would allow no one to till\nit who did not pay him a tax--was a criminal of the deepest dye.\nNevertheless the criminals pushed their way to the front, and have\nbecome the respectables of modern Society. And it is quite probable that\nin like manner the criminals of to-day will push to the front and become\nthe respectables of a later age.\n\nThe ascetic and monastic ideal of early Christian and medi\u00e6val ages is\nnow regarded as foolish, if not wicked; and poverty, which in many times\nand places has been held in honour as the only garb of honesty, is\ncondemned as criminal and indecent. Nomadism--if accompanied by\npoverty--is criminal in modern Society. To-day the gipsy and the tramp\nare hunted down. To have no settled habitation, or worse still, no place\nto lay your head, are suspicious matters. We close even our outhouses\nand barns against the son of man, and so to us the son of man comes not.\nAnd yet--at one time and in one stage of human progress--the nomadic\nstate is the rule; and the settler is then the criminal. His crops are\nfired and his cattle driven off. What right has he to lay a limit to the\nhunting grounds, or to spoil the wild free life of the plains with his\ndirty agriculture?\n\nAs to the marriage relation and its attendant moralities, the forms are\nnumerous and notorious enough. Public opinion seems to have varied\nthrough all phases and ideals, and yet there is no indication of\nfinality. Modern investigations show that in primitive human societies\nthe affinities admitted or barred in marriage are most various--the\nrelation of brother and sister being even in cases allowed; in the\npresent day such a bond as the last-mentioned would be considered\ninhuman and monstrous.[34] Polyandry prevails among one people or at one\ntime, polygyny prevails among another people or at another time. In\nCentral Africa to-day the chief offers you his wife as a mark of\nhospitality, in India the native Prince keeps her hidden even from his\nmost intimate guest. Among the Japanese, public opinion holds young\nwomen--even of good birth--singularly free in their intercourse with\nmen, _till they are married_; at Paris they are free after. In the Greek\nand Roman antiquity marriage seems, with some brilliant exceptions, to\nhave been a prosaic affair--mostly a matter of convenience and\nhousekeeping--the woman an underling--little of the ideal attaching to\nthe relationship of man and wife. The romance of love went elsewhere.\nThe better class of free women or Hetairai were those who gave a\nspiritual charm to the passion. They were an educated and recognised\nbody, and possibly in their best times exercised a healthy and\ndiscriminating influence upon the male youth. The respectful treatment\nof Theodota by Socrates and the advice which he gives her concerning her\nlovers: to keep the insolent from her door, and to rejoice greatly when\nthe accepted succeed in anything honourable, indicates this. That their\ninfluence was at times immense the mere name of Aspasia is sufficient to\nshow; and if Plato in the Symposium reports correctly the word of\nDiotima, her teaching on the subject of human and divine love was\nprobably of the noblest and profoundest that has ever been given to the\nworld.\n\nWith the influx of the North-men over Europe came a new ideal of the\nsexual relation, and the wife mounted more into equality with her\nhusband than before. The romance of love, however, still went mainly\noutside marriage, and may, I believe, be traced in two chief forms--that\nof Chivalry, as an ideal devotion to simple Womanhood; and that of\nMinstrelsy, which took quite a different hue, individual and\nsentimental--the lover and his mistress (she in most cases the wife of\nanother), the serenade, secret amour, etc.--both of which forms of\nChivalry and Minstrelsy contain in themselves something new and not\nquite familiar to antiquity.\n\nFinally in modern times the monogamic union has risen to\npre-eminence--the splendid ideal of an equal and life-long attachment\nbetween man and wife, fruitful of children in this life, and hopeful of\ncontinuance beyond--and has become the great theme of romantic\nliterature, and the climax of a thousand novels and poems. Yet it is\njust here and to-day, when this ideal after centuries of struggle has\nestablished itself, and among the nations that are in the van of\ncivilisation--that we find the doctrine of perfect liberty in the\nmarriage relationship being most successfully preached, and that the\ncommunalisation of social life in the future seems likely to weaken the\nfamily bond and to relax the obligation of the marriage tie.\n\nIf the Greek age, splendid as it was in itself and in its fruits of\nhuman progress, did not hold marriage very high, it was partly because\nthe ideal passion of that period, and one which more than all else\ninspired it, was that of comradeship, or male friendship carried over\ninto the region of love. The two figures of Harmodius and Aristogiton\nstand at the entrance of Greek history as the type of this passion,\nbearing its fruit (as Plato throughout maintains is its nature) in\nunited self-devotion to the country's good. The heroic Theban legion,\nthe \"sacred band,\" into which no man might enter without his lover--and\nwhich was said to have remained unvanquished till it was annihilated at\nthe battle of Ch\u00e6ron\u00e6a--proves to us how publicly this passion and its\nplace in society were recognised; while its universality and the depth\nto which it had stirred the Greek mind are indicated by the fact that\nwhole treatises on love, in its spiritual aspect, exist, in which no\nother form of the sentiment seems to be contemplated; and by the\nmagnificent panorama of Greek statuary, which was obviously to a large\nextent inspired by it. In fact the most remarkable Society known to\nhistory, and its greatest men, cannot be properly considered or\nunderstood apart from this passion; yet the modern world scarcely\nrecognises it, or if it recognises, does so chiefly to condemn it.[35]\n\nOther instances might be quoted to show how differently moral questions\nare regarded in one age and another--as in the cases of Usury, Magic,\nSuicide, Infanticide, etc. On the whole we pride ourselves (and justly I\nbelieve) on the general advance in humanity; yet we know that to-day the\nmerest savages can only shudder at a civilisation whose public opinion\nallows--as among us--the rich to wallow in their wealth, while the poor\nare systematically starving; and it is certain that the vivisection of\nanimals--which on the whole is approved by our educated classes (though\nnot by the healthier sentiment of the uneducated)--would have been\nstigmatised as one of the most abominable crimes by the ancient\nEgyptians[36]--if, that is, they could have conceived such a practice\npossible at all.\n\nBut not only do the moral judgments of mankind thus vary from age to age\nand from race to race, but--what is equally remarkable--they vary to an\nextraordinary degree from class to class of the same society. If the\nlandlord class regards the poacher as a criminal, the poacher, as\nalready hinted, looks upon the landlord as a selfish ruffian who has the\npolice on his side; if the respectable shareholder, politely and\nrespectably subsisting on dividends, dismisses navvies and the\nfrequenters of public-houses as disorderly persons, the navvy in return\ndespises the shareholder as a sneaking thief. And it is not easy to see,\nafter all, which is in the right. It is useless to dismiss these\ndiscrepancies by supposing that one class in the nation possesses a\nmonopoly of morality and that the other classes simply rail at the\nvirtue they cannot attain to, for this is obviously not the case. It is\nalmost a commonplace, and certainly a fact that cannot be contested,\nthat every class--however sinful or outcast in the eyes of\nothers--contains within its ranks a large proportion of generous,\nnoble, self-sacrificing characters; so that the public opinion of one\nsuch class, however different from that of others, cannot at least be\ninvalidated on the above ground. There are plenty of clergymen at this\nmoment who are models of pastors--true shepherds of the people--though a\nlarge and increasing section of society persist in regarding priests as\na kind of wolves in sheep's clothing. It is not uncommon to meet with\nprofessional thieves who are generous and open-handed to the last\ndegree, and ready to part with their last penny to help a comrade in\ndistress; with women living outside the bounds of conventional morality\nwho are strongly religious in sentiment, and who regard atheists as\n_really_ wicked people; with aristocrats who have as stern material in\nthem as quarry-men; and even with bondholders and drawing-room loungers\nwho are as capable of bravery and self-sacrifice as many a pitman or\nironworker. Yet all these classes mentioned have their codes of\nmorality, differing in greater or lesser degree from each other; and\nagain the question forces itself upon us: Which of them all is the true\nand abiding code?\n\nIt may be said, with regard to this variation of codes within the same\nsociety, that, though various codes may exist at the same time, one only\nis really valid, namely, that which has embodied itself in the law--that\nthe others have been rejected because they were unworthy. But, when we\ncome to look into this matter of law, we see that the plea can hardly be\nmaintained. Law represents from age to age the code of the dominant or\nruling class, slowly accumulated, no doubt, and slowly modified, but\nalways added to and always administered by the ruling class. To-day the\ncode of the dominant class may perhaps best be denoted by the word\nRespectability--and if we ask why this code has to a great extent\noverwhelmed the codes of the other classes and got the law on its side\n(so far that in the main it characterises those classes who do not\nconform to it as the criminal classes), the answer can only be: Because\nit _is_ the code of the classes who are in power. Respectability is the\ncode of those who have the wealth and the command, and as these have\nalso the fluent pens and tongues, it is the standard of modern\nliterature and the press. It is not necessarily a better standard than\nothers, but it is the one that happens to be in the ascendant; it is the\ncode of the classes that chiefly represent modern society; it is the\ncode of the Bourgeoisie. It is different from the Feudal code of the\npast, of the knightly classes, and of Chivalry; it is different from the\nDemocratic code of the future--of brotherhood and of equality; it is the\ncode of the Commercial age--and its distinctive watchword is property.\n\nThe respectability of to-day is the respectability of property. There is\nnothing so respectable as being well-off. The Law confirms this:\neverything is on the side of the rich; justice is too expensive a thing\nfor the poor man. Offences against the person hardly count for so much\nas those against property. You may beat your wife within an inch of her\nlife and only get three months; but if you steal a rabbit, you may be\n\"sent\" for years. So again, gambling by thousands on Change is\nrespectable enough, but pitch and toss for half-pence in the streets is\nlow, and must be dealt with by the police; while it is a mere\ncommonplace to say that the high-class swindler is \"received\" in society\nfrom which a more honest but patch-coated brother would infallibly be\nrejected. As Walt Whitman has it, \"There is plenty of glamour about the\nmost damnable crimes and hoggish meannesses, special and general, of the\nfeudal and dynastic world over there, with its personnel of lords and\nqueens and courts, so well-dressed and handsome. But the people are\nungrammatical, untidy, and their sins gaunt and ill-bred.\"\n\nThus we see that though there are, for instance in the England of\nto-day, a variety of classes and a variety of corresponding codes of\npublic opinion and morality, one of these codes, namely that of the\nruling class whose watchword is property, is strongly in the ascendant.\nAnd we may fairly suppose that in any nation from the time when it first\nbecomes divided into well-marked classes this is or has been the case.\nIn one age--the commercial age--the code of the commercial or\nmoney-loving class is dominant; in another--the military--the code of\nthe warrior class is dominant; in another--the religious--the code of\nthe priestly class; and so on. And even before any question of division\ninto classes arises, while races are yet in a rudimentary and tribal\nstate, the utmost diversity of custom and public opinion marks the one\nfrom the other.\n\nWhat, then, are we to conclude from all these variations (and the far\ngreater number which I have not mentioned) of the respect or stigma\nattaching to the _same_ actions, not only among different societies in\ndifferent ages or parts of the world, but even at any one time among\ndifferent classes of the same society? Must we conclude that there is no\nsuch thing as a permanent moral code valid for all time; or must we\nstill suppose that there is such a thing--though society has hitherto\nsought for it in vain?\n\nI think it is obvious that there is no such thing as a permanent moral\ncode--at any rate as applying to _actions_. Probably the respect or\nstigma attaching to particular classes of actions arose from the fact\nthat these classes of actions were--or were thought to be--beneficial or\ninjurious to the society of the time; but it is also clear that this\ngood or bad name once created clings to the action long after the action\nhas ceased in the course of social progress to be beneficial in the one\ncase, or injurious in the other; and indeed long after the thinkers of\nthe race have discovered the discrepancy. And so in a short time arises\na great confusion in the popular mind between what is really good or\nevil for the race and what is reputed to be so--the bolder spirits who\ntry to separate the two having to atone for this confusion by their own\nmartyrdom. It is also pretty clear that the actions which are beneficial\nor injurious to the race must by the nature of the case vary almost\nindefinitely with the changing conditions of the life of the race--what\nis beneficial in one age or under one set of conditions being injurious\nin another age or under other circumstances--so that a permanent or\never-valid code of moral action is not a thing to be expected, at any\nrate by those who regard morality as a result of social experience, and\nas a matter of fact is not a thing that we find existing. And, indeed,\nof those who regard morals as intuitive, there are few who have thought\nabout the matter who would be inclined to say that any _act_ in itself\ncan be either right or wrong. Though there is a superficial judgment of\nthis kind, yet when the matter comes to be looked into, the more general\nconsent seems to be that the rightness or wrongness is in the _motive_.\nTo kill (it is said) is not wrong, but to do so with murderous intent\nis; to take money out of another person's purse is in itself neither\nmoral nor immoral--all depends upon whether permission has been given,\nor on what the relations between the two persons are; and so on.\nObviously there is no mere act which under given conditions may not be\njustified, and equally obvious there is no mere act which under given\nconditions may not become unjustifiable. To talk, therefore, about\nvirtues and vices as permanent and distinct classes of actions is\nillusory: there is no such distinction, except so far as a superficial\nand transient public opinion creates it. The theatre of morality is in\nthe passions, and there are (it is said) virtuous and vicious\npassions--eternally distinct from each other.\n\nHere, then, we have abandoned the search for a permanent moral code\namong the actions; on the understanding that we are more likely to find\nsuch a thing among the passions. And I think it would be generally\nadmitted that this is a move in the right direction. There are\ndifficulties however here, and the matter is not one which renders\nitself up at once. Though, vaguely speaking, some passions seem nobler\nand more dignified than others, we find it very difficult, in fact\nimpossible, to draw any strict line which shall separate one class, the\nvirtuous, from the other class, the vicious. On the whole we place\nPrudence, Generosity, Chastity, Reverence, Courage among the\nvirtues--and their opposites, as Rashness, Miserliness, Incontinence,\nArrogance, Timidity, among the vices; yet we do not seem able to say\nthat Prudence is always better than Rashness, Chastity than\nIncontinence, or Reverence than Arrogance. There are situations in which\nthe less honoured quality is the most in place; and if the extreme of\nthis is undesirable, the extreme of its opposite is undesirable too.\nCourage, it is commonly said, must not be carried over into\nfoolhardiness; Chastity must not go so far as the monks of the early\nChurch took it; there is a limit to the indulgence of the instinct of\nReverence. In fact the less dignified passions are necessary sometimes\nas a counterbalance and set-off to the more dignified, and a character\ndevoid of them would be very insipid; just as among the members of the\nbody, the less honoured have their place as well as the more honoured,\nand could not well be discarded.\n\nHence a number of writers, abandoning the attempt to draw a fixed line\nbetween virtuous and vicious passions, have boldly maintained that vices\nhave their place as well as virtues, and that the true salvation lies in\nthe golden mean. The [Greek: epieikeia] and [Greek: s\u00f4phrosun\u00ea] of the\nGreeks seem to have pointed to the idea of a blend or harmonious\nadjustment of all the powers as the perfection of character. Plutarch\nsays (_Essay on Moral Virtue_), \"This, then, is the function of\npractical reason following nature, to prevent our passions either going\ntoo far or too short.... Thus setting bound to the emotional currents,\nit creates in the unreasoning part of the soul moral habits which are\nthe mean between excess and deficiency.\"\n\nThe English word \"gentleman\" seems to have once conveyed a similar idea.\nAnd Emerson, among others, maintains that each vice is only the \"excess\nor acridity of a virtue,\" and says \"the first lesson of history is the\ngood of evil.\"\n\nAccording to this view rightness or wrongness cannot be predicated of\nthe passions themselves, but should rather be applied to the use of\nthem, and to the way they are proportioned to each other and to\ncircumstances. As, farther back, we left the region of actions to look\nfor morality in the passions that lie behind action, so now we leave the\nregion of the passions to look for it in the power that lies behind the\npassions and gives them their place. This is a farther move in the same\ndirection as before, and possibly will bring us to a more satisfactory\nconclusion. There are still difficulties, however, the chief ones lying\nin the want of definiteness which necessarily attaches to our dealings\nwith these remoter tracts of human nature; and in our own defective\nknowledge of these tracts.\n\nFor these reasons, and as the subject is a complex and difficult one, I\nwould ask the reader to dwell for a few minutes longer on the\nconsiderations which show that it is really as impossible to draw a\nfixed line between moral and immoral passions as it is between moral and\nimmoral actions, and which therefore force us, if we are to find any\nground of morality at all, to look for it in some further region of our\nnature.\n\nPlato in his allegory of the soul, in the Ph\u00e6drus, though he apparently\ndivides the passions which draw the human chariot into two classes, the\nheavenward and the earthward--figured by the white horse and the black\nhorse respectively--does not recommend that the black horse should be\ndestroyed or dismissed, but only that he (as well as the white horse)\nshould be kept under due control by the charioteer. By which he seems to\nintend that there is a power in man which stands above and behind the\npassions, and under whose control alone the human being can safely\nmove. In fact, if the fiercer and so-called more earthly passions were\nremoved, half the driving force would be gone from the chariot of the\nhuman soul. Hatred may be devilish at times--but, after all, the true\nvalue of it depends on what you hate, on the use to which the passion is\nput. Anger, though inhuman at one time, is magnificent at another.\nObstinacy may be out of place in a drawing-room, but it is the latest\nvirtue on a battle-field, when an important position has to be held\nagainst the full brunt of the enemy. And Lust, though maniacal and\nmonstrous in its aberrations, cannot in the last resort be separated\nfrom its divine companion, Love. To let the more amiable passions have\nentire sway notoriously does not do: to turn your cheek, too literally,\nto the smiter, is (_pace_ Tolstoi) only to encourage smiting; and when\nsociety becomes so altruistic that everybody runs to fetch the\ncoal-scuttle, we feel sure that something has gone wrong. The\nwhite-washed heroes of our biographies, with their many virtues and no\nfaults, do not please us. We have an impression that the man without\nfaults is, to say the least, a vague, uninteresting being--a picture\nwithout light and shade--and the conventional semi-pious classification\nof character into good and bad qualities (as if the good might be kept\nand the bad thrown away) seems both inadequate and false.\n\nWhat the student of human nature rather has to do is not to divide the\nvirtues (so-called) from the vices (so-called), not to separate the\nblack horse and the white horse, but to find out what is the relation of\nthe one to the other--to see the character as a whole, and the mutual\ninterdependence of its different parts--to find out what that power is\nwhich constitutes it a unity, whose presence and control makes the man\nand all his actions \"right,\" and in whose absence (if it is really\npossible for it to be entirely absent) the man and his actions must be\n\"wrong.\"\n\nWhat we call vices, faults, defects, appear often as a kind of\nlimitation: cruelty, for instance, as a limitation of human sympathy,\nprejudice as a blindness, a want of discernment; but it is just these\nlimitations--in one form or another--which are the necessary conditions\nof the appearance of a human being in the world. If we are to act or\nlive at all we must act and live under limits. There must be channels\nalong which the stream is forced to run, else it will spread and lose\nitself aimlessly in all directions--and turn no mill-wheels. One man is\ndisagreeable and unconciliatory--the directions in which his sympathy\ngoes out to others are few and limited--yet there are situations in life\n(and everyone must know them) when a man who is _able and willing_ to\nmake himself disagreeable is invaluable: when a Carlyle is worth any\nnumber of Balaams.\n\nSometimes again vices, etc., appear as a kind of raw material from which\nthe other qualities have to be formed, and without which, in a sense,\nthey could not exist. Sensuality, for instance, underlies all art and\nthe higher emotions. Timidity is the defect of the sensitive imaginative\ntemperament. Bluntness, stupid candor, and want of tact are\nindispensable in the formation of certain types of Reformers. But what\nwould you have? Would you have a rabbit with the horns of a cow, or a\ndonkey with the disposition of a spaniel? The reformer has not to\nextirpate his brusqueness and aggressiveness, but to see that he makes\ngood use of these qualities; and the man has not to abolish his\nsensuality, but to humanise it.\n\nAnd so on. Lecky, in his \"History of Morals,\" shows how in society\ncertain defects necessarily accompany certain excellences of character.\n\"Had the Irish peasants been less chaste they would have been more\nprosperous,\" in his blunt assertion, which he supports by the contention\nthat their early marriages (which render the said virtue possible) \"are\nthe most conspicuous proofs of the national improvidence, and one of the\nmost fatal obstacles to industrial prosperity.\" Similarly he says that\nthe gambling table fosters a moral nerve and calmness \"scarcely\nexhibited in equal perfection in any other sphere\"--a fact which Bret\nHarte has finely illustrated in his character of Mr. John Oakhurst in\nthe \"Outcasts of Poker Flat;\" also that \"the promotion of industrial\nveracity is probably the single form in which the growth of manufactures\nexercises a favorable influence upon morals;\" while, on the other hand,\n\"Trust in Providence, content and resignation in extreme poverty and\nsuffering, the most genuine amiability, and the most sincere readiness\nto assist their brethren, an adherence to their religious opinions which\nno persecutions and no bribes can shake, a capacity for heroic,\ntranscendent, and prolonged self-sacrifice, may be found in some\nnations, in men who are habitual liars and habitual cheats.\" Again he\npoints out that thriftiness and forethought--which, in an industrial\ncivilisation like ours, are looked upon as duties \"of the very highest\norder\"--have at other times (when the teaching was \"take no thought for\nthe morrow\") been regarded as quite the reverse, and concludes with the\ngeneral remark that as society advances there is some loss for every\ngain that is made, and with the special indictment against\n\"civilisation\" that it is not favorable to the production of\n\"self-sacrifice, enthusiasm, reverence, or chastity.\"\n\nThe point of all which is that the so-called vices and defects--whether\nwe regard them as limitations or whether we regard them as raw materials\nof character, whether we regard them in the individual solely or whether\nwe regard them in their relation to society--are necessary elements of\nhuman life, elements without which the so-called virtues could not\nexist; and that therefore it is quite impossible to separate vices and\nvirtues into distinct classes with the latent idea involved that one\nclass may be retained and the other in course of time got rid of.\nDefects and bad qualities will not be treated so--they clamour for their\nrights and will not be denied; they effect a lodgment in us, and we\nhave to put up with them. Like the grain of sand in the oyster, we are\nforced to make pearls of them.\n\nThese are the precipices and chasms which give form to the mountain. Who\nwants a mountain sprawling indifferently out on all sides, without angle\nor break, like the oceanic tide-wave of which one cannot say whether it\nis a hill or a plain? And if you want to grow a lily, chastely white and\nfilling the air with its fragrance, will you not bury the bulb of it\ndeep in the dirt to begin with?\n\nAcknowledging, then, that it is impossible to hold permanently to any\nline of distinction between good and bad passions, there remains no\ncourse for us but to accept both, and to _make use_ of them--redeeming\nthem, both good and bad, from their narrowness and limitation by so\ndoing--to make use of them in the service of humanity. For as dirt is\nonly matter in the wrong place, so evil in man consists only in actions\nor passions which are uncontrolled by the human within him, and\nundedicated to its service. The evil consists not in the actions or\npassions themselves, but in the fact that they are inhumanly used. The\nmost unblemished virtue erected into a barrier between one self and a\nsuffering brother or sister--the whitest marble image, howsoever lovely,\nset up in the Holy Place of the temple of Man, where the spirit alone\nshould dwell--becomes blasphemy and a pollution.\n\nWherein exactly this human service consists is another question. It may\nbe, and, as the reader would gather, probably is, a matter which at the\nlast eludes definition. But though it may elude exact statement, that is\nno reason why approximations should not be made to the statement of it;\nnor is its ultimate elusiveness of intellectual definition any proof\nthat it may not become a real and vital force within the man, and\nunderlying inspiration of his actions. To take the two considerations in\norder. In the first place, as we saw from the beginning, the experience\nof society is continually leading it to classify actions into beneficial\nand harmful, good and bad; and thus moral codes are formed which eat\ntheir way from the outside into the individual man and become part of\nhim. These codes may be looked upon as approximations in each age to a\nstatement of human service; but, as we have seen, they are by the nature\nof the case very imperfect; and since the very conditions of the problem\nare continually changing, it seems obvious that a final and absolute\nsolution of it by this method is impossible. The second way in which man\nworks towards a solution is by the expansion and growth of his own\nconsciousness, and is ultimately by far the most important--though the\ntwo methods have doubtless continually to be corrected by each other. In\nfact, as man actually forms a part of society externally, so he comes to\nknow and _feel_ himself a part of society through his inner nature.\nGradually, and in the lapse of ages, through the development of his\nsympathetic relation with his fellows, the individual man enters into a\nwider and wider circle of life; the joys and sorrows, the experiences,\nof his fellows become his own joys and sorrows, his own experiences; he\npasses into a life which is larger than his own individual life; forces\nflow in upon him which determine his actions, not for results which\nreturn to him directly, but for results which can only return to him\nindirectly and through others; at last the ground of humanity, as it\nwere, reveals itself within him, the region of human equality--and his\nactions come to flow directly from the very same source which regulates\nand inspires the whole movement of society. At this point the problem is\nsolved. The growth has taken place from within; it is not of the nature\nof an external compulsion, but of an inward compunction. By actual\nconsciousness the man has taken on an ever-enlarging life, and at last\nthe life of humanity, which has no fixed form, no ever-valid code; but\nis itself the true life, surpassing definition, yet inspiring all\nactions and passions, all codes and forms, and determining at last their\nplace.\n\nIt is the gradual growth of this supreme life in each individual which\nis the great and indeed the only hope of Society--it is that for which\nSociety exists: a life which so far from dwarfing individuality enhances\nimmensely its power, causing the individual to move with the weight of\nthe universe behind him--and exalting what were once his little\npeculiarities and defects into the splendid manifestations of his\nhumanity.\n\nTo return then for a moment to the practical bearing of this on the\nquestion before us, we see that so soon as we have abandoned all codes\nof morals there remains nothing for us but to put _all_ our qualities\nand defects to human use, and to redeem them by so doing. Our defects\nare our entrances into life, and the gateway of all our dealings with\nothers. Think what it is to be plain and _homely_. The very word\nsuggests an endearment, and a liberty of access denied to the\nfaultlessly handsome. Our very evil passions, so called, are not things\nto be ashamed of, but things to look straight in the face and to see\nwhat they are good for--for a use can be found for them, that is\ncertain. The man should see that he is worthy of his passion, as the\nmountain should rear its crest conformable to the height of the\nprecipice which bounds it. Is it women? let him see that he is a\nmagnanimous lover. Is it ambition? let him take care that it be a grand\none. Is it laziness? let it redeem him from the folly of unrest, to\nbecome heaven-reflecting, like a lake among the hills. Is it\nclosefistedness? let it become the nurse of a true economy.\n\nThe more complicated, pronounced, or awkward the defect is the finer\nwill be the result when it has been thoroughly worked up. Love of\napprobation is difficult to deal with. Through sloughs of duplicity, of\nconcealment, of vanity, it leads its victim. It sucks his sturdy\nself-life, and leaves him flattened and bloodless. Yet once mastered,\nonce fairly torn out, cudgeled, and left bleeding on the road (for this\nprobably has to be done with every vice or virtue some time or other),\nit will rise up and follow you, carrying a magic key round its neck,\nmeek and serviceable now, instead of dangerous and demoniac as before.\n\nDeceit is difficult to deal with. In some sense it is the worst fault\nthat can be. It seems to disorganise and ultimately to destroy the\ncharacter. Yet I am bold to say that this defect has its uses. Severely\nexamined perhaps it will be found that no one can live a day free from\nit. And beyond that--is not \"a noble dissimulation\" part and parcel of\nthe very greatest characters: like Socrates, \"the white soul in a satyr\nform\"? When the divine has descended among men has it not always, like\nMoses, worn a veil before its face? and what is Nature herself but one\nlong and organised system of deception?\n\nVeracity has an opposite effect. It knits all the elements of a man's\ncharacter--rendering him solid rather than fluid; yet carried out too\nliterally and pragmatically it condenses and solidifies the character\novermuch, making the man woodeny and angular. And even of that essential\nTruth (truth to the inward and ideal perfection) which more than\nanything else perhaps _constitutes_ a man--it is to be remembered that\neven here there must be a limitation. No man can in act or externally be\nquite true to the ideal--though in spirit he may be. If he is to live in\nthis world and be mortal, it must be by virtue of some partiality, some\ndefect.\n\nAnd so again--since there is an analogy between the Individual and\nSociety--may we not conclude that as the individual has ultimately to\nrecognise his so-called evil passions and find a place and a use for\nthem, society also has to recognise its so-called criminals and discern\ntheir place and use? The artist does not omit shadows from his canvas;\nand the wise statesman will not try to abolish the criminal from\nsociety--lest haply he be found to have abolished the driving force from\nhis social machine.[37]\n\nFrom what has now been said it is quite clear that in general we call a\nman a criminal, not because he violates any eternal code of\nmorality--for there exists no such thing--but because he violates the\nruling code of his time, and this depends largely on the ideal of the\ntime. The Spartans appear to have permitted theft because they thought\nthat thieving habits in the community fostered military dexterity and\ndiscouraged the accumulation of private wealth. They looked upon the\nlatter as a great evil. But to-day the accumulation of private wealth is\nour great good and the thief is looked upon as the evil. When however we\nfind, as the historians of to-day teach us, that society is now probably\npassing through a parenthetical stage of private property from a stage\nof communism in the past to a stage of more highly developed communism\nin the future, it becomes clear that the thief (and the poacher\nbefore-mentioned) is that person who is protesting against the\ntoo-exclusive domination of a passing ideal. Whatever should we do\nwithout him? He is keeping open for us, as Hinton I think expresses it,\nthe path to a regenerate society, and is more useful to that end than\nmany a platform orator. He it is that makes Care to sit upon the Crupper\nof Wealth, and so, in course of time, causes the burden and bother of\nprivate property to become so intolerable that society gladly casts it\ndown on common ground. Vast as is the machinery of Law, and multifarious\nthe ways in which it seeks to crush the thief, it has signally failed,\nand fails ever more and more. The thief will win. He will get what he\nwants, but (as usual in human life!) in a way and in a form very\ndifferent from what he expected.\n\nAnd when we regard the thief in himself, we cannot say that we find him\nless human than other classes of society. The sentiment of large bodies\nof thieves is highly communistic among themselves; and if they thus\nrepresent a survival from an earlier age, they might also be looked upon\nas the precursors of a better age in the future. They have their pals in\nevery town, with runs and refuges always open, and are lavish and\ngenerous to a degree to their own kind. And if they look upon the rich\nas their natural enemies and fair prey, a view which it might be\ndifficult to gainsay, many of them at any rate are animated by a good\ndeal of the Robin Hood spirit, and are really helpful to the poor.\n\nI need not I think quote that famous passage from Lecky in which he\nshows how the prostitute, through centuries of suffering and ill-fame,\nhas borne the curse and contempt of Society in order that her more\nfortunate sister might rejoice in the achievement of a pure marriage.\nThe ideal of a monogamic union has been established in a sense directly\nby the slur cast upon the free woman. If, however, as many people think,\na certain latitude in sexual relations is not only admissible but, in\nthe long run, and within bounds, desirable, it becomes clear that the\nprostitute is that person who against heavy odds, and at the cost of a\nreal degradation to herself, has clung to a tradition which, in itself\ngood, might otherwise have perished in the face of our devotion to the\nsplendid ideal of the exclusive marriage. There has been a time in\nhistory when the prostitute (if the word can properly be used in this\nconnection) has been glorified, consecrated to the temple-service and\nhonoured of men and gods (the hierodouloi of the Greeks, the kodeshoth\nand kodeshim of the Bible, etc.) There has also been a time when she has\nbeen scouted and reviled. In the future there will come a time when, as\nfree companion, really free from the curse of modern commercialism, and\nsacred and respected once more, she will again be accepted by society\nand take her place with the rest.\n\nAnd so with other cases. On looking back into history we find that\nalmost every human impulse has at some age been held in esteem and\nallowed full play; thus man came to recognise its beauty and value. But\nthen, lest it should come (as it surely would) to tyrannise over the\nrest, it has been dethroned, and so in a later age the same quality is\nscouted and banned. Last of all it has to find its perfect human use and\nto take its place with the rest. Up to the age of Civilisation\n(according to writers on primitive Society) the early tribes of mankind,\nthough limited each in their habits, were essentially democratical in\nstructure. In fact, nothing had occurred to make them otherwise. Each\nmember stood on a footing of equality with the rest; individual men had\nnot in their hands an arbitrary power over others; and the tribal life\nand standard ruled supreme. And when, in the future and on a much higher\nplane, the true Democracy comes, this equality which has so long been in\nabeyance will be restored, not only among men but also, in a sense,\namong all the passions and qualities of manhood: none will be allowed to\ntyrannise over others, but all will have to be subject to the supreme\nlife of humanity. The chariot of Man instead of two horses will have a\nthousand; but they will all be under control of the charioteer.\nMeanwhile it may not be extravagant to suppose that all through the\nCivilisation-period the so-called criminals are keeping open the\npossibility of a return to this state of society. They are preserving,\nin a rough and unattractive husk it may be, the precious seed of a life\nwhich is to come in the future; and are as necessary and integral a part\nof society in the long run as the most respected and most honoured of\nits members at present.\n\nThe upshot then of it all is that \"morals\" as a permanent code of action\nhave to be discarded. There exists no such permanent code. One age, one\nrace, one class, one family, may have a code which the users of it\nconsider valid, but only they consider it valid, and then only for a\ntime. The Decalogue may have been a rough and useful ready-reckoner for\nthe Israelites; but to us it admits of so many exceptions and\ninterpretations that it is practically worthless. \"Thou shalt not\nsteal.\" Exactly; but who is to decide, as we saw at the outset, in what\n\"stealing\" consists? The question is too complicated to admit of an\nanswer. And when we _have_ caught our half-starved tramp \"sneaking\" a\nloaf, and are ready to condemn him, lo! Lycurgus pats him on the back,\nand the modern philosopher tells him that he is keeping open the path to\na regenerate society! If the tramp had also been a philosopher, he would\nperhaps have done the same act not merely for his own benefit but for\nthat of society, he would have committed a crime in order to save\nmankind.\n\nThere is nothing left but Humanity. Since there is no ever-valid code of\nmorals we must sadly confess that there is no means of proving ourselves\nright and our neighbours wrong. In fact the very act of thinking\nwhether _we_ are right (which implies a sundering of ourselves, even in\nthought, from others) itself introduces the element of wrongness; and if\nwe are ever to _be_ \"right\" at all, it must be at some moment when we\nfail to notice it--when we have forgotten our apartness from others and\nhave entered into the great region of human equality. Equality--in that\nregion all human defects are redeemed; they all find their place. To\nlove your neighbour _as_ yourself is the whole law and the prophets; to\nfeel that you are \"equal\" with others, that their lives are as your\nlife, that your life is as theirs--even in what trifling degree we may\nexperience such things--is to enter into another life which includes\nboth sides; it is to pass beyond the sphere of moral distinctions, and\nto trouble oneself no more with them. Between lovers there are no duties\nand no rights; and in the life of humanity, there is only an instinctive\nmutual service expressing itself in whatever way may be best at the\ntime. Nothing is forbidden, there is nothing which may not serve. The\nlaw of Equality is perfectly flexible, is adaptable to all times and\nplaces, finds a place for all the elements of character, justifies and\nredeems them all without exception; and to live by it is perfect\nfreedom. Yet not a law: but rather as said, a new life, transcending the\nindividual life, working through it from within, lifting the self into\nanother sphere, beyond corruption, far over the world of Sorrow.\n\nThe effort to make a distinction between acting for self and acting for\none's neighbor is the basis of \"morals.\" As long as a man feels an\nultimate antagonism between himself and society, as long as he tries to\nhold his own life as a thing apart from that of others, so long must the\nquestion arise whether he will act for self _or_ for those others. Hence\nflow a long array of terms--distinctions of right and wrong, duty,\nselfishness, self-renunciation, altruism, etc. But when he discovers\nthat there is no ultimate antagonism between himself and society; when\nhe finds that the gratification of every desire which he has or can have\nmay be rendered social, or beneficial to his fellows, by being used at\nthe right time and place, and on the other hand that every demand made\nupon him by society will and must gratify some portion of his nature,\nsome desire of his heart--why, all the distinctions collapse again; they\ndo not hold water any more. A larger life descends upon him, which\nincludes both sides, and prompts actions in accordance with an unwritten\nand unimagined law. Such actions will sometimes be accounted \"selfish\"\nby the world; sometimes they will be accounted \"unselfish\"; but they are\nneither, or--if you like--both; and he who does them concerns himself\nnot with the names that may be given to them. The law of Equality\nincludes all the moral codes, and is the standpoint which they cannot\nreach, but which they all aim at.\n\nJudged by this final standard then, it may doubtless fairly be\nsaid--since we all fall short of it--that we are all criminals, and\ndeserve a good hiding; and even that some of us are greater criminals\nthan others. Only of this real criminality the actual moral and legal\ncodes afford but ineffectual tests. I may be a far worse or more\nself-included (\"idiotic\" or brutal) man than you, but the mere fact that\nI have violated the laws and been clapped into prison does not prove it.\nThere may be, probably is, a real and eternal difference represented by\nthe words Right and Wrong, but no statement that we can make will ever\nquite avail to define it. One use, however, of all these laws and codes\nin the past, imperfect though they were, may have been to gradually\nexcite the consciousness in the individual of his opposition to society,\nand so prepare the way for a true reconcilement. As Paul says, \"I had\nnot known sin, but by the law,\" and, if we had not been cudgeled and\nbruised for centuries by this rough bludgeon of social convention, we\nshould not now be so sensitive as we are to the effect of our actions\nupon our neighbours, nor so ready for a social life in the future which\nshall be superior to law.\n\nOf course, the ultimate reconcilement of the individual with society--of\nthe unit Man with the mass-Man--involves the subordination of the\ndesires, their subjection to the true self. And this is a most important\npoint. It is no easy lapse that is here suggested, from morality into a\nmere jungle of human passion, but a toilsome and long ascent--involving\nfor a time at any rate a determined self-control--into ascendancy over\nthe passions; it involves the complete mastery, one by one, of them all,\nand the recognition and allowance of them only because they are\nmastered. And it is just this training and subjection of the\npassions--as of winged horses which are to draw the human chariot--which\nnecessarily forms such a long and painful process of human evolution.\nThe old moral codes are a part of this process; but they go on the plan\nof extinguishing some of the passions--seeing that it is sometimes\neasier to shoot a restive horse than to ride him. We however do not want\nto be lords of dead carrion, but of living powers; and every steed that\nwe can add to our chariot makes our progress through creation so much\nthe more splendid, providing Phoebus indeed hold the reins, and not the\nincapable Phaeton.\n\nAnd by becoming thus one with the social self, the individual, instead\nof being crushed, is made far vaster, far grander than before. The\nrenunciation (if it must be so called) which he has to accept in\nabandoning merely individual ends is immediately compensated by the far\nmore vivid life he now enters into. For every force of his nature can\nnow be utilised. Planting himself out by contrast he stands all the\nfirmer because he has a left foot as well as a right, and when he acts,\nhe acts not half-heartedly as one afraid, but, as it were, with the\nwhole weight of Humanity behind him. In abandoning his exclusive\nindividuality he becomes for the first time a real and living\nindividual; and in accepting as his own the life of others he becomes\naware of a life in himself that has no limit and no end. That the self\nof any one man is capable of an infinite gradation from the most petty\nand exclusive existence to the most magnificent and inclusive seems\nalmost a truism. The one extreme is disease and death, the other is life\neverlasting. When the tongue for example--which is a member of the\nbody--regards itself as a purely separate existence for itself alone, it\nmakes a mistake, it suffers an illusion, and descends into its pettiest\nlife. What is the consequence? Thinking that it exists apart from the\nother members, it selects food just such as shall gratify its most local\nself, it endeavours just to titillate its own sense of taste; and living\nand acting thus, ere long it ruins that very sense of taste, poisons the\nsystem with improper food, and brings about disease and death. Yet, if\nhealthy, how does the tongue act? Why, it does not run counter to its\nown sense of taste, or stultify itself. It does not talk about\nsacrificing its own inclinations for the good of the body and the other\nmembers; but it just acts as being one in interest with them and they\nwith it. For the tongue _is_ a muscle, and therefore what feeds it feeds\nall the other muscles; and the membrane of the tongue _is_ a\nprolongation of the membrane of the stomach, and that is how the tongue\nknows what the stomach will like; and the tongue _is_ nerves and blood,\nand so the tongue may act for nerves and blood all over the body, and so\non. Therefore the tongue may enter into a wider life than that\nrepresented by the mere local sense of taste, and experiences more\npleasure often in the drinking of a glass of water which the whole body\nwants, than in the daintiest sweetmeat which is for itself alone.\n\nExactly so man in a healthy state does not act for himself alone,\npractically cannot do so. Nor does he talk cant about \"serving his\nneighbors,\" etc. But he simply acts for them as well as for himself,\nbecause they are part and parcel of his life--bone of his bone and flesh\nof his flesh; and in doing so he enters into a wider life, finds a more\nperfect pleasure, and becomes more really a man than ever before. Every\nman contains in himself the elements of all the rest of humanity. They\nlie in the background; but they are there. In the front he has his own\nspecial faculty developed--his individual fa\u00e7ade, with its projects,\nplans and purposes: but behind sleeps the Demos-life with far vaster\nprojects and purposes. Some time or other to every man must come the\nconsciousness of this vaster life.\n\nThe true Democracy, wherein this larger life will rule society from\nwithin--obviating the need of an external government--and in which all\ncharacters and qualities will be recognised and have their freedom,\nwaits (a hidden but necessary result of evolution) in the constitution\nof human nature itself. In the pre-Civilisation period these vexed\nquestions of \"morals\" practically did not exist; simply because in that\nperiod the individual was one with his tribe and moved (unconsciously)\nby the larger life of his tribe. And in the post-Civilisation period,\nwhen the true Democracy is realised, they will not exist, because then\nthe man will know himself a part of humanity at large, and will be\nconsciously moved by forces belonging to these vaster regions of his\nbeing. The moral codes and questionings belong to Civilisation, they are\npart of the forward effort, the struggle, the suffering, and the\ntemporary alienation from true life, which that term implies.[38]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[34] Yet there is no doubt that lasting and passionate love may exist\nbetween two persons thus nearly related. The danger to the health of the\noffspring from occasional in-breeding of the kind appears to arise\nchiefly from the accentuation of infirmities common to the two parents.\nIn a state of society free from the diseases of the civilisation-period,\nsuch a danger would be greatly reduced.\n\n[35] Modern writers fixing their regard on the physical side of this\nlove (necessary no doubt here, as elsewhere, to define and corroborate\nthe spiritual) have entered their protest as against the mere obscenity\ninto which the thing fell--for instance in the days of Martial--but have\nmissed the profound significance of the heroic attachment itself. It is,\nhowever, with the ideals that we are just now concerned and not with\ntheir disintegration.\n\n[36] In the _later_ Egyptian centuries vivisection apparently became an\napproved practice.\n\n[37] The derivation of the word \"wicked\" seems uncertain. May it be\nsuggested that it is connected with \"wick\" or \"quick,\" meaning _alive_?\n\n[38] For further on the same subject see the last chapter, _infra_, on\n\"The New Morality.\"\n\n\n\n\nEXFOLIATION\n\n     \"Creation's incessant unrest, exfoliation.\"\n                                              WHITMAN.\n\n\nI think it may perhaps be agreed, once for all, that the human mind is\nincapable of really defining even the smallest fact of nature. The\nsimplest thing, or event, baffles us at the last. It is like trying to\nlook at the front and back of a mirror at the same time. The utmost\nsquinting avails not. The ego and the non-ego dance eluding through\ncreation. To catch them both in any mortal object and pin them there,\nsurpasses our powers. And yet they are there. Montaigne quotes somewhere\nthe words of S. Augustine: _Modus quo corporibus adhaerent spiritus ...\nomnino mirus est, nec comprehendi ab homine potest; et hoc ipse homo\nest_. \"The manner whereby spirits adhere to bodies is altogether\nwonderful, and cannot be conceived of by men; and yet this _is_ man.\"\nMan himself contains, or rather is, the reconcilement of this and\nnumberless other contradictions. We actually every day perform and\nexhibit miracles which the mental part of us is utterly powerless to\ngrapple with. Yet the solution, the intelligent solution and\nunderstanding of them _is_ in us; only it involves a higher order of\nconsciousness than we usually deal with--a consciousness possibly which\nincludes and transcends the ego and the non-ego, and so can envisage\nboth at the same time and equally--a fourth-dimensional consciousness to\nwhose gaze the interiors of solid bodies are exposed like mere\nsurfaces--a consciousness to whose perception some usual antitheses like\ncause and effect, matter and spirit, past and future, simply do not\nexist. I say these higher orders of consciousness are in us waiting for\ntheir evolution; and, until they evolve, we are powerless really to\nunderstand anything of the world around us.\n\nMeanwhile, since we _must_ have formul\u00e6 and generalisations to think by,\nwe are fain to accept our local views, and look on the world from this\nside or from that. Sometimes we are idealists, sometimes we are\nmaterialists; sometimes we believe in mechanics, sometimes in human or\nspiritual forces. The science of the last fifty years has, as pointed\nout in a preceding paper, looked at things more from the mechanical than\nthe distinctively human side--from the point of view of the non-ego,\nrather than of the ego. Reacting from an extreme tendency towards a\nsubjective view of phenomena, which characterised the older\nspeculations, and fearing to be swayed by a kind of partiality towards\nhimself, the modern scientist has endeavoured to remove the human and\nconscious element from his observations of Nature. And he has done\nvaluable work in this way--but of course has been betrayed into a\ncorresponding narrowness.\n\nIn fact the main scientific doctrine of the day, Evolution, is obviously\nsuffering from this treatment, and the following remarks are merely a\nfew notes by way of suggestion of some things which may be said on its\nmore specially human side. For since each man is a part of nature, and\nin that sense a part also of the evolution-process, his own subjective\nexperience ought at least to throw some light on the conditions under\nwhich evolution takes place, and to contribute something towards an\nunderstanding of the problem.\n\nIf the question is: What is the cause of Variation among animals? some\napproximation towards an answer ought to be got by each person asking\nhimself, \"Why do I vary?\" Why--he might say--am I a different person\nfrom what I was ten years ago, or when I was a boy? Why have I varied in\none direction and my brothers and sisters from the same nest in other\ndirections? Though my individual consciousness only covers the small\nground of my own life, and does not extend back to that of my father or\nforward to that of my son, still the intimate knowledge that I have of\nthe forces acting on me during that short period may help me to an\nunderstanding of the forces that bring about the modification of men and\nanimals at large, and the discovery of some laws of my own growth may\nreveal to me the laws of race-growth.\n\nIn answer to such a question, it would speedily appear that there were\ntwo general causes determining direction of change or growth in the\nindividual, which might be conveniently distinguished from each\nother--an external and an internal. In the first place the supposed\nperson might say, \"External conditions forced me along these lines. My\nfather was a town artisan, but he apprenticed me to a farmer. I grew up\na farmer's boy, and became an agricultural type as you see. I did not\nparticularly care for farming, sometimes indeed I would have been glad\nto be out of it; but practically I succumbed to circumstances, and here\nI am.\" But in the second place he might answer thus:--\"My father was\nhimself a farmer; I was early used to the craft, and should no doubt\nhave grown up in it, had I not hated it like poison. I loved music,\nbroke away from home, joined a band, got on the musical staff of a small\ntheatre, and am now a professional musician. My frame is comparatively\nslight, and my hands are of the nervous type, as you see. Of course, I\nhave some of the old agricultural stock left in me, but I feel that that\nis dying out.\" The one cause would be a change of external conditions,\nforcing the man to accommodate himself to them; the other would be a\nchange of internal conditions, an inward growth, expressing itself first\nin the form of an intense desire, and compelling the man to change\nhimself and probably also his environment in obedience to it. Two such\ngeneral sets of causes, I say, could be roughly distinguished from each\nother; and probably indeed are recognised less or more distinctly by\neveryone as acting to modify his life. Nor can the life of a man at any\ntime be said to be ruled by one of these forces alone. No man is\nmodified by external conditions alone, without any play or reaction of\ninner needs and desires and growth from within; nor is any man\ntransformed in obedience to an inner expansion without sundry lets and\nhindrances from without. The two forces are in constant play upon one\nanother; but in some ways that would appear to be the more important\nwhich proceeds from the Man (or creature) himself, since this is\nobviously vital and organic to him, and therefore the most consistent\nand reliable factor in his modification, while the external\nforce--arising from various and remote causes--must rather be regarded\nas discontinuous and accidental.\n\nI propose, therefore, in these few pages to consider especially this\ninner force producing modification in man and animals--to try and find\nout of what nature it is, what is the law, and what are the limits of\nits action--premising always, as already suggested, that this\ndistinction between \"inner\" and \"outer,\" which is convenient and easy to\nhandle on certain planes of thought, may ultimately, and in the last\nresort, prove very difficult or even impossible to maintain.\n\nIt is often said by Biologists that _function precedes\norganisation_--that is, man fights with his fellows before he makes\nweapons to fight with; the rudimentary animal digests food (as in the\ncase of the amoeba) before it acquires a stomach or organ of digestion;\nit sees or is sensitive to light before it grows an eye; in society\nletters are carried by private hands before an organised postal system\nis created. Such facts properly considered are of vital importance. They\nshow us, as it were by a sign-post, the direction of creation. They show\nhow any new thing or modification of an old thing may come into being.\nThey may be supplemented by a second statement--namely that _desire\nprecedes function_. That is, man desires to injure his fellow before he\nactually fights with him; he experiences the wish to communicate with\ndistant friends before ever he thinks of sending such a thing as a\nletter; the amoeba craves for food first, and circumvents its prey\nafterwards. Desire, or inward change, comes first, action follows, and\norganisation or outward structure is the result.\n\nIn man this \"order of creation,\" if it may so be called, _i.e._, from\nwithin outwards, is very marked. Whenever a man creates anything new he\npursues it; when he builds a house, for instance, or composes a poem or\npiece of music, or designs an Alpine tunnel, or whatever it may be. The\norder seems to be: first, a feeling--a dim want or desire; then the\nfeeling becomes conscious of itself, takes shape in thought; the thought\nbecomes more defined and issues in a distinct plan; the plan is\ncommitted to paper, models are made, etc.; and finally the actual work\nis begun and completed. The process appears as a movement from within\noutwards--the earliest and most authentic discernible source of the\nmovement being a feeling--(though there may lie something behind that).\nEven in ordinary action the same order is manifest; for, though of\ncourse _every_ action is not preceded by desire--since we know that\nactions soon become habitual and more or less unconscious--still a vast\nnumber of them are immediately so preceded; and in the case of any\naction that is _new_, either to the individual or to the race, its\ninception is generally accompanied by effort so painful that it would\nnot be exerted unless the desire were very strong. The difficulty which\na man experiences in learning any new art, and the records of the many\nfailures, struggles, oppositions, persecutions, etc., which have\nattended every new invention or innovation of any kind in human history,\nafford plenty of evidence of this last point. Certainly the effort that\naccompanies a new action is not always faced so much from sheer desire\nof the new thing itself as from fear perhaps of something else--as it\nmay be contended that monkeys did not take to climbing trees because\nthey loved trees, but because they feared the beasts below, or that the\ngiraffe did not stretch its neck because it particularly desired to feed\non leaves, as because it could not get food any other way--but still,\neven in these cases the desire may be said to exist, though it is\nsecondary--being founded upon another and more elementary desire--the\ndesire namely of escaping pain or obtaining food. In either case a\ndesire of some kind is a precedent condition of the new action. And so\nas we know of no case of a new action coming into play without being\npreceded by desire, we seem to be justified in supposing that all our\nactions when they were first initiated (in our forefathers, if not in\nourselves) were so preceded. If this is so, then, since function is\nalways preceded by desire, and organisation is preceded by function,\norganisation must necessarily be preceded by desire. And if this is the\norder of creation in man, should we not reasonably look in this\ndirection for the key to the variation of animals and the order of\ncreation in general?[39]\n\nIf a farmer's son is occasionally born who hates farming and loves\nmusic, and who ultimately through the force of his desire (driving him\ninto oppositions and difficulties and penurious struggles) transforms\nhimself into a musician, is it not also likely that occasionally an\nanimal is born who hates the customs of his tribe, and at last (also\nthrough struggles) transforms himself into something else? Even if he\ndoes not succeed (the animal) in entirely transforming himself, he\nlikely transmits the desire in some degree to his descendants, and the\ntransformation is thus carried on and completed later. For everywhere\namong the animals there _is_ desire, of some kind or another, obviously\nacting; and if in man, by our own experience, desire is the precursor\nand first expression of growth, is there any reason why it should not\nalso be so among animals? Lamarck gives the instance--among others--of a\ngasteropod; how the need or desire of touching bodies in front of it as\nit crawled along would result in the formation of tentacles. The\ngasteropod, he says, would keep making efforts to feel with the front of\nits head, and the determination of consciousness that way would be\naccompanied by a supply of nervous and other fluids, which would nourish\nthe part and cause growth there--the _form_ of the growth continuing in\nthe same way to be determined by need--till at last two or more\ntentacles would appear. True, the inward determinations of consciousness\nmay not be so vivid and varied in animals as they are in men; but they\nare persistent, and by the very cumulative force of habit which is so\nstrong in animals, must at length penetrate down through function into\norganisation and external form. Who shall say that the lark, by the mere\nlove of soaring and singing in the face of the sun, has not altered the\nshape of its wings, or that the forms of the shark or of the gazelle are\nnot the long-stored results of character leaning always in certain\ndirections, as much as the forms of the miser or the libertine are among\nmen?\n\nSuch modification as this is very different from the \"survival of the\nfittest\" of the Darwinian evolution theory. We may fairly suppose that\nboth kinds of modification take place; but the latter is a sort of easy\nsuccess won by an external accident of birth--a success of the kind that\nwould readily be lost again; while the former is the uphill fight of a\nnature that has grown inwardly and wins expression for itself in spite\nof external obstacles--an expression which therefore is likely to be\npermanent. If the progenitors of man took to going upright on two legs\ninstead of on all fours, merely because a few of them by _chance_ were\nborn with a talent for that position, which enabled them to escape the\nfanged and pursuing beasts, then when this danger was removed they might\nhave plumped down again into the old attitude; but if the change was\npart and parcel of a true evolution, the fulfilment of a positive desire\nfor the upright position, a true _unfolding_ of a higher form latent\nwithin--an organic growth of the creature itself, then, though the\nmoment of the evolution of this particular faculty might be determined\nby the fanged beasts, the fact of such evolution could not be determined\nby them. Besides, are we to suppose that Man, the lord and ruler of the\nanimals, came merely by way of _escape_ from the animals? Do lords and\nrulers generally come so? Was it fear that made him a man? Were it not\nlikelier that in that case he would have turned into a worm? He would\nhave escaped better perhaps that way. Is it not rather probable that it\nwas some nobler power that worked transforming--some dim desire and\nprevision of a more perfect form, the desire itself being the first\nconsciousness of the urge of growth in that direction--that prompted him\nto push in the one direction rather than the other when he had to hold\nhis own against the tigers? In fact is it not thus to-day, when a man\nhas to meet danger, that the ideal which he has within him determines\n_how_ he shall meet that danger, and others like it, and so ultimately\ndetermines the whole attitude and carriage of his body?\n\nOn the whole then, judging from man himself (and it seems most cautious\nand scientific to derive our main evidence from the being that we are\nbest acquainted with), it certainly seems to me that, though the\nexternal conditions are a very important factor in Variation, the\ncentral explanation of this phenomenon should be sought in an inner law\nof Growth--a law of expansion more or less common to all animate nature.\nPartly because, as said before, the unfolding of the creature from its\nown needs and inward nature is an organic process, and likely to be\npersistent, while its modification by external causes must be more or\nless fortuitous and accidental and sometimes in one direction and\nsometimes in another; partly also because the movement from within\noutwards seems to be most like the law of creation in general. Under\nthis view the external conditions would be considered a\nsecondary--though important cause of modification; and regarded rather\nas the influences that give form and detail to the great primal impulse\nof growth from within; while the creature's own ingenuity and good luck\nwould occupy the ground between the two--as the means whereby the\nexternal conditions in each individual case would be turned to account\nto satisfy the inner needs, or the inner life would be accommodated to\nthe external conditions.\n\nIf we take the external view of Variation--which is the one most\nfavoured by modern science--modification or race-growth appears as an\nunconscious or accretive process, similar to the formation of a coral\nreef. There is no line of growth native in the race itself, but at any\nmoment it is supposed to have an equal tendency to vary in any\ndirection. Surrounding conditions act selectively; and by a process of\nweeding out certain types survive; small successive modifications are\nthus accumulated; and gradually and in the lapse of ages a more pliable\nand differentiated creature, and more adaptable to a variety of\nconditions, is produced--in whom however mind is incidental, and has\nplayed but small part in the creature's evolution. This in the main is\nthe Darwinian-evolution theory.\n\nIf we take the internal view, growth is from the first eminently\nconscious. Every change begins in the mental region--is felt first as a\ndesire gradually taking form into thought, passes down into the bodily\nregion, expresses itself in action (more or less dependent on\nconditions), and finally solidifies itself in organisation and\nstructure. The process is not accretive, but exfoliatory--a continual\nmovement from within outwards. When the desire or mental condition,\nwhich at first was painfully conscious, has overcome opposition and\nestablished itself in altered bodily structure, it has done its work,\nand becomes unconscious--the bodily function continuing for a long\nperiod to act automatically, till finally it is thrown off to make room\nfor some later development. Thus race-growth or Variation is a process\nby which change begins in the mental region, passes into the bodily\nregion where it becomes organised, and finally is thrown off like a\nhusk. This may be called the theory of Exfoliation.\n\nTo illustrate our meaning. Let us take the development of an eye. In the\namoeba there is a dim pervasive sensitiveness to light over the whole\nbody, but there is no eye, nothing that we should call vision. Still\nthis vague sensitiveness is of use to the amoeba. The shadow of its prey\nfalling upon the creature and exciting a sensation hardly yet\ndifferentiated from touch helps to guide its movements. On this dim\nsensation it relies to some extent; its attention is directed towards\nit. Gradually, and in some descendant form, there comes to be a point on\nthe body on which this attention is most specially concentrated. The\nfaculty is localised; and from that moment a change is effected there, a\ndifferentiation and a special structure; everything that favours\nsensitiveness is encouraged at that place, everything that dulls it is\nremoved; and before long--there is a rudimentary eye. To-day we use our\nperfected eyes, and are hardly conscious that we are doing so; but every\npower of vision that we have was thus won for us by some lowlier\ncreature, step by step, with effort and with concentration. Or to take\nan illustration from society. To-day society is ill at ease; a dim\nfeeling of discontent pervades all ranks and classes. A new sense of\njustice, of fraternity, has descended among us, which is not satisfied\nwith mere chatter of demand and supply. For a long time this new\nsentiment or desire remains vague and unformed, but at last it resolves\nitself into shape; it takes intellectual form, books are written, plans\nformed; then after a time definite new organisations, for the distinct\npurpose of expressing these ideas, begin to exist in the body of the old\nsociety; and before so very long the whole outer structure of society\nwill have been reorganised by them. After a few centuries the ideas for\nwhose realisation we now fight and struggle with an intense\nconsciousness will have become commonplace, accepted institutions, more\nor less effete and ready to succumb before fresh mental births taking\nplace from within.\n\nThe modern evolution theory would maintain that among many amoebas and\ndescendant forms, one would at last by chance be born having the usual\nsensitiveness localised in a particular spot, and, surviving by force of\nthis advantage, would transmit this \"eye\" to its posterity; or that in\nthe progress of society, new economic conditions having arisen, that\npeople would prosper best which most effectually and rapidly adapted\nitself to them. But though there is doubtless truth in this view, yet it\nseems, when all has been said, to be inadequate and even feeble; it\nomits at least one half of the problem. If we look at ourselves, as\nalready pointed out, we see the two forces--the inner and the\nouter--acting and re-acting on each other. May it not be so in animals?\nLamarck, poorly off, blind, derided, was a true poet. \"Animals vary from\nlow and primitive types chiefly by dint of wishing\"--and the world\nlaughed and still laughs. But it was his deep sympathy even with the\nworms and insects (which he studied till he could discern them with his\nmortal eyes no longer) that led Lamarck to see the human nature and the\nhuman laws that moved within them; and as his outward sight grew dim\nthere arose before him the inward vision of the true relationship which\nbinds together all living creatures--which was indeed a vision of divine\nthings, and as different from the mere mechanism-theory of the survival\nof the fittest as the sight of the starry heavens is different from a\ngoverness's lesson on the use of the globes.\n\nOn the theory of Exfoliation, which was practically Lamarck's theory,\nthere is a force at work throughout creation, ever urging each type\nonward into new and newer forms. This force appears first in\nconsciousness in the form of _desire_. Within each shape of life sleep\nneeds and wants without number, from the lowest and simplest to the\nmost complex and ideal. As each new desire or ideal is evolved, it\nbrings the creature into conflict with its surroundings, then gaining\nits satisfaction externalises itself in the structure of the creature,\nand leaves the way open for the birth of a new ideal. If then we would\nfind a key to the understanding of the expansion and growth of all\nanimate creation, such a key may exist in the nature of desire itself\nand the comprehension of its real meaning. It is not certain that it can\nbe found here; but it may be.\n\nWhat then is desire in Man? Here we come back again, as suggested at the\noutset, to Man himself. Though we see pretty clearly that desire is at\nwork in the animals, and that it is the same in kind as exists in man,\nstill, among the animals it is but dim and inchoate, while in man it is\ndeveloped and luminous; in ourselves, too, we know it immediately, while\nin the animals only by inference. For both reasons, therefore, if we\nwant to know the nature of desire--even to know its nature among\nanimals--we should study it in Man. What then is this desire in Man,\nwhich seems to be the instigation and origin of all his growth and\ndevelopment? At first it seems a hydra-headed senseless thing without\nrhyme or reason; but the more one regards it the more clearly one sees\nthat even in its lowest forms it is steadily building up and liberating\nall the functions of the human being. In its most perfect form--as in\nwhat we call Love--it is the sum and solution of human activities, that\nin which they converge, for which they all exist, and without which\nthey would be considered useless. The more you look into this matter,\nthe plainer it becomes. The lesser desires--the self-preservation\ndesires--hunger, thirst, the desire of power--exist, but when they are\nsatisfied they empty themselves into this one; they find their\ninterpretation in it. The other desires are nothing by themselves--the\nmost absorbing, avarice, ambition, desire of knowledge, taken alone,\nstultify themselves--but love perpetuates itself; it is a flame which\nuses all the rest as its fuel. And this Love, which is the culmination\nof desire, does it not appear to us as a worship of and desire for the\nhuman form? In our bodies a desire for the bodily human form; in our\ninterior selves a perception and worship of an ideal human form, the\nrevelation of a Splendour dwelling in others, which--clouded and dimmed\nas it inevitably may come to be--remains after all one of the most real,\nperhaps the most real, of the facts of existence? Desire, therefore--as\nit exists in man, look at it how you will--as it unfolds and its\nultimate aim becomes clearer and clearer to itself, is seen to be the\ndesire and longing for the deliverance and expression of the real human\nBeing. May it not, must it not, be the same thing in animals and all\nthrough creation? Beginning in the most elementary and dim shapes, does\nit not grow through all the stages of organic life clearer and more and\nmore powerful, till at last it attains to self-consciousness in humanity\nand becomes avowedly the leading factor in our development?\n\nThe desire which runs through creation is one desire. Rudimentary at\nfirst and hardly conscious of itself, throwing out a tentacle here, a\nfoot there, developing an eye, a claw, a nostril, a wing, it seeks in\ninnumerable shapes and with ever partial success to realise the image it\nhas dimly conceived. The animal kingdom is the gymnasium, the school,\nthe antechamber, of humanity; to walk through a zoological garden is to\nsee the inchoate types of man, perched on branches, or browsing grass,\nor boring holes in the ground; it is to witness a grand rehearsal of\nsome stupendous part, whose character we do not even yet fully see or\nunderstand. From such half-conscious beginnings the desire grows, its\naim becomes clearer, till in the higher animals--the horse, the dog, the\nelephant, the bird, and many others--it becomes a marked and\nunmistakable force drawing them close to man, uniting them to him in a\nkind of acknowledged kinship, and as obviously at work modifying their\nstructure as can be. Finally in man himself it becomes an absorbing\npower; love becomes a conscious worship of the divine form; generation\nitself is the means whereby, in time, the supreme object of desire is\nrealised. When at last the perfect Man appears, the key to all nature is\nfound, every creature falls into its place and finds its Interpreter,\nand the purpose of creation is at last made manifest.\n\nThe Theory of Exfoliation then differs from that very specialised form\nof Evolution which has been adopted by modern science, in this\nparticular among others: that it fixes the attention on that which\nappears last in order of Time, as the most important in order of\ncausation, rather than on that which appears first; and recalls to us\nthe fact that often in any succession of phenomena, that which is first\nin order of precedence and importance is the last to be externalised.\nThus in the growth of a plant we find leaf after leaf appearing, petal\nwithin petal--a continual exfoliation of husks, sepals, petals, stamens\nand what-not; but the object of all this movement, and that which in a\nsense sets it all in motion, namely the seed, is the very last thing of\nall to be manifested. Or when a volcano breaks out--first of all we have\na cracking and upheaval of superficial layers of ground, then of layers\nbelow these, then the outflow of lava, and _last of all_ the uprush of\nthe inner fires and forces which set it all agoing. What appears first\nin time, or in the outer world is--in the case of the building of a\nhouse, the making of bricks; in the case of the flower, the outermost\nbracts; in the case of a volcano, the stirring of the surface of the\nground; and in the case of Life on the Earth, the appearance of\nprotoplasms and primordial cells. The bricks are not the cause of the\nhouse (if indeed the word \"cause\" should be used here at all) but rather\nthe house--or the conception of the house--is the cause of the bricks;\nand the cells are not the origin of Man, but Man is the original of the\ncells. The rationale of sea-anemones and mud-fish and flying foxes and\nelephants has to be looked for in man: he alone underlies them. And man\nis not a vertebrate because his ancestors were vertebrate; but the\nanimals are vertebrate, because or in so far as they are forerunners and\noffshoots of Man.\n\nIt has been frequently said that great material changes are succeeded by\nintellectual and finally by moral revolutions--as the conquests of\nAlexander passed on into the literary expansion of the Alexandrian\nschools and thence into the establishment of Christianity, or as the\nmechanical developments of our own time have been followed by immense\nliterary and scientific activities, and are obviously passing over now\ninto a great social regeneration; but a reconsideration of the matter\nmight, I take it, lead us not so much to look on the later changes as\n_caused_ by the earlier, as to look on the earlier as the indications\nand first outward and visible signs of the coming of the later. When a\nman feels in himself the upheaval of a new moral fact, he sees plainly\nenough that that fact cannot come into the actual world all at once--not\nwithout first a destruction of the existing order of society--such a\ndestruction as makes him feel satanic; then an intellectual revolution;\nand lastly only, a new order embodying the new impulse. When this new\nimpulse has thoroughly materialised itself, then after a time will come\nanother inward birth, and similar changes will be passed through again.\nSo it might be said that the work of each age is not to build _on_ the\npast, but to rise _out_ of the past and throw it off; only of course in\nsuch matters where all forms of thought are inadequate it is hard to say\nthat one way of looking at the subject is truer than another. As before,\nwe should endeavour to look at the thing from different sides.\n\nWe are obliged to use images to think by--_e.g._ the opening of a flower\nor the accretive growth of a coral reef--and possibly it would save a\ngood deal of trouble if we did not disguise by long words the truth that\nall our theories in science and philosophy are simply metaphors of this\nkind--but the _fact_ still lies behind and below them.\n\nPerhaps, if we are to use the word Cause at all, we should do well to\nuse it in the old sense in which the _final_ cause and the _efficient_\ncause are one (the _eidos_ of Aristotle)--to use it not so much to link\nphenomena or externals to _each other_ as to link each phenomenon in a\ngroup to the thought or feeling which underlies that group. The notes in\nthe Dead March in Saul, for instance. We cannot say that one note is the\ncause of another, but we might say that each note stands in a causal\nsubordination to the feeling which inspired the piece--which is the\n_origin_ of the piece and the _result_ of its performance--the alpha and\nomega of it. Similarly, the ground floor in a house is not the cause of\nthe first floor, nor the first floor of the second floor, nor that of\nthe roof; but these actualities and the whole house itself stand in\nstrict relationship to a mental something which is not in the same\nplane with them at all, nor an actuality in the same sense.\n\nAccording to this view the notion that one configuration of atoms or\nbodies determines the next configuration turns out to be illusive. Both\nconfigurations are determined by a third something which does not belong\nto quite the same order of existence as the said atoms or bodies. Chance\n\"laws\" of succession may doubtless be found among physical events, and\nare valuable for practical purposes, but at any moment--owing to their\nsuperficiality--they may fail. Thus, an insect observing the expansion\nof the petals of a chrysanthemum might frame a law of their order of\nsuccession in size and colour, which would be valid for a time, but\nwould fail entirely when the stamens appeared. Or, to take another\nillustration, physical science acts like a man trying to find direct\ncausal relations between the various leaves of a tree, without first\nfinding the relations of these to the branches and trunk--and so solving\nthe problem indirectly. It deals only with the _surface_ of the world of\nMan.\n\nIn thinking about such matters, Music, as Schopenhauer shows, is\nwonderfully illustrative, because in creating music man recognises that\nhe is creating a world of his own--apart from and not to be confused\nwith that other world of Nature (in which he does not recognise any of\nhis handiwork). Supposing a non-musical person were to examine and\nanalyse the score of a Beethoven symphony, he would be in the same\nposition as a man examining and analysing Nature by purely scientific\nor intellectual methods. He would discover the recurrence of certain\ngroups among the notes, he would establish laws of their sequences,\nwould make all kinds of curious generalisations about them, and point\nout some remarkable exceptions, would even very likely be able to\npredict a bar or two over the page; his treatise would be very learned,\nand from a certain point of view interesting also, but how far would he\nbe from any real understanding of his subject? Let him change his\nmethod: let him train his ear, let him hear the symphony performed, over\nand over, till he understands its meaning and knows it by heart; and\nthen he will know at any rate something of why each note is there, he\nwill see its fitness and feel in himself the \"law\" of its occurrence,\nand possibly in some new case will be able to predict several bars over\nthe page! The symphony is not understood by examination and comparison\nof the notes alone, but by _experience_ of their relation to deepest\nfeelings; and Nature is not explained by laws, but by its becoming--or\nrather being felt to be--the body of Man; marvellous interpreter and\nsymbol of his inward being.\n\nThere is a kind of knowledge or consciousness in us--as of our bodily\nparts, or affections, or deep-seated mental beliefs--which forms the\nbase of our more obvious and self-conscious thought. This systemic\nknowledge grows even while the brain sleeps. It is not by any means\nabsolute or infallible, but it affords, at any moment in man's history,\nthe axiomatic ground on which his thought-structures, scientific and\nother, are built. Thus the axioms of Euclid are part of our present\nsystemic knowledge, and afford the ground of all our geometry\nstructures. But as the systemic consciousness grows, the ground shifts\nand the structures reared upon it fall. All our modern science, for\ninstance, is founded on the acceptation of mechanical cause and effect\nas a basic fact of consciousness; but when that base gives way the\nentire structure will cave in, and a new edifice will have to be reared.\nSimilarly, when the human form becomes distinctly visible to us in the\nanimals--as an unavoidable part of our consciousness--this consciousness\nwill form a new base or axiom for all our thought on the subject, and\nthe theory of evolution, as hitherto conceived by science, will be\nentirely transformed.\n\nThus, although the experimental investigatory coral-reef accretion\nmethod of modern science is very valuable within its range, it must not\nbe forgotten that the human mind does not progress more than temporarily\nby this method--that its progression is a matter of growth from within,\nand involves a continual _breaking away of the bases_ of all\nthought-structures; so that, while this latter--_i.e._, the progression\nof the systemic consciousness of man--is necessary and continuous, the\nrise and fall of his thought-systems is accidental, so to speak, and\ndiscontinuous.\n\nIt is then finally in Man--in our own deepest and most vital\nexperience--that we have to look for the key and explanation of the\nchanges that we see going on around us in external Nature, as we call\nit; and our understanding of the latter, and of History, must ever\ndepend from point to point on the exfoliation of new facts in the\nindividual consciousness. Round the ultimate disclosure of the essential\nMan all creation (hitherto groaning and travailing towards that perfect\nbirth) ranges itself, as it were, like some vast flower, in concentric\ncycles; rank beyond rank; first all social life and history, then the\nanimal kingdom, then the vegetable and mineral worlds. And if the outer\ncircles have been the first in fact to show themselves, it is by this\nlast disclosure that light is ultimately thrown on the whole plan; and,\nas in the myth of the Eden-garden, with the appearance of the perfected\nhuman form that the work of creation definitely completes itself.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[39] This does not, of course, preclude the action of external\nconditions, or imply that organisation is determined by desire _alone_.\nIn fact organisation may be regarded as the expression of desire acting\nunder conditions--as in the cases of the monkey and giraffe above.\n\n\n\n\nCUSTOM\n\n\"Whatever is off the hinges of custom is believed to be also off the\nhinges of reason; though how unreasonably, for the most part, God\nknows.\"--MONTAIGNE.\n\n\nEvery human being grows up inside a sheath of custom, which enfolds it\nas the swathing clothes enfold the infant. The sacred customs of its\nearly home, how fixed and immutable they appear to the child! It surely\nthinks that all the world in all times has proceeded on the same lines\nwhich bound its tiny life. It regards a breach of these rules (some of\nthem at least) as a wild step in the dark, leading to unknown dangers.\n\nNevertheless its mental eyes have hardly opened ere it perceives, not\nwithout a shock, that whereas in the family dining-room the meat always\nprecedes the pudding, below-stairs and in the cottage the pudding has a\nway of coming before the meat; that, whereas its father puts the manure\non the top of his seed-potatoes in spring, his neighbor invariably\nplaces his potatoes on top of the manure. All its confidence in the\nsanctity of its home life and the truth of things is upset. Surely\nthere must be a right and a wrong way of eating one's dinner or of\nsetting potatoes, and surely, if any one, \"father\" or \"mother\" must know\nwhat is right. The elders have always said (and indeed it seems only\nreasonable) that by this time of day everything has been so thoroughly\nworked over that the best methods of ordering our life--food, dress,\ndomestic practices, social habits, etc., have long ago been determined.\nIf so, why these divergencies in the simplest and most obvious matters?\n\nAnd then other things give way. The sacred seeming-universal customs in\nwhich we were bred turn out to be only the practices of a small and\nnarrow class or caste; or they prove to be confined to a very limited\nlocality, and must be left behind when we set out on our travels; or\nthey belong to the tenets of a feeble religious sect; or they are just\nthe products of one age in history and no other. And the question forces\nitself upon us, Are there really no natural boundaries? has not our life\nanywhere been founded on reason and necessity, but only on arbitrary\nhabit? What is more important than food, yet in what human matter is\nthere more unaccountable divergence of practice? The Highlander\nflourishes on oatmeal, which the Sheffield ironworker would rather\nstarve than eat; the fat snail which the Roman country gentleman once so\nprized now crawls unmolested in the Gloucestershire peasant's garden;\nrabbits are taboo in Germany; frogs are unspeakable in England;\nsauer-kraut is detested in France; many races and gangs of people are\nquite certain they would die if deprived of meat, others think spirits\nof some kind a necessity, while to others again both these things are an\nabomination. Every country district has its local practices in food, and\nthe peasants look with the greatest suspicion on any new dish, and can\nrarely be induced to adopt it. Though it has been abundantly proved that\nmany of the British fungi are excellent eating, such is the force of\ncustom that the mushroom alone is ever publicly recognised, while\ncuriously enough it is said that in some other countries where the\nclaims of other agarics are allowed the mushroom itself is not used!\nFinally, I feel myself (and the gentle reader probably feels the same)\nthat I would rather die than subsist on _insects_, such is the\ndeep-seated disgust we experience towards this class of food. Yet it is\nnotorious that many races of respectable people adopt a diet of this\nsort, and only lately a book has been published giving details of the\nexcellent provender of the kind that we habitually overlook--tasty\nmorsels of caterpillars and beetles, and so forth! And indeed, when one\ncomes to think of it, what can it be but prejudice which causes one to\neat the periwinkle and reject the land-snail, or to prize the lively\nprawn and proscribe the cheerful grasshopper?\n\nIt is useless to say that these local and other divergencies are rooted\nin the necessities of the localities and times in which they occur.\nThey are nothing of the kind. For the most part they are mere customs,\nperhaps grown originally out of some necessity, but now perpetuated from\nsimple habit and inherent human laziness. This can perhaps best be\nillustrated by going below the human to the kingdom of the animals. If\ncustoms are strong among men they are far stronger among animals. The\nsheep lives on grass, the cat lives on mice and other animal food. And\nit is generally assumed that the respective diets are the most \"natural\"\nin each case, and those on which the animals in question will readiest\nthrive, and indeed that they could not well live on any other. But\nnothing of the kind. For cats can be bred up to live on oatmeal and milk\nwith next to no meat; and a sheep has been known to get on very\ncomfortably on a diet of port wine and mutton chops! Dogs, whose\n\"natural\" food in the wild state is of the animal kind, are undoubtedly\nmuch healthier (at any rate in the domestic state) when kept on\nfarinaceous substances with little or no meat, and indeed they take so\nkindly to a vegetable diet that they sometimes become perfect nuisances\nin a garden--eating strawberries, gooseberries, peas, etc., freely off\nthe beds when they have once learned the habit. Any one, in fact, who\nhas kept many pets knows what an astonishing variety of food they may be\nmade to adopt, though each animal in the wild state has the most\nintensely narrow prejudices on the subject, and will perish rather than\noverstep the customs of its tribe. Thus pheasants will eat fern-roots\nin winter when snow covers the ground, but the grouse \"don't eat\nfern-roots,\" and die in consequence. A wolf of an inquiring turn of mind\nwould probably find strawberries and peas as good food as a dog does,\nbut it is practically certain that any ordinary member of the genus\nwould perish in a garden full of the same if deprived of his customary\nbones.\n\nAll this seems to indicate what an immensely important part mere custom\nplays in the life of men and animals. The main part of the power which\nman acquires over the animals depends upon his establishing habits in\nthem which, once established, they never think of violating: and the\nalmost insuperable nature of this force in animals throws back light on\nthe part it plays in human life.\n\nOf course, I am not contending in the above remarks upon food that there\nis no physiological difference between a dog and a sheep in the matter\nof their digestive organs, and that the one is not by the nature of its\nbody more fitted for one kind of food than the other; but rather that we\nshould not neglect the importance of mere habit in such matters. Custom\nchanged first; the change of physiological structure followed slowly\nafter. What happened was probably something like this. Some time in the\nfar back past a group of animals, driven perhaps by necessity, took to\nhunting in packs in the woods; it developed a modified physical\nstructure in consequence, and special habits which in the course of time\nbecame deeply fixed in the race. Another group saved its life by taking\nto grazing. Grass is poor food; but it was the only chance this group\nhad, and in time it got so accustomed to eating grass that it could not\nimagine any other form of diet, and at first would refuse even oysters\nwhen placed in its way! Another group saw an opening in trees; it\ndeveloped a long neck and became the giraffe. But the fact that the\ngiraffe lives on leaves, and the sheep on grass, and the wolf on animal\nmatter, and that custom is in each so strong that at first the creature\nwill refuse any other kind of diet, does not of itself prove that that\ndiet is the best or most physiologically suitable for it. In other\nwords, it is an assumption to suppose that \"adaptation to environment\"\nis the sole or even the main factor in the constitution of well-marked\nvarieties or genera; for this is to neglect (among other things) the\nforce of mere use or wont, which has about the same import in\nrace-growth that momentum has in dynamics; and causes the race, once\nstarted in any direction, to maintain its line of movement--and often in\ndespite of its environment--even for thousands of years.\n\nReturning to man we see him enveloped in a myriad customs--local\ncustoms, class customs, race customs, family customs, religious customs;\ncustoms in food, customs in clothing, customs in furniture, form of\nhabitation, industrial production, art, social and municipal and\nnational life, etc.; and the question arises, Where is the grain of\nnecessity which underlies it all? How much in each case is due to a\nreal fitness in nature, and how much to mere otiose habit! The first\nthing that meets my eye in glancing out of the window is a tile on a\nneighboring roof. Why are tiles made S-shaped in some localities and\nflat in others? Surely the conditions of wind and rain are much the same\nin all places. Perhaps far back there was a reason, but now nothing\nremains but--custom. Why do we sit on chairs instead of on the floor, as\nthe Japanese do, or on cushions like the Turk? It is a custom, and\nperhaps it suits with our other customs. The more we look into our life\nand consider the immense variety of habit in every department of\nit--even under conditions to all appearances exactly similar--the more\nare we impressed by the absence of any very serious necessity in the\nforms we ourselves are accustomed to. Each race, each class, each\nsection of the population, each unit even, vaunts its own habits of life\nas superior to the rest, as the only true and legitimate forms; and\npeoples and classes will go to war with each other in assertion of their\nown special beliefs and practices; but the question that rather presses\nupon the ingenuous and inquiring mind is, whether any of us have got\nhold of much true life at all?--whether we are not rather mere\nmultitudinous varieties of caddis-worms shuffled up in the cast-off\nskins and clothes and d\u00e9bris of those who have gone before us, and with\nvery little vitality of our own perceptible within? How many times a day\ndo we perform an action that is authentic and not a mere mechanical\npiece of repetition? Indeed, if our various actions and practices were\nauthentic and flowing from the true necessity, perhaps we shouldn't\nquarrel with each other over them so often as we do.\n\nAnd then to come to the subject of morals. These also are\ncustoms--divergent to the last degree among different races, at\ndifferent times, or in different localities; customs for which it is\noften difficult to find any ground in reason or the \"fitness of things.\"\nThieving is supposed to be discountenanced among us, yet our present-day\ntrade-morality sanctions it in a thousand different forms; and the\nrespectable usurer (who can hardly be said to be other than a thief)\ntakes a high place at the table of life. To hunt the earth for game has\nfrom time immemorial been considered the natural birthright and\nprivilege of man, until the landlord class (whom wicked Socialists now\ndenounce!) invented the crime of poaching and hanged men for it. As to\nmarriage customs, in different times and among different peoples, they\nhave been simply innumerable. And here the sense of inviolability in\neach case is most powerful. The severest penalties, the most stringent\npublic opinion, biting deep down into the individual conscience, enforce\nthe various codes of various times and places; yet they all contradict\neach other. Polygamy in one country, polyandry in the next; brother and\nsister marriage allowed at one time, marriage with your mother's cousin\nforbidden at another; prostitution sacred in the temples of antiquity,\ntrampled under foot in the gutters of our great cities of to-day;\nmonogamy respectable in one land, a mark of class-inferiority in\nanother; celibacy scorned by some sections of people, accepted as the\nhighest state by others; and so on.\n\nWhat are we to conclude from all this? Is it possible, once we have\nfairly faced the immense variety of human life in _every_ department of\narts, manners, and morals--a variety, too, existing in a vast number of\ncases under conditions to all intents and purposes quite similar--is it\npossible ever again to suppose that the particular practices which _we_\nare accustomed to are very much better (or, indeed, very much worse)\nthan the particular practices which others are accustomed to? We have\nbeen born, as I said at first, into a sheath of custom which enfolds us\nwith our swaddling-clothes. When we begin to grow to manhood we see what\nsort of a thing it is which surrounds us. It is an old husk now. It does\nnot bear looking into; it is rotten, it is inconsistent, it is\nthoroughly indefensible; yet very likely we have to accept it. The\ncaddis-worm has grown to its tube and cannot leave it. A little spark of\nvitality amid a heap of dead matter, all it can do is to make its\ndwelling a little more convenient in shape for itself, or (like the\ncoral insect) to prolong its growth in the most favourable direction for\nthose that come after. The class, the caste, the locality, the age in\nwhich we were born has determined our form of life, and in that form\nvery likely we must remain. But a change has come over our minds. The\nvauntings of earlier days we abandon. _We_, at any rate, are no better\nthan anybody else, and at best, alas! are only half alive.\n\nIf these, then, are our conclusions, is it not with justice that\nchildren and early races keep so rigidly to the narrow path that custom\nhas made for them? Have they not an instinctive feeling that to forsake\ncustom would be to launch out on a trackless sea where life would cease\nto have any special purpose or direction, and morality would be utterly\ngulfed? Custom for them is the line of their growth; it is the\ncoral-branch from the end of which the next insect builds; it is the\nhardening bark of the tree-twig which determines the direction of the\ngrowing shoot. It may be merely arbitrary, this custom, but that they do\nnot know; its appearance of finality and necessity may be quite\nillusive; but the illusion is necessary for life, and the arbitrariness\nis just what makes one life different from another. _Till he grows to\nmanhood_, the human being, _he cannot do without it_.\n\nAnd when he grows to manhood, what then? Why he dies, and so becomes\nalive. The caddis-fly leaves his tube behind and soars into the upper\nair; the creature abandons its barnacle existence on the rock and swims\nat large in the sea. For it is just when we die to custom that, for the\nfirst time, we rise into the true life of humanity; it is just when we\nabandon all prejudice of our own superiority over others, and become\nconvinced of our entire indefensibleness, that the world opens out with\ncomrade faces in all directions; and when we perceive how entirely\narbitrary is the setting of our own life, that the whole structure\ncollapses on which our apartness from others rests, and we pass easily\nand at once into the great ocean of freedom and equality.\n\nThis is, as it were, a new departure for man, for which even to-day the\nold world, overlaid with myriad customs now brought into obvious and\nopen conflict with each other, is evidently preparing. The period of\nhuman infancy is coming to an end. Now comes the time of manhood and\ntrue vitality.\n\nPossibly this is a law of history, that when man has run through every\nvariety of custom a time comes for him to be freed from it--that is, he\nuses it indifferently according to his requirements, and is no longer a\nslave to it; all human practices find their use, and none are forbidden.\nAt this point, whenever reached, \"morals\" come to an end and humanity\ntakes its place--that is to say, there is no longer any code of action,\nbut the one object of all action is the deliverance of the human being\nand the establishment of equality between oneself and another, the entry\ninto a new life, which new life when entered into is glad and perfect,\nbecause there is no more any effort or strain in it; but it is the\nrecognition of oneself in others, eternally.\n\nFar as custom has carried man from man, yet when at last in the\never-branching series the complete human being is produced, it knows at\nonce its kinship with all the other forms. \"I have passed my spirit in\ndetermination and compassion round the whole earth, and found only\nequals and lovers.\" More, it knows its kinship with the animals. It sees\nthat it is only habit, an illusion of difference, that divides; and it\nperceives after all that it is the same human creature that flies in the\nair, and swims in the sea, or walks biped upon the land.\n\n\n_The two following chapters--though not part of the original work--are\nincluded in the present edition because they form continuations or\nexpansions of the chapters which criticise modern Science and modern\nMorality respectively. The chapter entitled \"A Rational and Humane\nScience\" is in fact a reprint of an address given before the\nHumanitarian League in London in 1896. It was first included in the\npresent volume in 1906. The chapter entitled \"The New Morality\" is, with\nslight alterations, a reprint of an article which appeared in the_\nAlbany Review _in September, 1907, under the title \"Morality under\nSocialism\"; and it now appears in the present book for the first time_.\n\n\n\n\nA RATIONAL AND HUMANE SCIENCE\n\n\nIn bringing before you this subject of a Rational and Humane Science you\nwill perhaps forgive me if I dwell for a few moments on some points of\npersonal history in relation to it. After reading mathematics for some\nfour years at Cambridge, it happened to me for the next ten years or so\nto be engaged in the study of the physical sciences, and in lectures on\nthese subjects. Naturally, during the earlier part of this period I\naccepted the current methods and conclusions without any question. But\nas time went on I became aware of a certain dissatisfaction; I felt that\nmany of the laws of Science, enounced as universal truths, were of very\nlimited application only, that many of the conclusions, so strongly\ninsisted on, were of quite doubtful validity; and at last this\nincreasing dissatisfaction culminated in a rather violent attack or\ncriticism of Modern Science which I wrote and published about the year\n1884.[40]\n\nNow, looking back, at this interval of time, though I admit that my\nattack was somewhat hasty and crude in detail, I feel that in its main\ncontention it was thoroughly justified, and I do not feel the least\ninclined to withdraw it.\n\nWhat was that main contention? It was as follows. Modern Science is an\nattempt (and no doubt it would accept this definition of itself) to\nsurvey and classify the phenomena of the world in the pure dry light of\nthe intellect, uncoloured by feeling; and so far is an effort to\nseparate the intellectual in man from the merely perceptive, the\nemotional, the moral, and so forth. It was in this very fact that my\ncriticism lay; for I contended that such a separation was in the long\nrun quite impossible.\n\nBut before proceeding to defend this position, let me admit at once that\nthis attempt of Modern Science to get rid of human feeling and to look\nat everything in the dry light of the intellect was in some respects a\nvery grand one. When you consider what the Old-time Science was, with\nits fancies and prejudices, its dragons pasturing upon the sun and moon\nin eclipses, its immolations of hundreds of human beings to appease some\ngod of pestilence or earthquake, its panics, its superstitions, and its\nincapability of regarding anything except from the point of view of that\nthing's influence on man's own comfort and his little hopes and fears,\nit was indeed a grand advance to try and see _facts_, uncoloured and for\nthemselves alone. It was an effort of Man as it were to rise above\nhimself, to which I accord the fullest credit and honour.\n\nAnd yet, during the time spoken of, it kept growing on me: first, that\nthe attempt was an impossible one; secondly, that the Science so-called\nwas not a true Science; and thirdly, that in its pretence to an\nintellectual exactitude which it did not really possess, this Modern\nScience was leading to a narrow-mindedness and a dogmatism as bad as the\nold.\n\nThere is in fact (so I think) a fallacy in the attempt. But how shall I\ndescribe it? Our relations to the world may, quite roughly speaking, be\ndivided into three groups--those that are sensuous and perceptional,\nthose that are purely intellectual, and those that are of an emotional\nand moral order. Take any object of Nature--a bird, for instance. We may\nlook upon the bird as an object of sense-perceptions--its form, its\ncolour, its song, and so forth. Some people attain to extraordinary\nskill and quickness in this department, recognising in a moment the note\nor even the flight of a songster. Then again we may look upon the bird\nfrom the intellectual side--we may study it in relation to its\nsurroundings--the form of its wings, the length of its leg, the\ncharacter of its beak, and their adaptation to its habits, to its\nlocality, to its food, and so forth. Thus we may get a whole series of\npurely intellectual results--relations of the bird to the world in which\nit lives. This is the special field of the present-day Science. But,\nagain, we may regard the bird in its emotional and moral relations to\n_us_. One man at the sight of it may be affected with admiration of its\nbeauty, with tenderness towards it, or sympathy; another may be\nstimulated to wonder whether he can kill it, or whether it is good to\neat! Modern Science is indifferent to what this last set of relations\nmay be; it does not concern itself much with the first; but it takes the\nmiddle term, the purely intellectual, and seeks to abstract that from\nthe others, to study the bird, or whatever the object may be, in the one\naspect only. But can that really be done? The answer is, of course, No.\n\nTo show my general meaning, and why I consider the claim an impossible\none, let us imagine a little cell--one of the myriads which constitute\nthe human body--professing in the same sort of way to stand outside the\nbody and explain the laws of the other cells and the body at large. It\nis obvious that the little cell, swept along in the currents of the body\nand swayed by its emotions, in close proximity and contact with some\nportions of the organism, and far remote from others, cannot possibly\npretend to any such impartial judgment. It is obvious not only that it\nwould not have all the clues of the problem at its command, but that its\nown needs and experiences would prejudice it frightfully in the\ninterpretation of such clues as it had. Yet man is such a little cell in\nthe body of Nature, or, if you like, in the body of the Society of which\nhe forms a part.\n\nThere is, however, one way, it seems to me, in which a cell in the\nhuman body _might_ come to an adequate understanding of the body; and\nthat would be rather through experience than through direct reasoning.\nIt is conceivable that there might be some cell in the body which,\nthrough the nerves, etc., was in actual touch and sympathetic\nrelationship with every other cell. Then it certainly would have the\nmaterials of the required solution. Every change in other parts of the\nbody would register itself in this particular cell; and its little brain\n(if it had one), without exactly making any great effort, would reflect\nsympathetically the structure of the whole body--would become, in fact,\na mirror of it. This will perhaps give you the key to my notion of what\na true Science might be.\n\nBut before proceeding to that, I want to go a little more in detail into\nthe fallacy of the absolute intellectual view of Science. I say, first,\nthat a complete summary of any object or process in Nature is\nimpossible; secondly, that such summary as we do make is, and must\ninevitably and necessarily be, coloured by the underlying _feeling_ with\nwhich we approach that phase of Nature.\n\nTo take the first point. You say, Why is a complete summary not\npossible? A watch or other machine may be completely described and\ndefined; why should not (with a little more knowledge) a fir-tree, or\nthe human eye, or the solar system, be completely described and defined?\n\nAnd this brings us to what may be called the Machine-view of Science.\nIt is curious (and yet I think it will presently be seen that it is\nquite what might have been expected) that during this century or so, in\nwhich Machinery has played such an important part in our daily and\nsocial life, mechanical ideas have come to colour all our conceptions of\nScience and the Universe. Modern Science holds it as a kind of ideal\n(even though finding it at times difficult to realise) to reduce\neverything to mechanical action, and to show each process of Nature\nintelligible in the same sense as a Machine is intelligible. Yet this\nconception, this ideal, involves a complete fallacy. For the moment you\ncome to think of it, you see that _no_ part of Nature really even\nresembles a machine.\n\nWhat is a machine in the ordinary sense? It is an aggregation of parts\nput together to fulfil certain definite actions and no others. A\nsewing-machine fulfils the purpose of sewing, a watch fulfils that of\nkeeping time, and they fulfil those purposes only. All their parts\nsubserve those actions, and in that sense may be completely\ndescribed--as far as just their mechanical action is concerned--the same\nby a thousand mechanicians. But I make bold to say that _no_ object in\nNature fulfils just one action, or series of actions, and no others. On\nthe contrary, every object fulfils an endless series of actions.\n\nLet us take the Human Eye. And I choose this as an instance most adverse\nto my position, for there is no doubt that the Human Eye is one of the\nmost highly specialised objects in creation. Helmholtz, as you know, is\nsaid to have remarked concerning it that if an Optician had sent him an\ninstrument so defective he should have returned it with his compliments.\nHelmholtz was a great man, and I will not do him the injustice to\nsuppose that he did not know what he was saying. He knew that, regarded\nas a machine for focussing rays of light, the eye was decidedly\ndefective; but then he knew well enough, doubtless, _why_ it was\ndefective--namely, because it is by no means merely such a machine, but\na great deal more.\n\nThe Eye, in fact, not only fulfils the action of focussing rays of\nlight--like an Opera Glass or a Telescope--but it might be compared to\nanother instrument, a Photographic Camera, in respect of the fact that\nit forms a picture of the outer world which it throws on a sensitive\nplate at the back--the Retina. But then, again, it is unlike any of\nthese \"machines,\" in the fact that it was never made by any Optician,\nhuman or divine, for any one definite purpose. On the contrary, as we\nknow, it has grown, it has evolved; it has come down to us over the\ncenturies, and over thousands and thousands of centuries, from dim\nbeginnings in the lowliest organisms who first conceived the faculty of\nSight, continually modified, continually shapen by small increments in\nvarious directions, in accordance with the myriad needs of a myriad\ncreatures, living, some of them in water, some of them in air, requiring\nsome of them to see at close quarters, some at great distances, some by\none kind of light, some by another, and so forth. So that to-day it not\nonly contains a great range of inherited, yet latent, faculties, but it\nis actually, in its complex structure, an epitome and partial record of\nits own extraordinary history.\n\nAs an instance of this last point, let me remind you that Sight was\noriginally a differentiation of Touch. The light, the shadows, falling\non the sensitive general surface of a primitive organism provoke a\ntactile irritation. In the course of evolution this sense specialises\nitself at some point of the surface into what we call Sight. Now,\nto-day, when the little picture formed by the fore-part of the Human Eye\nfalls upon the Retina at the back, it falls upon a screen formed by the\nmyriad congregated finger-tips, so to speak, of the optic nerve--the\nrods and cones, so-called--which cover like a mosaic the whole ground of\nthe Retina, and _feel_ with their sensitive points the images of the\nobjects in the outer world. And so Sight is still Touch--it is the power\nof feeling or touching at a distance--as one sometimes in fact becomes\naware in looking at things.\n\nBut then again on and beyond all these things--beyond the focussing and\nphotographing of rays, beyond the latent adaptations to the needs of\ninnumerable creatures, and the epitomising of ages of evolution--the\nHuman Eye has faculties even more far-reaching perhaps and wonderful. It\nis the marvellous organ of human Expression. By the dilatations and\ncontractions of the iris, by the altering convexities of the lens and\nthe eyeball, and in a hundred other ways, it manages somehow to convey\nintelligence of Command, Control, Power, of Pity, Love, Sympathy, and\nall those myriad emotions which flit through the human mind--an endless\nseries--a perfect encyclop\u00e6dia. It is difficult even to imagine the eye\nwithout this power of language. And what other functions it may have it\nis not necessary to inquire. Highly specialised though it is, it is\nalready obvious enough that to call it a Machine for focussing rays of\nlight is monstrously and ludicrously inadequate--even as it would be to\ncall the Heart (the very centre of emotion and life, and the symbol of\nhuman love and courage) a common Pump.\n\nNature is an infinitude, and can at no point be circumscribed by the\nhuman intellect. Nor obviously is there any sense in taking one little\nportion of Nature and isolating it from the rest, and then describing it\nexhaustively _as if_ it really were so isolated. A thousand mechanicians\nwill agree, as I have said, in their description of a machine, because\nin fact they will agree to view the machine just in the one aspect of\nits particular action; but ask a thousand people to describe one and the\nsame face--or, better still, get a thousand portrait-painters, skilled\nin their art, to paint portraits of the same face--and you know\nperfectly well that all the likenesses will be different. And why will\nthey be different? Simply because every face, however rude, has infinite\nsides, infinite aspects, and each painter selects what he paints from\nhis own point of view. And the same is true of every object and process\nin Nature.\n\nThen if these things are true (you ask again) how is it that scientific\nmen _do_ arrive at definite conclusions, and do agree with each other so\nfar as they do?\n\nIt is, and obviously must be, by the method of isolation; by the method\nof selecting certain aspects of the problems presented to them, and\nignoring others. For since _all_ the relations of any phenomenon of\nNature cannot possibly be compassed, the only way _must_ be to ignore\nsome and concentrate attention on others; and when there is a kind of\ntacit agreement as to which aspects shall be passed over and which\nconsidered, there is naturally an agreement in the results. Thus by this\nmethod, waiving all other aspects of the problem, the Eye may be\ndescribed and defined as an optical instrument, the Heart as a common\nPump, and the Solar System as a neat illustration of certain mechanical\nlaws discovered by Galileo and Newton.\n\nOn the subject of the Solar System and Astronomy I will dwell for a few\nmoments, as here--in this great example of the perfection of Modern\nScience--we have again a case apparently most adverse to my contention.\nThe generalisations by which Newton established the nature of the\nplanetary orbits has been a wonder to succeeding generations; the\npositions of the planets can be foretold, eclipses can be calculated\nwith amazing accuracy. Yet every tyro in Mathematics knows that the\nequations which give these results can only be solved by what is called\n\"neglecting small quantities\"--that is, the problems cannot be solved in\ntheir entirety, but by leaving out certain terms and elements, which do\nnot appear important, a solution can be approached. And naturally it has\nbeen an important point to show that these small quantities _may_ be\nsafely neglected. In the case, for instance, of the orbits of the\nplanets round the sun, and of the moon round the earth, it was for a\nlong time taken as proved that the small variations in the shape and\nposition of each elliptic orbit would never be accompanied by any\npermanent increase or diminution in its _size_--that is, that the _mean\ndistances_ of the planets from the sun, and of the moon from the earth,\nwould always remain within certain limits. Of late years however\nProfessor George Darwin, taking up one of these poor little neglected\nquantities in the theory of the moon, found that it indicated after all\nvery vast and very permanent, though of course very slow, changes in her\nmean distance from the earth; so that now it appears probable that the\nMoon's true orbit, instead of being a limited ellipse, is a continually\nthough gradually enlarging Spiral, which may some day carry the Moon to\na great distance from the earth. If an eclipse were calculated for\ntwenty years in advance on the Elliptic theory or the Spiral theory, it\nwould probably--so slow would be the divergence--make no perceptible\ndifference; but in a hundred centuries the two theories would lead to\nresults utterly different.\n\nThus the certitude of Astronomy as a Science arises largely from the\nfact that our _times_ are so brief compared with Celestial periods. The\nproper periods of Celestial changes are to be reckoned by thousands,\nperhaps millions, of years; but we, ignoring _that_ aspect of the\nproblem, fix our observations on one little point of time, and are quite\nsatisfied with the result!\n\nAs another illustration of my meaning, consider the Fixed Stars,\nso-called. These stars in their groups and clusters, which we know so\nwell by sight, have remained apparently in the very same, or nearly the\nsame, relative positions during all the 2,000 or 3,000 years that we\nhave any record of the shapes of the Constellations. Yet now by minute\ntelescopic and spectroscopic examination we know that they are moving,\nand have been moving all the time, in various differing directions with\ngreat velocities, amounting to miles per second. Nevertheless, so great\nare the spaces concerned, so great the times, that all this long period\nhas not sufficed to bring them into any greatly changed attitude with\nregard to each other! What would you think of an intelligent foreigner\nwho, coming to England to study the game of cricket, remained on the\ncricket field for a quarter of a minute--during which time the players\nwould have hardly changed their positions--and having noted a few\npoints, went away and wrote a volume on the laws of the game? And what\nare we to think of poor little Man who, having noted the stars for a\nfew centuries, is so sure that he understands their movements, and that\nhe is versed in all the \"ordinances of heaven.\"\n\nThus it would appear that every Nature-problem is so enormously complex\nthat it can only be got at by what we have called the Method of\nIgnorance. Let us take a practical Science problem like that of\nVaccination. The question here, put in its simplest terms, seems to be,\nWhether Vaccination, with calf or human lymph, prevents or alleviates\nSmallpox; and if it does, whether it does so without engendering other\nevils at least as great. At first sight this may appear to you a very\nsimple question, and easy to solve; but the moment you come to think\nabout it, you see its extreme complexity. In the first place, it is\nobvious that in a question like this, individual cases afford no test.\nIt is obvious that the fact that A. is vaccinated and has not taken\nsmall-pox proves nothing, for there is nothing to show that he would\nhave taken it if he had not been vaccinated. And when you have got\npeople vaccinated by the hundred and the thousand, you still are not\ncertain; for these people may belong to a certain class, or a certain\nlocality, or may have certain habits and conditions of life, which may\naccount for their comparative immunity, and these causes must be\neliminated before any definite conclusion can be reached. Thus it is not\ntill the great mass of the population is vaccinated that we can expect\nreliable statistics. But the introduction of a practice of this kind on\nso great a scale necessarily takes a long period of years, and meanwhile\nchanges are taking place in the habits of the people, Sanitation is\nbeing improved, customs of Diet are altering, possibly (as so often\nhappens in the history of an epidemic) the disease, having run its\ncourse, is beginning spontaneously to decline. And thus another series\nof possible causes has to be discussed.\n\nThen, supposing the question, notwithstanding all these difficulties, to\nbe so far settled in favour of the present system--there still arises\nthat whole other series of difficulties with regard to the possibility\nof the spread of _other_ diseases by the practice, and with regard to\nthe _extent_ of such spread, before we can arrive at any finale. This\nseries of questions is almost as complex as the other; and it includes\nthat great element of uncertainty--the question what interval of time\nmay elapse between inoculation with a disease and its actual appearance.\nFor if in several cases children break out with erysipelas immediately\nafter vaccination, of course there is a certain presumption that\nvaccination has been the cause; but if the erysipelas only appears some\nyears after, its connection with the operation may, though real, be\nimpossible to trace.\n\nThe matter standing thus, it seems to us almost a mystery how it was\nthat the medical authorities of the early days of Jennerism were so\ncocksure of their conclusions--until we remember that in arriving at\nthose conclusions they practically _ignored_ all these other points\nthat I have mentioned, like changes of Sanitation, spontaneous decline\nof Small-pox, the spread of other diseases, etc., and simply limited\nthemselves to one small aspect of the problem. But now, after this\ninterval of time, when the neglected facts and aspects have meanwhile\n_forced_ themselves on our attention, how remarkable is the change of\nattitude as evidenced by the finding of the late Royal Commission!\n(1896).\n\nFrom all this do not understand me to deride Science--for I have no\nintention of doing that; on the contrary, I think the debt we owe to\nmodern investigation quite incalculable; but I only wish to warn you how\ncomplex all these problems are, how impossible that notion of settling\neven one of them by a cut-and-dried intellectual formula.\n\nBut you will ask (for this is the second point I mentioned some little\ntime back) _how_ people's emotions and feelings come in to colour their\nscientific conclusions? And the answer is--very simply, namely by\ndirecting their choice as to what aspects of the problem they will\nignore and what aspects they will envisage; by determining their point\nof view, in fact. To return to that illustration of several\nportrait-painters painting the same face; just as each painter is led by\nhis feeling, his sympathies, his general temperament, to select certain\npoints in the face and to pass over others, so each group of scientific\nmen in each generation is led by its sympathies, its idiosyncrasies, to\nenvisage certain aspects of the problems of the day and to ignore\nothers.\n\nThe whole history of Science illustrates this. We are all familiar with\nthe way in which the predilections of religious feeling in the time of\nCopernicus and Galileo retarded the progress of astronomical Science. As\nlong as people believed that a divine drama of redemption had been\nenacted on this earth alone, they naturally concluded that this earth\nwas the centre of the universe, and refused to look at facts which\ncontradicted their conclusion. When Galileo turned his newly-made\ntelescope on Jupiter and saw it circled by its satellites, he saw in\nthis an image of the Copernican system and of the planets circling round\nthe central Sun; but when he asked others to share his observation and\nhis inference, they would not. \"O, my dear Kepler,\" he writes in a\nletter to his fellow astronomer, \"how I wish we could have one hearty\nlaugh together. Here at Padua is the principal Professor of Philosophy,\nwhom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and\nplanets through my glass; but he pertinaciously refuses to do so. What\nshouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly!\"\n\nAnd though we laugh at the folly of those before us, we do the same\nthings ourselves to-day. Take the science of Political Economy. A\nrevolution has taken place in that, almost comparable to the change from\nthe geocentric to the heliocentric view in Astronomy. During the\ndistinctively commercial period of the last 100 years, the leading\nstudents of social science, being themselves filled with the spirit of\nthe time, have been fain to look upon the acquisition of private wealth\nas the one absorbing motive of human nature; and so it has come about\nthat the economists, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill, have founded\ntheir science on self-seeking and competition, as the base of their\nanalysis. To-day another series of economists coming to the front--their\nminds preoccupied with the great facts of Community of life and\nCo-operation--have discovered that Society is in the main an\nillustration of these latter principles, and have evolved a quite new\nphase of the science. It is not that Society has changed so much during\nthis period, as that the altered point of view of the students of\nSociety has caused them simply to fix their attention on a different\naspect of the problem and a different range of facts.\n\nI have alluded already to the way in which the prevalent use of\nMachinery in practical life has affected our mental outlook on the\nworld. It is curious that during this mechanical age of the last 100\nyears or so, we have not only come to regard Society in a mechanical\nlight, as a concourse of separate individuals bound together by a mere\ncash-nexus, but have extended the same idea to the universe at large,\nwhich we look upon as a concourse of separate atoms, associated together\nby gravitation, or possibly by mere mutual impact. Yet it is certain\nthat both these views are false, since the individuals who compose\nSociety are _not_ separate from each other; and the theory that the\nuniverse, in its ultimate analysis, is composed of a vast number of\ndiscrete atoms is simply unthinkable.\n\nWhen we come to a practical and modern question like Medicine, the\ninfluence of the spirit in which it is approached on the course of the\nscience is very easy to see. For if the science of Medicine is\napproached (as it perhaps mostly is to-day) in a spirit of combined Fear\nand Self-indulgence--fear for one's own personal safety, combined with a\nkind of anxiety to continue living in the indulgence of habits known to\nbe unhealthy--if it is approached in this uncomfortable and\ncontradictory state of mind, it is pretty obvious that its course will\nbe similarly uncomfortable: that it will consist for the most part in a\nsearch for drugs which shall, without effort on our part, palliate the\neffects of our misconduct; in the discovery, as in a kind of nightmare,\nthat the air round us is full of billions of microbes; in a terrified\nstudy of these messengers of disease, and in a frantic effort to ward\nthem off by inoculations, vaccinations, vivisections, and so forth,\nwithout end.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the science is approached from quite a different\nside--from that of the love of Health, and the desire to make life\nlovely, beautiful and clean; if the student is filled not only with\nthis, but with a great belief in the essential _power_ of Man, and his\ncommand in creation, to control not only all these little microbes\nwhose name is Legion, but through his mind all the processes of his\nbody; then it is obvious enough that a whole series of different facts\nwill arise before his eyes and become the subject of his study--facts of\nsanitation, of the laws of cleanly life, diet, clothing and so forth,\nmethods of control, and the details and practice of the influence of the\nmental upon the physical part of man--facts quite equally real with the\nothers, equally important, equally numerous perhaps and complex, but\nforming a totally different range of science.\n\nIn conclusion, you begin to see doubtless that I do not believe in a\nscience of mere Formulas, which can be poured from one brain to another\nlike water in a pot. I believe in something more organic to\nHumanity--which shall combine Sense, Intellect and Soul; which shall\ninclude the keenest training of the Senses, the exactest use of the\nBrain, and the subordination of both of these to the finest and most\ngenerous attitude of Man towards Nature.\n\nTo come to quite practical aspects, I think that Physical Science, and\nfor that matter Natural History too, ought to be founded on the closest\nobservation and actual intimacy with Nature. It is notorious that in\nmany respects the perceptions, the Nature-intuitions, of savage races\nfar outdo those of civilised man. We have let that side go slack, and\ntoo often the man of science when he comes out of his study is a mere\nbaby in the external world. I look back with a kind of shame when I\nthink that I studied the mathematical side of Astronomy for three or\nfour years at Cambridge and absolutely at the time hardly knew one star\nfrom another in the sky. But such are the methods of teaching that have\nbeen in use. They ought however to be reversed, and practical\nacquaintance with the facts should come a long way first, and then be\nsucceeded by inductive and deductive reasoning when the difficulties of\nthe subject have forced themselves on the student's mind.\n\nThen in Natural History and Botany I think that we have hitherto not\nonly neglected the perceptive side, but also what may be called the\nintuitive and emotional aspects. If any one will attend to the subject,\nI believe they will perceive that there are dormant in the mind the\nfinest intuitions and instincts of relationship to the various animals\nand plants--intuitions which have played a far more important part in\nthe life of barbaric races than they do to-day.[41] Primitive peoples\nhave a remarkable instinct of the medicinal and dietetic uses of herbs\nand plants--an instinct which we also find well developed among\nanimals--and I believe that this kind of knowledge would grow largely\nif, so to speak, it were given a chance. The formal classification of\nanimals and plants--which now forms the main part of these\nsciences--would then come in simply as an aid and an auxiliary to the\nmore direct and human study.\n\nAgain, let us take the science of Physiology. At present this is mainly\ncarried on by means of Dissection or Vivisection. But both these methods\nare unsatisfactory. Dissection, because it amounts to studying the\norganisation of a living creature by the examination of its dead\ncarcase; and Vivisection, because it is not only open to a similar\nobjection, but because it necessarily violates the highest relation of\nman to the animal he is studying. There is, I believe, another method--a\nmethod which has been known in the East for centuries, though little\nregarded in the West--which may perhaps be called the method of Health.\nIt consists in rendering the body, by proper habits of life, pure and\nhealthy, till it becomes, as it were, transparent to the inner eye, and\nthen projecting the consciousness _inward_ so as to become almost as\nsensible of the structure and function of the various internal organs,\nas it usually is of the outer surface of the body. Of course this is a\nprocess which cannot be effectuated at once, and which may need help and\ncorroboration by external methods of study, but I believe it is one\nwhich will lead to considerable results. There is no doubt that many of\nthe Yogis of India attain to great skill in it.\n\nSimilarly, from what we have already said about Political Economy, it\nis obvious that satisfactory results in that science must depend\nimmensely on the high degree of social instinct and feeling with which\nthe student approaches it, and on the thoroughness of his acquaintance\nwith the _actual life_ of a people; and that the development of these\nfactors is fully as important a part of the science as that which\nconsists in the logical ordering and arrangement of the material\nobtained.\n\nI need not, I think, go any further into detail of new methods in each\nScience. You remember what I said at the beginning about the Cell\nstudying the Body of which it formed a part. We may imagine, if we like,\nthree stages in this process. In the first stage the Cell regards the\nother cells and the Body simply from the point of view of how they\naffect _it_, and its comfort and safety. This might be taken to\ncorrespond to the Old-time Science. In the second stage the Cell, with\nits tiny experience of the other cells and the small part of the body in\nwhich it is placed, becomes highly intellectual, and professes to lay\ndown the laws of the structure of the body generally. This corresponds\nto the attitude of Modern Science. In the third stage the Cell, growing\nand evolving, and coming daily into closer sympathetic relationship with\nall parts of the body, begins to find its true relation to the other\ncells, not to use _them_, but to fulfil its part in the whole. Gradually\ndrawing all the threads together and coming more and more, so to say,\ninto a central position, it at last in its little brain spontaneously\nand inevitably reflects the whole, and becomes the mirror of it. This\nwould answer to what we have called a really rational and humane\nScience.\n\nMan has to find and to _feel_ his true relation to other creatures and\nto the whole of which he is a part, and has to use his brain to further\nthis. Science _is_, as we all know, the search for Unity. That is its\nideal. It unites innumerable phenomena under one law; and then it unites\nmany laws under one higher; always seeking for the ultimate complete\nintegration. But (is it not obvious?) Man cannot find that unity _of_\nthe Whole until he feels his unity _with_ the Whole. To found a Science\nof one-ness on the murderous Warfare and insane Competition of men with\neach other, and on the Slaughter and Vivisection of animals--the search\nfor unity on the practice of disunity--is an absurdity, which can only\nin the long run reveal itself as such.\n\nI do not know whether it seems obvious to you, but it does to me, that\nMan will never find in theory the unity of outer Nature till he reaches\nin practice the unity of his own. When he has learnt to harmonise in\nhimself all his powers, bodily and mental, his desires, faculties,\nneeds, and bring them into perfect co-operation--when he has found the\ntrue hierarchy of himself--then somehow I think that Nature round him\nwill reflect this order, and range itself in clear and intelligible\nharmony about him.\n\nBut I can say no more. I have dragged you by the neck, as it were,\nthrough a recondite and difficult subject; and even so I do not feel\nthat I have by any means done justice to it. But it is possible,\nperhaps, that I have cast the germ of an idea among you, which, if you\nthink over it at leisure, may develop into something of value.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[40] Afterwards reprinted in a modified form, as \"Modern Science--a\nCriticism,\" in the first edition (1889) of the present book.\n\n[41] Elis\u00e9e Reclus, in his remarkable paper, _La Grande Famille_, points\nout the wide-reaching _Friendship_, and free alliance for various\npurposes, of primitive man with the animals, existing long before the\nso-called \"domestication\" of the latter. See _Humane Review_, January,\n1906.\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEW MORALITY\n\n\nThe tendency of the Evolution Theory, as it penetrates human thought, is\nto rub out lines--the old lines of formal classification. We no longer\nnow put in a class apart those animals which have horns or cloven\nhooves, because we find that continuous descent and close kinship weave\nrelations which are not bounded by horns or hooves. And, for a not\ndissimilar reason, modern thought, based on the theory of evolution, is\ntending to rub out the hard and fast lines between moral Right and\nWrong--the old formal classifications of _actions_ as some in their\nnature good, and some in their nature bad.\n\nThe Eastern, or at least Indian, thought and religion rubbed out these\nlines long ago. Its philosophy indeed was founded on a theory of\nEvolution--the continuous evolution or emanation of the Many from the\nOne. It could not therefore regard any _class_ of beings or creatures as\nessentially bad, or any _class_ of actions as essentially wrong, since\nall sprang from a common Root. The only essential evil was ignorance\n(_avidya_)--that is, the fact of the being or creature not knowing or\nperceiving its emanation from, or kinship with, the One--and of course\nany action done under this condition of _avidya_, however outwardly\ncorrect, was essentially wrong; while on the other hand _all_ actions\ndone by beings fully realising and conscious of their union with the One\nwere necessarily right.\n\nOf this attitude towards Right and Wrong there are abundant instances in\nthe Upanishads. The choice of the path does not lie _between_ Good and\nBad, as in the _Pilgrim's Progress_, but it lies above and in a region\ntranscending them both. \"By the serenity of his thoughts a man blots out\n_all_ actions, whether good or bad.\"[42] \"He does not distress himself\nwith the thought, Why did I not do what is good? Why did I do what is\nbad?\"[43] All religions indeed, by the very fact of their being\nreligions, have indicated a sphere above morality, to which their\nfollowers shall and must aspire. What else is St. Paul's reiterated\ncharge to escape from the dominion of sin and law, into the glorious\nliberty of the children of God? And in all ages the great mystics--those\nwho stand near the fountain-sources of evolution and emanation--have\nseen and said the same. Says Spinoza:--\"With regard to good and evil,\nthese terms indicate nothing positive in things considered in\nthemselves, nor are they anything else than modes of thought, or\nnotions which we form from _the comparison of one thing with another_.\nFor one and the same thing may at the same time be both good and evil,\nor indifferent.\"[44]\n\nHere indeed, in these pregnant words, we come upon the very root of the\nmatter. A thing, an action, may be called good or bad in respect to a\ncertain purpose or object; but in itself, No. Wine may be good for the\nencouragement of sociability, but may be bad for the liver. The\nSabbath-day may be pronounced a beneficial institution from some points\nof view, but not from others. A scrupulous respect for private property\nmay certainly be a help to settled social life; but the practice of\nthieving--as recommended by Plato--may be very useful to check the lust\nof private riches. To speak of wine as in its nature good or bad is\nmanifestly absurd; and the same of a pious respect for private property\nor the Sabbath-day. These things are good under certain conditions or\nfor certain purposes, and bad under other conditions or for other\npurposes. But of course it belongs and goes with the brute externalising\ntendency of the mind, to stereotype the actual material thing--which\nshould be only the vehicle of the spirit--and give _it_ a character and\na cult as good or bad. The Sabbath ceases to be made for man, and man is\nmade for the Sabbath. Law, Custom, Pharisaism, and Self-righteousness\nspring up and usurp the sphere of morality, and all the histories of\nsavage and civilised nations, with their endless fetishes and taboos\nand superstitions and ceremonies, and caste-marks and phylacteries, and\npetty regulations and proprieties,--including bitter scorn and\npersecution of those who do not fulfil them,--are but illustrations of\nthis process.\n\nAll the prophets and saviours of the world have been for the Spirit as\nagainst the letter--and the teachings of all religions have in their\nturn become literalised and fossilised! Perhaps there has been no\ngreater anti-literal than Jesus of Nazareth, and yet perhaps no religion\nhas become more a thing of forms and dogmas than that which passes under\nhis name. Even his counsels of Gentleness and Love--which one would\nindeed have thought might escape this process--have been corrupted into\nmere prescriptions of morality, such as those of Non-resistance, and of\nphilanthropic Altruism.\n\nIt seems strange indeed that so great a man as Tolstoy should have lent\nhimself to this process--to the pinning down of the excellent spirit of\nChrist (who by the way was man enough to drive the money-changers out of\nthe Temple) to a mere formula, as one might pin a dragon-fly to a\nlabelled card--_Thou shalt not use Violence: thou shalt not Resist!_ And\nall the while to cleave to a formula only means to admit the evil in\nsome other shape which the formula does not meet--to forswear the stick\nonly means to resort to rebuke and sarcasm in self-defence, which may\ninflict more pain and a deeper scar, and in some cases more injury,\nthan the stick; or if self-defence in any shape is quite forsworn then\nthat only means to resign and abandon one's place in the world\ncompletely.\n\nAnd the same of the somewhat spooney Altruism, which was at one time\nmuch recommended as the maxim of conduct. For all the while it is\nnotorious that the specially altruistic people are as a rule painfully\ndull and uninteresting, and afford far less life and charm to those\naround them than many who are frankly egotistic; and so by following a\nformula of Altruism it seems they wreck the very work they set before\nthemselves to do--namely, that of making the world brighter!\n\nAgainst these weaknesses of Christianity Nietzsche was a healthy\nreaction. It was he insisted on the terms \"good\" and \"bad\" being\nrestored to their proper use, as terms of relation--\"good\" for what?\n\"bad\" for what? But his reaction against maudlin altruism and\nnon-resistance led him towards a pitfall in the opposite direction,\ntowards the erection of the worship of Force almost into a formula, Thou\n_shalt_ use Violence, thou _shalt_ Resist. His contempt for the feeble\nand the spooney and the knock-kneed and the humbug is very delightful\nand entertaining, and, as I say, healthy in the sense of reaction; but\none does not get a very clear idea what the strength which Nietzsche\nglorifies is for, or whither it is going to lead. His blonde beasts and\nhis laughing lions may represent the Will to Power; but Nietzsche seems\nto have felt, himself, that this latter alone would not suffice, and so\nhe passed on to his discovery or invention of the Beyond-man,--_i.e._ of\na childlike being who, without argument, _affirms_ and creates, and\nbefore whom institutions and conventions dissolve, as it were of their\nown accord.[45] This was a stroke of genius; but even so it leaves\ndoubtful what the relation of such Beyond-men to each other may be, and\nwhether, if they have no common source of life, their actions will not\nutterly cancel and destroy each other.\n\nThe truth is that Nietzsche never really penetrated to the realisation\nof that farther state of consciousness in which the deep underlying\nunity of man with Nature and his fellows is perceived and felt. He saw\napparently that there is a life and an inspiration of life beyond all\ntechnical good and evil. But for some reason--partly because of the\nnatural difficulty of the subject, partly perhaps because the Eastern\noutlook was uncongenial to his mind--he never found the solution which\nhe needed; and his outline of the Superman remains cloudy and uncertain,\nvague and variously interpreted by followers and critics.\n\nThe question arises, What do _we_ need? We are to-day, in this matter,\nin a somewhat parlous state. The old codes of Morality are moribund; the\nTen Commandments command only a very qualified assent; the Christian\nreligion as a real inspiration of practical life and conduct is dead;\nthe social conventions and Mrs. Grundy remain, feebly galling and\nofficious. What are we to do? Are we to bolster up the old codes, in\nwhich we have largely ceased to believe, merely in order to have a\ncode?--or are we to let them go?\n\nOf course, if we have decided what the final purpose or life of Man is,\nthen we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally \"good,\"\nand what is bad for that purpose is finally \"evil.\" The Eastern\nphilosophy, as I have said, deciding that the final purpose of Man is\nidentification with Brahm, declares _all_ actions to be evil (even the\nmost saintly) which are done by the self as separate from Brahm; and all\nactions as good which are done in the condition of _vidya_ or conscious\nunion. But here, though a final good and evil are allowed and\nacknowledged, as existing respectively in the conditions of vidya or\navidya, those conditions altogether escape any external rule or\nclassification.\n\nMr. Gilbert Chesterton, taking up this subject not long ago in a\ncriticism[46] of Mr. Orage's little book on Nietzsche, said that all\nthis talk about \"beyond good and evil\" was nonsense; that we must have\nsome code; and that in effect, any code, even a bad one, was better than\nnone. And one sees what he means. It is perfectly true, in a sense, that\nthe harness, the shafts, and the blinkers keep a large part of the\nworld on the beaten road and out of the ditch, and that folk are always\nto be found who, rather than use their higher faculties, will rely on\nthese external guides; but to encourage this kind of salvation by\nblinkers seems the very reverse of what ought to be done; and one might\neven ask whether salvation by such means is salvation at all--whether\nthe ditch were not better!\n\nBesides, what _can_ we do? It is not so much that we are deliberately\nabandoning the codes as that they are abandoning us. With the gradual\ninfiltration of new ideas, of Eastern thought, of Darwinian philosophy,\nof customs and creeds of races other than our own, with Bernard Shaw\nlecturing on the futility of the Ten Commandments, and so forth, it is\nnot difficult to see that in a short while it will be impossible to\nrehabilitate any of the ancient codes or to give them a sanction and a\nsense of awe in the public mind. If with Gilbert Chesterton we should\nsucceed in bolstering up such a thing for a time--well, it will only be\nfor a time.\n\nAnd the question is, whether the time has not really come for us to\nstand up--like sensible men and women--and _do without rules_; whether\nwe cannot trust ourselves at last to throw aside the blinkers. The\nquestion is whether we cannot realise that solid and central life which\nunderlies and yet surpasses all rules. For truly, if we cannot do this,\nour state is pitiable--having ceased to believe in the letter of\nMorality, and yet unable to find its spirit!\n\nIt is here, then, that the New Morality comes in, as more or less\nclearly understood and expressed by the progressive sections to-day.\nModern Socialism, in effect, taking up a position in its way somewhat\nsimilar to that of Eastern philosophy, says: Morality in its essence is\nnot a code, but simply the realisation of the Common Life;[47] and that\nis a thing which is not foreign and alien to humanity, but very germane\nand natural to it--a thing so natural that without doubt it would be\nmore in evidence than it is, did not the institutions and teachings of\nWestern civilisation tend all along to deny and disguise it. To liberate\nthis instinct of the Common Life, freeing it from hard and cramping\nrules, and to let it take its own form or forms--grafted on and varied\nof course by the personal and selective element of Affection and\nSympathy--is the hope that lies before the world to-day for the solution\nof all sorts of moral and social problems.\n\nAnd the more this position is thought over, the more, I believe, will it\ncommend itself. The sense of organic unity, of the common welfare, the\ninstinct of Humanity, or of general helpfulness, are things which run in\nall directions through the very fibre of our individual and social\nlife--just as they do through that of the gregarious animals. In a\nthousand ways: through heredity and the fact that common ancestral blood\nflows in our veins--though we be only strangers that pass in the street;\nthrough psychology, and the similarity of structure and concatenation in\nour minds; through social linkage, and the necessity of each and all to\nthe others' economic welfare; through personal affection and the ties of\nthe heart; and through the mystic and religious sense which, diving deep\nbelow personalities, perceives the vast flood of universal being--in\nthese and many other ways does this Common Life compel us to recognise\nitself as a fact--perhaps the most fundamental fact of existence.\n\nTo teach this simple foundational fact and what flows from it to every\nchild--not only as a theory, but as a practical habit and inspiration of\nconduct--is not really difficult, but easy. Children, having this sense\nwoven into their very being, grow up in the spirit and practical\nhabitude of it, and from the beginning possess the inspiration of what\nwe call Morality--far more effectually indeed than copy-book maxims can\nprovide. Respect for truth, consideration towards parents and elders,\nrespect for the reasonable properties, dignities, conveniences of\nothers, as well as for one's own needs and dignities, become perfectly\nnatural and habitual. And that this is no mere hypothesis the example of\nJapan has lately shown where every young thing is brought up so far\ndrenched in the sentiment of community that to give one's life for one's\ncountry is looked upon as a privilege.[48] The general lines, I say, of\nmorality would be secure, and much more secure than they now are, if we\ncould only bring the children up in an educational and practical\natmosphere of that solidarity which as a matter of fact is demanded\nto-day by socialism and the economic movement generally.\n\nAnd on this ground-work, as I have hinted, Personal Affection and\nSympathy would build a superstructure of their own; they would outline a\nsociety as much more beautiful, powerful and closely knit than the\npresent one founded on the Cash-nexus, as, say, the Athenian society of\nthe time of Pericles was superior to that of the Lapith\u00e6 who first\nbitted and bridled the horse.\n\nWhile the general Life, equal, pervasive, and in a sense\nundifferentiated, is a great fact which has to be acknowledged; so this\npersonal Love and Affection, choosing, selecting, and giving outline and\nform to that life, is equally a fact, equally undeniable, equally\nsacred--and one which has to be taken in conjunction with the other.\n\nI say equally sacred: because there has been a tendency (no doubt due to\ncertain causes) to look upon personal affection, in its various phases\nfrom slight inclinations of sympathy to the stronger compulsions of\npassion, as something rather dubious in character, at best an amiable\nweakness not to be encouraged. Tolstoy, in one of his writings, figures\nthe case of a little household in days of famine not really having bread\nenough for their own wants. Then a stranger child comes to the door and\npleads for food. Tolstoy suggests that the mother ought to take the\nscanty crust from her own child to feed the stranger withal, or at least\nto share the food equally between the two children. But such a\nconclusion seems to me doubtful.\n\nWhatever \"ought\" may mean in such a connexion, we know pretty well that\nsuch never _will_ be the rule of human life, we may almost say never can\nbe; perhaps we should be equally justified in saying, never \"ought\" to\nbe. For obviously there must be preferences, selections. Our affections,\nour affinities, our sympathies, our passions, are not given us for\nnothing. It is not for nothing that every individual person, every tree,\nevery animal has a _shape_, a shape of its own. If it were not so the\nworld would be infinitely, inconceivably, dull. Yet to ask that a mother\nshould in all cases treat strange children exactly the same as her own,\nthat a man from the oceanic multitude should single out no special or\nprivileged friends, but should love all alike, is to ask that these folk\nin their mental and moral nature should become as jellyfish--of no\ndistinct shape or satisfaction to themselves or any one else. Profound\nand indispensable as is the Law of Equality--the law, namely, that there\nis a region within all beings where they touch to a common and equal\nlife--the other law, that of Individual predilection, is equally\nindispensable. Try to reduce all to the one motive of the general\ninterest, and you might have a perfect morality, but a morality woodeny,\nhard and dull, without form and feature. Try to dispense with this, and\nto found society on individual affection and love, and on individual\ninitiative, without morals, and you would have a flighty, unstable\nthing, without consistency or backbone.\n\nMy contention, then, is that our hope for the future society lies in its\nembodiment of these two great principles jointly: (1) the recognition of\nthe Common Life as providing the foundation-element of general morality,\nand (2) the recognition of Individual Affection and Expression--and to a\nmuch greater degree than hitherto--as building up the higher groupings\nand finer forms of the structure. And in proportion as (1) provides a\nsolider basis of morals than we have hitherto had, so will it be\npossible to give to (2) a width of scope and freedom of action hitherto\nuntried or untrusted. Conjointly with the strengthening of these\nprinciples of Solidarity and Affection in society must of course come\nthe strengthening of Individuality--the right and the desire of every\nbeing to preserve and develop its own proper _shape_, and so to add to\nthe richness and interest of life--and this involves the right of\nResistance, and (once more) the relegation of the formula of\nnon-resistance into the background.\n\nThese considerations, however, are leading us too far afield, and away\nfrom the special subject of our paper. I mention them chiefly in order\nto show that while we are considering Morality as a foundation-element\nof Society, it must never be lost sight of that it is not the only\nelement, and that it would be comparatively senseless and useless unless\ngrafted on and complemented and completed by the others.\n\nThe method of the New Morality, then, will be to minimise formul\u00e6, and\n(except as illustrations) to use them sparely; and to bring children\nup--and so indirectly all citizens--in such conditions of abounding life\nand health that their sympathies, overflowing naturally to those around,\nwill cause them to realise in the strongest way their organic part in\nthe great whole of society--and this not as an intellectual theory, so\nmuch as an abiding consciousness and foundation-fact of their own\nexistence. Make this the basis of all teaching. Make them realise--by\nall sorts of habit and example--that to injure or deceive others is to\ninjure themselves--that to help others somehow satisfies and fortifies\ntheir own inner life. Let them learn, as they grow up, to regard all\nhuman beings, of whatever race or class, as ends in themselves--never to\nbe looked upon as mere things or chattels to be made use of. Let them\nalso learn to look upon the animals in the same light--as beings, they\ntoo, who are climbing the great ladder of creation--beings with whom\nalso we humans have a common spirit and interest. And let them learn to\nrespect _themselves_ as worthy and indispensable members of this great\nBody. Thus will be established a true Morality--a morality far more\nsearching, more considerate of others, more adaptive and more genuine\nthan that of the present day--a morality, we may say, of common-sense.\n\nFor it may indeed be said that Morality--taking a downright and almost\nphysiological view of it--is simply _abundance of life_. That is, that\nwhen a man has so abounding and vital an inner nature that his\nsympathies and activities overflow the margin of his own petty days and\npersonal advantage, he is by that fact entering the domain of morality.\nBefore that time and while limited to the personal organism, the\ncreative life in each being is either non-moral like that of the\nanimals, or simply selfish like that of the immature man; but when it\noverflows this limit it necessarily becomes social, and moves to the\nsupport and consideration of the neighbour. Having formerly found its\ncomplete activity in the sustentation of the personal self it now\nspreads its helpful energies into the lives of the other selves around.\nAltruism, in fact, in its healthy forms, is the overflow of abounding\nvitality. It is a morality without a code, and happily free from\nlimiting formul\u00e6.[49]\n\nAnd if it be again said that a morality of this kind, which rests on a\nprinciple and a mental attitude only, is a danger, let us pause for a\nmoment to consider how much more dangerous is one which rests on\nformul\u00e6. If morality without a code is a serious matter, how much more\nserious is one which is nailed up _within_ a code! For looking back on\nhistory it would sometimes seem that the black-and-white, the\nthis-thing-right-and-that-thing-wrong morality has been the most wicked\nthing in the world. It has been an excuse for all the most devilish\ndeeds and persecutions imaginable. A formula of the Sabbath-day, a\nformula about Witchcraft, a formula of Marriage (regardless of the real\nhuman relation), a formula concerning Theft (regardless of the dire need\nof the thief)--and burnings, hangings, torturings without mercy! The\nterrible thing about this Right-and-Wrong morality is not only that it\nleads to these dreadful reprisals; but that it brands upon the victim as\nwell as upon the oppressor the fatuous notions that a certain _thing_ is\nright or wrong, and that what one has to do is to save _oneself_--two\nnotions both of which are directly contrary to true Morality. A boy\ntells a verbal lie--perhaps through fear, perhaps through inadvertence.\nHe has broken a formula and is immediately caned. Moral: he will keep to\nverbal truth afterwards--however mean or insidious it may be--and be\npharisaically self-satisfied; but he will never realise that the\nimportance of truth and lies rests not in the words, but in the\nconfidence and mutual trust which they either create or destroy. The\npeculiarly English worship of Duty is open to the same objection.\n\"Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds,\" and splendid as is the\nconception and practice of Duty, as a self-oblivious inspiration and\nenthusiasm, it becomes a truly revolting thing when it takes the\nall-too-common form \"I have done _my_ Duty, I'm all right!\" \"I am going\nto do _my_ Duty, whatever becomes of you.\" Can anything be imagined more\ndisintegrating to society, more certain to split it up into a dustheap\nof self-regarding units, than a formula of this kind? \"It is my painful\nDuty to condemn you to be hanged by the neck until you are dead,\" says\nthe Judge to the wretched girl who, in a frenzy of despair, has drowned\nher baby. What he really means is that while he perfectly recognises the\nmonstrosity of the Law which he has sworn to administer, and the\nsoul-killing effect on the girl which his sentence may have, yet in\norder to save _himself_ from the risk or the wrong of breaking that Law,\nhe is willing and ready to pronounce that sentence. \"It is my duty to\nburn you,\" says the Inquisitor to the heretic; and the implication is\nreally, \"I am afraid that if I do not burn you I shall get burnt myself,\nin the next world.\"\n\nThe sooner an end can be made of this sort of morality, the\nbetter--which under the cloak of public advantage or benefit is only\nthinking about self-promotion and self-interest, either in this world\nor the next, and which truly is calculated not to further human\nsolidarity but to destroy it. It runs and trickles through all of modern\nsociety, poisoning the well-springs of affection, this morality which,\nhaving paid its domestic servants their regular wages, is quite\nsatisfied with itself, and expects them to do _their_ duty in return,\nbut is silent about their real needs and welfare; which treats its\nwage-workers as simple machines for the grinding out of profits, and\nlifts its eyebrows in serene surprise when they retaliate against such\ntreatment; which can only regard a criminal as a person who has broken a\nformula, and in return must be punished according to a formula; and a\npig as an animal for which you provide reasonable provender and a stye,\nand which in return you are entitled to _eat_. Pharisaical, self-centred\nand self-interested, materialistic to the last degree, and really\nsenseless in its outlook, this current morality is indeed, and very\nseriously, a public peril.\n\n\n     Thou shalt not steal: an empty feat,\n     When it's so lucrative to cheat.\n\n\nKeep _within_ the code, within the letter; always speak the nominal\ntruth (whoever may suffer thereby); keep up the accepted formul\u00e6 of\nmarriage and the sex-relation (though hearts may be bleeding and\nperishing); pay every respect to property, and so forth; and you may\nhave the gratification of being looked upon as a bulwark of society. But\nnone the less it is probable that you are undermining and corrupting\nthat society to the core. Your outlook is merely on the surface, while\nyou are condoning deep-seated ill.\n\nOf course the New Morality--to look _within_, to feel and refer to the\nneeds of others almost as instinctively as to one's own, to refuse to\nregard any _thing_ as in itself good or bad, and to look upon all\nbeings, oneself included, as ends in themselves and not as a means of\npersonal self-advancement and glorification--while it is the more\nnatural, is also the more difficult in a sense, as providing no set\npattern or rule. But surely the time has arrived for its adoption. It is\nthe morality which must underlie the freer, more varied forms of the\nsociety of the future; and it is the only escape from the corruption of\nthe old order.\n\nTo take particular examples. Truth, in word or act, is--we all\nfeel--very important, very fundamental. It is the basis of the common\nunderstanding of which I have spoken. It is the basis of the expression\nof oneself, and of the recognition of others. Any one who is deeply\nimbued with the consciousness of the common life will necessarily have a\ndeep respect for the Truth; he will also have a deep respect for the\nLife, the Property, the good Name, the Affections, and so forth, of\nothers, as well as for his own similar attributes. He will not be able\nto say, as a formula: I will _never_ deceive another (tell a lie); I\nwill _never_ take the life of others, man or animal (kill); and so on,\nbecause he knows there are situations in which that very Life arising\nwithin him, or even his own absolute necessity, will demand such\nactions, will compel him to the performance of them; but all the same he\nwill in his ordinary existence carry out the principle which underlies\nthese formul\u00e6, and much more thoroughly, probably, than the formul\u00e6\nthemselves would demand.\n\nSimilarly about such matters as sexual morality. There are outcries\nagainst Lady-Godiva-shows and living statuary--apparently because folk\nare afraid of such things rousing the passions. No doubt the things may\nact that way. But why, we may ask, should people be afraid of rousing\npassions which, after all, are the great driving forces of human life?\nClearly it is because they think the other forces which should guide\nthese passions or give them a helpful and useful direction are too weak.\nAnd in this last respect they are right. The guiding and inhibiting\nforces in our present society are feeble--because they consist only in a\nfew conventional formul\u00e6, which are rapidly being undermined. We are\ngenerating steam in a boiler which is already cankered with rust. The\ncure is not to cut off the passions, or to be weakly afraid of them, but\nto find a new, sound, healthy engine of general morality and\ncommon-sense within which they will work. And this is what in the future\nwe must try to do.\n\nThis morality, this organic, vital, almost physiological morality of the\ncommon life--which means a quick response of each unit to the needs of\nthe other units, and much the same in the body politic as health means\nin the physical body--must underlie and be the basis of the societies of\nthe future. It will mean the liberation of a thousand and one instincts,\ndesires and capacities which since our childhood's days have lain buried\nwithin us, concealed and ignored because we have thought them wrong or\nunworthy, when really all they have wanted has been recognition and the\nopportunity to become healthy _by_ recognition--by the process in fact\nof balancing against each other, and against opposing and complementary\nelements, and so finding their places in the Whole. On this new Morality\nof acceptance and recognition and wide-reaching redemption, it will be\npossible, as I have already said, to graft not only a stronger\nexpression of individuality all round, but also a higher and more varied\nand more gracious life of _personal affection_--which now alas! lies\nlike a thing wounded and half dead. Its establishment will, I take it,\nmean the oncoming of a society which will liberate personal affection\nand love--will liberate forces hitherto artificially crippled because\ntheir liberation would tear our current morality of formul\u00e6 to mere rags\nand tatters. It means, I take it, the oncoming of a society whose main\nmotive will no longer be the struggle for Bread (since that is ruled out\nby the enormous growth of our wealth-producing powers), but the desire\nfor the satisfaction of the Heart--thus preparing no doubt new and\nunforeseen difficulties and sufferings, yet filling life with such\nbeautiful things that the motives of greed and the mean pursuit of\nmoney, which now weigh upon the world, will be like an evil nightmare of\nthe Past from which the dawn delivers us.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[42] _Maitrayana-Brahmana-Upanishad_, vi. 34, 4.\n\n[43] _Taittiriyaka-Up_, ii. 9, etc.\n\n[44] Spinoza's _Ethic_, part iv.\n\n[45] It must be remembered that Nietzsche supposes three stages of the\nspirit--(1) the Camel, (2) the Lion, and (3) the Child. And the\nBeyond-man properly corresponds to the last stage.\n\n[46] _Daily News_, December 29, 1906.\n\n[47] I need hardly say that this does not mean, as Nietzsche so often\nand sardonically suggests, the realisation of the _common-place_ life,\nbut something very different.\n\n[48] Many Japanese committed suicide on account of not being allowed to\njoin in the Russian War. See also Lafcadio Hearn's description of the\nhabitual dignity and courtesy of the youth of Japan.--_Life and\nLetters_, vol. i, pp. 12, 113.\n\n[49] This morality, indeed, may be said to be implicit in much of the\nteaching of Christ; yet, curiously enough, it has never been seriously\nadopted by the Churches. And as to the regard for animals as ends in\nthemselves, the Roman Catholic Church, I believe, positively repudiates\nany such attitude.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\nAs the author's attacks in the body of this book upon the Civilisation\npeoples have sometimes been regarded as extreme and unjustified, it has\nbeen thought appropriate, here in the Appendix, to collect a few notes\nfrom reliable authorities on the characteristics and customs of\npre-civilised men--not so much of course with the object of proving the\nlatter always superior to the former, as of bringing to light the many\nadmirable virtues of the early peoples, which a cheap modern\ncivilisation has neglected or somewhat contemptuously ignored.\n\nNo one would deny that there are many cases of primitive folk--folk\nunclean and ignorant and absurdly superstitious--who can hardly be said\nto command our admiration. On the other hand there are a vast number of\ncases of an opposite sort--cases which present to us the realisation of\nsome remarkable human characteristic or social capacity well worthy of\nconsideration or even of imitation. If our Civilisation is ever to move\non to some form better than the present, it is these latter cases which\nought to be of assistance; for they not only direct our attention to\nhuman possibilities, but by showing what has been realised in the past\nassure us that such ideals are by no means unattainable now.\n\nIt is therefore with a view to cases of this kind that the following\nAppendix has been framed.\n\nE. C.\n\n\n+Civilisation does not Engross all the Virtues.+\n\n     Quotations from Herman Melville's _Typee_, pp. 225, etc. (John\n     Murray, 1861.)\n\n\"Civilisation does not engross all the virtues of humanity: she has not\neven her full share of them. They flourish in greater abundance and\nattain greater strength among many barbarous people. The hospitality of\nthe wild Arab, the courage of the North American Indian, and the\nfaithful friendships of some of the Polynesian nations, far surpass\nanything of a similar kind among the polished communities of Europe. If\ntruth and justice, and the better principles of our nature, cannot exist\nunless enforced by the statute-book, how are we to account for the\nsocial condition of the Typees? So pure and upright were they in all the\nrelations of life, that entering their valley, as I did, under the most\nerroneous impressions of their character, I was soon led to exclaim in\namazement: 'Are these the ferocious savages, the bloodthirsty cannibals\nof whom I have heard such frightful tales! They deal more kindly with\neach other, and are more humane, than many who study essays on virtue\nand benevolence, and who repeat every night that beautiful prayer\nbreathed first by the lips of the divine and gentle Jesus.' I will\nfrankly declare, that after passing a few weeks in this valley of the\nMarquesas, I formed a higher estimate of human nature than I had ever\nbefore entertained. But alas! since then I have been one of the crew of\na man-of-war, and the pent-up wickedness of five hundred men has nearly\noverturned all my previous theories.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"How little do some of these poor islanders comprehend, when they look\naround them, that no inconsiderable part of their disasters originate\nin certain tea-party excitements, under the influence of which\nbenevolent-looking gentlemen in white cravats solicit alms, and old\nladies in spectacles, and young ladies in sober russet low gowns,\ncontribute sixpences towards the creation of a fund, the object of which\nis to ameliorate the spiritual condition of the Polynesians, but whose\nend has almost invariably been to accomplish their temporal destruction!\n\n\"Let the savages be civilised, but civilise them with benefits, and not\nwith evils; and let heathenism be destroyed, but not by destroying the\nheathen. The Anglo-Saxon hive have extirpated Paganism from the greater\npart of the North American continent; but with it they have likewise\nextirpated the greater portion of the Red race. Civilisation is\ngradually sweeping from the earth the lingering vestiges of Paganism,\nand at the same time the shrinking forms of its unhappy worshippers.\n\n\"Among the islands of Polynesia, no sooner are the images overturned,\nthe temples demolished, and the idolaters converted into _nominal_\nChristians, than disease, vice, and premature death make their\nappearance. The depopulated land is then recruited from the rapacious\nhordes of enlightened individuals who settle themselves within its\nborders, and clamorously announce the progress of the Truth. Neat\nvillas, trim gardens, shaven lawns, spires, and cupolas arise, while the\npoor savage soon finds himself an interloper in the country of his\nfathers, and that too on the very site of the hut where he was born.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"During my whole stay on the island I never witnessed a single quarrel,\nnor any thing that in the slightest degree approached even to a dispute.\nThe natives appeared to form one household, whose members were bound\ntogether by the ties of strong affection. The love of kindred I did not\nso much perceive, for it seemed blended in the general love; and where\nall were treated as brothers and sisters, it was hard to tell who were\nactually related to each other by blood.\n\n\"Let it not be supposed that I have overdrawn this picture. I have not\ndone so. Nor let it be urged that the hostility of this tribe to\nforeigners, and the hereditary feuds they carry on against their\nfellow-islanders beyond the mountains, are facts which contradict me.\nNot so: these apparent discrepancies are easily reconciled. By many a\nlegendary tale of violence and wrong, as well as by events which have\npassed before their eyes, these people have been taught to look upon\nwhite men with abhorrence. The cruel invasion of their country by Porter\nhas alone furnished them with ample provocation; and I can sympathize in\nthe spirit which prompts the Typee warrior to guard all the passes to\nhis valley with the point of his levelled spear, and, standing upon the\nbeach, with his back turned upon his green home, to hold at bay the\nintruding European.\"\n\n\n+Influences of \"Civilisation\"+\n\n     From R. L. Stevenson's _In the South Seas_, p. 43. (Chatto and\n     Windus, 1908.)\n\n[It is asked] \"Was not the Polynesian always unchaste? Doubtless he was\nso always: doubtless he is more so since the coming of his remarkably\nchaste visitors from Europe. Take the Hawaiian account of Cook: I have\nno doubt it is entirely fair. Take Krusenstern's candid, almost innocent\ndescription of a Russian man-of-war at the Marquesas; consider the\ndisgraceful history of missions in Hawaii itself ... add the practice of\nwhaling fleets to call at the Marquesas and carry off a complement of\nwomen for the cruise ... and bear in mind how it was the custom of the\nadventurers, and we may almost say the business of the missionaries, to\nderide and infract even the most salutary _tapus_ (taboos).\"\n\n\n+Captain Cook at Owyhee in 1799+\n\n     From his _Life and Voyages_, p. 379. (George Newnes, 1904.)\n\n\"In the progress of the intercourse which was maintained between our\nvoyagers and the natives, the quiet and inoffensive behaviour of the\nlatter took away every apprehension of danger, so that the English\ntrusted themselves among them at all times and in all situations. The\ninstances of kindness and civility which our people experienced from\nthem were so numerous that they could not easily be recounted. A society\nof priests, in particular, displayed a generosity and munificence of\nwhich no equal example had hitherto been given: for they furnished a\nconstant supply of hogs and vegetables to our navigators, without ever\ndemanding a return, or even hinting at it in the most distant manner.\"\nOf the island of Wateeoo (p. 309), \"the inhabitants are very numerous,\nand many of the young men were perfect models in shape.\"\n\n\n+Natives of Tahiti+\n\n     From Havelock Ellis' _Sex in relation to Society_, p. 148. (1910.)\n\n\"The example of Tahiti is instructive as regards the prevalence of\nchastity among peoples of what we generally consider low grades of\ncivilisation. An early explorer, J. R. Forster (_Observations made on a\nvoyage round the World_, 1778), speaks of the fine climate and the\nbeauty of the females, as inviting powerfully to the enjoyments and\npleasures of love. Yet he is over and over again impelled to set down\nfacts which bear testimony to the virtues of these people. Though rather\neffeminate in build they are athletic, he says. Moreover in their wars\nthey fight with great bravery and valour. They are, for the rest,\nhospitable. He remarks that they treat their married women with great\nrespect, and that women generally are nearly the equals of men, both in\nintelligence and social position; he gives a charming description of the\nwomen. 'In short their character,' he concludes, 'is as amiable as that\nof any nation that ever came unimproved out of the hands of\nNature'[!]\"...\n\n\"When Cook,\" continues Ellis, \"who visited Tahiti many times, was among\nthis 'benevolent, humane' people, he noted their esteem for chastity,\nand found that not only were betrothed girls strictly guarded before\nmarriage, but that men also who had refrained from sexual intercourse\nfor some time before marriage were believed to pass at death immediately\ninto the abode of the blessed.\"\n\n\n+Radack--one of the Caroline Islands+\n\n     From Chamisso's _Reise um die Welt_, p. 183. (Leipzig.)\n\n\"Thus we made acquaintance with a people who have endeared themselves to\nme more than any others of the children of Earth. The very weaknesses of\nthe Radack folk removed mistrust on our side; their very gentleness and\ngoodness caused them to be trustful towards us, the all-powerful\nstrangers; we became declared friends. I found among them simple,\nunsophisticated manners, charm, natural grace, and the pleasant bloom\nof modesty. In the matter, certainly, of strength and manly independence\nthe O-Waihier [Owyhees] are greatly their superiors. My friend, Kadu,\nwho, though not belonging to this island-group, attached himself to us,\nwas one of the finest characters I have ever met and one of the most\ndear to me of human beings; and he afterwards became my instructor with\nregard to Radack and the Caroline Islands.\"\n\n\n+Adaptation of Early Peoples to Surroundings+\n\n     THE DINKAS (Central Africa): from Grogan's _Cape to Cairo_, p. 278.\n     (Hurst & Blackett, 1900.)\n\n\"Every one in Dinka-land carries a long spear, or pointed fish-spear,\nand a club made of a heavy purple wood, while the more important\ngentlemen wear enormous ivory bracelets round their upper arm; strict\nnudity is the fashion, and a marabout feather in the hair is the essence\nof _chic_. They are all beautifully built, having broad shoulders, small\nwaist, good hips, and well-shaped legs. The stature of some is colossal.\nIt was most curious to see how these Dinkas, living as they do in the\nmarshes, approximate to the type of the waterbird. They have much the\nsame walk as a heron, picking their feet up very high and thrusting them\nwell forward; while their feet are enormous. Their colossal height is\nindeed a great advantage in the reed grown country in which they live.\nThe favourite pose of a Dinka (on one foot, with the other foot resting\non the knee) is in reality the favourite pose of a water bird.... They\nare the complete antithesis of the pigmy, as the country in which they\nlive is the complete antithesis of the dense forest which is the home of\nthe dwarfs.... Our camp was near a large village where there were at\nleast 1,500 head of cattle, besides sheep and goats, and the chief\nbrought me a fine fat bull-calf--which settled the nervous question of\nfood for two days.... The rambling village with its groups of figures\nand long lines of home-coming cattle, dimly seen in the smoke of a\nhundred fires as I approached at sunset, was very picturesque.\"\n\n\nTHE PIGMIES: from _Cape to Cairo_, pp. 144 and 161.\n\n\"The pigmies have no settled villages, nor do they cultivate anything.\nThey live the life of the brute in the forests, perpetually wandering in\nsearch of honey or in pursuit of elephant; when they succeed in killing\nanything, they throw up a few grass shelters and remain there till all\nthe meat is either eaten or dried. They depend upon the other natives\nfor the necessary grain, which they either steal or barter for elephant\nmeat or honey. All their knives, spearheads and arrow-heads they\nlikewise purchase from other people, but they make their own bows and\narrows. So well are these made that they are held in great esteem by the\nsurrounding people.\" ... \"An hour later I met an elderly pigmy in the\nforest and managed to induce him to talk. He was a splendid little\nfellow, full of self-confidence, and gave me most concise information,\nstating that the white man with many belongings had passed near by two\ndays before, and had then gone down to the lake-shore, where he was\ncamped at that moment. These people must have a wonderful code of signs\nand signals, as despite their isolated and nomadic existence they always\nknow exactly what is happening everywhere. He was a typical pigmy as\nfound on the volcanoes--squat, gnarled, proud, and easy of carriage. His\nbeard hung down over his chest, and his thighs and chest were covered\nwith wiry hair. He carried the usual pigmy bow made of two pieces of\ncane spliced together with grass, and with a string made of a single\nstrand of a rush that grows in the forests. The pigmies are splendid\nexamples of the adaptability of Nature to her surroundings; the\ncombination of strength and conciseness enabling them to move with\nastonishing rapidity in the pig-runs that form the only pathway through\nthe impenetrable growth, and to endure the fatigue of elephant-hunting.\"\n\n\nNATIVES IN RUANDA (near Lake Kivu): _Cape to Cairo_, p. 118.\n\n\"Society in Ruanda is divided into two castes, the Watusi and the\nWahutu. The Watusi are the descendants of a great wave of Galla invasion\nthat reached even to Tanganyika. They still retain their pastoral\ninstincts, and refuse to do any other work than the tending of cattle;\nand so great is their affection for their beasts, that rather than sever\ncompany they will become slaves, and do the menial work of their beloved\ncattle for the benefit of their conquerors. This is all the more\nremarkable when one takes into account their inherent pride of race and\ncontempt for other peoples, even for the white man.... Many signs of\nsuperior civilisation, observable in the peoples with whom the Watusi\nhave come into contact, are traceable to this Galla influence.\n\n\"The hills are terraced, thus increasing the area of cultivation, and\nobviating the denudation of fertile slopes by torrential rains. In many\ncases irrigation is carried out on a sufficiently extensive scale, and\nthe swamps are drained by ditches. Artificial reservoirs are built with\nside troughs for watering cattle. The fields are in many cases fenced in\nby planted hedges of euphorbia and thorn, and similar fences are planted\nalong the narrow parts of the main cattle tracks, to prevent the beasts\nfrom straying or trampling down the cultivation.\n\n\"There is also an exceptional diversity of plants cultivated, such as\nhungry rice, maize, red and white millet, several kinds of beans, peas,\nbananas, and the edible arum. Some of the higher growing beans are even\ntrained on sticks planted for the purpose. Pumpkins and sweet potatoes\nare also common; and the Watusi own and tend enormous herds of cattle,\ngoats and sheep. Owing to the magnificent pasturage the milk is of\nexcellent quality, and they make large quantities of butter. They are\nexceedingly clever with their beasts, and have many calls which the\ncattle understand. At milking time they light smoke-fires to keep the\nflies from irritating the beasts.... They are tall slightly built men of\ngraceful nonchalant carriage, and their features are delicate and\nrefined. I noticed many faces that, bleached and set in a white collar,\nwould have been conspicuous for character in a London drawing-room. The\nlegal type was especially pronounced.\" ...\n\n\"The Wahutu are their absolute antithesis. They are the aborigines of\nthe country, and any pristine originality or character has been\neffectually stamped out of them. Hewers of wood and drawers of water,\nthey do all the hard work, and unquestioning in abject servility give up\nthe proceeds on demand. Their numerical proportion to the Watusi must be\nat least a hundred to one, yet they defer to them without protest; and\nin spite of the obvious hatred in which they hold their over lords,\nthere seems to be no friction.\"\n\n\n+Natives of the Andaman Islands+\n\nThe following extracts, about the Andaman-islanders of the Bay of\nBengal, the Bushmen of South Africa, and the Eskimo tribes of Northern\nlatitudes, are specially interesting because they deal with peoples\nwhose present-day culture is undoubtedly on a par with, and in all\nprobability directly inherited from, the peoples of a long-past Stone\nAge. Thus we get indirectly a glimpse of what the culture of the Stone\nAges was--both in its material acquisitions and its grade of social and\npsychological evolution.\n\n\n     From _In the Andamans and Nicobars_, p. 184, by C. Boden Kloss.\n     (Murray, 1903.)\n\n\"The Andaman Islands are inhabited by people of pure Negrito blood,\nmembers of perhaps the most ancient race remaining on the earth, and\nstanding closest to the primitive human type.... It would be impossible\nto find anywhere a race of purer descent than the Andamanese, for ever\nsince they peopled the islands in the Stone Age, they have remained\nsecluded from the outer world.... In stature they are far below the\naverage height; but although they have been called dwarfs and pygmies,\nthese words must not be understood to imply anything in the nature of a\nmonstrosity. Their reputation for hideousness, like their poisoned\narrows and cannibalism, has long been a fallacy which, though widely\npopular, should now be exploded. The average heights of the men and\nwomen are found to be 4 feet 10\u00be inches, and 4 feet 7\u00bc inches\nrespectively, and their figures, which are proportionately built, are\nvery symmetrical and graceful. Although not to be described as muscular,\nthey are of good development, the men being agile, yet sturdy, with\nbroad chests and square shoulders.\"\n\n\n     From E. H. Man on _The Aborigines of the Andaman Islands_, p. 14.\n     (Tr\u00fcbner, 1883.)\n\n\"No idiots, maniacs or lunatics have ever yet been observed among them,\nand this is not because those so afflicted are killed or confined by\ntheir fellows, for the greatest care and attention are invariably paid\nto the sick, aged and helpless.\"\n\nMr. Man also remarks (_Journ. Anthrop. Inst._ XII, 92): \"It has been\nobserved with regret by all interested in the race, that intercourse\nwith the alien population has, generally speaking, prejudicially\naffected their morals; and that the candour, veracity, and self-reliance\nthey manifest in their savage and untutored state are, when they become\nassociated with foreigners, to a great extent lost, and habits of\nuntruthfulness, dependence and sloth engendered.\"\n\n\n+The Bushmen+\n\n     Extract from F. C. Selous' _African Nature-Notes_, pp. 344 and 347.\n     (1908.)\n\n\"When I met with the first Bushmen I ever saw, on the banks of the\nOrange River in 1872, I was a very young man, and, regarding them with\nsome repugnance, wrote in my diary that they appeared to be removed by a\nvery few steps from the brute creation. That was a very foolish and\nignorant remark to make, and I have since found out that though Bushmen\nmay possibly be to-day in the same backward state of material\ndevelopment and knowledge as once were the pal\u00e6olithic ancestors of the\nmost highly cultured European races in prehistoric times, yet\nfundamentally there is very little difference between the natures of\nprimitive and civilised men, so that it is quite possible for a member\nof one of the more cultured races to live for a time quite happily and\ncontentedly amongst beings who are often described as degraded savages,\nand from whom he is separated by thousands of years in all that is\nimplied by the word 'civilisation.' I have hunted a great deal with\nBushmen, and during 1884 I lived amongst these people continuously for\nseveral months together. On many and many a night I have slept in their\nencampments without even any Kafir attendants, and though I was entirely\nin their power I always felt perfectly safe among them. As most of the\nmen spoke Sechwana I was able to converse with them, and found them very\nintelligent, good-natured companions, full of knowledge concerning the\nhabits of all the wild animals inhabiting the country in which they\nlived.... I have never seen their women and children ill-treated by\nthem, and I have seen both the men and the women show affection for\ntheir children.\"\n\nElsewhere Selous speaks of \"John\"--a member of the close-related Korana\nclan--who was in his service, as \"of a pale yellow-brown colour,\nbeautifully proportioned, with small delicately made hands and feet.\"\n\n\n     From preface by Henry Balfour to the book _Bushmen Paintings\n     Copied_, by Helen Tongue.\n\n\"It is certain that the designs representing animals, etc., which are\npainted upon the walls of their caves and rock-shelters, frequently\nexhibit a realism and freedom in treatment which are quite remarkable in\nthe art of so primitive a people. The skill with which many of the\ncharacteristic South African animals are portrayed testifies not only to\nunusual artistic efficiency, but also to a close observance of and an\nintimate acquaintanceship with the habits and peculiarities of the\nanimals themselves.... The paintings are remarkable not only for the\nrealism exhibited by so many, but also for a freedom from the limitation\nto delineation in _profile_ which characterises for the most part the\ndrawings of primitive peoples, especially where animals are concerned.\nAttitudes of a kind difficult to render were ventured upon without\nhesitation, and an appreciation even of the rudiments of perspective is\noccasionally to be noted.\"\n\n\n     Note from the same book, by S. Bleek, daughter of the well-known\n     Dr. Bleek, of the Grey Library at Cape Town (1870).\n\n\"Bushmen are called liars and thieves all over the Colony, but all those\nwho stayed with us were truthful and very honest. On no occasion did\nthey steal even a pocket-knife lost in the garden, or fruit from the\ntrees. They might have taken sheep from hostile farmers, but they would\nnever rob a friend or neighbour. They were cleanly in their habits, and\nmost particular about manners.... As a people they were grateful and\nrevengeful, independent in spirit, excellent fighters--who preferred\ndeath to captivity.... Captives were sometimes made servants, but not\noften well-treated, nor did they take to a settled life easily. Even\nkind masters found their longing for freedom hard to conquer.\"\n\n\n+The Nechilli Eskimo+\n\n     From Amundsen's _North West Passage_, vol. i, p. 294. (Constable,\n     1908.)\n\n\"We were suddenly brought face to face here with a people from the Stone\nAge: we were abruptly carried back several thousand years in the advance\nof human progress, to people who as yet knew no other method of\nprocuring fire than by rubbing two pieces of wood together, and who with\ngreat difficulty managed to get their food just lukewarm, over the\nseal-oil flame on a stone slab, while we cooked our food in a moment\nwith our modern cooking apparatus. We came here, with our most ingenious\nand most recent inventions in the way of firearms, to people who still\nused lances, bows and arrows of reindeer horn.... However, we should be\nwrong if from the weapons, implements, and domestic appliances of these\npeople we were to argue that they were of low intelligence. Their\nimplements, apparently so very primitive, proved to be as well adapted\nto their existing requirements and conditions as experience and the\nskilful tests of many centuries could have made them.\"\n\n\n+Ugpi, an Eskimo+\n\n     From Amundsen vol. i, p. 190.\n\n\"Ugpi or Uglen (the 'Owl') as we always called him, attracted immediate\nattention by his appearance. With his long black hair hanging over his\nshoulders, his dark eyes and frank honest expression, he would have been\ngood-looking if his broad face and large mouth had not spoilt his beauty\nfrom a European standpoint. There was something serious, almost dreamy,\nabout him. Honesty and truthfulness are unmistakably impressed on his\nfeatures, and I would never have hesitated for a moment to entrust him\nwith anything. During his association with us he became an exceptionally\nclever hunter both for birds and reindeer. He was about thirty years old\nand was married to Kabloka, a very small girl of seventeen.\"\n\n\n+Eskimo and Civilisation+\n\n     From Amundsen vol. ii, p. 48.\n\n\"During the voyage of the _Gjoa_, we came into contact with ten\ndifferent Eskimo tribes in all ... and I must state it as my firm\nconviction that the Eskimo living absolutely isolated from civilisation\nof any kind are undoubtedly the happiest, healthiest, most honorable\nand most contented among them. It must therefore be the bounden duty of\ncivilised nations who come into contact with the Eskimo to safeguard\nthem against contaminating influences, and by laws and stringent\nregulations protect them against the many perils and evils of so-called\ncivilisation. Unless this is done they will inevitably be ruined.... My\nsincerest wish for our friends the Nechilli Eskimo is that Civilisation\nmay _never_ reach them.\"\n\n\n+High Standard of Tribal Morality among the Aleoutes+\n\n     Witnessed to by the Russian missionary, Veniaminoff. See _Mutual\n     Aid_, pp. 99 and 100, by P. Kropotkin.\n\nThe high standard of the tribal morality of the Eskimos has often been\nmentioned in general literature. Nevertheless the following remarks upon\nthe manners of the Aleoutes--nearly akin to the Eskimos--will better\nillustrate savage morality as a whole. They were written, after a ten\nyears' stay among the Aleoutes, by a most remarkable man--the Russian\nmissionary, Veniaminoff. I sum them up, mostly in his own words:--\n\nEndurability (he wrote) is their chief feature. It is simply colossal.\nNot only do they bathe every morning in the frozen sea, and stand naked\non the beach, inhaling the icy wind, but their endurability, even when\nat hard work on insufficient food, surpasses all that can be imagined.\nDuring a protracted scarcity of food, the Aleoute cares first for his\nchildren; he gives them all he has, and himself fasts. They are not\ninclined to stealing; that was remarked even by the first Russian\nimmigrants. Not that they never steal; every Aleoute would confess\nhaving sometime stolen something, but it is always a trifle; the whole\nis so childish. The attachment of the parents to their children is\ntouching, though it is never expressed in words or pettings. The Aleoute\nis with difficulty moved to make a promise, but once he has made it he\nwill keep it whatever may happen. (An Aleoute made Veniaminoff a gift of\ndried fish, but it was forgotten on the beach in the hurry of the\ndeparture. He took it home. The next occasion to send it to the\nmissionary was in January; and in November and December there was a\ngreat scarcity of food in the Aleoute encampment. But the fish was never\ntouched by the starving people, and in January it was sent to its\ndestination.)\n\n\n+Home Life of the Eskimo+\n\n     By Villialm Stefansson. From _Harper's Monthly_, October, 1908.\n\nStefansson lived for thirteen months in the household of a Chief,\nOvaynak, on the Mackenzie River, and knew his subject well. He says:--\n\n\"With their absolute equality of the sexes and perfect freedom of\nseparation, a permanent union of uncongenial persons is well-nigh\ninconceivable. But if a couple find each other congenial enough to\nremain married a year or two, divorce becomes exceedingly improbable,\nand is much rarer among the middle-aged than among us. People of the age\nof twenty-five and over are usually very fond of each other, and the\nfamily--when once it becomes settled--appears to be on a higher level of\naffection and mutual consideration than is common among us. In an Eskimo\nhome I have never heard an unpleasant word between a man and his wife,\nnever seen a child punished, nor an old person treated inconsiderately.\nYet the household affairs are carried on in an orderly way, and the good\nbehaviour of the children is remarked by practically every traveller.\n\n\"These charming qualities of the Eskimo home may be largely due to their\nequable disposition and the general fitness of their character for the\ncommunal relations; but it seems reasonable to give a portion of the\ncredit to their remarkable social organisation; for they live under\nconditions for which some of our best men are striving--conditions that\nwith our idealists are even yet merely dreams.\"\n\n\n+Religious Beliefs among the Eskimos+\n\n     From Rasmussen's _People of the Polar North_, pp. 125 and 127.\n     (1908.)\n\n\"Their religious opinions do not lead them to any sort of worship of the\nsupernatural, but consist--if they are to be formulated in a creed--of a\nlist of commandments and rules of conduct controlling their relations\nwith unknown forces hostile to man.\"\n\n\"A wise and independent thinking Eskimo, Otag the Magician, said to me\nof death: 'You ask, but I know nothing of death; I am only acquainted\nwith life. I can only say what I believe: either death is the end of\nlife, or else it is the transition into another mode of life. In neither\ncase is there anything to fear. Nevertheless I do not want to die,\nbecause I consider that it is good to live.' This calm way of envisaging\ndeath is not unusual; I have seen many pagan Eskimos go to meet certain\ndeath without a trace of fear.\"\n\n\n+Periodical Distributions to Obviate Accumulations of Wealth+\n\n     From Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_, p. 97. (Heinemann, 1908.)\n\n\"(The Eskimos) have an original means for obviating the inconveniences\narising from a personal accumulation of wealth--which would soon destroy\ntheir tribal unity. When a man has grown rich he convokes the folk of\nhis clan to a great festival, and after much eating, distributes among\nthem all his fortune. On the Yukon river Dall saw an Aleoute family\ndistributing in this way ten guns, ten full fur dresses, two hundred\nstrings of beads, numerous blankets, ten wolf furs, two hundred beavers\nand five hundred zibellines. After that they took off their festival\ndresses, and putting on old ragged furs, addressed a few words to their\nkinsfolk, saying that, though they are now poorer than any one of them,\nthey have won their friendship.[50] Like distributions of wealth appear\nto be a regular habit with the Eskimos, and to take place at a certain\nseason, after an exhibition of all that has been obtained during the\nyear. In my (Kropotkin) opinion, these distributions reveal a very old\ninstitution, contemporaneous with the first apparition of personal\nwealth; they must have been a means for re-establishing equality among\nthe members of the clan, after it had been disturbed by the enrichment\nof the few. The periodical redistribution of land and the periodical\nabandonment of all debts, which took place in historical times with so\nmany different races (Semites, Aryans, etc.), must have been a survival\nof that old custom.\"\n\n\n+The Samoyedes+\n\n     From _Icebound on the Kolguev_, p. 384, by A. Trevor-Battye.\n     (Constable, 1895.)\n\n\"Family affection among the Samoyeds is very strongly developed. It\nwould be impossible to find greater evidence of this among any people.\nAnother extremely marked character among them is family order. All\neveryday offices and occupations are carried out by a well-defined\nmethod and subdivision of labour. I never saw a single instance of\nanything approaching a family quarrel.... They are very handy sailors,\npatient and successful hunters and fishermen, and admirable workmen with\nsuch tools as they understand. No man can repair a damaged boat more\nquickly than a Samoyed, and from the roughest drift-wood (such as an\nEnglish carpenter would throw on the fire), they fashion bows, arrows,\nsleighs, spoons, drinking-cups, bullet-moulds, and a variety of articles\nof everyday use.\"\n\n\n+The Belle of Kolguev+\n\n     From _Icebound on the Kolguev_, p. 130.\n\n\"Her sister-in-law Ustynia was really, if you accept the type, a pretty\ngirl.... Her eyes were bright, and a pleasant smile played about her\nlips. When she laughed--and these people are always laughing--she\nbetrayed the most perfectly beautiful teeth it is possible to imagine.\nIndeed all these people, even old Uano, had most wonderful teeth--white,\nregular and perfectly shaped. On her fingers Ustynia wore heavy rings of\nwhite and yellow metal, and her hands, like those of all Samoyeds, were\nfaultless in shape and extraordinarily supple. If you add to this a\ndress reaching to the knees, formed of young reindeer skin, worked in\nmany stripes of white and brown, the skirt banded with scarlet cloth and\ndogskin fur, and foot and leg coverings of soft patterned skin reaching\nabove the knee--there you have Ustynia, the belle of Kolguev.\"\n\n\n+The Todas+\n\n     Quoted from _The Todas_, by W. H. Rivers (1906).\n\nThese people live on a very lofty and isolated plateau of the Nilgiri\nHills in South India; and are especially interesting to us because till\n1812 \"they were absolutely unknown to Europeans,\" and developed their\nown customs untouched by Western civilisation. \"They are a purely\npastoral people, limiting their activities almost entirely to the care\nof their buffaloes and to the complicated ritual which has grown up in\nassociation with these animals.\" (p. 6) ... They have a completely\norganised and definite system of polyandry. When a woman marries a man,\nit is understood that she becomes the wife of his brothers at the same\ntime. When a boy is married to a girl, not only are his brothers usually\nregarded as also the husbands of the girl, but any brother born later\nwill similarly be regarded as sharing his older brother's rights.\" (p.\n515.)\n\n\"The men are strong and very agile; the agility being most in evidence\nwhen they have to catch their infuriated buffaloes at the funeral\nceremonies. They stand fatigue well, and often travel great\ndistances.... In going from one part of the hills to another a Toda\nalways travels as nearly as possible in a straight line, ignoring\naltogether the influence of gravity, and mounting the steepest hills\nwith no apparent effort. In all my work with the men it seemed to me\nthey were extremely intelligent. They grasped readily the points of any\nenquiry on which I entered, and often showed a marked appreciation of\ncomplicated questions.... I can only record my impression, after several\nmonths' intercourse with the Todas, that they were just as intelligent\nas one would have found any average body of educated Europeans.... The\ncharacteristic note in their demeanour is their absolute belief in their\nown superiority over the surrounding races. They are grave and\ndignified, and yet thoroughly cheerful and well-disposed towards all.\"\n(pp. 18-23.)\n\n\n+Nudity+\n\n     THE PELEW ISLANDS: from J. G. Wood (vol. _America_, p. 447). _See_\n     Captain H. Wilson, who was wrecked there in 1783.\n\n\"The inhabitants are of a dark copper colour, well-made, tall, and\nremarkable for their stately gait. They employ the tattoo in rather a\ncurious manner, pricking the patterns thickly on their legs from the\nankles to a few inches above the knees, so that they look as if their\nlegs were darker in colour than the rest of their bodies. They are\ncleanly in their habits, bathing frequently and rubbing themselves with\ncoco-nut oil, so as to give a soft and glossy appearance to the skin....\nThe men wear no clothing, not even the king himself having the least\nvestige of raiment, the tattoo being supposed to answer the purposes of\ndress.... In spite, however, of the absence of dress, the deportment of\nthe sexes towards each other is perfectly modest. For example, the men\nand women will not bathe at the same spot, nor even go near a bathing\nplace of the opposite sex unless it be deserted.\"\n\n\n+Natives of the Amazon Region+\n\nAlfred Russell Wallace, in his _Travels on the Amazon_ (1853), speaks\nmost warmly about the aborigines of that district--both as to their\ngrace of form, their quickness of hand, and their goodnatured\ninoffensive disposition. He says (chap. xvii): \"Their figures are\ngenerally superb; and I have never felt so much pleasure in gazing at\nthe finest statue as at these living illustrations of the human form.\"\nIn his _My Life_, vol. ii, p. 288, he says: \"Their whole aspect and\nmanner were different (from the semi-civilised tribes); they walked with\nthe free step of the independent forest-dweller ... original and\nself-sustaining as the wild animals of the forest ... living their own\nlives in their own way, as they had done for countless generations\nbefore America was discovered. The true denizen of the Amazonian\nforests, like the forest itself, is unique and not to be forgotten.\"\n\n\n     From _The Putumayo, or Devil's Paradise_. By W. E. Hardenburg\n     (1912).\n\n\"The Huitotos are a well-formed race, and although small, are stout and\nstrong, with a broad chest and a prominent bust; but their limbs,\nespecially the lower, are but little developed.... That repugnant sight,\na protruding abdomen, so common among the 'whites' and half-breeds on\nthe Amazon, is very rare among these aborigines.... Notwithstanding some\ndefects it is not rare to find among these women many who are really\nbeautiful--so magnificent are their figures, and so free and graceful\ntheir movements.\" (p. 152).\n\n\"Unions are considered binding among the Huitotos, and it is very rarely\nthat serious disagreements arise between husband and wife. The women\nare naturally chaste, and it was not till the advent of the rubber\ncollectors that they began to lose this primitive virtue--so generally\nmet with among people not yet in contact with white men\" (p. 154).\n\n[N.B.--These were some of the people so villainously tortured--men,\nwomen and children--for the collection of rubber, by commercial\nscoundrels, whose atrocities were exposed by Roger Casement and others.\nE.C.]\n\n\n+Fine Figures and Features of the Dyaks+\n\n     Quotations from Beccar's _In the Forests of Borneo_, pp. 325 and\n     329. (Constable 1904.)\n\n\"On the morning of October 19, as previously arranged, Ladja, with eight\nother Dyaks, came to the fort duly equipped for the journey. Ladja was a\nhandsome young man, tall like most of his companions, slender, and\nbeautifully made. His profile was nearly regular, the nose perfectly\nstraight, but the cheek bones rather too prominent and the chin rather\npointed. His complexion was very light.\" ... \"Our Arno boatmen in\nFlorence always pole where the river is shallow, and use their poles\nexactly as the Dyaks do theirs, only they certainly cannot compare with\nthe latter in the length of the journeys thus performed with their light\ncanoes. Ours literally flew over the water handled with incomparable\ndexterity by my six young savages. There is to my mind no lighter and\nmore pleasant mode of progression, and certainly no kind of work\ndisplays so well the elegant movements and perfect proportions of these\nyoung Dyaks, who, practically unencumbered with clothing, are truly\nsplendid specimens of humanity.\"\n\n\n     From Ida Pfeiffer's book _Meine zweite Weltreise_, vol. i, p. 116.\n     (Vienna, 1856.)\n\n\"I must confess that I would gladly have journeyed longer among the free\nDayaks. I found them wonderfully honourable, gentle and modest; indeed\nin these respects I put them above any people that I have as yet become\nacquainted with. I could leave all my things about, and go away for\nhours together, and never was the least thing missing. They begged me\noccasionally for many an object they saw, but immediately gave way when\nI explained that I needed it myself. They were never over-pressing or\ntiresome. It will be said, in denial of this, that the beheading of\ncorpses and preservation of skulls does not look exactly like\ngentleness; but it must be remembered that this sad custom is chiefly\nthe result of rude and ignorant superstition. I stick to my opinion, and\nas a further proof, would cite their domestic and thoroughly patriarchal\nmode of life, their morals and manners, the love that they have for\ntheir children, and the respect their children show to them.\"\n\n\n+A Rodiya Boy+\n\nErnst Haeckel in his _Visit to Ceylon_, describes the devotion to him of\nhis Rodiya serving-boy at Belligam near Galle. The keeper of the\nrest-house there was an old man whom Haeckel, from his likeness to a\nwell-known head, called by the name of Socrates. And Haeckel continues:\n\"It really seemed as though I should be pursued by the familiar aspects\nof classical antiquity from the first moment of my arrival at my idyllic\nhome. For as Socrates led me up the steps of the open central hall of\nthe rest-house, I saw before me, with uplifted arms in an attitude of\nprayer, a beautiful naked brown figure, which could be nothing else than\nthe famous statue of the 'Youth Adoring.' How surprised I was when the\ngraceful bronze statue suddenly came to life, and dropping his arms fell\non his knees, and after raising his black eyes imploringly to mine bowed\nhis handsome face so low at my feet that his long black hair fell on the\nfloor! Socrates informed me that this boy was a Pariah, a member of the\nlowest caste, the Rodiyas, who had lost his parents at an early age. He\nwas told off to my exclusive service, and in answer to the question what\nI was to call my new body-servant, the old man informed me that his name\nwas Gamameda. Of course I immediately thought of Ganymede, for the\nfavorite of Jove himself could not have been more finely made, or have\nhad limbs more beautifully proportioned and moulded.\n\n\"Among the many beautiful figures which move in the foreground of my\nmemories of the Paradise of Ceylon, Ganymede remains one of my dearest\nfavorites. Not only did he fulfil his duties with the greatest attention\nand conscientiousness, but he developed a personal attachment and\ndevotion to me which touched me deeply. The poor boy, as a miserable\noutcast of the Rodiya caste, had been from his birth the object of the\ndeepest contempt of his fellow-men, and subjected to every sort of\nbrutality and ill-treatment. He was evidently as much surprised as\ndelighted to find me willing to be kind to him from the first.... I owe\nmany beautiful and valuable contributions to my museum to Ganymede's\nunfailing zeal and dexterity. With the keen eye, the neat hand, and the\nsupple agility of the Cinghalese youth, he could catch a fluttering moth\nor a gliding fish with equal promptitude; and his nimbleness was really\namazing when, out hunting, he climbed the tall trees like a cat, or\nscrambled through the densest jungle to recover the prize I had killed.\"\n(p. 200.)\n\n\n+Second Sight+\n\n     Native \"diviners\" in South Africa, from _The Spiritualism of the\n     Zulu_, by C. H. Bull, of Durban.\n\n\"Many years ago I was riding transport between Durban and the Umzimkulu.\nI checked my loads at Durban and found them correct with the waybill,\nbut when I reached my destination I discovered that I was one case\nshort, for which I had to pay. On my return to my farm, I mentioned the\nfact to my brother, who proposed, more in the spirit of fun than\nanything else, that we should visit a diviner, and endeavour to discover\nwhat had become of it. I consented, and together we repaired to a native\ndiviner. He immediately informed us of the object of our visit,\nalthough, so far as I can tell, it was morally impossible for him to\nhave known it through any ordinary channels, and then he went on\nspeaking as though in a dream: 'I see a waggon loaded with cases\nclimbing up the Umgwababa Hill; there has been a lot of rain and the\nroads are slippery. Half way up the hill the rains have washed a gully;\ninto this the waggon lurches, displacing a small case, which falls to\nthe ground, but the driver, who is busy urging his team up the hill,\ndoes not notice it. Now the waggon has passed out of sight, but I see a\nKaffir coming up the hill. When he reaches the spot where the case is\nlying, he stops for a few moments to examine it, and then proceeds to\nthe top of the hill, where he stands for a few moments shading his eyes\nwith his hand, as though looking beyond. Now he returns to where the\ncase is lying, and lifting it up, crosses the road, and pushing his way\nthrough some tall tambootie grass, he reaches a large indonie tree;\nunder the tree there is a stunted clump of wild bananas. He places the\ncase in the centre of the clump, and after concealing it with some of\nthe dry leaves, he goes on his way. The case is still there.'\n\n\"Though wholly incredulous of the truth of the vision, I sent two 'boys'\nto the spot indicated, and they returned bringing with them the lost\ncase, having found it exactly where the diviner said that he saw it.\"\n\n\n+The Zulus+\n\n     THE ZULUS: Quotations from General Sir W. Butler's _Naboth's\n     Vineyard_, p. 263 (given in Blyden's _African Life and Customs_, p.\n     43).\n\n\"In all the sad history of South Africa few things are sadder than the\nZulu question. Where the Zulu came (in those days), no lock or key were\nnecessary. No man who knew the Zulu--not even the white colonist, whose\nrage was largely the result of his being unable to get servile labour\nfrom him--could say that he had not found the Zulu honest, truthful,\nfaithful; that the white wife and child had not been entirely safe from\ninsult or harm at the hands of this black man; or that money and\nproperty were not immeasurably more secure in Zulu charge than in that\nof Europeans or Asiatics.\"\n\n\nFrom Blyden's _African Life and Customs_, p. 37.\n\n\"There are to-day hundreds of so-called civilised Africans who are\ncoming back to themselves. They have grasped the principles underlying\nthe European social and economic order and reject them as not equal to\ntheir own as means of making adequate provision for the normal needs of\nall members of society both present and future--from birth all through\nlife to death. They have discovered all the waste places, all the\nnakedness of the European system, both by reading and travel. The great\nwealth can no longer dazzle them, or conceal from their view the vast\nmasses of the population living under what they once supposed to be the\nideal system--who are of no earthly use to themselves or to others....\nUnder the African system of communal property and co-operative effort,\nevery member of a community has a home and a sufficiency of food and\nclothing and other necessaries of life--and for life; and his children\nafter him have the same advantages. In this system there is no workhouse\nand no necessity for such an arrangement.\"\n\n\n+Over-government+\n\n     From Wallace's _Malay Archipelago_, p. 336. (1894 edition.)\n\n\"This motley, ignorant, bloodthirsty, thievish population (Papuans,\nJavanese, Chinese, etc.), live here without the shadow of a government,\nwith no police, no courts, and no lawyers; yet they do not cut each\nother's throats; do not plunder each other day and night; do not fall\ninto the anarchy such a state of things might be supposed to lead to. It\nis very extraordinary! It puts strange thoughts into one's head about\nthe mountain-load of government under which people exist in Europe, and\nsuggests the idea that we may be over-governed. Think of the hundred\nActs of Parliament annually enacted to prevent us, the people of\nEngland, from cutting each other's throats, or from doing to our\nneighbours as we would _not_ be done by. Think of the thousands of\nlawyers and barristers whose whole lives are spent in telling us what\nthe hundred Acts of Parliament mean, and one would be led to infer that\nif Dobbo has too little law England has too much.\"\n\n\n+Society without Government+\n\n     From Morley's _Rousseau_, vol. ii, p. 227, _note_. (Eversley\n     edition, 1910.)\n\n\"Jefferson, who was American minister in France from 1784 to 1789, and\nabsorbed a great many of the ideas then afloat, writes in words that\nseem as if they were borrowed from Rousseau: 'I am convinced that those\nsocieties (as the Indians), which live without government, enjoy in\ntheir general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those\nwho live under European governments. Among the former public opinion is\nin the state of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did\nanywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of government, they have\ndivided the nation into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not\nexaggerate; this is a true picture of Europe.'\" (From Tucker's _Life of\nJefferson_, vol. i, p. 255.)\n\n\n+Security without Government+\n\nFrom _Tafilet_, p. 353. By W. B. Harris. (Blackwood, 1895.)\n\n\"The Moors have a proverb, and it is a very true one, that safety and\nsecurity can only be found in the districts where there is no\ngovernment--that is to say, where the government is a _tribal_ one.\"\n\n\n+Degradation through \"Civilisation\"+\n\n     From _The Spiritualism of the Zulu_. By C. H. Bull, of Durban.\n\n\"Thirty-two years ago, I lived for some time in a district in Natal,\nthen thickly populated with natives, still conforming to the primitive\ncustoms of their race, yet honest, manly and intelligent people, with\nvery definite ideas in regard to moral questions. After an absence of\nthirty years, just prior to my sailing for England, I again visited the\ndistrict and was amazed to observe the change which had taken place in\nthe people; their habits, characters and physique. Sordid poverty,\ndressed in mean rags or tawdry finery, suggestive of service to vice,\nhad displaced the old dignity, born of conscious physical strength and\nsymmetry of form, which once, though attired only in the trappings that\nsimple art could devise from the rough products of nature, was\ncharacteristic; whilst drunkenness, dishonesty and immorality sought\nshelter under the meagre cloaks of the religion dispensed by the\ndifferent sections of belief, established in the little iron, or wattle\nand daub churches, which everywhere disfigured the country side. The\nchange was complete and deplorable, nor were the natives unconscious of\ntheir degradation, or without regret for the passing of the old days.\"\n\n\n+Slavery+\n\n     From Waitz's _Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker_, vol. ii, p. 281.\n     (Leipzig, 1860.)\n\n\"One finds that the fate of Slaves among the ruder peoples is much\nhappier than among the civilised; indeed it seems to grow worse and\nworse in proportion to the civilisation of the ruling folk. Strange and\nincredible as at first sight this seems, the following facts establish\nit beyond doubt. And indeed it is not difficult to explain. The chief\nreason is that with the increase of _merely material culture_, Time and\nLabour-force are more and more prized, and consequently always more\nviolently and unscrupulously exploited, while on the contrary among\nprimitive people in general a lesser value is placed on these things.\"\n\n\n+The Fraud of Western Civilisation+\n\n     Extract from \"A Letter to a Chinese Gentleman,\" by Leo Tolstoy.\n     (Published in _Saturday Review_, December 1, 1906.)\n\n\"Amongst all these Western nations there unceasingly proceeds a strife\nbetween the destitute exasperated working people and the government and\nwealthy, a strife which is restrained only by coercion on the part of\ndeceived men who constitute the army; a similar strife is continually\nwaging between the different states demanding endlessly increasing\narmaments, a strife which is any moment ready to plunge into the\ngreatest catastrophes. But however dreadful this state of things may be,\nit does not constitute the essence of the calamity of the Western\nnations. Their chief and fundamental calamity is that the whole life of\nthese nations who are unable to furnish themselves with food is entirely\nbased on the necessity of procuring means of sustenance by violence and\ncunning from other nations, who like China, India, Russia and others\nstill preserve a rational agricultural life.\n\n\"Constitutions, protective tariffs, standing armies, all this together\nhas rendered the Western nations what they are--people who have\nabandoned agriculture and become unused to it, occupied in towns and\nfactories in the production of articles for the most part unnecessary,\npeople who with their armies are adapted only to every kind of violence\nand robbery. However brilliant their position may appear at first sight\nit is a desperate one, and they must inevitably perish if they do not\nchange the whole structure of their life founded as it now is on deceit\nand the plunder and pillage of the agricultural nations.\"\n\n\n     From O'Brien's _White Shadows in the South Seas_. (New York, 1919.)\n\n\"A hundred years ago there were 160,000 Marquesans in these [South Sea]\nIslands. To-day their total number does not reach 2,100.\" O'Brien\ndescribes the bad effects of Christianity on these \"savages.\" For he\nsays the so-called superstitions of these races had a great vitalising\ninfluence. Their dancing, their tattooing, their religious rites, their\nchanting and their warfare gave them a zest in life. But \"to-day all\nPolynesians from Hawaii to Tahiti are dying because of the suppression\nof the play-instinct that had its expression in most of their customs\nand occupations.\" And they are now \"nothing but joyless machines\" and\n\"tired of life.\"\n\n\n+Failure of Our Civilisation+\n\nFor a searching comparison between our social conditions and those of\nthe many savage communities visited by him--and much to the general\nadvantage of the latter--_see_ A. R. Wallace's _Malay Archipelago_ (1st\ned. 1869), pp. 456, 7 (ed. 1894). And he ends the book by saying:\n\n\"Until there is a more general recognition of this failure of our\ncivilisation--resulting mainly from our neglect to train and develop\nmore thoroughly the sympathetic feelings and moral faculties of our\nnature, and to allow them a larger share of influence in our\nlegislation, our commerce, and our whole social organisation--we shall\nnever, as regards the whole community, attain to any real or important\nsuperiority over the better class of savages. This is the lesson I have\nbeen taught by my observations of uncivilised man.\n\n\"I now bid my readers--Farewell!\"\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[50] Dall, _Alaska and its Resources_, Cambridge, U.S., 1870.\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by_\n\nUNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED\n\nWOKING AND LONDON\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENTS\n\n\nBOOKS BY EDWARD CARPENTER\n\n\nANGELS' WINGS: Essays on Art and its Relation to Life. Illustrated.\nLarge Cr. 8vo, 6s. 6d. net.      [_Fifth Edition._\n\nART OF CREATION, THE: Essays on the Self and its Powers. Cr. 8vo, 5s.\nnet.      [_Fourth Edition._\n\nCHANTS OF LABOUR: a Songbook for the People, with frontispiece and cover\nby Walter Crane. (_Reprinting._)       [_Fifth Edition._\n\nCIVILIZATION: ITS CAUSE AND CURE. Essays on Modern Science.\nCr. 8vo. Original Edition. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net, and Limp Cloth, 2s. 6d.\nnet.      [_Sixteenth Edition._\n\nNew and much enlarged Edition. Cr. 8vo. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.\n\nDAYS WITH WALT WHITMAN. Cr. 8vo, 5s. net.      [_Second Edition._\n\nTHE DRAMA OF LOVE AND DEATH: a Study of Human Evolution and\nTransfiguration. Cr. 8vo, 6s. net.      [_Second Edition._\n\nENGLAND'S IDEAL. Cr. 8vo. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net, and Limp Cloth,\n2s. 6d. net.      [_Ninth Edition._\n\nFROM ADAM'S PEAK TO ELEPHANTA: Sketches in Ceylon and India.\nLarge Cr. 8vo. (_Reprinting._)      [_Third Edition._\n\nHEALING OF NATIONS, THE. Cr, 8vo. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net. Paper,\n2s. 6d. net.      [_Sixth Edition._\n\nTHE INTERMEDIATE SEX: a Study of some Transitional Types of Men and\nWomen. Cr. 8vo, 5s. net.      [_Fourth Edition._\n\nINTERMEDIATE TYPES AMONG PRIMITIVE FOLK: a Study in Social\nEvolution. 8vo, 5s. net.      [_Second Edition._\n\nIOL\u00c4US: an Anthology of Friendship. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. net.\n[_Fourth Edition Enlarged._\n\nLOVE'S COMING OF AGE: on the Relations of the Sexes. 8vo, 4s. 6d. net.\n[_Eleventh Edition._\n\nMY DAYS AND DREAMS: being Autobiographical Notes with Portraits and\nIllustrations. Demy 8vo, 7s. 6d. net.       [_Third Edition._\n\nPAGAN AND CHRISTIAN CREEDS. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. net.\n\nTHE PROMISED LAND: a Drama of a People's Deliverance. A new and\nrevised edition of \"Moses.\" Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. net.\n\nTHE SIMPLIFICATION OF LIFE. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. net.\n\nTOWARDS DEMOCRACY. Library Edition, 6s. net.      [_Ninth Edition._\nPocket Edition, 5s. net.      [_Thirteenth Edition._\n\nTOWARDS INDUSTRIAL FREEDOM. Cr. 8vo. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net. Paper,\n2s. 6d. net.      [_Second Impression._\n\nA VISIT TO A G\u00d1ANI. Large Cr. 8vo. Half Cloth, 3s. 6d. net.\n\nPHOTOGRAVURE PORTRAIT OF EDWARD CARPENTER, with a\nfacsimile autograph. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n\nGovernment and Industry\n\nBY C. DELISLE BURNS\n\nAuthor of \"Political Ideals\"\n\n_Demy 8vo._\n\n_About 16s. net._\n\nThis is a description of the existing relations between British\ngovernment and the industrial system. The present tendencies are shown\nto indicate the formation of an organized \"economic\" community, based\nupon the State organization but distinct from it. The dominant\nconception operating in this economic community is that of public\nservice. The theory expressed in the book, however, is subordinated to a\ndescription of actual facts--the administrative treatment of labour\nconditions, unemployment, commerce and finance, which will be found\nvaluable even by those who do not agree with the theory, since the\ndescription is the only one which covers contemporary post-war\nadministration.\n\n\nKarl Marx BY ACHILLE LORIA\n\nTRANSLATED BY EDEN AND CEDAR PAUL\n\n_Cr. 8vo._\n_Limp Cloth, 2s. 6d. net._\n\n\"At the present moment when Marxianism is so prominently before the\npublic, it is useful to have a translation of this monograph, which\nmakes clear Loria's affiliation to, and difference from, the famous\nauthor of 'Kapital.'\"--_Times._\n\n\nThe Practice and Theory of Bolshevism\n\nBY BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S.\n\n_Cr. 8vo._\n6s. net._\n\nAn Account of Mr. Russell's recent visit to Russia.\n\n\"A powerful and conclusive book ... as trenchant and original as\nanything he has written.\"--_Daily News._\n\n\"There have been few more incisive and penetrating criticisms of all\nforms of Communism than Mr. Russell's candid admissions.\"--_Times._\n\n\n+Roads to Freedom+: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism\n\nBY BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S.\n\nNEW AND CHEAPER EDITION\n\n_Cr. 8vo._\n_Cloth, 5s. net_; _Limp, 3s. 6d. net_.\n\n\"A remarkable book by a remarkable man.\"--_Times._\n\n\nOur Social Heritage\n\nBy PROFESSOR GRAHAM WALLAS\n\n_Demy 8vo._\n_12s. 6d. net._\n\nThe \"Social Heritage\" discussed in this book is the whole body of\nknowledge and habit which is handed down from one human generation to\nanother by teaching and learning. Men have been for so many generations\ndependent for their existence on this heritage that they have become\nbiologically unfitted to live without it, and its conscious criticism\nand revision has become the main problem of human organization.\n\nThe chapters deal first with the socially inherited expedients used in\nindividual work and thought, and then with the expedients used in group,\nnational and international co-operation, with special reference to the\neducational problems involved and to the present conflict between\ndemocracy and vocationalism. The book ends with a discussion of the\nefficiency as means of human co-operation of the conceptions of Liberty\nand Science, and of the institutions of \"Constitutional Monarchy\" and\nthe Church. The method used throughout is the same kind of psychological\nanalysis as that used in the Author's \"Human Nature in Politics\" (1908)\nand \"The Great Society\" (1914).\n\n\nProblems of a New World\n\nBY J. A. HOBSON\n\n_Cr. 8vo._\n_7s. 6d. net._\n\nEvents of the last few years have shaken our political and economic\nsystems to their foundations. The old guarantees of order and progress\nno longer suffice. The problems of 1920 are not those of 1914. Human\nNature itself, as an operative force, has changed.\n\nThese chapters discuss the revelations and describe the new ideals that\nare struggling to get themselves realized in the new Industry, the new\nState, and the new World-Order.\n\n\nPrinciples of Revolution\n\nBY C. DELISLE BURNS\n\n_Cr. 8vo._\n_5s. net._\n\nThis is a statement of the general principles underlying modern\nprogrammes for a radical transformation of society. Revolution is taken\nto mean the method by which such a transformation may be secured; and it\nis therefore opposed to chaos or violence and contrasted with piecemeal\nreforms. The description of the ideal is given as the interpretation of\ncertain contemporary movements and not as propaganda for any political\nparty. This book, therefore, aims not at an advocacy of revolution but\nat an explanation of the grounds which lead men to desire it.\n\n\nModern English Statesmen\n\nBY G. R. STIRLING TAYLOR\n\n_Demy 8vo._\n_10s. 6d. net._\n\nIn a series of historical character studies, this book reconsiders the\nposition of modern statesmanship since the Stuart Rebellion. Taking the\naccepted facts of the latest historians, but using evidence to which\nthey rarely give its due weight, the author maintains that many of the\n\"orthodox\" opinions are not logical deductions from the data. The book\nis a charge that since the days of Lord Burghley statesmanship has too\noften degenerated into politics. It is an attempt to estimate some\ntypical public men in the light of a colder reason, which shows, for\nexample, that Oliver Cromwell was a founder of modern Plutocracy, while\nBenjamin Disraeli was the defender of Democracy.\n\n\nA Guildsman's Interpretation of History\n\nBY A. J. PENTY\n\n_Demy 8vo._\n_12s. 6d. net._\n\n\"Mr. Penty is certainly one of the most interesting of living men, and\nthis is, perhaps, the most interesting of his books. I recommend every\none to read it.\"--G. K. CHESTERTON.\n\n\nThe History of Social Development BY DR. F. M\u00dcLLER-LYER\n\nTRANSLATED BY ELIZABETH COOTE LAKE & H. A. LAKE, B.Sc.(Econ.)\n\nWITH AN INTRODUCTION BY PROFESSORS L. T. HOBHOUSE & E. J. URWICK\n\n_Demy 8vo._\n_18s. net._\n\nThis translation of Dr. F. M\u00fcller-Lyer's famous book, \"Phasen der\nKultur,\" will appeal to all who are interested in labour problems at the\npresent time. It contains a series of studies of the different economic\nphenomena of to-day, describing the gradual evolution of each from the\nearliest times, with an indication of the probable trend of future\ndevelopments. The inter-connection of the different conditions so\ndescribed is well illustrated, and each chapter ends with a brief\nsummary of its subject matter. The accounts of the various stages of\nfood production, of clothing, of housing and of the use of tools contain\nin a brief and readable form the results of the investigations of the\npast century, and Part III, \"The History of the Evolution of Labour,\"\nwill be read with especial interest.\n\n\nLONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LIMITED\nRUSKIN HOUSE, 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C.1","title":"Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure; and Other Essays","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":76104}