{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72334/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72334","id":"gutenberg_72334","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72334","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Wells, H. G. (Herbert George), 1866-1946. Mr. Belloc objects to \"The outline of history\"","Wells, H. G. (Herbert George), 1866-1946. Outline of history"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note: Italics are enclosed in _underscores_. Additional\nnotes will be found near the end of this ebook.\n\n\n\n\nMR. BELLOC STILL OBJECTS\n\n\n\n\n                               MR. BELLOC\n                             STILL OBJECTS\n                  TO MR. WELLS\u2019S \u201cOUTLINE OF HISTORY\u201d\n\n                                   BY\n                             HILAIRE BELLOC\n\n          [Illustration: ECCLESIASTICAL * SUPPLY * ASSOCIATION\n                               E * S * A\n                       PUBLISHERS AND IMPORTERS]\n\n             328\u2013330 STOCKTON ST.      SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.\n\n                                  1927\n\n\n\n\n                  Made and Printed in Great Britain at\n     _The Mayflower Press_, _Plymouth_. William Brendon & Son, Ltd.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                        PAGE\n       INTRODUCTION                                      vii\n\n    I. MR. WELLS\u2019S GENERAL GRIEVANCES                      1\n\n   II. MR. WELLS AS BIOLOGIST                             12\n\n  III. MR. WELLS\u2019S IGNORANCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH       22\n\n   IV. MY ERRORS                                          28\n\n    V. MR. WELLS SHIRKS                                   36\n\n   VI. THE GREAT ROSY DAWN                                40\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nMr. H. G. Wells brought out some time ago an _Outline of History_, the\nobject of which was to deny the Christian religion.\n\nI examined this production for the benefit of my co-religionists in the\ncolumns of certain Catholic papers. I did full justice to Mr. Wells\u2019s\ntalents as a writer, but I exposed his ill acquaintance with modern\nwork on Biology, with early Christian writing and tradition, with\nChristian doctrine itself: and, in general, his incompetence.\n\nStung by this exposure, Mr. Wells has just brought out against me a\nsmall pamphlet, under the title of _Mr. Belloc Objects to the \u201cOutline\nof History.\u201d_ It is an excited, popular, crude attack, full of personal\ninsult and brawling, and ample proof that he is hit. But it is\nsingularly weak in argument, confused in reply, and, as I shall show\nin a moment, shirks nine-tenths of the very damaging criticism which I\ndirected against his book.\n\nThat book denies a creative God. There is no God, the Father\nAlmighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Incarnation is a myth; the\nResurrection a falsehood; the Eucharist a mummery.\n\nProbably Mr. Wells is thus infuriated, not only at being exposed, but\nalso because he cannot understand how such an assault upon religious\ntruth should possibly provoke resentment; yet I think I can explain the\nthing to him by a parable.\n\nSupposing (it is mere hypothesis) that a man were to attack the Royal\nFamily, and His Majesty in particular, jeering at the functions which\nmonarchy performs for the State and holding up the King of England to\ncontempt.\n\nMr. Wells would be the first to admit that a man so misbehaving\nhimself would receive very hard knocks indeed. He would be called\nseverely to account on all sides. It would be said that his spite arose\nfrom some personal grievance against the Great; that he thus relieved\nhis soreness at feeling himself socially neglected, and so on. He might\njustify himself as a martyr in the cause of political duty, but he\nwould be a fool if he did not look out for squalls.\n\nNow the great and fundamental truths of the Christian religion are\nstill sacred to quite a number of Mr. Wells\u2019s fellow-citizens,\nincluding myself. Our attachment to them is at least as strong as\nthe loyalty of the average Englishman to the Royal Family; and if he\nattacks them by way of _History_--making out that _History_ disproves\nthe Christian religion--then it is not, as he seems to imagine, an\noutrage; but, on the contrary, a natural and inevitable consequence\nthat he should be taken to task, and his competence for writing history\nseverely examined.\n\nI propose to reply in this pamphlet, not because I have any intention\nof being drawn into a slanging match with a writer who is my superior\nin this form of art, but because no challenge to Truth must be allowed\nto pass unheeded. So far from imitating Mr. Wells, I shall take care\nwhen I publish--as I do in a few weeks--my whole book, entitled _A\nCompanion to Mr. Wells\u2019s \u201cOutline of History,\u201d_ to go carefully over\nmy text and to cut out anything which could be construed into mere\npersonal attack; though I shall preserve, of course, and even add\nto, the due and often severe criticism which Mr. Wells deserves for\npretending to teach others on the basis of his own most insufficient\ninstruction.\n\nI should, no doubt, greatly increase the circulation of this little\npamphlet of mine were I to season it with those offensive references\nto personal habits and appearance which are now fashionable between\ncontemporaries. But I do not aim at any large circulation, beyond that\nreasonable amount which will secure my being heard by the people whose\nattention is worth having.\n\nInvective such as Mr. Wells substitutes for argument is wholly\nirrelevant. When you are discussing the competence of a man to write\nhistory, it is utterly meaningless to throw about the jeers of the\ngutter on his dress, accent or any other private detail concerning him.\nIf you discover a man pretending to write about Roman antiquity and yet\nwholly blind to the effect of Latin literature, you rightly point out\nhis ignorance. But it is not to the purpose to accuse him of having a\nround face or a thin voice. Indeed, were invective my object (which it\nmost certainly is not), I should rather have answered in verse as being\nthe more incisive and enduring form.\n\nIf it be a test of literary victory over an opponent to make him foam\nat the mouth, then I have won hands down; but I do not regard Mr. Wells\nas my opponent, nor am I seeking any victory. I am simply taking a book\nwhich proposes to destroy the Faith of Christian men by the recital of\npretended history, and showing that the history is bad. While praising\nmany qualities in the book, I point out with chapter and verse that the\nhistory is uninformed. That is my point and my only point.\n\nNow that I have made it, I hope, quite clear that I am neither\ninterested in Mr. Wells\u2019s personalities nor intend to go one better\nupon them, but to deal strictly with things capable of argument and\nintelligent examination, let us cut the cackle and come to the horses.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. Wells\u2019s pamphlet against me, to which I am here replying, is a\nweb of six elements. These are not put in any regular order, and the\nauthor himself would probably not be capable of analysing them; but\na competent critic has no difficulty in separating them one from the\nother.\n\nThey are:--\n\n_First_: A number of shrill grievances on general grounds. For\ninstance, that though I have praised him highly I have not praised him\nhighly enough; that where I had to blame him I have used adjectives\nupon his work such as \u201cconfused,\u201d \u201cignorant,\u201d which were not warranted;\nthat in general he is an ill-used fellow, and is moved to complain most\nbitterly.\n\n_Secondly_: He violently (and this is the main gist of all his\npamphlet) assaults me for pointing out that his statement of Darwinian\nNatural Selection as the chief agent of evolution is antiquated\nstuff, exploded, and proves him quite unacquainted with modern work.\nHere he jeers at me as putting on a pose of special learning, and\n_challenges me to quote any modern authorities substantiating my\ncriticism_. He calls my argument fantastic, a thing made up out of my\nown head, without any authority from competent biologists. He denies\nthe existence of any such group of modern men of science opposed to\nDarwinian Natural Selection. It is an amazing thing that his ignorance\nshould reach such a level as that, but it does. And it is there I am\ngoing to hammer him.\n\n_Thirdly_: There runs all through the little pamphlet, and still more\nthrough the book itself, a startling ignorance upon the Catholic\nChurch, and in particular the idea that the Church is opposed to\nscientific work, even such elementary science as Mr. Wells attempts to\nexpound.\n\n_Fourthly_: He complains that I have in certain specific points misread\nhis meaning, misstated his conclusions or affirmations, and made errors\nmyself in attempting to correct his. He brings, it is true, no more\nthan three specific allegations; three out of a total of I know not\nhow many score, in a body of work which catches him up and exposes him\nover and over again. Nevertheless, such as they are, being specific\nallegations, however few, they must in justice be met; and I will here\nmeet them.\n\n_Fifthly_: (and most significant): There is the embarrassed silence of\nMr. Wells\u2019s pamphlet: his inability to meet nine-tenths of the points I\nhave brought against him, and his discreet shirking all mention of them.\n\n_Sixthly_: The book ends with Mr. Wells\u2019s usual glorious vision of a\nglorious Millennium contrasted with the sad blindness of Catholics in\ngeneral, and myself in particular, to this approaching Seventh Monarchy.\n\nI will deal with these six matters which build up Mr. Wells\u2019s pamphlet,\ntaking them in the order I have given.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nMR. WELLS\u2019S GENERAL GRIEVANCES\n\n\nI cannot pretend in so short a pamphlet as this to deal with all the\nseparate lamentations with which Mr. Wells has filled the air. But I\ncan state the principal of them, and try to make him understand how\nwrong-headed he is in his objections.\n\nOf these general points, the first and, perhaps, most important is\nthat he was refused a right of reply. On page v of his pamphlet he\ndistinctly insinuates that I was afraid of hearing his reply, and had\nit suppressed. For he says that the Editor of the paper in which my\narticles appeared would not give him his opportunity, and that he so\nrefused \u201cafter various consultations with Mr. Belloc.\u201d\n\nAs to the space which was offered, and the exceptional facilities\nwhich, I understand, were granted to this angry man, the Editor must,\nof course, speak for himself, and has, I believe, done so. But as to\nthe part which I took, it can be stated very simply. I was told by\nthe Editor (who had asked to see me on the matter) that Mr. Wells\ndesired to reply in the same columns in which he had been criticised.\nI was asked what my attitude was in the matter, and I affirmed in the\nstrongest fashion (to which the Editor will bear witness) my belief\nthat the fullest right of reply should always be given to anyone\ncriticised on matters of fact or judgment. The interview did not last\nten minutes, but, to give a record of my attitude, I wrote a strong and\nclear letter to the same effect. So far as I am concerned I asked for\nnothing better than a reply, and I believe the Editor offered it.\n\nOf two things, one, either Mr. Wells knew my attitude, in which case\nhis insinuation is inexcusable, or he did not, in which case it was\nonly rash; but at any rate he is, in this first grievance of his, quite\nwrong. I particularly wanted him to have every opportunity for reply.\nNothing could suit me better.\n\nNext he complains that I have not given him sufficient praise, or, at\nany rate, not praised him as continuously, highly and enthusiastically\nas I ought to have done. He complains that I only give him \u201cslow\u201d and\n\u201cformal compliments\u201d (page 2) and \u201cpatronising praise\u201d (page 5).\n\nHe is wounded because I accuse him of violent antagonism to the\nCatholic Church (page 1) (an accusation which he denies very earnestly).\n\nHe indignantly repudiates any bias against the gentry in history--which\nsocial class I ask him to revere.\n\nLastly, he accuses me of using such terms about many passages in the\nHistory as \u201cignorant,\u201d \u201cchildish,\u201d \u201cconfused.\u201d\n\nI am afraid it is necessary before touching on these grievances to\nexplain to Mr. Wells what criticism is, for it is clear that he has\nnever considered the nature of that literary function.\n\nWhen you criticise the writing of a man who deals with definite facts\nand the conclusions to be drawn from them, it is your business to\npraise what is praiseworthy in his effort, and to condemn what is\ninsufficient, false or bad.\n\nYou do not praise (if you are a serious critic) simply as a sort of sop\nor counterbalance to blame; you praise because you find things worthy\nof praise--and you blame where you find things worthy of blame.\n\nThere was nothing oily or patronising, nor even adventitious and\nartificial in the praise which I saw fit to offer. It was not vague,\nit was very definite, and, I think, just. Moreover, it was very strong\npraise, of which any writer might be proud at the hands of a colleague.\nI praised Mr. Wells\u2019s lucidity and economy of manner, his sense of\nproportion, and, above all, his most remarkable talent for presenting\na vivid picture to the reader. In this my words were, \u201cNone of our\ncontemporaries possesses it\u201d (the gift of lucid and vivid description)\n\u201cin anything like the same degree.\u201d In other words, I said that he\npossessed a talent of the most important literary kind, which any\nwriter would envy, and that he possessed it in a degree which made him\nsuperior to any contemporary.\n\nI also said that he was conspicuously sincere, that he wrote very\nclearly, with an \u201cexcellent economy in the use of words,\u201d and was\nunreserved in my hearty appreciation of his accuracy in details of\nreference, such as dates, spelling of names, etc.\n\nI went on to say how strongly he felt the importance of history to\nmankind, though it is true that I qualified this by saying that by\nmankind he meant the only sort of mankind he knew. I said of his\nhonesty of purpose, \u201cthat it was a quality apparent in every line of\nthe work.\u201d\n\nReally, if that sort of thing is \u201coiliness,\u201d Mr. Wells must be\nvery difficult to please! It may be \u201cslow\u201d; it is not a torrent of\nundiscriminating adulation; it is mixed with justified blame. But it is\nsuch a catalogue of remarkable literary powers as I would not make for\nanother writer.\n\nI did much more than this. I specifically praised whole portions of the\nbook as being quite excellent, notably his handling of the story of\nlanguage, and the pr\u00e9cis on many sections of history. I have no space\nhere to give a list of the passages in which I compliment him; but\nthey are numerous, as any one of my readers will see when my book (_A\nCompanion to Mr. Wells\u2019s \u201cOutline\u201d_) shall appear.\n\nBut he is not satisfied; and I am afraid the truth must be that these\nrecent large, popular circulations of his have gone to his head, and\nnow make him think himself much more talented than he is.\n\nNext he has a grievance which I have no doubt is quite sincere in his\nown mind, but which any impartial observer, I think, would smile at. I\nhave said that he acts with violent antagonism to the Catholic Church,\nand I have called that his motive. That it is his motive Mr. Wells\n\u201cearnestly denies.\u201d\n\nWell, the whole book is written quite clearly round the object of\nconvincing the reader, by so-called evidence, rather than reasoned\nargument, that there is no design in nature, and therefore no\nall-powerful creative God as the Author of nature; therefore, again, no\nrevelation of such a God to men, therefore, naturally, no question of\nthe Incarnation in Jesus Christ. The Atonement is man-made nonsense:\nThe Fall of Man never happened, the Resurrection is a foolish story,\nand the Eucharist a make-believe.\n\nNow what Body is it which maintains in their entirety the doctrines\nthus attacked? Can anyone deny that it is the Catholic Church? Many of\nthem have been held by other Bodies schismatical or heretical to it,\nand therefore the doctrines are often alluded to as those not of the\nCatholic Church, but of a vague entity, impossible to define, called\n\u201cChristianity.\u201d Nevertheless, we all know that the denial to-day of\nthose doctrines does not provoke determined resistance in any large\norganised Body outside the Catholic Church.\n\nApart from this, there are expressions of contempt which quite clearly\nshow the rabidness of the author\u2019s reaction against the Creed. There\nis no doubt at all that the Church makes him \u201csee red\u201d--as she does so\nmany others.\n\nHe says he is not conscious of any such motive in attacking all the\nprime dogmas of the Christian Faith.\n\nWell, I will give him a parallel. Suppose a foreigner were to write\nan Outline of Nineteenth Century History, and to say in it that\nIslanders were always rascals, that the love of sport and games was\ndegrading--and particularly vicious that of football and cricket--that\nthe English language was an offensive vehicle of thought and had\nproduced nothing worthy; that sea-power was a myth, and that Nelson in\nparticular was a bungler at handling ships; that the administration\nof India was a failure and a crime; and that the creation of large\nOverseas Colonies from the Mother Country was a fatuous experiment.\n\nShould we not say that the gentleman had some bias against England?\n\nWere he to tell us that he was not conscious of such a motive, we\nshould answer, \u201cVery well, then, you aren\u2019t--since you say so. But the\nmotive is certainly there, and your case is the most extraordinary case\nof the subconscious ever presented to a bewildered onlooker.\u201d\n\nNext, Mr. Wells objects most emphatically that I have done him the\ngrievous wrong of calling him a patriot.\n\nI am quite willing to withdraw the words, to admit my blunder, and to\napologise to Mr. Wells for having made it. Every man is the judge of\nhis own thoughts, and if he assures me that he hates his country, or is\neven indifferent to its fate, I will readily accept the statement. I\nwill substitute in my book for the word \u201cpatriot\u201d the word \u201cnational,\u201d\nmy only point being that Mr. Wells is highly local in his outlook. I\nwas careful to say that the patriotic (or national) motive was, in my\nopinion, an advantage to the historian; but that its great danger was\nlimitation, and that in the particular case of Mr. Wells the limitation\nwas so narrow as to be disastrous to a general view of Europe: making\nhim unable to understand anything that was not of his own particular\nsuburban world.\n\nHe is wounded because I pointed out his odd reaction against the idea\nof a gentleman, and his dislike of the gentry, and says that I bid him\n\u201crevere\u201d them. I never asked him to do anything so silly as to revere\nthe gentry. I am sure I do not revere them myself. What I did say was\nthat it weakened an historian and pretty well put him out of court when\nhe wrote, not with balanced judgment, but negatively, out of hatred;\nand that piece of criticism I must maintain.\n\nAs for his attitude towards the type called \u201ca gentleman\u201d in history,\nand in contemporary life, it would be easy to give examples out of\nother books from the same pen. But I am rigidly confining myself to\n_this_ book--the _Outline of History_--and I submit that right through\nthis work you see this strong dislike appearing. It appears in his\ntreatment of the type, Roman, French or English, ancient, medi\u00e6val\nor modern. To take one instance out of a hundred, his sneer at the\nlate Lord Salisbury in the pamphlet against me is characteristic. He\nsuggests that this great man and considerable scientist was incompetent\nto discuss a simple question in biology, and had to be coached for the\npurpose, and badly coached. All our generation is a witness to the\ngreat talent of Lord Salisbury and to the range of his learning, and\nsince he was no man\u2019s enemy, and certainly never can have done any\nharm, direct or indirect, to Mr. Wells, I can only suggest that the\nword \u201cLord\u201d was sufficient to throw Mr. Wells off his balance.\n\nNow for the condemnatory words to which he objects,--presumably\non account of their force--words which I have, indeed, used in\nconnection with his work, and shall certainly use again: such words\nas \u201cignorance,\u201d \u201cblunders,\u201d \u201cchildish,\u201d \u201cunscientific,\u201d etc. I see\nI must again explain to Mr. Wells an obvious principle in criticism\nwhich he fails to grasp. A word is not out of place in criticism unless\nit is either irrelevant or false in statement or in degree. The mere\nstrength of a word does not put it out of court. On the contrary, if\nthe strength of the word is exactly consonant to the degree of error\nnoted the criticism is more just than if a milder word had been used.\nTo say that a man who poisons his mother in order to obtain her fortune\nis \u201creprehensible\u201d is bad criticism. To call him an \u201cinhuman criminal\u201d\nis sound criticism.\n\n_Irrelevant_ condemnatory words are very properly objected to by their\nvictims. But _relevant_ condemnatory words are not only admissible, but\njust and even necessary.\n\nI must not fill the whole of this little reply of mine with a mass of\nquotation illustrating the justice of the words I have used, but I can\ngive a few examples which are conclusive, and which the reader has only\nto hear to be convinced.\n\nAs to \u201cignorance.\u201d This is a word exactly applicable to point after\npoint in the _Outline_ which I have thoroughly exposed. For instance,\nit is ignorance not to appreciate the overwhelming effect of Latin\nliterature upon all our civilisation. It is not mere omission which\nhas left out this capital factor from Mr. Wells\u2019s strange idea of Rome;\nit is, and could only be, an insufficient knowledge of what that factor\nwas. If a schoolboy, writing an outline of the Battle of Waterloo,\nleave out all mention of Bl\u00fccher, that is not a mere omission, it is\nignorance.\n\nThere is an example of ignorance on a very wide general point. Next let\nme give an example of a highly particular point. It is really startling\nin its effect.\n\nMr. Wells nourishes the idea that the technical name for the\nIncarnation is the Immaculate Conception!\n\nIt is perfectly legitimate to say that the man of average education is\nnot bound to be familiar with technical terms in a special department,\nsuch as that of religious terminology; but when he sets out to discuss\nthat particular department, he must at least have the alphabet of it.\nHad he never mentioned the Immaculate Conception at all, the accusation\nwould not lie: as he has foolishly blundered into mentioning it, the\naccusation does lie. A Frenchman who has never been to England cannot\nbe called ignorant because he is unfamiliar with the streets of London.\nBut what of a Frenchman who writes a guide to London and mixes up\nVictoria Station with Buckingham Palace?\n\nBut by far the most striking example of ignorance in his work, an\nexample upon so astonishing a scale that one could hardly believe it\neven of popular \u201cscientific\u201d stuff, is to be found in Mr. Wells\u2019s\ncomplete ignorance of the modern destructive criticism of Darwinian\nNatural Selection. He not only (as we shall see in a moment) has never\nheard of this European, English and American work--he actually denies\nits existence and imagines I have made it up!\n\nAgain, I have used the word \u201cchildish\u201d of his attitude on more than one\noccasion.\n\nIs the word \u201cchildish\u201d too strong? I will give examples. In his fury\nagainst me he suggests that I cannot \u201ccount beyond zero,\u201d and he\nadmits, with a sneer, that I perhaps understand the meaning of the word\n\u201cstrata.\u201d\n\nHe tries to make capital of my giving the name of the very eminent\nanthropologist, E. Boule, without putting \u201cMonsieur\u201d before it, and\nsays that I \u201celevate Monsieur Boule to the eminence of \u2018Boule.\u2019\u201d That\nis childish. All the world cites eminent men by their unsupported\nname. It is a sign of honour. For instance, that great authority, Sir\nArthur Keith (whom Mr. Wells sets up to have read and _followed_), says\n\u201cBoule.\u201d Didn\u2019t Mr. Wells know that?\n\nHe says that he uses the term \u201cRoman\u201d Catholic because it is the\nonly one he knows with which to distinguish between the many kinds\nof Catholics. Whereas (and everybody knows it, including Mr. Wells\nin his more sober moments) the term is only used either because it\nis the legal and traditional word of English Protestantism, or, much\nmore legitimately, to distinguish between us of the world-wide Roman\nCommunion and those sincere men (many of whom I am proud to count my\nfriends) who emphasise Catholic doctrine in the English Church and\ncall themselves \u201cAnglo-Catholics.\u201d This wild protest, that there are\nany number of other Catholics--Scotto-Catholics, Americano-Catholics,\nMorisco-Catholics, Indo-Catholics, Mongolo-Catholics--is frankly\nridiculous, and ridiculous after a fashion which it is legitimate to\ncall \u201cchildish\u201d: the mere explosion of a man in a passion.\n\nYet another example. Finding me to have overlooked a tiny misprint\n(\u201cai\u201d for \u201cia\u201d) in the printing of a proper name, he writes a whole\npage about it.\n\nThe proper adjective for absurdities of that kind is the adjective\n\u201cchildish.\u201d I could give any number of other examples, but I think\nthese are quite enough.\n\nIn point of fact, I only use the word \u201cchildish\u201d rarely--I do not\nknow how often in my whole book, but at a guess I should say not more\nthan three times. But each time I am sure that it is well deserved.\nHowever, if he prefer a more dignified adjective, such as \u201cimmature\u201d or\n\u201cunstable\u201d or \u201cpuerile,\u201d or any other, I am quite willing to meet him,\nso long as he allows me to say that he only too often in his violence\ndoes write things which make him ridiculous from their lack of poise.\n\nAnd what of the adjective \u201cconfused\u201d or (for I am afraid I allowed\nmyself that licence) \u201cmuddle-headed\u201d? Well, I can give examples of\nthat innumerable. For instance, he cannot conceive that I should call\nhim unscientific, seeing that he was one of Huxley\u2019s students. What\non earth has that got to do with my accusation? If a man should call\nme a very poor Latin scholar (which I am--but then I do not write\npopular manuals on Latin poetry), would it be any reply to tell him\nthat I had been as a boy at a school of which Cardinal Newman was the\nhead, or as a young man that I had been at Balliol; or that among my\nintimate acquaintances whom I listen to fascinated upon classical\nthemes were some of the greatest scholars of my time? Whether Mr. Wells\nis a scientific man or not must be decided, not by his having attended\nclasses under Huxley, but by the use he has made of his reading; and it\nis easy to prove that that use has been deplorable.\n\nMr. Wells is unscientific because he does not survey the whole of\nevidence upon a point, and weigh it, and especially because he is\nperpetually putting forward hypothesis as fact--which may be called the\nvery criterion of an unscientific temper; because he introduces mere\nfiction as an illustration of supposed fact (e.g. the nonsense about\nhuman sacrifice at Stonehenge) and the material for a magazine shocker\nas though it were history.\n\nIt is quite unscientific to tell people that a point highly debated and\nnot yet concluded ranks as ascertained scientific fact.\n\nIt is quite unscientific, in talking of early Christian doctrine,\nto leave out tradition; still more is it unscientific to work on it\nwithout any knowledge of the sub-Apostolic period. It is unscientific\nin the highest degree to leave out an elementary mathematical argument\nas though it were mere juggling with figures, and to play to the\ngallery by saying that your critic has got some wonderful system of\nfigures or other which nobody can follow.\n\nThe words \u201cscience\u201d and \u201cscientific\u201d do not imply a smattering of\nbiology or geology; still less do they imply mere popular materialism.\nThey imply real knowledge, finally accepted after full enquiry upon\ncomplete evidence; and that is why there is nothing less scientific in\nthe world than this so-called popular \u201cscience,\u201d which is perpetually\nputting forward exploded guesses of the last century as ascertained\nfacts.\n\nAs for muddle-headedness, what can be more muddle-headed than mixing up\nthe general theory of evolution with the particular (and now moribund)\nmaterialist theory of Natural Selection? And yet that is what Mr. Wells\nis perpetually doing!\n\nIt is true that a great many other people do it too, but that is no\nexcuse. The whole of his argument on pages 18, 19 and 20 is precisely\nof that kind. It would be incredible to me that any man could get\nconfused between two such completely separate ideas had I not most\nwearisome and repeated experience of it--and here is Mr. Wells\nrepeating it again!\n\nThe general theory of transformism (which itself is now subjected to a\nvery heavy and increasing modern attack) may be compared to saying that\na man travelled from London to Birmingham. But the theory of Natural\nSelection may be compared to saying that he travelled by motor-car and\nnot by railway.\n\nNow suppose a man on trial for his life for a murder which had taken\nplace not on the railway, but by the roadside between the two towns.\nThe whole issue turns upon whether the prisoner had travelled by\nmotor-car or by railway. What should we say of Counsel for the Defence\nwho confused these two issues and thought that the prosecution was\nconcerned merely with the man\u2019s going from one town to the other, and\nnot with the road he travelled? I do not know whether the judge would\nstop him or no, but I know that Counsel for the Crown would walk round\nhim. He would say, \u201cThe issue is not whether the man went from London\nto Birmingham; we grant that. The point is whether he went by motor-car\nor by railway.\u201d The only issue in the controversy, which Mr. Wells has\nboth misunderstood and rashly engaged in, is upon the _agency_ of\nEvolution, not upon Evolution itself. Yet he has confused the two!\n\nAnother example of bad muddle-headedness is his mixing up the\nCatholic use of relics and the Catholic use of sacred images with the\nunwarranted illustration of the unknown prehistoric past, and the\nunwarranted basing of a detailed conclusion upon the insufficient\nevidence of a few bones.\n\nI say in my criticism of Mr. Wells, and I say quite rightly, that to\nput forward a picture of an imaginary being called \u201cEoanthropus,\u201d\ngiving him a particular weapon and gait and gesture, and an expression\n(which, as I have said, made him very like one of my acquaintance),\nwas utterly unwarranted upon the exceedingly doubtful evidence of\nthe fragments called \u201cThe Piltdown skull.\u201d Sacred images in Catholic\nuse are not--and surely everybody ought to know that--attempts at\nreconstruction, still less are they fakes to try and get people to\nbelieve that, for instance, an Archangel has goose wings and curly\nhair. They are symbols; are powerful and useful aids to devotion, not\nreconstructions.\n\nNor are relics in any way parallel to fossil evidences. We venerate a\nrelic of St. Agnes (such as I am glad to say I have in my house), both\nbecause it is a striking memorial of that very holy witness to the\nFaith, who gave up her life for it, and because (what I will not debate\nhere) we believe that the sanctity of the person can upon occasion give\nvirtue and power to such things. But we do not say, \u201cIn case you do\nnot believe St. Agnes ever existed, here is a fragment of her bone.\u201d\nTo mix up two things so entirely different is muddle-headedness turned\nglorious.\n\nI could add not only further examples justifying the terms I have used,\nbut a great many other terms equally justified. I must leave it to the\nampler space of my book, _The Companion_ to his work, which Mr. Wells\nwill have the pleasure of seeing before him in a very few weeks.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nMR. WELLS AS BIOLOGIST\n\n\nI come now to what is the pith of Mr. Wells\u2019s whole pamphlet. It is\nevidently the matter upon which he is most pained; it is also the\nmatter on which he has most woefully exposed his lack of modern reading.\n\nThrough page after page--thirteen whole pages--he slangs and bangs\naway at me--because I have exposed his ignorance of modern work upon\nDarwinism.\n\nThere are in this furious attack two quite distinct points: first, his\naccusation that I pose as being a man having special learning, with\nEuropean reputation in such affairs (very silly nonsense!); secondly,\nhis treatment of the arguments which I have put before my readers\nagainst the old and exploded theory of Darwinian Natural Selection,\nupon which theory, remember, all these popular materialists still\ndesperately rely in their denial of a Creative God and of Design in the\nuniverse.\n\nAs to the first point: there can be no question of my having put on\nairs of special knowledge in any of these affairs. Not only have I\nnot pretended to any special knowledge on geology or pre-history, or\nbiology: I have not even pretended to special knowledge on matters\nwhere I have a good deal of reading in modern and medi\u00e6val history.\nWhen I took up the atheist challenge presented by Mr. Wells\u2019s book,\nI did so as a man of quite ordinary education, because it was amply\nevident on a first summary reading of it that the writer was not a\nman of even average education. I pretend to no more than that working\nacquaintance with contemporary thought which is common to thousands\nof my kind, and I think it the more shame to Mr. Wells that with no\nexpert training I can make hay of his pretensions. Any man of average\neducation, reading and travel could have done the same.\n\nSuppose somebody were to write a little popular manual on chemistry\nwith the object of showing that there is no God, and were to say of the\nAtom that it had existed from all eternity, because it had no lesser\nparts, but was eternally simple and indivisible. The man of ordinary\neducation would at once reply: \u201cHave you never heard of the Electron?\u201d\nHe would be justified in putting it much more strongly, and in saying,\n\u201cIs it conceivable that you are so hopelessly out of date that you have\nnever heard of the Electron and of the modern theory of the Atom?\u201d\n\nThis does not mean that the person asking this most legitimate and\nastonished question would be posing as an expert in chemistry; it would\nsimply mean that in ordinary conversation with his fellows he was\nabreast of his time. Any of us whatsoever, even if he read no more than\nnewspaper articles, would have a right to say, \u201cMy good fellow, you are\nout of court with your absurd old-fashioned simple Atom.\u201d\n\nNow suppose the person whom he had thus most justly criticised were to\nlose his temper and say, \u201cYou are making up all this about electrons\nout of your own head! You do not quote a single modern authority by\nname in favour of this new-fangled theory of yours about electrons! The\nreason you do not quote any name or authority is that you can\u2019t! There\nare no such names!\u201d Would he not have delivered himself into the hands\nof his opponent?\n\nThat is precisely what Mr. Wells has done. He has shown himself utterly\nignorant of all modern work in his own department, and he must not cry\nout too loud at the consequences of his rashness.\n\nWhy on earth Mr. Wells challenged me to give names opposed to the old\nDarwinian position I cannot conceive. It was a tactical blunder, so\nenormous that I can make nothing of it, save on the supposition that\nhe, being a sincere man, does honestly believe no modern destructive\ncriticism of Natural Selection--let alone of Transformism--to be in\nexistence.\n\nSo much for my pose of great learning. I pose to about as much learning\nin the matter as anyone among thousands of my own sort who by current\nreading keep abreast of the mere elements of modern thought.\n\nNow let us turn to the main point.\n\nSo there has been no destructive criticism of the old Darwinian\nhypothesis? So there are no names to be quoted against the particular\ndistinctively Darwinian invention of Natural Selection? Indeed!\n\nLet us see.\n\nThere is a certain Professor Bateson, who has left on record the\nfollowing judgment:--\n\n    \u201cWe\u201d (biologists in general) \u201chave come to the conviction that the\n    principle of Natural Selection cannot have been the chief factor in\n    determining species....\u201d\n\nAnd who is this Professor Bateson, Mr. Wells will ask (perhaps with\nsome contempt)?\n\nWell, he was the President of the British Association when it met in\nMelbourne in 1914, and the sentence I have just quoted dates from that\nyear.\n\nNow let us turn to something totally different. I give it, not in\nGerman, which I cannot read, but in what I believe to be an adequate\ntranslation:--\n\n    \u201cNatural Selection never explains at all the specifications of the\n    animal and vegetable forms that are actually found....\u201d\n\nAnd who is the unknown fellow I have got hold of here? Driesch: and\nhis conclusion is much older than that which we have from Professor\nBateson. Here, again, from the same insignificant little fellow, we\nhave this--thirty whole years ago:--\n\n    \u201cFor men of clear intellect Darwinism has long been dead....\u201d\n\n\u201cOh!\u201d I can hear Mr. Wells saying, \u201cbut who is this Driesch?\u201d Well, he\nstands among the greatest of the German biologists to all educated\nmen. But Mr. Wells has never heard of him.\n\nThere is yet another German who put it more strongly still, for he\nactually gave a title to his book which is, being interpreted, _The\nDeath-bed of Darwinism_. And who was he? He was only a person called\nDennert.\n\nHere Mr. Wells will, I am sure, protest and say, \u201cOh, this Dennert you\ntell me about is surely extreme.\u201d I am rather inclined to agree. But\nthat is not the point. He wanted modern authorities, and I am giving\nhim a few. Mr. Wells had never heard of Dennert.\n\nLet us turn to Dwight:--\n\n    \u201cWe have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many\n    scientific men are all agreed that there is _no part_ (my italics)\n    of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that\n    as a whole the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the\n    ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to\n    be accepted as a fundamental fact....\u201d\n\nWho is this fellow Dwight? cries Mr. Wells. Whoever heard of him? I do\nnot know whether Mr. Wells has ever heard of him, but he wrote in the\nyear 1918. And he happened to hold the position of Professor of Anatomy\nat Harvard University.\n\nAt it again! In the year 1919 there was published by a certain\nProfessor Morgan (who, very rightly, is a great admirer of Darwin as\nthe founder of popular modern interest in evolution):--\n\n    \u201cSelection does _not_ (my italics) bring about transgressive\n    variation in a general population.\u201d\n\nIndeed, Professor Morgan\u2019s whole book, and one might say his whole\nwork, is a moderate but sufficient destruction of the old orthodox\nDarwinian stuff. Mr. Wells is now becoming restive. \u201cWho\u2019s this chap\nMorgan? I haven\u2019t heard of him. He\u2019s a nobody?\u201d Well, I am no student.\nI am only a general reader--but I should imagine that Professor Morgan\nwas somebody, for he is the Professor of Experimental Zoology in the\nUniversity of Columbia.\n\nShall I go on among these authorities whom Mr. Wells assures us don\u2019t\nexist? We have Le Dantec, with his whole crushing book of 1909. Le\nDantec is only a Frenchman, it is true, but, after all, he was at the\ntime the newly-appointed Professor of General Biology at the University\nof Paris giving his lectures at the Sorbonne.\n\nI might go right back to N\u00e4geli, of whom certainly Mr. Wells has heard,\nfor his work dates from some years before 1893--the date when Mr. Wells\nseems to have stopped making notes in class. But perhaps Mr. Wells\nwould like the actual words of that authority--which again I quote\n(from a translation, because I cannot read German):--\n\n    \u201cAnimals and plants would have developed much as they did even had\n    no struggle for existence taken place....\u201d\n\nWould Mr. Wells like to hear Korchinsky? It will be news for him:--\n\n    \u201cSelection is in no way favourable to the origin of new forms.\u201d\n\nAnd again, from the same authority:--\n\n    \u201cThe struggle for existence, and the selection that goes with it,\n    restricts the appearance of new forms, and is in no way favourable\n    to the production of these forms. It is an inimical factor in\n    evolution.\u201d\n\nKorchinsky may sound in Mr. Wells\u2019s ears an outlandish name, but I do\nassure him the authority is not to be denied.\n\nOr would he like Cope, as long ago as 1894? He at least, I believe (I\nam only quoting from the books of others), was pretty definite upon the\nimpossibility of the rudimentary forms having survival values. Or,\nshall we have Delage--yet another Continental name, and a Professor in\nthese subjects?--\n\n    \u201cOn the question of knowing whether Natural Selection can engender\n    new specific forms, it seems clear to-day that it cannot.\u201d\n\nThat is straightforward; that is not of yesterday; that is as old as\n1903.\n\nDo let me fire one more shot at Mr. Wells--it is such fun!\n\nI take hotch-potch from a page printed a whole nineteen years ago, this\nfurther set of names out of a much larger number there given:--\n\n    \u201cVon Baer, Hartmann, Packard, Jeckel, Haberlandt, Goette, von\n    Sachs, Kassowitz, Eimer.\u201d\n\nI quote not my own list (for I am quite incompetent here), but the\nwords of a first-class authority who draws up this list, including many\nother names, and ends:--\n\n    \u201cPerhaps these names mean little to the general reader\u201d (Mr.\n    Wells being here the general reader). \u201cLet me translate them\n    into the Professors of Zoology, of Botany, of Paleontology, and\n    of Pathology, in the Universities of Berlin, Paris, Vienna,\n    Strasbourg, Tubingen, Amsterdam, etc. etc.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd who writes thus?\u201d Asks Mr. Wells (getting a little nervous)--why,\nonly one of the principal and most serious critics in Biology of\nnineteen years ago, and with a chair in Stanford University.\n\nI should have no difficulty in adding to the list. I have quoted here\nmore or less haphazard and hastily from my very general and superficial\nreading. But surely when a man tells you that you have no authorities\nbehind you, and that you are making things up out of your own head,\neven such a list as this must sound pretty startling to him. Mr. Wells\nhad no idea of its existence. If he had he would not have questioned it.\n\nI have no quarrel with ignorance of this kind, as such. There is no\nparticular reason why any general writer, myself or Mr. Wells, or\nJones or Brown or Robinson, should have even this amount of knowledge\non a special department of modern science. But then, if he hasn\u2019t, he\nshouldn\u2019t write about it; still less should he say that the authorities\nalluded to don\u2019t exist--that their names cannot be quoted, because\nthere are none, and that the arguments advanced by me were made up by\nan ignorant man who had no expert work from which to quote.\n\nNow that last sentence leads me to yet another thrust of the battering\nram which I am bringing against poor Mr. Wells. He says that the\narguments I have advanced against Natural Selection are of my own\nimagining.\n\nSo the arguments I have put forward (only a few main arguments out\nof many) were made up out of my own head, and have no support from\nauthority? I have no acquaintance with the names or general conclusions\nof any experts in these affairs? It would be, indeed, astonishing if I\nhad acted thus, seeing that nothing was easier than for me to write to\nany friend engaged in biological study and get the amplest information.\nI did not do so, because there was no necessity to do so. That liberal\neducation--which Mr. Wells derides--was sufficient.\n\nReally, Mr. Wells here flatters me too much! He does not know that the\narguments were not mine but the main arguments which have been set\nforward by a host of competent authorities, and which have proved so\ndamaging that even the remaining defenders of Darwinism have had to\nmodify their position.\n\nThus my first argument is the well-known one of accident being quite\nunable to explain the co-ordination of variations necessary to\nadaptation.\n\nThe point is this, that not only one accidental advantageous variation\nwhich might give an animal a better chance of survival has to be\nconsidered, but the general adaptation of _all_ the organism to new\nconditions; not only that, but the marvellous adaptation of thousands\nupon thousands of special relations within complex organisms such as\nare the higher animals. Left to chance, such co-ordination would be\nimpossible. The chance of a vast number of favourable variations all\narriving together _by accident_ approximates to zero. It is a mere\nmatter of arithmetic.\n\nThat argument in Mr. Wells\u2019s judgment is \u201cburlesque,\u201d \u201cbeautifully\nabsurd,\u201d and so forth. But the judgment is not passed on him by me (who\nmake no pretence to anything but the most general reading on these\naffairs). It is passed by such an authority, for instance, as Wolff. It\nis clear that Mr. Wells has never heard of Wolff; yet it is, I believe,\nnow nearly eighteen years since Wolff brought out this argument,\nand for all I know many another clear-headed man had preceded him;\ncertainly a great many have followed.\n\nI do not pretend to have read Wolff; I have not. But I have read the\nsignificant quotations from him, and even if I had not done so I\nshould, as a man of general education, have known at least what his\nposition was. Shall I quote a single (translated) sentence? (Mr. Wells\nwith his wide command of languages may look it up in the original,\ncalled, I believe, _Beitrage zur Kritik der Darwinischen Lehre_):--\n\n    \u201cOne could possibly imagine a gradual development of the adaptation\n    between one muscle-cell and one nerve-ending, through selection\n    among an infinity of chance-made variations; but that such shall\n    take place coincidently in time and character in hundreds or\n    thousands of cases in one organism is inconceivable.\u201d\n\nMy second argument is equally a commonplace with educated men, and in\nsaying that I am the author of it Mr. Wells is again flattering me a\ngreat deal too much, and again betraying his own astonishing lack of\nacquaintance with the subject he professes to teach.\n\nI pointed out, as hundreds have pointed out before me, that Darwinism\nobviously breaks down from the fact that it demands each step in\nevolution to be an advance in survival value over the last. There again\nit is a plain matter of arithmetic that the chance of this happening\naccidentally is impossible. Mr. Wells is so confused in mind that he\nquotes as a bad example what I said about the reptile and the bird.\nHe seems to think that the argument is upset by the fact that there\nare intermediate forms and that in these intermediate forms the fore\nlegs lose their function before they become wings. If one could prove\nsuch a transformation--which one cannot, it is mere hypothesis--it\nwould have nothing to do with Natural Selection; it would be simply an\nexample of transformism. What I say (and what is obviously true in a\nmyriad instances) is that between the foot of the land animal and the\nflapper of the whale, between the powerfully defensive and aggressive\ngreat ape and the weak, more intelligent man, there must be stages (if\nthe transition ever took place) where the organism was at a positive\ndisadvantage, and that consideration blows Darwinian Natural Selection\nto pieces.\n\nWhen Korchinsky calls selection through the struggle for existence a\nfactor inimical to evolution, he is saying exactly that; and, I repeat,\nhosts of men great and small, of high authority like these Professors\nor of no authority like myself, have been repeating that obvious bit of\ncommon sense for something like a lifetime, though it would seem that\nfor some extraordinary reason Mr. Wells has never heard of it.\n\nHe makes the same sort of mistake about my third argument, which\nwas that rare variations would, under the action of pure chance,\nnecessarily be soon reabsorbed in the mass, and disappear. He thinks I\ninvented this argument in 1926.\n\nGreat Heavens! It is perhaps the most widely known of all N\u00e4geli\u2019s\nfamous seven objections to Natural Selection which were formulated\nbefore Mr. Wells left off reading on these subjects. He ought to have\nbeen acquainted with them even in the elementary class work of his\nyouth, however little he might later read of more modern work.\n\nHas Mr. Wells never heard that this was the very argument which\ncompelled the first serious modification of the Darwinian theory,\nand began its breakdown? I suppose not--Any more than he has heard\nthat what he foolishly calls \u201c_my_\u201d first argument seriously\nshook Weissmann\u2019s position--that most formidable of the Darwinian\nremnant--and that as long ago as 1896 Weissmann did, if I am not\nmistaken, in the preface to his book virtually admit that it could not\nbe got over.\n\nAnd so on. I could write a whole book upon that rather dreary and\nnegative subject, the abysmal lack of acquaintance Mr. Wells shows\nwith the thought of his time. I could expose him here in the matter of\nCouenot, or of Vialleton\u2019s book, as I exposed him in the _Manchester\nGuardian_, or print in detail quotations from Carazzi, which I leave\nfor another occasion.\n\nBut I think I have said enough to expose Mr. Wells\u2019s pretence of\nreading in modern biology.\n\nThe bubble is pricked and has burst.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nMR. WELLS\u2019S IGNORANCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH\n\n\nThe Third mark of Mr. Wells\u2019s outburst against me I have called his\namazing ignorance upon the Catholic Church. That ignorance is, of\ncourse, still more apparent in his book. But I am concerned here only\nwith the way in which it appears in his pamphlet. He inherits the old\nprejudice--flourishing strongly in the best No-Popery days--that for\nsome unexplained reason a Catholic is opposed to that most interesting\nintellectual activity, the pursuit of physical knowledge. He envisages\nthe Catholic Church as teaching an inchoate heap of unconnected\ndoctrines, each of them highly concrete, each of them flagrantly\nimpossible, and the chief of them an historical statement that in a\nparticular place and at a particular time, to wit, in the neighbourhood\nof Baghdad 5930 years ago, there took place the Fall of Man. He has no\nconception that we object to a book like his and to methods such as he\nuses because we use the human reason, and are all brought up to know\nthat the human reason is absolute in its own sphere.\n\nExactly the same habit of clear thinking which makes us know the\nlimitations of reason and makes us accept a mystery, gives us our\nadmiration for that divine gift of reason in man and our contempt for\npeople who, like Mr. Wells, have never been trained to use it, and\nflounder the moment they try to think hard.\n\nFor instance, nowhere is Mr. Wells\u2019s intellectual weakness more\napparent than in his inability to understand what is meant by a _fixed\ntype_, or general form. He meets it with the dear old fallacy which\nhas been known for more than two thousand years under the name of\nSorites--I may inform Mr. Wells that this is not the name of a disease\nof the body but of the intelligence. It consists in always asking,\n\u201cwhere do you draw the line?\u201d and on that pretence trying to avoid\ndefinition.\n\nA fixed type does not mean that there is no difference between one\nindividual or another, nor exact identity of form between one time and\nanother. It means that there is a general idea which can be recognised\nand on which one can predicate: as, that cats mew and dogs bark, that\nducks swim and hens don\u2019t.\n\nMr. Wells has innumerable readers, and among them let me suppose a\nreader who has stolen a horse. He is asked in Court what he has to\nsay in his own defence. Taught by Mr. Wells, I suppose he would say:\n\u201cM\u2019lud, my defence is that there is no such thing as a horse. You\ncannot draw the line between Eohippus, Hippus Alogos vel Hodiernus,\nand that glorious thing with wings and a halo which the horse will no\ndoubt become here on earth if we give it time.\u201d I am afraid he would\nnot be allowed to get on very far with his defence. The judge and jury\nwould still ignorantly go on believing that there _was_ such a thing as\na horse, an animal which behaved in a certain way and is very easy to\nrecognise, and the humble pupil of Mr. Wells would go to gaol.\n\nSo also there is such a thing as man, though Mr. Wells seems to\ndoubt it. Man has a particular nature, and that nature is subject to\nquestions which it is of enormous importance to him to decide. His\nindividuality, his soul, is, for instance, either immortal or mortal.\nIt is of first-rate importance to decide on that--infinitely more\nimportant than it is to decide on exactly how and by what stages his\nbody came to be; just as it is infinitely more important for a man\nto decide between right and wrong action in manhood than to make a\nselection of his photographs as a baby.\n\nWe Catholics are interested in this Animal Man, because we think\n(making clear use of our reason) that it is more important for man\nto know what happens to man and what man really is than for man to\nknow any other subject. We believe that he has been created by an\nomnipotent God, to whom he is responsible for good or evil action\ncommitted by his own free will--for in man\u2019s free will we also believe;\nwe believe his soul to be immortal, and to be tested for eternal\nbeatitude or eternal loss thereof.\n\nAnyone is free to say \u201cThese doctrines are particular, you admit\nyourself that you hold them on Faith and not on positive evidence. I\nfor my part do not accept them.\u201d There is no lack of reason in making\nthat negative statement.\n\nBut a mind that can imagine that there is no such thing as man and\nindeed no such thing as a thing; a mind (to put it in the old language)\nwhich is nominalist in that degree, is in great peril of ceasing to be\na mind at all.\n\nThe particular point on which Mr. Wells comes his worst cropper in\nconnection with the Catholic Church is a blunder to which he devotes a\nwhole chapter of his pamphlet, and over ten pages of print furiously\nreviling me.\n\nHe has got hold of the idea that the discovery of Neanderthal skulls\nand skeletons destroys Catholic theology. He imagines that we wake up\nin the middle of the night in an agony of imperilled faith because a\nlong time ago there was a being which was as human as we are apparently\nin his brain capacity, in his power to make instruments, to light\nfires, and in his reverent burial of the dead, but who probably,\nperhaps certainly, bent a little at the knee, carried his head forward,\nwas sloping in the chin. He thinks that unless a private individual\nlike myself, with hardly any more reading on anthropology than Mr.\nWells himself, can give a definite theological definition on whether\nthe owners of these skeletons were true men or not, all the theological\nstatements about man as we know him are worthless.\n\nI can understand many a blunder about the Catholic position on the part\nof people living in a world where they do not meet Catholics and who\nknow next to nothing of the past of Europe or of the way in which our\ncivilisation is a product of the Catholic Faith. I often come across\neven well-educated men who have surprisingly little knowledge of the\nChurch; but what I cannot understand is that a man thus ignorant should\nalso be ignorant of the ordinary rules of thought.\n\nA man\u2019s Faith may possibly be shaken by some philosophical\nargument--though my own experience is that when it is shaken, still\nmore when it is lost, the cause at work is not intellectual but always\nmoral--the Faith is lost through wrong doing. But that the Faith could\nconceivably be lost through not being able to define at what exact\nmoment true man appeared, is to me quite inconceivable. I confess I\ncannot understand the mental processes of a writer who puts a test of\nthat kind.\n\nWe are arguing as to whether Wordsworth is a good poet or no. One man\nsays he is, quoting from his best; another man says he isn\u2019t, quoting\nfrom his worst. There barges in a third party who says cheerfully, \u201cThe\nwhole discussion is futile. There was no such person as Wordsworth as a\nwriter at all. And to prove that, here is a record of what he was like\nand what he did at the age of six, and another when he was inarticulate\nupon his death-bed. Where do you draw the line?\u201d\n\nWe are discussing whether an individual is responsible for a particular\naction; for instance, writing a confused book. One man says, \u201cIt was\nnot his fault; it was due to bad training.\u201d The other says, \u201cIt was his\nfault, for any rational being ought to write more clearly than that.\u201d A\nthird party barges in, and says, \u201cThe whole discussion is futile, for\nthere was no such writer. I can prove it by a photograph of him as a\nbaby, in which it is quite clear that he couldn\u2019t write books at all.\u201d\n\nBut Mr. Wells\u2019s manifold lack of acquaintance with his most serious\nopponent is seen in plenty of other lights.\n\nFor instance, there is his idea that scale destroys the Faith. \u201cOnly\nlet me convince you,\u201d he pathetically urges, \u201cthat the material\nuniverse existed long before man, and that the scheme of redemption\nonly applies to the comparatively brief human period in geology. Only\nlet me convince you, and you will see how foolish all this Christian\ntalk is.\u201d But we have all of us known all about that, not only since\nfirst the Church began, but since first man began to trouble himself\nabout divine things at all. Is not the sky at night sufficient evidence\nof scale? Is not the brevity of human life? Is not the magnitude of the\nworld upon which we live--of even a part of which no man could have\ncomprehensive knowledge in a thousand years?\n\nThere is I think in all of this an honest desire upon Mr. Wells\u2019s\npart--I may say a burning missionary zeal--to convert us to Atheism,\nsomething on the same level as that of those from whom he derives.\nThey were convinced, you will remember, not so long ago, that to\nturn the inhabitants of Wugga-Mugga into honest folk like themselves\nattending chapel, meeting at tea-fights, and even keeping one or two\nservants, all that was wanted was a translation of the Old Testament in\nWugga-Mugganese--which translation they then did order in prodigious\nquantities and export to Wugga-Mugga by the ton, to the huge profit of\na great number of salaried officials in the W.M. Bible Society, and to\nhonest rum-drinking sea captains as well; but to no appreciable effect\nupon Wugga-Muggaland, its monarch, aristocracy and common folk.\n\nSo I fear it will be with this effort at conversion of the Catholic\nto Atheism by an exceedingly insufficient rehash of text-books thirty\nyears old. Mr. Wells sometimes pleads that all this doesn\u2019t matter,\nbecause the Catholic Church no longer counts. Well, that plea itself is\na very good example of ignorance. If he had a general acquaintance with\nEurope he would know, not only that the Catholic Church counts, but\nthat it is beginning to count more and more. That is no proof of its\nright to the claim it advances of a divine authority; but it is proof\nthat there is a great social phenomenon present to the eye of every\neducated and travelled man to-day--the resurrection of the Catholic\nNations, the new attitude of the academic youth on the Continent, and\nparticularly in Paris; the new wave in literature; the breakdown of\nthe nineteenth-century materialism in philosophy--which is not present\nin the experience of Mr. Wells.\n\nHe tells us rather pathetically that he must know all about the\nCatholic Church, because he now winters on the Riviera. I answer that\nthe experience is insufficient. If every rich Englishman who wintered\non the Riviera acquired thereby a general grasp on the modern spirit\nof Europe, we should have among them a public to be envied; but from\nwhat I have seen of those who thus escape the English winter, the\nMonte Carlo Express and the Cosmopolitan hotels do not make for common\nculture, let alone for an understanding of divine things.\n\nI have no space to enlarge on the point. Mr. Wells knows as much about\nthe Catholic Church as he does of the classical spirit, of great verse,\nof the architecture inherited from the ancients, or indeed of any\nother noble tradition. Yet it should be a commonplace with anyone who\nattempts to write upon European history that some general knowledge of\nwhat the Faith may be is a first essential in his affair.\n\nThat knowledge is rare and fragmentary in many considerable\nanti-Catholic historians; in Mr. Wells it is absent.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nMY ERRORS\n\n\nI owe it to Mr. Wells that any error or misstatement I may have\ncommitted in the great bulk of work which I did showing up the paucity\nof his knowledge and the confusion of his mind, should be corrected.\n\nI now, therefore, deal with the specific, particular points, in which\nhe says that I have misrepresented him or misunderstood him; and these\nI will take in their order, as they appear in his somewhat hysterical\nprotest.\n\nOf these alleged misstatements Mr. Wells manages to scrape up exactly\nsix, out of I know not how many in the detailed and destructive\ncriticism which I directed against his work.\n\nBut even six alleged misstatements (out of perhaps some hundreds of\ncritical remarks) should in justice be dealt with, and I will deal with\nthem here.\n\nI will take his complaints in their order as they appear in his angry\nlittle pamphlet.\n\n(1) I recommend him occasionally to a translation of foreign work,\nthough he is, as a fact, better equipped than I am in the reading of\nItalian, Spanish, German, and Portuguese; while French comes to him\nmuch the same as his native tongue.\n\nI accept his statement unreservedly, and beg leave to tell him that in\nGerman, Italian, Spanish, and even Portuguese, I am no use at all; and\nthat I am altogether his inferior in French. For I have perpetually\nto consult better scholars than myself on the meaning of French words\nwhich I come across; I write the language painfully, and, on the few\noccasions when I have to speak it in public, I spend a vast amount of\neffort and am a burden to my friends before I can get my paper ready\nfor delivery.\n\nBut it is only fair to myself to give him the reasons for my deplorable\nblunder. I honestly took it for granted that he was ignorant of\nContinental languages. I had no idea of his quite remarkable linguistic\nachievements, which are excelled only by two men out of my wide circle\nof acquaintance. And the reason that I fell into this error was that\nhis _Outline of History_ betrayed no acquaintance with general European\nculture. My own acquaintance with that culture is no more than the\ngeneral familiarity with it possessed by all men of average education,\nand average experience in travel, and average meeting with their\nfellows. Why Mr. Wells should have concealed far greater advantages\nI do not know; but, at any rate, he has certainly done so most\nsuccessfully. No one reading his _Outline of History_ could imagine for\na moment that he had an urbane and comprehensive view of Christendom\nbased on the reading of French, German, Italian, Spanish--and\nPortuguese.\n\nHowever, I was wrong, and I duly apologise.\n\n(2) He accuses me of having put into his mouth the words \u201cclimbing up\nthe family tree,\u201d as applied to the embryo; which words, as a fact,\nhe never used. Here, again, I am to blame--not, indeed, for having\nsaid that Mr. Wells used words which he never used, but for not\nhaving written with that clarity which the occasion demanded. I had\nno intention of saying that Mr. Wells had used this particular phrase\nhimself. I quoted it between inverted commas, not because I ascribed it\nto himself, but because it was a sort of current slang phrase familiar\nenough when Mr. Wells and I were young and were both being taught the\nnonsense which he still so loyally defends.\n\nThe idea was that the embryo reproduced in various stages of its\ndevelopment the various stages of its ancestry in the evolutionary\nprocess. The proper scientific term for this conception or theory\nis \u201cRecapitulation.\u201d To this theory of Recapitulation Mr. Wells\namply commits himself in his book. He brings it out specifically in\nconnection with man. How his allusions to Recapitulation look in\nthe light of modern scientific work we shall see in a moment. The\nparticular point here is that he did not use the particular phrase\n\u201cclimbing up the family tree.\u201d He did not, and I never intended to say\nthat he did. I readily apologise for any misconception that may have\narisen on that head. But I confess I cannot for the life of me see how\nthe matter can be of the least importance!\n\nSupposing Mr. Wells were to write a criticism of my book, _Europe and\nthe Faith_, and were to say, \u201cMr. Belloc is for ever referring the main\ninstitutions of Europe to the Roman Empire,\u201d and then were to add, out\nof his wide acquaintance with French literature, that fine expression\nfrom Verlaine, \u201cO Rome! O M\u00e8re!\u201d\n\nI don\u2019t think I should rush into print and protest that I had been\nabominably maligned. I should say that I was not the author of the\nexpression (if anybody bothered to ask me), but that it put my opinion\nmore tersely than I could have put it myself.\n\nHowever, if Mr. Wells cannot bear the misunderstanding, he will be\nrelieved to know that in my book I have got rid of it by the simple\nprocess of adding the words \u201cas it was called in Mr. Wells\u2019s youth and\nmine\u201d before the offending phrase (and a very good epigrammatic one it\nis) \u201cclimbing up the family tree.\u201d\n\n(3) Mr. Wells complains that I accuse him of not having read Vialleton,\nand brings forward, in triumphant proof of my own ignorance of that\ngreat scientist, the fact that I passed an error in proof, allowing\n\u201cV_ai_lleton\u201d to stand for \u201cV_ia_lleton.\u201d\n\nHere it is I that must defend myself.\n\nI bought Vialleton\u2019s great book (which is a destructive criticism of\nDarwinism of a 17-inch calibre) the week in which it came out, and have\nconsulted it ever since. If Mr. Wells is reduced for ammunition to the\npicking out of one misprint in some hundred thousand words of matter,\nhe must be in a terrible way.\n\nBut on the attached point, that I accuse him of never having read\nVialleton, and that (as Mr. Wells himself roundly affirms) Vialleton\ndoes not knock Recapitulation sideways, I can only repeat that I have\nmade no error at all; but that, on the contrary, it is clear Mr. Wells\nhas never read the book, and probably never heard of it until he saw\nthe name quoted in my criticism. Had he really read Vialleton he could\nnot have had the face to pretend that this great authority did not\noppose the old-fashioned views Mr. Wells was putting forward.\n\nMr. Wells is foolish enough--and ignorant enough--to say that this\nleading European authority, one of the greatest living authorities on\nhis subject, \u201c_may_ have seen fit in _one_ of his works\u201d (my italics)\nto set right some \u201cFrench student\u201d (why French?) who had imagined that\nthe embryo reproduced in detail all its ancestral life.\n\nI might as well say that Darwin \u201cmay\u201d in some one of his works have\nseen fit to set right some English student who imagined all animals to\nhave been created out of mud in a week.\n\nWhy! the whole of that great book is nothing but one continuous\nbombardment of everything--let alone Recapitulation--which Mr. Wells\nwas taught in his youth.\n\nHe will hear all about it in my book, and I am sure that he will wish,\nwhen he reads what modern science really says, that he had never talked\nabout things of which he knows so little.\n\n(4) He complains that I have abused him for stating as dogma (with\nlarge diagrams) Croll\u2019s astronomical theory of glaciation as\npropounded--thirty-three years ago!--by Sir Robert Ball. But I did\nright to expose anything so monstrous. Not that astronomical factors\nmay not, or rather must not, have been at work; but that the particular\ntheory which he puts forward for his innocent readers as admitted\nscientific fact, has been dead and done for since 1894. Surely one has\na right in 1926 to point out that the popular teacher laying down in\nthat year as fact an hypothesis which was exploded over thirty years\nago should be exposed.\n\n(5) He says that I have attacked him for not accepting the theory that\ntimes of high glaciation were also times of high sea-level, and vice\nversa. He says that he has followed in this authorities later than the\nauthorities of twenty years ago which I quoted.\n\nHe is perfectly right. I owe him an apology for this, and when my\nbook comes out the passage shall be wholly modified in consonance with\nrecent work. I over-emphasised the certitude of Boule and others;\nI admit that the point is in doubt and ought not to be treated as\ncertain. Mr. Wells was obviously wrong in treating it as certain\nupon his side, for the whole debate still remains doubtful (as, for\ninstance, in the latest work of all, Professor Coleman), but that does\nnot excuse me for having been too positive on my own side.\n\n(6) The last accusation Mr. Wells brings against me is that I\nmisrepresent him in similar fashion upon two points, the Neanderthal\nquality of the Tasmanians (now extinct) and the use of the bow by\nPaleolithic Man.\n\nAs both these accusations turn on the same point (to wit, whether I was\njustified in reading confused writing as I did), they are essentially\none accusation, and I will treat them as such.\n\nIn the matter of the bow being used by late Paleolithic Man the\nposition is this.\n\nMr. Wells gives a long description of later Paleolithic Man (pages\n51\u201356). In the course of this description he tells us (on page 54)\nthat later Paleolithic Man disappeared and that a new culture took his\nplace, possessing (what Paleolithic Man had not) domesticated animals,\na knowledge of husbandry, bows and arrows, and the rest of it.\n\nThis, of course, is the orthodox doctrine of the famous Gap between\nPaleolithic Man and Neolithic Man on which our generation were all\nbrought up. It is true that there are now guesses at the discovery of a\nlink between them; still the gap is very marked.\n\nHe ends up with a summary of the whole affair on page 55, carried over\nto page 56, where the section ends.\n\nNow, _in the middle_ of this description of later Paleolithic Man (who,\nremember, had no bows and arrows), he has a set of paragraphs (on page\n53) describing the well-known fact that these men executed drawings\non rock surfaces. On the same page is given a specimen of these\ndrawings, and above it, by way of title, the caption, \u201cMural Painting\nby Paleolithic Man.\u201d This mural painting is nothing else but bows and\narrows! It is a picture of four men hunting with large bows, three of\nthem actually shooting arrows, and the unfortunate animals stuck full\nof arrows so that there may be no doubt.\n\nYet in the course of this very same description he says that it is\n\u201cdoubtful if they knew of the bow!\u201d And that phrase comes on page 55,\ntwo whole pages _after_ the description of Mural drawings and pictures\nof bows and arrows.\n\nThe division about later Paleolithic Man--who, he has told us, was\nsupplanted by Neolithic Man--comes to an end and a new division begins.\n\nIn this new division Mr. Wells suddenly starts to describe a type of\nPaleolithic Man upon whom the guess has been made that he came at the\nvery end of the process and had a more advanced culture, including bows\nand arrows.\n\nWhat is any man to make of such a confusion?\n\nFirst, Paleolithic Man as an artist, illustrated by a picture of him\nshooting away like the devil. _Then_, the casual remark that he was too\ndegraded to shoot at all. _Then_ the end of Paleolithic Man and his\nreplacement by Neolithic Man. _Then_ Paleolithic Man reappearing, pages\nafter, with bows and arrows all complete?\n\nIt looks uncommonly as though Mr. Wells had written his first section,\nputting an end to Paleolithic Man and introducing Neolithic Man, before\nhe had been told of the supposed later Paleolithic men who had bows and\narrows: that he put in these latest Paleolithic men as an afterthought.\n\nBut that is only an inference from reading his confused order, and if\nhe tells me that what he had _meant_ to say was that there were two\nkinds of late Paleolithic men, one of whom had bows and arrows and\nthe others had not, of course I accept what he says. Only, he should\nhave written it plainly, and he should not have illustrated the part\ndescribing the men who had no bow and arrows with a large picture in\nwhich bows and arrows are the main thing.\n\nThe other case of the Tasmanian is a similar example of confused\nwriting. Let the reader judge.\n\nWe have on page 43 and what follows a description of Neanderthal Man.\n\nIt is, as is usual with Mr. Wells, a mass of vague guess work, on\nvery little evidence, put forward as certain facts. We have also the\njudgment of the author that those who regard Neanderthal Man as no\nancestor of ours, but a side-line of development, have his approval;\nthough he admits that the other view is held. This on page 49.\n\nThen Mr. Wells steps sideways again. \u201cNo doubt\u201d our own breed, \u201cwhich\nincludes the Tasmanians, was a very similar and parallel creature.\u201d\nThere is, of course, no ground for that \u201cno doubt,\u201d but that is by the\nway. He next goes on to say that some imaginary ancestor of ours and\nof the Tasmanians (whom he generously admits to be men), is not so\nfar from us as to have allowed contemporary types to have eliminated,\nnot indeed Neanderthal but the Neanderthaloid types. Then, on page\n52, there is a smart return to the original position that Neanderthal\nMan was not an early type of our own breed, and that true men did not\nintermix with him.\n\nMr. Wells may protest against my calling all this sort of thing a\nrigmarole, but I think that is the right word for it. It is certainly\nnot history, and, above all, it is not clear.\n\nThe confused impression left upon the reader\u2019s mind by the confused\nwriting is that Neanderthal Man was not true man, and yet that true\nman must have passed through a Neanderthal stage, having been both\nNeanderthal and not Neanderthal: as it were, so to speak, and somehow.\n\nHowever, a critic\u2019s misreading, though caused by the confusion of the\nauthor\u2019s style and the lack of orderly arrangement in his mind, is none\nthe less a misreading, and Mr. Wells may rest assured that when my book\nappears it shall be corrected. My perplexed guess at what Mr. Wells\nreally meant shall be replaced by his own statement of what he meant,\nand I will, in these two cases of the Bow and the Tasmanian, emphasise\nthe muddlement of his method while apologising for the error into which\nit led me as to his intention.\n\nWith this I conclude my review of Mr. Wells\u2019s specific grievances of\nmisstatement.\n\nThey are, as I have pointed out, only six in number. Out of a prolonged\nexamination--covering nearly a hundred thousand words--he could find no\nothers.\n\nOf these six, only one (the fifth, that on the connection of sea level\nwith glaciation) is a definite error of over-emphasis upon my part.\n\nThe first, my ignorance of his remarkable proficiency in modern\nlanguage (including Portuguese), is more than natural, because he had\nmade no use of such knowledge: nevertheless, I shall correct it in my\nbook.\n\nThe second is wholly insignificant, and turns merely upon Mr. Wells\u2019s\nmisunderstanding of my use of inverted commas in a particular case.\n\nIn the third, about Vialleton, he is simply wrong, and, what is worse,\npretends acquaintance with a book of which he clearly knows nothing.\n\nSo is he wrong about the fourth. Mr. Wells\u2019s definite affirmation for\npopular consumption of a theory exploded more than thirty years ago was\ndisgraceful.\n\nOn the sixth point, misreading due to Mr. Wells\u2019s own confused order, I\nhave promised him the small necessary redress, which he will receive.\n\nNow, let me ask my reader, in conclusion, is it not remarkable that a\nman setting out to inform a large audience that God, and our Lord\u2019s\nDivinity, and our own immortal destiny are all nonsense, doing so by a\npretended \u201cscience\u201d and favouring me as an insufficient critic of his\nbook, can only find in some scores of my exposures of him six points,\nhalf of which tell heavily against himself, while two of the remainder\nare due to his own confusion and only one--my over-emphasis on glacial\nsea level--has any substance in it?\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nMR. WELLS SHIRKS\n\n\nThe most violent _positive_ part of Mr. Wells\u2019s attack upon me is, as\nI have said, his challenge upon the matter of Natural Selection, his\njeer that my arguments are wholly my own, ridiculous and unsupported;\nand his amazing assertion, which he makes, quite na\u00efvely and sincerely,\nthat there has been nobody in modern criticism opposing the Darwinian\ntheory. I think I have sufficiently exposed Mr. Wells in these\nparticulars.\n\nBut quite as important as this huge positive error on his part is the\n_negative_ factor in his pamphlet which I here emphasise for the reader.\n\nIn my articles, which are about to appear in book form, I took his\n_Outline of History_ section by section, examined, turned over,\nanalysed, and exposed failure after failure in historical judgment and\ninformation.\n\nOne challenge after another--I know not how many in all, but certainly\ndozens on dozens--was put down by me clearly and, I hope, methodically\nthroughout a series of articles originally twenty-eight in number, and\nof such volume that they still will form when rearranged a book not\nless than 70,000 or 80,000 words.\n\nOf all this great mass of destructive criticism which leaves his\n_Outline_ limp and deflated, Mr. Wells knows nothing. He leaves it\nunanswered, and he leaves it unanswered because he cannot answer it.\nAll he can do is to fill a pamphlet with loud personal abuse.\n\nI do not think it difficult to discover his motive or the calculation\nupon which he worked. He said to himself: \u201cI have a vast reading public\nwhich will buy pretty well anything I write, and very few of whom have\nseen or will see Belloc\u2019s work. For to begin with he has no such huge\npopular sales as mine; and on the top of that his work is only written\nfor his co-religionists, who are an insignificant body. Also it only\nappeared in a few of _their_ Catholic papers, which nobody reads.\n\n\u201cTherefore, if I write a pamphlet against Belloc holding him up to\nridicule in every possible fashion, slanging him with the violence so\ndear to the populace, making him out to be a grotesque fellow--and yet\nshirking nine-tenths of his criticism--I am in no danger of exposure.\nThe pamphlet attacking Belloc will be very widely read, people will\nbelieve anything I say in it about his articles, because they will not\nhave read these articles and because, in their simplicity, they think\nme a great scientist.\u201d\n\nThis calculation is partially justified.\n\nI suppose that for ten men who may read Mr. Wells\u2019s pamphlet against\nme, there will not perhaps be more than one who will read this, my\nreply.\n\nBut I would like to point out to Mr. Wells that success of this kind\nis short-lived. No one can read what I have said in the second section\nof this pamphlet, no one can read that list of authorities of whom Mr.\nWells has not even heard, and whom he loudly proclaimed not even to\nexist, without discovering that the author of the _Outline of History_\nwas incompetent for his task. Very few people, I think, faced with\nchapter and verse of that sort, can refrain from passing on the good\nnews.\n\nIf you take the history of opinion upon matters of positive fact, you\nwill generally discover that the discovery of the truth affects at\nfirst but a small circle, and that a popular error may cover a whole\nsociety. But it is the truth that wins in the long run, because the\ntruth is not soluble: it is hard and resistant. The number of people\nwho continue to believe that there has been no modern destructive\ncriticism of Darwinism by the greatest of modern biologists,\nanthropologists, and scientific men, bearing the highest names in our\ncivilisation, will necessarily be progressively lessened as time goes\non. The half educated of any period are always cocksure of things which\nthe real science of that period has long ago abandoned; but their\nsituation is not a stable nor a permanent one. Sooner or later they\nlearn. So undoubtedly will it be with Darwinian Natural Selection.\n\nMr. Wells\u2019s incompetence in that one department of his history has been\nexposed. I have exposed it. But note that he was here on his own chosen\nground. He boasted special instruction in these affairs of physical\nscience, and particularly in biology; he contrasted his education with\nmy own, which had been so deplorably limited to the Humanities, and in\nhis attack upon me he was fighting wholly upon a position chosen by\nhimself.\n\nWhat then would it have been had he attempted to meet the rest of my\ncriticism, filling up as it does much the greater part of my book?\n\nHow will he meet my objection that the man who tries to talk about\nthe Roman Empire, and our civilisation which is its product, without\nany mention or conception of Latin literature and its effect, is\nincompetent?\n\nHow would he deal with the simple and obvious but conclusive fact that\nphysical discovery was not the cause of religious disruption, as may\nbe proved by the simple fact that it came after and not before that\ndisruption?\n\nHow will he handle my pointing out that he knows nothing of the history\nof the early Church and has no conception of what the Christian\ntraditions and sub-Apostolic writings were?\n\nWhat will he make of my showing him to be ignorant of Catholic\nphilosophy and Catholic definition, and yet absurdly confident in his\nattack on what he supposes them to be?\n\nAnyone can see how he deals with my criticism of him in all these\nthings. He is silent. He does not rebut it, because he cannot rebut\nit. If he could have done so even in the briefest and most elementary\nfashion, there would have been at least a few sentences to that effect\nin his pamphlet. There were none except one vague phrase on the\ncontemporary doctrine of the Incarnation.\n\nIn plain English Mr. Wells shirks. He shirks the great mass of my\nattack. He submits in silence to the bombardment--because he has no\npower to reply.\n\nYet surely these proved absurdities on recorded history, and not his\nbackwardness in biological science, are the main thing he has to meet.\n\nIt is principally through recorded human history and not through guess\nwork upon the unknown past, that he should rely, in order to upset the\nChristian Faith of his readers.\n\nThe history of our race becomes a definable and concrete thing only\nafter the establishment of record, and if he fail there manifestly--as\nhe has failed--he fails altogether.\n\nMr. Wells must, I think, have heard the famous dictum of the late\nMaster of Balliol upon his _Outline_--a judgment which has already been\nquoted by more than one critic, and which I am afraid he will hear\nrepeated pretty often before he has done with it. That very learned\nhistorian remarked: \u201cWells\u2019s _Outline_ was excellent until it came to\nMan\u201d; and upon the whole it is about the truest epigram that could have\nbeen written. Save perhaps this. Mr. Wells\u2019s _Outline_ is excellent\nuntil he begins to deal with living things--somewhere about page ten.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nTHE GREAT ROSY DAWN\n\n\nThe last factor in Mr. Wells\u2019s pamphlet is one that we must always\nexpect from your Bible Christian who has lost his God. He becomes a\nmaterialist troubled with Pantheism, and very eager to get away from\nthe Puritan disease of his youth--yet a vision remains. He comes\nforward as the \u201cSeventh Monarchy man,\u201d which is, indeed, the natural\nterm of your Bible Christian--even after he has lost his God.\n\n\u201cI see knowledge,\u201d says Mr. Wells at the end of his diatribe,\n\u201cincreasing and human power increasing, I see ever-increasing\npossibilities before life, and I see no limit set to it at all.\nExistence impresses me as perpetual dawn. Our lives as I apprehend\nthem, swim in expectation.\u201d\n\nWe have had this before over and over again, not only from the\nenthusiasts of the seventeenth century, but from the enthusiasts of the\nearly heresies. There was a glorious time coming. Reality--that is the\nFaith--is a delusion. Now that you know it to be a delusion you are\nnaturally down in the mouth. But cheer up, I have a consolation for\nyou. All will yet be well; nay, much better. All is going forward. My\ndonkey will soon grow wings.\n\nI need not waste my reader\u2019s time on that sort of thing. It is sheer\nstupid enthusiasm, indulged in to fill the void left by the loss of\nreason: by a man losing himself in a fog of cheap print and becoming\nfantastically unaware of things as they are.\n\nWhen, in that connection Mr. Wells tells me that we of the Faith are\nbackward people, who \u201cbecause it is necessary for their comfort believe\nin Heaven and Hell\u201d (a comfortable place Hell!) I answer that he\nappreciates the Faith as a man born blind might appreciate colour. When\nhe tells me that this Catholic sort (to which I belong) are besotted to\nstand by accepted morals, beget children honestly, love one wife and\nlive decently, I answer him that he is becoming disgusting. When he\nsays that we believe in immortality \u201cbecause we should be sorry to grow\nold and die,\u201d I answer that he is talking nonsense on such a scale that\nit is difficult to deal with it.\n\nWhen he goes on to say that we think we live on a \u201cflat World\u201d it\nbecomes worse still, and one can\u2019t deal with it; it is no longer\nnonsense, it is raving.\n\nWhen he tells us that the Catholic has about him \u201ca curious defensive\nnote,\u201d I am afraid he must be thinking of the Church Congress. There\nwas certainly no \u201ccurious defensive note\u201d in my demolition of his own\nignorance, vanity and lack of balance.\n\nWhen he tells us that I, as a Christian, \u201cmust be puzzled not a little\nby that vast parade of evolution through the immeasurable ages,\u201d he\nclearly has not the least grasp of the very simple principle that\neternity is outside time, and that relative values are not to be\nobtained by mere measurement in days or inches. When he says that \u201cmy\u201d\nphantasy of a Creator....\n\nReally, my dear Mr. Wells, I must here interrupt. Why \u201c_my_\u201d phantasy?\nNot that he uses the word \u201cphantasy,\u201d but he implies that I invented\nGod (another enormous compliment to me). Does he not know that the\nhuman race as a whole, or at any rate the leading part of it, including\nhis own immediate honourable ancestry, pay some reverence to Almighty\nGod, and humbly admits His creative power and Sustained Omnipotence?\nBut I must resume.\n\n... that my phantasy of a Creator has worked within disproportionate\nmargins both of space and time; when he tells me if I reach beatitude\nI shall feel like a fish out of water; when he speaks like this, I\nrecognise the unmistakable touch of the Bible Christian who has lost\nhis God.\n\nMr. Wells has never met anybody, I suppose, of sufficient breadth of\nculture to instruct him in these things. He does not know that the\ntruths of the Faith cannot be visualised; he does not know that the\nFaith is a philosophy; he does not know that our limitations are no\ndisproof of an infinite Creator.\n\nHe boasts that his education was a modern one, and taught him things\nthat were unknown a hundred years ago. So was mine. I also was taught\nthat the Earth was a globe, that geological time was prolonged, and the\nrest of it, but I was also taught how to think, and I was also taught a\nlittle--not very much--history.\n\nFor instance, I was taught enough to know that the doctrine of\nimmortality did not arise in the Middle Ages, as Mr. Wells thinks it\ndid, nor even the doctrine of eternal beatitude. But I was taught\nenough to regard these great mysteries with reverence and not to talk\nabout them as preposterous. In other words, I was taught not to measure\nthe infinite things of God, nor even the great things of Christendom,\nby the standards of the Yellow Press.\n\nWhen Mr. Wells concludes this passage by saying, \u201cI strut to no such\npersonal beatitude,\u201d and then goes on to say, \u201cthe life to which I\nbelong uses me and will pass on beyond me, and I am content,\u201d he does\ntwo unintelligent things. First of all, he mixes up the real with\nthe imaginary (for whether he will attain beatitude or its opposite\nhas nothing whatever to do with his opinions upon the subject), and\nnext he falls into the very common error of confused intellects--the\npersonification of abstract ideas. \u201cThe life to which we belong uses\nus\u201d is a meaningless phrase. God may use us or we may use ourselves, or\nsome other third Will, not God\u2019s or our own, may use us: but \u201cthe life\nto which we belong\u201d does not use us. Talking like that is harmless when\nit is mere metaphor, it is asinine when it sets up to be definition.\n\nHe accuses the Christian of being anthropomorphic: it is just the other\nway. It is we who are perpetually compelled to drag back inferior\nminds to a confession of their own apparently ineradicable tendency\nto talk in terms of their own petty experience; to imagine that the\nwhole world has \u201cprogressed\u201d because they have daily hot baths and\nbad cooking, while in their childhood they had only occasional hot\nbaths, but better cooking; that more people voting is \u201cprogressive\u201d as\ncompared with people not voting at all; that a lot of rich people going\nfrom England to the Riviera every year is \u201cprogressive\u201d compared with\nstaying at home in the hideous surroundings of poor old England.\n\nThis leads Mr. Wells, as it always does all his kind, to prophecy.\nWe are all of us approaching what I may call The Great Rosy Dawn: a\ngoldmine: a terrestrial Paradise.\n\nThis sort of exaltation is the inevitable first phase of Bible-mania in\ndecay. But it is a very short phase. It is the shoddy remnant of the\nChristian hope, and when it is gone there will return on us, not the\nsimple paganism of a sad world, but sheer darkness: and strange things\nin the dark.\n\n\n\n\n  A COMPANION\n  TO MR. WELLS\u2019S\n  \u201cOUTLINE OF HISTORY\u201d\n\n  BY\n  HILAIRE BELLOC\n\n\n  CONTENTS\n\n  CHAPTER\n\n     I.  INTRODUCTION\n\n    II.  MR. WELLS AND THE CREATION OF THE WORLD\n\n   III.  MR. WELLS AND THE FALL OF MAN\n\n    IV.  MR. WELLS AND GOD\n\n     V.  WHENCE CAME RELIGION TO MAN?\n\n    VI.  WE COME TO REAL HISTORY\n\n   VII.  MR. WELLS ON PRIESTHOOD\n\n  VIII.  BUDDHISM AS A STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT THE CHRISTIANS\n\n    IX.  MR. WELLS AND THE INCARNATION\n\n     X.  THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH\n\n    XI.  ISLAM\n\n   XII.  THE CHRISTIAN DARK AGES\n\n  XIII.  THE MIDDLE AGES\n\n   XIV.  THE REFORMATION\n\n    XV.  THE FRUIT OF DISRUPTION\n\n   XVI.  MR. WELLS\u2019S STRANGE OBSESSION THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS\n           BEEN KILLED STONE DEAD BY MR. DARWIN\n\n         SUMMARY\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they\nwere not changed.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation\nmarks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left\nunbalanced.","title":"Mr. Belloc still objects to Mr. Wells's \"Outline of history\"","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":15765}